International Journal of Applied Power Engineering (IJAPE)

Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2025, pp. 101~108

ISSN: 2252-8792, DOI: 10.11591/ijape.v14.i1.pp101-108  101

Metaheuristic algorithms for parameter estimation of DC servo

motors with quantized sensor measurements

Debani Prasad Mishra1, Sandip Ranjan Behera1, Arul Kumar Dash1, Prajna Jeet Ojha1,
Surender Reddy Salkuti2
1
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, IIIT Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
2
Department of Railroad and Electrical Engineering, Woosong University, Daejeon, Republic of Korea

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: Manufacturing, aviation, and robotics have increased servo motor use due to
their precision, reliability, and adaptability in various applications. This study
Received Jan 22, 2024 compares three metaheuristic techniques for servo motor model parameter
Revised Jun 16, 2024 estimation with sensor measurement quantization, focusing on their accuracy
Accepted Aug 15, 2024 and efficiency. Armature resistance, back electromotive force (EMF)
constant, torque constant, coil inductance, friction coefficient, and rotor-load
Keywords: inertia are crucial to servo motor behavior prediction, significantly impacting
overall system performance. Each approach was rigorously tested and
Genetic algorithm analyzed to evaluate its effectiveness in predicting servo motor characteristics.
Metaheuristic techniques The results revealed that particle swarm optimization and the firefly algorithm
Parameter estimation delivered comparable performance, particularly excelling in scenarios where
Particle swarm optimization sensor measurement quantization introduced noise or imprecision in the data.
Servo motor model These methods demonstrated strong resilience and accuracy under such
challenging conditions. In contrast, the genetic algorithm did not perform as
well, falling short when compared to the other two techniques in handling
noisy or imprecise data, indicating its relative inefficiency in such
environments. These findings give servo motor designers and engineers across
industries a powerful tool for performance prediction.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Surender Reddy Salkuti
Department of Railroad and Electrical Engineering, Woosong University
Jayang-Dong, Dong-Gu, Daejeon - 34606, Republic of Korea
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
Robotics, computer numerical control (CNC) machining, printing presses, packing equipment [1], and
aircraft thrust vector control systems use servo motors due to their precision. These motors provide precise
torque, velocity, and angular position control, making them essential for many applications. Robot joints and
limbs move precisely and intricately thanks to servo motors [2]. Their use allows robots to do complex tasks
with exceptional accuracy, revolutionizing manufacturing and automation. CNC machines precisely regulate
cutting tool movements with servo motors. This accuracy produces precisely machined components, vital in
precision-intensive sectors. In printing and packaging, servo motors are crucial. This contribution ensures high-
quality, reliable products that meet these industries' strict requirements. Servo motors drive nozzles and
surfaces in thrust vector control systems in aerospace. This precise control lets rockets change course, a crucial
role in space travel [3].
Modern industrial control systems use servo motors extensively. Peak performance in these systems
requires precise parameter estimates. System identification, outlined in [4], requires numerous phases to
accurately simulate a system's behavior. This method involves careful experiment planning, execution, and

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

102  ISSN: 2252-8792

evaluation to create models for research projects [5] or adaptive control loops [6]. In physics and other fields,
mathematical models are essential. Theoretical and experimental models are included. According to Isermann
and Münchhof [7], experimental model system identification uses non-parametric and parametric models.
Graphical representations of non-parametric models with ambiguous structures and unbounded parameters are
common [8]. In contrast, parametric models [9] have well-defined structures and finite parameters, usually
specified by transfer functions or differential equations. This research analyzes three population-based
optimization algorithms to demonstrate how to determine model parameters for a simple DC motor while
considering sensor quantization. Traditional gradient-based optimization techniques are vulnerable to local
optima. They overcome traditional obstacles with heuristics and random search [10], [11]. Metaheuristics, on
the other hand, are stochastic optimization algorithms that search the search space for the best solution without
using gradients but rather heuristics and random search [12]. Fakhar et al. [13] explained metaheuristics are a
good option. They are ideal for non-convex and multimodal optimization problems because stochastic
optimization algorithms explore search spaces without gradients.

2. PARAMETRIC MODEL IDENTIFICATION

This paper quantizes continuous rotation data using the floor function and emulates the transfer
function with an armature-controlled DC servo motor. A DC servo motor's behavior can be quantitatively
expressed using differential equations [14]. Figure 1 shows how a DC servo motor works: a current passes through
a coil, creating a magnetic field that interacts with a permanent magnet to rotate the shaft [15]. Creating electrical
and mechanical equations independently and merging them describes electromechanical relationships [16].

Figure 1. DC motor circuit diagram

The system's input is armature voltage, and its output is the measured shaft angle in degrees. Consider
the inputs 𝑒𝑎 (𝑡) and 𝑒𝑏 (𝑡), and the output 𝑖𝑎 (𝑡). Wrap KVL around the armature-mechanical dynamics:
𝑑𝑖𝑎 (𝑡)
𝑒𝑎 (𝑡) = 𝑅𝑎 × 𝑖𝑎 (𝑡) + 𝐿 × ( ) + 𝑒𝑏 (𝑡) (1)
𝑑𝑡

𝑑𝜔𝑚 (𝑡)
𝑇(𝑡) = 𝐽𝑟 × ( ) + 𝑓𝑣 × 𝜔𝑚 (𝑡) (2)
𝑑𝑡

taking Laplace transform on (1) assuming initial conditions to be zero, then:

𝐸𝑎 (𝑠) = 𝐿𝑎 . 𝐼𝑎 (𝑠). 𝑠 + 𝑅𝑎 . 𝐼𝑎 (𝑠) + 𝐸𝑏 (𝑠) (3)

1
𝑖𝑎 (𝑠) = [ ] . [𝐸𝑎 (𝑠) − 𝐸𝑏 (𝑠)] (4)
𝐿𝑎 .𝑠+𝑅𝑎

taking Laplace transform on mechanical system dynamics on (2), then:

1
𝑇(𝑠) = [𝐽𝑟 ∙ 𝑠 + 𝑓𝑣 ] ∙ 𝛺𝑚 (𝑠) ⇒ 𝛺𝑚 (𝑠) = [ ] ∙ 𝑇(𝑠) (5)
𝐽𝑟 ∙𝑠+𝑓𝑣

𝛺𝑚 (𝑠) 𝐾𝑇
[ ]=[ ] (6)
𝐸𝑎 (𝑠) 𝐿𝑎 ∙𝐽𝑟 ∙𝑠 2 +(𝐿𝑎 ∙𝑓𝑣 +𝑅𝑎 ∙𝐽𝑟 ).𝑠+(𝐾𝑇 ∙𝐾𝐸 +𝑅𝑎 ∙𝐵𝑚 )

1
solving for 𝛩𝑚 (𝑠) = [ ] ∙ 𝛺𝑚 (𝑠) can be given as (7).
𝑠

𝛩𝑚 (𝑠) 𝐾𝑇
[ ]=[ ] (7)
𝐸𝑎 (𝑠) 𝐿𝑎 ∙𝐽𝑚∙𝑠 3 +(𝐿𝑎 ∙𝑓𝑣 +𝑅𝑎 ∙𝐽𝑚 ).𝑠 2 +(𝐾𝑇 ∙𝐾𝐸 +𝑅𝑎 ∙𝐵𝑚 )∙𝑠

Figure 2 depicts a control system for an actual servo motor. Initially, an input signal undergoes
modification through the transfer function of the servo motor, expressed as 1/La.s+Ra. Subsequently, the

Int J Appl Power Eng, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2025: 101-108
Int J Appl Power Eng ISSN: 2252-8792  103

system traverses several stages, including a torque constant Kt, a mechanical transfer function 1/(J.s+fo), and
a floor operation, culminating in the “servo measured output.” A feedback loop integrates a back electromotive
force constant Kb, contributing to the overall closed-loop control system.

Figure 2. Actual or modeled block diagram of the DC-servo motor along with the rotary encoder

3. MODEL VERIFICATION AND RESPONSE

A system with an integrator will increase output over time with a step input. Since the integrator
accumulates input, the output grows with time. The system has a pole at the origin, hence step input response
is infinitely large [17], as seen in Figure 3. Thus, when given a step input, the system's output rises indefinitely.
This unbounded growth is important to consider in integrator system design and analysis because it can affect
real-world applications. This uses a 1 V step input. Figure 4 magnifies Figure 3 to show sensor quantization.
The integral absolute error (IAE) cost function was used to evaluate optimization strategies in the
paper to reduce computing complexity [18]. Heuristics are used to minimize IAE, the cost function in this
study. La, Ra, Kt, Kb, J, and Fo are the DC-servo motor transfer function predicting parameters. Each set of six
variables is a solution.

