Mixing real and virtual components in automated manufacturing systems using PLM tools

Int J Interact Des ManufDOI 10.1007/s12008-014-0206-7

TECHNICAL PAPER

Mixing real and virtual components in automated manufacturingsystems using PLM tools

Mauricio Hincapié · Miguel de Jesús Ramírez ·Antonio Valenzuela · José Alberto Valdez

Received: 6 March 2012 / Accepted: 7 January 2014© Springer-Verlag France 2014

Abstract The automation of manufacturing systems is oneof the most important aspects that need to be taken care ofduring a design process. The Product Lifecycle Management(PLM) tools allow for the designing of automated systemseven before acquiring all the hardware and/or software. Thispaper shows the use of this PLM kind of tools for mixingvirtual and real components on an automated manufactur-ing system through the implementation of four different casescenarios: using the real process/real controller to the vir-tual process/virtual controller, real process/real controller toreal process/virtual controller and finally, virtual process/realcontroller to virtual process/virtual controller. These scenar-ios will be described along with their purposes and the toolsused to achieve them. Dassault Systemes DELMIA Automa-tion is used as a PLM tool and is combined with the hard-ware and software required to achieve each case scenario.The case study used is the Flexible Manufacturing System inthe Mechatronics laboratory at the Tecnológico de Monter-rey; it’s also presented an implementation of these scenariosin a Manufacturing Systems Automation laboratory class.This study examines students’ use of technology for learn-ing compared to more traditional learning methods. Resultssuggest that there is more than one good way to learn.

M. Hincapié · M. de Jesús Ramírez · A. Valenzuela · J. A. Valdez (B)Mechatronic and Automation Engineering, ITESM Campus Monterrey,Av. Garza Sada 2501, Monterrey 64849, Nuevo León, Mexicoe-mail: [email protected]

M. Hincapiée-mail: [email protected]

M. de Jesús Ramíreze-mail: [email protected]

A. Valenzuelae-mail: [email protected]

Keywords PLM · DELMIA Automation · HybridScenarios · Automated systems · Digital Manufacturing

1 Introduction

Manufacturing is a dynamic, exciting, and critical industry,which has changing and increasing in a frantic rate. Manufac-turing systems and processes are being combined with sim-ulation technology, computer hardware, and operating sys-tems, one of the most interesting and important of these recentdevelopments is called “Virtual Manufacturing” [1] which isa set of technologies for reducing product development timeand cost, as well as for addressing the need for customization,increased product quality and faster response to the market.It is defined as “…the ability to describe every aspect ofthe design-to-manufacture process digitally, using tools thatinclude digital design, CAD, office documents, PLM sys-tems, analysis software, simulation, CAM software, and soon” [2].

Another definition is “…to carry out manufacturing activ-ities with a simulation model of the actual setup, which mayor may not exist. It holds all the information relating to theprocess, the process control and management and productspecific data. It is also possible to have part of the manufac-turing plant be real and the other part virtual” [3]. This lastdefinition gives the foundation for the present work. DigitalManufacturing concepts work at the detailed level as well,allowing tooling, weld paths, ergonomic considerations andother critical details to be designed and analyzed in advance[4].

PLM tools are also reframed inside the technologiesaround Digital Manufacturing. These set of computer-aidedtechnologies that have emerged over the past few decadeshave provided a powerful tool for boosting productivity,

123

Int J Interact Des Manuf

allowing faster time to market for the product and dramat-ically reducing the time required for product development[2].

Computer simulation has become one of the most widelyused tools in manufacturing systems design, allowing deci-sion makers and engineers to investigate the complexity ofthe systems they are designing and the way that changes whenthe system’s configuration changes or how the different oper-ational scenarios affect the performance of the system [2]. Itis said that simulation leads to innovation; this is because theresult for being wrong in a simulation environment is simplya learning experience [4]; innovation would not be seriouslyconsidered in a physical environment, since the cost of errorsis enormous; an approach that might not be the most efficientcould be used in order to avoid more expenses in the designprocess. Obviously, it is necessary to have an accurate modelso it can be efficiently simulated.

Simulation has evolved into more complex concepts, likeVirtual Reality and Mixed Reality. Virtual Reality applica-tions in manufacturing can be in the areas of design (prod-uct design and prototyping), operation management (plan-ning simulation and training) and manufacturing processes(machining, assembly and inspection) [5]. This conceptencompasses two more concepts: Augmented Reality andAugmented Virtuality. Augmented reality deals with thecombination of real images and computer generated data,the purpose is to extend the visual perception of the world,being supported by additional information and virtual objects[6]. On the other hand, in augmented virtuality most of thesurrounding environment is principally virtual, and only afew real world objects are left not augmented [7].

This paper presents a new classification on systems, wherevirtual and real components are combined, which is repre-sented in four different scenarios, as can be seen on Fig. 1.There is also reported a study where the four scenarios areevaluated in an educative environment by students who learna Manufacturing Systems Automation in the ITESM Cam-pus Monterrey. Although the scenarios presented in this paperare not precisely included into any of the classifications men-tioned on the paragraphs above, they do combine virtual andreal elements to form different systems where the main pur-pose is to have a working automated manufacturing systemwhich nature depends on the needs and the resources that theuser has. These whole scenarios are developed using DassaultSystemes CATIA™, DELMIA™ and DELMIA Automa-tion™ platforms; this is a set of PLM tools that can be used,among several other tasks, to design, model and simulateautomated manufacturing systems.

These case scenarios present an innovative way for com-bining virtual and real resources in such a way that a com-pany or a laboratory in a university can have the automatedmanufacturing system they need by acquiring the fewer com-ponents possible for it.

2 PLM tools for automation

PLM is the management process of the product lifecycle,from the idea, design, manufacture and use, to its disposal.PLM manages, coordinates and optimizes the processes,decisions and information about products from initial con-cept to end-of-life across the extended enterprise [8].

Fig. 1 Virtual-Hybrid-Real automated manufacturing systems scale

123


Fig. 2 PLM Model

PLM model can be sectioned in two parts: Engineeringand Supply (Fig. 2). Each part is composed of three stages.The cycle begins with the three stages of engineering: prod-uct development, process development and facility develop-ment. These stages are followed by the three stages of supply:production and sales, use and maintenance, and disposal.

Dassault Systemes provides a powerful platform for PLM.CATIA™, DELMIA™ and DELMIA Automation™ are animportant part of this platform. CATIA™ aids on the design,modeling and analysis of the different parts of the processand product. DELMIA™, on the other hand, allows for thecreation of virtual devices, thereby defining their tasks andoperations. It has modules for aiding at the process planning.

The goal of the DELMIA Automation™ platform is tointegrate control engineering into the Digital Factory, in linewith the IEC 61131-3 PLC established programming lan-guages. The software provides a solution to virtually simu-late, debug and validate a control system using virtual devicescreated with the different modules of the DELMIA Platform,allowing shorter development times and fewer breakdowns[9].

Thanks to its partnership with other automation vendors,DELMIA Automation™ enables the complete developmentand validation of automation systems in a virtual environmentbefore any physical resources are installed. It also allowsconnecting virtual devices to real control hardware, allowingalso the validation of control hardware before the real processis built.

The base for the product lifecycle management with PLMtools is the product-process-resources (PPR) hub, whichbecomes a really important aspect in many ways. On onehand, it supports and promotes a simultaneous interdiscipli-nary planning approach and forms the basis of its centralcharacter. On the other hand, this cross-domain data modelprovides the ideal platform for early validation and optimiza-

Fig. 3 Virtual/hybrid simulation systems with DELMIA platform

tion of cell-based control programs, as well as production-related IT system. The result is higher software, hardwarematurity and the significant acceleration on production start.By using this PPR hub model, the functional interactionbetween mechanical, electrical and control engineering plantcomponents can be achieved before building the real produc-tion system, allowing its review and improvement [9].

DELMIA Automation™, as mentioned earlier, providesa virtual and hybrid (virtual/real) simulation environment;the use of standards, like OPC, has made communicationbetween PLC’s and PC’s easy to implement, allowing theimplementation of hybrid environments more accessible andtransparent for control engineers [10]. In Fig. 3, the basic

123


scheme of the four scenarios developed in the present workis depicted, showing the flow of information between thedifferent components in each one of them with bidirectionalarrows.

3 Virtual commissioning: virtualization of the realworld

Virtual commissioning allows to model, simulate and con-figure the resource model in all its functioning, which ten-tatively is analogous to the later established real productioncell: control output signals cause specific actions defined inthe resource model (e.g., valve control), model-specific out-put signals are considered as input signals to the correspond-ing controller [10]. The virtual commissioning of productioncells has come to the fore as a future technology [11] duringthe last 6 years.

For the model based PLC program validation, it is notnecessary to have control software on real hardware. Themost important thing is that the control components use theproper interfaces to interact with each other. In these systems,virtual and real components can be mixed to have hybridsimulation, validation and verification environments. Thisway, virtual commissioning becomes the crucial step in thetransition from digital to the real factory. The validation ofinteracting control programs.

The advantages of more stable commissioning and pro-duction start-ups, a consistent communication platform forcooperating project teams and a higher level of maturity forrobot programs constitute the motivation for the further adop-tion of virtual commissioning [12].

The benefits and potential of the correct use of virtualcommissioning can be numerous [13]. Virtualized operationof the complete production lines can be achieved, includingcomponents that are not yet available, creating integrationand test of automation solutions in the context of a completemanufacturing plant; hazardous test scenarios and criticalsystem states can be achieved economically and without anyrisk. The flexibility of a virtual test environment is muchhigher than the equivalent hardware, which shows its biggestadvantages whenever the plant is in change. Bottlenecks canbe eliminated from processes easily, since the overall processcan be simulated; this, of course, includes the simulation ofthe process controller.

The use of a PLC simulation environment offers the advan-tage that, to test the control software, no hardware is required;on the other hand, the crucial disadvantage is that the appro-priate hardware and bus cannot be tested. If this is the sit-uation, hybrid systems can be build, where virtual and realprocesses are mixed up. Next, several of these hybrid systemswill be explained, and it is up to the control engineer to decidewhich of them is more suitable to be implemented. Each casescenario will be described, along with their configuration,

how-to’s, and the authors’ recommendation on where theyshould be used.

4 Virtual-hybrid-real case scenarios

Two aspects are mainly considered in the speed-up of a man-ufacturing process of any product: the speed-up of productdevelopment to reduce development lead time and the pro-duction to reduce production lead time [2]. The present workis mainly concerned about the process development speed-up. For the production of any product, there are two aspectsthat need to be considered, the manufacturing process andthe manufacturing facilities. These two aspects go hand inhand and there are virtual tools that can aim in their designand interaction. The importance of PLM tools and their pos-sibility to communicate and interact with other components,both virtual and real, becomes fundamental.

In the following section, the developed case scenariosare described, showing main features, characteristics and theproper steps to achieve them. Also, it will be proposed whereeach scenario can be used, depending on the user’s needs.

4.1 Scenario 1: virtual process–virtual controller

For the design and implementation of the virtual manufac-turing environment, the first scenario is described, focusingon the stages where engineering takes part: process develop-ment and facility development, which are part of the prod-uct lifecycle. These stages can be interconnected in a virtualenvironment with properties and capabilities that allow inte-grating the elements of the virtual manufacturing system ofthe product with its virtual controller; this is accomplishedby the use of PLM tools. This brings advantages such as theimpulse of innovation of their products and the reduction ofcosts. It is not necessary to have the physical resources, facil-ities or a PLC to have a functional automated manufacturingprocess.

There is a three categories classification for virtual real-ity systems, depending on the sense of immersion or degreeof presence they provide; those categories include non-immersive (Desktop), semi-immersive projection systemsand fully immersive [5]. This first scenario, due to its charac-teristics, is very similar and could be included into the non-immersive category, since it’s a desktop application, wherethe input devices are the mouse and keyboard, the outputdevice is a common monitor, which giving a sense of immer-sion that is not as high as the others, but also representinglower costs than the other two.

4.1.1 Scenario description

A virtual environment uses just one software package to dig-italize, simulate and automate the manufacture system. This

123


Fig. 4 Scenario 1: virtualprocess/virtual controller

reduces the complexity that comes with the integration anddata translation issues that are other-wise involved in caseof using different software packages [14]. PLM tools playan important role in the development of this first case, sincethey allow the process of virtualization of the physical man-ufacturing system. Figure 4 shows the basic configuration ofthis scenario.

The virtual process is designed and simulated with all itscomponents in a virtual way inside a PC, using PLM tools.Control hardware and panels can be virtualized, having anentire manufacturing environment lying in a desktop inside apersonal computer. A pure process of virtual commissioningtakes part in here.

Despite of the complexity that arrives with using morethan one software package, this can come in handy if theadditional software that is used is, for example, a PLCsimulator of a any given PLC manufacturer. If the virtualprocess is planned to be materialized, the final control logicthat will be downloaded to the physical PLC could be vali-dated, which is more accurate that the one on a virtual PLCof the PLM tool. Given this, it is up to the control engi-neer to evaluate which option is the more convenient to itspurposes.

The importance of virtual prototyping in reducing designcostand time-to-market while allowing a greater explorationof the design space make it required technology for remain-ing competitive in today’s digital system market. The educa-tion of students in simulation-based design is therefore alsobecoming increasingly important [15].

Regardless that the scope of the present work is directed toautomated manufacturing systems, PLM tools allow to testand validate a lot of different matters inside a manufacturingsystem, such as design, production, material flow, produc-tion times, layout and ergonomics—everything that is neces-sary to make an efficient manufacturing process before it isbuilt.

4.1.2 Scenario accomplishment

The diagram shown at Fig. 5 illustrates a five stages pro-cedure that needs to be followed to accomplish a virtualprocess/virtual controller scenario.

Digital manufacturing starts with being able to “draw” anidea into a computer. Once the design ideas are in 3D, the datacreated can be easily transmitted into all major CAD systemsfor engineering work. Besides, errors can be eliminated bycontinuously comparing work with the original CAD model.So, to design this scenario, the series of stages depicted atFig. 5 should be followed.

