What is Mechatronics?

Proposing a Didactical Approach to Mechatronics

Martin Grimheden, Mats Hanson
Mechatronics Lab, Department of Machine Design Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm, Sweden marting@md.kth.se, mats@md.kth.se Presented at the 1st Baltic Sea Workshop on Education in Mechatronics, Kiel, Germany, 2001-09-20 - 22

ABSTRACT The mainstream definition of Didactics as of today focuses on the four main questions; the questions of identity, legitimacy, selection and of communication. An approach to establish Mechatronics as an academic discipline, program, curricula or a set of courses is to apply these questions to Mechatronics. The hypothesis is that this might lead to a greater understanding of the What and Why; What is Mechatronics and Why should we teach it? Of the four questions mentioned, the most discussed today are the questions of selection and of communication; what is the optimal curriculum and what is the best method of communicating this? In this article we would like to argue for a step towards the questions of identity and legitimacy, to facilitate a better understanding of the selection and communication aspects.

1. INTRODUCTION The aim of our research is to describe and analyze the discipline of Mechatronics in a didactical perspective, in particular in the light of the last 20 years of teaching and research in Mechatronics at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm, Sweden. Historically the subject of Mechatronics has often been described as a combination of the subjects of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering and Applied Control Engineering in the union between these subjects the discipline of Mechatronics emerge. Due to the relatively recent introduction of the discipline at the universities the evolving centers and labs mainly emerge from within established departments, and mostly from Mechanical Engineering departments, but also from Electrical Engineering departments or Computer Engineering departments. The origin of these emerging groups seems to have played a major role in the establishing of the discipline, and therefor the history of the Mechatronics Lab at KTH will be briefly outlined. 1.1 Mechatronics at KTH in recent years In 1976 the professor of Machine Elements returned to KTH from a visiting professorship at Stanford University bringing back a microcontroller, an Intel 8008. The professor declared that the microcontroller was indeed a machine element, to compare with gears, bearings etc, and should therefore be thoroughly analyzed for its possibilities and functionality in a Mechanical Engineering perspective. Today the story continues at the Department of Machine Design, KTH, where the Mechatronics Lab constitutes the largest research team. The research is mainly divided in three focusareas; robotics, motion-control and real-time control. The undergraduate education will be described further on in this article. In perspective of the tradition of Mechatronics at KTH the identity of Mechatronics is strongly related to the history of the department of Machine Elements, which later came to be a part of the department of Machine Design. Here the microcontroller was enrolled in the designs to enable better machine designs. An example of this is a student- and research project undertaken between 1980 and 1985 in Machine Design [5]. The aim of the project was to develop a new design of a shock absorber

