Energy 195 (2020) 116997

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

LNG carrier two-stroke propulsion systems: A comparative study of

state of the art reliquefaction technologies
Dimopoulos G. George*, Koukoulopoulos D. Eleftherios, Georgopoulou A. Chariklia
DNV GL, Piraeus, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Transportation of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) by sea has been intensified in the current shipping
Received 1 July 2019 environment, opening new markets and trade routes. LNG carriers are inherently complex vessels,
Received in revised form featuring a high degree of integration of their energy conversion systems, all operating under time and
13 January 2020
load varying mission profiles, making design decisions non-trivial. To this end, DNVGL COSSMOS
Accepted 17 January 2020
(Complex Ship Systems Modelling and Simulation) in-house process modelling framework is used to
Available online 19 January 2020
build digital twins of the propulsion and cargo module of LNG carriers, modelling the entire energy
conversion process from cargo tanks to useful energy required for propulsion, electricity and heat.
Keywords:
LNG carrier
Emphasis is given on reliquefaction systems and the improvement they provide in performance,
Reliquefaction comparing the currently available technologies and giving deeper insight for the Joule-Thomson systems.
Partial reliquefaction The overall ship system performance is improved by 5e15% along the low vessel speed range and 25
Joule-thomson e40% for the anchorage loaded port condition, when partial reliquefaction systems are considered,
Integrated marine energy systems depending on the configuration they are compared to. Engine technology also plays an important role,
Performance with high-pressure engines exhibiting 3e10% better performance, depending on the reliquefaction
Efficiency technology coupled with, along the high vessel speed range, mainly because of their inherent better
performance.
© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
Natural gas has always played an important role in the global
energy market, constantly being strengthened nowadays. Strict
environmental emission regulations for power generation, heating
and transportation, has made LNG one of the most attractive and
clean solutions ensuring compliance [1].
In order to cover the increased global demand, more and more
shipping companies are investing in LNG carriers, whose fleet is
expected to increase significantly within the next 10 years. LNG
carriers have always been equipped with pioneering and innova-
tive technologies offering high safety and quality standards, with
new technologies emerging, focusing on energy efficiency and
cargo containment [2].
Natural gas is transferred in liquid state in cryogenic cargo tanks
at about
163  C with a portion of it being vaporized during
voyage, due to the constant heat ingress from the surrounding
environment. This boil-off gas (BOG) can potentially be used as fuel
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: George.Dimopoulos@dnvgl.com (D.G. George).
for the main and auxiliary engines and/or liquefied and returned to
the cargo tanks or dumped at a dedicated burner (GCU e Gas
Combustion Unit). The dynamic landscape and increased compet-
itiveness of the LNG market has caused a shift from the GCU usage,
which was traditionally preferred by operators, to reliquefaction
plants installed on-board on almost all newbuilt vessels. A large
variety of reliquefaction technologies exist, based on different
cryogenic refrigeration cycles, all sharing the common target of
liquefying evaporated natural gas cargo [3]. Reliquefaction units
guarantee that no cargo is lost, except the amount used to power
the vessel, upgrading the vessel at the charters ranking. Therefore,
apart from the overall fuel/cargo consumption (tons per day), that
the shipowner can offer, and the charter will bear, charters recently
emphasise on reliquefaction, aiming at almost zero cargo loss
during transportation.
With reliquefaction becoming the new standard, shipyards and
vendors are investing to develop innovative technologies, aiming at
increased flexibility and efficiency. Additionally, tailormade solu-
tions are offered for different types of main engines (high/low gas
feed pressure), in an effort to optimize the gas management on-
board and increase the overall efficiency of the integrated ship

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.116997
0360-5442/© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
2 D.G. George et al. / Energy 195 (2020) 116997
Nomenclature
AE Auxiliary Engine
BOG Boil-off Gas
COSSMOS Complex Ship Systems Modelling and Simulation
FBOG Forced BOG via forced cargo evaporation
FG Fuel Gas
GCU Gas Combustion Unit
HFO Heavy Fuel Oil
JT Joule-Thomson
JT-Hyb Hybrid JT reliquefaction system with methane
refrigerant loop
LHV Lower Heating Value
LNG Liquid Natural Gas
ME Main Engine
MGO Marine Gas Oil
MR Mixed Refrigerant
NBOG Natural Boil-off Gas
OPEX OPerational EXpenses
RLQ Reliquefaction
system [4].
Within this complex and wide technology landscape, identi-
fying the optimal machinery propulsion configuration is a non-
trivial procedure [5]. In addition, the vessels operate in highly
varying operating profiles and trading patterns, carrying LNG
cargoes of varying characteristics and compositions. To this end,
advanced simulation tools are required to combine both the
increased complexity of such systems and the varying operational
profile, in order to make design decisions between alternative
technology configurations [6]. In the present study we employ
process modelling and simulation techniques, combined with an
integrated systems approach to compare different technologies and
system design configurations for LNG carriers, so as to support the
decision making during the new building phase. Our focus is on the
current state of reliquefaction plant technologies, including the
latest innovations available in the market. The in-house process
modelling framework DNVGL COSSMOS [7] is used to simulate and
compare the considered configurations, aiming to capture the tight
interrelations between components, sub-systems and processes in
and LNG carrier marine energy system and derive improved design
solutions at an integrated system level.
In this paper, first the LNG carrier energy system is briefly
described, along with the process modelling approach and the gas
distribution philosophy among the sub-systems that comprise it.
Then, reliquefaction systems are further elaborated, listing the
currently available solutions and the possible combinations with
other ship systems. The application case and the configurations
that consists of are then presented, followed by the simulation
results and the conclusions of the study.
2. LNG carriers integrated energy system
2.1. Introduction
In the present study the machinery and propulsion integrated
system of an LNG carrier is considered, in terms of fuel availability
on-board and energy demand from the different consumers.
The power required on-board an LNG carrier consists of pro-
pulsion power, electricity to cover the auxiliary systems and ac-
commodation needs and heat as low-pressure steam for steam
driven auxiliary equipment and other heating accommodation
needs. The primary fuel found on-board is the evaporating cargo, in
the form of boil-off gas (BOG), due to the heat ingress from the
surrounding environment to the cargo tanks. Additionally, tradi-
tional marine fuels are also stored on-board and used; HFO (Heavy
Fuel Oil) (mainly for auxiliary boiler) and MGO (Marine Gas Oil) (as
pilot fuel or alternative fuel). According to the current industry
practice, the burning of BOG in dual-fuel prime movers and auxil-
iary gen-sets is the most efficient and cost-effective way of opera-
tion [8]. In case where natural cargo evaporation is not sufficient to
meet the consumption needs, forced evaporation of liquid cargo is
applied.
A sketch of the integrated ship energy system is shown in Fig. 1,
including the main elements and subsystems required to convert
primary fuels energy content to the on-board energy demand. The
BOG from the LNG tanks is pre-processed passing through a mist
separator and in-line mixer and fed to the electric-driven gas
compression trains. Then the BOG is distributed to the combustion
prime mover engines, either for power generation or propulsion. A
BOG management module is used to distribute the gas fuel to the
prime movers and redirect the surplus BOG either to a GCU or to a
reliquefaction plant, if present. This flow diagram is not globally
applicable, as different main engine types (low vs high pressure)
and the employed reliquefaction systems define the final form of
the gas flow diagram.
The integrated system has to cover a time-dependent power
demand in propulsion, electricity and heat based on its operational
profile. Moreover, the LNG and boil-off gas have variable properties
(heating value and composition) depending on LNG cargo type and
in-voyage boil-off rate conditions, also strongly affected by the
selection of the cargo, containment system and type. Further to
that, cargo composition is an important parameter being captured
by the developed model, as it varies between liquid cargo and BOG
evaporation, due to the lighter hydrocarbons evaporating first [9].
In addition, the ships usually operate in several trading routes,
under varying operating profiles in terms of speed, propulsion,
electricity, and heat demand. The integrated energy system of Fig. 1
is tightly coupled, featuring multiple interrelations and feedback
loops between its major subsystems, capturing the non-linear
phenomena of natural gas different states at different points of
the system. Both the gas compression trains and reliquefaction
plant (if any) are major parasitic electric power consumers. Power
demand variations affect both the parasitic power and the BOG
usage, which in turn may affect its composition. Therefore, an in-
tegrated systems approach coupled with process modelling and
simulation is used in this work to assess and compare various
configurations of the LNG carrier machinery system, addressing the
following issues:
 Main engine two-stroke options: low or high gas feed pressure
technology.
 Comparison of electric driven, partial reliquefaction systems and
latest hybrid technology.
 Ship performance and reliquefaction efficiency at different
vessel speeds and non-sailing modes.
 Fuel/LNG cargo price sensitivity analysis.
2.2. Process model
DNVGL COSSMOS (Complex Ship Systems Modelling and
Simulation) modelling framework has been used for the process
modelling of the LNG carrier integrated energy system and its
alternative machinery configurations. COSSMOS framework is
implemented in the gPROMS [10] process modelling environment
and a detailed description, its features and potentials can be found
 D.G. George et al. / Energy 195 (2020) 116997
Fig. 1. LNG carrier generic marine energy system [19].
in Ref. [11].
Two main COSSMOS models have been developed for the low
and high pressure two-stroke mechanical propulsion systems, and
each one coupled with two different reliquefaction systems, as seen
from Fig. 7 to Fig. 10. The major sub-system components featured in
these system process models are: the natural and BOG pre-
processing module, the BOG compression trains, the BOG man-
agement module, the reliquefaction plant, the dual-fuel 4-stroke
diesel generator sets (both configurations), the main dual-fuel 2-
stroke diesel propulsion engines (mechanical propulsion), the en-
gine waste heat economisers, the auxiliary fired boiler, the pro-
pulsion, electricity and steam demand management modules, and,
an operational profile characteristics module. The following para-
graphs describe the modelling of each of these major sub-systems.
2.2.1. BOG processing module
The BOG handling line consists of: the natural and forced BOG
feed streams, a simplified model of the piping and pressure drop in
these sections and a mixing/flash separation component model,
where natural and forced BOG streams are mixed and any liquid
phase natural gas is removed. Forced BOG line also consists of a
high-pressure pump and an LNG vaporizer using steam to heat-up
and vaporize cold liquid natural gas from the cargo tanks. Different
cargo compositions have been considered for the above two lines.
Forced BOG composition is equal to that of cargo LNG, which
changes according to the trading route and point of loading. Natural
BOG composition varies dynamically during voyage as lighter hy-
drocarbons and nitrogen in the LNG mixture evaporate first. This is
captured by the employed dynamic LNG evaporation model. Using
this model, BOG composition has been calculated for a character-
istic trip and subsequently the mean value of it has been used in
this study.
2.2.2. BOG compression
BOG compression trains are used to compress the fuel to the
required engine operational pressure. Electric-driven piston, screw
or centrifugal compressors with intercooling are the most common
solutions, with their number and capacity affected by cargo tank
containment technology, safety and redundancy issues. For the
low-pressure two-stroke main engine, two-stage centrifugal com-
pressors with intermediate and after cooling are employed. For the
3
high-pressure main engine, five-stage piston compressors with
intermediate and after cooling are employed.
The Gas engine feed pressure mandates the choice between
centrifugal or piston compression technology. Low-pressure two-
stroke dual-fuel engines require low gas fuel pressure (~16.5 bar),
while high-pressure two-stroke dual-fuel engines require high gas
