1

Single-cycle mixed-fluid LNG

(PRICO) process
Part I: Optimal design
Sigurd Skogestad & Jrgen Bauck Jensen
Quatar, January 2009
2

Single-cycle mixed fluid LNG (PRICO) process

Natural gas:
45 kg/s 45 kg/s (1.3 MTPA)
30 C Feed at 40 bar and 30 C
40 bar 89.7 mol% C1, 5.5% C2, 1.8% C3,
0.1% C4, 2.8% N2
Cooled to ~ -156 C
Expansion to ~ 1 bar
Flash gas may be used as fuel
Liquefied natural gas (LNG)
-156 C product at -162C
35 bar

1 bar

-162 C
3

Single-cycle mixed fluid LNG (PRICO) process

22 bar Refrigerant:
45 kg/s 475 kg/s Mixed fluid: ~ 33mol% C1, 35%
30 C 30 C C2, 25% C4, 7% N2
40 bar 22 bar 4 bar Partly condensed with sea
Sup 10 C water to ~ 30 C
Cooled to ~ -156 C
Expansion to ~ 4 bar
-156 C -156C Evaporates in NG HX
19 bar Super-heated ~ 10 C
Compressed to ~ 22 bar
4

Design constraints
Compressor:
Max. pressure: 22 bar / 30 bar
30 C 30 C Max. compressor suction
40 bar volume*: 317000 m3/h
Max. compressor head*: 263.6
kJ/kg
Or: Max. compressor ratio* Pr, e.g. 5.5
(Price)
4. Max. compressor work:
77.5 MW / 120 MW
5. Minimum superheating: 10C
1 bar

-162 C 3.33 kg/s * Design constraint only

6

Optimal design: TAC

Maximize total profit = Minimize Total Annualized Cost (TAC):
min JTAC = Joperation + Jcapital
subject to c0
Joperation [$/year] is the annual operating cost
Joperation = Jutility + Jfeeds + Jproducts
Jcapital [$/year] is the annualized cost of the equipment

Total annualized cost (TAC) is minimized with respect to the

design variables
Flowsheet structure
Areas, sizes
Operating parameters (pressures etc.)
Requires mixed integer non-linear programming
Our case Fixed structure Try a simpler approach
7

Simpler approach: Specify Tmin

Idea: Specify Tmin to balance
30 C 30 C between
40 bar operating costs (favoured
by a low value)
Tmin=2C* capital costs (favoured by a
high value)

1 bar

-162 C 3.33 kg/s * Design constraint only

8

Simple Tmin-method (Approach 1)

Tmin (=2C) is added as an extra design constraint +
minimize compressor work (Ws)

BUT: The resulting design parameters (pressure etc.)

are not optimal for the resulting process!
Reoptimizing reduces Tmin to about 1C and reduces work by about
5% (!)
Cannot be fixed by iterating on Tmin

Therefore: Approach 1 NOT USED

9

Simplified TAC (sTAC)

Capital cost
Jcapital = i (Cfixed,i + Cvariable,iSini) / T
T capital depriciation time, e.g. 10 years

1. Structure of plant given Cfixed,i = 0

2. Main equipment: Heat exchangers and compressor
3. Scaling exponent
n = 1 for compressor (Can then combine operation and capital cost!)
n = 0.65 for heat exchangers
4. Cvariable,i = C0 for all heat exchangers
Approach 2: Adjust C0 to get Tmin = 2C
10

sTAC Optimization problem

Minimize cost

30 C 30 C Case I: Feedrate (NG) given

40 bar Case II: Feedrate free

Here: Consider Case II.

Minimize cost=
1 bar Max. single-train LNG feed

-162 C 3.33 kg/s

11

Resulting Max feed sTAC:

Minimization with respect to design parameters (AHOT

and ANG) and operating parameters (pressures etc.)
ANG: NG / cold refrigerant
AHOT: hot refrigerant / cold refrigerant

Here: Adjust C0 to obtain Tmin = 2C

Other constraints c: depend on specific case
12

Case 1 Price and Mortko (1983)

Data
LNG outlet temperature (before expansion) = -144 C
77.5 MW compressor power
Maximum Ph = 22 bar
Maximum Pr = Ph/Pl = 5.5
Differences / uncertainties
Pure methane
Neglected removal of heavy components
Pressure losses (especially important at low pressure, e.g. compressor
suction)
Heating of fuel gas produces some LNG for free
3.7 % higher production compared with Price & Mortko
44.6 kg/s LNG production
Gives large amount of fuel gas (7.7 kg/s, ~230 MW)
Want to limit fuel to 3.33 kg/s, ~100 MW
13

Case 2 Limited fuel flow

Limitation on fuel flow instead of outlet temperature
Maximum 3.33 kg/s of fuel (7.7. kg/s in Case 1)
Outlet temperature down from -144 C to -156 C to get sufficient
cooling with less flash gas (fuel)
Production (with Ws=77.5 MW and Pr=5.5) reduced by 6 % compared
with case 1
From 44.6 kg/s to 41.7 kg/s 22 bar

45 kg/s 475 kg/s

30C 30C 77.5 MW
4 bar

-156C

-162C
41.7 kg/s 3.33 kg/s
14

Case 3,4 Super-heating

Wish to find the optimal degree of super-heating
10.0 C super-heating used for all cases except 3 and 4
Case 3; 11.6 C super-heating increases production by 0.8 % compared with
case 2
Case 4; 25.7 C super-heating decreases production by 1.3 % compared with
case 3
Optimum is very flat in terms of super-heating
Some super-heating is necessary to protect the compressor
Some super-heating is optimal due to
Internal heat exchange in the main heat exchanger
However, the heat transfer coefficient in the super-heating region
is lower than in the evaporating region
This has not been considered here
Will tend to reduce the optimal amount of super-heating
15

Case 5 No pressure constraint

We have removed the following constraints
Maximum Ph = 22 bar
Maximum Pr = Ph/Pl = 5.5
Ph is increased to 50.4 bar and Pr is increased to 22
LNG production is increased by 11 % (from case 2)
The high pressure ratio is not possible with a single compressor
casing
The compressor head is too high
Two compressors in series will do the job
Higher head [kJ/kg] gives lower refrigerant flow
Cooling duty per kg of refrigerant closely related to head
Less heat transfer area is needed since less warm refrigerant needs cooling
The cost of an additional compressor casing is at least partly
offset by the decreased heat transfer area and increased
production
16

Case 6,7 Real GE Compressor

GE MCL1800 series compressor
Centrifugal compressor with 1800 mm casing diameter
Maximum suction volume is 380 000 m3/h active constraint
Maximum discharge pressure Ph = 30 bar active constraint

Case 6 77.5 MW; Same production as case 5

Compressor head is 216 kJ/kg which is feasible with a single
compressor casing
Case 7 120 MW; 71.1 kg/s of LNG product
Compressor head is 162 kJ/kg which is feasible with a single
compressor casing
Corresponds to 2.0 million tons per annum (MTPA) with 330 operating
days per year
17

Case 8 Liquid turbines

Expansion in liquid turbines
Takes the pressure down to 2 bar
above the saturation pressure
Avoid vapour in the turbines
Possible with two phase turbines?
Production increased by 6.6
% compared with case 7
75.8 kg/s ~ 2.2 MTPA per train
18

Production vs. feed pressure

Results for case 8
Achievable feed
pressure depends on
Location of heavy extraction
Up-front or integrated
Recompression after heavy
extraction
Feed compressor?
Complicates the
optimization problem
Very important for production
19

Conclusion
The constraints on the compressor performance is very
important for the maximum production design case
Maximum compressor head
Maximum compressor shaft work
Maximum compressor suction volume
The feed pressure is very important for the achievable
production
We have assumed a fixed feed pressure of 40 bar
A large PRICO train of 2.2 MTPA is feasible with a single
compressor casing
2.0 MTPA without liquid turbines
20

Conclusion II
All the results presented here are with a minimum
approach temperature Tmin = 2.0 C
This is achieved by adjusting C0 in the optimization problem
An alternative is to find a reasonable C0 and the use
the same value for all cases
These results are presented in the paper
21

Additional material
1. Table with results for all cases
2. Table with results for the alternative design method
with constant C0
22
23

Fixed C0 for all cases