for the car industry. The students soon discovered the need for a flexible solution, a shock absorber that could sense the conditions like the actual load, and compensate for this automatically. Therefor, the students created a mechatronic design with an active shock absorber that automatically compensated for variations in load [5]. The purpose was not to build a complex computer-based system, neither to design an unnecessarily advanced system for the racing-industry. The purpose was to solve a complex mechanical problem introducing computers to perform intelligent control algorithms. The next example is from a research project in robotics; the control system for an industrial robot is in focus. To enroll Control Theory Algorithms in the design of the industrial robots control system the necessity of a precise and, for example, non-backlash gearboxes are less important, as long as the gearbox can be modeled in a satisfactory way. The design is shifted from a mechanical hardware design to a software design, with reduced cost and increased performance. The two examples above are central for the teaching of Mechatronics at KTH. The need for multidisciplinary as well as crossdisciplinary knowledge is apparent, and the areas of Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering and Applied Control Engineering are deemed as the four pillars on which the discipline of Mechatronics is founded. 2. A DIDACTICAL APPROACH TO MECHATRONICS The dominating definition of didactics today focuses on the four main questions [2]. These will be briefly described here, as well as the implications for the discipline of Mechatronics. 2.1 What is Mechatronics and why do we teach it? (The questions of Identity and Legitimacy) The question of legitimacy is connected to the relation between the actual outcome of the educational efforts and the actual demand that is put upon the students abilities by the society (and/or the industry) at the end of their education. These relations can be divided into two categories; related to formal legitimacy or functional legitimacy. In a simplified model the formal aspect deals with formal knowledge; knowledge that is commonly found in textbooks and is supposedly read and understood by students. The functional aspect deals with skills; skills that is not usually learnt in textbooks or during lectures, skills that students develop during hands-on exercises, laboratory experiments or by trial and error. In a comparison with the subject of electrical engineering the difference between formal and functional legitimacy can be represented with an employer asking for an employee with either knowledge about the names of the commonly used electrical components, or with knowledge about how they actually work. Its important to point out that the educational form (hands-on exercises, lectures, textbooks etc) does not necessarily imply formal or functional knowledge, but on the other hand certain educational forms are more often associated with one type than another. The question is not whether the formal or the functional legitimacy is right or wrong but whether a discipline like Mechatronics should benefit from prioritizing either the formal or the functional legitimacy. The example from the basic components in electrical engineering gives at hand that both types of knowledge most certainly is required by the hiring employer; an engineer needs to know the names of the components as well as their functions to be able to work in a fruitful way. The discussion should instead be focused on which perspective could benefit from the other; to introduce a functional perspective might lead to a greater motivation in learning the formal aspects among the students than vice versa. We would like to argue for a model where the subject of Mechatronics can be focused on the functional aspects. The necessary knowledge in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer engineering and applied control engineering ought to be acquired in appropriate courses in the respective subjects, given by the respective departments. The legitimacy of Mechatronics will then be the added functionality the student will gain when joining this competence and supervised to the possibilities of this union. In this perspective there is no apparent formal knowledge in Mechatronics, only functional, but this can only be the case if the students acquired knowledge from the subjects mentioned above are adequate and covers the respective entire areas, which might not always be the case. 2.2 Disciplinary or thematic identity? Back to the question of identity. In the perspective of a subjects identity it can be viewed as either disciplinary or thematic. We would like to argue that Mechatronics is a thematic subject, and

therefore should be treated as such. The implications are, among others, that the functional perspective will be the most suitable model for understanding the legitimacy of Mechatronics. The classification of Mechatronics as a thematic subject is possible and legitimized by the classification of the subject of Mechatronics as the union between mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer engineering and applied control engineering and not only the union but rather the synergistics that evolves from this union. This classification is further substantiated by the possible notion of using the four base subjects to generate the necessary disciplinary knowledge. (This does not imply that these subjects necessary are of a disciplinary character, only that the subject of Mechatronics can benefit if the disciplinary knowledge within these basic subjects is gained before the actual education in Mechatronics.) 2.3 The identity of Mechatronics in a wider perspective A good way to start is with the definition given by Richard Comerford [1] that Mechatronics is the synergistic combination of precision mechanical engineering, electronic control and systems thinking in the design of products and manufacturing processes. This definition establishes the multidisciplinary subject of mechatronics well in relation to the subjects of mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer engineering and applied control engineering, and this definition also came to be the official definition of Mechatronics by the Industrial Research and Development Advisory Committee of the European Community. The keyword here is synergistic, in the same sense as when mechanical engineering are seen as the synergistic combination of fluid dynamics, mechanics, thermal dynamics and materials science [12]. The concept of systems thinking is further developed by John Millbank [9]: By definition, 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 unified approach to its delivery. Some of the arguments against the definitions given by Comerford and Millbank conclude that the implication is that Mechatronics cant be taught at the undergraduate level, due to the necessity of multiple foundations to be able to regard Mechatronics as a philosophy, deep knowledge in mechanical engineering as well as electrical control up to the point of double degrees are deemed necessary. In the spring of 1999 an effort to gather information for a comparative study about education in mechatronics was undertaken at the Mechatronics Lab at KTH [3]. The purpose of presenting parts of the results in this article is to describe some of the patterns found in the various programs in Mechatronics at the universities studied, and to point out some of the differences in the definitions of the identity of Mechatronics. The study was undertaken as a survey where a total of 65 different courses and/or programs in Mechatronics, from 34 universities from ten different countries, where analyzed. The programs where analyzed in terms of the mandatory courses within the program, and all courses where analyzed in terms of course content and the descriptions of each subject. The subjects within these courses where then grouped into nine different areas of study, and these areas where divided into smaller modules. The nine areas, the percentage of the universities that included the area in their program or courses, and the most commonly found module within each area are specified below. The courses where also analyzed according to the selection of the subjects, with examples of details from the respective curriculums. These examples will be described further on, as examples of the selection of mechatronics. The area of electronics was included in 64% of the courses, with sensors and actuators as the most commonly found modules. Other modules where semiconductors, operational amplifiers, signal processing and conditioning. The area of computing was included in 63% of the courses with programming as the most taught module. Other modules included software engineering, computer architecture, design, graphics and the use of software tools. Digital Systems was covered by 48% of the courses with microprocessor systems, real-time computer systems and PLCs as the most commonly found modules. Systems dynamics and control belonged to 41% of the courses. The most commonly found modules where modeling of mechanical and electrical systems as well as control theory. The area of Mechanics. 28% of the universities included Mechanics as a part of their courses and/or their program in Mechatronics. The most commonly found module was that of kinematics, and other common modules where statics, kinetics and machine design.

Mechatronic design, which can be described as a more project-based area that in most cases dealt with electronics circuit design was found in 28% of the courses. Electrical engineering with the most commonly found module of basic circuit theory was found in 22% of the courses. Electric machines and drives, which included mainly modules in electric machines, their control and power semiconductors, was found in 22% of the courses. The manufacturing field of mechatronics was included in 13% of the courses. The most commonly found modules where industrial robotics and automation as well as numerically controlled machines.

All of the courses described above are in some sense said to be courses in mechatronics, or courses within a program in mechatronics, and also given by and administered by the respective departments of mechatronics or their equivalent. A strong effort has been undertaken only to involve actual mechatronics courses and not courses aimed at, for example, preparing students for an education in mechatronics. The most commonly found comment to the analysis is that only 64% of the courses cover mechatronics, only 63% cover computing etc, comments given by commentators suggesting that 100% of all of the above should be adequate. (Adequate for all but the students) We would like to argue that the subject of mechatronics would benefit from being viewed as a subject with a thematic identity rather than a formal identity. The subject of mechatronics, as a synergistic combination of precision mechanical engineering, electronic control and systems thinking implies a thematic identity where the (formal) subjects of electrical engineering, mechanical engineering and computer engineering are necessary foundations that are thematically applied in mechatronics, not a part of mechatronics. We join Tomkinson and Horne [12] in their statement that mechatronics is not a subject (), it should be regarded as a philosophy. Further we argue that the most dangerous trap for mechatronics, and specifically for teaching mechatronics, is the notion that mechatronics is a little bit of everything, meaning for example that one third of mechanical engineering, one third of electrical engineering including computer hardware and one third of applied control engineering and software equals one education in mechatronics. Even though some arguments exists that an educational system only can give students the bits and pieces of knowledge, and that only the student can create his or her overall picture, meaning combining the parts to mechatronics, we argue that since this notion does little if anything to facilitate the conceptual understanding of mechatronics we need other and better formulas. The question then is rather how to define the notion of regarding mechatronics as a philosophy, and how to communicate this to the students. As a result of this, the fact that eight of the nine identified areas in the 64 courses described above are subsets of courses in traditionally mainly theoretical and abstract subjects with a historically strong formal identity are noteworthy. Certainly the subjects belong to, and are necessary to, an education in mechatronics, but our argument is that these courses are not a part of mechatronics, and should then not be found in courses in mechatronics. 2.4 Legitimizing education in Mechatronics at KTH The Mechatronics program at KTH was until 1995 a specialization mainly for students in Mechanical Engineering that resulted in a degree of Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering with a major in Mechatronics. After 1995 the specializations program is also open and suitable for students in the programs of Vehicle Design, Materials Technology and Industrial Economics. In spring 1985 the first students received their degree of Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering with a major in Microcomputer Systems, a degree which soon came to change name to Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering with a major in Mechatronics. In October 1996 the School of Mechanical and Materials Technology at KTH initiated a major follow-up of this program [6]. Of the 179 students that graduated between 1985 and 1995, 160 was presented with a questionnaire (the remaining 19 couldnt be located), which was answered by 103 of the former students. The questionnaire was rather extensive, and the purpose was among others to identify in which areas the former students worked. Even though the number of students that answered the questionnaire is rather low the results still can speak for the majority of these former students. The most important results from the study are: (The percentages are related to the 103 students that answered the questionnaire)