fuel pressure (~300 bar). For the latter case, piston compressors are
the only feasible technology for shipboard applications. For both
cases, the possibility for a low-pressure extraction from the
compression train is also considered, in order to feed four-stroke
auxiliary engines (~6.5 bar). In both generic system configura-
tions, two compression trains are modelled, mainly due to safety
and redundancy considerations. The sizing of these trains is based
on the natural boil-off gas quantity and in the case of partial reli-
quefaction systems is also based on the amount of recirculating gas
(BOG recirculation is described in Section 3.3).
The compressor stages are modelled using manufacturer per-
formance maps correlating flow, speed, pressure ratio and effi-
ciency. The electric motors drives are modelled as simple electric
machines using manufacturer data to derive their efficiency curve.
Finally, the intercooler heat exchangers are modelled as cross flow
plate-fin heat exchangers. It is noted that the electric drive power
consumption, the shaft losses and the cooling water pump con-
sumption are accounted for in the compression train model. More
information regarding the individual component models can be
found in Ref. [12].
2.2.3. BOG management
Two different philosophies can be distinguished for the BOG
management, one being used during real vessel operation and the
other being an assumption for the design phase of the vessel.
During the actual ship operation, heat ingress from the sur-
rounding environment evaporates a portion of the liquid cargo,
which accumulates as vapor at the top of the cargo tanks. The
pressure within the cargo tanks increases, up to a certain limit
where the crew has to open the relief valves and free the boil-off
gas. This boil-off is primarily used as fuel gas for the dual-fuel en-
gines and the surplus amount (if any) is either reliquefied or burned
at the GCU. As the reliquefaction units can handle BOG up to a
maximum capacity, in case this is reached, the leftover BOG is
obligatorily burned at GCU. So, the cargo tank pressure is a
4 D.G. George et al. / Energy 195 (2020) 116997
parameter which defines the available amount of BOG, and is
usually fine-tuned by the crew, based on the operational profile of
the vessel, the demanded speed, the geographical region and the
charterer time limits they must meet. For example, using a real
scenario, if the crew knows that the ship is entering a piracy region,
where they should sail at the maximum speed to minimize their
stay within this area, the crew may have let the pressure increase in
the cargo tanks for the period before entering this area. This will
increase the BOG quantity in the tanks, which they can burn during
sailing through the piracy region.
The gas management philosophy of the design phase is quite
different from real operation, because a consistent gas manage-
ment strategy needs to be used so that all configurations are
directly comparable with each other, but also because the real
operation is based on the case specific crew decisions, which are
unpredictable. To this end, the philosophy of constant cargo tank
pressure has been used. This means that the amount of BOG
extracted from the cargo tanks is such that, at any given time, the
cargo tank pressure is kept constant and close to the ambient
pressure. So, the available BOG quantity depends on the boil-off
rate of the cargo containment system considered.
Using the philosophy of the design phase, the BOG management
module distributes the gas fuel to the prime movers and redirects
the surplus BOG either to the gas combustion unit (GCU) or to the
reliquefaction plant. It is noted that a GCU is always present due to
safety/class requirements. The aim of our developed model is to
determine the boil-off gas flow to the reliquefaction unit (if pre-
sent), the GCU and the forced BOG requirement, according to the
available natural BOG and the gas fuel demand from the engines.
The reliquefaction plant can handle BOG flows between its design
minimum and maximum operational limits, meaning that BOG
values outside this range are obligatorily burned at the GCU. Finally,
in the case that no reliquefaction plant is present in the configu-
ration, all of the excess BOG is burned in the GCU.
2.2.4. Main & auxiliary engines
For power generation 4-stroke dual fuel medium speed diesel
engines are used. For mechanical propulsion, 2-stroke dual fuel
slow speed diesel engines are used, implementing either the low or
high gas feed pressure technology. Both engine types have two
operating modes: gas mode, in which natural gas with a small
quantity of pilot fuel oil is used, and, fuel mode, where marine fuel
oil is solely used. Both engine types are modelled in COSSMOS using
a lookup model based on linear interpolation of the most updated
catalogued performance data of existing engines, as these are given
by manufacturers (main engines [13,14], auxiliary engines [15]).
The model is presented in detail in Refs. [11,12].
2.2.5. Steam production
Exhaust heat economizers are used for both the main and
auxiliary engines, capable of covering the steam demand in the
majority of vessel speed conditions. An oil-fired auxiliary boiler is
also installed, which is used to cover the steam demands when the
main and auxiliary engines exhaust gas does not have enough heat
content to produce the necessary steam in the economizers, mainly
at very low sailing speeds and port conditions.
3. Reliquefaction systems
3.1. Introduction
Reliquefaction systems are the dedicated plants on-board an
LNG carrier responsible for the liquefication of the excess boil-off
natural gas, caused by cargo evaporation. They can be divided in
three categories; the electric driven units, the Joule-Thomson
systems and the hybrid that combine the two previous categories.
Each category lists many different variations, with the most com-
mon solutions of each category being the following:
 Electric driven: Inverse Brayton cycle (Nitrogen loop) systems
and Mixed Refrigerant (MR) loop systems.
 Joule Thompson: Systems operating with one fuel-gas
compressor (JT1) or with two compressors (JT1þ1).
 Hybrid: Methane refrigerant loop system (JT-Hyb).
3.2. Electric driven units
3.2.1. Reverse Brayton cycle (nitrogen loop)
The operation of this system is based on highly compressed and
intercooled to ambient temperature nitrogen, which is then
expanded in a turbine dropping its temperature to cryogenic levels
[16]. This nitrogen is then used to cool-down and liquefy the BOG in
a cryogenic heat exchanger. Regenerative cooling of nitrogen is also
included in many set-ups, proposed by vendors, using the already
cooled nitrogen, coming from the compressors, in the heat
exchanger [17]. A simplified sketch of the system is shown in Fig. 2.
3.2.2. Mixed refrigerant systems (MR)
This system, instead of using nitrogen as the cooling medium, it
uses a mixture of hydrocarbon refrigerants, and a secondary cooling
cycle. In more detail, a mixture of refrigerants, consisting usually of
iso-butane, propane, ethylene and nitrogen, is used to cool-down
and liquefy the excess BOG in a cryogenic heat exchanger. The
mixture or refrigerants is either cooled by propane or via regen-
eration in an appropriate heat exchanger/condenser. A tertiary
cooling loop is also used to cool-down propane using sea or fresh
water at ambient temperatures. The proportion of each component
in the mixture can be fine-tuned and match the BOG properties,
adapting the reliquefaction efficiency at each different cargo [18]. A
simplified sketch of the system is shown in Fig. 3.
The common feature of all electric driven units is that they
demand electric power from the ship’s electric network, in order to
reliquefy BOG. They usually operate along a capacity-power curve,
meaning that the power consumption depends on the BOG quan-
tity they are called to reliquefy, up to their nominal/design point
(usually not in a linear way). As for their location along the gas line,
they extract low pressure BOG from the compression line, liquefy
almost the whole amount of it (~99%) and return it to the cargo
tanks. In the present study, a simplified model has been developed
based on performance curves (electricity demand as a function of
BOG reliquefaction capacity) provided by manufacturers from past
projects. This model calculates the electric power demand, as a
function of the BOG quantity it liquefies (varying per vessel speed
and condition), which is then translated in an additional load to the
auxiliary engines through the main switchboard. If no data are
available from manufacturers, then a detailed model can be
developed as reported [19], similar to a nitrogen loop system.
3.3. -Thomson systems
3.3.1. Joule Thomson e 1 compressor (JT1)
These systems are suitable for two-stroke dual fuel high-
pressure main engines, as they take advantage of the existing
high pressure (~300 bar) engine feed fuel gas. High-pressure BOG at
near ambient temperature is cooled down to cryogenic levels in a
suitable heat exchanger. Then, BOG is expanded in a gas valve
(Joule-Thomson effect) and is then driven to a separator [20]. In the
separator, approximately 70%e80% of the excess BOG is in liquid
phase and is driven back to the cargo tanks. The remaining gas-
 D.G. George et al. / Energy 195 (2020) 116997 5

Fig. 2. Inverse Brayton nitrogen loop reliquefaction system sketch.

Fig. 3. Mixed Refrigerant reliquefaction system sketch.

phase BOG is extremely nitrogen rich (20%e25% N2 content) is
mixed with the natural BOG flow then driven to the cryogenic heat
exchanger to cool the excess BOG and then to the BOG compression
trains. This system philosophy, which allows for a flash gas recir-
culation to the compression system, has an impact on the overall
methane number and lower heating value of the gas fuel that the
engines are using, resulting in a negative impact in the gas fuel
consumption of the engines. Moreover, despite not having a
dedicated electric driven motor, it induces an additional compres-
sion work requirement due to the recirculated BOG, translated in an
indirect electric power demand and an increased consumption
from the side of auxiliary engines. A simplified sketch of the system
is shown in Fig. 4.
As these systems intervene in the fuel gas line of the integrated
system, a lot of complex, non-linear effects have to be captured.
6 D.G. George et al. / Energy 195 (2020) 116997
Fig. 4. Joule-Thomson reliquefaction system sketch.
3.3.2. Joule Thomson e 2 compressors (JT1þ1)
Recently, shipyards have proposed an improved way of opera-
tion Joule Thomson systems, by deploying the second redundancy
compressor [21]. Whilst JT1 makes use of one of the two fuel gas
compressors being installed on-board, JT1þ1 alternatively uses the
second redundant compressor. As JT1 capacity depends on the gas
handling capacity of the BOG compressor, which is equal to the
design volumetric flowrate limit of the compressor, there is an
upper limit of the BOG handling capacity. Consequently, at low
loads and port conditions, where the engine gas consumption is
low and thus the overall mixture of excess BOG and recirculation is
high, JT1 cannot handle the whole BOG amount, sending a BOG
portion to the GCU. For this reason, according to JT1þ1, the second
compressor is switched on and parallelized with the first one,
doubling the system gas handling capacity resulting in zero GCU
usage. This mode of operation is usually referred to as full
reliquefaction.
The term full reliquefaction may be misleading, as the relique-
faction still follows the Joule-Thomson expansion effect, which by
definition results in partial reliquefaction. What the word “full”
implies is that adding the second compressor in parallel with the
first, increases the BOG handling capacity of the system, passing
through the compression train, and then through the Joule-
Thomson expansion valve, the whole amount of excess BOG, plus
the recirculating stream.
Operating the second fuel gas compressor adds a high electric
load to the system, which can be considered as an indirect way of
dumping/oxidising part of the excess BOG through the increased
gas consumption of the auxiliary engines. However, as long as
liquid cargo returns to the tanks, despite how small this quantity is,
the overall system efficiency is still improved.
3.4. Hybrid system (JT-Hyb)
According to the latest shipyard developments [22], a new
technology has emerged, being a combination of the traditional
electric driven units (methane refrigerant cycle) with the JT phi-
losophy, resulting in a hybrid system. This system is mostly suitable
for low-pressure two stroke dual fuel main engines. A similar
philosophy can be used for high-pressure engine after appropriate
changes of the basic equipment, which is out of the scope of the
present study.
JT-Hyb system comprises of a JT partial reliquefaction system
and an independent methane refrigerant cycle, using the BOG as
refrigerant.
In the JT part, the pressure of the excess BOG not burned at the
engines is raised from 17 bar (low-pressure gas feed pressure) to
150 bar, using a dedicated boosting compressor. Next, this BOG is
expanded at a Joule-Thomson valve, achieving partial relique-
faction, similarly to what described at the previous section. How-
ever, due to compression, the BOG temperature has increased up to
around
70  C, significantly reducing the efficiency of partial reli-
quefaction, because the heated BOG has moved further away from
the liquid state and the enthalpy from expansion is not enough to
liquefy it. For this reason, a methane cooling cycle is introduced,
between the boosting compressor and before the JT valve
expansion.
The added methane cooling loop is based on the reverse Brayton
cycle, using the naturally generated BOG as the refrigerant medium.
The main benefit of this technology is that it does not require an
independent refrigerant system, which would come along with
separate circuits and storage for the new refrigerant, like nitrogen
or mixed refrigerant, and an additional refrigerant compressor.
Contrariwise, it exploits the cold cargo vapor and the second
redundancy fuel gas compressor as the refrigerant compressor,
 D.G. George et al. / Energy 195 (2020) 116997
both being already installed on-board. When the methane cycle is
activated pressurized BOG after the boosting compressor is further
cooled to about
150  C finally achieving full reliquefaction.
At this point it should be clarified what partial and full reli-
quefaction implies, when the methane cycle is activated or not.
After the JT expansion, a liquid and vapor stream are still separated
in a dedicated tank, with the liquid stream returning to cargo tanks
and the remaining vapor, recirculating to the fuel gas compressor.
When the methane cycle is not activated, the BOG is far from the
liquid state, resulting in a higher proportion of vapor after the JT
expansion. When this recirculation is mixed with the natural BOG
stream and directed to the fuel gas compressor, the mixture
quantity surpasses the compressor maximum capacity, sending the
surplus to be burned at the GCU, and thus finally resulting in what
we call partial reliquefaction. On the other hand, when the methane
cycle is activated, the recirculation quantity is significantly reduced
and when mixed with the natural BOG flow, the mixture quantity is
lower than the nominal of the fuel gas compressor, finally achieving
what we call full reliquefaction. A simplified sketch of the system is
shown in Fig. 5.
Having described the philosophy of this hybrid system and the
complex phenomena it entails, three modes of operation can be
distinguished, which will also be used in the application case:
HP mode: According to the HP mode, all the reliquefaction
systems are engaged, with boosting compressor raising the BOG
pressure (150 bar e High Pressure), and the redundant FG
compressor creating a close cold loop to further cool-down pres-
surized BOG, which is then expanded at JT valve. During this mode,
reliquefaction capacity is maximum, making it suitable for low
vessel speed and anchorage modes, where excess BOG production
is maximum.
LP mode: The LP mode can be selected in case of boost
compressor failure or for energy saving by switching off and
bypassing the boost compressor, depending on the vessel speed
Fig. 5. Joule Thomson and methane cycle hybrid reliquefaction system sketch.
7
and the available excess BOG. Excess BOG remains at a pressure
equal to the engine feed pressure (16 bar e Low Pressure), further
cooled by the closed BOG cold cycle and expanded at the JT valve. At
this mode, the system achieves lower reliquefaction than in HP
mode, but better than the PRS mode, so it is usually suitable for the
mid speed range of the vessel.
JT mode: According to JT mode, methane cooling loop is deac-
tivated, reducing the energy consumption of the system, but also
significantly reducing the reliquefaction capacity of the system.
This mode is only suitable for the high-speed range of the vessel,
where the excess natural BOG is minimum and zero GCU usage can
be achieved.
Consequently, an important benefit of this hybrid system is its
flexibility, as it can adapt to each operational mode of the vessel,
able to achieve zero GCU usage with the most energy efficient
manner at each mode.
4. Application case
4.1. Case-study
The present study focuses in the comparative assessment of the
newly emerged reliquefaction technologies, serving the needs of
two-stroke duel fuel main engines, considering both low and high-
pressure technologies. Gas distribution, reliquefaction and separa-
tion efficiency are examined in detail and the complex phenomena
are captured and explained contributing to the better under-
standing of the alternative systems.
An LNG carrier vessel with a cargo capacity of 173,400 m3 is
considered. The main design characteristics of the vessel and the
cargo system are given in Table 1. Two different two-stroke main
engine technologies are compared, namely the low- and high-
pressure gas feed technologies, each one combined with different
reliquefaction systems.
8 D.G. George et al. / Energy 195 (2020) 116997

Table 1 ups are considered.

LNG carrier main characteristics.

Characteristic Value

Cargo capacity 173,400 m3

4.2.1. High-pressure engine
Length 288.5 m
Breadth 46.4 m 1. JT system consisting of two identical fuel gas compressors, in a
Depth 26.5 m parallel arrangement raising the fuel gas pressure at 300 bar.
Design draft 11.5 m
Each one has a capacity of 6700 m3/h and a nominal power of
Service speed 19.5 kn
Design boil-off rate 92.1 tn/day 1650 kW. In JT1 operation, only one compressor is activated,
Number of propellers 2 while in JT1þ1 operation, both compressors are activated
Installed main engines LP:2  12600kW/HP: 2  12590kW sharing the BOG handling load (see Fig. 7).
Installed auxiliary gen-sets 2  2880kWþ
2. MR2.5 electric driven unit (as shown in Fig. 8):
2  3840kW
Auxiliary boiler capacity 5000 kg/h
a. Reliquefaction capacity: 2500 kg/h
b. Nominal power: 1500 kW

4.1.1. Propulsion demand

The propulsion demand curve of a typical LNG carrier hull may
4.2.2. Low-pressure main engine
vary for different machinery configurations, mainly due to the en-
gine room arrangement, affecting the aft body hull shape. However,
1. JT-Hyb system involving the following equipment (see Fig. 9):
as in this study only two-stroke dual fuel main engines are
2. MR2.5 electric driven unit (see Fig. 10):
considered, the same hull shape has been assumed for both low-
a. Reliquefaction capacity: 2500 kg/h
pressure and high-pressure two-stroke engine set-ups. The pro-
b. Nominal power: 1500 kW
pulsion curve for both laden and ballast conditions is presented in
Fig. 6, including 20% sea margin.
The above nominal values are the design points of each
component. COSSMOS models have been used to simulate the
4.1.2. Electric & steam demand
operation at partial loads, predicting the corresponding power
Typical values have been used for the saturated steam demand
consumption based on typical turbine efficiency curves and data
of auxiliary systems and accommodation needs, based on the vessel
from previous experience.
mode, as follows:

 Sea-going: 1107 kg/h

4.3. Cargo and fuel characteristics
 Anchorage: 2961 kg/h
A typical LNG cargo has been considered having the composition
The electricity demand is summarized in Table 2. The power
provided in Table 4, with different values between the liquid state
demand of the components engaged in the fuel gas handling and
(cargo) and the vapor state (boil-off).
reliquefaction have already been excluded from the below values,
The Lower Heating Values (LHV) of each fuel employed in the
as they are directly computed by the COSSMOS simulation model.
model is as follows:
The nominal values of all three compressors are shown in Table 3.
 MGO: 42,700 kJ/kg.
4.2. Components configurations  HFO: 40,100 kJ/kg. This value is also used for the calculation of
the equivalent HFO consumption.
The application case simulations are divided in two large cate-  LNG: 50,000 kJ/kg. This is the reference value. The LHV of the
gories, based on the main engine technology, namely these of low- cargo LNG is calculated using the composition of Table 4. The
pressure and high-pressure engines. Each main engine is combined actual LHV of the fuel gas burned by the engines is different in
with different reliquefaction technologies and the following set- the following two cases and accurately calculated by the model:
o The BOG recirculation in partial reliquefaction configurations
(the phenomenon is analyzed in Section 3.3). This recircula-
tion being nitrogen rich, when mixed with the natural BOG
flow penalizes the LHV of the resulting mixture. This phe-
nomenon is also captured by the model.
o When the BOG is not adequate to cover the engine energy
demand, forced cargo evaporation occurs. Cargo is extracted
and evaporated from the bottom of the tank and then mixed
with the natural BOG flow. The molar composition and the
LHV of the resulting mixture are different from its compo-
nents, and accurately calculated by the model.

The prices of the considered fuels and the cargo are assumed as
follows:

 HFO: 325 $/tn

 MGO: 700 $/tn
Fig. 6. Propulsion demand for both ballast and laden conditions, including 20% sea  LNG: 10 $/mmBTU (~475 $/tn); sensitivity analysis of the LNG
margin. cargo price is also performed.
 D.G. George et al. / Energy 195 (2020) 116997 9

Fig. 7. High pressure main engine configuration, coupled with the JT reliquefaction system, capable of operating either in JT1 of JT1þ1 mode (see Paragraph 3.3).

Table 2 modes can be distinguished (JT cases). These figures depict the
Electricity demand of application case, excluding the power demand of BOG distribution of the BOG among the components on-board (engines,
handling and reliquefaction equipment.
reliquefaction unit and GCU), as well as the need of the forced cargo
Electricity demand (kW) evaporation wherever this is necessary. The following colour codes
High-pressure ME Low-pressure ME were used:
Sea-Going Anchorage Sea-Going Anchorage
2040 1405 2000 1347  Blue represents the BOG consumed by the main and auxiliary
engines.
 Orange represents the excess BOG reliquefied
Table 3  Red represents the excess BOG burned at GCU
Joule Thomson hybrid system main components.
 Grey represents the cargo forced evaporation
Component Capacity Pressure outlet Nominal power

FG compressor I 6400 m3/h 16 bar 1250 kW Figs. 11e14 give a better understanding of the pros and cons of
FG compressor II 6600 m3/h 25 bar 1800 kW each system, in terms of GCU usage, which is usually preferred to be
Boosting compressor 3600 kg/h 150 bar 1500 kW close to zero.
From the results presented in Figs. 11e14, the following key
points can be derived. Anchorage loaded condition is of particular
interest as it is the mode with the lowest gas consumption (only
5. Results auxiliary engines operate), resulting in maximum excess BOG:

The results of this study can be divided in three groups, as 1. The electric driven MR reliquefaction system is capable to
follows: handle the whole BOG amount along the speed range, leaving a
portion (~17%) for GCU at the anchorage loaded condition, for
1. Gas distribution break-down both main engine technologies.
2. Energy performance results 2. The JT partial reliquefaction system combined with the high-
3. Reliquefaction efficiency results pressure main engines cannot reliquefy the whole excess BOG
4. Price sensitivity analysis quantity at low speed range (<15kn) and at anchorage loaded,
when operating with 1 FG compressor (JT1 mode). On the other
Simulations have been performed for the range of 12 kn up to hand, when 2 FG compressors operate (JT1þ1 mode), zero GCU
20.5 kn and for the two anchorage conditions, laden and ballast. is guaranteed for all vessel conditions. Note that despite the fact
that simulations have been performed down to 12kn, as zero
5.1. Gas distribution break-down GCU is observed in anchorage loaded (the condition where BOG
excess is maximum due to minimum power demand and thus
In this section, Figs. 11e14 correspond to a separate mode of minimum consumption), zero GCU is also guaranteed at speeds
operation of each configuration, wherever separated operation
10 D.G. George et al. / Energy 195 (2020) 116997

Fig. 8. High pressure main engine configuration coupled with the electric driven MR reliquefaction system.

Fig. 9. Low pressure main engine configuration coupled with the JT-Hyb reliquefaction system, capable of operating either in HP, LP or JT mode (see Paragraph 3.4).

lower than 12kn, where the propulsion demand will always 3. The JT-Hyb performance, combined with low-pressure main
increase the BOG consumption by main engines. engines, depends on the selected mode of operation. In JT mode
(methane cooling loop deactivated), a portion of excess BOG
 D.G. George et al. / Energy 195 (2020) 116997 11

Fig. 10. Low pressure main engine configuration coupled with the electric driven MR reliquefaction system.

