AIAA-2000-3050

THERMOECONOMICS OF HYDROGEN LIQUEFIERS OPERATING

ON THE MODIFIED COLLINS CYCLE

Dr. M.T. Syed Dr. S . A. Sherif Dr. T.N. Veziroglu

R-38/19 Department of Mechanical Engineering Clean Energy Research Institute
Al-noor SQciety University of Florida University of Miami
F.B. Area 228 MEB, P.O. Box 116300 P.O.Box 248294
Karachi, Pakistan Gainesville, FL 32611, USA Coral Gables, FL 33124, USA

K number of compressor stages

ABSTRACT m mass flow rate, kg/s
N number of expanders
Hydrogen liquefaction systems have been the subject n number of heat exchanger streams
of intense investigations for many years. Some established gas P pressure, Wa
liquefaction systems, such as the precooled Linde-Hampson 9r pressure ratio, dimensionless
systems, are not used for hydrogen liquefaction in part because Q . heat transfer rate, kW
of their relatively low efficiencies. Recently, more promising R gas constant, W/(kg.K)
systems employing the modified Collins cycle have been S entropy, kJK
introduced. This paper reports on second law analyses of a S specific entropy, kJ/(kg.K)
hydrogen liquefier operating on the modified Collins cycle. T temperature, K
Two different modifications employing the cycle in question TC temperature of cold junction, K
were attempted; (1)a helium-refrigerated hydrogen liquefaction TH temperature of hot junction, K
system, and, (2) a hydrogen-refrigerated hydrogen liquefaction W power, kW
system. Analyses were carried out in order to identify potential X number of heat exchangers
areas of development and efficiency improvement. A computer
code capable of computing system and component efficiencies; Greek Svmbols
exergy losses; and optimum number and operating conditions (y- l)/y, dimensionless
of compressors, expanders, aftercoolers, intercoolers, and ratio of specific heats CJC,, dimensionless
Joule-Thomson valves was developed. Evaluation of the exergy rate, kW
thermodynamic and transport properties of hydrogen at specific exergy, kJkg
different temperature levels was achieved by employing a exergy loss rate, kW
hydrogen property code developed by researchers at the isentropic compressor efficiency
National Bureau of Standards (currently NIST). A parametric isothermal compressor efficiency
analysis was carried out and optimal decision rules pertaining isentropic expander efficiency
to system component selection and design were reached. overall liquefier efficiency
Economic analyses were also reported for both systems and
indicated that the helium-refrigerated hydrogen liquefier is
more economically feasible than the hydrogen-refrigerated actual
hydrogen liquefier. at Tc
compressor
NOMENCLATURE ideal
Latin Svmbols expander
C temperature difference ratio, AT", generated
CP specific heat at constant pressure, kJ/(kg.K) at TH
C" specific heat at constant volume, kJ/(kg.K) heat exchanger
h specific enthalpy, kJkg inlet
!fg latent heat of vaporization, Wkg Joule-Thomson
I irreversibility rate, kW latent
J number of Joule-Thomson valves liquefaction or liquefied gas

Copyright 2000 SA. Sherif.

Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. with permission

1383
Loss loss
mean mean
0 outlet
R rejected
r ratio
S sensible
t isothermal
total total
INTRODUCTION
Hydrogen liquefaction systems have been the subject
of intense investigations for many years. Some established gas
liquefiers, such as the precooled Linde-Hampson systems, are
not used for hydrogen liquefaction in part because of their
relatively low efficiencies. Recently, more promising systems
employing the modified Collins cycle have been introduced
(see for example Baker and Shanner, 1976; Voth and Parrish,
1977; Block et al., 1988; and T-Raissi et al., 1991). Similar
systems were constructed in Japan as reported by Yoshimura et
al. (1982) and Nagamura and Yamashita (1982).
Because of the good features of the modified Collins
cycle as applied to hydrogen liquefaction (Block et al., 1988),
we decided to explore it further. Two different modifications
employing the cycle in question were attempted; (1) a helium-
refrigerated hydrogen liquefier (Figure l), and, (2) a hydrogen-
refrigerated hydrogen liquefier (Figure 2). In general, the
modified Collins cycle uses a refrigeration loop to precool and
condense a separate hydrogen stream at a mass flow rate equal
to %. The liquefier consists of N precooling expanders in
Claude modules (T-Raissi et al, 1991). The refrigeration loop
bypass turbines are organized such that the inlet temperature of
each expander is higher than the exit temperature of the
preceding expander by an amount equal to the temperature
difference of the heat exchanger, which, in turn, is assumed to
be proportional to the absolute exit temperature of the
expander, Tcxp,N (see T-Raissi et al., 1991).
Exergy analyses were carried out and a computer code
utilizing a hydrogen property routine created by McCarty
(198 1) was developed. Exergy analyses identified the
operating conditions where higher efficiency can be achieved.
Economic analysis as reported by Sherif and Syed (1990) was
also applied to the two systems in question and conclusions
pertaining to the economic viability of the two systems were
reached.
ANALYSIS
The most important parameter to be optimized in any
Copyright 2000 S.A. Sherif.
Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. with permission
1384
hydrogen liquefaction system is its efficiency, since it directly
impacts the cost of hydrogen liquefied. It is always
advantageous to know the effect of the different parameters on
the efficiency, so that optimum parameters that result in
maximum efficiency can be selected.
There are four basic components in any hydrogen
liquefaction system. These are the compressors, expanders,
heat exchangers, and Joule-Thomson (J-T) valves. The
parameters that will be considered for system performance
analysis are given below: (1) feed hydrogen compressor
discharge pressure, (2) circulated helium compressor discharge
pressure, (3) number of expanders, (4) temperature difference
between hot and cold streams, (5) lowest cooling temperature,
and (6)the number of compressor stages. Two systems will be
studied: (1) a helium-refrigerated hydrogen liquefier, and, (2)
a hydrogen-refrigerated hydrogen liquefier. The following
assumptions are made in order to simplify the analysis: (1)
pressure drop through the system is negligible; (2) compressor
is isothermal and its isothermal efficiency is taken as 60 percent
(this is a typical isothermal efficiency value); (3) isentropic
efficiency of the turbines is taken as 80 percent (again, this is
a typical value); and, (4) heat losses to the surroundings are
negligible.
The availability (exergy) rate of a gas can be written
according to Moran (1989) as:
final
AZ: = (1)
ambient
where the integration limits re.present the dead (ambient in this
case) and final states. For reversible processes
final
Ak = 1 1H
(1 --NQtot~
T
ambient
The heat transfer rate term in Equation (2) is composed of both
sensible and latent components. The sensible component can
be expressed as:
(3)
where TH is the ambient (hot end) temperature which also
represents the entering temperature of the gas, and T, is the
lowest (cold end) temperature of the liquefied gas (normal
boiling temperature for hydrogen in this case). The latent heat temperatures, respectively, and flap is the isentropic expander
transfer rate component, on the other hand, can beexpressed as: efficiency. The exponent a is defined according to the
following equation:
QL = hf&iq (4)
a = (y-l)/y

The availability rate equation expressed by Equation (2) Applying the above to a helium-refrigeratedhydrogen
represents the available power in the liquefied gas and, after liquefier (Block et al., 1988), one gets
substitutionof the heat transfer terms the following is obtained:

where the quantity "C"represents the difference in temperature

across expander N divided by the absolute exit temperature of
expander N (C = ATN"). Here we assume that the
temperature difference across the heat exchanger is
proportional to the absolute temperature at the exit of the
expander and that the parameter C is the proportionality
Integrating the above equation employing the integration limits constant. This gives
THand T,, one gets
TH
Log,(,)

For real gases, the available power in the liquefied gas is given In a hydrogen-refrigerated hydrogen liquefaction
by system, the above equation is slightly modified and can be
expressed in the following form:
(7) N=l+
m

In order to determine the number of expanders in the

system, we assume that the hydrogen behaves as a perfect gas,
and then follow the procedure described in Block et al. (1988).
The isentropic efficiency of the expander can be written as:

(Texp,i-Texp,o) (8) , where P,,q,l represents the expander pressure ratio for the first
flexp = represents the expander pressure ratio for
expander and P,,exp,z
(Texp,i-Texp,o,ci)
the rest of the expanders. From the above equation it is clear
that the number of expanders depends on the lowest
so that temperature in the system, pressure ratio across the expanders,
isentropic efficiency of the expanders, and the temperature
(9) difference between the hot and cold streams entering the heat
(Texp.i-Texp,o)=flexpTexp,i(l -Pr,exp
exchangers.
To analyze the effect of the compressor discharge
where Tcxp,iand Texp,o
are the expander inlet and outlet pressure on the overall efficiency of the system, a single-stage

Copyright 2000 S.A. Sherif.

Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. with permission

1385
compressor will be assumed. The overall liquefaction The overall liquefaction efficiency can therefore be written as
efficiency can be expressed as:

The compressor power required to liquefy the gas is given by

Wcomp=wcomp,hcomp.t (14)

Applying the first law to the compressor we get Next, we look into the effect of heat exchanger
effectiveness on the efficiency of the system. The heat
exchanger used in most liquefaction plants is of a multistream
Qcomp,R+Wcomp,t=
type. As the temperature difference between the hot and cold
K streams decreases, the heat exchanger effectiveness increases,
C
J=1
mcompj(hcomp.0 j-hc0mp.i j) thus increasing the overall lique-factionefficiency. The losses
in heat exchangers are of two types, one is due to stream-to-
stream temperature differences, while the other is due to the
Equation (15) above assumes that the :mperatu :remains pressure drop through the heat exchangers. For a balanced
constant across each compressor stage. From the second law counter-flow arrangement in which the stream-to-stream
temperature difference and frictional pressure drop are not
K negligible, the loss of power is given by (Bejan, 1982):
d' comp = C
j=l
d Q c o m pj m c o m p j
Wm,bss = ~o (Sm,gen) (20)

Again, if Tcompj
is constant for every compressor stage, then
For a perfect gas and X heat exchangers, the above equation
can be expressed as follows:

and the isothermal compressor power becomes

K
Wc0mp.t =C
J=1
[mcomp j(hcomp,oj -hcomp,i j)

mcompj'comp j(scomp.0 j -Scomp,i j)]

For an X number of n-stream heat exchangers, Equation (20) is

modified to read

where n represents the number of streams. For aperfect gas the

Copyright 2000 S.A. Sherif.

Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. with permission

1386
.

above equation can be written as where the numerator and denominator in the above equation
represent the ideal and actual compressor powers required by
X
the liquefier, respectively. Compressor exergy losses are
determined from
‘T. K
+mm,2jcphge- 0.2 j +..
‘bss,comp=c [wcomp,dj -wcomp.ajl
2‘ j j=l
m
K xir
comp,dj
[wcomp,dj -- 1
j=l qcompj

‘J

...-mm,n,Xmge-]Ponx
Pn.x

Heat exchangers perform better if the heat transfer
area is concentrated near the low temperature end of the
liquefier as noted by Bejan (1982). In the cryogenic region, a
common practice is to design for a specific temperature
’
Expander exergy losses, on the other hand, are
determined by the difference in exergy across the expander
(Voth and Parrish, 1977)

difference ratio (defined as the temperature difference between

the hot and cold ends divided by the lowest temperature). This
parameter is assumed to vary in this study and its effect on the
efficiency is analyzed.
One way to optimize the efficiency is to check the where the above expander losses take into account the power
second law losses in each component and reduce them to their output of the expanders.
minimum value. First law analysis is incapable of identifying Next, we examine the Joule-Thomson valve exergy
the sources of the losses, whereas the second law can. This losses. These losses can generally be minimized by carefully
will therefore help change the operating parameters of each selecting the operating conditions. They are determined from:
system component until an optimum system is identified. J
Now, we examine exergy losses in the compressor.
They typically constitute between 40-60 percent of the total j=l
losses. For real gases, the ideal power to compress a gas is:

Last but not least, we examine the heat exchanger

exergy losses. These are generally the third major contributor
to the overall losses and can be minimized by a careful design,
subject to a cost restriction. The exergy loss through the heat
The compressor efficiency is defined as: exchangers is given by:
X n
Wc0mp.d
%amp = -
Wc0mp.a

Copyright 2000 S A . Sherif.

Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. with permission

1387
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Thermodvnamic Analvsis:
The results presented in this section will focus on the
thermodynamic performance of two liquefiers operating on the
Modified Collins Cycle: (1) a helium-refrigerated hydrogen
liquefier (Figure 1) and, (2) a hydrogen-refrigerated hydrogen
liquefier (Figure 2). This will be discussed next.
Helium-refrigerated hvdrogen liquefier
The liquefier shown in Figure 1 is simple, reliable, and
requires less time to come into full operation after startup or
shutdown. Figure 3 shows therelationship between the number
of expanders needed in the cycle and the expander efficiency.
As can be seen, the number of expanders depends not only on
the expander efficiency, but also on the discharge pressure of
the helium compressor and the temperature difference ratio, C.
Three representative discharge pressures for the helium
compressor of 10,15, and 20 bars and a temperature difference
ratio of 0.04 were tried. A larger expander efficiency reduces
the number of expanders needed to achieve a given liquefaction
task. Also, a higher helium compressor discharge pressure
contributes to reducing the number of expanders in the cycle as
this translates into more power input to the system, thus
eliminating the need for a large number of expanders.
The effect of compressor efficiency on the overall
efficiency of the liquefier can be seen in Figures 4 and 5 for
several hydrogen compressor discharge pressures between 5
and 35 bars (Figure 4),several helium compressor discharge
pressures between 5 and 20 bars (Figure 5), and a temperature
difference ratio of 0.04. As can be seen, the relationship
between the compressor and liquefier efficiencies is almost
linear. Every 10% increase in compressor efficiency causes the
overall liquefier efficiency to increase by about 6 to 7%. This
means that employing a high-efficiency compressor is
important in any liquefaction system. Compressor efficiencies
as high as 70% can be reached by careful design as reported by
Block et al. (1988). At that level, a liquefier efficiency as high
as 40% can be achieved. Figure 4 shows that the higher the
discharge pressure of the hydrogen compressor the lower the
efficiency of the liquefier (albeit the effect is rather mild). The
same trend is observed vis-a-vis the discharge pressure of the
helium compressor in Figure 5. This can be explained by the
fact that the higher the discharge pressures the larger the energy
input to the liquefier. Although larger energy input to the
liquefier is most likely associated with a larger cooling and
liquefying capacity, the latter contribution appears to be more
than offset by the larger input energy to the system, and hence
the lower the efficiency.
Copyright 2000 S.A. Sherif.
Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. with permission
1388
The effect of expander efficiency on the overall
efficiency of the liquefier can be seen in Figures 6 and 7. An
increase in expander efficiency of 10% increases the overall
efficiency of the liquefier by 6% in a linear fashion. This
suggests that the expander efficiency plays as prominent a role
in improving the overall liquefier efficiency as does the
efficiency of the compressor. “ h e effect of the hydrogen
compressor discharge pressure on the expander efficiency is
approximately of the order of 1 to 2% as evidenced by the
trends of Figure 6. On the other hand, the effect of the helium
compressor discharge pressure on the efficiency of the
expander is of the order of 1 to 4% as seen in Figure 7. A
decrease in the expander efficiency requires a larger number of
expanders (see Figure 3, and hence increases the losses and
decreases the overall efficiency of the liquefier. At a 50%
expander efficiency, the number of expanders needed is 6 , 8 or
9 depending on whether the value of the helium compressor
discharge pressure is 20,15 or 10 bars, respectively (see Figure
3). On the other hand, at 80% efficiency, the number of
expanders needed is 3 , 4 or 5 (see Figure 3), which corresponds
to helium compressor discharge pressures of 20, 15 or 10 bars,
respectively. This analysis shows that it is possible to operate
the liquefier with an efficiency of 40% or more if the
compressor efficiency is 70% and the expander efficiency is
80%.
Next, we examine the exergy losses in the different
components of the system and their impact on the second law
efficiency. Figure 8 shows the dependence of the exergy losses
for all the major components of the liquefier (compressor,
expander, heat exchangers, and Joule-Thomson valves) on
both the hydrogen and helium compressor discharge pressures
as well as the temperature difference ratio, C. It is clear that
most of the exergy losses occur in the compressor and
expander. Heat exchangers and Joule-Thomson valves
contribute their fair share of thsese losses, but at a far smaller
scale. Exergy losses affect tht: second law efficiency of the
liquefier which is presented in Figure 9 for both normal
hydrogen and equilibrium hydrogen as a function of the
discharge pressures of the hydrogen and helium compressors as
well as the temperature difference ratio, C. As can be seen,
higher discharge pressures for either the hydrogen or helium
compressors contribute negatively to the second law efficiency
for both normal and equilibrium hydrogen. Also, employing
equilibrium hydrogen instead of normal hydrogen is shown to
cause the second law efficiency to decrease slightly. Although
a maximum decrease in efficiency of 5% is observed in this
case, the advantage of using equilibrium hydrogen in terms of
reducing boil-off losses should partially compensate for this
reduction in efficiency.
Hydrogen-refrigerated hydrogen liquefier:
The liquefier system where hydrogen is used for
cooling as well as liquefying is commonly referred to as a
hydrogen-refrigerated hydrogen liquefaction system. In
principle, hydrogen should be usable in the liquefier of Figure
1 for cooling, but since the expansion ratio is 6 , a large number
of expanders is required to cool the hydrogen to the desired
temperature (Smith, 1989). This implies that hydrogen is not
suitable for refrigeration purposes in the liquefier of Figure 1.
Therefore, this liquefier has been slightly modified to the one
shown in Figure 2, so that hydrogen can be used as a cooling
fluid. The overall efficiency of this liquefier is approximately
the same as the previous one. The effect of different
parameters on the liquefier efficiency is explained in what
follows.
The capacity has a slight effect on the efficiency of
this liquefier as can be seen in Figures 10 and 11. The
tendency of efficiency to decrease or increase upon increasing
the capacity depends primarily upon the hydrogen compressor
discharge pressure and the temperature difference ratio, C. At
a C value of 0.04, for example, the efficiency increases with an
increase in capacity if the hydrogen compressor discharge
pressure is maintained approximately above 2.75 bars (Figure
IO). Below a pressure of 2.75 bars this trend reverses. The
effect of the feed hydrogen compressor discharge pressure on
the liquefier efficiency is also displayed in Figures 10 and 11.
As can be seen, an increase in the feed hydrogen compressor
discharge pressure decreases the efficiency irrespective of
capacity or the temperature difference ratio. The effect of the
temperature difference ratio, C, on the liquefier efficiency can
also be seen in the same figures. It is clear that decreasing the
value of C increases the liquefier efficiency. This is consistent
with the trends observed in the performance of reversed heat
engines vis-a-vis the variation of their efficiencies with the
temperatures of the hot and cold reservoirs between which they
operate. A lower value for the temperature difference ratio
implies a smaller difference between the two end temperatures
as well as a higher cold end temperature. Both of these effects
contribute to a higher thermal efficiency for the reversed heat
engine.
Finally, the exergy losses in the four major
components of that liquefier are presented in Figure 12. The
feed hydrogen compressor discharge pressure seem to have a
minor impact on these losses for all components. Again,
similar to the liquefier described in the previous section, the
compressors and the expanders seem to contribute the majority
of the exergy losses to this liquefier. However, the losses in the
heat exchangers in this liquefier seem to be much more
significant relative to the Joule-Thomson valve losses than the
Copyright 2000 S.A. Sherif.
Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. with permission
1389
corresponding losses in the previous liquefier. This can be
attributed to the fact that there are more heat exchangers in the
hydrogen-refrigerated hydrogen liquefier than in the helium-
refrigerated one. This indicates that effective utilization of the
different components is important not only to improve the
performance of the respective component, but also to reduce
the losses to all other components.
Observations on System Economics:
Sherif and Syed (1990) conducted a study in which the
economics of hydrogen liquefaction systems was examined.
They observed that electric or energy costs per kg of liquefied
H,depend upon the liquefier efficiency and are less dependent
on the production rate. Sherif and Syed (1990) also observed
that the electric cost decreases with an increase in liquefier
efficiency if the ideal work of liquefaction is kept constant.
The energy cost for the two liquefiers under study decreases for
some conditions even when a decrease in efficiency occurs.
The latter happens due to the reduction in the ideal work of
liquefaction which is a result of an increase in the hydrogen
compressor discharge pressure. Hence the energy cost of the
liquefiers depends upon the liquefier efficiency and ideal work
of liquefaction. For the same production rate, Sherif and Syed
(1990) observed that the helium-refrigerated hydrogen liquefier
has less power requirements than the hydrogen-refrigerated
hydrogen liquefier.
The operation and maintenance (O&M) costs depend
primarily upon the liquefier efficiency and the production rate
as remarked by Sherif and Syed (1990). An increase in the
liquefier efficiency and its production rate causes the (O&M)
costs to decrease. Also the (O&M) costs depend upon the ideal
work of liquefaction primarily for the same reasons explained
before. The helium-refrigerated hydrogen liquefier has smaller
(O&M) costs than the hydrogen-refrigerated hydrogen liquefier
(Sherif and Syed, 1990).
The fixed charges on capital investment depend
primarily on the type of system utilized and the production rate.
Sherif and Syed (1990) found that these costs decrease with an
increase in the production rate. They also observed that, in the
helium-refrigerated hydrogen liquefier, the fixed charges on
capital investment increase with an increase in efficiency,
whereas the reverse trend holds true for the hydrogen-
refrigerated hydrogen liquefier.
The cost of hydrogen liquefaction depends primarily
on the production rate and the system efficiency (Syed et al.,
1998). Increasing the production rate generally decreases the
cost. Also, the helium-refrigerated hydrogen liquefier performs
better than the hydrogen-refrigerated hydrogen liquefier from
an economic standpoint. The component costs of the liquefiers
depend on the production rate. Again, increasing the
production rate decreases the cost (Syed et al., 1998). The
compressor cost constitutes the bulk of the liquefaction cost for
both liquefiers in question, followed by the expanders, heat
exchangers, intercoolers and aftercoolers, and reservoirs (Sherif
and Syed, 1990).
CONCLUSIONS
An exergy analysis was carried out on two hydrogen
liquefaction systems employing the modified Collins cycle.
The analysis identified areas where improvements in the overall
liquefaction efficiency can be achieved. Although the
observations made in the previous sections are mostly
applicableto the systems being analyzed, the analysis technique
is general enough to be applied to other systems. The modified
Collins cycle was chosen because of its established potential as
a viable liquefaction cycle. Economic analysis was also carried
out as part of the program on which this paper partially reports.
Economic analysis helped identify the operating conditions
under which the liquefaction cost is minimal for both a helium-
refrigerated hydrogen liquefier and a hydrogen-refrigerated
hydrogen liquefier. These minimum cost conditions were not
found necessarily to correspond to conditions associated with
maximum efficiency. Future work should consider using the
same techniques applied here to explore hybrid
conventional/magnetic systems and identify areas where system
development and efficiency improvement can be realized.
REFERENCES
Baker, C.R. and Shanner, R.L., 1976, "A Study of the
Efficiency of Hydrogen Liquefaction," Proceedings ofthe First
World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Miami Beach, Florida,
March, pp. 2B-17/2B-41.
Bejan, A., 1982, Entropy Generation Through Heat
and Fluid Flow, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
Block, D.L., Dutta, S. and T-Raissi, A., 1988,
"Hydrogen for Power Applications, Task 2: Storage of
Hydrogen in Solid, Liquid and Gaseous Forms," Contract
Report FSEC-CR-204-88, Florida Solar Energy Center, Cape
Canaveral, Florida.
McCarty, R.D., 1981, "Interactive Fortran IV
Computer Programs for the Thermodynamic and Transport
Propertiesof Selected Cryogens (Fluid Pack)," Thermophysical
Properties Division, National Engineering Laboratory, National
Bureau of Standards, Boulder, Colorado.
Moran, M.J., 1989, Availability Analysis: A Guide to
Efficient Energy Use, Corrected Edition, ASME Press, New
Copyright 2000 S.A. Sherif.
Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. with permission
1390
York.
Nagamura T. and Yamashita, N., 1982, "Large Scale
Hydrogen Liquefiers," Proceedings of the 9th International
Cryogenic Conference, Kobe, Japan, Butterworth and Co. Ltd.
Parrish, W.R. and Voth, R.O., 1975, "Cost and
Availability of Hydrogen," Se1ec:tedTopics on Hydrogen Fuel,
NBS Special Publication 419, National Bureau of Standards,
Boulder, Colorado, May, pp. 1.U1.26.
Smith, E.M., 1989, "Slush Hydrogen for Aerospace
Applications," InternationalJournal ofHydrogen Energy, Vol.
14, NO. 3, pp. 201-213.
Sherif, S.A. and Syed, M.T., 1990, "Thermodynamic
Analysis of Hydrogen Liquefiers Utilizing the Modified Collins
Cycle." In Solar Hvdronen EfiiernvSystem, Veziroglu, T.N.
(Editor), Annual Progress Report, Contract No. DOE #XL-9-
18168-1, submitted to the U.S.. Department of Energy/Solar
Energy Research Institute by the Clean Energy Research
Institute, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida,
November, pp. C 1.1-C 1.46.
Syed, M.T., Sherif, S.A., Veziroglu, T.N., and
Sheffield, J.W., 1998, "An Economic Analysis of Three
Hydrogen Liquefaction Systems," International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 23, No. 7, July, pp. 565-576.
T-Raissi, A., Hesselmann, K., and Funk, J.E., 1991,
"Exergy Analysis of Hydrogen Liquefaction Cycles," XVllIth
International Congress of Refrigeration, Paper No. 526,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada, August 10-17.
Voth, R.O. and Parrish, W.R., 1977, "Studies of
Hydrogen Liquefier Efficiency and the Recovery of the
Liquefaction Energy," Cryogenics Division, Institute of Basic
Standards, National Bureau of Standards, Boulder, Colorado.
Yoshimura, H., Kodera, I., and Ogino, O., 1982, "A20
LA Helium Liquefier for i i 30 MVA Superconducting
SynchronousCondenser," Proceedings of the 9th International
Cryogenic Conference, Kobe, Japan, Butterworth and Co. Ltd.
 lartercooler After Cooler

WmdeT 1 '
1
0
7

11 i
V
'

Beat I5
4
I
---Stwage Vessel 3
0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90
Liquefied Bydrogen Expander efficiency

Figure 1. Helium-refrigerated hydrogen liquefier Figure 3. Variation of the number of expanders with the
expander efficiency and the helium compressor discharge
After Cooler After Cooler pressure for the helium-refrigerated hydrogen liquefier

Ccapressor

C 9 0.04

10 I I l l l , I I )
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80
Compressor efficiency
Storage Vesse

Liquefied Eydrog
Figure 4. Variation of liquefier efficiency with compressor
efficiency and hydrogen compressor discharge pressure for the
Figure 2. Hydrogen-refrigerated hydrogen liquefier helium-refrigerated hydrogen liquefier

Copyright 2000 S.A. Sherif.

Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. with permission

1391
 K 50- C * 0.04
U
L
a -
5 -
g 40-
c .

E -
$ 30-
E -
-
i Pm - 35 b a n

I.llm.fd..r.t.d hydropm U p w f i e r

10 I I I I I I I I 1 -

Figure 5. Variation of liquefier efficiency with compressor Figure 7. Variation of liquefier efficiency with expander
efficiency and helium compressor discharge pressure for the efficiency and helium compressor discharge pressure for the
helium-refrigerated hydrogen liquefier helium-refrigerated hydrogen liquefier

2oooo -
8ooo
H campn.. or "WW
w Exponder. .x.rqy
1
.0
Io..
.
-
C - 0.04
Z 14000-
40

Pm - LO bar.

10 I
I I I I I I
0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Expander efficiency Hydrogen compressor discharge pressure (bar)

Figure 6. Variation of liquefier efficiency with expander Figure 8. Exergy losses for the major components of the
efficiency and hydrogen compressor discharge pressure for the helium-refrigerated hydrogen liquefier
helium-refrigerated hydrogen liquefier

Copyright 2000 S.A. Sherif.

Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. with permission

1392
 38
37
36
-3
h

K 35

.-5 34
i--
E 33
?
32
E
31
cn
30
~li-"frl'."U1 h Y d l q a lIqWf1..
29

28

Hydregsn compressor discharge pressure (bar)

Feed hydrogen compressor dischorge presswe (bor)

Figure 9. Second law efficiency of the helium-refrigerated Figure 11. Effect of capacity and feed hydrogen compressor
hydrogen liquefier for normal and equilibrium hydrogen discharge pressure on the efficiency of the hydrogen-
refrigerated hydrogen liquefier C = 0.02)

16000.0

3 14000.0
3
12000.0
y"
2 10000.0
Y
v
Dl 8000.0
0

Eydza-refxb.xntd b d r q a 1Irm.ficr
2 6000.G
x
P
C = 0.04 9 4000.G

2ooo.c

0.c
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 I 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Feed hydrogen comprersor ditchorge pressure (bar) Feed .hydrogen compressor discharge pressure (bar)

'igure 10. Effect of capacity and feed hydrogen compressor Figure 12. Exergy losses for the major components of the
iischarge pressure on the efficiency of the hydrogen- hydrogen-refrigerated hydrogen liquefier
efrigerated hydrogen liquefier C = 0.04)

Copyright 2000 S.A. Sherif.

Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. with permission

1393