Accepted Manuscript

A New Sliding mode Control Design for Integrated Missile Guidance and Control System

Jianguo Guo, Yu Xiong, Jun Zhou

PII: S1270-9638(18)30018-X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2018.03.042
Reference: AESCTE 4496

To appear in: Aerospace Science and Technology

Received date: 4 January 2018

Revised date: 27 February 2018
Accepted date: 25 March 2018

Please cite this article in press as: J. Guo et al., A New Sliding mode Control Design for Integrated Missile Guidance and Control System,
Aerosp. Sci. Technol. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2018.03.042

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing
this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is
published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 A New Sliding mode Control Design for Integrated Missile

Guidance and Control System

Jianguo Guoa, Yu Xionga*, Jun Zhoua

a
Institute of Precision Guidance and Control, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, 710072, China

Abstract
A new sliding mode control algorithm for integrated guidance and control (IGC) system is

proposed in this paper. Firstly, the IGC model is established and the nonlinearities, target maneuvers,

perturbations caused by variations of aerodynamic parameters, etc. are viewed as disturbance, so that

the IGC system becomes a mismatched uncertain linear system. Secondly, a second-order disturbance

observer is used to estimate the disturbances and their derivatives. Thirdly, an integral sliding mode

surface is designed to obtain the rudder deflection command directly instead of the back-stepping

control (BC) algorithm used in conventional IGC system, which achieves the real sense of IGC, and

the stability of the system is proven strictly by Lyapunov stability theory. Finally, the superiority of the

proposed IGC method is verified by comparing the simulation results of different methods under

different cases.

Keywords: Integrated guidance and control (IGC); Sliding mode control; Mismatched uncertainties;

Disturbance observer; Lyapunov stability theory.

1. Introduction
When designing the guidance and control system for missiles, the coupling effect of the guidance

loop and control loop is usually neglected and the two subsystems are designed separately, which is

*
Corresponding author at: Institute of Precision Guidance and Control, School of Astronautics, Northwestern

Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China.

Email address: [email protected]

This work is supported by National Nature Science Foundation of China under Grant 61703339.
feasible when the target has no or little maneuver capability. However, as the speed and maneuver

capability of the target increase, the coupling effect would be strong, thus the interception performance

of separation design in guidance and control (SGC) may degrade and the closed loop of missile may

even be instability[1-2].

For the deficiency of SGC, many literatures have carried on IGC design. In [3-5], the integrated

model is simplified to a linearized model, and then the optimal IGC law is obtained based on the

optimization method such as the state dependent Riccati differential equation approach[3], the θ-D

method[4] and feedback linearization scheme[5], but they all assume that the model is exactly known,

which neglect the unknown uncertainties such as target maneuvers, uncertain aerodynamic parameters,

etc.

Some literatures[6-11] use sliding mode control for IGC system. An adaptive nonlinear guidance

law which adopts the sliding mode control approach with adaptation for unknown bound of

uncertainties is proposed in [6]. The proposed guidance law in [7] combines high-gain back-stepping

and variable structure approach based on the assumption that missiles can be modeled as first-order

systems. And partial integrated guidance and control (PIGC) is designed for missiles [12-14]. They

[6-14] all take the uncertain flight control dynamics into consideration when designing guidance law,

but they actually are separated in guidance and control. Many other literatures [15-24] design IGC law

by combining BC and robust control. In [15], adaptive neural networks are trained online with

available measurements to compensate for unknown uncertainties, and an IGC law based on sliding

mode control is presented. In [16], an adaptive nonlinear IGC approach is developed, which makes the

line-of-sight (LOS) angular rate be input-to-state stable with respect to target maneuvers and missile

model uncertainties. Literature [17] presents the IGC law based on adaptive fuzzy sliding mode control,

which is robust against system uncertainties and external disturbances. Dynamic surface control

algorithm is also used in IGC. A simple adaptive block dynamic surface control algorithm is proposed

in [18], the dynamic surface control algorithm is implemented combining with extended state observer

2
in [19], a dynamic surface control in three-dimensional is proposed in [20-21], and a non-singular

terminal dynamic surface control based IGC method is proposed in [22]. Literature [23] proposes an

IGC law for missile intercepting against unknown maneuvering target with multiple uncertainties

which are estimated and compensated by designed model-assisted reduced-order extended state

observer. Literature [24] proposes an IGC law based on robust disturbance observer. When the BC is

adopted in IGC design[15-24], the expected control command of the lowest order state is obtained by

methods such as zeroing the line-of-sight (LOS) angular rate, and the corresponding virtual control law

is designed according to the tracking relation, then the virtual control command of the next state is

obtained; repeat the previous steps to make the states track the corresponding virtual control command,

finally, get the expression of rudder deflection command, which is equivalent to that the guidance loop

gives the guidance command first and the control loop tracks the guidance command later. Therefore,

the approach of using back-stepping control in IGC design is PIGC method virtually. In [25], an

adaptive nonlinear control law based on sliding mode control approach directly gives the rudder

deflection command, which deserves more to be called an IGC system design method.

