International Journal of Automation and Computing X(X), X X, X-X

DOI: XXX

Adaptive Dynamic Surface Control for Integrated Missile

Guidance and Autopilot
Ming-Zhe Hou Guang-Ren Duan
Center for Control Theory and Guidance Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, 150001, PRC

Abstract: Integrated guidance and control for homing missiles utilizing adaptive dynamic surface control approach is considered
based on three channels independence design idea. A time-varying integrated guidance and control model with unmatched uncertainties
is first formulated for the pitch channel, and an adaptive dynamic surface control algorithm is further developed to deal with these
unmatched uncertainties. It is proved that the proposed feedback controller can ensure not only the accuracy of target interception,
but also the stability of the missile dynamics. Then the same control approach is further applied to the control design of the yaw and
roll channels. The 6DOF nonlinear missile simulation results demonstrate the feasibility and advantage of the proposed integrated
guidance and control design scheme.

Keywords: Integrated guidance and control, unmatched uncertainty, adaptive control, dynamic surface control.

1 INTRODUCTION input at each step of the traditional backstepping approach.

In the missile industry, the traditional and the current
method is to design the missile guidance and control (au-
topilot) subsystems separately and then integrate them. Al-
though such a design scheme has been successfully imple-
mented on a number of missile guidance and control sys-
tems and resulted in outstanding performance, it is argued
that it may not always exploit the synergistic relationships
between the interacting subsystems[1] , as a result, the over-
all system performance is constrained. In order to solve
such a problem, a new concept called integrated guidance
and control was proposed. Integrated guidance and con-
trol is referred to generating the fin deflection commands
utilizing the states of the missile and the target states rel-
ative to the missile to drive the missile to hit the target[1] .
In integrated guidance and control, there is no separation
between the guidance and autopilot[2] . Therefore, inte-
grated guidance and control makes for fully exploiting the
synergistic relationships between the coupled subsystems
and provides an effective approach to missile performance
optimization[3] . Due to this reason, integrated guidance and
control has received more and more attention in the recent
literatures[4]−[7] .
In integrated guidance and control, it is needed to design
an appropriate controller to ensure the accuracy of target
interception and the stability of the missile dynamics simul-
taneously. This is an involved problem since the integrated
guidance and control system is usually a time varying sys-
tem with unmatched uncertainties. Although backstepping
methodology proposed by Kokotovic et al. [8] is a powerful
tool to deal with the unmatched uncertainties [9] , it suffers
from the problem of “explosion of complexity” arising from
the repeated differentiations of the virtual controls. As a
result, the complexity of controller grows drastically as the
order of the system increases. To avoid this problem, the
dynamic surface control technique was proposed in Swaroop
et al.[10] by introducing a first-order filtering of the synthetic
Manuscript received date; revised date
This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation
of China (No. 60710002 and No. 60974044).
So far, this control method has been implemented success-
fully in many applications, such as formation control[11] ,
magnetic levitation system[12] , underactuated mechanical
system[13] , and so on. In Yip et al.[14] , the adaptive dy-
namic surface control method was proposed to address the
linearly parameterized uncertainties. However, if this linear
parametrization assumption is not satisfied, the adaptive
dynamic surface control design will become more difficulty
and challenging[17] .
The focus of the presented research is on the develop-
ment of integrated guidance and control for homing missiles
against ground targets. The integrated guidance and con-
trol model of the pitch plane is first established. Because
it is a time-varying system with unmatched uncertainties
which do not satisfy the so-called linear parametrization
assumption, an adaptive dynamic surface control algorithm
is developed. It is proved that the proposed feedback con-
troller can ensure not only the accuracy of target intercep-
tion, but also the stability of the missile dynamics. Then
the same control design method are further applied to the
control design of the yaw and roll channels.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2
describes the proposed integrated guidance and control de-
sign logic using adaptive dynamic surface control approach.
Section 3 shows the numerical simulation results, and the
conclusion is given in section 4.
2 INTEGRATED GUIDANCE AND
CONTROL DESIGN
2.1 Control Design for the pitch Channel
2.1.1 Problem Formulation
An integrated model for missile guidance and control loop
in the pitch plane is developed in this subsection.
The nonlinear missile dynamics in the pitch plane are
given by[15]
P sin α Y g
α̇ = ωz − − + cos θ
mV mV V
2 International Journal of Automation and Computing X(X), X X

Mz 1 ρV 2 scα +P ρ
V 2 scα
y +P
ω̇z = where a11 = − 2RṘ , a12 = − 2 mR
y
, a22 = − 2 mV
,
Jz ρ 2
V slmα ρ 2
V slmδ z da
a32 = 2
Jz
z
, b3 = 2
Jz
z
, ∆1 = − Ry
+ dq , ∆2 = dα
where V is the missile velocity, θ the flight path angle, α the and ∆3 = dωz .
angle of attack, ωz the rotating rate along the pitch axis, P Obviously, the above system is a time-varying system
the constant thrust, Y the lift force, Mz the pitching mo- with unmatched uncertainties. It is noted that when R <
ment, g the acceleration of gravity, m the missile mass, Jz Rd (Rd is a positive number related to the dead zone of the
the moment of inertia about pitch axis. Generally speak- seeker), the integrated missile guidance and control system
ing, the lift force is mainly caused by the angle of attack, will not work any more, hence the involved coefficients are
and the pitching moment is mainly caused by the angle of always nonsingular. Here, all of the time-varying coeffi-
attack and the elevator deflection angle, specifically, they cients are available, they and their derivatives can be re-
are expressed by garded to be bounded and their bounds can be estimated a
1 2 α prior, meanwhile a12 ≤ ā < 0 and b3 ≤ b̄ < 0. In addition,
Y = ρV scy α + dY the uncertainties are supposed to satisfy the below reason-
2
able assumption in view of their physical backgrounds.
1 2 ³ α ´ Assumption 1: There exist a set of unknown but
Mz = ρV sl mz α + mδzz δz + dM bounded positive constants δi , i = 1, 2, 3 such that
2
where ρ is the air density, s the reference area, l the refer-
ence length, δz the elevator deflection angle, cα
y the nominal |∆i | ≤ δi (6)
value of the lift force coefficient derivative with respect to
The objective of the integrated guidance and control is to
the angle of attack, mα δz
z and mz respectively the nomi-
ensure the accuracy of target interception and the stability
nal values of the pitch moment coefficient derivatives with
of the missile dynamics simultaneously. Since the former
respect to the angle of attack and the elevator deflection an-
can be achieved by driving q̇ to zero, the design objective
gle, the term dY represents the other contributions to the
can be achieved by designing an appropriate controller for
lift force, and the term dM represents the other contribu-
system (5) to make the absolute value of its output as small
tions to the pitching moment. As a sequence, the linearized
as possible ultimately and keep all of its states bounded in
missile dynamics in the pitch plane can be described by
spite of the unmatched uncertainties in this time-varying
system.
ρ 2 α
2
V scy +P 2.1.2 Adaptive Dynamic Surface Control Design
α̇ = ωz − α + dα (1)
mV In this section, an adaptive dynamic surface control al-
gorithm is developed to deal with the output regulation
ρ 2
V slmα
z
ρ 2
V slmδzz problem of the system (5) under Assumption 1, and the
2 2
ω̇z = α+ δz + dωz (2) stability analysis of the closed-loop system is also given.
Jz Jz
(1) Control Algorithm
where the terms dα and dωz represent the uncertainties. According to Assumption 1 and the fact that a12 ≤ ā < 0
Accordingly, consider the relative motion between the and b3 ≤ b̄ < 0, there exist a set of unknown but bounded
missile and the target in the longitudinal plane. The dy- positive constants ρi , i = 1, 2, 3 such that
namics of the line-of-sight angle is described by[16]
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
¯ ∆1 ¯ ¯ ¯
q̈ = −
2Ṙ 1
q̇ − ay + dq (3) ¯ ¯ ≤ ρ1 , |∆2 | ≤ ρ2 , ¯ ∆3 ¯ ≤ ρ3 .
¯ a12 ¯ ¯ b3 ¯
R R
where R and q are respectively the relative distance and the Based on this, the proposed adaptive dynamic surface con-
line-of-sight angle in the longitudinal plane, dq represents trol algorithm is presented as follows.
the uncertainty, and ay is the missile longitudinal accelera- Algorithm 1:
tion perpendicular to its velocity, governed by 
 S1 = x1


Y + P sin α − mg cos θ
ρ 2 α
V scy +P 
 x̄2 = K1 S1 + ρ̂1 S1 − aa12 11
x1
ay = = 2
α + day (4) 



m m 
 τ 2 ẋ2d + x2d = x̄2 , x 2d (0) = x̄2 (0)

S =x −x
where Y + P sin α − mg cos θ is the longitudinal force im- 2 2 2d
pressed on the missile in the direction perpendicular to its 
 x̄3 = ẋ2d − K2 S2 − ρ̂2 S2 − a22 x2


velocity, the term day represents the uncertainty. 
 τ3 ẋ3d + x3d = x̄3 , x3d (0) = x̄3 (0)


Integrating the equations (1) to (4), and choosing x = 
 S3 = x3 − x3d
h i> 

 u = 1 ẋ + K S + ρ̂ S − a32 x
q̇ α ωz , u = δz and y = q̇, one can obtain the model b3 3d 3 3 3 3 b3 2

of the integrated guidance and control loop of the pitch where the design parameters K1 > 0, K2 > 0, K3 > 0 are
channel as follows. called as the the surface gains, τ2 > 0, τ3 > 0 are are called
      
 a11 a12 0 0 ∆1 as the filter time constants, and ρ̂i , i = 1, 2, 3 are the esti-


 ẋ =  0 a 1  x +  0  u +  ∆  mates of the unknown constants ρi , satisfying the following
 22     2
(5) update law

 0 a 32 0 b 3 ∆3

 ¡ ¢
y = x1 ρ̂˙ i = λi Si2 − σi ρ̂i
 M. Z. HOU et al. / Preparation of Papers for International Journal of Automation and Computing 3

where λi > 0 and σi > 0 are all design parameters. 1 2

Viρ = ρ̃i , i = 1, 2, 3
(2) Stability Analysis 2λi
Next, the stability analysis is performed on the closed- and
loop system regulating the output into the neighborhood of 3 3 3
X X X
the origin. V = Vis + Viy + Viρ .
Define the boundary layer errors as i=1 i=2 i=1

