m tnp slfts

WAI2 - 9:35

Awurka Coo -e

Sam Fruim, CaIIsrma.Jin

Sliding Mode Control of

HAVE DASH II Missile Systems *
J. Huang, C.F. Lin
American GNC Corporation
9131 Mason Ave.
Chatsworth, CA 91311
Abstract: Sliding mode control is applied to design au- based on the more complicated missile model and the perfortopilot for bank-to-turn (BTT) missile systems. The design mance is evaluated using the full-scale six degree-of-freedom
is compared with the feedback linearization approach and HAVE DASH II missile model.
shows a significant improvement over the latter.

2. Formulation of Sliding Mode Controller

1. Introduction
The nonlinearity and uncertainty inherent in the HAVE
DASH II missile dynamics have been a great challenge to the
high performance autopilot design. In recent years, much
attention has been focused on usmg linear optimal control
methods to design missile autopilot [LL], [LJGENV], [XX].
Although these advanced multivaxiable approaches are compared favorably to the classical one-loop-at-a-time method,
they still manifest themselves incapabilities when performing large and rapid maneuvers. A natural step towards improving the autopilot's performance is to incorporate the
more accurate nonlinear missile model into the design process. A typical nonlinear approach is the well-known feedback linearization approach [HSM] which uses the feedback
and/or coordinates transform to linearize the nonlinear system, then addresses the design issues on the linearized system thus obtained. However, success of the feedback linearization approach is hinged on the availability of the accurate description of the model. Indeed, severe model uncertainty mainly due to the aerocoefficients may degrade the
effectiveness of the feedback linearization approach. A more
realistic approach should tolerate the model uncertainty to
some degree. With this regard, some robust schemes such
as sliding mode control have been proposed [SS].
In this paper, we will apply sliding mode method to design autopilot for the bank-to-turn HAVE DASH II missile
system. The design wiU be carried out in two steps. First,
a nonlinear inversion law is synthesized to decouple and linearize the input-output dynamrics of a nominal missile system. Then based on this decoupled and linearized inputoutput relation, the slidimg mode method is further applied
to design a switching mechanism to account for the model
uncertainty. The performance of the resulting controller is
compared to that of the feedback linearization approach. It
should be noted that similar approach ha. been applied to
the control of aircraft in [SI]. However, our development is
'Research supported under USAF Contract No.

Air Force Armment Directorate, WL/MNAG

It is known that sliding mode control can be used to achieve

trajectory tracking in presence of certain model uncertainty.
In this section, we will formulate the sliding mode controller
for a class of input-output feedback linearizable nonlinear
systems. Details are referred to [SL]. We consider the system
described by

i(t)
y(t)

=
=

f(x()) + g(z(i))u(t)

h(x(t))

(2.1)

where 4(t) is the n-dimensional plant state, u is mdimensional plant input, y is n-dimensional plant output,
+
xR,a and
h: R Rm
are
f: Rn R'and g: R- Rn
,
smooth functions. Sliding mode controller for system (2.1)
can be designed by the following steps.
1. Performing input-output feedback lineaniation. System (2.1) is said to be input-output feedback
linearizable if there exist constants P ,** Pm and inputoutput mapping of the form
Ft

Y(2)

%.

ymlp-)(t)

B(z(t)) A(z(t))
+

i(i)

(2.2)

Uin (t)
Y(R^)(g)~~~~~~~

,~[

where Ui i==
, m are components of u and y, B :
R"-- R' and A: Rn- Rm x Rm are smooth with A(z)
invertible. For if this is the case, the following feedback
control
-

u(t) = A- (x(t))(-B(1(t)) + v(t))

where v(t) = [vi (t), e . ,v
)m (t)]T E Rm, yields
Y(PI(t) = Vi(t),

i = 1,*..,nm

(2.3)

(2.4)

which clearly exhibits a decoupled linear input-output strucF0o63-91- C-0055, ture. The integers Pl,i**, pm are called relative degree of

(2.1).

183

Remark 2-3: It is interesting to note that the above

2. Specifying sliding surface. On the basis of the
input-otput linearized system (2.4), we can define m sliding formulation include the feedback linearization or dynamic
surfaces si, i = 1, * , m, as follows:
inversion as a special case. To see this, let Ai = 0 in (2.9),
then (2.9) is such that j = 0 for t > 0. However, such a goal
si(t) = e(P'-')+ki(Pi le(P' 2)
can be achieved by feedback linearization controllers only if
there are no uncertainties in the plant model. By contrast,
+
+ki2e4') +kilei + kio eidt (2.5) even in the presence of certain types of uncertainties, the
condition (2.7) can still be maintained by suitably
where- ei = - ri with ri the reference trajectories; and sliding
choosing the values of Ai [SL] It should be also pointed out
kj(P_j- * kio are such that
that unless JT pi = n, there is no guarantee for closedloop
stability since certain unobsolvable modes called zero(2.6)
A" + kd(p,_.)AP-1 + * + ki1A + kio
dynamics cannot be stabilized by the above controller. (I].
is Hulwitz polynomial.
3. Achieving sliding condition. The closed-loop sys- 3. HAVE DASH II Missile Model
tem is said to satisfy the sliding condition if the following
applies.
The rigid body motion equations of the HAVE DASH II
misile in a body fixed frame are described by
(2.7)
l < -7i7SiI, ('ii > 0)
2 dtP =-4QR+ L/Its
where in,i =
M,rn, are positive numbers. Note that
4:
sliding condition will mak-e si(t) = 0 and si(t) = 0 in a
QI= 12- "PR+M/Iy
finite time. Since 4(t) = 0 is a stable differential equation,
satisfaction of si(t) = 0 by ei(t) in turn leads to aymptotic
IV
tracking.
A =
PQ + N/IIz
hz
Let
'ynr
v
sin$seceq + cos$seceR
cos$Q - sin$R
*],
Y(i
*(n)
S
y(p)
t
P + sin4tanEQ + cossitanER
(2.8)
1
L Jr
+ g,)
Vrm = -{cosacoso3(F
m
I

sin,8(Fy + gy)

sgn(s) = [sgn(si),.. ,sgn(sm)]

where sgn(-) is the sign fimetion. Then it can be verified
that a control law that achieves the sliding condition (2.7)
is given by
u = A-'((i - Y(P)) - B - Asgn(s))

(2.9)

where A = diag [AlaI,Am] with Ai a positive number

greater than given positive number *i. Note that
(s4-y?')

= .-P'

+kije(,)

+t sinacos3(F2 +gz)}
Q - (Pcosa + Rsina)tanl3
1
+

{-sinar(F, + g) + cosc(F, + gz)}

p = Psina - Rcosa
1
+ mV/rn {-cosaksin3(F, + o) + cos,3(F, +9gJ)
- sinasin (F, +gz)}

where

(3.1)

+ki2e42) + k1e(1) + kioei

g. = -mgsine
so (As- Y(P) does not depend on u.
9s, = mgcosesin'
Remark 2-1: The integral term in (2.5) can be omit9* = mgcosecos4
ted by setting kio = 0. Since the sliding condition also
implies sE(t) = 0, the asymptotical tracking can still be
In (3.1), P, Q, and R are the angular rates in the body
achieved by the control law (2.9) as long as, for i-= * *m
fixed
frame; V1, ca, and P are the missile velocity, angle
ki(p_
1) *... kil are such that APi-l+ kj(,p,.Il)A"p2 +'v+kjl of attack, and sideslip angle with respect to the body fixed
are Hulwitz.
frame; and 0, $, P are pitch angle, roll angle, and yaw anRemark 2-2: The discontinuity of the sign function will gle. The other parameters are three moments of the inertial
cause chattering in the closed-loop system. In practice, the about the body frame I, I'', and I2,,missile mass m, and
sign finction sgn(si) is often replaced by the saturation gravity constant g. (FX, F,, FZ) and (L, M, N) are aerodyfunction sat( .L) where
namic forces and rolling, pitching, and yawing moments,
respectively, all about the body frame. They are given by
sat(Z) = r, iffrj I
F: = kFPVT2CZ Fs ,=kppV,2Cy
sat(x) = sgn(z), if 1l1 2 1
(2.10)
+

1844

The entries of the matrices CFo, CF., CMO, CMU are gener(3.2) ally functions of a, /3 and Mm. Using a simple curve fitting
scheme based on the least square error criterion gives

F, = kFPV2C, L = kmpIQC,
M = kMpVI

CmI N kMpvmCn

where p is the atmospheric density; kF and km are

0.004 0 0
-0.57 + 0.0083at
constants determined by the missile's geometry; and
=
0.08
-0.21#
, CFU1
CF O-=
0
0
C:, C,, C,, C,CCm, and C. are aerodynamic coefficients
0
-0.09
0
=
Czo(a,M6m) J
given in terms of an aerodynamic table. The functional
form of the aerodynamic coefficients Ci, i = r,y, z,l,m,n is
0
0
-0.127
0.116/3 1
=
0
given as follows
0
-0.675
CMO = [ Cmo(0, Mm) , Cmu
Mu L 0
0
-0.584
0.08p3
Cio(ctr3,Mm) + Ci 6(o, 66,Mm)
Ci
+ Ci66(t ba, Mm) + Ciar& bx, Mm) (3-3) where C,o(a, Mm), and CmO(a, Mm) are given as follows
where- Mm = Vm/c is Mach number with c beimg the speed
CzO(aC Mm) = Czl(Ca)+Cz2(C)Mm
of sound. b6, b., and 6, are the effective pitch, roll and
(3.6)
Cmo(ca,Mm) = Cml(C()+Cm2(0.)Mm
yaw fin control deflections, respectively. They are converted
from the corresponding commanded deflections 6ce, 6ac, 6,rc with
through actuator and fin mixer. The HAVE DASH II nissile
Czl(C) = -0.0015a3 + 0.0125ar2 - 0.5052a + 0.0429
system has four tail fins arranged asymmetrically. The commanded deflections produce four fin deflection commands bi6
Cz2(a) = 0.0006a3 - 0.0138a2 + 0.1230a - 0.0191
according to
Cmi(a) = -0.0055a3 + 0.2131a2- 2.7419t - 0.0381
Cm2(0() = 00014A3 - 0.0623a2 + 0.8715a - 0.4041
ble = 6e -6ac + 6r,

62c = -bec 6c +6rc

The other missile parameters are given by G =

b3c= -6Cc-6a006rc
32.174 ft/sec2, m = 9.89 slug, c = 968 ft/sec,
64C = CC- 6ac -6r
KF = 0.1534 ft2, KM = 0.0959 ft31 p = 5.124 x
slugs/ft3, I., - 1.1913 slug ft2, I,, =
These fin deflection commands 6i,,i = 1, *,4 are the in- 10-

puts to the fin actuators which give the actual fin deflections 100.51 slug f12, and 1h, = 100.57 slug ft2, where c and p
are computed at the altitude of 40, 000 feet.
6,, i = 1,.* ,4, via a second order system
The performance output is chosen to be the following
d bi
bi
-2 w ]
dt b- ]
Y1 = Pcosa +Rsinad! P.
where (a=0.7, wa = 35Hz. It is assumed that the deflecY2 = a
tion limits of the fins are 25deg. The deflection rates are
(3.7)
Y/3 =
limited by 400 deg/sec. FinaUly, the actual fin deflections
are mixed to produce the effective pitch, roll and yaw fin where P, represents the roll rate with respect to the stability
deflections according to
axs. The basic requiremnet for the closed-loop system is
rapid and precise command following ability of P. and a.
Cc= -(6b-2-63+64)
Also, the sideslip angle 8 is required to be less than one
4
degree.
+ 62 J 3 64)
+
6a =

~_r

-_i(Cl

6,r

41(6i

4. Sliding Mode Controller

+ 62-63-64)

To put the missile model in the form described by (2.1), we To make the design easier, we will assume the following
need to approximate the aerodynamic coefficients by well
* The actuator -dynamics are ignored, that is, we assume
defined affine functions as follows
b6e=6,
b=a6bac, and 6, = 670,.
e
Cc
Csc CZa Cr
6e
* The variations of V1m is ignored, that is, we assume
Cy
6a
Cyo 1+1 Cie CY,a C,,r
J
CZ
CZo
C,c C,a, C,.z J br
Vm =O.
(3.4) * The coupling between the force and control deflections
dy CFO + CF.U
is ignored, that is, we assume CFU = 0.
C,
C14 C,r I 6,e
Note that the first two assumptions are mainly made for
E 64
+
Cmo
Cma Cmr
Cm.
has been customarily practiced in auconvenience,
Cn
br J topilot design.which
CnO+CnCc Cn-a Cnr,
The third assumption is based on the obL9 CU+
(3.5) servation that the coupling between the force and control
m
CM.u

185

deflections are relatively small in comparison with the cou- for the reason of space) show that the induced sideslip angle
pling -between the moment and control deflections since the is well below 0.2 deg.
aileron, rudder, and elevator are principally moment proIt is interesting to make a comparison between the sliding
ducing devices. [RSJ.
mode controller and the feedback linearization controller.
Under the above assumptions, the missile system can The feedback linearization controller can be obtained from
be put into the standard form of (2.1) with x - (2.9) by letting Ai = 0 and assigning appropriate values to
[P Q R Vm at p 'P $ e]T, iU = [ie ba r4]T, and kij. Figures 3 and 4 show the performance of the feedbak
y = [P. a /3]T. It can be easily verified that this system linearization controller with klo = 55, k2l = 21, k20 = 225,
has a vector relative degree (1,2,2). In fact, some calcula- k3l = 24, k32 = 350. For a 10 deg angle of attack change,
this controller performs almost as good as the sliding mode
tions yield the following input-output relation
controller, however, For a 20 deg angle of attack change, a
[Bi
significant performance degradation in terms of- about 50%
All A1 A13 -E
PS ]
overshoot in roll rate response is observed.
=
ba
B2 + A21 A22 A23
As
A
B3
A31
J
L
A32
Or
A33
L
/3 J
L
J
Acknowledgement
= B(z) + A(z)u
(4.1) The authors wish to thank Johnny Evers of USAF Armament Directorate of Wrigh}t Laboratory for his suggestions
with A(z) givei by
and comments.
ina
cosa
r
References
A(r) = kMVPV2 _ cosatantl
sinatanj5
C
M8(4.2)
I
[HLCED] J. Hunag, C.F. Lin, J.R. Cloutier, J.H. Evers, and
C.D. D'Souza, " Robust Feedback Linearization Approach
to Autopilot Design" Proceedings of the First Control ApIt can be checked that A(z) is invertible for x in a neighbor- plications Conference September, 1992.
hood of x = 0. Therefore, the sliding mode controller can [HSM] HUNT, L.R., SU R. AND G. MEYER, "Design
be readily synthesized using our general formulation (2.9). for Multi-input Nonlinear Systems," Differential GeometSpecifically, the sliding surface is given, according to (2.5) ric Control Theory, R.W. Brocket, R.S. Millman and H.
with k,o = 0, by
Sussman edc., Birkhauser, pp. 268-298, 1983.
A

[I] ISIDORI, A, Nonliner Control Systems, Springer Verlag,

(4.3) 1989.
3 + kA,le3
83 j
[LCEJW] LIN, C.F., J.R. CLOUTIER, J. EVERS, J.
AND Q. WANG, "High Performance, Adaptive,
JUANG
where el = P5-P.0, e2 = a - aC, and e3 = /; and Ps,
to Turn Missile Autopilot Design," ProceedRobust
Bank
and a, are commanded stability ais roll rate and angle of
AIAA
ings
of
Guidance, Navigation and Control Conferattack. Then
ence, Vol. 3, pp 123 - 137, 1991.
1
-Pa0
Fs
[L] LIN, C. F., "Modern Navigation, Guidance, and Control
52=
k21Qi-0)-a
(S-Y(P) = [ 2- a& ] = il(- ) ac ]
Processing," Prentice Hall, 1991.
k31
L 3i
[LL] LIN, C.F. AND S.P. LEE, "Robust Missile Autopilot
The design parameters are given by kA2 = 20, A31 = 8, Design Using a Generalized Singular Optimal Control TechA1 = 100, A2 = 30, A3 = 16. Finally, to alleviate the chat- nique," J. of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Vol. 8, No.
tering due to the switching function, smoothing technique as 4, pp 498-507, 1985.
described in Remark 2-2 is adopted. That iS, replace 8gn(sj) [RS] ROMANO, J. J. AND S.N. SINGH, 'l-0 Map Inverby sat(si/ci) with ei =1.0 E2 = 0.5, E3 = 0.5. Note that all sion, Zero Dynamics and Flight Control" IEEE Trans. on
these parameters are selected largely on the trial-and-error Aerospace and Electronnic Systems, VOL. 26, NO. 6, pp
basis.
1022-1028, 1990.
The performance of this- autopilot for a typical maneu- [SI] SINGH, S.N. AND A. 1YER, "Nonlinear Decoupling
ver is shown in Figures 1 and 2 where all initial conditions Sliding Mode Control and Attitude Control of Spacecraft,"
are zero except that Vm(O) = 2662ft/sec. The miMile is IEEE lrans. von aerospace and Electronic Systems, VOL.
required to rol at 90 degree per second in both moderate 25, No. 5, pp 621-633, 1989.
(10 degree) and large (20 degree) angles of attack. It is
seen that the autopilot is quite capable of performing this [SL] SLOTINE, J.-J. E. AND W. Li, Applied Nonlinear
maneuver. In both cases, the autopilot shows an excellent Control, Prentice Hall, 1991.
tracking ability to angle of attack command. The roll rate [SS] SLOTINE, J.-J E. AND S.S. SASTRY, "TrackingConcommand following is also satisfactory though a nearly 10% trol of Nonlinear Systems Using Sliding Surfaces with Am
overshoot in the roll rate response is observed when a 20 deg plications to Robot Manipulators," Int. J. Control, 39, 2,
angle of attack change occurs. Other figures (not included 1983.
s =

S2 ]=

2+ k2le2 J

188

10

"0

w50-

S-I

00O

co

Time (sec)

2
3
Time (sec)

Figure Ia Angle of attack response (solid) (10 degree com- Figure lb Roll rate response (solid) of sliding mode controller with a 10 degree angle of attack maneuver
mand) of sliding mode controller
-q

30

100

0-11

t20-

50

"0
_S-

10
1X

'S

Cu

V-

3
2
Time (sec)

5
rvN.!--

tme (5c)

Figure 2a Angle of attack response (solid) (20 degree com- Figure 2b Roll rate response (solid) of sliding mode conmand) of sliding mode controller
troller with a 20 degree angle of attack maneuver

100

~50

'~10

5
'S

~~~~~~~~~0

cuc

3
2
Time (sec)

_-5

2
3
Time (sec)

Figure 3a Angle of attack response (solid) (10 degree com- Figure 3b Roll rate response (solid) of feedback linearization controller with a 10 degree angle of attack maneuver
nand) of feedback linearization controller

1501

-q

30

3,

(20
(

-l

a0 100
"0

'IO

'S 10

50

S-I0

Time (sec)

Time (sec)

Figure 4a Angle of attack response (solid) (20 degree corn- Figure 4b Roll rate response (solid) of feedback linearizamand) of feedback linearization controller

tion controller with a 20 degree angle of attack maneuver

187