Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 16

Energy 133 (2017) 142e157

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Review

Energy consumption in machining: Classication, prediction, and


reduction strategy
G.Y. Zhao a, 1, Z.Y. Liu b, 1, Y. He c, H.J. Cao c, Y.B. Guo a, b, *
a
Institute for Advanced Manufacturing, Shandong University of Technology, Zibo 255049, China
b
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA
c
School of Mechanical Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Energy consumption in machining contributes a signicant part of manufacturing cost and produces a
Received 19 January 2017 great environmental impact. This paper provides a critical assessment on energy consumption in a
Received in revised form machining system. Energy consumption is classied at the process, machine, and system levels. Machine
15 May 2017
tool power demand at different machine states by different components is also discussed. Then pre-
Accepted 16 May 2017
Available online 17 May 2017
dictive methods of energy consumption at different levels are summarized. Finally, energy consumption
reduction strategies are discussed to achieve sustainable manufacturing.
2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Energy
Energy consumption
Modeling
Machining
Sustainable manufacturing

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
2. Classification of energy consumption in machining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
2.1. Energy consumption at different levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
2.2. Classification of energy consumption based on machine tool states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
2.3. Energy consumption breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
3. Energy modeling during cutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
3.1. Net cutting specific energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
3.2. Spindle specific energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
3.3. Machine tool energy consumption prediction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
3.3.1. Predictive methods based on machine specific energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
3.3.2. Predictive methods based on neural network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
3.3.3. Predictive methods considering tool wear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
3.3.4. Predictive methods considering cutting tool embodied energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
4. Energy modeling for machining process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
4.1. Predictive methods based on different processing stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
4.2. Predictive methods based on machine tool components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
5. Energy modeling for machining systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
5.1. Energy flow modeling at machining system level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
5.2. Energy optimization modeling at production operation level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
6. Strategies for energy consumption reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

* Corresponding author. Institute for Advanced Manufacturing, Shandong Uni-


versity of Technology, Zibo 255049, China.
E-mail address: yguo@eng.ua.edu (Y.B. Guo).
1
The rst two authors made equal contribution to this work.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.110
0360-5442/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G.Y. Zhao et al. / Energy 133 (2017) 142e157 143

6.1. Process parameter optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153


6.2. Acceleration-deceleration optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
6.3. Optimization of machine tool energy components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
6.4. Improvement of peripheral equipment's efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7. Summary and outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Nomenclature vf Feed speed


n Spindle speed
Pu No-load power
Main variables and meaning Pc Cutting power
UM Machine specic energy Pa Additional load loss power
Us Spindle specic energy h Spindle efciency
Unc Net cutting specic energy b Steady-state specic energy
EM Machine energy SEC Specic energy consumption
Es Spindle energy Pstandby Standby power
Enc Net cutting energy ET0 Embodied energy of one cutting insert
V Volume of material removed w Actual ank wear
PM Machine power wc Critical ank wear
Ps Spindle power Etotal Total energy requirement
Pnc Net cutting power pb Basic power
Pac Air cutting power pr Ready-state power
MRR Material removal rate pcool Coolant pump power
ae Cutting width pservo Power of the servos system
ap Cutting depth pfan Power of the fan motor
z Number of teeth on cutting tool C Makespan

1. Introduction energy is consumed due to the poor machinability of the material


[16]. Other machining processes such as turning and grinding show
Manufacturing is an important part of the industrial sector and similar energy consumption behavior [17]. Therefore, improving
plays a vital role in the global economy. Generally, manufacturing energy efciency in machining processes can reduce energy
converts raw materials into products using electrical energy while
simultaneously generating wastes and emissions [1]. Since electrical
energy resources are predominantly generated through the burning
of fossil fuels, the consumption of electrical energy in manufacturing
generates carbon footprints [2,3]. Jeswiet and Kara established a link
between energy footprint and CO2 emissions known as a carbon
emission signature (CES) [4]. There is an exceedingly need to reduce
the energy consumption in manufacturing in order to cut down CO2
emissions [5].
The energy consumption for various manufacturing processes
has been studied, such as injection molding [6], additive processes
[7e10], and metal forming [11,12]. This paper will focus on energy
consumption in machining process.
The end-use sectors shares of total energy consumption in USA
are shown in Fig. 1 [13]. It can be seen, the industrial sector accounts
for about 31% of the whole energy consumption. Manufacturing
1 Industrial (31%)
accounts for about 60% of the energy consumption in the industrial
sector [14]. Machining is an important manufacturing process
clusters. The energy consumption reduction machining is of great 2 Residential (22%)
importance to achieve sustainable manufacturing.
Energy efciency in machining is often very low. Gutowski et al.
indicated that the non-cutting operations in a modern milling 3 Transportation (28%)
machine tool usually dominate energy requirements [15]. The en-
ergy used in the actual machining only accounts for approximately
15% of the total energy. In particular, machining of hard and brittle
materials, such as an Al alloy SiC metal matrix composite, will lead
4 Commercial (19%)
to lower material removal rates and longer machining times. More Fig. 1. End-use sectors shares of total energy consumption in USA.
144 G.Y. Zhao et al. / Energy 133 (2017) 142e157

consumption, minimize environmental impact, and help achieve consumption to remove a unit volume of work material (Eq. (1)).
sustainable manufacturing [18]. Energy efciency in manufacturing Specic energy can be given at three levels, depending on the en-
processes has attracted signicant attention in both academia and ergy consumption evaluated at machine, spindle, or process level
industries for many years [19]. (Eqs. (2)e(4)). The machine specic energy (UM) is practical when
The objectives of the paper are triple fold: (1) to provide a sys- concerned with the total amount of energy consumed by a machine
tematic overview on the classication of energy consumption, tool. Spindle specic energy (Us) may be useful in analyzing the
prediction methods for different levels of energy consumption; (2) spindle motor efciency. The problem with machine and spindle
to clarify the inconsistencies of the denition of energy consump- specic energy is that they are machine tool dependent. In order to
tion; and (3) discuss possible strategies for energy consumption effectively compare cutting with other material removal processes,
reduction in machining processes. the net cutting specic energy (Unc) must be considered. Net cut-
ting specic energy is concerned only with the energy consumed by
2. Classication of energy consumption in machining the actual cutting process and is independent of the machine tool.

E P
There are many components that consume a lot of energy in U (1)
V MRR
machine tools, such as motors and hydraulic pumps. Machine tools
not only process materials but also produce wastes and heat. Only a
EM P
proper classication is made, the energy consumption could be UM M (2)
measured, predicted and reduced. However, there is no unied V MRR
classication of energy consumption in machining [20]. This sec-
Es Ps
tion outlines three of the leading classication methods for energy Us (3)
consumption in machining. V MRR

Enc Pnc Ps  Pac


2.1. Energy consumption at different levels Unc (4)
V MRR MRR
Energy consumption of a machining process can be evaluated at where EM, Es, and Enc are the machine, spindle, and net cutting
different levels: machine tool, spindle, and process levels, as shown energy in J; V is the volume of material removed in mm3; PM, Ps, Pnc,
in Fig. 2 [21]. At the machine level, the energy consumed by the and Pac are the machine, spindle, net cutting, and air cutting powers
whole machine tool (e.g. control systems, cooling and lubrications in W, which can be measured with a power meter; MRR is the
units, drive systems, spindle motor, manufacturing process, etc.) is material removal rate in mm3/s, which can be calculated with
considered. Understanding the relationship between energy con- process parameters. In nish milling of hardened AISI H13 tool
sumption and cutting conditions at this level is practical for steel, UM, Us and Unc vary between 100 and 555 J/mm3, 50e250 J/
improving the overall efciency of machine tools. mm3, and 4e12 J/mm3, respectively [21]. Energy efciency (the
At the spindle level, the energy consumed by the spindle motor ratio of net cutting specic energy to machine specic energy)
is considered. The electricity consumed by the spindle motor ro- varies between 1% and 6%. Although the energy efciency can be
tates the cutting tool in milling. It has been reported that the improved with a higher MRR, care must be taken to appropriately
spindle can consume more than 15% of the total energy [22]. Energy select process conditions that do not sacrice part quality for the
consumption at this level may be useful in analyzing spindle motor sake of energy efciency.
efciency. The spindle energy is dependent on the motor which
widely varies across machine tools. In addition, spindle energy is
incomparable to other manufacturing processes. 2.2. Classication of energy consumption based on machine tool
At the process level, only the energy consumed by actual ma- states
terial removal is included and is independent of the machine tool.
Energy consumption at the process level governs chip formation In general, a complete machining process includes machine
and surface generation. Therefore, this energy should be considered start, reference point return, ready for operation, air-cutting, cut-
when selecting process parameters where the objective is to bal- ting material, machine switch off (Fig. 3).
ance energy consumption with surface integrity. Based on operational characteristics of the machining processes,
Specic energy is widely used to evaluate the energy con- the Cooperative Effort in Process Emission (CO2PE!) classied ma-
sumption for a machining process, which is dened as energy chine tool states into two categories: BasicState and CuttingState

Machined Tool
surface

Workpiece

Machine level Spindle level Process level


Fig. 2. Energy consumption at different levels [21].
G.Y. Zhao et al. / Energy 133 (2017) 142e157 145

2.3. Energy consumption breakdown

A modern machine tool is comprised of various components, e.g.


spindle drives, servo drives, hydraulic system, cooling and lubri-
cation system, control system, auxiliary system, and periphery
system, as shown in Table 1 [23]. The energy consumption by
machine tool components can be classied into two types: xed
energy (constant energy) and variable energy. The xed energy is
consumed by hydraulic system, cooling lubrication system, control
system and other periphery devices like the controller unit, which
is independent of machining conditions. Variable energy con-
sumption comes from the spindle-driven and servo-driven system,
in which the power usage is highly dependent on cutting resis-
tance. Energy consumption breakdown by machine tool compo-
nents is discussed in this section.
Kordonowy et al. classied machine tool energy consumption
into two categories in a machining process, the constant and vari-
Fig. 3. Machine tool power prole for a complete machining process [23]. able energy [27]. The constant energy consumption includes the
energy consumed in the startup process (i.e. computer fans, servos,
coolant pump, spindle key, and unloaded motors) and energy
[24]. In the BasicState, electrical energy is used to activate the consumed in run-time operations (i.e. JOG, tool change, spindle,
required machine components and ensure the operational readiness and carousel). The variable energy consumption is related to
of the machine tool; while in the CuttingState, the energy is machining action. In other words, the constant energy consump-
consumed at the tool tip to remove workpiece material. Further- tion is independent of machining, but the variable energy con-
more, Balogun and Mativenga proposed a transitional state termed sumption depends on machining [28].
as ReadyState between the BasicState and CuttingState [2]. The Similarly, Avram et al. classied the total energy requirement of
ReadyState takes place after the machine has started but before the numerical control le for 2.5-axis machining into (1) xed
cutting. It requires more energy for the drives and spindle movement energy and (2) spindle and feed axes motors' energy requirement
to change the tool, bring the tool and workpiece to the correct po- [29]. The xed energy was determined based on a careful moni-
sitions, and setup the necessary process parameters. As shown in toring of the energy share amongst the auxiliary equipment that
Fig. 4, the energy consumption is classied into EBasic, EReady and supports the accomplishment of the machining tasks. The spindle
ECutting according to the three manufacturing stages. and feed axes motors' energy were predicted by taking into account
Similarly, Dahmus and Gutowski classied energy consumption steady-state and transient regimes.
according to three different modes: idle mode, run-time mode, and Li classied energy in cutting stage into four parts shown in
production mode [25]. In idle mode when the machine is ready for Fig. 3 [23]. The specic xed energy (SFE) is the energy used to
production, the energy consumption is constant and consumed by ensure the machine tool is ready for operation. The specic oper-
components such as the operation panel and fans. In run-time ational energy (SOE) is the energy used to enable essential opera-
mode when more auxiliaries such as spindle motor and coolant tions such as spindle rotation and cutting tool movement. The
are activated, the energy consumption is also constant. In produc- specic tool tip energy (STE) is the energy required by the tool tip.
tion mode, the energy consumption is related to material removal Lastly, the specic unproductive energy (SUE) is the energy that is
and is variable [26]. converted into heat.
The classication based on manufacturing states is helpful to Li et al. classied the xed energy consumption (energy
understand the energy consumption in each process stage. Short- consumed by all activated machine components ensuring the
ening the un-cutting stage and selecting the energy-saving cutting operational readiness of the machine tool) in grinding, turning, and
parameters in the cutting stage will reduce energy consumption in milling machine tools into ve subsystems: (1) servo drives, (2)
machining effectively. control system, (3) hydraulic system, (4) cooling lubrication system,

Machine tool Machine tool


Machine tool
ReadyState CuttingState
BasicState

EBasic EReady ECutting


Startup, Computer Units, Machine Spindle, Jog, Tool Tip and
Lighting, Cooling Fans, Pumps, Servo Home Coolant Energy
Lubrication, etc Location, Tool Change, etc

ETotal

Fig. 4. Classication of energy consumption based on manufacturing stages.


146 G.Y. Zhao et al. / Energy 133 (2017) 142e157

Table 1
Main electrical components of machine tools.

Machine tool system Main components Function

Spindle drives Main spindle motor Supply rotary motion for cutting tool or workpiece
Servo drives Axis motors Supply linear or rotary motion along axis
Hydraulic system Hydraulic unit motor Supply clamping pressure for workpiece
Cooling lubrication system Lubricant pump motor Rotary motion for pump to supply lubricant
Oil cooler pump motor Rotary motion for pump to supply coolant
Control system Numerical control device control panel Transfer numerical control instructions into electrical signals output
Auxiliary system Computer and display device Process data and visualize machining data
Lighting Light the working area
Fans Cool electrical components
Periphery system Chip conveyer motor Convey chip
Tool change arm motor Cutting tool change

Fig. 5. The breakdown of the average xed energy consumption.

and (5) auxiliary system [23]. The average xed energy consump- calculate the net cutting energy consumption Enc in the T316L
tion for the surveyed machine tools is shown in Fig. 5. Therefore, stainless steel cutting [33]:
the hydraulic system and cooling lubrication system consume most
of the energy generally. Enc k0 $MRR$tcutting (5)
The classication based on machine tool components is helpful
to understand the energy consumption of each component and where MRR is the material remove rate in cm3/min; k0 is net cutting
adopt energy-saving measures for the high energy-consuming specic energy in kJ/cm3; tcutting is cutting time in min. The net
components. cutting specic energy for milling stainless steel using fresh tool
was 4.72 J/mm3. It was noticed that net cutting specic energy was
signicantly inuenced by cutting tool wear.
3. Energy modeling during cutting
Diaz developed an empirical model to predict the net cutting
specic energy using the cutting parameters [34]:
The predictions of energy consumption can help operators
determine the most effective process parameters for improving
energy efciency [30,31]. The energy consumption can be predicted Unc k$ae $ap $zb $vf $nb (6)
according to specic energy consumption, processing parameters,
cutting force, processing stage or machine tool components [32]. In where ae is cutting width in mm; ap is cutting depth in mm; z is the
this section, energy modeling during cutting at process, spindle and number of teeth on the cutting tool; vf is feed speed in mm/min; n is
machine level are discussed. spindle speed in rpm; k and b are empirically determined tting
constants.
Sealy et al. proposed that net cutting specic energy can be
3.1. Net cutting specic energy calculated by measured spindle power difference during cutting
and air cutting [35]:
At the process level, specic energy is dened as net cutting
specic energy. Only the energy consumed by actual material Ps  Pac
removal is considered in net cutting specic energy. Net cutting Unc (7)
MRR
specic energy governs chip formation and surface generation. Net
cutting specic energy is inuenced by process conditions and where Ps is the spindle power during cutting; Pac is the air cutting
work material properties. power. A power regression model was developed to predict the net
Net cutting specic energy was assumed to be a constant in cutting specic energy with process parameters (ap, ae, v, fz) and
some models. For example, Aramcharoen et al. used Eq. (5) to tool wear (w) [35]:
G.Y. Zhao et al. / Energy 133 (2017) 142e157 147

represents the steady-state specic energy. The machine specic


Unc a0 $ap $ae $va3 $fz 1 wa5 (8) energy, which accounts for cutting and air cutting power demand,
is indeed found to have an inverse relationship with the MRR.
where a0, a1,a2,a3,a4 and a5 are empirical coefcients. The predic- Similarly, Li et al. developed a predictive model based on power
tion accuracy is close to 90% for both sharp tool and worn tool. The measurements on turning machine under dry cutting conditions
advantage of this model is that the effect of cutting tool wear is [20]:
accounted since the net cutting specic energy increases signi-
cantly with the increasing tool wear. C1
SEC C0 (13)
Generally speaking, the above models can achieve satisfying MRR
prediction accuracy. The problem is that a large number of exper-
iments are needed to determine the empirical coefcients in these EM SEC$Q (14)
models.
where SEC is the specic machine energy; C0 and C1 are empirical
3.2. Spindle specic energy coefcients; and MRR is the material removal rate; Q is the volume
of removed materials. So machine energy consumption can be
Spindle is the most important part of a machine tool. Based on predicted based on process parameters using Eq. (14). The values of
the energy ow of mechanical and electrical system, Liu et al. coefcients C0 and C1 vary with the process details, such as machine
established the spindle unit power model [36]: tool types and work materials.
In order to characterize the relationship between energy con-
Ps Pu Pa P (9) sumption and process variables for material removal processes,
Kara et al. improved the empirical coefcients of predictive model
The spindle power Ps was composed of no-load power Pu, cut- in Eq. (13) to consider both dry and ood machining conditions
ting power Pc and the additional load loss power Pa. It should be [39]. For example, the relationship between SEC and MRR in the 5-
noted that the additional energy loss is not a constant, but axis milling machine tool DMU 60P was shown in Fig. 6. The veri-
dependent on the spindle power. Then the spindle unit energy cation tests showed that the empirical model had an accuracy of
consumption prediction model was developed [36]: more than 90%.
Li et al. developed an improved SEC empirical model as a func-
ZtM ZtM
tion of material removal rate and spindle speed Eq. (15) [40]:
Es Pu $tM Pa tdt Pc tdt (10)
0 0 Pstandby k1 $n b k0 $MRR n 1
SEC k0 k1 $ k2 $
MRR MRR MRR
where tM is the cutting time. (15)
According to the estimated energy efciency of spindle system,
Draganescu et al. put forward the spindle unit energy consumption where Pstandby is standby power; n is spindle rotation speed; k0, k1
prediction model [37]: and k2 are experimental coefcients. The model ignored feed sys-
tem power because it took very small proportion. The model's
Pc
Us (11) prediction accuracy was veried in milling process. The developed
60h,MRR model could provide more accurate energy estimation than the
model in which MRR is only considered for milling operations.
where Pc is the necessary cutting power, MRR is the material
As each machine tool is a complex and dynamic system, the
removal rate, and h is spindle energy efciency which varies be-
variance of machine tool capacity, work material types, and
tween 0.15 and 0.85 with the tested experimental conditions. The
different process parameters, will result in the uncertainties of
efciency can be signicantly inuenced by the machine tool
deriving such empirical models of energy consumption prediction.
workload.
In order to achieve an accurate model, the variance of tested vari-
ables should be dened carefully and cover a wide range.
3.3. Machine tool energy consumption prediction
3.3.2. Predictive methods based on neural network
The machine tool energy consumption during cutting includes
Because of the complexity of machine tool energy consumption,
the energy consumed by all of the machine tool systems listed in
many researchers have studied using neural network methods to
Table 1 in material removal stage. The predictive methods for
predict machine tool energy consumption in cutting. BP network is
machine tool energy consumption during cutting are summarized
an articial neural network based on error back-propagation al-
as follows.
gorithm. Xie et al. established a lathe machine energy consumption
prediction model based on BP neural network [41]. The inputs
3.3.1. Predictive methods based on machine specic energy consist of cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut; and the output
The specic energy consumption is the energy consumed for is machine tool energy consumption in cutting. Experimental re-
unit volume material removal, which can reect the relationship sults show the prediction accuracy of the model is above 92%.
between the energy consumption and the material removal rate Al-Hazza et el. developed a neural network model to predict
[21]. So the specic energy consumption is used to predict the machine tool energy consumption for high speed hard turning AISI
machine tool energy consumption during cutting usually. Diaz et al. 4340 steel [42]. There are 4 neurons in the input layer, expressing
developed a predictive model for machine specic energy con- the cutting speed, feed rate, depth of cut and negative rake angle
sumption in milling [38]: respectively. There are 2 neurons in the output layer, expressing the
machine tool energy consumption and power in cutting. The
1
ecut k* b (12) experimental results show that the best prediction when using 20
MRR hidden layers gives deviation approximately 2.6% from the actual
Note that the constant k essentially has units of power and b values, and the cutting speed is the most signicant factors for
148 G.Y. Zhao et al. / Energy 133 (2017) 142e157

Fig. 6. The relationship between SEC and MRR on the DMU 60P without coolant [39].

machine tool energy consumption in cutting. represented by 0 or 1 respectively. The target includes 5 elements:
In order to analyze the inuence of process parameters on po- power consumption of spindle, X axis, Y axis and Z axis, and the
wer consumption in high-speed ball-end milling operations carried total machine tool power consumption in cutting. The regression R
out on AISI H13 steel, Quintana et al. developed an articial neural value measures the correlation between outputs and the measured
network model to predict power consumption during cutting [43]. data. The experimental results show that R is approaching 100%,
The neural network structure is shown in Fig. 7. The inputs include7 and the prediction accuracy of the model is close to 98%. The model
elements: spindle speed, feed rate, feedper tooth, axial depth of cut, allows the reduction of power consumption by optimizing the
radial depth of cut, tool radius and the cooling uid conditions cutting process parameters.
Neural network methods are capable of better prediction for
machine tool energy consumption, and helping operators to
determine the most effective cutting parameters for saving energy
and money. However, the neural network is a local optimization
algorithm which easily falls into local limit value.

