Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-9t7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T12:46:01.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sliding mode-based continuous guidance law with terminal angle constraint

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2016

S. He  and
D. Lin
S. He*
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, P.R. China
D. Lin
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, P.R. China
*
shaoming.he.cn@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, sliding mode control and disturbance observer are used to design a new continuous composite guidance law with terminal angle constraint. The robustness and finite-time convergence of the proposed guidance law is established using the Lyapunov stability theory. For performance improvement, a nonlinear disturbance observer, which can be viewed as a ‘patch’ for the original guidance law, is designed to estimate the target manoeuvre. Theoretical analysis and simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Keywords

Sliding mode controldisturbance observerguidance lawimpact anglechattering-free

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 120 , Issue 1229 , July 2016 , pp. 1175 - 1195
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2016 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1.Nesline, F.W. and Zarchan, P.A new look at classical vs modern homing missile guidance. J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 1981, 4, (1), pp 78–85.Google Scholar
2.Palumbo, N.F., Blauwkamp, R.A. and Lloyd, J.M.Basic principles of homing guidance. Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, 2010, 29, (1), pp 25–41.Google Scholar
3.Zarchan, P., Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Publications, New York, New York, US, 1998.Google Scholar
4.Palumbo, N.F., Blauwkamp, R.A. and Lloyd, J.M.Modern homing missile guidance theory and techniques. Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, 2010, 29, (1), pp 42–59.Google Scholar
5.Yang, C.D. and Chen, H.Y.Nonlinear H infinity robust guidance law for homing missiles. J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 1998, 21, (6), pp 882–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Zhou, D., Mu, C.D. and Xu, W.L.Adaptive sliding-mode guidance of a homing missile. J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 1999, 22, (4), pp 589–594.Google Scholar
7.Phadke, S.B. and Talole, S.E.Sliding mode and inertial delay control based missile guidance. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2010, 48, (4), pp 3331–3346.Google Scholar
8.He, S. and Lin, D.Continuous robust guidance law for intercepting maneuvering targets. Transactions of the Japan Soc. for Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 2015, 58, (3), pp 163–169.Google Scholar
9.Zhou, D., Mu, C.D. and Shen, T.L.Robust guidance law with L 2 gain performance. Transactions of the Japan Soc. for Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 2001, 44, (144), pp 82–88.Google Scholar
10.Lechevin, N. and Rabbath, C.A.Lyapunov-based nonlinear missile guidance. J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2004, 27, (6), pp 1096–1102.Google Scholar
11.Atir, R., Hexner, G. and Weiss, H.Target maneuver adaptive guidance law for a bounded acceleration missile. J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2010, 33, (3), pp 695–706.Google Scholar
12.Chen, R.H., Speyer, J.L. and Lianos, D.Optimal intercept missile guidance strategies with autopilot lag. J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2010, 33, (4), pp 1264–1272.Google Scholar
13.Moosapour, S.S., Alizadeh, G., Khanmohammadi, S. and Moosapour, H.A novel robust proportional navigation guidance law design for missile considering autopilot dynamic. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, 2013, 35, (5), pp 703–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Liang, Y.W., Chen, C.C., Liaw, D.C., Feng, Y.C., Cheng, C.C. and Chen, C.H.Robust guidance law via integral-sliding-mode scheme. J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2014, 37, (3), pp 1038–1042.Google Scholar
15.Kim, M. and Grider, K.V.Terminal guidance for impact attitude angle constrained flight trajectories. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 1973, 6, (AES-9), pp 852–859.Google Scholar
16.Ryoo, C.K., Cho, H. and Tahk, M.J.Optimal guidance laws with terminal impact angle constraint. J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2005, 28, (4), pp 724–732.Google Scholar
17.Park, B.G., Kim, T.H. and Tahk, M.J.Optimal impact angle control guidance law considering the seeker's field-of-view limits. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: J. Aerospace Engiuneering, 2013, 227, (8), pp 1347–1364.Google Scholar
18.Ryoo, C.K., Cho, H. and Tahk, M.J.Time-to-go weighted optimal guidance with impact angle constraints. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 2006, 14, (3), pp 483–492.Google Scholar
19.Kim, T.H., Lee, C.H. and Tahk, M.J.Time-to-go polynomial guidance with trajectory modulation for observability enhancement. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2013, 49, (1), pp 55–73.Google Scholar
20.Lee, C.H., Kim, T.H., Tahk, M.J. and Whang, I.H.Polynomial guidance laws considering terminal impact angle and acceleration constraints. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2013, 49, (1), pp 74–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Lee, Y.I., Kim, S.H., Lee, J.I. and Tahk, M.J.Analytic solutions of generalized impact angle control guidance law for first order lag system. J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2012, 36, (1), pp 96–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Manchester, I.R. and Savkin, A.V.Circular navigation guidance law for precision missile/target engagements. J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2006, 29, (2), pp 314–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Ratnoo, A. and Ghose, D.Impact angle constrained guidance against nonstationary nonmaneuvering targets. J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2010, 33, (1), pp 269–275.Google Scholar
24.Erer, K.S. and Merttopcuoglu, O.Indirect impact-angle-control against stationary targets using biased pure proportional navigation. J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2012, 35, (2), pp 700–704.Google Scholar
25.Lee, C.H., Kim, T.H. and Tahk, M.J.Interception angle control guidance using proportional navigation with error feedback. J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2013, 36, (5), pp 1556–1561.Google Scholar
26.Tekin, R. and Erer, K.S.Switched-gain guidance for impact angle control under physical constraints. J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2014, 38, (2), pp 205–216.Google Scholar
27.Kim, T.H., Park, B.G. and Tahk, M.J.Bias-shaping method for biased proportional navigation with terminal-angle constraint. J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2013, 36, (6), pp 1810–1816.Google Scholar
28.Zhang, Y.A., Ma, G.X. and Wu, H.L.A biased proportional navigation guidance law with large impact angle constraint and the time-to-go estimation. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: J. Aerospace Engiuneering, 2013, 228, (10), pp 1725–1734.Google Scholar
29.Harl, N. and Balakrishnan, S.N.Impact time and angle guidance with sliding mode control. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 2012, 20, (6), pp 1436–1449.Google Scholar
30.Kumar, S.R., Rao, S. and Ghose, D.Sliding-mode guidance and control for all-aspect interceptors with terminal angle constraints. J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2012, 35, (4), pp 1230–1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Kumar, S.R., Rao, S. and Ghose, D.Nonsingular terminal sliding mode guidance with impact angle constraints. J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2014, 37, (4), pp 1114–1130.Google Scholar
32.He, S., Lin, D. and Wang, J.Continuous second-order sliding mode based impact angle guidance law. Aerospace Science and Technology, 2015, 41, pp 199–208.Google Scholar
33.He, S., Lin, D. and Wang, J.Robust terminal angle constraint guidance law with autopilot lag for intercepting maneuvering targets. Nonlinear Dynamics, 2015, 81, (1), pp 881–892.Google Scholar
34.Zhang, K. and Behal, A.Continuous robust control for aeroelastic vibration control of a 2-D airfoil under unsteady flow. J. Vibration and Control, 2014 DOI: 10.1177/1077546314554821.Google Scholar
35.Zhang, K., Wang, Z., Behal, A. and Marzocca, P.Novel nonlinear control design for a two-dimensional airfoil under unsteady flow. J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2013, 36, (6), pp 1681–1694.Google Scholar
36.Zhang, K., Wang, Z., Behal, A. and Marzocca, P.A continuous robust control strategy for the active aeroelastic vibration suppression of supersonic lifting surfaces. Int. J. of Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 2012, 13, (2), pp 210–220.Google Scholar
37.Feng, Y., Yu, X. and Man, Z.Non-singular terminal sliding mode control of rigid manipulators. Automatica, 2002, 38, (12), pp 2159–2167.Google Scholar
38.Bhat, S.P. and Bernstein, D.S.Continuous finite-time stabilization of the translational and rotational double integrators. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 1998, 43, (5), pp 678–682.Google Scholar
39.Zhou, D., Sun, S. and Teo, K.L.Guidance laws with finite time convergence. J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2009, 32, (6), pp 1838–1846.Google Scholar
40.Tian, Y., Li, Y. and Ren, Z.Vision-based adaptive guidance law for intercepting a maneuvering target. IET Control Theory and Applications, 2011, 5, (3), pp 421–428.Google Scholar
41.Lan, Q., Li, S., Yang, J. and Guo, L.Finite-time control for soft landing on an asteroid based on line-of-sight angle. J. Franklin Institute, 2014, 351, (1), pp 383–398.Google Scholar
42.Shtessel, Y.B., Shkolnikov, I.A. and Levant, A.Smooth second-order sliding modes: Missile guidance application. Automatica, 2007, 43, (8), pp 1470–1476.Google Scholar
43.Lee, C.H., Kim, T.H., Tahk, M.J. and Whang, I.H.Polynomial guidance laws considering terminal impact angle and acceleration constraints. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2013, 49, (1), pp 74–92.Google Scholar