Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 30 (2016) 322e330

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jngse

Dynamic optimization of the Boil-Off Gas (BOG) fluctuations at an LNG

receiving terminal
Yajun Li*, Yue Li
Key Lab of Heat Transfer Enhancement and Energy Conservation of the Ministry of Education, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Heat leakage and mechanical energy input by equipment evaporate Liquefied Nature Gas (LNG) in LNG
Received 9 December 2015 receiving terminals into Boil-Off Gas (BOG), which must be compressed and liquefied by sub-cooled LNG
Received in revised form in a recondenser. During ship unloading, there are sharp fluctuations in BOG waste resources, causing
2 February 2016
economic loss. Meanwhile, the liquid levels of the recondenser are unstable, and the consequent pump
Accepted 22 February 2016
cavitation and equipment vibration introduce risks to the operation. This study focuses on the above
Available online 27 February 2016
problems in an actual LNG receiving terminal. The factors affecting the BOG generation in the LNG
receiving terminal and the generation rules are analyzed. To find effective improvements for these
Keywords:
LNG
problems, an optimization model is built and solved using a dynamic simulation tool, which provides a
BOG reference for further dynamic research. After optimization, 0.19 million m3 of natural gas avoid being
Fluctuation flared, and the energy consumption of the BOG compressors is reduced by 4.2%, i.e., 0.19 million kWh. As
Optimization a result, annually 0.14 million USD are saved in total. In addition, pump cavitation and recondenser vi-
Simulation bration are also reduced, and the recondensing system is easier to control, which contributes to the safe
Dynamic operation of the terminal.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
LNG from cargo holds is unloaded into cryogenic tanks at LNG
receiving terminals and stored at approximately
160  C under
atmospheric pressure. Inevitably, the heat from the ambient envi-
ronment and the heat dissipation from the equipment evaporate
the liquid during the processing at the terminal, forming BOG. The
typical process of an LNG receiving terminal includes LNG
unloading and storage, BOG processing, LNG regasification, natural
gas supply, etc. Fig. 1 shows the LNG receiving and regasification
system. In some cases, e.g., ship unloading, the BOG increases
rapidly and fluctuates widely. Usually, BOG in the terminal is
compressed and then liquefied by sub-cooled LNG in a recondenser,
or it will cause severe problems.
An actual LNG receiving terminal in southern China has two
BOG compressors, and one of them is reserved under normal
operating conditions as it was originally intended. However,
starting the standby compressor is required during ship unloading
* Corresponding author. SHAW Engineering Building, South China University of
Technology, Wushan RD., Tianhe District, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, 510640,
China.
E-mail address: liyajun@scut.edu.cn (Y. Li).
because the BOG fluctuates wildly and is beyond the capacity of one
compressor in some stages. During ship unloading, if the BOG is too
great for two compressors to process, the excess must be flared or
vented, resulting in wasted resources and economic loss, whereas if
it is too low, the energy consumption of the compressor per unit
mass of BOG is high. On the other hand, the liquid level of the
recondenser might be either too high or too low if there are large
fluctuations in the BOG (Chen, 2012). An unstable liquid level leads
to cavitation in HP pumps and equipment vibration, introducing
risks to the operation of the terminal.
BOG has a significant influence on the energy savings and safe
operation of the LNG receiving terminal. Many researchers have
focused on the BOG generation rules and BOG processing methods.
The research focuses have been on the factors affecting BOG gen-
eration in the LNG tanks (Adom et al., 2010) and the operations that
generate BOG in the LNG receiving terminal, such as ship unloading
(Park et al., 2012; Srikanth et al., 2014), recirculation (Park et al.,
2010), and the operation of specific equipment (Jang et al., 2011;
Li and Chen, 2012). Park et al. (2012) developed an efficient
design for the BOG compression process with an intercooler.
Srikanth et al. (2014) established a simulation optimization model
and provided the optimal unloading strategy to minimize the total
cost of unloading. Park et al. (2010) optimized the LNG flow rate for

