Accepted Manuscript

Thermal-structural analysis for flexible spacecraft with single or double solar panels: A
comparison study

Lun Liu, Shupeng Sun, Dengqing Cao, Xiyu Liu

PII: S0094-5765(18)30633-7
DOI: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.10.024
Reference: AA 7145

To appear in: Acta Astronautica

Received Date: 3 April 2018

Revised Date: 19 July 2018
Accepted Date: 13 October 2018

Please cite this article as: L. Liu, S. Sun, D. Cao, X. Liu, Thermal-structural analysis for flexible
spacecraft with single or double solar panels: A comparison study, Acta Astronautica (2018), doi: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.10.024.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Thermal-structural analysis for flexible spacecraft with single or
double solar panels: A comparison study
Lun Liua, *, Shupeng Sunb, Dengqing Caoc, Xiyu Liua
a
School of Management Science and Engineering, Shandong Normal University, Ji’nan 250014, People’s Republic of China
b
Institute of Overall Design, Hubei Aerospace Technology Academe, Wuhan 430000, People’s Republic of China
c
School of Astronautics, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, People’s Republic of China

Abstract
The thermal-structural analysis for a flexible spacecraft with double solar panels is carried out in this paper

PT
through a comparison study with spacecraft having a single panel. The solar panels are composed of honeycomb
panel and subjected to time-varying thermal loading. Taking into account the coupling effect among attitude motion,
structural deformation and thermal loading, the rigid-flexible-thermal coupling dynamic model of the spacecraft is

RI
established by using the Hamiltonian Principle. Based on the finite difference method, an explicit algorithm is
developed to solve the transient heat conduction problem of the solar panel. The coupled thermal-structural analysis
reveals significant differences between the dynamic characteristics of thermally induced vibration of spacecraft

SC
with single and double solar panels. The thermally induced dynamic response significantly affects the attitude of
spacecraft with a single solar panel, while it hardly affects the attitude of spacecraft with double solar panels. As the
maneuver attitude or the initial incident angle of heat flux increase, the thermally induced vibration of spacecraft

U
with a single solar panel changes from stable to unstable and thermal flutter occurs, while that of spacecraft with
double solar panels always keeps stable.
AN
Keywords Flexible spacecraft, rigid-flexible-thermal coupling, thermally induced vibration, double solar panels

1. Introduction
Large-span solar panels are widely used to provide sufficient power for modern spacecraft employed for
M

communications, remote sensing or other applications [1]. Those solar panels are extremely flexible and have
low-frequency vibration modes which interact with the spacecraft attitude motion. Many researches on dynamic
D

analysis and vibration control of flexible spacecraft have been carried out. Liu et al. [2] and Wei et al. [3] conducted
dynamic analysis for spacecraft with large solar panels. Hu et al. [4] proposed the strategy of attitude control and
TE

vibration suppression for flexible spacecraft. With experimental approach, Wu et al. [5] investigated the active
vibration control of flexible appendage of spacecraft (a flexible beam with piezoelectric pieces). Gasbarri et al. [6]
and Sabatini et al. [7] studied the flexibility issues and time delays of attitude control law (input shaping technique)
for spacecraft with flexible appendages. For an in-orbit spacecraft, its solar panels may be subjected to time-varying
EP

heat flux which leads to time-varying thermal loading. This is not considered in the researches above. Actually, the
time-varying thermal loading can induce structural responses of those large-span solar panels which include
quasi-static deformation and dynamic motion [8-10]. The thermally induced responses may lead to structural
C

damage of solar panels [11] and reduce the point accuracy of spacecraft attitude [8]. Therefore, it is of practical
importance to investigate the thermally induced responses of the in-orbit spacecraft with large-span solar panels.
AC

Boley [12] first carried out the analytical analysis of thermally induced vibration for a beam subjected to a rapid
heating by considering the inertial effects on the structural responses. After that, some analytical and numerical
researches have been conducted for beams [13, 14], solar panels [15, 16] and spacecraft [9, 17] which are subjected
to rapidly changing thermal environment when the spacecraft exits from or enters into eclipse. Yu [18], Graham [19]
and Zhang et al. [20] studied the thermally induced vibration of a flexible boom and given the stability criterion of
thermal flutter (unstable thermally induced vibration). Thornton and Kim [8] proposed an analytical approach to
solve the heat conduction equation of a flexible boom and then investigated the thermally induced responses of
flexible solar arrays installed on the Hub space telescope. Xue and Ding developed two kinds of thin-walled tube

*
Corresponding author. E-mail: lliu@sdnu.edu.cn (Lun Liu), shpsun@163.com (Shupeng Sun), dqcao@hit.edu.cn (Dengqing Cao),
xyliu@sdnu.edu.cn (Xiyu Liu).

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
elements [21] and applied them to study the thermally induced vibration [22] and thermal flutter [23] of large scale
space structures such as the solar arrays of the Hubble space telescope. Shen et al. [14] derived the coupled
thermal-structural dynamic equations of a thin-walled tubular beam and analyzed the thermally induced vibration of
the beam with large rotation. Li and Yan developed a thermal analysis model of a solar panel subjected to space
heat flux [24] and investigated its thermally induced vibration [15] in multi-orbital-period.
For an in-orbit spacecraft with flexible appendages such as solar panels, the elastic deformation of flexible
structures is coupled with the rigid-body rotation (attitude motion) of the spacecraft. Considering this rigid-flexible
coupling effect, Johnston and Thornton [9, 17] investigated the influence of thermally induced responses of flexible
appendages (the thin-walled boom with tip mass and the solar panels) on the spacecraft attitude motion. Sun et al.

PT
[25] studied the effects of rigid-flexible coupling nonlinear terms on the thermally induced vibration of a flexible
spacecraft with large solar panels. Shen et al. analyzed the thermally induced vibration of the spacecraft consisting
of rigid hub and single solar panel [10] and the spacecraft with a flexible deploying boom [26]. Azadi et al. [27]

RI
studied a satellite with two flexible panels attached piezoelectric actuators and investigated the effects of voltages
and locations of piezoelectric actuators on the thermally induced dynamic responses of the system. Considering the
effect of attitude motion and structural deformation on the thermal loading, Zuo and Liu [28] derived a

SC
rigid-flexible-thermal coupling dynamic model for a satellite with a pair of solar panels having small inertia
property, and studied the effects of different heat flux and system parameters on the thermally induced vibration.
For an attitude maneuvering flexible spacecraft, time-varying thermal loading also occurs and it causes

U
structural responses of flexible spacecraft [29, 30]. Liu and Pan [29] proposed a rigid-flexible-thermal coupling
dynamic model of spacecraft with a single solar panel and calculated the thermal-structural responses of an attitude
AN
maneuvering spacecraft with different damping coefficients, and the thermal flutter was observed. The authors [30]
studied the interaction between the thermally induced vibration and attitude maneuver for an attitude maneuvering
spacecraft under solar radiation, and a conclusion is made that the thermal flutter may occur if the spacecraft with
M

small damping maneuvers in a large attitude angle. It should be noted that all the spacecraft models in the above
researches have only one solar panel except those in Refs.[27, 28]. However, Ref.[28] did not analyze the thermally
induced vibration caused by attitude maneuvering, and the thermal loading in the simulations of Ref.[27], i.e., the
D

so-called temperature rise of solar panel, is directly given so it is not time-varying.

In this paper, the thermal-structural analysis for flexible spacecraft with double large-span solar panels is carried
TE

out by a comparison study with spacecraft having a single panel. The solar panels are composed of honeycomb
panel and subjected to time-varying thermal loading. Using the Hamiltonian Principle, the rigid-flexible-thermal
coupling dynamic model of the spacecraft is established firstly by taking into account the coupling effect among
EP

attitude motion, structural deformation and thermal loading. Then, based on the finite difference method, an explicit
algorithm is developed to solve the transient heat conduction problem of the solar panel. Finally, the
thermal-structural analysis is performed by interactively solving the system’s dynamic equations and the transient
C

heat conduction equations, and the comparison study is carried out to investigate the dynamic characteristics of
thermally induced responses of spacecraft with single and double solar panels.
AC

2. Theoretical formulation
2.1 Model and coordinate systems
The flexible spacecraft considered in this research and its coordinate systems are shown in Figs.1 (a) and (b),
respectively. It is subjected to solar radiation S0 with initial incident angle θ0 and has a pair of solar panels with
length L and width b. The two panels are symmetrically attached on the cubic rigid hub with half side length r0 and
moment of inertia 2JH about axis z. The two tip masses with mass mt on the panels represent components tuning
spacecraft frequencies or other concentrated masses such as spreader bars [4, 8]. 2τ is the time-independent control
torque imposed on the hub. To describe the rigid-body motion of the spacecraft and the elastic deformations of
flexible solar panels, four orthogonal coordinate systems are defined as shown in Fig.1 (b):
(1) o-x0z0, is an inertial frame (global coordinate system).

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
(2) o-xz, is fixed on the geometric center o of the rigid hub and rotates with the spacecraft. The attitude angle θr
is used to measures attitude motion of the spacecraft from o-x0z0 to o-xz.
(3) o-X1Z1, is a local coordinate system used to denote the deformation of the right solar panel (Panel 1), which
is parallel with o-xz. u1(x, t) and w1(x, t) are displacements of an arbitrary point in the X1 and Z1 directions,
respectively.
(4) o-X2Z2, and u2(x, t), w2(x, t) are the local coordinate system and displacements for the left solar panel (Panel
2), respectively.

PT
RI
SC
Fig.1. Model of spacecraft with double solar panels under solar radiation: (a) sketch of spacecraft, (b) coordinate
systems and deformations of solar panels
According to Fig.1, the transformation matrices from o-X1Z1 to o-x0z0 and that from o-X2Z2 to o-x0z0, can be

U
derived as follows
 cos θ r − sin θ r   − cos θ r sin θ r 
A1 =  , A2 =  . (1)
AN
 sin θ r cos θ r   − sin θ r − cos θ r 
M
D

Fig.2 Solar panel cross-section geometry and schematic of honeycomb core

The solar panel consists of a back board made from honeycomb sandwich panel, on which solar cells are
TE

installed and covered by glass fiber sheets, as illustrated in Fig.2. In this research, only the honeycomb panel is
considered since it is the main structure of the solar panel [9, 10, 17]. The honeycomb panel with height 2h is
composed of honeycomb core with height 2hc and face sheet with height hf which are represented by the subscripts
EP

c and f in this paper. They are both made of aluminum with elastic modulus E0, and mass density ρ0. The face
sheet’s elastic modulus Ef and density ρf are equal to E0 and ρ0. The cell of honeycomb core shown in Fig.2 is a
regular hexagon. lc and δc are the length and thickness of honeycomb wall. The equivalent material properties of
honeycomb core, i.e. elastic modulus Ec and equivalent density ρc, can be calculated by using Gibson’s cellular
C

material theory [31]:

