Abstract

Firefly Algorithm (FA) is a recent swarm intelligence first introduced by X.S. Yang in 2008.
It has been widely used to solve several optimization problems. Since then, many research
works were elaborated presenting modified versions intending to improve performances of
the standard one. Consequently, this article aims to present an accelerated variant compared
to the original Algorithm. Through the resolving of some benchmark functions to reach
optimal solution, obtained results demonstrate the superiority of the suggested alternative, so-
called Fast Firefly Algorithm (FFA), when faced with those of the standard FA in term of
convergence fastness to the global solution according to an almost similar precision.
Additionally, a successful application for the control of a brushless direct current electric
motor (BLDC) motor by optimization of the Proportional Integral (PI) regulator parameters is
given. These parameters are optimized by the FFA, FA, GA, PSO and ABC algorithms using
the IAE, ISE, ITAE and ISTE performance criteria.
Keywords:
Fast Firefly Algorithm; optimization; benchmark functions; BLDC motor; PI
controller; nature inspired algorithm
1. Introduction
Optimization is one of the methods that seek to solve complex problems in engineering or
other fields. The objective of optimization is to locate the optimal value of a cost function in a
well-defined research space under different constraints [1]. Among the techniques used, in
optimization, are those of swarm intelligence algorithms which are nature-inspired algorithms,
these optimization techniques have spread over the past two decades [2]. Thus, the significant
performance of swarm intelligence algorithms compared to other conventional optimization
methods motivates researchers and are still to be attractive to exploit them in several complex
optimization problems at different fields [3]. These algorithms operate on two different
search properties: exploitation and exploration, where exploration scans the entire search
space and prevents the algorithm from falling into the local optima, while exploitation
ensures the efficiency of the search and the convergence of the algorithm towards the optimal
solution [4]. Since the appearance of Genetic Algorithm [5], many optimization algorithms
have been proposed such as Ant Colony Optimization [6,7], Artificial Bee Colony (ABC)
[8,9], Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [10,11] Modified Particle Swarm Optimization [12]
Cuckoo Search (CS) [13,14], Bat Algorithm (BA) [15,16], Gray Wolf Optimizer (GWO)
[17,18], Firefly Algorithm [19,20] and so on.
Recently, Firefly Algorithm is one of the famous swarm intelligence algorithms for
optimization problems that have been introduced in 2008. Due to its ease of design,
implementation and flexibility in nature, it has become popular in the field of optimization
and has been widely applied to diverse engineering optimization problems such as in [21,22].
Despite all these advantages, it has drawbacks such as the problem of local minima and it was
unable to guarantee a balance between exploration and exploitation [2,23]. Therefore, several
improvement algorithms have been proposed to overcome such drawbacks which make them
more widely applied successfully in engineering like optimizing Proportional Integral
Derivative (PID) parameters in machine control [24,25,26,27,28].
The PID controller and its variants are mainly used in control process to have a better
dynamic performance of the controlled systems. Therefore, the optimal value of the corrector
parameters is needed. In this context, the choice of controller gains has become an
optimization problem [29]. FA and rival algorithms were successfully applied in the
optimization of the parameters of PID mainly in electrical engineering and other fields [30].
One of the prominent applications in electrical engineering is the control of BLDC motor
driven by a tuned and optimized PID. However, a BLDC motor is developed on the basis of
Brushed DC motor and it is one of the special electrical synchronous motor. It is driven by
DC voltage, but current commutation is obtained by solid-state switches. The commutation
time is fixed by the rotor position which is detected by hall sensor position [31].
It is noticeable that BLDC motor has the advantages that are: high efficiency, long operating
time, low noise, small size and well speed–torque features. In general, it has a great
improvement in automotive, aerospace and industry of engineering and so on. Therefore, its
use has been exposed to many types of load disturbances. Conventional control methods
cannot resist these alterations and lose their precision. Thus, it was necessary to implement
advanced control techniques to solve this problem, especially those based on the artificial
intelligence, such as: fuzzy control [32,33], neural control [34,35], Genetic Algorithm (GA)
control [36,37], PSO control [38], BAT control [31] and recently, FA control and Improved
Firefly Algorithm (IFA) or Modified Firefly Algorithm (MFA) [24,25,26,27,28]. These
methods are based essentially on the optimization of the PID corrector parameters and its
derivatives to obtain optimal performance.
In this paper, we propose an improved version of the FA for function optimization by
reducing the search space. We apply this method to several benchmark problems and also to
the design of a controller for BLDC motor. The paper contains two experimental parts, the
first concerns the search for the global optimum of several benchmark functions according to
the FA and FFA algorithms and then a comparative study is carried out. In order to
consolidate its efficiency, a second application of PI parameters’ optimization for the BLDC
motor control is achieved through simulation in the MATLAB platform. This application
used the FFA, FA, GA, PSO and ABC algorithms according to the IAE, ISE, ITAE and ISTE
performance criteria, to test the competitiveness of the FFA algorithm. Finally, by
comparison of the obtained results, it is found that the performances of the FFA are better
than those of the other algorithms and it can be concluded that this new algorithm can be a
valid concurrent meta-heuristic optimization method.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the mathematical background of the
standard FA and the suggested FFA. In Section 3, the two algorithms are compared through
optimum finding of several standard test functions. The mathematical model of BLDC motor
and the PI controller with description of the experimental results are presented in Section 4.
Finally, drawn conclusion summarizing the achieved work is given in Section 5.
2. Firefly Algorithm and Proposed Fast Firefly Algorithm
2.1. Standard Firefly Algorithm
Firefly Algorithm is inspired by the natural behavior of fireflies by using their self-luminosity
to get closer to each other in the dark. Three assumptions have been suggested by Yang to
clarify the behavior of fireflies [19,20]. Firstly, all fireflies are unisex. Thus, each firefly can
be attracted to other fireflies regardless of gender. Secondly, the attractiveness is linked to the
intensity which is a function of the distance between the firefly concerned and the other
fireflies. The attractiveness decreases as the distance increases. Finally, the luminosity or the
luminous intensity of a firefly is given by the value of the cost function of the problem posed.
Mathematically, the FA algorithm can be given by the following equations [19].
The light intensity of a firefly is given by Equation (1).
�(�)=�0exp(−�.���)I(r)=I0exp(−γ.rij)
(1)
where: γ is the absorption coefficient and (I0) is the initial value at (r = 0).
The attractiveness is expressed by Equation (2) where β0 is the initial value at (r = 0):
�=�0exp(−�.����) , �≥1β=β0exp(−γ.rijm) , m≥1
(2)
Equation (3) evaluates the distance between two fireflies i and j, at positions xi and xj,
respectively, and can be defined as Cartesian distance. Where xik is the kth element of the
spatial coordinate xj of the ith firefly and D denotes the dimensionality of the problem [19].
���=|��−��|=∑�=1�(���−���)2−−−−−−−−−−− ⎷ rij=|ri−rj|=∑k=1D(xik−xjk)2
(3)
The motion equation of the ith firefly to the jth one is determined by Equation (4).
��(�+1)=��(�)+�(��(�)−��(�))+�(����−0.5)xi(t+1)=xi(t)+β(xj(t)−xi(t))+α(rand−0.5)
(4)
where xi(t + 1) is the position of firefly i at iteration t +1 displacement. As it can be seen, the
first part of the right side of Equation (4) is the position of firefly i at iteration t, the second
term is relative to the attractiveness and the last one is randomization (blind flying if there is
no light) where α is the random walk parameter α ∈ [0,1), [19].
The FA Algorithm 1 is given as follows [19]:

