Energy 138 (2017) 332e347

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

A tool for assessing the energy demand and efciency of machining

systems: Energy benchmarking
Wei Cai a, Fei Liu a, *, Jun Xie b, Peiji Liu a, Junbo Tuo a
a
State Key Laboratory of Mechanical Transmission, Chongqing University, Chongqing, 400030, China
b
College of Mechanical Engineering, Chongqing University of Technology, Chongqing, 400050, China

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

Article history: Energy benchmarking has been recognized as an effective analytical methodology and management tool
Received 12 May 2017 to improve energy efciency and performance. Many approaches to energy benchmarking have been
Received in revised form applied in various elds. Machining systems, which are widely distributed and consume large amounts
29 June 2017
of energy with low efciency, possess considerable potential for reductions in energy consumption.
Accepted 8 July 2017
Available online 9 July 2017
However, current research regarding the use of energy benchmarking for machining systems is insuf-
cient due to the complexity and variety of energy consumption processes used in these systems. This
paper proposes the use of energy benchmarking to strengthen the evaluation of energy demand and
Keywords:
Energy benchmarking
achieve efciency improvements for machining systems. First, it analyses drivers for energy bench-
Machining systems marking and their characteristics. Next, an energy benchmarking framework for machining systems is
Energy assessments presented. Then the concepts of the static, dynamic, single-objective, multi-objective, product-based, and
Energy demand process-based energy benchmarking are discussed from three different perspectives: the motion, object
Energy efciency and application level. This lays a theoretical foundation for further energy benchmarking research.
Energy consumption Finally, methods for developing energy benchmarking are also addressed including the prediction
method, statistical analysis and expert decision. The application of these methods to a real machining
plant allows an analysis of the practicability of potentially saving energy through benchmarking.
2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction machining systems accounted for 75% of electricity use for

The consistent increase in the global demand for energy, the
failure to provide this quantity, and the conditions for developing
new energy sources have resulted in a dramatic increase in the cost
of energy over past decades [1,2]. This has made issues relating to
energy supplies more urgent, especially for fossil fuels. Currently,
the most effective measures to solve this problem are developing
alternative energy sources [3,4], and improving energy efciency
[5]. Improving energy efciency is the most direct and effective
measure when compared with developing of alternative energy
sources due to signicant economic barriers.
In 2012, the United States Energy Information Administration
published the Energy Yearbook showing that industrial electricity
consumption is responsible for 31% of total electricity consumption.
Electricity consumption for manufacturing accounted for 90% of
this use, and electricity consumption for machine tools or
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: caiweijixie@163.com (W. Cai), iu@cqu.edu.cn (F. Liu).
manufacturing [6,7]. Machine tools, the basic energy consumption
devices in machining systems, are numerous. For example,
machining workshops in China involve the use of more than seven
million machine toolsdthe highest in the worlddresulting in an
enormous energy consumption. Assuming that the average power
consumption of each machine tool is 10 kW, the total power
consumed by these tools is approximately 70 million kilowatts,
which is more than three times than the total capacity of the Three
Gorges power station, the largest hydropower station in the world
[8,9]. Besides, numerous surveys have shown that the energy ef-
ciency of machining processes is very low, generally less than 30%
[10,11]. Hence, reducing energy consumption and improving en-
ergy efciency is an urgent problem for machining systems.
Therefore, in this paper, we propose the energy benchmarking
as a method to assess the energy demand and efciency in
machining systems, contribute to strengthening energy manage-
ment, and monitoring and improving energy efciency. The
framework of this paper is organized as follows (Fig. 1).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.039
0360-5442/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 W. Cai et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 332e347
Fig. 1. Research framework.
2. Theoretical background
Currently, massive methods for energy measurement, moni-
toring, modelling, and optimization have been applied to
machining systems to improve their energy performance. These
methods are useful but are not effective in measuring the energy
demand and for the application of specic constraints to energy
use. Through a summary of previous methods, the energy bench-
marking is proposed to have particular advantages for analysing
machining systems.
2.1. Energy measurement and monitoring
Energy measurement and monitoring are important measures
affording energy-related data support for machining systems.
Machining environments incorporate a wide range of stakeholders
who could benet from energy-related data. For example:
C Senior management could benet from the establishment
environmental performance goals [12].
C Energy managers could benet from monitoring the imple-
mentation of goals to reduce energy consumption in
machining processes.
C Industrial designers could benet from the energy efcient
design of machining products.
333
C Process managers could benet from applying efciency
measures to production processes [13].
C Machine tools operators could benet from accessing rele-
vant information for machining process decisions.
C Suppliers could benet from a better understanding of how
to meet customer requirements [12].
For a machining plant, the systematic improvement of pro-
cesses that exceed efciency measures requires the measurement
of the energy consumption of machining systems or processes
[14,15]. Monitoring is an extension of this measurement process,
which involves additional record keeping, comparison, and visu-
alization of these measurements [13,16]. Energy monitoring is
necessary for activities that consume energy in machining sys-
tems. For example, Vijayaraghavan proposed an automated energy
monitoring system for machine tools [17]. Lanz analysed the
impact of energy measurements on machining operations [18]. Li
introduced a multi-scale statistical process for monitoring
machining processes [19]. Behrendt developed an energy con-
sumption monitoring procedure for machine tools [20]. Hu
addressed an on-line approach for energy efciency monitoring of
machine tools [21]. Bornschlegl illustrated methods of energy
measurement and an approach for the sustainable energy plan-
ning of manufacturing technologies [22]. Liu presented a novel
approach for acquiring real-time energy efciency measurements
334 W. Cai et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 332e347
for machine tools [23]. Currently, studies on energy measurement
and monitoring have great success in laying a foundation for
energy-efcient machining.
2.2. Energy modelling and optimization
Energy modelling and optimization are regarded as basic mea-
sures for energy-efcient machining. Energy consumption is equal
to power multiplied by time, while power is equal to force multi-
plied by speed. This force reects the deformation of metal material
and the speed reects the variation of process parameters [7],
which is the theoretical basis for building energy consumption
models.
Existing energy consumption models for machining can be
roughly divided into three categories: linear type cutting energy
consumption models based on the material removal rate (MRR);
detailed parameter type cutting energy consumption correlation
models; and process oriented machining energy consumption
models [7]. These models can be summarized as shown in Table 1.
Using these energy consumption models as a basis, extensive
research has also been conducted for energy optimization models
to reduce the energy demand. For example, Bi proposed the opti-
mization of machining processes from the perspective of energy
consumption and provided an analysis of this case [24]. Wang
addressed multi-objective optimization of machining parameters
considering energy consumption [25]. He introduced an energy-
responsive optimization method for machine tool selection and
operation sequences in exible machining job shops [26]. Feng
integrated an energy, economy, and environmental analysis and an
optimization of the energy supply system of a manufacturing plant
[27]. He proposed Pareto fronts for machining parameters as a
trade-off between energy consumption, cutting force and pro-
cessing time [28]. Hu presented a method for minimizing the
machining energy consumption of a machine tool by sequencing
the features of a part [29]. Therefore, it is found that the develop-
ment of energy modelling and optimization tools has been very
rapid and they have caused concerns about the energy consump-
tion of machining processes.
2.3. Energy evaluation and energy-saving strategy
Energy evaluation of machining systems is rapidly expanding,
however, it is difcult to evaluate the energy efciency of these
systems due to the complexity and variability of energy con-
sumption processes. Despite this, current studies about energy
efciency in machining systems have made progress, which has
provided valuable insights into methods for approaching the
assessment of energy consumption in machining systems and
selecting efcient process plans; nding potential energy ef-
ciency improvements; and developing energy benchmarking.
These studies usually focus on one of two types of evaluations
including the holistic energy efciency evaluation of machining
systems or a unit energy efciency analysis approach [46]. Holistic
evaluations comprehensively assess the energy efciency of
machining systems. For example, Bernard proposed a principal
component analysis method for measuring the energy use in-
tensity of manufacturing industries [47]. Duou addressed a pro-
cesses and systems approach for analysing the energy and
resource efciency of manufacturing processes [48]. For a unit
energy efciency analysis, Wang presented an integrated method
for assessing the energy efciency of machining workshops; and
Balogun introduced a specic energy based evaluation of
machining efciency [49]. Schudeleit and Zst proposed various
methods for the evaluation of energy efciency of machine tools
[50]. Schudeleit presented a total energy efciency index for
machine tools [51]. Moreover, to reduce energy consumption and
further improve the energy efciency of machining systems, other
energy-saving strategies have been presented, such as assessment
and modelling, software-based optimization, control improve-
ments, cutting improvement and hardware-based optimization
and design for the environment. Actually, these energy-saving
strategies depend on the basic technologies mentioned in sec-
tions 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. For example, Diaz introduced strategies for
the minimum energy operation of precision machining [52]. Ara-
mcharoen discussed critical factors for the energy demand
modelling of Computer Numerical Control (CNC) milling and the
impact of toolpath strategies [53]. Yoon reviewed energy-saving
strategies and technologies aimed towards developing greener
machine tools [54].
2.4. Energy benchmarking
Energy benchmarking is part of the much wider use of bench-
marks as a tool for evaluating energy demand and energy efciency.
The concept of the energy benchmarking was proposed last century
and has been studied worldwide since, resulting in remarkable
progress for industrial production [55,56]. Currently, a number of
methods for developing energy benchmarking have been success-
fully applied to various industries, such as the petrochemical in-
dustry, steel and cement industry and coal mining industry as
shown in Table 2. The study of energy benchmarking has aroused
extensive interest in recent years [57,58].
As mentioned previously, the wide distribution and a high
consumption of low-efciency energy mean that machining sys-
tems offer considerable energy-saving potential. However, few
methods are available for developing energy benchmarking, which
has resulted in the inadequacy of reduction of energy consumption
and energy efciency improvements for machining systems.
Currently, Liu has proposed a method for dividing manufacturing
products into a variety of general and individual specic products
and has presented this strategy for developing energy bench-
marking for different product types [75]. Cai proposed a new
concept called the ne energy consumption allowance (FECA) and a
method for developing FECA for specic workpieces. The FECA may
contribute to strengthening energy monitoring and management
and improving energy efciency in the mechanical manufacturing
industry [76]. Zhou proposed an energy consumption model for
establishing an energy-consumption allowance for specic work-
pieces in a machining system, but only introduced a modelling
method and did not produce benchmarks [77]. Cai addressed an
energy management approach for the mechanical manufacturing
industry through developing a multi-objective energy benchmark
[78], and further developed a dynamic energy benchmark for mass
production in machining systems for energy management and
energy-efciency improvement [79]. Realistically, however, these
studies are not systematic or comprehensive enough to reveal the
nature of energy benchmarking in machining systems such as
characteristic, methods, rules and applications for machining
systems.
2.5. Contributions
With regards to the analysis of energy measurement and
monitoring, energy modelling and optimization, as well as energy
evaluation and energy-saving strategies, these methods provide
assistance for reducing energy consumption and improving energy
efciency. In this paper, we further proposed the application of
energy benchmarking to strengthen the monitoring and evaluation
of energy demand and improve energy efciency in machining
systems. This paper proposes systematic energy benchmarking
Table 1
Summary of existing energy consumption models for machining.
Types of energy consumption model
The linear type cutting energy consumption
models based on MRR
Detailed parameter type of
cutting energy consumption
correlation models
Process oriented, machining energy consumption model
Energy consumption model based
on metal deformation
theory
Energy consumption model based
on the amount of tool wear
Energy consumption model based
on the cutting force
Energy consumption model based
on the main cutting parameters
Scholars Overview Models
Gutowski et al. [30e32] Proposing a functional relationship P0
P P0 k$MRR SEC MRR k
between energy consumption and the
material removal rate in machining
processes
Kara and Li [33] Proposing a similar empirical model in C1
SEC C0 MRR
which power is inversely proportional
to the mass rate removal
Li et al. [34] Proposing an improved specic energy P k k n k 1 k P
SEC MRR 0 1 MRR 2 MRR 2 standby b
consumption (SEC) model considering
the spindle rotation speed for air-
cutting status
Diaz et al. [35] Proposing a similar model 1 b
SEC k MRR


W. Cai et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 332e347
Munoz and Sheng [36] Establishing an energy calculation cosbgcos hs cos lcos4bgsin hs sin l t$Vmaterial
Ecut cos4bg
 sin 4 cos l
model using the cutting force and the
material removal rate vector
Kishawy et al. [37] Developing an energy model as a Ecut EP ES ED
function of the volume fraction and
material properties
( )
Cuppini et al. [38] and Proposing a face milling, cutting energy DKhc cos 4cos4in j
Shao et al. [38] consumption model which has a linear Ecut 2ae Dm2aHVB
f
j
 Vmaterial
e z
relationship between the cutting power
and the amount of tool wear
Yoon et al. [40,41] Introducing tool wear into the building E Econst Espindle Efeed Ecut
energy consumption model for milling
machines and founding that the
material removal power increases with
the ank wear of the tool
Mohammed et al. [42] Establishing a SEC model for band SEC A F
chip
sawing with a signicant effect on the
SEC between wear and degradation of
the blade
Guo et al. [43] Pointing out that SEC is not only related SEC vc $vCf1$ap C0 $vCc 2 $vCf 3 $aCp4 $dC5
to the cutting parameters but also
related to component size
Z t1 Z t3 Z t3
Liu and Liu [44] Establishing a power model for main
E Pin tdt P0 t2 P0 t3 Pa Pcut tdt Pcut tdt
drive systems that consider that the 0 0 0
mechanical and electrical main
transmission system is the main body
consuming energy
Lv et al. [45] Proposing that each functional module P PSO PL PCC PCFS Pspindle Px Py Pz PTS PTC Pcut
of the machine tool represents one
basic action element
335
336 W. Cai et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 332e347

Table 2
A selected summary of existing energy benchmarking studies in various energy-intensive Industries from the literature.

Section Benchmarking method Specic research object References sources

Petrochemical industry Coupled cluster method Molecular systems


Rez a

c J [59]
Mathematical modelling Industrial glass furnaces Sardeshpande V [60]
Strategic energy review Petrochemical applications Rikhtegar F [61]
e Oil and gas wells and cement slurries Saleh F K [62]
Steel and cement industry Mathematical modelling Iron and steel production Worrell E [13]
e Cement grinding Zeng X [63]
Coal Mine Industry Mathematical modelling Mineral Comminution Nadolski S [64]
Mathematical modelling Dump trucks in mines Sahoo L K [65]
Analysis Copper and gold ores Ballantyne G R [66]
Mathematical modelling Coal production Wang N [67]
Pulp and paper industry Analysis Production of paper and board Laurijssen J [68]
k-means Paper mill Zhang Y [69]
Comparative analysis Kraft pulping mill Mateos-Espejel E [70]
Environmental Comparative analysis Wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) Jonasson M [71]
Protection industry Statistical analysis WWTP Krampe J [72]
Comparative analysis Dutch industry Phylipsen D [24]
Agricultural and food industry Mathematical modelling Frozen food Prakash B [73]
Mathematical modelling Paddy production Chauhan N S [74]
Others System modelling e Ke J [6]
Statistical analysis e Saygin D [12]
Analysis Various industries in Taiwan Chan D Y L [11]

using several concepts including the characteristics of energy
benchmarking, energy benchmarking framework, and classica-
tion of energy approaches and methods for energy benchmarking,
etc. Understanding the characteristics of energy benchmarking
machining systems enables comprehension of the complex rules
and features of this approach. Establishing the energy bench-
marking framework is important to provide a useful reference
point for the further studying of energy benchmarking. The clas-
sication of energy benchmarking approaches and methods de-
nes the different types knowledge about energy benchmarking
and assists with developing energy benchmarks. The studies
referred to in this paper provide a solid theoretical foundation for
energy benchmarking research. Meanwhile, this analysis of energy
benchmarking not only has application to machining systems but
may also play a role in developing benchmarking studies in other
elds.
3. Characteristics of energy benchmarking for machining
systems
Characterizing the energy benchmarking is an indispensable
step for constructing the benchmarking framework, modelling, and
determining methods for developing energy benchmarking for
machining systems. Considering the energy consumption laws for a
machining process, the energy benchmarking of machining sys-
tems has complex, multi-level and correlative characteristics.
3.1. Complexity of energy benchmarking
Machining products comprise a number of components and
parts; furthermore, the parts comprise a number of component
parts; and by analogy, the last remaining part only consists of a
number of components. Meanwhile, the energy consumption of the
product to be machined comprises the energy consumption of the
component, the part, assembly, storage, and transportation. Energy
consumption of the component is composed of the energy con-
sumption of the machining process and the auxiliary energy con-
sumption for the air compressor, ventilation, air-conditioning, and
illumination equipment and so on. Energy consumption of the part
comprises the energy consumption of the component, the part,
component assembly, assembly, storage, and transportation. Not
only this, the constituent of energy consumption for the assembly,
the storage, and the transportation is also complex and variable
[75]. Fig. 2 shows the energy consumption constituents of a
machining product and shows that the energy consumption for the
machining product possesses a complex energy construction and
numerous energy constituents resulting in difculty in the devel-
opment of energy benchmarking for machining systems.
Not only are the constituents of the machining product
extremely complex and variable, but also the energy consumption
processes. Taking the bottommost unit (a workpiece) of a
machining product for example, the machining processes of this
workpiece involves multiple machine tools, processes, and pro-
cedures. Even if the same workpiece is to be machined, the differ-
ences of energy consumption may be great because of the different
machine tools and machining plans used. Moreover, for just one
machine tool has complex energy consumption processes. The
machining process can be divided into four types including the
standby, starting, idling, and cutting material processes as shown in
Fig. 3. Therefore, the energy benchmarking for machining systems
is difcult.
3.2. Multiple levels of energy benchmarking
Multiple levels of the energy benchmarking include multiple
levels of objects and applications. From Fig. 4, machining products,
in general, comprise a number of components and parts. In addi-
tion, the part comprises a number of components and parts, which
indicates that the machining product, part, and component can
respectively have energy benchmarking with different bench-
marking levels. Energy benchmarking for a component and a part
are regarded as a subset of the energy benchmarking for the
machining product. In addition, energy benchmarking of a
component is the lowest level of energy benchmarking, which is
also known as the energy benchmarking of a workpiece, which is
an important basis for developing an energy benchmarking for a
part or a machining product. Dening an energy benchmarking for
a workpiece is the primary task for a machining plant or rm to
begin an energy benchmarking study.
Furthermore, for multiple levels of the application of the energy
benchmarking, taking the mechanical manufacturing industry in
China, for example, involves a wide range of industries with vast
 W. Cai et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 332e347 337

Product

PREC

Component Component Part Part Part AEC TEC and SEC

CEC CEC PEC PEC PEC
SEC

Component Component Part Part Part AEC TEC and SEC

CEC CEC PEC PEC PEC
SEC

Component Component AEC TEC and SEC

CEC CEC
SEC

PREC: Product Energy Consumption AEC: Assembly Energy Consumption

PEC: Part Energy Consumption TEC: Transportation Energy Consumption
CEC: Component Energy Consumption SEC: Storage Energy Consumption

Fig. 2. Structure of a product and its energy consumption.

Starting procedure

Cutting material procedure

Power demand (W)

Idling procedure
Standby
procedure

Idling procedure Standby procedure

Time (s)

Fig. 3. A schematic diagram of a power prole for machining [76].

production capacities, resulting in obvious differences in processing
technologies, manufacturing equipment, and energy management
systems for different regions and rms. Therefore, the energy
consumption of machining processes for the each workpiece or
machining product is obviously different, perhaps even hugely
different between different regions and rms. Fig. 4 shows the
capacity of the mechanical manufacturing industry in different
regions with respect to processing technology, manufacturing
equipment, and energy management systems. Overall, provinces
like the JiangSu, ShangHai, GuangDong and ZheJiang possess
advanced processing technologies and manufacturing equipment,
as well as excellent energy management systems. In contrast,
provinces like the XinJiang, HaiNan, NingXia and Tibet possess
backward processing technologies and manufacturing equipment,
as well as substandard energy management systems. Therefore,
differences in the energy consumption of machining processes for
the same workpiece result in difculties in implementing energy
benchmarking for the same workpiece at the national level. To
develop a reasonable and advanced energy benchmarking for a
workpiece, it is rst necessary to study the energy benchmarking
for the plant or the rm, and then extend the benchmarking to the
industry or national level.
3.3. Relevance of energy benchmarking and production targets
Conventional energy benchmarking is merely concerned with
the energy consumption of production processes and whether
energy consumption meets the energy benchmarking. As we know,
rms are not only concerned with energy consumption but also
with other factors such as production costs, production efciency,
completion rates of products, product quality, and environmental
performance. Generally, these production targets are closely
related to machining plans and production requirements of rms.
Production targets are different between different rms and there
are large differences in these targets. Therefore, it is important for
decisions about the problems experienced by rms to consider all
these factors or objectives in terms of the requirements of the
entire rm. However, quantifying some of these objectives is
difcult because they are multivariable. For example, the environ-
ment performance involves the ecological factors, integrated use of
natural resources, occupational health and safety and security, and
these indicators are difcult to quantify. The completion rate of the
product is closely related to temporal uncertainties (the standby or
idling time) and this uncertainty can be random and difcult to
control. Therefore, the energy benchmarking is closely related to
338 W. Cai et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 332e347

HeiLongjiang

JiLin
XinJiang
GanSu Inner BeiJing LiaoNing
Mongolia TianJin
HeBei
NingXia Shan
QingHai ShanDong
Xi
HeNan S
ShaanXi JiangSu
Tibet
AnHui ShangHai
SiChuan HuBei
ChongQing
Jiang ZheJiang
HuNa Xi
GuiZhou n FuJian
Less-advanced
YunNan TaiWan
Processing technology GuangXi GuangDong
Manufacturing equipment Hong Kong
Energy management system

More-advanced HaiNan 6RXWK&KLQD

6HD,VODQGV

Fig. 4. Regional distribution of machining capacity.

production targets and this relationship is so complex that these production process, and comprise product-based and
production targets can be difcult to quantify. process-based energy benchmarking.

4.2. An energy benchmarking framework

4. An energy benchmarking framework for machining
systems
The energy benchmarking framework for machining systems is
important to further energy benchmarking research and may
reveal benchmarking characteristics through functional structures
and modes of application to contribute to setting and applying the
benchmarking for energy management and energy efciency im-
provements. This section includes a discussion of the concept of the
energy benchmarking framework.
4.1. Related concepts of energy benchmarking
Energy benchmarking is a complicated engineering problem
and development and application of energy benchmarking have
obvious differences for different objectives. To construct a sys-
tematic energy benchmarking framework for machining systems,
this paper proposes three levels of energy benchmarking based on
benchmarking characteristics. These are namely the motion level,
object level and application level.
C Motion level energy benchmarks are used to describe the
energy benchmarking characteristics where motion provides
effective feedback for production requirements, and include
static energy and dynamic energy benchmarking.
C Object level energy benchmarks are used to adapt different
production targets to improve the management of energy
consumption regarding different products, and comprise
single-objective and multi-objective energy benchmarking.
C Application level energy benchmarks consider production
processes and energy consumption attributes that may
effectively control energy consumption for the entire
A summary of existing studies was used to propose an energy
benchmarking framework including research objectives, applica-
tion scope, research content and research goals, to lay a foundation
for energy benchmarking research, as shown in Fig. 5.
It should be emphasized that (i) studying energy benchmarking
and architecture from only one perspective makes it quite hard to
account for the various the characteristics of energy benchmarking
and the organic relationships that exist between these character-
istics due to the complex, multi-level, and correlative characteris-
tics of these benchmarks. Therefore, this paper proposes a
consideration of energy benchmarking from three different per-
spectives: the motion level, object level and application level to
more fully describe and analyse energy benchmarks; (ii) Although
the motion, object, and application level energy benchmarks have
obvious differences, they are closely related; and (iii) the proposed
these energy benchmarking levels have a general structure, which
is appropriate for various energy benchmarking contexts for
machining systems.
5. Energy benchmarking for machining systems
5.1. Motion level: static and dynamic energy benchmarking
At the motion level, static energy benchmarking is a traditional
approach that uses a simple numerical value to interpret the rela-
tionship between a product and its energy consumption, similar to
the relationship between machining one workpiece and the energy
consumption of that workpiece. Unnecessary energy consumption
of the system can be identied by comparing the actual energy
consumption with the energy benchmarking. Energy consumption
can be reduced by identifying useful measures using the static
 W. Cai et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 332e347 339

Fig. 5. An energy benchmarking framework for machining systems.

energy benchmarking to restrict excessive energy consumption in production process to achieve minimum energy consumption.
the machining process. Static energy benchmarking current is one Realistically, besides low energy consumption for the production
of the most widely used approaches. process, mechanical manufacturing industry and machining sys-
Although the static energy benchmarking plays a role in energy tems also aim to lower production costs, increase production
monitoring, energy management, and energy efciency improve-
ments. The effects of static benchmarking still have strong potential
for further improvements to machining systems due to the
complexity energy consumption processes. Dynamic energy
benchmarking is a more advanced energy benchmarking approach
and represents the continued development of the static energy
benchmarking. Dynamic energy benchmarking not only uses the
function of the static energy benchmarking, but also assesses the
energy usage level of the machining process, by determining
standard energy grades through an benchmark rating system, along
with the design of policies to further strengthen energy monitoring
and management and energy efciency improvements, as shown in
Fig. 6 [79].

5.2. Object level: single-objective and multi-objective energy

benchmarking

Single-objective energy benchmarking is a conventional energy

approach that only considers the energy consumption of the Fig. 6. A schematic diagram of a dynamic energy benchmarking [79].
340 W. Cai et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 332e347
efciencies, and improve environmental performance as much as
possible. Therefore, the development of energy benchmarking
should take into account a range of production targets. This gives
the energy benchmarking the advantage of multiple objectives, as
shown in Fig. 7. Generally, production targets are different across
different rms or machining systems. Meanwhile, quantication of
these objectives is difcult. For example the, environment perfor-
mance involves ecological factors, integrated use of natural re-
sources, occupational health and safety of operators and security.
The completion rate of the product is closely related to temporal
uncertainties such as the standby time and idling time, and these
uncertainties are often random and difcult to control. Therefore,
an important issue is how to consider these production targets in
multi-objective energy benchmarking and what decision-making
methods should be used.
5.3. Application level: product-based and process-based energy
benchmarking
At the application level, energy benchmarking comprises
product-based and process-based energy approaches. Conven-
tional energy benchmarking is associated with a product-based
approach, which merely analyses the energy performance of a
target product. Product-based energy benchmarking uses a simple
numerical value to interpret the relationship between a product
and its energy consumption, similar to the corresponding rela-
tionship between machining one workpiece and the energy con-
sumption value for one workpiece machined [76]. For product-
based energy benchmarking, unnecessary energy consumption
for the whole production processes can be identied by comparing
actual energy consumption with the benchmark and identifying
useful measures for reducing unnecessary use. This indicates that
product-based energy benchmarks are only concerned with the
total energy consumption. Product-based energy benchmarking
have been widely applied in various industries, however, currently,
there is still a lack of this type of energy benchmarking in the
mechanical manufacturing industry or machining systems.
Process-based energy benchmarking is obviously different to
product-based energy benchmarking. It is more concerned with the
benchmarking of each process and sub-process. Process-based
energy benchmarking comprise one or more sets of energy data
trees for the product rather than a simple energy value and may
consider energy, time or process information for each process and
sub-process. Furthermore, process-based energy benchmarking
not only consider the total energy consumption of the workpiece
but also highlights the energy consumption of each process and
Fig. 7. Single-objective and multi-objective energy benchmarking.
sub-process to achieve more effective energy management and
energy efciency improvements as shown in Fig. 8.
6. Methods for establishing energy benchmarking
6.1. Overview
Methods for establishing energy benchmarking can be divided
into the prediction method, statistical analysis, and expert decision.
The prediction method focuses on building a mathematical model
to comprehensively assessing energy consumption and is easier to
establish a more operational energy benchmarking focused on an
objective. The statistical analysis method is used to acquire an en-
ergy benchmarking by analysing large amounts of energy con-
sumption data related to workpieces. However, acquiring the
energy consumption data is quite difcult, especially for the new
workpieces that are unprocessed in the machining plant. For the
expert decision method, energy benchmarking is developed by
analysing and assessing previous benchmarking and energy con-
sumption data for other products or workpieces that have similar
characteristics for each production process. However, this method
requires strong professional capacity and it is difcult to nd
similar products (workpieces) and data to match with the bench-
marking objective. Differences between the prediction method,
statistical analysis and expert decision are shown in Table 3 and the
application and comparison of these three methods are shown in
Table 4.
6.2. Prediction method
Establishing an energy benchmarking for a product using the
prediction method comprises three steps including data collection
and analysis, modelling and determination of the energy bench-
marking and development of the benchmarking rating system.
Step 1 Data collection and analysis
To conduct a problem analysis for the energy consumption of a
machining system to develop an energy benchmarking, data
collection and analysis are a basic rst step. This includes data
classication and data collection. Data classication distinguishes
the energy-related data (RED) and energy-unrelsted data (RUD) to
facilitate data collection. RED have direct relevance to energy
consumption in machining systems such as the power of the ma-
chine tool and power of the ancillary equipment. RUD are a kind of
indirect energy consumption data such as the production time,
 W. Cai et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 332e347 341

Fig. 8. Product-based and process-based energy benchmarking.

Table 3
Differences among prediction method, expert decision, and statistical analysis.

Methods Applicability Data Requirements Model Requirements Reliability

New workpieces Processed workpieces Low High Low Medium High Bad Good Excellent

Prediction Method
Statistical Analysis
Expert Decision

Table 4 benchmarking established. In terms of actual conditions, some data

Application and comparison of three methods. may not be able to be obtained directly. However, at least some data
Prediction method Available Step1 Step2.1 Step2.2 Step3 is required to establish a data library or a function library such as
SSOPB energy benchmarking C C C B B
the standby power or the load loss coefcient of the machine tool in
SSOPB energy benchmarking C C C C B advance.
SMOPB energy benchmarking B B B B B
DSOPB energy benchmarking C C C B C Step 2.1 Modelling and determination of the energy benchmarking
DSOPB energy benchmarking C C C C C
DMOPB energy benchmarking B B B B B
Acquiring RED and RUD is difcult due to the complexity and
Statistical Analysis Available Step1 Step2 Step3
variability of machining processes. For a workpiece, the constitu-
SSOPB energy benchmarking C C C B tion of energy consumption is complex. To model and determine
SSOPB energy benchmarking B B B B the energy benchmarking, it is necessary to decompose the
SMOPB energy benchmarking C C C B
machining processes and energy consumption using a top-down
DSOPB energy benchmarking C C C C
DSOPB energy benchmarking B B B B method as shown in Fig. 9.
DMOPB energy benchmarking C C C C The equations used to describe this base process in Fig. 9 are:
Expert Decision Available Step1 Step2 Step3

SSOPB energy benchmarking C C C B y Fx Ux (3)

SSOPB energy benchmarking C C C B
SMOPB energy benchmarking B B B B  
DSOPB energy benchmarking C C C C yb F b xb F b Gx U b x (4)
DSOPB energy benchmarking C C C C
DMOPB energy benchmarking B B B B
b b b
where x x1 ; x2 ; ; xm and xb x1 ; x2 ; ; xm are m-
Note: Static, single-objective, product-based energy benchmarking (SSOPB energy
benchmarking); Static, single-objective, process-based energy benchmarking dimensional real vectors, which inuence the factors that represent
(SSOPB energy benchmarking); Static, multi-objective, product-based energy the workpiece machining process (e.g. types of machine tools,
benchmarking (SMOPB energy benchmarking); Dynamic, single-objective, product- number of machine tools machining parameters). Gx is the
based energy benchmarking (DSOPB energy benchmarking); Dynamic, single-
function translating the control variable x to xb . y y; y2 ; ; yn
objective, process-based energy benchmarking (DSOPB energy benchmarking); b b b
Dynamic, multi-objective, product-based energy benchmarking (DMOPB energy and yb y1 ; y2 ; ; yn are n-dimensional real vectors that
benchmarking). represent the energy consumption and the corresponding energy
benchmarking, respectively. y Fx and yb F b xb are en-
ergy consumption models of machining systems and the energy
numbers of machine tools, and machining parameters. Data benchmarking to be evaluated, respectively. Ux Fx and
collection is the key to deciding the accuracy of the energy U b x F b Gx are the composite function.
342 W. Cai et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 332e347

Fig. 9. Decomposition of machining processes for energy consumption using a top-down method.

For the machining process, the energy consumption E and en- Step 3 Development of a benchmark rating system
ergy benchmarking Eb of the base process is:
In terms of energy consumption laws proposed in Eq. (9), the
E Ky (5) benchmark rating system of workpieces in a machining system can
be dened as a total of ve grades from A to E (refer to Fig. 6). This
  classication method and grades for a benchmark rating system
Eb K b yb (6) refer to energy labelling. As shown in Fig. 6, the value of the
benchmark rating (0e0.55, 0.56e0.85, 0.86e1.15, 1.16e1.45 and
where K$is the function of calculated energy consumption. over 1.45) is not unique, and the value is determined from actual
Therefore, total energy consumption of the whole machining requirements of the rm, district government or national
b
processes for the workpiece ETotal and energy benchmarking ETotal government.
are: EActual
hBR (13)
EB
X
N
ETotal E1 E2 EN Ei (7)
i
6.3. Statistical analysis
!
b
X
N
ETotal KETotal KE1 E2 EN K Ei (8) Statistical analysis mainly focuses energy consumption data that
i can be acquired or has been acquired to establish energy bench-
marking, and this method includes three steps: (i) data collection,
(ii) statistical analysis and determination of the energy bench-
Step 2.2 Determination of process-based energy benchmarking marking and (iii) development of a benchmarking rating system.

For establishing a process-based energy benchmarking, it is Step 1 Data collection

necessary to consider, establish and determine the energy bench-
marking of each machining process or sub-process. Hence, the The RED and RUD of the machining system should be collected
energy benchmarking of each machining process or sub-process is: to perform the statistical analysis and further determine the energy
benchmarking. These data are similar to the data for the prediction
yi Ui x (9) method, except more data, such as energy consumption of each
machining process is added. There are various methods for
b acquiring this data such as establishing the energy monitoring and
yi Ui x (10)
technical measurement devices.
 
b b Step 2 Statistical analysis and determination of the energy
Ei L yi (11)
benchmarking

b b b b To obtain an effective energy benchmarking, it is necessary to

ETotal E1 E2 EN
There are many methods for acquiring the energy consumption
and benchmarking of the workpiece in machining systems. The
above method only is to reveal the energy law from the perspective
of systems engineering. A specic method can be illustrated in the
case study.
(12)
consider the actual energy demand. The specic method of statis-
tical analysis is different for the single-objective and multi-
objective energy benchmarking.
For the single-objective energy benchmarking, all energy con-
sumption data collected is used and the energy benchmarking is
established by a measure of the central tendency. The
 W. Cai et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 332e347 343

measurement of the central tendency is an important statistical

method, which is used to measure the characteristics of data
distribution comprehensively [80,81]. The measure of central
tendency includes an arithmetical mean, geometric mean, median,
and mode. An arithmetic mean suits a situation that requires the
data have a balanced distribution and strong differences among
the variable values [82]. The application conditions of a geometric
mean have some limitations, and it is usually used to average a
data set of speed or rate [83]. Due to an imbalance in the energy
consumption data of the workpieces and no multiplicative rela-
tionship existing between the energy consumption data of the
workpieces and the explanatory variables, the arithmetic mean
and geometric mean is not suitable to be used for measuring the
central tendency of energy consumption data for these work-
pieces. The means could reect the average level of data, but
cannot represent the majority. The median cannot be inuenced
the maximum or minimum and is suitable to represent the central
tendency of data set characteristics with large differences. The
mode is the value that occurs most frequently in a data set or
probability distribution is also a suitable method to describe the
central tendency of the data set [39]. The percentage rank of a
number is the percentage of numbers in its frequency distribution,
which is the same or lower than this value [84], and this reects
the location of specic data in the data set. It was found that
different measures of central tendency have different character-
istics and their scope of application and representation are
different. Therefore, according to statistical analysis energy
benchmarking may be established for machining systems.
In addition, a regression model may also solve these problems
considering a range of integrated factors:
! Then, a comparison of the selected MCP and the MCP of the object
0 0 0
X
k
xi  xi
E c0 c1 x1 c2 x2 ck xk c0 ci
i1
Si
where E is the energy consumption; c0 is the intercept; ci is the
standardized regression coefcient; xi i 1; 2; ; k are the value
of factors which affect E, such as manufacturing equipment,
machining parameters, and production efciency, etc.; is the
s
i
Ci i 1; 2; ; m (16)
s
i
s
i
The larger the value for Ci, the better the ith assessed machining
plan is, and an optimal machining plan for energy consumption can
be determined according to the ith machining plan. Therefore, an
energy benchmarking for a workpiece (or product) can be
determined.
Step 3 Development of a benchmarking rating system
Likewise, the benchmarking rating system may also be devel-
oped according to the method mentioned in Section 6.2.
6.4. Expert decision
The prediction method and statistical analysis are the most
popular methods used for setting benchmarking. However, the
expert decision method is considered mediocre and the perfor-
mance of this approach is usually not good. In this paper, the expert
decision method may be described by three steps: (i) object
matching, (ii) energy evaluation and determination of the energy
benchmarking, and (iii) development of a benchmark rating
system.
Object matching is used to nd and select a similar machining
characteristic process (MCP) of the manufactured product that
possess corresponding energy consumption data. The MCP is the
minimum machining unit such as the end of turning, the excircle of
turning or hobbing. The selection of the MCP is important as if MCP
values are more similar the benchmarking standard will be higher.
is determined by experts and an estimation of energy consumption
for the MCP of the object may be determined based on the energy
(14) consumption of the selected MCP. However, the error of this step is
large. Therefore, the energy consumption of all MCPs and their
energy benchmarking are also acquired. Besides, if necessary, a
1

random error. The energy benchmarking is: Decomposition of machining The amount of
Object matching
processes MCPs:N
!
0 0 0
X
k
xi  xi
ED EC  c1 x1  c2 x2   ck xk E0  ci
Si
i1 high MCPi low
MCPx1 MCPxj
(15) Determination low high Selection of the
similarity
of similar MCPs similar MCPi
MCPx2 MCPx2
where ED is the energy benchmarking; EC is the observed E; ci is a
standardized regression coefcient; xi i 1; 2; ; k are the value
of different factors which affect E, such as manufacturing equip- 2
ment, machining parameters, and production efciency, etc.
MCPi similarity MCPxj Determination of
For multi-objective energy benchmarking, on the basis of data Energy
energy
acquisition, the energy benchmarking may be determined by evaluation of the
consumption for
MCPi
various evaluation methods. In this paper, we will introduce the Ei Exj MCPi
most common and popular entropy-weight and the fuzzy TOPSIS
method. The entropy-weight and the fuzzy TOPSIS method in-
cludes (i) constructing an assessment matrix, (ii) nding yij , (iii)
Acquirement of
calculating the entropy weight, (iv) acquiring a weighted fuzzy Determination of the energy energy
matrix, and (v) calculating the degree of relative similarity. benchmarking consumption for
Therefore, as decision objectives are different among different all MCPi
rms, the decision criteria can be determined in terms of actual
requirements. The relative similarity degree Ci with a value be-
tween 0 and 1 can be calculated by using Eq. (16). The closer this 3 Development of benchmarking rating system
value gets to 1, the closer to the optimal level the assessed
machining plan is. Fig. 10. The process of the expert decision method.
344 W. Cai et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 332e347

Meanwhile, according to characteristics of the machining pro-

cess shown in Fig. 3, the machining processes of the wire wheel are
decomposed into four types, namely the standby, starting, idling
and cutting material processes. Therefore, based on the collection
of these machining parameters, it is necessary to establish basic
Blank energy consumption databases as shown in Table 6. According to
the methods for establishing these databases, the standby power,
starting energy consumption, idling power and load loss coefcient
for the machining of the wire wheel by the CHK560CNC lathe can
be acquired.
The energy consumption of the whole of machining processes
Machining environment Wire wheel for the wire wheel can be determined using Eqs.17e21 in terms of
machining parameters and the basic database.
Fig. 11. The wire wheel used for the case study.
X
Nsb X
Nst X
Nid X
Ncm
EWire wheel Esbi Esti Eidi Ecmi (17)
benchmarking rating system also may also be developed by the i1 i1 i1 i1

terms of Section 6.2. The process of the expert decision method is as

shown in Fig.10. Esb f Mi $tsb (18)

Est gni (19)

7. Application and analysis

This section not only illustrates the establishment process for
the energy benchmarking but also demonstrates and analyses the
practicability for a real production process. Due to a wide variety of
energy benchmarking processes and obvious differences in energy
benchmarking between the rms, this section focuses on product-
based energy benchmarking, dynamic energy benchmarking and
their functions.
Product-based energy benchmarking of a workpiece (a wire
wheel) was established for the Chongqing Machine Tool Works Co.,
Ltd, China, using the prediction method to calculate energy con-
sumption and determine the benchmarking. In this case, the wire
wheel is as shown in Fig. 11, and the machining equipment is the
CHK560CNC lathe. According to the prediction method, basic data
and databases need to be collected and established beforehand.
Basic data like machining process parameters are shown in Table 5.
Eid hni $tid (20)
Ecm hni aPc $tcm (21)
where EWire wheel is energy consumption of one wire wheel;
Esb , Est , Eid and Ecm are the standby, starting, idling and cutting
material energy consumption, respectively; Nsb , Nst , Nid and Ncm
are the number of the standby, starting, idling and cutting material
processes, respectively.
Therefore, product-based energy benchmarking of the wire
b
wheel can be determined as EWire wheel 5:69  105 J. Furthermore,
for the dynamic energy benchmarking of the wire wheel, using a
benchmark rating system can be established as shown in Fig. 12.
The energy benchmarking plays a signicant role in the energy
assessment and improvement of energy efciency. The operator

Table 5
Machining process parameters for the wire wheel.

Step Content Spindle speed (rpm) Feed (mm/r) Depth of cut (mm)

Machining processes Cutting times for machining

1 End of turning Twice 250 0.22 2.0

2 250 0.22 2.5
3 Turning (155 mm) Thrice 250 0.23 5.0
4 250 0.23 5.0
5 250 0.23 1.0
6 Drilling Once 250 0.15 e
7 Recessing Four times 350 0.04 e
8 350 0.04 e
9 350 0.20 e
10 350 0.22 e
11 Turing hole (30 mm) Once 600 0.20 6.0
12 Recessing Once 400 0.22 e
13 Exchanging plane
14 Turning (155 mm) Once 250 0.22 3.0
15 End of turning Six times 250 0.22 2.0
16 250 0.22 2.0
17 250 0.22 2.0
18 250 0.22 2.0
19 250 0.22 2.0
20 250 0.22 0.5
21 Recessing Four times 350 0.20 e
22 350 0.04 e
23 350 0.20 e
24 350 0.22 e
25 Recessing Once 400 0.22 e
 W. Cai et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 332e347 345

Table 6
Methods for establishing basic energy consumption databases.

Databases Description

Standby power The standby power database can be established by measuring the standby power of each machine tool before use.
f(Mi) Psbi
Where Mi is the number of the machine tool, Psbi is standby power of the machine tool
Starting energy consumption The starting energy consumption is closely related to the spindle speed of the machine tool. When the
spindle speed of the machine tool is determined, the starting energy consumption will be a constant,
which means there is a functional relationship between energy consumption and spindle speed.
Estj g(nj)
Where nj is spindle speed and Estj is the starting energy consumption.
Idling power Similarly, the idling power is also closely related to the spindle speed of the machine tool. The idling
power can be acquired by measuring the idling power of each level of speed of the machine tool.
Pidj h(nj)
Where nj is spindle speed and j is the series of spindle speed.
Load loss coefcient The load loss coefcient a of a machine tool is the ratio of additional load loss Pa to cutting power Pc [85].
The load loss coefcient is a constant between 0.15 and 0.25. Additional load loss is a linear
or quadratic function of cutting power [75].
The load loss coefcient can be acquired by the methodology described in the literature [85].

can easily grasp the energy consumption requirements of the
workpiece, and the benchmark rating and energy grades can be
analysed via a comparison with the benchmark rating system to
guide operators to avoid unreasonable operating parameters and
select more reasonable machining plans and efcient process pa-
rameters. On the other hand, energy managers can master the
overall energy consumption level of a workpiece and determine
whether it meets eligibility criteria. The energy benchmarking and
benchmark rating system also benet the process of conducting
energy audits, a collection of energy statistics, and energy-
efciency analysis, aiding the decision-making processes of en-
ergy managers. The government can use the benchmarking and
benchmark rating system to design relevant energy policies and
standards for machining systems. For example, when the energy
consumption of a machining system is below the energy grade for
Benchmarking Rating System
Firm Chongqing Machine Tool Works Co., Ltd, China
Workpiece Wire wheel
Energy consumption per unit gear
More energy efficient
0-55
56-85
86-115
116-145
Over 145
Less energy efficient
Energy consumption benchmark for the wire wheel
Establishment time: 2016.12.02
Fig. 12. Benchmark rating system of a wire wheel in the Chongqing Machine Tool
Works Co., Ltd, China.
the benchmark rating system, the rm could be subject to nancial
and administrative penalties in accordance with the extent they
breach the grade. Incentive schemes may be implemented for rms
that satisfy the energy benchmarking and grades. Additionally, the
benchmarki rating system has a vital role in increasing the energy
efciency of machining systems. A machine tool spends large
amounts of time in the standby and idling states because of poor
energy-consciousness of operators, resulting in a signicant waste
of energy. Selected process parameters mainly depend on the
consciousness and machining experience of the operator and
satisfy the machining requirements but usually ignore energy-
consumption issues. Through the development of the energy
benchmarking, an operator can master achieving the energy con-
sumption objectives and the grade compared with the benchmark
rating system efciently, they can search for reasons for high en-
ergy consumption and subsequently adjust process parameters. In
conclusion, energy benchmarking for a workpiece in a machining
system is very important for achieving energy-efcient production.
8. Conclusions
With a wide distribution and high amount of low-efciency
energy consumption, machining systems have considerable
energy-saving potential. Currently, massive methods, such as en-
ergy measurement, monitoring, modelling and optimization, have
been applied to machining systems to improve their performance.
These methods are useful but are not effective in measuring energy
consumption demand or applying specic constraints. The energy
benchmarking has been recognized as an effective analytical
methodology and management tool to improve the efciency and
performance of energy use. The study of energy benchmarking for
machining systems is insufcient due to complexity and variety of
energy consumption processes. This paper proposes the use of
energy benchmarking to strengthen the evaluation of energy de-
mand and energy efciency of machining systems.
First, this paper summarized some important methods such as
energy measurement and monitoring, energy modelling and opti-
mization, as well as energy evaluation and the development of
energy-saving strategies for machining systems and analysed
drivers for the energy benchmarking in machining systems. Sec-
ondly, analysing three important characteristics of the energy
0.15kWh benchmarking in machining systems including the complex, multi-
First edition
level and correlative characteristics and how they contribute to
constructing a framework, for modelling, and determining the
methods for energy benchmarking in machining systems was
completed. Then, an energy benchmarking framework for
346 W. Cai et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 332e347
machining systems was developed for inuencing energy bench-
marking research. This revealed relevant energy benchmarking
characteristic, functional structures, and application modes.
Moreover, this paper discussed the concepts of the static, dynamic,
single-objective, multi-objective, product-based and process-based
energy benchmarking from the various perspectives of the motion,
object, and application level This will lay a theoretical foundation
for energy benchmarking research. These contexts and applications
of these benchmarking concepts were illustrated in detail. Finally,
to provide effective measures for the energy benchmarking, this
paper proposed three methods for developing the energy bench-
marking for machining systems including the prediction method,
statistical analysis and expert decision. Specic procedures of each
method were described in detail and a comparison of these three
methods was performed, which provided an important reference
for the energy benchmarking for machining systems. Furthermore,
the energy benchmarking was applied to Chongqing Machine Tool
Works Co., Ltd., China, showing that this proposed method was
feasible for establishing an energy benchmarking for a workpiece in
a machining system and can play a crucial role in improving energy
management and increasing energy efciency.
Future studies will focus on two aspects of the energy bench-
marking. First, an energy evaluation standard and certication
process for machining systems will be considered using energy
benchmarking processes. Second, data acquisition for establishing
more basic databases will be continuously implemented.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the technical support from the State
Key Laboratory of Mechanical Transmission, Chongqing University.
The project is supported by the National Natural Science Founda-
tion of China (Grant No. 51375513), the National Hi-Tech Research
and Development Program (863) (Grant No. 2014AA041506), and
the Science and Technology Research Program of the Chongqing
Municipal Education Commission (Grant No. KJ1709227).
References
[1] Velchev S, Kolev I, Ivanov K, Gechevski S. Empirical models for specic energy
consumption and optimization of cutting parameters for minimizing energy
consumption during turning. J Clean Prod 2014;80:139e49.
[2] Lee YS, Tong LI. Forecasting nonlinear time series of energy consumption
using a hybrid dynamic model. Appl Energy 2012;94:251e6.
[3] Yoon HS, Kim ES, Kim MS, Lee JY, Lee GB, Ahn SH. Towards greener machine
toolseA review on energy saving strategies and technologies. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2015;48:870e91.
[4] Pao HT. Forecasting energy consumption in Taiwan using hybrid nonlinear
models. Energy 2009;34:1438e46.
[5] Cagno E, Trianni A. Exploring drivers for energy efciency within small- and
medium-sized enterprises: rst evidences from Italian manufacturing enter-
prises. Appl Energy 2013;104:276e85.
[6] EIA. Annual energy review. 2011. Last visited: March 2015, http://www.eia.
gov/totalenergy/data/annual/index.cfm.
[7] Zhou L, Li J, Li F, Meng Q, Li J, Xu X. Energy consumption model and energy
efciency of machine tools: a comprehensive literature review. J Clean Prod
2016;112:3721e34.
[8] Andrea T, Enrico C, Ernst W. Empirical investigation of energy efciency
barriers in Italian manufacturing SMEs. Energy 2013;49:444e58.
[9] Liu F, Xu ZJ, Dan B. Energy characteristic of mechanical machining system and
its application. Beijing: China Machine Press; 1995 [in Chinese].
[10] Wang QL, Liu F, Li CB. An integrated method for assessing the energy ef-
ciency of machining workshop. J Clean Prod 2013;52:122e33.
[11] Mouzon G, Yildirim MB, Twomey J. Operational methods for minimization of
energy consumption of manufacturing equipment. Int J Prod Res
2007;45(18e19):4247e71.
[12] Bogdanski G, Spiering T, Li W, Herrmann C, Kara S. Energy monitoring in
manufacturing companies e generating energy awareness through feedback.
In: Dornfeld DA, Linke BS, editors. Leveraging technology for a sustainable
world. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2012. p. 539e44.
[13] Spiering T, Kohlitz S, Sundmaeker H, Herrmann C. Energy efciency bench-
marking for injection moulding processes. Robot Comput Integr Manuf
2015;36:45e59.
[14] Fresner J. Energie-und Ressourcenefzienz in Unternehmen umsetzen.
Nachhalt Prod 2011;2(2):58e61.
[15] Kara S, Bogdanski G, Li W. Electricity metering and monitoring in
manufacturing systems. Glocalized Solut Sustain Manuf 2011:1e10.
[16] Verein Deutscher Ingenieure VDI. Energiemanagement e Begriffe, No. 4602.
Dsseldorf: Beuth Verlag; 2007.
[17] Vijayaraghavan A, Dornfeld D. Automated energy monitoring of machine
tools. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 2010;59(1):21e4.
[18] Lanz M, Mani M, Leong S, Lyons K, Ranta A, Ikkala K, et al. Impact of energy
measurements in machining operations. In: ASME 2010 International design
engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engi-
neering conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2010.
p. 867e73.
[19] Li X, Yao X. Multi-scale statistical process monitoring in machining. IEEE Trans
Ind Electron 2005;52(3):924e7.
[20] Behrendt T, Zein A, Min S. Development of an energy consumption monitoring
procedure for machine tools. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 2012;61(1):43e6.
[21] Hu S, Liu F, He Y, Hu T. An on-line approach for energy efciency monitoring
of machine tools. J Clean Prod 2012;27:133e40.
[22] Bornschlegl M, Bregulla M, Franke J. Methods-Energy Measurement e an
approach for sustainable energy planning of manufacturing technologies.
J Clean Prod 2016;135:644e56.
[23] Liu P, Liu F, Qiu H. A novel approach for acquiring the real-time energy ef-
ciency of machine tools. Energy 2017;121:524e32.
[24] Bi ZM, Wang L. Optimization of machining processes from the perspective of
energy consumption: a case study. J Manuf Syst 2012;31(4):420e8.
[25] Wang Q, Liu F, Wang X. Multi-objective optimization of machining parame-
ters considering energy consumption. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2014;71(5e8):
1133e42.
[26] He Y, Li Y, Wu T, Sutherland JW. An energy-responsive optimization method
for machine tool selection and operation sequence in exible machining job
shops. J Clean Prod 2015;87:245e54.
[27] Feng L, Mears L, Beaufort C, Schulte J. Energy, economy, and environment
analysis and optimization on manufacturing plant energy supply system.
Energy Convers Manag 2016;117:454e65.
[28] He K, Tang R, Jin M. Pareto fronts of machining parameters for trade-off
among energy consumption, cutting force and processing time. Int J Prod
Econ 2017;185:113e27.
[29] Hu L, Peng C, Evans S, Peng T, Liu Y, Tang R, et al. Minimising the machining
energy consumption of a machine tool by sequencing the features of a part.
Energy 2017;121:292e305.
[30] Gutowski, T., Dahmus, J., Thiriez, A., 2006. Electrical energy requirements for
manufacturing processes. In: Proceedings of 13th CIRP International Confer-
ence on Life Cycle Engineering. Leuven, Belgium, pp. 5e11.
[31] Gutowski T. The carbon and energy intensity of manufacturing. 40th CIRP
International manufacturing systems seminar. Liverpool University; 2007.
[32] Gutowski T, Branham M, Dahmus J, Jones A, Thiriez A. Thermodynamic
analysis of resources used in manufacturing processes. Environ Sci Technol
2009;43(5):1584e90.
[33] Kara S, Li W. Unit process energy consumption models for material processes.
CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 2011a;61(1):37e40.
[34] Li L, Yan JH, Xing ZW. Energy requirements evaluation of milling machines
based on thermal equilibrium and empirical modeling. J Clean Prod 2013;52:
113e21.
[35] Diaz N, Redelsheimer E, Dornfeld D. Energy consumption characterization and
reduction strategies for milling machine tool use. In: Glocalized Sol. Sustain.
Manuf. Proc. CIRP Int. Conf. Life Cycle Eng; 2011. p. 263e7.
[36] Munoz AA, Sheng P. An analytical approach for determining the environ-
mental impact of machining processes. J Mater Process Technol
1995;53(3e4):736e58.
[37] Kishawy HA, Kannan S, Balazinski M. An energy based analytical force model
for orthogonal cutting of metal matrix composites. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol
2004;53(1):91e4.
[38] Cuppini D, D'errico G, Rutelli G. Tool wear monitoring based on cutting power
measurement. Wear 1990;139(2):303e11.
[39] Shao H, Wang HL, Zhao XM. A cutting power model for tool wear monitoring
in milling. Int Int J Mach Tool Manuf 2004;44(14):1503e9.
[40] Yoon HS, Moon JS, Pham MQ, Lee GB, Ahn SH. Control of machining param-
eters for energy and cost savings in micro-scale drilling of PCBs. J Clean Prod
2013;54:41e8.
[41] Yoon HS, Lee JY, Kim MS, Ahn SH. Empirical power-consumption model for
material removal in three-axis milling. J Clean Prod 2014;78:54e62.
[42] Sarwar M, Persson M, Hellbergh H, Haider J. Measurement of specic cutting
energy for evaluating the efciency of bandsawing different workpiece ma-
terials. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 2009;49(12e13):958e65.
[43] Guo YS, Loenders J, Duou J, Lauwers B. Optimization of energy consumption
and surface quality in nish turning. Proc CIRP 2012;1(1):512e7.
[44] Liu Shuang, Liu F. Multi-period energy model of electro-mechanical main
driving system during the service process of machine tools. J Mech Eng
2012;48(21):132e40.
[45] Lv JX, Tang RZ, Jia S. Therblig-base d energy supply modeling of computer
numerical control machine tools. J Clean Prod 2014;65:168e77.
[46] Wang Q, Liu F, Li C. An integrated method for assessing the energy efciency
of machining workshop. J Clean Prod 2013;52:122e33.
[47] Bernard JT, Co ^ te
 B. The measurement of the energy intensity of manufacturing
 W. Cai et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 332e347
industries: a principal components analysis. Energy Policy 2005;33(2):
221e33.
[48] Duou JR, Sutherland JW, Dornfeld D, Herrmann C, Jeswiet J, Kara S, et al.
Towards energy and resource efcient manufacturing: a processes and sys-
tems approach. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 2012;61(2):587e609.
[49] Balogun VA, Edem IF, Adekunle AA, Mativenga PT. Specic energy based
evaluation of machining efciency. J Clean Prod 2016;116:187e97.
[50] Schudeleit T, Zst S, Wegener K. Methods for evaluation of energy efciency
of machine tools. Energy 2015;93:1964e70.
[51] Schudeleit T, Zst S, Weiss L, Wegener K. The total energy efciency index for
machine tools. Energy 2016;102:682e93.
[52] Diaz N, Helu M, Jarvis A, To nissen S, Dornfeld D, Schlosser R. Strategies for
minimum energy operation for precision machining. Laboratory for
Manufacturing and Sustainability; 2009.
[53] Aramcharoen A, Mativenga PT. Critical factors in energy demand modelling
for CNC milling and impact of toolpath strategy. J Clean Prod 2014;78:63e74.
[54] Yoon HS, Kim ES, Kim MS, Lee JY, Lee GB, Ahn SH. Towards greener machine
toolseA review on energy saving strategies and technologies. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2015;48:870e91.
[55] Iribarren Diego. Mario Martn-Gamboa, Javier Dufour. Environmental bench-
marking of wind farms according to their operational performance. Energy
2013;61(1):589e97.
[56] Zhou XN, Liu F, Cai W. An energy-consumption model for establishing energy-
consumption allowance of a workpiece in a machining system. J Clean Prod
2016;135:1580e90.
[57] Yang T, Zhang X. Benchmarking the building energy consumption and solar
energy trade-offs of residential neighborhoods on Chongming Eco-Island,
China. Appl Energy 2016;180:792e9.
[58] Chan DYL, Huang CF, Lin WC, Hong GB. Energy efciency benchmarking of
energy-intensive industries in Taiwan. Energy Convers Manag 2014;77:
216e20.
[59]
a
Rez 

c J, Jure


cka P, Riley KE, Cern J, Valdes H, Pluh
a
ckov
a K, et al. Quantum
chemical benchmark energy and geometry database for molecular clusters
and complex molecular systems (www.begdb.com): a user's manual and
examples. Collect Czechoslov Chem Commun 2008;73(10):1261e70.
[60] Sardeshpande V, Gaitonde UN, Banerjee R. Model based energy benchmarking
for glass furnace. Energy Convers Manag 2007;48(10):2718e38.
[61] Rikhtegar F. Energy benchmarking: a method incorporating energy optimi-
zation and its viability is exemplied in a petrochemical application. Chem
Eng 2011;118(12):32e6.
[62] Saleh FK, Teodoriu C. The mechanism of mixing and mixing energy for oil and
gas wells cement slurries: a literature review and benchmarking of the
ndings. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2016;38:388e401.
[63] Zeng X. Cement grinding technologies and energy benchmarking. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 2009 China cement grinding technology forum, Nanjng,
Jiangsu, China, April 18th; 2009. 12177667, http://www.ccement.com/news/
2009/4-18C.
[64] Nadolski S, Klein B, Gong D, Davaanyam Z, Cooper A. Development and
application of an energy benchmarking model for mineral comminution.
Vancouver: SAG2015; 2015.
[65] Sahoo LK, Bandyopadhyay S, Banerjee R. Benchmarking energy consumption
347
for dump trucks in mines. Appl Energy 2014;113:1382e96.
[66] Ballantyne GR, Powell MS. Benchmarking comminution energy consumption
for the processing of copper and gold ores. Miner Eng 2014;65:109e14.
[67] Wang N, Wen Z, Liu M, Guo J. Constructing an energy efciency benchmarking
system for coal production. Appl Energy 2016;169:301e8.
[68] Laurijssen J, Faaij A, Worrell E. Benchmarking energy use in the paper in-
dustry: a benchmarking study on process unit level. Energy Efc 2013;6(1):
49e63.
[69] Zhang Y, Hong M, Li J, Chen X, Zeng Z, Liu H. Benchmarking analysis of energy
efciency indicators in paper mill. BioResources 2016;11(4):9723e40.
[70] Mateos-Espejel E, Savulescu L, Mare chal F, Paris J. Base case process devel-
opment for energy efciency improvement, application to a Kraft pulping
mill. Part II: benchmarking analysis. Chem Eng Res Des 2011;89(6):729e41.
[71] Jonasson M. Energy benchmark for wastewater treatment processesea com-
parison between Sweden and Austria. TEIE-5247. IEA; 2007.
[72] Krampe J. Energy benchmarking of south Australian WWTPs. Water Sci
Technol 2013;67(9):2059e66.
[73] Prakash B, Singh RP. Energy benchmarking of warehouses for frozen foods.
Food Manuf Efc 2008;1(3):9.
[74] Chauhan NS, Mohapatra PKJ, Pandey KP. Improving energy productivity in
paddy production through benchmarkingdan application of data envelop-
ment analysis. Energy Convers Manag 2006;47(9):1063e85.
[75] Liu F, Zhou XN, Cai W. The complexity and strategy for establishing product
energy consumption allowance in discrete manufacturing industry. J Mech
Eng 2015;10(19):138e45 [in Chinese].
[76] Cai W, Liu F, Zhou XN, Xie J. Fine energy consumption allowance of work-
pieces in the mechanical manufacturing industry. Energy 2016;114:622e3.
[77] Zhou X, Liu F, Cai W. An energy-consumption model for establishing energy-
consumption allowance of a workpiece in a machining system. J Clean Prod
2016;135:1580e90.
[78] Cai W, Liu F, Xie J, Zhou X. An energy management approach for the me-
chanical manufacturing industry through developing a multi-objective energy
benchmark. Energy Convers Manag 2017;132:361e71.
[79] Cai W, Liu F, Zhang H, Liu P, Tuo J. Development of dynamic energy bench-
mark for mass production in machining systems for energy management and
energy-efciency improvement. Appl Energy 2017;202:715e25.
[80] Xiong JS, Wang J, Liu G. Statistics tutorial. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University
Press; 2007.
[81] Kneifel Joshua, Webb David. Predicting energy performance of a net-zero
energy building: a statistical approach. Appl Energy 2016;178:468e83.
[82] Tang F. Reasonable application of arithmetic mean, mode and median. China
Stat 2008;03:49e50 [in Chinese].
[83] Xin Y, Lu S, Zhu N, Wu W. Energy consumption quota of four and ve star
luxury hotel buildings in Hainan province, China. Energy Build 2012;45:
250e6.
[84] Wikipedia, Free Encyclopedia The. Cumulative frequency analysis. 2010.
Retrieved on December 30, 2010 from, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Cumulative_frequency_analysis.
[85] Hu SH, Liu F, He Y, Peng B. Characteristics of additional load losses of spindle
system of machine tools. J AdvMech Des Syst Manuf 2010;4(7):1221e33.