International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems

Volume 14 • Issue 1 • January-March 2018

An Optimal Missile Autopilot Design Model

Yong-chao Chen, Electronic Engineering Department, Shijiazhuang Mechanical Engineering College, Shijiazhuang, China
Xin-bao Gao, Electronic Engineering Department, Shijiazhuang Mechanical Engineering College, Shijiazhuang, China
Min Gao, Electronic Engineering Department, Shijiazhuang Mechanical Engineering College, Shijiazhuang, China
Dan Fang, Electronic Engineering Department, Shijiazhuang Mechanical Engineering College, Shijiazhuang, China

ABSTRACT

This article describes how one optimal design method is given to the design of missile autopilots.
This method profits from an exhaustive method. By this method, the design process of a missile
autopilot is simplified, and the design efficiency is improved. In the design process of this method,
the performance indexes of autopilot are translated into constraint conditions, and the response speed
is translated to an objective function. Thus, the optimal design of missile autopilot is translated into
the optimal design of a nonlinear system with multiple constraints. The optimization algorithm
is found to be out of controller parameter combinations which can satisfy constrained conditions.
Firstly, calculations of the corresponding objective function values. Second, by the extract the optimal
combination which has the minimal objective function value.

Keywords
Autopilot, Exhaustive Method, Nonlinear System Optimal, Optimal Design

1. INTRODUCTION

Autopilot is an important part of missile guidance and control system, and it has great influence
to the stability and controllability of missile (Meng, 2003). The classical control theory is used for
the design of traditional missile autopilot mostly, and the control parameters, which can satisfy the
performance indexes, are obtained by empirical equations and cut-and-try. These methods have high
requests in experience, and the optimization period is long. Many novel missile autopilots based on
modern control theory have been put forward in recent years, such as robust control autopilot, neural
networks control autopilot, dynamic inversion control autopilot (Godbole et al. 2011; Talole et al.
2011; Sadr and Momeni, 2011; Tomazic and Matko, 2011; Robert et al. 2013). The performances have
been improved by these novel control methods. But the deficiencies of these methods are difficult
to design, and have not been adopted widely. In this paper, the traditional missile autopilot has been
studied, and one optimization method based on time-domain analysis has been put forward, in order
to improve the optimization design efficiency of control parameters.

2. PRINCIPLE OF OPTIMAL DESIGN

The preconditions of autopilot optimization are that the rise time, overshoot, transient time and steady
state error should satisfy the performance indexes (Wang, 2007; Wang, 2006; Shen, 2007). Therefore,
we should ascertain the ranges of overshoot and steady state error by empirical values firstly. The

DOI: 10.4018/IJEIS.2018010106

Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.


104
 International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems
Volume 14 • Issue 1 • January-March 2018

optimization objective is minimizing the rise time. And then the optimization design could be regard
as solve the optimization problem with multiple constraints and single target.
Suppose overshoot is a percent of steady state value, steady state error is ±b percent of steady
state value, transient time is t1, simulation time is T, simulation step size is h, and steady state value
is g. Then the sketch of system response with constraint conditions could be shown as Figure 1.
Constraints have been set in every simulation node of system response curve. As shown in Figure
1, there is one constraint in every simulation node from 0s to t1s, and the simulation value should
lesser than the constraint value; there are two constraints in every simulation node from t1s to Ts,
and the simulation value should between the constraint values. Therefore, the number of constraints
is t1/h+2(T- t1) /h.
The simulation time, when the simulation value is rise to 80 percent of steady state value firstly,
is defined as the rise time. This rise time is the optimization objective. Then we should find out the
control parameters which have the minimum rise time and satisfy the constraint conditions. Thus,
the optimal design of missile autopilot is translated to the optimal design of nonlinear system with
multiple constraints.

3. REALIZATION OF OPTIMAL DESIGN

There are many optimum design methods in modern control theory, such as LOG reaction control
system optimum design method, H ∞ & µ synthetic optimum design method. But these methods are
difficulty to calculate and realize. So the idea of exhaustion method in classical control theory has
been considered in this paper, and one optimization method has been put forward for the design of
missile autopilot.
The mathematical simulation flow diagram of one missile attitude autopilot is shown in Figure
2. And this attitude autopilot is the object of following study
Where, ϕC is the control signal of pitch attitude angle, ϕ is the pitch attitude rate, ϕ is the
output signal of pitch attitude angle, a 0ϕ and a1ϕ are static gain and dynamic gain which need to be

Figure 1. Sketch of system response and constraints

105
International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems
Volume 14 • Issue 1 • January-March 2018

Figure 2. Flow diagram of attitude autopilot

design respectively.where, G f (s ) = ωf2 (S 2 + 2ξf ωf S + ωf2 ) is the transfer function of steering

•

engine, Gδϕ (s ) = K D (TqD S + 1) (TD2S 2 + 2ξDTD S + 1) is the transfer function of projectile body,
Gg (s ) = ωg2 ( S 2 + 2ξg ωg S + ωg2 ) is the transfer function of rate gyroscope.

3.1. Indexes of Optimal Design

In consideration of the aerodynamic configuration, response speed of projectile body, actuator
performance and operating frequency of rate gyroscope, the performance indexes of autopilot are
set as following (Ming et al. 2015):

1. Minimum rise time;

2. The transient time is shorter than 0.5s;
3. The overshoot is lower than 20 percent of steady state value;
4. The steady state error is lower than 10 percent of steady state value.

State feedback coefficients a 0ϕ and a1ϕ , which need to be design, compose the controller.
Then the controller can be shown as following:

x  a ϕ 
X =  1  =  0ϕ 
x 2  a1 

The parameters of autopilot in one characteristic point are shown in Table 1. They are worked
out from the aerodynamic parameters in this characteristic point, the detailed calculation method has
been given in Meng (2003).
In addition, the oscillation frequency of steering engine is ωf = 62.8rad/s , the damping
coefficient of steering engine is ξf = 0.7 , the oscillation frequency of rate gyroscope is
ωg = 200rad/s , the damping coefficient of rate gyroscope is ξg = 0.6 .
The outputs values of this autopilot are pitch angle, and the pitch angle in different time are
different. Suppose the steady state value is g, then the constraints could be shown as following:

Constraints of overshoot are: yt − 1.2 × g ≤ 0 , where, ti = 0 ~ 0.5 s, simulation step is 0.001s.

i

106
 International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems
Volume 14 • Issue 1 • January-March 2018

Table 1. Parameters of autopilot in one characteristic point

Parameter
KD (1/s) TqD (s) TD (s) ξD ωD (rad/s)

Value 2.4388 0.4402 0.0419 0.1030 23.87

Constraints of steady state error are: −yt + 0.9 × g ≤ 0 , yt − 1.1 × g ≤ 0 , where, ti = 0.5 ~ 2 s,
i i

simulation step is 0.001s.

These constraints show that the overshoots of system response are lower than 20 percent of the
steady state value from 0s to 0.5s, and there is one constraint in every simulation step, so there are
500 constraints from 0s to 0.5s; the fluctuating margins of system response are lower than 10 percent
of the steady state value from 0.5s to 2s, and there are two constraints in every simulation step, so
there are 2×1500 = 3000 constraints from 0.5s to 2s. Therefore, there are 3500 constraints in this
optimization system.

3.2. Procedure of Optimal Design

On the whole, the procedure of optimal design is that transfer the overshoot, transient time and steady
state error into constraints, set the rise time as the objective function value, design the appropriate
control parameters to minimize the objective function value, and ensure the system response meet
the constraints simultaneously. The flow chart is shown in Figure 3.

3.3. Results of Optimal Design

Set a 0 and a1 as the optimization variable to optimize the autopilot. The value of a 0 has an effect
on the deflection angle magnitude of steering engine directly. The control deviation amount is less
than 3º usually, and the upper limit of deflection angle magnitude is 20º, then the search range of a 0
is set as 1 to 5. In addition, by calculating and analyzing, it is found that the value of a1 has a greatly
effect on the rise time and overshoot, the rise time is longer with a lager a1 , and the overshoot is
higher with a smaller a1 , then the search range of a1 is set as 0.001 to 1.
Set the value of a 0ϕ , figure out the system response values with every a1ϕ , and record the groups
of a 0ϕ and a1ϕ whose system response meet the constraint conditions. Change the value of a 0ϕ , and
repeat the above calculation, until all groups of a 0ϕ and a1ϕ have been calculated. Then find out the
group of a 0ϕ and a1ϕ whose rise time is shortest, and this group of a 0ϕ and a1ϕ is the result of optimal
design.
It can be find that the adjustment step of control parameters have a greatly effect on the
optimization period, through the repeated calculations. The optimization period will rise tenfold
when the adjustment step decreases an order of magnitude. In addition, the result of optimal design
and rise time will not change basically when the adjustment step is less than 10-3. Therefore, the
adjustment step is set as 0.001.
The Matlab is used to write the optimize program. Part of rise time, which obtained by different
control parameter groups, are shown in Figure 4.
The longest rise time in Figure 4 is 2s, but this doesn’t mean that the actual longest rise time is
2s, this is because that the longest simulation time is set as 2s, and the simulation calculation will

107
International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems
Volume 14 • Issue 1 • January-March 2018

Figure 3. Flow diagram of optimal design

stop when the simulation time reach 2s. Thus the recorded longest rise time is 2s, and the rise time
might be longer if the simulation time is longer than 2s.
The result of optimal design is a 0ϕ =5,a1ϕ =0.0465, and the optimization rise time is 0.0375s.
The corresponding optimization response curse is shown in Figure 5, and it shows that the response
curse can meet the condition of constraint.

4. CONCLUSION

The optimal design of missile autopilot has been translate into the optimal design of nonlinear system
with multiple constraints. One optimization method benefited from exhaustion method has been put
forward to calculate the optimal design. The optimal design result of one characteristic point in flight
trajectory has been obtained, and response curse can meet the condition of constraint. This indicates

108
 International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems
Volume 14 • Issue 1 • January-March 2018

Figure 4. Part rise time for different control parameter groups

Figure 5. System response curse of optimal result

that the optimization method is feasible and effective. The advantages of this method are that the
solving process is simple, easy to be implemented, high value of engineering application, and it can
be extended used for other autopilots such as acceleration autopilot, velocity control autopilot and
three-loop autopilot. But the disadvantage is that the calculation increasing obviously as the increasing
of search range and adjustment step. In order to improve the calculative efficiency, one improved
measure should be put forward in the next study.

109
International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems
Volume 14 • Issue 1 • January-March 2018

REFERENCES

Godbole, A. A. & Talole, S.E. (2011). Robust Feedback Linearization approach to pitch autopilot design. In
Proceedings of the 2011 7th International Conference on MEMS, NANO and Smart Systems, November 4-6.
Meng, X. Y. (2003). Elements of Missile Guided and Control System. Beijing: Beijing Institute of Technology
Press.
Ming, Y., Tang, Q. Z., & Han, L. (2015). Guided and Control Technology of Field Rocket. Beijing: National
Defense Industry Press.
Robert, F. H., Francois-David, X. H., Richard, A., & Hever, M. (2013). Development and Flight Testing of a
Model Based Autopilot Library for a Low Cost Unmanned Aerial System. In Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance,
Navigation, and Control (GNC) Conference, August 19-22.
Sadr, N. E., & Momeni, H. R. (2011). Fuzzy Sliding mode Control for missile autopilot design. In
Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE GCC Conference and Exhibition, February 19-22 (pp. 453-456). doi:10.1109/
IEEEGCC.2011.5752563
Shen, H., Xia, L. Q., Qi, Z. K., & Wang, J. L. (2007). Design the Description Function of Guidance System with
Velocity Pursuit Guidance Law. Transactions of Beijing Institute of Technology, 27(7), 590–593.
Talole, S. E., Godbole, A. A., Kolhe, J. P., & Phadke, S. B. (2011). Robust roll autopilot design for tactical
missiles. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 34(1), 107–117. doi:10.2514/1.50555
Tomazic, T., & Matko, D. (2011). Model based UAV autopilot tuning. In Proceedings of the 8th WSEAS
International Conference on Fluid Mechanics, January 29-31 (pp. 18-22).
Wang, J. L. (2007). Research on Airborne Guided Rockets Guidance and Control System Design. Beijing:
Beijing Institute of Technology.
Wang, J. L., & Qi, Z. K. (2006). Autopilot Fast Response Robustness Design with Damp Constraint. Xitong
Fangzhen Xuebao, 18(2), 888–891.
Wang, J. L., & Qi, Z. K. (2006). Analysis of a Three-Loop Autopilot. Transactions of Beijing Institute of
Technology, 26(3), 239–243.
Wang, J. L., & Qi, Z. K. (2007). Control System Fast Response Robustness Design. Journal of Systems Engineering
and Electronics, 29(10), 1723–1726.
Wang, J. L., Qi, Z. K., & Xia, Q. L. (2007). Control System Fast Response Design with Control Constraint.
Journal of Projectiles, Rockets, Missiles and Guidance, 27(2), 32–34.

Yong-chao Chen is a Doctor in the Electronic Engineering Department at the Shijiazhuang Mechanical Engineering
College. He received his MS in Engineering from the Shijiazhuang Mechanical Engineering College.

Xin-bao Gao is a Professor of Engineering at the Shijiazhuang Mechanical Engineering College. He received his
MS and PhD in Engineering from the Shijiazhuang Mechanical Engineering College.

Min Gao is a Professor of Engineering at the Shijiazhuang Mechanical Engineering College. He received his MS
and PhD in Engineering from the Beijing Institute of Technology.

Dan Fang is a Lecturer in the Electronic Engineering Department at the Shijiazhuang Mechanical Engineering
College. He received his MS and PhD in Engineering from the Shijiazhuang Mechanical Engineering College.

110