Advertisement

Battery-aware scheduling in low orbit: the GomX–3 case

  • Morten Bisgaard
  • David Gerhardt
  • Holger Hermanns
  • Jan Krčál
  • Gilles NiesEmail author
  • Marvin Stenger
Original Article
  • 46 Downloads

Abstract

When working with space systems the keyword is resources. For a satellite in orbit all resources are scarce and the most critical resource of all is power. It is therefore crucial to have detailed knowledge on how much power is available for an energy harvesting satellite in orbit at every time—especially when in eclipse, where it draws its power from onboard batteries. The challenge is to maximise operational performance of a satellite, while providing hard guarantees that critically low battery levels are avoided, taking into account these power restrictions. Classic approaches to workload scheduling and analysis are not suitable, because of heterogeneity, interdependencies and system dynamics involved. This paper addresses this problem by a two-step procedure to perform task scheduling for low-earth-orbit satellites exploiting formal methods. It combines time-bounded cost-optimal reachability analyses of priced timed automata networks with a realistic kinetic battery model capable of capturing capacity limits as well as stochastic fluctuations. We also discuss how the time-bounded analysis can be embedded into a workflow that exploits in-orbit current and voltage measurements so as to perpetuate the task scheduling. The core procedure has been exercised in-orbit for the automatic and resource-optimal day-ahead scheduling of GomX–3, a power-hungry 3-unit nanosatellite. We explain how this approach has overcome existing problems, has led to improved designs, and has provided new insights.

Keywords

Battery-aware scheduling Model predictive control Kinetic battery model State of charge estimation Kalman filter Nanosatellite 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has received support from the EU 7th Framework Programme Project 318490 (SENSATION), by the European Space Agency under contract number RFP/NC/IPL-PTE/GLC/as/881.2014, by the ERC Advanced Investigators Grant 695614 (POWVER), and by the CDZ Project 1023 (CAP). We are grateful to Boudewijn Haverkort and Marijn Jongerden (both from Universiteit Twente), Kim Larsen, Marius Mikučonis, Erik Ramsgaard Wognsen (all from Aalborg University), and all further participants of SENSATION as well as experts at GomSpace for very fruitful discussion and support.

References

  1. AB95.
    Agn JC, Bensana E (1995) Exact and approximate methods for the daily management of an earth observation satelliteGoogle Scholar
  2. AD94.
    Alur R, Dill DL (1994) A theory of timed automata. Theor Comput Sci 126: 183–235MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. BFH+01.
    Behrmann G, Fehnker A, Hune T, Larsen KG, Pettersson P, Romijn J, Vaandrager FW (2001) Minimum-cost reachability for priced timed automata. In: Di Benedetto MD, Sangiovanni-Vincentelli AL (eds) Hybrid systems: computation and control, 4th international workshop, HSCC 2001, Rome, Italy, March 28–30, 2001, proceedings, volume 2034 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 147–161Google Scholar
  4. BGH+16.
    Bisgaard M, Gerhardt D, Hermanns H, Krcál J, Nies G, Stenger M (2016) Battery-aware scheduling in low orbit: The gomx-3 case. In: Fitzgerald JS, Heitmeyer CL, Gnesi S, Philippou A (eds) FM 2016: formal methods—21st international symposium, Limassol, Cyprus, November 9–11, 2016, proceedings, volume 9995 of lecture notes in computer science, pp 559–576Google Scholar
  5. BLR05.
    Behrmann G, Larsen KG, Rasmussen JI (2005) Optimal scheduling using priced timed automata. ACM SIGMETRICS Perform Eval Rev 32(4): 34–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. FGD+11.
    Frehse G, Le Guernic C, Donzé A, Cotton S, Ray R, Lebeltel O, Ripado R, Girard A, Dang T, Maler O (2011) Spaceex: Scalable verification of hybrid systems. In: Gopalakrishnan G, Qadeer S (eds) Computer aided verification-23rd international conference, CAV 2011, Snowbird, UT, USA, July 14–20, 2011, proceedings, volume 6806 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 379–395Google Scholar
  7. HH16.
    Hahn EM, Hartmanns A (2016) A comparison of time- and reward-bounded probabilistic model checking techniques. In: Fränzle M, Kapur D, Zhan N (eds) Dependable software engineering: theories, tools, and applications-2nd international symposium, SETTA, Beijing, China, November 9–11, 2016, proceedings, volume 9984 of lecture notes in computer science. pp 85–100Google Scholar
  8. HKN17.
    Hermanns H, Krčál J, Nies G (2017) How is your satellite doing? Battery kinetics with recharging and uncertainty. Leibniz Trans Embed Syst 4(1): 04–10428Google Scholar
  9. HM94.
    Hall NG, Magazine MJ (1994) Maximizing the value of a space mission. Eur J Oper Res 78(2): 224–241CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. HPP99.
    Harrison SA, Price ME, Philpott MS (1999) Task scheduling for satellite based imagery. In: Proceedings of the eighteenth workshop of the UK planning and scheduling special interest group, volume 78. University of Sanford, UK, pp 64–78Google Scholar
  11. HW05.
    Hansen T, Wang C-J (2005) Support vector based battery state of charge estimator. J Power Sources 141(2): 351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. HXZ+11.
    He H, Xiong R, Zhang X, Sun F, Fan J (2011) State-of-charge estimation of the lithium-ion battery using an adaptive extended kalman filter based on an improved thevenin model. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 60(4): 1461–1469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. HYC12.
    Hu C, Youn BD, Chung J (2012) A multiscale framework with extended kalman filter for lithium-ion battery soc and capacity estimation. Appl Energy 92: 694–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Inc16.
    Texas Instruments Incorporated (2016) Tms570 active cell-balancing battery-management design guideGoogle Scholar
  15. JH09.
    Jongerden MR, Haverkort BR (2009) Which battery model to use. IET Softw 3(6): 445–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jon10.
    Jongerden MR (2010) Model-based energy analysis of battery powered systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Enschede, December 2010Google Scholar
  17. K+60.
    Kalman RE et al (1960) A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. J Basic Eng 82(1): 35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. LBB+01.
    Larsen K, Behrmann G, Brinksma E, Fehnker A, Hune T, Pettersson P, Romijn J (2001) As cheap as possible: Effcient cost-optimal reachability for priced timed automata. In: Computer aided verification. Springer, pp 493–505Google Scholar
  19. LNC07.
    Lee J, Nam O, Cho BH (2007) Li-ion battery SOC estimation method based on the reduced order extended Kalman filtering. J Power Sources 174(1): 9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. LPY97.
    Larsen KG, Pettersson P, Yi W (1997) Uppaal in a nutshell. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transf (STTT) 1(1): 134–152CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. MBU+10.
    Mader A, Bohnenkamp H, Usenko YS, Jansen DN, Hurink J, Hermanns H (2010) Synthesis and stochastic assessment of cost-optimal schedules. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transf 12(5): 305–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MM93.
    Manwell JF, McGowan JG (1993) Lead acid battery storage model for hybrid energy systems. Sol Energy 50(5): 399–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. PG01.
    Pemberton JC, Galiber F (2001) A constraint-based approach to satellite scheduling. DIMACS Ser Discrete Math Theor Comput Sci 57: 101–114MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Ple02.
    Plett GL (2002) Kalman-filter soc estimation for lipb hev cells. In: Proceedings of the 19th international battery, hybrid and fuel cell electric vehicle symposium and exhibition (EVS19). Busan, Korea, pp 527–538Google Scholar
  25. PPJ01.
    Piller S, Perrin M, Jossen A (2001) Methods for state-of-charge determination and their applications. J Power Sources 96(1): 113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. SÁMK17.
    Schupp S, Ábrahám E, Makhlouf IB, Kowalewski S (2017) Hypro: a C++ library of state set representations for hybrid systems reachability analysis. In: Barrett C, Davies M, Kahsai T (eds) NASA formal methods-9th international symposium, NFM 2017, Moffett Field, CA, USA, May 16–18, 2017, proceedings, volume 10227 of lecture notes in computer science, pp 288–294Google Scholar
  27. ST15.
    Sebastiani R, Trentin P (2015) Optimathsat: a tool for optimization modulo theories. In: Kroening D, Pasareanu CS (eds) Computer aided verification-27th international conference, CAV, San Francisco, CA, USA, July 18–24, 2015, proceedings, Part I, volume 9206 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 447–454Google Scholar
  28. upp05.
  29. VH01.
    Vasquez M, Hao J-K (2001) A “logic-constrained” knapsack formulation and a tabu algorithm for the daily photograph scheduling of an earth observation satellite. Comput Optim Appl 20(2): 137–157MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. WHL14.
    Wognsen ER, Hansen RR, Larsen KG (2014) Battery-aware scheduling of mixed criticality systems. In: International symposium on leveraging applications of formal methods, verification and validation. Springer, pp 208–222Google Scholar
  31. ZNL+17.
    Zhang Z, Nielsen B, Larsen KG, Nies G, Stenger M, Hermanns H (2017) Pareto optimal reachability analysis for simple priced timed automata. In: Duan Z, Ong L (eds) Formal methods and software engineering—19th international conference on formal engineering methods, ICFEM, Xi’an, China, November 13–17, proceedings, volume 10610 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 481–495Google Scholar

Copyright information

© British Computer Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GomSpace ApSAalborgDenmark
  2. 2.Saarland University – Computer ScienceSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations