RESEARCH ARTICLE

VOL. 45 | NO. 2 | MAY-AUGUST 2024 | PP 151 - 171 ib

dx.doi.org/10.17488/RMIB.45.2.9 E-LOCATION ID: 1418

Optimizing infection trajectories: Innovation in Controllability of Nonlinear

SIR Model

Omar Zakary1 , Sara Bidah1 , Mostafa Rachik1

1
Hassan II university of Casablanca. Faculty of sciences Ben M’Sick. Casablanca - Morocco

ABSTRACT
Managing infections within populations poses significant challenges, particularly in achieving controllability over
nonlinear models within epidemiological systems. In this study, the challenge is addressed by introducing a novel
control function tailored to enhance the management of infections. The approach revolves around leveraging
a nonlinear SIR epidemiological model, enabling the derivation of explicit solutions and fine-tuning of control
parameters to align with predefined objectives. Specifically, the focus lies on guiding the number of infected
individuals towards a predetermined threshold at a specified time for all initial values. Through rigorous numerical
simulations, the effectiveness of the proposed control strategy in achieving greater controllability and regulating the
spread of infection over time is depicted, For example, our simulations show that starting with an initial infected
population of 150 individuals in a population of 25,150, the control strategy can reduce the number of infected
individuals to below 40 within 30 days. The quantitative results presented underscore the efficacy of the approach,
highlighting its potential to significantly impact disease management strategies.

KEYWORDS: controllability, control theory, infectious diseases, nonlinear models, SIR model

Corresponding author Received:

TO: Omar Zakary 9 February 2024
INSTITUTION:Hassan II university of Casablanca, Faculty

of sciences Ben M’Sick Accepted:

ADDRESS: Bd Commandant Driss Al Harti, Casablanca 30 June 2024
20670, Morocco
EMAIL: [email protected]
152 REVISTA MEXICANA DE INGENIERÍA BIOMÉDICA | VOL. 45 | NO. 2 | MAY-AUGUST 2024

INTRODUCTION
Controllability stands as a cornerstone concept within mathematical control theory, constituting a qualitative
property essential for understanding dynamical control systems. At its core, controllability signifies the capacity
to guide a dynamical system from any starting point to a specified end state utilizing admissible controls. However,
it’s worth noting the diverse range of definitions attributed to controllability in the literature. These definitions
vary depending on the class of dynamical systems considered and the characteristics of the admissible controls
involved [1][2].

Addressing controllability across different dynamical systems demands the application of various mathematical
tools and theories. These encompass principles drawn from a variety of mathematical disciplines, such as func-
tional analysis, matrix analysis, differential geometry, topology, ordinary and partial differential equations, and
difference equations [3][4]. Despite the breadth of methods available, there remain numerous unresolved challenges
in controllability analysis, particularly concerning nonlinear types of dynamical systems .
[1][5]

For instance, much of the existing literature on controllability has predominantly focused on unconstrained con-
trols without delays in either the state variables or the controls themselves. This emphasis underscores the need for
further exploration and development of controllability concepts tailored to address more intricate dynamical sys-
tems with constrained controls and temporal delays [6].

Nonlinear models play in epidemiology a vital role for comprehending the dynamics of disease transmission
within populations. By translating biological principles and epidemiological data into mathematical equations,
models can simulate the spread of diseases, predict future trends, and evaluate the potential impact of interven-
tions [7][8][9][10]. Epidemiological models often incorporate factors such as transmission rates, population demograph-
ics, immunity levels, and behavioral patterns to capture the complexities of disease transmission. These models can
help public health authorities develop effective strategies for disease control and prevention, such as vaccination
campaigns, quarantine measures, and social distancing policies . Additionally, mathematical modeling
[11][12][13][14]

enables researchers to assess the effectiveness of various intervention strategies under different scenarios, provid-
ing valuable insights for decision-making in public health emergencies [11][13][14].

The SIR model, which stands for Susceptible-Infectious-Recovered, is a fundamental mathematical framework
used in epidemiology to understand and forecast the dissemination of infectious diseases within populations. In
this model, the individuals are classified into three compartments: (S) susceptible, (I) infectious, and (R) recovered.
Susceptible persons (S) are those who are at risk of contracting the disease but have not been infected yet. Infectious
individuals (I) are those who are presently infected and capable of transmitting the disease to susceptible individ-
uals. Recovered individuals (R) are those who have recovered from the infection and gained immunity, thus they
cannot be infected again and do not contribute to disease transmission [15][16][17][18].

The dynamics of the SIR model are governed by a system of ordinary differential equations (ODEs) that describe
how the number of individuals in each compartment changes over time. These equations capture the flow of indi-
viduals between compartments based on the rates of infection and recovery. Specifically, susceptible individuals
become infected at a rate proportional to the number of susceptible individuals and infectious individuals, while
infectious individuals recover at a certain rate.
153 Omar Zakary et al. Optimizing infection trajectories: Innovation in Controllability of Nonlinear SIR Model

By solving these differential equations, the SIR model can provide insights into the dynamics of disease spread,
such as the peak of the epidemic, the total number of infections, and the effectiveness of interventions such as
vaccination or social distancing measures [18].

While the basic SIR model assumes certain simplifications and does not account for demographic factors like births
and deaths, it remains a valuable tool for understanding the fundamental principles of infectious disease dynamics
and informing public health decision-making. Here, we focus on diseases characterized by the SIR model, espe-
cially in situations with large populations or limited demographic data availability, which is described by the fol-
lowing set of equations (Equation 1, Equation 2, and Equation 3):

𝛽𝛽𝑆𝑆(𝑡𝑡)𝐼𝐼(𝑡𝑡) (1)
𝑆𝑆 ! (𝑡𝑡) = −
𝑁𝑁

𝛽𝛽𝑆𝑆(𝑡𝑡)𝐼𝐼(𝑡𝑡) (2)
𝐼𝐼! (𝑡𝑡) = − 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔(𝑡𝑡) − 𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡)𝐼𝐼(𝑡𝑡)
𝑁𝑁

𝑅𝑅! (𝑡𝑡) = 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔(𝑡𝑡) + 𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡)𝐼𝐼(𝑡𝑡) (3)

Where β represents the transmission rate, denoting the speed at which susceptible individuals contract the infec-
tion upon exposure to infectious individuals, g is the recovery rate, denoting the rate at which infectious persons
recover from the disease and become immune. u is the control variable representing the treatment or intervention
applied to infectious individuals. N is the population size given by N=S+I+R which is constant.

