International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS)

Vol. 12, No. 2, Jun 2021, pp. 822~831

ISSN: 2088-8694, DOI: 10.11591/ijpeds.v12.i2.pp822-831  822

PID speed control of DC motor using meta-heuristic algorithms

Bishwa Babu Acharya, Sandeep Dhakal, Aayush Bhattarai, Nawraj Bhattarai

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering, Tribhuvan
University, Nepal

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: This paper presents archimedes optimization algorithm (AOA) and
dispersive flies optimization (DFO) to optimally tune gain parameters of PID
Received Feb 8, 2021 control scheme in order to regulate DC motor’s speed. These suggested
Revised Mar 16, 2021 techniques tune the controller by the minimization of the fitness function
Accepted Apr 4, 2021 represented by the integral of time multiplied by absolute error (ITAE). The
modelling and simulation are carried out in MATLAB/Simulink. The
transient response of unit step input obtained from AOA-PID-ITAE and
Keywords: DFO-PID-ITAE controllers were compared to those obtained from Ziegler-
Nichols (ZN) method and particle swarm optimization (PSO). The results
Archimedes optimization indicate that AOA-PID-ITAE and DFO-PID-ITAE are more efficient than
Dispersive flies optimization ZN method and PSO in reducing rise time and settling time. Likewise, DFO
Meta-heuristic algorithm converge faster to the optimal solution with lower overshoot than AOA and
PID controller PSO.
Ziegler Nichols method
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Aayush Bhattarai
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Tribhuvan University
Lalitpur 44700, Nepal
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
DC motors are actuators that produce angular rotation when supplied with electrical energy. They
have significant importance in various electrical systems employed in domestic and industrial applications
such as electrical vehicles, industrial mills and cranes, robots, and multiple home appliances [1], [2]. This
importance is due to their advantageous characteristics like precision, convenience, and continuous control
[3]. In order to drive the DC motor at appropriate speed or torque, it is necessary to have a proper control
scheme.
PID controller is one of such control schemes employed in numerous industrial applications [4]. The
term PID is an abbreviation for “proportional integral derivative” and a PID controller is a control system
incorporating these three components. The integrator mitigates the controlled system’s error, and the
derivative provides improved output, adding to other advantageous reasons as to why PID controller has been
preferred for more than eight decades [5]. The parameters of proportional, integrator and derivation gains,
denoted respectively as 𝐾𝑝 , 𝐾𝑖 , 𝐾𝑑 , are tuned to obtain desired output from the controlled process [6].
There are several classical approaches to tune the PID controller namely Ziegler-Nichols [7],
Cohen-Coon [8], Chien-Hrones-Reswick [9], Astrom and Hagglund [10]. However, these conventional
methods typically consume a great deal of time as tuning of parameters must be done iteratively until optimal
solution is obtained [11] and results in undesirable overshoot [12]. To overcome these disadvantages, number
of PID tuning methods have been proposed in the literature. One of such approaches is the usage of meta-
heuristic techniques.

Journal homepage: http://ijpeds.iaescore.com

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  823

Metaheuristic optimization techniques are stochastic techniques that provides sufficiently acceptable
solution(s) iterating the candidate solution(s) improving a certain metric, often referred to as the fitness value.
Metaheuristic algorithms can effectively overcome the problem of getting stuck in local optima while
exploration in the feasible solution domain and provide effective optimization in problems with complexities
of time or dimensions [13], [14]. Control of DC motor has been a popular area where several meta-heuristic
algorithms find application [15], [16].
In this paper, two metaheuristic algorithms are presented as tuning methods to tune parameters of
speed-controlled DC motor, namely, archimedes optimization algorithm (AOA) and dispersive flies
optimization (DFO). The paper is set in the following order: Section 2 outlines the methodology employed in
the study with a brief description of meta-heuristic algorithms, Section 3 illustrates results and relevant
discussions, and Section 4 concludes the study.

2. METHOD
2.1. Modelling of DC motor
An externally excited DC motor is employed in this study. The schematic of armature-controlled
DC motor is illustrated in Figure 1. The voltage (𝐸𝑎 ) is employed to regulate the angular velocity (𝜔) of the
motor.

Figure 1. Schematic of armature-controlled DC motor

Rotating rotor interacts with the fixed field at right angle. So, the voltage induced across its terminal
i.e, the motor back EMF (𝑒𝑏 ) is proportional to the speed (𝜔)

𝑑𝜃
𝑒𝑏 = 𝐾𝑏 (1)
𝑑𝑡

Where 𝐾𝑏 is the back EMF constant. The governing mathematical model for armature loop is
𝑑𝑖𝑎
𝐸𝑎 = 𝐿 + 𝑅𝑖𝑎 + 𝑒𝑏 (2)
𝑑𝑡

Where 𝑖𝑎 is the armature current, 𝐿 is the inductance of armature winding, and 𝑅 is the armature resistance.
Since the torque established by the motor (𝑇𝑚 ) is proportionate to current (𝑖𝑎 ) in the armature

𝑇𝑚 = 𝐾𝑡 𝑖𝑎 (3)

Where 𝐾𝑡 is the motor torque constant. The dynamic equation with coefficient of friction (𝑓) and moment of
inertia (𝐽) is

𝑑2𝜃 𝑑𝜃
𝑇𝑚 = 𝐽 +𝑓 (4)
𝑑𝑡 2 𝑑𝑡

Since, 𝜔(𝑠) = 𝑠𝜃(𝑠). The resulting transfer function for the speed-controlled DC motor is

𝜔(𝑠) 𝐾
𝑡
𝐺𝑀 (𝑠) = = (𝐿𝑠+𝑅)(𝐽𝑠+𝑓)+𝐾 (5)
𝐸𝑎 (𝑠) 𝑏 𝐾𝑡

PID speed control of DC motor using meta-heuristic algorithms (Bishwa Babu Acharya)
824  ISSN: 2088-8694

For the model parameters considered, the resulting transfer function is.
𝜔(𝑠) 1
𝐺𝑀 (𝑠) = = (6)
𝐸𝑎 (𝑠) 0.222866𝑠 2 +0.77067𝑠+1

2.2. PID controller

This study assumes to achieve a disturbance rejection controller by using a step input as reference.
The controller efficacy is evaluated with regards to overshoot. rise time, peak time, and settling time of the
closed-loop step response. The transfer function of the PID controller is

𝐾𝑖 1
𝐺𝑃𝐼𝐷 (𝑠) = 𝐾𝑝 + + 𝐾𝑑 𝑠 = 𝐾𝑝 (1 + + 𝑇𝑑 𝑠) (7)
𝑠 𝑇𝑖 𝑠

where 𝐾𝑝 , 𝐾𝑖 and 𝐾𝑑 represent proportional gain, integral gain, and derivative gain, respectively. Likewise, 𝑇𝑖
and 𝑇𝑑 represent the integral and derivative time constant. Also, 𝐾𝑖 = 𝐾𝑝 /𝑇𝑖 , and 𝐾𝑑 = 𝐾𝑝 𝑇𝑑 .
The schematic diagram of the proposed controller for speed control of DC motor is illustrated in
Figure 2. Finally, for no-load condition with PID speed controller, the closed-loop transfer function is given
by (8).

𝜔(𝑠) 𝐺𝑃𝐼𝐷 (𝑠).𝐺𝑀 (𝑠) 𝐾𝑑 𝑠 2 +𝐾𝑝 𝑠+𝐾𝑖

𝐺𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑑−𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝 (𝑠) = = = (8)
𝜔𝑟𝑒𝑓 (𝑠) 1+𝐺𝑃𝐼𝐷 (𝑠).𝐺𝑀 (𝑠) 0.222866𝑠 +(0.77067+𝐾𝑑 )𝑠 2 +(1+𝐾𝑝 )𝑠+𝐾𝑖
3

