INTELLIGENT ALGORITHM FOR ADAPTIVE CONTROL OF

BUCK AND BOOST CONVERTER

Abstract: Evolutionary and Swarm Intelligent Algorithms,

are together grouped as nature-inspired algorithms.

Evolutionary algorithms have inspired researchers all
around the world for solving optimization problems. This
paper carves out a comparative analysis of Particle Swarm
Optimization (PSO), Bacterial Foraging Algorithm (BFA)
and Hybrid PSO-BFA in detail along with simulation
results carried out on buck and boost converter.
Keywords: Particle Swarm Optimization(PSO); Bacterial
Foraging Algorithm; Hybrid PSO-BFA ;Buck and Boost
converter.
I.

INTRODUCTION

Learning from naturally abundant biological systems and

developing different kinds of optimization algorithms have
been widely used in both theoretical study and practical
applications [11]. Bionics study inspires us not only with its
physical yields, but also with various computation methods
that can be applied in different areas. In bioinspired design
approaches one technique which is very popular is Swarm
Intelligence [2]. Techniques which are inspired by the
behavior of animal societies as well as other social insect
colonies are naturally able to solve large-scale distributed
problems are grouped in the swarm intelligence [1]. The
swarm intelligence is defined as an algorithm or distributed
problem solving devices design inspired by the collective
behavior of many animals societies, particularly social insect
colonies [4]. Particle swarm optimization (PSO) approach
mimics the behavior of social organisms where the behavior of
different types of social interaction(e.g. flock of birds) is
mimicked in order to create an optimization method that is
able to solve continuous optimization problems [3]. PSO is a
computational intelligence based techniques that is not
largely affected by the size and nonlinearity of the problem
thus converges to the optimal solution is mainly a problems
where most analytical methods fail to converge [4]. Therefore,
it can be effectively applied to different optimization problems
in power system [5,8]. Bacterial Foraging Algorithm (BFA)
technique was developed by K.M Passino [11] in 2002. In
recent years, bacterial foraging algorithm has been developed
as a rich source of potential for solving engineering
applications and therefore have attracted more and more
attention. Until date, Bacterial Foraging Optimization
Algorithm (BFOA) has been applied successfully to some
engineering problems, such as optimal control [7], harmonic
estimation [18], transmission loss reduction [8] or

enhancement of performance [14] etc. Original PSO and BFA

has also undergone modification for improving result for
example Acceleration constant and weights are made adaptive
in nature in PSO or step length is varied exponentially
depending upon the position of bacteria in BFA [9]. The paper
is organized as follows. In section II the basic fundamentals of
PSO algorithm is briefly described. In section III information
about BFA is provided. In section IV concept of hybrid
PSO-BFA is described. In section V adaptive control of buck
and boost converter is described. In Section VI shows
simulation results and discussion. Finally in section VII
conclusion is drawn.
II.

PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION

Particle swarm optimization (PSO) technique was

developed by Eberhart and Kenndy [3]. PSO initiates the
swarm of particles to search in a space of possible solutions
for a problem. Each particle has a position vector representing
a candidate solution to the problem and a velocity vector and
also contains a small memory that stores its own best position
seen so far and a global test position obtained by
communication with particles at the neighborhood. The
advancement towards the location and global best solutionby
the particle swarm optimizer is ideologically similar to the
crossover operation utilized by genetic algorithm .Similar to
all evolutionary computations paradigms; it uses the concept
of fitness. The swarm works through the interactions of
members of the populations, even though the exact methods
for moving the Particle are quite flexible [17]. Best assigning
shortest path and by studying trajectories of particles the
optimization behavior of standard PSO can be made invariant
to the rotations of the optimizations functions. There are two
major components in the movement of a swarming particle: a
deterministic component and a stochastic component.
According to above description, equation for particle update
are as follows:
p= p + v
(1)
where
v = v + c1 * rand * (pBest p) + c2 * rand * (gBest p)
(2)
where p is particles position, v is path direction, c1 is weight
of local information c2 is weight of global information, pBest
is best position of the particle , gBest is best position of the
swarm and rand: random variable
III.

BACTERIAL FORAGING ALGORITHM

Bacterial Foraging Algorithm (BFA) technique was

developed by K.M Passino [1] in 2002. It is based on

technique of food searching procedure of Escherichia Coli
(E.Coli). E.coli cell body is covered with flagella. These
flagella are generally 8-10 in number, with the help of these
flagella bacteria is able to perform locomotion. These all
flagella together are responsible for two kind of movement
one tumble and run. Whenever these flagella all together make
counterclockwise rotation, they form a compact and propel the
bacteria in a direction this is known as run. In run distance
travel by bacteria is long. The opposite phenomena happens
when all the flagella moves in clockwise direction i.e. all
flagella pull the cell down and they all move in different
directions. This is known as tumble. In tumble distance
covered by bacteria is small then covered by run. All this
locomotion phenomena of E.coli bacteria is known as
Chemotaxis. E.coli bacteria make use of chemotaxis behavior
for searching nutrient rich environment and avoid harmful one.
But with chemotaxis it make use of other principles like
swarming, re-production and elimination and dispersal. For
showing the movement of bacteria let we assume total number
of bacteria is S and i( j; k; l) represent the position of the each
ith bacteria in this population at the jth chemotactic step, kth
reproduction step, and lth elimination step then movement is
depicted as:
i( j + 1; k; l) = i( j; k; l) + C(i)( j)
(3)
Where C(i) (i = 1; 2;.S ) represent the size of the
chemotactic step taken in the direction decided by the tumble
or run. ( j) used to define the random direction of
movement after a tumble.
IV. HYBRID PSO-BFA
In chemotactic behavior of bacteria in BFOA a randomly
generated tumbling or run is made in appropriate direction
Random direction make the algorithm slow and may be
responsible for delay or not reaching global solution.
Therefore by using a technique to update the position of
foragers in BFA. As we are aware that in PSO, the particle
stores it local best position and global best position and
according to it update its position. Therefore by adapting this
procedure of updating in BFA, Hybrid algorithm contain
combination of both PSO and BFA. The main aim here is to
aims are to make use of PSO property of updating and
adjusting the particle position for global optimization and BFA
property to disperse into new set of solution by elimination
and dispersal event. All the steps of BFA are performed in this
algorithm but the step in which direction of tumbling should
performed is decided by PSO . In the Hybrid PSO-BFA
algorithm the random direction generated by tumbling action
of bacteria is decided by the PSO algorithm. Therefore this
tumble behavior of bacteria is based on the global best
position which is decided by PSO algorithm and based on this
further best position of each bacteria is determined [13].
V.

control. To see this, suppose that we consider adaptive control

where we seek to learn a plant model during the operation of a
system. Suppose that we view learning as foraging for good
model information. Suppose that we use an identifier model,
which is a parameterized model of the plant, and think of the
foraging algorithm as searching in the parameter space of that
model. By moving parameters, it searches for regions in the
parameter space that correspond to finding optimum solution.
Suppose that we use the standard definition of identifier error
as the error between the model output and the plant output, but
squared and summed over the past several samples to define J.
As a part of this work adaptive control strategy is used for
non-linear systems and it can be represented by a block
diagram as shown in figure 1.
Plant
parameters
Model

Controller
parameter

yplant

Controller

Plant

Figure 1 Adaptive Control

It can be seen from the block diagram that the plant to be

controlled is analyzed by a system identification block. This
identification block utilizes plant input and output to generate
a signal varying with the plant conditions at a particular
instant. This information accessed by the system identification
block is then used to generate a signal which characterizes the
plant parameters. This signal is then given to the controller
designer block. The controller designer block generates a
signal in response to the signal received by it pertaining to the
plant parameters by the system identification block. Controller
derives an input which is nothing but the output of the plant to
be controlled. Apart from that, it also receives the signal from
the controller designer block. These signals along with the
references signal makes the controller to generate a control
signal efficient enough to control the plant and thus, by each
passing instant it moves the output of the plant close to the
desired reference trajectory [16].In order to adjust the

nonlinear mapping implemented by the BFA or PSO to

match the unknown nonlinear mapping of the plant an
online function approximation is carried out. Here system
identification block is replaced by BFA or PSO algorithm.
Pick
best
value