100% of the former students where employed. The majority where employed in the private sector, in a company that defined itself as a Mechatronic company. The majority of these companies are large or middle-sized. 75% of the former students where said to work with technology and/or research and development. Less than 10% where occupied with economy, and the equal amount with administrative tasks, but no one was said to deal only with either economy or administrative tasks. 70% of the former students defined their general education in Engineering as relevant or very relevant to their occupation. 1% defined their general education in Engineering as irrelevant. 30% defined their education in Mechanical Engineering as relevant or very relevant to their occupation. 50% defined this as irrelevant. 60% defined that their major in Mechatronics was relevant or very relevant to their occupation. 5% defined this as irrelevant. 90% said that their studies, and degree of Master of Science at KTH, was important or necessary for acquiring their current employment. 70% said that their major in Mechatronics was important or necessary for acquiring their current employment.

The argument for the legitimization of Mechatronics at KTH, according to the earlier definition of the question of legitimacy, is the relation between the actual outcome of the educational efforts and the actual demand that is put upon the students abilities by the society. A non-discrepancy in this relation between the outcome and the demand points towards a strong legitimization, and the results above points to this in two ways; first by indicating that the majority of the former students are currently occupied with technology and/or research and development in a mechatronic company, mainly a large or middle-sized company. The fact that none of the 103 former students that answered the questionnaire where unemployed also is a strong argument for legitimization, at least for the general Masters degree. The second indication is the fact that more of the former students deemed their major in Mechatronics as more important to their occupation as engineers than their more general education in Mechanical Engineering. It might seem natural that the major is deemed as the most important part of the education, but still the former students are primarily Mechanical Engineers, and the majority of their education is actually in mechanical engineering and not in mechatronics. This is also accentuated by the fact that as much as 70% said that their major in Mechatronics was the reason, or at least an important factor, when they acquired their current employment. 3. FROM IDENTITY AND LEGITIMACY TO SELECTION AND COMMUNICATION 3.1 The Question of Selection The question of selection within a discipline can be viewed in the perspective of the extremes; on one side the more traditional standpoint is represented of the notion that in the teaching of a subject, the selection of the contents, should be horizontally represented; the contents should reflect the entire subject in a broad perspective. The opposite extreme is represented by the notion of the vertical exemplarity, a perspective in which the subject rather is exemplified than represented. Historically the perspective of the horizontal representation has been the uncontested model for the entire educational system, but during the 1970s the first ideas of vertical exemplarity started to rise, preferably in unison with the then renewed educational ideas based on problem-based learning and in many cases stressed by the fact that the respective disciplines drastically expanded as a result of new technical land-winnings. The question of selection gives implications in the outcome of the educational process that in a sense can be compared to the identity and legitimacy of the subject. The implications deal with the fact that to be able to gain adequate results from the exemplification of a subject the knowledge gained should rather be about the ability to replicate learning than actual formal disciplinary knowledge. If this relates back to the questions about identity and selectivity, there is a connection between the vertical exemplification as an answer to the question of selection and the thematic identity respective the functional legitimacy. The notion of choosing a vertical exemplarity in the selection of mechatronics is then a natural continuity of the choice of defining mechatronics as a thematic identity with a functional legitimacy. 3.2 The selection of Mechatronics at KTH

The question of selection can be connected to the question of communication in certain situations, for example when applying a problem-based approach to the education in mechatronics. As a result of defining the identity as thematic and the legitimacy as functional, the actual process of communicating the subject of mechatronics tend to lean more towards problem-based, projectoriented activities than many different subjects. This can be seen as a natural implication from defining mechatronics as an applied subject and as a multi- and crossdisciplinary subject. An example of this will be given, from the mechatronics lab at KTH. As of today, about 40 students a year major in mechatronics. Of these 40 students approximately 20 students have their background in mechanical engineering and will get their degrees as Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering with a major in Mechatronics. Ten students have their background in industrial economics, seven students in vehicle design and three in materials science. These students will get their degrees as Master of Science in Industrial Economics, Vehicle Design or Materials Science respectively with a major in Mechatronics. The specialization takes place during the second half of the third year, all of the fourth year and the first half of the fifth year (the program is 4,5 years). Before the specialization, and during the third year, the students take courses that are not mandatory in their basic program, mechanical engineering students, for example, take courses in electrical engineering, applied control engineering and computer engineering during their third year to prepare for the mechatronics program. During the second half of the third year, and during the first half of the fourth year, the mechatronics students take advanced courses in, for example, automatic control, microcomputers in embedded systems, design of software for embedded real-time control systems, functional analysis and optimization in mechanical engineering. Students with a background other than mechanical engineering also take additional courses in machine design. The characteristics of the advanced courses mentioned above is that they are all given by the Department of Machine Design, and mainly by the Mechatronics Lab at the department of Machine Design and developed principally for the mechatronics program. These courses however, are not offered as courses in mechatronics; they are all offered as advanced courses in their respective subjects. The grande finale of the program is the actual Mechatronics Course Advanced Microcomputer Systems Design which is a completely problem-driven and project-based course running the last 1,5 semesters, followed by the masters project [4]. This course is run as a large development project with regular meetings for planning and evaluation. Theoretical sections and practical development work are combined during the entire course. The development project, which is unique to each years course, aim at producing a functioning prototype in collaboration with a mechatronic company. The aim of this course is to apply the knowledge from the advanced courses in the respective subjects, and to use this knowledge in a synergistic way to gain a deeper insight into the philosophy of mechatronics [9]. This is an example of how to educate students in mechatronics without actually lecturing in mechatronics if we use the traditional definition that the contents of our teaching are selected by a horizontal representation. Instead these students can spend eight months working intensely with a project that could be to specify, design and implement for example a control-system for a cow-milking robot, which we argue could be an example of a successful vertical exemplarity of the subject of mechatronics where the peer-to-peer learning is in focus. 3.3 The Question of Communication As stated above, the question of selection can be strongly connected to the question of communication. This last question, however, deserves to be described further like the preceding ones, and wed like to describe this question also in a dialectic fashion. On one extreme the question of communication could be described in a perspective of action where teaching is action. The question of communication is then a question of how the teacher should act, how the teacher should act in relation to the material, how the teacher should act towards the students and so on. The opposite to the perspective of action could be described as the perspective of interaction. Interaction could be action with feedback, action from the teacher that is based on the output from the students or action that is based on an insight of the students actual learning processes. The interactive perspective could also be based on the notion that meaningful knowledge is created, or constructed, by an individual in relation to his or her experiences. This notion about learning is strongly influenced by Jean Piagets theories about human cognitive development [10], and substantive research within learning in higher education is based on this constructivist approach [7], [8] which gives strong implications to the notion that the action should be the students, and the action of the teacher, should then, for example be to make student learning possible [11].

3.4 How should the subject of Mechatronics be communicated? To answer this question would of course be contradictory to the rest of this paper unless the answer is: It depends how you define Mechatronics. The number of educational methods or curriculum designs in Mechatronics is probably equal to or greater than the number of faculty teaching mechatronics. Our experience from teaching mechatronics in more than 20 years at KTH is, above all, that its not as much a question of us teaching mechatronics as of our students learning mechatronics, which speaks strongly for the notion of the interactive approach to the question of communication. In the survey cited above, [6] the former students where asked to compare all courses they had taken during their entire education (approximately 50 courses) and point out the course/courses they deemed the most important in relation to their current employment. Our Mechatronics course, Advanced Microcomputer Systems Design, the actual mechatronics course, was clearly positioned as the most important course. We believe that this is mainly due to the way the course, and thereby the subject, is communicated in an interactive fashion. 4. CONCLUSIONS Following the subject of mechatronics from the questions of identity and legitimacy to the questions of selection and communication shows that there is a strong relation between these four aspects of mechatronics. The notion of defining mechatronics with a thematic identity and a functional legitimacy is a strong argument towards a vertical representation and an interactive form of communication. The argument for the functional legitimacy is mainly based on a survey made with former students in Mechatronics at KTH, showing that the former students from between 1985 and 1995 placed high importance in their educational specialization and the correlation between their current employment and their specialization. The argument for the thematic identity of mechatronics is mainly based on a survey made at 34 different universities, comparing 65 courses in mechatronics together with among other the definition of mechatronics by the Industrial Research and Development Advisory Committee of the European Community, that mechatronics is the synergistic combination of precision mechanical engineering, electronic control and systems thinking in the design of products and manufacturing processes. Our conclusive main argument is that these definitions legitimize, and strongly implies, the notion of choosing a representative selection of the subject of mechatronics and an interactive mode of communication, a notion which is also underlined by our 20 years of experience teaching mechatronics. 5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work has been made possible thanks to a grant from KTH Learning Lab. The former students survey (M-sjlvvrdering) was initiated, undertaken and financed by the School of Mechanical and Materials Technology, KTH, Stockholm. The survey undertaken at the 35 different universities aimed at gathering information about the courses and programs in mechatronics was initiated and financed by the Department of Machine Design, the Mechatronics Lab at KTH and undertaken by students as a part of a major development project, the Mechatronic Learning Concept. REFERENCES 1. Comerford, R., Sr., Editor. Mechawhat? IEEE Spectrum, August 1994, p. 46. (1994). 2. Dahlgren, L-O. Undervisningen och det meningsfulla lrandet. Linkping University. (1990). 3. El-khoury, J., Gahm, K., Johansson, A. Mekatronikkurser i vrlden. Fas 1 av MLC. A status-report within the Mechatronic Learning Concept (MLC). Stockholm: Department of Machine Design, KTH. (1999). 4. Hanson, M. Teaching Mechatronics at Tertiary Level Mechatronics Vol. 4, No 2. (1994). 5. Lizell, M. Dynamic Leveling for Ground Vehicles. Stockholm: Department of Machine Elements, KTH. (1990).

6. M-sjlvvrdering 1996/97. Mekatronik/Mikrodatorsystem 1984-1995. Resultat av en enkt om utbildningen, arbetsmarknad och en kompetensinriktning. Stockholm: School of Mechanical and and Materials Technology, KTH. (1996). 7. Marton, F., Dahlgren, L-O., Svensson, G., Slj, R. Inlrning och omvrldsuppfattning. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. (1997). 8. Marton, F., Hounsell, D., Entwistle, N. The experience of learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. (1984). 9. Millbank, J. Mecha-What, Mechatronics Forum Newsletter, No. 6. (1993). 10. Piaget, J. (1929). The Childs conception of the world. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. (1929). 11. Ramsden, P. Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge. (1992). 12. Tomkinson, D., Horne, J. Mechatronics Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill. (1995).

ADRESSES Martin Grimheden Assistant Professor Mechatronics Lab, Department of Machine Design Royal Institute of Technology, KTH SE-100 44 Stockholm Sweden marting@md.kth.se Mats Hanson Professor Mechatronics Lab, Department of Machine Design Royal Institute of Technology, KTH SE-100 44 Stockholm Sweden mats@md.kth.se