Mechatronics 17 (2007) 480–488

A mechatronics educational laboratory – Programmablelogic controllers and material handling experiments

Hany Bassily a, Rajat Sekhon a, David E. Butts b,1, John Wagner a,*

a Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, United Statesb Engineering Technologies and Engineering Transfer Midlands Technical College, Columbia, SC 29202, USA

Received 13 February 2006; accepted 19 June 2007

Abstract

The integration of robotics, conveyors, sensors, and programmable logic controllers into manufacturing and material handling pro-cesses requires engineers with technical skills and expertise in these systems. The coordination of assembly operations and supervisorycontrol demands familiarity with mechanical and electrical design, instrumentation, actuators, and computer programming for successfulsystem development. This paper presents an educational mechatronics laboratory that encourages multi-disciplinary hands-on engineer-ing discovery within team settings. Three focused progressive experiments are reviewed that allow students to program and operate aprogrammable logic controller, a traditional conveyor system, and a distributed servo-motor based conveyor. The students also programand implement two robotic arms for material handling applications. The equipment, learning objectives, and experimental methodologyfor each laboratory are discussed to offer insight. A collaborative design project case study is presented in which student teams create asmart material handling system. Overall, engineering graduates have generally been required to learn material handling and other multi-disciplinary concepts in the field, and therefore, a well-rounded engineering curriculum should incorporate mechatronics in both theclassroom and laboratory.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Mechatronics; Programmable logic controllers; Conveyors; Robotics; Sensors

1. Introduction

Consumer product manufacturers increasingly rely onthe cooperative development of multi-disciplinary technicalsystems that often span the electrical, mechanical, andindustrial engineering domains. Design and productionengineers are frequently organized into cross-functionalteams in which members bring critical skills to the assem-bled group [1]. To facilitate multi-disciplinary teams, engi-neers must develop their teamwork, problem solving,synergistic design, and communication skills as well asthe traditional technical competencies [2,3]. Further, it is

0957-4158/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.mechatronics.2007.06.004

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 (864) 656 7376; fax: +1 (864) 656 4435.E-mail addresses: buttsd@midlandstech.edu (D.E. Butts), jwagner@

clemson.edu (J. Wagner).1 Tel.: +1 (803) 738 7833; fax: +1 (803) 738 7809.

increasingly presumed that competitive engineering gradu-ates will have these skill sets in place and be able to contrib-ute immediately to their assigned teams [4]. In essence, theexpanding implementation of sensors, actuators, and digi-tal control across all engineering systems suggest that stu-dents need a mechatronic systems perspective [5] with anopportunity to develop leadership, communication, andinterpersonal skills. The availability of mechatronic courseswithin the engineering curriculum can help prepare stu-dents for the global workplace.

During the past decade, mechatronics education hasreceived significant worldwide attention. Ranaweera et al.[6] discuss the required introductory mechatronic labora-tory course at the University of California at Santa Bar-bara which focuses on sensors and actuators whileaccommodating large numbers of engineering students.Grimheden [7] reports on the KIH University mechatronics

Proximity Sensors

110 VAC

220 VAC

Acc

ess

Doo

r

Conveyor # 2

Power Bus

Loading Station

Staubli’sRange of Operation

STAUBLIRX 130

Scanner

Restricted Access

PC Monitor (Robot Host)

PC # 1 (PLC Host)

PLC

Conveyor # 1

AdeptCS7

Controller

24 VDC

Unrestricted Access

Stud

ents

Air Supply

PowerSupply

110 VAC

Air Solenoid

LabelingStation

Air CylinderUnloading Station

Turn Table 110/220 VAC

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram for a material handling educational laboratory.

2 MicroRoller is a registered trademark of Sparks Belting Company,Grand Rapids, MI.

H. Bassily et al. / Mechatronics 17 (2007) 480–488 481

course that prepares engineers for global workplacesthrough international collaborations. Surgenor et al. [8]use active learning strategies including lectures, tutorials,laboratories, and cooperative design projects with inte-grated sensors in the technical elective mechatronics courseat Queen’s University. Student teams apply electronics andmicrocontrollers in the design of mobile robots. Minor andMeek [9] stress open-ended problems for integrated systemsin the required two-semester mechatronics design course atthe University of Utah. The mechatronics course at Buck-nell University emphasizes interdisciplinary student teamsand active learning strategies [10]. Bushnell and Crick[11] describe the hands-on experiences provided to studentsby three autonomous robotic courses at the University ofWashington. Finally, the University of Maryland EasternShores [12] has established a mechatronics laboratorywhich features an industrial selective compliance articu-lated robot arm with overhead machine vision for guidanceand part inspection.

