archives

of thermodynamics
Vol. 41(2020), No. 2, 35–63
DOI: 10.24425/ather.2020.132959

A study of LNG processes to determine the effect

of end flash systems on efficiency

OLUWAGBEMISOLA AKINSIPE
AMBROSE ANOZIE
DAMILOLA BABATUNDE∗

Department of Chemical Engineering, Covenant University, Km. 10 Idiroko

Road, P.M.B. 1023, Canaan Land, Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria

Abstract This paper describes the simulation, exergy analysis and com-
parison of two commonly applied liquefaction of technologies natural gas,
namely: propane precooled mixed refrigerant process (C3MR) and dual
mixed refrigerant process (DMR) alongside two modifications of each em-
ploying end flash systems. The C3MR and DMR process schemes were
simulated using the commercial software to mathematically model chemi-
cal processes. These schemes were then analysed using energy and exergy
calculations to determine their performances. The exergy efficiency for the
C3MR processes without end flash system, with simple end flash system and
extended end flash system were evaluated as 29%, 31%, and 33%, respec-
tively, while the exergy efficiency for the DMR processes without end flash
system, with simple end flash system, and extended end flash system were
evaluated as 26%, 25.5%, and 30%, respectively. The results achieved show
that the extended end flash system versions of the schemes are most effi-
cient. Furthermore, the exergy analysis depicted that the major equipment
that must be enhanced in order to improve the cycle exergy efficiencies are
the compressors, heat exchangers, and coolers.

Keywords: C3MR; DMR; Efficiency; Exergy destruction; End flash; LNG

∗
Corresponding Author: Email: [email protected]
36 O. Akinsipe, A. Anozie and D. Babatunde

Abbreviations
CMR – cold mixed refrigerant
C3MR – propane precooled mixed refrigerant process
DMR – dual mixed refrigerant process
LNG – liquefied natural gas
MCHE – main cryogenic heat exchanger
MR – mixed refrigerant process
NG – natural gas
SMR – single mixed refrigerant process
WMR – warm mixed refrigerant

1 Introduction
Global growth and development have given rise to massive consumption
of goods and energy like natural gas. As more countries have encountered
economic growth, population increase and widespread industrialization, as
well as the demand for products has multiplied. It has been postulated
that this demand will not drop but will continue to increase at faster rates.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s recently released [1] projects
that world energy consumption will grow by 48% between 2012 and 2040. In
the same document, consumption of natural gas worldwide is projected to
increase from 120 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in 2012 to 203 Tcf in 2040. This
places natural gas as the energy source that accounts for the largest increase
in world primary energy consumption. Natural gas is viewed by many en-
vironmentalists as a natural link between the fuels widely used today and
the renewable fuels that would be dominant tomorrow. To produce at the
rate that this growth demands, more efficient systems have to be developed
and to preserve the environment those systems have to utilize less raw ma-
terials and fuel. In other words, a great objective of our future society is
to develop sustainable methods of production of goods and ready for use
energy. With the emergence of pipelines and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
natural gas is a key international commodity that can meet its growing de-
mand. Liquefied natural gas is traditional natural gas that has been cooled
to liquefaction and hence, takes up about 1/600th the space that the same
amount of gaseous natural gas would take up. In the gas sector, LNG is
becoming increasingly important because it represents a means by which
energy supplies can be diversified.
Thermodynamics, the science of energy conversion, exists as a key tool
in achieving the objective of creating sustainable methods of production.
In practice thermodynamics is often used to determine the performance of
A study of LNG processes to determine the effect. . . 37

processes and plants [2,24-26]. However, to obtain the goal of developing

sustainable production methods, determination of system performance is
just the first step. Processes have to be analysed and optimised, and this
necessitates the introduction of an additional quantity named ‘exergy’. Ex-
ergy indicates energy quality and its importance becomes very clear during
analysis and optimisation of energy systems as well as chemical processes.
Simply put, the exergy of a system at a certain thermodynamic state is the
maximum amount of work that can be obtained when the system moves
from that particular state to a state of equilibrium with the surroundings
[3,27]. Exergy is not subject to a conservation law (except for ideal, or re-
versible, processes), it is consumed or destroyed, due to irreversibilities in
any real process. The exergy consumption during a process is proportional
to the entropy created due to irreversibilities associated with the process.
Exergy analysis is a method that uses the conservation of mass and conser-
vation of energy principles together with the second law of thermodynamics
for the analysis, design and improvement of energy use and other systems.
The exergy associated with the energy quantity is a quantitative assessment
of its usefulness or quality [4].
Liquefaction processes take raw feed gas, remove impurities and other
components, cool the gas until it liquefies, and finally move the liquid into
storage tanks from which they are transported more economically. Sev-
eral studies have been carried out on liquefaction technologies to enhance
opportunities so as to meet the increased demand for LNG. For example,
Usama et al. [5] carried out a technology review of natural gas liquefac-
tion processes. They reported the effects of tube side design pressure, end
flash quantity, temperature approach in main condenser, LPG recovery,
compressor efficiency, and liquefaction technology on LNG processes. They
put forward that higher tube design pressure, greater quantity of end flash,
closer temperature approach in main condenser, and increased compressor
polytropic efficiency will enhance higher LNG production and lower specific
power while LPG recovery will increase the power of LNG liquefaction and
reduce LNG production.
Exergy analyses on different LNG processes have been undertaken also.
Hollingworth et al. [6] depicted the benefits of exergy analysis and pointed
out that the two major contributors to exergy destruction within an LNG
train are the inlet and liquefaction facilities at 39% and 28%, respec-
tively. Tsatsaronis and Morosuk [7] analysed a three cascade system for
the liquefaction of natural gas using both conventional and advanced ex-
38 O. Akinsipe, A. Anozie and D. Babatunde

