International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences (IJEAS)

ISSN: 2394-3661, Volume-3, Issue-7, July 2016

Missile Autopilot Design using Adaptive CMAC

Supervisory Controller
ALI Bellahcene, JUN Wang
collaborate with the supervisory controller for stabilizing the
Abstract An adaptive CMAC-Supervisory (CMS) system states around the predefined feasible set and satisfying
controller is proposed for aerodynamic missile pitch autopilot the tracking performance. If the system states move away
control. Missile motion is nonlinear and time-variant with from the predefined feasible set, the supervisory controller
unknown parameters. The controller is a combination of a
supervisory controller and an adaptive CMAC (Cerebellar
starts working to push the states back, otherwise, it stays
Model Articulation Controller). In the adaptive CMAC, a inactive. The controllers stability has been proved by using a
CMAC is used to approximate an ideal control law and a Lyapunov function. A comparison between the feedback
compensation controller to recover the residual of the linearization controller and the proposed adaptive CMS
approximation error. The supervisory controller is added to the controller is performed. The efficiency of the proposed
adaptive CMAC to keep the system states within a predefined controller is confirmed by simulation results.
feasible set. The controllers stability verified with a Lyapunov
function. Simulation results are carried out to confirm the This paper is organized as follows: the mathematical
efficiency of the proposed control. nonlinear model of the missile is introduced in section II. The
design procedures of the proposed adaptive CMS controller
Index Terms Missile autopilot, adaptive control, CMAC, are constructed in section III. Simulation results are provided
supervisory control. to validate the efficiency of the proposed controller in section
IV. Conclusions are drawn in Section V.
I. INTRODUCTION
The principle of the pitch autopilot design is forcing the II. NONLINEAR MISSILE MODEL
missile acceleration to track the acceleration command
received from the guidance law. For that, several approaches A. Missile model
have been developed over the years [1]-[5]. However, the Consider the first-order dynamics of actuator in the pitch
dynamics of a tail controlled missile is non-minimum phase plane, the nonlinear model of missile motion is given by [6]:
QS
C z , M m Bz q
system. If we consider the angle of attack instead of the

acceleration as output, this problem can be circumvented mV
[6]-[8].
Q Sd
Recently, Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) have become q C , M m Bm (1)
I yy m
a hot research topic, due to their ability to solve nonlinear
problems by learning [9]. In the aerospace engineering

a c a
domain, ANNs have been applied successfully to flight
where , q and are angle of attack, pitch rate and control
control design, such as adaptive flight control [10]-[12],
guidance law design [13], and missile autopilot design [14], fin deflection angle, respectively, and Q , S , m,V , d and I yy
[15]. Among many ANN architectures that have been are dynamic pressure, reference area, mass, velocity,
proposed, the CMAC is the most popular neural model with reference length and pitching moment of inertia, respectively,
distinguished features of being fast, simple to implement, and M m represents Mach number. Also, c and a are
solving nonlinear systems by the imposition of learning in
control input and actuator bandwidth, respectively. The
offline mode [16]-[17], especially for modeling, system aerodynamic coefficients in Eq. (1) are described in terms of
identification and control [18]. The advantages of using Mach number and angle of attack as:
CMAC over other ANNs are well discussed in [19], [20]. The
supervisory controllers have been proposed for stabilizing the Bz b1M m b2
system states around a predefined feasible set [21], [22].
In this paper, an adaptive CMS controller is proposed for
Bm b3 M m b4
designing a missile pitch autopilot which is aerodynamically Cz , M m z1 z 2 M m
controlled. Missile motion model is nonlinear and Cm , M m m1 m2 M m
z1 h1 3 h2 h3
time-variant with unknown parameters, which could be due to
errors in aerodynamic modelling. This controller is a
combination between an adaptive CMAC and a supervisory z 2 h4 h5
controller [23]. The adaptive CMAC is presented to m1 h6 3 h7 h8
m2 h9 h10 (2)
ALI Bellahcene, School of Automation, Nanjing University of Science
and Technology, Nanjing, China, (+86) 15205191440. where bi and hi are the constant coefficients.
Jun Wang, School of Automation, Nanjing University of Science and
From Eqs. (1) and (2), we get
Technology, Nanjing, China, (+86) 13914781165.

1 www.ijeas.org
 Missile Autopilot Design using Adaptive CMAC Supervisory Controller

x1 f1 x1 x2 g1 x3
u*
1

g x

f x d t yd K T E (8)
x 2 f 2 x1 g 2 x3 (3)
x3 a u a x3 where K k1 , k2 2 , in which ki i 1,2 are positive
T

where constants. Applying the control law (8) to system (6), the error
x1 , x2 q, x3 , u c dynamics is obtained.
f1 x1 C1z1 x1 z 2 x1 M m e k1e k2e 0 (9)
f 2 x1 C2 m1 x1 m2 x1 M m K is selected such that the real part of the solutions of
hs s 2 k1s k2 are strictly negative. This means that
QS Q Sd
g1 C1Bz , g 2 C2 Bm , C1 , C2 (4) tracking of the reference trajectory is asymptotically achieved
where lim et 0 when t for any starting initial
mV I yy

B. Aerodynamics uncertainties modeling conditions.

Consider aerodynamics uncertainties and rewrite Eq. (3) as However, in practical applications, the exact knowledge of
x1 f1 x1 f1 x1 x2 g1 g1 x3 system f x , g x and d t is unavailable, which implies that
x2 f 2 x1 f 2 x1 g 2 g 2 x3 (5) the ideal control law (8) is unrealizable. Thus, in the following
section, an adaptive CMS controller is proposed for designing
x3 a u a x3 a missile pitch autopilot.
where
f1 x1 C1 z1 x1 C1 z1 x1 C1 z1 x1 C1 III. MISSILE AUTOPILOT DESIGN BASED ON ADAPTIVE CMS
z 2 x1 M m C1 z 2 x1 M m C1 z 2 x1 M m CONTROLLER
f 2 x1 C2m1 x1 C2 m1 x1 C2 m1 x1 C2 Fig. 1 describes the configuration of the missile autopilot
m 2 x1 M m C2 m 2 x1 M m C2 m 2 x1 M m
based on the adaptive CMS control system, which is
composed of an adaptive CMAC and a supervisory controller.
g1 C1Bz C1Bz C1Bz The control law takes the form.
g 2 C2 Bm C2 Bm C2 Bm u u A uS (10)
Q S Q Sd where u S is the output of the supervisory controller;
C1 , C2 , Q p1Q
mV I yy u A uCMAC uC is the output of the adaptive CMAC, which
Bz p4 Bz , Bm p5 Bm consists of a CMAC uCMAC and a compensation controller
zi p2 zi , mi p2 mi i 1,2 uC . The supervisory controller can be conceived to push the
and pi i 1,,5 represent random constant perturbations. states of the controlled system around a predefined feasible
set; however, its performance is neglected. Therefore, the
From Eq. (5), it can be obtained that adaptive CMAC is presented to collaborate with the
x f x g x u t d t supervisory controller for stabilizing the system states around
(6)
y x the predefined feasible set and satisfying the tracking
where x x1 performance.
f1 x1 A. Supervisory Controller
f x f1 x1 x2 g1 x3 f 2 x1 g 2 x3 g1a x3
x1 To control the divergence of states, it is necessary to design
g x g1a a supervisory controller. If the system states move away from
the predefined feasible set, the supervisory controller starts
working to push the states back, otherwise, it stays inactive.
ut and y are the control input and output, Only the adaptive CMAC will be used to imitate the ideal
respectively, d t is the aerodynamics uncertainties, control law.
and x x1 , x2 , x3 3 is a state vector of the system that is From Eqs. (6), (8) and (10), the error dynamics in the
T

space-state form is obtained as follows:

assumed to be available.
The objective is to design a missile pitch autopilot such that
the output system y can track a given reference
E E Gm u* u A uS (11)

trajectory yd . We define a tracking error vector as

e, e
T
(7) where
where e yd y is the tracking error. If the parameters of the 0 1 0
and Gm
dynamic model and the aerodynamics uncertainties are k 2 k1 g x
available (i.e., the functions f x , g x and d t are known),
then the so-called Feedback Linearization technique can Define the Lyapunov function as
solve the control problem [24]. In this case, the 1
VS E T PE
functions f x , g x and d t are used for construction of the
(12)
2
ideal control law.