Figure 2. Block diagram of parameter optimization process of the PID controller

2.3. Ziegler-Nichols (ZN) method

The ZN method [17] to find 𝐾𝑝 , 𝑇𝑖 , and 𝑇𝑑 is developed on the transient response of the system to be
controlled. In this study, step response (open loop) method is employed. The open loop method involves
locating the inflection point in the response curve where the slope of the response curve starts decreasing.
The procedure is as, a) ensure that the response curve looks like an S-shaped curve as shown in Figure 3, for
the open loop step response, b) draw a line tangent to the inflection point and measure the delay time (𝐿) and
time constant (𝑇), c) measure the steady state gain of the plant (𝐾), and d) finally, compute the controller
parameters from Table 1.

Table 1. Ziegler-Nichols tuning formula [17]

Controller type 𝐾𝑝 𝑇𝑖 𝑇𝑑
P 𝑇/𝐿
PI 0.9𝑇/𝐿 𝐿/0.3
PID 1.2𝑇/𝐿 2𝐿 0.5𝐿

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 12, No. 2, June 2021 : 822 – 831
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  825

2.4. Meta-heuristic algorithms

2.4.1. Archimedes optimization algorithm
Archimedes optimization algorithm, in short AOA, is a physics-inspired metaheuristic technique
proposed in 2020 [18]. It is based on the Archimedes’ principle which states that for an object, submerged
fully or partially in a fluid, buoyancy force acting on the object equates the displaced portion of the fluid’s
weight. In AOA, objects refer to the individuals of the population. The objects have physical properties like
acceleration, volume, and density. AOA tries to converge to an optimum where these individuals are in
equilibrium. In other words, resultant force acting on the object is zero and the object floats on the fluid. In
initial stage of AOA, each object has random position in fluid. With iteration, AOA updates each object’s
density and volume. Iterations continue until termination criteria is met. The algorithm’s implementation in
optimization problem is illustrated by the pseudo-code.

procedure AOA
Define population size 𝑁, maximum iterations 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 , constants 𝐶1 , 𝐶2 , 𝐶3 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐶4
Initialize population individuals with random positions, densities, and volumes
Evaluate each individual’s fitness and choose the optimum from these fitness value
Set iteration counter 𝑇 = 1
while 𝑇 ≤ 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 do
for each object 𝑖 do
Update density and volume
Update transfer and density decreasing factors TF and d respectively
if 𝑇𝐹 ≤ 0.5 then (Exploration Phase)
Update acceleration and normalize acceleration
Update position
else (Exploitation Phase)
Update acceleration and normalize acceleration
Update direction flag F
Update position
end if
end for
Evaluate each object’s fitness and select the best fitness
Set 𝑇 = 𝑇 + 1
end while
return object with best fitness value
end procedure

2.4.2. Dispersive flies optimization

Dispersive flies optimization, introduced in 2014 [19], is inspired from two behaviours of flies: their
swarming behaviour when they find a food source and their retreating and dispersing behaviour when
encountered a threat. It has been employed in several discrete and continuous search spaces problems in the
domain of medical imaging [20], training of deep neural network [21], optimization of machine learning
algorithms [22]. DFO’s implementation in optimization problem is illustrated by the pseudo-code.

while FE < 300,000 do

for 𝑘 = 1 → 𝑁 do
𝑥⃗𝑘 . 𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 ← 𝑓(𝑥⃗𝑘 )
end for
𝑠𝑏 ← {𝑠𝑏, ∀𝑓(𝑥⃗𝑠𝑏 ) = min(𝑓(𝑥⃗1 ), 𝑓(𝑥⃗2 ), … , 𝑓(𝑥⃗𝑁 ))}
𝑛𝑏 ← {𝑛𝑏, ∀𝑓(𝑥⃗𝑛𝑏 ) = min (𝑓(𝑥⃗𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 ), 𝑓(𝑥⃗𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 ))}
for 𝑖 = 1 → 𝑁 do
for 𝑑 = 1 → 𝐷 do
𝑡−1 𝑡−1 𝑡−1
𝜏𝑑 ← 𝑥𝑛𝑏,𝑑 + 𝑈(0,1) × (𝑥𝑠𝑏,𝑑 − 𝑥𝑖𝑑 )
if (𝑟 < 𝑑𝑡) then
𝜏𝑑 ← 𝑥𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑑 + 𝑟(𝑥𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑑 − 𝑥𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑑 )
end if
end for
𝑥⃗𝑘 ← 𝜏⃗
end for
end while

2.4.3. Particle swarm optimization

Kennedy and Eberhart [23] suggested PSO which has its motivation in the collective behaviour of
fauna which commute in groups. Each member in swarm is referred as a “particle” which moves around in
the solution space. Their movements are governed by pre-defined rules. Each of these members, or particles,
is assigned, a velocity value and a position value. The change in position is brought up by adjustment in
velocity, which in turn depends on each member’s best position and entire population’s best position until
PID speed control of DC motor using meta-heuristic algorithms (Bishwa Babu Acharya)
826  ISSN: 2088-8694

that instance. It has been employed in controller designing task for multiple times. Bayoumi and Soliman
[24] employed PSO-based PI/PID controlling scheme for speed and current regulation of brushless DC
(BLDC) motor. H. E. A. Ibrahim, F. N. Hassan, and A. O. Shomer [25] compared performance of PSO with
bacterial foraging optimization (BFO) in regulating a BLDC motor’s speed. R. V. Jain, M. V. Aware, and A.
S. Junghare [26] tuned fractional order PID (FOPID) controller for similar application. The algorithm is
represented in the pseudo code.

For member p
Initialize member
End
Do
For member p
Evaluate the fitness
If new fitness value optimal than personal best (pfbest)
pfbest ← new fitness value
End
Select the member with the best pfbest value as global best (gfbest)
For member p
Evaluate velocity using (1)
Update position using (2)
End

While stopping criteria not true

The update equations are as

𝑉(𝑘 + 1, 𝑝) = 𝑊(𝑝)𝑉(𝑘, 𝑝) + 𝐶1 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑑[𝑋(𝑝𝑓𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡, 𝑝) − 𝑋(𝑝)] + 𝐶2 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑑[𝑋(𝑔𝑓𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡) − 𝑋(𝑝)] (9)

𝑋(𝑘 + 1, 𝑝) = 𝑋(𝑘, 𝑝) + 𝑉(𝑘 + 1, 𝑝) (10)

Where 𝑘=iteration number, 𝑝=particle number, 𝑉=velocity, 𝑋=position, 𝐶1 , 𝐶2 =acceleration constants,

𝑋(𝑝𝑓𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡, 𝑝)=personal best position of 𝑝𝑡ℎ particle, and 𝑋(𝑔𝑓𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡)=global best position in population.

2.5. Performance index and response criteria

ITAE is a common performance index used in the design of a PID control. This index was selected
to be our objective function because integral of square error and integral of absolute error, ISE and IAE
respectively, weigh all error equally resulting in longer settling time. ITAE overcomes this limitation [27].
ITAE is evaluated using the (18).
𝑇
𝐼𝑇𝐴𝐸 = ∫𝑜 𝑡 |𝑒(𝑡)|𝑑(𝑡) (11)

Three response characteristics, particularly, the settling time, rise time and the overshoot of the plant
introduced with the step input were observed. Then the response of the suggested algorithms, ZN method and
PSO were compared. The data obtained are compared with that of PSO as it is the most used algorithm for
synonymous task in literature.

2.6. Algorithm parameters

The simulations of transient response analyses of meta-heuristic algorithms are performed in
MATLAB/Simulink environment. Results are obtained after 10 runs for each algorithm in laptop running 64-
bit Windows 10, Intel(R) Core ™, i7-1067G7CPU @1.30GHz, 1.5 GHz, 8GB RAM. The initialization
values used for the variables, kept fixed during each run of the code execution, of the metaheuristic
algorithms are listed in the Tables 2.

Table 2. Initialization parameters for AOA, DFO, and PSO

AOA DFO PSO
Material numbers = 50 Population of flies = 50 Number of particles = 50
TF threshold for exploration phase ≤ 0.5 Delta = 0.001 Maximum iterations = 100
Maximum iterations = 100 Maximum iterations = 100 Inertial weight (𝑤) = 0.1
𝐶1 = 2 Acceleration coefficient 1 (𝐶1 ) = 1.2
𝐶2 = 6 Acceleration coefficient 2 (𝐶2 ) = 0.12
𝐶3 = 2
𝐶4 = 1

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 12, No. 2, June 2021 : 822 – 831
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  827

The dimension of the problem to be optimized by the algorithms is three, referring to the three gain
values of PID controller: 𝐾𝑝, 𝐾𝑖, 𝐾𝑑. The range of these gains used is.

0.01 ≤ 𝐾𝑝, 𝐾𝑖, 𝐾𝑑 ≤ 20

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To investigate the efficacy of AOA and DFO, their performance in transient response were
compared with ZN and PSO. The chosen algorithms for performance comparison are AOA-PID-ITAE, DFO-
PID-ITAE and PSO-PID-ITAE. Transient response criteria mainly include percentage overshoot (𝑀𝑝 ), rise
time (𝑇𝑟 ), settling time (𝑇𝑠 ), and peak time (𝑇𝑝 ).

3.1. Open loop response

Table 3 provides transient response criteria for the system when introduced with step input in the
absence of controller. A mild overshoot of 1.1809 and settling time of 1.8354s is observed in the open loop
step response suggesting the implementation of derivative action in the controller to mitigate the overshoot
and reduce settling time. Also, the rise time of 1.1945s is observed in the open loop step response suggesting
the incorporation of proportional and integrative action in the controller to reduce the rise time.

Table 3. Transient response criteria without PID controller

Transient response criteria Values
𝑀𝑝 (%) 1.1809
𝑇𝑟 (𝑠) 1.1945
𝑇𝑠 (𝑠) 1.8354
𝑇𝑝 (𝑠) 2.5570

3.2. Ziegler-Nichols method

As per the procedure described in Section 2.3., the parameters for computing the PID gains is
obtained from Figure 3. The obtained parameters are 𝐾 = 1, 𝐿 = 0.40476 𝑠𝑒𝑐, and 𝑇 = 0.64285 𝑠𝑒𝑐. The
PID gain parameters computed using these values with the corresponding transient response criteria are
incorporated in Table 4. The closed-loop response of the motor using PID gain parameters obtained from
Ziegler-Nichols method has rise time of 0.7768𝑠, settling time of 1.2518𝑠, peak time of 5.1184𝑠, and no
overshoot. Hence, the Ziegler-Nichols method seems to have improved the system’s transient response by
removing the disturbance and reducing rise time and peak time. Although Ziegler-Nichols removed the
disturbance form the transient response, peak time increased from 2.5570𝑠 to 5.1184𝑠.

Figure 3. Funding K, L and T from ‘S’ shaped step response curve

3.3. Meta-heuristic algorithms

Table 4 illustrates the best performance of the algorithms to produce optimal PID controller gains.
The closed-loop response of the DC motor using PID gain parameters obtained from AOA-PID has rise time
of 0.1100𝑠, settling time of 0.1957𝑠, peak time of 0.5516𝑠, and 0.2600% overshoot. Hence, the AOA-PID

PID speed control of DC motor using meta-heuristic algorithms (Bishwa Babu Acharya)
828  ISSN: 2088-8694

has improved the system’s transient response by significantly reducing the peak time, the settling time, and
the rise time. Similar conclusion can be derived for the transient response criteria of DFO-PID which has the
rise time of 0.1098𝑠, settling time of 0.1951𝑠, peak time of 0.5349𝑠, and 0.4600% overshoot. These
response criteria are better when compared to those obtained from ZN method and PSO-PID.

