Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827841

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Mechatronics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mechatronics

Mechatronics More questions than answers

David Bradley
School of Computing & Engineering Systems, University of Abertay Dundee, Bell Street, Dundee DD1 1HG, UK

a b s t r a c t
Since the introduction of mechatronics as an integrated and integrating approach to the design, development and operation of complex systems, there have been signicant developments in technology, and in particular in processing power, which have changed the nature of a wide range of products and systems from domestic appliances and consumer goods to manufacturing systems and vehicles. In addition, the development and implementation of strategies such as those associated with concurrent engineering and the introduction of intelligent tools to support the design of complex products and systems has also changed the way in which such systems are conceived, implemented and manufactured. The aim of the paper is not however to attempt to address or answer specic questions as to the nature of mechatronics and its current and future standing as an approach to engineering design and development, but to initiate, provoke and stimulate debate and discussion on a range of mechatronics related issues, without necessarily attempting to provide answers or suggest new methods or approaches, relating to the future potential of and directions for mechatronics. In this respect therefore, while containing an element of review, the paper is intended as a discussion document structured around the authors personal experience and perspective of mechatronics issues. Inherent to this questioning of the ways in which mechatronics may develop are the various attempts that have taken place over the years to provide a denition of mechatronics, either in the form of text or logo and whether these efforts have of themselves been a source of confusion as to both content and direction within mechatronics? In which case, might it be preferable for mechatronics practitioners to operate within their own particular context than to attempt to conform to a specic and overarching definition? Finally, it must also be made clear that in writing this paper that complete agreement with the reader as to the particular questions raised and comments made is neither sought nor intended. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Over many years of involvement with mechatronics it has become increasingly challenging at a personal level to reconcile the various different and differing arguments as to what it is that denes, constitutes and differentiates mechatronics with respect to related engineering disciplines such as systems engineering, control engineering, design engineering and manufacturing systems as well as identifying its continuing role in education [1]. The aim in writing this paper is not however to attempt to answer the general questions of what is mechatronics? or how might mechatronics be dened?, but to raise these and other questions, without necessarily providing answers, with the intent of provoking debate and discussion as to the future potential of and directions for mechatronics as an engineering discipline. For instance, is there, or indeed could there be, a single overarching structure for mechatronics, or are there several interrelated and interlinked structures, each emphasising a specic aspect of the whole?

Thus while the paper incorporates a review element in respect of certain aspects of mechatronics, it is not aimed at providing a detailed analysis of a specic aspect of mechatronics or of proposing new and novel structures for the discipline but at posing questions relating to its future role and development. It should therefore be considered as a discussion paper presenting a particular, and personal, viewpoint, in this case that of the author. In developing the discussion it is necessary to consider the ways in which mechatronics is perceived. Various attempts have taken place over the years since its introduction to provide a concrete denition of mechatronics, either in the form of text or logo. As an illustration of this activity, one web site [2] lists over 20 denitions of mechatronics, each of which places a slightly different emphasis on the central theme of the integration of the core disciplines of electronics, mechanical engineering and information technology1. Similarly, a search for mechatronics logos suggests that many academic and other institutions engaged in aspects of mechatronics have attempted, at various degrees and levels of complexity,

E-mail address: d.bradley@abertay.ac.uk 0957-4158/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.mechatronics.2010.07.011

Or Computing, Information Systems and other variants.

828

D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827841 Table 2 Some milestones in mechatronics. 1940 1948 1952 1958 1959 Isaac Asimov published the rst of his robot stories and develops the Three Laws of Robotics Transistor is developed at Bell Laboratories by John Bardeen, Walter H. Brattain and William B. Shockley A prototype Numerically Controlled machine is demonstrated at Massachusetts Institute of Technology Texas introduces the rst commercial integrated circuit Planet Corporation introduces the rst commercial robot based on limit switches and cams Richard Feynman delivers the lecture Theres Plenty of Room at the Bottom at Caltech [2] A Unimate robot is installed by Ford to service a die-casting machine The part programming language APT (Automatically Programmed Tooling) is released The American Machine Company introduces the Versatran robot Gordon Moore proposes that the size of integrated circuits will double approximately every 2 years Digital Equipment Corporation introduces the PDP-8 computer Burroughs produces the rst computers to use integrated circuits The term mechatronics is proposed by Tetsuro Mori to describe the integration of electronics with mechanical engineering Digital Equipment Corporation introduces the PDP-11 computer 8-bit microprocessors introduced ASEA introduce the all electric drive IRb6 robot The T3 robot Tomorrow Tool, better known as the T3 robot, is introduced by Cincinnati Milicron The PUMA (Programmable Universal Machine for Assembly) is introduced by Unimation 16-bit microprocessors introduced The SCARA (Selective Compliance Arm for Robotic Assembly) arm is developed at Yamanshi University in Japan Intel introduces the rst 32-bit microprocessor IBM introduces a personal computer with an industry standard disc operating system (DOS) IBM introduces the RS-1 assembly robot Sumitomo demonstrates an organ playing robot developed at Waseda University in Japan Institute for Defense Analysis Report R-338 on concurrent engineering is published The World Wide Web is set up by Tim Berners-Lee at the European Particle Physics Laboratory in Switzerland Intel introduce the Pentium processor Pathnder mission lands the Sojourner vehicle on Mars Honda introduces the P3 humanoid robot Sony introduces the AIBO robot dog AMD released the Athlon 1 GHz Honda introduces the ASIMO humanoid robot First autonomous ight over the Pacic by the Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle Rovers Spirit and Opportunity land on Mars DARPA Grand Challenge, ve teams completed the off-road course with Stanford Universitys Stanley the winner Intel introduces the Core 2 processor Sony releases the Playstation 3 Nintendo releases The Wii TOMY introduces the i-sobot humanoid robot Apple launches the iPhone

to produce something which reects both the nature of the institution and its mechatronics context. Could it however be argued that an such attempt to provide any form of expression of mechatronics, whether textually or graphically, may of itself be a source of confusion and that it may therefore be better for mechatronics practitioners to operate within their own particular context than to attempt to conform to a specic and overarching denition? In order to place the subsequent discussion into context, the paper begins by providing an overview of the introduction of mechatronics, its initial concepts and the ways in which it has developed. By its very nature and breadth, Table 1 provides an indication of the topics that have been and are associated with mechatronics, any of which could have been chosen to illustrate the arguments within the paper, this means that a choice has had to be made, in this case that of engineering design. It must also be acknowledged that in writing this paper it will be inevitable that issues which individual readers consider important will have been omitted and apparently ignored. No apology is made for this other than those of limitations of space and the background, views and opinions of the author, and complete agreement with the reader is neither sought nor intended. 2. The growth of mechatronics The rst commercial and industrial use of the term mechatronics is generally credited to Tetsuro Mori in 1969 [35], though it may well have been used informally several years earlier by Professor Takashi Kenjo [6]. Since its introduction, it has generally been argued that mechatronics represents a signicant, and initially different, approach to the design, development and implementation of a wide range of inherently complex products and systems. While that may have been the case when the concept was originally proposed, can this view be sustained 40 years later [7]? Consider the very much abbreviated timeline of Table 2 as to what might be considered mechatronic oriented developments. This list must however also be placed in the context of earlier developments and not taken as implying that systems and technical integration began with mechatronics. Consideration of the earlier years of the 20th century provides many examples of such integration ranging from the naval gunnery control systems based around integrated optics and mechanical analogue computers [8] to aircraft ight control and inertial navigation systems [9]. In manufacturing, the introduction and development of mass production systems integrated with developments in machine tool technology also supported the underlying concepts of systems integration generally felt to be integral to mechatronics. In addition, mechatronics has developed to encompass issues such as biomechatronics, focused on issues such as the analysis of human motion, interfacing with the nervous system and ways in which

