Article

pubs.acs.org/IECR

Investigation and Performance Improvement of the Propane

Precooling Cycle in the Propane Precooled Mixed Refrigerant
Cycle Liquefaction Process
M. F. M. Fahmy
Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

H. I. Nabih*
Downloaded from pubs.acs.org by UNIV OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/12/19. For personal use only.

Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

M. R. Abd El-Aziz
Cairo Oil Refining Company (CORC), Cairo, Egypt
*
S Supporting Information
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016.55:2769-2783.

ABSTRACT: This study aims to improve the performance of

the propane precooling cycle used for precooling of both
natural gas and mixed refrigerant in the Propane Precooled
Mixed Refrigerant Cycle (PPMRC) in an LNG plant. The unit
is simulated by Aspen HYSYS version 7.3 for optimization of
the propane precooling cycle to provide the minimum energy
consumption of the propane compressors and the two air-
coolers. The effect of subcooling temperature in the propane
air-cooler, the number of compression stages in the propane
cycle, and the quality of the natural gas feed are investigated.
Results reveal the extent of reduction in power consumption
on decreasing the subcooling temperature of liquid propane. The optimal subcooling temperature of liquid propane and number
of compression stages in the propane cycle is determined. The positive impact attained in the performance of the propane cycle is
higher for lean feed gas than for rich feed gas. The decrease of liquid propane subcooling temperature has a dominating influence
on all performance criteria and, hence, can be considered as the key contributor affecting the propane precooling cycle in the
PPMRC liquefaction process.

1. INTRODUCTION Transportation of natural gas as LNG over large distances or

Natural gas is one of the cleanest, safest and most useful of all
energy sources and helps to meet the world’s rising demand for
cleaner energy.1 It is one of the most important primary energy
sources for the 21st century, and it is expected that by 2020 the
natural gas would account for about 30% of the total electricity
generation.2,3 Natural gas is desirable because it is clean,
efficient, safe, abundant, and economical.4,5 The industrial and
electric power sectors together account for 77% of the total
projected world increase in natural gas consumption.6 The
natural gas composition varies depending on the gas field, and
the gas is commonly classified according to their liquids content
as either lean or rich gas where the more the C2+ in the gas, the
“richer” the gas.7,8 When natural gas transportation by pipeline
is overly expensive, gas must be either liquefied or converted
to high value liquid products. Liquefaction of natural gas has
advantages over chemical conversion in that LNG (liquefied
natural gas) has a heating value about 40% greater than liquid
from chemical fuels derived from conversion of natural gas.
across water bodies is economical or cost-effective.9,10 The
objective of producing LNG is the huge reduction in volume,
a factor of 640, decreasing the size and cost of the storage
and transportation containers. LNG offers greater trade
flexibility than pipeline transport, allowing cargoes of natural
gas to be delivered where the need is greatest and the
commercial terms are most competitive.11 Liquefied natural
gas can be made on low use days and vaporized on peak days
to meet the demand.12 The Asia Pacific region is by far the
leading market for LNG, accounting for 61% of total imports
in 2013, and Europe is closely followed by the Asia region
where these regions cover 88% of total LNG imports.13 To
meet the increasing demand for natural gas, China by the year
Received: November 9, 2015
Revised: January 11, 2016
Accepted: February 23, 2016
Published: February 23, 2016

© 2016 American Chemical Society 2769 DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b04249

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55, 2769−2783
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
2020 needs to import LNG at a level of more than 20 billion
cubic meters per year.14
The global demand of liquefied natural gas (LNG) has risen
rapidly in recent years for the reasons of energy security. LNG
operations are highly capitalized where upfront costs are large
for construction of liquefaction facilities, purchasing specially
designed LNG ships, and building regasification facilities.12
The largest component of the total cost of the LNG value chain
is usually the liquefaction plant while the production, shipping,
and regasification components account for nearly equal portions
of the remainder.15 The natural gas liquefaction process is
energy intensive due to its cryogenic condition which is below
−162 °C at atmosphere. Therefore, minimizing energy
consumption is the major concern in natural gas liquefaction
process design.16−18 One of the primary challenges in the LNG
industry is to improve the efficiency of the current natural gas
liquefaction processes together with cost savings.19 Different
energy recovery process configurations in the natural gas liquefac-
tion processes and their potential improvements of energy savings
were studied while considering the capital costs.20 Nitrogen based
single and dual expander processes were analyzed for efficiency
improvement considering compression energy minimization as
an objective.21 Multistage expander refrigeration cycles were
proposed and analyzed for the development of an efficient LNG
process.22
The three key elements in liquefaction are compression
needed in the refrigeration cycles, the power to drive those
cycles, and the heat exchanger technology, and in the past five
decades major technical developments have been met in these
three areas.23 Liquefaction has used more mature technologies
and simpler process equipment,24 and research interests have
led to recent advances in the LNG value chain.25,26 Various
combinations of refrigeration cycles are used in licensed LNG
production processes but most employ gas turbine-driven
compressors to achieve the necessary cryogenic temperatures.27
The precooling process and adding an expander in the
liquefaction cycle is an effective way to increase liquefaction
efficiency for various liquefaction cycles.28 Previous works were
limited to the calculation of the thermodynamic efficiency of
different natural gas liquefaction processes.29−31 The natural
gas liquefaction step consumes the highest energy because
of the energy consumed by compressor units in the cryogenic
liquefaction process, and thus, attempts have been made to
minimize energy consumption.32 A combined process integrat-
ing natural gas liquefaction and liquid recovery was proposed.33
A new natural gas cascade liquefaction cycle that utilized
propane, nitrogen monoxide (N2O), and nitrogen gas (N2)
cycles was designed with staged compression where a three-
stage compression cycle showed a higher efficiency than the
single-stage process. The new liquefaction cycle required less
specific power (16% reduction) and reduced compressor work
by 15% for the same amount of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as
compared to the optimized cascade cycle.34
There are three main types of liquefaction cycles: cascade,
mixed refrigerant, and expansion cycles.35 Air Products and
Chemicals Incorporation (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 process with plate-fin heat exchangers. Deciding which of
the processes is to be used for a given project is now much more
difficult, and many factors must be considered to make a proper
comparison.36−38 The performances of natural gas liquefaction
cycles were compared, and the study included a cascade cycle
2770
Article
with a two-stage intercooler consisting of propane, ethylene, and
methane cycles and, also a modified staged compression process.
It was shown that the coefficient of performance of the cascade
cycle with a two-stage intercooler was higher than the basic cycle
by 13.7% while the modified staged compression process was
higher by 29.7%, and an improvement of 28.5% in the yield
of liquefied natural gas was obtained.39 The LNG process,
Propane Precooled Mixed Refrigerant Cycle (PPMRC), so far
the most common process used, has been applied in LNG plants
producing from 1 to 5 MMTPA of LNG per train using gas
turbine or electrical drivers. The process has proven to be
efficient, flexible, reliable, and cost-competitive.40 A base-load
plant typically has a production capacity above 3 MMTPA
(million tons per annum) of LNG, and the main worldwide
LNG production capacity comes from this type of plant
applying the PPMRC process.41 The versatility of the propane
precooled mixed refrigerant cycle makes it well-suited to
accommodate this ever changing industry and is considered as
the dominant liquefaction cycle.42 Large-scale liquefaction of
natural gas in the Propane Precooled Mixed Refrigerant Cycle
(PPMRC) consumes a large amount of energy because of high
power consumption in the compressors and the two air coolers;
thus, optimization is necessary. Studies for improvement of the
propane precooling mixed refrigerant cycle requested mod-
ifications of the existing LNG plant configurations.43,44
One of the most important challenges in the natural gas
liquefaction plants is to improve the plant energy efficiency.20
A good understanding of design and operational requirements
and efficiencies of natural gas liquefaction systems is essential
for the success of the gas liquefaction plant. The real keys
in developing a successful liquefaction plant are equipment
selection and its configurations as well as operating parameters
determination which meet the plant’s capacity goals,45 reduce
cost, and increase project feasibility.46 In terms of energy
efficiency, configuration strategies in liquefaction cycles change
the number and association of equipment that make up the
liquefaction cycle within a feasible range.47 It was indicated
that in the case of three-stage compression systems, additional
power savings was obtained and the system was energetically
efficient, even better than a two stage mixed refrigerant (C2/C3)
process.48,49 The application of C3MR to a floating natural gas
liquefaction plant was studied where the precooling cycle had
triple compressions while the liquefaction cycle had only one
compression.50 Approaches for the optimal design of either
single mixed refrigerant cycles or to systems consisting of two of
these in cascade was presented indicating the importance of
considering multistage compression and capital costs during
optimization.51,52 A mixed refrigerant (MR) cycle was optimized
while applying two compression stages in the cycle.53 The single
mixed refrigerant (SMR) process has been optimized for NG
liquefaction, and four compression stages and four intercoolers
have been used.54 A Modified Single Mixed Refrigerant
(MSMR) technology was proposed for offshore natural gas
liquefaction, and the refrigerant required three compression
stages.55 The C3MR Cascade cycle was studied while applying
one, two, and three compression stages.56 A practical method
was proposed for determining the optimum mixed refrigerant
composition, and the task of compression was performed in four
stages.57,58 A study handling the dual mixed refrigerant (DMR)
process was operated using two mixed refrigerants having
different compositions, and the warm mixed refrigerant was
compressed in two compression stages.59 Also, a dual mixed
refrigerant (DMR) encountering three compressors has been
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b04249
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55, 2769−2783
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
examined for possible application to liquefied natural gas
floating, production, storage, and offloading (LNG FPSO).60
The Propane Precooled Mixed Refrigerant (PPMR) Cycle
accounts for a very significant proportion of the world’s base
load LNG production capacity, and its performance improve-
ment is essential. In the PPMR process, there are two main
refrigerant cycles: the precooling cycle which uses a pure
component, propane, and the liquefaction cycle which uses a
mixed refrigerant (MR). An optimal LNG plant is categorized
by having low initial cost as well as low energy consump-
tion.46,53 Previous studies showed that the liquefaction energy
efficiency can be improved by optimizing the mixed refrigerant
composition and mass flow rate.53 A simulation of the propane
precooled mixed refrigerant (C3-MR) liquefaction plant
planned to be built with three pressure levels of propane
cooling indicated that the specific horse power for the C3-MR
process depends on natural gas supply temperature and
pressure.61 The MR composition abiding with the variation in
ambient conditions has been determined for the small and
midscale LNG plants,62,63 and methods for the selection of the
refrigerant composition were proposed.64−66 About 77% of
base-load natural gas liquefaction plants employ a propane
precooled mixed refrigerant cycle (APCI) where the propane
cycle and the multicomponent refrigerant (MCR) cycle are
involved in the cooling and liquefaction of natural gas.67
Thus, the majority of the liquefaction plants use the APCI
liquefaction technology mainly because of its advantages of
which are the flexibility, ease of refrigerant make up, and better
specific power compared to other technologies operating at the
same conditions. Also, the use of mixed refrigerants in addition
to utilizing the spiral wound heat exchanger increases the
thermal efficiency of the cycle.68,69 Further, it was indicate that
more than 95% of the installed LNG facilities use a precooling
cycle as an initial stage of the liquefaction process, and a
clear idea of the technical advantages/disadvantages of the
precooling cycle is essential for future project developments.70
Hence, propane precooling cycle is a main part of the liquefac-
tion technique, and it was specified that it represents about
20% of the heat load of the liquefaction process.67 Thus, the
main objective of this study is to investigate and analyze the
performance of the propane precooling cycle in the PPMRC
liquefaction process in an attempt to reduce the high power
consumption which would finally allow savings in total cost of
the process.
2. PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The present study investigates the propane precooling cycle
used for cooling of both treated natural gas (NG) and mixed
refrigerant (MR) in the PPMRC process aiming to enhance and
attain a better performance of the natural gas liquefaction process.
The propane precooled mixed refrigerant cycle (PPMRC)
licensed by APCI is the technology applied in the LNG plant
located at Damietta, Egypt (SEGAS). The propane refrigeration
system operates in a closed loop, utilizing propane evaporating
at different pressure levels to supply refrigeration to the NG
feed circuit and the MR circuit. In this process, the evaporated
propane is compressed in a multistage centrifugal compressor
driven by a frame 7 gas turbine driver to 18 bara. Further,
propane from discharge of propane compressor is desuperheated
and condensed by ambient air in the propane cooler condenser
to provide a saturated liquid refrigerant at a temperature of
50 °C. The condensed propane at 50 °C is collected in the
propane accumulator. The propane liquid is then subcooled in
2771
Article
the propane subcooler before being supplied to the evaporators.
The cooling is achieved in kettle-type exchangers with propane
refrigerant boiling and evaporating in a pool on the shell side,
and with the process stream flowing in impressed tube passes.
Propane vapors generated by pressure reduction and heat loads
on each level of propane evaporators are returned to the propane
compressor via suction drums. Vapor propane fed to the first
stage is compressed and blended inside the propane compressor
with the propane vapor from the second stage evaporators to
supply the second stage suction. This is repeated for each stage
until the final stage discharge.
3. METHODOLOGY
The study was conducted to detect the propane precooling
cycle configuration and operating parameters which provide
the minimum energy consumption of propane compressors and
two air-coolers used for cooling and subcooling of both gas and
liquid propane The configuration and the operating parameters
which maximize energy savings in the process and achieve
minimum total cost were to be determined for the enhance-
ment of the performance of the propane precooling cycle.
Three different configurations of the propane cycle, three, four
(Figure 1), and five compression stages, have been examined
for different subcooling temperatures of the liquid propane in
the second air cooler, and all calculations were conducted
for the different qualities of natural gas feed: lean and rich gas.
The quested configuration is that which provides the minimum
energy consumption of the propane compressors and the two
air coolers used for cooling and subcooling of both gas and
liquid propane. Thus, the procedure that follows studied the
influence of the following parameters:
• Subcooling temperature of liquid propane in the second
air cooler (AC2 propane subcooler).
• Number of compression stages in the propane cycle:
three, four, and five stages.
• Quality of natural gas feed (lean and rich gas).
The maximum subcooling temperature of 35 °C is the
temperature at which the fraction of liquid propane obtained at a
given pressure P is equal to unity reached after the expansion step.
At this point, the propane is a saturated liquid and represents the
maximum obtainable flow rate of liquid propane in the propane
refrigeration cycle. Any further subcooling is just more cost
expenses without any benefits of higher fractions of liquid
propane. Further, the minimum subcooling temperature of 50 °C
is the temperature obtained at the operating pressure of the
propane cycle indicating the saturated liquid propane temperature.
The modeling and simulation of the propane cycle was
conducted by the process simulator Aspen HYSYS version 7.3
to investigate the effect of variation of operating and design
parameters on the performance characteristics of the propane
precooling cycle such as
• Power consumption in propane compressors.
• Power consumption in the fin fans air cooler propane
condenser (AC1).
• Power consumption in the fin fans air cooler propane
subcooler (AC2).
• Propane flow rate in the propane closed cycle.
• Duties of the two air-coolers used for cooling and
subcooling of both gas and liquid propane.
• Total refrigeration duty.
• Total fixed and operating costs for each of the
investigated configurations.
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b04249
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55, 2769−2783
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Figure 1. Four stage propane precooling cycle in the PPMRC process.
Figure 2. Effect of subcooling temperature on propane flow rate in propane cycle.
The Aspen HYSYS process simulator was selected as the
simulation tool because it has features that accommodate many
of the special requirements involved in the NG liquefaction
processes and also due to its dynamic modeling capabil-
ities.71−73 HYSYS extensive thermodynamic libraries include
a wide range of property calculation methods and thus convey
robustness to the property calculations.21 The simulation was
conducted for the three different configurations using the
Peng−Robinson−Stryjek−Vera (PRSV) equation of state
(EOS).74−77 Table S1 shows the mass flow rates (capacity)
and conditions of the natural gas feed and the mixed refrigerant
in a PPMRC of a large capacity C3-MR LNG train with design
MR/NG mass ratio of 2.116 used at the SEGAS (Spanish
Egyptian Gas Company) and the average molecular weight of
MR = 24.907 kg/kg mol. The compositions of the natural gas
feed (lean and rich) and the mixed refrigerant are summarized
in Table S2. The condensation pressure is 18 in the propane
condenser. The temperature and evaporation pressure values
of each compression stage in the propane cycle for the dif-
ferent cases of three, four, and five compression stages are
summarized in Table S3. Figure 1 shows a simulation process
of the liquefaction cycle using Aspen HYSYS. The specifications
2772
Article
and data corresponding to the operational units used in the
simulation of the PPMRC are summarized in Table S4.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Effect of Subcooler Temperature on Propane
Cycle Performance (Lean Feed Gas). The propane pre-
cooling cycle having four compression stages is presented in
Figure 1. The results of the influence of subcooling temperature
on the propane flow rate in the propane cycle are presented
in Figure 2 as well as in Tables 1 and S5. The maximum
subcooling temperature for liquid propane is 35 °C at the
operating pressure of the propane cycle (suction pressure to
compressor is 1.5 bar). It is clear from Figure 2 that as the
subcooling temperature of liquid propane decreased from
50 to 35 °C there was a noticeable reduction in the propane flow
rate in the propane cycle. The reduction in the propane flow rate
is attributed to the increase in the propane liquid fraction
obtained after throttling through the J/T valves. Table S5 reflects
the influence of subcooling temperature of liquid propane in
subcooler on the propane vapor fraction obtained after the
throttling valve located before the mixed refrigerant cooler
(MR/HHP) as shown in Figure 1. It is obvious that the lower
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b04249
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55, 2769−2783
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

Table 1. Effect of Subcooling Temperature on Propane Flow Rate in Each Compression Stage
propane flow rate in compressors, kg/h × 10−5
subcooling temperature, °C 1st stage 2nd stage 3rd stage 4th stage total propane flow rate, kg/h × 10−6 savings, %
50 3.214 8.471 14.22 24.63 2.463 base case
45 3.214 8.471 14.22 23.26 2.326 5.56
40 3.214 8.471 14.22 21.94 2.194 10.92
35 3.214 8.471 14.22 20.81 2.081 15.50

Figure 3. Effect of subcooling temperature on total power consumption of propane compressors.

Table 2. Effect of Subcooling Temperature on Compression Power Consumption in Each Compression Stage
compression power consumption, kW × 10−4
subcooling temperature, °C 1st stage 2nd stage 3rd stage 4th stage total power consumption, kW × 10−4 savings, %
50 0.2700 0.8229 1.316 3.901 6.3099 base case
45 0.2700 0.8229 1.316 3.695 6.1039 3.26
40 0.2700 0.8229 1.316 3.495 5.9039 6.43
35 0.2700 0.8229 1.316 3.323 5.7319 9.16

Figure 4. Effect of subcooling temperature on power consumption of fans in propane condenser.

the subcooling temperature of liquid propane, the lower was
the propane vapor fraction (higher liquid fraction) after the
throttling valve and, thus, at the outlet of MR/HHP cooler
which means that for a specific refrigeration duty, a reduction in
the mass flow rate of cold liquid propane could be used in the
cycle.
The reduction in flow rate of liquid cold propane provided
in the closed propane cycle resulted in reducing the power
consumption of compressors. Figure 3 and Table 2 show the
decrease in total power consumption of compressors in the
2773
propane cycle obtained as the subcooling temperature of liquid
propane decreases from 50 to 35 °C. Table 2 presents the
power consumption in different compression stages of the
propane cycle. Figures 4 and 5 show that the power consumption
decreased in the propane condenser while it increased in the
propane subcooler as propane subcooling temperature decreased
from 50 to 35 °C. It is apparent from Figures 6 and 7 that as
the subcooling temperature of liquid propane decreases from
50 to 35 °C the total power consumption for propane com-
pressors and fans of both propane condenser (AC1) and propane
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b04249
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55, 2769−2783
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

Figure 5. Effect of subcooling temperature on power consumption of fans in propane subcooler.

Figure 6. Effect of subcooling temperature on total power consumption in propane compressors and fans of propane condenser and propane
subcooler.

Figure 7. Effect of subcooling temperature on savings of total power in compressors and fans of propane condenser and propane subcooler.

subcooler (AC2) decreased from 6.73 × 104 to 6.05 × 104 kW
and a noticeable savings of the total power consumption of
10.12% was achieved. This savings is attributed to the reduction
of the power consumption of propane compressors since they
almost play the dominating role in the total power consumption
evaluation.
4.2. Effect of Natural Gas Feed Quality on Propane
Precooling Cycle. Figures 8−10 represent the influence of
subcooling temperature in propane subcooler on propane flow
2774
rate in the propane cycle and power consumption for both cases
of lean and rich feed gas using the same number of compres-
sion stages (four stages) in the propane cycle. It is clear from
Figure 8 that both cases of lean and rich feed gas possessed
the same trend, and the propane flow rate was reduced with
the decrease of subcooling temperature of liquid propane. But
propane flow rate required for the case of rich feed gas was
greater than the corresponding propane flow rate required in
the case of lean feed gas by about 1% at 35 °C subcooling
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b04249
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55, 2769−2783
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

Figure 8. Effect of subcooling temperature on propane flow rate in propane cycle for lean and rich feed gas.

Figure 9. Effect of subcooling temperature on total power consumption of compressors for lean and rich feed gas.

Figure 10. Effect of subcooling temperature on power consumption of fans in propane condenser for lean and rich feed gas.

temperature. This is attributed to the increase of content of
heavier hydrocarbons (C2+) in the rich feed gas causing a higher
enthalpy difference for the rich gas and leading to a higher
refrigeration duty being required; thus, a higher propane flow
rate was needed.
The reduction in the liquid cold propane flow rate provided
in the closed propane cycle results in reducing the power
consumption of compressors for both cases of lean and rich
feed gas. It is apparent from Figure 9 that as the subcooling
2775
temperature of liquid propane decreased from 50 to 35 °C,
the total power consumption of compressors in the propane
cycle decreased for both cases of lean and rich feed gas.
This benefit must be balanced against the installation cost and
power consumption cost of the subcooler. Also, the power
consumption of compressors for the case of rich feed gas was
always slightly greater than the corresponding power consump-
tion in the case of lean feed gas attributed to the presence of
more C2+ in the case of rich gas.
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b04249
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55, 2769−2783
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Figure 11. Effect of subcooling temperature on power consumption of fans in propane subcooler for lean and rich feed gas.
Figure 12. Effect of subcooling temperature on power consumption of fans in both propane condenser and propane subcooler for lean and rich
feed gas.
Figure 10 shows that the decrease in subcooling temperature
of liquid propane leads to a considerable reduction in the power
consumption of fans in the propane condenser (AC1) for both
cases of lean and rich feed gas while the power consumption of
fans in the propane condenser (AC1) for the case of rich gas
feed was slightly greater than the power consumption in the
case of lean gas feed which is related to the higher content of
C2+ in the rich gas feed. On the other hand, Figure 11 reveals
that this decrease in the subcooling temperature of liquid
propane was accompanied by a remarkable increase in the
power consumption of fans in the propane subcooler (AC2) for
both lean and rich feed gas because of the increase in propane
temperature difference required in the propane subcooler. It is
also shown that the power consumption of fans in the propane
subcooler (AC2) for the case of rich feed gas was slightly
greater than the corresponding power consumption for the case
of lean feed gas.
Figure 12 shows that there was a considerable reduction in
the total power consumption of fans with the decrease of the
subcooling temperature of the liquid propane while its value
for the case of rich gas feed was slightly greater than that
for lean feed gas, a result attributed to the presence of higher
contents of C2+ in the rich gas. It is clear from Figure 13 that
as the subcooling temperature of liquid propane decreased,
a considerable reduction in the total power consumption in
2776
Article
compressors and fans of the propane condenser and pro-
pane subcooler was obtained for lean and rich feed gas
where the total power consumption for the case of rich
feed gas was greater than that for the case of lean feed
gas. Results reflected the dominating role of the power
consumption of propane compressors as compared to the
power requirements of fans of propane condenser and
propane subcooler.
4.3. Effect of Number of Compression Stages on
Propane Cycle Performance (Lean Feed Gas). Figure 14
and Table 3 show that the decrease in the subcooling
temperature was accompanied by a considerable reduction in
the propane flow rate in the propane cycle for the different
cases of three, four, and five compression stages. Moreover, it is
apparent that as the number of propane compression stages
increased, a noticeable reduction in the propane flow rate in the
propane cycle was obtained for any subcooling temperature.
This is due to the lower enthalpy resulting for the liquid
propane which in turn increases the enthalpy difference of
propane in each evaporator (chiller) and, thus, increases the
propane refrigeration capacity. A savings in the propane flow
rate of about 1.8% was obtained when the number of propane
compression stages was increased from three to five stages
at a subcooling temperature of 35 °C for liquid propane in the
subcooler (AC2).
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b04249
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55, 2769−2783
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

Figure 13. Effect of subcooling temperature on total power consumption in compressors and fans of propane condenser and propane subcooler for
lean and rich feed gas.

Figure 14. Effect of subcooling temperature and number of compression stages on propane flow rate in propane cycle (lean feed gas).

Table 3. Effect of Number of Compression Stages on
Propane Flow Rate in Propane Cycle for Different
Subcooling Temperatures (Lean Feed Gas)
propane flow rate in propane cycle, kg/h × 10−6
35a 40a 45a
three stages 2.108 2.223 2.357
four stages 2.081 2.194 2.326
five stages 2.070 2.183 2.314
a
Subcooling temperature, °C.
Figure 15 shows that the power consumption in compressors
in the propane cycle is markedly reduced as the number of
propane compression stages is increased from three to five stages
resulting in 10.2% savings at 35 °C subcooling temperature of
liquid propane. The achieved results in this multistaging is due
to that heat removal encountered from the propane stream
at the interstage pressure and lower discharge temperatures
from the high-stage compressor than would be produced by a
single-stage system at the same pressure differential between
condensing and evaporating pressures of the cycle. Accordingly,
an increase in refrigeration capacity of propane refrigerant
is affected. Thus, the liquid propane refrigerant enters the
evaporator at a lower enthalpy and, thus, increases the resultant
refrigeration effect. Consequently, a lower propane flow rate was
required which reduced the power requirement in compressors.
Moreover, the compression ratio of each stage in a multi-
stage system was smaller than that in a single-stage unit, so
compressor efficiency was increased. Thus, energy consumption
was reduced as the number of stages increased. The drawbacks
of the multistage system are the higher initial cost and the
50a more complicated system than that for a single-stage system.
2.495 Figures 16 and 17 show that the individual power consump-
2.463 tion of fans in propane condenser and propane subcooler were
2.450 slightly reduced with the increase of number of compres-
sion stages from three to five stages at any subcooling
temperature.
It is apparent from Figure 18 that the summation of total
power consumption for the propane compressors and the two
air cooler fans was considerably reduced with the decrease of
subcooling temperature of liquid propane and, also, with
the increase of number of compression stages from three to
five stages at any subcooling temperature. This is due to the
resultant increase in refrigeration effect which in turn
decreased the propane flow rate requirement resulting in a
savings of 9.5% in the total power consumption in the case of
five stages.
Figure 19 and Table S6 summarize the influence of the
number of propane compression stages on the savings of propane
flow rate in the propane cycle, total power consumption, and total
duty of both propane condenser and propane subcooler at the
subcooling temperature of 35 °C.
2777 DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b04249
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55, 2769−2783
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

Figure 15. Effect of subcooling temperature and number of compression stages on power consumption of compressors.

Figure 16. Effect of subcooling temperature and number of compression stages on power consumption of fans in propane condenser.

4.4. Cost Evaluation. of gas turbine27 = 32.7%, and CV = volumetric calorific value of
natural gas78 = 38612 kJ/m3.
Total cost = Operating cost + Fixed cost The brake horse power of fans for the propane condenser
(AC1) and the propane subcooler (AC2) were determined
⎛ $ ⎞ according to the thermal design procedure given by GPSA.79
Operating cost ⎜ ⎟ Industrial electricity cost per kWh (Egypt) = LE 0.325 =
⎝ year ⎠
$ 0.046 per kWh (Egyptian electric utility and consumer’s
⎡ compressor n ⎛ s ⎞ ⎤ protection regularity agency, ERA 2013).
= ⎢[ ∑ power (kWh)] × τp ⎜ ⎟C NG⎥ The purchased cost of compressors and that of gas turbine
⎢⎣ compressor 1 ⎝ year ⎠ ⎥⎦ were determined80−82 where the gas turbine cost is 300 $/kW.
⎡ ⎛ kJ ⎞⎤ Fixed cost includes cost of purchased equipment, installation,
/⎢μ × C V ⎜ 3 ⎟⎥ (gas turbine) piping, civil, instrumentation, and others (obtained using Aspen
⎣ ⎝ m ⎠⎦
HYSYS V 7.3), and a lifetime equal to 20 years was estimated
fan n
⎛ $ ⎞ for the process.
+ ∑ power (kWh) × electricity cost ⎝⎜ ⎟ It is clear from Figures 20−23 that the presented results are
fan 1 kWh ⎠ in accordance with those previously obtained for the propane
⎛ h ⎞ flow rate and power consumption of propane compressors and
× τp ⎜ ⎟ (fans of C3 condenser) propane condenser and subcooler. It is shown from the figures
⎝ year ⎠
that the cost of total power consumption was reduced as the
fan n
⎛ $ ⎞ number of propane compression stages was increased. The total
+ ∑ power (kWh) × electricity cost⎝⎜ ⎟
power cost and the respective savings encountered in the
kWh ⎠
fan 1 optimum configuration of four compression stages in the propane
⎛ h ⎞ cycle are presented in Table 4 at the different subcooling
× τp ⎜ ⎟ (fans of C3 subcooler)
⎝ year ⎠ temperatures showing that 35 °C subcooling temperature gave
the least total power cost and, thus, the highest savings, 10.84%.
where power = total power consumed in compressors or fans, This is relative to the savings of 4.34% and 7.95% as the propane
kWh, τp = time conversion factor, CNG = Cost of natural gas subcooling temperature decreased from 50 to 45 °C and 40 °C,
(Egypt)78 = 0.62 LE/m3 = 0.089 $/m3, μ = thermal efficiency respectively. The fixed costs and the total annual operating cost
2778 DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b04249
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55, 2769−2783
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

Figure 17. Effect of subcooling temperature and number of compression stages on power consumption of fans in propane subcooler.

Figure 18. Effect of subcooling temperature and number of compression stages on total power consumption of compressors and fans of both
propane condenser and propane subcooler.

Figure 19. Influence of number of stages on the savings in the propane cycle of propane flow rate, total power consumption, and total duty of both
(AC1 and AC2) at 35 °C subcooling temperature.

for the different numbers of propane compression stages at
the optimum subcooling temperature of 35 °C are summarized in
Table S7 from which it is clear that the propane precooling cycle
operating with four compression stages had the lowest annual
total cost (operating and fixed cost). The fixed cost was highest
for five compression stages due to the increase in the number of
equipment. On applying five compression stages, the increase in
2779
fixed cost is considerably higher than the extent of decrease in
operating cost resulting in a final increase in the total cost of the
process. The savings in the annual total cost at the optimum
subcooling temperature of liquid propane of 35 °C and for four
compression stages in the propane precooling cycle was about
1.14 × 106 $/year representing 4.75% as compared to the base
case having three compression stages.
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b04249
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55, 2769−2783
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

Figure 20. Effect of subcooling temperature and number of stages on the power cost of propane compressors.

Figure 21. Effect of subcooling temperature and number of stages on the power cost of propane condenser.

Figure 22. Effect of subcooling temperature and number of stages on the power cost of propane subcooler.

5. CONCLUSIONS and 35 °C, respectively. However, the resultant propane flow

The effects of variation of the subcooling temperature of
propane in the propane subcooler and the number of propane
compression stages on the propane precooling cycle in an LNG
plant using the PPMRC technique were determined while
handling either lean or rich natural gas. The required propane
flow rates in the cycle for both cases of lean and rich feed gas
were detected on decreasing the subcooling temperature in the
propane subcooler. The propane flow rate in the propane cycle
handling lean feed gas decreased by 5.56%, 10.92%, and 15.5%
as the subcooling temperature decreased from 50 to 45, 40,
2780
rate values obtained for rich feed gas were greater than the
corresponding flow rates in the case of lean feed gas, and these
differences perceived are due to the higher content of C2+ in the
rich feed gas. Computations showed that the total power con-
sumption of propane compressors and of propane condenser
were markedly reduced on decreasing the subcooling temper-
ature in the cycle, and this decrease in power consumption
exceeded the increase in power consumption in propane
subcooler resulting in a savings in the overall total power
consumption of the propane cycle. The resultant savings in the
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b04249
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55, 2769−2783
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Figure 23. Effect of subcooling temperature and number of stages on the total power cost of propane compressors, propane condenser, and propane
subcooler.
Table 4. Power Cost Savings for Optimum Configuration of
Four Compression Stages
number of stages four stages
subcooling temperature, °C 50 45 40
total power cost, $/Year × 10−6 15.681 15 14.435
savings, $/Year × 10−6 base case 0.681 1.246
savings, % base case 4.34 7.95
energy consumption in the propane precooling cycle amounted
to 4.34% and 7.95% as the propane subcooling temperature
decreased from 50 to 45 °C and to 40 °C, respectively. It was
determined that a subcooling temperature of 35 °C gave the
least total power cost and, thus, the highest savings in energy
consumption, 10.84%. Thus, the optimal subcooling temper-
ature for the liquid propane in the propane precooling cycle is
35 °C. Nevertheless, the required total power consumption of
propane compressors and of fans in the propane condenser and
propane subcooler for the case of rich feed gas was shown to
be always higher than the corresponding power consumption
for the case of lean feed gas at the different subcooling
temperatures: 45, 40, and 35 °C in the cycle.
Results showed that the savings in propane flow rate were
1.28% and 1.8% on applying four and five compression stages,
respectively, in the propane precooling cycle at the most
favorable subcooling temperature for liquid propane, 35 °C.
Further, the reduction in the total power consumption in propane
compressors, propane condenser, and propane subcooler
accounted to 6.85% and 9.5% on using four and five
compression stages, respectively, in the propane cycle at this
subcooling temperature. Moreover, the increase in the number
of compression stages in the cycle from three to four and five
stages provided savings in the total duties of propane condenser
and propane subcooler in the propane cycle amounting to
2.07% and 2.87%, respectively, at the subcooling temperature
of 35 °C.
The lowest annual power cost and propane cost were
computed for the case of five compression stages in the propane
precooling cycle. However, the five compression stages
encountered a significantly high fixed cost which had a resultant
effect of increasing the annual total cost. The savings in the
annual total cost at the subcooling temperature of liquid
propane of 35 °C and at four compression stages in the propane
cycle was 4.75%, while the savings in the annual total cost was
relatively lower, 3.55% on applying five compression stages in
Article
the cycle. Hence, the obtained results revealed that the propane
precooling cycle operating with four compression stages had the
lowest annual total cost compared to the other number of
compression stages. Thus, the best subcooling temperature of
35
liquid propane in the propane precooling cycle is 35 °C, and
13.982
the optimum number of compression stages is four stages.
1.699
The determined values for the subcooling temperature and
10.84
the number of compression stages enhanced the performance
characteristics of the propane precooling cycle, providing
adequate savings in the total cost relative to other values of
operating and design parameters.
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
* Supporting Information
S
The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the
ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b04249.
Tables showing natural gas feed and mixed refrigerant
(MR) conditions and compositions, temperature and
pressure values at each compression stage for the three,
four, and five compression stages in the propane cycle,
operating units used in the propane precooling cycle in
the PPMRC process, effect of subcooling temperature of
liquid propane on propane vapor fraction after the
throttling valve and the MR/HHP evaporator, influence
of number of stages on the savings in the propane cycle
of propane flow rate, total power consumption, and total
duty of both AC1 and AC2 at 35 °C, and fixed cost and
total annual cost at the optimum value of subcooling
temperature for different numbers of compression stages
(PDF)
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*(H.I.N.) Tel.: 00202-27364657. E-mail: hinabih@yahoo.com.
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Al-Megren, H. A. Advances in Natural Gas Technology; InTech:
2012. DOI: 10.5772/2324.
(2) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Proposal on Cleaner or Less Greenhouse Gas-emitting Energy,
Subsidiary body for scientific and technological advice, 16th Session,
Bonn, June 5−14, 2002.
2781 DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b04249
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55, 2769−2783
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
(3) Saffari, H.; Fasihbeiki, M. Modeling and Optimization of a C3MR
LNG Plant Efficiency by Change of Mixed Refrigerants Components; LNG
Research Laboratory, School of Mechanical Engineering, Iran
University of Science and Technology: 2008.
(4) Mokhatab, S.; Economides, M. J.; Wood, D. A. Natural Gas and
LNG Trade - A Global Perspective. Hydrocarbon Processing 2006, 85
(7), 39.
(5) BP, Statistical Review of World Energy, 2012. British Petroleum
(BP) Statistical Review: June 2012.
(6) EIA’s International Energy Outlook 2013 (IEO 2013); U.S.
Department of Energy Report no. DOE/EIA; July 25, 2013.
(7) Kidnay, A. J.; Parrish, W. R. Fundamentals of Natural Gas
Processing; Taylor and Francis Group, LLC: 2006.
(8) Mokhatab, S.; Poe, W. A..; Speight, J. G. Handbook of Natural Gas
Transmission and Processing; 1st ed.; Oxford, Gulf Professional
Publishing: 2006.
(9) Kumar, S.; Kwon, H.-T.; Choi, K.-H.; Cho, J. H.; Lim, W.; Moon,
I. Current Status and Future Projections of LNG Demand and
Supplies: A global Prospective. Energy Policy 2011, 39 (7), 4097−4104.
(10) Ajor, W. A. Functional Thermodynamic Model Equations for
Simulation of Compression-Liquefaction Process of Natural Gas Plant.
Trans. J. Sci. Technol. 2013, 3 (3), 51−71.
(11) Tinker, S. W.; Foss, M. M. Introduction to LNG- An overview of
natural gas liquefied (LNG), its properties, organization of the LNG
industry and safety considerations; Bureau of Economic Geology, Centre
for Energy Economics (CEE), University of Texas-Austin: January
2007.
(12) Patel, A.; Caswell, C.; Durr, C. North American LNG terminals:
Options? Hydrocarbon Processing 2005, 45.
(13) International Gas Union (IGU). World LNG Report (Interna-
tional Gas Union, News, Views and Knowledge on Gas Worldwide), 2014
edition; 2014.
(14) Lin, W.; Zhang, N.; Gu, A. LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas): A
Necessary Part in China’s Future Energy Infrastructure. Energy 2010,
35 (11), 4383−4391.
(15) DOE. Liquefied Natural Gas: Understanding the Basic Facts,
DOE/FE-0489; Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy:
Washington, DC, August 2005.
(16) Tak, K.; Lim, W.; Choi, K.; Ko, D.; Moon, I. Optimization of
mixed-refrigerant system in LNG liquefaction process. Comput.-Aided
Chem. Eng. 2011, 29, 1824.
(17) Morin, A.; Wahl, P. E.; Molnvik, M. Using Evolutionary Search
to Optimize the Energy Consumption for Natural Gas Liquefaction.
Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2011, 89, 2428−244.
(18) Wang, M.; Zhang, J.; Xu, Q.; Li, K. Thermodynamic-Analysis-
Based Energy Consumption Minimization for Natural Gas Lique-
faction. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50 (22), 12630−12640.
(19) Lim, W.; Choi, K.; Moon, I. Current Status and Perspectives of
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Plant Design. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013,
52 (9), 3065−3088.
(20) Lim, W.; Lee, I.; Tak, K.; Cho, J. H.; Ko, D.; Moon, I. Efficient
Configuration of a Natural Gas Liquefaction Process for Energy
Recovery. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014, 53 (5), 1973−1985.
(21) Khan, M. S.; Lee, S.; Getu, M.; Lee, M. Knowledge inspired
investigation of selected parameters on energy consumption in
nitrogen single and dual expander processes of natural gas liquefaction.
J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2015, 23, 324−337.
(22) Lim, W.; Lee, I.; Lee, K.; Lyu, B.; Kim, J.; Moon, I. Design and
Analysis of Multi-stage Expander Processes for Liquefying Natural
Gas. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2014, 31 (9), 1522−1531.
(23) Bosma, P.; Nagelvoort, R. K. Liquefaction Technology;
Developments through History. Proceedings of the 1st Annual Gas
Processing Symposium; Elsevier B.V: 2009.
(24) Wang, X.; Economides, M. J. Advanced Natural Gas Engineering;
1st ed.; Gulf Publishing Company: September 2009.
(25) Ikealumba, W. C.; Wu, H. Some Recent Advances in Liquefied
Natural Gas (LNG) Production, Spill, Dispersion and Safety. Energy
Fuels 2014, 28 (6), 3556−3586.
2782
Article
(26) He, T.; Ju, Y. L. Design and Optimization of a Novel Mixed
Refrigerant Cycle Integrated with NGL Recovery Process for Small-
scale LNG Plant. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014, 53 (13), 5545−5553.
(27) General Electric Oil and Gas (GE Oil & Gas). Liquefied Natural
Gas: Enhanced Solutions for LNG Plants; 2006.
(28) Seung-Whan, B.; Sang-Kwon, J.; Sun-Young, K. Investigation on
Efficiency Improvement of the Nitrogen Expander Cycle: Natural Gas
Liquefaction Process for LNG-FPSO. Korean Journal of Air
Conditioning and Refrigeration Engineering 2010, 22 (7), 442−447.
(29) Ibrahim, T. K.; Rahman, M. M.; Abdalla, A. N. Improvement of
Gas Turbine Performance Based on Inlet Air Cooling Systems: A
Technical Review. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 2011, 6 (4), 620−627.
(30) Khalilpour, R.; Karimi, I. A. Evaluation of Utilization
Alternatives for Standard Natural gas. Energy 2012, 40, 317−328.
(31) Dauber, F.; Span, R. Modeling Liquefied Natural Gas Processes
Using Highly Accurate Property Models. Appl. Energy 2012, 97, 822−
827.
(32) Lee, I.; Tak, K.; Lim, W.; Choi, K.; Moon, I. Deterministic
Optimization of Pure Refrigerant System in C3MR Process. Presented
at the 6th International Conference on Process Systems Engineering
(PSE ASIA), Kuala Lumpur, June 25−27, 2013.
(33) Lee, S.; Van Duc, N. L.; Lee, M. Design and Optimization
Processes for Offshore Floating Liquefied Natural Gas Plants. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 2012, 51 (30), 10021−10030.
(34) Yoon, J.-I.; Choi, W.-J.; Lee, S.; Choe, K.; Shim, G.-J. Efficiency
of Cascade Refrigeration Cycle Using C3H8, N2O, and N2. Heat
Transfer Eng. 2013, 34 (11−12), 959−965.
(35) Vink, K. J.; Nagelvoort, R. K. Comparison of Base Load
Liquefaction Processes. Presented at the 1998 Intl. Conference on
Liquefied Natural Gas, Perth, Australia, May 4−7, 1998.
(36) Andress, D. L. The Phillips Optimized Cascade LNG Process: A
Quarter Century of Improvements. Phillips Petroleum Company,
1996. The Permission of the Institute of Gas Technology. http://
lnglicensing.conocophillips.com/NR/rdonlyres/FBB538DA-256D-
4B96A844-5D147F4441CF/0/quartercentury.pdf.
(37) Fisher, B.; Boutelant, P. A New LNG Process Is Now Available.
Presented at the GPA Europe Technical Meeting, London, England,
February 2002.
(38) Martin, P.; Pigourier, J.; Fischer, B. Natural Gas Liquefaction
Processes Comparison. Presented at AICHE Spring National Meeting,
2003.
(39) Lee, H. S.; Oh, S. T.; Yoon, J. I.; Lee, S. G.; Choi, K. H. Defect
Diffus. Forum 2010, 297−301, 1146−1151.
(40) Roberts, M. J.; Liu, Y. N.; Bronfenbrenner, J. C.; Petrowski, J. M.
Reducing LNG Capital Cost in Today’s Competitive Environment.
PS2-6. Presented at The 14th International Conference and Exhibition
on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG14), Doha, Qatar, March 21−24,
2004.
(41) Pwaga, S. S. Sensitivity Analysis of Proposed Liquefaction Processes
for LNG, FPSO; Norwegian University of Science and Technology:
July 2011.
(42) Pillarella, M.; Liu, Y.-N.; Petrowski, J.; Bower, R. The C3MR
Liquefaction Cycle: Versatility for a Fast Growing, Ever Changing
LNG Industry. Presented at the Fifteenth International Conference on
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG 15), Barcelona, Spain, April 24−27,
2007.
(43) Rodgers, P.; Mortazavi, A.; Eveloy, V.; Al-Hashimi, S.; Hwang,
Y.; Radermacher, R. Enhancement of LNG Plant Propane Cycle
through Waste Heat Powered Absorption Cooling. Appl. Therm. Eng.
2012, 48, 41−53.
(44) Wang, M.; Khalilpour, R.; Abbas, A. Thermodynamic and
Economic Optimization of LNG Mixed Refrigerant Processes. Energy
Convers. Manage. 2014, 88, 947−961.
(45) Mokhatab, S.; Mak, J. Y.; Valappil, J. V.; Wood, D. A. Handbook
of Liquefied Natural Gas; Gulf Professional Publishing: 2013.
(46) Kotzot, H.; Durr, C.; Coyle, C. LNG Liquefaction - Not all
plants are created equal. International Conference and Exhibition on
Liquefied Natural Gas. Presented at the Fifteenth International
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b04249
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55, 2769−2783
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Conference on LNG Industry (LNG 15), Barcelona, Spain, 2007; pp
1−19.
(47) Gas Processors and Suppliers Association (GPSA). Gas
Processors Suppliers Association’s Engineering Data Book; 13th ed.;
2012; Section 14, “Refrigeration”.
(48) Castillo, M.; Dahouk, M.; Di Scipio, S.; Dorao, C. A. Conceptual
Analysis of the Pre-cooling Stage for LNG Processes. Energy Convers.
Manage. 2013, 66, 41−47.
(49) Dahouk, M. M. Evaluation and selection of the pre-cooling stage
for LNG processes. Master Thesis, Norwegian University of Science
and Technology, Department of Energy and Process Engineering,
2012.
(50) Ha, S.; Lee, K.-Y. Representing and Constructing Liquefaction
Cycle Alternatives for FLNG Feed Using System Entity Structure
Concepts. Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean Eng. 2014, 6, 598−625.
(51) Del Nogal, F.; Kim, J.-K.; Perry, S.; Smith, R. Optimal Design of
Mixed Refrigerant Cycles. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008, 47 (22), 8724−
8740.
(52) Tak, K.; Lee, I.; Kwon, H.; Kim, J.; Ko, D.; Moon, I.
Comparison of Multistage Compression Configurations for Single
Mixed Refrigerant Processes. . Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54 (41),
9992−10000.
(53) Alabdulkarem, A.; Mortazavi, A.; Hwang, Y.; Radermacher, R.;
Rogers, P. Optimization of Propane Pre-cooled Mixed Refrigerant
LNG Plant. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2011, 31 (6), 1091−1098.
(54) Khan, M. S.; Lee, S.; Lee, M. Y. Optimization of Single Mixed
Refrigerant Natural Gas Liquefaction Plant with Nonlinear Program-
ming. Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2012, 7 (S1), 62−70.
(55) Husnil, Y. A.; Yeo, G. C.; Lee, M. Plant-wide Control for the
Economic Operation of Modified Single Mixed Refrigerant Process for
an Offshore Natural Gas Liquefaction Plant. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2014,
92, 679−691.
(56) Guerrero-Navia, R.; Gonzalez, D. M. Comparative Analysis of
Natural Gas Liquefaction Processes. Presented at XVIII Convencion
de Gas, AVPG, Caracas, Venzuela, May 27−29, 2008.
(57) Khan, M. S.; Lee, S.; Rangaiah, G. P.; Lee, M. Y. Knowledge
Based Decision Making Method for the Selection of Mixed Refrigerant
Systems for Energy Efficient LNG Processes. Appl. Energy 2013, 111,
1018−1031.
(58) Khan, M. S.; Chaniaga, Y. D.; Getu, M.; Lee, M. Energy Saving
Opportunities in Integrated NGL/LNG Schemes Exploiting: Thermal-
coupling Common-utilities and Process Knowledge. Chem. Eng.
Process. 2014, 82, 54−64.
(59) Husnil, Y. A.; Choi, B.; Park, J.; Andika, R.; Lee, M. Optimizing
Control Structure for Dual Mixed Refrigerant Process. Presented at
the 5th International Symposium on Advanced Control of Industrial
Processes, Hiroshima, Japan, May 28−30, 2014.
(60) Hwang, J.-H.; Roh, M. I.; Lee, K.-Y. Determination of the
Optimal Operating Conditions of the Dual Mixed Refrigerant Cycle
for the LNG FPSO Topside Liquefaction Process. Comput. Chem. Eng.
2013, 49 (1), 25−36.
(61) Pereira, C.; Handaya, A. S.; Sutrasno, K. Thermodynamic
Analysis for Liquefaction of Natural Gas Using the C3-MR
Refrigeration Process. Int. J. Chem. Eng. Appl. 2014, 5 (1), 17−22.
(62) Xu, X.; Liu, J.; Jiang, C.; Cao, L. The Correlation between
Mixed Refrigerant Composition and Ambient Conditions in the
PRICO LNG Process. Appl. Energy 2013, 102, 1127−1136.
(63) Xu, X.; Liu, J.; Cao, L.; Pang, W. Automatically Varying the
Composition of a Mixed Refrigerant LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas)
Process at Changing Working Conditions. Energy 2014, 64, 931−941.
(64) Lee, G. C.; Smith, R.; Zhu, X. X. Optimal Synthesis of Mixed
Refrigerant Systems for Low Temperature Processes. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 2002, 41 (20), 5016−5028.
(65) Hatcher, P.; Khalilpour, R.; Abbas, A. Optimization of LNG
Mixed Refrigerant Processes Considering Operation and Design
Objectives. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2012, 41, 123−133.
(66) Khan, M. S.; Lee, S.; Rangaiah, G. P.; Lee, M. Knowledge Based
Decision Making Method for the Selection of Mixed Refrigerant
2783
Article
Systems for Energy Efficient LNG Processes. Appl. Energy 2013, 111,
1018−1031.
(67) Shirazi, M. H.; Mowla, D. Energy Optimization for Liquefaction
Process of Natural Gas in Peak Shaving Plant. Energy 2010, 35 (7),
2878−2885.
(68) Roberts, M. J.; Liu, Y. N.; Bronfenbrenner, J. C.; Petrowski, J. M.
Large Capacity Single Train AP-X Hybrid LNG Process; Air Products
and Chemical, Inc., GasTech: Doha, October 13, 2002.
(69) Shukri, T. LNG Technology Selection. Hydrocarbon Engineering
2004, 9 (2), 71−74.
(70) Vaidyaraman, S.; Maranas, C. D. Synthesis of Mixed Refrigerant
Cascade Cycles. Chem. Eng. Commun. 2002, 189 (8), 1057−1078.
(71) HYSYS. Users Guide; Tech. rep.; Aspen Technology Inc.: 2007.
(72) Hanyak, M. E., Jr. Chemical Process Simulation and the Aspen
HYSYS Software; CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; July
28, 2012.
(73) Castillo, L.; Dorao, C. Consensual Decision-making Model
Based on Game Theory for LNG Processes. Energy Convers. Manage.
2012, 64, 387−396.
(74) Peng, D.; Robinson, D. A New Two-constant Equation of State.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 1976, 15 (1), 59−64.
(75) Samir, T. Simulation and Optimization of a Liquid Natural Gas
Plant Using Propane Pre-cooling Mixed Refrigerant Cycle as Applied to
Egyptian Sources of Natural Gas; Cairo University, Faculty of
Engineering, Chemical Engineering Dept.: 2001.
(76) Mortazavi, A.; Somers, C.; Alabdulkarem, A.; Hwang, Y. H.;
Radermacher, R. Enhancement of APCI Cycle Efficiency with
Absorption Chillers. Energy 2010, 35, 3877−3882.
(77) Baek, S.; Hwang, G.; Lee, C.; Jeong, S.; Choi, D. Novel Design
of LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) Reliquefaction Process. Energy
Convers. Manage. 2011, 52 (8−9), 2807−2814.
(78) Energy Information Administration (EIA). Annual Energy
Outlook 2012, DOE/EIA-0383(2012); June 2012.
(79) Gas Processors and Suppliers Association (GPSA). Engineering
Data Book, FPS version, 11th ed.; 1998; Volume I, Section 14. http://
wwwgasprocessors.com/gpsa_book.html.
(80) Seider, W. D.; Seader, J. D.; Lewin, D. R. Product and Process
Design Principles: Synthesis Analysis and Evaluation, 2nd ed.; Wiley:
New York, NY, 2003.
(81) Peters, M. S.; Timmerhaus, K. D. Plant Design and Economics for
Chemical Engineers, 5th ed.; McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.: New York,
NY, 2003.
(82) Boyce, M. P. Gas Turbine Engineering Handbook, 3rd ed.; Gulf
Professional Publishing: 2006.
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b04249
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55, 2769−2783