ergy analysis. The advanced exergy analysis enabled them to accurately

determine what areas could be improved independently, hence, the informa-
tion from the conventional exergy analysis was made more precise. Vatani
and coworkers [8] applied an advanced exergy analysis to five LNG plants
including the two base cases simulated in this project. Their results ranked
mixed fluid cascade (51.82%) as the most efficient of the five processes,
followed by propane precooled mixed refrigerant (C3MR) (50.98%), dual
mixed refrigerant (DMR) (48.78%), single mixed refrigerant (SMR) process
as developed by Air Products and Chemicals Inc. (APCI) (45.09%) and
lastly, single mixed refrigerant as patented by Linde (40.2%) [8]. Results
were also given for selected components of each process, and further inves-
tigation with advanced exergetic analysis was carried out. They concluded
that structural optimization cannot be useful to decrease the overall process
irreversibilities. Hamut et al. [9] evaluated existing and prospective pro-
cesses for liquefaction of natural gas in Malaysia both thermodynamically
and economically. The highest exergetic efficiency among the analysed sys-
tems was obtained in the C3MR process (33%). A newly designed LNG
process, mixed refrigerant (MR-X) was also presented; it recorded an exer-
getic efficiency of 32%. Omar and colleagues [10] introduced a novel MR-X
process for the liquefaction of LNG. Coefficient of the performance and the
exergetic efficiency were found to be 0.58 and 32%, respectively. The rela-
tively high values indicate that the novel process is an efficient one from a
thermodynamic viewpoint.
Mafi et al. [11] carried out an exergy analysis for multicascade low tem-
perature refrigeration systems with propylene and ethylene as refrigerants
used in the olefin plant. The exergetic efficiency of the multistage cascade
process was calculated to be 30.88%. With a mixed refrigerant as the re-
frigerant instead of ethylene, the exergetic efficiency increased to 34.04%,
hence, it was proposed that the ethylene circuit be replaced. Konoglu
[12] performed a comprehensive thermodynamic analysis of a multistage
cascade refrigeration cycle and obtained an exergetic efficiency of 38.5%.
Alabdulkareem et al. [13] also presented the simulation and optimization
of the total energy consumption for a C3MR LNG plant. The pinch tem-
peratures in heat exchangers were the decision variables for the study. Ex-
ergy efficiency of the overall system was given as 45.43% for the base cycle
and 49.97% after the optimization. Remeljej and Hoadley [14] conducted
the exergy analysis of small-scale LNG processes. They reported relative
values from their comparative analysis between the small scale processes
A study of LNG processes to determine the effect. . . 39

simulated; single mixed refrigerant cycle (SMR process), a nitrogen cycle

(cLNG process) and two different open-loop cycles (new LNG scheme and
gas consult limited (GCL)’s concept) [14].
This work undertook the exergy analysis of LNG configurations employ-
ing the propane precooled mixed refrigerant refrigeration system and modi-
fications of this process with the inclusion of simple end flash and extended
end flash system; and the dual mixed refrigerant system and its modifica-
tions with the inclusion of end flash systems. The C3MR system combines
the best attributes of the cascade and mixed refrigerant (MR) processes.
The addition of multiple refrigeration loops and mixed refrigerants aids in
matching closely the cooling curve of the natural gas. The DMR process
serves an alternative to the propane precooled mixed refrigerant for arctic
climatic operation conditions which is characterized by low average annual
temperature but relatively high temperature difference during the year. By
accomplishing precooling and subcooling with two separate mixed refriger-
ants, the DMR process allows for more flexibility in selecting the precooling
temperature and may allow a more optimum selection of compressors and
drivers.
The difference between the configurations studied was in the presence or
absence of end flash systems. In comparing these configurations, this work
investigates whether the adoption of end flash systems which has been sug-
gested for higher LNG yield also leads to higher exergy efficiency. These
studies have not been carried out in terms of efficiency improvements with
respect to the addition of end flash systems.

2 Process description
In the C3MR process, such as in the Nigeria LNG plant, propane refrigera-
tion system is installed in series with a separate mixed refrigerant system.
The process starts with the propane refrigeration loop which precools both
the feed and the MR, and continues to a sub-cooling loop in which the MR
liquefies the natural gas feed as seen in Figs. 1 and 2. In the DMR process,
precooling and subcooling are accomplished by two separate mixed refrig-
erants as shown in Figs. 3 and 4. This process allows for more flexibility
in selecting the precooling temperature and may allow a more optimum se-
lection of compressors and drivers. Two end flash systems were considered,
namely: the simple end flash system and the extended end flash system. In
the extended flash system, LNG is produced from the main cryogenic heat
40 O. Akinsipe, A. Anozie and D. Babatunde

MIX
HE FD

LNG
FD

MCHE
HE

Scrub P - 205 FD
Column

MR - Compressor

GT M
CL
NGL

CL CL
CL
M GT
C 3 - Compressor

P - 203

Treated
Gas
P-K 1 P -K 2 P -K 3 P -K 4

Figure 1: The C3MR process with no end flash system [15].

End Flash
MIX
HE FD

LNG
MIX
CHRE

FD

CL
MCHE
Fuel
HE Gas

End Flash
Compressor
FD
Scrub
Column

MR -Compressor

GT M
CL

NGL CL CL
P-195 CL
M GT
C3-Compressor

Treated
Gas
P-K1 P-K2 P-K3 P-K4

Figure 2: The C3MR process with flash gas production [15].

exchanger (MCHE) at lower temperature and is flashed after pressure re-

duction. The liquid phase is sent off as LNG to be stored while the vapour
phase is sent through another heat exchanger for heat recovery before being
A study of LNG processes to determine the effect. . . 41

Figure 3: Schematic diagram of the shell DMR liquefaction process [16].

Figure 4: Schematic diagram of the shell DMR liquefaction process with flash gas pro-
duction [17].

compressed to give gas. A portion of the compressed gas is sent off as fuel

gas while the remainder is further compressed and recycled to mix with
incoming LNG from the MCHE. In the simple end flash system, all the
initially compressed gas is sent off as fuel gas without recycling and heat
recovery.
42 O. Akinsipe, A. Anozie and D. Babatunde

3 Theory
Exergy is the maximum theoretical useful work (shaft work or electrical
work) obtainable from a thermal system as it is brought into thermody-
namic equilibrium with the environment while interacting with the envi-
ronment only [9].
For a typical energy conversion system, the total exergy can be divided
into four main parts physical, chemical, kinetic and potential exergy. How-
ever, for the process being considered in this study, it is assumed that
kinetic and potential exergy are negligible and there are no chemical con-
versions. Hence physical exergies are sufficient for the exergetic analysis.
The energy rate of a stream is obtained from its specific value as

Ė = ṁi (hi − ho ) , (1)

where ṁi is the mass flow rate of stream i, hi is the specific enthalpy of
stream i at prevalent conditions, and ho is the specific enthalpy at ambient
conditions.
The energy balance on a unit is simply given as

energy in = energy out in product + energy loss . (2)

The specific physical exergy of each stream i is evaluated from the following
equation:
exi = △h − To △s = (hi − ho ) − To (si − so ) , (3)
where h is the enthalpy, s is the specific entropy, To is the ambient tem-
perature, and the subscript o indicates conditions related to ambient tem-
perature.
The total rate of the physical exergy in a stream is obtained from its
specific value as:
Exi = ṁi exi ) , (4)
exergy destruction (irreversibility) = exergy source − exergy sink , (5)
energy sink
energetic efficiency = ×100% , (6)
energy source
exergy sink
exergetic efficiency = ×100% , (7)
exergy source
NGf eed −NGoutlet f rom MCHE
COP = , (8)
Total Work
A study of LNG processes to determine the effect. . . 43

Ex [LNG − NGf eed ]

overall exergetic efficiency = , (9)
Total Work
where NG and LNG denote natural gas and liquefied natural gas output.

4 Methodology
4.1 Simulation
In this study, the C3MR and DMR processes and two modifications of
each process were considered as references since they are prevalent in the
LNG industry. The modifications involve the addition of a simple end flash
unit and an extended end flash unit which are included in the industry
to enhance production. The refrigerant conditions and operating parame-
ters of the C3MR process and its modifications were found from data from
the plant [15] while data for the DMR process and its modifications was
obtained from literature [18]. This study did not cover the pretreatment
process; hence it was assumed that the feed gas was a pretreated natural
gas. The simulation of each proposed liquefaction cycle was based on natu-
ral gas supplied at 6200 kPa and inlet temperature of 45.5 ◦ C with ambient
temperature of 25 ◦ C. The thermodynamic fluid package of Peng-Robinson
was used for the simulation.
The base case simulation is based on the principle that generates little
or no end flash gas, depending on nitrogen content of the feed gas. The
process consists of a propane precooling unit and mixed refrigerant sub-
cooling unit. The natural gas (NG) and mixed refrigerant (MR) both at
high pressure levels are initially precooled by propane at four pressure levels
in a propane circuit to the cut-point temperature of −35 ◦ C. The natural
gas is then further cooled by the mixed refrigerant cycle to −160 ◦ C. The
propane (C3) precooling unit is modelled with four multi-stream heat ex-
changers (LNG exchangers) operating at different pressure levels and three
liquid/gas separator as shown in Fig. 5. The MR cycle which completes
the liquefaction process prior to pressure reduction is modelled using three
multi-stream LNG exchangers. Modelling the mixed refrigerant cooling
unit with a single LNG exchanger did not allow for convergence on Aspen
Hysys chemical process simulator as temperature crossovers occurred in
the exchanger, hence, the unit was split into three stages. This method is
confirmed in literature [19] with the use of two separate LNG exchangers.
This first modification involved the addition of an extended end flash
unit to the C3MR process as modelled in the base case (Fig. 6). Based on
44 O. Akinsipe, A. Anozie and D. Babatunde

acquired plant data, the cut point temperature for this process is −32.7 ◦ C.
In the model, LNG exits the MCHE at −152.4 ◦ C and passes through a
valve in which pressure is reduced to 1.15 bar before entering a flash ves-
sel. The vapour and liquid phases are separated in the vessel. The vapour
phase is sent into another LNG exchanger where cold is recovered and then
compressed in a three-stage compression to about 2500 kPa. A fraction of
the compressed flash gas is further compressed to 7000 kPa, sent back to
be cooled against the cold flashed gas, reduced in pressure and recycled to
mix with the incoming LNG from the MCHE into the flash vessel.
The second modification which was the addition of a simple end flash
unit to the C3MR process was simulated similar to the extended end flash
process. The cut-point temperature and LNG exit temperature were set at
−32.7 ◦ C and −145.4 ◦ C, respectively. This unit is modelled by produc-
ing LNG from the MCHE at −145.4 ◦ C, dropping pressure to 120 kPa and
flashing in the end flash vessel. The vapour and liquid phases are separated.
Vapour phase is then compressed to 2500 kPa and tagged as fuel gas.
The DMR liquefaction process is operated using two mixed refrigerants
with different composition. The warm mixed refrigerant (WMR) contains
higher boiling point components like propane and butane while the cold
mixed refrigerant (CMR) contains mainly methane. The WMR undergoes
compression in a two-stage compression unit to reach the working pressure
of 2400 kPa while the CMR is compressed in a three-stage compression
unit and enters the liquefaction unit at 5145 kPa. The compression units
for the WMR and CMR are modelled with two and three interdependent
compressors and coolers respectively.
In the base case (Fig. 7), the first cooling unit is modelled with a sin-
gle LNG heat exchanger through which the natural gas feed and CMR are
cooled from about 38 ◦ C to −25 ◦ C by the WMR. The WMR has a narrow
working temperature and therefore only precools through a small tempera-
ture change. From the first heat exchanger, the precooled natural gas and
CMR move to the second heat exchange cycle which is also modelled with a
single LNG heat exchanger. These hot streams are cooled by the output of
the CMR which undergoes a larger pressure drop compared to WMR, when
passed through a choke valve. E xpansion reduces the temperature of CMR
to −160 ◦ C. The cold CMR subcools the precooled NG to −159 ◦ C. The
two modifications of the process are modelled as they were in the C3MR
case. The second modification which is the inclusion of a simple end flash
unit is shown in Fig. 8.
A study of LNG processes to determine the effect. . . 45

Figure 5: Schematic diagram of the shell DMR liquefaction process with flash gas pro-
duction [17].
46 O. Akinsipe, A. Anozie and D. Babatunde

Figure 6: C3MR process with extended end flash unit flowersheet in simulation.
A study of LNG processes to determine the effect. . . 47

Figure 7: DMR process flowsheet in simulation.

48 O. Akinsipe, A. Anozie and D. Babatunde

Figure 8: DMR process with simple and flash un it flowsheet in simulation.

A study of LNG processes to determine the effect. . . 49

4.2 Energy and exergy analyses

A popular spreadsheet package was used to perform the thermodynamic
analysis of the systems after the required data, including the exergy which
is a new property of updated versions of the software, was exported from
commercial the chemical process simulator Aspen Hysys v8.6. The refer-
ence environment is based on Szargut et al. [21] and other papers [20,22].
Properties of major streams in each of the simulated cases are displayed in
Tabs. 1–6.

Table 1: Parameters of major streams in the C3MR base case.

Stream Description Tempe- Pres- Mass flow Mass Mass Mass

name rature sure [kg/h] enthalpy entropy exergy
[◦ C] [kPa] [kJ/kg] [kJ/kgo C] [kJ/kg]
1 NG feed 45.5 6200 410223.94 -4189.63 8.59 557.03
2 Exit NG from first 25.38 6165 410223.94 -4241.11 8.42 554.61
propane heat ex-
changer/ feed into the
second propane heat
exchanger
3 Exit NG from sec- 5.25 6130 410223.94 -4293.92 8.24 555.75
ond propane heat ex-
changer/ Input into the
third propane heat ex-
changer
4 Exit NG from third -4.48 6095 410223.94 -4320.06 8.15 557.46
propane heat ex-
changer/ Input into
last propane heat
exchanger
5 Exit NG from fourth -35 6060 410223.94 -4412.22 7.79 573.49
(last) propane heat ex-
changer/ Input NG into
the mixed refrigerant
(MR) cycle
6 Output NG from first -45 6025 410223.94 -4448.82 7.63 583.20
MR heat exchanger
7 Gas Output of separa- -45 6025 410223.94 -4448.82 7.63 583.20
tion of stream 6/ In-
put into the second MR
heat exchanger
8 Exit NG from second -127 5990 410223.94 -4919.76 5.17 846.67
MR heat exchanger/
Input into the third
MR heat exchanger
50 O. Akinsipe, A. Anozie and D. Babatunde

continued Tab. 1

9 Exit NG from third MR -160 5955 410223.94 -5026.12 4.35 985.58

heat exchanger
10 Output of pressure re- -163.32 120 410223.94 -5026.12 4.45 954.06
duction of stream 9
11 LNG -163.32 120 389305.97 -5143.71 4.31 990.13

Table 2: Parameters of major streams in the C3MR case with simple end flash unit.

Stream Description Tempe- Pres- Mass flow Mass Mass Mass

name rature sure [kg/h] enthalpy entropy exergy
[◦ C] [kPa] [kJ/kg] [kJ/kgo C] [kJ/kg]
1 NG feed 45.5 6200 569074.37 -4189.63 8.59 557.03
2 Exit NG from first 25.38 6165 569074.37 -4241.11 8.42 554.61
propane heat ex-
changer/ feed into the
second propane heat
exchanger
3 Exit NG from sec- 5.25 6130 569074.37 -4293.92 8.24 555.75
ond propane heat ex-
changer/ Input into the
third propane heat ex-
changer
4 Exit NG from third -4 6095 569074.37 -4318.73 8.16 557.31
propane heat ex-
changer/ Input into
last propane heat
exchanger
5 Exit NG from fourth -32.7 6060 569074.37 -4404.37 7.82 571.56
(last) propane heat ex-
changer/ Input NG into
the MR cycle
6 Output NG from -45 6025 569074.37 -4448.82 7.63 583.20
first MR heat ex-
changer/Input into
second MR heat ex-
changer
7 Exit NG from second -127 5990 569074.37 -4919.76 5.17 846.67
MR heat exchanger/
Input into the third
MR heat exchanger
8 Exit NG from third -145.4 5955 569074.37 -4980.27 4.73 917.84
(and final) MR heat ex-
changer
9 Output of pressure re- -161.29 115 569074.37 -4980.27 4.87 876.31
duction of stream 8
A study of LNG processes to determine the effect. . . 51

continued Tab. 2

10 LNG obtained from -161.29 115 490601.00 -5173.46 4.34 975.78

flashing stream 9
11 Gas output obtained -161.29 115 78473.36 -3772.50 8.16 210.18
from flashing stream 9
12 Fuel gas obtained af- 25 2490 78473.36 -3450.92 8.49 432.76
ter three-stage com-
pression

Table 3: Parameters of major streams in the C3MR case with extended end flash unit.

Stream Description Tempe- Pres- Mass flow Mass Mass Mass

name rature sure [kg/h] enthalpy entropy exergy
[◦ C] [kPa] [kJ/kg] [kJ/kgo C] [kJ/kg]
1 NG feed 45.5 6200 617408.6 -4189.63 8.59 557.03
2 Exit NG from first 25.38 6165 617408.6 -4241.11 8.42 554.61
propane heat ex-
changer/ feed into the
second propane heat
exchanger
3 Exit NG from sec- 5.25 6130 617408.6 -4293.92 8.24 555.75
ond propane heat ex-
changer/ Input into the
third propane heat ex-
changer
4 Exit NG from third -4 6095 617408.6 -4318.73 8.16 557.31
propane heat ex-
changer/ Input into
last propane heat
exchanger
5 Exit NG from fourth -32.7 6060 617408.6 -4404.37 7.82 571.56
(last) propane heat ex-
changer/ Input NG into
the MR cycle
6 Output NG from -45 6025 617408.6 -4448.82 7.63 583.20
first MR heat ex-
changer/Input into
second MR heat ex-
changer
7 Exit NG from second -127 5990 617408.6 -4919.76 5.17 846.67
MR heat exchanger/
Input into the third
MR heat exchanger
8 Exit NG from third -152.4 5955 617408.6 -5002.43 4.55 948.87
(and final) MR heat ex-
changer
9 Output of pressure re- -162.14 115 617408.6 -5002.43 4.67 913.42
duction of stream 8
52 O. Akinsipe, A. Anozie and D. Babatunde

continued Tab. 3

10 Output of mixing -163.36 115 713211.5 -4748.52 4.88 852.49

stream 9 (LNG with
reduced pressure) and
recycled NG stream
11 Vapour output from -163.36 115 133817.2 -2987.2 7.36 196.06
the separation of
stream 10
12 LNG -163.36 115 579394.3 -5155.32 4.30 990.56
13 Output of the heat ex- 22.96 105 133817.2 -2678.15 9.04 4.50
change on stream 11 to
recover cold
14 Output of the three- 45.5 2490 133817.2 -2654.04 7.79 401.06
stage compression of
Stream 13
15 Portion of stream 14 45.5 2490 38017.59 -2654.04 7.79 401.06
extracted as fuel gas
16 Second portion of 45.5 2490 95799.65 -2654.04 7.79 401.06
gtream 14 to be recy-
cled into the cycle
17 Output of the com- 45.5 6990 95799.65 -2680.92 7.29 523.88
pression and cooling of
stream 16/ Stream sent
back to the cycle to be
cooled against the cold
flashed gas (stream 11)
18 Output of heat ex- -99 6955 95799.65 -3112.62 5.35 669.86
change on stream 17
19 Output of pressure re- -166.20 115 95799.65 -3112.62 6.20 416.69
duction of stream 18
20 Stream recycled to mix -166.20 115 95802.9 -3112.22 6.20 416.54
with incoming LNG
from MCHE (stream
9) into the flash vessel

Table 4: Parameters of major streams in the DMR base case.

Stream Description Tempe- Pres- Mass flow Mass Mass Mass

name rature sure [kg/h] enthalpy entropy exergy
[◦ C] [kPa] [kJ/kg] [kJ/kgo C] [kJ/kg]
1 NG feed 38 5200 11920.78 -4112.64 8.07 494.42
2 Precooled NG from -25 5150 11920.78 -4301.04 7.39 508.82
WMR heat exchanger/
Feed into the CMR
cycle
3 NG output from CMR -159 4650 11920.78 -4932.86 3.95 902.52
heat exchanger
4 Output of pressure re- -159.32 120 11920.78 -4932.86 4.02 880.14
duction on stream 3
A study of LNG processes to determine the effect. . . 53

continued Tab. 4

5 Vapour output of sepa- -159.32 120 178.6287 -4275.00 8.64 222.86

ration of stream 4
6 LNG -159.32 120 11742.15 -4942.87 3.95 889.38
7 Hot stream of WMR at 38 2978 35772.11 -2762.28 2.64 133.75
high pressure
8 Output of heat ex- -25 2928 35772.11 -2928.17 2.05 144.45
change of stream 7 in
WMR exchanger
9 Cold stream of WMR -48.04 256.3 35772.11 -2928.15 2.09 134.10
obtained from pressure
reduction of stream 8
10 WMR feed into the 25.31 246.3 35772.11 -2449.64 3.97 49.81
compression cycle/
warm output of WMR
heat exchange cycle
11 Precooled CMR from -25 5095 31664.67 -3066.82 4.95 374.17
WMR heat exchange
cycle
12 Output of heat ex- -160 4595 31664.67 -3483.65 2.66 638.98
change of stream 11 in
CMR heat exchanger
13 Cold stream of CMR -164.36 341 31664.67 -3483.69 2.73 618.26
obtained from pressure
reduction of stream 12
14 CMR feed into the -29.15 331 31664.67 -2828.98 6.60 120.45
compression cycle/
warm output of CMR
heat exchange cycle
15 Hot stream of CMR at 38 5145 31664.67 -2784.57 5.98 348.76
high pressure

Table 5: Parameters of major streams in the DMR case with simple end flash unit.

Stream Description Tempe- Pres- Mass flow Mass Mass Mass

name rature sure [kg/h] enthalpy entropy exergy
[◦ C] [kPa] [kJ/kg] [kJ/kgo C] [kJ/kg]
1 NG feed 38 5200 13874.63 -4112.64 8.07 494.42
2 Precooled NG from -22 5150 13874.63 -4289.34 7.43 506.55
WMR heat exchanger/
Feed into the CMR
cycle
3 NG output from CMR -145.4 4650 13874.63 -4892.62 4.28 843.48
heat exchanger
4 Output of pressure re- -158.33 120 13874.63 -4892.62 4.38 815.54
duction on stream 3
5 Vapour output of sepa- -158.33 120 1262.52 -4750.82 9.08 231.58
ration of stream 4
54 O. Akinsipe, A. Anozie and D. Babatunde

continued Tab. 5

6 Liquefied natural gas -158.33 120 12612.11 -4906.81 3.903896 871.07

7 Fuel gas obtained 30 2390 1262.52 -4385.71 9.51 468.03
from three-stage com-
pression of stream
5
8 Hot stream of WMR at 43 2900 43072.98 -2746.37 2.70 134.38
high pressure
9 Output of heat ex- -22 2850 43072.98 -2921.25 2.08 142.94
change of stream 8 in
WMR exchanger
10 Cold stream of WMR -36.97 400 43072.98 -2921.25 2.10 135.90
obtained from pressure
reduction of stream 9
11 WMR feed into the 35.29 390 43072.98 -2435.61 3.94 75.25
compression cycle/
Warm output of WMR
heat exchange cycle
12 Precooled CMR from -22 5095 39253.72 -3051.35 5.01 371.16
WMR heat exchange
cycle
13 Output of heat ex- -145.4 4595 39253.72 -3451.04 2.93 590.79
change of stream 12 in
CMR heat exchanger
14 Cold stream of CMR -151.15 550 39253.72 -3451.04 3.00 571.30
obtained from pressure
reduction of stream 13
15 CMR feed into the -32.19 540 39253.72 -2838.12 6.41 167.13
compression cycle/
Warm output of CMR
heat exchange cycle
16 Hot stream of CMR at 43 5145 39253.72 -2772.8 6.02 349.34
high pressure

Table 6: Parameters of major streams in the DMR case with extended end flash unit.

Stream Description Tempe- Pres- Mass flow Mass Mass Mass

name rature sure [kg/h] enthalpy entropy exergy
[◦ C] [kPa] [kJ/kg] [kJ/kgo C] [kJ/kg]
1 NG feed 38 5200 11920.78 -4112.64 8.07 494.42
2 Precooled NG from -22 5150 11920.78 -4289.34 7.43 506.55
WMR heat exchanger/
Feed into the CMR
cycle
3 NG output from CMR -152.4 4650 11920.78 -4913.46 4.11 872.66
heat exchanger
4 Output of pressure re- -160.85 100 11920.78 -4913.46 4.20 847.29
duction on stream 3
A study of LNG processes to determine the effect. . . 55

continued Tab. 6

5 Output of mixing -161.10 100 12818.9 -4896.89 4.43 822.68

stream 4 (LNG with
reduced pressure) and
recycled NG stream
6 LNG -161.10 100 11422.77 -4942.13 3.88 893.79
7 Vapour output from -161.10 100 1396.14 -4526.76 8.93 207.70
the separation of
stream 5
8 Output of the heat ex- 0.59 90 1396.14 -4204.46 10.76 -
change on tream 7 to 15.2123
recover cold
9 Output of the three- 43 2390 1396.14 -4136.24 9.39 459.70
stage compression of
stream 8
10 Portion of stream 9 ex- 43 2390 505.19 -4136.24 9.39 459.70
tracted as fuel gas
11 Second portion of 43 2390 890.95 -4136.24 9.39 459.70
stream 9 to be recycled
into the cycle
12 Output of the com- 43 6990 890.95 -4177.08 8.77 605.28
pression and cooling of
stream 11/ Stream sent
back to the cycle to be
cooled against the cold
flashed gas (stream 7)
13 Output of heat ex- -85 6940 890.95 -4682.14 6.59
change on stream 12
14 Output of pressure re- -162.93 100 890.95 -4682.14 7.52 471.70
duction of stream 13
15 Stream recycled to mix -162.95 100 898.12 -4676.9 7.52 471.98
with incoming LNG
from MCHE (stream
4) into the flash vessel

The irreversibilities and exergetic efficiencies were computed for each com-
ponent and the overall system. The contributions of the individual unit
operations to the overall exergy destruction were also computed.
The equations in the theory section were used in calculating the ener-
getic and exergetic efficiencies of the processes. The implications of the
equations were different for the individual unit operations; these implica-
tions are displayed in Tab. 7.
56 O. Akinsipe, A. Anozie and D. Babatunde

Table 7: Identification of exergy source and sink and irreversibility for the units.

Equipment Exergy source Exergy sink Irreversibility

Heat Ex [hot stream outlet – Ex [cold stream inlet – Ex [hot stream inlet –
exchanger hot stream inlet] cold stream outlet] hot stream outlet] – Ex
[cold stream outlet – cold
stream inlet]
Compressor Ws [supplied work] Ex [compressor outlet – Ws [supplied work] – Ex
compressor inlet] [compressor outlet – com-
pressor inlet]
Cooler Ex [cooler inlet – cooler Ex [exergy of heat re- Ex [cooler inlet – cooler
outlet] leased] outlet] – Ex [exergy of
heat released]
Valve Ex [valve inlet] Ex [valve outlet] Ex [valve inlet] – Ex
[valve outlet]
Separator Ex [separator inlet] Ex [vapour outlet + liq- Ex [separator inlet] – Ex
uid outlet] [vapour outlet + liquid
outlet]
Mixer Ex [sum of mixer inlets] Ex [sum of mixer outlets] Ex [sum of mixer inlets] –
Ex [sum of mixer outlets]

5 Results and discussion

5.1 Results of thermodynamic analysis of C3MR process
schemes
The results of the efficiency analyses for the C3MR processes are tabulated
in Tab. 8. The version adopting the no end flash gas recorded the low-
est value of energetic efficiency (64%), followed by the extended end flash
system (69%) while the simple end flash system had the highest energetic
efficiency (79%). The simple end flash is a hypothetical scenario; the high-
est feed rate based on the conditions available was chosen, hence the high
energetic efficiency. With increase in feed rate into the C3MR extended
end flash system, the energetic efficiency was also seen to increase.
This implies that it can handle more than the current processing rate.
The C3MR without end flash has the lowest energetic efficiency due to the
fact that the energy imbalance is most significant in this scheme. Given
the same amount of power to all three schemes as seen in the NLNG plant,
the C3MR process without end flash uses the least, and thereby wasted the
most energy. Although some amount of energy is also wasted in the other
A study of LNG processes to determine the effect. . . 57

Table 8: Results of energy and exergy analyses for the three C3MR process schemes.

No end flash Simple end Extended end

(base case) flash flash
Work supplied (overall exergy 149.23 154.77 188.60
of fuel) [MW]
Work utilized (overall exergy of 45.60 47.75 62.76
product) [MW]
Overall exergy destruction 105.63 107.02 125.84
[MW]
Exergy destruction/LNG 271.32 217.37 227.28
produced [kWh/ton LNG]
Process energy efficiency [%] 63.87 79.38 68.71
Process exergy efficiency [%] 29.22 30.85 33.28
Rank (exergy efficiency) 3rd 2nd 1st

two schemes, the effect is less pronounced since the schemes can process
more NG and thus produce more LNG. However, the range of energy effi-
ciency (60–80%) is quite high compared to the exergy efficiency. It can be
deduced that although, the energy efficiencies give some information, they
are not the most accurate measures of performance. The C3MR with ex-
tended end flash system is the most exergetically efficient (33%), followed
by the simple flash system (31%), while the C3MR process with no end
flash is the least efficient (29%). Hence, the adoption of the C3MR process
with extended end flash system is favoured.
The exergy efficiencies as calculated in this study compare favourably
with the values in literature which range from 30–50% [9,13,23]. The differ-
ences in exact values are definitely caused by process conditions and sim-
ulation assumptions. The exergy efficiencies measure the thermodynamic
irreversibilities in the three process schemes. The conclusions in this study
are not different from those given in literature. The fact is there is still a lot
of progress to be made, despite advanced modifications into various lique-
faction cycles. The end flash systems are modifications of the basic C3MR
process; other modifications include the new AP-X and MR-X methods [9].
The C3MR process with extended end flash is the most efficient, however,
it still has significant exergy destruction and it is important to study how
this can be saved. The exergy destruction for all processes were further
broken down so as to quantify existing potentials for enhancing the cycle’s
performance.
58 O. Akinsipe, A. Anozie and D. Babatunde

The distribution of exergy destruction follows a similar pattern for the

three schemes. The bulk of exergy destruction occurred in the heat ex-
changers, compressors and dissipative elements (coolers and mixers) as
shown in Fig. 9, which is consistent with literature [10]. Therefore, technol-
ogy to enhance the processes must be concentrated on these three groups
of equipment. The exergy destruction for the C3MR processes without end
flash system, with simple end flash system and extended end flash system
were evaluated as 106 MW, 107 MW, and 126 MW, respectively.

