Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 167e174

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

A modeling method of task-oriented energy consumption for machining manufacturing system

Yan He a, *, Bo Liu a, Xiaodong Zhang b, Huai Gao c, Xuehui Liu d
a

State Key Laboratory of Mechanical Transmission, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400030, China School of Economics and Management, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China c Chongqing Machine Tools Group Co., Ltd, Chongqing 400055, China d IBM China Development Lab, Shanghai 201203, China
b

Caracterizar tarefas orientadas al consumo de energia -> potencial economia de energia proposta: Modelo parecido conmigo
enorme cantidad

a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Received 14 July 2011 Received in revised form 21 October 2011 Accepted 21 October 2011 Available online 4 November 2011 Keywords: Energy consumption Modeling Event graph Machining

a b s t r a c t

Machining tasks are performed on machine tools with enormous amount of energy consumption in manufacturing system. Understanding and characterizing task-oriented energy consumption is signicantly essential to explore the potential on energy-saving in production management. To achieve it, this paper proposes a modeling method of task-oriented energy consumption for machining manufacturing system. The energy consumption characteristics driven by task ow in machining manufacturing system are analyzed, which describes that energy consumption dynamically depends on the exibility and variability of task ow in production processes. Based on the task-oriented energy consumption characteristics, an event graph methodology has been exploited to model the energy consumption driven by tasks in production processes of machining manufacturing system. The proposed modeling method is solved in Simulink simulation environment, and applied to select the exible processes of tasks for optimizing energy consumption. The results show a valuable insight of energy consumption in machining manufacturing system so as to make robust decisions on the potential for improving energy efciency. 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction As a result of the climate change convention, regulation of carbon dioxide emissions has been imposed globally, which has become a strong factor in the manufacturing industry for reducing energy (particularly electric energy) (Park et al., 2009). Energy is an essential resource for machining processes and the reduction of its consumption should be motivated not only by increasing the operating expenses of the manufacturing systems but also by a proportional reduction of the production of carbon dioxide gases (Avram and Xirouchakis, 2011). Hence reducing the energy consumed by machining was identied as one of the strategies to improve sustainability in manufacturing (Pusavec et al., 2010). A number of modeling approaches has been researched to provide the analysis tools of energy consumption in machining manufacturing system. Most of research work focuses on the energy consumption models of machine tools in machining manufacturing system to evaluate energy efciency of machine

estados de funcionamento

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: heyan@cqu.edu.cn (Y. He). 0959-6526/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.033

tools based on the energy breakdown of components in various running states. One of the early studies identied in the literature addressing on the energy consumption of machine tools was carried out by Kordnowy and Gutowski. They broke down the energy consumption of machine tools according to functional components such as computer and fans, servos, coolant pump, spindle, tool changer and so on (Gutowski et al., 2006; Dahmus and Gutowski, 2004; Kordonowy, 2002). Dietmair and Verl (2009a,b) emphasized on the energy consumption behavior of machines at the component level to characterize energy requirements of machine tool, and further expanded it to establish a generic energy consumption model for plants. Avram and Xirouchakis (2011) specically concentrated on the variable mechanical energy requirements of the spindle and feed axes by taking into account the steady-state and transient regimes to estimate the use phase energy consumption of a machine tool system. Mori et al. (2011) presented a calculation model by classifying energy consumption of machine tool into constant power consumption regardless of the running state, power consumption for cutting by the spindle and servo motor, and the power consumption to position the work and to accelerate/decelerate the spindle to the specied speed. In other study, the energy consumption related with machining processes is

descomposicin

168

Y. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 167e174

Power(w)

Cycle idle Machining idle

Cycle Machining

Time(s)
Fig. 3. Power graph for turning. Fig. 1. Inuence of the task with two alternative production schemes on energy consumption.

also modeled such as the researches reported by Rajemi et al. (2010) and Draganescu et al. (2003). The former included the energy for producing a cutting tool and workpiece material into the energy model of machining a part with the turning process to optimize an economic tool-life that satises the minimum energy footprint requirement. The latter modeled the machine tool efciency, specic consumed energy and consumed energy as functions of different machining parameters by means of response surface methodology with experimental data. Currently, the needs for decision-making on energy-saving in production management require characterizing the task-dependant energy consumption for manufacturing system. Since the above models mainly concentrate on energy consumption characteristics depending on machine tool components and machining processes, they are unsuitable to analyze the energy consumption impacted by tasks in production processes of manufacturing system. Some deterministic mathematical models from the point view of Operations Research have been proposed to optimize the task-dependant energy consumption in machining manufacturing system. Mouzon (2007), Mouzon and Yildirim (2008) incorporate energy consumption into consideration while making the job scheduling decisions, and built up a multi-objective optimization model that minimizes total energy consumption. The author also proposed a mathematical model by integer linear programming which included the energy consumption optimization at the production

operational level (He and Liu, 2010). The latest research on this issue is reported by Fang et al. They introduced a general multi-objective mixed-integer programming formulation for job scheduling problem that considers energy consumption (Fang et al., 2011). However, the above deterministic models cannot be employed to characterize the energy consumption which is dynamically inuenced by tasks in production processes. This paper proposes a modeling method of task-oriented energy consumption to highlight the dependence of energy consumption on task ow in machining manufacturing system. The inuence of task ow on energy consumption characteristics of machining manufacturing system is analyzed in this work. Considering the energy consumption characteristics which can be conceived as a set of discrete events triggered by task ow, an event graph methodology is exploited to model the energy consumption driven by tasks in production process of machining manufacturing system. The contribution of this paper is to provide a valuable insight approach to understanding the task-dependant energy consumption for the decision-making on the potential for improving energy efciency of machining manufacturing system.

2. Energy consumption characteristics driven by task ow in machining manufacturing system Task ow in machining manufacturing system is described with the production processes of transforming blocks into parts by machine tools in manufacturing system. During this process,

Fig. 2. Energy consumption varied with task ow in production processes.

Y. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 167e174

169

Fig. 4. Basic event graph model for an energy consumption cycle.

energy consumption is also generated by machine tools. Therefore, energy consumption in machining manufacturing system greatly depends on the task ow in production processes. In machining manufacturing system, there are alterable process planning and resources which can be selected to perform the task production. Thus the task ow in production process is always exible. The exibility of task ow greatly inuences the energy consumption of machining manufacturing system. Give an example to show the inuence of the task with two alternative production schemes on energy consumption as described in Fig. 1. The task

ow of Scheme 1 is from Machine 1 to Machine 5 while the task ow of Scheme 2 goes through Machine 1, Machine 2 and Machine 5. Obviously, the required energy for machining the same task is inuenced due to the different task ows. Additionally, the variability of task ow is an important characteristic which is embodied with a new task entry or a task nish in dynamic production processes. Therefore, it also results into the variation of energy consumption in production cycles as shown in Fig. 2. The three rectangle boxes on the top of the gure describe the variable task ow in different production cycle. At the rst production cycle, tasks 1, 2 and 3 are required to be performed. Passing a time interval, a new task 4 is added into the production cycle 2. As another time interval passed, the task ow varies with the completion of tasks 2 and 3 in the production cycle 3. The energy consumption depiction is shown at the bottom of Fig. 2. Apparently, in the production cycle 2, energy consumption is increased with adding a new task 4 into the task ow. Similarly, the energy consumption is decreased with the variation of task ow that caused by the completion of tasks as obviously shown in Fig. 2. 3. Modeling the task-oriented energy consumption of machining manufacturing system As mentioned above, since energy consumption dynamically varies with the task ow in production processes, it can be

Fig. 5. Event graph model of the task-oriented energy consumption.

Table 1 Description of event graph model for task-oriented energy consumption. Event (vertex) Start Task assignment Description A new job arrives Tasks are waiting for being assigned The assigned tasks are ready for being machined The task is started to be machined State changes Update the job set J Update the task set Aj and the parameters lj, nj, m in the set Oj Increase by nj the number of tasks on machine m(Nm Nm nj); Decrease by one the number of tasks for job j(lj lj 1); Decrease by one the number of tasks on machine m (Nm Nm 1); c Set pm equal to pc mjo pm pmjo Set Sm to 0 Decrease by one the number of task ajo(nj nj 1); set machine m to idle (Sm 1) o Set pm equal to po m pm pm Update the job set J Required condition or activities Job set J ; ; or the number of task lj > 0 and the batch number nj 0 (The set Oj is passed as parameters) The machine m can satisfy process requirements of the task ajo for the job j(m M);

Arrival machine

Start machining

The number of tasks Nm > 0 and the machine is idle (Sm > 0)

End machining

The task is nished

p passes The machining time interval tjo

Idle waiting End

The machine m is idle to wait for the next task. Job j is nished

The number of tasks Nm 0 The number of task lj > 0 and the batch number nj 0

170

Y. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 167e174

Fig. 6. Alternative process schemes of jobs.

Table 2 Idle power of machine tools. Machine tool Power (w) M1 220 M2 200 M3 360 M4 400 M5 300 M6 180 M7 330

consumption cycle for tasks, three kinds of events related with task ow is determined in an energy consumption cycle as Start machining event, End machining event and Idle waiting event, which trigger state changes of energy consumption for machining manufacturing system. The basic event graph model for an energy consumption cycle is presented as Fig. 4.

conceived as a set of discrete events triggered by the state changes of task ow. Therefore, a discrete-event dynamic model is appropriate to characterize the energy consumption driven by task ow. In this paper, we use event graph modeling to capture the dynamics of energy consumption caused by the changes of task ow in machining manufacturing system. Event graphs were introduced by Schruben (1983) to graphically represent discrete-event simulation models. The system dynamics are characterized by events that change the state of the system and the logical and temporal relationships among these events (Savage et al. 2005). They have a minimalist design, but are extremely powerful. There are no limitations to the ability of event graphs to create a simulation model for any circumstance. An event graph bordas ate consists of a single type of node and two types of edges with up to three options. Each node corresponds to an event, or state transition, and each edge corresponds to the scheduling of other events. Each edge can optionally have an associated Boolean condition and/ or a time delay (Buss, 1996). 3.1. Energy consumption cycle Energy consumption behaviors for performing machining tasks can be conceived as cyclic processes. Fig. 3 presents an example of the cyclic power graph for turning. From the task-driven perspective, energy consumption cycle ociosa for tasks can be obviously simplied into two phase. One is the idle phase which is waiting for tasks, and another is the machining phase which is working on tasks. According to the energy

desencadeado

3.2. Event graph modeling of the task-oriented energy consumption Based on the above basic event graph model, seven kinds of events related with task ow are identied to model the complete task-oriented energy consumption including Start event, Task assignment event, Arrival machine event, Start machining event, End machining event, Idle waiting event and End event. Assuming one job consists of multiple tasks and the same task is assigned to one machine tool, Fig. 5 shows the event graph model of the taskoriented energy consumption. In the model of Fig. 5, since Start machining event, End machining event and Idle waiting event, which are also the basic events for energy consumption as shown in Fig. 4, are directly related with energy consumption actions, energy consumption for performing tasks is calculated based on the occurrence of these events. In detail, once Start machining event occurs, machining energy consumption for the task assigned on the specic machine tool m is calculated until End machining event is scheduled after p a delay of tjom . Similarly, when Idle waiting event is triggered, idle energy consumption for waiting the next task is calculated until Arrival event occurs. Therefore, based on the model of Fig. 5, energy consumption driven by variable task ow in production processes can be evaluated, which helps the decision-making on energy-saving potential related with task ow in production tal como processes, such as exible resource assignment or exible process topo selection. The detailed description for each event vertex is cspide provided in Table 1.

acima

Table 3 Energy consumption of each task for alternative process schemes (103 kW h). Alternative schemes Job1 Sch.1 a11 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 15 e e e e e e a12 e 13 e e e e e a13 e e e 5 e e e Sch.2 a11 15 e e e e e e a12 e e e e 15 e e Sch.3 a11 15 e e e e e e a12 e 13 e e e e e a13 e e e e 4 e e Job2 Sch.1 a21 e e e e 27 e e a22 e e e e e e 9 Sch.2 a21 e e 13 e e e e a22 e e e 17 e e e a23 e e e e e e 9 Job3 Sch.1 a31 6 e e e e e e a32 e e e e e 20 e a33 e e 7 e e e Sch.2 a31 e 7 e e e e e a32 e e e e 23 e e Sch.3 a31 e 7 e e e e e a32 e e e e e 20 e a33 e e e 8 e e e

Y. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 167e174 Table 4 Processing time of each task for alternative process schemes (s). Alternative schemes Job1 Sch.1 a11 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 29 e e e e e e a12 e 25 e e e e e a13 e e e 20 e e e Sch.2 a11 29 e e e e e e a12 e e e e 41 e e Sch.3 a11 29 e e e e e e a12 e 25 e e e e e a13 e e e e 20 e e Job2 Sch.1 a21 e e e e 17 e e a22 e e e e e e 5 Sch.2 a21 e e 9 e e e e a22 e e e 10 e e e a23 e e e e e e 5 Job3 Sch.1 a31 18 e e e e e e a32 e e e e e 45 e a33 e e 15 e e e Sch.2 a31 e 18 e e e e e a32 e e e e 59 e e Sch.3 a31 e 18 e e e e e a32 e e e e e 45 e

171

esquemas

a33 e e e 15 e e e

extenso
Fig. 7. Simulation results of energy consumption and makespan for 18 scenarios.

The notations of the event graph model are listed as follows: J {j} job set Aj {ajo} task set of the job j Oj {lj, nj, m} passing parameter set of job j; lj is the number of carga tasks for the job j; nj is the batch number of the task for the job j; m is the index for task assigned on machine tool m M machine tool set satisfying the requirements of machining task ajo Nm the number of tasks on machine tool m Sm State of machine tools, Sm 1 is that the machine tool is idle, Sm 0 means that the machine tool is on working p tjom the processing time of task ajo on machine tool m (s) tja 0 o0 m The time interval waiting for the next task on machine tool m (aj0 o0 is the next task of the task ajo on machine m)(s) pm calculation power of machine tool m (w) po m idle power of machine tool m (w) pc mjo cutting power of task ajo on machine tool m (w) Note that the events, Arrival machine, Start machining event, End machining event and Idle waiting event in Fig. 5, specically depicts the events on machine tool m. Therefore, the above events

occur only after tasks have been determined to be assigned on machine tool m. Therefore, this task assignment action dened with Task assignment event is also required to be considered into the event graph model although it does not generate energy consumption. 4. Simulation analysis of a case study Flexibility is one of the distinguish characteristics for modern machining manufacturing system. The decision-making on the issues related with exibility such as exible resource assignment or exible process selection is very important to optimize the production processes of machining manufacturing system. The proposed modeling method of the task-oriented energy consumption is employed to analyze and select the exible processes for the machining shop oor case in the hobbing machine production facility, which supports the decision-making on energysaving optimization of production processes as well as the

Fig. 8. Detailed energy consumption and makespan on each machine tool for Scenario 8.

Fig. 9. Comparison of energy consumption of tasks for three scenarios.

172

Table 5 Alternative process schemes for two jobs.

Y. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 167e174

Process Scheme 1 Operation Turning Feature Turning F178 mm inner hole and F120 mm inner hole; Turning the cylinder and the left end face of F210 mm. Turning the cylinder, the end face and the step face of F168 mm

Process Scheme 2 Operation Turning Feature Turning F178 mm inner hole and F120 mm inner hole; Turning the cylinder, the end face and the step face of F168 mm Turning the cylinder and the left end face of F210 mm.

Process Scheme 1 Operation Milling Feature Milling the left end face and the right end face of length dimension 880 mm; Milling upper face and lower face of width dimension 115 mm; Milling the left step face 15 mm and the 45 slope in the cross-sectional view.

Process Scheme 2 Operation Boring Boring Milling Feature Milling the left end face of length dimension 880 mm Milling the right end face of length dimension 880 mm Milling upper face and lower face of width dimension 115 mm; Milling the left step face 15 mm in the cross-sectional view Milling the 45 slope in the cross-sectional view

Turning

Turning

Milling

Milling

Y. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 167e174

173

productivity. The case consists of 3 jobs with alternative process schemes and the required quantities as shown in Fig. 6. Job 1 and Job 3 have respectively three kinds of alternative process schemes and Job 2 has two kinds of alternative process schemes. By selecting any one of the alternative process schemes for a job, there can be 18 kinds of alternative process schemes for machining the same batch of three jobs. There are seven machine tools for machining the jobs and the idle power is listed in Table 2. Tables 3 and 4 respectively show the energy consumption and processing time for each task of the three jobs. In Table 3, since the energy consumption data for performing one operation of jobs include the energy required by running machine tools and the material removal energy, energy consumption data even for machining the same operation is different due to using different machine tools. For example, for job 1, energy data of Scheme 1 does not equal to one of Scheme 3 even for machining the same operation a13, since the former is obtained on machine tool M4 and the latter is done on machine tool M5. Additionally, there is also difference in processing time for machining jobs as seen in Table 4. In this case, for machining job 1, the processing time of Scheme 2 is different from the other schemes since the last two operations of Scheme 1 (also Scheme 3) are both performed on machine tool M5. The proposed event graph model is simulated with Simulink tool in MatLab. Assuming the dispatch rule for the batch of jobs is that rst come rst service, the results of energy consumption and makespan for the 18 scenarios with alternative processes for the three jobs are shown in Fig. 7. The total energy consumption for the jobs varies from 2.94 kW h (Scenario 8) to 3.75 kW h (Scenario 4), which is approximately a range of 27.6% variation. It obviously shows that there can be a signicant energy-saving with alternative processes for the same jobs. However, the makespan for Scenario 8 is 56.13 min, 29.5% more than the minimum value of 39.57 min (Scenario 10), which implies that there exists trade-off between energy optimization and productivity. Additionally, the results also show that although Scenario 1eScenario 6 can achieve the equal makespan, there can be still achieved 12.7% energy-saving if Scenario 2 is selected to processing this batch of jobs instead of Scenario 4. In this case, Scenario 8 obtains the minimum energy consumption as well as the maximum makespan. The detailed energy consumption and makespan on each machine tool for Scenario 8 is shown in Fig. 8. It is observed that assigning more jobs on machine 5 can consume less energy. However, there is also an obvious load unbalance on each machine tool, which results into the maximum makespan. The results are compared considering three aspects including the minimal energy consumption (Scenario 8), the minimal makespan (Scenario 10) and the trade-off between the energy and makespan (Scenario 14) as shown in Fig. 9. It can be seen that there exists the obvious difference of energy consumption for processing the same task with the different processes. For task 1 and task 2, there can be respectively obtained 16% and 8.3% energy-saving in the Scenario 8 or Scenario 14 comparing to Scenario 10. For task 3, 16.7% energy can be reduced in the Scenario 8 or Scenario 10 comparing to Scenario 14. If the makespan of 56.13 min in Scenario 8 is tolerated for processing the tasks, the minimum energy consumption can be achieved by selecting the Scenario 8. On the other hand, if considered the trade-off between the energy and makespan, Scenario 14 is the appropriate scheme for processing the tasks. Depending on the above simulation analysis, the manager can make optimum decisions on selecting the exible processes of tasks to meet the actual production requirements. A real example of two jobs, parts of hobbing machine tool, is also performed to demonstrate the application. The alternative process schemes of the two jobs are shown in Table 5.

Fig. 10. Simulation results of energy consumption and makespan for 4 scenarios.

There are 4 alternative scenarios for performing the two jobs. Scenario 1(S1) is designed by selecting Scheme 1 for both two jobs and Scenario 4(S4) is done by selecting Scheme 2 for both two jobs. Scenario 2(S2) composes Scheme 1 of the rst job and Scheme 2 of the second job, while Scenario 3(S3) composes Scheme 2 of the rst job and Scheme 1 of the second job. Give the required quantities for each job are four in this case, the results of energy consumption and makespan are shown in Fig. 10. For performing this batch of two jobs, it is better to select process Scheme 2 for both two jobs (S4), which can obtain 8.9% saving-energy comparing with the maximal value in Scenario 1(S1). Meanwhile, the minimal makespan is also obtained in Scenario 4. In this case, there need not the trade-off between energy consumption and makespan. The main reason is that the energy variations caused by the processing time dominate over the ones caused by power. 5. Conclusions Understanding and characterizing the energy consumption depending on tasks in machining manufacturing system essentially contributes to explore the potential energy consumption reduction from production processes perspective. In this paper the modeling method of task-oriented energy consumption for machining manufacturing system was presented to characterize the energy consumption dependant on the task ow of production processes. As energy consumption in machining manufacturing system can concebido be conceived as the processes varying with the task ow in production processes, the exibility and variability of task ow in the production processes are identied as the main factors which dynamically impact on energy consumption characteristics. Focusing on energy consumption characteristics dynamically depending on task ow, the event graph method is used to capture the dynamics of the energy consumption driven by task ow. According to the energy consumption cycle oriented to task ow, the basic event graph model consists of three kinds of events Alem disso causing the state changes of energy consumption. Furthermore, the event graph model of the task-oriented energy consumption is established based on seven kinds of events related with task ow including Start event, Task assignment event, Arrival machine event, Start machining event, End machining event, Idle waiting event and End event. The simulation analysis of the proposed model is implemented to selection exible process schemes for a batch of jobs in a machining shop oor of hobbing machine production facility using Simulink tool. The results show that there exists an amount of energy-saving for machining tasks as well as the trade-

174

Y. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 167e174 Draganescu, F., Gheorghe, M., Doicin, C.V., 2003. Models of machine tool efciency and specic consumed energy. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 141 (1), 9e15. Fang, K., Uhan, N., Zhao, F., Sutherland, J.W., 2011. A new shop scheduling approach in support of sustainable manufacturing. In: Proceedings of the 18th CIRP International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Braunschweig, Germany, May 2e4, pp. 305e310. Gutowski, T., Dahmus, J., Thiriez, A., 2006. Electrical energy requirements for manufacturing processes. In: Proceeding of 13th CIRP International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Leuven, Belgium, May 31eJune 2, pp. 623e628. He, Y., Liu, F., 2010. Methods for integrating energy consumption and environmental impact considerations into the production operation of machining processes. Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering 23 (4), 428e435. Kordonowy, D.N., 2002. A power assessment of machining tools. Thesis(BSc). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mori, M., Fujishima, M., Inamasu, Y., Oda, Y., 2011. A study on energy efciency improvement for machine tools. CIRP Annals e Manufacturing Technology 60 (1), 145e148. Mouzon, G.C., 2007. Operational methods for minimization of energy consumption of manufacturing equipment. International Journal of Production Research 45 (18e19), 4247e4271. Mouzon, G.C., Yildirim, M.B., 2008. A framework to minimize total energy consumption and total tardiness on a single machine. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 1 (2), 105e116. Park, C.W., Kwon, K.S., Kim, W.B., Min, B.K., Park, S.J., Sung, I.H., Yoon, Y.S., Lee, K.S., Lee, J.H., Seok, J., 2009. Energy consumption reduction technology in manufacturing e a selective review of policies standards and research. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing 10 (5), 151e173. Pusavec, F., Krajnik, P., Kopac, J., 2010. Transitioning to sustainable production. Part I. Application on machining technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2), 174e184. Rajemi, M.F., Mativenga, P.T., Aramcharoen, A., 2010. Sustainable machining: selection of optimum turning conditions based on minimum energy considerations. Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (10e11), 1059e1065. Savage, E.L., Schruben, L.W., Ycesan, E., 2005. On the generality of event-graph models. INFORMS Journal on Computing 17 (1), 3e9. Schruben, L., 1983. Simulation modeling with event graphs. Communications of the ACM 26 (11), 957e963.

off between energy optimization and productivity. The detailed energy analysis provides a valuable insight to explicitly identify the further potential energy-saving in the production processes. Nevertheless, regarding the energy consumption cycle for performing tasks, machining tasks is considered as one phase and the energy consumption is derived from the experimental data or historical statistical data. This is only the rst step to consider the energy consumption for tasks, and further work is recommended to further decompose the machining phase into sub-phases to model the more detailed energy consumption for tasks. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the support offered by National Nature Science Foundation of China (No. 51105394), Five-second National Science and Technology Support Program of China (No. 2011BAF11B10), and Doctoral Fund of Ministry of Education of China (No. 20100191120004). References
Avram, O.I., Xirouchakis, P., 2011. Evaluating the use phase energy requirements of a machine tool system. Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (6e7), 699e711. Buss, A.H., 1996. Modeling with event graphs. In: Proceedings of the 1996 Winter Simulation Conference, Washington DC, USA, pp. 153e160. Dahmus, J.B., Gutowski, T.G., 2004. An environmental analysis of machining. In: 2004 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and RD&D Expo, California, USA, November 13e19, pp. 1e10. Dietmair, A., Verl, A., 2009a. Energy consumption forecasting and optimisation for tool machines. Modern Machinery Science Journal 3, 62e67. Dietmair, A., Verl, A., 2009b. A generic energy consumption model for decision making and energy efciency optimisation in manufacturing. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 2 (2), 123e133.