In many disease control strategies, the primary objective is to minimize the number of infected individuals over
time, aiming for the long-term eradication of the disease. However, in certain scenarios, achieving this goal may
take an extended period [11], rendering it insufficient for immediate containment. In our work, we address this chal-
lenge by focusing on the design of a control mechanism that not only aims to reduce the overall number of infec-
tions but also ensures that the number of infected individuals falls below a predetermined threshold within a spe-
cific desired time-frame. This approach is particularly crucial in situations where rapid containment is necessary to
prevent further transmission and mitigate the impact of the disease outbreak.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Proposal
The ability to exert control over complex systems, particularly nonlinear ones, holds paramount importance
across various fields [2][6], with epidemiology being no exception [19]. Within the domain of epidemiological models,
achieving controllability assumes a pivotal role, signifying the capability to effectively manage and manipulate
the dynamics of infectious diseases within populations.

An essential aim of infectious disease epidemiology is to comprehend and measure the effort necessary to control
or manage outbreaks effectively. This encompasses not only the identification of strategies to curb the spread of
diseases but also the quantification of resources, interventions, and policies needed to achieve containment.
Moreover, assessing the efficacy of these efforts plays a crucial role in informing public health decisions and policies
154 REVISTA MEXICANA DE INGENIERÍA BIOMÉDICA | VOL. 45 | NO. 2 | MAY-AUGUST 2024

aimed at minimizing the impact of infectious diseases on populations [19].

During disease outbreaks, authorities often implement a range of control measures, including quarantine, social
distancing, and vaccination campaigns, for predefined durations to curtail the spread of the disease and mitigate
its adverse effects on public health . These measures’ durations (days or months) are typically predetermined
[19]

based on comprehensive epidemiological projections, modeling studies, and expert recommendations, ensuring a
coordinated and efficient response to the outbreak. Additionally, institutions such as the World Health Organization
(WHO) may establish thresholds for specific infectious diseases, considering factors like transmission characteris-
tics, severity, and healthcare resource availability . These thresholds serve as vital benchmarks for assessing
[20][21]

the risk level of disease transmission within a population.

In this study, we investigate the concept of epidemiological controllability, focusing on the development of control
strategies to steer the dynamics of infection within populations. Our objective is to design control mechanisms
capable of guiding the number of infected individuals toward predetermined thresholds at specified times. This
approach aims to enhance our ability to manage and contain infectious outbreaks effectively.

Then, we propose the following novel control law in Equation 4:

"# (%&' ) '&0 "($%&)

𝛽𝛽𝑆𝑆! '()&*)+
!
×-./
(%&')0 "($%&)
1 (𝑔𝑔 + 𝜖𝜖)𝑒𝑒 (*&))2 (4)
𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡) = 𝑒𝑒 − 𝑔𝑔 + (*&))2
𝑁𝑁 𝑒𝑒 + 𝑎𝑎
or, using the laws of exponents, we get the Equation 5:

()! (*%+)
𝛽𝛽𝑆𝑆! 𝑎𝑎 + 𝑒𝑒 "($%&) +($%&), (𝑔𝑔 + 𝜖𝜖)𝑒𝑒 (&%$)" (5)
𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡) = ) . − 𝑔𝑔 +
𝑁𝑁 (1 + 𝑎𝑎)𝑒𝑒"($%&) 𝑒𝑒 (&%$)" + 𝑎𝑎

where S0 denotes the initial number of susceptible individuals in the population at the onset of the control inter-
vention, and N is the population size. The parameters a and ϵ, both positive constants, play pivotal roles in shaping
the effectiveness of our control, with their specific values determined in accordance with the objectives of the con-
trol strategy. These constants are carefully selected to optimize the performance of the control mechanism and
achieve the desired outcomes in disease containment and prevention.

This control law, tailored for the SIR model (1)-(3), aims at reducing the number of infected individuals over time
and ensuring that the number of infections reaches the predefined threshold denoted Id at a specified time denoted
T. The control is designed to address various real-world scenarios and public health challenges, offering proactive
measures to mitigate the impact of infectious diseases.

Sufficient condition for admissibility of the control

Theorem 1. If 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 −
𝛽𝛽𝑆𝑆! 𝛽𝛽𝑆𝑆! , then the proposed control (4) is admissible, i.e
< 𝜖𝜖 < 1 −
𝑁𝑁 𝑁𝑁
∀𝑡𝑡 > 0: 0 < 𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡) < 1
155 Omar Zakary et al. Optimizing infection trajectories: Innovation in Controllability of Nonlinear SIR Model

Proof. Recall that from (5) we have:

!"!
𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡) = 𝑢𝑢$ (𝑡𝑡) − 𝑔𝑔 + 𝑢𝑢% (𝑡𝑡),
#

𝑎𝑎 + 𝑒𝑒 "($%&) () ! (!%*)
where 𝑢𝑢! = ( ) *($%&)+ and
(1 + 𝑎𝑎)𝑒𝑒"($%&)

(𝑔𝑔 + 𝜖𝜖)𝑒𝑒 (#$%)' . We have

𝑢𝑢! (𝑡𝑡) = (#$%)'
𝑒𝑒 + 𝑎𝑎
+! ,(-(!)
$%('())
𝐼𝐼# 𝛽𝛽(𝑎𝑎𝑒𝑒 + 1) .-('()) (𝑎𝑎 + 1)
𝑢𝑢!" (𝑡𝑡) = − +! ,(-(!)
<0
𝑁𝑁(𝑎𝑎 + 𝑒𝑒%('()) )(𝑎𝑎 + 1) .-('())
Then u1 is a decreasing function, and since

1 &' ! (%#))

𝑢𝑢! (0) = 1 and !→#$

𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑢𝑢% (𝑡𝑡) = (
1 + 𝑎𝑎
) )(+#,)- , it follows that

1 !" ! ($%&)
∀𝑡𝑡 > 0: ( ) &((%))* < 𝑢𝑢$ (𝑡𝑡) < 1
1 + 𝑎𝑎

On the other hand, we have

𝑎𝑎𝑒𝑒 #(%&') (𝜖𝜖 + 𝑔𝑔)!
𝑢𝑢!" (𝑡𝑡) = >0
(𝑎𝑎 + 𝑒𝑒#(%&') )!

