12th IEEE Workshop on Variable Structure Systems, VSS12, January 12-14, Mumbai, 2012

Sliding Mode Control based Terminal Impact Angle Constrained Guidance Laws using Dual Sliding Surfaces
Sachit Rao and Debasish Ghose
Abstract In this paper, sliding mode control theory based guidance laws to intercept non-maneuvering targets at a desired impact angle are presented. The desired impact angle, dened in terms of a desired line-of-sight (LOS) angle, is achieved by selecting the missiles lateral acceleration (latax) to enforce sliding mode on a sliding surface based on this LOS angle. As will be shown, this guidance law does not ensure interception for all states of the missile and the target during the engagement. Hence, to satisfy the requirement of interception at the desired impact angle, a second sliding surface is designed and a switching logic, based on the conditions necessary for interception, is presented that allows the latax to switch between enforcing sliding mode on one of these surfaces so that the target can be intercepted at the desired impact angle. The guidance laws are designed using non-linear engagement dynamics.

I. INTRODUCTION Guidance laws that allow a missile to intercept targets, such as ballistic missiles or ships, at a certain impact angle enhance the missiles effectiveness. The performance of such a missile can be further improved if the guidance laws also make the missile insensitive to target maneuvers and launch conditions. In this paper, sliding mode control (SMC) theory [1] is used to design a guidance law that satises both these requirements. In the literature, SMC theory has been used to design impact angle constrained guidance laws. In [2], SMC based guidance laws to intercept maneuvering targets in headon, tail-chase, and head-pursuit engagements are presented. In [3], an integrated guidance and control law based on an adaptive SMC algorithm to intercept stationary targets is proposed. However, for these designs, the achievable impact angle range is limited. Another SMC based integrated guidance law, which imposes a constraint on the launch conditions, to intercept maneuvering targets is designed in [4]. In [5], an SMC based impact angle constrained guidance law, developed for bounded initial conditions, is presented for which estimation of the time-to-go (tgo ) is required. SMC based guidance laws that are not constrained by the impact angle have also been proposed. A higher-order SMC based integrated guidance and control law derived using non-linear engagement dynamics can be found in [6] and [7]. Variants of well-known guidance laws, such as the proportional navigation (PN) guidance law, have also been
This work was partially supported by the IISc Centenary Post-Doctoral Fellowship Program S. Rao is with Systemantics India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore, India

developed to solve the impact angle problem. In [8] and [9], 2-stage PN guidance laws with different navigation constants to intercept stationary and non-maneuvering targets are proposed. Other techniques, such as linearising the kinematicsbased engagement dynamics or using tgo , have been applied to derive such laws, see the references [10], [11], [12], [13], and [14]. In this paper, SMC based guidance laws, which do not need estimates of tgo , are designed using non-linear engagement dynamics to intercept non-maneuvering targets at any impact angle. A common thread that connects the SMC based guidance laws presented in the literature, as well as that presented in this paper, is the enforcement of sliding mode on a sliding surface formulated using the desired interception angle. Based on the capturability analysis presented in this paper, it will be shown that the occurrence of sliding mode on this surface does not ensure interception, even though the impact angle constraint is satised. Following the results of this analysis, a second sliding surface is designed and a switching logic is presented so that the latax can switch between enforcing sliding mode on these surfaces which will result in the interception of the target at the desired impact angle for any launch or mid-engagement conditions. The design of such a guidance laws forms the main contribution of this paper. The paper is organized as follows: In Sections II and III, the problem statement is described and the impact angle is dened in terms of the ight path angles of the missile and the target. Also, in Sec. III, the procedure to design an SMC and the properties of sliding modes are briey described. In Sections IV and V, the dual sliding surface based guidance laws and the simulation results of their implementation are presented, respectively. II. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION Consider a planar engagement between a missile and a non-maneuvering target as shown in Fig. 1. The missile and the target are assumed to have constant velocities, denoted by VM and VT , respectively. Similarly, their ight path angles are denoted by M and T , respectively. The lateral acceleration (latax) of the missile, which is the control input, is denoted by aM . Since only non-maneuvering targets are considered, the target latax aT = 0. The relative distance between the target and the missile is given by r and the LOS angle by . Fig. 1 also depicts the missile and the target on the collision course, and based on this representation, the impact angle, denoted by imp , is dened as the angle

sachit@systemantics.com
D. Ghose is with the Guidance, Control, and Decision Systems Laboratory, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India dghose@aero.iisc.ernet.in

