Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 261–274

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Analysis and efficiency enhancement of a boil-off gas reliquefaction

system with cascade cycle on board LNG carriers
J. Romero Gómez a,⇑, M. Romero Gómez a, J. Lopez Bernal b, A. Baaliña Insua a
a
Department of Energy and Marine Propulsion, ETSNM, University of A Coruna, Paseo de Ronda 51, A Coruna 15011, Spain
b
Department of Thermal Machines and Engines, C.A.S.E.M, University of Cadiz, Campus Universitario Río San Pedro, Puerto Real, Cádiz, Spain

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

Article history: In this paper, an LNG boil-off gas (BOG) reliquefaction plant operating in accordance with cascade vapor
Received 29 September 2014 compression cycles, using propylene and ethylene as refrigerants, on board LNG carriers is investigated.
Accepted 25 January 2015 As consequence of the analysis results, a new and original design is proposed to reduce power consump-
tion and improve its exergy efficiency. Through energy and exergy analysis, a thermodynamic model is
carried out to analyse and evaluate operating conditions as well as to obtain performance values such
Keywords: as the Coefficient of Performance (COP), exergy efficiency, irreversibilities and specific energy consump-
Reliquefaction on board
tion. The thermodynamic analysis is performed using the Engineering Equation Solver (EES) software
LNG boil off gas
Cascade cycle
environment. The results of the improved design implemented on the reliquefaction plant for LNG tank
Thermodynamic analysis conditions of -160.82 °C, a plant BOG input temperature of 125 °C and 25 °C seawater, give COP values
Efficiency of 0.22 and an exergetic efficiency of 37%, such values being 22.22% and 19.35% greater than the original
Cold energy recovery design. The specific energy consumption decreases 14.66% to 0.64 kW h per kg/s of natural BOG. The pro-
posal for improving efficiency is founded on BOG cold energy recovery and BOG compression heat rejec-
tion with cooling water in the intercoolers.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and background
Since the introduction of LNG transport ships, steam turbines
have almost exclusively been the method of propulsion. This is
namely due to the simplicity of using the BOG from the evapora-
tion of the cargo to feed the boilers, while controlling the pressure
in the cargo tanks. The overall efficiency of this method is esti-
mated to be of around 30%.
The increasing cost of energy has imposed a revision of the pro-
pulsion system of steam turbine LNG carriers. Moreover, there is a
growing awareness in today’s marine market of the need for alter-
native fuel solutions that can reduce emissions, while also demon-
strating commercial viability. Finding a single solution that can
ensure compliance with the impending regulations of the Interna-
tional Maritime Organization (IMO), [1–3], to reduce sulphur oxide
(SOx), nitrogen oxide (NOx) has so far proven to be elusive however.
IMO ship pollution rules are contained in the ‘‘International
Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships’’, known as
MARPOL 73/78. In September 1997, the MARPOL Convention was
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 981 167000 4233; fax: +34 981 167100.
E-mail addresses: j.romero.gomez@udc.es (J. Romero Gómez), m.romero.
gomez@udc.es (M. Romero Gómez), juan.lopez@uca.es (J. Lopez Bernal), alvaro.
baalina@udc.es (A. Baaliña Insua).
amended by the ‘‘1997 Protocol’’, which includes Annex VI titled
‘‘Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships’’. MAR-
POL Annex VI sets limits on NOx and SOx emissions from ship
exhausts, and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting
substances.
Moreover, in terms of energy efficiency, MARPOL Annex VI
Chapter 4 introduces two mandatory mechanisms intended to
ensure an energy efficiency standard for ships:
(1) the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), for new ships, and
(2) the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for all
ships.
The EEDI is an efficiency-based mechanism that requires certain
minimum energy efficiency on new ships. Ship designers and
builders are free to choose the technologies to satisfy the EEDI
requirements for a specific ship design. On the other hand, the
SEEMP establishes a mechanism for operators to improve the
energy efficiency of ships. Such regulations were enforced as of 1
January 2013 on all ships over 400 gross tonnage.
To meet the compliance criteria of NOx regulations and the
introduction of 0.1% SOx limits in North American and European
Emission Control Areas (ECAs), and also of the EEDI and SEEMP
plans, propulsion systems with dual fuel diesel engines in

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.01.074
0196-8904/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
262 J. Romero Gómez et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 261–274

Nomenclature

e specific exergy (kJ/kg) cond condensation/condenser

E exergy (kW) C3H6 propylene
h specific enthalpy (kJ/kg) C2H4 ethylene
I_ irreversibility (kW) sea condensing medium
m _ mass flow rate (kg/s) s isentropic
p pressure (bar) f boundary
Q_ heat transfer rate (kW) 0 ambient
T temperature (°C) BO (nat) natural boil off
W_ power (kW) st compression stage
CLNG carrier LNG carrier capacity (m3)
q density (kg/m3) Acronyms
DH latent heat of vaporisation (kJ/kg) BOR BOG rate (%/day)
De LNG vaporisation exergy in tanks (kJ/kg) BO boil off
C compressor
Greek letters COP Coefficient of Performance
W mass flow ratio (kg/kg BO) HE heat exchanger
g thermal efficiency LNG liquefied natural gas
gex exergy efficiency SP specific power (kW/(kgBO(nat)/s))
gmec mechanical efficiency SEC specific energy consumption (kW h/(kgBO(nat)/s))
IC intercooler
Subscripts SV selective valve
comp compression EV expansion valve
evap evaporation

four-stroke (medium speed) or two-stroke engines (low-speed) in
combination with a BOG reliquefaction systems on board LNG car-
riers are being installed as a real viable alternative. This combina-
tion offers a flexible system which makes it possible to switch
between fuels, depending on fuel prices and whether operating
in ECAs. Dual fuel engines offer an alternative to more costly distil-
late fuels, allowing the vessel operator to switch fuel to gas. With
marine gas oil prices currently 50% higher than sulphur bunker fuel
[4], dual-fuel engines offer ship operators an alternative solution to
costly bunker fuel bills while fulfilling the emission regulations.
They also offer the flexibility much sought after by operators, of
switching between gas and residual or distillate fuels, depending
upon price and bunkering availability. Dual fuel engines are also
safe and reliable, as a result of the experience obtained over many
years from two-stroke diesel engines for the marine market.
Due to the advantages of the abovementioned combination of
dual fuel diesel engines with BOG reliquefaction systems, in recent
years, with the aim of improving energy efficiency and operability
of ships, BOG reliquefaction systems are being investigated [5] and
developed in conjunction with systems of dual fuel engine gas
supply.
pression in several stages, with a reciprocating compressor espe-
cially designed for this purpose, or through LNG compression
above super-critical pressure in a high pressure pump and heated
to the required temperature in the LNG vaporiser (heat exchanger).
These two systems are offered in many different configurations,
and from different manufacturers. MAN Diesel and Burckhardt
Compression have engaged in a strategic partnership agreement
to develop a compressor able to handle, at one end, the BOG at
(160 °C) and virtually atmospheric pressure and at the other
end, up to 300 bar for injection into the ME-GI two-stroke, dual-
fuel engines, developed by MAN for LNG carrier propulsion sys-
tems. The function is accomplished with one common structure,
which compresses the cold BOG directly to the required injection
pressure.
Dual fuel engines are efficient and consequently not all BOG can
be utilised in the engine in the different operating modes. Rather
than burning excessive gas in the gas combustion unit (GCU),
which implies no energy exploitation, the gas can be liquefied in
the reliquefaction system and returned to the tanks.

Main Engine Main Engine Main Engine

1.1. The combination of the gas supply system with dual fuel engines 2- Stroke 2- Stroke 4- Stroke

250 bar 45ºC P< 10 bar 45ºC

The system of handling the BOG can be combined with the
engine’s gas supply system in many different ways, thereby offer-
HP Vaporizer
ing different configurations and techniques. These can be classified HP compressor
5 stages Compressor
according to the gas supply pressure. Fig. 1 shows the different HP
Forcing
options for gas fuelling at low and high pressures with dual fuel GCU GCU Pump GCU vaporizer
engines.
Two-stroke technology powered by high pressure gas is led by
manufacturer MAN B&W with ME-GI (Gas Injection) engines, while
fuelling at a pressure below 10 bar for a two-stroke is under devel- RS RS RS

opment by manufacturer Wärtsilä. The first two-stroke engines LNG LNG LNG
utilising this technology, the Wärtsilä RT-flex50DF, will be avail- (b)
(a)
able for delivery in the third quarter of 2014 [6].
Fuel supply in a high pressure two-stroke engine (150–250 bar Fig. 1. Different configurations for dual fuel engine gas supply: (a) at high pressure,
depending on engine load), can be carried out through BOG com- (b) at low pressure. RS: reliquefaction system, GCU: gas combustion unit.
 J. Romero Gómez et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 261–274 263

The reliquefaction system can be operated in parallel with a presented, in accordance with first and second laws, in order to
propulsion BOG system at partial or full reliquefaction mode. This analyse and evaluate the conditions, parameters and energy con-
offers the opportunity to use the BOG for propulsion and reliquefy sumption required in the reliquefaction process for the maximum
excessive BOG, or to reliquefy all the BOG on those occasions when rate condition. That is, full reliquefaction for a loaded ship. An
the propulsion system does not require energy, such as when the alternative is proposed below with the aim of improving efficiency
ship is at anchor. and reducing the specific power required to operate the BOG plant
in reliquefaction tasks.
1.2. BOG reliquefaction systems The substantial improvement in efficiency achieved in the reliq-
uefaction process with the proposed optional design is due to:
Among the reliquefaction systems, the reverse Brayton cycle is
widely used in LNG liquefaction plants onshore and is currently  Utilisation of cold energy in the BOG in the pre-heater.
being implanted on board some LNG carriers. There are very recent  Sub-cooling of condensed BOG before returning to tanks.
studies dealing with these systems. Romero et al. [7] have analysed  Rejection of heat of BOG compression through cooling water in
and evaluated, by means of a thermodynamic study, the condi- the intercoolers and after-cooler.
tions, parameters and energy consumption required in the process
of on board reliquefaction under the reverse Brayton cycle, includ- The methodology used in this work is divided into the following
ing the influence of the choice and variation of diverse factors on steps: description of the reliquefaction plant based on the design of
the operating conditions and power. [15], energy and exergy analysis, parameterisation and computa-
A dynamic simulation which facilitates the design of the plant tion, proposal for efficiency enhancement, discussion of results
and control system for the thermal process has been presented and conclusions.
by Shin and Lee [8]. A reliquefaction process based on the reverse
Brayton cycle has been designed, and its static thermodynamic
states have been presented. Dynamic simulations have been con-
2. Description of the reliquefaction plant
ducted for all operating modes.
A thermo economic optimisation of the LNG-BOG liquefaction
The reliquefaction plant based on the design proposed by TGE
system has been performed in [9], based on energy and exergy
Marine Gas Engineering for LNG carriers is depicted in Fig. 2, where
analyses and on an economic model according to the total revenue
a high pressure fuel gas supply system is combined with a BOG
requirement.
reliquefaction system utilising cascade refrigeration. The BOG
Anderson et al. [10] have discussed the details of the design,
compression system provides BOG at 4000 kPa for the reliquefac-
qualification and development activities, and operating modes of
tion process.
the reliquefaction systems for the first Q-Flex and Q-Max LNG car-
As illustrated in Fig. 2, in reliquefaction mode, after being com-
riers to enable the use of slow-speed diesel engines in order to
pressed in three stages to 4000 kPa and cooled to a temperature
achieve higher efficiency and lower emissions than conventional
approaching sea water in an intercooler (IC-3), the BOG from the
LNG carriers.
tanks is directed through a selection valve (SV) to a heat exchanger
Romero et al. [11] have described different technologies applied
(HE-1). Here, the BOG undergoes a heat exchange with the propyl-
to the reliquefaction of BOG on LNG carriers, contributing to high-
ene refrigerant, which works in a double compression refrigeration
light the process and operation characteristics, as well as selection
cycle with full injection, thereby lowering the BOG temperature,
plant criteria. Also, a comparison of the different reliquefaction
and hence pre-cooling it before being reliquefied in a second heat
plants, considering their capacities and efficiencies as well as other
exchanger (HE-2). Once the BOG is in liquid state, it is returned to
technical data of interest has been carried out.
the tanks through an expansion valve (EV-1). BOG reliquefaction in
Pil et al. [12] have given an introduction to reliability assess-
HE-2 is performed through heat transfer to the ethylene refriger-
ment of reliquefaction systems for BOG on LNG carriers with a
ant, which works just as propylene, in a double compression cycle
focus on redundancy optimisation and maintenance strategies.
with full injection in a flash drum.
Four different system options have been studied, with a varying
The propylene and ethylene cycles form a cascade cycle in
degree of redundancy. Failures in the reliquefaction system may
which the ethylene is condensed thanks to heat absorption during
require the flaring of the BOG, and the associated cost has been
propylene evaporation at low pressure in the same heat exchanger
compared with the cost of introducing redundancy added to main-
in which the BOG is pre-cooled (HE-1).
tenance costs on board.
The BOG compression process, both in reliquefaction mode as
Other works [13,14] have described the reverse Brayton cycle
well as for use as high pressure fuel in the dual engines, and the
process used as a LNG reliquefaction plant, in which the scope of
ethylene compression corresponding to the cascade cycle, is per-
research is confined to certain characteristics or specifically to
formed with a single compressor specifically designed for such
the analysis of the operating cycle.
purpose. The leading manufacturer in the design and construction
Reliquefaction plants utilising a cascade refrigeration system for
of these compressors is Burckhardt Compression AG [16]. Fig. 3
LNG carriers were recently introduced by the company TGE Marine
illustrates the compressor designed by Burckhardt Compression
Gas Engineering for two-stroke engines with a high pressure fuel
and the distribution of the BOG and ethylene compression stages.
gas supply system [15], where a high-pressure compressor is com-
Propylene compression is performed in an independent com-
bined with a BOG reliquefaction system. However, to date there
pressor and is condensed through the heat exchange with
have been no published studies analysing the efficiency and oper-
seawater.
ating parameters of the reliquefaction process using a cascade
refrigeration plant, and which allow the assessment of this tech-
nology on board.
This paper analyses a reliquefaction plant based on a cascade 2.1. BOG on board
cycle with propylene and ethylene as refrigerants for two-stroke
technology with a high pressure gas supply system, based on the The amount of BOG generated depends on the design and oper-
original design presented by TGE Marine Gas Engineering [15]. ating conditions of LNG ships. BOG released during the voyage of
Through energy and exergy analysis, a thermodynamic model is an LNG carrier may occur due to the following reasons:
264 J. Romero Gómez et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 261–274

Sea out Sea in IC-4 IC-5

(4) IC-3 SV
Alternative BOG compressor (5)
(1) (2) (3) (9) (11) Fuel to
Main
Engine
BOG BOG BOG Ethylen Ethylen BOG BOG
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 4 Stage 5
(10)
(12) (20)
EV-3 (17)
(18)
BOG From Propylen Propylen Sea out
Cargo Tanks (14) Stage 1 (19) Stage 2
Flash Condenser Sea in
drum (21)
HE-1
(22) EV-5
Pipes collector

(13) (23) Flash

(6) (24) drum
EV-4

HE-2
EV-1
(8)

(0) (16)
EV-2 (7)
(15)

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the reliquefaction plant. EV: expansion valve, HE: heat exchanger, IC: intercooler, SV: selective valve.

BOR  C LNG carrier  q

_ BOðnatÞ ¼
m ð1Þ
Ethylene 2. Stage BOG 2. Stage 24  3600
BOG 3. Stage BOG 4/5. Stage
Ethylene 1. Stage BOG 1. Stage Q_ BOðnatÞ ¼ m
_ BOðnatÞ  DH ð2Þ

