Session 1363

INTRODUCTION TO INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION,

A MULTI-DISCIPLINARY COURSE AT
WESTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY
Mark E. Cambron and H. Joel Lenoir
Western Kentucky University

Abstract
The design of contemporary industrial systems and consumer products is increasingly blurring
the boundaries between electrical (EE) and mechanical (ME) engineering. Many commercial
systems are an appropriate blend of technologies from both disciplines. Traditional approaches
to strengthening the educational experiences of engineering students have utilized traditional
service courses in each of the disciplines. Although mechanics and thermal/fluid courses for the
EE’s and circuits/machinery courses for the ME’s are important and necessary, they are not
sufficient to give the students the skills to deal with these new systems.

Western Kentucky University has implemented a course, EE 285: Introduction to Industrial

Automation, in an attempt to build a bridge between the EE and ME programs. The goal is give
the students a common language in this area so that multidisciplinary capstone and professional
projects are more easily accomplished. The results of two years of offering the course, including
student feedback and course assessment are included. Examples of projects tackled by the
students, lessons learned by the faculty, and lists of necessary equipment are provided.

Introduction
The Department of Engineering at Western Kentucky University (WKU) has been given the rare
opportunity to develop an entirely new engineering program. Western’s challenge has been to
create unique undergraduate curricula in Civil, Electrical, and Mechanical Engineering focused
on the needs of current and future industrial partners. The Mission of the WKU’s Department of
Engineering revolves around our vision of Project Based Learning. The central focus of this
vision is that the faculty will engage students in activities to support development of a clear
understanding of engineering practice. The roles of students - as learners, as observers, as
assistants, and as practitioners - should be supported by both the external project activities of the
faculty as well as the implementation of the curriculum such that the practice of engineering is
clearly demonstrated.1

The new engineering programs at WKU a tremendous potential for nationally-recognized

excellence in undergraduate engineering education. The faculty is dedicated to the mission of
project-based learning for undergraduate education.5 The engineering programs at WKU differ
from the other programs within Kentucky and most engineering programs across the country in
that there are no graduate programs. Instead of supporting graduate students and conducting
traditional research, WKU faculty members are actively engaged in both the scholarship of
application and the scholarship of teaching. Activities currently include involving students in
industry to help solve local and regional problems, scholarship in the areas of recruitment and
Page 9.813.1

retention of students (including women and minorities), developing and applying state-of-the-art

Proceedings of the 2004American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Engineering Education
teaching pedagogies throughout the curriculum, and other activities supporting a project-based,
learner-driven engineering department.

Course Overview
Both the electrical and mechanical engineering programs have incorporated practice-oriented
experiences into the curriculum by the addition of multiple laboratory experiences, design
courses4, and project classes. Introduction to Industrial Automation is an important course in
the fourth semester of both curriculums, intended to be a blend of these three types of practice-
oriented courses. It serves as an important “building-block” in both programs, helping build a
foundation for higher level integrated design courses.

To help support the project-oriented nature of the course, each individual student is assigned a
hardware kit containing an Allen-Bradley Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) and an Atmel
AVR microcontroller. The list of assigned sensors, switches, and other input/output (I/O)
devices may vary depending upon the projects selected for the semester. A list of this equipment
is given in Table 1. In addition, programming software for the PLC’s and compilers for the
Atmel microcontrollers are in computer labs throughout the building. Students check out this
equipment in a large plastic tote and use it for the entire semester. Considering a typical
semester may have 32 students in the course, split into two sections, the College of Science and
Engineering at WKU has made a substantial investment in the course.

Equipment Description Vendor Cost

MicroLogix 1000 Programmable Logic Controllers Allen Bradley $265
Cable Programming Cable Allen Bradley $50
OP-420 Operator Panel Automation Direct $135
OP-ACBL-4 Cable (PLC - Panel) Automation Direct $13
OP-ACBL-1 Cable (RS232 – Panel) Automation Direct $15
TRD-S100-BD Optical Encoder Automation Direct $79
MSF-00-4A Fiber Optic Photocell Automation Direct $36
Power Supply 12 Power Regulated Supply Any $45
DC Motor DC Gear-Head motor Any $23
STK 500 AVR Flash Microcontroller Atmel $75
Accessories Consumables and Supplies Any ~$14
TOTAL COST $750

Table 1: Equipment Used in EE 285

The students work on a range of projects to build an understanding of not only the use and
integration of these devices, but also to gain an appreciation of the strengths and difficulties of
using the technologies of the other discipline. Both sets of students are required to have
completed a course in structured computer language, currently designated as C and offered by
the Computer Science department. The EE students are required to have courses their first
courses in both digital circuits and circuits/networks. The ME students are required to have
completed a course in the fundamentals of electrical engineering covering DC and AC circuits,
digital logic, and some basic electronics.
Page 9.813.2

Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Engineering Education
This course is team-taught by faculty from both programs and is divided into three sections. The
course begins with a three-week review of digital systems, followed by seven weeks on
Programmable Logic Controllers and six weeks on Atmel microcontrollers. An overview of
each of these three sections is given below.

Digital Review
Students are introduced to the modeling and design of digital circuits and their application to
construct digital systems. Students learn to analyze a problem statement, formulate a
mathematical model, and design logic networks having the required relationship between signals
at the input and output terminals.

An example project introduces relays and requires the students to fabricate an H-Bridge circuit.
The context of this project is to demonstrate a method for controlling the direction of rotation for
a DC motor, a topic revisited during the PLC portion of the course. A schematic for an H-bridge
is shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: H-Bridge Circuit

The EE students have prior experience in circuit prototyping and testing, and are able to provide
assistance to their ME peers. Although the students assist each other with projects such as this,
each student is ultimately responsible for designing and building their own circuit.

Programmable Logic Controllers

Beginning with a comparison of the PLC to drum timers and relay networks, this section
introduces the most common method of machine control used in regional companies. As with
most PLC’s, this model is programmed using a language called (relay) ladder logic. The Allen
Bradley programming interface is Windows-based, a vast improvement over the traditional hand-
held programmers or command-line interfaces. The student’s work together to learn ladder
logic, and quickly discover the PLC functions in a structured manner consistent with their
previous experiences with C. Figure 2 below shows an Allen Bradley MicroLogix 1000
mounted on its mounting plate. These aluminum plates not only protect the PLC but also allow
barrier terminal strips to be used so students are prevented from making circuit connections
directly to the more delicate PLC terminals.
Page 9.813.3

Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Engineering Education
 Figure 2: Allen Bradley MicroLogic 1000

Over a period of several weeks, students complete an increasingly difficult set of PLC
assignments. Since each student has their own hardware, they can work on their own schedule
and at their own pace. This section of the course does not meet every session, replacing class
time with periods when the instructor is available for technical assistance.

An example of a final project for this section is shown below in Figures 3 and 4. This project
required each student to fabricate a bracket for a dc motor coupled to an optical encoder and
another bracket to mount a fiber optic photocell. The project the required the students to wire an
H-bridge for the 12V motor using the relay outputs of the PLC, drawing upon the lessons learned
in the first section of the course. The optical encoder functioned as a simple tachometer readable
by the PLC, and the photocell was used to start and stop the process. Figure 3 is an example of a
tachometer unit, while Figure 4 shows a typical student’s work area in the floor of a
departmental project room. Members of the Industrial Advisory Board found Figure 4 to be
somewhat inspiring about the future of our students, reminding some of the advisors of long
hours spent on their own school work years ago.

Figure 3: Student Tachometer Project Figure 4: Student Work Area

Page 9.813.4

Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Engineering Education
The ME students were of technical assistance to the EE students on these larger projects. The
ME students have been more extensively trained in the use of the machine shop, and were able to
help the less experienced EE students design and fabricate the mounting brackets for their
projects.

This course is the last time PLC’s are presented in a formal manner to students in either program.
However, students completing the course have made the PLC a tool they are comfortable with,
both for capstone projects and projects with local industry. Students have reported that
internships after this course have given them a chance to use their programming skills on several
industrial systems.

ATMEL Microcontrollers
The final section of the course is used to introduce the students to Atmel AVR Flash
Microcomputers, shown in a student project in Figure 5 below. Although each student’s prior
experience was with a higher level programming language, assembly language programming was
used. This decision was initially made due to the lack of a C compiler, but it turned out to be a
reasonable choice since students were more familiar with bit manipulation than expected. The
use of the PLC provided an excellent introduction to memory mapping and bit control as tools in
structured programming.

Figure 5: Atmel STK 500 Microcontroller

As with the PLC, students tackled an increasingly difficult set of projects to build an introductory
working knowledge of microcomputers and the flow of data within a microcomputer system. In
addition, students worked to understand the concepts of a state machine on several projects. The
final microcomputer project involved interfacing the Atmel board to switches and two 7-segment
displays to display a double-digit number. The switches were used to select the number to be
displayed, and the microcontroller was required to display the number by multiplexing the data
to be displayed.

This section of the course only served as a brief introduction to the tool of microcontrollers.
Page 9.813.5

Although this introduction was sufficient for the ME students, allowing them to understand the

Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Engineering Education
power and limitations of the tool, the EE students need a greater level of understanding. In the
next semester, the EE students take a more intensive course in microcontroller applications.

Summary of Course Assessment

Course outcomes were developed for each section of the course. These outcomes state the skill
and knowledge students are expected to possess at the end of the course, and are shown below.

Digital Section Course Outcomes:

1. Ability to use Karnaugh maps to minimize the design of a logic circuit.
2. Design combinational logic circuits.
3. Design synchronous and asynchronous sequential circuits
Microprocessor Section Course Outcomes:
1. Demonstrate a working knowledge of the ATMEL AVR Flash microcomputers and
the flow of data within a microcomputer system.
2. Demonstrate a working knowledge of the necessary steps and methods used to
interface a microcomputer system to devices such as LCD displays, motors, sensors,
etc.
3. Demonstrate the use of interrupts and other programming techniques related to
microprocessors.
PLC Section Course Outcomes:
1. Create a structured PLC program to solve an automation problem.
2. Document a PLC program for archival purposes.
3. Document project results in an appropriate manner.
4. Wire sinking and sourcing sensors and power supplies to a PLC.
5. Build a proof-of-concept model for a sensor validation experiment.

Students used self-assessment to determine the success of the course in enabling them to achieve
the course outcomes, with a 0 indicating no mastery and 10 very proficient. A typical course
assessment for the PLC portion of the course is shown in Figure 6 below.

IN S T R U C T O R
PLC O UTCO M ES ASSESSM ENT
E E 2 8 5 S P R IN G 2 0 0 3 J O E L L E N O IR STUDENT
14 STUD ENT R ESPO NS ES TARG ET

10
9
8
7
6
SCORE

5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4 5
O UTCO M E #

Figure 6: PLC Course Outcomes Assessment

Page 9.813.6

Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Engineering Education
In this example assessment, the greatest difference between faculty and student perceptions
occurred on outcomes related to project and program documentation. Students felt they deserved
more credit for the limited amount of documentation provided. The instructor recognized
students needed a clearer understanding of the expectations for documentation. This type of
course outcome assessment is used for every engineering course at WKU, and serves as a
valuable tool for continuous course improvement.

Lessons Learned
This course is being offered for the third time in spring 2004. Based on the course outcomes
assessment, specific student comments, and observations by course instructors, several major
improvements have been made to the course. The most substantial change to the course occurred
between the first and second offerings. The original plan was to pair ME and EE students
together on a single set of hardware. Course assessment proved this to be relatively
unsuccessful. Students were unable to divide the work of programming, with the ME’s letting
the EE’s do the programming while they wired the systems and built any necessary hardware.
Funds became available to fully equip the course with individual systems, and faculty felt the
loss of teamwork was overshadowed by the need for each student to struggle with the
programming. The faculty is working to increase the amount of interdisciplinary teamwork, with
the expectation that some team assignments will be developed.

Another major change implemented in 2004 is the use of a C compiler. A new textbook for the
Atmel section of the course provided a student copy of a compiler for use in the course.
Although assembly language provides some benefits to the students, assessment revealed student
comments and faculty perceptions showing students were not able to apply their C programming
skills from the computer science course. Since both disciplines need students to be competent in
C later in the curriculum, the decision to implement C on the Atmel was made this year. No data
has yet been collected about this change.

The last major change involves the creation of student handouts with prewritten programs. Both
faculty believed the development and implementation of programs developed during class time
on the board was an appropriate method of presenting the material. Assessment revealed quite
the opposite, with a majority of student requesting some simple initial programs already printed
and documented. In retrospect, this seems appropriate for a class of sophomores and may
actually improve the flow of the course. This change will be assessed at the close of the current
course.

Conclusion
The course EE 285: Introduction to Industrial Automation, has become an important element of
the second year in the EE and ME programs at Western Kentucky University. Students gain
essential practice in structured problem solving and programming, and build a foundation for
design and application courses to follow. Each student gains a better understanding of the tools
available to both disciplines and adds a valuable tool for internships and capstone design
projects. Course outcome assessment is an essential element of the course, already contributing
valuable suggestions for substantial improvements to the course.
Page 9.813.7

Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Engineering Education
Bibliography

1. H.J. Lenoir and J. Russell, “The Roles of the Student in a Project-Based Engineering Curriculum,” Proceedings
of the International Conference on Practice-Oriented Education: Transforming Higher Education, Northeastern
University, Boston, MA, April 24-27, 2001.

2. J.W. Prados, “Engineering Eduction in the United States: Past, Present, and Future”, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Engineering Eduction, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, August 1998.

3. F.L. Huband, “Engineering Education – An Alternative Approach”, ASEE Prism, American Society for
Engineering Eduction, January 1999.

4. M.E. Cambron and S. Wilson, “Introducing Design to Freshmen and Sophomores at Western Kentucky
University," Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference &
Exposition, Nashville, TN, June 22-25, 2003

5. Promotion Criteria for the Department of Engineering, http://www.wku.edu/engineering/promote.pdf

Author Biographies

MARK E. CAMBRON
Mark Cambron is an Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering in the Department of Engineering at Western
Kentucky University. He received his B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Kentucky, and M.S.
and Ph.D. degrees in Electrical Engineering from Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN. His current research
interest include: engineering education, machine vision, robotics, learning systems, neural networks, and controls.

H. JOEL LENOIR
H. Joel Lenoir is the Layne Professor of Mechanical Engineering at WKU, and primarily teaches in the dynamic
systems and instrumentation areas of the curriculum. His industrial experience includes positions at Michelin
Research and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, as well as extensive professional practice in regional design and
manufacturing firms.

Address: 1 Big Red Way, Department of Engineering, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY 42101;
email: mark.cambron@wku.edu or joel.lenoir@wku.edu

Page 9.813.8

Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Engineering Education