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2016.02.041
1875-5100/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 Y. Li, Y. Li / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 30 (2016) 322e330
Nomenclature
BOG Boil-Off-Gas
Gj BOG quantity average of all time points based on
depressurization time point j (kg/h)
Gji BOG quantity at time point i based on
depressurization time point j (kg/h)
HP high pressure
J minimum variance
j time point to depressurization
Jj variance based on depressurization time point j
LNG Liquefied-Nature-Gas
LP low pressure
Pi tank pressure at time point i (kPa)
Pmax maximum allowable tank operating pressure (kPa)
Pmin minimum allowable tank operating pressure (kPa)
recirculation using HYSYS Dynamics to obtain the minimum
operating cost. Jang et al.(2011) adopted Aspen Dynamics to
simulate and optimize the operation of the BOG compressors. Li
and Chen (2012) improved the performance of the BOG recon-
denser control system using DYNSIM. To address BOG, the LNG
receiving terminals in most studies chose to condense it using the
LNG output Park et al. (2012); Jang et al. (2011); Li and Chen (2012);
Liu et al. (2010), and Querol et al. (2010) suggested that a cogene-
ration plant is also feasible after comparison of the types of process
methods. Similarities can be found among these studies in that the
optimization is usually implemented to reduce the damage caused
by BOG, maximize economic benefits (Srikanth et al., 2014; Park
et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2010), or smooth operation (Jang et al.,
2011; Li and Chen, 2012).
Because the BOG quantity is influenced by time-dependent
factors, such as ship unloading and gas output, its fluctuation
characteristics can be represented only by dynamic simulation
technology, which is more accurate and comprehensive than static
analysis. However, dynamic modeling and analysis make up only a
small percentage of the current studies because, as Liu et al. (2010)
noted, dynamic simulation is very challenging. Moreover, there
have been few dynamic studies focusing on the BOG generation
behaviors of entire receiving systems.
This study is exactly able to fill in such blanks. Based on the
abovementioned problems facing actual LNG receiving terminals,
Fig. 1. LNG receiving and regasification system.
323
the study takes the entire receiving system into consideration,
including the LNG ship, LNG tanks, tanker trucks, BOG compressors,
etc. Dynamic simulation is used in analysis and optimization and
helps determine effective improvements against problems. Such a
research can deepen the understanding of BOG generation char-
acteristics in LNG receiving terminals and provide a reference for
future studies.
In this paper, first, the parameters affecting the BOG quantity are
analyzed comprehensively and used in the modeling of the whole
LNG receiving terminal. Then, with the help of the dynamic simu-
lation software DYNSIM (Invensys Systems, Inc. Lake Forest, Cali-
fornia, United States), the BOG fluctuation rule is determined, and
finally, a practical solution is suggested based on optimization.
2. Base case of the LNG receiving terminal
2.1. Operating conditions
Normally, there are two types of operating conditions in the
actual LNG receiving terminal depending on whether there is ship
unloading or not.
During storage, the tank pressure is kept at approximately
13 kPaG (kPa Gauge, the same as below), and 30 t/h LNG is used for
LNG cold insulation and recirculated in the pipelines. After that,
some of the LNG flows to the delivery trunks through the LP pumps,
and the rest returns to the LNG tanks. The natural gas output varies
with the downstream load demand and determines the running
equipment such as the LP pumps, HP pumps and open rack
vaporizers.
Before ship unloading begins, the LNG carrier has to be
considered. Generally, the LNG carrier is fuelled by BOG generated
from heat leakage. After it arrives, the ship has to prepare for 4 h to
be ready for unloading, including the connection and purging of the
unloading arms, etc (Tarlowski et al., 2016; Chiu et al., 2010).
Because the power system of the LNG ship is shut down after
docking, the BOG that is usually used as fuel accumulates and in-
creases the carrier pressure to 40 kPaG according to the actual data
from the terminal. Then, the valves for recirculation operation are
closed, and the BOG lines of the system are turned on. As a result,
the higher carrier pressure drives the BOG to flow into the LNG
tanks. After the unloading line is turned on, the discharge rate in-
creases gradually from 200 m3/h to 12,000 m3/h (full speed) as the
speed of the unloading pumps is increased, which takes approxi-
mately 1.25 h. During unloading, the liquid level of the onboard
tank drops rapidly, reducing the pressure inside from 40 kPaG to
324 Y. Li, Y. Li / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 30 (2016) 322e330
10 kPaG, and then, the BOG from the receiving system feeds back
into the carrier through the BOG line as a supplement to maintain
the carrier pressure. Moreover, the pressure of the LNG tank in the
terminal is kept at 13 kPaG all of the time. About 1 h before the ship
unloading ends, the unloading pumps are stopped one by one to
slow down the discharge rate. The entire process of ship unloading
lasts approximately 14 h.
2.2. Factors affecting BOG quantity
There are various factors affecting BOG quantity in the terminal.
To obtain sufficiently accurate results, it is necessary to carry on a
comprehensive analysis, as described in the following.
2.2.1. Steady influencing factors
In the absence of unloading, BOG mainly results from continual
heat leakage to the cryogenic tanks and related recirculation
pipelines used for LNG cold insulation. During recirculation, the
heat absorbed through pipelines is brought into the storage tanks
by the LNG, increasing the BOG (Lee et al., 2010).
The volume displacement of the output LNG, tanker truck
loading and specific composition of the received LNG also have
effects on the quantity of BOG. LNG output always fluctuates
because the downstream consumption frequently varies with
different times and seasons. The greater the LNG output, the more
the liquid level in the LNG tank decreases. Therefore, more BOG is
needed to fill the space left by the LNG output to maintain the
pressure inside. Thus, the net BOG quantity decreases. This phe-
nomenon is known as volume displacement. The net quantity is the
part of the BOG that needs to be processed. Tanker truck loading
generates BOG in two ways. In addition to continual heat leakage to
the truck, the exchange of the fluid with different densities be-
tween the LNG storage tank and the tanker truck increases the BOG.
Some components of LNG, mainly methane and nitrogen, also have
effects on the BOG quantity. With a certain heat leakage, if the ni-
trogen content is constant, when there is more methane, more BOG
is generated. This behavior is the same for nitrogen if the methane
content is constant.
2.2.2. Variable influencing factors
During ship unloading, the amount of BOG is several times
larger than that during storage because in addition to the factors
mentioned above, there is heat leakage to the onboard LNG tanks
and unloading arms, as well as heat dissipation from the unloading
pumps, a cooling effect of LNG on the storage tank, output volume
displacement of the onboard LNG, feed flash, etc. Heat leakage to
the carrier vaporizes approximately 0.15 weight percent of the LNG
(based on pure methane) to BOG daily. Some of the energy input by
the unloading pumps can change into heat. When LNG flows in the
unloading line, its static pressure energy turns into heat because of
friction and turbulence resistance. Thus, the heat warms the LNG,
and BOG is generated (Jung et al., 2003). The cooling effect occurs
because the feed is usually colder than the BOG in the tanks; when
the BOG is replaced by LNG, the tank wall is cooled, heating the
liquid. Because the onboard tanks have a lower pressure in the full-
speed stage when their temperatures are higher, the density of the
BOG onboard is much lower than in the LNG tanks in the terminal,
limiting the quantity of BOG returned to the carrier during the
volume displacement and increasing the BOG in the terminal. The
temperature of the feed might be higher than its boiling point
under the tank pressure because of heat leakage and heat dissi-
pation, and if it is top filling, some LNG will flash off to BOG.
LNG can be fed into the tank from the top or the bottom, which
depends on the density of the LNG during unloading. Top filling is
adopted if the LNG onboard is heavier than that in the terminal and
vice versa. Thus, LNG with different densities can mix well auto-
matically (Wang and Liu, 2008; Uznanski et al., 2001). Otherwise,
the liquid might be layered, and after a certain period of time, the
stratification can be broken by strong thermal convection origi-
nating from the bottom, generating large quantities of BOG, up to
30 times the usual amount, in a short time, which is known as
rollover (Deshpande et al., 2011; Zellouf and Portannier, 2011;
Gorla, 2010; Uznanski and Versluijs, 2007). To avoid such a situa-
tion, the terminal must constantly monitor the density of the LNG
inside the tanks.
Under vapoureliquid equilibrium, the saturation temperature
and enthalpy of the onboard LNG depend on the carrier pressure. If
it is much lower than the tank pressure, the LNG might remain sub-
cooled after feeding, even if there is heat leakage during unloading.
If the carrier pressure is higher and it is top filling, a significant
amount of LNG is likely to flash off to BOG. Generally, the higher the
tank pressure, the less BOG generated during ship unloading.
With the exception of heat leakage to the tanks and pipelines,
the other influencing factors mentioned above, such as the output
and heat dissipation of the unloading pumps, are either time-
dependent or sporadic. Therefore, the BOG quantity at the termi-
nal fluctuates all of the time but extremely during ship unloading.
2.3. BOG quantity under different operating conditions
There are mainly two types of LNG in the LNG receiving termi-
nal: rich gas from Australia and lean gas from Qatar; the compo-
nents of these gases are shown in Table 1.
The output range of the LNG to downstream users is
3.6  105e12.6  105 kg/h. The corresponding number of running
HP pumps is 2e7. The maximum output occasionally occurs at the
same time as the tanker truck loading, the maximum of which is
600 m3/h. There are 3 LNG tanks in the terminal and 3 LP pumps
within each tank (Chu et al., 2007); the LNG ship is equipped with 8
unloading pumps, and the discharge rate can reach 12,000 m3/h.
The equipment parameters of the LNG receiving system are shown
in Table 2.
Corresponding mathematical models are established based on
the analyses of the influencing factors in section 2.2 (Chen et al.,
2006; British standard, 1997; Kang and Sun, 2011; Liu and Zhou,
2007). By substituting the process parameters in Table 2 into the
models, the heat and amount of BOG resulting from the factors can
be estimated. The results are shown in Table 3.
The latent heat of vaporization of lean LNG is approximately
503.2 kJ/kg, while the value for rich LNG is 523.4 kJ/kg. In the case
that the carrier pressure equals the pressures of the tanks, the BOG
quantity under different operating conditions is shown in Table 4.
Table 4 shows that, in the absence of unloading, the BOG
quantity stays below 5.4  103 kg/h, which is within the capacity of
one compressor, 6.7  103 kg/h. During ship unloading, the BOG
quantity is either close to or above the capacity of two compressors.
In practice, if the tank pressure in the terminal is lower than the one
onboard, the BOG quantity is even larger. In particular, if the min-
imum output occurs at the same time as lean liquid top filling, the
BOG quantity peaks at 17.4  103 kg/h, which is close to the
measured value of 16.9  103 kg/h (Chen et al., 2004; Liu, 2009),
and it proves that the calculation models are consistent with the
actual conditions.
3. Dynamic simulation of the existing process
Continuous fluctuation of the BOG causes problems, such as
wasted resources and high energy consumption, and hinders the
optimization of the operation of the terminal. To find an effective
improvement, DYNSIM, dynamic simulation software for PRO-Ⅱ, is
 Y. Li, Y. Li / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 30 (2016) 322e330 325

Table 1
The components of the rich and lean LNG.

Component CH4 C2H6 C3H8 i-C4H10 n-C4H10 i-C5H12 n-C5H12 N2 Total Density kg/m3

Lean LNG 92.73 6.06 0.96 0.06 0.08 e e 0.11 100.00 442.4
Rich LNG 88.77 7.54 2.59 0.45 0.56 0.01 0.03 0.05 100.00 464.8

Table 2
The equipment parameters of the receiving system.

Equipment Parameters

LNG carrier Capacity: 147,000 m3; Pressure: 10 kPaG

Unloading pump Throughput: 1500 m3/h; Lift: 140 m; Power: 400 kW; Efficiency: 65%
LP pump Throughput: 420 m3/h; Lift: 304 m; Power: 250 kW; Efficiency: 75%
Heat leakage rate to pipelines 25 W/m2
LNG tank Capacity: 160,000 m3; Diameter: 80 m; Height: 34.76 m, Pressure:
1.5e29 kPaG
Compressor Throughput: 3320 m3/h; Suction pressure: 0.45 MPa; Outlet pressure: 1.06 MPa; Efficiency: 62%
Recondenser Diameter: 1.9 m; Height: 6.41 m
HP pump Throughput: 419 m3/h; Lift: 2070 m; Efficiency: 71%

Table 3
The heat and amount of BOG resulting from the influencing factors.

Type of model Factor Value Operating condition

Heat (MW) Heat leakage to tanks 0.53 All

Heat leakage to pipelines 0.30 All
Heat dissipation of unloading pumps 0.21 Ship unloading
Heat leakage to unloading arms 0.21 Ship unloading
Cooling effect 0.045 Ship unloading
Mass (103 kg/h) Minimum output
1.7 All
Maximum output
5.8
Tanker truck loading 1.0 All
Heat leakage to the carrier 3.9 Ship unloading
Output volume displacement 4.9 Ship unloading

Table 4
BOG quantity in different operating modes.

Operating mode Ship unloading or not Output Type of LNG BOG quantity (103 kg/h)

1 No Maximum Rich 0.97

2 No Maximum Lean 1.2
3 No Minimum Rich 5.1
4 No Minimum Lean 5.4
5 Yes Maximum Rich 12.9
6 Yes Maximum Lean 13.2
7 Yes Minimum Rich 17.0
8 Yes Minimum Lean 17.4

employed for the modeling and simulation of the whole terminal.
The equipment and corresponding modules in the dynamic simu-
lation are presented in Table 5. A schematic of BOG processing
system in DYNSIM is shown in Fig. 2.
Because the BOG quantity fluctuates most extremely and rea-
ches the maximum during ship unloading with minimum output
and lean liquid filling, this study only focuses on the operating
conditions with the hardest controllability and determined the BOG
generation rules for optimization of the operation.
Assumptions are set that the initial liquid height in the tanks is
20 m and that the output is kept to a minimum (3.6  105 kg/h)
during the entire process. Ship unloading lasts from 0 h to
approximately 14 h.
3.1. Simulation of top filling

As simulated by DYNSIM, the dynamic characteristics of the

Table 5 BOG, the operating pressure of the LNG tanks, and the pressure of
Module selection in DYNSIM. carrier tanks with lean liquid top filling are shown in Fig. 3.
Equipment Module Equipment Module Fig. 3 indicates that at
4 h, the time at which the LNG ship
arrives, the BOG generated by heat leakage to the carrier increases
LNG ship SEPARATOR LNG storage tank SEPARATOR
Pipelines PIPE& HEADER& VALVE Safety valve RELIEFVALVE the carrier pressure rapidly. At
1 h, the pressure starts to decrease
Workstream MECHSTREAM Surge tank DRUM from its peak when the BOG lines are turned on. There are two
Motor MOTOR Recondenser SEPARATOR factors that cause the BOG quantity to peak at 16.7  103 kg/h. One
Pump PUMP Splitter SPLITTER is the BOG that comes from the carrier, and the other is the flashing
Material stream STREAM Compressor COMPRESSOR
of almost 1000 m3 LNG used for cold insulation. After the LNG
326 Y. Li, Y. Li / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 30 (2016) 322e330
Fig. 2. BOG processing system.
Fig. 3. BOG quantity and operating pressures of the LNG tanks and carrier tanks with
lean liquid top filling.
recirculation is stopped, the LNG remains in the related lines and is
heated by the surroundings for a long time. At the beginning of
unloading, it will be pushed back to the tanks and flash off to BOG.
As the discharge rate increases and the liquid levels in the onboard
tanks decrease, the carrier pressure falls rapidly and finally stays at
10 kPaG, as mentioned above, to protect the onboard LNG tanks
from negative pressures. Although more heat is added to the LNG in
the full-speed stage of discharge, the BOG quantity drops to the
same level as in the absence of unloading and remains stable
because the higher pressure inside the tanks limits the generation
of BOG.
In the existing process, the standby compressor must be put to
use when the BOG quantity is beyond the capacity of one
compressor. As soon as the BOG quantity peaks, the excess beyond
the capacity of two compressors is flared.
3.2. Simulation of bottom filling
The simulated result of bottom filling is shown in Fig. 4. Before
unloading, the gas exiting from the carrier increases the BOG to
13.4  103 kg/h; however, once the unloading starts, the quantity
drops rapidly, even to 0, during the full-speed stage. After that, the
BOG quantity increases gradually and peaks at 8.5  103 kg/h 2 h
after the ship unloading ends. Then, it decreases again until it
reaches 6.0  103 kg/h at 23 h, the same level as during storage.
Compared with top filling, there are significant differences in
the BOG generation rules. In top filling, although the BOG peaks are
large at the beginning of unloading, the duration is quite short
before the BOG quantity returns to the storage level in the full-
speed stage and then remains stable, which means the influence
of unloading disappears. In contrast, the amount of BOG generated
by bottom filling is lower, and it does not need to be flared or
 Y. Li, Y. Li / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 30 (2016) 322e330
Fig. 4. BOG quantity and operating pressures of the LNG tanks and carrier tanks with
lean liquid bottom filling.
vented. However, the effects of bottom filling on BOG do not stop
until several hours after the unloading ends.
The difference results from the different pressures of the feeding
locations. During top filling, some LNG flashes off to BOG when the
liquid is fed into the tanks from the HP pipelines. On the other hand,
even if heat leakage and heat dissipation occur during bottom
filling, the LNG feed remains sub-cooled for a time due to the higher
pressure in the bottom of the tanks. Then, natural convection and
feed disturbance cause the hot LNG to transfer heat and rise to the
surface gradually, generating BOG slowly over a long time.
Furthermore, its duration depends on the convection rate and
disturbance degree of both the input and the output.
3.3. Error analysis and reproducibility
Compared with the measured values of the BOG at time points
during the process, the relative errors of the simulation are 6.97% in
the top filling and 12.01% in the bottom filling. The mean variation
of the BOG quantity at different time points is 9.49%. Globally, the
variation trend of the simulated results is in good agreement with
the measured results.
On the other hand, the calculation results show that under top
filling, the simulated BOG quantity during the fluctuation is 74.68 t
in total, while the measured one is 71.21 t. The relative error of the
result is 4.88%. Under bottom filling, the simulated BOG quantity
during the fluctuation is 144.47 t in total, while the measured one is
144.50 t. The relative error of the result is
0.02%. Therefore, the
mean prediction error of the BOG quantity in the dynamic model is
2.45%. The error of bottom filling is much smaller because the
fluctuation period in the bottom filling is larger, and relatively
speaking, the larger the range, the smaller the error.
In practice, the variations of the BOG cannot be identical every
time due to the complexity of the actual system. However, based on
the data measured at the terminal, the change rules during ship
unloading are similar. For better simulation results, a lot of work
has been done in updating and validating the model. The reliability
and reproducibility have been ensured. The terminal model can be
used in further work only when the dynamic simulation of the
existing process reflects the regularity well.
4. Optimization method
To eliminate the adverse effects caused by sharp fluctuations in
327
the BOG during ship unloading, operation optimization must be
performed. An economic optimization objective is frequently used
but of little value for relieving the equipment vibration. To smooth
the fluctuations of the BOG and ideally to keep it stable within the
capacity of one compressor, this paper tries to minimize the vari-
ance of the BOG quantity, and the operation principles of safety and
convenience are taken into consideration.
Most of the influencing factors analyzed above are not suitable
as manipulated variables. For example, heat leakage from the at-
mosphere and the output of natural gas depend on external factors
and can only change passively. Based on the simulation, if the liquid
height in the tank is 20 m, based on continual heat leakage it will
take 28 h to turn a tank with saturated LNG at 13 kPaG into one at
14 kPaG. The analysis implies that the tank pressure fundamentally
and greatly helps limit the BOG quantity. More precisely, the BOG
quantity is influenced by the pressures of the LNG tanks, both those
on board and those in the terminal. Fig. 5 shows the relationship
between the BOG quantity and the pressures in the tanks and the
carrier with lean liquid full-speed top filling.
As shown in Fig. 5, the difference between the two pressures
determines the quantity of BOG generated. The BOG decreases by
3.8  103 kg/h for every 1 kPa increase in tank pressure. When the
carrier pressure remains at 10 kPaG, i.e., the normal condition, the
quantity falls below 0 if the tank pressure is larger than 15 kPaG,
which means that there is no more BOG generation but con-
sumption to supplement the carrier.
The onboard storage pressure depends on the carrier, which
cannot be adjusted. Based on comprehensive considerations, the
pressure of the storage tank in the receiving terminal is considered
to be the most appropriate manipulated variable in the optimiza-
tion. The tank pressure can be decreased gradually under normal
conditions, and then, some LNG will become sub-cooled as the
pressure increases during ship unloading, which can condense
generated BOG. Because under normal condition the compressor
does not operate at full capacity, the LNG tank depressurization can
be easily realized by increasing the compressor capacity. Moreover,
the time point when the pressure adjustment is made needs to be
obtained.
The compressor capacity is made to its largest setting during the
tank depressurization before ship unlading, and the time points for
pressure adjustment is selected among
50 to
1 h, which are
denoted as j. Then, taking n time points with intervals small enough
to divide the entire unloading/storage period, the corresponding
Fig. 5. BOG quantity vs. pressure of the tanks and carrier with lean liquid full-speed
top filling.
328 Y. Li, Y. Li / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 30 (2016) 322e330

BOG quantities at each time point are denoted Gj1, Gj2, …, Gji, …, Gjn.
The smaller the variance of these n numbers is, the less the BOG
fluctuates. Therefore, the optimization target is to calculate the
variance Jj for every depressurization time point j and finally to find
the minimum, as Eq. (1) shows:

n 
X 2
J ¼ MinJj ¼ Min Gji
Gj (1)
i¼1

In Eq. (1), J is the minimum variance, Jj is the variance based on

depressurization time point j, Gji is the BOG quantity at time point i
based on depressurization time point j in kg/h, and Gj is the BOG
quantity average of all time points based on depressurization time
point j in kg/h.
The corresponding tank operating pressure at time point i is
denoted Pi. In the optimization process, the operating pressure is
not allowed to exceed the normal range of 5e25 kPa, as indicated
by the constraint conditions shown by Eqs. (2) and (3):

fMaxðP1 ; P2 :::Pn Þ  Pmax (2)

fMinðP1 ; P2 :::Pn Þ  Pmin (3)

In Eqs. (2) and (3), Pi is the tank pressure at time point i in kPa,
Pmax is the maximum allowable tank operating pressure in kPa, and
Pmin is the minimum allowable tank operating pressure in kPa.
The optimization strategy is shown in Fig. 6.
The terminal receives 6  109 kg LNG annually, and the average
time between each ship unloading is approximately 97 h. There-
fore, the optimization is based on a 97-h period. The starting con-
ditions of the optimization are set such that the external
temperature is 25  C. The other assumptions are the same as in the
dynamic simulation of the existing process.

5. Optimization results

5.1. Optimization for top filling

Optimization is done based on the target described in Eq. (1)

under the constraint conditions. Fig. 7 shows the result for top
filling. The ship unloading starts at 0 h of the 97-h period from
50
to 47 h and lasts for 14 h. The full-speed stage is from 1.5 h to 13 h.
Under normal conditions, the BOG quantity is 6.3  103 kg/h.
Slow depressurization of the tanks is implemented from
41 h
to
1 h, increasing the BOG to the rated throughput of one
Fig. 6. Simulation-based optimization strategy.
compressor, i.e., 6.7  103 kg/h, and finally, the tank pressure falls to
8.3 kPa G at
1 h. When the BOG lines are connected, the BOG from
the carrier rapidly increases the tank pressure to the peak at
19.4 kPaG at approximately 1 h, and then, the high pressure pulls
BOG back to 6.3  103 kg/h. After that, the tank pressure drops
sharply, falling back to 13 kPaG at 3 h. Thereafter, both the BOG
quantity and the tank pressure remain unchanged until the next
period.
Compared with the existing operation (Fig. 3), the BOG peak
clipping is achieved by pressurization of the tanks, and the high
pressure improves the tank capacity to hold more BOG during ship
unloading. Although the maximum tank pressure, 19.4 kPaG, is
much higher than the one in the existing operation, it is still within
the normal range of 5e25 kPa. It is noteworthy that the optimiza-
tion does not change the total BOG quantity because the total heat
added to the LNG is the same in the two cases. The BOG was
generated more evenly during the period by adjusting the tank
pressure, improving the stability of the system. After optimization,
the standby compressor is no longer put to use during ship Fig. 7. Optimized BOG quantity and pressure of tanks with top filling.
unloading.
 Y. Li, Y. Li / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 30 (2016) 322e330
5.2. Optimization for bottom filling
The optimized operation for bottom filling is shown in Fig. 8. The
BOG quantity remains at 6.0  103 kg/h up to
8 h. Then, it climbs
to 6.7  103 kg/h and lasts to 0 h. Thereafter, the quantity drops to
5.0  103 kg/h, lasting to approximately 7 h. Between 7 h and 34 h,
it increases again to 6.7  103 kg/h and returns to the normal level
after that.
Unlike top filling, tank depressurization before unloading starts
later at
8 h, but the rate is relatively faster such that it reduces the
pressure to approximately 11.7 kPa G at
1 h. At the beginning of
ship unloading, the gas exiting from the carrier drives the tank
pressure to the maximum of the period, 16.5 kPaG. Then, the
pressure drops rapidly during 0e7 h, falling to the minimum,
9.8 kPaG. Then, it increases, reaching 14.9 kPaG at 24 h. After that,
the value decreases once again, returning to 13 kPaG at approxi-
mately 34 h and remains stable until the next ship unloading. In the
process, the tank pressure varies between 9.8 and 16.5 kPaG within
the safe range, and the BOG quantity stays at 6.0  103 kg/h most of
the time. After optimization, only one compressor is needed.
5.3. Optimization of the other operating conditions
Relative to the tank operating pressure, other factors only have a
limited impact on the BOG. The fluctuations caused by the other
factors can be offset by adjusting the tank operating pressure.
However, the liquid level in the tanks has a significant effect on the
adjustment rangeability of the tank pressure needed in optimiza-
tion. In some cases, it may be likely to break through the safe
operating limits.
The case with the most extreme BOG fluctuation (lean liquid top
filling with minimum output) is chosen again to study how the
liquid height influences the adjustment rangeability. The relation-
ship between the liquid level and pressure rangeability is given in
Fig. 9.
The figure shows that in the optimization, the higher the liquid
level, the larger the pressure rangeability needed. For example, if
the average liquid level of 3 tanks is 5 m, the adjustment range-
abilities of depressurization and pressurization and their maximum
differential pressure are 3.0 kPa, 4.0 kPa and 7.0 kPa, while if the
liquid level is 25 m, the values are 5.8 kPa, 7.6 kPa and 13.4 kPa,
respectively. Although the normal liquid level of the LNG tank in
the terminal is between 3.5 m and 34.8 m, the average level of the 3
tanks is not allowed to exceed 25 m before ship unloading; other-
wise, all 3 tanks are unable to hold a carrier load of LNG. In other
words, the maximum differential pressure, 13.4 kPa, will not be
exceeded. Normally, the adjustment range of the LNG tank pressure
Fig. 8. Optimized BOG quantity and pressure of tanks with bottom filling.
329
Fig. 9. Rangeability of pressure vs. average liquid level of tanks with top filling.
is within 20 kPa. Therefore, no matter what the liquid height is, the
optimization operation is able to stabilize the BOG within the
normal range of tank operating pressure.
Because the optimizations in this paper are put forward for the
condition of maximum BOG quantity, the BOG will be less and
easier to control under other operating conditions. Arguably, the
optimization could be reached under different conditions by
adjusting the tank operating pressure.
6. Optimization effects
After optimization, the energy consumption is reduced because
the standby compressor is never normally put to use during ship
unloading, which avoids extra energy consumption caused by low
load operation. For the top filling, the total power consumption of
the compressors in a 97-h period is 47.9  103 kWh, which falls to
47.5  103 kWh after optimization. The value decreases by 0.93%.
While the one for the bottom filling is 49.7  103 kWh, which falls
to 46.0  103 kWh after optimization. The value decreases by 7.4%.
In fact, the terminal receives LNG from the carrier approximately 90
times annually and top filling and bottom filling coexist. The
assumption is made that each feeding method is adopted with
equal frequency, and the results show that the energy consumption
of the compressors decreases by 4.2%, i.e., 0.19 million kWh. The
price of industrial electricity is 0.13 USD/kWh and 24,700 USD are
saved annually.
Currently, BOG beyond the total capacity of the compressors is
approximately 3.1  103 kg according to Fig. 3. With the assumption
that there are 45 top fillings annually, approximate 0.19 million m3
(140.8  103 kg) of natural gas avoids being flared. The price of
natural gas is 0.63 USD/m3 (approximately 0.85 USD/kg) and 0.12
million USD are saved annually.
The calculation shows that in total 0.14 million USD are saved
annually after optimization.
The recondenser is used for BOG liquefaction and as a surge tank
before the HP pump; it is the core piece of equipment in the BOG
processing system. The control system for the recondenser is based
on feedback signals with a certain lag in practice, resulting in oc-
casional excessive or deficient LNG flows, namely, fluctuations in
the liquid level. The level is more difficult to control if there is a ship
unloading when the BOG in the system fluctuates widely. As a
matter of fact, the liquid level fluctuates frequently and easily gets
out of control during ship unloading, causing irregular vibration of
the HP pump system. After optimization, the fluctuation of the BOG,
as well as the LNG liquid level in the recondenser, is weakened and
330 Y. Li, Y. Li / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 30 (2016) 322e330
even smoothed. As a result, the vibration of the recondenser-HP
pump system is reduced. The optimization has positive effects on
equipment protection and safe operation.
7. Conclusion
Frequent BOG fluctuations in the LNG receiving terminals lead to
problems in operation, such as high-energy consumption, wasted
resources, and difficulty in operation. The fluctuations in the BOG
quantity under different operating conditions are estimated based
on analyses of the influencing factors and dynamic simulation
technology. From the analyses, we know that, during the full-speed
stage, the BOG decreases by 3.9  103 kg/h for every 1 kPa increase
in the differential pressure between the LNG tanks in the terminal
and onboard. In other words, the tank operating pressure has a
significant impact on the BOG quantity. To minimize the variance in
the BOG quantity during the process, an optimization objective is
built to find effective improvements with the help of the dynamic
simulation software DYNSIM. As a result, by adjusting the tank
operating pressure appropriately against different conditions, the
BOG quantity is kept within the capacity of one compressor. After
optimization, 0.19 million m3 of natural gas avoids being flared
every year; the energy consumption of the BOG compressors is
reduced by 4.2%, and 0.19 million kWh of power is saved annually.
In total 0.14 million USD are saved annually. In addition, the
recondenser is easier to control with a more stable liquid level, and
the vibration of the recondenser-HP pump system is reduced.
Therefore, the optimization operation put forward has completely
solved the existing problems of the LNG receiving terminal,
contributing to the smooth and steady operation of the terminal,
and large amounts of resources and energy are saved.
References
Adom, E., Islam, S.Z., Ji, X., 2010. Modelling of boil-off gas in LNG tanks: a case study.
Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2 (4), 292e296.
British standard, 1997. Installation and equipment for liquefied natural gas - Design
of onshore installations. EN 1473.
Chen, X., 2012. Modeling and Dynamic Optimization of Recondensation Process at
LNG Receiving Terminals. South China University of Technology, Guangzhou.
Chen, Q.S., Wegrzyn, J., Prasad, V., 2004. Analysis of temperature and pressure
changes in liquefied natural gas (LNG) cryogenic tanks. Cryogenics 44 (10),
701e709.
Chen, M.H., Cong, D.Z., Fang, T.N., 2006. Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering.
Chemical Industry Press, Beijing.
Chiu, C., Diribe, U., Hartono, J.S., 2010. Ship-Shore interaction and LNG tank piping
design considerations. In: 10th Topical Conference on Gas Utilization, San
Antonio.
Chu, Y.Q., Chen, W.L., Niu, J.F., Liu, X.L., 2007. The applied techniques in LNG
receiving terminal. Nat. Gas. Ind. 27 (1), 120e123.
Deshpande, K.B., Zimmerman, W.B., Tennant, M.T., Webster, M.B.,
Lukaszewski, M.W., 2011. Optimization methods for the real-time inverse
problem posed by modelling of liquefied natural gas storage. Chem. Eng. J. 170
(1), 44e52.
Gorla, R.S.R., 2010. Probabilistic analysis of a liquefied natural gas storage tank.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 30 (17e18), 2763e2769.
Jang, N., Shin, M.W., Choi, S.H., Yoon, E.S., 2011. Dynamic simulation and optimi-
zation of the operation of boil-off gas compressors in a liquefied natural gas
gasification plant. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 28 (5), 1166e1171.
Jung, M.J., Cho, J.H., Ryu, W., 2003. LNG Terminal Design Feedback from Operator's
Practical Improvements. The 22nd World Gas Congress, Tokyo, Japan.
Kang, Z.L., Sun, X.Z., 2011. Calculation method of evaporating volume for LNG
receiving station. Oil Gas Storage Transp. 30 (9), 663e666.
Lee, C.J., Lim, Y., Park, C., Lee, S., Han, C., 2010. Synthesis of unloading operation
procedure for a mixed operation of above-ground and in-ground liquefied
natural gas storage tanks using dynamic simulation. Indust. Eng. Chem. Res. 49
(17), 8219e8226.
Li, Y., Chen, X., 2012. Dynamic simulation for improving the performance of boil-off
Gas recondensation system at LNG receiving terminals. Chem. Eng. Commun.
199 (10), 1251e1262.
Liu, S., 2009. Study on Structure & Performance of LNG Full Containment Tank.
South China University of Technology, Guangzhou.
Liu, H., Zhou, Y.C., 2007. Design of pressure safety system of LNG cryogenic storage
tank. Chem. Eng. Des. 17 (1), 7e16.
Liu, C.W., Zhang, J., Xu, Q., Gossage, J.L., 2010. Thermodynamic-analysis-based
design and operation for boil-off Gas flare minimization at LNG receiving ter-
minals. Indust. Eng. Chem. Res. 49 (16), 7412e7420.
Park, C., Lee, C.J., Lim, Y., Lee, S., Han, C., 2010. Optimization of recirculation oper-
ating in liquefied natural gas receiving terminal. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 41
(4), 482e491.
Park, C., Song, K., Lee, S., Lim, Y., Han, C., 2012. Retrofit design of a boil-off gas
handling process in liquefied natural gas receiving terminals. Energy 44 (1),
69e78.
Querol, E., Gonzalez-Regueral, B., García-Torrent, J., García-Martínez, M.J., 2010. Boil
off gas (BOG) management in Spanish liquid natural gas (LNG) terminals. Appl.
Energy 87 (11), 3384e3392.
Srikanth, S.A., Narasimhan, Sridharakumar, Narasimhan, Shankar, 2014. Optimiza-
tion of Unloading Operations in Petroleum Product Storage Terminals. Indus-
trial & Engineering Chemistry Research.
Tarlowski, J., Sheffield, J., Durr, C., Coyle, D., Patel, H., 2016. LNG Import Terminals -
Recent Developments. http://www.cheresources.com/lng_terminals.pdf.
Uznanski, D., Versluijs, P., 2007. LNG Expert: the latest evolution in LNG storage tank
management. In: 7th Topical Conference on Natural Gas Utilization, Houston.
Uznanski, D.T., Malvos, H., Gorieu, O., Aoyagi, Y., Benito, A., 2001. Recent advances in
the optimized management of LNG storage tank filling operations. In: LNG 13
Conference.
Wang, L.J., Liu, Y., 2008. LNG stirring mechanism and countermeasures in large LNG
storage tanks. Nat. Gas. Ind. 28 (5), 97e99.
Zellouf, Y., Portannier, B., 2011. First step in optimizing LNG storages for offshore
terminals. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 3 (5), 582e590.