Poster PO-39

NATURAL GAS LIQUEFACTION PROCESSES COMPARISON

COMPARAISON ENTRE PROCEDES DE LIQUEFACTION
DE GAZ NATUREL
Pierre-Yves Martin
Jrme Pigourier
Axens (France)
www.axens.fr
Batrice Fischer
IFP (France)

ABSTRACT
This paper presents Axens efforts to compare LiquefinTM with the competing process,
specially the reputed most efficient ones: C3/MR, C3/MR followed by nitrogen cycle, dual
mixed refrigerant process with spiral wound exchangers.
To compare properly one process to another, it must be done with the same gas, with the
same site conditions, with the same gas turbines and with the same cooling medium
temperature (air or water). That done, to compare processes like for like is still not that easy.
For instance, it seems fair to take the same efficiencies for the compressors, however, axial
and centrifugal compressors do have different efficiencies. Similarly, equal basis leads to have
the same temperature approach for the air-cooler (or water coolers), however between mixed
refrigerant and propane, the heat exchange area will be much lower for mixed refrigerant if the
approach is kept identical. The end flash vapour quantity has also a big influence on the
process efficiency, but each process has a different fuel gas consumption. Those added factors
may lead to wide differences. Axens has calculated the effect of all those parameters on
efficiency.
The equipment characteristics play also an important role in the comparison: the
limitations of axial compressors, of centrifugal compressors (Mach number) and possibly
spiral-wound exchangers maximum size do have to be taken into account. Even the gas
turbines or alternative drivers chosen can be well adapted to one process, but not to the other.
Another important parameter is the LPG recovery: a large LPG recovery will decrease the
efficiency of any process, but not to the same extent. For Liquefin, the efficiency decrease is
not very big.
This paper shows the detailed results of those comparison studies, and the effect of several
parameters on Liquefin efficiency.
RESUME
Cet article prsente le travail dAxens pour comparer son procd LiquefinTM aux autres
procds avec lesquels il est en comptition, et spcialement ceux rputs les plus efficaces :
C3/MR, C3/MR suivi dun cycle azote, DMR avec changeur bobin.
Pour comparer srieusement un procd avec un autre, on doit considrer le mme gaz, les
mmes conditions ambiantes, les mme turbines gaz , et le mme moyen de refroidissement

PO-39.1
SESSIONS

CONTENTS

Poster PO-39

(air ou eau). Ceci fix, il nest toujours pas si ais davoir une comparaison honnte. Par
exemple, il semble normal de prendre la mme efficacit pour les compresseurs, cependant les
compresseurs axiaux et centrifuges nont pas la mme efficacit. De mme, on aurait tendance
prendre la mme approche thermique entre la temprature ct procd et la temprature de
lair ambiant (ou de leau de mer), cependant si on fait cela, la surface dchange sera
beaucoup plus petite avec un mlange rfrigrant quavec du propane. La quantit vaporise
dans le flash final est trs importante en terme defficacit du schma, cependant chaque
procd a une consommation de fuel gaz diffrente. Tous ces facteurs combins peuvent
conduire des diffrences importantes. Axens a calcul leffet de chacun de ces paramtres
sur lefficacit.
Les caractristiques des quipements jouent galement un rle important dans la
comparaison : les limitations des compresseurs axiaux et centrifuges (le nombre de Mach),
ainsi que la taille maximum possible pour un changeur bobin doivent tre prises en compte.
Mme les turbines gaz ou les autres moyens dentranement des compresseurs peuvent tre
bien adapts un procd, mais pas lautre.
Un autre paramtre important est la rcupration de GPL : une rcupration pousse de
GPL va faire chuter lefficacit de tous les procds, mais pas dans la mme mesure. Liquefin
a une baisse defficacit qui nest pas trop importante dans ce cas.
Larticle prsente les rsultats dtaills de ces tudes de comparaison, et leffet de
diffrents paramtres sur lefficacit de Liquefin.
INTRODUCTION
For many years, there was absolutely no problem to choose the process of a new
liquefaction plant: C3/MR was the only choice. The same process was implemented again and
again, with small improvements, sometimes bigger gas turbines, and anyway bigger capacities
along the years.
However, this process is now reaching the technology limits: maximum mach number on
the propane compressor, spiral wound exchanger becoming enormous. So now many new
processes are appearing: APCI has launched the APX process (C3/MR/N2 cycles), SHELL a
DMR process, LINDE a process with three mixed refrigerant cycles, and IFP/Axens another
DMR with plate-fin heat exchangers. The old cascade process has come back in Trinidad, with
a new concept.
Nowadays, the new projects consider capacities of 5, 6, sometimes 8 MTPA, whereas the
biggest unit in operation is below 4 MTPA. Deciding of the process to be used for a given
project is now much more difficult, and many factors must be considered to make a proper
comparison.
OLD AND NEW PROCESSES
All the natural gas liquefaction baseload plants built during the last twenty years or so are
C3/MR units, to the exception of Trinidad. The C3/MR process is well known (see figure 1):
the MR and natural gas are pre-cooled with propane, at 3 or now 4 levels of pressure. The
mixed refrigerant is only partially condensed, and separated before entering the large spiralwound exchanger.

PO-39.2
SESSIONS

CONTENTS

Poster PO-39

Trinidad plant is built with a cascade process (propane/ethylene/methane), with also

several levels of pressure on each cycle . The process (see figure 2) is arranged so as to have
the same power on the three cycles. Another interesting feature is to install parallel lines of
compression, with Frame 5 - variable speed gas turbine - so as to have a high availability and
easier operation: no compressor trip will shut down completely the unit, and the restart of the
compressor can be done without loss of refrigerant.

Propane cycle

CW

MR cycle

CW
CW

LNG

Feed Gas

Figure 1: C3/MR process simplified scheme

CW

C1

CW

C2
CW

2 Frame 5

2 Frame 5

C3 2 Frame 5

PFHE

PFHE

PFHE

Feed
gas

LNG
Figure 2: Cascade process

PO-39.3
SESSIONS

CONTENTS

Poster PO-39

APCI APX process [1]

This process (see figure 3) is a three cycle process: propane, mixed refrigerant, nitrogen.
The exchangers used are kettles for the propane, spiral wound for the mixed refrigerant,
another spiral wound and plate-fin exchanger for the nitrogen cycle. Compared to the C3/MR
process, the new third cycle allows to decrease the propane and MR flow-rates, so as to
achieve with existing equipment much higher capacities (7 8 MTPA).
Propane cycle

MR cycle

N2 Cycle
LNG

CW

CW
CW

CW

Feed Gas

Figure 3: APX process simplified scheme

LNG

Natural
gas
First mixed
refrigerant
cycle

Figure 4: Shell DMR process simplified scheme

PO-39.4
SESSIONS

CONTENTS

Poster PO-39

SHELL DMR Process [2]

This process (see figure 4) is a dual mixed refrigerant process, with different power on the
two cycles, and with two spiral-wound exchangers. Having mixed refrigerant on the first cycle
allows to have a smaller condenser, and also to remove the propane compressor bottleneck:
For propane compressors, the compressor size, thus the capacity of the unit is limited by the
mach number at the tip of the blades. Using a mixed refrigerant, with a lower molecular
weight, allows to push further this limit as the mach number is lower with this gas. (see figure
7)
LINDE process [3]

Liquefaction
MR cycle
Sub-cooling
MR cycle

Pre-cooling
MR cycle

Natural
gas

Plate-fin
Exchangers

Spiral-wound
heat-exchanger

Spiral-wound
heat-exchanger

LNG

Figure 5: LINDE process simplified scheme

This process is a three cycle process, like the cascade process, but with mixed refrigerant
on all cycles (see figure 5). Compared to the cascade, the efficiency is better, as mixed
refrigerants allow to have a closer approach. However, the power is not the same on all three
cycles, unlike the new cascade. Plate-fin exchangers are used on the first cycle, and spiralwound exchangers on the two colder cycles.
IFP/Axens Liquefin Process [4] [5]
This process (see figure 6) is a dual mixed refrigerant process, with the same power on
both mixed refrigerant cycles. Plate-fin heat exchanger are used for the whole exchange line.
As for all processes with mixed refrigerant on the first cycle, the main condenser is smaller
(see figure 11) and the compressor of the first cycle has a lower mach number (see figure 7).
The lower amount of mixed refrigerant on the cold cycle allows to reach much higher LNG
capacities with the existing axial compressors.

PO-39.5
SESSIONS

CONTENTS

Poster PO-39

CW
CW

Feed gas
Heavy mixed
refrigerant
compression line

Scrubber

Hot Oil
CW

Light mixed
refrigerant
compression line

Main exchange line

LNG

Figure 6 : Simplified Liquefin process scheme

All these processes were developed to overcome the technology limits reached by the
C3/MR process. The main limitations being the propane compressor as explained already , but
also to some extend the axial compressor and the spiral-wound exchanger.

1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30

1.25
1.20
1.15
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40

Tip relative mach number (inlet)

Peripheral Mach number (Mu)

Biggest propane compressors

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16

Flow Coefficient (1)

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16

Flow Coefficient (1)

Liquefin MR1 compressors (4.8MTPA)

Figure 7 : Mach number vs flow coefficient for the
first stage compressor (propane or MR)

PO-39.6
SESSIONS

CONTENTS

Poster PO-39

To require proven compressors imposes to fit the light refrigerant flow-rate and pressure
ratio to one existing axial compressor. This is another constraint making difficult to increase
very much the LNG production with a proven process.
In case the process could not accommodate an axial compressor, there will be an
efficiency penalty : one consider usually a polytropic efficiency of 86% for the axial
compressors instead of 82% for the centrifugal compressors. This axial compressor will be
used on the coolest stage of the refrigeration. On LIQUEFIN, the simulations give a difference
of about 1.5 % on the LNG production. The use of axial compressor is also beneficial for
operation: the inlet vanes possible angle variation will be very useful for control.
The size of the spiral wound exchanger, already huge, cannot be increased forever. So for
very high capacities, it would be necessary to increase the LMDT of this exchanger to stay
within a feasible size, but with an efficiency penalty. Another possibility would be to have 2
spiral-wound exchangers in parallel, but it would increase the cost and the delivery time.
SIMULATION PARAMETERS
To compare one process with another, it is necessary to be very careful about several
parameters, which can change hugely the result: end flash quantity, compressor efficiencies,
condenser temperature approach, LPG recovery.
End Flash Quantity. The quantity of end flash usually corresponds to the plant fuel gas
consumption (minus some margin). If it is possible to increase this quantity (fuel gas export to
other plants, recycle, etc), the cold end temperature of the main exchange line will increase,
and the efficiency of the plant, thus the quantity of LNG produced will increase.
LNG Production vs End Flash Quantity
106

LNG production

105
104
103
102
101
100
100

110

120

130

140

End flash quantity

Figure 8 : Effect on LNG production of end flash quantity

If no end flash is wanted for any reason, this is a large decrease of LNG production (but a
simplification of the scheme: removing of the end flash compressor). In many cases however,
the quantity of fuel gas cannot be decreased below a certain quantity because of the nitrogen
content of the feed gas. The figure 8 shows the production variation with the quantity of end
flash. If the end flash can be increased by 40%, the LNG production will be increased by 5%

PO-39.7
SESSIONS

CONTENTS

Poster PO-39

with the same power on the refrigeration compressors (but of course more power on the fuel
gas compressors). This also must be checked carefully for process comparison.
Compressor Efficiency. Depending upon the compressor efficiency considered, the LNG
production can vary a lot: the LNG production is increased by nearly 10% when the polytropic
efficiency is changed from 79 to 85% (see figure 9). This has to be checked carefully when
making comparisons.
LNG Production vs Compressor Polytropic Efficiency
105
104

LNG Production

103
102
101
100
99
98
97
96
95
79

80

81

82

83

84

85

Compressors Polytropic Efficiency

Figure 9 : Effect on LNG production of compressor efficiency

Temperature Approach on The Main Condenser
Whatever the process, a large condenser on the first refrigerant cycle must evacuate the
heat produced by the refrigeration compressors. As the outlet of this condenser is at bubble
point, to modify the outlet temperature of this condenser will change the discharge pressure of
the corresponding compressor, so the power of this compressor, and thus the overall
efficiency. The temperature approach of the other coolers will also have an impact on the
power, but less important than this one.
We have plotted for a Liquefin case the capacity versus the temperature approach of the
condenser (see figure 10). The closer the temperature approach, the larger the LNG
production. However, in air-cooling case, the size of this condenser can be a problem, as it
governs more or less the size of the plant area, so a part of the cost.
The size of the condenser will depend upon whether the refrigerant of the first cycle is a
pure component (propane as in the C3/MR and cascade), or a mixed refrigerant (Liquefin and
Linde process). With a pure component, the condensation is done at a fixed temperature (the
dew point temperature is the same as the bubble point temperature), whereas with a mixed
refrigerant, the temperature varies linearly between the dew point temperature and the bubble
point temperature. (see figure 11). Either the condenser will be much smaller with a mixed
refrigerant in the first cycle, or inversely with the same condenser size, the LNG production
will be increased.

PO-39.8
SESSIONS

CONTENTS

Poster PO-39

Plant capacity vs MR1 Condenser Outlet temperature

103.0%

Plant Capacity (%)

102.5%

102.0%

101.5%

101.0%

100.5%

100.0%
39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Figure 10: Effect on LNG production of condenser temperature approach

Inlet
temperature
60

MR Condensation
55

outlet
temperature

Temperature C

50
Propane

45
40
35

Condensation
Larger LMDT (+35%)
CONDENSER 35% Smaller

30
Air or Water
25
20
0

50

100

150

200
250
DUTY MW

300

350

Figure 11: Effect of using propane or mixed refrigerant on the size of the condenser
LPG Recovery. To recover LPG from the gas can help sometimes to make the project
economically sound. However, this recovery will increase the power for LNG liquefaction,
and not with the same amount for all processes, nor for all gas compositions. We have
simulated for LIQUEFIN the effect on efficiency of different C3 recovery ratios with a very
lean gas (1.2% C3 only).

PO-39.9
SESSIONS

CONTENTS

Poster PO-39

LNG production vs LPG recovery

100

LNG production (%)

99
98
97
96
95
94
93
92
91
30

40

50

60

70

80

90

C3 recovery (% of C3 in feed)

Figure 12 : LNG production decrease with increased LPG recovery

CONCLUSION
To solve the capacity increase problem, many new processes have proposed solutions. The
comparison of these processes for a specific case must be done with care, taking into account
all parameters including site conditions, end flash quantity, compressor efficiency, temperature
approach and LPG recovery. The equipment availability and risk factor must also be taken
into account. In this respect, the flexibility of Liquefin could make it the right choice in many
cases.
REFERENCES CITED
1. M.J. Roberts, J.C. Bronfenbrenner, Yu-Nan Liu, J.M. Petrowski - Large Capacity Single
Train AP-X Hybrid LNG Process - Gastech 2002, Qatar
2. R. Nibbelke, S. Kauffman, B. Pek - Liquefaction Process Comparison of C3MR and
DMR for Tropical Conditions - GPA 81st annual convention, 2002
3. H. Bauer - A Novel Concept for Large LNG Baseload Plants - AICHE Spring National
Meeting, 2001
4. M. Khakoo , B.Fischer, J.C.Raillard - The Next Generation of LNG plants - LNG13,
Seoul, Korea, 2001
5. B.Fischer - A New Process To Reduce LNG Cost - AICHE Spring National Meeting,
2002

PO-39.10
SESSIONS

CONTENTS