MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415598758 · doi:10.1115/detc2025-163781

A Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment Framework for Gas Turbine Package Components Using Sustainable Materials and Robotic Additive Manufacturing

2025· article· W4415598758 on OpenAlexaff
Felicia Nyanyo, Lucas A. Hof, Andy Buckenberger, Yaoyao Fiona Zhao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsSiemens (Canada)École de Technologie SupérieureMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasLife-cycle assessmentResource (disambiguation)Process (computing)Energy consumptionSustainabilityGlobal-warming potentialEfficient energy useResource efficiencyTurbine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The industrial sector accounts for 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions and 37% of global energy consumption, necessitating sustainable solutions in heavy manufacturing. This research explores the use of sustainable materials and Additive manufacturing (AM) for gas turbine (GT) package components, specifically the baseplate and air filter module. Traditional steel-based components are replaced with wood-plastic composites and eggshell-filled concrete, produced through robotic AM. A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was conducted using OpenLCA and secondary data from the Ecoinvent database, employing a cradle-to-gate framework to evaluate Global Warming Potential (GWP), resource depletion, and toxicity. Initial results indicate a 40% reduction in GWP compared to steel-based components Building on these findings, a dynamic unit process model for Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) is introduced. Unlike static LCA models, this approach uses time resolved energy consumption and material flow data to enable scenario-based impact assessments. Python-based tools further streamline LCA workflows, allowing for rapid recalculation of results when print parameters or materials change. By integrating LCA into the early design phase, this research demonstrates a pathway toward more environmentally responsible manufacturing and offers a scalable framework adaptable to a wide range of AM processes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207