AIAA-84-0327

Axis System Considerations for Guidance and

Stability of Spinning Projectiles
G.D. Stilley and R.L. Alford, Honeywell
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1984-327

Defense Systems Div., Hopkins, MN

AlAA 22nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting

January 9-12, 1984/Reno, Nevada

For permission to copy or republish, contact the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
1633 Broadway, New York, NY 10019
 AXIS SYSTEM COkSIDERATIONS FOR
GUIDANCE A N D STABILITY OF SPlNhlNG PROJECTILES
G . D . Stilley' and R.L. Alford.**
Honeywell Inc.
Defense Svstems Division
W Edina.' Minnesota

Abstract ning or rolling w i t h the projectile body, it is constrained to

stay in the horizontal plane defined by the original locnl vcr.
Lloyd and Brown, a n d Murphy, have shown t h a t constant tical inertial iixes. To keep thc y ~ a x i si n thc fixed planc, t h e
control forces applied i n fixed-plane aeroballistic axes can re- axis System must spin a t a rate pkl ~~~r tan 0. This holds thc
7

sult in dynamic instability. This arises from the constraints roll Eoler an&, 4, and its rate, 6, a t zero. Thc z-axis c o m ~
imposed by conventional aeroballistic axis systems, which plctcs thc righthand systcin. Sce Fig. 1 , which shows that,
arc usually rrferenccd to the horizontal planc. Mission~rcfcr- gencrically, thc, lateral axis st,ays in the refnoncc plane,
cnced aerohallistic axis systems are proposed for which the whcthcr or not it is horizontal.
refcrcnce plane is tailored to thc maneuver trajectory in^
clination and the linc of sight to thc target or to the onhoard With thc "nonspinning" nxcs system, the spin rate of the
sensors or computation. J,iiiearized analysis iind 6-DOF sim- axes system, is dcfined to b 2'0.Then t h e roll En1
ulation analysis based on a fixed-planc axes example arc gle, a n d its ratc, cb, and 6, iirr n o n z ~ m a, n d the Iatcral axis
iiscd to show t h a t the proposed approach minimizes the cffcct will not stay in a fixcd planc but w11s slowly ahnot thc
of maneuvcrs on thc stability. Some additional considcl-n~ projectilc ccntorlinc.
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1984-327

tions for onboard mechanization which affect the axis systcm

selection for a closed-loop guidancr system arc iilso dis-
cussed.
Introduction
Development of guidctl spinning pro,jectiles requires rarciiil
sclcction of the axis systems used for stability and guidancc
and cnntrol annlysisisynthesis and also for onboarcl cornpot:<-
tion and mechanization. This papcr discusses four systems,
all identified as aeroballistic axis systems, which are can^
didiitcs for such dcvelopmcnt. Thesc are:
Conventional horizontal fixed~planeaerohallistic axes
V Conventional nonspinning aeroballistic axes
Mission fixed-plane aeroballistic B X ~ S
Mission nonspinning aeroballistic axes
?'he latter two a r e introduced in this paper to eliminate oh^
served instabilities and to simplify the mechanization of a
G&C system. Thc final choice dcpcnds on thc application.
T n c nomenclature cmploycd i n the following discussion is
given in Tnhlc 1.
Conventional Axes Systems
far Spinning Projectiles
The high spin of spin-stahilizcd projectiles is a cornpiitatinn
and analysis. .problem. The azimuth-elevation motion of thc
centerline is of primary interest for unguided projectiles,
however, and one is usually not interested in thc attitude of
internal parts. Thwcfore, rompnt;rtional n X ~dccouplcd
s from
thc spin of the body, often called aeroballistic arc high.
Iv desirablc. A common form of aeroballistic axes is fixed-
;lane, as used by Murphy', but ~ " m cuse " n ~ n s p i n ~ i n g "as, aries on sideslip angle. Murphy's resulting damping expo-
did 1,loyd and Brown.2 For guided projectiles, o m must
sider internal attitudes for control system details, hut one
does not want, outer~loopcontrol computationslcommands a t
thc spin ratc. en^^, a n aeroballistic axis approach is d c ~ In both Papers the damping results show the addition o f t h e
sirablc for guided spinning projcctiles.
With thc conventional fixed-plane aeroballistic axis system,
the x-axis is coincident with the prajcctile centerline. The y-
axis (pitch) is normal to the centerline; but, instead of spin^
'Engineering Fellow. senior member A l A A
' *Principal Systems Engineer. member AlAA
Copsright @ American Institute or Aeronauticsand
e ~ . 1984. All r i ~ h t r e w r e d .
A s l r ~ n ~ i i l i In(.
Stability Problem
A logical first stcp in a control study is to dsfinc the "chicle
opcn~loopcharacteristics in thc form of its rcsponsc to a cons-
tzinl force.
During simulation analyses, it h a s been observed t h a t when
a constant fixcd-pliinc force is applied to a projectile in de-
scending flight, asymmetries in stability can occur, dcpcnd-
ing on the dircction of t n m . An example of the response of a
typical 155rnm projectile in pitch and yaw in its terminal
phase offlight, dcsccnding at 60 degrees, is given in Fig. 2. It
can he scen that, in this particular case, a right t u r n
dustehilizea thc precessional mode, and a left turn
destahilizcs the nutational mode. A corresponding x-y plot is
shown in Fig. .'I. The primary difference in the pitch response
is in frcqwncy.
By means of linear analysis, Lloyd and Brown2 were able to
predict the influence of thc control forces and flight path an-
gle on thc damping of the oscillations. They showed cxcellent
correlation with their observed simulation results. This
analysis was conducted using the nonspinning aeroballistic
axis system but with thc forces held constant in the fixed-
plane and resolved into the nonspinning axes. Their damp-
ing cquations from Ref. 2 are produced in Fig. 4 after con-
version to thc similar lumped stability derivative notation of
this paper. These derivatives arc defined in Fig. 5.
Murphy' obtained similar results working directly in the
fixed-plane axcs, applying his standard complex plane-dcpen-
dent variables to halve the order of the equations. He also in-
verted the damping exponents to provide stability bound-
nents and stability boundaries, are reproduced in Fig. 6 and
7 , again after conversion to the nomenclature ofthis paper.
product of flight path angle effects, t a n 8, and maneuver ef-
. , or t h e control force t h a t oroduees it2 to
fccts. trim SlideSliD'.
the standard solutions for nonspinning projectiles
Lloyd and Brown time as the independent
while Murphy used nondimensional arc length as t h e inde-
pendent variable. Arc length was not considered appropriate
for the class of guidance systems we were considering. The
I
 = velocity eomponcnts along x, y. 1 axes

~ total projectile velocity

~ component of solution to l i n m r q u a .
ti0"S

~ C0lltl.Olforce locatio,, forward of Celitt!l

of Lrravity
= centel- of plessare I"Cilti<," forward of cg
~ nornial force derivative
~orthogoirillequivalents o f angle of at.
tack and sideslip
~ total angle of nttnek
~ damping exponent. veal part of eigen
VdUC
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1984-327

~ Eulel- elevation ""gle <Of projeeti1c CCli

terlinc

= steady-state trajectory parameters

= reference axis orientation angles
~ body axis parameters
= aeroballistic axis parameters

available modern control synthesis tools did not utilize the
complex plane approach. Consequently, we used tinw and
the full order of t h e equations for our open-loop analysis and
for our control synthesis and mechanization.
Stability boundaries based on Murphy's equations from Ref.
1 and Fig. 7 are illustrated in Fig. 8 for the 155mm projectile
example of Fig. 2 and 3. These boundaries show unstable
nutation in a left turn above a fraction of a degree of sidpslip
and neutral precession in a right turn a t 5 degrees for a gyro-
scopic stability factor of 5.5.This matches the nanlincay com-
puter results of Fig. 2 and 3.
Fig. 9 provides some physical insight into the problem by
comparing an ideal planar lateial maneuver resulting from a
"natural" force application in the desired plane nf maneuver
to a maneuver with a constant lateral force in the fixed
planc. First consider the plane in which t h c desired maneu-
ver to i i target is to take place. The desired maneuver in sim-
plcst ternis can be obtained aerodynamically with a steady^
statc force in that plane, I t can thus be considered to consist
of a rotation ahout a n axis normal to t h a t plane. If, instead,
the forcc is applied in the conventional fixed plane, it g e n e r ~
ates an out-of-planc moment relative to the desired plane of
maneuver, producing effects analogous to those of Magnus
momcnts.

2
 U

Figure 4. Lloyd and Brown's damping exponents

(adapted from Ref. 2)
Figure 1. Generic fixed-plane aeroballistic axes with
reference t o reference axes
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1984-327

6L~..
L I I . 1~ -1-
I ~~.u-.-L.I_LLII
o IO zn 30 un 50 60 in 80 90 inn t i n 120 i3n iun t i n
SIPXI R M G L I M l l R S )

Figure 2. Typicai total angle-of-attack response for

constant force in fixed-plane aeroballistic axes

R
lo F I Figure 5 . Definitions of stability derivatives

I 1 I L

Figure 6. Murphy's damping exponent (adapted from

Ref. 1 )

3
 Tailwing the axes to the problem by aligning them with the
tl'ii.icctory in thc portion of the mission ondcr study, referred
to a s a "mission plane" approach, shows considerahle prom-
is<. fnr missions where t h e maneuver stage af t h e trajectory
nts "small angle" excursions from the initial flight
p a t h ;is appears to be true for t h e 155mm example.
L/
'I%<, ;application of this approach calls for aligning the in-
crti;il rcfcrcnce axes in a manner most convenient for thc
piiiticular systcm and mission. Thc corrcnt application of
this approach is first to tilt. the "incrt.ial" rcfcrence axes for
t h r fixed-plane fyom local vertical so t h a t the x-axis aligns
* (ltllslNDa * u
X w M ~ I ~ I ~ I + ~ I r lI n O
~ o!/ V~l
with the projcctilc centcrlinc at the start of thc maneuver
phast,. One motivation for this rcstrictian is t h a t for thc s y s ~
Figure 7 . Murphy's stability boundaries ladaptcd from tcnis hcing studied one may very likely not know the
Ref. 11 ahsolutc orientation relative to otherwise useful reference
a x w Under this concept, the roll of t h c rofcrence y ~ a x i s
ahout the x-axis is arbitrary. To carry o u t the mission plane
thrme to its fullest extent, the reference y-axis, and thus the
refirrnce plane, could he rolled to hc in t h c projcctilc~targct
planc, defined by the projectile spin axis and t h e target line
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1984-327

of sight (LOS). Or, a s discusscd latcr, it could be dcfincd

nlon~ the instantaneous dircction a t systcm initiation of an
arbitrary body-fixed reference axis ust:d in t h e G&C, such as
an inwtial or target sensor lateral axis. Again, these rcfercn~
ccs may be more readily available than the conventional
hrwizontal plane, even if the horizontal refcrcncc is adequate
f m stzrhility purposes.

l'hrsr proposed refcrcnce axes define a new "mission fixed-

plant" in which the y-axis remains during the rest of the in;%-
~~UYC orI 'as starting
, point for t h e new "mission nanspin-
ning" axes. Thereafter, the "mission fixed-plane aerohallistic
axcs " or "mission nonspinning aeroballistic axes" hehavc a s
conwntional fixed plane or nonspinning aerohallistic axes,
c x w p t t h a t the inertial reference plane is tilted instead of
horizontal. u,
Figure 8. Stability boundary on sideslip angle ( 1 5 5 m m
projectile)
Onc might conjecture by inspection of the damping equations
of Murphy and Lloyd and Brown t h a t this approach should
m a k r the instability disappear, if one substitutes zero for tan
ti i n the equations. By definition E is zero for the "mission"
01%111"1#,1#0*S j l W l
aeroballistic axes. This claim is proved in the analysis to fol-
CO*l*,*,*C lllrrl
low by concentrating an comparison of the siolution of the
linearized equations of motion for the mission fixed aero-
ballistic equations to the solution for the conventional fixed^
plane equations but is presumed transferrable to the
nanspinning axis family.

Axes

A generic version of the fixed plane axes described previous^

Figure 9. comparison of control axes
Proposed Approach
A straightforward approach to this admittedly rather
artificial stability problem is to make sure t h a t contwl com-
mands are properly computed in the fixed-plane axc's. Anoth-
e r is to ignore it, since a three-dimensional closed-loop h o m ~
ing system also tends to overcome the effects by "hruts
force" if not computed explicitly. It is expected to require a t -
tention to detail for a n open-loop command system, using, for
example, a simple horizon sensing reference system.
ly xiis shown in Fig. 1. The key, generic feature is t h a t , to
decouple the spin, the y-axis stays in the reference plane de-
f i n d by the reference x-y axes. The moving x-axis is coinci-
dent with the projectile spin axis. The z-axis t.hen completes
the orthogonal system. For simplicity, the reference azimuth
is arhitrarily assumed to be zero, aligned with t h c projectile
axis pl'ojection on the reference plane a t the start of the m o ~
tion. The appropriate force, moment, linear and angular ye-
locity components act along the respective moving axes.
Thr reference axes for t h e conventional fixed-plane and
nonspinning axis approaches are defined by the local vertical
and the projectile azimuth, so t h a t the reference plane is the
horizontal plane.
W

4
 I n Fig 10, t h e gcncral form of thc mission tailored r c f i ~ n c e
axcs is indicated. Tlrc levati ti on of the rcfcrrmcc x ~ a s i sis
most likcly nonzcro It is current,ly assumed 10 bc coincidrnt
with the pro,icctile spin axis a t t h c start of thc t.n.minal mn-
v neuvcr. Thc 1.011 orientation of thc refcrcnce ares about thc
reference x-axis could BC e i ~ nmort arbitrnry, 1;iilorcd for.
the convenience of the systam dcvelopmtmt and/or mccha-
nization. For piirposcs of thc papn. itself, howevcr, to providc
a more direct comparison with t h r conventional fixcd~planr
results, thc numerical example assiimed t h a t thc lateral ref-
c r c n c ~axis is in the horizontal plane. Thus thc mission-fixcd
refcrcnce axcs i n thc examplc arc aligned with the instam
tancons convcntional fixed-planc moving ~ X F Sat t h r start of
the problem.
, ',\~.
Equations of Motion
Thc equations of motion UWP dcrivtd in a st.nnrl;r,.d niannw,
similar t o t,hat of Ref. 2, fo? generic acrohallistic axes, then
spccializccl to the conventional fixed-plane and iirw mission-
Fixed-planc approaches. TIK angular vclocitirls of f!irsc axes
with the spin ratc o f the arefi p, defined by the as-
is (p,%.q,r)
sumed constraints, hut much, mucli IFSS than the spin ratc.
For gcneric fixed-plane axe3 pa = - r tan 0 , the vat? rcquiied
to keep thc y-axis i n the refcrmcc plniii.. Nrg1i~rlin.gchanges
in spin rate and velocity, whilr incorporating acwleration
(all of which alp small in t h e vaaniplcs s t u d i d ) , assuming
that the acrodyiuimic coefficients arc line:ir w i t h thc sine of
thc total anglc of attack and the cosine of this angle to be 1,
and lctting II = V, t h e equations of motion inny bc written as
shown in Fig. Ilea), for thc ~ o n \ ~ e n t i ~ i ifiscd-planc
nI axes,
and in Fig. l l ( b ) , for t h e mission-fixcrl npproach. The Iumpcd
stability dcrivatives used hcrr and in t.lw linciir analysis
WL'C dcfinrd in Fig. 5.

\ In these nonlinear equations thc only ol,vious diffcrcnces arc

Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1984-327

-.. in thc complex mission-fiscd gravity t r r m s which also in-

! " U
troduce yaw dependence to the sidcslip eqtmtion. A goal of
the analysis was to prove that, thesr additional gravity terms
did not introduce significant dcstahilimtion to oFfsct the hen.
cfits of thc mission-fixed approach th;it u w c anticipated
from inspection of the damping cxponcnts of Fig I , 6 and I .
',
I,
i
/ I!
.4 ~ .~__+/-
~ , Linearized Equations
j -,
I inxi As implied by the prcviorrs discussions, in 'ddditioii to the
J usual aisumptions of small angles and ncglcct of :miducts o f
0/..'' ',:
-. thc perturbation variahlcs, t h e unique assiiinplion for the
4.+. mission referenced eqoat.ions is t h a t t h initial pitch angle,
O,, is 0. The resulting lineiirizrtl cquntions for motion at a
W Figure 10. Generic mission-referenced a x e s with point on t,he trajectory rclativc t,o a stcndy~st:ite maneu-
reference to earth w r i n g condition at that point, denotcrl by s~il>.;i.i.ipt0, are

la1 Conventional fixed~plane

Figure 11. Nonlinear equations

5
 shown i n Fig. 12 for conventional fined-plane and n,issium
fixed-pl;rnt, ases. As far the nonlinear uquations, the prinrary
differences are in the gravity terms, hut the tan 0 , tcrni., the
perceived culprit in the r c a u l t s of Ref. 1 and 2, also rcnwin i n
the conventional fixrdylane equations, while only linciir
perturbations of the products of t a n 0 with othcr w v i , t h I w
appear in the mission-fixed. Thc analysis found t h a t thc,sc O,,
terms were too small to affcct the solution far thc t n i i w o t i -
fined hut produced nrrrjor stability shifts for the c o n v ~ ~ ionxl
n1
fixidplanc.
Solution of Linearized Equations
The equations of Fig. 1%constitotc scts of six linciii. V ~ ~ U ; , g~ r a v i t y I c r n x , and neglect o f m n e of Murphy's sccond~urdcr
tions i n thc variables C I . M , q. I., 0, 4.Their solution loll,,^
Eigenvalues
By i i i s i w c t i o n of the respective equations for the character-
istic q o e t i a n cucfficicnts nf Fig. 15, approximatc: malytical
.ions for the eigenvalues were derived. These c i g c n ~
v;iluo <,xlxcssiansarc shown in Fig. 16 for conventional a n d
v/
missiuwfircd axcs.
Thc nutational and precessional damping exponcnts for the
convcntimal fired-plane axes closely resemble thosc adaptcd
f w m l*lurphy in Fig. 6. Thc trivial diffcrcnccs arc mostly at-
triliutvd to Murphy's use of diinensionless arc length as thc
tirdcpcndcnt variable, which introduces a d d i t i o d drag and
tUI.II,S.

standard practice, quitu similar to t h a t of Ref. 2 a n d c , t p i t i s L

izcs on thc assumed d m > i n a n tcharacteristics of the s o l ~ l ~ o n . TIK doininant maneuver-dependent stabilizingldestabilizing
previously obscrvctl in the simulation results. The basic fear t r r m i i i Murphy's rcsults, iitano, i s rlupiicatcrl here in Fig.
equations for siilcslip, angle of attack, pitch ratc, :ind yaw 16(;rl. 'l'lie Lloyd and Brown counterpart i n Fig. 4 is Fy tan0.
rate are assumcrl to fit thc pattern of complex conjiigiit<, 'She wnxiindcr of t h e damping exponent expressions closely
roots producing modes usually identified a s nutntiou ; r i d rcscniI>It. tlie remainder of expressions from Rcf. 2 in Fig. 4.
r,sgeci:illy irt zero stcadystate anglc of attack.
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1984-327

precession. Thc pitch iind ynw anglr equations introdur<.twi,

additional roots. For the conventional fixed planc, o n r v o o t is
zero, and one is real. For the new mission~planccqti;itioiis. I n t l r i nutattion and precession damping rxprcssions of
nu prior assumption was ~ n a d eregarding real or c o r ~ ~ p l v x . Fig. Iliil~Ifor the mission-fiscrl plane tlic anticipatcd sup^
and thcy were comhincd in a second-order factor for tlx chztr~ p r c s s i o n of significant stc;dywtatc m:ineuver-dr.pendcnt
actrristic equation Substituting thcse solutions i n t h t , ilif. t c ~ n i s\vas ohtainerl, with only r,,O,, in the preecssion d a n i p ~
ferential cqiiations prorloccs six cqurtiuns in the i i i i i p l i t u d e s ing, i i i i d it is usually smaller than the acrodynarnic terms.
x~?).Thesc can bc sulved i f the determinant of their w r f f i ~
cicnts is zero. Multiplying orit thc dctcrrninants gives s i x t h T l r c a&lition:il cigenwilues f o r thc pitch-yaw modc arc s i m i ~
dcgrcc charzictcristic equ;itii,ns (see Fig. 13). Iar i i n d small fur both cases, although one is always zcrn for
thc cuiii<,ntional CBSC. Evcn fnr ii fO-ilogrce descent, the
Thc multiplication of thc dctcrminant of t h e cocfficirnts x,. t.cvtm i i w o n t h e order of -0.03.
sultcd in "cry lcngthy expressions for the chmactcrisl ic
equation cocfficicnts ill terms nf the lomperl stability tic.
rivatives and t h e steady-state trajectory parameters n l h i cl i Numerical Examples
will not he shown. Thc numerical values for thcsc p:>v;tmc- U
ters given i n Fig. 1.1. assuming worst.case steady-.;tat? i i d c Tahlc 2 cirrnparcs the numcriczil VIIIIII~S For the appmximatc
slip and angle of attack of 15 degr , were used to ~ . r d u w ~ cigcnvalucs fnr the respective axis systcms. Thc rcsults arc
these equations ta thc dominant t,erms. Trajectory ciiiiatiirc, s h o ~ v nSor the vehicle charactcristics
due to pl.;ivitj and the resulting y a w of repose wcrc i i o t w i t h i'xtremes o f 0 and 15 degrces total anglc of attack. This
treated explicitly, but thc cffccts ;ire hracketcd Ily t h i , w r s t total angle of attack is rcsolvcd into maneuvers to thc Icft.,
case yaw and pitch rates used. right. up, rlawn, plus combined u p to thc l e f t a n d down to thc
right.
In parallel, the ch;irxteristic cquation was rsp;tnrli~l 111
.umcrl frequencics and damping c r p o n ~ ~ ~ ~ t : .As ~ ~ l w c t et dl i e. left and right sideslips prorlocc rxb'erne var-
The resulting coefficients were similarly suhjecled 10 iiii g~r. izitions i z the nutation and prccussion <~igenvnlousfor the
der of mngnitudc reduction to obtain dominant tertn; I x , r ~ conv1.111~~~na1 fixcd~planeaxes. The p i t c h ~ y a arigenvalue I'C~
mitting an analytic solotiun for the eigcnvalucs. miiinvrl sniixll and stable. The up and down ;ingles of attack
p r o v i d d minimal changes, i i s also rxpectctl.
The iespcctivc approximntc characteristic equation cwSfi
cients resulting from this process are shown in Fig l i c x A s h o p t ~ ;it l thc outset of the investigation, thc mission-fined-
pressed i n both t h r lumped stability derivative form OS Ihv plant viiuzrtians showed ii minimization of thc variation of
original differential cqwrtions and in t.hc fieq"ency!~l;iirijrin:: t h r n i i t i i t i o n and preccssion cigenvaliics with angle of attack
exponent form of the nscumcd solution. It mziy he n o t d that ;and >iiImlip variations, and t h r pitch~yaiveigenwilues re-
the convcntional firi,d~plnnc produced no A,. tniiiiiiwl iiniill and stable.
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1984-327

n
,---
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1984-327

0
3
 gration process. For fiscd~planeaxes, p, -- tan 0, and for aerohnllist,ic fraincs used in the mechanization is spwificd
nonspinning, pi, =. 0; the diffcrential equations for quatcr~ entircly by Ihc choice of p;,.
nion cowdinatcs are:
Body mountrd irate ScnsoI' and target sensor inputs must hc
convcrtcd to thc particular acrohallistic frame and thr coni-
mandcd control forccs converted hack to hody axes. Roll rate
information can he used to synchronize the transfonmation
between hody and acrohallistic axes. This transformation
provider anothv? considcration in t h e choice of p:,. For fixed-
plane axes, the rclativr roll rate hctwccn hody and BCI'O~
hnllist,ic axes is pb -t I' tan 0. Fop nonspinning axcs, the r c l a
whcrr q and r arc body transverse rates i n the nnhaani a r m tive roll rate 1s pb. The choicr involves the tcchniquc applied
hallistic frame. Whcre shown, q,, and q1RI'C hody transvcrse for intckqating this relative roll i'atc.
rates in body axes.
A gmcralizetl black diagram of GR-C proc
T h r quaternion statcs can be used t o ohtain thc direction cos- ing these considerations is shown i n Fig. 19.
inc matrix of t h r onhoard aeroballistic frame rclative to thc
onhoard incrtial frame using: The choice between conventional and mission acrohallistic
axes is determined hy thc choice of inertial rcfcrencc frnmcs.

j
(>; ~R;

llil 2(Q,Q2.R"Q3)
0 ; . u; 2 ( 0 , R 2 * O"Q3I 2m103.0,n,,

Q; (2; Q: I>; 2(R362 3 Q " Q , )

~ +

I Thr conventional acrohallistic framcs arc specified by using

a local-vrrtical inertial refcrcncc frame. T h r mission a c w
ballistic framcs are specified by aligning the x-axis along t h e
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1984-327

projectile centc~rlincat t h e start uf thc tcrminnl guidance

2(R1 03 ' Ro Q2l 2(R2 R.1 . Qo Q i ) 90 (2: 13; +
~ ~
The matris E can he used by a tracking filtcr to transform
target scnsor inputs, to provide t h c ncccssaq filtering an the
noisy sensor mcasnrements in ineitial space, and to convert
thc guidancr commands to the acrahallistic rcfcrrncc framr.
The USE of E in a n onhoard systcm mcchanizntion is shown
in Fig. 18. Thc choicc bctwecn fixcd~planeand nonspinning
4 mission. The convcntional system requin~sknowlcdgc of t h c
local vcrtical, whereas, the mission framr can he mechanized
without. Hence, t h c y-axis may b r a l i g n d with any POIIVC-
nient hody axis a t thc initiation point.
Summary and Conclusions
The analysis and mechanization of thc GR-C for a spinning
projcctilc is simplified by the use of awohallistic nxrs. Rela-
tive benefits of fou? a1tcrnat.c acrohnllistir axes for analysis
and mechanization have hccn discussed.

Instthilities due to applying a lateral control force in a fiacd

horizontal plane to a descending or ascending projcctilr havc
bccn ohserved by several invcstigators. This apparent in-
stability can he elinrinatcd by t.ilting t h r inertial reference
for thc iicrohallistic axes t,o alicn with t h c proicctilc a t the
start af the guided niission.

"Mission" aci-ohallistic axes useful for analysis and m e r h a ~

COKlR?:
104U
nization of t h r onhoard GR-C system havc been defincd, and
COWhUl linear analysis ot,ilizing thcsc axes w h i c h vcrifics climina-
lion of t h e instiihility is presented.
Figure 18. G & C processing in aeroballistic frame

Figure 19. Guidance and control processing

9
 While a dctailed parallel stability analysis of thc ‘‘mission”
nonspinning axes is not presented, the work can be (cutcndcrl
to show t h a t similar minimization of the effects of s t c a d y ~
state maneuvers on the stability can he u b t a i n d rcir that
axis system family.
Mechanization introduccs additional considerations hctucen
fixed-plane and nonspinning versions of the varioiis ilcro-
ballistic axes. These considerations h a w been d i s c u s s d
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1984-327
10
References
1. Murphy, C.H., “Instability of Controlled Projectiles in
Ascending or Desccnding Flight,” J . Guidance nnd Con-
f r o / ,Vol. 4 , No. 1, Jan-Feb, 1981, pp. 66-69.
2. Lloyd, K.H. and Brown, D.P., “Instability of Spinning
U
Priijectiles Duiing Terminal Homing,” .I Ouidnnce and
O m l r o i , Val. 2, No. I , Jan-Feh, 1979, pp. 65-70.
 This article has been cited by:

1. John Robinson, Peter Strömbäck. Perturbation Based Guidance for a Generic 2D Course Correcting Fuze . [Citation] [PDF]
[PDF Plus]
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1984-327