Robust Minimax Strategies for Missile Guidance Design

The nature of the interception problem with two non-cooperative players leads to the eld of dierential games and more specically to pursuit-evasion games. The resulting traditional saddle-point strategies are based on a nominal model. However in real-life uncertainties are unavoidable. Introducing a model with uncertainties no longer guarantees the existence of saddle-point strategies, it can lead to highly reduced performance and to a conservative, computationally intractable problem. Robust programming can be applied to eectively handle model uncertainties and evader disturbances. The pursuit-evasion problem can be reformulated as a convex optimization problem by using a Lagrange relaxation technique called the S-procedure. The guaranteed-cost strategy based on the relaxed semi-denite program guarantees a level of performance to the pursuer against all allowable evader disturbances and model uncertainties. The robust minimax strategies are implemented as a receding horizon strategy and their performance is compared to conventional guidance laws. The simulation results indeed show an improved performance justifying the robust programming approach.

[1]  V. Yakubovich.  Nonconvex optimization problem: the infinite-horizon linear-quadratic control problem with quadratic constraints , 1992 .

[2]  Manfred Morari,et al.  Robust constrained model predictive control using linear matrix inequalities , 1994, Proceedings of 1994 American Control Conference - ACC '94.

[3]  Tetsuya Iwasaki,et al.  LPV system analysis via quadratic separator for uncertain implicit systems , 2001, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..

[4]  A. Ben-Tal,et al.  Adjustable robust solutions of uncertain linear programs , 2004, Math. Program..

[5]  Josef Shinar,et al.  Missile guidance laws based on pursuit-evasion game formulations , 2003, Autom..

[6]  G. Anderson.  Comparison of Optimal Control and Differential Game Intercept Missile Guidance Laws , 1981 .

[7]  T. Başar,et al.  Dynamic Noncooperative Game Theory , 1982 .

[8]  J. Löfberg.  Minimax approaches to robust model predictive control , 2003 .

[9]  D. Mayne,et al.  Min-max feedback model predictive control for constrained linear systems , 1998, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..

[10]  J. Doyle,et al.  Robust and optimal control , 1995, Proceedings of 35th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control.

[11]  Minyue Fu,et al.  Robust H∞ tracking: A game theory approach , 1995 .

[12]  Carsten W. Scherer,et al.  LMI Relaxations in Robust Control , 2006, Eur. J. Control.

[13]  E. J. Trottemant,et al.  ZERO-SUM VERSUS NONZERO-SUM DIFFERENTIAL GAME APPROACH TO MISSILE GUIDANCE , 2007 .

[14]  Johan Löfberg,et al.  YALMIP : a toolbox for modeling and optimization in MATLAB , 2004 .

[15]  O. Bosgra,et al.  A conic reformulation of Model Predictive Control including bounded and stochastic disturbances under state and input constraints , 2002, Proceedings of the 41st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2002..

[16]  Eric C. Kerrigan,et al.  Optimization over state feedback policies for robust control with constraints , 2006, Autom..

[17]  David Q. Mayne,et al.  Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality , 2000, Autom..

[18]  Stephen P. Boyd,et al.  Convex Optimization , 2004, Algorithms and Theory of Computation Handbook.

[19]  Joseph Z. Ben-Asher,et al.  Advances in Missile Guidance Theory , 1998 .

[20]  Mato Baotic,et al.  Multi-Parametric Toolbox (MPT) , 2004, HSCC.

[21]  Shaul Gutman.  On Optimal Guidance for Homing Missiles , 1979 .

[22]  Stephen J. Wright,et al.  Primal-Dual Interior-Point Methods , 1997 .

[23]  I. Yaesh,et al.  Optimum guidance with a single uncertain time lag , 1995 .

[24]  Carsten W. Scherer,et al.  LPV control and full block multipliers , 2001, Autom..

[25]  Josef Shinar,et al.  Nonorthodox Guidance Law Development Approach for Intercepting Maneuvering Targets , 2002 .