The first stage consists of the digitalization of all the man-ufacturing process; this procedure starts from the definitionof the components needed to fabricate the product and theirdigitalization (sensors, actuators, material handlers, etc.).Once all the parts of the process are digitalized, a prelim-inary sequence of operations and layout distribution shouldbe defined. A methodology for defining sequence of opera-tions can be found in (IPPMD).

The next stage consists on simulating the manufacturingprocess. To accomplish it, PLM tools are used, which allowsdefining all mechanisms and tasks for the digitalized com-ponents and devices of the process; for example, a pneu-matic cylinder should have retracted and extended positionsdefined, and the proper tasks defined to achieve those posi-tions when required. Also, robot programming should bedone in this phase, defining its tasks and I/O’s to accomplishthe proper operation. Following this, the process is simulatedfor verification and validation; this allows observing the over-all process, to check if the layout distribution and sequenceof operations defined are the most optimal; if not, they can bere-defined and re-tested as many times as necessary. Times,distances, displacements can be measured, and delays can beadded to the sequence of the process to have a more realis-tic manufacturing environment. The feedback received from

123


Fig. 5 Scenario One, step-by-step

a good dynamic simulation gives users important informa-tion that can lead to modify the parameters and improve thedesign in ways that might otherwise have been overlooked[16]. PLM tools also allow adding personnel to the process,if the process is not totally automated.

The next step is to design the control engineering for theformer validated virtual process. To achieve, it is necessaryto use the PLM tool to define the internal logic behavior ofeach component of the manufacturing process and their I/O’sso that they resemble the behavior they would have if theywere the real physical ones. Afterwards, the control programfor the overall process should be designed and generated,including I/O’s and auxiliary variables. The logic designedshould be programmed so that the sequence of operationscan be achieved as it was formerly validated. This logic isenclosed into a virtual controller that simulates a PLC insidethe PLM tool being used, which can be connected with thevirtual process for verification and validation of the logic. Forthis purpose, signals can be manually forced to evaluate if thebehavior of the process is the expected; if not, the requiredchanges should be performed at this stage.

As in every manufacturing process, it is required to havea HMI (human–machine interface) to be able to interact withit. In this phase, all of the required controls and indicatorsfor the designed process need to be defined, so that it canbe properly controlled and monitored. For this case scenario,the HMI is virtually simulated, since it is designed inside thePLM tool. All of its components must be mapped and linkedto the proper control logic components.

Once all of the components are designed and validated,the whole automated manufacturing process has to be inte-grated into a single functional unit. This last phase consistson the connection of the virtual process, the virtual PLC andthe virtual HMI. After all the proper connections are made,it is time to simulate the integrated process. If any of the

components needs to be changed, it is recommended to goback to the proper stage, make the desired changes, and per-form the whole process from that stage to the end. Oncethe integrated process is validated, the first scenario, virtualprocess/virtual controller, is finally achieved.

4.1.3 Use cases

It could obtain benefits of this scenario mainly in two sectors:manufacturing industry and academic sector.

On the manufacturing industry, it is possible to designand simulate a whole automated production process in avirtual environment to define the real process to be imple-mented beforehand. This is useful mainly whenever a newproduct wants to be produced, saving the company a lot ofcosts in production process development times and acceler-ating the product’s life cycle. It can also be used to have theexisting processes virtualized; since PLM tools are used fordeveloping this scenario, another main application arises forthe industry. Having all processes at the shop floor virtual-ized, it becomes easier and practical to apply modificationswhenever the process needs to be reconfigured. The modifi-cations can be first applied virtually for validation and testing;once validated, it can be build. The use of PLM tools allowsthe company to have more benefits, such as having a com-mon database, optimization of data management and short-ening of manufacturing process development time, amongothers.

For the academic sector, this first scenario represents aneducative solution since it helps teaching about manufactur-ing systems, without the need of having the real process todo it; this represents a lot of potential financial savings foreducational institutions, and also, an upgrade to those thatdon’t have enough resources to acquire a physical automatedmanufacturing system.

123


4.2 Scenario 2: virtual process–real controller

In section one, a concept denominated Augmented Virtualitywas introduced, which represents an environment where mostof the surroundings are virtual, with only a few real worldobjects not augmented [7]. A similar case is presented in thisscenario, since the process is virtual, while only the controllerand sometimes the HMI (human–machine interface) are real.

For the implementation of this scenario, PLM tools areused in interaction with PLC’s and HMI’s; this way, a hybridmanufacturing system is created. This brings the advantagethat a real PLC can be programmed, tested and validatedbefore the process is built, and before acquiring any of itscomponents; this way, a control system can be fully devel-oped and process development times can be reduced.


A hybrid manufacturing environment mixes up virtual andreal components into a totally functional automated manu-facturing system. In this case, a virtual process with all itscomponents is controlled with a real PLC. PLM tools areused to model and simulate the process, while native PLCprogramming environments are used to program the controllogic and download the program to the PLC. Figure 6 showsthe configuration of the present case scenario, which unlikescenario 1, is not entirely enclosed inside a PC.

Regarding the HMI, it can be simulated inside the samePLM tool, or a real physical one can be used; in this lastsituation, the HMI would be programmed and designed usingits own manufacturer programming environment.

The PLC program needs to be done in the proper soft-ware, according to the PLC being used. Once the programis downloaded to the PLC, and the PLC connected to the

virtual process, the system can properly function without theprogramming environment; it can be used only to monitor ormodify the program whenever is needed.

OPC client/server protocol can be used for communica-tion between the virtual process and the PLC. The computerwhere the virtual process is the OPC client, but not necessar-ily has to include the OPC server; the server can be reachedvia IP; this would allow to remotely communicate the vir-tual process with the physical PLC, bringing benefits such asremote education and training, as it will be explained laterin this section. Any PLC which has a programming envi-ronment that works as an OPC server can be used for thepurposes of this case scenario; so, if the user already has aPLC with this requirements, it can be used.


In Fig. 7, a series of stages to accomplish the integration ofscenario two are shown.

As it can be seen, the first two stages are the same shownin the previous case, since both of them use a virtual process.It is important to notice that in this second scenario, as wellas in the first one, the level of detail on the digitalization ofthe components should be the necessary so that the processcan be fully represented in the virtual environment; the closerto the reality, the better. It can go from a robot, conveyor orwork table, to a sensor, a piston or a bolt and screw.

Once the process is fully modeled, simulated and vali-dated, the internal logic behavior of all of its componentsneeds to be defined, just as in scenario one. The behaviorshould be defined as close as possible as if the componentswere real; this way, it is easy to change the virtual process fora real process, in case it is intended, using the same controllerwith its proper communication interface.

Fig. 6 Scenario 2. Virtualprocess/real controller

123


Fig. 7 Scenario two, step-by-step

To define the control logic in this second case scenario,a different approach is proposed, since a physical PLC isused instead of a simulated one. The control logic is definedusing the native programming environment of the PLC beingused. When finished, the program needs to be downloaded tothe PLC. An OPC server needs to be installed, and the PLCprogram tag list uploaded to it. It is essential to mention thatthe server needs to be communicated to the PLC via Ethernetconnection.

The next step consists on the design of the HMI forthe process. Whether a real or a virtual HMI is going tobe used, or even a combination of the two of them, thecomponents (controls and indicators) that are going to beused in it are defined, as well as its design and configu-ration. A virtual HMI can be defined, designed and pro-grammed using a PLM tool, just like in scenario one; onthe other hand, if a real one is used, the HMI manufacturer’sprogramming environment need to be used to configure it.Once it is programmed, it needs to be physically connectedto the PLC using the proper communication protocol forit.

The OPC client is the same PLM tool that was usedfor modeling and simulating the process. Whether the OPCserver is installed on the same computer, or on a remote one,it is through this OPC client that the information uploaded tothe server is read/written as the process is simulated. In thelast stage, after the client is connected to the server, the PLCprogram tags (which as mentioned before, were uploaded tothe server) can be mapped to ports of an I/O block that wouldrepresent, inside the PLM tool, the physical PLC I/O ports.It is important to remember that in case that the OPC server

is hosted in a different computer that the client, the can stillcommunicate via IP.

After the I/O mapping, the virtual process, PLC (repre-sented inside PLM tool as an I/O block) and HMI (virtualand/or real) can be finally integrated into a single unit. Onceintegrated, the hybrid environment is finally built up. Thecontrol program can now be used to control the defined vir-tual process. The hybrid process should now be simulatedfor validation; the PLC program can be monitored using itsprogramming environment, while the virtual process can beobserved in the PLM tool.

4.2.3 Use cases

There are several applications where this scenario will comein handy. On one hand, for educational purposes; as in casescenario 1, the student can be taught in automation and con-trol topics without the need of the existence of a physicalprocess; the advantage that offers having real PLC’s andHMI’s is that, since the manufacturer’s environments are usedin their configuration and programming, this is a more real-istic environment; students can use all of the tools that thenative PLC environment has to offer, giving a richer experi-ence and a closer approach to an industrial process. Besidesthe advantages mentioned until now, it gives a tool for remoteaccess of the control station; this way, remote education pro-grams can be enriched, by only possessing the PLM tool toremotely access the workstation. It is important to notice thatdespite this sort of implementations provide powerful toolsfor education; it never can fully substitute the experience thata real process can provide.

123


Fig. 8 Scenario 3: realprocess/virtual controller

Another important application is for training facilities forcontrol engineers in industry. This allows companies to havetraining workstations for their personnel; the real processesthat exist at the shop floor can be virtually replicated, andthe same PLC’s can be implemented to control them. Hav-ing these workstations, personnel can be trained more accu-rately into all the real existing processes at the plant, makingthem more competent and familiarizing them with the plantbefore stepping a foot in the shop floor; since having a sec-ond plant for staff training is hardly an option in any indus-try, and stopping production brings down the company’sproductivity, this scenario represents a strong and powerfultool.

4.3 Scenario 3: real process–virtual controller

The structure of this system is a lot different than the pasttwo. It can be implemented when there are several indepen-dent workstations, each with its own PLC, those which atsome point would like to be integrated into a single auto-mated manufacturing process. To accomplish the integrationof this scenario, each of the individual workstation PLC’swould become a slave PLC; a master PLC and HMI, bothcreated with a PLM tool, become the integration elementsonce the communication with the involved workstations isestablished. This scenario, unlike the others, doesn’t involvea manufacturing process planning from scratch; it’s more ofan integration and reconfiguration process of already exist-

ing components, and, if needed, component re-design or newcomponent addition.


This scenario represents another hybrid manufacturing sys-tem, mixing a real physical process with a virtual PLC andHMI. Figure 8 represents the structure of Scenario 3.

The pyramidal structure of this system schemes how thevirtual PLC acts as an integration element for the severalworkstations that are combined into the new manufactur-ing process. The HMI should combine all the componentsneeded to be able to fully interact and operate the integratedmanufacturing process.

OPC client/server protocol is used to establish the com-munication between the real processes’ slave PLC’s and thevirtual master PLC. Just as is Scenario 2, the possibility forremote access to the OPC server is possible via IP. The taglists of each of the slave PLC’s programs needs to be uploadedto the server for the client (PLM tool) to be able to reach them.


As it would be assumed, most of the stages needed to accom-plish to integrate the present scenario are different than thepast two (Fig. 9).

First, all of the workstations that are to be integrated needto be analyzed in detail, and decomposed to their minimum

123


Fig. 9 Scenario three, step-by-step

component. Any component that is not going to be neededshould be dismissed, and any missing component should beadded in this phase; although, the idea is to use already exist-ing components of the workstations. Slave PLC’s I/O portsneed to be analyzed, to check for usage and availability ofports for the integration process. If the individual worksta-tions have a sequence of operations already defined and pro-grammed, it should be identified and tested to see if any of itsparts can be reused when the interactions between worksta-tions are defined; it is important to check if all of the work-stations’ elements work properly.

After all of the workstations are analyzed and workingproperly, with all of the components to be used, it is time todefine the relationships between them. In this part, all of theshared signals and variables need to be defined; all the inter-action (hardware and software) that need to be performed bythe system need to be taken into account, both between work-stations, and between workstations and the master PLC; thislast controller acts as the coordinator of the overall process.Based on this interaction, the individual (workstation) andinteractive (integrated workstations) sequence of operationsand tasks can be defined. Inevitably, if the workstations don’thave components to do the job of material handling betweeneach other, these components (or optionally, another work-station for material handling between workstations) need tobe added to the system.

After defining the correct sequence, it is time to programthe slave PLC’s, using the variables defined earlier for theirinteraction between each other and with the master PLC; itis recommended to simplify the control program for thesePLC’s, in a way that they control the tasks of the compo-nents of the proper workstation; the overall sequence can beprogrammed later at the master PLC control program. Onceprogrammed, the control code must be downloaded to the

PLC’s. The computer where the OPC server is hosted needsto connect via Ethernet to the slave PLC’s; program tags forevery slave PLC must be uploaded to the server, like in thepast scenario.

PLM tools are used to program and simulate the masterPLC, and to design and implement the virtual HMI; unlikethe past scenario, in this case the OPC client is the vir-tual controller, instead of the process. The master controlprogram has to define the sequence of operations desired,sending/receiving the signals to/from the elements of eachworkstation to accomplish it; this is how the master PLCbecomes one of the integration elements. All of the compo-nents (controls and indicators) of the HMI need to be enlisted,which must include the components for all of the worksta-tions involved in the process. The elements of the HMI mustbe mapped to the control logic elements at the program of themaster PLC; it is how the HMI becomes the second elementof integration of this system.

Once the HMI and master PLC are finished, the system isfully integrated, since the OPC connection was made beforeto interconnect slave/master PLC’s. The final step consists intesting and validating the correct operation of the process; ifone of the elements of the hybrid process is not functioningas expected, it should be changed at the proper stage, and theprocedure must be continued form that point to the end.

4.3.3 Use cases

The use of the present scenario is centered in integration ofautomated systems. Whether it is an educational institution,or a manufacturer industry, this case scenario represents analternative to integrate different workstations into a workingautomated manufacturing process. It provides a tool for inte-gration, control and monitoring of the process at the same

123


Fig. 10 Scenario 4. Realprocess/real controller

time, which is included inside a personal computer. As in thepast scenario, there is the possibility for remote operation ofthe system. For education, this enhances the distance learningexperience; for industry, it provides a tool for remote opera-tion, control and monitoring of the manufacturing process.

