Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Despite of the high demand for liqueed natural gas (LNG) in demanding countries, an ideal means for
Received 13 October 2016 establishing the LNG supply system has not yet been found in many regions. In this paper, a three-stage
Received in revised form stochastic programming method has been proposed for LNG supply system infrastructure development
30 March 2017
and inventory routing in demanding countries. The minimum daily cost is set as the objective function;
Accepted 13 May 2017
Available online 17 May 2017
and the cost consists of the delivery cost, liquefaction cost, purchase cost, and construction cost. Under
the constraints of delivery mode, volume, vehicle, time, and infrastructure construction, a multi-scenario
MILP model was established and solved by a hybrid computational method (ACO-MILP), and the optimal
Keywords:
Liqueed natural gas (LNG)
infrastructure development and inventory routing were presented as the result. Finally, the method was
Supply system successfully applied to the LNG supply system along the Yangtze River in China. Furthermore, compared
Three-stage stochastic programming with the other methods, the superiority of the method was veried.
Infrastructure development 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Inventory routing
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.090
0360-5442/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Zhang et al. / Energy 133 (2017) 424e442 425
LNG supply system, and both delivery planning and inventory are described with a pooling model and the uncertainty in the
management were formulated as mixed-integer problems. system was handled with a multi-scenario, two-stage stochastic
Grnhaug and Christiansen [13] presented arc-ow and path-ow recourse approach. Then, Li and Barton [22] proposed a two-stage
models of a real planning problem. They tested the models stochastic programming for optimal design and operation of en-
through a series of operational planning cases with a 60-day time ergy systems, and used nonconvex generalized Benders decom-
horizon. Afterwards, Nhaug, et al. [14] proposed a branch-and-price position to exploited the model for efcient global optimization.
method for the discrete-time path-ow formulation of the LNG Recently, Li, et al. [23] applied the method proposed by Li and
MIRP. Subsequently, Rakke, et al. [15] proposed a mixed integer Barton [22] to solving the infrastructure development of natural gas
programming formulation of the annual delivery program planning supply system, which could improve the solving efcient. The
problem based on a priori generation of all possible scheduled above research considered multiple uncertainties in natural gas
voyages within the planning horizon. Due to the size and supply system and put forward more efcient solving algorithms;
complexity of the problem, a rolling horizon heuristic is proposed. whereas, the construction time planning for infrastructures along
Goel et al. [16] presented an arc-ow model based on the model of with the demanding increase were not taken into account. And
Goel et al. [11] and proposed new construction and improvement these references only referred the natural gas pipeline delivery
heuristics to optimize LNG ship-schedule and inventory manage- mode.
ment at both production and terminals. Stlhane et al. [17] devel- In summary, there are few scholars optimizing the infrastruc-
oped a modied construction and improvement heuristic ture development and inventory routing of LNG supply system
algorithm to solve the problem of mass shipping and storage of simultaneously, as well as considering the diversity of LNG delivery
LNG, thereby designing an optimization plan. Jokinen et al. [9] and the uncertainties of LNG price and demand.
proposed a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) model
involving the LNG supply system in small coastal areas. Most of 1.3. Contributions of this work
scholars focused on the LNG maritime delivery inventory routing
while few considered the land delivery (LNG tanker trailer) and the C A three-stage stochastic programming method is proposed
supplementary delivery modes such as natural gas pipeline com- for LNG supply system.
bined with delivered gas liquefaction as for the inventory routing C The multiple sources such as imported LNG, inland produc-
problem of LNG supply system; meanwhile, the uncertainties of ing LNG and pipeline gas are taken into consideration.
LNG price and demand are not discussed as well. C Variable delivery modes, the exible routes, the expanding
On the other hand, many scholars have devoted themselves into demands, and the simultaneous optimization of the infra-
the infrastructure development of LNG supply system. Lin et al. [18] structure development and inventory routing are taken into
addressed the number of LNG receiving terminals needed to be consideration.
constructed before 2020 in China. Kaplan and Yang [19] concluded C A real case study in China is given to demonstrate the
the technical problems involved in the construction of LNG methods practicality.
receiving terminals. Nowadays, the research on the infrastructure
development of LNG supply system is to macroscopically plan the
construction scheme or discuss technical constraints of the con- 1.4. Paper organization
struction based on demanding statistical analysis. There is less
work for the construction planning optimization on the infra- In section 2, the problem to be studied is elaborated, and the
structure development of LNG supply system. objective, known parameters, decision variables and model
However, many scholars investigated the infrastructure devel- assumption of the optimization problem are displayed from the
opment of natural gas supply system, which provides a signicant perspective of mathematical model. In section 3, a proposed
reference for further research. Zhang et al. [20] analyzed the in- three-stage stochastic programming method is introduced. In
uence of natural gas price and demand in Chinese market on the section 4, a LNG supply system along the Yangtze River in China
infrastructure development of natural gas supply system. Li et al. is given as case study. Section 5 analyzes the case study results in
[21] proposed a stochastic pooling problem optimization formu- detail and provides a comparison between the proposed and the
lation to address optimal design and operation of natural gas pro- previous algorithms. Finally, conclusions are provided in
duction network, where the qualities of the owed in the system section 6.
2. Problem description In order to build and solve the model effectively, assumptions
are made as follows:
The main components in LNG supply system is: LNG receiving
terminal (LNG RT), LNG delivery vehicle, LNG reserve storage (LNG C The supply and marketing network from LNG RSs to terminal
RS), some of which is equipped with liquefaction equipment (LE), users is also a complicated scheduling system, but since
inland natural gas liquefaction plant (NGLP) and natural gas pipe- scheduling is generally undertook by the third-party logistics
line (NGP), as shown in Fig. 1. company, this process is not considered in the paper. In this
LNG RS directly connects with LNG terminal consumers, which paper, LNG RS is considered as the terminal of LNG supply
plays a role as short-term storage of LNG coming from LNG RT and system.
NGLP, and LNG liqueed from NGP, then directly sells to consumers C Daily demand in each region and cost items are constants
in local demanding region (DR). within a given year.
As the large LNG storage station, LNG RT is often built on port. It
mainly receives the imported LNG from large oceangoing LNG
3. Three-stage stochastic programming method
carriers, and then LNG is delivered to LNG RS in each DR by LNG
tanker trailers or small LNG carriers. There are many existing sizes
In the model, there are uncertain parameters. To deal with this
of LNG carriers, so the delivery scale of different LNG carrier sizes
problem, an effective method is proposed by stochastically gener-
should be taken into account.
ating series of uncertain parameters based on the Monte Carlo
In demanding countries, NGLP is often built inside an inland gas
theory, thereby establishing the multi-scenario MILP model. The
eld or near large network of NGP. NGLP can also be directly con-
MILP model can be recast in the following compact form:
nected to terminal users in local regions, or delivered to LNG RS in
other DR by LNG tanker trailers or small LNG carriers.
min F E fOS dB ; oDS ; oCS ; pUS
The source of NGP is often mainland gas eld, and gas will be dB ;oDS ;oCS
sent to downstream cities quantitatively every year. If LNG RS only s:t: fD dB 0
receives LNG from LNG RT and NGLP, then the corresponding scale jD dB 0 (1)
of LNG storage tank can be built only based on handling capacity. fO dB ; oDS ; oCS ; pUS 0
If LNG RS needs to download natural gas from NGP, then the jO dB ; oDS ; oCS ; pUS 0
relevant liquefaction equipment (LE) should be allocated.
LNG RT, NGP, and site selection of NGP are mainly determined by where F represents the objective function of the model; dB repre-
supply source locations and geological conditions of construction sents the vector of the design binary decision variables (i.e. the
areas. However, besides of that, the selection of LNG RS should also decision of stations and LE construction sites, as well as the decision
take demanding variety, delivery cost at source and delivery mode of design scales in this model); oDS represents the vector of the
into account. So when building LNG supply systems, some possible operating discrete decision variables under the scenario s (i.e. the
LNG storage sites (LNG PRSSs) should be previously determined and number of delivery equipment during operation in this model); oCS
then select the optimal LNG RS site and construct plan based on represents the vector of the operating continuous decision vari-
detailed verication. ables under the scenario s (i.e. the purchase and delivery volume in
this model); pUS represents the vector of the uncertain parameters
(i.e. the purchase cost and demanding volume in this model); fOS
2.1. Model requirements represents the objective function under the scenario s; fD and jD
represent the design equality and inequality constraints; and fO
Given: and jO represent the operating equality and inequality constraints.
Certainty To solve the model effectively, many scholars put forward the
two-stage stochastic programming method. But as for the compli-
C Studying horizon. cated system where there are lots of design decision variables, the
C Locations of LNG RT, NGLP, NGP and LNG PRSS. two-stage stochastic programming method is poor in the calcula-
C Constraints of every delivery plan and vehicle data. tion and convergence. Particularly, when the construction time
C Construction cost of LNG RS; equipment cost of liquefaction planning for infrastructures is concerned, the model scale will be
system and delivery cost of each delivery plan. substantially increased since the time item is introduced into the
corresponding design decision variables. And the traditional two-
Uncertainty stage stochastic programming method may be not proper for this
kind of problems. Therefore, we propose a three-stage stochastic
C Demanding data of every DR. programming method as below.
C Purchase cost of LNG and gas at every node. The rst stage: We combine the predictive uncertain parame-
ters into the model to solve the MILP model under certain condi-
Determine: tions. Then the sensitive analysis for each uncertain parameter
should be performed, which means to generate several groups of
C Infrastructure development of each LNG RS: location, scale, MILP models under certain conditions by changing one uncertain
process and time. parameter every time, and to work out the design binary decision
C Inventory routing at each node: deliver method, deliver variables of each group. From the sensitive analysis, if the same
routing, deliver volume and vehicle numbers. design binary decision variable of each group equals with one
another, the variable will be regarded as certain design decision
Objective: variable dBO . While if the same design binary decision variable of
each group differs from one another, the variable will be regarded
Minimize the costs of delivery, handling, purchase and infra- as approximate certain design decision variable dBU .
structure development of LNG supply system during the study The next two stages: We can employ the two-stage stochastic
horizon under various operational and technical constraints. programming modelling mode to divide the model into a master
H. Zhang et al. / Energy 133 (2017) 424e442 427
Table 1
Calculation procedure of ACO-MILP.
analysis: firstly we obtain the result from the analysis and divide the
design decision variable into certain design decision variable d BO and approximate certain
ant. The d BOk should be valued according to the analysis and the d BUk
Fk f M d BO k , d BU k E fS s d BO k , d BU k , oD s , oC s , pU s
1
f M d BO k , d BU k min fS s d BO k , d BU k , oD s , oC s , pU s
sm s
oD s , oC s
For all # km
While the new location vector of the artificial ant doesnt satisfy D and D
End while
End for # km
End while
428 H. Zhang et al. / Energy 133 (2017) 424e442
Table 3
Predicted demanding volume of each region in each year (m3).
4. Case study
Master min F fM dBO ; dBU E fSS dBO ; dBU ; oDS ; oCS ; pUS
dBO ;dBU
s:t: fD dBO ; dBU 0 This paper provides a LNG supply system along the Yangtze
jD dBO ; dBU 0
River in China as an example, as shown in Fig. 2. In this case study,
Sub fSS dBO ; dBU ; oDS ; oCS ; pUS min fSS dBO ; dBU ; oDS ; oCS ; pUS LNG is for the delivery energy consumption of LNG tanker trailers
oDS ;oCS
and carriers, as well as the production energy consumption of
s:t: fO dBO ; dBU ; oDS ; oCS ; pUS 0 nearby plants. There are LNG RTs, NGLPs and NGP in this supply
jO dBO ; dBU ; oDS ; oCS ; pUS 0 system. Among LNG RTs, six nodes exist: D1 (2018), D2 (2015), D3
(2) (2018), D4 (2018), D5 (2021), and D6 (2017). The numbers in pa-
rentheses are the respective years of commission. These LNG RTs
where fM represents the function formed by the sum of all the items use either LNG tanker trailers or LNG carriers to delivery LNG. The
Table 2
Distances between pairs of nodes (km).
Node S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8
D1 1020 (1350) 880 (1614) 1070 (1818) 1150 (1914) 1270 (2078) 1180 (2347) 1330 (2578) 1320 (2973)
D2 600 (775) 500 (1039) 680 (1243) 760 (1339) 900 (1503) 1000 (1772) 1250 (2003) 1200 (2398)
D3 420 (720) 360 (984) 550 (1188) 630 (1284) 800 (1448) 900 (1717) 1080 (1948) 1200 (2343)
D4 600 (585) 700 (849) 680 (1053) 700 (1149) 700 (1313) 950 (1582) 1050 (1813) 1300 (2208)
D5 2020 (2265) 1920 (2529) 1740 (2733) 1650 (2829) 1430 (2993) 1420 (3262) 1200 (3493) 1430 (3888)
D6 1640 (1615) 1540 (1879) 1350 (2083) 1280 (2179) 1050 (2343) 1160 (2612) 950 (2843) 1210 (3238)
F1 1830 (-) 1600 (-) 1520 (-) 1430 (-) 1300 (-) 1040 (-) 1080 (-) 730 (-)
F2 1920 (-) 1700 (-) 1660 (-) 1580 (-) 1450 (-) 1250 (-) 1200 (-) 920 (-)
F3 1660 (-) 1430 (-) 1360 (-) 1280 (-) 1150 (-) 940 (-) 880 (-) 630 (-)
F4 1550 (-) 1330 (-) 1240 (-) 1150 (-) 1000 (-) 830 (-) 760 (-) 480 (-)
S1 e 250 (264) 409 (468) 490 (564) 725 (728) 800 (997) 995 (1228) 1110 (1623)
S2 e e 222 (204) 300 (300) 500 (464) 583 (733) 782 (964) 890 (1359)
S3 e e e 96 (96) 330 (255) 436 (529) 610 (760) 790 (1150)
S4 e e e e 238 (164) 345 (433) 520 (664) 695 (1059)
S5 e e e e e 215 (269) 340 (500) 565 (895)
S6 e e e e e e 245 (231) 390 (626)
S7 e e e e e e e 320 (395)
Table 4
Maximum supply volume of each source.