1961

1963 1965

1968 1969 1970 1972 1974

1978

1979 1980 1981 1982 1984 1988 1990 1993 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2004 2005 2006

2007

Table 1 Some mechatronics applications areas. Automation and robotics Automotive engineering Computer aided and integrated manufacturing systems Computer Numerically Controlled machines Consumer products Diagnostic, reliability, and control system techniques Engineering design Engineering and manufacturing systems Expert systems Industrial goods Machine vision Mechatronics systems Medical systems Packaging Sensing and control systems Servo-mechanics Structural dynamic systems Systems engineering Transportation and vehicular systems

to use muscle tissue as actuators [1012] and micromechatronics, generally associated with MEMS2 technologies [13,14]. What may however be considered to be of particular signicance to the development of mechatronics from the 1960s on is that at about the time that the concept was rst being mooted, computers such as the PDP-8 and PDP-11 were beginning to impact upon the industrial and process control markets. Though initially limited in power and scope, at least in current terms, such computers nevertheless provided a whole series of lessons that have stood future systems designers and integrators in good stead. Consider for instance the development of avionics where in the 1960s aircraft designers and manufacturers began to conceive of

Micro Electro-Mechanical Systems.

D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827841

829

the translation of the complex analogue ight control and engine management systems into their digital equivalents, initially in the form of electronic logic and then by means of microprocessor based systems and their subsequent developments, and were thinking in those terms even before the necessary devices became
Table 3 Apollo Primary Navigation and Guidance System (PNGS) computer specications. Developed by Manufacturer Processor Frequency Memory Ports MIT instrumentation laboratory Raytheon Discrete IC RTL based 2.048 MHz 16-bit words, 2048 words RAM (magnetic core memory), 36,864 words ROM (core rope memorya) DSKY, IMU, Hand Controller, Rendezvous Radar (CM), Landing Radar (LM), Telemetry Receiver, Engine Command, Reaction Control System 70 W 70.1 lb (31.8 kg) 24 12.5 6.5 in. (61 32 17 cm)

Power Weight Dimensions

a The core rope memory consisted of a series he ferrite cores operating as transformers. The signal from a word line wire passing through a core was coupled to the bit line wire and interpreted as a binary one while a word line wire that bypassed the core was not coupled to the bit line wire and was read as a zero. Up to 64 wires could be passed through a single core. Software written by NASA programmers was woven into the cores to create the rope. [86].

Radar
Range Direction Velocity

Display & DSKY Keyboard Engine Commands

Navigation
Star Tracking Inertial Platform Computer

Attitude Controls

Manual Control Signals

Telemetry

Data Display

available [15]. It is also perhaps salutary in this context to recognise that the Apollo Primary Navigation and Guidance System (PNGS) computer, essentially a digital y-by-wire unit, developed for the Moon landing programme from 1969 to 1972 had the specications and functions as set out in Table 3 and Fig. 1 [16]. However, at the start of the 21st century, computing technologies have matured and developed to the point where processing power is available at near zero cost to the system developer. System costs are then to a very large degree those associated with achieving integration and developing the software required to meet user perceptions in what continues to be a rapidly developing market place. While technology was evolving, so to was the concept of engineering design changing from the static and linear strictures associated with the established concepts of sequential development, and all the problems associated with this, to the introduction of the concepts of concurrent engineering with its implied parallelism as illustrated by Fig. 2 [17,18]. Thus whilst the original concept of mechatronics as concentrated on the integration of electronics with mechanical engineering and software, is it now the case that the emphasis needs to shift to one which encompasses a more holistic view of system design and development? This shift, as suggested in part by Fig. 3, would effectively place mechatronics within a network of engineering functions and issues ranging from aesthetics to marketing. In reviewing this network it is however also important to recognise and understand that mechatronics, and indeed engineering design in general, is not solely concerned with or about technology but relies on people, and in particular on the interactions between individuals, to make it work. Is it therefore the case that mechatronics can no longer, as might have originally have been the case, be considered purely as being associated with the integration of specic technologies but as a systems oriented approach to the design, development and implementation of complex systems which takes as its foundation the transfer of functionality from the physical domain to the information domain? This view is reected in the comment by Millbank that [19]: By denition then, mechatronics is not a subject, science or technology per se it is instead to be regarded as a philosophy a fundamental way of looking at and doing things, and by its very nature requires a unied approach to its delivery.

Fig. 1. Apollo Primary Navigation and Guidance System (PNGS) computer functions.

Quality Design for testability Conceptual design Requirements Definition Design for Manufacture Marketing Industrial design Interface design Service & Support Embodiment Manufacturing processes Manufacture Product

Fig. 2. Concurrent engineering work ow.

830

D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827841

Politics

Sociology Psychology

Economics

Science

Engineering Science

Engineering Design

Engineering Technology

Production

Industrial Design

Artistic Design

Art

Fig. 3. Mechatronics and engineering design issues.

100%
INNOVATORS

100%
EARLY ADOPTERS PRAGMATISTS SCEPTICS
INNOVATORS

EARLY ADOPTERS

PRAGMATISTS

SCEPTICS

Relative percentage of customers

Market penetration

MAIN MARKET
Time

MAIN MARKET
Time

(a) Adoption

(b) Market penetration

Fig. 4. Proles of technology adoption and market penetration.

The strength of such an approach may then be that it supports the understanding of the nature of the embedded complexity by ensuring that the different engineering, and other, disciplines are considered together from the start of the design process. That such a parallelism is important may be seen from the fact that products typically generate the most revenue early in their life cycle, particularly if the product offers new features not present in its competitors products. As the product matures and competitors enter the market, prot erosion will begin to occur as the competition for available customers increases. It is therefore important that products are designed and produced on time and that production rates are rapidly ramped up to mature levels. Any delays in the release of the product to the market will translate into lost sales that will not be recovered over the life of the product. As indicated by Fig. 4, a key element of the market prole is the need to convince the pragmatists that the system is of value to them once the innovators and early adopters have opened up the market [20,21]. The introduction of a mechatronic approach to technology integration allied to a concurrent engineering development strategy has historically resulted in products which are inherently more capable, and hence more attractive to the pragmatic users, than their predecessors at reducing real costs. In recent years, products and systems of all types from domestic appliances to vehicles have become increasingly complex. This complexity may often be dened in turn by the combination of local and distributed processing power with mechanical design and is driven by the increased availability of processing power based not only around microprocessors but of devices such as Application Specic Integrated Circuits (ASICS) and Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) allied to enhanced communications strategies and protocols. Thus at one level, a system such as the Wii games console utilises three-axis accelerometers to record motion and to

translate that motion into an on screen response by means of a Bluetooth communications link. At another level a modern car will integrate multiple systems ranging from engine management to driver and passenger comfort controls and potentially even autonomous navigation [22,23]. These developments are supported by the increasing availability of smart components such as the SunSPOT3 system from Sun Microsystems [24], which in turn facilitate the construction of larger systems utilising the embedded processing power of their distributed elements. The increasing availability of system elements such as SunSPOTs and RFID tags is resulting in increasingly complex systems in which the ability to analyse and interpret the data then becomes the major source of added value. Thus while historically mechatronics has been associated with system products such as vehicles and manufacturing technologies such as robots, these same mechatronic concepts are now appearing in applications such as healthcare. So, does mechatronics remain something that could, or indeed should, continue to be considered as separate and distinct from other approaches to engineering and engineering design, or has it some 40 or more years after the term was proposed, become embedded within mainstream engineering? Or is it the case that both contentions are to some degree correct? Consider rst the validity or otherwise of treating mechatronics as a separate and distinct approach to engineering design. Given the increasing complexity of systems, and of the integration of technologies that this implies, there is a need to ensure and manage the communication between the domain specialists whilst ensuring that there is awareness of the need to transfer functional-

Sun Small Programmable Object Technology.