AC

4  δc    δc  
3 2
2 δc
Ec =   1 − 3    E0 , ρ c = ρ0 . (2)
3  lc   l
 c    3 lc

Then the honeycomb panel can be considered as a three-layer laminate structure, as shown in Fig.3. The 1st and 3rd
layers are face sheets. The 2nd layer is honeycomb core.
2.2 Rigid-flexible-thermal coupling dynamic model
As shown in Fig.1, the position vector of an arbitrary point of Panel 1 and Panel 2 in o-x0z0 can be respectively
written as
r1 = A1rp1 , r2 = A 2rp 2 , (3)
where rp1 and rp2 are position vectors in o-X1Z1 and o-X2Z2, and are given by
rp1 = [ x + r0 + u1 , w1 ] , rp 2 = [ x + r0 + u2 , w2 ] ,
T T
(4)

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
where u1 = − z∂w1 / ∂x , u2 = − z∂w2 / ∂x , and 0 ≤ x ≤ L . Then, the corresponding velocity vectors in o-x0z0 can be
expressed as
v1 = r&1 = A
& r + A r& ,
1 p1 1 p1 v 2 = r&2 = A
& r + A r& .
2 p2 2 p2 (5)
The kinetic energy of the flexible spacecraft is given as following
1 1 1 1 L 3  1 L 3 
× 2 J H θ&r 2 + mt v1 ( L) ⋅ v1 ( L) + mt v 2 ( L) v 2 ( L) + ∫  ∑ bρ i ∫ v1 ⋅ v1dz  dx + ∫  ∑ bρ i ∫ v 2 ⋅ v 2 dz  dx ,
zi +1 zi +1
T= (6)
2 2 2 2  i =1
0 zi
 2  i =1
0 zi

where ρi is the density of each layer of honeycomb panel. zi is the coordinate in the thickness direction of each layer.
According to Figs.2 and 3, z1=－h, z2=－hc, z3=hc, z4=h.

PT
Considering the thermal strain, the strain-displacement relationships of the ith layer of the right and left solar
panels are expressed as
ε1i = ∂u1 / ∂x − α cte
i
[T1i ( x, z, t ) − Tref ] , ε 2i = ∂u2 / ∂x − αctei [T2i ( x, z, t ) − Tref ] , i = 1, 2, 3 . (7)

RI
where α i
cte is the coefficient of thermal expansion of the ith layer. T1i and T2i represent the temperature of an
arbitrary point of Panel 1 and Panel 2, respectively. Tref is the reference temperature. The two solar panels’

SC
stress-strain relationships are given by
σ 1i = Eiε1i , σ 2i = Eiε 2 i , (8)
where Ei is the elastic modulus of the ith layer. Then the total strain energy of the spacecraft is expressed as

U
1 L 3 zi +1  1 L 3 zi +1 
U= ∫  ∑ b ∫ σ 1i ε1i dz  dx + ∫  ∑ b ∫ σ 2iε 2i dz  dx .
2 0  i =1 zi  2 0
 i =1 zi

(9)
AN
The solar panels’ displacements w1 and w2 can be discretized by modal approach, i.e.,
w j ( x, t ) = φ j ( x )q j (t ), j = 1, 2 . (10)
To obtain a finite dimensional dynamic model, the expression (10) must be truncated at a generic number Nt.
M

Therefore, φj(x) is a 1×Nt row vector and qj(t) is a Nt×1 column vector. Their expressions are given by
T
φ j ( x ) = ϕ1 ( x ), ϕ 2 ( x ), L , ϕ Nt ( x )  , q j (t ) =  p1 (t ), p2 (t ), L , pNt (t )  . (11)
D

The mode functions of cantilever beam with tip mass given by expression (12) are selected as the elements of φj.
ϕ n ( x ) = cosh β n x − cos β n x + γ n (sinh β n x − sin β n x )
, (12)
γ n = − ( cosh β n L + cos β n L ) / ( sinh β n L + sin β n L ) , n = 1, 2,L N t
TE

where βn can be solved from the frequency equation (13) of cantilever beam with tip mass
cos β n L cosh β n L + 1 = β n L ( sin β n L cosh β n L − cos β n L sinh β n L ) mt / ρ f L . (13)
EP

The virtual work done by the external control torque 2τ is written as

δW = 2τ δθ r . (14)
Substituting expression (10) and other relative terms into Eqs.(6) and (9), and then using the Hamiltonian
C

Principle, which is expressed as

∫ δ (T − U ) dt + ∫
t2 t2
δW dt = 0 ,
AC

(15)
t1 t1

the discrete rigid-flexible-thermal coupling dynamic equations can be obtained as following

 J + q1T M1q1 + q T2 M 2 q 2 U1 U 2  θ&&r   0 0 0  θ&r   0 0 0  θr 
          q 
 U1 T
M1 0   q &&1  + 0 C1 0  q& 1  + 0 K 1 − θ r M1
& 2
0
    1
 U T
0 M   &&
q  
 0 0 C   &
q
2 2
 
 0 0 K − θ& M  q 
2
2 2
 2 2 2 2 r
. (16)
 2τ − 2θ&r q& 1T M1q1 − 2θ&r q& T2 M 2 q 2 
 
= −FMT 1 (t ) 
 
 − FMT 2 ( t ) 
The number of degree of freedom (DOF) for Eq.(16) is 1+2Nt. The symbols in Eq.(16) are given in the Appendix.
2.3 Thermal analysis for right and left solar panels

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig.3 Thermal analysis model: (a) heat flux for Panel 1, (b) thermal model for solar panels

PT
Fig.3 shows the thermal analysis model for the right and left solar panels. According to the geometric relations
revealed in Fig.3 (a), the absorbed heat varying with x along Panel 1 can be expressed as
S1 = S0 cos θ S 1 , θ S 1 = θ 0 + θ r − θ z1

RI
(17)
where θ0 is the initial incident angle of heat flux vector S0 at time t=0. θz1= −∂w1 / ∂x is the cross-section rotation
due to panel bending. For Panel 2, the S has the same expression as Eq.(17).