In this paper, the nonlinearities, target maneuvers, perturbations caused by variations of

aerodynamic parameters, etc. are viewed as disturbance, thus, the IGC system is a mismatched

uncertain linear system, and then the disturbance observer[26-27] is used to estimate the disturbance.

In addition, an new integral sliding mode surface which contains all state variables is designed, and the

rudder deflection command can be obtained directly, which achieves the real sense of IGC. The

superiority of the proposed IGC method is verified by comparing the simulation results of different

methods under different cases. There is time delay both in SGC method and PIGC method, while the

IGC method proposed in this paper has no time delay. Hence, the proposed method shortens response

time, accelerate response speed and deserves more to be called an IGC system design method.

The major contributions in this paper are summarized as follows:

(1) A new IGC method by using the sliding mode control technique, instead of back-stepping

3
technique, is proposed to obtain control command directly.

(2) The mismatched uncertainties and their derivatives are estimated by the second-order

disturbance observer to compensate the proposed IGC controller.

(3) The stability of the closed IGC system is assured and the convergence scope is derived from

the stability to reflect the effect of the unknown disturbances.

(4) The simulation results show that the proposed IGC method improves the performance of the

closed system comparing with the SGC method and PIGC method.

This paper is organized as follows, the introduction of IGC is stated in Section 1. The model is

formulated in Section 2. The design of disturbance observer is described in Section 3. The design of

sliding mode control and its stability analysis are described in Section 4. Simulation performance is

illustrated in Section 5. And the conclusion is presented in Section 6.

2. Problem formulation
Take the pitch plane as an example, the relative motion of the missile and target is shown in Fig. 1,

where M and T represent the missile and target respectively. R is the relative distance between the

missile and target, and q is the LOS angle. The missile and target are assumed to have constant

velocities VM and VT , their accelerations are aM and aT , and their flight path angles are θ M and

θ T respectively.

Fig. 1. The relative motion of the missile and target

4
 The equations of motion between the missile and the target are as follows[1]:

R = VT cos(q − θ T ) − VM cos(q − θ M ) (1a)

Rq = −VT sin(q − θT ) + VM sin(q − θ M ) (1b)

Differentiating Eq. (1b), together with Eq. (1a) yields

  = −V sin(q − θ ) + V sin(q − θ )

Rq + 2Rq T T M M
(2)
+ aT cos(q − θ T ) − aM cos(q − θ M )

where aM = VMθM , aT = VTθT , and Eq. (2) can be rewritten as follow based on the assumption that

VT = VM =0

  = a cos(q − θ ) − a cos(q − θ )
Rq + 2Rq (3)
T T M M

Define Vq = Rq , Eq. (3) can be rewritten as

R
Vq = − Vq + aT cos( q − θ T ) − aM cos( q − θ M ) (4)
R

The planar missile dynamics are given by[28]

­ϑ = ω z
°
°α = ϑ − θ M
°
® 1 (5)
°α = mV (−Y + mg cos θ M ) + ω z
° M

° J zω z = M 0 + M δ δ z
¯ z

where α is the attack angle, m is the missile mass, Y is the lift force, J z is the moment of inertia

about z-axis, ωz is the pitch rate, δ z is the deflection angle for pitch control, ϑ is the pitch angle,

M δ z is the control contribution to the angular acceleration, M 0 = M 0 (α , Ma, h,VM , ωz ) represents the

angular acceleration contributions from all other sources and is often approximated as

M 0 =M α α +M ωz ω z , where M α and M ω z are the angular acceleration contributions from the attack

angle and pitch rate respectively.

The lift force and relative parameters are as follows

5
 ­Y = 57.3QS (cαy α + cδy z δ z )
°
° M α = 57.3QSLmαz
°
® QSL2 mωz z (6)
M
° ωz =
° VM
° M = 57.3QSLmδ z
¯ δz z

1
where Q = ρVM 2 is the dynamic pressure, S is the aerodynamic reference area, L is the reference
2

length, cαy and cδy z are the lift force derivatives with respect to α and δ z respectively, and m αz ,

mωz z and mδz z are the pitch moment derivatives with respect to α , ωz , and δ z , respectively.

Vq
According to Eq. (4)-(6), defining x1 = α
, x2 = α , x3 = ω z , u = δ z , b = 57.3QSLmzδ z J z ,
−57.3QSc y m

the conventional integrated model is as follows

x1 = x2 + f1 ( x1 ) + d1
x2 = x3 + f 2 ( x2 ) + d 2 (7)
x3 = bu + f 3 ( x2 , x3 ) + d3

where

­ R g cos θ M cos(q − θ M )
f
° 1 1( x ) = − x1 +
° R −57.3QScαy m
° 57.3QScαy g cos θ M
° f 2 ( x1 ) = − x2 +
° mVM VM
° α 2 ωz
° f ( x , x ) = 57.3QSLmz x + QSL mz x
® 3 2 3 2 3 (8)
Jz J zVM
°
° dVq
°d1 =
° −57.3QScαy m
°
° d 2 = dα
°d = d
¯ 3 ωz

In this paper, the nonlinearities, target maneuvers, etc. are viewed as disturbance, thus the

integrated model can be written as

6
 x1 = x2 + d1
x2 = x3 + k2 x2 + d 2 (9)
x3 = bu + k2 x2 + k3 x3 + d3

57.3QScαy QSL2 mωz z 57.3QSLmαz

where k2 = − , k3 = , k2 = , b = 57.3QSLmδz z J z , x1 , x2 , x3 are
mVM J zVM Jz

measurable and

R a cos(q − θ T ) + g cos θ M cos(q − θ M )

d1 = − x1 + T − α [1 − cos(q − θ M )]
R −57.3QScαy m
g cos θ M
d2 = +d 2 (cαy , Δ 2 ) (10)
VM
d3 = d3 ( mαz , mzωz , Δ 3 )

The disturbance d1 contains the unknown target acceleration and time-varying nonlinearities

with respect to system states, while d 2 (cαy , Δ 2 ) and d 3 ( mαz , m ωz z , Δ 3 ) represent the time-varying

perturbations caused by variations of aerodynamic parameters and external disturbances Δ i . Hence,

the integrated model becomes a linear system with mismatched uncertain.

3. Disturbance observer design

In this section, a second-order disturbance observer is used to estimate the disturbances and their

derivatives.

Assumption 1. The disturbances di (t )(i = 1, 2,3) are continuous, and satisfy

d j d i (t )
≤ μi i = 1, 2,3, j = 0,1, 2 (11)
dt j

Lemma 1. For the system (9), the disturbance observer can be designed as Eq. (12) to estimate d1

and d1 referring to [27]

7
 dˆ1 = p11 + l11 x1
ˆ
p11 = −l11 ( x2 + dˆ1 ) + d1
(12)
ˆ
d1 = p12 + l12 x1
p12 = −l12 ( x2 + dˆ1 )

ˆ
where, d̂1 and d1 are estimates of d1 and d1 respectively, p11 and p12 are auxiliary variables,

T
l11 and l12 are positive constants that user choose. Define the estimate errors (ER) as e1 = ª« d1 d1 º» ,
¬ ¼

 ˆ
where d1 = d1 − dˆ1 , d1 = d1 − d1 . Choosing appropriate l11 and l12 , the estimate error e1 will be

bounded by a certain scope

e1 ≤ r1 (13)

Similarly, the disturbance observers of d 2 , d2 and d3 , d3 are designed as follows

dˆ2 = p21 + l21 x2

ˆ
p 21 = −l21 ( x3 + k2 x2 + dˆ2 ) + d2
(14)
ˆ
d2 = p22 + l22 x2
p 22 = −l22 ( x3 + k2 x2 + dˆ2 )

dˆ3 = p31 + l31 x3

ˆ
p 31 = −l31 (bu + k2 x2 + k3 x3 + dˆ3 ) + d3
(15)
ˆ
d3 = p32 + l32 x3
p 32 = −l32 (bu + k2 x2 + k3 x3 + dˆ3 )

Choosing appropriate parameters l21, l22 and l31, l32 , the estimate errors will be bounded by

e2 ≤ r2 (16)

e3 ≤ r3 (17)

where r2 and r3 are constant bounds for e2 and e3 , respectively.

8
4. Sliding mode control for IGC
For the IGC system, many existing control algorithms are designed base on the BC algorithm, that

is, the virtual control command for each state is designed, and the virtual control law is design to track

the virtual control command. It is equivalent to that the guidance command is given by guidance loop

first and then the missile is controlled by control loop to achieve the guidance command, which is

traditional separation idea, but not the real sense of IGC. Furthermore, there is time delay in BC

algorithm, which is caused by the filter.

In this section, an integral sliding mode surface which contains all state variables is designed, and

the expression of rudder deflection command is obtained directly without time delay, which achieves

the real sense of IGC.

The integral sliding mode surface is designed as

ˆ
s = c1 x1 + (c2 + k2 ) x2 + x3 +c2 dˆ1 + dˆ2 + d1 (18)

where c1 and c2 are positive constants.

Remark 1. The purpose of missile control is zeroing LOS angular rate q , that is, zeroing the state

x1 , thus, the initial form of sliding mode surface is designed as follow

s = c1 x1 + c2 x1 + 
x1 (19)

where c1 and c2 are positive constants, and the larger c2 is, the faster the sliding mode converges.

Together with Eq. (9) yields

s = c1 x1 + (c2 + k 2 ) x2 + x3 +c2 d1 + d 2 + d1 (20)

where the disturbances are unknown, thus, they are replaced by the estimates (the stability analysis is

stated later). Therefore, the final form of sliding mode surface is designed as Eq. (18).

The reaching law is designed as follow

  ˆ
s = − kl s − k s sgn( s ) + c1d1 + (c2 + k2 ) d2 + d3 + c2 dˆ1 + dˆ2 + d1 (21)

9
 Differentiating Eq. (18), together with Eq. (9) and (21), yields

1
u = − [(c1 + c2 k2 + k2 2 + k2 ) x2 + (c2 + k2 + k3 ) x3 +
b (22)
c dˆ + (c + k ) dˆ + dˆ + k s + k sgn( s )]
1 1 2 2 2 3 l s

thus, the rudder deflection command can be obtained directly when the sliding mode surface is

designed as Eq. (18).

Remark 2. The sign function in sliding mode controller is replaced by the saturation function to

reduce the chattering phenomenon, thus, the sliding mode controller can be rewritten as follow

1
u = − [(c1 + c2 k2 + k2 2 + k2 ) x2 + (c2 + k2 + k3 ) x3 +
b (23)
c dˆ + (c + k ) dˆ + dˆ + k s + k s at ( s )]
1 1 2 2 2 3 l s

Theorem 1. For the system (9) with disturbance observers (12), (14) and (15), when the sliding

mode surface is utilized as Eq. (18), and under the control command Eq. (22), the IGC system is

stable, and the state variables will converge to the scopes

x1 ≤ ε1
(24)
x2 + d1 ≤ ε 2

where

ε1 = [ 2t12 (c2 + 1) r1 + 2t12 r2 ] q1

(25)
ε 2 = [ 2t22 (c2 + 1) r1 + 2t22 r2 ] q2
ªt11 t12 º
where Q = diag ( q1 , q2 ) is a given positive define matrix, T = « » is a positive define matrix
¬t12 t22 ¼

ª 0 1 º
satisfying AT T + TA = −Q , where A = « ».
¬ −c1 −c2 ¼

Proof. Defining a Lyapunov function

1 2
Vs = s (26)
2

and evaluating Vs and along (21)

10
 Vs = ss
ª   ˆ º
= − kl s 2 − k s s + s « c1d1 + (c2 + k2 )d2 + d3 + c2 dˆ1 + dˆ2 + d1 »
¬ ¼
  
= − kl s 2 − k s s + s ª« c1d1 + (c2 + k2 )d2 + d3 + c2 (l11d1 + d1 − d1 ) + l12 d1 + l21d2 + d2 − d2 º» (27)
¬ ¼
≤ − kl s 2 − k s s + s ª¬(c1 + c2l11 + c2 + l12 ) e1 + ( c2 + k2 + l21 + 1) e2 + e3 + (c2 + 1) μ º¼
≤ − s ª¬ kl s + k s − (c1 + c2l11 + c2 + l12 )r1 − ( c2 + k2 + l21 + 1)r2 − r3 − (c2 + 1) μ º¼

Therefore, the sliding mode variable s is bounded by

(c1 + c2l11 + c2 + l12 )r1 + ( c2 + k2 + l21 + 1)r2 + r3 + (c2 + 1) μ − ks

s≤ (28)
kl

As long as ks is big enough, the sliding mode variable s will go to zero. From Eq. (18), when

s = 0 , yields

ˆ
x3 = −c1 x1 − (c2 + k2 ) x2 − c2 dˆ1 − dˆ2 − d1 (29)

Substituting (29) into (9), yields

x1 = x2 + d1
(30)
ˆ
x2 = −c1 x1 − c2 x2 − c2 dˆ1 − d1 + d2

Defining x = [ x1 x2 + d1 ] , and defining a Lyapunov function

T

Vx = x T Tx (31)

where T is a positive define matrix such that

AT T + TA = −Q (32)

ª 0 1 º ªt11 t12 º
for any given positive define matrix Q , where A = « » , T =« » . It is easily obtained
¬ −c1 −c2 ¼ ¬t12 t22 ¼

that T satisfies the condition as following when Q = diag ( q1 , q2 ) , where q1 > 0 and q2 > 0 .

t11 = t12 c2 + t22 c1

t12 = t21 = q1 / (2c1 ) (33)
t22 = ( q2 + 2t12 ) / 2c2

11
 Differentiating Vx along the Eq. (30), yields

( ) (
Vx = 2t11 x1 x1 + 2t12 x1 ( x2 + d1 ) + 2t12 x1 x2 + d1 + 2t22 ( x2 + d1 ) x2 + d1 )
(34)
( ) (
= 2t11 x1 ( x2 + d1 ) + 2t12 ( x2 + d1 ) + 2t12 x1 x2 + d1 + 2t22 ( x2 + d1 ) x2 + d1
2
)
where

ˆ
x2 + d1 = −c1 x1 − c2 x2 − c2 dˆ1 − d1 + d2 + d1
(35)

= −c1 x1 − c2 x2 − c2 dˆ1 + d1 + d2

Due to x2 + dˆ1 = x2 + d1 − d1 , and consider Eq. (33)

( 
Vx = 2 ( t12 c2 + t22 c1 ) x1 ( x2 + d1 ) + 2t12 ( x2 + d1 ) + 2t12 x1 −c1 x1 − c2 x2 − c2 dˆ1 + d1 + d2
2
)
( 
+ 2t22 ( x2 + d1 ) −c1 x1 − c2 x2 − c2 dˆ1 + d1 + d2 ) (36)
 
= −q x + 2t12 x1 (c2 d1 + d1 + d2 ) − q2 ( x2 + d1 ) 2 + 2t22 ( x2 + d1 ) (c2 d1 + d1 + d2 )
1 1
2

≤ − x1 ( q1 x1 − μ11 ) − x2 + d1 ( q2 x2 + d1 − μ12 )

where

μ11 = 2t12 (c2 d1 + d1 + d2 ) ≤ 2t12 (c2 + 1)r1 + 2t12 r2
(37)
μ12 = 2t22 (c2 d1 + d1 + d2 ) ≤ 2t22 (c2 + 1)r1 + 2t22 r2

When the states are satisfied as

x1 > ε1 and x2 + d1 > ε 2 (38)

it can be obtained

Vx ≤ 0 (39)

The IGC system is stable according to Lyapunov stability theory, and the convergence scope of

the states in sliding mode is obtained as following as

x1 ≤ ε 1
(40)
x2 + d1 ≤ ε 2

Remark 3. The disturbances and their all-order derivatives are bounded according to Assumption

12
1, and the states variables x1 and x2 are bounded according to Theorem 1, therefore, x3 will be

bounded according to Eq. (29). Meanwhile, the smaller ε1 is, the closer x1 gets to zero, that is, the

smaller the estimate error scopes r1 and r2 are, the closer x1 gets to zero according to Eq. (25).

Therefore, the stability of the closed IGC system is assured, and the convergence scope of x1 is

derived from the stability to reflect the effect of the unknown disturbances.

5. Simulation
To verify the effectiveness and interception performance of the proposed IGC method, simulations

of different methods have been carried out under different cases. The initial values of the missile and

target are as follows[23]. The initial relative distance between missile and target is R0 = 10km . The

initial LOS angle is q0 = 30$ , the constant velocity for missile and target are 500 m s and 250 m s

respectively. The initial flight path angle for missile and target are θ M 0 = 45$ and θ T 0 = 120$

T
respectively. The initial value of the states is [ x1 (0) α (0) ωz (0)] = ª¬0$
T
0$ 0$ s º¼ , and the

aerodynamic parameters for the IGC model are listed as follows:

57.3QSC αy 57.3QSC δy z
= 0.3487, = 0.068
mVM mVM
57.3QSlmαz QSl 2 mωz z
= −17.801, = −0.2741
Jz J zVM
57.3QSlmδz z
= −31.267
Jz

The control constraint is set as δ z ≤ 20$ , and the simulation step size is 0.001s. The designed

parameters for the proposed IGC method are given as follows:

l11 = 15, l12 = 30, l21 = 100, l22 = 3000

l31 = 100, l32 = 3000, c1 = 12, c2 = 9, kl = 2, ks = 1

To highlight the superiority of the proposed IGC method in this paper, three schemes are carried

out in simulation, which are the proposed IGC method in this paper, the PIGC method based on BC

13
and feedback linearization in [23], and the SGC method using adaptive sliding mode guidance law.

The following interception cases are considered[23]:

Case 1. Suppose that the coefficients of aerodynamics forces and moments are all increased by 20%

of their respective nominal values. The target maneuver is assumed to be zero ( aT = 0 ).

The simulation results are shown in Fig. 2, where Fig. 2(a) is the trajectory of the missiles and

target, the LOS angular rate, attack angle and pitch angular rate and rudder deflection are shown in Fig.

2(b)~2(e), and 2(f) is the figure of sliding mode surface of the proposed IGC method. As shown in

Fig. 2(b), the convergence time of LOS angular rate for the three methods are different, which is, the

proposed IGC method is the fastest, and the SGC method is the slowest. The reason is that there is

time delay both in SGC method and PIGC method, while the IGC method proposed in this paper has

no time delay. Meanwhile, other results in Fig. 2 are similar. Therefore, the use of the proposed IGC

method, which achieves the real sense of IGC, shortens response time. It is obvious that the sliding

mode surface goes to zero at the beginning from Fig. 2(f).

12000 0.8
IGC
10000 0.6 PIGC
dq/dt /(deg/s)

8000 SGC
0.4
IGC
y/m

6000
PIGC 0.2
4000
SGC
2000 0
target
0 collision point -0.2
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 5 10 15 20 25
x/m t/s
(a) The trajectory of the missiles and target (b) 7he LOS angular rate

14
 30 150
IGC IGC
PIGC PIGC
100
20 SGC SGC

ωz /(deg/s)
α /deg

50
10
0

0 -50
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
t/s t/s
(c) The attack angle (d) The pitch angular rate

10 50

0
0
δ z /(deg)

-50
s

-10 IGC
-100
PIGC
SGC
-20 -150
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
t/s t/s
(e) The rudder deflection (f) The integral sliding mode surface
Fig. 2. Simulation results under Case 1

The ERs of disturbances by the second-order disturbance observer are presented in Fig. 3. As is

shown, the ERs converge to zero rapidly, thus, the second-order disturbance observer can estimate the

uncertainties accurately and rapidly.

15
 15 25
20

ER of dd1 /dt /(rad/s)

10
ER of d1 /rad

15
5 10
5
0
0
-5 -5
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
t/s t/s

0.04 0.5

ER of dd2 /dt /(rad/s )

2
ER of d2 /(rad/s)

0.02 0

0 -0.5

-0.02 -1
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
t/s t/s

0.02 2
ER of dd3 /dt /(rad/s )
3
ER of d3 /(rad/s )

0.01 1
2

0 0

-0.01 -1

-0.02 -2
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
t/s t/s
Fig. 3. Estimate errors of disturbances under Case 1

To demonstrate the proposed IGC method can also work well in the presence of target maneuvers,

the following case is considered:

Case 2. Suppose that the coefficients of aerodynamics forces and moments are all reduced by -30%

of their respective nominal values. Additionally, addictive external disturbances d 2 = 0.5sin(t ) ,

d3 = 0.2sin(t ) are added. The target maneuver is assumed to be aT = 50sin(0.25t )(m s 2 ) .

Similarly, the three methods are also adopted in this case. The simulation results are presented in
16
Fig. 4, which also shows that the use of the proposed IGC method shortens response time and

accelerate response speed.

8000 1
IGC
6000 PIGC

dq/dt /(deg/s)
0.5 SGC
IGC
y/m

4000
PIGC
0
2000 SGC
target
0 collision point -0.5
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 5 10 15
x/m t/s
(a) The trajectory of the missiles and target (b) 7he LOS angular rate

150
IGC IGC
40
PIGC 100 PIGC
SGC SGC
ωz /(deg/s)

20 50
α /deg

0 0

-50
-20
-100
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
t/s t/s
(c) The attack angle (d) The pitch angular rate

20 50

10 0
δ z /(deg)

0 -50
s

IGC
-10 -100
PIGC
SGC
-20 -150
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
t/s t/s
(e) The rudder deflection (f) The integral sliding mode surface
Fig. 4. Simulation results under Case 2

17
 Case 3. Monte Carlo simulations.

In this case, the two following conditions are considered to conduct the Monte Carlo simulation

(1) The disturbance are kept unchanged as Case 2, the initial flight path angle of missile is

generated randomly in uniform distribution. The range of initial flight path angle for missile covers

from 0$ to 90$ .

(2) The disturbance are kept unchanged as Case 2, the target acceleration is generated randomly in

uniform distribution. The range of target acceleration varies from 30sin(0.25t ) to 80sin(0.25t ) .

Tab. I. Average miss distance under Case 3

SGC method PIGC method proposed IGC method
(1) 1.8033m 1.1610m 0.4276m
(2) 1.6715m 1.2599m 0.8662m
miss distance projected in y-axis(m)

1.6
2

1 1.4

0 1.2

-1 1
2.1m

-2
0.8
-2 -1 0 1 2 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8
miss distance projected in x-axis(m)
(1a) SGC method

18
miss distance projected in y-axis(m)
1.5 1

1
0.8
0.5

0 0.6

-0.5
1.4m 0.4
-1

-1.5 0.2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1 -0.8 -0.6
miss distance projected in x-axis(m)
(1b) PIGC method
miss distance projected in y-axis(m)

0.2

0.5
0

0
-0.2

0.8m
-0.5
-0.4

-0.5 0 0.5 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0

miss distance projected in x-axis(m)
(1c) proposed IGC method
miss distance projected in y-axis(m)

2 1.6

1 1.4

0 1.2

-1 1
2m

-2 0.8
-2 -1 0 1 2 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8
miss distance projected in x-axis(m)
(2a) SGC method

19
 miss distance projected in y-axis(m)
2
1.4

1 1.2
1
0 0.8
0.6
-1 2.1m
0.4

-2 0.2
-2 -1 0 1 2 -1.5 -1 -0.5
miss distance projected in x-axis(m)
(2b) PIGC method
miss distance projected in y-axis(m)

2 2

1 1.5

0 1

-1 0.5
2.8m
-2 0

-3 -0.5
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0
miss distance projected in x-axis(m)
(2c) proposed IGC method
Fig. 5. Monte Carlo simulation results for miss distance under Case 3

Tab. I gives the average miss distance for 500 dispersed cases with different initial flight path

angles or different target accelerations using the three methods. We can see that the average miss

distance of the proposed IGC method is minimum, the PIGC method based on BC is moderate, while

the SGC method is maximum, and the miss distance histories and convergence radius are shown in Fig.

5. Therefore, the use of the proposed IGC method reduces the miss distance and also enhances the

interception performance.

20
6. Conclusion
In this paper, a new sliding mode control based on disturbance observer method is designed for the

IGC system. The target maneuvers, perturbations caused by variations of aerodynamic parameters and

external disturbances, etc. are estimated and compensated accurately by the second-order disturbance

observer. The sliding mode control algorithm designed in this paper achieves the real sense of IGC,

which shortens response time, accelerate response speed, reduces the miss distance and thus enhances

the interception performance.

References
[1] Han Y, Haibo J. Integrated guidance and control for dual-control missiles based on small gain theorem. Automatic

2012;48(10):2686-92 October.

[2] Maital L, Tal S, SHUAL G. Linear quadratic integrated vs separated autopilot-guidance design. Journal of

Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 2013;36(6):1722-1730.

[3] Palumbo NF, Jackson TD. Integrated missile guidance and control: a state dependent Riccati differential equation

approach. IEEE International Conference on Control Applications. IEEE 1999;243-248 vol. 1.

[4] Xin M, Balakrishnan SN, Ohlmeyer EJ. Integrated guidance and control of missiles with ș-D method. Control

Systems Technology IEEE Transactions 2006;14(6):981-992.

