Anda di halaman 1dari 12

Original Article

A model to determine the optimal


parameters for sustainable-energy
machining in a multi-pass turning
operation

Proc IMechE Part B:


J Engineering Manufacture
2014, Vol. 228(6) 866877
IMechE 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0954405413508945
pib.sagepub.com

Muhammad Arif, Ian A Stroud and Olcay Akten

Abstract
This study presents a model for the optimization of machining parameters for the minimum energy consumption in a
multi-pass turning operation. The model takes into account finishing and roughing passes separately for the energy optimization followed by the dual optimization of the energy functions for a combination of one finishing pass and multiple
roughing passes to finish a desired diameter on a cylindrical workpiece. The parametric constraints, tool-life constraints
and operational constraints are enforced in the model before optimizing the energy function using non-linear programming. The model is applied to an example case for the optimization. The effects of total-depth-to-be-removed, material
removal rate and tool replacement time are evaluated on the optimal parameters for sustainable machining.

Keywords
Sustainable energy, sustainable manufacturing, sustainable machining, multi-pass turning, optimization model, green
machining

Date received: 21 May 2013; accepted: 23 September 2013

Introduction
Manufacturing is the key engineering sector to build
stronger economies and improve human living standards. Manufacturing processes utilize energy, often
the electrical energy, to transform work materials into
products, and the energy supplied to a manufacturing
process is only partly embodied into the product. The
balance of energy is inevitable wasted in the form of
heat generated and waste produced. A considerable
proportion of the electrical energy available is utilized
in the industries of which manufacturing is an important sector. Sustainable manufacturing has become a
growing area of interest for manufacturing industries
due to the environment conscious regulations imposed
by the governments and the environmental protection
agencies.
The US Department of Commerce defined sustainable manufacturing as the creation of manufactured
products that use processes that are non-polluting, conserve energy and natural resources and are economically sound and safer for employees, communities and
consumers.1 A common definition of sustainability and
sustainability development is passing on to the future
generations a stock of capital that is at least as big as

the one that our own generation inherited from the previous generations.2
Energy consumption causes carbon emissions with
part of the emissions occurring during manufacturing.
In the manufacture of a product, the energy consumed
is directly linked to the carbon emission in producing
electrical energy for running the manufacturing process.3 This means the reduction in the energy consumption leads to the reduction in the carbon emission and
hence mitigation of the greenhouse effect. Carbon emission is often represented by carbon footprint (CF).
Although CF is a decent step towards the environmental consciousness, it is not a sufficient criterion to comprehend the overall environmental impact. This is
because CF is related to greenhouse gas emission,
mainly carbon dioxide, and there are practical cases

Laboratory for Computer-Aided Design and Production (LICP), Swiss


Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
Corresponding author:
Muhammad Arif, Laboratory for Computer-Aided Design and Production
(LICP), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL), 1015
Lausanne, Switzerland.
Email: muhammad.arif@epfl.ch

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at WEST VIRGINA UNIV on November 17, 2015

Arif et al.

867

where greenhouse gas emission is negligible but still the


process leaves a significant negative impact on the
environment.2
According to a survey conducted by US Energy
Information Administration (EIA) in year 2011, 31%
of the total energy consumption was consumed in
industrial sector.4 Manufacturing comprises a significant proportion of the total industrial sector and is
believed to be the area where sustainable energy
approach can bring about propitious results.

Sustainable machining
Sustainability in manufacturing is the optimization of
the overall efficiency of the company, technologies, processes and products.5 In its broader sense, the sustainability in manufacturing brings about every element of a
manufacturing system under investigation for resource
efficiency. The optimization of energy and environmentally associated resources contribute to the ecological
and economical effectiveness. Machining is considered as
key technology in the manufacture of products, believed
to be the most widely applied technology among all the
manufacturing technologies and has a significant impact
on the growth of global economy.
Machining process is particularly useful due to highdimensional accuracy achievable on the parts, flexibility
of its application and cost-effectiveness in producing
limited quantities of the parts. Among manufacturing
processes, machining is considered as unique in that it
can be used to not only create the new products but also
to finish them to final shape. In a typical machining
process, the unwanted portion of the workpiece is
removed in the form of chips to transform the starting
workpiece into the desired shaped product. Machining
is classified as subtractive manufacturing process. Being
inherently a material removal process, machining can
be wasteful in its use of both energy and material.6
Furthermore, due to coolant employment and waste
creation, machining can potentially leave adverse
impact on the environment. The waste of energy occurring in machining process can have a considerable
impact on the economic orientation of the society. With
limited capacity to generate energy against the ever
mounting demand for energy consumption in human
society, economization of energy use has become an
important pillar of sustainability paradigm. Hence,
reducing energy in manufacturing is perceived as one of
the pronounced leaps towards achieving the sustainability. This approach calls for a profound analysis of the
key manufacturing technologies such as machining
from energy consideration viewpoint.
Until recently, most of the research study in machining has focused on the innovation and improvement of
process capability for short-term profitability. With
world now entering an era of energy starvation and
environmental consciousness, sustainable manufacturing or more specifically sustainable machining

