Acta Mechanica

, Volume 213, Issue 3–4, pp 267–289 | Cite as

A novel heuristic optimization method: charged system search

  • A. KavehEmail author
  • S. Talatahari


This paper presents a new optimization algorithm based on some principles from physics and mechanics, which will be called Charged System Search (CSS). We utilize the governing Coulomb law from electrostatics and the Newtonian laws of mechanics. CSS is a multi-agent approach in which each agent is a Charged Particle (CP). CPs can affect each other based on their fitness values and their separation distances. The quantity of the resultant force is determined by using the electrostatics laws and the quality of the movement is determined using Newtonian mechanics laws. CSS can be utilized in all optimization fields; especially it is suitable for non-smooth or non-convex domains. CSS needs neither the gradient information nor the continuity of the search space. The efficiency of the new approach is demonstrated using standard benchmark functions and some well-studied engineering design problems. A comparison of the results with those of other evolutionary algorithms shows that the proposed algorithm outperforms its rivals.


Charge Particle Resultant Force Gravitational Search Algorithm Mixed Integer Nonlinear Programming Charge System Search 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kaveh, A., Talatahari, S.: An improved ant colony optimization for constrained engineering design problems. Engineering Computations 27(1) (2010, in press)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fogel L.J., Owens A.J., Walsh M.J.: Artificial Intelligence Through Simulated Evolution. Wiley, Chichester (1966)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Jong, K.: Analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (1975)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Koza, J.R.: Genetic programming: a paradigm for genetically breeding populations of computer programs to solve problems. Report No. STAN-CS-90-1314, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (1990)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holland J.H.: Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (1975)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldberg D.E.: Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Glover F.: Heuristic for integer programming using surrogate constraints. Decis. Sci. 8(1), 156–166 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dorigo M., Maniezzo V., Colorni A.: The ant system: optimization by a colony of cooperating agents. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. B 26(1), 29–41 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eberhart, R.C., Kennedy, J.: A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. In: Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on micro machine and human science, Nagoya, Japan (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kirkpatrick S., Gelatt C., Vecchi M.: Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220(4598), 671–680 (1983)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Erol O.K., Eksin I.: New optimization method: Big Bang–Big Crunch. Adv. Eng. Softw. 37, 106–111 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaveh A., Talatahari S.: Size optimization of space trusses using Big Bang–Big Crunch algorithm. Comput. Struct. 87(17–18), 1129–1140 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rashedi E., Nezamabadi-pour H., Saryazdi S.: GSA: a gravitational search algorithm. Inf. Sci. 179, 2232–2248 (2009)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halliday D., Resnick R., Walker J.: Fundamentals of Physics, 8th edn. Wiley, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaveh A., Talatahari S.: Particle swarm optimizer, ant colony strategy and harmony search scheme hybridized for optimization of truss structures. Comput. Struct. 87(5–6), 267–283 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coello C.A.C.: Theoretical and numerical constraint-handling techniques used with evolutionary algorithms: a survey of the state of the art. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 191(11–12), 1245–1287 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaveh A., Talatahari S.: A particle swarm ant colony optimization for truss structures with discrete variables. J. Constr. Steel Res. 65(8–9), 1558–1568 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tsoulos I.G.: Modifications of real code genetic algorithm for global optimization. Appl. Math. Comput. 203, 598–607 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Belegundu, A.D.: A study of mathematical programming methods for structural optimization. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa, USA (1982)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arora J.S.: Introduction to Optimum Design. McGraw-Hill, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Coello C.A.C.: Use of a self-adaptive penalty approach for engineering optimization problems. Comput. Ind. 41, 113–127 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Coello C.A.C., Montes E.M.: Constraint-handling in genetic algorithms through the use of dominance-based tournament selection. Adv. Eng. Inform. 16, 193–203 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    He Q., Wang L.: An effective co-evolutionary particle swarm optimization for constrained engineering design problems. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 20, 89–99 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Montes E.M., Coello C.A.C.: An empirical study about the usefulness of evolution strategies to solve constrained optimization problems. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 37(4), 443–473 (2008)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ragsdell K.M., Phillips D.T.: Optimal design of a class of welded structures using geometric programming. ASME J. Eng. Ind. Ser. B 98(3), 1021–1025 (1976)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Deb K.: Optimal design of a welded beam via genetic algorithms. Am. Inst. Aeronaut. Astronaut. J. 29(11), 2013–2015 (1991)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sandgren, E.: Nonlinear integer and discrete programming in mechanical design. In: Proceedings of the ASME design technology conference, Kissimine, FL, pp. 95–105 (1988)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kannan B.K., Kramer S.N.: An augmented Lagrange multiplier based method for mixed integer discrete continuous optimization and its applications to mechanical design. Trans. ASME J. Mech. Des. 116, 318–320 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Deb K., Gene A.S.: A robust optimal design technique for mechanical component design. In: Dasgupta, D., Michalewicz, Z. (eds) Evolutionary Algorithms in Engineering Applications, pp. 497–514. Springer, Berlin (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Centre of Excellence for Fundamental Studies in Structural EngineeringIran University of Science and TechnologyTehran-16Iran
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of TabrizTabrizIran

Personalised recommendations