Certainty
equivalent
control law

BFA, PSO or
Hybrid PSOBFA

Plant
parameter
s

1
2

Controller
parameter

ADAPTIVE CONTROL OF BUCK AND BOOST

CONVERTER
r

Optimization methods such as gradient algorithms and

least squares are used to implement estimation methods, which
are used to estimate models or controllers in adaptive control.
We can also use Intelligent algorithms as the basis for adaptive

System
Identification

yplant

u
Controller

Plant

Figure 2 System identification block replaced by algorithm

Figure 2 shows System identification block replaced by

algorithm [10].
Boost Converter
The boost converter produce a DC output voltage greater in
magnitude than the magnitude of DC input voltage. The circuit
diagram for a boost converter is shown in figure 3.
rL

rd

Diode

rt

V? =

rc
Vo

Vg

Switch

off , load current flows through the diode. When the diode is
on and switch is off, the voltage across the inductor is reversed.
However, current in the inductor cannot change
instantaneously and the current starts decreasing linearly. In
this cycle also the capacitor is also charged with the energy
stored in the inductor. During Ton, load current rises whereas
during Toff load current decays therefore average load voltage
Vo is given by:

V1.

??

Where

????

(7)

PSO/BFA/Hybrid
PSO-BFA

Kp
Sum
+

Ki
-

Sum

Boost
Converter/
Buck
converter

output

Ko

(4)

???

(5)

d is duty cycle ratio and given as:

Buck Convertor

V? = dV?

Fitness
Function

T?? = T??? + T??

d=

????

???

On the basis of above phenomena of adaptive control

PID controller is designed for Buck and Boost converter.

When the switch is on, the current in inductor L, rises linearly

and at this time capacitor C, supplies the load current, and it is
partially discharged. During the second interval when
transistor switch is off, the diode is on and the inductor L,
supplies the load and, additionally, recharges the capacitor C.
As the current tends to decrease, emf induced in L but with the
reverse polarity. As a result voltage across the output VO
exceeds Vg [6]. If the system to be considered to be loss less,
then energy during off (T???) and on (T?? ) will be equal. Finally
relation between output and input voltage can be represented as
???

SIMULATION RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Figure 3 Boost Converter

??

????
V
??? ????? ?

????

(6)

???

The buck converter is used for step down operation. A buck

converter is as shown in figure 4.

Figure 5 Closed loop diagram for Buck converter

The close loop operation of boost converter is shown in figure

5 .Here Algorithms will search for the parameters of controller
according to the fitness function. For calculating fitness
function in our simulation integral square error method is used.
In which, error obtained is first squared and then integration is
applied on it. In order to compare the performance analysis of
PSO,BFA and Hybrid PSO- BFA, they have been implemented
in MATLAB. The values of the parameters used in PSO, BFA
and Hybrid PSO-BFA are given in the table 1.
Table 1 Parameter Of algorithms

Parameter
Switch

rt

rL

rd

rc

Diode

Vg

Figure 4 Buck Converter

The switch represented in figure 4 connects source to load and

disconnects the load from source at a fast speed [6]. In this
manner chopped load voltage is obtained from a constant dc
supply of magnitude Vg. Switch can be turned off and on as
desired. During the period Ton , switch is on and load voltage
is equal to source voltage Vg. During the interval T off, switch is

S
P
Ns
Nc
Nre
Ned
Ped
C1
C2
W

Hybrid
PSO-BFA
100
3
4
10
4
2
0.25
1.5
0.2
0.5

BFA

PSO

100
3
4
50
4
2
0.25
-

100
3
50
2
2
0.9

Value of parameter for state space analysis of Boost Converter

are given in table 2 [19].

Table 2 Component value for Boost converter

Parameters
Vin
rL
r
rd
rC
rLoad
L
C
D

Values
12 V
2
0.2
0.7
0.5
120
750 H
100 mF
0.5

Figure 9 Close loop response of Boost converter using Hybrid PSO-BFA

In figure 9 we observe that for Hybrid PSO-BFA the closed

loop response obtained is tracking the desired output and gives
better result than the PSO and BFA. We observed from the
figure 9 that responses obtain show more delay and rising time
but setting time is very much less than what obtain with BFA
and PSO. The values of the parameters obtain for boost
controller by all these three algorithms have been summarized
in the table 3 below:
Table 3 Comparison of result obtain from PSO, BFA and Hybrid PSO-BFA for
Boost Converter

Figure 6 Open loop response of Boost converter

Open loop response of boost converter is shown in figure 6.

