A carbon efficiency upgrading method for mechanical machining based on scheduling optimization strategy

doi:10.1007/s11465-019-0572-8

Front. Mech. Eng.

2020, Vol. 15

Issue (2) : 338-350 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11465-019-0572-8

RESEARCH ARTICLE

A carbon efficiency upgrading method for mechanical machining based on scheduling optimization strategy

Shuo ZHU^1,^2,³(

), Hua ZHANG^1,², Zhigang JIANG^1,², Bernard HON⁴

¹. Key Laboratory of Metallurgical Equipment and Control Technology (Ministry of Education), Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430081, China
². Hubei Key Laboratory of Mechanical Transmission and Manufacturing Engineering (Ministry of Education), Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430081, China
³. Engineering Research Center for Metallurgical Automation and Detecting Technology (Ministry of Education), Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430081, China
⁴. School of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK

Download: PDF(977 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Low-carbon manufacturing (LCM) is increasingly being regarded as a new sustainable manufacturing model of carbon emission reduction in the manufacturing industry. In this paper, a two-stage low-carbon scheduling optimization method of job shop is presented as part of the efforts to implement LCM, which also aims to reduce the processing cost and improve the efficiency of a mechanical machining process. In the first stage, a task assignment optimization model is proposed to optimize carbon emissions without jeopardizing the processing efficiency and the profit of a machining process. Non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II and technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution are then adopted to assign the most suitable batch task of different parts to each machine. In the second stage, a processing route optimization model is established to plan the processing sequence of different parts for each machine. Finally, niche genetic algorithm is utilized to minimize the makespan. A case study on the fabrication of four typical parts of a machine tool is demonstrated to validate the proposed method.

Keywords Low-carbon manufacturing carbon efficiency multi-objective optimization two-stage scheduling job shop

Corresponding Author(s): Shuo ZHU

Just Accepted Date: 11 February 2020 Online First Date: 09 March 2020 Issue Date: 25 May 2020

Cite this article:

Shuo ZHU,Hua ZHANG,Zhigang JIANG, et al. A carbon efficiency upgrading method for mechanical machining based on scheduling optimization strategy[J]. Front. Mech. Eng., 2020, 15(2): 338-350.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fme/EN/10.1007/s11465-019-0572-8
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fme/EN/Y2020/V15/I2/338

Fig.1 Two-stage low-carbon scheduling framework.

Fig.2 NSGA-II flowchart for task assignment model.

Part number	Batch task	Process step 1	Process step 2	Process step 3	Process step 4	Process step 5	Process step 6	Process step 7
Tailstock spindle $W 1$	60	Rough turning $P 1, 1$	Heat treatment $P 1, 2$	Finish turning $P 1, 3$	Slotting $P 1,4$	Heat treatment $P 1, 5$	Finish grinding $P 1, 6$	Grinding taper hole $P 1,7$
Tailstock body $W 2$	80	Heat treatment $P 2,1$	Planing plane $P 2, 2$	Milling $P 2, 3$	Grinding $P 2, 4$	Heat treatment $P 2, 5$	–	–
Under plate $W 3$	50	Rough planing $P 3, 1$	Heat treatment $P 3, 2$	Finish planning $P 3, 3$	Finish milling $P 3, 4$	–	–	–
Worktable $W 4$	50	Rough planing $P 4, 1$	Milling plane $P 4, 2$	Finish planing $P 4, 3$	Milling step $P 4, 4$	–	–	–

Tab.1 Relevant information and data of parts and processing steps

Process unit number	Process unit name	Machine type and number	Processing capacity/(piece·time^–¹)
1	Turning unit	CA6140 ( $M 1$ )	1
1	Turning unit	CA6150 ( $M 2$ )	1
2	Heat treatment unit	RJX-45-9 ( $M 3$ )	5
		RJX-45-9 ( $M 4$ )	5
		RJX-45-9 ( $M 5$ )	5
3	Milling unit	TX6111D ( $M 6$ )	1
4	Grinding unit	M13328X1500 ( $M 7$ )	1
		C-600CNC ( $M 8$ )	1
		MA1420/500 ( $M 9$ )	1
5	Planing unit	BY60100C ( $M 10$ )	1
5	Planing unit	BM2020 ( $M 11$ )	1

Tab.2 Relevant information and data of process units and machines

Process step number	Process unit number	Machine number	Machining profit per time/CNY	Carbon emissions per time/(kg CO₂e)		Qualification rate/%
$P 1, 1$	1	$M 1$	41.0	0.24	434	96
$P 1, 1$	1	$M 2$	40.0	0.23	421	96
$P 1, 2$	2	$M 3$	148.8	53.40	10980	98
		$M 4$	148.8	53.40	10980	98
		$M 5$	148.8	53.40	10980	98
$P 1, 3$	1	$M 1$	85.0	1.30	552	95
$P 1, 3$	1	$M 2$	87.0	1.20	533	95
$P 1, 4$	3	$M 6$	47.5	0.21	363	95
$P 1, 5$	2	$M 3$	146.0	66.90	12780	98
		$M 4$	146.0	66.90	12780	98
		$M 5$	146.0	66.90	12780	98
$P 1, 6$	4	$M 7$	48.5	0.65	325	95
		$M 8$	48.8	0.58	310	98
		$M 9$	44.0	0.48	320	98
$P 1, 7$	4	$M 7$	51.0	0.68	344	98
		$M 8$	52.0	0.59	326	98
		$M 9$	52.2	0.49	337	98

Tab.3 Processing information of carbon efficiency indicator elements of

W 1

Process step number	Process unit number	Machine number	Machining profit per time/CNY	Carbon emissions per time/(kg CO₂e)	Processing time per time/s	Qualification rate/%
$P 2,1$	2	$M 3$	82.4	40.90	7200	99
		$M 4$	82.4	40.90	7200	99
		$M 5$	82.4	40.90	7200	99
$P 2,2$	5	$M 10$	51.5	2.10	401	100
$P 2,2$	5	$M 11$	55.5	2.30	420	100
$P 2,3$	3	$M 6$	49.6	0.42	482	98
$P 2,4$	4	$M 7$	55.0	0.88	421	100
		$M 8$	53.0	0.68	443	100
		$M 9$	57.0	0.74	398	100
$P 2,5$	2	$M 3$	124.3	51.20	10200	93
		$M 4$	124.3	51.20	10200	100
		$M 5$	124.3	51.20	10200	100

Tab.4 Processing information of carbon efficiency indicator elements of

W 2

Process step number	Process unit number	Machine number	Machining profit per time/CNY	Carbon emissions per time/(kg CO₂e)	Processing time per time/s	Qualification rate/%
$P 3,1$	5	$M 10$	79.5	2.20	549	100
$P 3,1$	5	$M 11$	74.5	2.30	542	100
$P 3,2$	2	$M 3$	136.3	59.20	12600	99
		$M 4$	136.3	59.20	12600	99
		$M 5$	136.3	59.20	12600	99
$P 3,3$	5	$M 10$	82.6	1.90	552	100
$P 3,3$	5	$M 11$	80.0	1.70	549	100
$P 3,4$	3	$M 6$	42.5	0.64	325	98

Tab.5 Processing information of carbon efficiency indicator elements of

W 3

Process step number	Process unit number	Machine number	Machining profit per time/CNY	Carbon emissions per time/(kg CO₂e)	Processing time per time/s	Qualification rate/%
$P 4,1$	5	$M 10$	98.3	2.5	605	100
$P 4,1$	5	$M 11$	99.6	2.1	612	100
$P 4,2$	3	$M 6$	94.6	1.5	582	99
$P 4,3$	5	$M 10$	93.9	2.1	578	100
$P 4,3$	5	$M 11$	97.4	1.8	600	100
$P 4,4$	3	$M 6$	74.1	1.1	456	99

Tab.6 Processing information of carbon efficiency indicator elements of

W 4

Fig.3 Solution with the optimal carbon efficiency of (a) process unit 1 (turning unit), (b) process unit 4 (grinding unit), and (c) process unit 5 (planing unit).

Machine number	Process step number, processing task/piece, processing time/h
Machine number	Task 1		Task 2		Task 3	Task 4		Task 5
$M 1$	$P 1,1$ , 32, 3.86	$P 1,3$ , 30, 4.60		–			–	–
$M 2$	$P 1,1$ , 28, 3.27	$P 1,3$ , 30, 4.44		–			–	–
$M 3$	$P 1,2$ , 20, 12.20	$P 1,5$ , 20, 14.20		$P 2,1$ , 25, 10.00			$P 2,5$ , 25, 14.10	$P 3,2$ , 15, 10.50
$M 4$	$P 1,2$ , 20, 12.20	$P 1,5$ , 20, 14.20		$P 2,1$ , 25, 10.00			$P 2,5$ , 30, 17.00	$P 3,2$ , 15, 10.50
$M 5$	$P 1,2$ , 20, 12.20	$P 1,5$ , 20, 14.20		$P 2,1$ , 30, 12.00			$P 2,5$ , 25, 14.10	$P 3,2$ , 20, 14.00
$M 6$	$P 1,4$ , 60, 6.05	$P 2,3$ , 80, 10.71		$P 3,4$ , 50, 4.51			$P 4,2$ , 50, 8.08	$P 4,4$ , 50, 6.33
$M 7$	$P 1,6$ , 18, 1.63	$P 1,7$ , 18, 1.72		$P 2,4$ , 26, 3.04			–	–
$M 8$	$P 1,6$ , 19, 1.64	$P 1,7$ , 17, 1.54		$P 2,4$ , 27, 3.32			–	–
$M 9$	$P 1,6$ , 23, 2.04	$P 1,7$ , 25, 2.34		$P 2,4$ , 27, 2.99			–	–
$M 10$	$P 2,2$ , 37, 4.12	$P 3,1$ , 26, 3.97		$P 3,3$ , 27, 3.37			$P 4,1$ , 25, 4.20	$P 4,3$ , 23, 3.69
$M 11$	$P 2,2$ , 43, 5.02	$P 3,1$ , 24, 3.61		$P 3,3$ , 23, 4.27			$P 4,1$ , 25, 4.25	$P 4,3$ , 27, 4.50

Tab.7 Task assignment of each machine with the optimal carbon efficiency

Tab.8 Comparative analysis of carbon emissions under different objectives

Fig.4 Variation curve on solving processing route planning.

Fig.5 Gantt chart for processing route planning.

Machine number	Processing route (process step number/divided sub-batch task)
$M 1$	P_1,1/26→P_1,3/6→P_1,1/6→P_1,3/6→P_1,3/12→P_1,3/6
$M 2$	P_1,1/21→P_1,3/14→P_1,1/7→P_1,3/16
$M 3$	P_2,1/15→P_1,2/10→P_2,5/5→P_1,2/10→P_3,2/10→P_2,1/10→P_1,5/10→P_3,2/5→P_1,5/10→P_2,5/20
$M 4$	P_2,1/15→P_1,2/15→P_3,2/10→P_1,2/5→P_2,5/10→P_1,5/10→P_3,2/5→P_1,5/10→P_2,1/10→P_2,5/20
$M 5$	P_2,1/20→P_1,2/5→P_3,2/5→P_1,2/5→P_3,2/15→P_2,5/20→P_2,1/10→P_1,5/5→P_1,2/10→P_1,5/15→P_2,5/5
$M 6$	P_4,2/9→P_2,3/9→P_4,2/17→P_1,4/6→P_4,2/8→P_2,3/26→P_1,4/7→P_4,4/8→P_1,4/7→P_4,4/9→P_2,3/9→P_4,2/8→P_4,4/9→P_1,4/7→P_4,4/8→P_3,4/5→P_3,4/5→P_1,4/20→P_3,4/6→P_4,4/8→P_4,2/8→P_3,4/5→P_2,3/9→P_1,4/6→P_2,3/9→P_3,4/23→P_2,3/9→P_4,4/8→P_3,4/6→P_1,4/7→P_2,3/9
$M 7$	P_2,4/9→P_2,4/8→P_1,6/6→P_1,7/6→P_2,4/9→P_1,6/6→P_1,7/6→P_1,6/6→P_1,7/6
$M 8$	P_2,4/9→P_1,6/7→P_1,7/6→P_1,6/6→P_1,7/5→P_1,6/6→P_1,7/6→P_2,4/9→P_2,4/9
$M 9$	P_2,4/9→P_2,4/9→P_1,6/7→P_1,7/8→P_2,4/9→P_1,6/8→P_1,7/9→P_1,6/8→P_1,7/8
$M 10$	P_4,1/8→P_2,2/9→P_4,1/8→P_3,1/5→P_2,2/9→P_3,1/16→P_4,3/8→P_4,1/9→P_3,3/5→P_3,3/11→P_4,3/8→P_3,3/6→P_3,1/5→P_3,3/5→P_2,2/9→P_4,3/7→P_2,2/10
$M 11$	P_4,1/9→P_3,1/6→P_4,1/16→P_2,2/26→P_3,1/18→P_4,3/18→P_2,2/9→P_4,3/9→P_3,3/5→P_3,3/6→P_3,3/12→P_2,2/8

Tab.9 Specification of processing route planning

1	Department of Energy Statistics National Bureau of Statistics People’s Republic of China. China Energy Statistical Yearbook 2016. Beijing: China Statistics Press, 2016 (in Chinese)
2	F Ma, H Zhang, K K B Hon, et al. An optimization approach of selective laser sintering considering energy consumption and material cost. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, 199: 529–537 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.185
3	Y Liu, X Liu, J Zhao. Research on job-shop scheduling optimization method with limited resources. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2008, 38(3–4): 386–392 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-007-1345-9
4	D Tang, M Dai, M A Salido, et al. Energy-efficient dynamic scheduling for a flexible flow shop using an improved particle swarm optimization. Computers in Industry, 2016, 81: 82–95 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2015.10.001
5	G C Mouzon, M B Yildirim. A framework to minimise total energy consumption and total tardiness on a single machine. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 2008, 1(2): 105–116 https://doi.org/10.1080/19397030802257236
6	G C Mouzon. Operational methods and models for minimization of energy consumption in a manufacturing environment. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Wichita: Wichita State University, 2008
7	D Giglio, M Paolucci, A Roshani. Integrated lot sizing and energy-efficient job shop scheduling problem in manufacturing/remanufacturing systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 148: 624–641 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.166
8	M A Salido, J Escamilla, F Barber, et al. Energy efficiency, robustness, and makespan optimality in job-shop scheduling problems. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 2016, 30(3): 300–312 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060415000335
9	L L Li, C B Li, L Li, et al. An integrated approach for remanufacturing job shop scheduling with routing alternatives. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering: MBE, 2019, 16(4): 2063–2085 https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2019101
10	H Piroozfard, K Y Wong, W P Wong. Minimizing total carbon footprint and total late work criterion in flexible job shop scheduling by using an improved multi-objective genetic algorithm. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2018, 128: 267–283 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.12.001
11	C Zhang, P Gu, P Jiang. Low-carbon scheduling and estimating for a flexible job shop based on carbon footprint and carbon efficiency of multi-job processing. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part B, Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 2015, 229(2): 328–342 https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405414527959
12	Y Zhang, Q Liu, Y Zhou, et al. Integrated optimization of cutting parameters and scheduling for reducing carbon emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 149: 886–895 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.054
13	D Lei. Novel teaching-learning-based optimization algorithm for low carbon scheduling of flexible job shop. Control and Decision, 2017, 32(9): 1621–1627 (in Chinese)
14	G Zhou, C Tian, J Zhang, et al. Multi-objective process route optimization considering carbon emissions. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2018, 96(1–4): 1195–1213 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-1646-1
15	H A Verfaillie, R Bidwell. Measuring eco-efficiency: A guide to reporting company performance. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2000
16	H Cao, H Li, H Cheng, et al. A carbon efficiency approach for life-cycle carbon emission characteristics of machine tools. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2012, 37: 19–28 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.06.004
17	Z Jiang, Z Ding, H Zhang, et al. Data-driven ecological performance evaluation for remanufacturing process. Energy Conversion and Management, 2019, 198: 111844 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.111844
18	S Zhu, Z Jiang, H Zhang, et al. A carbon efficiency evaluation method for manufacturing process chain decision-making. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 148: 665–680 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.159
19	C Li, Y Tang, L Cui, et al. A quantitative approach to analyze carbon emissions of CNC-based machining systems. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 2015, 26(5): 911–922 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-013-0812-4
20	K Deb, S Agrawal, A Pratap, et al. A fast elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization: NSGA-II. In: Schoenauer M, Deb K, Rudolph G, et al., eds. Parallel Problem Solving from Nature PPSN VI. PPSN 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1917. Berlin: Springer, 2000, 849–858 https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45356-3_83
21	S Mirjalili. Genetic algorithm. In: Mirjalili S, ed. Evolutionary Algorithms and Neural Networks. Cham: Springer, 2019, 43–55 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93025-1_4
22	F Ma, H Zhang, Q Gong, et al. A novel energy evaluation approach of machining processes based on data analysis. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 2019, 1–15 https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2019.1670761
23	Z Ding, Z Jiang, H Zhang, et al. An integrated decision-making method for selecting machine tool guideways considering remanufacturability. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 2018, 1–12 https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2018.1550680

[1]	Muhammad Farhan AUSAF,Liang GAO,Xinyu LI. Optimization of multi-objective integrated process planning and scheduling problem using a priority based optimization algorithm[J]. Front. Mech. Eng., 2015, 10(4): 392-404.
[2]	Yimin ZHANG. Reliability-based robust design optimization of vehicle components, Part II: Case studies[J]. Front. Mech. Eng., 2015, 10(2): 145-153.
[3]	Yimin ZHANG. Reliability-based robust design optimization of vehicle components, Part I: Theory[J]. Front. Mech. Eng., 2015, 10(2): 138-144.
[4]	Pankaj SHARMA,Ajai JAIN. Analysis of dispatching rules in a stochastic dynamic job shop manufacturing system with sequence-dependent setup times[J]. Front. Mech. Eng., 2014, 9(4): 380-389.
[5]	Pengxing YI,Lijian DONG,Tielin SHI. Multi-objective genetic algorithms based structural optimization and experimental investigation of the planet carrier in wind turbine gearbox[J]. Front. Mech. Eng., 2014, 9(4): 354-367.
[6]	Sunil Dhingra,Gian Bhushan,Kashyap Kumar Dubey. Multi-objective optimization of combustion, performance and emission parameters in a jatropha biodiesel engine using Non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II[J]. Front. Mech. Eng., 2014, 9(1): 81-94.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed