Michael Faraday IET International Summit: MFIIS-2015, September 12 – 13, 2015, Kolkata, India
(Paper ID: 135)
A COMPARISON BETWEEN MPC AND OPTIMAL PID
CONTROLLERS: CASE STUDIES
Fawzan Salem* and Mohamed I. Mosaad **
* Electronics Research Institute (ERI), on leave to YIC-KSA, fawzan@lycos.com
** Higher Technological Institute (HTI), on leave to YIC-KSA, m_i_mosaad@hotmail.com
Keywords: Model Predictive Control, Optimal PID Controller,
Bacterial Foraging Optimization and Performance Indices.
Abstract
This paper presents a comparative study between the
performance of Model Predictive Control (MPC) and optimal
PID controllers in terms of various performance measures.
Parameters of the PID controller are adjusted based on
Bacterial Foraging Optimization (BFO) algorithm and its
results are compared with those obtained using MPC
controller in terms of some control parameters. These control
parameters are rise time, settling time, peak overshoot
percentage, integral of absolute errors and integral of time
multiplied absolute of error for both MPC and PID
controllers. Many case studies are considered in this article.
First, second, third, fourth and fifth order systems are
investigated. Simulation results indicate that MPC controller
outperforms optimal PID controller in all cases.
1. Introduction
Model predictive control (MPC) is an advanced
technique applied originally in industry for chemical
plants and other dynamical systems [1]. MPC systems
depend on obtaining control values for plant inputs by
solving an optimization problem that is formulated using a
plant model and online measurements [2]. The most
important merit of MPC is that it allows the current time slot
to be optimized, while keeping future time slots into
consideration. In other words, a finite time horizon is
optimized, whereas the current time slot, merely, is
implemented. Therefore, MPC has the capability to predict
future behavior and can implement control actions
accordingly [3].
Basically, MPC is related to linear optimal control
systems. However, MPC can be applied to linear and
nonlinear time varying systems. MPC algorithm is presented
in [4] for a linear time varying system to verify its ability in
navigation under obstacle avoidance conditions. Two
nonlinear models for predictive control algorithms are
implemented and compared in [5]. In [6], two chemical
processes are modeled and a thorough procedure for MPC
control is conducted along with system identification,
controller scheme and parameter adjustment.
59
In recent years, MPC has also been used in power
system field. In [7], MPC is applied in load frequency
control to improve the dynamic performance of power
system subject to several disturbances. Effectiveness of MPC
controller is validated upon a comparison with a fuzzy logic
controller. Another MPC-based load frequency controller of
a multi-area power system including wind turbines is
introduced in [8]. In such a system, each local controller is
considered separately so that stability of the overall closed
loop system is assured.
Moreover, MPC has been employed in many applications
of electrical drive systems, including but not limited to,
speed control of DC motors [9], position control of DC
servomotors [10], torque ripple reduction of brushless DC
motors [11], field oriented control of permanent magnet
synchronous motors (PMSM) [12,13], and torque control of
induction motors [14,15].
Recently, renewable energy sources have been also
controlled with the aid of MPC [16]. MPC is also applied to
grid-tied photovoltaic storage system yielding satisfactory
real-time dynamic response [17]. Advantages of MPC in
such a case include smoother power output while respecting
and maintaining the functional requirements of the storage
units and power converters.
Comparing to conventional PID controllers, it should be
noted that MPC consumes excess time for on-line
computations when the constraints intervene. Parameters of
MPC are designed based on successive iterations, where no
mathematical forms have been developed yet to determine
the best configuration of the parameters. To be realistic and
more credible, some modern optimization algorithms have to
be applied to the process for fine tuning the PID control
parameters. A large volume of literature considers
performance comparison between MPC and conventional
PID control, where the results usually point out to noticeable
MPC superiority [18, 19].
In this paper, a comparison between the performances of
Model Predictive Control (MPC) and optimal PID controllers
is presented in terms of different performance indices. The
main intent is to maintain minimum values for rise time,
settling time, peak overshoot percentage, integral of absolute
errors and integral of time multiplied absolute errors for both
MPC and PID controllers.
To guarantee a fair comparison, the PID controller
parameters are optimized by using Bacterial Foraging
Optimization (BFO) algorithms as one of the most promising
 Michael Faraday IET International Summit: MFIIS-2015, September 12 – 13, 2015, Kolkata, India
(Paper ID: 135)