Algorithm 1. Firefly Algorithm

Initialization of the parameters of FA (Population size, α, βo, γ and the number of iterations).
The Light intensity is defined by the cost function f(xi) where xi(i = 1,…,n).
While (iter < Max Generation).
for i = 1:n (all n fireflies)
for j = 1:n (all n fireflies)
if (f(xi) < f(xj)), move firefly i towards j,
end if.
Update attractiveness β with distance r.
Evaluate new solution and update f(xi) in the same way as (4).
end for j
end for i
rank the solutions and find the best global optimal.
end while.
Show the results.

2.2. Fast Firefly Algorithm

It is worth noting that the original algorithm of Xin-She Yang performs (Max generation n.n)
tests. However, in the proposed version, (K.n) tests only are performed, where K is an integer.
It means that the conventional one is hugely time consuming when compared to the suggested
one. The proposed Algorithm 2 is summarized as follows:

Algorithm 2. Fast Firefly Algorithm

While (iter < Max Generation)

for k = 1:K.n (all n fireflies) // Here it is the first modification
i = rand(n) // Here it is the second modification
j = rand(n) // Here it is the third modification
if (f(xi) < f(xj)), move firefly i towards j,
end if.
Update attractiveness β with distance r.
Evaluate new solution and update f(xi) in the same way as Equation (4).
Modify the new position obtained by Equation (4) according to Equation (5).
end for k
rank the solutions and find the best global optimal.
end while.
Show the results.

As above mentioned, the new position obtained by Equation (4) is modified according to
Equation (5):
��(�+1)=�.��(�)xi(t+1)=α.xi(t)
(5)
It should be noted that the values of α and γ are given empirically in the original version
according to each test function, β0 is equal to unity. However, on the other hand, the α in FFA
is taken equal to:
�=exp(−10.����/(����+100))α=exp(−10.iter/(iter+100))
(6)
where the convergence is reached easily and γ still chosen equal to 1. The randomization
parameter α is reduced exponentially from a maximum value to a minimum value according
to successive iterations instead of keeping it constant; with this injected artifice, we can
maintain the research balance between the exploitation and the exploration of the proposed
algorithm and it can give better results than its rival FA [4].
In the original version of the FA, the technique of updating the motion of fireflies can be
improved to be more faster. Thus, it is beneficial for each firefly in the swarm to find a
promising region by reorienting its motion in order to easily reach the overall optimum.
Consequently, the updated term is redirected to have a better exploration and exploitation of
the algorithm and the speed of its convergence is, thus, guaranteed [1,39].
The essence of the proposed method is the reduction of the search space (exploration) while
keeping the search efficiency satisfactory to reach the optimal solution. It means that (K.n)
evaluated tests were found clearly sufficient to obtain the optimal solution for the large
number of benchmark functions and other applications [40].
3. Simulation Results and Analysis
3.1. Benchmark Functions
Standards’ functions are essential to prove and compare the characteristics of optimization
algorithms. The most terms of evaluation are: The convergence speed and the precision.
Hence, 12 different test functions are used to compare the performance of the original
algorithm FA and the proposed one FFA according to the previously mentioned evaluation
terms. The used test functions are listed in Table 1, highlighting the variables, ranges and
values of the global optimum to reach [41,42].
Table 1. Benchmark functions.

