Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 508 513

The 22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle Engineering

Application of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Design of Experiments

(DOE) to the monitoring and control of a grinding process
Diogo A. L. Silvaa,*, Remo A. P. Filletia, Andr L. Christoforob, Eraldo J. Silvaa, Aldo R. Omettoa
a

Department of Production Engineering, University of So Paulo, Av. Trabalhador So Carlense, 400, So Carlos - 13566-690, Brazil
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Federal University of So Carlos, Washington Luis km 235, So Carlos - 13565-905, Brazil

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +55-16-3373-8608; fax:+55-16-3373-9425.E-mail address:diogo@sc.usp.br

Abstract
The number of studies on green manufacturing has increased over the past years and particular focus has been placed on machining processes
and the application of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). This paper reports the results of the use of a modeling approach that combines Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) and Design of Experiments (DOE) to investigate a cylindrical plunge grinding for 21-2N steel. The effect of two process
parameters on the LCA results of the grinding machining was studied through an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The parameters investigated
were type of CBN grinding wheel (JB126 K150 VSS and 8B126 K150 VT2) and different levels of specific material removal rate (50, 100, 150
and 200 mm/mm.min).
2015
2015 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier
Elsevier B.V.
B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license

Peer-review under responsibility of the International Scientific Committee of the Conference 22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Engineering.under responsibility of the scientific committee of The 22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle Engineering
Peer-review
Keywords:sustainable manufacutirng; green manufacturing; green machining; process modelling; environmental impacts; analysis of variance (ANOVA)

1. Introduction
1.1. LCA and DOE in manufacturing processes
Sustainable manufacturing (SM) aims at the integration of
sustainability aspects on a manufacturing level. According to
the U.S. Department of Commerce, SM refers to the creation
of products that minimize negative environmental impacts,
conserve energy and natural resources, are safe for employees,
communities and consumers and economically sound [1].
Green manufacturing (GM) is part of the SM [1, 2] related to
the necessity of increases in material and energy efficiency
and reduction in environmental impacts of manufacturing
processes.
The practical implementation of SM and GM strategies has
faced some limitations, e.g., the manufacturing industry lacks
scientifically-based decision support tools for their effective
implementation [1, 3, 4]. However, in recent years, SM and
GM studies have placed particular focus on the use of Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) as a tool to overcome such a
technical barrier [2, 3, 4].

LCAs have been performed in unit processes on a factory

level, mainly for machining operations, as milling [5, 6],
turning [7], and grinding [3, 7-10]. However, the isolated use
of LCA may not be enough to support SM and GM strategies
[1, 3] and extend research on the topic. Thus, engineering
concepts and techniques, such as Design of Experiments
(DOE) have been recently applied towards the creation of
cleaner production processes, and some examples will be
addressed in the next paragraphs.
DOE was introduced by Sir R. A. Fisher and is particularly
important to investigate the effects of simultaneous and
multiple variables (factors) on an output variable (response)
[11]. When applying DOE to subsidize GM strategies, some
researchers have analyzed the effects of a number of variables
on the processes and/or products performance. Some recent
applications of DOE to the development of GM strategies
involve metal cutting, milling and turning [12-15], and wood

2212-8271 2015 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 22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle Engineering
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2015.01.037

Downloaded from http://www.elearnica.ir

509

Diogo A. L. Silva et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 508 513

cutting processes [16], as described in the following

paragraphs.
Fratila and Caizer [12] reduced the machining energy
consumption by applying a Taguchis DOE approach and
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to select optimal lubrication
and cutting conditions in the face-milling of AIMg3. To
achieve the minimum power consumption and the best surface
quality simultaneously, Hanafi et al. [13] adopted a Taguchis
DOE approach and ANOVA to optimize cutting parameters
when machining PEEK-CF30 with TiN tools. Bhushan [14]
applied a DOE based on response surface methodology
(RSM) and ANOVA to optimize four cutting parameters,
minimize power consumption and maximize the tool life in
the machining of Al alloy SiC particle composites.
Camposeco-Negrete [15] applied the Taguchi method and
ANOVA to optimize cutting parameters and reduce electricity
consumption in the AISI 6061 T6 turning process. More
recently, Chompu-inwai et al. [16] studied a Fishers classical
DOE approach and ANOVA to reduce materials consumption
and minimize waste in the cutting process of a wood products
manufacturing company.
The above literature has shown most of the studies focused
on the optimization of energy consumption in manufacturing
operations. Thus, aiming to extend research on the topic the
current study combines DOE and LCA as detailed below.

