This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, Manuscript ID AP1202-0125.R1
The Wind Driven Optimization Technique
and its Application in Electromagnetics
Zikri Bayraktar, Member, IEEE, Muge Komurcu,
Jeremy A. Bossard, Member, IEEE and Douglas H. Werner, Fellow, IEEE
 and successfully implemented. However, because each
Abstract—A new type of nature-inspired global optimization
methodology based on atmospheric motion is introduced. The
proposed Wind Driven Optimization (WDO) technique is a
population based iterative heuristic global optimization algorithm
for multi-dimensional and multi-modal problems with the
potential to implement constraints on the search domain. At its
core, a population of infinitesimally small air parcels navigates
over an N-dimensional search space following Newton's second
law of motion, which is also used to describe the motion of air
parcels within the earth's atmosphere. Compared to similar
particle based algorithms, WDO employs additional terms in the
velocity update equation (e.g. gravitation and Coriolis forces),
providing robustness and extra degrees of freedom to fine tune.
Along with the theory and terminology of WDO, a numerical
study for tuning the WDO parameters is presented. WDO is
further applied to three electromagnetics optimization problems,
including the synthesis of a linear antenna array, a double-sided
artificial magnetic conductor for WiFi applications, and an
E-shaped microstrip patch antenna. These examples suggest that
WDO can, in some cases, out-perform other well-known
techniques such as Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), Genetic
Algorithm (GA) or Differential Evolution (DE) and that WDO is
well-suited for problems with both discrete and
continuous-valued parameters.
Index Terms—Wind driven optimization, linear antenna
arrays, artificial magnetic conductor, microstrip patch antenna,
particle swarm optimization, genetic algorithms, differential
evolution.
I. INTRODUCTION
N ATURE is a wonderful source of inspiration for
developing optimization techniques that can tackle
difficult problems in science and engineering. Since the early
1970s, various nature-inspired optimization algorithms have
emerged starting with the Genetic Algorithm (GA) [1], some of
which have proven to be very efficient global optimization
methods. Along with the GA, Particle Swarm Optimization
(PSO) [2], Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) [3], Differential
Evolution (DE) [4,5], Clonal Selection Algorithm
(CLONALG) [6], Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolutionary
Strategy (CMA-ES) [7] and many others have been proposed
The authors are with the with the Computational Electromagnetics and
Antennas Research Lab (CEARL), Department of Electrical Engineering, The
Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), University Park, PA, 16802 USA
(e-mail: dhw@psu.edu).
Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
1
algorithm possesses strengths and weaknesses, there is no
single method within the family of nature-inspired numerical
optimization algorithms that stands out as the best for solving
all types of problems, a fact which was mathematically proven
by Wolpert et al. in [8].
Synthesis and optimization problems in electromagnetics
have long utilized these nature-inspired techniques to varying
degrees of success. Application areas within the field of
electromagnetics are very broad, ranging from antenna design
to metamaterial synthesis. For example, a considerable body of
work has been devoted to the design optimization of individual
antenna elements [1,9-15] from simple wire antennas to
complex printed antenna elements for a variety of applications
including GPS, WiFi, mobile phones, vehicular, shipboard,
aircraft and satellite systems. Antenna arrays [16-25] have also
been the target of nature-inspired optimization techniques for
element thinning, side lobe reduction, radiation pattern
synthesis, coupling reduction, as well as ultra-wideband
performance. In addition to array synthesis techniques,
application of these algorithms to inverse scattering problems
[26], non-linear media [27], and metamaterials is noteworthy.
Examples of metamaterial and related structures that have been
successfully optimized include absorbers [28-29], frequency
selective surfaces [30-31], electromagnetic bandgap surfaces
[32-33], and many more applications covering a wide range of
frequencies [34-37]. Building on the successful record of the
existing nature-inspired optimization algorithms, this paper
introduces and utilizes an entirely new optimization method
which we call Wind Driven Optimization (WDO).
In essence, WDO is a population based iterative heuristic
global optimization technique for multi-dimensional and
multi-modal problems with the potential to implement
constraints on the search domain similar to PSO, although this
potential is not explicitly demonstrated in this manuscript. The
inspiration for WDO comes from atmospheric motion in which
the trajectory of an infinitesimally small air parcel can be
described via Newton's second law of motion. The remainder of
this paper is structured as follows. In Section II, the WDO
technique will be described in detail along with the underlying
physical equations of atmospheric motion, and in Section III a
parameter study will be conducted to aid in tuning the WDO
algorithm. Following this, several optimization examples are
presented, including a linear antenna array optimization
comparing WDO with PSO in Section IV, the design of a
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, Manuscript ID AP1202-0125.R1
double-sided artificial magnetic conductor (DSAMC) in
Section V, and an E-shaped microstrip patch antenna in Section
VI. Final remarks and conclusions are given in Section VII.
II. THE WIND DRIVEN OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUE
The inspiration for WDO comes from the earth's atmosphere,
where wind blows in an attempt to equalize horizontal
imbalances in the air pressure [38]. The term "wind" actually
refers to horizontal air motion, particularly in the lowest layer
of the earth's atmosphere called the troposphere. The
troposphere extends from the surface of the earth's crust up to
approximately 18 km in altitude, where the thickness may vary
based on latitude [39]. Due to the earth's gravitational field, g,
the mass of the atmosphere applies a force on the earth's crust,
where the air pressure can simply be defined by the force
exerted per unit area [40]. The troposphere layer contains more
than 75% of the atmosphere's mass, and most weather
activities, such as wind, occur within it. The radiation from the
sun that reaches earth causes heating both on the surface of the
earth and in the atmosphere itself. However, the amount of
localized heating varies depending on various factors such as
latitude, the amount of cloud coverage in the region and
whether the area is a body of water or soil. In addition, the
spherical shape of the earth allows for the illumination of only
half of the earth’s surface at any given time, resulting in a daily
fluctuation of the amount of energy falling on a particular
location. Due to variations in solar energy reaching different
locations on the earth’s surface, the temperature can fluctuate
significantly among regions. Areas with high temperatures
have rising warm air, and regions with low temperatures have
sinking cold air, which causes the air density to decrease in high
temperature areas and to increase in low temperature areas.
Since temperature differences lead to variations in air density
and air pressure at different locations, horizontal differences in
air pressure cause the air to move from high pressure regions to
low pressure regions [41]. This movement is due to the
pressure gradient, , which can be calculated as the pressure
change over a distance [42] and is expressed in a rectangular
coordinate system as
(1)
More specifically, the wind blows in the direction from a
high-pressure zone to a low-pressure zone at a velocity
proportional to the pressure gradient force [38], [43]. Thus, a
negative sign is utilized in the equation below to indicate the
descending direction in the gradient. Considering the fact that
the air has finite mass and finite volume (δV), the pressure
gradient force (FPG) can be expressed as
(2)
Atmospheric motion is traditionally represented by one of
two distinct models: the Lagrangian and Euler descriptions
[44]. In the Euler description, air is treated as a fluid system
and is considered to be a continuum, which is described by fluid
Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
2
motion and governed by the equations of continuum mechanics
[44], [45]. On the other hand, the Lagrangian description
represents the atmosphere as a collection of many infinitesimal
fluid parcels [45], [46], which can be described via Newton's
second law of motion. In the derivation of the equations for
WDO, the Lagrangian description is preferred due to the fact
that it simplifies the numerical algorithm and reduces the
computational overhead in the WDO scheme during the
optimization of process. Further simplification is made to the
Lagrangian description in which the air parcel is assumed to be
a cuboid in a rectangular coordinate system. In the WDO
abstraction, an air parcel is considered to be dimensionless, so
that the WDO implementation is not complicated by separate
coordinates for each corner of the cuboid. In addition, the
different faces of the cuboid could experience different
pressure values, causing the cuboid to deform, in which case
any sheering, twisting or stretching would have to be taken into
account. Including such details in the model would add
unneeded computational burden to the WDO implementation.
Thus, in the implementation of the WDO scheme, the air
parcels are assumed to be dimensionless and weightless, which
simplifies the equations while preserving the accuracy of the
physical interpretation.
In the abstraction of the wind, it is also assumed that the
atmosphere is homogenous and that a hydrostatic balance
exists. Utilizing the fact that the equations derived in
atmospheric dynamics are in a rectangular coordinate system
and considering that the horizontal movement of air is stronger
compared to its vertical movement, the wind can be treated as a
horizontal motion only, which is due entirely to the horizontal
pressure variation [38]. On the other hand, the WDO algorithm
will operate on an N-dimensional search space, so the three
dimensional atmospheric dynamic equations must be
re-mapped to handle multi-dimensional optimization problems.
This can only be achieved through certain assumptions and
simplifications.
The starting point for calculating an air parcel's trajectory is
Newton’s second law of motion, which provides accurate
results when applied to the analysis of atmospheric motion in
the Lagrangian description [40], [41], [45]. It states that the
total force applied on an air parcel causes it to accelerate with
an acceleration a in the same direction as the applied total force
according to
, (3)
where ρ is the air density for an infinitesimally small air parcel
and Fi represents all the individual forces acting on the air
parcel. To relate the air pressure to the air parcel's density and
temperature, the ideal gas law can be utilized and is given by
P = ρ R T, (4)
where P is the pressure, R is the universal gas constant and T is
the temperature.
The pressure gradient force can be considered to be the
fundamental force that initiates the air parcel’s motion, but
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, Manuscript ID AP1202-0125.R1
there are other forces that can also affect its trajectory and
speed. A total of four major forces can be included in (3) that
either cause the wind to move in a certain direction at a certain
velocity or that deflect it from its existing path. The most
observable force causing the air to move is the pressure
gradient force (FPG) defined in (2). Another force is the friction
force (FF), which simply acts to oppose the motion started by
the pressure gradient force. The exact description of the friction
force in the atmosphere is very complex but is here simplified
to
(5)
where α is the friction coefficient and u is the velocity vector of
the wind.
In our physical three-dimensional atmosphere, the
gravitational force (FG) is a vertical force directed toward the
earth's surface. However, if the center of the earth is considered
to be the center of the rectangular coordinate system, then we
can claim that the gravitational force simply pulls the air
parcels towards the origin of the coordinate system in all three
dimensions, which is also more easily mapped to
N-dimensional space. For this reason, the gravitational force is
included in the algorithm as a force on all N dimensions and is
directed towards the center of the coordinate system. In its
simplest form, the gravitational force (FG) can be defined as
[46]
(6)
The earth’s rotation causes the reference frame to rotate
giving rise to the Coriolis force (FC), which was named after
the French scientist Gaspard Coriolis [47]. The Coriolis force
causes the deflection of the wind from its existing path in our
atmosphere [41], where the amount of deflection experienced
by the air parcel depends on the direction of the rotation of the
earth, the latitude (which hemisphere) and the air parcel's speed
in the atmosphere. In the N-dimensional WDO abstraction, the
Coriolis force is implemented as the motion in one dimension
that affects the velocity in another dimension. For example, if
two-dimensional motion is considered in the XY plane, then the
velocity vector of an air parcel has two components, one in the
x-direction and one in the y-direction. In WDO, the Coriolis
force is implemented in such a way that the speed in the
x-direction is influenced by the speed in the y-direction and
vice versa. In N-dimensional space, this is randomized so that at
each iteration, the motion in a particular dimension will be
influenced by the motion in another randomly chosen
dimension. The Coriolis force is defined by [44]
(7)
where Ω represents the rotation of the earth and u is the velocity
vector of the wind.
While these four forces are the major contributors to the
motion of the wind, there are other forces that are not included
in the implementation of the WDO. For example, advection
along with the centrifugal force are ignored in the
Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
3
N-dimensional WDO implementation, and the turbulent drag
force is assumed to be a part of the friction force [45]. It is
crucial to understand that the WDO implementation is not an
attempt to exactly duplicate atmospheric motion, but, rather, it
is an attempt to use the inspiration provided by nature in the
abstraction and invention of an efficient numerical optimization
algorithm that is fundamentally based on the physical equations
of atmospheric motion.
The forces described above can be entered into the
right-hand side of Newton's second law of motion given in (3),
which leads to
, (8)
where the acceleration term in (3) is rewritten as ,
and a time step is assumed for simplicity. For an
infinitesimally small, dimensionless air parcel, we set δV=1,
which simplifies (8) to
Ω . (9)
Utilizing the ideal gas law from (4), the density ρ can be written
in terms of the pressure, the temperature and the universal gas
constant and inserted into (9) yielding
(10)
where Pcur represents the pressure value for an individual parcel
at its current location. Dividing both sides of (10) by (Pcur / RT)
results in
(11)
At this point, it should be clear that the change in velocity
and position can be computed from Newton's second law of
motion. In the WDO, each air parcel's velocity and position are
updated at every iteration as its exploration of the search space
progresses. Thus, the change in velocity, , can be written as
, where ucur is the velocity at the current
iteration and unew is the velocity in the next iteration. The
friction force in (5) is computed using the current velocity
value, ucur, allowing (11) to be rewritten as
(12)
In (12), two quantities, g and , remain that are not written
in terms of velocity or position vectors. Since the gravitational
force is defined as the force pulling an air parcel from its
current location towards the center of the coordinate system, it
can be illustrated for a single dimension as shown in Fig. 1 (a).
In the WDO implementation, the vector g can be written as g =
|g| (0 - xcur).
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, Manuscript ID AP1202-0125.R1
(a) (b)
Fig. 1. (a) Illustration of the gravitational force (FG) in a one dimensional
search space where the dimension spans in the range of [-1, 1] and the center of
the coordinate system is defined at zero. (b) Illustration of the pressure gradient
force (FPG) in one dimensional search space, where xcur represents the location
of an air parcel at the current iteration and the xopt represents the optimum
pressure location found throughout the optimization.
The second term is the pressure gradient, , which is
defined as the force moving an air parcel from its current
location toward an optimum pressure point, as seen in Fig. 1
(b). In our implementation, the magnitude of the pressure
gradient is the pressure difference between the current location
of an air parcel Pcur and the optimum pressure found so far by
the population Popt, while the pressure gradient is directed from
the current location xcur to the optimum location xopt. Similar to
the gravitational field, the pressure gradient force can be
expressed simply as . optimization, namely: α, g, RT, and c. A numerical study is
Updating (12) with the new equations for the gravitational field
and pressure gradient gives
(13)
The Coriolis force is represented by the cross product of the
earth's rotation vector and the velocity vector of the air parcel
( ) in (13). As described previously, the influence of the
Coriolis force is replaced by the velocity influence from
another randomly chosen dimension of the same air parcel,
, and all other coefficients are combined into a single
term c, i.e. , thus simplifying the Coriolis force
contribution in (13), which leads to
(14)
A potential pitfall in implementing the above form of the
velocity update equation is that the pressure values are
explicitly used. In cases where the pressure value is extremely
high, the updated velocities would also become impractically
large, diminishing the performance of the WDO. Instead of
using the actual pressure values, one can use a ranking-based
approach, where the population of air parcels are ranked in
descending order based on their pressure values such that (14)
can be rewritten as,
(15)
where i represents the ranking among all air parcels. In this
scheme, the best solution has the lowest pressure with rank 1
Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
4
and is located at point xopt. Equation (15) represents the final
form of the velocity update utilized in WDO. The first term in
(15) states that if there are no other forces acting on the air
parcel, then it would continue on its current path with its
velocity proportionally reduced by friction. The friction
coefficient term could be fixed to a constant value, or one could
implement an adaptive friction coefficient, which could vary
depending on the velocity of the air parcel. The second term
states that gravity constantly pulls the air parcel from its current
location towards the center of the coordinate system at a
magnitude proportional to the constant g. This term becomes
particularly beneficial if the air parcels get stuck at the
boundaries. The third term in (15) implies that the higher
ranked air parcels will most likely be at a location closer to the
xopt and, hence, the effect of the pressure gradient would be
smaller. The last term allows the velocity direction to be altered
by other dimensions, with a larger influence on higher ranked
air parcels. As can be clearly seen in (15), there are multiple
coefficients that must be chosen prior to starting an
carried out in the following section to establish the optimum
values or value ranges for these parameters. At each iteration,
the velocity and the position of all air parcels need to be
updated. Once the new velocity is calculated according to (15),
the position can be updated by utilizing the following equation,
(16)
where xcur is the current position of the air parcel in the search
space, xnew is the new position for the next iteration, and a time
step of is assumed. A population of air parcels starts at
random positions in the search space with random velocities.
Utilizing (15) and (16), each air parcel’s velocity and position
are adjusted at every iteration as the parcels move toward an
optimum pressure location and, hence, the optimum solution at
the end of the last iteration. In this manner, WDO offers a
simple yet highly effective way to solve complex optimization
problems.
For each dimension, WDO allows the air parcels to travel
only within the bounds of [-1, 1]. In the literature, there have
been various boundary conditions proposed for particle-based
optimizers [48], whereas in WDO, if an air parcel tries to travel
outside of these bounds in any dimension, its position in that
particular dimension is set to the boundary value. The
gravitational force eventually pulls any air parcels that are stuck
at the boundaries back into the search space. It also should be
noted that the updated velocities of the air parcels are limited to
a maximum value per iteration. The main reason for this is to
prevent air parcels from taking large steps and overlooking
certain regions in the search space. If the velocity magnitude
exceeds the specified maximum in any dimension, then the
velocity in that dimension is limited according to
(17)
where the direction of motion is preserved but the magnitude is
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, Manuscript ID AP1202-0125.R1
limited to be no more than |umax| at any dimension, and
represents the adjusted velocity after it is limited to the
maximum speed.
Fig. 2. Flowchart showing the Wind Driven Optimization implementation. A
sample Matlab/Octave code is also provided in the Appendix.
The implementation of WDO is illustrated in Fig. 2. As seen
in the flowchart, the algorithm starts with the initialization
stage, where all parameters related to the WDO as well as the
other parameters related to the optimization problem have to be
defined. Also, one must define a pressure function (analogous
to a fitness function in a GA) and establish parameter
boundaries. Once the optimization problem is set up, the
population of air parcels are randomly distributed over the
N-dimensional search space and assigned random velocities.
The next step is to evaluate the pressure (fitness) values of each
air parcel at its current position. Once the pressure values have
been evaluated, the population is ranked based on their
pressure, and the velocity update is applied according to (15)
along with the restrictions given in (17). The positions for the
next iteration are updated by utilizing (16), and the boundaries
are checked to prevent any air parcel from exiting the search
space. Once all the updates are carried out, the parcel pressures
at the new locations are evaluated. This procedure continues
until the maximum number of iterations is reached. Finally, the
best pressure location at the end of the last iteration is recorded
as the optimization result and, hence, the best candidate
solution to the problem. One could also choose to implement an
alternative type of stopping criteria depending on the time
constraints to solve the problem or the computational burden to
calculate the EM solution. One example of a custom stopping
criterion would be a user-defined threshold for stopping
execution of the WDO once it is achieved by the optimum
pressure. A sample Matlab/Octave code is listed in the
Appendix that provides a reference implementation of the
WDO algorithm.
So far, the theory behind WDO, the operators of the
algorithm, and the implemented constraints, such as the
boundaries and velocity restrictions, have been discussed. For
Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
5
clarity, the terminology used for the WDO is summarized in
Table I.
TABLE I.
TERMINOLOGY USED IN THE WIND DRIVEN OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHM
Terminology Description
An individual member, whose coordinate values represent a
Air Parcel
candidate solution to the optimization problem at hand.
A group comprised of a predetermined number of diverse air
Population
parcels.
The coordinates of an air parcel, which are mapped to the
Position
dimensions of the optimization problem at hand.
Velocity The amount of position displacement per iteration.
A number assigned to air parcels, which establishes how
well an air parcel meets the desired design performance.
Pressure
Analogies can be made with fitness, cost, or penalty
functions.
Sorting of the air parcels at each iteration based on their
Ranking
pressure values.
One can observe various similarities between WDO and
other nature-inspired optimization algorithms, all of which are
population-based iterative methods aiming to improve the best
candidate solution over time. Pressure in WDO is analogous to
fitness, or cost, in the GA, where the purpose of the pressure
function is to evaluate the performance of the candidate
solutions.
The position and velocity update rules in WDO are similar to
those in PSO, where PSO is based on a swarm of particles that
share information about the search space facilitating
convergence to an optimum solution. PSO utilizes the
abstraction of artificial intelligence behind a swarm of insects
in search of food, so the terms within the PSO update equations
do not have strong physical meaning. By contrast, the WDO
technique is highly correlated with the actual physical
equations describing the trajectory of an air parcel in our
atmosphere. Additional terms such as the gravitational pull
within the velocity update equation in WDO can provide
advantages over PSO, where particles occasionally attempt to
fly out of and sometimes get stuck at the boundaries, preventing
their positions from changing for many iterations. This can
sometimes significantly hinder the ability of the PSO algorithm
to efficiently explore the entire search space, thereby resulting
in a slower convergence speed. The gravitational pull in WDO
provides a favorable contribution, which prevents air parcels
from remaining trapped at the boundary for long periods of
time and pulls them back into the search space. Another
difference from PSO is that in PSO a dimension of a given
particle is only influenced by the same dimension of another
population member, which happens to be the global best
particle. In contrast, the Coriolis force in WDO introduces a
stochastic effect from other dimensions, providing robustness
to the motion of the parcel. The additional terms in (15), such as
the gravitational pull and Coriolis effect provide potential
benefits that can be gained by fine-tuning the WDO coefficients
for different optimization topologies.
The next section carries out a numerical study on the
coefficients of the WDO utilizing four different test functions
to determine the optimum values or value ranges for the
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, Manuscript ID AP1202-0125.R1 6

parameters α, g, RT, and c. This parameter study allows us to
tune the WDO so that it performs efficiently on a variety of
different search topologies.
III. NUMERICAL PARAMETER STUDY
The optimum performance of the WDO can be achieved by
properly selecting the values for the coefficients α, g, RT, and c
that are utilized in the velocity update equation (15). Since all
optimization problems differ from each other in terms of the
location of the optimum point, total number of global optimums
and boundary values, the optimum WDO coefficient choices
may vary from problem to problem. In order to determine the
best parameter combinations, four different benchmark
functions, namely the Sphere, Rotated Hyper-Ellipsoid, Ackley
and Rastrigin functions, are utilized in this study [49]. The
description and properties of each function are provided in
Table II for N-dimensions.
gravitational force coefficient, g, should only vary in the range
[0, 1]. On the other hand, RT and c can accommodate a wider
range of values, so we allow them to vary in the ranges [0, 5]
during the numerical study. For each test function, all
combinations of the following sets of coefficient values were
utilized in 10 WDO trials with different random seeds for each
trial:
α = [0.01; 0.03; 0.05; 0.07; 0.09; 0.11; 0.2; 0.3; 0.4; 0.5; 0.6; 0.7; 0.8; 0.9]
g = [0.01; 0.03; 0.05; 0.07; 0.09; 0.11; 0.2; 0.3; 0.4; 0.5; 0.6; 0.7; 0.8; 0.9]
RT = [0.01; 0.05; 0.1; 0.3; 0.5; 0.7; 0.8; 0.9; 1.0; 1.3; 1.6; 2.0; 2.3; 2.6; 3.0;
3.3; 3.6; 4.0; 4.3; 4.6; 5.0]
c = [0.01; 0.05; 0.1; 0.3; 0.5; 0.7; 0.8; 0.9; 1.0; 1.3; 1.6; 2.0; 2.3; 2.6; 3.0; 3.3;
3.6; 4.0; 4.3; 4.6; 5.0]

TABLE II.
N-DIMENSION MODIFIED TEST FUNCTIONS USED IN THE NUMERICAL
PARAMETER STUDY OF THE WDO ALGORITHM. THE GLOBAL BEST POSITION
VECTOR OF EACH FUNCTION IS REPRESENTED BY X*, AND OPTIMUM VALUES
ARE INDICATED BY F(X*).
Function Name Description and Properties
,
Sphere

Rotated ,
Hyper-Ellipsoid (a)

Ackley
,

,
Rastrigin

Each test function is defined in different ranges as shown in
Table II, and the total number of dimensions is chosen to be
N=5 for the numerical study. It should be noted that a modified
version of the conventional benchmark functions [49] are
utilized in which the global best locations, x*, are altered.
Unmodified, all of the test functions have a global best location
at the coordinate system center, which could be misleading for
the WDO parameter study due to fact that the gravitational
force could dominate over time, and all air parcels would
converge to the solution prematurely. Such a scenario would
not provide useful information in determining the optimal
coefficient values. The air parcels in WDO were allowed to
travel in the range of [-1, 1] and then scaled up to the minimum
and maximum boundary values based on the optimization
problem limits.
From (15) we note that the friction coefficient, α, and the
(b)
Fig. 3. Average best pressure values obtained when varying RT and c
coefficients while fixing α and g. Results are shown for the (a) modified
Sphere, and (b) modified Rotated Hyper-Ellipsoid test functions.
For every trial, a population of 30 air parcels was optimized for
a maximum of 500 iterations, and umax was chosen to be 0.3.
Based on physical intuition and (15), one can start with the
assumption that the gravitational force would be much smaller
compared to the other forces acting on the air parcel, so we can
set g = 0.1. Also, considering that the velocity will be limited
by umax = 0.3, we could target the first term coefficient, i.e.
(1-α), to have a contribution of no more than 0.3. Thus, we can
conveniently set α = 0.8. By strategically choosing these
values, we can study the variations of RT and c as shown in Fig.
3.
In Fig. 3, we can see a trench in the parameter space, which

Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, Manuscript ID AP1202-0125.R1
indicates the lowest pressure values for unimodal test functions,
as low as 10-5, can be attained for parameter value ranges of 1.0
< RT < 2.0 and 0.05 < c < 3.6. While these sets of parameter
values seem to allow WDO to work efficiently on unimodal
problem spaces, a different set of values are needed for the
multi-modal problems. This time, values of RT = 1.0 and c = 0.7
are selected from the range above in order to study the variation
of α and g for the modified Ackley and modified Rastrigin
multi-modal test functions. In Fig. 4 (a), we can see a trench in
the parameter space, where the lowest pressure is achieved for
α =0.8 and g = 0.6, whereas in Fig. 4 (b), the lowest pressure
values, as low as 10-5, are attained for α = 0.8 or 0.9 and g = 0.7.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4. Average best pressure values obtained when varying α and g coefficients
while fixing RT and c. Results are shown for the (a) modified Ackley, and (b)
modified Rastrigin functions.
TABLE III.
SUGGESTED PARAMETER RANGES BASED ON THE NUMERICAL STUDY OF
UNIMODAL AND MULTI-MODAL TEST FUNCTIONS
α g c RT
Range [0.8,0.9] [0.6,0.7] [0.05,3.6] [1.0,2.0]
These two studies reveal that the WDO can operate
efficiently using wide ranges of parameter values as
summarized in Table III, but different problem topologies may
require unique WDO parameter settings for optimum
performance. Unfortunately, for real world optimization
problems, it would not be possible to choose a single set of
parameters that will work efficiently in every case, but one can
Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
7
utilize the above study to strategically choose and tune the
parameter values for the problem at hand. New users of the
WDO are also encouraged to utilize the parameter settings
provided in the following sections, where multiple EM
problems are efficiently optimized.
In the following sections, WDO will be applied to three
different electromagnetic optimization problems. The first
example is a linear antenna array synthesis problem, which
provides an opportunity to compare WDO with PSO. The
second example of a double-sided artificial magnetic conductor
(DSAMC) demonstrates that WDO can efficiently handle
problems with discrete-valued parameters where GA typically
excels [50]. The final example consists of the optimization of a
dual-band E-shaped microstrip patch antenna. These
implementation examples serve to demonstrate the
effectiveness and utility of WDO for solving complex
electromagnetic design problems.
IV. LINEAR ANTENNA ARRAY SYNTHESIS
Linear antenna array synthesis has been studied extensively
in the literature utilizing various optimization methods [51-53],
targeting sidelobe suppression, null placement, array thinning,
or custom radiation pattern shaping.
Fig. 5. Geometry of a 2M-element linear antenna array positioned along the
x-axis, where the array is symmetric with respect to the origin.
In this section, WDO will be given the task to determine the
optimum element layout of a linear antenna array that provides
the best suppression of the sidelobe levels (SLL) in the
radiation pattern. For the radiating elements, isotropic sources
are assumed, which are symmetrically positioned along the
x-axis as seen in Fig. 5. We note that the identical synthesis
problem was addressed in [51] using PSO and in [54] using the
Comprehensive Learning PSO (CLPSO), where CLPSO was
shown to outperform PSO. For a fair comparison between PSO,
CLPSO and WDO, a uniform amplitude excitation (ai = 1) with
no phase differences (φ i= 0) is assumed in the array factor
calculations based on
(18)
where ai, di and φi represent the amplitude, the location of the ith
antenna element and the excitation phase, respectively, and k is
the free-space wavenumber. For uniform excitation and zero
phase, (18) simplifies to
(19)
WDO was used to find the optimum locations for 2M = 10
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, Manuscript ID AP1202-0125.R1 8

antenna elements, i.e. di, to achieve a minimum SLL for the

array. Since the main radiation beam is directed at broadside
(φ=90°), only the following angular ranges of φ=[0°, 80°] and
φ=[100°, 180°] were optimized to minimize the SLL.
According to [51], the velocity vector of the PSO quickly
approaches zero in about 400 iterations and remains at zero
until the optimization is terminated at 1000 iterations,
indicating that the PSO lost its exploration ability over time.
The additional terms in (15), such as the gravitational pull,
provide the WDO the added benefit of preventing the velocity
vector from becoming zero too quickly, which would prevent
the population from further exploring the parameter space. The
WDO ran with a population size of 40 air parcels for a
maximum of 1000 iterations, where the following coefficient
values were chosen: α=0.1, g=0.1, RT=2.6, and c=0.4, and umax
= 0.25. The air parcel dimensions represent the antenna
Fig. 6. Array factor comparison between the uniformly-spaced, WDO-based,
separations, with an allowed range of [0, λ0]. The pressure PSO-based [51], and CLPSO-based designs [54]. The WDO design performs
function minimizing the array factor is given by better than the uniformly-spaced array as well as the PSO design and also
matches the performance of the CLPSO design.
(20)

The dimensions of the WDO synthesized design are listed in V. DOUBLE-SIDED ARTIFICIAL MAGNETIC CONDUCTOR
Table IV along with those of the PSO optimized array, the SYNTHESIS
CLPSO optimized array, and a conventional uniformly spaced Artificial magnetic conducting (AMC) ground planes are
antenna array with λ0/2 spacing. The array factor calculations widely utilized in low profile antenna applications. The
for the array dimensions listed in Table IV are shown in Fig. 6. majority of the papers published on this topic are focused on
The WDO synthesized linear antenna array has a uniform single-sided AMC surfaces, i.e. the structures are typically
sidelobe level distribution that was achieved by minimizing the backed by a PEC and only exhibit the AMC property on one
pressure function, which resulted in a maximum SLL of -19.05 side [55-57]. Erentok et al. introduced the concept of a
dB as seen in Fig. 6. The conventional, uniformly spaced array volumetric AMC design without PEC backplanes in [58], while
provides a maximum SLL of -12.96 dB, whereas the PSO and the theory of planar double-sided artificial magnetic conducting
CLPSO optimized arrays provides -17.41 dB and -19.07 dB, (DSAMC) surfaces was later presented in [50], followed by a
respectively. These results demonstrate that WDO is capable of system example offered in [59]. A DSAMC is a thin
outperforming PSO and matches the performance of the more metallo-dielectric engineered surface, consisting of two doubly
sophisticated CLPSO, when applied to some antenna array periodic frequency selective surface (FSS) type screens printed
radiation pattern synthesis problems. on either side of a thin dielectric slab. Either surface of this thin
slab can be optimized for a specific response. For instance, one
side can be designed to have an AMC condition, while the other
TABLE IV. could be optimized for an AEC (Artificial Electric Conducting)
ELEMENT LOCATIONS OF THE 10-ELEMENT LINEAR ANTENNA ARRAY FOR
response. For the optimization example here, a commercially
DIFFERENT ARRAY GEOMETRIES, WHERE THE DISTANCES ARE NORMALIZED
WITH RESPECT TO THE FREE-SPACE WAVELENGTH available dielectric, Rogers High Frequency LaminateTM RT
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6010, with a dielectric permittivity of εr = 10.2 -j0.0253 and a
Conventional ± 0.2500 ± 0.7500 ± 1.2500 ± 1.7500 ± 2.2500 thickness of 2.54 mm is utilized. The WDO is linked with a
PSO ± 0.2515 ± 0.5550 ± 1.0650 ± 1.5000 ± 2.1100 full-wave Periodic Finite Element Boundary Integral (PFEBI)
CLPSO ± 0.2515 ± 0.711 ± 1.208 ± 1.8350 ± 2.5585 solver that can calculate the scattering from either side of the
WDO ± 0.2233 ± 0.7197 ± 1.2221 ± 1.8591 ± 2.5936
surface. The optimization goals are to achieve an AMC
response from the top surface of the DSAMC at 2.4 GHz, and
an AMC response from the bottom surface at 5.2 GHz, both of
which are WIFI frequencies. This WIFI separator was first
introduced in [60], where a Genetic Algorithm (GA) was
utilized to optimize the structure. These goals were
incorporated into the following Pressure function

(21)

where S11, the reflection coefficient from the top surface,

should be unity and in phase with the incident wave at 2.4 GHz

Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, Manuscript ID AP1202-0125.R1 9

and S22, the reflection coefficient from the bottom surface,

should be unity and in phase with the incident wave at 5.2GHz.
Since the thickness, unit cell dimensions and dielectric
permittivity are all predetermined, the WDO was given the task
of optimizing the unit cell geometry of the top and bottom FSS
screens analogous to the GA example reported in [60]. The
square unit cell dimensions are set to be 1.18 cm on a side, and
the unit cells are pixilated into 17x17 grids, where the bottom
(a) (b)
row and right-most column of pixels are forced to be metal in Fig. 8. Illustration of the reflection phase both from the top surface (S11) and the
order to ease fabrication of the WIFI separator. The pixilated bottom surface (S22). (a) At 2.4 GHz, the top surface provides an in-phase
FSS screen geometries are periodic in two dimensions, and the reflection, i.e. AMC band, such that a highly reflective top surface is achieved.
(b) At 5.2 GHz, the bottom surface provides an in-phase reflection, i.e. AMC
remaining 16x16 pixel grid to be optimized is forced to have band, and a highly reflective bottom surface is achieved.
four-fold symmetry such that the WDO optimizes only one
quarter of the unit cells as illustrated in Fig. 7. Each row forms
an 8 bit binary number that is represented by one dimension in
the WDO with a range of [0, 28-1]. Since there are a total of 8
rows to be optimized for each screen, this constitutes an
optimization problem with N=16 dimensions.

(a) (b)
Fig. 9. Illustration of the reflection and transmission magnitudes both from the
top surface (S11) and the bottom surface (S22). (a) At 2.4 GHz, the top surface
provides an AMC band. The reflection (|S11|) and transmission (|S12|)
magnitudes from top surface are shown indicating a high reflection. (b) At 5.2
GHz, the bottom surface provides an AMC band, where the reflection (|S22|)
and transmission (|S21|) magnitudes indicate high reflectivity.

VI. E-SHAPED PATCH-ANTENNA SYNTHESIS

(a) (b)
Fig. 7. WDO optimized unit cell geometries. (a) Top FSS geometry shown with As a final demonstration of its utility, the WDO is given the
four-fold symmetry targeting the low frequency response. (b) Bottom FSS task of optimizing a dual-band E-shaped patch antenna
geometry shown with four-fold symmetry targeting the high frequency targeting operating frequencies of 5.0 GHz and 5.5 GHz. The
response. The bottom row and right column of each unit cell is forced to contain
metallic pixels for ease of fabrication of the WIFI separator. same optimization problem is tackled in [61], where
Differential Evolution (DE) and a more sophisticated version of
A population of 25 air parcels was optimized for 500 DE, i.e. Self-adaptive Differential Evolution (SADE) are
iterations as in [60], where the following values were used for utilized. Microstrip patch antennas are extensively employed
the coefficients: α = 0.4, g = 0.2, c = 0.2, RT = 3, and umax = 0.3. in wireless telecommunication systems, aircrafts, and satellites
The optimized FSS unit cell geometries are illustrated in Fig. 7, due to their inherit advantages such as low profile, ease of
where the white and black shaded pixels represent the metal fabrication, low weight, and low cost. In its simplest form, the
and the absence of metal, respectively. At 2.4 GHz, the top E-shaped patch antenna is formed by two identical slots cut
surface behaves as an AMC, where the reflection phase is from a rectangular microstrip patch on a finite sized ground
as seen in Fig. 8 (a), while the reflection and plane.
transmission magnitudes are |S11| = -1.031 dB and |S12| = -25.08
dB, respectively, as seen in Fig. 9 (a). At 5.2 GHz, the bottom
surface behaves as an AMC, where the reflection phase is
as seen in Fig. 8 (b), and the reflection and
transmission magnitudes are |S22| = -0.4897 dB and |S21| =
-27.64 dB, respectively, as seen in Fig. 9 (b). While this
optimization problem is better suited for binary-coded
algorithms such as a GA [60], this result shows that the WDO
can also easily handle discrete-valued optimization problems
that have been efficiently solved by GA [60].

Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, Manuscript ID AP1202-0125.R1
Fig. 10. Illustration of the E-shaped patch antenna geometry.
The geometry of the E-shaped patch antenna to be optimized
is shown in Fig. 10, where a rectangular patch with two
identical slots cut from the right side is placed on a 60 mm x 60
mm finite ground plane, with a 5.5 mm thick air substrate. The
patch is centered at the middle of the ground plane, and the feed
location, Px, is selected by the optimization algorithm.
Moreover, the dimensions of the rectangular patch given by W
and L are both optimized. The two identical stubs cut from the
rectangular patch have a length of Ls and width of Ws and are
centered at a distance of Ps from the feed position. This gives a
total of 6 parameters to be determined by the optimization
algorithms to find the best configuration for the E-shaped patch
antenna targeting minimization of the S11 at 5.0 GHz and 5.5
GHz. The optimization goals are incorporated into the pressure
function defined in (22), where the minimization of the
pressure produces a lower S11 (dB).
(22)
For fast evaluation of the candidate antenna designs, the
WDO is linked with the Method of Moments (MoM) solver
used in the commercially available FEKO software to obtain
S11 (dB) at both optimization frequencies, which are then used
in the pressure calculations. This optimization constitutes an
N=6 dimensional problem, where all dimensions are shown in
Fig. 10 and the corresponding ranges are listed in Table V.
TABLE V.
MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM ALLOWED LIMITS FOR EACH OF THE OPTIMIZATION
PARAMETERS
W L Ws Ls Ps Px
Min 10mm 10mm 0.5mm 0.5mm -L/2 Ws/2
Max 50mm 30mm W/2 L L/2 W/2 – Ws/2
For this design example, the WDO was allowed to run for
100 iterations with a population size of 20 air parcels, and the
Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
10
WDO coefficients were chosen to be: α = 0.4, g = 0.2, c = 0.4,
RT = 3, and umax = 0.3. The dimensions of the final optimized
design are provided in Table VI. The S11 of the optimized
E-shaped patch antenna is illustrated in Fig. 11, showing that
S11 values of -31 dB or lower are achieved at 5.0 GHz and 5.5
GHz, matching the performance of the DE result in [61].
TABLE VI.
THE DIMENSIONS OF THE FINAL OPTIMIZED E-PATCH ANTENNA
W L Ws Ls Ps Px
mm 24.36 21.79 4.87 18.02 3.75 3.85
Fig. 11. S11 of the optimized E-shaped microstrip patch antenna design
computed with FEKO.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we introduced Wind Driven Optimization
(WDO), a new type of nature-inspired global optimization
algorithm based on the motion of air parcels in the wind. The
equations for implementing the WDO were derived from the
theory governing the motion of the wind and discussed in detail
along with a numerical study using unimodal and multi-modal
test functions to determine the best ranges for the WDO
parameters. To illustrate the simplicity and robustness of the
WDO, several electromagnetics optimization problems were
presented, including the synthesis of a linear antenna array that
was compared with PSO and CLPSO, a double-sided artificial
magnetic conducting surface that was compared with GA, and
an E-shaped microstrip patch antenna, where a DE comparison
is presented. These examples demonstrate that the WDO is
effective at optimizing problems with both discrete- and
real-valued parameters and that it offers a competitive
alternative to the popular PSO, GA and DE optimizers, which
are widely used in electromagnetics.
APPENDIX
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Sample Matlab / Octave Code for the Wind Driven Optimization.
% Optimization of the Sphere Function in the range of [-5, 5].
% by Zikri Bayraktar - zikribayraktar@gmail.com.
% Penn State University - May 2011.
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
tic; clear; close all; clc; format long g;
delete('output.txt'); delete('pressure.txt'); delete('position.txt');
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, Manuscript ID AP1202-0125.R1 11

fid=fopen('output.txt','a');
% Updating the global best:
% WDO parameters: better = minpres < globalpres;
param.popsize = 20; % population size. if better
param.npar = 5; % Dimension of the problem. globalpres = minpres % initialize global minimum
param.maxit = 500; % Maximum number of iterations. globalpos = minpos;
param.RT = 3; % RT coefficient. end
param.g = 0.2; % gravitational constant. % Keep a record of the progress:
param.alp = 0.4; % constants in the update equation. keepglob(ij) = globalpres;
param.c = 0.4; % coriolis effect. save position.txt pos -ascii -tabs;
maxV = 0.3; % maximum allowed speed. end
dimMin = -5; % Lower dimension boundary. %Save values to the final file.
dimMax= 5; % Upper dimension boundary. pressure = transpose(keepglob);
%------------------------------------------------------------------- save pressure.txt pressure -ascii -tabs;
% Initializing population: Position and Velocity : %END
% random population in [-1, 1]:
pos = 2*(rand(param.popsize,param.npar)-0.5);
% random velocity:
REFERENCES
vel = maxV * 2 * (rand(param.popsize,param.npar)-0.5); [1] R. L. Haupt, and D. H. Werner, Genetic Algorithms in Electromagnetics,
%------------------------------------------------------------------- Wiley-IEEE Press, Hoboken, New Jersey, April 2007.
% Evaluate initial population: (Sphere Function) [2] J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, Particle Swarm Optimization, Proc. Ninth
for K=1:param.popsize, Int. Conf. on Neural Networks, vol. 4, pp. 1942-1948, Nov. 1995.
x = (dimMax - dimMin) * pos(K,:) + dimMin; [3] M. Dorigo, and T. Stutzle, Ant Colony Optimization, MIT Press,
pres(K,:) = sum (x.^2); Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2004.
end [4] K. Price, R. M. Storn, and J. A. Lampinen, Differential Evolution: A
%------------------------------------------------------------------ Practical Approach to Global Optimization, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
% Finding best air parcel in the initial population : 2005.
[globalpres,indx] = min(pres); [5] P. Rocca, G. Oliveri, and A. Massa, “Differential evolution as applied to
globalpos = pos(indx,:); electromagnetics,” IEEE Antennas Propagat. Mag., vol. 53, pp. 38-49,
minpres(1) = min(pres); % min pressure Feb. 2011.
%----------------------------------------------------------------- [6] L. N. de Castro, and F. J. Von Zuben, "Learning and optimization using
% Rank the air parcels : the clonal selection principle," IEEE Trans. on Evol. Comput., vol. 6, no.
[sorted_pres rank_ind] = sort(pres); 3, pp. 239-251, Jun. 2002.
% Sort the air parcels: [7] N. Hansen, S. D. Müller, and P. Koumoutsakos, “Reducing the time
pos = pos(rank_ind,:); complexity of the derandomized evolution strategy with covariance
keepglob(1) = globalpres; matrix adaptation (CMA-ES),” Evolutionary Computation, vol. 11, no. 1,
%---------------------------------------------------------------------- pp. 1–18, 2003.
% Start iterations : [8] D. H. Wolpert and W. G. Macready, “No free lunch theorems for
iter = 1; % iteration counter optimization,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., vol. 1, pp. 67-82, 1997.
for ij = 2:param.maxit, [9] Z. Bayraktar, P. L. Werner, and D. H. Werner, "The design of miniature
% Update the velocity: three-element stochastic Yagi-Uda arrays using particle swarm
for i=1:param.popsize optimization," IEEE Antennas Wireless Propag. Lett., vol. 5, no. 1, pp.
% choose random dimensions: 22-26, Dec. 2006.
a = randperm(param.npar); [10] M. D. Gregory, Z. Bayraktar, and D. H. Werner, "Fast optimization of
% choose velocity based on random dimension: electromagnetic design problems using the covariance matrix adaptation
velot(i,:) = vel(i,a); evolutionary strategy," IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 59, no. 4,
vel(i,:) = (1-param.alp)*vel(i,:)-(param.g*pos(i,:))+ ... pp. 1275-1285, April 2011.
abs(1-1/i)*((globalpos-pos(i,:)).*param.RT)+ ... [11] B. Tian, Z. Li, and C. Wang, "Boresight gain optimization of an UWB
(param.c*velot(i,:)/i); monopole antenna using FDTD and genetic algorithm," IEEE Int. Conf.
end Ultra-Wideband (ICUWB), vol. 1, pp. 1-4, 20-23 Sept. 2010.
[12] E. E. Altshuler, "Design of a vehicular antenna for GPS/Iridium using a
% Check velocity: genetic algorithm," IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 48, no. 6, pp.
vel = min(vel, maxV); 968-972, Jun. 2000.
vel = max(vel, -maxV); [13] T. G. Spence, and D. H. Werner, "A novel miniature
% Update air parcel positions: broadband/multiband antenna based on an end-loaded planar open-sleeve
pos = pos + vel; dipole," IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 54, no. 12, pp. 3614-3620,
pos = min(pos, 1.0); Dec. 2006.
pos = max(pos, -1.0); [14] M. Benedetti, R. Azaro, and A. Massa, “Memory enhanced PSO-based
% Evaluate population: (Pressure) optimization approach for smart antennas control in complex interference
for K=1:param.popsize, scenarios,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 56, pp. 1939-1947, Jul.
x = (dimMax - dimMin) * pos(K,:) + dimMin; 2008.
pres(K,:) = sum (x.^2); [15] L. Lizzi, F. Viani, R. Azaro, and A. Massa, “A PSO-driven spline-based
end shaping approach for ultra-wideband (UWB) antenna synthesis,” IEEE
Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 56, pp. 2613-2621, Aug. 2008.
%---------------------------------------------------- [16] D. W. Boeringer, and D. H. Werner, "Efficiency-constrained particle
% Finding best particle in population swarm optimization of a modified Bernstein polynomial for conformal
[minpres,indx] = min(pres); array excitation amplitude synthesis," IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat.,
minpos = pos(indx,:); % min location for this iteration vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 2662-2673, Aug. 2005.
%---------------------------------------------------- [17] M. D. Gregory, D. H. Werner and P. L. Werner, "Nature-inspired
% Rank the air parcels: techniques for the synthesis of aperiodic ultra-wideband phased arrays"
[sorted_pres rank_ind] = sort(pres); Proc. of the 2010 IEEE Int. Symp. on Phased Array Systems &
% Sort the air parcels position, velocity and pressure: Technology, Boston, MA, Oct. 12 -16, 2010.
pos = pos(rank_ind,:); [18] M. G. Bray, D. H. Werner, D. W. Boeringer, and D. W. Machuga,
vel = vel(rank_ind,:); "Optimization of thinned aperiodic linear phased arrays using genetic
pres = sorted_pres;

Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, Manuscript ID AP1202-0125.R1
algorithms to reduce grating lobes during scanning," IEEE Trans.
Antennas Propagat., vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 1732-1742, Dec. 2002.
[19] D. W. Boeringer, and D. H. Werner, "Particle swarm optimization versus
genetic algorithm for phased array synthesis," IEEE Trans. Antennas
Propagat., vol. 52, no. 3, pp.771-779, Mar. 2004.
[20] W.-C. Weng, F. Yang, and A. Z. Elsherbeni, "Linear antenna array
synthesis using Taguchi's method: A novel optimization technique in
electromagnetics," IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 55, no. 3, pp.
723-730, Mar. 2007.
[21] Z. Bayraktar, D. H. Werner and P. L. Werner, "Miniature meander-line
dipole antenna arrays designed via an orthogonal array initialized hybrid
particle swarm optimizer," IEEE Antennas Propagat. Mag., vol. 53, no. 3,
pp. 42-59, Jun. 2011.
[22] S. Caorsi, A. Lommi, A. Massa, and M. Pastorino, “Peak sidelobe level
reduction with a hybrid approach based on a GAs and difference sets,”
IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 52, pp. 1116-1121, Apr. 2004.
[23] G. Oliveri, F. Caramanica, and A. Massa, “Hybrid ADS-based techniques
for radio astronomy array design,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol.
59, pp. 1817-1827, Jun. 2011.
[24] L. Poli, P. Rocca, L. Manica, and A. Massa, “Handling sideband
radiations in time-modulated arrays through particle swarm
optimization,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 58, pp. 1408-1411,
Apr. 2010.
[25] G. Oliveri, F. Caramanica, C. Fontanari, and A. Massa, “Rectangular
thinned arrays based on McFarland difference sets,” IEEE Trans.
Antennas Propagat., vol. 59, pp. 1546-1552, May 2011.
[26] P. Rocca, M. Benedetti, D. Franceschini, and A. Massa, “Evolutionary
optimization as applied to inverse problems,” Inverse Problems, vol. 25,
doi: 10.1088/0266-5611/25/12/123003, Dec. 2009.
[27] S. Caorsi, A. Massa, and M. Pastorino, “Genetic algorithms as applied to
the computation of electromagnetic scattering by weakly nonlinear
dielectric cylinders,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 47, pp.
1421-1428, Sept. 1999.
[28] E. Michielssen, J.-M Sajer, S. Ranjithan, and R. Mittra, "Design of
lightweight, broad-band microwave absorbers using genetic algorithms,"
IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech., vol. 41, no. 6/7, pp. 1024-1031,
Jun./Jul. 1993.
[29] S. Cui, and D. S. Weile, "Application of a parallel particle swarm
optimization scheme to the design of electromagnetic absorbers," IEEE
Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 3616-3624, Nov. 2005.
[30] J. A. Bossard, X. Liang, L. Li, S. Yun, D. H. Werner, D. Weiner, T. S.
Mayer, P. F. Cristman, A. Diaz, and I. C. Khoo, "Tunable frequency
selective surfaces and negative-zero-positive index metamaterials based
on liquid crystals," IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 56, no. 5, pp.
1308-1320, May 2008.
[31] S. Genovesi, R. Mittra, A. Monorchio, and G. Manara, "Particle swarm
optimization for the design of frequency selective surfaces," IEEE
Antennas Wireless Propag. Lett., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 277-279, Dec. 2006.
[32] L. Akhoondzadeh-Asl, D. J. Kern, P. S. Hall, and D. H. Werner,
"Wideband dipoles on electromagnetic bandgap ground planes," IEEE
Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 2426-2434, Sept. 2007.
[33] L. Zhifang, Y. E. Erdemli, J. L. Volakis, and P. Y. Papalambros, "Design
optimization of conformal antennas by integrating stochastic algorithms
with the hybrid finite-element method," IEEE Trans. Antennas
Propagat., vol. 50, no.5, pp. 676-684, May 2002.
[34] E. Lier, D. H. Werner, C. P. Scarborough, Q. Wu and J. A. Bossard, "An
octave-bandwidth negligible-loss radiofrequency metamaterial," Nature
Materials, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 216-222, March 2011.
[35] J. Z. Jiang, S. Yun, F. Toor, D. H. Werner and T. S. Mayer, "Conformal
dual-band near-perfectly absorbing mid-infrared metamaterial coating,"
ACS Nano, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 4641-4647, April 2011.
[36] S. Yun, J. A. Bossard, T. S. Mayer, and D. H. Werner, "Angle and
polarization tolerant midinfrared dielectric filter designed by genetic
algorithm optimization," Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 96, no. 22, pp.
223101/1-3, 2010.
[37] Z. H. Jiang, J. A. Bossard, X. Wang, and D. H. Werner, "Genetic
algorithm synthesis of impedance-matched infrared ZIMs with wide FOV
using a generalized inversion algorithm," Proc. of the 2010 IEEE Int.
Symp. on Antennas and Propag. and USNC/URSI National Radio Science
Meeting, Toronto, Canada, July 11-17, 2010.
[38] R. D. Thompson, Atmospheric Processes and Systems, Routledge, New
York, 1998.
[39] NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (January 30, 2012). The Layer's of
Earth's Atmosphere. [Online]. Available:
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/maps/satellite_feed/atmosphere_layers/
Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
12
[40] H. Riehl, Introduction to the Atmosphere, McGraw Hill, 1978.
[41] C. D. Ahrens, Meteorology Today: An Introduction to Weather, Climate,
and the Environment, 7th ed., Thomson–Brook/Cole, 2003.
[42] Wikipedia. (January 30, 2012). Pressure Gradient. [Online]. Available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_gradient
[43] J. M. Wallace and P. V. Hobbs, Atmospheric Science: An Introductory
Survey, 2nd ed., Elsevier, 2006.
[44] M. L. Salby, Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, Academic Press,
1995.
[45] R. B. Stull, Meteorology for Scientists and Engineers, 2nd ed., Brooks
Cole, 1999.
[46] P. R. Bannon, The Dynamic Atmosphere, A Theoretical Perspective.
Class notes for Intro. Atmospheric Dynamics, Department of
Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University, 2003.
[47] Wikipedia. (January 30, 2012). Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis. [Online].
Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaspard-Gustave_Coriolis
[48] J. Robinson, and Y. Rahmat-Samii, "Particle swarm optimization in
electromagnetics," IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 52, no. 2, pp.
397-407, Feb. 2004.
[49] X. Yao, Y. Liu, and G. Lin, "Evolutionary programming made faster,"
IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 82 - 102, July 1999.
[50] Z. Bayraktar, J. A. Bossard and D. H. Werner, "AMC metamaterials for
low-profile antennas mounted on or embedded in composite platforms,"
Proc. of the 2008 IEEE Int. Symp. on Antennas and Propag., Honolulu,
Hawaii, USA, pp. 1305 - 1308, Jun. 10-15, 2007.
[51] M. M. Khodier, and C. G. Christodoulou, "Linear array geometry
synthesis with minimum sidelobe level and null control using particle
swarm optimization," IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 53, no. 8, pp.
2674-2679, Aug. 2005.
[52] K.-K. Yan, and Y. Lu, "Sidelobe reduction in array-pattern synthesis
using genetic algorithm," IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 45, no. 7,
pp. 1117-1122, Jul. 1997.
[53] C. Lin, A. Qing, and Q. Feng, "Synthesis of unequally spaced antenna
arrays by using differential evolution," IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat.,
vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 2553-2561.
[54] S. K. Goudos, V. Moysiadou, T. Samaras, K. Siakavara, and J. N.
Sahalos, “Application of a comprehensive learning particle swarm
optimizer to unequally spaced linear array synthesis with sidelobe level
suppression and null control,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 9,
pp. 125-129, 2010.
[55] M. E. de Cos, F. Las Heras, and M. Franco, "Design of planar artificial
magnetic conductor ground plane using frequency-selective surfaces for
frequencies below 1 GHz," IEEE Antennas Wireless Propag. Lett., vol. 8,
pp.951-954, 2009.
[56] D. J. Kern, D. H. Werner, A. Monorchio, L. Lanuzza, and M. J. Wilhelm,
"The design synthesis of multi-band artificial magnetic conductors using
high impedance frequency selective surfaces," IEEE Trans. Antennas
Propagat., Special Issue on Artificial Magnetic Conductors, Soft/Hard
Surfaces, and other Complex Surfaces, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 8-17, Jan. 2005.
[57] D. Sievenpiper, L. Zhang, R. F. J. Broas, N. G. Alexopolous, and E.
Yablonovitch, "High-impedance electromagnetic surfaces with a
forbidden frequency band," IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech., vol. 47,
no.11, pp. 2059-2074, Nov. 1999.
[58] A. Erentok, P. L. Luljak, and R. W. Ziolkowski, "Characterization of a
volumetric metamaterial realization of an artificial magnetic conductor
for antenna applications," IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 53, no.
1, pp. 160-172, Jan. 2005.
[59] Z. Bayraktar, M. Gregory, and D. H. Werner, "Composite planar
double-sided AMC surfaces for MIMO applications," Proc. of the IEEE
Int. Symp. on Antennas and Propagat. and USNC/URSI National Radio
Science Meeting, Charleston, SC, USA, June 1-5, 2009.
[60] Z. Bayraktar, M. D. Gregory, X. Wang, and D. H. Werner, “A versatile
design strategy for thin composite planar double-sided high-impedance
surfaces,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 60, no. 6, pp.
2770-2780, June 2012.
[61] S. K. Goudos, K. Siakavara, T. Samaras, E. E. Vafiadis, and J. N. Sahalos,
“Self-adaptive differential evolution applied to real-valued antenna and
microwave design problems,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 59,
no. 4, pp. 1286-1298, April 2011.