3.2. Parameter Settings

The parameter settings of FA and FFA are showed in Table 2.
Table 2. Parameter settings of FA and FFA.

3.3. Functions’ Experimental Results

The two algorithms are applied to minimize a set of test functions of dimensions 2D, 10D,
20D and 30D, respectively. The experimental environment is the MATLAB R2017a software,
the CPU is an E5700@3.00 GHZ, the RAM is of size 6 GB. To compare their performance,
minimum, mean, standard deviation and the computational time are taken over 10 runs. For
each function, the two algorithms operate independently. The results of the optimization are
summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Comparative simulation results of FA and FFA for the 12 benchmark test functions.
In terms of precision of convergence towards the global optimum, by visualizing the results
in Table 3, it can be seen that the mean and the standard deviation of the reached optimum,
after 10 runs for each test function, of FFA in all dimensions are better than of FA.
Concerning the convergence fastness to the global optimum, it can be clearly remarked, from
extensive simulation tests, that the proposed method outperforms the original one and it is
significantly faster (see Table 3). Accordingly, the average speed up ratio, when applying the
two algorithms on the 12 test functions, is 12:1, which confirms the effectiveness of the
suggested technique.
It is worthy to note that the speed up ratio is defined by:
��=�������SR=tFAtFFA
(7)
where tFA is the execution time of the original algorithm FA, and the tFFA is the execution time
of the proposed one FFA.
As is shown in Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 below, the proposed algorithm
reaches all solutions of all test functions with high precision outperforming, accordingly,
those obtained from the standard one.

Figure 1. Convergence curves of FFA and FA for the functions: (a) F1; (b) F2 and (c) F3
(2D).

Figure 2. Convergence curves of FFA and FA for the functions: (a) F4; (b) F5 and (c) F6
(10D).
Figure 3. Convergence curves of FFA and FA for the functions: (a) F7; (b) F8 and (c) F9
(20D).

Figure 4. Convergence curves of FFA and FA for the functions: (a) F10; (b) F11 and (c) F12
(30D).
As can be seen from Table 3, the proposed algorithm is more unbiased (the statistical
expected value of obtained cost function of FFA is more tending to the theoretical value than
FA) and more consistent (the standard deviation of obtained cost function when applying
FFA is more tending to 0 than the FA). The reported remarks hold for the twelve test
functions as previously shown in Table 3 for dimensions 2D, 10D, 20D and 30D,
respectively. For more convincing, robustness and stability of FFA in higher dimensions are
evaluated by using the test functions (F13, F14 and F15) for dimensions 50D, 100D, 150D
and 200D, respectively. Table 4 gives the results of these tests with a 10 times run for each
test function. Finally, it can be concluded that the stability of FFA is not affected by
increasing significantly dimensions (high precision remains obtained). The graphs of Figure
5 reflect these results.
Figure 5. Convergence curves of FFA for the functions: (a) F13; (b) F14 and (c) F15 on 50D,
100D, 150D and 200D.
Table 4. Stability of FFA in higher dimensions.

4. Application for the Control of Brushless DC Motor

4.1. Description
BLDC motor is a permanent magnet synchronous motor that has trapezoidal Back- EMF and
an almost rectangular current. It uses position detectors and an inverter to control the
armature currents. It becomes popular for industrial applications because of its high
efficiency, reliability, noiseless operation, low maintenance and an optimized volume. BLDC
motors are available in several different configurations, but three-phase is the most common
type due to its high speed and low torque ripple [43].
The drive model of a BLDC motor is shown in Figure 6. It is divided into two blocks. The
first one is the inverter and the second is the BLDC motor. Accordingly, the BLDC motor is
powered by a six-switch inverter where, for each control step, two phases operate
simultaneously while the third is eliminated. Note that the signals of the Hall Effect position
sensor (Ha, Hb, Hc) shifted by 120°, electrically govern these switches by generation of the
pulses (S1,…,S2) at every 60° electrical angle [43,44,45].
Figure 6. Drive model of a BLDC motor [43,44,45,46,47].
4.2. Mathematical Modeling of a BLDC Motor
By consideration of the symmetry of the phases, it is assumed that the three phases’
resistances are identical as well as the inductances. Consequently, the equations describing
the model of the equivalent circuit of the motor are [43,44,45]:
��=���+������+��va=Ria+Lddtia+ea
(8)
��=���+������+��vb=Rib+Lddtib+eb
(9)
��=���+������+��vc=Ric+Lddtic+ec
(10)
Then, the line voltage equation can be obtained by subtraction of the phase voltage equation
as:
���=�(��−��)+����(��−��)+��−��vab=R(ia−ib)+Lddt(ia−ib)+ea−eb
(11)
���=�(��−��)+����(��−��)+��−��vbc=R(ib−ic)+Lddt(ib−ic)+eb−ec
(12)
���=�(��−��)+����(��−��)+��−��vca=R(ic−ia)+Lddt(ic−ia)+ec−ea
(13)
where:
 R: resistance of a stator phase [Ω].
  L: inductance of a stator phase [H].
 va, vb and vc are the stator phase voltages [V].
 vab, vbc and vca are the stator phase to phase voltages [V].
 ia, ib and ic are stator phase currents [A]
 ea, eb and ec are motor Back-EMFs [V].
The relationship between phase currents is given by the equation:
��+��+��=0ia+ib+ic=0
(14)
Since each voltage is a linear combination of the other two voltages, two equations are
sufficient. Using relation 14, Equations (11) and (12) become [44]:
���=�(��−��)+����(��−��)+��−��vab=R(ia−ib)+Lddt(ia−ib)+ea−eb
(15)
���=�(��+2��)+����(��+2��)+��−��vbc=R(ia+2ib)+Lddt(ia+2ib)+eb−ec
(16)
The equation of mechanical part represents as follows:
��=����+������+��Te=kfωm+Jdωmdt+TL
(17)
��=�����ωm=dθmdt
(18)
where:
 Te and TL are the electromagnetic torque and the load torque [Nm].
 J is the rotor inertia, kf is a friction constant and ωm is the rotor speed [rad/s].
The Back-EMF and electromagnetic torque can be expressed as:
��=�����(��)ea=keωmF(θe)
(19)
��=�����((��−2�3))eb=keωmF((θe−2π3))
(20)
��=�����((��−4�3))ec=keωmF((θe−4π3))
(21)
where:
 ke is the Back-EMF’s constant.
  ��θe is equal to the rotor angle (��θe= p. �� θm/2), ��θm the mechanic angle
and p the number of pole pairs. F(��θe) is trapezoidal waveform of Back-EMFs.
Thus, the torque equation can be defined as:
��=(����+����+����)��=��2[�(��)��+�(��−2�3)��+�(��−4�3)��]Te=(eaia+ebib+ecic)ω
m=kt2[F(θe)ia+F(θe−2π3)ib+F(θe−4π3)ic]
(22)
 kt: the torque constant.
Therefore, the function F(��θe) is a function of rotor position, which gives the trapezoidal
waveform of Back-EMF. One period of function can be written as:
�(��)=⎧⎩⎨ 11−6�(��−2�3)−1−1+6�(��−5�3)0≤��<2�32�3≤��<
��≤��<5�35�3≤��<2�F(θe)=10≤θe<2π31−6π(θe−2π3)2π3≤θe<π−1π≤θe<5π3−1+6π(θe−5π
3)5π3≤θe<2π
(23)
For illustration, Figure 7 shows Back-EMF, Hall Effect sensor signal and the current in the
three phases. In the trapezoidal motor Back-EMF induced in the stator has a trapezoidal
shape and its phases must be supplied with quasi square currents for ripple free torque
operation [44,46].
Figure 7. State of Hall sensor signals, Back-EMF and currents [47].
Finally, Equations (15)–(18) can be converted to a state space form. The resulting complete
model is given as:
⎡⎣⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢��������������������⎤⎦⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥=⎡⎣⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢−��0000−��0000−���10000⎤⎦⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎡⎣
⎢⎢⎢⎢��������⎤⎦⎥⎥⎥⎥+⎡⎣⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢23�−13�0013�13�00001�0⎤⎦⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎡⎣⎢⎢���−������−�����−��⎤
⎦⎥⎥[diadtdibdtdωmdtdθmdt]=[−RL0000−RL0000−kfJ00010][iaibωmθm]+[23L13L0−13L13L
0001J000][vab−eabvbc−ebcTe−TL]
(24)
��=−(��+��)ic=−(ia+ib)
(25)
where: ���=��−��eab=ea−eb and ���=��−��ebc=eb−ec
4.3. Hall Effect Sensor and Transistor Switching Sequence
According to the angular position of the rotor evolution between 0° and 360°, the position
produced by Hall Effect sensors is given which is described in Table 5 below.
Table 5. Switching sequence by using Hall Effect sensor signals.

Each Hall Effect sensor operates during the passage of the poles based on the rising and
falling edges. Thus, the rising front for the north pole and falling for the south pole.
Accordingly, the sensor indicates 1 or 0, respectively. Following this switching logic of Hall
Effect sensors, the switching sequence of the inverter is expressed in Table 5, where the
switching sequence for shaft rotation is clockwise [45,47].
According to the circuit in Figure 6, the three-phase voltages are calculated with the
following formulas [45]:
��=��2(�1−�2)va=vd2(S1−S2)
(26)
��=��2(�3−�4)vb=vd2(S3−S4)
(27)
��=��2(�5−�6)vc=vd2(S5−S6)
(28)
where vd is the DC supply voltage.
4.4. Speed Control of Brushless DC Motor
The principle diagram for speed control of the three-phase BLDC motor is shown in Figure 8.
At the regulator input, the reference speed is compared to the actual speed of the motor to
generate a control voltage at its output.

Figure 8. Speed control principle of BLDC motor.