D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827841

831

ity and complexity between domains [25]. By its nature, mechatronics has implied such an integration across disciplines, and hence an awareness of mechatronic approaches and outcomes by a design team is likely to be supportive of the appropriate identication of the range and variety of solutions associated with these. A similar case can also be made in relation to the teaching of mechatronics within undergraduate and postgraduate engineering programmes as a means of generating a breadth of awareness not necessarily associated with more conventional, and single discipline, engineering courses and programmes [2629]. However, as the majority of engineering systems are now inherently integrated and interdisciplinary in nature, an effective case could perhaps also be made that the engineering design process has itself adapted to accommodate the need to manage technical and other integration at all levels within that process. This is illustrated here by comparing the design model proposed by French [30] and shown in Fig. 5 with the V-Model [31] of Fig. 6, the later initially being for software development but increasingly used to describe system development. As can be seen from Fig. 5, while Frenchs model incorporates elements of feedback, it follows an essentially linear representation of the design process with minimum embedded parallelism. In contrast, the V-Model attempts to combine the sequential elements with appropriate evaluation, for instance by stressing the

need to design the test processes along with the system rather than separately as had often historically been the case. Other examples of the holistic approach to design that may now be considered as common are the use of a Third Age Suit by Ford engineers [32,33] to allow younger members of the design team to evaluate the physical layout of a vehicle from the perspective of someone with reduced joint exibility, vision and dexterity and the establishment by Volvo of an all female design team to review concept vehicles [34]. Whilst neither of these examples is explicitly associated with design integration or mechatronics, they are illustrative of the parallelism now found in most design teams. In this context therefore, should mechatronics now be considered as being an element of the mainstream design process rather than a separate and independent design strategy? Following on from the above, should it be considered that the issues previously associated with the design of mechatronic systems are now essentially those associated with the design of all types and forms of complex, integrated systems? 3. Successes and failures The danger in considering mechatronics from the standpoint of the various developments presented in the previous section is that it may come to be perceived as a continuous and continuing success story. That is indeed far from being the case, and any review of literature will reveal the various aws in any such argument. Whilst it is not the aim of this paper to go into the detailed reasons as to why failures occur, it is possible to explore, albeit briey, the reasons behind some of these failures within a mechatronic, and indeed a more general systems context. 3.1. A misunderstanding of the relationships between system technologies, and particularly software Engineering disciplines such as mechanical design and control engineering have often followed an essentially separate path whilst acknowledging a commonality of approach in certain areas. This has led on occasion to control systems being deployed at a relatively late stage in the development process to accommodate deciencies in the mechanical design of a system, rather than their having been considered as a part of that system from the rst instantiation. This problem was perhaps exaggerated or exacerbated when the view developed in some quarters that it is all software now, and that as changes to the software were considered as relatively easy, changing the system was in turn easy. This then led to further complications as the demands on software by other parts of the system were continually changing as it was simple to make the change there! In fact, both these approaches led to delays and errors. As an illustration of this type of failure, consider the case of a ight F22 Raptors transferring from Hawaii to Okinawa in 1997 which when they crossed the International Date Line lost all navigation aids. The problem was traced to a coding error which resulted in an innite loop as a consequence of the unexpected date change. In the words of Donald Shepperd, a former head of the US Air National Guard, Reliance on electronics has changed the ight-test process. It used to be tails falling off, now its typos that ground a ghter. [35,36]. 3.2. Problem complexity and communications As systems become increasingly complex, it is difcult, and often indeed impossible, for any single individual to manage all the levels of detail required. This leads to a necessary partitioning of

Need

Analysis of Problem

Statement of Problem

Feedback

Conceptual Design

Selected Schemes

Embodiment of Schemes

Detailing

Working Drawings

Fig. 5. Frenchs design model.

832

D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827841

Requirements Analysis

Service

Requirements Documents

Test Planning

Certified System

Specificatiion

Certification

Specification

Test Planning

Verified System

High-Level Design

System Test

Design Specification

Test Planning

Integrated System

Detailed Design

System Integration

Module Design

Test Planning

Tested Modules

Development Phase

Construction/ Coding

Module Test

Output from Phase Modules

Fig. 6. The V-model.

function to levels at which an individual can operate. This in turn implies that there is an understanding at the level of the domain experts both of their specic task and of the nature of that task within the wider context of the overall system. Failure to achieve this understanding can then have a signicant impact on the outcomes of the design process. Thus, the Mars Climate Orbiter (MCO) was lost in 1999 when a failure in communications between the group responsible for navigation, who customarily used Newton-seconds to express thrust, and that responsible for the propulsion system, who in contrast used pound-seconds to express thrust, resulted in the MCO being 100 km too close to Mars when it attempted to enter orbit [37]. A further issue associated with system complexity is that of fault detection and diagnosis. While it would normally be the case that individual sub-systems and sub-assemblies are tested in their own right, this is often achieved through the use of synthetic data to represent the remainder of the system. A hardware-in-the-loop simulation being an example of this. However, when the subassemblies are connected to form the complete system, their individual interactions can result in faults and abnormal behaviours which are extremely difcult to detect. 3.3. An overemphasis on core disciplines

broader awareness of the overall context within which the mechatronics approach is being deployed is therefore likely to be detrimental both to outcomes, and to an outsiders view of the nature of mechatronics. 4. Design issues in mechatronics (and elsewhere) As was suggested in the introduction, the breadth of mechatronics and the range of engineering domains with which it is associated requires that within the context of the paper a specic area must be chosen in order to develop the discussion. As was indicated earlier engineering design was chosen for this purpose as it is believed that it presents the most complex challenges and arguments relating to the future role and contribution of mechatronics. Similar arguments could however be developed for any of the instances identied in Table 1, and it must also be acknowledged that this table is not complete or comprehensive. Some of the issues presented in the following sections, as for instance the importance of establishing robust communications across a design team, have already been introduced and the intent here is to give more detailed consideration to specic points. 4.1. The engineering design process

The name mechatronics by implication and usage has, as referred to earlier, become associated with the three core disciplines of electronics, mechanical engineering and information technology or computing. This can result in a lack of focus on issues such as aesthetics or manufacturing technology which may ultimately determine the success of the product or system. Any lack of a

As technologies expand they provide additional capacity, capability and functionality to the designer, leading to a requirement for new and novel tools to support design thinking and integration at all stages in the design process and the effective integration of such tools with more function oriented design tools, as for instance

