International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS)

Vol. 14, No. 4, December 2023, pp. 2474~2486

ISSN: 2088-8694, DOI: 10.11591/ijpeds.v14.i4.pp2474-2486  2474

An intelligent PID controller tuning for speed control of BLDC

motor using driving training-based optimization

Hrishikesh Sarma, Aroop Bardalai

Department of Electrical Engineering, Assam Engineering College, Assam, India

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: Tuning of proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller remains a matter
of great concern for the control engineers as it plays a major role to obtain
Received Feb 24, 2023 optimal performance of any system Due to their simplicity and excellent
Revised May 10, 2023 efficiency, metaheuristic algorithms have recently become extremely
Accepted May 25, 2023 popular among researchers for handling a wide range of real-world
optimization challenges. In order to optimize a PID controller for managing
the speed of a BLDC motor, this work proposes a novel application of the
Keywords: driving training-based optimization (DTBO) algorithm, one of the latest and
most recent human-based metaheuristic algorithms. The purpose of this
BLDC motor present study is to optimize a PID controller for a BLDC motor speed
Driving training-based control by DTBO method and evaluate its performance with a similar
optimization controller tuned by grey wolf optimization (GWO) method. Additionally, the
Grey wolf optimization suggested DTBO-PID controller's robustness analysis is being carried out
ITAE objective function with BLDC motor parameter modifications as well as a comparison to the
PID controller GWO-PID controller. The comparison is carried out in MATLAB/Simulink,
and the results are based on common step response metrics such rise time,
settling time, and maximum overshoot. For easier comprehension, the results
are presented in tabular and graphical form. The chosen BLDC motor drive
system's selected DTBO-PID controller performs better and is more reliable
than the GWO-PID controller, according to the final simulation findings.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Hrishikesh Sarma
Department of Electrical Engineering, Assam Engineering College
Jalukbari, Guwahati-781013, Assam, India
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
One of the emerging motors gaining popularity among researchers is the brushless DC (BLDC)
motor owing to its benefits such as excellent efficiency, significant power density, robustness and minimal
operating expenses [1]. A proper controller, a predetermined objective function, and an optimization
technique are also necessary components of an intelligent drive system [2], [3]. The controller is what makes
a system intelligent, and examples include neuro-fuzzy controllers, fuzzy logic controllers, and proportional-
integral-derivative (PID) and fractional order PID (FOPID) controllers based on metaheuristics [4]–[6]. The
optimization method is intended to be used to formulate the objective or fitness function depending on the
desired specifications and restrictions [7].
Metaheuristic or intelligent algorithms are being mostly used in engineering fields with domains
including power system [8], [9], electrical drives [5], [7] industrial engineering [10], and mechanical
engineering [11], [12]. However, literature review reveals that various optimization algorithms do exist to
optimize any controller for solving any real-world application. A wide range of algorithms, including the
genetic algorithm (GA) [13], [14] the particle swarm optimization (PSO) [15], [16], the ant colony

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

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  2475

optimization (ACO) [17], the modified differential evolution [18], the teaching-learning-based optimization
(TLBO) [19], the firefly algorithm (FA) [20], the bacterial foraging (BF) [21], the artificial bee colony
optimization (ABC) [22], the simulated annealing (SA) [23], the grey wolf optimization (GWO) [24], the
whale optimization algorithm (WOA) [25], the flower pollination [26], the salp swarm algorithm (SSA) [27],
and the coronavirus optimization algorithm (COA) [28] have been implemented for controller tuning in
achieving speed control of a BLDC motor. All of these studies have come to the conclusion that choosing an
appropriate optimization algorithm is crucial for improving the control ability of any controller type for a
BLDC motor. The goal of the current study is similar to that of the previous ones, but it implements a novel
method of controller tuning for BLDC motor drive using the driving training-based optimization (DTBO)
algorithm.
One recently proposed meta-heuristic algorithm, DTBO, resembles human driving training
mathematically [29]. A number of benchmark functions have been used to successfully assess the
performance of the aforementioned optimization, but only a handful of real-life applications, such as those
for fuel technological advances [30], computational signal processing [31], and detection of gas leaks [32],
has been observed. Following a thorough review of the literature, the authors were unable to locate any
appropriate applications of the DTBO algorithm in improving the gain parameters of a PID controller
intended to drive a BLDC motor.
In this present study, optimal gain parameters of a PID controller have been determined by means of
a very recent DTBO algorithm to regulate a BLDC motor. The results so obtained are then being compared
with those obtained by the GWO method, which have proved to be more effective than PSO [24]. The paper,
consisting of six sections, starts with introduction and works of literature review. The proposed system
model, the mathematical model of the system under consideration, and a thorough explanation of the DTBO
approach are all included in the second section. The proposed DTBO-PID controller is implemented in
section three in order to manage the speed of the BLDC motor, and the proposed DTBO-PID and existing
GWO-PID controllers are compared in section four. Section five of the study includes a robustness
examination of the suggested system, and it concludes with a section on conclusion.

2. PROPOSED SYSTEM MODEL

For the current investigation, a BLDC motor is chosen whose speed will be governed by a PID
controller. A meta-heuristic optimization approach is used to minimize an objective function as part of the
controller tuning process. Block diagram of the closed loop system model is shown in Figure 1, primarily
consisting of four subsystems: a BLDC motor for the system plant, a PID controller for the controller, ITAE
for the objective function, and DTBO for the metaheuristic algorithm.

2.1. Modelling of BLDC motor

With a good mathematical model comprising all the dynamics of a particular system, it is possible to
analyze the system's behavior under different conditions, predict its response to various inputs, and design a
controller that can manipulate the system to achieve desired outcomes. A permanent magnet motor with a
trapezoidal back electromagnetic field waveform is a BLDC motor. The three-phase inverter, which is
thought to be driven in the two-phase conduction mode, uses electronic commutation, which consists of six
semiconductor switches (power transistors) [1], [33]. The rotor position required for inverter switching is
provided by three Hall effect sensors being attached on the stator and separated by 120 electrical degrees. A
typical BLDC motor can be mathematically modelled using a transfer function, differential equation, or state-
space equations. However, the transfer function based mathematical model is being considered in the present
work as it is frequently employed in automatic control sectors. The back emf and electromagnetic torque
mechanisms for each conducted phase winding are identical to those of the conventional brushed DC motor,
hence similar analysis techniques can be applied. Figure 2 shows the equivalent electric circuit of a BLDC
motor.
The phase voltages of the armature winding are given by (1) to (3).

𝑑𝑖𝑎
𝑣𝑎 = 𝑖𝑎 𝑅 + 𝐿 + 𝑒𝑎 (1)
𝑑𝑡

𝑑𝑖𝑏
𝑣𝑏 = 𝑖𝑏 𝑅 + 𝐿 + 𝑒𝑏 (2)
𝑑𝑡

𝑑𝑖𝑐
𝑣𝑐 = 𝑖𝑐 𝑅 + 𝐿 + 𝑒𝑐 (3)
𝑑𝑡

An intelligent PID controller tuning for speed control of BLDC motor … (Hrishikesh Sarma)
2476  ISSN: 2088-8694

Where, Va, Vb and Vc are the terminal phase voltages in volt, ia, ib and ic are the phase currents in ampere, R is
the armature phase resistance, L and M are the armature self- and mutual-inductances in henry respectively,
and ea, eb and ec are the back emf of motor in volt.

Figure 1. Block schematic of the proposed closed- loop Figure 2. Equivalent electric circuit of BLDC
system model motor

In two-phase conduction mode, either of the two phases ab or bc or ca are excited at a time resulting
to simplified equivalent circuit as shown in Figure 3. When the windings of phases a and b are conducting,
then (4) and (5) exists.

𝑖𝑎 = −𝑖𝑏 = 𝑖 (4)

𝑑𝑖𝑎 𝑑𝑖𝑏 𝑑𝑖
=− = (5)
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡

Also, ignoring the transient phase (i.e. the trapezoidal sharp border in the back emf profile), the
staedy eb = - ea, the line voltage can be represented by (6).

𝑑𝑖 𝑑𝑖
𝑣𝑎𝑏 = 𝑉𝑑 = 𝑖. 2𝑅 + 2(𝐿 − 𝑀) + 2𝑒𝑎 = 𝑖. 𝑅𝑎 + 𝐿𝑎 + 𝐾𝑒 𝜔 (6)
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡

Where, Vd represents the voltage of the DC bus in volt, Ra = 2R represents the corresponding line resistance
of winding in ohm, La = 2(L-M) represents the corresponding line inductance of winding in henry, Ke
represents the back emf constant in V/rads-1, and ω represents the rotor angular speed in rad/s.
Finally, (7) provides the motion equation necessary to construct a comprehensive mathematical
model of an electromechanical system.
𝑑𝜔
𝑇𝑒𝑚 − 𝑇𝑙 = 𝐽𝑚 + 𝐵𝜔 (7)
𝑑𝑡

Where, Tem represents electromagnetic torque in Nm, Tl represents load torque in Nm, Jm represents rotor
moment of inertia in kgm2, and B represents viscous friction coefficient in Nm/rads-1.
Substituting Tem = Kti, where Kt represents the torque constant in Nm/A, and I represent the steady
phase current in ampere, in (7), we get (8).
𝑑𝜔
𝐾𝑡 𝑖 − 𝑇𝑙 = 𝐽𝑚 + 𝐵𝜔 (8)
𝑑𝑡

Assuming Tl = 0 in (8), the current can be found from (9).

𝐽𝑚 𝑑𝜔 𝐵
i= + 𝜔 (9)
𝐾𝑡 𝑑𝑡 𝐾𝑡

Substituting (9) in (6) and rearranging, we get (10).

𝐿𝑎 𝐽𝑚 𝑑 2 𝜔 𝑅𝑎 𝐽𝑚 +𝐿𝑎 𝐵 𝑑𝜔 𝑅𝑎 𝐵+𝐾𝑒 𝐾𝑡
𝑉𝑑 = + + 𝜔 (10)
𝐾𝑡 𝑑𝑡 2 𝐾𝑡 𝑑𝑡 𝐾𝑡

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 14, No. 4, December 2023: 2474-2486
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  2477

The open-loop motor transfer function, which illustrates the relationship between motor angular
speed and applied voltage under the ideal no-load condition (i.e., Tl=0), may be represented as (11) using the
Laplace transformation of (10).

𝜔(𝑠) 𝐾𝑡
𝐺𝑝 (𝑠) = = (11)
𝑉𝑑 (𝑠) 𝐿𝑎 𝐽𝑚 𝑠 2 +(𝑅𝑎 𝐽𝑚 +𝐿𝑎 𝐵)𝑠+(𝑅𝑎 𝐵+𝐾𝑒 𝐾𝑡 )

So, as illustrated in Figure 4, a BLDC motor control system on no-load can be constructed using a transfer
function-based framework.

Figure 3. Excited BLDC motor's approximated Figure 4. A BLDC motor control system
equivalent circuit with two phase windings

2.2. PID controller

One of the most prominent feedback controllers used in the field of control engineering is the PID
controller [34]. A PID controller's block diagram is presented in parallel form in Figure 5. It has three
variables: proportional gain (Kp), integral gain (Ki), and derivative gain (Kd), which provides past, present,
and future controls.
The PID controller's output in time domain is represented by (12).
𝑡 𝑑
𝑢(𝑡) = 𝐾𝑝 𝑒(𝑡) + 𝐾𝑖 ∫0 𝑒(𝑡). 𝑑𝑡 + 𝐾𝑑 𝑒(𝑡) (12)
𝑑𝑡

Where, e(t) denotes the error signal and u(t) denotes the controller output signal.
The transfer function of the controller can be ascertained by applying the Laplace transformation in
(12) and is given in (13).

𝑈(𝑠) 𝐾𝑖 1
𝐺𝑐 (𝑠) = = 𝐾𝑝 + + 𝐾𝑑 . 𝑠 = 𝐾𝑝 {1 + + 𝑇𝑑 𝑠} (13)
𝐸(𝑠) 𝑠 𝑇𝑖 𝑆

Where, Ti is the reset time (=Kp/Ki) and Td is the derivative or rate time (=Kd/Kp).

Figure 5. Block diagram of PID controller

2.3. Objective function

It is crucial to establish an objective function (or fitness function) before building an optimization-
based PID controller, as this will serve as the foundation for controller tuning. The integral of time multiplied
by absolute error (ITAE) [35], which has the mathematical representation (14), is the objective function used
in this study.

An intelligent PID controller tuning for speed control of BLDC motor … (Hrishikesh Sarma)
2478  ISSN: 2088-8694

𝑡
𝐼𝑇𝐴𝐸 = ∫0 𝑡. |𝑒(𝑡)|. 𝑑𝑡 (14)

Where, t denotes the run time in second.

The gain parameters of the PID controller's limits serve as the problem constraints. Since the
primary objective of an optimization issue is to minimize error, the design problem can be written as an error
minimization problem as follows:

Objective function = Minimize (f); where, f ∈ITAE (15)

Subject to limitations

𝐾𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ 𝐾𝑝 ≤ 𝐾𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥 (16)

𝐾𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ 𝐾𝑖 ≤ 𝐾𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑥 (17)

𝐾𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ 𝐾𝑑 ≤ 𝐾𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 (18)

2.4. Metaheuristic algorithm

In the event a PID controller is tuned, its gain values are found in order to produce a rapid output
with little variation from the set point and that reacts quickly to disturbances or set point changes with little
overshoot. In today’s world, metaheuristic optimization algorithms have become popular among research
scholars and scientists mainly in different engineering fields. Notable features of such algorithms are simple
and easy to implement, no gradient information is required, ability to reach global optima, and inspired from
real-world phenomena. The findings of a fairly recent DTBO method for optimizing a PID controller for a
BLDC motor are compared with those of the GWO method in this paper.

2.4.1. Driving training-based optimization (DTBO)

DTBO is a population-based technique that was very recently introduced in [29]. It was motivated
by how people learn to drive in driving schools and by the instructor-training programmers. A student driver
has the choice to select an instructor from a variety of available ones at the driving school. The selected
instructor then instructs the novice driver in a variety of techniques. The student driver follows the
instructor's recommendations when driving based on the tactics and skills they have gained. Additionally,
self-practice could aid in enhancing the trainee driver's driving abilities. The researchers were motivated to
create a mathematical model for carrying out optimization based on these intelligent human interactions
between a learner driver and the instructor. The following two steps make up the entire algorithm.
- Reset the population's positions
The population matrix described in (19) is used to model the DTBO members, which are driving
instructors and learners, as potential candidate solutions.

𝑋1 𝑥11 . . . 𝑥1𝑗 . . . 𝑥1𝑚

. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
𝑋 = 𝑋𝑖 𝑥
= 𝑖1 . . . 𝑥𝑖𝑗 . . . 𝑥𝑖𝑚 . (19)
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
[𝑋𝑁 ]𝑁𝑋𝑚 [𝑥𝑁1 . . . 𝑥𝑁𝑗 . . . 𝑥𝑁𝑚 ]𝑁𝑋𝑚

Where, m represents the total count of problem variables, N represents the population size, X represents the
population matrix, Xi represents the ith candidate solution, xi,j represents the jth variable value estimated by the
ith candidate solution, and so forth.
However, using (20), the member spots are initialised at random.

𝑥𝑖,𝑗 = 𝑙𝑏𝑗 + 𝑟. (𝑢𝑏𝑗 − 𝑙𝑏𝑗 ), 𝑖 = 1,2, . . . , 𝑁, 𝑗 = 1,2, . . . , 𝑚 (20)

Where, r is an arbitrary integer between [0,1], ubj and lbj are the respective upper and lower limits of the jth
problem variable.
- Specify and assess the objective function

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 14, No. 4, December 2023: 2474-2486
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  2479

Each potential solution is given a specific value, and it is this value that is used to assess the
problem's objective function. Each potential solution's corresponding values of the objective function are
calculated and represented into a vector using (21).

