Available

Available online
online at
at www.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia
Procedia Manufacturing
Manufacturing 00
00 (2019)
(2019) 000–000
000–000
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 816–823

29th International Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing

(FAIM2019), June 24-28, 2019, Limerick, Ireland.

Assessment of Metal Cutting Tools using Cost Performance Ratio

and Tool Life Analyses
Daniel Johansson11, Rebecka Lindvall1*
1*, Christina Windmark11, Rachid
M’Saoubi22,
33 11 11
Antionette Can , Volodymyr Bushlya , Jan-Eric Ståhl
1Lund
Lund University,
University, Ole
Ole Römers
Römers väg 1, SE-221
SE-221 00
00 Lund,
Lund, Sweden
1
väg 1, Sweden
2Seco Tools AB, 737 82 Fagersta, Sweden
2
Seco Tools AB, 737 82 Fagersta, Sweden
33
Element
Element Six
Six Global
Global Innovation Centre, Fermi
Innovation Centre, Fermi Avenue,
Avenue, Harwell,
Harwell, Didcot,
Didcot, OX11
OX11 0QR,
0QR, United
United Kingdom
Kingdom

Abstract
Abstract

Critical
Critical raw
raw materials
materials (CRM)
(CRM) are
are extensively
extensively used
used inin tools
tools for
for metal
metal cutting,
cutting, such
such asas in
in cemented
cemented carbide
carbide tools
tools (cobalt
(cobalt and
and tungsten),
tungsten),
because
because they
they provide
provide desired
desired characteristics
characteristics of of high
high fracture
fracture toughness
toughness and and wear
wear resistance.
resistance. Both
Both academia
academia and and industry
industry are
are
examining
examining CRM-free
CRM-free material
material alternatives,
alternatives, such
such asas tools
tools based
based on on polycrystalline
polycrystalline diamond
diamond (PCD)
(PCD) or ceramic materials.
or ceramic materials. These
These
materials
materials are
are generally
generally more
more cost
cost intensive
intensive asas compared
compared to to cemented
cemented carbide
carbide but
but could
could also
also provide higher efficiency
provide higher efficiency inin terms
terms of
of
material removal rate. Material removal rate and tool costs have a substantial influence on the final part
material removal rate. Material removal rate and tool costs have a substantial influence on the final part cost. When deciding on cost. When deciding on
tool material,
tool material, the
the manufacturing
manufacturing industry
industry isis either
either looking
looking for for the
the most
most cost
cost effective
effective alternative
alternative oror the
the alternative
alternative providing
providing the
the
highest productivity
highest productivity output.
output. The
The purpose
purpose ofof this
this paper
paper is is to
to provide
provide industry
industry with
with decision
decision support
support for
for selection
selection ofof tool
tool and
and cutting
cutting
data that
data that provide
provide the
the financial
financial most
most sound
sound production
production set-up.
set-up.
This work
This work aims
aims toto present
present aa novel
novel methodology
methodology combining
combining the the Colding
Colding tool
tool life
life model
model and
and aa previously
previously presented
presented model
model for
for cost
cost
performance ratio.
performance ratio. A
A previous
previous publication
publication provided
provided aa method
method to to assess
assess technological
technological solutions
solutions and
and investments
investments based
based on
on final
final part
part
cost. The
cost. The developed
developed methodology
methodology in in this
this article
article combines
combines cutting
cutting performance
performance and and production
production performance
performance to to allow
allow aa
comprehensive cost
comprehensive cost assessment
assessment for
for aa production
production process.
process. TheThe assessment
assessment includes
includes cutting
cutting data,
data, tool
tool life
life and
and costs
costs of
of tooling,
tooling, quality
quality
rejections, process
rejections, process availability,
availability, equipment
equipment investment,
investment, personnel
personnel and and facility.
facility. A
A case
case study
study based
based onon experimental
experimental data
data is
is presented
presented
to verify
to verify the
the proposed
proposed methodology.
methodology.
© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
©
© 2019
2019
This The
The
is an Authors,
accessPublished
Authors,
open Published by
by Elsevier
article under Elsevier B.V.
B.V.
the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer
Peer review under
review under
Peer-review the
the responsibility
underresponsibility of theof
responsibility of the
the scientific
scientific
scientific committee
committee
committee of
of the
the Flexible
of the FlexibleFlexible Automation
Automation
Automation and
and Intelligent
Intelligent
and Intelligent Manufacturing
2019 (FAIM2019
Manufacturing
Manufacturing 2019
2019)

Keywords: Metall Cutting;

Keywords: Metall Cutting; Cost
Cost Perfomance
Perfomance Modelling;
Modelling; Critical
Critical Raw
Raw Material;
Material; Colding
Colding Tool
Tool Life
Life Modell
Modell

2351-9789
2351-9789 ©© 2019
2019 The
The Authors,
Authors, Published
Published byby Elsevier
Elsevier B.V.
B.V.
Peer review
Peer review under
under the
the responsibility
responsibility of
of the
the scientific
scientific committee
committee of
of the
the Flexible
Flexible Automation
Automation and
and Intelligent
Intelligent Manufacturing
Manufacturing 2019
2019

2351-9789 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing 2019 (FAIM 2019)
10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.114
 Daniel Johansson et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 816–823 817
2 Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

1. Introduction and background

Global competition drives manufacturing companies to continuously reduce their product costs. The drive to
decrease product cost increases the need for awareness of one’s production and thus makes it more important to be
able to estimate or calculate production part costs. Metal cutting, being the most value adding production process
worldwide [1], is highly sensitive to the cutting data (depth of cut, feed and cutting speed) applied with regard to cycle
time and part cost. Cutting data can be optimized with regard to either optimal productivity aiming for lower cycle
time or optimal economic output aiming for minimum part cost [2].
In the manufacturing industry, tungsten and cobalt based carbide tools are usually used for their low cost and high
performance. As awareness of critical raw materials (CRM), such as tungsten and cobalt, has increased in both
academia and industry, several efforts have been made on finding substitute tool materials such as tools based on
polycrystalline diamond (PCD) and ceramic materials [3], [4]. However, the constant drive to decease production costs
implies that the replacement tool materials need to be financially attractive.
This paper presents an empirical methodology that both considers productivity and production costs by
incorporating a system approach by connecting cutting data to cost per part. The aim of the presented model is to
include system performance measurements and all corresponding costs in a manufacturing process with detailed
information on the machinability of the selected tool and work material. The methodology is used in a test case to
assess both the economic and productivity measures of two different tool materials, one based on cemented carbide
(CC) and one on PCD.

2. Literature review on process optimization based on performance and operation costs

Metal cutting is an important yet resource intensive industrial process. Research publications on decision support
models for machining strategies and comparative studies to evaluate cutting tool extensively cover the field and
included among others studies [2, 3, 8, 9]. When evaluating a novel tool material it is important to include both
potential productivity and production costs in the analysis. Tool life models, such as the Taylor equation [9], have
traditionally been used to optimize cutting data. When optimizing cutting data for the lowest cycle time, a traditional
tool life model such as Taylor equation can be used. However, when optimizing for lowest part cost, a production
system approach is needed, which considers parameters such as manufacturing and equipment costs and quality losses.
The manufacturing cost of machined parts is determined by several different aspects such as the material removal
rate, tool costs, tool life, machine costs, set-up time and tool changing time, equipment handling time, personnel costs,
facility costs, batch sizes, downtimes, quality rejections, wastes, and speed losses [5]. The lowest tool cost does not
automatically provide the lowest part cost as process performance have influence on the production cost [1-2, 5]. There
are different ways to calculate manufacturing costs of machined parts, dependent on the level of detail and area of use.
In Shaw [10] Gilbert´s model from 1952 is used, providing a method for economic estimations of machining based on
direct labor and machine costs, tool changing costs, and tool costs per part. A broader perspective of the manufacturing
costs, also involving system costs and performance related cost, is presented by Colding [11]. The broader perspective
includes the manufacturing system and not only the machining operation, presenting an approach close to activity-
based costing. The calculation approach of activity-based-costing, first presented by Cooper and Kaplan [12] is among
others used in Orji & Wei [13] for estimations on cost impacts of greener production in machining and in Plaza et al.
[8] for optimization of machining strategies. However, a review [14] of cost models including models with the activity-
based approach have showed that most cost and performance parameters can be found in the performance-based model
presented in Ståhl et al. [15]. The model has a general approach and to adapt it to machining operations an integration
with the model in Colding [11] was done to further incorporate times related to the machining process [5].
Windmark et al [16] presents a principle on a general Cost Performance Ratio (CPR) assessment, incorporating an
extensive cost model including several performance parameters for evaluation of equipment investments. This model
will serve as the foundation for developing the Tool Cost Performance Ratio model presented in this paper.
Several aspects of tool life and cutting data modelling from product design to production realization have been
investigated by Johansson [17] and Hägglund [2]. Johansson concludes that empirical models do have several
advantages as compared to analytical, numerical and soft computing tool life models. Johansson et al. [18] studied the
818 Daniel Johansson et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 816–823
Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 3

