See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330962464

Liquefied petroleum gas recovery enhancement via retrofitting the

refrigeration system of an existing natural gas liquid plant

Article  in  Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering · February 2019

DOI: 10.1002/apj.2292

CITATION READS

1 639

5 authors, including:

Walaa Shahata Ahmed Bhran

Suez University Imam Muhammad bin Saud Islamic University
20 PUBLICATIONS   17 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   79 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Abeer Shoaib Ashour A. Ibrahim

Suez University Suez University
22 PUBLICATIONS   192 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

LPG , mixed refregerant, propane refregerant, turbo-expander View project

this only a research paper View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ashour A. Ibrahim on 16 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Received: 14 May 2018 Revised: 22 November 2018
DOI: 10.1002/apj.2292
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Liquefied petroleum gas recovery enhancement via
retrofitting the refrigeration system of an existing natural
gas liquid plant
Walaa M. Shehata1 | Ahmed A. Bhran1,2
Fatma K. Gad1
1
Faculty of Petroleum and Mining
Engineering, Department of Petroleum
Refining and Petrochemical Engineering,
Suez University, Suez, Egypt
2
Chemical Engineering Department,
College of Engineering, Al Imam
Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University
(IMSIU), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
3
El Wastani Petroleum Company, Gas
Processing section, Damietta, Egypt
Correspondence
Ahmed A. Bhran, Chemical Engineering
Department, College of Engineering, Al
Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic
University (IMSIU), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Email: abhrane@yahoo.com
1 | INTRODUCTION
The world's energy demand during the period of
23 years—between 2007 and 2030—is expected to
increase by about 40%, so the need for alternative trans-
portable energy sources has become more crucial.1
Among all energy sources, natural gas (NG) is consid-
ered as one of the most useful and promising sources
all over the world. It is cheap and safe source of energy
with a wide variety of applications.2,3 Moreover, it
Asia‐Pac J Chem Eng. 2019;e2292. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/apj
https://doi.org/10.1002/apj.2292
Accepted: 8 January 2019
| Abeer M. Shoaib1 | Ashour A. Ibrahim3 |
Abstract
Nowadays, gas processing for natural gas liquids (NGLs) recovery is becoming
of great interest. However, many of the present NGLs recovery units in
operation do not give the desired revenue. This study focuses on the
retrofitting of an existing NGLs plant constructed in Egypt for maximizing
LPG product recovery due to its high economic value. Various alternatives
have been suggested to maximize LPG recovery, while achieving the same
cooling target and ethane recovery in terms of power consumption and addi-
tional capital cost. The economic study shows that replacing the existing pure
propane refrigerant used to recover C5+ (pentane and heavier) in the existing
plant by a mixed refrigerant type is the best retrofitting technique. Further-
more, the exergy of the whole NGL unit was studied to evaluate the exergetic
performance of all suggested upgrading methods. Regarding the upgraded
plant, the butanes and propane recoveries were increased by 13% and 7%,
respectively, with 15.95% increase in LPG overall recovery. In addition, the
solutions of operational problems that may appear in the glycol injection
system, propane refrigeration facilities, and de‐ethanizer unit facilities when
switching from single refrigerant to mixed refrigerant have been taken into
consideration.
KEYWORDS
gas processing, LPG plant, mixed refrigerant, NGLs recovery
guarantees to meet the tight environmental regulations
as it is one of the cleanest energy sources.4 By 2020, it
is expected to account for about 30% of the total electric-
ity generation.5 However, various difficulties are
encountered if it is transported in its gaseous nature.2
Hence, converting NG to liquefied NG (LNG) through
liquefaction process has gained a great attention in the
last decades.
The raw NG composition varies on the basis of the gas
field, but it is generally composed mainly of methane, in
© 2019 Curtin University and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 of 33
2 of 33
addition to gaseous hydrocarbons, liquid hydrocarbons,
water, acid gasses, and so forth. Depending on its liquid
content, NG could be commonly classified to lean or dry
(for low ethane and heaviers—C2+—content) and rich
gas (for high C2+ content).6,7 Converting NG to LNG
has many other benefits, such as huge reduction in its
volume, which consequently reduce the cost and size of
transportation and storage containers.8
Recovery of NG liquids (NGLs) has gained a great
attention for its numerous benefits such as avoiding
freezing and subsequent plugging of process equipment,
in addition to controlling the heating value of LNG.
Furthermore, other economic benefits have been
obtained, as each of the recovered products could be sold
separately.9
The general alternative processes applied for ethane
and NGLs recovery from NG include absorption, Joule‐
Thompson expansion, turbo‐expansion, and external
refrigeration. Greater recoveries and improved energy
efficiencies could be achieved through the use of a combi-
nation of these alternatives.10 According to Vink et al.,11
the main liquefaction techniques are summarized as
mixed refrigerant, cascade, and expansion cycles. Other
options for NGL recovery have been introduced and
compared by Paradowski et al.12 Mehrpooya et al.13 have
analyzed different turbo‐expansion processes to select the
best economic flowsheet for NGLs recovery through the
use of genetic algorithm program. Another NGLs
recovery scheme based on open or closed cycle self‐
refrigeration system to reduce energy requirements has
been introduced by Mehrpooya et al.14 On the other
hand, the use of mixed refrigerants for the efficient NGLs
recovery has been studied by many researchers over the
years.13-20 Seung‐Whan et al.21 have demonstrated that
liquefaction efficiency could be increased through
precooling and turbo‐expander addition to liquefaction
cycle. This idea has been further studied and demon-
strated by many other researchers.22-26 Even more,
Shoaib et al.27 have studied the impact of replacing
Joule–Thomson valve by turbo‐expander and found that
it could increase condensate production by about
150 bbl/day. The idea of implementing absorption in
NG refrigeration cycles has been introduced and further
studied in lots of research works.13,28-32 Research works
that consider the comparison between more than two
refrigeration techniques are very limited. Thus, as a
unique contribution of the current work, this study inves-
tigates deeply the comparison between the most popular
techniques used in NGL plant to refrigerate NG such as
single refrigerant, turbo‐expander and mixed refrigerant
technique. This study handles the three techniques in
detail to cover the advantages and disadvantages of each
technique when they applied on the same LPG plant
SHEHATA ET AL.
considering energy saving and LPG maximization. The
final selection of the best alternative is based on the
economic study performed using the economic part of
HYSYS Version 10 with Peng‐Robinson equation of
state (EOS).
As mentioned earlier, the economic benefits of NG
liquefaction and NGLs recovery are maximized if the
recovered products have been sold separately. Among
these products, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), which
consists mainly of two flammable nontoxic gasses (pro-
pane and butane) is a clean, high octane, and eco‐friendly
fuel.33 LPG is considered as one of the highly priced prod-
ucts; therefore, its economic benefits could be highly
reduced if it is sold along with NG condensates or
cheaper dry gas.34 The revenue of LPG recovery is
increased because it could be used for internal combus-
tion engines as an alternative to conventional fuels. It is
found that gasoline Multipoint Injection engine's fuel
system could be adapted easily to LPG supply.35,36
Besides, LPG is widely used as rural heating and cooking
fuel.37 Therefore, LPG production is more profitable than
either gas condensate or NG.
Many researchers worked on NGL plants to save
energy. Some of them worked on NGL plants using
turbo‐expander in NG refrigeration,16,38 some others
worked on NGL plant using single refrigerant as pro-
pane,20,39 and some others on mixed refrigerant.9,15 How-
ever, there is limit research studies that focused on
improving the NGL plants for reducing energy consump-
tion and enhancing the plant performance and produc-
tion at the same time. Therefore, this work was directed
to retrofitting an existing LPG plant in order to save
energy and increase the throughput of LPG product
through enhancing its recovery.The application of mixed
refrigerant technique in LNG plants40-45 is popular, but
in case of NGL and especially LPG recovery plants, it is
rarely applied. The mixed refrigerant is characterized by
many distinctive properties. The operating pressure for
refrigeration is much lower when refrigerant mixtures
are used instead of single refrigerant. Liquefaction sys-
tems operating with single refrigerant operate largely in
the superheated vapor region, whereas those operating
with refrigerant mixtures operate largely in the two‐phase
region. The heat transfer coefficients in the heat
exchangers are much larger in systems operating with
refrigerant mixtures compared with those operating with
single refrigerant.19
In addition to the previous mentioned objectives of
the present study, this work also investigates deeply the
use of a mixed refrigerant system instead of a single
refrigerant technique for maximizing LPG and saving
energy of the considered LPG plant. Also, the exergetic
performance of the whole NGL unit under consideration
SHEHATA ET AL.
was studied to evaluate the destruction and exergetic effi-
ciency of all suggested upgrading techniques compared
with the design basis case study. Furthermore, process
or equipment problems associated to the plant upgrading
using mixed refrigerant system was studied, and suitable
solutions were introduced.
2 | CASE STUDY
The case study presented in this work is for LPG recovery
plant located in Damietta, Egypt, and operated by El
Wastani Petroleum Company. This plant operates wells
network in order to process the feed gas stream to deliver
sales gas, stabilized condensate, and LPG via central
processing facilities plant.
This plant is structured around the following two
fundamental principles:
• Stage I: To ensure early gas production and
condensate stabilization at raw feed gas flowrate of
86,660 m3/day.
• Stage II: To utilize a deep‐cut design that allows
separation of components from the inlet feed to
produce LPG product.
On the basis of the above two principles and referring
to the simplified block flow diagram presented in
Figure 1, stage I was designed to produce sales gas and
stabilized condensate product as required for the pipeline
transportation specifications. The process equipment
installed in stage I includes gas dew point decreasing
FIGURE 1 Central processing facilities block flow diagram of El Wastani petroleum gas plant. LPG: liquefied petroleum gas
3 of 33
facility using a mechanical refrigeration (MR) unit and
a condensate stabilization unit.
Stage II was designed to produce LPG with 80%
butane recovery. The process equipment installed in
stage II includes molecular sieve dehydration unit, a
turbo‐expander, de‐ethanizer and de‐butanizer fraction-
ation towers, and LPG storage bullets. Figure 2 illustrates
the main processing facilities used to process incoming
NG feed.
Referring to Figure 2, ethylene glycol with a total
flowrate of 25.85 m3/day is injected into the inlet of the
gas/gas exchangers with a flowrate of 24.35 m3/day and
into the gas/liquid exchanger with a flowrate of
1.501 m3/day to capture any condensed water for hydrate
inhibition while the gas is cooled. The combined incom-
ing feed gas streams from El Wastani wells and other gas
wells are routed into two separator groups connected in
parallel; each designed for 43,330 m3/day. The outlet
gas from each of the separator groups is fed to gas/gas
heat exchanger (Gas/Gas Ex), then to stage I, which is
consisting of a MR unit, which uses propane as a pure
refrigerant to decrease the gas temperature to −10°C.
Subsequently, the cold gas is fed to the low temperature
separator (LTS) where the inlet gas is separated into
three streams: gas, condensate, and glycol. That unit con-
trols sales gas quality and recovers additional hydrocar-
bon liquids. The condensate recovered from the feed
gas group separators is sent to the condensate stabilizer
feed drum. On the other hand, the gas separated from
the drum is fed to the suction of the overhead (OH)
booster compressor (Stab compressor), whereas the con-
densate is fed to the condensate stabilizer (Stabilizer
4 of 33 SHEHATA ET AL.

FIGURE 2 HYSYS simulation of El Wastani gas plant; L‐02 and L‐04 streams are sent from flowsheets (a) to (b). G‐07 and GG‐01 streams
are sent from flowsheets (a) to (c). G‐12 stream is sent from flowsheets (b) to (a). LL‐06 stream is sent from flowsheets (b) to (c). G‐06 stream
is sent from flowsheets (c) to (a). LL‐07 stream is sent from flowsheets (c) to (b). LPG: liquefied petroleum gas; LTS: low temperature
separator

tower). The purpose of stabilizer tower is to stabilize C5+ product is first sent to the bottom product cooler
the condensate to sales specifications with respect to (Stab bottom cooler), then to the condensate/condensate
vapor pressure. exchanger (Cond/Cond Ex) where heat is exchanged
SHEHATA ET AL. 5 of 33

between condensate coming from LTS and stabilized con- TABLE 1 Inlet gas and condensate analysis
densate, and finally to storage. The OH gas from the sta- Mol%
bilizer tower is sent to the OH booster compressor (Stab
Component Raw gas Raw condensate
compressor) where it is compressed, passed through
cooler (Stab OH cooler), and returned to the hydrocarbon N2 0.04 0.00
inlet upstream of the gas/gas exchanger. The dehydrated CO2 0.32 0.05
gas is fed to stage II of the plant for further liquid recov- C1 86.99 3.72
ery. The rich glycol solution separated in the LTS is fed to
C2 7.46 2.29
the regeneration unit for regeneration and reinjection.
The recovered hydrocarbon liquids from LTS (L‐03) C3 2.72 2.09
are fed through the propane subcooler (P subcooler), i‐C4 0.81 2.57
then to the condensate/condensate heat exchanger n‐C4 0.62 3.46
(Cond/Cond Ex). The resulted LL‐06 stream will be i‐C5 0.30 5.12
routed to the de‐ethanizer tower.
n‐C5 0.17 3.71
The propane refrigeration unit provides a process
C6 0.19 10.47
cooling medium in the form of propane refrigerant to
the gas chiller. Propane refrigerant from the economizer C7 0.13 16.21
vessel (P economizer) enters the shell side of the gas C8 0.06 19.72
chiller regulated by Joule–Thomson valve. The propane C9 0.01 11.31
is vaporized by the heat absorbed from the cooled gas
C10 0.00 6.80
on the tube side of the gas chiller. The refrigerant vapor
C11 0.00 3.83
then flows to the propane compressors (P comp. first
stage and P comp. second stage). The propane vapor out C12 0.00 2.57
of the compressors is sent to the propane condenser C13 0.00 1.92
(P economizer air cooler). Gas from the LTS (GG‐01) goes C14 0.00 1.27
to stage II, to be dried in the molecular sieves dehydration
C15 0.00 1.16
unit (Splitter). Dried gas is sent for further chilling across
C16 0.00 0.58
a cryogenic heat exchanger called as cold box, then to
turbo‐expander unit for more hydrocarbon liquids recov- C17 0.00 0.56
ery (TE suction vessel, T/E, TE discharge vessel). C18 0.00 0.30
The overall objective of this work is to maximize the C19 0.00 0.10
recovery of LPG, where the recovery of butanes and pro- C20 0.00 0.07
pane recoveries were planned to be increased from 80%
C21 0.00 0.05
(design basis) up to 93% and from 43% (design basis) to
50%, respectively. C22 0.00 0.03
C23 0.00 0.04
H2O 0.18 0.00
2.1 | Design/retrofit basis Total 100.00 100.00
o
Temperature ( C) 38 38
The LPG plant, presented in this work, was originally
designed to process 86,660 m3/day of feed gas, 650.9 m3/ Pressure (kPa) 5,031 5,031
day as raw condensate, and 515 m3/day as raw water, 3
Flowrate (m /day) 86,660 650.9
for producing 498.3 m3/day of LPG as a main product,
with butane and propane recoveries of 80% and 43.21%,
respectively. The produced LPG is routed to the local • Upgrading the existing MR cycle.
market, whereas the plant production of 817.9 m3/day • Upgrading the existing turbo‐expander cycle.
stabilized condensate and 72,120 m3/day sales gas are • Switching from pure propane to mixed refrigerant.
routed to the Egyptian National Gas Grid. The composi-
tion analysis of raw feed gas and raw condensate is Simulation of the retrofitted and original units is
shown in Table 1. The three most applicable alternative based on the same feed composition, gas and liquid
modifications for cryogenic processes in order to maxi- analysis, sales gas specification, LPG product specifica-
mize LPG product recovery from the plant are the tion, and stabilized condensate specification. The plant
following: retrofitting aims to increase both butane and propane
6 of 33 SHEHATA ET AL.

recoveries from 80% to 43% in the current unit up to 93%
and 50% for butane and propane, respectively.
The suggested alternatives are studied to choose the
best one, which can be used in similar NGLs plants for
maximizing LPG recovery with lower capital and
operating costs. Table 2 addresses sales gas, stabilized
condensate, and LPG product specifications, whereas
Table 3 shows equipment (stabilizer, de‐ethanizer, and
de botanizer) data used in the simulation as the existing
case study.
calculations needed to evaluate the introduced modifica-
tions. As mentioned before, the main objective of this
work is the maximization of LPG recovery of the investi-
gated plant. Some modifications related to refrigeration
systems are proposed to accomplish this goal. The effec-
tiveness of these modifications should be confirmed
through an economic study. Thus, it is needed to evaluate
each modification via estimating of return on investment
(ROI) and consequently the payback period. ROI is
related directly to the total annual cost (TAC), which
can be calculated according to the following equation:

3 | ECONOMIC STUDY TAC ¼ COP þ CCap Af ; (1)

FORMULATIONS
HYSYS Version 10, with Peng‐Robinson EOS,46,47 was
used as the simulation software in the present research
work. It was applied to build the model, rate, and size
of equipment as well as to consider the economic
TABLE 2 Sales gas, stabilized condensate, and LPG product
specification
Sales gas product specifications
Delivery pressure
Stabilized condensate specification
Composition
Reid vapor pressure at 37.8°C
LPG product specifications
Pentane and heavier hydrocarbons
Delivery pressure at 50°C
Note. LPG: liquefied petroleum gas.
where COP is the annual operating cost; CCap is the capital
cost; and Af is the annuity factor, which is used to convert
the capital cost into a flow. This factor can be estimated
as follows46:
mð1 þ mÞn
Af ¼ ; (2)
ð1 þ mÞn − 1
where m is fractional interest rate and n is project lifetime
in years. The operating cost includes all additional
increases in chemical injection, power, treatment, and
utility consumption needed to achieve the required target
7,500 kPa
of capacity increase.
The capital cost estimation for a process may vary
C5+ from a predesign estimate based on little information
<68.95 kPa to a detailed estimate prepared from complete drawings
and specifications. Generally, there are five accepted
classifications of capital cost estimates, which are most
2.5 mol% max
likely encountered in the process industries. These five
1,087 kPa max famous estimates are depending on the degree of accu-
racy and availability of information; they can be

TABLE 3 Columns data used in the simulation as the existing case study

Column
Items Stabilizer De‐ethanizer De‐butanizer

Number of trays 14 sieve trays in addition 28 sieve trays in addition to a 24 sieve trays in addition to a
to a reboiler condenser and a reboiler condenser and a reboiler
Feed inlet tray First tray Tray 4 Tray 10
Tray 12 (L‐06) Tray 7
Tray 10
Condenser pressure drop (kPa) — 13.79 0.0
Reboiler pressure drop (kPa) 13.79 13.79 0.0
Hydraulic limits
Maximum percent flooding (%) 80 80 80
Maximum percent downcomer 80 80 80
backup (%)
Maximum acceptable tray 2.5 2.5 2.5
pressure drop (kPa)
SHEHATA ET AL. 7 of 33

classified as order of magnitude, study, preliminary, Payback period is the period required to recover the sum
definitive, and detailed estimates.48,49 On the basis of of the original investment; payback period can be calcu-
the data availability, the capital cost of the investigated lated by applying Equation 6.
case study was calculated according to the preliminary 
estimate (budget authorization estimate). The capital Payback period ¼ 1 ROI
(6)
cost, which includes the installation costs, was calcu-
To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed retrofitting,
lated for new equipment needed as a requirement of a
it should be taken into consideration all the additional
proposed modification. As a rule of thumb, the total cost
costs associated to the introduced modifications in order
equals the purchased equipment cost multiplied by 2
to achieve the required degree of cooling and LPG recov-
(economic calculation safe factor). The purchased cost
ery of the investigated plant. The proposed modifications
of an equipment can be predicted using the purchased
consider upgrading the existing MR system, upgrading
cost of the same equipment in the past (Cpast) multiplied
the existing turbo‐expansion process, and replacing the
by the ratio of cost indices of the two comparable years
original pure propane refrigeration system with a mixed
(ratio of cost index at current time to cost index at past
refrigerant refrigeration system. Alfeev et al.53 guidelines
time) as indicated in Equation 3.
will help in selecting and optimizing the mixed refriger-
   ant composition to improve economically the plant refrig-
Ccurrent ¼ C past I current
; (3)
I past eration system. The present study investigates also the
effect of the new refrigeration system on increasing LPG
where I is the Nelson Farrar cost index. It is possible recovery with keeping the same specifications of LPG
also to calculate the cost of an equipment by using the produced from the existing plant. The recovery was esti-
cost of the same equipment type but with different mated according to Equation 7.
capacity. The term capacity varies according to equip-
ment type, for example, the capacity for a heat Recovery ¼ ½CmLPG =Cmfeed (7)
exchanger is the area but for a tower is its size. The cost
of the new equipment, Cnew is equal to the known where CmLPG is the component mass flow rate in LPG
equipment cost, Ck, multiplied by the ratio of the two and Cmfeed is the component mass flow rate in the total
plants' capacities raised to a fractional power, F as illus- inlet feed of the separator.
trated in Equation 4.

4 | EXERGY ANALYSIS
 F
Cnew ¼ Ck V new
Vk
; (4)
Exergy analysis is applied in this work to be another tool
in addition to the cost calculation to evaluate the effec-
where Vnew is the capacity of the new plant; Vk is the
tiveness of the suggested upgrading techniques. Exergy
capacity of the known plant; and F is a factor usually
analysis of a system or process is considered as a good
take a value between 0.4 and 0.9, depending on the type
method for analyzing not only the amount but also the
of plant. According to the literature, F factor value of
quality of the energy utilization.54 Exergy can be identi-
0.6 was often used.48-50 For confirmation, the obtained
fied as the maximum useful work achieved (W) from a
equipment costs by the forgoing equations were com-
system when this system is under thermodynamic equi-
pared with the corresponding equipment costs obtained
librium with the environment. Exergy can be expressed
from El Wastani Company.51
in the following four components: kinetic exergy, physi-
Profitability that can be acquired from a company at a
cal exergy, potential exergy, and chemical exergy. How-
specified status is an important denominator for all busi-
ever, the kinetic and potential exergy are usually
ness activities.52 ROI indicated in Equation 5 consists of
neglected. Regarding the considered units in this work,
two main terms; the first is the annual incremental reve-
the chemical exergy can be also neglected because there
nue, which acquired in case of modified plant due to an
is no departure of chemical substances from the system
increase of its productivity. On the other hand, the second
to the environment.55 Therefore, the physical exergy is
term is the total capital cost (CCap) that includes
only considered, and it is calculated as described in
purchased equipment, installation and foundation,
Equation 8
instrumentation, piping, and commissioning works costs.
Exergyph ¼ ðh − h0 Þ − T 0 ðs − s0 Þ; (8)
Annual incremental revenue − Annual operating cost
ROI ¼
C Cap where h and s are the enthalpy and the entropy of a sub-
(5) stance estimated at its temperature and pressure (T, P). h0
8 of 33 SHEHATA ET AL.

and s0 are the enthalpy and the entropy of the substance The exergetic efficiency of the compressor (ηcomp) is
measured at temperature and pressure of the environ- the ratio of the minimum work input to the actual work
ment (T0, P0). These thermodynamic properties at both input,54 and it is calculated by applying Equation 10.
the stream and environment conditions are calculated at
the same chemical composition of the substance.54,56 _ out eout − m
m _ in ein
ηcomp ¼ (10)
In the present study, an exergy balance between input _
W comp
and output streams is applied to whole NGL plant. This
Unlike compressor, the turbo‐expander gives work (−
will be helpful in estimating how much of the usable
W_ Exp Þ: Thus, the exergy balance of the turbo‐expander
work potential, or exergy supplied as the inlet to the
system under consideration, has been consumed (irre- can be expressed by Equations 11 and 12:
versibility lost) by the process. The exergy loss, or irre-
versibility, introduces a generally applicable quantitative I_ Exp ¼ m
_ in ein − m _ Exp ;
_ out eout − W (11)
measure of process inefficiency. Analyzing a multicompo-
nent plant indicates the total plant irreversibility distribu- W_ Exp
ηExp ¼ : (12)
tion among the plant components, pinpointing those _ out eout − m
m _ in ein
contributing most to overall plant inefficiency.54,55 Exergy
analysis applied in this work includes calculating the
exergetic efficiency and the exergy destruction for each 4.2 | Heat exchanger exergy balance
component (unit operation) in the NGL unit. Exergy


destruction and exergetic efficiency are used together as The exergy destruction rate I_ HE for the original heat
good tool for analyzing the NGL plant energy perfor- exchangers or the LNG unit heat exchangers is calculated
mance.54 Additionally, the overall exergy efficiency of as the difference of the exergies of the incoming and the
the NGL unit should be calculated. outgoing streams as presented in Equation 13.54,57,58
In this work, the exergy balance for the NGL unit
components is applied. Hence, the exergy destruction rate I_ HE ¼ ∑ m
_ in ein − ∑ m
_ out eout (13)
and the exergetic efficiency are calculated for each equip-
ment (compressors, heat exchangers, turbine, separators, The exergetic efficiency of the heat exchangers is defined
towers, and throttle valves) in the considered NGL unit as the ratio of the increase in the cold streams exergy to
for all upgrading technique as well as for the design basis the decrease in the hot streams exergy as illustrated in
case study as described in the following subsections. Equation 14.

½∑m_ in ein −∑m _ out eout hot

4.1 | Compressor and the turbine exergy ηHE ¼ (14)
_ out eout −∑m
½∑ m _ in ein cold
balances
Equation 15 is used to estimate the air cooler exergy
As known, the irreversibilities affect the compressor work balance.
input in such a way that if the irreversibilities are calcu-
lated, a minimum work input to the compressor will be I_ air cooler ¼ m
_ in ein − m
_ out eout þ Q; (15)
required and there will be no exergy destruction in the
compressor. However, due to the friction, heat loss, and where Q is the work added to the air cooler. The exergetic
other dissipative effects, the irreversibilities cannot be efficiency of the air cooler is determined by applying
totally eliminated. The exergy destruction (irreversibility) Equation (16):
rate ( I_ comp Þ of the compressor/pump is calculated using m_ out eout
Equation 9. ηair cooler ¼ : (16)
_ in ein þ Q
m

I_ comp ¼ m
_ in ein − m _ comp ;
_ out eout þ W (9)
4.3 | Separator and column exergy
balances
where m _ in and m
_ out are the compressor inlet and the out-
let stream flowrates (kg/s), respectively; ein and eout are The exergy destruction and exergetic efficiency of the
the specific inlet and outlet stream flow exergy (kJ/kg), column equipped with condenser at top and reboiler at
respectively; and W _ comp is the actual power inputs to the bottom could be estimated by using Equations 17
the compressor/pump. and 18, respectively.57
SHEHATA ET AL. 9 of 33

I_ col ¼ ∑ m
_ vap evap process, by upgrading the existing turbo‐expansion pro-
þ ∑m_ liq eliq − ∑ m
_ feed efeed − Qcond þ Qheat ; (17) cess, or by replacing pure propane by a mixed refrigerant
for the MR system. Three simulation models have been
developed for investigating the three proposed techniques
_ vap evap þ ∑ m
∑m _ liq eliq − ∑ m
_ feed efeed þ Qcond
ηcol ¼ ; for achieving the same degree of cooling and the same
Qheat butane recovery of 93% compared with 80% for the design
(18) basis plant.
where m _ vap ; m
_ liq , and m
_ feed are the vapor, liquid, and
feed flowrate of the column (kg/s), respectively; evap, eliq,
and efeed are the specific vapor, liquid, and feed flow
5.1 | Upgrading of MR package
exergy (kJ/kg), respectively; and Qheat and Qcond are the
One of the targets of this study is the MR system
heat transfer rate added to the reboiler and removed from
upgrading by raising its cooling duty in order to achieve
the condenser (kW), respectively.
higher butane recovery. This target is achieved with keep-
Compared with column, separator is very simple
ing the remaining facilities at the design basis except that
where there is no cooling or heating equipment attached
can be affected by this retrofitting, such as fractionating
to it. The exergy destruction of the separator and throttle
towers as shown in Figure 3. The upgrading results are
valve can be calculated by applying Equations 19 and 21,
presented in Table 4. It is clear that the upgraded MR
respectively, whereas Equations 20 and 22 are used to
system resulted in increasing the produced LPG by
estimate the exergetic efficiency for the separator and
78.9 m3/day where the butanes and propane recoveries
throttle valve, respectively.
increases from 80% to 93% and from 43% to 49.94%,

respectively. Additionally, the condensate production is
I_ sep ¼ ∑ m
_ feed efeed − ∑ m
_ vap evap þ ∑ m
_ liq eliq (19)
increased by 3.4 m3/day compared with the original
plant. These results confirm the effectiveness of the pro-
_ vap evap þ ∑ m
∑m _ liq eliq posed modification considering the MR package, which
ηsep ¼ (20)
∑m _ feed efeed uses pure propane as a refrigerant fluid.
The effects of increasing MR package cooling duty on
I_ valve ¼ m
_ in ein − m
_ out eout (21) the existing process equipment and its accessories were
studied to show if additional requirements are needed
or not. The MR system had been rated according to
_ out eout
m
ηvalve ¼ (22) design data sheet51 for achieving the required deep
m_ in ein
cooling. It is found that the upgraded MR can achieve
the new requirements without any additional operating
or capital costs for the rest of majority of plant equip-
4.4 | Cycle exergy balance ment. However, because of deep cooling at the refrigera-
tion unit, high vapor and liquid loads were observed at
The exergy destruction of the NGL unit (cycle) is defined the de‐ethanizer facilities, which revealed in increasing
as the sum of all exergy destructions of all components in the consumed power and required heat duty for OH com-
the unit. Therefore, the total exergetic efficiency of the pressor and de‐ethanizer reboiler, respectively.
cycle can be calculated by using Equation 23.54 Regarding design data sheet, this new situation for the
compressor and reboiler can be handled effectively with-
Power input − I_ total
Ex cycle ¼ ; (23) out additional changes or equipment replacement with
Power input larger ones. In addition, it was observed that a minor
increase in heat duty of glycol reboiler should be fulfilled
where Powerinput is the total input power to the cycle and
to be adapted with the new situation of deep cooling. For-
I_ total is the sum of all exergy destructions of all compo-
tunately, it was found that the additional required heat
nents in the cycle.
duty is within the design duty limits, and consequently,
there is no need to replace the existing reboiler. Even
5 | R E S U L T S AN D D I S C U S S I O N more, minor increase in consumed power of glycol injec-
tion pumps and consequently an increase in condensed
As stated before, the aim of the present work is to maxi- water rates had been observed due to the new require-
mize the LPG recovery of the investigating NGLs plant. ment of deep cooling. It is also found that the additional
This can be accomplished by upgrading the existing MR required power is within the design limits, and there is
10 of 33 SHEHATA ET AL.

FIGURE 3 Block diagram of the considered LPG plant with an indication of equipment affected by the MR upgraded package. LPG:
liquefied petroleum gas

TABLE 4 The plant production quantities of LPG for the three studied approaches

Sales LPG
Sales gas Sales condensate
Case (m3/day) m3/day C3 recovery (%) C4 recovery (%) (m3/day)

Design 72,120 498.3 43.21 80.0 817.9

Upgrading mechanical 71,400 577.2 49.94 93.0 821.3
refrigeration unit
Upgrading turbo‐expansion unit 83,210 578.0 50 93.11 820.8
Using mixed refrigerant 72,100 577.8 49.92 93.06 820.8

Note. LPG: liquefied petroleum gas.

no need to replace the current pump. Furthermore, a
slight increase in consumed power of sales gas compres-
sor is required to be adapted with new situation of deep
cooling. The current compressor can cover this slight
power increment and there is no need for new compres-
sion units. Table 5 addresses the additional duties and
operating costs for existing equipment affected by the
proposed MR unit upgrading, whereas Table 6 represents
the list of existing equipment matched well with
upgrading MR system.
Regarding the propane refrigeration package, com-
pressor power, condenser and subcooler heat duty and
economizer volume capacity could not be adjusted to
achieve the required degree of cooling associated with
the new situation of upgraded MR system. Thus, this
equipment should be replaced by new ones that can
match well with the modified MR system. Table 8 pre-
sents the new required equipment capacities, duties,
and capital costs for the upgraded plant in order to
achieve the required degree of cooling as well as the
desired butane recovery. The simulation of the upgraded
MR plant is shown in Figure 4. It is worth to note that
the empty parts (filed by dashes) in Table 7 regarding
gas chiller and propane subcooler heat duties costs mean

TABLE 5 Additional duty/cost for equipment affected by mechanical refrigeration unit upgrading

Equipment duty Design Required Additional duty Additional cost (×106 $/year)

De‐ethanizer overhead compressor power (kW) 61.69 199.50 137.81 0.385

De‐ethanizer reboiler heat duty (GJ/hr) 4.81 5.208 0.398 0.067
Sales gas compressor power (kW) 4,542 4,612 70 0.044
SHEHATA ET AL. 11 of 33

TABLE 6 List of existing equipment matched well with upgrading mechanical refrigeration system

Equipment Parameter Unit Design basis Modified plant

Group separators Molar feed Kgmol/hr 9,419 9,419

Gas/gas heat exchanger Heat duty GJ/hr 14.7 19.54
Low temperature separator Molar feed Kgmol/hr 8,098 8,098
TE suction vessel Molar feed Kgmol/hr 7,869 7,566
TE discharge vessel Molar feed Kgmol/hr 7,558 7,062
Recompressor Max molar feed Kgmol/hr 7,787 7,754
Cold box Heat duty GJ/hr 13.14 13.14
De‐C2 condenser Heat duty GJ/hr 1.008 3.279
De‐C4 condenser Heat duty GJ/hr 6.549 7.175
De‐ C4 reboiler Heat duty GJ/hr 4.81 5.18
Stab. compressor Power kW 217.8 215.9
Stabilizer overhead cooler Heat duty GJ/hr 0.9049 0.8811
Stab. reboiler Heat duty GJ/hr 8.182 6.137
Stab. bottom cooler Heat duty GJ/hr 6.301 7.356

Note. TE: turbo‐expander.

TABLE 7 New required equipment capacities, duties, and capital costs needed for the upgrading propane refrigeration package

Additional value
Designed Rating power/ Equipment capital
Equipment power value capacity value Required power Cost (×106 $/year) cost (×106 $)

Gas chiller heat duty (GJ/hr) 7.258 15.28 — — 0.678

Propane compressor power (kW) 891.9 (944 max) 2,283.6 1,339.6 0.921 3.110
P condenser (air cooler) 10.47 22.4 11.93 0.094 1.935
heat duty (GJ/hr)
Propane subcooler heat 0.32 1.09 — — 0.207
duty (GJ/hr)
Propane economizer volume (m3) 2.724 15.29 — — 0.306

that the required heat duties are supplied by exchanging
the feed gas by the circulated propane refrigerant without
adding external cost.
5.2 | Upgrading of turbo‐expansion
package
This work considers also the upgrading of turbo‐
expansion (TE) package to attain the desired target of
recovering 93% and 50% of butanes and propane, respec-
tively. In the meantime, other facilities were maintained
at the design basis, except those affected by the
retrofitting, such as fractionation towers and sales gas
compression units as indicated in Figure 5.
In order to make an easier comparison between the
three upgrading techniques, the plant desired production
and recovery of LPG in case of upgraded TE was chosen
to be at the same values of upgraded MR unit and mixed
refrigerant approaches (see Table 4). Similarly, as
discussed before for the MR upgrading approach, there
are some current equipment that can match well with
the TE upgrading without any additional operating or
capital costs such as group separator, gas/gas exchanger,
gas chiller, and P condenser (see Table 8). On the other
hand, there are some equipment that can be matched
well with the desired target but with additional operating
costs such as de‐ethanizer OH compressor, condenser,
and reboiler as listed in Table 9. However, Table 10 pre-
sents the equipment, which are not adequate with the
required degree of cooling and butane recovery and need
to be replaced by new ones able to achieve the aimed tar-
get. As presented in Figure 6, the resulted power of the
turbo‐expander at the design and maximum cases are
12 of 33 SHEHATA ET AL.

TABLE 8 List of existing equipment matched well with the TE upgrading approach

Equipment Parameter Unit Design Rated

Group separator Molar feed Kgmol/hr 9,419 9,419

Gas/gas heat exchanger Heat duty GJ/hr 14.7 18.17
LTS Molar feed Kgmol/hr 8,098 8,097
Gas chiller Heat duty GJ/hr 7.258 7.128
P compressor Power kW 891.9 944.9
P condenser (air cooler) Heat duty GJ/hr 10.47 10.52
TE suction vessel Molar feed Kgmol/hr 7,869 7,798
TE discharge vessel Molar feed Kgmol/hr 7,558 7,436
Cold box Heat duty GJ/hr 13.14 13.14
De‐C4 condenser Heat duty GJ/hr 6.549 6.715
De‐C4 reboiler Heat duty GJ/hr 4.81 6.041
Stab. compressor Power kW 217.8 216.0
Stab. OH cooler Heat duty GJ/hr 0.9049 0.8819
Stab. reboiler Heat duty GJ/hr 8.182 6.119
Stab. bottom cooler Heat duty GJ/hr 6.301 6.259

Note. LTS: low temperature separator; OH: overhead; TE: turbo‐expander.

672.3 and 944 kW, respectively, whereas the required
power after upgrading the turbo‐expander is 1,561 kW.
This confirms that the existing turbo‐expander should
be replaced by another one that has a capital cost of
2.5025 * 106 $. The simulation of the plant with the
upgraded turbo‐expansion process is shown in Figure 6.
5.3 | Using of a mixed refrigerant instead
of pure propane in the MR unit
It was declared that pure propane refrigerant evaporates
at constant temperature, whereas the mixed refrigerant
evaporates on a wide range of temperature. Mixed refrig-
erant exhibits lower exergy, higher coefficient of perfor-
mance, and higher heat exchanger effectiveness (ε)
compared with that of pure refrigerant; hence, it is
favored over pure refrigerants for refrigeration units.19,53
Thus, this work tries to improve the butanes and propane
recoveries to reach 93% and 50%, respectively, via
changing the existing pure propane refrigerant of the
MR cycle by a mixed refrigerant type. As a result of deep
cooling, the downstream facilities of refrigeration
package will be further studied in terms of required
power, operating cost, and added capital cost, especially
for fractionation section.
Alfeev et al.53 guidelines had been followed in order
to select the appropriate mixed refrigerant composition,
the selection principles are listed below:
• Ethane with boiling point of −64.13°C at the design
pressure of 318.5 kPa, which is less than the required
refrigeration temperature (−30°C), was chosen as the
first fluid.
• Propane with boiling point of −12.10°C (at 318.5 kPa),
which is above the boiling temperature of the first one
by more than 50°C, was designated as the second
fluid. Where the second fluid boiling point tempera-
ture is chosen to be above the first fluid by 30°C to
60°C
• Iso‐butane with boiling point of 22.29°C (at
318.5 kPa), which is above the boiling temperature
of the second fluid by more than 30°C, was chosen
as the third fluid.
• N‐butane with boiling point of 34.43°C (at 318.5 kPa),
which is above the boiling temperature of the second
one by more than 30°C, was designated as the fourth
fluid.
Referring to some mixed refrigerants studied in
scientific/industrial research works44,59 and by applying
Alfeev et al.53 guidelines using try and error methodology
based on the following assumptions; different mixed
refrigerant compositions were suggested as described in
Table 11.
1. The second fluid (propane), which can achieve the
desired cooling temperature if it is used as a pure
refrigerant, is preferred to be used as the main com-
ponent in the mixture. This fluid mole fraction in
SHEHATA ET AL. 13 of 33

FIGURE 4 Simulation of the plant with upgraded mechanical refrigeration; L‐02 and L‐04 streams are sent from flowsheets (a) to (b). G‐07
and GG‐01 streams are sent from flowsheets (a) to (c). G‐12 stream is sent from flowsheets (b) to (a). LL‐06 stream is sent from flowsheets (b)
to (c). G‐06 stream is sent from flowsheets (c) to (a). LL‐07 stream is sent from flowsheets (c) to (b). LPG: liquefied petroleum gas; LTS: low
temperature separator
14 of 33 SHEHATA ET AL.

Cold Box Heat

Sales gas Compression Exchanger

Molecular Turbo-Expander
Upgrade concern sieves unit unit
Study concern

Mechanical
Deethanizer
refrigeration
Tower
unit
Raw gas
Inlet
Raw water
Separators
Raw condensate
Condensate
Product water Stabilization Debutanizer
unit Tower

Stabilized condensate

LPG

FIGURE 5 Block flow diagram of the considered LPG plant with an indication of the equipment affected by TE upgraded package. LPG:
liquefied petroleum gas

TABLE 9 Equipment needed additional power to fit well with the upgraded turbo‐expander package

Required additional
Equipment Design Required Power Cost (×106 $/year)

De‐ethanizer condenser heat duty (GJ/hr) 1.008 1.661 0.653 0.043

De‐ethanizer overhead comp. power (kW) 61.69 100.3 38.61 0.020
De‐ethanizer reboiler heat duty (GJ/hr) 4.810 6.041 1.231 0.302

TABLE 10 New required equipment correspond well with the upgraded turbo‐expander approach

Additional
Equipment duty Design Power (kW) Power (kW) Cost (×106 $/year) Capital cost (×106 $)

Turbo‐expander unit 672.3/944 max 1,561 — — 2.5025

Sales gas compressor 4,542/5,000 max 7,610 2,610 2.107 4.8416

the mixture is assumed to be 0.9, 0.8, 0.7, and
so forth.
2. At propane composition of 70 mol% (MR‐03) and 60
mol% (MR‐04), a definite fraction of the highest vola-
tile component (ethane) is assumed to get refrigerant
initial boiling temperature closed to the desired
cooling temperature (−30°C).
3. A definite fraction of the lowest volatile component
(n‐butane and iso‐butane) is assumed to get
refrigerant final boiling temperature lower than
and closed to inlet temperature of process feed gas
stream. It should be taken into account that high
boiling components increase the specific refrigerant
effect.
4. Repeat the previous steps by changing the composi-
tion of ethane or changing the composition of
n‐butane and iso‐butane to reach the minimum
temperature approach across the chiller/plate fin
(PF) heat exchanger as well as to achieve the desired
cooling temperature/effect.
The optimum mixed refrigerant composition can
achieve the highest cooling effect, the minimum temper-
ature approach ΔT, and the desired cooling temperature
at the same power (944 kW) that is consumed in case of
original pure propane refrigerant.
Table 12 displays the cooling effect and other
operating conditions for the chosen mixed refrigerants.
SHEHATA ET AL. 15 of 33

FIGURE 6 The simulated process flow diagram of the plant with the upgraded turbo‐expander package; L‐02 and L‐04 streams are sent
from flowsheets (a) to (b). G‐07 and GG‐01 streams are sent from flowsheets (a) to (c). G‐12 stream is sent from flowsheets (b) to (a). LL‐
06 stream is sent from flowsheets (b) to (c). G‐06 stream is sent from flowsheets (c) to (a). LL‐07 stream is sent from flowsheets (c) to (b). LPG:
liquefied petroleum gas; LTS: low temperature separator

Regarding this table, it is clear that MR‐02 and MR‐04 can gas outlet stream. Where the outlet gas temperature in
achieve the highest cooling effect; 16.25 and 14.14 GJ/hr, case of MR‐02 is −23°C and this is far from the design case
respectively. Compared with MR‐04, MR‐02 cannot temperature (−30°C at the design pressure of 318.5 kPa).
achieve the required cooling temperature of the process On the other hand, MR‐04 can achieve the target
16 of 33 SHEHATA ET AL.

TABLE 11 Different mixed refrigerant compositions proposed for The simulation of the plant with employing the mixed
maximizing LPG recovery refrigerant MR‐04 instead of pure propane is presented in
Mass fraction Figure 9. This simulation was based on the design basis
data in terms of feed flow rates, feed composition, operat-
Component MR‐01a MR‐02b MR‐03 MR‐04
ing capacities of existing MR unit, and product specifica-
Methane 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 tions. The simulated results showed that the majority of
Ethane 0.23 0.18 0.25 0.198 existing equipment could work well with the chosen
Propane 0.46 0.34 0.70 0.605 mixed refrigerant system without any increment in
operating or capital costs. It is found also that the original
Iso‐butane 0.06 0.24 0.02 0.091
de‐ethanizer reboiler operates efficiently with the new
N‐butane 0.09 0.24 0.03 0.106
mixed refrigerant, and it can provide the required heat
Iso‐pentane 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.000 duty of 9.371 GJ/hr, but with an additional operating cost
N‐pentane 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.000 of 44,000 $/year. Similarly, the de‐ethanizer OH con-
a
Mehrpooya et al. 54 denser fits well the retrofitted plant with providing the
b
Mackenzie and Donelly.44
required heat duty of 3.279 GJ/hr, but with an increment
of 351,000 $/year in the operating costs.
Regarding the retrofitted plant with the required
TABLE 12 Characteristics and operational conditions for mixed degree of cooling, the current de‐butanizer unit will treat
refrigerants MR‐02 and MR‐04 higher feed rates compared with the unmodified original
case. It was noticed that the de‐butanizer reboiler can
Item MR‐01 MR‐02 MR‐03 MR‐04
provide the required heat duty of 5.18 GJ/hr, and the
Cooling effect (GJ/hr) 5.592 16.25 10.13 14.14 de‐butanizer OH condenser can provide the required heat
Minimum temperature 13.4 12.6 9.7 3.1 duty of 7.175 GJ/hr without any operational issues. Thus,
approach (oC) the de‐butanizer tower can match effectively with the
Process gas outlet −16.5 −23.0 −24.5 −31.3 selected mixed refrigeration system giving the desired
temp. (°C) separation and specifications of the produced LPG with-
High refrigerant temp. (°C) −9.8 6.0 −17.6 −7.3 out any modification. Table 13 shows the list of existing
Low refrigerant temp. (°C) −38.9 −45.3 −31.9 −35.7 equipment matched well with the mixed refrigerant
upgrading approach.
Mass rate (kg/day) 573,000 797,200 730,000 760,800
It should be noted that the power required for sales
gas compression station (recomp compressor) is taken
temperature of the required outlet gas temperature of from the turbo‐expander. Sales gas compression station
−31.3°C (row 4 in Table 13); therefore, MR‐04 was depends mainly on the expansion degree (encountered
selected as the proposed mixed refrigerant for increasing ΔP) at the turbo‐expander, which is constant for both
the produced LPG by 79.5 and increasing the condensate design and retrofitted cases. For the retrofitted plant with
production by 2.9 m3/day as indicated in Table 4. mixed refrigerant, the gas stream should be cooled deeply
As presented by Venkatarathnam19 mixed refrigerants before sending to the turbo‐expander. This will help in
exhibit very close cooling and heating curves; the mini- decreasing the gas percent in this stream, and conse-
mum temperature approach occurs at any point across quently, the gained power out of the expander that is sent
heat exchanger length, but the minimum temperature to the sales gas compressor will be reduced. Therefore,
approach occurs at one end of the heat exchanger and the required power of sales gas compressor is increased
becomes greater at the second end for pure propane from 4,542 to 4,683 kW with operating cost increment
refrigerant. Thus, it can be predicted that the exergy loss of 97,000 $/year. Table 14 lists the existing equipment,
in the heat exchanger is much smaller when mixtures which need additional operating cost in case of the
are used as refrigerants. As presented in Figure 7, the retrofitted plant.
cooling and heating curves of the propane refrigerant is Many operational problems of the current gas chiller
very close at one end and very far at the second end. were encountered with mixed refrigerant system due to
Thus, the minimum temperature approach varies from incompatibility of this gas chiller with the new refrigera-
the first end to the last end. On the other hand, the tion approach. To overcome this problem, a PF heat
cooling and heating curves of the chosen mixed refriger- exchanger with 13.66 GJ/hr heat duty is applied instead
ant (MR‐04) are very close to each other as shown in of existing gas chiller. Another PF heat exchanger with
Figure 8. The change in the minimum temperature 6.279 GJ/hr heat duty is required to condense the mixed
approach from the first end to the last is nearly low. refrigerant because the existing air cooler (at ambient
SHEHATA ET AL. 17 of 33

TABLE 13 List of existing equipment matched well with the mixed refrigerant upgrading approach

Equipment Parameter Unit Design basis Modified plant

Group separator Molar feed kgmol/hr 9,419 9,419

Gas/gas heat exchanger Heat duty GJ/hr 14.7 19.54
LTS Molar feed kgmol/hr 8,098 8,098
P compressor Power kW 891.9 943.8
P condenser (air cooler) Heat duty GJ/hr 10.47 10.78
TE suction vessel Molar feed kgmol/hr 7,869 7,566
TE discharge vessel Molar feed kgmol/hr 7,558 7,062
Turbo‐expander Molar feed kgmol/hr 151.9 7,062
Turn down 130
Recompressor Max molar feed kgmol/hr 7,787 522.3
Cold box Heat duty GJ/hr 13.14 13.14
De‐C4 condenser Heat duty GJ/hr 6.549 7.175
De‐C4 reboiler Heat duty GJ/hr 4.81 5.18
Stab. compressor Power kW 217.8 215.9
Stab. OH cooler Heat duty GJ/hr 0.9049 0.8811
Stab. reboiler Heat duty GJ/hr 8.182 6.137
Stab. bottom cooler Heat duty GJ/hr 6.301 7.356

Note. LTS: low temperature separator; OH: overhead; TE: turbo‐expander.

FIGURE 7 Cooling/heating curves of propane chiller: The cold

stream is in shell side and the hot stream is in the tube side of the FIGURE 8 Cooling/heating curves of MR‐04
chiller

5.4 | Economic evaluation of the studied

temperature) cannot condense the proposed refrigerant.
Table 15 lists the heat duty, power, and capital costs of
the new proposed equipment, which can accomplish the
required degree of cooling and butane recovery.
It should be noticed that the composition of the pro-
duced LPG for the three studied alternatives of upgrading
don not change from the design basis plant as presented in
Table 16. The produced LPG is matched well with the
required specifications, which indicated that the percent-
age of C5+ should be lower than 2.4 mol% at 1,087 kPa.
approaches
In this work, the estimation of the capital costs depends
on the purchased cost of equipment51,60 and Nelson Far-
rar cost indices for 2006 and 2017. The operating and cap-
ital costs of each approach were presented in Table 17.
Regarding the results of this table, it is noticed that:
• MR package upgrading approach requires high capital
cost compared with the other approaches. This may
18 of 33 SHEHATA ET AL.

FIGURE 9 Simulated plant with mixed refrigerant process; this figure is divided to three parts (a–c) because it is not easier to join these
parts in only one figure. To MR stream from part (a) is sent to part (b) to get G‐06 sent to part (a). G‐07 stream from part (a), to Trays 4, 7, and
10 streams from part (b) are sent to part (c) to get LL‐07 sent to part (a). LPG: liquefied petroleum gas; LTS: low temperature separator
SHEHATA ET AL. 19 of 33

TABLE 14 Additional power/cost of upgraded equipment with MR‐04 mixed refrigerant system

Required additional
Equipment duty Design Required Power Cost (×106 $/year)

De‐C2 condenser heat duty (GJ/hr) 1.008 3.279 2.271 0.351

De‐C2 OH compressor (kW) 61.69 152.5 90.81 0.056
De‐C2 reboiler heat duty (GJ/hr) 8.300 9.371 1.071 0.044
Sales gas compressor (kW) 4,542 4,683 141 0.097

Note. OH: overhead.

TABLE 15 New required equipment in case of MR‐04 mixed refrigerant system

Equipment heat duty Design case Required heat duty Capital cost (×106 $)

PF gas chiller heat duty (GJ/hr) 7.258 13.66 1.9303

MR condenser (PF) heat duty (GJ/hr) — 6.279 1.2101

Note. PF: plate fin.

TABLE 16 Simulation results of LPG produced from the three upgrading techniques

LPG production
Item Design case Upgraded propane cycle Upgraded turbo‐expander cycle Mixed refrigerant cycle

Temperature (°C) 50 50 50 50
Pressure (kPa) 1,086 1,086 1,086 1,086
Flow rate (kg/day) 248,200 287,400 287,800 287,700
LPG composition (mass fraction)
Nitrogen 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CO2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Methane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ethane 0.0002 0.0 0.0 0.0001
Propane 0.4101 0.4092 0.4092 0.4088
i‐Butane 0.3066 0.3182 0.3189 0.3190
n‐Butane 0.2601 0.2496 0.2490 0.2492
i‐Pentane 0.0197 0.0196 0.0193 0.0196
n‐Pentane 0.0032 0.0034 0.0036 0.0034
n‐Hexane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
n‐Heptane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
n‐Decan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
n‐Octane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
n‐Nonane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
H2O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Note. LPG: liquefied petroleum gas.

be attributed to lower effectiveness of the existing • Turbo‐expansion package upgrading approach

exchanger and high exergy loss for pure propane requires higher operating cost compared with the
refrigerant cycles and this in turn requires higher other approaches. As a result of lowering the pressure
equipment capacities. downstream of the turbo‐expander to cool deeply the
20 of 33 SHEHATA ET AL.

TABLE 17 Capital, operating, and total annual costs for the proposed modification approaches

Total annual cost

Approach Capital cost (×106 $) Operating cost (×106 $/year) (×106 $/year)

Upgrading mechanical refrigerant 8.999 1.515 10.514

Upgrading turbo‐expansion 7.344 2.471 9.815
Using mixed refrigerant instead of pure propane 3.140 0.553 3.693

feed gas and recover 93% of C4, huge additional power
is required for sales gas compression station. The max-
imum rated work for the existing sales gas compres-
sion system is 4,542 kW, but the required work to
achieve the aimed target is 7,610 kW with a higher
compression ratio. This can be ascribed to lower
efficiency of the sales gas.
FIGURE 10 Total power consumption for the three upgrading
approaches compared with design case
• Mixed refrigerant approach exhibits the lowest operat-
ing and capital costs due to the unique physical and
thermodynamic properties of the chosen mixed
refrigerant (MR‐04), which leads to higher exchanger
effectiveness, higher coefficient of performance, and
lower exergy loss.44
Figure 10 shows the total power consumption of the
studied upgrading approaches compared with the design
basis data (for more detail, see Table 18). It is clear that
the mixed refrigerant approach is the most economical
approach because it has the lowest power consumption,
which is near to design basis data.
Regarding the above mentioned results, it is recom-
mended to retrofit the existing LPG plant to increase
the produced LPG by 79.5 m3/day (via increasing the
recoveries of butanes and propane to reach 93.06% and
49.92%, respectively) by using the mixed refrigerant
instead of pure propane refrigerant for MR unit. For cal-
culating revenue and payback period for the selected

TABLE 18 Power consumptions of all equipment for the three upgrading approaches of existing LPG plant

Upgrade mechanical
Design case refrigeration unit Upgrade turbo‐expander Using mixed refrigerant
Items Power (kW)

De‐C2 condenser 280.0 398.1 461.3 911.0

De‐C4 condenser 1,819.0 1,995.0 1,865 1,993.0
De‐C4 reboiler 1,336 1,447.0 1,678 1,439.0
Stab. compressor 217.8 216.0 216.0 215.9
Stab. OH cooler 251.4 245.1 245.0 244.8
Stab. reboiler 1,717 1,701.0 1,700.0 1,705.0
Stab. bottom cooler 1,750 1,740 1,739.0 2,043.8
De‐C2 OH comp. 61.69 168.7 103.0 152.5
De‐C2 reboiler 2,306.0 3,764.0 3,482 2,603.0
Sales gas comp. 4,542 4,612.0 7,610 4,683.0
P compressor 891.9 2,283.6 944.9 943.8
P subcooler 87.92 — 87.92 293.1
P subcooler‐2 114.2 114.2 114.2 114.2
P condenser (air cooler) 10.47 22.4 10.52 10.78
Total power 15,385.38 18,707.1 20,256.84 17,352.88
Design total power 15,385.38 15,385.38 15,385.38 15,385.38
SHEHATA ET AL. 21 of 33

upgrading approach, it is assumed that all capital costs estimated (see Appendix A). In addition, the destruction
are annualized for 1 year with 2% interest rate. Table 19 and the exergetic efficiency of the whole NGL unit in case
shows the total revenue that could be achieved from the of the three investigated upgrading techniques and the
upgraded plant with mixed refrigerant compared with design case were calculated and the results are presented
the original case study. The estimated ROI and payback in Table 20. Regarding these results, it is clear that all the
period of the chosen retrofitted plant are 251% and upgrading techniques as well as the design basis case
4.78 months, respectively. show some sort of irreversibilities. The reasons of devia-
tion from ideal (reversible) case can be attributed to many
sources such as friction, subcooling at throttling valve
5.5 | Exergy balance calculation inlet, heat transfer across finite temperature difference
in compressors, condensers, chillers and refrigerant lines,
The exergy balance of whole NGL unit was introduced in superheating at compressors inlet, pressure drop and heat
this work to evaluate exergetic performance of each sug- gained in refrigerant lines.54 As described in Table 20, all
gested upgrading technique compared with the design the upgrading techniques especially the second and third
basis case study. The destruction and the exergetic effi- techniques (turbo‐expander and mixed refrigerant) show
ciency of each component in the studied NGL units were the highest exergetic efficiencies compared with the
design basis case study, which reveals the lowest exergetic
TABLE 19 Comparison between revenues of original and mixed efficiency. Also, it is noticed that the destruction (exergy
refrigerant retrofitted plants
loss) in the studied NGL unit using the mixed refrigerant
Parameter Design Retrofitted is the lowest one where the calculated destruction for the
Sales gas (MMSCFD) 156.1 155.4
MR, turbo‐expander, and mixed refrigerant upgrading
approaches are 12,808.09, 12,525.2, and 10,857.53 kW,
LPG (ton/day) 248.4 287.7
respectively. The destruction increase in case of
Condensate (bbl/day) 5,002 5,019 upgrading the MR can be attributed to the increase in
Gas heating value (Btu/scf) 1,088 1,081 power consumption of the propane compressor (first
Sales gas price ($/MM BTU) 4a and second stages) and the heat duty required for the
LPG price ($/ton) 800a de‐ethanizer reboiler. On the other hand, for achieving
the required cooling needed to produce LPG product with
Condensate price ($/bbl) 90a
its specific properties in case of the turbo‐expander
Annual gas revenue (a106 $) 224.1846 221.7434 upgrading approach, the results showed an increase in
a 6
Annual LPG revenue ( 10 $) 65.5776 75.9528 the pressure drop across the turbo‐expander. This in turn
Annual condensate 148.5594 149.0643 leads to an increase in the power consumption of the
revenue (×106 $) sales gas compressor, and an increase in heat duties
Total revenue (a106 $) 438.3216 446.7605 required for the de‐ethanizer reboiler and the de‐
Retrofitted plant annual 8.4389
ethanizer condenser. Therefore, the destruction increases
incremental revenue (a106 $) in the sales gas compressor and the de‐ethanizer column.
Similarly, increasing the pressure drop across the turbo‐
Annual increase in operating 0.553
cost (a106 $) expander results in increasing the destruction in the
turbo‐expander and the cold box. Although the turbo‐
Total capital cost (a106 $) 3.140
expander upgrading technique has the highest
ROI (15.15 − 0.553)/3.140 = 2.51 destruction rate, its overall exergetic efficiency of the
Note. ROI: return on investment. whole process is the highest, and its values is very near
a
For Egyptian local market at 2017. to that of the mixed refrigerant retrofitting approach. This

TABLE 20 Cycle exergy balance calculations

Total input Total exergy Cycle exergetic

Process power (kW) destruction (kW) efficiency

Design case 15,385.38 10,631.293 30.90

Upgrading mechanical refrigerant 18,707.1 12,703.96 32.1
Upgrading turbo‐expansion 20,256.84 12,525.2 38.17
Using mixed refrigerant instead of pure propane 17,352.88 10,857.53 37.43
22 of 33 SHEHATA ET AL.

increase of the exergetic efficiency in case of turbo‐ of glycol aqueous solution, it is clear that glycol‐water
expander upgrading approach can be attributed to its solution will not freeze in case of retrofitted plant for
higher energy consumption (20,256.84 kW). ethylene glycol content of 60–80 wt% in glycol solution.
From the previous results, it is clear that upgrading Generally, pure ethylene glycol freezes nearly at −12°C,
the investigated NGL unit using mixed refrigerant is the but when mixed with water, the freezing point of the mix-
optimum choice to maximize the LPG recovery, where ture is decreased. Specifically, a mixture of 60% ethylene
the butanes and propane recoveries was increased from glycol (40% water) freezes at −45°C.60,61 The glycol
80% (design basis) up to 93% and from 43% (design basis) reboiler duty increases slightly with decreasing the evapo-
to 50%, respectively. This is because this upgrading ration temperature of refrigeration unit because of a slight
technique has higher exergetic efficiency, the lowest increase in condensed water from 29.68 to 30.289 m3/day.
destruction rate, and the lowest energy consumption. Therefore, there is no need to provide another dehydration
process scheme or to relocate the molecular sieve dehydra-
tion unit; the existing glycol injection system will serve for
5.6 | Process and equipment the new deep cooling requirement with a slight increase in
debottlenecking glycol reboiler heat duty.
Debottlenecking means eliminating a circumstance or
TABLE 21 Comparing between plate fin and original MR con-
situation that restricts process capacity or throughput.
denser on plant energy saving
It is important to identify the bottlenecks and
develop debottlenecking remedies. An efficient plant PF MR Original MR
debottlenecking is required to reach the desired higher Parameter condenser condenser
butane recovery of 93.06% and increasing the LPG and TE discharge vessel liquid temp. (°C) −64.87 −64.87
condensate production by 79.5 and 2.9 m3/day, respec- TE suction vessel liquid temp. (°C) −52.77 −52.77
tively (see Table 4) with applying the chosen upgrading
LTS liquid temp. (°C) −12.61 −12.61
technique of using the mixed refrigerant system instead
Tray 4 feed temp. (°C) −7 −56.1
of pure propane in the MR unit. Plant debottlenecking
corresponds to a number of process and equipment Tray 7 feed temp. (°C) 8 −32.01
problems that should be resolved to match well with the Tray 10 feed temp. (°C) 20 −12.61
selected upgrading approaches as discussed in the subse- Original MR condenser (GJ/hr) — 6.278
quent subsections.
De‐ethanizer reboiler duty (GJ/hr) 9.371 13.536
De‐ethanizer condenser duty (GJ/hr) 3.279 1.432
5.6.1 | Glycol injection system Total duties required (GJ/hr) 12.65 21.246
Energy saving (GJ/hr) 8.596
This study considers the investigation of freezing forma-
tion in the glycol injection system for the modified LPG Energy saving percent 40.46%

plant when applying the mixed refrigerant system. Note. MR: mechanical refrigeration; PF: plate fin.
According to Figure 11, which illustrates freezing points

TABLE 22 Effect of the additional mixed refrigerant condenser

on the de‐ethanizer tower flooding

PF MR Original MR
condenser condenser
Parameter Gas Liquid Gas Liquid

Tray 4 feed actual volume 2,106.24 122.58 473.18 313.23

(m3/day)
Tray 7 feed actual volume 3,123.51 276.97 1,424.46 530.89
(m3/day)
Tray 10 feed actual volume 1,419.69 743.16 1,116.32 832.04
(m3/day)
Downcomer backup (%) 30–40 30–50
FIGURE 11 Freezing points of aqueous ethylene glycol
Flooding percent (%) 40–60 60–90
solutions61
 SHEHATA
ET AL.

TABLE 23 Hydraulics of the columns used in the simulation

Stabilizer De‐ethanizer De‐butanizer

Upgrading Upgrading Using Upgrading Upgrading Using Upgrading Upgrading Using
propane turbo‐ mixed propane turbo‐ mixed propane Turbo‐ mixed
Property Existing unit expander refrigerant Existing unit expander refrigerant Existing unit expander refrigerant

Max flooding 59.59 52.9 58.16 58.53 47.21 68.38 64.60 54.02 44.54 48.81 49.049 48.665
(%)
Max downcomer 27.59 34.5 27.33 27.56 26.34 41.54 53.53 35.27 24.39 33.366 27.025 25.059
backup (%)
Max Delta P/ 0.403 0.661 0.395 0.396 0.23 0.511 0.334 0.576 0.284 0.55 0.30 0.30
tray (kPa)
Section Delta 4.91 7.33 4.85 4.86 4.281 8.58 5.15 7.46 6.32 11.339 6.735 6.589
P (kPa)
Max weir load 32.58 32.37 32.336 32.73 37.96 58.89 45.77 43.839 25.57 27.158 30.584 26.844
(m3/h‐m)
23 of 33
24 of 33
5.6.2 | Propane refrigeration facilities
As it is stated before, the propane refrigeration facilities
(compressor, condenser, accumulator, suction scrubber,
and throttling valve) will serve for the retrofitted plant
at design basis capacities, and the circulated refrigerant
mass rate will be at/or lower than the designed value of
760,800 kg/day. This work considers also the replacement
of propane gas chiller by PF heat exchanger (mixed refrig-
erant evaporator) with a heat duty of 13.66 GJ/hr. The PF
exchanger was chosen to replace the propane chiller due
to its unique characteristics. Compared with propane gas
chiller, the PF heat exchanger does not require level
controlling; refrigerant is totally vaporized across the
exchanger. PF heat exchanger allows for very close tem-
perature approaches between the respective process
streams. Moreover, gas chiller available heat transfer sur-
face area cannot achieve the higher chilling duty needed
as a requirement for each of the proposed upgrading
techniques.
It was noticed that the selected mixed refrigerant
(MR‐04) cannot be totally condensed at the design oper-
ating pressure and temperature of the refrigeration unit
condenser. At the same time, the condensed streams
from MR and turbo‐expander units will have lower
operating temperature than that of the design case (orig-
inal MR condenser in Table 21), and this requires higher
heat duties at fractionation sections to meet the desired
product specifications. Therefore, another PF heat
exchanger (PF mixed refrigerant condenser) is needed
to be added to totally condense the mixed refrigerant
by heating the cold condensed streams. The increasing
in cooling temperature of the outlet streams (to Trays
4, 7, and 10) produced by using original MR condenser
(see Table 21) leads to an increase of the tower liquid
load which consequently could result in flooding in the
de‐ethanizer tower as depicted in Table 22. PF con-
denser was suggested to be added for avoiding flooding
and achieving the upgrading requirements by the
existing facilities like the de‐ethanizer tower without fac-
ing any hydraulic problem. PF condenser has advantage
of using more streams. By applying the PF condenser,
the de‐ethanizer inlet cold streams are used to condense
a new mixed refrigerant stream (MR13 in Figure 9) and
this in turn raises the temperature of these streams
before entering the tower. As a result, flooding is
avoided due to the vapor and liquid loads inside the
de‐ethanizer tower will be balanced avoiding (see
Table 22). This is the cause of temperature difference
between PF and original MR condenser as presented in
Table 21.
Table 21 illustrates also the effect of using PF mixed
refrigerant condenser on plant energy saving. It is noted
SHEHATA ET AL.
that when the PF mixed refrigerant condenser was used,
the saving percent in energy reached to 40.46%. This con-
firms the effectiveness of the retrofitted plant in saving
the energy and overcoming some operational issues such
as flooding.
5.6.3 | De‐ethanizer unit facilities
As a result of the introduced modifications and increas-
ing degree of cooling, de‐ethanizer is expected to treat
higher feed rate than that of original design case. Thus,
each facility had been rated according to the proposed
modifications, and the following results were achieved:
Trays 4, 7, and 10 actual feed flow rates are 2228.81,
3400.48, and 2162.85 m3/hr, respectively. In case of feed-
ing de‐ethanizer tower with the condensed streams
according to the original design arrangement (LTS liquid
to Tray 10, TE suction vessel liquid to Tray 7, and TE
discharge vessel liquid to Tray 4), the de‐ethanizer
would encounter flooding across trays due to increased
liquid load. However, by using mixed refrigerant con-
denser, condensed streams will be heated first before
being fed to the tower to a degree that liquid load on
trays will decrease and flooding will be avoided. Plant
towers (stabilizer, de‐ethanizer, and de‐butanizer) had
been rated to new feed capacities and they can achieve
product specifications without operational issues for
either the original or the three upgraded plants. The
estimated hydraulics of these towers are listed in
Table 23. All the towers used in the upgraded plant
can operate within the hydraulic limits (Table 3) consid-
ering the flooding percent, downcomer backup percent,
weir loading, and the tray pressure.
6 | C ON C L U S I ON S
The present study focuses on retrofitting of El
Wastani NGLs plant located in Egypt. The simulation
software used in this work is HYSYS Version 10 with
Peng‐Robinson EOS which was applied to build the
model, rate, and size equipment as well as to estimate
the capital, operating, and installation costs needed for
economic calculations of the proposed retrofitting
modes. The main objective of this retrofitting is to
maximize the LPG throughput, reduce the power
consumption, and enhance the investigated plant perfor-
mance. To accomplish this goal, the current study intro-
duced and investigated three modifications techniques.
The considered modifications includes upgrading of
MR unit, upgrading of turbo‐expander unit, and
using of a mixed refrigerant instead of pure propane
for the MR cycle. The appropriate mixed refrigerant
SHEHATA ET AL.
composition was chosen to save consumed power and
total capital cost.
The economic calculations showed that retrofitting
the existing plant by upgrading the MR unit would
require the highest capital investment compared with
the other modifications. Additionally, retrofitting the
plant by upgrading the turbo‐expansion unit would
require the highest operating cost. However, the mixed
refrigerant technique exhibited the lowest operating
and capital costs. Energy saving was considered by uti-
lizing the extra cooled streams for cooling the feed and
condensing the refrigerant. Readjusting the streams
operating condition could save operating and capital
cost, as example the heating up of de‐ethanizer inlet
streams. Additionally, the destruction and exergetic
efficiency of the whole NGL unit under consideration
was investigated. All the upgrading techniques especially
the turbo‐expander and mixed refrigerant upgrading
methods show the highest exergetic efficiencies
compared with the design basis case study. However,
the destruction (exergy loss) of the plant using the
mixed refrigerant is the lowest where the calculated
destruction for the MR, turbo‐expander, and mixed
refrigerant upgrading approaches are 12,808.09,
12,525.2, and 10,857.53 kW, respectively. Therefore, the
mixed refrigerant technique that exhibits higher
exergetic efficiency, the lowest destruction, and the low-
est operating and capital costs was selected as the best
upgrading technique for the plant under consideration.
After the application of the selected mixed refrigerant
upgrading approach, the LPG throughput is increased
by 79.5 m3/day via increasing the butanes and propane
recoveries to reach 93.06% and 49.92% compared with
their design recoveries of 80% and 43%, respectively.
Furthermore, the condensate throughput is increased
by 2.9 m3/day.
An efficient plant debottlenecking is required to reach
the proposed higher LPG and condensate productions
and to maximize the plant profitability. Therefore, plant
debottlenecking for avoiding process or equipment prob-
lems related to the chosen mixed refrigerant upgrading
technique was investigated and proposed solutions were
introduced in this work. The present study can be used
as a guide for similar LPG plants or any other existing
units recover NGLs for evaluating their performance
and productivity as well as for retrofitting them to
achieve higher performance and profitability without
operational problems.
ORCID
Ahmed A. Bhran https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9027-3453
Abeer M. Shoaib https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4572-3125
25 of 33
RE FER EN CES
1. International Energy Agency, World energy outlook 2009 edi-
tion. ISBN: 978–92–64‐06130‐9, Paris, 2009.
2. Al‐Megren HA. Advances in Natural Gas Technology. Chapter 9.
Croatia: InTech; 2012:235‐270.
3. Campbell JM. Gas Conditioning and Processing, the Basic Princi-
ples. 9th ed. John M. Campbell/PetroSkills: Norman; 2014.
4. Elliot D, Qualls WR, Huang S, Chen JJ. Benefit of integrating
NGL extraction and LNG liquefaction technology. AIChE
Spring National Meeting, 5th topical conference on Natural
Gas Utilization (TI) Session 16c‐Gas; Conoco Phillips Co.,
Houston, 2005.
5. Saffari H, Fasihbeiki M. Modeling and optimization of a C3 MR
LNG plant efficiency by change of mixed refrigerants compo-
nents. LNG Research Laboratory, School of Mechanical
Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, 2008.
6. Kidnay AJ, Parrish WR. Fundamentals of Natural Gas Process-
ing. USA: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC; 2006.
7. Mokhatab S, Poe WA, Speight JG. Handbook of Natural Gas
Transmission and Processing. First ed. Burlington: Gulf Profes-
sional Publishing; 2006.
8. Tinker SW, Foss MM. Introduction to LNG—an overview of
natural gas liquefied (LNG), its properties, organization of the
LNG industry and safety considerations. Bureau of Economic
Geology, Centre for Energy Economics (CEE), University of
Texas‐Austin, 2007.
9. Khan MS, Chaniago YD, Getu M, Lee M. Energy saving oppor-
tunities in integrated NGL/LNG schemes exploiting: thermal‐
coupling common‐utilities and process knowledge. Chem Eng
Process. 2014;82:54‐64.
10. Fan SS, Guo TM. GPSA Engineering Data Book. 11th ed. 1–2
Tulsa, Oklahoma: Gas Processors Suppliers Association; 1998.
11. Vink KJ. Nagelvoort, R.K., and Shell International Oil Products,
Comparison of base load liquefaction processes. Twelfth Inter-
national Conference &Exhibition on Liquefied Natural Gas,
Perth, Australia, 1998.
12. Paradowski H, Le‐Gall A, Laflotte B. Compare the different
options for NGL recovery from natural gas. Gas Processing
Department—Technip, 92973, Paris LaDéfense, CEDEX,
France, 2005.
13. Mehrpooya M, Omidi M, Vatani A. Novel mixed fluid cascade
natural gas liquefaction process configuration using absorption
refrigeration system. Appl Therm Eng. 2016;98:591‐604.
14. Mehrpooya M, Vatani A, Mousavian SMA. Introducing a novel
integrated NGL recovery process configuration (with a self‐
refrigeration system (open–closed cycle)) with minimum energy
requirement. Chem Eng Processing. 2010;49(4):376‐388.
15. He T, Ju Y. Design and optimization of a novel mixed refrigerant
cycle integrated with NGL recovery process for small‐scale LNG
plant. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2014;53(13):5545‐5553.
16. Yoon SK, Kim JK. Conceptual process design and integration of
NGL processes. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference
on Process Systems Engineering (PSE ASIA), Kuala Lumpur,
2013.
26 of 33
17. Yoon S, Binns M, Park SM, Kim JK. Development of energy‐
efficient processes for natural gas liquids recovery. Energy J.
2017;128(1):768‐775.
18. Yajun L, Feiyu X, Canteng G. System optimization of turbo‐
expander process for natural gas liquid recovery. Chem Eng
Res Des. 2017;124:159‐169.
19. Venkatarathnam G. Cryogenic Mixed Refrigerant Processes. LLC:
Springer Science Business Media; 2008.
20. Mehrpooya M, Gharagheizi F, Vatani A. Thermoeconomic anal-
ysis of a large industrial propane refrigeration cycle used in NGL
recovery plant. Int J Energy Res. 2009;33(11):960‐977.
21. Seung‐Whan B, Sang‐Kwon J, Sun‐Young K. Investigation on
efficiency improvement of the nitrogen expander cycle: natural
gas liquefaction process for LNG‐FPSO. Korean J Air Cond
Refrig Eng. 2010;22(7):442‐447.
22. Gao T, Lin W, Gu A, Gu M. Coal bed methane liquefaction
adopting a nitrogen expansion process with propane pre‐
cooling. Appl Energy. 2010;87(7):2142‐2147.
23. Niu L, Hou Y, Sun W, Chen S. The measurement of thermody-
namic performance in cryogenic two‐phase turbo‐expander.
Cryogenics. 2015;70:76‐84.
24. Ding H, Sun H, He M. Optimisation of expansion liquefaction
processes using mixed refrigerant N2‐CH4. J Appl Therm Eng.
2016;93:1053‐1060.
25. Fahmy MFM, Nabih HI, Abd El‐Aziz MR. Investigation and
performance improvement of the propane precooling cycle in
the PPMRC liquefaction process. Ind Eng Chem Res.
2016;55(10):2769‐2783.
26. Ancona MA, Bianchi M, Branchini L, De Pascale A, Melino F.
Performance increase of a small‐scale liquefied natural gas pro-
duction process by means of turbo‐expander. Energy Procedia.
2017;105:4859‐4865.
27. Shoaib AM, Bhran AA, Awad ME, El‐Sayed NA, Fathy T.
Optimum operating conditions for improving natural gas dew
point and condensate throughput. J of Nat Gas Sci & Eng.
2018;49:324‐330.
28. Kalinowski P, Hwang Y, Radermacher R, Al Hashimi S, Rodgers
P. Application of waste heat powered absorption refrigeration
system to the LNG recovery process. Int J Refrig.
2009;32(4):687‐694.
29. Somers C M. Modeling absorption chillers in ASPEN. Master of
Science Thesis. University of Maryland, 2009.
30. Yan X, Chen G, Hong D, Lin S, Tang L. A novel absorption
refrigeration cycle for heat sources with large temperature
change. Appl Therm Eng. 2013;52(1):179‐186.
31. Han W, Sun L, Zheng D, Jin H, Ma S, Jing X. New hybrid
absorption– compression refrigeration system based on cascade
use of mid‐temperature waste heat. Appl Energy.
2013;106:383‐390.
32. Ghaebi H, Karimkashi S, Saidi MH. Integration of an absorption
chiller in a total CHP site for utilizing its cooling production
potential based on R‐curve concept. Int J Refrig.
2012;35(5):1384‐1392.
33. Kumar S, Kwon HT, Choi KH, Lim W, Cho JH, Tak K. LNG: an
eco‐friendly cryogenic fuel for sustainable development. Appl
Energ. 2011;88(12):4264‐4273.
SHEHATA ET AL.
34. Liu K, Zhang BJ, Chen QL. A new adsorption process to inten-
sify liquefied petroleum gas recovery from raw natural gas. The
7th International Conference on Applied Energy—ICAE2015.
Energy Procedia. 2015;75:853‐859.
35. Raslavicius L, Keršys A, Mockus S, Keršiene N, Starevicius M.
Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) as a medium‐term option in
the transition to sustainable fuels and transport. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev. 2014;32:513‐525.
36. Mitukiewicz G, Dychto R, Leyko J. Relationship between LPG
fuel and gasoline injection duration for gasoline direct injection
engines. Fuel. 2015;153:526‐534.
37. Paliwal G, Agrawal K, Srivastava RK, Sharma S. Domestic lique-
fied petroleum gas: are we using a kitchen bomb? Burns.
2014;40(6):1219‐1224.
38. Mehrpooya M, Gharagheizi F, Vatani A. An optimization of
capital and operating alternatives in a NGL recovery unit. Chem
Eng Technol. 2006;29(12):1469‐1480.
39. Russel TH. Straight refrigeration still offers processing flexibil-
ity. Oil Gas J. 1977;75(4):66‐72.
40. Jensen JB, Skogestad S. Single‐cycle mixed‐fluid LNG process
part II: optimal operation. Proceedings of the 1st Annual Gas
Processing Symposium. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 219–226, 2009.
41. Alabdulkarem A, Mortazavi A, Hwang Y, Radermacher R, Rog-
ers P. Optimization of propane pre‐cooled mixed refrigerant
LNG plant. Appl Therm Eng. 2011;31(6–7):1091‐1098.
42. Hatcher P, Khalilpour R, Abbas A. Optimisation of LNG mixed‐
refrigerant processes considering operation and design objec-
tives. Comput Chem Eng. 2012;41:123‐133.
43. Castillo L, Dorao CA. On the conceptual Design of pre‐cooling
stage of LNG plants using propane or an ethane/propane mix-
ture. Energ Conver Manage. 2013;65:140‐146.
44. Mackenzie DH, Donelly ST. Mixed refrigerants proven efficient
in natural gas liquids recovery process. Oil & Gas J.
1985;83(9):116‐120.
45. Manning FS, Thompson RE. Oilfield Processing of Petroleum. 1
Tulsa, Oklahoma: Natural Gas, PennWell Publishing Company;
1991.
46. AEA technology PLC, Thermodynamic and HYSYS, 2000
47. HYSYS. Users guide. Tech. rep., Aspen Technology Inc.; 2009.
48. Peters MS, Timmerhaus KD. Plant Design and Economics for
Chemical Engineers. 4th ed. New York: McGraw‐Hill; 1991.
49. Smith R. Chemical Process: Design and Integration. 2nd ed. New
York: John Wiley & Sons; 2005.
50. Branan CR. Rules of Thumb for Chemical Engineers: A Manual
of Quick, Accurate Solutions to Everyday Process Engineering
Problems. 4th ed. Burlington: Gulf Professional Publishing;
2005.
51. Presson‐Enerflex, El‐Wastani petroleum company operation and
maintenance commissioning protocol, Egypt, 2006.
52. Rojey A, Jaffret C, Marchall N. Natural Gas: Production, Process-
ing, Transport. Paris: Editions Technip; 1997.
53. Alfeev VN, Brodyanskii V, Yagodin V, Nikolsky V, Ivantsov A.
Refrigerant for a cryogenic throttling unit. U.K. Patent
1,336,892, 1973.
SHEHATA ET AL. 27 of 33

54. Mehrpooya M, Jarrahian A, Pishvaie MR. Simulation and
exergy‐method analysis of an industrial refrigeration cycle used
in NGL recovery units. Int J Energy Res. 2006;30(15):1336‐1351.
55. Kotas TJ. The Exergy Method of Thermal Plant Analysis.
London: Butterworths; 1995.
56. Rivero R, Rendon C, Gallegos S. Exergy and exergoeconomic
analysis of a crude oil combined distillation unit. Energy.
2004;29(12‐15):1909‐1927.
57. Safarvand D, Aliazdeh M, Giri MS, Jafarnejad M. Exergy
analysis of NGL recovery plant using a hybrid ACOR‐BP neural
network modeling: a case study. Asia‐Pac J Chem Eng.
2015;10(1):133‐153.
58. Ghorbani B, Salehi GR, Ghaemmaleki H, Amidpour M, Hamedi
MH. Simulation and optimization of refrigeration cycle in NGL
recovery plants with exergy‐pinch analysis. J Nat Gas Sci Eng.
2012;7:35‐43.
59. Rowles HC, Ayres CL. Mixed refrigerant/expander process for
the recovery of C3+ hydrocarbons. US Patent no 4921514, 1990.
60. Rebsdat S, Mayer D. Ethylene glycol, Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH
& Co, KGaA, Weinheim, Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial
Chemistry, 2005.
61. Cordray DR, Kaplan LR, Woyciesjes PM, Kozak TF. Solid‐liquid
phase diagram for ethylene glycol + water. Fluid Phase Equilib.
1996;117(1‐2):146‐152.
How to cite this article: Shehata WM, Bhran
AA, Shoaib AM, Ibrahim AA, Gad FK. Liquefied
petroleum gas recovery enhancement via
retrofitting the refrigeration system of an existing
natural gas liquid plant. Asia‐Pac J Chem Eng.
2019;e2292. https://doi.org/10.1002/apj.2292

A P P EN D I X A

TABLE A1 Exergy balance for the design basis case study

Inlet Mass Outlet Mass

Base case Inlet flowrate exergy Outlet flowrate exergy Destruction Exergetic
components feed (kg/hr) (kJ/kg) feed (kg/hr) (kJ/kg) (kW) efficiency
Group separators To separator 193,800 392.7 G‐01 151,800 489.2 267.57376 0.987343
L‐01 20,380 35.86
Sep water 21,540 6.992
Gas/gas ex. G‐02 156,200 481.7 G‐03 156,200 481.9 298.50278 0.0282498
G‐13 130,100 499.8 G‐07 130,100 491.3
Gas chiller G‐04 hot 156,300 481.7 G‐05 156,300 485.7 113.93364 0.6038473
Ref. in cold 23,230 111.3 Ref. out 23,230 66.73
LTS G‐05 156,300 485.7 GG‐01 145,900 507.4 220.03114 0.9895658
L‐03 9,021 119.3
Rich glycol 1,380 12.27
Propane subcooler L‐03 9,021 119.3 L‐04 9,021 115.6 97.191583 0.7671575
Cond/cond ex. L‐04 9,021 115.6 LL‐06 9,021 113.4 13.7218 0.6715624
L‐08 hot 22,980 3.632 L‐09 22,980 2.346
Valve 101 7 33,750 123.9 8 33,750 115.2 81.5625 0.9297821
P condenser (air cooler) 4 33,750 153.4 5 33,750 123.9 287.0325 0.8018546
P comp 2nd stage 3 33,750 110.2 4 33,750 153.4 113.1 0.7817024
P comp st stage Ref. out 23,230 66.73 2 23,230 110.3 92.652472 0.7521336
Stab OH cooler G‐11 3,288 345.2 G‐12 3,288 277.3 313.41533 0.4469297
Stabilizer feed drum L‐02 20,380 22 G‐08 1,458 224.8 10.870022 0.9127217
L‐06 18,920 4.306
Stab OH comp G‐10 3,288 147.4 G‐11 3,288 345.2 37.142667 0.8294643

(Continues)
28 of 33 SHEHATA ET AL.

TABLE A1 (Continued)

Inlet Mass Outlet Mass

Base case Inlet flowrate exergy Outlet flowrate exergy Destruction Exergetic
components feed (kg/hr) (kJ/kg) feed (kg/hr) (kJ/kg) (kW) efficiency
Stabilizer tower L‐06 18,920 4.306 G‐09 1,830 105.1 2,039.4831 0.1878178
L‐11 5,888 64.65 L‐07 22,980 62.26
Valve 100 LL‐07 5,886 66.44 L‐10 5,886 64.65 2.92665 0.9730584
Stab bottom cooler L‐07 22,980 62.25 L‐08 22,980 3.632 2,124.1782 0.0107966
Valve cond LCV L‐01 20,380 35.86 L‐02 20,380 22 78.463 0.6134969
P economizer 1 33,750 115.2 9 10,520 110.3 0.5225 1.0004838
10 23,230 117.5
Valve 102 10 23,230 117.5 Ref. in 23,230 111.3 40.007222 0.947234
Splitter GG‐01 145,907 507.4 GG‐02 145,900 506.7 28.70491 0.9986042
LL‐ 7.494 312.8
Turbo‐expander suction vessel GG‐03 145,900 523.4 GG‐05 135,400 538.7 188.2825 0.9911239
LL‐01 10,510 261.3
Cold box GG‐02 hot 145,900 506.7 GG‐03 145,900 523.4 196.78333 0.7747436
GG‐09 130,100 522.6 G‐06 130,100 499.8
LL‐11 10,510 261.3 LL‐02 10,510 244.3
P subcooler 2 LL‐03 5,310 285.1 LL‐04 5,310 264 145.3225 0.7282282
Turbo‐expander GG‐05 135,400 538.7 GG‐06 135,400 516.5 162.66667 0.8051818
Turbo‐expander discharge vessel GG‐06 135,400 516.5 GG‐04 130,100 522.6 119.43306 0.9938519
LL‐03 5,310 285.1
Recomp G‐09 138,700 484.9 G‐08 138,700 498.1 163.73333 0.7564579
De C2 OH comp GG‐07 8,609 378.9 GG‐08 8,609 397.6 16.971028 0.7248982
Sales gas comp G‐08 138,700 498.1 Sales gas 138,700 592 924.24167 0.7965122
De‐ethanizer LL‐02 10,510 244.3 GG‐07 8,609 378.9 1,916.7571 0.1687957
LL‐04 5,310 264 LL‐05 16,230 82.39
LL‐06 9,021 113.4
Valve 100 LL‐05 16,230 82.39 LL‐10 16,230 72.31 45.444 0.8776551
De‐butanizer LL‐10 16,230 72.31 De‐C4 OH 10,340 78.34 490.64171 0.7386705
LL‐07 5,886 66.44
SHEHATA ET AL. 29 of 33

TABLE A2 Exergy balance for upgrading mechanical refrigerant

Inlet Mass Outlet Mass

Base case Inlet flowrate exergy Outlet flowrate exergy Destruction Exergetic
components feed (kg/hr) (kJ/kg) feed (kg/hr) (kJ/kg) (kW) efficiency
Group separators To separator 193,800 392.7 G‐01 151,800 489.2 267.5738 0.987343
L‐01 20,380 35.86
Sep water 21,540 6.992
Gas/gas ex. G‐02 156,200 481.7 G‐03 156,200 484.3 438.1889 0.204739
G‐13 114,000 527.6 G‐07 114,000 510.2
Gas chiller G‐04 hot 156,300 484.1 G‐05 156,300 500.1 316.5942 0.686931
Ref. in cold 51,830 102.8 Ref. out 51,830 32.56
LTS G‐05 156,300 500.1 GG‐01 134,500 538.3 390.9199 0.9895658
L‐03 20,360 212.3
Rich glycol 1,435 24.07
Propane subcooler‐2 L‐03 20,360 212.3 L‐04 20,360 201.7 77.65722 0.295391
5 (hot) 63,750 120.6 6 63,750 119.6
Cond/cond ex. L‐04 20,360 201.7 LL‐06 20,360 194.8 55.33828 0.418082
L‐08 (hot) 23,060 3.633 L‐09 23,060 1.086
Valve 101 6 63,750 119.6 7 63,750 115.5 72.60417 0.9297821
P condenser (air cooler) 4 63,750 144.9 5 63,750 120.6 452.7125 0.825095
P comp 2nd stage 3 63,750 106.9 4 63,750 144.9 188.6833 0.781008
P comp st stage Ref. out 51,830 32.56 2 51,830 107.3 345.9516 0.756715
Stab OH cooler G‐11 3,238 347.8 G‐12 3,238 280.3 305.8125 0.451877
Stabilizer feed drum L‐02 20,380 22 G‐08 1,458 224.8 10.87002 0.912722
L‐06 18,920 4.306
Stab OH comp G‐10 3,238 148.4 G‐11 3,238 347.8 36.65078 0.83032
Stabilizer tower L‐06 18,920 4.306 G‐09 1,779 105.8 2,018.262 0.186515
L‐11 5,921 64.3 L‐07 23,060 61.41
Valve 100 LL‐07 5,905 66.12 L‐10 5,905 64.34 2.919694 0.973079
Stab bottom cooler L‐07 23,060 61.41 L‐08 23,060 3.633 2,110.094 0.010908
Valve cond LCV L‐01 20,380 35.86 L‐02 20,380 22 78.463 0.613497
P economizer 1 63,750 115.6 8 11,920 106.9 1.451944 0.999291
9 51,830 117.5
Valve 102 9 51,830 117.5 Ref. in 51,830 102.8 211.6392 0.874894
Splitter GG‐01 134,501 538.3 GG‐02 134,500 537.8 18.73508 0.999068
LL‐ 1.093 312.9
Turbo‐expander suction vessel GG‐03 134,500 566.8 GG‐05 120,800 578.7 173.8767 0.991789
LL‐01 13,660 417.4
Cold box GG‐02 hot 134,500 537.8 GG‐03 134,500 566.8 177.96 0.858922
GG‐09 114,000 562.9 G‐06 114,000 527.6
LL‐11 13,640 417.4 LL‐02 13,640 379.5
Turbo‐expander GG‐05 120,800 578.7 GG‐06 120,800 559.7 133.1556 0.791147
Turbo‐expander discharge vessel GG‐06 120,800 559.7 GG‐04 114,100 562.9 96.36744 0.994869

(Continues)
30 of 33 SHEHATA ET AL.

TABLE A2 (Continued)

Inlet Mass Outlet Mass

Base case Inlet flowrate exergy Outlet flowrate exergy Destruction Exergetic
components feed (kg/hr) (kJ/kg) feed (kg/hr) (kJ/kg) (kW) efficiency
LL‐03 6,757 449.6
P subcooler‐2 LL‐03 6,757 449.6 LL‐04 6,757 424 162.2498 0.83065
Recomp G‐09 136,900 489.7 G‐08 136,900 499.8 120.3194 0.76146
De C2 OH comp GG‐07 22,860 376.8 GG‐08 22,860 396 46.78 0.722703
Sales gas comp G‐08 136,900 499.8 Sales gas 136,900 596.1 949.925 0.794032
De‐ethanizer LL‐02 13,640 379.5 GG‐07 22,860 376.8 2,840.19 0.245433
LL‐04 6,757 424 LL‐05 17,900 83.87
LL‐06 20,360 194.8
Valve 100 LL‐05 17,900 83.87 LL‐10 17,900 73.66 50.76639 0.878264
De‐butanizer LL‐10 17,900 73.66 De‐C4 OH 11,990 78.38 551.2502 0.726942
LL‐07 5,905 66.12

TABLE A3 Exergy balance for upgrading turbo‐expander

Inlet Mass Outlet Mass

Base case Inlet flowrate exergy Outlet flowrate exergy Destruction Exergetic
components feed (kg/hr) (kJ/kg) feed (kg/hr) (kJ/kg) (kW) efficiency
Group separators To separator 193,800 392.7 G‐01 151,800 489.2 267.5737556 0.98734298
L‐01 20,380 35.86
Sep water 21,540 6.992
Gas/gas ex. G‐02 hot 156,200 481.7 G‐03 156,200 483.6 499.4944444 0.1416638
G‐13 120,400 464.7 G‐07 120,400 447.3
Gas chiller G‐04 hot 156,300 483.4 G‐05 156,300 488.6 90.496 0.7138581
Ref. in cold 23,160 109.8 Ref. out 23,160 60.64
LTS G‐05 156,300 488.6 GG‐01 143,300 514.6 268.62 0.98733724
L‐03 11,560 141.7
Rich glycol 1,400 14.94
Propane subcooler L‐03 11,560 141.7 L‐04 11,560 137.9 100.1222222 0.81559059
Cond/cond ex. L‐04 11,560 137.9 LL‐06 11,560 134.7 18.49031944 0.79944718
L‐08 hot 23,050 3.633 L‐09 23,050 2.35
Valve 101 7 33,630 123.9 8 33,630 115.2 81.2725 0.92978208
P condenser (air cooler) 4 33,630 153.8 5 33,630 123.9 289.8358333 0.79973594
P comp 2nd stage 3 33,630 110.2 4 33,630 153.8 112.7033333 0.78326282
P comp st stage Ref. out 23,160 60.64 2 23,160 110.3 105.4206667 0.75189299
Stab OH comp G‐10 3,236 148.4 G‐11 3,236 347.8 36.76155556 0.82980761
Stab OH cooler G‐11 3,236 347.8 G‐12 3,236 280.4 305.5851111 0.45199655
Stabilizer feed drum L‐02 20,380 22 G‐08 1,458 224.8 10.87002222 0.91272174
L‐06 18,920 4.306

(Continues)
SHEHATA ET AL. 31 of 33

TABLE A3 (Continued)

Inlet Mass Outlet Mass

Base case Inlet flowrate exergy Outlet flowrate exergy Destruction Exergetic
components feed (kg/hr) (kJ/kg) feed (kg/hr) (kJ/kg) (kW) efficiency
Stabilizer tower L‐06 18,920 4.306 G‐09 1,778 105.8 2,017.395369 0.18670316
L‐11 5,905 64.31 L‐07 23,050 61.42
Valve 100 LL‐07 5,903 66.13 L‐10 5,903 64.34 2.935102778 0.9729321
Stab bottom cooler L‐07 23,050 61.42 L‐08 23,050 3.633 2108.997319 0.01090923
Valve cond LCV L‐01 20,380 35.86 L‐02 20,380 22 78.463 0.61349693
P economizer 1 33,630 115.2 9 10,470 110.3 0.545833333 1.0005072
10 23,160 117.5
Valve 102 10 23,160 117.5 Ref. in 23,160 109.8 49.53666667 0.93446809
Splitter GG‐01 143,300 514.6 GG‐02 143,300 514 23.48990044 0.99885325
LL‐ 4.528 312.8
Turbo‐expander suction vessel GG‐03 143,300 533.8 GG‐05 132,000 548.8 186.7225 0.99121232
LL‐01 11,330 298.3
Cold box GG‐02 hot 143,300 514 GG‐03 143,300 533.8 471.3586111 0.62575991
GG‐09 120,400 500.6 G‐06 120,400 464.7
LL‐11 11,330 298.5 LL‐02 11,330 279.8
Turbo‐expander GG‐05 132,000 548.8 GG‐06 132,000 494.5 428 0.78503265
Turbo‐expander discharge vessel GG‐06 132,000 494.5 GG‐04 120,400 500.6 284.1425 0.98432894
LL‐03 11,590 343.3
Recomp G‐09 137,000 431.6 G‐08 137,000 463.1 364.25 0.76695457
De C2 OH comp GG‐07 16,590 318.8 GG‐08 16,590 334.6 30.18833333 0.70690939
Sales gas comp G‐08 137,000 463.1 Sales gas 137,000 626.4 1,395.527778 0.81661921
P subcooler‐2 LL‐03 11,590 343.3 LL‐04 11,590 327.5 165.0672222 0.86463634
De‐ethanizer LL‐02 11,330 279.8 GG‐07 16,590 318.8 2,449.527389 0.29651712
LL‐04 11,590 327.5 LL‐05 17,890 65.84
LL‐06 11,560 134.7
Valve 100 LL‐05 17,890 65.84 LL‐10 17,890 60.56 26.23866667 0.91980559
De‐butanizer LL‐10 17,890 60.56 De‐C4 OH 11,990 78.39 255.567525 0.93649733
LL‐07 5,903 66.13
32 of 33 SHEHATA ET AL.

TABLE A4 Exergy balance for replacement of pure propane with mixed refrigerant

Inlet Mass Outlet Mass

Base case Inlet flowrate exergy Outlet flowrate exergy Destruction Exergetic
components feed (kg/hr) (kJ/kg) feed (kg/hr) (kJ/kg) (kW) efficiency
Group separators To separator 193,800 392.7 G‐01 151,800 489.2 267.5738 0.987343
L‐01 20,380 35.86
Sep water 21,540 6.992
Gas/gas ex. G‐02 156,200 481.7 To MR 156,200 484.7 408.4083 0.241687
G‐06 116,100 524.5 G‐07 116,100 507.8
New gas chiller To gas chiller 156,300 484.5 Chilled NG 156,300 498.4 62.20833 0.906552
MR15 31,700 144.5 MR11 31,700 68.9
LTS Chilled NG 156,300 498.4 GG‐01 135,900 534.8 378.77 0.982496
L‐07 18,972 201.6
MEG (glycol) 1,428 22.6
Condensate cooler ex L‐08 18,940 201.6 L‐09 18,940 191.3 347.2894 0.743459
Valve 101 MR14 31,700 147.3 MR15 31,700 144.4 25.53611 0.980312
P condenser (air cooler) MR12 31,700 152.3 MR13 31,700 135.2 161.355 0.880643
MR comp MR11 31,700 68.9 MR12 31,700 152.3 209.4167 0.778113
Stab OH cooler G‐07 3,238 347.8 G‐08 3,238 280.3 305.5125 0.45212
Stabilizer feed drum L‐02 20,380 22 G‐04 1,458 224.8 10.87002 0.912722
L‐03 18,920 4.306
Stab comp G‐6 3,238 148.4 G‐07 3,238 347.8 36.55078 0.830705
Stabilizer tower L‐03 18,920 4.306 G‐05 1,779 105.8 2,023.778 0.186967
Recycle from De 5,917 63.46 L‐04 23,060 61.42
C4
Valve 100 L‐01 20,380 35.86 L‐02 20,380 22 78.463 0.613497
Stab bottom cooler L‐04 23,060 61.42 L‐05 23,060 3.633 2,109.158 0.010913
Condensate cooler 2 L‐05 23,060 3.633 L‐06 23,060 1.023 321.5185 0.019974
New MR condenser PF Recycle MR13 31,700 135.2 MR14 31,700 147.3 152.9724 0.410555
L‐16 6,519 404.3 To Tray 4 6,519 341.1
L‐17 13,300 364.4 To Tray 7 13,300 337.1
L‐10 18,950 191.4 To Tray 10 18,950 183
Splitter GG‐01 134,501 538.3 GG‐02 134,500 537.8 18.73508 0.999068
LL‐ 1.093 312.9
Turbo‐expander suction vessel GG‐03 135,900 561.7 GG‐05 122,600 574.3 172.3567 0.991872
LL‐11 13,310 398.6
Cold box GG‐02 hot 135,900 534.1 GG‐03 135,900 561.7 174.2253 0.856737
GG‐04 116,100 558.4 G‐06 116,100 524.6
LL‐11 13,310 398.6 LL‐12 13,310 364.5
Turbo‐expander G‐12 122,600 574.3 GG‐06 122,600 554.9 138.3778 0.790552
Turbo‐expander discharge GG‐06 122,600 554.9 GG‐04 116,100 558.4 110.25 0.994166
vessel
L‐14 6,520 430
Propane subcooler 2 L‐14 6,520 430 L‐15 6,520 404.4 160.5644 0.820192
Recomp G‐09 137,000 489 G‐08 137,000 499.4 126.5222 0.757759

(Continues)
SHEHATA ET AL. 33 of 33

TABLE A4 (Continued)

Inlet Mass Outlet Mass

Base case Inlet flowrate exergy Outlet flowrate exergy Destruction Exergetic
components feed (kg/hr) (kJ/kg) feed (kg/hr) (kJ/kg) (kW) efficiency
De C2 OH comp GG‐07 20,880 375.1 GG‐08 20,880 394.3 41.14 0.73023
Sales gas comp G‐08 137,000 499.4 Sales gas 137,000 597.5 949.75 0.797192
De‐ethanizer To Tray 4 6,519 341.1 GG‐07 20,880 375.1 1,457.953 0.439895
To Tray 7 13,300 337.1 LL‐05 17,890 83.86
To Tray 10 18,950 183
Valve 102 LL‐05 17,890 83.86 LL‐10 17,890 73.65 50.73803 0.878249
De‐butanizer LL‐10 17,890 73.65 De‐C4 OH 11,990 78.38 557.5373 0.723802
LL‐07 5,905 66.14

View publication stats