2 www.ijeas.org
 International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences (IJEAS)
ISSN: 2394-3661, Volume-3, Issue-7, July 2016
u y + yd
Plant

w , m , v
Adaptive Laws

, C, H
+ uA + uCMAC E Tracking
CMAC
Error Vector
+ +
us uC

Estimation Law

Compensation
Controller

Adaptive CMAC

us E
Supervisory Controller

Fig. 1. Block diagram of the missile autopilot system based on the adaptive CMS controller.

where P nn is a positive-definite symmetric matrix that Substituting (8) and (15) into (14) and considering the
satisfies the Lyapunov equation case I 1 , yields
1
T P P Q (13) 1
VS E T QE E T PGm f x d t yd
and Q nn is also a positive-definite symmetric matrix.
2 g x
By using Eqs. (11), and (13) and taking the derivative of
K T E uA
1
g x
f U
x d U
yd K T E u A
VS with respect to time, we have L
1 1 1
VS E T PE E T PE VS E T QE 0 (16)
2 2 2
1 T T 1
E PE E T PE E T PGm u * u A u S Using the supervisory u S controller presented in (15),
2 2 when VS V , the inequality VS 0 can be obtained even for
1

E T QE E T PGm u * u A u S
2
non-zero value of the tracking error vector E . From (16), the
supervisory controller is capable of leading the tracking error
1

E T QE E T PGm u * u A E T PGmu S
2
(14)
to converge to zero.
However, due to the presence of sign function and the
In order to formulate the supervisory control law u S such selection of the bounds f U x , g L x , d U , an excessive and
that V 0 , it is necessary to know the bounds of the chattering control effort will be resulted. Moreover, the
S
transient tracking performance may be not satisfied.
functions f x and g x . Therefore, we make the following Therefore, to overcome these phenomena, the adaptive
assumption. CMAC will be formulated in the following subsection.
Assumption: The bound functions f U x , gU x and g L x are Association
Memory Space A
known such that f x f x and g L x g x g x for
U U Weight Memory
Space W
all x U C , where f x , g U x and g L x 0 .
U Input Space S
Output Space Y
Moreover, the aerodynamics uncertainties is bounded
by d t d U .
s1 y1

Based on the assumption and by observing Eqs. (8) and (14),

the supervisory control law u S is formulated as

sn
yp

uS I sgn ET PGm

uA
1
g L x

f U x d U yd K T E (15)

where sgn is a sign function, and the operator index Receptive-Field
1 VS V Space T
I V is a positive constant. Fig. 2. Architecture of a CMAC
0 VS V

3 www.ijeas.org
 Missile Autopilot Design using Adaptive CMAC Supervisory Controller

B. Implementation of CMAC for k 1,, nR (19)

The architecture of CMAC is shown in Fig. 2, which nR : Number of receptive-field.
includes an input space, an association memory space, a where bk is associated with the kth receptive-field,
receptive-field space, a weight memory space and an output
mk m1k ,, mnk n and vk v1k ,, vnk n .
T T
space [16], [25]. The signal propagation and the basic
function in each space of CMAC are introduced as follows. The multidimensional receptive-field function can be
represented as
1) Input Space S

S , m, v b1 ,, bnR
T
(20)
Consider the input space S s1 ,, sn n . For a given
control space, each input state variable si is quantified into
where m m1T ,, mTk ,, mTn R

T nnR

v v
T T nnR
discrete regions called elements. The number of elements, nE, and 1 ,, vTk ,, vTnR .
is designated as a resolution. In this design, the input state
variables are 4) Weight Memory Space W
S E e, e
T
(17) Each location of T is linked to a particular adjustable value
2) Association Memory Space A in the weight memory space, can be represented as
In this space, a block consists of several elements. The w11 w1o w1 p
number of blocks, nB , is generally larger than two. The

operating principle of two-dimension CMAC is depicted in
w w 1 , , w o , , w p wk1 wko wkp (21)
Fig. 3, with nE 9 and 4 ( is the number of elements

in a full block), blocks A, B, and C divide the input state s1 , wn 1 wn o wn p
R R R

and blocks a, b, and c divide the input state s2 . New blocks
where w o w1o ,, wko ,, wn o n
T
will be obtained by shifting each variable an element. For R
R
and wko represents
th
example, blocks D, E, and F for s1 , and blocks d, e, and f the connecting weight value of the o output associated with
the kth receptive-field.
for s2 are obtained by such shifts.
The weight wko is initialized to zero and is automatically
Each block defines a receptive-field basis function, which
can be represented as rectangular [16] or triangular or updated during online operation.
continuously bounded function (e.g., Gaussian [25], [26] or 5) Output Space Y
B-spline [27], [28]). Here, Gaussian function is formulated as The output of CMAC is the algebraic sum of the activated
the receptive-field basis function weights in the weight memory, and is represented as
s m 2
ik si exp i 2 ik
nR
for k 1, , nB (18) yo w To S , m, v wko bk S , m k , v k
vik k 1
Variable s2 for o 1,, p (22)
i
l 9 The outputs of the CMAC can be represented as

y y1 ,, yo ,, y p w T S , m, v
f
T
c
8
(23)
State (3,3)
7
Ee
k
6
Bb C. Compensation Controller
h

e
5
Jj Assume that there exists an optimal CMAC to approach to
b
4
the ideal control law such that

3
T
u* uCMAC S , w* , m* , v* w* *
j *
2
(24)
g
d
a 1
Gg
Variable s 1 where is the minimum approximation
error; w * , m* , v* and * are the optimal parameters
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Layer 4
Layer 3
A B C Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 1 of w , m, v and , respectively.
D E F Layer 2

Rewrite u A as follows
u A uCMAC S , w , v uC w
G H I
u
Layer 3

,m T C (25)
J K L Layer 4

Fig. 3. CMAC in two-dimension with = 4 and nE = 9. where w , v and are the estimates of the optimal
,m
parameters of w , m, v and . By subtracting (24) from (25),
where ik si represents the kth block of the ith input si with the
define an approximation error as
mean mik and variance vik .
T uC
u~ u* u A w* * w
T

3) Receptive-Field Space T ~ T * w ~
w T uC (26)
Several blocks forms areas called receptive-fields. Each ~ ~
where w w w
*
and .
*
location of A is compatible with a receptive-field. Define the
multidimensional receptive-field function as Based on Taylor theorem, and using the partial linear of the
multidimensional receptive-field basis functions [29], [30],
n n s m 2 ~
bk S , m k , v k ik si exp i 2 ik , the expansion of becomes
i1 vik
i 1

4 www.ijeas.org
 International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences (IJEAS)
ISSN: 2394-3661, Volume-3, Issue-7, July 2016
b T
1

b T
1

uC p sgn E T PGm (36)
b~1 m v p E T PGm (37)
~ b T b T
~ b2 2
v
2
m m m
*
v* v Ot Then the stability of the proposed controller is guaranteed.

~ Proof: Define a Lyapunov function as
bn bn
R

T

R
b T
n
R

V E, w ~,~
~, m v, ~p , t
m m m v v v 1 T 1 ~T ~ 1 ~T ~ 1 ~T ~ 1 ~ 2
E PE w w m m v v p
C m~ HT~
T
v Ot (27) 2 2 w 2 m 2 v 2
~ (38)
~
where m m m
*
v v* v and bk bk* bk .
, ~
where ~p p p represents the estimation error of the
bk* is the optimal parameter of bk ; bk is the estimated uncertainty bound. Taking the derivative of V and using (13)
parameter of bk* ; and (32), it is concluded that
Ot nR is a vector of higher-order terms; ~,~
~, m
V E , w v, ~p , t
b b2 bnR nnR nR
1 T 1
E PE E T PE
1 ~T

w w
1 ~T
m m
C 1 2 2 w m
m m m
1 ~T 1 ~
b b2 bnR nnR nR v v p p
H 1 v
v v v
b b
where k and k are defined as

1 T T
2

E P P E E T Gm Pu~ u S
1 ~T
w

w w
m v
1 ~ T 1 ~T 1 ~
bk
T bk bk m m v v p p
m 0, ,0 , , , , 0 , , 0 (28) m v
m mnk
n k n
k 1n

1k
1 T ~ T w ~ HT~
E QE E T Gm P w T CT m v uC
R

bk
T bk bk 2
v 0 , , 0 , , , , 0 , , 0 (29)
D uS
1 ~T 1 ~ T 1 ~T 1 ~
v v w w m m v v p p
k 1n 1k nk n k n R
w m v
Rewrite (27) as
(39)
* CT m ~ HT~ v Ot (30) From (15) and (33)(37), (39) can be rewritten as
Substituting (30) into (26), yields ~,~
~, m
V E , w v, ~p , t
u~ w~ T C T m ~ HT~ v Ot
E T QE E T PGm D uC u S ~p p
1 1
w T T~

C m H v O u T~
t C 2
~ T w
w ~ HT
T CT m v w
~ ~ C T T ~ HT~
m v 1 T
E QE E T PGm D E T PGmuC E T PGmu S
w Ot uC*T 2
~ w
wT ~ HT~
T CT m
v D uC (31)
1
p p p


where D w ~ T CT m ~ HT~
v w Ot represents the *T
1
E T QE E T PGm D p E T PGm
uncertain term and it is assumed to be bounded with a small 2
positive constant p (i.e., D p ). From (26) and (31), the
p p E T PGm
error dynamics (11) can be rewritten in space state as
E E Gm u~ uS
1
E T QE E T PGm p D 0 (40)

2
E G w ~ T w
m
~ HT~
T CT m
v u D u C S Since V E , w
~, m~,~v, ~p , t 0 is a negative semi-definite
(32)
function, E, w ~, m v and ~p are all bounded. Consider the
~, ~
Theorem: Consider the nonlinear missile autopilot problem
presented in (6). The adaptive CMS control system is function t 1 2 ET QE V t and by
designed as (10) where the supervisory controller is described integrating t with respect to time
in (15) and the adaptive CMAC is formulated in (25). Here, in
d V E, w, m, v, ,0 V E, w, m, v, , t
t
the adaptive CMAC, the adaptive laws are chosen as ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (41)
p p
(33)(35) and the compensation controller as (36) with the o
estimation law given by (37), where w , m , v and are Since V E, w ~,~
~, m
v, ~p ,0 is
bounded,
strictly positive constants.
E T PG
~ ~
~ ~
and V E , w, m, v, p , t is non-increasing function and
w w (33) m bounded, it can concluded that:
m E T PG Cw (34) t
lim d
m m
(42)
v v E PGm Hw
T
(35) t
o

5 www.ijeas.org
 Missile Autopilot Design using Adaptive CMAC Supervisory Controller

Then, t is bounded, so based on Barbalats Lemma [31], The adaptive CMS controller designed here needs to have
it can be noticed that lim t 0 . So, lim E t 0 . the bounds f U , g U and g L . In this system,
t t

Consequently, the stability of the proposed controller is
ensured.
IV. NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS
To find out the efficiency of the proposed adaptive CMS
controller for the missile pitch autopilot, simulations were
carried out. The missile model used in simulation is a generic
short-range surface-to-air missile and are its aerodynamic
coefficients given in Table I. First-order actuator model
a 150 rad/s is considered.
The control objectives are as follows:
Maintain stability over the operating range specified by
t , M m t such that
10 t 10 and 1.6 M m t 2.6
Track step command in C , with time constant 0.2 sec,
less than 10 % overshoot and steady-state error no greater
than 2 %.
Table I: Details of pitch axis missile model
f U 104.3 x3 and g U g L 1 are chosen.
Fig. 5 shows the simulation results under which the CMAC
controller is designed alone, and Fig. 5(a) illustrates the AOA
response and reference response for a step command. Also,
Fig. 5(b) - (d) depict shows the associated control input, pitch
rate and control fin deflection angle respectively. Although a
good response is obtained, the chattering phenomena of the
control efforts caused by the switching operation lead to the
reduction of tracking accuracy.
Fig. 6 presents the simulation results of adaptive CMS
controller, and Fig. 6(a) illustrates the AOA response and
reference response for a step command. Also, Fig. 6(b)(e)
shows the associated control input, pitch rate, control fin
deflection angle and the supervisory control, respectively.
Note that Fig. 6(e) shows one activation period [0, 0.0022]
sec. After 0.0022 sec, the supervisory is deactivated.
The comparison between three controllers is summarized in
Table II, which shows that the adaptive CMS controller
achieves the design requirement.

b1 1.6238 h5 4.185 rad -1 Table II: Controllers dynamic performances

b2 6.7240 h6 303.56 rad -3 Feedback CMAC-

Controller CMAC
b3 12.0393 h7 246.3 rad -2 Linearization Supervisory
b4 48.2246 h8 37.56 rad -1 Settling time
0.318 0.28 0.199
(s)
h1 288.7 rad -3
h9 71.51 rad -2
Overshoot
4.8 - 0.17
h2 50.32 rad -2 h10 10.01 rad -1
(%)
Steady-state
h3 23.89 rad -1 C1 0.2 error
0.35 % 0.29 % 8.710-5 %

h4 13.53 rad -2 C2 50
In all simulations, a 20% uncertainties existing in all random
constant perturbation pi i 1,,5 is taking into
consideration.
A. Feedback Linearization Controller
For the purpose of comparison, the feedback linearization
control law presented in (8) was simulated. The controller
gains are chosen as k1 50 and k2 225 .
Using the feedback linearization controller, the simulation
results for a step command is depicted in Fig. 4. Fig. 4 (a)
illustrates the AOA response and reference response for a step
command. Also, Fig. 4 (b) - (d) depict the associated control
effort, pitch rate and control fin deflection angle, respectively.
B. Adaptive CMS Controller
The adaptive CMS controller has been depicted in Fig. 1,
which uses Gaussian function as receptive field basis
functions. The input space was partitioned in a grid of
size 1 , and receptive fields are selected to cover the input
2
space 2,2, 2,2 along with each of the input dimension.
Therefore, the parameters are chosen as
vik 2 2 and m 2.5,1.5,0.5,0.5,1.5,2.5 for all i and k.
The design parameters are set as follows:
400 15
Q , w 1.0 , m v 0.75 , 0.01, V 1
15 1
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, an Adaptive CMAC Supervisory controller,
including an adaptive CMAC and a supervisory controller,
has been proposed to design a missile pitch autopilot for a
nonlinear model which is aerodynamically controlled and
contains unknown parameters and aerodynamic uncertainties.
From the simulation results, the proposed control system
achieves successfully the control objectives required. Future
study will be applying this controller to other missile systems
in order to further check its performance.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Xin and S. N. Balakrishnan, Nonlinear H missile longitudinal
autopilot design with -D method, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace
and Electronic Systems , Vols. 44, no. 1, pp. 41-56, 2008.
[2] S. Pain and K. Tiwari, A graphical design methodology of missile
autopilot, IEEE International Multi-Conference on Automation,
Computing, Communication, Control and Compressed Sensing,
2013.
[3] C. Xianxiang; S. Jianmei and C. G. Key, Robust gain-scheduled
autopilot design with LPV reference model for portable missile,
IEEE Aerospace Conference, pp. 1-10, 2012.
[4] F. K. Yeh; J. J. Huang and C. C. Wang, Observer-Based Adaptive Fuzzy
Sliding-Mode Controller Design for Missile Autopilot Systems,
IEEE SICE Annual Conference (SICE), pp. 546 551, 2012.
[5] C. Xun and L. Yongshan Design and Analysis of Autopilot Based on
Adaptive Control, IEEE Mechatronic Sciences, Electric
Engineering and Computer (MEC), pp. 2918 2921, 2013.
[6] S.H. Kim, Y.S. Kim and C. Song, A robust adaptive nonlinear control
approach to missile autopilot design, Control Engineering Practice,
Vol. 12, pp. 149-154, 2004.