technology is emphasized to be adapted as long-term


technological strategy for sustainable development and
ultimately survival.
Several initial studies have been reported, which analyse the machining processes from energy viewpoint.
Gutowski et al.7 reported a generalized electrical energy
requirement analysis for a variety of manufacturing
processes and concluded that energy requirements of a
manufacturing process are not constant but variable
depending upon the rate of processing. Jawahir and
Jayal8 presented an overview of product and process
sustainability evaluation methods and modelling techniques to predict the performance of sustainable
machining processes. An important measure in evaluating the performance of manufacturing process is setting
the system boundaries so as to include not only the
manufacturing process itself but also the production of
material and impact on environment for a more compact evaluation of sustainability.6,7
In machining processes, it is possible to model only
those sustainability elements, which are deterministic in
nature using analytical and numerical techniques.9 The
other sustainability elements are modelled using nondeterministic techniques.8
The environmental impact of machining process is
very high due to creation of hazards through the chip
removal and the coolant incineration.10 The recycling of
machining waste is an important measure to mitigate the
environmental impact of machining.11 For some energyintensive materials, the energy involved in material production can exceed the energy required for machine tool
operation.5 The environmental hazard can be mitigated
considerably by employing cryogenic cooling in machining. Cryogenic cooling uses liquid nitrogen, which evaporates during machining and improves the tool life by
reducing the coefficient of friction between the tool and
chip.12 Another development in machining is the neardry machining, which significantly increases the machining performance by reducing the cutting forces, improving the surface finish and tool life.13
In machining, tool characteristics are vital consideration to determine the sustainability of both the product and process. Marksberry and Jawahir14 proposed a
method to predict tool-life performance for sustainability in near-dry machining by extending a Taylor speedbased dry machining equation. It was reported that the
edge radius of the tool leaves a significant effect on surface integrity of the workpiece and hence on the sustainability of the resulting product.15 Guodong et al.16
proposed a virtual machining model to quantitatively
analyse the sustainability impacts of machining process
and determine a better sustainable machining plan in a
virtual environment before the actual machining is
performed.
The material selection is also notable consideration
in reducing the energy consumption in machining.
However, the choice for material is dictated by the
properties desired by the product, and hence, there is
usually a very limited option for using alternative

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at WEST VIRGINA UNIV on November 17, 2015

868

Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 228(6)

material for improved sustainability. The harder materials offer greater resistance to machining, and hence,
energy consumption is inevitably higher.17
The selection of tool material is also important in
sustainable machining. As discussed earlier, the dry
machining and higher material removal rates (MRRs)
favour the energy sustainability of a machining process;
the cutting tool is preferred to be made of a material
allowing higher cutting speeds and heat resistance. It
has been established that coefficient of friction between
the tool and chip is reduced considerably if a coated
cutting tool is used. Consequently, energy consumed in
overcoming friction is reduced and the machining process is more energy efficient.18,19 In high-speed machining, the cutting temperature does not increase beyond a
certain limit even if the cutting speed continues to
increase but the cutting force is reduced due to softening of the work material.20 Hence, high-speed machining with coated cutting tool under dry or near-dry
conditions is considered as key approach to reduce the
specific cutting energy requirements in machining process accompanied by a benign effect on the
environment.
It was also established that only a small fraction of
total energy requirement of a machining system is
accounted for actual machining, and the dominant
share of energy consumed is used in the start-up and
running the supporting equipment.7,21 The fraction of
energy consumed in actual machining becomes even
smaller at lower MRRs. These analyses suggest that
the energy required in a machining process can be
reduced by designing energy efficient support equipment and removing the material at high rate.

Energy optimization of machining


operations
In most of the study reported in the literature, the
major emphasis has been on highlighting the more general overview of the energy in machining processes.
Some studies have focused on developing cryogenic
coolant system in machining processes. Furthermore,
these studies are based on energy analysis of general
turning or milling process or a single-pass turning process.17 In practical situation, it is often not feasible to
finish a desired shape on the workpiece in one pass. In
most cases in industrial sector, the workpiece is desired
to be machined to the final shape in multiple passes. In
such practical cases, one or more roughing passes are
performed first to remove the bulk of material from the
workpiece. The roughing pass(es) is often followed by
one finishing pass to achieve the desired level of surface
finish on the final shape of the workpiece. To the
knowledge of the authors, there is no study reported in
the literature until now, which provides a comprehensive optimization model for sustainable energy considering the multi-pass turning process to offer a complete
solution to the practical cases of machining.

This study presents a comprehensive model to optimize machining parameters for minimum energy consumption in a multi-pass turning process taking into
account the practical constraints encompassing
machine tool capability, tool replacement time and feasible range of parametric values. In this way, a complete solution from sustainable energy viewpoint is
proposed for a multi-pass turning process under practical constraints.

Energy-based model for turning


In the literature reviewed in the aforementioned sections, there are several approaches proposed to improve
the sustainability of machining processes. However,
most of these approaches revolve around minimization
of coolant use or using innovative coolant systems. But
for a given machine tool system, where redesign of supporting equipment for low-energy consumption is not
possible due to restriction on machine tool design modifications. Furthermore, it is not always possible to eliminate the use of coolant especially in cutting of difficultto-machine alloys where the frequency of cutting tool
failure is likely to rise significantly if the use of coolant
is eliminated. Also, the use of cryogenic liquids is not
always feasible on a large scale as liquefaction process
of the nitrogen or other non-reacting gases itself is an
energy-driven process.
It is therefore of utmost importance to optimize the
machining process under given conditions and constraints for the minimization of the energy consumption by operating the process at optimal parameters.
Currently, the turning process has not been optimized
in broader sense for energy consumption. The available
optimization approaches revolve around more general
aspect of optimization and cover single-pass turning
operation only. However, it is impractical in most of
the cases to finish the desired shape on a workpiece in
one pass. Furthermore, there are different constraints
on the surface roughness requirement in finishing and
roughing pass in addition to the operational and parametric constraints arising from the machine tool capability and stiffness.
It has already been established that in order to optimize the machining parameters for minimum cost, the
total cost of machining is differentiated with respect to
most dominant parameter for tool life, that is, velocity,
and then the optimal tool life is calculated for the minimum cost followed by the determination of optimal
parametric values.22,23 A similar approach has been
proposed for minimum energy approach.17 The model
proposed here takes into account practical constraints
dictated by the operation, tool-life and parametric limitations for a turning process in a broader sense.
The overall energy consumed in a machining process
can be categorized into four constituent energies in a
single pass operation17
E = Ec + EI + ER + ET

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at WEST VIRGINA UNIV on November 17, 2015

Arif et al.

869
ti = nh1 Lt + h2 + h1 Lt + h2

Machining energy
This is the energy consumed in the real machining process per unit piece and is the energy consumed in
powering the machine modules and actual energy consumed in material removal7
2

_ m
Ec = (p0 + kv)t

where p0 (J/min) is the power consumed in powering


the machine modules without performing the machining and with spindle stationary, v_ = fdV (m3/min) is the
volume rate of material removal and k (J/m3) is the specific cutting energy of the material. Here, tm (min) is the
actual time of material removal, V is cutting velocity, d
is depth of cut and f is the feedrate.
The machining time is the time consumed in one finishing pass and n roughing passes, that is23
3

tm = tms + tmr

where tms is the time in one finishing pass and tmr is the
total time consumed in n roughing passes.
In turning operation, the machining time can be calculated as24
pDL
tms =
1000Vs fs
iX
=n
pDL
tmr =
1000Vri fri
i=1

4
5

where D is the diameter (mm) of the workpiece, L is


the machining length (mm) and Vs (m/min) and Vri
(m/min) are the cutting speeds in finishing and ith
roughing pass, respectively,
And hence, equation (3) can be written as follows
tm =

where h1 (min/mm) and h2 (min) are constants related


to tool approach/departure time.
Hence


EI = p0 tp + nh1 Lt + h2 + h1 Lt + h2
10

Energy for tool replacement per unit piece


The tool is replaced when the machine tool modules are
on but spindle is switched off. For turning process,
Shaw26 reported that the tool replacement time per
piece is the product of tool replacement time per edge te
and total number of edges consumed per piece, (tm =T).
Hence, energy consumed during tool replacement,
ER , in turning operation is given as
t 
m
ER = p0 te
11
T

Tool energy per unit piece


Here, Et is defined as the energy footprint of the tool
per edge per piece and represents the energy embodied
into the tool, the energy consumed in the manufacture
of the tool and the energy consumed in any secondary
operation such as coating17
t 
m
Et = Pt
12
T
where Pt is the tool energy per cutting edge and (tm =T)
represents number of cutting edges consumed per piece.

Total energy consumed

iX
=n
pDL
pDL
+
1000Vs fs
1000V
r fr
i=1

Hence
"

iX
=n
pDL
pDL
Ec = p0 + kv_
+
1000Vs fs
1000V
ri fri
i=1

#
7

Machine idle energy per unit piece


As mentioned earlier, in idle state, the energy spent is
equal to the energy required to power the machine
modules and in this state machine spindle is assumed
to be stationary
EI = p0 tl

where tl is the machine idle time, which can be further


subdivided into tp for workpiece loading and unloading, and ti is the tool idle motion time when the tool is
approaching/departing the edge of the workpiece.
Again it can be subdivided into one finishing and n
roughing passes. In the case of n roughing passes25

The total energy represented by equation (1) consumed


in machining per piece is given by combining the four
aforementioned energy equations (7) and (10)(12)
"
#
iX
=n
pDL
pDL
E = p0 + kv_
+
1000Vs fs
1000Vri fri
i=1


+ p0 tp + nh1 Lt + h2 + (h1 Lt + h2 )
t 
t 
m
m
+ p0 te
+ Pt
13
T
T
iX
=n
Eri + p0 tp
14
E = Es +
i=1

where



Pt
p0 te
pDL
Es = p0 + kv_ +
+
+ p0 h1 L + h2
Ts
Ts 1000fs Vs

15



Pt
p0 te
pDL
Eri = p0 + kv_ +
+
+ p0 h1 L + h2
Tri
Tri 1000fri Vri

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at WEST VIRGINA UNIV on November 17, 2015

16

870

Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 228(6)




Optimization approach

Ts =

The objective is to minimize the energy consumed in


the machining process. To achieve this objective, first,
an optimal tool life is for the minimum energy consumption determined by differentiating the total energy
consumption equation followed by the total energy
consumed and the parametric values corresponding to
the minimum energy consumption.
The tool life in a turning operation can be given as a
function of cutting speed, feedrate and depth of cut as27
VT a f b d g = C

17

Here, we assume that the tool life in roughing and finishing are the same for simplification of calculation as
well as this is more practical approach. Practically, the
same tool is used for finishing and roughing with only
process parameters being different. This means as soon
as the tool reaches its life limit for any of the two processes (finishing or roughing), the tool must be replaced
with a new one, and hence, the assumption of having
identical tool life in finishing and roughing is valid.
Hence
Vs Tsa fsb dsg = Vri Tra frib drig = C

18

To optimize the turning process for minimum energy


consumption, the optimal tool life is determined by differentiating equation (13) with respect to cutting velocity and equating the resultant to 0, that is, E=V = 0.
For finishing pass


Pt
p0 t e
pDL
Es = p0 + kv_ +
+
Ts
Ts 1000fs Vs
19
+ p0 h1 L + h2
_ the energy equation
By substituting the value of v,
becomes


Pt
p0 t e
pDL
Es = p0 + kfs ds Vs +
+
Ts
Ts 1000fs Vs
20
+ p0 h1 L + h2

Now differentiating equation (20) with respect to cutting velocity and equating to 0
Es
2
=  p0 f1
s Vs
Vs

a11 ba1 ag
1
Vs
fs
ds
1
=0
+ Pt + p0 te
a
C

By solving further, equation (21) reduces to





C
1
Pt + p0 te
1
=
1 b g
a
p0
Vs a fs a das

21

1
1
a

Pt + p0 te
p0


23

Similarly, for roughing pass (as the tool life is


identical)



1
Pt + p0 te
1
Tr =
24
a
p0
It follows from equation (24) that the optimum tool
life depends only on the velocity exponent in tool-life
equation, machine idle power, tool energy footprint
and tool change time. This equation for an individual
cut is identical to the equation for single pass turning
operation for a given depth of cut.17 However, in multipass turning operation, the number of passes required
to finish a certain diameter on a cylindrical workpiece
makes the difference in the parametric optimization
scheme, which is addressed in this study.

Constraints
The typical constraints in a machining process are presented in the reported literatures, which are widely
acceptable.23 The same are applied here and the details
are mentioned in the following.

Finishing pass constraints


The constraints applied on finishing pass are described
in the following.
Parametric constraints. The parametric constraints for finishing pass are given as follows
Vmin 4Vs 4Vmax
fmin 4fs 4fmax
dmin 4ds 4dmax

25a
25b
25c

Tool-life constraints.
C
C
4fsb dsg 4
Vmax Tas
Vmin Tas

26

Surface finish constraints. If Rs, max is in micro-meter


r
re Rs, max
fs 4
27
32:1
Cutting force constraints.
F = k1 fsm dsn 4Fmax

22

The left-hand side of equation (22) is equal to tool-life


equation and hence

28

Cutting power constraints.


P=

FVs
k1 fsm dsn Vs
=
4Pmax
60000h
60000h

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at WEST VIRGINA UNIV on November 17, 2015

29

Arif et al.

871

Roughing pass constraints

Table 1. Parametric values and constraints.

The constraints applied on roughing pass are described


in the following.

Parameter/constant

Symbol (units)

Value

Idle power
Specific cutting energy
Tool replacement time
Tool energy
Nose radius of tool
Workpiece diameter
Workpiece cutting length
Tool change time
Preparation time
Tool return time
Tool advance/return time
Maximum cutting speed
Minimum cutting speed
Maximum feedrate
Minimum feedrate
Maximum depth of cut
for finishing
Minimum depth of cut for
finishing
Maximum depth of cut
for roughing
Minimum depth of cut for
roughing
Surface roughness
requirement
for finishing
Surface finishing
requirement
for roughing
Maximum cutting force
Maximum cutting power
Machine tool efficiency
Tool-life equation
constant
and exponents

p0 (kWh)
K (MJ/m3)
T (min)
Pt (MJ/insert)
re (mm)
D (mm)
L (mm)
te (min/edge)
tp (min/piece)
h1 (min/mm)
h2 (min)
Vmax (m/min)
Vmin (m/min)
fmax (mm/rev)
fmin (mm/rev)
ds,max (mm)

3.594
5250
As calculated
5.3
1.2
50
300
1.5
0.75
0.0007
0.3
500
5
0.9
0.1
2.0

ds,min (mm)

0.5

dr,max (mm)

4.0

dr,max (mm)

1.0

Rs,max (mm)

2.5

Rr,max (mm)

25

Fmax (N)
Pmax (kW)
h
C
a
b
g
k1
m
n

1960
5
0.85
227
0.2
0.35
0.15
1058
0.75
0.95

Parametric constraints.
Vmin 4Vri 4Vmax

30a

fmin 4fri 4fmax

30b

dmin 4dri 4dmax

30c

Tool-life constraints.
C
Vmax Tar

4frib drig 4

C
Vmin Tar

31

Surface finish constraints. If Rr, max is in micro-meter


r
re Rr, max
fri 4
32
32:1
Cutting force constraints.
F = k1 frim drin 4Fmax

33

Cutting power constraints.


P=

FVri
k1 frim drin Vri
=
4Pmax
60000h
60000h

34

Roughing and finishing pass mutual relationship


The sum of depth of cut for one finishing pass and all
roughing passes (nr) must be equal to the total-depthto-be-removed, dt, that is
dt = ds +

iX
= nr

dri

35

i=1

Model solution
Based on the nature of problem stated, non-linear programming is used for solving this model. The objective
function is to minimize the dual energy function represented by equation (14) and find the optimum values of
Vs , fs , ds , Vri , fri , dri and nr for a multi-pass turning operation. Subscripts s and r denote finishing and roughing
pass respectively.
The data and parametric constraints considered in
this study are widely valid for a variety of turning processes.23 Some other authors, in the past, have used
these data and parametric constraints to validate their
machining cost models.25,28 The same applicable data
and parametric constraints are considered in our study
for validation of presented model as the major

Constants and exponents


in cutting force
and power equations

emphasis is on providing the methodology and


approach. Gutowski et al.7 have reported the typical
electrical requirements of a turning machine when not
in a cutting state, that is, p0. The specific cutting energy
of alloy steel is available in the literature, and its values
remain reasonable constant within the operating window of the range of feedrate considered in this study.
The specific cutting energy is reported for a variety of
practical materials in Geoffrey and Winston.29 The
data considered are depicted in Table 1. The non-linear
programming software LINGO is used for generating
the solutions by solving the individual and dual energy
functions.
Using the known values of all factors in the optimal
tool-life equation (24), the optimal tool life, for both
finishing and roughing pass, comes out to be
T = 30:5779 min

It is important to mention here that optimum tool


life for minimum cost criteria using the same

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at WEST VIRGINA UNIV on November 17, 2015

872

Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 228(6)

Table 2. Optimal parametric values for finishing pass.

Table 3. Optimal parametric values for roughing pass.

ds(mm)

Vs-opt (m/min)

fs-opt (mm/rev)

Es-opt (MJ/piece)

dr (mm)

Vr-opt (m/min)

fr-opt (mm/rev)

Er-opt (MJ/piece)

0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0

192.4159
187.2254
182.9454
179.3175
176.1772
173.4148
170.9532
168.7365
166.7227
164.8796
163.1821
161.6100
160.1470
158.7798
157.4973
156.2902

0.3057
0.3057
0.3057
0.3057
0.3057
0.3057
0.3057
0.3057
0.3057
0.3057
0.3057
0.3057
0.3057
0.3057
0.3057
0.3057

0.4534659
0.4845004
0.5147311
0.5443595
0.5735185
0.6023005
0.6307725
0.6589850
0.6869765
0.7147777
0.7424129
0.7699021
0.7972618
0.8245056
0.8516454
0.8786909

1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.0

118.8390
117.1521
115.6330
114.2530
112.9900
111.8267
110.7493
109.7468
108.8099
107.9310
107.1037
106.7830
108.2501
109.6709
111.0486
112.3864
113.6868
114.9524
116.1852
117.3874
118.5605
119.7064
120.8264
121.9219
122.9943
124.0446
125.0739
126.0831
127.0733
128.0452
128.9997

0.9000000
0.9000000
0.9000000
0.9000000
0.9000000
0.9000000
0.9000000
0.9000000
0.9000000
0.9000000
0.9000000
0.8889611
0.8380922
0.7922069
0.7506307
0.7128036
0.6782570
0.6465961
0.6174859
0.5906403
0.5658139
0.5427949
0.5213994
0.5014676
0.4828593
0.4654514
0.4491355
0.4338155
0.4194060
0.4058311
0.3930229

0.480255
0.506969
0.533555
0.560032
0.586414
0.612714
0.638941
0.665105
0.691211
0.717265
0.743272
0.770317
0.801565
0.832805
0.864038
0.895264
0.926483
0.957696
0.988903
1.020104
1.051299
1.082488
1.113673
1.144852
1.176026
1.207195
1.238360
1.269520
1.300675
1.331826
1.362973

constraints comes out to be T = 26 min. This shows


that there is significant difference in both approaches,
that is, minimum cost machining and minimum energy
machining.

For finishing pass


Having applied all the relevant constraints, the optimal
values of parameters for finishing pass alone are
obtained by solving equation (15) using LINGO software. The optimal values of the parameters obtained
are given in Table 2.

For roughing pass


Having applied all the relevant constraints, the optimal
values of parameters for roughing pass alone are calculated by solving equation (16) using the software
LINGO, and the values are given in Table 3.

For multi-passes
The complete solution giving the optimal values of all
the turning parameters including number of rough
passes required and the optimal value of energy consumed for different total-depth-to-be-removed dt is
shown in Table 4: in this case, LINGO generates simultaneous dual optimization of the overall energy function represented by equation (14).

Discussion on results
Finishing pass
The model for finishing pass is solved by non-linear
programming using software LINGO. The optimum
values of energy consumed within the allowed range of
depth of cut are given in Table 2. This table also shows
the optimal values of cutting velocity Vs-opt and
feedrate fs-opt at each instant of depth of cut. An increment of 0.1 mm has been used in the depth of cut values

for the illustration purpose. The non-linear programming model can be solved for any small increment or
decimal points in depth of cut value, which is programmable on the computer numerical control (CNC)
machine tool depending upon the resolution and positioning accuracy of the machine tool. It follows from
this table that optimal value of feedrate is governed by
the constraint arising from surface roughness requirement and hence it stays constant. A relax constraint for
surface roughness would also allow variation in the
optimal value of the feedrate as we see in roughing pass
case. It follows from plot in Figure 1 that Vs-opt
decreases as a power function of depth of cut with
increase in depth of cut in finishing pass. This is
because the feedrate is fixed due to surface roughness
as discussed earlier in addition to all other factors,
which remain constant in optimal energy equation.
Hence, for example, under consideration under the
given set of constraints and conditions, the optimal
velocity is the decreasing power function of depth of
cut with exponent equal to the depth of cut exponent
considered in tool-life equation. The plot in Figure 1
also shows the variation in optimal energy, Es-opt with
depth of cut in a finishing pass and it is noted that
Es-opt increases with increase in depth of cut due to
increase in MRR enabled by increasing depth of cut.
Another interesting scenario is the analysis of overall
specific energy (OSE) in finishing, Eos-s, variation with

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at WEST VIRGINA UNIV on November 17, 2015

Arif et al.

873

Table 4. Optimal parameters for multi-pass turning.


dt (mm)

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

15.0

20.0

2.0
0.3057
156.2902
1
4.0
0.3930
128.997

0.5
0.3057
192.4158
2
4.0
0.3930
128.9997
3.5
0.4655
124.0446

2.0
0.3057
156.2902
2
4.0
0.3930
128.9997
4.0
0.3930
128.9997

2.0
0.3057
156.2902
3
3.96
0.3980
128.6217
3.96
0.3980
128.6217
2.08
0.9
106.4783

2.0
0.3057
156.2902
4
4.0
0.3930
128.9997
4.0
0.3930
128.9997
2.92
0.5854
117.6285
2.08
0.9000
106.4783

2.40339

3.185364

3.766368

4.50552

5.556777

2.0
0.3057
156.2902
5
4.0
0.3930
128.9997
4.0
0.3930
128.9997
4.0
0.3930
128.9997
3.92
0.4031
128.2410
2.08
0.9000
106.4783
7.231464

Parameters
ds-opt
fs-opt
Vs-opt
nr
dr1-opt
fr1-opt
Vr1-opt
dr2-opt
fr2-opt
Vr2-opt
dr3-opt
fr3-opt
Vr3-opt
dr4-opt
Fr4-opt
Vr4-opt
dr5-opt
Fr5-opt
Vr5-opt
Et-opt (MJ/piece)

which plots both Eos-s and MRR at different values of


depth of cut in finishing pass. This is because removing
material at a higher rate decreasing the machining time,
which means the non-cutting modules (which makes a
significant proportion of total energy consumed) will
be accounted for a shorter time, and the overall energy
consumed in the process is lower than that occurring at
lower MRR. This explains although variable part of
energy consumption increases with depth of cut, the
dividend arising from reducing the constant part of the
overall energy consumption by completing the machining in shorter times is more dominant.
Figure 1. Variation of optimal parameters with depth of cut in
finishing pass.

total material removed at corresponding depth of cut in


finishing pass. The term Eos-s is different from optimal
energy in way that it is obtained by dividing the optimal
energy at each depth of cut by the total amount of
material removed at the corresponding depth of cut in
finishing pass. Hence, Eos-s also involves the energy
consumed by non-cutting modules of the machine tool
and is, therefore, also different from specific energy of
the material, which takes into account purely the rate
of energy consumed in the cutting operation divided by
the MRR. It is significant to note that Eos-s is decreasing with rate of material removal enabled by increase in
depth of cut in finishing pass, as shown in Figure 2,

Roughing pass
Besides for finishing pass, the roughing pass problem is
also solved by non-linear programming using the software LINGO, and the optimal values of cutting velocity and feedrate are depicted in Table 4 within the
permissible range of depth of cut and other constraints.
It follows from the plot that the optimal cutting velocity
first decreases as a power function of depth of cut in
roughing with the same exponent used in tool-life equation. This decreasing relationship exists only within a
certain bound of depth of cut ranging from 1.0 to 2.0
mm. From depth of cut value of 2.1 mm onwards, the
optimal cutting velocity, Vr-opt, increases sharply. The
first part of optimal velocity and depth of cut relationship is similar to finishing pass due to a constant optimal feedrate fr-opt, existing within this range of depth

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at WEST VIRGINA UNIV on November 17, 2015

874

Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 228(6)

Figure 2. Variation of optimal specific energy and optimal material removal rate with depth of cut in finishing pass.
MRR: material removal rate.

Vr-opt= 85.942dr 0.293


(1Vr-opt2)

fr-opt = 2.2762dr-1.267
(2.1 fr-opt 4.0)

Vr-opt = 118.84dr-0.15
(1 Vr-opt 2)

fr-opt(mm/rev)

Vr-opt(m/min)

fr-opt = 0.9 (1 fr-opt 2)

dr (mm)

Figure 3. Variation of optimal parameters with depth of cut in roughing pass.

of cut, which renders the optimal cutting velocity variation governed by depth of cut in roughing, and hence,
the power exponent is equal to the exponent for depth
in tool-life equation, as plotted and shown in Figure 3.
This region is also explained in another way. That is,
within a given bound of MRR at a given depth of cut,
the increase in MRR is achieved by maximizing the feedrate rather than cutting velocity as tool life is more
sensitive to the cutting velocity than the feedrate.
Hence, in this way, the model tends to economize the
tool life. This maximization of feedrate is determined
by the most dominant constraint on the feedrate, which
is the surface roughness in our case. Once, the feedrate
is increased beyond a certain limit, increase in MRR is
not permissible by increasing feedrate as feedrate has
already been increased to the value allowed by the most
dominant constraint on feedrate. Hence, further
increase in MRR in roughing pass must be achieved by
increasing the cutting velocity alone, which means feedrate is to be adjusted to a new value (lower than the
maximum permissible) to get the optimal tool life with
respect to the minimum energy consumption and so as
to get the optimal energy consumed. That is why when
cutting velocity initiates an upward surge in the plot,

Figure 4. Variation of optimal specific energy with depth of cut


in roughing pass.

the feedrate starts decreasing from the same point


onwards. Since now both optimal cutting velocity and
optimal feedrate are being varied iteratively at a given
depth of cut in roughing pass, the further variation or
trend of plot is no more governed by the cutting depth
exponent in tool-life equation rather it is governed by
an iteratively optimized function. Furthermore, the
optimal energy consumed Er-opt increases linearly with

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at WEST VIRGINA UNIV on November 17, 2015

Arif et al.

875

Figure 5. Variation of optimal specific energy and optimal material removal rate with depth of cut in roughing.
MRR: material removal rate.

Figure 6. Variation of overall optimal specific energy with


total-depth-to-be-removed in roughing pass.
MRR: material removal rate.

increase in depth of cut in roughing pass similar to that


in finishing pass and this is depicted in Figure 4.
The plot in Figure 5 shows the variation of OSE for
roughing pass Eos-r. It follows that Eos-r decreases
sharply with MRR up to certain level, and then it
almost flattens with very little further decrease. This
refers to the fact that above a certain critical depth of
cut in roughing, both MRR and Eos-r settle to the reasonably stable values.

be removed (dt). The graph shows that Eos-t increases


with increase in dt. This is because the number of
roughing passes or number of overall passes is also
increasing as the dt increases, which means after performing first roughing pass, the diameter of the workpiece reduces and an equivalent depth of cut in
roughing will now remove less material from a reduced
diameter workpiece. Hence, Eos-t will increase as the
same amount of energy consumed is accounted for less
material removal. Hence, the Eos-t is always like to rise
with increase in number of overall passes.
An interesting observation is that as dt = 10.0 mm,
Eos-t is less than Eos-t at dt = 8.0 mm. This is because,
in both cases, the total number of passes required to finish the workpiece is the same. However, in the case of
dt = 10.0 mm, based on plot in Figure 6, the combination of three overall passes is such that it accounts for
the minimum energy consumed in each of these passes.
But in the case of dt = 8.0 mm, due to less material to
be removed, the combination of three passes cannot be
the same as in dt = 8.0 mm and hence Eos-t for dt =
10.0 mm is slightly less than that for dt = 8.0 mm. It is
concluded from this observation that the total-depthto-be-removed has a dominant effect on Eos-t in turning
where equal numbers of total passes are required to
complete the machining process.

Effect of tool replacement time


Overall turning operation
The overall turning operation is based on the hypothesis of one finishing pass and one or more roughing
pass(es). The non-linear programming gives a combination of one finishing pass and one or more roughing
passes for optimum energy consumption in the overall
operation to remove a given depth of material.
In Figure 6, OSE for the overall turning process,
Eos-t, is plotted for different values of material depth to

Since the model presented here is based upon the optimal tool-life criteria for the minimum energy consumption, the determination of the effect of tool replacement
time serves two purposes; it verifies the best tool
replacement time for the minimum energy consumption
in the turning process, and it also provides an insight
into the variation in the minimum energy consumed if
a different tool replacement time constraints were to be
implemented. Due to practical constraint such as

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at WEST VIRGINA UNIV on November 17, 2015

876

Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 228(6)

Es-opt for ds=2.0mm, (MJ/piece)

0.891

0.466

ds=0.5mm

ds=2.0mm

0.464

0.889

0.462

0.887
0.885

0.46

0.883
0.458

0.881
0.879

0.456

0.877

Es-opt for ds=0.5mm, (MJ/piece)

0.893

0.454

0.875
0.873

0.452
5

15

25

35

45

55

65

Tool replacement me (min)

Figure 7. Effect of tool replacement time on the optimal


specific energy in finishing pass.
MRR: material removal rate.

inability of the cutting tool to produce a desired minimum level of surface roughness after a certain machining time despite the flank wear is less than the standard
value adopted for the determination of the cutting tool
life. This is a very practical consideration when a very
low value of surface roughness is desired in the finishing pass. Depending upon the surface finish requirement in the finishing pass, a certain tool replacement
time can be enforced as a constraint on the standard
tool life calculated by the minimum energy criteria. In
some cases, a preventive tool replacement strategy is
implemented where a tool is planned to be replaced
before the optimal tool life to avoid any risk of part
rejection due to failure to produce the desired finish on
the part by the tool having reached very close to its life.
The plot in Figure 7 shows the effect of tool
replacement time on the optimal energy Es-opt in finishing pass at two given depth of cuts. The plot verifies that minima of the curves occur at Ts = 30.779
min, which is the unconstrained tool life obtained
from the minimum energy criteria. It follows from the
plot that the optimal energy increases on both ends of
the unconstrained tool life. However, the optimal
energy increases much steeper if the tool is replaced
earlier than the unconstrained tool replacement time
compared to that if the tool is replaced after the
unconstrained too-life. This refers to the fact that
super finishing process tends to consume more unit
energy than the coarser or rougher process.

Conclusion
In this study, a comprehensive model has been presented to optimize the machining parameters in a multipass turning operation for minimal energy consumption
considering the practical constraints. The following
conclusions are drawn from this study:


In finishing pass, the optimal cutting velocity


decreases as a power function of depth of cut.

For finishing process, the OSEs decreases and the


optimal MRR increases with increase in depth of
cut.
In finishing pass, the removal of material at a
higher rate decreases the energy consumed by the
machine modules (the constant part of overall
energy) due to decreased machining time, which, in
turn, decreases the overall specific cutting energy.
In roughing process, the optimal cutting velocity
decreases up to a certain threshold value of depth
of cut and then increases. The threshold value is
governed by the most dominant parametric constraint imposed.
In roughing process, the optimal feedrate remains
constant up to a certain threshold value of depth of
cut and then decreases.
In roughing process, the optimal specific cutting
energy decreases up to a certain threshold value of
depth of cut and then tends to remain reasonably
constant with further increase in depth of cut.
In roughing process, the optimal MRR increases
up to a certain threshold value of depth of cut and
then tends to remain reasonably constant with further increase in depth of cut.
In multi-pass turning operation, the overall specific
cutting energy is less for higher total-depth-to-beremoved if the optimal number of passes is equal.

Declaration of conflicting interests


The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit
sectors.
References
1. Westkamper E and Alting A. Life cycle management and
assessment: approaches and visions towards sustainable
manufacturing. CIRP Ann: Manuf Techn 2000; 49:
501526.
2. Gaussin M, Hu G, Abolghasem S, et al. Assessing the
environmental footprint of manufactured products: a
survey of current literature. Int J Prod Econ 2013; 46:
515523.
3. Jeswiet J and Kara S. Carbon emissions and CES in
manufacturing. CIRP Ann: Manuf Techn 2008; 57:
1720.
4. US Energy Information Administration. Annual energy
review 2011. DOE/EIA-0384(2011), September 2012.
Washington, DC: US Energy Information Administration.
5. Pusavec F and Kopac J. Achieving and implementation
of sustainability principles in machining processes. Adv
Prod Eng Manag 2009; 4: 151160.
6. Dahmus JB and Gutowski TG. An environmental analysis of machining. In: Proceedings of IMECE 2004, ASME
international mechanical engineering congress and RD&D
expo 2004, Anaheim, CA, 1319 November 2004, pp.1
10. New York: ASME.

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at WEST VIRGINA UNIV on November 17, 2015

Arif et al.

877

7. Gutowski T, Jeffrey D and Thiriez A. Electrical energy


requirements for manufacturing processes. In: 13th CIRP
international conference of life cycle engineering, Lueven,
31 May2 June 2006. CIRP International, 2006.
8. Jawahir IS and Jayal AD. Product and process innovation for modelling of sustainable machining processes.
In: Seliger G (ed.) Advances in sustainable manufacturing:
proceedings of the 8th global conference on sustainable
manufacturing. Berlin: Springer, 2011, pp.301307.
9. Granados S, Jawahir IS and Fernandez J. A comprehensive criterion for sustainability evaluation of machining
processes. In: 7th Global conference of sustainable manufacturing, IIT Madras, Chennai, India, 24 December
2009, pp.385391.
10. Baniszewski B. An environmental impact analysis of grinding. BSc Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA, 2005.
11. Kurd M. The material and energy flow through the abrasive
water-jet machining and recycling processes. BSc Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2004.
12. Hong SY, Markus I and Jeong W-c. New cooling
approach and tool life improvement in cryogenic machining of titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V. Int J Mach Tool Manu
2001; 41: 22452260.
13. Um J, Chow LC and Jawahir IS. An experimental investigation of the application of the spray cooling method in
stainless steel machining. In: ASME IMECE MED, 1995,
vol. 2, pp.165178. New York: ASME.
14. Marksberry P and Jawahir IS. A comprehensive tool-life
performance model in near-dry machining for sustainable
manufacturing. Int J Mach Tool Manu 2008; 48: 878886.
15. Outeiro JC, Kandibanda R, Pina JC, et al. Size-effects and
surface integrity in machining and their influence on product sustainability. Int J Sustain Manuf 2010; 2: 112126.
16. Guodong S, Deogratias K and Kevin L. A virtual
machining model for sustainability analysis. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2010 international design engineering
technical conferences & computers and information in

17.
18.

19.

20.
21.

22.

23.

24.
25.

26.
27.
28.

29.

engineering conference, Montreal, QC, Canada, 1518


August 2010, IDETC/CIE 2010, pp.875883. New York:
ASME.
Rajemi MF. Energy analysis in turning and milling. PhD
Thesis, University of Manchester, Manchester, 2010.
Derflinger V, Brandle H and Zimmermann H. New hard/
lubricant coating for dry machining. Surf Coat Tech
1999; 113: 286292.
Grzesik W. Friction behaviour of heat isolating coatings
in machining: mechanical, thermal and energy-based considerations. Int J Mach Tool Manu 2003; 43: 145150.
Schulz H and Moriwaki T. High-speed machining. CIRP
Ann: J Manuf Techn 1992; 41: 637643.
Gutowski T, Murphy C, Allen D, et al. Environmentally
benign manufacturing: observations from Japan, Europe
and the United States. J Clean Prod 2005; 13: 117.
Gilbert WW. Economics of machining. In: American
Society for Metals (ed.) Machining theory and practice.
Cleveland, OH: American Society for Metals, 1950,
pp.465485.
Shint YC and Roor YS. Optimization of machining conditions with practical constraints. Int J Prod Res 1992; 30:
29072919.
Hitomi K. Manufacturing systems engineering. London:
Taylor & Francis, 1979.
Libao A. Optimization of machining parameters in multipass turning and milling operations. MSc Thesis, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2003.
Shaw MC. Metal cutting principle. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1984.
Armarego EJA and Brown RH. The machining of metals.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1969.
Gupta R, Batra JL and Lal GK. Profit rate maximization
in multi-pass turning with constraints: a geometric programming approach. Int J Prod Res 1994; 32: 15571569.
Geoffrey B and Winston A. Fundamentals of machining
and machine tools. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor
& Francis Group, 2006.

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at WEST VIRGINA UNIV on November 17, 2015