
==== Front
Sci Rep
Sci Rep
Scientific Reports
2045-2322
Nature Publishing Group UK London

39251598
69653
10.1038/s41598-024-69653-4
Article
Golden eagle optimized fractional-order PI controller design for a PFC SEPIC converter in EV charging
Vijayakumar S.
Sudhakar N. nsudhakar@vit.ac.in

grid.412813.d 0000 0001 0687 4946 School of Electrical Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, 632014 India
9 9 2024
9 9 2024
2024
14 2095410 4 2024
7 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
The power factor correction converter is the function of the front-end converter, followed by the DC–DC converter of the electric vehicle charger. It improves the power factor and regulates the output voltage and current. This research article proposes the Golden Eagle optimization for fractional order PI (FOPI) controller for Single Ended Primary Inductor Converter (SEPIC) power factor correction. The Golden eagle optimization is based on its knowledge of hunting tactics at various degrees of spiral trajectories to catch the prey. The FOPI controller has a broad range of controller parameters that provide better control and performance of the converter. The tuning of the parameters of the FOPI controller is optimized in Golden Eagle Optimization, and the Integral Absolute error with Integral Square error is used for the objective function. The optimized parameters of FOPI compare with the conventional PI controller performance. The SEPIC converter is designed and derived from the state space model by state space averaging, and the reduced model is obtained through the moment matching method. This system is tested under MATLAB/SIMULINK, and simulation results show improved settling time, fast dynamic response, reduction of inrush current, less harmonic distortion, and stability.

Keywords

FOPI
Power factor correction
SEPIC converter
Total harmonics distortion
Subject terms

Electrical and electronic engineering
Energy science and technology
Vellore Institute of Technology, VelloreOpen access funding provided by Vellore Institute of Technology.

issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

The Fuel demand, fossil fuel reserves, and the subsequent increase in fuel prices and emissions of greenhouse gases have put the transportation industry at the epicentre of the climate disaster1. Hybrids, electric automobiles, fuel cell vehicles, and solar-powered vehicles contribute to a cleaner environment and less greenhouse gas emissions2. Battery chargers are classified as On-board and OFF-board chargers. Off-board charges can only be found at certain places, like fuel stations, and it is possible to charge rapidly with these chargers, but it renders the battery overheated3, and the life span is minimal. Concerns about the electric vehicle range and the battery performance are two main obstacles to its broad use. The lack of charging stations and infrastructure also demands On-board chargers (OBC). The PFC converter is an integral part of the OBC charger that transforms the grid supply alternating current into direct current for vehicle battery charging. The boost converter has attracted widespread attention, and the issues with bulky components require a filter at the output and high voltage stress4. The Buck converters are less expensive and more efficient, but dead angle issues mainly influence them in supply voltage and need an input filter5,6. DC–DC Cuk converters are good at isolation, current limiting, and short-circuit protection. Moreover, two major drawbacks are the severe current stress felt across the switch and the reversed polarity when loaded7. An isolated converter, such as flyback, push–pull, and forward converter, is in AC–DC conversion and has problems with size, transformer core saturation, non-minimum phase and current harmonics drawbacks8. Non-isolated converter topologies are often selected because of the absence of transformers, and their benefits include low cost, compactness, lightweight, good efficiency, and minimum losses. The SEPIC converter may alleviate the shortcomings of the Cuk converter, Buck converter, and Boost converter, and it has a faster transient response than other converters. These critical points of the SEPIC converter are more appropriate for power factor correction applications when charging a battery.

The behaviour of DC–DC converters is not linear, and this behaviour changes when the parameters are changed9. The small-signal model-based controllers for DC–DC converters are inadequate in meeting the stability requirements, needed regulation, and transient responsiveness for significant load variations. To regulate the output voltage, the cascade control technique for single-stage active power factor correction (PFC) utilizes the use of an outer voltage controller. An inner current controller is also used to shape the input current, and the PI controller is employed for this purpose. Many fine-tuning methods have been proposed to improve the feedback system and be more reliable. The PI and PID controls are well-known and used in many fields. They are easy to set up and work on average10. PID controllers are mostly insignificant owing to parametric unpredictability and various disturbances11. The fractional order controller is sensitive to both dynamic load and requirements, and it has two extra factors on top of the current PID that make it more flexible while still sturdy. It ensures the optimal result for higher-order non-linear systems without a minimum phase. The capacity of fractional order (FO) controllers to endure unpredictability and load disturbance is an essential feature12. Because of their increased adaptability, these controllers can better satisfy design criteria such as phase margin and gain, resistance to parameter variations, and more. Because of these characteristics, fractional order controllers can successfully regulate power converters and other non-linear facilities13. In the boost converter14, Compared to the integer-order controller, the fractional-order controller performs better in overshoot and recovery time in both simulations and experiments. FOPID controller is implemented to minimize vibration, noise, and harmonic current of three-phase induction motors15 and controller parameter design with motor specifications. The fractional order PID (FOPID) control scheme needs more accurate and effective tuning than general tuning methods, and this technique improves settling time, lowers overshooting, and lowers the steady-state error of the system. Many research studies are actively using optimization-based metaheuristic algorithms for power electronic applications.

From the literature survey, the converging time of genetic algorithms (GAs) is higher than average because of the randomness of the cross-over and mutation processes16. Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is used in PI tuning, but it has a significantly low convergence rate and settling times for the converter17. Grey wolf optimization has many constraints over convergence and poor searching performance9. The Firefly and bacterial foraging optimization are used for PID controller for the converter side, but it has the drawback of being stuck in several local optima solutions18. The Golden Eagle Optimisation Algorithm (GEOA) has benefits over other methods19 and is a powerful and bio-inspired optimization technique that can find the best global parameters for the outer and inner controllers of the PFC SEPIC converter. The controllers regulate the output voltage quickly and effectively, and the input current is shaped to improve the power factor at the supply side. Hence, the system performance is enhanced, such as virtually UPF, low percentage of THD, and shorter settling time for line, load, and setpoint variations. The GEO tunned FOPI is used in the closed loop cascade control strategy. The THD level is significantly low value, the power factor reaches near unity, and the initial inrush current at switches and the input side is minimal.

The significant contributions of this work are as followsFast dynamic response on variation in input and load

Reduction of initial inrush current in switching devices and inductor

Achieve the high-power factor and lower THD

The GEO fractional-order PI controller design for a PFC SEPIC converter in EV charging introduces a pioneering approach to power electronics and EV charging systems. By integrating the GEO technique with FOPI control, the proposed method enhances the performance and efficiency of power factor correction (PFC) SEPIC converters utilized in EV charging infrastructure. This innovation offers superior adaptability to varying load conditions, increased stability, and optimized energy conversion, thereby advancing the efficacy and sustainability of EV charging technologies. This paper is organized into five parts as follows, “Mathematical modelling and design” discusses converter mathematical modelling and design, "Closed loop operation of PFC converter" discusses the closed loop operation of PFC converter, "Simulation results and discussion" is the simulations results and discussion, and finally, the conclusion about the research studies of this paper in the "Conclusion".

Mathematical modelling and design

Modelling of SEPIC converter

The circuit of the SEPIC converter shown in Fig. 1 consists of a MOSFET switch S, diode D, an input and output inductor L1 & L2, an energy transfer capacitor C1, an output filter capacitor C2, D is the freewheeling diode and a load resistor (RL). When the switch S closes, iL1 flows through the inductor L1 and charges. Equations (1), (2), and (3) represent the steady state and transient currents and voltages. The state model of the SEPIC converter is derived to obtain the mathematical model of the converter by considering that the switch is ‘ON’, (i.e.) S = 1 during the MOSFET switch conduction subinterval and switch is ‘OFF’ (i.e.) S = 0 during the diode conduction subinterval. State-space averaging is used to depict the dynamics of the converter, and the state equations at switch S = 1 and S = 0 are combined using as follows:Figure 1 (a) SEPIC converter, (b) OFF-state, (c) ON-state.

1 dIL1dtdIL2dtdVC1dtdVC2dt=0000001L200-1C100000-1RLC2IL1IL2VC1VC2+1L1000Vin

2 dIL1dtdIL2dtdVC1dtdVC2dt=00-1L1-1L1000-1L21C10001C21C20-1RLC2IL1IL2VC1VC2+1L1000Vin

3 V0=[0001]IL1IL2VC1VC2

4 A=00-(1-d)L1-(1-d)L100dL2-(1-d)L2(1-d)C1-dC100(1-d)C2(1-d)C20-1RLC2;B=1L1000;C=0001;D=0000

5 X˙=AX+BU

6 Y=CX+DU

7 V0Vin=d1-d

8 IinI0=d1-d

9 T.F=C(sI-A)-1[A1-A2∗X+B1-B2∗Vin]

The duty cycle of the ON and OFF state of the switch is indicated as d and (d-1), and by replacing the derived parameter values in the equivalent state-space matrices, which are subsequently substituted in the formula that follows, the fourth-order transfer function of control to the output of the proposed DC-DC SEPIC is obtained.

Design of SEPIC converter

The following section explains the design of the SEPIC converter and the components values are listed in Table 1. The input supply (Vin) is 220 V AC, while the output voltage (Vo) is 60 V, and the high-frequency input filter capacitor and inductor design20 isTable 1 Design parameter.

Parameter	Value	
Input voltage	220 Vrms	
Output voltage	60 V	
Duty ratio	0.202	
Inductor L1/L2	2 mH	
Capacitor C1/C2	10 µF/8000 µF	
Switching frequency	30 kHz	
Input filter capacitor Cf	10 µF	
Input filter inductor Lf	2.5 mH	
Output power	460 W	

10a Cf=Iptanθ2π∗f∗Δ∗Vp

10b Lf=14π2∗fc2∗Cd

Vp and Ip are peak voltage and current of input supply and for high power factor θ value is chosen for 1. fc is the cutoff frequency chosen between grid frequency 50 Hz and switching frequency 30 kHz.

The Duty cycles the converter is calculated from11 D=V0V0+Vin

12 Ripple currentΔIL=Iout∗VoutVinmin∗40%

The inductor L1 and L2 is calculated from the equation13 L1=L2=L=D∗VinΔIL1∗fs

The coupling capacitor is calculated from14 C1≥IL2∗Dfs∗VC

The output capacitor is calculated from15 C2≥Po4∗π∗fs∗Vo∗ΔVo

16a Gvd=vod=-60S3+1.485∗106S2-6.06108S+3.715∗10130.05513S4+0.798S3+1.872∗106S2+2.704∗107S+9.973∗1010

16b Gid=iLd=60s3+1.554∗105s2+6.082∗108s+1.754∗10100.000404s4+0.005848s3+1.372∗104s2+1.981∗105s+7.309∗108

Examining and creating a large-scale model are challenging tasks that lead to ongoing efforts to simplify the higher-order model and prevent realistic computing efforts to provide appropriate results from traditional research, modelling, control, design, and computation strategies21. For developing controls, a lower-order model is better than a higher-order model22, and to implement the controller, the above fourth-order equation is reduced to the second-order system by the moment matching method to reduce computational complexity and preserve the original properties. For reduction techniques, the power series expansion is obtained using the long division method from Eq. (16a) as follows:17 Gvd(q)=372.5-0.101s-6.953∗10-3s2+3.78∗10-6s3+1.295∗10-7s4+⋯

18 Gs=C0+C1s+C2s1+C3s2+C4s3+⋯⋯⋯+⋯

The power series expansion coefficients are the C0, C1, C2, C3 and C4, and the second-order system structure is as follows.19 rs=a21+a22S1+a12S+a13S2

20 a^1=-c1-c0-c2-c1-1∗c2c3=a12a13

a12=2.7144∗10-4,a12=1.8739∗10-5

21 a^2=c0c1-00c00∗a12a13=a21a22

a21=372.5,a22=-0.2021

By substituting the respective values in the Eq. (20) and (21), the reduced order transfer function is22 Gvdr=-0.2021s+372.51.8739∗10-5S2+2.7144∗10-4s+1

Figure 2a, b shows the step response of fourth order and the reduced order transfer function of the SEPIC converter. The peak overshoot MP is 90.6%, settling time TS is 0.532 s, and rise time TR is 0.00462 s compared to the actual fourth order system step response, which is identical to the reduced-order system.Figure 2 (a) Step response of 4th order and (b) reduced order SEPIC.

Closed loop operation of PFC converter

Closed loop operation of converter

The closed-loop control of the proposed system uses a cascade control strategy in Fig. 3. The inner and outer loop is optimized fractional proportional integral control to improve the power factor at AC supply while voltage control gives reference voltage. The input single-phase AC supply is converted into a pulsating DC supply through a diode bridge rectifier, which causes a low power factor, less efficiency, and high harmonic distortion. The SEPIC converter is used for power factor correction, and the output voltage (Vo) is sensed and compared with the reference voltage (Vref). The error voltage is an input to the voltage controller, and the output is multiplied by a pulsated absolute sin wave template. The output values of the voltage controller are the reference current to the current controller, which generates the necessary pulse width modulation pulse for the MOSFET switch to improve the power factor at single phase supply.Figure 3 Block diagram of PFC controller.

Design of fractional order PI controller

A standard PID controller, that is based on fractional calculus, additionally produces the FO-PID approach, and controllers is upgraded to a controller is called fractional order FOPI and the transfer function of fractional order PI controller (CS) equation is Eq. (23)23 CS=(KP+KIsλ)

For the FOPI, three parameters, KP, KI, and λ, are the tuning parameters of the controller. The FOPI controller improves the system stability, robustness and effectiveness by adding the fractional integral λ. The additional tuning parameter (λ) gives the degrees of freedom for tuning the controller action more accurately than the PI controllers, which is represented in the Fig. 4.Figure 4 FOPI structure.

Golden eagle optimization of controllers

In General, the optimizations are used to fine-tune the controller parameters to improve the performance. A new bio-inspired method called Golden Eagle Optimization (GEO) created the voltage controller. GEO showed faster convergence times than earlier optimization techniques in numerous applications. This algorithm's inspiration comes from the golden eagle19, whose intelligence was used to model its turning speed at various points along its circular path while hunting. It has been observed that golden eagles are more likely to cruise than attack during the early phases of a hunt, while the opposite is valid during the latter stages of the search. GEO is based on the spiral movement of the Golden Eagle, where each eagle remembers the best places, it has visited. The eagle attack is shown by a path from where it is now to where it wants to catch its food, and several steps before catching the target foods are as follows.

Attack

24 A→i=X→f∗-X→i

Ai=[a1,a2,⋯⋯,a3], Ai-the attack vectors,Xi=[x1,x2,⋯⋯,xm], Xi- the decision variable vector

X→f∗=[x1∗,x2∗,⋯⋯,xm∗],Xf∗-is best location of travelled by the eagle so far. The attack vector navigates the population of the eagles towards the best locations.25 d=∑j=1nhjxj

Searching (cruise)

The search vectors is determined through

H→=[h1,h2,h3,⋯..,hn] is the normal vector,X=x1,x2,x2,⋯.,xn, is the variable vector26 ∑j=1najxj=∑j=1najtxj∗

aj is the element of j th attack vector, t—is an iteration value27 C→i=(c1,c2,c3,⋯⋯..,ck,⋯..,cn)

Cruise vector Ck is perpendicular to the attack vector, and it is tangent to the circular path of the eagle,k represents the fixed variable index, ak is the element of k th attack vector.28 Ck=d-∑j,j≠kajak

The eagle's displacement is built up of its attack and cruise vectors, and its updated location is calculated by Eq. (29)29 xt+1=xt+Δxit

Change the location

30 Δxi=r→1paA→i||A→i||+r→cpcC→i||C→i||

||A→i||=∑j=1naj2, ||C→j||=∑j=1nCj2—are the Euclidean norms of attack and cruise vector31 pc=pc0-tT|pcT-pc0|

32 pa=pa0-tT|paT-pa0|

t—represents the current iteration, T—represents the iteration range, pc0 and paT represents the initial and final values for propensity to reach paT, pc0 and pcT represents affinity to descent of the prey pc. This optimization works on pa to pc changing from search to exploitation. The algorithm default starts with a high pc and a low pa. As the repetitions continue, pa is raised while pc is lowered. The proposed optimization flow chart describes the optimization techniques of the eagle, as shown in Fig. 5.Figure 5 Golden eagle optimization flowchart.

Optimization of voltage controller

The conventional method of Ziegler- Nicholas (Z-N) method is used to find the KP and KI values for optimization constraints and ultimate period Pcr=7∗10-3s and critical gain value Kcr=0.0389 obtained. By substituting these values to determine the PI controller values from the Table 2, the propositional and integral gain values are KP=0.000154 and KI = 0.12. In the cascade control technique, the voltage controller should work much slower than the inner current loop, and the bandwidth is one-tenth of the inner loop current controller bandwidth23,24. The optimization range for proportional and integral gain values is selected using Z-N approach. The design of FOPI is based on fixing the proportional value constant while other parameters vary25. The optimization technique calculates tuning parameters based on the system stability and ensures a long settling time. The long settling time causes a delaying steady state, and the quick settling time causes the system to become unstable, which causes a high current that damages the system. The tuning parameter ranges are chosen as in Table 3, and suitable PI parameters are determined through the golden eagle optimization algorithm. Table 4 shows the optimized parameters of FOPI values and their impact on total harmonic distortion. The optimized parameters obtained from GEO is KP = 1.04812*10–5, KI = 0.01788, and lambda (λ) value is 1.01. The respective closed-loop response is stable with gain margin (gm) = 50.8, and frequency domain of bode plot as shown in Fig. 6 for the outer loop transfer function of output voltage to inductor current is Eq. (33)Table 2 Ziegler Nicholas tuning.

Controller	Kp	Ti	Td	
P	0.5Kcr	–	–	
PI	0.45Kcr	Pcr/1.2	–	
PID	0.6Kcr	0.5Pcr	0.125Pcr	

Table 3 Optimization parameters of voltage controller.

Parameter	Value	
No of search agents	50	
No of iterations	100	
Range of KP values	0–0.009	
Range of KI values	0–0.09	
Range of lambda (λ) values	0.5–2	

Table 4 Optimized FOPI parameters and performance.

Controlling method	KP	KI	λ	THD %	
Z-N PI	0.000154	0.12	–	3.07	
GA-FOPI	0.00013607	0.274	1.11	2.81	
PSO-FOPI	0.000012192	0.158	1.1	2.64	
HBO-FOPI	0.000025	0.0213	0.83	2.43	
GEO-FOPI	0.0000104812	0.01788	0.995	1.85	

Figure 6 Frequency response of voltage controller.

33 Gvi=-0.000404s3+9.998s2-4080s+2.499∗1080.05513s3+142.8s2+5.588∗105s+1.612∗107

Optimization of current controller

For the current controller design, the transfer function of inductor current to duty ratio26 is obtained (16b) and the moment matching method in the “Design of SEPIC converter”, the reduced order equations are obtained as follows (34). The current controller optimization parameter ranges are in Table 5. The obtained values from optimization are KP = 34.6, KI = 750.89 and lambda (λ) = 1.01. The transfer function improves the power factor and limits the inductor current. The current controller closed loop frequency response is shown in Fig. 7, with stable conditions for obtained controller parameters and current controller is stable condition.Table 5 Optimization parameters of current controller.

Parameter	Range of Value	
Population size	50	
No of iterations	100	
KP	0–100	
KI	0–1000	
lambda (λ)	0.9–2	

Figure 7 Frequency response of current controller.

34 Gidr=6.082∗108s+1.754∗10101.37∗104S2+1.978∗105s+7.309∗108

Simulation results and discussion

In steady-state simulation, for the input AC supply voltage (Vin) is 220 V rms, desired output dc voltage (Vo) is 60 V, and load resistance (RL) is 8 Ω, the simulated waveforms of the input and output voltages and currents are shown in Fig. 8. The output voltage and current are settling at 0.2 s with an output current (Io) of 7.7A, an output voltage (Vo) of 60 V, and an input AC supply voltage (Vin) of 220 V with a current (Iin) of 4.5A.Figure 8 Converter response on PI (a) input, (b) output, (c) THD.

Efficiency calculation of converter

35 Conduction loss of MOSFET(PS)=Irms2∗RDSon∗Dmax

Irms is the rms current of MOSFET switch, RDSON is the body resistance of the switch, Dmax is the Duty cycle. PS = 4.412 W36 Conduction loss of diodePD=VVFD∗IAvg+Irms2∗Rd

VVFD is the diode forward voltage drop, Irms is the rms current of the diode, IAvg is the average current value of the diode. Rd is the diode dynamic resistance. Pd = 10.21 W37 Inductor lossPL=PW+PCore

Wire lossPW=RW∗IL2

IL is the current through the inductor, RW is the resistance of the wire.Core lossPCore=K1fxByVe

PL = 2.106 W38 Capacitor lossPC=IC2∗ESR

IC  is the  current in the capacitor, ESR is the effective series resistance of the capacitor. PC = 0.48 W39 Total conduction loss=PCon+PD+PL+PC

Total conduction loss TTotal = 4.412 + 10.21 + 2.106 + 0.4840 Efficiency of the converter=OutputpowerOutputpower+Losses=96.39

Closed loop response of PFC converter

In Fig. 8. shows the closed-loop response of the conventional PI controller. The input supply current (Iin) is 4.5A, and the voltage (Vin) is 220 V. During the initial period, the input current (Iin) is 10.5A at AC supply side and settles in 4.5A in 0.3 s. The THD level is 3.07%, and the output voltage (Vo) and current (Io) reach 75 V with 9.8A initially and settle after 0.3 s with 60 V with 7.8A. Figure 9a shows the GEO-FOPI controller performance of the converter; the AC supply reaches the steady state at time T = 0.2 s and converter output steadily vary and reaches the output voltage (Vo) 60V and current (Io) 7.7A at time T=0.2s as shown in Fig. 9b, and total harmonics distortion (THD) is 1.85% obtained, as shown in Fig. 9c.Figure 9 Converter response on GEO-FOPI (a) input, (b) output and (c) THD.

Variation of load change

Figure 10a shows output load variation at time T = 1 s; the input current (Iin) is reduced from 4.5 to 4.2 A, the output voltage (Vo) varies at time T = 1, again settle 60 V at time T = 1.2 s, and output current (Io)varies from 7.7 to 7.2 A as shown in Fig. 10b.Figure 10 GEO-FOPI response of variation of load (a) input and (b) output.

Variation of input voltage

Figure 11 shows the input voltage varied from 220 to 240 V at time T = 1 s, the input current (Iin) reduced from 4.5 to 4.2 A, the output voltage (Vo) is slightly raised and settled to 60 V after 0.2 s of the time T = 0.5 s, as well as at the same time output current (Io) changed from 7.7 to 7.8 A.Figure 11 GEO-FOPI response on input variation.

Variation of reference voltage

Figure 12 shows the output voltage (Vo) tracking the change reference voltage (Vref). When T = 1, the reference voltage (Vref) varies from 60 to 65 V, and the output voltage (Vo) tracks and reaches 65 V at time T = 1.1 s. At time T = 2, the reference voltage (Vref) varies from 65 to 60 V, and the converter output voltage reaches 60 V at 2.18 s.Figure 12 GEO-FOPI controller reference voltage tracking.