𝐹1 𝐹(𝑋1 )
. .
. .
𝐹 = 𝐹𝑖 = 𝐹(𝑋𝑖 ) (21)
. .
. .
[𝐹𝑁 ]𝑁𝑋1 [𝐹(𝑋 )]
𝑁 𝑁𝑋1

Where, Fi stands for the objective function's value corresponding to the ith candidate solution and F stands for
the objective function's vector.
Among all the computed values so obtained from (21), the member with the greatest fitness score of
the objective function is regarded as the best candidate solution (X best). The next three distinct phases must
each be applied to the best member in order to improve and update it.
i) Phase 1: Instructor-led driving training (exploration)
The selection of an instructor from the population comes first, followed by the beginner's learning in
the first phase of the DTBO update. The population's best members are classified as driving teachers, while
the others as trainee drivers. Learning the instructor's driving techniques causes population members to roam
throughout the search environment, boosting DTBO's exploration capabilities and helping to identify the
ideal location. The objective function values are compared at each iteration, and the matrix of driving
instructors is built with N members as illustrated in (22).

𝐷𝐼1 𝐷𝐼11 . . . 𝐷𝐼1𝑗 . . . 𝐷𝐼1𝑚

. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
𝐷𝐼 = 𝐷𝐼 𝑖 = 𝐷𝐼 𝑖1 . . . 𝐷𝐼𝑖𝑗 . . . 𝐷𝐼𝑖𝑚 . (22)
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
[𝐷𝐼𝑁𝐷𝐼 ] 𝑁𝐷𝐼 𝑋𝑚 [𝐷𝐼𝑁𝐷𝐼1 . . . 𝐷𝐼𝑁𝐷𝐼𝑗 . . . 𝐷𝐼𝑁𝐷𝐼𝑚 ]
𝑁𝐷𝐼 𝑋𝑚

Where, DI represents the matrix of driving instructors, DIi represents the ith driving instructor, DIi,j represents
the jth dimension of ith driving instructor; also NDI = [0.1 × N × (1-t/T)] gives the count of driving instructors,
where, t represents the present iteration, and T represents the maximum iteration count.
Using (23), the revised locations for each member are determined.
𝑥𝑖,𝑗 + 𝑟. (𝐷𝐼𝑘𝑖 ,𝑗 − 𝐼. 𝑥𝑖,𝑗 ), 𝐹𝐷𝐼𝑘 < 𝐹𝑖 ;
𝑃1 𝑖
𝑥𝑖,𝑗 ={ (23)
𝑥𝑖,𝑗 + 𝑟. (𝑥𝑖,𝑗 − 𝐷𝐼𝑘𝑖 ,𝑗 ), 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒,
𝑃1
Where, 𝑥𝑖,𝑗 denotes the ith candidate’s new value estimated in phase 1, I denotes an arbitrary integer within
{1,2}, r is a random integer between [0,1], 𝐷𝐼𝑘𝑖 denotes a randomly chosen driving instructor to teach the ith
candidate, where, ki is randomly chosen from {1,2,…,NDI}, xi,j denotes the jth dimension of ith candidate in
phase 1, 𝐷𝐼𝑘𝑖,𝑗 denotes its jth dimension, and 𝐹𝐷𝐼𝑘 denotes the value of its objective function.
𝑖
If the updated position enhances the objective function value, it replaces the old one by using (24).

𝑋 𝑃1 , 𝐹𝑖𝑃1 < 𝐹𝑖 ;
𝑋𝑖 = { 𝑖 (24)
𝑋𝑖 , 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒,

Where, 𝑋𝑖𝑃1 denotes the ith candidate’s new solutions estimated in phase 1, and 𝐹𝑖𝑃1 denotes its objective
function value.
ii) Phase 2: Modelling of the instructor's skills for the student driver (exploration)
The student driver develops skills in the second phase of the DTBO update by copying the
instructor's tactics and gestures. Candidates are forced to move to various locations in the search space in this
case, improving their ability to explore. The mathematical representation of this is (25).

An intelligent PID controller tuning for speed control of BLDC motor … (Hrishikesh Sarma)
2480  ISSN: 2088-8694

𝑃2
𝑥𝑖,𝑗 = 𝑃. 𝑥𝑖,𝑗 + (1 − 𝑃). 𝐷𝐼𝑘𝑖,𝑗 (25)
𝑃2
Where, 𝑥𝑖,𝑗 denotes the ith candidate’s new value estimated in phase 2, while P=0.01+0.9(1-t/T) represents
the patterning index.
If the updated position enhances the objective function value, it replaces the old one by using (26).

𝑋 𝑃2 , 𝐹𝑖𝑃2 < 𝐹𝑖 ;
𝑋𝑖 = { 𝑖 (26)
𝑋𝑖 , 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒,

Where, 𝑋𝑖𝑃2 denotes the ith candidate’s new solutions estimated in phase 2, and 𝐹𝑖𝑃2 denotes its objective
function value.
iii) Phase 3: Individual practice (exploitation)
The trainee driver's self-practice to improve his driving abilities is part of the third phase of the
DTBO update, and it helps him achieve his personal best by finding a better position based on a local search
around his current position. Thus, this stage demonstrates DTBO's ability to take use of local search. Using
(27), a position is first generated over each population member in order to represent this mathematically.

𝑃3 𝑡
𝑥𝑖,𝑗 = 𝑥𝑖,𝑗 + (1 − 2𝑟). 𝑅. (1 − ) . 𝑥𝑖,𝑗 (27)
𝑇

Where, xiP, j3 denotes the ith candidate’s new value estimated in phase 3, and R=0.05.
If the updated position enhances the objective function value, it replaces the old one by using (28).

𝑋 𝑃3 , 𝐹𝑖𝑃3 < 𝐹𝑖 ;
𝑋𝑖 = { 𝑖 (28)
𝑋𝑖 , 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒,

Where, X iP3 denotes the ith candidate’s new solutions estimated in phase 3, and Fi P 3 denotes its objective
function value.
The population members are updated following the first through third phases, resulting in the
endpoint of a single DTBO iteration. The members are updated through (22) to (28) up to the maximum
iterations permitted by the algorithm before moving on to the next one. The final step is the presentation of
the solution, which is the best candidate solution discovered throughout the execution of the full DTBO
algorithm. Figure 6 displays the DTBO algorithm's pseudo-code.

Figure 6. DTBO algorithm’s pseudo-code

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 14, No. 4, December 2023: 2474-2486
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  2481

3. IMPLEMENTATION OF DTBO-PID CONTROLLER FOR SPEED CONTROL OF BLDC

MOTOR
Table 1 contains a list of the BLDC motor's specifications [36] that were employed in this study.
The open-loop motor transfer function GP(s) can be found by replacing the values in Table 1 in (11), which is
represented by (29).
0.84
𝐺𝑝 (𝑠) = (29)
1.376𝑒 − 06𝑠 2 + 6.4017𝑒 − 03𝑠 + 0.7136

A personal computer with an Intel®i5 2.5 GHz processor and 8.00 GB RAM is used to simulate the drive's
transient response using the DTBO algorithm on the MATLAB/Simulink (version R2020a) platform. The
proposed system's Simulink model with DTBO-based PID tuning for the ITAE performance measure is
depicted in Figure 7. The Simulink model displayed in Figure 7 has been utilized for evaluating the DTBO-
PID approach in MATLAB. The proposed DTBO algorithm's various parameter values are listed in Table 2.
Figure 8 shows the convergence graph of ITAE objective function using the DTBO technique to determine
the PID controller's optimal gain values. The acquired DTBO-based PID controller gain values after the
optimization procedure has been successfully completed are Kp = 8.4131, Ki = 961.421, and
Kd = 1.97e-08. The transfer function of the PID controller is shown in (30), obtained by substituting these
gain values in (13).
961.421
𝐺𝑐 (𝑠) = 8.4131 + + 1.97𝑒 − 08𝑠 (30)
𝑠

By multiplying the transfer functions of the controller (PID) and plant (BLDC motor), the transfer function of
forward path open-loop system is obtained and stated in (31).

1.6548𝑒 − 08𝑠 2 + 7.067𝑠 + 807.5936

𝐺𝐹 (𝑠) = 𝐺𝑐 (𝑠) ∗ 𝐺𝑝 (𝑠) = (31)
1.376𝑒 − 06𝑠 3 + 6.4017𝑒 − 03𝑠 2 + 0.7136𝑠

Finally, the transfer function of closed-loop DTBO-PID based BLDC motor system with unity feedback
(H(s)=1) is determined by (32).

1.6548𝑒−08𝑠 2 + 7.067𝑠 + 807.5936

𝐺𝐶𝐿 (𝑠)𝐷𝑇𝐵𝑂−𝑃𝐼𝐷 = (32)
1.376𝑒−06𝑠 3 +6.4017𝑒− 03𝑠 2 +7.7806𝑠 + 807.5936

Table 1. Specifications of BLDC motor

Parameter Value Unit
Number of phases 3 -
Number of poles 6 -
Stator phase resistance 8 Ω
Stator phase inductance 1.72 mH
Rotor moment of inertia 0.0008 kgm2
Friction co-efficient 0.001 Nms
Torque constant 0.84 Nm/A
Back emf constant 0.84 V/rads-1

Figure 7. Model of BLDC motor in Simulink with PID controller and ITAE objective function

An intelligent PID controller tuning for speed control of BLDC motor … (Hrishikesh Sarma)
2482  ISSN: 2088-8694

Table 2. Values for DTBO algorithm's parameters

Parameters Values
Dimension count (m) 3
Population size (N) 50
Maximum iteration count (T) 100
Constant (R) 0.05
Lower limit among [Kp; Ki; Kd] [0; 0; 0]
Upper limit among [Kp; Ki; Kd] [10; 1000; 0.1]

4. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
The transient response output of the proposed controller is compared with those of an existing
controller [24] on some well-known optimal criteria of the step responses in the time domain specifications,
such as rise time (tr), settling time (ts), and maximum overshoot (Mp). This is performed in order to validate
optimal control performance and efficient system operation. The GWO algorithm is executed on MATLAB
using the fundamental parameter values specified in Table 3, and the PID controller's optimal gain values are
achieved, as shown in Table 4. Figure 9 displays the GWO algorithm's convergence graph for minimizing the
chosen objective function. Figures 8 and 9 show that the best optimal value of the proposed DTBO algorithm
for computing the ITAE objective function is 6.832e-09 and is only attained at iteration number 42, while the
same value is found to be 1.442e-07 at iteration number 95 by the GWO approach. Therefore, it can be said
that the suggested DTBO algorithm, in contrast to the GWO method, is able to generate a more accurate
fitness value with a quick convergence rate without stalling in a local minimum. Figure 10 compares the
performance of the proposed DTBO-PID and the existing GWO-PID [24] controllers for the BLDC motor's
unit step responses. As can be observed from the figure, the suggested controller has a superior temporal
response than the existing one.

Table 3. Values for GWO algorithm’s parameters

Parameters Values
Dimension count 3
Population size 50
Maximum iteration count 100
Lower limit among [Kp; Ki; Kd] [0; 0; 0]
Upper limit among [Kp; Ki; Kd] [10; 1000; 0.1]

Table 4. Gains for DTBO-PID and GWO-PID controllers and criteria for transient response
Controller gains Transient response criteria
Controller types
Kp Ki Kd tr (s) ts (s) Mp (%)
DTBO-PID (proposed) 8.4131 961.421 1.97e-08 0.0015 0.0025 0
GWO-PID 7.6539 988.4761 2.7718e-04 0.0017 0.0028 0.8483

As can be seen in Table 4 that both rise and settling times are less along with zero overshoot in case
of the proposed DTBO based PID controlled system than the GWO based system. Hence, in achieving speed
regulation of a BLDC motor, the proposed DTBO-PID controller proves its excellence in giving best
transient response results as compared to the GWO-PID controller.

Figure 8. DTBO algorithm’s convergence graph for Figure 9. GWO algorithm’s convergence graph for
ITAE objective function ITAE objective function

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 14, No. 4, December 2023: 2474-2486
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  2483

Figure 10. Comparison of BLDC motor’s step responses with DTBO-PID (proposed) and
GWO-PID controllers

5. ROBUSTNESS ANALYSIS
A system is said to be robust if it happens to remain in stable state even in case of certain
uncertainties. Robustness analysis of the proposed system is performed by observing the system behavior
with changes in electrical phase resistance (Ra) by ±30% and torque constant (Kt) by ±40%. These changes
lead to four possible operating cases as shown in Table 5 and thereafter comparative analysis have been
carried out. Tables 6 through 9 presents, accordingly, the comparative simulation results of the transient
response analysis in time domain in each of the four cases. Figures 11 to 14 also display the corresponding
comparative speed for unit step response plots.

Table 5. Different operating cases for BLDC motor

Motor parameter Case A Case B Case C Case D
Ra (in Ω) 5.6 5.6 10.4 10.4
Kt (in Nm/A) 0.504 1.176 0.504 1.176

Table 6. Transient response outcome in case A

Controller types tr (s) ts (s) Mp (%)
DTBO-PID (proposed) 0.0018 0.0031 0
GWO-PID 0.0016 0.0026 0.2267

Table 7. Transient response outcome in case B

Controller types tr (s) ts (s) Mp (%)
DTBO-PID (proposed) 0.0017 0.0027 0.0105
GWO-PID 0.0022 0.0039 0

Table 8. Transient response outcome in case C

Controller types tr (s) ts (s) Mp (%)
DTBO-PID (proposed) 0.0032 0.0059 0
GWO-PID 0.0033 0.0059 0

Table 9. Transient response outcome in case D

Controller types tr (s) ts (s) Mp (%)
DTBO-PID (proposed) 0.0015 0.0027 0
GWO-PID 0.0017 0.0032 0

It is seen that the proposed DTBO-PID controller has the smallest rise and settling times in all the
cases except in case A where it has zero overshoot while GWO-PID has the smallest rise and settling times
only in case A along with some percentage of overshoot. Moreover, the DTBO-PID controller has zero
overshoot in all the three cases except in case B (negligible percentage) where GWO-PID has zero overshoot.
An intelligent PID controller tuning for speed control of BLDC motor … (Hrishikesh Sarma)
2484  ISSN: 2088-8694

Based on these findings, it can be said that the proposed DTBO-PID controller proves to be robust than the
GWO-PID controller at regulating the speed of a BLDC motor.

Figure 11. Speed for step responses in case A Figure 12. Speed for step responses in case B

Figure 13. Speed for step responses in case C Figure 14. Speed for step responses in case D

6. CONCLUSION
Optimization plays a very important role in increasing any system’s efficiency. The system used in
this present work is a BLDC motor drive system which is being controlled by a PID controller. In the present
investigation, a novel method for determining the optimal gain values for this PID controller in regulating the
speed of the BLDC motor drive system has been provided. The PID controller is tuned using a relatively
recent DTBO algorithm by reducing the ITAE objective function. On the basis of time domain requirements
including rise time, settling time, and peak overshoot, the system performance is compared using the ITAE
performance index. Furthermore, to show the efficiency of the proposed method, it is being compared in
terms of performance characteristics with the GWO method with the same objective function. According on
the simulation results, the suggested DTBO-PID controller performs better than the GWO-PID controller.
Additionally, robustness assessment of the proposed system has been performed by changing some motor
parameters. Upon doing the comparative analysis, it has been concluded that the proposed DTBO-PID
controller proves to be more robust than GWO-PID controller in majority of the operating cases. These
performance evaluations of DTBO based PID controller optimization technique will add a new degree of
complexity to the controller structure for a BLDC motor drive system.

REFERENCES
[1] C. L. Xia, “Permanent Magnet Brushless DC Motor Drives and Controls,” in Permanent Magnet Brushless DC Motor Drives and
Controls, Singapore Pvt. Ltd.: John Wiley & Sons, 2012.

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 14, No. 4, December 2023: 2474-2486
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  2485

[2] A. Ma’Arif, H. Nabila, Iswanto, and O. Wahyunggoro, “Application of Intelligent Search Algorithms in Proportional-Integral-
Derivative Control of Direct-Current Motor System,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1373, no. 1, 2019, doi:
10.1088/1742-6596/1373/1/012039.
[3] W. W. Cai, L. X. Jia, Y. Bin Zhang, and N. Ni, “Design and simulation of intelligent PID controller based on particle swarm
optimization,” 2010 International Conference on E-Product E-Service and E-Entertainment, ICEEE2010, 2010, doi:
10.1109/ICEEE.2010.5661241.
[4] D. Pelusi, “PID and intelligent controllers for optimal timing performances of industrial actuators,” International Journal of
Simulation: Systems, Science and Technology, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 65–71, 2012, doi: 10.5013/ijssst.a.13.02.07.
[5] M. K. Merugumalla and P. K. Navuri, “Optimized PID controller for BLDC motor using nature-inspired algorithms,”
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, vol. 12, no. Special Issue 1, pp. 415–422, 2017.
[6] K. Vanchinathan and K. R. Valluvan, “A Metaheuristic Optimization Approach for Tuning of Fractional-Order PID Controller for
Speed Control of Sensorless BLDC Motor,” Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers, vol. 27, no. 8, 2018, doi:
10.1142/S0218126618501232.
[7] S. K. Injeti and M. Divyavathi, “Optimal Gain Scheduling of PID Controller for the Speed Control of PMSM Drive Using Bio-
Inspired Optimization Algorithms,” International Journal on Electrical Engineering and Informatics, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 308–325,
2019, doi: 10.15676/ijeei.201.11.2.6.
[8] S. M. S. Boroujeni, “Optimal PID power system stabilizer tuning based on particle swarm optimization,” Indian Journal of
Science and Technology, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 379–383, 2011, doi: 10.17485/ijst/2011/v4i4.4.
[9] M. Omar, M. Soliman, A. M. Abdel Ghany, and F. Bendary, “Optimal tuning of PID controllers for hydrothermal load frequency
control using Ant Colony Optimization,” International Journal on Electrical Engineering and Informatics, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 348–
360, 2013, doi: 10.15676/ijeei.2013.5.3.8.
[10] O. Chao and L. Weixing, “Comparison between PSO and GA for parameters optimization of PID controller,” 2006 IEEE
International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation, ICMA 2006, vol. 2006, pp. 2471–2475, 2006, doi:
10.1109/ICMA.2006.257739.
[11] S. M. GirirajKumar, D. Jayaraj, and A. R. Kishan, “PSO Based Tuning of a PID Controller for a High Performance Drilling
Machine,” International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 1, no. 19, pp. 12–18, 2010, doi: 10.5120/410-607.
[12] H. Fang, L. Chen, and Z. Shen, “Application of an improved PSO algorithm to optimal tuning of PID gains for water turbine
governor,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1763–1770, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2010.11.005.
[13] M. A. Ibrahim, A. K. Mahmood, and N. S. Sultan, “Optimal PID controller of a brushless DC motor using genetic algorithm,”
International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 822–830, 2019, doi:
10.11591/ijpeds.v10.i2.pp822-830.
[14] U. Ansari, S. Alam, and S. M. U. N. Jafri, “Modeling and control of three phase BLDC motor using PID with genetic algorithm,”
Proceedings - 2011 UKSim 13th International Conference on Modelling and Simulation, UKSim 2011, pp. 189–194, 2011, doi:
10.1109/UKSIM.2011.44.
[15] C. Kiree, D. Kumpanya, S. Tunyasrirut, and D. Puangdownreong, “PSO-based optimal PI(D) controller design for brushless DC
motor speed control with back EMF detection,” Journal of Electrical Engineering and Technology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 715–723,
2016, doi: 10.5370/JEET.2016.11.3.715.
[16] W. Xie, J. S. Wang, and H. B. Wang, “PI Controller of Speed Regulation of Brushless DC Motor Based on Particle Swarm
Optimization Algorithm with Improved Inertia Weights,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2019, 2019, doi:
10.1155/2019/2671792.
[17] B. A. Kouassi, Y. Zhang, M. J. Mbyamm Kiki, and S. Ouattara, “Speed control of brushless de motor using Ant Colony
Optimization,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 431, no. 1, 2020, doi: 10.1088/1755-
1315/431/1/012022.
[18] H. Jigang, F. Hui, and W. Jie, “A PI controller optimized with modified differential evolution algorithm for speed control of
BLDC motor,” Automatika, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 135–148, 2019, doi: 10.1080/00051144.2019.1596014.
[19] P. Sharma and R. Gupta, “Tuning of PID controller for a linear BLDC motor using TLBO Technique,” Proceedings - 2014 6th
International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Communication Networks, CICN 2014, pp. 1224–1228, 2014, doi:
10.1109/CICN.2014.254.
[20] M. K. Merugumalla and P. K. Navuri, “PSO and firefly algorithms based control of BLDC motor drive,” Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Inventive Systems and Control, ICISC 2018, pp. 994–999, 2018, doi: 10.1109/ICISC.2018.8398951.
[21] 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.
[22] K. Vanchinathan and N. Selvaganesan, “Adaptive fractional order PID controller tuning for brushless DC motor using Artificial
Bee Colony algorithm,” Results in Control and Optimization, vol. 4, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.rico.2021.100032.
[23] M. Shatnawi and E. Bayoumi, “Brushless DC motor controller optimization using simulated annealing,” International Conference
on Electical Drives and Power Electronics, vol. 2019-Septe, pp. 292–297, 2019, doi: 10.1109/EDPE.2019.8883924.
[24] P. Dutta and S. K. Nayak, “Grey Wolf Optimizer Based PID Controller for Speed Control of BLDC Motor,” Journal of Electrical
Engineering and Technology, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 955–961, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s42835-021-00660-5.
[25] S. Sharma, N. K. Sharma, M. Bajaj, V. Kumar, F. Jurado, and S. Kamel, “Optimal BLDC Motor Control Using a WOA-based
LQR Strategy,” Proceedings - 2022 IEEE 4th Global Power, Energy and Communication Conference, GPECOM 2022, pp. 222–
226, 2022, doi: 10.1109/GPECOM55404.2022.9815609.
[26] D. Potnuru, K. Alice Mary, and C. Sai Babu, “Experimental implementation of Flower Pollination Algorithm for speed controller
of a BLDC motor,” Ain Shams Engineering Journal, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 287–295, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.asej.2018.07.005.
[27] W. N. Al-Din Abed, O. A. Imran, and A. N. Abdullah, “Sensored speed control of brushless DC motor based salp swarm
algorithm,” International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 4832–4840, 2022, doi:
10.11591/ijece.v12i5.pp4832-4840.
[28] M. A. Shamseldin, “Optimal coronavirus optimization algorithm based pid controller for high performance brushless dc motor,”
Algorithms, vol. 14, no. 7, 2021, doi: 10.3390/a14070193.
[29] M. Dehghani, E. Trojovská, and P. Trojovský, “A new human-based metaheuristic algorithm for solving optimization problems
on the base of simulation of driving training process,” Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no. 1, 2022, doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-14225-7.
[30] I. Yalagudige Dharmegowda, L. Madarakallu Muniyappa, A. B. Suresh, M. P. Gowdru Chandrashekarappa, and N. B. Pradeep,
“Optimization for waste coconut and fish oil derived biodiesel with MgO nanoparticle blend: Grey relational analysis, grey wolf
optimization, driving training based optimization and election based optimization algorithm,” Fuel, vol. 338, 2023, doi:
10.1016/j.fuel.2022.127249.

