Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 118 (2023) 747–752

16th CIRP Conference on Intelligent Computation in Manufacturing Engineering, CIRP ICME ‘22, Italy

Analysing energy consumption of selective laser melting process steps

based on non-intrusive electrical measurement clusters
Bharathwajanprabu Ravisankara,*, Kashan Syeda, Eva Jaegerb,
Petra Wiederkehrb, Christian Rehtanza
a
Institute of Energy Systems, Energy Efficiency and Energy Economics, TU Dortmund University, Emil-Figge-Str. 70, 44227 Dortmund, Germany
b
Virtual Machining, TU Dortmund University, Otto-Hahn-Str. 12, 44227 Dortmund, Germany

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 231 755-2693; fax: +49 231 755-2694. E-mail address: bharathwajanprabu.ravisankar@tu-dortmund.de

Abstract

The growing use of Renewable Energy Sources (RESs) is bringing the energy efficiency of factory processes more and more into focus. The
prediction of the process-specific energy demand is indispensable owing to the need to use RESs systematically. In addition, the demand to utilise
cross-sector energy resources through sector coupling has also necessitated an increase in need for accurate forecasting of production processes
and its energy consumption. Furthermore, the occupancy and operational times of factory machines and their respective schedules also plays a
vital role in determining their energy costs. However, detecting the machine states for energy-specific needs is a challenging task due to differing
machine-specific energy usage and aggregated load monitoring. Hence, this paper investigates the capabilities of clustering methods for
identifying different process steps of Selective Laser Melting (SLM) based on cluster analysis of non-intrusive electrical measurements. The
resulting approach enables active monitoring of SLM process steps electrically and to develop energy optimised production models thereby
further reducing energy costs per production cycle.
© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 16th CIRP Conference on Intelligent Computation in Manufacturing Engineering
Keywords: Energy efficiency; Selective laser melting; Machine learning

1. Introduction The energy consumption of manufacturing machines reveals

The emerging trend in all of socioeconomic and
sociopolitical sections is the need to reduce the environmental
and energy costs without affecting the existing energy
dependent infrastructures. The manufacturing sector is known
to be the largest energy prosumer with respect to both
renewable and non-renewable resources culminating in serious
environmental impact and has started to move towards more
sustainable and energy efficient manufacturing [1]. Moreover,
increasing energy costs due to investments towards renewable
energy production have become one of the main reasons for the
industries to orient their manufacturing systems on energy
efficiency [2, 3].
its operational capabilities and therefore provide ways to
monitor its operational states and to estimate its energy demand
[4]. However, the major hindrance in estimating such energy
demands is to forecast process-specific demand of machines
with high reliability and resolution, which typically depends on
the electrical Data Acquisition (DA). Moving forward Additive
Manufacturing (AM) is becoming increasingly important. [5, 6]
discuss about the energy consumption of AM, in particular
about Selective Laser Melting (SLM), to forecast and monitor
it using Internet of Things (IoT). To the best knowledge of the
authors, so far the methods used to acquire electrical data from
SLM has been either through simulation [7] or by intrusively
tapping into the control panels inside the SLM machine [8], thus
leading to an extensive setup.

2212-8271 © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 16th CIRP Conference on Intelligent Computation in Manufacturing Engineering
10.1016/j.procir.2023.06.128
748 Bharathwajanprabu Ravisankar et al. / Procedia CIRP 118 (2023) 747–752
There exists an alternative way of electrical DA called Non-
Intrusive Load Monitoring (NILM) as discussed in [9, 10] to
mitigate the problems of such intrusive monitoring of
machines. Furthermore, [11, 12] shows some insights into
different energy predictions using Machine Learning (ML)
approaches.
The main objectives of this paper are twofold. The first is to
cluster the non-intrusively obtained electrical time series data
of SLM and to classify them according to the process steps. The
ability to identify process steps independent of machine-
generated logs helps in improvising the real-time operational
state monitoring of SLM. The second is to estimate the average
energy consumed using the classified process steps and to gain
specific insights into the energy demands of SLM.
The SLM and NILM processes are briefly explained along
with the description about the experimental setup in section 2.
Data preprocessing and feature extraction are described in
detail in section 3 followed by the clustering and the energy
computation of the considered SLM process steps in section 4
and a conclusion in section 5.
2. Methodology and experimental setup
2.1. SLM Process
SLM is an additive manufacturing technique, in which
metal powder is selectively melted using a laser device to form
the desired product structure. The heat generated by the laser
beams emitted at continuous or regular intervals over an area
of the powder-coated platform causes the powder to melt and
subsequently solidify and thereby producing a rigid structure
[13]. During the build process, the process flow of SLM takes
place in three major operational steps, namely, coating step,
laser step and auxiliary step. Within the coating step, the build
platform is first set to the intended dimension of the product
structure and the build platform, which moves vertically
downward, controls the height of the product. Secondly, a
motor initiates a horizontal movement over the platform,
distributing the metal powder, and controlling the movement of
the coater. The storage bin feeds the metal powder. The melting
step starts after the coating step has been completed, where a
laser melts the powder. A short cooling phase follows the
completion of the laser operation. The repetition of coating
followed by laser thus forms a cyclic operational sequence. In
parallel to these process steps, the auxiliary operational step
fulfils the tasks of maintaining the temperature of chamber,
inert gas inlet flow, product check through internal camera
setup, etc.
2.3. Non-intrusive measurement of electrical data
Installation of electric meters and sensors to each machines
in the production line enables monitoring their power
consumption. Such is a typical case of Intrusive Load
Monitoring (ILM), which is a cost prone method [14]. NILM
is an alternative approach that monitors loads from a single
measurement point and then disaggregates the data to
determine the power consumption of the connected machines.
This also ensures the load monitoring with less number of
meters and sensors over a wider area [15, 16]. Due to
disaggregation, it is necessary to understand the power
consumption patterns of each of these machines.
In order to comprehend the energy consumption during the
operation of a SLM machine, two experiments for training and
testing, namely Experiment 1 (EXP1) and Experiment 2
(EXP2) were conducted respectively on a SLM Solutions SLM
280HL [17]. To observe and acquire the electrical parameter
values, a Fluke 435 Series II Power Quality Analyzer with a
Fluke i200s current clamp with a clamp range of 100 mV/A, a
nominal range of 20 A and a frequency measurement sampling
rate of 𝑓𝑓𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 4 Hz with an accuracy ±0.1% was used [18].
The Fluke device, which was connected non-intrusively
between the electrical mains and the SLM gathers the electrical
data. Further detailed information about the experimental setup
is discussed in [19]. The experiments differed both in the
product structure and in the height of the build job as shown in
Table 1.
Table 1. Features extracted for each electrical phase.
Experiment hbuildjob nlayer tbuild
1 86 mm 2866 2473 min
2 56 mm 1785 1492 min
The current and active power of all the three phases were
considered based on the observation of electrical activation
over each phase line for each process step as shown in Fig.1.
Since each process step of SLM derives power from each
phase, phase 1 (Ph1) represents laser operation, phase 2 (Ph2)
the coating operation and phase 3 (Ph3) corresponds to
auxiliary operations. In particular, the observed electrical data
of Ph1 reflected that the laser was operating at different layers
and for different time periods based on the different printable
areas. Furthermore, Fig.1 shows the presence of unique
patterns in each phase and one of the targets is to capture and
collect the patterns and group them as parts of the respective
process steps. The acquired data was preprocessed to remove
anomalies as discussed in [19].
Fig. 1. Three phase electrical time series data of SLM.
An effective method to label the observed electrical data is
necessary, as the end target is to estimate the energy
consumption of the SLM process steps. SLM consumes idle
and operational power over each phase once the build process
 Bharathwajanprabu Ravisankar et al. / Procedia CIRP 118 (2023) 747–752
starts. Based on the process steps, such power values are to be
measured, analysed and labelled in order to estimate the energy
consumption of each process step.
3. Data preprocessing and extracting features
3.1 Windowing SLM time series data
As discussed in section 2 and in Table 1, the timeframe for
DA depends on the build or operational time of the SLM. The
acquired electrical data are therefore continuous time series
data covering several hours. Determining the process steps over
such a broad time series of electrical data on an hourly basis
was difficult due to different layers and laser print time periods.
In addition, the electrical parameters reflect transient spikes
caused by component activations, such as the current signals
observed for Ph3 in Fig. 1. The cyclic nature of the SLM
process steps enables to define the boundaries for each layer
and thus obtain complete layer-by-layer information by
observing the electrical data. In contrast, with a lower
resolution in seconds, even minor spikes need to be analysed
and determined whether they belong to one process step or
another. This leads to a major hindrance in segregating data
according to observable process steps.
An alternative is to iterate through the dataset at a fixed size
and in fixed steps. Such an approach, widely called as moving
or sliding window, was applied over the SLM time series data.
To move a window over the dataset, a window size, 𝑤𝑤𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 was
selected and the data within this window was analysed for
patterns or process steps. Then this window was moved
adjacently for a step size, 𝑤𝑤𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 . This repeated iteration through
the dataset provided a greater probability of detecting both
larger and smaller electrical spikes. The accumulated windows
over the defined layer boundaries facilitated the segregation of
the three considered process steps based on the power variance.
To take advantage of this approach, the window sizes were
fixed for each electrical phase lines such that the dataset were
traversed smoothly. Analysing the data, the window sizes for
Ph1 and Ph2 were chosen as 5 s and for Ph3 as 2.5 s. Moreover,
the step size of 1.25 s was chosen for all three phases. A typical
sample of the moving window over the SLM electrical data as
shown in Fig.2 represents the Ph2 data covering three layers of
coating operation.
3.2 Feature extraction and dimensionality reduction
The numerous data point windows, each created in the
previous step spanning across the whole dataset are still
represented in the form of time series. These could be used, e.g.
as input for deep neural networks. In the following, a feature
based input method was used since it provides greater statistical
co-relations over aggregated data sets [20]. One of the
advantages of extracting features from time series data is that
the obtained features are generally insensitive to noise and
small variations and reveal interesting data patterns [20].
Moreover, the number of features is usually less than the
number of time series data and therefore ML training time is
reduced drastically [21]. In this paper, a python programming
language-based feature extraction library called tsfresh [22]
was used to extract a set of relevant features over each window
of all three phases. The list of statistical feature sets for each
749
Fig. 2. Moving window of SLM electrical data.
phase lines are listed in Table 2 and were analysed, selected
and used throughout the experiment. In the current signal of
Ph3, a peak was recorded at every second layer, which
coincides with the refilling of the coater. Hence, an absolute
Fourier Transform spectrum analysis based aggregated Fast
Fourier Transform (aFFT) feature was extracted for Ph3. These
selected features form the feature set for the three process steps.
However, many of the extracted features exhibited mutual
correlation with each other. By using the Principle Component
Analysis (PCA), the dimensionality was reduced by preserving
the data variation as much as possible [23].
Table 2. Features extracted for each electrical phase.
Phase Lines tsfresh feature set
Ph1 (Laser) and Ph2 Kurtosis, Maximum, Skewness, Root Mean
(Coating) Square, Mean, Standard Deviation
Ph3 (Auxiliary) Aggregated Fast Fourier Transform
In this paper, the extracted features from the previous steps
for all three lines was reduced to two principal components.
After extracting the features for each window and reducing the
feature dataset to two principal components, the data was then
used as input to clustering algorithms and then to aggregate the
windows with similar features together, in order to create
process specific electrical profiles.
4. Cluster analysis
In order to explore the electrical time series data with
transient spikes, a method is required to detect the patterns,
group them and isolate them from individual groups even
without any ground truth data. For this purpose, Clustering
Algorithm (CA) are suitable for detecting such patterns without
ground truth. CA is a subset of machine learning, which uses
similarity indices over a set of data points to group points
within a cluster as similar and points outside the cluster as
dissimilar [24]. Four types of clustering algorithms belonging
to specific computation types were selected, namely centroid
based K-Means clustering (KMc), distribution based Gaussian
mixture (GMc), hierarchical based Agglomerative clustering
(Ac) and Birch clustering (Bc) [24, 25, 26]. These algorithms
cluster the feature data set for all three phases. Each algorithm
was run for multiple iterations with a different number of
clusters as input parameter. The number of clusters defines the
cluster partitions to each clustering algorithms. In this paper,
750 Bharathwajanprabu Ravisankar et al. / Procedia CIRP 118 (2023) 747–752

cluster partition ranges of two to five were chosen as a

Table 3. Coating process step (Phase 2) clustering evaluation metrics.
representation of a typical SLM process steps operation.
Experiment 1 Experiment 2
4.1 Optimal cluster selection Clustering
n CHI SIL DBI Opt. CHI SIL DBI Opt.
Algorithm

Although the number of clusters provides information 2 10243 0.6 0.6 8495 0.7 0.4
about the relationship between individual data points and 3 15133 0.7 0.5 23286 0.8 0.3
K-Means 3 3
groups of data points, without an optimal cluster number, it is 4 13313 0.5 0.7 20206 0.7 0.6
difficult to determine the applicability of data clusters to an
5 13168 0.4 0.8 19252 0.5 0.7
intended application, in this case, determining the process steps
followed by energy estimation. Unfortunately, determining the 2 9516 0.6 0.6 8491 0.7 0.4
optimal number of clusters is not straightforward, so a selection 3 12322 0.6 0.7 22428 0.8 0.3
based on cluster evaluation metrics was used in this paper. For Agglomerative 3 3
4 12230 0.6 0.7 19165 0.7 0.5
the determination of the optimal number of clusters, three
internal cluster evaluation metrics were calculated. The 5 11463 0.5 0.8 18039 0.6 0.7
approach was to first setup different parameter combinations to 2 1931 0.5 0.9 1735 0.7 0.4
obtain different clustering results and compare each cluster 3 13850 0.7 0.6 22261 0.8 0.3
partitions so that the best partitions and optimal cluster number Birch 3 3
4 11819 0.6 0.6 18390 0.8 0.4
were selected.
The first scoring metric used was Calinski-Harabasz Index 5 11924 0.5 0.7 16551 0.6 0.7
(CHI). CHI is a variance ratio method that calculates the sum 2 6081 0.5 0.7 6687 0.7 0.5
of dispersion among and within the clusters, with the highest
Gaussian 3 7730 0.6 1.0 9426 0.7 0.8
value reflecting better separation [27]. For a dataset X with size - -
Mixture 4 10187 0.5 1.1 14035 0.7 0.8
𝑛𝑛𝑋𝑋 and k clusters, the CHI score was determined as
𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡(𝐷𝐷𝐵𝐵,𝑘𝑘 ) 𝑛𝑛 −𝑘𝑘 5 7807 0.5 1.0 17105 0.6 0.8
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 𝑋𝑋
× ( 𝑘𝑘−1 ), (1)
𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡(𝐷𝐷𝑊𝑊,𝑘𝑘 )
where, 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡(𝐷𝐷𝐵𝐵,𝑘𝑘 ) is the trace of dispersion between cluster
metric as separate clusters. The clusters presented here shows
partitions and 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡((𝐷𝐷𝑊𝑊,𝑘𝑘 )) is the trace of dispersion within the the extent of possible smaller clusters that could be formed on
clusters. The second metric was the Davies-Bouldin Index a complex data set of larger sizes. Thus, the conclusion to select
(DBI). DBI is a cluster-wide averaging method that calculates the optimal number of clusters was done by conducting several
the statistical similarity between cluster distances and the tests with varying cluster sizes. However, the operational states
cluster size within cluster with the lowest score reflecting the
of the SLM process steps are considered either as ON or IDLE
best performance [28]. For a similarity measure 𝑅𝑅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 and cluster
in this research work. This leads to a possible result where no
𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖 ∀ 𝑖𝑖 = 1,2, … 𝐾𝐾 the DBI score is determined as minor transients could be considered, so such a grouping of
1 (𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖+ 𝑆𝑆𝑗𝑗)
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = ∑𝐾𝐾𝑖𝑖=1 𝑅𝑅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ; 𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒, 𝑅𝑅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 =
𝐾𝐾 𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
, (2) data points could be merged together into either ON or IDLE
where, 𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖 is the average distance between the cluster points clusters depending on the proximity to their nearest clusters.
and the centroid whereas, 𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 is the distance between the Furthermore, better clustering performance was observed with
cluster centroids. 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 is equivalent to the maximum of a number of two clusters for Ph1 and Ph3 and three number of
𝑅𝑅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑖𝑖 ≠ j. The third method was Silhouette scoring clusters for Ph 2 and hence the same were chosen as the optimal
(SLI). The silhouette score is a measure of compactness and number of clusters respectively. This was also carried for
clear separation of each clusters with higher score representing labelling the experiment datasets as discussed in section 4.2.
well-defined clusters [29]. For visual understanding, the clustered feature dataset of EXP2
With cluster ranges of two to five in all three phases and is shown in Fig.3, Fig.4 and Fig.5 with two PCA on the axes,
three clustering scores, the Triple-Modular Redundancy for each phase, and for each of the discussed algorithms. This
(TMR) based majority voting [30] was adapted to produce a clearly shows the grouping of similar data points. In Fig.6, the
single output among available inputs to resolve ties and ensure time series of the clustered data with three clusters for Ph2 are
optimality with reliability. For simplicity, in Table 3, the depicted. Here, the time series shows the coater motor
evaluation metrics are provided only for Ph2 coating process activation in top, coater movement in the bottom as well as
steps of both experiments, where n and Opt. denoting the coater idle current draw in the middle. This also represents the
number of clusters and number of optimal clusters selected effectiveness of the adapted optimal clusters. Furthermore,
respectively. Similar evaluation for Ph1 and Ph3 were adapted. similar effectiveness was also seen in the clustered data of Ph1
As seen in Table 3, these metrics show the number of and Ph3.
possible clusters that can be formed over the experimental data.
For example, it has been shown that different cluster numbers 4.2 Cluster labelling and energy computation of process steps
resulted for the coating operation, which requires activation of
the coater motor and other minor activations such as internal Based on the knowledge about the sequence of operation of
SLM as well as its process steps along with the transient
safety checks in addition to the coating. This is because, even
electrical parameter information, the obtained cluster data
minor transients that are formed on the electrical data, such as
points were analysed for current and power draw. Since there
from motor traction, could be considered by the evaluation
 Bharathwajanprabu Ravisankar et al. / Procedia CIRP 118 (2023) 747–752 751

Fig. 6. K-Means – Experiment 2 – Phase 2 – Coating step clusters.

Fig. 3. Experiment 2 – Phase 1 – Laser step clusters
For the laser and auxiliary process steps, the clusters were
segregated into ON and IDLE as the transient current draw
represents only two sets of operations. The list of labels for the
process steps is listed in Table 3. The mentioned labelling
process was carried out for all layers.
The energy consumption per layer was calculated for each
identified process steps using moving window as mentioned in
section 3. In Table 5, the average power draw from each
process steps is listed. Table 6 shows, for brevity, the average
energy calculated using the KMc and GMc algorithms. For
laser, the calculation of the total power and energy consumed
by the laser varies for each layer. Hence, the total energy of the
laser beam is presented as an average of all layers. The
operational times of process steps influences their energy
consumption. This is shown by the fact that the auxiliary drive
consumes the least energy and the laser a higher energy.

Table 4. SLM process steps labelling based on cluster labels.

Cluster Label Phase 1 Label Phase 2 Label Phase 3 Label
Label 0 Laser ON ´Coating IDLE Auxiliary ON
Fig. 4. Experiment 2 – Phase 2 – Coating step clusters.
Label 1 Laser IDLE Platform Motor ON Auxiliary IDLE
Label 2 - Coater ON -

Table 5. Average power of SLM process steps.

SLM Process steps
Laser Laser Coating Coating Aux. Aux.
IDLE ON IDLE ON IDLE ON
Phase 1 1 2 2 3 3
Average
Power 920 1250 90 106 55 70
(W)

Table 6. Total energy of SLM process steps based on clustering algorithms.

Total Energy EXP1 Total Energy EXP2
SLM Process
(kWh) (kWh)
Steps
KMc GMc KMc GMc
Laser IDLE 29 27 22 21
Laser ON 43 45 16 17
Coating IDLE 4.45 2.7 2.6 2.6
Fig. 5. Experiment 2 – Phase 3 – Auxiliary step clusters.
Coating ON 1.6 1.4 0.4 0.5
Auxiliary IDLE 3.83 3.8 2.22 1.79
was minimal current draw during non-operational times of Auxiliary ON 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.08
process steps, such data clusters were considered as IDLE. The
ON conditions were then analysed to determine the underlying The results in Table 6 shows that the CA models can be
difference in current consumption of each process step. For effectively used for labelling the SLM electrical data and to
instance, the ON condition for the coater represents both the predict energy consumption of process steps. For example,
platform motor and the coater activations, resulting in further ahead of production, during the product design phase, the
subdivision into coater ON and platform motor ON. Thus, the obtained clusters of Ph2 and Ph3 can be used to generate
three clusters for coater process step were labelled accordingly.
752 Bharathwajanprabu Ravisankar et al. / Procedia CIRP 118 (2023) 747–752
synthetic electrical time series data and provide an estimation
of energy demands of coating and auxiliary process steps. For
Ph1, since the laser operation depends on the product geometry,
and the energy consumption varies according to print area,
further detailed research is required to obtain an accurate laser
prediction model and to estimate the laser energy consumption.
Furthermore, in present form, during production stage, the Ph2
and Ph3 clusters can also be used to monitor and predict energy
ahead in real time in addition to utilising the electrical data to
provide predictive maintenance as a service.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, a clustering based strategy for recognising the
SLM process steps using non-intrusive electrical
measurements was presented. The electrical data clusters were
analysed through feature extraction and a well-defined number
of clusters for each process steps were identified using
evaluation metrics. Furthermore, the optimal clusters were
labelled according to the process step operations and their
energy consumption were estimated.
One of the major reasons to estimate the energy
consumption of SLM operations is to have an energy oriented
product development. By incorporating the clustering of
electrical data to classify the process steps of the SLM machine
offline, the energy consumption can be estimated during design
phase of products. The resulting energy value can then be
utilised to optimise the product structures and benefit from a
reduced energy usage, thereby reducing energy costs of
production as well as the overall production costs.
Acknowledgements
The project was funded by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research
Foundation) - 276879186/GRK2193.
References
[1] Duflou. J.R.; Sutherland. J.W.; Dornfeld. D.; Herrmann. C.; Jeswiet. J.;
Kara. S.; Hauschild. M.; Kellens. K.; Towards energy and resource
efficient manufacturing: A processes and systems approach. CIRP annals.
2012. vol. 61(2). 587–609.
[2] Herrmann. C.; Thiede. S.; Kara. S.; Hesselbach. J. Energy oriented
simulation of manufacturing systems–Concept and application. CIRP
annals. 2011. vol. 60(1). 45–48.
[3] Zhou. L.; Li. J.; Li. F.; Meng. Q.; Li. J.; Xu. X. Energy consumption model
and energy efficiency of machine tools: a comprehensive literature
review. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016. vol. 112. 3721–3734.
[4] Balogun, V.A.; Mativenga, P.T. Modelling of direct energy requirements
in mechanical machining processes, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2013,
vol. 41, 179–186.
[5] Qin, J.; Liu, Y.; Grosvenor, R. A framework of energy consumption
modelling for additive manufacturing using internet of things, Procedia
CIRP, 2017, vol. 63, 307–312.
[6] Lv, J.; Peng, T.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y. A novel method to forecast energy
consumption of selective laser melting processes, International Journal of
Production Research, 2021, vol. 59(8), 2375–2391.
[7] Yi, L.; Ravani, B.; Aurich, J.C., Development of a simulation tool for
predicting energy consumption of selective laser melting by using
MATLAB/Simulink, Procedia CIRP, 2019, vol. 81, 28–33.