Table 4 When operating in the HP mode (all systems are activated), the
LNG cargo and BOG composition. whole quantity of the excess BOG is reliquefied by the system along
Species Cargo Molar % BOG Molar % the whole speed range and for both anchorage points, guaranteeing
zero GCU usage under all circumstances.
Methane 98.01 96.6
Ethane 1.44 e Consequently, it can be deducted that JT-Hyb is a very flexible
Propane 0.23 e system, able to adapt its energy efficiency to the reliquefaction
Butane 0.00 e needs of each vessel operational mode and speed.
Isobutane 0.01 e
Nitrogen 0.31 3.4
5.2. Energy performance results

cannot be reliquefied and is burned at GCU, for vessel speeds
<15kn and for both anchorage conditions (loaded and ballast).
When operating in the LP mode (boosting compressor
bypassed), a very small portion of the excess BOG cannot be reli-
quefied and is burned at GCU, for vessel speeds lower than 13kn,
which is expected to slightly increase, proportionally, for speeds
lower than 12 kn, which have not been simulated. A certain portion
of excess BOG is also sent at GCU for anchorage loaded condition
and a much lower proportion at anchorage ballast condition.
In this Section all the systems are compared in terms of the
cargo and pilot oil consumptions, the equivalent HFO consumption,
OPEX and the reliquefaction efficiency. The compared configura-
tions and their corresponding operational modes are listed below:
1. High pressure engine with JT
a. JT1 mode: laden speeds >15kn and anchorage ballast
b. JT1þ1 mode: laden speeds 15kn and anchorage loaded
2. High-pressure engine with MR2.5 (no specific modes per vessel
speed)
3. Low-pressure engine with JT-Hyb:
12 D.G. George et al. / Energy 195 (2020) 116997

Fig. 11. BOG distribution for high-pressure main engine configuration coupled with the electric driven MR2.5 reliquefaction system: (a) laden speed-range, (b) anchorage.

Fig. 12. BOG distribution for high-pressure main engine configuration coupled with the JT partial reliquefaction system operating in: 1. JT1 and 2. JT1þ1 mode; (a) laden speed-
range, (b) anchorage.

Fig. 13. BOG distribution for low-pressure main engine configuration coupled with the electric driven MR2.5 reliquefaction system: (a) laden speed-range, (b) anchorage.

a. JT mode: laden speeds >15kn
b. LP mode: laden speeds 15kn, this may leave a very small
amount for GCU but in terms of electric consumption this
mode has been preferred.
c. HP mode: anchorage loaded and ballast conditions. For much
lower speeds, where excess BOG increases HP mode may be
selected to guarantee zero GCU, but such low speeds have not
been simulated.
4. Low-pressure engine with MR2.5 (no specific modes per vessel
speed).
Ballast condition results are not presented in the study, but in
terms of reliquefaction, zero GCU is guaranteed for all speeds, as the
natural BOG flow is half of that of the laden conditions.
From the results of Fig. 15, it can be noted that different systems
perform better at different vessel conditions. For each metric the
following can be observed:
 D.G. George et al. / Energy 195 (2020) 116997
Fig. 14. BOG distribution for low-pressure main engine configuration coupled with the JT-Hyb reliquefaction system operating in: 1. JT mode, 2. LP mode and 3. HP mode; (a) laden
speed-range, (b) anchorage.
1. Cargo consumption: High-pressure engines have higher effi-
ciency by design, explaining the lower LNG consumption. For
both main engines, when coupled with electric driven MR2.5
the overall system exhibits slightly lower LNG consumption,
compared to the JT systems, mainly along the high-speed range,
still achieving zero GCU usage. At the anchorage loaded mode,
both the JT systems consume less LNG, as they can reliquefy the
total excess BOG, whilst the MR systems have reached their
nominal capacity and leave a certain amount for GCU. The low-
pressure MEs with JT-Hyb result in slightly lower cargo
consumption.
2. Pilot oil consumption: High-pressure engines have much higher
pilot oil consumption by design, compared to low-pressure
engines.
3. HFO equivalent: All fuels are expressed under the same base fuel
(HFO with LHV ¼ 40,100 kJ/kg), making it a representative
metric for the total energy consumption. All four configurations
perform very close. High-pressure engines coupled with JT
reliquefaction performs marginally better along the high-speed
range, but when coupled with MR2.5 it performs even better at
low speed range.
4. OPEX: Each fuel stream is multiplied with the assumed prices, as
found in Section 4.3. Along with the high speed range, the fuel
OPEX of all configurations is marginally the same. However, it is
interesting that it may be better to use an MR2.5 reliquefaction
unit instead of the JT systems, as in low speed range, it is proved
to be more efficient to dump the excess BOG at GCU, than
13
operate the heavy consumers of JT systems (extra compressor
for JT and methane cooling cycle for JT-Hyb) These heavy con-
sumers increase the electric power demand and consequently
the auxiliary generators load, finally increasing the pilot fuel
consumption. On the other hand, if the charters demand is to
maintain as much LNG as possible in the cargo tanks, then JT
systems should be used despite the additional OPEX cost.
In order to more directly compare the 4 configurations, exact
numbers are presented in Table 5 for 3 speeds (low, medium, high)
and the anchorage loaded port condition.
For each of the modes of Table 5 the following results can be
drawn.
5.2.1. High-speed (19kn)
Top performer: High-pressure ME with JT. The rest of the de-
signs have lower performance by:
 High-pressure ME, MR2.5: 1.5% more HFO eq. and almost 0%
OPEX.
 Low-pressure ME, JT-Hyb: 3.5% more HFO eq. and 1.7% more
OPEX.
 Low-pressure ME, MR2.5: 10.6% more HFO eq. and 2% more
OPEX
14 D.G. George et al. / Energy 195 (2020) 116997
Fig. 15. System energy performance comparison: 1. Cargo consumption, 2. Pilot oil consumption, 3. HFO equivalent consumption, 4. Fuel OPEX; (a) speed range, (b) anchorage.
5.2.2. Medium-speed (16kn)
Top performer: High-pressure ME with JT. The rest of the de-
signs have lower performance by:
 High-pressure ME, MR2.5: 4.4% more HFO eq. and almost 1.6%
OPEX.
 Low-pressure ME, JT-Hyb: 6.3% more HFO eq. and 3.8% more
OPEX.
 Low-pressure ME, MR2.5: 14.1% more HFO eq. and 3% more
OPEX
5.2.3. Low-speed (12kn)
For low speeds the results change depending on which param-
eter we want to optimize, HFOeq or OPEX, because the quantity of
BOG excess is higher at low speeds and the way it is handled plays a
major role. However, both designs with electric driven MR2.5
reliquefaction units perform better at this speed as they manage to
handle all excess BOG with lower electric power consumption
compared to their partial counterparts. However, for speeds lower
than 12kn, where the excess BOG quantity is further increased,
partial systems are expected to be more promising as they are
capable of reliquefying the high BOG quantities, while the electric
driven ones cannot. This will also be seen in the anchorage loaded
mode.
5.2.4. Anchorage loaded
Low-pressure with JT-Hyb reliquefaction system has the best
performance at this mode, as, along with the JT system of high-
pressure engines, they are the only systems that can reliquefy the
total amount of excess BOG, which is maximum at this port con-
dition. The rest of the designs have lower performance by:
 High-pressure ME, JT: 17.8% in HFO eq. and 23.4% in OPEX
 Low-pressure ME, MR2.5: 59.3% in HFO eq. and 40.2% in OPEX
 High-pressure ME, MR2.5: 55.2% in HFO eq. and 46.8% in OPEX.
5.3. Reliquefaction efficiency results
In this Section, graphs depicting the reliquefaction efficiency, as
well as the separation efficiency of the partial JT reliquefaction
systems are presented. The two expressions used are as follows:
 D.G. George et al. / Energy 195 (2020) 116997 15

Fig. 16. Reliquefaction performance comparison: 1. Reliquefaction efficiency and 2. Separation efficiency; (a) speed range and (b) anchorage. From the results of Fig. 16, the following
can be inferred for the system reliquefaction efficiency.

