Engineering topics

Armstrong, Kristina O.

Publications and source records attributed to Armstrong, Kristina O..

9 records

DOE OSTI2023

Life cycle cost, energy, and carbon emissions of molds for precast concrete: Exploring the impacts of material choices and additive manufacturing

Molds for precast concrete are commonly used to create simple- to complex-shaped concrete products away from construction sites. These molds are often handmade from wood; however, additively manufacturing (AM, or 3D printing) fiber-reinforced polymer composites is an advantageous alternative, producing significantly more durable, highly complex molds faster, but likely at a higher cost. Here, this study explores the impact of material and production variables on the cost, energy, and carbon emissions of employing composite AM molds over the full lifecycle. The case study employed techno-economic and life cycle assessments to show that using wood flour–poly(lactic acid) or recycled carbon fiber–acrylonitrile butadiene styrene for AM molds can be less expensive than conventional wood molds, especially when considering use phase costs. While wood molds have the least environmental impacts due to wood's higher biogenic carbon sequestration and minimal processing, optimizing AM designs could reduce energy demand, carbon emissions, and cost.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2021

A techno-economic framework for comparing conventionally and additively manufactured parts for geothermal applications

Geothermal reservoir characterization, construction, and operations are technology-intensive activities that contribute significantly to the cost of delivering renewable electricity. The technologies involved, such as downhole tools and drilling equipment, are similar to those used in oil and gas exploration and production must often be adapted for use in the corrosive, high-temperature geothermal reservoir environment. Low production volume of geothermal tools presents a major challenge in meeting the industry's technology needs. Production of specialized tools for geothermal subsurface applications is often cost-prohibitive. Reduced inventory of subsurface well construction, characterization, and production tools causes geothermal reservoir development efficiency and sophistication to lag behind that of the oil and gas industry. Advances in additive manufacturing provide opportunities to advance geothermal technology while reducing lead time and costs associated with production of low-volume, complex parts. Additionally, this paper performs an initial techno-economic analysis comparing the cost of conventional production techniques and additive manufacturing for geothermal downhole applications. An analysis of representative downhole tools is used to create a framework for estimating fabrication costs of subtractive and additive techniques, including post-print machining required to meet final tolerances. The framework is used to explore several manufacturing scenarios and identify the dominant factors driving manufacturing time and cost. The current feasibility of additive manufacturing for geothermal downhole tool applications is assessed and issues for future development to better meet the needs of the geothermal industry are identified.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2021

Study of Additive Manufacturing Applications to Geothermal Technologies Final Project Report

This report summarizes work performed to assess the potential for utilizing additive manufacturing (AM) to substantially improve either the availability, performance or cost basis for tools and components that are required for geothermal energy production. A systematic cataloging of geothermal activities, associated technologies, and current manufacturing methods was first undertaken. This included literature reviews as well as interviews with subject matter experts, service companies and OEMs. An industry workshop was held as part of this portion of the project to obtain input and concerns from a broad range of OEMs, service providers and end users. This workshop was also used to gage the current level of AM activity in industry, receptiveness to the use of AM manufactured parts, and any up front concerns that may exist. A summary of the workshop is presented in this report. Representative components and assemblies and their current manufacturing methods were then analyzed by additive manufacturing experts at a company called Senvol to determine the feasibility and required steps for producing parts by additive manufacturing. A step by step description of conventional manufacturing of the parts was also performed to establish a manufacturing baseline for comparison purposes. This analysis also considered and described the benefits of additively manufacturing the parts in terms of specific AM systems, material availability for AM, dimensional requirements and potential economic advantages. Details of the manufacturability assessment were summarized in a report which is included as a chapter in this document. The analysis of the AM subject matter experts was then be used by techno-economic analysts to perform a comparative economic evaluation of the manufacturing of select technologies by AM and conventional approaches. This activity leveraged ORNL expertise and prior experience in other applications. A framework based on assessing cost, volume production considerations, and time to manufacture was created to more easily discern the advantages or disadvantages of additive versus conventional manufacturing methods. The report concludes with a general assessment of the current applicability of AM for geothermal technologies, AM gaps and needs related to typical geothermal hardware, and the potential benefits and impacts of AM to geothermal energy production.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2021

Technology Assessment on Low-Temperature Waste Heat Recovery in Industry

The purpose of this report is to discuss the magnitude of low-temperature waste heat available in the US manufacturing sector and to identify current and emerging low-temperature heat recovery technologies and equipment. The primary focus of the study is on the industries that produce the lowest-temperature waste heat: the chemical, primary metal, petroleum, nonmetallic mineral, fabricated metal, food, paper, and wood industries. In addition to identifying the waste streams, their characteristics, and currently available heat recovery technologies, the study also explored future research opportunities and economic barriers for recovery technology implementation. Special attention was given to applicable heat to power conversion technologies such as the organic Rankine cycle, thermoelectric conversion, and the supercritical CO 2 cycle. The study included investigations in research and new developments, including turbine and heat exchanger cost for waste heat to power systems, size, efficiency, and intermittency of waste heat streams.

30 DIRECT ENERGY CONVERSION↗

DOE OSTI2021

Delivering Effective Virtual Energy-Focused Trainings: Successful Strategies and Lessons Learned from the Virtual Cohort In-Plant Training Pilot

While there are always barriers to energy efficiency efforts, few challenges have been as severe as the global COVID-19 pandemic. Many manufacturers throughout the United States and the world have been trying to determine how to safely open and operate their plants. To minimize the number of people working within facilities and maximize the physical distance between workers, only essential facility engineers are allowed into plants to ensure proper operations. The Department of Energy’s Better Plants Program created In-Plant Trainings (INPLTs) to help partners develop in-house expertise in energy efficiency. Delivering INPLTs in the traditional in-person fashion is infeasible under these circumstances. To continue providing INPLTs during this difficult time, the Better Plants Program piloted Virtual Cohort In-Plant Trainings (VINPLTs) on wastewater treatment and ammonia industrial refrigeration systems from October 27 to November 19, 2020. This paper provides an overview of the pilot, then discusses successful strategies and lessons learned from this pilot for delivering effective virtual energy-focused trainings.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2021

Plant Water Profiler: A Water Balance and True Cost of Water Calculator for Manufacturing Plants

As the uncertainty of a sustained water supply, regulatory constraints, competition among end users, and public scrutiny increases, a growing number of manufacturing sectors are adapting to current and emerging water-related risks by optimizing productivity and reducing waste. As a step toward increasing water use efficiency and making informed business decisions, corporations must make an effort to understand and track their water demands, losses, and costs associated with each subsystem within their facilities. Manufacturers are often unaware of the “true cost of water” (i.e., the total costs associated with procurement, treatment, and consumption of water, and wastewater disposal), which reduces the visibility of the actual impact of water-saving measures. To help manufacturers account for water procurement and use in manufacturing operations, quantify the true cost of water, and identify potential areas for water and associated energy cost savings, an open access tool—Plant Water Profiler (PWP)—was developed. The tool is based on water mass balance analysis and has been adopted as the core analysis tool for plant water use assessments, Water In-Plant Training (Water INPLT), as part of the US Department of Energy’s Better Plants program. During three pilot INPLTs conducted in 2019 at three manufacturing facilities, the PWP tool allowed users to understand water flows within the facilities and provided additional capabilities to analyze their water use. This paper describes the methodology behind the PWP tool and its implementation through pilot Water INPLT trainings delivered in three manufacturing facilities in the United States. The three case studies demonstrate opportunities to improve water efficiency and reduce associated costs and the challenges encountered in three different manufacturing sectors.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2020

Saving Energy: A QuickStart Guide for Small/Medium Manufacturers

The Quick Start Guide aims to serve as an introduction to energy efficiency for small to medium manufacturers, explaining why energy management is important and achievable for all organizations, not just well-resourced, energy-intensive large organizations. It also makes connections to the tools and resources available from DOE to help small to medium manufacturers drive energy savings and sustain the progress. Finally, it provides a list of common energy efficiency opportunities for energy consuming systems such as steam, process heating, and motor-driven systems. Explore the guide to see how smaller manufacturing companies can get started with energy efficiency.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2020

Opportunities for Using the Industrial Assessment Center Database for Industrial Water Use Analysis

The manufacturing sector accounted for approximately 5–6% of total U.S. water use in 2015. Of that amount, 75–80% is self supplied withdrawal from surface-water and groundwater sources and the remainder is from public water supplies. Although manufacturing facilities commonly locate in water-scarce areas, water scarcity still poses a great risk to the manufacturing sector. Reliable water is necessary for any facility that relies on it for process and comfort cooling, cleaning, employee use, and steam generation. One of these barriers to water efficiency is the lack of reliable data on overall U.S. industrial water use—how it is used and the quantities required for each sector. If a facility cannot be easily compared with a facility of similar size and sector, knowing if it is effectively using water conservation best practices is difficult. One potential source of industrial water use data is the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)–sponsored Industrial Assessment Centers (IACs). IACs are university-based organizations that provide free audits to small- and medium-sized manufacturing facilities to identify productivity improvement and waste and energy reduction opportunities. The IACs also maintain a database of all the audits conducted, which currently holds more than 19,267 assessments and 145,000 recommendations (as of July 24, 2020). This database also contains energy utility (electricity, natural gas, and other fuels) and water utility data, making it a potential data source for industrial water use. This report attempts to create regression models to predict a small- or medium-sized industrial facility’s annual water use or cost based on its industrial subsector and several possible relevant variables. Using data collected by IAC assessments, models for several industrial subsectors were generated via stepwise regression techniques to determine which variables (annual sales, number of employees, facility/plant area, annual production hours, and a water stress metric) are relevant.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2020

The energy footprint of automotive electronic sensors

We discuss how Information and communication technologies (ICT) have emerged as one of the leading technologies to reduce global emissions, particularly in the mobility sector. Automotive electronics, such as sensors/actuators and microcontrollers (commonly known as electronic control units (ECU) which control one or more of the electrical systems or subsystems in a vehicle), play a key role in ICT. Sensors/actuators are key in electronic ICT devices, starting with the data collection and data communication with the internet. The latest two big trends of electrification and automation in vehicles, are projected to increase the use of worldwide automotive sensors from 7.5 billion units in 2017 to 11.0 billion units by the year 2024. A representative state-of-the art automotive sensor system, (i.e., an ultrasonic backup system), including the ECUs controlling the vehicle electrical systems/subsystems, has been considered to estimate the energy footprint in terms of manufacturing and operational energy of global automotive sensors use. A widely used life cycle energy assessment method (i.e., cumulative energy demand) was used as both direct and indirect (including the extraction, manufacturing, and disposal of the raw and auxiliary materials) energy use can be considered for the energy footprint estimation. The embodied manufacturing energy impacts of the system was estimated to be 559 MJ/system, compared to the 417 MJ/system for lifetime system power and additional gasoline use. The share of purchased energy to the embodied energy where the upstream energy isn't included in the former case, is less than 10% and ~ 85% for the component manufacturing and vehicle operation energy uses, respectively. As the purpose of this ultrasonic backup system is to prevent rear crashes, an estimated 1.0 MJ/system is avoided from reduced lifetime vehicular repairs (from an estimated 11% chance of requiring a rear bumper replacement). While all of this is small compared to the overall automotive manufacturing and use energy, the 11 billion automotive sensors expected to be produced in 2024 could require 1540 PJ for manufacturing and those sensors would require an additional 780–1150 PJ for lifetime energy use.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