i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 5 0 5 6 e1 5 0 7 1

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Analysis and assessment of partial re-liquefaction

system for liquefied hydrogen tankers using
liquefied natural gas (LNG) and H2 hybrid
propulsion

Hyunyong Lee a,b, Yude Shao b, Seunghun Lee b, Gilltae Roh a,

Kangwoo Chun a, Hokeun Kang b,*
a
R&D Division, Korean Register, 36, Myeongji Ocean City 9-ro, Gangseo-gu, Busan 46762, Republic of Korea
b
Division of Marine System Engineering, Korea Maritime and Ocean University, 727, Taejong-ro, Yeongdo-gu, Busan
49112, Republic of Korea

article info abstract

Article history: Boil-off gas (BOG) is inevitable on board liquefied hydrogen tankers and must be managed
Received 19 March 2019 effectively, by using it as fuel, re-liquefying it or burning it, to avoid cargo tank pressure
Accepted 30 March 2019 issues. This study aims to develop a BOG re-liquefaction system optimized for l60,000 m3
Available online 6 May 2019 liquefied hydrogen tankers with an LNG and hydrogen hybrid propulsion system. The
proposed system comprises hydrogen compression and helium refrigerant sections with 2 J
Keywords: eBrayton cascade cycles. Cold energy recovery from the fuels and feed BOG exiting the
Hydrogen cargo tanks was used. The system exhibits a coefficient of performance (COP) of 0.07, a
Boil-off gas specific energy consumption (SEC) of 3.30 kWh/kgLH2, and exergy efficiency of 74.9%, with
Re-liquefaction the hydrogen BOG entering the re-liquefaction system at a feed temperature of
220  C.
Liquefied hydrogen tanker The theoretical COP and SEC values at ideal conditions were 0.09 and 2.47 kWh/kgLH2,
Exergy efficiency respectively. The effects of varying the hydrogen compression pressure, inlet temperature
Specific energy consumption of the hydrogen expander, feed hydrogen temperature and helium compression pressure
were investigated. Additionally, the LNG-to-hydrogen fuel ratio was adjusted to satisfy the
Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) Phase 2 and 3 emission requirements.
© 2019 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

