Research article Special Issues

Assessment of locally manufactured small wind turbines as an appropriate technology for the electrification of the Caribbean Coast of Nicaragua

  • This article presents an assessment of the challenges facing the use of small locally manufactured wind turbines as a rural electrification solution for the Caribbean Coast of Nicaragua. Strongly based on the authors work experience at the non-profit, non-governmental organization blueEnergy, this assessment makes an objective analysis of the technical, social, economic and organizational challenges faced by blueEnergy when using small wind turbines for rural electrification. The article provides detail on the challenges faced and puts forward methodologies and technologies to overcome or to detect and avoid these. Based on the challenges faced, a set of key factors that are essential for the success of small wind turbines in other contexts is proposed, together with two methodologies for a preliminary feasibility assessment.

    Citation: Pedro Neves, Morten Gleditsch, Cindy Bennet, Mathias Craig, Jon Sumanik-Leary. Assessment of locally manufactured small wind turbines as an appropriate technology for the electrification of the Caribbean Coast of Nicaragua[J]. AIMS Energy, 2015, 3(1): 41-74. doi: 10.3934/energy.2015.1.41

    Related Papers:

    [1] Holly Gaff, Elsa Schaefer . Optimal control applied to vaccination and treatment strategies for various epidemiological models. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2009, 6(3): 469-492. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2009.6.469
    [2] Han Ma, Qimin Zhang . Threshold dynamics and optimal control on an age-structured SIRS epidemic model with vaccination. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(6): 9474-9495. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021465
    [3] Yinggao Zhou, Jianhong Wu, Min Wu . Optimal isolation strategies of emerging infectious diseases with limited resources. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2013, 10(5&6): 1691-1701. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2013.10.1691
    [4] Erika Asano, Louis J. Gross, Suzanne Lenhart, Leslie A. Real . Optimal control of vaccine distribution in a rabies metapopulation model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2008, 5(2): 219-238. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2008.5.219
    [5] Kento Okuwa, Hisashi Inaba, Toshikazu Kuniya . Mathematical analysis for an age-structured SIRS epidemic model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 6071-6102. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019304
    [6] Eunha Shim . Optimal strategies of social distancing and vaccination against seasonal influenza. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2013, 10(5&6): 1615-1634. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2013.10.1615
    [7] Toshikazu Kuniya, Taisuke Nakata, Daisuke Fujii . Optimal vaccine allocation strategy: Theory and application to the early stage of COVID-19 in Japan. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(6): 6359-6371. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024277
    [8] Tingting Xue, Long Zhang, Xiaolin Fan . Dynamic modeling and analysis of Hepatitis B epidemic with general incidence. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(6): 10883-10908. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023483
    [9] Yoon-gu Hwang, Hee-Dae Kwon, Jeehyun Lee . Feedback control problem of an SIR epidemic model based on the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(3): 2284-2301. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020121
    [10] Tingting Ding, Tongqian Zhang . Asymptotic behavior of the solutions for a stochastic SIRS model with information intervention. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(7): 6940-6961. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022327
  • This article presents an assessment of the challenges facing the use of small locally manufactured wind turbines as a rural electrification solution for the Caribbean Coast of Nicaragua. Strongly based on the authors work experience at the non-profit, non-governmental organization blueEnergy, this assessment makes an objective analysis of the technical, social, economic and organizational challenges faced by blueEnergy when using small wind turbines for rural electrification. The article provides detail on the challenges faced and puts forward methodologies and technologies to overcome or to detect and avoid these. Based on the challenges faced, a set of key factors that are essential for the success of small wind turbines in other contexts is proposed, together with two methodologies for a preliminary feasibility assessment.


    Within the framework of a nonlocal SIR model, we introduce different vaccination policies and then seek the most effective one. Vaccines are dosed at prescribed ages or at prescribed times to prescribed portions of the susceptible population. The careful choice of the ages, times and individuals to be treated may significantly influence the efficiency of a vaccination campaign. It is thus natural to tackle the resulting optimal control problem, seeking what is in some sense the best vaccination policy.

    We denote by $ S = S(t, a) $ the density of individuals at time $ t $ of age $ a $ susceptible to the disease. As usual, $ I = I(t, a) $ is the density of infected individuals at time $ t $ and of age $ a $. The density of individuals that can not be infected by the disease is $ R = R(t, a) $, comprising individuals that recovered as well as those that are, whatever the reason, immune. As a reference to the basic properties of SIR models, originated in [1], see [2,Chapter 6], [3,Chapter 19] or [4,§ 1.5.1].

    A possible description of the evolution of $ S $ is provided by the renewal equation [4,Chapter 3] with nonlocal source term

    $ tS+aS=(dS(t,a)++0λ(a,a)I(t,a)da)S
    $
    (1.1)

    where $ d_S = d_S(t, a) \ge 0 $ is the susceptibles' death rate and $ \lambda (a, a') \ge 0 $ quantifies the susceptible individuals of age $ a $ that are infected by individuals of age $ a' $. The nonlocal quantity on the right hand side of (1.1), namely $ \int_0^{+\infty} \lambda(a, a') \; I(t, a') \mathinner{\mathrm{d}{a}}' \, S (t, a) $, represents the total number of susceptible individuals of age $ a $ that become infected at time $ t $ per unit time.

    The evolution of the infected portion $ I $ of the population is governed by

    $ tI+aI=(dI(t,a)+rI(t,a))I++0λ(a,a)I(t,a)daS,
    $
    (1.2)

    where $ d_I = d_I(t, a) \geq 0 $ is the death rate of the $ I $ portion of the population and $ r_I = r_I(t, a) \geq 0 $ represents the fraction of infected individuals of age $ a $ that recovers at time $ t $ per unit time. Finally, the evolution of the portion $ R $ of the population that recovers or is unaffected from the disease is

    $ tR+aR=rI(t,a)IdR(t,a)R,
    $
    (1.3)

    where $ d_R = d_R(t, a) \ge 0 $ is the death rate of the $ R $ population. We assume here that members of the $ R $ population are not dosed with vaccine and that individuals may enter the $ R $ population at birth. In the present setting, dealing with choices different from these latter ones only requires very minor changes and keeps falling in the present general analytic framework.

