Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical

Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering

Manufacture
http://pib.sagepub.com/

An empirical model for predicting energy consumption of manufacturing processes: a case of turning
process
W Li and S Kara
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 2011 225: 1636
originally published online 22 August 2011
DOI: 10.1177/2041297511398541

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://pib.sagepub.com/content/225/9/1636

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Institution of Mechanical Engineers

Additional services and information for Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering
Manufacture can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://pib.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://pib.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://pib.sagepub.com/content/225/9/1636.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Oct 24, 2011

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Aug 22, 2011

What is This?

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on October 24, 2014

1636

An empirical model for predicting energy consumption

of manufacturing processes: a case of turning process
W Li* and S Kara
Life Cycle Engineering & Management Research Group, University of New South Wales,
Sydney, Australia

The manuscript was received on 24 September 2010 and was accepted after revision for publication on 7 January 2011.

DOI: 10.1177/2041297511398541

Abstract: Optimizing the energy efficiency of processes has become a priority in the
manufacturing sector; driven by soaring energy costs and the environmental impact caused by
high energy consumption levels. The energy consumed by a machine tool performing a turning
process consists of not only the energy required by the tool tip for material removal but also the
energy used for auxiliary functions. Traditionally, the energy required for the cutting process
is estimated based on cutting force prediction equations. However, this estimation is limited to
the energy consumption of the tool tip. Thus, the aim of this paper is to develop a reliable method
to predict the total energy consumption of a selected machine tool performing a turning oper-
ation. In order to compare the energy consumption under different cutting conditions, the spe-
cific energy consumption is defined as a functional unit: the energy consumed to remove 1 cm3 of
material. An empirical model is obtained based on power measurements under various cutting
conditions, and it is able to provide a reliable prediction of energy consumption for given process
parameters. Additional investigations are conducted in order to understand and explain each
coefficient in the energy consumption model.

Keywords: empirical model, energy consumption, turning process

1 INTRODUCTION to achieve this goal the energy consumption of

In recent years, minimizing energy consumption by
optimizing process efficiency has become a priority
in the fields of manufacturing engineering and life
cycle engineering [1]. There has been a move towards
more energy-intensive manufacturing processes in
order to minimize manufacturers’ exposure to spiral-
ling energy costs [2]. In addition preliminary studies
on milling and turning processes have indicated that
more than 99 per cent of the environmental impact
of these processes is a result of their energy consump-
tion levels [3]. Thus, there is considerable interest
in optimizing these processes in order to minimize
both costs and environmental impact [4]. In order
*Corresponding author: Life Cycle Engineering & Management
Research Group, University of New South Wales, Sydney,
Australia.
email: wen.li@unsw.edu.au
manufacturing processes needs to be evaluated and
documented properly. This would allow areas of con-
cern to be isolated and allow effective corrective
actions and modifications to be performed.
The energy requirements of a machine tool not
only consists of the energy supplied to the tool tip
for material removal but also numerous other auxil-
iary functions [5]. To date, there is no effective
method for the estimation of the energy required by
a machine tool that considers all processes that con-
sume energy. This deficiency is addressed in this
paper that presents an energy consumption model
for a CNC turning machine tool: a Colchester
Tornado A50. In order to compare the energy con-
sumption under different cutting conditions, the spe-
cific energy consumption (SEC) is defined as a
functional unit: the energy consumed to remove
1 cm3 of material. The complexity of the considered
machine tool means that an empirical approach is

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on October 24, 2014
 An empirical model for predicting energy consumption
used to establish the relationship between SEC and
process parameters. Comprehensive measurements
are conducted by varying cutting conditions in
order to develop the proposed model. In addition,
further investigations are performed in order to
understand and explain each coefficient of the
energy consumption model.
2 RESEARCH BACKGROUND
Traditionally, the theoretical minimum cutting power
is estimated based on cutting force prediction and the
basic physical relationship between power and force
is given in equation (1)
Pt ¼ F c  v
There are two main approaches used for cutting
force prediction. The first one uses orthogonal
machining theory, e.g. Oxley’s model [6] whereas
the second approach is to apply empirical modelling,
e.g. the force prediction approach of Armarego et al.
[7]. Consequently, there are distinct force and pres-
sure equations for characterizing cutting forces.
Moreover, it is often difficult to find coefficients for
each case, or hard to understand how the different
equations are related. More importantly, the estima-
tion of minimal cutting power based on force predic-
tion is mainly used for comparing the machine torque
output in order to assess the capability of machine
tools. Hence, this approach can only derive one part
of the total energy consumption of a machine tool:
that which is utilized solely for tool tip cutting
purposes
The manufacturers of cutting tools, for example,
Seco Tools, also provide specific information for
cutting performance estimation, including power
demand. In the Seco Tools catalogue the cutting
power requirement is related to cutting parameters,
tool geometries, workpiece material, and efficiency.
This is illustrated in equation (2) [8]
v  f  d  kc
Pc ¼
60 000
The efficiency (Z) which indicates the relationship
between the energy consumption of the tool tip and
the total energy consumption of the machine tool is a
key factor. However, there is no further information
about it and as a result power estimation is imprac-
tical. Draganescu et al. [9] have attempted to establish
a relationship between cutting parameters and effi-
ciency of a vertical milling machine tool. Even though
this work was limited to the main spindle drive motor
the results showed the complexity of estimating a
value of efficiency. There was no evidence to validate
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on October 24, 2014
1637
the proposed statistical model on other processes.
Recently, Gutowski et al. [2, 10] conducted a series
of environmental analyses of manufacturing pro-
cesses. They also introduced a theoretical power
consumption equation for these manufacturing pro-
cesses. As shown in equation (3), a relationship is
developed based on a thermodynamic equilibrium
approach, which the authors called the exergy
framework
P ¼ P0 þ k v_ ð3Þ
For a turning process, P0 is the idle power due to
auxiliary components and k refers to the specific cut-
ting energy. The authors noted that it was important
to simplify the manufacturing processes using the
exergy concept and that the main factor was the pro-
ð1Þ
cess rate v_ or material removal rate (MRR) for a mate-
rial removal process. However, the factors, P0 and k
were not clearly defined in this work. Without know-
ing the value and the theory of each factor, energy
prediction is still not feasible.
While a turning process only contains a single cut-
ting point, the machine tool is a complex system
which includes several different motors, control sys-
tems, and other auxiliary components as illustrated in
Fig. 1. The main consumers of power, such as the
spindle drive motor and servo motors, are load-
dependent components. Furthermore, the energy
consumed by those components is not only con-
verted to material removal, but also transformed to
other forms of energy e.g. heat. Since there are no
applicable theories to explain the behaviour of
such a complex system empirical experimental
approaches are generally taken to investigate these
systems [11–14]. This is also the case in this paper
where an empirical approach is utilized in order to
develop a model that can be used to predict energy
consumption.
3 METHODOLOGY
Empirical models are developed based on observed
ð2Þ data for variables when mechanistic models of these
variables are unknown [15]. As mentioned previously,
the relationship between machining variables and
machine tool behaviour in terms of energy consump-
tion is complex and still a topic of on-going study.
Hence, an empirical approach can be an effective
method to establish this relationship; the utilized
approach includes three stages: design of experiment,
experimental measurements, and analysis and
modelling.
The response surface methodology (RSM)
approach was used to plan the experiments per-
formed in this study. It requires at least three levels
Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
1638 W Li and S Kara

Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of the machine tool

of variance in order to achieve a reliable energy con-

sumption model. The Minitab version 15 software
and the face centred composite design option were
used to develop the experimental plan for RSM. A
power monitoring platform was developed in order
to acquire accurate and effective data. The platform
consisted of a LabVIEW programming interface and a
compact NI Cdaq-9172 data acquisition chassis, a NI
9225 voltage measurement module, a NI 9229 current
measurement module, and Fluke current clamps
which convert a current signal into a voltage signal.
The system can continuously record the power con-
sumption of a machine tool at a 0.1 s sampling inter-
val. Since the aim of this research is to predict
the total energy consumption of the machine tool,
the measuring point was located at the power bus.
The experimental set-up is illustrated in Fig. 2. The
observed data were processed using the SPSS statis- Fig. 2 Photograph of the experimental set-up
tical analysis package to obtain the empirical
model and its coefficients. Curve estimations were
conducted in order to derive the most authentic 1. Tool condition: i.e. material, insert geometry, tool
model between the observed data and the variables, wear, etc.
where the R-square value indicates the accuracy of 2. Workpiece material: generally refers to hardness
the model. and machinability.
3. Cutting parameters: i.e. speed, feed, and depth
4 EMPIRICAL MODELLING of cut.
4. Cutting fluids: whether or not a coolant is used.
4.1 Design of experiments
However, if all the factors are involved, the number of
There are numerous factors that influence a cutting required experiments becomes impractical.
option in a turning process. They can be generally Therefore, it is essential to reduce the number of
classified into one of four categories. variables and this can be achieved by isolating those

