Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE/ASME
International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics
Monterey, California, USA, 24-28 July, 2005
A New Approach for Mechatronic System Design: Mechatronic
Design Quotient (MDQ)
Rose Xiujuan Lu, Clarence W. de Silva, Marcelo H. Ang Jr., Jim A.N. Poo, and Henk Corporaal
AbstractIn mechatronic system design, many issues are
very complicated and are under multiple design criteria. In this
paper a general and integrated approach is presented for the
design of complex electro-mechanical systems. The formal
approach is based on the concept of Mechatronic Design
Quotient (MDQ). Five steps are presented to establish and
optimize an MDQ index. The approach is illustrated with
respect to the engineering decision making processes
incorporated in manipulator design. Various design aspects of
the complex problem including the number of degrees of
freedom (DOF), kinematic structure, disposition of actuators
and transmissions, and controller hardware and software, are
addressed. As a specific example, the selection of motors is
considered concurrently under multiple criteria and the
pertinent decision is made using an MDQ index.
KeywordsMechatronic Design Quotient (MDQ);
manipulators; multiple criteria optimization
I. INTRODUCTION
M ULTI-criteria optimization has its roots in
late-nineteenth-century welfare economics, in the
works of Vilfredo Pareto [9]. The notion of Pareto optimality
states that a solution is optimal if it is impossible to find a
solution which improves on one or more of the objectives
without worsening any of them. Multi-criteria optimization
problems appear frequently not only in economics, bus also in
a wide range of fields, such as business, management and
engineering. Many algorithms are proposed for finding
Pareto points, whose shape indicates the nature of the tradeoff
between different objectives, and are guaranteed to contain
the optimal solution [10]. These techniques have proven to be
powerful tools to explore the entire curve or surface of Pareto
points, however, in a particular engineering problem, the
complete knowledge of the solution-space is not always
needed. Often for complex engineering designs that require a
significant amount of time, an algorithm which directly leads
to the optimal solution is preferred. This paper is an
Manuscript received March 4, 2005.
Rose Xiujuan Lu, Marcelo H. Ang Jr. and Jim A.N. Poo are with the
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore,
Singapore 119260 (e-mail: LuXiujuan@nus.edu.sg, mpeangh@nus.edu.sg,
mpepooan@nus.edu.sg, respectively).
Clarence W. de Silva is with the Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada (e-mail:
desilva@mech.ubc.ca). He is now on sabbatical leave with the Department of
Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore
119260 (e-mail: mpecwds@nus.edu.sg).
Henk Corporaal is with Faculty of Electrical EngineeringEindhoven
University of Technology Eindhoven, the Netherlands (e-mail:
h.corporaal@tue.nl).
0-7803-9046-6/05/$20.00 2005 IEEE.
TC3-03
application of a method of maximizing weighted sums of
normalized criteria to system design optimization problems in
Mechatronic Engineering. The traditional design
methodology in mechatronics is to separate the overall
system into several sub-systems according to some practical
considerations; for example the different disciplines involved,
such as mechanics, electronics and control (software), and
design each subsystem by considering only one perspective at
a time. In other words, a single guideline (or, criteria) is used
for each design aspect, and the system is designed
sequentially. For example, Townsend [4] used mechanical
bandwidth as a guideline for high-performance manipulator
design to achieve better trajectory and force control. In
another design of a manipulator-like system [6], several types
of direct-drive servos were considered, and a choice was
made to use brushless direct-current motors in order to
remove the nonlinear effects in high speed tracking of
complex trajectories.
Patarinski, et al. [5] illustrated the traditional approach in
the design of an ARO-5 DOF articulated robot arm. The
system was individually designed from a mechanical
perspective by considering the number of DOF, the kinematic
structure, and the disposition of actuators and transmissions,
followed by a sequential design of the electronic controller,
and finally the design of control algorithms and software.
These approaches in the design of complex
electro-mechanical machines suffer from one major
drawback. System components are designed separately and
sequentially, normally without consideration for coupling, or
without the use of multiple criteria. When two or more
guidelines or criteria are required in the design, which
happens quite often in the design of a complex mechatronic
system, the decision making becomes very complicated and
typically non-analytic. Engineers then tend to choose
components somewhat arbitrarily from what is available and
feasible to meet their design requirements. Such decisions
typically do not lead to an optimal design, which satisfies the
design guidelines concurrently. There exists a great potential
for improvement of a mechatronic product or system through
concurrent and optimal design, resulting in better component
matching, increased efficiency, lower cost, ease of system
integration, compatibility with other systems, improved
controllability, increased reliability, and so on. In this paper a
general synthesized mechatronic design approach is
presented, through which complex engineering decision
making under multiple design criteria could be simplified into
a few simple and straightforward decisions, and finally lead
911
to an optimized design.
II. MECHATRONIC DESIGN QUOTIENT (MDQ)
C. W. de Silva first proposed the conceptual idea of MDQ
in his literatures [1] [2], which intend to solve the coupled
design issue (mechanical and electrical aspects) of a
mechatronic system. Based on the concept, this paper further
develops a practical methodology on how to apply MDQ on
real life engineering problems. This paper also extends MDQ
into a broader application of coupling various design criteria
together, not only mechanical and electrical aspects, but also
cost, speed and weight aspects, and whatever criteria the
designers come up with. Demonstrative examples are given to
illustrate the procedures.
A mechatronic system requires a multidisciplinary
approach for its design, development, and implementation. In
the traditional design of an electro-mechanical system, the
mechanical components and electrical components are
designed or selected separately and then integrated. In
contrast, in the mechatronic approach based on a mechatronic
design quotient (MDQ), the entire electro-mechanical system
is treated concurrently in an integrated manner [1, 2].
Modeling, analysis, and optimization of a mechatronic
system can be carried out using a hybrid (or, mixed)
formulation (or, a model) that integrates mechanical aspects
and electrical aspects of the system.
In conventional uncoupled design of the system, a
sequential approach is used where the system is divided into
several subsystems, categorized by different disciplines
involved, and each subsystem is designed assuming the
influence of the remaining subsystems to be fixed.
When the two uncoupled designs are interconnected, there
will be dynamic interactions between the subsystems. As a
result, neither the electrical design objectives nor the
mechanical design objectives will be satisfied simultaneously
at the levels dictated by the maximum values of the electrical
and mechanical design indices. Instead, they will be satisfied
at some lower levels. A truly mechatronic design will attempt
to bring the design indices of the subsystems as close as
possible to the maximum values of the electrical and
mechanical design indices that are possible in the sequential
design. This may be realized by optimizing a suitable
Mechatronic Design Quotient [1, 2] or MDQ.
By definition, a mechatronic design should result in an
optimal final product. Generally, a mechatronic product will
be more efficient and cost effective, precise and accurate,
reliable, flexible and functional, and mechanically less
complex, compared to a non-mechatronic product.
For the above reasons, a design approach based on MDQ
has a great potential for optimal synthesis when applied in the
design of a complex electro-mechanical system. The general
objectives of an effort in this direction would be to establish a
formal approach based on MDQ for mechatronic design
and to employ the MDQ to evaluate the optimality of a
product (existing) or design, to determine the potential for
912
product improvement through mechatronic design, for using
as a goal function in design optimization, to establish
automated multi-criteria methodology for mechatronic design,
and so on.
The basic theory of MDQ may be developed for designing
a mechatronic system by first incorporating electrical and
mechanical design criteria and associated indices. It can be
generalized to incorporate multiple criteria that are not
limited to just two subsystems of mechanical and electrical
aspects, in the design and optimization. The MDQ represents
the degree of satisfaction of multiple design criteria in a
mechatronic design. Various criteria that may be incorporated
in to MDQ in the optimization and automation of concurrent
design are shown in Fig.1.
Meeting Task
Requirements
Control- Matching and
Friendliness Optimization
Optimize
MDQ
Efficiency Reliability
Intelligence
Fig. 1. The criteria used in MDQ for optimization of a concurrent
design. [11]
A practical MDQ approach would include the following
steps:
1) Identify the relevant MDQ issues out of various design
issues. This step includes understanding the design
goals, identifying the basic performance (or, task)
requirements for the desired system, and figuring out
what issues come under multiple design criteria. For
example, in the design of a robotic manipulator, one
may consider the number of DOF, kinematic structure,
disposition of actuators and transmissions, controller
hardware and software, and so on.
2) Establish the MDQ aspects and quantify the
requirements. Here multiple design criteria are treated as
MDQ aspects. In this step, one should distinguish those
criteria that are considered to be very important in the
design, such as cost, efficiency, reliability, size,
complexity, energy, bandwidth, weight, payload, and so
on. After establishing the MDQ aspects, the pertinent
requirements have to be quantified, and a table of target
specifications should be formed.
3) Establish a database of feasible designs. This step would
include obtaining information by various means, such as
searching on the Internet, looking into various catalogs,
and consulting with experienced engineers, to find out
design solutions (e.g., different structures that are
possible, commercial products that are available) which
would roughly satisfy the basic performance (or, task)
 requirements. All feasible solutions together form a speed, and rated torque are also not included in this database
feasible solution space. because they do not provide any constraints to the design.
4) Assign various MDQ indices. According to each MDQ
aspect, there will be a separate design index, which is a Manipulator
measure of the degree to which the particular design Design
solution satisfies the design criterion (MDQ aspect).
Each MDQ index also includes an associated weighting Weighting
Parameters
parameter which indicates the importance of that MDQ aspects
particular attribute in the overall design. Speed Weight Cost
5) Compute the aggregate MDQ index. In this step, one
incorporates all individual design indices and associated
Design
weighting parameters to obtain the value of the overall Index
MDQ index. A final decision is made by selecting the
design with the highest MDQ value. Solution 1 Solution 2 Solution 3
Feasible Design Space
III. AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE FOR THE MDQ APPROACH
Many issues are involved in the design of a robotic
MDQ 1 MDQ 2 MDQ 3
manipulator, which is a typical mechatronic system. These
complex problems include the number of DOF, the kinematic
Fig. 2. MDQ flowchart for the illustrative example.
structure, the choice of motors and transmissions, controller
hardware and software, and so on. Not all these issues come
TABLE I
under multiple design criteria or difficult to decide. Hence, it
TARGET SPECIFICATION FOR MOTOR SELECTION
is useful to first identify which ones out of various design
Performance Metric Target specification
issues are necessary for treatment within the MDQ approach.
Consider for example, the decision making related to the Maximum Cost 50 S$
degrees of freedom. If we want to design a manipulator to be Maximum Weight 80g
simple and have a 3-dimensional (3D) workspace at the same
Minimum Rated Speed 15 rpm
time, it is clear that three degrees of freedom are needed in the
Price is indicated in Singapore dollars (S$)
simplest form of a 3D robot. In this case, the decision of the
number of degrees of freedom is not an MDQ issue, whereas TABLE II
under different design goals or performance requirements, the DATA OBTAINED FROM CATALOGUE [7]
DOF might become an MDQ issue. No-Load Rated Rated
Stock Gear Mass Price per unit
Motor selection is a rather complicated issue, which may no. ratio
speed
(rpm)
speed
(rpm)
torque
(Ncm)
(g) (S$)
be treated within the MDQ. Typical design criteria include
245-6089 21:1 125 80 2.5 55 39.30
cost, speed, weight, payload, and so on. In a specific design
245-6095 43:1 60 40 3.8 57 39.30
case, some features can be very significant while some others
can be neglected. We define those criteria (or, features) which 245-6102 90:1 30 18 8.0 58 39.30

matter in the specific design case as MDQ aspects. For 245-6118 188:1 14 9 14.0 59 39.30

example, suppose that the goal is to design the manipulator to

be light in weight, low in cost, and for high speed operation. TABLE III
For this purpose can construct the flowchart shown in Fig.2, FINAL DATABAS
with speed, weight, and cost as MDQ aspects, and quantify MDQ MDQ MDQ
the requirements to get a target specification shown in Stock no. Aspect 1: Aspect 2: Aspect 3:
Speed Weight Cost
TABLE I. In real world manipulator designs, the target
specification can be much more complicated than this. Solution 1: 245-6089 80 55 39.30
The next step is to find information about available
Solution 2: 245-6095 40 57 39.30
commercial products and establish a database for use in the
design. Generally speaking, commercial products give more Solution 3: 245-6102 18 58 39.30
information than what is needed here. An example of product
specification is given in TABLE II. Out of this, we can obtain
the information needed and make a new table (TABLE III), These candidate solutions satisfy the three requirements (or,
which gives the MDQ aspects against feasible solutions that MDQ aspects) to different extents. We assign one design
satisfy all three requirements. It is noted that Model 245-6118 index I to each MDQ aspect to indicate the degree to which a
does not satisfy the speed requirement and is not included in particular solution satisfies the design criterion. For example,
the final database. Information such as gear ratio, no-load speed index I1 indicates the degree of satisfaction (value from

913
0% - 100%) of the three solutions with respect to speed for j=1, 2m, where m is the total number of feasible
requirement. Similarly, I2 and I3 indicate weight index and solutions (in the present example m=3); 0  Mj d 1.
cost index, respectively. Once we have the database of A final decision can be made by comparing the value of Mj.
feasible solutions for the specific design case, the design The largest value represents the optimal design. In this
index can be easily assigned by intuition or through simple example, the values obtained for the MDQ index are 100%,
engineering knowledge. Iim is used to denote the maximum 72.5%, and 58.75% for solution 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
value of Ii. It indicates the best solution under ith design Hence solution 1 is the optimal design.
criteria. It should be noted that there are many other possible ways
Besides the design index, we also have to assign weighting of determining the values of the design indices Iij. The index
parameters W, which indicate the importance of each MDQ shown in TABLE V can be computed using the absolute
aspect in the optimization of the overall system. In this value of the difference between the design requirement and
example, we assign W1=50%, W2=20%, and W3=30% to the value achieved by the feasible solution. For example, I12 =
indicate that in the present design, speed is the most important 38.46% which is computed as |40-15|/65. The design
attribute while cost comes next, and weight is the least requirement is 15 rpm and feasible solution 2 achieves 40 rpm.
important attribute. 65 is the maximum difference across all solutions and is used
Iij is the performance index for MDQ aspect i using solution as a normalizing factor to result in an Iij = 100% for the best
j. It indicates the level of achievement provided by solution j solution. Using the same example before, the resulting design
to the aspect i. There are many ways to determine Iij. These indices are shown in TABLE V. Note that the MDQ values
can be assigned by the designer using intuition and are different but the best choice is still solution 1. No matter
experience, as shown in TABLE IV. The important what method is used to compute the design indices, the
consideration is to make sure that the relative performance of optimal solution will not change, but their relative MDQ
each solution across each aspect (each column in TABLE IV) indices will change, i.e., the ranking of the feasible solutions
is properly reflected by the relative magnitudes of the indices. is preserved. The pre-condition for this is that the weights
For example, for the speed index, I11 = 80 % is arbitrarily set are maintained.
to indicate an 80% level of satisfaction. I12 = 40 % and I13 =
20% to approximately preserve the relative achievement TABLE V
levels of the other designs. MDQ INDEX VALUE
Speed Weight Cost MDQ
Design Index
TABLE IV Index Index Index Value
MDQ INDEX VALUE
Weighting Parameter 50% 20% 30%
Speed Weight Cost MDQ
Design Index
Index Index Index Value Solution 1 100% 100% 100% 100%
Solution 2 38.46% 92% 100% 67.63%
Weighting Parameter 50% 20% 30%
Solution 3 4.61% 88% 100% 49.9%
Solution 1 80 % 80% 80% 100%
Maximum value Iim 100% 100% 100%
Solution 2 40 % 70% 80% 72.5%
Solution 3 20 % 65% 80% 58.75%
Maximum value Iim 80% 80% 80%
IV. DESIGN OF A 3-DOF MINI-MANIPULATOR
We incorporated the MDQ approach in design of a
Notice that the total weighting value satisfies Equation (1). light-weighted 3-DOF mini-manipulator, which is
n
characterized by small work space and payload but fast,
W
i 1
i 100% (1) precise manipulation capability over that work volume.
The three links of the manipulator are arranged in series as
where n is the total number of MDQ aspects. In the present shown in Fig. 3. One servo motor is mounted at each revolute
example n=3. joint of the manipulator. We set the target specifications as
To compute the MDQ index Mj for solution j, simply follows:
incorporate all the design indices and weighting parameters x Rated payload (payload at rated speed) : 0.02kg
according to Equation (2). x Maximum total weight: 0.8kg
n
x Maximum motor diameter: 0.4m
W I
i 1
i ij x Maximum total length (L1+ L2+ L3): 0.1m
Mj n
(2) x Rated speed 0.5 m/s
W I i im x Rated acceleration: 2m/s2.
i 1

914
 x3
3 decision makings done through intuition or simple
L3
2 incorporating the MDQ theory in a mini-manipulator design,
x2
L1
L2
1
x1
Fig. 3. Schematic structure of a 3-DOF mini-manipulator.
When we come to motor selection problem, performance,
component matching in conjunction with size, is considered
as a central requirement. Firstly we do motor-sizing,
satisfying that the safety factor t 1.5, gap between adjacent
motors t 0.003m, by transforming from overall
requirements of the system to torque and speed requirements
for each motor. By varying link lengths and safety factors, we
get a large set of solutions. These solutions compose the
feasible design space.
We set payload/total weight ratio, total length, diameter,
cost, speed at the end effector, and workspace as MDQ
aspects. According to the specifications of all the solutions,
we calculate the values for each MDQ aspect, assign various
design indeices, and then give weights to these aspects
according to their importance. A final decision can then be
made.
A solution which is moderately good in every aspect may
not always be the most favorable choice. With MDQ
optimization, a solution which scores very little on one or
more aspects might end up to be the optimal choice according
to weights assigned to these aspects. In our design, for
example, the total length must be less than or equal to 0.1m.
We have solutions which give total length of 0.06m, 0.07m,
or 0.09m. Smaller total length is favored. But the gap between
adjacent motors will decrease as total length goes down. In
this case, we may not prefer a moderate solution on both
length and gap, because the length is not as important as gap.
Arrangement of motors, type and nature of sensors and
transducers, controller hardware and software etc. will be
further explored in the future research.
V. CONCLUSION
This paper presented a new approach for complex
electro-mechanical system design, based on Mechatronic
Design Quotient (MDQ). It formalized the integrated
approach to system design as needed for mechatronic systems.
The approach was illustrated by considering engineering
decision making that is involved in the design of a robotic
915
manipulator. The illustrative example indicated how the
approach of MDQ can lead to an optimized and integrated
design in a systematic manner, with some of the relevant
engineering knowledge. Further work is being done in
which is under development in the Control Laboratory of
National University of Singapore.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The first author thanks the National University of
Singapore for funding received through a research
scholarship. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their
comments on the initial draft of this paper.
REFERENCES
[1] C. W. de Silva, Sensory Information Acquisition for Monitoring and
Control of Intelligent Mechatronic System, International Journal of
Information Acquisition, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 8999, 2004.
[2] C.W. de Silva, Mechatronics An Integrated Approach, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL, 2005.
[3] D. Shetty and R.A. Kolk, Mechatronics System Design, PWS
Publishing Co., New York, NY, 1997.
[4] W. T. Townsend and J. K. Salisbury, Mechanical Bandwidth as a
Guideline to High-Performance Manipulator Design, IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Scottsdale, AZ,
Vol. 3.,pp. 1390-5,14-19, May 1989.
[5] S. P. Patarinski, L.G. Markov, and T. M. Tonchev, Mechanics and
Co-coordinated Control of ARO-II twin articulated robot arms,
Mechatronics, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 59-71, 1991.
[6] B. V. Beek and B. de Jager, RRR-robot design: basic outlines, servo
sizing, and control, Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE International
Conference on Control Applications, Hartford, CT, October 1997.
[7] http://www.rssingapore.com
[8] http://www.robotics.utexas.edu/rrg/
[9] V. Pareto. Manuale di Economia Politica. Piccola Biblioteca
Scientifica, Milan, 1906. Translated into English by Ann S. Schwier
(1971), Manual of Political Economy, MacMillan, London.
[10] http://www-fp.mcs.anl.gov/otc/Guide/OptWeb/multiobj/index.html
[11] Behbahani, S. and de Silva, C.W. "Mechatronic Design Quotient
(MDQ) as the Basis of a New Multi-Criteria Mechatronic Design
Methodology," Proc. Intenational Symposium on Collaborative
Research in Applied Science, Vancouver, BC, Oct. 2005 (In Press).