The what, why and how

of mechatronics
by D. A. Bradley
This article provides an introduction to the basic concepts ofmechatronics. It considers the impact of
mechatronics on the process ofproduct design and development and sets out ajamework within which the
underlying technical and organisational requirements associated with a mechatronic approach to system
design and development can be successfully deployed.

I
n recent years mechatronics has had a significant
and increasing impact upon engineering and
engineering education as a defining approach to
the design, development and operation of a wide
range and variety of complex engineering systems
generally characterised in their operation by a high
degree of integration between electronic engineering,
mechanical engineering, information technology and
software. It is however important to note that the
mechatronics concept is not just about achieving
technological integration but, as suggested by Fig. 1,
involves aspects of organisation, training arid rnanage-
iiieiit and therefore, while emphasising the integration
at the systems level of the core technologies, has much
in common with a concurrent engineering approach
to product development'.
Mechatronics does, however, face a particular
problem in that the breadth of approach, which is one
of its greatest strengths, is also a major weakness in that
the term has been, and indeed is, used in association
with, or referring to, a wide range and variety of
engineering systems from machine tools and manu-
facturing systems to consumer goods and domestic
appliances. The result is that the significance and likely
impact ofthe adoption of a mechatronic philosophy by
a company or organisation has often been neglected,
misinterpreted and misunderstood and the possible
benefits thereby rejected or ignored.
As a consequence of t h s wide interpretation, no
agreed definition of mechatronics has emerged, further
compounding the problem. Indeed, it often seems that
there are as many definitions or attempts at definitions

Fig. 1 A
framework for
mechatronics

problem
definition

MECHATRONICS

industrial
design

aesthetics

ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND EDUCATION JOURNAL APRIL 1997

81
Fig. 2 The evolution of
mechatronics
mechanical
+mechanisation +electromechanical
as thcrc are claimed practitioners!
Typical of the definitions that have been produced
is that of the EEC/IRDAC Working Party on
Mechatronics which states that:
‘Mechatronics is the synergetic combination of
precision mechanical engineering, electronic
control and systems thinlung in the design of
products and proce~ses.’~
An alternative definition reads:
‘Mechatronics represents an approach to the design
of engineering systems which involves the inte-
gration of mechanical engineering, electrical and
electronic engineering with software engineering
and computer technology at all levels of the design
pr~cess.’~
Though differing in form, both these definitions, along
with the many others that have been produced, share
common features in that they emphasise a holistic
approach to the achievement of integration at the
systenis level as well as the importance of cngineering
design. It is therefore important that mechatronics is
fioin the very beginning considered not as a separate
engineering discipline but instead as an integrating,
v
world
environmental
interactions
Fig. 3 A generalised mechatronic system
ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND EDUCATION JOURNAL
82
information
technology
\
systems _.t mechatronics
electrical
technology
f electronics f
systems level approach to the design and operation of
a wide range of complex engineering products and
processes. Thus:
‘By definition then, mechatronics is not a subject,
science or technology ~ P Ycr-it is instead to be
regarded as a phdosophy-a fundamental way of
lookmg at and doing things, and by its very nature
requires a umfied approach to its deli~ery.’~
Ths article is therefore intended to provide an
introduction to the basic concepts of mechatromcs, to
consider its impact on the process ofproduct design and
development and to outhne a framework wthin which
the underlying techmcal and organisational require-
ments associated with a mechatronic approach to
system design and development can be successfully
deployed.
The what of mechatronics
Prior to the introduction of the microprocessor, the
major engineering dsciphnes had tended to become
increasingly independent, with each seehng solutions
w t h m their own particular domain The advent of the
rmcroprocessor and the associated growth in micro-
electromcs technologies has seen a reversal of this trend
towards separation to one of increasing integration, as
suggested by Fig 25 It is the resulting ‘transfer of
complexlty’ fiom the mechanical doman into
electromcs and software that is associated with the
introduction of local processing power in the form of
the mcroprocessor and its derivatives that can therefore
be considered as the major drivlng force in the
development of mechatronics The result is complex,
integrated systems whch offer great levels of
performance per unit of cost than their largely
mechanical predecessors
Consider now the representation of the generahsed
mechatromc system shown in Fig 3 in which the
system is separated into an energetic domain and an
information domam Communication with other
systems and subsystems is achieved through the
medium of the world interface, which allows the
system to receive and transrmt data The relationshps
between individual mechatronic systems or subsystems
APRIL 1997
 Fig. 4 An automatic,
autofocus camera system
Drives
Film advance
Film rewind tow1 processor Sensors
Shutter Film speed
Flash settcng Film counter
Focusing
Focus
Zoom Flash interface Expopsure data Exposure
Aperture Flash setting
Zoom
Shutter speed

L
Lens attachment
Aperture
Flash attachment
Zoom
Body closure
Mechanical coupling

Local processor
Focusing drive
Aperture control

Lens interface User interface

Lens type Program select
Focus Aperture
Aperture Shutter speed
Zoom Overrides
Mechanical coupling

within the context of their individual worlds is of trolled (CNC) machine tools, robots and automated
importance in understanding the nature of mecha- handling systems interconnected by an appropriate
tronics, since such systems can often be viewed at a local-area network (LAN). The lowest level shown on
number of different levels, each of which may well the Figure, LEVEL2, then represents an individual
constitute an independent niechatronic system, as may CNC inachine or robot together with its internal
be seen froin the following examples. communication system, in which case each of the
An automatic, autofocus camera is shown in nodes is a particular subsystem, such as a joint, which
schematic form in Fig. 4. At the level of the human again may well be mechatronic in form.
user the camera may be seen and understood as a Both these examples also serve to illustrate a further
mechatronic system in its own right, with in this case feature of many niechatronic systems in that operation
the world interface being the user interface by which at the system level is in most instances transparent to the
the selection and setting of the system operating user. In the case of the camera this means that,
parameters is carried out. However, each of the following their choice of operating mode, a user is fiee
individual subsystems shown in the figure-body, lens to concentrate on the primary task, that of composing
and flashgun-are themselves niechatronic systems and the picture, without the need to worry about the
could also be represented by Fig.
3 with, in the case of the lens and
flashgun, the associated world
Communications link
being the camera body. \ ,Island of automation
This interrelationship bet-
ween mechatronic systems at rk CNC machine
differing levels of complexity is tool or robot
further illustrated by Fig. 5 for Individual CNC machine
an automated manufacturing
Factory level system
environment. Here, the highest consisting of islands '
level of the system, LEVEL0, of automation
connected by a
represents the factory as a whole broadband network
and may be considered as a series such as MAP
of discrete 'islands of automation' Island of automation
consisting of CNC
connected by a broadband machines and robots
communication network. At the linked by a local-area
next level down, LEVEL1, each
of these islands of automation Internal communications
can be viewed as a mechatronic
system made up of a series of
coniputer numerically con- Fig. 5 A mechatronics hierarchy within manufacturing

ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND EDUCATION JOURNAL APRIL 1997