Then, u2 is an increasing function, and since 𝑢𝑢 (0) =

𝑔𝑔 + 𝜖𝜖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑢𝑢% (𝑡𝑡) = 𝑔𝑔 + 𝜖𝜖 , thus
and !→#$
!
1 + 𝑎𝑎
𝑔𝑔 + 𝜖𝜖
∀𝑡𝑡 > 0: < 𝑢𝑢! (𝑡𝑡) < 𝑔𝑔 + 𝜖𝜖.
1 + 𝑎𝑎

Therefore,
𝛽𝛽𝑆𝑆! 1 "# ! (%&') 𝑔𝑔 + 𝜖𝜖 𝛽𝛽𝑆𝑆! 𝛽𝛽𝑆𝑆!
( ) '()&*)+ − 𝑔𝑔 + < 𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡) < 𝑢𝑢% (𝑡𝑡) + 𝜖𝜖 < + 𝜖𝜖 < 1.
𝑁𝑁 1 + 𝑎𝑎 1 + 𝑎𝑎 𝑁𝑁 𝑁𝑁

And for a reasonable population size 𝛽𝛽𝐼𝐼! (1 + 𝑎𝑎) we get 𝛽𝛽𝐼𝐼! (1 + 𝑎𝑎) 1
(𝑁𝑁 > < 1 and since < 1, thus
𝑎𝑎(𝜖𝜖 + 𝑔𝑔) 𝑎𝑎(𝜖𝜖 + 𝑔𝑔)𝑁𝑁 1 + 𝑎𝑎

1 1 !" ! ($%&)
<( ) &((%))*
1 + 𝑎𝑎 1 + 𝑎𝑎

𝛽𝛽𝑆𝑆! 1 𝑔𝑔 + 𝜖𝜖
then 𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡) > ( ) − 𝑔𝑔 +
𝑁𝑁 1 + 𝑎𝑎 1 + 𝑎𝑎
𝛽𝛽𝑆𝑆!
+ 𝜖𝜖 − 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
= 𝑁𝑁 >0
1 + 𝑎𝑎
156 REVISTA MEXICANA DE INGENIERÍA BIOMÉDICA | VOL. 45 | NO. 2 | MAY-AUGUST 2024

Remark 1. It’s important to note that the conditions outlined in the preceding theorem are sufficient but not nec-
essarily required. In certain scenarios, ϵ may not satisfy these conditions, yet the control remains admissible.

Explicit solutions of the epidemiological model

Theorem 2. If the proposed control (4) is used, then the solutions of the system (1)-(3) are:

#$! (&'() ('0 "($%&)

×./( )
∗ ((*'+), (('&)0 "($%&)
𝑆𝑆 (𝑡𝑡) = 𝑆𝑆" 𝑒𝑒
and
1 + 𝑎𝑎
𝐼𝐼∗ (𝑡𝑡) = 𝐼𝐼" ,
𝑒𝑒 ($%&)(
+ 𝑎𝑎
and 𝑅𝑅∗ (𝑡𝑡) = 𝑁𝑁 − 𝑆𝑆 ∗ (𝑡𝑡) − 𝐼𝐼∗ (𝑡𝑡)

Proof. We have from equation (1):

*+" (,&-) -&2 #(%&')

∗!
𝛽𝛽𝐼𝐼" (1 + 𝑎𝑎) 𝑎𝑎 + 𝑒𝑒 #(%&') ) -(%&').
×01(
(-&,)2 #(%&')
)
𝑆𝑆 (𝑡𝑡) = 𝑆𝑆" ( × 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙( )) 𝑒𝑒
𝑎𝑎(𝜖𝜖 + 𝑔𝑔)𝑁𝑁 (𝑎𝑎 + 1)𝑒𝑒 #(%&')
#(%&')
𝛽𝛽𝐼𝐼" (1 + 𝑎𝑎) 𝑎𝑎(𝜖𝜖 + 𝑔𝑔) *+ " (,&-)×01( -&2
-(%&'). (-&,)2 #(%&')
)
= −𝑆𝑆" × #(%&')
𝑒𝑒
𝑎𝑎(𝜖𝜖 + 𝑔𝑔)𝑁𝑁 𝑎𝑎 + 𝑒𝑒
*+" (,&-) -&2 #(%&')
𝛽𝛽𝐼𝐼" (1 + 𝑎𝑎) 1 -(%&').
×01(
(-&,)2 #(%&')
)
= −𝑆𝑆" × #(%&')
𝑒𝑒
𝑁𝑁 𝑎𝑎 + 𝑒𝑒
*+" (,&-) -&2 #(%&')
𝛽𝛽 𝐼𝐼" (1 + 𝑎𝑎) -(%&').
×01( )
(-&,)2 #(%&') )
=− ( #(%&')
)(𝑆𝑆 " 𝑒𝑒
𝑁𝑁 𝑎𝑎 + 𝑒𝑒
𝛽𝛽
= − 𝐼𝐼 ∗ (𝑡𝑡)𝑆𝑆 ∗ (𝑡𝑡)
𝑁𝑁

And from Equation (2) we have:

)*! (+&,) ,&1 "($%&)

𝛽𝛽𝑆𝑆 ∗ (𝑡𝑡)𝐼𝐼∗ (𝑡𝑡) 𝛽𝛽 𝐼𝐼" (1 + 𝑎𝑎) ×/0( )
− 𝑔𝑔𝐼𝐼∗ (𝑡𝑡) − 𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡)𝐼𝐼∗ (𝑡𝑡) = ( #(%&')
)(𝑆𝑆 " 𝑒𝑒 ,(%&')- (,&+)1 "($%&) )
𝑁𝑁 𝑁𝑁 𝑎𝑎 + 𝑒𝑒
,&1 "($%&)
𝐼𝐼" (1 + 𝑎𝑎) 𝛽𝛽𝑆𝑆" )* ! (+&,)
,(%&')-
×/0( "($%&) ) (𝑔𝑔 + 𝜖𝜖)𝑒𝑒 ('&%)# 𝐼𝐼" (1 + 𝑎𝑎)
−𝑔𝑔 − ( 𝑒𝑒 (+&,)1 − 𝑔𝑔 + )
𝑎𝑎 + 𝑒𝑒#(%&') 𝑁𝑁 𝑒𝑒 ('&%)# + 𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎 + 𝑒𝑒#(%&')
"($%&)
𝛽𝛽𝑆𝑆" 𝐼𝐼" (1 + 𝑎𝑎) )* ! (+&,)
,(%&')-
×/0(
,&1
(,&+)1 "($%&)
)
= #(%&')
𝑒𝑒
𝑁𝑁 𝑎𝑎 + 𝑒𝑒
)*! (+&,) ,&1 "($%&)
𝛽𝛽𝑆𝑆" ,(%&')- ×/0((+&,)1 "($%&) ) 𝐼𝐼" (1 + 𝑎𝑎) (𝑔𝑔 + 𝜖𝜖)𝑒𝑒 ('&%)# 𝐼𝐼" (1 + 𝑎𝑎)
− 𝑒𝑒 − ×
𝑁𝑁 𝑎𝑎 + 𝑒𝑒 #(%&') 𝑒𝑒 ('&%)# + 𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎 + 𝑒𝑒#(%&')
('&%)#
𝐼𝐼" (1 + 𝑎𝑎)(𝑔𝑔 + 𝜖𝜖)𝑒𝑒
=−
(𝑒𝑒 ('&%)# + 𝑎𝑎)2
(
= 𝐼𝐼∗ (𝑡𝑡)
157 Omar Zakary et al. Optimizing infection trajectories: Innovation in Controllability of Nonlinear SIR Model

Which completes the proof.

