Proceedings of the

The International 20th World

Federation of Congress
Automatic Control
Proceedings
Toulouse, of the
The International
France, 20th9-14,
World
Federation
July of Congress
Automatic Control
2017
Proceedings
Toulouse,
The of the 20th World
France,Federation
International Congress
July 9-14, 2017 Available
of Automatic online at www.sciencedirect.com
Control
The International Federation of
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017Automatic Control
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017
ScienceDirect
A New CommandIFAC
Shaping Guidance
PapersOnLine Law using Lagrange Multiplier
50-1 (2017) 15185–15190
A New Command Shaping Guidance Law using Lagrange Multiplier
A
A New
New Command
Command Shaping
Shaping
Chang-Hun
Guidance
Guidance
Lee*, Hyo-Sang Shin*,
Law using
LawAntonios Lagrange
Lagrange Multiplier
using Tsourdos* Multiplier
Chang-Hun Lee*, Hyo-Sang Jin-Ik Lee** Shin*, Antonios Tsourdos*
Chang-Hun Lee*, Hyo-Sang Jin-Ik Shin*, Antonios Tsourdos*
Lee**
Chang-Hun Lee*, Hyo-Sang  Shin*, Antonios Tsourdos*
Jin-Ik  Lee**
*SATM, Cranfield University, Jin-Ik  Lee**
Cranfield, MK43 0AL, UK
*SATM, Cranfield University,  Cranfield, MK43 0AL, UK
(e-mail: lckdgns@gmail.com;h.shin@cranfield.ac.uk;a.tsourdos@cranfield.ac.uk).
*SATM, Cranfield University, Cranfield, MK43 0AL, UK
(e-mail: lckdgns@gmail.com;h.shin@cranfield.ac.uk;a.tsourdos@cranfield.ac.uk).
*SATM, Cranfield
**Agency for Defence University,
Development, Cranfield, MK43 0AL,Korea
Daejeon,34186, UK
(e-mail: lckdgns@gmail.com;h.shin@cranfield.ac.uk;a.tsourdos@cranfield.ac.uk).
**Agency for Defence Development, Daejeon,34186, Korea
(e-mail: lckdgns@gmail.com;h.shin@cranfield.ac.uk;a.tsourdos@cranfield.ac.uk).
(e-mail:jinjjangu@gmail.com).
**Agency for Defence Development, Daejeon,34186, Korea
(e-mail:jinjjangu@gmail.com).
**Agency for Defence Development, Daejeon,34186, Korea
(e-mail:jinjjangu@gmail.com).
(e-mail:jinjjangu@gmail.com).
Abstract: This article presents a new command shaping guidance law by change of Lagrange multiplier
Abstract:
(LM), called ThisCSGL-LM.
article presents The aSchwarz
new command inequalityshaping guidance
approach is lawusedbytochange solve of theLagrange
optimal multiplier
guidance
Abstract:
(LM), calledThisCSGL-LM.
article presents The aSchwarz
new command inequalityshaping guidance
approach is law
used bytochange
solve ofthe Lagrange
optimal multiplier
guidance
Abstract:
problems
(LM), calledThisCSGL-LM.
article presents
considering bothThe aSchwarz
new command
terminal constraints
inequalityshaping guidance
onapproach
interceptionis lawandbytoimpact
used change
solve of
angle
the Lagrange
control.
optimal multiplier
LM is
guidance
problems
(LM),
introduced calledconsidering
to CSGL-LM.
combine bothThe
two terminal
Schwarz
terminal constraints
inequality
constraints into onaapproach
interception
single is
equation. andThe
used impact
to solve
main angle
the
idea control.
optimal
of this LMis to
guidance
paper is
problems
introduced considering
to combine bothterminal
two terminalconstraints
constraints into ona single
interception
equation. andThe impact
main angle
idea of control.
this paper LMis to is
problems
use LM asconsidering
introduced a design bothterminal
parameter terminal
for shaping constraints ona single
the guidance interception
command and
as Theimpact
well angleofcontrol.
as controlling the LMis to
terminal is
use LM as to
introduced
constraints. to
combineparameter
aThe
design
combine
guidance
two
twocommand
terminal
constraints
for shaping
constraints
of CSGL-LM the into
guidance
into isa given
single
equation.
command
aequation. wellmain
unifiedasfunctional
The main
idea
as controlling
idea of this
form
thisthe paper
terminal
paper
the time-to-go, is to
use LM as aThe
constraints. design
guidanceparameter
command for shaping
of CSGL-LM the guidance givencommand asfunctional
well as controlling thethe terminal
use
the LM as
state a design
variables, andparameter
LM. for shaping
Therefore, through anisappropriate
the guidance a unified
command choice as well
of LM, form canofachieve
as controlling
we time-to-go,
the terminal
various
constraints.
the The
stateofvariables, guidance command
and commands
LM. Therefore, of CSGL-LM
through is given
anisappropriate a unified
choice functional
of impact
LM, we form of the
canofcontrol
achieve time-to-go,
various
constraints.
shapes theThe guidance
guidance command forofthe CSGL-LM
interception given
case, as a unified
well asfunctional
the form
angle the time-to-go,
case. As
the
shapes stateofvariables,
the guidance and commands
LM. Therefore, thethrough an appropriate choice of impact
LM, weangle can control
achievecase. various
the state variables,
illustrative examples, and thisLM.
paper alsoforshows
Therefore, interception
through
that a an class case,
appropriate as well
of previous choiceas the
guidance of LM, lawswe can one
is just achieve As
various
of particular
shapes
illustrative of the guidancethis
examples, commands
paper alsofor the interception
shows that aare class case, as wellguidance
of previous as the impactlaws isangle
just onecontrol case. As
shapes
solutions of ofthe guidance commands
CSGL-LM. Numerical for the interception
simulations case,
performed as well as the impact
to validate the angle
properties of of
control particular
case. As
CSGL-LM,
illustrative
solutions ofexamples,
CSGL-LM. thisNumerical
paper also simulations
shows that aare class of previous
performed to guidancethe
validate laws is just one
properties of of particular
CSGL-LM,
illustrative
compared
solutions examples,
with the this
conventionalpaper also
guidanceshows that
law. a class of previous guidance laws is just one of particular
compared of
solutions with
of
CSGL-LM.
the conventional
CSGL-LM.
Numerical
Numerical
simulations
guidance law. are
simulations
performed to validate the properties of CSGL-LM,
are performed to validate the properties of CSGL-LM,
© 2017, IFAC
compared
Keywords:
compared
with (International
the
Lagrange conventional
Multiplier,Federation
guidance
Guidance of Automatic
law.
Law, Command Control)Shaping,
Hosting by Elsevierinequality
Schwarz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:with the conventional
Lagrange Multiplier, guidance
Guidancelaw. Law, Command Shaping, Schwarz inequality
 Keywords: Lagrange Multiplier, Guidance Law, Command Shaping, Schwarz inequality
 Keywords: Lagrange Multiplier, Guidance Law, Command Shaping, Schwarz inequality
 1. INTRODUCTION In the field of the guidance technology, command shaping
 1. INTRODUCTION In the fieldwhile
capability of the guidance
keeping the technology,
terminal constraints commandhas shaping
been
In the fieldwhile
capability of the guidance
keeping the technology,
terminal commandhas
constraints shaping
been
The main goal of 1. 1. INTRODUCTION
guidance systems is to deliver the In
theINTRODUCTION the field
widely demandedof the guidance
to meet technology, various operational commandgoals shaping of
The main goal of the guidance systems is to deliver the capability
widely while keeping
demanded to meetthe various
terminal operational
constraints has goals been
of
vehicles to a target position. In the application of the missile capability while keeping
guidance. However, in most theofterminal
previousconstraints
guidance laws has been
such
The mainto goal
vehicles a of position.
target the guidance In the systems
application is toof deliver
the the widely
missile guidance. demanded
However, to
in meet ofvarious
most previous operational
guidance goalssuch
laws of
The mainthegoal
systems, of the guidance
interception of a target systems
is theis mostto deliver
important the as widely
PNG demanded
or IACG, the to meet guidance various
command operational
is decided goalsby ofa
vehicles to a target position. In the application of the missile guidance. However, in most of previous guidance laws such
systems,
vehicles to
requirement thea target
interception
for theposition. of In
guidance a target
the is theThe
application
systems. most missile as
important
ofproportional
the PNG orof
guidance.
selection IACG,
However,
guidance the
in mostguidance
gain.ofThis command
previous tois no
leadsguidance decided
laws by
degree ofa
such
systems,
requirement the for interception
the of a target
guidance systems. is theThe most important as
proportional PNG orofIACG,
selection guidance the guidance
gain. This command
leads tois no
decided
degree by ofa
systems, theguidance
navigation interception (PNG) of ina Ben-Asher
target is theet.most and freedom remained for shaping the guidance command. Ina
important
al. (1998) as PNG or IACG, the guidance command is decided by
requirementguidance
navigation for the (PNG) guidance in systems. et.
Ben-Asher Theal.proportional
(1998) and selection
freedom
selection
of guidance
order to remained
of guidance
gain. This
for issue,
shaping
gain. numerous
Thisthe leads
guidance to no degree of
command. In
requirement
navigation
Zarchan
for
guidance
(2007) has
the guidance
(PNG)
been
systems.
Zarchan (2007) has been widely accepted in many missile
in Ben-Asher
widely accepted
The
et.in al.
proportional
many (1998) and freedom
missile order to
solve
remained
solve
this
for issue,
this shaping the leads
numerous guidance to no
command
command
degree
command. shaping
shaping
of
In
navigation
systems
Zarchan due guidance
(2007) to its
has (PNG)
effectiveness
been in Ben-Asher
widely and et.in al.
simplicity
accepted many (1998)
in and freedom
practice.
missile guidance
order to remained
laws
solve have for
this been shaping
devised.
issue, theMost
numerous guidance
ofcommand
thesecommand.
worksshaping In
have
systems
Zarchan
Consideringdue
(2007) to its
only has effectiveness
targetbeen widely
interception, and simplicity
accepted
PNG hasin many
beenin regarded
practice.
missile guidance
order
been to
also laws
solve have
performed this been
under devised.
issue, the Most of
numerous
optimal these works
command
control framework.have
shaping
systems due only to itstarget
effectiveness andPNG simplicity practice. guidance
in regarded alsolaws have been devised. Most of these works have
Considering
systems
as due tosolution.
an attractive interception,
its effectiveness and simplicityhas been in practice. been guidance
The performed
laws
underlining haveidea under
been the optimal
of devised.
these Most was
works control
of these framework.
works
to introduce havea
Considering only target interception, PNG has been regarded been also
The underlining performed idea under the
of control
these optimal
works control framework.
as an attractive
Considering only solution.
target interception, PNG has been regarded weighting been also function
performed to under
the energywas
the optimal so astotointroduce
control provide ana
framework.
as an attractive solution. and targets have been continuously weighting The underlining function idea
to of control
these works was
so asto tointroduce anaa
Recently,
as as battlefields
an attractive
Recently, as solution. and targets have been continuously additional
battlefields The underlining degreeidea of the of these works
freedom energy
for was
shaping tothe provide
introduce
guidance
diversified and modernised, the missile guidance system is additional weighting function
degree to
of thethe control
freedom energy so as to provide an
Recently,
diversified asand battlefields
modernised, and thetargets haveguidance
missile been continuously
system is weighting
command. function Various to control for
weighting energy shaping
so as the
functions tohave guidance
provide an
been
Recently,
demanded as to battlefields
take such changes and targets into have
account.beenConsequently,
continuously additional additional
command. degree
Various of freedom
weighting for shaping
functions thehaveguidance
been
diversified
demanded toand takemodernised,
such the missile guidance system is successfully degree
applied: of freedom
for example for shaping
time-to-go the guidance
functions in
diversified
the requirements and thechanges
modernised,
of the into
guidance account.
missile
systems guidance Consequently,
have system
gradually is command.
successfully
command.
Ryoo
Various
applied:
(2006), for
et. al. Various
weighting
example
weighting
Ohlmeyer
functions
time-to-go
et. functions
have been
al. (2006) functions
have been
exponential in
demanded
the to take of
requirements such the changes
guidance intosystems
account.have Consequently,
gradually successfully
Ryoo et. al. applied:
(2006), for example
Ohlmeyer et. time-to-go
al. (2006) functions
exponential in
demanded
adapted
the to to
requirements take
these such
changes.
of changes
the guidanceFor into
the account.
anti-tank
systems Consequently,
haveor anti-ship
gradually successfully
function applied:
inal.Rusnak et.for al.example
(1996), time-to-go
Ryu et. al. functions
(2015) and in
adapted
the to
requirements
missile these
systems, changes.
of
the the For
guidance
terminal the anti-tank
systems
impact anglehave or anti-ship
gradually
constraint Ryoo
function
is sinusoidal et. (2006),
inal.function
Rusnak et.Ohlmeyer
al. (1996), et. al.
Ryu (2006) exponential
et. al.Also,
(2015) and
adapted
missile to these
systems, changes.
the terminal For the
impact anti-tank
angle or anti-ship
constraint Ryoo
is sinusoidal et.
function in function (2006),
Rusnak et. inOhlmeyer
Lee et. et.
al. al. (2006)
(2015). exponential
in the
adaptedrequested
widely to these to changes.
maximize Forthe the anti-tank
lethality or warhead.
of the anti-ship function in Rusnak in al.
et. Lee(1996),
al. (1996), al. Ryu
et.authors Ryu
et. al.Also,
(2015).
et. proven
(2015)
al.Also,
(2015)
and
in any
the
and
missile
widely systems,
requested the
to terminal
maximize impact
the lethalityangle of constraint
the warhead. is reference
sinusoidal Lee et. al. (2013a),
function in Lee theet. al. have
(2015). that
in the
missile systems, the missile
For the surface-to-air terminalsystems, impact the angle
flight constraint
path angle reference
is positive Lee
sinusoidalfunctions et.
function al. (2013a),
in Lee
can be the the authors
et.authors
used have
al.to (2015).
shape proven that
Also,guidance
the any
in any
the
widely
For the requested
surface-to-air to maximize
missile the lethality
systems, the of thepath
flight warhead.
angle reference Lee et. al. (2013a), have proven that
widely requested
constraint to maximize
at the beginning the lethality
of homing phase has of the
been widely positive
warhead. reference
command functions
Lee
in et.
this al. can be the
(2013a),
framework. used to shape
authors have the guidance
proven that any
For the
constraintsurface-to-air
at to the achieve
beginning missile systems, the flight path angle