Table 5
Performance of4 LNG configurations in terms of equivalent HFO and fuel OPEX, for 3 vessel speeds and the anchorage loaded port condition.

19 kn 16 kn 12 kn Anch. Loaded

HFO eq. (tpd) OPEX ($/day) HFO eq. (tpd) OPEX ($/day) HFO eq. (tpd) OPEX ($/day) HFO eq. (tpd) OPEX ($/day)

Low-pressure ME, MR2.5 104.9 40,092 74.4 28,500 47.2 18,100 43.8 17,460
Low-pressure ME, JT-Hyb 98.2 39,971 69.3 28,727 51 21,414 27.5 12,454
High pressure ME, MR2.5 96.2 39,558 68.1 28,125 44.7 18,519 42.7 18,282
High-pressure ME, JT 94.8 39,290 65.2 27,668 46.9 20,464 32.4 15,365

5.3.1. Reliquefaction efficiency 5.3.2. Separation efficiency

It is defined as the actual cargo energy that returns to the cargo It is defined as the ratio between the resulting liquid after the
tanks, after having subtracted the energy that is required to reli- reiqfuefaction unit to the total excess BOG quantity entering the
quefy the excess BOG quantity. unit. In other words, it can be expressed by the following
In other words, it can be expressed by the following expression: expression:

RLQliq;out RLQliq;out
RLQ $LHVLNG

Wel;RLQ hS ¼ ¼ (2)
effAE NBOGin RLQliq;out þ RLQvap;out
hRLQ ¼ (1)
RLQ $LHVLNG
where.
where.
 RLQliq;out : liquid cargo after the RLQ unit
 RLQ: Reliquefied BOG quantity  RLQvap;out : leftover vapor gas after the RLQ unit
 LHVLNG : Lower heating value of LNG cargo  NBOGin : excess NBOG entering the RLQ unit
 Wel;RLQ : Electric power required for the reliquefaction of the RLQ
quantity Separation efficiency is mainly used for the JT partial relique-
 effAE : Efficiency of auxiliary engines faction efficiency systems. This means that a certain amount of
W
 effel;RLQ : It is the power consumed by the AEs corresponding to the excess BOG remains as vapor after the Joule-Thompson expansion
AE
reliquefaction work. valve and is recirculated to the fuel gas compressors. The other BOG
 Wel;RLQ : The electric power consumption of the reliquefaction part, which has been liquefied, returns to the cargo tanks.
system. For electric driven units, like MR2.5, it is directly equal to
the power demand of the system. For the JT system, it is calcu-
lated indirectly as the additional load the fuel gas compressors 5.3.3. Partial JT systems
have to carry due to recirculation. For the JT-Hyb system, it also Low-pressure main engine with the JT-Hyb reliquefaction sys-
includes the extra compressors activated at each operational tem can achieve higher reliquefaction efficiency per speed range,
mode (boosting compressor and methane cooling loop compared to MR2.5, because JT-Hyb can adjust its operation mode
compressor). at the vessel speed. In more detail, the system operates very
16 D.G. George et al. / Energy 195 (2020) 116997
efficiently along the low speed range (<15kn), where the boosting
compressor is by-passed and only the methane cooling cycle is
activated. Along the higher speed range, the two systems are
swapped (boosting compressor is activated and methane cooling
loop is deactivated) adapting its operation to the reliquefaction
needs of the system, resulting in higher efficiency.
For the high-pressure main engine with the JT system, the ef-
ficiency exhibits a constant behaviour where one FG compressor
operates (JT1 mode), with a slight drop in efficiency at low speed
range, where the second FG compressor is activated (JT1þ1 mode),
because of the added of one heavy consumer.
5.3.4. Electric driven MR systems
The electric driven reliquefaction systems operate along an ef-
ficiency curve, which is a characteristic of the stand-alone unit. The
power consumption of the system is a reverse function of the
reliquefied quantity, meaning that the specific power consumption
is increased for low values of reliquefaction. This can also be
observed in the dashed lines of Fig. 16 1(a). The difference between
the low- and high-pressure main engines at high vessel speeds can
be explained by the difference between the two technologies; by
design, high-pressure main engines have higher efficiency
compared to low-pressure engines.
Regarding the liquid/vapor separation efficiency, this parameter
is only relevant for the partial reliquefaction systems, as a metric to
evaluate the recirculating vapor after the JT expansion. The JT-Hyb
Fig. 17. LNG cargo price sensitivity analysis on total fuel OPEX for vessel speed 12kn.
Fig. 18. LNG cargo price sensitivity analysis on total fuel OPEX for vessel speed 16kn.
system exhibits better separation (more liquid in the mixture after
JT valve) because of the additional methane cooling loop, which
brings the excess BOG closer to the liquid state. The electric driven
MR units liquefy the whole (~99%) inlet BOG excess, up to their
nominal capacity, sending the rest to GCU.
5.4. Price sensitivity analysis
In this Section, the LNG cargo price ranges between 6 and 12
$/mmBTU, while the MGO price is kept constant and equal to 700
$/tn. The overall fuel OPEX of each configuration is plotted
Figs. 17e19, in order to capture the impact of the LNG price. Each
diagram refers to one vessel speed at the laden condition, namely
one low speed (12 kn), one medium (16 kn) and the design speed of
the vessel (19.5 kn).
From Figs. 17e19, it can be deducted that the compared con-
figurations exhibit very similar performance at higher speeds,
where the major part of the natural BOG is burned by the engines.
At lower speeds more excess BOG remains unburned, which is
either reliquefied completely by consuming more energy (JT and JT-
Hyb systems) or part of it is reliquefied by the electric driven units
(MR2.5) and the rest burned at GCU.
In more detail, at low speeds (<12 kn) the high and low pressure
MEs coupled with the JT systems exhibit similar fuel OPEX when
the LNG price is very low (<6 $/mmBTU), whilst their gap increases
for higher LNG prices.
 D.G. George et al. / Energy 195 (2020) 116997
Fig. 19. LNG cargo price sensitivity analysis on total fuel OPEX for vessel speed 19.5kn.
At mid-speed range (16 kn) and high LNG prices, the high-
pressure ME with the JT has the lowest OPEX and low-pressure
ME with JT-Hyb has the highest OPEX, whilst when these MEs
are combined with the MR2.5 the resulting cost is between the
above values. For very low LNG prices, the JT systems perform
marginally better than the MR ones.
Finally, for high speeds (around design speed of 19.5 kn), high
LNG prices slightly favour the JT reliquefaction systems, whilst for
low LNG prices the behaviour is marginally inversed.
6. Conclusions
This paper presented the existing reliquefaction technologies for
LNG carrier vessels, focusing on the comparative assessment of the
two main philosophies, electric driven (selecting the mixed
refrigerant system) and the partial reliquefaction systems,
including the latest developed hybrid design. Mechanical propul-
sion with two-stroke dual-fuel main engines has been considered,
including both high- and low-pressure technologies.
The model-based assessment of the integrated system pre-
sented in this paper proved to be particularly useful to capture the
complex effects of natural gas on-board an LNG carrier. DNVGL
COSSMOS modelling framework has been used encompassing
different machinery systems and running simulations for time-
varying operational profiles (different vessel speeds and
anchorage port conditions).
The developed models were used in a number of model-based
design and technology comparative studies, according to the
most current reliquefaction systems. High pressure main engines
have traditionally been coupled with partial reliquefaction sys-
tems; when coupled instead with an electric driven MR unit, in low
speed range it is proven more economically efficient to dump
excess BOG at GCU (if zero GCU usage is not the target), than
operate the heavy consumers of JT systems (second FG
compressor). On the other hand, low-pressure main engines are
traditionally coupled with electric driven MR units; partial reli-
quefaction JT-Hyb system has recently been developed to suit this
type of engines, offering improved flexibility and efficiency per
vessel mode.
Latest partial reliquefaction systems have been found promising
for low speeds operation and port conditions as they are capable of
zeroing out GCU usage. However, they are more energy consuming
compared to traditional electric driven reliquefaction units, acting
indirectly as dumpers of excess BOG through electricity production.
Indicatively, when using partial reliquefaction technologies, the
17
integrated ship system for low pressure engines exhibits 40%
higher performance at anchorage loaded port condition, while for
high pressure engines 25%, compared to the rest of the options that
have been studied. The same result can be projected for low speeds
(<12kn) but with a lower percentage difference. At medium speeds,
high-pressure ME engine coupled with JT reliquefaction technology
performs 5e15% better compared to the rest of the reliq. Options
(depending on the option that is compared to). At high speeds
(>19kn), low-pressure main engines become less attractive
compared to high-pressure ones, as their lower efficiency makes
BOG forcing compulsory, resulting in 3.5% lower performance when
coupled with JT-Hyb system and 10% when coupled with MR2.5.
The above numbers refer to pure fuel energy consumption, us-
ing the HFO equivalent KPI. When energy needs to be translated in
money, the balance between the LNG and MGO price is crucial. This
balance is also dynamic along the years, which may alter, even
completely the above results. However, for the price assumptions of
this study (page 12), the above trends are maintained but with
lower percentage values. The complementary sensitivity analysis of
Section 5.4 clarifies how the trends can change along the LNG price
fluctuations.
Concluding, it is clarified that when selecting between the wide
variety of machinery options there is not a global optimal config-
uration, but the result may change case by case. What this study has
clarified is that each system has different benefits at different
modes (i.e. high-speed range, anchorage laden, etc.) and there is
not one system that outshines the rest for all cases. To this end, each
system must be studied under the scope of the considered trading
route and mission profile, where the different performance at
different vessel modes will be averaged, based on their frequency in
the operational profile, making the available options easily
comparable.
References
[1] Majo D, Alappat Ben Austin B, Sreekanth Sarma PV, Aravind M, Kiran M.
Process modelling and validation of LNG reliquefaction. Global Res Develop J
Eng 2018;3(2). January.
[2] Go
mez JR, Go
mez MR, Garcia RF, Catoira A. On board LNG reliquefaction
technology: a comparative study. Pol Marit Res 2013;21(1):77e88.
[3] Chang Ho-Myung. A thermodynamic review of cryogenic cycles for liquefac-
tion of natural gas72. Elsevier; 2015. p. 127e47. Cryogenic.
[4] Kim D, Hwang C, Gundersen T, Lim Y. Process design and economic optimi-
zation of boil-off gas reliquefaction systems for LNG carriers, vol. 173. Elsevier;
2019. p. 1119e29. Energy.
[5] Jauhari TK, Maimun A, Siow CL. Review of systems engineering methods,
techniques and tools for ship design as large and complex systems. Malaysia:
International Congress and Conferences on Computational Design and Engi-
neering; 2019.
18 D.G. George et al. / Energy 195 (2020) 116997
€, V., Lappalainen, J., Sillanpa
[6] Lepisto €a€, K. & Ahtila, P. Dynamic process simula-
tion promotes energy efficient ship design. Ocean Eng, Volume 111, pp. 43-55.
[7] DNV GL COSSMOS. https://www.dnvgl.com/Images/DNVGL_Cossmos_2016_
tcm8-66522.pdf. accessed 3.2019.
[8] Andreola M, Tirelli G. Dual-fuel-electric LNG carrier machinery: when a
concept becomes reality. Detail Wa €rtsila€ Techn. J. 2007;2:33e6.
[9] Dimopoulos GG, Frangopoulos CA. A dynamic model for liquefied natural gas
evaporation during marine transportation. Int J Thermodyn 2008;11(3):
123e31.
[10] Process systems enterprise: https://www.psenterprise.com/products/gproms
[accessed 3.2019].
[11] Dimopoulos GG, Georgopoulou CA, Stefanatos IC, Zymaris AS, Kakalis NMP.
A general-purpose process modelling framework for marine energy systems.
Energy Convers Manag 2014;86:325e39.
[12] Dimopoulos GG, Frangopoulos CA. Optimization of propulsion systems for
modern LNG carriers considering multiple technology and design alternatives.
2009. Paper presented at the 10th International Marine Design Conference.
[13] MAN. Marine engines and systems, dual-fuel project guides. available at:
https://marine.man-es.com/; 2019.
[14] WinGD. Marine dual-fuel engines. available at: https://www.wingd.com/en/;
2019.
[15] Wa €rtsila
€. Marine dual-fuel auxiliary generator sets and reliquefaction sys-
tems. 2019. https://www.wartsila.com/.
[16] Amalina NS, Setiawan TM, Hadisupadmo S, Hendradjit W. Development of a
simulation package of natural gas liquefaction system. Procedia Eng.
2017;170:177e81. EPIC 2016.
[17] Yin L, Ju YL. Comparison and analysis of two nitrogen expansion cycles for
BOG re-liquefaction systems for small LNG ships. Energy 2019;172:769e76.
April.
[18] Hongbo T, Siyu S, Yang N, Qingxuan Z. A new boil-off gas re-liquefaction
system for LNG carriers beased on dual mixed refrigerant cycle. Cryogenics
2018;92:84e92. June.
[19] Dimopoulos GG, Stefanatos VI, Kakalis NMP. A process modelling approach to
the evaluation of ship machinery configuration alternatives of LNG carriers.
Int J Thermodyn 2016;19(Issue 3):146e56.
[20] Choi J. Development of partial liquefaction system for liquefied natural gas
carrier application using exergy analysis. Int J Naval Arch Ocean Eng 2018;10:
609e16.
[21] Gastech 2018, LNGC user forum 2018.
[22] Choi D, Shin H. A new re-liquefaction system of methane refrigeration system
(full reliquefaction) for LNG carriers. Gastech 2017.