Corollary 1. If the proposed control (4) is used, then the number of infected people tends towards zero.
1 + 𝑎𝑎
Proof. Based on the result of theorem 2, we have 𝐼𝐼∗ (𝑡𝑡) = 𝐼𝐼" which is a decreasing function of time and
𝑒𝑒 ($%&)( + 𝑎𝑎
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝐼𝐼∗ (𝑡𝑡) = 0
!→#$

This result underscores the efficacy of the proposed control strategy, as it effectively drives the number of infected
individuals towards zero. It demonstrates the effectiveness of implementing the control mechanism, particularly in
its ability to initiate a decline in the number of infections from the outset of its application. Additionally, the theo-
rem 2 provides explicit solutions for the model, which are essential for understanding the dynamics of the infection
under the proposed control. Our control strategy includes parameters that significantly influence the speed of con-
vergence to zero. These parameters allow us to adjust and optimize the control measures to achieve desired out-
comes more effectively.

On the Controllability of the epidemiological model

Suppose there exists a predefined infection threshold Id established by the World Health Organization (WHO), and
the key objective of the control approach is to ensure that the number of infected persons falls below this threshold
Id at a predetermined time T. In accordance with this objective, the following theorem elucidates the critical role of
parameter a in achieving this target:

𝐼𝐼! 𝑒𝑒 (#$%)' − 𝐼𝐼(

Theorem 3. If the parameter a is chosen to be 𝑎𝑎 = 𝐼𝐼( − 𝐼𝐼! , then at time T, the number of infected individu-
als precisely attains the threshol Id, i.e I* (T)=Id. Furthermore:

(∀𝑡𝑡 > 𝑇𝑇): 𝐼𝐼∗ (𝑡𝑡) < 𝐼𝐼" .

(#$%)'
Proof. Let 𝑎𝑎 = 𝐼𝐼! 𝑒𝑒 − 𝐼𝐼( , then at time T we have
𝐼𝐼( − 𝐼𝐼!

𝐼𝐼# 𝑒𝑒 (%&')) − 𝐼𝐼"

1+
𝐼𝐼" − 𝐼𝐼#
𝐼𝐼 ∗ (𝑇𝑇) = 𝐼𝐼"
𝐼𝐼 𝑒𝑒 (%&')) − 𝐼𝐼"
𝑒𝑒 ('&%)) + #
𝐼𝐼" − 𝐼𝐼#
(%&'))
𝐼𝐼" − 𝐼𝐼# + 𝐼𝐼# 𝑒𝑒 − 𝐼𝐼"
= 𝐼𝐼" (%&')) (%&'))
𝐼𝐼" 𝑒𝑒 − 𝐼𝐼# 𝑒𝑒 + 𝐼𝐼# 𝑒𝑒 (%&')) − 𝐼𝐼"
𝐼𝐼# (𝑒𝑒 (%&')) − 1)
= 𝐼𝐼"
𝐼𝐼" (𝑒𝑒 (%&')) − 1)
= 𝐼𝐼# .

∗
And since I* is a decreasing function, (∀𝑡𝑡 > 𝑇𝑇): 𝐼𝐼 (𝑡𝑡) < 𝐼𝐼" , which completes the proof.
158 REVISTA MEXICANA DE INGENIERÍA BIOMÉDICA | VOL. 45 | NO. 2 | MAY-AUGUST 2024

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this section, computational techniques are employed to evaluate the effectiveness and performance of the pro-
posed control strategies within the SIR model, which is solved using the fourth-order Runge-Kutta method. Using
numerical simulations, we explore various scenarios and parameters to assess the impact of the control mecha-
nisms on disease dynamics. By simulating the spread of infectious diseases under different conditions, we aim to
gain insights into the efficacy of the proposed strategies in containing outbreaks, reducing the number of infec-
tions, and achieving predefined control objectives.

In these simulations, our population consists of N=25150 individuals, with S0=25000 initially susceptible, I0=150
initially infected, and R0=0 initially recovered individuals. The transmission rate is set to β=0.41 (Rate of new infec-
tions per day) and the recovery rate to g=0.005 (Rate of recoveries per day). All parameters chosen for these simula-
tions are intended as academic examples. The primary goal in choosing these values was to depict a significant peak
of infection, allowing a comprehensive comparison of outcomes with and without control measures.

Figure 1 depicts the progression of the epidemic within the population. We observe a peak in the number of infec-
tions, reaching approximately 2.4×104 individuals before gradually declining to around 1.5×104 by the end of the
simulation. Concurrently, the number of susceptible individuals experiences a sharp decrease, approaching zero
around t=30 in the simulation. Conversely, the number of recovered individuals exhibits a slow but steady increase,
reaching approximately 104 by the simulation’s conclusion.

The decline in infections coincides with a significant decrease in the number of susceptible individuals, indicat-
ing the depletion of the susceptible population due to infection.

After using the proposed control (4) with a=1.3522×103 and 𝜖𝜖 = 0.1, it can be seen in figure 2b that despite 𝜖
𝛽𝛽𝑆𝑆
not satisfying the conditions outlined in theorem (1), the control remains admissible, where 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 − ! = 6.3532 > 𝜖𝜖,
𝛽𝛽𝑆𝑆 𝛽𝛽𝑆𝑆 𝑁𝑁
and 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 − ! = 6.3532 > 1 − ! = 0.5924 .
𝑁𝑁 𝑁𝑁

104 (a)
2.5

2
Number of people

S
1.5
I
1 R
0.5

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Days)

(b)
1

0.5
Control function

-0.5

-1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Days)

FIGURE 1. (a) S, I and R functions. (b) The control function u.

159 Omar Zakary et al. Optimizing infection trajectories: Innovation in Controllability of Nonlinear SIR Model

Figure 2a illustrates the impact of implementing the control law on epidemic dynamics. Notably, the control strat-
egy effectively reduces the number of infected individuals compared to the scenario without control. A gradual and
stable decline in the number of susceptible individuals is observed, converging to approximately 2×104 by the end
of the simulation. This contrasts with the rapid decline observed in the absence of control measures.

