Research Article 18

Yajun Li*
Boil-Off Gas Two-Stage Compression
Mingyang Wen
and Recondensation Process at a Liquefied
Natural Gas Receiving Terminal
Due to ship unloading and the change of downstream gas consumption, the boil-
off gas (BOG) and liquefied natural gas outputs fluctuate constantly, causing diffi-
culties in both the design and operation of the BOG handling process. The high
energy consumption, instability, and inflexibility of the original process affect the
operation cost and running safety of the terminal to a large extent. To address
these problems, a two-stage compression and recondensation process is designed
and optimized, based on the original one. Compared with the original process
through dynamic simulation, the design process has better stability, benefiting
from lower operating pressure and smaller fluctuations of both the pressure and
the liquid level in the recondenser. In addition, the power and BOG emission are
remarkably reduced, which will soon bring great benefit and recovery of invest-
ment cost.

Keywords: Boil-off gas, Dynamic simulation, Energy consumption, Liquefied natural gas,
Two-stage process
Received: December 21, 2015; revised: June 17, 2016; accepted: August 9, 2016
DOI: 10.1002/ceat.201500751

1 Introduction
Due to unavoidable heat leakage, the heat released from the
equipment, and the volume replacement caused by the lique-
fied natural gas (LNG) output, boil-off gas (BOG) is constantly
generated from the LNG storage tank [1]. Affected by climate,
seasons, unloading, and various downstream consumers, LNG
and BOG fluctuations always occur in all LNG terminals. Espe-
cially in unloading, the amount of BOG would be several times
as much as that in non-unloading [2, 3]. Fig. 1 shows the fluc-
tuations of both the LNG output and the BOG in an unloading
day: The BOG decreases with increasing LNG output, and vice
versa. The maximum and minimum LNG outputs are approxi-
mately 780 and 400 t h1, respectively. If there is a carrier
unloading, the maximum BOG would reach approximately
16.9 t h1, while the minimum is only 5 t h1.
The BOG handling process uses subcooled LNG to recon-
dense the compressed BOG at high pressure. It is the most
complex and important process in LNG receiving terminals,
the stability of which is heavily affected by the fluctuations of
both the LNG output and the BOG. For the early constructed
LNG receiving terminals (such as the Montoir de Bretagne ter-
minal in France, the Dahej terminal in India, and the Da-Peng
terminal in China), the capacities of the BOG handling systems
are insufficient to deal with the present fluctuations [4, 5].
Especially, the recondenser of the Da-Peng terminal in China is
too small to handle the existing amount of over 13.38 t h1 of
BOG. As a result, when the LNG output and BOG fluctuate, it
is difficult to control the liquid level of the recondenser. If the
liquid level exceeds the highest limit, this will lead to frequent
vibrations in the system, seriously damaging the equipment
and threatening the safety of the LNG receiving terminal.
Therefore, a BOG two-stage compression and recondensa-
tion process based on making full use of the original process
was designed to address the problems mentioned above. Then,
a dynamic simulation model for the two-stage process was built
to optimize the operating parameters in order to reduce the
total energy consumption, under the operation principles of
safety and stability.
2 Problems in the Original Process
of the LNG Receiving Terminal
As the core equipment in the BOG handling system, the recon-
denser is used for BOG liquefaction and as the buffer vessel for
the high-pressure pump (HP). Compared with the other equip-
ment, the recondenser has the most complex control system in
the terminal. The original recondenser control system is shown
in Fig. 2.
Prof. Yajun Li, Mingyang Wen
liyajun@scut.edu.cn, lutherwen@fox mail.com
SHAW Engineering Building, South China University of Technology,
Wushan RD, Tianhe District, Guangzhou 510640, Guangdong Prov-
ince, China.

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2017, 40, No. 1, 1827 2017 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.cet-journal.com
 Research Article 19

18 suction pressure (PHP). With the ratio calculation

module in FX1, QLNG can be determined by
800
16 Eq. (1).
Flow rate of output LNG (t/h)

Flow rate of BOG (t/h)

14 QLNG m3 h1
700 (1)
12 QBOG Nm3 h1 =R 0:001 PHP kPa

600 10 R is a constant and fixed at 5.8 in the Da-Peng

terminal, based on the LNG composition. Then,
8 the calculated QLNG will be converted to the setting
500 value by the flow rate controller (FIC-1) to change
6 the valve (FCV) opening.
A steady liquid level in the recondenser, which is
4
400 always kept at 5060 %, is very important for oper-
ation safety, and it is closely related to the LNG
2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 output. When the downstream gas consumption
decreases, the number of HP in operation decreases
time Flow rate of output LNG (t/h)
Flow rate of BOG (t/h) and PHP rises at the same time. Because QLNG cal-
culated by the DCS ratio calculation module is
Figure 1. Fluctuations of LNG output and BOG in an unloading day at the Da- inversely proportional to PHP, PIC-1 will trigger a
Peng terminal. control signal to turn down PCV-1, PCV-2, and
FCV to reduce QLNG. However, the condensing
FROM BOG COPRESSOR
MAKE UP GAS LNG cannot decrease instantly because of the time
lag in signal transmission. It leads too much con-
FI LCV XV-2 densing LNG to the recondenser and the liquid lev-
2
PIC el is raised. Once the liquid level rises up to 85 %,
2 GAS VENT
FX Ratio TO SEPARATOR the system will open the LCV to lower the liquid
1 Calculation level with make-up gas. The depressurized make-
H PCV-3 up gas from the open rack vaporizer (ORV) will be
LIC
FIC 2 recondensed by the LNG and then evaporates in
TO COPRESSOR
1
Recondenser

CAPACITY CONTROL
High Level

the ORV again. Due to the LNG output fluctuation,

Control

this situation occurs frequently. It will increase the

XV-1 FC V working load of both the HP and the ORV as well
HH as the energy consumption.
S/D LT LIC FX
1 1 L 2 In this early constructed terminal, the liquid level
LI LT
1 2 Recondenser frequently fluctuates to above the height limit,
saturation pressure
Low margin on

LL Low Level which causes a serious problem: recondenser-HP

S/D Control
PDIC
system vibration. The maximum amplitude of the
1 recondenser can reach 824 mm and the one of the
Recondenser
connected pipeline is even greater. Through mea-
PIC
Pressure Control 1 surements and comparisons of the vibration fre-
TT quencies between different devices by the spectrum
analyzers, it is found out that the problem is caused
FROM LP PUMP P C V- 1 TO by the vibration of the HP balance vent line (VENT
HP PUMP Line). The VENT Line is designed to lead the BOG
P C V- 2 generated from the HP into the recondenser.
FIC Low Flow for Pressure Control
2
The vibration of the VENT Line is caused by two
factors. Firstly, the scale of the recondenser in this
Figure 2. Control system for the recondenser. early constructed terminal is extremely small (
1900 mm 6400 mm, 18 m3). In other, later con-
In recondensation, the LNG is mixed with BOG at a certain structed terminals with similar receiving LNG scales, the recon-
ratio (R)1) to control the recondenser liquid level and to main- densers are at least 2.5 times as large as that of this terminal.
tain the HP suction pressure. The condensing LNG flow rate Besides, the BOG contains approximately 99 % methane while
(QLNG) depends on the BOG production (QBOG) and the HP the make-up gas contains approximately 88 % methane in this
terminal. Firstly, under the same conditions, the make-up gas
will be condensed the moment it enters the recondenser. Thus,
it has no time to force the liquid level to drop. At high liquid
1) List of symbols at the end of the paper. level, the packed bed of the recondenser will be completely sub-

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2017, 40, No. 1, 1827 2017 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.cet-journal.com
 Research Article
merged so that heat exchange will be greatly reduced. What is
worse, the recondenser is so small that there is not enough time
and space for the BOG and subcooled LNG to conduct suffi-
cient heat and mass exchange. Therefore, the BOG cannot be
completely recondensed, and part of it flows reversely to the
HP suction tank along the VENT Line. This part of the BOG
forces the tank liquid level to drop so that the HP cannot be
completely submerged. Consequently, cavitation occurs and
causes the vibration of the recondensation system. Secondly,
when the LNG output declines and part of the HP are turned
off, the LNG from the stopped HP will fill the VENT Line and
then go into the horizontal section of the balance vent line. At
last, mixing flow of two different phases (both LNG and BOG)
in the VENT Line can cause the system vibration of low fre-
quency.
With the development of this early constructed terminal in
China, the LNG output has increased gradually. However, the
problems caused by the limited BOG handling capacity and the
undersized recondenser, such as BOG emission, unstable liquid
levels, and system vibration, have threatened the operation
safety. So it is necessary to increase the recondenser volume of
the BOG handling system to eliminate the safety risks and
improve the process reliability.
3 Design and Feasibility Analysis
of the BOG Two-Stage Compression
and Recondensation Process
To address the problems mentioned above, one scheme is to
rebuild a larger handling system to replace the original one.
But this scheme cannot make full use of the original BOG com-
pressors, the recondenser and related accessories, which would
result in premature scrapping of original devices and unneces-
sary waste. Therefore, system reconstruction is not the best
way for terminal expansion.
There are some research approaches focusing on the designs
and optimizations for BOG handling systems. Engdahl [6] and
BOG
C1 C2
1-stage 2-stage
S1 BR1
S2
MP
...
S3
S4
LP
LNG tank
Figure 3. BOG two-stage process.
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2017, 40, No. 1, 1827 2017 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
20
Aikhorin et al. [7] have made contributions to the patents of
the recondensation process. Jung et al. [8] studied the effects of
BOG handling system operation on the HP, based on BOG pre-
diction under normal operation and unloading. Contreras and
Ferrer [9] performed a dynamic simulation for a Spanish LNG
receiving terminal and verified the reliability of the system.
Shin et al. [10] optimized the compressor operation for energy
conservation, based on the dynamic performance of the LNG
storage tank pressure. Lee et al. [11] and Park et al. [12], using
dynamic simulation technology, optimized the unloading oper-
ation and the LNG recirculation flow rate to reduce the BOG
as well as the system energy consumption. They also suggested
an energy-efficient concept design of a BOG handling system,
which utilizes the LNG cryogenic energy to intercool the BOG
compressor [13]. Li et al. [4] and Li and Chen [14] opti-
mized the control system of a BOG handling system and
then verified the reliability of the proposed control system
through dynamic simulation. However, few designs and opti-
mizations have been helpful to eliminate the vibration of the
BOG handling system.
3.1 Design of the BOG Two-Stage Process
A BOG two-stage compression and recondensation process
(Fig. 3) based on the original process (the part in the dashed
box) is proposed to address the problems [15]. In this process,
a recondenser (BR1) of 49 m3, which is 10 m tall and 2.5 m in
diameter, with lower operating pressure is added in front of the
original recondenser (BR2), which is 1.9 m in diameter and
6.4 m tall. All the BOG is sent into BR1 after slight pressuriza-
tion in the new compressors (C1). Partial recondensation
occurs in BR1. Then, after pressurization through the second-
stage compressor (C2), the rest of the BOG is recondensed in
BR2. To keep the HP running efficiently, the BR2 operating
pressure remains unchanged. The medium-pressure pumps
(MP) are implemented to ensure that the LNG pressure can
satisfy the HP working condition.
to pipe line
BR2 vaporizer
...
The original part
HP
www.cet-journal.com
 Research Article
3.2 Thermodynamics Feasibility Analysis
of the BOG Two-Stage Process
Fig. 4 is the pressure-enthalpy chart of the designed two-stage
process. As shown in the chart, the paths ck and jd represent
the first-stage and second-stage BOG compression, respective-
ly. Paths ab, il, and ef separately stand for the LNG pressuriza-
tion through the LP, MP, and HP. The paths fg, hk, and bd
indicate the regasification in the ORV, the first-stage reconden-
sation in BR1 and the second-stage recondensation in BR2,
respectively. In the BOG enthalpy change process, the com-
pressor energy consumption mostly happens in the first-stage
compression (path ck), because the flow of BOG in the second-
stage compression (path jd) becomes smaller after the first-
stage recondensation. Compared with the original process
(path cD), the compressor energy consumption is reduced
greatly in the two-stage process, because the path kD is con-
verted into the path jd, resulting in the decline of both the
enthalpy change and the BOG flow in compression. The two-
stage process can reduce the system energy consumption, as it
has a lower recondensing pressure and as BR1 of the process
plays a role as an intercooler between C1 and C2. The new BR1
not only increases the recondenser volume to eliminate the
safety risks of system vibration, but it is also used as a buffering
vessel to keep the BR2 operating pressure and HP suction pres-
sure stable. In addition, the MP is placed after BR1, which can
also reduce the impact caused by fluctuation of both the recon-
densing pressure and the liquid level on the HP.
3.3 Operation Feasibility Analysis of the BOG
Two-Stage Process
Under the current working conditions, it is still unknown
whether the designed BOG two-stage process can meet the sta-
ble operation and other limited conditions, or not. It is neces-
sary to analyze the feasibility of the two-stage process.
10
f g
T= -90
T= -150
Pressure (MPa)
T= -110
b l e
1
T= -130
h i
a c
0.1
-5200 -5000 -4800 -4600
Enthalpy (kJ/kg)
Figure 4. P-H chart of the two-stage process.
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2017, 40, No. 1, 1827
21
The BOG and LNG output fluctuate frequently. If the BOG
increases and the LNG output decreases at the same time, the
BOG handling system operation will become more difficult.
Thus, a maximum BOG rate of 16.9 t h1 and a minimum LNG
output of 400 t h1 are taken as the two-stage process design
conditions, in order to guarantee that the system can run well
under any working conditions.
According to the operating parameters of the Da-Peng ter-
minal, the LNG storage tank operating pressure is 16 kPaG and
the liquid level is 20 m high. The pressure of the output pipe-
line network is maintained at 8.99 MPa. In the recondenser, the
operating pressure and the liquid level are separately set at
885 kPa and 3.5 m, to keep it in the best mode. These operating
parameters will be used in the dynamic simulation models.
With increasing BOG, more LNG is required for recondensa-
tion. After being mixed with the condensing LNG, the BOG will
be liquefied to saturation and then subcooled by the bypass LNG
so that its pressure can guarantee PNPSH = PHP PS 200 kPa
to avoid cavitation in the HP [11]. PNPSH is the HP safe net
positive suction head (NPSH); PS is the LNG saturation pres-
sure. T (K) is the temperature at the pump suction side. PS can
be calculated by the Antoine equation of regression:
lnPs 13:6  1012=T (2)
In the original process, theoretically, handling 13 t h1 BOG
requires 72.7 t h1 condensing LNG, in order to reach the satu-
rated temperature of 148.8 K. Then, 17.7 t h1 bypass LNG will
be needed to decrease the temperature to 143.4 K, to ensure the
PNPSH. Totally, 90.4 t h1 LNG is required. However, the practi-
cally required LNG in Da-Peng is actually 167.5 t h1, which
greatly deviates from the theoretical value. This is because the
recondenser of the original process is so small that the BOG
fails to contact with the LNG adequately, leading to a decline of
heat exchange per unit time and requiring more LNG.
If the volume of the recondenser increases, it will contribute
to increasing the heat exchange efficiency and bringing the
required LNG value closer to the theoretical value,
decreasing the demand of required LNG. For this
purpose, the two-stage process with the new added
BR1 is adopted. Theoretically, 118.3 t h1 LNG will
T= -50
be required to handle 16.9 t h1 BOG, while the
minimum LNG output is 400 t h1. Therefore, there
will be 281.7 t h1 surplus LNG to lower the recon-
T= -10
T= 30
denser operating pressure.
d D
4 Parameter Optimization of the
BOG Two-Stage Compression
j k and Recondensation Process
4.1 Boundary Conditions for Process
Optimization
According to Sect. 3, the recondenser operating
-4400 -4200 -4000 pressure can be decreased, but there are some
boundary conditions of the process that restrict the
optimization. To keep good efficiency of the HP
and to reduce the system energy consumption, it is
2017 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.cet-journal.com
 Research Article
suggested to optimize the BR1 operating pressure. With
decreasing recondenser operating pressure, more LNG is
needed for recondensation, as shown in Fig. 5. The figure indi-
cates that more than 400 t h1 LNG will be required for recon-
densation if the recondenser operating pressure is below
390 kPa. Hence, the operating pressure of BR1 actually should
be higher than 390 kPa.
400
380
360
Mass of Required LNG
340
320
(t/hr)
300
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460
Operating pressure of BR1
(kPa)
Figure 5. Required LNG versus operating pressure of BR1.
The BR1 operating pressure directly determines the energy
consumption of the first-stage compressor. The lower the oper-
ating pressure of BR1, the lower the energy consumption of C1
will be. However, more LNG will be required in the reconden-
sation at a lower operating pressure, causing the decline of the
bypass LNG. Once the bypass LNG is reduced to a certain
extent, it will affect the operation safety. So there is an opti-
mum pressure of BR1 that can reduce energy consumption and
maintain the operation safety.
The restrictions of decreasing the BR1 operating pressure are
as follows:
The liquid levels and pressures of the two recondensers
should be able to remain stable during the operation and
quickly return to the setting values under the fluctuation of
both the BOG and the LNG output.
All BOG should be able to be recondensed, to avoid venting
or combustion under any operating condition.
The MP suction pressure (PMP) should satisfy the safe NPSH
of the MP to ensure the MP safety, which means
PNPSH = PMP PS 200 kPa in the long term.
The HP suction pressure should satisfy the safe NPSH
of the HP to ensure the HP safety, which means
PNPSH = PHP PS 200 kPa in the long term.
4.2 Optimization of the BR1 Operating Pressure
in the BOG Two-Stage Process
The BOG handling system is so complicated that it is diffi-
cult for the static simulation to describe the performance of
the whole process and meet the requirements of practical
engineering. Therefore, it is essential to use dynamic simula-
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2017, 40, No. 1, 1827
22
tion to further study and analyze the dynamic performance
for operation improvement and system optimization. Using
the Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) thermodynamic package
[16], the model for the BOG handling system was built and
then the operating parameters were studied through the
dynamic performance of the two-stage process by using the
DYNSIM (Invensys Systems, Inc., Lake Forest, CA, USA)
simulation software. Furthermore, the BR1 operating pressure
was optimized.
With decreasing operating pressure of BR1, the liquid levels
and pressures of the two recondensers showed the dynamic
performance as illustrated in Fig. 6. The figure shows that the
BR1 operating pressure decreases from 435 to 430 kPa, starting
from 300 s. After about 350 s with a slight fluctuation, the pres-
sures and liquid levels of the two recondensers return to a sta-
ble value. At last, PMP stays at 465.9 kPa and the MP safe pres-
sure stays at 465.3 kPa, which means that there is enough
NPSH. At 1500 s, the BR1 operating pressure continues to
decrease from 430 to 425 kPa. Although the pressures and liq-
uid levels of both recondensers can return to a stable value, the
PMP of 460.9 kPa is smaller than the MP safe pressure of
470 480 490 500 466.5 kPa, which means that there is not enough NPSH to
guarantee the long-term operation safety of the MP. Therefore,
to maintain the operation safety and to reduce the energy con-
sumption, the operating pressure of the new recondenser
should be set at 430 kPa.
5 Comparison of the BOG Two-Stage
Process with the Original Process
through Dynamic Performance
After setting the BR1 operating pressure at 430 kPa, the stabil-
ity and reliability of the two-stage process under fluctuations of
both the LNG output and the BOG were examined as follows.
As shown in Fig. 1, the largest BOG fluctuation occurs at 4 h,
when the unloading operation begins. The BOG rate increases
from 5 to 16.9 t h1 in 1 h. The largest LNG output fluctuation
occurs at 22 h and the LNG output decreases from 780 to
410 t h1 in 2 h. Whether the BOG handling system has a good
dynamic performance to deal with such fluctuations or not
remains unknown. Hence, it is important to compare the
dynamic performance of the two-stage process with that of the
original one under these fluctuations.
5.1 Dynamic Performance of Original Process
Fig. 7 a shows the dynamic performance of the original process
when the BOG rate increases from 5 to 13.38 t h1 (the maxi-
mum handling capacity in the original process). As shown in
the figure, the pressure and liquid level in the original recon-
denser fluctuate greatly under automatic control. The mini-
mum pressure of the recondenser reaches 815 kPa with an
amplitude of 70 kPa, which is still within the safety range. But
the maximum liquid level reaches 5.47 m, which is 85.5 % of
the height of the recondenser. After more than 50 min, the
recondenser returns to stable operation.
2017 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.cet-journal.com
 Research Article 23

0 600 1200 1800 2400 cess will fluctuate greatly. The liquid level can
reach 85 % of the recondenser height. This will
435 seriously impair the heat exchange in the
Pressure of BR1

recondenser and may result in system vibra-

tion. Besides, the dynamic performance of the
(kPa)

430
original process recovers so slowly that it is
insufficient to meet the greater fluctuations in
425 the future.

5.01
5.2 Dynamic Performance of the BOG
Level of BR1

Two-Stage Process
5.00
(m)

Fig. 8 shows the dynamic performance of the

4.99
two-stage process when the BOG increases
from 5 to 16.9 t h1 at the beginning of unload-
ing. Influenced by the instant increase of BOG
885.5 entering the recondenser, the BR1 pressure
Pressure of BR2

fluctuates from 460 to 425 kPa and then recov-

(kPa)

885.0 ers quickly, with an amplitude of less than

30 kPa. Meanwhile, the BR1 liquid level reaches
5.09 m (51 % of the BR1 height) and then
884.5 recovers rapidly with a fluctuation amplitude
of 0.09 m. The BOG entering BR2 increases
3.501 from 0 to 6.69 t h1. The BR2 pressure de-
creasing amplitude is less than 200 kPa and
Level of BR2

the liquid level amplitude is 0.22 m. In the

3.500
(m)

simulation, the liquid level of both recon-

densers can be kept in the best range of
3.499 5060 % height. From non-unloading to un-
loading, the two-stage process takes only
8 min to handle the increasing BOG rate and
126.6
returns to stable operation.
Temperature of

Fig. 9 shows the dynamic performance when

MP Suction

126.4 the LNG output instantaneously decreases by

(K)

50 t h1 from 780 t h1. Apparently, the decrease

of the LNG output has little influence on the
126.2
BR1 pressure and the liquid level. The pressure
and liquid level amplitudes of BR2 are sepa-
NPSH of MP Suction
rately about 2 kPa and 0.10 m, which are still
Pressure of MP suction

470 Pressure of MP Suction

within the best range. The system returns to
and its NPHS

stable operation in 7.5 min. When the LNG

(kPa)

465
460
0 600 1200 1800
Time(s)
Figure 6. Dynamic performance with decreasing pressure of BR1.
Fig. 7 b shows the dynamic performance of the LNG output
decrease. The LNG output decreases from 780 to 730 t h1. The
recondenser pressure can be kept in the safe range. But the
maximum liquid level is 5.46 m, i.e. 85.3 % of the recondenser
height. The original process needs 20 min to return to a stable
state.
Obviously, when the LNG output and BOG rate change, the
liquid level and pressure of the recondenser in the original pro-
output decreases at the same rate, it only takes
57 min to decrease from 780 to 400 t h1. Dur-
ing operation, the pressure amplitude is less
than 200 kPa so that it can ensure the safety of
2400 both the MP and the HP.
It is apparent that the dynamic performance
of the two-stage process is much better than
that of the original process. All the fluctuations
in the recondensers can be kept in the safe
range, especially eliminating the large fluctuation of the BR2
liquid level. The process parameters of the recondensers can re-
turn to the setting values in a short time, which means that the
system is more flexible and stable.

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2017, 40, No. 1, 1827 2017 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.cet-journal.com
 Research Article 24

Flowrate of BOG 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100

Flowrate of LNG
14 780
12
(t/h)

(t/h)
10 760

8 740
6
4 720
Level of Recondensor Recondensor

Level of Recondensor Recondensor

1050
Pressure of

Pressure of
920
1000
(kPa)

(kPa)
950 900

900 880
850
800 860

5.5 5.5
5.0 5.0
(m)

(m)
4.5 4.5
4.0 4.0
3.5 3.5
3.0 3.0
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100
Time(s) Time(s)

a) Bog increasing condition b) LNG output decreasing condition

Figure 7. Dynamic performance of the original process.

6 Energy Consumption Comparison consumption of the BOG compressor is reduced by 324 kW,
between the Two-Stage Process which accounts for 25.3 % of the compressor part. What is
more, compared with the BOG handling capacity of the origi-
and the Original Process nal process, the two-stage process increases its capacity from
13.38 to 16.9 t h1 BOG and recovers 3.52 t h1 BOG from the
6.1 Energy Consumption Comparison under emissions in unloading.
the Designed Conditions

The total energy consumption of the BOG handling system
consists of the LP energy consumption (SWLP), the MP energy
consumption (SWMP), the HP energy consumption (SWHP),
and the compressor energy consumption (WC1, WC2). The
energy consumption of the original process (Es1) and the one
of the two-stage process (Es2) are shown as Eqs. (3) and (4),
respectively.
X X
Es1 WLP WHP WC1
X X
Es2 WLP WHP
The energy consumption comparison between the two pro-
cesses under the designed working conditions is shown in
Tab. 1. Clearly, the two-stage process can save remarkable
amounts of energy. The total energy consumption of the origi-
nal process is 4450 kW while that of the two-stage process is
4175 kW. When using the two-stage process, 275 kW is saved,
making up 6.2 % of the total energy consumption. The energy
6.2 Energy Consumption Comparison of the LNG
Receiving Terminal
The LNG output and BOG are fluctuating all the time in the
LNG receiving terminal, so that the energy consumption of the
BOG handling system is also changing with them. Under the
conditions of an unloading day as shown in Fig. 1, a remark-
able energy-saving effect and BOG emission reduction achieved
(3)
by the two-stage process can be noticed in Fig. 10. It shows that
the energy consumption of the two-stage process is always less
X than that of the original process, on account of the decline of
WMP WC1 WC2 (4) the BOG compressor energy consumption. Therefore, the larg-
er the BOG handling amount, the larger is the energy conserva-
tion of the two-stage process. In the figure, the area under the
curve represents the total energy consumption of the process
during an unloading day. The area between two curves stands
for the amount of energy conservation achieved by the two-
stage process. In an unloading day, 2645 kWh is saved in the
unloading operation (4:0017:00 h) and 458 kWh is saved in
the non-unloading operation (1:003:00 h and 18:0024:00 h)

Table 1. Comparison of energy consumption between the original process and the two-stage process.

