You are on page 1of 11

SCIENCE CHINA

Technological Sciences
RESEARCH PAPER

February 2013 Vol.56 No.2: 518528


doi: 10.1007/s11431-012-5087-z

Improved differential geometric guidance commands for


endoatmospheric interception of high-speed targets
LI KeBo, CHEN Lei* & TANG GuoJin
College of Aerospace Science and Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha 410073, China
Received June 13, 2012; accepted November 13, 2012; published online December 3, 2012

Pure proportional navigation (PPN) is suitable for endoatmospheric interceptions, for its commanded acceleration is perpendicular to interceptor velocity. However, if the target is much faster than the interceptor, the homing performance of PPN will
be degraded badly. True proportional navigation (TPN) does not have this problem, but its commanded acceleration is perpendicular to the line of sight (LOS), which is not suitable for endoatmospheric interceptions. The commanded acceleration of
differential geometric guidance commands (DGGC) is perpendicular to the interceptor velocity, while the homing performance
approximates the LOS referenced guidance laws (PPN series). Therefore, DGGC is suitable for endoatmospheric interception
of high-speed targets. However, target maneuver information is essential for the construction of DGGC, and the guidance
commands are complex and may be without robustness. Through the deep analysis of three-dimensional engagement, a new
construction method of DGGC is proposed in this paper. The target maneuver information is not needed any more, and the robustness of DGGC is guaranteed, which makes the application of DGGC possible.
differential geometric guidance commands, endoatmospheric interception, high-speed targets, proportional navigation,
robustness
Citation:

Li K B, Chen L, Tang G J. Improved differential geometric guidance commands for endoatmospheric interception of high-speed targets. Sci China
Tech Sci, 2013, 56: 518528, doi: 10.1007/s11431-012-5087-z

1 Introduction
The first proportional navigation (PN) guidance law was
actually pure proportional navigation (PPN), which was
used in the guidance of endoatmospheric missiles to intercept airplanes or other moving targets [1]. Later, based on
the requirement of exoatmospheric interception, true proportional navigation (TPN) came out [2]. Since PPN can
only be analytically solved with the navigation constant
N=1 or 2 [3], its homing performance is usually analyzed by
qualitative or quasi-qualitative methods. Guelman [46]
qualitatively analyzed the homing performance of PPN
against nonmaneuvering and maneuvering targets. Shukla
*Corresponding author (email: chenl@nudt.edu.cn)
Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

and Mahapatra [7, 8] investigated PPN with linearization


and quasi-linearization methods. After a while, Becker [9]
obtained the closed-form solution of PPN when N>2 with
the help of the expansion theory of meromorphic function.
TPN is mathematically more tractable than PPN. Guelman [10] did some early research on TPN. He obtained the
closed-form solution and the circular capture region. Dhar
and Ghose [11] extended Guelmans method to study the
capture region of the realistic true proportional navigation
(RTPN). Yang and Yeh [12, 13] proposed the generalized
true proportional navigation (GTPN) whose commanded
acceleration has a projection along the line of sight (LOS).
By assuming the interceptor commanded acceleration to be
perpendicular to the relative velocity between interceptor
and target, Yuan and Chern [14] proposed the ideal proportional navigation (IPN) guidance law.
tech.scichina.com

www.springerlink.com

Li K B, et al.

Sci China Tech Sci

Shukla and Mahapatra [15] summarized the previous research results and thought that PPN was totally over TPN.
However, although the capture region of PPN is larger, the
effectiveness of PPN is guaranteed with the precondition
that the interceptor is faster. If the target is much faster, the
homing performance of PPN will be badly degraded.
Therefore, PPN is not suitable for endoatmospheric interception of high-speed targets.
The research results mentioned above are all in twodimensional (2D) space. Yang and Yang [16] proposed a
unified approach to the 2D PN guidance laws, which included both TPN series and PPN in a unified frame. The
closed-form solutions of TPN, RTPN, GTPN, IPN, PPN,
and a kind of optimal proportional navigation (OPN) with
an index function of time and energy were obtained.
When conducting three-dimensional (3D) analysis of the
PN guidance laws, the usual method is to decouple the 3D
relative dynamic equations in two mutual vertical planes of
the LOS reference frame [17]. Yang and Yang [1820] advanced a set of relative dynamic equations based on the
spheric coordinate system, with the advantage of decoupling
the transverse relative motion from the longitudinal relative
motion. Considering the basic requirements of capture,
Duflos [21] presented a modified 3D TPN, whose capture
capability approximated PPN. With the help of the relative
dynamic equations established in the modified polar coordinate system (MPC), Tyan [22, 23] proposed a kind of
phase plane method to analyze the capture region of TPN
and extended the unified approach proposed by Yang and
Yang to 3D space.
Based on constant-speed assumption and classical differential geometry theory, Chiou and Kuo [2426] proposed
differential geometric guidance commands (DGGC) in the
arc-length system, including a guidance curvature command
and two torsion commands. The torsion commands were
advanced to guarantee the effectiveness of curvature command. For Chiou and Kuos DGGC, the interceptor is faster
than the target. Li et al. [2732] firstly transformed DGGC
from arc-length system to time domain, and deduced the
initial capture condition with a much faster target. Li et al.
[33] proposed a new construction method of DGGC in time
domain based on the research of LOS rotation principle, and
proved that Chiou and Kuos DGGC was just a special case
of the DGGC family. According to the deep analysis of
DGGC it could be found that, the LOS referenced guidance
laws (TPN series) could be transformed into the interceptor
velocity referenced guidance laws (PPN series). Therefore,
the homing performance of DGGC will not be degraded
with a faster target and the commanded acceleration of
DGGC is perpendicular to interceptor velocity, which
makes it suitable for endoatmospheric interception of highspeed targets.
However, the target maneuver information, which is usually hard to obtain, is imported in DGGC. Simultaneously,
there are several cosines of angles between unit vectors in-

519

February (2013) Vol.56 No.2

cluded in the denominator of the torsion commands, which


may cause the system to be delicate. Through the analysis
of the basic requirement of DGGC, we have found that
DGGC could be directly constructed without the introduction of target maneuver information, and the expressions of
DGGC could be simplified. In this way, the robustness of
the guidance system is improved. At last, the effectiveness
and robustness of the improved DGGC against endoatmospheric high-speed targets are demonstrated by numerical
simulation results.

2 Review of differential geometric guidance


commands
When the target is flying in the air, the aerodynamic force is
the main control force. It could be assumed that the accelerations of interceptor and target are both vertical to their own
velocities. Then, the flight trajectories of interceptor and
target in 3D space could be considered as continuous
smooth curves.
Frenet-Serret formula is essential to the description of the
motions of space curves from the viewpoint of classical
differential geometry theory. Let t, n, and b be the tangential, normal, and binormal unit vectors of a space curve,
respectively, as shown in Figure 1.
The Frenet-Serret fomula is
dt
ds n,

dn
t b,
ds
db
ds n,

(1)

where is the curvature, is the torsion, ds represents the


derivative with respect to the trajectory of the space curve,
viz.,
ds dt V ,

(2)

where V is the speed of this space curve.


It is appropriate to use the space curve model to describe
the flight trajectory of an endoatmospheric flight vehicle
that is controlled by the aerodynamic force. Curvature

Figure 1

Space curve and the Frenet frame.

520

Li K B, et al.

Sci China Tech Sci

represents the maneuver perpendicular to the velocity, and


torsion represents rolling around the interceptor velocity.
Comparing with traditional constant maneuver and sinusoidal maneuver, the model of curvature and torsion is more
reasonable, which is one motivation of Chiou and Kuo to
propose DGGC in the arc-length system.
Taking the arc-length of interceptor trajectory as independent variable, Chiou and Kuo [24] established the absolute and relative dynamic equations. Then, they deduced the
guidance curvature and torsion commands in arc-length
system, viz.,

m m 2 t

nt (e er )
Nr

,
nm (e er ) nm (e er )

m t m (e er ) nm (e er )
nm er

m1 b (e e ) b (e e ) b (e e ) ,

m
r
m
r
m
r

(
)
b
e
e
b
e

m
r
m
r

,
m 2 nm (e er ) nm (e er )

(3)

(4)

where the subscript t represents the target, the subscript


m represents the interceptor, the superscript represents
derivative with respect to the arc-length, er is the unit vector
along LOS, e is the unit vector of the LOS angular velocity,
m=Vt/Vm is the ratio of speeds of interceptor and target, r
is the relative distance, is the LOS rate in arc-length system. According to eqs. (3) and (4), target maneuver information is included in t and e .
Li et al. [2731] transformed eqs. (3) and (4) from the
arc-length system to the time domain, and deduced the initial capture condition when the target was faster than the
interceptor (the speed ratio m>1), and also proposed the
iterative solution of DGGC. Later, according to the endoatmospheric interception of tactical ballistic missiles
(TBM), Li [32] eliminated the target maneuver information
from the guidance command, and proposed an inexplicit
expression of guidance command as follows:

(amVm VmVm )[e (t ) er ] Nr (t ),

(5)

where am is the commanded acceleration of interceptor, the


superscript represents derivative with respect to time,
Vm is the interceptor velocity, e(t) and (t) are the counterparts of e and expressed in the time domain. However,
eq. (5) is uneasy to solve, and the iterative method is needed.
Li et al. [33] restudied the relative dynamic relationship
between interceptor and target while investigating DGGC.
By using the LOS kinematic equations [33, 34]:
er s e ,

e s er s e ,
e e ,
s

(6)

the relative dynamic equations were constructed as follows:

February (2013) Vol.56 No.2

r rs 2 atr amr ,

r s 2rs at am ,
r a a ,
t
m
s s

(7)

where er and e are with the same meanings as before, e =


e er is the unit normal vector of LOS. er, e, and e form
the bases of the LOS rotation coordinate system. er and e
constitute the instantaneous rotation plane of LOS (IRPL),
where LOS always locates. s is the instantaneous LOS rate.
IRPL may rotate around er in 3D space, and s is the IRPL
rotation rate. The subscripts r, , and represent projections along er, e, and e, respectively. a represents the acceleration. The first two equations of eq. (7) are decoupled
with the third one. According to the analysis of the basic
requirement of capture conducted by Duflos [21], the rotation of IRPL will not cause influence on the final capture.
Then, the relative motion between interceptor and target
could be decomposed into two parts: the relative motion in
IRPL and the rotation of IRPL.
Using eqs. (6) and (7), Li et al. [33] proposed a new construction method of DGGC in the time domain, i.e.

am
,
Vm2 (nm e )

m (t m e ) s (nm er ) s (nm e )

m1 (b e ) V (b e ) V (b e ) ,

m
m
m
m
m

b
e
b
e
(

)
(

)
s m s m r ,
m 2 Vm (nm e ) Vm (nm e )

(8)

(9)

where am represents the original guidance law whose


commanded acceleration is perpendicular to LOS. For example, if it is TPN, am Nrs ; if it is the augmented
true proportional navigation (APN), am at Nrs . The
other variables are with the same meanings as before. According to the comparison, eqs. (3) and (4) are actually the
transformation results from APN into DGGC, which is a
special case of eqs. (8) and (9).

3 Discussions of endoatmospheric interception


of high-speed targets
The airborne interceptors are mainly controlled by the
airdynamic force. Even though the atmospheric density is
not large enough, the reaction force is just used to help adjust the attitude of interceptor (like the American PAC-3
interceptor). The trajectory is still mainly controlled by the
airdynamic force [35]. Only the interceptors that fly on the
atmosphere edge or outside the atmosphere use the reaction
force as the main control force, like the American THAAD
and GMD interceptors.
The traditional guidance law used by the airborne inter-

Li K B, et al.

Sci China Tech Sci

ceptors is PPN. The commanded accelerations of PPN and


TPN are shown in Figure 2.
In Figure 2, is the LOS angle in the 2D space. and
are the velocity obliquities of interceptor and target, respectively. er is the LOS, am is the commanded acceleration of
interceptor.
As shown in Figure 2, the commanded acceleration of
PPN is perpendicular to interceptor velocity, and the commanded acceleration of TPN is perpendicular to LOS. For
the same magnitude of commanded acceleration
am N r s

(10)

if PPN is adopted, the projections of the commanded accelerations along LOS and perpendicular to LOS are
amrPPN N r s sin( ),

am PPN N r s cos( ),

(11)

if TPN is adopted, then


amrTPN 0,

am TPN N r s ,

(12)

is unequal to except the tale-chase case and head-on


case. Therefore, for a certain magnitude of commanded acceleration, we usually have
am PPN am TPN .

(13)

Since the rotation of IRPL will not cause influence on the


final capture, the 3D interception problem could be analyzed with just the first two equations of eq. (7). Let Vr r
which is the closing speed, V rs which is the projection of relative velocity vertical to LOS, then according to
the first equation of eq. (7), we have
r atr amr

V2
,
r

February (2013) Vol.56 No.2

521

According to eq. (15), if V 0, the influence on the relative motion caused by amr is an infinitesimal compared with
am.
At the same time, taking the derivative of V rs ,
VV
V rs r s at am r .
r

(16)

According to eq. (16), even if V = 0 at some time during


the engagement, V will not keep 0 for long, because there
are always some errors and some tiny disturbances caused
by external forces such as the gravity difference from the
earth, the moon, or the sun. For the coefficient of V in eq.
(16) is Vr/r>0 which is like a positive feedback, |V| will
gradually increase when at am 0. Then, the influence
on r caused by at am is always one-order higher than
atr amr . From eq. (16) it could be seen that the variation

of V could be controlled by am. Therefore, the countermeasure between interceptor and target always focuses on
the direction of e, and the capability of am to reduce s to
make a collision is much stronger than that of amr.
According to the above analysis, PPN needs a larger
commanded acceleration to obtain the same homing performance of TPN. Therefore, the homing performance of
PPN is actually weaker than that of TPN. Traditionally,
PPN is considered superior to TPN for its mighty capture
capability. However, the precondition is Vm Vt . According to Guelman [46, 15], for PPN, Vm 2Vt is usually
required to obtain a fine interception result.
The homing performances of PPN and TPN against a
high-speed target are demonstrated in Figure 3 by the ideal
numerical simulation without considerations of errors and
delays of the guidance and control system.

(14)

taking the derivative of eq. (14) with respect to time,

V
V V2
d
(atr amr ) 2(at am ) 3 r 2 .
r
dt
r

Figure 2

Engagement geometries of PPN and TPN.

(15)

Figure 3 LOS rates of PPN and TPN against a high-speed nonmaneuvering target.

522

Li K B, et al.

Sci China Tech Sci

From Figure 3 we can see that when intercepting highspeed target, the control of LOS rate of PPN is not as effective as TPN.
Since PPN is not suitable for the interception of highspeed targets and the LOS referenced guidance laws (like
TPN) are not suitable for endoatmospheric interceptions,
there is a heavy demand of designing new guidance laws for
the endoatmospheric interception of high-speed targets,
especially high-speed maneuvering targets.

4 Essentials of differential geometric guidance


commands
Usually, the analyses of guidance laws are conducted in the
2D plane. Traditionally, the 3D interception problem is
solved by constructing two 2D guidance laws in horizontal
and vertical planes of the LOS reference coordinate system
[17]. In fact, 2D guidance laws could be directly constructed in IRPL in 3D space to solve the 3D interception problem [33].
According to the unified approach of PN guidance laws
proposed by Yang and Yang [16], any PN guidance law
could be expressed by the following unified frame:
a m NL s ,

(17)

where L is the normal direction of the commanded acceleration. For PPN, L=Vm. Therefore, 3D PPN could be expressed as [34]
a PPN NVm s t m ,

(18)

where Vm could also be substituted by Vr. Let


ePPN

e t m
e t m

(19)

be the direction of the commanded acceleration of PPN,


then we know that ePPN e which means ePPN is located
in IRPL.
The commanded accelerations of the designed guidance
laws hereunto are always located in IRPL. The form of the
commanded acceleration is different when the guidance law
is designed with different control theories such as optimal
control theory, sliding-mode variable structure principle,
and differential game theory, etc., while the direction of the
commanded acceleration is not changed. However, DGGC
is an innovation in this aspect.
According to Li [33], the commanded acceleration of
DGGC is outside IRPL, which is expressed as
aDGGC

am
nm ,
(nm e )

(20)

where am represents the commanded acceleration of the


original LOS referenced guidance law as in eq. (8), and

February (2013) Vol.56 No.2

nm t m . For the effectiveness of eq. (20), the denominator


should be kept from 0. Therefore, the following equation
could be valid:
nm e ,

(21)

where is a positive constant below 1. m1 could be deduced by taking the derivative of eq. (21). If we let
bm e ,

(22)

the effectiveness of eq. (20) could also be guaranteed, and


m2 could be deduced by taking the derivative of eq. (22).
Eq. (21) is more reasonable than eq. (22), because the denominator of eq. (20) is a constant by using eq. (21) and
aDGGC could be kept from a quite big value when eq. (21) is
guaranteed.
The torsion command m1 represents the rotation of the
interceptor body to make nm and e meet the requirement of
eq. (21). Substituting eq. (20) into eq. (7), we have
a

r rs 2 atr m (nm er ),

r
r
a

s
s
t am ,

a
rs s at m (nm e ).