Additionally, the number of removed individuals exhibits a slow but steady increase, reaching approximately
0.4×104 by the end of the simulation. This contrasts with the scenario without control, where a larger number of

104 (a)
2.5

2
Number of people

S
1.5
I
1 R
0.5

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Days)

(b)
0.5

0.4
Control function

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Days)

FIGURE 2. (a) S, I and R functions. (b) The control function u.

individuals are removed due to the uncontrolled spread of the disease.

Number of infected people Number of susceptible people

10
4 (a)
2.5

2.4 S
2.3

2.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Days)

(b)
150

100
I

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Days)
(c)
Number of removed people

4000

R
2000

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Days)

FIGURE 3. (a) Susceptible, (b) Infected, (c) Removed individuals.

160 REVISTA MEXICANA DE INGENIERÍA BIOMÉDICA | VOL. 45 | NO. 2 | MAY-AUGUST 2024

In Figure 3, three subplots are presented, each providing insight into the dynamics of the epidemic. Figure 3a illus-
trates the evolution of the susceptible population, while figure 3b depicts the progression of the infected population.
Figure 3c showcases the trend of the removed population over time. Figure 3 enables a clearer understanding of each
population’s dynamics on different scales. Specifically, smaller numbers, such as the initial infections starting at 150
and gradually declining towards zero, are more easily discernible.

In the Figure 4, the control function is plotted for different values of ϵ, in order to underscore the pivotal role of the
parameter ϵ in shaping the behavior of the control function and highlights its significance in designing effective
strategies to mitigate the impact of infectious diseases. It can be seen in figure 4 the effect of the parameter ϵ on the
control function when a is held constant at 1. Each curve in the plot corresponds to a different value of ϵ, ranging
from larger values to smaller ones. As ϵ changes, the control function undergoes noticeable changes in its shape and
magnitude.

0.8
Control function

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Days)

FIGURE 4. The impact of Parameter ϵ on the Control Function.

For larger values of ϵ, the control function exhibits relatively higher amplitude, indicative of a more aggressive
intervention approach. However, as ϵ decreases, the amplitude of the control function diminishes, reflecting a
milder intervention strategy. Notably, for very small values of ϵ, such as 0.001, the control function demonstrates
a significant decrease, suggesting a minimal intervention effort.

The Figure 5 is presented to highlight the sensitivity of the control function to variations in the parameter a and
emphasize the significance of meticulously selecting parameter values to optimize the effectiveness of intervention
strategies in combating infectious diseases. Figure 5 presents the influence of the parameter a on the control func-
tion where ϵ is set to 0.2. Each curve in the plot corresponds to a different value of a, ranging from smaller to larger
values. Notably, all curves exhibit the same shape, demonstrating that the general form of the control function
remains consistent across varying values of a.

However, closer examination reveals notable differences in the behavior of the control function as a varies. For
smaller values of a, such as 100 or 300, the control function demonstrates a rapid increase, indicating a swift imple-
mentation of intervention measures to curb the spread of infection. In contrast, for larger values of a, such as 600,
900, or 1500, there is a noticeable delay in the rate of increase of the control function. This delay suggests a slower
161 Omar Zakary et al. Optimizing infection trajectories: Innovation in Controllability of Nonlinear SIR Model

response to the increasing number of infections, potentially leading to a longer duration before reaching peak inter-
vention levels.

0.6

0.5

0.4
Control function

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Days)

FIGURE 5. The impact of a on the control function.

When comparing the effects of ϵ and a on the control function, it becomes apparent that small variations in ϵ lead
to significant changes in the control strategy. Even subtle adjustments in ϵ result in noticeable alterations in the
shape and magnitude of the control function, highlighting the sensitivity of the intervention approach to this
parameter. Conversely, when considering the parameter a, it becomes evident that larger differences between val-
ues are required to observe discernible changes in the control function. Unlike ϵ, where small values induce notable
shifts in the control, variations in a necessitate much greater disparities to elicit observable differences in the
behavior of the intervention strategy. This implies that the system exhibits lower sensitivity to the parameter a
compared to ϵ, with substantial differences needed in a to produce discernible changes in the control function.

In the three subplots presented in Figure 6, the impact of varying the parameter ϵ on the different states of the
model is observed: susceptible (S), infected (I), and removed (R) individuals.

In Figure 6a depicting the susceptibles, it can be seen that as ϵ decreases from 0.5 to 0.1, the rate of decrease in the
number of susceptibles accelerates. While in Figure 6b that represents the infected population, we observe the
opposite trend. As ϵ increases from 0.1 to 0.5, the rate of decrease in the number of infected individuals becomes
more pronounced. This finding is consistent with the dynamics of infectious diseases, where higher values of ϵ
indicate a faster recovery or removal of infected individuals from the population. Finally, in Figure 6c illustrating
the removed individuals, we observe that all curves exhibit a similar increasing trend over time. However, for larger
values of ϵ (0.5 and 0.4), the curve stabilizes around 300 individuals, indicating a slower accumulation of removed
individuals. In contrast, for smaller values of ϵ (0.3, 0.2, and 0.1), the curve continues to rise steadily, eventually
stabilizing at a higher value of around 950 individuals. This difference suggests that lower values of ϵ lead to a more
prolonged period of recovery or removal, resulting in a higher overall number of removed individuals by the end of
the simulation.
162 REVISTA MEXICANA DE INGENIERÍA BIOMÉDICA | VOL. 45 | NO. 2 | MAY-AUGUST 2024

(a) (b)

Infected people
107 Susceptible people 150
10

9.99999

9.99998
100

Number of people
9.99997
Number of people

9.99996

9.99995

9.99994 50

9.99993

9.99992

9.99991 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Days) Time (Days)

(c)

Removed people
1000

800
Number of people

600

400

200

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Days)

FIGURE 6. The impact of ϵ on (a) Susceptible (b) Infected (c) Removed people.

Figure 7 examines the impact of varying the parameter a on the different states of the model: susceptible (S),
infected (I), and removed (R) individuals.

In Figure 7a illustrating the susceptibles, it can be seen that as the parameter a increases from 100 to 1500, the rate
of decrease in the number of susceptibles accelerates.