The signals of the switching sequences are obtained from the position of the motor shaft. The
motor stator is excited by the three-phase currents [45].
4.5. PI Controller
PI controller is a derivative of PID controller. It has been extensively used in industrial
applications due to its simplicity, robustness, reliability and easy tuning gains in simple
control [21].
The equation of the PI controller is specified by:
�(�)=���(�)+��∫0��(�)��y(t)=kpε(t)+ki∫0tε(τ)dτ
(29)
The Laplace transfer function is:
�(�)=��+���C(S)=kp+kis
(30)
where:
kp: proportional gain,
ki: integral gain,
s: Laplace operator.
4.6. Simulation Results and Discussion
To ensure efficient performance of the system to be monitored, the performance criteria
defined by Equations (31)–(34) are used. The objective functions are chosen for minimizing
the time response characteristics due to the dependency of error on time [27]:
�1=���=∫0T�(�)��=∫0T(����−��)��J1=IAE=∫0Tε(t)dt=∫0T(ωref−ωm)dt
(31)
�2=���=∫0T�2(�)����=∫0T(����−��)2��J2=ISE=∫0Tε2(t)dtdt=∫0T(ωref−ωm)2dt
(32)
�3=����=∫0T�.�(�)��=∫0T�.(����−��)��J3=ITAE=∫0Tt.ε(t)dt=∫0Tt.(ωref−ωm)dt
(33)
�4=����=∫0T�.�2(�)��=∫0T�.(����−��)2��J4=ITSE=∫0Tt.ε2(t)dt=∫0Tt.(ωref−ωm)2dt
(34)
The problem can be represented as:
Minimize J subjected to:
kpmin ≤ kp ≤ kpmax
kimin ≤ ki ≤ kimax
where ωref is the reference speed and ωm is the actual one. Figure 9 shows PI controller block
of the control. In this problem, the values of overshoot, rise time and stabilization time are
controlled indirectly. These parameters are directly linked to the objective function so they
are optimized implicitly [27].

Figure 9. Scheme of PI controller parameters’ optimization based on a nature-inspired

algorithm.
The model of BLDC motor drive is simulated in MATLAB. The parameters of the BLDC
motor are reported in Table 6.
Table 6. Parameters of BLDC motor.

To control the BLDC motor, a conventional PI controller is used. However, it is not easy to
adjust its parameters in order to have an efficient control. Therefore, the FFA_PI controller is
used and it is compared to other algorithms to evaluate its competitiveness. The simulation is
performed by considering the well-known algorithms GA, PSO, ABC and the standard FA.
The simulation is run with 100 iterations and a population size of 10.
Figure 10 shows the evolution of the different performance criteria with the different
algorithms. The results of FFA, with the different criteria, are all the better than those
presented by the other algorithms. Figure 11, also, presents the cost functions IAE, ISE,
ITAE and ISTE obtained by FFA algorithm.
Figure 10. Convergence curves for different algorithms with several criteria.
Figure 11. Convergence curves for different criteria with FFA algorithms.
The values of the PI controller, obtained by different simulations, are shown in Table 7. The
values are obtained by the five algorithms used, with different criteria.
Table 7. kp, ki parameters obtained by various objective functions and various algorithms.

In the chosen cost functions, the values of the overshoot, the rise time and the settling time
can be controlled indirectly. Based on their optimization, the cost functions force the values
of the other parameters to be optimum [27]. Table 8 shows the values of the different
correctors used in this simulation. The values of the rise time, settling time, peak time, peak
and overshoot are reported in Table 8. Accordingly, the results concerning the time are better
for the FFA algorithm as well as for the peaks and the overshoots which are alternated with
the other algorithms.
Table 8. Performance of the different controllers.
Moreover, the execution simulation time comparison is given between the different correctors
and shown in Table 9. It can be reported that the calculation time using the FFA_PI is faster
than those obtained with the FA_PI, GA_PI, PSO_PI and ABC_PI when using 50 or 100
iterations.
Table 9. Simulation time of the five algorithms.

According to the used criterions, Figure 12, Figure 13, Figure 14 and Figure 15 represent
the BLDC motor speeds obtained with the different corrector optimized. Consequently, the
figures are given for comparison and they justify the values in Table 8.

Figure 12. Comparison of speed responses with different algorithms using IAE criterion: (a)
original; (b) and (c) zoomed version.

Figure 13. Comparison of speed responses with different algorithms using ISE criterion: (a)
original; (b) and (c) zoomed version.
Figure 14. Comparison of speed responses with different algorithms using ITAE criterion: (a)
original; (b) and (c) zoomed version.

