Table 1 Overview of utilizing controller and optimization method for DC-DC Buck converter in the recent paper.
Article Ref. | Controllers and optimizations type | Approaches | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|
FOPID controllers for buck converters | Effective FOPID tuning via metaheuristic algorithms | FOPID controllers optimized by metaheuristics for buck converters | |
Parameters optimized using IGJO, PSO, ABC, SA, GA | Improved performance over conventional PID controller | Outperform FOPID based on IAE, ISE, ITAE, ITSE | |
Performance evaluated via IAE, ISE, ITAE, ITSE | Metaheuristics like IGJO, PSO, PSO, ABC, SA, GA are used | ||
Multi-stage PD(1 + PI) controller | Enhanced dynamics and response over conventional controllers | Proposes multi-stage PD(1 + PI) controller for buck converters | |
MOA for parameter optimization | MOA optimization improves time/frequency characteristics | Cascaded PD and 1 + PI structure improves response speed | |
Comparisons show efficiency over PID/FOPID | Outperforms PID and FOPID controllers | Parameters optimized via Mayfly Optimization Algorithm (MOA | |
PID for DC-DC buck converter | Effective PID optimization via WOASAT | Proposes hybrid whale optimization with simulated annealing (WOASAT) for PID tuning | |
WOASAT for parameter tuning | Improved transient, disturbance rejection, time/frequency metrics | WOASAT algorithm with simulated annealing for PID tuning | |
WOASAT combines WOA, SA, tournament selection | Superior to standalone SA-PID, WOA-PID | WOASAT combines WOA, SA, and tournament selection | |
Demonstrates superiority over SA-PID, WOA-PID | WOASAT-PID outperforms SA-PID and WOA-PID controllers | ||
PID for closed-loop buck converter | Effective AOA-based PID optimization | AOA for PID tuning in buck converter | |
AOA optimizes P, I, D gains | Faster recovery, minimal overshoot, enhanced response | Optimizes P, I, D gains based on load | |
Compared to AEONM, AEO, DE, PSO-tuned PIDs AOA-PID demonstrates superiority | Outperforms AEONM, AEO, DE, PSO tuning | Superior voltage recovery, response, regulation | |
FOPID, PID, TID controllers for buck converter | Metaheuristics effectively tune FOPID, PID, TID parameters | Investigates FOPID, PID, TID controllers for buck converter | |
Parameters optimized using AO, AVOA, HGS, FDBRUN | FOPID with metaheuristic optimization shows superior performance | Parameters optimized via AO, AVOA, HGS, FDBRUN algorithms | |
Performance evaluated via IAE, ISE, ITAE, ITSE metrics | Highlights benefits of metaheuristics for controller optimization | FOPID optimized by metaheuristics outperforms PID, TID based on IAE, ISE, ITAE, ITSE | |
PID controller for buck converter | Effective PID optimization via hybrid AEONM | Proposes hybrid AEONM algorithm for PID tuning in buck converter | |
AEONM tunes PID parameters | Faster response, lower overshoot, better robustness | AEONM = AEO + NM simplex method | |
AEONM combines AEO and NM | Outperforms AEO, PSO, DE algorithms | Superior to AEO, PSO, DE-based PID controllers | |
Comparisons with AEO, PSO, DE-PID | Effective PID optimization via ISCA, avoids local optima | Proposes Improved Sine Cosine Algorithm (ISCA) for PID tuning | |
PID controller for DC-DC buck converter | Outperforms other algorithm-based PID controllers | ISCA overcomes SCA limitations, balances exploration/exploitation | |
Parameters optimized using proposed ISCA | Exceptional transient response for buck converter | ISCA-PID shows superior transient response, disturbance rejection, robustness | |
ISCA modifies SCA for improved optimization | |||
Comparisons with other algorithm-based PID controllers |
