Journal of

Materials
Processing
ELSEVIER

Journal of Materials Processing Technology 53 (1995) 736 758

Technology

An analytical approach for determining the environmental

impact of machining processes
A.A. M u n o z , P. Sheng*
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
Received 15 April 1994

Industrial Summary
This paper presents a model of the environmental impact of machining processes. The
analytical model integrates aspects of the process mechanics, wear characteristics and lubricant
flows. The quantifiable dimensions in this analysis include energy utilization, process rate,
workpiece primary mass flow, and secondary flow of process catalysts. The generation of
multiple waste streams can be compared by examining factors such as toxicity and flammability. The sensitivity of environmental factors to variations in operating parameters such as
depth of cut, speed, feed, and tool rake angle are examined. The prioritization of environmental
factors were evaluated for both high-rate transfer line and flexible job shop environments
through utility analysis. This model can serve as a framework for decision-making in environmentally-conscious manufacturing, including the design of parts for machining, process
planning and the selection of operating parameters.

Keywords: Machining; Environmentally-conscious manufacturing

Nomenclature
AF
AM

AT
a
b
Cp

C
dA
f

Weighting factor for flammability

Weighting factor for mass flow
Weighting factor for toxicity
Chip contact length
Width of the chip being cut
Specific heat of the cutting fluid
Chemical solubility of the coating material
Area of surface element
feed
Normal compressive component of Fs

* Corresponding author.
0924-0136/95/$9.50 @ 1995 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved
SSDI 0 9 2 4 - 0 1 3 6 ( 9 4 1 0 1 7 6 4 - R

A.A. Munoz, P. Sheng / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 53 (1995) 736-758

Friction component of Fr
Normal component of Fr
Component of Fp along the x-direction
Component of Fp along the y-direction
Component of Fs along the shear plane
Force vector on the rake face
Vr
Force vector on the shear plane
Vs
Power vector
r.
Gravity
9
Thickness of the chip
h
Latent heat of vaporization
H
Constant
K1
Length of the workpiece
L
Lethal concentration value (ppm)
LCso
Lethal dose value (mg/kg)
LD5o
Mass flow of the fluid coated on chip
mChip
Mass flow of evaporated fluid
/'HEvap
Total
mass flow of cutting fluid
/~Fluid
Mass
flow
of component waste stream
mi
Mass
flow
of collected and recirculated fluid
mRecir
Weighted
mass
flow of component waste stream
mw
Mass
flow
of
fluid
coated on the workpiece
mworkpiece
Molar volume of tool coating material
M
N
Total number of observations
Number of observations under ith level
Nx,
Constant for WRa calculation
n
Process power
P
P~
Hardness of the workpiece (inclusions)
Hardness of the tool material
Pt
Rake-face coordinate axes
rl,r2,r3
Shear-plane coordinate axes
S1~$2,$3
Sum-of-squares of the observation
SS-r
Sum of all observations
T
Flash point of the fluid
Tf
Melting point
Tm
Vaporization temperature
Zvap
Ambient temperature
Too
Tool temperature
ZTool
V
Workpiece (or tool) velocity
Chip velocity
Shear velocity
Rank value for flammability
WE
Rank value for toxicity
W'r
Abrasive wear rate
WRA
Diffusive wear rate
WRD

ff
L
f.
L
is

737

738

A.A. Munoz, P. Sheng/Journal of Materials Processing Technology 53 (1995) 736 758

x~,Y,
X,Y
X, y, Z
X', y , Z'

fl
7
~n

2
P
G
Ts

4~
~gn

Sum of observations under ith level

Design of experiments factors
Absolute axes
Absolute axes rotated through 2
Friction angle
Normal friction angle
Rake angle
Normal rake angle
Chip-flow angle
Shear-plane angle
Oblique angle
Friction coefficient
Density of the cutting fluid
Surface tension
Workpiece plastic flow stress
Shear-plane angle
Normal shear-plane angle

1. Introduction

Environmentally-conscious manufacturing has received increasing interest in recent years due to the development of pollution: prevention legislation, European
initiatives on product take-back which affect many export industries in the U.S., and
a growing consumer demand for "green" products and production processes. Until
recently, industrial efforts at alleviating the environmental impact of their products
and processes have focused on two areas: the development of recycling processes [1],
especially for metals and plastics, and chemical substitutions for selected manufacturing processes such as cleaning, degreasing and plating. In the area of recycling,
government and industry efforts have resulted in the recycling of 17% of all solid
wastes produced in 1990 [2]. In the area of chemical substitution, recent studies have
focused on the development of substitute chemicals and processes for specific processing applications, such as metal plating and finishing [3], development of environmentfriendly solvents in electronics manufacturing [4], and cleaning and fluxless soldering
[5]. While these few selected waste streams have been the subject of studies, little
analytical work has been performed on the total life-cycle trade-offs between waste
streams in manufacturing processes, the impact of product design on waste streams,
and linkages between environmental impact and traditional industrial requirements
of production rate. The influence of product design on recyclability factors was
considered in [6].
One process of particular concern is that of machining, the most widely used of
manufacturing processes. In [7], a framework for analyzing the environmental impact
of machining processes is presented in which the three principal methods for minimizing environmental impact are the modification of existing processes, replacement
with alternative processes and the development of new manufacturing process

A.A. Munoz, P. Sheng / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 53 (1995) 736-758

739

/
EnergyDimension
I

Energy

.[ 1. .H. U I I l l al 1

Process ~
mxuauon
. . . .

Electrical, l
~

iJ

MalerialIn
-

lSecondaly
~ L Catalystln

~.

I1

~
]
I

I
I

scmp

CatalystWaste

ProcessingI
Time L ~

e j

"Primary
- MaterialOut
PrimaryMaterial

EnergyWaste
(Thermal,Magnetic,
Radiative)

Fig. 1. Environmentalanalysisdimensionsfor manufacturingprocesses.

