Energy 168 (2019) 542e557

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Advanced exergoeconomic evaluation of a mini-scale nitrogen dual

expander process for liquefaction of natural gas
Ali Palizdar, Talieh Ramezani, Zahra Nargessi, Saeedeh AmirAfshar, Mojgan Abbasi,
Ali Vatani*
Institute of Liquefied Natural Gas (I-LNG), School of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

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

Article history: A mini-scale nitrogen dual expander process for the production of liquefied natural gas was evaluated by
Received 30 May 2018 conventional and advanced exergoeconomic analyses. The main indicators of the analyses were calcu-
Received in revised form lated and analyzed to determine the effect of equipment cost and performance on process total cost.
20 October 2018
Results of the conventional analysis indicated that the compressors have the highest total costs including
Accepted 15 November 2018
Available online 17 November 2018
mainly investment cost. However, the total cost of the other components mainly consists of exergy
destruction cost resulting in small exergoeconomic factors. Regarding results of the advanced analysis,
most of exergy destruction cost of the compressors and the expanders is avoidable endogenous that
Keywords:
Liquefaction
reveals a high potential for improvement. However, a large portion of the investment cost of the
Natural gas equipment is unavoidable endogenous. The largest share of total avoidable cost belongs to EXP-1 (59%)
Nitrogen followed by EXP-2 (33%) which exhibits the highest priority of the expanders for improvement. This also
Expansion indicates that these components are the most important components from economic point of view.
Advanced exergoeconomic Sensitivity of the analyses indicators to the main influencing parameters, maximum and minimum
pressures of the cycle and the refrigerant flow rate was also investigated.
© 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction will result in a considerable decrease in fuel consumption and

In the recent decades, the global trade of liquefied natural gas
(LNG) has been continuously grown owing to its environmental
benefits in many applications regarding pollutants emission
compared to alternative fossil fuels. Particularly in 2016, the LNG
trade has recorded an increase of 5% toward 2015 [1]. However,
feasibility and profitability of LNG production and utilization need
to be improved [2]. The main challenge in LNG plants is high energy
consumption for liquefying a stream of natural gas. While the
liquefaction energy changes depending on the type of liquefaction
cycle and site conditions e.g. location weather, about 8% of the feed
gas to the LNG plants is usually consumed for the liquefaction in
compression section. A great portion of total energy consumption
in an LNG plant takes place in the compressor drivers where natural
gas fuel is converted to shaft work directly or electricity in case of
electrically driven compressors. Regarding the energy consumption
scale of the LNG plants, any improvement in their energy efficiency
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: avatani@ut.ac.ir (A. Vatani).
consequently pollutant emission [3,4].
Amongst many process analysis methods with the aim of effi-
ciency improvement, only exergoeconomic analysis can provide
useful information about the economic and technical aspects of the
process, simultaneously. It also reveals the effect of exergy
destruction of process equipment on the process economy as
precious information for finding the best strategy for performance
improvement. When analyzing results of the exergoeconomic
analysis, it is important to know a part of the exergy destruction
cost or capital investment of equipment that can be avoided
somehow. Besides, calculating a part of the exergy destruction cost
and the capital investment of a component which induced from the
other equipment malfunction can establish a deep understanding
about interconnection between the process components [5,6].
These important data can be obtained using exergoeconomic
analysis in advanced mode.
Several studies on applying the conventional and advanced
exergoeconomic analysis to numerous natural gas liquefaction
process have been reported in the literature. Morosuk et al. [7]
evaluated the PRICO liquefaction process using the exergoeconomic
analysis. The PRICO is a famous and popular LNG process that

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.11.058
0360-5442/© 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 A. Palizdar et al. / Energy 168 (2019) 542e557 543

Nomenclature F fuel
tot total
E_ exergy rate (kW) min minimum
C_ exergy cost rate ($/hr)
Superscripts
Z_ total investment cost rate ($/hr)
AV avoidable
c unit exergy cost ($/GJ)
UN unavoidable
r relative cost difference (%)
EN endogenous
f exergoeconomic factor (%)
EX exogenous
y exergy destruction ratio (%)
CI capital investment
y* exergy destruction percent (%)
OM operating and maintenance
T temperature (
C)
T thermal
Ẇ compressor duty (kW)
M mechanical
Greek letters
Abbreviations
3 exergy efficiency (%)
NG natural gas
h adiabatic efficiency (%)
LNG liquefied natural gas
D gradient
C compressor
EXP expander
Subscripts
E multi-stream heat exchanger
0 dead state
AC air cooler
i component
V flash drum
in inlet
PRSV Peng-Robinson-Stryjek-Vera
out outlet
COP coefficient of performance
COMP compressor
SEC specific energy consumption
EXP expander
PEC purchased equipment cost
AC air cooler
TCI total capital investment
k kth component
TRR total revenue requirement
D destruction
P product

utilizes a single mixed refrigerant (SMR) cycle in the liquefaction
unit. The results indicated that the process is well designed from
the thermodynamic and economic points of view. The total cost of
the generated LNG will finally decrease by reducing the irrevers-
ibility of the heat exchanger and accepting higher investment cost.
Mehrpooya and Ansarinasab [8,9] analyzed five mixed refrigerant
processes using advanced exergoeconomic analysis. The results
showed that by enhancing the efficiency of equipment or replacing
them with more efficient components, exergy destructions costs
can be reduced as most of the components destruction is endoge-
nous. They also applied the advanced analysis to an LNG plant with
a single effect absorption refrigeration cycle [10] and an LNG-NGL
coproduction unit [11]. In both studies, exergy destruction cost of
the majority of the components are endogenous, and thus, the ef-
fect of the components on the performance of each other is not
remarkable. Similar results have been reported by Mehrpooya et al.
[12] who investigated a novel integrated process for LNG produc-
tion and nitrogen removal using advanced exergoeconomic anal-
ysis. Based on the results, the exergy destruction and capital
investment cost rates of the equipment are mainly endogenous, so
the components have no considerable interactions between
themselves.
Nitrogen expansion cycles are widely used in particularly small-
scale and floating LNG plants due to their simplicity and less
equipment. Since the expansion cycles usually consume more en-
ergy than mixed refrigerant ones, some efforts have been already
done to reduce its energy consumption. He and Ju [13] presented an
optimal design of expansion liquefaction cycle for distributed-scale
LNG plant. They [14] also optimized a novel nitrogen expansion
liquefaction process for a small-scale LNG plant in skid-mount
packages. The results demonstrated that the optimized process
has high exergy efficiency and great economic benefits. Khan et al.
[15] utilized knowledge inspired method to minimize the energy
consumption of nitrogen single and dual expander processes for
natural gas liquefaction. Comparing previous works, the optimized
process showed significant energy savings. Yuan et al. [16] designed
and analyzed a small-scale natural gas liquefaction process that
uses a single nitrogen expansion with carbon dioxide pre-cooling
cycle. The process was consequently simulated and optimized to
find the minimum amount of energy consumed. Song et al. [17]
implemented a genetic algorithm optimization to a single nitrogen
expander process resulting 10% improvement in energy con-
sumption. The structure and operating condition of expansion cy-
cles differ from mixed refrigerant ones particularly due to using
expanders in the cycle and operating at relatively high pressures.
In the present work, conventional and advanced exer-
goeconomic analyses were applied to a nitrogen dual expander
process. The main objective of this investigation is to determine the
effect of process performance and exergy destruction of the
equipment on process economy through investigating the analyses
indicators. The results will also clear interconnection between the
equipment and the amount of imposed costs that can be avoided
via enhancement of the components efficiency. Finally, the effect of
some important operating variables on analyses indicators were
analyzed. The results are a strong basis for optimization of total cost
of the process through adjusting the variables values.
2. Process description
Although nitrogen expansion LNG processes have simpler
configuration and less equipment than mixed refrigerant ones, they
consume a higher amount of specific work in compression section
544 A. Palizdar et al. / Energy 168 (2019) 542e557

and consequently are less efficient. A certain part of the consumed Table 1
power can be recovered using a turbo-expander, because the single Characteristics of feed gas and LNG product streams of the process.

