0 Votos favoráveis0 Votos desfavoráveis

12 visualizações11 páginasImproved differential geometric guidance commands

Nov 28, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd

Improved differential geometric guidance commands

© All Rights Reserved

12 visualizações

Improved differential geometric guidance commands

© All Rights Reserved

Você está na página 1de 11

Technological Sciences

RESEARCH PAPER

doi: 10.1007/s11431-012-5087-z

endoatmospheric interception of high-speed targets

LI KeBo, CHEN Lei* & TANG GuoJin

College of Aerospace Science and Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha 410073, China

Received June 13, 2012; accepted November 13, 2012; published online December 3, 2012

Pure proportional navigation (PPN) is suitable for endoatmospheric interceptions, for its commanded acceleration is perpendicular to interceptor velocity. However, if the target is much faster than the interceptor, the homing performance of PPN will

be degraded badly. True proportional navigation (TPN) does not have this problem, but its commanded acceleration is perpendicular to the line of sight (LOS), which is not suitable for endoatmospheric interceptions. The commanded acceleration of

differential geometric guidance commands (DGGC) is perpendicular to the interceptor velocity, while the homing performance

approximates the LOS referenced guidance laws (PPN series). Therefore, DGGC is suitable for endoatmospheric interception

of high-speed targets. However, target maneuver information is essential for the construction of DGGC, and the guidance

commands are complex and may be without robustness. Through the deep analysis of three-dimensional engagement, a new

construction method of DGGC is proposed in this paper. The target maneuver information is not needed any more, and the robustness of DGGC is guaranteed, which makes the application of DGGC possible.

differential geometric guidance commands, endoatmospheric interception, high-speed targets, proportional navigation,

robustness

Citation:

Li K B, Chen L, Tang G J. Improved differential geometric guidance commands for endoatmospheric interception of high-speed targets. Sci China

Tech Sci, 2013, 56: 518528, doi: 10.1007/s11431-012-5087-z

1 Introduction

The first proportional navigation (PN) guidance law was

actually pure proportional navigation (PPN), which was

used in the guidance of endoatmospheric missiles to intercept airplanes or other moving targets [1]. Later, based on

the requirement of exoatmospheric interception, true proportional navigation (TPN) came out [2]. Since PPN can

only be analytically solved with the navigation constant

N=1 or 2 [3], its homing performance is usually analyzed by

qualitative or quasi-qualitative methods. Guelman [46]

qualitatively analyzed the homing performance of PPN

against nonmaneuvering and maneuvering targets. Shukla

*Corresponding author (email: chenl@nudt.edu.cn)

Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

and quasi-linearization methods. After a while, Becker [9]

obtained the closed-form solution of PPN when N>2 with

the help of the expansion theory of meromorphic function.

TPN is mathematically more tractable than PPN. Guelman [10] did some early research on TPN. He obtained the

closed-form solution and the circular capture region. Dhar

and Ghose [11] extended Guelmans method to study the

capture region of the realistic true proportional navigation

(RTPN). Yang and Yeh [12, 13] proposed the generalized

true proportional navigation (GTPN) whose commanded

acceleration has a projection along the line of sight (LOS).

By assuming the interceptor commanded acceleration to be

perpendicular to the relative velocity between interceptor

and target, Yuan and Chern [14] proposed the ideal proportional navigation (IPN) guidance law.

tech.scichina.com

www.springerlink.com

Li K B, et al.

Shukla and Mahapatra [15] summarized the previous research results and thought that PPN was totally over TPN.

However, although the capture region of PPN is larger, the

effectiveness of PPN is guaranteed with the precondition

that the interceptor is faster. If the target is much faster, the

homing performance of PPN will be badly degraded.

Therefore, PPN is not suitable for endoatmospheric interception of high-speed targets.

The research results mentioned above are all in twodimensional (2D) space. Yang and Yang [16] proposed a

unified approach to the 2D PN guidance laws, which included both TPN series and PPN in a unified frame. The

closed-form solutions of TPN, RTPN, GTPN, IPN, PPN,

and a kind of optimal proportional navigation (OPN) with

an index function of time and energy were obtained.

When conducting three-dimensional (3D) analysis of the

PN guidance laws, the usual method is to decouple the 3D

relative dynamic equations in two mutual vertical planes of

the LOS reference frame [17]. Yang and Yang [1820] advanced a set of relative dynamic equations based on the

spheric coordinate system, with the advantage of decoupling

the transverse relative motion from the longitudinal relative

motion. Considering the basic requirements of capture,

Duflos [21] presented a modified 3D TPN, whose capture

capability approximated PPN. With the help of the relative

dynamic equations established in the modified polar coordinate system (MPC), Tyan [22, 23] proposed a kind of

phase plane method to analyze the capture region of TPN

and extended the unified approach proposed by Yang and

Yang to 3D space.

Based on constant-speed assumption and classical differential geometry theory, Chiou and Kuo [2426] proposed

differential geometric guidance commands (DGGC) in the

arc-length system, including a guidance curvature command

and two torsion commands. The torsion commands were

advanced to guarantee the effectiveness of curvature command. For Chiou and Kuos DGGC, the interceptor is faster

than the target. Li et al. [2732] firstly transformed DGGC

from arc-length system to time domain, and deduced the

initial capture condition with a much faster target. Li et al.

[33] proposed a new construction method of DGGC in time

domain based on the research of LOS rotation principle, and

proved that Chiou and Kuos DGGC was just a special case

of the DGGC family. According to the deep analysis of

DGGC it could be found that, the LOS referenced guidance

laws (TPN series) could be transformed into the interceptor

velocity referenced guidance laws (PPN series). Therefore,

the homing performance of DGGC will not be degraded

with a faster target and the commanded acceleration of

DGGC is perpendicular to interceptor velocity, which

makes it suitable for endoatmospheric interception of highspeed targets.

However, the target maneuver information, which is usually hard to obtain, is imported in DGGC. Simultaneously,

there are several cosines of angles between unit vectors in-

519

may cause the system to be delicate. Through the analysis

of the basic requirement of DGGC, we have found that

DGGC could be directly constructed without the introduction of target maneuver information, and the expressions of

DGGC could be simplified. In this way, the robustness of

the guidance system is improved. At last, the effectiveness

and robustness of the improved DGGC against endoatmospheric high-speed targets are demonstrated by numerical

simulation results.

commands

When the target is flying in the air, the aerodynamic force is

the main control force. It could be assumed that the accelerations of interceptor and target are both vertical to their own

velocities. Then, the flight trajectories of interceptor and

target in 3D space could be considered as continuous

smooth curves.

Frenet-Serret formula is essential to the description of the

motions of space curves from the viewpoint of classical

differential geometry theory. Let t, n, and b be the tangential, normal, and binormal unit vectors of a space curve,

respectively, as shown in Figure 1.

The Frenet-Serret fomula is

dt

ds n,

dn

t b,

ds

db

ds n,

(1)

derivative with respect to the trajectory of the space curve,

viz.,

ds dt V ,

(2)

It is appropriate to use the space curve model to describe

the flight trajectory of an endoatmospheric flight vehicle

that is controlled by the aerodynamic force. Curvature

Figure 1

520

Li K B, et al.

torsion represents rolling around the interceptor velocity.

Comparing with traditional constant maneuver and sinusoidal maneuver, the model of curvature and torsion is more

reasonable, which is one motivation of Chiou and Kuo to

propose DGGC in the arc-length system.

Taking the arc-length of interceptor trajectory as independent variable, Chiou and Kuo [24] established the absolute and relative dynamic equations. Then, they deduced the

guidance curvature and torsion commands in arc-length

system, viz.,

m m 2 t

nt (e er )

Nr

,

nm (e er ) nm (e er )

m t m (e er ) nm (e er )

nm er

m1 b (e e ) b (e e ) b (e e ) ,

m

r

m

r

m

r

(

)

b

e

e

b

e

m

r

m

r

,

m 2 nm (e er ) nm (e er )

(3)

(4)

m represents the interceptor, the superscript represents

derivative with respect to the arc-length, er is the unit vector

along LOS, e is the unit vector of the LOS angular velocity,

m=Vt/Vm is the ratio of speeds of interceptor and target, r

is the relative distance, is the LOS rate in arc-length system. According to eqs. (3) and (4), target maneuver information is included in t and e .

Li et al. [2731] transformed eqs. (3) and (4) from the

arc-length system to the time domain, and deduced the initial capture condition when the target was faster than the

interceptor (the speed ratio m>1), and also proposed the

iterative solution of DGGC. Later, according to the endoatmospheric interception of tactical ballistic missiles

(TBM), Li [32] eliminated the target maneuver information

from the guidance command, and proposed an inexplicit

expression of guidance command as follows:

(5)

superscript represents derivative with respect to time,

Vm is the interceptor velocity, e(t) and (t) are the counterparts of e and expressed in the time domain. However,

eq. (5) is uneasy to solve, and the iterative method is needed.

Li et al. [33] restudied the relative dynamic relationship

between interceptor and target while investigating DGGC.

By using the LOS kinematic equations [33, 34]:

er s e ,

e s er s e ,

e e ,

s

(6)

r rs 2 atr amr ,

r s 2rs at am ,

r a a ,

t

m

s s

(7)

e er is the unit normal vector of LOS. er, e, and e form

the bases of the LOS rotation coordinate system. er and e

constitute the instantaneous rotation plane of LOS (IRPL),

where LOS always locates. s is the instantaneous LOS rate.

IRPL may rotate around er in 3D space, and s is the IRPL

rotation rate. The subscripts r, , and represent projections along er, e, and e, respectively. a represents the acceleration. The first two equations of eq. (7) are decoupled

with the third one. According to the analysis of the basic

requirement of capture conducted by Duflos [21], the rotation of IRPL will not cause influence on the final capture.

Then, the relative motion between interceptor and target

could be decomposed into two parts: the relative motion in

IRPL and the rotation of IRPL.

Using eqs. (6) and (7), Li et al. [33] proposed a new construction method of DGGC in the time domain, i.e.

am

,

Vm2 (nm e )

m (t m e ) s (nm er ) s (nm e )

m1 (b e ) V (b e ) V (b e ) ,

m

m

m

m

m

b

e

b

e

(

)

(

)

s m s m r ,

m 2 Vm (nm e ) Vm (nm e )

(8)

(9)

commanded acceleration is perpendicular to LOS. For example, if it is TPN, am Nrs ; if it is the augmented

true proportional navigation (APN), am at Nrs . The

other variables are with the same meanings as before. According to the comparison, eqs. (3) and (4) are actually the

transformation results from APN into DGGC, which is a

special case of eqs. (8) and (9).

of high-speed targets

The airborne interceptors are mainly controlled by the

airdynamic force. Even though the atmospheric density is

not large enough, the reaction force is just used to help adjust the attitude of interceptor (like the American PAC-3

interceptor). The trajectory is still mainly controlled by the

airdynamic force [35]. Only the interceptors that fly on the

atmosphere edge or outside the atmosphere use the reaction

force as the main control force, like the American THAAD

and GMD interceptors.

The traditional guidance law used by the airborne inter-

Li K B, et al.

TPN are shown in Figure 2.

In Figure 2, is the LOS angle in the 2D space. and

are the velocity obliquities of interceptor and target, respectively. er is the LOS, am is the commanded acceleration of

interceptor.

As shown in Figure 2, the commanded acceleration of

PPN is perpendicular to interceptor velocity, and the commanded acceleration of TPN is perpendicular to LOS. For

the same magnitude of commanded acceleration

am N r s

(10)

if PPN is adopted, the projections of the commanded accelerations along LOS and perpendicular to LOS are

amrPPN N r s sin( ),

am PPN N r s cos( ),

(11)

amrTPN 0,

am TPN N r s ,

(12)

case. Therefore, for a certain magnitude of commanded acceleration, we usually have

am PPN am TPN .

(13)

final capture, the 3D interception problem could be analyzed with just the first two equations of eq. (7). Let Vr r

which is the closing speed, V rs which is the projection of relative velocity vertical to LOS, then according to

the first equation of eq. (7), we have

r atr amr

V2

,

r

521

According to eq. (15), if V 0, the influence on the relative motion caused by amr is an infinitesimal compared with

am.

At the same time, taking the derivative of V rs ,

VV

V rs r s at am r .

r

(16)

the engagement, V will not keep 0 for long, because there

are always some errors and some tiny disturbances caused

by external forces such as the gravity difference from the

earth, the moon, or the sun. For the coefficient of V in eq.

(16) is Vr/r>0 which is like a positive feedback, |V| will

gradually increase when at am 0. Then, the influence

on r caused by at am is always one-order higher than

atr amr . From eq. (16) it could be seen that the variation

of V could be controlled by am. Therefore, the countermeasure between interceptor and target always focuses on

the direction of e, and the capability of am to reduce s to

make a collision is much stronger than that of amr.

According to the above analysis, PPN needs a larger

commanded acceleration to obtain the same homing performance of TPN. Therefore, the homing performance of

PPN is actually weaker than that of TPN. Traditionally,

PPN is considered superior to TPN for its mighty capture

capability. However, the precondition is Vm Vt . According to Guelman [46, 15], for PPN, Vm 2Vt is usually

required to obtain a fine interception result.

The homing performances of PPN and TPN against a

high-speed target are demonstrated in Figure 3 by the ideal

numerical simulation without considerations of errors and

delays of the guidance and control system.

(14)

V

V V2

d

(atr amr ) 2(at am ) 3 r 2 .

r

dt

r

Figure 2

(15)

Figure 3 LOS rates of PPN and TPN against a high-speed nonmaneuvering target.

522

Li K B, et al.

From Figure 3 we can see that when intercepting highspeed target, the control of LOS rate of PPN is not as effective as TPN.

Since PPN is not suitable for the interception of highspeed targets and the LOS referenced guidance laws (like

TPN) are not suitable for endoatmospheric interceptions,

there is a heavy demand of designing new guidance laws for

the endoatmospheric interception of high-speed targets,

especially high-speed maneuvering targets.

commands

Usually, the analyses of guidance laws are conducted in the

2D plane. Traditionally, the 3D interception problem is

solved by constructing two 2D guidance laws in horizontal

and vertical planes of the LOS reference coordinate system

[17]. In fact, 2D guidance laws could be directly constructed in IRPL in 3D space to solve the 3D interception problem [33].

According to the unified approach of PN guidance laws

proposed by Yang and Yang [16], any PN guidance law

could be expressed by the following unified frame:

a m NL s ,

(17)

where L is the normal direction of the commanded acceleration. For PPN, L=Vm. Therefore, 3D PPN could be expressed as [34]

a PPN NVm s t m ,

(18)

ePPN

e t m

e t m

(19)

then we know that ePPN e which means ePPN is located

in IRPL.

The commanded accelerations of the designed guidance

laws hereunto are always located in IRPL. The form of the

commanded acceleration is different when the guidance law

is designed with different control theories such as optimal

control theory, sliding-mode variable structure principle,

and differential game theory, etc., while the direction of the

commanded acceleration is not changed. However, DGGC

is an innovation in this aspect.

According to Li [33], the commanded acceleration of

DGGC is outside IRPL, which is expressed as

aDGGC

am

nm ,

(nm e )

(20)

original LOS referenced guidance law as in eq. (8), and

should be kept from 0. Therefore, the following equation

could be valid:

nm e ,

(21)

where is a positive constant below 1. m1 could be deduced by taking the derivative of eq. (21). If we let

bm e ,

(22)

m2 could be deduced by taking the derivative of eq. (22).

Eq. (21) is more reasonable than eq. (22), because the denominator of eq. (20) is a constant by using eq. (21) and

aDGGC could be kept from a quite big value when eq. (21) is

guaranteed.

The torsion command m1 represents the rotation of the

interceptor body to make nm and e meet the requirement of

eq. (21). Substituting eq. (20) into eq. (7), we have

a

r rs 2 atr m (nm er ),

r

r

a

s

s

t am ,

a

rs s at m (nm e ).

(23)

Since s will not affect the final interception and the influence on r caused by aDGGCr am (nm er ) is an infinitesimal compared with aDGGC am , the homing performance of DGGC approximates that of the original LOS

referenced guidance law am.

Therefore, DGGC is actually a kind of differential geometric transformation, which transforms the LOS referenced guidance laws into interceptor velocity referenced

guidance laws. Since the homing performance of the LOS

referenced guidance law will not be badly degraded against

high-speed targets, DGGC is suitable for endoatmospheric

interception of high-speed targets.

However, there are two main drawbacks of DGGC. The

first one is that the target maneuver information is imported

in DGGC. According to eqs. (8) and (9), even when TPN is

transformed into DGGC, s (at am ) (rs ) which

contains at is needed. The second one is that the torsion

command of DGGC is complex and with some cosines of

angles between unit vectors in the denominator, which may

cause the robustness problem. Through numerical simulations it could be found that the angle between nm and e can

hardly keep constant during the engagement as required by

eq. (21).

Through the deep analysis of the geometric relationship

between concerned unit vectors, we have found that the

real-time nm could be calculated geometrically without the

introduction of torsion command. In this way, the target

information will not be needed in the construction of DGGC

Li K B, et al.

(when am does not contain any target maneuver information), and the robustness problem can be avoided.

commands

The direction of the commanded acceleration of DGGC is

nm. The torsion command is used to calculate new nm in the

next time according to the real-time geometric relationship

between interceptor and target. Then eq. (8) will not be

singular. For m1 is more reasonable, the following two

equations should be satisfied when constructing DGGC:

nm t m 0,

nm e ,

Figure 4

Figure 5

4(a)4(c) represent the conditions that the angle between e

and tm is bigger than, equal to, and smaller than 90, respectively.

If the angle between e and tm is larger than 90, when

putting the viewpoint on e in Figure 4(a) and looking at the

bottom of the cone, we have Figure 5.

In Figure 5, nmopt is the unit vector in ABCD whose angle

with respect to e is the smallest. a is the hypotenuse of the

right-angled triangle made up of e, nm, and nmopt. b is one

of the right-angle sides of this triangle. is the angle between a and b. If the expressions of x, y, and are known,

the vector A which is from e to nm could be obtained.

Then, according to

(24)

calculated by the interceptor itself. e could be calculated by

using the angle-measurements of the interceptor seeker. is

a predefined value usually during 0.60.8. Since tm, e, and

are already known, nm could be obtained according to the

geometric relationship.

The geometric relationship among nm, tm, and e is shown

in Figure 4. ABCD is a plane vertical to tm in 3D space. e is

the axis of the cone, and is the angle between the surface

of the cone and e whose cosine is . There are two intersecting lines between ABCD and the cone, representing two

unit vectors which are vertical to tm and whose cosine of

523

nm e A,

Geometric relationship among tm, nmopt, and e is shown

in Figure 6.

nmopt could be expressed as

nmopt

e (e t m )t m

.

e (e t m )t m

(26)

shown in Figure 7. From Figure 7,

a 1 2 .

(25)

Figure 6

(27)

524

Li K B, et al.

Figure 7

Through using the method above, nm accurately satisfying eq. (24) could be obtained and the target maneuver information is not needed. Simultaneously, the robustness of

DGGC is improved.

nm could also be calculated by algebraic approach, but

the precision is usually not comparable to the geometric

approach.

When nm is obtained, the curvature of DGGC could be

expressed as

b 1 (nmopt e )2 .

sin

t m (t m e )e

.

t m (t m e )e

where

(30)

(31)

cone, we have

y e x.

(32)

Substituting eqs. (29), (31), and (32) into eq. (30), A could

be solved. Then, nm could be obtained by using eq. (25).

Eq. (30) just needs a minor modification for the solution

of nm , i.e.,

A a(cos x sin y).

(33)

Before solving nm and nm , a judgment should be taken.

If

nmopt e

(34)

moment, should be reduced to increase the cone angle to

make the cone intersect ABCD.

When the angle between e and tm is smaller than 90, the

calculations of nm and nm are identical with the method

above.

When the angle between e and tm is equal to 90,

nmopt=e. Therefore, b=0, =90, and

A ay ,

A ay .

(29)

x

am

.

Vm2

(36)

A a(cos x sin y).

(28)

a2 b2

b

, cos .

a

a

(35)

arccos nm (k ) nm (k 1)

TVm

arccos nm (k ) nm (k 1)

(37)

angle of nm at two continuous sample instants. T is the sample period. Eq. (37) indicates that, through the maneuver

around the interceptor relocity, the direction of the aerodynamic control force could be adjusted to approximate the

real-time calculated nm.

6 Simulation results

A numerical simulation of endoatmospheric interception of

a high-speed target is conducted. PPN, the DGGC of TPN

(called DGTPN), and the improved DGGC of TPN (called

DGTPNimp) are used to guide the interceptor and compared

with each other. The navigation constant N 4 , and the

inefficient distance of the interceptor is assumed to be 100

m. The initial positions and velocities of interceptor and

target are shown in Table 1.

According to the table, the target speed is 400 m s1, and

the interceptor speed is 300 m s1. The initial distance between interceptor and target is 8 km. The initial heading

error of interceptor is 2. The target adopts two maneuver

forms. The first one is constant maneuver, viz., at

[10 2 10 2

T

Table 1

Interceptor

Position (m)

Z

0

Velocity (m s1)

83.654

288.103

Target

Position (m)

6928.203

4000

Velocity (m s1)

400

Li K B, et al.

525

T

When the target adopts constant maneuver, the simulation results are shown in Figures 813.

Figure 11

Figure 8

Figure 12

maneuver).

maneuver).

Figure 10

In Figure 8, the subscript g represents the launch coordinate system which is taken as a reference frame. According to Figures 9 and 10, the LOS rate of PPN against

526

Li K B, et al.

the commanded acceleration of interceptor to increase

gradually in the final phase. The LOS rate of DGTPN is

acceptable, but the control of is failed (see Figure 12),

which causes the commanded acceleration to increase in a

hurry. For DGTPNimp, the LOS rate is well controlled, and

is also controlled to be constantly equal to 0.7, therefore

the commanded acceleration of DGTPNimp is relatively

small. According to Figure 11, the IRPL rates of PPN and

DGTPNimp against constant maneuvering target gradually

get to 0 during the engagement. For DGTPN, the control

failure of results in the vibration of s in the final phase.

According to Figure 13 (according to eqs. (8) and (9), the

unit of curvature and torsion is m1, where m represents

meter), the curvature and torsion of DGTPNimp are much

smoother than those of DGTPN.

When the target adopts the differential geometric maneuver form, the simulation results are shown in Figures

1419.

maneuver).

maneuver).

maneuver).

Figure 18

Li K B, et al.

527

Table 2

DG maneuvering target

PPN

16.2531

1.3859

DGTPN

3.2128

0.4345

DGTPNimp

0.4018

0.2862

7 Conclusions

geometric maneuver).

From Figures 15 and 16, when the target adopts the differential geometric maneuver form, the LOS rate control of

PPN is still not as effective as those of DGTPN and

DGTPNimp, which causes the commanded acceleration of

PPN to increase in the final phase of the engagement. The

commanded accelerations of DGTPN and DGTPNimp distribute equably during the engagement, and the maximum

commanded accelerations of DGTPN and DGTPNimp are

relatively smaller than that of PPN.

The IRPL rates of PPN, DGTPN, DGTPNimp are shown

in Figure 17. Since the commanded acceleration of PPN is

located in IRPL, the IRPL rate of PPN is much smoother

than those of DGTPN and DGTPNimp. The IRPL rates of

DGTPN and DGTPNimp vibrate on large scale, but the

homing performances are hardly influenced.

According to Figure 18, for PPN, is uncontrolled.

DGTPN tries to fix at 0.7, but it fails for the robustness

problem. drops at the time of 5.5 s and stabilizes near 0.53

finally. DGTPNimp could make fixed at 0.7 during the

engagement. The curvatures and torsions of DGTPN and

DGTPNimp are shown in Figure 19, and we can see that the

curvature and torsion of the improved DGGC are smoother.

In the above two simulations, DGTPNimp intercepts the

target earlier than the other two guidance laws. The miss

distances are shown Table 2.

According to Table 2, the control of the LOS rate of PPN

against endoatmospheric high-speed target is not effective

enough, which causes the miss distance to be unacceptable.

For DGTPN, the control of the angle between nm and e is

not accurate enough, sometimes even fails, because of the

robustness problem. Then, the homing performance of

DGTPN is influenced, and the miss distance is enlarged.

For DGTPNimp, the robustness is good enough, and the

miss distance is effectively reduced.

paper. The homing performances of PPN used for endoatmospheric interception and TPN used for exoatmospheric

interception are analyzed and compared with each other.

Since the homing performance of PPN will be degraded

when intercepting high-speed targets, new guidance laws

need to be designed for endoatmospheric interception of

high-speed targets.

The commanded acceleration of DGGC is perpendicular

to interceptor velocity, while its homing performance approximates that of the LOS referenced guidance law.

Therefore, DGGC is suitable for endoatmospheric interception of high-speed targets. Actually, DGGC is a kind of differential geometric transformation, which transforms the

LOS referenced guidance laws into interceptor velocity referenced guidance laws. Moreover, the commanded acceleration of DGGC is different from other guidance laws. The

direction of the commanded acceleration of DGGC is outside IRPL, which represents a brand new design idea.

However, the target maneuver information is imported in

DGGC, and simultaneously there is a robustness problem.

These problems put restrictions on the application of

DGGC.

The basic requirements of DGGC are deeply analyzed in

this paper. The solution of the direction of the commanded

acceleration, which is the key parameter, is proposed. The

target maneuver information is not needed any more, and

the robustness is enhanced. The research in this paper lays a

solid foundation of the application of DGGC. In our opinion,

in the future, the more effective guidance laws for endoatmospheric interception of high-speed maneuvering targets

should be explored with the help of DGGC, and the effectiveness and optimality of should be dug deeper.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

York: AIAA Inc., 2002

Murtaugh S A, Criel H E. Fundamentals of proportional navigation.

IEEE Spectrum, 1966, 3: 7585

Locke A S. Guidance. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1956

Guelman M. A qualitative study of proportional navigation. IEEE T

Aero Elec Sys, 1971, 7(4): 637643

Guelman M. Proportional navigation with a maneuvering target.

IEEE T Aero Elec Sys, 1972, 8(4): 364371

Guelman M. Missile acceleration in proportional navigation. IEEE T

Aero Elec Sys, 1973, 9(4): 462463

Shukla U S, Mahapatra P R. A generalized linear solution of proportional navigation. IEEE T Aero Elec Sys, 1988, 24(3): 231238

Mahapatra P R, Shukla U S. Accurate solution of proportional navi-

528

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Li K B, et al.

gation for maneuvering targets. IEEE T Aero Elec Sys, 1989, 25(1):

8189

Becker K. Closed-form solution of pure proportional navigation.

IEEE T Aero Elec Sys, 1990, 26(3): 526533

Guelman M. The closed-form solution of true proportional navigation.

IEEE T Aero Elec Sys, 1976, 12(4): 472482

Dhar A, Ghose D. Capture region for a realistic TPN guidance law.

IEEE T Aero Elec Sys, 1993, 29(3): 9951003

Yang C D, Yeh F B. The closed-form solution of generalized proportional navigation. J Guid Control Dynam, 1987, 10(2): 216218

Yang C D, Hsial F B, Yeh F B. Generalized guidance law for homing

missiles. IEEE T Aero Elec Sys, 1989, 25(2): 197212

Yuan P J, Chern J S. Ideal proportional navigation. J Guid Control

Dynam, 1992, 15(5): 11611165

Shukla U S, Mahapatra P R. The proportional navigation dilemma

pure or true. IEEE T Aero Elec sys, 1990, 26(2): 382392

Yang C D, Yang C C. A unified approach to proportional navigation.

IEEE T Aero Elec Sys, 1997, 33(2): 557567

Chen L, Zhang B. Novel TPN control algorithm for exoatmospheric

intercept. J Syst Eng Electr, 2009, 20(6): 12901295

Yang C D, Yang C C. Analytical solution of three-dimensional realistic true proportional navigation. J Guid Control Dynam, 1996, 19(3):

569577

Yang C D, Yang C C. Analytical solution of generalized threedimensional proportional navigation. J Guid Control Dynam, 1996,

19(3): 721724

Yang C D, Yang C C. Analytical solution of 3D true proportional

navigation. IEEE T Aero Elec Sys, 1996, 32(4): 15091522

Duflos E, Penel P, Vanheeghe P. 3D guidance law modeling. IEEE T

Aero Elec Sys, 1999, 35(1): 7283

Tyan F. The capture region of a general 3D TPN guidance law for

missile and target with limited maneuverability. Proceedings of the

American Control Conference, Arlinton, VA, June 2527, 2001

Tyan F. Unified approach to missile guidance laws: A 3D extension.

IEEE T Contr Syst T, 2005, 41(4): 11781199

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

Chiou Y C, Kuo C Y. Geometric approach to three dimensional missile guidance problems. J Guid Control Dynam, 1998, 21(2): 335

341

Kuo C Y, Chiou Y C. Geometric analysis of missile guidance command. IEE PContr Theor Ap, 2000, 147(2): 205211

Kuo C Y, Soetanto D, Chiou Y C. Geometric analysis of flight control command for tactical missile guidance. IEEE T Contr Syst T,

2001, 9(2): 234243

Li C Y, Jing W X. New results on three-dimensional differential geometric guidance and control problem. AIAA Guidance, Navigation,

and Control Conference and Exhibit, August, 2006

Li C Y, Jing W X, Qi Z G, et al. Application of the 3d differential

geometric guidance commands (in Chinese). J Astronaut, 2007, 28(5):

12351240

Li C Y, Qi Z G, Jing W X. Practical study on 2d differential geometric guidance problem (in Chinese). J Harbin Institute of Technology,

2007, 39(7): 10311035

Li C Y, Jing W X, Wang H, et al. Iterative solution to differential geometric guidance problem. Aircr Eng Aerosp Tec, 2006, 78(5): 415425

Li C Y, Jing W X, Wang H, et al. A Novel Approach to 2D Differential Geometric Guidance Problem. T Jpn Soc Aeronaut S, 2007,

50(167): 3440

Li C Y, Jing W X, Wang H, et al. Gain-varying guidance algorithm

using differential geometric guidance command. IEEE T Aero Elec

Sys, 2010, 46(2): 725736

Li K B, Chen L, Bai X Z. Differential geometric modeling of guidance problem for interceptors. Sci China Tech Sci, 2011, 54: 2283

2295

Tyan F. Capture Region of 3D PPN Guidance Law for Intercepting

High Speed Target. Joint 48th IEEE Conference on Decision and

Control and 28th Chinese Control Conference, Shanghai, China, December, 2009. 762767

Wang J, Chen W C, Ying X L. Endoatmospheric interceptor fast response control using impulse attitude control motor. J Beijing Univ

Aeronaut Astronaut, 2007, 33(4): 397400

## Muito mais do que documentos

Descubra tudo o que o Scribd tem a oferecer, incluindo livros e audiolivros de grandes editoras.

Cancele quando quiser.