2022 Iitb Ae 410 641 18

Navigation and Guidance
Dr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar
Assistant Professor
Department of Aerospace Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
Powai, Mumbai, 400076 India
Dr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar IITB-AE 410/641 Navigation and Guidance 1 / 37

Variants of Proportional Navigation
Realistic TPN Guidance
TPN law: Guidance command as a function of the initial closing velocity.

Closing velocity during the missile-target engagement actually varies with
time.
TPN guidance command should be of the form
aM = N Vc θ̇ = −N Vr θ̇, N > 0
where N is the navigation constant.

Current closing velocity is used for guidance command computation.
This guidance law is called Realistic True Proportional Navigation (RTPN)
guidance law.

On differentiating Vr
V̇r = − VT sin(γT − θ)(−θ̇) + VM sin(γM − θ)(γ̇M − θ̇) − V̇M cos(γM − θ)

=θ̇Vθ + aM sin(γM − θ) cos(γM − θ) − aM sin(γM − θ) cos(γM − θ)
=θ̇Vθ
On differentiating Vθ
V̇θ =VT cos(γT − θ)(−θ̇) − VM cos(γM − θ)(γ̇M − θ̇) − V̇M sin(γM − θ)

= − θ̇Vr − aM cos2 (γM − θ) − aM sin2 (γM − θ)
= − θ̇Vr − aM
= − θ̇Vr + N Vr θ̇
= − (1 − N )θ̇Vr

We have the derivative of Vr and Vθ as
V̇r = θ̇Vθ
V̇θ = − θ̇Vr (1 − N )
Using previous equations, we get
V̇r V̇θ
θ̇ = =− ⇒ Vθ V̇θ + (1 − N )Vr V̇r = 0
Vθ (1 − N )Vr
On integration, we get
Vθ2 + (1 − N )Vr2 = k = Vθ20 + (1 − N )Vr20
What does this equation represent in (Vθ , Vr ) space?

Case 1: 0 < N < 1
k = Vθ20 + (1 − N )Vr20 > 0
For Vr = 0, Vθ2 = k.
k
For Vθ = 0, Vr2 = .
1−N
Equation of an ellipse.
Direction of movement:
rV̇r = Vθ2 > 0.
Condition of capturability
for case 0 < N < 1?
No capture except negative Vr axis

Case 2: N = 1
Vθ2 = k = Vθ20
What does it represent in (Vθ , Vr )

space?
Condition of capturability for case
N = 1?
For N = 1, capture is not possible except for negative Vr axis.

Case 3: N > 1
Vθ2 − (N − 1)Vr2 = k = Vθ20 − (N − 1)Vr20
What does it represent in (Vθ , Vr ) space?

Condition of capturability for case N > 1?
Case 3a: N > 1
Vθ2 − (N − 1)Vr2 = k
where
k = Vθ20 − (N − 1)Vr20 .
For k > 0,
Vr = 0 ⇒ Vθ2 = k.
There are no value of Vr for
which Vθ = 0.
What about interception of
target?
No interception of target.

Case 3b: N > 1
Vθ2 − (N − 1)Vr2 = k
k = Vθ20 − (N − 1)Vr20
For k < 0, r
k
Vθ = 0 ⇒ Vr = ± .
N −1
There are no value of Vθ for
which Vr = 0.
target?
Interception occurs for Vr0 < 0.

Case 3c: N > 1
Vθ2 − (N − 1)Vr2 = k
where
k = Vθ20 − (N − 1)Vr20
k = 0, Vθ2 = (N − 1)Vr2
target?
Interception does not occur for positive Vr region

Nothing can be said about negative Vr region

Capture region
Vθ20 + (1 − N )Vr20 < 0, Vr0 < 0
Alternatively,
√
|Vθ0 | < N − 1|Vr0 |, Vr0 < 0
For N < 1, it shrinks to

negative Vr axis.
Capture region is smaller than that of original TPN.

Realistic TPN Guidance: Capturability Regions

Comparison of TPN Class of Guidance
How to compare capture regions of the TPN class of guidance laws?
Guidance command for

RTPN
aM = −N Vr θ̇
Modifications to
guidance command

c
aM = − Vr θ̇
−Vr0

Comparison of TPN Class of Guidance
Capture regions of RTPN guidance law
Vθ20 < (N − 1)Vr20 , N > 1, Vr0 < 0
c
For N = − , we have
V r0

c
Vθ20 <− + 1 Vr20 ⇒ Vθ20 + Vr20 + cVr0 < 0
V r0
On rearranging, we get
c 2 c 2 c
Vθ20 + Vr0 + < Circle of radius , centered
2 2 2
at (0, −c/2).

TPN Guidance Capture Regions

PN Guidance Law
Can we say something more about PN guidance?

Consider a planar engagement geometry as below.
Assume φM is small and φT is close to zero or π.

Both aM and aT are almost perpendicular to the initial LOS.
LOS angle is assumed to be small and its initial value is zero.

PN Guidance Law
Consider yT and yM are the perpendicular displacements of the missile and

target, respectively, ⊥ to initial LOS.
By defining displacement y as below and using small angle assumptions,
y = yT − yM
ÿ ' aT − aM

PN Guidance Law against Heading Error
Suppose the target does not maneuver then

ÿ = − aM = −N Vc θ̇,
where Vc is the closing speed of missile-target engagement.
With small angle approximation, closing speed
Vc ' VM + VT , VM − VT
On integration ÿ, we get

ẏ = − N Vc θ + C1
r y
Also, Vc = , θ' ,
tf − t r
r y y
ẏ = − N + C1 = −N + C1
tf − t r tf − t
Suppose there is a heading error ∆φi , then
y(0) = 0, ẏ(0) = −VM sin ∆φi ' −VM ∆φi ⇒ C1 = −VM ∆φi
Substituting these values, we get

dy y
+N = −VM ∆φi
dt tf − t
Differential equation for a PN guided missile subject to the heading error but
with a non-maneuvering target.
On solving this equation,
N
VM ∆φi t2f

t
y =− 1− + K1 t + K2
N −1 tf
N −2
VM ∆φi N t
aM = 1−
tf tf

From these equations,

VM ∆φi N
aM (0) =
tf
aM ∝ ∆φi
aM ∝ VM
1
aM ∝
tf
Similar behavior with
nonlinear simulations

PN Guidance Law against Target Maneuver
Suppose there is zero heading error ∆φi = 0 but target maneuvers with aT .
Engagement equation
ÿ = aT − aM = aT − N Vc θ̇
with initial conditions given by
y(0) = 0, ẏ(0) = 0
On solving this equation,

" N −2 #
N t
aM = 1− 1− aT
N −2 tf
When N → 2, using L’Hospital rule

t
lim aM = − 2aT log 1 −
N →2 tf

PN Guidance Law against Target Maneuver

PN Guidance Law: Zero Effort Miss
Consider linearized engagement geometry

r d y
aM = N Vc θ̇ = N ,
tgo dt r
r
where tgo = tf − t = is time-to-go.
−ṙ
On evaluating,
N r2 ẏ − yrṙ

r rẏ − y ṙ
aM =N =
tgo r2 tgo r2

N y N N ZEM
= ẏ + = 2 (y + ẏtgo ) =
tgo tgo tgo | {z } t2go
ZEM
Zero-Effort-Miss (ZEM): Vertical separation between missile and target at

tf if the missile does not use any control effort for the rest of the time and
the target does not maneuver.
PN Guidance Law: Zero Effort Miss
Suppose target maneuvers then what should be the guidance command?

Can we use similar concept of zero-effort-miss, ZEM?
Zero-effort-miss, with constant maneuver target, can be defined as
1
ZEM = y + ẏtgo + aT t2go
2
Guidance command for such case called as Augmented PN (APN) guidance,

N ZEM N 1 N
aM = 2 = 2 y + ẏtgo + aT t2go = N Vc θ̇ + aT
tgo tgo 2 2
Missile lateral acceleration as a function of time

" N −2 #
1 t
aM = N aT 1−
2 tf

APN Guidance Law
Which is better, PN or APN, for maneuvering target?

Comparison of PN and APN Guidance Laws
APN is considered better from the acceleration profiles perspective

⇒ Total acceleration needed is less
⇒ Saturation effect towards the beginning can be compensated later but not the
other way.
However, PN has its own advantage in terms of input information
requirement and implementation.
Comparison of PN and APN Guidance Laws
How to quantify the acceleration demand for each guidance law?

Area under acceleration curve
Maneuver induced cost (MIC)
Z tf
M IC = aM dt
0
For PN and APN,

" N −2 #
Z tf
N aT t N aT tf
M ICP N = 1− 1− dt =
0 N −2 tf N −1
" N −2 #
Z tf
N aT t 1 N aT tf 1
M ICAP N = 1− dt = = M ICP N
0 2 tf 2 N −1 2
This relation is true for all N > 2.

Linearized Guidance Laws
To get a better understanding, consider the linearized model with zero lag
We look for a guidance command as function of system states.

How to choose a suitable guidance law?
How to define which one is a suitable?
Need to impose constraints and performance criteria to find unique law.
What if we look for guidance which can ensure zero miss distance?
There may be several such guidance laws, which satisfy this constraint.
How to select one among them?

Lionearized Guidance Laws
Need to define some measure to select the best among these laws

Consider minimization of total control effort.

Total control effort: Integral of square of commanded acceleration of
missile.
Why do we take the square and not the actual or the absolute values?

If we consider values of a2M , then

Z tf
a2M dt > 0
0
Better representation of control effort.

Is there any other justification for this selection?
Analytically tractable for the optimization problem due to quadratic form.
Maneuver-induced drag
1 2
D = ρVM SCD ,
2
CD =CD0 + CDi ,
m2 a2M
CDi =KCL2 = K 2 S]2
[(1/2)ρVM

Guidance design as an optimal control problem.

Z tf
min a2M dt, y(tf ) = 0
0
subjected to the state equations given by
ẏ = ẏ, ÿ = aT − aM , ȧT = 0
Linear quadratic problem in optimal control theory

System equation in state-space form
      
ẏ 0 1 0 y 0
 ÿ  =  0 0 1   ẏ  +  −1  aM (t)
ȧT 0 0 0 aT 0
| {z }
| {z } | {z } | {z } u
F X G
Ẋ = F X + Gu

If tf is known then
Z tf
X(tf ) = φ(tf − t)X(tf ) + φ(tf − τ )G(τ )u(τ )dτ
t
where φ(t) is state transition matrix given by
φ(t) = L−1 [sI − F ]−1 = expF t .
F 2 t2 F 3 t3
expF t =I + F t + + + ···
2!  3!
t2
   
1 0 0 0 t 0 0 0
1
= 0 1 0 + 0 0 t +  0 0 0 
2
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
 2 
t
1 t 2
= 0 1 t 
0 0 1

Using STM, we get

(tf −t)2
    
y(tf ) 1 tf − t 2
y(t)
 ẏ(tf )  =  0 1 tf − t   ẏ(t) 
aT (tf ) 0 0 1 aT (t)
2 
Z tf 1 tf − τ (tf −τ )
 
2
0
+  0 1 tf − τ   −1  aM (τ )dτ
t 0
0 0 1
On solving, we get
Z tf
1
y(tf ) = y(t) + (tf − t)ẏ(t) + (tf − t)2 aT − [(tf − τ ) aM (τ )dτ
| {z 2 } t | {z }
h1 (tf −t)
f1 (tf −t)
Z tf
=f1 (tf − t) − h1 (tf − τ )aM (τ )dτ
t

To achieve zero miss distance,

Z tf
f1 (tf − t) = h1 (tf − τ )aM (τ )dτ
t
There could be several aM functions defined over [t, tf ] which satisfy this
expression.
We use the minimum control effort criteria to find a unique one.
Let f and g be measurable functions, with range in [0, ∞].
According to Schwarz’ inequality
Z Z 1/2 Z 1/2
f gdt ≤ f 2 dt g 2 dt
and equality holds when f = kg with k is a real number.

To achieve zero miss distance,

Z tf Z tf
f12 (tf − t) ≤ h21 (tf − τ )dτ a2M (τ )dτ
t t
tf
f12 (tf − t)
Z
⇒ a2M (τ )dτ ≥ R tf
t t
h21 (tf − τ )dτ
Minimimum value of LHS is the value of RHS and this occurs at equality.
Equality hold only if
aM (τ ) = kh1 (tf − τ )
On substituting this, we get

Z tf
f 2 (tf − t) f1 (tf − t)
k 2
h21 (tf − τ )dτ = R tf 1 =⇒ k = R tf
2
h1 (tf − τ )dτ h21 (tf − τ )dτ
t t t

Guidance command
" #
f1 (tf − t)
aM (τ ) = kh1 (tf − τ ) = R tf h1 (tf − τ )
h21 (tf − τ )dτ
t
1
 
y(t) + (tf − t)ẏ(t) + (tf − t)2 aT
= 

R tf 2 2  (tf − τ )

t
h1 (tf − τ )dτ
3 1
= [y(t) + tgo ẏ(t) + t2go aT ](tf − τ )
t3go 2
At current time τ = t, the guidance command (APN) is given by

3 1 3ZEM
aM (t) = [y(t) + tgo ẏ(t) + t2go aT ] = 2
t2go 2 tgo
Equivalent to PN for aT = 0.
Optimal with N = 3 for linearized dynamics
aM ∝ ZEM and inversely proportional to t2go .
Text/References
Reference
1 D. Ghose, Lecture notes on Navigation, Guidance and Control, Indian
Institute of Science, Bangalore.
2 N. A. Shneydor, Missile Guidance and Pursuit: Kinematics, Dynamics, and
Control, Horwood Publishing Limited. 1998.
Thank you for your attention !!!

2022 Iitb Ae 410 641 18

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2022 Iitb Ae 410 641 18

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Navigation and Guidance

Dr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar

Dr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar IITB-AE 410/641 Navigation and Guidance 1 / 37

TPN law: Guidance command as a function of the initial closing velocity.

where N is the navigation constant.

Dr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar IITB-AE 410/641 Navigation and Guidance 2 / 37

V̇r = − VT sin(γT − θ)(−θ̇) + VM sin(γM − θ)(γ̇M − θ̇) − V̇M cos(γM − θ)

V̇θ =VT cos(γT − θ)(−θ̇) − VM cos(γM − θ)(γ̇M − θ̇) − V̇M sin(γM − θ)

Dr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar IITB-AE 410/641 Navigation and Guidance 3 / 37

We have the derivative of Vr and Vθ as

Using previous equations, we get

Vθ2 + (1 − N )Vr2 = k = Vθ20 + (1 − N )Vr20

What does this equation represent in (Vθ , Vr ) space?

Dr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar IITB-AE 410/641 Navigation and Guidance 4 / 37

Case 1: 0 < N < 1

k = Vθ20 + (1 − N )Vr20 > 0

No capture except negative Vr axis

What does it represent in (Vθ , Vr )

For N = 1, capture is not possible except for negative Vr axis.

Vθ2 − (N − 1)Vr2 = k = Vθ20 − (N − 1)Vr20

What does it represent in (Vθ , Vr ) space?

Case 3a: N > 1

Dr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar IITB-AE 410/641 Navigation and Guidance 7 / 37

Case 3b: N > 1

Dr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar IITB-AE 410/641 Navigation and Guidance 8 / 37

Case 3c: N > 1

Interception does not occur for positive Vr region

Dr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar IITB-AE 410/641 Navigation and Guidance 9 / 37

For N < 1, it shrinks to

Capture region is smaller than that of original TPN.

Dr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar IITB-AE 410/641 Navigation and Guidance 10 / 37

Dr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar IITB-AE 410/641 Navigation and Guidance 11 / 37

How to compare capture regions of the TPN class of guidance laws?

Guidance command for

Dr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar IITB-AE 410/641 Navigation and Guidance 12 / 37

Capture regions of RTPN guidance law

Vθ20 < (N − 1)Vr20 , N > 1, Vr0 < 0

Dr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar IITB-AE 410/641 Navigation and Guidance 13 / 37

Dr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar IITB-AE 410/641 Navigation and Guidance 14 / 37

Can we say something more about PN guidance?

Assume φM is small and φT is close to zero or π.

Dr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar IITB-AE 410/641 Navigation and Guidance 15 / 37

Consider yT and yM are the perpendicular displacements of the missile and

Dr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar IITB-AE 410/641 Navigation and Guidance 16 / 37

Suppose the target does not maneuver then

On integration ÿ, we get

Suppose there is a heading error ∆φi , then

Substituting these values, we get

Dr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar IITB-AE 410/641 Navigation and Guidance 18 / 37

From these equations,

Dr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar IITB-AE 410/641 Navigation and Guidance 19 / 37

with initial conditions given by

On solving this equation,

When N → 2, using L’Hospital rule

Dr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar IITB-AE 410/641 Navigation and Guidance 20 / 37

Dr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar IITB-AE 410/641 Navigation and Guidance 21 / 37

Consider linearized engagement geometry

Zero-Effort-Miss (ZEM): Vertical separation between missile and target at

Suppose target maneuvers then what should be the guidance command?

Missile lateral acceleration as a function of time

Dr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar IITB-AE 410/641 Navigation and Guidance 23 / 37

Which is better, PN or APN, for maneuvering target?