In response to the imperative of sustainability and resource efficiency, this article introduces an innovative framework for the remanufacture of hydraulic drive system components, firmly rooted in the tenets of the circular economy. This method mixes cutting-edge additive manufacturing technologies, meticulous 3D scanning techniques, and the rigorous discipline of reverse engineering to rebuild active elements within hydraulic drive systems. Fundamental to this framework is a resolute commitment to the repurposing of non-defective components, fostering a closed-loop system that systematically curtails waste generation and significantly diminishes the environmental footprint associated with hydraulic drive system maintenance. This article presents a meticulous examination of the remanufacturing process for a flowmeter, elucidating the intricate integration of additive manufacturing technology and the precision of 3D scanning to restore a previously damaged rotor. Through this interdisciplinary approach, we aim to elucidate the manner in which contemporary engineering practices can be harnessed to catalyze circularity, enhance resource efficiency, and increase sustainability within industrial operations. By demonstrating the efficacy of additive manufacturing and reverse engineering in hydraulic system remanufacturing, this article contributes significantly to the discourse on sustainable engineering methodologies, underlining their pivotal role in shaping a more environmentally conscientious, circular economy.

The recovery of vegetal waste for energy purposes is one of the ways to increase the amount of energy obtained from renewable sources. The Top-Lit Updraft (TLUD) gasification and combustion process is recognized as the least polluting of all other combustion processes, resulting in a sterile charcoal called biochar, which can be used as an amendment in agricultural soils. The purpose of this research was to determine the influence of excess air in the combustion area compared to the (theoretical) calculated requirement for a TLUD energy module. Most scientific publications on this topic recommend primary/secondary air flow rate ratios of 1/3 or 1/4. In this study, the two recommended ratios were tested, and it was found that better energy results correspond to the ratio of 1/3. For this 1/3 ratio, the investigations continued in order to optimize the combustion process. The results achieved demonstrate that the excess combustion air flow of 30% improves the performance of the energy module due to the increase in oxygen supply and the increase in air speed in the combustion area of the syngas resulting from gasification. Increasing the excess combustion air flow rate by +50% had the effect of lowering the temperature in the flame due to the cooling of the combustion gases caused by a too high rate of excess cold air flow.

Air pollution from combustion processes is harming human health and the environment. To mitigate this, one needs to adopt cleaner energy production methods, in particular, to optimize combustion systems in order to minimize pollutants and increase efficiency. Flue gas analysis and particulate matter (PM) monitoring, starting from the prototype phase, is crucial to minimize and regulate pollutant emissions. This article analyses the emissions of pollutants and particulate matter from a combustion test gasifier working on the Top-Lit Updraft (TLUD) principle in order to optimize functionality and reduce exhaust emissions. Three experiments were performed in which the primary (gasification) air flow rate (GA) was kept constant at 25 L/min, and the secondary (combustion) air flow rate (CA) was adjusted to obtain a CA/GA ratio of 2 (50 L/min), 3 (75 L/min), and 4 (100 L/min) respectively. Based on a multi-criterial analysis, the optimal CA/GA ratio for TLUD combustion is 3, offering a well-rounded performance in output temperatures, PM and greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions, and efficiency, while the CA/GA ratio of 4 has good PM and GHG emissions performance but lower efficiency, and the CA/GA ratio of 2 is the least favorable due to its poor performance in output temperatures, PM and GHG emissions.