Sort by
Event-Probabilistic Unification of Heterogeneous Sensor Data for Decision-Support Systems: A Conceptual Framework and Illustrative Numerical Experiment
Roman Zaiats
,Myroslav Strynadko
Posted: 02 May 2026
Performance of Screw Piles Under Axial Loading
Ahmed Mneina
,Mohamed Hesham El Naggar
,Osama Drbe
Posted: 02 May 2026
Quantifying Impact Damage Severity in Conventional, Hybrid and Natural-Based Composite Structures: An Acousto-Ultrasonics Approach
Kumar Shantanu Prasad
,Gbanaibolou Jombo
,Sikiru O. Ismail
,Yong K. Chen
,Hom Nath Dhakal
Posted: 02 May 2026
CLARISA: Connexin-43 Lateralization Automated ROI-Based Image Signal Analyzer
Daniel Gattari
,Joseba Sancho-Zamora
,Debora Chan
,Emiliano Diez
,Mariano Llamedo Soria
,Mario Rossi
Posted: 02 May 2026
Entropy-Based Uncertainty-Aware Exploratory Factor Analysis for Ordinal Data: Application to Tramway Cultural Tourism Evaluation
Jiaozi Pu
,Yaxin Shi
Posted: 02 May 2026
Intelligent Mapping and Control of Stresses in a Hydraulic Materials Handling Crane
Appiah-Osei Agyemang
,Sasu Mäkinen
,Daniel Roozbahani
Posted: 02 May 2026
CONF.i: Integrating Item Response Theory and Generative AI for Sustainable Engineering Education
Antonio Carlos Bento
,José Reinaldo Silva
,Sergio Camacho-Leon
,Elsa Yolanda Torres-Torres
,Carlos Vazquez-Hurtado
Posted: 02 May 2026
On the Use of Clarke Transformation for the Time-Domain Analysis of Asymmetrical Faults in Three-Phase Power Systems
Diego Bellan
Posted: 01 May 2026
Transitioning to Circular Automotive Systems: A Systematic Review of Supply Chain Practices and Implementation
Jaya Verma
,Narender Kumar
,Binkey Srivastava
Posted: 01 May 2026
Pneumatics in Service Robotics: A Review Across Application Domains and the Impact of Soft Robotics
Giovanni Colucci
,Simone Duretto
,Luigi Tagliavini
,Andrea Botta
,Lorenzo Toccaceli
,Francesco Amodio
,Giuseppe Quaglia
Posted: 01 May 2026
Unveiling Data Science in Manufacturing Processes: Current Practices, Misconceptions, and Future Directions
Amir M. Horr
Posted: 01 May 2026
Unlocking the Value of Public EV Chargers: A Data-Driven Case Study from Gothenburg, Sweden
Araavind Sridhar
,David Steen
,Le Anh Tuan
Posted: 01 May 2026
Zeta-Minimizer Theorem: Variational Emergence of Primes, Zeta, and Stratified Geometries from Helical Optimization in Measure Spaces
Muhamad Fouad
Posted: 01 May 2026
Effects of Mineral Raw Materials on Melting-Crystallization Properties and Microstructure of Fluorine-Free Mold Flux for High-Titanium Steel Continuous Casting
Di Zhang
,Xiuli Han
,Lei Liu
,Ziyao Liu
,Yue Yang
,Lei Wu
,Ziyi Zhang
Posted: 30 April 2026
Green-Synthesized Silver Nanoparticle-Based Composites: Sustainable Synthesis, Toxicity Assessment, and Environmental Remediation
Habibul Islam
,Abdulaziz Alasiri
,Md Enamul Hoque
Posted: 30 April 2026
Development of a Novel Controller for Brushless DC Motor Drive Systems Combining Decision Tree and Sliding Mode Theory
Kuei-Hsiang Chao
,Yu-Hong Guo
,Chin-Tsung Hsieh
Posted: 30 April 2026
Advances in Research on the Impacts of Tropospheric Over-the-Horizon Propagation on Radar Emitter Signatures
Yunze Liu
,Congshan Ma
,Hongke Li
,Qingdi Zhang
,DaiQi Li
,ShengYong Li
Posted: 30 April 2026
Adaptive PID Tuning Using Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks
Lily Chiparova
,Vasil Popov
,Sevil Ahmed-Shieva
,Nikola Shakev
Posted: 30 April 2026
Multi-Stage Probabilistic Transmission Expansion Planning Under Generation Uncertainty and N-1 Security Using the Pack-Based Grey Wolf Optimizer
Edimar José de Oliveira
,Lucas Santiago Nepomuceno
,Arthur Neves de Paula
,Raphael Paulo Braga Poubel
,Leonardo Willer de Oliveira
Posted: 30 April 2026
Techno-Economic and Multi-Criteria Evaluation of LNG Regasification Alternatives under Capacity Scaling
Choi Hyun Cheol
,Kim Sung Ji
,Kim Hee Seok
,Emmanuel Brilian Tangka
,Lee Sang Deuk
This study evaluates the techno-economic feasibility of LNG regasification alternatives, including offshore platform conversion, floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU) retrofit, and onshore LNG terminals, under conceptual design conditions at a capacity of 100 MMSCFD. The analysis integrates cost estimation, project schedule, and technical maturity within a multi-criteria decision-making framework based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), combining quantitative techno-economic results with expert judgment to support structured comparison of alternatives. Cost estimation is conducted using two approaches, namely cost–capacity scaling and analogous estimation, to examine their influence on feasibility outcomes. The results indicate that the conventional scaling method, using an exponent of 0.6, produces inconsistent results across configurations, overestimating costs for offshore-based systems while underestimating costs for onshore LNG terminals. Back-calculation of effective scaling exponents yields values of approximately 0.43 for offshore platform conversion, 0.37 for FSRU retrofit, and 0.78 for onshore LNG terminals, demonstrating that cost–capacity relationships are configuration-dependent and cannot be represented using a single uniform exponent. The AHP evaluation, conducted under two scenarios based on the applied cost estimation methods, shows that offshore platform conversion consistently achieves the highest feasibility ranking, followed by FSRU retrofit and onshore LNG terminals. While the ranking remains unchanged, the choice of cost estimation method influences the magnitude of score differences, affecting the strength of preference among alternatives. These findings highlight the limitations of conventional scaling approaches and demonstrate that offshore platform conversion can serve as a cost-competitive and time-efficient alternative for LNG infrastructure development, particularly in regions with existing offshore assets.
This study evaluates the techno-economic feasibility of LNG regasification alternatives, including offshore platform conversion, floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU) retrofit, and onshore LNG terminals, under conceptual design conditions at a capacity of 100 MMSCFD. The analysis integrates cost estimation, project schedule, and technical maturity within a multi-criteria decision-making framework based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), combining quantitative techno-economic results with expert judgment to support structured comparison of alternatives. Cost estimation is conducted using two approaches, namely cost–capacity scaling and analogous estimation, to examine their influence on feasibility outcomes. The results indicate that the conventional scaling method, using an exponent of 0.6, produces inconsistent results across configurations, overestimating costs for offshore-based systems while underestimating costs for onshore LNG terminals. Back-calculation of effective scaling exponents yields values of approximately 0.43 for offshore platform conversion, 0.37 for FSRU retrofit, and 0.78 for onshore LNG terminals, demonstrating that cost–capacity relationships are configuration-dependent and cannot be represented using a single uniform exponent. The AHP evaluation, conducted under two scenarios based on the applied cost estimation methods, shows that offshore platform conversion consistently achieves the highest feasibility ranking, followed by FSRU retrofit and onshore LNG terminals. While the ranking remains unchanged, the choice of cost estimation method influences the magnitude of score differences, affecting the strength of preference among alternatives. These findings highlight the limitations of conventional scaling approaches and demonstrate that offshore platform conversion can serve as a cost-competitive and time-efficient alternative for LNG infrastructure development, particularly in regions with existing offshore assets.
Posted: 30 April 2026
of 834