SC
The heat conduction equation of each layer of Panel 1 is written as
ρi ci ∂T1i ( x, z , t ) / ∂t − ki ∂ 2T1i ( x, z , t ) / ∂z 2 = 0, i = 1, 2, 3 , (18)
where ci and ki are each layer’s specific heat and thermal conductivity, respectively. The initial condition for this

U
partial differential equation is
T1i ( x, z, 0) = T0 , 0 ≤ x ≤ L, − h ≤ z ≤ h .
AN
(19)
The boundary conditions relevant to heat radiation at the hot (z=h) and cold (z=－h) surfaces are given as following
k3∂T13 ( x, z , t ) / ∂z = α S S1 − ζ hotσ T T134 ( x, z, t ) − Tmed
4
 , z = h
, (20)
M

k1∂T11 ( x, z , t ) / ∂z = ζ coldσ T T114 ( x, z , t ) − Tme4 d  , z = −h

where αS is the absorptivity of the hot surface. ζhot and ζcold are emissivity of the hot and cold surfaces. σT is the
Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Tmed is the space medium temperature. The connection conditions at the interfaces
D

between the first and second layers (z=－hc) as well as the second and third layers (z=hc) are written as
T ( x, z, t ) = T12 ( x, z, t ) T12 ( x, z , t ) = T13 ( x, z, t )
TE

z = −hc ,  11 ; z = hc  . (21)
 k1∂T11 ( x, z, t ) / ∂z = k2∂T12 ( x, z , t ) / ∂z  k2 ∂T12 ( x, z , t ) / ∂z = k3∂T13 ( x, z , t ) / ∂z
Using the finite difference method (FDM) [30], the face sheet and honeycomb core are divided into nf and nc
EP

elements through their thickness, and the transient heat conduction problem of Panel 1 shown in Eqs.(18)-(21) can
be numerically solved by using the following forms
ki ∆ t
T jnt +1 = T jnt + (T nt + T nt − 2T jnt ) ,
ρ i ci ( ∆z )2 j +1 j −1
(22)
C

2 ∆z
ζ coldσ T ( T1nt −1 ) − Tmed
4 4  4 1
T1nt = − + T2nt − T3nt
AC

3 k1  
 3 3

{ }
, (23)
2 ∆z
(
α S S1nt − ζ hotσ T  T2nnt f−+1 nc +1 ) 4  4 1
4
T2nnt f + nc +1 = − Tmed + T2nnt + n − T2nnt + n −1
3 k3   3 f c 3 f c

Tnnft +1 =
( ) (
k1 4Tnnft − Tnnft −1 + k2 4Tnnft + 2 − Tnnft + 3 ), T nt
=
( ) (
k2 4Tnnft + nc − Tnnft + nc −1 + k3 4Tnnft + nc + 2 − Tnnft + nc + 3 ), (24)
3 ( k1 + k 2 ) 3 ( k 2 + k3 )
n f + nc +1

where ∆t and ∆z are time step and element thickness, respectively. T jn is the temperature of the jth node at time t

t=(nt－1)∆t. The value of j in expression (22) is determined by the rules: i=1, the 1st layer (face sheet), 2≤j≤nf ; i=2,
the 2nd layer (honeycomb core), nf +2≤j≤nf +nc; i=3, the 3rd layer (face sheet), nf +nc+2≤j≤2nf +nc.
Similarly, the transient heat conduction problem of Panel 2 can be expressed as
ρi ci ∂T2i ( x, z, t ) / ∂t − ki ∂ 2T2 i ( x, z, t ) / ∂z 2 = 0, i = 1, 2, 3 , (25)

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
T2i ( x, z,0) = T0 , 0 ≤ x ≤ L, − h ≤ z ≤ h , (26)
k1∂T21 ( x, z , t ) / ∂z = ζ hotσ T T214 ( x, z , t ) − Tmed
4
 − α S S2 , z = −h
, (27)
k3∂T23 ( x, z, t ) / ∂z = −ζ coldσ T T234 ( x, z , t ) − Tmed
4
 , z=h

T ( x, z , t ) = T22 ( x, z , t ) T22 ( x, z , t ) = T23 ( x, z, t )

z = −hc ,  21 , z = hc ,  . (28)
 k1∂T21 ( x, z , t ) / ∂z = k2 ∂T22 ( x, z , t ) / ∂z k 2∂T22 ( x, z, t ) / ∂z = k3∂T23 ( x, z , t ) / ∂z
The finite difference forms for Eqs.(25)-(28) are written as
ki ∆ t
2 ( j +1
T jnt +1 = T jnt + T nt + T jn−t 1 − 2T jnt ) , (29)

PT
ρ i ci ( ∆z )

T1nt = −
2 ∆z
3 k1 {
ζ hotσ T  (T1nt −1 ) − Tmed

4 4 


4 1
− α S S2 nt + T2nt − T3nt
3 3 }
{ }
, (30)

RI
2 ∆z
(
−ζ coldσ T  T2nnt f−+1 nc +1 ) 4  4 1
4
T2nnt f + nc +1 = − Tmed + T nt − T nt
3 k3   3 2 n f + nc 3 2 n f + nc −1

( ) (
k1 4Tnnft − Tnnft −1 + k2 4Tnnft + 2 − Tnnft + 3 ), T ( ) (
k2 4Tnnft + nc − Tnnft + nc −1 + k3 4Tnnft + nc + 2 − Tnnft + nc + 3 ).

SC
T nt
= nt
= (31)
3 ( k1 + k 2 ) 3 ( k 2 + k3 )
n f +1 n f + nc +1

In order to ensure the stability of the algorithm shown in Eqs.(22)-(24) and Eqs.(29)-(31), the following criteria

U
should be satisfied
ki ∆ t 1
≤ , i = 1, 2,3 . (32)
AN
ρ i ci ( ∆z ) 2
2

3. Numerical results and discussions

The geometric and material parameters of the flexible spacecraft studied in this paper are given in Table 1. The
M

heat transfer properties of solar panels are listed in Table 2. The solar radiation and its initial incident angle are
S0=1350 W m−2 and θ0=0. The reference temperature Tref, the space medium temperature Tmed and the initial
D

temperature T0 are assumed to be 290K, 4 K and 290 K, respectively.

Table 1 Geometric and material parameters of the flexible spacecraft
TE

Components Parameters Values

Length L(m) 8.0
Width b(m) 2.0
EP

Height of honeycomb core 2hc (m) 0.0254

Height of face sheet hf (m) 0.254×10−3
Solar panel Length of honeycomb lc (m) 1.833×10−3
C

Thickness of honeycomb δc (m) 0.0254×10−3

Elastic modulus of aluminum E0 (Pa) 6.89×1010
AC

Mass density of aluminum ρ0 (kg m-3) 2.8×103

Proportional damping constants κM, κK 4.5×10−4, 1.0×10−5

Size of the hub r0 (m) 1.0

The hub and tip mass Inertial moment of the hub 2JH (kg m2) 200.0
Mass of the tip mass mt (kg) 0.3

In this paper, the explicit FDM schemes, expressions (22)-(24) and (29)-(31), are used to solve the transient
heat conduction problem of the solar panels. The validity of this algorithm has been demonstrated in the authors
previous research [30]. In order to perform the thermal-structural analysis of flexible spacecraft with single or
double solar panels, the system’s governing equation (16), which is rigid-flexible-thermal coupling, and the

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
transient heat conduction problem, expressions (22)-(24) and (29)-(31), should be interactively solved. Here, a
partitioned approach is adopted which is widely used in the coupled thermal-structural analysis of flexible
structures [30, 32, 33]. The details of this method has been displayed and its validity has been confirmed in those
three researches.
Table 2 Heat transfer properties of solar panel
Property Face sheet Honeycomb core
−1 −5
Thermal expansion coefficient αcte (K ) 2.32×10 2.38×10−5
Thermal conductivity k (W m−1 K−1) 168 1.2

PT
−1 −1
Specific heat c (J kg K ) 960 920
Absorptivity of upper face sheet αS 0.79 －
Emissivity ζup, ζlow 0.81, 0.86

RI
－

For convenience, the spacecraft with double solar panels is denoted as S-2. As illustrated in Fig.4 (a), the
structure of S-2 is symmetrical about z-axis. Taking the right half part of S-2, a spacecraft model with a single solar

SC
panel is obtained which is denoted as S-1. The control torque and the moment of inertia of rigid hub for S-1 model
are the half of model S-2, i.e., τ and JH. The dynamic model of S-1 can be obtained from that of S-2 (equation (16))
by deleting the terms related to Panel 2 of S-2 model, then the DOFs of S-1’s dynamic model is 1+Nt. In the

U
following simulation process, the first four modes are used, i.e., Nt=4. ∆z=hf /3 and ∆t is calculated using Eq.(32).
AN
M

Fig.4 Spacecraft with single solar panel and double solar panels: (a) S-2 model, (b) S-1 model
D

3.1 Maneuvering spacecraft without or with solar radiation

TE

In the aerospace applications, the on-off jet thrusters are widely used to generate control torque τ (t) which is
pulse form. The expression of τ (t) is given by Eq.(33). Fig.5 shows its time history. With this control torque, the
spacecraft can accomplish a rest-to-rest maneuver with a desired attitude θd in a certain time range.
τ 0 (1 − cos 0.8π t )
EP

0 ≤ t ≤ 2.5 s

0 2.5 s < t < 57.5 s
τ (t ) =  . (33)
 −τ 0 (1 − cos 0.8π t ) 57.5 s ≤ t ≤ 60 s

C

0 t > 60 s
AC

Fig.5 Time history of control torque τ (t)

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
Fig.6 Spacecraft attitude of S-1 and S-2 models (no solar radiation, S0=0)

U SC
AN
M

Fig.7 Solar panel tip deflection of S-1 and S-2 models: (a) θd=15°, (b) θd=60° (no solar radiation, S0=0)
D

In the case of no solar radiation (S0=0), the desired attitudes θd of S-1 and S-2 are both 15° when τ0=2.49 N m,
TE

and the attitude curves of those two models are entirely similar, as displayed in Fig.6. When τ0=9.95 N m, θd=60°
for S-1 and S-2, and their attitude motions are also the same. The curves denoted as S-2-P1 and S-2-P2 in Fig.7
represent the tip deflections of Panel 1 and Panel 2 of S-2, and they are antisymmetric. Moreover, the deformation
EP

curve of S-1’s solar panel is exact the same as S-2-P1. That means the dynamic response of S-2 can be predicted by
the dynamic model of S-1 in the case of no solar radiation, i.e., S-2 can be simplified as S-1, as shown in Fig.4.
Because the S-1’s DOF number 1+Nt is Nt less than that of S-2, 1+2Nt, this simplification is widely used in the
C

design of low dimensional controller for the spacecraft with double solar panels in the case of no solar radiation [4,
AC

34-37].
In the case of S0=1350 W m−2, the simulation results for τ0=2.49 N m and τ0=9.95 N m are shown in Figs.8-10
and Figs.11-13, respectively. The final attitude after maneuver of S-1 model displayed in Fig.8 is larger than the
desired attitude θd=15° because of the obvious quasi-static displacement of S-1’s single solar panel shown in Fig.9.
However, S-2 model’s final attitude illustrated in Fig.8 is very close to the desired attitude θd=15° since the
deflections of S-2’s two solar panels (S-2-P1 and S-2-P2) displayed in Fig.10 are opposite. Analyzing Figs.11-13,
similar conclusions can be extracted. For the S-1 model, the thermally induced vibration shown in Fig.9 is stable
and decays gradually due to damping when θd=15° (small maneuver attitude), while it is unstable and thermal
flutter occurs when θd=60° (large maneuver attitude) as shown in Fig.12. This conclusion is similar with that
obtained by Liu and Pan [29]. For the S-2 model, the thermally induced vibrations for small and large maneuver
attitudes displayed in Fig.10 and Fig.13 are both stable and no thermal flutter happens.

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
Fig.8 Spacecraft attitude of S-1 and S-2 models under Fig.9 Solar panel tip deflection of S-1 model under
solar radiation (τ0=2.49 N m, θd=15 )
°
solar radiation (τ0=2.49 N m, θd=15°)

U SC
AN
M
D

Fig.10 Solar panel tip deflection of S-2 mode under solar radiation (τ0=2.49 N m, θd=15°): (a) S-2-P1, (b) S-2-P2
TE
C EP
AC

Fig.11 Spacecraft attitude of S-1 and S-2 models under Fig.12 Solar panel tip deflection of S-1 model under
solar radiation (τ0=9.95 N m, θd=60°) solar radiation (τ0=9.95 N m, θd=60°)

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
Fig.13 Solar panel tip deflection of S-2 model under solar radiation (τ0=9.95 N m, θd=60°): (a) S-2-P1, (b) S-2-P2

RI
The significant differences between the dynamic characteristics of S-1 and S-2 may be explained by Fig.14. The
time-varying thermal moment MT1(x, t) excites the thermally induced dynamic response of the single solar panel of

SC
S-1 model. As illustrated in Fig.14 (a), this response definitely affects the attitude of S-1 model because the total
angular momentum of the system is conserved. For the S-2 model, the thermally induced responses of its two solar
panels are both excited by the thermal moment, MT1(x, t) and MT2(x, t), as shown in Fig.14 (b). Since the

U
deformations of the two panels are opposite and the differences between their absolute values are very small, the
thermally induced responses have almost no effect on the spacecraft attitude. Based on the analysis above, the
AN
spacecraft with double solar panels (S-2 model) cannot be simplified as spacecraft with a single solar panel (S-1
model) if one carries out the thermal-structural analysis or designs vibration controller for an attitude maneuvering
spacecraft under solar radiation.
M
D
TE

Fig.14 Sketch of motion for maneuvering spacecraft under solar radiation: (a) S-1 model, (b) S-2 model
3.2 Spacecraft subjected to sudden heat flux
EP

To simulate the night-day transition of spacecraft, the sudden heat flux is used in this section, i.e., S0=0 for time
t=0 and S0=1350 W m−2 for time t > 0. The thermally induced vibrations of S-1 and S-2 models are comparatively
studied for the cases with different θ0 (the initial incident angle of the sudden heat flux).
C
AC

Fig.15 Spacecraft attitude of S-1 and S-2 models Fig.16 Solar panel tip deflection of S-1 model subjected
subjected to sudden heat flux (θ0=0) to sudden heat flux (θ0=0)

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
Fig.17 Solar panel tip deflection of S-2 model subjected to sudden heat flux (θ0=0): (a) S-2-P1, (b) S-2-P2

The spacecraft attitude and solar panel tip deflection for the case θ0=0 are shown in Figs.15-17. The quasi-static

SC
displacement of S-1’s solar panel leads significant pointing error of spacecraft attitude, and the thermally induced
vibration of solar panel causes attitude jittering. For the S-2 model, the thermal deformations of its two solar panels
are antisymmetric, so the attitude of S-2 is not affected by solar panels’ thermally induced responses. Moreover,

U
both of the thermally induced vibrations of S-1 and S-2 are stable.
AN
M
D
TE
EP

Fig.18 Spacecraft attitude of S-1 and S-2 models Fig.19 Solar panel tip deflection of S-1 model subjected
subjected to sudden heat flux (θ0=30°) to sudden heat flux (θ0=30°)
C
AC

Fig.20 Solar panel tip deflection of S-2 model subjected to sudden heat flux (θ0=30°): (a) S-2-P1, (b) S-2-P2

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The simulation results for the cases θ0=30° and θ0=60° are displayed in Figs.18-20 and Figs.21-23, respectively.
As θ0 increases, the thermally induced vibration of S-1’s solar panel and its attitude gradually change from stable to
unstable and thermal flutter occurs. This conclusion is also obtained by previous research [10]. However, the
vibration of S-2 model is always stable, which is very different from the characteristics of S-1’s thermally induced
vibration. Moreover, though the differences between the thermal deformations of S-2’s two solar panels grow with
the increase of θ0, their quasi-static displacements are almost the same. As a result, the effect of the thermally
induced responses on the attitude of S-2 model always keeps small.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
Fig.21 Spacecraft attitude of S-1 and S-2 models Fig.22 Solar panel tip deflection of S-1 model subjected
subjected to sudden heat flux (θ0=60°) to sudden heat flux (θ0=60°)
M
D
TE
C EP

Fig.23 Solar panel tip deflection of S-2 model subjected to sudden heat flux (θ0=60°): (a) S-2-P1, (b) S-2-P2
AC

4. Conclusions
The thermal-structural analysis for flexible spacecraft with double solar panels is carried out through a
comparison study with spacecraft having a single panel. Taking into account the coupling effect among attitude
motion, structural deformation and thermal loading, the rigid-flexible-thermal coupling dynamic model of a
spacecraft with double large-span solar panels (S-2 model) has been established by using the Hamiltonian Principle.
Simplifying this dynamic model, the corresponding model of spacecraft with a single solar panel (S-1 model) is
obtained which is used in the following comparison study. An explicit algorithm based on FDM is also developed
to solve the transient heat conduction problem of solar panels. Numerical results and discussions reveal that the
dynamic characteristics of thermally induced vibration of the spacecraft with double solar panels are very different
from those of spacecraft with a single solar panel which is considered in lots of previous literature. Some main
conclusions are summarized as following:

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
(1) In the case of no solar radiation, the S-2 model with large DOF number (1+2Nt) can be simplified as S-1
model with small DOF number (1+ Nt). The simplified model S-1 can be used to predict the dynamic response and
to design low dimensional controller for the original model S-2.
(2) For the spacecraft subjected to heat flux, the thermally induced dynamic response significantly affects the
attitude of spacecraft with a single solar panel (S-1 model), while the attitude of spacecraft with double solar panels
(S-2 model) is hardly affected by the thermally induced dynamic response.
(3) As the maneuver attitude θd or the initial incident angle of heat flux θ0 increase, the thermally induced
vibration of spacecraft with a single solar panel changes from stable to unstable and thermal flutter occurs, while
that of spacecraft with double solar panels always keeps stable.

PT
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11472089), China

RI
Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No. 2017M622260) and Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation,
China (Grant No. ZR2018BA018).

SC
References
[1] C.L. Foster, M.L. Tinker, G.S. Nurre, W.A. Till, Solar-array-induced disturbance of the Hubble Space
Telescope pointing system, J. Spacecraft Rockets 32 (1995) 634-644.

U
[2] L. Liu, D. Cao, Dynamic modeling for a flexible spacecraft with solar arrays composed of honeycomb panels
and its proportional-derivative control with input shaper, ASME J. Dyn. Syst., Meas., Control 138 (2016)
AN
081008.
[3] J. Wei, D. Cao, L. Wang, H. Huang, W. Huang, Dynamic modeling and simulation for flexible spacecraft with
flexible jointed solar panels, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 130 (2017) 558-570.
M

[4] Q. Hu, P. Shi, H. Gao, Adaptive variable structure and commanding shaped vibration control of flexible
spacecraft, J. Guid. Control Dyn. 30 (2007) 804-815.
[5] D. Wu, L. Huang, B. Pan, Y. Wang, S. Wu, Experimental study and numerical simulation of active vibration
D

control of a highly flexible beam using piezoelectric intelligent material, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 37 (2014)
10-19.
TE

[6] P. Gasbarri, M. Sabatini, N. Leonangeli, G.B. Palmerini, Flexibility issues in discrete on-off actuated
spacecraft: Numerical and experimental tests, Acta Astronaut. 101 (2014) 81-97.
[7] M. Sabatini, P. Gasbarri, G.B. Palmerini, Delay compensation for controlling flexible space multibodies:
EP

Dynamic modeling and experiments, Control Eng. Pract. 45 (2015) 147-162.

[8] E.A. Thornton, Y.A. Kim, Thermally induced bending vibrations of a flexible rolled-up solar array, J.
Spacecraft Rockets 30 (1993) 438-448.
C

[9] J.D. Johnston, E.A. Thornton, Thermally induced attitude dynamics of a spacecraft with a flexible appendage,
AC

J. Guid. Control Dyn. 21 (1998) 581-587.

[10] Z. Shen, G. Hu, Thermally induced vibrations of solar panel and their coupling with satellite, Int. J. Appl.
Mech. 5 (2013) 1350031.
[11] E.A. Thornton, Thermal structures for aerospace applications, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 1996.
[12] B.A. Boley, Thermally induced vibrations of beams, Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences 23 (1956) 179-181.
[13] S. Ohseop, Y. Ilsoung, L. Liviu, Thermally induced bending vibration of composite spacecraft booms
subjected to solar heating, J. Therm. Stresses 26 (2003) 829-843.
[14] Z. Shen, Q. Tian, X. Liu, G. Hu, Thermally induced vibrations of flexible beams using Absolute Nodal
Coordinate Formulation, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 29 (2013) 386-393.
[15] J. Li, S. Yan, Thermally induced vibration of composite solar array with honeycomb panels in low earth orbit,

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Appl. Therm. Eng. 71 (2014) 419-432.
[16] J. Duan, Z. Xiang, M. Xue, Thermal-dynamic coupling analysis of large space structures considering
geometric nonlinearity, Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 8 (2008) 569-596.
[17] J.D. Johnston, E.A. Thornton, Thermally induced dynamics of satellite solar panels, J. Spacecraft Rockets 37
(2000) 604-613.
[18] Y.Y. Yu, Thermally induced vibration and flutter of a flexible boom, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 6
(1969) 902-910.
[19] J.D. Graham, Solar induced bending vibrations of a flexible member, AIAA J. 8 (1970) 2031-2036.

PT
[20] J. Zhang, Z. Xiang, Y. Liu, M. Xue, Stability of thermally induced vibration of a beam subjected to solar
heating, AIAA J. 52 (2014) 660-665.
[21] M. Xue, Y. Ding, Two kinds of tube elements for transient thermal-structural analysis of large space structures,

RI
Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 59 (2004) 1335-1353.
[22] M.D. Xue, J. Duan, Z.H. Xiang, Thermally-induced bending-torsion coupling vibration of large scale space
structures, Comput. Mech. 40 (2007) 707-723.

SC
[23] W. Li, Z. Xiang, L. Chen, M. Xue, Thermal flutter analysis of large‐scale space structures based on finite
element method, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 69 (2007) 887-907.
[24] J. Li, S. Yan, R. Cai, Thermal analysis of composite solar array subjected to space heat flux, Aerosp. Sci.

U
Technol. 27 (2013) 84-94.
[25] S. Sun, W. Wang, X. Duan, Rigid-flexible couplingdynamic modelling and thermally induced vibration
AN
analysis for a flexible spacecraft, J. Vib. Shock 35 (2016) 79-83.
[26] Z. Shen, H. Li, X. Liu, G. Hu, Thermal shock induced dynamics of a spacecraft with a flexible deploying
boom, Acta Astronaut. 141 (2017) 123-131.
M

[27] E. Azadi, S.A. Fazelzadeh, M. Azadi, Thermally induced vibrations of smart solar panel in a low-orbit satellite,
Adv. Space Res. 59 (2017) 1502-1513.
D

[28] Y. Zuo, J. Liu, Rigid-flexible-thermal coupling dynamic modeling a satellite-solar panels system in low earth
orbit, J. of Vib. Shock 36 (2017) 38-44.
TE

[29] J. Liu, K. Pan, Rigid-flexible-thermal coupling dynamic formulation for satellite and plate multibody system,
Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 52 (2016) 102-114.
[30] L. Liu, D. Cao, H. Huang, C. Shao, Y. Xu, Thermal-structural analysis for an attitude maneuvering flexible
EP

spacecraft under solar radiation, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 126 (2017) 161-170.
[31] L.J. Gibson, M.F. Ashby, Cellular Solids: Structure and Properties, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1999.
C

[32] A.J. Culler, J.J. McNamara, Studies on fluid-thermal-structural coupling for aerothermoelasticity in hypersonic
Flow, AIAA J. 48 (2010) 1721-1738.
AC

[33] C.A. Felippa, K.C. Park, C. Farhat, Partitioned analysis of coupled mechanical systems, Comput. Meth. Appl.
Mech. Eng. 190 (2001) 3247-3270.
[34] F. Karray, A. Grewal, M. Glaum, V. Modi, Stiffening control of a class of nonlinear affine systems, IEEE
Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 33 (1997) 473-484.
[35] Q. Hu, G. Ma, Variable structure control and active vibration suppression of flexible spacecraft during attitude
maneuver, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 9 (2005) 307-317.
[36] K.W. Lee, S.N. Singh, L1 adaptive control of flexible spacecraft despite disturbances, Acta Astronaut. 80
(2012) 24-35.
[37] T.P. Sales, D.A. Rade, L.C.G. de Souza, Passive vibration control of flexible spacecraft using shunted
piezoelectric transducers, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 29 (2013) 403-412.

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Appendix
The symbols used in Eq.(16) are expressed as following
( r0 + x )
L
J = 2 J H + 2mt ( r0 + L )2 + 2 H 0 ∫
2
dx ,
0

M1 = mt φ1T ( L ) φ1 ( L ) + ∫  H 0 φ1T φ1 + H 2 ( φ1′ ) φ1′  dx , M 2 = mt φT2 ( L ) φ2 ( L ) + ∫  H 0 φT2 φ2 + H 2 ( φ′2 ) φ′2  dx ,

L T T L

0   0  

U1 = mt ( r0 + L ) φ1 ( L ) + ∫ H 0 ( r0 + x ) φ1dx , U 2 = mt ( r0 + L ) φ2 ( L ) + ∫ H 0 ( r0 + x ) φ2 dx ,
L L

0 0

K 1 = ∫ D2 ( φ1′′) φ′′1dx , K 2 = ∫ D2 ( φ′′2 ) φ′′2 dx ,

L L
C1 = κ M M1 + κ K K 1 , C2 = κ M M 2 + κ K K 2 ,
T T

0 0

PT
FMT 1 (t ) = ∫ M T 1 ( x, t ) ( φ1′′) dx , FMT 2 (t ) = ∫ M T 2 ( x, t ) ( φ′′2 ) dx .
L T L T

0 0

Where, κM and κK are proportional constants related to proportional viscous damping. Other parameters in the

RI
above expressions are given as
3 3
H j = ∑∫ bρ i z j dz, j = 0, 2 , D2 = ∑ ∫
zi +1 zi +1
b Ei z 2 d z ,
zi zi
i =1 i =1

SC
3 3
M T 1 ( x, t ) = ∑ ∫ [T1i ( x, z, t ) − Tref ] zdz , M T 2 ( x, t ) = ∑ ∫ [T2i ( x, z, t ) − Tref ] zdz .
zi +1 zi +1
bEiα cte
i
bEiα cte
i
zi zi
i =1 i =1

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

A thermal-structural analysis is conducted for a spacecraft with double solar panels.

The rigid-flexible-thermal coupling dynamic model of the spacecraft is derived.
An explicit algorithm is proposed to solve solar panels’ heat conduction problem.
Dynamic characteristics of thermally induced vibration is investigated in detail.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC