International Gas Union Research Conference 2011

INNOVATIONS IN NATURAL GAS LIQUEFACTION TECHNOLOGY

FOR FUTURE LNG PLANTS AND FLOATING LNG FACILITIES


Dr. Justin Bukowski
Dr. Yu Nan Liu
Mr. Stephen Boccella
Mr. Leo Kowalski
All from Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. 2011
ABSTRACT
This paper discusses some of the challenges posed in the development of Floating LNG
(FLNG) plants for the exploitation of offshore natural gas fields, and the work undertaken by Air
Products to address these challenges. Specifically, we look at the LNG liquefaction process, the
mechanical integrity of the coil wound heat exchanger (CWHE), and the impact of vessel motion on
the CWHE performance for mixed refrigerant (MR) based liquefaction processes. The development of
large compressor loaded expanders (companders) for nitrogen-refrigerant based liquefaction
processes for FLNG will also be discussed.
A key decision in the development of an FLNG plant is the selection of a liquefaction process
cycle that best meets the project objectives. Air Products has evaluated liquefaction process cycles
for FLNG applications, including Single MR (SMR), Dual MR (DMR), Nitrogen (N
2
) recycle, and N
2

recycle with Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) precooling. These processes, as well as advantages and
disadvantages of each, will be discussed.
Air Products is building on the success of the Air Products AP-X

LNG Process applied on the

mega-trains in Qatar by leveraging the design of the AP-X stainless steel CWHE subcooler to serve as
the basis for marinized exchangers for FLNG, and extending the development of large refrigeration
companders to FLNG cycles.
In FLNG service, any two-phase process system, including a CWHE employing liquid
refrigerants, may be subject to performance impacts due to the motion of the floating vessel. Air
Products has completed an extensive research and development program to understand and predict
these motion effects so that they may be adequately accounted for in the overall liquefaction system
design.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT
1 INTRODUCTION
2 CHALLENGES FOR FLNG
Motion
Flammable Components
Weight and Space Limits
Corrosion
3 PROCESS CYCLES
C3MR
DMR
SMR
N
2
Recycle
N
2
Recycle/HFC
4 EXCHANGER MECHANICAL INTEGRITY
5 N
2
COMPANDER DESIGN
6 MOTION EFFECTS
Fundamental Experiments
Liquid Distribution Model and Pilot Scale Data
Exchanger Design
CFD
7 SUMMARY
8 REFERENCES


1 INTRODUCTION
Over the years since the first baseload LNG plant started up in Algeria in 1964, more than 90
LNG liquefaction trains have been built, today supporting a worldwide capacity of about 300 MTPA.
The vast majority of these trains operate with one variation or another of the Propane-Precooled Mixed
Refrigerant (C3MR) cycle, and all of the trains have been built on land. As the industry matured, the
market has demanded trains with larger and larger capacity (Figure 1). This trend has been facilitated
by developing larger gas turbines to drive larger refrigerant compressors and by improving the design
of process cycles and CWHEs. The largest of these baseload trains are in Qatar. Each of these six
trains utilizes the Air Products AP-X

LNG Process that combines a C3MR liquefier and N

2
recycle
expansion process subcooler to make over 7.8 MTPA of LNG. All are running reliably with the first two
in operation for over two years.

Figure 1 Progression of LNG train size over the past 50 years
Future growth in the LNG industry appears to be marked by an increasing interest in
developing remote offshore gas fields. Although land-based plants are expected to continue to
contribute to the increasing worldwide LNG capacity, there are many new gas fields slated for
development which are located far enough offshore or in water too deep to make pipeline delivery to a
land-based plant less attractive economically (Figure 2). FLNG projects are being developed to exploit
these fields. Designing, constructing, and operating these plants pose a number of interesting
challenges.
The oil and gas industry has operated offshore for many decades on fixed platforms as well as
with Floating Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessels developed for oil production in deep
water. As a consequence, there is a large experience base to draw upon to address many of the
challenges of FLNG. However, there are some issues specific to LNG processing which required
innovative problem solving.
Air Products has developed several liquefaction process cycles that offer various combinations
of capital cost, efficiency, and features to allow the selection that best fits the needs of the Owner. Air
Products has completed extensive research and development programs to marinize their liquefaction
equipment. These programs confirmed the structural integrity and performance of Air Products
equipment in the offshore environment, including motion induced forces. This paper will discuss how
the past land-based successes have led to the development of efficient processes with attractive
CAPEX and robust equipment designed for ship-board use.

Figure 2 Possible locations for land-based (circles) and offshore (stars) LNG
2 CHALLENGES FOR FLNG
Building and operating an LNG liquefaction plant on a floating platform will have some
important differences from land-based LNG facilities.
Motion
A key issue is the motion of the production vessel. Motion is a consequence of the design and
size of the vessel, as well as the sea conditions. During transit of the vessel to the production location,
the ship motion will subject the installed equipment to mechanical stresses. At the production location,
the operators will attempt to maintain the vessel steady and level, but stability control systems cannot
eliminate all vessel motion. Process equipment with two-phase flow may therefore experience
reduced performance due to liquid-vapor maldistribution, and liquid sloshing may cause additional
mechanical stresses. At times of very heavy seas, the production operation may be shutdown.
However, the equipment must be designed and constructed to survive the extreme forces from vessel
motion caused by these heavy sea conditions. Higher strength materials may provide a benefit for
equipment design.
Flammable Components
The most common liquefaction process currently used for land-based LNG plants is the C3MR
process. Precooling of the natural gas feed is performed with propane refrigerant, and liquefaction
and subcooling are completed with a mixed refrigerant composed of nitrogen, methane, ethane or
ethylene, and propane. The C3MR process is well known, mature, and widely accepted. Some
advantages of the process are high efficiency, high reliability, and ease of operation. Refrigerant
components are typically readily available by extraction from the natural gas feed stream. For FLNG,
some Owners have expressed concerns with the necessary inventory of flammable components in the
refrigeration loops and associated storage. In particular, propane is considered the greatest concern
because of its high volatility combined with its dense vapor which can accumulate at low elevations, in
hull spaces, etc. As a result, refrigeration processes which minimize or eliminate either propane or all
flammable components are of interest for some FLNG operators.
Weight and Space Limits
The plot space aboard an FLNG will be at a premium. Processes with reduced equipment
count and size will be a benefit. The use of large diameter piping should be minimized. Weight is a
concern because efficient and cost-effective construction techniques place equipment into modules,
which have structural and weight limitations. Weight eventually affects the overall vessel size due to
buoyancy and center of gravity considerations.
Corrosion
Any shipboard equipment installed on open decks will be subject to salt water spray. Uniform
corrosion and stress corrosion cracking of piping and equipment are obvious concerns. Cryogenic
equipment for land-based LNG plants is often constructed from aluminum which reduces weight. For
FLNG, exposed equipment must use other materials, such as chloride resistant stainless steel.
3 PROCESS CYCLES
One key decision in the development of FLNG is the selection of a liquefaction process cycle
that best meets the project objectives.[1] Although the design considerations and evaluation criteria
are somewhat different from land-based facilities, the fundamental factors for land-based success can
help to pave the way towards choosing the optimal cycle and key equipment for FLNG. Applying a
similar methodology as used to successfully implement new processes and equipment for land-based
facilities, Air Products has evaluated liquefaction process cycles for FLNG applications. The following
discussion will focus only on the liquefaction step, starting with treated dry lean natural gas after the
steps of acid gas removal, dehydration, mercury removal, heavy hydrocarbon removal, and optional
feed recompression. The post liquefaction steps of pressure letdown, end flash gas recovery, and
storage will not be discussed. All of those steps invite their own challenges for FLNG, but they are
beyond the scope of this paper. The following processes involve the same three basic steps of
precooling the treated gas to about -30 to -40C, liquefaction to about -120 to -135C, and subcooling
the LNG to about -140 to -165C.

Figure 3 Air Products AP-C3MR LNG Process
C3MR
Most of the worlds LNG is liquefied using the AP-C3MR process, using a CWHE (Figure 3).
The basic process achieves precooling with a propane refrigerant loop, typically in kettle-type
evaporators but other arrangements are possible and in operation. Liquefaction and subcooling are
performed in the CWHE with a second refrigeration loop utilizing a mixed refrigerant composed of
nitrogen, methane, ethane, and propane. The C3MR process achieves high efficiency due to the
ability to match the MR boiling curve to the feed condensation curve. This process is well proven and
widely accepted, and therefore might be expected to be the first choice for FLNG development.
However, there are some conditions that make it less attractive. The most obvious is the use of
propane refrigerant in the precooling loop, and the consequent large inventory of propane that is
required, especially when kettle-type exchangers are used. A second issue is the relatively large plot
space that is required for the propane evaporators. A side issue, which should be manageable with
proper engineering, is sloshing of liquid propane in the large evaporators due to vessel motion, which
could result in additional mechanical stresses and reduced process performance.
DMR
In the Dual MR cycle, the precooling propane refrigerant is replaced with a high boiling point
Warm Mixed Refrigerant (WMR) containing methane, ethane, propane and butane. This significantly
reduces the propane inventory in the vessel. Furthermore, the optimized WMR composition will
frequently contain little or no propane, and the performance penalty to eliminate propane is typically
minimal. Precooling is performed in a CWHE, which provides the proven mechanical performance of
wound coil heat exchangers, countercurrent flow for better heat transfer performance and also may
reduce the plot space required. The DMR process achieves an efficiency comparable to C3MR. It
has also been used successfully in land-based LNG.[2] For these reasons, DMR has drawn
considerable interest for FLNG.

Figure 4 Air Products AP-DMR LNG Process
Figure 4 shows an AP-DMR process which uses two stages of WMR compression. The
discharge from the first stage is partially condensed and the liquid portion is pumped around the
second stage compression. The WMR is totally condensed after the second stage compression,
cooled in the CWHE Precooler, and flashed to a single pressure level to provide precooling
refrigeration. Other compression and Precooler configurations are possible, with various advantages
and disadvantages. The process can therefore be configured and optimized to meet the project
requirements.
SMR
The Single MR cycle uses only one MR loop for precooling, liquefaction, and subcooling
(Figure 5). This provides the benefit of reduced equipment count, but comes at the cost of lower
efficiency than C3MR and DMR. SMR has been used for land-based LNG plants, typically for
capacities less than 1 MTPA. Air Products designed four 0.8 MTPA SMR trains for Libya, several LNG
peakshaving trains, and two 0.4 MTPA SMR trains which are expected to start-up in China later this
year. The SMR process requires a taller and larger liquefaction CWHE for a given LNG production
than the DMR cycle, as it must handle all of the liquefaction duty including precooling. This can prove
problematic for FLNG for both structural reasons and process reasons. In addition, at capacities
approaching 2 MTPA, two CWHEs would likely be required.

Figure 5 Air Products AP-SMR LNG Process with three bundles
A basic SMR process has a lower efficiency than a C3MR or DMR cycle. In addition to the
configuration shown in Figure 5, Air Products has developed several variations of the AP-SMR
process to enable increased efficiency, through the use of additional levels of compression and
exchanger complexity.
N
2
Recycle
All of the foregoing process cycles use flammable refrigerants. Because the feed gas and
product themselves are flammable, and LPG recovery may result in significant LPG storage, it is not
possible to entirely eliminate risks due to hydrocarbon storage on an FLNG. However, minimization of
flammable inventory drives interest in refrigeration cycles which contain no flammable components.
The nitrogen recycle expander plant is a well-known technology, used extensively in the air
separation industry for producing liquid N
2
and O
2
. The process uses the reverse Brayton cycle to
create refrigeration by compressing nitrogen, removing the heat of compression, expanding the
nitrogen through a turbo-expander to create a cold stream, and warming the stream against the heat
load. The cycle has been used in hundreds of Air Separation Units as well as dozens of LNG
peakshaver plants.
In the last decade, the AP-X

LNG Process increased baseload plant capacity by more than

50%, by adding a nitrogen refrigeration loop to the successful C3MR technology (Figure 6). The AP-X
process utilizes propane for precooling, a mixed refrigerant for liquefaction, and a nitrogen refrigeration
loop for subcooling. The nitrogen loop provides refrigeration that the C3MR portion of the liquefaction
area would otherwise be required to provide and enables single train production greater than 8 MTPA.
This new technology has been proven in six AP-X trains currently operating in Qatar. For the AP-X
plants in Qatar, the N
2
recycle subcooling loop provides refrigeration equivalent to an LNG plant with
capacity of 1-2 MTPA.

