Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

OPTIMAL STATE SPACE

CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN APPROACH FOR MISSILE ROLL AUTOPILOT

Notes based on papers (1) Why Modern Controllers Can Go Unstable in Practice” by F.W.Nesline and P.Zarchan and (2) ”Combined Optimal/Classical Approach to Robust Missile Autopilot Design” by F.W.Nesline, B.H.Wells and P.Zarchan.

Contents

 1 Missile Control 1 1.1 Control Techniques in Roll Autopilots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 MODERN CONTROL APPLIED TO MISSILE ROLL AUTOPILOT,, 2 1.2.1 Fundamentals of Optimal Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2.2 Application to Missile Roll Autopilot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2.3 Solved Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 References 6 i

Chapter 1

Missile Control

An autopilot  is a closed loop system and it is a minor loop inside the main guidance loop; not all missile systems require an autopilot.

 (a) Broadly speaking autopilots either control the motion in the pitch and yaw planes, in which they are called lateral autopilots, or they control the motion about the fore and aft axis in which case they are called roll autopilots. (b) In aircraft autopilots, those designed to control the motion in the pitch plane are called longitudinal autopilots and only those to control the motion in yaw are called lateral autopilots. (c) For a symmetrical cruciform missile however pitch and yaw autopilots are often identical; one injects a g bias in the vertical plane to oﬀset the eﬀect of gravity but this does not aﬀect the design of the autopilot.

1.1 Control Techniques in Roll Autopilots

 (a) Traditional or Conventional Design of Roll Autopilot as given in   . (b) Design of Roll Autopilot using Optimisation Technique. (Linear Quadratic Regu- lator)

1

(c)

Design of Roll Autopilot using Sliding Mode Control.

 (d) Design of Roll Autopilot using Inertial Delay Control. (e) Design of Roll Autopilot using Disturbance Observer.

1.2 MODERN CONTROL APPLIED TO MISSILE ROLL AUTOPILOT,,

The transfer function which forms the basis of roll autopilot design is

˙

φ

δ

(s) =

K δ

1

ω

1 +

s

RR

ω

RR

(1.1)

where

˙

φ is the roll rate, δ c is the ﬁn deﬂection command, K δ is the ﬁn eﬀectiveness

and ω RR is the roll rate bandwidth.

This transfer function model can be transformed into a simpliﬁed model given by

¨

φ

˙

φ(0)

˙

= ω RR . φ + K δ c

=

˙

φ 0

(1.2)

(1.3)

The controller requires roll angle φ as a state which cannot be directly measured.

˙

The ideal rate gyro can measure the roll rate,

by integrating the output of the gyro,

φ. Thus the roll angle can be calculated

˙

φ m , to obtain the estimated roll angle,

˙

phi m . Denoting p = φ m , the augmented system using eqn.1.3 can be described by two

ﬁrst order diﬀerential equations given by

˙

φ m

=

p

p˙ = ω RR .p + K δ c

(1.4)

(1.5)

The above set of equations can be expressed in state space model as

x˙ = A x + B u

2

(1.6)

where x = φ m , A =

p

B =

K δ .

0

0

0

1

ω

RR , 1.2.1 Fundamentals of Optimal Control

For the optimal control problem, given an initial state x(t 0 ), we want to ﬁnd a control

vector u that drives the state x(t 0 ) to the desired ﬁnal state x d (t f ) in such a way that a

selected performance index of the form

J = g(x, u, t)dt

is minimised.

(1.7)

The functional form of the performance index can be expressed in a variety of forms.

One useful form which includes a quadratic index and a penalty for physical constraints

such as expenditure of control energy is given as

J =

x T

Q x + u T

R udt

where Q and R are weighting matrices.

(1.8)

If we apply the principle of calculus of variations to the minimisation of the perfor-

mance index, we obtain the Riccati equation. The Riccati equation is a set of non-linear

diﬀerential equations which must be solved for the Riccati gains S(t) and is given as

= S(t)BR 1 B T S(t) S(t)A A T S(t) Q

(1.9)

For the case in which ﬁnal time t f approaches inﬁnity, the Riccati gain matrix, S(t),

becomes a constant matrix, S, and reduces to

SBR 1 B T S SA A T S Q = 0

3

(1.10)

Using the quadratic performance index deﬁned in eqn.1.8, it can be shown that for a

linear feedback control, the optimal control law is

u

= R 1 B T S x

(1.11)

1.2.2 Application to Missile Roll Autopilot

For the given problem of eqn.1.6, the quadratic performance index that is to be minimised

is

J = inf

0

[( δ CMX

φ

MX

) 2 φ 2 + ( δ CMX ) 2 φ 2 + δ c 2 ]dt

˙

˙

φ

MX

˙

(1.12)

where φ MX is the maximum desired value of roll angle φ, φ MX is the maximum desired

value of roll rate,

δ c .

˙

φ and δ CMX is the maximum desired value of ﬁn deﬂection command

Comparing eqn.1.8 and 1.12 gives

Q =

δ

2

CMX

φ

2

MX

0

0

δ CMX 2

˙

φ

2

MX

(1.13)

and R = 1.

Another form can be

J

=

inf

0

in which case

[

1

φ MX 2 φ 2 +

1

˙ 1 φ 2 + δ CMX 2 δ c 2 ]dt

˙

φ

2

MX

(1.14)

Q =

and R =

1

φ MX 2

0

0

1

˙

φ

2

MX

1

δ CMX 2 .

4

(1.15)

Substituting the matrices A, B, Q and R into the Riccati eqn.1.10, with the Riccati

gain matrix given by the symmetric matrix

S

S

11

12

S

S

22

12

(1.16)

the matrices can be expanded and simpliﬁed to arrive at the following equations:-

,

δ CMX

2

φ MX

2

S 12 2 K δ 2 = 0

S 11 ω RR S 12 S 12 S 22 K δ 2 = 0

and

2S 12 2ω RR S 22 + δ CMX 2

˙

φ

2

MX

S 22 2 K δ 2 = 0

1.2.3 Solved Example

Using the table given  repeated below,

(1.17)

(1.18)

(1.19) Figure 1.1: Nominal Values of Inputs for Roll Autopilot 

the control law can be calculated as

˙

u = 3φ 0.103 φ

5

(1.20)

References

 Nesline, F. W. Wells, B. and Zarchan, P., “Combined Optimal/Classical Approach to Robust Missile Autopilot Design,” Journal of Guidance and Control , Vol. 4, No. 3, May-Jun 1981, pp. 316–322.

 Nesline, F. W. and Zarchan, P., “Why Modern Controllers can go Unstable in Prac- tice,” Journal of Guidance, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1984, pp. 495–500.

 Robert C.Nelson, D., Flight Stability and Automatic Control , McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 1989.

 Garnell, P., Guided Weapon Control Systems, Brassey’s Defence Publishers, London,

1980.

6