Flashing liquid expanders for
cryogenic industries
Presented to Petrotech 2010
2nd November 2010, New Delhi, India
Roger Dambach
Simon Hautdidier
Please visit www.cryostar.com
Reliable criteria for the selection of FLE
Flashing liquid expander (FLE) a new
concept for LNG base load
FLE expansion of LNG (PR from 5 to 45)
FLE expansion of cooling fluid (PR from 3 to 15)
What is flashing?
Flashing occurs due to a rapid expansion of the
liquid below the saturated liquid line
Nucleation reduces metastability
LNG often contains a fraction of Nitrogen
Multi-component fluid will enhance nucleation
Gas inclusions in the liquid act as nuclei for gas
flashing
Reliable criteria for the selection of FLE
Flashing liquid expander (FLE) not a new concept for ASU
First unit installed in UK in 1985
50 units sold for installation in ASU
Operate with liquid N2 and liquid air
Design pressure 90 bar(g)
Design temperature -196C
3 units with flashing at discharge
Liquid
Location
Power
(kW)
Air
Braddock,
Pennsylvania,
USA
95
Air
Izdemir,
Turkey
65
N2
Claymont,
Delaware, USA
85
Reliable criteria for the selection of FLE
Typical liquid expander installation in a ASU
JT valve
Process
isolation
valve
Quick
closing
valve
Twophase
flow
N2 purge outlet
Liquid
turbine
installed
at grade
Pressure
control
valve
Process
isolation
valve
A height
difference
of 20 40
meters is
common
Drain to
low
pressure
N2 purge inlet
Confidential Information. This document is the property of Cryostar. It is not permitted to copy it, relate its contents to other persons, or to misuse it in any other way
Reliable criteria for the selection of FLE
No reason to be
reluctant!
FLE not a critical
equipment
Always installed
in parallel to a
Joule Thompson
valve (JTV)
Plant efficiency
benefits are
enormous
Oil & gas
turboexpanders
already
operating inside
the dome
NG
treatment
expander
Flashing
liquid
expander
API 617
expander
Ethylene
expander
Reliable criteria for the selection of FLE
3 different FLE technologies under the loop
API 617
expander
Liquid
inlet
Liquid
inlet
Liquid
inlet
Flashing
outlet
Flashing
outlet
Flashing
outlet
Multi stage
radial inflow
FLE
Impulse
wheel
FLE
Single stage
radial inflow
FLE
Rh > 0.5
Rh = 0
Rh = 0.5
6
Reliable criteria for the selection of FLE
Work contribution of flashed gas in the liquid
The notion of head no longer valid for FLE
Ideal work contribution of flashed gas :
Enthalphy h
hG = his g H L
hactual
hisentropic
wG =
hG
his
3
s
s
wG = 1
p stage
liquid his
with
liquid =
Entropy s
in _ liq + out _ liq
2
7
Reliable criteria for the selection of FLE
Ratio of potential work by the flashed gas over isenthalpic work in a FLE
100.0%
Flashing in mass (LNG lean)
90.0%
Work contribution of flashed gas (LNG lean)
Flashing in mass (LNG rich)
80.0%
Work contribution of flashed gas (LNG rich)
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
Isentropic expansion
from 60 bar(a) to 1.25 bar(a)
10.0%
0.0%
-160
-150
-140
-130
-120
-110
-100
-90
-80
Turbine inlet temperature (C)
AIChE national meeting Flashing Liquid Expanders
Outlet density as a function of h_isentropic
Outlet density (kg/m3)
1000
Ethylene Plants I
Ethylene Plants II
Gas treatement Plants
Liquid Expanders for LNG
Liquid Expanders for IG
100
10
1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Isentropic enthalpy difference across a single stage (kJ/kg)
9
Reliable criteria for the selection of FLE
Applying a FLE to the ConocoPhillips Optimized Cascade
Process assumptions for high and intermediate stage (acc to Qualls et al, 2004)
High stage
Intermediate stage
Pressure at inlet (bara)
40
15
Temperature at inlet (C)
-95
-115
Pressure at outlet (bara)
15
3 different mass flows
Massflow (kg/s)
47.6 (~ 1.5 mtpa)
115.4 (~ 3.6 mtpa)
164.9 (~ 5.2 mtpa)
2 different LNG compositions
LNG type
N2
C1
C2
C3
LNG lean
0.5 mol%
98 mol%
1.5 mol%
0 mol%
LNG rich
0.5 mol%
91.5 mol%
6 mol%
2 mol%
10
Reliable criteria for the selection of FLE
HP and IP stage in the Mollier diagram for Lean LNG
Methane
refrigeration
system
according to
Qualls et al
(2004)
HP stage
IP stage
~20% mass
flashing at
discharge
11
Reliable criteria for the selection of FLE
The impact of process conditions on the work contribution of the flashed gas
10
80%
Flashing in mass at turbine discharge (in %)
70%
Work contribution of flashed gas (in %)
Volume ratio (inlet flange to outlet flange)
60%
7
Isentropic efficiency = 80%
50%
6
5
40%
30%
3
20%
2
10%
0%
0
High Pressure
Rich LNG
High Pressure
Lean LNG
Interm. Pressure
Rich LNG
Interm. Pressure
Lean LNG
12
Reliable criteria for the selection of FLE
Multistage FLE technology not retained
Liquid
inlet
Flashing in multistage radial inflow turbine is
not recommended
Gas and liquid may disengage when entering
the downstream blade row
High local Mach numbers due to flashing will
have detrimental effects on the efficiency
especially at off-design conditions
High local Mach numbers may lead to
unpredictable flow phenomena in the
serpentine passage
Axial exducer for end flashing maximum
work contribution of the gas estimated at 20%
Flashing
outlet
13
AIChE national meeting Flashing Liquid Expanders
Flashing in a single stage liquid expander
Flashing needs to be done in a single
blade row to avoid flow complications due
to leading edge separation of the
downstream blade row
Swearingen and Schulz (1976) predicted
that a radial inflow turbine is the best
expander type for FLE applications
Liquid
inlet
Approximate inception
of flashing in a
single stage FLE
based on conditions
in Table 3
Flashing
outlet
14
Reliable criteria for the selection of FLE
Optimum wheel diameter for HP stage (Lean LNG)
Design with gearbox & conventional generator OR high speed generator & VFD
500
450
Wheel diameter in mm
400
Single stage
radial inflow FLE
Utip = 95 115 m/s
350
300
Impulse wheel
FLE
250
Utip = 65 80 m/s
200
150
Wheel tip diameter (single stage FLE for high stage)
100
Outer wheel diameter (impulse wheel FLE for high stage)
50
0
1
1.5 mtpa
3.6 mtpa
5.2 mtpa
Massflow across the turbine
15
Reliable criteria for the selection of FLE
Comparison of relative velocities at rotor stage inlet
100
Relative velocity at wheel inlet (single stage FLE)
90
Relative velocity at mid span (impulse wheel FLE)
Relative velocity (m/s)
80
70
60
Impulse wheel
FLE
W
U
50
40
30
C
W
Single stage
radial inflow FLE
20
U
10
0
High Pressure
Rich LNG
High Pressure
Lean LNG
Interm. Pressure
Rich LNG
Interm. Pressure
Lean LNG
16
Reliable criteria for the selection of FLE
Cold power extracted from the process fluid for Lean LNG
Single stage
radial inflow
FLE
Impulse wheel
FLE
17
Reliable criteria for the selection of FLE
Summary of results
Both single stage and impulse wheel FLE are valid turbine concepts for LNG
Multi stage FLE technology excluded work contribution of flashed gas too high
Upper limit of max work contribution of flashed gas estimated to be 20%
Impulse wheel FLE design yields 3 times higher relative velocities at wheel inlet
Impulse wheel must be titanium, single stage FLE can be aluminium
Risk of phase separation at leading edge
Seperated liquid will migrate to the ps of the impulse blade high friction losses
Risk of phase separation in the downstream piping (froth or annular flow)
Single stage FLE will extract more work from the fluid
Conclusion
Single stage radial inflow FLE is the best performing and most qualified FLE
technology currently available to the LNG industry
18