Figure 6 Air Products AP-X

LNG Process
However, the AP-X nitrogen loop as it stands would not be the optimum design to perform all
three functions of precooling, liquefaction and subcooling. Air Products has developed several
variations which are tailored to this purpose. These optimize the number of expanders, pressure and
temperature levels along with process efficiency. Figure 7 shows an Air Products AP-N LNG
process with a single pressure level and two expander temperatures. The nitrogen is compressed and
enters an economizer in which it is cooled. Most of the nitrogen is withdrawn at an intermediate point,
expanded through a turbo-expander to reduce the temperature, and enters the liquefaction exchanger
to provide the majority of the refrigeration duty to liquefy the natural gas. The remaining nitrogen is
further cooled in the economizer before being expanded to provide refrigeration to the subcooling
portion of the main exchanger. Some of the nitrogen refrigerant is used to provide refrigeration in the
economizer before all the refrigerant is returned to the compressor suction. The compression work is
performed in several machines, with the first stage(s) driven by an external driver and the last stage
driven by the turbo-expanders (companders). Note that the LNG is liquefied in a CWHE. The CWHE
has a proven history of withstanding the high thermal stresses which can occur in liquefaction service.

Figure 7 Air Products AP-N LNG Process with single pressure level
For FLNG, the N
2
recycle process has the obvious advantage of using a nonflammable
refrigerant. However, the efficiency of the cycle is significantly lower than those which use a precooled
MR cycle. The N
2
refrigerant is entirely vapor and the heat transfer therefore entirely sensible.
Because sensible heat produces less refrigeration per unit mass, the refrigerant flow rates are
significantly higher for the N
2
recycle process. This results in larger heat exchanger and pipe sizes,
often requires parallel rotating machinery, and limits single train N
2
recycle systems to between 1 and
2 MTPA.
N
2
Recycle/HFC
The reverse Brayton cycle is not the best option to create the warm refrigerant required for
precooling, and therefore, using N
2
to provide precooling lowers the process efficiency. A way to
improve the overall cycle performance is to use a second refrigerant loop for precooling. This
approach can increase the efficiency of the process nearly to that of an SMR cycle. While propane
would be a good choice based on efficiency alone, this obviously introduces a flammable refrigerant,
which eliminates much of the advantage of the N
2
recycle process. Instead, the precooling can be
performed by using a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerant.[3] The HFC system is similar to a propane
system, with the substitution of HFC-410A or another suitable refrigerant and a compressor designed
for the heavier molecular weight of the HFC.

Figure 8 Air Products AP-HN LNG Process
Figure 8 shows an AP-HN process similar to the AP-N process of Figure 7, where an HFC
precooling system has replaced the precooling bundle. HFC refrigerant systems are widely used in
marine applications, as well as countless industrial and household functions. However, the scale of an
FLNG precooling system with HFC may be a step-out from previous experience. The key
consideration regarding the implementation of an HFC refrigerant loop is the question of refrigerant
loss and makeup, since all the refrigerant would need to be imported to the FLNG vessel.
4 EXCHANGER MECHANICAL INTEGRITY
For both mixed refrigerant and nitrogen based processes, CWHEs are best suited for
liquefaction for two reasons:
In liquefying natural gas, the high heat transfer rate in areas where the NG is condensed can
create high thermal stresses. CWHEs by their basic design are robust and have been proven
to be able to tolerate these high thermal stresses.
In the very rare case where tube leaks occur, the leak is fully contained. The leak would occur
from a tube into the pressure vessel shell, and no refrigerant is leaked directly to the
environment. This allows the operator to continue to run for months or years before the leak
needs to be repaired. This is different than other types of heat exchangers, which can leak
directly to the environment. These external leaks require immediate repair, resulting in a
significant unplanned outage. For FLNG, this dual containment provides an extra level of
protection.
CWHE for FLNG are subjected to dynamic loads and stresses due to motions not present in
land-based plants. The structural integrity necessary to withstand these dynamic loads and forces is
provided by using stainless steel instead of aluminum for the shell. In the case of the CWHE
Subcoolers associated with the AP-X trains, this was done in order to achieve greater mechanical
design pressure while allowing for a thinner shell than would have been required had aluminum been
used. The aluminum internals of the CWHE are retained, because they provide efficient heat transfer
and reduce exchanger weight. In addition, as already mentioned, the stainless steel shell may allow
for higher design pressures, which are necessary for the nitrogen refrigeration process.

Figure 9 Tube support test assembly and tensile machine
Air Products FLNG development program was conducted to confirm the structural reliability of
CWHEs in an FLNG environment. The objectives of the analysis were to establish a basis for
evaluating the structural integrity of the heat exchanger, define the mechanical design criteria for
FLNG service, and determine the effects of the wave motion forces on (a) the pressure vessel and (b)
the internal bundle support system.[4] The analysis assumed a conventional, steel hulled ship, and
the wave motions were based on the North Sea due to its harsh conditions. The analysis confirmed
that Air Products' CWHE design with a stainless steel pressure vessel and aluminum internals was
acceptable for both strength and fatigue. Det Norske Veritas (DNV) reviewed the analysis and
certified that the method and basic design were appropriate for an FLNG application. The behavior of
the bundle support system under wave motions was also demonstrated.
(a) The analysis utilized the ship design and sea conditions by converting them into
accelerations that are applied to the CWHE to determine loadings. The mechanical integrity of the
pressure vessel shell subjected to these dynamic loads was then confirmed by analytical methods.
The loadings used for the strength and fatigue analysis and the exchanger size evaluated were very
conservative. The results showed that the shell will withstand the ship motions.
(b) The internal bundle support system is much more complicated and is not easily addressed
by analytical methods. Therefore, Air Products developed a laboratory test to demonstrate the support
systems ability to withstand the dynamic forces associated with wave motion. A model of the support
system was subjected to millions of cycles to evaluate the effects of motion loads on the system.
Figure 9 shows the test assembly and the tensile machine. The test loads and number of cycles were
selected to exceed the expected load spectrum for the 100 year storm conditions. This experimental
test program was highly successful, and showed that the support system will also withstand motions
and loads which may occur at sea.
5 N
2
COMPANDER DESIGN
An FLNG plant using the N
2
recycle process requires large compressor-loaded expanders
(companders), much larger than those typically used in most N
2
liquefaction processes such as Air
Separation Units. However, the AP-X trains in Qatar required substantial scale-up of compander
technology (Figure 10), with demonstrated powers up to approximately 8 MW. This proven technology
can be applied to FLNG applications directly, with no need for further scale-up. For train capacities
over 0.7 to 1 MTPA, the refrigeration loads are large enough to require parallel companders.

Figure 10 One of 24 AP-X

companders built for the six plants in Qatar

The Air Products compander design includes several features that are attractive for both
FLNG and land-based applications. Bi-directional dry gas seals are used to minimize the loss of
refrigerant to the atmosphere. High capacity oil thrust bearings allow application of a simple,
intrinsically safe, passive thrust balance arrangement. Our testing facility can provide full-speed
testing of all compander designs. Full-load testing can be performed either at our facility, or an outside
facility, depending on the size.[5]
6 MOTION EFFECTS
An FLNG vessel in operation is subject to the motion of the sea. Stability control systems and
vessel design are used to minimize, but do not eliminate, the consequent motion of the process decks.
The motion and resultant acceleration can affect the flow of process liquid in the equipment.
The feed gas to be liquefied in a CWHE flows through the exchanger tubes, and the
refrigerant flows through the shell in countercurrent direction. The tubes are each less than an inch in
diameter. Because of the small dimensions, vessel motion does not have a significant effect on
tubeside performance. For the Mixed Refrigerant cycles, the refrigerant is introduced to the shell at
the top of the coil wound bundles. The exchanger has an internal liquid distributor to ensure that the
refrigerant is distributed uniformly over the process tubes. The liquid refrigerant then flows downward
over the tubes and boils to absorb heat from the feed gas. When the exchanger on an FLNG vessel
undergoes motion, the distribution of liquid can change as the refrigerant flows downward, which can
affect heat transfer.
Over the last 15 years, Air Products completed a rigorous analysis of the effect of tilt and
oscillatory motion on wound coil exchanger performance. The analysis focused on liquid distribution
on the shell-side of the exchangers and the effect on heat transfer performance. This work included
fundamentally-based experiments, pilot scale test units, and dynamic simulation.
Fundamental Experiments
The fundamentally-based experiments investigated the flow of hydrocarbons across the tubes
in a CWHE to quantify the flow behavior under various motion conditions. The experiments
characterized the distribution of liquid flow over the outside of the tubes at various tube inclinations
and tube spacing. Experiments were also performed to assess the effect of simultaneous vapor flow
on the liquid distribution.

Figure 11 Pilot scale bundle for motion tests
Liquid Distribution Model and Pilot Scale Data
The experimental results were used to develop a proprietary model which predicts the shell-
side liquid distribution as a function of heat exchanger geometry, motion conditions, elevation of the
heat exchanger above the pivot point, and process conditions.
The model was validated in a pilot scale wound coil exchanger bundle. (Figure 11) This data
was collected under various motion conditions, including both oscillations and permanent tilt. Flow
distributions predicted by the model agree very well with the pilot scale data. Figure 12 shows the
liquid distribution at an elevation in the bundle, as a function of circumferential position. The
exchanger bundle is tilted, which causes an increase of liquid flow over the low side of the bundle.
The Air Products proprietary model is able to accurately predict motion effects such as this.

Figure 12 Experimental and predicted liquid distribution in tilted bundle
Exchanger Design
The final step incorporates the effects of shell-side flow distribution into Air Products well
established heat exchanger design methods. Air Products can use the computer models to predict the
performance of a given design, when subjected to a specific level of motion. The design can then be
adjusted to eliminate the effect of motion on the overall heat transfer performance. Note that if the
vessel motion is larger than that considered in the process design, the process will still perform, but
efficiency or production may be reduced.
CFD
Air Products has also used computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to assess the impact of motion
on the hydraulic behavior of the internal distributors and separators in the CWHE. CFD has been used
to model the sloshing dynamics and to assess the force amplification that may occur in areas where
the resonant frequency is close to the motion frequency. Results demonstrated that the resonant
period is much less than the ship motion period, indicating that the current design of the internal
distributors and separators are suitable for FLNG applications.
7 SUMMARY
In summary, Air Products has developed efficient liquefaction processes and robust
equipment for FLNG. This development builds on the many land-based successes and utilizes many
years of research and development on the marinization of equipment for ship-board use. A wide
variety of process cycles have been developed, with a range of equipment selections, refrigerants,
process efficiencies, and other features to meet the particular needs of an opportunity. The Air
Products coil wound heat exchanger offers exceptional mechanical strength and performance, and a
detailed analysis and testing program has proven the ability of the mechanical design of the CWHE to
meet the demanding conditions of FLNG service. For cycles using non-flammable nitrogen refrigerant,
Air Products has developed large-scale companders with high efficiency and mechanical reliability.
Finally, a rigorous research program spanning 15 years has provided the ability to predict and
compensate for the effects of vessel motion on the CWHE performance in FLNG service.
8 REFERENCES
1 Schmidt, W. P., C. M. Ott, Y. N. Liu, W. A. Kennington, "How the Right Technical Choices
Lead to Commercial Success", LNG 16, 2010
2 Verburg, R., S. Kaart, B. Benckhuijsen, P. Collins, R. K. Nagelvoort, "Sakhalin Energys Initial
Operating Experience, From Simulation to Reality: Making the DMR Process Work", LNG 16,
2010
3 Roberts, M. J., J. C. Bronfenbrenner, D. R. Graham, W. A. Kennington, "Process Design
Solutions for Offshore Liquefaction", Gastech 2009
4 Gehringer, J., "The MCR

Cryogenic Heat Exchanger in FPSO Service", LNG Journal,

Jan/Feb 2001
5. Kugler, J. W., "Application Of Nitrogen Refrigeration Turbo-Expander/Compressors To Large
Scale LNG Trains", GPA - Europe February Conference 2010