D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827841

833

those associated with detailed mechanical design and analysis. Such tools aim not to simply manage the details of the design process, but to underpin the associated thinking by helping users with the identication of alternative solutions. This is particularly important as the various aspects and stages of the design process become more tightly linked, as for instance through the need to evaluate the manufacturing process through the employment of Design for Manufacture and Assembly tools and methods at the conceptual stages of design. Figs. 7 and 8 and Table 4 illustrate some of these relationships within the context of the overall design ow. Together, these show that as the design progresses, so the tools progressively add detail to the information passed down from the earlier stages of that process. In looking at this linkage, it perhaps needs to be considered that the development of engineering design understanding is, almost by necessity, retrospective in that it looks at what has been done to obtain an effective solution, and then analyses and interprets this to arrive at best practice which can then be deployed in future design activities. There is also within engineering design a balance, as well as a conict, between the theoreticians, who seek to understand the processes by which a successful and effective design is achieved, and the pragmatists, who are primarily concerned with achieving effective solutions in response to identied need. As suggested by Fig. 9, the balance between these two different aspects of the design process, supported by the effective use of appropriate tools to enhance communication and understanding, perhaps should be considered as a symbiotic process based around effective information exchange. Within the context of mechatronics, such linkages can be found in a variety of application domains ranging from manufacturing to vehicle systems and domestic products, further illustrating the diversity of application of the mechatronics concept.

Product Data Management Automatic generation of 2D drawings (if wanted)

Product support manuals

Shopfloor assembly aids 3D Thinking

3D Computer Aided Engineering

Assembly checking Performance checking - FEA Integration with diagnostic control and feedback systems Computer Aided Manufacturing Integration
Fig. 8. 3D-CAE and business integration [84].

 Mechanical Engineers think in terms of physical forms and motions.  Electrical Engineers think in terms of signals and circuits.  Software Engineers think in terms of logic and syntax. However, such a simplistic division based on technology, while perhaps initially having some justication, has been superseded in many, but certainly not all, instances by approaches structured, as has already been suggested, around methods such as concurrent engineering which recognise such differences and put in place mechanisms to deal with them. Such approaches also place an emphasis on ensuring effective communication not only within the design team but also with prospective speciers and users [38]. There however remains the need to provide effective tools to support the ability to work with, and hence to communicate, abstract concepts as part of the design process. This perhaps implies a need to provide means of ensuring an understanding across specialisms through a combination of ontological forms, both linguistic and symbolic, together with relevant syntactical and semantic structures to support a common meaning.

4.2. Communication Referring to Fig. 10, it has often previously been suggested that:

Project Definition

Ideas Generation

Evaluation

Concept Development

Detailing

General Project Management Tools i.e. Microsoft Office

Continuing role throughout project

Visualisation i.e. Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.

Increasing sophistication and detail

Interchange Distillation of technical information into form understandable by all stakeholders Simulation i.e. MatLAB/Simulink, Dimola, 20Sim

Increasing sophistication and detail of models Interchange

Develop understanding and allow expression of ideas in appropriate forms and language

CAD Tools i.e. AutoCAD, ProEngineer, etc.

Increasing detail Interchange

Analysis i.e. Finite Element, Workflow, etc Specialist

Increasing detail

Fig. 7. Design support tools.

834 Table 4 Activities in the product development process. Market Tasks Market analysis Input Legislation, reports, competitive products, statistics, market data Tools/approaches User behaviour capture tools Parametric analysis Needs analysis Matrix analysis

D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827841

Product development stages Specication Develop Product Denition Statement (PDS) Market analysis results

Concept design Generate, select and embody concept PDS document

Detail design Detail concept

Manufacture Optimise design for manufacture Detailed drawing

Layout drawing

Objectives tree Competitive benchmarking Comparative analysis Word processors Spreadsheets

Brainstorming Sketching and rendering Decision tools Weighted objectives tree QFD Morphological chart

Performance specication methods

Simulation and computer analysis

3D modelling Finite Element modelling Engineering analysis 2D draughting Standard part catalogues Material databases Manufacturers online catalogues

Laboratory experiments Design for manufacture Process planning Process simulation Available manufacturing processes and facilities

Information User observations Market surveys Forecasts and trends

Performance of competing products User specications

Standard functions (i.e. common mechanisms)

Comparative analysis Details on competing products Patent database Output Market analysis results PDS document Discussion

Comparative costs

Layout drawing

Detailed drawing

Production plan

Theoretician Reviews design process and outcomes Identifies methods and generates procedures Establishes good practice Refines theories

Pragmatist Emphasis on problem solving Selects, uses and refines methods Generates solutions Establishes practice

Fig. 9. Approaches to design.

access to relevant information, principles, exemplars and context all support the creation of robust design concepts by acting as stimuli for discussion [44]. 4.3. Articial intelligence and mechatronics design Despite the availability of a wide range of tools to support design thinking as was suggested earlier by Fig. 7, the basic problem of managing communications between domain specialists remains in place. There is a specic need to support specialists from one domain in the early identication of potential solutions from other domains in a way that then enables the relevant domain expert to provide effective input. One approach to achieving this has been through the use of a case-based reasoning approach [45,46] in which the system guides the user towards either existing solutions, the cases, or to the generation of outline solutions which can then be taken to the domain expert for renement. Consider also the design environment of Fig. 11 in which functional decomposition tools are used to support the mapping of the decomposed system onto the relevant hardware. For instance, take the lter hierarchy of Fig. 12. The top level of this hierarchy contains information common to all lters while the progressive lower

Fig. 10. Communications issues.

Referring specically to concept design, this is generally undertaken in a collaborative setting founded on and based around discussion [3942]. Although exposure to previous solutions can in some instances result in a xation on a particular approach [43],

D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827841

835

Design Information Design Environment Functional Simulation Functional Decomposition Implementation Libraries

Simulation

Mapping to Hardware & Software

Costing & Documentation

Hardware Development

Software Development

Electronic Development

Enclosure Design

Fig. 11. Structuring the design environment [85].

levels then contain more detailed information specic to the retrieval category. The bottom level is then the instantiation of the specic lter. Each instance thus inherits information from the top level lter along with features from the associated subclasses. This structure can be decomposed as shown in Fig. 13, establishing the major high-level processes and their relationships. Further decomposition then allows the detail of the individual processes to be dened. The associated data dictionaries contain three elements; a Name eld which species the ow or group of ows to which the entry corresponds, the Form eld which identies, where appropriate, the variable to be used as the information carrier for the ow and a description of the ow, provided for the benet of the designer and intended as purely descriptive. The user can then dene the design requirements and application criteria for the lter when the system will then return the best-t cases as in Fig. 14. 4.4. Mechatronics and systems engineering A feature of many mechatronic systems is that the design perspective is inherently scalable. Consider for instance a manufactur-