    In a first policy, vaccinations are dosed at any time $ t $ at a time dependent portion $ \eta_j (t) $ of the $ S $ population of the prescribed age $ \bar a_j $, with $ 0 < \bar a_1 < \cdots < \bar a_N $. In this way, the fraction $ \eta_j (t) $ of susceptible population $ S (t, \bar a_j) $ becomes immune. In other words, we use as control the fractions $ \eta_j \colon \mathbb{I} \to [0, 1] $ (for $ j \in \{1, \cdots, N\} $ and $ \mathbb{I} $ being the, possibly unbounded, time interval under consideration). We thus have to supplement the evolution (1.1)–(1.2)–(1.3) with the vaccination conditions

    $ S(t,ˉaj+)=(1ηj(t))S(t,ˉaj)[tS(t,ˉaj) decreases due to vaccination]I(t,ˉaj+)=I(t,ˉaj)[the infected population is unaltered]R(t,ˉaj+)=R(t,ˉaj)+ηj(t)S(t,ˉaj)[vaccinated individuals are immunized]
    $
    (1.4)

    for a.e. $ t > 0 $ and for $ j \in \{1, \cdots, N\} $. A reasonable constraint on the vaccination policy $ \eta $ in (1.4) is that its total cost $ \mathcal{N} (\eta) $ on the considered time interval $ \mathbb{I} $ does not exceed a prescribed maximal cost $ M $. Measuring the total cost by the number $ \mathcal{N} $ of dosed individuals, we have

    $ N(η)M where N(η)=Ni=1Iηi(t)S(t,ˉai)dt.
    $
    (1.5)

    Alternatively, we also consider vaccination campaigns immunizing an age dependent portion of the whole population at given times $ \bar t_1, \ldots, \bar t_N $. This amounts to substitute (1.4) with

    $ S(ˉtk+,a)=(1νk(a)ηj)S(ˉtk,a)[aS(ˉtk,a) decreases due to vaccination]I(ˉtk+,a)=I(ˉtk,a)[the infected population is unaltered]R(ˉtk+,a)=R(ˉtk,a)+νk(a)S(ˉtk,a)[vaccinated individuals are immunized]
    $
    (1.6)

    where $ \nu_k (a) $ is the percentage of susceptible individuals of age $ a $ that are dosed with the vaccine at time $ \bar t_k $, for $ k = 1, \ldots, N $. Now, a reasonable constraint due to the campaign cost is given by a bound on the number $ \mathcal{N} $ of dosed individuals

    $ N(ν)M whereN(ν)=Ni=1R+νi(a)S(ˉti,a)da.
    $
    (1.7)

    For simplicity, in both cases above, we assume that $ \eta_j $, respectively $ \nu_i $, represents the percentages of individuals that are successfully vaccinated.

    In both cases, our aim is to seek the vaccination campaign that minimizes the total number of infected individuals of all ages over the time interval $ \mathbb{I} $, that is

    $ J=IR+φ(a)I(t,a)dadt
    $
    (1.8)

    the function $ \varphi $ being a suitable positive age dependent weight. Here, $ \mathcal{J} $ is a function of $ \eta $ in case (1.4) and of $ \nu $ in case (1.6). In general, in the two cases (1.4) and (1.6), reasonable costs are thus

    $ J(η)+N(η)=IR+φ(a)I(t,a)dadt+Nj=1Iηj(t)S(t,ˉaj)dt
    $
    (1.9)
    $ J(ν)+N(ν)=IR+φ(a)I(t,a)dadt+Ni=1R+νi(a)S(ˉti,a)da.
    $
    (1.10)

    Clearly, in general, suitable weights can be used to modify the relative relevance of the two costs $ \mathcal{N} $ and $ \mathcal{J} $ in the sums above.

    The current literature offers a variety of alternative approaches to similar modeling situations. In the context of models based on ordinary differential equations, that is, without an age structure in the population, this problem has been considered, for instance, already in [5,6,7]. In the recent [8], the vaccination control enters an equation of the type (1.1) through a term $ -u \, S $ in the source on the right hand side of (1.1), implicitly suggesting that vaccination takes place uniformly at all ages. For a recent related investigation focused on cholera, see [9].

    The next section summarizes the key analytic properties of the present SIR model, providing the necessary basis to tackle optimal control problems. Section 3 shows the qualitative properties of various vaccination strategies through numerical integrations. Section 4 presents numerical optimizations through the descent method. The paper ends with Section 5.

    Denote by $ \mathbb{I} $ either the time interval $ [0, T] $, for a positive $ T $, or $ \left[0, +\infty\right[$. Fix throughout a positive integer $ N $ representing the number of vaccination sessions.

    Both models introduced above lead to the initial – boundary value problem

    $ {tS+aS=(dS(t,a)++0λ(a,a)I(t,a)da)StI+aI=(dI(t,a)+rI(t,a))I++0λ(a,a)I(t,a)daStR+aR=rI(t,a)IdR(t,a)R
    $
    (2.1)

    with initial datum and boundary inflow

    $ {S(0,a)=So(a),I(0,a)=Io(a),R(0,a)=Ro(a),aR+;S(t,0)=Sb(t),I(t,0)=Ib(t),R(t,0)=Rb(t),tI.
    $
    (2.2)

    The usual case of the birth terms in the boundary data being assigned through suitable integrals of the populations in reproductive age can be recovered by mainly technical adjustments.

    We assume below that the following assumptions are satisfied:

    ($ {\lambda} $) $ \lambda \in \bf{C}^{0}({\mathbb{R}}^+ \times {\mathbb{R}}^+; {\mathbb{R}}) $ is bounded, with total variation in the first argument uniformly bounded with respect to the second (i.e., $ \sup_{a' \in {\mathbb{R}}^+} \mathinner{{\rm{TV}}} (\lambda(\cdot, a'); {\mathbb{R}}^+) < +\infty $) and Lipschitz continuous in the first argument uniformly with respect to the second (i.e., there exists a $ C > 0 $ such that for all $ a, a_1, a_2 \in {\mathbb{R}}^+ $, $ {\left|{\lambda(a_1, a') - \lambda(a_2, a')}\right|} \leq C \; {\left|{a_1 - a_2}\right|} $).