evolutionary algorithms. Several case studies are conducted
to validate such comparison and carried out using
MATLAB/SIMULINK environment. Both qualitative
comparison (via time domain step response) and qualitative
comparison (via certain performance indices) are used to
evaluate the behaviors of both controllers. Results show
distinct superiority in favor of the MPC controller.
2. Model Predictive Control
MPC is a modern control scheme, which was proved to
powerfully control an extensive range of industrial
applications. These applications include unstable systems,
multi-input multi-output systems, systems with delay,
constrained and hybrid systems [2].
Unlike most control algorithms, MPC has the ability to
predict the future response of the plant. At each control
interval, MPC attempts to predict future plant behaviour by
means of an on-line optimization process, which maximizes
the tracking performance under certain constraints [3]. Fig. 1
depicts a block diagram describing MPC.
Fig. 1. A block diagram describing MPC
MPC is characterized by the following strategy which is
represented in Fig. 2:
Step 1: An explicit model is used to predict the process
output through a future time horizon. Predicted outputs
 Fig. 2. Strategy of Model Predictive Control
y (t  k ), k 1, ..., N for the prediction horizon are
calculated at each instant t depending on the past inputs and
outputs as well as the future control
signal u (t  k ), k 0, ..., N  1 .
Step 2: A chain of future control signals is computed to
optimize a performance criterion by minimizing an objective
function. The objective function to be minimized is generally
a weighted summation for square of predicted errors and
square of future control values.
N2
¦

J ( N1 , N 2 , N u ) E ( j )> y (k  j )  w(k  j )@
j N1
Nu 2 optimized by using BFO (Appendix A) as one the most
 ¦ O ( j)>u(k  j  1)@
j 1
of computed future control referring to the equation: ǻXNM
= 0 for j •1X w(k + j) signifies the reference trajectory for
the future horizon N. Constraints for the control signal, the
control signal change and the outputs form the following cost
function:
u min d u (k ) d u max
'(u min ) d 'u (k ) d '(u max ) (2)
y min d y (k ) d y max
Step 3: The current control signal u (t ) is assigned to the
plant. At the next interval, y (t  1) is measured and step 1 is
repeated according to the receding horizon strategy to
compute u (t  1) . Accordingly, at each interval, the horizon is
shifted towards the future maintaining the same length.
MPC can be tuned easily apart from the fact that it handles
constraints properly. Constraints can be either on the output
of the controlled processes (control variable) or on the
control signals that are inputs to the process (manipulated
variables). The constraints are in the form of saturation
characteristics, e.g., valves with a finite range of adjustment,
control surface with limited deflection angles, etc. Input
constraints also appear in the form of rate constraints: valves
and other actuators with limited rates.
I. OPTIMAL PROPORTIONAL-INTEGRAL-DERIVATIVE
CONTROLLER
The ideal continuous PID controller is described as
t de(t )
u K P e(t )  K I ³ e(t )dt  K D (3)
0 dt
Where u is the controller output, KP, KI and KD are the
proportional, integral and derivative gains, respectively, and
2
e(t) is the error between reference and actual output values.
To guarantee a fair comparison between MPC and PID
(1) controllers, the PID controller parameters (KP, KI and KD) are
promising evolutionary algorithms. Four performance terms
are applied for optimization to compromise both static and
Where ȕM ȜM are weighting factors, N1 and N2 lower and dynamic responses. These terms are; maximum overshoot
upper prediction horizons over the output, Nu is the control percentage (Mp), settling time (ts), rise time (tr) and steady
horizon. The control horizon allows to decrease the number state error (ess). The optimization function is defined as [20]:

60
 Michael Faraday IET International Summit: MFIIS-2015, September 12 – 13, 2015, Kolkata, India
(Paper ID: 135)

Some constraints have to be identified to the toolbox, for

Minimize J T
J T (K P , K I , K D ) (1  e  E ) ( M p  e ss )  e  E (t s  t r )
Where E is a weighting factor (E < 0.7 to reduce ts and tr and
E >0.7 to reduce Mp and ess). In order to normalize the BFO
fitness function (F), some medications are applied to
optimization function (JT) as in (5).
1 system with delay caused by a sensor and/or an actuator [21]
Maximize F
( J T  1)
3. Simulation Results
Several case studies are considered to compare the
performances of MPC and optimal PID controllers. These
case studies cover a wide range of practical processes with
different orders. Both qualitative and quantitative
comparisons of MPC and optimal PI controllers are carried
out having regard to certain computable performance indices.
The indices include the rise time (tr), settling time (ts),
integral absolute error (IAE), and integral time-multiplied
absolute error (ITAE). The integral errors, IAE and ITAE, are
performance measures to assess how far the actual response
is from a desired ideal response, where both depend on the
time integration of an error function. Large errors contribute
more to IAE, whereas ITAE penalizes more the error which
occurs late in time. In other words, IAE and ITAE reflect the
transient and steady-state characteristics of the system,
respectively. Mathematical expressions for IAE and ITAE are
given as
f The results of the performance measures for both optimal
IAE ³ e(t ) dt
t 0
f measures.
ITAE ³ t u e(t ) dt
t 0
(4) each plant, such as mminimum and maximum constraints on
manipulated variables, minimum and maximum constraints
on output variable. To fine-tune the MPC controller, other
parameters should be carefully selected; these parameters are:
control interval, prediction horizon, control horizon, overall
tuning factor, input weights and output weights.
Case Study 1. A First Order System with Delay:
Temperature control process can be described by a first order
(5)
as modelled in equation (8)
1  0.2 s
eG ( s) (8)
s 1
The time delay introduces nonlinearity to the first order
system. Zeigler-Nichols tuning method couldn’t lead to a
satisfactory response in this case. However, the evolutionary
algorithm (BFO) could reach a fitness function (F) of 0.561.
With saturation limits ranging from 0 to 10 for the control
signal, the optimal values obtained for KP and KI are 2.51 and
2.19, respectively.
One the other hand, the MPC controller has many parameters
that need to be initialized. After some trials, the following
initial design parameters are assigned to MPC controller
using MATLAB/MPC toolbox:
control interval = 0.001s, prediction horizon = 10, control
horizon = 2, minimum and maximum constraints on
manipulated variables = [0, 10], minimum and maximum
constraints on output variable = [0, 1], overall tuning factor =
0.8, input weights = 0.1 and output weights =1. Step
responses of both optimal PID controller and MPC controller
are shown in Fig. 3.
(6) PID controller and MPC controller are illustrated in Table I.
It is revealed from Fig. 1 and Table I that MPC controller
outperforms optimal PI controller in terms of all performance
(7) 1.4
1.2

To validate the two controllers, a unit step function is taken 1

Output, (p.u.)

as a reference value for the different cases. Both

0.8
MATLAB/SIMULINK and MATLAB/MPC Toolboxes are
used, with a variable step Domand-Prince (ODE45) solver, 0.6
to conduct all numerical studies. 0.4
BFO algorithm is utilized to get the PID controller MPC
parameters with improved performance by maximizing the 0.2
Optimal PID
fitness function F. 0
MATLAB/MPC toolbox is a collection of functions 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
time, (sec.)
developed for the analysis and design of Model Predictive
Control (MPC) systems. While MPC is suitable for almost Fig. 3. Comparison between optimal PI and MPC controllers
any kind of problems, it displays its main power when for Case Study 1
applied to plants with a number of manipulated and TABLE I
controlled variables. In, MPC Toolbox transfer functions, COMPARISON BETWEEN OPTIMAL PI AND MPC PERFORMANCES IN
state-space matrices, or a combination of the two can be CASE STUDY 1
employed. Moreover, time delay can also be imposed, which
are a common feature of industrial plants. Performance Controller
Measure Optimal PI MPC