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on October 24, 2014
 An empirical model for predicting energy consumption 1639

factors that do not have a significant impact on the
power demand.
The cutting force models suggest that the cutting
force is mainly determined by shear stress in the
shear zone which depends on workpiece material,
feed, and depth of cut [6]. The initial experiments
were conducted by varying rake angles and nose
radius. The results indicated that the tool conditions
had an insignificant impact on machine tool behav-
iour in terms of total power demand.
When cutting fluids are applied, the coolant pump
draws current at a constant level. Although applying
cutting fluids improves the surface finish and tool life,
it contributes to the fixed power demand in terms
of electrical consumption. In order to maintain the
consistency of the experiments, the performed exper-
iments were conducted under dry-cutting conditions.
The workpiece material and cutting parameters
appear to have a significant influence on turning per-
formance. The hardness and machinability of the
workpiece limit the insert choices as well as the
range of cutting parameters [8]. For example, alumin-
ium can be removed at a high speed, whereas cutting
high tensile steel is a relatively slow procedure.
Owing to the strong correlation between workpiece
material and process parameters, the experiments
were conducted with three different materials:
aluminium 2011, bright mild steel 1020, and high
tensile steel 4140. The variance levels of each cutting
parameter were defined based on machine capac-
ity, as listed in Table 1. The sequence of the experi-
ments was generated and randomized using Minitab
version 15. Moreover, a general insert, WNMG
06T208-PP with grade IC9025, was used through all
the measurements in order to maintain the consis-
tency of the experiments.
4.2 Experiments and measurement strategy
There were three stages of cutting within each exper-
iment. First, the raw metal bar was corrected to a
universal size of 49 mm in diameter, i.e. skin-off,
followed by two repetitive facing cuts in order to
examine spindle acceleration, in which a constant
surface speed was applied. Then a 50 mm long hori-
zontal cut was performed with the scheduled process
parameters, and it was replicated an additional two
times. The measured power demand for one com-
plete run was plotted against time at 0.1s intervals
as shown in Fig. 3. The power curve exactly mirrors
those machining operations. However, the analysis of
the data obtained for the facing cuts became prob-
lematic due to the inconsistency of MRR along one
cut. A spindle needs to accelerate exponentially when
the workpiece diameter decreases in order to create a
constant MRR. Thus, once the spindle reaches its
capacity, 4000 r/min in this case, and is no longer
able to compensate the reduction in the diameter of
the workpiece then MRR decreases. Moreover, the
facing operations only account for a small portion
of total removal work in practice. Therefore, the anal-
ysis was mainly focused on the horizontal machining
actions.
In addition, the power demand when there was no
workpiece (an air cut) was recorded. During an air cut
the machine tool requires power to perform the basic
operations such as rotating the spindle and moving
the cutting tool along the programmed cutting path.
The difference between the values of the normal cut
and the air cut indicates the power required for mate-
rial removal. This is discussed in detail in section 5.
4.3 Analysis and modelling
First, the three horizontal cuts were separated as
shown in Fig. 3. The energy consumption of each
cut is the integration of the power over the cutting
period. The cutting volume was determined for the
scheduled cutting parameters. Thus, SEC was calcu-
lated (equation (4)) as the dependent variable in the
RSM
R
total energy consumption E Pdt
SEC ¼ ¼ ¼
cutting volume Q Q
ð4Þ
Based on this design of experiments, there was a
total of 178 observed data points as the input values

Table 1 Variation of each process parameters for selected materials

Material Factors Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Aluminium (2011) v (m/min) 200 300 400
f(mm/rev) 0.1 0.2 0.3
d(mm) 1.0 1.5 2.0
Mild steel (1020) v(m/min) 100 150 200
f(mm/rev) 0.1 0.2 0.3
d(mm) 0.5 1.0 1.5
High tensile steel v(m/min) 90 120 150
(4140) f(mm/rev) 0.1 0.15 0.2
d(mm) 0.5 1.0 1.5

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on October 24, 2014
1640 W Li and S Kara

Fig. 3 Example of a power measurement

Table 2 Summary of SEC model

R R square Adjusted R square Std error of estimate

0.997 0.993 0.993 0.596

ANOVA
Sum of squares Degrees of freedom Mean square F Sig.
Regression 9432.508 1 9462.508 26 563.614 0.000
Residual 62.851 177 0.355
Total 9495.360 178

Coefficients
Non-standardized coefficients Standardized coefficients

C Std. error Beta t Sig.

1/MRR (cm3/s) C1 2.191 0.013 0.997 162.983 0.000
(Constant) C0 1.494 0.065 23.064 0.000

for modelling. According to Gutowski et al. [10]
the MRR is the main independent factor for a
given material removal process. Therefore, a curve-
estimation procedure was performed on the data
plotted in SEC against MRR graphs using the SPSS
statistical analysis program. This program contains
11 different types of models from linear to qua-
dratic, from logarithmic to exponential, and the
output R-square value indicates the accuracy of each
model, as shown in Fig. 4.
Based on the results obtained using the curve-
estimation procedure it appears that the inverse
model can explain over 99 per cent of the variation
in the SEC. The results validate the previous reports in
the literature, and therefore it is unnecessary to intro-
duce other variables to describe the relationship
between SEC and process parameters. The results of
the statistical analyses are listed in Table 2. The R-
square value indicates that 99.3 per cent of the vari-
ance of the observed data can be explained within the
empirical model. From the ANOVA results, the large F
value and small significance level show the strong
correlation between SEC and MRR. Hence, the
derived empirical model for the selected machine
tool closely fits the observed data, as presented in
equation (5)
C1 2:191
SEC ¼ C0 þ ¼ 1:494 þ ð5Þ
MRR MRR
where C0 is the coefficient of the inverse model, C1 is
the coefficient of the predictor, and MRR is the
predictor of the inverse model.
The empirical approach treats the machine tool as
a whole system, which simplifies the relationship

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on October 24, 2014
 An empirical model for predicting energy consumption 1641

Fig. 4 Fitted curves to SEC versus MRR plots

between specific energy consumption and predictor
MRR in terms of the two coefficients C0 and C1.
However, the values of each coefficient may vary
between different machines and between processes
on the same machine. More importantly, it is difficult
to precisely assign the factors or reasons for each
coefficient of the empirical model. Therefore, further
investigations were conducted and the results of
these investigations are presented in section 5.
5 DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MODEL
The empirical model of equation (5) agrees with the
proposed exergy framework of Gutowski et al. [10]
(equation (3)). However, the coefficient C1 (2.19)
does not equate to the measured fixed power (1.7
kW) when the tested machine tool is in stand-by
mode. Thus, further investigations were conducted
in order to understand the coefficients, C0 and C1.

4.4 Model validation 5.1 SEC decomposition

Additional experiments were performed in order to
validate the empirical model. Since the MRR is the
only variable included in the empirical model, differ-
ent materials (brass and mild steel 1045) were used in
the validation experiments. Four new sets of process
parameters were used which were different to the
ones used during the model development stage. The
results, listed in Table 3, show that the empirical
model was able to successfully predict the total
energy consumption for a given set of process param-
eters with an accuracy of over 90 per cent.
The energy consumption of the machine tool needs
to be decomposed into its components to allow the
coefficients to be investigated. Dietmair and Verl [16]
used an approach in which they changed the operat-
ing conditions of a milling machine tool state by state
in order to develop the energy consumption profile of
each component. However, it is very difficult to dif-
ferentiate between the energy consumed by the spin-
dle drive motor and that consumed by the servo
motors. In this paper the energy consumption is
decomposed based on different utilizations.

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on October 24, 2014
1642 W Li and S Kara

Table 3 The results of the model validation experiments

Brass Mild steel (1045)
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4
Cutting speed (m/min) 350 350 160 160
Feed (mm/rev) 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1
Depth of cut (mm) 2 0.5 1.25 0.8
MRR (cm3/s) 2.333 0.292 0.667 0.213
Cutting volume Q (mm3) 8792 2041 7497 4391
Predicted SEC (equation (5)) 2.433 9.006 4.781 11.764
Predicted energy consumption E¼SECQ(J) 21 390.9 18 381.2 35 838.2 51 656.8
Measured energy consumption Ei (J) 23 491.4 19 990.5 39 385.4 54 052.8
Accuracy (%) ½1  ðjE  Ei j=Ei Þ  100% 91.06 91.95 90.99 95.56

Fig. 5 SEC decomposition

When a machine is in stand-by mode or is idle, a
fixed amount of power is required by the auxiliary
components and unloaded components to ensure
that the machine is ready for operation when
required. In practice, an air cut is used to check the
numerical control program; in this approach the spin-
dle rotates and the cutting tool moves according to the
program without contacting the workpiece. Thus, due
to these essential operations there is an additional
power requirement for an air cut compared to the
fixed power required at stand-by mode. The power
gap between the normal cut and the air cut is the
energy utilized to remove material from the work-
piece. However, this amount of energy is not the
amount of energy used by the tool tip for material
removal, since friction effects result in some of this
energy being converted into heat. Since the functional
unit is SEC, the energy consumption is decomposed
based on the operating period required to remove
1cm3 of material. Therefore, the SEC can be separated
into the following four segments, as shown in Fig. 5.
1. The specific fixed energy (SFE): this is the energy
used to ensure that the machine is ready over the
operating period required to remove 1 cm3 of the
workpiece.
2. The specific operational energy (SOE): this is the
energy used to enable the essential operations
such as spindle rotation and cutting tool move-
ment over the operating period required to
remove 1 cm3 of the workpiece.
3. The specific tool tip energy (STE): this is the energy
required by the tool tip to remove 1 cm3 of the
workpiece.

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on October 24, 2014
 An empirical model for predicting energy consumption
4. The specific unproductive energy (SUE): this is the
energy that is converted to heat over the operating
period required to remove 1 cm3 of the workpiece.
The first two segments can be easily measured and
separated from SEC based on power measurements
of air cuts.
For the Colchester Tornado A50, the measured
fixed power was 1.17 kW with a standard deviation
of 0.003 kW. In the stand-by mode, the hydraulic
pump motor is used to maintain the pressure level
of the clamping system and the servo motors draw
power to maintain their position. Also, the control
system and other auxiliary components are activated
to allow the machine to be ready for operation on
request. During the cutting operations, these compo-
nents remain at the same status except for the servo
motors when extra cutting loads are allocated.
The machine tool requires supplementary power to
perform the essential operations associated with the
cutting process, such as rotating the spindle and
moving the cutting tool along the programmed
cutting path, which can be measured through the
air cuts. Since the servo motors that control the X
and Y axes motions are already enabled during the
stand-by mode, the additional power required to
move the cutting tool is insignificant. Hence, the
required operational power is mainly due to the
spindle drive motor, which is closely related to
the rotation speed of the spindle. Since the power
consumption of air cuts were also recorded, the
SOE can be easily calculated and separated from
SEC. Since the tested machine tool has a relative
small spindle drive motor (3.5 kW/4.7 HP), the oper-
ational power for spindle rotation only accounts for a
small proportion of the total power demand, which
follows a linear relationship with the rotational speed
as shown in Fig. 6.
However, the other two segments, STE and SUE
cannot be separated directly.
As mentioned earlier in this paper, the tool tip
energy consumption can be estimated based on cut-
ting forces as shown in equation (1). The comprehen-
sive information available about tool geometries,
material properties, and the formulas provided by
Seco Tools are used in this research. The cutting
forces can be obtained, according to equation (6), in
terms of the specific cutting force kc in the shear zone,
the feed, and depth of cut. The specific cutting force
kc is a function of the shear stress of the workpiece
material (kc1.1), and the geometric properties of
the cutting action (g0, a)
1  0:010
Fc ¼ kc  f  d ¼  mc kc1:1  f  d
f sin 
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on October 24, 2014
1643
Fig. 6 Plot of operational power versus rotational
speed
In order to evaluate the accuracy of this equation
the cutting forces were measured under different cut-
ting conditions using a Kistler Dynamometer. The
observed cutting forces are compared with predicted
values in Fig. 7. While the accuracy of the predicted
cutting force for the removal of aluminium is rela-
tively high, the reliability decreases when harder
materials are considered. Thus, the cutting force
model can only provide a rough estimate of the
energy requirements of tool tip for material removal.
The unproductive energy is even more difficult
to estimate. From a thermodynamic perspective the
machine normally generates more heat than the
levels expected due the removal process. The friction
created at the bearing unit and transmission system
could be additional sources of the unproductive
energy [17]. Jedrzejewski et al. [12] suggested that
the unproductive power in a machine system is due
to a wide range of factors which result in a complex,
dynamic, and non-linear state for the thermal equi-
librium that is characterized by continuous changes
in power losses, temperatures, and displacements.
They developed a hybrid model which was combined
with the finite element method and finite difference
method to analyse the thermal performance of spin-
dle and bearing units. Abele et al. [11] presented a
comprehensive review about spindle units including
existing thermal models and they highlighted that the
complexity and inherent limitations of these models
make it unlikely that the reliance on experimental
measurements will change in the near future. Direct
measurement of generated heat is also inapplicable in
this case. As an alternative approach this paper uses
ð6Þ the observed SEC values and subtracts the other
segments SFE, SOE, and STE from SEC in order to
Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
1644
Fig 7 Plot of measured cutting forces versus predicted cutting forces
estimate SUE. The relationship between SUE and
MRR also fits an inverse model as shown in Fig. 8
and equation (7)
1 0:746
SUE ¼ 0 þ ¼ 0:452 þ
MRR MRR
In Fig. 8, the SUE model suggests a critical region
where the MRR is under 0.3 cm3/s. Within this critical
region, the unproductive energy increases signifi-
cantly when reducing the MRR. As a slow MRR
refers to small tool tip energy requirement, the ratio
between unproductive energy and total energy con-
sumption is significant. In other words, the material
removal process at a MRR < 0.3 cm3/s is very ineffi-
cient, and should be avoided.
5.2 The coefficients C0 and C1
The presented analysis shows the difficulty of esti-
mating energy consumption of a machine tool from
mechanical theories. Even obtaining the fixed power
use in stand-by mode is dependent on measure-
ments. The friction-generated heat and the energy
converted to heat make the prediction of energy con-
sumption more complicated and less applicable.
More importantly, the total energy consumption of
a machine tool is not only due to energy required
for machine readiness and by the tool tip. The essen-
tial operations and friction effects also consume a
proportion of the total energy. Thus, the coefficient
Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on October 24, 2014
W Li and S Kara
C0 and C1 are not same as the specific cutting energy
and idle power. Since the empirical approach
considers the machine tool to be a single holistic
system, it is difficult to precisely assign the factors
ð7Þ or reasons for each coefficient in the model.
However, based on the SEC decomposition approach,
the factors for C0 and C1 can be obtained qualitatively.
Although a constant value of C0 can explain over 99
per cent of the variation of the observed data, the
value C0 is not necessary static. The value of C0
varies to a small extent when modelling the SEC of
different materials. According to the analysis of STE,
the specific cutting force kc depends on the type of
material used as the workpiece, insert geometry, and
chip thickness. In addition, the operational power
required to rotate the spindles reduces the impact
of the specific cutting force. For example, removing
aluminium requires a relatively low specific cutting
force, but demands a high rotation speed which
requires a comparatively high operational energy.
Therefore, a constant value for C0 can still provide a
reliable energy consumption prediction. The major
factors for C0 are summarized in equation (8). The
difference between C1 and fixed power is mainly a
result of the unproductive energy which has been
converted to heat due to friction (see equation (7)).
This depends on how the machine tool has been
designed and its motor and transmission system.
Thus, C1 is a machine-tool-specific coefficient as
shown in equation (9)
 An empirical model for predicting energy consumption
Fig. 8 Fitted curves to SUE versus MRR plots
C0 ¼ f ðworkpiece material, tool geometics;
spindle drive characteristicsÞ
C1 ¼ f ðmachine toolÞ
6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
This paper presents an empirical approach to the
development of an energy consumption model for a
machine tool. For the tested machine tool, a
Colchester Tornado A50, the empirical model can
predict the energy consumption with great accuracy
once the process parameters are obtained. For the
given machine, the SEC, the energy consumed to
remove 1 cm3 of material, depends on MRR. This is
due to the point that MRR not only indicates the cut-
ting parameters but also reflects the workpiece mate-
rial and the tool type. Investigations were conducted
in order to explain the coefficients of the empirical
model. The proposed method should be applied
to other machine tools and other manufacturing
processes in order to further validate the model,
which will be attempted in the future.
In order to utilize the proposed model, the values of
the C0 and C1 coefficients need to be experimentally
determined by the manufacturers of the machine
tools. Once this has been achieved the proposed
model can be used with great accuracy to predict
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on October 24, 2014
1645
the energy consumption and environmental impact
ð8Þ
of a manufacturing process.
In addition the energy consumption model can
ð9Þ
become an enabler to promote energy efficiency in
production processes. Current environmental impact
databases use an average energy consumption value
for manufacturing processes in order to calculate the
environmental footprint e.g. the energy consumed to
remove 1 cm3 of material. As a result, these values are
highly inaccurate and give distorted figures to life
cycle assessment practitioners. The model presented
in this paper will allow more accurate results to be
achieved.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the Advanced
Manufacturing CRC for funding this research.
Mr Martyn Sherriff is thanked for providing technical
support during the experiments.
ß Authors 2011
REFERENCES
1 Kara, S. Life cycle engineering: applying life cycle
knowledge to engineering solutions. CIRP JMfg Sci.,
Technol, 2009, 1(4), 213–213.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
1646 W Li and S Kara

