## 7 Results
### Simulated Results  
Therefore, to evaluate the behavior of the circuit in the proposed operating range from Table 2 (\(30\leq\text{R}\leq 150\)), three simulated tests were performed for the comparison, the first one with R = 30, then with R = 90, and finally with R = 150. All plots in this section have the same color code, the blue graphs are of the circuit with the 330 [uH], and the orange ones are from the 4.7 [mH] inductance in the circuit. Additionally, all the current and voltage curves are presented with a zoomed-in area, in which the ripple reduction of the voltage and current are also shown. In the case of the 30 [\(\Omega\)] load resistance, Figure 17a shows the inductor current and Figure 17b the output voltage profiles. Hence, Figure 17a clearly shows the ripple reduction in the current through the inductance, achieving a better steady-state. Table 6 shows the breakdown of the obtained error, evaluated through Equation (5). Therefore, it can be analyzed how the optimization affected in \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline \hline  & **\(\mathbf{i_{L}}\)** & **\(\mathbf{V_{out}}\)** & **Total** \\ \hline Initial & 0.0023 & 0.0105 & 0.0127 \\ Optimized & 8.8038 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-4}\) & 0.0104 & 0.0113 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Integral of time multiplied by absolute error (ITAE) values under the 30 [\(\Omega\)] load test. Figure 17: (**a**) Inductor current and (**b**) output voltage response with a 30 [\(\Omega\)] load. greater way the energy from the inductance, achieving a better output voltage with a more efficient current consumption. On the other hand, Figure 18a,b shows the inductance current and output voltage curves, respectively, from the 90 [\(\Omega\)] load resistance test. In this performance evaluation, it can be clearly seen how the non-optimized circuit remains in Continuous Conduction Mode (CCM) in the inductance current curves. Nevertheless the ripple makes it be near the discontinuous mode, which seems still far from happening in the optimized circuit. Thus, Table 7 quantifies the results from Figure 18, showing a 6.5359% improvement regarding the total estimated error, highlighting that the error in \(i_{L}\) decreased by 48%. Yet, the output voltage did not show a did not show significant improvement, but the inductor current improvement showed to give the system a more accurate and more robust response since it would presumably be more easily maintained in the CCM zone thanks to the ripple reduction. Finally, in the case where the 150 [\(\Omega\)] load resistance was taken for the test, the results are shown in Figure 19a,b for the current and voltage profiles. Consequently, the data quantification is shown in Table 8, where the error reduction is validated as in the two cases before. The results in this case, show the inductance current entering into the Discontinuous Conduction Mode in the non-optimized curve (blue plot in Figure 19a), which is an undesired behavior in this case study. Nevertheless, the same figure validates the consistency of the results from the optimized circuit, also achieving a stable behavior around the settling point, showing an extended operating rate for the converter. Moreover, as shown by Tables 6-8, the greater error reduction was made in the current through the inductor, validating the relevance of the multi-objective optimization relevance, just as predicted from [2] application. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline \hline  & \(i_{L}\) & \(V_{out}\) & **Total** \\ \hline Initial & 0.0025 & 0.0127 & 0.0153 \\ Optimized & 0.0013 & 0.0130 & 0.0143 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: ITAE values under the 90 [\(\Omega\)] load test. Figure 18: (**a**) Inductor current and (**b**) output voltage response with a 90 [\(\Omega\)] load.