hydrogen corresponds to about 2% of the world's primary en-

Introduction
Hydrogen is a promising energy carrier for the future that offers
high-energy content and a clean, sustainable source of energy
to end-use [1]. The interest in hydrogen has grown in many
countries and facilitated a broad range of research, develop-
ment and demonstration activities. The global demand for
ergy consumption, and this is anticipated to increase further
[2]. The development of an effective method of hydrogen
storage is considered to be the most critical issue that needs to
be resolved for the realization of a technically and economi-
cally viable hydrogen economy [3,4]. Traditional methods of
storing hydrogen include compression or liquefaction. Re-
searches on other storage forms, such as organic hydrides and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hkkang@kmou.ac.kr (H. Kang).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.03.277
0360-3199/© 2019 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 5 0 5 6 e1 5 0 7 1
metal hydrides, is underway. However, those technologies are
regarded as being at an early stage of development and are not
yet fully mature for commercialization [5]. Since hydrogen
energy content on a mass basis is around 141 MJ/kg, which is 2.5
times higher than that of methane and 3 times higher than that
of gasoline, hydrogen offers the highest specific energy of any
fossil fuel. However, on a volume basis, liquid hydrogen con-
tains around 9.9 GJ/m3, which is equal to half the energy of
methane and one-third the energy of gasoline [2,6,7]. Never-
theless, if hydrogen is used as an energy carrier, liquefied
hydrogen remains the most economical method of hydrogen
storage to date [8]. In addition, for most usages, the volume is a
critical issue. Thus it is necessary to liquefy the hydrogen for
the sake of volume reduction [2].
Existing hydrogen transport systems include road delivery
(cryogenic liquid trucks, compressed tube trailers) and pipe-
line delivery. A hydrogen economy also involves hydrogen
transport by ships [9]. The use of specific transport options is
determined by transport volumes and delivery distances [3].
Tube trailers can be applied for small-scale transport over
short distances. Pipelines are the preferred option for large to
very large quantities of gas. Cryogenic liquid trucks are
suitable for larger quantities than those transported by tube
trailers and may be deployed in a growing market [10].
Transportation of liquefied hydrogen by ship could be a
practical method for very large quantities and long-distance
or international transport [10,11].
NASA has transported liquefied hydrogen by a barge car-
rier to the Kennedy space center for fuel supply to space
shuttles. This barge carrier has a 947 m3 type C tank mounted
on deck. Within the Euro-Quebec project, a barge carrier
designed as a dock ship having a total cargo capacity of
15,000 m3 in five type C tanks was used. The catamaran-type
Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull (SWATH) ship was devel-
oped to carry a liquefied hydrogen cargo capacity of 12,500 m3
in four spherical tanks by German companies [2,12]. A Japa-
nese joint shipyard team within the WE-NET program
investigated a large-scale liquefied hydrogen tanker based on
LNG carrier technologies. The studied cargo containment
systems were: a self-supporting prismatic Type B (SPB) tank
with a total cargo capacity of 200,000 m3 in two tanks, and a
self-supporting spherical (MOSS) tank with a total cargo ca-
pacity of 200,000 m3 in four tanks. In both systems, the boil-
off rates were estimated to be 0.2e0.4%/day and the tanks
were designed to utilize boil-off gas for the hydrogen pro-
pulsion system in the same way as an LNG carrier [13]. The
Japanese basic hydrogen strategy, released in December 2017,
includes the development of liquefied hydrogen supply
chains for the production of CO2-free hydrogen from over-
seas brown coal, which is currently a cheap, unused energy
source that may be imported by liquefied hydrogen tankers to
Japan [14]. Takaoka et al. introduced the development status
of the pilot liquefied hydrogen tanker, which is part of the
liquefied hydrogen supply chains development project. This
pilot liquefied hydrogen tanker has a total cargo capacity of
2500 m3 in two type C tanks, with a boil-off rate of 0.2%. The
main feature of this pilot project is that boil-off gas is accu-
mulated in the tank since the type C tank is capable of
holding such pressure. In addition, a Gas Combustion Unit
(GCU) is provided to burn off the boil-off gas, instead of using
15057
it as fuel for propulsion or re-liquefaction [12]. The ‘Interim
recommendations for carriage of liquefied hydrogen in bulk’
adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
states that boil-off gas may be a bigger problem for liquefied
hydrogen than for LNG in particular [15].
Hence, the management of boil-off gas should be carefully
considered in liquefied hydrogen tankers. As liquefied
hydrogen tankers are similar to LNG carriers, a literature
review on boil-off gas management in LNG carriers was
conducted in the following section. LNG carriers manage boil-
off gas generated onboard differently, depending on the
design and operational mode of the ship. The boil-off gas can
be utilized as fuel for propulsion and, when this is not suf-
ficient to meet the demand of the propulsion unit, LNG in
cargo tanks can be extracted and vaporized for use as fuel.
Conversely, when the amount of boil-off gas exceeds the
demand of the propulsion unit, the excess of boil-off gas is
burned in the GCU [16,17]. An optimum boil-off gas man-
agement system in LNG carriers should be designed to have
good liquefaction performance and good fuel gas supply
performance for the propulsion unit [18]. D.K. Choi et al. have
proposed a partial re-liquefaction system with an open loop
cycle using boil-off gas as a refrigerant, which is optimized
for supplying fuel gas to high-pressure engines and can re-
liquefy the remaining boil-off gas after supplying the fuel
gas [19]. J. Choi has reviewed the present partial liquefaction
systems for LNG carriers and proposed a new system to
reduce power consumption using exergy analysis. The re-
sults reveal that the Joule-Thomson valve is the key compo-
nent with the potential to improve system efficiency. The
new proposed cascade partial re-liquefaction system showed
an 8% enhancement compared to the currently prevailing
partial re-liquefaction system [18]. Tan et al. have proposed
the use of ejectors to decrease the energy loss in the
expansion of the pressurized boil-off gas within the re-
liquefaction system of LNG carriers. Additionally, the per-
formance of the partial re-liquefaction system has been
studied with varying re-liquefaction ratios [20]. Romero et al.
have compared existing re-liquefaction technologies used for
LNG carries and have pointed out that the combination of re-
liquefaction and propulsion with dual fuel engine systems
has become an attractive option in recent years [21]. A boil-
off gas (BOG) re-liquefaction system based on the typical
reverse Brayton cycle for LNG carriers was analyzed with
varying design parameters. The selected parameters for
optimization include the: seawater temperature, pre-cooling
temperature, BOG feed temperature, vapor fraction after the
expansion, pressure level of the nitrogen cycle and nitrogen
cooling temperature before expansion [22]. Romero et al.
have proposed and investigated an onboard re-liquefaction
system with cascade refrigeration cycles. Boil-off gas com-
pressors in the re-liquefaction system are used for fuel gas
supply. To improve the system performance, cold energy
recovery of boil-off gas and the rejection of the boil-off gas
compression heat to seawater in an inter-cooler are proposed
[23]. A boil-off gas re-liquefaction system using a dual mixed
refrigerant cycle for LNG carriers is proposed and analyzed by
energy and exergy analysis. A coefficient of performance
(COP) of 0.25, an exergy efficiency of 41.3% and a specific
energy consumption (SEC) of 0.589 kWh/kgLNG are achieved at
15058 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 5 0 5 6 e1 5 0 7 1
4557.6 kg/h re-liquefaction capacity. In addition, results
reveal that COP and exergy efficiency are increased and the
SEC is reduced with a decrease in the re-liquefaction rate,
resulting from boil-off gas consumption in the main engine
[24].
The minimum theoretical energy required for hydrogen
liquefaction is 3.92 kWh/kgLH2, whereas methane requires
0.31 kWh/kgLNG, which indicates that the hydrogen lique-
faction process is a much more energy intensive process than
that of methane [25]. For this reason, a re-liquefaction system
for hydrogen boil-off gas management should be developed
and optimized by referring to onshore hydrogen liquefaction
systems. A literature review on hydrogen liquefaction sys-
tems was carried out in the following section. The hydrogen
liquefaction process comprises two refrigeration steps. In the
first step, the hydrogen feed gas is pre-cooled down to a
precooling temperature of around 80 K. In the second step,
the pre-cooled hydrogen is further cooled and liquefied by
cryogenic refrigeration cycles, such as the helium Brayton
cycle or the hydrogen Claude cycle [26]. One of the major
challenges of the hydrogen liquefaction process is ortho to
para hydrogen conversion. This is accompanied by a heat
release of 703 kJ/kg at 20 K, which is about 1.5 times higher
than the latent heat of vaporization [27]. Therefore, in order
to reduce the boil-off rate in storage tanks, catalysts are used
to facilitate this conversion in hydrogen liquefaction plants.
The para-hydrogen content in existing and conceptual
liquefaction processes is between 95% and 98% [26]. A his-
torical review of hydrogen liquefaction systems has been
conducted. Based on this review, the SEC of existing plants is
in the range of 13e15 kWh/kgLH2, and the SEC of the proposed
large-scale plants in the literature are in the range of
5e8 kWh/kgLH2 [28]. Yuksel et al. have studied a supercritical
hydrogen liquefaction process based on a helium-cooled
hydrogen liquefaction cycle and conducted energy and
exergy analyses. The results of this study indicate that an
increase in hydrogen and helium pressure leads to a decrease
in the exergy destruction rate and an increase in exergy ef-
ficiency. The worst exergy destruction occurs in helium turbo
expanders [29]. Design optimization was undertaken for a
high-pressure hydrogen Claude cycle (HPeH2 cycle) and a
dual H2eNe cycle for plant capacities between 25 tpd and 100
tpd. The results show that the high-pressure hydrogen cycle
with a mixed-refrigerant precooling cycle is preferred as the
liquefaction process for a 100 tpd hydrogen liquefaction plant
design in terms of cost optimization [30]. Valenti and Macchi
have suggested the utilization of four helium recuperative
JouleeBrayton cycles for the refrigeration and liquefaction of
hydrogen. With feed hydrogen conditions of 60 bar and 300 K,
the SEC of the cycle is around 5 kWh/kgLH2 and the exergy
efficiency is 47.73% [31]. Krasae-in et al. have reviewed the
development of large-scale hydrogen liquefaction processes
from 1898 to 2009. Existing large hydrogen liquefaction plants
have exergy efficiencies between 20 and 30% and some con-
ceptual plants are reported with efficiencies between 40 and
50%. In addition, several ideas to increase the efficiency of
future liquefaction plants are suggested, including the use of
an expansion turbine instead of a Joule-Thomson valve, the
reduction of the circulating mass flow, the use of higher feed
pressure for greater liquefier efficiency etc. [32] Asadnia and
Mehrpooya proposed a novel large-scale plant for hydrogen
liquefaction and carried out exergy and energy analyses. The
Joule-Brayton refrigeration cycle for precooling and six sim-
ple Linde-Hampson cascade cycles for cryogenic cooling and
liquefaction were used. The process SEC and exergy effi-
ciency are reported to be 7.69 kWh/kgLH2 and 39.5% respec-
tively [33]. Sadaghiani et al. proposed a 130-tpd scale
hydrogen liquefaction process with a single mixed refrigerant
cycle. The results of energy and exergy analyses show that
the proposed process has a SEC of 7.64 kWh/kgLH2 and 32%
exergy efficiency. In addition, the sensitivities of the exergy
efficiency and specific power consumption were investigated
against varying mole fractions of mixed refrigerant compo-
nents [34]. Hammad and Dincer have proposed a catalyst-
based advanced hydrogen liquefaction system. Their results
indicated that exergy and energy efficiencies were 11.58%
and 15.1% respectively at a hydrogen feed temperature and
pressure of 25  C and 1 bar, respectively. The SEC was
5.20 kWh/kgLH2 and the COP was 3.66 [8]. Sadaghiani and
Mehrpooya proposed a large-scale and innovative hydrogen
liquefaction process with a liquefaction capacity of 300 tpd.
This process comprises two MR refrigeration cycles. The feed
stream is normal gaseous hydrogen at 25  C and 21 bar. The
results revealed that the total power consumption and exergy
efficiency of the whole process were 4.41 kWh/kgLH2 and
55.47%. Compressor intercoolers show the highest exergy
destruction rate in the process. In addition, it was reported
that an increase in the pressure of the hydrogen feed leads to
an increase in the COP of liquefaction [35].
However, compared with onshore liquefaction systems,
the required amount of re-liquefaction onboard is relatively
small because the fuel consumption in the propulsion system
and the feed stream temperature are much lower, so it may
be appropriate to apply different processes for liquefied
hydrogen tankers considering their propulsion system and
feed temperature. In the case of LNG carriers, the fuel type
and emission regulations are the factors affecting the selec-
tion of the propulsion system [36]. Jeong et al. proposed an
LNG and liquefied hydrogen hybrid propulsion system for a
267,000 m3 LNG carrier. In the proposed system, boil-off gas
from the LNG cargo tank is supplied to dual fuel diesel elec-
tric (DFDE) engines and liquefied hydrogen in the fuel tank is
vaporized and supplied to the polymer electrolyte membrane
(PEM) fuel cells. The reason for introducing the hybrid pro-
pulsion system is to meet the enhanced emission regula-
tions, namely IMO's Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI),
which will be more stringent in the near future. One of the
features of this system is that the remaining LNG boil-off gas
after use as fuel can be re-liquefied by using the cold energy
of the liquefied hydrogen, which should be vaporized prior to
use as fuel [37].
Ahn et al. investigated an optimal propulsion system for
liquefied hydrogen tankers from the perspective of economic,
technological and environmental feasibilities. Their results
revealed that a propulsion system using LNG with a hydrogen
boil-off gas re-liquefaction system attained the highest score
among several propulsion alternatives. However, in this case,
the EEDI Phase 3 requirement may not be satisfied. As
another propulsion alternative, a fuel cell system was
investigated. This fuel cell system using hydrogen boil-off gas
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 5 0 5 6 e1 5 0 7 1
Fig. 1 e Overall system configuration of the liquefied hydrogen tanker.
as fuel can meet the requirements of all the EEDI phases,
while the operating expenditures (OPEX) increased since
hydrogen as fuel are more expensive than LNG [11]. A molten
carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)-based hybrid propulsion system
for the 140,000 m3 liquefied hydrogen tanker was proposed
and evaluated for its efficiency, economic feasibility and
exhaust emissions. Hydrogen gas reformed from natural gas
and hydrogen boil-off gas from the cargo tank are supplied to
the fuel cell for power generation. The results revealed that
even though the MCFC-based hybrid system was relatively
less economical than the LNG fueled DFDE system, it may be
a good alternative to meet the enforced environmental reg-
ulations [38].
In this study, a boil-off gas re-liquefaction system opti-
mized for liquefied hydrogen tankers that use an LNG and
hydrogen hybrid propulsion system is proposed and analyzed
from EEDI, energy and exergy viewpoints. To the knowledge
of the author, there have been no studies regarding this re-
liquefaction system intended for liquefied hydrogen tankers
so far. The specific objectives of this study are as follows:
 To develop a boil-off gas re-liquefaction system optimized for
liquefied hydrogen tankers using a hybrid propulsion system.
 To carry out exergy and energy analyses for the proposed
re-liquefaction system to assess the exergy efficiency,
specific energy consumption and exergy destruction for
system performance improvement.
 To carry out parametric studies with varying operating
conditions, such as the boil-off gas temperature, the
compression pressure of hydrogen, the hydrogen expander
inlet temperature and the compression pressure of helium.
 To carry out a parametric study to identify the relation
between the efficiency of the re-liquefaction system and
the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI).
15059
System description
Description of the liquefied hydrogen tanker
The liquefied hydrogen tanker in this study has four IMO type
B prismatic cargo tanks, with a total cargo capacity of
160,000 m3 in the four tanks. The liquefied hydrogen cargo is
stored in the cargo tanks at 1 bar and the boil-off gas is
generated at the same pressure. An insulation system con-
sisting of vacuum-insulated panels in combination with
polyurethane foam panels is applied to meet the boil-off rate
of about 0.3% per day. The boil-off gas generated in each cargo
tank goes to the cargo room located on deck for re-liquefaction
and treatment before use as ship fuel. The boil-off gas
entering the re-liquefaction system is at
220  C since it is
heated in the pipelines from the cargo tanks to the re-
liquefaction system. Fig. 1 depicts the overall system config-
uration of the electric propulsion-type liquefied hydrogen
tanker and Table 1 summarizes specification of liquefied
hydrogen tanker. Electricity is generated by both DFDE en-
gines system using LNG and fuel cell system using hydrogen
boil-off gas. Hybrid propulsion can achieve lower fuel cost and
meet emission regulations. The type of fuel cell applied is the
PEM fuel cell, with 52% electrical efficiency. This type of fuel
cell was ranked to be the most promising for marine use [39].
The amount of boil-off gas consumed in the fuel cell system
depends on the fuel ratio of LNG and hydrogen to meet
emission regulations (EEDI).
Description of the proposed re-liquefaction system
Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 show a flowsheet and a block diagram,
respectively, of the proposed re-liquefaction system, which
15060 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 5 0 5 6 e1 5 0 7 1

consists of a hydrogen and helium cascade cycle. Boil-off gas

Table 1 e Specification of liquefied hydrogen tanker in
at
220  C, 1 bar enters HEX-1, which is a boil-off gas to boil-off
this study.
gas heat exchanger suggested by Lee et al. [40] After HEX-1, the
Items Values
boil-off gas stream (H3) is divided into two streams: the
Ship classification Gas carrier stream for fuel supply (HF1) and the stream for re-liquefaction
Cargo tank capacity 160,000 m3 (H4). The stream for re-liquefaction (H4) is compressed from
Deadweight (DWT) 31,000 ton
1 bar to 16 bar as an intermediate pressure in the compressors,
Service speed 18 knots
Type of cargo tank IMO Type B prismatic
COMP-1 and COMP-2, and enters HEX-2 to undergo heat ex-
Boil-off rate (BOR) 0.3%/day change with the hydrogen fuel gas stream (HF2); this concept
Total installed Power 31 MW was suggested by Howard [41]. The hydrogen fuel gas stream
- Propulsion 27 MW (HF2) is heated slightly and supplied to the fuel cell system.
- Auxiliary 4 MW Boil-off gas to be re-liquefied is further compressed to 40 bar

Fig. 2 e Flowsheet of the proposed re-liquefaction system.

Fig. 3 e Block diagram of the proposed re-liquefaction system.

 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 5 0 5 6 e1 5 0 7 1
by COMP-3. Then, the compressed hydrogen stream (H8) is
passed back to HEX-1 and cooled down to approximately

217  C. The cold energy of the feed boil-off gas stream (H2) is
transferred to the compressed boil-off gas stream (H8) in HEX-
1. Then cooled and compressed boil-off gas stream enters the
heat exchangers HEX-3 and HEX-4 as streams (H10) and (H11)
respectively, to be further cooled by two helium recuperative
JouleeBrayton cycles. Helium is selected as the refrigerant
because it has a critical temperature lower than that of
hydrogen and a superior heat transfer capability [29,31]. Since
helium is an inert gas, the potential risk of explosion resulting
from leakage is lower compared to systems using hydrogen as
the refrigerant [29]. The helium refrigerant stream (M1) in this
cycle is compressed by the compressors COMP-4, COMP-5,
COMP-6 and COMP -7 from 1 bar to 10 bar. The coolers, CR-1,
CR-2 and CR-3, which use seawater as the cooling medium,
cool outgoing streams of each compressor down to 40  C.
Seawater exiting from each cooler is discharged back to the
sea. Then, stream M8 enters HEX-7 to undergo heat exchange
with the LNG fuel gas stream (L1). After transferring its cold
energy, the LNG fuel gas stream (L1) is vaporized and supplied
to the DFDE engine system at 6 bar and 37  C. The compressed
and cooled helium stream (M9) is divided into two streams,
M10 and M15. Each stream enters HEX-5 and HEX-6, respec-
tively, to be cooled by the returned helium streams, M13 and
M18. After exiting the heat exchangers, the helium streams
M11 and M16 are introduced to the expanders EXP-1 and EXP-2
in order to expand to lower pressure and cool the hydrogen
streams H11 and H12, at HEX-3 and HEX-4 respectively. The
hydrogen stream H11 exiting HEX-4 is refrigerated to
249  C,
maintaining high pressure, and is expanded to 1 bar through
the wet expander EXP-3. A wet expander is employed because
power generation with high efficiency is preferred, whereas J-
T expansion is avoided due to high entropy generation and
irreversibility [42]. Several studies adopted a wet expander
instead of a J-T valve [29,31,42]. Finally, the discharge stream
of EXP-3 enters the separator V1. The liquid fraction of the
hydrogen is returned to the cargo tank as stream H16, and the
gas fraction, as stream H15, is merged into the stream of the
feed gas stream (H1).
System simulation and assumptions
A simulation of the proposed system was carried out using
ASPEN-HYSYS software, which has an extensive databank
and powerful methods for computation of physical properties
[28,33]. The latest version of the Aspen Physical Property
System has the capability of calling REFPROP [43], which was
developed by the National Institute of Standards and Tech-
nology (NIST). REFPROP implements the ‘equations of state
explicit in Helmholtz energy’ model for the thermodynamic
properties of pure fluids, which is considered as the most
accurate model currently available. In this study, the physical
properties of ortho and para hydrogen are employed from the
REFPROP property package in the Aspen Physical Property
System. The accuracy of the isobaric heat capacities and
enthalpy changes can be checked at Leachman et al. and
McCarty et al. [44,45] A thermodynamic system analysis was
performed based on the following general assumptions:
15061
 Liquefied hydrogen is stored in the cargo tanks at
253  C
and 1 bar, and boil-off gas is generated at the same
pressure.
 The total mass flow rate of boil-off gas is set to be 1400 kg/h,
which is equal to the 0.3%/day boil-off rate for a 160,000 m3
liquefied hydrogen tanker.
 The mass flow rate of boil-off gas for re-liquefaction is
650 kg/h.
 The mass flow rate of boil-off gas for use as fuel is 750 kg/h.
 The mass flow rate of LNG for use as fuel is 2721 kg/h.
 LNG is assumed as 100% methane
 Boil-off gas entering the re-liquefaction system is at

220  C due to heat ingress through the header pipe from
the cargo tank to the re-liquefaction system.
 The heat losses in the system and the pressure drop in all
the heat exchangers and pipe components are ignored.
 The minimum temperature approach of the heat ex-
changers is 3  C.
 All streams exiting from sea water coolers are cooled down
to 40  C.
 The isentropic efficiencies of the compressors are assumed
to be 85%.
 The isentropic efficiencies of the expanders are assumed to
be 85%.
 The reference state temperature and pressure for the sys-
tem are 25  C and 1 bar, respectively.
 The boil-off gas is composed of 98% para and 2% ortho
hydrogen.
 It is assumed that no para-to-ortho hydrogen conversion
occurs during the re-liquefaction process since natural
conversion between ortho and para hydrogen is very slow
[46].
 The pressure ratio in the multi-stage compressor equals 4
or less, and the maximum discharge temperature is less
than 160  C [26].
 The system is at steady state and the heat leakage of the
system is neglected.
 The LNG temperature from the fuel tank is assumed to be

150  C.
System analysis
Energy analysis
The performance of the refrigeration cycles can be expressed
in terms of the coefficient of performance (COP). The COP is
the ratio of the total heat removed from the stream to the net
input power, expressible as follows [28,33,34,47]:


m_ Re
liquefied H2 $ hBoil
off H2
hRe
liquefied H2
COP ¼ (1)
Wnet
where Wnet represents the net required power in the whole
system, m _ represents the mass flow rate of the re-liquefied
hydrogen, hBoil
off H2 is the mass enthalpy of boil-off
hydrogen and hRe
liquefied H2 is the mass enthalpy of the re-
liquefied hydrogen.
The theoretical maximum value of COP can be expressed
as follows [48,49]:
15062 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 5 0 5 6 e1 5 0 7 1

hBoil
off H2
hRe
liquefied H2 Ex _ Feed

_ Product
Ex
COPth; max ¼
 hex ¼
hRe
liquefied H2
hBoil
off H2
T0 sRe
liquefied H2
sBoil
off H2 Wnet
(2) _ Re
liquefied H2 $ðeÞRe
liquefied H2
ðmÞ
ðmÞ _ Boil
off H2 $ðeÞBoil
off H2
¼
Wnet
where T0 is the ambient temperature, sBoil
off H2 is the mass
(6)
entropy of boil-off hydrogen and sRe
liquefied H2 is the mass en-
tropy of the re-liquefied hydrogen. where hex represents the exergy efficiency of the overall
Specific energy consumption (SEC) is used to evaluate the liquefaction system; Ex _ Feed represents the exergy flow of boil-
performance of the overall system in this study. High specific _
off hydrogen, Ex out represents the exergy flow of the re-
energy consumption indicates that the energy efficiency of liquefied hydrogen, eRe
liquefied H2 is the mass exergy of re-
the process is low. It is defined as the energy consumption liquefied hydrogen and eBoil
off H2 is the mass exergy of
divided by the mass of the re-liquefied hydrogen, other than hydrogen boil-off gas. In the presently described system, a
that used as fuel, as follows [47]: fraction of the hydrogen boil-off gas is used as a refrigerant

  Wnet
SEC kWh kgLH2 ¼ (3) and a fuel. Therefore, only the mass flow rate of the hydrogen
m_ Re
liquefied H2
boil-off gas to be re-liquefied has been counted for the exergy
efficiency calculation, i.e.ðmÞ _ Boil
off H2
_ Re
liquefied H2 ¼ ðmÞ
Exergy analysis
Combining Eqs. (3) And (6), the following equation is
derived.
Exergy is defined as the maximum amount of useful energy
that can be obtained from the stream when it reaches an
  ðeÞRe
liquefied H2
ðeÞBoil
off H2
equilibrium condition with the reference environment while SEC kWh kgLH2 ¼ (7)
hex
interacting only with this environment [50]. Exergy analysis is
applied to measure the exergy destruction and exergy effi- This equation represents the relation between exergy ef-
ciency for each component of the system introduced in this ficiency and specific energy consumption when the feed boil-
study. Several authors have applied exergy analysis to measure off hydrogen at 1 bar and
220  C is liquefied to 1 bar and
the exergy efficiency and the amount of exergy destruction of
253  C, and is being utilized to calculate the theoretical
each component for the optimization and evaluation of natural minimum energy consumption.
gas and hydrogen liquefaction processes [8,18,20,29,33e35]. The equations for the exergy destruction and efficiency for
The equation of exergy destruction for each component each component are summarized in Table 3. The exergy
can be derived from the equation of exergy balance. Consid- destruction of the overall system is the sum of exergy
ering a control volume at steady state, the general equation of destruction in all components within the system.
exergy balance can be written as follows [23,51]:
Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)
X X X X
_ Q

Ex _ wþ
Ex _ flow; in

Ex _ flow; out
Ex
Ex _ dest
X   X X
As described before, LNG and hydrogen boil-off gas are utilized
T0
¼ Q_ 1
_ þ

W _
ðm$eÞin

_
ðm$eÞ _
out
Exdest ¼ 0
as refrigerants, before being used as fuel. Hence, their mass ratio
T
influences the performance of the proposed re-liquefaction
(4)
system in this study. The optimal fuel ratio of LNG to boil-off
where Ex _ Q represents the rate of exergy transfer due to heat gas should be determined to meet both the EEDI requirements
exchange with the environment, Ex _ w is the rate of exergy adopted by IMO and good liquefaction performance. The EEDI
transfer related to work, Ex _ dest represents exergy destruction. evaluates the energy efficiency of newly built ships by calcu-
_ flow corresponds to the exergy transfer rate associated with
Ex lating CO2 emission per transport distance (metric ton/nautical
the flow of the stream. mile) for each ship type. Since the EEDI calculation method for
_ flow is defined as follows [51]:
Ex liquefied hydrogen tankers is not yet defined [11], we referred to
  the EEDI calculation method for LNG carriers as follows [52]:
_ flow ¼ m$e
Ex _ _ h
h0
T0 ðs
s0 Þ
¼ m$ (5)

where m _ denotes the mass flow, e is mass exergy, h and s
correspond to the mass enthalpy and mass entropy of the
stream respectively. h0 and s0 are the mass enthalpy and en-
tropy of the reference environment respectively. The refer-
ence environmental temperature, T0 , and pressure are
assumed to be 25  C and 1 bar respectively, for all the exergy
analyses. The exergy flow of each stream is calculated based
on the thermodynamic properties obtained from the simula-
tion and the values are shown in Table 2.
The exergy efficiency of the overall system is defined as the
ratio between the exergy difference of boil-off hydrogen and
re-liquefied hydrogen and the net required power in the sys-
tem, as follows [33].:
Attained EEDI  Required EEDI ¼ (1-X/100) х reference line
value (8)
where X is the reduction factor specified in Table 4 for the
required EEDI compared to the EEDI reference line.
The calculated attained EEDI must not be higher than the
required EEDI. The adopted reference line value for LNG car-
riers is shown in the equation below [52,55]:

0:474
Reference line value ¼ 2253:7  deadweight (9)
The detailed EEDI formulas and related parameters applied
in this study are summarized in Table 5 and the following
assumptions are made for this analysis:
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 5 0 5 6 e1 5 0 7 1 15063

Table 2 e Thermodynamic properties of each stream.

Stream No. Temperature Pressure Mass flow Mass enthalpy Mass entropy Exergy flow

C bar kg/h kJ/kg kJ/kg- C kW
H1
220.00 1.00 1400.00
3129.59
20.47 1203.02
H2
220.94 1.00 1440.29
3139.47
20.66 1256.06
H3
151.81 1.00 1440.29
2380.61
11.48 465.16
H4
151.81 1.00 690.29
2380.61
11.48 222.94
H5
70.77 4.00 690.29
1341.88
10.69 376.80
H6 49.01 16.00 690.29 352.26
9.88 655.27
H7
148.81 16.00 690.29
2357.68
22.75 871.68
H8
97.07 40.00 690.29
1699.18
22.18 965.19
H9
217.94 40.00 690.30
3282.33
37.55 1540.53
H10
230.64 40.00 690.30
3555.62
43.23 1812.79
H11
249.00 40.00 690.30
3857.76
52.12 2263.08
H12
252.83 1.00 690.30
3905.65
51.71 2230.12
H13
252.83 1.00 40.24
3482.91
30.91 65.41
H14
252.83 1.00 650.06
3931.82
52.99 2164.71
HF1
151.81 1.00 749.99
2380.61
11.48 242.22
HF2 32.91 1.00 749.99 113.63 0.83
3.07
L1
150.00 6.00 2721.00
5514.87
11.36 770.71
L2 37.00 6.00 2721.00
4623.68
5.87 207.13
M1
92.99 1.00 3592.28
612.42
2.59 158.74
M2
36.81 1.80 3592.28
320.39
2.40 394.00
M3 43.74 3.40 3592.28 98.45
2.20 751.81
M4 40.00 3.40 3592.28 79.01
2.26 750.77
M5 133.98 6.00 3592.28 567.90
2.08 1184.07
M6 40.00 6.00 3592.28 79.87
3.44 1102.55
M7 123.53 10.00 3592.28 514.95
3.27 1486.97
M8 40.00 10.00 3592.28 81.18
4.50 1419.43
M9
89.95 10.00 3592.28
593.86
7.28 1574.39
M10
89.95 10.00 2155.37
593.86
7.28 944.63
M11
230.10 10.00 2155.37
1324.84
14.85 1857.80
M12
252.18 1.00 2155.37
1439.98
13.78 1597.73
M13
233.64 1.00 2155.37
1343.21
10.47 1065.28
M14
92.95 1.00 2155.37
612.23
2.59 95.17
M15
89.95 10.00 1436.91
593.86
7.28 629.76
M16
217.84 10.00 1436.91
1260.22
13.53 1107.12
M17
246.15 1.00 1436.91
1408.45
12.46 920.42
M18
220.94 1.00 1436.91
1277.17
9.02 564.05
M19
93.12 1.00 1441.91
613.12
2.59 63.90

 The electrical efficiency (helectrical) is taken as 91.3%,  The additional energy required to vaporize and supply LNG
considering generator, transmission, transformer and to the dual fuel engine is approximately equal to 2% of PME.
converter losses.  Since the pilot fuel requirement is less than 1% of the en-
ergy requirement, it is not considered.

Table 3 e Equation of exergy destruction and efficiency of the components.

Components Exergy destruction Exergy efficiency
P P
_ dest ¼ P ðm$eÞ
_ _ P
_ _
ðm$eÞ in

_
ðm$eÞ
Compressors [8,29,35] Ex in þ W
ðm$eÞ out hex ¼ out
W _
_
_ dest ¼ P ðm$eÞ
_ _ P
_ hex ¼ P
W
P
Expanders [29,35] Ex in
W
ðm$eÞ
_ _
out
ðm$eÞ in
ðm$eÞ out
P P
P P _
ðm$eÞ
ð _
m$eÞ
_ dest ¼ _
ðm$eÞ _ hex ¼ P
in; c
P out; c
Heat exchangers [29,35] Ex in
ðm$eÞ
_ _
out
ðm$eÞ in; h
ðm$eÞ out; h
P
P P ð _
m$eÞ
_ dest ¼ _
ðm$eÞ _ hex ¼ P
in
ðm$eÞ out
Coolers * Ex out _
ðm$eÞ in
P
P P ð _
m$eÞ
Separators [35] _
Exdest ¼ _ _
ðm$eÞin
ðm$eÞout hex ¼ P out
_
ðm$eÞ in
P P
P P ð _
m$eÞ
_
ðm$eÞ
_ dest ¼ _
ðm$eÞ _ _
in þ W
ðm$eÞ hex ¼ in out
Compressors [8,29,35] Ex out
W _
* Irreversibility of sea water cooler is assumed as exergy difference between the inlet and outlet of cooler since sea water exited from cooler is
discharged to the sea.
15064 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 5 0 5 6 e1 5 0 7 1

Table 4 e EEDI reference lines for LNG carriers [52e54].

Ship type Size Phase 0 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Sept 2015e 1 Jan 2020e 1 Jan 2025e onwards
Dec 2019 31 Dec 2024
LNG carrier >10,000 DWT n/a 10% 20% 30%

Table 5 e EEDI formulas for Dual Fuel Diesel Electric engine [53,54].
Parameters Unit Formulas
Design margin % 83
MPP
PME kW 0:83 
hElectrical
SFCME g/kWh 175
PAE kW _ Re
liquefaction
ð0:025 þ 0:02Þ  PME þ 250 þ W
175  PME þ 175  PAE
EEDI gCO2/ton*nm 2:75 
Capacity  Vref

PME is the main engine power, PAE is the auxiliary power, Vref is the reference speed, and SFC is the specific fuel consumption, MPPMotor is the
rated output of motor.

hydrogen tankers, comparing with the theoretical minimum

Table 6 e Exergy efficiency, specific energy consumption
energy consumption is deemed to be a reasonable approach.
and coefficient of performance of overall system.
The SEC and exergy efficiency of the proposed system are
Overall exergy Specific energy Coefficient of
3.30 kWh/kgLH2 and 74.9% respectively, while the theoretical
efficiency consumption performance
minimum energy consumption under the same conditions is
74.9% 3.30 kWh/kgLH2 0.07 2.47 kWh/kgLH2, as illustrated in Fig. 5. This high exergy effi-
ciency and low SEC is attributed to exergy transfer from the
fuel to the boil-off gas being re-liquefied. The COP for the
Results and discussion system is calculated as 0.07. This value is relatively smaller
than that of onshore hydrogen liquefaction processes, which
Energy and exergy analyses have COP values between 0.16 and 0.18 [28,33,35]. This result
implies that removing heat from a lower temperature gas,
The re-liquefaction system proposed in this study is evaluated namely the boil-off gas, requires more energy [47]. It is note-
in terms of exergy efficiency, specific energy consumption worthy that the theoretical maximum COP under the same
(SEC) and coefficient of performance (COP). The results are conditions is 0.09.
summarized in Table 6, and the exergy flow of the overall The exergy efficiency and destruction of the system com-
system is illustrated in Fig. 4. Since there were no studies ponents are illustrated in Table 7 and Fig. 6. The results show
regarding the hydrogen re-liquefaction process for liquefied that the lowest exergy efficiency is 26.5%, for the second

Fig. 4 e Exergy flow of overall system.

 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 5 0 5 6 e1 5 0 7 1 15065

Fig. 5 e Specific energy consumption as function of overall

Fig. 6 e Exergy efficiency and exergy destruction for each
exergy efficiency for re-liquefaction of H2 boil -off gas for
component.
liquefaction from boil-off gas at 1 bar, ¡220  C to liquid at
1 bar, ¡252.8  C.

have an efficiency value higher than 90%, except for HEX-7. It

can be observed that the heat exchanger HEX-7 is the
helium expander EXP-2. The wet hydrogen expander, EXP-3, component with the highest exergy destruction contribution
and the first helium expander, EXP-1, are the second and (23.5%), followed by HEX-1 (12.4%), EXP-2 (11.0%) and EXP-1
third least efficient components among other units. Notably,
the exergy efficiency of the expanders decreases by
decreasing the operating temperature, which is because en-
tropy creation is higher at lower temperatures [34,35]. This can
also explain the order of exergy efficiency of the compressors.
For example, the first and third hydrogen compressors, COMP-
1 and COMP-3, have an exergy efficiency of 77.3% and 74.1%
respectively, while the second hydrogen compressor, COMP-2,
which is operating at a relatively higher temperature than the
others, is 85.7%. The coolers and most of the heat exchangers

Table 7 e Exergy efficiency and exergy destruction of each

component.
Components Exergy Exergy Exergy
destruction destruction efficiency Fig. 7 e Effects of varying hydrogen compression pressure
[kW] ratio [%] [%] on the exergy efficiency and specific energy consumption.
COMP-1 45.31 2.61% 77.25%
COMP-2 46.38 2.67% 85.72%
COMP-3 32.76 1.89% 74.06%
COMP-4 56.15 3.23% 80.73%
COMP-5 60.14 3.46% 85.61%
COMP-6 54.54 3.14% 88.82%
COMP-7 49.74 2.86% 88.54%
EXP-1 127.53 7.34% 31.69%
EXP-2 191.14 11.01% 26.51%
EXP-3 23.77 1.37% 27.86%
HEX-1 215.56 12.41% 90.30%
HEX-2 28.88 1.66% 96.78%
HEX-3 84.12 4.84% 96.58%
HEX-4 82.16 4.73% 97.59%
HEX-5 22.78 1.31% 98.09%
HEX-6 56.94 3.28% 97.17%
HEX-7 408.62 23.53% 81.34%
CR-1 1.04 0.06% 99.86%
CR-2 81.51 4.69% 93.12%
CR-3 67.53 3.89% 95.46% Fig. 8 e Effects of varying hydrogen compression pressure
V-1 e e e
on the net power consumption of each section.
15066 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 5 0 5 6 e1 5 0 7 1

Fig. 11 e Effects of varying feed hydrogen temperature on

Fig. 9 e Effects of varying hydrogen expander inlet
the exergy efficiency and specific energy consumption.
temperature on the exergy efficiency and specific energy
consumption.

Fig. 12 e Effects of varying feed hydrogen temperature on

the net power consumption of each section.

Fig. 10 e Effects of varying hydrogen expander inlet

temperature on the net power consumption of each Parametric analysis
section.
Effect of varying hydrogen compression pressure
The effects of varying the hydrogen compression pressure on
the exergy efficiency and SEC of the hydrogen re-liquefaction
system were studied and illustrated in Fig. 7. As can be seen,
(7.34%). A possible reason for the exergy destruction of the
the SEC decreases with hydrogen compression pressure down
heat exchangers HEX-7 and HEX-1 being higher than those of
to its minimum value at 45 bar, and then gradually increases
other heat exchangers is the large temperature difference
with pressure. The exergy efficiency shows reverse behavior.
between the streams. Therefore, reducing the temperature
To better understand the impact of the hydrogen compression
differences in these heat exchangers can effectively reduce
pressure on the system performance, the power consumption
the system exergy destruction and improve the overall system
of the compressors in the hydrogen compression section and
performance. In addition, it was found that the exergy effi-
the helium refrigerant section are compared in Fig. 8. It was
ciency of the first helium expander, EXP-1, is higher than that
found that an increase in hydrogen compression pressure
of the wet hydrogen expander, EXP-3, whereas its exergy
leads to an increase in the power consumption of the
destruction is higher. This implies that both the exergy effi-
hydrogen compressors, and a decrease in the power con-
ciency and the exergy destruction must be considered
sumption of the helium compressors. It should be noted that
simultaneously in order to evaluate component performance
the line slopes of the two sections are different. At pressures
in a more reasonable manner [47,56]. In other words, com-
of 45 bar and below, the rate of reduction in the power con-
ponents having a large exergy destruction value and lower
sumption of helium compressors is higher than the rate of
exergy efficiency value have a higher potential to improve its
increase in that of the hydrogen compressors, but thereafter
performance. It should be noted that the exergy destruction in
the rate of reduction of the hydrogen compressors' power
separator V-1 could be ignored, as shown in Table 7.
consumption gets lower than that of the helium compressors.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 5 0 5 6 e1 5 0 7 1
As a result, the SEC and exergy efficiency reaches an optimum
value at 45 bar.
Effect of varying inlet temperature of hydrogen expander
Since the inlet temperature of the hydrogen expander signif-
icantly affects the process performance [31,57], the effect of
the inlet temperature of the hydrogen expander on the SEC
and exergy efficiency of the re-liquefaction system is analyzed
and illustrated in Fig. 9. The result shows that the SEC de-
creases and the exergy efficiency increases when the inlet
temperature of the hydrogen expander increases up to

249  C. Subsequently, the SEC increases and the exergy ef-
ficiency decreases. The SEC at
247  C increases by approxi-
mately 1.5% relative to that at
249  C. In contrast, the SEC at

253  C increases by approximately 12% relative to that at

249  C. The former case can be explained by the fact that
when the refrigerated gas is expanded at a relatively warmer
temperature, a fraction of the fluid flashes back to vapor and
merges to the feed boil-off gas stream, thereby increasing the
power consumption of the hydrogen compressors, as can be
Fig. 13 e Effects of varying compression pressure of the
helium refrigerant section on the exergy efficiency and
specific energy consumption.
Fig. 14 e Effects of varying compression pressure of the
helium refrigerant section on the net power consumption
of each section.
15067
seen in Fig. 10. It can be deduced that the expander inlet
temperature should be adjusted to refrigerate the hydrogen to
temperatures that ensure that the majority of the liquid is at
the outlet of the expander. The latter case indicates that
lowering the expander inlet temperature for cooling more
than required is not necessary and consumes more power in
the helium refrigerant section. Therefore, the optimum
hydrogen expander inlet temperature can be determined by
considering the power consumption at both the hydrogen
compression section and the helium refrigerant section.
Effect of varying feed hydrogen temperature
The boil-off gas entering the re-liquefaction system is heated
by heat penetration through the header pipe during transport
from each cargo tank to the re-liquefaction system. Therefore,
the variation of the exergy efficiency and specific energy
consumption of the system versus the variation of the feed
hydrogen temperature was studied and illustrated in Fig. 11.
As seen from this figure, increasing the feed temperature from

226  C to
212  C decreases the exergy efficiency of the
system from 83% to 65%. The SEC is increased by approxi-
mately 29% with an increase in the feed temperature from

226  C to
212  C. The net power consumption of the helium
refrigerant section decreases steadily, while the net power
consumption of the hydrogen compression section remains
almost constant, as shown in Fig. 12. These results indicate
that effective cold energy transfer from the feed boil-off gas
stream to the discharged stream of the last boil-off gas
compressor at HEX-1 significantly affects the system perfor-
mance. Furthermore, the result reveals that, in order to
improve the overall system performance, it is not only
Table 8 e Fuel mass flow rate per each case.
Case # Mass flow rate of fuels
H2 boil-off gas (kg/hr) LNG (kg/hr)
Case #1 700 2872
Case #2 (Base case) 750 2721
Case #3 800 2569
Case #4 850 2417
Case #5 900 2266
Case #6 950 2114
Fig. 15 e EEDI of each case indicated in Table 8.
15068 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 5 0 5 6 e1 5 0 7 1
Fig. 16 e Effect of varying mass flow rate of fuel per case
indicated in Table 8.
important to improve the efficiency of the system compo-
nents, but also to minimize heat ingress through the header
pipe by applying an effective insulation system.
Effect of varying compression pressure of helium refrigerant
section
Fig. 13 shows the variation of the exergy efficiency and SEC of
the system against the compression pressure of the helium
refrigerant section. The SEC first decreases to its minimum
value with the pressure of the helium refrigerant section, and
then starts to increase. The exergy efficiency shows a reverse
trend. It can be said that the exergy efficiency and SEC are
optimal when the pressure of the helium refrigerant section is
set to 10 bar. Fig. 14 shows the same result from the
perspective of net power consumption.
Effect of varying fuel ratio and Energy Efficiency Design Index
As aforementioned, the fuel ratio of LNG and hydrogen is an
important parameter for the system performance, since both
fuels are used as refrigerants. This fuel ratio should be
determined in order to meet the requirements of each EEDI
Phase. Therefore, the EEDI, SEC and exergy efficiency varia-
tions with respect to the mass flow rate of each fuel are
investigated, as indicated in Table 8. Fig. 15 illustrates the
reference lines and the attained EEDI values for the varying
fuel mass flow rates. Since the reference value of Phase 2,
which will apply to the ships built from 2020 to 2024, is 13.41 g-
CO2/ton-NM, the attained EEDI of all cases except for Case #1
and Case #2 (base case) satisfy the reference value. The
reference value of Phase 3, which will apply to the ships built
after 2025, is 11.72 g-CO2/ton-NM, and only Case #5 and Case
#6 can meet the reference value for Phase #3, having attained
EEDI values of 11.17 g-CO2/ton-NM and 10.41 g-CO2/ton-NM
respectively. This means that as the mass flow rate of
hydrogen increases and the mass flow rate of LNG decreases,
the attained EEDI value decreases. Fig. 16 shows the variation
of the SEC and exergy efficiency for each Case #. Clearly, as the
hydrogen fuel mass flow rate increases from 700 kg/h (Case #1)
to 750 kg/h (Case #2) and the LNG mass flow rate decreases
from 2872 kg/h (Case #1) to 2721 kg/h (Case #2) accordingly, the
SEC is reduced by approximately 14%. After then, the decrease
rate of SEC is reduced by around 3%e4% for each case interval.
In Case #5 and Case #6, which meet the requirement of EEDI
Phase #3, the SEC of the system reaches 2.97 kWh/kgLH2 and
2.86 kWh/kg LH2 respectively. Additionally, the exergy effi-
ciency attained are 83% and 87% in Case #5 and Case #6
respectively. As the mass flow rate of hydrogen increases and
the mass flow rate of LNG decreases, the SEC decreases and
exergy efficiency increases. These observations can be sum-
marized as follows: as the EEDI requirements become more
stringent, the fuel ratio of hydrogen increases and the per-
formance of the re-liquefaction system is improved
accordingly.
To conclude, this study was initiated by the persistent
insight and reasonable recognition that this re-liquefaction
system for liquefied hydrogen tankers has several advan-
tages among several boil-off gas management methods,
which include: first, minimizing boil-off gas generation by
using superior insulation material for cargo containment
system; second, consuming all of boil-off gas as fuel at fuel
cell; third, adopting re-liquefaction system. The re-
liquefaction system may increase CAPEX due to plant
installation, however it is expected that the first and second
options also require large investment considering the current
level of technology development at the time of the authors'
preliminary conceptual study. In this regard, the authors of
this study focused on minimizing OPEX by reducing energy
consumption in the proposed re-liquefaction system and
notable results were achieved showing that the proposed
concept of hydrogen re-liquefaction system can significantly
reduce the power consumption for re-liquefaction.
Conclusions
In this study, a boil-off gas re-liquefaction system for
160,000 m3 liquefied hydrogen tankers is proposed. The DFDE
engine and fuel cells fueled by LNG and boil-off gas are
adopted as the propulsion system for the liquefied hydrogen
tanker, in order to achieve low fuel cost, low investment cost
and flexibility against environment regulations. The proposed
re-liquefaction system comprises a hydrogen compression
section and a helium refrigerant section with 2 JeBrayton
cascade cycles. The cold energy of the feed boil-off gas from
the cargo tank is used to cool the discharged stream from the
last boil-off gas compressor. The cold energy of LNG and a
fraction of the hydrogen boil-off gas is recuperated to reduce
the power consumption of the helium and hydrogen
compressors.
The SEC for the re-liquefaction of boil-off gas at
220  C
and 1 bar was 3.30 kWh/kgLH2, while the theoretical minimum
value is 2.47 kWh/kgLH2, which indicates that the exergy effi-
ciency of the proposed system is 74.9%. The COP of the pro-
posed system is 0.07, while the maximum theoretical value
under the same conditions is 0.09.
Based on the exergy analysis of each component, the
largest exergy destruction occurs in HEX-7, HEX-1 and EXP-2
with values of 408.6 kW, 215.6 kW and 191.1 kW respec-
tively. The lowest exergy efficiency was recorded for EXP-2,
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 5 0 5 6 e1 5 0 7 1 15069

EXP-3 and EXP-1 with values of 26.5%, 27.9% and 31.7%

respectively, indicating that all the expanders as well as the Nomenclature
heat exchangers HEX-1 and HEX-7, have higher priority to
improve its performance.
Symbols
Parametric studies were carried out and the important
e Specific exergy, kJ/kg
findings are summarized below: _
Ex Exergy flow rate, kW
s Specific entropy, kJ/kg- C
 When the hydrogen compression pressure rises from
h Specific enthalpy, kJ/kg
20 bar to 45 bar, the SEC decreases from 3.71 kWh/kgLH2 to
P Pressure
3.29 kWh/kgLH2. Above 45 bar, the SEC starts to increase
T Temperature
and reaches 3.42 kWh/kgLH2 at 60 bar, revealing that 45 bar
hr Time, hour
is the optimum pressure.
m_ Mass flow rate, kg/hr
 When the hydrogen expander inlet temperature rises from
W Power, kW

253  C to
249  C, the SEC decreases from 3.71 kWh/kgLH2
hex Exergy efficiency, %
to 3.30 kWh/kgLH2. Above
249  C, the SEC starts to in-
PME Power of the main engines in kW
crease and reaches 3.49 kWh/kgLH2 at
247  C, revealing
PAE Power of auxiliary engines including propulsion
that
249  C is the optimum temperature at the inlet of the
machinery and accommodation in kW
hydrogen expander.
SFCME Specific fuel consumption of fuel for main engine in
 As the temperature of the feed boil-off gas is increased
g/kWh
from
226  C to
212  C, the SEC increased from 2.89 kWh/
kgLH2 to 3.72 kWh/kgLH2. Abbreviations
 When the compression pressure of the helium refrigerant BOG Boil-off gas
section increases from 8 bar to 10 bar, the SEC decreases BOR Boil-off rate
from 3.36 kWh/kgLH2 to 3.30 kWh/kgLH2. Thereafter, with LNG liquefied natural gas
an increase in the compression pressure up to 14 bar, the SEC Specific energy consumption
SEC increases to 3.46 kWh/kgLH2, revealing that the opti- COP Coefficient of performance
mum compression pressure value is 10 bar. EEDI Energy Efficiency Design Index
 As the mass flow rate of the hydrogen boil-off gas used GCU Gas Combustion Unit
as the fuel increases from 750 kg/h (Case #2: base case) IMO International Maritime Organization
to 800 kg/h (Case #3), the attained EEDI value decreases LH2 liquefied hydrogen
from 13.41 g-CO2/ton-NM to 12.66 g-CO2/ton-NM, which DFDE Dual fuel diesel electric
meets the EEDI Phase 2 requirement of 13.40 g-CO2/ TPD Tons per day
ton-NM. Meanwhile, the SEC decreases from 3.30 kWh/ PEM Polymer electrolyte membrane
kgLH2 to 3.18 kWh/kgLH2. The only mass flow rate of MCFC Molten carbonate fuel cell
the hydrogen boil-off gas which can satisfy the EEDI DWT Deadweight
Phase #3 requirement of 11.72 g-CO2/ton-NM is 900 kg/h EXP Expanders
(Case #5), which results in the required EEDI value of COMP Compressors
11.72 g-CO2/ton-NM and a decrease in the SEC to HEX Heat exchangers
2.97 kWh/kgLH2 CR Coolers
V Separators
The results of this study show that the proposed concept of SFC Specific fuel consumption
hydrogen re-liquefaction system can significantly reduce CAPEX Capital expenditure
power consumption for the re-liquefaction and can be a good OPEX Operating expenditure
reference for the further development of liquefied hydrogen
tanker. Future work by authors will include a detailed cost references
benefit analysis for several possible boil-off gas management
methods, including the cargo containment system, the pro-
pulsion system, and the re-liquefaction system and its com- [1] Lowesmith BJ, Hankinson G, Chynoweth S. Safety issues of
bination cases, with the aim of identifying the most efficient the liquefaction, storage and transportation of liquid
and effective boil-off gas management option for liquefied hydrogen: an analysis of incidents and HAZIDS. Int J
hydrogen tankers. Hydrogen Energy 2014;39:20516e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2014.08.002.
[2] Verfondern K. Safety considerations on liquid hydrogen, vol.
10. Zentralbibliothek: Forschungszentrum; 2008.
Acknowledgements [3] Wietschel M, Ball M. The future of hydrogen e opportunities
and challenges. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:615e27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.11.014.
This work was supported by the Technology Innovation Pro-
[4] Sharma S, Ghoshal SK. Hydrogen the future transportation
gram (10070159, Development of CCS technologies (Design fuel: from production to applications. Renew Sustain Energy
and verification) to apply LH2 Carrier) funded by the Ministry Rev 2015;43:1151e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/
of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE, Korea). j.rser.2014.11.093.
15070 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 5 0 5 6 e1 5 0 7 1
[5] Demir ME, Dincer I. Cost assessment and evaluation of
various hydrogen delivery scenarios. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2018;43:10420e30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.
08.002.
[6] International Standardization Organization (ISO). Basic
considerations for the safety of hydrogen systems. Reference
number ISO TR 15916:2004(E). The International Organization
for Standardization. In: Prepared by technical committee
ISO/TC 197 hydrogen technologies. 1st ed. 2004. International
Standard.
[7] Sharifzadeh S, Verstraete D, Hendrick P. Cryogenic hydrogen
fuel tanks for large hypersonic cruise vehicles. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2015;40:12798e810. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2015.07.120.
[8] Hammad A, Dincer I. Analysis and assessment of an
advanced hydrogen liquefaction system. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2018;43:1139e51. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2017.10.158.
[9] Demirbas A. Future hydrogen economy and policy. Energy
Sources B Energy Econ Plan Policy 2017;12:172e81. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2014.950394.
[10] Balat M. Potential importance of hydrogen as a future
solution to environmental and transportation problems. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:4013e29. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2008.05.047.
[11] Ahn J, You H, Ryu J, Chang D. Strategy for selecting an
optimal propulsion system of a liquefied hydrogen tanker.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:5366e80. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.01.037.
[12] Takaoka Y, Kagaya H, Saeed A, Nishimura M. Introduction to
a liquefied hydrogen carrier for a pilot hydrogen energy
supply chain (HESC) project in Japan. 2017. p. 10.
[13] ABE A. Studies of the large-scale sea transportation of liquid
hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen Energy 1998;23:115e21. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3199(97)00032-3.
[14] Agency for natural resources and energy. Japan: Basic
Hydrogen Strategy; December 26, 2017. http://www.meti.go.
jp/english/press/2017/1226_003.html.
[15] International Maritime Organization(IMO). Interim
recommendations for carriage of liquefied hydrogen in bulk.
Resolut MSC 2016;420(97).
[16] Ferna  ndez IA, Go
 mez MR, Go mez JR, Lo pez-Gonza lez LM. H2
production by the steam reforming of excess boil off gas on
LNG vessels. Energy Convers Manag 2017;134:301e13. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.12.047.
[17] Ferna  ndez IA, Go
 mez MR, Go  Review of
 mez JR, Insua AB.
propulsion systems on LNG carriers. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2017;67:1395e411. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2016.09.095.
[18] Choi J. Development of partial liquefaction system for
liquefied natural gas carrier application using exergy
analysis. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng 2018;10:609e16. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2017.11.001.
[19] Choi DK, Kang JK, Moon Y, Jung J, Kwon O, Kim NS. Hybrid
FGS system with partial Re-liquefaction unit for MEGI
propelled LNG carrier. In: Gastech conf.; 2014.
[20] Tan H, Zhao Q, Sun N, Li Y. Enhancement of energy
performance in a boil-off gas re-liquefaction system of LNG
carriers using ejectors. Energy Convers Manag 2016;126:875e88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.08.031.
[21] Go  mez JR, Go
 mez MR, Garcia RF, De Miguel Catoira A. On board
LNG reliquefaction technology: a comparative study. Pol Marit
Res 2013;21:77e88. https://doi.org/10.2478/pomr-2014-0011.
[22] Romero J, Orosa JA, Oliveira AC. Research on the Brayton
cycle design conditions for reliquefaction cooling of LNG boil
off. J Mar Sci Technol 2012;17:532e41. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00773-012-0180-3.
[23] Romero Go  mez J, Romero Go  mez M, Lopez Bernal J, Baalin
~a
Insua A. Analysis and efficiency enhancement of a boil-off
gas reliquefaction system with cascade cycle on board LNG
carriers. Energy Convers Manag 2015;94:261e74. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.01.074.
[24] Tan H, Shan S, Nie Y, Zhao Q. A new boil-off gas re-
liquefaction system for LNG carriers based on dual mixed
refrigerant cycle. Cryogenics (Guildf) 2018;92:84e92. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cryogenics.2018.04.009.
[25] Peschka W. Liquid hydrogen: fuel of the future. Springer
Science & Business Media; 2012.
[26] Essler J, Haberstroh C, Quack H. Report on technology
overview and barriers to energy- and cost-efficient large
scale hydrogen: results of the IDEALHY project. Fuel Cells
and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH JU); 2012. Technical
Report D1.1.
[27] AIAA(American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics).
AIAA Standard e guide to safety of hydrogen and hydrogen
systems, G-095-2004. 2004.
[28] Aasadnia M, Mehrpooya M. Large-scale liquid hydrogen
production methods and approaches: a review. Appl Energy
2018;212:57e83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.12.033.
[29] Yuksel YE, Ozturk M, Dincer I. Analysis and assessment of a
novel hydrogen liquefaction process. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42:11429e38. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2017.03.064.
[30] Cardella U, Decker L, Sundberg J, Klein H. Process
optimization for large-scale hydrogen liquefaction. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:12339e54. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2017.03.167.
[31] Valenti G, Macchi E. Proposal of an innovative, high-
efficiency, large-scale hydrogen liquefier. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2008;33:3116e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2008.03.044.
[32] Krasae-in S, Stang JH, Neksa P. Development of large-scale
hydrogen liquefaction processes from 1898 to 2009. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2010;35:4524e33. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2010.02.109.
[33] Asadnia M, Mehrpooya M. A novel hydrogen liquefaction
process configuration with combined mixed refrigerant
systems. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:15564e85. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.04.260.
[34] Sadaghiani MS, Mehrpooya M, Ansarinasab H. Process
development and exergy cost sensitivity analysis of a novel
hydrogen liquefaction process. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42:29797e819. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2017.10.124.
[35] Sadaghiani MS, Mehrpooya M. Introducing and energy
analysis of a novel cryogenic hydrogen liquefaction
process configuration. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42:6033e50. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2017.01.136.
[36] Burel F, Taccani R, Zuliani N. Improving sustainability of
maritime transport through utilization of Liquefied Natural
Gas (LNG) for propulsion. Energy 2013;57:412e20. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.05.002.
[37] Jeong J, Seo S, You H, Chang D. Comparative analysis of a
hybrid propulsion using LNG-LH2 complying with
regulations on emissions. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2018;43:3809e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2018.01.041.
[38] Ahn J, Park SH, Lee S, Noh Y, Chang D. Molten carbonate fuel
cell (MCFC)-based hybrid propulsion systems for a liquefied
hydrogen tanker. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43:7525e37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.015.
[39] EMSA European Maritime Safety Agency, Tronstad Thomas,
Astrand Hanne Hogmoen, Haugom Gerd Petra, Langfeldt L.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 5 0 5 6 e1 5 0 7 1
Study on the use of Fuel Cells in Shipping. 2017. Version 1,
http://www.emsa.europa.eu/news-a-press-centre/external-
news/item/2921-emsa-study-on-the-use-of-fuel-cells-in-
shipping.html.
[40] Lee YP, Shin YH, Lee SH, Kim KH. Boil-off gas reliquefaction
system for LNG carriers with BOG-BOG heat exchange. J Soc
Nav Archit Korea 2009;46:444e51. https://doi.org/10.3744/
SNAK.2009.46.4.444.
[41] Howard FS. “Cryogenic recovery”. Sp. Congr. Proceedings.
Pap. April 1, 1976;vol. 8. https://commons.erau.edu/space-
congress-proceedings/proceedings-1976-13th/session-4/8/.
[42] Berstad D, Decker L, Quack H, Harald T, Walnum HT,
Nekså P. Report on modelling of large-scale high- efficiency
IDEALHY hydrogen liquefier concept: results of the idealhy
project. Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH JU);
2013. Technical Report D2.4.
[43] Valenti G, MacChi E, Brioschi S. The influence of the
thermodynamic model of equilibrium-hydrogen on the
simulation of its liquefaction. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2012;37:10779e88. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2012.04.050.
[44] Leachman JW, Jacobsen RT, Penoncello SG, Lemmon EW.
Fundamental equations of state for parahydrogen, normal
hydrogen, and orthohydrogen. J Phys Chem Ref Data
2009;38:721e48. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3160306.
[45] McCarty RD, Weber LA. Thermophysical properties
of parahydrogen from the freezing liquid line to 5,000 R
for pressures to 10,000 psia. 1972. NBS Technical note
617.
[46] Petitpas G, Aceves SM, Matthews MJ, Smith JR. Para-H2 to
ortho-H2 conversion in a full-scale automotive cryogenic
pressurized hydrogen storage up to 345 bar. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2014;39:6533e47. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2014.01.205.
[47] Vatani A, Mehrpooya M, Palizdar A. Energy and exergy analyses
of five conventional liquefied natural gas processes. Int J Energy
Res 2014;38:1843e63. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.3193.
[48] Kanoglu M, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Performance analysis of gas
liquefaction cycles. Int J Energy Res 2008;32:35e43.
15071
[49] Kanoǧlu M. Exergy analysis of multistage cascade
refrigeration cycle used for natural gas liquefaction. Int J
Energy Res 2002;26:763e74. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.814.
[50] Tsatsaronis G. Definitions and nomenclature in exergy
analysis and exergoeconomics. Energy 2007;32:249e53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2006.07.002.
[51] Thomas RJ, Ghosh P, Chowdhury K. Exergy analysis of
helium liquefaction systems based on modified Claude cycle
with two-expanders. Cryogenics (Guildf) 2011;51:287e94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cryogenics.2010.12.006.
[52] International Maritime Organization (IMO). Amendments to
the annex of the protocol of 1997 to amend the international
convention for the prevention of pollution from ships, 1973,
as modified by the protocol of 1978 relating thereto. Resolut
MEPC 2014;251(66).
[53] International Maritime Organization (IMO). Guidelines on the
method of calculation of the attained Energy Efficiency
Design Index (EEDI) for new ships, as ammended Resolution
MEPC245(66), as ammended by Resolution MEPC. 2017.
263(68) and MEPC.281(70). MEPC.1/Circ.866.
[54] Ekanem Attah E, Bucknall R. An analysis of the energy
efficiency of LNG ships powering options using the EEDI.
Ocean Eng 2015;110:62e74. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.oceaneng.2015.09.040.
[55] International Maritime Organization (IMO). Amendments to
the annex of the protocol of 1997 to amend the international
convention for the prevention of pollution from ships, 1973,
as modified by the protocol of 1978 relating thereto. Resolut
MEPC 2011;203(62).
[56] Palizdar A, Ramezani T, Nargessi Z, AmirAfshar S, Abbasi M,
Vatani A. Thermodynamic evaluation of three mini-scale
nitrogen single expansion processes for liquefaction of
natural gas using advanced exergy analysis. Energy Convers
Manag 2017;150:637e50. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2017.08.042.
[57] Walnum HT, Berstad D, Drescher M, Neksa P, Quack H,
Haberstroh C. Principles for the liquefaction of hydrogen
with emphasis on precooling processes. In: 12th cryog 2012
IIR conference; 2012.