2 Gutowski, T., Dahmus, J., and Thiriez, A. Electrical 13 Liang, M., Yeap, T., Hermansyah, A., and Rahmati,
energy requirements for manufacturing processes, S. Fuzzy control of spindle torque for industrial CNC
The 13th CIRP International Conference on Life machining. Int. J. Mach. Tools Mf., 2003, 43(14),
Cycle Engineering. 2006 (Leuven, Belgium). 1497–1508.
3 Cecimo. Concept description for Cecimo’s self-reg- 14 Spur, G., Hoffmann, E., Paluncic, Z., Benzinger, K.,
ulatory initiative (SRI) for the sector specific imple- and Nymoen, H. Thermal behaviour optimization of
mentation of the directive 2005/32/EC, 2009, machine tools. CIRP Ann. - Mfg Technol., 1988, 37(1),
available from: http://www.ecodesign-info.eu/doc- 401–405.
uments/Machine_tools_VA_20Oct09.pdf accessed 1 15 Montgomery, D. C., Runger, G. C., and Hubele, N. F.
July 2010. Engineering statistics, fourth ed, 2007 (John Wiley &
4 Anderberg, S., Kara, S., and Beno, T. Impact of Sons, Hoboken, NJ).
energy efficiency on computer numerically con- 16 Dietmair, A. and Verl, A. Energy consumption mod-
trolled machining. Proc. IMechE, Part B: J. Engng eling and optimization for production machines.
Mf., 2010, 224(4), 531–541. The IEEE International Conference on Sustainable
5 Herrmann, C., Thiede, S., Zein, A., Ihlenfeldt, S., Energy Technologies, Singapore, 2008.
and Blau, P. Energy efficiency of machine tools: 17 Altintas, Y. Manufacturing automation: metal cut-
extending the perspective, The 42nd CIRP ting mechanics, machine tool vibrations, and CNC
International Conference on Manufacturing design, 2000 (Cambridge University Press, New
Systems. 2009 (Grenoble, France). York).
6 Oxley, P. L. B. Development and application of a
predictive machining theory. Mach. Sci. Technol.,
1998, 2(2), 165–189. APPENDIX
7 Armarego, E. J. A., Ostafiev, D., Wong, S. W. Y., and
Verezub, S. Appraisal of empirical modeling and Notation
proprietary software databases for performance pre-
d depth of cut
diction of machining operations. Mach. Sci. Technol.,
E total energy consumption
2000, 4(3), 479–510.
8 Seco Tools. MN2009-turning, in The machining nav- f feed
igator catalogue Seco Tools,2009. Fc cutting force
9 Draganescu, F., Gheorghe, M., and Doicin, C. V. kc specific cutting force
Models of machine tool efficiency and specific kc1.1 shear stress
consumed energy. J. Mater. Process. Technol., 2003, MRR material removal rate
141(1), 9–15. P total power demand of a machine tool
10 Gutowski, T., Dahmus, J., Thiriez, A., Braham, M., Pt tool tip power demand
and Jones, A. A thermodynamic characterization of Q cutting volume
manufacturing processes. The IEEE International SEC specific energy consumption
Symposium on Electronics and the Environment,
SFE specific fixed energy
2007 (Orlando, Florida).
SOE specific operational energy
11 Abele, E., Altintas, Y., and Brecher, C. Machine tool
spindle units. CIRP Ann. - Mfg Technol., 2010, 59(2), STE specific tool tip energy
781–802. SUE specific unproductive energy
12 Jedrzejewski, J., Kowal, Z., Kwasny, W., and v cutting speed
Modrzycki, W. High-speed precise machine tools a setting angle or approach angle
spindle units improving. J. Mater. Process. Technol., g0 cutting rake angle
2005, 162–163, 615–621. Z machine efficiency

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on October 24, 2014