Posted 14 May 2021,

In my previous post on this topic, I described my efforts to use the Arduino PID library to manage turns with Wall-E2, my autonomous wall following robot. This post talks about a problem I encountered with the PID library when used in a system that uses an external timing source, like the TIMER5 ISR in my system and a PID input that depends on accurate timing, such as my turn-rate input.

In my autonomous wall-following robot project, I use TIMER5 on the Arduino Mega 2560 to generate an interrupt ever 100 mSec, and update all time-sensitive parameters in the ISR. These include results from all seven VL53L0X ToF distance sensors, the front-mounted LIDAR, and heading information from a MP6050 IMU. This simplifies the software immensely, as now the latest information is available throughout the code, and encapsulates all sensor-related calls to a single routine.

In my initial efforts at turn-rate tuning using the Arduino PID library, I computed the turn rate in the ISR by simply using

This actually worked because, the ISR frequency and the PID::Compute() frequency were more or less the same. However, since the two time intervals are independent of each other there could be a phase shift, which might drift slowly over time. Also, if either timer interval is changed sometime down the road, the system behavior could change dramatically. I thought I had figured out how to handle this issue by moving the turn-rate computation inside the PID::Compute() function block, as shown below

In a typical PID use case, you see code like the following:

After making the above change, I started getting really weird behavior, and all my efforts at PID tuning failed miserably. After a LOT of troubleshooting and head-scratching, I finally figured out what was happening. In the above code configuration, the PID generates a new output value BEFORE the new turn rate is computed, so the PID is always operating on information that is at least 100mSec old – not a good way to run a railroad!

Some of the PID documentation I researched said (or at least implied) that by setting the PID’s sample time to zero using PID::SetSampleTime(0), that Compute() would actually produce a new output value every time it was called. This meant that I could do something like the following:

Great idea, but it didn’t work! After some more troubleshooting and head-scratching, I finally realized that the PID::SetSampleTime() function specifically disallows a value of zero, as it would cause the ‘D’ term to go to infinity – oops! Here’s the relevant code

As can be seen from the above, an argument of zero is simply ignored, and the sample time remains unchanged. When I pointed this out to the developer, he said this was by design, as the ‘ratio’ calculation above would be undefined for an input argument of zero. This is certainly a valid point, but makes it impossible to synch the PID to an external master clock – bummer!

After some more thought, I modified my copy of PID.cpp as follows:

By moving the SampleTime = (unsigned long)NewSampleTime; line out of the ‘if’ block, I can now set the sample time to zero without causing problems with the value of ‘ratio’. Now PID::Compute() will generate a new output value every time it is called, which synchs the PID engine with the program’s master timing source – yay!

I tried out a slightly modified version of this technique on my small 2-wheel robot. The two-wheeler uses an Arduino Uno instead of a Mega, so I didn’t use a TIMER interrupt. Instead I used the ‘elapsedMillisecond’ library and set up an elapsed time of 100 mSec, and also modified the program to turn indefinitely at the desired turn rate in deg/sec.

I experimented with two different methods for controlling the turn rate – a ‘PWM’ method where the wheel motors are pulsed at full speed for a variable pulse width, and a ‘direct’ method where the wheel motor speeds are varied directly to achieve the desired turn rate. I thought the PWM method might work better on a heavier robot for smaller angle turns as there is quite a bit of inertia to overcome, but the ‘direct’ method might be more accurate.

Here’s the code for the ‘direct’ method, where the wheel speeds are varied with

Here’s the code for the PWM method: the only difference is that is the duration of the pulse that is varied, not the wheel speed.

Here’s a short video showing the two-wheel robot doing a spin turn using the PWM technique with a desired turn rate of 90 deg/sec, using PID = (1,0.5,0).

Here’s another run, this time on carpet:

Here’s some data from the ‘direct’ method, on hard flooring

And on carpet

So, it appears that either the PWM or ‘direct’ methods are effective in controlling the turn rate, and I don’t really see any huge difference between them. I guess the PWM method might be a little more effective with the 4-wheel robot caused by the wheels having to slide sideways while turning.

Stay Tuned!

Frank