materials

Article
An Approach to Sustainable Metrics Definition and
Evaluation for Green Manufacturing in Material
Removal Processes
César Ayabaca 1,2, * and Carlos Vila 1
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials, Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 València,
Spain; [email protected]
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Escuela Politécnica Nacional,
Quito 170524, Ecuador
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-61-7710-407




Received: 31 October 2019; Accepted: 9 January 2020; Published: 14 January 2020


Abstract: Material removal technologies should be thoroughly analyzed not only to optimize
operations but also to minimize the different waste emissions and obtain cleaner production
centers. The study of environmental sustainability in manufacturing processes, which is rapidly
gaining importance, requires activity modeling with material and resource inputs and outputs and,
most importantly, the definition of a balanced scorecard with suitable indicators for different levels,
including the operational level. This paper proposes a metrics deployment approach for the different
stages of the product life cycle, including a conceptual framework of high-level indicators and the
definition of machining process indicators from different perspectives. This set of metrics enables
methodological measurement and analysis and integrates the results into aggregated indicators that
can be considered for continuous improvement strategies. This approach was validated by five
case studies of experimental testing of the sustainability indicators in material removal operations.
The results helped to confirm or modify the approach and to adjust the parameter definitions to
optimize the initial sustainability objectives.

Keywords: green manufacturing; sustainability metrics; cleaner product life cycle; material
removal processes

1. Introduction
The analysis of industrial manufacturing processes from the sustainability point of view started
during the early 1980s in order to meet the sustainable development concept that arose in the 1970s as
a result of a general worry about the global environment due to pollution and the consumption of
energy and raw materials. In 1983, the United Nation (UN)’s World Commission on the Environment
and Development, known as the Brundtland Commission, prepared a formal report entitled “Our
Common Future”, in which the concept of sustainable development was defined as “development
that meets the current needs of people without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
theirs” [1]. Global movements and policies were generated in order to find common strategies that
could be applied worldwide [2,3].
Subsequently, in the area of product manufacturing, many research projects were initiated to
generate proposals for process improvement and the optimization of the consumption of resources
and raw materials [4–6] as well as rules and regulations for waste management for cleaner production
methods [7]. At the UN summit in 2015, the 17 goals for sustainable development for 2015 to 2030 were
laid down, including goal number 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) which is focused on
building resilient infrastructures, promoting inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and fostering

Materials 2020, 13, 373; doi:10.3390/ma13020373 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2020, 13, 373 2 of 21

innovation [8]. Among others, we could list the most important international initiatives that encourage
a better understanding of sustainability:

(a) United Nations, Sustainable Development Goals.

(b) ISO 26000: 2010 Social Responsibility [9].
(c) United Nations Global Compact (Global Compact) [10].
(d) Guide for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) multinationals.
(Global Reporting Initiative) [11].

Since the end of the last century, researchers, technicians, managers, and environmentalists
have recommended three economic, environmental, and social dimensions for evaluating economic,
environmental, and social aspects, which are known as sustainability dimensions [12].
We must underline the contribution of Zackrisson et al. [13], who studied the relationship between
performance measurement systems and sustainability. Although the research was done in Swedish
manufacturing companies, they found that at the shop floor level, 90% of the indicators have at
least an indirect relationship with one or more of the economic, environmental, or social dimensions,
while 26% of the indicators are indirectly related to the environmental dimension.
In materials and manufacturing engineering research topics, indicators are being proposed to
measure the sustainability of industrial processes. Reich-Weiser et al. defined a general set of metrics
for sustainable manufacturing [14], while Shuaib et al. [15] and Jayal et al. [16] designed a framework
and a model for sustainable manufacturing, respectively. Singh et al. developed an expert system for
the performance evaluation of small and medium enterprises [17]. With a greater focus on machining
technologies, we find the work of Rajurkar et al., which explored how to ensure sustainability and
optimize non-traditional machining processes [18].
Since machining technologies pollute and consume energy and raw materials, it is understandable
that more research actions are needed. This work is part of the research into the design of green
manufacturing activities within the product life cycle, focusing on machining technologies. This work
will propose a framework and a list of indicators that will help to get data and information from
manufacturing activities as part of the Life Cycle Assessment. The paper is structured into six sections.
The Section 2 reviews the state of the art of green manufacturing applied to machining and presents
our vision of a green manufacturing activities model. The Section 3 describes the framework for
defining the metrics from the point of view of materials, parts, and processes during the product life
cycle. The Section 4 describes the validation experiments, while the conclusions and future work are
presented in the last two sections.

2. State of the Art in Green Machining Operations

2.1. Analysis of Previous Works of Sustainability in Industrial Manufacturing Processes

The aim of this work was to carry out several experiments to calculate different types of sustainable
indicators with different materials, processes, and machining centres. Many studies have been carried
out on sustainable manufacturing and, in the literature, we can find many focused on specific disciplines,
such as machining technologies. Peralta et al. [19] showed the trends emerging in the last 15 years
in the sustainability of machining processes from the point of view of the triple bottom line and the
three general dimensions: economic, ecological, and equity. Bhanot et al. [20] presented a statistically
validated study that proposed a comprehensive sustainability framework for the manufacturing
domain to strengthen the enablers and mitigate barriers based on the responses of researchers and
industry professionals.
Eastwood et al. [21] developed a sustainable assessment methodology to both improve the
accuracy of the existing approaches in identifying the sustainability impact of a product and to assist
manufacturing decision makers using unit process modeling and life cycle inventory techniques.
The proposed methodology can quantify sustainability metrics by aggregating information from the
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 21
Materials 2020, 13, 373 3 of 21
The work of Garretson et al. [22] facilitated standards development efforts by harmonizing the
terms used to describe production processes. A set of 47 terms focusing on process characterization
process
and level, where
describing various metrics
sustainable production require wasdifferent aggregation
generated, althoughmethods,
terms fromunique the manufacturing
to individual
process to the manufacturing system level.
production processes were omitted. The terms were organized into six categories to define the overall
The work
concepts: Scope,ofBoundary,
GarretsonMaterial,
et al. [22]Measurement,
facilitated standards
Model, development
and Flow. Then, efforts by harmonizing
definitions of the termsthe
terms used to describe production processes. A set of 47 terms
were derived from: (a) the literature in sustainable manufacturing and chemical and process focusing on process characterization
and describing
industries, (b) sustainable production wasand
process characterization generated,
planning, although terms unique
(c) organization to individual
standards, andproduction
life cycle
processes were omitted. The terms were organized into six categories
assessment and management. The reported terms and definitions are not unique to sustainable to define the overall concepts:
Scope,
production.Boundary, Material, Measurement, Model, and Flow. Then, definitions of the terms were
derived from:et(a)
Helleno al. the
[23]literature
proposedina sustainable
conceptual manufacturing
method of integratingand chemical and process
a new group industries,
of sustainability
(b) process characterization and planning, (c) organization standards,
indicators into the Value Stream Mapping (VSM) tool to assess manufacturing processes. The method and life cycle assessment and
management. The reported terms and definitions are not unique to
was applied in three case studies, and the results demonstrated that the proposed method identifiedsustainable production.
Helleno
different levelset al.
of [23] proposed a conceptual
manufacturing method of integrating
process sustainability and thus enableda new group of sustainability
the development of
indicators into
improved scenarios. the Value Stream Mapping (VSM) tool to assess manufacturing processes. The method
was Kluczek
applied in three
[24] case studies,
introduced and the resultsscenario”
an “improvement demonstrated that the proposed
in a company producingmethod heatingidentified
devices,
different levels of manufacturing process sustainability and
between existing and new processes, based on an approach that can be applied to perform the thus enabled the development of
improved scenarios.
sustainability assessment of manufacturing processes, requiring less detailed data, time, and expert
Kluczek
knowledge but[24]stillintroduced
providing an “improvementanalysis.
a company-level scenario” in a company producing heating devices,
between existing and new processes,
Latif et al. [25] developed an interactive model based on an to
approach
determine thatthecan be applied index
sustainability to perform
based the
on
sustainability assessment of manufacturing processes, requiring less
user responses; the model is able to provide suggestions to improve sustainability, as well as carbon detailed data, time, and expert
knowledge
footprint but still providing
reduction, a company-level
and can assist analysis.its shortcomings in achieving sustainability,
industry to identify
Latif et al. [25] developed an interactive
can determine the carbon footprint reduction potential, model to determine
and can comparethe sustainability
the sustainabilityindex based
index on
as
auser responses;
benchmark the model is able to provide suggestions to improve sustainability, as well as carbon
measure.
footprint reduction,
Moldavska and can
and Welo [26]assist industry
analyzed to identify
the different its shortcomings
definitions in achieving
of sustainable sustainability,
manufacturing (SM)
can determine the carbon footprint reduction potential, and can compare
and identified the current understanding using an inductive content analysis of definitions published the sustainability index as a
benchmark
in a variety measure.
of academic journals. It is proposed that the findings can serve as a foundation for the
development of aand
Moldavska commonWelo [26] analyzed
language the the
in both different
researchdefinitions
field andofindustrial
sustainable manufacturing (SM)
practice.
and identified the current understanding using an inductive content
In the literature reviewed, Winroth et al. [27] compiled the existing Sustainable Framework analysis of definitions publishedof
in a variety of academic journals. It is proposed that the findings
Indicators, in which sustainability assessments can be carried out at different levels within an can serve as a foundation for the
development of a common language in both the research field and industrial practice.
organization.
In the
The literature dimension
hierarchical reviewed, Winroth et al. [27]
of the activities compiled
(global, the existing
national, Sustainable
corporate, or factory), Framework
and the
of Indicators, in which sustainability assessments can be carried
functional dimension (product, supplier, production, logistics, and customer) are shown in Figure out at different levels within
1a.
an organization.
This analysis allows us to select the production indicators at the factory level, at which in each
The hierarchical
industrial process there dimension of the activities
are proposals for the (global,
measurement national,of corporate,
sustainability,or factory),
among and the
which
functional dimension (product, supplier, production, logistics, and
manufacturing companies use the key performance indicators (KPIs) for the control and monitoring customer) are shown in Figure 1a.
This analysis allows us to select the
of their processes for continuous improvement. production indicators at the factory level, at which in each industrial
process
For there
example, are proposals
Linke et al.for[28]theproposed
measurement of sustainability,
a generic process diagram: among which manufacturing
resources (raw material,
companies use the key performance indicators (KPIs) for the control
energy, auxiliary materials, etc.) and enablers (the machine, the worker, the tools, etc.) are and monitoring of their processes
considered
forinputs
as continuous improvement.
to the process, as shown in Figure 1b.

(a) (b)

Figure 1. Dimensions selection sustainability indicators modeling. (a) Criteria for Metrics Selection [27].
Figure
(b) Generic Process Flow1.Diagram
Dimensions
[28].selection sustainability indicators modeling.

The process can be evaluated through performance parameters, indicators, or metrics, which can
be related not only to outputs but also to resources, enablers, and inputs in order to give feedback
Materials 2020, 13, 373 4 of 21

For example, Linke et al. [28] proposed a generic process diagram: resources (raw material, energy,
auxiliary materials, etc.) and enablers (the machine, the worker, the tools, etc.) are considered as inputs
to the process, as shown in Figure 1b.
The process can be evaluated through performance parameters, indicators, or metrics, which can
be related not only to outputs but also to resources, enablers, and inputs in order to give feedback
during the manufacturing phase of the product life cycle. The final quality of the manufactured part
or the assembled product will be achieved by controlling activities but also by obtaining data and
information from the metrics. The waste output generated from the process will be in the form of
physical material or environmental pollution.
From the perspective of manufacturing throughout the product life cycle, industrial processes can
be analyzed by considering stages such as the extraction of raw materials, manufactured materials,
product manufacturing, shipping, distribution, use, recycling, and the final disposal of the product.
It is important to emphasize that a certain percentage of the recycled material can be integrated back
into the material manufacturing process, while the rest must be used in other applications.
Vila et al. [29] proposed a framework for defining a structured set of metrics that are customizable
for operations in different manufacturing technologies. Although the research work was applied to AISI
1018 material turning operations in order to analyze the surface integrity of the part, the contribution
established the relationships between the machining parameters of the turning process and the final
properties of the manufactured part, such as roughness, microhardness, and other parameters. This was
the first attempt to link general sustainable metrics with technological-related metrics. For this reason,
several perspectives were proposed. Table 1 shows Product, Process, and Resources (PPR) perspectives
and some activity indicators that can be defined during the product life cycle. High-level general
indicators aligned with sustainable objectives are initially created for each activity.

Table 1. Product, material, and resources activities as general performance indicators.

Sustainable
PPR Perspective Activity Generic Indicator Units
Objective
Material class Options %
Raw Materials Extraction
Material properties Value %
Material
% Recycled content % %
Manufacture
Weight Kg &
Transport and Region where it is manufactured. Km, CO2 &
Distribution Transportation to end user. M &
Use Energy need throughout its useful life kWh &
Product
Recycling % Recycling % %
% Burned % &
End Disposition
% Spell % &
Energy of the manufacturing process. kWh &
Process Product Manufacture Useful product lifetime of the product. s %
Energy needed for assembly. kWh &
Note: Objectives symbol’s meaning % maximize; & minimize.

With this general view of manufacturing sustainable metrics, the next step was to explore previous
works in order to define a sustainable scorecard indicator for machining or material removal techniques.

2.2. Dimensions of the Sustainability Metrics for Machining Processes

In the review of the state of the art, we can find some contributions that define sustainable metrics
and show how important it is to define them at different levels of the product life cycle. One of the most
interesting works was done by Bhanot et al. [30], in which they analyzed the complex interdependences
between parameters that affect the result of a metal cutting process when seeking sustainable objectives.
From the literature and from other previous works, we can highlight the manufacturing aspects
to measure.
Materials 2020, 13, 373 5 of 21

In manufacturing, it is critical to guarantee the competitiveness of each activity from many points
of view, and a balanced optimization between the economic, environmental, and social dimensions
must be obtained. Therefore, it is necessary to define not only the technological metrics, but also
the sustainability metrics aligned with the manufacturing process. For example, for each dimension,
we can list some aggregated metrics:
(a) Economic Dimension: Surface Roughness, Material Removal Rate (MRR), Tool Life per Edge,
Production Rate per Edge, Production Cost per Component, Process and Production Management.
(b) Environmental Dimension: Coolant Consumption, Carbon Emission, Energy Consumption,
Cutting Temperature, Recyclable Waste Production, Non-Recyclable Waste Production,
Waste Management.
(c) Social Dimension: Individual Productivity, Relations with Other Workers, Worker Skills, Rotation
Flexibility at Work, Punctuality at Work, Senior Management Support, Total Satisfaction,
Suspicious Work Environment, Degree of Support from Authorities, Compliance with
Worker Requirements.
The indicators in the economic and environmental dimensions can be defined through analytic
expressions, and they can be quantitatively evaluated using data mining and process calculations.
In the social dimension, the indicators are mainly evaluated qualitatively. Some of these indicators
are introduced in Table 2. According to the product life cycle phase and for different PPR
perspectives—Process, for example—we can find technical metrics associated with the economic
dimension (Material Removal Rate), the environment dimension (Cutting Temperature), or the social
dimension (Worker Skills).

Table 2. Generic indicators for sustainable machining. PPR: Product, Process, and Resources.

PPR Sustainable
Phase Generic Indicator Acronyms Units
Perspective Dimension
Surface Roughness Ra µ Economic
Use End
Product Refrigerant Consumption Rc m3 Environmental
Disposition
Carbon Emissions Ce CO2 Environmental
Material Remove Rate MRR m3 /s Economic
Tool Life per Edge T.L/edge Min Economic
Production Rate per Edge PR/edge Units Economic
Production Cost per Component PC/edge €/part Economic
Energy Consumption Ec kWh Environmental
Cutting Temperature Ct ◦ Environmental
Worker Productivity Wp % Social
Product Relations with Other Workers Rw % Social
Process
Manufacture Worker Skills Ws % Social
Rotation Flexibility at Work Rf % Social
Punctuality at Work Pw % Social
Senior Management Support Sms % Social
Total Satisfaction Ts % Social
Auspicious Work Environment Awe % Social
Support from Authorities Sfa % Social
Worker Requirements Wr % Social

The appropriate selection of sustainable indicators allows for the diagnosis of continuous
improvement plans in industrial processes, especially in manufacturing processes. However, it is still
difficult to define social metrics in manufacturing activities, as Ayabaca and Vila presented in their
work and, moreover, to analyze the data [31].
Bhanot et al. [32] presented a study on a machining group in which the interdependencies
of different sustainable machining parameters were examined in the context of milling and
turning processes.
Materials 2020, 13, 373 6 of 21

In order to ensure competitiveness in the manufacturing field, there must be a balance between
the economic, environmental, and social dimensions. Gupta et al. [33] presented an experimental
investigation that compared empirical and experimental results, which was complemented by a
desirability optimization technique, to study the impact on cutting forces, surface roughness, tool wear,
surface topography, microhardness, and surface chemical composition in turning the aerospace material
titanium (grade-2) alloy, considering Minimum Quantity Lubrication (MQL) conditions.
Hegab et al. [34] developed and discussed a sustainability assessment algorithm for machining
processes. The four life cycle stages (pre-manufacturing, manufacturing, use, and post-use) are included
in the proposed algorithm. Energy consumption, machining costs, waste management, environmental
impact, and personal health and safety are used to express the overall sustainability assessment index.
Kadam et al. [35] analyzed the surface integrity in high-speed machining of Inconel 718, and the results
show that a good surface finish and residual stresses in compressive regimes can be ensured in the
high-speed machining range with low MRR in a water-vapor machining environment, this also being
feasible at high MRR in dry cutting.
Benedicto et al. [36] presented a comprehensive analysis of the use of cutting fluids and their
main alternatives in machining, focusing on the economic, environmental, and technical dimensions.
Zhao et al. [37] reviewed a critical assessment of energy consumption in a machining system at the
process, machine, and system levels. Machine tool power demands in different machine states with
different components were also discussed, and the predictive methods of energy consumption at
different levels were summarized. Energy consumption reduction strategies to achieve sustainable
manufacturing were also discussed.
Abbas et al. [38] presented an extensive study of the effectiveness of using different cooling and
lubrication techniques when turning AISI 1045 steel. Three multi-objective optimization models were
employed to select the optimal cutting conditions. The results offer a clear guideline for selecting
the optimal cutting conditions based on different scenarios: MQL nanofluid compared to dry and
flood approaches.
Ali et al. [39] found that the tool path strategy has a significant influence on the end outcomes
of face milling, considering the surface topography with respect to different cutter path strategies
and the optimal cutting strategy for the material Al 2024. Li et al. [40] evaluated the cutting
performance of cutting tools in the high-speed machining (HSM) of AISI 4340 by using tools coated
with TiN/TiCN/TiAlN multi-coating, TiAlN + TiN coating, TiCN + NbC coating, and AlTiN coating,
respectively. A TiN/TiCN/TiAlN multi-coated tool is the most suitable for the high-speed milling of
AISI 4340 due to the lower cutting force, lower cutting temperature, and high diffusion resistance
of the material. Gupta et al. [41] discussed the features of two innovative techniques for machining
an Inconel-800 superalloy by plain turning while considering some critical parameters, reducing the
amount of cutting fluid while using sustainable methods. Near dry machining (NDM) will be possible
and will solve the problem of chemical components in the fluids being harmful to human health.
In recent research, Gamage et al. [42] used a Taguchi design of experiments and analysis of
variance (ANOVA) to identify the significant parameters that optimize the process energy consumption
of wire electro-discharge machining (WEDM) of the superalloys Inconel-718 and Ti64Al4V. The results
indicate that the preferred parameters to minimize the specific energy consumption are workpiece
thickness, wire material, wire diameter, and pulse-OFF time. The reduction of carbon emissions
corresponds to the non-working energy consumption of the machines, which is also calculated.
Gunda et al. [43] presented a novel technique for the generation of machining techniques—namely,
high-pressure minimum quantity solid lubricant (HP-MQSL) and an experimental setup, with an aim
of improving process performance and eliminating the use of cutting fluids in machining operations.
Lu and Jawahir [44] presented a sustainability evaluation methodology for manufacturing
processes based on cryogenic machining processes which involves a metrics-based Process Sustainability
Index (ProcSI) evaluation. This helps to decide the best cutting conditions from the sustainable
manufacturing viewpoint.
Materials 2020, 13, 373 7 of 21

Pusavec et al. [45] presented an experimental study of the sustainable high-performance machining
of Inconel 718 with the development of performance-based predictive models for dry, near-dry (MQL),
cryogenic, and cryolubrication (cryogenic þ near-dry) machining processes using the response surface
methodology (RSM). The models developed in the first part of the paper are used in the second part for
process evaluation and optimization, to determine the optimum machining conditions for an overall
process performance improvement.
Goindi and Sarkar [46] presented a review of all aspects of dry machining, including the
sustainability aspects of machining, especially focusing on three research objectives: (1) identifying
the areas where dry machining has been successfully adopted and where it has not been possible
to do so, (2) reporting on the research work carried out and various alternative solutions provided
by the researchers in the area of dry machining, and (3) finding gaps in the current knowledge and
suggesting some directions for further work to make dry machining more sustainable, profitable, and
adaptable to product manufacturing. Shin et al. [47] presented a component-based energy-modeling
methodology to implement the online optimization needed for real-time control in a milling machine.
Models that can predict energy up to the tool path level at specific machining configurations are called
component models.
Um et al. [48] proposed an approach for deriving an energy estimation model from general
key performance indicators of the sustainability of machine tools in the laser welding process of an
automotive assembly line and the milling process of an aircraft part manufacturer. ANOVA and RSM
are widely used for optimizing cutting parameter tools. Zhang et al. [49] proposed using the Pareto
diagram to calculate multi-objective optimization, although this is difficult when there are more than
two objectives. This proposal lists and characterizes all the 128 scenarios of sustainable machining
operations, considering seven objectives that include energy, cost, time, power, shear force, tool life,
and surface finish. The results show that all the scenarios can be converted into a simple objective
situation that has a single solution or a set of contradictory bi-objective cases that can be represented
on a simple Pareto front.
The use and storage of the calculated indicators, together with modern systems of data
acquisition and information management in real time, will strengthen the implementation of advanced
manufacturing systems, or what is called Industry 4.0. Activities such as team maintenance and
specific service requirements can be planned and adjusted in real time. Gao et al. [50] reviewed the
historical development of prognosis theories and techniques and projected their future growth in the
emerging cloud infrastructure.

2.3. Sustainable Metrics for Manufacturing Processes

The first contribution of the research after the review of the state of the art is shown in Figure 2,
which gives the Sustainability Approach to Manufacturing Industrial Processes and summarizes the
stages of the product life cycle: inputs, enablers, manufactured parts, and waste. This framework was
outlined after a deep analysis of manufacturing industrial processes and activities. The activities model
was sketched using ICAM Definition (IDEF) methodologies [51] and Unified Modeling Language
(UML). Figure 2 presents the top level from the hierarchical model that is later deployed in different
layers with more detail of activities and customized for different manufacturing technologies.
The activity model includes, for a manufacturing process, the inputs, which can be either raw
material or a geometrical preform from previous manufacturing technology. The input of controls
depends on the manufacturing technique, and it is represented here as a Manufacturing Process Group
Technique (MPGT). For each manufacturing technology group (i), we can find different variations or
techniques (j). The evaluation of the technological process parameters, according to the manufacturing
process plan (control), will assure the quality of the final product or the quality of an individual part.
The controls parameters will depend on the technological process that is applied, while the
performance parameters, which can be also introduced, define the process efficiency.
countable metrics such as the machine‐consumed energy or uncountable metrics such as works
formation.
Finally, an important issue is to define the economic impact considering all the activities, inputs,
controls, resources, enablers, and outputs. The costs of part manufacturing can be calculated
considering the material costs (CM), the cost of tools (CT), the costs of the process (CP), and the costs
Materials 2020, 13, 373 8 of 21
of waste management (CW).

Figure 2. Activity model of a generic industrial manufacturing processes.

Figure 2. Activity model of a generic industrial manufacturing processes.
The model describes the general enablers and resources that are grouped into tools and
For the final output, the analysis of all the metrics defined for inputs, controls, enablers, and
tooling, energy consumption, machine tools, and human resources. For each enabler and resource,
resources, for each product life cycle phase and from different perspectives, will help to establish
we can analyze the different issues and therefore define specific metrics. For example, the model
whether the result meets the technical, functional, and sustainability requirements.
shows countable metrics such as the machine-consumed energy or uncountable metrics such as
With this activity model, the next step is to validate it for a manufacturing process and
works formation.
technology that, in our research, will be material removal or machining processes and technologies.
Finally, an important issue is to define the economic impact considering all the activities, inputs,
controls, resources, enablers, and outputs. The costs of part manufacturing can be calculated considering
2.4. Sustainability Metrics for Machining Operations
the material costs (CM ), the cost of tools (CT ), the costs of the process (CP ), and the costs of waste
At the factory
management (CW ). level, a manufacturing technology or technique requires one to define correctly
the process
For the finalsooutput,
plan that thethe
processes,
analysisequipment,
of all the people,
metricsetc., in thefor
defined production system perform
inputs, controls, a
enablers,
specific
and function.
resources, forManufacturing
each product lifeprocess
cycle engineering
phase and from requires a clear
different and complete
perspectives, willdescription of the
help to establish
information
whether associated
the result meetswith
the the processfunctional,
technical, and the exchange of data to be
and sustainability of such a quality that forecasts
requirements.
of theWith
results
thiscan be obtained.
activity model, theThe modeling
next ofvalidate
step is to systemsitandfor processes is expected
a manufacturing to standardize
process the
and technology
process—what
that, is done,
in our research, willwhat is controlled,
be material removalwhat resourcesprocesses
or machining are required—and define the products
and technologies.
generated.
2.4. Sustainability Metrics forofMachining
For the improvement industrialOperations
quality, a knowledge of industrial processes is required. In
this case, we will analyze the process in which
At the factory level, a manufacturing technology it is defined: function,requires
or technique inputs, outputs, resources,
one to define and
correctly
controls that allow measuring performance, as well as the emissions generated,
the process plan so that the processes, equipment, people, etc., in the production system perform which are evaluated
ainspecific
the context of sustainability.
function. Manufacturing process engineering requires a clear and complete description
The second
of the information contribution
associated of thisthe
with research
processis and
the matching
the exchangeof the
of previous
data to begeneral
of such model in a
a quality
specific model for machining processes and technologies and the definition of metrics
that forecasts of the results can be obtained. The modeling of systems and processes is expected to in each phase
standardize the process—what is done, what is controlled, what resources are required—and define
the products generated.
For the improvement of industrial quality, a knowledge of industrial processes is required. In this
case, we will analyze the process in which it is defined: function, inputs, outputs, resources, and controls
Materials 2020, 13, 373 9 of 21

that allow measuring performance, as well as the emissions generated, which are evaluated in the
context of sustainability.
The2020,
Materials second contribution
13, x FOR PEER REVIEW of this research is the matching of the previous general model9 of in 21
a
specific model for machining processes and technologies and the definition of metrics in each phase for
different machining
for different machining activities andand
activities detailed operations.
detailed TheThe
operations. activity model
activity modelforfor
machining
machining is shown
is shownin
Figure
in Figure3, and it represents
3, and the the
it represents material inputs,
material cutting
inputs, tool tool
cutting preparation, and the
preparation, anddifferent resources
the different used
resources
for
usedmachining:
for machining:cuttingcutting
fluids, fluids,
compressed air, energy
compressed air, consumption, facilities consumption,
energy consumption, machine
facilities consumption,
tool use, and
machine tool repayment and human
use, and repayment andresources.
human resources.

Figure
Figure 3. Activity model
3. Activity model for
for machining
machining operations
operations and
and metrics
metrics definition.
definition.

For
For machining
machining processes
processes and
and technologies,
technologies, the
the activity
activity model
model was
was defined
defined considering
considering the
the
following basic issues:
following basic issues:
•• MAIN
MAIN ACTIVITY:
ACTIVITY: material
material removal
removal or or machining.
machining. The
The most
most common
common machining
machining processes
processes and
and
technologies
technologies in industrial shop floors are turning, milling, drilling, and grinding, although this
in industrial shop floors are turning, milling, drilling, and grinding, although this
activity
activity model
modelcan be be
can similar to advanced
similar to advancedmachining processes
machining and technologies
processes such as chemical
and technologies such as
machining, electrochemical
chemical machining, machining,machining,
electrochemical thermal machining (laser cutting),
thermal machining or cutting),
(laser advancedormechanical
advanced
machining (water cutting).
mechanical machining (water cutting).
• INPUTS: materials
materials totoobtain
obtainthe the final
final part;
part; in this
in this case, case, the preform
the preform to be machined.
to be machined. In this
In this manufacturing process, we consider the material characterization,
manufacturing process, we consider the material characterization, testing, preparation, and testing, preparation,
and transport
transport as inputs.
as inputs.
• RESOURCES:
RESOURCES: cutting tools, compressed air, cutting fluids, facility inputs, energy, energy, machine tools,
and
and human
humanresources.
resources.These
These resources are different
resources depending
are different on theon
depending individual operation
the individual defined
operation
in the macro
defined and macro
in the micro manufacturing process plan. For
and micro manufacturing example,
process plan.regarding the consumed
For example, regardingenergy,
the
we will define the metrics for machine tool consumed energy and cutting
consumed energy, we will define the metrics for machine tool consumed energy and cutting fluids consumed energy,
as wellconsumed
fluids as the compressed
energy, asairwell
requirement for the operation
as the compressed and otherfor
air requirement auxiliary systems.
the operation and other
• auxiliary systems.
CONTROLS: technological instructions and process indicators defined in the micro manufacturing
 CONTROLS:
process technological
plan, which instructions
ensure the efficiency and processof the
and effectiveness indicators
process indefined
order to in thethemicro
obtain final
manufacturing process plan, which ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the process in order
to obtain the final product. Apart from these, we introduce indicators that can be evaluated from
the sustainability perspective, considering economic, environmental, and social dimensions.
• OUTPUTS: The final machined part must be cleaned at the end of the process, since it generally
uses cutting fluids with chemical agents. However, the most important issue is that the process
Materials 2020, 13, 373 10 of 21

product. Apart from these, we introduce indicators that can be evaluated from the sustainability
perspective, considering economic, environmental, and social dimensions.
• OUTPUTS: The final machined part must be cleaned at the end of the process, since it generally
uses
Materials cutting
2020, fluids
13, x FOR PEERwith chemical agents. However, the most important issue is that the process
REVIEW 10 of 21
generates removed material in chips that we must manage and recycle.
•
• WASTE:
WASTE:Although
Althoughit itis desired to minimize
is desired to minimizethe total
the waste, depending
total waste, on the number
depending of different
on the number of
machining phases, we
different machining can divide
phases, thisdivide
we can metricthis
for metric
each one. We consider
for each one. Wescrap or residuum
consider scrap or
generated by the production
residuum generated process—this
by the production can be physical
process—this can be(chips, raw(chips,
physical material
rawdetails, or details,
material broken
cutting tools), chemical (used cutting fluids mixed with microscopic chips
or broken cutting tools), chemical (used cutting fluids mixed with microscopic chips or wastewater) or air
or
pollution,
wastewater) dueortoair
gas emissions.
pollution, due to gas emissions.

Nevertheless, this activity model is not enough if we want to design a balanced scorecard that
includes sustainability indicators. It is obvious that a product’s design will have a great influence on
is manufactured
how it is manufacturedand andwhat
whatmaterials,
materials,processes,
processes,andandsystems
systems areare used,
used, asas
one one
of of
thethe specialists
specialists in
in green
green manufacturing,
manufacturing, Dornfeld
Dornfeld [52], indicated.
[52], indicated. TheseThese contributions
contributions to sustainability
to sustainability indicators indicators
provide
provide
the basis the basis for acquiring
for acquiring data
data during theduring
productthelife
product lifepropose
cycle. We cycle. We propose
four four main
main phases phases
for the for
product
the cycle,
life product life cycle,
which includewhich include
design, design, manufacturing,
manufacturing, use, and end use, and
of life, asend of life,
shown as shown
in Figure 4, ininorder
Figure
to
4, in order
locate to locate the
the proposed proposed
activity model.activity model.

Figure 4. Main product life cycle phases where the activity model is positioned.
Figure 4. Main product life cycle phases where the activity model is positioned.
The approach to these four phases will allow us to define indicators in each one from the
The approach to these four phases will allow us to define indicators in each one from the PPR
PPR perspective
perspective
1.
1. Design. This
Design. This phase
phase includes
includes raw
raw material
material management
management andand product
product design
design and
and development
development
stages. To design indicators, we consider not only materials flowing from mining
stages. To design indicators, we consider not only materials flowing from mining but but also
also from
from
recycled products
recycled products and
and cause–effect
cause–effect actions
actions on
on next
next phases
phases in
in engineering
engineering activities.
activities.
2. Manufacturing. In our research, we consider material removal, machining, processes, and
technologies, and the proposed activity model (Figure 3) is incorporated into this phase and we
will mainly present indicators here.
3. Use. This third phase is related to product use and service. Thus, we will focus on individual
part maintenance or spare parts.
4. End of life. This phase supposes the disposal or the recycling of products once obsolescence is
Materials 2020, 13, 373 11 of 21

2. Manufacturing. In our research, we consider material removal, machining, processes, and

technologies, and the proposed activity model (Figure 3) is incorporated into this phase and we
will mainly present indicators here.
3. Use. This third phase is related to product use and service. Thus, we will focus on individual
part maintenance or spare parts.
4. End of life. This phase supposes the disposal or the recycling of products once obsolescence
is reached and, therefore, individual part disposal or recycling according to companies’
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 21
sustainability strategy.
Supply chains and materials transport are sometimes considered a separate life cycle phase, but
Supply chains and materials transport are sometimes considered a separate life cycle phase,
from our point of view, transport and distribution happen throughout the product’s life cycle. The
but from our point of view, transport and distribution happen throughout the product’s life cycle.
complete supply chain is also an integral part of the product life cycle, as these supply chains must
The complete supply chain is also an integral part of the product life cycle, as these supply chains must
produce, deliver, and collect a finished good for use or at the end of its life.
produce, deliver, and collect a finished good for use or at the end of its life.
With the activity model for machining and the product life cycle framework, we define the
With the activity model for machining and the product life cycle framework, we define the
sustainability metrics in our research.
sustainability metrics in our research.
3. A
3. A Framework
Framework for
for Sustainability Machining Metrics
Sustainability Machining Metrics
The proposal
The proposalincludes
includesthethe definition
definition of grouped
of grouped indicators
indicators fromfrom the perspective.
the PPR PPR perspective.
In thisInwork,
this
work, we will not include resource indicators, and the Product perspective will be subdivided
we will not include resource indicators, and the Product perspective will be subdivided into Materials into
Materials
and Parts. and
TheParts.
name The name
of the of theindicator
grouped groupedwill
indicator willthe
start with start with
PPR the (Material,
name PPR namePart,
(Material, Part,
or Process)
or Process)
followed byfollowed by another
another name name
related related
to what to what
we want we want to
to measure, as measure,
shown in as shown
Figure 5. in Figure 5.

Figure 5.
Figure Machining indicators
5. Machining indicators from
from different
different PPR
PPR perspectives
perspectives along
along the
the product
product life
life cycle.
cycle.

In order to describe the indicators, we have divided the proposal into phases. Table 3 shows
In order to describe the indicators, we have divided the proposal into phases. Table 3 shows how
how the specific information is organized in this section, and the following tables contain detailed
the specific information is organized in this section, and the following tables contain detailed
information about the indicators per phase and per PPR perspective.
information about the indicators per phase and per PPR perspective.

Table 3. General and specific information on sustainable machining indicators.

Phase General Information Detailed Information

Definitions of Material, Product, and Process
Design in the stage of design
(Table 4)
Definitions of Material, Product, and Process In Table 8, specific information
Manufacturing in the stage of manufacturing and definitions of Material,
(Table 5) Product, and Process in the
Definitions of Material, Product, and Process design stage, manufacturing,
Materials 2020, 13, 373 12 of 21

Table 3. General and specific information on sustainable machining indicators.

Phase General Information Detailed Information

Definitions of Material, Product, and
Design Process in the stage of design
(Table 4)
Definitions of Material, Product, and In Table 8, specific information and
Manufacturing Process in the stage of manufacturing definitions of Material, Product,
(Table 5) and Process in the design stage,
Definitions of Material, Product, and manufacturing, use and end of life.
Use Process in the use stage
(Table 6)
Definitions of Material, Product, and
End of Life Process in the end-of-life Stage
(Table 7)

The definition of the indicators can be used to create a balanced scorecard aligned with a company’s
sustainability strategy. The first approach to specific indicators is shown in Tables 4–8, and they include
both quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used all along the product life cycle and its
name and a short description.
For the first product life cycle phase, Design, the design considerations are strengthened by the
search for new materials that have high performances for parts and have allowed a wide range of
manufacturing options. High-performance materials and new mechanical and chemical characteristics
are incorporated into the databases in product life cycle management (PLM) platforms and help
engineers to make the right decision. Table 4 shows the general definitions for the Design phase.

Table 4. Design phase indicators definition.

Phase PPR Perspective Indicator Name Description

Identifies the materials used for the design of each
Material Material.Family
component of the product
Describes the function of the part and determines the
Part.Functionality
mechanical relationships with the others in the set
Indicates the volume of a part. The mathematical
Design Part.Volume
Product definition depends on its geometry
Part.Surface Reveals the surface integrity of a part/product
Lists the functional requirements of the part, for
Part.Requirements
example roughness, dimensional tolerances, etc.
Illustrates design considerations that affect
Process Process.Material compatibility between manufacturing processes and
the selected material group

In machining processes, the relationship between the material, geometry, cutting tool, and machine
tool opens the field to the research in manufacturing process optimization and new materials.
The operating conditions (process parameters for machining) depend on the efficient performance of
these four elements. Table 5 describes, for the manufacturing phase, the indicators for the machining
process, including turning, milling, drilling, and boring operations, among others.
Machine tools can be manual, automated, or numerical control-driven. Today, most of them are
ready for Industry 4.0 connection, and CAD/CAE/CAM applications are associated with shop floor
cells and provide data to PLM platforms. The manufacturer’s recommended tool parameters (controls)
are based on extensive studies of the process, part material, part geometry, and tool performances.
With appropriate sustainable indicators, we can improve them. For example, the energy consumption
Materials 2020, 13, 373 13 of 21

of the process and its emissions metrics will require experimental measurements on the shop floor to
establish the process indicators and online data collection.

Table 5. Manufacturing phase indicators definition.

Phase PPR Perspective Indicator Name Description

Establishes the design considerations that affect the
Material Material.Process compatibility between the material selected with the
manufacturing process
Illustrates the design considerations that affect the
Product Part.Process geometric compatibility of the part with the
manufacturing process.
Manufacturing

Process.Cost Reveals the cost of the process per part/unit

Shows the energy consumption in the manufacture
Process.Consumption of the part. This indicator contains more detailed
indicators for each energy source (W, L/h, etc.)
Process Describes the material flow, internal and external to
Process.Logistics the shop floor. This indicator contains more detailed
indicators according to the part process plan
Indicates the emissions of solids, liquids, and gases
Process.Emissions produced in the process. This indicator contains
lower-level indicators with different perspectives.

Machined parts used as machine components or consumer product components must meet the
design specifications, in which the consumables and the consumption of energy sources for their
operation must be considered. Table 6 shows the definitions of metrics from this perspective.

Table 6. Use phase indicators definition.

Phase PPR Perspective Indicator Name Description

Indicates the necessary materials or components
Material Material.Fungible
used by the product during its phase of use
Indicates the consumption of various energy
Part.Consumption sources used by the product for proper operation
(water, electricity, gas, etc.)
Product
Use Lists the maintenance actions that must be
Part.Maintenance undertaken during use, mainly those programmed,
with an estimate of unscheduled maintenance
Shows the manufacturing orders that must be
issued to maintain the legally established stock of
Process Process.SpareParts
the product during the use phase and after
production ends

The end of life of a machined part can be postponed by maintenance and repairs, which may
include processes for the recovery of dimensional tolerances, for which an analysis of surface integrity
may be necessary. Table 7 shows the main definitions.
The specific information regarding some indicators is shown in Table 8. The table shows the
indicator, the simplified name, acronym, units, goal, and the possible source of the information. The
indicator units depend on the specific variables that are measured, and the objective may be seeking
the maximum (%) or the minimum (&). The sources of information can be standards or databases of
materials, machines, tools, and consumables, which can be taken as a reference for the analyzed process.
Materials 2020, 13, 373 14 of 21

Table 7. End-of-life phase indicators definition.

Phase PPR Perspective Indicator Name Description

Identifies the amount of material that can be recycled
Material Material.Recycling
for each of the parts/components used in the product
Identifies the parts or components that can be removed
Part.Reduce
without damaging the proper functioning of the product
Identifies the parts or components that can be reused
Part.Reutilize
as components of another new product
Identifies the parts or components that can be recycled
End of Life

Part.Recycle and included as part of the base material as spare parts

without damaging the proper functioning of the product
Product
Identifies parts or components that are likely to be
Part.Redesign redesigned to minimize the environmental impact of
the assembly
Identifies the parts or components that can be
Part.Recover recovered as spare parts without damaging the proper
functioning of the product
Identifies the parts or components that can be
Part.Remanufacture re-passed through a new manufacturing process and
incorporated into a new product.
Establishes the ability of the manufacturing process to
Process Process.Remanufacturing
form materials from a product in the end-of-life phase

Table 8. Specific information regarding the Indicators from the main life cycle perspective.

PPR Indicator Source of

Phase Expression Units [Example] Goal
Perspective Definition Information
Material Material.Family M.F. kg % Standard/Databases
Part.Functionality P.F Functionality % Guides
Design

Part.Volume P.Vm mm3 % @

Product
Part.Surface P.Sf µ; mm2 % @
Part.Requirements P.R # Requirements % @
Process Process.Material P.Mc Machining Operations & Guides
Material Material.Process M.Pc. Machining strategy & Standard/Guides
Manufacturing

Product Part.Process P.P Machining path & Guides

Process.Cost P.C €/unit & @
Process.Consumption P.Co Kg; € & @
Process
Process.Logistics P.L s; m; € & @
Process.Emissions P.E Kg CO2 & @
Material Material.Fungible M.Fu Kg & Database
Use

Part.Consumption P.C kW/h & Standards; @

Product
Part.Maintenance P.M OEE & Guides; @
Process Process.Spare Parts P.Rec # orders & Guides; @
Recycled Kg/Kg
Material Material.Recycling M.R % Guides, Standard; @
components
Part.Reduce P.Redu parts/unit % Guides; @
End of Life

Part.Reutilize P.Reu parts/product % Guides; @

Part.Recycle P.Rec parts/product % Guides; @
Product
Part.Redesign P.Reds parts/product % Guides; @
Part.Recover P.Rep parts/product % Guides; @
Part.Remanufacture P.Ref parts/product % Guides; @
Process.
Process P.RMfg % % Guides; @
Remanufacturing
Note: % maximize; &minimize; @ various information sources; # number of.
Materials 2020, 13, 373 15 of 21

4. Experimental Development, Results, and Discussion

In order to validate the metrics definition, a set of experiments were designed. The experiments
had the objective of acquiring data for some indicators and to analyze how variations on manufacturing
process plan parameters could affect the sustainable indicators.
The experiments were included in a green product life cycle management initiative and,
for example, advanced Computer Aided Design and Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) tools were used to
prepare the design of experiments for different indicators. It should also be noted that the proposal
managed high-level and low-level indicators and indicators in different phases that can be validated
on the shop floor. For example, machining time can be determined through the design phase indicators
with CAM applications, and the real operation time can be measured in the machine tool numerical
control and then compared.
The experiments are summarized in Table 9 and, for each one, the indicators from the PPR
perspective are evaluated. For each experiment, a basic machining technology was tested with previous
machining simulation arrangements.

Table 9. Experimental validation of sustainable machining indicators. MRR: Material Removal Rate.

PPR Machining
Phase Test Method Material Metric Evaluated Goal
Perspective Process
Simulation MRR %
Milling:
#1 Process CAD/CAM AISI1045
Surface Facing
DESIGN

Autodesk Machining Time &

Simulator Milling:
AISI1045 Machining Strategies %
#2 Process CAD/CAM Concave Surfaces
3DExperience Milling:
AISI1045 Machining Strategies %
Convex Surface
Roughness &
Microhardness %
Measurements Turning
#3 Part AISI1018 Surface Metallographic %
and tests Straight Turning
Mechanical Performance %
MANUFACTURING

Plastic Deformation &

Roughness
&
(Machine Tool A)
Measurements Roughness
between two Milling: &
4#4 Part AISI1045 (Machine Tool B)
machining Surface Facing
Power Consumption
centers &
(Machine Tool A)
Power Consumption
&
(Machine Tool B)
Measurements
16 Sustainability
#5 Process in Social Turning, Milling Various %
Indicators
Dimension
Note: % maximize; & minimize.

In the following subsections, the five experiments are briefly described to show how to obtain
data for the defined sustainable indicators.

4.1. Test #1. Material Removal Rate (MRR) and Machining Time
The objective of this experiment was to set the minimum processing time and the highest possible
MRR in a planning process. The design of the experiments considered cutting directions of 0◦ , 45◦ ,
and 90◦ , and the material was AISI1045 in the Gentiger machining tool (Taichung City, Taiwan),
with the cutting tool Mitsubishi VPX300R 4004SA32SA and LOGU1207080PNER-M (MP6120) inserts
(Tsukuba, Japan). The cutting diameter Ø = 40 mm, the number of flutes Zc = 4, and the main cutting
angle K = 90◦ . The operation was done in all cases without cutting fluids.
The CAD/CAM Inventor HSM 2019 application was used to find the 27 possible combinations of
the Taguchi method to get the combination of four parameters (ABCD) that reaches the highest MRR
Materials 2020, 13, 373 16 of 21

and the minimum processing time. In this experiment, A is the direction of the cutting trajectory pass
pd , B is the depth of cut ap , C is the cutting speed vc , and D is the feed rate per tooth fz . The time is
expressed in min:s.
The indicator, shown in Table 9, revealed that the highest MRR material removal rate obtained
for the roughing operations was MRR = 10.1 cm3 /min. In this operation, the control parameters were
pd = (0◦ or 45◦ or 90◦ ), ap = 1.2, vc = 1671, and fz = (0.10 or 0.12 or 0.08).
For the finishing machining operation, the highest material removal rate obtained was
MRR = 6.1 cm3 /min. In this operation, the control parameters were pd = (0◦ or 45◦ or 90◦ ); ap = 0.8;
vc = 1671; and fz = (0.12 or 0.08 or 0.10).
Finally, the minimum machining time obtained for the finishing operation was tmin = 2:25 min:s.
The process parameters were pd = 0◦ , ap = 0.8, vc = 1671, and fz = 0.12.

4.2. Test #2 Machining Strategies on Concave and Convex Surfaces

The objective of this experiment was to find the machining strategy with the shortest machining
time among the possible options of the cutting trajectories strategy. The surface geometry was specially
designed for the test, and the machined material was AISI1045.
The experimental setup used a high-performance Gentiger machining center, and the cutting tools
for surface machining were the Mitsubishi Ball Mill VQ4SVBR0600 (cutting diameter Ø 6 mm) for
roughing surface milling and the Mitsubishi VQ4SVBR0300 (cutting diameter Ø 3 mm) for the finishing
operations from Tsukuba production centre (Japan). Both were done with the recommended cutting
fluids, which encouraged us to optimize its use for sustainability reasons. All the experiments were
prepared with the CAM application of the 3DEXPERIENCE 2019 platform. In this case, 21 different
options were achieved.
Several evaluations were made on the part that had a concave and convex surface. The test
analyzed different options for tool path generation and trajectory strategies in three-dimensional
surface milling with all the possible combinations and simulations [53]. For example, with the style
pocketing surface machining option and the back and forth strategy, it was found that the total operation
time was reduced by 10%, while only a 3% time reduction could be achieved for the rest of the options
compared to the longest one.
In this experiment, we could obtain qualitative information about the cutting trajectory strategy
and quantitative information about the operation time and, therefore, the energy consumption.

4.3. Test #3. Roughness, Microhardness, Plastic Deformation

The objective of this experiment was to find the effect of the machining parameters on the surface
quality of the part, which was a quality requirement. The part was a machine axis, and the main
machining operations were turning. The part material was AISI1018, and the machine tool was the
ROMI numerical control lathe (Sao Paulo, Brasil).
The turning operation cutting tool used was the SANDVIK DNMG 15 06 08-PM4325, and the
operations were done with cutting fluids. The machining microprocess plan with trajectory strategies
was prepared with the CAD/CAM application SolidCAM 2018 [29].
Mathematical relationships were found to predict these properties and recommendations for the
use of different parameters. This test used experimental data from a turning process to determine the
influence of the machining parameters in the surface quality, such as the depth of cut, yield strength,
plastic deformation, and roughness. The analytical indicator helped us to decide which combination of
parameters can be accepted or rejected according to the requirements and dimensional tolerances of
the part. Experimental equations were obtained for the selected process, machine, material, and tool.

4.4. Test #4: Roughness and Power Consumption

The objective of this experiment was to reproduce the machining process plan to build the same
part in two different machining centers (A and B) that were geographically distributed. The experiment
Materials 2020, 13, 373 17 of 21

was reproduced with exactly the same machining process parameters, and the aim was to determine
whether the minimum roughness and the minimum power consumption would be obtained with the
same parameters [54].
The experiment was carried out in a high-performance Gentiger Machining Center (Taichung
City, Taiwan) (A) and in a high performance Deckel Maho Machining Center (Pfronten, Germany) (B).
The part material was AISI1045, and the cutting tool was the Mitsubishi VPX300R 4004SA32SA,
with LOGU1207080PNER-M inserts (MP6120). The cutting diameter Ø = 40 mm, the number of flutes
Zc = 4, and the main cutting angle K = 90◦ . The operation was dry machining, without cutting fluids.
Although both experiments had the same machining cutting parameters, it was discovered that
the machine has an important influence on the result and, therefore, on the micro process plan.
Power consumption. In Machine #A, the minimum power consumption was 2.79 kWh, with the
conditions of a pass direction of 90◦ , a cutting depth of 1.0 mm, a cutting speed of 180 m/min, and a
feed per tooth of 0.1 mm/tooth. In Machine #B, the minimum power consumption was 4.88 kWh,
with the cutting conditions being a pass direction of 0◦ , a cutting depth of 0.8 mm, a cutting speed of
140 m/min, and a feed per tooth of 0.08 mm/tooth.
Roughness. In Machine #A, the minimum value of Ra = 0.55 µm, with the cutting conditions of a
pass direction of 0◦ , a cutting depth of 0.8 mm, a cutting speed of 210 m/min, and a feed per tooth of
0.12 mm/tooth. In Machine #B, the minimum value of Ra = 0.83 µm, with the cutting conditions of a
pass direction of 45 ◦ , a cutting depth of 0.8 mm, a cutting speed of 210 m/min, and a feed per tooth of
0.08 mm/tooth.
The conclusion was that although we had twin machine tools with similar performances, we have
to slightly customize the process plan to reach the indicator objective.

4.5. Test #5. Social Dimension Analysis

For this experiment, the evaluation of the social dimension in machining was the main objective.
The experiment was carried out on a shop floor with numerical control machine tools that perform
machining processes on various parts at the same time.
An assessment questionnaire was designed and completed by workers, shop floor officers,
and middle managers, obtaining the minimum number of answers to validate the method.
The indicators were calculated by the grey relational theory. There were 16 indexes analyzed:
Worker Productivity, Relations with Other Workers, Worker’s Skill Level, Flexibility of Job Rotation,
Punctuality, Top Management Support on Various Issues, Job Satisfaction, Conducive Working
Environment, Awareness of Sustainable Manufacturing Initiatives, Technological Upgrades, Financial
Support (loans, etc.), Required Product Quality, and Waste Management [31].
The obtained results when evaluating the sustainability indicators in the social dimension, after the
application of the Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA) continuous improvement cycle were 9.21% higher than
the initial evaluation after the implementation of the improvements.
Some improvements were implemented after the analysis of the initial evaluation and the final
evaluation of this sustainability dimension, which is one of the most difficult to get information and
data analysis for. Fortunately, it helped to implement objective indicators on the machining shop floor.

5. Conclusions
This paper’s contributions can be highlighted in three main areas of interest that have been
presented, from the indicators’ definition to the shop floor in machining operations.
The first one is the general activity model of industrial manufacturing processes that can be
deployed in more detailed activities to identify indicators, where needed, for the manufacturing phase
of the product life cycle management.
The second one is the customization of the activity model for material removal and machining
processes. In this model, we detected the manufacturing machining process inputs, controls, resources,
and enablers in order to define the general, technical, and sustainability indicators. These indicators
Materials 2020, 13, 373 18 of 21

can be defined for different product life cycle phases in an organized way, which is why we defined the
PPR life cycle phases matrix.
The different experiments carried out provided skills, data, and information about the applied
indicators in the manufacturing and materials engineering discipline. They gave real case studies for
validating the metrics’ definition.
Apart from the manufacturing phase metrics’ definition, the use of manufacturing authoring
applications within a PLM platform in the design stage can simulate the manufacturing process and
help to predict its behavior under the required conditions. Computer-aided manufacturing simulation
software has different simulation levels that can help to define and validate machining strategies or
manufacturing cell activities to ensure good product quality, achieving sustainable strategies.
In the comparative study of the two machining centers, the lowest roughness and the lowest
energy consumption were obtained with different machining parameters. The experiment was carried
out on the same material and the same tool, and it was determined that sustainability indicators must
be established for each machining center.
When considering surface roughness and the power consumed as the variables to find the best
cutting conditions, it was determined that each machining center has its own operating parameters for
these conditions. These parameters are related to each other, and the value depends on the material
selected, the tool, the machine center, and the lubrication.
The manufacturing parameters that can be tested with virtual manufacturing help to minimize
the iterative process when fixing the indicators’ objective values. In other cases, it will be more difficult,
and we will need to do shop floor measures, as shown in the last experiment.
Finally, sustainability indicators should be evaluated in the product design stage for the best results,
and the characteristics of the manufactured part can best be predicted by including the sustainability
criteria in the product life cycle management (PLM) platforms.

6. Future Work
The research plans aligned with this proposal, and we learned multiple lessons, including several
key actions. Firstly, we suggest a proposal to incorporate indicators’ reports into product life cycle
management platforms, in which the sustainability alternatives proposed in the design stage can be
evaluated, as part of digital twins’ implementation for Industry 4.0 demonstrators. Secondly, further
research should carry out experiments to determine the influence of mooring in milling processes and
its influence on the quality of the part and the sustainability indicators. Finally, future research should
focus on developing a system for evaluating sustainability indicators that can quantify the increase in
the indicators when the product is improved, while the options or alternatives are analyzed in the
design and manufacturing stages.

Author Contributions: C.A. conceptualization and writing—review and editing, analyzed the results, and
prepared the draft manuscript. C.V. supervised the research, reviewed the analysis of the results, and wrote the
final manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Escuela Politécnica Nacional (Ecuador) Research Project: PIS 16-15, the
Universitat Politècnica de València UPV (Spain) and the Carolina Foundation (Spanish Government Scholarships)
Call 2017.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their gratitude for the support provided by the Escuela
Politécnica Nacional (Ecuador), the Universitat Politècnica de València (Spain) and the Carolina Foundation
(Spanish Government) with the corresponding grants.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Brundtland, G.H. Our Common Future—Call for Action. Environ. Conserv. 1987, 14, 291–294. [CrossRef]
2. Blewitt, J. Understanding Sustainable Development; Routledge: Abingdon upon Thames, UK, 2012.
Materials 2020, 13, 373 19 of 21

3. Berke, P.R.; Conroy, M.M. Are We Planning for Sustainable Development? J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2000.
[CrossRef]
4. De Ron, A.J. Sustainable production: The ultimate result of a continuous improvement. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
1998, 56–57, 99–110. [CrossRef]
5. Aarseth, W.; Ahola, T.; Aaltonen, K.; Økland, A.; Andersen, B. Project sustainability strategies: A systematic
literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1071–1083. [CrossRef]
6. Jansen, L. The challenge of sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2003. [CrossRef]
7. Vieira, L.C.; Amaral, F.G. Barriers and strategies applying Cleaner Production: A systematic review.
J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 5–16. [CrossRef]
8. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2017.
9. ISO Central Secretariat; Frost, R. ISO 26000 Social Responsibility Basics. ISO Focus 2011.
10. United Nations. United Nations Global Compact Guide to Corporate Sustainability. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014.
[CrossRef]
11. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). GRI and ISO 26000: How to use the GRI Guidelines in conjunction with
ISO 26000. Design 2011.
12. Elkington, J. Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business Strategies for Sustainable
Development. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1994. [CrossRef]
13. Zackrisson, M.; Kurdve, M.; Shahbazi, S.; Wiktorsson, M.; Winroth, M.; Landström, A.; Almström, P.;
Andersson, C.; Windmark, C.; Öberg, A.E.; et al. Sustainability Performance Indicators at Shop Floor Level
in Large Manufacturing Companies. Procedia CIRP 2017, 61, 457–462. [CrossRef]
14. Reich-Weiser, C.; Vijayaraghavan, A.; Dornfeld, D.A. Metrics for Sustainable Manufacturing. In Proceedings
of the ASME International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference, MSEC2008, Evanston, IL,
USA, 7–10 October 2008; Volume 1, pp. 327–335.
15. Shuaib, M.; Seevers, D.; Zhang, X.; Badurdeen, F.; Rouch, K.E.; Jawahir, I.S. Product sustainability index
(ProdSI): A metrics-based framework to evaluate the total life cycle sustainability of manufactured products.
J. Ind. Ecol. 2014, 18, 491–507. [CrossRef]
16. Jayal, A.D.; Badurdeen, F.; Dillon, O.W.; Jawahir, I.S. Sustainable manufacturing: Modeling and optimization
challenges at the product, process and system levels. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 2010, 2, 144–152. [CrossRef]
17. Singh, S.; Olugu, E.U.; Musa, S.N. Development of Sustainable Manufacturing Performance Evaluation
Expert System for Small and Medium Enterprises. Procedia CIRP 2016, 40, 608–613. [CrossRef]
18. Rajurkar, K.P.; Hadidi, H.; Pariti, J.; Reddy, G.C. Review of Sustainability Issues in Non-Traditional Machining
Processes. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 7, 714–720. [CrossRef]
19. Peralta Álvarez, M.E.; Marcos Bárcena, M.; Aguayo González, F. On the sustainability of machining processes.
Proposal for a unified framework through the triple bottom-line from an understanding review. J. Clean. Prod.
2017, 142, 3890–3904. [CrossRef]
20. Bhanot, N.; Rao, P.V.; Deshmukh, S.G. An integrated approach for analysing the enablers and barriers of
sustainable manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 4412–4439. [CrossRef]
21. Eastwood, M.D.; Haapala, K.R. A unit process model based methodology to assist product sustainability
assessment during design for manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 54–64. [CrossRef]
22. Garretson, I.C.; Mani, M.; Leong, S.; Lyons, K.W.; Haapala, K.R. Terminology to support manufacturing
process characterization and assessment for sustainable production. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 139, 986–1000.
[CrossRef]
23. Helleno, A.L.; de Moraes, A.J.I.; Simon, A.T.; Helleno, A.L. Integrating sustainability indicators and
Lean Manufacturing to assess manufacturing processes: Application case studies in Brazilian industry.
J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 153, 405–416. [CrossRef]
24. Kluczek, A. An Overall Multi-criteria Approach to Sustainability Assessment of Manufacturing Processes.
Procedia Manuf. 2017, 8, 136–143. [CrossRef]
25. Latif, H.H.; Gopalakrishnan, B.; Nimbarte, A.; Currie, K. Sustainability index development for manufacturing
industry. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2017, 24, 82–95. [CrossRef]
26. Moldavska, A.; Welo, T. The concept of sustainable manufacturing and its definitions: A content-analysis
based literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 744–755. [CrossRef]
27. Winroth, M.; Almström, P.; Andersson, C. Sustainable production indicators at factory level. J. Manuf.
Technol. Manag. 2016, 27, 842–873. [CrossRef]
Materials 2020, 13, 373 20 of 21

28. Linke, B.; Das, J.; Lam, M.; Ly, C. Sustainability indicators for finishing operations based on process
performance and part quality. Procedia CIRP 2014, 14, 564–569. [CrossRef]
29. Vila, C.; Ayabaca, C.; Díaz-Campoverde, C.; Calle, O. Sustainability analysis of AISI 1018 turning operations
under surface integrity criteria. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4786. [CrossRef]
30. Bhanot, N.; Rao, P.V.; Deshmukh, S.G. An Assessment of Sustainability for Turning Process in an Automobile
Firm. Procedia CIRP 2016, 48, 538–543. [CrossRef]
31. Ayabaca, C.; Vila, C. Assessment of the Sustainability Social Dimension in Machining Through Grey
Relational Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology
and Innovation, ICE/ITMC, Stuttgart, Germany, 17–20 June 2018.
32. Bhanot, N.; Rao, P.V.; Deshmukh, S.G. Sustainable Manufacturing: An Interaction Analysis for Machining
Parameters using Graph Theory. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015. [CrossRef]
33. Gupta, M.K.; Sood, P.K.; Singh, G.; Sharma, V.S. Sustainable Machining of Aerospace Material-Ti (grade-2)
alloy: Modelling and Optimization. J. Clean. Prod. 2017. [CrossRef]
34. Hegab, H.A.; Darras, B.; Kishawy, H.A. Towards sustainability assessment of machining processes.
J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 170, 694–703. [CrossRef]
35. Kadam, G.S.; Pawade, R.S. Surface integrity and sustainability assessment in high-speed machining of
Inconel 718—An eco-friendly green approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 147, 273–283. [CrossRef]
36. Benedicto, E.; Carou, D.; Rubio, E.M. Technical, Economic and Environmental Review of the
Lubrication/Cooling Systems Used in Machining Processes. Procedia Eng. 2017, 184, 99–116. [CrossRef]
37. Zhao, G.Y.; Liu, Z.Y.; He, Y.; Cao, H.J.; Guo, Y.B. Energy consumption in machining: Classification, prediction,
and reduction strategy. Energy 2017, 133, 142–157. [CrossRef]
38. Abbas, A.T.; Benyahia, F.; El Rayes, M.M.; Pruncu, C.; Taha, M.A.; Hegab, H. Towards optimization of
machining performance and sustainability aspects when turning AISI 1045 steel under different cooling and
lubrication strategies. Materials 2019, 12, 3023. [CrossRef]
39. Ali, R.A.; Mia, M.; Khan, A.M.; Chen, W.; Gupta, M.K.; Pruncu, C.I. Multi-response optimization of face
milling performance considering tool path strategies in machining of Al-2024. Materials 2019, 12, 1013.
[CrossRef]
40. Li, Y.; Zheng, G.; Cheng, X.; Yang, X.; Xu, R.; Zhang, H. Cutting performance evaluation of the coated tools
in high-speed milling of aisi 4340 steel. Materials 2019, 12, 3266. [CrossRef]
41. Gupta, M.K.; Pruncu, C.I.; Mia, M.; Singh, G.; Singh, S.; Prakash, C.; Sood, P.K.; Gill, H.S. Machinability
investigations of Inconel-800 super alloy under sustainable cooling conditions. Materials 2018, 11, 2088.
[CrossRef]
42. Gamage, J.R.; DeSilva, A.K.M.; Chantzis, D.; Antar, M. Sustainable machining: Process energy optimisation
of wire electrodischarge machining of Inconel and titanium superalloys. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 642–651.
[CrossRef]
43. Gunda, R.K.; Reddy, N.S.K.; Kishawy, H.A. A Novel Technique to Achieve Sustainable Machining System.
Procedia CIRP 2016, 40, 30–34. [CrossRef]
44. Lu, T.; Jawahir, I.S. Metrics-based sustainability evaluation of cryogenic machining. Procedia CIRP 2015, 29,
520–525. [CrossRef]
45. Pusavec, F.; Deshpande, A.; Yang, S.; M’Saoubi, R.; Kopac, J.; Dillon, O.W.; Jawahir, I.S. Sustainable machining
of high temperature Nickel alloy—Inconel 718: Part 1—Predictive performance models. J. Clean. Prod. 2014,
81, 255–269. [CrossRef]
46. Goindi, G.S.; Sarkar, P. Dry machining: A step towards sustainable machining—Challenges and future
directions. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 165, 1557–1571. [CrossRef]
47. Shin, S.J.; Woo, J.; Rachuri, S. Energy efficiency of milling machining: Component modeling and online
optimization of cutting parameters. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 161, 12–29. [CrossRef]
48. Um, J.; Gontarz, A.; Stroud, I. Developing energy estimation model based on sustainability KPI of machine
tools. Procedia CIRP 2015, 26, 217–266. [CrossRef]
49. Zhang, T.; Owodunni, O.; Gao, J. Scenarios in multi-objective optimisation of process parameters for
sustainable machining. Procedia CIRP 2015, 26, 373–378. [CrossRef]
50. Gao, R.; Wang, L.; Teti, R.; Dornfeld, D.; Kumara, S.; Mori, M.; Helu, M. Cloud-enabled prognosis for
manufacturing. CIRP Ann. 2015, 64, 749–772. [CrossRef]
Materials 2020, 13, 373 21 of 21

51. Menzel, C.; Mayer, R.J. The IDEF Family of Languages. In Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1998.
52. Dornfeld, D.A. Moving towards green and sustainable manufacturing. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.-Green
Technol. 2014, 1, 63–66. [CrossRef]
53. Vila, C.; Ayabaca, C.; Gutiérrez, S.; Meseguer, A.; Torres, R.; Yang, X. Analysis of Different Tool Path Strategies
for Free Form Machining with Computer Aided Surface Milling Operations. In Proceedings of the 8th
Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference MESIC 2019, Madrid, Spain, 19–21 June 2019;
Barajas, C., Caja, J., Calvo, R., Maresca, P., Palacios, T., Eds.; ETSI Aeronáutica y del Espacio, UPM: Madrid,
Spain, 2019; p. 137.
54. Ayabaca, C.; Vila, C.; Abellán-Nebot, J.V. Comparative study of Sustainability Metrics for Face Milling
AISI 1045 in different Machining Centers. In Proceedings of the 8th Manufacturing Engineering Society
International Conference MESIC 2019, Madrid, Spain, 19–21 June 2019; Barajas, C., Caja, J., Calvo, R.,
Maresca, P., Palacios, T., Eds.; ETSI Aeronáutica y del Espacio, UPM: Madrid, Spain, 2019; p. 133.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).