Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.

1997, 36, 2715-2724 2715

Automatic Design and Optimization of Natural Gas Plants

M. S. Diaz, A. Serrani, J. A. Bandoni,† and E. A. Brignole*
PLAPIQUI (UNS-CONICET), 12 de Octubre 1842, CC 717, 8000 Bahı́a Blanca, Argentina

A strategy for process configuration design and debottlenecking of natural gas processing plants
based on turboexpansion is presented. The approach combines a rigorous process simulation
model and a mixed-integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) optimization methodology that
embeds different expansion alternatives within a superstructure. A wide range of natural gas
mixtures with 6-25% of condensable components is studied in order to determine optimal plant
topology and operating parameters under different process conditions. Inlet feed gases with
varying CO2 content are also analyzed to evaluate the impact on plant design and operation.
Special attention is devoted to an actual gas mixture, currently processed in a large-scale ethane
plant in operation. Different turboexpansion configuration designs are further analyzed to
explore the possibility of operating in propane recovery mode.

1. Introduction sheet dependence on feed composition, determining the

The extraction of ethane and heavier hydrocarbons
from natural gas has evolved from simple oil absorption
to cryogenic expander processes. In the ambient oil
absorption process, natural gas is contacted in counter-
current in a high-pressure absorber with lean oil; the
oil preferentially absorbs the heavier hydrocarbons
which are later removed from the oil in a low-pressure
stripper. The refrigerated oil absorption process, in-
troduced in 1957, operates at lower temperatures and
allows the use of lower molecular weight oils with higher
NGL recovery. Oil absorption processes were the most
commonly used until 1970, and they could be used to
recover up to 40% ethane from the feed gas. The first
low-temperature, expander plant was built in 1963, and
its basic design is still in use today. It is currently the
most efficient process for obtaining high ethane recov-
ery. During the last decades, much research and
development work has been devoted to the determina-
tion of the optimal operating conditions and more
efficient expansion flowsheet.
Wang (1985) has performed a systematic search of
optimal operating conditions for a turboexpansion plant
and has determined that a combination of turboexpan-
sion and refrigeration can lead to minimal energy
consumption.
Wilkinson and Hudson (1982) have proposed different
turboexpander plant designs to improve ethane recovery
without inlet CO2 removal. These designs represent
minor changes in the process configuration while offer-
ing important improvements over conventional ex-
pander processes. Fernández et al. (1991) have quan-
titatively analyzed the effect of CO2 on process design
by introducing in the demethanizer column the condi-
tions for CO2 precipitation as a constraint of the
nonlinear optimization problem.
Bandoni et al. (1989) have developed a methodology
for the selection of natural gas processing plant designs.
It is based on an energy analysis in the cryogenic sector
that computes the minimum cooling load in the sector
and compares it with a realistic upper limit on the
refrigeration attainable by expansion work (a maximum
value of 6 for the expansion ratio was used). Besides,
Bandoni et al. have carefully studied the process flow-
proper technology (combinations of turboexpansion,
turboexpansion + external refrigeration, Joule-Thom-
son (JT) expansion + external refrigeration) for each
type of gas mixture.
On the other hand, during the last decade, design and
synthesis problems have been successfully solved by
formulating mathematical models which involve con-
tinuous and discrete (integer) variables to represent
operating conditions and alternative process topologies,
respectively. The most general type of model applies
the mixed-integer nonlinear programming (MINLP)
approach (Grossmann and Kravanja, 1995). Diaz et al.
(1995) have used this approach to study the debottle-
necking problem of an ethane extraction plant, where
significant improvement in the plant operation and
economics could be achieved by simultaneously consid-
ering minor structural modifications. This situation can
be effectively studied by formulating and solving a
debottlenecking problem, where the discrete decisions
account for the limited modifications in the current
configuration, leading to a MINLP optimization model
as well.
In the present work, the detailed design of a turbo-
expansion plant is determined for a wide range of
natural gas mixtures by means of a MINLP strategy. A
superstructure has been developed to account for dif-
ferent turboexpansion designs which can provide higher
ethane recovery and improve the profit. A rigorous
simulator of the cryogenic sector has been developed and
integrated to a MINLP optimization program that
simultaneously determines the optimal turboexpansion
configuration and its corresponding optimal operating
conditions. Different natural gas mixtures, ranging
from 6 to 25% of condensable components, have been
analyzed. Special attention has been devoted to inlet
feed gas with varying CO2 contents, for which a sensi-
tivity study on the optimal structural and operating
point has been performed.
Results indicate that proper design and operating
conditions, for different inlet feed compositions, can be
automatically determined by means of the proposed
design strategy.
2. Basic and Alternative Expander Processes