3.3.3. Predictive methods considering tool wear


The increase in cutting tool wear causes higher cutting force and
more power consumption in machining. It is important to predict
Fig. 7. Neural Network structure [43]. machine tool energy consumption considering cutting tool wear
G.Y. Zhao et al. / Energy 133 (2017) 142e157 149

amount. Yoon et al. developed an energy consumption prediction depends on tool materials and insert volume; w is the actual ank
model of milling machine under three kinds of tool wear condition, wear and wc is the critical ank wear at which an insert is dis-
slight, medium, and severe [44]. carded; and V is the removed material volume.
The incorporation of embodied energy of cutting insert on the
Emachine Econst Espindle Efeed Ecut (16) machine tool energy consumption is shown in Fig. 8. At relative
sharp tool conditions, the contribution of embodied energy of
Pcut f1 n; vf ; ap f2 n; vf ; ap $VBtool (17) cutting inserts is small because of the relatively low tool wear at
this stage. However, when tool wear progress over 0.15 mm, the
where Ecut in Eq. (16) can be obtained with Eq. (17). f1 (n, vf, ap) is insert embodied energy becomes an important factor to total en-
the load power to remove material with sharp tool, and the value of ergy consumption.
f2 (n, vf, ap)$VB(tool) is the increment of power caused by the cutting
tool ank wear VB. The predictive methods considering tool wear 4. Energy modeling for machining process
are more accurate. Since the power measurement does not disturb
a machining process, the cutting tool wear state can be easily A machine tool in machining a given product undergoes several
estimated with the measured machine tool power. different states, e.g., machine tool startup, standby, clamping and
positioning operation, air-cutting, cutting materials and machine
3.3.4. Predictive methods considering cutting tool embodied energy switch off [46,47]. The power demand at different states is different.
When the cutting tool ank wear reaches the tool life criterion Furthermore, a practical part is machined by numerous cutting
in machining, the cutting tool has to be discarded. Especially in the passes. There is a need to develop a high-delity model to predict
hard and brittle materials cutting, cutting tools wear quickly and the energy consumption for a machining of practical part.
have to be replaced. Consequently, many researchers have sug-
gested that cutting tool embodied energy should be considered in 4.1. Predictive methods based on different processing stages
total energy consumption evaluation and prediction.
Liu et al. dened the energy consumption of cutting insert Ew as Mori et al. developed a model considering the energy con-
a function of ank wear in Eq. (18), and the tool embodied energy sumption in the cutting state and non-cutting state, including the
Uw as the energy consumed by the cutting tool to remove a unit positioning and acceleration the spindle following a tool change,
volume of material in Eq. (19) [45]. material removal, returning the spindle to the tool exchange posi-
tion after machining, and spindle deceleration [48].
ET0 w
Ew (18)
wc Etotal P1  T1 T2 P2  T2 P3  T3 (20)

Ew where P1 is the average power consumption during the machine


Uw TE (19) tool operation regardless of the running state; T1 is the cycle time
V
during non-cutting state; P2 is the power consumption for cutting
where ET0 is the embodied energy of one cutting insert, which by the spindle and servo motors and varies with cutting conditions;

Fig. 8. The relationship between MRR and energy consumption considering tool embodied energy [45].
150 G.Y. Zhao et al. / Energy 133 (2017) 142e157

T2 is the cycle time during cutting state; P3 is the power con- the power of the servos system; pfan is the power of the fan motors;
sumption to position the worktable and to accelerate/decelerate (te-ts) is the running time of machine tool throughout the entire
the spindle to the specied speed. Lastly, T3 is the time required to machining process. The developed method can be used to optimize
position the worktable and to accelerate/decelerate the spindle. NC codes to improve the energy efciency.Lv et al. proposed
Kong et al. developed a predictive method for machine tool another power consumption prediction model (Eq. (24)) [54]:
energy consumption Eq. (21) that considered acceleration/decel-  
eration performances [49]. Ptotal PSO PCFS PCC PL Pspindle Px py Pz PTS

Etotal Econst Eruntimetransient Eruntimesteady Ecut (21) PTC Pcut


(24)
where Econst is the energy consumed by the functions that are not
directly related to the machining. The energy consumed by spindle, where PSO, PCFS, PCC and PL represented the basic module power,
feed axes, and tool change arm of machine tool are divided into two cooling power, automatic chip removal power and lighting power
parts according to the steady state and transient state, i.e. Erun-time- respectively; Pspindle, Px, Py and Pz represent the power of spindle,
transient and Erun-time-steady, respectively. Ecut is the energy consumed x,y, and z feed axis respectively; PTS, PTC, and Pcut represent the
by the material removal of machine tool. The machine consumes power for tool selection, tool change and cutting materials
more power during acceleration and deceleration than the steady respectively. The milling experiments showed the maximum error
state, so Erun-time-transient should not be ignored. The verication tests between the predicted and measured process unit power con-
showed that tool path generation schemes affected the energy sumption was 6.6% by using Eq. (24).
consumption and the processing time required to machine the The energy consumption models based on machine tool state
same part. and machine tool components provide an approach to predict the
Balogun and Mativenga developed a predictive model for ma- energy consumption for machining a part. Determining the energy
chine tool energy consumption considering three states of machine consumption characteristics of machine tool components is the key
tool, i.e., basic state, ready state, and cutting state Eq. (22) [2]: to improve the accuracy of the predictive models.

Etotal pb tb pb pr tr pair t pb pr pcool kvtc (22) 5. Energy modeling for machining systems

where Etotal is the total energy requirement; pb, pr and pcool are the Machining system is conceived as manufacturing workshops
basic power, ready-state power, and coolant pump power respec- that are composed of several CNC machines for the manufacturing
tively; tb and tr are the basic and ready time respectively; k in kJ/cm3 of a batch of production tasks [55]. Energy modelling for machining
is the net cutting specic energy which is closely related to the systems has been focused on two aspects. The rst aspect is to
workpiece machinability; v in cm3/s is the material removal rate; tc understand and characterize energy ow in a machining system,
is the cutting time; Pair is the average power requirements for a and the second aspect is to optimize energy consumption at pro-
non-cutting and retract moves over the workpiece; Lastly, tair is the duction operation level.
total time during these non-cutting moves. During non-cutting
mode, the bulk of the power demand arises from machine start-
5.1. Energy ow modeling at machining system level
up (45%), spindle power (15%), servo home location (10%), hy-
draulic pumps (8.9%) and coolant pumps (8.2%). Obviously, the non-
Understanding and characterizing energy ow is essential to
cutting time should be minimized as short as possible in order to
explore the potential on energy-saving at the machining system
improve machine tool utilization and energy efciency.
level. Some methods to model energy ow of machining systems
have been developed. Systematic approaches are used to model
4.2. Predictive methods based on machine tool components energy ow by some researchers. Li et al. proposed a modelling
framework to characterize energy consumption of a machining
Energy consumption prediction based on machine tool com- system from a holistic point of view. The energy ow of the
ponents is another viable method under given cutting conditions machining system was presented to hierarchically describe the
[50e52]. He et al. developed a method to estimate the energy multi-layer structure of energy characteristics in terms of machine
consumption in machining (Eq. (23)) [53]: tool layer, task layer and auxiliary production layer as shown in
Fig. 9 [56]. Thiede and Seow proposed the systematic approaches
Ztme Ztce m Z
X
tfe
based on product viewpoint to model energy at the machining
Etotal pm dt pc dt pi dt ptool ttool system level, which decomposed energy in machining systems into
tms tcs i1 t (23) energy consumed by each process step [57,58]. Zhou proposed a
fs
  new concept of energy-consumption-step (ECS) to uniformly
pcool tcoe  tcos pservo pfan te  ts describe various types of energy consumption in a machining
system [59]. Peng proposed an approach to view an entire energy
where Etotal is the total energy consumption for a specic numerical consumption prole of a machining system hierarchically in two
control (NC) program; pm is the power enabling the operating state stages and construct its equivalent energy consumption model [60].
of the spindle transmission module; tms and tme are the spindle Since energy consumption dynamically varies with production
running starting time and ending time respectively; pc is the ma- processes, it can be conceived as a set of discrete events triggered
terial removal power; tcs and tce are the cutting starting time and by the production processes. Therefore, discrete-event dynamic
ending time respectively; pi is the power of the ith axis feed motor; formulation was applied to model energy ow in machining sys-
tfs and tfe are the starting time and ending time of the ith axis feed tems. Dietmair and Ver proposed a generic formulation to model
motor respectively; ptool is the power of the tool change motor; ttool the energy consumption behavior of machining systems, which is
is the turret rotation time; pcool is the power of the coolant pump used to describe how the energy ow in machining systems relates
motor; (tcoe-tcos) is the coolant pump motor running time; pservo is to the way they are operated [61]. Li et al. proposed a modeling
G.Y. Zhao et al. / Energy 133 (2017) 142e157 151

energy Auxiliary production layer

transportation
Total energy consumption of machining manufacturing systems Machine tool
Machine tool
conditions
Periphery (compressed air ...)
equipment

transportation
Machine tool
Machine tool

Machine tool layer Task layer


Dierent Process planning
views on
energy Operation1 Operation2 Operation j
consump
-
Constant energy Variable energy Cutting energy Production operational management
consumption consumption consumption Production scheduling
Production planning
The energy-consuming The energy-consuming quantity Machine
components: components:
fan motor Spindle motor lot lot
servo systems Oa Standby Ob
Feed Motors
cool pump t

Fig. 9. Hierarchical description of holistic energy ow in machining systems.

method for hybrid energy behaviors in exible machining systems primarily used to optimize energy consumption in production
with Colored Timed Object-oriented Petri Net (CTOPN). The hybrid scheduling. Giret et al. reviewed sustainable manufacturing oper-
energy behaviors depend on not only the technical specication ations scheduling at production operation level [64]. The steps to
related to machine tools and workpieces, but also individual pro- solve sustainable manufacturing operations scheduling problems
duction scenarios. The CTOPN model for predicting the hybrid en- were proposed in the review paper as shown in Fig. 12. The rst
ergy behaviors in exible machining systems is shown in Fig. 10 step was to provide a model for the different objectives to be
[62]. optimized, and the second, to solve the scheduling problem itself.
He et al. developed a modeling method of task-oriented energy Gahm et al. also developed a research framework (see Fig. 13) for
ow in machining systems using the event graph methodology. The energy-efcient scheduling (EES) which classied the researches
energy ow dynamically depends on the exibility and variability into three dimensions energetic coverage, energy supply, and
of task ow. The energy ow was modeled as shown in Fig. 11 [63]. energy demand. Each of these dimensions contains categories
and attributes to specify energy-related characteristics that were
relevant for EES [65].
5.2. Energy optimization modeling at production operation level Energy-focused modeling has been proposed for energy-saving
scheduling optimization from three kinds of machining systems:
Energy optimization modelling at production operation level is single machine systems, ow shops, and job shops. Energy opti-
mization was modeled by Fadi et al. for single machine production
scheduling to reduce energy costs by avoiding high-energy price
periods [66]. Some studies have been carried out to address on
energy optimization for ow shop scheduling. Fang and Dai pro-
posed multi-objective optimization models considering both
productivity (i.e., make span) and energy (i.e., peak load, unload
and carbon footprint) for ow shops [67,68]. Tang et al. addressed
on the dynamic scheduling problem to reduce energy consump-
tion and make span for a exible ow shop considering new job
arrivals and machine breakdown in a real-world production
scheduling [69]. Fig. 14 summarized the ow of the dynamic
solving process.
These energy models for ow shops are not efcient for energy
reduction in job shops. A few methods for energy optimization in
job shops, where signicant exibility exists for job scheduling,
have been reported in the literature. Fang et al. proposed a sched-
uling model that considered energy consumption for machining
operations in job shops [70]. He et al. proposed an energy-saving
optimization method that incorporates machine tool selection
and operation sequence for exible job shop scheduling [71]. The
Fig. 10. CTOPN model of exible machining systems.
mathematical model is formulated as follows.
152 G.Y. Zhao et al. / Energy 133 (2017) 142e157

Fig. 11. Event graph model of the task-oriented energy consumption.

  machine tools; Eijm is the machining energy consumption of oper-


8
>
> C max cijm ation Oij on machine Mm; xijm is decision variables which value is 1 if
< ci;j;m
operation Oij on machine Mm, otherwise the value is 0; Po,m and tw,m
> P
N P
Ji M 
P  XM (25)
are the idle power and idle time of Mm. The case study results
>
:E Eijm xijm Po;m tw;m
i1 j1 m1 m1 showed that there is more energy savings by integrating machine
tool selection and operation sequence compared to considering
where C is the makespan; i (i 1, , N), j (j 1, , Ji) and m (m 1, only one of them.
, M) are the index of job, operation number and machine Liu et al. presented an energy optimization model by employing
respectively; N, Ji and M are the number of jobs, all operations for
job i and machines respectively; Cijm is the end time of operation Oij
on machine Mm; E is the total energy including the machining
energy of the operations and the non-machining idle energy of the

Fig. 12. Steps to solve sustainable manufacturing operations scheduling problems. Fig. 13. EES framework.
G.Y. Zhao et al. / Energy 133 (2017) 142e157 153

optimization problem [37]. This optimization model can be devel-


oped by curve tting methods if sufcient experimental data are
available.
Newman et al. investigated the possibility of energy reduction
through process planning. The results indicated that the energy
consumption of interchangeable processes may differ considerably
[78]. The validated experiments on a multi-featured part shown in
Fig. 15 indicated that changing the cutting parameters can lead to
larger change in energy consumption for interchangeable processes
with higher loads, i.e. higher material removal rates. Also, it showed
that the specic energy was much smaller in semi nishing than in
nish cutting.
Oda et al. studied energy saving by applying the inclined cutting
method on a 5-axis machining center [79]. They pointed out that
ball end milling was optimal on an inclined angle 15 with the
lowest specic energy in contour machining.
Unit manufacturing processes can be regarded as service which
Fig. 14. Flow of the dynamic solving process. generates value for the products as well as consumes energy and
other resources shown in Fig. 16 [80]. However, the reduction of
energy consumption should not compromise product quality or
intelligent scheduling techniques, which were capable of inte- increase tool usage.
grating fragmented short idle periods on the machines into large Li et al. put forward an integrated approach to evaluate the eco-
ones. Such scheduling created opportunities for switching off efciency of unit manufacturing processes [80]. A grinding process
underutilized resources while at the same time maintaining the was used to demonstrate how to characterize the relationship
production performance [72]. among process parameters, energy consumption, and quality per-
formance. The evaluation showed the eco-efciency of unit
6. Strategies for energy consumption reduction manufacturing processes can be improved by taking into account
process parameters, energy consumption, and product quality
Energy demand is expected to increase signicantly [73]. A UK simultaneously.
government white paper from 2007 indicated that global energy It is important to reduce the environmental footprint in
demand will be more than 50% higher in 2030 than in 2006, and the manufacturing process while providing favorable surface integrity
energy related greenhouse gas emissions will be approximately of machined parts. In order to simultaneously achieve the mini-
55% higher [74]. Energy consumption reduction and energy ef- mum power consumption and best surface integrity, Hana et al.
ciency improvement in manufacturing is essential to achieve sus- optimized the process parameters for dry machining Poly-
tainable manufacturing. EtherEtherKeytone reinforced with 30% of carbon bers [81]. The
experiment results revealed that cutting speed of 100 m/min, feed
6.1. Process parameter optimization rate of 0.05 mm/rev, and depth of cut of 0.25 mm are the optimal
combination of cutting parameters. In summary, the depth of cut is
Energy consumption and energy efciency during a cutting the most inuencing parameter for energy consumption, followed
process depend on the choice of process parameters [75e77]. by the cutting speed and feed rate.
Therefore, nding the optimal combination of process parameters Yan et al. developed a multi-objective optimization method [82].
for doing a particular cutting job can be regarded as a mathematical In this method, the spindle speed, feed rate, depth of cut, and width
of cut for a milling process were optimized in order to achieve
sustainability, production rate, and cutting quality objectives
simultaneously. The results showed that low spindle speed cutting
is more energy efcient than cutting at initial speed for milling
process.
The above process optimization approaches can reduce energy
consumption in machining without sacricing surface integrity.
Furthermore, cutting tool consumption contributes a signicant
fraction of cutting operation cost. It is important to minimize power
consumption and maximize tool life in manufacturing processes.
Bhushan investigated the effect of process parameters on energy
consumption and tool life. Machining parameters such as cutting
speed, feed rate, depth of cut, and nose radius were optimized by
multi-response considerations including power consumption and
tool life in turning of the composite material 7075 Al alloy 15 wt%
SiC, see Fig. 17 [16]. By optimizing these machining parameters, a
13.55% reduction in power consumption and a 22.12% improvement
in tool life were achieved by multi-response optimization through
desirability analysis route.

