Advertisement

Multi-objective layout optimization for an orbital propellant depot

  • 83 Accesses

Abstract

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.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 199

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

References

  1. Arney D, Wilhite A (2010) Orbital propellant depots enabling lunar architectures without heavy-lift launch vehicles. J Spacecr Rocket 47:353–360

  2. Chai PR, Wilhite AW (2014) Cryogenic thermal system analysis for orbital propellant depot. Acta Astronaut 102:35–46

  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 58:2635–2653

  4. Cuco APC, de Sousa FL, Neto AJS (2015) A multi-objective methodology for spacecraft equipment layouts. Optim Eng 16:165–181

  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 232:2432–2457

  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, Brasil

  7. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6:182–197

  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 230:360–377

  9. Fakoor M, Ghoreishi SMN, Sabaghzadeh H (2016) Spacecraft component adaptive layout environment (SCALE): an efficient optimization tool. Adv Space Res 58:1654–1670

  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 71:172–188

  11. Ferebee MJ, Allen CL (1991) Optimization of payload placement on arbitrary spacecraft. J Spacecr Rocket 28:612–614

  12. Ferebee MJ Jr, Powers RB (1987) Optimization of payload mass placement in a dual keel space station. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton

  13. Fortescue P, Swinerd G, Stark J (2011) Spacecraft systems engineering. Wiley, Hoboken

  14. Grignon PM, Fadel GM (2004) A GA based configuration design optimization method. J Mech Des 126:6–15

  15. Hengeveld DW, Braun JE, Groll EA, Williams AD (2011) Optimal placement of electronic components to minimize heat flux nonuniformities. J Spacecr Rocket 48:556–563

  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 22:101–111

  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 114:209–223

  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 6:431–446

  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, MT

  20. Morgan L (1965) Orbital tanker designs and operational modes for orbit launch programs. In: AIAA 2nd Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California

  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, Jerusalem

  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 11:1078–1093

  23. Qin Z, Liang YG (2017) Layout optimization of satellite cabin considering space debris impact risk. J Spacecr Rocket 54:1178–1182

  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 55:232–235

  25. Qin Z, Liang YG, Zhou JP (2018) An optimization tool for satellite equipment layout. Adv Space Res 61:223–234

  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 231:338–349

  27. Street D, Wilhite A (2006) A scalable orbital propellant depot design. Department of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta

  28. Sun Z-G, Teng H-F (2003) Optimal layout design of a satellite module. Eng Optim 35:513–529

  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 28:521–535

  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 14:438–455

  31. Wang Y-S, Teng H-F (2009) Knowledge fusion design method: satellite module layout. Chin J Aeronaut 22:32–42

  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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954410017704220

  33. Zhang B, Teng H-F, Shi Y-J (2008) Layout optimization of satellite module using soft computing techniques. Appl Soft Comput 8:507–521

  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 5:14468–14477

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Zhi-Zheng Xu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Responsible Editor: Helder C. Rodrigues

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(RAR 718 kb)

Appendices

Appendix 1. Mass properties calculation.

  1. 1.

    Moment of inertia

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}{I}_{x^{\prime }{x}^{\prime }}=\sum \limits_{i=0}^N\left({I}_{x^{{\prime\prime} },i}{\cos}^2{\upalpha}_i+{I}_{y^{{\prime\prime} },i}{\sin}^2{\upalpha}_i\right)\\ {}\kern1.6em +\sum \limits_{i=0}^N{m}_i\left({y}_i^2+{z}_i^2\right)-\left({y}_m^2+{z}_m^2\right)\sum \limits_{i=0}^N{m}_i\\ {}{I}_{y^{\prime }{y}^{\prime }}=\sum \limits_{i=0}^N\left({I}_{y^{{\prime\prime} },i}{\cos}^2{\upalpha}_i+{I}_{x^{{\prime\prime} },i}{\sin}^2{\upalpha}_i\right)\kern0.1em \\ {}\kern1.7em +\sum \limits_{i=0}^N{m}_i\left({x}_i^2+{z}_i^2\right)-\left({x}_m^2+{z}_m^2\right)\sum \limits_{i=0}^N{m}_i\\ {}{I}_{z^{\prime }{z}^{\prime }}=\sum \limits_{i=0}^N{I}_{z^{{\prime\prime} },i}+\sum \limits_{i=0}^N{m}_i\left({x}_i^2+{y}_i^2\right)\\ {}\kern1.6em -\left({x}_m^2+{y}_m^2\right)\sum \limits_{i=0}^N{m}_i\end{array}} $$
(17)

For cylinder component:

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}{I}_{x^{{\prime\prime} },i}={I}_{y^{{\prime\prime} },i}={m}_i\left(3{r}_i^2+{h}_i^2\right)/12\\ {}{I}_{z^{{\prime\prime} },i}={m}_i{r}_i^2/2\end{array}} $$
(18)

For cuboid component:

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}{I}_{x^{{\prime\prime} },i}={m}_i\left({b}_i^2+{h}_i^2\right)/12\\ {}{I}_{y^{{\prime\prime} },i}={m}_i\left({a}_i^2+{h}_i^2\right)/12\\ {}{I}_{z^{{\prime\prime} },i}={m}_i\left({b}_i^2+{a}_i^2\right)/12\end{array}} $$
(19)

For hemisphere component:

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}{I}_{x^{{\prime\prime} },i}={I}_{y^{{\prime\prime} },i}=83{m}_i{r}_i^2/320\\ {}{I}_{z^{{\prime\prime} },i}=2{m}_i{r}_i^2/5\end{array}} $$
(20)

For component i, (xi, yi, zi) is the center of mass; αi is the arrangement angle; ai, bi, and hi denote the length, width, and height, respectively. (xm, ym, zm) is the calculated center of mass for the whole orbital propellant depot. ri denotes the radius of a cylinder or sphere component.

  1. 2.

    Center of mass

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}{x}_m={\sum}_{i=0}^N{m}_i{x}_i/{\sum}_{i=0}^N{m}_i\\ {}{y}_m={\sum}_{i=0}^N{m}_i{y}_i/{\sum}_{i=0}^N{m}_i\\ {}{z}_m={\sum}_{i=0}^N{m}_i{z}_i/{\sum}_{i=0}^N{m}_i\end{array}} $$
(21)
  1. 3.

    Angle of inertia

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}{\theta}_{x^{\prime }}=\arctan \left(2{I}_{x^{\prime }{y}^{\prime }}/\left({I}_{x^{\prime }{x}^{\prime }}-{I}_{y^{\prime }{y}^{\prime }}\right)\right)/2\\ {}{\theta}_{y^{\prime }}=\arctan \left(2{I}_{x^{\prime }{z}^{\prime }}/\left({I}_{z^{\prime }{z}^{\prime }}-{I}_{x^{\prime }{x}^{\prime }}\right)\right)/2\\ {}{\theta}_{z^{\prime }}=\arctan \left(2{I}_{y^{\prime }{z}^{\prime }}/\left({I}_{z^{\prime }{z}^{\prime }}-{I}_{y^{\prime }{y}^{\prime }}\right)\right)/2\end{array}} $$
(22)
  1. 4.

    Product of inertia

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}{I}_{x^{\prime }{y}^{\prime }}(X)=\sum \left({m}_i{x}_i{y}_i+\right(\Big({J}_{x^{{\prime\prime} }i}+{m}_i\left({y}_i^2+{z}_i^2\right)\\ {}\kern3.799999em -{J}_{y^{{\prime\prime} }i}-{m}_i\left({x}_i^2+{z}_i^2\right)\left)/2\right)\sin 2{\alpha}_i\Big)\\ {}\kern3.799999em -{x}_m{y}_m\sum \limits_{i=0}^N{m}_i\\ {}{I}_{x^{\prime }{z}^{\prime }}(X)=\sum \limits_{i=0}^N{m}_i{x}_i{z}_i-{x}_m{z}_m\sum \limits_{i=0}^N{m}_i\\ {}{I}_{y^{\prime }{z}^{\prime }}(X)=\sum \limits_{i=0}^N{m}_i{y}_i{z}_i-{y}_m{z}_m\sum \limits_{i=0}^N{m}_i\end{array}} $$
(23)

Appendix 2.

Table 8 Component grouping table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, Z., Jiang, F., Zhong, C. et al. Multi-objective layout optimization for an orbital propellant depot. Struct Multidisc Optim 61, 207–223 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-019-02354-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Component assignment
  • Component layout
  • Multi-objective optimization
  • Orbital propellant depot