Unveiling the Mechanical Feasibility of Glass Reinforced Plastic for Post Combustion CO2 Capture Amine Service: A Thorough Examination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mitigating global warming and reducing CO2 emissions from the environment necessitates the implementation of carbon capture, sequestration, and storage (CCS) as an immediate and feasible solution. Amines are widely employed to capture CO2 gas from industrial exhaust streams. To enhance the cost-effectiveness of amine services, the incorporation of glass-reinforced plastic material holds immense potential for substantial cost benefits. The primary aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of utilizing glass-reinforced plastic (GRP) as a construction material for vessels, piping, and ducting in the cold section of the carbon capture and storage (CCS) system. The research examined the potential of completely replacing metallic equipment and piping (such as carbon steel (CS), stainless steel (SS) or SS cladded CS) with GRP materials. The investigation revealed that complete substitution of GRP for certain CO2 service components, including the scrubber, pre-scrubber, tanks, piping, and ducting, may be feasible under specific process conditions. These process conditions encompassed temperatures below 100°C, pressures below 10 bar for piping, and pressures below 0.2 bar for the remaining components. Two fabrication methods, filament winding and contact molding, were employed throughout the design calculations and utilizing corresponding material properties. A chemical compatibility study by Shell, presented at the 2023 AMPP conference and expo (Paper # AMPP-2023-18832), confirmed that the selected resins used to prepare the GRP material are chemically compatible with the commercial amine formulation used for CO2 capturing at the same application limit identified for the present work. The study unequivocally confirmed that glass-reinforced plastic can be incorporated with confidence, adhering to the safety limits prescribed by international standards. This resounding validation strengthens the viability and applicability of GRP in the given context, bolstering its position as a reliable and suitable construction material.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".