Table 4. Controller gains and transient response criteria

Controller type 𝐾𝑝 𝐾𝑖 𝐾𝑑 𝑀𝑝 (%) 𝑇𝑟 (𝑠) 𝑇𝑠 (𝑠) 𝑇𝑝 (𝑠)
AOA-PID 15.4000 19.9704 4.4477 0.2600 0.1100 0.1957 0.5516
DFO-PID 15.4367 19.9997 4.4535 0.4600 0.1098 0.1951 0.5349
PSO-PID 13.6948 17.7389 3.9468 0.7700 0.1239 0.2198 0.5752
ZN-PID 1.9059 2.3543 0.3857 0.0000 0.7768 1.2518 5.1184

DFO-PID outperforms AOA-PID, ZN-PID, and PSO-PID in terms of rise time, peak time, and
settling time. DFO-PID controller has rise time of 0.1098𝑠, settling time of 0.1951𝑠, and peak time of
0.5349𝑠. Likewise, AOA-PID ranks second with rise time of 0.1100𝑠, settling time of 0.1957𝑠, and peak
time of 0.5516𝑠. With regards to overshoot, AOA-PID outperforms other meta-heuristic algorithms with
0.26% overshoot. Likewise, DFO-PID ranks second with 0.46% overshoot. Figure 4 shows the closed-loop
step response of the system for all these controllers. Although all the meta-heuristic algorithms can reduce
the disturbance in comparison to open loop response, small percentage of overshoot is still prevalent in the
system. Figure 4 illustrates the closed-loop step response of the system for all these controllers.

Figure 4. Closed-loop step response for all controllers

Table 5 provides the minimum value of the objective function these metaheuristic algorithms
converge to after 100 iterations. This helps one conclude that the proposed tuning methods provide PID
controller parameters with comparatively lower ITAE value which is a desired feature. DFO-PID controller,
evidently, has the lowest ITAE with lowest standard deviation for 10 independent runs. Hence, the DFO-PID
controller is the most accurate meta-heuristic algorithm based on ITAE fitness function. Likewise, DFO-PID
is evident to show minimal variance in the result for different runs illustrating the high repeatability of the
algorithm. AOA-PID ranks second after DFO-PID in terms of fitness function value as well.

Table 5. Best fitness function value for each controller

Controller type Best fitness value (ITAE) Standard deviation in ITAE
AOA-PID 0.002493 4.77E-04
DFO-PID 0.002484 2.3119E-06
PSO-PID 0.003153 9.22E-04

Figure 5 illustrates the convergence of the meta-heuristic algorithm for the best simulation run. It is
observed that the suggested methods take less iteration to converge to provide an optimal PID controller. It is
observable that the DFO-PID converges faster than AOA-PID and PSO-PID. While DFO-PID took only 18

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 12, No. 2, June 2021 : 822 – 831
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  829

iterations to converge to the ITAE of 0.002484, AOA-PID took about 50 iterations to achieve approximately
the same. On the contrary, PSO-PID could only converge to ITAE of 0.003153 even with 100 iterations.
AOA-PID and DFO-PID outperform ZN method and PSO-method in transient response criteria as well as in
minimizing ITAE value. Furthermore, these two proposed methods take comparatively less iterations to
converge to optimal ITAE value than PSO-PID.

Figure 5. Convergence plot of meta-heuristic algorithms

4. CONCLUSION
In this study, two new approaches are presented to obtain optimum gain parameters of PID
controller to regulate a DC motor’s rotational speed. In controller design process, meta-heuristic algorithms
are utilized to minimize the ITAE fitness function. Transient response characteristics of DC motor speed
control system were employed to evaluate the efficacy of meta-heuristic algorithms. In this study, AOA,
DFO, and PSO algorithms are considered for performance comparison. The numerical figures and graphical
simulation results conclude that the proposed techniques outperform the classical ZN method and the popular
PSO method. Hence, the proposed technique can be employed to ensure optimum performance of PID
controller in large electrical systems, process industry and automation sector, among others.

REFERENCES
[1] W. Lan and Q. Zhou, “Speed control of DC motor using composite nonlinear feedback control,” In 2009 IEEE
International Conference on Control and Automation, Dec 2009, pp. 2160-2164.
[2] Q. V. Ngo, Y. Chai, and T. T. Nguyen, “The fuzzy-PID based-pitch angle controller for small-scale wind
turbine,” International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS), vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 135-142,
2020, DOI: 10.11591/ijpeds.v11.i1.pp135-142.
[3] Dil Kumar T R and Mija S.J, “Design and performance evaluation of robust SMC schemes for speed control of DC
motor,” In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Communications, Control and Computing
Technologies, pp. 88-92, DOI: 10.1109/ICACCCT.2014.7019235.
[4] R. Namba, T. Yamamoto, and M. Kaneda, “Robust PID controller and its application,” 1997 IEEE International
Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Computational Cybernetics and Simulation, Oct 1997, vol. 4,
pp. 3636-3641, DOI: 10.1109/ICSMC.1997.633233.
[5] Š. Bucz and A. Kozáková, “Advanced methods of PID controller tuning for specified performance,” PID Control
for Industrial Processes, pp. 73-119, 2018, DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.76069.
[6] L. Chaib, A. Choucha, and S. Arif, “Optimal design and tuning of novel fractional order PID power system
stabilizer using a new metaheuristic Bat algorithm,” Ain Shams Engineering Journal, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 113-125,
2017, DOI: 10.1016/j.asej.2015.08.003.
[7] N. Yadaiah and S. Malladi, “An optimized relation between T i and T d in Modified Ziegler Nichols PID controller
tuning,” 2013 IEEE International Conference on Control Applications (CCA), Aug 2013, pp. 1275-1280, DOI:
10.1109/CCA.2013.6662928.
[8] G. Cohen, “Theoretical consideration of retarded control,” Trans. Asme, vol. 75, pp. 827-834, 1953.
[9] K. L. Chien, “On the automatic control of generalized passive systems,” Trans. Asme, vol. 74, pp. 175-185,1972.
[10] K. Astrom and T. Hagglund, PID controllers: theory, design and tuning, 1977.
[11] M. N. Ab Malek and M. Ali, “Evolutionary tuning method for PID controller parameters of a cruise control system
using metamodeling,” Modelling and Simulation in Engineering, vol. 2009, pp. 1-8, DOI: 10.1155/2009/234529.
PID speed control of DC motor using meta-heuristic algorithms (Bishwa Babu Acharya)
830  ISSN: 2088-8694

[12] G. M. de Almeida, V. V. R. e Silva, E. G. Nepomuceno, and R. Yokoyama, “Application of genetic programming

for fine tuning PID controller parameters designed through Ziegler-Nichols technique,” International Conference
on Natural Computation, Aug 2005, pp. 313-322, DOI: 10.1007/11539902_37.
[13] M. A. Jusoh and M. Z. Daud, “Accurate battery model parameter identification using heuristic optimization,”
International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS), vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 333, 2020, DOI:
10.11591/ijpeds.v11.i1.pp333-341.
[14] A. Memari, R. Ahmad, and A. R. A. Rahim, “Metaheuristic algorithms: guidelines for implementation,” Journal of
Soft Computing and Decision Support Systems, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 1-6, 2017.
[15] S. J. Hammoodi, K. S. Flayyih, and A. R. Hamad, “Design and implementation speed control system of DC motor
based on PID control and matlab simulink,” International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems
(IJPEDS), vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 127, 2020, DOI: 10.11591/ijpeds.v11.i1.pp127-134.
[16] S. Ekinci, D. Izci, and B. Hekimoğlu, “PID speed control of DC motor using Harris Hawks optimization
algorithm,” 2020 International Conference on Electrical, Communication, and Computer Engineering (ICECCE),
Jun 2020, pp. 1-6, DOI: 10.1109/ICECCE49384.2020.9179308.
[17] J. G. Ziegler and N. B. Nichols, “Optimum settings for automatic controllers,” Trans. ASME, vol. 64, no. 11, 1942.
[18] Fatma A. Hashim, Kashif Hussain, Essam H. Houssein, Mai S. Mabrouk and Walid Al-Atabany, “Archimedes
optimization algorithm: a new metaheuristic algorithm for solving optimization problems,” Applied Intelligence,
vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 1-21, 2020, DOI: 10.1007/s10489-020-01893-z.
[19] M. M. Al-Rifaie, “Dispersive flies optimization,” 2014 Federated Conference on Computer Science and
Information Systems, Sept 2014, pp. 529-538.
[20] M. M. al-Rifaie and A. Aber, “Dispersive flies optimisation and medical imaging,” Recent Advances in
Computational Optimization, pp. 183-203, 2016.
[21] O. M. Hooman, M. M. Al-Rifaie, and M. A. Nicolaou, “Deep neuroevolution: training deep neural networks for
false alarm detection in intensive care units,” 2018 26th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), Sept
2018, pp. 1157-1161, DOI: 10.23919/EUSIPCO.2018.8552944.
[22] H. A. Alhakbani and M. M. al-Rifaie, “Optimising SVM to classify imbalanced data using dispersive flies
optimization,” 2017 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), Sept 2017,
pp. 399-402, DOI: 10.15439/2017F91.
[23] J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, “Particle swarm optimization,” Proceedings of ICNN'95-international conference on
neural networks, Nov 1995, vol. 4, pp. 1942-1948.
[24] E. H. Bayoumi and H. M. Soliman, “PID/PI tuning for minimal overshoot of permanent-magnet brushless DC
motor drive using particle swarm optimization,” ELECTROMOTION-CLUJ NAPOCA, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 198-208,
2007.
[25] H. E. A. Ibrahim, F. N. Hassan, and A. O. Shomer, “Optimal PID control of a brushless DC motor using PSO and
BF techniques,” Ain Shams Engineering Journal, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 391-398, 2014, DOI:
10.1016/j.asej.2013.09.013.
[26] R. V. Jain, M. V. Aware, and A. S. Junghare, “Tuning of fractional order PID controller using particle swarm
optimization technique for DC motor speed control,” 2016 IEEE 1st International Conference on Power
Electronics, Intelligent Control and Energy Systems (ICPEICES), Jul 2016, pp. 1-4.
[27] A. Idir, M. Kidouche, Y. Bensafia, K. Khettab, and S. A. Tadjer, “Speed control of DC motor using PID and
FOPID controllers based on differential evolution and PSO,” International Journal of Intelligent Engineering and
Systems, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 241-249.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Bishwa Babu Acharya received his B.E. in Mechanical Engineering from Institute of
Engineering (IOE), Pulchowk Campus, Tribhuvan University, Nepal. His research interests are
Dynamics and Controls, Optimization and Sustainable Energy.

Sandeep Dhakal is a final year mechanical engineering student at Pulchowk Campus, Institute
of Engineering, Tribhuvan University, Nepal. He is actively working in the application of data
science techniques in mechanical engineering to generate meaningful information. His research
interest includes Data Analytics, Data Science, Operation Research, and Supply Chain
Management.

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 12, No. 2, June 2021 : 822 – 831
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  831

Aayush Bhattarai is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace

Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering, Tribhuvan University. Bhattarai is
also a founding faculty of Aerospace Engineering for the first time in Nepal. He completed his
M.Eng. from the University of Technology Sydney, Australia, and Bachelor of Engineering in
Aeronautics from Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics. His research interest
includes the field of Aviation, Operation Research, Operations Management, and Project
Management.

Associate Professor, Nawraj Bhattarai (PhD.) received his B.E. in Mechanical Engineering
degree from Tribhuvan University in 2000. He went on to receive M.Sc. in Renewable Energy
Engineering from Tribhuvan University in 2004 and Ph.D. in Energy System Planning from
Vienna University of Technology, Austria in 2015. He is currently working as Head of
Department in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, Institute of
Engineering, Tribhuvan University, Nepal. His research interest includes the field of Mechanical
Engineering, Renewable Energy Engineering, and Energy System Planning.

PID speed control of DC motor using meta-heuristic algorithms (Bishwa Babu Acharya)