refrigerant remains in the gas phase within the entire cycle. These Feed gas LNG Stream
natural gas liquefaction processes are commonly used in offshore Mass Flow (tonne/day) 11.12 10.00
floating units. There are several numerous nitrogen expansion Temperature (ºC) 35 152.34
processes which have been introduced by various companies. Pressure (bar) 60 2.53
Among the commercialized ones, BHP Billiton is a well-known ni- Mass Enthalpy (kJ/kg) 4307.94 5250.23
Components (mole %)
trogen dual expansion LNG process designed by BHP Petroleum
Methane 92.94 94.47
PTY company which has a simple configuration and uses two ex- Ethane 3.00 3.29
panders [18]. Propane 0.48 0.53
Fig. 1 shows the process flow diagram of BHP process. As shown, i-Butane 0.06 0.07
n-Butane 0.08 0.09
natural gas with the characteristics presented in Table 1, enters heat
Nitrogen 3.44 1.55
exchanger E-1 at 35
C and is cooled down to 6.15
C. Then, it is
liquefied and subcooled to 143
C passing through E-2 and E-3
heat exchangers, respectively. Consequently, pressure of the natural
gas stream is reduced to 2.53 bar in throttling valve, and the outlet the process. According to many references [6,19,20], the Stryjek-
liquid from V-1 separator leaves the process as LNG product with Vera modification of the Peng-Robinson equation of state, PRSV,
essential specifications shown in Table 1. The refrigerant (stream is the best choice to simulate the process accurately and precisely.
16) exits from heat exchanger E-1 at 36.92
C and 5.95 bar and Thereby, the performance of the process components and overall
passes through C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 compressors. Then, it enters process can be obtained in details, and effective parameters on the
air cooler AC-4, and exchanger E-1 at 40
C and 40.02 bar and the process energy and economic performances can be studied using
outlet stream is divided into two separate parts. One part (stream conventional and advanced exergoeconomic analyses.
12) expands to 6.95 bar via EXP-1 followed by crossing the mixer,
and its temperature is reduced to 99.61
C. The other part (stream 3.1. Conventional exergoeconomic analysis
8) enters E-2 and its temperature decreases to 83.14
C. It expands
to 7.8 bar and is cooled down to 150.04
C, therefore, it provides Exergoeconomic analysis is applied to a process system such as
the required refrigeration of E-3 and is followed by a mixer LNG plant for indicating economic effects associated with exergy
at 86.44
C. The outlet stream of the mixer (stream 14) passes destruction of equipment as the main exergy analysis parameter. In
through exchanger E-2 at 94.67
C and it warms up to 36.92
C this evaluation, the analyzer can obtain useful information which
crossing E-1. As the figure illustrates, the vapor stream from the are not available via prevalent technical and economical evalua-
separator is returned to the heat exchangers to meet environmental tions [5]. In exergy analysis, process components can be evaluated
considerations utilizing its cold duty. This can also improve energy through exergy destruction and exergy efficiency. However, it is
efficiency of the liquefaction cycle. also important to study influence of irreversibilities on the process
economy and profitability. This assessment facilitates determining
optimum operating parameters and finding ways to improve eco-
3. Process analysis nomic efficiency of the process. For this reason, the exer-
goeconomic analysis results can be a strong basis to optimize the
In order to apply the conventional and advanced exer- process from both technical and economical viewpoints. Before
goeconomic analyses to BHP process, it was firstly simulated by applying the analysis, an exergy analysis along with an economic
Aspen HYSYS software to model thermodynamic performance of evaluation have to be carried out on the process to determine both

6
17 AC-1 18 19 AC-2 20 21 AC-3 22 23 AC-4

C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4

EXP-1 EXP-2
13
16
12
7 5
10
14
8
26 E-1 25 E-2 11 V-1

15 24 E-3 4
9
NG 1 2 3 LNG

Fig. 1. Process flow diagram of the nitrogen expansion process - BHP Billiton.
 A. Palizdar et al. / Energy 168 (2019) 542e557
exergy destruction of the equipment and economic factors. The
process economy must be evaluated based on a suitable economic
model. A structural model for conventional and advanced exer-
goeconomic calculations is illustrated in Fig. 2.
The liquefaction process was analyzed by exergy concept using
the equations provided in Table 2. The general exergy balance
equation was written to calculate exergy destruction of the
different components. However, there are at least two methods to
define exergy efficiency of the equipment which are usually utilized
in liquefaction plants [20]. In this investigation, the well-known
fuel/product method were used to define the exergy efficiency
equation for the various components [19]. The main idea of this
theory is to determine fuel and product streams for exergy in each
equipment due to its energy performance. For instance, the com-
pressors consume power to increase the pressure of inlet stream to
a certain amount resulting temperature increase. According to the
fuel/product theory, the power is considered as exergy fuel and the
difference between exergy of the inlet and outlet streams can be
assumed as exergy product. Accordingly, the ratio of exergy prod-
uct/exergy fuel is defined as exergy efficiency.
An economic evaluation was also carried out on the process
based on the total revenue requirement method (TRR) which was
selected as an economic model [5]. In this approach, total pur-
chased equipment cost (PEC) and consequently total capital in-
vestment cost (TCI) are firstly estimated. Then annual levelized TRR
for each equipment is calculated through annual levelized costs for
capital investment, operation and maintenance and fuel, assuming
certain values for necessary economic, financial and operating
input parameters. Finally, total capital investment for each
component (Z_ k) can be obtained [5]. The input parameters and
assumptions used in the computation of TRR are summarized in
Table 3. The assumptions were made due to previous experiences
and also some local considerations to design and construct a plant.
Cost equations for various components are also listed in Table 4.
Now, cost balance for the overall process at steady state condi-
tion, regardless exergy loss, is formulated as [5]:
CI OM
C_ P;tot ¼ C_ F;tot þ Z_ tot þ Z_ tot (1)
As a starting point for exergoeconomic analysis, cost balance
equation which is summation of cost rate of inlet streams and cost
545
rates associated with capital investment and operating and main-
tenance, must be written for each equipment. Considering the
definitions for cost rates associated with exergy fuel and product
(E_ F,k and E_ P,k), Eq. (1) could be written as:
cP;k E_ P;k ¼ cF;k E_ F;k þ Z_ k (2)
where cF,k and cP,k are average cost rates per unit of exergy ($/GJ).
The values of E_ F,k and E_ P,k are calculated from exergy analysis and Z_ k
are obtained via the economic evaluation. Using cost balance and
auxiliary equations, cost rates per unit of exergy for fuel and
product (cF,k and cP,k) are achieved. The parameter cF,k is the main
basis for calculating the conventional and advanced analyses pa-
rameters. In Table 5, cost balance and auxiliary equations for pro-
cess components are provided. Cost rate per unit of exergy for the
process streams are obtained via simultaneous solving the equa-
tions as a matrix shown in Eq. (3) using Matlab software.
(3)
Exergoeconomic parameters consist of exergy destruction cost
rate (C_ D,k), relative cost difference (rk) and exergoeconomic factor
(fk). C_ D,k is calculated through combination of Eq. (2) and general
exergy balance equation [5]:
E_ F;k ¼ E_ P;k þ E_ D;k (4)
With eliminating E_ F,k:
cP;k E_ P;k ¼ cF;k E_ P;k þ Z_ k þ cF;k E_ D;k (5)
The last term in the recent equation represents cost rate asso-
ciated with exergy destruction (C_ D,k) while E_ P,k is fixed [5]:
C_ D;k ¼ cF;k E_ D;k (6)
The parameter C_ D,k shows the cost of excess fuel must be sup-
plied so that kth component can cover the exergy destruction cost
rate, more than cost required for exergy product.
The relative cost difference (rk) for kth component which rep-
resents relative increase in average cost of fuel exergy is defined as
[5]:
546 A. Palizdar et al. / Energy 168 (2019) 542e557

work [19]. The thermodynamic hybrid cycles method was used to

cP;k  cF;k
rk ¼ (7) calculate endogenous part of exergy destruction. Advanced exer-
cF;k goeconomic analysis could indicate economical malfunction of
The exergoeconomic factor (fk) which represents non-exergy- process equipment with more detail. This results in determination
related costs with respect to total cost of kth component is of the best strategy for reducing total cost. In this analysis, cost rates
defined as [5]: associated with exergy destruction, capital investment and oper-
ating and maintenance are expressed in four categories considering
Z_ k their origins and ability to avoid: avoidable endogenous, avoidable
fk ¼ (8) exogenous, unavoidable endogenous and unavoidable exogenous.
Z k þ C_ D;k
_
In terms of origin, the cost rates are divided as [6,24]:
With the aim of reducing total cost of a system, if the value of
this parameter for a system device is small, its thermal efficiency EN EX
and performance should be improved even if it causes to increase C_ D;k ¼ C_ D;k þ C_ D;k (9)
capital investment. On the contrary, if the value of the parameter is
large, capital investment should be decreased by purchasing the
EN EX
equipment with low quality [5,6]. Z_ k ¼ Z_ k þ Z_ k (10)
The endogenous part of exergy destruction and total investment
3.2. Advanced exergoeconomic analysis cost rates of kth component are defined as [6,24]:

The main idea in advanced exergoeconomic analysis is to

EN EN
determine economic effects of the advanced exergetic analysis C_ D;k ¼ cF;k E_ D;k (11)
parameters. The procedure for calculating exergy destruction parts
of BHP process equipment was described in details in previous

Process simulation

Economic Exergy
TRR approach
analysis analysis

Total PEC Fuel/product

levelized cost approach Exergy balance

Exergy fuel
TCI estimation Assumptions
and product

Levelized TRR Exergy Exergy

efficiency destruction

k
Advanced
exergy analysis

Exergoeconomic Thermodynamic EN
analysis hybrid cycles approach D,k

Cost balance D,k

EX
, D,k
UN
, D,k
AV

Advanced AV,EN AV,EX U N,EN U N,EX

k D,k , D,k , D,k , D,k
exergoeconomic analysis

D,k , rk, fk

EN EX UN AV EN EX UN AV
k , k , k , k D,k , D,k , D,k , D,k

AV,EN AV,EX U N,EN U N,EX AV,EN AV,EX U N,EN U N,EX

k , k , k , k D,k , D,k , D,k , D,k

fkAV,EN, D,tot
AV,EN
, fkAV,EX, D,tot
AV,EX

Fig. 2. Structural model for conventional and advanced exergoeconomic calculations of the liquefaction process.
Table 2
Definitions of exergy analysis indicators applied to the liquefaction process.

Component, k Exergy of fuel ðE_ F;k Þ Exergy of product ðE_ P;k Þ Exergy destruction ðE_ D;k ¼ E_ F;k  E_ P;k Þ Exergetic efficiency ðek ¼ E_ P;k =E_ F;k Þ Exergy destruction Exergy destruction
ratio ðyk ¼ E_ D;k =E_ F;total Þ percent
ðy*k ¼ E_ D;k =E_ D;total Þ

Compressor _ E_ out  E_ in _ _ _ ðE_ out  E_ in Þ=W_ E_ D;Comp =E_ F;total E_ D;Comp =E_ D;total
W Comp W Comp  Eout þ Ein Comp
Expander M M
E_ in  E_ out _ Exp þ ðE_ T  E_ T Þ
W
M M
E_ in  E_ out  W_ Exp  ðE_ T  E_ T Þ ðW_ Exp þ ðE_ T  E_ T ÞÞ=ðE_ M  E_ M Þ E_ D;Exp =E_ F;total E_ D;Exp =E_
D;total
out in out in out in in out
Heat Exchanger E_ D;HE =E_ F;total E_ D;HE =E_ D;total
T > T0 P _T T P _T T P _T T P _M M P T T P _M M P T E_ D;HE =E_ E_ D;HE =E_
ðEin  E_ out ÞCold ðEout  E_ in ÞHot ðEin  E_ out ÞCold þ ðEin  E_ out ÞCold ð ðE_ out  E_ in ÞHot þ ðEout  E_ in ÞHot Þ=ð ðE_ in F;total D;total
X M  X M  X T  X    X   

A. Palizdar et al. / Energy 168 (2019) 542e557

M M T M M T M M
þ E_ in  E_ out þ E_ out  E_ in  E_ out  E_ in  E_ out  E_ in E_ out þ E_ in  E_ out
Cold Hot Hot Hot Cold Cold

T < T0 P _T T P _T T P _T T P _M M P T T P _M M P T E_ D;HE =E_ F;total E_ D;HE =E_ D;total

ðEout  E_ in ÞHot ðEin  E_ out ÞCold ðEout  E_ in ÞHot þ ðEout  E_ in ÞHot ð ðE_ in  E_ out ÞCold þ ðEin  E_ out ÞCold Þ=ð ðE_ out
X M M
 X M M
 X T T
 X M M
 T
 X M M
 
þ E_  E_ out in þ E_  E_
in out  E_  E_
in out  E_  E_ in out E_ in þ E_  E_
out in
Hot Cold Cold Cold Hot Hot

E-1 M M M M
ðE_ NG þ E_ 6 þ E_ 15 þ E_ 25 Þ
T T T T
ðE_ 7 þ E_ 1 Þ  ðE_ NG þ E_ 6 Þ
M M M M
ðE_ NG þ E_ 6 þ E_ 15 þ E_ 25 Þ
T T T T M M M M
ððE_ 7 þ E_ 1 Þ  ðE_ NG þ E_ 6 ÞÞ=ððE_ NG þ E_ 6 þ E_ 15 þ E_ 25 Þ E_ D;E1 =E_ F;total E_ D;E1 =E_ D;total
 M M M M
  M M M M
  M M M M

 E_ 1 þ E_ 7 þ E_ 16 þ E_ 26  E_ 1 þ E_ 7 þ E_ 16 þ E_ 26  E_ 1 þ E_ 7 þ E_ 16 þ E_ 26

 T T
  T T
  T T
  T T

þ E_ 15 þ E_ 25  E_ 16 þ E_ 26  T   T  þ E_ 15 þ E_ 25  E_ 16 þ E_ 26
T T
þ E_ 15 þ E_ 25  E_ 16 þ E_ 26

 T T
  T T

 E_ 7 þ E_ 1 þ E_ NG þ E_ 6

Air Cooler _
E_ in þ W AC
air
E_ out þ E_ out E_ in þ W _ _ _ air
AC  Eout  E out
air
ðE_ out þ E_ out Þ=ðE_ in þ W _ Þ
AC
E_ D;AC =E_ F;total E_ D;AC =E_ D;total
P _ P _ P _
Vessel E_ in Eout E_ 
in Eout Eout =E_ in E_ D;V =E_ F;total E_ D;V =E_ D;total
P _
Total System E_ F;total ¼ W Comp E_ F:total  E_ D;total E_ D;total ¼ Summation of irreversibility etotal ¼ 1  ðE_ D;total =E_
F;total Þ ytotal ¼ E_ D;total =E_ F;total y*total ¼ E_ D;total =E_ D;total ¼ 1
of all devices

547
548 A. Palizdar et al. / Energy 168 (2019) 542e557

Table 3
Parameters and assumptions used in the calculation of total revenue requirement.

Parameters (Units) Value

1a. Average general inflation rate (ieff) (2015e2042) (%) 10

1b. Average nominal escalation rate for all costs [for the operating and maintenance cost (rOMC) and fuel (rFC)] (%) 5
2a. Beginning of the design and construction period Jan. 1, 2015
2b. Date of commercial operation Jan. 1, 2017
3a. Plant economic life (BL) (years) 25
3b. Plant life for tax purposes (TL) (years) 20
4. Plant financing fractions and required returns on capital:
Type of financing Common Equity Preferred Stock Debt

Financing fraction (%) 35 15 50

Required annual return (%) 15 11.7 10
5a. Average combined income tax rate (t) (2015e2042) (%) 38
5b. Average property tax rate (%) 1.5
5c. Average insurance rate (%) 0.5
6. Total annual operating hours of the system operation at full load (t) 7446
7. Electricity cost ($/kWh) 0.017
8. Allocation of plant-facilities investment to the individual years of design and construction (%)
Jan. 1 - Dec. 31, 2015 40
Jan. 1 - Dec. 31, 2016 60

Table 4
Equation of cost for the process components.

Component Purchased-equipment cost functions Parameters

Compressor [21] Ccomp ¼ 580; 000 þ 20; 000 S0:6 ð$Þ S : driver powerðkWÞ75 < S < 30000
Expander [22] CExp ¼ 0:378 HP 0:81 ðk$Þ HP : horse power20 < HP < 5000
Multi-stream heat exchanger [23] CMSHE ¼ 425 Að$Þ A : heat transfer surface ðm2 Þ
Air cooler [22] CAC ¼ 30:0 A0:4 ðk$Þ A : total surface ðkft2 Þ0:05 < A < 200
Vertical separator [21] CSep ¼ 11; 600 þ 34 S0:85 ð$Þ S : shell mass ðkgÞ160 < S < 250; 000

Table 5
Cost balance and auxiliary equations for each component.

Component Cost balance Auxiliary equation

C-1 C_ 16 þ C_ WC1 þ Z_ C1 ¼ C_ 17 None

C-2 C_ 18 þ C_ WC2 þ Z_ C2 ¼ C_ 19 None
C-3 C_ 20 þ C_ WC3 þ Z_ C3 ¼ C_ 21 None
C-4 C_ þ C_
22 WC4 þ Z_ ¼ C_
C4 23
None
EXP-1 C_ 12 þ Z_ EXP1 ¼ C_ 13 þ C_ WEXP1 C_ 12 C_
¼ 13
E_ 12 E_ 13
EXP-2 C_ 9 þ Z_ EXP2 ¼ C_ 10 þ C_ WEXP2 C_ 9 C_ 10
¼
E_ 9 E_ 10
E-1a C_ NG þ C_ 6 þ C_ 15 þ C_ 25 þ Z_ E1 ¼ C_ 1 þ C_ 7 þ C_ 16 þ C_ 26 C_ 25 C_ 26 C_ 15 C_ 16 C_ NG  C_ 1 C_  C_ 7
¼ ; ¼ ; ¼ 6
E_ 25 E_ 26 E_ 15 E_ 16 E_ NG  E_ 1 E_ 6  E_ 7
E-2 C_ 1 þ C_ 8 þ C_ 14 þ C_ 24 þ Z_ E2 ¼ C_ 2 þ C_ 9 þ C_ 15 þ C_ 25 C_ 24 C_ 25 C_ 14 C_ 15 C_ 1  C_ 2 C_ 8  C_ 9
¼ ; ¼ ; ¼
E_ 24 E_ 25 E_ 14 E_ 15 E_ 1  E_ 2 E_ 8  E_ 9
E-3 C_ 2 þ C_ 10 þ C_ 5 þ Z_ E3 ¼ C_ 3 þ C_ 11 þ C_ 24 C_ 5 C_ 24 C_ 10 C_ 11
¼ ; ¼
E_
5 E_ 24 E_
10 E_
11
AC-1 C_ 17 þ C_ Airin þ C_ WAC1 þ Z_ AC1 ¼ C_ 18 þ C_ Airout C_ Airin ¼ 0; C_ Airout ¼ 0
AC-2 C_ þ
19 C_ Airin þ C_ WAC2 þ Z_ AC2 ¼ C_ þ
20 C_Airout C_ Airin ¼ 0; C_ Airout ¼ 0
AC-3 C_ 21 þ C_ Airin þ C_ WAC3 þ Z_ AC3 ¼ C_ 22 þ C_ Airout C_ Airin ¼ 0; C_ Airout ¼ 0
AC-4 C_ þ C_
23 Airin þ C_ W þ Z_
AC4 AC4 ¼ C_ þ C_
6 Airout C_Airin ¼ 0; C_ Airout¼0
V-1 C_ 4 þ Z_ V1 ¼ C_ 5 þ C_ LNG C_ 5 C_
¼ LNG
E_ 5 E_ LNG
VLV-1 C_ 3 ¼ C_ 4 None
Mixer C_ 11 þ C_ 13 ¼ C_ 14 None
Tee C_ ¼ C_ þ C_
7 12 8 C_ 8 C_
¼ 12
E_ 8 E_ 12
a
Average cost per unit of exergy for natural gas feed stream was assumed based on the data obtained from Iranian ministry of petroleum.
 A. Palizdar et al. / Energy 168 (2019) 542e557 549

Table 6
!Real
Z_ k
Assumptions for theoretical and unavoidable conditions for process equipment [19].
EN EN
Z_ k ¼ E_ P;k (12)
_
E Component Operating Theoretical Unavoidable
P;k conditions conditions conditions

Using Eqs. (9)e(12) exogenous part of cost rates can be calcu- Compressor h (%) 75 100 95
lated. In terms of ability to avoid, the cost rates are divided as Expander h (%) 75 100 95
Heat DTmin > 10 0 2
[6,24]:
Exchanger (ºC)
Air Cooler DTmin > 3 0 5
AV UN
C_ D;k ¼ C_ D;k þ C_ D;k (13) (ºC)

AV UN
Z_ k ¼ Z_ k þ Z_ k (14) (εk,modified), modified exergoeconomic factor (f AV,EN and f AV,EX ) and
k k
Unavoidable part of cost rates which cannot be avoided due to total exergy destruction cost (C_ AV,EN
tot and C_ AV,EX
tot ). They are defined as
technological and economical limitations are calculated as [6,24]: [6,24]:

UN UN _
C_ D;k ¼ cF;k E_ D;k (15) ek;modified ¼
EP;k
(25)
UN AV;EX
E_ F;k þ E_ D;k þ E_ D;k
!UN
UN Z_ k
Z_ k ¼ E_ P;k (16) AV;EN
_
E Z_ k
P;k f AV;EN
k
¼ AV;EN AV;EN
(26)
Avoidable part of cost rates shows capability of a component C_ D;k þ Z_ k
and overall system to improve efficiency. This part is obtained by
AV;EN AV;EN AV;EN
Eqs. (13) and (15) for exergy destruction and Eqs. (14) and (16) for
C_ tot ¼ C_ D;k þ Z_ k (27)
capital investment and operating and maintenance. The main pa-
rameters of advanced exergoeconomic analysis can be achieved by
AV;EX
calculating the amount of four categories. These parameters result Z_ k
in deep understanding of a process. Unavoidable endogenous part f AV;EX
k
¼ AV;EX AV;EX
(28)
C_ D;k þ Z_ k
of cost rates for kth component is defined as [6,24]:

UN;EN UN;EN
C_ D;k ¼ cF;k E_ D;k
AV;EX AV;EX AV;EX
(17) C_ tot ¼ C_ D;k þ Z_ k (29)

!UN
UN;EN EN Z_ k
Z_ k ¼ E_ P;k (18)
_
E P;k 4. Results and discussion
Unavoidable exogenous cost rates for kth component are
4.1. Conventional exergoeconomic analysis
calculated as below:

UN;EX UN;EX The focused liquefaction process in the present study was
C_ D;k ¼ cF;k E_ D;k (19) simulated by Aspen HYSYS software to analyze different aspects of
its performance. Verification of the simulation using some pa-
UN;EN UN UN;EN
Z_ k ¼ Z_ k  Z_ k (20) rameters of the process performance was discussed in the previous
work [19]. Thermodynamic data of the process streams including
Avoidable endogenous part of kth component cost rates which operating conditions and physical exergies used in the exer-
can be decreased by improving the thermodynamic efficiency of goeconomic analysis are listed in Table 7. Thermodynamic perfor-
the component itself, are obtained as [6,24]: mance of the process and the related equipment obtained from the
simulation are also summarized in Table 8. The liquefaction process
AV;EN AV;EN
C_ D;k ¼ cF;k E_ D;k (21) consists of one nitrogen expansion cycle with two expanders. This
structure provides the required refrigeration in two thermal
AV;EN EN UN;EN
levels, 99
C (streams 13) and 150
C (streams 10). In general,
Z_ k ¼ Z_ k  Z_ k (22) expansion cycles show lower coefficient of performance (COP)
relative to the vapor-compression refrigeration cycles because of a
Eventually, avoidable part of kth component exogenous cost
greater temperature change that takes place significantly during
rates which can be reduced by increasing the efficiency of other
heat transfer processes. In other words, the expansion cycles
components is calculated using following equations:
consume a higher work to produce a smaller amount of refrigera-
AV;EX AV;EX tion. Such a trend is also observed for specific power consumption
C_ D;k ¼ cF;k E_ D;k (23) (SEC) that is of higher value compared to vapor-compression cycle.
Despite this weakness, the cycles have a great advantage of energy
AV;EX EX UN;EX regeneration which makes them suitable for offshore applications
Z_ k ¼ Z_ k  Z_ k (24)
[25]. According to Table 8, COP and SEC of the process is calculated
Assumptions for theoretical and unavoidable conditions for 0.928 and 0.5159 kWh/kgLNG, respectively. The value of SEC is
process equipment are summarized in Table 6. within the allowed range of dual expander LNG processes [17].
There are five other parameters which improve the results of The value of average cost per unit of exergy and cost rates for all
advanced exergoeconomic analysis: modified exergy efficiency the material streams are provided in Table 7. Purchased and
550 A. Palizdar et al. / Energy 168 (2019) 542e557

Table 7
Thermodynamic data and average costs per unit of exergy for the process streams.

Stream Temperature 
(C) Pressure (bar) Mass flow (kg/hr) Exergy (kW) c ($/GJ) C_ ($/hr)

Thermal Mechanical Total

NG 35.00 60.00 461.78 0.04 73.66 73.70 3.00 0.80

1 6.15 59.50 461.78 0.47 73.64 74.11 207.07 55.25
2 83.14 59.00 461.78 6.77 87.26 94.03 917.23 310.48
3 143.00 58.50 461.78 24.68 96.22 120.90 1330.55 579.11
4 152.34 2.53 461.78 30.46 86.32 116.78 1377.53 579.11
5 152.34 2.53 45.12 2.00 1.55 3.55 1396.45 17.82
6 40.00 40.02 4256.27 0.45 383.09 383.54 2033.46 2807.69
7 6.15 39.52 4256.27 2.15 381.94 384.09 2083.46 2880.83
8 6.15 39.52 1625.41 0.82 145.86 146.68 2083.46 1100.15
9 83.14 39.02 1625.41 12.18 147.21 159.39 2201.21 1263.04
10 150.04 7.80 1625.41 41.00 83.79 124.79 2201.21 988.86
11 86.44 7.30 1625.41 13.07 79.10 92.17 2201.21 730.36
12 6.15 39.52 2630.86 1.33 236.08 237.41 2083.46 1780.68
13 99.61 6.95 2630.86 27.61 125.06 152.67 2083.46 1145.10
14 94.67 6.95 4256.27 40.52 202.17 242.69 2146.64 1875.46
15 21.68 6.45 4256.27 5.00 193.43 198.43 2146.64 1533.48
16 36.92 5.95 4256.27 0.29 184.94 185.23 2146.64 1431.42
17 67.96 7.80 4256.27 3.50 213.24 216.74 2174.86 1696.99
18 40.00 7.30 4256.27 0.45 206.31 206.76 2343.86 1744.59
19 116.30 13.69 4256.27 14.50 272.05 286.55 1993.02 2055.98
20 40.00 13.19 4256.27 0.45 267.97 268.42 2176.93 2103.58
21 112.85 24.09 4256.27 13.51 330.88 344.39 1945.37 2411.87
22 40.00 23.59 4256.27 0.45 328.35 328.80 2077.36 2458.96
23 104.99 40.52 4256.27 11.35 384.88 396.23 1934.96 2760.11
24 140.00 2.03 45.12 1.63 1.17 2.80 1396.45 14.08
25 50.00 1.53 45.12 0.26 0.68 0.94 1396.45 4.71
26 25.00 1.03 45.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 1396.45 0.16
LNG 152.34 2.53 416.67 28.53 84.11 112.64 1396.45 566.27

Table 8
Thermodynamic performance of the process and its equipment.

Compressor Power consumed (kW) Adiabatic efficiency (%) [19] Pressure ratio Outlet temperature (
C)

C-1 38.27 80 1.31 67.9

C-2 94.56 80 1.88 116.3
C-3 90.16 80 1.83 112.8
C-3 80.31 80 1.72 105.0

Expander Power produced (kW) Adiabatic efficiency (%) [19] Pressure ratio Outlet temperature (
C)

Exp-1 64.36 85 0.176 99.6

Exp-2 23.99 85 0.199 150.0
Heat Exchanger Duty (kW) LMTD (
C) Min. approach (
C) Total surface area (m2)a
E-1 74.66 7.13 3.08 138.1
E-2 93.14 6.01 3.04 439.3
E-3 31.74 8.38 3.30 43.1

Air Cooler Duty (kW) LMTD (
C) Min. approach (
C) Fan power (kW)a

AC-1 34.82 26.47 15.0 7.64

AC-2 96.22 42.00 15.0 7.63
AC-3 93.01 40.98 15.0 8.05
AC-4 84.59 38.61 15.0 7.64

Overall process Total power consumption (kW) Total cold duty (kW) SEC (kWh/kgLNG) COP

214.9 199.54 0.5159 0.928

a
Calculated by Exchanger Design & Rating simulation in design mode.

investment costs of the process equipment for calculating these
cost rates are also presented in Table 9. Total investment costs (Z_ k)
as one of the bases of the exergoeconomic analysis can be found in
this table. Another basis is the results of exergy analysis provided in
Table 10 where the results of the exergoeconomic analysis are also
presented in detail. Air coolers and EXP-1 have the largest exergy
destruction and relatively high exergy efficiency. Heat exchanger E-
1 has the highest priority to improve through change or repair
because of a low exergy efficiency of 13.94%. The exergy efficiency
of the overall process is 33.96% that shows great potential for
improvement.
The results of exergoeconomic analysis can be analyzed
regarding investment and exergy destruction cost rates of process
equipment. Fig. 3 shows the components in descending order based
on their total cost ðZ_ þ C_ Þ. As seen, the compressors have large
k D;k
amount of total costs followed by the air coolers. The compressor C-
2 shows the highest value of total cost (310.035 $/hr) and the
separator V-1 reveals the smallest value (7.914 $/hr). It is note-
worthy that the components with a greater total cost have a higher
economic effect and importance. Investment cost represents the
effect of purchasing and operation and maintenance costs on pro-
cess economy. In this viewpoint, the compressors have the highest
 A. Palizdar et al. / Energy 168 (2019) 542e557 551

Table 9
Purchased and investment costs of the process equipment.
CI OM
Equipment PEC ( 103 $) Z_ ($/hr) Z_ ($/hr) Z_ ($/hr)

C-1 766.385 96.399 167.625 264.024

C-2 896.173 112.725 196.012 308.737
C-3 887.442 111.626 194.102 305.729
C-4 867.239 109.085 189.684 298.769
EXP-1 19.371 2.437 2.437 4.237
EXP-2 8.710 1.096 1.096 1.905
E-1 60.707 7.636 13.278 20.914
E-2 193.161 24.297 42.248 66.545
E-3 18.517 2.329 4.050 6.379
C-1 137.320 17.273 30.035 47.307
AC-2 137.320 17.273 30.035 47.307
AC-3 135.823 17.084 29.707 46.792
AC-4 137.261 17.265 30.022 47.287 Fig. 3. Total cost of the liquefaction process equipment.
V-1 14.465 1.819 3.164 4.983

rate associated with exergy destruction of overall process was ob-

investment costs in comparison with the expanders and the sepa- tained effectively smaller than that of capital investment. A great
rator which show the lowest values. Effect of exergy destruction of part of total capital investment belongs to investment costs of the
the components on the process economy is represented by asso- compressors. This indicates that these components are the most
expensive devices in the process requiring a high cost for operation
ciated cost rates ðC_ Þ. Therefore, equipment with large investment
D;k
and maintenance.
part of total cost are important with respect to purchasing or
Recent studies focus on exergoeconomic analysis of only mixed
operation and maintenance costs while the remain part is consid-
refrigerant processes. In several studies, e.g. Morosuk et al. [7] and
ered due to their thermodynamic performance and inefficiency.
Mehrpooya et al. [8,9,11,12], multi-stream heat exchangers display
The air coolers and the compressors exhibit the highest and the
the highest amount of total cost, varying from the results of the
lowest values of exergy destruction cost rates, respectively. For the
present investigation. This may be due to the large scale of the
compressors, the portion of investment cost is more significant and
processes and different type of the refrigeration cycles. On the
this reveals that these rotary devices impose a huge cost just during
contrary, investigation of a C3MR process by Ghorbani et al. [26]
plant construction and no remarkable cost, however, will be
reveals that the air cooler has the highest total cost. In another
imposed during plant exploitation via e.g. damage or malfunction.
study by Ansarinasab and Mehrpooya [10], the compressor shows
This situation will occur when a device with high efficiency is
the highest total cost similarly with the present investigation.
procured. A different trend of costs is observed in Fig. 3 for the air
Relative cost difference (rk) indicates a relative increment of
coolers and the heat exchangers where exergy destruction cost is
product exergy cost for equipment to fuel exergy cost which has
higher. This means that the heat exchange devices impose a high
more importance particularly for the components with high total
cost due to inefficiencies during plant exploitation. Basically, in-
cost. This factor displays a large value for the expanders and a small
efficiency of these equipment is originated from a certain temper-
value for the air coolers (Table 10), resulting in a high difference
ature gradient between the streams which causes the heat
between the exergy cost of fuel and exergy in the expanders. In the
exchange process totally irreversible [25]. Also a larger portion of
other word, these components considerably raise the cost of exergy
total cost for both EXP-1 and EXP-2 is related to exergy destruction
of inlet stream.
showing greater effect of different irreversibilities produced within
The abovementioned results can also be represented using
the expanders compared to investment cost.
exergoeconomic factor as illustrated in Fig. 4. The exergoeconomic
In the exergy analysis of the liquefaction cycle, the net value of
factor reveals the main origin of equipment cost and the relative
exergy fuel for the overall cycle is considered as total compressor
contribution of capital investment and exergy destruction cost
works [19,20]. Thus, in the exergoeconomic analysis average cost
rates in total cost. If this factor is large for a component, total cost
per unit of exergy for the overall cycle, will be equal to that of the
will mostly include purchase, operating, and maintenance costs.
compressors. Since the latter parameter has a small value, the cost
Thus, in order to reduce total cost of the overall process, these costs

Table 10
Results of the conventional exergy and exergoeconomic analyses.

Component, k E_ F;k (kW) E_ P;k (kW) E_ D;k (kW) ek (%) yk (%) y*k (%) cF;k ($/GJ) cP;k ($/GJ) C_ D;k ($/hr) Z_ k ($/hr) rk (%) fk (%)

C-1 38.268 31.516 6.752 82.356 2.226 3.371 4.722 2340.729 0.115 264.919 49468.372 99.957
C-2 94.560 79.796 14.763 84.387 4.868 7.371 4.722 1083.977 0.251 309.784 22854.797 99.919
C-3 90.161 75.971 14.189 84.262 4.678 7.084 4.722 1127.244 0.241 306.765 23771.059 99.921
C-4 80.306 67.431 12.875 83.967 4.245 6.428 4.722 1240.560 0.219 299.782 26170.677 99.927
EXP-1 111.025 90.644 20.381 81.643 6.720 10.176 2083.461 10035604.824 152.868 6.696 481579.570 4.196
EXP-2 63.420 52.811 10.609 83.272 3.498 5.297 2201.213 11549840.993 84.067 3.011 524603.582 3.458
E-1 15.287 2.131 13.156 13.940 4.338 6.568 2098.527 37061.423 99.388 20.985 1666.069 17.433
E-2 46.117 32.624 13.493 70.742 4.449 6.737 2116.314 3560.127 102.800 66.771 68.223 39.376
E-3 33.364 26.875 6.489 80.550 2.140 3.240 2183.269 2776.625 51.006 6.401 27.177 11.150
AC-1 224.381 206.773 17.608 92.153 5.806 8.791 2100.991 2343.675 133.180 47.468 11.551 26.276
AC-2 294.178 268.545 25.633 91.287 8.451 12.798 1941.480 2175.895 179.156 47.468 12.074 20.946
AC-3 352.436 328.923 23.514 93.328 7.753 11.740 1901.061 2076.613 160.925 46.951 9.234 22.586
AC-4 403.875 383.638 20.238 94.989 6.673 10.104 1898.439 2032.941 138.312 47.448 7.085 25.542
V-1 116.778 116.187 0.591 99.494 0.195 0.295 1377.528 1396.450 2.931 4.983 1.374 62.967
Overall process 303.294 103.002 200.292 33.961 66.039 100 4.722 4003.653 3.405 1479.430 84683.239 99.770
552 A. Palizdar et al. / Energy 168 (2019) 542e557

110 effect of exergy destruction cost. The factor was calculated 99.8% for
Exergoeconomic factor, f k (%)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 improvement. For C-1, a large portion of avoidable exergy
Fig. 4. Exergoeconomic factor of the liquefaction cycle components.
have to be decreased even if the exergy destruction cost increases.
If the investment cost of a device decreases, it will exhibit low ef-
ficiency and consequently large exergy destruction cost. While the
factor is large, the equipment might be expensive, but it is efficient
and has less inefficiency. In this situation, regular decreasing the
total investment of a component is a beneficial route to improve
process economy. Based on the results, exergoeconomic factor of
the compressors is close to unit that means a high amount of in-
vestment cost (>99%). The expanders (4.2% and 3.46%) and the
multi-stream heat exchangers E-1 (17.43%) and E-3 (11.15%) have
the lowest value of the factor due to the significant effect of exergy
destruction costs. Similar results which have been reported by
Morosuk et al. [7], Mehrpooya and Ansarinasab [8e11] and Mehr-
pooya et al. [12] exhibit that regarding high price, compressors have
a large exergoeconomic factor. However, the factor is relatively
small for multi-stream heat exchangers because of a remarkable
the overall liquefaction process which means that investment costs
of the components play the most important role in total cost.
4.2. Advanced exergoeconomic analysis
To analyze the process performance more deeply, advanced
exergy approach by means of thermodynamic hybrid cycles was
utilized, and the results are listed in Table 11. Irreversibility of the
compressors are mostly avoidable that can be reduced via efficiency
destruction is exogenous (3.503 kW) which induced from another
equipment, however, a high endogenous avoidable irreversibility is
seen by the other compressors. This can determine an appropriate
strategy to enhance the efficiency of these components e.g.
repairing or replacing with a more efficient device in endogenous
cases. For expanders, exergy destruction of EXP-1 is entirely
endogenous and mainly avoidable (14.122 kW) produced within
the device. A reverse trend is observed for EXP-2 where a great
portion of the exergy destruction is avoidable exogenous (4.715
kW). This indicates that exchanger E-2 imposes irreversibility on
EXP-2 through operating condition of stream 9. Since the flow rate
of this stream is reduced when E-2 works ideally, the exergy
destruction of EXP-2 that are totally avoidable exogenous will also
decrease. Majority of exergy destruction produced by the heat ex-
changers is unavoidable demonstrating a low potential for
improvement. This may be attributed to the low minimum tem-
perature approach of the exchangers that displays an efficient heat
transfer taken place within the device during normal operation. For
E-1, the irreversibility is mainly exogenous (6.817 kW) and for the
others is endogenous (9.725 kW and 5.714 kW). The air coolers
exhibit completely unavoidable exergy destruction and no

Table 11
Parts of exergy destruction for the liquefaction cycle equipment.
EN EX AV UN AV;EN AV;EX UN;EN UN;EX
Component, k E_ D;k (kW) E_ D;k kW) E_ D;k (kW) E_ D;k (kW) E_ D;k (kW) E_ D;k (kW) E_ D;k (kW) E_ D;k (kW) E_ D;k (kW)

C-1 6.752 2.277 4.475 5.285 1.467 1.782 3.503 0.495 0.972
C-2 14.763 10.274 4.489 11.470 3.294 7.982 3.488 2.292 1.001
C-3 14.189 10.298 3.891 11.030 3.159 8.005 3.025 2.293 0.866
C-4 12.875 9.537 3.338 10.021 2.854 7.423 2.598 2.114 0.740
EXP-1 20.381 20.381 0.000 14.122 6.259 14.122 0.000 6.259 0.000
EXP-2 10.609 3.823 6.786 7.372 3.237 2.657 4.715 1.166 2.071
E-1 13.156 6.020 7.136 0.589 12.566 0.270 0.319 5.750 6.817
E-2 13.493 10.410 3.083 0.888 12.605 0.685 0.203 9.725 2.880
E-3 6.489 5.965 0.525 0.273 6.217 0.251 0.022 5.714 0.503
AC-1 17.608 0.000 17.608 0.000 17.608 0.000 0.000 0.000 17.608
AC-2 25.633 14.206 11.427 0.000 25.633 0.000 0.000 14.206 11.427
AC-3 23.514 13.012 10.502 0.000 23.514 0.000 0.000 13.012 10.502
AC-4 20.238 11.812 8.426 0.000 20.238 0.000 0.000 11.812 8.426

Table 12
Cost rates of exergy destruction for the liquefaction cycle equipment.
EN EX AV UN AV;EN AV;EX UN;EN UN;EX
Component, k C_ D;k ($/hr) C_ D;k ($/hr) C_ D;k ($/hr) C_ D;k ($/hr) C_ D;k ($/hr) C_ D;k ($/hr) C_ D;k ($/hr) C_ D;k ($/hr) C_ D;k ($/hr)

C-1 0.115 0.039 0.076 0.090 0.025 0.031 0.059 0.008 0.017
C-2 0.251 0.175 0.076 0.195 0.056 0.136 0.059 0.039 0.017
C-3 0.241 0.175 0.066 0.188 0.054 0.137 0.051 0.038 0.015
C-4 0.219 0.162 0.057 0.170 0.049 0.126 0.044 0.036 0.013
EXP-1 152.868 152.868 0.000 105.925 46.944 105.925 0.000 46.943 0.000
EXP-2 84.067 30.293 53.774 58.416 25.651 21.050 37.366 9.243 16.408
E-1 99.388 45.480 53.909 4.453 94.936 2.038 2.415 43.442 51.494
E-2 102.800 79.309 23.491 6.762 96.038 5.217 1.545 74.092 21.946
E-3 51.006 46.881 4.125 2.144 48.861 1.971 0.173 44.910 3.952
AC-1 133.180 0.000 133.180 0.000 133.180 0.000 0.000 0.000 133.180
AC-2 179.156 99.291 79.865 0.000 179.156 0.000 0.000 99.291 79.865
AC-3 160.925 89.052 71.873 0.000 160.925 0.000 0.000 89.052 71.873
AC-4 138.312 80.726 57.586 0.000 138.312 0.000 0.000 80.726 57.586
 A. Palizdar et al. / Energy 168 (2019) 542e557 553

Fig. 5. Advanced exergy destruction cost rate for the liquefaction process components.

Table 13
Parts of the investment cost rates for the liquefaction cycle components.
EN EX AV UN AV;EN AV;EX UN;EN UN;EX
Component, k Z_ k ($/hr) Z_ k ($/hr) Z_ k ($/hr) Z_ k ($/hr) Z_ k ($/hr) Z_ k ($/hr) Z_ k ($/hr) Z_ k ($/hr) Z_ k ($/hr)

C-1 264.024 81.050 182.973 0.000 264.024 0.000 0.000 81.050 182.973
C-2 308.737 197.855 110.881 0.000 308.737 0.000 0.000 197.855 110.881
C-3 305.729 206.541 99.187 0.000 305.729 0.000 0.000 206.541 99.187
C-4 298.769 207.194 91.574 0.000 298.769 0.000 0.000 207.194 91.574
EXP-1 6.673 6.533 0.140 0.702 5.971 0.687 0.015 5.846 0.125
EXP-2 3.001 0.909 2.092 0.316 2.685 0.096 0.220 0.813 1.872
E-1 47.307 36.442 10.866 0.000 47.307 0.000 0.000 36.442 10.866
E-2 46.792 36.048 10.744 0.000 46.792 0.000 0.000 36.048 10.744
E-3 47.287 36.433 10.855 0.000 47.287 0.000 0.000 36.433 10.855
AC-1 20.914 18.948 1.966 0.000 20.914 0.000 0.000 18.948 1.966
AC-2 66.545 46.029 20.517 0.684 65.861 0.473 0.211 45.556 20.306
AC-3 6.379 3.511 2.869 0.000 6.379 0.000 0.000 3.511 2.869
AC-4 47.307 36.453 10.855 0.000 47.307 0.000 0.000 36.453 10.855

potential for improvement. The unavoidable part of the irrevers-
ibility of air cooler AC-1 is totally exogenous (17.608 kW) inducing
from C-1 and of the others is mostly endogenous.
Results of the advanced exergoeconomic evaluation of the
process in terms of exergy destruction cost rates, are presented in
Table 12 and Fig. 5. As shown in Table 12, the compressors show
small exergy destruction cost, likewise the avoidable/unavoidable
and endogenous/exogenous portions of this cost will be absolutely
small. However, for EXP-1 the avoidable endogenous part of exergy
destruction cost is calculated 105.925 $/hr, and for EXP-2 the
largest portion belongs to avoidable exogenous cost by 37.366 $/hr.
The cost rates associated with exergy destruction of the heat ex-
changers are produced as unavoidable endogenous part. This trend
is also observed for the air coolers except for AC-1 which produces
unavoidable exogenous cost rates, entirely. This reveals that exergy
destruction cost rate of AC-1 is totally imposed by compressor C-1
1%
3%
4%

EXP-1
EXP-2
E-1
33%
E-2
59% E-3
AC-2

Fig. 6. Advanced investment cost rate for the liquefaction process components. Fig. 7. Contribution of the process components in total avoidable cost of the cycle.
554 A. Palizdar et al. / Energy 168 (2019) 542e557

Table 14
Conventional and advanced exergoeconomic factors of the liquefaction process components.

Component, k Conventional Advanced

AV;EN AV;EX
ek (%) fk (%) C_ tot ($/hr) ek;modified (%) C_ tot ($/hr) f AV;EN
k
(%) C_ tot ($/hr) f AV;EX
k
(%)

C-1 82.356 99.957 265.034 72.890 0.031 0.000 0.059 0.000

C-2 84.387 99.919 310.035 78.739 0.136 0.000 0.059 0.000
C-3 84.262 99.921 307.006 78.853 0.137 0.000 0.051 0.000
C-4 83.967 99.927 300.001 78.629 0.126 0.000 0.044 0.000
EXP-1 81.643 4.196 159.564 68.980 106.612 100.000 0.015 0.644
EXP-2 83.272 3.458 87.078 73.391 21.146 0.585 37.586 0.454
E-1 13.940 17.433 120.373 6.147 2.038 0.000 2.415 0.000
E-2 70.742 39.376 169.571 55.365 5.217 0.000 1.545 0.000
E-3 80.550 11.150 57.407 67.861 1.971 0.000 0.173 0.000
AC-1 92.153 26.276 180.648 85.447 0.000 e 0 e
AC-2 91.287 20.946 226.624 83.970 0.473 100.000 0.211 100.000
AC-3 93.328 22.586 207.876 87.491 0.000 e 0 e
AC-4 94.989 25.542 185.76 90.457 0.000 e 0 e

via stream 17. When C-1 operates ideally, the outlet temperature
(inlet temperature of AC-1) is closed to 40
C. In this situation, the
air cooler has no cooling effect and consequently no irreversibility
in actual operation. Therefore, AC-1 has no endogenous exergy
destruction cost rate. Different trends of avoidable and unavoidable
costs for the rotary devices (compressors and expanders) and the
heat exchange equipment (multi-stream heat exchangers and air
coolers) can be seen in Fig. 5. Results of advanced calculations for
investment costs of each component are listed in Table 13 and
Fig. 6. It can be inferred that investment cost for most of the
equipment are unavoidable, except for the expanders that about
10% of investment cost is avoidable (totally 1.018 $/hr) showing low
potential for improvement. Fig. 7 illustrates the contribution of
each equipment in total avoidable cost (exergy destruction and
investment cost rates) of the process. As observed, EXP-1 (59%)
followed by EXP-2 (33%) show the largest share of avoidable cost
which means that the expanders have the highest priority for
improvement. This also indicates that among all equipment, ex-
panders are the most important equipment in expansion cycles,
economically.
Conventional and advanced exergoeconomic factors of the
liquefaction process components are presented in Table 14 and
Fig. 8. The effect of each part of total cost (exergy destruction and
investment cost) for a component with respect to the avoidable
part of exergy destruction can be represented by advanced exer-
goeconomic factor. From this perspective and despite the other
equipment, EXP-1 and AC-2 have only investment cost, based on
the results of Table 14 and Fig. 8. Modified exergy efficiency of the
components was also calculated involving the effect of unavoidable
and avoidable exogenous exergy destruction. As expected, the
advanced efficiency for all the components is smaller than
100
90
Advanced exergoeconomic
conventional one representing a more reliable and actual perfor-
mance of process equipment.
Advanced exergoeconomic analysis has been previously applied
to the mixed refrigerant LNG processes. The results of these studies
by Mehrpooya et al. [8e12] reveal that most of exergy destructions
produced in the process components and the related cost rates are
endogenous and mainly belongs to the performance of the com-
ponents themselves while investment costs adequately show
different trends. In the investigation of double mixed refrigerant
and mixed fluid cascade processes [8], multi-stream heat ex-
changers are the most important components of the investigated
liquefaction processes, concerning avoidable investment cost. Also
in Ref. [9] in which two single mixed refrigerant cycles are studied,
most of the exergy destructions cost of compressors are avoidable;
however, these components have mostly unavoidable investment
cost. For heat exchangers, most of the exergy destruction cost are
unavoidable, despite the investment cost which is mainly avoid-
able. In novel LNG/NGL process analyzed by Ansarinasab and
Mehrpooya [11], exergy destruction of air coolers and heat ex-
changers are unavoidable; however, turbo expander and com-
pressors are avoidable. Also, regarding technological and economic
limitations, investment cost of the turbo expander and compres-
sors are unavoidable, and air coolers and heat exchangers have a
high potential for improvement.
4.3. Sensitivity analysis
A powerful tool for deep understanding of the process is to
investigate the sensitivity of exergoeconomic analysis indicators to
important parameters. The important operating parameters in an
expansion liquefaction cycle are the outlet pressure of the
compressor (the maximum pressure of the cycle), the outlet pres-
sure of the expander (the minimum pressure of the cycle) and the
molar or the mass flow rate of the refrigerant. This analysis can help

to achieve the optimal operating conditions of the process with

80
respect to energy consumption quantity and quality [6]. In the
factor, f kAV,EN(%)

70
present work, the sensitivity of exergy destruction cost rate and
60
exergoeconomic factor of the different equipment to the important
50
operating parameters was analyzed. For each case, the parameters
40
were changed by ±30% of the baselines. At each step, the calcula-
30 tions for exergy destruction cost and exergoeconomic factor were
20 repeated according to the structural model demonstrated in Fig. 2.
10 The results were exhibited in the figures only for the equipment
0 with significant variations. Effects on the whole cycle could be
concluded owing to the fact that total exergy destruction of the
process equals summation of exergy destruction of the components.
Fig. 8. Advanced exergoeconomic factor of the liquefaction process equipment. Variation of exergy destruction cost rate and exergoeconomic factor
 A. Palizdar et al. / Energy 168 (2019) 542e557 555

250
D,k

AC-4
E-1
Exergy destruction cost rate,

200 E-2
E-3
EXP-1
150 EXP-2
($/hr)

100

50

0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Variation of maximum pressure (%)

Fig. 9. Sensitivity of exergy destruction cost rate of the process components to the Fig. 11. Sensitivity of exergy destruction cost rate of the process components to the
maximum pressure of the cycle. minimum pressure of the cycle.

of the components with a maximum pressure of the cycle (Stream 60

Exergoeconomic factor, f k (%)

E-1
23) is shown in Figs. 9 and 10. According to Fig. 9, by increasing the
50 E-2
outlet pressure of compressor C-4, the cost rate of exergy destruc-
tion increases for air cooler AC-4, the multi-stream heat exchangers
40
and the expanders. In AC-4, a larger difference between the tem-
perature of the inlet stream and the cooling air is taken place and 30
thus, exergy destruction increases. A similar reason might be
mentioned for the growth of exergy destruction in the heat ex- 20
changers and the expanders. For both equipment, an increment in
the maximum pressure can enhance the temperature and pressure 10
gradient within the device and consequently augments the exergy
destruction. The enhancement in the component exergy destruction 0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
causes a considerable decrease in the exergoeconomic factor as
Variation of minimum pressure (%)
observed in Fig. 10 demonstrating an enhanced effect of exergy
destruction cost in total cost. The descending trend of the factor is Fig. 12. Sensitivity of exergoeconomic factor of the process components to the mini-
less drastic for the expanders which exhibits more significant effect mum pressure of the cycle.
of their investment cost in total cost. Increasing the maximum
pressure will enhance the total exergy destruction cost of the cycle
and its contribution in total cost. shown in Fig. 12. Heat exchanger E-2 shows a severe change with
Variation of exergy destruction cost rate and exergoeconomic pressure variation that can be attributed to its larger cold duty. In
factor for heat exchangers E-1 and E-2 with the minimum cycle contrast to the trend observed for the maximum pressure,
pressure (stream 13) is displayed in Figs. 11 and 12, respectively. As increasing the minimum pressure of the cycle will decrease the
can be found from Fig. 11, the minimum pressure does not affect E- total exergy destruction cost of the process and its share in total
3, because the outlet stream of EXP-1 returns to E-2 and then E-1 to cost.
provide cooling effect. Increasing the outlet pressure of the Figs. 13 and 14 display variation of exergy destruction cost rate
expander decreases the exergy destruction costs. This might be and exergoeconomic factor of the process components with the
related to reducing temperature difference in both exchangers. The refrigerant flow rate, respectively. As can be seen in Fig. 13, cost rate
reverse trend is seen for exergoeconomic factors which reveal an of exergy destruction of the most of the equipment increases except
increase in the share of exergy destruction cost in total cost as for AC-1 that slightly decreases. The different trend of AC-1 can be
explained regarding the performance of E-1 and C-1. By increasing

70
250
Exergoeconomic factor, f k (%)

AC-4
D,k

EXP-1 EXP-2 E-1

60 E-1
E-2 E-3 AC-1
Exergy destruction cost rate,

E-2
200 AC-2 AC-3 AC-4
50 E-3
EXP-1
EXP-2
40 150
($/hr)

30
100
20
50
10

0 0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Variation of maximum pressure (%) Variation of refrigerant flow (%)

Fig. 10. Sensitivity of exergoeconomic factor of the process components to the Fig. 13. Sensitivity of exergy destruction cost rate of the process components to the
maximum pressure of the cycle. refrigerant flow rate.
556
100
Exergoeconomic factor, f k (%)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-40
Fig. 14. Sensitivity of exergoeconomic factor of the process components to the refrigerant flow rate.
the refrigerant flow rate, more cooling effect is produced in the
cycle and the temperature of the outlet refrigerant from exchanger
E-1 (stream 16) will be decreased. Likewise, compressor C-1 can
work at lower temperature and this will reduce the inlet temper-
ature of AC-1 and consequently its exergy destruction cost rate.
Increasing the flow rate raises exergy destruction of the other
components due to the enhancement of the amount of energy
transfer or conversion. However, a more drastic trend is observed
for heat exchangers E-1 and E-2 indicating the higher influence of
the refrigerant flow rate. It may be due to relatively high amount of
energy transfer occurred within the exchangers. There is an ex-
pected trend for exergoeconomic factor of the exchangers E-1, E-2,
and E-3 as shown in Fig. 14. The factor is reduced with increasing
the flow rate that indicates a larger contribution of exergy
destruction cost rate in total cost. Similar to the maximum pressure,
increasing the refrigerant mass flow rate enhances the total exergy
destruction cost and consequently its contribution in total cost.
Ghorbani et al. [27] studied sensitivity of the exergoeconomic
factor to pressure drop of throttling valve in an LNG process. The
results show that throttling valves are effective components in
mixed refrigerant processes as well as expanders in nitrogen
expansion cycles which affect the exergoeconomic indicators of
process components remarkably.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, conventional and advanced exergoeconomic an-
alyses were applied to a mini-scale nitrogen dual expander process
for natural gas liquefaction. The results of the conventional analysis
showed that the highest value of total cost belongs to the com-
pressors containing a high amount of investment cost. This can be
established by exergoeconomic factor that is close to unit. The ex-
panders and the heat exchangers have the lowest value of the factor
that exhibit the significant effect of exergy destruction costs. In the
advanced analysis, exergy destruction cost of the compressors and
the expanders is mostly avoidable endogenous while a large
portion of the investment cost of the equipment is unavoidable
endogenous. The large contribution of the expanders in total
avoidable cost shows that these components are the most impor-
tant equipment in expansion cycles, economically. The sensitivity
analysis showed that total exergy destruction cost of the process
and its share in total cost is enhanced by increasing the maximum
A. Palizdar et al. / Energy 168 (2019) 542e557
EXP-1 EXP-2 E-1
E-2 E-3 AC-1
AC-2 AC-3 AC-4
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Variation of refrigerant flow (%)
pressure of the cycle and the refrigerant flow rate and is reduced by
increasing the minimum pressure of the cycle. Results of the con-
ventional and advanced exergoeconomic analyses could be a strong
basis to optimize the process from both technical and economical
viewpoints allowing increase efficiency of installation.
References
[1] International Gas Union. World LNG report. 2017.
[2] International Gas Union. World LNG report. Small-scale LNG; 2015.
[3] Mokhatab S, Mak JY, Valappil JV, Wood DA. Handbook of liquefied natural gas.
first ed. Oxford: Elsevier; 2014.
[4] Venkatarathnam G. Cryogenic mixed refrigerant processes. first ed. New York:
Springer; 2008.
[5] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran A. Thermal design and optimization. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1996.
[6] Palizdar A, Sadrameli SM. Conventional and advanced exergoeconomic ana-
lyses applied to ethylene refrigeration system of an existing olefin plant.
Energy Convers Manage 2017;138:474e85.
[7] Morosuk T, Tesch S, Hiemann A, Tsatsaronis G, Bin Omar N. Evaluation of the
PRICO liquefaction process using exergy-based methods. J Nat Gas Sci Eng
2015;27:23e31.
[8] Mehrpooya M, Ansarinasab. Advanced exergoeconomic analysis of the
multistage mixed refrigerant systems. Energy Convers Manag 2015;103:
705e16.
[9] Mehrpooya M, Ansarinasab. Advanced exergoeconomic evaluation of single
mixed refrigerant natural gas liquefaction processes. Int J Nat Gas Sci Eng
2015;26:782e91.
[10] Ansarinasab A, Mehrpooya M. Advanced exergoeconomic analysis of a novel
process for production of LNG by using a single effect absorption refrigeration
cycle. Appl Therm Eng 2017;114:719e32.
[11] Ansarinasab A, Mehrpooya M. Evaluation of novel process configurations for
coproduction of LNG and NGL using advanced exergoeconomic analysis. Appl
Therm Eng 2017;115:885e98.
[12] Mehrpooya M, Sharifzadeh MMM, Ansarinasab A. Investigation of a novel
integrated process configuration for natural gas liquefaction and nitrogen
removal by advanced exergoeconomic analysis. Appl Therm Eng 2018;128:
1249e62.
[13] He T, Ju Y. Optimal synthesis of expansion liquefaction cycle for distributed-
scale LNG (liquefied natural gas) plant. Energy 2015;88:268e80.
[14] He T, Ju Y. A novel conceptual design of parallel nitrogen expansion lique-
faction process for small-scale LNG (liquefied natural gas) plant in skid-mount
packages. Energy 2014;75:349e59.
[15] Khan MS, 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;23:324e37.
[16] Yuan Z, Cui M, Xie Y, Li C. Design and analysis of a small-scale natural gas
liquefaction process adopting single nitrogen expansion with carbon dioxide
pre-cooling. Appl Therm Eng 2014;64:139e46.
[17] Song R, Cui M, Liu J. Single and multiple objective optimization of a natural gas
liquefaction process. Energy 2017;124:19e28.
[18] Dubar CAT. Liquefaction process and apparatus. US Patent 2002;6(446):465.
[19] Palizdar A, Ramezani T, Nargessi Z, AmirAfshar S, Abbasi M, Vatani A.
 A. Palizdar et al. / Energy 168 (2019) 542e557
Thermodynamic evaluation of three mini-scale nitrogen single expansion
processes for liquefaction of natural gas using advanced exergy analysis. En-
ergy Convers Manag 2017;150:637e50.
[20] Vatani A, Mehrpooya M, Palizdar A. Advanced exergetic analysis of five nat-
ural gas liquefaction processes. Energy Convers Manag 2014;78:720e37.
[21] Towler G, Sinnott R. Chemical engineering design: principles, practice and
economics of plant and process design. second ed. Butterworth-Heinemann;
2013.
[22] Couper JR, Penney WR, Fair JR, Walas SM. Chemical process equipment: se-
lection and design. third ed. Butterworth-Heinemann; 2012.
[23] Aslambakhsh AH, Moosavian MA, Amidpour M, Hosseini M, AmirAfshar S.
Global cost optimization of a mini-scale liquefied natural gas plant. Energy
557
2018;148:1191e200.
[24] Petrakopoulou F, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. Evaluation of a power plant with
chemical looping combustion using an advanced exergoeconomic analysis.
Sustain Energy Technol Assessments 2013;3:9e16.
[25] Çengel YA, Boles MA. Thermodynamics: an engineering approach. eighth ed.
New York: McGraw Hill Book Co.; 2015.
[26] Ghorbani B, Hamedi MH, Shirmohammadi R, Hamedi M, Mehrpooya M.
Exergoeconomic analysis and multi-objective Pareto optimization of the
C3MR liquefaction process. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 2016;17:56e67.
[27] Ghorbani B, Mehrpooya M, Hamedi MH, Amidpour M. Exergoeconomic
analysis of integrated natural gas liquids (NGL) and liquefied natural gas
(LNG) processes. Appl Therm Eng 2017;113:1483e95.