Figure 15. Comparison of speed responses with different algorithms using ISTE criterion: (a)
original; (b) and (c) zoomed version.
The graphs are zoomed in the area of the overshoot and the rejection of the disturbance for
better visualization of signals.
From the previous numerical results and the figures’ responses, it can be concluded that the
optimized PI controller-based FFA showed a better capacity to compete with its FA
counterpart, and its rivals GA, PSO and ABC. Thus, it provided the fastest rise and response
times in addition to the minimum peak time.
Figure 16 show the simulation results of the various variables of the BLDC motor using the
FFA_PI using (ki = 2468, kp = 18.19). Accordingly, Figure 16a presents the speed of the
BLDC motor where the reference speed ωref is chosen as a ramp in order to dampen the
current at start-up and to avoid peaks as well as for the electromagnetic torque on the Figure
16b. At 0.125 s, a torque load TL = 4 Nm is applied and a good rejection by the control is
observed. The effect of the load is very apparent on the figure of the speed, the torque, the
voltages and the current.
Figure 16. Results of simulation by using FFA_PI controller.
On each figure presented, there are three phases, where the first phase is zoomed-in to clearly
visualize the behavior of the signals. Thus, Figure 16c,d show the phase voltages and the
phase to phase voltage simultaneously. The trapezoidal Back-EMF shape is well illustrated
on the Figure 16e. Finally, the shape of the currents of the three phases of the stator is given
by the Figure 16f. As can be seen, there is a distortion in the torque signals which is due to
the trapezoidal shape of the Back-EMF and the nature of the currents containing harmonics.
Finally, Figure 17 gives the evolution, until the convergence, of the parameters of the
FFA_PI and FA_PI on the control technique.
Figure 17. Evolution of parameters of FFA_PI until convergence.
5. Conclusions
A fast FA algorithm so-called FFA is presented and compared with the standard FA through
searching the global optimum by using different standard benchmark functions in a first
application. The simulation results were compared, taking in consideration the precision and
the speed of convergence criteria for the two algorithms. The reached results prove that those
obtained by FFA are better than those of FA. A second application concerning the
optimization of the gains of a PI controlling a BLDC motor is carried out through the ITSE
performance criterion. The results obtained show the robustness of the two algorithms with
superiority for FFA. The acceleration of the proposed algorithm is due to the search space
reduction by a random election of a significantly small set of moving fireflies while the
whole search space stills covered. It should be noted that the acceleration, in the optimization
function, is in the average 12:1, with respect to FA. Additionally, for the complex problem
(BLDC motor control), the acceleration is clearly remarked for the modified algorithm FFA
than FA, GA, PSO and ABC algorithms. Globally, the suggested FFA algorithm can be
considered as most state of the art metaheuristic algorithms such as FA, GA, PSO and ABC,
and presents superior fastness against all reported optimizers.
Furthermore, a modification on the α parameter is given and this guarantees the robustness
and precision through the enhancement of search directions toward the global optimal
solution.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, methodology, software, writing—original draft preparation, validation
S.B. and R.B.; Supervision, R.B. formal analysis, writing—review and editing, funding
acquisition, Y.B. and M.M.A.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding
The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud
University for funding this work through research group No. RG-1441-502.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Acknowledgments
The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud
University for funding this work through research group No. RG-1441-502.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Nomenclature

Symbols used in this paper

ABC Artificial Bee Colony

PSO Particle Swarm Optimization

CS Cuckoo Search

BA Bat Algorithm

GWO Gray Wolf Optimizer

FA Firefly Algorithm

FFA Fast Firefly Algorithm

GA Genetic Algorithms

PI Proportional Integral

PID Proportional Integral & Derivative

kp, ki Proportional and Integral gains of the PI controller

IFA Improved Firefly Algorithm

MFA Modified Firefly Algorithm

tFA Execution time of the original algorithm FA

tFFA Execution time of the proposed algorithm FFA

R Resistance of a stator phase, [Ω]

L Inductance of a stator phase, [H]

va, vc, vc Stator phase voltages, [V]

vab, vbc, vca Stator phase to phase voltages, [V]

ia, ib, ic Stator phase currents, [A]

ea, eb, ec Motor Back-EMFs, [V]

Te, TL Electromagnetic and load torques, [Nm]

J Rotor inertia, [kgm2]

kf Friction constant, [Nms/rad]

kt Torque coefficient, [Nm/A]

ωm Rotor speed, [rad/s]

Nr Rated speed, [rpm]

θe Electric angle of rotor, [rad]

θm Mechanic angle of rotor, [rad]