yi = xid − x̄i , i = 2, 3, Then by some simple computations, one has

ȧ12 2 1
and the estimate errors as V̇1s = S1 − S1 Ṡ1
2a212 a12
µ ¶
ρ̃i = ρi − ρ̂i , i = 1, 2, 3. ȧ12 2 1
= 2
S1 − S1 S2 + y2 + K1 S1 + ρ̂1 S1 + ∆1
2a12 a12
Then the closed-loop dynamics can be expressed in terms µ ¶
ȧ12 1 1
of the surface (Si ), the boundary layer errors (yi ) and the ≤ 1 + 2 − K1 S12 + S22 + y22 − ρ̂1 S12 + ρ1 |S1 |
estimate errors (θ̃i ). The surface dynamics are expressed as 2a12 2 2
µ ¶
ȧ12 1 2 1 2 ρ1
2
≤ 1 + 2 − K1 S1 + S2 + y2 + ρ̃1 S12 + ,
2a12 2 2 4
Ṡ1 = ẋ1
V̇2s = S2 Ṡ2
= a11 x1 + a12 x2 + ∆1
µ ¶ = S2 (S3 + y3 − K2 S2 − ρ̂2 S2 + ∆2 )
a11 1
= a12 x2 + x1 + ∆1 1 1
a12 a12 ≤ (1 − K2 ) S22 + S32 + y32 − ρ̂2 S22 + ρ2 |S2 |
µ ¶ 2 2
a11 1 1 2 1 2 ρ2
= a12 S2 + y2 + x̄2 + x1 + ∆1 ≤ (1 − K2 ) S2 + S3 + y3 + ρ̃2 S22 + ,
2
a12 a12 2 2 4
µ ¶
1 ḃ3 2 1
= a12 S2 + y2 + K1 S1 + ρ̂1 S1 + ∆1 , V̇3s = S3 − S3 Ṡ3
a12 2b23 b3
µ ¶
Ṡ2 = ẋ2 − ẋ2d ḃ3 2 1
= S − S3 K3 S3 + ρ̂3 S3 + ∆3
2 3
= a22 x2 + x3 + ∆2 − ẋ2d 2b3 b3
µ ¶
= S3 + y3 + x̄3 + a22 x2 + ∆2 − ẋ2d ḃ3
≤ − K3 S32 − ρ̂3 S32 + ρ3 |S3 |
= S3 + y3 − K2 S2 − ρ̂2 S2 + ∆2 , 2b23
µ ¶
Ṡ3 = ẋ3 − ẋ3d ḃ3 ρ3
≤ − K 3 S32 + ρ̃3 S32 + ,
= a32 x2 + b3 u + ∆3 − ẋ3d 2b23 4
µ ¶ 1 ˙
a32 1 1 V̇iρ = ρ̃i ρ̃i
= b3 x2 + u + ∆3 − ẋ3d λi
b3 b3 b3 ¡ ¢
µ ¶ = −ρ̃i Si2 − σi ρ̂i
1 £ ¤
= b3 K3 S3 + ρ̂3 S3 + ∆3 .
b3 = −ρ̃i Si2 + σi (ρi − ρ̂i − ρi )
σi ρ̃2i σi ρ2i
The boundary layer errors dynamics are expressed as ≤ −ρ̃i Si2 − + , i = 1, 2, 3,
2 2
1
ẏi = − yi − x̄˙ i , i = 2, 3. and
τi
1 2
V̇iy = yi ẏi = − yi − yi x̄˙ i , i = 2, 3.
The estimate errors dynamics are expressed as τi
Keep in mind the fact that the involved coefficients in sys-
¡ ¢ tem (5) and their derivatives are all bounded, then by te-
ρ̃˙ i = −ρ̂˙ i = −λi Si2 − σi ρ̂i , i = 1, 2, 3.
dious but straitforward calculations, we have
Let
¯ ¯
1 ¯x̄˙ 2 ¯ ≤ η2 (S1 , S2 , y2 , ρ̃1 , K1 , λ1 , σ1 ) ,
V1s = − S12 ,
2a12
and
¯ ¯
1 2 ¯x̄˙ 3 ¯ ≤ η3 (S1 , S2 , S3 , y2 , y3 , ρ̃1 , ρ̃2 , K1 , K2 , λ1 , λ2 , σ1 , σ2 ) ,
V2s = S2 ,
2
where η2 and η3 are both continuous functions. Given any
positive scalar r, the set
1 2 n o
V3s = − S3 ,
2b3 Br = (S1 , S2 , S3 , y2 , y3 , ρ̃1 , ρ̃2 , ρ̃3 )> : V ≤ r

1 2 is a compact set. Therefore, η2 and η3 have maximums,

Viy = yi , i = 2, 3, respectively called M2 and M3 on Br , where M2 depends
2
4 International Journal of Automation and Computing X(X), X X

on K1 , λ1 , σ1 , and M3 depends on K1 , K2 , λ1 , λ2 , σ1 and 2.2 Control Design for the Yaw and Roll
σ2 . Hence, one has Channels
µ ¶ The proposed adaptive dynamic surface control algo-
1 1 1 rithm can be further applied to the control design for the
V̇iy ≤ − yi2 + |yi | Mi ≤ 2
Mi − yi2 + , i = 2, 3.
τi τi 4 yaw and roll channels.
Therefore, Similarly to the pitch channel, one can easily establish the
integrated guidance and control loop of the yaw channel as
3
X 3
X 3
X follows.
V̇ = V̇is + V̇iy + V̇iρ       
i=1 i=2 i=1 
 a11 a12 0 0 ∆1
µ ¶ 
 ẋ =  0 a 1  x +  0  u +  ∆ 
ȧ12 1 1 ρ1  22     2
≤ 1 + 2 − K1 S12 + S22 + y22 + ρ̃1 S12 + + 
(8)
2a12 2 2 4  0 a 32 0 b 3 ∆3


1 1 ρ2 ρ3 y = x1
(1 − K2 ) S22 + S32 + y32 + ρ̃2 S22 + + ρ̃3 S32 + +
2 2 4 4 h i>
µ ¶ X3 ·µ ¶ ¸ where x = ξ̇ β ωy , u = δy , y = ξ̇, a11 = − 2rṙ ,
ḃ3 1 1
2
− K3 S32 + Mi2 − yi2 + + 1 ρV 2 scβ −P ρ 2 β ρ 2
V slmβ
2b3 i=2
τ i 4 a12 = 2 z
, a22 = 2
V scz −P
, a32 = 2 y
,
mr mV Jy
3 δy
X σi ρ̃2i σi ρ2i
ρ 2
V slmy d az
+ b3 = 2
Jy
, ∆1 = + dξ , ∆2 = dβ and ∆3 = dωy .
r
i=1
2 2 Here, β is the angle of sideslip, ωy the rotating rate along
µ ¶ µ ¶ X 3 the yaw axis, Jy the moment of inertia about yaw axis.
ȧ12 3 σi ρ̃2i
≤ 1 + 2 − K1 S12 + − K2 S22 − + δy the rudder deflection angle, cβz the nominal value of the
2a12 2 i=1
2 side force coefficient derivative with respect to the angle
µ ¶ X3 ·µ ¶ ¸ δ
of sideslip, mβy and myy respectively the nominal values of
1 ḃ3 1 1
+ 2 − K3 S32 + + Mi2 − yi2 + ² the yaw moment coefficient derivatives with respect to the
2 2b3 2 τ i
i=2 angle of sideslip and the rudder deflection angle, r and ξ
P3 ³ ´ respectively the relative distance and the line-of-sight angle
σi ρ2 ρi
where ² = i=1 2
i
+ 4
+ 12 . in the lateral plane, the terms dβ , dωy , daz and dξ represent
ȧ12
Let K1 ≥ − 2aκ12 +1+ 2a2
, K2 ≥ κ+3
2
, K3 ≥ − 2bκ3 + the uncertainties.
12
ḃ3 Obviously, system (8) takes the form of (5). Therefore, if
1
2
+ 2b 1
2, τ ≥
κ+1
2
+ Mi2 and λi σi ≥ κ, where κ is positive
3 i the same assumption about the uncertainties as Assumption
scalar, then one has 1 is adopted, then the adaptive dynamic surface control
V̇ ≤ −κV + ². (7) algorithm 1 is also available for the integrated guidance and
control design of the yaw channel.
If V = r and κ ≥ r² , then V̇ ≤ 0. This implies that if Additionally, the control model of roll channel is given
V (0) ≤ r, then V (t) ≤ r for all t ≥ 0, that is, Br is a by
invariant set. By the comparison principle[18] , it is easy " # " # " #
from (7) to conclude that 0 1 0 ∆1
ẋ = x+ u+ (9)
0 0 b2 ∆2
² h ² i −κt
0 ≤ V (t) ≤ + V (0) − e . h i>
κ κ ρ 2
V slmδx
where x = γ ωx , u = δx , b2 = 2 Jx x . Here, γ is the
Therefore, S1 , S2 , S3 , y2 , y3 , ρ̃1 , ρ̃2 and ρ̃3 are all uniformly
angle of roll, ωx the rotating rate along the roll axis, Jx the
ultimately bounded. Furthermore, x1 , x2 , x3 , x2d , x3d , x̄2 ,
moment of inertia about roll axis. δx the aileron deflection
x̄3 , ρ̂1 , ρ̂2 and ρ̂3 are all uniformly ultimately bounded.
angle, mδxx the nominal values of the roll moment coefficient
In addition, it is easy to see that for any given σi , ² is a
derivatives with respect to the aileron deflection angle, the
unknown but bounded constant which is independent of κ,
terms ∆1 and ∆2 represent the uncertainties.
so κ² can be made arbitrary small by choosing κ big enough.
The control design objective of the roll channel is just to
This implies that S1 , i.e., y can be made arbitrary small
stabilize system (9) in spit of the uncertainties.
ultimately.
Resemble to the pitch channel, if it is assumed that there
Based on the above analysis, we have the following the-
exist two unknown but bounded ¯ positive
¯ constants ρ1 and
orem. ¯ ∆2 ¯
Theorem 1: Consider the integrated guidance and ρ2 such that |∆1 | ≤ ρ1 and ¯ b2 ¯ ≤ ρ2 , then the follow-
control system (5) satisfying Assumption 1. Given any ing adaptive control algorithm can be utilized to stabilize
bounded initial states, the robust adaptive dynamic sur- system (9).
face control algorithm 1 can keep all of the states of the Algorithm 2:
closed-loop system bounded and simultaneously make the 
absolute vale of the output arbitrary small ultimately if  S1 = x1




one chooses the design parameters Ki , λi big enough and  x̄2 = −K1 S1 − ρ̂1 S1
τi small enough. τ2 ẋ2d + x2d = x̄2 , x2d (0) = x̄2 (0)


By far, the integrated guidance and control design for the  S2 = x2 − x2d



pitch channel is completed. u = b12 ẋ2d − K2 S2 − ρ̂2 S2
 M. Z. HOU et al. / Preparation of Papers for International Journal of Automation and Computing 5

where K1 > 0, K2 > 0 and τ2 > 0 are positive design
parameters, ρ̂i , i = 1, 2 are the estimates of the unknown
constants ρi , satisfying the following update law
¡ ¢
ρ̂˙ i = λi Si2 − σi ρ̂i
where λi > 0 and σi > 0 are all design parameters.
Remark 1: Theoretically speaking, to meet the design
not change any more. Fig.3 shows the trajectories of the
missile and the target. In addition, the flight time of the
IGC logic and that of the TGC logic are respectively 21.0s
and 26.7s, the miss distance of the IGC logic and that of
the TGC logic are respectively 0.03m and 5.25m.
10
IGC

δx/(°)
requirements, we just need to choose Ki , λi big enough 0

and τi small enough. However, as shown in Swaroop et al. TGC

[10] −10
, the filter time constants τi can not be made arbitrarily 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

small in practice. Therefore, the design parameters should Time/s

50
be adjusted considering the physical limitations and the TGC

δy/(°)
0
design requirements simultaneously.
IGC
−50
3 NUMERICAL SIMULATION 0 5 10 15
Time/s
20 25 30

20 TGC
In this section, the effect of the proposed integrated guid-

δz/(°)
0
ance and control logic in Section 2 is verified by the 6DOF IGC
−20
nonlinear numerical simulations for some passive homing
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
missile in the stage of diving to attack. Time/s
The simulation parameters are set as follows. the sim-
ulation step is 0.001s; the initial position and velocity of Fig. 2 Curves of the aileron, rudder and elevator deflections
the missile in the inertial coordinate system are respec-
h i> h i>
tively 0 3000 300 m and 200 0 0 m/s, the initial
position, velocity and acceleration of the target in the in-
h i> 3000
ertial coordinate system are respectively 3000 0 0 m,
h i> h i>
30 0 40 m/s and 2 0 2 m/s2 , and the other initial 2000 Missile(IGC)
y/m

states of the missile are all zero. In order to test the robust Target
1000
performance of the proposed control algorithm, all of the
aerodynamic parameters are assumed to increase by 20%
0
of the nominal values. In addition, the control surfaces’ 0 Missile(TGC)
deflections are all limited to ±30◦ . 1000
2000
0
2000 4000
3000 6000
5 z/m x/m

0
Fig. 3 Trajectories of the missile and the target
α/(°)

−5 IGC TGC
From the simulation results, it is clear that compared to
−10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 the TGC logic, the proposed IGC logic at least have the
Time/s
following advantages:
20
TGC IGC • The angles of attack and sideslip are much smaller,
10
β/(°)

this implies that the desired overload is much smaller.

0

−10 • The flight time is much shorter, this helps to improve

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time/s
the missile penetration ability.

• The miss distance is much smaller, hence the missile

Fig. 1 Curves of the angle of attack and the sideslip angle
For comparison, the simulation results of the proposed
adaptive dynamic surface control based integrated guidance
and control(IGC) logic and those of the traditional guid-
ance and control(TGC) logic(i.e., proportional navigation
guidance plus PID control law) are simultaneously shown
in Fig.1 to Fig.3.. Fig.1 shows the curves of the angle of
attack and the angle of sideslip. Fig.2 shows the curves
of the aileron, rudder and elevator deflections. It is noted
that when R becomes less than Rd , the integrated missile
guidance and control system cannot work any more, in this
case, the control surface deflection angles are supposed to
attacking accuracy can be improved.
These imply that the proposed integrated guidance and con-
trol logic is feasible and an effective approach to improve
the missile performance.
4 CONCLUSION
In this paper, integrated guidance and control utilizing
adaptive dynamic surface control approach is proposed for
some homing missile in the stage of diving to attack. The
stability analysis and the simulation results show that the
6 International Journal of Automation and Computing X(X), X X
proposed design method controller can ensure the accuracy
of target interception, as well as the robust stability of the
missile dynamics, which demonstrate the feasibility and ad-
vantage the proposed integrated guidance and control logic.
References
[1] P. K. Menon, E. J. Ohlmeyer. Integrated Design of
Agile Missile Guidance and Autopilot Systems. Control
Engineering Practice, vol. 9, pp. 1095-1106, 2001.
[2] N. F. Palumbo, B. E. Reardon, R. A. Blauwkamp. In-
tegrated Guidance and Control for Homing Missiles.
Johns Hopkins Application Technical Design, vol. 25,
no. 2, pp. 121-139, 2004.
[3] M. Xin, S. N. Balakrishnan, E. J. Ohlmeyer. Inte-
grated Guidance and Control of Missiles with θ − D
Method. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Tech-
nology, vol. 14, pp. 6, pp. 981-992, 2006.
[4] M. Idan, T. Shima, O. M. Golan. Integrated Sliding
Mode Autopilot-guidance for Dual-Control Missiles.
Journal of guidance, control and dyanamics, vol. 30,
no. 4, pp. 1081-1089, 2007.
[5] M. Z. Hou, G. R. Duan. Integrated Guidance and Con-
trol for Homing Missiles against Ground Fixed Targets.
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 162-
168, 2008.
[6] Y. B. Shtessel, C. H. Tournes. Integrated Higher-order
Sliding Mode Guidance and Autopilot for Dual Control
Missiles. Journal of Guidance, Control and Dyanam-
ics, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 79-94, 2009.
[7] S. S. Vaddi, P. K. Menon, E. J. Ohlmeyer. Numerical
State-dependent Riccati Equation Approach for Mis-
sile Integrated Guidance Control. Journal of Guidance,
Control and Dyanamics, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 699-703,
2009.
[8] M. Krstic, I. Kanellakapoulous, P. Kokotovic. Nonlin-
ear and Adaptive Control Design. New York: Wiley
Interscience, 1995.
[9] P. Kokotovic, M. Arcak. Constructive Nonlinear Con-
trol: a Historical Perspective. Automatica, vol. 37, no.
7, pp. 637-662, 2001.
[10] D. Swaroop, J. K. Hedrick, P. P. Yip, J. C. Gerdes.
Dynamic Surface Control for a Class of Nonlinear Sys-
tems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol.
45, no. 10, pp. 1893-1899, 2000.
[11] A. R. Girard, J. K. Hedrick. Formation Control of Mul-
tiple Vehicles Using Dynamic Surface Control and Hy-
brid Systems. International Journal of Control, vol. 76,
no. 9, pp. 913-923, 2003.
[12] Z. J. Yang, K. Miyazaki, S. Kanae, K. Wada. Robust
Position Control of a Magnetic Levitation System via
Dynamic Surface Control Technique. IEEE Transac-
tions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 26-
34, 2004.
[13] N. Qaiser, N. Iqbal. Hussain A, Qaiser N. Exponential
Stabilization of a Class of Underactuated Mechanical
Systems Using Dynamic Surface Control. International
Journal of Control, Automation, and Systems, vol. 5,
no. 5, pp. 547-558, 2007.
[14] P. P. Yip, J. K. Hedrick. Adaptive Dynamic Surface
Control: a Simplified Algorithm for Adaptive Back-
stepping Control of Nonlinear Systems. International
Journal of Control, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 959–979, 1998.
[15] M. Sharma, N. D. Richards. Adaptive, Integrated
Guidance and Control for Missile Interceptors. In pro-
ceedings of AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Con-
trol Conference and Exhibit, Providence, USA, AIAA-
2004-4880, 2004.
[16] G. R. Duan, M. Z. Hou. Adaptive, Integrated Guid-
ance and Control Law Design Using Sliding-mode Ap-
proach. ACTA ARMAMEENTARII, vol. 31, no. 2, pp.
191-198, 2010.
[17] X. Y. Luo, Z. H. Zhu, X. P. Guan. Adaptive fuzzy dy-
namic surface control for uncertain nonlinear systems.
International Journal of Automation and Computing,
vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 385-390, 2009.
[18] H. K. Khalil. Nonlinear systems, 3rd ed. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall, 1996.
Ming-Zhe Hou received his B. Eng. de-
gree in Automation in 2005 from Harbin In-
stitute of Technology, China. Now, he is
working toward the Ph. D. degree in the
Center for Control Theory and Guidance
Technology at Harbin Institute of Technol-
ogy.
His main research interests include non-
linear control theory and integrated guid-
ance and control for aircrafts.
E-mail: houlechuan@126.com (Corresponding author)
Guang-Ren Duan received his Ph. D. de-
gree in Control Systems Theory in 1989 from
Harbin Institute of Technology, China. From
1989 to 1991, he was a post-doctoral researcher
at Harbin Institute of Technology, where he be-
came a professor of control systems theory in
1991. Dr. Duan visited the University of Hull,
UK, and the University of Sheffield, UK from
December 1996 to October 1998and worked at
the Queen’s University of Belfast, UK from Oc-
tober 1998 to October 2002. Since August 2000, he has been
elected Specially Employed Professor at Harbin Institute of Tech-
nology sponsored by the Cheung Kong Scholars Program of the
Chinese government. He is currently the Director of the Center
for Control Systems and Guidance Technology at Harbin Insti-
tute of Technology.
His research interests include robust control, eigenstructure
assignment, descriptor systems, missile autopilot design and
magnetic bearing control.
Dr. Duan is a Chartered Engineer in the UK, a Senior Member
of IEEE and a Fellow of IEE.
E-mail: g.r.duan@hit.edu.cn