Call for Papers - International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applicatio...
Graphene week presentation lcc
1. 25-29 SEPTEMBER 2017, ATHENS, GREECE
Selim Stahl & Francine Amon
Estimating costs of producing GRM filled polymers
2. Polygraph EU project scope:
Up-Scaled Production of Graphene Reinforced
Thermosetting Polymers for Composite, Coating and
Adhesive Applications
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research,
technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 604143
3. Coating System
Case 1: Few layers pristine graphene + Epoxy resin
Case 2: Synthetic graphite + Epoxy resin + Mixing & Exfoliation in-situ
Reference: Epoxy resin + Carbon Fiber (CF)
4.
5. Adhesive System
Case 1: Few layers pristine graphene + Epoxy resin
Case 2: Expanded graphite + Epoxy resin + Mixing & Exfoliation in-situ
Reference: Epoxy resin + CF
10. Life Cycle Costing for formulation
LCC= 𝑡=0
𝑛
𝐶𝑡/(1 + 𝑑)^t
LCC = Total LCC in present-value euros of a given formulation
Ct = Sum of all relevant costs occurring in year t
N = Number of years in the study period
d = Discount rate used to adjust cash flows to present value
11. Relevant costs for the formulations
Equipment investments
Equipment Operating Expenses
Materials Costs
15. Conclusions
“In-situ" production of graphene from graphite within resins is –
sometimes – cheaper.
GRM Coating formulations show important savings potential with
in-situ process.
Life Cycle Costing could be interesting for other GRM/nano
formulations.
16. • Mycenae: Polygraph project result
Thursday 15:00
• Olympia A: Thursday 16:40 Parallel
Session I
Case 1: Few layers pristine graphene (Avanzare) + Epoxy resin (HMG)
Case 2: Synthetic graphite(Imerys) + Epoxy resin (Robnor) + Mixing & Exfoliation (Ytron, Netszche)
Case 1: Few layers pristine graphene (Avanzare) + Epoxy resin (Robnor)
Case 2: Expanded graphite (Imerys) + Epoxy resin (Robnor) + Mixing & Exfoliation
TRM optional and modelled
High carbon loading
Low medium carbon loading
Low carbon loading
The development of manufacturing processes by which graphene can be produced and dispersed "in-situ" within thermosetting polymer resins makes sense from an LCC perspective as it seems to be sometimes cheaper than buying and mixing graphene.
However, though it may look like GRM Coating formulations are the most attractive for such in-situ processes from an LCC perspective, case-by-case LCC studies are needed to ensure the attractiveness of such processes.
Coating: savings for the in-situ comes mostly from the material cost that are greatly reduced due to the fact that graphite is the feedstock (same carbon loading in case 1 & 2)
Adhesive: the savings are not as big since there is a need of higher graphite carbon loading than the pristine graphene to achieve the same functionality
Composite: same here the in-situ production needs more graphite that the graphene needed in Case 1. And steel is so much cheaper than composite
This LCC gives valuable estimation for coating, adhesive and composite producers to see what is the additional cost of including graphene in their formulation and what could be the best way to do it between buying pure graphene and mixing it or trying to produce graphene in-situ.