I

Mass Loss ~
Analysis

16 Weighted
,- Mass
I Loss

Part
Geometry]]

~nP~neters
~l I

Rate
I Process
Analysis ~ Time

Energy
Analysis

[ Energy
[ ~ Utilization

SecondaryI
Mass
Loss [
Analysis

I Weighted
i.6
v Secondary
Mass Loss

t._

I
Process Model

Fig. 2. Componentsof a processmodel.

technologies to replace conventional machining. However, in order to fully evaluate
the trade-offs in part design, process planning, and process operation, a set of
quantifiable dimensions needs to be analyzed, including process time, energy utilization, primary flow of workpiece material and secondary flows of process catalysts
[-8, 9] (Fig. 1). Machining process catalysts may include lubricants, coolants, tooling,
and other expendable materials which aid in the transformation of the workpiece from
the initial to the final states. Evaluation of these dimensions requires the development

740

A.A. Munoz, P. Sheng/Journal of Materials Processing Technology 53 (1995) 736 758

of a process model which incorporates the analysis of energy and mass loss, process
rate, and generation of secondary waste streams in vapor, liquid and solid forms
(Fig. 2). More importantly, the inter-dependencies between these aspects of machining
must be captured in order to analyze trade-offs between different dimensions due to
operating, process planning and design decisions.
The objective of this paper is to present an integrated analysis of the environmental
impact of machining processes. The analysis combines the effects of chip-formation
mechanics for orthogonal- and oblique-cutting conditions, tool life due to flank wear,
and the generation of cutting-fluid waste streams in both liquid and vapor forms.
Through analysis, the effects of changes in operating parameters (speed, feed, depth of
cut, tool angle, etc.) on process energy consumption, process rate, and mass flows of
waste streams can be estimated. Waste-stream flows can be compared through
a weighting analysis which incorporates the effects of toxicity, flammability, reactivity,
and disposability.

2. Model configuration
In order to develop the relationships between manufacturing parameters and
environmental impact, four general aspects of the machining process are analyzed: the
material removal mechanics, tool life, scrap production and cutting-fluid flow (Fig. 3).
The inputs to the process include the type of operation (drilling, milling, turning, etc.),
the operating parameters, the initial- and final-workpiece geometries, the workpiece
material, the tool geometry and the tool material. The outputs are the process rate, the
process energy, the machining forces and the total volume of material removed. The
process rate is used to estimate tool life through a wear analysis. Tool life and the
volume of material removed are evaluated in the material scrap model to estimate the
generation of solid waste streams (chips, used tools, swarf and foam). The process rate,
along with the cutting fluid properties and flow-rate, are used to estimate the
quantities of cutting fluid released in liquid (through chip coating, workpiece coating
and bio-degradation) or vapor forms.

Cutting Fluid
CP. Flow rale

Friction
Coefficient
Operatitm Type
Speed
Depth of Cu,

I
I
| I

r~ed

I I

Tool Type
0ol ique Angle
Materi ~1Properties ~

,.~,u, ~,,mo.~

Final Gram eU'y

Bacleriological ~
Ettett
L~

n I Material Removal
I Mechanics Model
I I

Cutting Fluid
I~.)d el

iMaterial Removed ~_

[-'-J
II
I

Material ScrapI
Model
I
I

Val~)rized CJ".
~ Chip-Coated CF.
-~ Part-Coated C F .
Foam
~ Chip
Formation
.~
UsedTotlls
-"-swa-t

Fig. 3. Schematicof the machining model.

Pr(u:ess
Ra~e
Process Energy

A.A. Munoz, P. Sheng/Journal of Materials Processing Technology 53 (1995) 736-758

741

2.1. Process mechanics

As shown in Fig. 3, the mechanics of the machining process has a significant
influence on all waste streams generated through the machining speed, the volume of
material removed, the geometry of the chip formed, the cutting forces generated and
the process energy utilized. There have been numerous works published on the
mechanics of machining processes [10 13]. Since the goal of the model is to determine
parametric dependencies on waste stream creation, the general analysis of metal
cutting developed in [-12] is used. The cases of orthogonal (turning) and oblique
(milling) machining are considered.

2.1.1. Orthogonal machining

In orthogonal machining, the velocity of the workpiece is perpendicular to the
cutting edge. The chip is assumed to flow such that its velocity lies in the same plane as
the rake face. Fig. 4 shows the forces acting on the cutting zone during machining.
Three coordinate systems are of interest: (1) absolute x, y coordinates, (2) coordinates
rl, r 2 aligned with the rake face of the tool, and (3) coordinates $1, s 2 aligned with the
shear plane. The force on the shear plane can be divided into components along Sl and
s2 [12]:
Fs =fsSl +Lg2,
where

f~

z~bh
and f is unknown.
sin ~o

(1)

yl
h

L . . . . . - " ' ~ \ " I /A~\\\\\\"~t~,i~

\
\

Sl X'~\~.
Fig. 4. Configuration for orthogonal machining.

742

A.A. Munoz, P. Sheng/Journal of Materials Processing Technology 53 (1995) 736 758

Similarly, the force acting on the cutting tool rake-face can be defined along rl and
r2 [-12]:
Fr =f~P1 +ffr2,

(2)

where both f . and ff are unknown. The force along the direction of power transmission can be defined as F o. This force component is equal to the transformation of both
Fs and Fr into x, y coordinates [11].
Vp = T(~o)Fs = T ( - y ) -

Fr = T(y)Fr,

where
fcos(p
T((p)=L-sin(p

sin(p]
cos(p

and

T ( 7 ) = [ cs7
L-sin7

siny 1
COSTA"

(3)

Using the Coulomb friction law, defined as

= ~, = tan/J

(4)

Fp can be determined as

Fp=

[s.]
fq

-/)
|

sin(/~ - y)

Lcos(fl + (p

zsbh

(5)

sin (p"

"/)

The only force component in Fp which performs useful work is fp, which acts along the
i coordinate. Therefore, the process power required to machine the workpiece is
P =fpV = \cos(//+ ~--7)

\sin(p/V.

(6)

The total process energy is the integral of the process power over the total processing
time, where the latter can be expressed as:
Vol

tp

......

(7)

Vhb"

From Eqs. (6) and (7), the total process energy can be expressed as

?sVo,

Energy = \ cos(/~ + ~ - 7 ) ) \ sin(p J

(8)

Eq. (8) shows that the ideal process energy is independent of operating parameters
such as the tool speed, feed, and depth of cut. Instead, the machining energy is
dependent on set-up parameters, such as the choice of cutting fluid and tool rake
angle, and part design parameters, such as material selection and the volume of
material removed. Process power becomes a dominant factor in the selection of
a machine tool to perform specific operations. Minimization of the process power

A.A. Munoz,P. Sheng/ Journalof MaterialsProcessingTechnology53 (1995) 736-758 743

reduces the size of the machine tool components required and, ultimately, the capital
investment. However, reduction in process power increases the associated time required to perform the process, resulting in higher operating costs.

2.1.2. Oblique machining

Oblique cutting is characterized by the rotation of the cutting tool by an inclination
angle 2 about the y-axis. There are two main reference frames of interest: (1) the axes
orthogonal to the workpiece and (2) the axes rotated with the tool about the y-axis
(Fig. 5(a)). The oblique model can serve as a first-order estimate of the mechanics of
milling processes. Unlike the orthogonal case, the chip velocity Vc is no longer
contained in the x-y plane. The chip flows along the rake-face at an angle measured in
this plane from the x'-axis (Fig. 5(b)). The relationship between the workpiece, chip,
and relative velocities and their associated reference angles can be described as:
V cos 2

V~ cos q~

cos(~b, - 7,)

sin q~.

V. cos ~/s
COSTn

(9)

where ~b, and 7, are measured relative to the x'y'z' axes, the lateral chip flow direction
is shown in Fig. 6, and the shear flow angle can be found as [11]:
t/s = t a n - t tan 2 cos(~0, -- 7,) -- tan qc cos (191
COS"~n

(10)

In oblique cutting a lateral component of force is generated, thereby creating

a three-dimensional power force vector. When transformed into the tool coordinate
system, the power force vector can be defined as [11]
Ffx'-]

FP'=~ffl ]

V-:nz

01 C o 2 1

L cosJ.

Fp = Txz(2)Fp.

(11)

sin2_]

j,~'

(a)

x'

(b)

Fig. 5. Showing:(a) coordinate transformation,and (b) 3-D rake face and shear plane coordinates.

744

A.A. Munoz, P. Sheng / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 53 (1995) 736 758

r?
~Vc

Chip

Bottom Edge of
Shear Plane

r3 v

Fig. 6. Chip orientation during oblique machining (normal to the rake face).

Using the same procedure as in the case for orthogonal machining, Fp can be defined
as

- c o s ( f i . - yn)COSqsCOS2 + cos@n + fin -- 7.)sin qssin2-COS((pn -~- fin -- ~'n)

sin(fin -- 7n)COSqs
COS@n + fin -- 7n)

Fp =

r~bh
sin ~OnCOS2"

COS(fi. -- yn)COSqs sin )o -- COS@. + fi. -- 7.)sin q~ cos 2

COS((pn -Jr- fin -- ~)n)
-

--

(12)

The process power and energy are found in the same manner as for orthogonal
machining using the x component of Fp. The process energy can be derived as:

Energy=(COS(fin-Tn)COSGCOS2+COS(~On+
~os@~ +- ~ C Z )

fin -- 7n)sin G sin 2 )

rsVol
sin ~p, cos2"
(13)

The process energy for oblique machining is also dependent on the set-up parameters
(i.e. the tool rake angle, the tool oblique angle and cutting fluid selection), as well as
material selection and part geometry.

2.2. Waste streams

One complication in developing the process model is quantifying the mass loss from
the process. Primary and catalytic mass losses may occur in many forms in the
gaseous, liquid and solid states. Primary mass loss consists of chips generated during
the machining process, while catalytic mass losses consist of the waste streams
generated by the cutting fluid evaporated from the cutting front, fluid coated on the
chips and the workpiece, and expended tools. Obviously, equal amounts of these
materials do not have an equivalent environmental impact. Therefore, a weighting
scheme needs to be created in order to evaluate the relative environmental impact of
solid, liquid and vapor waste streams for each process.

A.A. Munoz, P. Sheng/Journal of Materials Processing Technology 53 H995) 736-758

745

2.2.1. Cutting tools

The analytical estimates for tool wear based on abrasion and diffusion proposed in
[14, 15] can be used to evaluate tool life. An interesting aspect of tool-life analysis is
that, from an environmental perspective, the significant waste stream generated from
tool wear is not the portion of the tool which is worn during the process, but rather the
remaining portion of the tool which is disposed of after its useful life. This is in
contrast to the tribological view of tool wear, which concentrates on the particles of
the tool removed.
Wear generally occurs by mechanical and chemical means, mechanical wear occurring by both abrasion and adhesion and chemical wear occurring by the processes of
diffusion and dissolution. It is assumed that by carefully selecting appropriate cutting
conditions, modes such as deformation, chipping, corrosion, fatigue, micro-fracture,
and coating delamination will not be responsible for the end of tool life. Instead, tool
life will be determined by the rate of gradual wear of the tool surfaces that are in
contact with the workpiece. For this analysis tool life is defined as the process time at
which the flank surface wears to a depth of 0.3 mm [10]. An abrasive wear model can
be combined with a chemical-dissolution wear model to provide an algorithm that
predicts the wear rates of a hard coating throughout the speed range of application of
high-speed steel and cemented tungsten-carbide tooling [14].
For materials of moderate chemical stability, the wear due to mechanical activation
is modeled by the abrasive-wear theory developed in [16], where the wear rate is
modeled as proportional to the tool/workpiece hardness and the cutting velocity, and
is expressed as:

WRA=KIL

(14)

p~ i V ,

where
n = 1.0,

K1 = 2264.4

for Pt/P, < 0.8,

n=3.5,

K1=1285.2

for 1 . 2 5 > P t / P a > 0 . 8 ,

n = 7.0,

K1 = 2828.8

for Pt/Pa > 1.25.

At high temperatures, and when chemical stability is the controlling factor, chemicaldissolution wear can be predicted accurately by 1-15]. The thermochemical properties
are used to determine the chemical stability of the tool/workpiece combinations as
well as to predict the wear. The diffusive wear rate is given as:
WRo = 4 3 2 M C x / ~ .

(15)

Although calibration is required with each tool/workpiece combination, Eq. (15)

reveals important general relationships between the wear rate, the operating parameters, the tool material and the workpiece material. The total wear rate is the sum of
the adhesive and diffusive wear integrated over the processing time. Given the total

746

A.A. Munoz, P. Sheng/Journal of Materials Processing Technology 53 (1995) 736 758

wear rate, the process time, and the wear criteria for tool life, the total number of tools
expended for a particular machining operation can be estimated as:
Number of Tools Expended -

WearTotal _ SI--~....... (WRA + WRD)dt

0.3 mm
0.3 mm

(16)

The operating parameters have an indirect effect on tool wear through variation in
the tool temperature during machining. Material properties such as the tool hardness,
the workpiece inclusion hardness and the chemical solubility of the tool coating vary
with the operating temperature.
One factor which has a significant influence on tool life is the operating temperature
of the tool during machining. Elevated temperatures influence the secondary mass
flow (i.e. the mass of the cutting fluid and the tool) by causing the initially-selected
properties of the workpiece, the cutting fluid, and the tool to vary. The tool temperature for steady-state machining operations can be estimated using the analytical
model developed in [17, 18]. The general assumption is that the mechanical energy
generated through shear of the workpiece material and sliding between the tool rake
face and the chip is converted to the heat generated by plastic flow in the chip (qs) and
by friction between the tool and the chip (qr).

FsVssin q0
qs --

hf

'

FrVesin ~0
qr -

(17)

af

The tool temperature can be determined as:

qs + qr

TTool- - q- T~.
pcpV

(18)

The changes in tool temperature affect the tool hardness and the chemical solubility of
the coating through the relationship derived in [,14, 15]:
Pt - P,,o -- K~TTool.

(19)

From [-14], the change in chemical solubility with temperature is given as:
C(TTool) = exp (

10055~
TToo, J '

(20)

2.2.2. Scrapproduction
The volume and surface area of the solid scrap generated in chip form can be
estimated directly from an analysis of the mechanics of machining. For material
removal processes, the total scrap volume is simply the difference between the volume
of the initial stock workpiece and that of the finished part. In this study the production
of discrete and continuous chips are not differentiated between and the chip is
assumed to have no curvature. However, the feed, the tool speed, the depth of cut and
the tool oblique angle will dictate how the total scrap volume is segmented into the
chip geometry. Also, the surface area of the scrap produced will dictate the cutting
fluid loss through chip coating.

A.A. Munoz, P. Sheng / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 53 (1995) 736-758

747

2.2.3. Lubricant streams

The cutting fluid is assumed to diverge into four paths during the machining
process: (1) a liquid waste stream created through fluid coating on the chips generated
during the machining process, (2) a liquid waste stream resulting from cutting-fluid
coating of the workpiece, (3) a vapor waste stream generated through cutting-fluid
diffusion into the surrounding environment, and (4) lubricant flow collected and
recirculated through the system. The total mass flow of the cutting fluid can be
expressed as:
(21)

~/Vluid = FhChip -{- /~lWorkpiece ~- FhEvap, -~ FhRecirc.

Nominally, the recirculating portion of the cutting-fluid stream (including splash and
leakage) is recovered and re-used. A significant portion of the chip-coated fluid may
also be recovered through centrifugal or steam-injection methods; however, in this
analysis all chip-coated fluid is assumed to be unrecoverable. Workpiece-coated fluid
is removed and disposed of through secondary cleaning processes. The evaporated
cutting fluid is lost to the environment.
For the effect of chip coating, a chip geometry with height h and thickness b can be
defined as shown in Fig. 7. Assuming that the dominant mechanism for fluid coating is
surface tension, the geometry of the coating liquid can be modeled as cylindrical, with
curvature in the direction of the smallest length scale of the chip surface (Fig. 7). For
each chip surface, the force balance can be described as:
(22)

2a d L = p g A dL.

The solution for the cross-sectional area of the coating layer is

20
--

-- A.

(23)

P9

I
ing Fluid
~ing
Cu

Co

Fig. 7. Geometry of the chip cross-section and the coated cutting fluid.

748

A.A. Munoz, P. Sheng/Journal of Materials Processing Technology 53 (1995) 736-758

The total volume of cutting fluid coating the chips formed during a machining process
is dependent on the aggregate length of the chip (or chips) formed:
8o-

golvluid = 4 A L = - - L .

(24)

P9

The volume of cutting fluid coating the workpiece can be determined in a similar
fashion by using the major length scale of the workpiece as L.
The fluid lost through evaporation is calculated using an energy balance. Assuming
that the energy generated at the shear plane and rake face is directed towards heating
and evaporation of a portion of the cutting-fluid waste stream, the rate of fluid mass
loss due to evaporation can be estimated as:

mEvap :

fpV
T~) +

cp(Tva p --

(25)
H"

The thermal properties of the cutting fluid can be derived through a mass fraction
average of the constituent components.
2.2.4. E n v i r o n m e n t a l impact o f waste streams

Given the mass flows for each component waste stream, an important issue in the
analysis of waste streams is the determination of the relative environmental impact of
dissimilar substances. The workpiece scrap may be composed of metals, ceramics,
polymers or composite materials, whilst the waste stream of expended tools can be
high-speed steel, ceramic or ceramic-metal composites. Perhaps the most significant
waste is the fluid stream. Lubricants used in the machining process are divided
typically into three categories: water-based, oil-based, and synthetics E19, 20]. Waterbased lubricants can be categorized further into emulsions, suspensions, gels, or
pastes.
One way to establish a quantitative index for comparing cutting fluids is by using
experimental data developed for toxicity and flammability measurements. This model
evaluates the relative toxicity and flammability for each constituent of the cuttingfluid mixture, as well as the solid waste streams comprised of expended tools and
scrap material. Animal test data on the median lethal concentration (LCso) and lethal
dosage (LDs0) are good indicators of the degree of toxicity of a substance [21, 22],
whilst the flash point of a substance is a good indicator of its relative chemical
stability, which is related to factors such as transportation and storage, fire risk, and
chemical degradation. Component waste streams can be categorized as shown in
Tables 1 and 2 below [22 24].
The non-combustible criteria was set at the maximum kindling temperature of
wood materials. The rank values can be normalized to determine a composite total
mass flow of all waste streams:

t~W i=lL(A~(W~-I
~M~k 'f~ ) +AF(WFi-~M\
'2
=

)/ +1) rhi'

(26)

A.A. Munoz, P. Sheng / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 53 (1995) 736-758

749

Table 1
Rank values for toxicity
LCso (ppm)

Rank value, WT

LC <
150 <
250 <
350 <
LC >

5 (extreme toxicity)
4 (high)
3 (moderate)
2 (modest)
1 (low)

150
LC < 250
LC < 350
LC < 450
450

Table 2
Rank values for flammability
Flash point (F)

Rank value, WE

Tm> 500
Tf > 100
Tf < 100

1 (non-combustible)
2 (combustible)
3 (flammable)

where i represents each component waste stream out of n total waste streams (scrap,
tool, fluid constituents and vapor constituents). The ratios Ax/AM and AF/AM represent the normalized weighting of toxicity and flammability with respect to mass flow.
For a non-combustible, nontoxic material, the weighted mass flow is equal to the
physical mass flow. For a flammable, lethal material, the weighted mass flow would be
increased by a factor of(Ax/A~ + AF/AM)over the physical mass flow to represent the
environmental impact of the waste stream. The factors A+,AF and AM can be
determined through use of comparison methods such as the Kepner-Tregoe [25] or
the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) [26, 27]. The Kepner-Tregoe method uses
a weighting method in which the criteria are weighted on a scale of 0 to 1. Then the
various waste streams can be ranked according to the product of this prioritization of
AM, AT, AF and their own values for these factors. In this case, A H P is more effective
since it uses pair-wise comparisons to derive weighting factors. A prioritization matrix
[27] can be created using mass flow, toxicity and flammability as factors and
consulting industrial professionals on the relative difficulty of disposal based on
pairwise comparisons (Fig. 8).
Mass

Tox.

Flam.

Toxicity

Flammability

Fig. 8. Prioritization matrix for waste-stream factors.

The values in the matrix represent the relative criticality or effect of each of the
factors when weighed against each another. For instance, the toxicity is considered to

750

A.A. Munoz, P. Sheng/Journal of Materials Processing Technology 53 H995) 736 758

be five times as critical as the mass flow, so the value 5 is entered into the space
corresponding to the toxicity row and mass flow column. The reciprocal value is
entered in the toxicity column and the mass flow row. The prioritization matrix is then
used to decide priority values for the three criteria through two steps. First, a rank
value for each row can be determined from the relationship:
Aj -

j= 3
Z j : 1 Rj

where Rj

Xij ]

(27)

i: 1

where Xi,~ represents a value in the prioritization matrix. Solving the matrix gives the
solution vector [A] = (0.11,0.58, 0.31) which indicates that AM = 0.11, AT = 0.58 and
Av = 0.31. Thus, the values of the ratios AT~AM and Av/AM in this case are 5.27 and
2.82, which are the weighting values used in Eq. (26).

3. Overall utility of the manufacturing system

Once the waste streams have been quantified, the impact of these streams on the
overall manufacturing system must be considered. Suppose the utility of a manufacturing facility can be identified through simple weighting of the primary output
dimensions of the model, i.e.:
EBase
tBase
mw,Base
Util = A 1 T
q- A2
q- A3 - - '
t
mw

(28)

where the mass value represents the weighted mass as given in Eq. (26). Then,
a sampling method such as A H P can be used to determine the relative weights. For
a high-speed transfer line, the overall utility is influenced greatly by the production
rate and the prioritization matrix may be of the form shown in Fig. 9(a), whereas for
a flexible job shop, waste disposal costs may be more significant than constraints on
process time or energy (Fig. 9(b)).

Process energy
(a) Process time
Weighted mass

Process time
61
1

Weighted mass

3
1

Process energy

Process time

Weighted mass

2
1

Process energy I
(b) Process time
Weighted mass

Process energy
1
6
2

Fig. 9. Prioritization matrix for: (a) transfer line; and {b) job shop.

J
1

A.A. Munoz, P. Sheng/Journal of Materials Processing Technology 53 (1995) 736-758

751

Solving the matrices give the solution vectors [A] = (0.11,0.67,0.22) for transferline prioritization and [A] =(0.20,0.12,0.68) for job-shop prioritization for
Eq. (28).

4. Case study
4.1. B a s e - l i n e case

In order to examine the parametric dependencies of the waste streams generated,

a case study was developed for the milling of a 4340 steel bracket using titaniumcarbide tool inserts, as shown in Fig. 10, with a production run of 1000 parts. A total
of 500 cm 3 was removed from each workpiece. The tool, workpiece, and cutting-fluid
properties are shown below:
Tool: M = 12.13cm3/mol,

Workpiece: P, = 800kg/mm 2 (Fe3C inclusions),

Pt = 3200 kg/mm 2,

zs = 349 MPa,
7 = 1.91 (shear strain).

Cutting Fluid:

Oil Based (75% hydro-treated napthenic, 25% water), p = 0.5.

The nominal operating conditions are a tool speed of 1.66 m/s, a workpiece feed of
0.6mm/rev, a depth of cut of 0.5mm, and 8 rake angle and 10 oblique angle.
The total process time for the machining of 1000 parts was estimated at 277.8 h
(over 17.3 days of machining time, assuming two 8-hr shift operation). 9MJ of energy
was consumed by the machining process (the theoretical minimum consumption).
Comparison of the unweighted mass flows of the waste streams generated by the
process revealed that solid scrap was the dominant waste stream (Fig. ll(a)). The
analysis of cutting-fluid losses showed that almost all of the cutting-fluid waste stream
was due to fluid coating on the chip and workpiece surfaces (410 kg), whilst only 0.8%

workpiece

r~ /

tool

....

5 cm
Fig. 10. Schematic of the case study.

752

A.A. Munoz, P. Sheng/Journal of Materials Processing Technology 53 (1995) 736- 758

[kg] 4 0 0 0

[kg] 4000

"

::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::
:::[::::::::::
::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::
[:::::::::::::
,o-,,.-.,.-.-o
::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::
, , . - -.
::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::
:[::::::::::::
::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::

o
o,,, , , ,, ,, ,, ,, ,,
oOO , , , . , ,
oOOoOo,, ,
oO-o- . , - .
oOoOoOo,o.,,,,

3000"

3(XX)
oOo.oo,o, ,
..o.o,. ,
o,o-o-o, . , ,
o,oOoO,Oo, , , ,
ooo.o.,,,
...o..

2~1-

.,---.-,%.,
. . . o . o . ..
,OoOo , . , ,
Oo. ,o,
oOoO , , , ,,
o.oO ,,
OOoO , , ,
,,Oo,o, , , , .
o.o , . ,
.........
o...... .
o.o.o.....
oo , , , . ,
,,,,,,,,,,,
___,_._,.,_,

I(~X)

(a)

I f)(X) "

Scrap

Fluid

(b)

Cutting

Tool

---~---

Cutting

W a s t e Stream

Fluid

Scrap

Tool

W a s t e Stream

Fig. 11. Comparison of: (a) weighted; and (b) unweighted; mass flows for Nominal Conditions.
(3 kg) of the fluid was lost t h r o u g h evaporation. Using Eq. (26), the weighted mass flow
of the cutting fluid increased by 141% due to flammability factors, as shown in
Fig. 11 (b).
4.2. Effect of operating parameters
F r o m Eqs. (8) and (13), the operating parameters of tool speed, feed, and depth of
cut were found to have no influence on the process energy. In order to determine the
sensitivity of operating parameters on mass flow and processing time, a L27 orthogonal array was used in a fractional factorial design-of-experiments. Since the specified operating ranges for each parameter vary, the o r t h o g o n a l array can show finite
differences in 6utputs between different levels of the operating parameters selected.
Three levels were selected for each parameter, as shown in Table 3. Besides the main
factors, the Lay array also evaluated interaction factors between the three operating
parameters. The sensitivity of each factor can be analyzed t h r o u g h the sum-ofsquares, defined as:
i= 1 Nx, J

(29)

Table 3
Operating parameters for the L27 array

Tool velocity
Depth of cut
Feed

Units

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

m/min
mm
m/min

10
0.3
0.2

100
0.5
0.6

180
0.7
1.0

753

A,A. Munoz, P. Sheng/Journal of Materials Processing Technology 53 (1995) 736 758

Table 4
Effects of the operating parameters on the outputs

Tool speed
Depth of cut
Feed
Speed x depth
Depth x feed
Feed x speed

Cutting fluid
Cx
sum-of-squares

Cutting tool
Cx
sum-of-squares

Process time
sum-of-squares

Cx

5.59E-09
1.67E06
6.26E06
5.59E-09
3.92E05
1.86E-09

0
2.20E02
8.25E02
0
5.17E01
0

4.24E11
4.17E10
1.56Ell
2.66E10
9.77E09
9.94E10

0.47
0.05
0.17
0.06
0.02
0.22

0
0.19
0.72
0
0.09
0

0
0.19
0.72
0
0.09
0

Similarly, the sum-of-squares for an interaction effect is defined as [28, 29]:

SSx r =

Nx

i=1

~-

SSx - SSr.

(30)

The contribution of each factor can be defined as the ratio of the sum-of-squares of
the factor to the total sum-of-squares:
Cx

SSx
SSr"

(31)

The results of the L27 analysis are shown in Table 4. The total mass of scrap
workpiece material produced is constant for all trials. Of the three operating parameters analyzed, feed showed the largest contribution to tool mass loss and cutting
fluid mass loss (Table 4). The feed has direct influences on the process time, tool
temperature (which influences diffusion wear) and the cross-sectional perimeter of the
chip formed from the cutting process. Although the analytical model for tool wear rate
showed a strong dependence on tool velocity, V made only a slight contribution to
tool material flow. Since the tool velocity is directly proportional to the wear rate, it is
offset by an inverse relationship with processing time, resulting in a inverse squareroot relationship (for the diffusion-wear component). Likewise, the mass of expended
cutting fluid depends on the surface area of the chip generated, which is independent
of V. The depth of cut has a significant contribution to secondary mass losses in the
tool (through effect on the tool temperature) and cutting fluid (through the crosssectional perimeter of the chip). The interaction factors generally showed contributions secondary to those of the main factors, due to the relative independence of the
three operating parameters within the range specified.
The analysis of L27 data with the utility showed that the latter was maximized for
both transfer-line and job-shop situations when Level 3 conditions for the feed, tool
speed and depth of cut were used (i.e. V = 180 mm/min, h = 0.7 mm and f = 1 m/min).
However, the maximum transfer-line utility value was 5.52, which was 25% higher
than the job-shop utility of 4.43: this indicates that the operating parameters have
a greater significance in a repetitive, high-rate production environment than in
a flexible job shop.

754

A.A. Munoz, P. Sheng/Journal of Materials Processing Technology 53 (1995) 736 758

Table 5
Set-up parameters for the Lzv array

Oblique angle
Rake angle
Friction coeff.

Units

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Degrees
Degrees

2
2
0.05

10
8
0.5

20
14
0.7

Table 6
Effects of the set-up parameters on the outputs
Energy
SS

Cx

Cutting Fluid
SS

C~

3.80E02

0.64

4.22E01

0.65

Rake angle
Oblique angle
x Rake
Rake x Oblique
/~ x Oblique

1.24E02
4.22E00
4.82E01
6.67E-01
2.00E00

0.21
0.01
0.14
0
0

1.34E01
2.67E-01
4.68E00
8.96E-02
1.47E-01

0.21
0
0.14
0
0

4.3. Effect of set-up parameters

T h e m a j o r set-up decisions m a d e include tool p o s i t i o n (given by the r a k e a n d
o b l i q u e angles) a n d cutting-fluid selection (given by/~). The r a n g e of set-up p a r a m e t e r s
chosen is s h o w n in T a b l e 5. Results from the analysis of set-up p a r a m e t e r s (Table 6)
s h o w e d t h a t the friction coefficient (representing cutting-fluid selection) has a signific a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to b o t h the process energy ( t h r o u g h definition of the friction angle
/~) a n d the fluid m a s s loss. T h e tool m a s s loss a n d process time were not related to the
set-up p a r a m e t e r s . T h e d e p e n d e n c e of the r a k e angle on the friction angle also led to
the significant c o n t r i b u t i o n of the/~ x R a k e i n t e r a c t i o n effect.
T h e transfer-line a n d j o b - s h o p utilities s h o w e d m a x i m u m values of UtilTL -- 3.56
a n d Utiljs = 5.35, respectively, u n d e r c o n d i t i o n s of m i n i m a l friction coefficients
(Level 1) a n d n o m i n a l or high r a k e angle (Level 2 or Level 3): Set-up p l a n n i n g for
e n v i r o n m e n t a l factors b e c o m e s m o r e significant for a j o b s h o p e n v i r o n m e n t t h a n for
a transfer line.

4.4. Effect o f design parameters

T h e p a r a m e t e r s specified in the design a n d p l a n n i n g stage include the w o r k p i e c e
material, the tool m a t e r i a l a n d the p a r t g e o m e t r y . In this analysis, the design decisions
are a s s u m e d to be b a s e d on three factors: the v o l u m e of m a t e r i a l r e m o v e d , the tool

A.A. Munoz, P. Sheng/Journal of Materials Processing Technology 53 (1995) 736 758

755

Table 7
Design parameters for L27 array

Vol. of material removed

Workpiece hardness
Tool hardness

Units

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

m3
MPa
MPa

0.1
400
2800

0.5
800
3200

1
1200
3600

Table 8
Effects of the design parameters on the output

Workpiece hardness
Tool hardness
Volume
W.H. x T.H.
W.H. x Volume
T.H. x Volume

Energy SS

Cx

Cutting tool SS

Cx

4.21E02
0
1.16E03
0
8.87E01
0

0.24
0
0.65
0
0.11
0

3.13E04
9.10E03
9.63E03
7.05E03
7.46E03
2.17E03

0.38

0.11
0.12
0.17
0.18
0.03

hardness and the workpiece hardness (Table 7). The process time and cutting fluid
mass were found to be dependent only on the volume of material removed. The
process energy showed significant sensitivity to the workpiece hardness and the
volume of material r e m o v e d (Table 8). The interaction between the volume removed
and the workpiece hardness also affected the energy consumption. The mass of the
cutting tools showed significant sensitivity to all design factors, with the workpiece
hardness being the most critical. Interaction effects between the workpiece hardness
and the tool hardness, as well as workpiece hardness and the volume, showed
a significant contribution to the expended tool mass.
The utility functions for b o t h the transfer line and the j o b shop were maximized
under conditions where the volume of material r e m o v e d and the workpiece hardness
were both minimized (Level 1), with the tool hardness showing relatively little
influence. Similarly to the situation for the set-up parameters, the utility for a j o b - s h o p
e n v i r o n m e n t (Utiljs = 31.24) was 54% greater than the m a x i m u m transfer-line utility
(UtilxL = 20.28).

5. Discussion

F r o m the o r t h o g o n a l - a r r a y analysis, the d o m i n a n t factors which influence energy

utilization are the geometry of the designed part (dictating the volume of material
removed), the workpiece material selection (determining the hardness and the shear
strength), and the cutting fluid selection. The mass flow of the cutting-fluid waste
stream is controlled largely t h r o u g h selection of the feed and the tool speed. The waste
stream of the w o r n cutting tools is dependent on the volume of material removed, the

756

A.A. Munoz, P. Sheng/Journal of Materials Processing Technology 53 (1995) 736 758

workpiece hardness, and the feed. Finally, the processing time is dictated by the tool
speed and the volume of material removed.
The environmental model for machining can be applied to several areas of
design, process planning, and manufacturing operation. First, in process-planning
applications, the machining model can be modified to evaluate a number of materialremoval processes, including drilling, reaming, boring, tapping, turning, milling,
grinding, deburring, etc. For a part which is transformed from an original to a final
geometry through a set of machining processes, the machining model can be used to
analyze the environmental effect of all alternative process paths. In this manner, the
most environmentally-conscious process sequence can be selected. In a similar manner, operating parameters for each process can also be selected based on the optimization of waste stream and energy objectives. Second, the process model can serve as
reference for an adaptive control system for a machine tool. Given objectives in
surface quality and processing time, a control scheme can be developed whereby
estimates of waste stream generation can be generated in real-time through the
machining model. The model estimates would drive the system actuation through
changes in the operating parameters. Finally, the process model can serve as a design
aid for determining environmental trade-offs in material selection and the design of
geometric features. For example, a design decision to change the workpiece material
would change not only the composition of the stream of material scrap, but also
would influence the process energy, the process time, the tool wear and the cuttingfluid flow. Likewise, a decision to reduce a wall thickness or change a geometric
feature will also have time, energy and mass-flow implications.

6. Conclusions
An analytical approach for environmentally-conscious machining has been developed, integrating the mechanics of machining, tool wear, and cutting-fluid flow.
The environmental impact was analyzed along the dimensions of the process energy,
the mass flow of the primary and catalytic waste streams, and the process time.
Evaluation of different waste can be accomplished through the integration of ranking
methods such as the Analytic Hierarchy Process with simple weighting schemes.
Evaluating the toxicity, flammability and mass-flow characteristics of the waste
streams, the A H P analysis of pair-wise comparisons resulted in weights for toxicity
and flammability factors. A H P can be used also to determine overall tradeoffs
between energy, waste-stream mass, and process-time factors. Evaluation of operating
parameters through a three-level L27 orthogonal array showed that the energy
utilization in machining processes is dependent largely on design (part geometry,
material selection) and set-up (cutting-fluid selection) parameters, whilst waste-stream
production and processing time are influenced by operating (feed, speed) and design
(part geometry and workpiece material) parameters. Analysis of the prioritization
utilities for a transfer line and a job shop shows that operating parameters have
a greater influence on the overall transfer-line utility, whilst set-up and design
parameters play more significant roles in a flexible job-shop environment.

A.A. Munoz, P. Sheng/Journal of Materials Processing Technology 53 (1995) 736-758

757

Acknowledgements
T h e a u t h o r s w i s h to a c k n o w l e d g e the s u p p o r t o f t h e C o n s o r t i u m o n G r e e n D e s i g n
a n d M a n u f a c t u r i n g at B e r k e l e y for s u p p o r t o f this w o r k . T h e a u t h o r s also w i s h to
a c k n o w l e d g e t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n o f M r . P r a s a d G u n e in m o d e l d e v e l o p m e n t .

References
[1] S. Pemberton, Process waste assessments: identifying opportunities for pollution prevention, Int. J.
Environmentally-Conscious Manuf, 1 (1) (1992) 97 104.
[2] B.A. Hegberg, G.R. Brenniman and W.H. Hallenbeck, Mixed Plastics Recycling Technology, Noyes
Data Corp., Park Ridge, NJ, 1991.
[3] C. Stimetz, Toxic material reduction in metal finishing, Int. J. Environmentally-Conscious Manuf, 1 (1)
(1992) 117 120.
[4] M. Benkovich, Solvent substitution for electronic products, Int. J. Environmentally-Consicous Manuf,
1 (1) (1992) 27-32.
[5] R. Watkins and B. Granoff, Introduction to environmentally conscious manufacturing, Int. J.
Environmentally Conscious Manuf, 1 (1) (1992) 5 11.
[6] D. Navinchandra, Design for environmentability, in: Proc. ASME WAM
Design Theory and
Methodology, DE-Vol. 31, Nov. 1991, pp. 119-125.
[7] G. Byrne and E. Scholta, Environmentally clean machining processes a strategic approach, CIRP
Annals, 42 (1993) 471-474.
[8] P. Sheng and A. Munoz, Environmental issues in product design-for-manufacture, in: Proc. 7th Int.
Conf. on Design for Manuf, Orlando, Oct. 1993.
[9] P. Sheng, D. Dornfeld and P. Worhach, Integration issues in green design and manufacturing, ESRC
Report. - Working Paper, 1994.
[10] G. Boothroyd and W. Knight, Fundamentals of Machining and Machine Tools, Marcel-Dekker, New
York, 3rd ed., 1989.
[11] W.R. DeVries, Analysis of Material Removal Processes Springer, New York, 1992, pp. 43 61.
[ 12] H. Ernst and M. Merchant, Chip formation, friction and high quality machined surfaces, Trans. Amer.
Soc. Metals, 29 (1941) 299-378.
[13] B. Niebe A. Draper R. Wysk Mdern Manufacturin Prcess Enigneerin McGraw-Hi New Yrk
1989.
[14] B.M. Kramer and N.P. Suh, Tool wear by solution: a quantitative understanding, ASME J. of Eng.for
Ind., 102 (4) (Nov. 1980) 303 309.
[15] B.M. Kramer and B.F. von Turkovich, A comprehensive tool wear model, CIRP Annals, 35 (1)
(1986) 67-70.
[16] E. Rabinowicz, Abrasive wear resistance as a materials test, Lubrication Eng., 33 (7) (1977) 378 381.
[17] B.T. Chao and K.J. Trigger, Cutting temperature and metal-cutting phenomena, Trans. ASME, 73
(Aug. 1951) 777-791.
[18] E.G. Loewen and M.C. Shaw, On the analysis of cutting-tool temperatures Trans. ASME, 76 (Feb.
1954) 217-231.
[19] D. Klamann, Lubricants and Related Products, Verlag Chemie, D-6940 Weinheim, 1984.
[20] E. Nachtman and S. Kalpakjian, Lubricants and Lubrication in Metalworking Operations, MarcelDecker, New York, 1985.
[21] DJ. Ecobichon, The Basis of Toxicity Testing, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1992.
[22] R. Pohanish and S. Greene, Hazardous Substances Resource Guide, Gale Research Inc., Detroit, MI,
1993.
[23] P. Pradyot, A Comprehensive Guide to the Hazardous Properties of Chemical Substances, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1992.
[24] Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances, 1985 86 ed., U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, April 1987.

758

A.A. Munoz, P. Sheng/Journal of Materials Processing Technology 53 (1995) 736 758

[25] G.A. Keoleian and D. Menerey, Life Cycle Desiqn Guidance Manual: Environmental Requirements
and the Product System, US EPA, Office of Research & Development, Washington, D.C.
(Jan. 1993).
[26] T.L. Saaty, The Analytical Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
[27] T.L. Saaty and K.P. Kearns, Analytical Planning: The Organization of Systems, Pergamon Press,
Oxford, 1985.
[28] N. Logothetis and H.P. Wynn, Quality Throuqh Design, Clarendon, Oxford, 1989.
[29] P.J. Ross, Taguchi Techniquesfor Quality Engineeriny, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988.