Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 61, Issue 1, pp 207–223 | Cite as

Multi-objective layout optimization for an orbital propellant depot

  • Zhi-Zheng XuEmail author
  • Feng Jiang
  • Chong-Quan Zhong
  • Yong-Jie Gou
  • Hong-Fei Teng
Research Paper


The overall layout optimization design of an orbital propellant depot involves the optimization of shape, size, and positions of propellant tanks in functional module and the optimization of positions of equipment in service module, with the aim of making the carrying capacity of propellant, dry/wet ratio, and mass properties meet the allowable values. To alleviate the difficulty in dealing with the overall optimization problems involving two modules of the orbital propellant depot, a step-by-step modeling and solving strategy is presented. Two multi-objective optimization mathematical models for the tanks in functional module (model I) and the equipment in service module (model II) are constructed separately, which are solved one after another. In the solution process of the two models, model I is solved firstly and the obtained optimization solution is transmitted to model II as a known condition. We mainly focus on the layout optimization of equipment in the service module and give a batch component assignment and layout integration optimization method. In the proposed method, all the components are grouped firstly according to the functional subsystem, and then the obtained component groups are sorted in descending order of their feature values. Finally, the sorted component groups are added into the service module one by one for both assignment optimization and layout optimization. The computational results of the case study show that the obtained Pareto solutions meet the given allowable values of carrying capacity of propellant, dry/wet ratio, and mass properties of the orbital propellant depot.


Component assignment Component layout Multi-objective optimization Orbital propellant depot 


Funding information

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No. 61472062.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

158_2019_2354_MOESM1_ESM.rar (719 kb)
ESM 1 (RAR 718 kb)


  1. Arney D, Wilhite A (2010) Orbital propellant depots enabling lunar architectures without heavy-lift launch vehicles. J Spacecr Rocket 47:353–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chai PR, Wilhite AW (2014) Cryogenic thermal system analysis for orbital propellant depot. Acta Astronaut 102:35–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen X, Yao W, Zhao Y, Chen X, Zheng X (2018) A practical satellite layout optimization design approach based on enhanced finite-circle method. Struct Multidiscip Optim 58:2635–2653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cuco APC, de Sousa FL, Neto AJS (2015) A multi-objective methodology for spacecraft equipment layouts. Optim Eng 16:165–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cui F-Z, Xu Z-Z, Wang X-K, Zhong C-Q, Teng H-F (2018) A dual-system cooperative co-evolutionary algorithm for satellite equipment layout optimization. Proc Inst Mech Eng G-J Aerosp Eng 232:2432–2457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Sousa FL, Muraoka I, Galski RL (2007) On the optimal positioning of electronic equipment in space platforms. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Mechanical Engineering (CDROM), Brasilia, BrasilGoogle Scholar
  7. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6:182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fakoor M, Taghinezhad M (2016) Layout and configuration design for a satellite with variable mass using hybrid optimization method. Proc Inst Mech Eng G-J Aerosp Eng 230:360–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fakoor M, Ghoreishi SMN, Sabaghzadeh H (2016) Spacecraft component adaptive layout environment (SCALE): an efficient optimization tool. Adv Space Res 58:1654–1670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fakoor M, Mohammad Zadeh P, Momeni Eskandari H (2017) Developing an optimal layout design of a satellite system by considering natural frequency and attitude control constraints. Aerosp Sci Technol 71:172–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferebee MJ, Allen CL (1991) Optimization of payload placement on arbitrary spacecraft. J Spacecr Rocket 28:612–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferebee MJ Jr, Powers RB (1987) Optimization of payload mass placement in a dual keel space station. NASA Langley Research Center, HamptonGoogle Scholar
  13. Fortescue P, Swinerd G, Stark J (2011) Spacecraft systems engineering. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grignon PM, Fadel GM (2004) A GA based configuration design optimization method. J Mech Des 126:6–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hengeveld DW, Braun JE, Groll EA, Williams AD (2011) Optimal placement of electronic components to minimize heat flux nonuniformities. J Spacecr Rocket 48:556–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huo J-Z, Teng H-F (2009) Optimal layout design of a satellite module using a coevolutionary method with heuristic rules. J Aerosp Eng 22:101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huo J-Z, Teng H-F, Sun W, Chen J (2010) Human-computer co-operative co-evolution- ary method and its application to a satellite module layout design problem. Aeronaut J 114:209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lau V, de Sousa FL, Galski RL, Rocco EM, Becceneri JC, Santos WA, Sandri SA (2014) A multidisciplinary design optimization tool for spacecraft equipment layout conception. J Aerosp Technol Manag 6:431–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McLean C, Pitchford B, Mustafi S, Wollen M, Walls L, Schmidt J (2011) Simple, robust cryogenic propellant depot for near term applications. In: IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MTGoogle Scholar
  20. Morgan L (1965) Orbital tanker designs and operational modes for orbit launch programs. In: AIAA 2nd Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  21. Potter MA, De Jong KA (1994) A cooperative coevolutiouary approach to function optimization. In: Davidor Y, Schwefel HP, Manner R (eds) Parallel problem solving from nature - PPSN III - international conference on evolutionary computation, Proceedings, JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  22. Qian Z-Q, Bi Z-M, Cao Q, Ju W-G, Teng H-F, Zheng Y, Zheng S-Y (2017) Expert-guided evolutionary algorithm for layout design of complex space stations. Enterp Inf Syst 11:1078–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Qin Z, Liang YG (2017) Layout optimization of satellite cabin considering space debris impact risk. J Spacecr Rocket 54:1178–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Qin Z, Liang Y-G, Zhou J-P (2017) Multiobjective methodology for satellite cabin layout optimization considering space debris impact risk. J Spacecr Rocket 55:232–235Google Scholar
  25. Qin Z, Liang YG, Zhou JP (2018) An optimization tool for satellite equipment layout. Adv Space Res 61:223–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shafaee M, Mohammadzadeh P, Elkaie A, Abbasi S (2017) Layout design optimization of a space propulsion system using hybrid optimization algorithm. Proc Inst Mech Eng G-J Aerosp Eng 231:338–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Street D, Wilhite A (2006) A scalable orbital propellant depot design. Department of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  28. Sun Z-G, Teng H-F (2003) Optimal layout design of a satellite module. Eng Optim 35:513–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Teng H-F, Sun S-L, Liu D-Q, Li Y-Z (2001) Layout optimization for the objects located within a rotating vessel — a three- dimensional packing problem with behavioral constraints. Comput Oper Res 28:521–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Teng H-F, Chen Y, Zeng W, Shi Y-J, Hu Q-H (2010) A dual-system variable-grain cooperative coevolutionary algorithm: satellite-module layout design. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 14:438–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang Y-S, Teng H-F (2009) Knowledge fusion design method: satellite module layout. Chin J Aeronaut 22:32–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Xu Z-Z, Zhong C-Q, Teng H-F (2017) Assignment and layout integration optimization for simplified satellite re-entry module component layout. Proc Inst Mech Eng G-J Aerosp Eng. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang B, Teng H-F, Shi Y-J (2008) Layout optimization of satellite module using soft computing techniques. Appl Soft Comput 8:507–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhang Z-H, Zhong C-Q, Xu Z-Z, Teng H-F (2017) A non-dominated sorting cooperative co-evolutionary differential evolution algorithm for multi-objective layout optimization. IEEE Access 5:14468–14477CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Control Science and EngineeringDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina
  2. 2.School of Electrical Engineering and AutomationJiangsu Normal UniversityXuzhouChina
  3. 3.Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight TechnologyShanghaiChina
  4. 4.School of Mechanical EngineeringDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina
  5. 5.School of Computer Science and TechnologyDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina

Personalised recommendations