Design of
Experiments

Fig. 1. DOE and the PDCA cycle.

This paper evaluates a combined modeling approach of

LCA and DOE to investigate a cylindrical plunge grinding
process of 21-2N steel. DOE was used to evaluate how
changes in the process parameters (factors) can affect the
LCA results (responses) of the machining process.

A DOE begins by defining the null hypothesis (H0) and the

significance level () in the Plan (P) step of a research.
Experiments are then conducted for each treatment
considering all factors and replicates during step Do (D). In
the Check (C) step, H0 is tested to check if the mean value of a
response from a population under investigation (treatment)
is the same or different from the mean value of another
population. Finally, in the Action (A) step, the conclusions are
taken based on the aim and scope of the study.
DOE was applied in this study by Minitab software
version 14 for the evaluation of the grinding process. The
value was assumed as 5% and the DOE method was based on
the Fishers classical approach and the application of an
ANOVA model. The Fishers classical approach was adopted
as it is considered more in line for use in comparison to other
methods [16]. Finally, a Tukeys test method was used in the
ANOVA results as a multiple comparison procedure.
The experimental design was developed according to the
two grinding parameters under study and resulted in a total of
120 experiments, as discussed in section 2.1.

2. Methodology

2.1. Factors (independent variables)

The present research aims at continuing prior studies on

GM topics conducted by the research groups Life Cycle
Management and Engineering (LCM&E) and Laboratory for
Advanced Processes and Sustainability (LAPRAS), at the
University of So Paulo (USP), Brazil.
This study is based on the cylindrical plunge grinding
process described by Silva and Oliveira [17]. All the dataset of
the experiments were extracted from Silva and Oliveira [17]
and used in the combined LCA and DOE approach.
The workpieces were made of 21-2N steel, which is an
austenitic nitrogen-strengthened stainless steel used in a
variety of applications, e.g., aerospace turbine engines,
exhausted valves. Test specimens of cylindrical shape, 150
mm long, and 25.4 mm external diameter were used [17].
The machine tool was a CNC external cylindrical grinder,
coupled with measuring devices regarding electric energy
consumption. The wheel cutting was 80 m/s, the workpiece
rotation was 200 r/min and the grinding width was 5 mm [17].
The grinding parameters (or factors) selected for evaluation
in the present research were type of grinding wheel and
specific material removal rate (Qw).
Regarding the DOE approach, it followed the principle of
circularity of the PDCA cycle, as shown in Fig. 1.

The factors and their levels were determined for the

experiments, as shown in Table 1.

1.2. Objective

Treatments

Table 1.Treatments used in the grinding tests.

Number of
Type of
Qw
replicates
grinding wheel [mm/mm.min]

15

VT2

50

15

VT2

100

15

VT2

150

15

VT2

200

15

VSS

50

15

VSS

100

15

VSS

150

15

VSS

200

Table 1 shows the grinding machining when two different

grinding wheels JB126 K150 VSS and 8B126 K150 VT2
were used, with, respectively, four different Qw 50, 100,
150 and 200 mm/mm.min. Both wheels were 400 mm in
diameter, and made of vitrified cubic boron nitride (CBN).
Those CBN wheels will be cited in the next paragraphs as
VSS and VT2.

510

Diogo A. L. Silva et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 508 513

2.2. Responses (dependent variables)

The GaBi Professional version 6 software was used to
model the LCA study and the dependent variables
investigated were the environmental impacts calculated by the
CML 2001 method [18]. It was only inventoried the electrical
energy consumption at the wheel spindle motor during the
grinding experiments, and the inventory data of the electricity
generation was extracted from the GaBi database for the
Brazilian context. After that, five environmental impact
categories were selected: abiotic depletion (fossil) potential
(ADP), acidification potential (AP), freshwater aquatic
toxicity potential (FAEP), human toxicity potential (HTP),
and global warming potential (GWP).
The functional unit was not defined, and only measurable
values for the reference flow were established. Thus, the LCA
results were compared in terms of:
x Two different reference flows: a) 1 s of grinding machine
operation; and b) 20,000 mm removed material per
grinding test, i.e., a complete machining of one workpiece.
This comparison showed if the statistical conclusions of
the DOE approach would be affected by the change in the
LCAs reference flow for the same experiment.
According to the ANOVA results, p-values higher than 5%
accept H0 and reject it otherwise. If H0 has been rejected, it
means the factor levels are statically significant for the
response-variable analyzed. Finally, to validate the ANOVA
model, residual analyses were performed to check normality,
homogeneity and independence [11]. A check of the normality
and homogeneity assumptions can be made by the tests of
Anderson-Darling and Bartlett, both to 5% of . P-values
higher than 5% validate normality and homogeneity
assumptions. Regarding the independence test, a plot of
residuals in the order in which data was collected can be used
to detect any correlation between the residuals [11, 16].
3. Results and discussion

In Table 2, the higher the Qw, the lower the consumption

of electrical energy for both VT2 and VSS wheels. On the
other hand, regarding the specific consumption of electrical
energy [KJ/s], the higher the Qw, the higher the specific
energy consumption. Therefore, the effect of environmental
impacts of grinding should be verified when the reference
flow is 1 s of machining versus one machined workpiece.
3.2. Results for 1 s of grinding machining
Table 3 shows the mean results of ADP, AP, FAEP, HTP
and GWP for 1 s of grinding. Such results were used in the
ANOVA model and the p-values are given in Table 4.
According to Table 3, for both VT2 (treatments 1, 2, 3 and
4) and VSS (treatments 5, 6, 7 and 8) grinding wheels, the
higher the Qw, the higher the impacts, which is in line with
the inventory results discussed in Table 2 for the specific
consumption of electrical energy.
Table 3.Environmental impact results for each treatment 1 s of grinding.
AP

FAEP

HTP

GWP

[MJ]

[kg SO2eq.]

[kg DCBeq.]

[kg DCBeq.]

[kg CO2eq.]

8.75E-05

1.20E-07

2.53E-07

3.06E-06

5.50E-05

1.77E-04

2.43E-07

5.12E-07

6.18E-06

1.11E-04

2.61E-04

3.57E-07

7.55E-07

9.12E-06

1.64E-04

3.06E-04

6.49E-07

1.37E-06

1.66E-05

2.99E-04

1.22E-04

1.67E-07

3.53E-07

4.26E-06

7.66E-05

Treat
ments

ADP

1.78E-04

2.44E-07

5.16E-07

6.23E-06

1.12E-04

2.18E-04

2.98E-07

6.30E-07

7.61E-06

1.37E-04

2.62E-04

3.59E-07

7.59E-07

9.17E-06

1.65E-04

Table 4.ANOVA results for each environmental impact category.

Normality test
Homogeneity
Grinding
Impact
test
ANOVA
(Andersonwheel
categories
Darling)
(Bartlett)

3.1. Overall inventory data

VT2

Table 2 shows the average data of energy consumption as

well as the processing time for each treatment. The processing
time was used to calculate the environmental impacts per both
one second of grinding machining and one workpiece.
Table 2. Consumption of energy and processing time for each treatment.
Electrical energy
Processing time
Treatments
[KJ]
[s]
1

1,158.54

4,474.84

1,171.68

2,237.42

1,152.13

1,491.61

1,011.11

1,118.71

1,613.72

4,474.84

1,180.78

2,237.42

961.36

1,491.61

868.50

1,118.71

VSS

ADP

0.315

0.102

0.055

AP

0.315

0.102

0.055

FAEP

0.315

0.102

0.055

HTP

0.315

0.102

0.055

GWP

0.315

0.102

0.055

ADP

0.061

0.339

0.075

AP

0.061

0.339

0.075

FAEP

0.061

0.339

0.075

HTP

0.061

0.339

0.075

GWP

0.061

0.339

0.075

Based on Table 3, the environmental hotspots were

associated with the electricity supply chain due to
consumption of electrical energy in the grinding process.
Furthermore, to validate the ANOVA model, all the p-values
of the tests of normality and homogeneity of residuals
variance were higher than 5%, as shown in Table 4.

511

Diogo A. L. Silva et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 508 513

In Fig. 2, plots regarding the ANOVA validation process

for normality, homogeneity and independence can be seen for
the GWP category and the VT2 grinding wheel. Equivalent
plots were also obtained for all the other impact categories and
the VSS grinding wheel.
Probability Plot of GWP
Normal

99,9

Mean
StDev
N
AD
P-Value

99
95
90

Percent

80
70
60
50
40
30
20

-4,96926E-21
0,000005393
60
0,420
0,315

After the ANOVA model had been validated, tests of

hypothesis were performed and the results in Table 4 show pvalues higher than 5% for both the VT2 and VSS wheels. In
summary, the Q`w factor was not statistically effective in
changing the environmental impacts in the grinding tests with
the use of both the grinding wheels. In this sense, a Tukey test
was not performed because the factor levels of Q`w were not
significantly different for 95% of confidence level.
A full factorial design was made for the analysis of the
effect of the type of grinding wheels on the overall results of
the environmental impacts. The VT2 and VSS wheels were
compared for the same Qw values. The ANOVA and Tukey
test results are provided in Tables 5 and 6, respectively.
Table 5. ANOVA results for each environmental impact category
comparison of the VT2 and VSS wheels.
ANOVA
Impact
Normality Homogeneity

10
5
1
0,1
-0,00002

-0,00001

0,00000

0,00001

0,00002

(a)

Residual
Test for Equal Variances for GWP
Bartlett's Test

50

Test Statistic
P-Value

6,21
0,102

categories

test

test

Qw

Type

Qw x type

ADP

0.806

0.532

0.668

0.000

0.223

AP

0.063

0.068

0.070

0.030

0.083

FAEP

0.771

0.255

0.301

0.021

0.113

HTP

0.709

0.373

0.456

0.000

0.191

GWP

0.209

0.753

0.703

0.001

0.323

Qw

100

According to Table 5, the type of wheel is an important

factor because the ANOVA results were lower than 5%. The
Qw factor and its interactions with the type of wheel were not
statistically relevant, as all p-values were higher than 5%.

150

200
02
00
00
0,

06
00
00
0,

04
00
00
0,

08
00
00
0,

10
00
00
0,

12
00
00
0,

14
00
00
0,

(b)

95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for StDevs

categories

VT2

VSS

50

100

150

200

ADP

AP

0,000005

FAEP

0,000000

HTP

GWP

Versus Order

(response is GWP)

0,000010

Residual

Table 6. Tukey test results for each environmental impact category

comparison of the VT2 and VSS wheels.
Type of wheel
Qw [mm/mm.min]
Impact

-0,000005
-0,000010
-0,000015
-0,000020
1

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Observation Order

45

50

55

60

(c)

Fig. 2. (a) Normal probability plot, (b) homogeneity of confidence

intervals, (c) independence of residuals versus observation order illustrative
example for the GWP impact category and VT2 grinding wheel.

