Article

pubs.acs.org/IECR

Process Design for the Offshore Production of Liquefied Natural

Gas with Nonflammable Refrigerants
Chul-Jin Lee,∇,† Kiwook Song,∇,‡ Seolin Shin,‡ Youngsub Lim,§ and Chonghun Han*,‡
†
Engineering Development Research Center, Seoul National University, Gwanak 1, Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, 151-742, Korea
‡
School of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Seoul National University, Gwanak 1, Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, 151-742, Korea
§
School of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Seoul National University, Gwanak 1, Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul,
151-742, Korea
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

ABSTRACT: In this paper, a conceptual process design for a novel natural gas liquefaction plant developed especially for
offshore application is presented. Onshore liquefied natural gas (LNG) production usually utilizes mixed refrigerant (MR)-based
cycles for high efficiency, in terms of operating cost. This paper proposes a cascade process that uses nitrous oxide and nitrogen
Downloaded via YEUNGNAM UNIV on January 7, 2021 at 10:21:43 (UTC).

refrigerants. The liquefaction process can be subdivided into a precooling section in the vapor phase, a condensation section, and
a subcooling section in the liquid phase. The vapor compression refrigeration cycle of nitrous oxide is applied to the precooling
and the condensation sections, whereas the gas compression refrigeration cycle of nitrogen is applied to the subcooling section of
LNG. The proposed process shows enhanced efficiency, compared to the conventional turbine-based processes with the specific
power comparable to the MR processes.

1. INTRODUCTION Dual expander processes proposed by Statoil represent a similar

Global natural gas demand is expected to surge, motivated by a
growing preference for low-carbon, environmentally friendly
energies and uncertainty in policies related to nuclear power
generation. Although conventional-scale natural gas plants with
reserves of 5−100 trillion cubic feet (TCF) are being fully
explored and developed, the impetus to monetize midscale
(0.5−5 TCF) and small-scale gas reserves is growing. In
particular, floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) production is
especially gaining interest, because it provides the opportunity
to develop smaller or remote fields. LNG-FPSO (liquefied
natural gas, with floating production, storage and offloading)
employed in offshore natural gas reserves can be used
repeatedly for stranded gas resources.
The natural gas liquefaction processes for existing base-load
plants are mostly based on mixed refrigerant (MR) processes or
cascade processes, both of which are based on hydrocarbon
refrigerants. For FLNG, the minimization of flammable
inventory is important for safety, which drives the interest
in refrigeration cycles that do not contain any hydrocarbons.
The nitrogen recycle expander plant, which is well-known and
extensively used in the air separation industry, is a good
alternative for offshore applications. Turbine-based processes
offer the advantages of safety, easy startup, and a small layout.
However, they have been rejected in onshore applications,
because of low efficiency in terms of compression power
requirements.1−4 Therefore, continuous investigation is re-
quired for nonflammable refrigerant-based natural gas lique-
faction cyle in FLNG, because of its inherent safety and rising
demand for small-scale reservoirs, despite relatively low
efficiency, compared to the hydrocarbon refrigeration cycle.5
To increase the capacity and efficiency of turbine-based
processes, modifications to these processes have been pro-
posed. Dubar suggested double and triple expander processes
by dividing the refrigerant stream into two or three portions.6
concept.7 Another alternative is to add a precooling unit. The
CO2 precooled dual expander process was suggested by
Statoil.8 Air Products and Chemicals proposed the AP-HN
processes that use HFC as the precooling refrigerant.9 Yoon et
al. suggested the new cascade process, using N2O and other
hydrocarbons as a refrigerant, and compared its efficiency with
the conventional hydrocarbon-based cascade liquefaction
process.10
In this study, we have developed a novel process design of
turbine-based natural gas liquefaction plant for offshore
application. To meet the safety criteria for LNG-FPSO, the
process utilizes only nonflammable refrigerants, especially
nitrous oxide (N2O). The remainder of this paper is organized
as follows. In section 2, the results of the thermodynamic
analysis of carbon dioxide (CO2, R744) and nitrous oxide
(N2O, R744a) are discussed. Then, in section 3, the developed
novel cascade process of N2O−N2O−N2 for offshore LNG
production is presented. Results are shown and discussed in
section 4, and finally, the conclusions are presented in section 5.
2. THERMODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF CARBON
DIOXIDE AND NITROUS OXIDE
CO2 and N2O are nonflammable refrigerants that are good
candidates for offshore applications. Both candidates show
similar thermodynamic properties as a refrigerant, such as the
molecular weight, boiling point, critical point, and triple point,
as shown in Table 1. The critical point of CO2 is observed at
73.8 bar and 31.3 °C, while the critical point of N2O is
observed at 72.5 bar and 36.4 °C. If we neglect the supercritical
Received: April 30, 2015
Revised: July 24, 2015
Accepted: October 16, 2015
Published: October 16, 2015

© 2015 American Chemical Society 11106 DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b01620

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 11106−11112
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Table 1. Thermodynamic Properties of Refrigerants
refrigerant MW (kg/kmol) boiling point (°C) pressure, P (bar)
N2O 44.01 −88.5
CO2 44.01 −78.4
phase and restrict the operating range to the subcritical region,
then the critical pressure imposes an upper limit on the com-
pressor discharge pressure in the vapor-compression refriger-
ation system. Furthermore, the critical temperature determines
the upper limit of the cooling water or air temperature in the
condenser. The critical temperature of N2O is slightly higher
than that of CO2, which makes N2O favorable for the flexible
selection of condenser working fluid.
The triple point of the refrigerant imposes a lower limit in
the operating range of the vapor compression refrigeration sys-
tem; the triple point of CO2 is observed at 5.18 bar, −56.56 °C
and the triple point of N2O is observed at 0.88 bar, −90.82 °C,
as presented in Table 1. The temperature of the triple point of
N2O is much lower than that of CO2, which makes N2O
favorable for use in LNG plants.
The typical liquefaction process of natural gas at ∼50 bar
can be divided into the following three sections:11
(1) Precooling section in the vapor phase (from −33.2 °C to
26.9 °C),
(2) Condensation section (from −73.2 °C to −33.2 °C), and
(3) Subcooling section in the liquid phase (from −153.1 °C
to −73.2 °C).
Given that the triple point of CO2 is 5.18 bar and −56.56 °C,
CO2 can only be applied for the precooling section. Meanwhile,
N2O can be used for both the precooling and condensation
sections. N2O is a nonflammable, nontoxic gas, but it must be
handled with caution, because it is classified as an oxidant. Also,
careful consideration is needed when selecting the material.
3. DESIGN OF N2O−N2O−N2 CASCADE PROCESS
For the design of the liquefaction cycles, the following assump-
tions are considered:12−26
(1) The composition of the pretreated clean natural gas feed
is as given in Table 2, which is referenced from the
normal rich natural gas of North Africa.12
Table 2. Composition of Natural Gas Feed
component mole fraction
nitrogen 0.04
methane 0.875
ethane 0.055
propane 0.021
isobutane 0.003
n-butane 0.005
isopentane 0.001
total 1
(2) The mass flow rate of feed gas is 228 ton/h, which cor-
responds to ∼2 MTPA (million tons per annum) of LNG
production. The LNG rundown flow rate is 206.9 ton/h.
(3) The pressure drop in all heat exchangers (condensers,
after-coolers, and LNG exchangers) is ignored.
(4) The adiabatic efficiency of turbo machinery (compres-
sors and turbines) is 80%.
Article
Critical Point Triple Point
temperature, T (°C) pressure, P (bar) temperature, T (°C)
72.5 36.4 0.88 −90.82
73.8 31.3 5.18 −56.56
(5) The discharge temperature of all condensers and after-
coolers is 30 °C, based on the assumption that 10 °C
cooling water and 10 °C temperature approach is
applied.
A cascade process of N2O−N2O−N2 refrigerants for natural
gas liquefaction is proposed in this paper, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Proposed N2O−N2O−N2 cycle for the natural gas
liquefaction.
A cycle using N2O is applied for the precooling section and
another cycle of N2O is applied for the condensation section.
N2 refrigerant is applied for the subcooling section of LNG.
Cycles with N2O refrigerants are vapor compression refriger-
ation systems and utilize the latent heat of the refrigerant.
The N2 cycle is operated in the gaseous phase, utilizing only
sensible heat.
When comparison is made to the conventional hydrocarbon-
based cascade liquefaction process, the coldest N2 refrigerant
only recycles to its former refrigeration cycle of the
condensation unit, whereas the methane refrigerant goes back
to the precooling unit in the conventional process. The
produces LNG also works as a makeup refrigerant in the
conventional process, but the LNG is only produced and stored
as an end-product in the proposed scheme, as depicted in
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Conventional hydrocarbon-based cascade process for the
natural gas liquefaction.
Aspen HYSYS v7.3 is used for steady-state simulation, and
Peng−Robinson thermodynamic model was used as a property
package.10
3.1. The Precooling Section. The N2O refrigerant is
utilized in the precooling section to cool both the refrigerant
itself and the natural gas down to −33 °C. The refrigeration
11107 DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b01620
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 11106−11112
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Figure 3. Precooling section of the proposed design.
Figure 4. Condensation section of the proposed design.
cycle is configured as a multistage vapor compression
refrigeration system with three different expansion stages.
Figure 3 shows the process flow diagram of the precooling unit.
Streams Pre-1 to Pre-21 are N2O refrigerant streams, whereas
streams NG-1 to NG-4 are natural gas streams. The refrigerant
is compressed in the compressor modules Pre-C1, Pre-C2, and
Pre-C3. The discharge pressure of Pre-C3 is 65 bar and the
refrigerant is cooled and condensed in E-101 to an ambient
temperature of 30 °C. The first expansion pressure at Pre-5 is
35.57 bar, the second expansion pressure at Pre-10 is 19.46 bar,
and the third expansion pressure at Pre-14 is 10.65 bar. The
Pre-5 stream cools the NG-1 and Pre-2 streams while the
refrigerant evaporates. Similarly, Pre-10 cools the NG-2 and
Pre-8 streams. Pre-14 exchanges heat with NG-3, the Pre-12
stream, and the Con-3 stream of the condensation unit. LNG-
109 is a regenerative heat exchanger to cool the Con-2 stream
from 30 °C down to −14 °C at the Con-3 stream.
3.2. The Condensation Section. Natural gas is liquefied in
the condensation section; see the process diagram depicted in
Figure 4. The objective of this section is to cool the natural
11108
Article
gas down to −78.6 °C. The refrigeration cycle using N2O as
the working fluid is also configured as a multistage vapor
compression refrigeration system with three different expansion
stages. Streams Con-1 through Con-21 are N2O refrigerant
streams, whereas streams NG-4 through NG-7 are natural gas
streams. The refrigerant is compressed in the compressor
modules Con-C1, Con-C2, and Con-C3. The discharge
pressure of stream Con-C3 is 12.5 bar, and the refrigerant is
cooled in E-102, LNG-109, and LNG-102, in series. The
boiling temperature of N2O at 12.5 bar is −31.24 °C, and
stream Con-4 is in the liquid phase at −33 °C. A portion of the
refrigerant is expanded in stream Con-JT1 to 6.17 bar, and it
cools the NG-4 and Con-4 streams using latent heat. Second-
stage expansion pressure is 3.04 bar, while the final stage
expansion pressure is 1.5 bar in stream Con-JT3. Stream Con-
16 at −81.61 °C is used for the liquefaction of natural gas and
cooling of stream Con-14; it also cools stream Sub-4 of the
subcooling unit.
3.3. The Subcooling Section. The subcooling section in
Figure 5 is a gas compression refrigeration system; no phase
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b01620
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 11106−11112
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

Figure 5. Subcooling section of the proposed design.

Table 3. Results of the N2O−N2O−N2 Process Table 5. Specific Power of Conventional and Proposed
Liquefaction Processesa
variable value
natural gas feed flow rate 228 ton/h process specific power [kJ/kg]
LNG production 206.9 ton/h C3MR 1054
Precooling Section Cascade 1218
N2O flow rate 885.5 ton/h DMR 1080
N2O compressor duty 17.99 MW SMR 1253
Condensation Section Single N2 3266
N2O flow rate 271.4 ton/h Double N2 1426
N2O compressor duty 6.38 MW Proposed 1138
Subcooling Section a
Data taken from ref 27.
N2 flow rate 1159 ton/h
N2 compressor duty 53.6 MW
LNG-105 in the condensation unit, further cooled in LNG-
N2 expander duty 12.55 MW
106 by N2 itself to −124 °C, and then expanded in stream
N2 net compressor duty 41.05 MW
Sub-X1 to 18.1 bar and −158.1 °C. This stream is used for
subcooling LNG to −155 °C.
Table 4. Specific Power of the Proposed N2O−N2O−N2
Process 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
variable value The simulation results are summarized in Tables 3 and 4.
LNG production 206.9 ton/h The specific power of the developed N2O−N2O−N2 cascade
total compressor duty 65.42 MW cycle is 1138 kJ/kg. The efficiencies of other conventional
specific power 1138 kJ/kg liquefaction processes are shown in Table 5. The performance
of the proposed process is further compared with other
hydrocarbon-based refrigeration cycles, as well as nitrogen-
change of the refrigerant occurs in this section. The N2 gas is based refrigeration cycles, as depicted in Table 6. The proposed
compressed in Sub-C1, Sub-C2, and Sub-C3 to 70 bar, and cycle gives enhanced efficiency, compared to the existing
cooled in E-105 to 30 °C. E-103 and E-104 are after-coolers, turbine-based processes, with the specific power being
with a discharge temperature of 30 °C. LNG-110 is a comparable to the MR processes.27 It is difficult to compare
regenerative heat exchanger to cool stream Sub-2 down to the liquefaction processes precisely based only on the specific
−64.51 °C at stream Sub-3. A portion of stream Sub-3 goes power, because the conditions are not standardized. The
through expansion in stream Sub-X2 and is utilized as the cold specific power of the liquefaction process is considerably case-
stream in stream Sub-10. Other portions are cooled in sensitive, and it varies because of many conditions, such as feed
11109 DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b01620
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 11106−11112
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

Table 6. Performance Comparison of the Proposed To help to estimate economic feasibility of the N2O−N2O−N2
cascade cycle proposed in this paper, total capital investment
C3H8−C2H4− C H 4 C3H8−N2O−N2 N2O−N2O−N2
(from Yoon et al.10) (from Yoon et al.10) (Proposed) and total operating cost were analyzed by using Aspen Process
feed gas mass 158.5 158.5 63.3 Economic Analyzer (APEA), v8.8. The system cost was based
flow (kg/s) on the first quarter data of 2014. Each unit process component
LNG production, 146.2 147.7 57.5 was mapped with an equipment model for economic
(kg/s) evaluation. Because the size of the multistream plate fin heat
liquefaction 92.2 93.2 90.7
ratio (%) exchanger is required to estimate its cost, Aspen Exchanger
total cooling 329.1 325.81 113.7 Design & Rating (EDR), v8.8, was used for the sizing. The
capacity (MW) estimated costs of major equipment are displayed in Table 7,
specific energy 1530 1316.2 1138 and Table 8 shows the total capital investment. Total operating
(kJ/kg)
cost is shown in Table 9.
specific power 0.43 0.37 0.38
(kW/(kg h))
total compressor 223.7 194.4 78.0 Table 8. Total Capital Investment
power (MW)
cycle COP 1.47 1.68 1.46 cost (million USD)
Direct costs
equipment and material 51.9
Table 7. Major Equipment Cost
piping 25.5
ID cost (million USD) group total (million USD) ratio (%) instrumentation 3.0
Compressor, with a Centrifugal Compressor as the Mapped Model electrical 7.7
Con-C1 1.7 insulation and paint 0.5
Con-C2 1.8 direct totals 88.6
Con-C3 2.2 Indirect costs
Pre-C1 1.9 construction expenses 12.0
24.8 52.1 taxes and permits 5.1
Pre-C2 1.9
Pre-C3 2.0 engineering 5.0
Sub-C1 7.0 overheads 3.6
Sub-C2 6.4 contract fees 3.2
Cooler, with a TEMA Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger as the Mapped contingencies 21.3
Model Indirect Totals 50.3
E-100 0.2 Total 138.9
E-101 1.9
E-102 0.1 5.5 11.5 Table 9. Total Operating Cost
E-103 1.3
cost (million USD/yr)
E-104 2.0
Cold Box, with a Plate-Fin Heat Exchanger as the Mapped Model Utilities
LNG-100 0.4 electricity 48.8
LNG-101 0.2 cooling water 2.2
LNG-102 1.1 utility cost 51.0
LNG-103 0.3 operating labor cost 1.2
LNG-104 0.4 6.0 12.6 maintenance cost 1.2
LNG-105 0.4 operating charges 0.3
LNG-106 1.7 plant overhead 1.2
LNG-107 0.7 general and administrative cost 4.4
LNG-108 0.8 Total Operating Cost 59.3
Heat Exchanger, with a Plate-Fin Heat Exchanger as the Mapped Model
LNG-109 0.1
3.9 8.1 5. CONCLUSION
LNG-110 3.7
Turbine, with a Gas Turbine as the Mapped Model For offshore natural gas production, it is known that the use of
Sub-X1 1.9 hydrocarbons as refrigerants poses a safety issue. In this paper, a
7.4 15.5
Sub-X2 5.5 novel process of natural gas liquefaction for floating liquefied
Separator, with a Vertical Pressure Vessel as the Mapped Model natural gas (FLNG) that was developed using nonflammable
V-100 0.1 0.1 0.1 refrigerants was illustrated. The conventional processes include
Total 47.7 47.7 100 the nitrogen expander process and its derivatives. Precooling
with CO2 or hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) has also been
proposed. N2O has some advantages over CO2, because the
gas composition, feed gas pressure, the temperature of cooling critical temperature is higher and the triple-point temperature is
water in heat exchangers, pressure drop in heat exchangers, and lower. In particular, N2O can be utilized for the liquefaction of
adiabatic efficiency of turbo machinery. The N2O−N2O−N2 natural gas at high pressure. In this research, a cascade process
cascade cycle proposed in this paper has potential advantages in of N2O−N2O−N2 (precooling, condensation, subcooling) was
practice, because of the simplicity and the reliability of the designed for LNG production. The proposed cycle was found
single-component refrigerant system. to be suitable for liquefied natural gas with floating production,
11110 DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b01620
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 11106−11112
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

storage, and offloading (LNG-FPSO) with low specific power, Table A2. Condensation Section
comparable to conventional processes.
mass flow (ton/h)

■
stream temperature (°C) pressure (bar)
NG-4 −33.0 65.0 228
APPENDIX: HEAT AND MATERIAL BALANCES NG-5 −47.9 65.0 228
Heat and material balances for the precooling, condensation, NG-6 −64.5 65.0 228
and subcooling sections are given in Tables A1, A2, and A3. NG-7 −78.6 65.0 228
Con-1 42.8 12.5 271
Table A1. Precooling Section Con-2 30.0 12.5 271
Con-3 −14.0 12.5 271
stream temperature (°C) pressure (bar) mass flow (ton/h) Con-4 −33.0 12.5 271
NG-1 30.0 65.0 228 Con-5 −47.9 12.5 271
NG-2 8.3 65.0 228 Con-6 −47.9 12.5 71
NG-3 −14.0 65.0 228 Con-7 −50.9 6.2 71
NG-4 −33.0 65.0 228 Con-8 −47.9 6.2 71
Pre-1 74.6 65.0 885 Con-9 −47.9 12.5 200
Pre-2 30.0 65.0 885 Con-10 −64.5 12.5 200
Pre-3 8.3 65.0 885 Con-11 −64.5 12.5 107
Pre-4 8.3 65.0 364 Con-12 −67.5 3.0 107
Pre-5 5.3 35.6 364 Con-13 −64.5 3.0 107
Pre-6 8.3 35.6 364 Con-14 −64.5 12.5 93
Pre-7 8.3 65.0 521 Con-15 −78.6 12.5 93
Pre-8 −14.0 65.0 521 Con-16 −81.6 1.5 93
Pre-9 −14.0 65.0 146 Con-17 −78.6 1.5 93
Pre-10 −17.0 19.5 146 Con-18 −33.6 3.0 93
Pre-11 −14.0 19.5 146 Con-19 −50.0 3.0 200
Pre-12 −14.0 65.0 375 Con-20 −0.3 6.2 200
Pre-13 −33.0 65.0 375 Con-21 −12.6 6.2 271
Pre-14 −36.0 10.7 375 Sub-4 −64.5 70.0 495
Pre-15 −33.0 10.7 375 Sub-5 −78.6 70.0 495
Pre-16 −0.5 10.7 375
Pre-17 48.5 19.5 375
Pre-18 30.7 19.5 521
Table A3. Subcooling Section
Pre-19 84.2 35.6 521 stream temperature (°C) pressure (bar) mass flow (ton/h)
Pre-20 30.0 35.6 521 NG-7 −78.6 65.0 228
Pre-21 20.6 35.6 885 NG-8 −104.0 65.0 228
Con-2 30.0 12.5 271 NG-9 −124.0 65.0 228
Con-3 −14.0 12.5 271 NG-10 −155.0 65.0 228
Con-4 −33.0 12.5 271 NG-11 −163.1 1.2 228
−163.1

■
NG-12 1.2 21
NG-13 −163.1 1.2 207
AUTHOR INFORMATION Sub-1 110.3 70.0 1159
Corresponding Author Sub-2 30.0 70.0 1159
*Tel.: +82-2-880-1887. E-mail: chhan@snu.ac.kr. Sub-3 −64.5 70.0 1159
Author Contributions Sub-4 −64.5 70.0 495
∇ Sub-5 −78.6 70.0 495
These authors (C.-J.L. and K.S.) contributed equally to the
present work. Sub-6 −104.0 70.0 495
Sub-7 −158.1 18.1 495
Notes
Sub-8 −127.0 18.1 495
The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■
Sub-9 −64.5 70.0 664
Sub-10 −127.0 18.1 664
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Sub-11 −127.0 18.1 1159
This research was supported by the Brain Korea 21 Plus Sub-12 −115.7 18.1 1159
Program in 2015, by Institute of Chemical Processes in Seoul Sub-13 −81.6 18.1 1159
National University, by MKE and grant from the LNG Plant Sub-14 25.6 18.1 1159
R&D Center funded by the Ministry of Land, Transportation Sub-15 104.8 35.6 1159
and Maritime Affairs (MLTM) of the Korean government, by Sub-16 30.0 35.6 1159
the IT R&D program of MOTIE/KEIT (No. 10049155,
Development of equipment control algorithm based on plasma
monitoring for efficiency improvement of 10 nm etch process), Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT) of Korea
by Engineering Development Research Center (EDRC) funded government and Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology
by the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE) (No. Advancement (KAIA), by the Energy Efficiency & Resources
N0000990), by a grant (No. 14IFIP-B085984-02) from Smart Core Technology Program of the Korea Institute of Energy
Civil Infrastructure Research Program funded by Ministry of Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) granted
11111 DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b01620
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 11106−11112
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

financial resource from the Ministry of Trade, Industry & (19) Lee, G. C.; Smith, R.; Zhu, X. X. Optimal synthesis of mixed-
Energy, Republic of Korea (Nos. 20132010201760, refrigerant systems for low-temperature processes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
20132010500050, and 20152010201850). 2002, 41 (20), 5016−5028.

■
(20) Vaidyaraman, S.; Maranas, C. D. Synthesis of mixed refrigerant
cascade cycles. Chem. Eng. Commun. 2002, 189 (8), 1057−1078.
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (21) Nogal, F. D.; Kim, J. K.; Perry, S.; Smith, R. Optimal design of
FLNG = floating liquefied natural gas mixed refrigerant cycles. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008, 47 (22), 8724−
FPSO = floating production, storage and offloading 8740.
HFC = hydrofluorocarbon (22) Faruque Hasan, M. M.; Jayaraman, G.; Karimi, I. A.; Alfadala, H.
E. Synthesis of heat exchanger networks with nonisothermal phase
LNG = liquefied natural gas changes. AIChE J. 2010, 56 (4), 930−945.
MR = mixed refrigerant (23) Hatcher, P.; Khalilpour, R.; Abbas, A. Optimisation of LNG
TCF = trillion cubic feet mixed-refrigerant processes considering operation and design

■ REFERENCES
(1) Li, Q. Y.; Ju, Y. L. Design and analysis of liquefaction process for
objectives. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2012, 41, 123−133.
(24) 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.
offshore associated gas resources. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2010, 30 (16), (25) Khan, M. S.; Lee, S.; Lee, M. Optimization of single mixed
2518−2525. refrigerant natural gas liquefaction plant with nonlinear programming.
(2) Hwang, J. H.; Roh, M. I.; Lee, K. Y. Determination of the optimal Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2012, 7 (S1), S62−S70.
operating conditions of the dual mixed refrigerant cycle for the LNG (26) Hwang, J. H.; Ku, N. K.; Roh, M. I.; Lee, K. Y. Optimal design
FPSO topside liquefaction process. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2013, 49, 25− of liquefaction cycles of liquefied natural gas floating, production,
36. storage, and offloading unit considering optimal synthesis. Ind. Eng.
(3) Won, W.; Lee, S. K.; Choi, K.; Kwon, Y. Current trends for the Chem. Res. 2013, 52 (15), 5341−5356.
floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) technologies. Korean J. Chem. (27) Vink, K. J.; Nagelvoort, R. K. Comparison of baseload
Eng. 2014, 31 (5), 732−743. liquefaction processes. Presented at the 12th International Conference
(4) Barclay, M. A.; Gongaware, D. F.; Dalton, K.; Skrzypkowski, M. on Liquefied Natural Gas, Vol. 3; Perth, Australia, May 4−7, 1998.
P. Thermodynamic cycle selection for distributed natural gas
liquefaction. In Advances in Cryogenic Engineering: Transactions of the
Cryogenic Engineering ConferenceCEC; AIP Conference Proceedings,
Vol. 710; AIP Publishing: New York, 2004; pp 75−8210.1063/
1.1774669.
(5) PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). The economic impact of small
scale LNG, May 2013.
(6) Dubar, C. A. Liquefaction process. U.S. Patent No 5,768,912,
1998.
(7) Neeraas, B. O.; Sandvik, T. E. U.S. Patent Application 12/
989,117, 2009.
(8) Fredheim, A. O.; Paurola, P. Natural gas liquefaction process.
U.S. Patent No 7,386,996, 2008.
(9) Bukowski, J.; Liu, Y. N.; Boccella, M. S.; Kowalski, M. L.
Innovations in natural gas liquefaction technology for future LNG
plants and floating LNG facilities. Presented at International Gas Union
Research Conference 2011 (IGRC 2011), Seoul, Korea, Oct. 2011.
(10) 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.
(11) Chang, H. M.; Chung, M. J.; Lee, S.; Choe, K. H. An efficient
multi-stage Brayton−JT cycle for liquefaction of natural gas. Cryogenics
2011, 51 (6), 278−286.
(12) Ferrera, IP Co-ordinator Massimo, IP CRF, and CRF Sub-
project SPA. "Deliverable Report INGAS." Month 500.B2: 12.
(13) Remeljej, C. W.; Hoadley, A. F. A. An exergy analysis of small-
scale liquefied natural gas (LNG) liquefaction processes. Energy 2006,
31 (12), 2005−2019.
(14) Lee, S.; Long, N. V. D.; Lee, M. Design and optimization of
natural gas liquefaction and recovery processes for offshore floating
liquefied natural gas plants. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51 (30),
10021−10030.
(15) 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, 25−36.
(16) Aspelund, A.; Gundersen, T.; Myklebust, J.; Nowak, M. P.;
Tomasgard, A. An optimization-simulation model for a simple LNG
process. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2010, 34 (10), 1606−1617.
(17) Kim, J. K.; Lee, G. C.; Zhu, F. X.; Smith, R. Cooling system
design. Heat Transfer Eng. 2002, 23 (6), 49−61.
(18) Wu, G.; Zhu, X. X. Design of integrated refrigeration systems.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2002, 41 (3), 553−571.

11112 DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b01620

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 11106−11112