ing environment such as that shown in Fig. 15 in which a factory wide system, a manufacturing cell and an individual machine tool or robot are represented. This environment may then be redrawn in the form of the structured graph of Fig. 16 in which each level is represented by a series of nodes linked by a communications network. Structurally therefore, each level in the system represents an individual mechatronic system, with higher levels in the system being formed from the integration of a number of lower level systems. This hierarchical structure also reects the nature of the tasks involved at each of the individual levels within the overall system. At the lowest, or device, level the emphasis is implicitly on achieving specic levels of functionality and performance. Progressing upwards through the system, the emphasis shifts from the performance of the individual devices, to the integration of a number of such devices as part of a larger system. Thus there is a move away from the detailed design and operation of these devices to the management of the information infrastructures required to achieve overall system functionality and performance. Such shifts are also associated with changes in the operational time frame which may range from milliseconds at the lowest, or machine, level to hours, days or weeks at the highest, human, levels. These time shifts are also associated with changes in the nature of the associated information. Consider the situation of Fig. 17 which illustrates the ow of procedural, the WHAT, and process data, the HOW. Each of the layers in this system represents an integrated process such as a the strategic or factory level, a manufacturing cell, an individual machine tool or robot or an individual actuator or sensor. There is then a requirement for the management of the procedural information as it ows up and down the system to match the information needs at each of the process levels. In this model, human interaction with the system decreases from top to bottom, the highest levels being those associated with strategic decision making and the lowest with the operation of individual devices or components. In the context of such systems, whether they be factories, aircraft, vehicles, or indeed any systems based device, product or process, is it perhaps therefore the case that the lower levels of the hierarchy are those where the mechatronics approach has had a major impact, while at the higher levels it is systems integration, and hence systems engineering, that is more important?

Filter

Lowpass

Highpass

Band-Pass

Band-Stop

Passive

Active

Digital

Butterworth

Chebyshev1

Chebyshev2

Elliptic

FIR

IIR

Equiripple

Least-squares

Window

Butterworth

Chebyshev1

Chebyshev2

Elliptic

Chebyshev

Kaiser

Bartlett

Blackman

Hamming

Hann

Triangular

Fig. 12. Filter hierarchy, Butterworth block is shaded.

836

D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827841

F il

te r

p _ ty

e/

te c

d h ._

is p

lay

User
F il

Fil te r

te r

_a

pp

Select type/tech 1.1

F il

te r

ty p

e e/t

ch

n ._i

t pu

._ d

_a

isp

pp

la y

._ i

np

ut

Link_to_app. Link_to_type/ tech.

w_ ty p e_t os e le

Select App . 1.2

Ne
Ty / pe inf ._ ch te

c t( 1

User_inputs(1)

User
Design_display

Design a filter 1.3

Crite ria_in puts

Design tools User

S im u

late d

_ de s

ign

To ol_req

uest

Find design 1.4

s De

New_app._to select
n ig
De

_r eq ue De st s ig n_ req ue st De sig n_ fit

disp lay

Crit eria _

rc h

Se a

est

Tool_ requ

Design tools
Tool_request

w_ Ne o _t pe ty ct le se
ion at m or

Fig. 13. First Level Decomposition of the Filter Design System.

) (2
inf n_ sig De o ati orm n

_s

sig ns _lis

el ec tio

Design_match

Optimise the design 1.5

Complete designs
Updated_ design

User

Simulated_design

Modify the design 1.6

Frequency_ range New_ frequency

User

Fig. 14. Search results.

D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827841

837

Factory-wide Network

5. Mechatronics education Since its inception, mechatronics has, in a variety of forms and formats, established itself internationally as a discipline within engineering science education and there are increasing numbers of courses worldwide carrying a mechatronics label. Such courses cannot necessarily be considered as having signicant commonality in either approach or content other than at a basic level as they each tend to reect the local and national interests where the course is being developed and implemented. Within that context, is the very exibility and adaptability of the mechatronics concept working to its advantage in terms of course structures, whilst adding to the diversity of perception as to what, in the widest sense, mechatronics represents? Whatever the context, in the development of mechatronics education, the concern in course design has always been that achieving an appropriate balance between the provision of the necessary depth of understanding of the core technologies and disciplines with the ability to develop solutions which integrate those technologies. This may be compared to a subject based approach to engineering science education where the emphasis is on ensuring a depth of understanding within the subject area. Is it therefore then the case that the education of a mechatronics engineer should place an emphasis on the ability to work across and between individual areas of technology? This is not however to suggest that a mechatronics educated engineer is not required have to have a depth of knowledge in specic specialist areas, rather that such depth is balanced by an understanding and appreciation of the contributions of other areas of technology as is suggested by Fig. 18. Should therefore the achievement of a balanced programme of mechatronics education be based around ensuring that individuals are provided with sufcient depth in at least one area of technology in order to allow them to make an effective contribution to that area, whilst ensuring the breadth of understanding necessary to give them credibility with respect to other subject specialists? Consequently, is the key challenge facing mechatronics course designers then that of ensuring that there is an appropriate balance between depth and breadth within the course as well as providing opportunities to enable students to practice integration? Though mechatronics emphasises integration, it may also be perceived as encompassing a number of themes such as design, manufacturing or automation. In relation to course development, the choice of theme is generally dictated by a number of factors including:

Manufacturing Cell

Actuators

Sensors

Robot or Machine Tool

Fig. 15. A simplied manufacturing hierarchy.

Factory-Wide Network
Each node represents a manufacturing ce with the interconnection provided by the factory wide network

Manufacturing Cell
Each node represents an individual machine tool, robot or handling systemn with interconnection provided by the local network

Machine Tool or Robot

Each node represents an actuator, sensor or controller with interconnection provided by the machine network

Fig. 16. Manufacturing hierarchy.

Human based systems

System Engineering

Overlap
Procedural Information - the WHAT

Mechatronics Engineer

Depth

Process Layer

Data Translation & Interpretation between Process Layers

Machine based systems

Mechatronics

Subject Area

Depth

Subject Area

Process Information - the HOW

Fig. 17. Information ows.

(a) Specialist education

(b) Mechatronics education

Fig. 18. Balance of technical expertise for specialist and mechatronics educated engineers. (a) Specialist education, and (b) mechatronics education.

838

D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827841

 The backgrounds and interests of the staff involved in teaching the course.  Industrial requirements, both locally and nationally.  Student perceptions and interests.  Availability of resources, particularly human and nancial.  Research activity. While it is unlikely that any one of these considerations will dominate course development to the exclusion of others, any one of these factors may well be the dening inuence for a particular programme or course. For instance, resource implications will often mean that teaching of specialist material will require that mechatronic engineers are incorporated as part of a larger group of subject specialists for this purpose, with the courses then being structured to meet the needs of the subject specialists rather than the mechatronics students. Also, the increasing modularisation of programmes can tend to mitigate against the ability to introduce the necessary integrating material, particularly where modules are seen as having to be complete and entire within themselves. In light of the above challenges, how might the designers of a mechatronics course respond? What is clear is that they are faced with a number of questions including:  Should a theme be chosen or should it emerge as a result of the local expertise and enthusiasms?  How are the integration aspects of mechatronics to be introduced and managed?  How are external requirements, as for instance the Bologna Agreement in Europe [47,48], to be managed?  What is the local market for graduates and is the proposed course going to meet those requirements? As a consequence of the above, has mechatronics suffered from an identity crisis both within the academic community and elsewhere, and is this likely to continue to be the case given the diversity of approaches and emphasis that are found within the community? Yet there is no doubt that there is a need for graduate engineers with the particular integration skills that are provided by a mechatronic education. The key challenge facing mechatronics course designers therefore remains that of achieving an effective balance between the requirement for detailed knowledge and engendering the ability to act in an integrating role in a wide range of engineering environments. The achievement of this balance is further subject to a whole range of pressures ranging from the rapid advance of technology to external factors impacting on course management and design such as the moves to implement sustainable systems or increase student mobility. The underlying precepts presented here are however likely to remain as a constant for course designers and developers.

