International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences (IJEAS)

ISSN: 2394-3661, Volume-3, Issue-4, April 2016

Missile Guidance Law Design via Backstepping

Technique
Hamza Zaidi, Panlong Wu, Ali Bellahcene

Abstract In this paper a Back-stepping Control technique Table I: Definition of symbols

is proposed for command to line-of-sight missile guidance law Symbol Description
design. In this design, the three-dimensional (3-D) CLOS t Yaw angle of target
guidance problem is formulated as a tracking problem of a
time-varying nonlinear system. Simulation results for different t Pitch angle of target.
engagement scenarios illustrate the validity of the proposed m Yaw angle of missile.
Backstepping-based Guidance Law.
m Pitch angle of missile
Index TermsCommand line-of-sight (CLOS), Backstepping mc Roll angle command.
Control system, missile guidance law. t Azimuth angle of LOS to target.
t Elevation angle of LOS to target.
I. INTRODUCTION m Azimuth angle of LOS to missile
The Concept of command to line-of-sight (CLOS) m Elevation angle of LOS to missile
guidance is to oblige (force) a missile to fly as nearly as m t
possible along the instantaneous line-of-sight (LOS) between m t
the land tracker and the target. If the missile can continuously g Gravity acceleration.
stay on the LOS, missile will intercept the target. To set
ax Axial acceleration of missile
demanded accelerations for the missile, a guidance controller
is used at the ground station to take computation of tracker a yc Yaw acceleration command
information about the missile and target position, angular a zc Pitch acceleration command.
velocity and acceleration of the LOS. These acceleration a yt Yaw acceleration of target.
commands can then be transmitted to the missile by a radio
atz Pitch acceleration of target.
link. The CLOS guidance has been identify as a low-cost
guidance concept because it conformance placement of Rm Missile range from ground tracker.
avionics on the launch platform, as opposed to mounting on Rt Target range from ground tracker.
the expendable weapons [1], [2]. Theoretically, the
missile-target model is nonlinear and time-varying. Many II. PROBLEMATIQUE OF THE THREE-DIMENSIONAL CLOS
different guidance laws have been developed over the years, GUIDANCE
and with the advent of highly maneuverable targets, research The three-dimensional CLOS guidance problem shown in
on improved guidance laws is continuing [3][5]. Fig. 1 is a well-known guidance model [2], which involves
guiding the missile along the LOS to the target. The
In this study, a Backstepping control system is proposed for three-dimensional CLOS guidance model in [5, 7] will be
commanding line-of-sight CLOS. The Lyapunov stability repeated here for convenience. The following description in
theorem is used to ensure the stability of the control system. Table 1 will be adopted to derive the dynamic equations of
Simulations results demonstrate the effectiveness of the missile.
proposed control. Zm Ym
ZI
a zc ayc X
m
This paper is organized as follows. Formulation of Missile m
ax
missile-target engagement is described in Section II. The m
design procedures of the proposed Backstepping guidance Target

system are constructed in Section III. Simulation results are RM RT

set to confirm the effectiveness of the proposed control y yt YI


m

system in Section IV. Conclusions are drawn in Section V. Ground tracker m

t

m
t

Hamza Zaidi, School of Automation, Nanjing University of Science and xt

Technology, Nanjing, China, (+86) 13605146954.
x
m

Panlong Wu, School of Automation, Nanjing University of Science and XI

Technology, Nanjing, China, (+86) 2584315172.
Fig. 1. Three-dimensional missile-target engagement diagram.
Ali Bellahcene, School of Automation, Nanjing University of Science
and Technology, Nanjing, China, (+86) 15205191440.

85 www.ijeas.org
 Missile Guidance Law Design via Backstepping Technique

xm c mc m smc s mc m cmc s m cmc s mc m smc s m ax 0

y c s s s s cs c c s s s c a 0
m m m mc m m mc m mc m m mc m yc
zm s m smc c m cmc c m azc g
m cmc vm c m smc vm c m a yc 0
s v a gc v (1)
m mc m c mc vm zc m m

The origin of the inertial frame is located at the ground base. 2

The axis ZI is vertical upward and the XI - YI plane is

x f x , t g j x uT j
j 1 (5)
horizontal. The origin of the missile body frame is fixed at the
center of mass of missile, with the XB axis forward along the
z h x , t
missile centerline. The dynamics of the missile in the inertial where
frame can be represented [2] as described in (1) in the top of x4
x5
the page.
A tracking output is defined in order to convert the CLOS x6

a x t cx7 cx8
guidance problem into a tracking problem. The LOS frame is
f x, t
shown in Fig. 2 in which the origin of the three-dimensional
a x t sx 7 cx8
space is located at the ground base. The XL axis forwards a t sx g
along the LOS to the missile, and the YL axis is horizontal to x 8
the left of the XL - YL plane. Then, the coordinates indicated in 0
Fig. 2 represent the missile position in the LOS frame, and


gcx8 x4 x5 x6
2 2
2 2
1

they are related to through rotations as follows:

0
z1 s t c t 0
z s c s s c (2) 0
2 t t t t t 0
The tracking output is defined as z [ z1 , z 2 ] . Since z1 and
scm sx7 cx8 ccm sx7
T

g1 x s sx sx c cx
z 2 cannot be measured directly, these quantities must be cm 7 8 cm 7
s cos x
computed indirectly using the polar position data of the cm 8
missile available from the ground tracker as c
cm 4
x 2
x 2
5 x 2 2
6
1
cx 8


z1
z
Rm c( t ) s
(3)
scm x4 x5 x6 2 2
1
2 2

2 m
z R ( s ( ) c c ( ) s c

t t t t
0
ZL 0

YL 0

ccmcx7 sx8 scm sx 7
g 2 x c sx sx s cx
cm 7 8 cm 7
Missile
Rm
c cm cx 8
z1 s
cm x 4
2
x 2
5 x 2 2
6
1
cx 8


Ground tracker z2
ccm x42 x52 x62 2 1

Rp
h1 ( x, t ) x1s t x2 c t
and hx, t x s c x s s x c
XL
2
h x , t 1 t t 2 t t 3 t
Target The objective of CLOS guidance control is to find a control
Fig. 2. Definition of tracking output. law to drive the tracking output z to zero. Eq. (5) can be
Note that z 2 represents the distance from the missile to the rewritten as
z1 F1 ( x, t ) G11 x, t G12 x, t
z F x, t G x, t G x, t u t
LOS. Therefore, the missile will eventually intercept the
target if the tracking output z1 is driven to zero. The 2 2 21 22
three-dimensional CLOS guidance problem therefore can be z F x, t G x, t u t
(5)
seen as a tracking problem. Define where F1 x, t X 02 h1 , F2 x, t X 02 h2
xx1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x6 x7 G11 x, t X1 X 0 h1, G12 x, t X 2 X 0 h1 ,
T

xm ym zm x m y m zm m m
T G21 x, t X 1 X 0 h2 and G22 x, t X 2 X 0 h2

uT uT 1
uT 2
a
T
yc azc
T
(4)
X 0 h1 t x1c t t x2 s t x4 s t x5c t
t R p c t t z2 s t x4 s t x5c t
Using the previous equations, (1), (2), and (4) can be put
X1 X 0h1 scmsx8 s( x7 t ) ccmc( x7 t )
into the following dynamic equations of missile in state-space
form: X 2 X 0h1 ccmsx8 s( x7 t ) scmc( x7 t )

86 www.ijeas.org
 International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences (IJEAS)
ISSN: 2394-3661, Volume-3, Issue-4, April 2016
X1 X 0 h2 (c t cx8 s t sx8c( x7 t ))scm ccm s t s( x7 t ) Step 5: The second Lyapunov function is defined as
X 2 X 0 h2 (c t cx8 s t sx8c( x7 t ))ccm scms t s( x7 t ) V2 t V1 t 0.5 e22 t (17)
X 0 h2 ( t s t s t t c t s t ) x1 ( t c t s t t c t s t ) x2 Differentiating (17) and using (14) and (15), it is obtained that
t x3 s t x4c t s t x5 s t s t x6 c t V2 t V1 t e2 t e2 t
t z1s t t RP x4 c t s t x5 s t s t x6 c t K1e12 t e2 t e1 t zd t k1e1 t F x, t Gx, t u t
X 02 h1 (2 t t s t t c t ) R p t2 z1 (2 t t c t t s t ) z2 K1e12 t K 2e22 t 0 (18)
2 t R p c t 2 t z2 s t a x (t )cx8 s( x7 t ) Since V2 e1 t , e2 t 0 , it means that e1 t and e2 t are

X 02 h2 (t t2 s t c t ) R p t z1s t ( t2 syt s t t2 ) z2 bounded. Now define the term:
t K1e12 t K 2e22 t V2 e1 t , e2 t (19)
2t R p 2 t z1s t ( sx8c t cx8 s t c( x7 t ))
then
a x (t ) gc t t

RP ( t s t c t t s t c t ) x1 (t s t s t t c t c t ) x2 d V e 0, e 0 V e t , e t
0
2 1 2 2 1 2 (20)
t x3c t x4 c t c t x5c t s t x6 s t
Since V2 e1 0, e2 0 is bounded and V2 e1 t , e2 t is
x4 c t c t x5c t s t x6 s t t z1c t t z 2 (7)
non-increasing and bounded, it can be obtained
and t
n
lim d (21)
X 0 t f i ( x, t ) xi t
0
i 1
m
(8) t is bounded, so by using Barbalats Lemma [8], it
Also
X j g j ,i ( x) xi j 1,2
i 1
can be shown that lim t 0 . This will imply
t
where f i ( x, t ), g j ,i ( x) and xi are the ith components of that e1 t and e2 t converge to zero as t .Therefore, the
f ( x, t ), g ( x) and x respectively. Backstepping Guidance law formulated in (16) is
asymptotically stable. The configuration of the proposed
III. BACKSTEPPING-BASED GUIDANCE LAW DESIGN Backstepping Guidance Law is shown in Fig. 3.
Assuming that all parameters of the system (6) are known,
the design of Backstepping control for the guidance law is u Missile
m , m t , t Target
described step-by-step as follows: Tracking Output
Maneuver Maneuver
Step 1: Define the tracking error
e1 t zd t zt (9) Limiter z

where z d t is a desired tracking output, Then the derivative

of tracking error can be represented as
e1 t zd t zt (10) Backstepping
The zt can be viewed as a virtual control in above equation.
Technique

Define the following stabilizing function Fig. 3. Backstepping Guidance System.

t zd t K1e1 t (11)
IV. NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS
k1 0
where K1 and k1 is a positive constant. In this section, simulations are performed to illustrate the
0 k1
efficiency of the proposed Backstepping guidance law. In
The first Lyapunov function is selected as order to assess the performance characteristics in a
V1 t 0.5 e12 t (12) closed-loop engagement scenario, it is important to specify
Step 2: Define target dynamics. The simplified dynamics of target motion
e2 t t zt (13) can be given in the inertial frame as follows:
xt a yt s t a zt s t c t
Then the derivative of V1 with respect to time is
yt a yt c t a zt s t s t
V t e t e t k e2 t e t e t
1 1 1 1 1 1 2 (14)
zt a zt c t g
Step 3: The derivative of e2 t is given as
(22)

e2 t t zt zd t k1e1 t F x, t Gx, t ut
t a yt vt c t
(15)
Step 4: If all dynamics system are known, a Backstepping t a zt gc t vt
guidance law can be formulated as In this paper, three simulation scenarios are examined to
uB Gx, t zd t k1e1 t e1 t K 2e2 t F x, t (16)
1 justify the effectiveness of the proposed design method. The
simulation data and parameter data used for simulation are
k 2 0 summarized in Table II.
where K 2 and k 2 is a positive constant.
0 k 2

87 www.ijeas.org
 Missile Guidance Law Design via Backstepping Technique

Table II. Scenario and parameter data used for simulation

States Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

xt 0 , yt 0 , zt 0 m 2500,5361.9,1000 5200,400,3000 5200,5000,7500
xt 0 , y t 0 , zt 0 m/s 0,-340,0 - 340, 0,0 0,0,500
t 0 , t 0 deg - 90,0 180,0 90,0
xm 0 , ym 0 , z m 0 m 14.32, 39.34, 3.36 14.56,5.43,10.01 28.21,34.81,26.52
xm 0 , y m 0 , zm 0 m/s 70.84,151.92,28.32 129.65,12.87,92.42 250,250,400
m 0 , m 0 deg 65, 9.59 20.34, 32.65 45, 54.73
340 0t 2 100 0 t 10
ax m/s
2

44.1 t 2 44.1 t 10
0 t 2.5 0 t 2 .5
a yt m/s
2 5g

0g

5 g t 2.5 0.5 g t 2 .5
g 0 t 2.5 g 0 t 2.5
a zt m/s
2

t 2.5

5g g t 2.5
Guidance command
50
frequency (Hz)
Autopilot damping
0.6
ratio
Autopilot naturel
6
frequency (rad/s)

The simulation results for scenarios 1, 2, and 3 are depicted

t
355 . 3
s
in Figs.57, respectively.
0.064
Table III. Miss Distance (m)
1 Rm
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
s
z1
Equation (3)

m
1.8059 2 .3319 0 .8678



m



1 t z2
V. CONCLUSION
s
In this paper, a Backstepping control method is applied for
0.064
the CLOS guidance law design. Simulation results show that

the Backstepping guidance law can achieve satisfactory
t


355 . 3
s performance and smooth missile trajectories for different
Fig. 4. Block diagram representation of estimation algorithm engagement scenarios. In addition, from Table III we can
for guidance information.
notice those small miss distances.
The first and second scenarios describes an anti-aircraft
scenario. The third one represents an anti-missile scenario.

REFERENCES
Considered a 30g g 9.8m / s 2 maneuvering limiter to limit
[1] R. T. Flerning and G. W. Irwin, Filtering controllers for bank-to-turn
the missiles maneuverability. The pitch and yaw autopilot CLOS guidance, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng. Control Theory
dynamics are selected to be second order linear time-invariant Applications, vol. 134, no. 1, pp. 1725, 1987.
[2] I. J. Ha and S. Chong, Design of a CLOS guidance law via feedback
systems and the ground tracker to be a simplified differential
linearization, IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 28, no. 1, pp.
tracking system with damping ratio 0.6 and nature frequency 5163, Jan. 1992.
6 rad/s as shown in Fig. 4. The estimated values of [3] C. F. Lin, Modern Navigation, Guidance, and Control Processing.
t , t , t and t , also the measurement data of and , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1991, ch. 6.
[4] C. D. Yang and C. C. Yang, A unified approach to proportional
are provided by the ground tracker. To evaluate the influence navigation, IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 33, pp.
of measurement noise, random noises with magnitude 557567, 1997.
between 0.3 deg are included. m/s2 [5] J. Moon, K. Kim, and Y. Kim, Design of missile guidance law via
variable structure control, J. Guid. Control Dyn., vol. 24, no. 4, pp.
The Backstepping guidance law presented in (16) is
659664, 2001.
simulated for the same engagement scenarios. This study [6] C. M. Lin and Y. F. Peng, Missile Guidance Law Design Using
adopts the following Backstepping control law: Adaptive Cerebellar Model Articulation Controller, IEEE Trans. on
Gx, t zd t K1e1 t e1 t K2e2 t F x, t
1 Neural Networks, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 636-644, May 2005.
uLB [7] J. J. E. Slotine, and W. Li, Applied Nonlinear Control. New Jersey:
7 0 20 0 Prentice-Hall, 1991.
K1 and K 2
0 7 0 20

88 www.ijeas.org
 International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences (IJEAS)
ISSN: 2394-3661, Volume-3, Issue-4, April 2016

z1 z1

z2 z2

(a) Tracking output ( z1 and z2 ) (a) Tracking output ( z1 and z 2 )

ayc (m/s2)

ayc (m/s2)
azc (m/s2)

azc (m/s2)

(b) Acceleration command ( a yc and a zc ) (b) Acceleration command ( a yc and a zc )

(c) Missile-target trajectory (c) Missile-target trajectory

Fig .5 Engagement scenario 1 with Backstepping guidance law. Fig .6 Engagement scenario 2 with Backstepping guidance law.

89 www.ijeas.org
 Missile Guidance Law Design via Backstepping Technique

z1

z2

(a) Tracking output ( z1 and z2 )

ayc (m/s2)
azc (m/s2)

(b) Acceleration command ( a yc and a zc )

(c) Missile-target trajectory

Fig .7 Engagement scenario 3 with Backstepping guidance law.

90 www.ijeas.org