83
Fig. 6 Product
development strategies:
( a ) patterns of
innovation in product
development;
( b ) product range
competition
. price and performance range
behaviour of the camera, which has now assumed
responsibility for its own operation.
From the foregoing, mechatronic systems may in
general be seen to be characterised by the following
major features‘?
0 They are generally complex systems which e h b i t
high levels of integration.
0 They demonstrate increased functionahty with
respect to conventional systems.
0 Functionahty is transferred from the mechanical to
the electronic and software domains.
0 They are based on the deployment of some form
of real-time system architecture, often involving
distributed and devolved intekgence.
0 They are generally based on a multiprogram
structure involving user selection.
0 They generally tend to deploy a multisensor
environment.
0 Operation at the system level is generally transparent
to the user.
The why of mechatronics
Successful operation in a hghly competitive market
demands that companies have the abhty:
0 to operate with reduced product development time-
scales in order to capture market share
0 to respond rapidly to changes in competitors’
products
to increase the competitiveness of their products by
taking advantage of developments in technology
0 to provide increasing levels of performance and
reliability at little or no real increase in price to the
customer
e to plan for and to develop new market opportunities.
In Japan, meeting these requirements resulted in a
reduction of product development times as part of
ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND EDUCATION JOURNAL
84
Japan
Europe
time, years
a
competition
Europe
- ) Japan
a pohcy of incremental development supporting a
wide product range This strategy may be contrasted
with what was untd relatively recently the more usual
European and American model offewer but larger step
changes in product development and a lirmted product
range concentrated on specific market sectors, thus
allowng sipficant gaps for penetration by competl-
tors, as suggested by Fig. 67.
Though mechatromcs ofien supports and enables
the development of new products and markets, such as
the compact &sc player, which would not otherwise
have been possible, it can also afford the opportunity to
enhance the behaviour and performance of an emsting
product h e whde respondmg to the introduction of a
new product range by a competltor. Consider for
instance the development by Canon of the EOS620
autofocus single-lens reflex camera following the
introductlon by Minolta of their Alpha 7000 autofocus
camera The introductlon of the Alpha 7000 had
reduced Canon’s market share to around 20% By
adopting from the outset a mechatronic approach to
the design ofthe EOS620, Canon was able to place the
drive for the autofocusing system in the lens rather than
in the body, as was the case with the Minolta The result
was that its market share recovered to around 30% over
a period of 3 years7*.
The effect of mechatromcs as a driver of the product
development process in order to satisfy an increasingly
demandmg and sophsticated market is perhaps most
strongly seen in the automotive industry, where vehicle
systems have become increasinglymore mechatronic in
nature with features such as engine management
systems, traction control, arbags and anti-lock brahng
now common place9-” Indeed, reference to Fig 7
suggests that future vehicles wdl see further
mechatromc developments, with ‘drive-by-wire’
steering, colhion-avoidance systems, lane traclng and
navigatlon control becormng increasingly avadable, first
as options and then as standard features.
The motlvation of a move by a company towards the
APRIL 1997
adoption of the mechatronics concept must therefore
be that of providmg the company with a strategic and
commercial advantage, either by supporting the
creation of new and novel products, by enhancing the
performance or manufacture of an existing product, by
gaining access to new and developing markets or by
some combination of these factors. In particular the
company must be able to provide satisfactory answers
to the following questions:
Are the principles and features associated with a
mechatronic approach to product design and
development valid for the range of products and
markets under consideration?
Are such principles and features of themselves a
significant means of gaining a competitive
advantage?
If the answer to these questions is yes, then it is likely
that the company will benefit from the adoption of a
product development strategy based on mechatronic
concepts and principles.
Mechatvonics and education
Over the past few years there has been a significant
growth internationallyin the provision of postgraduate,
undergraduate and other mechatronic courses. These
courses are generally characterised both by their
academic level and content and by the economic
environment and culture withm which they exist.
Thus in Europe there is a tendency to place the
emphasis within the course on the design aspects of
mechatronics, whereas in parts of South-East Asia the
concentration is perhaps more on the mechatronic
aspects of manufacturing technology. In each case,
however, the aim is to produce engineers and
technicians who are capable of adopting a mechatronic
outlook and who can then fit into and support the
needs and requirements of the local engineering
culture.
The time avadable for courses, whether at post-
graduate, degree or dlploma level, is however
constrained and it is therefore neither possible nor
envirhmental control
collision avoidance
4-wheel steering
active Suspension
ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND EDUCATION JOURNAL
85
practicable to compress existing degree or dploma
courses in electronics, mechanical engineering,
computer systems and information technology into a
single course in the available time-scales. This means
that a degree of selectivity is required in constructing a
mechatronics course at whatever level'*. It is also
important that, in addition to their technical and
technological base, mechatronics courses provide the
necessary insight into the integrating aspects of
mechatronics. It is not therefore simply sufficient to
select a combination of courses from existing courses
offered by specialist departments and call the resulting
combination a mechatronics course. While such
speciahst courses may well form a bignificant
proportion of a mechatronics course, they must be
placed in context and integrated with other, more
specifically mechatronic, material. Thus a typical
mechatronics course may supplement speciahst courses
in areas such as software engineering or drive
technologies with courses on design methods and
systems engineeringI3.
In the case of postgraduate courses, the need is
generally to produce a broadening of the students'
experience into other areas of engineering and design
rather than a deepening of their knowledge in a
relatively narrow field. Given the wide range of student
backgrounds on such courses there is therefore a need
for a flexible structure which enables the students to
gain experience in new areas of engineering and related
technologies while providmg the integration required.
As has already been hinted, the most challenging
aspect of any mechatronics course is that of demon-
strating integration and transfer of complexity and of
allowing students to experiment with different
approaches to the solution of problems. In many,
indeed probably in the majority, of mechatronics
courses at whatever level, this is achieved through some
form of group project work involving students typically
worlung in groups of 4 to 6. Much larger groups have,
however, been used successfully, particularly at KTH in
Stockholm, where, over several years, groups of 15 to
20 students &om the mechatronics course have worked
on a range of industry-based proje~ts'~.
Fig. 7 The
mechatronic car
APRIL 1997
Fig. 8 Relationships
between the mechatronics
technologies
Mechanical engineering Spatial relationships
Motion in three dimensions Physical
Forces
Structure

Electronics Signal processing

Information transfer
Communications

Software Algorithms
Manipulation of data Abstract
Logic

By using appropriate constraints, projects can be
particularly effective in the early part of a course in
introducing students to the basic concepts of mecha-
tronics. As the course progresses, constraints can be
progressively removed and more complex problems
introduced. Further, by involving industry in the
project and by requiring the group to manage its own
budget, to develop cost models for production, to
adopt formal project planning procedures and so forth,
a more realistic ‘feel’ can be given to the project, to
the benefit of all participants, including the tutors.
Examples of typical projects include the design of a
novel drive and control system for top-loadmg washmg
machines for the US market, the development of a
manufacturing facility for small-to-medium-scale
electronics production and the design of a guided bus
system for city use.
The how of mechatronics
The achevement of a successful mechatronic design
Fig. 9 The communication gap
environment is largely concerned with three factors:
0 communication
0 collaboration
0 integration.
Communication
The essentially separate development of the major
engineering disciplines prior to the advent of the
microprocessor, and hence of mechatronics, meant that
they developed their own particular ways of thinking
about, t a h n g about and defining their own perceived
problem space. This has been further compounded by
the way in which each of the major mechatronics
disciplines tended to think about themselves. In order
of increasing abstraction as outlined in Fig. 8,
mechanical engineering focused on spatial relation-
ships and the associated forces and motions in three-
dimensional space while electronics became involved
with signal processing, information transfer and
communications, and software engineering became
associated with the manipulation of
algorithms, data processing and
logic.
Though the picture of the
relationship between the major
mechatronics technologies as
presented above is grossly
oversimplified, the resulting effects
are nevertheless very real, with
significant communication prob-
lems, as suggested by Fig. 9, existing
between engineers from different
disciplines. Indeed, the same
problem can be interpreted by
engineers from different back-
grounds in such distinctly different
ways that to an outsider it would
seem that they are each considering
dfferent problems, which indeed to
some degree they are as each
individual or group tends to
concentrate on analysing the
problem in relation to their own
area of specialism and expertise.
A major role of the mechatronics
engineer is often therefore to act to

ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND EDUCATION JOURNAL APRIL 1997

86
bridge such communication current engineering aims to
gaps that may exist between integrate expertise from all
the specialist members of the disciplines, both technical
design team, in order that
each understands their
particular responsibilities and
ft and non-technical, during
the product design phase,
with trade-offs regarding
role within the overall manufacturability, testability
product design and and serviceabilitybeing made
development process, and in real time. Though these
hence to ensure that an areas may be relatively small
effective environment for the in terms of overall project
exchange and development cost, decisions made during
of ideas is created”. the design process often have
a high leverage, and the right
Collaboration and integration decisions made at the right
The primary objective of time therefore have a
any company is that of significant impact on overall
Fig. 10 The ‘over the wall’ approach to
maintaining, developing and technology transfer
life-cycle costs, as illustrated
improving - its competitive by Tables 1 and 219.
position in the market-place; hence to be effective the Organisational strategies for mechatronics design
adoption of a mechatronic approach to product design include:
and development requires the collaboration of all
members of an integrated product development team Project-centred ouganisation: This creates a relatively self-
towards that common goal. This means the removal of contained group by the secondment of individuals
internal competition and of the traditional barriers from speciahst functional groupings on a temporary
between design and production, eliminating the ‘over basis, as suggested by Fig. 11. An organisation of this
the wall approach’ of Fig. 10 to technology transfer, form supports a greater focus on and attention to the
and the adoption of a completely open and frank individual project while informal co-ordmation, which
product development culture within the companyI6. requires less organisational effort, serves to achieve and
support interaction.
Mechatronics and concurifeentengineering
The achievement of the goals of communication, Matrix organisation: The matrix organisation of Fig. 12
collaboration and integration implies that mechatronics combines lateral co-ordmation with a more conven-
must be closely linked to concurrent engineering in the tional vertical command structure to avoid duplication
management and organisation of the design process. of resources. Within the matrix organisation, the
Indeed, it could be said that although concurrent project team is made up of indwiduals from the
engineering can be applied to areas of engineering individual specialist groups under the control of a
other than mechatronics. it is not perhaps possible to be project leader or manager responsible for co-ordinating
truly mechatronic in Table 1: Product development costs (after Reference 19) the project. These
approach without adopting indwiduals still, however,
the precepts of concurrent retain membership of their
engineering and weighting specialist groupings,
factors such as design for allowing their experience
manufacture, testability, Conceptual design 3-5 40-60
and knowledge to be made
quality and serviceability more widely available. A
equally with the per- Design embodiment 5-8 60-80 matrix organisation is
formance and technologi- Testing 8-1 0 80-90 suited to the co-ordination
cal aspects of mechatronics Process plannihg 10-1 5 90-95 of effort on large and
design. The effect is to Production complex projects as well as
15-1 00 95-1 00
bring forward and to projects requiring
highlight factors such as different people for each
changes to the manufac- Table 2: The cost of design changes (after Reference 19) phase of the project.
turing, test and support Time change is made Relative cost
procedures required to Conclusions
1
accommodate a new or During design
novel design as well as help During testing 10 Many current products and
to identify features that During process planning 100 systems depend for their
will increase competitive- During pilot production success on the adoption of
1000
ness1’J8. a mechatronic approach to
Like mechatronics. con- engineering design and

ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND EDUCATION JOURNAL APRIL 1997

87
product development. To be truly
mechatronic it is not however enough
simply to consider the technical and
technological aspects of the design but it
is also necessary to adopt an integrated
approach to product development such
as that represented by concurrent or
simultaneous engineering. In particular,
it is essentd that the design process
should ensure that it is aimed at ‘doing
the right thing’, because then it is
possible to ‘do things right’; it is in
achieving these goals that mechatronics
.
has its part to play‘”.
In education, mechatronics courses
provide a means by w h c h industry can
be provided with indwiduals with the Fig.
skdls to enable them to function in a
,*
Matrix organisation
mechatronic environment and it is
therefore no surprise to see that graduates &om such
courses often find themselves moving rapidly into
positions of responsibility as the link between more
specialist groupings.
References
1 COMERFORD, R.: ‘Mecha.. .what?’, IEEE Spectrum,
August 1994, pp.46-49
2 REITDIJK, J. A.: ‘Ten propositions on mechatronics’,
Mechatronic Syst. Eng., 1990, 1, (l),pp.9-10
3 BRADLEY, D. A.: ‘Product design and development-
why mechatronics?’. Drives, Motors and Control Conf.,
NEC, UK, October 1991, pp.2-1 to 2-5
4 MILLBANK, J.: ‘Mecha-what’, UK Mechatronics Fontm
Newsletter, Summer 1993
5 KAJITANI, M.: ‘A concept of mechatronics’, J Robot.
Mechatronics, 1989, 1, (l), pp.8-13
6 BRADLEY, D. A., BRADSHAW, A., SEWARD, D. w1,
and MARGRAVE, E: ‘Mechatronics and intehgent
systems’. 2nd Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Systems Engineer-
ing, Hamburg-Harburg, September 1994, pp.395-400
Pro ect-centred
Fig. 11 Product-centred organisation
ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND EDUCATION JOURNAL APRIL 1997
organisation
7 BUUR, J.: ‘Mechatronics design in Japan: a study of
Japanese design methods and working practices’ (Institute
for Engineering Design, Technical University of Denmark,
1989)
8 BRADLEY, D. A., DAWSON, D., BURD, N. C., and
LOADER, A. L.: ‘Mechatronics: electronics in products
and processes’ (Chapman 81 Hall, 1991)
9 HUIJSING, J. H.: ‘Integrated smart sensors’, Sens. Actuators
A, 1992, (30),pp.167-174
10 ZABLER, E., HEINTZ, E, DIETZ, R., and GERLACH,
G.: ‘Mechatronic sensors in integrated vehicle architecture’,
Sem. Actuators A, 1992, (31), pp.35-45
11 OLBRICH, T., BRADLEY, D. A., and RICHARDSON,
A. M. D.: ‘Built-in self-test intelligent microsystems as a
contributor to system quality and performance’, Qual. Eng,,
1996, 8, (4), pp.601-613
12 WILLGOSS, R. M.: ‘The teaching of mechatronic
engineering: the use of matrix methods’. Mechatronics
’96/M2VIP, Guimares, September 1996, 1,pp.333-338
13 TOMKINSON, D., and HORNE, J.: ‘Mechatronics
engineering’ (McGraw-Hill, 1996)
14 Personal communication
15 BELBIN, R . M.: ‘Management teams: why they succeed
or fail’ (Heinemann, 1981)
16 ANDREASEN, M., and HEIN, L.: ‘Integrated product
development’ (IFS Publications, 1985)
17 CARTER, D. E., and BAKER, B. S.: ‘Concurrent
engineering: the product development environment for the
1990s’ (Addison-Wesley, 1992)
18 HARTLEY, J. R.: ‘Concurrent engineering: shortening
lead times, raising quality and lowering costs’ (Productivity
Press, 1992)
19 WOODRUFF, D., and PHILLIPS, S.: ‘A smarter way to
manufacture’, Business Week, 30th April 1990, pp.6469
20 EUREKA: ‘Design for manufacture: guide for improving
the manufacturability of industrial products’ (Institute for
Product Development, Technical University of Denmark,
1994)
0IEE: 1997
Professor David Bradley is with the School of Electronic
Engineering and Computer Systems, University of Wales,
Dean Street, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 lUT, UK. He is an IEE
Member.
88