REPORTS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 61/1999

A New LNG Baseload Process and

Manufacturing of the Main Heat Exchanger
Wolfgang Förg, Wilfried Bach, Rudolf Stockmann, Linde AG
Roy Scott Heiersted, Pentti Paurola, Dr. Arne Olav Fredheim, Den norske stats oljeselskap a. s. (Statoil)

Introduction exchangers cannot be purchased on a which have been built and operated until
competitive basis. today:

The formation of the Statoil-Linde LNG
Technology alliance reflects the LNG
industry’s desire for reduced costs and
schedules for baseload plants.
The evaluation of existing liquefaction
processes led to the development of a
new LNG baseload process.
The capability of manufacturing large
cryogenic heat exchangers is necessary
for building LNG plants, since such heat
The installation of the LNG plant on a ● the classical cascade
purpose-built barge will shorten the ● the single flow mixed refrigerant
construction time under the specific process and
conditions set by remote locations. ● the propane-precooled mixed
refrigerant process.
LNG Process Design
Historically, we can distinguish between
three different liquefaction processes

The classical cascade has been established at three locations:

Process Year of
startup

Arzew Algeria TEAL 1965 [1]

Kenai Alaska Phillips Petroleum 1969 [2]
Point Fortin Trinidad & Tobago Phillips Petroleum 1999 [3]

The single flow mixed refrigerant process has also been used three times:

Process Year of
startup

Marsa el Brega Libya APCI 1970 [4] [5]

Skikda Algeria TEALARC 1972 [6]
Skikda Algeria PRICO 1981 [7]

The three latter processes may have
remarkable differences in their designs, but
they have in common that one mixed
refrigerant stream is compressed by one
single compressor.
The most successful process so far,
however, has been the propane precooled
mixed refrigerant process of APCI, which
has been used with start-up dates from
1972 to 1999 in eight different countries [8].
The liquefaction plant represents
approximately 50% of the investment cost
of the entire LNG value chain. The Alliance
therefore scrutinized and compared the
existing processes in order to find a
benchmark for further improvements.
The conditions for the comparison were
set as follows:
Natural gas composition (mol-%): N2 2.0;
C1 89.0; C2 5.5; C3 2.5; C4 1.0.
Natural gas inlet temperature: 13 °C; inlet
pressure 60 bar; gross flow rate: 4 million
tons per annum of LNG; cooling water
temperature: 6 °C.
Heavy hydrocarbon removal and N2
rejection were not considered in this
evaluation. It was assumed that their
influence on each process would be
similar, which means they would not affect
the process comparison.
Figure 1 shows the classical cascade
process (CCP). A three-stage propane
precooling cycle is followed by a three-
stage ethylene liquefaction cycle and a
three-stage methane subcooling cycle.
While propane is compressed leaving the
different suction drums at its dewpoint,

3
REPORTS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 61/1999
Figure 1 — Classical cascade process
ethylene and methane are vaporized and
superheated before being compressed.
Figure 2 shows the single flow mixed
refrigerant process (SFMRP) which was the
result of extensive optimization work. It was
not the intention to compare the three
different processes mentioned above, but
we have selected our own design as
representative for this type of process. The
Figure 2 — Single flow mixed refrigerant process
4
mixed refrigerant is composed of N2, CH4,
C2H6, C3H8 and n-C4H10. The condensate
from separator D1 downstream from first
compressor stage C1 and water cooler
CW1 is pumped to the discharge of the
second compressor stage. The conden-
sate from separator D2 of this stage is
used as refrigerant in the first cryogenic
heat exchanger E1. The condensate from
the third compressor stage is collected in
Figure 3 —Propane precooled mixed refrigerant process
separator D3 and used as refrigerant in the
second cryogenic heat exchanger E2. The
gas from the third compressor stage is
partially condensed in the first cryogenic
heat exchanger E1. The condensate from
separator D4 is subcooled, expanded in
liquid expansion turbine X1 and used as
refrigerant in the third cryogenic heat
exchanger E3. The gas from separator D4
is condensed in the third cryogenic heat
exchanger E3, subcooled in the fourth
cryogenic heat exchanger E4 and then
used for final cooling in the fourth
cryogenic heat exchanger E4 after throttle
expansion. All refrigerants are
subsequently vaporized and warmed up in
heat exchangers E4, E3, E2 and E1 before
being compressed in compressor C1/C2.
Figure 3 depicts the well-known propane
precooled mixed refrigerant process
(C3MRC). Precooling is achieved by a
three-stage propane cycle compressor C1
and precooling heat exchangers E1A, E1B
and E1C. Liquefaction and subcooling are
accomplished by two-stage mixed
refrigerant compressor C2/C3, separator
D1, liquefier E2A and subcooler E2B. For
large plant capacities a liquid turbine X1 is
advantageous.
Figure 4 represents a sketch of the
Alliance’s LNG baseload process
consisting of three mixed refrigerant cycles,
called mixed fluid cascade process
(MFCP). The precooling cycle consisting of
REPORTS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 61/1999
a mixture of C2H6 and C3H8 is compressed
in compressor C1, liquefied in sea water
cooler CW1 and subcooled in cryogenic
heat exchanger E1A. One part is throttled
to an intermediate pressure and used as
refrigerant in E1A. The other part is further
subcooled in heat exchanger E1B, throttled
to the suction pressure of compressor C1
and used as refrigerant in heat exchanger
E1B. The liquefaction cycle is compressed
in compressor C2, cooled in sea water
coolers CW2A and CW2B, further cooled in
heat exchangers E1A, E1B and E2. It is
throttled and used as a refrigerant in
liquefier E2. The subcooling cycle is
compressed in compressor C3, cooled in
sea water coolers CW3A and CW3B,
further cooled in heat exchangers E1A,
Compressor shaft power at 100% adiabatic efficiency
Heating surface cooling water section
Heating surface refrigerant section
Heating surface total
Number of compressor casings
Number of suction lines
Maximum flow in the suction line, approximately
Table 1: principal data of the four processes to be compared
Figure 4 —
Mixed fluid cascade
process
E1B, E2 and E3, expanded in liquid turbine
X1 and used as refrigerant in subcooler E3.
All compressor suction fluids are slightly
superheated above their dewpoints.
A comparison of the main data of the
above processes is given in table 1.
Special effort was made to investigate the
different processes on a comparable basis.
Linde’s proprietary design optimization
program, Optisim® was used for this
purpose [9]. It was attempted to have
similar heat transfer surfaces for all
processes within the cooling water and the
cryogenic section. This was not always
possible as the limitation of a minimum
temperature pinch was given priority.
MFCP
% 100
% 100
% 100
% 100
3 3
4 4
3/h
m eff. 120.000
Under these assumptions the compressor
shaft power at 100% adiabatic efficiency
for the refrigeration cycles turned out to be
70.4 MW for the mixed fluid cascade
process. If one compares the compressor
shaft power with real adiabatic efficiencies
the advantage of the MFCP versus the
C3MRC may disappear, because no axial
machine can be applied at the MFCP,
while compressor C2 within the C3MRC
can be built as an axial machine, with
higher adiabatic efficiency.
In spite of this fact we see an advantage
for the MFCP, since heat exchangers E2
and E3 of this process are of similar size
and well within the limits of manufactur-
ability of spiral wound heat exchangers.
With other words, those heat exchangers
are not the limiting factor for the size of
one liquefaction train.
As far as the SFMRP is concerned we
believe that the limits of manufacturability
are exceeded in several areas, e. g.,
suction line, separators D1 to D4 and
compressor C1. Therefore, the SFMRP is
suitable for smaller train capacities than 4
million tons per annum only.
Manufacturing of Cryogenic
Heat Exchangers
For the cryogenic process section plate-fin
heat exchangers as well as spiral wound
heat exchangers can be applied.
Aluminum plate-fin heat exchangers
(PFHE) have been installed in air
separation, in gas separation, and in the
cryogenic section of ethylene plants as
well as natural gas separation and LNG
peak-shaving plants for several decades.
C3MRC SFMRP CCP
103,3 114,2 115,5
100 88,4 105,1
99,1 106,8 94,2
99,4 100,5 98,0
2 3
1 9
200.000 315.000 112.000
5
REPORTS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 61/1999

For approximately 20 years Linde has been

manufacturing such heat exchangers [10]
using the vacuum-brazing process as
shown in Figure 5.

Raw materials for separator plates, fins and

side-bars are measured, cut and stamped.
All parts are washed to remove oil, dried
and stacked. They are brazed in a vacuum
furnace under precise temperature control
at approximately 600 °C. Thereafter,
headers and nozzles are welded to the
block to complete the heat exchanger.
Before shipment the final product is
subjected to X-ray, helium leakage, flow
and pressure testing. More than 4,000
blocks have been built until now.

PFHEs are well-suited for applications in

LNG baseload plants. They are, however,
sensitive to large and rapid temperature
changes and are therefore regarded as
less robust in comparison to spiral wound
heat exchangers. Also the two-phase flow
distribution to a battery of blocks is
considered to be more difficult when
compared to a single spiral wound heat
exchanger.

In the precooling section of an LNG

baseload plant, however, vacuum-brazed
aluminum PFHEs are a good choice.
Figure 6 shows four assemblies of four
blocks each, finally forming one heat
exchanger unit.

Spiral wound heat exchangers (SWHE) or

coiled tubular heat exchangers [11] as they
are called sometimes have been used in
the cryogenic industry since the early days.
The heat exchanger used by Carl von
Linde when he liquefied air on an
industrial scale for the first time in Munich
in May 1895 consisted of two concentric
tubes, which were wound to form a coil
[12].
Figure 5 — Manufacturing of vacuum brazed aluminium plate-fin heat exchangers
Until today, more than a thousand SWHEs
have been manufactured in Linde’s
workshops. Copper has been the
traditional material for many decades. It on many heat exchangers in low- the individual streams by calculating the
has been almost completely replaced by temperature service for more than 25 years. heat transfer coefficients, pressure drops
stainless and low temperature alloy steels and temperature differentials as driving
and by aluminum. For weight reasons and For the thermodynamic, hydraulic and forces for discrete elements. The number
since the service can be kept clean and geometrical design Linde’s proprietary of elements used in the calculation is
free from corrosive substances aluminum computer program Genius is used [13]. determined dynamically and depends on
is the material of choice for the liquefier Process data as flows, pressures, temper- the accuracy required and by the non-
and subcooler of an LNG baseload plant. atures and temperature differences are linearity of the enthalpy-temperature curves
Many of the construction details and provided by the process calculation using of the individual streams. The dew and
fabrication procedures such as tube Optisim®. Pressure drops are set by an bubble points as well as the composition
support system and tube spacing iterative optimization. Genius determines of each stream are taken into account by
arrangements are proven design gained the temperature and pressure profiles of the simulation. All methods used for heat

6
REPORTS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 61/1999

transfer and pressure drop implemented

into the program have been carefully
tested.

Our own research is complemented by

evaluation of literature (e. g., [14], [15], [16])
and cooperation with major research and
development institutions like Heat Transfer
Research Inc. (HTRI) and Heat Transfer and
Fluid Flow Service (HTFS). Especially for
falling film evaporation at the shell-side of
the SWHE Linde and Statoil [17] have
performed their own measurements and
evaluated available literature [18] and
produced corresponding calculation
methods. As the final product, Genius
calculates the number and length of the
tubes for the individual streams, the
number of layers, the dimensions of the
spacer bars and the distribution of the
tubes to the different layers, resulting in the
geometry of the bundle.
Figure 6 — 4 x 4 blocks to be assembled to form one heat exchanger
The manufacturing procedure of the SWHE
is as follows (Figure 7): It starts with the
core cylinder or mandrel (1.1), which can
be rotated on a winding bench by means
of two race rings in horizontal position.
Support arms and liquid distribution trays
are connected to what will be the upper
side of the heat exchanger (1.2) when it is
erected to its final vertical position. Tube
sheets are brought into their position at
both ends of the heat exchanger. Spacer
bars will keep the designed distance
between the mandrel and the first layer of
tubes.