While in Figure 7b representing the infected population, it noticed that regardless of the value of a, all curves
exhibit a similar shape. However, as a increases, the rate of decrease in the number of infected individuals slows
down. This finding suggests that while higher values of a may still effectively control the spread of the disease,
they may lead to a longer duration of infection within the population.
 163 Omar Zakary et al. Optimizing infection trajectories: Innovation in Controllability of Nonlinear SIR Model

(a) (b)
Infected people
107 Susceptible people 150
10

9.99995

100

Number of people
Number of people

9.9999

9.99985
50

9.9998

9.99975 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Days) Time (Days)

(c)
Removed people
2500

2000
Number of people

1500

1000

500

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Days)

FIGURE 7. The impact of a on (a) Susceptible (b) Infected (c) Removed people.

Finally, in Figure 7c depicting the removed individuals, it can be seen that all curves follow a similar increasing
trend over time. However, for smaller values of a (100 and 300), the curve stabilizes around 1600 individuals, indi-
cating a slower accumulation of removed individuals. Conversely, for larger values of a (600, 900, and 1500), the
curve continues to rise steadily, eventually stabilizing at a higher value of around 2300 individuals by the end of the
simulation.

In Figure 8, the impact of different values of the parameter ϵ on the infection dynamics is explored, with a fixed
threshold Id=15 and predefined time T=40. Each curve represents the evolution of the infected population I over
time, ranging from ϵ=0.1 to ϵ=0.5.

The key observation from this plot is the efficacy of the proposed control approach in containing the infection
within the desired threshold. Across all curves, it can be seen that the number of infections falls below the thresh-
old Id=15 precisely at the predefined time T=40. This shows the precise controllability achieved by the proposed
intervention, regardless of the specific value of ϵ.

However, we notice differences in the shapes of the decreasing curves for varying values of ϵ. For smaller values
164 REVISTA MEXICANA DE INGENIERÍA BIOMÉDICA | VOL. 45 | NO. 2 | MAY-AUGUST 2024

of ϵ, such as ϵ=0.1 and ϵ=0.2, the infection decreases rapidly. This rapid decline suggests that smaller perturba-
tions in the control parameter ϵ lead to more pronounced effects on infection containment. In contrast, for larger
values of ϵ, such as ϵ=0.4 and ϵ=0.5, the infection decreases at a slower rate. This slower decline indicates that
larger values of ϵ result in less effective control measures, requiring more time to begin decreasing towards the
predefined threshold.

Infected people
150

100
Number of people

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Days)

FIGURE 8. The impact of ϵ on the controllability effectiveness.

In Figure 9, six subplots are presented illustrating the infection dynamics (I) for various combinations of the
threshold Id and the predefined time T. Each subplot corresponds to a specific pair of values (Id in individuals and T
is time unit) : (a) Id=15 and T=20, (b) Id=15 and T=30, (c) Id=15 and T=60, (d) Id=30 and T=40, (e) Id=40 and T=40, and
(f) Id=50 and T=40.

Across all subplots, it can be seen that the number of infected individuals precisely reaches the desired threshold
Id exactly at the designated time T. This outcome underscores the remarkable effectiveness of our proposed control
law in managing the rate of infection spread within the population.

In Figure 9a where Id=15 and T=20, we observe the infection curve intersecting the threshold line at T=20, indicat-
ing successful containment of the infection within the desired time. Subsequent subplots (b) and (c) exhibit similar
trends, with the infection curve intersecting the threshold line at the designated times T=30 and T= 60, respec-
tively.

In Figure 9 (d), (e), and (f), scenarios with higher threshold values of Id are explored, while maintaining T=40.
Despite the varying threshold levels, it can be observed that the infection curve intersecting the threshold line at
the predefined time T=40, highlighting the robustness of our control strategy across different infection severity
levels.
165 Omar Zakary et al. Optimizing infection trajectories: Innovation in Controllability of Nonlinear SIR Model

(a) (b)

Infected people Infected people

150 150

100 100
Number of people

Number of people
50 50

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Days) Time (Days)

(c) (d)
Infected people Infected people
150 150

100 100
Number of people

Number of people

50 50

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Days) Time (Days)

(e) (f)
Infected people Infected people
150 150

100 100
Number of people
Number of people

50 50

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Days) Time (Days)

FIGURE 9. The controllability effectiveness.

Figure 10 explores the influence of varying initial infected populations (I0) on the effectiveness of the controllabil-
ity. Through three subplots representing the susceptible (a), infected (b), and removed (c) populations, we investi-
gate the impact of different initial conditions on the trajectory of the epidemic, where Id=40, T=40, S0=108 and R0=0
166 REVISTA MEXICANA DE INGENIERÍA BIOMÉDICA | VOL. 45 | NO. 2 | MAY-AUGUST 2024

(a) (b)
Infected people
107 Susceptible people 600
10

500
9.9999

Number of people
400
Number of people

9.9998
300

9.9997 200

100
9.9996

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
9.9995
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Time (Days)
Time (Days)

(c)

Removed people
6000

5000
Number of people

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Days)

FIGURE 10. The impact of I0 on the controllability effectiveness (a) Susceptible individuals, (b) Infected individuals and (c)
Removed individuals.

Firstly, focusing on the infected population (Figure 10b), it can be observed that all curves intersect the predefined
threshold line (Id) at the designated time (T), indicating the successful implementation of the control strategy. This
demonstrates the ability of the control measures to achieve the desired containment objective regardless of the
initial outbreak size.

For the susceptible population (Figure 10a), we note a discernible trend: for larger initial infected populations (I0),
the decline in susceptible individuals is more pronounced. This suggests that higher levels of infection exert greater
pressure on the susceptible population, leading to a more rapid depletion of susceptible individuals.

In contrast, when examining the removed population (Figure 10c), a contrasting pattern is observed. Here, larger
initial infected populations result in a more substantial increase in removed individuals over time. This observation
highlights the effectiveness of the control strategy in transitioning infected individuals to the removed category.

When the initial infected population is large, there is a higher probability of interactions between infected and
susceptible individuals, resulting in increased transmission of the disease.
167 Omar Zakary et al. Optimizing infection trajectories: Innovation in Controllability of Nonlinear SIR Model

Consequently, more individuals become infected over time. However, with the implementation of effective control
measures, such as vaccination campaigns, quarantine measures, or other interventions, the transmission dynamics
are disrupted.

The impact of varying the initial values of S0 and R0 on the effectiveness of controllability is also investigated.
However, it found that regardless of the initial values of S0, the function I showed no changes. Similarly, variations
in the initial values of R0 did not affect the dynamics of the infection. These observations suggest that the control-
lability of the system remains robust and relatively unaffected by changes in the initial states of susceptible and
recovered individuals.