most commonly used empirical tool life models in several workpiece materials and found the Colding model was
superior in modelling tool life and cutting data.

3. Research design

The research is based on five fundamental blocks as visualized in Fig. 1: (1) Experimental set-up, (2) Estimated
machinability and tool performance (3) General Cost Performance Ratio model, (4) Development of Tool CPR model
and (5) Verification of the model. To begin with, the work material, tool materials and tool designs are selected in the
experimental set-up (1) serving as the base for the analysis. This study compares two tool designs; it is also possible
to compare different work materials or using the model to optimize an existing production operation. To estimate the
performance of selected tools and machinability of work material, the Colding model was used [19]. The Colding
model, an extension of the well-known Taylor equation, has proved to be a reliable tool life model for several tool and
work material combinations [18]. Machine tests enabled determination of the five Colding constants, whereas a tool
life model was established for each of the two investigated tool designs. Together with a defined wear criterion, the
relation between process data and estimated tool life and thus the machining performance of the selected tools were
estimated. The development of the Tool CPR model is based on the presented model for general CPR. In the new
model, the cost performance parameters are dependent on the machinability. The Tool CPR model is used to analyze
the selected tool materials and their cost performance. To verify the methodology, a machining test case is presented.

Fig. 1. The five blocks of the research design.

4. Model development

In a metal cutting operation, the production time is depended on several different movements and process steps. In
[5] an idealistic cycle time (t0) for a part is defined to include engagement time per part (te), tool transportation and
work material handling per part (trem), and tool changing time per part (ttct). Equation 1 presents the relationship
between the times where T is the tool life and T tct is the tool change time. However, other times that are important
when determining the part production time include equipment set-up time (Tsu), time losses (ts), and time losses caused
by rejections (tQ). The model presented in this paper will take all these times into consideration when analyzing the
cost performance of the two different tool designs. The set-up time will be handled as a constants in the model, time
 Daniel Johansson et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 816–823 819
4 Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

losses and quality rejection will be used as ratios. Table 1 below presents the parameters used in the model together
with the values used in the case.
𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒
𝑡𝑡0 = 𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒 + 𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 + 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = 𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒 + 𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 + ∙ 𝑇𝑇 (1)
𝑇𝑇 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡

Table 1. Parameters with units and values used in the case study. The parameters with value calc. are estimated in the case study.

Parameter Description unit Value (case CC/PCD)

ap Depth of cut mm 0.3
f Feed mm/rev. 0.12
H Colding constant - calc.
K Colding constant - calc.
kA Cost of tool € 10/100
kB Cost of material € 7
kCP Machine cost (running) €/h 40
kCS Machine cost (idle) €/h 35
kD Salary cost for operators €/h 45
L Colding constant - calc.
M Colding constant - calc.
N0 Batch size units 200
N0 Colding constant - calc.
nop Number of operators units 0.33
qQ Rate of quality losses - 0.02
qS Rate of time losses - 0.1
qrem Rate of remaining time - calc.
qtct Rate of tool changes - calc.
d Tool diameter mm 9.00/9.52
T Tool life min 4 to 40
t0 Cycle time min/part calc.
te Tool engagement time min/part calc.
trem Remaining time incl. workpiece change and tool transportation min/part 2
Tsu Set-up time per batch min 180
Ttct Tool change time min 2
ttct Tool change time min calc.
V Volume of work material to remove mm3 10
vc Cutting speed m/min calc.
z Nr. of cutting edges units 12

The cutting speed (vc), as a function of tool life and equivalent chip thickness, is estimated using the Colding model
[19]. The five Colding constants, H, K, M N0 and L, are determined through five or more different machining tests
with varying cutting data. The tool engagement time is then calculated using equation 2, using the volume of removed
work material (V), the cutting depth (ap), the feed (f), and the being modelled cutting speed (vc).

𝑉𝑉
𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒 = (2)
𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑣𝑣𝐶𝐶

The loss parameter for the remaining time (qrem) (time for changing work material and tool transportation) is related
to the engagement time (te) and presented in equation 3. In the same way, the loss parameter for tool changing time
(qtct) is related to the engagement time (te) and the remaining time (trem) in equation 4.
820 Author Johansson
Daniel name / Procedia
et al. /Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 816–823 5

𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑚𝑚
𝑞𝑞𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 = (3)
𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒 + 𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟

𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡
𝑞𝑞𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = (4)
𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒 + 𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 + 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡

The total cost for producing a part, based on selected cutting data, is calculated using equation 5. The tool cost (k A)
is distributed per the being machined part using the number of cutting edges (z) and the ratio between tool life (T) and
tool engagement time (te). The cost of work material is affected by the rate of quality rejections (q Q) and the rate of
material scrap (qB). The cost of the work material is removed merely considering the cost caused by the operation.
The hourly cost of running the equipment (kCP), for idling equipment (kCS) and salary costs are dependent on the
engagement time. For idling equipment and salary cost, the equipment set-up time and the rate of time losses will
contribute to the total cost volume. When determining the salary cost the number of operators (n op) is used. If an
operator is running several machines, the parameter will be a fraction of the unity.

𝑘𝑘𝐴𝐴 𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒 𝑘𝑘𝐵𝐵 𝑘𝑘𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃 𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒

𝑘𝑘 = ∙ + − 𝑘𝑘𝐵𝐵 + ∙ +
𝑧𝑧 𝑇𝑇 (1 − 𝑞𝑞𝑄𝑄 )(1 − 𝑞𝑞𝐵𝐵 ) 60 (1 − 𝑞𝑞𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 ) ∙ (1 − 𝑞𝑞𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 ) ∙ (1 − 𝑞𝑞𝑄𝑄 )
𝑘𝑘𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒 ∙ 𝑞𝑞𝑆𝑆 𝑇𝑇𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
+ ∙( + )+
60 (1 − 𝑞𝑞𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 ) ∙ (1 − 𝑞𝑞𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 ) ∙ (1 − 𝑞𝑞𝑄𝑄 ) ∙ (1 − 𝑞𝑞𝑆𝑆 ) 𝑁𝑁0 (5)

𝑘𝑘𝐷𝐷 ∙ 𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒 𝑇𝑇𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠

+ ∙( + )
60 (1 − 𝑞𝑞𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 ) ∙ (1 − 𝑞𝑞𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 ) ∙ (1 − 𝑞𝑞𝑄𝑄 ) ∙ (1 − 𝑞𝑞𝑆𝑆 ) 𝑁𝑁0

Furthermore, to determine the cost performance of a cutting tool the model can be used to simulate the cost benefits
of using different tools and cutting data. In section 5, a test case with two different tools is used to verify the model
methodology.

5. Case study

This section is divided into two parts. First, a presentation on the experimental set-up and results from Colding
modeling, followed by calculations of cycle time and part cost.

5.1. Experimental setup and Colding modeling

Turning tests were performed by machining Ti6Al4V with two grades of tool materials, uncoated cemented carbide
(CC) and polycrystalline diamond (PCD). Round tools with a diameter of 9.52 mm and geometry RCMT09T300-F1
(CC) and RNMN090300 (PCD) were used. Machining was performed in SMT SAJO 500 Swedturn, CNC turning
machine with 70 bar high pressure directed coolant of 8 % oil-water emulsion. A total of six tests with varying cutting
data were executed for each tool material. The tool life was determined by the wear criterion VB = 0.22 mm. Depth
of cut (ap) was held constant for all tests at 0.3 mm, feed (f) tested at 0.08, 0.10, 0.12 0.15 and 0.20 mm/rev and cutting
speed (vc) ranging from 150 – 295 m/min, resulting in tool life of 1.8 – 30.8 min. Tool wear was measured using
optical stereo microscope Olympus SZX7.
The calculated Colding model constants are presented in table 2, according to Johansson et al. [20] using
Hägglund’s equivalent chip thickness model for round inserts [2].
6 Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

Daniel Johansson et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 816–823 821

Table 2. Results from the machining tests using the Colding model.
Constants K H M N0 L Error %
CC 5.5450 -3.3524 2.0622 0.7064 -0.1623 2.6
PCD 5.7110 -3.5089 2.0939 0.8414 -0.1970 3.3

5.2. Cycle time and cost per part

The introduced model was used to calculate cycle times to produce a part where 10 cm3 of work material are to be
removed with fixed ap = 0.3 mm and f = 0.12 mm/rev. Fig. 2a presents the cycle time (t0) as a function of selected tool
life for CC and PCD. No limitations on machine torque, machine power, machine speed or surface finish were applied.
Models to handle such limitation have been presented by Hägglund [2].Tool life was calculated by use of cutting
speed (vc) in the corresponding Colding equation for each tool material. The lowest cycle time according to the model
will be around a tool life of 25 min for both CC and PCD. When cycle time has been calculated it is possible to use
the presented model and input data (presented in the introduction) to calculate the part cost as a function of tool life.
Fig. 2b presents cost per part of machining using CC or PCD tooling.

Fig. 2. (a) Cycle time as a function of tool life for CC and PCD when removing 10 cm3 of work material including all presented parameters such
as engagement time per part (te), tool transportation and work material handling per part (trem), and tool changing time per part (ttct), equipment set-
up time (Tsu), time losses (ts), and time losses caused by rejections (tQ). (b) Cost/part as a function of tool life for CC and PCD including cost of
tool (kA), cost of material (kB), machine cost (running) (kCP), machine cost (idle) (kCS), and salary cost for operators (kD).

6. Discussion and Conclusions

The case study showed that use of PCD tool results in slightly lower cycle time compared to CC whereas use of
CC tool results in slightly lower part cost up to a tool life of about 33 min. The cost per cutting edge for the PCD tool
is 10 times higher than the cost per cutting edge of the CC tool. Still, the part cost at a tool life of 25 min is 1.8 %
higher for PCD compared to CC. The case study emphasizes the importance of not only looking at tool cost, or more
specifically cost/cutting edge, when setting up a production system, but to put this cost in relation to the machining
performance of the cutting tool.
822 Daniel Johansson et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 816–823
Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 7

In this case study the tool life, being directly linked to the selected cutting speed, has been used as a parameter to
evaluate the two different tool materials. The novelty of this research is the presentation of a model which is not
limited to only tool life, but any input parameter such as feed, depth of cut, batch size, cost parameters and quality
parameters can be evaluated in regard to cycle time or part cost.
The authors would like to clearly state that the result of this case study cannot be extrapolated to other machining
operations. Instead, the aims are to present a methodology on how to examine the cost performance of cutting tools.
The obtained results depends on the input parameters.
In this paper the Colding tool life model and cutting parameters have been used, but the same methodology could
be applied on any production system where empirical or physical relations are used as input parameters to the
suggested CPR model. A previous study [15] have used a similar methodology for evaluation of equipment
investment, but it could also be used for utilization estimations and batch size decisions. The model could potentially
also be used when designing a system for a new production location, where the personnel costs and cost of equipment
would affect the tooling and cutting data selection. Expensive equipment, high level of automation and high cost
personnel motivate a higher tooling performance.
The model can be used as in the example above for more comprehensive, one time decisions or in the daily work
for continual production development. With clear understanding of what drives the costs and time wastes, the model
can be used in the daily work to either optimize the production volume and production capacity through machine time
reduction or towards cost reductions.
Future work would be to develop a digital twin which can be used for simulation of a whole production system.
The digital twin would be used for production planning decisions, considering several machines including bottlenecks,
marked demand and utilization as well as cost or time depending on the relation between production capability and
demand.
This work only investigate the CPR of one parameter, cutting speed, as a variable. By use of Monte-Carlo
simulations, it would be possible to find global optima for several cutting data parameters or any other parameter of
interest for the manufacturing cost.

Acknowledgements

This work was co-funded under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under
Flintstone2020 project (grant agreement No 689279) and is also a part of the Sustainable Production Initiative
cooperation between Lund University and Chalmers University of Technology. The authors wish to acknowledge the
valuable contributions made by Seco Tools AB and Element Six Group.

References

1. Ståhl J-E, A.B. ST (2012) Metal cutting theories and models. Division of Production and Materials Engineering

2. Hägglund S (2013) Methods and models for cutting data optimization. Chalmers University of Technology

3. Toller L, Jacobson S, Norgren S (2017) Life time of cemented carbide inserts with Ni-Fe binder in steel turning. Wear 376:1822–1829

4. Agmell M, Bushlya V, Laakso S V., et al (2018) Development of a simulation model to study tool loads in pcBN when machining AISI
316L. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 95:2853–2865

5. Ståhl J-E (2017) An integrated cost model for metal cutting operations based on engagement time and a cost breakdown approach. Int J
Manuf Res 12:379–404. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMR.2017.088397

6. Kumar R, Sahoo AK, Mishra PC, Das RK (2018) Comparative study on machinability improvement in hard turning using coated and
uncoated carbide inserts: part II modeling, multi-response optimization, tool life, and economic aspects. Adv Manuf 6:155–175.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40436-018-0214-0

7. Kundrák J, Molnár V, Deszpoth I (2018) Productivity analysis of machining milled surfaces. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 448:.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/448/1/012012

8. Plaza M, Zębala W, Matras A (2019) Decision system supporting optimization of machining strategy. Comput Ind Eng 127:21–38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.11.034

9. Taylor FW (1906) On the Art of Cutting Metals

 Daniel Johansson et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 816–823 823
8 Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

10. Shaw MC (2005) METAL CUTTING PRINCIPLES Second Edition

11. Colding B (1978) Relative Effects of Shop Variables on Manufacturing Cost and Performance. Ann CIRP 27:453–458

12. Cooper R, Kaplan RS (1988) Measure Costs Right: Make the Right Decisians. Harv Bus Rev 66:96–103

13. Orji I, Wei S (2016) A detailed calculation model for costing of green manufacturing. Ind Manag Data Syst 116:65–86.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-04-2015-0140

14. Windmark C (2018) Performance-based costing as decision support for development of discrete part production - Linking performance,
production costs, and sustainability. Lund University

15. Ståhl J-E, Andersson C, Jönsson M (2007) A basic economic model for judging production development. In: 1th Swedish Production
Symposium

16. Windmark C, Bushlya V, Ståhl J-E (2018) CPR a general Cost Performance Ratio in Manufacturing - A KPI for judgement of different
technologies and development scenario. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.106

17. Johansson D (2019) Tool Life and Cutting Data Modelling in Metal Cutting – Testing, Modelling and Cost Performance. Lund
University

18. Johansson D, Hägglund S, Bushlya V, Ståhl J-E (2017) Assessment of Commonly used Tool Life Models in Metal Cutting. Procedia
Manuf 11:602–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROMFG.2017.07.154

19. Colding BN (1980) The machining productivity mountain and its wall of optimum productivity. Soc Manuf Eng

20. Johansson D, Schultheiss F, Bushlya V, et al (2014) TOOL LIFE AND WEAR MODEL IN METAL CUTTING, PART 1-
INFLUENCE OF VARYING FLANK WEAR CRITERION ON COLDING’S TOOL LIFE EQUATION. In: The 6th Swedish
Production Symposium, Proceedings. Lund Sweden