Now the winding of the inner layer of tubes

can begin. Therefore, each tube of this
layer is inserted into its tube sheet at one
side, wound onto the mandrel and then
inserted into the corresponding tube sheet
at the other side (2.1). When the winding of
the first layer is performed from left to right,
the next layer is performed from right to left
(2.2), and so on. Proper distance between Figure 7 — Manufacturing procedure for spiral wound heat exchangers
the individual layers is kept by spacer bars
(2.3).

To avoid a by-pass at the shell side the
bundle is wrapped into a shroud (2.4). After
the tubes have been welded to the tube
sheets, bonnets are welded to the tube
sheets (2.5).
Parallel to the manufacturing of the bundle
the lower (3.1) and the upper part (3.2) of
the shell are being fabricated. During
assembly the completed bundle is
inserted into the lower part of the shell and
the shroud is connected to the shell (3.3).
The upper part is added, and the closing
seams and nozzles are welded to the shell
(3.4). Figure 10 shows the SWHE in its final
upright position.
Figure 11 shows on the left-hand side a
mandrel equipped with tube sheets,
support arms and liquid distribution tray. In
the foreground and in the background two
bundles during different phases of the
winding process can be seen.
Processing plant on purpose-
built barge
During the work of the Statoil-Linde LNG
Technology Alliance, it was assumed that
future LNG baseload plants are to be
installed in remote locations without the
availability of infrastructure and subjected
to extreme weather conditions. It was
envisaged at an early stage that for this
purpose a conventional construction

7
REPORTS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 61/1999
Figure 8 — Manufacturing procedure for spiral wound heat exchangers
approach would not be cost and time
effective. Therefore, one of the most
fundamental process decisions was to
install the major part of the LNG process
plant in a most compact format on a
purpose built barge (Figure 15), thereby
minimizing construction work on site. The
installation takes place within a
strategically well located shipyard making
use of local skilled labor force and weather
protected dock facilities. This in turn meant
that basic engineering, design methods
and project execution strategies had to be
tailored to meet the specific constraints of
this barge-mounted concept.
The barge serves as a permanent base
and foundation for the LNG process plant,
8
both during construction and plant
operation. Likewise the barge is also used
as a transportation vessel, when the fully
tested, mechanically completed and
precommissioned plant is towed from the
construction/assembly yard to the
production site. Here the barge is brought
into a prepared dock and settled down on
ground. The dock will then be closed to
seaside, filled with gravel and hooked up
with other site systems.
It was also realized during the work that an
alliance type of project execution and
contract strategy is a necessity to
accomplish construction and scheduling
flexibility, which is required to achieve the
reduced cost and schedule of the plant.
Conclusion
The work done by the Statoil - Linde LNG
Technology Alliance with respect to
process design, selection of main
compressors and drivers, manufacturing of
cryogenic heat exchangers along with the
installation of the process plant on a
purpose built barge has led to significant
savings in investment cost and a
considerable shortening of the project
execution time.
Literature
[1] Operating Experience of the Arzew
Plant; Pierot, M.
LNG 1, Chicago, Illinois, USA, April 7-12,
1968; Session No. 2, Paper 10b
[2] Phillips Optimized Cascade LNG
Process
Houser, C. G.; Krusen, L. C. (Phillips
Petroleum Co.)
Gastech ‘96, 17th Int. LNG/LPG Conf.,
Vienna, Dec. 3-6, 1996, Conf. Papers
[3] The LNG Industry 1996; GIIGNL;
page 9
[4] Esso Libya Venture; Latimer, D. M.
LNG 1, Chicago, Illinois, USA, April 7-12,
1968; Session No. 3, Paper 15
[5] The Design, Fabrication and Operation
of Large Cryogenic Heat Exchangers
Gaumer, L. S.; Geist, J. M.; Harnett, G.
J.; Pfannenstiel, L. L.
LNG 3, Washington D. C., Sept. 24-28,
1972; Session II, Paper 15
[6] Experience of Arzew and its Effect on
the Design of the Skikda Natural Gas
Liquefaction Plant; Bourget, J. M.
LNG 3, Washington D. C., Sept. 24-28,
1972; Session V, Paper 6
[7] PRICO - A Simple, Flexible Proven
Approach to Natural Gas Liquefaction
Price, B. C.; Mortko, R. A. (Pritchard
Corp.)
Gastech ‘96, 17th Int. LNG/LPG Conf.,
Vienna, Dec. 3-6, 1996, Conf. Papers
[8] The Air Products Propane Precooled/
Mixed Refrigerant LNG Process
Bronfenbrenner, James C. (Air Pro-
ducts and Chemicals, Inc.)
LNG Journal, Nov./Dec. 1996,
page 25-27
[9] The Design of Optimal Air Separation
and Liquefaction Processes with the
REPORTS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 61/1999

Figure 9 — Manufacturing procedure for spiral wound heat exchangers

Figure 11 — Three coiled heat exchangers during manufacturing Figure 12 — Subcooler on a winding bench during production
on winding benches

9
REPORTS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 61/1999

Figure 13 — Transition from the liquefier to the subcooler

Figure 14 — Three coiled heat exchangers installed in a common shell

Figure 10 — Spiral wound heat exchanger

in its final upright position

10
REPORTS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 61/1999

Figure 15 — Liquefaction plant built on a special-purpose barge

OPTISIM equation-oriented Simulator W. [16] Condensation of Hydrocarbon

and its Application to on-line and off- MUST 1996, Refrigeration Science and
line Plant Optimization; Burr, Peter S. Technology Proceedings
AIChE Spring National Meeting, Munich (Germany) Oct. 10-11, 1996
Houston, Texas, April 7-11, 1991; Paper
[13] Optimised Calculation of Helical-
50a
Coiled Heat Exchangers in LNG Plants
[10] The Manufacture of Plate-Fin Heat Steinbauer, M.; Hecht T.
Exchangers; Diery, W. Eurogas 96 Conference, Trondheim,
Linde Reports on Science and Norway, June 3-5, 1996
Technology 37/1984
[14] Coiled Tubular Heat Exchangers;
[11] Coiled Tubular Heat Exchangers; Abadzic, E. E.; Scholz, H. W.
Scholz, W. H. Advances in Cryogenic Engineering,
Linde Reports on Science and Vol. 18, Plenum Press, 1973
Technology 18/1973
[15] Wärmeuebertragung im Gegenstrom,
Gleichstrom und Kreuzstrom
[12] The History of Air Separation; Foerg,
Hausen, H.; Springer Verlag, 1950
Mixtures in Coil-Wound LNG Heat
Exchangers
Neeraas, B. O.
Ph. D. Thesis, University of Trondheim,
Norwegian Inst. of Technology, 1993
[17] Thermal Design of Coil-Wound LNG
Heat Exchangers
Shell-Side Heat Transfer and Pressure
Drop; Fredheim, A. O.
Ph. D. Thesis, University of Trondheim,
Norwegian Inst. of Technology, 1994
[18] Echange de Chaleur et Pertes de
Charges en Ecoulement Diphasique
dans la Calandre des Echangeurs
Bobines; Barbe et al.
Proceedings of the XIII International
Congress on Refrigeration, Vol. 2

11