MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2478608122

Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost of Heat Exchangers - A Case for Inter Terminals Sweden AB Located in Port of Gothenburg

2016· dissertation· en· W2478608122 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shivan Rashid, Marcus Adolfsson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLife Cycle Costing Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeat exchangerLife-cycle assessmentEngineeringPort (circuit theory)Waste managementEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringProcess engineeringMechanical engineeringProduction (economics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inter Terminals AB store oil products for their costumers and need to store them at a certain temperature with the help of heat exchangers depending on the product. The current heat exchangers at Inter Terminals are old and does not function efficiently in terms of energy and costs. The heat exchangers are used to heat oil products in three caverns and a group of four tanks. The idea is to have heat exchangers for the caverns and for the group of tanks to keep the oil products at the desired temperature. This assessment evaluates and compares new heat exchangers for Inter Terminals, which is located in Port of Gothenburg. The companies responsible for the proposal of the new heat exchangers were Alfa Laval AB, ViFlow AB and GB Tank AB. Two of the heat exchangers were made of carbon steel and one of stainless steel. The comparison and evaluation is done through the methods life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC) and three different heat exchangers were compared and evaluated in terms of environmental and economic aspects. The purpose of this evaluation and comparison is to help Inter Terminals decision-making to invest in new heat exchangers which they are in need of. The life cycle assessment was conducted by using OpenLCA, which is a software tool for calculating environmental impacts. The environmental impacts categories considered in the assessment were global warming potential, human toxicity, depletion of abiotic resources and acidification. The weight and the material which a heat exchanger is made of were two major factors contributing to the environmental impacts. The results of the LCC were analyzed to calculate the payback time for each heat exchanger. This was done by comparing the operating costs for the current heat exchangers and the new ones. This indicated the best alternative of the new heat exchangers for Inter Terminals from an economic point of view. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted regarding recycling rates, changes in energy prices and the percentage amendments of the energy sources. This lead to changes related to the environmental impacts and the payback time. The conclusion of this is assessment is that heat exchanger 2, purposed by ViFlow, is best suited for Inter Terminals and is also manufactured by ViFlow in Ornskoldsvik. It is a shell and tube heat exchanger made of carbon steel and has the least environmental impacts and has the shortest payback time compared to the other alternatives.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLife Cycle Costing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207