Structural Design and Analysis of a 3U Standardized CubeSat

for a Future Mexican Mission

Julio Balanzá, Jorge Prado-Molina, Jorge Prado-Morales, Juan Reyes
National Autonomous University of Mexico – Institute of Geography
Ciudad Universitaria, S/N, CP. 04510, Cd. de México,
jc.balanza.r@gmail.com, jprado@igg.unam.mx, jpradom9@gmail.com,
alejandro@intelligencia.com
Domingo Vera
Popular Autonomous University of Puebla
21 sur, #1103, Barrio Santiago, CP. 72410, Puebla, México
verame200504031@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT
This paper introduces the conceptual design, and analysis of a 3U standard CubeSat for a future
Mexican space mission; one of the first nanosatellites developed in Mexico. Its mission is to take
photographs of our territory using a low-resolution camera. Additionally, this project will increase
the aerospace technologic knowledge and to generate new specialists in this field. A structural
design concept is introduced and validated, for the worst-case scenario, using Finite Element
Analysis (FEA) and compared with hand calculations.

Structure’s CAD model was designed using SolidWorks Student Edition 2017 and corresponding
analysis carried-out using its FEA tool. Buckling and vibration analysis were performed to find the
structural deformation and the natural frequencies, to ensure that the CubeSat could withstand
the severe launch conditions as well as the hazardous space environment. Results of these
analyses are described.

KEY WORDS: CubeSat, microsatellite, structure, FEA, stress analysis, launch vibrations.

1
1 INTRODUCTION
Lift-off means a new journey into space for design engineers after thousands of hours of
coordination efforts and years of hard work, paying off the culmination of this overall dream.
During a satellite launch, it passes through different stages in the following 8 minutes, which are
critical to accomplish its mission. During lift-off a set of variables play a critical role: steady-state,
booster acceleration, vibro-acoustic noise, engine vibrations, and separation stage or ejection
into the outer space. It is the work of the design engineers to develop a structure that withstands
such conditions, to assure that all the subsystems will work correctly after its expulsion into
space, especially the payload. Different efforts had been developed throughout the years in this
direction. M. Cihan et. al. [1], present the design and analysis of an innovative modular CubeSat
structure, with columns which allow a rack-like operation that provides much flexibility to the
satellite chassis, during the design process. FEA were performed to assure withstand the
launching conditions. Chiranjeeve et. al. [2] and Tamilnadu [3] designed and analysed a modular
2U CubeSat structure for the exploration of the lower thermosphere. CAD and FEA were
performed, in addition to buckling and vibration analysis. Hyun-Ung et. al. [4], developed a 1U
CubeSat. Structural conceptual design and validation were performed. Athirah et. al. carried-out
the stress and thermal analysis on a CubeSat structure to study the survivability of the
nanosatellite during the launch process. Various mechanical structures were analyzed to
determine the best design for different mission requirements, structural design and its thermal
stress analysis were performed [5-9].

2 STRUCTURAL DESIGN.

This section will introduce the conceptual design for the mission. First, an overview of the launch
process will be introduced and will finish with the hand calculations to be compared with the FEA
analysis.

2.1 Launch Process

The selection of the launch vehicle is part of the design process to determine the launch scenario.
Quasi-static loads and the natural frequencies of the rocket will determine the CubeSat launch
requirements. A typical launch scenario is shown in Figure 1.

2
 Figure 1. Launch Process [7].

Owing to the steps in the launch process, different loads must be considered. These are: rocket
motor ignition overpressure, lift-off, acoustic vibration loads, solid motor pressure oscillations,
and fairing separation loads. The frame structure is designed and modelled using a simple 2D
beam element [4], [8] see Figure 2.

Figure 2. Satellite/launch vehicle attachment model [8].

Where:
L: Structure longitude (mm)
M: Structure mass (kg)
F: Lift-off force/rocket impulse (N)
E: Elastic modulus (GPa)
A: Area of the satellite (mm2)

3
The buckling of the rails must be checked to make sure that it will withstand the lift-off force
during the launch. In other words, that it is below the proportional and safe limit under repeated
shock loads. The compressive strength of a beam is expressed in equation (1).
𝐹
𝜎=𝐴 (1)
Where:

𝜎 = Stress or uniaxial stress (N/mm2)

F = Load applied (N)
A = Cross-section area from the element under stress (mm2)

The force F is the lift-off force or the rocket impulse. This data is obtained directly from the Rocket
User’s Guide, given by the Launch Service Provider (LSP). Four different LSP’s were analysed, to
obtain the worst-case scenario. These are showed in Table 1.

Table 1. Launch Service Providers Acceptance Level Test Requirements [9]

Test acceleration
Longitudinal axial load Lateral axial load
Launch vehicle established
(g) (g)
(g)
Dneper 8.2 2.5 -
PSLV 7 1.7 7 x 1.25 = 8.75
Eurockot 8.1 0.9 -
Minotaur I 6.6 1.6 -

From Table 1, the maximum axial load was 8.75 from the PSLV rocket; in order to simulate the
worst-case scenario, 10g was established as the lift-off impulse. Area A corresponds to the one
specified at the CalPoly CubeSat Standard rails [8], [10] of 8.5 mm x 8.5 mm (long, wide) and
longitude L of 340.5 mm . The maximum CubeSat 3U weight was 4 Kg.

Table 2. Aluminium 6061 alloy characteristics [11]

Material Properties Magnitude
Young’s Modulus 69 GPa
Ultimate Tensile Strength (su) 120 MPa
Maximum Yield Strength and Fatigue 55 MPa
Limit Under Cyclic Load (σs)
4
 Elongation at Break 25%
(stretch before ultimate failure)
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion 2.4 x 10-6 °C-1

The CalPoly CubeSat Standard specifies two different types of materials, aluminium alloys 6061
or 7075. For our case, we selected aluminium 6061-O. whose elastic modulus and other
characteristics are shown in Table 2. Applying equation 1, the force generated by the rocket is:
𝐹 =𝑚𝑎 (2)
Where:
𝑚 = 4 𝐾𝑔
𝑎 = 10 𝑔
𝑔 = 9.81 𝑀/𝑠 2
So that:
𝐹 = (4)(10)(9.81) (3)
𝐹 = 392.4 𝑁 (4)

392.4 N is the lift-off force generated from the rocket on a worst-case scenario. Moreover,
this force F must be divided by 4, due to the numbers of rails. Therefore:

𝐹
= 98.1 𝑁, for each rail (5)
4

Thus, from Equation (1):

98.1
𝜎= = 1.35 𝑀𝑃𝑎 (6)
(8.5 𝑥 8.5)

This value is smaller than the Maximum Yield Strength of the material shown at Table 1:
𝜎 < 𝜎𝑠 (7)
∴ The structure will withstand the forces generated by the rocket.

2.2 Design against Fatigue

Fatigue strength is used to describe a property of materials: the amplitude (or range) of cyclic
stress that can be applied to the material without causing failure [11]. Due to the High Frequency
cycles of Mechanical Impact (HFMI) during the launch sequence, the structure may fail.
Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the stress under these conditions. Aluminium 6061-O is a
5
ductile material owing to its 25% of elongation during stress. A material is ductile if its elongation
is superior to 5%, otherwise it is brittle. Ductility is the ability to deform under tensile stress, if it
breaks without significant plastic deformation; it is called brittle [11]. Maximum yield strength in
a ductile material under HFMI, can be recalculated using equation 8 [10].
𝑠
𝜎𝑑 = 12𝑢 (8)
55 𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝜎𝑑 = = 4.58 𝑀𝑃𝑎 (9)
12

Even during a HFMI sequence, the value of 4.58 MPa is bigger than equation 6, this is:
𝜎 < 𝜎𝑑 (10)

∴ The value of 𝜎𝑑 is bigger than 𝜎, therefore, the structure will withstand the forces generated
for the rocket under a High Frequency cycles of Mechanical Impact (HFMI) during the launch
sequence.

2.3 Axial Deformation

The structure is going to be under pulling and pushing forces during the launch sequence. On the
other hand, CalPoly specify a clearance of 0.5 mm in the structure, exceeding these dimensions
will cause it to stick inside the P-POD launcher [10]. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the
maximum buckling that the structure will suffer during the launch process.

The axial deformation is defined by equation (11) [11]:

𝐹𝐿
𝛿 = 𝐴𝐸 (11)
Where:
L: Structure longitude (mm)
E: Elastic modulus (GPa)
F: Lift-off force/rocket impulse (N)
A: Cross-section area (mm2)
Thus:
(98.1𝑁)(0.34𝑚)
𝛿= 𝑁 = 0.0067 𝑚𝑚 (12)
(0.0085𝑚 𝑥 0.0085𝑚)(69 𝑥 109 )
𝑚2

𝛿 ≪ 0.5 𝑚𝑚 (13)

6
This means that the structure will not buckle and stick inside the P-POD launcher [8].

2.4 Axial Deformation through Changes in Temperature

Materials have the property of expanding or contracting their shape, area, and volume in
response to a change in temperature. This is called “thermal expansion and contraction effects”.
The contraction effect is also called “negative thermal expansion”. Temperature in space can
change drastically in matter of seconds. If the sun hits the nanosatellite; it can increase its
temperature up to150 °C. The opposite case is when the shadow covers the satellite. The
temperature can decrease drastically to -150 °C. Thus, the structure is under a contraction and
expansion effect within each orbit. So, it is important to analyze how much it expands and
contracts, to determine if those effects can affect the integrity of the structure and the
components within it. The expression used to determine these values is equation 14 [6][11]

𝛿 = 𝛼 𝐿 ∆𝑇 (14)
Where:
𝛿: Change in dimension (length) (mm)
𝛼: Coefficient of thermal expansion (10−6 °C−1)
L: Original length (mm)
∆𝑇 = T2 – T1: change in temperature (°C)

So that, and assuming the worst-case scenario, in this case, the worst-case is a situation when
the Sun and the shadow hit and cover the satellite at the same time (150 °C from one side and -
150 °C in the opposite side). Thus:

𝛿 = (2.4 𝑥 10−5 )(340.5)(150 + 150) (15)

𝛿 = ±1.1 𝑚𝑚 (16)

From expression (16), it is worth analyzing if a deformation of ± 1.1 mm can cause a problem the
key components within the satellite, for example the solar cells and PCBs.

3 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

In order to assess the strains on the main structure, various structural analyses were performed
considering the worst-case scenario. The sizing of the satellite, the rails and protrusions for the
7
six corners, were designed according to the CalPoly "CubeSat Design Specifications" [10]. The
joint beams for each 1U face between rails are 2 mm thick. SolidWorks Student Edition 2017 was
used to design and model the entire nanosatellite.

3.1 Quasi-static Loads

To confirm the effectiveness of the structural design, quasi-static analysis was performed with a
launch load of 10g in the longitudinal direction according to the worst-case scenario discussed
above. These results are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Von Misses and Displacements Results for Quasi-static loads.

From Figure 3, the highest stress result is 1.9 MPa, located on each corner of the six protrusions.
Moreover, the maximum yield strength of the material (aluminium 6061-O) is 55 MPa (indicated
in Table 2). This value is almost 30 times smaller than the maximum yield strength. Conversely,
the maximum displacement with these conditions was 0.0066 mm. It is easy to appreciate that
this number is more than 100 times smaller than 1 millimetre.

Therefore, it can be guaranteed that the structure will withstand the load from the worst-case
conditions during the launch stage.
8
3.2 Deformation through Changes in Temperature

Deformations due to changes in temperature using the data for the worst-case scenario are
shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Displacements in the structure due to temperature changes.

The analysis indicated that the total deformation is 1.2 mm. This is a very small value in sharp
contrast to the satellite dimensions. It is important to analyze if this quantity may cause damage
to the satellite components, for example, solar cells and the PCBs.

3.3 Vibration Results

The Natural Frequencies of the CubeSat Structure in the range of 0 to 500 Hz was analyzed in
accordance with the user's guide of the P-POD Deployer [2][13] and are shown in Table 3. Under
these conditions, the payload of the vehicle has to be designed with a structural stiffness which
guarantees that the values of fundamental frequencies of the satellite do not interface and are
less than 100 Hz in the longitudinal axis and 60 Hz in the lateral axis, so as to prevent a resonance.
Thus, the natural frequencies of the satellite must be above these values. Table 3 shows the
results, the first mode of vibration is 146.7 Hz and the fifth is 511.66, so all of them are above the
100 Hz.

9
 Table 3. Normal Mode of Oscillation and Natural Frequencies
Nº modal Frequency
number (Hertz)
1 146.7
2 146.7
3 186.51
4 213.16
5 511.66

4 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
It is important that the engineers understand and know the variables and the physical effects
involved in their prototype, before any simulation process. This may be done using some
mathematical and physical approximations to their model. This ensures that future results will
be right. Therefore, hand calculations must be made in order to compare the software results
obtained and thus reconfirm the results. In this paper, FEA results concerning the stress was 1.8
MPa. On the other side, hand calculations resulted in 1.4 MPa. The relative error is obtained using
equation 17.

|𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒−𝑂𝑏𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒|

𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 𝑥100% (17)
𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

Real value is considered the result obtained using finite element, giving a 10 percent of error.
This error may be reduced changing the mesh size. A finer mesh may be approximate to a closer
result.

Concerning the maximum displacement, FEA result was 0.006 mm meanwhile hand calculation
showed a result of 0.006 mm. Thus the relative error was 0%.
Regarding elongations due to temperature changes, FEA result was 1.2 mm. Hand
calculation showed a result of 1.1 mm. Therefore, the relative error is smaller than 1%.

5 CONCLUSIONS
In this work, we presented the design process of a CubeSat 3U for a future Mexican remote
sensing mission. Using FEA and hand calculations, the design showed to be fully compliant with
the major launch loads using a worst-case scenario.

10
Moreover, the comparison between the FEA results and the hand calculations, showed a relative
error less than 1% in all cases. The major error was concerning the stress of 10%. This value may
be closer to the hand result using a fine mesh.

6 REFERENCES

[1] Melahat Cihan, Aykut Cetin, Metin Kaya and Gokhan Inalhan. Design and analysis of an
Innovative Modular CubeSat Structure for ITU-pSAT II. IEEE Xplore. Faculty of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. Istanbul, Turkey, July 11, 2015.

[2] PSLV Rocket User’s Manual.

[3] H. Chiranjeeve, K. Kalaichelvan and A. Rajadurai. Design and Vibration Analysis of a 2U-
CubeSat Structure Using AA-6061 for AUNSAT – II. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil
Engineering (IOSR - JMCE). Chennai, Taminadu, India.

[4] Hyun-Ung On, Su-Hyeon Jeon and Seong-Cheol Kwon. Structural Design and Analysis of 1U
Standardized STEP Cube Lab for On-Orbit Verification of Fundamental Space Technologies.
International Journal of Materials, Mechanics and Manufacturing, Japan. August 2014.

[5] N. Athirah, M. Afendi, Ku Hafizan, N. Amin and Abdul Majid. Stress and Thermal Analysis of
CubeSat Structure. Applied Mechanics and Materials. Switzerland, 2014.

[6] L. Yoneshige. Design, Analysis, Manufacture and Test of the Structural Housing of the
University of Hawaii Nanosat.

[7] Spacecraft Loads Analysis A. Calvi. ESA/ESTEC, Noordwijk, The Netherlands

[8] Wijker J. Spacecraft Structures. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag 2008.

[9] Singarayar F. Preliminar System Development and Detailed Structural Design and analysis for
the CanX-7 Nanosatellite. Master Thesis. Univ. of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 2012.

[10] CubeSat Design Specification (CDS) Rev. 12. The CubeSat Program, CalPoly SLO.

[11] Mott R. Resistencia de Materiales. México: Pearson-Educación 2009.

11
[12] Space Electronics LLC. Know-How: Center of Gravity. Available at: https://www.space-
electronics.com/KnowHow/centerofgravity (Accessed on: August 20, 2017).

[13] Poly Picosatellite Orbital Deployer (P-POD) Rev. E, User Guide. The CubeSat Program, CalPoly
SLP.

12