Figure 11 investigates the impact of varying initial values of infected individuals (I0) in the absence of control
measures where S0= 108 and R0= 0. Through this analysis, it was observed that without control, there is a substan-
tial increase in the number of removed individuals, indicating the natural progression of the infection. Conversely,
when implementing control measures, such as those outlined in figure 10c, the number of infections remains rela-
tively low, resulting in a smaller number of individuals transitioning to the removed category. This clear contrast
underscores the effectiveness of the control strategy in mitigating the spread of infection and minimizing the num-
ber of individuals affected.

107 Removed people

4

3.5

3
Number of people

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Days)

FIGURE 11. Impact of I0 on removed people without the control.

Figure 12 illustrates a parameter space analysis of the maximum intensity of the control function u(t) across vary-
ing combinations of parameters a and ϵ. Each point in the parameter space grid represents a unique combination of
parameter values. The color intensity represents the maximum value of the control function achieved for each
parameter combination. This analysis provides insights into how changes in parameters a and ϵ influence the effec-
tiveness of the control strategy. This figure illustrates the admissibility the control for a wide range of parameters.

Our proposed control strategy, tailored for the SIR model, offers distinct advantages over existing approaches [22][23]
[24]
. While these papers provide valuable insights into controlling infectious diseases and focus on generic control
methods, our proposed control stands out in terms of precision and adaptability.
168 REVISTA MEXICANA DE INGENIERÍA BIOMÉDICA | VOL. 45 | NO. 2 | MAY-AUGUST 2024

Parameter Space Plot

0.5 0.85

0.45 0.8

0.4 0.75

0.35 0.7

0.3 0.65

0.25 0.6

0.2 0.55

0.15 0.5

0.1 0.45
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

FIGURE 12. Impact of I0 on removed people without the control.

One key advantage of our proposed control is its ability to ensure the total controllability of the number of infec-
tions. The infection dynamics can be guided to a desired state from any initial condition, at a desired time. This level
of precision is unparalleled and represents a significant advancement in epidemic control strategies. In contrast to
the methods discussed in , which rely on Pontryagin's principle to reduce the number of infections, our
[22][23][24]

approach offers greater control over the infection dynamics. While Pontryagin's principle is effective in minimizing
infections, it lacks the precision and flexibility inherent in our proposed control strategy.

CONCLUSIONS
This study addresses the formidable challenge of controllability in nonlinear models, with a specific focus on
designing a control strategy to manage infection dynamics within the SIR framework. By tackling this complex
task, our research contributes significantly to the field of epidemiology, offering policymakers and public health
authorities invaluable insights for implementing targeted interventions and resource allocation strategies.

Our novel control law, tailored specifically for SIR models, represents a significant advancement in infectious dis-
ease control.

By providing explicit solutions to the model, our approach effectively mitigates the spread of infection and guides
the number of infected individuals towards predetermined thresholds at specified times.

This precision in controlling infection dynamics is essential for effective epidemic management and containment
efforts. Through comprehensive numerical simulations, the remarkable efficacy of our proposed control law is
depicted. The results unequivocally show that our approach enables precise regulation of the pace of infection
decline, aligning with predefined targets with remarkable accuracy. For instance, by employing the proposed con-
trol function, a gradual decrease in the infection rate is ensured, ultimately leading it towards zero. Moreover, the
approach guarantees that the number of infections will dip below a predetermined threshold at a specified time.
169 Omar Zakary et al. Optimizing infection trajectories: Innovation in Controllability of Nonlinear SIR Model

This level of precision represents a novel contribution compared to existing studies in the field [22][23][24][25][26], where
control functions primarily focus on minimizing the number of infections using Pontryagin's maximum principle.

In [22], the authors presented a model for the transmission dynamics of influenza and considered two optimal con-
trol strategies involving preventive measures (such as awareness campaigns, hand washing, using hand sanitizer,
and wearing masks) and treatment. These strategies were used to minimize the total number of infected individu-
als and the associated costs of implementing these controls. The objective function was designed to reduce both the
infection rate and the cost of interventions. The optimal control analysis and numerical simulations revealed that
these interventions effectively reduced the number of exposed and infected individuals.

Similarly, in [24], within the framework of a basic susceptible–infected–removed (SIR) model, an Erlang distribution
for the infectious period was considered, and optimal isolation strategies were explored. The objective functional
to be minimized included the cost of isolation efforts per time unit and the sanitary costs due to the incidence of
the epidemic outbreak. The simulations demonstrated that the shape of the optimal solutions was influenced by
different distributions of the infectious period, the relative weight of the two cost components, and the initial con-
ditions.

These control strategies did not ensure the convergence of the number of infected individuals to zero. Additionally,
they did not provide a mechanism for precisely steering the number of infections toward a predetermined threshold
at a specific time, as proposed by our control strategy. Our approach not only aims to reduce the number of infec-
tions but also ensures that the number of infected individuals reaches a specific target at a designated time, provid-
ing a more precise and effective method of controlling the spread of the infection.

During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries implemented stringent control measures, such
as closing borders and enforcing lockdowns, to curb the spread of the virus [26]. These measures aimed primarily at
reducing the infection rate within a specific time frame, often without considering the significant economic
impacts. Such control measures effectively reduced the number of new infections by limiting cross-border move-
ment and preventing the importation of new cases. However, these measures also resulted in considerable eco-
nomic disruptions, affecting trade, tourism, and overall economic activity.

Our control strategy represents a severe control approach that prioritizes the reduction of infections within a pre-
determined time frame without any constraints. This strategy is highly effective in significantly reducing the num-
ber of infections within the predetermined time 𝑇.

However, while the optimal control methods provided by Pontryagin's Maximum Principle are still effective in
reducing infections [22][23][24][26], they lack precision in terms of controlling the exact timing and magnitude of infec-
tion reduction. The optimal control strategy aims to minimize the infections while simultaneously considering
other factors, such as economic costs and social impacts, by incorporating constraints within the objective func-
tion. As a result, the optimal control can achieve infection reduction but may not provide precise control over the
specific timeframe or the exact number of infections reduced.

This finding highlights the versatility and adaptability of our control strategy, positioning it as a promising tool for
170 REVISTA MEXICANA DE INGENIERÍA BIOMÉDICA | VOL. 45 | NO. 2 | MAY-AUGUST 2024

epidemic management across diverse settings and scenarios.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
O. Z. Conceptualization, formal analysis, writing original draft. S. B. Methodology, formal analysis, and writing
review and editing. M. R. Supervision, validation, and writing review and editing.