where BOR is in%/day, CLNG carrier is the capacity of LNG in cargo

tanks in m3, q is the density of LNG in kg/m3, and DH the latent heat
of vaporisation in kJ/kg.
The heat flow associated with the design BOR at steady state
(with no other incoming heat sources) can be defined as the heat
that must be removed from the cargo tanks in order to maintain
the pressure at the design constant value.
As a result of the conditions at which reliquefaction is per-
formed, and thus the conditions at which the reliquefied BOG is
returned to the tanks, the BOG mass flow to be processed by the
plant exceeds m _ BOðnatÞ : This BOG mass flow is determined by the
Fig. 3. Diagram of the reliquefaction plant compressor and distribution of the BOG following equation:
compression and cascade stages [16].
_ BOðnatÞ
m
_ BO ¼
m ð3Þ
ð1  x½in tank Þ
 the entry of heat into cargo tanks due to the difference in tem-
where x[in tank] is the quality of reliquefied BOG after being throttled
perature between the cargo tanks and the environment,
in the cargo tanks expansion valve.
 the cooling of a ship’s tanks during ballast voyages, achieved by
Therefore, the heat to be removed from the cargo tanks is
occasional spraying of LNG in the upper part of the tank,
defined in Eq. (4) as:
 the sloshing of cargo in partially filled tanks due to the action of
waves, causing friction on the inner wall of the tank thereby Q_ tank ¼ Q_ BOðnatÞ ¼ m
_ BO ðhout tank  hin tank Þ ð4Þ
creating an additional thermal effect.
where hout tank and hin tank are the output and input enthalpies of the
Therefore, the quantity of BOG during a ship’s voyage differs cargo tanks.
depending on the changes in ambient temperature, seawater tem-
perature, sea conditions and cargo tank contents. Heat ingress is 3. Thermodynamic modelling and analysis
the main reason for the generation of BOG. Design natural boil
off rates (BOR) are typically in the range of 0.135–0.15% per day As shown in Fig. 2, the reliquefaction plant comprises three sep-
of tanker liquid capacity. During a steady-state loaded voyage, a arate circuits or cycles:
BOR of 0.10–0.12% can be expected and from 0.06% to 0.10% for a
ballast voyage. Therefore, the natural BOG mass flow rate (kg/s)  BOG cycle
is determined by Eq. (1) and the associated heat flow (kW) by  Ethylene cycle
Eq. (2)  Propylene cycle
 J. Romero Gómez et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 261–274 265

Table 1
Balance equations for each plant component of the original reliquefaction plant.

Component Mass Energy Exergy

BOG _1¼m
m _2 _ st1BO ¼
W
_ 1 ðh2s h1 Þ
m
I_ st1BO ¼ W
_ st1BO  g þ m
m
_ 1  ðe1  e2 Þ
gComp
stage 1 _1¼m
m _ BO

BOG m _3
_2¼m _ st2BO ¼ m_ 2 ðh3s h2 Þ
W I_ st2BO ¼ W
_ st2BO  g þ m
m
_ 2  ðe2  e3 Þ
g Comp
stage 2
BOG m _4
_3¼m _ st3BO ¼ m_ 3 ðh4s h3 Þ
W I_ st3BO ¼ W
_ st3BO  g þ m
m
_ 3  ðe3  e4 Þ
g Comp
stage 3
IC-3 m _4
_5¼m Q_ IC3 ¼ m
_ 4  ðh4  h5 Þ I_IC3 ¼ m
_ 4  ðe4  e5 Þ þ m
_ sea IC3 ðesea in  esea out Þ

HE-1 _5¼m
m _6 m _ 4  ðh4  h5 Þ þ m
_ 4  ðh4  h5 Þ ¼ m _ 4  ðh4  h5 Þ I_HE1 ¼ m
_ 5  ðe5  e6 Þ þ m
_ 12  ðe12  e13 Þ þ m
_ 24  ðe24  e17 Þ
_ 12 ¼ m
m _ 13
_ 24 ¼ m
m _ 17

HE-2 _6¼m
m _7 m _ 16  ðh9  h16 Þ
_ 6  ðh6  h7 Þ ¼ m I_ HE2 ¼ m
_ 6  ðe6  e7 Þ þ m
_ 16  ðe16  e9 Þ
_ 16 ¼ m
m _9

EV-1 m _8
_7¼m h7 ¼ h8 I_ EV1 ¼ m
_ 7  ðe7  e8 Þ

C2H4 m _ 10
_9¼m _ st1C2H4 ¼
W
_ 9 ðh10s h9 Þ
m
I_ st1C2H4 ¼ W
_ st1C2H4  g þ m
m
_ 9  ðe9  e10 Þ
gComp
stage 1
C2H4 _ 11 ¼ m
m _ 12 _ st2C2H4 ¼ m_ 11 ðh12s h11 Þ
W I_ st2C2H4 ¼ W
_ mhboxst2C2H4  g þ m
m
_ 11  ðe11  e12 Þ
g Comp
stage 2
EV-2 m _ 16
_ 15 ¼ m h15 ¼ h16 I_ EV2 ¼ m
_ 15  ðe15  e16 Þ

EV-3 m _ 14
_ 13 ¼ m h13 ¼ h14 I_ EV3 ¼ m
_ 13  ðe13  e14 Þ

C2H4 m _ 11
_ 14 ¼ m _ 14  ðh11  h14 Þ ¼ m
m _ 10  ðh10  h15 Þ I_ f :drumC2H4 ¼ m
_ 10  ðe10  e15 Þ þ m
_ 14  ðe14  e11 Þ
flash drum _ 10 ¼ m
m _ 15

C3H6 m _ 18
_ 17 ¼ m _ st1C3H6 ¼ m_ 17 ðh18s h17 Þ
W I_ st1C3H6 ¼ W
_ st1C3H6  g þ m
m
_ 17  ðe17  e18 Þ
g Comp
stage 1
C3H6 _ 19 ¼ m
m _ 20 _ st2C3H6 ¼ m_ 19 ðh20s h19 Þ
W I_ st2C3H6 ¼ W
_ st2C3H6  g þ m
m
_ 19  ðe19  e20 Þ
g Comp
stage 2
EV-4 m _ 24
_ 23 ¼ m h23 ¼ h24 I_ EV4 ¼ m
_ 23  ðe23  e24 Þ

EV-5 m _ 22
_ 21 ¼ m h21 ¼ h22 I_ EV5 ¼ m
_ 21  ðe21  e22 Þ

C3H6 m _ 19 m
_ 22 ¼ m _ 18
_ 23 ¼ m _ 22  ðh19  h22 Þ ¼ m
m _ 18  ðh18  h23 Þ I_ f:drumC3H6 ¼ m
_ 18  ðe18  e23 Þ þ m
_ 22  ðe22  e19 Þ
flash drum
C3H6 m _ 21
_ 20 ¼ m Q_ condC3H6 ¼ m
_ 20  ðh21  h20 Þ I_condC3H6 ¼ m
_ 20  ðe20  e21 Þ þ dotmsea cond ðesea in  esea out Þ
condenser
 
Tanks m _0
_8¼m Q_ tank ¼ m
_ BO  ðh0  h8 ÞQ_ BOðnatÞ ¼ Q_ tank I_ tank ¼ 1  T tanks
T0
 Q_ BOðnatÞ þ m
_ BO  ðe8  e0 Þ
_0¼m
m _ BO
 
Pipes m _0
_1¼m Q_ collector ¼ m
_ BO  ðh1  h0 Þ I_ collector ¼ 1  TT0f  Q_ collector þ m
_ BO  ðe0  e1 Þ
collector

These circuits operate in cascade and are thermally coupled by Exergy balance
HE-1 and HE-2 heat exchangers. HE-1 acts as the ethylene cycle X X X
To
condenser at Tcond C2H4 temperature, the propylene cycle condenser I_ ¼ ð1  Þ  Q_ f  W
_ þ _ e
m _ e
m ð7Þ
at Tevap C3H6 temperature, and as the BOG pre-cooler. Meanwhile out
T f in out
HE-2 acts as the BOG reliquefier at Treliq temperature and as the
Energy and exergy analysis is used to evaluate the efficiency of
ethylene cycle evaporator at Tevap C2H4 temperature. Moreover, in
the power consumed in the process. Exergy analysis applied to a
the condenser, the heat flow Qcond C3H6 is removed from the propyl-
system, describes all losses in the system’s components and the
ene at a condensing temperature of Tcond C3H6 to condensing med-
whole system. This helps understand the potentials of these losses
ium (at Tsea).
or irreversibilities and their order of importance. The analysis of
To perform an analysis of the reliquefaction plant and deter-
irreversibilities, which is a measure of process imperfection, eases
mine the efficiency, as well as the compressors’ powers and heat
the determining of optimum operating conditions. It is possible to
transfer rates, each reliquefaction system component is considered
say that exergy analysis can indicate the possibilities of thermody-
as a control volume at stationary state. Mass balance, energy bal-
namic improvement of the process under consideration.
ance and exergy balance have been performed in Eqs. (5)–(7),
The entropy and exergy analysis are equivalent because they
respectively.
permit the evaluation of the thermodynamic quality of the process.
Mass balance
In the present case, the reference conditions are taken as
X X
m_ ¼ m_ ð5Þ T0 = 298.15 K and p0 = 100 kPa and the exergy at each point in
in out the system is calculated from the following Equation:
Energy balance e ¼ h  h0  T 0 ðs  s0 Þ ð8Þ
X X
Q_  W
_ ¼ m_ h _ h
m ð6Þ
out in where h0 and s0 are the enthalpy and entropy calculated at refer-
ence conditions.
266 J. Romero Gómez et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 261–274

Exergy destruction in each component is due to the internal DT C2H4C3H6 ¼ T cond C2H4  T evap C3H6 ð15Þ
irreversibilities of the process associated with the temperature dif-
The lowest temperature difference between BOG and ethylene in
ference between currents in the case of heat exchangers, and inter-
HE-2 is established as follows:
nal heat transfer of the fluid in the compressors.
The specific equations for each component of the initial relique- DT BOC2H4 ¼ T out BO HE2  T evap C2H4 ð16Þ
faction plant design are summarised in Table 1.
In the particular case of exergy analysis of all the tanks, given where Tout BO HE-2 is the reliquefied BOG temperature at the HE-2
_ BO entering the tanks is taken to be outlet.
that the temperature of the m
The plant’s COP has been calculated with the following
the same as the temperature of the LNG contained in the tanks
equation:
(the system’s cold source), the exergy content of the heat measured
at the temperature of the incoming m _ BO is the same as the value Q_ BOðnatÞ
measured at the temperature at which the load is stored and evap- COP ¼ ð17Þ
W _ input
orated in the tanks. It can therefore be expressed as:
   _ input is the reliquefaction plant power input, which is
 T0  where W
E_ BOðnatÞ ¼  1   Q_ BOðnatÞ  ¼ m
_ BOðnatÞ  ðDeÞ ð9Þ assumed to be equal to the power required in the compression pro-
T tanks
cesses, and determined as follows;
E_ tanks ¼ m
_ BO  ðeout tank  ein tank Þ ð10Þ _ input ¼ W
W _ total _ BO þ W
¼W _ C2H4 þ W
_ C3H6 ð18Þ
comp

E_ tanks ¼ E_ BOðnatÞ ð11Þ The specific power (SP) associated to the design BO and
required to maintain the pressure in tanks, is defined by the equa-
where E_ BOðnatÞ is the exergy rate transferred by BOR associated heat tion below:
flow (Q_ BOðnatÞ ) (kW), De the LNG vaporisation exergy in the tank _ input
W
storage conditions (kJ/kg), E_ tank is the exergy content transferred SP ¼ ð19Þ
_ BOðnatÞ
m
by the mass flow in the tanks (kW), and eout tank and ein tank the spe-
cific tank input and output exergy (kJ/kg). Hence, the specific energy consumption (SEC), is given by:
Compressor isentropic efficiency was calculated using Eq. (12). _ input
W
hout s  hin SEC ¼ ð20Þ
gs Comp ¼ ð12Þ _ BOðnatÞ  3600
m
hout  hin
The plant’s exegetic efficiency can be defined as the ratio of the
Efficiency in the compression process has been determined in minimum power requirement with respect to the power input.
general terms by the equation: That is,
gComp ¼ gs :gm ð13Þ _
W
gex ¼ _ rev ð21Þ
The lowest temperature differences in HE-1 between the BOG W total comp
and propylene, and between ethylene and propylene, are
expressed by Eqs. (14) and (15) respectively _ rev is the plant’s reversible power input and equal to the
where W
minimum work required to maintain pressure in the tanks due to
DT BOC3H6 ¼ T out BO HE1  T evap C3H6 ð14Þ
BOG generation. It can be expressed by the following equation:

Table 2
Thermodynamic data and mass flow rate of the reliquefaction plant’s refrigerant fluids depicted in Fig. 2.

State Fluid T (°C) P (kPa) h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kg K) v (m3/kg) x _ (kg/s)

m W (kg/kgBO(nat))
0 BO 160.82 107.00 398.99 2.120 0.5237 – 2.481 1.961
1 BO 125.00 107.00 321.72 1.522 0.7059 – 2.481 1.961
2 BO 55.84 357.77 180.10 1.352 0.3092 – 2.481 1.961
3 BO 41.72 1196.28 26.90 1.182 0.1341 – 2.481 1.961
4 BO 165.73 4000.00 323.98 1.007 0.0564 – 2.481 1.961
5 BO 30.00 4000.00 27.55 1.962 0.0368 – 2.481 1.961
6 BO 41.93 4000.00 213.90 2.666 0.0247 – 2.481 1.961
7 BO 98.19 4000.00 658.90 4.982 0.0033 – 2.481 1.961
8 BO 160.82 107.00 658.90 4.433 0.2578 0.49 2.481 1.961
9 C2H4 103.19 105.00 177.96 0.781 0.4636 – 2.639 2.085
10 C2H4 25.02 379.35 80.89 0.680 0.1864 – 2.639 2.085
11 C2H4 77.53 379.35 155.86 1.019 0.1401 – 3.936 3.110
12 C2H4 7.91 1370.50 51.36 0.924 0.0547 – 3.936 3.110
13 C2H4 41.93 1370.50 501.50 2.836 0.0021 – 3.936 3.110
14 C2H4 77.53 379.35 501.50 2.786 0.0316 0.22 3.936 3.110
15 C2H4 77.53 379.35 596.37 3.271 0.0019 – 2.639 2.085
16 C2H4 103.19 105.00 596.37 3.243 0.0621 0.13 2.639 2.085
17 C3H6 46.93 105.00 105.76 0.407 0.4103 – 6.123 4.838
18 C3H6 8.58 370.51 36.24 0.370 0.1404 – 6.123 4.838
19 C3H6 14.49 370.51 71.91 0.502 0.1258 – 9.275 7.329
20 C3H6 47.67 1307.40 1.04 0.468 0.0403 – 9.275 7.329
21 C3H6 30.00 1307.39 358.67 1.651 0.0020 – 9.275 7.329
22 C3H6 14.49 370.51 358.67 1.611 0.0366 0.28 9.275 7.329
23 C3H6 14.49 370.51 470.63 2.043 0.0018 – 6.123 4.838
24 C3H6 46.93 105.00 470.63 2.020 0.0701 0.17 6.123 4.838
 J. Romero Gómez et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 261–274 267

Table 3
Refrigerant fluid properties.

Name Notation Boiling point at 100 kPa, (°C) Liquid density at 100 kPa, kg/m3 Critical pressure, kPa Critical temperature, °C DH at 100 kPa kJ/kg
Methane BO 161.6 422.6 4599 82.59 511.1
Ethylene C2H4 104.0 568.3 5040 9.20 482.5
Propylene C3H6 48.0 609.4 4665 92.42 439.5

BOG Propylene
10
5
10 4
-0,5019 kJ/kg-K
-0,4073

4
10 -56°C -42°C 166°C
6 5 48°C
7 4 21 30°C 20
-98°C
P [kPa]

P [kPa]
3
10
3 8°C
10 -125°C 3
2 23 22 19
-14°C 18

2 -161°C
10 8 0 1
24
0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 10 2 -47°C 17
0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8
1
10
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200
h [kJ/kg] h [kJ/kg]

Fig. 4. P-h diagram of the BOG cycle evolution. Fig. 6. P-h diagram of the propylene cycle evolution.

 The compression ratio of each stage of the BOG for reliquefac-

 
_ rev ¼ Q_ BOðnatÞ  T0 tion is obtained by the geometric mean between the suction
W _ BOðnatÞ  ðDeÞ
1 ¼m ð22Þ
T tank pressure of the first stage and the discharge pressure of the
third stage. For the propylene and ethylene cycle, the compres-
sion ratio is also obtained by the geometric mean between the
4. Parameterisation and computation of the plant suction pressure of the first stage and the discharge pressure
of the second stage.
The design of the reliquefaction plant has been performed based  Compressor mechanical efficiency 0.98.
on the nominal LNG-BOR of 0.15% per day for a cargo capacity of  Isenthalpic expansion of refrigerants and BOG in expansion
173,000 m3. Hence, the obtained mass flow of natural evaporation valves.
BOG is 1.266 kg/s.  Pressure losses in connecting pipes and heat exchangers have
The following assumptions are considered for energy and exer- been neglected in the reliquefaction plant.
gy analyses, taking BOG availability into account in the compres-  The outputs of propylene and ethylene from HE-1, HE-2, the
sion process at 4000 kPa for reliquefaction [15]: flash drum, as well as the output of propylene from the con-
denser, are saturated.
 LNG is assumed to be composed of 100% methane.
 All processes are steady state and steady flow with negligible
potential and kinetic energy effects. T [ºC]
 Adiabatic compression with an isentropic efficiency of 0.75 for 175 4
both methane and ethylene compression and of 0.85 for that 150 BOG cycle
Saturation line
of propylene. Ethylene cycle propylene
125
Propylene cycle
100
75
Ethylene
10 5 20
50 3
5 21
25 18
12
Saturation line
10 4 0
-1,019 kJ/kg-K
Ethylene 23 22 19
-0,7809
8°C -25 Saturation line 6
-25°C
13 10
P [kPa]

13 methane 17
-42°C 12 -50
10 3 24 2
15 14
15 14 11 -75 11
-77°C 10 7
16
-100 9
10 2 160,2
-103°C 16.15ºC
1
0,4 0,6 0,8
9 -125
8
-150
0
1
10 -175
-700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0
h [kJ/kg] s [kJ/kg-K]

Fig. 5. P-h diagram of the ethylene cycle evolution. Fig. 7. BOG, ethylene and propylene cycles on T–s property plots.
268 J. Romero Gómez et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 261–274

1200 The thermodynamic study to obtain operating parameters,

-161ºC
1100 cycle state points as well as the reliquefaction process efficiency
-125ºC
1000 in order to propose the system’s design improvements and operat-
-98ºC
900 -87ºC 165ºC ing parameters was carried out on the EES software environment
-56ºC-42ºC
[18], which has the advantage of including fluid properties as well
Exergy [kJ/kg]

800 7 30ºC 42ºC

700
as the simple use of parameterisation and computation. Several
8 4
6 4000 kPa studies of cascade for cooling and refrigeration systems have been
600 Critical
5
point
conducted with EES [19,20]
500
The methodology followed was the programming on EES of all
400 3 equations required to describe the behaviour of each component,
300
identifying from the start which variables are considered to be
200 0 2
baseline data, and which variables were to be calculated or opti-
100 Saturation line 1 107 kPa
mised, while complying with the model from a mathematical
0 and physical perspective. That is, an equal number of equations
-1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500
as variables to calculate, while fulfilling the first and second laws
h [kJ/kg]
of thermodynamics.
Fig. 8. Evolution of the BOG in an exergy–enthalpy diagram. To verify the model, a triple analysis was carried out seeking:

 Coherence between the two methods of calculating condenser

 Minimum temperature difference in HE-1 and HE-2 of 5 °C with heat, that is, the heat rejected by the condenser calculated by
regard to the evaporating refrigerant. applying the energy balance to the whole plant, must be equal
 Minimum temperature difference in the propylene condenser of to that calculated by the energy balance in the condenser alone.
5 °C with regard to the seawater temperature.  All irreversibilities must be positive, that is, all entropies gener-
 Ethylene and propylene evaporation pressure of 105 kPa. ated must be positive.
 Pressure in tanks of 107 kPa.  The total irreversibility calculated by exergy balance over the
 Entry temperature of the BOG to the reliquefaction plant entire cycle (variation of universe entropy) is equal to the value
125 °C. calculated as the total irreversibilities of all components.
 The plant’s heat exchanger and pipes are perfectly isolated (the
tanks and pipes collector are not considered part of the relique-
4.1. Reliquefaction plant results
faction plant).
 The temperatures of the BOG outputs in the intercoolers and
The thermodynamic data obtained for each state of the refriger-
aftercoolers is 5 °C above seawater temperature.
ant fluids of the reliquefaction plant depicted in Fig. 2 are pre-
 Seawater temperature is taken as 25 °C.
sented in Table 2. EES Software is used to determine the
thermodynamic properties of the working fluids. The main ther-
The low pressure of the ethane and propylene cycle was set
modynamic properties of the fluids used are presented in Table 3.
slightly above atmospheric to prevent possible entry of air into
For methane, the EES uses the fundamental equation of state devel-
the system. Such air intakes could lead to two problems: a drop
oped by Setzmann and Wagner [21], and for ethylene and propyl-
in the installation efficiency due to the presence of non-condens-
ene, the fundamental equation of state given by Reiner Tillner-Roth
able components such as nitrogen and oxygen; and the risk of fire
[22]. The values of specific enthalpy and entropy are 0 kJ/kg and
and explosion [17].
0 kJ/kg K, respectively at 298.15 K and 101.3 kPa. Figs. 4–6 corre-

Table 4
Calculation results for the reliquefaction plant.

Parameter Nomenclature Value Unit

Compression power BO stage 1 _ st1BO
W 358.6 kW
Compression power BO stage 2 _ st2BO
W 524.2 kW
Compression power BO stage 3 _ st3BO
W 752.2 kW
Total compression power BO _ BO
W 1635.0 kW
Compression power low pressure stage C2H4 _ st1C2H4
W 261.4 kW
Compression power high pressure stage C2H4 _ st2C2H4
W 419.7 kW
Total compression power C2H4 _ C2H4
W 681.1 kW
Compression power low pressure stage C3H6 _ st1C3H6
W 434.4 kW
Compression power high pressure stage C3H6 _ st2C3H6
W 690.5 kW
Total compression power C3H6 _ C3H6
W 1124.9 kW
Reliquefaction plant power input W _ input 3441.0 kW
Natural BO associated heat Q_ BOðnatÞ 645.0 kW
Heat rejected in intercooler IC-3 Q_ IC3 872.0 kW
Heat rejected in condenser C3H6 Q_condC3H6
3337.0 kW
Total heat rejected to the sea Q_ rej:Sea 4209.0 kW
Natural BO mass flow m_ BOðnatÞ 1.266 kg/s
BO mass flow to be processed by the plant m_ BO 2.481 kg/s
Coefficient of performance COP 0.18 –
Specific power SP 2719 kW/(kgBO(nat)/s)
Specific energy consumption SEC 0.75 kWh/(kgBO(nat)/s)
Exergetic efficiency of plant gex 31.00 %
 J. Romero Gómez et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 261–274 269

(kgBO(nat)/s). The exergetic efficiency of the plant, obtained by Eq.

Fig. 9. Thermal processes of the BOG from its exit from the tanks until its return in a
liquid state thereto, and the heat transferred with seawater, ethylene and
propylene.
spondingly illustrate a p-h diagram of the development of the BOG,
ethylene and propylene cycles, and Fig. 7 illustrates the corre-
sponding state points of the plant in a T–s diagram for constant
operating conditions. The evolution of the BOG in the exergy–
enthalpy diagram can be followed in Fig. 8.
The most important results obtained from the thermodynamic
analysis for the reliquefaction plant, based on the specified initial
assumptions and equations described, are displayed in Table 4. It
is seen that for a vessel with a specified load capacity of
173,000 m3, with a BOR of 0.15% per day of tanker liquid capacity,
there is a heat flow through the tanks insulation of 645 kW, which
is a natural BOG mass flow rate of 1.266 kg/s. To dissipate this heat
and maintain safe values of pressure and temperature in the tanks,
the reliquefaction plant must process 2.481 kg/s of BOG. For this,
3441 kW of power consumed in the compression process is
required, of which 1635 kW are consumed in the three compres-
sion-stages of the BOG cycle to raise its pressure to the design
reliquefaction pressure (4000 kPa), 681.1 kW for the ethylene cycle
and 1124.9 kW for the propylene cycle. Therefore, the specific
power consumed by the original reliquefaction plant is 2719 kW/
(kgBO(nat)/s) and the specific energy consumption is 0.75 kWh/
Table 5
Irreversibility rate and relative irreversibility.
(21) is 31%, and the COP is 0.18.
The thermal processes undergone by the BOG in the original
reliquefaction plant, from its exit from the tanks until its return
in a liquid state thereto, and the heat transferred with seawater,
ethylene and propylene are depicted in Fig. 9.
The exergetic analysis conducted on each component of the
plant indicates how the input exergy provided in the compression
processes is destroyed when the refrigerant fluids circulate
through their corresponding cycles. Table 5 presents the irrevers-
ibility rate and relative irreversibility for the reliquefaction plant.
All components associated with the BOG flow are those which rep-
resent the highest percentage of irreversibility, that being expan-
sion valve EV-1 with 17.89%, where exergy loss is maximum. The
second element with greatest irreversibility is the BOG tanks pip-
ing system, due to heat ingress through the insulation from the
domes of the tanks up to the plant entrance. HE-2 and HE-1 heat
exchangers, IC-3 intercooler and BOG compression processes, in
this very order, are also where the greatest exergy losses are found.
In the exergy diagram illustrated in Fig. 10, the flows in (%) are
computed as a function of the transferred exergy with the heat
associated to the BOR (E_ BOðnatÞ ), that is, depending on the useful
exergy produced by the plant. The sum of the useful exergy sup-
plied by the plant, the exergy of the heat rejected in the C3H6 con-
denser and in the IC-3, together with the mechanical losses and
_ input .
irreversibilities, represents the exergy entering the plant as W
5. Efficiency enhancement proposal
As concluded in the plant analysis of the previous section, the
process with greatest irreversibility is the EV-1 expansion valve,
followed by the pipes collector and the HE-2 heat exchanger. In
order to improve reliquefaction process efficiency at an effective
cost, improvements to the reliquefaction plant have been pro-
posed, aimed at lessening the irreversibilities.
The flow rate to be processed by the plant for a given BOR
depends on the quality of the liquid returned to the tanks, as can
be concluded from Eq. (3). Upon passing through EV-1, the liquid
is converted into a liquid–vapour biphasic mixture. Hence, with a
lower entry temperature before the expansion valve, the portion
of the steam generated in the tanks can be reduced, leading to a
reduction of the BOG mass flow to be processed by the plant and
of the power required. Moreover, the temperature difference
established between the BOG reliquefaction temperature and

Component _
I(kW) _ P I(%)
I= _ _ E_ BOðnatÞ
I=

BOG stage 1 125.40 5.52 0.12

BOG stage 2 126.10 5.56 0.12
BOG stage 3 129.20 5.69 0.12
IC-3 158.40 6.97 0.15
HE-1 179.10 7.92 0.17
HE-2 223.50 9.84 0.21
EV-1 406.20 17.89 0.39
C2H4 stage 1 79.71 3.51 0.07
C2H4 stage 2 112.20 4.94 0.11
EV-2 22.29 0.98 0.02
EV-3 58.13 2.56 0.05
C2H4 flash drum 34.39 1.52 0.03
C3H6 stage 1 68.38 3.01 0.06
C3H6 stage 2 95.16 4.19 0.09
EV-4 42.60 1.88 0.04
EV-5 111.90 4.93 0.11
C3H6 flash drum 10.64 0.46 0.01
C3H6 condenser 35.91 1.60 0.03
Tanks 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pipes collector 250.40 11.03 0.23
Total 2270.00 100.00 2.13
Fig. 10. Exergy flow diagram of the original reliquefaction plant.
270 J. Romero Gómez et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 261–274

Alternative BOG IC-2 IC-3 IC-4 IC-5

compressor SV
(3) (4)
(5)
(2) (9) (11) Fuel to
(3x)
Main
Engine
BOG BOG BOG Ethylen Ethylen BOG BOG
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 4 Stage 5
(10)
(12) (20)
EV-3 (17)
(1x) (18)
Propylen Propylen
(14) Stage 1 (19) Stage 2
Flash Condenser
drum (21)
HE-1
(22) EV-5

(13) (23) Flash

(6) (24) drum
EV-4

HE-3 HE-2
BOG From
Cargo Tanks (7x)
(1)
EV-1
(8) (16)
(0)
EV-2 (7)
(15)

Fig. 11. Proposal of reliquefaction plant improvement.

ethylene evaporation temperature is of 16.15 °C which, as seen in
Fig. 7, contributes substantially to the loss of exergy in heat
exchanger HE-2. This difference in temperature is consequence of
the BOG pressure available for reliquefaction (4000 kPa), estab-
lished by [15].
On the basis of this analysis, the proposed improvements to the
original plant are:
 Utilisation of cold duty BOG in the preheater to allow the sub-
cooling of the condensed BOG before its return to the tanks.
 Rejection of BOG compression heat through cooling water in the
intercoolers and after-cooler.
 Reduction of BOG reliquefaction pressure, establishing it based
on the ethylene evaporation temperature and the correspond-
ing pinch point in HE-2 of 5 °C.
5.1. Description of the proposed improvement
Fig. 11 presents the original reliquefaction plant with the imple-
mentation of the equipment required to reduce the reliquefaction
process energy cost and improve its exergy efficiency. As can be
seen, it is only a single heat exchanger (HE-3) and intercooler (IC-
2) that are required. The HE-3 heat exchanger permits the recovery
of cryogenic BOG cold energy and the reduction in temperature of
the liquid returning to the tanks, with the consequent decrease in
the portion of BOG generated in the tanks, as a result of the throt-
tling. The IC-2 intercooler positioned between stages 2 and 3 of
compression allows the BOG heat to be rejected to the seawater.
5.2. Thermodynamic analysis of the proposal and comparison of
results
In the thermodynamic analysis of the proposed improvements,
the same considerations have been taken into account as in
Section 4, and the same thermodynamic model has been followed
as in Section 3, with material, energy and exergy balances corre-
sponding to IC-2 and HE-3. Table 6 depicts the new expressions
required for the analysis of the proposed plant improvement. A
minimal 5 °C difference in temperature has been established in
HE-3, between the output of BOG (state 1x) and the reliquefied
BOG from HE-2 (state 7).
The new reliquefaction pressure obtained with the established
pinch point of 5 °C above the evaporation temperature of ethylene
is 2774 kPa.
The thermodynamic data obtained for each state of the relique-
faction plant with the proposed improvements is shown in Table 7,

Table 6
New equations required for the analysis of the proposed reliquefaction plant improvement.

Component Mass Energy Exergy

BOG _ 1x ¼ m
m _2 _ st1BO ¼ m_ 1x ðh2s h1x Þ
W I_st1BO ¼ W
_ st1BO  g þ m
m
_ 1x  ðe1x  e2 Þ
g Comp
stage 1 _ 1x ¼ m
m _ BO
BOG m _4
_ 3x ¼ m _ st3BO ¼ m_ 3x ðh4s h3x Þ
W I_st3BO ¼ W
_ st3BO  g þ m
m
_ 3x  ðe3x  e4 Þ
g Comp
stage 3
IC-2 _3¼m
m _ 3x Q_ IC2 ¼ m_ 3  ðh3  h3x Þ I_IC2 ¼ m
_ 3  ðe3  e3x Þ þ m
_ sea IC2 ðesea in  esea out Þ
HE-3 _7¼m
m _ 7x m_ 7  ðh7  h7x Þ ¼ m_ 1  ðh1x  h1 Þ I_HE3 ¼ m_ 7  ðe7  e7x Þ þ m
_ 1  ðe1  e1x Þ
_1¼m
m _ 1x
EV-1 _ 7x ¼ m
m _8 h7x ¼ h8 I_EV1 ¼ m
_ 7x  ðe7x  e8 Þ
 J. Romero Gómez et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 261–274 271

Table 7
Thermodynamic data and mass flow rate of the refrigerant fluids of the reliquefaction plant with improvement proposal depicted in Fig. 11.

State Fluid T (°C) P (kPa) h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kg-K) v (m3/kg) x _ (kg/s)

m W (kg/kgBO(nat))
0 BO 160.82 107.00 398.99 2.120 0.5237 – 2.141 1.692
1 BO 125.00 107.00 321.72 1.522 0.7059 – 2.141 1.692
1x BO 103.19 107.00 275.62 1.232 0.8142 – 2.141 1.692
2 BO 33.33 316.67 131.05 1.075 0.3880 – 2.141 1.692
3 BO 60.06 937.17 72.06 0.918 0.1823 – 2.141 1.692
3x BO 30.00 937.17 2.23 1.137 0.1651 – 2.141 1.692
4 BO 138.52 2773.54 256.34 0.978 0.0762 – 2.141 1.692
5 BO 30.00 2773.54 15.53 1.743 0.0542 – 2.141 1.692
6 BO 41.93 2773.54 190.54 2.403 0.0381 – 2.141 1.692
7 BO 98.19 2773.54 654.07 4.931 0.0034 – 2.141 1.692
7x BO 107.17 2773.54 700.18 5.202 0.0031 – 2.141 1.692
8 BO 160.82 107.00 700.18 4.801 0.2156 0.40 2.141 1.692
9 C2H4 103.19 105.00 177.96 0.781 0.4636 – 2.372 1.874
10 C2H4 25.02 379.35 80.89 0.680 0.1864 – 2.372 1.874
11 C2H4 77.53 379.35 155.86 1.019 0.1401 – 3.538 2.796
12 C2H4 7.91 1370.50 51.36 0.924 0.0547 – 3.538 2.796
13 C2H4 41.93 1370.50 501.50 2.836 0.0021 – 3.538 2.796
14 C2H4 77.53 379.35 501.50 2.786 0.0316 0.22 3.538 2.796
15 C2H4 77.53 379.35 596.37 3.271 0.0019 – 2.372 1.874
16 C2H4 103.19 105.00 596.37 3.243 0.0621 0.13 2.372 1.874
17 C3H6 46.93 105.00 105.76 0.407 0.4103 – 5.392 4.260
18 C3H6 8.58 370.51 36.24 0.370 0.1404 – 5.392 4.260
19 C3H6 14.49 370.51 71.91 0.502 0.1258 – 8.162 6.454
20 C3H6 47.67 1307.40 1.04 0.468 0.0403 – 8.162 6.454
21 C3H6 30.00 1307.39 358.67 1.651 0.0020 – 8.162 6.454
22 C3H6 14.49 370.51 358.67 1.611 0.0366 0.28 8.162 6.454
23 C3H6 14.49 370.51 470.63 2.043 0.0018 – 5.392 4.260
24 C3H6 46.93 105.00 470.63 2.020 0.0701 0.17 5.392 4.260

5
BOG 1200
10 -161ºC
1100
-107°C -103°C -125ºC
1000
-107ºC
4 7x -98ºC
10 -33°C
-139°C 900 138ºC
7 -42ºC
Exergy [kJ/kg]

800 -33ºC 30ºC 60ºC

P [kPa]

7x 7 -98°C 6 5 4

3
700 8
2773 kPa
10 3x 3 600 4
Critical 6 5
2
500 point
8 0 1
10
2 -161°C 1x
400 3x
Saturation line 3
0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8
300 Exergy
200 recovered 0
1 2 107 kPa
1
10 100 1
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 1x
0
h [kJ/kg] -1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500
h [kJ/kg]
Fig. 12. P-h diagram of the BOG cycle with the implemented improvements.

Fig. 13. Thermodynamic cycle of the BOG on the exergy–enthalpy diagram.

and the new P-h and exergy–enthalpy diagrams for the BOG are
illustrated in Figs. 12 and 13 respectively.
Table 8 details the most important results obtained from the
thermodynamic analysis with the suggested improvements, and
the comparison in% with those obtained from the original plant.
As shown, a 13.70% reduction of BOG mass flow to be processed
by the plant is achieved, that is, it changes from 2.481 to
2.141 kg/s. Because of this, the amount of refrigerant used in
the ethylene and propylene cycles is also reduced, with the
respective decrease in the required compression power. The
power input to the reliquefaction plant decreases by 523 kW,
or 15.20%. This allows for a COP of 0.22, a specific energy
consumption of 0.64 kW h/(kgBO(nat)/s) and an exergetic effi-
ciency of 37%. Comparing these results with the initial plant,
(COP = 0.18, SEC = 0.75 kW h/(kgBO(nat)/s), gex = 31%) a COP
increase of 22.22%, a specific energy consumption decrease of
14.66%, and an exergetic efficiency increase of 19.35% is
achieved.
The total irreversibilities calculated for the proposal and for the
original plant are 1762 kW and 2270 kW respectively. The total
irreversibilities decrease by 22.38%, as shown in Table 9. This table
depicts the irreversibility rate and relative irreversibility of the
reliquefaction plant with the proposed improvement and the% of
irreversibility rate reduction in comparison with the original plant.
The volumetric flow rates at the suction of each compression
process, both for the original plant as well as for the improved
plant, are displayed in Fig. 14. All flow rates related to the ethylene
and propylene cycle decrease, as can be observed, with the advan-
tage of reducing the size of the installation required and the com-
pression stages. As regards the volumetric flow rates in the suction
of the BOG compression processes, in the first stage practically the
same volumetric flow rate is obtained, while in the second and
third stage, a small increase of 8% and 6% is produced, respectively.
The heat rejected to the sea both in the condenser and in the IC-
3 decreases, thus enabling smaller heat exchangers for such
272 J. Romero Gómez et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 261–274

Table 8
Calculation results for the reliquefaction plant with improvement proposal.

Parameter Nomenclature Value Unit Increase* %

Compression power BO stage 1 _ st1BO
W 315.9 kW 11.90
Compression power BO stage 2 _ st2BO
W 443.8 kW 15.33
Compression power BO stage 3 _ st3BO
W 555.3 kW 26.17
Total compression power BO _ BO
W 1315.0 kW 19.57
Compression power low pressure stage C2H4 _ st1C2H4
W 235.0 kW 9.96
Compression power high pressure stage C2H4 _ st2C2H4
W 377.3 kW 10.10
Total compression power C2H4 _ C2H4
W 612.3 kW 10.10
Compression power low pressure stage C3H6 _ st1C3H6
W 382.5 kW 11.95
Compression power high pressure stage C3H6 _ st2C3H6
W 608.0 kW 11.88
Total compression power C3H6 _ C3H6
W 990.5 kW 11.95
Reliquefaction plant power input W _ input 2918.0 kW 15.20
Natural BO associated heat Q_ BOðnatÞ 645.0 kW –
Heat rejected in intercooler IC-2 Q_ IC2 149.5 kW –
Heat rejected in intercooler IC-3 Q_ IC3 582.2 kW 33.23
Heat rejected in condenser C3H6 Q_ condC3H6 2938.0 kW 11.96
Total heat rejected to the sea Q_ rej:Sea 3670.0 kW 12.80
Natural BO mass flow m_ BOðnatÞ 1.266 kg/s 0.00
BO mass flow to be processed by the plant m_ BO 2.141 kg/s 13.70
Coefficient of performance COP 0.22 – +22.22
Specific power SP 2305 kW/(kgBO(nat)/s) 15.22
Specific energy consumption SEC 0.64 kWh/(kgBO(nat)/s) 14.66
Exergetic efficiency of plant gex 0.37 – +19.35
*
Comparison with the results obtained from the original reliquefaction plant.

Table 9

9044
10000
Irreversibility rate and relative irreversibility of the reliquefaction plant with the Original reliquefaction plant

7964
proposed improvements and% of irreversibility rate reduction in comparison with the 9000
original plant. Improvement reliquefaction plant
8000
6304
6276

Component _
I(kW) _ P I_ (%)
I= _ E_ BOðnatÞ
I= Reduction I_ (%) 7000

BOG stage 1 99.76 5.66 0.09 20.45 6000

4404

4200
m 3/h

3959
BOG stage 2 100.60 5.71 0.09 20.22

3696
5000
BOG stage 3 101.50 5.76 0.09 21.44
2991
2762

IC-2 8.10 0.46 0.01 – 4000

1985
1784
IC-3 89.12 5.06 0.08 43.73 3000
1273
1198

HE-1 154.40 8.76 0.15 13.79

2000
HE-2 126.90 7.20 0.12 43.22
HE-3 12.83 0.73 0.01 – 1000
EV-1 256.00 14.53 0.24 36.98 0
C2H4 stage 1 71.65 4.07 0.07 10.11
C2H4 stage 2 100.90 5.72 0.09 10.07
EV-2 20.04 1.14 0.018 10.09
EV-3 52.21 2.96 0.05 10.18
C2H4 flash drum 30.91 1.75 0.03 10.11
C3H6 stage 1 60.20 3.72 0.06 11.96
C3H6 stage 2 83.80 4.76 0.08 11.94 Fig. 14. Volumetric mass flow rates suctioned in each compression process of the
EV-4 37.51 2.13 0.04 11.95 original plant and the improved plant.
EV-5 98.51 5.30 0.09 11.97
C3H6 flash drum 9.33 0.53 0.01 12.31 50 0.7
SEC (kWh/kgBO)

C3H6 condenser 31.62 1.79 0.03 11.95

45
Tanks 0.00 0.00 0.00 – 0.6
Pipes collector 216.10 12.26 0.20 13.70 40
Total 1762.00 100.00 1.65 22.38 35 0.5
ex (%)

30 0.4
25
0.3
20
purpose. It can be thus assured that with the proposed improve- 15
COP

0.2
ment, it is possible to reduce the overall size and weight of the T7x (ºC)
10
reliquefaction installation on board, and in turn reduce the eco- 0.1
5 -107.8 -109.8 -113.9 -123.2 -124.0
nomic cost, despite needing an additional two pieces of equipment. -108.7 -111.5 -118.1 -124.0
(IC-2 and HE-3). 0 0.0
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
When the reliquefaction plant operates in parallel with the fuel
supply system at high pressure for the main engines, that is, in par- % bo (nat)

tial reliquefaction, the advantages of the proposed improvement

Fig. 15. Variation of the COP, SEC and gex for different percentages of natural BOG
are accentuated. Fig. 15 depicts the variation of COP, SEC and gex flow (kg/s) to be processed by the plant when operating in combination with the
for different percentages of natural BOG flow (kg/s) to be processed fuel. supply to the engines.
 J. Romero Gómez et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 261–274
by the plant, when operating in combination with the fuel supply
to the engines. The decrease in SEC and increase in COP and gex is
due to the increase in BO subcooling before its throttling to the
tanks (state 7). This increase in subcooling, when working in
partial reliquefaction, is the result of the difference in flow rates
performed by the heat exchange in HE-3. While the BOG flow
required for propulsion increases, the reliquefaction rate decreases,
and therefore, a lower temperature of the reliquefied BOG is
obtained at the exit of the HE-3, as shown in Fig. 15. The achieved
subcooling limit, and hence, the COP increase and SEC decrease, is
established, regardless of the% m _ BOðnatÞ processed by the plant, by
the entry temperature of the BOG from tanks to the HE-3 and by
the temperature differential to ensure thermal heat exchange.
For a BOG input temperature of 125 °C from the tanks to the
HE-3 and a temperature difference of 1 °C (T7x–T1 = 1 °C), COP val-
ues of 0.27 are achieved with a gex = 45% and SCE of 0.52 kW h/
(kgBO(nat)/s).
6. Conclusions
A thermodynamic analysis of a BOG reliquefaction plant for LNG
Carriers with a dual fuel high pressure gas supply engine, based
upon cascade refrigeration cycles with propylene and ethylene as
refrigerants was conducted in this study using the EES V9.172 Aca-
demic Professional. On the basis of a detailed energy and exergy
analysis, an original improvement to the reliquefaction plant is
proposed. Such improvement is founded upon:
 The recovery of cryogenic BOG cold energy from the tanks in a
heat exchanger before its return to the tanks.
 The rejection of the BOG compression heat to seawater in an
intercooler.
 A reliquefaction temperature as close as possible to the ethyl-
ene evaporation temperature.
The analysis results of the proposal demonstrate:
 Reduction of the BOG mass flow rate for the plant to process,
and thus also of the refrigerant mass flows of the ethylene
and propylene cycle.
 Increased COP and greater exergetic efficiency of the process.
 Lower specific energy consumption.
 Lower volumetric flows in the suction of most of the compres-
sion processes.
 When the plant operates in parallel with a high pressure fuel
gas supply system for dual fuel engines and partial reliquefac-
tion, the advantages of the proposed design are accentuated
even further, achieving higher values of COP and gex and lower
SEC. This is of great advantage as the majority of the ship’s oper-
ating time is carried out under these conditions.
For LNG tank conditions of 160.82 °C, an input temperature of
BOG to the plant of 125 °C and 25 °C seawater, the plant analysis
results with the implementation of the proposed improvements
exhibit, for the condition of total reliquefaction, COP values of
0.22 and exergy efficiency of 37%; such values being 22.22% and
19.35% greater than the original design. As regards the SEC,
0.64 kW h/(kgBO(nat)/s) is reached, allowing a reduction of 14.66%.
In partial reliquefaction operation and a temperature difference
of 1 °C between T7x and T1, COP values of 0.27 are reached with a
gex = 45% and SEC of 0.52 kW h/(kgBO(nat)/s).
Implementing the improvements implies only installing a heat
exchanger (HE-3) and an intercooler (IC-2), so that, in spite of
the two additional pieces of equipment needed, the size of the
installation is maintained, which is an important factor on board.
This is due to the compensatory reduction of the installation
273
required for the ethylene and propylene cycle. Furthermore, since
the elements implemented to improve efficiency are elements
without moving parts, they neither need special elements of con-
trol nor actuation, and so the probability of failure is very slight
and therefore, the safety and reliability of the proposed system is
high and does not reduce that of the original plant. In addition,
the operational and investment costs of the proposed improve-
ment, incorporated into the entire plant costs, are very low, as it
only involves an additional two heat exchangers. This, added to
the fuel saving in the generation of electricity as a result of the effi-
ciency improvements achieved in the reliquefaction plant, means a
reduction in the total operating costs of the vessel over its average
25-year operating life.
It can be concluded, therefore, that the proposed improvement
enables a significant increase in the efficiency of the on board reliq-
uefaction process at an effective cost, while maintaining the size
and weight, as well as the safety and reliability of the plant.
Acknowledgements
A part of this work was possible thanks to the collaboration
with the Department of Thermal Engines and Machines of the
School of Marine Engineering, Nautical and Radio Electronics of
the University of Cádiz (Spain), during the investigative postdoc-
toral stay conducted by Phd Javier Romero Gómez, and funded
by the University of A Coruña.
References
[1] IMO. Resolution MEPC.203(62), Amendments to the annex of the protocol of
1997 to amend the international convention for the prevention of pollution
from ships, 1973, as modified by the protocol of 1978 relating thereto
(Inclusion of regulations on energy efficiency for ships in MARPOL Annex VI),
MEPC 62/24/Add. 1, London: International Maritime Organization; 2011.
[2] IMO. Resolution MEPC.212(63) Guidelines on the method of calculation of the
attained energy efficiency design index (EEDI) for new ships. MEPC 63/23,
London: International Maritime Organization; 2012a.
[3] IMO. Resolution MEPC.213(63), Guidelines for the development of a ship
energy efficiency management plan (SEEMP), MEPC 63/23, London:
International Maritime Organization; 2012b.
[4] Frimann Nielsen R, Haglind F, Larsen U. Design and modeling of an advanced
marine machinery system including waste heat recovery and removal of
sulphur oxides. Energy Convers Manage 2014;85:687–93.
[5] Chang D, Rhee T, Nam K, Chang K, Lee D, Jeong S. A study on availability and
safety of new propulsion systems for LNG carriers. Reliab Eng Syst Safe
2008;93:1877–85.
[6] Widening choice, growing take-up of gas-fuelled solutions. Ship Management
International 2014; 49: 86–7.
[7] Romero J, Orosa JA, Oliveira AC. Research on the Brayton cycle design
conditions for reliquefaction cooling of LNG boil off. J Mar Sci Technol
2012;17:1–10.
[8] Shin Y, Lee YP. Design of a boil-off natural gas reliquefaction control system for
LNG carriers. Appl Energy 2009;86:37–44.
[9] Sayyaadi H, Babaelahi M. Thermoeconomic optimization of a cryogenic
refrigeration cycle for re-liquefaction of the LNG boil-off gas. Int J Refrig
2010;33:1197–207.
[10] Anderson TN, Ehrhardt ME, Foglesong RE, Bolton T, Jones D, Richardson A.
Shipboard reliquefaction for large LNG carriers. Proceedings of the 1st Annual
Gas Processing Symposium 2009, 10–12 January, Doha, Qatar.
[11] Romero Gómez J, Romero Gómez M, Ferreiro García R, De Miguel Catoira A. On
board LNG reliquefaction technology: a comparative study. Polish Maritime
Res 2014;21:77–88.
[12] Pil CK, Rausand M, Vatn J. Reliability assessment of reliquefaction systems on
LNG carriers. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 2008;93:1345–53.
[13] Romero Gómez J, Ferreiro García R, Carbia J. Análisis de la relicuación del boil
off en buques de GNL: Alternativa al proceso basado en el ciclo Brayton de
refrigeración. Ingeniería Quimica 2008;462:164–76.
[14] Romero Gómez J, Ferreiro García R, Bouzón Otero R, De Miguel Catoira A.
Relicuación del boil-off en buques LNG: principios tecnológicos. Ingenieria
Quimica 2012;504:44–50.
[15] <http://www.tge-marine.com> [accessed 24.09.14].
[16] <http://www.burckhardtcompression.com> [accessed 24.09.14].
[17] Choi IH, Lee S, Seo YT, Chang D. Analysis and optimization of cascade Rankine
cycle for liquefied natural gas cold energy recovery. Energy 2013;61:179–95.
[18] Klein SA. Engineering equation solver (EES). Academic Professional V9.172;
2012.
274 J. Romero Gómez et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 261–274

[19] Dubey AM, Kumar S, Agrawal GD. Thermodynamic analysis of a transcritical
CO2/propylene (R744–R1270) cascade system for cooling and heating
applications. Energy Convers Manage 2014;86:774–83.
[20] Ommen T, Elmegaard B. Numerical model for thermoeconomic diagnosis in
commercial transcritical/subcritical booster refrigeration systems. Energy
Convers Manage 2012;60:161–9.
[21] Setzmann U, Wagner WA. New equation of state and tables of thermodynamic
properties for methane covering the range from the melting line to 625 K at
pressures up to 1000 MPa. J Phys Chem Ref Data 1991;20(6):1061–341.
[22] Tillner-Roth Reiner. Fundamental equations of state. Aachen: Shaker-Verlag;
1998.