4.4 Scenario 4: real process–real controller


This scenario is the most common one: a real process, con-trolled by a real controller, which transforms raw materialinto a final product. Figure 10 shows this system configura-tion.

It is normally composed of a tool system, several auto-mated production systems, a material transportation system,several load/unload stations, a computer control and man-agement system, and an interface. All these components areinterdependent, interrelated and interactive. They carry outdifferent tasks respectively to complete the functions of theentire manufacture system [17].

A production process has all the elements for materialtransformation and handling. Furthermore, the operator canhandle the controller and control panel to manipulate thecomplete system of the transformation of the product.

Specification process for advanced industrial process con-trol systems should be conducted by means of a methodologythat takes into consideration the specification of control func-tions and the system architecture [18]. Before being imple-mented, one should decide what and how much they desiredto produce. With this information one can decide whichmachines are require, what level of manpower is needed, theappropriate level of automation and the layout, etc. In thistype of scenario, there is no simulation of the manufacturingprocess in any technological platform: a virtual environmentisn’t used, the system is just implemented once the decisions

are made about functionality and productivity designed forthe manufacturing system. Given this, the companies havenot the opportunity to validate the possible “what if” scenar-ios; as a consequence, companies don’t have innovation asan important factor, because to make changes on the systemof manufacture it will take time and a high costs.


The diagram shown at Fig. 11 illustrates the steps neededto be followed to accomplish a real process/real controllerscenario.

To achieve this scenario, a series of stages need to be fol-lowed, starting with the planning of the whole manufactur-ing process to determine its elements and resources. Layoutdesign and the sequence definition of the operations of theautomated process must be defined in this first stage.

Once these decisions are made and the structure of theprocess is ready, the next step is to implement the manufac-turing process plan defined by the previous stage and incor-porate the components into the configuration.

It is necessary to define the automated control routine forthe process. It requires one to program the control logic thatneeds to be loaded to the PLC to accomplish the desiredoperations sequence. The HMI control design to be linkedto the PLC needs to take into account the variables used inthis control program, to define controls and indicators, andto provide the tool to correctly operate and configure theprocess. The architecture of the industrial process controlsystems depends on the diversity of control functions to beperformed, as well as on the real-time requirements of thecontrolled processes [18].

For the specification of the control system, the logicalrelationships between system goals specifications, processspecifications, and control specifications covering the vari-ous points of view involved in automation engineering are

123


Fig. 11 Scenario 4, step-by-step

defined [19]. This way, the final step of the procedure can beaccomplished. In order to have a functional manufacturingprocess, it is obviously necessary to integrate the three mainelements defined as above: control logic (PLC), HMI and thephysical process with all of its components so the automa-tion process will be ready to be tested. These tests should berun very carefully, since a failure can cause several damagesto the production line. If the performance of any processor component does not go as expected, changes can bemade; although, it is recommended to plan it carefully sincethe beginning because any changes would implicate highcosts.

It is important to emphasis the fact that the PLC is animportant element to all the manufacturing systems for itsautomation. Despite personal computers enhancing their per-formance for process control, PLC continue being the mostused controllers in the industry, due to their practicality andsturdiness; their field is continuing to expand, not just for theautomotive industry for which it was created, but also intoall industrial processes applications [20].

4.4.3 Use cases

To this we can add that the Programmable Logic Controllers(PLCs) are used by most Flexible Manufacturing Systems astheir process controllers because they are adaptable, modu-lar, user-friendly and acquired at low cost [17]. This kind ofscenario is the most commonly seen in the industry; after all,to produce any product, its manufacturing process needs to bebuild. It can be used in the manufacturing industry sectors likethe automotive, distillation, petrochemical, food processing,etc. It can also be used for educational purposes, since thebest way to learn about manufacturing processes automationis by actually manipulating and controlling a real one. How-ever, acquiring one is not an option for a lot of educationalinstitutions, and that is when the use of virtual componentsinteracting with real ones becomes handy.

5 Case study at Monterrey institute of technologymechatronics lab

For the implementation of the former described virtual-hybrid-real automation scenarios, the authors chose theassembly workstation of the Mechatronics Laboratory atMonterrey Institute of Technology, here students of Mecha-tronics and Mechanical take the Laboratory of Manufactur-ing Systems Automation; Fig. 12 shows the Laboratory. Theassembly station basically possesses the following compo-nents:

• 1 MOTOMAN UP6 robot with a XRC 2001 controller,with the following tools:

– 1 pneumatic gripper– 1 pneumatic screwdriver– 1 pneumatic suction cap

• 1 EMCO PC MILL 155 Vertical Machining Center• 1 Storage with a AS/RS (Controlled by a PLC)• 1 Conveyor with two rails (Controlled by a PLC)• 1 Inspection Area• 1 Assembly station with the following tools (Controlled

by a PLC)

– Magazine tool– 3 containers– 1 dispenser– 1 pneumatic press

The control of the CMF is performed by 3 AB PLC’slocated at the storage, conveyor and assembly station. Theconnection between them is as depicted in Fig. 12. Thesoftware used is RSLogix5000. There is also a communi-cation between Motoman, Assembly’s PLC and the Verti-cal Machining Center. This workstation is programmed toassembly a gearbox. Of course, due to the flexibility of itscomponents, it can be programmed to assembly a wide vari-

123


Fig. 12 Real manufacturing cell

Fig. 13 Case Study at Monterrey Tech, virtual process, virtual controller

ety of different products. The process is described below: atthe beginning there is a pallet with raw material in the stor-age, then a AS/RS is programed to pick the pallet in any ofthe twelve positions that has the storage and drop it to theconveyor, this is transported and stopped at the end of therail where the robot can reach the container and transport itto the different buffers in the assembly station. The processcontinues by transporting the raw material by the Robot tothe milling machine, once the machining is done the robottakes is it again to assemble it, finally when the assembly isdone the final product is moved to the conveyor and stored.The assembly workstation interacts with another two work-stations, a conveyor with a vision inspection system, and an

AS/RS; for simplicity, only the assembly station is used inmost cases. Several of the Dassault Systemes’ PLM platformtools are used to achieve the study case.

5.1 Scenario 1: virtual process–virtual controller

For this first case scenario, the design and digitalization ofthe assembly workstation process is presented. Figure 13schemes the stages followed to achieve this virtual manu-facturing environment.

First, CATIA™ modules are used to design and assem-bly all the components of the process; to make sure all thenecessary components are included, a preliminary design of

123


Fig. 14 Virtual controller and virtual process in Delmia automation

the layout and the process diagram is made. The activities,tasks and operations of the process are defined and simulatedstep by step by using DELMIA™ platform. This simulationallows the engineer to redesign the layout and process dia-gram of the manufacturing system, if needed.

When the process is all digitalized and validated, it is nec-essary to define control logic to achieve the sequence of tasksand activities that were defined for the process. First, it isrequired the definition of the logical behavior and I/O of thecomponents; given this, the I/O for the virtual PLC can bedefined, these I/O are necessary to read sensors or activate thetasks and operations of the process’, like robot tasks, or pneu-matic actuators state changes. When all of this is defined, thecontrol logic can be programmed. DELMIA Automation™modules aim into this process.

The next step is to design the HMI Control Panel to manip-ulate and monitor the system. The last step is the integra-tion of all systems that means the connection between vir-tual process, virtual PLC (where the control logic is) and theHMI Control Panel, so a fully functional virtual automatedmanufacturing system is obtained.

The result obtained are shown in Fig. 14, where on oneside is the programming diagram made using grafcet, thisdiagram controls the opening and closing of the assemblypress. The other side shows the process simulated where thegearbox is assembled virtually and the press is activated dueto virtual control, all made using Delmia Platform.

5.2 Scenario 2: virtual process–real controller

The process followed to achieve this scenario is shown atFig. 15. The first two stages are the same as in the past sce-nario, where the process is digitalized and assembled.

With the process build, the control code is programmedusing RSLogix 5000 and downloaded to the PLC Logix 5550via Ethernet connection. RSLinx is used as OPC server and

to manage the connection with the PLC; the main tag list isuploaded to it for further use.

As in the previous case, DELMIA Automation’s™ HMIControl Panel Design module is used for designing the HMI.To complete the integration of the system, the Device ControlConnection module allows using the virtual process createdbefore, along with the HMI, as an OPC client; this way itis possible to connect to the OPC server and use the PLCmain program tags inside DELMIA Automation™. A con-trol block is created inside the virtual environment, whichhas the I/O ports necessary to control the virtual process,ports that are mapped to the PLC main program tags, viaOPC client/server connection. This block is used to be ableto connect the virtual model components and HMI to thephysical PLC. Using this, the hybrid automated manufactur-ing system is finally incorporated.

The results obtained are show in Fig. 16; a real PLC is usedwhere a ladder programming is done in order to control thevirtual process. The software for programming the control isRsLogix5000, here is monitored and controlled the sensorsand actuators of the virtual process in Delmia Platform

5.3 Scenario 3: real process–virtual controller

As it was mentioned before, this case is quite different thanthe past two. To accomplish it, the real assembly workstationis used, and is intended to be integrated to the conveyor andAS/RS workstations using a digital master PLC and HMIthat works as integration element.

Figure 17 schemes the stages that were accomplished tointegrate the system.

First, every component of every workstations need to beidentified (sensors, actuators, valves, indicators, etc). Sinceevery workstation has a PLC of its own, used and availableI/O ports were observed, and the program was studied to see ifany of the already programmed sequence of operations could

123


Fig. 15 Case study at Monterrey tech, virtual process/real controller

Fig. 16 Virtual process in Delmia and real controller in RsLogix5000

be used, and as a matter of fact, it could. All the componentswere tested until they all worked properly.

Once that the workstations were analyzed, the overallprocess desired sequence of operations was defined, and inte-gration variables were defined; since the assembly station,and the AS/RS have elements for material handling, a robotand a Cartesian pneumatic actuator, respectively, none hadto be added.

Since the workstations were individually programmedpreviously, there were already defined control codes for eachone; PLC’s Logix5550 were used on each station. They werereprogrammed adding the integration and shared variablesdefined at the previous stage, using RSLogix 5000; once

reprogrammed, the codes were downloaded to each of themvia Ethernet connection. RSLinx was used as OPC server andto manage PLC connection with the host computer.

DELMIA Automation™ Module & Block Editor mod-ule was used to program the master PLC, program thatcoordinates the interaction between the three workstations;HMI was designed using HMI Control Panel Design mod-ule. Device Control Connection module is used as the OPCclient, were slave PLC’s program tags can be accessed andused to build the virtual PLC block and logic. HMI mustbe connected to PLC block in this stage. Finally, the over-all integrated system was finally achieved and tested forvalidation.

123


Fig. 17 Case study at Monterrey tech, real process/virtual controller

Fig. 18 Virtual control in Delmia and real process

For this scenario is show the results of the Virtual Controland the real process in Fig. 18, here is shown a diagram ingrafcet as well as its HMI, made all this in Delmia Platform,that control the opening and closing of a real press mountedin the Assembly station,

5.4 Scenario 4: real process–real controller

The assembly workstation is finally constructed. This is thetraditional procedure in which no digital manufacturing toolsare used (Fig. 19).

In this case the first step is to make the definition of thecomponents of the process of manufacture, i.e. the elementsneeded to make a functional process; also, the layout dis-tribution needs to be defined, as well as the characteriza-tion of the sequence of operations of the process. Then, it isproceeded to implement the layout distribution and processdiagram, by integrating the components with the proper con-nections (electrical, electronic, mechanical, etc.). Then, todefine the control logic it is required the analysis of the inter-nal logic behavior of the all components of the process, andthe needed I/O’s definition to sense and control all that is

123


Fig. 19 Case study at Monterrey tech, real process/virtual controller

Fig. 20 Scenario 4 results, real controller/real process

necessary. After programming the PLC, the HMI is designed,programmed and connected to the PLC. After this, the virtualprocess/virtual controller scenario is built.

The Fig. 20 show how the scenario 4 is implemented nowa-days in the Laboratory of Mechatronics together with animage of the gearbox assembly previously programed, eitherthe control or the process are real. The control is performedby 3 PLCs located in each of the station of assembly, storageand conveyor, the programming is done in RSLogix5000, inthe other hand the assembly of the gearbox is implementedprogramming the Motoman UP6.

6 Implementation and evaluation of manufacturinghybrid scenarios in the educative environment

As a part of the implementation and complement of thevalidation and analysis of the scenarios presented, here isshown and experiment performed in an educative environ-ment inside of the Laboratory that was taken as case study andpresented before. Inside of the educative context, is evaluatedhow well each scenario would work in order the studentscould acquire the knowledge, concepts, abilities and compe-

123


tences referent to the laboratory of Manufacturing SystemsAutomation.

Here is also considered the fact that the technology onthe educational environment has radically changed in thepast few years showing a trend to include new technolo-gies in the teaching methods and by consequence the newtechnologies have been a support in visual presentation,simulations and in many other cases [21]. The best wayof learning an academic engineering subject is by prac-ticing within the laboratory carefully designed and fullyequipped with an instructor that fulfills the requirementof the subject. Physical Laboratories bring plenty advan-tages to the students learning: Enhance Concepts, Trial andMotivation [22]; however, there are some disadvantages incurrent traditional teaching methods; most of the equip-ment at school is so expensive that only few universitiescould afford it. Limited equipment for students causes alack of practice in workshops and brings a poor learningeffect.

Laboratories equipped with virtual and hybrid compo-nents could bring many other advantages like debugging,availability, less investment, a vivid experience of the practi-cal application of powerful software, etc. This implementa-tion also consider the fact that nowadays engineering stu-dents, need to be updated with many of the technologi-cal tools and software available in the field of manufactur-ing and automation such as Delmia Automation and Tecno-matix. The knowhow of these tools gives them a competitiveedge in the working world where factories are implementingthese tools to their manufacturing process [23]. It’s impor-tant to take advantage of these tools not only in the “realworld” but also in teaching which also could provide a goodcost/benefit alternative to teach the fundamentals of a typ-ical laboratory class. The present case study examines andevaluates the implementation of the different scenarios asa new way of teaching a laboratory class of Manufactur-ing System Integration. Several variables are evaluated in

order to see the performance of the students in the differentcases.

6.1 Methodology

Undergraduates enrolled in the course of Integrated Manu-facturing System participated in the study. A total of 47 stu-dents participated (94 % of students enrolled in the course).All of the undergraduates study engineering in Mechatronics,12 % were female and 82 % male. The students were dividedaccording to their learning style; Kinesthetic, Visual andAuditory. The control group was divided in 4 groups; eachgroup performed only one scenario. Each scenario group wasmixed such that each group had evenly students of each learn-ing style. The topics covered in the practice were the same inall the scenarios, these topics were taken from the syntheticplan from the laboratory lessons taught at the ITESM Cam-pus Monterrey, this are: (a) Fundamentals and Operation ofa FMS, (b) Handling of an Industrial Robot and CoordinatesSystems, (c) Programming of and Industrial Robot and (d)PLC Programming. Figure 21 shows the students implement-ing the practices.

Four measurement tools were defined in order to get dataabout the scenario’s perception, one of them was quantitative,a perception survey, while the other three were qualitative,these tools were semi-structured Interview, Observation logand Reflection blog. The last three were developed in orderto get information and verify that the results were consistent.

The survey was structured as follow: 26 questions, run-time registration and a space for comments and opinions. Thequestions were formulated in such way we could get infor-mation about three areas of interest: the practice by itself (9questions), the performance during the practice’s execution(11 questions) and the comparison between the three new pro-posed scenarios vs the real one (6 questions). The questionsthen were classified according the variables to investigate:general understanding, motivation, relationship of contents,

Fig. 21 Students performingthe practices of the differentscenarios

123


Table 1 Results by variables

Variable Meaning Results Interpretation

Generalunderstanding

It shows an idea of how the scenarios givethe students a fully understanding of theconcepts taught in the course in a typicalLaboratory Session. This characteristicis important because finally we want thestudents learn, understand andconceptualize the information taught

This variable is better obtained from aphysical scenario (3 and 4) werestudents are immerse and in contact withthe devices. Scenarios with a high levelof virtuality complicate a little bit theunderstanding of the topics

Motivation Measures the incentive the student has toattend a laboratory taught in this kind ofscenarios. It let us to perceive thedriving force by which students achievetheir goals, and see how they would feelif they had to attend a class within aspecific scenario

Scenario 3 and 4 motivates more thestudents to attend classes however isclearly expressed they appreciate toomuch to work alone, situation that intypical class is not possible because theyhave to share the cells with a team group(4–7 persons)

Relationshipof contents

It’s important to see if the scenarios let thestudents to accomplish the objectives ofeach topic of the contents and see if theyassociate the topics performed in thevirtual part with the real one as well aswith the knowledge get in the classroom

Students tend to relate the contents easilyin a non-hybrid scenario (1 and 4); thefact to mix reality with virtuality tendsto make more difficult the relationshipsof the contents. The PLC programmingin scenario 3 complicates this variabledue to the unfriendly way of program

Difficulty It’s important to see if the scenarios let thestudents to accomplish the objectives ofeach topic of the contents and see if theyassociate the topics performed in thevirtual part with the real one as well aswith the knowledge get in the classroom

It’s easier to handle with scenarios with ahigher level of virtuality, the fact towork with software creates moreeasiness so scenarios 1 and 2 had thisadvantage over 3 and 4; however isclearly expressed by the students toimpart a basic course before the studentsdeal with these scenarios

Debugging It measures how friendly each scenario isso the student can commit errors. Eachscenario has different equipment so anymistake in real parts can develop somemalfunction in the machines, which canbe unfixable or expensive to repair,using virtual components any damagecould be significantly reduced

Scenarios 3 and 4 offers confidence so thestudents could make mistakes, anon-expected answer, however this isdue to students have had experienceworking with the equipment before. It’sexpected in scenario 1 and 2 that studentfeel free to commit error without cause asevere damage in the equipment

PLC programmingenvironment

It’s very important to know how thestudents feel working on the PLCprogramming environment of eachscenario, the advantages ordisadvantages that they could have. Thisis a variable to take into account due toit is one of the principal characteristicsthat differentiate the scenarios

This is a key variable because is one of themajor variable that differentiate eachscenario. Scenario that works with amore proper environment for PLC(scenario 2 and 4) is preferred by thestudents rather than scenario 1 or 3 thatuses the limited environment providedby the DM software

Experienceacquired

This variable tend to measure how muchexperience the students acquire usingthe tools and concept of the scenariosfor their educational training and toadapt it to their occupational needsquickly after graduation or future work

This variable favor scenarios with morereality because they give moreexperience for their educational trainingand for their future work, however it’simportant to mention that in a closefuture the use of DM software will tendto be as important as to know how tomanage a physical robot

Ease of teaching This aspect is directed mainly to theperformance of the Instructor in order tosee how useful is to apply this kind ofscenarios so we can improve theteaching effect

Scenarios 3 and 4 are more comfortable tobe taught rather than the virtual onesaccording to the perception of thestudents

123


Table 2 Comparison chartAdvantages Disadvantages

Scenario 1 *Valuable design and DM tools *No real interaction with Industrialequipment

*Redesign and validate AutomatedManufacturing Processes

*Previous training is required

*High of cost reduction *No interaction with a real PLCenvironment

*Modifications on design stages

*Potential scenario for educationsreferring to Cost-Benefits (Personalized,debugging, operation confidence)

*Good evaluated scenario for education +uses of PLM tools

Scenario 2 *Valuable design and DM tools *Trained Instructor is required

*Redesign and validate AutomatedManufacturing Processes

*Previous training is required

*Modifications on design stages *No real Interaction with Industrialequipment

*High cost Reduction

*Potential scenario for educations due to aREAL PLC is used

*Good evaluated scenario for education +uses of PLM tools (debugging,operation confidence, PLCprogramming environment)

Scenario 3 *Interactions with industrial Material *High cost Implementation: Real Process+ Real PLC + PLM Software

*Fully equipped and real interactions withPLC and DM tool

*Trained instructor is required

*Very good evaluated scenario foreducation (experience acquired,relationship of contents and generalunderstanding)

*There is no a personalized teaching

Scenario 4 *Interactions with industrial Material *High cost Implementation: Real Process+ Real PLC

*Fully equipped and real interactions withPLC

* No interactions with design and DMtools

*Good evaluated scenario for education(experience acquired, PLCprogramming environment, relationshipof contents, motivations and generalunderstanding)

*There is no a personalized teaching

difficulty, debugging, PLC environment, experience acquiredand ease of teaching. Another variables could be consideredin order to evaluate the properties of each scenarios, howeverthis are not analyzed in this study, this variables could be:Cost, Availability, Diversity, Security, and Implementation.

The semi-structured interview was made by the Instructorjust after the students finished the practice, it was and opendialog with some semi-structured questions about the opinionof the scenarios. The Observation log was performed by theinstructor while the practice was carry out, in this paper somenotes about the development of the test. Finally the Reflectionblog was a tool with several open questions which were filledout more calmly by the students as homework.