61
 Michael Faraday IET International Summit: MFIIS-2015, September 12 – 13, 2015, Kolkata, India
(Paper ID: 135)

Tr (sec.) 0.3900
Ts (sec.) 0.7596
Mp % 0.7000
IAE 0.4387
ITAE 0.1262
Case Study 2. A Small Damped Second Order System: A
mass spring damper system is an Case Study [22]
1 for the control signal. The optimal values achieved for KP, KI
G( s) (9)
s 2  0.02 s  1
Zeigler-Nichols tuning method gives poor response also for
that system. Due to the small damping ratio, the derivative
action is necessary. The integral action also helps to
eliminate the steady state error. BFO could reach a fitness
function (F) of 0.512 while keeping a saturation range of [-
10 10] for the control signal. The optimal values achieved for
KP, KI and KD are 8.65, 1.65 and 6.76, respectively.
Moreover, the initial values for the MPC controller are found
to be: control interval = 0.08s, prediction horizon = 10,
control horizon = 2, minimum and maximum constraints on
manipulated variables are -10 and 10, respectively, minimum
and maximum constraints on output variable are 0 and 1,
respectively, overall tuning factor = 0.8, input weights = 0.1
and output weights =1. The step responses of both optimal
PID controller and MPC controller are shown in Fig. 4.
1.2
0.1230 In this example, the ability of the two controllers to
0.4212 compensate the load change effect on their performances is
0.000 checked. A reference step, followed by a load disturbance at
0.0928 15 seconds, is applied. Zeigler-Nichols tuning method could
0.0242 be also applied with the values 4.8, 2.56 and 2.25 for KP, KI
and KD, respectively. However, about 50% as an overshoot is
resulted by using these values.
By applying BFO, a good performance is obtained with a
fitness function (F) of 0.21 and a saturation limit of [-10 10]
and KD are 1.44, 0.4736 and 0.7875, respectively.
On the other side, the initial values for the MPC controller
are found to be: control interval = 0.3s, prediction horizon =
10, control horizon = 2, minimum constraints on manipulated
variables = -10, maximum constraints on manipulated
variables = 10, minimum constraint on output variable = 0,
maximum constraint on output variable = 1, overall tuning
factor = 0.8, input weights = 0.1 and output weights =1.
Responses of (10) due to set point as well as load disturbance
are shown in Fig. 5. Table III provides the quantitative
performance analysis of both optimal PID controller and
MPC controller. From the results, we find that the overall
performance of MPC is also better in presence of disturbance
signals.
1.4
1.2

1
1
Output, (p.u.)

0.8
0.8
Output, (p.u.)

0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4 MPC
0.2
Optimal PID
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 time, (sec.)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 MPC
2.5 3
time, (sec.) Optimal PID Fig. 5. Comparison between optimal PID and MPC
Fig. 4. Comparison between optimal PID and MPC controllers for Case Study 3
controllers for Case Study 2
TABLE III
TABLE II COMPARISON BETWEEN OPTIMAL PI AND MPC PERFORMANCES IN
COMPARISON BETWEEN OPTIMAL PI AND MPC PERFORMANCES IN CASE STUDY 3
CASE STUDY 2
Performance Controller
Performance Controller Measure Optimal PID MPC
Measure Optimal PID MPC Tr (sec.) 2.4400 1.3745
Tr (sec.) 0.9578 0.6142 Ts (sec.) 4.3500 2.4735
Ts (sec.) 1.3266 1.0332 Mp % 1.5800 0.0000
Mp % 3.8600 0.0000 IAE 2.3070 1.2270
IAE 0.6579 0.4964 ITAE 6.0230 1.9080
ITAE 0.3205 0.1522

The results of the performance measures for both optimal Case Study 4. Fourth Order System: Automatic voltage
PID controller and MPC controller are illustrated in Table II. regulator of a power system shown can be represented by a
fourth order system [24] as shown in Fig. 6.
Case Study 3. Third Order System [23]: Position control of
DC motors is an example for third order systems
1
G(s) (10)
s 3  3s 2  3s  1

62
 Michael Faraday IET International Summit: MFIIS-2015, September 12 – 13, 2015, Kolkata, India
(Paper ID: 135)

TABLE IV
COMPARISON BETWEEN OPTIMAL PI AND MPC PERFORMANCES IN
CASE STUDY 4
Performance Controller
Measure Optimal PI MPC
Tr (sec.) 0.7363 0.3868
Ts (sec.) 1.5335 0.7223
Mp % 0.0000 0.0000
Fig. 6. A Block diagram for the AVR of Case Study 4 IAE 0.5617 0.3330
without a controller ITAE 0.2513 0.0676

The results of the performance measures for both optimal

The following closed loop transfer function can be easily PID controller and MPC controller are illustrated in Table IV.
obtained
0.1s  10 Case Study 5. Fifth Order System: A fifth order system
G(s) 4 3 2 (11) is investigated in this case to show the capability of both
0.0004 s  0.0454 s  0.555s  1.51s  11
controllers to deal with high order systems. An example for
By applying a PID controller, the closed loop transfer
such systems can be described as [25]:
function becomes
N (s) 1
G(s)
D( s)
(12) G(s) (13)
s  5s 10 s  10 s 2  5s  1
5 4 3
Where N(s) = With a saturation limit ranging from -10 to 10, the following
0.1K D s 3  (0.1K P  10 K D ) s 2  (0.1K I  10 K P ) s  10 K I optimal PID controller parameters are obtained using BFO:
and D(s) = KP = 0.906, KI = 0.323 and KD = 0.575. Regarding the MPC
controller, the following initial values are assumed: control
0.0004 s 5  0.0454 s 4  0.555s 3  (1.51  10 K D ) s 2
interval = 1s, prediction horizon = 10, control horizon = 2,
 (1  10 K P ) s  10 K I minimum and maximum constraints on manipulated
variables = -10 and 10, respectively, minimum and
The BFO could reach a fitness function (F) of 0.24 with a maximum constraints on output variable = 0 and 1,
saturation limit of [0 2] for the control signal. The optimal respectively, overall tuning factor = 0.8, input weights =
values achieved for KP, KI and KD are 0.5473, 0.1778 and 0.045 and output weights = 2.23. Step responses of both
0.1668, respectively. optimal PID and MPC controllers are shown in Fig. 7.
Moreover, the initial values for the MPC controller are found The results of the performance measures for both optimal
to be: control interval = 0.1s, prediction horizon = 6, control PID controller and MPC controller are illustrated in Table V.
horizon = 2, minimum constraints on manipulated variables
= 0, maximum constraints on manipulated variables = 1.1, 4. Conclusion
minimum constraint on output variable = 0, maximum This paper presents qualitative and quantitative
constraint on output variable = 1, overall tuning factor = 0.8, comparison between the performances of Model Predictive
input weights = 0.1 and output weights = 1. Control (MPC) and optimal PID controllers based BFO in
The step responses of both optimal PID controller and MPC terms of various performance measures. Five case studies are
controller are shown in Fig. 7. introduced representing a wide range of practical systems.
Simulation results indicate that MPC controller outperforms
1.4 optimal PID controller in all cases. However, MPC includes
too many parameters that have to be initialized carefully to
1.2 achieve the best performance.
1
1.4
Output, (p.u.)

0.8 1.2

0.6 1
Output, (p.u.)

0.8
0.4
0.6
0.2 MPC
0.4
Optimal PID
0 0.2 MPC
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Optimal PID
time, (sec.) 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Fig. 7. Comparison between optimal PI and MPC controllers time, (sec.)
for Case Study 4 Fig. 7. Comparison between optimal PI and MPC controllers
for Case Study 5

63
 Michael Faraday IET International Summit: MFIIS-2015, September 12 – 13, 2015, Kolkata, India
(Paper ID: 135)
TABLE V
COMPARISON BETWEEN OPTIMAL PI AND MPC PERFORMANCES IN
CASE STUDY 5
Performance Controller
Measure
Optimal PI MPC
Tr (sec.) 6.0850 2.9955
Ts (sec.) 10.6590 5.7333
Mp % 1.7200 0.0000
IAE 5.8100 3.0460
ITAE 20.3900 5.3170
References
[1] R. Sivakumar and Shennes Mathew, “Design and Development of
Model Predictive Controller for Binary Distillation Column,”
International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), vol. 5, no. 12,
Dec. 2014, pp. 445-451.
[2] K. Holkar and L. Waghmare, “An Overview of Model Predictive
Control,” International Journal of Control and Automation, vol. 3
No. 4, December, 2010, pp. 47-63.
[3] P. Orukpe, “Model Predictive Control Fundamentals,” Nigerian
Journal of Technology (NIJOTECH), vol. 31, No. 2, July, 2012, pp.
139–148.
[4] A. Bemporad and C. Rocchi, “Decentralized Linear Time-Varying
Model Predictive Control of a Formation of Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles,” 50th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and
European Control Conference (CDC-ECC) Orlando, FL, USA,
December 12-15, 2011, pp. 7488-7493.
[5] A. Bamimore, O. Taiwo, and R. King, “Comparison of Two
Nonlinear Model Predictive Control Methods and Implementation on
a Laboratory Three Tank System,” 50th IEEE Conference on
Decision and Control and European Control Conference (CDC-
ECC) Orlando, FL, USA, December 12-15, 2011, pp. 5242-5247.
[6] N. Danesh Pour, A. Montazeri, J. Poshtan and M.R. Jahed Motlahgh,
“Two Case Studies for Applying Model Predictive Controllers on
Chemical Processes,” The 3rd Annual Conference of the IEEE
Industrial Electronics Society (IECON), Taipei, Taiwan, Nov. 5-8,
2007, pp. 580-585.
[7] A. M. Y. Ali, “Model Predictive Control Approach Based Load
Frequency Controller,” Journal of Engineering Sciences, Assiut
University, Egypt, vol. 38, no. 5, September 2010, pp.1259-1273.
[8] T. H. Mohamed, J. Morel, H. Bevrani and T. Hiyama, “Model
Predictive Based Load Frequency Control Design Concerning Wind
Turbines,” Electrical Power and Energy Systems, vol. 43, 2012, pp.
859–867.
[9] R. Singh, G. Onwubolu, K. Singh and R. Ram, “DC Motor Control
Predictive Models,” American Journal of Applied Sciences, vol. 11,
no. 3, 2006, pp. 2096-2102.
[10] V. Naik, D. Sonawane, D. Ingole1 and D. Ginoya, “Model Predictive
Control of DC Servomotor using Active Set Method 2013 IEEE
Multi-conference on Systems and Control,” Conference on Control
Applications, Hyderabad, India, August 28-30, 2013, pp. 820-825.
[11] M. Doss, S. Dash, D. Mahesh and V. Marthandan, “A Model
Predictive Control to Reduce Torque Ripple for Brushless DC Motor
with Inbuilt Stator Current Control,” Universal Journal of Electrical
and Electronic Engineering, vol. 1, no. 3, 2013, pp. 59-67.
[12] S. Sivaranjani and R. Rajeswari, “Simulation of MPC Based Speed
Control of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor Drive,” Journal of
Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, vol. 58, no. 2, Dec.
2013, pp. 237-242.
[13] M. Fan, H. Lin and T. Lan, “Model Predictive Direct Torque Control
for SPMSM with Load Angle Limitation,” Progress In
Electromagnetic Research B, vol. 58, 2014, pp. 245-256
[14] Y. Zhang, and H. Yang, “Model Predictive Torque Control of
Induction Motor Drives with Optimal Duty Cycle Control,” IEEE
Trans. on Power Electronics, vol. 29, no. 12, Dec.2014, pp. 6593-
6603.
[15] J. Scoltock, T. Geyer, and U. Madawala, “A Comparison of Model
Predictive Control Schemes for MV Induction Motor Drives,” IEEE
64
Trans. on Industrial Informatics, vol. 9, no. 2, May 2013, pp. 909-
919.
[16] J. Momoh, F. Zhang and W. Gao, “Optimizing Renewable Energy
Control for Building using Model Predictive Control,” North
American Power Symposium (NAPS), 7-9 Sept., 2014, pp. 1-6.
[17] T. Wang, H. Kamath and S. Willard, “Control and Optimization of
Grid-Tied Photovoltaic Storage Systems Using Model Predictive
Control,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grids, vol. 5, no. 2, 2014, pp. 1010–
1017.
[18] S. Thomsen, N. Hoffmann and F. Fuchs, “PI Control, PI-Based State
Space Control, and Model-Based Predictive Control for Drive
Systems With Elastically Coupled Loads—A Comparative Study,”
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 58, no. 8, August
2011, pp. 3647-3657.
[19] K. Mapok, T. Zuva, H. Masebu and K. Zuva, “Performance
Comparison of Two Controllers on a Nonlinear System,”
International Journal of Chaos, Control, Modelling and Simulation
(IJCCMS), vol.2, no.3, September 2013, pp. 17-30.
[20] Ehab Bayoumi and Fawzan Salem, “PID controller for series-parallel
resonant converters using bacterial foraging optimization”,
Electromotion, volume 19, Number 1-2, June 2012, pp. 64-79.
[21] Baogang Hu, George K. I. Mann, and Raymond G. Gosine, “New
Methodology for Analytical and Optimal Design of Fuzzy PID
Controllers”, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems. Vol. 7, No. 5
October 1999.
[22] H. A. Malki, H. Li, and G. Chen, “New design and stability analysis
of fuzzy proportional-derivative control systems,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy
Syst., vol. 2, pp. 245–254, 1994.
[23] Jan Tantzen, Technical University of Denmark, Department of
Automation, Bldg 326, DK-2800 Lyngby, DENMARK. Tech. report
no 98-H 871 (fpid), April 16, 1999.
[24] B. K. Sahu, P. K. Mohanty, S. Panda, S. K. Kar and N. Mishra,
“Design and Comparative Performance Analysis of PID Controlled
Automatic Voltage Regulator tuned by Many Optimizing Liaisons”,
IEEE conference on Advances in Power Conversion and Energy
Technologies (APCET), Mylavaram, Andhra Pradesh, Aug. 2012,
pp. 1-6.
[25] M. Zhuang and D. P. Atherton, “Automatic tuning of optimum PID
controllers,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng.–Control Theory Appl., vol. 140,
pp. 216–223, 1993.
[26] Sambarta Dasgupta, Swagatam Das, Ajith Abraham, Arijit Biswas,
“Adaptive Computational Chemotaxis in Bacterial Foraging
Optimization: An Analysis”, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary
OMPUTATION, VOL. 13, NO. 4, pp. 919 - 941, Aug. 2009.
[27] S. Mishraand C. N. Bhende “Bacterial Foraging Technique-Based
Optimized Active Power Filter for Load Compensation”, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 22, NO. 1, pp.457 – 465, Jan.
2007.
[28] M.I.Mosaad and Mohamed G. Ashmawy “Short Term Load
Forecasting Using Curve Fitting Prediction Optimized By Bacterial
Foraging Optimization” International Review on Modelling and
Simulations (IREMOS), Italy, Vol 6,no.3, pp1150-1154, August
2013.
Appendix A: Bacterial Foraging Optimization
(Bfo)
BFO is a new division of metaheuristic algorithm. It is a population
based optimization technique advanced by excitation of the foraging
manners of E. coli bacteria that maximize their energy consumption
(E) per time (t) spent in foraging. In contrary to other optimization
techniques, individuals in BFO could converge rapidly without
shared information among each other [26]. The key four principal
steps of the bacteria algorithm are chemotaxis, swarming,
reproduction, and elimination-dispersal [26] that are briefly
elaborated below.
The movement of E. coli bacteria in human intestine searching
for nutrient-rich location away from toxic environment is
accomplished with the help of locomotory organelles known as
flagella by chemotactic movement in either swimming or tumbling
[ 26-27].
 Michael Faraday IET International Summit: MFIIS-2015, September 12 – 13, 2015, Kolkata, India
(Paper ID: 135)

