International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS)

Vol. 15, No. 2, June 2024, pp. 696~703

ISSN: 2088-8694, DOI: 10.11591/ijpeds.v15.i2.pp696-703  696

Controlling parameters proportional integral derivative of DC

motor using a gradient-based optimizer

Widi Aribowo1, Reza Rahmadian1, Mahendra Widyartono1, Ayusta Lukita Wardani1,

Aditya Prapanca2, Laith Abualigah3,4,5,6,7
1
Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Vocational, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia
2
Department of Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia
3
Artificial Intelligence and Sensing Technologies (AIST) Research Center, University of Tabuk, Tabuk, Saudi Arabia
4
Hourani Center for Applied Scientifc Research, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan
5
MEU Research Unit, Middle East University, Amman, Jordan
6
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Lebanese American University, Byblos, Lebanon
7
Applied Science Research Center, Applied Science Private University, Amman, Jordan

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: In this paper, a gradient-based optimizer (GBO) algorithm is presented to
optimize the parameters of a proportional integral derivative (PID) controller
Received Aug 22, 2023 in DC motor control. The GBO algorithm which mathematically models and
Revised Sep 19, 2023 mimics is inspired by the gradient-based Newton method. It was developed to
Accepted Oct 12, 2023 address various optimization issues. To determine the performance of the
proposed method, a comparison method with the ant colony optimization
(ACO) method. It was compared using the integral of time multiplied absolute
Keywords: error (ITAE). They are most popularly used in the literature. From the test
results, the proposed method is promising and has better effectiveness. The
Artificial intelligence proposed method, namely GBO-PID, shows the best performance.
DC motor
Gradient-based optimizer
Metaheuristic
Proportional integral derivative This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Widi Aribowo
Departement of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Vocational, Universitas Negeri Surabaya
St. Ketintang, Gayungan, Surabaya, East Java 61256, Indonesia
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
There are various sorts of control actions in a control system, including proportional, integral, and
derivative control actions [1]–[4]. There are benefits to each of these control measures. Fast research is a benefit
of proportional control action, minimizing errors is a benefit of integral control action, and lowering errors or
overshoot/undershoot is a benefit of derivative control action [5].
The industry uses proportional integral derivative (PID) control extensively, which improves the
system's transient and steady-state behavior [6]–[8]. To accomplish the conditions as per the anticipated
setpoint, this control system processes computations based on the control variables Kp, Ki, and Kd. The DC
motor rotational speed can be controlled by this control system to generate a satisfactory output response.
However, in practice, when the setpoint changes, this PID control system has not been able to deliver a good
output response in accordance with the intended circumstances [9]–[13].
Only linear conditions will allow a PID control system to function. DC motor convert electrical energy
into mechanical energy [14]–[16]. A DC motor, however, exhibits a non-linearity effect. A single PID control
system cannot generate an output response with the same characteristics under multiple setpoint values due to
the variance in properties. A technique that can remove this non-linearity effect must be used in order to provide

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

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  697

an output response with the same properties from various setpoints. A DC motor's rotational speed can be
managed using an adaptive PID control, which is one method of removing this non-linearity impact.
In recent years, several improving PID control methods using artificial intelligence have been
presented, such as the neural network [17]–[20], henry gas solubility optimization algorithm [21], [22], transit
search optimization algorithm [23], gray wolf optimization [24], salp swarm algorithm [25], slime mould
algorithm [26], and particle swarm optimization [27]. This paper will present DC motor control using PID
which is optimized using the gradient-based optimizer (GBO) algorithm. The GBO was introduced by
Ahmadianfar et al. in 2020 [28]. The method was inspired by Newton's gradient-based search method. To test
the performance of the proposed method, this paper will make a comparison with the ant colony optimizer
(ACO) method. The contributions of this research are: i) Application of the gradient-based optimizer (GBO)
algorithm method to tune parameter PID as DC motor control and ii) Comparison of the GBO method with the
ACO method applied to PID as DC motor control.
This paper is divided into some sections: i) Section 2, which is about the concept of DC motor and
the gradient-based optimizer (GBO) method; ii) The section 3 is the results and discussion; and iii) The last
section is to draw conclusions from the research.

2. METHOD
2.1. DC motor
DC motor is controlling by armature and field [29]. Stator and rotor are important parts of a DC motor.
The non-rotating part of the DC motor is called the stator. While the rotating part is the rotor. DC motor with
anchor control uses armature current as the controlling variable. Current coils or permanent magnets can
generate a stator field. When a fixed field current pours in the field coil, the motor torque (τ_m) shown as (1).

τm(𝑠) = (𝐾1 𝐾𝑓 𝐼𝑓 )𝐼𝑎 (𝑠) = 𝐾𝑚 𝐼𝑎 (𝑠) (1)

If it is using permanent magnets, then shown as (2).

𝑇𝑚 (𝑠) = 𝐾𝑚 𝐼𝑎 (𝑠) (2)

Where, 𝐾𝑚 is the permeability function of the magnetic material. The relationship between the armature current
(𝐼𝑎 ) and the input voltage (𝑉𝑎 ) in the armature circuit can be formulated as (3) and (4).

𝑉𝑎 (𝑠) = (𝑅𝑎 + 𝐿𝑎 . 𝑠). 𝐼𝑎 (𝑠) + 𝑒𝑏 (𝑠) (3)

𝑒𝑏 (𝑠) = 𝐾𝑏 𝜔(𝑠) (4)

Where Ra and La are armature resistance and armature inductance. 𝑒𝑏 is back electromotive force. The torque
in the motor is the same as the torque delivered to the load.

𝜏𝑚 (𝑠) = 𝜏𝐿 (𝑠) + 𝜏𝑑 (𝑠) (5)

The load torque for a rotating object is written as (6).

𝜏𝐿 (𝑠) = 𝐽𝑠𝜔(𝑠) + 𝐵𝜔(𝑠) (6)

Where 𝜏L is the torque connected to the load. 𝜏d is fault torque. J and B is inertia of the DC motor and damping
friction ratio. Schematically of the DC motor are shown in Figure 1.

τd (s)

+ τm (s) -
Vs(s) + τ (s) ω (s)
- L

Kb

Figure 1. DC motor block diagram

Controlling parameters proportional integral derivative of DC motor using a … (Widi Aribowo)
698  ISSN: 2088-8694

2.2. A gradient-based optimizer (GBO)

The GBO method uses two main algorithms namely gradient tracing rules (GSR) and local escape
operators (LEO) with a set of vectors to explore the search space. To increase exploration and convergence
speed in finding the best position in the search space, GSR uses a gradient-based method. Meanwhile,
according to Ahmadianfar [28] LEO is used to achieve local optimal.
In GBO, the amount of iterance and the population dimensions (𝛼) are based on the difficulty of the
problem. Each member of the population is represented as a vector. Thus, the method adds a vector N in the
D-dimension. The GBO method can be formulated as (7).

𝑋𝑛,𝑑 = [𝑋𝑛,1 , 𝑋𝑛,2 , … , 𝑋𝑛,𝐷 ], 𝑛 = 1,2, … , 𝑁, 𝑑 = 1,2, … . 𝐷 (7)

In first stage, the vector was randomly selected in the prospecting zone. This could be formulated as (8).

𝑋𝑛 = 𝑋𝑚𝑖𝑛 + 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 (0,1) × (𝑋𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑋𝑚𝑖𝑛 ) (8)

Where the limit of the decision variable is represented by 𝑋𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝑋𝑚𝑎x.

2.2.1. Gradient search rule (GSR)

Vector displacement is controlled in an effort to find better searches in viable domains. Besides, to
achieve a better position. This is done using the GSR method. The proposed method is applying the gradient
based (GB) method in an effort to increase exploration and accelerate the convergence of GBO. The GB method
initiates the initially estimated completion and shifts towards the next location along the direction detailed by
the gradient. To derive the GSR, the first-order derivative is calculated using the Taylor series. The GSR
method can be formulated as (9).
2∆𝑥×𝑥𝑛
𝐺𝑆𝑅 = 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑛 × (9)
(𝑥𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑡 −𝑥𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 +𝜀)

Where random numbers that are normally distributed are represented as 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑛. The small number in the range
[0, 0,1] is 𝜀. The best solution is 𝑥best. 𝑥worst is the worst solution.
The optimization method must maintain a balance motion to probe a hopeful area in the prospecting
zone that leads to a globally best completion. In the GSR, the adaptive coefficient is used to equilibrium
processes. This could be formulated as (10)-(20).

𝜌1 = 2 × 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 ×∝ −∝ (10)
3𝜋 3𝜋
∝= |𝛽 × 𝑠𝑖𝑛 ( + sin (𝛽 × ))| (11)
2 2

2
𝑚 2
𝛽 = 𝛽𝑚𝑖𝑛 + (𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝛽𝑚𝑖𝑛 ) × (1 − ( ) ) (12)
𝑀

The (9) changes to:

2∆𝑥×𝑥𝑛
𝐺𝑆𝑅 = 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑛 × 𝜌1 × (13)
(𝑥𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑡 −𝑥𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 +𝜀)

∆𝑥 = 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑(1: 𝑁) × |𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑝| (14)

𝑚 )+𝛿
(𝑥𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 −𝑥𝑟1
𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑝 = (15)
2
𝑚 +𝑥 𝑚 +𝑥 𝑚 +𝑥 𝑚
𝑥𝑟1
𝛿 = 2 × 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 × (| 𝑟2 𝑟3 𝑟4
− 𝑥𝑛𝑚 | (16)
4

𝑥𝑛+1 = 𝑥𝑛 − 𝐺𝑆𝑅 (17)

To make better use of the nearby area, a direction of movement (DM) parameter was added as (18) and (19).

𝐷𝑀 = 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 × 𝜌2 × (𝑥𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 − 𝑥𝑛 ) (18)

𝜌2 = 2 × 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 ×∝ −∝ (19)

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 2, June 2024: 696-703
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  699

Where the random number in [0, 1] is denoted 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑. The random variable helps each vector have a diverse
pace measure is represented by 𝜌2. The current vector position in (20) can be updated based on GSR and DM.

𝑋1𝑚 𝑚
𝑛 = 𝑥𝑛 − 𝐺𝑆𝑅 + 𝐷𝑀 (20)

2.2.2. Local escaping operator (LEO)

LEO is enabled to boost the performance of method in breaking complicated issues. The (21) can find
a significant solution position.

𝑖𝑓 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 < 0.5

m m
Xm m+1 m m m
leo =xn +f1 (u1 ×xbest -u2 ×xk )+f2 ×p1 ×(u3 ×(X2n -X1n )+u2 ×(xr1 -xr2 ))/2 (21)

Else, as (22)-(25) show.

m m
Xm m m m
leo =xbest +f1 (u×xbest -u2 ×xk )+f2 ×p1 ×(u3 ×(X2n -X1n )+u2 ×(xr1 -xr2 ))/2 (22)

2 × 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑, 𝑖𝑓 𝜇1 < 0.5

𝑢1 = { (23)
1, 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒

𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑, 𝑖𝑓 𝜇1 < 0.5

𝑢2 = { (24)
1, 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒

𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑, 𝑖𝑓 𝜇1 < 0.5

𝑢3 = { (25)
1, 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒

2.3. Proposed GBO for controlling DC motor speed

To increase the reaction of the DC motor in the detailed point as overshoot, rise-time, and settling
time, the PID controller parameter values are searched using the proposed method, namely the GBO algorithm.
Figure 2 is a block diagram illustration of the proposed method with the GBO-PID for the DC motor. GBO
gets input from ITAE calculations which are always updated during the iteration process. The output obtained
is the PID parameter

ITAE

Proposed GBO DC Motor

Algorithm
τd
(s)
τm - τL ω (s)
Reference
+ + (s) (s)
PID +
-
Proposed Method

Kb

Figure 2. Proposed method diagram

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The programming code required for the GBO algorithm and simulations is performed using the
MATLAB/Simulink. The laptop is used with an AMD A9 (3.10 GHz) and ram 4 GB. The variable of the GBO
and the values can be seen in Table 1.
To see the effectiveness and advantages of the proposed GBO-PID approach, the GBO-PID controller
was compared with ACO-PID. The convergence curve can be seen in Figure 3. DC motor controlled by PID
optimized using GBO has the lowest integral of time multiplied absolute error (ITAE) value. In addition, the
GBO-PID control has the least number of iterations, which is under five iterations.

Controlling parameters proportional integral derivative of DC motor using a … (Widi Aribowo)

700  ISSN: 2088-8694

Table 1. Parameter of GBO

Parameter Value
Number of populations 50
Maximum number of iterations 50
Probability parameter 0.5
Lower bound 0
Upper bound 10
Dim 4

The DC motor speed step response for the GBO-PID and ACO-PID controllers is shown in Figure 4.
Details regarding the step respond of GBO-PID and ACO-PID can be seen in Table 2. The proposed GBO-
PID has the best reaction step because it has the fastest constancy. The performance index used as a comparison
is ITAE. ITAE has been widely used in several studies. the mathematical formula of the ITAE index is as (26).
𝑡
𝐼𝑇𝐴𝐸 = ∫0 𝑡 . 𝑒 (𝑡) 𝑑𝑡 (26)

Figure 3. Convergence profile of GBO-PID Figure 4. Step response

Table 3 is a comparison of the ITAE values of the ACO-PID and GBO-PID methods. The ITAE value
of the proposed method, namely GBO-PID, has a value of 0.0292. This value is better than the value of the
ACO-PID method. To test the robustness of the proposed method, three tests were carried out. The test by
changing the parameters of the DC motor. The details data of the variables can be seen in Table 4.
Figure 5(a) is the output from test 1 with parameters Ra=1 and K=1. The settling time value of the
proposed method is 0.625% better than the ACO method. In test 2, it was found that the settling time value of
the proposed method was 0.24% better than the ACO method. Test 2 graph can be seen in Figure 5(b).
Figure 5(c) displays the results of test 3 with the settling time value of the proposed method being 2.77% better
than ACO. The proposed GBO-PID has the best reaction step because it has the fastest constancy. From
Tables 5-7 and Figure 5, that changes in system parameters result in different responses. However, GBO-PID
has the fastest rise and settling time. The experimental results with various test variants validate the toughness
of the GBO-PID control applied to the system.

Table 2. Comparison of transient result Table 3. Comparison of ITAE result

Controller Overshoot Rise time Settling time Controller ITAE
ACO-PID 1.03245 1.917 3.012 ACO-PID 0.0329
GBO-PID 1.03201 1.777 2.829 GBO-PID 0.0292

Table 4. Detail of test condition Table 5. Comparison of results for test 1

Test number Ra K Controller Rise time Settling time
1 0.03 0.005 ACO-PID 3.303 4.6229
2 0.012 0.005 GBO-PID 3.202 4.594
3 0.03 0.009

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 2, June 2024: 696-703
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  701

Table 6. Comparison of results for test 2 Table 7. Comparison of results for test 3
Controller Rise time Settling time Controller Rise time Settling time
ACO-PID 3.318 4.6340 ACO-PID 2.3968 4.0227
GBO-PID 3.205 4.6227 GBO-PID 2.2444 3.9116

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 5. Comparison step response of (a) test 1, (b) test 2, and (c) test 3

4. CONCLUSION
PID parameter optimization is an interesting area to research. Weak optimization of parameters will
affect the performance of the control. In addition, this results in an inefficient system. This research proposes
the A gradient-based optimizer (GBO) method to adjust the PID parameters on a DC motor. For DC motor by
PID, GBO is used to minimize ITAE. Performance comparisons were performed with the PID set with ACO.
From the simulation, it was found that the ITAE value of the proposed method was 11.25% better. By using
several experiments with various problems, it was found that the GBO-PID method had an average settling
time of 1.139% better than the ACO-PID method. The results of the comparative analysis show that the
proposed method GBO-PID has the optimum performance.

REFERENCES
[1] J. Han, X. Shan, H. Liu, J. Xiao, and T. Huang, “Fuzzy gain scheduling PID control of a hybrid robot based on dynamic
characteristics,” Mechanism and Machine Theory, vol. 184, p. 105283, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2023.105283.
[2] M. Y. Coskun and M. İtik, “Intelligent PID control of an industrial electro-hydraulic system,” ISA Transactions, vol. 139, pp. 484–
498, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.isatra.2023.04.005.
[3] W. Dong et al., “A segmented optimal PID method to consider both regulation performance and damping characteristic of
hydroelectric power system,” Renewable Energy, vol. 207, pp. 1–12, May 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2023.02.091.
[4] S. Lim, Y. Yook, J. P. Heo, C. G. Im, K. H. Ryu, and S. W. Sung, “A new PID controller design using differential operator for the
integrating process,” Computers & Chemical Engineering, vol. 170, p. 108105, Feb. 2023, doi:
10.1016/j.compchemeng.2022.108105.
[5] M. Zadehbagheri, A. Ma’arif, R. Ildarabadi, M. Ansarifard, and I. Suwarno, “Design of Multivariate PID Controller for Power
Networks Using GEA and PSO,” Journal of Robotics and Control (JRC), vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 108–117, Mar. 2023, doi:
10.18196/jrc.v4i1.15682.
[6] J. Dong and X. Duan, “A Robust Control via a Fuzzy System with PID for the ROV,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 2, p. 821, Jan. 2023,
doi: 10.3390/s23020821.
[7] M. Al-Dhaifallah, “Fuzzy fractional-order PID control for heat exchanger,” Alexandria Engineering Journal, vol. 63, pp. 11–16,

Controlling parameters proportional integral derivative of DC motor using a … (Widi Aribowo)

702  ISSN: 2088-8694

Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2022.07.066.

[8] Q. Mao, Y. Xu, J. Chen, and T. T. Georgiou, “Implementation-oriented filtered PID control: Optimization of robustness margins,”
Automatica, vol. 152, p. 110974, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2023.110974.
[9] C. J. Munaro, M. R. Pimentel, R. Bacci di Capaci, and L. Campestrini, “Data driven performance monitoring and retuning using
PID controllers,” Computers & Chemical Engineering, vol. 178, p. 108360, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2023.108360.
[10] O. Saleem, S. Ali, and J. Iqbal, “Robust MPPT Control of Stand-Alone Photovoltaic Systems via Adaptive Self-Adjusting Fractional
Order PID Controller,” Energies, vol. 16, no. 13, p. 5039, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.3390/en16135039.
[11] F. Zhu, L. Zhang, X. Hu, J. Zhao, Z. Meng, and Y. Zheng, “Research and Design of Hybrid Optimized Backpropagation (BP)
Neural Network PID Algorithm for Integrated Water and Fertilizer Precision Fertilization Control System for Field Crops,”
Agronomy, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 1423, May 2023, doi: 10.3390/agronomy13051423.
[12] A. F. Turki, N. H. Abu-Hamdeh, A. H. Milyani, T. AlQemlas, and E. M. Salilih, “Develop a novel PID controller for an improved
economizer in the air handling unit to cut the energy consumption for an office building in Saudi Arabia via Genetic Algorithm
approach,” Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers, vol. 148, p. 104813, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jtice.2023.104813.
[13] S. K. Govindaraju, R. Sivalingam, S. Panda, P. R. Sahu, and S. Padmanaban, “Frequency Control of Power System with Distributed
Sources by Adaptive Type 2 Fuzzy PID Controller,” Electric Power Components and Systems, pp. 1–22, Jun. 2023, doi:
10.1080/15325008.2023.2227169.
[14] W. Aribowo, B. Suprianto, U. T. Kartini, and A. L. Wardani, “Optimal tuning proportional integral derivative controller on direct
current motor using reptile search algorithm,” International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE), vol. 13, no.
5, pp. 4901–4908, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.11591/ijece.v13i5.pp4901-4908.
[15] A. Pawlowski, M. Ciezkowski, S. Romaniuk, and Z. Kulesza, “GWO-Based Multi-Stage Algorithm for PMDC Motor Parameter
Estimation,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 11, p. 5047, May 2023, doi: 10.3390/s23115047.
[16] R. Saini, G. Parmar, and R. Gupta, “An enhanced hybrid stochastic fractal search FOPID for speed control of DC motor,” in Fractional
Order Systems and Applications in Engineering, Elsevier, 2023, pp. 51–67. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-32-390953-2.00011-6.
[17] K. S. K. Chu, K. W. Chew, and Y. C. Chang, “Fault-Diagnosis and Fault-Recovery System of Hall Sensors in Brushless DC Motor
Based on Neural Networks,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 9, p. 4330, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.3390/s23094330.
[18] V. K. Munagala and R. K. Jatoth, “A novel approach for controlling DC motor speed using NARXnet based FOPID controller,”
Evolving Systems, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 101–116, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s12530-022-09437-1.
[19] N. Perišić and R. Jovanović, “Control of direct current motor by using artificial neural networks in Internal model control scheme,”
FME Transactions, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 109–116, 2023, doi: 10.5937/fme2301109P.
[20] M. A. A. Ghany and M. A. Shamseldin, “Fuzzy type two self-tuning technique of single neuron PID controller for brushless DC
motor based on a COVID-19 optimization,” International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS), vol. 14, no.
1, pp. 562–576, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.11591/ijpeds.v14.i1.pp562-576.
[21] A. Idir, K. Khettab, and Y. Bensafia, “Design of an Optimally Tuned Fractionalized PID Controller for DC Motor Speed Control
Via a Henry Gas Solubility Optimization Algorithm,” International Journal of Inelligent Engineering & Systems INASS, vol. 15,
no. 3, pp. 59–70, 2022, doi: 10.22266/ijies2022.0630.06.
[22] S. Ekinci, B. Hekimoğlu, and D. Izci, “Opposition based Henry gas solubility optimization as a novel algorithm for PID control of
DC motor,” Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 331–342, Apr. 2021, doi:
10.1016/j.jestch.2020.08.011.
[23] S. Pandey, “Transit Search Optimization Algorithm for Proportional-Integral-Derivative Controller Tuning for the Optimal DC
Motor Speed Control: Classical Methods as Benchmark,” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2023, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4385203.
[24] M. Vesović, R. Jovanović, and N. Trišović, “Control of a DC motor using feedback linearization and gray wolf optimization
algorithm,” Advances in Mechanical Engineering, vol. 14, no. 3, p. 168781322210853, Mar. 2022, doi:
10.1177/16878132221085324.
[25] Ł. Knypiński, R. Devarapalli, and Y. Le Menach, “Constrained optimization of the brushless DC motor using the salp swarm
algorithm,” ARCHIVES OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 775–787, 2022, doi: 10.24425/aee.2022.141684.
[26] D. Izci, S. Ekinci, H. L. Zeynelgil, and J. Hedley, “Performance evaluation of a novel improved slime mould algorithm for direct
current motor and automatic voltage regulator systems,” Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, vol. 44, no. 2,
pp. 435–456, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1177/01423312211037967.
[27] F. Wang, Q. Mei, and X. Xin, “Discrete sliding mode control method for particle swarm optimization-based brushless DC motor of
electric vehicle,” Journal of Vibroengineering, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 1025–1039, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.21595/jve.2023.22978.
[28] I. Ahmadianfar, O. Bozorg-Haddad, and X. Chu, “Gradient-based optimizer: A new metaheuristic optimization algorithm,”
Information Sciences, vol. 540, pp. 131–159, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2020.06.037.
[29] W. Aribowo, B. Suprianto, R. Rahmadian, M. Widyartono, A. L. Wardani, and A. Prapanca, “Optimal tuning fractional order PID
based on marine predator algorithm for DC motor,” International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS), vol.
14, no. 2, pp. 762–770, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.11591/ijpeds.v14.i2.pp762-770.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Widi Aribowo is a lecturer in the Department of Electrical Engineering,

Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia. He is B.Sc. in Power Engineering, Sepuluh
Nopember Institute of Technology (ITS) Surabaya in 2005. He is M.Eng. in Power
Engineering, Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology (ITS) Surabaya in 2009. He is
mainly research in the power system and control. He can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 2, June 2024: 696-703
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  703

Reza Rahmadian received his bachelor of Applied Science from Electronic

Engineering Polytechnic Institute of Surabaya (PENS), Surabaya, Indonesia, in 2006, and his
Master of Engineering Science from Curtin University, Australia, in 2013. He is currently a
lecturer at the Department of Electrical Engineering, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia.
His research interests include renewable energy. He can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Mahendra Widyartono received his bachelor of Engineering from Sepuluh

Nopember Institute of Technology (ITS), Surabaya, Indonesia, in 2006, and his Master of
Engineering from Brawijaya University, Indonesia, in 2012. He is currently a lecturer at the
Department of Electrical Engineering, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia. His research
interests include power system and renewable energy. He can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Ayusta Lukita Wardani received her bachelor of Applied Science from

Electronic Engineering Polytechnic Institute of Surabaya (PENS), Surabaya, Indonesia, in
2011, and her Master of Engineering from Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology (ITS),
Indonesia, in 2017. She is currently a lecturer at the Department of Electrical Engineering,
Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia. Her research interests include renewable energy.
She can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Aditya Prapanca received his bachelor of Engineering from Sepuluh Nopember

Institute of Technology (ITS), Surabaya, Indonesia, in 2000, and his Master of Computer
from Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology (ITS), Indonesia, in 2007. He is currently a
lecturer at the Department of Computer Engineering, Universitas Negeri Surabaya,
Indonesia. His research interests include artificial intelligence. He can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Laith Abualigah is an Associate Professor at the Computer Science Department,

Al al-Bayt University, Jordan. He received the Ph.D. degree from the School of Computer
Science in Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Malaysia in 2018. His main research interests
focus on bio-inspired computing, artificial intelligence, metaheuristic modeling, and
optimization algorithms, evolutionary computations, information retrieval, feature selection,
combinatorial problems, optimization, and NLP. He can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Controlling parameters proportional integral derivative of DC motor using a … (Widi Aribowo)