For the surface-to-air
considered anof homing
missile systems,phase
advantageous has
the flight been
initial widely
angle positive
pathhoming command functions
in this framework.
positive functions
can be used to shape the guidance
can be used to shape the guidance
constraint at to
considered the achieve
beginninganof homing advantageous phase has beenhoming
initial widely command in this framework.
constraintagainst
position at the abeginning of homing target.
highly manoeuvring phase has been widely These command approaches
in this were to successfully provide the command
framework.
considered
position against to achieve an advantageous initial homing
target. initial homing variability, but there wastostill
These approaches were successfully provide the command
considered to aachieve
highly manoeuvring
an advantageous These approaches were to a point to provide
successfully be improved.
the That is,
command
position against
The guidance a highly manoeuvring target. variability, but there was still a point to be improved. That is,
position
The against law
guidance a highly
law
intended
manoeuvring
intended
to achieve
to target.this
achieve this
additionally in
additionally These
this approaches
framework,
variability, but therewere
guidance
was tostill
successfully
laws
a pointfor to theprovide
be the command
interception
improved. and for
That is,
constraint is called the impact angle control guidance (IACG) the in this framework,
variability, but there guidance
was still laws
anot
pointfor the
to interception and for
The guidance
constraint
The Over
law. guidanceisthecalledlawtheintended
lawthe
past impact
intended
several years,
to achieve
angle
to therecontrol
achieve have
this additionally
guidance
thisbeen (IACG) in
additionally
extensive
impact
thethis
impact
angle
framework,
angle
control
guidance
control
arelaws
are not for
given
giventhebeinterception
byimproved.
by the
a unifiedThat
a unified
form.
and is,
for
form.
constraint
law. is called
Overactivities impact angle control guidance (IACG) in this
Thus, framework,
guidance laws guidance
for the laws for
interception the interception
and impact and for
angle
constraint
research
law. isthe
Overactivities
the
paston
called
paston
several
the impact
IACG
several
years,
Idanthere
in angle
years, et.
there al.have
control (1995),
have
beenRyoo
guidance
beenRyoo
extensive
et. al. the
(IACG)
extensive
Thus,
the
impact
guidance
impact
control should
angle
angle lawscontrol
for theare
becontrol
separately are
not givenand
interception
not givenand
designed.
by the
byThis
a unified
impact
a unified
form.
angle
impliesform. that
research
law.
(2005)Over
and the Leepast IACG
et. al.several
(2013a, in Idan
years,
2013b). et.
there al.
These (1995),
haveworksbeen have et.
extensive al.
been command Thus,
control guidance
should laws
be for the
separately interception
designed. the
This impact
implies angle
that
research
(2005) andactivities
Lee on
et. on IACG
al.optimal in Idan
(2013a,incontrol
2013b). et. al.
These (1995),
worksRyooRyoo et.
haveet.beenal. Thus,
control guidance shaping
should laws for
across
be separatelythe interception
the terminal
designed. and the impact
constraints
This impliesis thatangle
is not
research
performed activities
in the IACG Idan et.framework
al. (1995), because al. command
it allowed
control shaping
should
in this be across
separately
approach the
unless terminal
designed.
the guidanceconstraints
This implies
configuration not
that
(2005) and
performed Lee
in et.
the al. (2013a, 2013b). These works have been
(2005)
enablesand to Lee handle et. al.optimal
(2013a,
the control
terminal2013b). framework
These works
constraints easilybecause
haveandbeen it command
to allowed
commandin in shaping
this
It shaping
acrossunless
approach
beacross
the terminal
the
the toterminal guidanceconstraints
aconstraints
is not
configuration
is not
performed
enables in the optimal control framework because it changes. would desirable obtain guidance law for
performed
provide atostate-feedback
handle
in the form
the optimal terminal
control constraints
solution. framework easily and to
because it allowed
changes.
allowed
the It this
in
interceptionwould
this
approach
be the
approach
and
unless
desirable
unless
impact totheobtain
the
angle
guidance
guidance
control
configuration
a guidance law
configuration
in a for
unified
enables atostate-feedback
provide handle the form terminal constraints easily and to changes.
solution. the It
interceptionwould andbe desirable
the impact to obtain
angle a guidance
control in a law for
unified
enables to handle the terminal constraints easily and to changes. It would be desirable to obtain a guidance law for
provide a state-feedback form solution. the interception and the impact angle control in a unified
provide a state-feedback form solution. the interception and the impact angle control in a unified
Copyright © 2017 IFAC 15750
Copyright 2017 IFAC
2405-8963 © 2017, 15750
IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control) Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Copyright
Peer review©under
2017 responsibility
IFAC 15750
of International Federation of Automatic Control.
Copyright © 2017 IFAC
10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.2351 15750
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
15186
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Chang-Hun Lee et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 15185–15190
form such that command shaping across the terminal
constraints is possible. In general, the guidance phases
consist of several sub-phases such as the initial phase, the
mid-course phase, and the terminal homing phase. Each
guidance phase requires different terminal constraints.
Therefore, if a guidance command is given by a unified form,
such different guidance phases and their constraints can be
handled with a single guidance command without changing
guidance configuration and a complicated logic.
To this end, this paper proposes a new command shaping
guidance law across the terminal constraints, named as
CSGL-LM. In this study, Schwarz inequality approach is
used to solve the optimal guidance problem. In this approach,
LM is used to combine two terminal constraints. The main
idea of the proposed approach is to use LM as a design
parameter to shape the guidance command. Since the role of
LM is also to combine two terminal constraints, we can
satisfy the terminal constraints and at the same time shape the
guidance command through an appropriate choice of the LM
value. As illustrative examples, this paper shows that CSGL-
LM can be converted to other guidance laws under a specific
LM setting.
The rest of this paper is organised as. In section 2, the
engagement kinematics is explained. CSGL-LM is derived in
section 3. Numerical simulations are performed in section 4.
Finally, section 5 concludes this study.
Fig. 1. Planar engagement kinematics.
2. ENGAGEMENT KINEMATICS
This section devotes to describe the planar engagement
kinematics for deriving CSGL-LM. Fig. 1 shows the
engagement kinematics for a stationary target. In this
engagement kinematics,  X I , YI  represents the inertial
frame and X f , Yf  represents the reference frame. The
reference frame is rotated from the inertial reference frame by
the desired impact angle (i.e.,  f ) and introduced for
linearization purpose. The missile and target are denoted by
M and T , respectively. The line-of-sight (LOS) angle and
the relative distance between M and T are denoted by 
and R . The flight path angle, the velocity, and the normal
acceleration of missile are given by  M , VM , and aM ,
15751
respectively. In the missile systems, the normal acceleration
is considered as the input variable and leads to change of the
flight direction. Additionally, the variables with bar such as
 and  M represent the angles measured from the reference
frame and the physical meanings are the same. The variable
y denotes the lateral position perpendicular to x f -axis. In
Fig.1, the nonlinear engagement kinematics with respect to
y is given by
y  VM sin  M  v
(1)
 M  aM / VM
where the variable v is defined to be the lateral velocity
perpendicular to x f -axis. In order to achieve the interception
as well as the satisfaction of the desired impact angle, the
constraints at the final time are given by
y t f   v t f   0 (2)
where t f represents the final time. Under the constant
velocity assumption and small angle approximation of  M ,
the above equation can be linearized as follows:
yv
(3)
v  aM
This equation can be rewritten in the state-space form as
x  Ax  Bu (4)
where
0 1  0 
x   x1 , x2    y, v  , u  aM , A  
T T
 ,B  (5)
0 0  1 
Note that this linearized kinematics has been widely used to
devise optimal guidance laws from many researchers in Ryoo
et. al. (2005, 2006) and Lee et. al. (2013a, 2013b, 2014,
2015).
3. GUIDANCE LAW DESIGN
2.1 Derivation of CSGL-LM
This section provides the derivation of CSGL-LM. During
the course of years, there have been a lot of approaches to
devise new guidance laws. Among them, the optimal control
approach has a great attention because it is systematically
well-posed. Just solving optimal guidance problem can
provide a practical and a capturability-proven guidance law.
In addition, a guidance law obtained is given by a state-
feedback form. This property can be a merit for
implementing it.
In the optimal control approach, Schwarz inequality is one of
ways to obtain the optimal solution. In the process of
Schwarz inequality method, LM is introduced to merge two
constraints into one equation. In this approach, there is a
degree of freedoms in choosing LM. Accordingly, the main
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Chang-Hun Lee et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 15185–15190 15187

idea of this paper is to use LM as a design parameter that By using this definition, we can rewrite Eq. (13) as follows:
enables various shapes of the guidance command as well as
tf
control the terminal constraints. J   u 2   d (15)
t

Based on the linear control theory, the general solution of Eq.

(4) is determined as Then, we can readily observe that the physical quantity of the
right-hand side of Eq. (15) is the control energy and the left-
x  t f     t go  x  t      t f   B   u   d
tf hand side of Eq. (15) represents the minimum value of the
(6)
t control energy. From Eq. (15), when the equality holds, the
control energy can achieve its minimum value. According to
where  tgo  is the state transition matrix, which is obtained Schwarz inequality, if there is a linear relationship between
as   t f   and u   , then the equality holds as:

1 t go 
  t go   e
 
A t go
  (7) u    K    t f    (16)
0 1 
where K is a constant value. In order to determine K , we
where t go  t f  t represents the time-to-go that is the substitute Eq. (16) into Eq. (10).
remaining time of the interception. For a stationary target, tgo
x1  t   x2  t  t go x1  t   x2  t  t go
can be simply determined as K  (17)

tf
 t       t    d
2
1/ 3 tgo3    / 2  tgo2
R t  f f 
t go  (8)
VM
Substituting Eq. (17) into Eq. (16) gives:
Substituting Eqs. (5) and (7) into Eq. (6) yields:
u t  
 x t   x t  t    t
1 2 go go

(18)
x1  t f   x1  t   x2  t  t go   t    u   d 1/ 3 t    / 2 t
tf 3 2
f go go
t
(9)
x2  t f   x2  t    u   d
tf
By using Eq. (5), the guidance command can be rewritten
t
with the original variables as
Then, imposing the terminal constraints to Eq. (9) gives
aM 
 y  vt    t
go go

(19)
t    u   d 1/ 3 t    / 2  t go
tf
x1  t   x2  t  t go   f
3
go
2
t
tf
(10)
x2  t    u   d As shown in Eq. (19), CSGL-LM is given by the function of
t
the lateral position and velocity, the time-to-go, and LM. As
As shown in Eq. (10), we have two equations. Here, we mentioned in before, in the proposed approach, LM can be
introduce LM  in order to combine above two equations as used to vary the guidance command as well as control the
follows: terminal constraints.

x1  t   x2  t   t go         t f     u   d
f t
(11) 2.2 Discussion of CSGL-LM
t

Then, applying Schwarz inequality to Eq. (11) provides:
 x1  t   x2  t   t go      f    t f    d  f u 2   d (12)
2 t
  t 
Rearranging above equation gives:
 x1  t   x2  t   t go    
In the previous, we observe that CSGL-LM is given by the
function of LM. In this section, we will show that various
2 t
shapes of the guidance commands across the terminal
 t constraints can be achieved using the proposed solution
according to selections of LM.
We suppose that LM is given by a linear function of the time-
2

   t f u 2  d to-go in order to match the physical unit from Eq. (11).

t   (13)
t    t f    d
tf 2
  S  y, v, tgo  tgo (20)

For convenience’s sake, let the left-hand side of Eq. (13) be Wher S  y, v, t go  represents the shaping function of LM,
defined as
which is possibly given by a function of state variables and
 x1  t   x2  t   t go     the time-to-go.
2

J   tf  (14)
t    t f    d
 
2
 
First, if we choose S y, v, t go as a function of time-to-go (not
dependent on the state variables), then we have

15752
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
15188
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Chang-Hun Lee et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 15185–15190

S  y, v, tgo   f tgo  , where f tgo   0 (21) where p1 , p2 , p3 , and p4 are constant values. First, we
choose these parameters as follows
By substituting Eq. (21) with Eq. (20) into Eq. (19), the
guidance command can be expressed as follows: p1  3, p2  1, p3  6, p4  3 (29)

 y  vt  Then, CSGL-LM becomes the following form


aM   N ' f  t go   t 2
go
go
(22)
y v
aM  6 2
4 (30)
t t go
   is the time-varying gain which is given by
go
where N ' f tgo
This result is identical to the optimal impact angle guidance

6 1  f  t go   law (OGL) as studied in Ryoo et. al. (2005). Also, LM with

N ' f  t go    2  3 f  t go 
(23) Eqs. (20), (28), and (29) can satisfy the condition of
J /   0 . It means that this shaping function of LM gives
the optimal solution from the control energy minimization
Note that in that case CSGL-LM can become the well-known standpoint.
proportional navigation guidance (PNG) with the time-
varying gain. Therefore, according to selection of any Additionally, we choose p1 , p2 , p3 , and p4 as follows:
positive functions f  t go  , we can generate various guidance
p1  N 2  5 N  3
commands while keep satisfying the interception condition.
p2  2 N  1
Here, there are some interesting properties for the specific 3  N  4  N  1 (31)
choice of f  t go  . Especially, f  t go  is chosen as a constant p3 
2
value f  tgo    , where   0 , then we have p4  3  N  1

6 1    where N  0 . In that case, substituting Eq. (28) with Eq. (31)

N' (24) into Eq. (19) provides
2  3
y v
In that case, the time-varying gain becomes a constant value aM    N  2  N  3 2
 2  N  2 (32)
which exactly corresponds to the navigation constant of the t gp t go
conventional PNG. The above equation can be rewritten with
respect to  as follows: CSGL-LM is the same as the time-to-go weighted optimal
guidance law (TWOGL) in Ryoo et. al. (2006) and Ohlmeyer
2 N ' 6 et. al. (2006).
 (25)
3N ' 6
Finally, we choose p1 , p2 , p3 , and p4 as follows:
Therefore, through appropriate choices in  , we can mimic
any values of the navigation constant. From Eq. (24), when p1   n  1 m  1  n  m
the value of  approaches zero, then we have p2  n  m
lim N '  3 3
(26) p3   m  1 n  1  m  n  1 (33)
2
 0

This result is natural because the condition of   0 (that is 3

p4   m  n  1
  0 ) in Eq. (11) means that it does not take the constraint 2
regarding the impact angle into account in the derivation.
Accordingly, the guidance problem becomes the optimal where n  m  0 . In that case, substituting Eq. (28) with Eq.
interception problem and it is well-known that the PNG with (33) into Eq. (19) gives
N = 3 is the optimal solution for the interception case.
Additionally, as   , we have y v
aM    m  2  n  2  2
  n  m  3 (34)
lim N '  2 (27) t gp t go
 

CSGL-LM in this setting is equivalent to the time-to-go

Next, let us assume that the shaping function of LM is given
polynomial guidance (TPG) as studied in Lee et. al. (2013b).
by the trajectory dependent function as
Accordingly, through specific choices in LM, CSGL-LM can
p1 y  p2vt go
S  y, v, t go   (28) contain a class of previous guidance laws. Therefore, CSGL-
p3 y  p4vt go LM can be regarded as a more general guidance law
compared with other guidance laws. Also, we can observe
that CSGL-LM can be converted to both the interception

15753
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Chang-Hun Lee et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 15185–15190
guidance law such as PNG and IACG laws such as OGL,
TWOGL, and TPG. Therefore, CSGL-LM can provide
various guidance commands across the terminal constraints.
4. NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS
In this section, we perform two linear simulations in order to
demonstrate the properties of CSGL-LM from the command
shaping standpoint. In the first simulation, LM is chosen by a
function which is independent of the state variables as shown
in Eqs. (20) and (21). The second simulation is conducted to
determine the characteristics of CSGL-LM when LM is
designed by a function which is dependent on the state
variables as shown in Eqs. (20) and (28). In these simulations,
CSGL-LM is compared with PNG with N = 3 in order to
show the superiority of CSGL-LM in the term of the
command variability.
(a) Normalized Lateral Position
(b) Normalized Lateral Velocity
(c) Normalized Guidance Command
15754
15189
Fig. 2. The simulation results when  is independent of the
state variables
Table 1. Design parameters for simulation I
Nomenclature Design of f tgo 
Case I-1 0.5
Case I-2 
0.5sin  / t f  t go 
Case I-3 0.5exp  tgo / t f 
Fig. 2 (a), (b), and (c) show the normalized position, velocity,
and guidance command in the first simulation. In that case,
the shaping functions of LM are designed as provided in
Table 1. As shown in Fig. 2(a), the lateral position converges
to zero for all cases. It means that CSGL-LM can
successfully intercept a target. In these cases, we can readily
observe that the lateral velocity does not approach zero at the
final time as shown in Fig. 2 (b). Therefore, in this setting of
LM (e.g., independent of the state variables), the terminal
constraint on the interception is only possible. These results
match with the analytical results as provided in above section.
Fig. 2 (c) shows that compared with the conventional PNG,
CSGL-LM can produce various patterns of the guidance
command while satisfying the interception condition.
Especially, in Case I-2, CSGL-LM demands a small guidance
command at the initial phase and the guidance command
quickly approaches zero in the terminal phase. This
command shape is desirable for reducing the sensitivity
against to the initial heading error as well as ensuring the
operational margin to cope with unexpected situation in the
vicinity of a target.
(a) Normalized Lateral Position
(b) Normalized Lateral Velocity
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
15190
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Chang-Hun Lee et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 15185–15190
(c) Normalized Guidance Command
Fig. 3. The simulation results when  is dependent on the
state variables.
Table 2. Design parameters for simulation II
Nomenclature Parameters
Case II-1 P1  3, P2  1, P3  6, P4  3
Case II-2 P1  9, P2  3, P3  15, P4  6
Case II-3 P1  17, P2  5, P3  27, P4  9
Fig. 3 (a), (b), and (c) describe the normalized position,
velocity and guidance command in the second simulation.
The shaping function is designed as shown in Eq. (28) and
their parameters are chosen as provided in Table 2. As shown
in Fig. 3 (a) and (b), both the lateral position and velocity
converge to zero as the time-to-go goes to zero. Therefore,
through specific choices in the shaping function of LM (e.g.,
dependent on the state variables), CSGL-LM can be
converted to IACG laws. As shown in Fig. 3 (c), the
simulation results show that CSGL-LM can produce various
shapes of the guidance command according to the
combinations of the shaping function’s parameters while
keeping the impact angle control capability.
In this section, we reveal that CSGL-LM can become
interception guidance law as well as impact angle control
guidance law according to selection of shaping function of
LM. Additionally, by changes of parameters of shaping
function, CSGL-LM enables to produce various shapes of the
guidance command. These properties of CSGL-LM are
desirable for achieving various and extensive operational
goals of guidance.
5. CONCLUSIONS
This paper suggests a new command shaping guidance law
using LM. In this study, the optimal guidance problems with
the terminal constraints of interception and impact angle
control are considered. Schwarz inequality approach is used
to obtain solution of given optimal guidance problem. In the
proposed method, LM is used to combine two constraints into
one equation as well as provide additional degree of freedom
in shaping the guidance command. The proposed guidance
law called CSGL-LM is given by the function of the time-to-
go, the state variables and LM. We show that for a specific
selection of LM, CSGL-LM can become PNG law with a
15755
time-varying gain as well as a class of impact angle control
guidance laws. Therefore, this observation provides that
CSGL-LM is a unified solution across the terminal
constraints. Also, CSGL-LM is a more generalized guidance
law compared with other guidance laws.
REFERENCES
Ben-Asher, J. Z. and Yaesh, I. (1998). Advances in Missile
Guidance Theory, AIAA, Reston, VA.
Ben-Asher, J. Z., Farber, N. and Levinson, S. (2003) New
Proportional Navigation Law for Ground-Air-System.
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, volume
(26), pp. 822-825.
Idan, M., Golan, O. and Guelman, M. (1995) Optimal Planar
Interception with Terminal Constraints. Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, volume (18), pp.
1273-1279.
Lee, C. H., Tahk, M. J. and Lee, J. I. (2013a) Generalized
Formulation of Weighted Optimal Guidance Laws with
Impact Angle Constraint. IEEE Transactions on
Aerospace and Electronic Systems, volume (49), pp.
1317-1322.
Lee, C. H., Kim, T. H., Tahk, M. J. and Whang, I. H. (2013b)
Polynomial Guidance Laws Considering Terminal
Impact Angle and Acceleration Constraints, IEEE
Transactions on Control System Technology, volume
(49), pp. 74-92.
Lee, C. H., Lee, J. I. and Tahk, M. J. (2015) Sinusoidal
Function Weighed Optimal Guidance Laws. Proceedings
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G:
Journal of Aerospace Engineering, volume (229), pp.
534-542.
Ohlmeyer, E. J. and Phillips, C. A. (2006) Generalized
Vector Explicit Guidance. Journal of Guidance, Control,
and Dynamics, volume (29), pp. 261-268.
Rusnak, I. (1996) Guidance Law Based on an Exponential
Criterion for Acceleration Constrained Missile and a
Maneuvering Target. Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, volume (19), pp. 718-721.
Ryoo, C. K., Cho, H. and Tahk, M. J. (2005). Optimal
Guidance Laws with Terminal Impact Angle Constraint.
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, volume
(28), pp. 724-732.
Ryoo, C. K., Cho, H. and Tahk, M. J. (2006). Time-to-Go
Weighted Optimal Guidance with Impact Angle
Constraints. IEEE Transactions on Control System
Technology, volume (14), pp. 483-492.
Ryu, M. Y., Lee, C. H. and Tahk, M. J. (2015) Command
Shaping Optimal Guidance Laws against High-Speed
Incoming Targets. Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, volume (38), pp. 2025-2032.
Zarchan, P. (2007). Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance,
fifth edition, AIAA, Washington, DC.