Current ratings of diode and MOSFET

The diode and MOSFET current of the PI controller and FOPI controller, Fig. 13a, b initial current reduce significantly from 48 to 18.5 A in the diode as well as from 48 to 19 A reduced in MOSFET. During the initial period, the total conduction loss of both diode and switch loss of 31.642 W is reduced to 18.46 W in the optimized fractional order PI controller. So, the selection of inductor rating is low, and the cost is low compared to the PI controller.Figure 13 Diode and MOSFET current (a) PI, (b) GEO-FOPI controller.

Current ratings in supply and input inductor

Figure 14a, b show the current rating at the inductor (L1) is 12 A for PI and 1.5 A for optimized FOPI at time T = 0.02 s, and also the selection of inductor rating and size is low. In Table 6, various controllers with total harmonic distortion are shown, and the Golden Eagle optimization fractional order PI controller gives 1.85%, while other controlling techniques have less dynamic response while fractional order PI controllers provide a fast dynamic response. The golden eagle optimization with fractional order proportional integral controller (GEO-FOPI) offers high harmonic reduction, fast dynamic response, and high-power factor, making it a highly efficient and effective solution compared to other controllers. In the comparison of existing optimization techniques used to evaluate the performance of the PFC SEPIC converter in Table 7, golden eagle optimization gives good results among other optimized methods, and Table 8 comparison of GWO-FOPI and GEO-FOPI shows the GEO-FOPI provides better performance in terms of power factor and efficiency.Figure 14 Input inductor current value (a) PI, (b) GEO-FOPI controller.

Table 6 Comparison of proposed controller with existing controlling methods.

Ref	Controller	Converter	Harmonic reduction	Grid detection	Controller design	Power	Dynamic response	Source current THD (%)	Power factor	
27	SM	Boost	Medium	NA	Complex	500 W	Fast	2.4	0.998	
28	PI-PI	CUK	Low	NA	Low	–	Slow	2.66	0.99	
29	SM-PI	SEPIC	Medium	NA	Medium	200 W	Fast	3.169	0.99	
30	PI	Interleave boost	Low	NA	Medium	1.6 kW	Slow	4.5	–	
31	PI	Boost	Low	Yes	Low	–	Slow	2.28	–	
7	PI-LQR	BOCUK	Medium	NO	Medium	200 W	Medium	2.7	0.99	
32	PSO-PI	Vienna rectifier	Medium	NA	Medium	1.1 kW	–	2.47	0.996	
33	BC-PI	BOOST	Low	NA	Low	500 W	Medium	4.2	0.994	
34	PSO-GSA PI-SM	CUK	Low	NO	Complex	1.1 kW	Fast	4.52	0.97	
35	DE-PI	Boost	Medium	NO	Low	1 kW	Medium	2.23	0.999	
36	PSO-PI	LUO	Low	NO	Low	–	Medium	8.6	0.97	
37	PSO-FFPI	Boost	Low	NO	Medium	–	Fast	4.72	0.99	
38	GWO PID	Bridgeless converter	Low	NO	Low	350 W	Slow	4.45	0.97	
GEO method	FOPI	SEPIC	High	NA	Medium	460 W	Fast	1.85	0.9999	

Table 7 Comparison of PFC SEPIC converter with existing methods.

Controlling method	Gain margin	Settling time	Rise time (s)	Overshoot	Source current THD %	Efficiency	Power factor	
Z-N PI	19.6	0.45	0.01	34.459%	3.07	87.67	0.92	
GA-FOPI	25.678	0.357	0.025	31.417%	2.81	90.47	0.97	
PSO-FOPI	31.3	0.28	0.041	29.070%	2.64	93.01	0.992	
HBO-FOPI	42.51	0.25	0.065	13.068%	2.43	93.81	0.995	
GEO-FOPI	50.8	0.2	0.09	2.727%	1.85	96.39	0.99998	

Table 8 Comparison of GWO-FOPI and GEO-FOPI.

Controlling method	KP	KI	λ	Efficiency	Power factor	
18 GWO-FOPI	0.08	1.07	1.2	94.5	0.999	
GEO-FOPI	0.0000104812	0.01788	0.995	96.39	0.99998	

Conclusion

This article uses the Golden Eagle optimization algorithm for FOPI cascaded controllers for the SEPIC converter's voltage and power factor correction. The reduced order system is obtained from the moment matching method for ease of computational complexity. The simulation of the cascaded loop is executed in MATLAB/Simulink, and the results are examined. The simulation results reveal that the optimized voltage controller and linear quadratic regulator produce a quicker dynamic response with less overshoot than the existing PI Controller. Simulation results shows that optimization of the FOPI controllers makes the system close to the unity power factor (0.9998), initial conduction loss of MOSFET and diode is significantly reduced, and 1.85% of total harmonics distortion is obtained. The FOPI controller significantly reduced the initial inrush current at input from 12 to 1.5 A and switches from 48 to 19 A. The proposed GEO optimized FOPI controller the PFC SEPIC converter reaches the reference output voltage in less settling time for load and input supply disturbance.

Author contributions

1. Vijayakumar Subramanian- Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing—Original Draft 2. Sudhakar Natarajan—Supervision, Validation.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Vellore Institute of Technology.

Data availability

All data underlying the results are available as part of the article, and no additional source data are required.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Boddu S Ghosh A Design of PFC converter with stand-alone inverter for microgrid applications J. Electric. Syst. Inform. Technol. 2023 10 1 36 10.1186/s43067-023-00105-1
Boddu, S. & Ghosh, A. Design of PFC converter with stand-alone inverter for microgrid applications. J. Electric. Syst. Inform. Technol. 10(1), 36. 10.1186/s43067-023-00105-1 (2023).10.1186/s43067-023-00105-1
2. Vijayakumar S Sudhakar N A review on unidirectional converters for on-board chargers in electric vehicle Front. Energy Res. 2022 10.3389/fenrg.2022.1011681
Vijayakumar, S. & Sudhakar, N. A review on unidirectional converters for on-board chargers in electric vehicle. Front. Energy Res.10.3389/fenrg.2022.1011681 (2022).10.3389/fenrg.2022.1011681
3. Turksoy O Yilmaz U Teke A Efficient AC–DC power factor corrected boost converter design for battery charger in electric vehicles Energy 2021 221 119765 10.1016/j.energy.2021.119765
Turksoy, O., Yilmaz, U. & Teke, A. Efficient AC–DC power factor corrected boost converter design for battery charger in electric vehicles. Energy 221, 119765. 10.1016/j.energy.2021.119765 (2021).10.1016/j.energy.2021.119765
4. Praneeth AVJS Williamson SS A zero-voltage, zero-current transition boost cascaded-by-buck PFC converter for universal e-transportation charging applications IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 2022 10 3 3273 3283 10.1109/JESTPE.2020.3029715
Praneeth, A. V. J. S. & Williamson, S. S. A zero-voltage, zero-current transition boost cascaded-by-buck PFC converter for universal e-transportation charging applications. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 10(3), 3273–3283. 10.1109/JESTPE.2020.3029715 (2022).10.1109/JESTPE.2020.3029715
5. Memon AH Yao K UPC strategy and implementation for buck–buck/boost PF correction converter IET Power Electron. 2018 11 5 884 894 10.1049/iet-pel.2016.0919
Memon, A. H. & Yao, K. UPC strategy and implementation for buck–buck/boost PF correction converter. IET Power Electron. 11(5), 884–894. 10.1049/iet-pel.2016.0919 (2018).10.1049/iet-pel.2016.0919
6. Khalili R Adib E Soft-switching bridgeless buck PFC with low THD IEEE Trans. Indus. Electron. 2023 70 12 12211 12218 10.1109/TIE.2023.3239860
Khalili, R. & Adib, E. Soft-switching bridgeless buck PFC with low THD. IEEE Trans. Indus. Electron. 70(12), 12211–12218. 10.1109/TIE.2023.3239860 (2023).10.1109/TIE.2023.3239860
7. Annie Isabella L Umamaheswari MG Marimuthu G Analysis of the high-gain BOCUK DC–DC converter-based PFC using an LQR controller for SMPS applications Automatika 2023 64 3 565 576 10.1080/00051144.2023.2197823
Annie Isabella, L., Umamaheswari, M. G. & Marimuthu, G. Analysis of the high-gain BOCUK DC–DC converter-based PFC using an LQR controller for SMPS applications. Automatika 64(3), 565–576. 10.1080/00051144.2023.2197823 (2023).10.1080/00051144.2023.2197823
8. Bodur H Akboy E Yesilyurt H Gundogan A Dudak AT A new single-stage single-switch isolated AC–DC PFC topology with high duty cycle and low current stress and high efficiency Electric. Eng. 2022 104 5 3049 3059 10.1007/s00202-022-01527-2
Bodur, H., Akboy, E., Yesilyurt, H., Gundogan, A. & Dudak, A. T. A new single-stage single-switch isolated AC–DC PFC topology with high duty cycle and low current stress and high efficiency. Electric. Eng. 104(5), 3049–3059. 10.1007/s00202-022-01527-2 (2022).10.1007/s00202-022-01527-2
9. Magesh T Devi G Lakshmanan T Improving the performance of grid connected wind generator with a PI control scheme based on the metaheuristic golden eagle optimization algorithm Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2023 214 108944 10.1016/j.epsr.2022.108944
Magesh, T., Devi, G. & Lakshmanan, T. Improving the performance of grid connected wind generator with a PI control scheme based on the metaheuristic golden eagle optimization algorithm. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 214, 108944. 10.1016/j.epsr.2022.108944 (2023).10.1016/j.epsr.2022.108944
10. Izci D Hekimoğlu B Ekinci S A new artificial ecosystem-based optimization integrated with Nelder–Mead method for PID controller design of buck converter Alex. Eng. J. 2022 61 3 2030 2044 10.1016/j.aej.2021.07.037
Izci, D., Hekimoğlu, B. & Ekinci, S. A new artificial ecosystem-based optimization integrated with Nelder–Mead method for PID controller design of buck converter. Alex. Eng. J. 61(3), 2030–2044. 10.1016/j.aej.2021.07.037 (2022).10.1016/j.aej.2021.07.037
11. Roosta V Ghamari SM Mollaee H Zarif MH A novel adaptive neuro linear quadratic regulator (ANLQR) controller design on DC–DC buck converter IET Renew. Power Gener. 2023 17 5 1242 1254 10.1049/rpg2.12679
Roosta, V., Ghamari, S. M., Mollaee, H. & Zarif, M. H. A novel adaptive neuro linear quadratic regulator (ANLQR) controller design on DC–DC buck converter. IET Renew. Power Gener. 17(5), 1242–1254. 10.1049/rpg2.12679 (2023).10.1049/rpg2.12679
12. Sangeetha S Revathi BS Balamurugan K Performance analysis of buck converter with fractional PID controller using hybrid technique Rob. Auton. Syst. 2023 169 104515 10.1016/j.robot.2023.104515
Sangeetha, S., Revathi, B. S. & Balamurugan, K. Performance analysis of buck converter with fractional PID controller using hybrid technique. Rob. Auton. Syst. 169, 104515. 10.1016/j.robot.2023.104515 (2023).10.1016/j.robot.2023.104515
13. Qi Z Tang J Pei J Shan L Fractional controller design of a DC–DC converter for PEMFC IEEE Access 2020 8 120134 120144 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3005439
Qi, Z., Tang, J., Pei, J. & Shan, L. Fractional controller design of a DC–DC converter for PEMFC. IEEE Access 8, 120134–120144. 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3005439 (2020).10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3005439
14. Seo S-W Choi HH Digital implementation of fractional order PID-type controller for boost DC–DC converter IEEE Access 2019 7 142652 142662 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2945065
Seo, S.-W. & Choi, H. H. Digital implementation of fractional order PID-type controller for boost DC–DC converter. IEEE Access 7, 142652–142662. 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2945065 (2019).10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2945065
15. Hsu C-H Fractional order PID control for reduction of vibration and noise on induction motor IEEE Trans. Magn. 2019 55 11 1 7 10.1109/TMAG.2019.2933176
Hsu, C.-H. Fractional order PID control for reduction of vibration and noise on induction motor. IEEE Trans. Magn. 55(11), 1–7. 10.1109/TMAG.2019.2933176 (2019).10.1109/TMAG.2019.2933176
16. Sundareswaran K Devi V Nadeem SK Sreedevi VT Palani S Buck-boost converter feedback controller design via evolutionary search Int. J. Electron. 2010 97 11 1317 1327 10.1080/00207217.2010.488904
Sundareswaran, K., Devi, V., Nadeem, S. K., Sreedevi, V. T. & Palani, S. Buck-boost converter feedback controller design via evolutionary search. Int. J. Electron. 97(11), 1317–1327. 10.1080/00207217.2010.488904 (2010).10.1080/00207217.2010.488904
17. Vasumathi G Jayalakshmi V Sakthivel K Efficiency analysis of grid tied PV system with KY integrated SEPIC converter Meas. Sens. 2023 27 100767 10.1016/j.measen.2023.100767
Vasumathi, G., Jayalakshmi, V. & Sakthivel, K. Efficiency analysis of grid tied PV system with KY integrated SEPIC converter. Meas. Sens. 27, 100767. 10.1016/j.measen.2023.100767 (2023).10.1016/j.measen.2023.100767
18. Komathi C Umamaheshwari G Design of gray wolf optimizer algorithm-based fractional order PI controller for power factor correction in SMPS applications IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2020 35 2 2100 2118 10.1109/TPEL.2019.2920971
Komathi, C. & Umamaheshwari, G. Design of gray wolf optimizer algorithm-based fractional order PI controller for power factor correction in SMPS applications. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 35(2), 2100–2118. 10.1109/TPEL.2019.2920971 (2020).10.1109/TPEL.2019.2920971
19. Mohammadi-Balani A Dehghan Nayeri M Azar A Taghizadeh-Yazdi M Golden eagle optimizer: A nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithm Comput. Ind. Eng. 2021 152 107050 10.1016/j.cie.2020.107050
Mohammadi-Balani, A., Dehghan Nayeri, M., Azar, A. & Taghizadeh-Yazdi, M. Golden eagle optimizer: A nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithm. Comput. Ind. Eng. 152, 107050. 10.1016/j.cie.2020.107050 (2021).10.1016/j.cie.2020.107050
20. Singh S Singh B Bhuvaneswari G Bist V Power factor corrected zeta converter based improved power quality switched mode power supply IEEE Trans. Indus. Electron. 2015 62 9 5422 5433 10.1109/TIE.2015.2415752
Singh, S., Singh, B., Bhuvaneswari, G. & Bist, V. Power factor corrected zeta converter based improved power quality switched mode power supply. IEEE Trans. Indus. Electron. 62(9), 5422–5433. 10.1109/TIE.2015.2415752 (2015).10.1109/TIE.2015.2415752
21. Prajapati AK Rayudu VGD Sikander A Prasad R A new technique for the reduced-order modelling of linear dynamic systems and design of controller Circuits Syst. Signal Process. 2020 10.1007/s00034-020-01412-y
Prajapati, A. K., Rayudu, V. G. D., Sikander, A. & Prasad, R. A new technique for the reduced-order modelling of linear dynamic systems and design of controller. Circuits Syst. Signal Process.10.1007/s00034-020-01412-y (2020).10.1007/s00034-020-01412-y
22. Ediga CG Ambati SR Manickam C Simple model reduction technique for transfer function models Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2021 10.1002/apj.2669
Ediga, C. G., Ambati, S. R. & Manickam, C. Simple model reduction technique for transfer function models. Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng.10.1002/apj.2669 (2021).10.1002/apj.2669
23. Mishra AK Singh AK Kim T Reduced component, buck–boost converter for plug-in electric vehicles with a current sensing-based efficient NLCC technique IET Power Electron. 2020 13 16 3753 3763 10.1049/iet-pel.2020.0003
Mishra, A. K., Singh, A. K. & Kim, T. Reduced component, buck–boost converter for plug-in electric vehicles with a current sensing-based efficient NLCC technique. IET Power Electron. 13(16), 3753–3763. 10.1049/iet-pel.2020.0003 (2020).10.1049/iet-pel.2020.0003
24. Singh AK Pathak MK Single-stage ZETA-SEPIC-based multifunctional integrated converter for plug-in electric vehicles IET Electr. Syst. Transport. 2018 8 2 101 111 10.1049/iet-est.2017.0063
Singh, A. K. & Pathak, M. K. Single-stage ZETA-SEPIC-based multifunctional integrated converter for plug-in electric vehicles. IET Electr. Syst. Transport. 8(2), 101–111. 10.1049/iet-est.2017.0063 (2018).10.1049/iet-est.2017.0063
25. Prajapati, S., Garg, M. M. & Prithvi, B. Design of fractional-order PI controller for DC–DC power converters. In 2018 8th IEEE India International Conference on Power Electronics (IICPE). 1–6 10.1109/IICPE.2018.8709430 (IEEE, 2018).
26. Kanaan HY Al-Haddad K Modeling and multi-loop feedback control design of a SEPIC power factor corrector in single-phase rectifiers Math. Comput. Simul. 2013 91 274 283 10.1016/j.matcom.2012.06.005
Kanaan, H. Y. & Al-Haddad, K. Modeling and multi-loop feedback control design of a SEPIC power factor corrector in single-phase rectifiers. Math. Comput. Simul. 91, 274–283. 10.1016/j.matcom.2012.06.005 (2013).10.1016/j.matcom.2012.06.005
27. Mohanty PR Panda AK Fixed-frequency sliding-mode control scheme based on current control manifold for improved dynamic performance of boost PFC converter IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 2017 5 1 576 586 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2585587
Mohanty, P. R. & Panda, A. K. Fixed-frequency sliding-mode control scheme based on current control manifold for improved dynamic performance of boost PFC converter. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 5(1), 576–586. 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2585587 (2017).10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2585587
28. Singh S Singh B Bhuvaneswari G Bist V Unity power factor operated PFC converter based power supply for computers J. Inst. Eng. (India) Ser. B 2018 99 1 49 60 10.1007/s40031-017-0303-7
Singh, S., Singh, B., Bhuvaneswari, G. & Bist, V. Unity power factor operated PFC converter based power supply for computers. J. Inst. Eng. (India) Ser. B 99(1), 49–60. 10.1007/s40031-017-0303-7 (2018).10.1007/s40031-017-0303-7
29. Durgadevi S Umamaheswari MG Analysis and design of single-phase power factor corrector with genetic algorithm and adaptive neuro-fuzzy-based sliding mode controller using DC–DC SEPIC Neural Comput. Appl. 2019 31 10 6129 6140 10.1007/s00521-018-3424-2
Durgadevi, S. & Umamaheswari, M. G. Analysis and design of single-phase power factor corrector with genetic algorithm and adaptive neuro-fuzzy-based sliding mode controller using DC–DC SEPIC. Neural Comput. Appl. 31(10), 6129–6140. 10.1007/s00521-018-3424-2 (2019).10.1007/s00521-018-3424-2
30. Shipra K Maurya R Sharma SN Port-controlled Hamiltonian-based controller for an interleaved boost PFC converter IET Power Electron. 2020 13 16 3627 3636 10.1049/iet-pel.2020.0307
Shipra, K., Maurya, R. & Sharma, S. N. Port-controlled Hamiltonian-based controller for an interleaved boost PFC converter. IET Power Electron. 13(16), 3627–3636. 10.1049/iet-pel.2020.0307 (2020).10.1049/iet-pel.2020.0307
31. Lin Pay M Christensen J He F Roden L Ahmed H Foo M PLL-based enhanced control of boost PFC converter for smart farming lighting application Renew. Energy Focus 2023 47 100502 10.1016/j.ref.2023.100502
Lin Pay, M. et al. PLL-based enhanced control of boost PFC converter for smart farming lighting application. Renew. Energy Focus 47, 100502. 10.1016/j.ref.2023.100502 (2023).10.1016/j.ref.2023.100502
32. G. Rajendran, C. A. Vaithilingam, K. Naidu, A. Adel Alsakati, K. S. P. Oruganti, and M. F. Fauzan, “Dynamic Voltage Stability Enhancement in Electric Vehicle Battery Charger Using Particle Swarm Optimization,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 97767–97779, 2022, 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3199416.
33. Karaarslan A The implementation of bee colony optimization control method for interleaved converter Electr. Eng. 2016 98 2 109 119 10.1007/s00202-015-0348-z
Karaarslan, A. The implementation of bee colony optimization control method for interleaved converter. Electr. Eng. 98(2), 109–119. 10.1007/s00202-015-0348-z (2016).10.1007/s00202-015-0348-z
34. Thirumeni M Thangavelusamy D Design and analysis of hybrid PSO–GSA tuned PI and SMC controller for DC–DC Cuk converter IET Circuits Dev. Syst. 2019 13 3 374 384 10.1049/iet-cds.2018.5164
Thirumeni, M. & Thangavelusamy, D. Design and analysis of hybrid PSO–GSA tuned PI and SMC controller for DC–DC Cuk converter. IET Circuits Dev. Syst. 13(3), 374–384. 10.1049/iet-cds.2018.5164 (2019).10.1049/iet-cds.2018.5164
35. Tulay G İskender İ Erdem H Optimal tuning of a boost PFC converter PI controller using heuristic optimization methods Int. Trans. Electric. Energy Syst. 2017 10.1002/etep.2458
Tulay, G., İskender, İ & Erdem, H. Optimal tuning of a boost PFC converter PI controller using heuristic optimization methods. Int. Trans. Electric. Energy Syst.10.1002/etep.2458 (2017).10.1002/etep.2458
36. Kalai Selvi R Suja Mani Malar R A bridgeless Luo converter based speed control of switched reluctance motor using particle swarm optimization (Pso) tuned proportional integral (Pi) controller Microprocess. Microsyst. 2020 75 103039 10.1016/j.micpro.2020.103039
Kalai Selvi, R. & Suja Mani Malar, R. A bridgeless Luo converter based speed control of switched reluctance motor using particle swarm optimization (Pso) tuned proportional integral (Pi) controller. Microprocess. Microsyst. 75, 103039. 10.1016/j.micpro.2020.103039 (2020).10.1016/j.micpro.2020.103039
37. Demirtas M Ahmad F Fractional fuzzy PI controller using particle swarm optimization to improve power factor by boost converter Int. J. Optim. Control Theor. Appl. (IJOCTA) 2023 13 2 205 213 10.11121/ijocta.2023.1260
Demirtas, M. & Ahmad, F. Fractional fuzzy PI controller using particle swarm optimization to improve power factor by boost converter. Int. J. Optim. Control Theor. Appl. (IJOCTA) 13(2), 205–213. 10.11121/ijocta.2023.1260 (2023).10.11121/ijocta.2023.1260
38. Kandasamy P Prem Kumar K Efficient single-stage bridgeless AC to DC converter using grey wolf optimization Comput. Syst. Sci. Eng. 2022 43 2 487 499 10.32604/csse.2022.021693
Kandasamy, P. & Prem Kumar, K. Efficient single-stage bridgeless AC to DC converter using grey wolf optimization. Comput. Syst. Sci. Eng. 43(2), 487–499. 10.32604/csse.2022.021693 (2022).10.32604/csse.2022.021693