[5] Menon PK, Ohlmeyer EJ. Integrated design of agile missile guidance and autopilot systems. Control Engineering

Practice 2001;9(10):1095-1106.

[6] Chwa DY, Jin YC. Adaptive nonlinear guidance law considering control loop dynamics. IEEE Transactions on

Aerospace & Electronic Systems 2003;39(4):1134-1143.

[7] Lechevin N, Rabbath CA. Backstepping guidance for missiles modeled as uncertain time-varying first-order

systems. American Control Conference. IEEE 2007;4582-4587.

[8] Shkolnikov I, Shtessel Y. Integrated guidance-control system of a homing interceptor: sliding mode approach.

AIAA 2001;2001-4218.

[9] Shima T, Idan M, Golan OM. Sliding-mode control for integrated missile autopilot guidance. Journal of Guidance,

Control, and Dynamics 2006;29(2):250-260.

[10] Idan M, Shima T, Golan OM. Integrated sliding mode autopilot-guidance for dual-control missiles. Journal of

21
 Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 2007;30(4):1081-1089.

[11] Bailing T, Wenru Fan, Qun Z. Integrated guidance and control for reusable launch vehicle in reentry phase.

Nonlinear Dynamics 2015;80(1-2):397-412.

[12] Bailing Tian, Fan Wenru, Qun Zong. Real-Time trajectory and attitude coordination control for reusable

launch vehicle in reentry phase. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 2015;62(3):1639-1650.

[13] Qing W, Maopeng R, Chaoyang D. Robust partial integrated guidance and control for missiles via extended state

observer. ISA Transactions 2016;65:27-36.

[14] Padhi R, Chawla C, Das PG. Partial Integrated Guidance and Control of Interceptors for High-Speed Ballistic

Targets. Conference on American Control Conference IEEE Press 2009;4184-4189.

[15] Kim BS, Calise AJ, Sattigeri RJ. Adaptive, Integrated guidance and control design for line-of-sight based

formation flight. Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics 2006;30(5):2006--6716.

[16] Han Y, Xinghu W, Bingfeng Y, Haibo J. Adaptive Integrated guidance and control based on backstepping and

input-to-state stability. Asian Journal of Control 2014;16(2):602-608.

[17] Zhaolei W, Qing W, Maopeng R, Chaoyang D. Integrated guidance and control backstepping design of Blended

control missile based on adaptive fuzzy sliding mode control. Acta Armamentarii 2015;36(1):78-86.

[18] Mingzhe H, Guangren D. Adaptive dynamic surface control for integrated missile guidance and autopilot.

Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 2013;26(3):741-750.

[19] Sen W, Weihong W, Shaofeng X. Impact angle constrained three-dimensional integrated guidance and control

for STT missile in the presence of input saturation. ISA Transactions 2016;64:151-160.

[20] Xiaodong L, Wanwei H, Lifu D. An integrated guidance and control approach in three-dimensional space for

hypersonic missile constrained by impact angles. ISA Transactions 2017;66:164-175.

[21] Shaofeng X, Weihong W, Sen W, et al. Three dimensional impact angle constrained integrated guidance and

control for missile with input saturation and actuator failure. Aerospace Science Technology 2016; 53;169-87.

[22] Cong Z, Yunjie W. Non-singular terminal dynamic surface control based integrated guidance and control design

and simulation. ISA Transactions 2016;63:112-120.

[23] Xingling S, Honglun W. Back-stepping active disturbance rejection control design for integrated missile

guidance and control system via reduced-order ESO. ISA Transactions 2015;57(4):10-22.

[24] Hwang TW, Tahk MJ. Integrated backstepping design of missile guidance and control with robust disturbance

22
 observer. SICE-ICASE, 2006. International Joint Conference. IEEE 2007;4911-4915.

[25] Mingzhe H, Guangren D. Integrated Guidance and Control of Homing Missiles Against Ground Fixed Targets.

Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 2008;21(2):162-168.

[26] Jun Y, Shihua L, Xinghuo Y. Sliding-mode control for systems with mismatched uncertainties via a disturbance

observer. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 2012;60(1):160-169.

[27] Ginoya D, Shendge PD, Phadke SB. Sliding mode control for mismatched uncertain systems using an extended

disturbance observer. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 2013;61(4):1983-1992.

[28] Stevens BL, Lewis FL. Aircraft control and simulation. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1992, p. 107–116.

23