IAES International Journal of Artificial Intelligence (IJ-AI)

Vol. 14, No. 2, April 2025, pp. 1673~1682

ISSN: 2252-8938, DOI: 10.11591/ijai.v14.i2.pp1673-1682  1673

Hybrid horned lizard optimization algorithm-aquila optimizer

for DC motor

Widi Aribowo1, Laith Abualigah2,3, Diego Oliva4, Toufik Mzili5, Aliyu Sabo6
1
Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Vocational Studies, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia
2
Department of Computer Science, Al al-Bayt University, Mafraq, Jordan
3
Centre for Research Impact & Outcome, Chitkara University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chitkara University, Rajpura, India
4
Department of Electro-Photonic Engineering, CUCEI, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, México
5
LAROSERI Laboratory, Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Sciences, Chouaib Doukkali University, El Jadida, Morocco
6
Department of Law, Faculty of Law, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: This research presents a modification of the horned lizard optimization
(HLO) algorithm to optimize proportional integral derivative (PID)
Received Mar 2, 2024 parameters in direct current (DC) motor control. This hybrid method is
Revised Oct 26, 2024 called horned lizard optimization algorithm-aquila optimizer (HLAO). The
Accepted Nov 14, 2024 HLO algorithm models various escape tactics, including blood spraying,
skin lightening or darkening, crypsis, and cellular defense systems, using
mathematical techniques. HLO enhancement by modifying additional
Keywords: functions of aquila optimizer improves HLO performance. This research
validates the performance of HLAO using performance tests on the
Aquila optimizer CEC2017 benchmark function and DC motors. From the CEC2017
DC motor benchmark function simulation, it is known that HLAO's performance has
Horned lizard promising capabilities. By simulating using 3 types of benchmark functions,
Innovation HLOA has the best value. Tests on DC motors showed that the HLAO-PID
Metaheuristic algorithms method had the best integrated of time-weighted squared error (ITSE) value.
The ITSE value of HLOA is 89.25 and 5.7143% better than PID and HLO-
PID.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Widi Aribowo
Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Vocational Studies, Universitas Negeri Surabaya
Unesa Kampus Ketintang, Surabaya 61256, Jawa Timur, Indonesia
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
Due to factors such as urbanization, industrialization, and population growth, the global energy
demand has been steadily rising over the last ten years. This has placed a great deal of strain on energy
security, production, pollution emissions, and climate change. The first step in relieving the stresses brought
on by rising energy usage in many nations throughout the world has been to improve energy efficiency
[1], [2]. The process of maintaining ecosystems by the wise use and replenishment of the natural resources
that sustain life on Earth is known as environmental sustainability [3]. The United Nations' Sustainable
Development Goal 7 (clean and accessible energy) includes energy efficiency, which is essential to
environmental sustainability [4], [5].
Electrical energy efficiency is an effort made to reduce the amount of energy needed to use an
efficient electrical energy system. In this context, an electrical energy system can be said to be efficient if the
electrical energy produced is clean and stable. Electrical energy efficiency also has benefits for national

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

1674  ISSN: 2252-8938

security because it can be used to reduce import levels [6]–[8]. The use of electrical energy efficiency
technology, such as control and regulation systems, aims to reduce energy use [9], [10].
Because of their great efficiency, accurate control, and versatility in operation, direct current (DC)
motors find extensive use across a range of sectors. The automotive industry, robotics, electric vehicles, and
hoists and cranes are a few of the principal uses for DC motors [11]. By precisely regulating the voltage and
current, DC motors enable effortless speed control both above and below the rated speed [12]. Unlike
alternating current (AC) induction motors, which can result in issues like torque pulsation, warmth, noise,
and a decreased power factor (PF), DC motors do not emit any harmonics. Because of their straightforward
construction, DC motors are simple to service and maintain. DC motors have applications in diverse areas
such as renewable energy systems, robotics, automotive, and industrial automation.
Proportional integral derivative (PID) control is a control technique commonly used in various
research topics, including DC motor speed control. In PID control, the steady state error (error that does not
change) can be adjusted by selecting the appropriate proportional (P), integral (I), and derivative (D)
correlations [13]. In PID control, the correlation P, I, and D are used together to regulate the steady state
error, rise time, and settling time (the time required to reach the steady state error) [14]. The weakness of
conventional DC motor control with PID is that PID can cause over-shoot, PID can cause an unstable system,
namely a system that cannot regulate speed correctly and PID can require correct tuning to regulate the
correlation of P, I, and D, which requires time and skill [15].
Several DC motor control techniques using optimized PID have been presented. Optimization
techniques using computing have been widely applied, such as particle swarm optimization (PSO) [16], [17],
firefly algorithm [18]–[20], equilibrium optimizer [21], gray wolf optimization [22], and transit search
optimization algorithm [23]. There is still much to learn about DC motor control, despite the presentation of
multiple optimal control experiments. To set PID settings for DC motors, this article proposes a control
approach based on the horned lizard optimization algorithm-aquila optimizer (HLAO) method. There are two
HLAO performance measurements used in this article. The CEC2017 benchmark function test is compared
with horned lizard optimization (HLO), a comparison approach, to determine the first performance
measurement. In the meantime, HLAO was put to the test for PID-based DC motor control in the second test.
In the second test, HLO and the traditional PID approach were employed as comparison techniques. The
application of PID control to a DC motor with HLAO is the article's contribution.
The structure of this article is as follows: the HLO algorithm, DC motor, and HLAO are described
in section 2. Section 3 is the proposed HLAO for tuning PID in DC motor. In section 4 there are discussions
and simulations. The conclusion is presented in the last section.

2. METHOD
2.1. Horned lizard optimization algorithm
The HLO is a metaheuristic optimization system that simulates crypsis, skin lightening or
darkening, blood spraying, and mobile defense strategies for escape by mathematical means [24]. When a
lizard engages in crypsis behavior, it turns transparent to elude detection by potential predators. In general,
HLOA has 6 main strategies used.

2.1.1. First tactic: cryptic conduct

Crypsis is a concept in biology that refers to ability of an organism to hide itself or become invisible
to predators or prey. Crypsis is an important survival strategy in nature, which helps organisms to avoid
predators and increases their chances of survival and reproduction. This strategy can be modeled in (1) to (9).

+𝑎, indicates Red +𝑏, 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑌𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤

𝑎∗ = { ; 𝑏∗ = { (1)
−𝑎, 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛 −𝑏, 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝐵𝑙𝑢𝑒
𝑐 ∗ = √𝑎∗2 + 𝑏 ∗2

𝑏∗
ℎ = 𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑡𝑔 ( ∗) (2)
𝑎

𝑎 ∗ = 𝑐 ∗ cos(ℎ) (3)

𝑏 ∗ = 𝑐 ∗ sin(ℎ) (4)

𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑟1 = 𝑏 ∗ 𝑝 − 𝑎 ∗ 𝑞 − 𝑎∗ 𝑟 + 𝑏 ∗ 𝑠 (5)

Int J Artif Intell, Vol. 14, No. 2, April 2025: 1673-1682

Int J Artif Intell ISSN: 2252-8938  1675

𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑟2 = 𝑏 ∗ 𝑝 − 𝑎 ∗ 𝑞 + 𝑎∗ 𝑟 − 𝑏 ∗ 𝑠 (6)

In (5) and (6) can be represented in one equation, as shown (7).

𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑟 = 𝑏 ∗ 𝑝 − 𝑎∗ 𝑞 ± [𝑎∗ 𝑟 − 𝑏 ∗ 𝑠 ] (7)

The inverse form of (7) is as (8).

𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑟 = 𝐶1 sin(ℎ𝑝 ) − 𝐶1 cos(ℎ𝑞 ) ± [𝐶2 sin(ℎ𝑟 ) − 𝐶2 sin(ℎ𝑠 )] (8)

Where the angles (hue) fill ℎ𝑝 ≠ ℎ𝑞 ≠ ℎ𝑟 ≠ ℎ𝑠 and chroma 𝑐1 ≠ 𝑐2 .

𝐶1 = 𝐶1 [sin(ℎ𝑝 ) − 𝐶1 cos(ℎ𝑞 )] ± 𝐶2 [cos(ℎ𝑟 ) − sin(ℎ𝑠 )] (9)

𝑥1 (𝑡 + 1) is
From (9), the position of the new search agent (horned lizard) in the search solution space ⃗⃗⃗
obtained in (10).
𝛿.𝑡 𝜎
⃗⃗⃗1 (𝑡 + 1) = ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
𝑥 𝑥𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 (𝑡) + (𝛿 −
𝑀𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟
) [𝐶1 [sin(𝑥 𝑟1 (𝑡)) − 𝐶1 cos(𝑥
⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ 𝑟2 (𝑡))] − (−1) (cos(𝑥
⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
𝑟3 (𝑡)) − sin(𝑥
⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
𝑟4 (𝑡)))] (10)

Where a* and b* are the chromatic coordinates. c* and h values correspond to chroma (or saturation) and
𝑥𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 (𝑡) is the best search agent for the generation t. 𝑟1 , 𝑟2 , 𝑟3 , 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑟4 are integer random numbers
hue. ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
generated between 1 and the utmost number of search agents with 𝑟1 ≠ 𝑟2 ≠ 𝑟3 ≠ 𝑟4 . 𝑀𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟 represents the
utmost number of iterations. 𝜎 is a binary value.

2.1.2. Second tactic: darkening or lighting of the skin

Based on whether it needs to reduce or boost its solar thermal gain, the horned lizard can change the
color of its skin. The second tactic can be modeled in (11) and (12).
1 1
𝑥𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑡 (𝑡) = ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ 𝑥𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 (𝑡) + 𝐿𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡1 sin(𝑥
⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ 𝑥𝑟2 (𝑡)) − (−1)𝜎 𝐿𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡1 sin(𝑥
𝑟1 (𝑡) − ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ 𝑟3 (𝑡) − ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ 𝑥𝑟4 (𝑡)) (11)
2 2

1 1
𝑥𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑡 (𝑡) = ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ 𝑥𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 (𝑡) + 𝐷𝑎𝑟𝑘1 sin(𝑥
⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ 𝑥𝑟2 (𝑡)) − (−1)𝜎 𝐷𝑎𝑟𝑘1 sin(𝑥
𝑟1 (𝑡) − ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ 𝑟3 (𝑡) − ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ 𝑥𝑟4 (𝑡)) (12)
2 2

Where Lightening1 (0 value) and Lighthening2 (0.4046661 value) are two random numbers created between
them. Analogously, Dark1 and Dark2 are arbitrary values that are produced by dividing Darkening1
(value=0.5440510) by Darkening2 (1 value).

2.1.3. Third tactic: squirting blood

The horned lizard shoots blood out of its eyes to ward off enemies. One way to visualize the
shooting blood protection mechanism is as a projectile action. It divides the projectile motion into its two
components, the X-axis (horizontal) and the Y-axis (vertical), to get the equations of motion. In the
horizontal direction, it can be modeled in (13).
𝑡
𝑣 = 𝑣0 + ∫0 𝑔 𝑑𝑡 = 𝑣0 + 𝑣 𝑡 (13)

The equation for the vertical direction is as (14) and (15).

𝑡 1
𝑟 = 𝑟0 + ∫0 (𝑟0 + 𝑔𝑡) 𝑑𝑡 = 𝑟0 + 𝑣0 𝑡 + 𝑔 𝑟 2 (14)
2

⃗
𝑟0 = 0 (15)

In (16) and (17) each of which is a vector equation of location and velocity.

1
𝑣0 = 𝑣0 cos(𝛼)𝑡 𝑗 + ((𝑣0 sin(𝛼)𝑡 − 𝑔𝑡 2 ) (16)
2

⃗
𝑣 = 𝑟 = (𝑣0 cos(𝛼)) 𝑗 + ((𝑣0 sin(𝛼) − 𝑔𝑡)𝑘 (17)

Hybrid horned lizard optimization algorithm-aquila optimizer for DC motor (Widi Aribowo)
1676  ISSN: 2252-8938

Lastly, the trajectory has the following expression as (18).

𝑡 𝛼𝑡
𝑥1 (𝑡 + 1) = [𝑣0 cos (𝛼
⃗⃗⃗ 𝑥𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 (𝑡) + [𝑣0 sin (𝛼
) + 𝜀] ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ 𝑥𝑖 (𝑡)
) − 𝑔 + 𝜀] ⃗⃗⃗ (18)
𝑀𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑀𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟

𝜋
Where 𝑣0 is set to 1 seg. 𝛼 is set to . 𝜀 is set to 1e-6. g is gravity of the earth (0.009807 km/s2).
2

2.1.4. Fourth tactic: move to get away

In this tactic, horned lizards make fast, random movements around the environment to avoid
predators. The tactic can be formulated in (19).

1
𝑥1 (𝑡 + 1) = ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
⃗⃗⃗ 𝑥𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 (𝑡) + 𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑘 ( − 𝜀) ⃗⃗⃗
𝑥𝑖 (𝑡) (19)
2

2.1.5. Fifth tactic: ∝- melanophore stimulating hormone

Horned lizard skin can change skin by rotating due to the influence of temperature on the
∝-melanophore stimulating hormone. This tactical formula is formulated in (20).

𝐹𝑖𝑡𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐹𝑖𝑡𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠(𝑖)
𝑚𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑒(𝑖) = (20)
𝐹𝑖𝑡𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑚𝑎𝑥 −𝐹𝑖𝑡𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑛

Where 𝐹𝑖𝑡𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑚𝑎𝑥 and 𝐹𝑖𝑡𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑛 are the worst and best ftness value in the current 𝑡 generation. After
calculating (20), the 𝑚𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑒(𝑖) value vector is normalized within the interval [0, 1]. In (21), search
agents are replaced by a low ∝ −𝑀𝑆𝐻 rate, less than 0.3.
1 𝜎
𝑥1 (𝑡) = ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
⃗⃗⃗ 𝑥𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 (𝑡) + [𝑥 𝑟1 (𝑡) − (−1) ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ 𝑥𝑟2 (𝑡)] (21)
2

2.2. DC motor
In this part, a linear model of a DC motor is created using the mechanical and electrical equations in
conjunction. There is an explanation of mathematical models and model concepts. The model's correctness is
the main factor in control design. Efficiency is increased, and time and money are saved. The idea of creating
the ideal model is a crucial first step. The image in Figure 1 illustrates the widely recognized principle of DC
motor modeling: the integration of electrical and mechanical equations.

Figure 1. The DC motor schematic [25]

2.3. Horned lizard optimization algorithm-aquila optimizer

This article presents a modification of HLOA using the aquila optimizer equation. The 𝑒𝑥 is used to
control the extended search (exploration) through the number of iterations and can be formulated in (22).
𝑡
𝑒𝑥 = ( 1 − ) (22)
𝑇

Additionally, the mean value of the current solution connected at the 𝑡 -th iteration is applied and can be
formulated in (23).
1
𝑋𝑀 (𝑡) = ∑𝑁
𝑖=1 𝑋𝑖 (𝑡) , ∀𝑗 = 1,2 … . 𝐷𝑖𝑚 (23)
𝑁

This research modifies (10) by adding (22) and (23). So, it can be formulated as (24).

Int J Artif Intell, Vol. 14, No. 2, April 2025: 1673-1682

Int J Artif Intell ISSN: 2252-8938  1677

𝛿. 𝑡
𝑥1 (𝑡 + 1) = (𝑥
⃗⃗⃗ 𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 (𝑡) ∗ 𝑒𝑥 + 𝑋𝑀 (𝑡)) + (𝛿 −
⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ )
𝑀𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟

[𝐶1 [sin(𝑥 𝜎
⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
𝑟1 (𝑡)) − 𝐶1 cos(𝑥 𝑟2 (𝑡))] − (−1) (cos(𝑥
⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
𝑟3 (𝑡)) − sin(𝑥
⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
𝑟4 (𝑡)))] (24)

3. THE PROPOSED HLAO FOR TUNING PID IN DC MOTOR

This research aims to improve HLO capabilities by adding the aquila optimizer method. The
proposed method is used to obtain PID parameters for adaptive control of DC motors. To obtain the ideal
temporary response point, the steps illustrated in Figure 2 are carried out. The initial step follows the flow of
the HLO method to (10). In (10), it is changed using the (24).

Figure 2. Proposed of HLAO for DC motor

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Convergence curve profile
To run simulations and write code, a laptop with an Intel I5-5200 2.19 GHz processor specification
and 8 GB of RAM memory is utilized together with a MATLAB/Simulink program. The benchmark function
is used to measure the HLAO algorithm's performance. This is to ascertain how well the suggested approach
performs. 23 functions make up the benchmark function. Ten fixed-dimensional multimodal functions
(F14–F23), six multimodal functions (F8–F13), and seven unimodal functions (F1–F7) make up the
mathematical function. An illustration of the convergence curve can be seen in Figures 3(a) to 3(w).
The performance of HLAO and rival algorithms are statistically analyzed to see if HLAO has a
statistically significant edge over the other algorithms. The mean rank value of any algorithm can be found
by knowing the rank of each function. The statistical analysis for each function is displayed in Table 1.
A rating is a figure that represents the best mean value. HLAO has a value of 1, as indicated by the total rank
value for each algorithm. The rank value on average is 1.217391304. A comparison of the ranks of unimodal
algorithm functions is shown in Table 2. In multimodal, HLAO has rank 1. Table 3 presents a comparison of
the multimodal functions that were employed in terms of ranks. A comparison of fixed-multimodal ranks
between HLO and HLAO is shown in Table 4.

Hybrid horned lizard optimization algorithm-aquila optimizer for DC motor (Widi Aribowo)
1678  ISSN: 2252-8938

(a) (b) (c) (d)

(e) (f) (g) (h)

(i) (j) (k) (l)

(m) (n) (o) (p)

(q) (r) (s) (t)

(u) (v) (w)

Figure 3. Convergence curve of benchmark function: (a) F1, (b) F2, (c) F3, (d) F4, (e) F5, (f) F6, (g) F7,
(h) F8, (i) F9, (j) F10, (k) F11, (l) F12, (m) F13, (n) F14, (o) F15, (p) F16, (q) F17, (r) F18, (s) F19, (t) F20,
(u) F21, (v) F22, and (w) F23

Int J Artif Intell, Vol. 14, No. 2, April 2025: 1673-1682

Int J Artif Intell ISSN: 2252-8938  1679

Table 1. Comparison of HLAO and HLO

Function HLAO HLO Function HLAO HLO
F1 Best 6.25E-22 1.81E-17 F13 Best 1.54E-09 3.82E-02
Mean 1.97E-17 1.39E-12 Mean 2.52E-05 7.89E-01
Worst 3.83E-16 2.33E-11 Worst 2.59E-04 2.99E+00
Std 6.30E-17 3.95E-12 Std 5.02E-05 7.02E-01
Rank 1 2 Rank 1 2
F2 Best 1.85E-11 1.59E-08 F14 Best 9.98E-01 9.98E-01
Mean 1.11E-08 5.50E-07 Mean 3.42E+00 4.26E+00
Worst 1.52E-07 3.25E-06 Worst 1.27E+01 1.27E+01
Std 2.38E-08 7.38E-07 Std 3.38E+00 3.41E+00
Rank 1 2 Rank 2 1
F3 Best 6.64E-22 1.75E-17 F15 Best 0.000316 0.000371
Mean 1.20E-15 3.01E-12 Mean 0.007814 0.010506
Worst 4.43E-14 4.93E-11 Worst 0.025807 0.088158
Std 6.26E-15 9.98E-12 Std 0.008761 0.014468
Rank 1 2 Rank 1 2
F4 Best 2.12E-12 2.03E-09 F16 Best -1.03E+00 -1.03E+00
Mean 5.18E-10 2.75E-07 Mean -1.03E+00 -1.03E+00
Worst 5.04E-09 2.28E-06 Worst -1.03E+00 -1.03E+00
Std 8.57E-10 4.13E-07 Std 4.52E-04 1.13E-04
Rank 1 2 Rank 1 1
F5 Best 0.000443 28.697 F17 Best 3.98E-01 3.98E-01
Mean 25.2614 28.7412 Mean 4.03E-01 3.98E-01
Worst 28.707 28.8937 Worst 4.88E-01 3.98E-01
Std 9.4194 0.04439 Std 1.32E-02 3.13E-05
Rank 1 2 Rank 1 2
F6 Best 9.06E-09 0.002026 F18 Best 3.00E+00 3.00E+00
Mean 0.001114 0.045772 Mean 5.76E+00 5.16E+00
Worst 0.008468 0.11159 Worst 8.45E+01 8.40E+01
Std 0.002034 0.02865 Std 1.26E+01 1.20E+01
Rank 1 2 Rank 2 1
F7 Best 6.23E-05 1.44E-05 F19 Best -3.86E+00 -3.86E+00
Mean 0.00365 0.003612 Mean -3.83E+00 -3.84E+00
Worst 0.015079 0.01278 Worst -3.09E+00 -3.57E+00
Std 0.00356 0.002988 Std 1.11E-01 5.10E-02
Rank 2 1 Rank 1 2
F8 Best -12569.5 -7274.41 F20 Best -3.3149 -3.3126
Mean -5376.16 -5727.71 Mean -3.1401 -3.1088
Worst -2852.61 -3942.41 Worst -2.7796 -2.515
Std 2809.739 876.9446 Std 0.12151 0.16389
Rank 2 1 Rank 1 2
F9 Best 0 0 F21 Best -10.1531 -10.1524
Mean 0.59704 1.96E-08 Mean -10.1229 -8.1081
Worst 29.8513 9.79E-07 Worst -9.8836 -2.5731
Std 4.2216 1.39E-07 Std 0.050521 3.0475
Rank 2 1 Rank 1 2
F10 Best 4.84E-13 1.08E-08 F22 Best -10.4028 -10.401
Mean 1.90E-09 3.60E-07 Mean -10.1759 -8.6926
Worst 3.79E-08 3.14E-06 Worst -5.0875 -1.8246
Std 5.79E-09 5.83E-07 Std 0.79866 2.7727
Rank 1 2 Rank 1 2
F11 Best 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 F23 Best -10.5363 -10.5361
Mean 2.22E-18 2.65E-13 Mean -9.9883 -7.7724
Worst 1.11E-16 5.26E-12 Worst -1.6572 -1.8395
Std 1.57E-17 8.27E-13 Std 1.9386 3.3378
Rank 1 2 Rank 1 2
F12 Best 1.34E-08 1.96E-04
Mean 3.54E-04 5.30E-02 Sum Rank 28 40
Worst 1.23E-02 7.18E-01 Mean Rank 1.217391304 1.739130435
Std 1.73E-03 1.30E-01
Rank 1 2

Table 2. Rank comparison of Table 3. Rank comparison of Table 4. Rank comparison of

unimodal functions between multimodal functions between fixed-multimodal functions
algorithms (F1-F7) algorithms (F8-F13) between algorithms (F14-F23)
Function HLAO HLO Function HLAO HLO Function HLAO HLO
Sum Rank 8 13 Sum Rank 8 10 Sum Rank 12 17
Mean Rank 1.1428571 1.8571429 Mean Rank 1.3333333 1.6666667 Mean Rank 1.2 1.7
Total Rank 1 2 Total Rank 1 2 Total Rank 1 2

Hybrid horned lizard optimization algorithm-aquila optimizer for DC motor (Widi Aribowo)
1680  ISSN: 2252-8938

4.2. Implementing HLAO for DC motor

PID-based DC motor control necessitates exact and accurate parameter adjustment. To obtain
optimal PID parameters through the implementation of HLAO, its performance must also be verified.
Figure 4 shows the outcomes of the PID control for DC motors using HLAO. A control's performance can be
evaluated using a variety of theories. Several widely recognized theories, include integral of time-weighted
absolute error (ITAE) and integrated of time-weighted squared error (ITSE). ITSE and ITAE are utilized as
performance validation in this work.
∞
𝐼𝑇𝑆𝐸 = ∫0 𝑡. 𝑒 2 (𝑡). 𝑑𝑡 (25)

∞
𝐼𝑇𝐴𝐸 = ∫0 𝑡. 𝑒(𝑡). 𝑑𝑡 (26)

Figure 4. The response of DC motor

By testing the HLAO-based PID on a DC motor with a reference speed of 1 pu, the ITSE from
HLAO-PID is 0.0033. This value is 89.25 and 5.7143% better than PID and HLO-PID. Meanwhile, the
overshoot value of HLAO-PID is better by the detailed results of the performance tests for each algorithm
can be seen in Table 5.

Table 5. Response DC motor with PID

Controller Overshoot Rise Time Settling Time ITSE ITAE
PID 1.007 0.18 0.278 0.0307 0.0794
HLO-PID 1.006 0.0465 0.0759 0.0035 0.0076
HLAO-PID No Overshoot 0.0462 0.0774 0.0033 0.0080

5. CONCLUSION
A metaheuristic optimization method called the HLO algorithm uses mathematics to model various
escape strategies such as crypsis, skin lightening or darkening, blood spraying, and cellular defense
mechanisms. The improved HLO by modifying the additional functions of the aquila optimizer increases the
performance of the HLO. This hybrid method is called HLAO. This research validates the performance of
HLAO using performance tests on CEC2017 benchmark functions and DC motors. From the simulation on
the CEC2017 benchmark function, it was found that the performance of HLAO has more promising
exploration and exploitation capabilities. Testing on DC motors, it was found that the HLAO-PID method
could reduce overshoot. In addition, HLAO-PID has the best ITSE score. The ITSE value of HLOA is
89.25% and 5.7143% better than PID and HLO-PID. This research can be developed further by using a
variety of other methods and using more complex objects.

REFERENCES
[1] M. Zghaibeh et al., “Optimization of green hydrogen production in hydroelectric-photovoltaic grid connected power station,”
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 52, pp. 440–453, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.06.020.
[2] J. Zheng, Y. Dang, and U. Assad, “Household energy consumption, energy efficiency, and household income–Evidence from

Int J Artif Intell, Vol. 14, No. 2, April 2025: 1673-1682

Int J Artif Intell ISSN: 2252-8938  1681

China,” Applied Energy, vol. 353, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.122074.

[3] W. Aribowo, B. Suprianto, U. T. Kartini, and A. Prapanca, “Dingo optimization algorithm for designing power system stabilizer,”
Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2022, doi:
10.11591/ijeecs.v29.i1.pp1-7.
[4] R. Raman, H. Lathabhai, D. Pattnaik, C. Kumar, and P. Nedungadi, “Research contribution of bibliometric studies related to
sustainable development goals and sustainability,” Discover Sustainability, vol. 5, no. 7, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s43621-024-
00182-w.
[5] R. Russell-Bennett, M. S. Rosenbaum, R. P. Fisk, and M. M. Raciti, “SDG editorial: improving life on planet earth – a call to
action for service research to achieve the sustainable development goals (SDGs),” Journal of Services Marketing, vol. 38, no. 2,
pp. 145–152, 2024, doi: 10.1108/JSM-11-2023-0425.
[6] N. V Martyushev et al., “Review of methods for improving the energy efficiency of electrified ground transport by optimizing
battery consumption,” Energies, vol. 16, no. 2, 2023, doi: 10.3390/en16020729.
[7] M. Khaleel, Z. Yusupov, A. A. Ahmed, A. Alsharif, A. Alarga, and I. Imbayah, “The effect of digital technologies on energy
efficiency policy,” International Journal of Electrical Engineering and Sustainability (IJEES), vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2023.
[8] W. Aribowo, “Comparison study on economic load dispatch using metaheuristic algorithm,” Gazi University Journal of Science,
vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 26-40, 2022, doi: 10.35378 /gujs.820805.
[9] M. Müller, M. Pfeifer, D. Holtz, and K. Müller, “Comparison of green ammonia and green hydrogen pathways in terms of energy
efficiency,” Fuel, vol. 357, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2023.129843.
[10] A. Ore-Ofe, A. Umar, I. Ibrahim, A. A. Abiola, and L. A. Olugbenga, “Development of a head gesture-controlled robot using an
accelerometer sensor,” Vokasi Unesa Bulletin of Engineering, Technology and Applied Science (VUBETA), vol. 1, no. 2, 2024,
doi: 10.26740/vubeta.v1i2.35114.
[11] K. Joni, “Parameter estimation of photovoltaic based on chaotic elite mountain gazelle optimizer,” Vokasi Unesa Bulletin of
Engineering, Technology and Applied Science (VUBETA), vol. 1, no. 1, 2024, doi: 10.26740/vubeta.v1i1.34073.
[12] S. Ekinci, D. Izci, and M. Yilmaz, “Efficient speed control for DC motors using novel gazelle simplex optimizer,” IEEE Access,
vol. 11, pp. 105830–105842, 2023, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3319596.
[13] K. Sayed, H. H. El-Zohri, A. Ahmed, and M. Khamies, “Application of tilt integral derivative for efficient speed control and
operation of BLDC motor drive for electric vehicles,” Fractal and Fractional, vol. 8, no. 1, 2024, doi:
10.3390/fractalfract8010061.
[14] J. B. S. Freitas, L. Marquezan, P. J. D. D. O. Evald, E. A. G. Peñaloza, and M. M. H. Cely, “A fuzzy-based Predictive PID for DC
motor speed control,” International Journal of Dynamics and Control, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 2511–2521, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s40435-
023-01368-2.
[15] A. Mahapatro, P. R. Dhal, D. R. Parhi, M. K. Muni, C. Sahu, and S. K. Patra, “Towards stabilization and navigational analysis of
humanoids in complex arena using a hybridized fuzzy embedded PID controller approach,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol.
213, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.119251.
[16] Ş. Yıldırım, M. S. Bingol, and S. Savas, “Tuning PID controller parameters of the DC motor with PSO algorithm,” International
Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 281–286, 2024, doi: 10.1556/1848.2023.00698.
[17] R. K. Mahto, A. Mishra, and R. C. Bansal, “Controller design using PSO and WOA algorithm for enhanced performance of
vector-controlled PMSM drive,” International Journal of Modelling and Simulation, pp. 1–11, 2024, doi:
10.1080/02286203.2024.2303571.
[18] J. Zhang and Z. Hu, “Simulation research on PID parameters self-tuning of brushless DC motor based on firefly optimization
algorithm,” International Core Journal of Engineering, vol. 9, no. 4, 2023, doi: 10.6919/ICJE.202304_9(4).0042.
[19] J. Jallad and O. Badran, “Firefly algorithm tuning of PID position control of DC motor using parameter estimator toolbox,”
Bulletin of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 916–929, 2024, doi: 10.11591/eei.v13i2.6216.
[20] I. Anshory et al., “Optimization DC-DC boost converter of BLDC motor drive by solar panel using PID and firefly algorithm,”
Results in Engineering, vol. 21, p. 101727, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101727.
[21] I. D. Fajuke and A. Raji, “Optimal tuning of PID controller for speed control of DC motor using equilibrium optimizer,”
Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 89–101, 2023, doi:
10.11591/ijeecs.v30.i1.pp89-101.
[22] S. M. Y. Younus, U. Kutbay, J. Rahebi, and F. Hardalaç, “Hybrid gray wolf optimization–proportional integral based speed
controllers for brush-less DC motor,” Energies, vol. 16, no. 4, 2023, doi: 10.3390/en16041640.
[23] S. Pandey, “Transit search optimization algorithm for proportional-integral-derivative controller tuning for the optimal DC motor
speed control: classical methods as benchmark,” SSRN Electronic Journal, pp. 1–8, 2023, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4385203.
[24] H. Peraza-Vázquez, A. Peña-Delgado, M. Merino-Treviño, A. B. Morales-Cepeda, and N. Sinha, “A novel metaheuristic inspired
by horned lizard defense tactics,” Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 57, no. 3, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10462-023-10653-7.
[25] W. Aribowo, B. Suprianto, and A. Prapanca, “A novel modified dandelion optimizer with application in power system stabilizer,”
IAES International Journal of Artificial Intelligence (IJ-AI), vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 2033-2041, Dec. 2023, doi:
10.11591/ijai.v12.i4.pp2033-2041.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

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

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

Hybrid horned lizard optimization algorithm-aquila optimizer for DC motor (Widi Aribowo)
1682  ISSN: 2252-8938

Laith Abualigah is an Associate Professor at the Department of Computer

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

Diego Oliva is an Associate Professor at the University of Guadalajara in Mexico.

He has the distinction of National Researcher Rank 2 by the Mexican Council of Science and
Technology. Currently, he is a Senior member of the IEEE. His research interests include
evolutionary and swarm algorithms, hybridization of evolutionary and swarm algorithms,
computational intelligence, and image processing. He can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Toufik Mzili is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Science at

the prestigious Faculty of Science at Chouaib Doukkali University. His extensive expertise and
notable achievements in the areas of metaheuristics, optimization, and scheduling problems
underscore his standing as a distinguished researcher. His scholarly impact is evident in his
prolific contributions to prestigious Q1 journals. He can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Aliyu Sabo is currently a senior lecturer at the Department of Electrical and

Electronic Engineering, Nigerian Defence Academy, Kaduna, Nigeria. His current project is
'Rotor angle stability assessment of power systems'. He can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Int J Artif Intell, Vol. 14, No. 2, April 2025: 1673-1682