Aerospace: Optimal Guidance Law With Impact-Angle Constraint and Acceleration Limit For Exo-Atmospheric Interception

aerospace
Article
Optimal Guidance Law with Impact-Angle Constraint
and Acceleration Limit for Exo-Atmospheric Interception
Shilei Zhao , Wanchun Chen and Liang Yang *
School of Astronautics, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China; Zhaosl@buaa.edu.cn (S.Z.);

Wanchun_chen@buaa.edu.cn (W.C.)
* Correspondence: yangliang.buaa@hotmail.com
Abstract: This paper aims to develop an optimal guidance law for exo-atmospheric interception,
in which impact-angle constraint and acceleration limit are considered. Firstly, an optimal control
problem with constraints on terminal miss and impact-angle is formulated, in which the control en-
ergy performance index is weighted by a power function of the time-to-go. The closed-loop guidance
command, which is expressed as a linear combination of zero-effort miss distance and the zero-effort
angle error, is derived using a traditional order reduction transformation. Then, an analytical solution
to the maximal acceleration during the flight is obtained by analyzing the boundary points and
critical points of the guidance command curve. It is found that the maximal acceleration is a function
of the weighted gain in the performance index. Therefore, the maximal acceleration can be efficiently
limited by using the variable weighted gain. Furthermore, the relationship between the total control
energy and the weighted gain is studied. As a result, a systematic method is proposed for selecting
the weighted gain so as to meet the constraint of the acceleration while the total control energy
is minimal. Nonlinear simulations have been carried out to test the performance of the proposed

method. The results show that this method performs well in intercepting the maneuvering target
Citation: Zhao, S.; Chen, W.; Yang, L. with a negligible miss distance and intercept angle error. And it can tolerate a stricter acceleration
Optimal Guidance Law with limit in comparison with the typical method.
Impact-Angle Constraint and
Acceleration Limit for Exo- Keywords: optimal guidance law; time-to-go weighted guidance; impact-angle constraint; accelera-
Atmospheric Interception. Aerospace tion limit
2021, 8, 358. https://doi.org/
10.3390/aerospace8120358
Academic Editor: Gokhan Inalhan 1. Introduction

The terminal guidance law, which has direct influence on kill efficiency, is immensely
Received: 6 October 2021
Accepted: 19 November 2021
important for the weapon system. During terminal attack, the achievement of a proper im-
Published: 23 November 2021
pact angle is an important goal of homing systems. Using impact-angle-control, the missile
is capable of attacking a weak spot of the target to maximize warhead effectiveness and
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
ensure a high kill probability [1,2]. In addition, the acceleration limit is another crucial
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
constraint on homing missiles, which will lead to large miss-distance and impact angle
published maps and institutional affil- error if the acceleration saturation occurs near the target.
iations. Guidance law design with specific impact direction has been a hot topic during the
past four decades. As an application of optimal control theory, Bryson and Ho [3] have
proposed the optimal solution to the simple rendezvous problem with terminal constraints
on the lateral position and velocity. In [4], a similar formulation was used to derive a linear
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
quadratic optimal guidance law and linear quadratic differential game-based laws for
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
maneuvering target scenarios. These two formulations can be utilized to impose a terminal
This article is an open access article
intercept angle by selecting the ratio between the relative terminal velocity and the closing
distributed under the terms and speed. Kim and Grider [5] first proposed an optimal guidance law to ensure the impact
conditions of the Creative Commons angle for a reentry vehicle, which pursues a fixed or slowly moving ground target. In [6],
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// York and Pastrick further improved the guidance law presented in [5], in which the lag
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ in the autopilot is considered. The resulting guidance law was applied to an air defense
4.0/). interceptor in [7]. In [8], a generalized form of energy minimization optimal guidance law
Aerospace 2021, 8, 358. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace8120358 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/aerospace

Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 2 of 28
was proposed for satisfying the impact-angle constraints. Song et al. [9] have studied an
optimal impact angle guidance law for varying velocity missiles against a maneuvering
ship. Shaferman [10] derived two impact angle control guidance laws based on the optimal
control and differential game theory for an evasive maneuvering target. An optimal
control planar interception law against maneuvering targets with known trajectories was
devised in [11]. A terminal body angle control guidance law considering the angle-of-attack
dynamics was developed in [12]. It is noted that the abovementioned optimal guidance
laws are all based on a constant weighted performance index, which results in the weak
ability of the trajectory shaping. And the terminal acceleration cannot be guaranteed to be
zero, which possibly increases the miss-distance.
In order to address this drawback, Ryoo [13] proposed a time-to-go weighted optimal
guidance with zero terminal acceleration because the weighting of cost infinitely increases
as the time-to-go approaches zero. Ohlmeyer [14,15] proposed an optimal guidance law
with a weighted gain specified by the user, called Generalized Vector Explicit Guidance,
which improves the ability to shape the trajectory and achieves the impact-angle constraint.
He [16] investigated a similar guidance law which considers the influence of the gravity
and thrust in the exo-atmospheric interception engagement. Lee [17] further developed
a generalized optimal guidance law with arbitrary weighted function to satisfy the impact-
angle constraint. By considering the penalty term regarding the miss distance and intercept
angle weighted by hyperbolic tangent functions in the performance index, Xiong [18]
proposed a new optimal guidance law, of which the guidance performance was less
affected by the time-varying speed. Li [19] further designed a unified optimal impact angle
guidance law with the energy consumption weighted by an arbitrary positive function,
which can adapt to different types of interceptors and targets. In addition to the guidance
law based on the optimal control theory, biased proportional navigation [20–24] and sliding-
mode guidance law [25–29] can also realize the impact with a specified angle. However,
all these guidance laws do not consider the acceleration limit, which possibly leads to large
miss-distance and impact angle error if the acceleration saturation occurs near the target.
In order to limit acceleration, Rusnak [30] and Hexner [31] directly solved the opti-
mal control problem with control constraint, which leads to a significantly complicated
solution. Weiss [32] introduced a new class of optimal guidance law in which a special per-
formance index penalizing the variability of the guidance command is used, and therefore,
an additional design parameter can be profitably used to avoid acceleration saturation.
Although the acceleration limit is considered in this research, the impact-angle cannot
be guaranteed. This is due to the fact that if the constraint of impact-angle is considered
simultaneously, the solved guidance command is extremely complex and even cannot be
solved analytically.
In this paper, an optimal guidance law with constraint on the impact-angle and
acceleration limit is proposed. Firstly, an impact-angle constrained optimal guidance
law (IACOGL) with a variable weighted gain is formulated. The closed-loop guidance
command can be expressed as a linear combination of zero-effort miss distance (ZEM) and
the zero-effort angle error (ZEAE). Then, we analyze the extreme value of the guidance
command curve and derive the closed-form function between the maximum of guidance
command with the weighted gain. Therefore, the maximal acceleration can be efficiently
limited by using the variable weighted gain. Furthermore, the relationship between the
total control energy and the weighted gain is studied. Finally, a systematic method to
select the optimal weighted gain, which minimizes the total control energy and keeps the
acceleration within the constraint, is proposed. The greatest difference from the previous
works is that the proposed method is able to avoid acceleration saturation by choosing the
appropriate weighted gain in an analytical manner, while having optimal performance
for the guidance command. Several numerical simulations are carried out to evaluate the
performance of the proposed method. The results show that this method performs well in
intercepting the maneuvering target with the impact angle constraint and acceleration limit.
guidance command. Several numerical simulations are carried out to evaluate the perfor-
mance of the proposed method. The results show that this method performs well in inter-
Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 3 of 28
cepting the maneuvering target with the impact angle constraint and acceleration limit.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, the mathematical
models used for the guidance law derivation and simulation are presented. Section 3 de-
rivesThe
the time-to-go
remainder weighted optimal
of this paper guidanceaslaw
is organized with constraint
follows: In Sectionon2, impact-angle.
the mathematical Sec-
models used for the guidance law derivation and simulation are presented. Sectionthe
tion 4 provides the derivation process on the maximum of guidance command and 3
total maneuvering
derives the time-to-go energy. Afteroptimal
weighted which, guidance
a methodlaw used to select
with the weighted
constraint gain to
on impact-angle.
avoid the
Section acceleration
4 provides saturation process
the derivation is also presented in Section
on the maximum of 4. Finally,command
guidance nonlinear andsimula-
the
tionsmaneuvering
total are carried out to evaluate
energy. the performance
After which, of thetoproposed
a method used select the law.
weighted gain to avoid
the acceleration saturation is also presented in Section 4. Finally, nonlinear simulations are
2. Model
carried outFormulation
to evaluate the performance of the proposed law.
Consider a planar engagement geometry for a maneuvering target shown in Figure
2.
1. Model
Here, Formulation
X I − O I − Y I is a Cartesian inertial reference frame. We denote the missile and
Consider a planar engagement
target by the subscripts geometry for
M and T, respectively. a maneuvering
The target shown
velocity, acceleration, and in Figure 1.
flight-path
Here, X
angles are − O
I denoted
I − Y I by V , a and γ , respectively. It is assumed that the velocity of
is a Cartesian inertial reference frame. We denote the missile and target
mis-
by the subscripts M and T, respectively. The velocity, acceleration, and flight-path angles
sile and target for guidance law derivation is constant. The range between the adversaries
are denoted by V, a and γ, respectively. It is assumed that the velocity of missile and target
is r, and λ is the angle between the line of sight (LOS) and the X I axis. The X R
for guidance law derivation is constant. The range between the adversaries is r, and λ is
axis,angle
the aligned with the
between the initial
line ofLOS,
sightis(LOS)
denotedandfor
thelinearization.
X I axis. The The relative
XR axis, displacement
aligned with the
between
initial LOS,theistarget
denotedandforthelinearization.
missile normal Thetorelative
this axis is ξ . The intercept
displacement between angle between
the target and
missile
the andnormal
missile angle is
to defined
this axisas
is ξ.γ IThe + γ M , which
= γ Tintercept angleisbetween
requiredmissile
to be aand
given value
angle γ f at
is defined
c
as γ = γ + γ , which is required to be a given value γ c at the intercept time.

the intercept
I T time.
M f
YR YI
γI
VT
γT
aM VM T ξ
γM r
gT
λ
M XR
gM
λ0
O XI
Figure 1.
Figure 1. The
The Planar
Planar engagement
engagement geometry.
geometry.
From Figure
From Figure1,1,the
theequations
equationsofofrelative
relative motion
motion between
between missile
missile andand target
target are are given
given by
by .
r = −[VT cos(γT + λ) + VM cos(γ M − λ)] (1)
r = − VT cos ( γ T + λ ) + VM cos ( γ M − λ )  (1)
.
λ = [−VM sin(γ M − λ) + VT sin(γT + λ)]/r (2)
λ =  −VM sin ( γ M − λ ) + VT sin ( γ T + λ )  r (2)
And, due to the existence of acceleration and gravitational effect, the flight-path angle
And, due
and velocity ofto the
the existence
missile of acceleration
as well as the target and gravitational
evolve according effect,
to the flight-path angle
and velocity of the missile. as well as the target evolve according to
γ M = [ a M cos(γ M − λ) − g M cos γ M ]/VM (3)
γM =  aM cos ( γ M − λ ) − g M cos γ M  VM (3)
.
V M = a M sin(γ M − λ) − g M sin γ M (4)
VM = aM sin ( γ M − λ ) − gM sin γ M (4)
where, g M stands for the gravitational acceleration of the missile. Similarly, due to the
gravitational effect, the flight-path angle and velocity of target evolve according to
.
γ T = − gT cos γT /VT (5)
.
V T = − gT sin γT (6)
Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 4 of 28
where, gT is the gravitational acceleration of the target. g M and gT are assumed as

a constant g because the duration of the terminal guidance phase is typically very short.
It is assumed that the missile’s closed-loop dynamics can be represented by the
following first-order system:
.
a M = (u − a M )/T (7)
where, u is the guidance command, T is the time constant of the missile’s dynamics.
As was done in [10], the derivation of the guidance law in this paper will be performed
based on a linearized model. In the linear model, the kinematics equations of ξ and γ I are
..
ξ = −a M (8)
.
γ I = (k M a M + ∆gγ )/VM (9)
where, k M = cos(γ M − λ) and ∆gγ = − g(cos γ M + cos γT VM /VT ). In the derivation of
the guidance law, VM , k M , and ∆gγ are regarded as the constants and will be updated in
each guidance step. The state vector of the linearized problem is defined as
h . iT
x= ξ ξ γI (10)
The matrix form of the kinematic equations is

.
x = Ax + Bu + C (11)
where      
0 1 0 0 0
A= 0 0 0 , B =  −1 , C =  0  (12)
0 0 0 k M /VM ∆gγ /VM
3. Derivation of IACOGL
In this section, an impact-angle constraint guidance law with a variable weighted gain
is derived on the foundation of optimal control theory. Now, let us consider the following
optimal control problem: Find u(t) that minimizes defined by
Z t
1 f
N
J= u2 /t go dt (13)
2 t0
subject to (11) and terminal constraints given by

ξ t f = 0, γ I t f − γcf = 0 (14)
where, t go = t f − t is the time-to-go; N is weighted gain, which is the shaping parameter

of the guidance command.
3.1. Order Reduction Transformation

Bryson and Ho [3] introduced a transformation enabling reducing an optimal control
problem’s order, which is denoted as terminal projection and can be used to simplify the
derivation. This transformation can be easily applied to the resulting optimal control
problem in previous section.
As was done in [10], let us define a new state vector Z(t) that satisfies
Z tf
Z(t) = DΦ t f , t x(t) + D Φ t f , τ Cdτ − Dxcf (15)
t
Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 5 of 28

where Φ t f , t is the transition matrix associated with Equation (11), xcf indicates the
terminal constraint of x(t), and D is a constant matrix

1 0 0 [0 ]1× n
D= (16)
0 0 1 [0 ]1× n
Since .
Φ t f , t = −Φ t f , t A (17)
the time derivative of the new state vector Z (t) is

h.
. .i ϕξ t go
Z = D Φ t f , t x + Φ t f , t x − DΦ t f , t C = DΦ t f , t Bu = u (18)
ϕγ t go
which is state independent and only the function of the guidance command u. The terminal
value of Z(t) can be expressed using (15) as
h i h iT
Z t f = D x t f − xcf = ξ t f , γ I t f − γcf (19)

It is obvious that Z t f should be zeros. Then, using these new variables, the aug-
mented cost function can be written as
1 Z tf
N
J = υ1 Z1 t f + υ2 Z2 t f + u2 /t go dt (20)
2 t0

where, υ1 and υ2 are Lagrange multipliers; Z1 t f and Z2 t f are the first and second

variables of Z t f .
Note that, besides reducing the order of the problem, the two variables of the new state
vector Z(t) have an important physical meaning. Z1 (t) is zero-effort miss distance (ZEM),
and Z2 (t) is zero-effort angle error (ZEAE), respectively referring to the miss distance
and the impact-angle error if, from the current time onward, the missile will not apply
any control.
3.2. Closed-Loop Optimal Guidance Command

According to the theory of optimal control, the Hamiltonian of the problem is
1 2 N
H= u /t go + λ1 ϕξ t go u + λ2 ϕγ t go u (21)
2
where λ1 and λ2 are co-state variables, respectively. Due to the order reduction transforma-
tion, the time derivative of the zero-effort variables is state independent, and therefore the
adjoint equations can be presented in a simplified manner.
( .
λ1 = −∂H/∂Z1 = 0
. (22)
λ2 = −∂H/∂Z2 = 0
Then we can obtain the co-state variables:


 λ 1 ( t ) = λ 1 t f = υ1
(23)
 λ 2 ( t ) = λ 2 t f = υ2
Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 6 of 28
For obtaining an analytic solution for the guidance command, it is assumed that the
dynamics of missile are lag-free. Therefore, the time derivatives of the Z1 and Z2 are
simplified as ( .
Z1 = ϕξ t go u = −t go u
. (24)
Z2 = ϕγ t go u = u/V 0 M

where V 0 M = VM /k M . Therefore, the optimal guidance command for the missiles,

which satisfy
u∗ = argu minH (25)
are
∂H/∂u = 0 ⇒ u∗ (t) = λ1 t go
N +1 N
− λ2 t go /V 0 M (26)
Substituting (23) into (26) and integrating from t to t f yields the following two coupled
algebraic equations:
t N +3 t N +2

Z1 t f = Z1 (t) − υ1 Ngo+3 + υ2 ( N +go2)V 0 = 0
M
N +2 N +1
(27)
t go t go

Z2 t f = Z2 (t) + υ1 ( N +2)V 0 − υ2 02
=0
M ( N +1)V M
Solving υ1 , υ2 and substituting the solution into (26), the optimal guidance com-
mand [10] is
N V0
u∗ (t) = ZEM
2
Z1 (t) + NZEAE M Z2 (t) (28)
t go t go
where, NZEM and NZEAE are the navigation gains, which are expressed as
NZEM = ( N + 2)( N + 3)
(29)
NZEAE = ( N + 1)( N + 2)
And the new states Z1 and Z2 can be expressed using state x as

.
Z1 (t) = ξ + ξt go
(30)
Z2 (t) = ∆gγ t go /VM + γ I − γcf
For the guidance law implementation, the time-to-go must be estimated. It can be
approximated simply by
.
t go = −r/r (31)
If the more accurate t go estimation is needed, the method presented in [8] can be adopted.
It is found that the command of the proposed guidance law is expressed as a linear
combination of zero-effort miss distance and the zero-effort angle error, which is similar
to that of the OGL-CTIA proposed in [10]. However, the navigation gains are absolutely
different from that of the OGL-CTIA. They possess an additional parameter to shape the
intercepting trajectory, which can be used to limit the maximal acceleration. Next, we will
focus on how to select the most appropriate weighted gain to achieve missile acceleration
within the limit.
4. IACOGL with Acceleration Limit

In the previous section, a universal impact-angle constrained optimal guidance law
with great trajectory shaping capability is obtained, but acceleration limit is not considered.
In this section, the maximum acceleration is limited by adjusting the shaping parameter,
which is the weighted gain, N, to avoid acceleration saturation. Firstly, the closed-form
solution to the guidance command is proposed, which is used to derive the function of
maximum of guidance command and total maneuvering energy. Then a systematic method
is proposed for selecting the weighted gain meeting the constraint of the acceleration while
the total maneuvering energy is minimal.
Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 7 of 28
4.1. Analytical Solution to Guidance Command

In order to derive an analytical solution to the guidance command, let us focus on
the linear dynamics equation presented in (18). Substituting (28) into (18) results in the
following optimal states dynamics:
 .∗
 Z = − NZEM Z ∗ /t go − NZEAE V 0 M Z ∗
1 1 2
.∗ (32)
 Z2 = NZEM Z ∗ / V 0 M t2go + NZEAE Z ∗ /t go
1 2
It is obvious that the resulting equation set is a first-order linear time-invariant ordi-
nary differential equation (ODE). Its solution can be analytically formulated as

 Z1∗ (t) = ( N + 2)C1 t go
N +3 − ( N + 1 ) C t N +2
2 go
∗
h
N + 2
i
N +1 /V 0
(33)
 Z2 (t) = − ( N + 3)C1 t go − ( N + 2)C2 t go M
where
C1 = ( N + 2) Z10 /t N
f
+3
+ ( N + 1)V 0 M Z20 /t Nf +2
(34)
C2 = ( N + 3) Z10 /t N
f
+2
+ ( N + 2)V 0 M Z20 /t Nf +1
and Z10 , Z20 are initial values, respectively.
For simplification, a non-dimensional parameter, which is a function of Z1 , Z2 , V 0 M ,
and t go is introduced.
κ = Z1 / V 0 M Z2 t go

(35)
Therefore, Equation (33) can be rewritten as
N +2
Z1∗ (t) = V 0 M Z20 t f ( N + 2)C1 t go − ( N + 1)C2 t go

N +1 (36)
Z2∗ (t) = − Z20 ( N + 3)C1 t go − ( N + 2)C2 t go

where, C1 and C2 are non-dimensional coefficients which expressed as

C 1 = ( N + 2)κ 0 + ( N + 1)
(37)
C 2 = ( N + 3)κ 0 + ( N + 2)

where, κ0 = Z10 / V 0 M Z20 t f is the initial value of κ. Substituting (36) into (28), the
expression to guidance command is derived as
!
∗ V 0 M Z20 C 1 N +1 C2 N
u (t) = ηN t − t (38)
tf N + 1 go N + 3 go
where, η N = ( N + 1)( N + 2)( N + 3) and t go = t go /t f is the dimensionless time-to-go.

Therefore, the expression to guidance command can be derived directly if the initial
conditions and terminal constraints are provided.
4.2. Maximum of Guidance Command

From a practical point of view, the available acceleration that the missile can provide
is limited, so it is necessary to analyze the maximum acceleration during the homing flight.
According to the analytical solution to guidance command presented in (38), the maximum
of guidance command for the given initial condition and the selected weighted gain N can
be derived. Therefore, the designer can judge whether command saturations occur when
the acceleration limit is imposed. In this subsection, the maximum of guidance command
for different κ0 is derived in an analytical manner, which is a function of the weighted
gain N. Furthermore, the weighted gain which minimizes the maximum of the guidance
command is derived, which can be used to limit the maximum of the guidance command
during the engagement.
Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 8 of 28
4.2.1. Expression to Maximum of Guidance Command

For simplification, the dimensionless guidance command is defined as
!
u ∗ (t) C C
1 N + 1 2 N
u∗ t ,

= ηN t − t (39)
VM Z20 /t f N + 1 go N + 3 go
For a continuous function on a closed and bounded interval, a maximum value can be
observed at a critical point or boundary point by the extreme value theorem. The critical
point of a function is where its time-derivative is zero. It is obvious that the dimensionless
guidance command profile is continuously differentiable in the bounded time interval [0,1]
and its derivative to dimensionless time is
N −1
du∗ /dt = −η N C1 t go − NC2 /( N + 3) t go

(40)
Then, considering the critical point condition du∗ /dt = 0, two critical points can
be obtained:
t go1 = 0, t go1 = NC2 / ( N + 3)C1 (41)
It is obvious that the first solution is one of boundary points, which should be removed.
For the second solution, if it is within (0, 1), it can be regarded as the critical point. Now,
let us define a set Next of weighted gain, which makes the second solution within (0, 1).
It is noted that the set Next is dependent on κ0 . If κ0 = −1, 0 < t go1 < 1 degenerates to
0 < N/( N + 3) < 1. Thus, it is apparent that Next = (0, +∞). And if κ0 6= −1, 0 < t go1 < 1
is equivalent to

( N + 3)( N − 2N2 /3) > N ( N − N1 ) ( N + 3)( N − 2N2 /3) < N ( N − N1 )
or (42)
N − N1 > 0 N − N1 < 0
where
N1 = −(3κ0 + 2)/(κ0 + 1), N2 = −(3κ0 + 3/2)/(κ0 + 1) (43)
Then we can obtain
Next = (0, min{0, N1 , N2 }) ∪ (max{0, N1 , N2 }, +∞) (44)
Now, let us consider the special case of N = 0. In this case, it can be obtained from
(39) that the terminal dimensionless guidance command is not zero and its value is
u∗f ( N = 0) = −2(3κ0 + 2) (45)
when N ∈ Next , Substituting (41) into (39), the dimensionless guidance command at critical
point is
N
u1∗ ( N ) = −( N + 2)C2 t go1 (46)
It is noted that, if N → 0 , u1∗ ( N ) is approach to u∗f ( N = 0). Thus, if N = 0, the critical
point is at the terminal point. Therefore, the set Next should include the case, N = 0. As a
result, Next for different κ0 can be expressed as
Next = [0, min{0, N1 , N2 }) ∪ (max{0, N1 , N2 }, +∞)

 [0, N1 ) ∪ ( N2 , +∞), −1 < κ0 < −2/3

(47)
= ( N2 , +∞), −2/3 ≤ κ0 < −1/2
[0, +∞), κ0 ≤ −1, κ0 ≥ −1/2

Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 9 of 28
Therefore, the maximum of dimensionless guidance command, u Max , can be obtained

by the extreme value theorem as
max(|u0∗ |, |u1∗ |), N ∈ Next

(
u Max ( N ) = (48)
|u0∗ |, N∈/ Next
where u0∗ is the value of u∗ t at the boundary point, 0, which is the function of N:

u0∗ ( N ) = ( N + 2) C2 − 1

(49)
All in all, the maximum value can be expressed by a uniform formula which is function
of N. In order to analyze the specific expression of u Max , a function of N is defined to
denote the difference between the magnitudes of u0∗ and u1∗ .
Ξ( N ) = |u0∗ | − |u1∗ |, N ∈ Next (50)
Aerospace 2021, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW Obviously, t go1 ≥ 0 for arbitrary κ0 and N ∈ Next . Then, substitute (46) and 10 (48)
of to
30
(50), Ξ( N ) can be expressed as
N
Ξ( N ) = ( N + 2) C2 − 1N − C2 t go1
f sub ( 
N ) = C2 − 1 + C2 tgo1 , N ∈ N sub (53)
 −( N + 2 ) f add ( N ) , C 2 ≤ 0 (51)
where the domains of N a d d and are

= N s−( u b N + 2) f
sub ( N ), C2 ∈ (0, 1)
N add = { N ∈ N ext | C 2 ∈ ( −∞ )} (, NN),sub = {CN2 ∈
] 2[1,) ∞f add ≥ N1 ext | C 2 ∈ ( 0,1)} .

(N , 0+

(54)
where, the
It is obvious thatfthe
functions add (magnitude ( N ) are defined
N ) and f subrelationship as
between C2 and 0,1 is different for var-
ious κ 0 . And therefore, the sets N a d d and N s u bN have different interval for various (52) κ0 ,
f add ( N ) = C2 − 1 − C2 t go1 , N ∈ Nadd
which is present in Figure 2. In the figure, N 3 is the special weighted gain which makes
C2 = 1 . It is f sub ( N ) = C2 − 1 + C2 t go1 ,
N
N ∈ Nsub (53)
where the domains of Nadd and Nsub = − ( 3κ 0 + 1) (κ0 + 1)
N3are (55)
∈ (−of∞,Ξ0] ∪
{ N ∈that
Naddbe=seen
It can |C2sign
Nextthe
( N [)1, is∞)} , Nsub = on
depended add ( N ) and f sub ( N ) . The
{ N ∈f Next |C2 ∈ (0, 1)}. (54)
Propositions A1 and
It is obvious thatA2
theare presented
magnitude in Appendix
relationship A to analyze
between theissign
C2 and 0,1 different for( N
of fadd ) and
various
sub ( N ) . Actually, the sign of Ξ ( N ) can be determined according to the magnitude of
κf0 . And therefore, the sets N add and N sub have different interval for various κ 0 , which is
present in Figure 2. In the figure, N3 is the special weighted gain which makes C2 = 1. It is
κ 0 . And then the expression of u M ax is derived. u M ax is a piecewise function of N , the
piecewise point of which is dependent N3 = −(on3κ0 κ+0 .1Based on1)the set N ext , the specific expres-
) / (κ0 + (55)
sion of u M ax is divided into the following four cases.
C2 C2 C2 C2
1 1
0 N
1 1
1
2 2
0 N1 N2 N3 N 0 N2 N3 0
N N
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure 2.2. The valueofofC2 Cfor

The value 2
for
the the κ0 . κ(a)
various
various 0
.κ0(a)∈ (− ∞,( −∞
κ0 ∈ −1,)−, 1N) add
, N= = [ 0,
add [0, ++∞ ∞),)N ,N = ∅ (b) κ ∈ ( −1,1,−−22/3
sub = ∅; (b) κ 0 0∈ (−
sub 3) ),
add [ 1 ) [ N3 , +∞
NNadd ==0,[N 0, N1) ∪ [ N 3 ), N
, + ∞ ) ,
sub
N
( N 2 , N3 )2 ; 3 (c) κ 0 0∈ ( − 2 3 , −1 3) , N addadd
=sub = ( N , N ) ; (c) κ ∈ (− 2/3, − 1/3 ) , N = [ N , + ∞ )
(
= [ N 3 , +∞3) , N sub = sub
, N = ( max { 0,
)
max {0, N 2 } , N 3 2 ; (d)
N } , N3 );
(d) κ0 ∈ (−1/3, +∞), Nadd = [0, +∞), Nsub = ∅.
κ 0 ∈ ( −1 3 , +∞ ) , N add = [ 0, +∞ ) , N sub = ∅ ;.
(1) If κ 0 ≤ −1 , it can be obtained from the Proposition A1 that C2 < 0 and

f add ( N ) < 0 for any N ∈ N ext . And therefore, it is obvious that Ξ ( N ) > 0 from (51), i.e.,
∗
u 0∗ is larger than u1∗ for N ∈ N ext . Note that the sign of u0 is negative according to
Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 10 of 28
It can be seen that the sign of Ξ( N ) is depended on f add ( N ) and f sub ( N ). The Proposi-
tions A1 and A2 are presented in Appendix A to analyze the sign of f add ( N ) and f sub ( N ).
Actually, the sign of Ξ( N ) can be determined according to the magnitude of κ0 . And then
the expression of u Max is derived. u Max is a piecewise function of N, the piecewise point of
which is dependent on κ0 . Based on the set Next , the specific expression of u Max is divided
into the following four cases.
(1) If κ0 ≤ −1, it can be obtained from the Proposition A1 that C2 < 0 and f add ( N ) < 0
for any N ∈ Next . And therefore, it is obvious that Ξ( N ) > 0 from (51), i.e., |u0∗ | is larger
than |u1∗ | for N ∈ Next . Note that the sign of u0∗ is negative according to (49). Therefore,
the maximum of dimensionless guidance command is
u Max = |u0∗ | = −u0∗ (56)
(2) If −1 < κ0 < −2/3, the set Next = [0, N1 ) ∪ ( N2 , +∞). According to Figure 2,
Ξ( N ) divides into three parts according to different weighted gain, which is

 −( N + 2) f add ( N ), N ∈ [0, N1 )

Ξ( N ) = −( N + 2) f sub ( N ), N ∈ ( N2 , N3 ] (57)
N ∈ ( N3 , +∞)

( N + 2) f add ( N ),

Then, the sign of Ξ( N ) can be derived according to the Propositions A1 and A2, which is
 ∗

 |u0 | − |u1∗ | > 0, N ∈ [0, N1 )

 ∗ i
Ξ( N ) = |u0 | − |u1∗ | < 0, N ∈ N2 , Nzeroadd
(58)


 |u∗ | − |u∗ | > 0,
 add , + ∞
N ∈ Nzero
0 1
add is the zero point of function f

where Nzero add ( N ). It should be noted that there is a special
case, N ∈ [ N1 , N2 ], in which the maximum of dimensionless guidance command is |u0∗ |
according to (48). Additionally, the sign of u0∗ and u1∗ is dependent on the value of C2 which
can be easily conclude that


 C2 ≤ (κ0 + 1) N2 + 3κ0 + 2 < 1, N ∈ [0, N2 ]

 i
C2 > (κ0 + 1) N2 + 3κ0 + 2 > 0, N ∈ N2 , Nzeroadd
(59)



 C > (κ + 1) N + 3κ + 2 = 1, add , + ∞
N ∈ Nzero
2 0 3 0
As a result, the maximum of dimensionless guidance command is

 ∗

 |u0 | = −u0∗ , N ∈ (0, N2 ]

 ∗ i
u Max = |u1 | = −u1∗ , N ∈ N2 , Nzeroadd
(60)


 |u∗ | = u∗ ,
 add , + ∞
N ∈ Nzero
0 0
(3) If −2/3 ≤ κ0 < −1/2, the set Next is ( N2 , +∞). Because the derivation process is
similar to the case of −1 < κ0 < −2/3, the sign of Ξ( N ) is
 i
 |u0∗ | − |u1∗ | < 0, N ∈ N2 , Nzero
 add
Ξ( N ) = (61)
 |u0∗ | − |u1∗ | > 0, N ∈ Nzero
 add , + ∞
It should be noted that there is also a special case, N ∈ [0, N2 ], in which the maximum
of the dimensionless guidance command is |u0∗ | according to (48). Thus, the maximum of
the dimensionless guidance command is the same as that presented in (60).
Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 11 of 28
(4) If κ0 ≥ −1/2, the set Next = [0, +∞). It can be easily obtained that for any
N ∈ [0, +∞),
C2 = (κ0 + 1) N + 3κ0 + 2 ≥ 3κ0 + 2 > 0 (62)
Furthermore, it is clear that if κ0 ≥ −1/3, C2 > 1 for any N. As for the case
−1/2 ≤ κ0 < −1/3, it can be obtained from Figure 2 that
(
C2 < 1, N ∈ (0, N3 )
(63)
C2 > 1, N ∈ ( N3 , +∞)
where N3 is a function of κ0 , which is presented in (55). Thus, Ξ( N ) can be expressed as

(
−( N + 2) f sub ( N ), N ∈ [0, max {0, N3 }]
Ξ( N ) = (64)
( N + 2) f add ( N ), N ∈ (max {0, N3 }, +∞)
According to the Propositions A1 and A2, the sign of Ξ( N ) can be derived.

 h i
 |u0∗ | − |u1∗ | < 0, N ∈ 0, Nzero
 add
Ξ( N ) = (65)
 |u0∗ | − |u1∗ | > 0, N ∈ Nzero
 add , + ∞
Thus, the maximum of dimensionless guidance command is

 h i
 |u1∗ | = −u1∗ , N ∈ 0, Nzero
 add
u Max = (66)
 |u0∗ | = u0∗ ,
 add , + ∞
N ∈ Nzero
In conclusion, the closed-form solution of u Max for various initial states are determined
by (56), (60), and (66). Noted that, though u Max is the piecewise function of N, it is
still continuous.
4.2.2. Weighted Gain Minimal Maximum of Guidance Command

In order to find the weighted gain corresponding to the minimal of u Max , the derivative
of u Max to N is obtained. There are still three types according to the different initial states.
(1) If κ0 ≤ −1, it can be obtained from (56) that the derivative of u Max to N is
.
u Max = −2(κ0 + 1) N − (5κ0 + 3) (67)
.
It is obvious that u Max > 0 for any N ≥ 0, i.e., u Max is the monotonic increasing
function of N. Therefore, the weighted gain which minimizes the maximum of guidance
command is
Nmin = 0 (68)
(2) If −1 < κ0 < −1/2, according to (60), the derivative of u Max to N is
−2(κ0 + 1) N − (5κ0 + 3), N ∈ [0, N2 ]




 i
.  ∗
u Max = | u1 | Γ ( N ) / ( N + 2), N ∈ N2 , Nzeroadd
(69)


add , + ∞

 2(κ + 1) N + 5κ + 3,
0 0 N ∈ Nzero
where
Γ( N ) = 1 + C1 /C2 + ( N + 2) f ( N ) + 1

(70)
Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 12 of 28
.
If N ∈ add , + ∞ , it is obvious that u
Nzero Max is the monotonic increasing function of
.
N. According add . It is easy to find that u
to theProposition A1, N3 is larger than Nzero
Max in
interval Nzero , +∞ is larger than zero.
add
. . .
add
u Max > u Max Nzero > u Max ( N3 ) = 1 − κ0 > 0 (71)
i .
Max is depended on Γ ( N ). It can be seen from the
If N ∈ add , the sign of u
N2 , Nzero
Proposition A3 presented in Appendix A, there is one and only one zero point of Γ( N )
u
defined as Next1 in the interval ( N2 , +∞
) for the icase −1 < κ0 < −1/2. In order to analyze
.
add , it is necessary to study the relationship
the sign of u Max ( N ) in interval N ∈ N2 , Nzero
u add . Substituting N into (70), the value of Γ ( N ) at N is
between Next1 and Nzero 3 3
Γ( N3 ) = 2x [ln(1 − x ) + (2 − 7κ0 ) x ] > 2x [ln(1 − x ) + 2x ] > 0 (72)
where, x = −(κ0 + 1)/(2κ0 ) ∈ (0, 1/2). Note that, because Γ( N ) is the monotonic increas-
u u
ing function and Next1 is the zero point of Γ( N ), Next1 < N3 . Furthermore, it is clear that
N3 < Nzero because Nzero is the zero point of f add ( N ) in the interval (max{0, N3 }, +∞).
add add
u .
add . Therefore, it is easy to find that u
It can be obtained that Next1 < N3 < Nzero Max < 0 when
u1 .
u1
i
N ∈ N2 , Next and u Max > 0 when N ∈ Next , Nzero . add
.
If N ∈ [0, N2 ], it is clear that there is one and only one zero point of u Max ( N ).
u
Next0 = −(5κ0 /2 + 3/2)/(κ0 + 1) (73)
. .
u u
Moreover, u Max > 0, when N ∈ 0, Next0 and u Max < 0, when N ∈ Next0 , N2 .
.
In conclusion, the sign of u Max is derived as
 . u
u > 0, N ∈ 0, Next0
 Max


. u
u
u Max < 0, N ∈ Next0 , Next1 (74)
.

u

N ∈ Next1 , +∞

u Max > 0,
u
Consequently, the minimum of u Max is at N = 0 or N = Next1 . The weighted gain
which minimizes the maximum of guidance command is
( u
0, u Max (0) ≤ u Max Next1
Nmin = u u (75)
Next1 , u Max (0) > u Max Next1
It can be seen from Figure 3 that, there is only one point, κ0 = −0.7745, in the interval
u1
(−1, −1/2) such that u Max (0) = u Max Next . Therefore, (75) can be rewritten as
(
0, −1 < κ0 ≤ −0.7745
Nmin = u1 (76)
Next , −0.7745 < κ0 < −1/2
(3) If κ0 ≥ −1/2, according to (66), the derivative of u Max to N is

 h i
.  |u1∗ |Γ( N )/( N + 2),
 add
N ∈ 0, Nzero
u Max = (77)
 2(κ0 + 1) N + 5κ0 + 3, N ∈ Nzero
 add , + ∞
It can be seen from Figure 3 that, there is only one point, κ 0 = − 0 .7 7 4 5 , in the interval
( −1, −1 2) such that uMax ( 0) = uMax ( Nextu1 ) . Therefore, (75) can be rewritten as
0， −1 < κ 0 ≤ −0.7745
Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 N min =  u1 13 of 28
(76)
Aerospace 2021, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW  N ext， −0.7745 < κ 0 < − 1 2 14 of 30
8
It is obvious that uMax > 0 for any N ∈ ( N zero
add
, +∞ ) . Furthermore, if κ 0 > −1 2 , it can
3.0
be 6obtained from Proposition A3 that Γ ( N ) < 0 when N ∈  0， N u1
ext ) and Γ ( N ) > 0
when N ∈ ( N ext , +∞ ) . If ) N2.7
u1 add 
ext < Nzero , the sign of uMax is
u1
u 1 uMax( Next
4
uMax 2.4
uMax(0)
-0.80 
-0.78 -0.76
uMax < 0, N ∈  0, N ext
u1
)
 (78)
2
(
uMax > 0, N ∈ N ext1 , +∞
u
)
0
-1.0Thus, -0.9
u1
Next -0.8 minimal
-0.7 point
-0.6 u M ax-0.5
u1
Next add
> Nzero uMax
is the κ
of . And if , the sign of is
0
Figure 3.
Figure 3. uuMax ((0)) and
M ax 0
andu Max u
u M a x ( NNext
u 1
) for

uMax < κκ0,00 .. N ∈ 0, N zero
forvarious
various1
add
)

ext
(79)
.

uMax > 0, N∈ (add add
N zero , +∞)
It
(3)isIfobvious that u Max > 0tofor
κ 0 ≥ − 1 2 , according
any
(66), ∈ Nzero , of
theNderivative +∞u . Furthermore,
to N if κ0 > −1/2,
M ax is u1
it can Thus,
be obtained
N zero from
is theProposition A3 thatof Γu(MN ). < 0 when N ∈ the 0, Ncase
ext and Γ( N ) > 0
add
minimal∗ point . Therefore, for κ 0 > − 1 2 , the
when N ∈ gain
u1 u1  u add
If Next < Nthe
, +∞ .minimizes
Nextwhich 1 Γ ( N ) ( N + 2 )
ax
,
, the sign of u Max is  N ∈ 0, N add

zero 
weighted uMax =  zeromaximum of guidance command is (77)
( . 2 (κ + 1) N + 5κ + u3, uNadd∈ ( N add，
u 0 N zero + ∞)
Max <min N ∈{ N0,
0, = min 0
ext N zero }
, Next
1 1
(80)
. u1
(78)
u Max > 0, N ∈ Next , +∞

It can be seen from Figure 4, there is only one point, κ 0 = − 0 .0 6 3 4 , in the set
( −1 Thus,
2, +∞)Nsuch
u1
u add
that Next = Nzero . Therefore, (80) can ube
1
1 rewritten
add as
.
ext is the minimal point of u Max . And if Next > Nzero , the sign of u Max is
N0,ext1 ，N−∈1 20,< N

κ0add
u
≤ −0.06335
 . h
 Nu Max= <

 add zero (81)
min
. 
 Nzero， κ0 >−0.06335 (79)
 u Max > 0, N ∈ Nzero
 add , + ∞
If κ 0 = − 1 2 , it can be obtained from the Proposition A3 that Γ ( N ) > 0 when
[0，+ ∞N) zero
N ∈Thus, .add is the
Thus, sign of upoint
theminimal of u Max . for
Max is positive any N . The
Therefore, for the case κgain
weighted −1/2, min-
0 > which the
weighted gain
imizes the which minimizes
maximum thecommand
of guidance maximumisof guidance command is
n o
in =1 ,
Nmin = minN mN
u 0 add (82)
ext Nzero (80)
In conclusion, the weighted gain which minimizes the maximum of guidance com-
mand can
It be seen from
is determined Figure
by u(68), (76),4,and there
(81),iswhich
only can
one bepoint, κ0 = −as:
summarized 0.0634, in the set
(−1/2, +∞) such that Next 1 add . Therefore, (80) can be rewritten as
= Nzero
(0, κ 0 ≤ −0.7745, κ 0 = −0.5
 u1N u1 , −1/2 < κ0 ≤ −0.06335
N
Nmin
= N
min = ext , ext −0.7745 < κ 0 ≤ −0.0634 & κ 0 ≠ −0.5 (83)
(81)
 N addN,zero
add , κ > −0.06335
κ > − 0.06335
 zero 0 0
2.0
1.5
0.6
add
and Nzero
0.4
1.0 add
Nzero
0.2
Next
u1
-0.2 -0.1 0.0

0.5
u1
Next
0.0
-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
κ0
u1 u add a dfor
Figure4.4.Next
Figure and
N e x tand N zerod for
Nzero1 various
various κ0 . κ 0 .
Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 14 of 28
If κ0 = −1/2, it can be obtained from the Proposition A3 that Γ( N ) > 0 when

.
N ∈ [0, +∞). Thus, the sign of u Max is positive for any N. The weighted gain which
minimizes the maximum of guidance command is
Nmin = 0 (82)
In conclusion, the weighted gain which minimizes the maximum of guidance com-
mand is determined by (68), (76), and (81), which can be summarized as:

 0,
 κ0 ≤ −0.7745, κ0 = −0.5
u
Nmin = Next1 , −0.7745 < κ0 ≤ −0.0634&κ0 6= −0.5 (83)

 add
Nzero , κ0 > −0.06335
4.3. Total Maneuvering Energy

For the missile guidance and control system, it is desired to impact the target with
less maneuvering in the course of guidance. Therefore, a special function E is defined to
represent the energy consumption caused by maneuvering in the whole course of guidance.
Z 1
u2 t dt

E= (84)
0
Substituting (40) into (84), the expression of E can be obtained as
( N +2)2
h
κ + 1)2 N 3 + 7κ02 + 10κ0 + 3 N2

E( N ) = (2N +1)(2N +3) ( 0 (85)
+5 3κ02 + 3κ0 + 1 N + 3 3κ02 + 3κ0 + 1

It is obvious that E is related to the initial value κ0 and the weighted gain N. Therefore,
it is necessary to analyze the minimum of E.
The derivative of E to N is
. N ( N + 2)
E( N ) = Θ a ( N, κ0 ) (86)
(2N + 1)2 (2N + 3)2
where
Θ a ( N, κ0 ) = a2 ( N )κ02 + a1 ( N )κ0 + a0 ( N ) (87)
And
a2 ( N ) = 12N 4 + 96N 3 + 275N 2 + 334N + 147
a1 ( N ) = 24N 4 + 160N 3 + 394N 2 + 436N + 183 (88)
a0 ( N ) = 12N 4 + 64N 3 + 139N 2 + 142N + 57
.
It is obvious that the sign of E( N ) is determined by the quadratic polynomial Θ a ( N, κ0 ).
The trajectory of function Θ a ( N, κ0 ) = 0 with different N and κ0 is shown in Figure 5. It is
.
obvious that it divides space ( N, κ0 ) into two regions, S1 and S2 , the one is E( N ) < 0 and
.
the other is E( N ) > 0.
As can be seen from Figure 5, there is a maximum κmax of κ0 in the trajectory of
Θ a ( N, κ0 ) = 0 which can be regarded as an implicit function of κ0 with respect to N.
Calculating the derivative of both sides of Θ a ( N, κ0 ) = 0 to N, it yields
.
2a2 ( N ) κ0 dκ0 /dN + a1 ( N )dκ0 /dN + a2 ( N )κ02
. . (89)
+ a1 ( N ) κ 0 + a0 ( N ) = 0
Θa ( N , κ0 ) = a2 ( N ) κ0 + a1 ( N ) κ0 + a0 ( N ) (87)
And
a2 ( N ) = 12 N 4 + 96 N 3 + 275 N 2 + 334 N + 147

Aerospace 2021, 8, 358
a1 ( N ) = 24 N 4 + 160 N 3 + 394 N 2 + 436 N + 183 15 of 28
(88)
a0 ( N ) = 12 N + 64 N + 139 N + 142 N + 57
4 3 2
0 ((N
where,It dκ
is 0obvious
.
/dN, a2 (that
N ), the
.
a1 ( Nsign of aE
), and  N)) are
.
is the
determined
derivativesby of
theκ0quadratic polynomial
, a2 , a1 , and a0 to N,
Θa ( N , κ 0 ) . The trajectory of function Θa ( N , κ0 ) = 0 with different N and κ 0 is
respectively. It is obvious that κ max is at the point which makes dκ 0 /dN zero. Therefore,
according to (89), κmax must meet the equation as
shown in Figure 5. It is obvious that it divides space ( N , κ 0 ) into two regions, S 1 and
. 2 . .
S , the one is E ( N ) < 0 and
 a2 ( N )κmax
the + is
other  ()N
a1 ( E
N ) > 0+. a0 ( N ) = 0
κmax (90)
2
Figure5.
Figure 5. The
The trajectory of ΘΘa (a (N,
trajectory of κ00 )) ==0 0.
N ,κ .
Because a2 , a1 , and a0 are polynomial functions of N, those derivatives can be deter-

mined in analytical manner. Additionally, because κmax is at the trajectory of Θ a ( N, κ0 ) = 0,
the following equation should be satisfied for κmax and N.
2
a2 ( N )κmax + a1 ( N )κmax + a0 ( N ) = 0 (91)
It is easy to solve the equation set (90) and (91) to obtain κmax = −0.6418.
.
Obviously, if κ0 ≥ κmax , E( N ) ≥ 0 for any N, i.e., E( N ) is the monotonic increasing
function of N. And if κ0 < κmax , two weighted gains satisfy Θ a ( N, κ0 ) = 0, which is
.
defined as NE1 and NE2 (might as well assume that NE1 < NE2 ). Then, the sign of E( N ) is
derived as ( .
E( N ) > 0, N ∈ [0, NE1 ) ∪ ( NE2 , +∞)
. (92)
E( N ) < 0, N ∈ ( NE1 , NE2 )
It is apparent that E( N ) increases with the increase of N when N ∈ [0, NE1 ), decreases
with the increase of N when N ∈ ( NE1 , NE2 ), and increases again when N ∈ ( NE2 , +∞).
Therefore, the minimum of E( N ) is at N = 0 or N = NE2 , where the values of E( N ) are
E0 = 4 3κ02 + 3κ0 + 1 ,

E2 = E( NE2 ; κ0 ) (93)
In order to determine the minimum of E2 and E0 , the difference between them is

defined as
2
NE2
E2 − E0 = Θ ( N , κ0 ) (94)
(2NE2 + 1)(2NE2 + 3) b E2
where
Θb ( NE2 , κ0 ) = b2 ( NE2 )κ02 + b1 ( NE2 )κ0 + b0 ( NE2 ) (95)
and
b2 ( N ) = N 3 + 11N 2 + 47N + 49
b1 ( N ) = 2N 3 + 18N 2 + 63N + 61 (96)
b0 ( N ) = N 3 + 7N 2 + 21N + 19
Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 16 of 28
It is obvious that the sign of E2 − E0 is determined by the quadratic polynomial

Θb ( NE2 , κ0 ), the discriminant of which satisfies

∆ = −( NE2 − 1)2 4NE2 2
+ 8NE2 + 3 < 0 (97)
Thus, it leads to the fact that Θb ( NE2 , κ0 ) > 0 because the highest degree coefficient of
Θb ( NE2 , κ0 ) is greater than zero. Furthermore, it can be obtained that E2 > E0 . It means
that E0 is the minimum value of E.
4.4. Weighted Gain for Limiting Maximum Guidance Command

In this subsection, a systematic method based on the characteristic presented in
the previous two subsections is proposed for limiting maximum guidance command by
adjusting the weighed gain N. Note that if the initial conditions are given, the maximum
of guidance command can be expressed as a function of weighed gain N. Therefore,
the set of weighted gain N that meets the acceleration limit can be determined inversely.
Additionally, the total maneuvering energy, which is an important index especially for
the missile’s maneuverability with direct force in exo-atmospheric interception, is also
dependent on the weighted gain. Therefore, it is necessary to select the weighted gain
which minimizes the total maneuvering energy while satisfying the acceleration constraint.
It can be seen from last subsection that when N = 0, the value of E is at its minimum,
and the navigation gains NZEM , NZEAE are the minimum. It is beneficial for the missile to
increase the robustness to the error. Obviously, if the maximum of guidance command for
the case N = 0, u Max (0), is less than the acceleration limit, ulim , the weighted gain should
be selected as
N=0 (98)
If u Max ( Nmin ) < ulim < u Max (0), there exists an interval ( Nlim1 , Nlim2 ) satisfying
u Max ( N ) < ulim . The weighted gain should be selected as the one makes E minimal in
this interval. If κ0 ≥ κmax , E is the monotonic increasing function of N according to the
previous subsection, and therefore the weighted gain should be selected as
N = Nlim1 (99)
And if κ0 < κmax , E is also a monotonic increasing function of N for N < NE1 or
N > NE2 , and a monotonic decreasing function for NE1 < N < NE2 . Obviously, the
minimum of E in interval ( Nlim1 , Nlim2 ) may occur at Nlim1 , Nlim2 , or NE2 . Therefore, the
weighted gain should be selected as the minimal values of E at these three points.

N = Nj min E Nj , j ∈ {lim1, lim2, E2} (100)
Let us consider a stricter case, u Max ( Nmin ) ≥ ulim . It is well known that acceleration
saturation will generally occur during the initial period. Therefore, the weighted gain Nmin
should be updated at each guidance step until the current guidance command is within the
acceleration limit. However, If the weighted gain is selected as Nmin , the acceleration will
still be saturated near the interception. A varying weighted gain N should be employed to
avoid acceleration saturation near the interception so as to improve guidance performance.
For this case, the weighted gain should be re-selected to zero at the point κ ∗ = −1/2, which
can significantly reduce the maximum of guidance command according to the Proposition
A4 presented in Appendix A.
The weighted gain satisfying the acceleration limit is obtained. Applying it to the
guidance command in the form of state feedback presented in (28), a complete guidance
law with impact-angle constraint and acceleration limit is successfully derived. It is noted
that although this method has been developed for lag-free systems, it may be applied to
lag systems as well.
ii: If umax ( N min ) > ulim , re-select the weighted gain to zero at the point
κ ∗ = −1 2 .
If yes, go to next step, if not, go to step 7.
Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 (4) Derive the closed-form expression to guidance command of the lag-free dynamic. 17 of 28
(5) Calculate the maximum of guidance command and the total maneuvering energy
based on the closed-form expression to guidance command.
(6) Select the optimal weighted gain that minimal the total maneuvering energy while
4.5.satisfying
Implementation of Proposedconstraint.
the acceleration Guidance Law
(7) UsingIn this paper,
(28), the time-to-go
generate the currentweighted
guidanceoptimal
command guidance
with thelaw with impact-angle
selected con-
weighted gain.
(8)straint
Applyandtheacceleration
guidance limit is developed.
command Thenonlinear
to the real procedure for implementing
relative motion modelthe and
proposed
up-
guidance
date thelaw is included
initial in the
state, then flowstep
return chart2.in Figure 6 and summarized in detail as follows.
IACOGL with
Initilization IACOGL Acceleration Limit Plant
Closed-form Expression to
Guidance Command
Mission Objective
Linear Relative
Motion Model
Initial State Maximum of Guidance Command Real Nonlinear
and Total Maneuvering Energy Relative Motion Model
IACOGL with a
Variable Weighted Gain
Yes Optimal Weighted Gain
First Guidance step or

Update Weighted Gain ?
Current Guidance Command
No
Figure 6. 6.
Figure The flowchart
The ofof
flowchart implementation.
implementation.
(1) Initialization: Set initial simulation parameters.

(2) Linearization of relative motion model: Construct the linear model for guidance law
derivation based on the current value of VM , VT , γ M , γT , and λ.
(3) Determine whether to update the weighted gain according to the following conditions:
a. The current guidance step is the first one.
b. There is the case mentioned in the previous subsection where the weighted
gain needs to be updated:
i: The current guidance command generated by the current weighted gain
is not within the acceleration limit, update the weighted gain as Nmin .
ii: If umax ( Nmin ) > ulim , re-select the weighted gain to zero at the point
κ ∗ = −1/2.
If yes, go to next step, if not, go to step 7.
(4) Derive the closed-form expression to guidance command of the lag-free dynamic.
(5) Calculate the maximum of guidance command and the total maneuvering energy
based on the closed-form expression to guidance command.
(6) Select the optimal weighted gain that minimal the total maneuvering energy while
satisfying the acceleration constraint.
(7) Using (28), generate the current guidance command with the selected weighted gain.
(8) Apply the guidance command to the real nonlinear relative motion model and update
the initial state, then return step 2.
5. Simulation Results
In this section, numerical simulations using the nonlinear engagement kinematics
are carried out to evaluate the performance of the proposed guidance law. Three cases
with different initial flight-path angle and impact-angle constraint are considered, which
are: (a) case 1: γ M (0) = 0◦ , γcf = 0◦ ; (b) case 2: γ M (0) = −20◦ , γcf = 0◦ ; (c) case 1:
γ M (0) = −20◦ , γcf = −20◦ . The initial parameters κ0 corresponding to these three cases
Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 18 of 28
are 0, −0.6, and −1.7, respectively, which are typical cases for the category of κ0 . And the
other required initial conditions are listed in Table 1. A first-order lag with a time constant
of 0.3 s is considered for the interceptor. All programs are implemented on a computer
with a 2.6 GHz processor and 2016a MATLAB environment.
Table 1. Initial Conditions for Engagement.
Parameters Values
Missile-target initial relative range, r (0) 230 km
Initial LOS angle, λ(0) 0◦
Missile initial velocity, VM (0) 4000 m/s
Target initial velocity, VT (0) 3000 m/s
Target initial flight-path angle, γT (0) 0◦
Gravitational acceleration, g 9.8 m/s2
5.1. Normal Simulation of Proposed Guidance Law

Aerospace 2021, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 30
Numerical simulation is carried out in this subsection in which different initial condi-
tions and weighted gains are considered to verify the previous theoretical results. Figure 7
provide the
ning of the simulation
flight. And then, results of instantaneous
it shapely reduces to the ZEM and ZEAE
non-saturation. obtainedthe
Therefore, byaccel-
the proposed
guidance law with N = 0, 0.5, 1. It is obvious that both instantaneous
eration saturation will not have much influence on the terminal miss. The phenomenon ZEM and ZEAE
can be inferred from Figure 10b,c. Conclusively, the method derived from the linear lag- law is
converge to zeros at the time of impact, which means that the proposed guidance
capable
free of guiding
systems the for
is still valid missile to intercept
the nonlinear the target with desired terminal angle for N ≥ 0.
lag systems.
20
N=0 N=0 N=0
Zero-Effor-Miss (km)
40 40
15 N=0.5 N=0.5 N=0.5
N=1 N=1 N=1
10 20
20
5 0
0
0
-20
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
20
Zero-Effor-Angle-Error (。)
0
0
10
-10
-10
0
N=0 -20 N=0 N=0
-20 N=0.5 N=0.5 N=0.5
N=1 -30 N=1 -10 N=1
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Flight Time (s) Flight Time (s) Flight Time (s)
(a) (b) (c)
Figure
Figure7.7.ZEM
ZEMand ZEAE.
and (a) case
ZEAE. 1; (b)1;case
(a) case (b) 2; (c) case
case 2; (c)3.case 3.
0 0
Figure 8 shows the histories of the missile accelerations. Obviously, for κ0 = 0 and
κ0 = −1.7, there exists a critical point for the cases0 with N = 0.5 and N = 1; for κ0 = −0.6
-3
-3 there exists a critical point for the case with N = 1. The simulation results are consistent
y (km)
y (km)
y (km)
with the theory-6presented in Section 4.2.1, which implies that, if N ∈ Next , there is a critical
-6 pointN=0
in the acceleration profile. -3
N=0 N=0
In order to-9further verify the validity
N=0.5 N=0.5of the proposed method for limiting
N=0.5 maximum
-9 N=1
acceleration, some comparisons withN=1 -6
linear lag-free system, nonlinearN=1 lag-free system,
-12
0 50 100 150as well
200 as 250nonlinear
0 first-order
50 100 150 lag system
200 250 have been
0 done.
50 100The150simulation
200 250results are
x (km) demonstrated in Figures 9–11. x (km)
The subfigure (a), (b), and (c) xrespectively
(km) show the max-
(a) imum accelerations of the three (b) system with various N, the (c) dimensionless time-to-go
Figure 8. Missile acceleration. (a) case 1; (b) case 2; (c) case 3.
ration (m/s2)
ration (m/s2)
Time-to-go
140 Linear 1.0 80

Nonlinear&T=0
120 Nonlinear&T=0.3 40
20 can be inferred from Figure 10b,c. Conclusively, the method derived from the linear lag-
N=0 is still valid for the nonlinear lag systems.
N=0 N=0
free systems 40
40
15 N=0.5 N=0.5 N=0.5
20 N=1 N=1 N=1
10 N=0 N=0 20 N=0
(km)
4020 40
Aerospace 2021, 8,15
358 N=0.5 19 of 28 N=0.5 N=0.5
Zero-Effor-Angle-Error (。) Zero-Effor-Miss

5 N=1 N=1 N=1
10 20 0
20 0
0
5 -20
0 histories
corresponding to the maximum acceleration, and the of the real acceleration for
0 10 20 30 0 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
0 three systems, in which the weighted gain is selected as N = Nmin .
20
-20
0 0 10 20 Obviously,
30 the0 maximum
10 acceleration
20 30 of nonlinear0 simulation
10 20is approximate
30 to, in
0
most cases even slightly less than, that of linear lag-free system except for the case 2. The
20
0 reason is that the0first-order lag system is considered in 10the simulation, which leads to
-10
-10 a lag for the response of command tracking. Therefore, it can be seen from Figures 9c and
10
11c, the maximum -10 acceleration at the beginning, is less than 0 that in linear lag-free system.
-10 -20
N=0 for the case 1, the acceleration N=0
Accordingly, at the critical point t1 is also less thanN=0 that in
N=0.5 system. 0
-20 linear lag-free
N=0 -20 As for the case 2,N=0 the N=0.5
maximum -10 acceleration is a little N=0.5
N=0 bigger than
N=1 -30 N=1 N=1
-20 N=0.5
its theoretical value due to nonlinear and N=0.5
first-order lag. This may resultN=0.5 in acceleration
N=1 -30 -10
0 10 20
saturation. 30 But the maximum
0 10 20 N=1 30 is happened
for the acceleration 0 at the10beginning N=1
20 of the30flight.
0 10 20
Flight Time (s)
And 30
then, it shapely0 10
reduces 20
Flight Time (s)
to the 30
non-saturation. 0
Therefore,10 the 20 30
Flight Time (s)
acceleration saturation
Flight(a)
Time
will(s)not have much influence Flight
onTime (s)
the(b)
terminal Flight Timecan
miss. The phenomenon (s) (c)
be inferred from
(a)Figure 10b,c. Conclusively, the method (b) (c)
derived from the linear lag-free systems is still valid
for theFigure 7. ZEMlag
nonlinear andsystems.
ZEAE. (a) case 1; (b) case 2; (c) case 3.
Figure 7. ZEM and ZEAE. (a) case 1; (b) case 2; (c) case 3.
0 0 0
0
0
-3 -3 -3-3 0
y (km)
y (km)
y (km)
y (km)
y (km)
y (km)
-6-6
-6 -6
-3 -3
N=0
N=0 N=0 N=0 N=0 N=0
N=0.5 -9-9 N=0.5N=0.5 N=0.5
N=0.5 N=0.5
N=1 N=1 N=1 -6
-9 -9 N=1
-12
-6 N=1 N=1
0 50 100 150 200 250 -12
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
0 50 100x (km)
150 200 250 0 50 x 100
(km)
150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
x (km)
x (km)
(a) (b)x (km) (c) x (km)
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 8.
Figure 8. Missile
Missileacceleration.
acceleration.(a) (a)
casecase
1; (b)
1;case 2; (c) 2;
(b) case case
(c)3.case 3.
Figure 8. Missile acceleration. (a) case 1; (b) case 2; (c) case 3.
Maximum Acceleration (m/s2)
Missile Acceleration (m/s2)

Dimensionless Time-to-go
140 Linear 1.0 80

Maximum Acceleration (m/s2)
Missile Acceleration (m/s2)

140 Nonlinear&T=0
Linear 1.0 80
120 Nonlinear&T=0.3 40
Nonlinear&T=0
120100 Nonlinear&T=0.3 0.5 40
0
0.5
100 80 -40 0
0.0
80 60 -80 -40
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 10 20 30
N 0.0 N Flight Time (s)
60 (a) (b) -80 (c)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 10 20 30
N N
Figure 9. Some comparisons for three systems in case 1. (a) Maximum acceleration; (b) Dimensionless Flight Timecorre-
time-to-go (s)
(a) (b)
sponding to the maximum acceleration; (c) History of the missile acceleration. (c)
Figure9.9.Some
Figure Somecomparisons
comparisonsfor
forthree
threesystems
systemsin incase
case1.1.(a)
(a)Maximum
Maximumacceleration;
acceleration; (b)
(b)Dimensionless
Dimensionless time-to-go
time-to-go corre-
corre-
spondingto
sponding tothe
themaximum
maximumacceleration;
acceleration;(c)
(c)History
Historyofofthe
themissile
missileacceleration.
acceleration.
Aerospace 2021,8,8,x358
Aerospace 20 of3028
Aerospace2021,
2021, 8, xFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 21
21 of
of 30
110
110 120
120
(m/s22))
(m/s22))
Time-to-go
Acceleration (m/s
Acceleration (m/s
1.0
1.0
Maximum Acceleration
Missile Acceleration
80
80
100
100
Dimensionless
0.8
0.8
Linear
Linear 40
40
90
90 Nonlinear&T=0
Nonlinear&T=0
Maximum
Missile
Nonlinear&T=0.3
Nonlinear&T=0.3
0.6
0.6 00
0.0
0.0 0.2
0.2 0.4
0.4 0.6
0.6 0.8
0.8 1.0
1.0 0.0
0.0 0.2
0.2 0.4
0.4 0.6
0.6 0.8
0.8 1.0
1.0 00 10
10 20
20 30
30
NN NN Flight
FlightTime
Time(s)
(s)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b) (c)
(c)
Figure10.
Figure
Figure 10. Some
10.Some
Some comparisons
comparisons
comparisons forfor
for three
three
three systems
systems
systems in in case
incase
case (a)2.
2.2.(a) (a) Maximum
Maximum
Maximum acceleration;
acceleration;
acceleration;(b) (b) Dimensionless
(b)Dimensionless
Dimensionless time-to-go
time-to-go
time-to-go corre-
corre-
corresponding
sponding
spondingto tothe to the
themaximummaximum acceleration;
maximumacceleration;
acceleration;(c) (c)
(c)HistoryHistory
Historyofofthe of the
themissile missile acceleration.
acceleration.
1.1
1.1
(m/s22))
(m/s22))
Time-to-go
200
200
Acceleration (m/s
Acceleration (m/s
350
350 Linear
Linear
Nonlinear&T=0
Nonlinear&T=0
Maximum Acceleration
Missile Acceleration
Nonlinear&T=0.3
Nonlinear&T=0.3 100
100
300
300
1.0
1.0
Dimensionless
00
250
250
Maximum
Missile
-100
-100
200
200
0.9
0.9
0.0
0.0 0.2
0.2 0.4
0.4 0.6
0.6 0.8
0.8 1.0
1.0 0.0
0.0 0.2
0.2 0.4
0.4 0.6
0.6 0.8
0.8 1.0
1.0 00 10
10 20
20 30
30
NN NN Flight
FlightTime
Time(s)
(s)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b) (c)
(c)
Figure
Figure11.
Figure 11.Some
11. Some
Some comparisons
comparisons for
comparisons three
forfor systems
three
three in
incase
systems
systems 3.3.(a)
in case
case Maximum
(a)3. acceleration;
(a) Maximum
Maximum (b)
(b)Dimensionless
acceleration;
acceleration; time-to-go
(b) Dimensionless
Dimensionless corre-
time-to-go
time-to-go corre-
sponding
sponding to
tothe
corresponding maximum
theto
maximum acceleration;
acceleration;
the maximum (c)
(c)History
History
acceleration; of
ofthe
(c) Historytheofmissile
acceleration.
the missile acceleration.
5.2.
5.2.Comparison
Comparisonwith withOther
OtherGuidance
GuidanceLaw Law
5.2. Comparison with Other Guidance Law
The
The OGL-CTIA
OGL-CTIA proposed
proposedin in [10]
[10] isis aa widely
widelyused used andand effective
effective guidance
guidance law law totoim-
im-
pose aThe OGL-CTIA
specified proposed
impact-angle. in
In [10]
this is a widely
subsection,
pose a specified impact-angle. In this subsection, a comparison between the proposed useda and effective
comparison guidance
between law
the to impose
proposed
a specified
guidance
guidance law
lawimpact-angle.
and
andOGL-CTIA
OGL-CTIA In this subsection,
isisprovided
provided to ademonstrate
comparisonthe
todemonstrate between
the superior
superior theperformance
proposed guidance
performance of
ofthe
the
law
proposed and OGL-CTIA is provided to demonstrate the superior performance of the proposed
proposedguidance guidancelaw lawin inlimiting
limitingmaximum maximumacceleration. acceleration.In Inthe
thesimulations,
simulations,the theengage-
engage-
guidance law in limiting maximum acceleration. In the simulations, the engagement
ment
mentcondition
conditionisisset settotocase
case11and andthe thevarious
variousacceleration
accelerationlimits limitsareareinvolved.
involved.
condition is set to case 1 and the various acceleration limits are involved.
Figure
Figure 12 12 shows
shows the the interception
interception trajectories trajectories of of both
both guidance
guidance laws laws withwith
Figure 13 22shows the interception trajectories of both guidance laws with
uuulim = 65,75,85m
lim == 65,75,85m s .. As
65, 75, 85 sm/s As2 . can
As be
can be seen
can seen
be seenfrom
fromfrom those figures,
thosethosefigures, both
both guidance
figures, guidance
both laws
guidancelaws perform
perform
laws well
well
perform
lim
22
well when
when
when the the acceleration
the acceleration
acceleration limit isis 85m
limit limit 85mis 85 ss m/s 2 . Ifacceleration
.. IfIf the
the the acceleration
acceleration limitlimit
limit to 65m
is stricter
isis stricter
stricter to 65m
to s22 or
65 sm/s or2
or 75ss2m/s2
2 , the proposed method also performs well. However, the OGL-CTIA fails to
75m
75m ,,the
theproposed
proposedmethodmethodalso alsoperforms
performswell. well.However,
However,the theOGL-CTIA
OGL-CTIAfails failstotointer-
inter-
intercept the target. The statistics of the miss distances and the impact-angle errors are
cept
cept the
the target. The statistics of
of the
the miss distances and and the
the impact-angle errors
errors are listed
listed intarget.
Table 2. The
The statistics
computational miss
timedistances
at every guidance impact-angle
step of the proposed are listed
method
in
in Table
Table 2.
2. The
The computational
computational time
time at
at every
every guidance
and OGL-CTIA is presented in Figure 12. It is obvious that the computational timeguidance step
step of
of the
the proposed
proposed method
method and
andof
OGL-CTIA
OGL-CTIA is
ispresented
presented in
in Figure
Figure 13.
13. It
It is
is obvious
obvious
the proposed method is almost same as that of OGL-CTIA. Therefore, the increase of that
that the
the computational
computational time
time of
of the
the pro-
pro-
posed
posed method
method isisburden
computational almost
almost same sametoas
due as that
that of
solving OGL-CTIA.
ofthe OGL-CTIA. Therefore,
Therefore,gain
optimal weighted the
the increase
increase
is less andof
of computa-
computa-
negligible,
tional
tional burden
burden due
due to
to solving
solving the
the optimal
optimal weighted
weighted
so the real-time computational feasibility of the proposed method can be guaranteed. gain
gain is
is less
less and
and negligible,
negligible, so
so the
thereal-
real-
time
timecomputational
computationalfeasibility
feasibilityof ofthe
theproposed
proposedmethod methodcan canbe beguaranteed.
guaranteed.
Table 2. Miss Distances and Impact-angle Errors of Two Guidance Laws.
Acceleration Proposed Guidance OGL-CTIA

Limit (m/s2 ) Miss (m) Angle Error (deg) Miss (m) Angle Error (deg)
65 2.04 × 10−3 1.52 × 10−3 257.54 1.26
75 7.42×10−3 8.08×10−3 32.88 0.26
85 3.68 × 10−3 4.11 × 10−3 3.68 × 10−3 4.11 × 10−3
OGL-CTIA
Target
-9 -9 -9
0 100 150 50 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
x (km) x (km) x (km)
Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 (a) (b) (c) 21 of 28
2 2 2
Figure 12. Interception trajectories. (a) ulim = 65 m s ; (b) ulim = 75 m s ; (c) ulim = 85 m s ;
Computational time (s)

OGL-CTIA OGL-CTIA OGL-CTIA
10-4 Proposed 10-4 Proposed 10-4 Proposed
10-5 10-5 10-5
10-6 10-6 10-6
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
(a) (b) (c)
Aerospace 2021, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 30
Figure
Figure13.
12.Computational
Computationaltime. (a) uulimlim==
time.(a) m s 2 ; 2(b)
6565m/s ; (b)uulimlim= = m s 2 ; (c)
75 75m/s 2 ; (c)u u = 85
limlim
=m s2 . 2.
85m/s

0 0 0
-5.6
Acceleration -5.4
Proposed Guidance -5.4OGL-CTIA
-5.4
Limit (m/s2) -3 Miss-5.3
(m) -5.3
Angle Error (deg) -3 Miss (m) Angle Error (deg)
-3 -5.2
y (km)
y (km)
y (km)
130 131 132
65 2.04×10130
-3 131 1321.52×10-3 257.54 130 131 132 1.26
75 7.42×10-3 8.08×10-3 32.88 0.26
-6 Proposed
85 -6 3.68×10-3 4.11×10-3 -6 3.68×10-3 4.11×10-3
OGL-CTIA
Target
-9 The missile’s
-9 accelerations for different guidance-9laws are given in Figure 14. It is
0 50 100 150 200 that the accelerations
obvious 0 50 100
of all 150 200the proposed
cases for 0 50 100law 150
guidance 200 the
are within
x (km) limiting value throughout the xhoming
(km) x (km)
phase. However, the acceleration for OGL-CTIA
(a) (b) (c) 2
saturates during the last seconds when the acceleration limits are restricted to 75 m s
Figure Interception
13.12.
Figure trajectories.
Interception ulimulim
(a)(a)
trajectories.
2 m s22; (b)
= =6565m/s ulim== 75
; (b)ulim m s 22 ; (c) uulim
75m/s = 85
= s 2 2; .
85mm/s
and 65 m s . That leads to the failure to intercept the target. It should be noted that only lim
The missile’s accelerations for different guidance laws are given in Figure 2 14. It is
one case is successful because the acceleration limiting value is
obvious that the accelerations of all cases for the proposed guidance law are within is only 85 m s , which the
OGL-CTIA
much looser
limiting thanthroughout
value that in other thecases.
homing OGL-CTIA
Conclusively, the proposed
phase. However, guidance law
the acceleration forOGL-CTIA
improves
OGL-CTIA
10-4 theProposed
effectiveness
saturates during of -4
10the
direct
lasthit in comparison
seconds when Proposed
thewith other 10
acceleration
-4
guidance laws.
limits are Note that
restricted Proposed
toa75 salta-
m/s2
tion
andin65the
m/sacceleration
2 . That leads profile
to theoffailure
the proposed
to interceptguidance law occurred
the target. It should for the case
be noted with
that only
2
10-5
u one
lim = 65 m
case s
is successful
. The
10-5 reasonbecause
is the
that, at acceleration
this point, N
limiting
suddenly
10-5
value is only
becomes 85
zero m/sin 2 , which is
response
tomuch looseracceleration
the coming than that in saturation,
other cases.whichConclusively,
is shownthe proposed
in Figure 15. guidance law improves
the effectiveness of direct hit in comparison with other guidance laws. Note that a salta-
10-6 10-6
tion in the acceleration profile of the proposed guidance 10-6 law occurred for the case with
Aerospace 2021, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 23 of 30
0 10 20ulim = 30 65 m/s . The 0 reason10 is that, at20this point,30 N suddenly 0 becomes 10 zero20 in response 30 to
Flight Time the
(s) coming acceleration saturation, which
Flight Time (s) is shown in Figure 15. Flight Time (s)
(a) (b) (c)
90 90 2 2
90 2
Figure 13. Computational time. (a) ulim = 65 m s ; (b) ulim = 75 m s ; (c) ulim = 85 m s .
Acceleration (m/s2)
Acceleration (m/s2)
Acceleration (m/s2)
45 45 45
0 0 0
Acceleration Proposed Guidance OGL-CTIA
Limit (m/s2) Miss (m) Angle Error (deg) Miss (m) Angle Error (deg)
-45 Proposed -45 Proposed -3 -45 Proposed
65 2.04×10 -3 1.52×10 257.54 1.26
-90 75 -90 7.42×10-3 8.08×10-3 -90 32.88 0.26
0 10 20 30 85 0 10
3.68×10 -3 20 30
4.11×10 -3 0 3.68×1010 -3 20 30 -3
4.11×10
(a) (b) (c)
The missile’s accelerations for different guidance laws are given in Figure 14. It is
Figure14.
Figure obvious
14.Missile
Missile that the (a)
acceleration.
acceleration. = 65
ulim = 65 m
accelerations
(a)ulim s 2 2;;all
of
m/s uulim
(b)cases
(b) =for
lim =
75
75mthes 2 proposed
m/s ; (c)uulimlim= =
;2(c) 85 s 2 ; 2 . law are within the
m m/s
guidance
85
limiting value throughout the homing phase. However, the acceleration for OGL-CTIA
2
saturates during the last seconds when the acceleration
0.6 limits are restricted to 75 m s
∗
2 κ
0.0 65 m s . That leads to the failure to intercept the target. It should be noted that only
and
N
2
one case is successful because the acceleration limiting
0.4 value is only 85 m s , which is
much looser than that in other cases. Conclusively, the proposed guidance law improves
-0.2
the effectiveness of direct hit in comparison with other guidance laws. Note that a salta-
*
-90-45 Proposed -90-45 Proposed -90-45 Proposed
Ac
Ac
Ac
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
-90 Flight Time (s) -90 Flight Time (s) -90 Flight Time (s)
0 10 (a) 20 30 0 10 (b) 20 30 0 10 (c) 20 30
2
Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 Figure ; (b) ulim = 75 m s 2 ; (c) ulim = 85 m s 2 ; (c)
(a)14. Missile acceleration. (a) ulim = 65 m s(b) 22 of 28
Figure 14. Missile acceleration. (a) ulim = 65 m s 2 ; (b) ulim = 75 m s 2 ; (c) ulim = 85 m s 2 ;
0.6
κ∗
0.0 N 0.6
κ∗
0.0 0.4
N
-0.2 0.4
κ*
N
-0.2 0.2
κ*
N
-0.4 0.2
-0.5
-0.4 0.0
-0.6
-0.5 0.0
0 20 10 30
-0.6 Flight Time (s)
0 10 20 30
Figure 15. κ ∗
Flight =
and N with lim 65(s)
u Time m s2 .
15. κκ∗∗ and

Figure 15.
Figure andN N
with
with 65 m/s22 .
lim = 65m s .
ulim u=
The miss distance, impact-angle error, and the total maneuvering energy for different
acceleration limiting
The miss values
distance, are displayed
impact-angle in Figure
error, and the16. Obviously,
total maneuveringthe proposed
energy forguidance
different
law The miss
can achieve distance,
successful impact-angle
interception error, and the
withindesired total maneuvering energy for different
acceleration limiting values are displayed Figure impact-angle
16. Obviously,ifthe theproposed
acceleration lim-
guidance
acceleration
iting limiting asvalues
62 m/sare displayed in Figure 16.will Obviously,
fail if thethe proposed guidance
lawvalue is as
can achieve lowsuccessful 2. However,
interceptionOGL-CTIA
with desired impact-angle acceleration limit is
if the acceleration
law can
below achieve
82 m/s 2. This successful
is low
because interception with saturates
2 . However, desired impact-angle if the acceleration lim-
limiting value is as as 62them/s acceleration OGL-CTIA duringwillthe
faillast seconds
if the when the
acceleration limit
iting value
acceleration is as low
2are as 62 m/s 2. However, OGL-CTIA will fail if the acceleration limit is
is below 82limits
m/s . Thisstricter, causing
is because the large miss distance
acceleration saturates and terminal
during the angle error. Alt-
last seconds when
belowthe
hough 82 m/s
total
2. This is because the acceleration saturates during the last seconds when the
maneuvering energy has increased, it is not too much, by only 11.5%.
the acceleration limits are stricter, causing large miss distance and terminal angle error.
acceleration
Therefore, islimits areconclude
stricter, causing thelarge miss distance and
lawterminal angle error. Alt-
Althoughitthe easy
total tomaneuvering that
energy proposed guidance
has increased, it is not hasmuch,
too a superior perfor-
by only 11.5%.
hough
mance the total
in dealing
Therefore, it is easy maneuvering
with the stricter
to conclude energy has
thataccelerationincreased,
the proposed limit it is not
in comparison
guidance too much, by
with typical
law has a superior only 11.5%.
OGL-
performance
Therefore,
CTIA. it is easy
in dealing with to conclude
the stricter that the
acceleration proposed
limit guidance
in comparison lawtypical
with has a OGL-CTIA.
superior perfor-
mance in dealing with the stricter acceleration limit in comparison with typical OGL-
CTIA. 10
Terminal Anglle Error (。)
1000
Proposed
110
Total Engry (kJ)
OGL-CTIA
Terminal Anglle Error (。)
1000 39
10 Proposed
Miss (m)
0.1 1
Total Engry (kJ)
OGL-CTIA 39
10
Miss (m)
0.010.1 36
0.1
0.001
0.01 36
0.1
0.001 1E-4
0.001 33
60 70 80 90 100 60 70 80 90 100 60 70 80 90 100
2 2 2
0.001 Acceleration Limit (m/s ) 1E-4 Acceleration Limit (m/s ) 33 Acceleration Limit (m/s )
60 70 (a)80 90 100 60 70 (b)80 90 100 60 70 (c)80 90 100
2 2
Acceleration Limit (m/s ) Acceleration Limit (m/s ) Acceleration Limit (m/s2)
Figure 16.16.
Figure Interception results
Interception forfor
(a)results various acceleration
various limiting
acceleration values.
limiting (b) (a)(a)
values. Miss distance;
Miss (b)(b)
distance; Impact-angle error;
Impact-angle (c) (c) (c)
error; Total
Total
maneuvering
maneuvering energy
energy.
Figure 16. Interception results for various acceleration limiting values. (a) Miss distance; (b) Impact-angle error; (c) Total
maneuvering energy
6. Conclusions
A guidance law is proposed for imposing a predetermined impact-angle with the
acceleration limit using linear optimal control methodology. This guidance law introduces
a time-varying weighted function at the cost of control energy so that the acceleration
profile can be regulated by adjusting the weighted gain. Furthermore, the relationship
between the maximum of guidance command, the total maneuvering energy and the
weighted gain is derived in the framework of linear lag-free system. And a method
to select the suitable weighted gain to limit the maximum acceleration is developed.
Several numerical simulations with linear lag-free system, nonlinear lag-free system, and
nonlinear lag system are carried out to verify the performance of the proposed guidance
law. The results demonstrate that, even when the scenario is initiated with largely different
impact-angle requirement, the guidance laws exhibited excellent performance by providing
near-zero miss distance and intercept angle error. Additionally, the proposed guidance law
Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 23 of 28
also has superior performance in dealing with the stricter acceleration limit in comparison
with typical OGL-CTIA. Benefiting from this character, the proposed method greatly
improves the interceptor’s warhead lethality, resulting in possible warhead size reduction.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.Z. and W.C.; methodology, S.Z. and L.Y.; software, S.Z.;
validation, S.Z., W.C. and L.Y.; investigation, S.Z. and L.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, S.Z.;
writing—review and editing, L.Y.; funding acquisition, L.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(NSFC) under Grant 62003019.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data used to support the findings of this study are available from
the corresponding author upon request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Proposition A1. If κ0 ≤ −1, f add ( N ) < 0in set Nadd ; if κ0 > −1, there is one and only one
add in set N
weighted gain Nzero add such that f add ( N ) = 0 and
 n o
 f add ( N ) ≤ 0, N ∈ Nadd N ≤ Nzero
 add
n o (A1)
 f add ( N ) > 0, N ∈ Nadd N > Nzero
 add
Proof of Proposition A1. (1) If κ0 ≤ −1, the set Nadd = Next = [0, +∞). It can be easily
obtained that for any N ∈ [0, +∞)
C2 = ( N + 3)κ0 + ( N + 2) ≤ −( N + 3) + ( N + 2) = −1 (A2)
Then, the sign of f add ( N ) can be derived as

N
f add ( N ) = C2 − 1 − C2 t go1 < C2 − 1 − C2 < 0 (A3)
(2) If κ0 > −1, let us firstly consider the case that N ∈ (max{0, N3 }, ∞). For simplification,
a function of N is defined as
N
gadd ( N ) , f add /C2 = 1 − 1/C2 − t go1 , N ∈ (max{0, N3 }, ∞) (A4)
Its derivative to N is
. 2 N
g add = (κ0 + 1)/C2 − t go1 f ( N ) (A5)
where
1 1 1 1
f (N) =N N + N − N0 +1 − N +3 − N − N0
(A6)
( N − N0 +1)
+ ln ( N
N +3)( N − N )
, N0 = −(2κ0 + 1)/(κ0 + 1)
0
If κ0 > −1, it is obvious that N0 ∈ (−2, +∞). In order to get the sign of f ( N ), let us
introduce a function
M ( a) = ln NN− a − NN−a ; N − a > 0 (A7)
Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 24 of 28
The derivative of M( a) to a is
(
dM −a > 0, a < 0
= = (A8)
da ( N − a )2 < 0, a > 0
Using M ( a), the function f ( N ) can be rewritten as
f ( N ) = M (−3) + M ( N0 ) − M ( N0 − 1) − M (0) (A9)
If N0 ∈ (−2, 0], −3 < N0 − 1 < N0 < 0, then
f ( N ) = [ M(−3) − M ( N0 − 1)] + [ M( N0 ) − M(0)] < 0 (A10)
If N0 ∈ (0, 1], −3 < N0 − 1 < 0 < N0 , then
f ( N ) = [ M(−3) − M ( N0 − 1)] + [ M ( N0 ) − M(0)] < 0 (A11)
And if N0 ∈ (1, +∞), −3 < 0 < N0 − 1 < N0 , then
f ( N ) = [ M( N0 ) − M ( N0 − 1)] + [ M (−3) − M (0)] < 0 (A12)
Therefore, it is obvious that f ( N ) < 0 for any κ0 > −1 and N ∈ Nadd . Then, it is easy
to find that gadd is a monotonic function and its derivative is larger than zero.
. 2 N
g add = (κ0 + 1)/C2 − t go1 f ( N ) > 0 (A13)
when N → +∞ , the limit value of gadd can be found, which is larger than zero.

N
gadd (+∞) = lim 1 − 1/C2 − t go1 = 1 − e−2 > 0 (A14)
N →+∞
If κ0 ≥ −1/3, N3 ≤ 0, the left boundary value of gadd ( N ) is

N
gadd (0) = lim 1 − 1/C2 − t go1 = −1/(3κ0 + 2) < 0 (A15)
N →0
And if −1 < κ0 < −1/3, N3 > 0, the left boundary value of gadd ( N ) is
N
gadd ( N3 ) = −t go1 < 0 (A16)
Conclusively, there is one and only one N = Nzero add in interval (max{0, N }, ∞ ) such
3
that f add ( N ) = 0 according to Zero Point Theorem. Moreover, the sign of f add ( N ) can be
easily derived as  i
 f ( N ) ≤ 0, N ∈ max{0, N }, N add
 add 3 zero
(A17)
add , + ∞
 f add ( N ) > 0, N ∈ Nzero

It should be noted that if −1 < κ0 < −2/3, Nadd include an interval [0, N1 ) apart from
[ N3 , +∞). For that case, C2 < 0. Therefore,

N
f add ( N ) = C2 1 − t go1 − 1 < 0 (A18)
because t go1 < 1, and therefore, there is no zero point of f add ( N ) in interval [0, N1 ).
Proposition A2. If κ0 > −1, for any N ∈ Nsub , f sub ( N )is always larger than zero.
Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 25 of 28
Proof of Proposition A2. For simplifying the derivation, κ0 is regard as the independent
variable. The derivative of f sub to κ0 is

d f sub N N
= ( N + 3) + t go1 N + 3 − (A19)
dκ0 C1
For any N ∈ Nsub = [max{0, N2 }, N3 ], it is easy to find the expression of the minimum
of κ0 according to (43).
κmin = −( N + 3/2)/( N + 3) (A20)
Substitute (A20) into (37), the minimal value of C1 is obtained as
C1,min = ( N + 2)κmin + N + 1 = N/[2( N + 3)] (A21)
Next, substitute (A21) into (A19), we can get the lower boundary of the derivative of
N
f sub to κ0 , which is large than zero since t go1 is within [0, 1].
!
d f sub N N
N

> ( N + 3) + t go1 N + 3 − = ( N + 3) 1 − t go1 > 0 (A22)
dκ0 C1,min
It is obvious that f sub is a monotonic increasing function of κ0 . Furthermore, substitut-

ing (A20) into (53), the value of f sub for the case κ0 = κmin is
f sub |κmin = 0 (A23)
Therefore, it is obvious that
f sub ( N ) > f sub |κmin = 0 (A24)
Proposition A3. If κ0 > −1 and κ0 6= −1/2, there is one and only one zero point of Γ( N )in the
interval [max{0, N2 }, +∞). And, if κ0 = −1/2, there is no zero point of Γ( N )in the interval
[max{0, N2 }, +∞).
Proof of Proposition A3 . If κ0 > −1, according to (70), the derivative of Γ( N ) to N is

. N ( N − N0 +1) N0 (3N0 +2)
N0 +2
Γ( N ) = ln ( N + 2
− N − N0 +
+3)( N − N )
0 N ( N − N0 )2
N0 ( N0 +1)
(A25)
N0 +1 1 3
+ N− N0 +1 − ( N − N0 +1)2
+ N +3 +
( N +3)2
where
N0 = −(2κ0 + 1)/(κ0 + 1) (A26)
For simplifying the derivation, N0 is also regard as the independent variable and
.
Γ( N ) is defined as Λ( N, N0 ). According to (A26), it is obvious that N0 is within (−2, +∞)
if κ0 > −1. Furthermore, in order to satisfy N ≥ max{0, N2 }, the variables N and N0 must
meet the inequality, 2N − 3N0 ≥ 0. The partial derivative of Λ( N, N0 ) to N0 is
" #
∂Λ 5N + N0 + 4 N + N0 + 3
= N0 − (A27)
∂N0 ( N − N0 )3 ( N − N0 + 1)3
In order to get the sign of ∂Λ/∂N0 , let define
5N + N0 + 4 N + N0 + 3
Ω( N, N0 ) = 3
− (A28)
( N − N0 ) ( N − N0 + 1)3
Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 26 of 28
It is obvious that 0 < N − N0 < N − N0 + 1 if 2N − 3N0 ≥ 0. And then, Ω( N, N0 ) is

large than zero.
5N + N0 + 4 N + N0 + 3 4N + 1
Ω( N, N0 ) > 3
− 3
= >0 (A29)
( N − N0 + 1) ( N − N0 + 1) ( N − N0 + 1)3
Therefore, if N0 ∈ (−2, 0), Λ( N, N0 ) is decreasing in the direction of N0 , and if

N0 ∈ (0, +∞), Λ( N, N0 ) is increasing, i.e., N0 = 0 is the minimum point of Λ( N, N0 ).
Λ( N, N0 ) ≥ Λ( N, N0 = 0) (A30)
Subsisting N0 = 0 into (A25), the value of Λ( N, N0 = 0) is
N+1 1 1 3
Λ( N, N0 = 0) = ln + + + (A31)
N+3 N+1 N + 3 ( N + 3)2
The derivative of Λ( N, N0 = 0) to N is
dΛ( N, N0 = 0) 3 6
=− 2 2
− <0 (A32)
dN ( N + 1) ( N + 3) ( N + 3)3
Therefore, it is obvious that
Λ( N, N0 = 0) > lim Λ( N, N0 = 0) = 0 (A33)

N →∞
.
It can be easily obtained from (A30) and (A33) that Γ( N ) = Λ( N, N0 ) > 0, i.e., Γ( N ) is
the monotonic increasing function. When N → +∞ , the limit value of Γ( N ) can be found,
which is bounded by two.
Γ(+∞) = lim Γ( N ) = 2 (A34)
N →+∞
According to (70), if κ0 > −1 and κ0 6= −1/2, the left boundary value of Γ( N ) is
 lim Γ( N ) = −∞,

κ0 > −1/2
N →0
Γ(max{0, N2 }) = (A35)
 lim Γ( N ) = 2κ0 < 0, −1 < κ0 < −1/2
N → N2
u
Conclusively, there is one and only one zero point, Next1 , of Γ( N ) in interval
[max{0, N2 }, ∞) according to Zero Point Theorem. Moreover, the sign of Γ( N ) can be
easily derived as
u
Γ( N ) ≤ 0, N ∈ max{0, N2 }, Next1
(
u (A36)
Γ( N ) > 0, N ∈ Next1 , +∞

If κ0 = −1/2, the left boundary value of Γ( N ) is
Γ(max{0, N2 }) = lim Γ( N ) = 3 − 2 ln 3 > 0 (A37)

N →0
Therefore, there is no zero point of Γ( N ) in interval [max{0, N2 }, ∞) because Γ( N ) >

Γ(max{0, N2 }) > 0.
Proposition A4. The maximum of guidance command can be reduced by reselecting N = 0

when κ ∗ = −1/2.
Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 27 of 28
Proof of Proposition A4. Substituting (36) into (35), the parameter κ relate with the optimal
trajectory is derived as
" #
∗ 1 C2
κ =− N+2− (A38)
N+3 ( N + 2)C2 − ( N + 3)C1 t go
κ ∗ = −1/2 happens at t2 where the value of t go is

t go2 = NC2 / ( N + 1)C1 > t go1 (A39)
Substituting (A39) into (36), it yields

N +1
Z2∗ (t2 ) = −2C1 t go2 Z20 /( N + 1) (A40)
According to (39), if the weighted gain is reselected to zero at time t2 , it is easy to

find that
u ∗ ( t ) = −1 (A41)
Then, the subsequent guidance command is a constant.
u∗c = −VM Z2∗ (t2 )/t go2 (A42)
Also, a variable ηu , u1∗ /u∗c is defined to denote the difference between u1∗ and u∗c ,
which can be expressed as
N+1 N

1
ηu = ( N + 1)( N + 2) (A43)
2 N+3
and its derivative to N is

dηu /dN = ηu Π( N )/2 (A44)
where
Π( N ) = ln( N + 1) − ln( N + 3) + 1/( N + 2) + 3/( N + 3) (A45)
It is obvious that ηu > 0 from (A43), thus the sign dηu /dN is determined by Π( N ).
The derivative of Π( N ) to N is
dΠ 2N 3 + 8N 2 + 7N − 3
=− (A46)
dN ( N + 1)( N + 2)2 ( N + 3)2
As analyzing from the numerator, it is obvious that there is one and only on zero
point of dΠ/dN, and Π( N ) will increase at the begging and then decrease as N increases.
Therefore, the minimum of Π( N ) is at boundary points, N = 0 or N = +∞.
Π( N ) ≥ min{Π(0), Π(+∞)} = min{3/2 − ln 3, 0} = 0 (A47)
Finally, it is concluded that
ηu ≥ ηu (0) = 1 ⇒ |u∗c | < |u1∗ | (A48)
It also means that the maximum of guidance command is reduced.
References
1. Han, T.; Hu, Q.; Xin, M. Analytical solution of field-of-view limited guidance with constrained impact and capturability analysis.
Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2020, 97, 105586. [CrossRef]
2. Liu, B.; Hou, M.; Feng, D. Nonlinear mapping based impact angle control guidance with seeker’s field-of-view constraint. Aerosp.
Sci. Technol. 2019, 86, 724–736. [CrossRef]
Aerospace 2021, 8, 358 28 of 28
3. Bryson, A.E.; Ho, Y.-C. Applied Optimal Control; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1975; pp. 154–155.
4. Ben-Asher, J.Z.; Yaesh, I. Advances in Missile Guidance Theory; AIAA, Inc.: Reston, VA, USA, 1998; pp. 123–130.
5. Kim, M.; Grider, K.V. Terminal Guidance for Impact Attitude Angle Constrained Flight Trajectories. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron.
Syst. 1973, AES-9, 852–859. [CrossRef]
6. York, R.J.; Pastrick, H.L. Optimal Terminal Guidance with Constraints at Final Time. J. Spacecr. Rocket. 1977, 14, 381–383. [CrossRef]
7. Pastrick, H.; York, R. Optimal control for an air defense interceptor: Part I. In Proceedings of the 1980 IEEE Southeastcon,
Knoxville, TN, USA, 10–13 April 1980; pp. 229–232.
8. Ryoo, C.-K.; Cho, H.; Tahk, M.-J. Optimal Guidance Laws with Terminal Impact Angle Constraint. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 2005, 28,
724–732. [CrossRef]
9. Song, T.L.; Shin, S.J.; Cho, H. Impact Angle Control for Planar Engagements. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 1999, 35,
1439–1444. [CrossRef]
10. Shaferman, V.; Shima, T. Linear Quadratic Guidance Laws for Imposing a Terminal Intercept Angle. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 2008, 31,
1400–1412. [CrossRef]
11. Rusnak, I.; Weiss, H.; Eliav, R. Missile guidance with constrained terminal body angle. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE 26th
Convention of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in Israel, Eilat, Israel, 17–20 November 2010; pp. 45–49.
12. Idan, M.; Golan, O.M.; Guelman, M. Optimal planar interception with terminal constraints. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 1995, 18,
1273–1279. [CrossRef]
13. Chang-Kyung, R.; Hangju, C.; Min-Jea, T. Time-to-go weighted optimal guidance with impact angle constraints. IEEE Trans.
Control Syst. Technol. 2006, 14, 483–492. [CrossRef]
14. Ohlmeyer, E.J. Control of terminal engagement geometry using generalized vector explicit guidance. In Proceedings of the 2003
American Control Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 4–6 June 2003; pp. 396–401.
15. Ohlmeyer, E.J.; Phillips, C.A. Generalized Vector Explicit Guidance. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 2006, 29, 261–268. [CrossRef]
16. He, S.; Lee, C.-H. Optimal Impact Angle Guidance for Exoatmospheric Interception Utilizing Gravitational Effect. IEEE Trans.
Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 2019, 55, 1–10. [CrossRef]
17. Lee, C.-H.; Tahk, M.-J.; Lee, J.-I. Generalized Formulation of Weighted Optimal Guidance Laws with Impact Angle Constraint.
IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 2013, 49, 1317–1322. [CrossRef]
18. Xiong, S.; Wei, M.; Zhao, M.; Xiong, H.; Wang, W.; Zhou, B. Hyperbolic tangent function weighted optimal intercept angle
guidance law. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2018, 78, 604–619. [CrossRef]
19. Li, C.; Wang, J.; He, S.; Lee, C.-H. Collision-geometry-based generalized optimal impact angle guidance for various missile and
target motions. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2020, 106, 106204. [CrossRef]
20. Kim, B.S.; Lee, J.G.; Han, H.S. Biased PNG law for impact with angular constraint. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 1998, 34,
277–288. [CrossRef]
21. Ratnoo, A.; Ghose, D. Impact Angle Constrained Guidance Against Nonstationary Nonmaneuvering Targets. J. Guid. Control
Dyn. 2010, 33, 269–275. [CrossRef]
22. Erer, K.S.; Merttopçuoglu, O. Indirect Impact-Angle-Control Against Stationary Targets Using Biased Pure Proportional Naviga-
tion. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 2012, 35, 700–704. [CrossRef]
23. Kim, T.-H.; Park, B.-G.; Tahk, M.-J. Bias-Shaping Method for Biased Proportional Navigation with Terminal-Angle Constraint.
J. Guid. Control Dyn. 2013, 36, 1810–1816. [CrossRef]
24. Lee, C.-H.; Kim, T.-H.; Tahk, M.-J. Interception Angle Control Guidance Using Proportional Navigation with Error Feedback.
25. Kumar, S.R.; Rao, S.; Ghose, D. Sliding-Mode Guidance and Control for All-Aspect Interceptors with Terminal Angle Constraints.
26. Cho, D.; Kim, H.J.; Tahk, M.-J. Impact angle constrained sliding mode guidance against maneuvering target with unknown
acceleration. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 2015, 51, 1310–1323. [CrossRef]
27. Ji, Y.; Lin, D.; Wang, W.; Hu, S.; Pei, P. Three-dimensional terminal angle constrained robust guidance law with autopilot lag
consideration. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2019, 86, 160–176. [CrossRef]
28. Chen, Z.; Chen, W.; Liu, X.; Cheng, J. Three-dimensional fixed-time robust cooperative guidance law for simultaneous attack with
impact angle constraint. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2021, 110, 106523. [CrossRef]
29. Hu, Q.; Cao, R.; Han, T.; Xin, M. Field-of-view limited guidance with impact angle constraint and feasibility analysis. Aerosp. Sci.
Technol. 2021, 114, 106753. [CrossRef]
30. Rusnak, I.; Meir, L. Optimal guidance for acceleration constrained missile and maneuvering target. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron.
Syst. 1990, 26, 618–624. [CrossRef]
31. Hexner, G.; Shima, T.; Weiss, H. LQG Guidance Law with Bounded Acceleration Command. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst.
2008, 44, 77–86. [CrossRef]
32. Weiss, M.; Shima, T. Optimal Linear-Quadratic Missile Guidance Laws with Penalty on Command Variability. J. Guid. Control
Dyn. 2015, 38, 226–237. [CrossRef]

Aerospace: Optimal Guidance Law With Impact-Angle Constraint and Acceleration Limit For Exo-Atmospheric Interception

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Aerospace: Optimal Guidance Law With Impact-Angle Constraint and Acceleration Limit For Exo-Atmospheric Interception

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

aerospace

School of Astronautics, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China; Zhaosl@buaa.edu.cn (S.Z.);

Academic Editor: Gokhan Inalhan 1. Introduction

Aerospace 2021, 8, 358. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace8120358 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/aerospace

as γ = γ + γ , which is required to be a given value γ c at the intercept time.

where, gT is the gravitational acceleration of the target. g M and gT are assumed as

The matrix form of the kinematic equations is

subject to (11) and terminal constraints given by

where, t go = t f − t is the time-to-go; N is weighted gain, which is the shaping parameter

3.1. Order Reduction Transformation

the time derivative of the new state vector Z (t) is

3.2. Closed-Loop Optimal Guidance Command

Then we can obtain the co-state variables:

where V 0 M = VM /k M . Therefore, the optimal guidance command for the missiles,

And the new states Z1 and Z2 can be expressed using state x as

4. IACOGL with Acceleration Limit

4.1. Analytical Solution to Guidance Command

where, C1 and C2 are non-dimensional coefficients which expressed as

where, η N = ( N + 1)( N + 2)( N + 3) and t go = t go /t f is the dimensionless time-to-go.

4.2. Maximum of Guidance Command

4.2.1. Expression to Maximum of Guidance Command

Next = (0, min{0, N1 , N2 }) ∪ (max{0, N1 , N2 }, +∞) (44)

u∗f ( N = 0) = −2(3κ0 + 2) (45)

Next = [0, min{0, N1 , N2 }) ∪ (max{0, N1 , N2 }, +∞)

Therefore, the maximum of dimensionless guidance command, u Max , can be obtained

max(|u0∗ |, |u1∗ |), N ∈ Next

Ξ( N ) = |u0∗ | − |u1∗ |, N ∈ Next (50)

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 2.2. The valueofofC2 Cfor

(1) If κ 0 ≤ −1 , it can be obtained from the Proposition A1 that C2 < 0 and

u Max = |u0∗ | = −u0∗ (56)

add is the zero point of function f

As a result, the maximum of dimensionless guidance command is

where N3 is a function of κ0 , which is presented in (55). Thus, Ξ( N ) can be expressed as

According to the Propositions A1 and A2, the sign of Ξ( N ) can be derived.

Thus, the maximum of dimensionless guidance command is

4.2.2. Weighted Gain Minimal Maximum of Guidance Command

−2(κ0 + 1) N − (5κ0 + 3), N ∈ [0, N2 ]

Γ( N3 ) = 2x [ln(1 − x ) + (2 − 7κ0 ) x ] > 2x [ln(1 − x ) + 2x ] > 0 (72)

(3) If κ0 ≥ −1/2, according to (66), the derivative of u Max to N is

N0,ext1 ，N−∈1 20,< N

-0.2 -0.1 0.0

If κ0 = −1/2, it can be obtained from the Proposition A3 that Γ( N ) > 0 when

4.3. Total Maneuvering Energy

Substituting (40) into (84), the expression of E can be obtained as

a2 ( N ) = 12 N 4 + 96 N 3 + 275 N 2 + 334 N + 147

Because a2 , a1 , and a0 are polynomial functions of N, those derivatives can be deter-

In order to determine the minimum of E2 and E0 , the difference between them is

It is obvious that the sign of E2 − E0 is determined by the quadratic polynomial

4.4. Weighted Gain for Limiting Maximum Guidance Command

Yes Optimal Weighted Gain

First Guidance step or

(1) Initialization: Set initial simulation parameters.

Table 1. Initial Conditions for Engagement.

5.1. Normal Simulation of Proposed Guidance Law

140 Linear 1.0 80

Zero-Effor-Angle-Error (。) Zero-Effor-Miss

Missile Acceleration (m/s2)

140 Linear 1.0 80

Missile Acceleration (m/s2)

Acceleration Proposed Guidance OGL-CTIA

Computational time (s)

Computational time (s)