Node D1-D6 F1 F2 F3 F4 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S8
Maximum supply volume (m3/y) 2.4 106 3.3 105 3.4 105 3.4 105 3.95 105 2.5 108 0.5 108 0.6 108 5.0 108 17.8 108 4.0 108 0.7 108
Note: For LNG RTs and NGLPs, the volume shown is for LNG; for LNG PRSSs, the volume shown is for natural gas loading from NGP.
Table 5
Basic parameters for each type of delivery vehicle.
Delivery vehicle Production berth time Average velocity Average effective traveling time Loading capacity
(h) (km/h) (h) (m3)
Table 6 the LNG sources to regions east of S2. The locations of all nodes in
Design scale grade of LE. the presented system are shown in Fig. 2.
Grade The proposed model was used to evaluate the infrastructure
Design scale (105m3/d) 7 10 16 21 26
development of the LNG supply system and LNG delivery from 2017
CPLS (109CNY) 3.5 5.0 8.0 10.5 13.0 to 2021. The overland distance and waterway distance between
pairs of nodes are shown in Table 2.
We assume the demands of the demanding regions conform to
Table 7 the normal distribution. The demanding volume (mean value) of
Design scale grade of LNG RS. LNG in each demanding region predicted by the model are shown
in Table 3. The standard deviation of the demanding volume is 10%
Grade
of its mean value. The maximum supply volumes for each source
Design scale (104m3) 3 4 6 8 10 12 15 18 20 and terminal are shown in Table 4. The basic parameters for each
CSL (106CNY) 8.0 10.7 16.0 21.3 26.7 32.0 40.0 48.0 53.3
vehicle type are shown in Table 5.
The model used 0.17 as the depreciation rate of vehicles and 0.14
as the depreciation rate of LE and basic equipment construction.
group of NGLPs consists of plants F1, F2, F3, and F4, all of which are The LNG wastage during delivery is assumed to be 0.3%. The
in operation. These plants can only delivery LNG by tankers. liquefaction ratio of the equipment is set at 97.9%, which is the ratio
Considering the demand in regions R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5, as well as of the LNG output to the natural gas input. The wastage during the
the construction and delivery conditions, eight locations along the input and output movement is ignored in this model. The turnover
Yangtze River are selected in this study as LNG PRSSs: S1 (R1), S2 rate of LNG RS is set as 15.
(R1), S3 (R2), S4 (R2), S5 (R3), S6 (R4), S7 (R5), and S8 (R4). The The scale of LE and LNG RS falls into 5 grades, and the design
respective demanding regions are indicated in parentheses. All scale and equipment cost corresponding to each grade are shown in
storage locations except S7 are in proximity to a natural gas pipe- Tables 6 and 7. The natural gas and LNG purchase price is uncertain.
line, which makes it possible to load the gas directly into LNG tanks According to the economic analysis and data statistics, we provide
after purication and liquefaction. the price probability of natural gas and LNG, shown as Fig. 3 where
In addition, some LNG carriers have a volume of 10,000 m3, and the maximum is the predicted price. Since the constant develop-
others have a 30,000 m3 volume. The 30,000 m3 LNG carriers are ment of LNG supply chain system leads to the decrease of LNG
limited to certain water resource facilities and thus can only deliver
Table 8
Other costs of the model.
CPL CPS CSS CSP for LNG tanker CSP for 10,000m3 LNG CSP for 30,000m3 LNG CST for LNG tanker CST for 10,000m3 LNG CST for 30,000m3 LNG
trailer carrier tanker trailer trailer carrier tanker trailer
0.5 2.03 108 1.40 108 1.5 104 30.0 104 40.0 104 7 103 100 103 200 103
Table 9
Calculation results.
# of cont. var. # of disc. var. # of con. CPU time (s) f1 (104 CNY) f2 (104 CNY) f3 (104 CNY) f4 (104 CNY) F (104 CNY)
Notes: # of cont. var. represents the number of continuous variables. # of disc. var. represents the number of discrete variables. # of con. represents the number of constraints.
production and supply costs, the predicted LNG purchase price will modes of 10,000 m3 LNG carriers, 30,000 m3 LNG carriers, LNG
drop down. The pipeline delivery distance inuences the pipeline tanker trailers, and gas pipelines. If the LNG PSS node is perceived
gas price, so the its price differs at different places. And in virtue of as the terminal, it needs to receive the LNG from other places,
the increase of energy and labor costs, natural gas pipeline delivery otherwise to construct LE for liquefaction of the delivered pipeline
cost may increase correspondingly, leading to pipeline gas price gas and thereby LNG RS is necessary at this place. If LNG RS is un-
going up. Other costs in the model are shown in Table 8. necessary, it will be denoted as grey parts. The starting point and
end point in the gure denote the delivery start and end and the
5. Results and discussion data denote delivery volume. Moreover, the gure can display the
delivery equipment number required by each delivery task of each
5.1. Calculation result in certainty condition year.
In 2017, LNG RS will be built at sites S1, S4, S5, S6, and S7. LNG RS
We set the uncertain parameters to be the expected values and at S4, S5, and S6 will include LE. Because natural gas cannot be
transformed the uncertain optimization problem into a certain delivered to S7 through pipelines, LNG carriers should be used for
problem. GUROBI is used for solution. The calculation result is delivering liqueed pipeline gas from S5 to S7. In 2020, owing to an
shown in Table 9. expansion in the market demand, LNG RS will be constructed at S8.
The resulting optimal infrastructure development and inventory
routing for the LNG supply system is shown in Fig. 4. Volumes 5.2. Sensitivity analysis for uncertain parameters
delivered by LNG tanker trailers or carriers are of LNG, and volumes
delivered through pipelines are of natural gas. In the gure, the 5.2.1. Sensitivity analysis for LNG price
yellow, blue, red and green parts respectively denote the delivery Due to the increase of demands and the development of supply
Fig. 4. Optimal infrastructure development and inventory routing for the supply system.
H. Zhang et al. / Energy 133 (2017) 424e442 431
system infrastructure construction, LNG import price may be LNG import price uctuation impacts on the infrastructure
lower, and at this point, the sensitivity analysis of the lowering development plan as below. When price lowers by 0%e3%, the
LNG price inuence on supply system construction is performed. infrastructure construction of supply system is shown as Fig. 4. In
When LNG import price lowers by 3% and the construction de- 2017, LNG RS will be built at S1, S4, S5, S6 and S7, among which S5
viates to the east accordingly. In R2 area, S3 is selected to and S6 have LE; then in 2020, the LNG RS will be built at S8. When
construct LNG RS and in 2021, S2 will be chosen to construct LNG price lowers by 3%e9%, the infrastructure construction of supply
RS. Use 3000 m3 tankers to deliver LNG. The detailed optimal system is shown as Fig. 5. In 2017, LNG RS will be built at S1, S3, S5,
infrastructure development and inventory routing for LNG supply S6 and S7, among which S5 and S6 have LE, and in 2021, LNG RS will
system is shown in Fig. 5. When LNG import price lowers to 91%, be built at S2. When price lowers by 9%e10%, the infrastructure
LNG RS at S5 will decrease gas delivery from pipeline, and begin to construction of supply system is shown as Fig. 6. In 2017, LNG RS
construct LNG RS at S2 one year ahead. The detailed optimal will be built at S1, S3, S5, S6 and S7, among which S5 and S6 have
infrastructure development and inventory routing for LNG supply LE; then in 2020, the LNG RS will be built at S2.
system is shown in Fig. 6. Shown as Fig. 7, when the LNG import price declines, this system
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e)
Fig. 7. Impact of declining LNG import price on total cost (a) Delivery cost changes with the declining price of imported LNG (b) Processing cost of pipeline gas changes with the
declining price of imported LNG (c) purchase cost of LNG and natural gas changes with the declining price of imported LNG (d) Construction cost of LNG RS changes with the
declining price of imported LNG (e) Total operating cost of the system changes with the declining price of imported LNG.
will prefer to purchase LNG from LNG RT rather than deliver from development is performed. When the pipeline gas price goes up by
pipelines. The total delivery cost will rise but the processing cost of 2%, in the supply system, purchasing LNG from LNG RT is preferred.
pipeline gas will decrease. When the price lowers by 3% and 9%, In R2 area, S3 should be selected to construct LNG RS and in 2021,
LNG RS constructing plan will also change. The total operating cost S2 should be chosen to construct LNG RS. Use 3000 m3 LNG carriers
of the whole system will decrease gradually. When the price lowers to deliver LNG. The detailed optimal infrastructure development
by 9%, with the increase of deployed 30,000 m3 LNG carriers, the and inventory routing for the LNG supply system is shown in Fig. 8.
delivered volume of pipeline gas will decrease signicantly. Thus, When pipeline gas price goes up by 10%, the infrastructure con-
the total operating cost of the whole system will decline rapidly. struction of supply system should be the same as when the price
increases by 2%. The detailed plan is shown in Fig. 9.
Pipeline gas price variation impacts on the infrastructure
5.2.2. Sensitivity analysis for pipeline gas price
development plan as below. When the price increases by 0%e2%,
Since the increasing of energy and labor cost, natural gas pipe-
the infrastructure construction of supply system is shown as Fig. 4.
line delivery cost may increase correspondingly, leading to pipeline
When the price lowers by 2%e10%, the system infrastructure con-
gas price going up. At this point, the sensitivity analysis of increased
struction is as Fig. 8. In 2017, LNG RS will be built at S1, S3, S5, S6 and
pipeline gas price impacting on supply system infrastructure
H. Zhang et al. / Energy 133 (2017) 424e442 433
S7, among which S5 and S6 have LE; then in 2020, LNG RS will be 5.2.3. Sensitivity analysis for LNG demand
built at S8. When LNG demand in every place uctuates, it will affect the
Shown as Fig. 10, when the price of pipeline gas increases the whole infrastructure development of supply system. At this point,
same as the decline of LNG import price, this system will prefer to the sensitivity analysis of increasing LNG demand inuence on
buy LNG from LNG RT rather than deliver it from pipeline. The total infrastructure development of supply system is performed. The
LNG delivery cost will rise while the handling cost of pipeline gas whole infrastructure development of supply system will not be
will lower down. Even though the construction plan of LNG RS will inuenced when LNG demand increases. When demand increases
change, the total infrastructure construction cost remains the same. by 10%, the whole infrastructure development of supply system and
So the total operating cost of the system will increase gradually. inventory routing is shown as Fig. 11. When demand decreases by
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e)
Fig. 10. Impact of the increasing pipeline gas price on operating cost (a) LNG delivery cost changes with the increasing pipeline gas price (b) Processing cost of pipeline gas changes
with the increasing price of pipeline gas (c) purchase cost of LNG and natural gas changes with the increasing price of pipeline gas (d) Construction cost of LNG RS changes with the
increasing price of pipeline gas (e) Total operating cost of the system changes with the increasing price of pipeline gas.
4%e10%, in the supply system, LNG RS at S8 will be applied next the approximate certain design decision variable. In the sensitive
year. When demand decreases by 10%, the whole infrastructure analysis, at the nodes such as S2, S3, S4, and S8, some conditions
development and inventory routing is shown as Fig. 12. decide to construct the LNG RS while some do not; therefore, the
Shown as Fig. 13, with the increase of demand, all costs are rising station construction binary variables belong to dBU . As for the
up accordingly. Even though operating cost of each part is non- sources D1, D2, D3, D4, F3 and F4, the conditions need to purchase
linearly increasing, the total operating cost as a whole is LNG at these places but there is difference in inventory routes;
increasing linearly. therefore, these delivery binary variables St;j;i;i0 belong to dBU . The
design decision variable related to the nodes represented by solid
5.2.4. Result of Sensitivity analysis spots is the certain design decision variable dBO . In the sensitive
From the sensitive analysis, we can know the classication of analysis, at the nodes such as S7, S6, S5, and S1, each condition
the certain design decision variable dBO and the approximate needs to construct the LNG RS, and S6 and S5 need to construct LE
certain design decision variable dBU , shown as Fig. 14. The design while others do not; therefore, the station construction binary
decision variable related to the nodes represented by mesh spots is variables of these nodes and of LE belong to dBO . In Fig. 14, at the
H. Zhang et al. / Energy 133 (2017) 424e442 435
sources that are framed, namely D5, D6, F1, and F2, each condition The scenario number determines whether the stochastic samples
doesnt need to purchase LNG; therefore, these delivery binary can accurately represent the model uncertainties. Smaller scenario
variables St;j;i;i0 belong to dBO . number will lead to uncertainties in the model solving result, while
large number will lead to the model scale redundancy which pro-
5.3. Calculation result in uncertainty condition longs calculation time. From this point of view, further analysis is
necessary for the scenario inuence on the solving result. We
Combine the sensitive analysis result into the model of equation valued the scenario number from 1 to 45 and solved the model
(2) to calculate the infrastructure development and inventory respectively. The nal result is shown in Fig. 15. It can be seen the
routing of LNG supply system. According to 2.3 section, the method calculation is stable when the scenario number is 45, which is able
is essentially based on a multi-scenario MILP model. First of all, to represent the model uncertainty. And the objective function
generate several series of uncertain parameters stochastically by nally converges to 3895.026 104 CNY.
the Monte Carlo method, thereby constituting multiple scenarios. During the ACO calculation, we pay attention to the ACO
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e)
Fig. 13. Impact of varied demand on operating cost (a) LNG delivery cost changes with variation of predicted LNG demand (b) Processing cost of pipeline gas changes with variation
of predicted LNG demand (c) Purchase cost of LNG and natural gas changes with variation of predicted LNG demand (d) Construction cost of LNG RS changes with variation of
predicted LNG demand (e) Total operating cost of the system changes with variation of predicted LNG demand.
convergence process and calculation stability as well. There are two The result shows that when BPOn becomes smaller, the conver-
critical parameters in ACO algorithm: the ant number km of each gence degree of each time is worse than BPOn 15, since the
colony and the distributed optimal location number BPOn every ants distributed to each location increase with BPOn decreases,
time articial ants relocate. Set the scenario number as 45, BPOn as making the ant colony search bias depth as the lead, which
15, and km as 60, 80, and 100. To verify the algorithm stability, we contributes to each calculation greatly inuenced by self-
calculated for ve times and output the convergence process, probability of ACO algorithm. For example, the forth calculation
shown as Fig. 16. It is obvious that the three-stage stochastic pro- has a fast convergence speed while some are not, which
gramming method has a stable ACO convergence and works out the strengthens the calculation difference. When BPOn is large, the
same solution for each calculation. km pays less inuence on the ant colony search biases breath as the lead, which decreases
model convergence. In this paper, km is recommended to be 60 the convergence speed but strengthens the convergence stability
since larger km results in longer ACO calculation. in the last iteration.
Set the scenario number as 45, km as 50, and BPOn as 5 and To more comprehensively discuss the proposed method, two
20. Similarly, to verify the algorithm stability, we calculated for two-stage stochastic programming methods are selected for com-
ve times and output the convergence process, shown as Fig. 17. parison. The rst one is solved by ACO coupled with MILP model
H. Zhang et al. / Energy 133 (2017) 424e442 437
6. Conclusions
(c) km=100
Fig. 16. km inuence on solving result.
There is still the detailed delivery scheduling plan when LNG RSs
supply to downstream markets, which plays a role in the infra-
structure development and inventory routing of LNG supply system
to some extent. However, in this paper, we perceive the LNG RS as
the terminal and this process as the model assumption, which is
not considered. In the future, the combined optimization of LNG
supply system and downstream market sales plan will be our
further research object.
Fig. 20. LNG supply system infrastructure development and inventory routing.
440 H. Zhang et al. / Energy 133 (2017) 424e442
PPP
VPs;t;i CPL VPs;t;i VPmaxt;i SPt;i s2S; t2T; i2IG (A.10)
s t i
f2
tm$sm The volume of LNG purchased at a given node on a given day
!
PP P cannot exceeds its maximum purchase volume. This is expressed
EL CPLScl BPMA ELS SPt;i CPS as:
t i cl
s2S; s2S; s2S; cl2CL
365$tm VPULs;t;i VPULmaxt;i s2S; t2T; i2IL (A.11)
(A.2)
According to the conservation of capacity, the sum of the input
The cost of purchasing LNG from LNG RT or NGLP and the cost of volume of LNG, the volume of imported and produced LNG, and the
purchasing natural gas are expressed as: volume of natural gas after liquefaction at a given node should
! equal the output volume of LNG plus the demanding volume at the
PP P P given node. This is expressed as:
VPULs;t;i CPULs;i VPs;t;i0 CPGs;i0
f3
s t i i0
s2S; t2T; i2IL; i0 2IG X Xh i
tm$sm 1 lP VLs;t;j;i0 ;i VPULs;t;i 1 lL aVPs;t;i
(A.3) j i0
XX
The deprecation cost of building LNG PRSS includes depre- VLs;t;j;i0 ;i VDs;t;i s2S; t2T; j2J; i; i0 2I (A.12)
j i0
cation cost of LNG store equipment and infrastructure. LNG
store equipment deprecation cost is related to LNG PRSS The total consuming LNG volume in all LNG RSs nodes in one DR
throughout capacity. LNG infrastructure deprecation cost is should be equal to the total demanding LNG volume in this DR.
expressed as: X
FDRi;k VDs;t;i VTDs;i;k s2S; t2T; i2IPS; k2K (A.13)
PP P i
ES BLPMAt;i;cr CSLcr At;i CSS
t i cr
f4 (A.4)
365$tm
t2T; j2J; i2IPS; i0 2I; cr2CR
A.4. Vehicle constraints
St;j;i;i0 FISj;i;i0 t2T; j2J; i; i0 2I (A.8) From other nodes to destination node, transit cycle of every
delivery plan should be no more than the turnover period of LNG
If at the source node, facilities have not been constructed and RS. The constraint is expressed as:
operated, then LNG cannot be exported. The constraint is expressed
as: St;j;i0 ;i Taj 2Lj;i0 ;i Rj
b t2T; j2J; i; i0 2I (A.16)
X Ntj
St;j;i;i0 FMCt;i M t2T; i2IL (A.9)
i0
VPULs;t;i The average daily volume of LNG that all regions purchase supply chain using liquid nitrogen for natural-gas liquefaction. Appl Energy
2016;182:154e63.
from node i in year t in scenario s (m3)
[8] Andersson H, Christiansen M, Fagerholt K. Transportation planning and in-
ventory management in the LNG supply chain. Energy Nat Resour Environ
Binary variables Econ 2010:427e39.
[9] Jokinen R, Pettersson F, Saxen H. An MILP model for optimization of a small-
At;i The binary variable for the LNG RS. If there has
scale LNG supply chain along a coastline. Appl Energy 2015;138:423e31.
constructed LNG RS at node i in year t, Ai 1; otherwise, [10] Mo C, Park HC, Coimbra CFM. Estimation of the building energy loads and LNG
Ai 0 demand for a cogeneration-based community energy system: a case study in
St;j;i;i0 The binary variable for delivery. If node i is delivering LNG Korea. Energy Convers Manag 2014;87:1010e26.
[11] Goel V, Furman KC, Song JH, El-Bakry AS. Large neighborhood search for LNG
to node i0 using mode j in year t, Stj;i;i0 1; otherwise, inventory routing. J Heuristics 2012;18:821e48.
Stj;i;i0 0 [12] Christiansen M, Ronen D. Ship routing and scheduling: status and perspec-
SPt;i The binary variable for the LE0 construction. If there is any tives. Transp Sci 2004;38:1e18.
[13] Grnhaug R, Christiansen M. Supply chain optimization for the liqueed
LE at node i in year t, StPi 1; otherwise, StPi 0 natural gas business. 2009.
BLPMAt;i;cr The binary variable for LNG RS design scale, if the [14] Nhaug R, Christiansen M, Desaulniers G, Desrosiers J. A branch-and-price
construction design scale of node i is the LNG RS of cr method for a liqueed natural gas inventory routing problem. Transp Sci
2010;44:400e15.
grade, BLPMAt;i;cr 1; otherwise, BLPMAt;i;cr 0 [15] Rakke JG, Stlhane M, Moe CR, Christiansen M, Andersson H, Fagerholt K, et al.
BPMAt;i;cl The binary variable for liquefaction plant design scale, if A rolling horizon heuristic for creating a liqueed natural gas annual delivery
the construction scale of node i is the liquefaction plant of program. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 2011;19:896e911.
[16] Goel V, Slusky M, Hoeve WJV, Furman KC, Shao Y. Constraint programming for
cl grade, BPMAt;i;cl 1; otherwise, BPMAt;i;cl 0
LNG ship scheduling and inventory management. Eur J Oper Res 2015;241:
662e73.
Integer variables [17] Stlhane M, Rakke JG, Moe CR, Andersson H, Christiansen M, Fagerholt K.
nSs;t;j;i The number of vehicles using delivery mode j in year t A construction and improvement heuristic for a liqueed natural gas in-
ventory routing problem. Comput Ind Eng 2012;62:245e55.
using node i as the starting location to deliver the gas in [18] Lin W, Zhang N, Gu A. LNG (liqueed natural gas): a necessary part in Chinas
scenario s future energy infrastructure. Energy 2010;35:4383e91.
[19] Kaplan A, Yang C. Design considerations for an LNG receiving terminal. In: SPE
annual technical conference and exhibition; 2003.
References [20] Zhang Q, Li Z, Wang G, Li H. Study on the impacts of natural gas supply cost on
gas ow and infrastructure deployment in China. Appl Energy 2015;162.
[1] BP. BP statistical review of world energy. 2015. www.bp.com/ [21] Li X, Armagan E, Tomasgard A, Barton PI. Stochastic pooling problem for
statisticalreview. natural gas production network design and operation under uncertainty.
[2] Chen Z, An H, Gao X, Li H, Hao X. Competition pattern of the global liqueed Aiche J 2011;57:2120e35.
natural gas (LNG) trade by network analysis. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2016;33: [22] Li X, Barton PI. Optimal design and operation of energy systems under un-
769e76. certainty. J Process Control 2015;30:1e9.
[3] Ma Y, Li Y. Analysis of the supply-demand status of Chinas natural gas to [23] Li X, Tomasgard A, Barton PI. Natural gas production network infrastructure
2020. Pet Sci 2010;7:132e5. development under uncertainty. Optim Eng 2016:1e28.
[4] Wood DA. A review and outlook for the global LNG trade. J Nat Gas Sci Eng [24] Zhou Z, Zhang JY, Liu P, Li Z, Georgiadis MC, Pistikopoulos EN. A two-stage
2012;9:16e27. stochastic programming model for the optimal design of distributed energy
[5] Lee S, Seo Y, Lee J, Chang D. Economic evaluation of pressurized LNG supply systems. Appl Energy 2013;103:135e44.
chain. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2016;33:405e18. [25] Zhang H, Liang Y, Liao Q, Wu M, Yan X. A hybrid computational approach for
[6] Yoo BY. Economic assessment of liqueed natural gas (LNG) as a marine fuel detailed scheduling of products in a pipeline with multiple pump stations.
for CO2 carriers compared to marine gas oil (MGO). Energy 2017;121:772e80. Energy 2017;119:612e28.
[7] Kim J, Seo Y, Chang D, Yan J. Economic evaluation of a new small-scale LNG