6 www.ijeas.org
 International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences (IJEAS)
ISSN: 2394-3661, Volume-3, Issue-7, July 2016
[7] F. Jun-fang, S. Zhong, and C. Zhen-xuan, Missile Autopilot Design and
Analysis Based on Backstepping, IEEE Systems and Control in
Aeronautics and Astronautics, pp. 1042 - 1046, 2010.
[8] A. A. Godbole, and S. E. Talole, Robust Feedback Linearization
Approach to Pitch Autopilot Design, Advanced Materials Research,
Vols. 403-408, pp. 4667-4673, 2012.
[9] F. L. Lewis, A. Yesildirek, and K. Liu, Multilayer neural-net robust
controller with guaranteed tracking performance, IEEE Trans.
Neural Netw., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 388399, Mar. 1996.
[10] X. X. Liu, Y. Wu, J. P. Shi, and W. G. Zhang, Adaptive fault-tolerant
flight control system design using neural networks, IEEE
International Conference on Industrial Technology, 2008.
[11] K. C. Qian, and Z. L. Chen, Dynamic inversion based on neural
network applied to nonlinear flight control system, IEEE
International Conference on Future Computer and Communication,
Vol. 1, pp 699-703, 2010.
[12] Q. Lin, Z. H. Cai, Y. X. Wang, J. P. Yang, and L. F. Chen, Adaptive
Flight Control Design for Quadrotor UAV Based on Dynamic
Inversion and Neural Networks, International Conference on
Instrumentation, Measurement, Computer, Communication and
Control, 2013.
[13] C. H. Wang and K. N. Hung, Intelligent Adaptive Law for Missile
Guidance Using Fuzzy Neural Networks, International Journal of
Fuzzy Systems, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 182191, 2013.
[14] C. K. Lin, Adaptive Critic Autopilot Design of Bank-To-Turn
Missiles using Fuzzy Basis Function Networks, IEEE Transactions
on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 35, no. 2, pp 197-207, 2005.
[15] J. J Ma, P. Li, L. N. Geng and Z. Q. Zheng, Adaptive neural dynamic
surface control for a missile with input and output constraints, IEEE
Chinese Control Conference, 2014.
[16] J. S. Albus, A new approach to manipulator control: The cerebellar
model articulation controller (CMAC), J. Dyn. Syst., Measurement,
Contr., vol. 97, pp. 220227, 1975.
[17] S. H. Lane, D. A. Handelman, and J. J. Gelfand, Theory and
development of higher-order CMAC neural networks, IEEE Control
Syst. Mag., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 2330, Apr. 1992.
[18] W. Yu, and X. Li, "Some New Results on System Identification with
Dynamic Neural Networks," IEEE Trans. Neural Networks. vol. 12,
no. 2, pp. 412-417, 2001.
Fig.4. Simulation results for Feedback Linearization controller.
7 www.ijeas.org
[19] F. J. Gonzalez-Serrano, A. R. Figueiras-Vidal, and A. Artes-Rodriguez,
Generalizing CMAC architecture and training, IEEE Trans. Neural
Networks, vol. 9, pp. 15091514, 1998.
[20] J. C. Jan and S. L. Hung, High-order MS_CMAC neural network,
IEEE Trans. Neural Networks, vol. 12, pp. 598603, March 2001.
[21] F. J. Lin, R. J. Wai and Ch. M. Hong, Hybrid supervisory control
using recurrent fuzzy neural network for tracking periodic inputs,
IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 12, no. 1, pp 68-90,
2001.
[22] A. Jayasiri, G. K. I. Mann, and R. G. Gosine, Modular Supervisory
Control and Hierarchical Supervisory Control of Fuzzy
Discrete-Event Systems, IEEE Transactions on Automation Science
and Engineering, vol. 9, no. 2, pp 353-364, 2012.
[23] C. M. Lin and Y. F. Peng, Adaptive CMAC-Based Supervisory
Control for Uncertain Nonlinear Systems, IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 34, no. 2, pp 1248-1260, 2004.
[24] L. X. Wang, Adaptive Fuzzy Systems and Control: Design and
Stability Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1994.
[25] Y. H. Kim and F. L. Lewis, Optimal design of CMAC neural-network
controller for robot manipulators, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern.
C, vol. 30, pp. 2231, Feb. 2000.
[26] C. T. Chiang and C. S. Lin, CMAC with general basis functions,
Neural Networks, vol. 9, pp. 11991211, 1996.
[27] S. H. Lane, D. A. Handelman, and J. J. Gelfand, Theory and
development of higher-order CMAC neural networks, IEEE Contr.
Syst. Mag., vol. 12, pp. 2330, 1992.
[28] S. Jagannathan, Discrete-time CMAC NN control of Feedback
Linearizable nonlinear systems under a persistence of excitation,
IEEE Trans. Neural Networks, vol. 10, pp. 128137, Oct. 1999.
[29] Y. G. Leu, T. T. Lee, and W. Y. Wang, Observer-based adaptive
fuzzy-neural control for unknown nonlinear dynamical systems,
IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. B, vol. 29, pp. 583591, 1999.
[30] Y. G. Leu, W. Y. Wang, and T. T. Lee, Robust adaptive fuzzy-neural
controllers for uncertain nonlinear systems, IEEE Trans. Robot.
Automat., vol. 15, pp. 805817, 1999.
[31] J. J. E. Slotine and W. Li, Applied Nonlinear Control. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1991.
Missile Autopilot Design using Adaptive CMAC Supervisory Controller

Fig.5. Simulation results for CMAC controller.

Fig.6. Simulation results for CMS controller.

8 www.ijeas.org