Fig. 2 (a) shows a normal probability plot for the variance

residuals of the GWP category calculated by the AndersonDarling (AD) test. Fig. 2 (b) shows that the homogeneity
assumption was satisfied as the p-value was higher than 5%
for the Bartletts test. Finally, Fig. 2 (c) shows a plot of
residuals versus observation order for the GWP category and
VT2 wheel, and no obvious grouping or bunching of residuals
was found, validating the independence assumption.

The Tukey test showed the highest environmental impacts

occurred for the VT2 wheel, which explains why this group
was denoted as group A. The grinding process using the VSS
wheel showed lowest environmental impacts (group B), while
the Qw factor showed equivalent impacts for all levels (group
A). Therefore, for 1 s of grinding, the optimal process
parameters were the use of VSS wheel with any Qw value
from 50 to 200 mm/mm.min, because they were the factors
that achieved the lowest levels of environmental impacts in
the grinding experiments.
3.3. Results for one machined workpiece
The same analysis and comparisons reported in section 3.2
are shown in section 3.3. However, here the results were all
normalized for the 20,000 mm of removed volume of
material as a reference flow. Table 7 shows the mean results
of ADP, AP, FAEP, HTP and GWP for each treatment under

512

Diogo A. L. Silva et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 508 513

study. The results of the ANOVA and Tukey test are provided
in Tables 8 and 9, respectively.

Table 9. Tukey test results for each environmental impact category.

Qw [mm/mm.min]
Grinding
Impact
wheel

Table 7. Environmental impact results for each treatment one machined

workpiece.
Treat
ADP
AP
FAEP
HTP
GWP
ments
[MJ]
[kg SO [kg DCB[kg DCB[kg CO -

VT2

categories

50

100

150

200

ADP

AP

FAEP

eq.]

eq.]

eq.]

eq.]

HTP

GWP

50

100

150

200

2.62E-02

3.58E-05

7.59E-05

9.16E-04

1.65E-02

2.64E-02

3.61E-05

7.64E-05

9.23E-04

1.66E-02

2.59E-02

3.54E-05

7.50E-05

9.05E-04

1.63E-02

ADP

2.28E-02

3.08E-05

6.52E-05

7.87E-04

1.42E-02

AP

3.64E-02

4.98E-05

1.05E-04

1.27E-03

2.29E-02

FAEP

2.66E-02

3.64E-05

7.70E-05

9.30E-04

1.67E-02

HTP

2.17E-02

2.96E-05

6.27E-05

7.57E-04

1.36E-02

GWP

1.95E-02

2.67E-05

5.65E-05

6.82E-04

1.23E-02

Table 7 shows the higher the Qw, the lower the

environmental impacts for both VT2 (treatments 1, 2, 3, and
4) and VSS wheels. It was a controversial observation in
comparison to the results in section 3.2, Table 3, where the
highest impacts occurred for the highest value of Qw.
Therefore, when the reference flow time of processing versus
volume of material removed is changed, all the environmental
impacts can significantly change.
Table 8. ANOVA results for each environmental impact category.
Grinding
Impact
Homogeneity
Normality test
ANOVA
wheel
categories
test

VT2

ADP

0.278

0.303

0.000

AP

0.532

0.551

0.038

FAEP

0.532

0.551

0.038

HTP

0.529

0.532

0.000

GWP

0.501

0.500

0.030

ADP
VSS

AP
FAEP

0.660
0.660
0.293

0.075
0.075
0.084

VSS

Tables 10 and 11 show the statistical results regarding the

effect of the type of grinding wheel on the impact potentials.
Table 10. ANOVA results for each environmental impact category
comparison of the VT2 and VSS wheels.
ANOVA
Impact
Homogeneity
Normality test
categories
test
Qw
Type
Qw x type
ADP

0.200

0.058

0.000

0.030

0.000

AP

0.242

0.058

0.000

0.030

0.000

FAEP

0.242

0.058

0.000

0.030

0.000

HTP

0.242

0.058

0.000

0.030

0.000

GWP

0.242

0.058

0.000

0.030

0.000

Table 11. Tukey test results for each environmental impact category
comparison of the VT2 and VSS wheels.
Type of wheel
Qw [mm/mm.min]
Impact
categories

VT2

VSS

50

100

150

200

ADP

0.000

AP

0.000

FAEP

0.000

HTP

GWP

HTP

0.660

0.075

0.000

GWP

0.293

0.084

0.000

From results in Table 8, the ANOVA model was validated

and the effect of Qw factor on the environmental impact
results was statistically significant for both VT2 and VSS
wheels, because all the p-values were lower than 5%. These
results have contradicted those in section 3.2, Table 4, where
the Qw factor was not relevant.
According to the Tukey test in Table 9, for the VT2 wheel,
the lowest impacts occurred for the highest Qw value (200
mm/mm.min), and the impacts for Qw from 50 to 150
mm/mm.min were higher and statistically equivalent (group
A). For the VSS wheel, the lowest impacts were also observed
for grinding with Qw = 200 mm/mm.min.

The type of wheel was relevant for all impact categories,

because its p-values were lower than 5%, which has confirmed
the findings reported in section 3.2, i.e., type of grinding
wheel can directly effects the environmental impacts, and the
Tukey results (Table 11) showed the VSS wheel caused the
lowest environmental impacts (group B). Furthermore, the
lowest impacts occurred for the highest Qw value. The Qw
values were relevant for the environmental impacts studied,
while in section 3.2, the same Qw values were statically not
representative.
The interaction of Qw and the type of wheel was
representative for all impact categories according to the results
in Table 10. Therefore, Fig. 3 shows an interaction plot of
GWP results versus Qw and type of grinding wheel. It is
important to highlight that similar curves were also obtained
for all the other impact categories in this study.

Diogo A. L. Silva et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 508 513

513

Acknowledgements

Interaction Plot for GWP [kg CO2-Equiv.]

Data Means

0,024

Grinding
wheel

VT2
VSS

Mean results of GWP

0,022

Financial support provided by FAPESP (So Paulo

Research Foundation) through Grant no. 2013/06736-9.
References

0,020
0,018
0,016
0,014
0,012
50

100

150

200

Q'w

Fig. 3. Interaction plot for GWP versus Qw and type of grinding wheel.

According to Fig. 3, there is an intersection point of results

when grinding with Qw = 100 mm/mm.min. At this
intersection point, the GWP impacts of both VT2 and VSS
wheels were equivalent, and for higher values of Qw, lower
GWP impacts were specially found for the VSS wheel. Thus,
based on the statistical results, the optimal process parameters
for the reference flow of one machined workpiece, were the
use of the VSS grinding wheel with Qw = 200 mm/mm.min.
4. Conclusions
The process of choosing an LCAs reference flow is very
important for the development of SM and GM strategies. The
results showed for 1 s of grinding machining as a reference
flow, the optimal process parameters were the use of VSS
wheel with any Qw value from 50 to 200 mm/mm.min. On
the other hand, when the reference flow was one machined
workpiece, the optimal set of parameters was the use of the
VSS wheel with Qw value of 200 mm/mm.min. Moreover,
the interaction of Qw and type of wheel was also an important
factor when assuming one machined workpiece as reference
flow. The authors agree that the reference flow of one
workpiece was the best choice because it enabled a more indepth evaluation of the statistical effects of changing grinding
parameters on the overall environmental impacts. For
example, to calculate the environmental impacts for 1 s of
grinding, the coefficients of variation of results were almost
constant and lower than 5%, which indicate that changes in
the grinding parameters exerted a low influence on results.
However, when the grinding process was studied for one
machined workpiece, higher coefficients of variation of the
results were obtained. Thus, to support SM and GM strategies
and a better controlling and monitoring of the grinding
process studied, it is recommended to use number of
machined workpieces as an LCA reference flow instead of
time of processing. More studies should be conducted for the
evaluation of other grinding parameters (e.g. cutting fluid
flow, cutting velocity), while also including this DOE and
LCA approach to study other manufacturing processes.

[1] Dornfeld DA,Yuan C, Diaz N, Zhang T, Vijayaraghavan A. Introduction

to green manufacturing. In: Dornfeld DA. Green manufacturing:
fundamentals and applications. Berkeley: Springer, 2013. p. 1-23.
[2] Silva DAL, Filleti RA, Pavan ALR, Silva EJ, Ometto AR. Avaliao do
ciclo de vida com foco na melhoria ambiental de processos de
manufatura. (in Portuguese). In: Proceedings of the IV Brazilian Congress
about Life Cycle Management, 2014. So Bernardo do Campo, p. 1-6.
[3] Winter M, Li W, Kara S, Herrmann C. Determining optimal process
parameters to increase eco-efficiency of grinding processes. J Clean Prod
2014; 66:644-654.
[4] Herrmann C, Hauschild MZ, Gutowski T, Lifset R. Life cycle engineering
and sustainable manufacturing. J Ind Ecol 2014;18: 471-477.
[5] Narita H, Kawamura H, Norihisa T. Development of prediction system for
environmental burden for machine tool operation (1st report, proposal of
calculation, method for environmental burden). JSME Int J Series C Mech
Syst2006;49:11881195.
[6] Diaz N, Helu M, Jayanathan S, Chen Y, Horvath A, Dornfeld D.
Environmental analysis of milling machine tool use in various
manufacturing environments. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE
International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology, 2010.
Arlington, p. 1-6.
[7] Arajo JB, Oliveira JFG. Evaluation of two competing machining
processes based on sustainability indicators. In: Dornfeld DA, Linke BS.
Leveraging technology for a sustainable world. Berkeley: Springer, 2012.
p. 317-322.
[8] Murray VR, Zhao F, Sutherland JW. Life cycle analysis of grinding: a
case study of non-cylindrical computer numerical control grinding via a
unit-process life cycle inventory approach. Proceed Inst Mech Eng, Part
B: J Eng Manufacturer2012;226:16041611.
[9] Filleti RAP, Silva DAL, Silva EJ, Ometto AR. Dynamic system for life
cycle inventory and impact assessment of manufacturing processes.
Procedia CIRP 2014;15:531-536.
[10] Li W, Winter M, Kara S, Herrmann C. Eco-efficiency of manufacturing
processes: a grinding case. CIRP Ann Manuf Techn 2012; 61:59-62.
[11] Montgomery DC. Design and analysis of experiment. 6th ed. Arizona:
John Wiley & Sons; 2005.
[12] Fratila D, Caizer C. Application of Taguchi method to selection of
optimal lubrication and cutting condition in face milling of AIMg3. J
Clean Prod 2011;19:640-645.
[13] Hanafi I, Khamlichi A, Cabrera FM, Almansa E, Jabbouri A.
Optimization,of cutting conditions for sustainable machining of PEEKCF30 using TiN tools. J Clean Prod 2012;33:1-9.
[14] Bhushan RK. Optimization of cutting parameters for minimizing
powerconsumption and maximizing tool life during machining of Al alloy
SiC particlecomposites. J Clean Prod 2013;39:242-254.
[15] Camposeco-Negrete C. Optimization of cutting parameters
forminimizingenergy consumption in turning of AISI 6061 T6
usingTaguchi methodology and ANOVA. J Clean Prod 2013;53:195-203.
[16] Chompu-inwai R, Jaimjit B, Premsuriyanunt P. A combination of
Material Flow Cost Accounting and design ofexperiments techniques inan
SME: the case of a wood products manufacturing company in northern
Thailand. J Clean Prod 2014 (in press).
[17] Silva, EJ, Oliveira, JFG. Evaluation technique for determining wheel
performance in the grinding of aerospace materials. Proc Inst Mech Eng B
J Eng Manuf 2011; 225:25-34
[18] GuineJB. Life cycle assessment: an operational guide to the
ISOstandards. LCA in perspective operational annex to guide.
Netherlands: Centre for Environmental Science, Leiden University, 2001.