Such a shift in perspective will in turn cause present considerations of Design for Manufacture and Assembly, which are often in conict with the requirements of design for disassembly or maintenance, to be brought into question. Consider for instance the use of snap connectors for joining components. These are easy to assemble but can make access problematic without the destruction of the item in question. 6.1. Mechatronics and a sustainable future In the 1987 report of the Brundtland Commission, Our Common Future, sustainable development was dened as [49]: Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.4 This requirement to embbed sustainability within future systems in emphasised by the ratication in 2007 of the United Nations and ICLEI5 TBL standard for urban and community accounting. Similar UN standards apply to natural capital and human capital measurement to assist in measurements required by TBL [5053]. Given the signicance of these developments, is it implicit that mechatronics must change and adapt itself to encompass issues of sustainability within its conceptual remit? Assuming that this is the case, what then are the implications for the design, development and implementation of future mechatronic systems? 6.2. Developments in mechatronic applications Some of the potential areas where mechatronics could potentially have a major impact in relation to future applications are suggested in the following sections. 6.2.1. Manufacturing Mechatronics is often associated with robotics and factory systems. However, systems that move, machine and assemble are perhaps only classiable as such by the degree to which they incorporate adaptability and agility within their operation? As manufacturing systems have evolved to incorporate increasing numbers of semi and near autonomous elements, mechatronic systems have played a role in applications such as assembly, machining, inspection, dangerous material handling and disassembly. With the introduction of manufacture on demand strategies, buyers seek increased opportunities for customisation. This has necessitated an agility of operation, often involving autonomously recongurable machine tools [54] and dynamic decision making [55] as an integral part of the process, enabling manufacturing groupings to be created [56] in response to demand. As a consequence, manufacturing cells increasingly provide a variety of job functions on a part-by-part basis. The resulting organisational and operational complexity has in turn been supported by the introduction of strategies such as game theory [57] and self-organisation [58,59]. Other areas of production where mechatronic systems can be considered to have impacted is with respect to those environments where it is either unsafe or inconvenient for humans to work. This includes the movement of materials [60], the handling of toxic and radioactive materials and maintenance in heavily polluted environments [61]. There is also an increasing move, driven in part by legislation on waste disposal and management as well as on recycling, to increase the emphasis on design for disassembly and component re4 Formerly the World Commission on Environment and Development and chaired by the then Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Brundtland. 5 ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability.

6. Challenges It is clear that engineering design and its mechatronic component will need to continue to adapt to meet and respond to a range of challenges in areas such as energy systems, transport, health care, medicine and manufacturing. Indeed, could it be argued that the achievement of sustainable systems in all of these, and other, areas will depend on the ability to integrate a mechatronic approach to system design and development with corresponding developments in areas such as materials technology which will impact not only on new product concepts, but also on the way they are made?

D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827841

839

use. Is this perhaps also an area where mechatronics will have a growing, and signicant, role to play? 6.2.2. Transport Is this a key area where mechatronics is likely to signicantly impact on and inuence design, development and operation? For instance: 6.2.2.1. Rail. The further development of tilting trains, active suspensions, driven and steered wheelsets and traction and braking control are all likely to feature to some degree in future train systems along with enhanced drive technologies and controller strategies [62]. Other potential areas of development include highspeed trains and the use of maglev technologies [63,64]. 6.2.2.2. Road transport. The move towards hybrid vehicles and the use of fuel cell technology [65] as well as an increasing range of on-board systems for driver assistance, safety and security and vehicle and engine management. An example of such thinking is the Siemens eCorner smart wheels concept. This uses a hub motor located inside the wheel rim together with an electronic wedge brake whose pads are driven by electric motors. An active suspension and electronic steering replace conventional hydraulic systems, supporting advanced drive-by-wire concepts [66]. 6.2.2.3. Aircraft. Aircraft, the growth of air transport and the impact on the environment is undoubtedly one of the most contentious areas in which mechatronics is likely to play a role. Issues include the design of aircraft that are quieter and more fuel efciency and with a lower environmental impact than present aircraft [6770]. 6.2.3. Energy technologies The deployment and use of alternative energy sources such as wind and wave power [71,72], the introduction micro combined heat and power (microCHP) systems [73] heat pumps and fuel cells as well as new generations of appliances and energy management options within the home are all going to be inuenced by mechatronic approaches to their design operation and control. 6.2.4. Health Instances here include the development of enhanced and intelligent prostheses for both the upper and lower limbs [7477], the introduction of systems to support the rehabilitation of a range of medical and clinical conditions [78,79], the provision of new surgical methods and techniques involving the deployment of robotic systems and telecare, telemedicine and telehealth strategies based on the introduction and deployment of enhanced sensors, networking and data analysis [80]. In each of these and related areas, is the deployment of a mechatronic approach is likely to be key in achieving robust, reliable and effective systems? 6.2.5. Materials The choice of materials is becoming increasingly important in relation to the design and operation of systems of all types, as for instance in the increased use of composite materials in vehicles such as cars and aircraft as well as in consumer products. The provision of new types of materials has itself made it possible to develop these products in a way which supports the general mechatronic concepts of integration at the systems level [8183]. This includes technologies such as smart fabrics which can incorporate a sensing function for health related issues such as monitoring people working in hazardous environments such as those involving high ambient temperatures.

6.3. Potential for technological impact Developments in technology are going to continue to drive changes within the design process and to impact upon the design process. For instance, the development of low cost network sensors creates opportunities to develop new approaches to information collection and management and the increasing availability of MEMS devices is likely to force a radical rethink of the approach to many areas of application, supporting the integration of measurement and data processing throughout the system. Many of these system components will incorporate signicant processing power in their own right, opening up the opportunity to create not only a distributed sensor network, but of using those same sensors as part of a distributed and parallel processing array. It is not therefore inconceivable to envision a system such as a vehicle relying on such a distributed array to manage all its onboard functions, with the added benet of multiple redundancy in case of a failure of component part. Developments in materials and actuators are also going to impact on the approach to the design of a wide range of systems. For instance, neural interface chips such as those being developed at the University of Utah and elsewhere could support the design, development and implementation of a new range of prosthesis by allowing a level of connectivity between the original nerve bundle and the prosthetic to be re-established. This brings with it the prospect of providing neural feedback on the position and behaviour of the prosthetic limb, perhaps even restoring an element of proprioception and kinesthesia to limb movement.

7. Discussion In the introduction it was stated that the key aim of the paper was to raise questions as to the current and future direction and status of mechatronics as an engineering discipline, or perhaps a design philosophy structured around integration. Or indeed if some other direction or directions of development are likely or appropriate. In this context, it is perhaps possible to reduce the discussion of the previous sections to the key question Does mechatronics still remain signicantly different when compared to other approaches to system integration? While it is the intent of the author that each reader formulates their own response to this and the other questions and issues raised, there are a number of comments that might perhaps be made in support of the discussion that it is hoped to engender. For instance, while it is possibly the case that mechatronics has to a signicant degree been integrated with and incorporated within mainstream engineering design methods and strategies, is this because other areas of engineering design have learnt about integration from mechatronics as part of the natural transfer that takes between design practice and design theory and vice versa? Further, when mechatronics was rst suggested, was it representative of a wider shift in thinking about systems and integration with in the overall engineering design process that was taking place around that time, as expressed by the emergence of the precepts of concurrent engineering? When combined with such new and different ways of thinking about the management and organisation of the design process, and supported by an evolving technical capability, this has led over the last 40 years to the development and implementation of a wide range and variety of products and systems which have technical integration at their core. Having thus initially been driven by a realisation that changes in technology required a shift in thinking about product design and development, does mechatronics still retain that ability to bring together the best from a wide range of domains, and not exclusively technical domains, to create further systems?

840

D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827841 [3] Tomizuka M. Mechatronics: from the 20th to 21st century. Control Eng Pract 2002;10(8):87786. [4] Harashima F, Tomizuka M, Fukuda T. Mechatronics what is it, why, and how? IEEE/ASME Trans Mech 1996;1:14. [5] Kyura N, Oho H. Mechatronics an industrial perspective. IEEE/ASME Trans Mech 1996;1:105. [6] Kenjo T, Lorriman J. Creating a new paradigm mechatronics and future challenges, IET; 2009. <kn.theiet.org/magazine/rateit/control/mechatronics. cfm> (accessed 1.02.10). [7] Brown A. Who owns mechatronics. Mechanical engineering, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, June; 2008. <www.memagazine.org/contents/ current/features/whoowns/whoowns.html> (accessed 03.02.10). [8] Brooks J. Dreadnought gunnery and the battle of Jutland the question of re control. Routledge; 2005. [9] King AD. Inertial navigation forty years of evolution. GEC Rev 1998;13(3): 1409. [10] //biomech.media.mit.edu/publications/publications.htm (accessed 24.06.10). [11] http://www.ric.org/research/centers/smpp/labs/biomechdev/Biomechatronics.aspx/ (accessed 24.06.10). [12] //bss.ewi.utwente.nl/research/biomechatronics/index.html/ (accessed 24.06.10). [13] www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=4479 (accessed 24.06.10). [14] www.mems-exchange.org/MEMS/what-is.html (accessed 24.06.10). [15] Scarfe WR. Flight systems engineering. British aerospace, personal communication. [16] www.hq.nasa.gov/ofce/pao/History/computers/Part1.html (accessed 02.02.10). [17] Habib MK. Interdisciplinary mechatronics engineering and science. problemsolving, creative-thinking and concurrent design synergy. Int J Mechatron Manufact Syst 2008;1(1):422. [18] Allen RG. Mechatronics engineering: a critical need for this interdisciplinary approach to engineering education. In: Proc IJME INTERTECH conf, paper ENG 205-085; 2006. [19] Millbank J. Mecha-what? Mechatronics forum newsletter, Summer; 1993. [20] Crossing MooreG. Crossing the chasm: marketing and selling high-tech products to mainstream customers. New York: HarperCollins; 1991. [21] Rogers E. Diffusion of innovation. The Free Press; 1995. [22] Thrun S et al. In: Buehler M, Iagnemma K, Singh S, editors. Stanley: the Robot that won the DARPA grand challenge, the 2005 DARPA grand challenge. Springer; 2006. [23] Isermann R. Mechatronic systems innovative products with embedded control. Control Eng Pract 2008;16(1):1429. [24] www.sunspotworld.com (accessed 24.08.10). [25] Bradley DA. The what, why and how of mechatronics. IEE J Sci Educ 1997;6(2):818. [26] Craig K. Is anything really new in mechatronics education? IEEE Robot Autom Mag 2001;8(2):129. [27] Bradley DA. What is mechatronics and why teach it? Int J Electr Eng Educ 2004;41(4):27591. [28] Siegwart R. Grasping the interdisciplinarity of mechatronics. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 2001;8(2):2734. [29] Doppelt Y. Assessment of project-based learning in a mechatronics context. J Technol Educ 2005; 16(2). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download? doi=10.1.1.145.3330&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed 24.08.10). [30] French MJ. Conceptual design for engineers. Springer-Verlag; 1998. [31] <http://www.iabg.de/presse/aktuelles/mitteilungen/200409_V-Model_XT_en.php> (accessed 24.08.10). [32] Coughlin JF. Not your fathers auto industry? Aging, the automobile, and the drive for product innovation. Generations 2004;28(4):3844. [33] Hitchcock DR, Lockyer S, Cook S, Quigley C. Third age usability and safety an ergonomics contribution to design. Int J HumanComput Stud 2001;55(4): 63543. [34] Styhre A, Backman M, Brjesson S. YCC: a gendered carnival? Project work at Volvo Cars. Women Manage Rev 2005;20(2):96106. [35] http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-squadron-shot-down-by-theinternational-date-line-03087/ (accessed 02.02.10). [36] http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626359.900-the-doh-of-technology. html?page=2 (accessed 02.02.10). [37] http://www.in.tum.de/~huckle/bugse.html (accessed 20.01.10). [38] Wodehouse A, Bradley DA. Gaming techniques and the product development process: commonalities & cross applications. J Des Res 2006;5(2):15571. [39] Cross N. Engineering design methods, strategies for product design. John Wiley & Sons; 1994. [40] Pahl G, Beitz W. Engineering design, a systematic approach. Springer; 1995. [41] Pugh S. Total design. Addison-Wesley; 1991. [42] Ulrich KT, Eppinger SD. Product design and development. McGraw-Hill; 1995. [43] Smith SM, Kohn NW, Shah J. What you see is what you get: effects of provocative stimuli in creative invention. In: NSF int workshop on studying design creativity, Provence; 2008. [44] Benami O, Jin Y. Creative stimulation in conceptual design. In: Joint ASME 2002 design engineering technical conference & computer and information in engineering conference, Montreal; 2002. [45] El-Nakla S, Bradley DA. Case-based reasoning and conict resolution in support of the design of mechatronic systems. In: 9th Mechatronics forum conference; 2004. p. 12330.

Is therefore the case for the future of mechatronics that it represents a continuing coming together of the ways in which complex and integrated systems are conceived and envisioned and implemented? As a consequence, have members of the mechatronics community simply to live with the name, despite the fact that the original motivation for its construction has perhaps long since gone?! 8. Conclusions The past 40 years have seen signicant changes in the capacity and capability of the technologies around which mechatronics was initially structured, conceived and developed. In this same period, new tools, technologies and techniques have been put in place to support the design and development of a wide range of often increasingly complex engineering systems. The period has also seen a growth in the range of activities and disciplines encompassed by the mechatronics banner. The premise on which the paper is based is therefore that of a need to revisit the mechatronics concept, not with the aim of redening this, if indeed this were possible without over-constraining activity, but of repositioning it in line with the various technical and organisational threads with it could, or should, be associated with over the next 40 years. The issues for debate arising from the paper are not therefore whether mechatronics has made a signicant contribution to the design, development and implementation of a wide range of engineering systems but how the concepts and structures which have underpinned the 40 years of development since the mechatronics was put in place are to change and evolve to accommodate current and future developments. These issues are the underlying considerations and concerns in putting forward the background, arguments and questions embedded throughout the paper. Having been involved in mechatronics for some 25 years, the paper reects an ongoing personal debate regarding issues such as achieving sustainability through mechatronics and its evolution to encompass developments in technology, as for instance associated with MEMS technology. Unfortunately, this personal debate has not resulted in a specic outcome other than a belief that it is increasingly necessary for the wider mechatronics community to recognise these issues. Acknowledgements The above represents a highly personal view resulting from more than 20 years of working in the eld of mechatronics. The development of the underpinning arguments would not however have been possible without the involvement, in some cases over many years, of colleagues, research associates and research students. These include, but not exclusively, in no particular order and with apologies to those who space precludes me from mentioning; Michael French, David Dawson, Derek Seward, Tony Dorey, Bill Scarfe, John Millbank, Nouredine Bouguechal, Stephen Harris, Allan Parker, Andrew Wodehouse, Camilo Acosta-Marquez, Samir el-Nakla, Simon Brownsell, Saad Mansoor, Jacob Buur, Myrup Andreasen, Lars Hein, Glen Bright, Dave King, Capel Aris, Glynn Jones, Roger White, Gareth Williams, Dewi Jones, Richard Walters, Rob Bracewell, Mark Hawley, Sue Mawson, Pam Enderby and David Russell plus various assorted masters students, members of the Mechatronic Forum in the UK and friends and colleagues elsewhere throughout the world. References
[1] Bradley DA. Mechatronics an established discipline or a concept in need of direction? In: Mechatronics2000, Atlanta (CDRom only); 2000. [2] //mechatronics.colostate.edu/denitions.html (accessed 20.01.10).

D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827841 [46] El-Nakla S, Bradley DA. Case-based reasoning in the design of mechatronic systems. In: 11th Mechatronics forum conference, electronic publication; 2008. [47] http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/highereducation/EHEA2010/BolognaPedestrians_en. asp#P132_13851 (accessed 03.02.10). [48] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_process (reviewed 03.02.10). [49] Bruntland G. Our common future: the world commission on environment and development. Oxford University Press; 1987 (<http://www.anped.org/media/ brundtland-pdf.pdf>) (accessed 24.08.10). [50] Elkington J. Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business, Capstone; 1999. [51] Elkington J. Towards the sustainable corporation: winwinwin business strategies for sustainable development. Calif Manage Rev 1994;36(2):90100. [52] Brown D, Dillard J, Marshall RS. Triple bottom line: a business metaphor for a social construct. Portland State University, School of Business Administration; 2006. http://www.recercat.net/bitstream/2072/2223/1/UABDT06-2.pdf (accessed 24.06.10). [53] http://www.goethe.de/ges/umw/dos/nac/den/en3106180.htm (accessed 24.06.10). [54] Bi ZM, Lang SYT, Shen W, Wang L. Recongurable manufacturing systems: the state of the art. Int J Prod Res 2008;46(4):96792. [55] Shu-Hsien Liao. Expert system methodologies and applications a decade review from 1995 to 2004. Expert Syst Appl 2005;28(1):93103. [56] Katz R. Design principles in recongurable machines. Int J Adv Manufact Technol 2007;34:4309. [57] Qiu R, McDonnel P, Joshi S, Russell DW. A heuristic game theoretic approach to resource sharing in recongurable manufacturing. Int J Adv Manufact Technol 2005;25(12):7887. [58] Rao A, Gu P. Expert self-organizing neural network for the design of cellular manufacturing systems. J Manufact Syst 1994;13(5):34659. [59] Kubota N, Fukoda T. Structured intelligence for self-organizing manufacturing systems. J Intell Manufact 1999;10(2):12133. [60] Durrant-Whyte HF. An autonomous guided vehicle for cargo handling applications. Int J Robot Res 1996;15(5):40740. [61] Micire MJ. Evolution and eld performance of a rescue robot. Int J Field Robot; 2008. robotics.cs.uml.edu/leadmin/content/publications/2008/jfrExample. pdf (accessed 3.02.10). [62] Goodall RM, Kortm W. Mechatronic developments for railway vehicles of the future. Control Eng Pract 2002;10(8):88798. [63] Hyung-Woo Lee, Ki-Chan Kim, Ju Lee. Review of maglev train technologies. IEEE Trans Magn 2006;42(7):191725. [64] Vuchic VR, Casello JM. An evaluation of maglev technology and its comparison with high speed rail. Transport Quart 2002;56(2):39. [65] Emadi A, Rajashekara K, Williamson SS, Lukic SM. Topological overview of hybrid electric and fuel cell vehicular power system architectures and congurations. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 2005;54(3):76370.

841

[66] fp.is.siemens.de/trafc/en/news/itsmagazine/html/0702/pdf/artikel/englisch/ Drive-by-wire_e.pdf (accessed 3.02.10). [67] Green JE. Future aircraft greener by design? Meteorol Z 2005;14(4): 58390. [68] kerman JA. Sustainable air transport on track in 2050. Transport Res Part D: Transport Environ 2005;10(2):11126. [69] Thomas C, Raper D. Sustainable mobility and the air transport industry comments on the European commissions views. Air Space Eur 2000;2(3): 136. [70] Daviss B. Green sky thinking. New Sci 2007;193(2592):328. [71] Ackermann T. Wind power in power systems. John Wiley & Sons; 2005. [72] Clment A et al. Wave energy in Europe: current status and perspectives. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2002;6(5):40531. [73] Peacock AD, Newborough M. Impact of micro-combined heat-and-power systems on energy ows in the UK electricity supply industry. Energy 2006;31(12):180418. [74] Biddiss E, Beaton D, Chau T. Consumer design priorities for upper limb prosthetics. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2007;2(6):34657. [75] Ohnishi K, Weir RF, Kuiken TA. Neural machine interfaces for controlling multifunctional powered upper-limb prostheses. Expert Rev Med Dev 2007;4(1):4353. [76] Bonato P. Advances in wearable technology and applications in physical medicine and rehabilitation. J NeuroEng Rehabil 2005;2(2). doi:10.1186/17430003-2-2 (accessed 24.08.10). [77] Sup F, Varol HA, Mitchell J, Withrow TJ, Goldfarb M. Self-contained powered knee and ankle prosthesis. In: 11th Intl conf on rehabilitation robotics, ICORR 2009, paper 0024; 2009. [78] Riener R, Nef T, Colombo G. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation of the upper extremities. Med Biol Eng Comput 2005;43(1):210. [79] Ball SJ, Brown IE, Scott SH. MEDARM: a rehabilitation robot with 5DOF at the shoulder complex. In: IEEE/ASME intl conf adv intell mech; 2007. doi:10.1109/ AIM.2007.4412446 (accessed 24.08.10). [80] Wootton R, Dimmick SL, Kvedar JC, editors. Home telehealth: connecting care with the community. Royal Society of Medicine; 2006. [81] Ashby MF, Brchet YJM, Cebon D, Salvo L. Selection strategies for materials and processes. Mater Design 2004;25(1):5167. [82] Sapuan SM. A knowledge-based system for materials selection in mechanical engineering design. Mater Design 2001;22(8):68795. [83] http://www.grantadesign.com/products/ces/ (accessed 3.02.10). [84] Dawson D. Personal communication; 2009. [85] Walters R, Bradley DA, Dorey AP. A computer based tool to support electronics design in a mechatronic environment. In: Mechatronics98, Skvde; 1998. [86] http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5456/1/hrst.mit.edu/hrs/apollo/public/ visual3.htm (accessed 2.02.10).