Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 898–904

www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Parameter comparison of two small-scale natural gas

liquefaction processes in skid-mounted packages
Wen-sheng Cao *, Xue-sheng Lu, Wen-sheng Lin, An-zhong Gu
Institute of Refrigeration and Cryogenics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China

Received 20 September 2005; accepted 21 September 2005

Available online 2 November 2005

Abstract

Two typical types of small-scale natural gas liquefaction process in skid-mounted package were designed and simulated. The key
parameters of the two processes were compared, and the matching of the heating and cooling curves in heat exchangers was also
analyzed. The results show that the N2–CH4 expander cycle precedes the mixed-refrigerant cycle on the premise of lacking propane
pre-cooling. Large temperature difference and heat exchange load are the primary reasons of exergy loss in heat exchangers. The
power consumption of compressors is influential to power consumption per unit LNG, so compression with intercooling should
be adopted.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Skid-mounted package; Natural gas; Liquefaction process; Simulation; Parameter comparison

1. Introduction opment of LNG vehicles creates the opportunity of

Cryogenic liquefaction plants have been applied in
the commercial natural gas liquefaction fields which liq-
uefaction capacities are very large. For instance, the
capacity of single product line of base load LNG plant
is up to 3.4 Mt/a, and the one of the peak shaving
LNG plant is about 0.9 Mt/a. Cryogenic liquefiers are
commercially available for natural gas liquefaction.
These liquefiers are normally custom-made, permanent
large capacity plants for natural gas utility peak shaving
and transcontinental natural gas shipping. The develop-
ing market of natural gas vehicles provides an opportu-
nity for LNG and LNG-CNG fueling stations. Other
markets for smaller-scale LNG liquefiers include
onshore gas wells, customer sites that are remotely situ-
ated from current gas pipelines, and industrial customer
peak shaving installations. Continued commercial devel-
*
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +86 21 629 32602.
E-mail address: wscao@sjtu.edu.cn (W.-s. Cao).
developing small-scale natural gas liquefaction plants.
Comparing with medium-sized or large-scale liquefac-
tion plant, the key characteristics of small-scale one
are simple process, low investment, miniature size and
skid-mounted package [1–5].
The design, simulation and estimation of natural gas
liquefaction process began from 1970. Shell Corporation
has simulated the cascade, mixed-refrigerant and N2
expander cycle, moreover analyzed their advantages
and disadvantages [6]. Melaaen set up a dynamic model
for the natural gas liquefaction process of base load
plant, and carried through the simulation by DASSL
in 1995 [6]. Terry adopted HYSYS software to calculate
and optimize the typical liquefaction process of peak
shaving plant in 1998 [7]. Kikkawa designed the late-
model processes of pre-cooling mixed-refrigerant cycle
and expander cycle, and calculated them by CHEM-
CAD software in 1997 [8]. Prof. Gu An-zhongÕs research
group of Shanghai Jiao Tong University has carried
through the simulation and calculation of natural gas
liquefaction process [6]. The previous work does not

1359-4311/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2005.09.014
 W.-s. Cao et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 898–904 899

concern the small-scale natural gas liquefaction process refrigeration by compression and work expansion of
in skid-mounted package. But it will be helpful to the gas stream.
study presented in this paper. Almost all kinds of lique-
faction process can be adopted in small-scale LNG 2.2. Property methods
plants, so it is not always easy to select the most suitable
process for a certain project. A deep investigation into Property methods are the base of simulation. PR
these processes is needed before any choices are made. equation and LKP equation are the keys of fluid pack-
Based on the thermodynamic analysis, the simulation age in simulation.
and calculation of small-scale natural gas liquefaction The Peng–Robinson equation of state applies func-
process in skid-mounted package were carried through. tionality to some specific component–component inter-
The key parameters of the two sets of liquefaction pro- action parameters, which can be used in the
cess were compared, and the matching of the heating calculation of phase equilibrium [11]. It is written by
and cooling curves in heat exchangers was also
RT a
analyzed. P¼

V
b V ðV þ bÞ þ bðV
bÞ
X
N X
N

2. Design a¼ xi xj ðai aj Þ0:5 ð1
k ij Þ ð1Þ

i¼1 j¼1

Two similar processes were designed for comparison. X

N
b¼ x i bi
2.1. Liquefaction processes i¼1

where P is pressure, R is gas constant, T is temperature,

On the basis of the characteristics of small-scale LNG V is specific volume, a and b are the constants relating to
plant, two sets of typical liquefaction process were the gas species, x is mole fraction of a certain compo-
designed in this paper for analysis and comparison. nent, k is binary interaction coefficient.
The liquefaction process of mixed-refrigerant cycle It is rewritten as
(MRC) was adopted in Process 1 shown in Fig. 1, which
removed the common cycle of propane pre-cooling,
Z 3
ð1
BÞZ 2 þ ðA
2B
3B2 ÞZ
ðAB
B2
B3 Þ ¼ 0
making the process simpler and more compact. The
MRC uses a combination of refrigerants in a single aP
refrigeration cycle, which makes it possible to supply A¼
ðRT Þ2
refrigeration at continuously changing temperature.
The liquefaction process of N2–CH4 expander cycle bP
B¼
was adopted in Process 2 shown in Fig. 2. It provides RT
ð2Þ

Fig. 1. Process 1: Mixed-refrigerant cycle liquefaction process (MRC).

900 W.-s. Cao et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 898–904

Fig. 2. Process 2: N2–CH4 expander cycle liquefaction process.

where Z is a constringent factor, A and B are the coeffi- the parameters on the process performance. These fig-
cients relating to the gas state parameters. ures were gained through the optimization of the objec-
The Lee–Kesler–Plocker equation is an accurate gen- tive function on specific power consumption [9,10].
eral method for non-polar substances and mixtures, Assumed the flow rate of natural gas feed was
which can be used in the calculation of enthalpy and 4.0 k mol/h.
entropy of mixed components [11]. It is given by The simulating calculation and optimization on Pro-
x cesses 1 and 2 were done using PR equation of state and
Z ¼ Z ð0Þ þ ðrÞ ðZ ðrÞ
Z ð0Þ Þ ð3Þ
x LKP equation through HYSYS software. PR or LKP
where x is an acentric factor, 0 and r denote the relevant equation is the one of the most important Fluid Pack-
parameters of simple and reference liquids. ages that is the base of the simulation by HYSYS. Many
factors influence the performance of a certain process.
2.3. Parameter optimization For instance, they are high pressure and low pressure
of the mixed-refrigerant, temperature of the refrigerant
Before the simulation, the required parameters were before expansion, and mole fraction of nitrogen, meth-
specified in Tables 1–3 based on the effect analysis of ane, ethane, propane, etc. These factors are described

Table 1
Mole fraction of components
N2 CH4 C2H6 C3H8 iC4H10 nC4H10
Natural gas 0.7 82.0 11.2 4.0 1.2 0.9
Mixed-refrigerant 1.0 40.0 40.0 19.0
N2–CH4 56.0 44.0

Table 2
Specified pressure and temperature in Process 1
Natural gas: Node 14 High-pressure refrigerant: Node 4 Low-pressure refrigerant: Node 13 LNG store: Node 19
Pressure (MPa) 5.00 2.60 0.29 0.20
Temperature (°C) 32.0 32.0 29.0
151.3

Table 3
Specified pressure and temperature in Process 2
Natural gas: Node 14 High-pressure refrigerant: Node 4 Low-pressure refrigerant: Node 13 LNG store: Node 19
Pressure (MPa) 5.00 4.40 0.60 0.20
Temperature (°C) 32.0 32.0 29.0
150.7
 W.-s. Cao et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 898–904
as X = [x1, x2, x3, . . . , xN]T. In this case, the optimization
problem is finding out the optimum parameter values to
make the power consumption lowest. The objective
function is
min f ðX Þ ¼ W =F LNG ð4Þ
where W is the total power consumption of compres-
sors, FLNG is flow rate of LNG. In fact, it is necessary
to take all the factors such as initial cost, power con-
sumption, plant area, simplicity of the process, etc., into
consideration. But many of these factors are not pure
technical ones. In this paper, only specific power con-
sumption (power consumption per unit LNG) is taken
as the optimization aim. The constraints are as below:
(A) Sum of the mole fractions of mixed-refrigerant is
1. (B) The temperature of mixed-refrigerant at the inlet
of compressor is higher than its dew point. (C) The tem-
perature difference between the hot and cold areas of
fluid cannot be negative.
HYSYS contains a multi-variable steady state Opti-
mizer. Once the flowsheet has been built and a con-
verged solution has been obtained, the Optimizer can
be used to find the operating conditions which minimize
(or maximize) the objective function. The Optimizer
owns its own spreadsheet for defining the objective func-
tion, as well as any constraint expressions to be used.
HYSYS has five modes of Optimizer: Original, Hypro-
tech SQP, MDC Optim, MDC DataRecon and Selec-
tion Optimization. Any mode of Optimizer can be
used in this case, but the Original mode was selected
for its common optimization in HYSYS. The following
sections describe the optimization schemes for the Origi-
nal Optimizer: Function Setup, BOX Method, SQP
Method, Mixed Method, Fletcher Reeves Method and
Quasi-Newton Method, which are the types of built-in
algorithm.
3. Results and analysis of simulation
The simulation and calculation of the two processes
were done.
3.1. Results of simulation
The key parameters of the two liquefaction processes
were compared, and the comparison of the optimization
results is presented in Table 4.
Table 4
Comparison of the optimization results of the two liquefaction processes
Liquefaction Flow rate of Flow rate of Load of water-cooling (kW)
process natural gas refrigerant
(k mol/h) (k mol/h)
Process 1 4.000 60.25 145.95
Process 2 4.000 50.00 109.47
901
From the data analysis of above Table 4, it can be seen
that the key parameters of the N2–CH4 expander cycle
defeat the ones of the mixed-refrigerant cycle except liq-
uefaction rate, thanks to the latter lacking the propane
pre-cooling cycle for meeting the requirement of the nat-
ural gas liquefier in skid-mounted package.
The mixed-refrigerant cycle with propane pre-cooling
(C3/MRC) is the same with large-scale LNG plant of
base load, but not fits small-scale one in skid-mounted
package. There are few advantages left for the mixed-
refrigerant cycle running short of the propane pre-cool-
ing, competing with the N2–CH4 expander cycle. Differ-
ing from the C3/MRC which are complex process and
low-power consumption, the N2–CH4 expander cycle is
seasoned with mobile LNG plant of medium-sized or
large-scale style, due to its compact process, flexible
operation and extensive applicability. It should be con-
sidered integrating the technical characteristics of above
both to develop new type of liquefaction process in skid-
mounted package, which caters to the development tide
of natural gas liquefaction process currently pursuing a
brief and efficient one.
3.2. Heat exchange load and temperature distribution
The main energy loss of a natural gas liquefaction
process exists in compressors and heat exchangers, but
not neglecting the loss in throttles.
Compression with intercooling was used in this case,
in order to decrease the irreversible degree and the power
consumption of compression process. The reclaimed
power of the expander in Process 2 was used to drive
the retropack, which reduced the power consumption
of compressors. In this paper, the matching of the heat-
ing and cooling curves between the feed gas and the
mixed-refrigerant in heat exchangers was analyzed. The
temperature difference and heat exchange load in heat
transfer contribute to the exergy loss, so large tempera-
ture difference and heat exchange load are the primary
reasons of the exergy loss in heat exchangers. Sure the
heat flow is not the only one affected by the changing
temperature, the enthalpy and pressure also are the ones.
The matching of the heating and cooling curves in heat
exchangers in Processes 1 and 2 was analyzed. It can be
seen from the results shown in Figs. 3–6.
It can be found from Figs. 3–6 that, the heat
exchange load of the pipelines in the heat exchangers
are climbing along with the ascending temperature.
Power consumption of Power of Liquefaction Power per
compressors (kW) expander rate unit LNG
(kW) (kW/mol/s)
129.23 0.951 122.3
105.30 12.03 0.905 93.2
902 W.-s. Cao et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 898–904

Fig. 3. Heat exchange load variation as a function of temperature of the pipelines in heat exchanger 1 of Process 1.

Fig. 4. Heat exchange load variation as a function of temperature of the pipelines in heat exchanger 2 of Process 1.

