Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:27:52.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adaptive terminal guidance law with impact-angle constraint

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2017

C. Gao ,
J. Li ,
T. Feng  and
W. Jing
C. Gao*
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, People's Republic of China
J. Li*
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, People's Republic of China
T. Feng*
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, People's Republic of China
W. Jing*
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, People's Republic of China
*
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper proposes an adaptive guidance law for attacking a ground target based on motion camouflage strategy. The coefficients of normal and bi-normal feedback guidance law are given according to the relative motion relationship under Frenet frame. Utilizing the coefficients, the motion camouflage proportional guidance law is derived. In order to improve the initial overload characteristic of the missile, an adaptive feedback coefficient is introduced. Then, the adaptive guidance law is applied to a longitudinal plane interception problem with impact-angle constraint. Finally, the validity of this guidance law for air-to-ground missiles is proved by simulations.

Keywords

terminal guidance lawimpact-angle constraintmotion camouflage
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 122 , Issue 1249 , March 2018 , pp. 369 - 389
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Kim, M. and Grider, K.V. Terminal guidance for impact attitude angle constrained flight trajectories. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace & Electronic Systems, 1973, 9, (6), pp 852–859.Google Scholar
2. Lee, C.H., Kim, T.H. and Tahk, M.J. Interception angle control guidance using proportional navigation with error feedback. J Guidance Control & Dynamics, 2013, 36, (5), pp 1556–1561.Google Scholar
3. Ratnoo, A. and Ghose, D. Impact angle constrained guidance against nonstationary nonmaneuvering targets. J Guidance Control & Dynamics, 2010, 33, (1), pp 269–275.Google Scholar
4. Ghosh, S., Ghose, D. and Raha, S. Capturability analysis of a 3-D Retro-PN guidance law for higher speed nonmaneuvering targets. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 2013, 22, (5), pp 1864–1874.Google Scholar
5. Chen, H, Yu, M. and Dong, L. An optimal guidance law of maneuvering reentry vehicles with terminal angular constraint. Aerospace Control, 2002, 1, pp 6–11.Google Scholar
6. Taub, I. and Shima, T. Intercept angle missile guidance under time varying acceleration bounds. J Guidance Control & Dynamics, 2013, 36, (3), pp 686–699.Google Scholar
7. Lee, Y.I., Ryoo, C. K. and Kim, E. Optimal guidance with constraints on impact angle and terminal acceleration. AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, Austin, Texas, 2013, pp 2275–2281.Google Scholar
8. Bhat, S.P. and Bernstein, D.S. Finite-time stability of continuous autonomous systems. SIAM J Control & Optimization, 2000, 38, (3), pp 751–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Sun, S., Zhou, D. and Hou, W. A guidance law with finite time convergence accounting for autopilot lag. Aerospace Science & Technology, 2013, 25, (1), pp 132–137.Google Scholar
10. Yu, J., Xu, Q. and Zhi, Y. A TSM control scheme of integrated guidance/autopilot design for UAV. IEEE International Conference on Computer Research and Development, Shanghai, China, 2011, pp 431–435.Google Scholar
11. Zhang, Y., Sun, M. and Chen, Z. Finite-time convergent guidance law with impact angle constraint based on sliding-mode control. Nonlinear Dynamics, 2012, 70, (1), pp 619–625.Google Scholar
12. Srinivasan, M.V. and Davey, M. Strategies for active camouflage of motion. Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 1995, 259, (1354), pp 19–25.Google Scholar
13. Xu, Y. and Basset, G. Sequential virtual motion camouflage method for nonlinear constrained optimal trajectory control. Automatica, 2012, 48, (7), pp 1273–1285.Google Scholar
14. Erer, K.S. and Merttopçuoglu, O. Indirect impact-angle-control against stationary targets using biased pure proportional navigation. J Guidance Control & Dynamics, 2012, 35, (2), pp 700–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Basset, G., Xu, Y. and Pham, K. Bio-inspired rendezvous strategies and respondent detections. J Guidance Control & Dynamics, 2013, 36, (1), pp 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Mischiati, M. and KrishnAprasad, P. S. The dynamics of mutual motion camouflage. Systems & Control Letters, 2012, 61, (9), pp 894–903.Google Scholar
17. Bakolas, E. and Tsiotras, P. Feedback Navigation in an uncertain flowfield and connections with pursuit strategies. J Guidance Control & Dynamics, 2015, 35, (4), pp 1268–1279.Google Scholar
18. Gao, C.S., Li, J. Q. and Jing, W.X. A terminal guidance law based on motion camouflage strategy of air-to-ground missiles. International Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 2016 (2016), pp 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Babu, K.R, Sarma, I.G. and Swamy, K.N. Switched bias proportional navigation for homing guidance against highly maneuvering targets. J Guidance Control & Dynamics, 1994, 17, (6), pp 1357–1363.Google Scholar