[8] Li, J.; Cao, L.; Hu, J.; Sheng, M.; Zhou, Q.; Jin, P. A prediction approach
of SLM based on the ensemble of metamodels considering material
efficiency, energy consumption, and tensile strength, Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing, 2020, 1–16.
[9] Zoha. A.; Gluhak. A.; Imran. M.A.; Rajasegarar. S. Non-intrusive load
monitoring approaches for disaggregated energy sensing: A survey.
Sensors. 2012. vol. 12(12). 16838–16866.
[10] Makonin. S.; Popowich. F. Nonintrusive load monitoring (NILM)
performance evaluation. Energy Efficiency. 2015. vol. 8(4).809–814.
[11] Li, J.; Cao, L.; Hu, J.; Sheng, M.; Zhou, Q.; Jin, P. A prediction approach
of SLM based on the ensemble of metamodels considering material
efficiency, energy consumption, and tensile strength, Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing, 2020, 1–16.
[12] Li, Y.; Hu, F.; Qin, J.; Ryan, M.; Wang, R.; Liu, Y. A hybrid machine
learning approach for energy consumption prediction in additive
manufacturing, ICPR 2020, 2021 , vol. 12664, 622–636.
[13] Kruth. J.; Mercelis. P.; Van Vaerenbergh. J.; Froyen. L.; Rombouts. M..
Binding mechanisms in selective laser sintering and selective laser
melting. Rapid Prototyping Journal. 2005. vol. 11(1). 26–36.
[14] Zhou. Z.; Xiang. Y; Xu. H.; Yi. Z.; Shi. D.; Wang. Z. A Novel Transfer
Learning-Based Intelligent Nonintrusive Load-Monitoring With Limited
Measurements. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement.
2021. vol. 70. 1–8.
[15] He. J.; Zhang. Z.; Zhu. L.; Zhu. Z.; Liu. J.; Gai. K. An Efficient and
Accurate Nonintrusive Load Monitoring Scheme for Power Consumption.
IEEE Internet of Things Journal. 2019. vol. 6. 9054–9063.
[16] Hart. G. W. Nonintrusive appliance load monitoring. Proceedings of the
IEEE. 1992. vol. 80. No. 12. 1870–1891.
[17] SLM 280, Available online: https://www.slm-solutions.com/products-
and-solutions/machines/slm-280/ (accessed on 21.04.2022)
[18] Fluke 435 Series II Power Quality Analyzer, Available online:
https://www.fluke.com/en/product/electrical-testing/powerquality/434-
435 (accessed on 21.04.2022)
[19] Ravisankar, B.; Jaeger, E.; Meißner, M.; Wirtz, A.; Wiederkehr, P.;
Rehtanz, C. Investigation of electrical power consumption of an additive
process chain and empirical modelling as feature selection for machine
learning algorithms, Elsevier Procedia CIRP 2021, vol. 99, 358–363.
[20] Kira, K. and Rendell, L.A., 1992. A practical approach to feature selection.
In Machine learning proceedings 1992 (pp. 249-256). Morgan Kaufmann.
[21] Nanopoulos. Alex & Alcock. Rob & Manolopoulos. Yannis. (2001).
Feature-based Classification of Time-series Data. International Journal of
Computer Research. 10. 49-61.
[22] Christ, M.; Braun, N.; Neuffer, J.; and Kempa-Liehr A.W. Time Series
FeatuRe Extraction on basis of Scalable Hypothesis tests (tsfresh – A
Python package), Neurocomputing 2018, vol. 307, 72–77.
[23] Perr-Sauer, J., Duran, A.W. and Phillips, C.T., 2020. Clustering Analysis
of Commercial Vehicles Using Automatically Extracted Features from
Time Series Data (No. NREL/TP-2C00-74212). National Renewable
Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States).
[24] Xu, R. and Wunsch, D., 2005. Survey of clustering algorithms. IEEE
Transactions on neural networks, 16(3), pp.645-678.
[25] Jain, A.K., Topchy, A., Law, M.H. and Buhmann, J.M., 2004, August.
Landscape of clustering algorithms. In Proceedings of the 17th
International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 2004. ICPR 2004. (Vol.
1, pp. 260-263). IEEE.
[26] Halkidi, M., Batistakis, Y. and Vazirgiannis, M., 2001, July. Clustering
algorithms and validity measures. In Proceedings Thirteenth International
Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management. SSDBM
2001 (pp. 3-22). IEEE.
[27] Calinski. T.; Harabasz. J. A dendrite method for cluster analysis.
Communications in Statistics-theory and Methods. 1974. vol. 3. No. 1. 1–
27.
[28] Davies. D. L.; Bouldin. D. W. A Cluster Separation Measure. IEEE
Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. April 1979.
vol. PAMI-1. no. 2. 224–227.
[29] Rousseeuw, P.J., 1987. Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation
and validation of cluster analysis. Journal of computational and applied
mathematics, 20, pp.53-65.
[30] Lyons, R.E. and Vanderkulk, W., 1962. The use of triple-modular
redundancy to improve computer reliability. IBM journal of research and
development, 6(2), pp.200-209.