The Inverse Optimal Control Problem for a Three-Loop Missile Autopilot

  • Donghyeok Hwang
  • Min-Jea Tahk
Original Paper


The performance characteristics of the autopilot must have a fast response to intercept a maneuvering target and reasonable robustness for system stability under the effect of un-modeled dynamics and noise. By the conventional approach, the three-loop autopilot design is handled by time constant, damping factor and open-loop crossover frequency to achieve the desired performance requirements. Note that the general optimal theory can be also used to obtain the same gain as obtained from the conventional approach. The key idea of using optimal control technique for feedback gain design revolves around appropriate selection and interpretation of the performance index for which the control is optimal. This paper derives an explicit expression, which relates the weight parameters appearing in the quadratic performance index to the design parameters such as open-loop crossover frequency, phase margin, damping factor, or time constant, etc. Since all set of selection of design parameters do not guarantee existence of optimal control law, explicit inequalities, which are named the optimality criteria for the three-loop autopilot (OC3L), are derived to find out all set of design parameters for which the control law is optimal. Finally, based on OC3L, an efficient gain selection procedure is developed, where time constant is set to design objective and open-loop crossover frequency and phase margin as design constraints. The effectiveness of the proposed technique is illustrated through numerical simulations.


Inverse optimal control Three-loop autopilot Performance index Optimal gain design 


  1. 1.
    Abd-elatif MA, Qian L, Bo Y (2016) Optimization of three-loop missile autopilot gain under crossover frequency constraint. Def Technol 12:32–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mracek CP, Ridgely DB (Aug. 2005) Missile longitudinal autopilots: connections between optimal control and classical topologies. AIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mracek CP, Ridgely DB (Aug. 2005) Missile longitudinal autopilots: comparison of multiple three loop topologies. AIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nesline FW, Zarchan P (1984) Why modern controllers can go unstable in practice. AIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference, pp 495–500Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jackson PB (2010) Overview of missile flight control systems. Johns Hopkins APL Tech., pp 9–24Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    De-fu L, Jun-fang F, Zaikang Q, Yu M (2009) Analysis and improvement of missile three-loop autopilots. J Syst Eng Electron 20:844–851Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hui W, Defu L, Jiaxin W, Tao S (2012) An analytical design method for the missile two-loop acceleration autopilot. System simulation and scientific computing, Heidelberg, pp 157–165Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fan J, Su Z, Li Q, Dong S (2011) Design and control limitation analysis of two-loop autopilot. IEEE Chinese control and decision conference, China, pp 3814–3818Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lidan X, Kenan Z, Wanchun C, Xingliang Y (2010) Optimal control and output feedback considerations for missile with blended aero-fin and lateral impulsive thrust. Chin J Aeronaut 23:401–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sreenuch T, Tsourdos A, Hughes E, White B (2004) Lateral acceleration control design of a non-linear homing missile using multi-objective evolution strategies. American control conference, vol 4, Boston, pp 3628–3633Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moon BM, Sang DK, Tahk MJ (2007) Missile autopilot design via output redefinition and gain optimization technique. SICE 2007 annual conference, Takamatsu, pp 2615–2619Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kalman RE (1963) When is a linear control system optimal? Proceedings of joint automatic control conference, Minneapolis, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anderson BDO (1966) The inverse problem of optimal control, Rep. Sel-66-39. Stanford Electronics Laboratories, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chang SSL (1961) Synthesis of optimum control systems. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anderson BDO, Moore JB (1971) Linear optimal control. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffszbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zarchan P (2002) Tactical and strategic missile guidance, 4th edn, AIAA, vol 199. Progress in astronautics and aeronautics, RestonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Missile AvionicsAgency for Defense DevelopmentDaejeonRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Aerospace EngineeringKAISTDaejeonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations