Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
com
ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 26 (2015) 391 396
Abstract
Modern machine tools now consume far more energy than their predecessors, a contradiction in terms since manufacturing organisations expect
machining to be carried out in the most sustainable and cost effective way. The goal for environmentally conscious manufacturing is to
consume minimum energy and produce minimum atmospheric emissions, liquid and solid waste. Dry machining is obviously the most
ecological form of metal cutting as there are no environmental issues for coolant use or disposal to consider. This research was implemented in
an industrial situation in a local small to medium sized enterprise (SME) in Western Australia to determine the technical, economic and
environmental benefits of the replacement of traditional flood cooling with Minimum Quantity Liquid (MQL). The use of MQL and air reduced
the greenhouse gas emissions and eco-toxicity associated with the disposal of the contaminated liquid. It was found that this alternative cooling
method increased the performance of the metal cutting operation.
1. Introduction
Machining notoriously creates waste, typically large
volumes of coolant and contaminated metal chips. New
environmental laws and costs are compelling companies to
reduce their impact on the environment, necessitating putting
in place appropriate waste disposal measures. A local
manufacturing company in Perth has been experiencing liquid
contamination of the work place ground due to liquid coolant
escaping from the waste chip storage. The obvious answer to
this environmental contamination of the ground is to remove
the polluting source i.e. the liquid coolant. Dry machining is
obviously the most ecological form of metal cutting as there
are no environmental issues for coolant use or disposal to
consider. However, in practice just removing the coolant could
have ramifications on the cutting parameters. An examination
to determine the effects of changing to a MQL cooling
method, such as cutting force, feed rate, depth of cut, cutting
power, surface finish and tool life [1] was organized. For this
reason a machining test was carried out by dry cutting [2] and
by flood cutting to establish the two extreme conditions.
Machining parameters when using MQL need to be optimal in
2212-8271 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Assembly Technology and Factory Management/Technische Universitt Berlin.
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2014.07.087
5.00
Surface Roughness (P
Pm)
392
3.92
4.00
3.78
3.00
2.00
2.86
2.84
1.0
2.5
1.92
1.78
1.00
0.00
MQL
Flood
170
Cooling Method
210
(a)
0.00
-4.81
-5.00
-4.98
-5.65
-5.65
-7.69
-10.00
-9.81
-10.49
-10.66
-15.00
A0
A1
B0
B1
C0
C1
1(AXB)
(b)
Sum at factor level
A
-19.91
-41.96
486.28
46.79
0
1
Sum of squares of difference (
Contribution ratio (%)
Pareto diagram
AxC
-30.18
-31.69
2.28
0.22
BxC
-31.15
-30.73
0.17
0.02
52.80
46.79
AxB
0.22
0.16
0.02
0.01
AxC
BxC
Cumulative contribution
52.80
99.59
99.81
99.97
AXC two-way table
Check on significant interaction
Optimum combination of significant factor level
A0B0C1
99.99
100.00
(c)
Fig 1. Surface roughness measurement: (a) Traditional Analysis (Based on
Average Response only), (b) Taguchi Method (Based on S/N Ratio) and (c)
Pareto ANOVA
Cooling method
Cutting speed
(m/min)
Depth of Cut
(mm)
Levels
Symbol
Level 0
Level 1
Flood (12.3L/min)
170
210
2.5
A0
6.17
6.00
5.04
4.00
2.00
MQL
Flood
B0
1.86
Ra2
Ra3
(m)
(m)
C0
4.43
1.88
2.04
2.00
2.00
1.95
A0
B0
C1
A0
B1
C0
5.27
1.54
1.55
1.55
A0
B1
C1
9.56
1.66
1.67
1.69
A1
B0
C0
4.84
1.93
1.86
1.94
1.88
1.83
1.84
A1
B0
C1
7.96
A1
B1
C0
5.63
6.09
6.07
6.02
C1
9.65
5.85
5.86
5.85
B1
170
210
1.0
0.25
A1
8.65
7.53
7.02
6.68
Cooling Method
7.44
8.00
0.00
Feedrate (mm/rev)
0.25
Table 2 Experimental Design with 8 Runs
Cutting
Depth
Machine
Ra1
Cooling
speed
of Cut
Power
No
method
(kW)
(m)
(m/min)
(mm)
1
10.00
2.5
(a)
-13.00
-14.02
Input parameter
-15.00
-15.52
-15.52
-16.10
-16.22
-16.60
-17.00
-16.48
-17.19
-19.00
A0
A1
B0
B1
C0
C1
1(BXC)
(b)
Fig 2. Machine power measurement: (a) Traditional Analysis (Based on
Average Response only) and (b) Taguchi Method (Based on S/N Ratio)
393
MQL
TFC
Physical state
Viscosity
Colour
Yellowish fluid
Clear
concentrate
Mild
>150 C
Cup)
Pourability
Vapor pressure
-12 to -20 C
Negligible under normal
Not available
Not available
Density (20C)
conditions
Approx. 890 kg/m3
950 kg/m3
Insoluble
Soluble
Soluble
Not available
Odor
Flash
point
(Open
Solubility in water
Solubility in organic
solvents
brown
(1)
394
units
kWh
kWh
kWh
gm
gm
gm
TFC
0.323
5.124E-05
1.97
0.15
1.97
MQL
0.295
0
0.051
0.15
0.14
0.15
395
Table 7: Carbon and cost saving benefits associated with use of MQL cooling
system
Inputs
Cost (A$)
TFC
MQL
TFC
MQL
Cutting tool
production
1.24E-04
1.84E-04
1.84
1.6477612
Coolant production
8.14E-02
1.36E-04
4.20E-02
3.50E-03
Pumping energy
4.53E-05
Compressor energy
6.19E-06
4.35E-02
6.08E-03
Cutting energy
0.28
0.26
0.039
0.035
Coolant disposal
0.018
2.96E-05
3.03E-04
2.282E-05
Total
0.36
0.30
1.92
1.69
TFC
MQL
Replacement of TFC
with MQL
Saving
0.38
0.30
0.08
21
4.93
3.35
1.58
32
5.3E-04
1.01E-04
4.25E-04
81
3.11E-08
4.06E-09
2.70E-08
87
4. Conclusions
This research was undertaken to help eliminate the liquid
waste problem resulting from the metal cutting process in a
local manufacturing facility. It was established that the
optimum solution would be to eliminate the use of liquid
coolant used for machining, while still maintaining the same
throughput of bolts. Research showed that using MQL was
feasible as an alternative to flood as it provided some cooling
and lubrication at the tool tip interface. Tool tips from the
cutting process used in the company were examined and
showed that the tips exhibited less wear when MQL was used.
Similar results were obtained from the cutting test carried out
in the laboratory, and can be seen from figure 1(a) as the
surface finish improved.
The LCA analysis of traditional flood coolant when
compared to MQL shows a substantial reduction of the carbon
footprint. These savings were gained from a number of aspects
of the process such as not using cutting fluid, carbon cost of
manufacture and saving in disposal costs. The goals for this
business were more than succeeded as productivity was
increased, there was a reduced carbon footprint and
elimination of the cutting fluid was met.
Finally, the replacement of TFC with MQL cooling system
can help attain the three pillars of sustainability: economic,
environmental, and social. Firstly, MQL can potentially
significantly reduce the GHG emissions associated with the
use of TFC system by 21%. Secondly, the MQL system is
economically beneficial as it can help save 4% of the
operational cost for the SME cheaper.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge our industry partner Mr Gareth ONeill,
Forge Manufacturing Superintendent, Donhad, Bassendean,
Western Australia for supporting us to conduct the
measurement of machining operation and also for providing
cost and production related data.
396
References
[1] Choudhury S K, Appa Rao I V K.. Optimization of cutting parameters for
maximizing tool life. International Journal of Machine Tools and
Manufacture 1999; 39: 343-353,.
[2] Sreejith P S, Ngoi B K A. Dry machining: machining of the future.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2000; 101: 287-291,.
[3] Dietmair A, Verl A. A generic energy consumption model for decision
making and energy efficiency optimisation in manufacturing.
International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 2009; 2:123-133.
[4] Jeffrey T G G, Dahmus B. An Environmental Analysis of Machining.
presented at the IMECE2004, Anaheim, California USA, 2004.