IEEE MAGNETICS LETTERS, Volume 11 (2020) 2100205

Electromagnetics

Optimum Unit Positioning in Spacecraft for Space Missions With Challenging DC

Magnetic Cleanliness Requirements
Sotirios T. Spantideas , Elpida G. Chatzineofytou , and Christos N. Capsalis
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Athens 15780, Greece

Received 22 Oct 2019, revised 2 Dec 2019, accepted 10 Dec 2019, published 8 Jan 2020, current version 16 Jan 2020.

Abstract—The spacecraft-level magnetic budget in the framework of dc magnetic cleanliness programs of space missions
is studied and analyzed. This analysis follows the unit-level magnetic characterization test campaigns that are performed
in space missions with challenging magnetic cleanliness requirements. Taking into consideration the output of these test
results, the total magnetic signature of the spacecraft may be estimated at the location of sensitive instruments or potential
magnetically susceptible units that are included in the space mission. In this letter, a method that significantly reduces the
total magnetic field generated by the spacecraft is investigated. The purpose of the algorithm is to minimize the system-level
magnetic signature at specific points of interest and at areas around the spacecraft in order to conform to the cleanliness
requirements. This analysis is based on repositioning the equipment inside the spacecraft structure in order to reduce
the total generated magnetic field. Indicative simulations of the synthetic magnetic sources are carried out, validating the
effectiveness of the method.

Index Terms—Electromagnetics, magnetic cleanliness, magnetic dipole modeling, magnetic signature.

I. INTRODUCTION The models from all the units are then accumulated, and several simula-
tions can be realized in terms of the total magnetic field generated by the
Magnetic cleanliness requirements are critical in several scientific
spacecraft. Specifically, the individual models have assembled together
space missions, typically arising due to spacecraft material properties
in a spacecraft coordinate system, and magnetic budget simulations
and are particularly related to susceptible instruments and units that
can be performed in order to assess the total magnetic field at the
are included in the spacecraft design. Examples of these instruments
points of interest. The selected position of each unit in spacecraft
include magnetic field sensors (magnetometers) or measuring equip-
coordinates can highly affect the total generated dc magnetic field.
ment that requires field-of-view (FoV) magnetic cleanliness intended
Usually, the units are placed at predefined positions, and the total
to measure charged particles, and their trajectory (integrated magnetic
magnetic signature of the spacecraft is assessed via simulations. The
fields) should not be disturbed by the spacecraft’s self-generated mag-
validity of this estimation is then compared against spacecraft-level dc
netic field [Kaiser 2008, Pudney 2019]. For instance, in the european
magnetic measurements [Junge 2012], targeting to reveal whether the
space agency’s (ESA) upcoming mission of Solar Orbiter, the small
simulation models are representative of the associated units. Moreover,
length of the boom that carries the magnetic field sensors requires
the above procedure is suitable for applying potential design changes
specific dc magnetic cleanliness techniques, since the spacecraft’s
in the spacecraft, e.g., unit replacement, additional deperm, etc.
self-generated magnetic field is expected to highly interfere with
[ESA 2012].
the scientific measurements [Pudney 2019]. Similar techniques have
The approach in the present work interferes between the unit-level
been developed and implemented on various space missions with
characterization and the system-level magnetic budget assessment via
strict magnetic cleanliness requirements (BepiColombo, JUICE, etc.)
simulations. In practice, a methodology is developed to determine
[Glassmeier 2010, Grasset 2013, Brown 2019]. Therefore, depending
the position of the units inside the spacecraft in order to meet the
on the individual requirements of the mission, magnetic cleanliness
magnetic cleanliness requirements. It is assumed that the unit-level
may be needed either at specific points (e.g., magnetic field sensors) or
testing has been successfully completed and that the modeling has
at sensitive areas around the possible susceptible victims (instruments,
been performed with the MDM method, producing a multiple-dipole
functional spacecraft equipment, etc.).
model for each unit. In a stochastic way, the units are positioned inside
During the magnetic cleanliness campaign, each unit designed to
the spacecraft structure along with their associated magnetic dipole
equip the spacecraft is subjected to individual measurements and
models. The algorithm iteratively updates the position and the orien-
characterization in order to obtain its magnetic signature and model its
tation of each unit in order to minimize the total generated magnetic
behavior. Typical modeling methods include multiple-dipole modeling
field in a predefined area where cleanliness is needed. This method
(MDM) and the spherical harmonics modeling [Mehlem 1978, Junge
can be implemented in order to accommodate the design changes in
2011, Dumond 2012]. Therefore, the magnetic test campaign results in
the units’ layout by defining the best possible spatial configuration to
an individual model for each piece of equipment (unit-level modeling).
minimize the spacecraft’s self-generated magnetic field. Alternatively,
if the configuration of the units inside the spacecraft has been finalized
Corresponding author: Sotirios T. Spantideas (e-mail: sospanti@gmail.com).
during the design phase and cannot be conveniently modified, the
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/LMAG.2019.2959615 methodology may be applied to determine the position and orientation

1949-307X © 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
2100205 IEEE MAGNETICS LETTERS, Volume 11 (2020)

of several compensation magnets for field minimization at the points

of interest.
It should be noted that the induced magnetic behavior of the units is
not taken into account in this letter. In this case, however, the present
methodology can be extended to incorporate the contribution of the
induced magnetic dipole sources that have been determined through the
unit-level-induced magnetic field measurements and characterization
[ESA 2012]. Moreover, it should be remarked that this configuration
of units in terms of magnetic budget simulations is performed before
the actual design of the spacecraft, since the implementation of various
design changes (e.g., harness and interconnecting cables between the
units) may be unfeasible in later stages of the mission, and so further
investigation is necessary.
Section II describes the mathematical background and the developed
methodology, and Section III demonstrates the simulation setup and the Fig. 1. Parameters to be determined by the stochastic method. The
obtained results. Finally, the conclusions are presented in Section IV. center of the cuboid unit (Cxi , Cyi , Czi ) and its orientation defined by
the rotation angles ϕi (xy plane), θi (xz plane), and ωi (yz plane).

II. MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION

The algorithm targets to determine the position and the orientation
A. Background of each unit in the spacecraft coordinate system. The variables to
As already mentioned, the approach can be applied after the mag- be optimized include three parameters describing the center of each
netic characterization at the unit level. It is, therefore, assumed that the unit (Cxi , Cyi , Czi ) and three parameters indicating its orientation
MDM method has been effectively implemented during the unit-level (ϕi , θi , ωi corresponding to the rotation in planes xy, xz, yz, respec-
measurements. According to the method, the magnetic signature of tively), as depicted in Fig. 1. The units are able to move inside the
each unit i = 1, 2, . . . , N may be represented by j = 1, 2, . . . , M spacecraft structure and also rotate in the three different planes.
dipoles. The magnetic field generated by the jth dipole of the ith unit The unit rotation implies rotation of the associated dipole models,
can be expressed in a coordinate-free form [Mehlem 1978, Jackson since the magnetic moments are shifted and positioned relative to the
1999] center of the cuboid unit accordingly. Additionally, it is required that
       the position of the dipole models for each unit is transformed to the
μ0 3 r − ri j r − ri j · mi j mi j spacecraft coordinate system with an appropriate rotation matrix.
Bi j =   −   (1)
4π r − ri j 5 r − ri j 3 The method uses the iterative particle swarm optimization (PSO)
where r stands for the position vector of the point of interest, ri j stochastic technique for optimizing the above-mentioned parameters
designates the position vector of the jth dipole source of the ith unit, in order to minimize the total magnetic field at specific points of
mi j denotes its magnetic moment, and μ0 is the permeability of free interest [Kennedy 1995]. Similarly, other stochastic methods may
space. The total magnetic field produced by the system (all dipole be applied for these types of nonlinear inverse problems [Carrubba
sources mi j with positions ri j that compose the units’ models) may be 2012, Kapsalis 2012]. During the initialization phase of the algorithm,
calculated at the point of interest in components as the superposition the units are randomly positioned inside the spacecraft structure with
of each individual dipole in the Cartesian coordinate system random orientations. Then, the algorithm imposes several geometrical
conditions, discarding the solutions that the units spatially overlap and

N
M
N
M
N
M
the solutions that the units extend beyond the spacecraft structure.
Btot = Bxi j x̂ + Byi j ŷ + Bzi j ẑ. (2)
i=1 j=1 i=1 j=1 i=1 j=1
In cases where magnetic cleanliness is required at several points of
interest k = 1, 2, . . . , K, the calculation of the total magnetic field is
B. Method performed at each point separately, leading to Bktot . In order to evaluate
the resulting algorithm’s solutions, an objective function is calculated
Without loss of generality, the geometrical shape of the units is that takes into account the total field from all the observation points
considered cuboid with dimensions Li × Wi × Hi . Following the unit-
level characterization, the geometrical properties of each unit and
K
K
K

the corresponding dipole models (number of dipoles, position, and F= Bk 2xtot + Bk 2ytot + Bk 2ztot . (3)
k=1 k=1 k=1
magnetic moments) are assumed to be specified, and these parameters
are used as input in the algorithm. The dipoles’ position vectors can be As the algorithm progresses, the target is to minimize the objective
described as ri j = (xi j , yi j , zi j ) and the associated magnetic moment function (3), i.e., the total magnetic field from all units in the required
vectors as mi j = (mx i j , my i j , mz i j ) in the Cartesian coordinates. It location. For this reason, each particle of the swarm (population
should be noted that multiple-dipole models are typically expressed size P) iteratively moves toward the local minimum encountered in the
in a unit coordinate system. Specifically, the position of the dipole previous iteration (personal best) and also toward the global minimum
models is expressed relative to the geometrical center of each cuboid (global best that is encountered by all particles), thus, optimizing the
unit (here assumed to be at the origin), and the dimensions of the unit variables to be determined by the algorithm. The implementation of
Li , Wi , Hi lie parallel to the x, y, z axes, respectively. the PSO algorithm in similar electromagnetic problems can be found
IEEE MAGNETICS LETTERS, Volume 11 (2020)
Fig. 2. Indicative units under test and the associated magnetic dipole
models in unit coordinate system.
Table 1. Parameters of the associated multiple magnetic dipole
models of the units under consideration in unit coordinate system.
in Spantideas and Kapsalis [2018]. The method converges when the
global optimum solution is found, i.e., the objective function (3) is
minimized. In case that an unacceptable solution (in terms of overlap-
ping units) is encountered, the objective function is set to a prohibitive
value (for instance, 1e10), thus, forcing the algorithm to explore other
solutions that fulfill the geometrical conditions and discard the invalid
one.
III. SIMULATION RESULTS
A. Simulation Setup
In order to verify the modeling methodology and validate its results,
an indicative simulation scenario is realized. Without loss of generality,
four units (N = 4) composed of various dipole sources that exhibit
dc magnetic properties and produce significant magnetic fields are
considered to equip the spacecraft. It is straightforward to generalize
the method for an arbitrary number of units, as long as they fit inside
the spacecraft structure.
The virtual units and the associated dipole models in a unit coor-
dinate system (center of the units is assumed to be at the origin) are
shown in Fig. 2, and their parameters are tabulated in Table 1 (dj stands
for the jth dipole of the ith unit). Finally, their dimensions are given
in Table 2.
2100205
Table 2. Units’ dimensions.
Fig. 3. Spacecraft structure, the cone area (instrument’s FoV) that
magnetic cleanliness is required, and the layout of the units.
The spacecraft structure is also considered cuboid with dimensions
2 m × 2 m × 1.5 m. Moreover, the area that is required to be magneti-
cally clean is selected to be a cone (see Fig. 3). This selection intends
to simulate the area which corresponds to the FoV of an instrument.
Similarly, magnetic cleanliness may be required at specific points
of interest where the sensors are placed or even an area inside the
spacecraft where a sensitive piece of equipment is located.
The cone has a radius of 30 cm and a height of 3 m and lies on
the x-axis in the spacecraft coordinate system, extending beyond the
structure of the spacecraft. For simulation purposes, the cone is dis-
cretized using four equally spaced circles of an increasing radius in the
direction of the x-axis, each including 21 equally spaced points. Thus,
the simulation scenario includes K = 84 observation points, where
the total spacecraft-generated magnetic field needs to be reduced. The
84 × 3 values of the magnetic field (Bk x , Bk y , Bk z ) at the observation
points are considered adequate in order to solve the inverse problem
and estimate the 4 × 6 variables.
B. Simulation Results
The PSO algorithm is implemented using the swarm population
P = 80 and 500 iterations. The target is to minimize the objective
function (3), i.e., the summation of the magnetic field at all the points
of the discretized cone. The units’ optimized positions and orientations
that are estimated by the method are tabulated in Table 3, and the
resulting layout inside the spacecraft structure is shown in Fig. 3.
Finally, it should be noted that the objective function converges to
a minimum value of F = 0.01 nT.
The results indicate that all the units are located in the opposite direc-
tion of the magnetic cleanliness cone that extends in the positive x-axis
and that their positions vary at y and z axes. Moreover, it is evident that
2100205
Table 3. Optimized parameters of the four units (center and rotation
angle per plane).
Fig.4. Magnitude of the magnetic field calculated at a sphere of radius
2 m around the spacecraft.
the units have been rotated in order to properly orient the associated
magnetic moments and accomplish the minimum generated magnetic
field of the system in the requested area. Finally, the geometrical condi-
tions imposed by the algorithm are valid, since the units do not overlap
with each other and do not extend beyond the structure. It is worth
mentioning that in the real magnetic characterization tests involving
the dipole modeling, the units have been measured at a certain distance,
which defines the MDM sizes. Therefore, the overlapping geometrical
constraints (i.e., the dimensions of the simulated units in the present
work) should be replaced by the measurement distance envelope due to
the so-called inward-divergence problem of the precision of the MDM
solution [Mehlem 2012].
In order to assess the system-level magnetic budget, the magnitude
of the total magnetic field generated by the optimized units’ layout (see
Table 3) is calculated at a sphere of radius 2 m around the spacecraft.
The resulting magnetic field values are shown in Fig. 4, where it
is confirmed that the determined units’ positions by the developed
algorithm succeed in minimizing the field in the direction of the
specified magnetic cleanliness area, i.e., at the points of the discretized
cone. However, the magnetic field is relatively stronger in the opposite
direction, in accordance with the units’ rearrangement.
Furthermore, in order to evaluate the sensitivity of the method to
the MDM technique, several simulation scenarios are realized. The
positions of the dipoles are considered to have a maximum accuracy
of 0.5 cm, and their magnetic moments exhibit a relative deviation of
5% [Tsatalas 2019]. The objective function F , which is depicted in
IEEE MAGNETICS LETTERS, Volume 11 (2020)
Fig. 5. Objective function for deviated positions and magnetic mo-
ments of the MDMs in 1000 realizations.
Fig. 5, for 1000 realizations shows that the total field at the points of
interest is below 0.4 nT in 90% of the cases, which is considered
adequate for typical magnetic cleanliness requirements. Finally, in
terms of the method’s repeatability (i.e., resulting output using the
same input parameters), the estimated positions and orientations of
the units are not statistically analyzed, due to the stochastic nature of
the algorithm. Therefore, many unit configurations may lead to field
minimization.
IV. CONCLUSION
In this letter, a method for minimizing the spacecraft-level field for
purposes of dc magnetic cleanliness is developed and validated with
simulations. The analysis is based on unit redeployment inside the
spacecraft structure in order to reduce the total generated magnetic field
of the system at a predefined area of interest, where magnetic cleanli-
ness is required. The demonstrated methodology targets at optimizing
the units’ layout at the early stages of a mission in terms of magnetic
budget. The algorithm is validated with indicative simulations of the
virtual magnetic sources, and the cleanliness area is considered to be a
cone (simulating an instrument’s FOV). The resulting units’ arrange-
ment confirms the efficiency of the method, since the minimization of
the field at the selected area is achieved. Similarly, magnetic cleanliness
may be required at several points of interest, as well as at a complete
area surrounding the spacecraft. The method may be further enhanced
in the future by including the potential contribution of static-induced
magnetization.
REFERENCES
Brown P, Auster U, Bergman J E S, Fredriksson J, Kasaba Y, Mansour M, Pollinger
A, Baughen R, Berglund M, Hercik D, Misawa H, Retino A, Bendyk M, Magnes W,
Cecconi B, Dougherty M K, Fischer G (2019), “Meeting the magnetic EMC challenges
for the in-situ field measurements on the JUICE mission,” in Proc. ESA Workshop on
Aerosp. EMC, pp. 1–6, doi: 10.23919/AeroEMC.2019.8788942.
Carrubba E, Junge A, Marliani F, Monorchio A (2012), “Particle swarm opti-
mization to solve multiple dipole modelling problems in space applications,”
in Proc. ESA Workshop Aerosp. EMC, pp. 265–270. [Online]. Available:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6232565
IEEE MAGNETICS LETTERS, Volume 11 (2020)
Dumond O, Bergé R (2012), “Determination of the magnetic moment with spherical
measurements and spherical harmonics modelling,” in Proc. ESA Workshop Aerosp.
EMC, pp. 60–64. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6232532
ESA (2012), “Space engineering: Electromagnetic compatibility handbook,” Eur. Space
Agency, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, ECSS-E-HB-20-07A. [Online]. Available:
http://everyspec.com/ESA/ECSS-E-HB-20-07A_47799/
Glassmeier K-H, Auster H-U, Heyner D, Okrafka K, Carr C, Berghofer G, Anderson
B J, Balogh A, Baumjohann W, Cargill P, Christensen U, Delva M, Dougherty
M, Fornaçon K-H, Horbury T S, Lucek E A, Magnes W, Mandea M, Matsuoka
A, Matsushima M, Motschmann U, Nakamura R, Narita Y, O’Brien H, Richter
I, Schwingenschuh K, Shibuya H, Slavin J A, Sotin C, Stoll B, Tsunakawa H,
Vennerstrom S, Vogt J, Zhang T (2010), “The fluxgate magnetometer of the Bepi-
Colombo Mercury planetary orbiter,” Planet. Space Sci., vol. 58, pp. 287–299,
doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2008.06.018.
Grasset O, Dougherty M K, Coustenis A, Bunce E J, Erd C, Titov D, Blanc M, Coates A,
Drossart P, Fletcher L N, Hussmann H, R Jaumann, N Krupp, J-P Lebreton, O Prieto-
Ballesteros, P Tortora, F Tosi, T Van Hoolst (2013), “JUpiter ICy moons Explorer
(JUICE): An ESA mission to orbit Ganymede and to characterise the Jupiter system,”
Planet. Space Sci., vol. 78, pp. 1–21, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2012.12.002.
Jackson J D (1999), Classical Electrodynamics. New York NY USA: Wiley, pp. 184–188.
Junge A, Marliani F (2011), “Prediction of DC magnetic fields for magnetic cleanliness
on spacecraft,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Electromagn. Compat., pp. 834–839, doi:
10.1109/ISEMC.2011.6038424.
Junge A, Marliani F (2012), “Verification of DC magnetic model predictions at spacecraft
level,” in Proc. ESA Workshop Aerosp. EMC, pp. 177–180. [Online]. Available:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6232548
2100205
Kaiser M L, Kucera T A, Davila J M, St. Cyr O C, Guhathakurta M, Christian E
(2008), “The STEREO mission: An introduction,” Space Sci. Rev., vol. 136, pp. 5–16,
doi: 10.1007/s11214-007-9277-0.
Kapsalis N C, Kakarakis S-D J, Capsalis C N (2012), “Prediction of multi-
ple magnetic dipole model parameters from near field measurements employ-
ing stochastic algorithms,” Prog. Electromagn. Res. Lett., vol. 34, pp. 111–122,
doi: 10.2528/PIERL12030905.
Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995), “Particle swarm optimization,” in Proc. IEEE
Int. Conf. Neural Netw., Perth, WA, Australia, vol. 4, pp. 1942–1948, doi:
10.1109/ICNN.1995.488968.
Mehlem K (1978), “Multiple magnetic dipole modeling and field prediction of satellites,”
IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 14, pp. 1064–1071, doi: 10.1109/TMAG.1978.1059983.
Mehlem K (2012), “Optimal magnetic cleanliness modeling of spacecraft,” in Mod-
eling and Optimization in Space Engineering. New York, NY, USA: Springer,
pp. 295–341.
Pudney M, King S, Horbury T, Maksimovic M, Owen C J, Laget P (2019), “Solar orbiter
strategies for EMC control and verification,” in Proc. ESA Workshop Aerosp. EMC,
pp. 1–6, doi: 10.23919/AeroEMC.2019.8788930.
Spantideas S, Kapsalis N (2018), “Magnetic dipole modeling for DC and low frequency AC
magnetic fields in space missions,” in Electromagnetic Compatibility for Space Systems
Design, C. Nikolopoulos (Ed.), pp. 71–114, Hershey, PA: IGI Global, doi: 10.4018/978-
1-5225-5415-8.ch003.
Tsatalas S, Vergos D, Spantideas S T, Kapsalis N C, Kakarakis S-D J, Livanos N
A, Hammal S, Alifragkis E, Bougas A, Capsalis C N, Junge A (2019), “A novel
multi-magnetometer facility for on-ground characterization of spacecraft equipment,”
Measurement, vol. 146, pp. 948–960, doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2019.07.016.