Accepted Manuscript

Influence Factors and Operational Strategies for Energy Efficiency Improvement

of CNC Machining

Lingling Li, Congbo Li, Ying Tang, Qian Yi

PII: S0959-6526(17)31016-8

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.084

Reference: JCLP 9623

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 21 March 2017

Revised Date: 03 May 2017

Accepted Date: 14 May 2017

Please cite this article as: Lingling Li, Congbo Li, Ying Tang, Qian Yi, Influence Factors and
Operational Strategies for Energy Efficiency Improvement of CNC Machining, Journal of Cleaner
Production (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.084

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Graphical Abstract:
We investigated the energy consumption characteristics of CNC machining process
and presented the energy efficiency models of CNC machining by adopting three
different definitions, i.e., instantaneous energy efficiency, energy utilization ratio and
specific energy efficiency. The critical factors which influence the energy efficiency
of CNC machining are exploited through a theoretical analysis. For each influence
factor, the operation strategies for energy efficiency improvement of CNC machining
are analyzed at an operational level. The future research directions for energy
efficiency improvement of CNC machining are identified and summarized through a
review and research framework.
Influence Factors

Design Strategies
Standby power Pst

Design and improvement of

machine tool structure Cutting-related auxiliary
power Pauc Energy Efficiency
Switch-off control of auxiliary
devices Unload power Pu Instantaneous
energy efficiency
η(t)
Material removal power
Operation Strategies Pc

Energy utilziation
Cutting parameter optimization Setup time tsetup ratio
U

Toolpath optimization Idle time tidle

Specific Energy
Consumption
SEC
Process planning Air cutting time tair

Cutting time tcutting

Job shop scheduling

Tool life T
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Research Highlights:

 The energy consumption characteristic of CNC machining process is explicitly

analyzed.

 The influence factors for energy efficiency improvement are exploited through a
theoretical analysis.

 A series of operational strategies for energy efficiency improvement of CNC

machining are presented through a review and research framework.

 The future research directions are identified and summarized for more energy
savings.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Influence Factors and Operational Strategies for

Energy Efficiency Improvement of CNC
Machining
Lingling Li a, Congbo Li a*, Ying Tang b, Qian Yi a
a State Key Laboratory of Mechanical Transmission, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044,
China;
b Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ 08028,

USA

* Corresponding author. Email: congboli@cqu.edu.cn

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Influence Factors and Operational Strategies for

Energy Efficiency Improvement of CNC Machining
Lingling Li, Congbo Li, Ying Tang, Qian Yi

Abstract—CNC machining is one of the major activities in the manufacturing industry which is responsible for a
significant portion of the total consumed energy. However, the energy efficiency of CNC machining is surprisingly
low. It is important to provide valuable insights for practitioners to enhance energy efficiency of CNC machining. This
paper analyzes the energy consumption characteristics of CNC machining process and exploits the influence factors for
energy efficiency improvement through a theoretical analysis. A series of operational strategies for energy efficiency
improvement of CNC machining are presented through a review and research framework. The future research
directions are identified and summarized for more energy savings.
Key words: CNC machining; Energy Efficiency; Influence Factors; Operational Strategy

1. INTRODUCTION
Due to the increasing concerns on fossil fuel depletion and climate change, modern manufacturing is facing several
challenges to reduce energy consumption of production. 31% of the United States’ total energy usage is due to
industrial activities, of which manufacturing, plays a crucial role. CNC machining is one of the major activities in
the manufacturing industry which is responsible for a significant portion of the total consumed energy. However,
the energy efficiency of CNC machining is surprisingly low. As reported in a study presented by Gutowski et al.
(2006), in an automotive machining line only 14.8% of the total energy consumption of machine tools is used for
actual machining. Therefore, it is important to explore the characteristics of energy consumption of CNC
machining and provide valuable insights for practitioners to enhance energy efficiency of CNC machining.
The energy characteristics of CNC machining tend to be very complex, varying significantly with respect to
device specification and diversity of operational processes. A perusal of current literature focused on energy
demand modelling for CNC machining. Gutowski et al. (2006) was the first group that studied the energy
requirement of a machining process as an integral of a constant energy usage and a variable one. The fixed energy
is demanded by the auxiliary devices of machines to ensure its operational readiness, while the variable energy
consumption is dependent on its processing rate. A similar study was conducted by Kara and Li (2011) where the
specific energy consumption of a machining process is evaluated based on a constant and a variable portion with
related to material removal rate. These mathematical models provided invaluable basis for in-depth energy analysis
of CNC machining.
A second group of researches focused on assessment of energy efficiency of CNC machining from different
angel. For instance, Hu et al. (2012) proposes an on-line approach to monitor the energy efficiency of machine
tools. They modeled the total machine-tool energy consumption as an integral of two parts, i.e. constant energy
consumption and variable energy consumption. The former is measured in advance and stored in database, and the
latter is estimated on-line through a power balance equation. Wang et al. (2013) assessed the energy efficiency of
CNC machining at three layers (i.e., a task layer, a manufacturing unit layer and a machine tool layer). The energy
indexes for each layer are obtained off-line through with theoretical formulas. Aramcharoen and Mativenga (2014)
presented a method for predicting energy consumption of a machining processes and toolpath generation is
identified as an opportunity for energy saving. Xie et al. (2016) presented a model for predicting the specific energy
consumption of a machining process by considering machine specifications, workpiece material and cutting
parameters.
A third group of researchers presented a review and research framework to explore the methods and
technologies for energy efficiency improvement of manufacturing system. For instance, Zhou et al. (2015)
presented the energy efficiency models of machine tools through a comprehensive literature review. They
suggested that the energy efficiency can be improved from the aspects of design and use of machine tools. Yoon et
al. (2015) reviewed the state-of-the-art technologies for energy saving in machining process. A similar study was
conducted by Zhang (2014) where an overview of the state of the art in energy-efficient techniques of
manufacturing is presented and the involved challenges were analyzed. Peng and Xu (2014) presented a critical
review towards energy-efficient machining from process planning and production scheduling perspective. Duflou
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

et al. (2012) presented a systematical approach for energy-efficient manufacturing at different system levels (i.e.,
unit process level, multi-machine level, multi-facility level, etc.).
It is interesting to notice that various technologies and methods are presented and identified in the existing work
for energy efficient manufacturing. While each angle offers a unique perspective of energy characteristics of
machines tool level, machining process level and machining workshop level, very little has been done to
systematically explore the critical factors and the corresponding strategies for energy efficiency improvement of
CNC machining process. Motivated by the observation, this paper tackles the challenge and explicitly studies the
complex characteristics of energy consumption of CNC machining process, based on which the critical influence
factors and a series of strategies are analyzed to improve the energy efficiency at an operational level. The rest of
the paper is organized as follows. Section II analyzes the energy consumption characteristics and presents the
detailed energy efficiency model. Section III exploits the critical factors for energy efficiency improvement through
a theoretical analysis and proposes the corresponding strategies for efficiency improvement. Section IV presents a
review and research framework for energy efficient CNC machining and identifies the future research directions.
2. ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF CNC MACHINING PROCESS
A. Energy Consumption Characteristics of CNC Machining Process
The energy characteristics of machining process tend to be very complex. One of our prior work, as presented in Li
et al. (2016a), explicitly analyzed the temporal energy requirements of CNC machining by dividing the entire
machining process into five stages, i.e., machine startup, standby state, spindle acceleration/deceleration, air cutting
when there is no load applied to the cutting tool, cutting when the motion of the cutting tool or the axes results in
material removal of the workpiece. Fig.1 shows the power profile of a machine tool during a machining process.
Power(w)
Spindle acceleration
Spindle deceleration

E standby
Startup
Cutting
Air cutting E air
Standby
Pc + Pa E cutting

Pauc + Pu
Pst
tstandby tair tcutting
Time (s)
Fig. 1. Power Profile of a machine tool during a machining process.

Material removal power Pc

Additional load loss power Pa

Coolant motor
Cutting related Cooling motor
auxiliary power
Chip conveyer motor
Pauc
……
Cutting stage

Mechanical transmission of
feed driving systems
Air cutting stage

Unload power Servo motors of feed axis

Pu Mechanical transmission of
spindle system
Spindle motor

Inverters
Standby stage

Servo drives
Standby power
Monitor
Pst
CNC system

lighting

……

Fig. 2. Power composition of a CNC milling process.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The power structures at a given time period varies, but in general consists of standby power (Pst), unload power
(Pu), cutting related auxiliary power (Pauc), material removal power (Pc) and additional load loss (Pa). The detailed
power consumption with related to various machining stages is given in Fig. 2. The standby power consumption
(Pst) is the power consumed by the startup-related auxiliary devices (i.e., monitor, lighting, etc.) of a machine tool
to ensure its operational readiness. The auxiliary power Pauc refers to the power consumed by the cutting-related
auxiliary devices (i.e., cooling motor, chip conveyer motor, etc.) which are turned on during material removal
process. The unload power (Pu) is required by the mechanical transmissions of spindle systems and feed driving
system when no-load is applied to the cutting tool. The material removal power Pc is closely related to the material
removal rate MRR (mm3/min) and can be calculated as Pc=kMRR, where k is the specific energy (J/mm3)
dependent on workpiece hardness and cutting tool material. The additional load loss power Pa can be calculated as
a linear function of cutting power, i.e., Pa=a0Pc, where a0 is the additional load loss coefficient. Interesting readers
can refer to our previous work (Li et al. 2016a) for more detailed descriptions.
Given that the time for machine startup and spindle acceleration/deceleration are fairly short, their impacts on
energy consumption of machining are considered negligible. In the standby state, the machine tool consumes a
constant level of power consumption during three different time periods: during idle time in waiting for the
upcoming machining tasks (or operations), and during setup time for workpiece and tool setup, during tool change
due to tool wear. Thus, this section models the total energy consumption (Etotal) of a machine tool as the integral of
five energy components: (1) Eidle the energy during machine idle state in waiting for the upcoming machining task,
(2) Estandby the energy consumed during standby stage for workpiece and tool setup in performing two adjacent
operations, (3) Eair the energy of air cutting stage, (4) Ecutting the energy of cutting stage and (5) Etc the energy
demanded by tool change due to tool wear. The detailed model is given in Eq. 1.
Etotal  Eidle  E setup  Eair  Ecutting  Etc
   
 Pst  tidle  Pst  t setup  Pst  Pauc  Pu  t air  Pst  Pauc  Pu  Pc  Pa  t cutting  Pst  ttc
t cutting
 Pst  tidle  Pst  t setup  P st  Pauc  Pu  t air  [P
st 
 Pauc  Pu  t cutting  (1  c0 )  Pc  t cutting ]  Pst  t ptc
T
(1)
where tidle is the idle time of machine tool during standby state in waiting for the arrival of the upcoming machining
task. tsetup is the standby time period of a machine tool for workpiece setup when two consecutive operations are not
performed on the same machine and tool setup (or change) when two adjacent operations use different cutting
tools, i.e., tsetup= tws+ tts. tws is workpiece setup time. tts is tool setup/change time . ttc is the time for tool change due
to tool wear which can be calculated based on the cutting time to the tool life, i.e., ttc = tptc tcutting/T, where tptc is the
per tool change time and T is the tool life. tair is the air cutting time and tcutting is the cutting time.
Given that Pc=kMRR, the material removal energy (Ec) can be calculated as Ec=Pctcutting=kMRV, where MRV is
material removal volume (mm3) and is a fixed value for a given workpiece. The total energy (Etotal) in Eq. 1 can be
also modeled as follows.