    (d-r) The maps $ d_S, d_I, d_R, r_I \colon \mathbb{I} \times {\mathbb{R}}^+ \to {\mathbb{R}} $ are bounded Caratheodory functions, with $ {\bf{L}^1} $ norm and total variation in $ a $ uniformly bounded in $ t $ (i.e., for $ \varphi = d_S, d_I, d_R, r_I $, $ \sup_{t \in \mathbb{I}} {\left\|{ \varphi (t)}\right\|}_{{\bf{L}^1}({\mathbb{R}}^+; {\mathbb{R}})} < +\infty $ and $ \sup_{t \in \mathbb{I}} \mathinner{{\rm{TV}}} (\varphi (t, \cdot); {\mathbb{R}}^+) < +\infty $) and Lipschitz continuous in $ a $ uniformly in $ t $ (i.e., there exists a $ C > 0 $ such that for all $ t \in \mathbb{I} $ and $ a_1, a_2 \in {\mathbb{R}}^+ $, $ {\left|{ \varphi (t, a_2) - \varphi (t, a_1)}\right|} \leq C \, {\left|{a_2 - a_1}\right|} $).

    (IB) The initial datum and the boundary inflow in (2.2) satisfy $ S_o, I_o, R_o \in ({\bf{L}^1} \cap \bf{BV}) ({\mathbb{R}}^+; {\mathbb{R}}^+) $ and $ S_b, I_b, R_b \in ({\bf{L}^1} \cap \bf{BV}) (\mathbb{I}; {\mathbb{R}}^+) $.

    For the definition of Caratheodory function, of total variation and of the various functional spaces, we refer for instance to [10]. For all other analytic details specific to the present construction, see [11].

    First, we provide the basic well posedness and stability result for the model (2.1)–(2.2) in the case of the vaccination policy (1.4), namely

    $ {S(t,ˉaj+)=(1ηj(t))S(t,ˉaj)I(t,ˉaj+)=I(t,ˉaj)R(t,ˉaj+)=R(t,ˉaj)+ηj(t)S(t,ˉaj)j=1,,N.
    $
    (2.3)

    Theorem 2.1 ([11]). Under hypotheses ($ {\lambda} $) and (d-r), for any initial and boundary data satisfying (IB), for any choice of the positive vaccination ages $ \bar a_1, \ldots, \bar a_N \in {\mathbb{R}}^+ \setminus \{0\} $ and of the control function $ \eta \in \bf{BV}(\mathbb{I}; [0, 1]^N) $, problem (2.1)–(2.2)–(2.3) admits a unique solution defined on the whole interval $ \mathbb{I} $, depending Lipschitz continuously on the initial datum, through the $ {\bf{L}^1} $ norm, and on $ \eta $, through the $ {{\bf{L}}^\infty } $ norm.

    An entirely similar result holds for the vaccination policy (1.6), which we rewrite here as

    $ {S(ˉti+,a)=(1νi(a)ηj)S(ˉti,a)I(ˉti+,a)=I(ˉti,a)R(ˉti+,a)=R(ˉti,a)+νi(a)S(ˉti,a).i=1,,N.
    $
    (2.4)

    Theorem 2.2 ([11]). Under hypotheses ($ {\lambda} $) and (d-r), for any initial and boundary data satisfying (IB), for any choice of the positive vaccination times $ \bar t_1, \ldots, \bar t_N \in \mathbb{I} \setminus \{0\} $ and of the control function $ \nu \in \bf{BV}({\mathbb{R}}^+; [0, 1]^N) $, problem (2.1)–(2.2)–(2.4) admits a unique solution defined on the whole interval $ \mathbb{I} $, depending Lipschitz continuously on the initial datum, through the $ {\bf{L}^1} $ norm, and on $ \nu $, through the $ {{\bf{L}}^\infty } $ norm.

    Below, we restrict the search of optimal controls $ \eta_j $ in (1.4) and $ \nu_i $ in (1.6) to functions of the form

    $ ηj(t)=m=1ηjχ[t1,t[(t)t0=0,t>t1,tI;νi(a)=m=1νiχ[a1,a[(a)a0=0,a>a1,aR+.
    $

    The stability results above ensure that the costs (1.5), (1.7) and (1.8) are Lipschitz continuous functions of the various $ \eta^\ell_j $ and $ \nu^\ell_i $. Hence, a straightforward Weierstraß argument proves the existence of optimal controls minimizing the costs (1.9) or (1.10).

    We refer to [11] for the detailed proofs as well as for further stability estimates on the dependence of the solutions on the various parameters.

    We now compare different instances of both strategies (2.3) and (2.4) by means of numerical integrations.

    In all the integrations below, for the convective part we exploit the upwind method [12,§ 4.8] with mesh size $ \Delta a = 2.5\cdot 10^{-3} $ along the age axis and $ \Delta t = 1.25\cdot 10^{-3} $ along the time axis. The integrals in the right hand side in (2.1) are computed via a rectangle rule and a fractional step method [12,§ 17.1] allows to combine the convective evolution with the source term. The time axis $ a = 0 $ belongs both to the physical boundary and to the numerical one, its treatment being straightforward since all characteristics move inward the domain $ \mathbb{I} \times {\mathbb{R}}^+ $, so that the value of the boundary data can be assigned to the solution. On the other side, along the numerical boundary $ a = 10 $, the usual free flow conditions is consistent with all characteristic speeds being positive.

    Our aim in the integrations below is to clearly show the qualitative properties of the model (2.1). Indeed, we do not claim that the chosen numerical values are realistic. In particular, the most adequate units for $ t $ and $ a $ might well be different.

    With reference to the Cauchy problem (2.1)–(2.2) and to the costs (1.9)–(1.10), we use throughout the following parameters and functions:

    $ ds(t,a)=14a1+a,dI(t,a)=12a1+a,dR(t,a)=14a1+a,rI(t,a)=110,λ(a,a)=2e|aa|/2,φ(a)=1.
    $
    (3.1)

    The mortality rates are increasing with age and higher for the infected population. The choice of $ \lambda $ assumes that the infection propagates preferably among individuals of similar age.

    We consider two different initial data, first the case without infection, i.e.,

    $ So(a)=3(1a10),Io(a)=0,Ro(a)=(1a10),
    $
    (3.2)

    and then a case with a $ 20\% $ of infected individuals, with respect to the $ S $ population, at time $ t = 0 $, that is

    $ So(a)=2.5(1a10),Io(a)=0.5(1a10),Ro(a)=(1a10).
    $
    (3.3)

    Both these initial data are linearly decreasing with age. Note that the total initial population is the same in the two cases (3.2) and (3.3).