Energy consumption [kW]

LP HP C1 C2 MP Total

Original process 420 2750 1280 4450

Two-stage process 422 2730 806 150 67 4175

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2017, 40, No. 1, 1827 2017 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.cet-journal.com
 Research Article 25

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 45.8 kW, on average. Thus, the energy con-
servation of a non-unloading day is about
16
1099.2 kWh. Accordingly, compared with
the original process, 581,550 kWh power
of Compressor1
BOG Flowrate

12
can be saved and BOG emission can be
reduced by 2878.2 t a1 in the two-stage
(t/h)

8
process. According to the industrial elec-
tricity price of 0.123 $ kWh1 and a natural
4
gas price of 0.483 $ Nm3 in China, about
460
$ 2.01 million can be saved annually when
the two-stage process is adopted. There will
Pressure of BR1

450 be additional capital cost of the equipment

to build the two-stage process. Tab. 2 illus-
(kPa)

440
trates the investment cost. Overall, the ad-
430 ditional capital cost of the two-stage pro-
cess is $ 6.86 million. It will take 3.4 years
420
to recover the investment cost.

5.08
6.3 Operation Safety
Level of BR1

Improvement in the LNG

5.04
(m)

Receiving Terminal

5.00 The main safety risk of the Da-Peng termi-

nal is the recondenser-HP system vibration,
8 which will damage the BOG handling sys-
tem equipment. According to the dynamic
6
of Compressor2

performance of the two-stage process

BOG Flowrate

4
shown above, the BR2 liquid level can be
(t/h)

kept in the best range of 5060 % during

2 the operation, and the pressures of both
BR1 and BR2 can fluctuate in the safe
0
range. Hence, the safety of both the recon-
1100 denser and the HP is improved. In addi-
tion, the two-stage process can handle
Pressure of BR2

1050
more BOG as soon as possible so that it
1000
(kPa)

can protect the LNG storage tank from

950 overpressure when the BOG increases too
900 fast due to unexpected conditions, such as
a hurricane assault. In conclusion, com-
850
pared with the original process, the opera-
3.75 tion safety and stability of the system are
3.70 greatly improved in the two-stage process.
Level of BR2

3.65
(m)

3.60 7 Conclusion
3.55
A BOG two-stage compression and recon-
3.50
densation process was designed based on
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 the original process and optimized through
Time(s) dynamic simulation; in the two-stage pro-
Figure 8. Dynamic performance of the two-stage process with increasing BOG load. cess, the safety risks of system vibration
can be eliminated, better operation stability
when using the two-stage process, which is 3103 kWh in total. can be provided and energy consumption can be reduced. The
The figure bars indicate the amount of BOG saved by the two- advantages of the two-stage process are summarized as follows:
stage process, which is 31.98 t in total in an unloading day. The recondenser liquid level can be kept in the best range of
The unloading happens approximately 90 times a year in the 5060 % and the recondenser pressure can remain in the safe
Da-Peng terminal. In the unloading day, the energy conserva- range to ensure the safe NPSH of both the MP and HP,
tion value of the non-unloading operation per unit time is which eliminates the safety risks. Both the liquid level and

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2017, 40, No. 1, 1827 2017 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.cet-journal.com
 Research Article 26

0 300 600 900 1200 1500

790
Flowrate of LNG

780
770
(t/h)

760
750
740
730

432
Pressure of BR1

430
(kPa)

428

426

5.12
Level of BR1

5.08
(m)

5.04

5.00

886.0
Pressure of BR2

885.5
(kPa)

885.0

884.5

884.0

3.512
Level of BR2

3.508
(m)

3.504

3.500
Figure 9. Dynamic performance
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 of the two-stage process with
Time(s) decreasing LNG output.

Table 2. Investment cost of the two-stage process. the pressure of the recondenser are able to return to the set-
ting value more quickly than in the original process. The
Newly added equipment Characteristic Cost [$ million] two-stage process has a better dynamic performance and
BOG compressor 430 kPa, 2.97 operation stability.
10.2 t h1 There will be remarkable energy conservation. Especially, the
energy consumption of the BOG compressor can be
Recondenser 49 m3 1.90 decreased by 25.3 % under the designed working conditions.
Four medium-pressure pumps 420 m3h1, 1.00 The two-stage process can save 581 550 kWh power and
120 m reduce the BOG emissions by 2878.2 t per year. These effects
can save about $ 2.01 million annually. The additional capital
Pipelines and accessories 0.99
cost of the two-stage process is only $ 6.86 million, requiring
Total cost [$ million] 6.86 3.4 years to recover the investment.

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2017, 40, No. 1, 1827 2017 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.cet-journal.com
 Research Article 27

4.0
7500
3.5
7000

3.0
Energy Consumption

6500

6000 2.5

Saved BOG
(kW)

(t/h)
5500 2.0

5000 1.5
Figure 10. Comparison
of energy consumption
4500 between the two pro-
1.0
cesses and the amount
4000 of BOG conservation
0.5 in an unloading day;
3500 two-stage operat-
0.0 ing mode; original
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 operating mode;
Time(h) saved BOG.

Symbols used NPSH net positive suction head

ORV open rack vaporizer
Es1 [kW] original process total energy VENT Line high-pressure pump balance vent line
consumption
Es2 [kW] two-stage process total energy
consumption References
PHP [kPa] high-pressure pump suction pressure
PMP [kPa] medium-pressure pump suction [1] Q. S. Chen, J. Wegrzyn, V. Prasad, Cryogenics 2004, 44 (10),
pressure 701709.
PNPSH [kPa] pressure value of the net positive [2] D. Dobrota, B. Lalic, I. Komar, Trans. Marit. Sci. 2013, 2 (2),
suction head 91100.
[3] M. J. Jung, J. H. Cho, W. Ryu, in The 22nd World Gas
PS [kPa] saturated LNG pressure
QLNG [m3h1] flow rate of condensing LNG Congress, Tokyo 2003.
[4] Y. Li, X. Chen, M. H. Chein, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2012, 90
QBOG [Nm3h1] flow rate of BOG
(10), 15001505.
R [] condensing LNG/BOG ratio
[5] SOFREGAZ, Innovation, www.sofregaz.fr/en/innovation/
T [K] temperature at the pump suction side
patents/recondenser-1 (Accessed on June 06, 2016)
WC1 [kW] first-stage compressor energy
[6] G. E. Engdahl, U.S. Patent 6,470,706, 2002.
consumption [7] C. Aikhorin, G. Konijn, E. Otten, M. Rieder, U.S. Patent
WC2 [kW] second-stage compressor energy Application 11/420,319, 2006.
consumption [8] M. J. Jung, J. H. Cho, W. Ryu, in The 22nd World Gas
SWLP [kW] low-pressure pump energy Congress, Tokyo 2003.
consumption [9] J. Contreras, J. M. Ferrer, Hydrocarbon Eng. 2005, 10 (5),
SWHP [kW] high-pressure pump energy 103107.
consumption [10] M. W. Shin, D. Shin, S. H. Choi, E. S. Yoon, C. Han, Ind.
SWMP [kW] medium-pressure pump energy Eng. Chem. Res. 2007, 46 (20), 65406545.
consumption [11] C. J. Lee, Y. Lim, C. Park, S. Lee, C. Han, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 2010, 49 (17), 82198226.
Abbreviations [12] C. Park, C. J. Lee, Y. Lim, S. Lee, C. Han, J. Taiwan Inst.
Chem. Eng. 2010, 41 (4), 482491.
BOG boil-off gas
[13] C. Park, K. Song, S. Lee, Y. Lim, C. Han, Energy 2012, 44 (1),
BR1 first-stage recondenser
6978.
BR2 second-stage recondenser
[14] Y. Li, X. Chen, Chem. Eng. Commun. 2012, 199 (10),
C1 first-stage compressor
12511262.
C2 second-stage compressor [15] C. Liu, J. Zhang, Q. Xu, J. L. Gossage, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
HP high-pressure pump 2010, 49 (16), 74127420.
LNG liquefied natural gas [16] Z. Yuan, M. Cui, R. Song, Y. Xie, J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2015,
LP low-pressure pump 27, 876886.
MP medium-pressure pump

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2017, 40, No. 1, 1827 2017 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.cet-journal.com