International Journal of Refrigeration 115 (2020) 9–17

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Refrigeration

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

Comparison and analysis of two processes for BOG re-liquefaction in

LNG carrier with normal-temperature compressor
Liang Yin, Yonglin Ju∗
Institute of Refrigeration and Cryogenics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China

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

Article history: Two processes for boil-off gas (BOG) re-liquefaction of liquefied natural gas (LNG) carrier with normal-
Received 26 January 2020 temperature compressor are proposed and compared: (1) the re-liquefaction system with the single
Revised 11 March 2020
mixed refrigerant process (SMRP), (2) the re-liquefaction system with the dual mixed refrigerant process
Accepted 12 March 2020
(DMRP). The main thermodynamic parameters to be compared are specific energy consumption, exergy
Available online 17 March 2020
efficiency, coefficient of performance, heat transfer curves and exergy losses of main equipment in opti-
Keywords: mized case and base case. The result shows that the performance of the DMRP is better than that of the
Boil-off gas re-liquefaction SMRP and the specific energy consumption of DMRP is 0.5635 kWh/kgLNG . In addition, by comparing the
LNG carrier thermodynamic parameters of the re-liquefaction system with the normal-temperature compressor and
Normal-temperature compressor the cryogenic compressor, it can be found that not only the cooling capacity of BOG is used effectively,
Specific energy consumption but also the energy consumption is reduced and the efficiency is improved for the normal-temperature
compressor system. Therefore, for the two mixed refrigerant re-liquefaction systems, the performance
of the normal-temperature compression system is better than that of the low-temperature compression
system.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.

Comparaison et analyse de deux processus pour la reliquéfaction du gaz vaporisé

dans un transporteur de GNL avec un compresseur à température normale

Mots-clés: Reliquéfaction du gaz vaporisé; Transporteur de GNL; Compresseur à température normale; Consommation d’énergie spécifique

1. Introduction
The world natural gas is being traded mainly by pipeline and
shipment in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) (Krikkis, 2018).
China is a country dominated by coal resources, and natural
gas resources are relatively scarce, mainly relying on the im-
ports (LIN et al., 2010). Over long-distance and cross-sea, apply-
ing the LNG carriers to transport LNG is an efficient and econom-
ical method because the volume of LNG is more than 600 times
lower than that of gas phase with the same mass (Kurle et al.,
2015). In the LNG carriers, LNG is stored in effectively insulated
cargo tanks with a boiling point of about −162 °C at atmospheric
pressure. A certain amount of boil off gas (BOG) will be generated
in the LNG cargo tank due to the heat leakage, equipment opera-
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yju@sjtu.edu.cn (Y. Ju).
tion, and loading and unloading operations. The existence of BOG
not only affects the safety of the LNG cargo tanks, but also affects
the economic performance of the LNG carriers. Usually, the BOG is
burned in the steam turbine to provide power for LNG carriers or
re-liquefied to LNG. The study of Kurle et al. (2015) showed that
the BOG recovery was equivalent to more than 80% of energy sav-
ing compared with the complete combustion of BOG. The BOG re-
liquefaction system is a more common BOG treatment method on
board.
Shin and Lee (2009) proposed an object-oriented dynamic sim-
ulation based on the re-liquefaction process of the reverse Bray-
ton cycle for LNG carrier with normal-temperature compressors
and presented the static thermodynamic state under the design
BOG load. Sayyaadi and Babaelahi (2010) were committed to the
BOG re-liquefaction system onboard using the cryogenic compres-
sor and developed a thermal economic model based on energy and
exergy analysis with the total revenue requirement as the objec-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2020.03.008
0140-7007/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.
10 L. Yin and Y. Ju / International Journal of Refrigeration 115 (2020) 9–17

based on experimental data in order to achieve efficient BOG man-

Nomenclature agement. Yin and Ju (2019) compared two nitrogen expansion cy-
cles BOG re-liquefaction cycles for small LNG ships and the energy
p pressure (kPa) consumption of the parallel nitrogen expansion cycle was lower. A
t temperature (°C) part of the cooling capacity of the BOG was consumed and it en-
m˙ mass flow (kg/h) tered the low-temperature compressor after the temperature rise
W power (kW) to about −25 °C. Kim et al., 2019) investigated the economic fea-
h specific enthalpy (kJ/kg) sibility of the BOG re-liquefaction plant in the high pressure fuel
s specific entropy (kJ/kg·K) supply system on the vessels and optimized with respect to to-
e specific exergy (kJ/kg) tal annual cost as the objective function. Kochunni and Chowdhury
E exergy (kW) (2019) evaluated a basic RBC-based BOG re-liquefaction system for
࢞E exergy loss (kW) LNG-carrying ship based on exergy analysis in part 1. The analy-
Q heat (kJ) ses revealed that major constraints that limited the improvement
r pressure ratio in performance of the system were occurrences of liquid at tur-
v vapor fraction bine exit and the temperature cross in BOG condenser. In part 2,
the authors (Kochunni et al., 2019) modified the basic configura-
Abbreviations
tion of part 1 in several ways. The purpose of these modifications
BOG boil off gas
was to achieve higher thermodynamic efficiency by replacing the
LNG liquefied natural gas
BOG low-temperature compressor, transferring the cooling capac-
MR mixed refrigerant
ity of the BOG to the nitrogen cycle, and then entering the normal-
SMRP single mixed refrigerant process
temperature compressor. It was found that ambient BOG compres-
DMRP dual mixed refrigerant process
sion has higher rational exergy efficiency than cold compression.
SEC specific energy consumption
This improvement was even more pronounced when BOG entered
GA genetic algorithm
the system as superheated gas.
COP coefficient of performance
In the traditional BOG re-liquefaction system and many re-
EXE exergy efficiency
searches, the BOG from the cargo tank enters the cryogenic com-
HX heat exchanger
pressor for pressurization, and then enters the cold box to achieve
Com compressor
liquefaction (; Chin, 2006; Lee et al., 2009). Cryogenic compres-
M-Com mixed refrigerant compressor
sors can prevent the lubricant of normal-temperature compressor
Sp separator
from freezing at low temperature. However, cryogenic compressors
VLV valve
are usually expensive and difficult to operate due to issues asso-
LMTD logarithmic mean temperature difference
ciated with low temperature, for example, ductility loss of mate-
rial, crankcase deformation and mechanical friction under bone-
tive function. Additionally, the multi-objective optimization algo- dry running condition (Lee et al., 2009, 20). On the contrary, the
rithms in MATLAB were used to find a set of Pareto optimal solu- normal-temperature compressor is not only mature in technology
tions for this system by Sayyaadi and Babaelahi (2011). Nekså et but also convenient to operate and maintain. Therefore, two pro-
al., 2010) built and tested the first full-scale mini-LNG plant for cesses for BOG treating of LNG carrier with normal-temperature
marine applications successfully which applied the mixed refrig- compressor are proposed and compared in this paper. The main
erant (MR) in combination with a lubricant injected screw com- thermodynamic parameters to be compared are specific energy
pressor. Romero et al. (2012) conducted a thermodynamic study consumption (SEC), exergy efficiency (EXE), coefficient of perfor-
of the Brayton re-liquefaction system on board, and analyzed and mance (COP), heat transfer curves and exergy losses of main equip-
evaluated the effects of various parameter choices and changes ment in optimized case and base case. In addition, the thermody-
on operating conditions and energy consumption, including sea- namic parameters of the re-liquefaction systems with the ambient
water temperature, vapor fraction at the end of the expander compression and the cryogenic compression are also compared and
and operating pressure. The BOG inlet temperature range in the analyzed.
plant varied from −100 to −140 °C and the cryogenic compres-
sor was used. Romero Gómez et al., 2014) compared the differ- 2. BOG re-liquefaction process
ent re-liquefaction plants on ships, considering their capacities and
efficiencies. They summarized the combination of re-liquefaction 2.1. Description of the process
plant and dual engine system and the cascade re-liquefaction sys-
tem would be the tendency of the developments for LNG carri- Two processes for BOG re-liquefaction in LNG carrier with
ers. Furthermore, a cascade re-liquefaction plant on board with normal-temperature compressor are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, re-
the cryogenic compressors, using propylene and ethylene as refrig- spectively. The BOG temperature from the cargo tank is in the
erants, combined with a dual fuel high pressure gas supply en- range from −130 °C to −100 °C, and the cryogenic BOG has a cer-
gine was investigated (Romero Gómez et al., 2015). Kwak et al., tain amount of cooling capacity. At this time, if the BOG directly
2018) focused on small-scale BOG re-liquefaction process for LNG enters the compression system, this part of cooling capacity will be
fueled ship and provided conceptual insights into the key operat- lost. In the present paper, the BOG absorbs heat to 25 °C through
ing variables on the performance of BOG re-liquefaction process. two main heat exchangers after it out of the cargo tank. Then the
One case was without compression and the other case was pre- heated BOG passes through the compressor system, the heat ex-
heating of the BOG to room temperature. Tan et al., 2018) proposed changers and the throttle valve to achieve re-liquefaction.
a dual mixed refrigerant re-liquefaction cycle for LNG carrier by For the single mixed refrigerant process (SMRP), the mixed re-
the cryogenic compressors. The study showed that the mass flow frigerants (MRs) are boosted by a three-stage compressor (M-Com)
rates of the processed BOG and the refrigerants were decreased in and cooled by three water coolers before entering the gas-liquid
comparison with the corresponding values for other existing sys- separator (Sp). The gas-phase MRs from the top of the separa-
tem. Krikkis (2018) developed a non-equilibrium thermodynamic tor are sequentially cooled by the two heat exchangers and throt-
and heat transfer model for LNG aging during ship transportation tled by a throttle valve (VLV2), and then the stream return to the
 L. Yin and Y. Ju / International Journal of Refrigeration 115 (2020) 9–17 11

Fig. 1. The diagram of single mixed refrigerant process with normal-temperature compressor for BOG re-liquefaction system (SMRP).

Fig. 2. The diagram of dual mixed refrigerant process with normal-temperature compressor for BOG re-liquefaction system (DMRP).

second-stage heat exchanger (HX2) to provide cooling and enter Table 1

The composition and initial mole fraction of MRs for SMRP and DMRP.
the mixer. The liquid-phase MRs from the bottom of the separator
are cooled in the first-stage heat exchanger (HX1), and after throt- Component Mole fraction
tling and reducing the pressure through a throttle valve, they are SMRP MR-1 in DMRP MR-2 in DMRP
mixed with the gaseous MR in the mixer to provide cooling capac-
Methane (CH4 ) 0.1408 0 0.1200
ity for the HX1. Finally, the MRs go back to the inlet of the first
Ethane (C2 H6 ) 0 0.4342 0
stage compressor to complete a refrigeration cycle. Propane (C3 H8 ) 0.0505 0.4342 0.2099
For the dual mixed refrigerant process (DMRP), the first mixed i-Butane (i-C4 H10 ) 0.3201 0.1317 0
refrigerant (MR-1) cycle corresponds to the precooling part. After Ethylene (C2 H4 ) 0.4043 0 0.6701
the MRs pass through the compression system and the HX1, they Nitrogen (N2 ) 0.0842 0 0
Flow rate (kmol/h) 29.680 7.594 16.685
go through the throttle valve to lower the temperature and back to
the HX1 and the compressor. The second mixed refrigerant (MR-2)
cycle drops the temperature of the MRs in two heat exchangers
and then the MRs flow through the throttle valve to return to the • Considering the high seawater temperature in summer, the
HX2, HX1 and compressors to finish the whole loop. temperature of the stream is cooled to 40 °C in the water
cooler.
2.2. Process modeling • The pressure (p0 ) and temperature (t0 ) in the reference state
are 101,325 Pa and 25 °C, respectively.
The two processes for BOG re-liquefaction in LNG carrier with • The adiabatic efficiencies of the compressors are 75%.
normal compressor are simulated in Aspen HYSYS and the Peng– • The pressure drops in coolers and heat exchangers and the
Robinson equation of state is used to determine the thermody- heat leak of the process are ignored.
namic properties of the working fluids (He et al., 2019). The BOG • The influences of potential and kinetic energy are negligi-
out of the cargo tank is composed of 95% methane, 2% ethane and ble and all the flows and heat transfer of the process are in
3% nitrogen at −125 °C and 140 kPa. The mass flow rate of the steady and one-dimensional state (Yin and Ju, 2020).
BOG is set at 350 kg/h. The components and initial mole fraction
of MRs for SMRP and DMRP are listed in Table 1. Other assump- Because of the two processes and control volumes at steady
tions are considered and given as follows for energy and exergy state condition, the energy and exergy balances for all the major
analyses, equipment can be presented as follows (He and Ju, 2014a):
12 L. Yin and Y. Ju / International Journal of Refrigeration 115 (2020) 9–17

(1) Compressors 2.3. Process optimization

Energy conversation : WCom = m˙ out,Com · hout,Com − m˙ in,Com · hin,Com In order to minimize the SEC of the two processes, MATLAB and
(1) HYSYS are combined to perform a global search of the system pa-
rameters through genetic algorithms (GA). GA is a computational
Exergy loss : ECom = Ein − Eout = m˙ in,Com · ein,Com model that simulates the natural selection and genetic mecha-
− m˙ out,Com · eout,Com + WCom (2) nism of Darwin’s theory of biological evolution. It is a method of
searching the optimal solution by simulating natural evolution. The
(2) Coolers GA generates a random initial population through equations, and
then iterates continuously using replication, crossover, and muta-
Energy conversation : QCooler = m˙ in,Cooler · (hout,Cooler − hin,Cooler )
tion methods to obtain a better-optimized objective function. In
(3) this paper, the minimization of the SEC is adopted as the objective
function. In the two BOG re-liquefaction processes, the heat trans-
fer effect of BOG and MR in the heat exchanger will be affected by
Exergy loss : ECooler = Ein − Eout = m˙ in,Cooler · (ein,Cooler − eout,Cooler ) the outlet pressure of the BOG compressor. For the MR cycle, the
(4) main factors affecting the SEC of the processes are the MR compo-
nent ratio, the MR flow rate, the MR evaporation pressure and the
(3) Heat exchangers condensation pressure. The optimal ratio and flow rate of the MR
can be obtained by individually optimizing the molar flow rate of

z
Energy conversation : QHX = m˙ Streami · (hout ,St reami − hin,Streami ) each component. The objective function can be given as:
i=1 Wtot
f (X ) = SEC = (12)
(5) m˙ LNG


z
Exergy loss : EHX = Ein,Streami − Eout ,St reami SMRP : X 1 = (m˙ C H4 , m˙ N2 , m˙ C3 H8 , m˙ i−C4 H10 , m˙ C2 H4 , pM6 , pB6 )

i=1 DMRP : X 2 = m˙ CH4 , m˙ C3 H8 −2 , m˙ C2 H4 , m˙ C2 H6 , m˙ C3 H8 −1 , m˙ i−C4 H10 ,

z 
= m˙ Streami (ein,Streami − eout ,St reami ) (6) pM6 , pMR10 , pB6
i=1
In order to guarantee that the algorithm can run continuously
(4) Throttle valves and accurately, some constraints are shown below.
Energy conversation : hin,VLV = hout,VLV (7) (1) The minimum temperature differences in HX1 and HX2 should
be not less than 3 °C.
HX1,HX2
tmin ≥3 (13)
Exergyloss : EVLV = Ein − Eout = m˙ in,VLV · (ein,VLV − eout,VLV )
(2) The pressure ratio of the compressors rCom should be no larger
(8)
than 3.
where e is the specific exergy, defined as: e = h − h0 − T0 (s − s0 ), pout
rCom = ≤3 (14)
T0 = 298.15 K, h0 and s0 are the specific enthalpy and entropy at pin
the reference state, respectively.
(3) For the two processes, considering that no liquid can exist in
For the re-liquefaction system, the SEC, EXE and COP are used
the compressors, the vapor fraction v of the streams M1, M3,
to assess the performance of the process according to the first and
M5, MR1, MR3 and MR5 should be 1. In addition, the streams
second laws of thermodynamics. The SEC refers to the energy con-
B1, B3 and B5 going into the BOG compressors are heated, so it
sumption to re-liquefy 1 kg BOG or produce 1 kg LNG. It can be
is not possible having any liquid in them.
expressed as:
Wtot
vM1,3,5,MR1,3,5 = 1 (15)
SEC = (9)
m˙ LNG The penalty function is used when any of the above constraints
are not satisfied to eliminate the unreasonable objective function
where Wtot is the total power of all the compressors and m˙ LNG is
values.
the mass flow rate of the generated LNG.
Exergy refers to the maximum theoretical power that can be p( X ) = f ( X ) + f ( X ) × e g ( X ) (16)
obtained from the system when the system and the environment
where
reach equilibrium (Moran et al., 2010). The EXE of a liquefaction  
system is the ratio of the minimum ideal liquefaction work to the 3 r 1
g(X ) = max  HX1,HX2  , Com , (17)
actual work required by the liquefaction system (He and Ju, 2014b), t  3 vM1,3,5,MR1,3,5
given as follows: min

Wideal m˙ LNG [(hLNG − h0 ) − T0 (sLNG − s0 )] 3. Optimization results and analyses

EXE = = (10)
Wtot Wtot
where Wideal is the minimum ideal liquefaction work. 3.1. Optimization results
The COP is the ratio of the cooling capacity absorption by the
feed gas during the liquefaction process to the net power con- The ranges of the key parameters mentioned above for the two
sumption of the system, and it can be written as: BOG re-liquefaction processes are listed in Tables 2 and 3, respec-
tively. A new set of values within the upper and lower bounds
Wcooling m˙ LNG (hBOG − hLNG )
COP = = (11) of these parameters is selected by the GA, and then the objec-
Wtot Wtot tive function value is calculated through HYSYS. After continu-
where Wcooling is the cooling capacity absorption by the feed gas. ous iteration, the optimal results are found. The optimized results
 L. Yin and Y. Ju / International Journal of Refrigeration 115 (2020) 9–17 13

Table 2 Table 7
The range of the key parameters of the SMRP. The thermodynamic parameters of each stream in the optimized case for SMRP.

Parameter Lower bound Upper bound Stream ID Temperature Pressure Mass flow Vapor
(°C) (kPa) (kg/h) fraction
m˙ C H4 (kmol/h) 3 7
m˙ N2 (kmol/h) 1.4 3
m˙ C3 H8 (kmol/h) 0 3 BOG −125.0 140.0 350.0 1
m˙ i−C4 H10 (kmol/h) 6 10
B9 −60.0 140.0 350.0 1
m˙ C2 H4 (kmol/h) 8 12
PM6 (kPa) 950 2835 B1 25.0 140.0 350.0 1
PB6 (kPa) 1270 3780 B2 130.7 413.8 350.0 1
B3 40.0 413.8 350.0 1
Table 3 B4 126.0 982.5 350.0 1
The range of the key parameters of the DMRP. B5 40.0 982.5 350.0 1
Parameter Lower bound Upper bound B6 139.5 2642.4 350.0 1
B7 40.0 2642.4 350.0 1
m˙ C H4 (kmol/h) 0 5
m˙ C3 H8 −2 (kmol/h) 0.1 10 B8 25.0 2642.4 350.0 1
m˙ C2 H4 (kmol/h) 4 20 B10 −110.5 2642.4 350.0 0
m˙ C2 H6 (kmol/h) 0 5 B11 −158.1 140.0 350.0 0.3889
m˙ C3 H8 −1 (kmol/h) 0 8
BOG1 −158.1 140.0 137.9 1
m˙ i−C4 H10 (kmol/h) 0 3
PM6 (kPa) 950 2700 LNG −158.1 140.0 212.1 0
PMR10 (kPa) 950 2835 M1 25.0 105.0 1166.8 1
PB6 (kPa) 1270 3780
M2 84.4 315.0 1166.8 1
M3 40.0 315.0 1166.8 1
Table 4
M4 99.6 917.0 1166.8 1
The optimized results of the key parameters of the SMRP.
M5 40.0 917.0 1166.8 1
Parameter Optimized case Base case M6 100.1 2543.5 1166.8 1
m˙ C H4 (kmol/h) 3.726 4.180 M7 40.0 2543.5 1166.8 0.7323
m˙ N2 (kmol/h) 2.298 2.500 M8 40.0 2543.5 763.7 1
m˙ C3 H8 (kmol/h) 2.963 1.500
M9 40.0 2543.5 403.1 0
m˙ i−C4 H10 (kmol/h) 9.998 9.500
m˙ C2 H4 (kmol/h) 11.795 12.000 M10 −55.0 2543.5 763.7 0.1793
PM6 (kPa) 2543.499 2790 M11 −40.0 2543.5 403.1 0
PB6 (kPa) 2642.365 3600 M12 −180.0 2543.5 763.7 0
WBOG (kW) 64.7 72.3
M13 −60.1 105.0 403.1 0.1741
WMR (kW) 94.2 94.2
Wtot (kW) 158.9 166.5 M14 −183.0 105.0 763.7 0.0680
SEC (kWh/kgLNG ) 0.7494 0.8858 M15 −56.3 105.0 763.7 0.8300
EXE 0.3790 0.3191 M16 −57.4 105.0 1166.8 0.6557
COP 0.2762 0.2303

Table 5
The optimized results of the key parameters of the DMRP.
of the key parameters for the SMRP and DMRP are presented in
Parameter Optimized case Base case Tables 4 and 5, respectively. Moreover, the mole fractions of MRs
m˙ C H4 (kmol/h) 3.990 2.002 for the two processes are shown in Table 6 after optimization. For
m˙ C3 H8 −2 (kmol/h) 3.893 3.503 SMRP, the increase in the flow rate of each component in the MRs
m˙ C2 H4 (kmol/h) 9.417 11.180 is propane and i-butane, so the molar flow of the MR after opti-
m˙ C2 H6 (kmol/h) 1.846 3.297
m˙ C3 H8 −1 (kmol/h) 5.962 3.297
mization increases by 3.7%. Propane and i-butane are increased af-
m˙ i−C4 H10 (kmol/h) 2.990 1.000 ter the optimization on the molar fraction of MRs. Therefore, as
PM6 (kPa) 1748.576 2700 a whole, the molar fraction of high-boiling substances increases
PMR10 (kPa) 2652.260 2700 and the molar fraction of low-boiling components decreases, which
PB6 (kPa) 3231.688 2790
will lead to better heat transfer in the high temperature section. As
WBOG (kW) 69.6 66.1
WMR (kW) 83.8 77.1 a result, the SEC is reduced to 0.7494 kWh/kgLNG , which is 15.4%
Wtot (kW) 153.4 143.2 lower than that of base case. Meanwhile, the EXE and the COP in
SEC (kWh/kgLNG ) 0.5635 0.9780 the optimized case are 18.8% and 19.9% higher than that in the
EXE 0.5120 0.2916 base case.
COP 0.3701 0.2037
For DMRP, the increase in MR-1 flow rate is due to the larger
increase in the molar flow of propane and i-butane, and the
Table 6
relatively small reduction in ethane. Similarly, in terms of molar
The optimized mole fractions of MRs for SMRP and DMRP.
fraction, the contents of propane and i-butane are increased and
Component Mole fraction the content of ethane is decreased after the optimization. Because
SMRP MR-1 in DMRP MR-2 in DMRP the MR-1 only passes through the HX1 in the high-temperature
Methane (CH4 ) 0.1210 0 0.2307
section, the increase of high-boiling substances helps to enhance
Ethane (C2 H6 ) 0 0.1709 0 the heat transfer effect and increase the heat transfer efficiency.
Propane (C3 H8 ) 0.0963 0.5522 0.2250 The flow rate of methane and propane are increased and ethylene
i-Butane (i-C4 H10 ) 0.3248 0.2769 0 is reduced and the molar flow of MR-2 is increased by 3.7%. The
Ethylene (C2 H4 ) 0.3832 0 0.5443
molar fractions of methane and propane are both increased while
Nitrogen (N2 ) 0.0747 0 0
Flow rate (kmol/h) 30.780 10.800 17.30 propane is increased less and it can be ignored. The heat transfer
efficiency in the low temperature section is improved by increasing
14 L. Yin and Y. Ju / International Journal of Refrigeration 115 (2020) 9–17

Table 8
The thermodynamic parameters of each stream in the optimized case for DMRP.

Stream ID Temperature Pressure Mass flow Vapor

(°C) (kPa) (kg/h) fraction

BOG −125.0 140.0 350.0 1

B11 −50.0 140.0 350.0 1
B1 25.0 140.0 350.0 1
B2 132.2 420.0 350.0 1
B3 40.0 420.0 350.0 1
B4 150.4 1260.0 350.0 1
B5 40.0 1260.0 350.0 1
B6 134.7 3231.7 350.0 1
B7 40.0 3231.7 350.0 1
B8 −30.0 3231.7 350.0 1
B9 −131.9 3231.7 350.0 0
B10 −158.8 140.0 350.0 0.2121
BOG1 −158.8 140.0 77.8 1
LNG −158.8 140.0 272.2 0
M1 25.0 105.0 492.2 1
M2 72.1 310.0 492.2 1
M3 40.0 310.0 492.2 1
M4 88.5 900.0 492.2 1
M5 40.0 900.0 492.2 1
M6 73.5 1748.6 492.2 1
M7 40.0 1748.6 492.2 0
M8 −30.0 1748.6 492.2 0
M9 −50.3 105.0 492.2 0.1279
MR1 25.0 105.0 499.9 1
MR2 100.9 315.0 499.9 1
MR3 40.0 315.0 499.9 1
MR4 116.9 930.0 499.9 1
MR5 40.0 930.0 499.9 1
MR10 116.5 2652.3 499.9 1
MR11 40.0 2652.3 499.9 1
MR6 −30.0 2652.3 499.9 0.2534
MR7 −120.0 2652.3 499.9 0
MR8 −134.9 105.0 499.9 0.1287
MR9 −33.1 105.0 499.9 1

Table 9
The performance parameters of heat exchangers for SMRP and DMRP.

Parameters SMRP DMRP

Optimized Base case Optimized Base case

case case

tmin
HX1
(°C) 3.1 5.0 15.00 15.00 Fig. 3. Cold and hot composite curves and temperature difference of two heat ex-
tmin
HX2
(°C) 3.0 3.5 3.02 6.17 changers for SMRP: (a) optimized case, (b) base case.
LMTD in HX1 (°C) 21.8 23.4 24.35 34.49
LMTD in HX2 (°C) 8.7 16.2 8.87 13.87
Heat flow in HX1 (kW) 120.419 112.814 95.112 94.828 3.2. Optimization analyses
Heat flow in HX2 (kW) 121.390 116.834 98.175 73.151
Heat flow (kW) 241.809 229.648 193.287 167.979
It is important to study the heat transfer curve of the heat ex-
changers in the process of re-liquefying BOG with MRs. The cold
and hot composite curves and temperature difference of two heat
the content of low boiling substances. After the optimization, the exchangers for SMRP and DMRP are presented in Figs. 3 and 4, in
SEC, EXE, and COP of the DMRP changed significantly. The SEC which (a) is the optimized case and (b) is the base case. It can be
is decreased to 0.5635 kWh/kgLNG and the EXE and the COP are found from the temperature difference curves that the temperature
increased to 0.5120 and 0.3701, respectively. Compared to manual difference is smaller and the hot and cold composite curves are
adjustment, the optimal solution is found by the GA more quickly. closer in optimized case for two processes. For SMRP, the temper-
It can be seen from Tables 4 and 5 that the DMRP shows better ature difference between the cold and hot curves is significantly
performance under the conditions of treating BOG with the same reduced because of the optimization for the MR ratio. For DMRP,
mass flow. The SEC of the DMRP is lower about 24.8% than that the heat transfer performance for hot and cold composite curves
of the SMRP. At the same time, the EXE and the COP of the SMRP of the high and low temperature sections have been improved be-
are 0.3790 and 0.2762, which are lower 26.0% and 25.4% than that cause the increase in the fraction of high-boiling substances in
of the DMRP. The result is consistent with the fact that the en- MR-1 and the decrease in the fraction of low-boiling substances
ergy consumption of a multi-stage MR liquefaction process is lower in MR-2. The heat exchanger performance parameters of the re-
than that of a single-stage MR liquefaction process in a natural gas liquefaction processes before and after GA optimization are shown
liquefaction process (Gu and Lu, 2010). That is because the cold in Table 9. Except for minimum temperature approach of HX1 in
and hot heat transfer curves can be matched better by changing the DMRP, the minimum temperature approach and the logarith-
the proportion of mixed refrigerant in each stage through liquefac- mic mean temperature difference (LMTD) of other heat exchangers
tion step by step. Tables 7 and 8 present the thermodynamic pa- are reduced after optimization. Although the temperature differ-
rameters of each stream in the optimized case for SMRP and DMRP. ences of the heat exchangers are reduced after optimization, the
 L. Yin and Y. Ju / International Journal of Refrigeration 115 (2020) 9–17 15

total heat exchange capacity is also increased due to the increase

in the total MR flow rate.
In the practical engineering applications, there are irreversible
losses for each equipment, so the exergy losses are occurred
(Yin and Ju, 2020). The exergy losses of the main equipment for
the SMRP and the DMRP after optimization are illustrated in Fig. 5.
The total exergy losses of the main equipment are 86.71 kW for the
DMRP, which are 16.5% lower than that of 103.83 kW of the SMRP.
The reason is that the MR flow in the SMRP is larger, which affects
the total exergy losses to a certain extent. For the two processes,
the first two equipment with the highest exergy losses are wa-
ter coolers and heat exchangers, both of which are heat exchange
equipment. This is because the cold and hot composite curves of
the heat exchange equipment cannot be completely overlapped,
and the large interval will cause the large exergy loss. The next
major exergy loss contributions are the BOG and MR compressors
and the throttle valves, where the existence of friction and heat
loss leads to the occurrence of exergy losses.

3.3. Comparison and analysis

In order to compare the effects of the normal-temperature com-

pressor and the cryogenic compressor on the thermodynamic char-
acteristics of the entire re-liquefaction processes, the processes
are adjusted based on the SMRP and the DMRP. The BOG from
the storage tank enters directly to the compression system with-
out going through the two-stage heat exchanger. The diagrams
of the two processes are shown in Figs. 6 and 7. The compo-
sition and the mass flow of the BOG and the configuration of
MR cycle remain unchanged. Meanwhile, the same parameters in
Tables 2 and 3 are optimized using GA and several thermody-
namic parameters obtained are listed in Table 10. In addition,
the comparison with other processes in the previous literature is
also shown in Table 10. The optimized mole fractions of MRs for
SMRP and DMRP with cryogenic compressor are demonstrated in
Table 11. Since the BOG directly enters the compressor in the low-
temperature compression re-liquefaction system, the two heat ex-
changers both miss one stream of cold fluid. In order to meet
the law of energy conservation, the cooling capacity provided by
the MR must be increased. Therefore, the flow rate of the MR
Fig. 4. Cold and hot composite curves and temperature difference of two heat ex-
in the two low-temperature compression systems is higher than
changers for DMRP: (a) optimized case, (b) base case.

Fig. 5. The exergy losses of main equipment in the optimized case for SMRP and DMRP.
16 L. Yin and Y. Ju / International Journal of Refrigeration 115 (2020) 9–17

Fig. 6. The diagram of single mixed refrigerant process with cryogenic compressor for BOG re-liquefaction system.

Fig. 7. The diagram of dual mixed refrigerant process with cryogenic compressor for BOG re-liquefaction system.
Table 10
Comparison of the BOG re-liquefaction processes.

BOG re-liquefaction Process m˙ BOG (kg/h) Power consumption (kW) SEC (kWh/kgLNG ) EXE COP

(Sayyaadi and Babaelahi, 2010) 5640.0 4745.7 —— 0.1420 ——

(Sayyaadi and Babaelahi, 2011) 5640.0 5510.9 —— 0.2531 ——
(Nekså et al., 2010) 833.4 395.0 0.4900 —— ——
(Romero et al., 2012) 6249.6 4873.0 0.7900 0.4800 0.2650
(Romero Gómez et al., 2015) 7707.6 2305.0 0.6400 0.3700 0.2200
(Case 1) (Kwak et al., 2018) 83.3 106.0 1.2700 —— ——
(Tan et al., 2018) 4557.6 2585.8 0.5890 0.4130 0.2500
(Case 1) (Yin and Ju, 2019) 350.0 229.4 0.7333 0.2827 0.2538
SMRP with cryogenic compressor 350.0 161.4 1.1310 0.2468 0.1715
DMRP with cryogenic compressor 350.0 158.9 0.5875 0.4907 0.3552
SMRP with normal-temperature compressor 350.0 158.9 0.7494 0.3790 0.2762
DMRP with normal-temperature compressor 350.0 153.4 0.5635 0.5120 0.3701

Table 11 that of SMRP with cryogenic compressor and worse than that of
The optimized mole fractions of MRs for SMRP and DMRP with cryogenic compres-
DMRP of normal-temperature compressor. The worst performance
sor.
of the four process configurations is the SMRP with cryogenic com-
Component Mole fraction pressor and its SEC, EXE and COP are 1.131 kWh/kgLNG , 0.2468 and
SMRP MR-1 in DMRP MR-2 in DMRP 0.1715. The SEC of the SMRP with normal-temperature compres-
sors is 33.7% less than that of the system with cryogenic com-
Methane (CH4 ) 0.1145 0 0.2114
Ethane (C2 H6 ) 0 0.2725 0 pressors. Similarly, the SEC of the DMRP using normal-temperature
Propane (C3 H8 ) 0.1402 0.4976 0.1590 compressors is 4.1% lower than that of the system using cryogenic
i-Butane (i-C4 H10 ) 0.3353 0.2299 0 compressors. Therefore, the way to make full use of the cooling
Ethylene (C2 H4 ) 0.3441 0 0.6295 capacity of the BOG to increase its temperature to the normal-
Nitrogen (N2 ) 0.0659 0 0
Flow rate (kmol/h) 34.860 20.532 19.009
temperature and then enter the compressor can improve the sys-
tem performance.

that of the normal-temperature compression system and the mole
fractions of the MR are also different. The SEC, EXE and COP of
DMRP with cryogenic compressor are 0.5875 kWh/kgLNG , 0.4907
and 0.3552, respectively, the performance of which is better than
4. Conclusion
Two processes for BOG re-liquefaction of LNG carrier, the SMRP
and DMRP with normal-temperature compressor, are proposed and
compared. The thermodynamic analyses of the two processes are
 L. Yin and Y. Ju / International Journal of Refrigeration 115 (2020) 9–17
conducted according to the energy and exergy balances and the
process models are simulated in Aspen HYSYS. At the same time,
the GA is selected to optimize the two process. After optimiza-
tion, the result shows that the performance of the DMRP is better
than that of the SMRP. The SEC of the DMRP is 0.5635 kWh/kgLNG ,
which is lower about 24.8% than that of the SMRP. The EXE and the
COP of the SMRP are 0.3790 and 0.2762, which are lower 26.0% and
25.4% than that of the DMRP. The total exergy losses of the main
equipment are 86.71 kW for the DMRP, which are 16.5% lower than
that of 103.83 kW of the SMRP. In conclusion, the DMRP with the
normal-temperature compressor for the BOG re-liquefaction shows
better performance than that of the SMRP based on the energy
and exergy analysis. Finally, in order to compare the effects of
the normal-temperature compressor and the cryogenic compressor
on the thermodynamic characteristics of the entire re-liquefaction
processes, the processes are adjusted on the basis of the SMRP
and the DMRP. The results show that the way to make full use of
the cooling capacity of the BOG to increase its temperature to the
normal-temperature and then enter the compressor can improve
the system performance. Therefore, for the two MR re-liquefaction
systems, the performance of the normal-temperature compres-
sion system is better than that of the low-temperature compres-
sion system. Especially in the four processes, the DMRP with the
normal-temperature compressor for the BOG re-liquefaction has
lower energy consumption and higher efficiency.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
References
Krikkis, R.N., 2018. A thermodynamic and heat transfer model for LNG ageing during
ship transportation. Towards an efficient boil-off gas management. Cryogenics
92, 76–83.
Lin, W.S., Zhang, N., Gu, A.Z., 2010. LNG (liquefied natural gas): a necessary part in
China’s future energy infrastructure. Energy 35, 4383–4391.
Kurle, Y.M., Wang, S., Xu, Q, 2015. Simulation study on boil-off gas minimization
and recovery strategies at LNG exporting terminals. Appl. Energy 156, 628–641.
Shin, Y., Lee, Y.P., 2009. Design of a boil-off natural gas reliquefaction control system
for LNG carriers. Appl. Energy 86, 37–44.
Sayyaadi, H., Babaelahi, M., 2010. Thermoeconomic optimization of a cryogenic re-
frigeration cycle for re-liquefaction of the LNG boil-off gas. Int. J. Refrig. 33,
1187–1207.
17
Sayyaadi, H., Babaelahi, M., 2011. Multi-objective optimization of a joule cycle for
re-liquefaction of the liquefied natural gas. Appl. Energy 88, 3012–3021.
Romero Gómez, J., Romero Gómez, M., Lopez Bernal, J., Baaliña Insua, A., 2015. Anal-
ysis and efficiency enhancement of a boil-off gas reliquefaction system with
cascade cycle on board LNG carriers. Energy Convers. Manag. 94, 261–274.
Romero, J., Orosa, J.A., Oliveira, A.C, 2012. Research on the Brayton cycle design con-
ditions for reliquefaction cooling of LNG boil off. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 17, 1–10.
Nekså, P., Brendeng, E., Drescher, M., Norberg, B., 2010. Development and analysis
of a natural gas re-liquefaction plant for small gas carriers. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng.
2 (2–3), 143–149.
Romero Gómez, R., Romero Gómez, M., Ferreiro García, R., De Miguel Catoira, A.,
2014. On board LNG reliquefaction technology: a comparative study. Pol. Marit.
Res. 21, 77–88.
Tan, H., Shan, S., Nie, Y., Zhao, Q.X., 2018. A new boil-off gas re-liquefaction system
for LNG carriers based on dual mixed refrigerant cycle. Cryogenics 92, 84–92.
Yin, L., Ju, Y.L., 2019. Comparison and analysis of two nitrogen expansion cycles for
BOG re-liquefaction systems for small LNG ships. Energy 172, 769–776.
He, T.B., Liu, Z., Ju, Y.L., Parvez, A.M., 2019. A comprehensive optimization and com-
parison of modified single mixed refrigerant and parallel nitrogen expansion
liquefaction process for small-scale mobile LNG plant. Energy 167, 1–12.
Kim, D., Hwang, C., Gundersen, T., Lim, Y., 2019. Process design and economic op-
timization of boil-off-gas re-liquefaction systems for LNG carriers. Energy 173,
1119–1129.
Kochunni, S.K., Chowdhury, K., 2019. LNG boil-off gas reliquefaction by Brayton re-
frigeration system–part 1: exergy analysis and design of the basic configuration.
Energy 176, 753–764.
Kochunni, S.K., Joy, J., Chowdhury, K, 2019. LNG boil-off gas reliquefaction by Bray-
ton refrigeration system–part 2: improvements over basic configuration. Energy
176, 861–873.
Chin, Y.W., 2006. Cycle analysis on LNG boil-off gas re-liquefaction plant. Prog. Su-
percond. Cryog. 8 (4), 34–38.
Kwak, D.H., Heo, J.H., Park, S.H., Seo, S.J., Kim, J.K., 2018. Energy-efficient design and
optimization of boil-off gas (BOG) re-liquefaction process for liquefied natural
gas (LNG)-fuelled ship. Energy 148, 915–929.
Lee, Y.P., Shin, Y.H., Lee, S.H., Kim, K.H, 2009. Boil-off gas reliquefaction system for
LNG carriers with BOG-BOG heat exchange. J. Soc. Nav. Archit. Korea 46 (4),
444–451.
Ernst P. High Reliability of The Laby® LNG BOG Compressor with the Unique Sealing
System. Burckhardt Compression 2005:8.
Yin, L., Ju, Y.L., 2020. Process optimization and analysis of a novel hydrogen lique-
faction cycle. Int. J. Refrig. 110, 219–230.
He, T.B., Ju, Y.L., 2014a. A novel process for small-scale pipeline natural gas liquefac-
tion. Appl. Energy 115, 17–24.
Moran, M.J., Shapiro, H.N., Boettner, D.D., Bailey, M, 2010. Fundamentals of Engi-
neering Thermodynamics. John Wiley & Sons.
He, T.B., Ju, Y.L., 2014b. A novel conceptual design of parallel nitrogen expansion
liquefaction process for small-scale LNG (liquefied natural gas) plant in skid–
mount packages. Energy 75, 349–359.
Gu, A.Z., Lu, X.S., 2010. Handbook of Liquefied Natural Gas Technology. Machinery
Industry Press, Beijing, China, pp. 77–83.