* Author to whom correspondence is addressed. Fax: +54 In a typical ethane extraction plant, inlet gas is
91 883764. E-mail: prbrigno@criba.edu.ar. filtered and compressed. Thereafter, it is air cooled and
† E-mail: abandon@criba.edu.ar. dehydrated to avoid ice and hydrates formation. After
S0888-5885(96)00812-3 CCC: $14.00 © 1997 American Chemical Society
2716 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 36, No. 7, 1997
Figure 1. Cryogenic sector superstructure: 1, gas-gas heat exchanger; 2, gas-gas exchanger (subcooler in gas-subcooled design); 3,
demethanizer side reboilers; 4, bottom reboiler; 5, demethanized product exchanger; 6, cold tank; 7, turboexpander; 8, subcooler; 9, high-
pressure column (8 and 9 only for two-stage demethanization); 10, demethanizer; 11, air coolers; 12, JT valves.
this conditioning, the gas feed is divided into two equal
streams, each of which is sent to a different cryogenic
train for demethanization (see Figure 1). The bottom
product from the demethanizers is mixed and sent to a
conventional separation process to obtain pure ethane,
pure propane, butanes, and natural gasoline. After heat
exchanging with the entering gases, the top product
from the demethanizers (residual gas) is recompressed
to pipeline pressure and delivered as sales gas.
The cryogenic sector constitutes the core of a low-
temperature expander plant and consequently special
attention is focused on this sector. A more detailed
description of the basic and alternative turboexpansion
processes is given below.
Basic Turboexpansion Process. A typical turbo-
expansion process (BTEP) is shown in Figure 1 by solid
lines. The inlet gas is cooled by heat exchanging with
the residual gas (heat exchangers 1 and 2) and through
the demethanizer side and bottom reboilers (3 and 4)
and, eventually, with external refrigeration (heat ex-
changer 14). The partially condensed feed gas is then
sent to a vapor-liquid separator (cold tank 6). The
vapor is expanded through the turboexpander (7) to
obtain the low temperatures required for high ethane
recovery and is fed to the top of the demethanizer
column (10). The liquid from the cold tank is directly
flashed into the demethanizer at its lower feed point.
The demethanizer is a low-temperature distillation
column that makes a separation between methane and
ethane. Methane and lighter components, such as
nitrogen, constitute the top product, and ethane and
heavier hydrocarbons comprise the main components in
the bottoms. Carbon dioxide, which is intermediate in
volatility between methane and ethane, is distributed
between the top and bottom streams. As the outlet
stream from the expander usually has two phases, the
liquid phase is used as a reflux for the demethanizer.
The top product or residual gas cools the inlet gas and
is then recompressed to pipeline pressure and delivered
as sales gas. The product from the demethanizer
bottom can be further fractionated to produce pure
ethane, propane, butanes, and natural gasoline. When
the fraction of condensable components present in the
feed gas is relatively low, the plant can be operated
without external refrigeration. Otherwise, mechanical
refrigeration is required in addition to the refrigeration
provided by the turboexpansion process.
It is important to note that compression and refrig-
eration constitute the main factors that regulate both
capital and operating costs in this type of plant.
Alternative Expander Plant Designs. The basic
expansion process (BTP) design is normally used for
lean natural gas and is limited to ethane recoveries of
about 80% or less; larger expansion ratios are necessary
for higher ethane recoveries, with a steep increase in
recompression horsepower requirement. Besides, the
cold tank must usually be operated at very low temper-
atures and high pressures, conditions that make phase
separation and vapor-liquid equilibrium prediction very
difficult. Several expander plant designs have been
proposed to overcome these drawbacks. These alterna-
tives include a gas-subcooled process, a gas-liquid-
subcooled process, and a liquid-subcooled process. A
detailed description of each scheme is given in Wilkin-
son and Hudson (1982). In the present work, a two-
stage demethanization process is also analyzed.
A superstructure that embeds different alternative
designs for the cryogenic sector of an expander plant is
shown in Figure 1. In this general flow diagram, the
flowsheet associated with the basic expansion process
is presented in solid lines (y1 ) 1).
In the gas-subcooled process (GSP), a fraction of the
vapor from the cold tank is condensed and subcooled in
the heat exchanger 2 using the residual gas coming from
the demethanizer; the subcooled liquid is then flashed
and fed to the top of the demethanizer column, as shown

in Figure 1 for y2 ) 1. The remaining vapor is expanded
through the turboexpander and fed to the middle of the
column.
In the gas-liquid-subcooled process (GLSP), the vapor
that comes from the cold tank is also divided into two
streams: one is expanded through the turboexpander
and the other is mixed with the liquid stream from the
cold tank, as is shown in Figure 1 for y3 ) 1. This
stream is then condensed and subcooled by heat ex-
changing with the residual gas and fed to the top of the
demethanizer. In this case, exchanger 2 can also be
used as a subcooler.
In the two-stage demethanization process (2-sDP), a
major fraction of methane is removed in a prede-
methanizing column (9) that operates at a higher
pressure. The bottoms from this column are sent to the
demethanizer column (10) operating at a lower pressure,
where complete demethanization is achieved. A high
ethane recovery is obtained in this way because the
demethanizer can work at a lower pressure; there is also
a lower energy consumption to recompress the residual
gas, as about 80% of the feed gas constitutes the top
stream from the higher pressure column. As shown in
Figure 2 for y4 ) 1, this process adds two units to the
basic turboexpansion design, a new column and a heat
exchanger (subcooler), requiring major piping modifica-
tions as well.
The addition of mechanical refrigeration to the pre-
ceding designs is represented in Figure 1 by y6 ) 1.
In the liquid-subcooled process (LSP), the liquid from
the cold tank, which contains most of the heavier
hydrocarbons, is subcooled mainly by means of mechan-
ical refrigeration (heat exchanger 14) and a portion is
flashed across a Joule-Thomson valve into the top of
the demethanizer. The remaining portion of the stream
is flashed and heat exchanged against the cold tank
liquid for additional cooling (heat exchanger 13), and
then it enters the demethanizer at the lowest feed point.
The design corresponds to y7 ) 1 in Figure 1.
3. Simulation and Optimization Strategies
Optimization Strategy. In order to set up a com-
mon strategy to tackle design and debottlenecking
problems using similar tools, a general methodology
based on a MINLP optimization approach has been
developed. The objective function is the maximization
of the operation profit. In its most general way, the
model can be formulated as follows:
max f(x,y)
x,y
st
h(x,y) ) 0
g(x,y) e 0
Ey e e
y ∈ {0, 1}m, x ∈ Rn, xL e x e xU
where vector x represents continuous optimization
variables and y corresponds to binary variables which
represent discrete decisions, such as selecting one unit
or another.
The optimization is performed by the integration of
a rigorous sequential modular simulator to a MINLP
optimization program. The set of nonlinear equations
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 36, No. 7, 1997 2717
Figure 2. Basic turboexpansion process profit dependence on cold-
tank temperature.
h constitutes the process mathematical model solved
within an ad hoc simulator (specific for design or
debottlenecking), with appropriate procedures. Non-
linear inequality constraints g represent process speci-
fications and bounds on equipment capacities. Purely
integer constraints represent logical conditions.
The optimization program (Diaz and Bandoni, 1996)
is an implementation of the outer approximation algo-
rithm (Duran and Grossmann, 1986) that can interface
a process simulator. The basic algorithm requires
successive solution of NLP subproblems (with fixed
binary variables, i.e., fixed configuration) and mixed-
integer linear programming (MILP) problems that
overestimate the feasible region and overestimate (for
maximization problems) the objective function. At the
NLP step, the program interfaces both OPT (the NLP
solver) and the process simulator in a feasible path
optimization procedure. In this context, the simulator
is considered as a black box and each evaluation of
dependent variables by the NLP solver requires an
entire process simulation. Gradient information is
estimated numerically by finite differences using the
forward difference formula. Consequently, one simula-
tion call is required for each point of the nonlinear
optimization and as many additional simulations as
optimization variables must be performed for variable
perturbations. It is important to note that this proce-
dure can be performed within acceptable CPU times
because the simulator is very fast.
Once the NLP is solved, function and gradient values
are available at the optimal NLP point. This informa-
tion is transferred to a linearization module where the
coefficients and right-hand sides corresponding to the
linearized nonlinear functions f and g are evaluated. The
following step is the construction of the MILP problem.
Linearized coefficients and linear ones (if any) are
automatically arranged within the matricial equation
Ap e b, pT ) [xT, yT] (the first row being the objective
function), which represents the problem and is updated
at each MINLP major iteration. This matrix and its
right-hand side are then transferred to the MILP solver
through a dedicated subroutine for solving the corre-
sponding MILP problem. A detailed description of this
interface is given in Diaz and Bandoni (1996).
For convex problems, the algorithm guarantees con-
vergence to global optimum. For maximization prob-
lems, NLP solutions are lower bounds on the original
MINLP solution (since they do not correspond to the
optimal configuration) and MILP solutions are upper
bounds for convex problems. Convergence occurs when
both bounds cross. The use of a black box simulator
for function evaluation does not guarantee problem
convexity, and outer approximations may cut off parts
of the feasible region and converge to locally optimal
2718 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 36, No. 7, 1997
solutions. However, results indicate that the quality of
nonconvex solutions greatly improves the objective
function. In this work, the NLP subproblem has been
efficiently solved with subroutine OPT (Biegler and
Cuthrell, 1985), and the MILP problem, with program
LINDO (Schrage, 1987).
Plant Simulation Model. The plant is rigorously
simulated with a sequential modular simulator
(PROSYD; De Beistegui et al., 1992). Given the non-
polar nature of the mixture components, a cubic equa-
tion of state with conventional mixing rules is suitable
for representing the mixture properties at high pressure
(Tsonopoulus and Heidman, 1986). Despite their sim-
plicity, these equations display quantitatively correct
performance to describe complex phase equilibrium
situations (Michelsen and Heidemann, 1988). Pedersen
et al. (1989) discussed thoroughly the selection of
thermodynamic models for the computation of phase
equilibrium properties (phase envelopes and high-
pressure flashes) of natural gases and recommended the
use of the well-known Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK)
equation of state (Soave, 1972) after extensive compari-
son of SRK predictions with experimental data. How-
ever, this does not mean that a simple cubic equation
of state is able to describe the complex thermodynamic
behavior in the vicinity of the critical point but that the
model can be used with confidence for process simula-
tion, outside that region. The most critical unit, with
regard to proximity to the critical conditions, is the cold
tank. The pressure of the cold tank is chosen below the
predicted critical pressures, on the basis of Michelsen
(1980) phase envelope and critical point computations,
using the SRK equation. With this pressure restriction,
a robust flash algorithm (Michelsen, 1982) gives a
realistic description of the relative amounts of liquid and
vapor and compositions. The simulation of process
conditions following the above procedure has been
confirmed by plant tests.
The simulation begins at the cold tank, where the
entire refrigeration load is evaluated. The turbo-
expander, the subcooler (if any), and the demethanizer
are then simulated. A fraction of the feed gas is cooled
by heat exchanging with side and bottom reboilers. If
the remaining heat duty can be provided by the inlet
gas-residual gas heat exchangers, no external refrig-
eration is required. Otherwise, mechanical refrigeration
is required; the refrigeration cycle is not simulated for
the sake of simulation quickness. A refrigeration level
of 243 K has been considered for cost considerations.
The demethanizer column is simulated using a modi-
fication of the Naphtali-Sandholm procedure (Naphtali
and Sandholm, 1971) coupled with the SRK equation
of state for generating K-values and enthalpies (Chris-
tiansen et al., 1979). This means that, for each stage,
m component mass balance equations, one bubble point
calculation, and one enthalpy balance equation have
been formulated. The resulting (m + 2)n system is
solved by Newton-Raphson iteration. Partial deriva-
tives are analytically calculated, and the Jacobian
matrix of partial derivatives is block tridiagonal with
block size (m + 2)(m + 2). Consequently, there is
detailed information on component composition and
temperature profiles in the column after each simula-
tion.
Heat exchangers, which are of the countercurrent
type, are represented by the design equation Q )
UA∆TML, where UA has been obtained from an existing
plant data sheet.
Figure 3. Basic turboexpansion process profit dependence on
demethanizer bottom flowrate.
A rigorous prediction of CO2 solubility is required at
each stage of the demethanizer column because the
separation of CO2-methane mixtures is not always
possible without going through the solid-vapor region,
at pressures below methane critical pressure. However,
CO2 solubility increases in mixtures with ethane, pro-
pane, and butanes. A predictive method, based on
experimental CO2 solid saturation pressures and com-
putation of fugacity coefficients by using the SRK
equation of state, has been used for the computation of
CO2 solubility in multicomponent hydrocarbon mixtures
(Fernández et al., 1991). The ratio between the CO2
liquid and solid fugacities has been correlated on the
basis of the predicted liquid and experimental solid
fugacities by using a rigorous expression based on
classical thermodynamics. The standard deviation be-
tween predicted and experimental solubility data (Ku-
rata, 1974) for the binary mixtures CO2-methane,
CO2-ethane, and CO2-propane is 3.7%. Carbon diox-
ide solubility in both liquid and vapor phases is calcu-
lated at the hydrocarbon mixture composition, pressure,
and temperature at each stage of the demethanizer, and
it is compared with the CO2 current composition at the
same stage.
The simulation routine has been extended to include
a superstructure that embeds alternative turboexpan-
sion plant designs. At this stage, binary variables have
been used to set the different plant flowsheets shown
in Figure 1, which include (i) basic expander process
(y1 ) 1, flowsheet in solid lines), (ii) gas-subcooled
process (y2 ) 1), (iii) gas-liquid-subcooled process (y2
) 1, y3 ) 1), (iv) two-stage demethanization process (y4
) 1), (v) Joule-Thomson expansion instead of turbo-
expansion (y5 ) 1), (vi) liquid-subcooled process (y7 )
1), (vii) addition of mechanical refrigeration (y6 ) 1).
From a previous sensitivity analysis and plant oper-
ating data, the following main continuous optimization
variables have been identified: (i) cold-tank tempera-
ture, Tct (K), (ii) demethanizer pressure, Pdem (bar), (iii)
demethanizer bottom flowrate, Bdem (ton/day), (iv) heat
extraction in side reboilers, Qreb (kcal/h), and (v) the
vapor fraction that does not enter the turboexpander
in alternative turboexpansion designs, Div (%). It can
be noted that the objective function is convex with
respect to each individual variable, as we are dealing
with a maximization problem. Figures 2-5 show profit
dependence on the optimization variables; these curves
have been obtained with rigorous simulations around
a nominal point for a typical basic turboexpansion
process (BTEP). It can be seen that there is a strong,
almost linear dependence on the demethanizer pressure
(it is directly related to recompression costs). There is
also a steep decrease in profit as the cold-tank temper-
ature increases (for the BTEP very low temperatures