An intelligent PID controller tuning for speed control of BLDC motor … (Hrishikesh Sarma)
2486  ISSN: 2088-8694

[31] A. Sharma, M. Gupta, and T. Rawat, “FPGA Implementation of Lattice-Wave Half-Order Digital Integrator using Radix-2rDigit
Recoding,” 6th International Conference on Electronics, Communication and Aerospace Technology, ICECA 2022 - Proceedings,
pp. 300–305, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ICECA55336.2022.10009223.
[32] D. Wei, R. Wang, C. Xia, T. Xia, X. Jin, and C. Xu, “Edge Computing Offloading Method Based on Deep Reinforcement
Learning for Gas Pipeline Leak Detection,” Mathematics, vol. 10, no. 24, 2022, doi: 10.3390/math10244812.
[33] S. Baldursson, “BLDC motor modelling and control–A MATLAB/SIMULINK implementation,” 2005.
[34] S. R.Santhiya, F. S.V, S. S. S. Mol, and V. Suresh, “Optimized PID Controller for Low Power Applications using Particle Swarm
Optimization,” International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), vol. 8, no. 04, pp. 8–11, 2019.
[35] H. Sarma and A. Bardalai, “Tuning of PID Controller using Driving Training-Based Optimization for Speed Control of DC
Motor,” in 2023 4th International Conference on Computing and Communication Systems (I3CS), Mar. 2023, pp. 1–8, doi:
10.1109/I3CS58314.2023.10127458.
[36] J. Joy and S. Ushakumari, “Regenerative Braking Mode Operation of a Three-Phase H-Bridge Inverter Fed PMBLDC Motor
Generator Drive in an Electric Bike,” Electric Power Components and Systems, vol. 46, no. 19–20, pp. 2174–2188, 2018, doi:
10.1080/15325008.2018.1535529.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Hrishikesh Sarma is a research scholar in the Department of Electrical

Engineering, Assam Engineering College affiliated to Gauhati University, Assam, India. He
received Bachelor’s degree in Electronics and Communication Engineering from North
Eastern Hill University, Shillong and Master’s degree in Electrical and Electronics
Engineering from Sikkim Manipal University, Gangtok with specialization in Power
Electronics. His research interests include power electronics and drives, electric vehicles and
intelligent systems. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Aroop Bardalai is Professor of Electrical Engineering Department, Assam

Engineering College affiliated to Gauhati University, Assam, India. He received Bachelor’s
degree in Electrical Engineering from Gauhati University in 1984 and Master’s degree from
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore in 1988 and was awarded Ph.D. from Gauhati
University in 2008. His research interests include power system control, power electronics and
electric drives, and electrical machines. He has published research papers in renowned
journals and attended many National and International Conferences. He has been an active
member of the Institution of Engineers (India), Assam State Centre. He can be contacted at
email: [email protected].

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 14, No. 4, December 2023: 2474-2486