REFERENCES
[1] J. Klamka, “Controllability of dynamical systems. a survey,” Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci. Tech. Sci., vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 335-342, 2013, doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.2478/bpasts-2013-0031

[2] H. J. Sussmann and V. Jurdjevic, “Controllability of nonlinear systems,” J. Differ. Equ., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 95-116, 1972, doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/0022-0396(72)90007-1

[3] L.-Z.Wang, R.-Q. Su, Z.-G. Huang, X.Wang, W.-X.Wang, C. Grebogi, and Y.-C. Lai, “A geometrical approach to control and controllability of nonlinear
dynamical networks,” Nat. Commun., vol. 7, no. 1, 2016, art. no. 11323, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11323

[4] R. Sakthivel, R. Ganesh, Y. Ren, and S. M. Anthoni, “Approximate controllability of nonlinear fractional dynamical systems,” Commun. Nonlinear Sci.
Numer. Simul., vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 3498–3508, 2013, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2013.05.015

[5] K. Beauchard and C. Laurent, “Local controllability of 1d linear and nonlinear schrödinger equations with bilinear control,” J. Math. Pures Appl., vol.
94, no. 5, pp. 520–554, 2010, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matpur.2010.04.001

[6] X.-L. Ding and J. J. Nieto Roig, “Controllability of nonlinear fractional delay dynamical systems with prescribed controls,” NAMC, vol. 23, no. 1, pp.
1-18, 2018, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15388/NA.2018.1.1

[7] O. Zakary, A. Larrache, M. Rachik, and I. Elmouki, “Effect of awareness programs and travel-blocking operations in the control of hiv/aids outbreaks:
a multi-domains sir model,” Adv. Differ. Equ., vol. 2016, no. 1, 2016, art. no. 169, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13662-016-0900-9

[8] O. Zakary, S. Bidah, M. Rachik, and H. Ferjouchia, “Mathematical model to estimate and predict the covid-19 infections in morocco: Optimal control
strategy,” J. Appl. Math., vol. 2020, pp. 1–13, 2020, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/9813926

[9] K. O. Kwok, A. Tang, V. W. Wei, W. H. Park, E. K. Yeoh, and S. Riley, “Epidemic models of contact tracing: systematic review of transmission studies of
severe acute respiratory syndrome and middle east respiratory syndrome,” Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J., vol. 17, pp. 186–194, 2019, doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.csbj.2019.01.003

[10] M. Moustafa, M. H. Mohd, A. I. Ismail, and F. A. Abdullah, “Dynamical analysis of a fractional-order ecoepidemiological model with disease in prey
population,” Adv. Differ. Equ., vol. 2020, 2020, art. no. 48, doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13662-020-2522-5

[11] X. Wang, H. Peng, B. Shi, D. Jiang, S. Zhang, and B. Chen, “Optimal vaccination strategy of a constrained time-varying seir epidemic model,”
Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul., vol. 67, pp. 37–48, 2019, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2018.07.003

[12] P. C. Jentsch, M. Anand, and C. T. Bauch, “Prioritising covid-19 vaccination in changing social and epidemiological landscapes: a mathematical mod-
elling study,” Lancet Infect. Dis., vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 1097–1106, 2021, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00057-8

[13] M. Lhous, O. Zakary, M. Rachik, E. M. Magri, and A. Tridane, “Optimal containment control strategy of the second phase of the covid-19 lockdown in
morocco,” Appl. Sci., vol. 10, no. 21, 2020, art. no. 7559, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app10217559

[14] Z. Omar, B. Sara, and R. Mostafa, “The impact of staying at home on controlling the spread of covid-19: Strategy of control,” Rev. Mex. Ing. Biomed.
vol. 42, no. 1, 2021. https://doi.org/10.17488/rmib.42.1.2

[15] O. Zakary, M. Rachik, and I. Elmouki, “On the analysis of a multi-regions discrete sir epidemic model: an optimal control approach,” Int. J. Dynam.
Control, vol. 5, pp. 917–930, 2017, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40435-016-0233-2

[16] Z. Omar, M. Rachik, and I. Elmouki, “A new analysis of infection dynamics: multi-regions discrete epidemic model with an extended optimal control
approach,” Int. J. Dynam. Control, vol. 5, pp. 1010–1019, 2017, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40435-016-0264-8

[17] D. Osthus, K. S. Hickmann, P. C. Caragea, D. Higdon, and S. Y. Del Valle, “Forecasting seasonal influenza with a state-space sir model,” Ann. Appl.
Stat., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 202-224, 2017, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/16-AOAS1000

[18] M. Kröger and R. Schlickeiser, “Analytical solution of the sir-model for the temporal evolution of epidemics. part a: time-independent reproduction
factor,” J. Phys. A Math. Theor., vol. 53, 2020, art. no. 505601, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/abc65d

[19] C. Fraser, S. Riley, R. M. Anderson, and N. M. Ferguson, “Factors that make an infectious disease outbreak controllable,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol.
101, no. 16, pp. 6146–6151, 2004, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0307506101

[20] X. Zhao, K. Siegel, M. I.-C. Chen, and A. R. Cook, “Rethinking thresholds for serological evidence of influenza virus infection,” Influenza Other Respir.
Viruses, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 202–210, 2017, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/irv.12452

[21] F. D. Sahneh, F. N. Chowdhury, and C. M. Scoglio, “On the existence of a threshold for preventive behavioral responses to suppress epidemic spread-
ing,” Sci. Rep., vol. 2, 2012, art. no. 632, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep00632
171 Omar Zakary et al. Optimizing infection trajectories: Innovation in Controllability of Nonlinear SIR Model

[22] F. Khondaker, “Optimal control analysis of Influenza epidemic model,” App. Math., vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 845-857, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.4236/
am.2022.1310053

[23] D. I. Ketcheson, “Optimal control of an SIR epidemic through finite-time non-pharmaceutical intervention,” J. Math. Biol., vol. 83, 2021, art. no. 7,
doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-021-01628-9

[24] L. Bolzoni, R. Della Marca, and M. Groppi, “On the optimal control of SIR model with Erlang-distributed infectious period: isolation strategies,” J.
Math. Biol., vol. 83, 2021, art. no. 36, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-021-01668-1

[25] E. V. Grigorieva, E. N. Khailov, and A. Korobeinikov. “Optimal control for a SIR epidemic model with nonlinear incidence rate,” Math. Model. Nat.
Phenom., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 89-104, 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1051/mmnp/201611407

[26] Fatmawati, C. W. Chukwu, R. T. Algahtani, C. Alfiniyah, F. F. Herdicho, Tasmi, “A pontryagin’s maximum principle and optimal control model with
cost-effectiveness analysis of the COVID-19 epidemic,” Decis. Anal. J., vol. 8, 2023, art. no. 100273, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100273