As from the figure it can be seen that when boost is operated
in open loop configuration it does not give the desired result,
from the graph it can be seen that offset remains and there is
disturbance in the voltage profile.

Parameters

KP

KI

KD
0.030

Delay
Time
(sec)
0.02

Rise
Time
(sec)
0.16

Settling
Time
(sec)
1.63

PSO

1.19

0.90

BFA

2.80

0.67

0.024

0.03

0.8

1.2

Hybrid
PSO-BFA

0.27

0.98

0.032

0.08

0.54

0.71

Parameters used for state space analysis of Buck converter are

presented in table 4 [15].
Table 4 Component values for buck converter
Figure 7 Close loop response of Boost converter using PSO

Figure 7 is showing close loop response of boost converter

obtain by PSO. The graph obtain is better the open loop
response as there is less no overshoot, oscillation and offset is
eliminated. But as it takes more time to settle and show little
offset for till long time, so overall it shows sluggish response.

Parameters

Values

Vin
rL
r
rd
rC
rLoad
L
C
d

100 V
0.7
0.2
0.7
1.18
118
0.42 mH
1450 F
0.5

Figure 8 Close loop response of Boost converter using BFA

Graph in figure 8 shows the close loop response of boost

converter obtained using BFA. Output response obtains
eliminates all undesirable characteristics seen in open loop
respons. Settling time obtained is also less.

Figure 10 Open loop response of Buck converter

Figure 10 shows the open loop graph of Buck converter. From

figure we can observe that there is an offset and disturbance in
the voltage response of converter. To eliminate these problems
buck converter is operated in closed loop and parameters of
controller is tuned using PSO, BFA and Hybrid PSO-BFA.

Figure 11 Close loop response of Buck converter using PSO

Figure 11 Shows closed loop response using PSO. In the graph

Oscillations are completely vanished and smooth transition is
observed. But offset persist for very large span of time which
makes response to settle after long delay of time.

similar in terms of smooth transition but settling time get

reduce in Hybrid PSO-BFA.
VII. CONCLUSION
Buck and Boost converter system was considered.
Performance of these systems was analyzed using PSO, BFA
and Hybrid PSO-BFA. First open loop response were analyzed
and then closed loop responss were analyzed. From the results
obtained using Hybrid PSO-BFA, it can be concluded that it
offers advantage over both PSO and BFA as it tries to find out
of local optimal solution and make effort to converge at global
optimal solution. From it convergence characteristics it is
found to be better and provide solution of higher quality than
PSO and BFA. But values of parameters should be chosen
carefully because if not then they can cause slow or no
convergence of algorithm.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.

Figure 12 Close loop response of Buck converter using BFA

5.

In Figure 12 Oscillations are completely vanished and smooth

transition is observed. But offset persist for very large span of
time which makes response to settle after long delay of time.

6.
7.

8.

9.
10

Figure 13 Close loop response of Buck converter using Hybrid PSO-BFA

Figure 13 shows the closed loop response obtained for the

parameters value of controller obtained for Hybrid PSO-BFA.
The closed loop response obtain is similar to the response
shown by BFA but delay and rise time are little more than BFA
but setting time is improved with Hybrid PSO-BFA.
Table 5 Comparison of result obtain from PSO, BFA and Hybrid PSO-BFA for
Buck Converter

Parameters

KP

KI

KD

PSO
BFA
Hybrid
PSO-BFA

3.397
2.898
0.892

3.83
1.88
0.71

0.042
0.044
0.030

Delay
Time
(sec)
0.08
0.089
0.14

Rise
Time
(sec)
0.17
0.2
0.30

Settling
Time
(sec)
offset
1.6
1.3

11.
12

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.
18.

From table 5 given below it can be concluded that best value

of parameters is obtain by the Hybrid PSO-BFA algorithm.
With PSO little offset in response persist. This offset gets
eliminated in response by BFA and Hybrid PSO-BFA.
Response obtain with BFA and Hybrid PSO-BFA is almost

19.

G.Theraulaz And J.L. Deneubourg, On Formal Constraints In Swarm

Dynamics. Proceedings Of The 1992 IEEE International Symposium On
Intelligent Control, 1992, pp 225-233
R.Eberhart And J. K Ennedy A New Optimizer Using Particle Swarm Theory.
Proc Of 6th Int. Symp Micro Machine And Human Sciences(MHS 95), 1995, pp
39-43.
J.Kennedy And R.Eberhart, PSO. Proc. Of IEEE Int. Conf. Neural Networks,
Vol.4 1995, pp 1942-1948.
E.Bonabeau, M.Dorigo and G. Theraulaz, Swarm Intelligence: From Natural To
Artifical Intelligence 1999 Oxford University Press.
Gang Feng and Rigelio Lozano Adaptive control system 1999 Reed
Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd.
B.K Bose Modern power electronics and AC drives. 2001 Prentice Hall
Publication.
Wan Nur Eliana, Afif Wan Titik Khawa, Abdul Rahman & Zuhaina Zakaria,
Optimal Load Shedding Using Bacterial Foraging Optimization Algorithm.
IEEE 4th Control And System Graduate Research Colloquium, Aug 2003, pp
93-97.
M. Tripathy & S. Mishra Bacteria Foraging-Based Solution To Optimize Both
Real Power Loss And Voltage Stability Limit Ieee Transactions On Power
Systems Vol. 22, No. 1, Feb 2007, pp 240-249.
Vahid Rashtchi, Akbar Bayat And Resan Vahedi Adaptive Step Length Bacterial
Foraging Algorithm .IEEE International Conference of Intelligent Computing
And Intelligent System, 2009, pp 322 - 326
Abolfazl Jalilvand, Hesan Vahedi & Akbar Bayat Optimal Tuning of the PID
Controller for a Buck Converter Using Bacterial Foraging Algorithm.IEEE
International Conference on Intelligent and Advanced Systems (ICIAS),
June 2010, pp 1-5.
H. Zang, S.Zhang and K.Hapeshi, A Review Of Nature Inspired Algorithms,
Journal Of Bionic Engineering 7 Suppliment. Sept. ,2010 pp 232-237
Liu Xiao Long, Li Rong Jun & Yang Ping A Bacterial Foraging Global
Optimization Algorithm Based On The Particle Swarm Optimization. IEEE
International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Intelligent Systems, Oct.
2010,pp 22 27.
Wael M. Korani, Hassen Taher Dorrah & Hassan M. Emara Bacterial Foraging
Oriented By Particle Swarm Optimization Strategy For PID Tuning. IEEE
International Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and
Automation (CIRA), 2009 IEEE ,Dec. 2009, pp 445-450.
M.Senthil Kumar and Dr.P.Renuga Bacterial Foraging Algorithm based
Enhancement of Voltage Profile and Minimization of Losses Using Thyristor
Controlled Series Capacitor (TCSC). International Journal of Computer
Applications Volume 7 No.2, 2010.
Abolfazl Jalilvand, Hesan Vahedi & Akbar Bayat Optimal Tuning of the PID
Controller for a Buck Converter Using Bacterial Foraging Algorithm.IEEE
International Conference on Intelligent and Advanced Systems (ICIAS),
June 2010, pp 1-5.
Grant H. Kruger , Albert J. Shih , Danie G. Hattingh & Theo I. van Niekerk
Intelligent machine agent architecture for adaptive control optimization of
manufacturing processes Elsevier Advanced Engineering Informatics Journal,
2011, pp 783796.
Bharat Bhushan and Sarath S. Pillai Particle Swarm Optimization and Firefly
Algorithm: Performance Analysis. 3rd IEEE International Advance Computing
Conference , Feb 2013, pp. 746-751.
Vladimir Sousa , Enrique C. Quispe, Julia R. Gomez Sarduy, Bacterial Foraging
Algorithm For Induction Motor Field Efficiency Estimation And Under
Harmonics And Unbalanced Voltages . IEEE
International conference on Electric
Machines & Drives Conference, May 2013 ,pp 1108 1111.
G. Seshagiri Rao, S. Raghu, N. Rajasekaran Design of Feedback Controller for
Boost Converter Using Optimization Technique . International Journal of Power
Electronics and Drive System ,Vol. 3, Issue No. 1, 2013, pp 117-128.