F(θe) Back-EMF reference function

ε(t) Error input signal

y(t) Output signal

Ha, Hb, Hc Hall Effect Sensors for the three phases

IAE Integral Absolute Error

ISE Integral Square Error

ITAE Integral Time Absolute Error

ISTE Integral Square Time Error

References
1. Sarangi, S.K.; Panda, R.; Priyadarshini, S.; Sarangi, A. A New Modified Firefly
Algorithm for Function Optimization. In Proceedings of the 2016 International
Conference on Electrical, Electronics, and Optimization Techniques (ICEEOT),
Chennai, India, 3–5 March 2016; pp. 2944–2949. [Google Scholar]
2. Yelghi, A.; Köse, C. A Modified Firefly Algorithm for Global Minimum
Optimization. Appl. Soft Comput. 2018, 62, 29–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
3. Ariyaratne, M.K.A.; Fernando, T.G.I.; Weerakoon, S. A Modified Firefly Algorithm
to Solve Univariate Nonlinear Equations with Complex Roots. In Proceedings of the
2015 Fifteenth International Conference on Advances in ICT for Emerging Regions
(ICTer), Colombo, Sri Lanka, 24–26 August 2015; pp. 160–167. [Google Scholar]
4. Ariyaratne, M.K.A.; Fernando, T.G.I.; Weerakoon, S. Solving systems of nonlinear
equations using a modified firefly algorithm (MODFA). Swarm Evol.
Comput. 2019, 48, 72–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. Goldberg, D.E. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning,
1st ed.; Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.: Boston, MA, USA, 1989;
ISBN 978-0-201-15767-3. [Google Scholar]
6. Dorigo, M.; Birattari, M.; Stutzle, T. Ant Colony Optimization. IEEE Comput. Intell.
Mag. 2006, 1, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
7. Zeng, Q.; Tan, G. Optimal Design of PID Controller Using Modified Ant Colony
System Algorithm. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Natural
Computation (ICNC 2007), Haikou, China, 24–27 August 2007; Volume 5, pp. 436–
440. [Google Scholar]
8. Karaboga, D.; Akay, B.; Ozturk, C. Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) Optimization
Algorithm for Training Feed-Forward Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the
Modeling Decisions for Artificial Intelligence, Haikou, China, 24–27 August 2007;
Torra, V., Narukawa, Y., Yoshida, Y., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2007; pp. 318–329. [Google Scholar]
9. Singh, K.; Sundar, S. Artifical Bee Colony Algorithm Using Problem-Specific
Neighborhood Strategies for the Tree t-Spanner Problem. Appl. Soft Comput. 2018, 62,
110–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Kennedy, J.; Eberhart, R. Particle Swarm Optimization. In Proceedings of the
ICNN’95—International Conference on Neural Networks, Perth, WA, Australia, 27
November–1 December 1995; Volume 4, pp. 1942–1948. [Google Scholar]
11. Nema, S.; Padhy, P.K. PI-PD Controller for Stable and Unstable Processes. Int. J. Syst.
Control Commun. 2013, 5, 156–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
12. Nangru, D.; Bairwa, D.K.; Singh, K.; Nema, S.; Padhy, P.K. Modified PSO Based
PID Controller for Stable Processes. In Proceedings of the 2013 International
Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Embedded Systems (CARE),
Jabalpur, India, 16–18 December 2013; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
13. Yang, X.-S.; Deb, S. Cuckoo Search via Lévy Flights. In Proceedings of the 2009
World Congress on Nature Biologically Inspired Computing (NaBIC), Coimbatore,
India, 9–11 December 2009; pp. 210–214. [Google Scholar]
14. Yang, X.-S.; Deb, S. Engineering Optimisation by Cuckoo Search. Int. J. Math.
Model. Numer. Optim. 2010, 1, 330–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Yang, X.; He, X. Bat Algorithm: Literature Review and Applications. Int. J. Bio-
Inspired Comput. 2013, 5, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
16. Yang, X.-S. A New Metaheuristic Bat-Inspired Algorithm. In Nature Inspired
Cooperative Strategies for Optimization (NICSO 2010); González, J.R., Pelta, D.A.,
Cruz, C., Terrazas, G., Krasnogor, N., Eds.; Studies in Computational Intelligence;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 65–74. ISBN 978-3-642-12538-6.
[Google Scholar]
17. Mirjalili, S.; Mirjalili, S.M.; Lewis, A. Grey Wolf Optimizer. Adv. Eng.
Softw. 2014, 69, 46–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
18. Pallav, D.; Santanu, K.N. Grey Wolf Optimizer Based PID Controller for Speed
Control of BLDC Motor. J. Electr. Eng. Technol. 2021, 16, 955–961. [Google
Scholar] [CrossRef]
19. Yang, X.-S. Firefly Algorithms for Multimodal Optimization. In Proceedings of the
Stochastic Algorithms: Foundations and Applications; 5th International Symposium,
SAGA 2009, Sapporo, Japan, 26–28 October, 2009; pp. 169–178. [Google Scholar]
20. Yang, X.-S. Nature-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithms; Luniver Press: Beckington,
UK, 2010; ISBN-13: 978-1-905986-28-6. [Google Scholar]
21. Bazi, S.; Benzid, R.; Said, M.S.N. Optimum PI Controller Design in PMSM Using
Firefly Algorithm and Genetic Algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2017 6th
International Conference on Systems and Control (ICSC), Batna, Algeria, 7–9 May
2017; pp. 85–89. [Google Scholar]
22. Pradhan, P.C.; Sahu, R.K.; Panda, S. Firefly Algorithm Optimized Fuzzy PID
Controller for AGC of Multi-Area Multi-Source Power Systems with UPFC and
SMES. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2016, 19, 338–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[Green Version]
23. Jinran, W.; You-Gan, W.; Kevin, B.; Yu-Chu, T.; Brodie, L.; Zhe, D. An improved
firefly algorithm for global continuous optimization problems. Expert Syst.
Appl. 2020, 149, 113340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
24. Boris, J.; Paolo, L.; Guido, M. Control of double-loop permanent magnet synchronous
motor drives by optimized fractional and distributed-order PID controllers. Eur. J.
Control 2021, 58, 232–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Mat Hussin, A.T.; Intan Zaurah, M.D.; Pakharuddin, M.S.; Hanim, M.Y.; Mohd
Ibthisham, A.; Nik Mohd, R.S.; Muhamad, S.H. Vibration control of semi-active
suspension system using PID controller with advanced firefly algorithm and particle
swarm optimization. J. Ambient. Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2021, 12, 1119–1137.
[Google Scholar]
26. He, S.; Chen, Z.; Gao, X. Parameter Solving of DC Servo Motor PID Controller
Based on Improved Firefly Algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2018 3rd International
Conference on Robotics and Automation Engineering (ICRAE), Guangzhou, China,
17–19 November 2018; pp. 136–140. [Google Scholar]
27. Rosy, P.; Santosh, K.M.; Jatin, K.P.; Bibhuti, B.P. Optimal fractional order PID
controller design using Ant Lion Optimizer. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2020, 11, 281–291.
[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
28. Devarapalli, R.; Naga Lakshmi, N.J.; Prasad, U. Application of a Novel Political
Optimization in Optimal Parameter Design of PI Controller for the BLDC Motor
Speed Control. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Emerging
Frontiers in Electrical and Electronic Technologies (ICEFEET), Patna, India, 10–11
July 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
29. BARAN, H. Optimal Tuning of Fractional Order PID Controller for DC Motor Speed
Control via Chaotic Atom Search Optimization Algorithm. IEEE Access 2019, 7,
38100–38114. [Google Scholar]
30. Jagatheesan, K.; Anand, B.; Samanta, S.; Dey, N.; Ashour, A.S.; Balas, V.E. Design
of a Proportional-Integral-Derivative Controller for an Automatic Generation Control
of Multi-Area Power Thermal Systems Using Firefly Algorithm. IEEE/CAA J. Autom.
Sin. 2019, 6, 503–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
31. Chaib, L.; Choucha, A.; Arif, S. Optimal Design and Tuning of Novel Fractional
Order PID Power System Stabilizer Using a New Metaheuristic Bat Algorithm. Ain
Shams Eng. J. 2017, 8, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
32. Xiaoyan, P.; Mingfei, J.; Lei, H.; Xiang, Y.; Yibin, L. Fuzzy sliding mode control
based on longitudinal force estimation for electro-mechanical braking systems using
BLDC motor. CES Trans. Electr. Mach. Syst. 2018, 2, 142–151. [Google Scholar]
33. Walekar, V.R.; Murkute, S.V. Speed Control of BLDC Motor Using PI Fuzzy
Approach: A Comparative Study. In Proceedings of the 2018 International
Conference on Information, Communication, Engineering and Technology (ICICET),
Pune, India, 29–31 August 2018; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
34. Ahmed, R.; Paul, Y. Hardware/Software Implementation of Fuzzy-Neural-Network
Self-Learning Control Methods for Brushless DC Motor Drives. IEEE Trans. Ind.
Appl. 2016, 52, 414–424. [Google Scholar]
35. Xiong, S.; Junguo, G.; Jian, C.; Biao, J. Research on Speed Control System of
Brushless DC Motor Based on Neural Network. In Proceedings of the 2015 8th
International Conference on Intelligent Computation Technology and Automation
(ICICTA), Nanchang, China, 14–15 June 2015; pp. 761–764. [Google Scholar]
36. Putra, E.H.; Zulfatman, Z.; Effendy, M. Robust Adaptive Sliding Mode Control
Design with Genetic Algorithm for Brushless DC Motor. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Electrical Engineering, Computer Science and
Informatics (EECSI), Malang, Indonesia, 16–18 October 2018; Volume 5, pp. 330–
335, ISBN 978-1-5386-8402-3. [Google Scholar]
37. Li, J.; Li, W. On-Line PID Parameters Optimization Control for Wind Power
Generation System Based on Genetic Algorithm. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 137094–
137100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
38. Merugumalla, M.K.; Navuri, P.K. PSO and Firefly Algorithms Based Control of
BLDC Motor Drive. In Proceedings of the 2018 2nd International Conference on
Inventive Systems and Control (ICISC), Coimbatore, India, 19–20 January 2018; pp.
994–999. [Google Scholar]
39. Ho, S.L.; Yang, S.; Ni, G.; Lo, E.W.C.; Wong, H.C. A Particle Swarm Optimization-
Based Method for Multiobjective Design Optimizations. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2005, 41,
1756–1759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
40. Fateen, S.-E.K.; Bonilla-Petriciolet, A. Intelligent firefly algorithm for global
optimization. In Cuckoo Search and Firefly algorithm; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2014; pp. 315–330. [Google Scholar]
41. Ardeh, M.A. Benchmark Functions. Available
online: Benchmarkfcns.xyz/fcns.html (accessed on 26 May 2021).
42. Jamil, M.; Yang, X.-S. A Literature Survey of Benchmark Functions for Global
Optimisation Problems. Int. J. Math. Model. Numer. Optim. 2013, 4, 150–194.
[Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
43. Permanent Magnet Brushless DC Motor Drives and Controls|Wiley. Available
online: https://www.wiley.com/en-
ar/Permanent+Magnet+Brushless+DC+Motor+Drives+and+Controls-p-
9781118188330 (accessed on 27 May 2021).
44. Mondal, S.; Mitra, A.; Chattopadhyay, M. Mathematical Modeling and Simulation of
Brushless DC Motor with Ideal Back EMF for a Precision Speed Control. In
Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Electrical, Computer and
Communication Technologies (ICECCT), Coimbatore, India, 5–7 March 2015; pp. 1–
5. [Google Scholar]
45. Prasad, G.; Ramya, N.S.; Prasad, P.V.N.; Das, G.T.R. Modeling and Simulation
Analysis of the Brushless DC Motor by Using MATLAB. Int. J. Innov. Technol.
Explor. Eng. (IJITEE) 2012, 1, 27–31. [Google Scholar]
46. Kumar, D.; Gupta, R.A.; Gupta, N. Modeling and Simulation of Four Switch Three-
Phase BLDC Motor Using Anti-Windup PI Controller. In Proceedings of the 2017
Innovations in Power and Advanced Computing Technologies (i-PACT), Vellore,
India, 21–22 April 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
47. Jaromír, J.; Miloslav, Č. Position Measurement with Hall Effect Sensors. Am. J. Mech.
Eng. 2013, 1, 231–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]