Figure 9: Aggregate exergy destruction of equipment in C3MR process with no end flash.

5.2 Results of thermodynamic analysis of DMR

process schemes
The results of the efficiency analyses for the DMR processes are tabulated
in Tab. 9. The DMR version without an end flash system recorded the
lowest energetic efficiency (56%) while the two end flash systems recorded
similar values of 65%. As in the C3MR case, the low value of energy
efficiency recorded for the DMR process with no end flash system is due to
the energy imbalance and the underutilization of available energy. Energy
is also wasted in the other two schemes; however, this is balanced by the
increased production rates. The energy efficiencies obtained for the process
schemes are higher than the exergy efficiencies, therefore it is obvious that
A study of LNG processes to determine the effect. . . 59

there are irreversibilities in the processes that the energy efficiencies do

not account for. The DMR process with extended end flash system is
the most exergetically efficient (30%), while the DMR process with simple
end flash system has the lowest value (25.5%) and the process with no
end flash system is slightly better than the process with simple end flash
(26%). Therefore, the adoption of the DMR process with extended end
flash system is clearly favoured. Unlike the C3MR process, a lot of work
has not been done on the exergy analysis of the DMR process. The exergy
efficiencies which are measures of thermodynamic irreversibilities show that
there is still a lot to be done in making the DMR processes efficient. To
study the main sources of the irreversibilities, the exergy destructions for
all the processes were further broken down.

Table 9: Results of energy and exergy analyses for the three DMR process schemes.

No end flash Simple end Extended end

(base case) flash flash
Work supplied (overall exergy 4853.60 4689.00 4768.59
of fuel) [kW]
Work utilized (overall exergy of 1263.71 1196.53 1437.30
product) [kW]
Overall exergy destruction [kW] 3589.89 3492.47 3331.29
Exergy destruction/LNG 305.72 273.29 245.72
produced [kWh/ton LNG]
Process energy efficiency [%] 55.96 64.82 65.28
Process exergy efficiency[(%] 26.03 25.52 30.14
Rank (exergy efficiency) 2nd 3rd 1st

The distribution of exergy destruction follows a similar pattern for all three
schemes; the pattern is consistent with what was observed for the C3MR
process schemes. The equipment with the highest exergy destruction are
the heat exchangers, compressors and dissipative elements (coolers). Im-
provement efforts must be focused on these three groups of equipment. As
suggested earlier, to improve the coolers’ exergy destruction which is depen-
dent on the exergy content of the cooling duty, the compressors’ efficiency
should be increased. The exergy destruction for the DMR processes with-
out end flash system, with simple end flash system and extended end flash
system were evaluated as 3590 MW, 3492 MW, and 3331 MW, respectively.
60 O. Akinsipe, A. Anozie and D. Babatunde

5.3 Comparison of DMR schemes and C3MR schemes

The first law and exergetic efficiencies for both process schemes are shown
in Tab. 10. The base case results are consistent with literature [8]. In the
base cases and modifications studied, the first law efficiencies and exergy
efficiencies of C3MR were higher than those of DMR. However, the vari-
ation patterns of first law energy efficiencies and exergy efficiencies with
process schemes of C3MR and DMR refrigeration systems were opposite.
For C3MR systems, energy efficiency increased and decreased while exergy
efficiency increased linearly in moving from the base case to the base case
with extended end flash. For DMR systems, energy efficiency increased
linearly while exergy efficiency decreased and increased in moving from the
base case to the base case with extended end flash. The exergetic efficiencies
were all lower than those of the first law efficiency which is a result of the
inclusion of the second law of thermodynamics in the exergetic analysis to
give the true quality of the energy. In terms of both first law efficiency and
exergetic efficiency, extension of the flash end gas production unit seems to
have a better effect on the DMR process. However, in the industry, DMR
processes and C3MR processes serve different functions. DMR is usually
used offshore for large amount of natural gas processing while C3MR dom-
inates onshore applications.

Table 10: Energy and exergy efficiencies of all modelled process schemes.

Energy efficiency [%] Exergy efficiency [%]

C3MR base case 63 87 29.22
C3MR with end flash unit 79.38 30.85
C3MR with extended end flash unit 68.71 33.28
DMR base case 55.96 26.04
DMR with end flash unit 64.82 25.52
DMR with extended end flash unit 65.28 30.14

6 Conclusions
This project has shown that the performance of a LNG plant is best as-
sessed via plant exergy efficiency and not energy efficiency. It was revealed
that for both propane precooled mixed refrigerant (C3MR) and dual mixed
A study of LNG processes to determine the effect. . . 61

refrigerant (DMR) process schemes, adopting the extended end flash unit
gives the highest efficiency. The need for the study was justified as sources
of irreversibilities were discovered.
The exergy destruction and exergy efficiency for the propane precooled
mixed refrigerant processes without end flash system, with simple end flash
system and extended end flash system were evaluated as 106 MW, 107 MW,
126 MW and 29%, 31%, and 33%, respectively.
The exergy destruction and exergy efficiency for the dual mixed refrig-
erant processes without end flash system, with simple end flash system
and extended end flash system were evaluated as 3590 MW, 3492 MW,
3331 MW and 26%, 25.5% and 30%, respectively. The exergetic efficiencies
obtained for both process schemes are consistent with literature [8]. The
increasing order of efficiency achieved with the end flash systems is also as
expected based on [5].
The major equipment that must be enhanced so as to improve the cy-
cle exergy efficiencies are the compressors, heat exchangers, and coolers.
Upgrading process schemes without end flash systems, increasing compres-
sors’ efficiency and adjusting refrigerant compositions are options to be
considered for the cycle performance improvement.

Received 2 May 2018

References
[1] U.S. Energy Infomation Administration. International Energy Outlook (IEO) 2016.
Retrieved from: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/world.cfm 2016 (accessed May
11, 2016)
[2] Woudstra N., Stelt T.V.: Exergy analysis of combustion systems. ECOS 2003,
Copenhagen, June 30 – July 2, 2(2003), 835 – 842.
[3] Gundersen T.: An Introduction to the Concept of Exergy and Energy Qual-
ity. Retrieved from Norwegian University of Science and Technology: http://
www.ivt.ntnu.no/ept/fag/tep4120/innhold/Exergy%20Light%20Version%203.pdf
(accessed March 2019).
[4] Dincer I., Cengel Y.A.: Energy, entropy and exergy concepts and their roles in
thermal engineering. Entropy 3(2001), 3, 116-149.
[5] Usama M., Sherine A., Shuhaimi M.: Technology review of natural gas liquefac-
tion processes. J. Appl. Sci. 11(2011), 21, 3541-3546
[6] Hollingworth M., May E., Viglione S., Titley M.: Efficiency in LNG Pro-
cessing through Exergy Analysis. CEED Seminar Proc. 2015, 25–30.
[7] Tsatsaronis G., Morosuk T.: Advanced exergetic analysis of a refrigeration sys-
tem for liquefaction of natural gas. Int. J. Energ. Environ. Eng. 1(2010), 1, 1–17.
62 O. Akinsipe, A. Anozie and D. Babatunde

[8] Vatani A., Mehrpooya M., Palizdar A.: Advanced exergetic analysis of five
natural gas liquefaction process. Energ. Convers. Manage. 78(2014), 720-737,
[9] Hamut H.S., Dincer I., Naterer G.F.: Exergoeconomic and Enviroeconomic
Analyses of Hybrid Electric Vehicle Thermal Management Systems. In: Progress in
Sustainable Energy Technologies Vol II, (2014).
[10] Omar N.B., Morosuk T., Tsatsaronis G.: A Novel Mixed-Refrigerant Pro-
cess for the Liquefaction of Natural Gas. Proc. ECOS 2014, 27th Int. Conf. Effi-
ciency, Cost, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy Sys-
tems. Turku 2014.
[11] Mafi M., Mousavi S.M., Amidpour M.: Exergy analysis of multistage cascade
low temperature refrigeration systems used in olefin plants. Int. J. Refrig. 32(2009),
279–294.
[12] Konoglu M.: Exergy analysis of multistage cascade refrigeration cycle used for
natural gas liquefaction. Int. J. Energy Res. 26(2000), 763–774.
[13] Alabdulkarem A., Mortazavi A., Hwang Y., Radermacher R., Rogers P.:
Optimization of propane pre-cooled mixed refrigerant LNG plant. Appl. Thermal
Eng. 31(2011), 6, 1091–1098.
[14] Remeljej C.W., Hoadley A.F.: An exergy analysis of small-scale liquefied natural
gas (LNG) liquefaction processes. Energy 31(2004), 12, 2005–2019.
[15] Alamu O.B.: Simulation, Optimization and Exergy Analysis of LNG Processes in
Nigeria LNG Plant. Masters’ thesis, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, (2010).
[16] IGU.: International Gas Union Report. IGU: http://members.igu.org/old/gas-
knowhow/publications/igu-publications/publications/mag/apr07/p101-125.pdf,
(accessed 22 July 2017).
[17] Dam W., Ho S.M.: Engineering design challenges for the Sakhalin LNG Project.
Paper GPSA Conf., San Antonio 2001.
[18] Husnil Y.A., Choi B., Park J., Andika R., Lee M.: Optimizing Control Struc-
ture for Dual Mixed Refrigerant Process M.: Retrieved from International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA): http://folk.ntnu.no/skoge/prost/proceedings/adconip-
2014/pdf/SUBS41TO60/0045/0045_FI.pdf,2014 (accessed March 2019).
[19] Helgestad D.-E.: Modelling and optimization of the C3MR process for liquefaction
of natural gas. TKP 4550 Process Systems Engineering – Specialization Project Fall,
2009.
[20] Abdollahi-Demneh F., Moosavian M.A., Omidkhah M.R., Bahmanyar H.:
Calculating exergy in flowsheeting simulators: A Hysys implementation. Energy
36(2011), 8, 5320e7.
[21] Szargut J., Morris D.R., Steward F.R.: Exergy Analysis of Thermal, Chemical,
and Metallurgical Processes. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 1988.
[22] Ghannadzadeh A., Thery R., Baudouin O., Baudet P., Floquet P., et al.:
General methodology for exergy balance in ProSimPlus process simulator. Energy,
44(2012), 38–59.
[23] Clementino P., Asep H.S., Sutrasno K.: Thermodynamic analysis for lique-
faction of natural gas using the C3-MR refrigeration process. Int. J. Chemical Eng.
Applications 5(2014), 1, 17–22.
A study of LNG processes to determine the effect. . . 63

[24] Bataineh K., Khaleel B.A.: Thermodynamic analysis of a combined cycle power
plant located in Jordan: A case study. Arch. Thermodyn. 41(2020), 1, 95–123.
doi:10.24425/ather.2020.132951
[25] Osuolale F.N., Anozie A.N.: Thermodynamic assessment of crude distillation
units: case studies of Nigeria refineries. Arch. Thermodyn. 40(2019), 4, 83–102.
doi:10.24425/ather.2019.131429
[26] Ziȩbik A.: Thermodynamical motivation of the Polish energy policy. Arch. Ther-
modyn. 33(2012), 4, 3–21. doi:10.2478/v10173-012-0025-9
[27] Okoji A.I., Babatunde D.E., Anozie A.N., Omoleye J.A.: Thermodynamic
analysis of raw mill in cement industry using aspen plus simulator. IOP Conf. Ser.:
Materials Science and Engineering 413(2018), 1, 012048.