G Model

JIEC-1925; No. of Pages 6

Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry xxx (2014) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry

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

Optimizing ethane recovery in turboexpander processes

Laura Kherbeck, Rachid Chebbi *
Department of Chemical Engineering, American University of Sharjah, PO Box 26666, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Optimization of ethane recovery using the CRR process shows that, except for the case of lean gas at low
Received 5 October 2013 demethanizer pressure, the CRR process reduces to GSP, in which there is no reux stream and therefore
Accepted 19 February 2014 no added cryogenic compression and heat exchange equipment. Adding a second cold separator,
Available online xxx
operating at lower temperature, in GSP is found to lead to more or less recovery depending on the NGL
content of the feed gas and the demethanizer pressure. GSP is also compared with the conventional
Keywords: turboexpander process. Optimization shows that adding more equipment or even ow splitting may
Simulation
lead to less ethane recovery.
Ethane recovery
Natural gas liquids (NGL)
2014 The Korean Society of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights
Turboexpander reserved.
Cold residue recycle (CRR)
Gas subcooled process (GSP)

1. Introduction
There are many extraction processes for natural gas liquids
which include JouleThompson (JT) expansion, refrigeration using
propane in a chiller, and turboexpansion. More often than not, all
three processes are used at once. Mixed refrigerants can also be
used [1] but the most popular process in the natural gas liquids
(NGL)-recovery industry is turboexpansion. A review of NGL
recovery can be found in Manning and Thompson [1], McKee [2],
Pitman et al. [3], GPSA [4], Chebbi et al. [5,6], Mehrpooya et al. [7]
and in the references therein. The optimized conventional process
for ethane recovery [5], to which the present results are compared,
is shown in Fig. 1. The cold residue recycle (CRR) process, examined
in this paper (Fig. 2), is claimed to provide very high ethane
recovery, above 98% [4]. The CRR process [3,4,8] is built upon the
gas subcooled process (GSP). In the GSP [4], the gas leaving the
separator is split, with one fraction subcooled by heat exchange
with the overhead stream from the demethanizer, and the other
fraction entering the turboexpander. The fraction subcooled by the
demethanizer overhead stream is ashed in a valve and fed to the
tower as reux [4]. The GSP process is considered in the present
work (Fig. 3). The process in Fig. 4, referred to as GSP with cold
separator in the rest of the manuscript, has a cold separator
operating at a lower temperature than the chiller temperature. The
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +971 65152983.
E-mail address: rchebbi@aus.edu (R. Chebbi).
CRR process has one addition when compared to the GSP process
(Fig. 3): a reux stream to rectify the vapors in the demethanizer
tower in order to minimize the amount of ethane and other heavier
hydrocarbons that leave with the overhead. A compressor is used
to boost part of the demethanizer overhead stream to a slightly
higher pressure so that a fraction of the methane could be liqueed
by the ashed stream and sent to the top stage of the demethanizer
(see Fig. 2). The ashed feed to the demethanizer would condense
some of the ethane from the turboexpander outlet vapor and the
liquid reux stream would condense some of the remaining ethane
vapors at the top of the tower.
Maximum ethane recovery can be carried out by changing a
select number of design variables. Ethane and NGL recovery
problems are characterized by a large number of design variables
affecting ethane and NGL recovery that include, but are not limited
to demethanizer pressure and split ratio(s) if any.
The present paper considers the effect of demethanizer
pressure on maximum ethane recovery for the CRR process as
compared to a conventional turboexpander process [5]. Further-
more, GSP (without or with cold separator) is considered and its
performance compared to both the CRR process and the
conventional turboexpander process [5] for a lean and a rich feed
gas at different demethanizer pressures. Optimization is per-
formed by maximizing the percent ethane recovery. Ethane
recovery as a function of demethanizer pressure is then reported
and analyzed for the two types of feed. Feed composition, ow
rates, temperature and pressure are identical to the values used in
Bandoni et al. [9], and Chebbi et al. [5,6] for feeds A and D.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2014.02.035
1226-086X/ 2014 The Korean Society of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: L. Kherbeck, R. Chebbi, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2014.02.035
G Model
JIEC-1925; No. of Pages 6

2 L. Kherbeck, R. Chebbi / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry xxx (2014) xxxxxx

Fig. 1. Conventional ethane recovery process optimized for maximum ethane recovery in [5].

Fig. 2. CRR process ow sheet.

Fig. 3. Gas subcooled process (GSP) ow sheet.

2. Simulation and optimization
2.1. CRR process
The study was conducted by rst simulating the CRR process.
Fig. 2 demonstrates the process ow sheet for the CRR process. The
gure does not depict the refrigeration loop, which is connected to
the main process through the chiller. The feed is rst cooled by
providing the duty necessary for the reboiler, and further cooling of
the feed is achieved by heat exchange with the residue gas. The
four demethanizer pressures considered are 100, 215, 335, and
450 psia as in [5,6]. The pressures are grouped as low (100 psia),

Please cite this article in press as: L. Kherbeck, R. Chebbi, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2014.02.035
G Model
JIEC-1925; No. of Pages 6

L. Kherbeck, R. Chebbi / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry xxx (2014) xxxxxx 3

Fig. 4. GSP with cold separator.

intermediate (215 psia), and high (335 and 450 psia) and cover the Table 1
Feed gas composition.
typical range of demethanizer operating pressures, 100450 psia
[1]. The reboiler duty cannot be provided through heat integration Component Feed A Feed D
at high demethanizer pressures (335 and 450 psia) due to the fact Nitrogen 0.01 0.01
that the temperature prole in the column is shifted up and the Methane 0.93 0.69
feed gas temperature ceases to be enough to provide the reboiler Ethane 0.03 0.15
duty, as also indicated in [6]. Propane 0.015 0.075
Butanes 0.009 0.045
The pre-cooled feed is sent to a chiller where propane is used to
Pentanes 0.003 0.015
reduce its temperature to 31 8F. This temperature was selected Hexanes 0.003 0.015
to maximize cooling; taking into account the lowest temperature C2+ (%) 6 30
allowed in the chiller of 40 8F required to avoid air leakage into
the system [1], and temperature approach in the chiller. The cold
feed from the chiller enters a separator where the gas is separated
from the liquid. A portion of the separated gas is cooled by heat consistency with the typical range in [1]. In all cases, the feed gas
exchange with a fraction of the overhead stream leaving the ow rate is 10,980 lbmol/h. The maximum conventional tur-
demethanizer column. It is then expanded through JT expansion boexpander ethane recovery values were obtained from [5].
and enters another heat exchanger designed to cool a portion of
the recycled overhead, following which the stream enters the 2.2. GSP and GSP with cold separator
demethanizer. The other portion of the separated gas is expanded
in a turboexpander and sent to the demethanizer at a lower stage. The gas subcooled process (GSP) and GSP with cold separator
A fraction of the liquid leaving the separator is mixed with the are shown in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively.
separator gas outlet that goes into heat exchange, while the
remainder undergoes JT expansion to column pressure and enters
the demethanizer at a lower stage than the feed stream from the 3. Results and discussion
turboexpander. The ashed split-vapor stream is not cold enough
to condense partially the overhead methane reux stream at the The simulation was performed using Aspen HYSYS with the
operating pressure of the demethanizer. Thus, a cryogenic Peng-Robinson thermodynamic package. The optimization in-
compressor is used to boost part of the demethanizer overhead volved changing the design variables affecting ethane and NGL
to a slightly higher pressure so that a fraction of the methane can recovery to maximize the objective function, dened as the ratio of
then be condensed [3]. The compressed overhead is cooled, and ethane in the NGL stream to the ethane in the feed. The design
then expanded through a valve before being supplied to the top of variables selected were the split ratios in all of the splitters, the
the tower. The fraction of the overhead that is not reuxed back is temperatures at the outlet (higher temperature side) of the heat
termed the residue gas. Part of the power required to recompress exchangers following the mixer, and the cryogenic compressor
the residue gas is provided by the turboexpander, but a outlet pressure. The constraints were set so as to prevent
recompressor is needed to bring the residue gas pressure up to temperature cross in all the heat exchangers and to ensure that
882 psia. Two different feeds are considered: feed A and feed D as the reux stream is colder than the ashed split-vapor stream as
in [5,6,9]. The compositions in terms of mole fractions are given in they enter the demethanizer. Optimization thus yielded the
Table 1. Feed A is a lean gas with 6% C2+ content, and D is a rich feed optimum values of the design variables affecting ethane and
with 30% C2+ content. The feed gas enters the NGL recovery unit at NGL recovery for each demethanizer pressure for both lean and
100 8F and 882 psia, the residue gas is recompressed to 882 psia, rich feeds, i.e. the values that contributed to the highest ethane
and the molar ratio of C1 to C2 in the NGL stream is set to 0.02 in recovery.

Please cite this article in press as: L. Kherbeck, R. Chebbi, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2014.02.035
G Model
JIEC-1925; No. of Pages 6

4 L. Kherbeck, R. Chebbi / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry xxx (2014) xxxxxx

100 100
Feed A Feed D
90

80 90

70
C2 recovery, %

C2 recovery, %
60 80

50

40 70

30
CRR/GSP (CRR at 100 psia, GSP at higher P) GSP
20 60
Conventional turboexpander Conventionel turboexpander
GSP with cold separator (GSP at 100 & 215 psia) GSP with cold separator
10

0 50
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Demethanizer pressure, psia Demethanizer pressure, psia

Fig. 5. Effect of demethanizer pressure on ethane recovery for the lean gas feed A; Fig. 7. Effect of demethanizer pressure on ethane recovery for the rich gas feed D;
conventional turboexpander results from [5]. conventional turboexpander results from [5].

3.1. Feed A
The HYSYS optimizer tool indicated that the CRR process indeed
made recoveries of 99.9% possible only for a demethanizer
pressure of 100 psia and for the lean feed gas A. For all the higher
demethanizer pressures, results indicated that for feed A, the
optimum process would not include the reux. Initially, these
results were suspected after a sensitivity analysis was carried out
on the split ratio in the overhead splitter and the cryogenic
compressor outlet pressure. Later, optimization using the HYSYS
optimizer tool conrmed the results. The conguration in Fig. 2 has
hence been altered to discard the reux splitter, the cryogenic
compressor, heat exchanger, and expansion valve, while retaining
the two splitters at the top and bottom outlets of the rst separator.
The results summarized in Fig. 5, show how ethane recovery with
the CRR/GSP compares to the recovery from the conventional
turboexpander process [5]. It can be seen that the CRR process, and
hence the GSP, are not as effective at high demethanizer pressures,
while the conventional turboexpander process is not as effective as
the other two processes at low and intermediate demethanizer
pressures.
Some of the differences between the GSP (Fig. 3), and the
conventional turboexpander process in [5] (also shown in Fig. 1),
lie in the two splitters at the outlet of the separator operating at
31 8F in the GSP case, and also in the additional cold separator in
the conventional turboexpander process [5]. However, since the
GSP has been shown to give superior recovery at low and
intermediate pressures, and lower recovery at high pressures, it
was postulated that the difference could lie in the additional cold
separator utilized in the conventional turboexpander process.
Thus, the GSP was modied by adding a cold separator operating at
a temperature lower than the chiller temperature. At high
demethanizer pressures, GSP with cold separator provided higher
recoveries than GSP, and slightly higher ethane recoveries than the
conventional turboexpander values [5]. The separator overhead
stream splitter was found unnecessary, leading to the simplied
ow sheet in Fig. 6. At low and intermediate pressures, GSP with

Fig. 6. GSP with cold separator process (feed A at high demethanizer pressure conguration or feed D at all demethanizer pressures).

Please cite this article in press as: L. Kherbeck, R. Chebbi, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2014.02.035
G Model
JIEC-1925; No. of Pages 6

L. Kherbeck, R. Chebbi / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry xxx (2014) xxxxxx 5

(a) 100
compared to the recovery from the conventional turboexpander
process [5]. The results are shown in Fig. 7. At low and intermediate
CRR/GSP
90 demethanizer pressures, GSP and the conventional turboexpander
80 process were found to give close ethane recoveries. The deviations
in recovery were observed at high demethanizer pressures at
70
which the GSP gave better recovery than the conventional
C2 recovery, %

60 turboexpander process. For this particular feed, the GSP with cold
separator was also tested and found to give recovery values similar
50
to the other processes tested for low and intermediate pressures. In
40 the high pressure range, the recovery from the GSP with a cold
separator fell between the values from the GSP and the conventional
30
turboexpander process [5]. At all demethanizer pressures, GSP with
20
Feed A (CRR at 100 psia, GSP at higher P) cold separator (Fig. 4) reduced to the conguration in Fig. 6, with no
10
Feed D (GSP) need for the separator overhead splitter.

0 3.3. Ethane recovery

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Demethanizer pressure, psia Although the CRR process is frequently stated to allow for
ethane recoveries of 99% or higher values [8], the process
(b)
100 optimization yielded signicantly lower recovery values for
Conventional turboexpander intermediate and high demethanizer pressures in the case of feed
90
(Chebbi et al., 2008)
A, and all pressures for feed D. At low demethanizer pressures
80 (100 psia), the reux stream entering the tower is 80.5 8F colder
70 than the turboexpander outlet stream entering the tower. For
intermediate pressure (215 psia), the temperature difference is
C2 recovery, %

60
56.5 8F. It is speculated that it is the large temperature gap
50 observed at low demethanizer pressure that is responsible for the
superior ethane recovery as compression not only enhances
40
pressure but also temperature. The lowest recovery values for both
30 feeds A and D were the ones at the highest demethanizer pressure
(450 psia).
20 Feed A
Fig. 8 shows the effect of demethanizer pressure on ethane
Feed D
10 recovery for feeds A and D. For all the processes, the impact of the
0 demethanizer pressure on ethane recovery is signicantly less for
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 the rich gas D compared to the lean gas A over the range 215
Demethanizer pressure, psia 450 psia. On the other hand, higher ethane recoveries are obtained
for the lean gas A at low demethanizer pressure, whereas higher C2
(c)
100 recoveries are attained for feed D at intermediate and higher
GSP with cold separator pressures.
90
For the lean gas A, the GSP with cold separator was found to be
80 the most viable process, reaping the benets of the split-stream
conguration at low and intermediate pressures, and those of the
70
conventional turboexpander process at high demethanizer pres-
C2 recovery, %

60 sures. However, the CRR process remains the process of choice for
50
the lean gas at low demethanizer pressure.
With the exception of low demethanizer pressure, the process
40 that yields the highest recovery for feed D is the GSP, which
30 excludes additional cryogenic compressor and heat exchanger
from the CRR process.
20 Feed A (GSP at 100 and 215 psia)
Feed D
10 4. Conclusion

0
The cold residue recycle (CRR) process was simulated to
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
maximize ethane recovery at different demethanizer pressures.
Demethanizer pressure, psia
The optimized design variables included all split ratios, the outlet
Fig. 8. Effect of demethanizer pressure on ethane recovery for (a) CRR/GSP, (b) temperatures (higher temperature side) from the heat exchangers
conventional turboexpander process [5] and (c) GSP with cold separator for feeds A (downstream of the chiller) and the cryogenic compressor outlet
and D. pressure. The CRR process is the most viable option for low
demethanizer pressure with ethane recovery of 99.9% for the lean
cold separator was found to reduce to GSP, with zero vapor ow gas considered. However, adding more complexity to the process
rate leaving the cold separator. may lead to lower ethane recovery. This result concurs with the
nding in Chebbi et al. [10]. In particular (i) the only case where a
3.2. Feed D cryogenic compressor is needed is for feed A (lean gas) at low
demethanizer pressure (100 psia). In all other cases, the CRR
In the optimization for rich gas D, the CRR process was tested process reduces to GSP where the cryogenic compressor followed
rst and found to reduce to GSP. The ethane recovery from GSP was by the heat exchanger and JT valve following it are all not needed

Please cite this article in press as: L. Kherbeck, R. Chebbi, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2014.02.035
G Model
JIEC-1925; No. of Pages 6
6 L. Kherbeck, R. Chebbi / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry xxx (2014) xxxxxx
for higher ethane recovery. On the other hand (ii) adding a cold
separator to GSP, operating at a lower temperature than the chiller
temperature (in addition to the separator operating at 31 8F),
yields less recovery in the case of the rich feed gas D, except at
100 psia. Also (iii) the GSP with cold separator reduces to GSP in the
case of the lean feed gas A at low and intermediate pressures,
making the cold separator unnecessary. Furthermore (iv) in case
GSP with cold separator provides higher recovery (lean gas A at
high demethanizer pressures), only one splitter is required: the
separator liquid outlet splitter, with the separator vapor outlet
splitter discarded.
For feeds containing CO2, care should be taken to make sure CO2
frost [1] will not occur; this point is not addressed in the present
investigation since the two feeds considered are free from CO2. On
the other hand, the objective in this work is to maximize ethane
recovery; therefore costing is not required. Further investigations
could address the abovementioned two points.
Please cite this article in press as: L. Kherbeck, R. Chebbi, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2014.02.035
References
[1] F.S. Manning, R.E. Thompson, Oileld Processing of Petroleum, rst ed., PennWell
Publishing Company, Tulsa, 1991.
[2] R.L. McKee, Evolution in design, in: Proceedings of the 56th Annual GPA Conven-
tion, Dallas, 1977.
[3] R.N. Pitman, H.M. Hudson, J.D. Wilkinson, K.T. Cuellar, Next generation processes for
NGL/LPG recovery, in: Proceedings of the 77th Annual GPA Convention, Dallas, 1998.
[4] GPSA, Engineering Data Book, Sec. 16, twelfth ed., Gas Processors Suppliers
Association, 2004.
[5] R. Chebbi, K.A. Al Mazroui, N.M. Abdel Jabbar, Oil & Gas Journal 106 (46) (2008) 50.
[6] R. Chebbi, N.S. Al-Amoodi, N.M. Abdel Jabbar, G.A. Husseini, K.A. Al Mazroui,
Chemical Engineering Research and Design 88 (2010) 779.
[7] M. Mehrpooya, A. Vatani, S.M.A. Mousavian, Chemical Engineering and Processing
49 (4) (2010) 376.
[8] J.D. Wilkinson, H.M. Hudson, Improved NGL recovery designs maximize operating
exibility and product recoveries, in: Proceedings of the 71st Annual GPA Con-
vention, Anaheim, 1992.
[9] J.A. Bandoni, A.M. Eliceche, G.D.B. Mabe, E.A. Brignole, Computers & Chemical
Engineering 13 (1989) 587.
[10] R. Chebbi, A.S. Al-Qaydi, A.O. Al-Amery, N.S. Al-Zaabi, H.A. Al-Mansoori, Oil & Gas
Journal 102 (4) (2004) 64.