1 INTRODUCTION

This paper deals with the problem oI controlling a static

unstable airIrame oI tactical missile through the proper
choice both oI gains and oI the autopilot topology. This
requirement was dictated in the past by the need to
accommodate an acceptable trade oII to the center oI
gravity (CG) excursions during the boost stage and to
compensate Ior the center oI pressure (CP) shiIts
throughout all the Ilight situations encountered during
missile mission. More recently, the need Ior developing
missiles with Iast response suggests that this requirement
could be more easily IulIilled by deliberately designing a
static unstable missile. Especially, as important part oI the
Active Control Technology (ACT) widely applied in
aircraIt design, it is believed that the Relaxed Static
Stability (RSS) technology will soon come into service in
advanced air-to-air missile design course. Consequently it
is oI practical interest Ior the missile engineers to know
what are the limitations to the missile static instability.
Longitudinal autopilots Ior tactical missiles have been
successIully employed Ior over IiIty years. In the past
several years, the classic Raytheon thee-loop autopilot has
been the design topology oI choice
|1-3|
. In spite oI that, the
two-loop autopilot can also control a static unstable missile.
Both oI the two- and three-loop autopilot has the desired
longitudinal acceleration as the command and the sensed
acceleration and sensed angular rate as the measured
quantities. The design goal oI any autopilot is to use sensed
quantities to produce a stable Iast response that robustly
Iollows commanded inputs
|4|
. This paper treats with
approaching the autopilot design process by looking at the
pole assignment, output Ieedback and optimization. A
general design method is introduced Ior all oI the two-loop
topology, two-loop topology with PI compensator, and
three-loop topology. The Iocus is to examine the autopilot
control Iunction on a static unstable missile. The


corresponding conclusion shows that the actuator resource
or its bandwidth is the most relevant Iactor aIIecting the
problem oI controlling a static unstable missile.
2 MISSILE DYNAMICS
A missile longitudinal dynamics can be described by using
the short period approximation oI the longitudinal
equations oI motion. The basic missile plant in diIIerential
notation is

v
a a a
b b
a J

=
= +
=
=

(1)
The corresponding variables are deIined in Table 1
|5|
.
Table1. Notation
Variable Description Units Variable Description Units
pitch angle rad Y liIt N

pitch
angular rate
rad/s
v
c

liIt
coeIIicient
1/rad

pitch angular
acceleration
rad/s
2
q
dynamic
pressure
N/s
2


trajectory
angle
rad S
reIerence
area
m
2

trajectory
angular rate
rad/s o
Iin
deIlection
rad
o
angle
oI attack
rad ay
normal
acceleration
m/s
2

m mass kg P thrust N

Variable a a a b b c J
Units s
-2
s
-2
s
-1
s
-1
s
-1
m m/s
Value +250 280 1.5 1.6 0.23 0.681 914.4

Wherein, the positive c value means that the accelerometer
is ahead oI the CG.
Thereby three possibilities exist:
a

~ 0 this means static stable missile;

Design and Comparison of Classical Topologies
for Static Unstable Missile Autopilots
FAN Jun-Iang, XIA Qun-li, QI Zai-kang
Department oI Flying Vehicle Engineering, Beijing Institute oI Technology, Beijing 100081
E-mail: wyhIIjIgmail.com

Abstract: The characteristics and beneIit oI applying relaxed static stability technology on missile Ilight perIormance
were presented. The transIorm technologies both oI engineering index into the desired system poles and state Ieedback
into output Ieedback were analyzed. Based on optimization and output Ieedback, a general design methodology Ior
multiple topologies oI autopilots was proposed. The analysis is accomplished by establishing a standard algorithm Ior
diIIerent autopilot topologies. Anyone oI the two- and three-loop autopilots can stabilize a static unstable missile.
However, the Iinite resource oI actuator is the crucial Iactor Ior autopilot control eIIect.
Key Words: Static Unstable Missile, Relaxed Static Stability, Output Feedback, Actuator Resource

3659
978-1-4244-1734-6/08/$25.00 c 2008 IEEE

a

0 this means critical static stable missile;

a

0 this means static unstable missile.

A static stable missile means that a restoring moment
is generated in response to a perturbation in , the angle oI
attack. This occurs when the CG is closer to the nose oI the
airIrame than the CP.
A static unstable missile means that the plant exhibits
a growing response to a perturbation in . This is due to the
CP being ahead oI the CG. The critical static stable missile,
which in Iact is not a practical situation, is the boundary
between stable and unstable missiles.
When giving command, the initial Iin deIlections both
oI static stable and unstable missiles are same; aIter the
transient process, the balance Iin deIlection angle oI a static
stable missile is diIIerent Irom the unstable plant. In Figure
1, it shows the autopilot working procedure Ior a stable and
unstable missile.
CP
CG
control
M
stabili:e
M
CP
CG
control
M
overturn M
control
M

Fig 1. Autopilot working procedure
A very general approach to the missile control
philosophy is to measure the angular rate

and normal
acceleration a
y
oI the missile. Wherein, the real measured
quantity oI an accelerometer includes the angular
acceleration

since the measuring unit can not be placed

right at the missile CG. The two-loop, the two-loop with PI
compensator, and the three-loop topologies oI an autopilot
are shown in Figure 2-4.
u
vc
a
v
a c +

g
k
dc
k
a
k

Fig 2. Two-loop topology
u
vc
a
v
a c +

1
i
p
i
Ts
k
T s
+
PI compensator

Fig 3. Two-loop topology with PI compensator
u vc
a
v
a c +

i
s

dc
k
a
k
g
k

Fig 4. Three-loop topology
Rewritten in state space notation, the basic missile
plant is

m m m m
x x u v x u = + = + (2)
To be more speciIic, the short period dynamics are
shown as Iollows
to a two-loop autopilot
[ ]
T
x =

, [ ]
T
v
v a c = +


1
m
b
a a

=

(
(


m
b
a

(
=
(


0 1
m
Jb ca ca


(
=
(


0
m
ca Jb

=
(
(


to a two-loop autopilot with PI compensator
[ ]
T
x =

, [ ]
T
v
v a c = +


0 1
0 0 1 0
0
m m
b b
a a a

= =

( (
( (
( (
( (


0
0 0 1 0
1 1 0 0
m m
Jb ca ca ca Jb


= =

( (
( (
( (
( (


to a three-loop autopilot
[ ]
T
x =

, [ ]
T
v
v a c = +


0 1
0 0 1 0
0
m m
b b
a a a

= =

( (
( (
( (
( (


0
0 0 1 0
0 1 0 0
m m
Jb ca ca ca Jb


= =
( (
( (
( (
( (


The nominal static stable plant is a relatively Iast
lightly damped system. While let a

0, the plant is
relatively Iast unstable system, which yields the system
eigen equation can be decomposed into two aperiodic loops
with nearby absolute-values and opposite signs. Figure 5
shows the pure missile airIrame response.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
a
y

m
/
s
2

t(s)
a

= 250m/s
2
a

= -250m/s
2
a

= 0

Fig 5. Pure airIrame response
To reveal the beneIit oI applying RSS technology on
missile, the relation between normal overload (n
y
) and
static stability (a

) can be set up as
3660 2008 Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC 2008)


( ) sin
v
v
c qS P Y P
n
mg mg

+ +
= (3)
With moment relation on balance state, the equation is
given as

( )
v
v
c qS P a
n
mg a

+
= (4)
As other variables keep almost constant, the missile
normal overload will increase 3-4 times iI plant static
stability (a

) is reduced to 1/3 1/4, and the missile

maneuverability will be improved greatly. Accordingly, the
induced drag can be decreased, liIt drag ratio can be
increased, and the airIrame mass can be reduced.
3 AUTOPILOT DESIGN
In the Ilight control system, the rate gyro Ieeds body rate
inIormation into the autopilot while the accelerometer Ieeds
back achieved acceleration inIormation. The autopilot
gains, |k
a
k
g
|, |k
p
T
i
k
g
| or |k
a
c
i
k
g
|, must be chosen to
satisIy some designer-chosen criteria. Wherein, the gains
|k
p
T
i
| in two-loop topology are also the parameters oI PI
compensator, and the gain k
dc
in two- and three-loop
topology is computed Irom the other gains |k
a
k
g
| or |k
a
c
i

k
g
| so that the achieved acceleration will match the
commanded acceleration.
Missile design engineers are not interested in
controlling the airIrame zeros (i.e., numerator oI transIer
Iunction in closed-loop control system) but would like to let
the denominator oI preceding closed-loop transIer Iunction
have the Iorm

2
2
2
( ) ( 1)( 1)
s
p s s s

= + + + (5)
where it has made the polynomial a real pole times a
quadratic.
Then the overall time constant oI the third-order
autopilot system can be approximated as

2
total

= + (6)
Since the missile perIormance requirements and
hardware limitation, engineers would like to put Iorward
the time- and Irequency-domain mixed perIormance index
in terms oI , , and c
CR
. Wherein, can approximate
reveal system response time, is applies to endow the plant
proper damping, and c
CR
reIers to the crossover Irequency
oI open-loop system.
From the point oI view oI pole assignment, once
Iinding out c, the desired closed-loop system poles can be
determined immediately
2 2
1 1 1 P f f = +
(


For given airIrame parameters and perIormance index,
it can decide the desired poles and the autopilot gains iI
only providing a c value, as well as the open and closed
loop systems. Then c
CR
is determined. In other words, there
exists a bijection between c
CR
and c
( )
CR
f (7)
The Iollowing Iormula can be used to make an
estimate oI c value range
|6|

(1 ) 1 (2 )
appro CR
CR
a b

+
= +
(
(

(8)
Then deIining the objective Iunction with the required
c
CR
and calculated c
cr
every time
min
CR cr
(9)
Hereby an unconstraint optimization problem can be
outlined to obtain the exact c value. The existence and
convergence oI this optimization problem are explicit.
With
m
,
m
and poles , the state Ieedback matrix
can be determined immediately
u x = (10)
Next we will deal with the problem that the Iull state is
not available Ior Ieedback in a missile control problem. By
deIining the "Iull state observability" as requiring that
|
m

m
|
-1
exist, then any state Ieedback optimal solution
can be transIormed to output Ieedback given the system is
Iull state observable. Specially, iI
m
0, the requirement to
transIorm a state Ieedback solution to output Ieedback
reduces to demanding
1
m

to exist, as this becomes a state

transIormation.
The output Ieedback matrix is obtained as

1
( )
m m

= (11)
and the control usage by output Ieedback is
u v = (12)
The control usage can be also obtained by autopilot
topology transIormation
( )
ag
u g v = (13)
where, the Iunction g() is linear and consistent. The matrix

ag
reIers to autopilot gains, to two-loop autopilot,
ag
|k
a

k
g
|; to two-loop autopilot with PI compensator,
ag
|k
p
T
i

k
g
|; to three-loop autopilot,
ag
|k
a
c
i
k
g
|.
Besides, one oI the main purposes oI missile control
system is to track the normal acceleration (overload)
command. The real output normal acceleration a
y
is
contained in the Iirst output item (v
1
). With the terminal
value theorem

0
lim 1
v
s
vc
a
a

= (14)
the Iorward-loop gain k
dc
in two- and three-loop topology
can be obtained Irom other gains.
Thereby, the complete autopilot design methodology
can be summarized as: with given mixed index , , and
c
CR
, solving the optimization problem (9) to obtain c value
and the desired poles , checking and determining the
|
m

m
|
-1
existence; Iinding out the state Ieedback matrix
, calculating the output Ieedback matrix ; solving
equation (13) to obtain the autopilot gains. This is an
iterative procedure.
2008 Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC 2008) 3661

It`s turn to reveal how to decide the exact selection oI
desired perIormance index. As shown in Iormer autopilot
topologies, the main hardware comprises: the inertial
measurement units (a rate gyro and an accelerometer), the
Iin applied as plant actuator, and a structural Iilter. The
corresponding hardware parameters are shown in Table 2.
Table2. Hardware Parameters
phase lag (deg)
hardware
damping

Irequency
c (rad/s)
40
(rad/s)
45 (rad/s) 50 (rad/s)
Iin 0.65 220 13.74 15.51 17.31
structural Iilter 0.5 314 7.38 8.32 9.28
rate gyro 0.65 300 10.01 11.28 12.56
accelerometer 0.65 300 10.01 11.28 12.56

The total phase lag led by plant hardware is about
46deg at 45rad/s. iI selecting the open-loop crossover
Irequency as 45rad/s, the Iinal closed-loop system will hold
phase margin no less than 35deg. Thereby, the Ieasible
desired closed-loop system perIormance index can be set as
: 0.2s, closed loop real pole;
0.8, damping ratio oI the closed-loop quadratic
pair;
c
CR

45rad/s, crossover Irequency oI the open-loop
system broken at o.
Wherein, the two-loop topology can only achieve the
index oI 0.8 and c
CR

45rad/s.
These properly-selected time- and Irequency-domain
mixed indexes synthesize requirements oI ultimate agility
in entire Ilight envelope oI the missile and robustness over a
wide range oI mission proIiles at most altitudes.
4 CONTROL ANALYSIS & COMPARISON
4.1 Control Effect on Static Instability
The Iocus oI this paper is to control a static unstable missile
airIrame. With respect to the two-loop topology, Iirstly let
the integral coeIIicient oI PI compensator trend towards
inIinity, i.e., T
i
, k
p
k
a
, the Iinal closed-loop plant will
change into a second-order system same as the common
two-loop topology. It is not diIIicult to obtain the natural
Irequency oI the closed-loop system

CL
( )( )
1 ( )
g p
p
a a b k k J a b a b
k a c Jb

+ + +
=
+
(15)
To inspect the essence, let a
e
0, b
o
0, and c 0

CL
( )
g p
a k k J a b

= + + (16)
It is obvious that the closed-loop system applies body
rate inIormation to increase system damping ratio, and
acceleration inIormation to improve missile airIrame
maneuverability. For the static unstable status, the proper
autopilot gains can stabilize the plant. Thereby, it changes
the plant characteristics by introducing autopilot.
WhereaIter, with respect to the two-loop autopilot
with PI compensator and the three-loop autopilot, as shown
in Figure 6 and Figure 7, both oI the two topologies include
three internal sub-loops, i.e., a damping loop, a stabilizing
loop, and an acceleration (overload) loop. Wherein, the
damping loop increases closed-loop system damping ratio,
the stabilizing loop is to improve system stability, and the
acceleration loop closes the system.
u vc
a
c

Iin
p
k
Acceleration v
a c +

Stabilizing

Damping
g p i
k k c T +
p i
k J T
1
i
p
i
T s
k
T s
+
PI compensator

Fig 6. Equivalent Two-loop Topology

u vc
a
1
dc a i g
k k k
s

Iin
1
a i g
k k
s

Acceleration v
a c +

i g
k

Stabilizing
g
k

Damping

Fig 7. Equivalent Three-loop Topology
What we are interested in is the stabilizing loop when
reIerring to control a static unstable missile. With respect to
the two-loop topology with PI compensator, this sub-loop is
similar to an attitude autopilot with 0
c
and 0 as input
command and output trajectory angle respectively.
Similarly, in the three-loop topology, this sub-loop applies
c
and as the input command and output attitude angle
respectively. Where, both commands are obtained by
integrating autopilot error signal. The stabilizing loop
introduces trajectory angle (two-loop with PI compensator)
or airIrame attitude angle (three-loop) Ior Ieedback, which
approaches to introduce an approximate angle oI attack
Ieedback and equivalent to adjust the distance between CG
and CP. Hereby, both the two- and three-loop topologies
have capacity oI stabilizing a static unstable missile.
4.2 Actuator Analysis
As the internal actuator on missile airIrame, the Iin plays a
crucial role on controlling a missile. During the transient
process, RSS or static instability is useIul during the rising
state as Iorces led by angle oI attack and Iin deIlection
respectively are oI the same direction, the proper static
stability is beneIit to let the plant use least resource Ior
transIerring Irom the rising stage into stable stage, and the
critical static stability makes plant need the least Iin
resource on stable stage. Fin resource dominates the control
Iunction oI autopilot to an unstable missile, however. When
applying RSS technology to decrease the degree oI system
static stability, the Iin will be demanded to provide
increasing control usage Ior holding system stable margin
as the approximate constant. The simulation results in
Figure 8 validate the analysis.
3662 2008 Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC 2008)

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
-0.14
-0.12
-0.10
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
two-loop
two-loop with P
three-loop
a

= -250s
-2
a

= 0
a

= 250s
-2
f
i
n

d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
d
e
g
)
t(s)

Fig 8. Fin deIlection oI multiple topologies
To holding constant stability margin, the system
requires more actuator resource Ior the lower static
stability. For 50deg phase margin, it plots the required Iin
Irequency vs. a

in Figure 9. The Iaster the system

responds, the more actuator resource the system requires.
The two-loop autopilot with PI compensator responds the
command Iaster than the three-loop autopilot, and then the
actuator resource required by the two-loop topology is more
than the three-loop one. This diIIerence is also shown in
Figure 8 and Figure 9. Further on, Figure 9 points out that
the airIrame with lower static stability requires more
actuator resource whatever the system topology.
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
F
i
n

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
d
e
g
)
a

s
-2

two-loop
two-loop with P
three-loop

Fig 9. Necessary Fin DeIlection oI Two Topologies
Accordingly, though both can stabilize a static
unstable missile, with respect to the unit step response oI
the closed-loop system with a

-250s
-2
, the two-loop
topology with PI compensator is inIerior to the three-loop
topology, as shown in Figure 10. The reason Ior this
phenomenon is actuator resource insuIIiciency on the nose.

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
two-loop
two-loop with P
three-loop
a

= -250s
-2
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

m
/
s
2

t(s)

Fig . Unit Step Response
4.3 Comparison of Two Topologies
Though both with three internal sub-loops, the two-loop
topology with PI compensator is distinct Irom the
three-loop topology.
The essence oI a two-loop topology with PI
compensator approaches a common two-loop topology
with an approximate-cancelling zero-pole pair. While the
three-loop topology approaches a Iirst-order inertial loop.
To comparing two topologies with sub-loops, picking out
the Iirst-order and second-order loops respectively, and
plotting together as shown in Figure 11.
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
two-loop with P
second-order loop
three-loop
first-order loop
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

m
/
s
2

t(s)

Fig 11. Comparison oI Two Topologies
The Iollowing results in Table 3 show the essence oI
two topologies more obviously.
Table3. Closed-loop TransIer Function
a (s
-2
) Two-loop Topology with PI Three-loop Topology
250
2
0.267( 40.46)( 41.96)( 6.353)
( 5)( 38.4 576)
s s s
s s s
+ +
+ + +

2
1.70( 40.46)( 41.96)
( 5)( 38.4 576)
s s
s s s
+
+ + +

0
2
0.36( 43.39)( 44.89)( 4.108)
( 5)( 38.4 576)
s s s
s s s
+ +
+ + +

2
1.48( 43.39)( 44.89)
( 5)( 38.4 576)
s s
s s s
+
+ + +

-250
2
0.43( 46.14)( 47.64)( 3.023)
( 5)( 38.4 576)
s s s
s s s
+ +
+ + +

2
1.31( - 46.14)( 47.64)
( 5)( 38.4 576)
s s
s s s
+
+ + +


Wherein, the actuator dynamics is eliminated to inspect the
problem more clearly. The PI compensator introduces a
zero point to try to cancel the Iirst-order inertial loop in
closed-loop denominator, while the three-loop topology is
dominated by the Iirst-order inertial loop. Thereby, the
2008 Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC 2008) 3663

two-loop topology with PI compensator responds Iaster
than the three-loop topology given there is suIIicient
actuator resource.
5 CONCLUSION
The application oI RSS technology on missile design can
introduce great beneIits to missile maneuverability and
entire Ilight perIormance. The missile with lower static
stability requires more advanced control strategy, however.
Though both oI the two- and three-loop topologies can
stabilize a static unstable missile and achieve to desired
perIormance requirement, the actuator resource is indeed
crucial Iactor aIIecting the autopilot control eIIect.
The PI compensator eliminates system static error and
introduces a zero point to try to counteract the Iirst-order
pole point and make the two-loop topology respond Iaster
than the three-loop topology that has static error ultimately.
The three-loop topology exhibits perIormance similar to a
Iirst-order inertial loop.
REFERENCES
|1| Curtis P. Mracek and D. Brett Ridgely, Missile Longitudinal
Autopilots: Connection between Optimal Control and
Classical Topologies, AIAA 2005-6381.
|2| E. Devaud, H. Siguerdidjane & S. Font, "Some control
strategies Ior a high-angle-oI attack missile autopilot,"
Control Engineering Practice, pp. 885-892, Aug. 2000.
|3| F. W. Nesline and M. D. Nesline, "How Autopilot
Requirements Constrain the Aerodynamic Design oI Homing
Missiles," American Control ConIerence, 716-730, 1984.
|4| Harald Buschek, "Design and Ilight test oI a robust autopilot
Ior the IRIS-T air-to-air missile," Control Engineering
Practice, pp. 551-558, Nov. 2003.
|5| P. Garnell; revised by Qi Zai-kang and Xia Qun-li, Guided
Weapon Control Systems, Beijing Institute oI Technology,
Beijing, 2003.
|6| P. Zarchan, Tactical and strategic missile guidance, 4
th
ed,
AIAA, Washington D C, 2002.
|7| WANG Juan-li and QI Zai-kang, "Analysis oI a three-loop
autopilot," Transactions oI Beijing Institute oI Technology,
Vol.26, No.3, 239-243, 2006.


3664 2008 Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC 2008)