Indian Institute of Technology
Madras
Department of Aerospace Engineering
AS5570
Principles of Guidance of Autonomous
Vehicles
Extension to ’All Aspect Approach to A Stationary Target’
Submitted by:
AE21B001 Abel Viji George
AE21B002 Abhigyan Roy
AE21B056 Shreeya Padte
1 Motivation
In the 2pPPN guidance,
R the orientation phase can be attained with different trajectories. We computed the
cost requirement as a2p dt. The minimum lateral acceleration requirement gives the best trajectory. Also,
we have analyzed the phase after the orientation phase for N > 2 values and concluded an optimum N for
that phase.
2 Procedure
• The pursuer has to reach the target with finite bounded lateral acceleration.
• The pursuer takes the orientation phase to reach the N = 2 line in the αP − θ plane. Then, it follows
the N = 2 line to reach the target.
• The initial conditions in our case are - (αP0 , θ0 ) = (π/4, 0). The desired approach angle is -150◦ . The
orientation gain is found by -
αP − αP0
N= (1)
θ − θ0
We have considered the gains from (-2, 1) during this phase.
• The lateral acceleration is found as -
N Vp Vθ
ap = (2)
R
Here ap(ori) is when N=Nori and ap(end−phase) is when N = 2.
Figure 1: αP − θ plane
1
3 Interpretation
The initial conditions in our case are - (αP0 , θ0 ) = (π/4, 0). The desired approach angle is -150◦ . The final
phase gain or Nf is 2 for the plots shown.
3.1 Gain = -2
(a) Lateral acceleration (b) Combined plots
Figure 2: Comparison of plots
3.2 Gain = -1
(a) Lateral acceleration (b) Combined plots
Figure 3: Comparison of plots
2
3.3 Gain = 0
(a) Lateral acceleration (b) Combined plots
Figure 4: Comparison of plots
3.4 Gain = 1
(a) Lateral acceleration (b) Combined plots
Figure 5: Comparison of plots
3
3.5 Cost and Time to reach
We can observe from the plots that time to reach decreases with increase in Nori . The cost variation and
trajectories for different Nori is also shown.
Figure 6: Cost v/s Nori
Figure 7: Time to reach v/s Nori
4
Figure 8: Trajectories
4 Optimising Cost
Figure 9: Cost Comparison
As we can see cost has an overall minima compared to the rest at Nf = 2, and then increases after. Hence,
optimum Nf is 2.5 and optimum Nori for it is -0.35 for αPdf = −150◦
5
Figure 10: Time to Reach
Figure 11: Trajectory Comparison
6
4.1 Variation of Cost with change in Desired Approach Angle
(a) αPdf = -60◦ (b) αPdf = -90◦
(c) αPdf = -120◦ (d) αPdf = -175◦
Figure 12: Comparison for different αPdf
We can clearly see a shift in the optima value with change in αPdf
5 Conclusion
• The minima of the cost function was observed at Nori = -0.35 for different Nf . Hence, it is the
optimum orientation phase for our given conditions.
• As the Nori increases from 0, the cost increases, and the time to reach the target decreases. Hence, it
is a tradeoff between lateral acceleration requirement and time to reach here.
• Based on the Cost vs N plot, we can conclude that optimum Nf is 2.5. We could use a finer array
of N values around optimum Nf to check for a better optimal final phase N.
• The range of angles which can be attained using PPN is [-45◦ , 0◦ ), but we want to optimise aP over
both phases. So, we ran the simulations for different final approach angles like [-60◦ , -90◦ , -120◦ , -175◦ ].
As we increase the angle from -45◦ to -180◦ , the optimal orientation gain decreases. Also, the optimum
7
gain for the final phase decreases (3 − > 2.5 − > 2). But for all approach angles, the time to reach
decreases as Nori increases.
• There is some anomalous behavior for Nf = 2, for a certain αPdf it does not follow a similar trend
compared to the other higher N values. We can associate this behaviour to it being the minimum
bound for finite missile latax.