6.2 Experiment results

Results are also shown also in Table 1; the graphs are relatedto the survey answered by the tester according to the vari-ables. The scale used to measure the variables goes from 1 to5 where the closest to 1 represents the best and 5 the worst.The interpretations of the results are according to the surveybut also are considered results obtained from the qualitativetools.

Reliability of the proof: The procedure for calculating thereliability of the proofs was made by the method of split-halves, the software used was SPSS. The test was done forthe sample as a whole, the results obtained for the proof

123


show that it is reliable: Part 1 Alfa of Cronbach = 0.915,Part 2 Alfa of Cronbach = 0.983, Correlation = 0.878, Coef-ficient Spearman–Brown = 0.868, Coefficient Guttman =0.859.

Once done the previous scenarios as well as the testingdone in the laboratory class, is presented the following chartof advantages and disadvantages of each scenario.

7 Conclusions

The virtual and hybrid platforms provide great opportunitiesfor both education and industry, several aspects regardingDigital Manufacturing concepts were studied, going fromcomputer aided technologies, to PDM, PLM, Virtual andMixed Reality. A new arising concept was addressed: Vir-tual Commissioning.

Regarding the use of Digital Manufacturing tools, the useof DELMIA Automation™ was explored and implementedin a case study, by the successful application of the proposedmethodologies; with this, the author demonstrated the bene-fits that having this sort of tools can bring to aid in the processdevelopment stage of the PLM process (Table 2).

Digital Manufacturing Tools are useful both in indus-try and in educative sector. In the education field studentsexperienced the use of several scenarios. Teaching practicesshows that, the virtual teaching platform is a powerful tool forteaching innovation, thus it is worth generalizing in teachingapplication. Here is presented an alternative solution whereequipping a laboratory with hybrid devices removes timesand resources limitation obtaining good results in the finalpurpose, the learning of the student.

Undoubtedly scenario four, the traditional one, offers thebest solution to the students in order to learn more andstrengthens the theory and concepts they already know, how-ever this implies to have a very well equipped laboratory aswell as to reduces the number of student in each workinggroup, situation that converts in a very expensive solutionsdue to a laboratory has time and recourse limitations. It wasexpected that the scenarios with a high level of reality hada better performance than those with high level of virtuality.However there is more than one path where virtual scenariosshow superior performance than real ones.

This study shows that scenario 3 and 4 are well evalu-ated but scenario 1 and 2 perform so well favoring moretechnology-driven learning methods. The scenarios 3 is theleast favored talking about cost-benefits, since it implies theuse of many other resources, like DELMIA Automation™licenses, real PLC’s, extra work and knowledge, in order toapply a virtual controller, which also is not well appreciatedby user.

This new way of hybrid has many advantages as is shownin the results: provides a well acceptance by the students as

well as provides vivid images, enhance perceptual experi-ence, increase practical teaching, it’s efficient, time-saving,economic, and viable. By means of the application of virtualteaching platform of digital manufacturing; students com-ing from scenario 1 and 2 have achieved excellent results inmany of measurable variables so the implementation of thiscould be considered in order make a good performance in thelearning strategies of the students.

References

1. Guerra, D., Ramires, R., Donato, L., Molina, A.: Digital Manufac-turing for Aerospace industry: Experimental Aircraft. In: Proceed-ings of Virtual Concepts. Playa del Carmen, México (2006)

2. Chryssolouris, G., Mavrikios, D., Papakostas, N., et al.: Digitalmanufacturing: history, perspectives, and outlook. J. Eng. Manuf.223 Part B (2008)

3. Moore, P., Pu, J., Ng, H., et al.: Virtual Engineering: an integratedapproach to agile manufacturing machinery design and control.Mechatronics 13 (2003)

4. Digital Manufacturing, The PLM Approach to Better Manufactur-ing Processes. Tech-Clarity Inc Whitepaper (2004)

5. Mujber, T., Szecsi, T., Hashmi, M.: Virtual reality applicationsin manufacturing process simulation. J. Mater. Process. Technol.(2004)

6. Valentini, P.: Interactive cable harnessing in augmented reality. Int.J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 5(1), 45–53 (2011)

7. Eissele, M., Siemoneit, O., Ertl, T.: Transition of mixed, virtual,and augmented reality in smart production environments-an inter-disciplinary view. IEEE (2006)

8. Alleman, M.: Analysis PLM: delivering compliance and agility.IET Manuf Eng (2006)

9. Kiefer, J.: Mechatronikorientierte Planung automatisierter Ferti-gungszellen im Bereich Karosserierohbau. UNIVERSITÄT DESSAARLANDES SCHRIFTENREIHE PRODUKTIONSTECH-NIK (2007)

10. Caie, J.: Discrete Manufacturers Driving Results with DELMIAV5 Automation Platform. ARC White Paper, ARC Advisory Group(2008)

11. Harbach, F., Janschek, K., et al.: G. Herausfordernde Anwen-dungsgebiete der Automatisierungstechnik (Challenging applica-tion areas of automation technology). Automatisierungstechnik 55,5 (2007)

12. Rossdeutscher, M., Zuern, M., Berger, U.: Virtual robot programdevelopment for assembly process using rigid-body simulation.In: (ed.) IEEE International Conference on Computer SupportedCooperative Work in Design (2010)

13. Drath, R. Weber, P., Mouser, N.: An evolutionary approach for theindustrial introduction of virtual commissioning. IEEE (2008)

14. Vijayan, J.: The data builds the products. Comput. World (2003)15. Williams, R., Klenke, R., Aylo, J.: Teaching computer design using

virtual prototyping. IEEE Trans. Edu. 48(2) (2003)16. Lee, G.: Virtual prototyping on personal computers. Mech. Eng.

(1995)17. Hu, W., Starr, A. G., Leung, A.: Two diagnostic models for PLC

controlled flexible manufacturing systems. Int. J. Mach. ToolsManuf. (1999)

18. Rihar, M., Godena, G.: Automation of Specification Process forPLC Control Systems Software. IEEE Xplore; Dept ComputerAutoamtion and Control; Jozef Stefan Institute, Slovenia (1999)

123


19. Pétin, J.-F., Morel, G., Hervé, P.: Formal Specification method forsystems automation. In: Centre de Recherche en Automatique deNancy; Campus Scientifique, FRANCE (2005)

20. Creef, B.: Is the PLC finally dead? In: http://www.rtpcorp.com/documents/TheDeathofthePLC_001.pdf (2009)

21. Debevec, K., Shih, M.-Y., Kashyap, V.: Learning strategies andperformance in a technology integrated classroom. J. Res. Technol.Educ. 38, 293–307 (2006)

22. Salazar, E.A., Macias, M.E.: Virtual 3D controllable machine mod-els for implementation of automations laboratories. In: 39th IEEEFrontiers in Education Conference, 2009 FIE ’09, pp 1–5 (2009)

23. Coze, Y., Kawski, N., Kulka, T., et al.: Virtual Concept—Real Profitwith Digital Manufacturing and Simulation. In: Sogeti DSa ed.Bariet, The Netherlands (2009)

123

http://www.rtpcorp.com/documents/TheDeathofthePLC_001.pdf

http://www.rtpcorp.com/documents/TheDeathofthePLC_001.pdf

Documents

Mixing real and virtual components in automated manufacturing systems using PLM tools