(23)

Since s will not affect the final interception and the influence on r caused by aDGGCr am (nm er ) is an infinitesimal compared with aDGGC am , the homing performance of DGGC approximates that of the original LOS
referenced guidance law am.
Therefore, DGGC is actually a kind of differential geometric transformation, which transforms the LOS referenced guidance laws into interceptor velocity referenced
guidance laws. Since the homing performance of the LOS
referenced guidance law will not be badly degraded against
high-speed targets, DGGC is suitable for endoatmospheric
interception of high-speed targets.
However, there are two main drawbacks of DGGC. The
first one is that the target maneuver information is imported
in DGGC. According to eqs. (8) and (9), even when TPN is
transformed into DGGC, s (at am ) (rs ) which
contains at is needed. The second one is that the torsion
command of DGGC is complex and with some cosines of
angles between unit vectors in the denominator, which may
cause the robustness problem. Through numerical simulations it could be found that the angle between nm and e can
hardly keep constant during the engagement as required by
eq. (21).
Through the deep analysis of the geometric relationship
between concerned unit vectors, we have found that the
real-time nm could be calculated geometrically without the
introduction of torsion command. In this way, the target
information will not be needed in the construction of DGGC

Li K B, et al.

Sci China Tech Sci

(when am does not contain any target maneuver information), and the robustness problem can be avoided.

5 Improved differential geometric guidance


commands
The direction of the commanded acceleration of DGGC is
nm. The torsion command is used to calculate new nm in the
next time according to the real-time geometric relationship
between interceptor and target. Then eq. (8) will not be
singular. For m1 is more reasonable, the following two
equations should be satisfied when constructing DGGC:
nm t m 0,

nm e ,

Figure 4

Figure 5

angle with respect to e is , i.e., nm and nm . Figures


4(a)4(c) represent the conditions that the angle between e
and tm is bigger than, equal to, and smaller than 90, respectively.
If the angle between e and tm is larger than 90, when
putting the viewpoint on e in Figure 4(a) and looking at the
bottom of the cone, we have Figure 5.
In Figure 5, nmopt is the unit vector in ABCD whose angle
with respect to e is the smallest. a is the hypotenuse of the
right-angled triangle made up of e, nm, and nmopt. b is one
of the right-angle sides of this triangle. is the angle between a and b. If the expressions of x, y, and are known,
the vector A which is from e to nm could be obtained.
Then, according to

(24)

where tm could be detected by the ground-based radar or be


calculated by the interceptor itself. e could be calculated by
using the angle-measurements of the interceptor seeker. is
a predefined value usually during 0.60.8. Since tm, e, and
are already known, nm could be obtained according to the
geometric relationship.
The geometric relationship among nm, tm, and e is shown
in Figure 4. ABCD is a plane vertical to tm in 3D space. e is
the axis of the cone, and is the angle between the surface
of the cone and e whose cosine is . There are two intersecting lines between ABCD and the cone, representing two
unit vectors which are vertical to tm and whose cosine of

523

February (2013) Vol.56 No.2

nm e A,

nm which satisfies eq. (24) could be calculated.


Geometric relationship among tm, nmopt, and e is shown
in Figure 6.
nmopt could be expressed as
nmopt

e (e t m )t m
.
e (e t m )t m

(26)

The triangle in the cone which contains nm and e is


shown in Figure 7. From Figure 7,
a 1 2 .

In the same way,

Geometric relationship among nm, tm, and e.

Geometric relationship between nm and e: planform.

(25)

Figure 6

Geometric relationship among tm, nmopt, and e.

(27)

524

Li K B, et al.

Figure 7

Sci China Tech Sci

Through using the method above, nm accurately satisfying eq. (24) could be obtained and the target maneuver information is not needed. Simultaneously, the robustness of
DGGC is improved.
nm could also be calculated by algebraic approach, but
the precision is usually not comparable to the geometric
approach.
When nm is obtained, the curvature of DGGC could be
expressed as

Triangle which concerns nm and e.

b 1 (nmopt e )2 .

sin

t m (t m e )e
.
t m (t m e )e

where
(30)

(31)

Since e is perpendicular to the bottom surface of the


cone, we have
y e x.

(32)

Substituting eqs. (29), (31), and (32) into eq. (30), A could
be solved. Then, nm could be obtained by using eq. (25).
Eq. (30) just needs a minor modification for the solution
of nm , i.e.,
A a(cos x sin y).

(33)

Then, nm could be obtained by using eq. (25).


Before solving nm and nm , a judgment should be taken.
If
nmopt e

(34)

is valid, then the cone is not intersected with ABCD. At this


moment, should be reduced to increase the cone angle to
make the cone intersect ABCD.
When the angle between e and tm is smaller than 90, the
calculations of nm and nm are identical with the method
above.
When the angle between e and tm is equal to 90,
nmopt=e. Therefore, b=0, =90, and
A ay ,

A ay .

Then, nm and nm could be obtained by using eq. (25).

(29)

The solution of x approximates that of nmopt, viz.,


x

am
.
Vm2

(36)

And the torsion becomes

And A could be calculated by


A a(cos x sin y).

(28)

Then, the sine and cosine of could be obtained as


a2 b2
b
, cos .
a
a

February (2013) Vol.56 No.2

(35)

arccos nm (k ) nm (k 1)
TVm

arccos nm (k ) nm (k 1)

(37)

represents the rotation

angle of nm at two continuous sample instants. T is the sample period. Eq. (37) indicates that, through the maneuver
around the interceptor relocity, the direction of the aerodynamic control force could be adjusted to approximate the
real-time calculated nm.

6 Simulation results
A numerical simulation of endoatmospheric interception of
a high-speed target is conducted. PPN, the DGGC of TPN
(called DGTPN), and the improved DGGC of TPN (called
DGTPNimp) are used to guide the interceptor and compared
with each other. The navigation constant N 4 , and the
inefficient distance of the interceptor is assumed to be 100
m. The initial positions and velocities of interceptor and
target are shown in Table 1.
According to the table, the target speed is 400 m s1, and
the interceptor speed is 300 m s1. The initial distance between interceptor and target is 8 km. The initial heading
error of interceptor is 2. The target adopts two maneuver
forms. The first one is constant maneuver, viz., at
[10 2 10 2

0]T . The second one is differential geo-

metric maneuver form, viz., tt 0 0 1 0 , nt 0


T

Table 1

Initial states of interceptor and target

Interceptor

Position (m)

Z
0

Velocity (m s1)

83.654

288.103

Target

Position (m)

6928.203

4000

Velocity (m s1)

400

Li K B, et al.

Sci China Tech Sci

February (2013) Vol.56 No.2

525

0 0 , bt 0 0 0 1 , if r > 5000 m, t = 0.0002;


T

else, if r < 5000 m, t = 0.0002; t = 0.0004.


When the target adopts constant maneuver, the simulation results are shown in Figures 813.

Figure 11

Figure 8

IRPL rate of interceptor (target adopts constant maneuver).

3D engagement geometry (target adopts constant maneuver).

Figure 12

value of (target adopts constant maneuver).

Figure 9 Commanded acceleration of interceptor (target adopts constant


maneuver).

Figure 13 Curvature and torsion of interceptor (target adopts constant


maneuver).

Figure 10

LOS rate of interceptor (target adopts constant maneuver).

In Figure 8, the subscript g represents the launch coordinate system which is taken as a reference frame. According to Figures 9 and 10, the LOS rate of PPN against

526

Li K B, et al.

Sci China Tech Sci

high-speed target could not be well controlled, which causes


the commanded acceleration of interceptor to increase
gradually in the final phase. The LOS rate of DGTPN is
acceptable, but the control of is failed (see Figure 12),
which causes the commanded acceleration to increase in a
hurry. For DGTPNimp, the LOS rate is well controlled, and
is also controlled to be constantly equal to 0.7, therefore
the commanded acceleration of DGTPNimp is relatively
small. According to Figure 11, the IRPL rates of PPN and
DGTPNimp against constant maneuvering target gradually
get to 0 during the engagement. For DGTPN, the control
failure of results in the vibration of s in the final phase.
According to Figure 13 (according to eqs. (8) and (9), the
unit of curvature and torsion is m1, where m represents
meter), the curvature and torsion of DGTPNimp are much
smoother than those of DGTPN.
When the target adopts the differential geometric maneuver form, the simulation results are shown in Figures
1419.

Figure 14 3D engagement geometry (target adopts differential geometric


maneuver).

Figure 15 Commanded acceleration of interceptor (target adopts differential geometric maneuver).

February (2013) Vol.56 No.2

Figure 16 LOS rate of interceptor (target adopts differential geometric


maneuver).

Figure 17 IRPL rate of interceptor (target adopts differential geometric


maneuver).

Figure 18

value of (target adopts differential geometric maneuver).

Li K B, et al.

Sci China Tech Sci

527

February (2013) Vol.56 No.2

Table 2

Miss distances of three guidance laws (unit: m)

Constant maneuvering target


DG maneuvering target

PPN
16.2531
1.3859

DGTPN
3.2128
0.4345

DGTPNimp
0.4018
0.2862

7 Conclusions

Figure 19 Curvature and torsion of interceptor (target adopts differential


geometric maneuver).

From Figures 15 and 16, when the target adopts the differential geometric maneuver form, the LOS rate control of
PPN is still not as effective as those of DGTPN and
DGTPNimp, which causes the commanded acceleration of
PPN to increase in the final phase of the engagement. The
commanded accelerations of DGTPN and DGTPNimp distribute equably during the engagement, and the maximum
commanded accelerations of DGTPN and DGTPNimp are
relatively smaller than that of PPN.
The IRPL rates of PPN, DGTPN, DGTPNimp are shown
in Figure 17. Since the commanded acceleration of PPN is
located in IRPL, the IRPL rate of PPN is much smoother
than those of DGTPN and DGTPNimp. The IRPL rates of
DGTPN and DGTPNimp vibrate on large scale, but the
homing performances are hardly influenced.
According to Figure 18, for PPN, is uncontrolled.
DGTPN tries to fix at 0.7, but it fails for the robustness
problem. drops at the time of 5.5 s and stabilizes near 0.53
finally. DGTPNimp could make fixed at 0.7 during the
engagement. The curvatures and torsions of DGTPN and
DGTPNimp are shown in Figure 19, and we can see that the
curvature and torsion of the improved DGGC are smoother.
In the above two simulations, DGTPNimp intercepts the
target earlier than the other two guidance laws. The miss
distances are shown Table 2.
According to Table 2, the control of the LOS rate of PPN
against endoatmospheric high-speed target is not effective
enough, which causes the miss distance to be unacceptable.
For DGTPN, the control of the angle between nm and e is
not accurate enough, sometimes even fails, because of the
robustness problem. Then, the homing performance of
DGTPN is influenced, and the miss distance is enlarged.
For DGTPNimp, the robustness is good enough, and the
miss distance is effectively reduced.

The research history of DGGC is reviewed firstly in this


paper. The homing performances of PPN used for endoatmospheric interception and TPN used for exoatmospheric
interception are analyzed and compared with each other.
Since the homing performance of PPN will be degraded
when intercepting high-speed targets, new guidance laws
need to be designed for endoatmospheric interception of
high-speed targets.
The commanded acceleration of DGGC is perpendicular
to interceptor velocity, while its homing performance approximates that of the LOS referenced guidance law.
Therefore, DGGC is suitable for endoatmospheric interception of high-speed targets. Actually, DGGC is a kind of differential geometric transformation, which transforms the
LOS referenced guidance laws into interceptor velocity referenced guidance laws. Moreover, the commanded acceleration of DGGC is different from other guidance laws. The
direction of the commanded acceleration of DGGC is outside IRPL, which represents a brand new design idea.
However, the target maneuver information is imported in
DGGC, and simultaneously there is a robustness problem.
These problems put restrictions on the application of
DGGC.
The basic requirements of DGGC are deeply analyzed in
this paper. The solution of the direction of the commanded
acceleration, which is the key parameter, is proposed. The
target maneuver information is not needed any more, and
the robustness is enhanced. The research in this paper lays a
solid foundation of the application of DGGC. In our opinion,
in the future, the more effective guidance laws for endoatmospheric interception of high-speed maneuvering targets
should be explored with the help of DGGC, and the effectiveness and optimality of should be dug deeper.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Zarchan P. Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance. 4th ed. New


York: AIAA Inc., 2002
Murtaugh S A, Criel H E. Fundamentals of proportional navigation.
IEEE Spectrum, 1966, 3: 7585
Locke A S. Guidance. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1956
Guelman M. A qualitative study of proportional navigation. IEEE T
Aero Elec Sys, 1971, 7(4): 637643
Guelman M. Proportional navigation with a maneuvering target.
IEEE T Aero Elec Sys, 1972, 8(4): 364371
Guelman M. Missile acceleration in proportional navigation. IEEE T
Aero Elec Sys, 1973, 9(4): 462463
Shukla U S, Mahapatra P R. A generalized linear solution of proportional navigation. IEEE T Aero Elec Sys, 1988, 24(3): 231238
Mahapatra P R, Shukla U S. Accurate solution of proportional navi-

528

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

19

20
21
22

23

Li K B, et al.

Sci China Tech Sci

gation for maneuvering targets. IEEE T Aero Elec Sys, 1989, 25(1):
8189
Becker K. Closed-form solution of pure proportional navigation.
IEEE T Aero Elec Sys, 1990, 26(3): 526533
Guelman M. The closed-form solution of true proportional navigation.
IEEE T Aero Elec Sys, 1976, 12(4): 472482
Dhar A, Ghose D. Capture region for a realistic TPN guidance law.
IEEE T Aero Elec Sys, 1993, 29(3): 9951003
Yang C D, Yeh F B. The closed-form solution of generalized proportional navigation. J Guid Control Dynam, 1987, 10(2): 216218
Yang C D, Hsial F B, Yeh F B. Generalized guidance law for homing
missiles. IEEE T Aero Elec Sys, 1989, 25(2): 197212
Yuan P J, Chern J S. Ideal proportional navigation. J Guid Control
Dynam, 1992, 15(5): 11611165
Shukla U S, Mahapatra P R. The proportional navigation dilemma
pure or true. IEEE T Aero Elec sys, 1990, 26(2): 382392
Yang C D, Yang C C. A unified approach to proportional navigation.
IEEE T Aero Elec Sys, 1997, 33(2): 557567
Chen L, Zhang B. Novel TPN control algorithm for exoatmospheric
intercept. J Syst Eng Electr, 2009, 20(6): 12901295
Yang C D, Yang C C. Analytical solution of three-dimensional realistic true proportional navigation. J Guid Control Dynam, 1996, 19(3):
569577
Yang C D, Yang C C. Analytical solution of generalized threedimensional proportional navigation. J Guid Control Dynam, 1996,
19(3): 721724
Yang C D, Yang C C. Analytical solution of 3D true proportional
navigation. IEEE T Aero Elec Sys, 1996, 32(4): 15091522
Duflos E, Penel P, Vanheeghe P. 3D guidance law modeling. IEEE T
Aero Elec Sys, 1999, 35(1): 7283
Tyan F. The capture region of a general 3D TPN guidance law for
missile and target with limited maneuverability. Proceedings of the
American Control Conference, Arlinton, VA, June 2527, 2001
Tyan F. Unified approach to missile guidance laws: A 3D extension.
IEEE T Contr Syst T, 2005, 41(4): 11781199

February (2013) Vol.56 No.2

24

25
26

27

28

29

30
31

32

33

34

35

Chiou Y C, Kuo C Y. Geometric approach to three dimensional missile guidance problems. J Guid Control Dynam, 1998, 21(2): 335
341
Kuo C Y, Chiou Y C. Geometric analysis of missile guidance command. IEE PContr Theor Ap, 2000, 147(2): 205211
Kuo C Y, Soetanto D, Chiou Y C. Geometric analysis of flight control command for tactical missile guidance. IEEE T Contr Syst T,
2001, 9(2): 234243
Li C Y, Jing W X. New results on three-dimensional differential geometric guidance and control problem. AIAA Guidance, Navigation,
and Control Conference and Exhibit, August, 2006
Li C Y, Jing W X, Qi Z G, et al. Application of the 3d differential
geometric guidance commands (in Chinese). J Astronaut, 2007, 28(5):
12351240
Li C Y, Qi Z G, Jing W X. Practical study on 2d differential geometric guidance problem (in Chinese). J Harbin Institute of Technology,
2007, 39(7): 10311035
Li C Y, Jing W X, Wang H, et al. Iterative solution to differential geometric guidance problem. Aircr Eng Aerosp Tec, 2006, 78(5): 415425
Li C Y, Jing W X, Wang H, et al. A Novel Approach to 2D Differential Geometric Guidance Problem. T Jpn Soc Aeronaut S, 2007,
50(167): 3440
Li C Y, Jing W X, Wang H, et al. Gain-varying guidance algorithm
using differential geometric guidance command. IEEE T Aero Elec
Sys, 2010, 46(2): 725736
Li K B, Chen L, Bai X Z. Differential geometric modeling of guidance problem for interceptors. Sci China Tech Sci, 2011, 54: 2283
2295
Tyan F. Capture Region of 3D PPN Guidance Law for Intercepting
High Speed Target. Joint 48th IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control and 28th Chinese Control Conference, Shanghai, China, December, 2009. 762767
Wang J, Chen W C, Ying X L. Endoatmospheric interceptor fast response control using impulse attitude control motor. J Beijing Univ
Aeronaut Astronaut, 2007, 33(4): 397400