6.2. Acceleration-deceleration optimization

Fig. 15. Multi-featured part used on the energy consumption experiments [78]. In general, the machine tool spindle and feed axes undergo a
154 G.Y. Zhao et al. / Energy 133 (2017) 142e157

Material x Product Product


Attributes Value
Material y
Transformation Generation
Material z

Unit Unit Unit


Process Process process
Input Parameters output

Tool Direct and


Auxiliary Energy &
Resources indirect
Resources
Energy Conversion environmental
impact

Fig. 16. Layers of the unit process eco-efciency.

After each tool change, the machine tool spindle requires ac-
celeration from rest to the specied rotational speed. The feed servo
system moves the tool from the tool change position to the
machining position at the rapid traverse feed rate. However, the
spindle acceleration process usually requires more time than that
feed servo system positioning in high speed machining. Accord-
ingly, Mori et al. developed a new motor acceleration approach to
reduce energy consumption by synchronizing spindle acceleration
with feed system rapid traverse feed rate. The approach can lead to
about 10% reduction in energy consumption [48].
A suitable acceleration-deceleration approach can shorten non-
cutting time and reduce standby energy consumption. Generally
speaking, the linear acceleration-deceleration approach can
shorten transient-state of machine tool's spindle and feed-axes
motors, but result in machine tool vibration which will scarify the
process stability and reduce the tool life; The S curve acceleration-
deceleration approach can reduce machine tool impact, but prolong
Fig. 17. Composite desirability of power consumption and tool life [16]. the transient-state of machine tool. Therefore, the acceleration-
deceleration approach should be optimized to consider the trade-
transient-state before reaching the steady-state in manufacturing offs between energy consumption, cutting quality, and tool life.
process. The torque required to accelerate a motor is clearly greater
than the torque required to keep constant speed. Consequently, the 6.3. Optimization of machine tool energy components
power amplitudes corresponding to the transient phases prevail
when compared to the power in the steady-state phases, see Fig. 18 Reducing the instantaneous power demands is an effective
[29]. Adopting suitable acceleration-deceleration approaches can approach to reduce energy consumption, which can be achieved by
enhance productivity and reduce total energy consumption by energy-oriented component design optimization [23]. The opti-
shortening the process time [43,83]. mized moving components with high transmission efciency, such
as the precise ball screws and gears, should be used in machine
tools to reduce instantaneous power loss.
Generally, the machine tool spindle and feed-axis motors
consume a lot of unproductive energy. The input power of machine
tool spindle system can be divided into idle power, cutting power,
and additional load loss power [28]. The additional load loss in-
cludes the electrical loss and mechanical loss in the spindle motor
and the mechanical transmission system generated by the cutting
load. It is obvious that the additional load loss cuts down the energy
efciency of spindle motor. Therefore, optimizing the spindle motor
and its mechanical transmission system is helpful for reducing
additional load loss power and improving the total energy
efciency.

6.4. Improvement of peripheral equipment's efciency


Fig. 18. Motion diagrams, torque, and power proles for (a) spindle and (b) X and Y
axes [29]. Peripheral equipment is required to perform auxiliary functions
G.Y. Zhao et al. / Energy 133 (2017) 142e157 155

Fig. 19. Energy consumption of machine tool peripheral equipment [84].

in manufacturing processes. However, peripheral equipment con- task-scheduling approach, optimization of machine tool's en-
sumes a signicant amount of energy resources. Li et al. addressed ergy components, and improvement of peripheral equipment.
that the improvement of peripheral equipment including hydraulic,
cooling, lubrications systems could save up to 58% of the xed The following outlook subjects could be considered for energy
energy consumption used to ensure the machine tool is ready [23]. reduction in machining:
It can be seen from Fig. 19 that the coolant related equipment
consumes the most energy (approximately 54%) among peripheral  Research on the energy consumption characteristics of machine
equipment, followed by the hydraulic pump, coolant cooler, and the tool components will help to improve the accuracy of energy
peripheral related to the servo spindle [84]. Thus the reduction of consumption predictive models.
energy consumption can be achieved by optimizing the number of  The selection of the process parameters on tool life should be
coolant pumps, volume, motion frequency, and control method of taken into consideration in process optimization for reduction of
hydraulic equipment. energy consumption in machining.
 An innovative acceleration-deceleration approach of machine
tool servo motors may be developed with the trade-offs be-
7. Summary and outlook
tween the energy consumption, machining efciency, and tool
life.
This paper gives an overall review of energy consumption in
 The multi-objective optimization of energy consumption and
machining. The energy consumption was classied at the machine,
surface integrity would be an interesting topic.
process, and system levels. Energy consumption at different ma-
chine states was also discussed. Furthermore, specic energy and
energy consumption prediction models were investigated. Finally References
strategies for reduction in machining were presented. The main
conclusions may be summarized as follows: [1] Yuan C, Zhai Q, Dornfeld D. A three dimensional system approach for envi-
ronmentally sustainable manufacturing. CIRP Ann - Manuf Technol 2012;61/
1:39e42.
 Energy consumption can be evaluated process, machine, and [2] Balogun VA, Mativenga PT. Modelling of direct energy requirements in me-
system levels. The understanding of power demand of machine chanical machining processes. J Clean Prod 2013;41:179e86.
tool at different states by different machine components is [3] Duou JR, Sutherland JW, Dornfeld D, Herrmann C, Jeswiet J, Kara S, et al.
Towards energy and resource efcient manufacturing: a processes and sys-
essential for high delity model to predict energy consumption tems approach. CIRP Ann - Manuf Technol 2012;61/2:587e609.
in machining. [4] Jeswiet J, Kara S. Carbon emissions and CESTM in manufacturing. CIRP Ann
 The prediction of energy consumption can help operators eManufacturing Technol 2008;57/1:17e20.
[5] Vijayaraghavan A, Dornfeld D. Automated energy monitoring of machine
choose the effective process parameters, process routes, and tools. CIRP Ann - Manuf Technol 2010;59/1:21e4.
production scheduling for energy reduction. Extensive research [6] Li W, Kara S, Qureshi F. Characterising energy and eco-efciency of injection
has been done to develop models to predict the energy con- moulding processes. Int J Sustain Eng 2015;8/1:55e65.
[7] Mognol P, Lepicart D, Perry N. Rapid prototyping: energy and environment in
sumption during cutting, which can be classied into three
the spotlight. Rapid Prototyp J 2006;12/1:26e34.
levels: net cutting specic energy, spindle specic energy, and [8] K. Kellens, E. Yasa, R. Renaldi, W. Dewulf, J.P. Kruth, J. Duou, Energy and
machine specic energy. Energy consumption models for resource efciency of SLS/SLM processes, International Solid Freeform Fabri-
machining a part have also been developed. cation Symposium, Texas, 1e16, 2011.
[9] Rahimifard S, Seow Y, Childs T. Minimising embodied product energy to
 Energy consumption reduction can be achieved by process pa- support energy efcient manufacturing. CIRP Ann - Manuf Technol 2010;59/1:
rameters optimization, acceleration-deceleration approach, 25e8.
156 G.Y. Zhao et al. / Energy 133 (2017) 142e157

[10] Morrow WR, Qi H, Kim I, Mazumder J, Skerlos SJ. Environmental aspects of [41] Xie D, Chen GR, Shi JL. Research on CNC machine tool cutting energy con-
laser-based and conventional tool and die manufacturing. J Clean Prod sumption based on BP neural network. Mach Tool Hydraulics 2012;40/1:
2007;15/10:932e43. 54e7.
[11] Ingarao G, Di Lorenzo R, Micari F. Sustainability issues in sheet metal forming [42] Al-Hazza MHF, Adesta EYT, Ali AM. Energy cost modeling for high speed hard
processes: an overview. J Clean Prod 2011;19/4:337e47. turning. J Appl Sci 2011;11/14:2578e84.
[12] Ingarao G, Ambrogio G, Gagliardi F, Di Lorenzo R. A sustainability point of [43] Quintana G, Ciurana J, Ribatallada J. Modelling power consumption in ball-end
view on sheet metal forming operations: material wasting and energy con- milling operations. Mater Manuf Process 2011;26/5:746e56.
sumption in incremental forming and stamping processes. J Clean Prod [44] Yoon HS, Moon JS, Pham MQ, Lee GB. Control of machining parameters for
2012;29e30/5:255e68. energy and cost savings in micro-scale drilling of PCBs. J Clean Prod 2013;54:
[13] EIA (Energy Information Administration). Annual energy review 2011. 2012. 41e8.
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/aer.pdf. [45] Liu ZY, Guo YB, Sealy MP, Liu ZQ. Energy consumption and process sustain-
[14] Schipper M. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in U.S. Manufacturing. ability of hard milling with tool wear progression. J Mater Process Technol
U.S.: EIA; 2006. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/pdf/industry_mecs. 2016;229:305e12.
pdf. [46] Rajemi MF, Mativenga PT, Aramcharoen A. Sustainable machining: selection
[15] Gutowski T, Dahmus J, Thiriez A. Electrical energy requirements for of optimum turning conditions based on minimum energy considerations.
manufacturing processes. In: 13th CIRP international conference of life cycle J Clean Prod 2010;18/10e11:1059e65.
engineering. Belgium: Leuven; 2006. [47] Jedrzejewski J, Kowal Z, Kwasny W, Modrzycki W. High-speed precise ma-
[16] Bhushan RK. Optimization of cutting parameters for minimizing power con- chine tools spindle units improving. J Mater Process Technol 2005;162e163:
sumption and maximizing tool life during machining of Al alloy SiC particle 615e21.
composites. J Clean Prod 2013;39:242e54. [48] Mori M, Fujishima M, Inamasu Y, Oda Y. A study on energy efciency
[17] Singh V, Rao PV, Ghosh S. Development of specic grinding energy model. Int J improvement for machine tools. CIRP Ann - Manuf Technol 2011;60/1:145e8.
Mach Tools Manuf 2012;60:1e13. [49] Kong D, Choi S, Yasui Y, Pavanaskar S, Dornfeld D, Wright P. Software-based
[18] Pusavec F, Krajnik P, Kopac J. Transitioning to sustainable production e Part I: tool path evaluation for environmental sustainability. J Manuf Syst 2011;30/4:
application on machining technologies. J Clean Prod 2010;18/2:174e84. 241e7.
[19] J. Kaneko, K. Horio, Planning method for xture conditions of workpiece in [50] Braun S, Heisel U. Simulation and prediction of process-oriented energy
continuous multi-axis controlled machining process with consideration of consumption of machine tools. In: 19th CIRP international conference on life
energy consumption about translational axes of machine tool, 5th CIRP cycle engineering. Berkeley: California; 2012. p. 245e50.
Conference on High Performance Cutting, 126e131, 2012. [51] Bi ZM, Wang L. Optimization of machining processes from the perspective of
[20] Li W, Kara S. An empirical model for predicting energy consumption of energy consumption: a case study. J Manuf Syst 2012;31/4:420e8.
manufacturing processes: a case of turning process. Proc Institution Mech Eng [52] Bi ZM, Wang L. Energy modeling of machine tools for optimization of machine
Part B J Eng Manuf 2011;225/B9:1636e46. setups. IEEE Transaction Automation Sci Eng 2012;9/3:607e13.
[21] Liu ZY, Sealy MP, Guo YB, Liu ZQ. Energy consumption characteristics in nish [53] He Y, Liu F, Wu T, Zhong FP, Peng B. Analysis and estimation of energy con-
hard milling of tool steels. Procedia Manuf 2015;1:477e86. sumption for numerical control machining. Proc Institution Mech Eng Part B J
[22] Dietmair A, Verl A. Energy consumption forecasting and optimisation for tool Eng Manuf 2012;226/B2:255e66.
machines. Mm Sci J 2009;1:35e40. [54] Lv JX, Tang RZ, Jia S. Therblig-based energy supply modeling of computer
[23] W. Li, A. Zein, S. Kara, C. Herrmann, An investigation into xed energy con- numerical control machine tools. J Clean Prod 2014;65:168e77.
sumption of machine tools, Proceedings of the 18th CIRP International Con- [55] Herrmann C, Bergmann L, Thiede S, Zein A. Energy labels for production
ference on Life Cycle Engineering, 268e273, 2011. machines e an approach to facilitate energy efciency in production systems.
[24] Kellens K, Dewulf W, Overcash M, Hauschild MZ, Duou JR. Methodology for In: Proceedings of 40th CIRP international seminar on manufacturing systems.
systematic analysis and improvement of manufacturing unit process life cycle Liverpool; 2007.
inventory (UPLCI) CO2PE! initiative (cooperative effort on process emissions [56] Li YF, He Y, Wang Y, Yan P, L XH. A framework for characterizing energy
in manufacturing), Part 2: case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2012;17/2: consumption of machining manufacturing systems. Int J Prod Res 2014;52/2:
242e51. 314e25.
[25] Dahmus JB, Gutowski TG. An environmental analysis of machining. In: Pro- [57] Thiede S, Seow Y, Andersson J, Johansson B. Environmental aspects in
ceedings of ASME international mechanical engineering congress and RD&D manufacturing system modelling and simulation e state of the art and
expo. Anaheim: California; 2004. research perspectives. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol 2013;6/1:78e87.
[26] Behrendt T, Zein A, Min S. Development of an energy consumption monitoring [58] Seow Y, Rahimifard S, Woolley E. Simulation of energy consumption in the
procedure for machine tools. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technol 2012;61/1: manufacture of a product. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 2013;26/7:663e80.
43e6. [59] Zhou XN, Liu F, Cai W. An energy-consumption model for establishing energy-
[27] Kordonowy DN. A power assessment of machining tools. Thesis. Massachu- consumption allowance of a workpiece in a machining system. J Clean Prod
setts, USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2002. 2016;135:1580e90.
[28] Hu SH, Liu F, He Y, Hu T. An on-line approach for energy efciency monitoring [60] Peng T, Xu X. An interoperable energy consumption analysis system for CNC
of machine tools. J Clean Prod 2012;27:133e40. machining. J Clean Prod 2017;140:1828e41.
[29] Avram OI, Xirouchakis P. Evaluating the use phase energy requirements of a [61] Dietmair A, Verl A. A generic energy consumption model for decision making
machine tool system. J Clean Prod 2011;19/6e7:699e711. and energy efciency optimisation in manufacturing. Int J Sustain Eng 2009;2:
[30] Liu F, Xie J, Liu S. A method for predicting the energy consumption of the main 123e33.
driving system of a machine tool in a machining process. J Clean Prod [62] Li YF, He Y, Wang Y, Wang YL, Yan P, Lin SL. A modeling method for hybrid
2015;105:171e7. energy behaviors in exible machining systems. Energy 2015;86:164e74.
[31] Lee W, Lee CY, Min BK. Feed drive model for machine tool energy con- [63] He Y, Liu B, Zhang XD, Gao H, Liu XH. A modeling method of task-oriented
sumption simulation. Trans North Am Manuf Res Institution SME 2014;42: energy consumption for machining manufacturing system. J Clean Prod
409e16. 2012;23/1:167e74.
[32] Zhou LR, Li JF, Li FY. Energy consumption model and energy efciency of [64] Giret A, Trentesaux D, Prabhu V. Sustainability in manufacturing operations
machine tools: a comprehensive literature review. J Clean Prod 2016;112/5: scheduling: a state of the art review. J Manuf Syst 2015;37:126e40.
3721e34. [65] Gahm C, Denz F, Dirr M, Tuma A. Energy-efcient scheduling in
[33] Aramcharoen A, Mativenga PT. Critical factors in energy demand modelling manufacturing companies: a review and research framework. Eur J Opera-
for CNC milling and impact of toolpath strategy. J Clean Prod 2014;78:63e74. tional Res 2016;248/3:744e57.
[34] N. Diaz, S.C. Choi, M. Helu, Y.F. Chen, Machine tool design and operation [66] Fadi S, Joaquin OM, Alvaro GS, Miguel OM. Optimizing the production
strategies for green manufacturing, Proceedings of 4th CIRP International scheduling of a single machine to minimize total energy consumption costs.
Conference on High Performance Cutting, 2010. J Clean Prod 2014;67:197e207.
[35] Sealy MP, Liu ZY, Zhang D, Guo YB, Liu ZQ. Energy consumption and modeling [67] Fang K, Uhan N, Zhao F, Sutherland JW. A new approach to scheduling in
in precision hard milling. J Clean Prod 2016;135:1591e601. manufacturing for power consumption and carbon footprint reduction.
[36] Liu F, Liu S. Multi-period energy model of electro-mechanical main driving J Manuf Syst 2011;30/4:234e40.
system during the service process of machine tools. J Mech Eng 2012;48/21: [68] Dai M, Tang DB, Giret A, Salido MA, Li WD. Energy-efcient scheduling for a
132e40. exible ow shop using an improved genetic-simulated annealing algorithm.
[37] Draganescu F, Gheorghe M, Doicin CV. Models of machine tool efciency and Robotics Computer-Integrated Manuf 2013;29/5:418e29.
specic consumed energy. J Mater Process Technol 2003;141/1:9e15. [69] Tang DB, Dai M, Salido MA, Giret A. Energy-efcient dynamic scheduling for a
[38] Diaz N, Redelsheimer E, Dornfeld D. Energy consumption characterization and exible ow shop using an improved particle swarm optimization. Comput
reduction strategies for milling machine tool use, glocalized solutions for Industry 2016;81:82e95.
sustainability in manufacturing. In: Proceedings of the 18th CIRP international [70] Fang K, Uhan N, Zhao F, Sutherland JW. A new shop scheduling approach in
conference on life cycle engineering. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2011. p. 263e7. support of sustainable manufacturing. In: Proceedings of the 18th CIRP in-
[39] Kara S, Li W. Unit process energy consumption models for material removal ternational conference on life cycle engineering. Berlin: Spinger-Verlag; 2011.
processes. CIRP Ann - Manuf Technol 2011;60/1:37e40. p. 305e10.
[40] Li L, Yan JH, Xing ZW. Energy requirements evaluation of milling machines [71] He Y, Li YF, Wu T, Sutherland JW. An energy-responsive optimization method
based on thermal equilibrium and empirical modeling. J Clean Prod 2013;52: for machine tool selection and operation sequence in exible machining job
113e21. shops. J Clean Prod 2015;87:245e54.
G.Y. Zhao et al. / Energy 133 (2017) 142e157 157

[72] Liu Y, Dong HB, Lohse N, Petrovic S. A multi-objective genetic algorithm for optimal cutting condition for energy efciency improvement in ball end
optimisation of energy consumption and shop oor production performance. milling with tool-workpiece inclination. CIRP Ann - Manuf Technol 2012;61/
Int J Prod Econ 2016;179:259e72. 1:119e22.
[73] Liang M, Yeap T, Hermansyah A, Rahmati S. Fuzzy control of spindle torque for [80] Li W, Winter M, Kara S, Herrmann C. Eco-efciency of manufacturing pro-
industrial CNC machining. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2003;43/14:1497e508. cesses: a grinding case. CIRP Ann - Manuf Technol 2012;61/1:59e62.
[74] Department of Trade and Industry of United Kingdom. Meeting the energy [81] Hana I, Khamlichi A, Cabrera FM, Almansa E, Jabbouri A. Optimization of
challenge. Government White Paper on Energy. 2007. www.berr.gov.uk/les/ cutting conditions for sustainable machining of PEEK-CF30 using TiN tools.
le39564.pdf. J Clean Prod 2012;33:1e9.
[75] Murphy CF, Kenig GA, Allen DT, Laurent JP, Dyer DE. Development of para- [82] Yan J, Li L. Multi-objective optimization of milling parameters - the trade-offs
metric material, energy, and emission inventories for wafer fabrication in the between energy, production rate and cutting quality. J Clean Prod 2013;52/4:
semiconductor industry. Environ Sci Technol 2003;37/23:5373e82. 462e71.
[76] Dietmair A, Verl A. Energy consumption forecasting and optimization for tool [83] Neugebauer R, Bouzakis KD, Denkena B, Klocke F, Sterzing A, Tekkaya AE, et al.
machines. Mod Mach Sci J 2009:62e7. Velocity effects in metal forming and machining processes. CIRP Annals-
[77] Mativenga PT, Rajemi MF. Calculation of optimum cutting parameters based Manuf Technol 2011;60/2:627e50.
on minimum energy footprint. CIRP Ann - Manuf Technol 2011;60/1:149e52. [84] Oda Y, Kawamura Y, Fujishima M. Energy consumption reduction by
[78] Newman ST, Nassehi A, Imani-Asrai R, Dhokia V. Energy efcient process machining process improvement. In: 3rd CIRP conference on process machine
planning for CNC machining. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol 2012;5/2:127e36. interactions. Nagoya: Japan; 2012. p. 120e4.
[79] Oda Y, Mori M, Ogawa K, Nishida S, Fujishima M, Kawamura T. Study of