Generally, under the condition of the same temperature,
the heat exchange load of the natural gas pipelines (14–
15, 15–16) is lowest, next is the load of the high-pressure
refrigerant pipelines (Process 1: 4–7; Process 2: 4–5, 8–
9), and the load of the low-pressure refrigerant pipelines
(Process 1: 8–9, 12–13; Process 2: 10–13) is highest. This
is because that the low-pressure refrigerant pipelines are
charged with cooling capacities to the natural gas pipe-
lines and the high-pressure refrigerant pipelines. More-
over, the heat exchange load of exchanger 1 is more
than that of exchanger 2. The emergence of the inflex-
ions on the curves indicates the phase change from
two-phase to single-phase and vice versa.
The largest temperature difference between the high-
pressure and low-pressure refrigerant pipelines in heat
exchanger 1 and 2 of Process 1 is about 45 °C, in the
condition of lacking propane pre-cooling. The tempera-
ture difference between the same ones in heat exchanger
1 of Process 2 is comparatively even, which is about
30 °C. But the temperature difference in heat exchanger
2 of Process 2 is about 35 °C. It will cause more exergy
loss in heat exchangers if the temperature difference and
heat exchange load are not limited. So it is necessary to
take some measures of strengthening heat transfer, such
as increasing the heat transfer areas and reducing the
temperature difference, which may cut down the exergy
 W.-s. Cao et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 898–904 903

Fig. 5. Heat exchange load variation as a function of temperature of the pipelines in heat exchanger 1 of Process 2.

Fig. 6. Heat exchange load variation as a function of temperature of the pipelines in heat exchanger 2 of Process 2.

loss in heat exchangers. Although the temperature differ-
ence between the natural gas and low-pressure refriger-
ant pipelines is very large, the exergy loss of the
natural gas pipelines is still small owing to their low-heat
exchange load.
4. Conclusions
(1) It is found that the N2–CH4 expander cycle pre-
cedes the mixed-refrigerant cycle on the premise
of lacking propane pre-cooling from the parameter
comparison. The role of propane pre-cooling is
very important to the mixed-refrigerant cycle. It
should be considered for energy saving in the
development of small-scale natural gas liquefac-
tion process in skid-mounted package.
(2) It should be paid more attention to the high-tem-
perature sections of heat exchanger 1 in the design
of heat exchanger, since the heat exchange load of
exchanger 1 is more than that of exchanger 2. The
exergy loss of the natural gas pipelines is small
because of their low-heat exchange load.
(3) The temperature difference and the heat exchange
load between the pipelines in exchangers are large.
They are the key factors that cause the exergy loss,
904 W.-s. Cao et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 898–904
so the measures of strengthening heat transfer
should be carried through.
(4) The power consumption of compressors is more
influential to specific power consumption, so com-
pression with intercooling should be adopted to
lessen the irreversible degree of compression pro-
cess. The reclaimed power of the expander in Pro-
cess 2 was used to drive the retropack for reducing
the power consumption of compressors.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the funding support of
Natural Science Foundation Project of Fujian Province
in China (Item no.: E0440002).
References
[1] F. Wolfgang, B. Wilfried, S. Rudolf, et al., A new LNG baseload
and the manufacturing of the main heat exchangers, in: Twelfth
International Conference and Exhibition on Liquefied Natural
Gas, Perth, Australia, 1998, 2.6.
[2] A.J. Finn, G.L. Johnson, T.R. Tomlinson, Development in
natural gas liquefaction, Hydrocarbon Processing (4) (1999) 47–
59.
[3] G.L. Johnson, A.J. Finn, T.R. Tomlinson, Offshore and smaller-
scale liquefiers, LNG Journal (July–August) (1999) 19–22.
[4] L.A. Wenzel, LNG Peakshaving Plants—a comparison of cycles,
Advances in Cryogenic Engineering (20) (1973) 90–102.
[5] K.J. Vink, Comparison of baseload liquefaction process, in:
Twelfth International Conference and Exhibition on Liquefied
Natural Gas, Perth, Australia, 1998, 3.6.
[6] A. Gu, X. Lu, R. Wang, Y. Shi, W. Lin, Liquefied Natural Gas
Technology, China Machine Press, 2004.
[7] L. Terry, Comparison of liquefaction process, LNG Journal 21 (3)
(1998) 28–33.
[8] K. Yoshitugi, N. Moritaka, Development of liquefaction process
for natural gas, Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan 30 (4)
(1997) 626–630.
[9] Y. Shi, The thermodynamic research of the mixed refrigerant cycle
to liquefied natural gas, Doctoral dissertation, Shanghai Jiao
Tong University, 1998.
[10] G. Zhu, Study on transport properties of natural gas and
optimization on liquefaction processes of LNG peakshaving
plants, Doctoral dissertation, Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
2000.
[11] C.R. Robert, The Properties of Gases and Liquids, fourth ed.,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1987.