    Natality is chosen so that no jump appears between the initial values at $ a = 0+ $ in (3.2) and the boundary data at $ t = 0+ $:

    $ Sb(t)=3,Ib(t)=0,Rb(t)=1,
    $
    (3.4)

    where we assume that no individuals are infected already at birth.

    We first consider two extreme situations to be later used for comparisons, namely corresponding to no illness (3.2), and to a spreading illness with no vaccination strategy whatsoever.

    In other words, we integrate (2.1)–(2.2)–(3.1) first setting $ I_o \equiv 0 $, so that for all times $ t $, $ I (t) \equiv 0 $ and no illness ever appears, and then setting $ I_o $ as in (3.3) but dose no vaccination, so that the epidemic spreads uncontrolled. The results of these two integrations are displayed in Figure 1. The two solutions are, clearly, entirely different. When $ I \equiv 0 $, a sort of dynamic equilibrium is reached, the resulting contour plot being approximately invariant with respect to translation along the vertical $ t $ axis. The presence of the $ I $ population in the initial datum leads to the spread of the disease and eventually to a dramatic population decrease.

    Figure 1.  Integration of (2.1), with parameters (3.1), boundary data (3.4), initial data on the left corresponding to (3.2) and, middle and right, to (3.3). The left and middle plots display the sum $ S+R $ as a function of $ t $ and $ a $, while the rightmost diagram displays the ratio $ I/ (S+I+R) $ as a function of $ t $ and $ a $.

    We consider now a simple vaccination strategy consisting in a single campaign, dosing vaccination at a single age $ \bar a $ for all times.

    As it is to be expected, the earlier vaccinations are dosed, the better it is in terms of the cost (1.8). In Figure 2 the ratio of the number of infected individuals vs. the total population corresponding to the vaccinations ages $ \bar a = 0.1, \; 0.3, \; 0.5, \; 1.5 $ are portrayed. The leftmost contour plot shows the effects of a very early vaccination, clearly far more effective than later doses.

    Figure 2.  Ratio of the infected population over the whole population in the integration of (2.1), with parameters (3.1), boundary data (3.4) and initial data as in (3.3). The different integrations result from different choices of the age $ \bar a $ at which all S individuals are vaccinated: from left to right: $ \bar a = 0.1, \; 0.3, \; 0.5, \; 1.5 $.

    The striking effect of this early age vaccination is confirmed in Figure 3, where we display the sum $ S+R $ as a function of $ t $ and $ a $ in the same cases of the vaccinations ages $ \bar a = 0.1, \; 0.3, \; 0.5, \; 1.5 $. Clearly, due to the form of the vaccination condition (2.3) and to the present smooth data (3.3)–(3.4), the sum $ S+R $ is continuous across $ \bar a $. In the leftmost diagram, the healthy population apparently recovers from the spread of the disease. When vaccinations are dosed at a later age, i.e., in the three diagrams on the right, the relatively large portion of individuals initially vaccinated survive the disease, but juveniles get infected resulting in the solitary waves, consisting essentially of the $ R $ population, shown in Figure 3.

    Figure 3.  Healthy, i.e., $ S+R $, population resulting from the integration of (2.1), with parameters (3.1), boundary data (3.4) and initial data as in (3.3). The different integrations result from different choices of the age $ \bar a $, at which all S individuals are vaccinated, where, from left to right: $ \bar a = 0.1, \; 0.3, \; 0.5, \; 1.5 $.

    The counterpart of these solitary waves is the propagating "hole" in Figure 2.

    In other words, the vaccination campaign at the age $ \bar a = 0.5 $ looks as (un)successful as the campaign at $ \bar a = 1.5 $. On the contrary, dosing at $ \bar a = 0.1 $ is by far more effective.

    Indeed, this strategy keeps the density of the susceptible population in (2.1) very low due to (2.3). Hence, also the nonlocal source term, which is proportional to $ S $, is relatively small and infection hardly spreads. When vaccination is dosed at higher ages, the nonlocal source term is able to bring infection at low ages, thus making the vaccination policy far less effective.

    Table 1 confirms that, in particular for what concerns the total number of infected individuals, by far, the best strategy is the one dosing vaccines at the earliest considered age $ \bar a = 0.1 $. This choice also results in the highest number of vaccinated individuals, so that also $ \mathcal{N} $ corresponds to the most expensive policy.

    Table 1.  Value of the functionals in (1.5), (1.8), and (1.9) corresponding to the numerical integration of (2.1) with parameters (3.1), initial datum (3.3) and boundary datum (3.4). The rightmost column refers to the case where no vaccination is dosed.
    $ \bar a $ in (2.3) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.0 1.5 none
    $ \mathcal{J} $ in (1.8) 33.48 41.03 44.73 46.85 47.39 47.51 48.30
    $ \mathcal{N} $ in (1.5) 10.53 5.05 2.30 0.76 0.41 0.36 0.00
    $ \mathcal{J}+\mathcal{N} $ in (1.9) 44.01 46.08 47.03 47.61 47.80 47.87 48.30

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    We now simulate another single vaccination campaign, consisting in dosing all individuals of all ages at a given time $ \bar t $, see Figure 4.

    Figure 4.  Ratio of the infected population over the whole population in the integration of (2.1), with parameters (3.1), boundary data (3.4) and initial data as in (3.3). The different integrations result from different choices of the time $ \bar t $, at which all S individuals are vaccinated where from left to right, $ \bar t = 0.1, \; 0.3, \; 0.5, \; 1.5 $.

    Similarly to the integration detailed in § 3.2, campaigns at earlier times results in being more effective. The choices $ \bar t = 0.5 $ and $ \bar t = 1.5 $ are quite similar to each other and, in the lower right part of the $ (a, t) $–plane, to the situation with no vaccination campaign whatsoever, as it stems from a comparison between the two rightmost diagram in Figure 4 and the rightmost one in Figure 1, see also Table 2.

    Table 2.  Value of the functionals in (1.7), (1.8) and (1.10) corresponding to the numerical integration of (2.1) with parameters (3.1), initial datum (3.3) and boundary datum (3.4). The rightmost column refers to the case where no vaccination is dosed.
    $ \bar t $ in (2.4) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.0 1.5 none
    $ \mathcal{J} $ in (1.8) 31.71 38.80 43.65 46.79 47.40 47.42 48.30
    $ \mathcal{N} $ in (1.7) 9.37 5.46 2.74 0.86 0.40 0.39 0.00
    $ \mathcal{J}+\mathcal{N} $ in (1.10) 41.08 44.26 46.39 47.66 47.80 47.80 48.30

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Note that the present strategy is far less effective: vaccinations are dosed only at the given time $ \bar t $, after which the disease spreads completely out of control, see Figure 5.

    Figure 5.  Healthy, i.e., $ S+R $, population resulting from the integration of (2.1), with parameters (3.1), boundary data (3.4) and initial data as in (3.3). The different integrations result from different choices of the time $ \bar t $, at which all S individuals are vaccinated where from left to right, $ \bar t = 0.1, \; 0.3, \; 0.5, \; 1.5 $.

    The values of the costs (1.7), (1.8) and (1.10) presented in Table 2 show that vaccinating the whole $ S $ population at $ \bar t = 0.5 $ or later, makes relatively small difference, the most convenient choice being at the earliest time $ \bar t = 0.1 $. Similarly to what happens in § 3.2, vaccinating all susceptible individuals at $ \bar t = 0.1 $ makes the susceptible portion of the population very small wherever $ a > t - \bar t $, thus essentially canceling the nonlocal source term which represents the spreading of the disease.

    We note however an evident key difference between the best vaccination age choice (i.e., $ \bar a = 0.1 $) in § 3.2 and the present best vaccination time choice (i.e., $ \bar t = 0.1 $). The latter one yields lower values of the chosen costs. However, as time grows, the former strategy is prone to by far preferable evolutions. Indeed, the leftmost diagram in Figure 2 (corresponding to $ \bar a = 0.1 $) clearly shows a decreasing $ I $ population, while it is increasing in the latter strategy, see Figure 4, left (corresponding to $ \bar t = 0.1 $).

    We now consider in more detail the search for an optimal vaccination strategy in a slightly different setting. First, we assume that infection among individuals of different ages is somewhat more difficult, slightly modifying (3.1) to

    $ ds(t,a)=14a1+a,dI(t,a)=12a1+a,dR(t,a)=14a1+a,rI(t,a)=110,λ(a,a)=e2|aa|,φ(t)=1,
    $
    (4.1)

    and choose the initial datum

    $ So(a)={3.0(1a10)a[0,3][5,10]1.5(1a10)a]3,5[Io(a)={0a[0,3][5,10]1.5(1a10)a]3,5[Ro(a)=(1a10).
    $
    (4.2)

    corresponding to an initial infected population that amounts to $ 50\% $ of the susceptible population in the age interval $ \left]3, 5\right[$. As boundary data, we keep the choice (3.4), corresponding to a constant natality rate for the $ S $ and $ R $ populations, and to no one being infected at birth.

    As a first reference situation, we consider the case of no vaccination being dosed to anyone. The resulting integration is displayed in Figure 6. In this reference case, the total number of infected individuals is $ 22.77 $.

    Figure 6.  Integration of (2.1)–(2.2) with parameters (4.1), initial datum (4.2) and boundary inflow (3.4). From left to right: the $ S $, $ I $ and $ R $ plots. Note the rise in the $ I $ population in the region $ t \geq 3 $ and $ a \in [1, 3]$, a clear effect of the nonlocal source terms in (2.1) modeling the spread of the infection.

    We only remark that Figure 6 shows a typical effect of the nonlocality of the source terms in (2.1). There is an increase in the $ I $ population for, approximately, $ t \geq 3 $ and $ a \in [1, 3]$ due to the transmission and growth of the infection, a feature which becomes relevant in regions close to (relatively) high values of the susceptible population $ S $.

    Below we restrict the values of the percentages $ \eta_j $ and $ \nu_i $ in (2.3) and (2.4) to the interval $ [0, 0.8] $. Indeed, it is reasonable to assume that not every individual can be vaccinated and that, in some cases, vaccination may fail to immunize a small percentage of susceptible individuals. For the sake of simplicity, we introduce only three vaccination ages $ \bar a_1 $, $ \bar a_2 $ and $ \bar a_3 $ or times $ \bar t_1 $, $ \bar t_2 $ and $ \bar t_3 $.

    We present both sample values of the costs (1.9)–(1.10) and the results of optimization procedures. The former correspond to dosing vaccines to $ 60\% $ or $ 80\% $ of the $ S $ population at each prescribed age for all times, or at each prescribed time at all ages. The latter are achieved through the usual descent method, see [13,§ 7.2.2], with suitable projections that restrict to values of $ \eta_1, \eta_2, \eta_3 $ and $ \nu_1, \nu_2, \nu_3 $ in $ [0, 0.8] $. A formal justification of the use of this method is in the Lipschitz continuous dependence of the cost (1.9) or (1.10) on the various parameters, see [11].

    In the integrations below, we keep $ \Delta a = 2.5 \cdot 10^{-3} $ and $ \Delta t = 1.25 \cdot 10^{-3} $. However, due to computing time limitations, when applying the steepest descent method we passed to coarse meshes, where $ \Delta a = 5 \cdot 10^{-2} $ and $ \Delta t = 2.5 \cdot 10^{-2} $. Correspondingly, in case of the controls (2.3), optimal controls are sought in the class of locally constant functions of the type $ \eta_j (t) = \sum_{\ell = 1}^{20} \eta^\ell_j \, {\chi_{ {[(\ell-1) /4, \, \ell/4[}}} (t) $. An entirely similar procedure is followed in the case of the age dependent controls (2.4). For completeness, we recall that in the present merely Lipschitz continuous setting, the steepest descent (or gradient) method needs not converge and, even if it does, its limit may well be different from a point of minimum. Therefore, in our application of this method, we keep checking that the values of the cost (do indeed) decrease, but we can not ensure that the values obtained are indeed points of minimum.

    Now, in the model (2.1)–(2.2) with parameters (4.1), initial datum (4.2) and boundary datum (3.4) we prescribe $ 3 $ vaccination ages and, correspondingly, $ 3 $ constant values of the percentage of vaccinated individuals, so that, with reference to the notation (2.3),

    $ ˉa1=2.0,ˉa2=4.0,ˉa3=6.0 and ηj{0.6,0.8} for j=1,2,3.
    $
    (4.3)

    First, we perform the resulting $ 8 $ numerical integrations and record the resulting costs (1.5), (1.8) and (1.9). Then, these costs are compared among each other and with the costs resulting from the steepest descent method. The numerical values obtained are in Table 3.

    Table 3.  Costs resulting from the integrations of model (2.1)–(2.2) with parameters (4.1), initial datum (4.2), boundary datum (3.4) and control (2.3) with parameters (4.3).
    $ \eta_1 $ $ \eta_2 $ $ \eta_3 $ $ \mathcal{J} $ as in (1.8) $ \mathcal{N} $ as in (1.5) $ \mathcal{J} + \mathcal{N} $ as in (1.9)
    $ 0.6 $ $ 0.6 $ $ 0.6 $ $ 14.54 $ $ 7.56 $ $ 22.11 $
    $ 0.6 $ $ 0.6 $ $ 0.8 $ $ 14.38 $ $ 7.87 $ $ 22.25 $
    $ 0.6 $ $ 0.8 $ $ 0.6 $ $ 14.18 $ $ 8.02 $ $ 22.20 $
    $ 0.6 $ $ 0.8 $ $ 0.8 $ $ 14.02 $ $ 8.31 $ $ 22.83 $
    $ 0.8 $ $ 0.6 $ $ 0.6 $ $ 13.12 $ $ 9.22 $ $ 22.34 $
    $ 0.8 $ $ 0.6 $ $ 0.8 $ $ 12.96 $ $ 9.52 $ $ 22.48 $
    $ 0.8 $ $ 0.8 $ $ 0.6 $ $ 12.80 $ $ 9.60 $ $ 22.40 $
    $ 0.8 $ $ 0.8 $ $ 0.8 $ $ 12.64 $ $ 9.88 $ $ 22.53 $
    see Figure 8 $ 16.01 $ $ 4.67 $ $ 20.69 $

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    As is to be expected, the lowest amount of infected individuals results from the highest (and most expensive) vaccination dosing, detailed in Figure 7. There, the discontinuities in $ S $ across the ages $ \bar a_j $ resulting from the conditions (2.3) are clearly visible. Choosing $ \bar a_1 = 2.0 $ as the lowest vaccination age allows, for about $ t \geq 4 $, that individuals younger that this age are infected and, at later times, the disease may well spread among juveniles.

    Figure 7.  Contour plots of the solution to model (2.1)–(2.2) with parameters (4.1), initial datum (4.2), boundary datum (3.4) and control (2.3) with $ \bar a_1 = 2.0 $, $ \bar a_2 = 4.0 $, $ \bar a_3 = 6.0 $ and $ \eta_1 = \eta_2 = \eta_3 = 0.8 $.

    The steepest descent procedure yields a value of the cost $ \mathcal{J} + \mathcal{N} $ in (1.9) lower than any of the ones obtained with constant $ \eta_j $ as in (4.3), see Table 3. The optimal controls found by means of the steepest descent method are shown in Figure 8 and the corresponding solutions are in Figure 9.

    Figure 8.  Optimal time dependent controls found by means of the descent method applied to minimize the cost (1.9), corresponding to the integration in Figure 9.
    Figure 9.  Contour plots of the solutions to to model (2.1)–(2.2) with parameters (4.1), initial datum (4.2), boundary datum (3.4), optimized with respect to the controls $ \eta_1, \eta_2, \eta_3 $ in (2.3).

    We now follow a procedure, in a sense, analogous to that detailed in the preceding Paragraph 4.1. Choose the times and controls

    $ ˉt1=0.5,ˉt2=1.0,ˉt3=1.5 and νi{0.6,0.8} for i=1,2,3.
    $
    (4.4)

    The costs of the integrations resulting from these choices and from the optimization are collected in Table 4. Again, the lowest number of infected individuals is obtained with the highest number of vaccinations and the corresponding solutions are plotted in Figure 10. Given that infected individuals can not turn back susceptible, it is clear that the first vaccination of $ 80\% $ of all susceptible individuals greatly hinders the spreading of the disease. The later vaccinations, dosed also to the newly born individuals, block further infections, see Figure 10.

    Table 4.  Costs resulting from the integrations of model (2.1)–(2.2) with parameters (4.1), initial datum (4.2), boundary datum (3.4) and control (2.4) with parameters (4.4).
    $ \nu_1 $ $ \nu_2 $ $ \nu_3 $ $ \mathcal{J} $ as in (1.8) $ \mathcal{N} $ as in (1.7) $ \mathcal{J} + \mathcal{N} $ as in (1.10)
    $ 0.6 $ $ 0.6 $ $ 0.6 $ $ 6.41 $ $ 13.05 $ $ 19.47 $
    $ 0.6 $ $ 0.6 $ $ 0.8 $ $ 6.23 $ $ 13.75 $ $ 19.98 $
    $ 0.6 $ $ 0.8 $ $ 0.6 $ $ 6.17 $ $ 13.60 $ $ 19.77 $
    $ 0.6 $ $ 0.8 $ $ 0.8 $ $ 6.06 $ $ 14.10 $ $ 20.16 $
    $ 0.8 $ $ 0.6 $ $ 0.6 $ $ 5.78 $ $ 13.89 $ $ 19.66 $
    $ 0.8 $ $ 0.6 $ $ 0.8 $ $ 5.67 $ $ 14.44 $ $ 20.12 $
    $ 0.8 $ $ 0.8 $ $ 0.6 $ $ 5.66 $ $ 14.22 $ $ 19.88 $
    $ 0.8 $ $ 0.8 $ $ 0.8 $ $ 5.59 $ $ 14.65 $ $ 20.24 $
    see Figure 11 $ 7.80 $ $ 8.18 $ $ 15.98 $

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 10.  Contour plots of the solution to model (2.1)–(2.2) with parameters (4.1), initial datum (4.2), boundary datum (3.4) and control (2.4) with $ \bar t_1 = 0.5 $, $ \bar t_2 = 1.0 $, $ \bar t_3 = 1.5 $ and $ \nu_1 = \nu_2 = \nu_3 = 0.8 $.

    The strategy found through the steepest descent method, shown in Figure 11, clearly takes advantage of the particular shape of the initial datum (4.2). Indeed, the two "humps" in $ \nu_2 $ and $ \nu_3 $ roughly correspond to the wave of infected individuals propagating from $ t = 0 $ onward.

    Figure 11.  Plots of the optimal age dependent controls $ \nu_1, \nu_2, \nu_3 $ found by means of the descent method applied to minimize the cost (1.10).

    As a consequence, note that the optimal control $ \nu_3 $ vanishes for small ages. This is due to the fact that newborn are healthy and that the preceding vaccination campaigns succeeded in avoiding the transmission of the infection to the youngest part of the population, see Figure 12.

    Figure 12.  Contour plots of the solutions to model (2.1)–(2.2) with parameters (4.1), initial datum (4.2), boundary datum (3.4), optimized with respect to the controls $ \nu_1, \nu_2, \nu_3 $ in (2.4).

    With the data chosen in (4.1) and the parameters (4.2), the best vaccination strategies turn out to be the ones of the type (2.4), i.e., those where a percentage $ \nu_i (a) $ of all susceptible individuals of age $ a $ are dosed at time $ \bar t_i $, as it stems out comparing Table 3 with Table 4. Clearly, this outcome is a consequence of the particular choices in (4.1) and (4.2), but the framework based on (2.1) and (2.3) or (2.4), and its amenability to optimization procedure, is independent of these choices.

    We addressed the issue of optimizing vaccination strategies. Sample numerical integrations show various features of the solutions to the integro–differential model (2.1)–(2.2) and the effects of different choice of the controls $ \eta_j $ in (2.3) or $ \nu_i $ in (2.4). Standard numerical optimization procedures, such as the steepest descent method, can be applied to single out optimal choices of the controls.

    The present framework is amenable to a variety of different applications and extensions, only a minor part of which were explicitly considered above. For instance, natality, which is represented by the boundary datum, can be assigned as a function of the present, or past, population densities, also allowing for newborn to be infected also at birth. The present age structured formulation allows to take into account the possibility that the disease is transmitted differently in different age groups. Introducing in the $ S $, $ I $ or $ R $ populations sexual distinctions only amounts to consider more equations, the basic analytic framework in [11] remaining essentially unaltered.

    Part of this work was supported by the PRIN 2015 project Hyperbolic Systems of Conservation Laws and Fluid Dynamics: Analysis and Applications and by the GNAMPA 2018 project Conservation Laws: Hyperbolic Games, Vehicular Traffic and Fluid dynamics.

    The IBM Power Systems Academic Initiative substantially contributed to the numerical integrations.

    The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.

    [1] Practical Action (2014) Poor People's Energy Outlook 2014: Key messages on energy for poverty alleviation, Practical Action Publishing.
    [2] Yadoo A, Cruickshank H. (2012) The role for low carbon electrification technologies in poverty reduction and climate change strategies: A focus on renewable energy mini-grids with case studies in Nepal, Peru and Kenya. Energy Policy 42: 591-603. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.12.029
    [3] SE4All (2014) High Impact Opportunity: Clean Energy Mini-Grids, 1-20, SE4All.
    [4] IEA (2014) World Energy Outlook 2014. Available from: www.iea.org.
    [5] Domenech B, Ferrer-Martí L, Lillo P, et al. (2014) A community electrification project: Combination of microgrids and household systems fed by wind, PV or micro-hydro energies according to micro-scale resource evaluation and social constraints. Energy for Sustainable Development 23: 275-285. doi: 10.1016/j.esd.2014.09.007
    [6] Xiliang Z, Gan L, Shuhua G, et al. (1999) Wind energy technology development and diffusion: A case study of Inner Mongolia, China, Center for International Climate and Environmental Research (Oslo, Norway) and Institute for Techno-economics and Energy Systems Analysis (Tsinghua University, Beijing, China).
    [7] Bachelor S, Scott N, Daoqi L, et al. (1999) Evaluating the impact of wind generators in Inner Mongolia: Project Technical Report, Gamos Ltd, DfID.
    [8] Mishnaevsky Jr. L, Freere P, Sinha, et al. (2011) Small wind turbines with timber blades for developing countries: Materials choice, development, installation and experiences. Renewable Energy 36: 2128-2138. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2011.01.034
    [9] Ferrer-Martí L, Garwood A, Chiroque J, et al. (2012) Evaluating and comparing three community small-scale wind electrification projects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16: 5379-5390. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.04.015
    [10] Leary J, While A, Howell R (2012) Locally manufactured wind power technology for sustainable rural electrification. Energy Policy 43-0: 173-183.
    [11] Sumanik-Leary J, While A, Howell R (2013) Small wind turbines for decentralised rural electrification: case studies in Peru, Nicaragua and Scotland, PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield.
    [12] Khennas S, Dunnett S, Piggott H (2008) Small Wind Systems for Rural Energy Services, Practical Action Publishing.
    [13] Piggot H (2013) A wind Turbine Recipe Book, Scoraig Wind Electric
    [14] Batrmann D, Fink D (2008) Homebrew Wind Power, Buckville Publications LLC.
    [15] Joulain C et al (2009) 12' Turbine final design pre-report, blueEnergy internal document.
    [16] HOMER (2009) National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available from: www.nrel.gov.
    [17] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2005) Wind Atlas of Nicaragua. Available from: http://www.nrel.gov/wind/pdfs/nicaragua.pdf.
    [18] Meteotest (www.meteotest.ch) (2005) Wind Map of Nicaragua.
    [19] Marandin L (2004) Etude du gisement éolien du site de Bluefields et réalisation d'un project pilote de production d'énergie électrique éolienne, SupAero, MsC Thesis.
    [20] C. Joulain et al (2009) bC1 pre-report, blueEnergy internal document.
    [21] Ferrer-Martí L, Garwood A, Chiroque J, et al. (2010) A Community Small-Scale Wind Generation Project in Peru. Wind Engineering 34: 277-288. doi: 10.1260/0309-524X.34.3.277
    [22] National Lightning Safety Institute (2009) Lightening Protection for Engineers, 6 Eds., National Lightning Safety Institute.
    [23] NRG Systems (2011) NRG 60m and 50 m XHD Tall Tower Installation Manual & Specifications, NRG Systems. Available from: http://www.nrgsystems.com/FileLibrary/fdbaaba20b7f4542b8a9f95aea6aa617/NRG%2060m%20and%2050m%20XHD%20TallTower%20Installation%20Manual%20-%20Rev%203.0.pdf.
    [24] Sumanik-Leary J, Marandin L, Craig M, et al. (2013) Participatory Manufacture of Small Wind Turbines: A Case Study in Nicaragua, 2013. Available from: www.windempowerment.org.
    [25] Quéval L, Joulain C, Casillas CE (2014) Measuring the Power Curve of a Small-Scale Wind Turbine: A Practical Example in Proceedings of the 1st Int. e-Conf. on Energies 14-31 March 2014, Sciforum Electronic Conference Series Vol. 1. Available from: www.sciforum.net/conference/ece-1/paper/2338/download/pdf
    [26] ESMAP (2013) Technical and Economic Assessment of Off-Grid, Mini-Grid and Grid Electrification Technologies, ESMAP. Available from: http://www.esmap.org/sites/esmap.org/files/Technical%20and%20Economic%20Assessment%20of%20Off-grid,%20Minigrid%20and%20Grid%20Electrification%20Technologies_Report%2012107.pdf
    [27] IRENA (2012) SolarPower. Renewable Energy Technologies: Cost Analysis Series. Abu Dhabi, International Renewable Energy Agency.
    [28] SuperMagnete.ch (2012, 18th of December) What is the development of neodymium magnet prices. Available from: www.supermagnete.ch.
    [29] Sumankik-Leary J, Piggott H, Howell R, et al (2013) Locally manufactured small wind turbines—How do they compare to commercial machines? in Proceedings of the 9th PhD Seminar on Wind Energy in Europe 18-20 March 2013, Uppsala University. Available from: http://scoraigwind.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/PhD_Seminar_2013_FullPaper_Sumanik-Leary-FINAL.pdf.
    [30] blueEnergy (2009 and 2010) Diagnóstico socio-económico de capacidades organizacionales y prioridades con enfoque de género, energía y agua (varias comunidades), blueEnergy internal document.
    [31] Hirmer S, Cruickshank H (2014) The user-value of rural electrification: An analysis and adoption of existing models and theories in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 34, 145-154.
    [32] Vanheule L. (2012) Small Wind Turbines in Kenya—An Analysis with Strategic Niche Management, Department of Technology Dynamics & Sustainable Development, Delft University of Technology.Marandin L, Craig M, Casillas CE, et al. (2013) Small-scale Wind Power in Nicaragua—Market Analysis 2012-2013, Green Empowerment.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Rinaldo M. Colombo, Mauro Garavello, Well Posedness and Control in a NonLocal SIR Model, 2020, 0095-4616, 10.1007/s00245-020-09660-9
    2. Rinaldo M. Colombo, Mauro Garavello, Francesca Marcellini, Elena Rossi, An age and space structured SIR model describing the Covid-19 pandemic, 2020, 10, 2190-5983, 10.1186/s13362-020-00090-4
    3. Hiroya Kikuchi, Hiroaki Mukaidani, Ramasamy Saravanakumar, Weihua Zhuang, 2020, Robust Vaccination Strategy based on Dynamic Game for Uncertain SIR Time-Delay Model, 978-1-7281-8526-2, 3427, 10.1109/SMC42975.2020.9283389
    4. Giacomo Albi, Lorenzo Pareschi, Mattia Zanella, Modelling lockdown measures in epidemic outbreaks using selective socio-economic containment with uncertainty, 2021, 18, 1551-0018, 7161, 10.3934/mbe.2021355
    5. Giacomo Albi, Lorenzo Pareschi, Mattia Zanella, Control with uncertain data of socially structured compartmental epidemic models, 2021, 82, 0303-6812, 10.1007/s00285-021-01617-y
    6. Christian John Hurry, Alexander Mozeika, Alessia Annibale, Vaccination with partial transmission and social distancing on contact networks, 2022, 2022, 1742-5468, 033302, 10.1088/1742-5468/ac50ae
    7. Martin Kröger, Mustafa Turkyilmazoglu, Reinhard Schlickeiser, Explicit formulae for the peak time of an epidemic from the SIR model. Which approximant to use?, 2021, 425, 01672789, 132981, 10.1016/j.physd.2021.132981
    8. Emanuele Bernardi, Lorenzo Pareschi, Giuseppe Toscani, Mattia Zanella, Effects of Vaccination Efficacy on Wealth Distribution in Kinetic Epidemic Models, 2022, 24, 1099-4300, 216, 10.3390/e24020216
    9. Reinhard Schlickeiser, Martin Kröger, Analytical Modeling of the Temporal Evolution of Epidemics Outbreaks Accounting for Vaccinations, 2021, 3, 2624-8174, 386, 10.3390/physics3020028
    10. Erivelton G. Nepomuceno, Márcia L. C. Peixoto, Márcio J. Lacerda, Andriana S. L. O. Campanharo, Ricardo H. C. Takahashi, Luis A. Aguirre, Application of Optimal Control of Infectious Diseases in a Model-Free Scenario, 2021, 2, 2662-995X, 10.1007/s42979-021-00794-3
    11. Alejandro Carballosa, José Balsa-Barreiro, Pablo Boullosa, Adrián Garea, Jorge Mira, Ángel Miramontes, Alberto P. Muñuzuri, Assessing the risk of pandemic outbreaks across municipalities with mathematical descriptors based on age and mobility restrictions, 2022, 160, 09600779, 112156, 10.1016/j.chaos.2022.112156
    12. Candy Sonveaux, Joseph J. Winkin, State feedback control law design for an age-dependent SIR model, 2023, 158, 00051098, 111297, 10.1016/j.automatica.2023.111297
    13. Fernando Córdova-Lepe, Juan Pablo Gutiérrez-Jara, A Dynamic Reaction-restore-type Transmission-rate Model for COVID-19, 2024, 21, 2224-2902, 118, 10.37394/23208.2024.21.12
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2015 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(7824) PDF downloads(1016) Cited by(7)

Figures and Tables

Figures(14)  /  Tables(13)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog