Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Interactive design and multidisciplinary optimization of geostationary communication satellite

  • 138 Accesses

Abstract

Currently, the design of large geostationary communication satellites is becoming more and more complex systems. On the one hand, customers are demanding high performance communications systems and this for 15–20 years orbital lifetimes. And the other hand, given the large volume and mass of communications satellites, an added constraint that resides in the volume under the launcher fairing which is sometimes represents a great handicap for the technological development of large space systems due to the technological limitation of launchers at the time. Increasing the performance and reliability of communication satellites, tools and methods are needed; the multidisciplinary design optimization methods (MDO) can be useful for this type of complex system. In geostationary communication satellite systems design, there are usually more than one design objectives, which a design team should take into account. These objectives involve system performance measures like mass, size, cost, reliability, power efficiency and system robustness. In a good design procedure, the tradeoffs between competing objectives should be incorporated so that the design team can make an informed decision. In this paper the generic geostationary communication satellite MDO problem is formulated to minimize the total mass of the satellite system under a number of practical constraints including launch vibration and acoustic disciplines. In this paper a gravitational search algorithm based on the law of gravity and mass interactions is introduced. In the proposed algorithm, the searcher agents are a collection of masses which interact with each other based on the Newtonian gravity and the laws of motion. From the results obtained in this paper and after optimization, the total mass of the studied GEO communication satellite is decreased by 185.3 kg (i.e., 7.3% of the total mass). In the case of the presence of two disciplines, acoustics and vibration, we notice that the mass becomes 3470 kg, which means the increase of the total mass of the system in about 124.2 kg and this in order to compensate the effects of these two disciplines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28

References

  1. 1.

    Boudjemai, A., Bouanane, M.H., Merad, L., Si Mohammed, A.M.: Small satellite structural optimisation using genetic algorithm approach. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Recent Advances in Space Technologies, Istanbul, Turkey, 2007, pp. 398–406. https://doi.org/10.1109/rast.2007.4284021

  2. 2.

    Galski, R.L., De Sousa, F.L., Ramos, F.M., Muraoka, I.: Spacecraft thermal design with the Generalized Extremal Optimization Algorithm. Inverse Probl. Sci. Eng. 15(1), 61–75 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1080/17415970600573924

  3. 3.

    Jain, S., Simon, D.: Genetic algorithm based charge optimization of lithium-ion batteries in small satellites. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, Logan, UT, August 2005

  4. 4.

    Richie, D.J., Lappas, V.J., Palmer, P.L.: Sizing/optimization of a small satellite energy storage and attitude control system. J. Spacecr. Rocket. 44(4), 940–952 (2007). https://doi.org/10.2514/1.25134

  5. 5.

    Zhang, B., Teng, H.-F., Shi, Y.-J.: Layout optimization of satellite module using soft computing techniques. Appl. Soft Comput. 8(1), 507–521 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2007.03.004

  6. 6.

    Shi, R., Liu, L., Long, T., Liu, J., Yuan, B.: Surrogate assisted multidisciplinary design optimization for an all-electric GEO satellite. Acta Astronaut. 138 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2017.05.032

  7. 7.

    El-Haik, B., Yang, K.: The components of complexity in engineering design. IIE Trans. 31(10), 925–934 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007650829429

  8. 8.

    Barnhart, D.A., Kichkaylo, T., Hoag, L.: SPIDR: integrated systems engineering design-to-simulation software for satellite build. In: Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference on Systems Engineering Research, Loughborough, UK (2009)

  9. 9.

    Kannan, H., Tibor, E., Bloebaum, C.L., Memeser, B.L.: Incorporation of coupling strength models in a value-based systems engineering framework for optimization. In: AIAA Aviation 2015 (16th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference) (2015)

  10. 10.

    Kannan, H., Bloebaum, C.L., Mesmer, B.L.: Incorporation of risk preferences in a value-based systems engineering framework for a satellite system. In: 18th Aiaa Non-Deterministic Approaches Conference

  11. 11.

    Miller, S.W., Simpson, T.W., Yukish, M.A., Stump, G., Mesmer, B.L., Tibor, E.B., Bloebaum, C.L., Winer, E.H.: Toward a value-driven design approach for complex engineered systems using trade space exploration tools. In: Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference. 2. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2014-34503

  12. 12.

    Kannan, H., Mesmer, B.L., Bloebaum, C.L.: Increased system consistency through incorporation of coupling in value-based systems engineering. Syst. Eng. 20(1), 21–44 (2017)

  13. 13.

    Kannan, H., Shihab, S., Zellner, M., Salimi, E., Abbas, A., Bloebaum, C.L.: Preference modeling for government-owned large-scale complex engineered systems: a satellite case study. In: Disciplinary Convergence in Systems Engineering Research, pp. 513–529

  14. 14.

    Simpson, T.W., Miller, S., Tibor, E.B., Yukish, M.A., Stump, G., Kannan, H.: Adding value to trade space exploration when designing complex engineered systems. Syst. Eng. 20(2), 131–146 (2018)

  15. 15.

    Mesmer, B.L., Bloebaum, C.L., Kannan, H.: Incorporation of value-driven design in multidisciplinary design optimization. In: 10th World Congress on Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, May 19–24, 2013, Orlando, Florida, USA

  16. 16.

    Guo, J.: Incorporating multidisciplinary design optimization into spacecraft systems engineering. In: 8th Conference on Systems Engineering Research, March 17–19, 2010, Hoboken, NJ pp. 314–323

  17. 17.

    Hupman, A. et al.: Calculating value gaps induced by independent requirements, deterministic modeling, and fixed targets. In: 56th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 5–9 January 2015, Kissimmee, Florida

  18. 18.

    Wang, X.H., et al.: Comparison of MDO Methods for an Earth Observation Satellite. Proced. Eng. 67, 166–177 (2013)

  19. 19.

    Hwang, J.T., Lee, D.Y., Cutler, J.W., Martins, J.R.R.A.: Large-scale multidisciplinary optimization of a small satellites design and operation. J. Spacecr. Rocket. (2014). https://doi.org/10.2514/1.a32751

  20. 20.

    Deshmukh, M., Wolff, R., Fischer, P.M., Flatken, M., Gerndt, A.: Interactive 3D visualization to support concurrent engineering in the early space mission design phase. In: Challenges in European Aerospace, CEAS Air and Space Conference. Netherlands (2015)

  21. 21.

    Fischer, P.M., Wolff, R., Gerndt, A.: Collaborative satellite configuration supported by interactive visualization. In: Aerospace Conference, 2012 IEEE. Big Sky, MT, USA (2012)

  22. 22.

    Browning, T.R.: Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 48(3), 292–306 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1109/17.946528

  23. 23.

    Geissbauer, R., Vedso, J., Schrauf, S.: Industry 4.0: Building the Digital Enterprise. PWC, London (2016)

  24. 24.

    Martins, J.R.R.A., Lambe, A.B.: Multidisciplinary design optimization: survey of architectures. AIAA J. (2012)

  25. 25.

    Collopy, P.D., Hollingsworth, P.M.: Value-driven design. J. Aircr. 48(3), 749–759 (2011)

  26. 26.

    Huang, H., An, H., Wu, W., et al.: Multidisciplinary design modeling and optimization for satellite with maneuver capability. Struct. Multidisc. Optim. 50(5), 883–898 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-014-1087-x

  27. 27.

    Meng, D.B., Zhang, X.L., Yang, Y.J.: Interaction balance optimization in multidisciplinary design optimizations problems. Concurr. Eng. 24(1), 48–57 (2016)

  28. 28.

    Safavi, E., Tarkian, M., Gavel, H.: Collaborative multidisciplinary design optimization: a framework applied on aircraft conceptual system design. Concurr. Eng. 23(3), 236–249 (2015)

  29. 29.

    Jafarsalehi, A., Zadeh, P.M., Mirshams, M.: Collaborative optimization of remote sensing small satellite mission using genetic algorithms. Trans. Mech. Eng. 36(2), 117–128 (2012)

  30. 30.

    Wu, W., Huang, H., Chen, S., Wu, B.: Satellite multidisciplinary design optimization with a high-fidelity model. J. Spacecr. Rocket. 50(2), 463–466 (2013). https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A32309

  31. 31.

    Hwang, J.T., Lee, D.Y., Cutler, J.W., Martins, J.R.R.A.: Large-scale MDO of a small satellite using a novel framework for the solution of coupled systems and their derivatives. In: Proceedings of the 54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Boston, MA, April (2013). https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2013-1599

  32. 32.

    Kannan, H., Bloebaum, C.L., Mesmer, B.L.: Incorporation of coupling strength models in decomposition strategies for value-based MDO. In: AIAA Aviation 2014–15th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference

  33. 33.

    Pidgeon, D., Tsao, A.: Mass and power modeling of communication satellites, LORAL Technical Report No. SS/L-TR00821, December 1991

  34. 34.

    Pritchard, W.L.: Estimating the mass and power of communications satellites. Int. J. Satell. Commun. 2, 107–112 (1984)

  35. 35.

    Agrawal, B.N.: Design of Geosynchronous Spacecraft. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs (1986)

  36. 36.

    Fakoor, M., Taghinezhad, M.: Layout and configuration design for a satellite with variable mass using hybrid optimization method. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part G: J. Aerosp. Eng. 230(2), 360–377 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/0954410015591834

  37. 37.

    de Weck, O.L., Springmanny, P.N., Chang, D.D.: A parametric communications spacecraft model for conceptual design trade studies. In: 21st International Communications Satellite Systems Conference and Exhibit, AIAA-2003-2310

  38. 38.

    Springmann, P.N., de Weck, O.L.: Parametric scaling model for nongeosynchronous communications satellites. J. Spacecr. Rocket. 41(3), 472–477 (2004)

  39. 39.

    Hassan, R., de Weck, O., Springmann, P.: Architecting a communication satellite product line. In: 22nd AIAA International Communications Satellite Systems Conference and Exhibit, AIAA 2004-3150

  40. 40.

    Rauschenbach, H.S.: Solar Cell Array Design Handbook, pp. 320–350. Springer, Berlin (1976)

  41. 41.

    Raja Reddy, M.: Space solar cell-tradeoff analysis. Solar energy materials and solar cells, May 2003, pp. 175–208

  42. 42.

    Larson, W., Wertz, J.: Space mission analysis and design. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Amsterdam (1991)

  43. 43.

    Hughes, W.O., McNelis, M.E.: NASA TM-106688, NASA LeRC’s Acoustic Fill Effect Test Program and Results (1994)

  44. 44.

    Hughes, W.O., McNelis, A.M.: NASA TM-107474, Acoustic Testing of the Cassini Spacecraft and Titan IV Payload Fairing (1996)

  45. 45.

    Manning, J.E.: CC Report 91-6-12104-1, Analysis and Evaluation of Fill Factor (1991)

  46. 46.

    Lee, Y.A.: NASA contract Report 189280, Payload Fairing Fill Factor Prediction Methodology (1992)

  47. 47.

    Naoki, O., Qinzhong, S., Shigemasa, A.: Investigation of spacecraft vibration subjected to acoustic sound field of fill effect. In: 52nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Denver, Colorado, USA, 4–7 April (2011)

  48. 48.

    NASA, Payload Vibroacoustic Test Criteria, NASA-STD-7001A (2011)

  49. 49.

    Rashedi, E., Nezamabadi-pour, H., Saryazdi, S.: GSA: a gravitational search algorithm. Inf. Sci. 179(13), 2232–2248 (2009)

  50. 50.

    Berrezzoug, S., Bendimerad, F.T., Boudjemai, A.: Communication satellite link budget optimization using gravitational search algorithm. In: Control, Engineering and Information Technology (CEIT), May 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/ceit.2015.7233120

  51. 51.

    Khadanga, R.K., Satapathy, J.K.: Gravitational search algorithm for the static synchronous series compensator based damping controller design. In: Students’ Technology Symposium (TechSym), 2014 IEEE, pp. 356–361. ISBN: 978-1-4799-2607-7

  52. 52.

    Oukil, S., Boudjemai, A., Boughanmi, N.: L-shaped cantilever parallel–plate MEMS accelerometer design parameters using a gravitational search algorithm. Int. J. Smart Sens. Intell. Syst. 8(1)

Download references

Acknowledgements

Several individuals have contributed to the contents of the paper. Individual contributions from Pr. F.T. Bendimerad and Pr. M. Meriah are acknowledged. I would like to thank Dr. A. Boudjemai for the encouragement and review of this manuscript. The author is grateful to Laboratory of Telecommunications (LTT), Department of Telecommunications, Tlemcen University for its support and to the reviewers for their suggestions.

Author information

SB is the main author of the paper. AB supervised the entire research and provided valuable guidance to help with making crucial observations. He also directed the writing of this paper and its technical proofing.

Correspondence to Salima Berrezzoug.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Berrezzoug, S., Boudjemai, A. & Bendimerad, F.T. Interactive design and multidisciplinary optimization of geostationary communication satellite. Int J Interact Des Manuf 13, 1519–1540 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00590-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Multidisciplinary design optimization
  • Satellite
  • GSA algorithm
  • Discipline
  • Acoustics
  • Mass
  • Vibration
  • Interactive design
  • Subsystem
  • Virtual reality