Figure 4. Basic turboexpansion process profit dependence on
demethanizer pressure.
Figure 5. Basic turboexpansion process profit dependence on side
reboiler heat duty.
Table 1. Economic Data
natural gas price 3.85 × 10-6 $US/kcal
bottom product sale price 130.00 $US/ton
are required in the cold tank). Profit dependence on
heat duties in side reboilers is not so strong.
Lower bounds on cold-tank temperature have been
determined by means of the phase envelope diagram for
the feed gas to ensure the two-phase region.
An additional problem in the rigorous modeling with
sequential modular simulators is to take into account
the effect of nonexisting units to build up the MILP
problem. To do so, linearization coefficients for continu-
ous variables that do not belong to the current config-
uration have been determined by disturbances around
the NLP optimum.
Economic Model. Capital costs for process units
have been estimated using data from Ulrich (1984).
Table 1 shows prices of raw material and products.
As cost functions are, in general, nonconvex functions
of continuous variables, fixed-charge cost models (of the
general form Ci ) aiyi + biwi) have been derived for the
potential units in the superstructure; the linear coef-
ficients for binary (yi) and continuous (wi) variables in
the objective function are shown in Table 2. For a
variable wi, associated with unit or path i, the following
inequality constraints have been written:
wi - Uiyi e 0
wi g 0
where Ui is a known upper bound on wi; therefore, for
a nonexisting unit i (yi ) 0), the associated variable wi
must be zero. If yi ) 1, the upper bound holds on wi.
4. Design and Debottlenecking Problem
Formulation
Design Problem. In the design problem, the objec-
tive is to determine the optimal turboexpansion flow-
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 36, No. 7, 1997 2719
sheet and associated operating conditions to build the
plant from grassroots. Capital costs are considered for
all process units, together with operating costs. In this
case, the cryogenic sector is rigorously simulated.
Process specifications, such as ethane purity in the
demethanizer bottoms, are handled as inequality con-
straints. A lower bound on ethane recovery of 80% is
imposed to ensure a reasonably good ethane production.
Due to cryogenic temperatures, CO2 precipitation condi-
tions in each stage of the demethanizer are handled as
the following nonlinear constraints:
CO2 concentration in vapor phase e 0.90(CO2
solubility in vapor phase)
CO2 concentration in liquid phase e 0.90(CO2
solubility in liquid phase)
Even though no equipment limitations have been
considered in this case, additional nonlinear constraints
have been considered to avoid temperature crosses in
heat exchangers.
The study has been performed with all the natural
gas compositions shown in Table 3. They represent a
wide range of variation for feed conditions, from very
lean to very rich gas mixtures. The feed denoted as B
corresponds to an actual gas composition of pipeline gas
in the south of Argentina.
Debottlenecking Problem. The cryogenic sector of
a real large-scale plant, currently in operation, has been
studied. The debottlenecking problem constitutes a
restricted class of retrofit design problems; the objective
is to find an optimal design where the current topology
of the flowsheet remains mainly fixed and minor
modifications or relocation of equipment are allowed.
The possibility of these minor changes is represented
by discrete decisions. In this case, capital costs are only
associated with new potential units and equipment
relocation.
The simulation model used for debottlenecking in-
cludes rigorous modules for compressors, where actual
characteristic curves have been determined within the
normal operating range; i.e., the polytropic head as a
function of inlet flow volume and rotational speed has
been carefully tuned with plant data. A natural way
to simulate the compressor operation is to set the inlet
gas flowrate and discharge pressure and calculate the
resulting rotational speed. However, in this type of
plant the inlet gas compressor and the recompressor are
placed on the same shaft, and consequently they work
at exactly the same rpm. Therefore, the units have been
simulated by setting the rotational speed and discharge
pressure (both are used as decision variables in the
optimization model), leaving the inlet gas flowrate as a
calculated variable. In this way a realistic plant opera-
tion mode is reproduced. A potential problem of this
operation mode is that, for high values of the inlet gas
flowrate, the turboexpander may not be able to process
the entire vapor coming out of the cold tank. This fact
is considered in the model by expanding the exceeding
vapor through a Joule-Thomson valve.
The cold-tank temperature is an optimization variable
because it is a key parameter for the cost of the
operation. The compressor rotational speed has also
been used as a decision variable because it gives the
plant operation more flexibility to adjust the inlet gas
flowrate, cold-tank pressure, and recompressor dis-
charge pressure. Therefore, the continuous optimiza-
2720 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 36, No. 7, 1997

