PROJECT REPORT (CPDP)

Modeling and Simulation of liquefaction of natural gas

by AP-X® process using Aspen HYSYS

COMSATS UNIVERSITY ISLAMABAD LAHORE CAMPUS

DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

SUPERVISOR: Dr. FAISAL AHMAD

MEMBERS REGISTRATION #
Muhammad Junaid FA17-CHE-046
Sheraz Ahmed FA17-CHE-001
Muhammd Hassan FA17-CHE-061
Muhammad Haris FA17-CHE-060
Faisal Mushtaq FA17-CHE-029

Supervisor signature:

d 1
Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Background........................................................................................................................................ 4
Objective ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Scope .................................................................................................................................................. 5
Literature Review .................................................................................................................................. 5
Process Description ............................................................................................................................... 5
Process Modeling ................................................................................................................................... 6
References .............................................................................................................................................. 7

d 2
 ABSTRACT

LNG is the most green and efficient gas but has very high transportation cost due to its gaseous
nature. The AP-X Process is proven to be an energy-efficient process for the larger LNG
production industries. It is studied that this process can be even more energy efficient using a
genetic algorithm to optimize the process with a suitable refrigerant for the sub-cooling cycle. It is
also be noted that the energy of consumption of an optimized AP-X process is drastically
decreased, which clearly shows that AP-X process is the most efficient process for the liquefaction
process in large industries. Further improvements in energy consumptions can be made by focusing
on the polytropic efficiency of compressors. In this mini project, natural gas liquefaction process
(AP-X ®) will be modeled and simulated using Aspen HYSYS.

d 3
Introduction

Background:

Natural gas is attributed predominantly with its low carbon emission and meeting the strict
environmental regulations [1-3]. It is therefore acknowledged as one of the most appropriate fuel
among all other fossil fuels e.g. coal and oil. It has a share of 23% currently in total global energy
consumption. According to Shell Gas & Power Developments B.V (Shell) the demand of natural
gas is to be increased from the year 2010 to 2030 by 60% [4]. Its reservoirs are usually located in
remote areas. It can either be transported through pipelines or can be transported through cargo
ships in liquefied form also known as liquefied natural gas (LNG). Due to political and technical
issues, pipeline transportation is a challenging task, especially when it has to be transported to
another country. Liquefaction of natural gas is considered safe and economical for its
transportation compared to the transportation in gaseous form [5]. In order to fulfill the worldwide
LNG demand, unceasing growth of the LNG industry is indispensable over the coming decades.
However, LNG production is generally considered to be a cost and energy intensive process, with
the liquefaction facilities normally accounting for 40–50% [6] of the total LNG value chain cost
and 1188 kJ/kg [5] energy is required to liquefy one kilogram natural gas.

Natural gas is one the pure form of energy whose demand is increasing day by day. According to
statistical data from Shell Oil Company the demand of the natural gas will be increased to 60%
from 2010 to 2030. So natural gas is becoming a more than a need for each country. Natural gas
can be transported by pipelines or vehicles or ships. But due to some political and technical issues,
there are many troubles for transporting the natural gas through pipelines from country to country.

The liquefaction of gas is an extremely energy consuming process. To cool down the natural gas
a lot of energy is required to do so in a large LNG plant. It becomes too costly even more than the
expense of gas itself. To eliminate this issue, Shell gas and power developments B.V introduced
the AP-X technology.

AP-X technology is a really big revolution in the field of power. It changed the way of
transportation of NG. transportation by cargo and road vehicles became preferable because it was
less power consuming. AP-X process is extremely power efficient as compared to typical C3MR
process. More the power efficiency lesser will be the overall expense.

Objective:

Natural gas liquefaction process (AP-X ®) in a large-scale LNG plant will be modeled using Aspen
HYSYS.

d 4
Scope:

The motivation to do this project is the wide range of applications in the production of LNG. As
there is vast increase in the demand of LNG, further optimization can make it even more power
efficient.

Literature Review
Natural gas is attributed predominantly with its low carbon emission and meeting the strict environmental
regulations [1-3]. It is therefore acknowledged as one of the most appropriate fuel among all other fossil
fuels e.g. coal and oil. It has a share of 23% currently in total global energy consumption. According to
Shell Gas & Power Developments B.V (Shell) the demand of natural gas is to be increased from the year
2010 to 2030 by 60% [4]. Its reservoirs are usually located in remote areas. It can either be transported
through pipelines or can be transported through cargo ships in liquefied form also known as liquefied natural
gas (LNG). Due to political and technical issues, pipeline transportation is a challenging task, especially
when it has to be transported to another country. Liquefaction of natural gas is considered safe and
economical for its transportation compared to the transportation in gaseous form [5]. In order to fulfill the
worldwide LNG demand, unceasing growth of the LNG industry is indispensable over the coming decades.
However, LNG production is generally considered to be a cost and energy intensive process, with the
liquefaction facilities normally accounting for 40–50% [6] of the total LNG value chain cost and 1188 kJ/kg
[5] energy is required to liquefy one-kilogram natural gas.

Liquefaction of natural gas is energy-intensive, and the selection of LNG processes is significant. Generally,
the LNG processes can be divided into cascade processes [7], mixed refrigerant (MR) processes [8-10], and
expander processes [9]. Expander processes and single mixed refrigerant (SMR) processes are suitable for
small-scale and medium-scale LNG plants whilst propane-precooled mixed refrigerant (C3MR) processes
and cascade processes are appropriate to large-scale LNG plants. Dual mixed refrigerant (DMR) is another
kind of LNG process which is suitable for large-scale plants. To satisfy the increasing demand for larger
capacity and higher efficiency in large-scale LNG plants, Air Products & Chemicals Inc. (APCI) has
recently proposed the AP-X® process which consists of three separate cycles. Since three separated cycles
in the AP-X® process have many parameters which can affect overall energy consumption, it is worthwhile
improving the energy efficiency of the AP-X® process by process simulation and optimization. The
optimized AP-X® process is the most efficient liquefaction process for large-scale LNG plants to date [11].

Process Description
The liquefaction processes have three cycles, pre-cooling, liquefaction and sub-cooling.

❖ Pre-cooling: The Natural gas (NG) is pre-cooled before liquefaction.

❖ Liquefaction: The natural gas is cooled a lot and liquified at a low temperature, which is
also the boiling point of the liquid.

d 5
 ❖ Sub-Cooling: Further cooling below the boiling point is known as sub-cooling. There are probably the
least vapors in this state.

In SMR there is only one single mix refrigerant cycle, pre-cooling is done with propane and liquefaction and
precooling is done with mixed refrigerant. If we talk about DMR, there are two cycles of mixed refrigerant for
liquefaction and sub cooling. C3MR Is the simple process and widely used for land transportation.

AP-X process is more efficient as it uses the Nitrogen for sub cooling. In AP-X process, precooling is done by
propane, liquefaction is done using a mixed refrigerant and sub cooling is done using Nitrogen. For nitrogen sub
cooling, nitrogen expanders are used. Nitrogen has higher point so it means that it will liquify consuming less
energy as compared to ethene.
 Process Modeling

• The composition of the natural gas and of the working fluid (mixed refrigerant) are given in Table 1.
• The mass flow rate for the natural gas feed is 241.47 kg/s, in accordance to the 7.8 MMtpa production.
• The spiral-wound Main Cryogenic Heat Exchanger (MCHE) or Cold box is modeled using two multi-
flow heat exchangers and a refrigerant catchment.
• Scrubbing and fractionation effects for the mixed refrigerant working fluid are neglected.
• The propane pre-cooler PRECOOL is simulated as a black box.
• The pressure drops across the process are 0 bar.
• The volumetric flow of the nitrogen expander outlet is 35% of the volumetric flow of the inlet of
separator for the mixed refrigerant [8].
• The isentropic efficiency for all compressors (for mixed refrigerant) is assumed to be equal to 72%
and for the nitrogen expander to 85%.
• The mass flow rate of stream 7 is equal to zero.

Mole fraction (%)

Component Formula
Mixed
Natural gas
Refrigerant [8]

Nitrogen N2 0.1 1.4

Methane CH4 86.0 34.3

Ethane C2H6 7.5 39.5

Propane C3H8 3.5 0.6

I-Butane C4H10 1.0 9.1

Butane C4H10 1.0 15.1

I-Pentane C5H12 0.3 -

Pentane C5H12 0.2 -

Hexane C6H14 0.4 -

Recent Mega-Train Examples

In recent years there has been increasing interest in large trains, and Air Products has completed several studies
on large 6+ MTPA LNG trains in conjunction with engineering companies and facility owners.
 Study Cycle Capacity Driver End Feed Climate
MTPA Configuration Flash Pressure
Recycle Bara
A AP-C3MR 7.0 Parallel Multi-Shaft Yes 91 Warm
Hybrid Gas
Turbines
B AP-C3MR 7.0 Parallel Electric Yes 88 Warm
Motors
C AP-C3MR 6.7 Parallel No 82 Temperate
Aeroderivative Gas
Turbines
D AP-DMR 7.1 Electric Motors Yes 95 Temperate

E AP-X 7.8 Single-Shaft Heavy No 71 Hot

Duty Frame
Turbines
F AP-X 8.7 Multi-Shaft Heavy No 83 Hot
Duty Frame
Turbines

Table 3. Mass flow rate of the mixed refrigerant.

z Nitrogen Methane Ethane Propane I-Butane Butane

Total stream (kmol/s)
100 2.16 52.82 60.83 0.92 14.01 23.26
101 2.08 49.56 50.22 0.62 7.29 10.81
102 0.07 3.26 10.61 0.31 6.72 12.44
103 0.07 3.26 10.61 0.31 6.72 12.44
104 0.07 3.26 10.61 0.31 6.72 12.44
105 0.07 3.26 10.61 0.31 6.72 12.44
106 2.07 50.79 58.77 0.90 13.72 22.81
Mole fraction (%)
Component Formula Mixed
Natural gas
Refrigerant [8]
Nitrogen N2 0.1 1.4
Methane CH4 86.0 34.3
Ethane C2H6 7.5 39.5
Propane C3H8 3.5 0.6
I-Butane C4H10 1.0 9.1
Butane C4H10 1.0 15.1
I-Pentane C5H12 0.3 -
Pentane C5H12 0.2 -
Hexane C6H14 0.4 -
 Table 2. Thermodynamic data for the material streams at real
operating conditions.

Stream Material N˙ p T x ePH eT eM

stream (kg/sec) (bar) (C) (kg/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg)
1 20.00 -30 0.96 426.1 29.5 396.6
2 NG 19.40 -55 0.92 455.1 61.8 393.2
3 18.80 -100 0.59 606.6 215.6 391.0
224.23
4 4.51 -166 0.00 1035.5 833.9 201.5
LNG

5 1.05 -166 0.00 1033.4 1029.3 4.0

6 1.05 -166 0.00 1033.4 1029.3 4.0
100 4944.06 38.00 43.0 0.78 273.5 0.0 273.5
101 3443.11 38.00 43.0 1 315.6 0.0 315.6
102 1500.94 38.00 43.0 0 153.3 0.0 153.3
103 1500.94 38.00 -54.8 0 199.1 45.7 153.3
104 1500.94 37.98 -54.8 0 199.1 45.7 153.3
105 1500.94 37.98 42.7 0 153.3 0.0 153.3
106 4802.89 10.00 14.4 0.92 188.3 6.4 181.9
107 4944.06 10.00 13.9 0.92 189.2 6.6 182.6
107A 4944.06 21.00 41.8 0.98 237.2 0.0 237.2
Mixed Refrigerant

107B 4944.06 21.00 40.0 0.96 237.3 0.1 237.2

107C 4643.48 21.00 40.0 1 243.4 0.0 243.4
108 4643.48 38.00 80.8 1 288.3 6.4 281.9
109 300.57 21.00 40.0 0 109.6 0.0 109.5
110 300.57 38.00 41.6 0 113.2 0.0 113.2
111 4944.06 38.00 72.6 1 278.7 5.3 273.5
112 3443.11 38.00 -100.0 0 489.8 174.2 315.6
113 3443.11 34.50 -100.0 0 488.8 180.4 308.5
114 3301.94 33.46 -100.0 0 488.5 182.3 306.2
115 3301.94 10.00 -106.5 0.09 478.5 271.9 206.5
116 3301.94 10.00 -103.3 0.13 462.4 255.8 206.5
117 3301.94 10.00 42.7 1 206.5 0.0 206.5
118 141.17 33.46 -100.0 0 488.5 182.3 306.2
119 141.17 10.00 -106.5 0.09 478.5 271.9 206.5
120 141.17 10.00 -4.3 0.02 221.9 15.3 206.5
1000 11.00 -128.0 1 307.1 83.3 223.9
1001 11.00 -4.3 1 228.0 4.2 223.9
1001A 21.00 71.4 1 285.9 1.3 284.6
1001B 21.00 40.0 1 284.7 0.0 284.6
Nitrogen

1001C 44.00 142.0 1 368.4 14.0 354.4

1001D 1509.99 44.00 40.0 1 354.4 0.0 354.4
1002 67.00 95.2 1 398.6 4.4 394.2
1003 67.00 43.0 1 394.2 0.0 394.2
1004 67.00 -100.0 1 461.1 66.9 394.2
1005 11.00 -168.0 0.98 393.2 169.4 223.9

Table 3. Mass flow rate of the mixed refrigerant.

Component Nitrogen Methane Ethane Propane I-Butane Butane

Total stream (kmol/s)
100 2.16 52.82 60.83 0.92 14.01 23.26
101 2.08 49.56 50.22 0.62 7.29 10.81
102 0.07 3.26 10.61 0.31 6.72 12.44
103 0.07 3.26 10.61 0.31 6.72 12.44
107 2.16 52.82 60.83 0.92 14.01 23.26
107A 2.16 52.82 60.83 0.92 14.01 23.26
107B 2.16 52.82 60.83 0.92 14.01 23.26
107C 2.15 52.56 59.65 0.88 12.58 20.25
108 2.15 52.56 59.65 0.88 12.58 20.25
109 0.01 0.26 1.19 0.05 1.44 3.01
110 0.01 0.26 1.19 0.05 1.44 3.01
111 2.16 52.82 60.83 0.92 14.01 23.26
112 2.08 49.56 50.22 0.62 7.29 10.81
113 2.08 49.56 50.22 0.62 7.29 10.81
114 2.00 47.53 48.16 0.59 7.00 10.37
115 2.00 47.53 48.16 0.59 7.00 10.37
116 2.00 47.53 48.16 0.59 7.00 10.37
117 2.00 47.53 48.16 0.59 7.00 10.37
118 0.09 2.03 2.06 0.03 0.30 0.44
119 0.09 2.03 2.06 0.03 0.30 0.44
120 0.09 2.03 2.06 0.03 0.30 0.44
Vapor phase (kmol/s)
100 2.08 49.56 50.22 0.62 7.29 10.81
101 2.08 49.56 50.22 0.62 7.29 10.81
102 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
103 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
104 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
105 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
106 2.07 50.53 57.06 0.81 10.78 16.50
107 2.15 52.55 59.04 0.83 10.97 16.72
107A 2.15 52.71 60.32 0.90 13.38 21.90
107B 2.15 52.56 59.65 0.88 12.58 20.25
107C 2.15 52.56 59.65 0.88 12.58 20.25
108 2.15 52.56 59.65 0.88 12.58 20.25
109 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
110 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
111 2.16 52.82 60.83 0.92 14.01 23.26
112 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
113 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
114 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
115 1.21 8.76 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00
116 1.45 13.58 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
117 2.00 47.53 48.16 0.59 7.00 10.37
118 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
119 0.05 0.37 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
120 0.09 2.02 1.97 0.02 0.19 0.25
Liquid phase (kmol/s)
100 0.07 3.26 10.61 0.31 6.72 12.44
101 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
102 0.07 3.26 10.61 0.31 6.72 12.44
103 0.07 3.26 10.61 0.31 6.72 12.44
104 0.07 3.26 10.61 0.31 6.72 12.44
105 0.07 3.26 10.61 0.31 6.72 12.44
 106 0.00 0.26 1.71 0.09 2.94 6.32
107 0.00 0.27 1.79 0.09 3.05 6.53
107A 0.00 0.11 0.51 0.02 0.64 1.35
107B 0.01 0.26 1.19 0.05 1.44 3.01
107C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
108 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
109 0.01 0.26 1.19 0.05 1.44 3.01
110 0.01 0.26 1.19 0.05 1.44 3.01
111 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
112 2.08 49.56 50.22 0.62 7.29 10.81
113 2.08 49.56 50.22 0.62 7.29 10.81
114 2.00 47.53 48.16 0.59 7.00 10.37
115 0.79 38.77 47.95 0.59 6.99 10.37
116 0.55 33.95 47.75 0.59 6.99 10.37
117 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
118 0.09 2.03 2.06 0.03 0.30 0.44
119 0.03 1.66 2.05 0.03 0.30 0.44
120 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.10 0.20

Flash gas 7 SEP1

3 11 4
COLD BOX V1 5
11 5 113 V3

4
6 LNG
HEX1 V2 1005
S1
118
2
112
1000 10 04
116 104
119
V0 HEX3
HEX0 103

117 105 1003

1 MIX1 10 01 IC1 IC2

AC
NG 1001B 1001D
106 1001A 1001C

120 10 02
MIX2 LPN2 MPN2 HPN2
101
102
107
LPMR MPMR
SEP2

107A
107C 100
ICMR PRECOOL
108
107B SEP3
MIX3 111
109
110
EXERGY ANALYSIS
0,0

-150,0 -140,0 -130,0 -120,0

TEMPERATURE C

TEMPERATURE C
-30,0
-60,0
-90,0

-160,0

T-Hot
T-Hot
T-Cold
T-Cold

0,0 500,0 1000,0 1500,0 2000,0 2500,0 0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 90,0
Cumulative Duty MW Cumulative Duty MW

Fig. 5. H − diagram for HEX0 ( Tpinch = 0.3 K). Fig. 6. H − diagram for HEX2 ( Tpinch = 2.1 K).
T T
-40,0

50,0
-50,0
-60,0

0,0
TEMPERATURE C

TEMPERATURE C
-90,0 -80,0 -70,0

-50,0
-100,0

-100,0
-110,0

T-Hot T-Hot
T-Cold T-Cold

0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 0,0 50,0 100,0 150,0 200,0 250,0 300,0
Cumulative Duty MW Cumulative Duty MW
 The AP-XTM LNG process is a hybrid of two proven refrigeration process, a C3MR process for
pre-cooling and liquefaction followed by a gas expander cycle for LNG subcooling. The process is
very flexible and can be implemented using Frame 7’s, Frame 9’s, or electric motors as main drivers
for the refrigeration compressors to achieve capacities from 7-10 Mta. The process can also be
configured for LPG recovery using a variety of approaches depending on the feed, the desired
recovery and Owner preference.

The Process of AP-X technology is shown through this simulation.

CONCLUSIONS

The AP-X process is the latest large-scale liquefaction process. This process is complex
mainly because of a multi- component working fluid is used for one of the circuits. The Process
is solved and simulated on Hysis with smooth run of all thermodynamic data. A further
evaluation of this process should be conducted using advanced exergy analysis where the
interdependence between the components as well as the real potential for improving the
overall system will be discovered and discussed.

References
[1] M. Abdul Qyyum, K. Qadeer, M. Lee, Closed-loop self-cooling recuperative N2 expander cycle for the
energy efficient and ecological natural gas liquefaction process, ACS Sustainable Chemistry &
Engineering, 6 (2018) 5021-5033.

[2] M.A. Qyyum, K. Qadeer, M. Lee, Comprehensive Review of the Design Optimization of Natural Gas
Liquefaction Processes: Current Status and Perspectives, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 57
(2018) 5819-5844.

[3] IGU, World LNG Report 2018 (https://www.igu.org/).

[4] Press Release, December 2012., Shell and the Technip Samsung Consortium Sign Agreement to
Strengthen Floating LNG Collaboration., in, 2012.

[5] A. Finn, Development in natural gas liquefaction, Hydrocarbon Process., 78 (1999) 47-59.

[6] W. Lim, K. Choi, I. Moon, Current status and perspectives of liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant design,
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 52 (2013) 3065–3088.

[7] O. Eiksund; E. Brodal; S. Jackson, Optimization of Pure-Component LNG Cascade Processes with Heat
Integration. Energies, 11 (2018) 202.

[8] M.S. Khan, M. Lee, Design optimization of single mixed refrigerant natural gas liquefaction process
using the particle swarm paradigm with nonlinear constraints, Energy 49 (2013) 146–155.

[9] W.-S. Cao, X.-S. Lu, W.-S. Lin, A.-Z. Gu, Parameter comparison of two small scale natural gas
liquefaction processes in skid-mounted packages, Appl. Therm. Eng. 26 (2006) 898–904.

[10] M.S. Khan, I.A. Karimi, D.A. Wood, Retrospective and future perspective of natural gas liquefaction
and optimization technologies contributing to efficient LNG supply: a review, J. Natural Gas Sci. Eng. 45
(2017) 165–188.

[11] H. Sun, D. H. Ding, M. He, S. S. Sun, Simulation and optimisation of AP-X process in a large-scale
LNG plant, J. Natural Gas Sci. Eng., 32 (2016) 380-389

[12] H. Sun et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 32 (2016) 380-389