Figure 3. Step response of the motor to 1 V armature voltage Figure 4. Magnified portion of Figure 3

4. DETERMINATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ALGORITHMS

4.1. Genetic algorithm (GA)
The genetic algorithm (GA) is an optimization technique based on natural selection and genetic
evolution. In 1975, John Holland introduced genetic algorithms. They use genetic operations including selects,
crossover, and mutation to iteratively evolve a population of candidate solutions to discover the best answer
[19]. Figure 5(a) shows the basic steps of a genetic algorithm [20]. The algorithm generates a population of
potential solutions. A set of random people representing different problem solutions is usually used. The
population depends on the problem and computational resources. Fitness is used to assess each person's
problem-solving ability. The fitness function, adapted to the individual situation, establishes the parameters for
evaluating the solution’s quality [21], [22]. Applying the fitness function to each person gives a fitness score.
Each population member's fitness score is calculated during evaluation. The genetic algorithm is extensively
used in optimization problems such as finding the optimal solution to a mathematical equation, designing
optimal engineering structures, and optimizing financial portfolios.

4.2. Particle swarm optimization (PSO)

PSO is a population-based optimization method inspired by bird and fish behavior. Kenndy and
Eberhart introduced PSO in 1995. PSO mimics the social behavior of a swarm of particles searching a multi-
dimensional space to solve optimization problems. The particles update their positions and velocities based on
Metaheuristic algorithms for parameter estimation of DC servo motors … (Debani Prasad Mishra)
104  ISSN: 2252-8792

their best position, the nest position found by any particle in the swarm, and their current position as they search
the space. Figure 5(b) shows the PSO stages [22].

4.3. Firefly algorithm (FA)

The flashing patterns and attraction behavior seen in fireflies served as the inspiration for the FA,
which Xin-She Yang first published in 2008 [23], [24]. The basic objective of this method is to identify the
best solution by mimicking the flashing and attracting behavior of each firefly, which symbolizes a potential
solution. It shows efficiency in dealing with issues where there are numerous local optima. The following steps
are a part of the FA, which is depicted in Figure 5(c) [25], [26]. FA is a powerful optimization method used to
solve complicated problems. FA is highly effective in solving a wide range of challenges that require
optimization, such as optimizing engineering designs [27], [28]. One of the strengths of the FA is its capability
to discover the global optimum solution in a search space with multi-modes [29].

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 5. Flowchart for pseudo code to program (a) GA, (b) PSO, and (c) FA

5. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

This research initialized all three optimization methods with 5 sets of solutions randomly distributed
over the search space with lower and higher bounds of [0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001] and [1.5 1.5 1.5
1.5 1.5 1.5] for La, Ra, Kt, J, fo, and Kb. Three algorithms must minimize the IAE cost function. Simulink
models are similar in all three techniques. After defining algorithm parameters, simulations began. Best-cost
advancement across each cycle for the three optimization calculations was plotted.
Figure 6 shows the cost-value evolution for genetic, PSO, and firefly algorithms.
Figure 6(a) shows the cost-value evolution for GA and it has the worst best-cost and time performance. Figures
6(b) and 6(c) show that PSO and firefly algorithms converge to similar solutions. GA has the worst best-cost
and time performance. PSO exceeds others in best-cost evolution speed. As shown above, PSO reaches its
lowest cost around the 270th iteration, whereas FA and GA lag behind. PSO is known for its fast convergence
due to its efficient search space exploration and ability to approach the best solution. The FA may need more
rounds to converge, especially for complex tasks. Genetic operators make the GA computationally complex
and slow [30], [31]. The table compares techniques based on global best cost [32], DC-motor parameter values,
and gain and phase margin from the three anticipated models' frequency response estimation.
Figure 7 depicts bode plots of the actual system, PSO, GA, and FA. From Figure 7, it can be concluded
that in spite of the fact that all four DC-servo motor models produced the same time domain response, they
don’t appear to have the same frequency response. By comparing the gain margins and phase margins of the
models, it is seen that they are stable in a closed loop in all the models. Table 1 gives a comparison of different
calculations based on the best cost fetched, values of DC-motor parameters, and the frequency response gain
margins of the three models along with the actual system.

Int J Appl Power Eng, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2025: 101-108
Int J Appl Power Eng ISSN: 2252-8792  105

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 6. The cost-value evolution for (a) genetic, (b) PSO, and (c) firefly algorithms

Figure 7. Bode plots of the actual system, PSO, GA, and FA

Metaheuristic algorithms for parameter estimation of DC servo motors … (Debani Prasad Mishra)
106  ISSN: 2252-8792

Table 1. Simulation results

Algorithm PSO GA Firefly algorithm Actual system
Best-cost 4.7092 deg 42.8792 deg 4.7148 deg -
La(H) 0.0001 0.0011 0.87116 0.02
Ra(Ω) 0.0001 0.2554 1.4494 1.2
Kt((N-m)/A) 0.0111 1.5 1.182 0.06
J(N.m.s2/rad) 0.0221 0.0727 0.00026979 6.2 x 10-4
fo(N.m.s/rad) 1.3621 0.1949 0.016418 0.0001
Kb(V.s/rad) 0.0498 0.0289 0.041856 0.06
Gain margin 11.8 dB 23.3 dB 11.8 dB 11.4 dB
Phase margin 24 deg 29.2 deg 24 deg 23.7 deg

6. CONCLUSION
Effective optimization method firefly algorithm solves complex issues. A well-planned process with
initialization: a swarm of fireflies represents search space solutions in the algorithm. Fireflies are randomly
placed in this space and given fitness values reflecting optimization efficiency. This fitness value begins with
the firefly position. Firefly fitness testing is essential. Dedicated fitness functions evaluate firefly solutions.
How well the firefly's location fits problem goals is assessed by this function. A numerical score shows firefly's
fitness and performance. Firefly beauty depends on luminosity and fitness. Shiny fireflies naturally pull their
swarm mates harder. Fireflies attract each other via distance and brightness. Fireflies' brightness attracts people.
The most gorgeous firefly attracts fireflies. Attraction rating, which considers brightness and inter-firefly
distance, influences this movement. Fireflies naturally approach the most appealing ones. Fireflies can also
brighten to attract swarms. Repeat fitness evaluation, attraction, and movement till halting. This iteration helps
the algorithm find optimal solutions. The firefly algorithm optimizes complex problems utilizing these
mimicked fireflies’ collective intelligence.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research work was supported by “Woosong University’s Academic Research Funding-2024”.

REFERENCES
[1] M. Karamuk and O. B. Alankus, “Development and Experimental Implementation of Active Tilt Control System Using a Servo
Motor Actuator for Narrow Tilting Electric Vehicle,” Energies, vol. 15, no. 6, p. 1996, 2022, doi: 10.3390/en15061996.
[2] D. Nataliana, R. Syafruddin, G. Devira Ramady, Y. Liklikwatil, and A. Ghea Mahardika, “Servo Control for Missile System,”
Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1424, no. 1, 2019, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1424/1/012040.
[3] X. Mu, F. Cai, R. Zheng, D. Zhang, and D. Gu, “A Predictive Current Control for Aerospace Servo Motor,” in Proceedings - 2021
3rd International Conference on Applied Machine Learning, ICAML 2021, 2021, pp. 366–369, doi:
10.1109/ICAML54311.2021.00084.
[4] L. Ljung, “System Identification,” in Signal analysis and prediction, Boston, MA, USA: Birkhäuser Boston, 1998, pp. 163–173,
doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-1768-8_11.
[5] M. Jirgl, L. Obsilova, J. Boril, and R. Jalovecky, “Parameter identification for pilot behaviour model using the MATLAB system
identification toolbox,” in ICMT 2017 - 6th International Conference on Military Technologies, 2017, pp. 582–587, doi:
10.1109/MILTECHS.2017.7988824.
[6] S. R. Salkuti, “Emerging and Advanced Green Energy Technologies for Sustainable and Resilient Future Grid,” Energies, vol. 15,
no. 18, p. 6667, 2022, doi: 10.3390/en15186667.
[7] R. Isermann and M. Münchhof, Identification of dynamic systems: An introduction with applications, Germany: Springer Berlin,
Heidelberg, 2011, pp. 379–408, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-78879-9.
[8] J. Wang and A. Boukerche, “Non-parametric models with optimized training strategy for vehicles traffic flow prediction,” Computer
Networks, vol. 187, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.comnet.2020.107791.
[9] A. M. Humada et al., “Modeling of PV system and parameter extraction based on experimental data: Review and investigation,”
Solar Energy, vol. 199, pp. 742–760, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2020.02.068.
[10] S. M. A. Altbawi et al., “An Improved Gradient-Based Optimization Algorithm for Solving Complex Optimization Problems,”
Processes, vol. 11, no. 2, 2023, doi: 10.3390/pr11020498.
[11] Z. Gu, G. Xiong, and X. Fu, “Parameter Extraction of Solar Photovoltaic Cell and Module Models with Metaheuristic Algorithms:
A Review,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 4, 2023, doi: 10.3390/su15043312.
[12] A. Kumar, G. Wu, M. Z. Ali, R. Mallipeddi, P. N. Suganthan, and S. Das, “A test-suite of non-convex constrained optimization
problems from the real-world and some baseline results,” Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, vol. 56, 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.swevo.2020.100693.
[13] M. S. Fakhar et al., “Conventional and Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms for Solving Short Term Hydrothermal Scheduling
Problem: A Review,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 25993–26025, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3055292.
[14] S. S. Sami, Z. A. Obaid, M. T. Muhssin, and A. N. Hussain, “Detailed modelling and simulation of different dc motor types for
research and educational purposes,” International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 703–714,
2021, doi: 10.11591/IJPEDS.V12.I2.PP703-714.
[15] M. Atif Siddiqui, S. H. Laskar, M. N. Anwar, and A. Yadav, “Cascade Controller Design Based on Pole Placement and Model
Matching Technique,” Emerging Electronics and Automation, 2022, pp. 55–65, doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-4300-3_5.

Int J Appl Power Eng, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2025: 101-108
Int J Appl Power Eng ISSN: 2252-8792  107

[16] V. Veerasamy et al., “A Hankel Matrix Based Reduced Order Model for Stability Analysis of Hybrid Power System Using PSO-
GSA Optimized Cascade PI-PD Controller for Automatic Load Frequency Control,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 71422–71446, 2020,
doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2987387.
[17] C. Sankar Rao, S. Santosh, and V. Dhanya Ram, “Tuning optimal PID controllers for open loop unstable first order plus time delay
systems by minimizing ITAE criterion,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 123–128, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2020.06.021.
[18] M. A. Alawan and O. J. M. Al-Furaiji, “Numerous speeds-loads controller for DC-shunt motor based on PID controller with on-
line parameters tuning supported by genetic algorithm,” Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, vol.
21, no. 1, pp. 64–73, 2021, doi: 10.11591/ijeecs.v21.i1.pp64-73.
[19] S. R. Behera, D. P. Mishra, S. Parida, and A. R. Patro, “Proposal of User-Friendly Design of NFT Marketplace,” 2023 4th
International Conference on Computing and Communication Systems (I3CS), 2023, pp. 1–6, doi:
10.1109/I3CS58314.2023.10127468.
[20] J. Wu, Y. G. Wang, K. Burrage, Y. C. Tian, B. Lawson, and Z. Ding, “An improved firefly algorithm for global continuous
optimization problems,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 149, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113340.
[21] N. Bacanin and M. Tuba, “Firefly algorithm for cardinality constrained mean-variance portfolio optimization problem with entropy
diversity constraint,” The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2014, no. 1, 2014, doi: 10.1155/2014/721521.
[22] N. Bacanin, R. Stoean, M. Zivkovic, A. Petrovic, T. A. Rashid, and T. Bezdan, “Performance of a novel chaotic firefly algorithm
with enhanced exploration for tackling global optimization problems: Application for dropout regularization,” Mathematics, vol. 9,
no. 21, 2021, doi: 10.3390/math9212705.
[23] S. Katoch, S. S. Chauhan, and V. Kumar, “A review on genetic algorithm: past, present, and future,” Multimedia Tools and
Applications, vol. 80, pp. 8091–8126, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11042-020-10139-6.
[24] M. A. Fkirin and M. A. E. Khira, “Enhanced Antenna Positioning Control System Using Adapted DC Servo Motor and Fuzzy-PI
Controller,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 102661–102668, 2023, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3313976.
[25] T. Yang, K. T. Chau, Z. Hua, and H. Pang, “Toroidal Field Excitation for Axial-Field Double-Rotor Flux-Reversal DC Motors with
Magnetic Differential,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 59, no. 11, 2023, doi: 10.1109/TMAG.2023.3277700.
[26] H. Liu et al., “Compact and Efficient Wireless Motor Drive With Bidirectional Motion Capability,” IEEE Transactions on Power
Electronics, vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 15097–15101, 2023, doi: 10.1109/TPEL.2023.3308389.
[27] M. Abdelbar et al., “Optimization of PI-Cascaded Controller’s Parameters for Linear Servo Mechanism: A Comparative Study of
Multiple Algorithms,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 86377–86396, 2023, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3304333.
[28] S. K. Kim, S. Lim, and C. K. Ahn, “Current Sensor-Free Output-Feedback Voltage Control for DC/DC Converters via Critical
Damping Injection Technique for Converter-Fed Servo System Applications,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol.
71, no. 2, pp. 1906–1916, 2024, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2023.3260361.
[29] H. Chen et al., “Design and Analysis of a Variable-Speed Constant-Amplitude Wind Generator for Stand-Alone DC Power
Applications,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 70, no. 8, pp. 7731–7742, 2023, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2023.3234149.
[30] S. R. Salkuti, “Solving optimal generation scheduling problem of Microgrid using teaching learning based optimization algorithm,”
Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 1632–1638, 2020, doi:
10.11591/ijeecs.v17.i3.pp1632-1638.
[31] S. C. Kim and S. R. Salkuti, “Optimal power flow based congestion management using enhanced genetic algorithms,” International
Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 875–883, 2019, doi: 10.11591/ijece.v9i2.pp875-883.
[32] S. K. Kim and K. B. Lee, “Active Second-Order Pole-Zero Cancellation Control for Speed Servo Systems With Current Sensor
Fault Tolerance,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, vol. 70, no. 6, pp. 2196–2200, 2023, doi:
10.1109/TCSII.2023.3236347.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Debani Prasad Mishra received the B.Tech. in electrical engineering from the
Biju Patnaik University of Technology, Odisha, India, in 2006 and the M.Tech. in power
systems from IIT, Delhi, India in 2010. He was awarded the Ph.D. degree in power systems
from Veer Surendra Sai University of Technology, Odisha, India, in 2019. He is currently
serving as assistant professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering, International
Institute of Information Technology Bhubaneswar, Odisha. His research interests include soft
computing techniques application in power systems, signal processing, and power quality.
He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Sandip Ranjan Behera is currently pursuing B.Tech. degree in electrical and

electronics engineering at the International Institute of Information Technology,
Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India (batch 2020-2024). During his academic journey, he has actively
engaged in research in the field of blockchain technology. Having undertaken extensive
studies in the field, he has been an active member of the blockchain and web 3.0 network
Odisha and has collaborated with like-minded individuals, and has deepened his
understanding of the blockchain industry. He can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Metaheuristic algorithms for parameter estimation of DC servo motors … (Debani Prasad Mishra)
108  ISSN: 2252-8792

Arul Kumar Dash an enthusiastic B.Tech. student majoring in electrical and

electronics engineering at the International Institute of Information Technology,
Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India, is currently pursuing his academic journey within the batch of
2021-2025. During his academic journey, he has actively engaged in research in the field of
machine learning technology and web development. He can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Prajna Jeet Ojha is currently pursuing B.Tech. degree in electrical and

electronics engineering at the International Institute of Information Technology,
Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India (batch 2021-2025). During his academic journey, he has actively
engaged in research in the field of blockchain technology and web development.
Furthermore, his achievements include authoring a noteworthy conference paper on
advancing Indian agriculture through decentralized blockchain crop insurance. He can be
contacted at email: [email protected].

Surender Reddy Salkuti received the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering

from the Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, India, in 2013. He was a postdoctoral
researcher at Howard University, Washington, DC, USA, from 2013 to 2014. He is currently
an associate professor at the Department of Railroad and Electrical Engineering, Woosong
University, Daejeon, South Korea. His current research interests include market clearing,
including renewable energy sources, demand response, and smart grid development with the
integration of wind and solar photovoltaic energy sources. He can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Int J Appl Power Eng, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2025: 101-108