Table 2. Nonlinear Fixed-Charge Cost Model Coefficients

y1 y2 y3 y4 y5 y6 y7
fixed charge coefficient (bi) 8.6727 11.0352 11.0352 37.6532 0 62.1231 65.3211
variable charge coefficient (ai) 0.0021 0.0021 0.0031 6.4323 0 10.0221 11.0012

Table 3. Natural Gas Molar Compositions

comp. A B C D E F G H I J
nitrogen 1.00 1.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
CO2 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65
methane 92.35 90.43 90.35 88.35 86.35 84.35 82.35 80.35 78.35 75.35
ethane 3.00 4.61 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 13.00
propane 1.50 1.76 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.40
i-butane 0.40 0.33 0.56 0.67 0.82 0.95 1.08 1.21 1.34 1.11
n-butane 0.50 0.44 0.64 0.83 0.98 1.15 1.32 1.49 1.66 1.49
i-pentane 0.20 0.15 0.26 0.31 0.39 0.45 0.51 0.57 0.63 0.63
n-pentane 0.10 0.09 0.14 0.19 0.21 0.25 0.29 0.33 0.37 0.37
hexanes 0.30 0.10 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.00

Table 4. Description of Nonlinear Inequality Constraints in the Debottlenecking Problem

equipment limitation bound
inlet compressor inlet volume flow (MMscm/day) e26
heat exchanger 2 (y2 ) 1) UA (kcal/(h‚K)) e493 000
heat exchanger 1 (y2 ) 1) UA (kcal/(h‚K)) e2 300 000
heat exchanger 1-2 (y2 * 1) UA (kcal/(h‚K)) e2 500 000
demethanizer column CO2 precipitation conditions CO2 solubility liquid and vapor
demethanizer column methane/ethane ratio in bottoms e4.00
demethanizer column ethane recovery (%) g80.00
heat exchanger 4 heat load (kcal/h) e2 129 000
heat exchanger 5 heat load (kcal/h) e1 474 000
recompressor discharge pressure (kg/cm2) gpipeline pressure + 2
recompressor discharge pressure (kg/cm2) epipeline pressure + 10

Table 5. Optimal Design and Operating Conditions for Different Gas Feeds (Profits Are Reported for Both Cryogenic
Trains)
% C2+ binary var. process profit ($US/h) ethane recovery Pdem (bar)
23 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 LSP + ER 26 098 83.72 22.41
20 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2-sDP + ER 24 027 86.59 19.5
18 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2-sDP + ER 21 412 88.44 19.3
16 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 GSP + ER 18 783 87.51 23.1
14 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 GSP + ER 16 120 87.76 24
12 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 GSP + ER 13 398 88.41 24
10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 GSP 10 586 89.36 24
7.6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 GSP 7 697 89.77 24
6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 GSP 4 830 89.16 24

tion variables used for the debottlenecking problem are

(i) compressor rotational speed, (ii) cold-tank pressure,
(iii) cold-tank temperature, (iv) demethanizer pressure,
(v) bottom flowrate, and (vi) stream flow that goes
through a subcooler in alternative designs. Table 4
shows the nonlinear inequality constraints for this
problem; they represent capacity limits of main process
units and operating parameter bounds.

5. Discussion of Results
Several studies have been performed with the previ-
ously described models, and the results are discussed
below.
Optimal Design of Turboexpansion Plants. The
aim of this study has been to address the optimal design
problem of an ethane extraction plant for a wide range
of feed gas compositions. The MINLP strategy simul-
taneously determines the optimal turboexpansion de-
sign, the corresponding operating conditions, and whether
or not external refrigeration is required. Results cor-
responding to both cryogenic trains are reported in
Table 5; they show that the gas-subcooled process (GSP,
with or without external refrigeration) is better suited
for almost all gas feeds in the range under study, except
for the richer ones, which require the liquid-subcooled
process.
Figure 6. Optimal profit dependence on inlet gas composition
for basic turboexpansion.
A further analysis has been performed on each inlet
feed. Figure 6 shows the optimal profit for the basic
turboexpansion process (BTEP) under different feed
compositions. This figure clearly shows the strong
dependence of the optimal cryogenic plant profit on the
richness of the natural gas mixtures. This variation
represents about 1 720 000 $US/yr per each 1% increase
in the heavy-component composition of the feed gas.
In order to highlight optimal profit variations among
studied process configurations, Figure 7 shows the
results as differences with the profit of BTEP. It can
be noted that the liquid-subcooled process (LSP) is
better for the richer feeds, and this is so because it

Figure 7. Comparison between optimal profit in alternative
designs and optimal basic turboexpansion profit.
Figure 8. Ethane recovery in the optimal economic point as a
function of the inlet gas composition for the main studied designs.
renders both the higher profit and the higher ethane
recovery. In this design, the heavy hydrocarbon fed to
the top of the column holds down ethane and con-
densable components (even CO2), which results in high
ethane recovery. The GSP is better suited for most of
the mixtures over the studied range as the difference
between optimal profit in this design and the optimal
BTEP profit is larger, especially for lighter feeds.
Meanwhile, the two-stage demethanization process (2-
sDP) presents higher benefits for intermediate mixtures,
and it follows the GSP for lighter mixtures.
Figure 8 shows that, even though benefits are higher
for the GSP for mixtures with more than 80% of
methane, ethane recoveries at the optimal economic
points are higher for the two-stage demethanizer proc-
ess (2-sDP). This behavior is due to compression issues;
in the GSP the demethanizer works at higher pressure
than in the 2s-DP (24 versus 18 kgf/cm2) in order to
minimize the capital cost associated with the recom-
pression. On the other hand, the demethanizer column
in the 2-sDP operates with a smaller gas flowrate,
allowing a lower operating pressure that results in a
higher ethane recovery.
As richer natural gas mixtures are processed, there
is an increasing need for external refrigeration; this
trend is shown in Figure 9, together with a comparison
between the amount of external refrigeration required
in the LSP and in the BTEP optimum.
Optimal Design for Maximization of Ethane
Production. In order to evaluate whether the optimal
design configuration and operating condition found in
the previous section are affected by performance cri-
teria, a further study has been conducted by maximizing
ethane production. This study has been performed for
a lean actual inlet feed, denoted as B in Table 3.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 36, No. 7, 1997 2721
Figure 9. External refrigeration (as a percentage of the total
refrigeration load) variation with the inlet gas composition.
Table 6. Comparison between Main Variables at BTEP
and at GSP for Maximizing Ethane Production
(Reported Values Refer to One Cryogenic Sector)
NLP optimum MINLP optimum
for basic for the gas
variable expansion design subcooled process
Tct (K) 208.87 229.93
Pdem (bar) 18.00 18.00
Div (%) 0.00 30.00
Bdem (kmol/h) 1414.55 1515.51
ethane recovery (%) 84.32 92.54
propane recovery (%) 98.98 99.15
Ttd (K) 169.47 167.47
WTE (kW) 3294.36 3955.60
c1/c2 bottoms 0.04 0.04
The results presented in Table 6 show that the GSP
is the best design. As was expected, while maximizing
ethane production without taking into account cost
considerations, a lower demethanizer pressure is se-
lected in order to increase ethane recovery. This
recovery is about 3.1% higher than that obtained
when maximizing profit (see Table 5). The MINLP
strategy required only two major iterations to find the
solution.
Table 6 also presents the optimum point for a typical
BTEP (used as the initial configuration for the MINLP
algorithm) using ethane production as the objective
function. These results clearly show the advantage in
favor of the GSP process with respect to ethane recovery
and operating conditions. The cold tank operates at a
warmer temperature, far from critical conditions, and
heavier hydrocarbons remain in the vapor phase. With
a warmer feed to the expander, more horsepower is
recovered in the associated booster for the same ex-
pansion ratio. The subcooled liquid, which is the top
feed to the demethanizer, is rich in heavier hydro-
carbons; these heavier fractions have a lower volatility
than ethane and preabsorb it and recover it in the
bottom.
Debottlenecking Problem in an Ethane Plant in
Operation. In this case we address the debottleneck-
ing problem of an ethane plant, currently in operation.
The objective is to increase the plant operation profit
as much as possible by determining an optimal flow-
sheet modification and equipment relocation. The
capital costs associated with this problem involve only
the potential units. In this case, the MINLP solution
is the gas-subcooled process.
The current plant configuration (basic turboexpansion
process) and operating condition are selected as the
initial point for the optimization. The optimal solution,
reported in Table 7, increases profit in 21.20% with
respect to the initial point. This is mainly due to a
2722 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 36, No. 7, 1997

Table 7. Values of Main Variables at the Initial and Optimum Points for the BTEP and at the Optimal Debottlenecking
Point (GSP) (Reported Values Refer to One Cryogenic Sector; Inlet Gas Flow Refers to the Entire Plant)
variable initial point (BTEP) BTEP optimum GSP optimum
Pct (bar) 58.40 56.35 58.31
Tct (K) 200.65 209.10 217.35
Pdem (bar) 20.00 18.00 18.00
Bdem (kmol/h) 1339.17 1580.36 1679.93
rotational speed (rpm) 4950 4739 4857
Div (%) 0.00 0.00 29.00
inlet gas flow (MMscm/day) 24.00 25.69 26.00
ethane recovery (%) 70.28 80.00 88.94
WTE (kW) 3066.53 3270.00 4079.00
profit ($US/h) 4229.64 4802.30 5126.40
binary variables 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Table 8. Propane Recovery Plant

variable 2-sDP GSP
Tct (K) 214.79 238
Pct (bar) 55.00 66
Pdem (bar) 18.00 18
Bdem (kmol/h) 639.66 643.83
Div (%) 28.03 19.00
Ppredem (bar) 24.00
Ttd (K) 209.14 187.08
Tbd (K) 327.56 328.23
propane recovery (%) 95.03 95.65
c2/c3 bottoms 0.295 0.295

25.30% increase in the ethane production by simply Figure 10. Propane recovery dependence on propane purity in
bottom product.
relocating the heat exchanger 2 to be used as a sub-
cooler. Heat exchanger 1 is sufficient because less Table 9. Optimal Operating Conditions for Increasing
cooling is required by the feed stream, due to a higher CO2 Content in Feed for GSP
cold-tank operating temperature. Additionally, more feed I feed II feed III feed IV
horsepower is recovered in the turboexpander for the
same expansion ratio, also due to warmer conditions in nitrogen 0.830 0.827 0.826 0.817
CO2 0.602 1.545 2.118 2.829
the cold tank. However, it must be pointed out that methane 91.20 90.849 90.320 89.664
possible hydraulic limitations in the demethanizer ethane 4.417 3.835 3.812 3.784
column have not been taken into account in this study. propane and heavier 2.951 2.944 2.927 2.906
As can be noted in Table 7, the demethanizer pressure Tct (K) 235.21 237.55 231.54 230.00
at the optimum point corresponding to the GSP is 18 Pdem (bar) 18.00 21.46 22.91 27.09
bar as for the BTEP, while in Table 5 the optimum Tdt (K) 167.75 172.25 174.65 180.09
ethane recovery (%) 92.40 90.68 89.16 85.91
pressure for the GSP is 24 bar. The reason for this propane recovery (%) 99.15 98.80 98.46 97.57
behavior is that in design mode the compressor capital c1 bottoms (%) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
costs must be included, and for each unit decrease in Div (%) 30 40 40 35
the demethanizer column pressure, the increase in the
total costs (due to larger recompression horsepower) is able values for a 22 MMscm/day plant for the 2s-DP
much larger than the increase in the benefit due to a (95.03% propane recovery) and the GSP (95.65% pro-
higher ethane recovery. On the other hand, in debottle- pane recovery). Propane recovery and the specification
necking mode, only compressor operating costs are upon the ethane/propane ratio in the bottoms are
considered. Consequently, for a decrease in the demeth- comparable to those reported by Limb and Czarnecki
anizer column pressure, the higher ethane recovery (1987) in a 0.7 MMscm/day Petroflux propane plant in
overcomes the cost increase due to the larger horse- Queensland, Australia.
power requirement, and consequently the optimum
Figure 10 shows that there is a steep increase in
favors a low demethanizer pressure.
propane recovery for ethane/propane ratios in the bot-
The outer approximation implementation performs
very well with these problems; when the current operat- toms between 0.02 and 0.05. As can be appreciated from
ing point (BTEP process current point) is selected as the figure, propane recovery remains above 95% for C2/
the initial point for the MINLP problem, the first MILP C3 ratios in the bottom higher than 0.15, and only 80%
problem of the outer approximation algorithm already propane recovery can be achieved with an ethane/
determines the best configuration and the entire MINLP propane ratio in the demethanizer bottoms of less than
problem converges in two major iterations 0.02.
Dual Mode Plant. It is interesting to analyze the Analysis of Natural Gas Mixtures with Increas-
possibility of designing a plant capable of operating in ing CO2 Contents. Different natural gas feeds with
either ethane recovery or propane recovery (also called varying CO2 contents have been analyzed to study the
ethane rejection) mode. If ethane demand is low, the impact on the maximization of ethane production.
likely operating mode for the NGL plant can be propane These compositions, ranging from 0.60 to 2.8% of CO2,
recovery. As the ethane recovery mode dictates the correspond to actual gas mixtures. As can be seen in
sizing and hence the cost of most of the major equipment Table 9, as CO2 content increases, higher pressures are
items, the two best designs for this operation mode, required in the demethanizer column to avoid CO2 solid
2-sDP and GSP, have been considered for operation in formation; consequently, ethane recovery decreases.
the propane recovery mode. Table 8 shows main vari- Solubility constraints become active as more acid (larger

Figure 11. Solubility line and CO2 profile in upper stages of
demethanizer in liquid phase (feed I).
Figure 12. Solubility line and CO2 profile in upper stages of
demethanizer in vapor phase (feed I).
Figure 13. Solubility line and CO2 profile in upper stages of
demethanizer in liquid phase (feed IV).
Figure 14. Solubility line and CO2 profile in upper stages of
demethanizer in vapor phase (feed IV).
CO2 composition) feeds are processed. The selected
design is a gas-subcooled process.
Figures 11-14 show CO2 concentration profiles in the
upper stages of the demethanizer, compared to solid
equilibrium lines for both the feed with a low content
of CO2 (feed I) and the one with highest CO2 content
(feed IV). It can be noted that, even though actual
compositions cannot be higher than the 90% of the
solubility concentration, the CO2 profile is closer to the
solid equilibrium line for feed IV.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 36, No. 7, 1997 2723
6. Conclusions
A general approach for analysis, design, and debottle-
necking of NGL recovery plants has been presented. The
strategy has been applied to study a wide range of
natural gas compositions and turboexpansion designs.
Particular attention has been devoted to actual feed gas
mixtures with varying carbon dioxide content.
The design problem of an ethane extraction plant has
been addressed to maximize an economic objective;
different flowsheets and operating conditions have been
determined depending on the inlet gas composition.
Moreover, optimal conditions have been evaluated to
obtain the maximization of ethane production. The
optimal design is the gas-subcooled process for both
optimization objectives, but different optimal operating
conditions have been determined in each case.
When addressing the debottlenecking problem of an
existing NGL plant, rigorous simulation modules for the
compressors have been included, providing a realistic
insight of the trends in operating variables. Additional
optimization variables with respect to the design case
have been used and their impact on process behavior
has allowed the determination of different operating
points, such as the selection of a new inlet gas flowrate,
different from current conditions.
Additionally, different plant designs have been fur-
ther analyzed to evaluate their flexibility to work in
ethane rejection mode; i.e., the present strategy has
been used to tackle different economic scenarios: if
ethane demand is low, the plant can be operated as a
propane extraction plant.
Finally, the impact of increasing CO2 contents in the
inlet feed has been analyzed; the present approach has
shown that, as CO2 contents increase, solubility con-
straints become active and they are directly related to
the decrease in ethane recovery.
Consequently, the MINLP optimization strategy,
based on a rigorous simulator, has been an efficient tool
of evaluation of process alternatives.
Notation
Bdem ) demethanizer bottom product flowrate (one cryo-
genic sector), kmol/h
c1 bottoms ) methane compositions in demethanizer bot-
tom product, % molar
c1/c2 bottoms ) methane/ethane ratio in demethanizer
bottom product
c2/c3 bottoms ) ethane/propane ratio in bottom product
Div ) vapor stream fraction that does not go through the
turboexpander in alternative expansion designs, %
m ) number of components
n ) number of stages in the demethanizer column
Pct ) cold-tank pressure, bar
Pdem ) demethanizer top pressure, bar
Ppredem ) predemethanizer top pressure, bar
Tct ) cold-tank temperature, K
Ttd ) demethanizer top temperature, K
Tbd ) demethanizer bottom temperature, K
WTE ) compression energy recovered in the turboexpander,
kW
Literature Cited
Bandoni, J.; Eliceche, A.; Mabe, G.; Brignole, E. Synthesis and
Optimization of Ethane Recovery Process. Comput. Chem. Eng.
1989, 13, 587-594.
Biegler, L.; Cuthrell, J. Improved Infeasible Path Optimization
for Sequential Modular Simulators. II: The Optimization
Algorithm. Comput. Chem. Eng. 1985, 9, 257-265.
2724 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 36, No. 7, 1997
Christiansen, L.; Michelsen, M.; Fredenslund, A. Naphtali-
Sandholm Distillation Calculations for NGL Mixtures near the
Critical Region. Comput. Chem. Eng. 1979, 3, 535-542.
De Beistegui, R.; Bandoni, J. A.; Brignole, E. A. PROSYD: Un
Nuevo Procedimiento para la Simulación, Optimización y Diseño
de Procesos. I Congreso Interamericano de Computación Apli-
cada a la Industria de Procesos, La Serena, Chile, 1992.
Diaz, S.; Bandoni, J. A. A Mixed Integer Optimization Strategy
for a Large Scale Plant in Operation. Comput. Chem. Eng. 1996,
20 (5), 531-545.
Diaz, S.; Serrani, A.; de Beistegui, R.; Brignole, E. A. A MINLP
Strategy for the Debottlenecking Problem in an Ethane Extrac-
tion Plant. Comput. Chem. Eng. 1995, 19S, 175-178.
Duran, M.; Grossmann, I. E. A Mixed-Integer Nonlinear Program-
ming Approach for Process Systems Synthesis. AIChE J. 1986,
32, 592-606.
Fernández, L.; Bandoni, J. A.; Eliceche, A. M.; Brignole, E. A.
Optimization of Ethane Extraction Plants from Natural Gas
Containing Carbon Dioxide. Gas Sep. Purif. 1991, 5, 229-234.
Grossmann, I. E.; Kravanja, Z. Mixed integer nonlinear program-
ming techniques for process systems engineering. Comput.
Chem. Eng. 1995, 19S, 189.
Kurata, F. Gas Processors Association Research Report RR-10,
1974.
Limb, D. L.; Czarnecki, B. A. Reflux exchanger process lifts
propane recovery at Aussie site. Oil Gas J. 1987, 85 (50), 35.
Michelsen, M. L. Calculation of Phase Envelopes and Critical
Points for Multicomponent mixtures. Fluid Phase Equilib. 1980,
4, 1-10.
Michelsen, M. L. The isothermal flash problem. Part II. Phase Split
Calculation. Fluid Phase Equilib. 1982, 9, 21-40.
Michelsen, M. L.; Heidemann, R. A. Calculation of Tricritical
Points. Fluid Phase Equilib. 1988, 39, 53-74.
Naphtali, L. M.; Sandholm, D. P. AIChE J. 1971, 17, 148.
Pedersen, K. S.; Fredenslund, Aa.; Thomassen, P. Properties of
Oils and Natural Gases; Gulf Pub. Co.: Houston, TX, 1989.
Schrage, L. Linear, Integer and Quadratic Programming With
LINDO; The Scientific Press: Palo Alto, CA, 1987.
Tsonopoulos, C.; Heidman, J. L. High-Pressure Vapor-Liquid
Equilibria with Cubic Equations of State. Fluid Phase Equilib.
1986, 29, 391-414.
Ulrich, G. A Guide to Chemical Engineering Process Design and
Economics; University of New Hampshire: Durham, NH, 1984.
Wang, W. B. Ph.D. Thesis, Tulsa University, Tulsa, OK, 1985.
Wilkinson, J.; Hudson, H. Turboexpander Plant Designs Can
Provide High Ethane Recoveries without Inlet CO2 Removal.
Oil Gas J. 1982, 80 (18), 281.
Received for review December 19, 1996
Revised manuscript received March 14, 1997
Accepted March 17, 1997X
IE960812X
X Abstract published in Advance ACS Abstracts, May 1,
1997.