    t
Etotal  Pst  tidle  Pst  t setup  Pst  Pauc  Pair  tair  Pst  Pauc  Pu  tcutting  (1  c0 )  k  MRV  Pst  t ptc cutting (2)
T
B. Energy Efficiency Models of CNC Machining Process
Energy efficiency reveals the relationship between the effective output energy and the input energy during a
machining process. There are three commonly used energy efficiency definitions, i.e., instantaneous energy
efficiency, energy utilization ratio and specific energy efficiency (Wang et al., 2013).
(1) Instantaneous energy efficiency
Instantaneous energy efficiency is defined as the ratio of cutting power to the total power in real-time and can be
expressed by Eq. 3.
P (t ) Pc (t ) Pc (t ) (3)
 (t )  c  
Ptotal (t ) Pst (t )  Pauc (t )  Pu (t )  Pc (t )  Pa (t ) Pst (t )  Pauc (t )  Pu (t )  (1  c0 )  Pc (t )
where η(t) indicates the instantaneous energy efficiency at time t, Ptotal(t) is the total power of machine tool during
the machining process at time t.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(2) Energy utilization ratio

The energy utilization ratio (U) is defined as the ratio of cutting energy to the total energy consumed during a
machining process.
(4)
E k  MRV
U c 
tcutting
Etotal
   
Pst  tidle  Pst  t setup  Pst  Pauc  Pair  t air  Pst  Pauc  Pu  tcutting  (1  c0 )  k  MRV  Pst  t ptc
T
where Etotal is the total energy consumed by the machine tool during a machining process.
(3) Specific Energy Consumption (SEC)
Specific Energy Consumption (SEC) is defined as the ratio of total energy consumption to the effective output
of a machining process. For CNC machining, the effective output can be considered as the number of machined
parts, the material removal volume, etc.
For a set of machining operations, SEC is defined as the ratio of total energy consumption to the number of
workpiece being processed as expressed in Eq. 5.
t total

Etotal  Ptotal (t )dt

SEC   0 (5)
N N
where N is the total number of workpieces being processed and ttotal is the total machining time.
For an individual machining operation, SEC can be defined as the energy consumption for removing 1mm3
materials as expressed in Eq. 6.
t total

Etotal  Ptotal (t )dt (6)

SEC  t0
MRV total

 MRR(t )dt
0
Several studies have also modeled SEC as a function of material removal rate (MRR). For instance, Gutowski et
al. (2006) revealed the relationship of SEC and MRR as shown in Eq. 7.

P0
SEC  k (7)
MRR
where P0 consists of the power required by the auxiliary devices and the unload power. k refers to the specific
cutting energy (J/mm3) dependent on workpiece hardness and cutting tool material. More similar models can be
also found in Kara and Li (2011) and Diaz et al. (2011) to characterize the relationship between SEC and MRR.
Based on the three definitions of SEC (in Eqs. 5, 6 and 7), this paper adopts the definition of SEC as the ratio of
the total energy to MRV, as expressed in Eq. 8.
E
SEC  total
MRV
t cutting
   
Pst  t idle  Pst  t setup  Pst  Pauc  Pair  t air  [ Pst  Pauc  Pu  t cutting  (1  c 0 )  k  MRV ]  Pst  t ptc
T

MRV


Pst  t idle  Pst  t setup  
P  Pauc  Pu  t air
 st [

Pst  Pauc  Pu  t cutting (1  c 0 )k ]  Pst  t ptc
t cutting
MRV MRV MRV T  MRV
(8)
Through an in-depth analysis of the proposed energy efficiency models, we are hoping to gain a better
understanding of the involved influence factors and the corresponding operation strategies for energy efficiency
improvement of CNC machining.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3. CRITICAL INFLUENCE FACTORS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT OF CNC MACHINING

According to Eqs. 3, 4 and 8, it is clear that energy efficiency of CNC machining is influenced by a set of influence
factors, i.e., the standby power Pst, cutting-related auxiliary power Pauc, unload power Pu, material removal power
Pc, machine idle time tidle, workpiece and tool setup time tsetup, air-cutting time tair, cutting time tcutting, the per tool
change time tptc and tool life T, the specific cutting energy k, the additional load loss coefficients a0 and MRV.
Among those influence factors, the material removal volume MRV is fixed for a specific workpiece. The
specific cutting energy k, which is closely related to workpiece and tool materials, is a constant value determined
through experimental data fitting methods (Gutowski et al., 2006). Similarly, the additional load loss coefficient a0,
which varies significantly with cutting mechanics, is also experimentally determined fitting constants for a specific
cutting condition (Hu et al., 2010). In addition, the per tool change time tptc is also considered as a constant value
determined from the standard time tables for the standard tool change procedures (Onwubolu, 2006). In this regard,
MRV, k, a0 and tptc are excluded from the critical factors for energy efficiency improvement.
In this section, we focus on analysis of the following nine influence factors and present the corresponding
strategies for energy efficiency improvement of CNC machining from an operational perspective.
1) Standby power Pst
2) Auxiliary power Pauc
3) Unload power Pu
4) Material removal power Pc
5) Air-cutting time tair
6) Cutting time tcutting
7) Setup time tsetup
8) Machine idle time tidle
9) Tool life T

3.1 Pst and Pauc related strategy for energy efficiency improvement
The standby power consumption (Pst) is the power consumed by the startup-related auxiliary devices (i.e.,
monitor, lighting, etc.) of a machine tool to ensure its operational readiness (Li et al., 2016a). Pst would vary
substantially with respect to different machine tools. Fig. 3 shows the real-time standby powers of eight different
machine tools, which is monitored by the Machine Tool Energy Efficiency Monitoring System (MTEEMS)
developed by our group. More details about the MTEEMS can be found in our prior study (Li et al., 2016a).
Behrendt et al. (2012) have also tested the standby power of nine machine tools with different classes (i.e., small
size, medium size and large size) as shown in Fig. 4. It is clear that the studied standby power varied significantly
across and within the three different classes. Additionally, the standby power increased with the complexity of a
machine tool. Considering that Pst is an intrinsic characteristic for a specific machine tool, Pst can be minimized
through design and improvement of machine tool structure. Besides, in a practical CNC machining system, a
machining operation might be performed by a set of alternative machine resources and different machines demands
varying standby powers. In this case, for a specific machining operation, Pst can be reduced through machine tool
selection at the process planning level (Mouzon, 2007; Liu et al., 2014; He et al., 2015).

Fig. 3. Standby power of the tested machine tools.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 4. Standby power of machine tools studied by Behrendt et al. (2012).

The auxiliary power Pauc refers to the power consumed by the cutting-related auxiliary devices (i.e., cooling
motor, chip conveyer motor, etc.) which are turned on during material removal process. Fig. 5 gives the detailed
proportion of the energy consumed by each auxiliary device of a machine tool (Gotze et al., 2012). Similar to Pst,
Pauc is also an intrinsic characteristic of a specific machine tools which can be minimized through design and
improvement of machine tool structure or machine selection. It should be also noted that in a CNC machining
process, the cutting-related devices, such as cutting fluid pump, hydraulic pump, chip conveyer motor etc., can be
selectively turned on according to the machining requirement. As an example studied by Balogun and Mativenga
(2013), the fluid pump which demands the largest proportion of auxiliary energy can be switched off to reduce non-
processing energy demand of machine tools. Weinert and Mose (2014) also investigated the energy saving
potentials by setting production devices to standby modes during non-productive times. In this case, the cutting
related auxiliary power Pauc can be effectively reduced through switch-off control of auxiliary devices.

Fig. 5. Powers required by different devices of a machine tool (Gotze et al., 2012).
According to Eqs. 3, 4 and 8, a smaller Pst and Pauc would result in a high energy utilization ratio U and a large
instantaneous energy efficiency η(t) as well as a minimal SEC. Therefore, design and improvement of machine tool
structure, machine selection and switch-off control of auxiliary devices can be identified as three effective
strategies to improve energy efficiency of CNC machining.
3.2 Pu related strategy for energy efficiency improvement
The unload power Pu is comprised of two power components, i.e., the power (Pspindle) required by the spindle
system and the power (Pfeed) demanded by the feed driving systems when no-load is applied to the cutting tool.
Pu  Pspindle  Pfeed (9)
The unload power of spindle system can be approximated by a quadratic function in terms of spindle speed n
(r/min) (Li et al., 2016a), as shown in Eq. 10
Pspindle  Ps  motor  Ps  transimission
(10)
2
 Ps  motor  a1n  a2 n
where Ps-motor is the power consumed by the spindle motor, Ps-transmission is mechanical transmission loss of spindle
system, a1 and a2 are coefficients of mechanical transmission loss which varies largely with respect to specific
machine tools. In this section, a set of machining experiments are conducted on each of the eight different machine
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

tools with varying spindle speed. The unload power with related to varying spindle speeds are measured and
collected as shown in Fig. 6. It is clear from Fig. 6 that the unload power shows major difference with respect to
specific machines and varying spindle speeds.

Fig. 6. The Pair of different machine tools with varying spindle speeds.

The power model of each drive shaft is similar to that of the spindle system and can be approximated by a
quadratic function in terms of feed speed fv (mm/min), i.e., fv=nf where f is feed rate. The detailed model is given in
Eq. 11.
Pfeed  Pf motor  Pf transimission (11)
 Pf motor  b1 f v  b2 ( f v ) 2
where Pf-motor is the power consumed by servo motors of feed systems, Pf-transmission is mechanical transmission loss
of feed systems, b1 and b2 are experimentally determined fitting constants for mechanical transmission loss of feed
driving system of a machine tool. The real time Pfeed of two different vertical machining centers with varying fv are
measured and collected, as shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

Table 1 Pfeef of a PL700 vertical machining center with varying fv

No. 1 4 7 2 5 8 3 6 9
fv 80 104 128 165 210 255 264 330 396
Pfeed 4 6 7 8 10 11 12 15 18

Table 2 Pfeef of a VGC1500 vertical machining center with varying fv

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
fv 458 917 1375 1833 2292 2750 3209 3667 4125
Pfeed 26 47 72 93 106 124 116 95 86

It is clear according to Eqs. 3, 4 and 8 that the energy efficiency in terms of η(t), U and SEC can be directly
improved by minimizing Pair. According to Eqs. 10 and 11, Pair is directly influenced by spindle speed n, feed rate
f, and the coefficients a1, a2, b1 and b2. In this regard, in order to achieve high energy efficiency of CNC machining,
two operational strategies can be considered by reducing Pair. The first strategy for minimizing Pair, which is similar
to that of reducing Pst, is machine tool selection at the process planning level to identify the coefficients a1, a2, b1
and b2. Cutting parameter optimization of spindle speed n and feed rate f is another strategy for minimization of Pair
and improvement of energy efficiency in terms of η(t), U and SEC.
3.3 Pc related strategy for energy efficiency improvement
In the cutting process, the motion of the cutting tool or the axes results in material removal of the workpiece.
The power to drive an axis of a machine tool is simply proportional to the mass loaded on it as well as the cutting
speed (vc), as shown in Eq. 12.
Pc  Fc  vc (12)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Structural configuration of a machine tool affects the power consumption of a machine tool because the mass
loaded on each axis and the specification of an actuator that drives the axis are different (Pavanaskar et al., 2015).
In this regard, Pc can be effectively minimized through machine tool selection.
In addition to machine specifications, toolpath also shows a major influence on Pc. Fig. 7 gives five alternative
toolpaths for a milling operation generated by using commercial CAM software. Considering the case of a simple
straight line segment of a tool path; if the line segment is oriented along the X axis, only the feed drive along the X
axis is engaged. If the line segment is oriented along the Y axis, only the feed drive along the Y axis is engaged. If
the segment is oriented at any other angle, 0°<ϑ<90°, both X and Y axis feed drives will be engaged to generate the
tool path. For conventional vertical machining centers, x-axis is usually placed on y-axis resulting in more mass
loaded on the y-axis and therefore a larger power is demanded. Therefore, toolpath optimization can be also
considered as an effective way for minimizing Pc.

a) One-direction X-Parallel b) Two-direction (Zig-zag) X-Parallel c) Contour-parallel toolpath

d) 45°direction toolpath e) Spiral toolpath

Fig. 7. Different machining toolpaths generated by commercial CAM software.

Several studies reveals the relationship between Pc and MRR through a set of machining experiments on a
specific machine with a fixed toolpath, as shown in Eq. 13. k is the specific energy (J/mm3) varying with workpiece
hardness and cutting tool material. vc is the cutting speed (m/min) closely related to spindle speed n, i.e.,
vc=πdn/1000 and d is tool diameter. f is the feed rate (mm/r). ap and ap are the cutting depth and width,
respectively. fz is the feed rate per tooth (mm/t) and z is the number of cutter teeth. D is the diameter of the hole to
be machined. So cutting parameter optimization is an effective way to reduce Pc.
k  1000vc fa p , for turning (13)


Pc  k  MRR  k  nzf z a p ae , for milling

k  (D / 4)(nf ), for drilling
2

According to Eq. 3, a large instantaneous energy efficiency U can be obtained at a high Pc while the energy
utilization ratio U and SEC are fixed values with respect to varying Pc according to Eqs. 4 and 8. In this regard,
machine selection, toolpath optimization and cutting parameter optimization can be considered as three potential
strategies for energy efficiency improvement of CNC machining.
3.4 tcutting and tair related strategy for energy efficiency improvement
The cycle time of a machining toolpath consists of two segments, i.e., air cutting time (tair) when no load is
applied to the cutting tool and cutting time (tcutting) when the motion of the cutting tool or the axes results in material
removal of the workpiece, as shown in Fig. 8.

Tool retract

Air cutting toolpath

l0
ae Rapid traverse

Z
X

Y Cutting toolpath
fv

A
H B

Fig. 8. The toolpath of a machining process.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The cutting time can be calculated as the ratio of cutting length (Lcutting) to feed rate (fv) as expressed in Eq. 14.
tair can be calculated as a ratio of the total air-cutting length (Lair) to the spindle feed rate fv, as shown in Eq. 15.
L L (14)
tcutting  cutting  cutting
fv n f
Lair L (15)
t air 
 air
fv n f
where Lcutting is the total cutting length of a machining operation and Lair is the total air cutting length of a
machining operation.
As shown in Fig. 7, different toolpath strategies and toolpath orientations would influence the air cutting length
and cutting length, resulting in much variation in the machining cycle time. Rangarajan et al. (2015) found that
short segment length of a tool path causes longer cycle time and the direction of cutting tool movement also
strongly influences the cycle time. It also implies that the tool path strategy is related to the energy demanded to
produce a product because shorter cycle time can reduce the fraction of the constant energy consumption. In
addition to air cutting length and cutting length, Kong et al. (2011) discovered that there exists an optimal toolpath
direction where feed rate (fv) can be maximized and thereby reduce the cycle time and energy consumption.
Experimental results showed that optimization of toolpath orientation can achieve up to a 4% savings in machining
cycle time.
According to Eqs. 4 and 8, tair and tcutting contribute a significant portion for the energy efficiency in terms of U
and SEC while the instantaneous energy efficiency η(t) remains unaffected to tair and tcutting according to Eq. 3. It is
clear that a high energy utilization ratio U and a smaller SEC can be obtained at a smaller tair and a minimal tcutting.
Therefore, a large energy efficiency ratio U and a small specific energy consumption SEC can be obtained by
minimizing tair and tcutting through cutting parameter optimization as well as toolpath optimization.
3.5 tsetup related strategy for energy efficiency improvement
In a CNC machining system, the machining processes of workpieces are complicated with various flexibilities
with related to processes, machines, cutting tools and machining sequences (Lian et al., 2012). A feasible process
plan for workpieces would directly influence the total amount of time for workpiece and tool setup during
machining processes (Wang et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2013). The energy consumed by machine tools during the setup
time periods would contribute to a significant amount of non-processing energy demands (Gahm et al., 2016).
According to Eqs. 3, 4 and 8, it is clear that reducing tsetup would effectively minimize SEC and enhance U.
Therefore, process planning is an effective strategy for energy efficiency improvement by reducing tsetup.
3.6 tidle related strategy for energy efficiency improvement
With the process plans for workpieces being determined at the planning level, the machine tools in the shop
floor frequently alter from a processing mode to an idle (or non-processing) mode and vice versa, as shown in Fig.
9. For a specific machine tool, when it finished a machining operation and release the workpiece from it, the
machine tool will be in an idle state for a certain period (tidle) in waiting for the arrival of the next machining
task/operation. The machine would consume a certain amount of energy during idle periods. In this case, operation
sequences can be optimized through job shop scheduling to reduce machine idle time tidle as well as idle energy
consumption (Liu et al., 2014; He et al., 2015). Another group of researcher has investigated on-off controls of
machine tools in idle states to minimize idle energy (Shrouf et al., 2014; Mashaei and Lennartson, 2013).
According to Eqs. 3, 4 and 8, it is clear that minimization of tidle would effectively improve energy efficiency in
terms of SEC and U. Therefore, operation sequencing or on/off control of machines through job shop scheduling
can be considered as a potential strategy for energy efficiency improvement by reducing tidle.

Machine processing mode

tidle


Machine standby mode

Machine 1 O31 O12
Machine 2 O32 O21
Machine 3 O11 O33 O22

0 3 4 8 13 16 19 21 Time (s)

Fig. 9. The machining states of a machine tool.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3.7 T related strategy for energy efficiency improvement

The tool life T can be obtained by the Taylor’s equation as expressed in Eq. 16.
 CT
 m u v , for turning (16)
 vc f a p
 1000C
T   m m m  u T u u v , for milling
 D n f z z a p
 1000C
 m m m u T , for drilling
  D n f r [(d 0  d ' ) 2]v
where the coefficient CT and the exponents m, u and v vary significantly with different tool materials and can be
determined through experimental data fitting from tool wear testing (Stephenson and Agapiou, 2005). It follows
from experiments that for high speed steel teeth m=3-6.67 and for sintered carbide teeth m=1.67-5 and the average
values for u and z are 2.25 and 0.75, respectively (Onwubolu, 2006). It is clear according to Eq. 19 that the cutting
velocity vc has the most significant influence on tool life, followed by the feed rate fand the cutting depth ap.
According to Eq. 3, the instantaneous energy efficiency η(t) remains unaffected to tool life T. In order to achieve
a high energy utilization U and a minimal SEC, a large T is recommended for machining according to Eqs. 4 and 8.
Therefore, the energy efficiency in terms of U and SEC can be improved through cutting parameter optimization by
obtaining a minimum vc, a small f and a large ap.
Based on the above analysis of the critical factors and the corresponding strategies, six strategies are proposed
to enhance energy efficiency of CNC machining. Fig. 10 describes the interactions between the critical influence
factors and the corresponding strategies for energy efficiency improvement. On the one hand, we could improve
and optimize the structure of machine tools (in particular, auxiliary components) due to high-energy consumption
(Dai et al., 2013). On the other hand, from the perspective of operational activities, a set of operational decisions
can be taken into consideration for energy efficiency improvement of CNC machining, i.e., cutting parameter
optimization, toolpath optimization, process planning and job shop scheduling. Through an overall literature review
as detailed in the following section, we are hoping to gain a better understanding of the four operation strategies.

Influence Factors

Design Strategies
Standby power Pst

Design and improvement of

machine tool structure Cutting-related auxiliary
power Pauc Energy Efficiency
Switch-off control of auxiliary
devices Unload power Pu Instantaneous
energy efficiency
η(t)
Material removal power
Operation Strategies Pc

Energy utilziation
Cutting parameter optimization Setup time tsetup ratio
U

Toolpath optimization Idle time tidle

Specific Energy
Consumption
SEC
Process planning Air cutting time tair

Cutting time tcutting

Job shop scheduling

Tool life T

Fig.10. The proposed strategies corresponding to each influence factors.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4. LITERATURE REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED OPERATION STRATEGIES

In this section, we present a detailed literature review of the four operation strategies (i.e., cutting parameter
optimization, toolpath optimization, process planning and job shop scheduling) respectively and exploit the
influence effects of the proposed strategies on energy efficiency improvement of CNC machining.
4.1 Energy-aware Cutting Parameter optimization
A number of studies have investigated the influence of cutting parameters on energy consumption and focused
energy-aware cutting parameter optimization by using different solution methods, i.e., through experimental
design, through experimental data fitting models and through the parametric energy models. The relevant studies
are summarized in Table 3 and the detailed literature review is given below.
The first line of researches conducted a set of machining experiments through Taguchi method to evaluate the
impact of cutting parameters on energy consumption as well as some traditional performances (i.e., cutting
efficiency, surface roughness, etc). The experimental results are highly depended on the specific machining
conditions. For instance, Hanafi et al. (2012) found that cutting speed and cutting depth of a turning operation are
the most influential parameters of cutting powers and surface quality. Fratila and Caizar (2011) concluded that
feed rate shows the most significant influence on surface roughness while cutting depth and cutting speed are
significant influence factors for cutting power. Camposeco-Negrete (2013) conducted a set of turning experiments
under different roughing conditions and revealed that feed rate is the most significant factor for minimizing energy
consumption and surface roughness. A similar study conducted by Zhang et al. (2015) investigated the impact of
cutting parameters and machining conditions (dry machining, wet machining) on surface roughness and energy
consumption. Their experimental results showed that the increase of cutting depth and feed rate is an effective way
to reduce energy consumption while a high machining efficiency and a good surface roughness can be achieved by
increasing cutting speed and decreasing feed rate. Similarly, Bilga et al (2016) used Taguchi method to study the
effect of turning parameters on energy consumption and found that feed rate is the dominant contributor for energy
consumption followed by cutting speed and cutting depth. Wang et al (2016) studied the influences of cutting
speed, chip thickness and tool rake angle on energy consumption through experimental design and ANOVA
analysis. The experimental results showed that the plastic deformation energy decreases with the raise of cutting
speed while the chip kinetic gains a significant increase.
A second line of work, of a flavor similar to the first one discussed above, conducted experimental data fitting
method to formulate the energy models of cutting parameters. For instance, Kant and Sangwan (2014) used grey
relational analysis and response surface methodology (RSM) to develop a multi-objective predictive model of
cutting parameters on power consumption and surface roughness. They concurred with Camposeco-Negrete that
feed rate is the most significant parameter to reduce power consumption. Campatelli et al. (2014) provided a RSM
based experimental approach to explore the influence of cutting parameters on energy consumption of a milling
process. The experiment results included that the environmental footprint can be reduced by increasing the material
removal rate (MRR) as much as possible and at the same time to limit the effect of tool wear. A similarly study was
conducted by Camposeco-Negrete (2015) where RSM is used to formulate the regression models of energy
consumption and surface roughness. The experimental results showed that the weighted two targets can be
minimized by decreasing feed rate and at the same time increasing cutting speed and cutting depth. Bhushan et al
formulated a predictive model of power consumption and tool life with related to different turning parameters (i.e.,
cutting speed, feed rate, cutting depth) and nose radius. Kuram et al. (2013) investigated the milling parameters
and cutting fluid types on specific energy, tool life and surface roughness. Similarly, Gupta et al. (2016) conducted
turning experiments based on RSM to reveal the effect of cutting parameter and cutting fluid types on responses
cutting force, tool wear and surface roughness. Following the similar line, one of our prior studies as presented in
Li et al. (2016b) integrate Taguchi method and response surface method to develop a multi-objective model of
cutting parameter on specific energy consumption and cutting efficiency. The experiment results showed that
cutting width is the major parameter affecting SEC followed by cutting depth, feed rate and spindle speed.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3 Relevant studies for Cutting Parameter Optimization

Objective criterion
Machining Solution
References Energy models
type methods
Machining Surface Energy/Power
Others
time quality consumption
Fratila and Taguchi and based
Caizar Milling × experimental design ×  Pcutting ×
(2011) and ANOVA analysis
Camposeco Taguchi and based
-Negrete Turning × experimental design ×  Ecutting ×
(2013) and ANOVA analysis
Camposeco Taguchi robust
-Negrete Turning × experimental design ×  Ecutting ×
(2016) and S/N ratio analysis
Taguchi and based
Hanafi et experimental design
Turning × ×  Pcutting ×
al. (2012) and grey relational
theory based analysis
Zhang et al. Taguchi experiment
Turning × ×  Pcutting ×
(2015) design
Taguchi experimental
Sarıkaya et
Turning × design and S/N ratio ×  × Tool life
al. (2016)
analysis
Taguchi experimental
Bilga et al.
Turning × design and ANOVA × × Ecutting ×
(2016)
analysis
Taguchi and based
Kant and
experimental design
Sanwan Turning RSM based regression model ×  Ecutting ×
and grey relational
(2014)
theory based analysis
Camposeco Central composite
-Negrete Turning RSM based regression model experimental design ×  SEC ×
(2015) and ANOVA analysis
RSM based
Bhushan
Turning RSM based regression model experimental design × × Ecutting Tool life
(2013)
and ANOVA analysis
RSM based
Campatelli
Milling RSM based regression model experimental design ×  Ecutting ×
et al. (2014)
and analysis
RSM based
Kuram et
Milling RSM based regression model experimental design ×  Ecutting Tool life
al. (2013)
and analysis
Taguchi based
Yan and Li experimental design
Milling RSM based regression model   Ecutting ×
(2013) and grey relational
theory based analysis
Taguchi based
tsetup
experimental design, Ecutting
Li et al. RSM based regression model tcutting
Milling RSM model and × Eair ×
(2016b) tair
MOPSO-based Etc
ttc
heuristic
Tool life,
A multi-objective
cutting
Gupta et al. optimization model
Turning RSM based regression model ×  × force and
(2016) and two evolutionary
cutting
techniques
temperature
Etotal = Est + Emachining +Etc + Ef
1) Est =P0tsetup where P0 is power
consumed by machine module
without cutting.
2) Emachining=(P0+Pc)tcutting where
Pc=kMRR is power for material tsetup
Rejemi et removal. Case study based tcutting
Turning × Etotal ×
al. (2010) 3) Etc = P0tptc(tcutting/T) where T is the analysis tair
tool life. ttc
4) Ef =yE(tcutting/T) where Ef is defined
as the energy footprint of the
cutting tool and yE is energy
footprint per tool edge, divided by
the number of cutting edges.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Velchev et Etotal = Ec + Etc Case study based

Turning × × Etotal ×
al. (2012) where Ec= Pc tcutting =(kMRR)tcutting analysis
Etotal = Est+ Ecutting + Eair+ Etc
where Ecutting= Pcutting tcutting and Pcutting is
Albertelli et Case study based
Milling the cutting power determined by the × × Etotal ×
al. (2016) cutting force and cutting speed, i.e., analysis
Pcutting=Fvc1000/60
Etotal =Ecutting + Eair + Etc
1) Ecutting=Pcuttingtcutting where
Pcutting=Pst+Pauc+Pu+Pu+Pa is the
cutting power during material A Multi-objective
tcutting
Yi et al. removal process. optimization model Carbon
Turning tair × ×
(2015) and GA-based emission
2) Eair=Pairtair where Pair=Pst+Pauc+Pu is ttc
heuristic
the air cutting power consumed
during air cutting stage when there
is no load applied to the cutting tool.
Etotal = Esetup+ Ecutting + Eair + Etc
tsetup
where Esetup=Psttsetup and Pst is the power A multi-objective
Li et al. tcutting
Milling consumed by the startup-related optimization model × Etotal ×
(2016a) auxiliary devices (i.e., monitor, lighting, tair
and TS-based heuristic
etc.). ttc
Machine
A multi-objective
cost, tool
Li et al. Multi-pass Etotal = Esetup + Ecutting + Eair + Etc optimization model
× × Etotal cost and
(2016c) Milling and PSO-based
electricity
algorithm
cost

Due to the complicated mechanisms of cutting parameters on energy consumption of CNC machining, a third
line of researchers focused on the parametric models of the involved energy components and provided satisfied
solutions for multiple-objective parameter optimization. In these studies, the machines mainly consumes four levels
of energy consumptions, i.e., Esetup the energy consumed during standby stage for workpiece and tool setup, Ecutting
the cutting energy consumption for material removal, Eair the energy consumed during air cutting stage when there
is no load applied to the cutting tool, and Etc the energy consumed during tool change state due to tool wear. For
instance, Rejemi et al. (2010) developed the energy model of a turning process by considering four energy
components, i.e., the setup energy, cutting energy, tool change energy and the cutting edge energy. The energy
models are then formulated as a function of material removal rate (MRR), the cutting time (tcutting) and the tool life
(T) which are closed with related to specific cutting parameters. Velchev et al. (2014) modeled the total energy
consumption of a turning process as an integral of two parts, i.e., Ecutting and Etc. The two energy consumptions are
evaluated based on cutting time (tcutting), specific cutting energy (k), tool life (T) and material removal rate (MRR),
and are directly expressed by equations with related to cutting parameters. Their experimental findings are
concurred with Camposeco-Negrete (2015) that the energy consumption can be minimized by increasing the
cutting parameter and at the same time keeping a high tool wear resistance. A similar study was conducted by
Albertelli et al. (2016) where the detailed energy models for a face milling process are studied. One of our prior
work, as presented in Yi et al. (2015a), evaluated the carbon emission of a turning processes on the basis of energy
consumption as well as tool material and fluid material consumptions. The turning processes consumes three
variable levels of energy consumption (i.e., Ecutting, Eair and Etc), which are highly dependent on the specific cutting
parameters. We further investigated the cutting parameter optimization of a CNC milling process to improve
energy efficiency and machining efficiency (Li et al., 2016a). Different from the prior work of Yi et al. (2015a) by
adopting theoretical equation, cutting energy consumption is mathematically modeled by a linear function of MRR
through experimental data fittings methods. The experiment results show that cutting depth and width are the most
influential parameters for specific energy consumption, and spindle speed ranks the first for the production time.
We also investigated the selection of optimum parameters in multi-pass face milling for maximum energy
efficiency and minimum production cost and revealed the interaction effects of cutting parameters and number of
passes on energy efficiency (Li et al., 2016c).
In this regard, cutting parameter optimization can be considered as an effective strategy for improvement of
energy consumption and energy efficiency. Given that cutting parameters would have major influences on
economic objectives of CNC machining (e.g., machining cost, machining efficiency, surface quality, etc),
Optimization of cutting parameter needs to be conducted to balance the trade-off between economic objectives and
energy consumption/efficiency.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4.2 Energy-aware toolpath optimization

Pavanaskar et al. (2015) discovered that the power consumption of a CNC milling process is a much complex
function affected by multiple factors, such as machine variability, MRR, toolpath strategies and toolpath
orientation. In addition, the length of a toolpath directly determines the machining time including cutting time and
air-cutting time. Given that the machining energy usage is significantly affected by the power consumption and the
machining time, the choice of a tool path is very critical for the improvement of energy consumption as well as
machining efficiency. Rangarajan et al. (2004) showed that a shorter tool path for face milling might cause a
longer cycle time. It also implied that the tool path can be further improved since shorter cycle time can reduce the
constant energy usage demanded by auxiliary devices of a machine tool. This result is consistent with the work by
Kong et al. (2011), where the environmental sustainability of tool paths with various orientations is investigated.
For each of the five generated tool-path, acceleration/deceleration of machine tool axes and the direction of axes
movement are considered to estimate the energy consumption and time efficiency as well as the green house gas
emission. The experimental result showed that the longer tool paths require longer processing time and more
energy usage with the exception of a contour-parallel toolpath. Pavanaskar et al. (2015) proposed an energy-
efficient toolpath generation method for pocket machining. They compared the performance of the proposed
toolpath with several commercial software-generated toolpaths (i.e., x-direction-Parallel toolpath, y-direction-
Parallel toolpath, two-direction (zig-zag) toolpath, spiral toolpath). The experimental results showed that the
proposed toolpath consumed at least 20% less energy usage than the toolpaths generated by commercial software.
Therefore, toolpath generation can be considered as one potential strategy for energy efficiency improvement of
CNC machining.

4.3 Energy-aware Process planning

In the modern manufacturing system, process planning problem is strongly NP-hard due to the existence of
various flexibilities, i.e., operations flexibility, machine flexibility, cutting tool flexibility and sequence flexibility
(Lian et al., 2012; Li et al., 2013). A perusal of current literatures provided a number of mathematical optimization
models seeking to improve the economical performances in terms of cost and time efficiency (Petrovic et al., 2016;
Wang et al., 2015; Wen et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2013; Li et al., 2013; Lv and Qiao 2013).
Recently, in addition to traditional objectives, a few studies have investigated flexible process planning problem
to improve sustainability performances (i.e., energy consumption, carbon emission, etc.). The relevant studies for
Process Planning are summarized in Table 4. In these studies, three energy factors are mainly concerned for
optimization of process plans: 1) the energy for material removal process, Ecutting, 2) the energy for fixture change,
workpiece setup and tool setup (change), Esetup, and 3) the energy for material handling, tool transportation and chip
transportation, Etrans. The cutting energy (Ecutting) is modeled by multiplying the cutting period power (Pcutting) by the
cutting time (tcutting), where Pcutting is an integral of power (Pstandby) demanded by startup-related auxiliary devices,
power (Pauc) of cutting-related auxiliary devices and material removal power (Pc). The transportation energy is
obtained by multiplying the driving powers of the material handling system (Ptrans) by the transportation time, ttrans.
The detailed models are given in Eqs. 17-20.
Ecutting=Pcuttingtcutting (17)
Pcutting=Pstandby + Pauc + Pu+ Pc + Pa (18)
Esetup =Pstandby(tfc + tws + ttc) (19)
Etrans= Ptransttrans (20)
For instance, Choi and Paul (2014) proposed an estimation model of energy consumption of a process plan by
considering multiple energy consuming resources: 1) energy consumed by a machine tool during idle state, setup
stage and cutting state, 2) material handling energy, 3) tool transport energy and 4) chip transport energy. The
proposed energy model of process plans still needs expansion to model different aspects of multiple flexibilities
with related to sequences and cutting tools. Zhang and Ge (2015) proposed a machine tool oriented energy
assessment approach for process planning optimization. In this study, the processing energy of a machining
operation is approximately estimated by multiplying the specific energy per volume (K) by the total volume (Δ) of
material removed, i.e., Ecutting=KΔ. However, the energy consumption of non-processing time periods for
workpiece setup and tool setup (or change) is excluded in the energy objective function. One of our previous
studies as presented in Yi et al. (2015b), investigated the carbon footprint of machining process routings with
multiple flexibilities (i.e., alternative machining methods, machines, cutting tools and operation sequences). The
electricity consumed by machine tools during processing and non-processing periods is considered as a basis for
evaluation of carbon emission. Although each of the existing studies provides valuable insights for energy-aware
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

process planning from a specific angle, the energy consumption characteristics of flexible process plans need to be
further explored by considering multiple energy-consuming resources.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4 Relevant studies for Process Planning published in the last 5 years
Flexibilities Objective criterion
Solution
References Energy
Operations Sequences Machines Tools Fixtures TADs Time Cost Others method
consumption
Cm
tcutting
Ct
Petrovic ttrans PSO-based
    ×  Cmc × ×
et al. (2016) tws heuristic
Cws
ttc
Ctc
Cm
Ct
Wang et al. ACO-based
    ×  × Cmc × ×
(2015a) heuristic
Cws
Ctc
Cm
Ct
Wen et al. HBMO-based
×    ×  × Cmc × ×
(2014) heuristic
Cws
Ctc
Li et al. tcutting PSO-based
   × × × × × ×
(2013) ttrans heuristic
Cm
Ct
Liu et al. ACO-based
× ×   ×  × Cmc × ×
(2013) heuristic
Cws
Ctc
Lv and Qiao tcutting Cm CE-based
   × × × ×
(2013) ttrans Cmc heuristic
Cm
Ct
ICA-based
Lian (2012)     ×  × Cmc × ×
heuristic
Cws
Ctc
Zhang and Enumeration
×   × × × × × Ecutting ×
Ge (2015) methods
Ecutting
Choi and C6 Linear
 ×  ×  × × Esetup ×
Paul (2014) C7 programming
Etrans
tcutting
Li et al. tws Carbon NSGA -based
×      × ×
(2015) ttc emission heuristic
tfc

4.4 Energy-aware Job Scheduling

A number of studies have investigated the job scheduling problems to minimize energy consumption of
different machining systems (i.e., a single machine system, a parallel machine system, a flow shop system or a job
shop system) and determines the optimal scheduling decisions including machine selection, operations sequencing,
on-off control of machines and machine speeds selection. The relevant studies are summarized in Table 5 and the
detailed literature review is given below.
1) Minimization of machine idle energy
In a CNC machining job shop, the energy consumption pattern of a machine tool depends on its working modes
(i.e., processing mode or idle mode), as shown in Fig. 9. When a machine turns from the processing mode to the
idle mode, it will be in standby state for a certain time period (tidle) in waiting for the upcoming machining tasks
(jobs), causing a certain amount of idle energy. According to the research presented by Mouzon et al. (2007), a
machine in the idle state might consume an average 13% of the total energy consumed in an 8-h shift. This energy
is obtained by multiplying the machine idle power (Pstandby) by the idle time (tidle), as shown in Eq. 21.
Eidle =Pstandbytidle (21)
a) Operation sequencing
In the shop floor, the idle time (tidle) of a machine tool is depended on the operation sequences or the start times
of two consecutive operations assigned to it. In the classical job shop scheduling problems, operation sequences of
jobs on machines is considered as a major decision variable for improvement of the system performances (i.e.,
makspan, tardiness, etc). In recent years, a perusal of studies have focus on operation sequencing in job shop
scheduling to reduce the idle energy consumption of machines, as summarized in Table 5. In these studies, it is
assumed that each operation is performed by a pre-determined machine resource with a fixed processing time
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(tcutting) and a specific cutting power (Pcutting). As a result, the total processing energy of machine tools, which is
obtained by multiplying the cutting power (Pcutting) by the cutting time (tcutting), is a constant value independent to
job shop schedules. Thus, the objective to reduce the total energy consumption of a schedule can be converted to
reduce the total non-processing energy. For instance, Liu et al. (2014) investigated a job shop scheduling problem
to minimize idle energy consumption and total weighted tardiness. In this study, a machine consumes different
levels of power according to different machining states (i.e., during idle time, when switched into runtime mode
and when processing an operation). The electricity consumed during runtime mode and processing mode is a
constant which will not be affected by different schedules.
b) On-off control of idle machines
Considering that a machine in the shutdown mode does not use any energy, an on-off control policy can be used
to turn off the machine when it was idle and subsequently turn it on when a new task/workpiece is arrived. In this
case, the machine idle time (tidle) and the energy consumption in this duration (in a shutdown mode) can be
effectively reduced. For instance, Zhang et al. (2014) developed an integer programming model for a flow shop
scheduling problem with an objective of minimizing electricity cost and carbon footprint. In this study, all the
machines have two modes, i.e., processing mode and off mode. When the machine is processing a task, a fixed
power consumption is required. For off-mode, the machine do not consumes electricity power. The schedule
decision is on-off control of machines and assignment of jobs to machines as well as operation sequences.
Another group of researchers investigated on-off control policy of machines in job scheduling to reduce
machine idle time (tidle) and thereby to minimize total energy consumption. In these studies, it is assumed that if the
machine idle energy usage (Eidle) is larger than the energy required by machine turn of/turn on, there could be a
significant amount of energy saving when the machines are shut down. Also, the inter-arrival time between two
consecutive jobs should be larger than the turn off/on time. Intuitively, the scheduling decisions can be made to
minimize the total energy consumption as much as possible by not delaying the processing of jobs. For instance,
Mouzon et al. (2007) developed a multiple-objective mathematical programming model to investigate the on-off
control of a single machine job shop with an objective of minimizing total energy consumption and total
completion time. The total energy consumption is evaluated on the basis of the energy (Eidle) consumed by the
machine during idle period and the machine turn on/turn off energy (Eon-off) while the processing energy is a
constant and keep unaffected to schedule decisions. The simulation experiments showed that there was a significant
amount of energy savings when underutilized machines were turned off, and the savings in total energy
consumption could up to 80%. Pach et al. (2014) proposed a reactive scheduling method of flexible manufacturing
systems to minimize energy consumption. This approach makes real-time decisions for routing assignment and
operation sequencing to minimize makespan and energy consumption, as well as the on/off switches. Simulation
results showed that for a large-scale production system 40% energy saving can be achieved and for an overloaded
system 10% of the total energy can be reduced. Dai et al. (2013) presented a mathematical model for a flexible
flow shop scheduling problem with an objective of minimizing energy consumption and makespan. In their study,
the processing time and the power consumption of a same operation differs with related to different unrelated
parallel machines. Several energy factors, such as Eidle, Eon-off and Ecutting for material removal are considered in the
total energy consumption function. The experimental results showed that the idle energy usage accounts for 5% of
the total energy consumed. Shrouf et al. (2014) proposes a mathematical model to minimize energy consumption
costs for single machine production scheduling. The schedule decisions are made to determine the start times of
each operation and machine turning on/off time. More similar studies for on-off control of machines in job
scheduling can be found in Table 5.
2) Minimization of machine-related processing energy
In addition to machine idle energy usage, a second group of researchers investigated job scheduling problem to
minimize machine-related processing energy. The machine-related processing energy (Ep) consists of two
components: 1) energy for workpiece and tool setup during standby state (Esetup), and 2) cutting energy (Ecutting) for
material removal. The setup energy (Esetup) is evaluated by multiplying the standby power (Pstandby) by the time for
workpiece setup and tool setup. The cutting energy (Ecutting) is modeled by multiplying the cutting period power
(Pcutting) by the cutting time (tcutting), where Pcutting is an integral of power (Pstandby) demanded by startup-related
auxiliary devices, power (Pauc) required by cutting-related auxiliary devices and material removal power (Pc). The
cutting time (tcutting) and the cutting power are machine specific values and thereby the total processing energy (Ep)
is depended on a job shop schedule.
Ep= Esetup+ Ecutting (22)
Esetup =Pstandby(tws+tts) (23)
Ecutting=Pcuttingtcutting (24)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 5 Relevant studies for job scheduling in the last 5 years

Decision variables Objective criterion
Solution
References Shop type
Machine Operation Energy method
Others Makespan Tardiness Others
selection sequencing consumption
Liu et al. Job shop NSGA-II-based
×  × ×  Eidle ×
(2014b) scheduling heuristic
On-off control
Zhang et al. Flow shop Integer
  of idle  × Ecutting ×
(2014) scheduling programming
machines
Linear mixed
On-off control
Mouzon et Job shop Eidle integer multi-
×  of idle  × ×
al. (2007) scheduling Eon-off objective
machines
programming
On-off control Number
Pach et al. Job shop Eidle
  of idle  × of Simulation
(2014) scheduling Ecutting
machines switches
On-off control Eidle
Dai et al. Flow shop SA-based
  of idle  × Ecutting ×
(2013) scheduling heuristic
machines Eon-off
A single On-off control Eidle
Shrouf et GA-based
machine ×  of idle × × Ecutting ×
al. (2014) heuristic
scheduling machines Eon-off
Yildirim
A single On-off control Eidle
and GA-based
machine ×  of idle  × Esetup ×
Mouzon heuristic
scheduling machines Eon-off
(2012)
Eidle
On-off control
May et al. Job shop Esetup GA-based
×  of idle  × ×
(2015) scheduling Ecutting heuristic
machines
Eon-off
On-off control
Liu et al. Job shop Eidle GA-based
×  of idle ×  ×
(2016) scheduling Eon-off heuristic
machines
Mashaei
On-off control
and Flow shop Eidle Heuristic
×  of idle × × ×
Lennartson scheduling Eon-off methods
machines
(2013)
A single On-off control
Liu et al. Eidle GA-based
machine ×  of idle  × ×
(2014a) Eon-off heuristic
scheduling machines
mixed integer
Fang et al. flow shop Machine Esetup Peak
   × linear
(2011) scheduling speeds Ecutting power
programming
mixed integer
Fang et al. flow shop Machine
   × Ecutting × linear
(2013) scheduling speeds
programming
Parallel-
Fang and Machine PSO-based
machine   ×  Ecutting ×
Lin (2013) speeds heuristic
scheduling
Salito et al. Job shop Machine GA-based
×   × Ecutting ×
(2016) scheduling speeds heuristic
Zhang and
Job shop Machine Eidle MOHGA-based
Chiong ×  ×  ×
scheduling speeds Ecutting heuristic
(2016)
A two-
Mansouria machine Machine Eidle Constructive
×   × ×
et al. (2016) flow shop speeds Ecutting heuristic
scheduling
Ding et al. Flow shop Machine Eidle NEH-based
×   × ×
(2016) scheduling speeds Ecutting heuristic
1) On-off
A two-
control of idle Eon-off
Zanoni et machine Linear integer
× × machines  × Eidle ×
al. (2014) flow shop programming
2) Machine Ecutting
scheduling
speeds
Flexible flow Eon-off
Tang et al. Machine PSO-based
shop    × Eidle ×
(2016) speeds heuristic
scheduling Ecutting
Luo et al. Flow shop Machine Eidle ACO-based
  ×
(2013) scheduling speeds Ecutting heuristic
Sharma et Flow shop   Machine  × Eidle × SA-based
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

al. (2015) scheduling speeds Ecutting heuristic

Ecutting
Eon-off
Le and Job shop Mathematical
  × ×  Eidle ×
Pang (2013) scheduling model
Ecutting
Bruzzone et Flow shop Eidle Mixed integer
  ×   ×
al. (2012) scheduling Ecutting programming
He et al. Job shop Eidle NP-based
  ×  × ×
(2015) scheduling Ecutting heuristic
Lei and Job shop Eidle DNS-based
  ×  × ×
Guo (2015) scheduling Ecutting heuristic
Parallel Mixed Integer
Artigues et
machine   × × × Ecutting × Linear
al. (2013)
scheduling Programming
Parallel
Moon et al. GA-based
machine   ×  × Ecutting ×
(2013) heuristic
scheduling

a) Variable machine speeds

The first line of researches focused on the job scheduling problems in which machines can work at different
speeds (speed scaling). This problem is an extension of classical job shop scheduling, where the machine speed is
considered as an independent variable to affect both energy/power consumption and processing time. Also,
increasing the machine speed will lead to higher energy consumption (Ecutting) despite a shorter cutting time (tcutting).
Since the speed variations will influence processing times of tasks, the idle times of machine and the idle energy
consumption is also depended on a schedule decision.
Optimization of the energy consumption and productivity are two major objectives in job scheduling problems
with speed scaling. A first line of researches focused on optimization of machine-related processing energy
consumption through job scheduling. For instance, Fang and Lin (2013) developed an integer linear programming
model for a parallel machine scheduling problem with varying machine speeds to minimize total weighted job
tardiness and the electricity cost. Similarly, Salido et al. (2016) investigated a job shop scheduling problem in
which machines can consume different amounts of energy at different speeds. The schedule decision is assignment
of starting times to tasks with an objective of minimizing the completion time of all the tasks and the total
processing energy usage. The machine idle energy and setup energy (Esetup) are not taken into consideration in the
energy objective function. The experimental result shows there is an interesting trade-off between energy
consumption and makespan.
A second line of researches focused on job scheduling with speed scaling to minimize machine-related
processing energy as well as idle energy consumption. For instance, Zhang et al. (2016) investigated an energy-
efficient job shop scheduling problem with machine speed scaling to minimize tardiness and energy consumption.
The energy usage of a machine tool is dependent on its operation mode, i.e., 1) processing mode when processing a
task/job with a given speed and 2) standby mode during idle period when it is waiting for the next job to arrive.
Experimental results showed that the processing of some operations has been slowed down to minimize processing
energy consumption resulting in longer processing time and larger idle energy consumption. Sharma et al. (2015)
investigated a scheduling problem for a manufacturing system where the machine operates at varying machine
speeds. In this study, the schedule decisions specifies assignment of operations to machines, machine speeds and
the start times of operations to minimize energy consumption as well as peak power consumption. Mansouria et
al. (2016) developed a mixed integer linear optimization model for a two-machine flow shop scheduling with
varying machine speeds. Their experimental results concurred with Zhang et al. (2016) that decreasing machine
speed will increase the processing time and prolong machine idle time, and the savings in processing energy can
compensate for the increase in idle energy consumption. Luo et al. (2013) investigated a similar flow shop
scheduling problem with the presence of variable machine speeds to minimize electricity cost and to enhance time
efficiency. The electricity is assumed to be consumed by machines during two periods: 1) processing mode of
machines and 2) the standby (or idle) mode of machines. The experiment analysis showed that machine speeds
have significant influence on scheduling results. Ding et al. (2016) investigated a flow shop scheduling problem to
minimize the total carbon emissions and makespan. The carbon emission of a schedule is evaluated on the basis of
idle energy consumption and processing energy consumption.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

A final line of researches focused on the dynamic scheduling problems with speed scaling to minimize energy
consumption. For instance, Zanoni et al. (2014) proposed an analytical model of a two-stage production system
with speed scaling to minimize total energy costs. The model assumes that each machine has three constant levels
of power consumption: during idle time, when switched into runtime mode and when processing an operation. A
similar study can be also found in Tang et al. (2016), where a dynamic flexible flow-shop scheduling problem with
random machine breakdown and new job arrivals is addressed to minimize energy consumption and makespan.
More relevant studies for job scheduling problem with varying machine speeds are summarized in Table 5.
b) Machine selection
Given that the energy savings can be achieved by selecting machines with low power consumption, one group
of researchers investigated job shop scheduling by integrating machine tool selection with operation sequencing to
improve system performances (i.e., total energy consumption, makespan, tardiness, etc.). It is assumed that at each
operation stage, different jobs on multiple machines resources could consume different processing times and
requires different power/energy consumptions.
A first group of researchers investigated scheduling problems to minimize energy consumption of parallel
machine systems. For instance, Moon et al. (2013) investigated a parallel machine scheduling problem with time-
depended and machine-depended electricity cost. The scheduling decision specifies the assignment of operations to
machines and operations sequencing with an objective to minimizing energy cost and makespan. Artigues et al.
(2013) studied a similarly parallel machine scheduling problem by only considering the processing energy
consumption.
A second group of researchers focused on flow shop scheduling problems for energy savings. For instance,
Bruzzone et al. (2012) developed a mixed integer programming model for a flexible flow shop scheduling problem
A schedule solution specifies a feasible assignment of jobs to machine tools at each stage and operation sequencing
to minimize the total peak power and to reduce tardiness and makspan. Case studies showed that reduction of the
maximum peak power would also gain a minor increase of makespan. Dai et al. (2013) investigated a similar study
for a flexible flow shop to minimize the maximum completion time and total energy consumption. The scheduling
objective is to assign jobs to machine tools at each stage and determines the sequence of operations on each
machine, as well as machine on-off controls. Several energy factors, such as machine idle energy, turn on/turn off
energy and cutting energy usage for material removal are all taken consideration in the energy model.
A third group of researchers studied the job shop scheduling problems to minimize energy consumption. For
instance, He et al. (2015) investigated a flexible job shop scheduling problem for machine tool selection and
operation sequencing. The first schedule decision (i.e., machine selection) aims to minimize the machine-related
processing energy and the second one (i.e., operation sequencing) strikes to reduce idle energy consumption. The
machine-related processing energy is comprised of two parts, 1) energy usage (Esetup) during standby state for
workpiece and tool setup and 2) cutting energy (Ecutting) for material removal. A similar study can be found in Lei
and Guo (2015), where a job shop scheduling problem with alternative machine resource is investigated with an
objective of minimizing carbon footprint and makespan. The carbon footprint is evaluated on the basis of machine
idle energy and processing energy. For each operation, the processing time and the power consumption are
dependent on machine specifications.
A final group of researchers investigated the dynamic scheduling problems to reduce energy consumption of
manufacturing systems. For instance, Le and Pang (2013) investigated a dynamic scheduling problem for a
flexible remanufacturing system with alternative routings and shared machine resources. It is assumed that the
power consumption during idle state and off state are relatively constant, while the processing power consumption
of machines exhibits a high level of uncertainties due to machine degradation and follows different distributions.
Following the similar line, Tang et al. (2016) investigated a dynamic scheduling problem to reduce energy
consumption and makespan for a flexible flow shop, where random machine breakdown and new job arrivals are
considered as interruptions. For each breakdown, a repair time will be required and the jobs that suffer from
breakdown are assigned to other alternative machines. Several energy factors, such as machine turn-on energy
usage, machine idle energy and processing energy are associated with scheduling decisions.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4.5 Integrations of cutting parameter optimization, toolpath optimization, process planning and scheduling
According to the above analysis, it is clear that the five energy components ( i.e., Esetup, Eair , Ecutting, Etc and Eidle)
are directly influenced by the four operation strategies, i.e., cutting parameter optimization, tool path optimization,
process planning and scheduling. The interactions between the five energy components and the four operation
strategies are shown in Fig. 11.
Cutting parameter Toolpath Process
optimization optimization Scheduling
planning

Machine 1 Esetup Eair Ecutting Etc Eidle Esetup Eair Ecutting Etc
Time/s

Setup for Setup for Cutting stage of Operation 2

Cutting stage of Operation 1 Machine idle state
Operation 1 Operation 2

Fig. 11. The interactions between the five energy components and the four operation strategies.
In the existing work, the four operation strategies were carried out separately and sequentially to improve energy
consumption at a machine tool level, a machining process level, or a shop floor level. In fact, the functions of
different operation strategies in different levels are usually complementary. For instance, the cutting parameters of
each operation are highly dependent on the predetermined process plan with certain machining operation, machine
and cutting tool. In addition, the performances of schedules in the shop floor are significant influenced by the
predetermined process plan and cutting parameters. In this regard, the energy consumption/efficiency of CNC
machining can be further improved if the four operation strategies are tightly integrated. Recently, a few studies
published in recently have addressed the integrations of the above strategies for improving energy
consumption/efficiency of CNC machining, as summarized in Table 6.
For instance, Wang et al. (2015b) presented an integration method of process planning and scheduling at two
stages. In the first stage, the cutting parameters of a milling operation on a single machine are optimized to improve
energy efficiency and productivity. In the second stage, operation sequencing and assignment of operation on
different machines are optimized to minimize makespan and energy efficiency. In this study, the total energy
consumption is modeled as an integral of four parts, i.e., idle energy consumption, cutting energy consumption,
setup energy consumption and tool change energy consumption. The experimental results showed that there is a
major tradeoff between the energy consumption and makespan.
By assuming the cutting parameters of each operation being predetermined, Zhang et al. (2016) developed an
integration model of process planning and scheduling to select of process plan and machines for each operation and
the start time of each operation to minimize the total energy consumption. A predictive model of energy
consumption of machine tools is presented by dividing the machining process into three states, i.e., during standby
for transportation, setup, inspection and unloading workpiece, during air cutting when machine operates without
removing material and during material removal process. The experiment result showed that the energy-saving
potential from the integration perspective is much more obvious than energy-aware process planning or energy-
aware scheduling. A similar study can be found by Dai et al. (2015), where a mixed integrated programming model
for process planning and job shop scheduling is proposed to minimize both energy consumption and makespan.
By assuming the process plans of parts being predesigned, Lin et al. (2015) developed an integrated model of
cutting parameter optimization and flow-shop scheduling to minimize both makespan and carbon footprint. The
carbon footprint is comprised of two parts: (1) the carbon footprint during processing state which is evaluated
based on air-cutting energy and cutting energy, (2) the carbon footprint during the machine idle time, and (3) the
carbon footprint during production of raw material, disposal of removed material as well as production of the
cutting tools. Three strategies are proposed to reduce carbon emission: (1) slow down the processing speed of each
operation without affecting the flow time, (2) turn on/ off the idle machines and (3) cutting parameter preliminary
optimization strategy. A similar study was presented by Yan et al. (2016) where the cutting parameters and
schedule scheme were obtained through a multi-level optimization. At machine tool level, cutting parameters of
each operation are optimized with an objective to reduce cutting energy and cutting time. At shop floor level, the
schedule decisions are made to minimize both makespan and total energy consumption.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 6 Relevant studies for integrations of the four operation strategies

Decision variables Objective criterion
Solution
References Tool Process Energy
Cutting parameters Schedules Makespam Tardiness method
path plans consumption
Wang et al. PS-based
× ×   × × 
(2015b) algorithm
Zhang et al. GA-based
× ×   × × 
(2016) algorithm
Dai et al. GA-based
× ×    × 
(2015) algorithm
Lin et al. TLBO-based
 × ×   × 
(2015) algorithm
Yan et al. GA-based
 × ×   × 
(2016) algorithm

5. CONCLUSION
This paper analyzes the energy consumption characteristics of CNC machining process and models the energy
efficiency of CNC machining by adopting three different definitions, i.e., instantaneous energy efficiency, energy
utilization ratio and specific energy efficiency. Based on the energy efficiency modes, the critical factors which
influence the energy efficiency of CNC machining are exploited through a theoretical analysis. These influence
factors include: standby power, auxiliary power, unload power, material removal power, air cutting time, cutting
time, setup time, machine idle time and tool life. For each factor, the corresponding operation strategies are
analyzed at an operational level. Finally, four operational strategies, i.e., cutting parameter optimization, toolpath
optimization, process planning and job shop scheduling, are identified as an effective way for energy efficiency
improvement of CNC machining. The relevant literatures which dealt with the four operational strategies are
comprehensively reviewed. Based on the literature review, some future research directions for energy efficiency
improvement of CNC machining are identified, as detailed below.
(1) Energy-aware process planning
Very few researches have dealt with energy-oriented process planning by considering multiple flexibilities with
related to operations, machines, cutting tools and sequences. The energy consumption characteristic and the
detailed energy models of process plans with varying flexibilities need to be further exploited. In addition to the
energy usage required by machine tool during processing and non-processing stages, other multiple energy-
consuming resources (material handling system, air conditional systems, lighting, etc.) need to be considered in the
energy model for further optimization. Besides, the efficient optimization heuristics need to be developed to
achieve the best process plans in order to achieve a balance between traditionally economic objectives (i.e., the
total machining time and machining cost.) and sustainability criterion (i.e., carbon emissions or energy
consumption).
(2) Integration of process planning and cutting parameter optimization
In the existing work, process planning and cutting parameter optimization were carried out separately and
sequentially to improve energy consumption at a machine tool level or a machining process level. Very little has
been done to systematically study the integration problem of process planning and cutting parameter optimization.
In a CNC machining system, cutting parameter and process plans are complementary and dependent with each
other. On the one hand, the total energy consumed during the processing time and non-processing time periods is
simultaneously influenced by both the process plans (with related to specific operations, machines, cutting tools)
and the cutting parameters. On the other hand, the cutting parameters of each operation are highly dependent on the
predetermined process plan with certain machining operation, machine and cutting tool. Integration of process
planning and cutting parameter optimization can achieve much more energy savings compared with energy-
oriented process planning and cutting parameter optimization.
(3) Integration of cutting parameter optimization and toolpath optimization
Pavanaskar et al. (2015) discovered that the power consumption of machines in a machining process is a much
complex function affected by multiple factors, such as MRR, toolpath strategies, toolpath orientation as well as
machine variability. Differences in machine specifications may result in variable performance of the same toolpath.
Also, the most effective toolpath strategy for a given workpiece could also change from one cutting parameters
scheme to another one. In this regard, toolpath optimization can be integrated with either machine selection or
cutting parameter optimization for further investigations to improve energy consumption/efficiency of CNC
machining.
(4) Integration of cutting parameter optimization and job shop scheduling
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Recently, a perusal of studies has investigated the job shop scheduling problems with speed scaling. In these
studies, it is assumed each machine can work at different speeds and the power consumption at different speeds
varies largely with respect to machine specifications. In addition to cutting speed, the cutting power and cutting
time is also directly influenced by other cutting parameters (feed rate, cutting depth and width). The different
cutting parameter schemes might significantly influence the processing time and idle time of a machine, resulting
in much variations of processing energy consumption, idle energy consumption and other economic performances
(i.e., makespans, tardiness, etc.). In this case, the energy efficiency of CNC machining along with the traditional
performances can be further improved if cutting parameters optimization and job shop scheduling are tightly
integrated. The detailed energy models for the integration problem and efficient heuristics to obtain the optimal
solutions within a computational time period need to be further exploited.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.51475059) and the
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (NO. 106112016CDJXY110003).

REFERENCES
Albertelli, P., Keshari, A., Matta, A., 2016. Energy oriented multi cutting parameter optimization in face milling. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 137:1602-1618.
Aramcharoen, A., Mativenga, P. T., 2014. Critical factors in energy demand modelling for CNC milling and impact of toolpath
strategy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 78: 63-74.
Artigues, C., Lopez, P., Hait, A., 2013. The energy scheduling problem: Industrial case-study and constraint propagation
techniques. International Journal of Production Economics, 143(1): 13-23.
Balogun,V. A., Mativenga, P. T., 2013. Modelling of direct energy requirements in mechanical machining processes. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 41(2): 179-186.
Behrendt, T., Zein, A., Min, S., 2012. Development of an energy consumption monitoring procedure for machine tools. CIRP
Annals - Manufacturing Technology, 61(1): 43-46, 2012.
Bhushan, R. K., 2013. Optimization of cutting parameters for minimizing power consumption and maximizing tool life during
machining of Al alloy SiC particle composites. Journal of Cleaner Production, 39(1): 242-254.
Bilga, P.S., Singh, S., Kumar, R., 2016. Optimization of energy consumption response parameters for turning operation using
Taguchi method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137:1406-1417.
Bruzzone, A. A. G., Anghinolfi, D., Paolucci, M., Tonelli, F., 2012. Energy-aware scheduling for improving manufacturing
process sustainability: A mathematical model for flexible flow shops. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology,
61(1):459-462.
Campatelli, G., Lorenzini, L., Scippa, A., 2014. Optimization of process parameters using a Response Surface Method for
minimizing power consumption in the milling of carbon steel. Journal of Cleaner Production, 66(2): 309-316.
Camposeco-Negrete, C., 2013. Optimization of cutting parameters for minimizing energy consumption in turning of AISI 6061
T6 using Taguchi methodology and ANOVA. Journal of Cleaner Production, 53 (16) 195-203.
Camposeco-Negrete, C., 2015. Optimization of cutting parameters using Response Surface Method for minimizing energy
consumption and maximizing cutting quality in turning of AISI 6061 T6 aluminum. Journal of Cleaner Production, 91:
109-117.
Camposeco-Negrete, C., Najera, J. D. D. C., Miranda-Valenzuela, J. C., 2016. Optimization of cutting parameters to minimize
energy consumption during turning of AISI 1018 steel at constant material removal rate using robust design. International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing, 83(5):1341-1347.
Choi, Y. C., Paul, X. A., 2014. Production planning in highly automated manufacturing system considering multiple process
plans with different energy requirements. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 70(9): 853-867.
Dai, M., Tang, D. B., Xu, Y. C., Li, W. D., 2015. Energy-aware integrated process planning and scheduling for job shops.
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 2015, 229(1): 13-26.
Dai, M., Tang, D., Giret, A., Salido, M. A., Li, W. D., 2013, Energy-efficient scheduling for a flexible flow shop using an
improved genetic-simulated annealing algorithm. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 29(5): 418-429.
Diaz, N., Redelsheimer, E., Dornfeld, D. 2011. Energy consumption charaterization and reduction strategies for milling
machine tool use. 18th CIRP LCE Conference, Braunschweig, 263–267.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Ding, J. Y., Song, S., Wu, C., 2016. Carbon-efficient scheduling of flow shops by multi-objective optimization. European
Journal of Operational Research, 248(3): 758–771.
Duflow, J. R., Sutherlan J. W., Dornfeld D., e t al, 2016. Towards energy and resource efficient manufacturing: A processes
and systems approach. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, 61: 587–609.
Fang, K., Uhan, N., Zhao, F., Sutherland, J. W., 2011. A new approach to scheduling in manufacturing for power consumption
and carbon footprint reduction. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 30(4): 234-240.
Fang, K., Uhan, N. A., Zhao, F., Sutherland, J. W., 2013. Flow shop scheduling with peak power consumption
constraints.Annals of Operations Research, 206(1): 115-145.
Fang, K. T., Lin, B. M. T., 2013. Parallel-machine scheduling to minimize tardiness penalty and power cost. Computers and
Industrial Engineering, 64(1): 224-234.
Fratila, D., Caiza, C., 2011. Application of Taguchi method to selection of optimal lubrication and cutting conditions in face
milling of AlMg3. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(6-7):640-645.
Gahm, C., Denz, F., Dirr, M., Tuma, A., 2016. Energy-efficient scheduling in manufacturing companies: A review and
research framework. European Journal of Operational Research, 248: 744–757.
Gotze, U., Koriath, H. J., Kolesnikov, A., Lindner, R., Paetzold, J., 2012. Integrated methodology for the evaluation of the
energy- and cost-effectiveness of machine tools. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 5(3): 151-163.
Gupta, M. K., Sood, P. K., Sharma, V. S., 2016. Optimization of machining parameters and cutting fluids during nano-fluid
based minimum quantity lubrication turning of titanium alloy by using evolutionary techniques. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 135: 1276-1288.
Gutowski, T., Dahmus, J., Thiriez, A., 2006. Electrical energy requirements for manufacturing processes. 13th CIRP
International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Leuven, May 31st-June 2nd.
Hanafi, I., Khamlichi, A., Cabrera , F. M., Almansa, E., Jabbouri, A., 2012. Optimization of cutting conditions for sustainable
machining of PEEK-CF30 using TiN tools. Journal of Cleaner Production, 33:1-9.
He, Y., Li, Y., Wu, T., Sutherland, J. W., 2015. An energy-responsive optimization method for machine tool selection and
operation sequence in flexible machining job shops. Journal of Cleaner Production, 87(1): 245-254.
Hu, S. H., Liu, F., He, Y., Peng, B., 2010. Characteristics of additional load losses of spindle system of machine tools. Journal
of Advanced Mechanical Design, Systems and Manufacturing, 4(7): 1221-1233.
Hu, S. H., Liu, F., He, Y., Hu, T., 2012. An on-line approach for energy efficiency monitoring of machine tools. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 27: 133-140.
Kant, G., Sangwan, K. S., 2014. Prediction and optimization of machining parameters for minimizing power consumption and
surface roughness in machining. Journal of Cleaner Production, 83: 151-164.
Kara, S., Li, W., 2011. Unit process energy consumption models for material removal processes. CIRP Annual of
Manufacuting Technology, 60: 37-40.
Kong, D., Choi, S., Yasui, Y., Pavanaskar, S., Dornfeld, D., 2011. Software - based tool path evaluation for environmental
sustainability. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 30(4):241-247.
Kuram, E., Ozcelik, B., Bayramoglu, M., Demirbas, E., Simsek, B. T., 2013. Optimization of cutting fluids and cutting
parameters during end milling by using D-optimal design of experiments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 42(3): 159-166.
Le, C. V., Pang, C. K., 2013. Fast reactive scheduling to minimize tardiness penalty and energy cost under power consumption
uncertainties. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 66 (2): 406–417.
Lei, D., Guo, X., 2015. An effective neighborhood search for scheduling in dual-resource constrained interval job shop with
environmental objective. International Journal of Production Economics, 159(1): 296-303.
Li, C. B., Li, L. L., Tang, Y., Zhu, Y. T., Li, L., 2016a. A comprehensive approach to parameters optimization of energy-aware
CNC milling. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, DOI 10.1007/s10845-016-1233-y.
Li, C., Xiao, Q ., Tang, Y., Li, L., 2016b, A method integrating Taguchi, RSM and MOPSO to CNC machining parameters
optimization for energy saving. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135: 263-275.
Li, C. B., Chen, X. Z., Tang, Y., Li, L., 2016c. Selection of optimum parameters in multi-pass face milling for maximum
energy efficiency and minimum production cost. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140:1805-1818
Li, X., Gao, L., Wen, X., 2013. Application of an efficient modified particle swarm optimization algorithm for process
planning. Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 67(5): 1355–1369.
Lian, K. L., Zhang, C. Y., Shao, X. Y., Gao, L., 2012. Optimization of process planning with various flexibilities using an
imperialist competitive algorithm. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 59(5): 815–828.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Lin, W. W., Yu, D,Y., Zhang, C., Liu, X., Zhang, S. Q., Tian, Y.H., Liu, S. Q., Xie, Z. P., 2015. A multi-objective teaching
learning-based optimization algorithm to scheduling in turning processes for minimizing makespan and carbon footprint.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 101: 337-347.
Liu, C. G., Yang, J., Lian, J., Li, W. J., Evans, S., 2014a. Sustainable performance oriented operational decision-making of
single machine systems with deterministic product arrival time. Journal of Cleaner Production, 85: 318-330.
Liu, X. J., Yi, H., Ni, Z. H., 2013. Application of ant colony optimization algorithm in process planning optimization. Journal
of Intelligent Manufacturing, 21(4): 1-13.
Liu, Y., Dong, H. B., Lohse, N., Petrovic, S., Gindy, N., 2014b. An investigation into minimizing total energy consumption
and total weighted tardiness in job shops. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65: 87-96.
Liu, Y., Dong, H., Lphse, N., 2016. A multi-objective genetic algorithm for optimisation of energy consumption and shop floor
production performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 179: 259-272.
Luo, H., Du, B., Huang, G. Q., Chen, H., Li, X., 2013. Hybrid flow shop scheduling considering machine electricity
consumption cost. International Journal of Production Economics, 146(2): 423-439.
Lv, S. P., Qiao, L. H., 2013. A cross-entropy-based approach for the optimization of flexible process planning. International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 68( 9): 2099–2110.
Mansouri, S. A., Aktas, E., Besikci, U., 2016. Green scheduling of a two-machine flow shop: Trade-off between makespan and
energy consumption. European Journal of Operational Research, 248(3): 772-788.
Mashaei, M., Lennartson, B., 2013. Energy reduction in a pallet-Constrained flow shop through on–off control of idle
machines. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 10(1): 45-56.
May, G., Stahl, B., Taisch, M., Prabhu V., 2015. Multi-objective genetic algorithm for energy-efficient job shop scheduling.
International Journal of Production Research, 53(23): 7071-7089.
Moon, J. Y., Shin, K., Park, J., 2013. Optimization of production scheduling with time-dependent and machine-dependent
electricity cost for industrial energy efficiency. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing, 68(61):523-535.
Mori, M., Fujishima, M., Inamasu, Y., et al. (2011). A study on energy efficiency improvement for machine tools. CIRP
Annals Manufacturing Technology, 60(1), 145–148.
Mouzon, G., Yildirim, M. B., Twomey, J., 2007. Operational methods for minimization of energy consumption of
manufacturing equipment. International Journal of Production Research, 45(18-19):4247–4271.
Onwubolu, G. C., 2006. Performance-based optimization of multi-pass face milling operations using Tribes. International
Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 46: 717–727.
Pach, C., Berger, T., Sallez, Y., Bonte, T., Adam, E., Trentesaux, D., 2014. Reactive and energy-aware scheduling of flexible
manufacturing systems using potential fields. Computers in Industry, 65(3): 434–448.
Pavanaskar, S., Pande, S., Kwon, Y., Hu, Z., Sheffer, A., McMains, S., 2015. Energy-efficient vector field based toolpaths for
CNC pocket machining. Journal of Manufacturing Processes, 20: 314-320.
Petrovic, M., Mitic, M., Vukovic, N., Miljkovic, Z., 2016. Chaotic particle swarm optimization algorithm for flexible process
planning. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 85( 9): 2535–2555.
Rajemi, M. F., Mativenga, P. T., Aramcharoen, A., 2010. Sustainable machining: selection of optimum turning conditions
based on minimum energy considerations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(10-11): 1059-1065.
Rangarajan, A., Dornfeld, D., 2004. Efficient Tool Paths and Part Orientation for Face Milling. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing
Technology, 53(1): 73-76
Salido, M. A., Escamilla, J., Giret A., Barber, F., 2016. A genetic algorithm for energy-efficiency in job-shop scheduling. the
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 85(5): 1303–1314.
Sarıkaya, M., Yılmaz, V., Güllü, A., 2016. Analysis of cutting parameters and cooling/lubrication methods for sustainable
machining in turning of Haynes 25 superalloy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 133: 172-181.
Sharma, A., Zhao, F., Sutherland, J. W., 2015. Econological scheduling of a manufacturing enterprise operating under a time-
of-use electricity tariff. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108: 256-270.
Shrouf, F., Ordieres-Mere, O., Sanchez, A. G., and Ortega-Mier, M., 2014. Optimizing the production scheduling of a single
machine to minimize total energy consumption costs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 67(15): 197–207.
Stephenson, D. A., Agapiou, J. S., 2005. Metal Cutting Theory and Practice. Abingdon, Taylor and Francis, England.
Tang, D., Dai, M., Salido, M. A., Giret, A., 2016. Energy-efficient dynamic scheduling for a flexible flow shop using an
improved particle swarm optimization. Computers in Industry, 81(3): 82-95.
Velchev, S., Kolev, I., Ivanov, K., Gechevski, S., 2014. Empirical models for specific energy consumption and optimization of
cutting parameters for minimizing energy consumption during turning. Journal of Cleaner Production, 80: 139-149.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Wang, B., Liu, Z., Song, Q., Wan, Y., Shi, Z., 2016. Proper selection of cutting parameters and cutting tool angle to lower the
specific cutting energy during high speed machining of 7050-T7451 aluminum alloy. Journal of Cleaner Production,
129:292-304.
Wang, Q. L., Liu, F., Li, C. B., 2013. An integrated method for assessing the energy efficiency of machining workshop.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 52: 122-133.
Wang, J. F., Wu X. H., Fang, X. L., 2015a. A two-stage ant colony optimization approach based on a directed graph for
process planning. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 80(5): 839–850.
Wang, S., Lu, X., Li, X. X., Li, W. D., 2015b. A systematic approach of process planning and scheduling optimization for
sustainable machining. Journal of Cleaner Production, 87 (1): 914-929.
Weinert, N., Mose, C., 2014. Investigation of advanced energy saving stand by strategies for production systems. Procedia
CIRP, 15: 90-95.
Wen, X. Y., Li, X. Y., Gao, L., Sang, H. Y., 2014. Honey bees mating optimization algorithm for process planning problem.
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 25(3): 459–472.
Xie, J., Liu, F., Qiu, H., 2016. An integrated model for predicting the specific energy consumption of manufacturing processes.
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 85:1339–1346.
Yan, J., Li, L., 2013. Multi-objective optimization of milling parameters -The trade-offs between energy, production rate and
cutting quality. Journal of Cleaner Production, 52(4): 462-471.
Yan, J. Li, L., Zhao, F., Zhang, F., Zhao, Q., 2016. A multi-level optimization approach for energy-efficient flexible flow shop
scheduling. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137:1543-1552.
Yi, Q., Li, C., Tang, Y., Chen, X. Z., 2015a. Multi-objective parameter optimization of CNC machining for low carbon
manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 95: 256-264.
Yi, Q., Li, C. B., Zhang, X. L., Liu, F., Tang, Y., 2015b. An optimization model of machining process route for low carbon
manufacturing. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 80(5): 1181-1196.
Yildirim, M. B., Mouzon, G., 2012. Single-machine sustainable production planning to minimize total energy consumption and
total completion time using a multiple objective genetic algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
59(4): 585-597.
Zanoni, S., Bettoni, L., Glock, C. H., 2014. Energy implications in a two-stage production system with controllable production
rates. International Journal of Production Economics, 149(149): 164-171.
Zhang, H., Zhao, F., Fang, K., Sutherland, J. W., 2014. Energy-conscious flow shop scheduling under time-of-use electricity
tariffs. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, 63(1):37–40.
Zhang R., Chiong R., 2016. Solving the energy-efficient job shop scheduling problem: a multi-objective genetic algorithm with
enhanced local search for minimizing the total weighted tardiness and total energy consumption. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 112: 3361-3375.
Zhang, Y. J., Ge, L. L., 2015. Method for process planning optimization with energy efficiency consideration. International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 22(9): 2197-2207.
Zhang, Y., Zou, P., Li, B., Liang, S., 2015. Study on optimized principles of process parameters for environmentally friendly
machining austenitic stainless steel with high efficiency and little energy consumption. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing, 79(1):89-99.
Zhang, Z. W., Tang, R. Z., Peng, T., Tao LY., Jia S., 2016. A method for minimizing the energy consumption of machining
system: integration of process planning and scheduling. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137: 1647-1662.
Zhou, L. R., Li, J. F., Li, F. Y., et al., 2016. Energy consumption model and energy efficiency of machine tools: a
comprehensive literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.093
Zumrut, Y., 1993. Optimization of cutting conditions for multi-pass turning and single-pass milling operation. M. Sc. Thesis,
METU, 1993.