Chun-Liang Lin
AbstractIn this work, a fuzzy logic-based guidance design to deal with the problem is addressed for longer engagement time and beneficial interception attitudes. The
integrated fuzzy logic-based guidance scheme consisting of
vertical, midcourse and terminal guidance phase is capable
of intercepting the target from diverse incoming aspects.
The engagement strategy in vertical guidance phase includes general vertical launch and vertical launch with
back turn (BT) which is deal with the cases of longer and
shorter engagement ranges respectively.
Keywords Guidance and Control, Fuzzy logic control,
Vertical guidance, Ballistic target, Missile.
I. INTRODUCTION
Development of guidance laws for surface-to-air missiles to against very high speed targets has been studied
and investigated in recent year. When a ballistic target
reenters the atmosphere, its speed is very high and remaining time to ground impact is relatively short. From
the results of previous study [1,2], it has been a principle
that the optimal trajectory to intercept a ballistic target is
to construct a near head-on scenario to achieve a direct
hit. Using this setting, it may ultimately hit the target
without resorting to excessive lateral acceleration. In the
past, the guidance designs based on the line-of-sight
(LOS) angle rate were found to be effective for targets
with speed far lower than the pursuit missile and acceptable miss distances (MD) were usually obtainable.
However, new generation targets possess higher speed
and larger maneuverability. Classical guidance laws are
no longer effective to engage that kind of targets [3].
In the literature, several guidance design techniques such
as linear quadratic regulator (LQR) [4], explicit guidance
[5] and modified proportional guidance [6] have been
proposed for implementation of the optimal guidance
law. In particular, LQR [2], modified explicit guidance
[7] has been applied to deal with the anti-tactical ballistic
missile (ATBM) guidance design problem. However,
solving LQR problems in real time is known to be practically infeasible in most cases.
Base on the feasible and easy realizable requirements, a
fuzzy system possesses a simpler structure than the traditional trajectory shaping guidance and doesnt demand
on the precise modeling knowledge. Furthermore, realization of a fuzzy inference system is easy enough to
minimize the work load of the airborne computer. Recently,
m0
L = ( vm2 sm CmL ) / 2
D = ( v s CmD ) / 2
2
m m
and
with
the
drag
force
CmL = CmL ( 0 )
is
and
H-Axis
A
Y-
Ballistic
Target
xis
vm
Missile
Airframe
Engagement
Strategy
Information of relative geometry
Actuator control
commands
Predicted
B. TARGET
vtx
(7)
v
g sin 1 g + ath , vth (0) = vth 0
2
, vty and vth denote the velocity components of
v&th =
where
vt2
g cos 1 cos 2 + aty , vty (0) = vty 0
2
2
t
the flight path angles 1 and 2 and the ballistic coefficient are given as
1 ( t ) = tan 1
Target kinematics
Missile kinematics
X-Axis
(8)
v
W
2 ( t ) = tan 1 tx , and =
v
C
s
t tD 0
ty
where st W and CtD 0 represent the reference area,
weight and zero-lift drag coefficient of the ballistic target,
respectively.
III. ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY
PIP in ?
GVLG Law
Autopilot
Midcourse
Guidance Law
VLBG Law
Acceleration
commands
Shaping
Guidance Law
Terminal
Guidance Law
Guidance
Command
Transformation
Terminal
Guidance Law
Guidance commands
There are two actions to be implemented during the vertical guidance phase. First, the interceptor has to roll to
an orientation toward the oncoming target so that the
pitch plane of the interceptors body coordinate are
placed approximately in the same vertical plane to simplify the maneuver and reduce the required lateral acceleration in the horizontal plane. Second, the interceptor
body is forced to incline and commence the course of
engagement while it reaches a favorable altitude.
B. GVLG
d = tan 1 f
(10)
x f% xm 0
vmavg Rmtxy
vmavg vtxy
+ Rlock
(13)
where
2
2
Rmtxy = Rmtx
+ Rmty
H-Axis
target
Y-Axis
X-Axis
turning point
vertical flight
vertical roll
missile
mtxh v
(a)
Differentiating Eq. (19) with respect to time and combining these equations yields
v&
2 R&
R&
(20)
&&v = m mtxh &v + mtxh &
Rmtxh
vm Rmtxh
target
H-Axis
Y-Axis
X-Axis
gop
gop
mtxh
mtxh
J = & 2 (t )dt
vertical flight
vertical roll
missile
(b)
Fig. 3. Engagement scenario for the vertical launch interceptor: (a)
without BT, (b) with BT.
C. VLBG
When the target has already come close to the top of the
launcher, raising the interceptor body must be fulfilled;
see Fig. 3(b). The desired interceptor flight trajectory for
the vertical plane is illustrated in Fig. 4(a). The BT point
is denoted by M with the turning angle bv = 1 , where
1 is the targets flight path angle in the pitch plane and
M z is the desired height of the turning point. We denote
PIP as the predicted interception point and let
(14)
PIPd = PIPz M z
Therefore
bM =
PIPd
PIPx
tan 1
(15)
2
2
2
R = Rmtx
+ Rmty
+ Rmtz
Rp R
RP
=
&
RP Rmtx vrx + Rmty vry + Rmth vrh
(24)
where vrx = vmx vtx , vry = vmy vty , vrh = vmh vth ,
vmx = vm cos cos
and
x f = xt + vtx t gop
where
y f = yt + vty t gop
and
ym
(26)
xm
)
ht = ht + vth t%
Mz
L
M
H
Zt
R
M
L
M
M
N
L
L
M
F
M
M
H
with
t% =
Rlock
Rlock R
=
&
Rp
Rmtx vrx + Rmty vry + Rmth vrh
(27)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 5. MFs adopted in the vertical launch phase: (a) R (m), (b) Z t (m),
(c) M z (m)
R
Target (I.C.)
Mz H
H
M Zt
PIP
L
PIPz
LOPV
Q
FM
bv
M
VFM
Mz
a
Missile(I.C.)
PIPx
HFM
(a)
HFM
Missile(I.C.)
bh
VFM
LOPV
2
Target(I.C.)
(b)
Fig. 4. Desired flight trajectory for BT: (a) pitch plane, (b) horizontal
plane
Vertical roll M z = f vr ( Z t , R)
The linguistic variables for the guidance law are Z t and
R , and the output variable is the desired height M z .
Each linguistic variable is assumed to be characterized
by three linguistic sets, see Fig. 5. Illustration of the ideal
arrangement is displayed in Fig. 6 which is realized by 9
rules in Table 1. Finer guidance decisions are directly
obtainable by expanding the rule base.
fv
:Group1
&
LN
SN
ZE
SP
LP
LN
LN
LN
LN
LN
LN
SN
LN
SN
SN
ZE
ZE
ZE
SN
SN
ZE
SP
SP
SP
ZE
ZE
SP
SP
LP
LP
LP
LP
LP
LP
LP
:Group2
:Group3
:Group4
:Group5
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 7. MFs for the BT in the vertical launch mode: (a) d (deg),
(b) & (deg/s), (c) fv (deg)
Fuzzy
midcourse
fm = f m ( v , v )
guidance
law
(FMGL)
Each of the linguistic variables is assumed to be characterized by five fuzzy sets. The velocity error angle v
is considered more important than the heading error angle v ; the former is thus weighted heavier.
Fuzzy shaping guidance law (FSGL) = f s ( v , v )
Since the position error dominates MDs, a feasible approach is to keep applying the midcourse guidance law
but to linearly reduce v and Rlock to zero so that the
inference command is gradually dominated by the position error.
Fuzzy terminal guidance law (FTGL) ft = f t ( v , & v )
In terminal phase, the velocity error in determining the
guidance command becomes the minor concern. It would
be appropriate to apply the position error v alone to
facilitate the terminal guidance design. A fuzzy PD-like
controller is thus proposed. A rule table analogous to the
standard PD fuzzy rule base can be accordingly applied.
The horizontal guidance design except that the influence
due to gravity can be ignored. The control variable
becomes the side-slip angle , becomes the azimuth
angle , and v becomes the inertial LOS angle h in
the horizontal plane.
22000
21000
21000
B
Y(m)
20500
7000
1400
20000
500
3800
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 8. MFs for M z in the vertical launch case with BT: (a) R (m),
(b) Z t (m), (c) M z (m).
-5000
-6000
8000
9000
3500
X(m)
-4000
5000
-8000
-6000
-4000
18500
4000
20000
6000
8000
X(m)
-7000
-3500
C
18000
Y(m)
17500
-7000
D
16000
16000
(a)
(b)
Fig. 9. Defensible volumes for the vertical launch case in: (a) fourth
quadrant, (b) 3D space
delta v
sigmav
200
alpham
gamma
gammaf
80
60
40
Highly on the H axis(m)
50
0
-20
-40
-60
-50
-100
-100
10
15
20
25
30
10
15
20
25
time (s e c )
time (s e c)
(a)
40
phim
psi
psif
20
-20
-40
deg
deg
-20
-40
-60
1.5
-6000
-8000
-10000
-12000
-14000
-16000
5000
10000
Distance on the X axis(m)
15000
20000
-18000
-5000
5000
10000
Distance on the X axis(m)
15000
20000
(a)
(b)
Fig. 12. Engagement trajectories corresponding to the target with the
reentry coordinates (16600, 16730, 38500) (m); (a) relative distance
between interceptor and target in the X-H plane and (b) X-Y plane
20
deltah
sigmah
0
-5000
(b)
60
2.5
0.5
30
missile
target
-2000
-4000
-80
missile
target
20
100
deg
deg
150
x 10
3.5
250
-60
-80
-80
-100
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
-100
-120
-120
-140
10
15
20
25
30
-140
10
time(sec)
15
20
25
30
time(sec)
(c)
(d)
Fig. 10. Related response profiles correspond to the target with the
reentry coordinates (29000, 28500, 44300) (m); (a)-(b) velocity error
angle and heading error angle of the vertical plane; (c)-(d) velocity error
angle and heading error angle of the horizontal plane
REFERENCES
[1]
20000
19000
400
8000
X(m)
100
500
1000
8000
Y (m)
18000
H
17000