Anda di halaman 1dari 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 1.2 Control Techniques in Roll Autopilots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MODERN CONTROL APPLIED TO MISSILE ROLL AUTOPILOT[1],[2],[3] 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 References Fundamentals of Optimal Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Application to Missile Roll Autopilot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Solved Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 2 3 4 5 6

Chapter 1 Missile Control


An autopilot [4] 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 oset the eect of gravity but this does not aect the design of the autopilot.

1.1

Control Techniques in Roll Autopilots

(a) Traditional or Conventional Design of Roll Autopilot as given in [4] [1] [2]. (b) Design of Roll Autopilot using Optimisation Technique. (Linear Quadratic Regulator) 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[1],[2],[3]

The transfer function which forms the basis of roll autopilot design is K (s) = RR 1 s 1 + RR (1.1)

where is the roll rate, c is the n deection command, K is the n eectiveness and RR is the roll rate bandwidth. This transfer function model can be transformed into a simplied model given by = RR . + K .c (0) = 0 (1.2) (1.3)

The controller requires roll angle as a state which cannot be directly measured. The ideal rate gyro can measure the roll rate, . Thus the roll angle can be calculated by integrating the output of the gyro, m , to obtain the estimated roll angle, phim . Denoting p = m , the augmented system using eqn.1.3 can be described by two rst order dierential equations given by m = p p = RR .p + K .c (1.4) (1.5)

The above set of equations can be expressed in state space model as x=A x+B u (1.6)

where x =

m p 0 K

,A=

0 RR

B=

1.2.1

Fundamentals of Optimal Control

For the optimal control problem, given an initial state x(t0 ), we want to nd a control vector u that drives the state x(t0 ) to the desired nal state xd (tf ) in such a way that a selected performance index of the form

J=

g(x, u, t)dt

(1.7)

is minimised. 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=

xT Q x + uT R udt

(1.8)

where Q and R are weighting matrices. If we apply the principle of calculus of variations to the minimisation of the performance index, we obtain the Riccati equation. The Riccati equation is a set of non-linear dierential equations which must be solved for the Riccati gains S(t) and is given as = S(t)BR1 B T S(t) S(t)A AT S(t) Q (1.9)

For the case in which nal time tf approaches innity, the Riccati gain matrix, S(t), becomes a constant matrix, S, and reduces to

SBR1 B T S SA AT S Q = 0 3

(1.10)

Using the quadratic performance index dened in eqn.1.8, it can be shown that for a linear feedback control, the optimal control law is u = R1 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

inf

J=
0

[(

CM X 2 2 CM X 2 2 ) +( ) + c 2 ]dt M X M X

(1.12)

where M X is the maximum desired value of roll angle , M X is the maximum desired value of roll rate, and CM X is the maximum desired value of n deection command c . Comparing eqn.1.8 and 1.12 gives Q=
CM X 2 0 M X 2 CM X 2 0 2 X M

(1.13)

and R = 1. Another form can be

inf

J=
0

1 M X

2 2

1 2 X M

2 +

1 CM X

2 c

]dt

(1.14)

in which case

Q=

1 M X 2

0
1 2 X M

(1.15)

and R =

1 . CM X 2

Substituting the matrices A, B, Q and R into the Riccati eqn.1.10, with the Riccati gain matrix given by the symmetric matrix S11 S12 S12 S22 (1.16)

the matrices can be expanded and simplied to arrive at the following equations:CM X 2 2 2 2 S12 K = 0 M X , S11 RR S12 S12 S22 K 2 = 0 and 2S12 2RR S22 + CM X 2 S22 2 K 2 = 0 2 M X (1.19) (1.18) (1.17)

1.2.3

Solved Example

Using the table given [1] repeated below,

Figure 1.1: Nominal Values of Inputs for Roll Autopilot [1]

the control law can be calculated as u = 3 0.103 (1.20)

References
[1] 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. 316322. [2] Nesline, F. W. and Zarchan, P., Why Modern Controllers can go Unstable in Practice, Journal of Guidance, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1984, pp. 495500. [3] Robert C.Nelson, D., Flight Stability and Automatic Control , McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 1989. [4] Garnell, P., Guided Weapon Control Systems, Brasseys Defence Publishers, London, 1980.