Let și( j, k, l) be the ith bacterium at jth chemotactic, kth

reproductive. Also lth elimination-dispersal step. Then the
bacterium’s chemotactic movement enables bacteria for optimum
local search and can be represented mathematically by equation (1).
The term, C(i) in equation (1) represents the size of the unit step
taken in an arbitrary direction, and ǻLspecifies a vector in random
direction whose elements are between íDQG>28].
(A1)

Swarming is considered in many free collections of bacteria.

These cells release an attractant aspartate when they are stirred up
by a high level of succinate.
The cell-to-cell coding in bacterial clusters via attractant and
repellent may be modelled as (2) where Jcc(ș(i, j, k, l)) is the
objective function added to the actual objective function, J that will
be optimized to present a time varying objective function, S
specifies the number of bacteria in the population, p is the number
of variables to be optimized, and ș= [ș1, ș2, . . , șp]T is a point in
the p-dimensional search domain. The coefficients dattractant, wattractant,
hrepellant and wrepellant are the measures of quantity and diffusion rate
of the attractant signal and the repellent effect magnitude,
respectively [26-28].

Fitness value for ith bacterium after travelling Nc chemotactic steps

can be evaluated by the following equation [2]:
(A3)
where represents the health of ith bacterium.
The least vigorous bacteria constituting half of the bacterial
population are eventually removed while each of the vigorous
bacteria asexually fragmented into two parts located in the same
location. Hence, ultimately the population remains constant [28].
Each bacterium X contains three members (KP, KI and KI) that
represent the control parameters. The process starts by setting a zero
value for the three control parameters, generates random positions
of each bacterium and evaluates the objective function of each
bacterium. Then the position of each bacterium is modified using
tumbling/swimming process that is followed by reproduction and
elimination operation. This process is repeated till the maximum
specified steps have been reached.

65