Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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
Arif et al.
867
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
868
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
16
870
Optimization approach
Ts =
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
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
21
1
1
a
Pt + p0 te
p0
23
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.
25a
25b
25c
Tool-life constraints.
C
C
4fsb dsg 4
Vmax Tas
Vmin Tas
26
22
28
FVs
k1 fsm dsn Vs
=
4Pmax
60000h
60000h
29
Arif et al.
871
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
30b
30c
Tool-life constraints.
C
Vmax Tar
4frib drig 4
C
Vmin Tar
31
33
FVri
k1 frim drin Vri
=
4Pmax
60000h
60000h
34
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
872
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
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
Arif et al.
873
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)
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
874
Figure 2. Variation of optimal specific energy and optimal material removal rate with depth of cut in finishing pass.
MRR: material removal rate.
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)
dr (mm)
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,
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.
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
876
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
0.893
0.454
0.875
0.873
0.452
5
15
25
35
45
55
65
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:
Arif et al.
877
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.