The educational mechatronics laboratory (ME 417L/617L) has been developed within the Department ofMechanical Engineering at Clemson University [13]. Theexperiments are student team designed, fabricated, imple-mented, and demonstrated based on assigned design pro-jects. In this manner, students assume ownership for thelaboratory creation process. Note that some design pro-jects may continue for multiple semesters due to their com-plexity. The laboratory features workstations in whichelectro-mechanical, pneumatic, and hydraulic systems arecontrolled with programmable logic controllers (PLCs)and personal computers running LabVIEW. These systemsinclude a basic ‘‘industrial light stack’’ experiment, pneu-matic actuators, motor control with torque measurements,

hydraulic cylinder/motor control, vehicle suspension sys-tem, robotic arms, drag chain conveyor system, and‘‘smart’’ MicroRollerTM 2 based conveyor sections. Stu-dents with rudimentary programming skills and presum-ably no-practical experience with mechatronic systemscan quickly learn how to incorporate control architectures.One subcategory of mechatronics that merits attention ismaterial handling which includes robot arm object place-ment, conveyor transport, and process control (refer toFig. 1).

The traditional conveyor system has been successfullyapplied in manufacturing and material handling applica-tions for many years. In standard configurations, a singlemotor drives a sheave, which in turn drives a rubber con-veyor belt riding on gravity rollers or idlers (e.g., [14]).However, one disadvantage of the typical conveyor tech-nology is that every point on the conveyor moves at thesame speed and time. Hence, there does not exist an oppor-tunity for the localized optimization of the individualassembly steps. Increasingly, engineers are partitioningconveyor systems into smaller focused segments that canbe controlled independently depending on the factors suchas: (i) localized product flow rate; (ii) need for product buf-fering; and (iii) process inconsistencies. One strategy toconstruct such a conveyor system is with individually-motorized rollers such as MicroRollers, which contain inte-grated dc motors and drivers that easily lend themselves toPLC control.

Fig. 2. Programmable logic controller with light stack: (a) exterior view, and (b) electrical layout.

482 H. Bassily et al. / Mechatronics 17 (2007) 480–488

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents anintroduction to programmable logic controllers and thelight stack experiment. Section 3 discusses experiments withtraditional and smart conveyor systems. Section 4 presentseducational and industrial robotic arms for part placementoperations. A case study is offered in Section 5 to highlight arepresentative student design project; in this instance, thecreation of a smart material handling system by two designteams. Finally, Section 6 contains the summary.

2. Programmable logic controller experiments

In the mechatronics laboratory, students learn to pro-gram PLCs [15] and then apply the equipment in electro-mechanical and pneumatic systems. Although other PLCprogramming languages (e.g., sequential function chart,function block diagram, structured text, and instructionlist) have been standardized per IEC 1131-3 [16] in additionto ladder logic, this laboratory focuses on the latter. Thewidespread use of PLCs in industrial processes justifiesthe allocation of lecture and laboratory time to explorePLC hardware architecture and programming. The labora-tory features a variety of student-fabricated experiments;five are controlled by Allen–Bradley PLCs (MicroLog-ixTM 3 1000 and 1500). The PLCs are programmed via Win-dows-based personal computers using the softwarepackage RSLogix 500, which provides a graphical userinterface (GUI) for creation of the ladder logic ‘‘rungs’’.The first PLC programming experiment is control of anAllen–Bradley industrial light stack (855E), which featuresred, amber, and green 24VDC lamps with an audiblealarm. These devices can be used for many purposes in amanufacturing process such as signaling whether the sys-tem is ready, busy, or at fault. For this initial ‘‘on/off’’experiment, though, the lamps are programmed for a trafficlight sequence.

3 RSLogix and MicroLogix are registered trademarks of Allen–Bradley,Milwaukee, WI.

As shown in Fig. 2, the electrical cabinet contains theMicroLogix 1000 PLC, a Sola 2.5A 24VDC power supply,and various user-selectable panel switches and lamps. Thereader is referred to [17] for the wiring schematic. Usingbasic ladder logic, the students configure the PLCs tosequence the light towers as follows. Step 0: Programbegins with a red lamp on tower 1 and green lamp on tower2. Step 1: Tower 2 switches to amber while tower 1 remainsred. Step 2: Tower 1 switches to green as tower 2 switchesto red. Step 3: Tower 1 switches to amber while tower 2remains red. The sequence then repeats until interruptedby the user. The learning objectives of the traffic lightexperiment are to: (i) understand PLC architecture, con-troller internal wiring, and external light stack interface;(ii) demonstrate fundamental PLC I/O operations; and(iii) design a control algorithm to generate a ‘‘traffic light’’sequence with appropriate timing.

3. Conveyor systems for material handling

The automated transportation of materials between twomanufacturing cells is a common process on the factoryfloor (e.g., [18]). In the mechatronics laboratory, two differ-ent conveyor systems are studied. The first is a commontwo-strand drag-chain conveyor system that provides uni-form motion along the length of the connected rubber beltson the outer edge. The second is a distributed motorizedroller conveyor system which offers flexible package motionbased on the availability of multiple bi-directional Micro-Rollers. In other words, conveyor system materials canbe individually controlled in cooperation with sensorslocated adjacent to the platform.

3.1. Traditional conveyor experiment

A custom scaled conveyor belt system, shown in Fig. 3,allows engineering students to control part motion usingintegrated actuators, sensors, and PLC control. The indus-trial two strand drag-chain conveyor system, operated by

Pneumatic SolenoidCylinder

Power Supply

Light/Siren Stack

Micro Logix1000 PLC

110 VAC

Proximity Sensor/ Switch

Siren

Red

Yellow

Green

PC(PLC Host)

Conveyor Belt Motor 1Relay 1

S1

24 VDC

O/1 O/2 O/3

O/4 O/5 O/6 O/7 O/8

1 2

3 4

5 6

I/1I/2I/3I/4I/5I/6

AirSupply

Motor 2

Buttons

Relay 2

Manifold

Fig. 3. Drag belt conveyor system with pneumatic actuator: (a) layout, and (b) signal schematic.

H. Bassily et al. / Mechatronics 17 (2007) 480–488 483

208VAC single-phase motors with the belts in series, carriessmall pallets under computer control. The motors are oper-ated by electrical relays switched by the PLC. A 24VDCoptical proximity sensor (Square D PE8TANSS), with a50 mm range, detects the position of an aluminum palleton the belt. An inductive proximity switch (Square DPJD312N) with a 3 mm range provides information forpneumatic activation. A vertically mounted SMC pneu-matic actuator (NCDMW-075-0605) exists for part retrie-val; the cylinder is attached to a ‘‘sky hook’’ which liftsthe part off the belt. The MicroLogix 1000 PLC is pro-grammed to move the belt until the pallet is positionedand the pneumatic actuator can retrieve the part from theconveyor. A pneumatic distribution manifold, containinga series of PLC-controlled 24VDC SMC solenoid valves(VQ2101-5), regulates the air supply for the actuator. TheAllen–Bradley light stack and alarm, used in the traffic lightexperiment, provides visual and audible feedback.

In the undergraduate curriculum, this is one of the firstencounters with a practical industrial system. The flexibleconveyor system design allows the student teams to inte-grate different sensors to track the pallet motion andexplore different control strategies. The basic functionality

of the conveyor system is to position a small pallet on theline for subsequent pickup and removal by a pneumaticactuator for sorting purposes. The learning objectives forthis laboratory experiment are to: (i) understand the oper-ation and application of proximity and optical sensors; (ii)explore sensor, actuator, and PLC integration issues; (iii)design ladder diagrams to control pallet motion; and (iv)create test scenarios to validate controller functionality.

3.2. Smart conveyor system

The second conveyor system, shown in Fig. 4, is a smartunit that operates on a different principle than the tradi-tional drag chain conveyor. This conveyor element con-tains three MicroRollers (24VDC brushless motor, 4.8 cmdiameter, 35.6 cm length) interspersed with 13 non-motor-ized common idler rollers. A variety of operating configu-rations are possible. For instance, each motorized andadjacent non-motorized roller can be linked by a rubberbelt to create individually-controlled zones along the con-veyor’s length. Each MicroRoller has a controller cardwith inputs for on/off commands, direction commands,and the 24VDC power supply. The roller speed is adjust-

Cylinders

Pneumatic Solenoids

Robot Controller Proximity Sensors

Light/Siren Stack

Controller Cards

Buttons

110 VAC

Proximity Sensors

Controller Cards

AirCylinder

Micro Logix / 1500 PLC

I/15I/16I/17I/18I/19I/20

I/1I/2I/3I/4I/5I/6I/7I/8

O/1O/2O/3O/4O/5O/6O/7O/8

O/9O/10O/11O/12

O/13O/14O/15

32

1

8 7 6

45 5

4

Siren

Red

Yellow

Green1 2

3 4

5 6

24VDC

PC#1

(PLCHost)

32

1

AirSupply

SmartRollers

Smart8 Rollers7 6

PowerSupply

Manifold

Fig. 4. Smart conveyor system with PLC and light tower: (a) layout, and (b) signal schematic.

484 H. Bassily et al. / Mechatronics 17 (2007) 480–488

able, but the driver cards are not currently configured forelectronic control. The conveyor is controlled by a Micro-Logix 1500 PLC. Unlike the MicroLogix 1000, the Micro-Logix 1500 accepts add-on hardware cards toaccommodate a large number of both digital and analogdevices. Currently, a 24VDC sinking output module pro-vides the interface between the PLC and the MicroRollercards. The experimental system also includes an Allen–Bradley light stack with audible alarm (similar to Section2), moveable optical proximity sensors attached along theconveyor edges, and an array of multi-purpose controlpanel push buttons that may be programmed as neededby the students. Using a building block approach, multiple121.9 cm long uniform conveyor systems allow a reconfig-urable material handling approach. Note that the conveyorsystem is controlled by a single MicroLogix 1500.

In this laboratory, the student teams are required to pro-gram the PLC to optically detect the placement of a part on

the conveyor by a robotic arm. For example, the PLC can beprogrammed to take advantage of the independent zonecontrol concept to sequentially move each newlyarrived partto the furthest-available zone until all the conveyor zones areloaded. Next, the PLC can supervise the unloading of theconveyor system. The learning objectives for this experimentinclude: (i) use of proximity sensors to control the motion ofobjects on conveyor systems, (ii) programming of the Micro-Logix 1500 PLC (and comparison to the MicroLogix 1000PLC) to sequentially move parts on the conveyor system,(iii) integration of the conveyor system with robotic armsfor material handling, and (iv) control and coordination ofmultiple conveyor systems for various operations.

4. Robotic arms – programming and system integration

Industrial robotic systems are used in manufacturingenvironments in three general manners: (i) part pick/place

H. Bassily et al. / Mechatronics 17 (2007) 480–488 485

operations; (ii) non-contact trajectory based tasks (e.g.,welding); and (iii) contact tasks including componentassembly [19]. The Mechatronics Laboratory features tworobotic arms, a UMI RT100 and a Staubli RX130 whichstudents can program and interface with the conveyor sys-tems (refer to Fig. 5). The RT100 robotic arm provides anexcellent platform for a general introduction and initial setof programming assignments. Next, the industrial gradeRX130 robotic arm can be programmed to transport com-ponents between storage bins and the conveyor sections torealize an integrated material handling system.

4.1. UMI RT100 robotic arm

The UMI RT100 selective compliant assembly robotarm (SCARA) is a six degree-of-freedom (DOF) robot(e.g., vertical, shoulder, elbow, yaw, pitch, and roll) withan additional DOF for the end gripper. A stepper motoris associated with each joint movement. Motion is trans-ferred from the motor to the designated joint through abelt drive, which serves as a mechanical ‘‘fuse’’ to fostera safe environment for students to investigate manipula-tors. Communication occurs between the robotic arm andthe host computer using an intelligent peripherals commu-nications protocol (IPC) and RS-232 serial connection. TheIPC protocol constitutes a communication level that can bedirectly accessed through specific commands. Data andcommand transfers are executed within an 8.0e-03s com-munication frame; the actual time amount depends onthe action. The remainder of this communication frame isdesignated for two IPCs which control the joint motions.On the host, motor controller commands are containedin RT100 library functions that are embedded in a PAS-CAL or C++ script. The desired robot end gripper coordi-nates are entered in the form of encoder counts from thehome position corresponding to specific angles of rotationfor each motor. The desired arm speed is entered as a per-centage of maximum speed.

Fig. 5. Robotic arms for programming and material h

The student teams are tasked to program the roboticarm to pick up objects from a pre-staged parts platformand deposit them onto the smart conveyor. The conveyortransports the objects through a series of sensor zones toa terminal stage for further processing. To facilitate theprogramming activities, the robotic arm positions (orposes) have been pre-determined and supplied to the stu-dents. These key positions include the ‘‘wait’’ (e.g., hoverover a part) and ‘‘pick’’ (e.g., position gripper around apart) poses for each part to be placed on the conveyor.Similarly, positions may be defined for conveyor unload-ing. The learning objectives of this experiment can be sum-marized as: (i) understand the basic operation andterminology of robotic arms including library commandsand communication principles; (ii) develop algorithmswhich command the robotic arm to pick/place objects;(iii) investigate the limitations of open loop operation formaterial placement; and (iv) apply problem solving (soft-ware and hardware) skills to realize proper robotic systemoperation.

4.2. Staubli RX130 robotic arm

The Staubli RX130 robot is an industrial six DOF armwith accompanying control cabinet and computer console.Each robotic arm joint is activated by a brushless inductionmotor through a gear drive; the joint speeds vary from185�/s for the shoulder joint to 580�/s for the end effector.The robotic arm contains two pneumatic solenoid valveslinked to external couplers in the base to activate optionalperipherals. The control cabinet includes an Adept CS7controller and power amplifiers to drive the motors. Com-munication with the Adept controller can be established bythree means: (i) a pendant console attached to the cabinetwhich features predefined arm functions; (ii) a computerterminal using V+ language commands or a Windows-based GUI to communicate with the controller; and (iii)network connections with a remote computer terminal.

andling: (a) UMI RT100, and (b) Staubli RX130.

486 H. Bassily et al. / Mechatronics 17 (2007) 480–488

The complexity of the robotic system provides a varietyof educational challenges; three sequential assignments willbe discussed. First, students review the safety guidelinesand multi-faceted functionality of this industrial robot.Second, students learn the V+ interface language and pro-gram the robot to achieve basic motion. The robotic armshould be able to retrieve parts from a staging platformand place them on a stationary conveyor; the reversedoperation should also be demonstrated. Third, studentteams integrate the robotic arm into a material handlingsystem which features the single section conveyor shownin Fig. 4a. The robotic arm places parts from a storageplatform onto the conveyor system; the conveyor trans-ports them; and the robotic arm subsequently retrievesthe parts. The learning objectives for the Staubli roboticarm experiment include: (i) appreciate the safety proce-dures for industrial robots; (ii) understand typical roboticapplications in the workplace; (iii) learn the V+ language;(iv) create V+ algorithms to perform object pick/placeoperations; (v) understand the differences between open-loop and closed-loop operations; and (vi) integrate therobotic arm and smart conveyor system.

5. Case study – smart material handling system

An important aspect of this technical elective course isthe completion of ‘‘hands on’’ design projects which focuson the creation of educational laboratory experiments withaccompanying user’s manual and series of assignments.Teams of approximately 6–8 mechanical and electricalengineering undergraduate/graduate students design, ana-lyze, procure, fabricate, demonstrate, and document a safemechatronics system using concepts learned in this andother engineering classes. For this case study, two designteams collaborated to create a material handling systemwith modular conveyor elements (Section 3.2) and roboticarm (Section 4.2) for part pick/place/transport operations.

Conveyor System (Team #1): A material handling sys-tem will be created and applied to demonstrate manu-facturing part transport and interaction with anindustrial robotic arm. The team tasks include: (i) fabri-cation of a 121.9 cm long conveyor section with Micro-Rollers to accompany an existing section, (ii) design andfabrication of a 90� pneumatic ‘‘turn table’’ to moveobjects between the conveyors, (iii) PLC programmingto control package movement, (iv) coordination ofrobot and conveyor elements for pick/place operations,and (v) create laboratory manual.

Robotic Arm Programming (Team #2): An industrialgrade Stabuli robotic arm has been installed in a safetyenclosure located in Cook Hall. The team tasks include:(i) develop safety protocols for operating the robot, (ii)install additional safety equipment, (iii) design a pneu-matic gripper for robot arm to grasp objects, (iv) pro-gram the robot to pick/place objects off conveyor, and(iv) create a laboratory manual with exercises.

The mechatronic teams were assigned; the student mem-bers promptly selected a chief engineer and developed aproject timeline. Some of the initial team activities includedbrainstorming on project concepts, creation of system dia-grams to communicate key information, development ofrequirement documents, bill of materials, and identificationof possible vendors. At this point, project reviews were heldbetween the students and instructor. Once project approvalwas received, the teams analyzed, re-designed, procured,fabricated, implemented, and tested their designs. Eachteam wrote a comprehensive technical report will full doc-umentation, and a laboratory manual chapter [20]. Finally,the projects were demonstrated on the last class day. Thecollaborative activities and communications between thetwo teams was continually addressed by the students andinstructor. To complete the mechanical build, each teamhad access to the well equipped student machine shop inCook Hall.

5.1. Conveyor system project

The students successfully duplicated a 121.9 cm con-veyor section (refer to Section 3.2) and designed an innova-tive 90� turntable with similar elements to transport partsbetween the two conveyors. As shown in Fig. 6a, aluminumpallets travel on the conveyor, encounter the turntable, andcontinue moving to the end staging area for robotic armrepositioning. For instance, the PLC was programmed tocoordinate the cargo transfer from the robotic arm to thefirst conveyor system, the turntable, and finally, the secondconveyor. The turntable’s operation is pneumatically exe-cuted in a three step sequence. First, a pneumatic pistonraises the table to allow the square shape to rotate the pre-scribed 90 degrees. Second, a smaller pneumatic cylinderrotates the turntable. Finally, the table is lowered to a levelposition with the adjacent conveyor sections. The receptionand the delivery of the pallets to each conveyor were per-formed by two integrated MicroRoller elements.

5.2. Robotic arm and gripper project

One of the initial tasks was the review of safety proce-dures and installation of safety equipment for the roboticarm. As shown in Fig. 5b, a metal enclosure limited accessto the robot. A door limit switch disabled robot electricalpower when open and warning lights signaled the robotarm status. The students also developed a fully docu-mented tag/lockout procedure for work in the robot’svicinity. Next, a pneumatic end gripper was designed, fab-ricated, and tested on the robot which allowed students tosynthesize concepts from machine design, strength of mate-rials, and manufacturing processes (refer to Fig. 6b and c).This cost effective gripper, fabricated from aluminum, usesa single pneumatic cylinder that receives compressed airsupplied from the robotic arm. The gripper can grab a17 cm by 17 cm square widget with a 50 kg mass. Finally,the robotic arm and gripper were interfaced with the con-

Fig. 6. Smart material handling system: (a) servo-motor conveyor and turntable, (b) industrial robotic arm with pneumatic gripper, and (c) gripper designfor 50 kg mass and 17 cm · 17 cm size.

H. Bassily et al. / Mechatronics 17 (2007) 480–488 487

veyor system previously described for harmonious opera-tion. Note that sensor integration represents an importanton-going task for the robotic arm.

5.3. Design project accomplishments and observations

At the end of the semester, the mechatronic teams dem-onstrated their design projects during an open-house ses-sion. The smart material handling system featured aseries of aluminum pallets placed on, and removed from,the conveyor by the Staubli robotic arm. The pallets trav-eled the length of the conveyor with turntable action. Over-all, the students had an opportunity to work with industrialequipment, develop teaming and communication skills,and put theory into practice by designing the mechatronicmaterial handling system. The formation of design teams,selection of chief engineers, allocation of student workassignments, and frequent student-team-instructor commu-nications empowered the students to take ownership of thelaboratory learning process. An interesting observationwas that the students’ perseverance in resolving problems,as evident by the troubleshooting of and eventual hostingof a factory technician to repair a robot electrical problem,emulated a typical workplace scenario. Further, the stu-dents appreciated the two complex design projects whichpresented significant demands but offered great opportuni-ties for innovation.

6. Summary

The educational mechatronics laboratory in the Depart-ment of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson Universityhas been created through the continuing efforts of faculty,staff, students, and industrial sponsors. Multi-disciplinaryteams explore hands-on laboratory experiments to famil-iarize themselves with instrumentation, sensors, actuators,and real time controllers. Further, the design, fabrication,integration, and control of experimental systems, moti-vated from common material handling, manufacturing,

and transportation systems, can inspire students in theiracademic careers, offer insight into career opportunities,and prepare them to compete in a global job market thatis increasingly less focused on the traditional boundariesof the engineering disciplines.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the equipment contributionsby the Rockwell Automation Corporation of Greenville,SC, and the Sparks Belting Corporation of Fort Mill,SC, as well as the outstanding support from the Mechani-cal Engineering Technical Staff at Clemson University.

References

[1] Wagner J. Evolving industry expectations for engineers – impact ofglobal manufacturing. In: Proceedings of the ASEE annual confer-ence, Charlotte, NC; June 1999.

[2] Slivovsky L, Oakes W, Jamieson L. Evaluating multidisciplinarydesign teams. In: Proceedings of the ASEE annual conference,Nashville, TN; June 2003.

[3] Simpson T, Medeiros D, Joshi S, Lehtihet A, Wysk R. A new coursefor integrating design, manufacturing, and production into engineer-ing curriculum. In: Proceedings of the ASEE annual conference,Albuquerque, NM; June 2001.

[4] Steiner M. Using real world multidisciplinary design experiences toprepare young engineers to enter today’s workforce. In: Proceedingsof the international engineering and design education conference,Delft, The Netherlands; September 2004.

[5] Grimheden M, Hanson M. What is mechatronics? Proposing adidactical approach to mechatronics. In: Proceedings of the interna-tional workshop on education in mechatronics, Kiel, Germany;September 2001.

[6] Ranaweera A, Bamieh B, Parmenter V. Sensors, actuators, andcomputer interfacing laboratory course at the University of Califor-nia at Santa Barbara. Mechatronics 2005;15(6):639–50.

[7] Grimheden M. International collaboration in mechatronics educa-tion. In: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on researchand education in mechatronics, Kielce, Poland; October 2004.

[8] Surgenor B, Firth K, Wild P. Lessons learned from a mobile robotbased mechatronics course. In: Proceedings of the ASEE annualconference, Portland, OR; June 2005.

488 H. Bassily et al. / Mechatronics 17 (2007) 480–488

[9] Minor M, Meek G, Integrated and structured project environment inmechatronics education. In: Proceedings of the ASEE annualconference, Montreal; June 2002.

[10] Shooter S, McNeill M. Interdisciplinary collaborative learning inmechatronics at Bucknell University. J Eng Educ 2002;91(3):339–44.

[11] Bushnell L, Crick A, Control education via autonomous robotics. In:Proceedings of the IEEE conference on decision and control, vol. 3.Maui, HI; November 2003. p. 3011–7.

[12] Nagchaudhuri A, Shyam S, Wood J, Stockus A. Establishment ofmechatronics laboratory at UMES. In: Proceedings of the ASEEannual conference, Nashville, TN; June 2003.

[13] Ghone M, Wagner J, A multi-disciplinary mechatronics laboratory.In: Proceedings of the ASEE annual conference, Nashville, TN; June2003.

[14] Asplaugh M, Dewicki G, Advanced design considerations requiredfor overland aggregate conveyors. In: Proceedings of the SMEAnnual Meeting, Cincinnati, OH; February 2003.

[15] Parker J, Introduction to programmable logic controllers in amechanical engineering instrumentation course. In: Proceedings ofthe ASEE conference, Albuquerque, NM; June 2001.

[16] Evans WT. Programmable logic controllers: fundamentals andapplications. Chicago: Stipes Publishing; 2006.

[17] Ghone M, Schubert M, Wagner J. Development of a mechatronicslaboratory – eliminating barriers to manufacturing instrumentationand control. IEEE J Ind Electron 2003;50(2):394–7.

[18] Hossieny M, Khan H, Modernization of the mechanical/manufac-turing engineering laboratories – upgrading educational CIM cellsinvolving students and faculty. In: Proceedings of the ASME IMECEcongress, mechanical engineering technology division, New Orleans,LA; November 2002. p. 103–6.

[19] Nagchaudhri A, Kuruganty S, Shakur A. Introduction of mecha-tronics concepts in a robotics course using an industrial SCARArobot equipped with a vision sensor. Mechatronics 2002;12(2):183–93.

[20] Wagner J. Mechatronic system design laboratory manual – version6.0, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University;January 2007.