Abstract
Satellite networks have great potential in providing global ubiquitous broadband communication. In this paper, we explore the capacity of both single-layered and two-layered satellite networks. Closed-form approximate expressions of network capacity are derived, which provide insights into the impact of different network parameters, such as number of orbits, number of satellites in each orbit, link bandwidth, existence of the seam, the relative position between the two layers, etc. We investigate the advantages of two-layered structure by comparing the capacity of single-layered and two-layered networks. The results show that the network capacity of two-layered networks is always no less than the total capacity of the two layers. Moreover, we obtain the network parameter condition under which the network capacity of two-layered networks is strictly larger than the sum capacity of the two layers. The results obtained in this paper can serve as a guideline for the design of efficient multi-layered satellite networks.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In polar constellation, when no link maintained between satellites moving in opposite directions, we say there exist a seam between the two counter-rotating orbits.
The two orbits on the two sides of the seam are referred as the on-seam orbits. In other words, the two on-seam orbits are adjacent and not connected by inter-plane ISLs.
Note that in two-layered networks terrestrial users always connect to LEO satellites to avoid large path loss. Therefore, we assume that traffic flows only originated from and destined to LEO satellites in two-layered scenarios.
References
Evans, B., Thompson, P., Corazza, G., Vanelli-Coralli, A., & Candreva, E. (2011). 1945–2010: 65 years of satellite history from early visions to latest missions. Proceedings of the IEEE, 99(11), 1840–1857.
Song, G., Chao, M., Yang, B., & Zheng, Y. (2014). TLR: A traffic-light-based intelligent routing strategy for NGEO satellite IP networks. IEEE Transctions on Wireless Communication, 13(6), 3380–3393.
Dash, D. S., Durresi, A., & Jain, R. (2003). Routing of VoIP traffic in multilayered satellite networks. In Proceedings of SPIE, pp. 65–75.
Akyildiz, I., Ekici, E., & Bender, M. (2002). MLSR: A novel routing algorithm for multilayered satellite IP networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 10(3), 411–424.
Chin, L.-P., Chang, J.-F., & Huang, C.-M. (1997). Performance of a two-layer LEO satellite communication network. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 33(1), 225–231.
Yi, X., Sun, Z., Yao, F., & Miao, Y. (2013). Satellite constellation of MEO and IGSO network routing with dynamic grouping. International Journal of Satellite Communications and Networking, 31(6), 277–302.
Wang, Y., Sheng, M., Lui, K.-S., Wang, X., Liu, R., Zhang, Y., & Zhou, D. (2015). Tailored load-aware routing for load balance in multi-layered satellite networks. In Proceedings on IEEE VTC, pp. 1–5.
Lu, Y., Zhao, Y., Sun, F., & Li, H. (2014). A survivable routing protocol for two-layered LEO/MEO satellite networks. Wireless Networks, 20(5), 871–887.
Nishiyama, H., Tada, Y., Kato, N., Yoshimura, N., Toyoshima, M., & Kadowaki, N. (2013). Toward optimized traffic distribution for efficient network capacity utilization in two-layered satellite networks. IEEE Transctions on Vehicular Technology, 62(3), 1303–1313.
Nishiyama, H., Kudoh, D., Kato, N., & Kadowaki, N. (2011). Load balancing and QoS provisioning based on congestion prediction for GEO/LEO hybrid satellite networks. Proceedings of the IEEE, 99(11), 1998–2007.
Kawamoto, Y., Nishiyama, H., Kato, N., & Kadowaki, N. (2013). A traffic distribution technique to minimize packet delivery delay in multilayered satellite networks. IEEE Transctions on Vehicular Technology, 62(7), 3315–3324.
Sun, J. & Modiano, E. (2002). Capacity provisioning and failure recovery in mesh-torus networks with application to satellite constellations. In Proceedings on IEEE ISCC, pp. 77–84.
Sun, J., & Modiano, E. (2003). Capacity provisioning and failure recovery for low earth orbit satellite constellation. International Journal of Satellite Communications and Networking, 21, 259–284.
Werner, M., Frings, J., Wauquiez, F., & Maral, G. (2001). Topological design, routing and capacity dimensioning for ISL networks in broadband LEO satellite systems. International Journal of Satellite Communications, 19(6), 499–527.
Dai, L., & Chan, V. (2004). Capacity dimensioningand routing for hybrid satellite and terrestrial systems. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 22(2), 287–299.
Sun, J., & Modiano, E. (2004). Routing strategies for maximizing throughput in LEO satellite networks. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 22(2), 273–286.
Spangelo, S., Cutler, J., Klesh, A., & Boone, D. (2012). Models and tools to evaluate space communication network capacity. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 48(3), 2387–2404.
Liu, R., Sheng, M., Lui, K.-S., Wang, X., Zhou, D., & Wang, Y. (2015). Capacity analysis of two-layered LEO/MEO satellite networks. In Proceedings on IEEE VTC, pp. 1–5.
Pratt, S., Raines, R., Fossa, C., & Temple, M. A. (1999). An operational and performance overview of the IRIDIUM low earth orbit satellite system. IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, 2(2), 2–10.
Mauger, R., & Rosenberg, C. (1997). QoS guarantees for multimedia services on a TDMA-based satellite network. IEEE Communication magazine, 35(7), 56–65.
Ekici, E., Akyildiz, I. F., & Bender, M. D. (2001). A distributed routing algorithm for datagram traffic in LEO satellite networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 9(2), 137–147.
Bondy, J. A., & Murty, U. S. R. (1976). Graph theory with applications. London: Macmillan.
Acknowledgments
This paper is supported by NSFC (91338114, 61231008), 111 Project (B08038).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 Relationship between inter-layer connections and coverage size
In this appendix, we give the proof of Lemma 1.
Proof of Lemma 1
To ensure every LEO satellite covers its nearest MEO satellite at any time, the coverage size \(\gamma\) should be no less than the maximum of the angular distance between an LEO satellite and its nearest MEO satellite. Figure 10 depicts the bounding case where the angular distance between \(SL_i\) and \(NM_i\) reaches maximum. It can be observed that the bounding case occurs when \(SL_i\) moves above the equator. This is because that in the polar constellation, the nearer to the equator, the sparser the arrangement of MEO satellites is. In the bounding case, both longitude and latitude difference between \(SL_i\) and \(NM_i\) reaches the maximum, which are \(\theta _{max}\) and \(\frac{{\varOmega }_Y}{2}\), respectively. Then, the maximum angular distance between \(SL_i\) and \(NM_i\) can be obtained, which is \(\arccos (\cos \frac{{{{\varOmega }_Y}}}{2}\cos {\theta _{\max }})\). Hence, we have
This completes the proof. \(\square\)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Liu, R., Sheng, M., Lui, KS. et al. Capacity of two-layered satellite networks. Wireless Netw 23, 2651–2669 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11276-016-1311-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11276-016-1311-2