Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Capacity of two-layered satellite networks

  • Published:
Wireless Networks Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  1. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dash, D. S., Durresi, A., & Jain, R. (2003). Routing of VoIP traffic in multilayered satellite networks. In Proceedings of SPIE, pp. 65–75.

  4. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mauger, R., & Rosenberg, C. (1997). QoS guarantees for multimedia services on a TDMA-based satellite network. IEEE Communication magazine, 35(7), 56–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bondy, J. A., & Murty, U. S. R. (1976). Graph theory with applications. London: Macmillan.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper is supported by NSFC (91338114, 61231008), 111 Project (B08038).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Integrated Service Networks, Institute of Information Science, Xidian University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, 710071, China

    Runzi Liu, Min Sheng, Xijun Wang, Di Zhou & Yu Wang

  2. Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong

    King-Shan Lui

Authors
  1. Runzi Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Min Sheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. King-Shan Lui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xijun Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Di Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yu Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Min Sheng.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Relationship between inter-layer connections and coverage size

In this appendix, we give the proof of Lemma 1.

Fig. 10
figure 10

The bounding case of CoN structure

Full size image

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

$$\begin{aligned} \gamma \ge \arccos \left( \cos \frac{{{{\varOmega }_Y}}}{2}\cos {\theta _{\max }}\right) . \end{aligned}$$

This completes the proof. \(\square\)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11276-016-1311-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation