An end of life strategy algorithm has been used to study a CNC program to evaluate how the cutting inserts are used in terms of their full utilization. Utilized tool life (UTL) and remaining tool life (RTL) were used to evaluate if the insert has been used to its limits of expected tool life, or contributing to an accumulated tool waste. It is demonstrated that possible means to improvement exists to increase the material removal rate (MRR), thereby using the insert until its remaining tool life is as close to zero as possible. It was frequently found that inserts were used well below their maximum performance with respect to cutting velocity.

The search for increased productivity can be interpreted as the increase of material removal rate (MRR). Namely, increase of feed, depth of cut and/or cutting speed. The increase of any of these three variables, will increase the tool wear rate; therefore decreasing its tool life according to the same tool life criteria. This paper proposes an integrated model for efficient selection of cutting data for maximal MRR and maximal tool utilization. The results show that, it is possible to obtain a limited range of cutting parameters from where the CAM Programmer can select the cutting data assuring both objectives.

Forward-looking manufacturing companies aim for sustainable production with low environmental footprint. This is true also for aerospace engine-makers, although their environmental impact mostly occurs during the use-phase of their products. Materials, such as Nickel alloys, are used for special applications where other materials will not withstand tough working conditions in terms of pressure and temperature. Heat Resistant Super Alloys are, however, considered difficult to machine and cutting tools will wear off rapidly. In this paper, a simple way to estimate the energy required, the cost and environmental footprint to produce a work piece using standard engineering software is presented. The results show that for a hypothetical 3 tonne work piece, Inconel 718 will be considerably cheaper and require less water but will require more energy, and has considerably larger CO2 footprint than Waspaloy.