Fig 1.
Proposed PI controller for sensorless BLDC motor.
Fig 2.
Flow chart of implementation of metaheuristic algorithm-PI control BLDC motor.
Table 1.
Sensorless BLDC motor’s specifications.
Fig 3.
Curve of sensorless BLDC motor’s speed controlled by WOA-PI for different search agents.
Fig 4.
Curve of sensorless BLDC motor’s speed controlled by LFWOA-PI for different search agents.
Fig 5.
Curve of sensorless BLDC motor’s speed controlled by CMLFWOA-PI for different search agents.
Fig 6.
Curve of sensorless BLDC motor’s speed controlled by PSO-PI for different search agents.
Fig 7.
Curve of sensorless BLDC motor’s speed controlled by PSO_w-PI for different search agents.
Fig 8.
Curve of sensorless BLDC motor’s speed controlled by APSO for different search agents.
Fig 9.
Curve of sensorless BLDC motor’s speed controlled by ACO for different search agents.
Fig 10.
Curve of sensorless BLDC motor’s speed controlled by metaheuristic-PI controllers.
Table 2.
Dynamic analysis of WOA for different population sizes.
Table 3.
Dynamic analysis of LFWOA for different population sizes.
Table 4.
Dynamic analysis of CMLFWOA for different population sizes.
Table 5.
Dynamic analysis of PSO for different population sizes.
Table 6.
Dynamic analysis of PSO_w for different population sizes.
Table 7.
Dynamic analysis of APSO for different population sizes.
Table 8.
Dynamic analysis of ACO for different population sizes.
Table 9.
Dynamic analysis of algorithms to select the best one.
Table 10.
Descriptive statistics of algorithms.
Table 11.
Group statistics of APSO vs. WOA.
Table 12.
T-test for APSO vs. WOA.
Table 13.
Group statistics of ACO vs. WOA.
Table 14.
T-test for ACO vs. WOA.
Table 15.
Group statistics of PSO vs. WOA.
Table 16.
T-test for PSO vs. WOA.
Table 17.
Group statistics of PSO_w vs. WOA.
Table 18.
T-test for PSO_w vs. WOA.
Table 19.
Group statistics of CMLFWOA vs. WOA.
Table 20.
T-test for CMLFWOA vs. WOA.
Table 21.
Group statistics of LFWOA vs. WOA.
Table 22.
T-Test for LFWOA vs. WOA.
Table 23.
Mean rank comparison between APSO vs. WOA.
Table 24.
Mann-Whitney U test between APSO vs. WOA.
Table 25.
Mean rank comparison between ACO vs. WOA.
Table 26.
Mann-Whitney U test between ACO vs. WOA.
Table 27.
Mean rank comparison between PSO vs. WOA.
Table 28.
Mann-Whitney U test between PSO vs. WOA.
Table 29.
Mean rank comparison between PSO_w vs. WOA.
Table 30.
Mann-Whitney U test between PSO_w vs. WOA.
Table 31.
Mean rank comparison between CMLFWOA vs. WOA.
Table 32.
Mann-Whitney U test between CMLFWOA vs. WOA.
Table 33.
Mean rank comparison between LFWOA vs. WOA.
Table 34.
Mann-Whitney U test between LFWOA vs. WOA.
Table 35.
Wilcoxon signed-rank test for APSO vs. WOA.
Table 36.
Wilcoxon test statistics for APSO vs. WOA.
Table 37.
Wilcoxon signed-rank test for ACO vs. WOA.
Table 38.
Wilcoxon test statistics for ACO vs. WOA.
Table 39.
Wilcoxon signed-rank test for PSO vs. WOA.
Table 40.
Wilcoxon test statistics for PSO vs. WOA.
Table 41.
Wilcoxon signed-rank test for PSO_w vs. WOA.
Table 42.
Wilcoxon test statistics for PSO_w vs. WOA.
Table 43.
Wilcoxon signed-rank test for CMLFWOA vs. WOA.
Table 44.
Wilcoxon test statistics CMLFWOA for vs. WOA.
Table 45.
Wilcoxon signed-rank test for LFWOA vs. WOA.
Table 46.
Wilcoxon test statistics for LFWOA vs. WOA.
Table 47.
One way ANOVA test.
Table 48.
Post hoc tests (Tukey HSD).
Table 49.
Post hoc tests (Scheffe).
Table 50.
Post hoc tests (Bonferroni).
Table 51.
Friedman test.
Table 52.
Friedman test (Test statistics).
Table 53.
p-values of comparison of algorithms with WOA.
(arranged in ascending order).
Table 54.
Friedman aligned ranks test.
Table 55.
Friedman aligned ranks test (Test statistics).
Table 56.
Q-value of comparison of algorithms with WOA.