978-1-4577-2067-3/12/$26.00 c 2011 IEEE

325

12th IEEE Workshop on Variable Structure Systems, VSS12, January 12-14, Mumbai, 2012

between the velocity vectors of the missile and target at the time of interception.

= 0. Thus, from which, from (2b), corresponds to when r (1), it can be shown that F is given by F = T f tan1 sin imp cos imp (4)

VT

imp

VM Target Tf

Missile r
aM

and, based on this relation, it can also be shown that there exists a unique relationship between F and imp . B. Sliding Mode Control

Mf

F Ref.

Fig. 1. Planar engagement geometry with the denition of the impact angle

Denoting the ight path angles of the target and the missile at the time of interception as T f and M f , respectively, the impact angle, imp , is dened according to the relation imp = T f M f . (1)

Note that for the case of stationary targets, without loss of generality, the impact angle is dened by choosing T = 0 as a reference. The problem is stated as follows: The missile should intercept the target at the desired impact angle, imp , for any launch or mid-engagement conditions. This problem is solved by designing the missile latax, aM , to meet this requirement using the non-linear kinematics based engagement dynamics r = VT cos T VM cos M , = VT sin T VM sin M r aM , T = 0, M = VM M = M , T = T (2a) (2b) (2c)

As is well known, the design of a sliding mode controller for control-afne dynamical systems of the form x = u, x, u , so that x 0, is a 2-step procedure which involves the selection of 1) A function of the type s = x + cx, c > 0, that results in x 0 if s = 0, and 2) the magnitude of the discontinuous control u = M sign(s), M > 0. It can be shown that by choosing M > |cx |, the states of the system are aligned toward s = 0, reach it within a nite time interval, and then continue to remain on it, with this behaviour known as sliding mode. The resulting closed loop dynamics, given by x = cx, is known as the sliding mode equation and is of reduced order. The features of sliding mode, that set it apart from other nonlinear control algorithms, are that s = 0 holds within a nite-time interval and that the sliding mode dynamics are insensitive to variations in system parameters and external disturbances which might appear in the controllable subspace [1]. Note that though the time taken for sliding mode to begin can be reduced by increasing the control magnitude M , this control magnitude should also be chosen so that constraints on the control u are not violated. If the state x can be measured, then the control u can be chosen as the sum of an equivalent controller and a discontinuous controller in the form u = ueq + udisc , ueq = cx, udisc = M sign(s). (5a) (5b)

and under the additional assumption that the target-to-missile VT speed ratio, denoted by , satises = V < 1. The M guidance law is developed by rst expressing the desired impact angle in terms of a desired LOS angle and then the latax is designed as an SMC so that the missile achieves this LOS angle. III. P RELIMINARY C ONCEPTS In this section, the relation between the impact angle and the LOS angle is derived. A few basic results of sliding mode control theory are also presented. A. Relating the impact and LOS angles To derive an LOS angle that corresponds to the desired impact angle, the missile and target are assumed to be on a collision course, the geometry of which is shown in Fig. 1. Based on this assumption, the corresponding LOS angle, denoted as F , is calculated using the relation VM sin M F = VT sin T F , M F = M f F , T F = T f F , (3)

Now, any M > 0 will enforce sliding mode on s = 0, but it should be noted that choosing a small M leads to an increase in the time interval before when sliding mode begins. These design procedures and approximations are used to develop the guidance laws, presented next. IV. D ESIGN OF THE GUIDANCE LAWS In this section, the guidance laws using dual sliding surfaces are designed. First, the sliding surface which satises the impact angle constraint and the corresponding latax which enforces sliding mode on this surface are designed. Next, by performing a capturability analysis of this guidance law, those engagement conditions when interception does not occur are identied. Based on these results, a second sliding surface and corresponding discontinuous control are designed which ensures interception at the desired impact angle. The logic by which the latax switches between enforcing sliding mode on these surfaces is also presented.

978-1-4577-2067-3/12/$26.00 c 2011 IEEE

326

12th IEEE Workshop on Variable Structure Systems, VSS12, January 12-14, Mumbai, 2012

A. Impact angle constraint To design the latax aM so that the desired LOS angle is achieved, the relative degree 2 dynamics between aM and the LOS angle , given by = 2r aM cos M r (6)

is used. Note that as aM is multiplied by the term cos M , the LOS angle can be controlled only if |M | = 2 . To show that this condition will always be true, by considering aM , aT , and the state T as inputs, from the dynamics M = VM sin M , it is clear that if M = , then M = 0. r 2 Hence, the latax aM can be used to control . For a non-maneuvering target, since T = 0, the derivative F = 0 as well. Hence, to satisfy of the desired LOS angle the impact angle constraint, aM is selected to enforce sliding mode on the surface + C ( F ) = 0, C > 0. s = (7)

as the equivalent latax aeq M , given by (11), has already been computed, from the results (10) and (11), the capturability analysis involves simply analysing the dynamics of r, (2a), but with the states M and T computed at t = TF . Now, = 0, from the open-loop it can be observed that since dynamics (2b), in the domain [0, 2 ], the states M and T satisfy sin M (TF ) = sin T (TF ) M (TF ) = sin1 [ sin T (TF )] or M (TF ) = sin1 [ sin T (TF )] . (12a) (12b) (12c)

Hence, at t = TF , assuming that sin1 ( sin T ) < 2, substituting the solutions (12b) and (12c) in the dynamics of r leads to r = VT cos T cos2 T + 2 1 or r = VT cos T + cos2 T + 2 1
1 2 1 2

(13a) . (13b)

The latax is designed in the form (5) and the equivalent and discontinuous components are calculated by evaluating cos M 2r aM , FM = C . r r As a result, the components of aM are selected as r r FM , adisc M sign(s ), aeq M = M = cos M cos M s = FM (8)

(9)

where, by choosing M > 0, which leads to the dynamics s = M sign(s ), it becomes clear that sliding mode begins on on s = 0 at a nite-time instant, say TS . Hence, = C ( F ), it can from the sliding mode dynamics be deduced that the error F at a rate decided by the parameter C , which in turn, implies that the desired impact angle is achieved asymptotically. Note that though an increase in parameter C increases the rate of convergence of F , from the expressions of FM in (8) and aeq M in (9), such an increase leads to a greater demand in latax as well. Now, with the occurrence of sliding mode on s = 0 at t = TS , it is assumed that there exists another nite-time instant, say TF , where TF > TS , when = 0, r(TF ) = 0. (TF ) = F , As a result, for t TF , the following relations hold T = 0, aeq M M = 0. =0 (11) (10)

From the basics of missile guidance, it is known that interception occurs only if r < 0, that is, that the solution to M , given by (12b) alone, leads to interception. It can be easily veried that r > 0 if M satises (12c). Note that the condition (12b) is both necessary and sufcient for interception. This is because if the condition (12c) holds, = 0, then the equivalent latax still which implies that satises aeq = 0 , which in turn means that the missile cannot M change its course and hence interception does not occur. The primary reason that interception need not occur is because the latax is being designed to control the LOS angle rather than M , the difference between the LOS and missile ight path angles. It is also this reason that allows M to have the two solutions given by (12b) and (12c). Hence, in order that interception can be assured, a second sliding surface, dependent on M is designed, so that by selecting the latax to enforce sliding mode on this surface, the condition for interception is satised. The design of this second surface and the switching logic is presented in the next section. C. Interception constraint In order that the interception condition r < 0 is always satised, the second sliding surface, given by sI = M sin1 ( sin T ) (14)

These results are used to determine the capturability properties of the proposed guidance law and to develop the main results of this paper, presented in the following sections. B. Capturability analysis To analyse the performance of the proposed guidance law, the conditions when interception occurs are identied. With this analysis, the closed-loop engagement dynamics that result with the occurrence of sliding mode on s = 0 can also be studied. In general, to perform closed-loop analyses of dynamic systems controlled by sliding mode controllers, the equivalent control component is used. In this case, however,

is selected. As before, the latax is designed to enforce sliding mode on sI = 0 by rst evaluating s I = aM N =1 N , VM cos T 1 2 sin2 T , (15)

and is then selected, in the form (5), as disc aeq M = N VM , aM = MI VM sign(sI ), MI > 0. (16)

Therefore, within a nite-time interval, sliding mode occurs on sI = 0, and hence the interception condition r < 0 is satised. But, since there is only one control input, namely the latax aM , that can enforce sliding mode on either s = 0 or sI =

978-1-4577-2067-3/12/$26.00 c 2011 IEEE

327

12th IEEE Workshop on Variable Structure Systems, VSS12, January 12-14, Mumbai, 2012 TABLE I I NITIAL CONDITIONS AND PARAMETERS imp r(t = 0) 0 M (t = 0) VM T VT aM max 30 5 km 69 162 300 m/s 100 150 m/s 150 m/s2

0, it has to switch between enforcing sliding mode on one of these surfaces based on some switching logic. This logic is given by MI VM sign(sI ) N VM if r 0 r . (17) aM = [FM + M sign(s )] if r <0 cos M With this switching logic, if at any time, say t = T0 0, during the engagement, the condition r 0 holds, then, from (13a), the control given by (16) ensures that the states M and T attain those values that satisfy the condition r < 0. Now, once this condition is satised, say at some time instant T1 > T0 , then the control given by (9) enforces sliding mode on s = 0, with the initial condition s (T1 ). Hence, with the implementation of this logic, both the interception and impact angle constraints are satised and as a result, once interception occurs at the desired impact angle, both the relations, sI = 0 and s = 0, hold. Note that is not necessary that sliding mode occurs on sI = 0 at t = T1 . The main motivation to select the latax as an SMC, so that the condition for interception is satised, is to ensure that the resulting closed-loop dynamics is insensitive to disturbances. Indeed, any other control algorithm can also be chosen to ensure that the state M does not satisfy the solution (12c). It can be observed that the control (16) is similar to the well-known PN guidance law. The simulation results of implementing the proposed dual sliding surface based guidance laws to intercept a nonmaneuvering target are presented in the next section. V. S IMULATION RESULTS To validate the SMC based guidance laws, a planar engagement scenario was simulated with the initial states of the engagement and missile parameters as listed in Table I. These values were chosen to exhibit that interception cannot occur by only choosing to enforce sliding mode on the surface given by (7). As can be seen, they also serve to illustrate the switching in the control objectives, i.e. switching of the latax as given by (17), that ultimately leads to interception at the desired impact angle. In all cases, the latax aM , was bounded according to the saturation function aM = aM max sign(aM ) if aM aM max , aM if aM < aM max (18)

occurrence of sliding mode on the surfaces s = 0 and sI = 0, as decided by the control logic applied. As can be seen in Figs. 2(a), 3(a), and 4(a) even though sliding mode occurs on s = 0 at point B , since sI = 0, the interception constraint is not satised as Vr > 0 and hence, the missile is not directed towards the target, which thus results in a miss. In contrast, as can be seen in Figs. 2(b), 3(b), and 4(b), the latax rst controls the state M so that Vr < 0 by enforcing sliding mode on sI = 0 and next switches, at point B , to begin enforcing sliding mode on s = 0. Since, from point B onwards, the condition Vr < 0 is always satised, the impact angle and interception constraints are satised, at points C and D. In this set of gures, interception occurs at point E . Finally, the latax proles without and with implementing the switching logic are shown in Fig. 5. VI. C ONCLUSIONS By implementing the proposed guidance laws, interception at the desired impact angle can be assured for any launch or mid-engagement conditions. Moreover, as these are based on SMC theory, with the addition of the switching logic, which is computationally inexpensive, the guidance laws truly become insensitive to parameter variations. In terms of future work, these laws could be extended to the general case of a maneuvering target as well as integration with realistic missile dynamic models. R EFERENCES
[1] V. Utkin, Sliding Modes in Control and Optimization. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 1992. [2] T. Shima, Deviated velocity pursuit, in Collection of Technical Papers - AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference 2007, vol. 4, 2007, pp. 43644379. [3] Y. Wei, M. Hou, and G.-R. Duan, Adaptive multiple sliding surface control for integrated missile guidance and autopilot with terminal angular constraint, in Proceedings of the 29th Chinese Control Conference, Beijing, China, July 2010, pp. 21622166. [4] Q. Xu, J. Yu, J. Yu, and X. Yang, Integrated guidance/autopilot design for missiles with impact angle constraints, in Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Information Acquisition, Shandong, China, August 2006, pp. 7579. [5] Z. Li, S. Weimeng, and Z. Zhiqiang, Control of terminal engagement geometry using variable structure guidance law with impact angular constraint, in Proccedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Systems and Control in Aerospace and Astronautics (ISSCAA 2008), Shenzhen, China, December 2008, pp. 14. [6] Y. B. Shtessel, I. A. Shkolnikov, and A. Levant, Smooth second-order sliding modes: Missile guidance application, Automatica, vol. 43, pp. 14701476, 2007. [7] , Guidance and control of missile interceptor using secondorder sliding modes, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 110124, January 2009.

where, aM max is the latax bound imposed on the missile. In the gures that follow, namely Figs. 2-5, the points denoted by the letters A, B, correspond to those time instants during the engagement when events such as the occurrence of sliding mode and interception occur. Also, in the captions, the phrase without switching means that the latax is selected to enforce sliding mode only on s = 0, while the phrase with switching implies the implementation of (17). Figs. 2 and 3 show the trajectories in the (X, Y ) and (Vr , V ) spaces, respectively, where Vr = r and V = ; these variables have the units m/s. Fig. 4 shows the r

978-1-4577-2067-3/12/$26.00 c 2011 IEEE

328

12th IEEE Workshop on Variable Structure Systems, VSS12, January 12-14, Mumbai, 2012

(a) Fig. 2.

(b) Trajectories in the (X, Y ) space: (a) without switching; (b) with switching

(a) Fig. 3.

(b) Trajectories in the (Vr , V ) space: (a) without switching; (b) with switching

[8] A. Ratnoo and D. Ghose, Impact angle constrained interception of stationary targets, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 18161821, 2008. [9] , Impact angle constrained guidance against nonstationary nonmaneuvering targets, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 269275, January 2010. [10] M. Kim and K. V. Grider, Terminal guidance for impact attitude angle constrained ight trajectories, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. AES-9, no. 6, pp. 852859, 1973. [11] Y. Lee, C. Ryoo, and E. Kim, Optimal guidance with constraints on impact angle and terminal acceleration, in Proceedings of the 2003 AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, Austin, Texas, USA, August 2003. [12] C. K. Ryoo, H. Cho, and M. J. Tahk, Closed-form solutions of optimal guidance with terminal impact angle constraint, in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Control Applications (CCA 2003), vol. 1, 2003, pp. 504509. [13] , Time-to-go weighted optimal guidance with impact angle constraints, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 483492, 2006.

[14] A. Ratnoo and D. Ghose, State-dependent Riccati-equation-based guidance law for impact-angle-constrained trajectories, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 320326, January 2009.

978-1-4577-2067-3/12/$26.00 c 2011 IEEE

329

12th IEEE Workshop on Variable Structure Systems, VSS12, January 12-14, Mumbai, 2012

(a) Fig. 4.

(b) Deviation from sliding mode: (a) without switching; (b) with switching

(a) Fig. 5. Latax prole: (a) without switching; (b) with switching

(b)

978-1-4577-2067-3/12/$26.00 c 2011 IEEE

330