natural gas processes Heres how to improve the process design and operation of your facility G. STEPHENSON, Honeywell Process Solutions, London, Ontario, Canada; and L. WANG, Honeywell Process Solutions, Calgary, Alberta, Canada A multi-tube, spirally-wound, cryo- genic heat exchanger, the main heat exchanger (MHE) is the principal piece of heat-transfer equipment in mixed-refrigerant liquefaction cycles for producing liquefied natural gas (LNG). An MHE unit operation model called the spirally-wound tube-bundle module was developed as an integral component of the dynamic simulation capabilities for a process modeling package. The model pre- dicts the axial temperature, vapor fraction and pressure profiles for each tube stream and shell stream and axial and radial tem- perature profiles for the tube walls, shell wall and insulation. The spirally-wound tube bundle module, together with other key unit operation modules, can be deployed in dynamic process models, for many applications, such as evaluating and optimizing equipment design, control- lability and operating procedures during the detailed design phase; training pro- cess operators before commissioning and throughout the lifetime of plant opera- tions; as well as engineering studies for troubleshooting and debottlenecking with challenging situations in plant operations. Mixed-refrigerant natural gas liquefaction. LNG production pro- cesses involve removing acid gases, helium, water, dust and heavy hydrocarbons, as well as cooling the condensation and natural gas to approximately (~ 162C) through one of several commonly used liquefaction cycles. In the propane pre-cooled, mixed- refrigerant cycle, a classical propane liq- uefaction cycle precools both the feed and the mixed refrigerant. 1 Precooling is followed by a mixed refrigerant liquefac- tion cycle that provides low-temperature refrigeration. Several advantages can be realized with this system. 2 It allows more LNG production when driver size is limited, substantially reduces the size of the cryogenic exchangers, permits some exchangers to be manufactured in steel, and reduces the number of high-pressure refrigerant separators. The propane system also provides fixed temperature levels for feed drying as well as recovery of compo- nents from the feed for export or use as makeup refrigerants. Finally, the low suc- tion temperatures (about 35C) reduce compressor inlet flow volumes. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the mixed- refrigerant liquefaction cycle cools the high-pressure mixed refrigerant and natu- ral gas feed in a common cryogenic heat exchanger, the MHE, against the low-pres- sure refrigerant returning to the compres- sor suction. The mixed refrigerant from the compressor discharge is partially lique- fied against propane and then separated in the high-pressure (HP) separator. In this instance, the MHE has two spirally-wound MR compressors LNG Feed Drier Propane compressor LNG storage Fractionation HP separator Fuel Propane precooled, mixed-refrigerant liquefaction process. 1 FIG. 1 Originally appeared in: July 2010, pgs 37-44. Used with permission. HYDROCARBON PROCESSING JULY 2010 13027.indd 1 7/30/10 3:55 PM LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENTS SPECIALREPORT tube bundles. The liquid from the HP sepa- rator passes through the first (warm) bundle of the MHE, where it is sub-cooled. It is then flashed into the shell at the warm bun- dle top, joining with the refrigerant from the top (cold) bundle to provide refrigera- tion. Vapor from the HP separator passes through both bundles where it is partially condensed. It is then flashed into the shell to provide refrigeration for the top bundle. As the mixed refrigerant progresses down the shell toward the compressor suction, the liquid becomes heavier in composition and boils at higher temperatures, provid- ing evaporative cooling at a continuum of temperatures. The last amount of liquid is vaporized in the bottom bundle and the resulting mixed refrigerant vapor is super- heated before reaching the compressor. Alternatively, the MHE can have three tube bundles rather than the two bundle configurations, as illustrated in Fig. 2, that shows a high-level flowsheet for dynamic simulation of an LNG plant. With the three-bundle configuration, the bottom bundle serves as the condensing heat exchanger for the fractionation (scrub) column, rather than using the precool- ers for this purpose. Vapor (almost pure natural gas) from the reflux drum of the scrub column is re-introduced into the main heat exchanger at the bottom of the middle bundle where it is cooled further. Also, the natural gas pressure is reduced through a Joule-Thomson valve before final cooling against the low-pressure refriger- ant in the top bundle. Product purity is adjusted using liquefied petroleum gas, which is cooled and at least partially con- densed in the bottom and middle bundles prior to being mixed with the natural gas at the bottom of the top bundle as it enters the bottom bundle of the MHE. Main heat exchanger. A multi-tube, spirally-wound heat exchanger is made up of tubes that are spirally wound on a mandrel, as thread or cable is wound on a spool. 4 As shown in Fig. 3, a layer of tubes is wound (left to right) on the mandrel and spacers (bars, wire, etc.) are attached to them. This is followed by a second layer of tubes wound in the opposite direction (right to left) and then a third layer (left to right again), each layer complete with its own set of spacers. This procedure is repeated until the required number of tubes has been wound onto the mandrel. The longitudinal distance between the tubes in a layer and the tube inclination are kept constant for all layers. For the large exchangers used in LNG plants, the tube diameter ranges from 3 8 in to 3 4 in and the tubes are applied to the mandrel with a winding angle of approximately 10. The tubes are connected to tubesheets at each end of the heat exchanger and each layer contains tubes from all the differ- ent streams so the shell-side duty is uni- form. The heat exchanger operates in total counter-flow, with evaporating fluid flowing downwards on the shell side and high-pressure, condensing fluid flowing upwards on the tube side. For the multi-bundle exchangers used in natural gas liquefaction processes, the bundles are housed within a single shell. Additionally, there is a reservoir for each bundle within the mandrel to collect and redistribute the liquid phase of the refriger- ant over the annular rings within the shell of the tube bundle. Model i ng t he mai n heat exchanger. It is evident from the process description that the basic unit operation required to model the MHE is a spirally- wound shell-and-tube heat-exchanger bun- dle having multiple tube streams and a sin- gle shell stream. Although numerous papers HP NG Condensate stabilization Acid gas recovery Dehydration Liquefaction N 2 removal and fuel gas compressor Liqueed natural gas plant LNG FG Refrigeration Refrigerant preparation HP FG AG NGL Process flow diagram (flowsheet) for a dynamic simulation of an LNG plant. 3 FIG. 2 HYDROCARBON PROCESSING JULY 2010 13027.indd 2 7/30/10 3:55 PM LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENTS SPECIALREPORT have been published and/or presented at conferences that discuss modeling of LNG processes on a qualitative basis, there are few publications that discuss these modeling processes, in particular modeling the main heat exchanger, on a quantitative basis. A simplified model of a spirally-wound tube bundle will not predict the expected dynamic process behavior over the range of operation for which dynamic simulation is required. For example, a simplified model will not accurately predict startup dynam- ics, when, during initial startup, volumetric capacitance influences the refrigerant charg- ing procedures and compressor suction conditions are influenced by the refrigerant supply as a function of the exchanger duty. Simplified modeling of heat exchangers also produces irrational temperature profiles with crossovers at segment boundaries and between individual shell-and-tube streams. Consequently, a first-principles math- ematical model for a tube bundle of a spirally-wound heat exchanger, employing rigorous physical property calculations and thermodynamic flashes, was developed as a dynamic unit operation of a process model- ing package. This unit operation, called the spirally-wound tube-bundle module, when used in a flowsheet with the standard unit operations of process modeling, reflects the behavior of natural gas liquefaction processes with the fidelity, reliability and robustness necessary to yield meaningful results over the range of process operations typical of dynamic simulation studies and simulation-based training of process opera- tors. The spirally-wound tube-bundle mod- ule predicts: Exit flow, temperature, pressure, vapor fraction and composition for each of the outlet streams Phase change within each of the tube streams and the shell stream Tube and shell wall temperatures Intermediate temperatures along the heat exchanger Thermal profiles in the shell wall and insulation. Fig. 4 shows the standard views of the spirally-wound tube-bundle module of the process modeling package, illustrating a great detail of what is captured in the model. In large-scale, real-time and faster-than- real-time dynamic simulations typical of dynamic studies and simulation-based operator training, fidelity and calculation speed are always competing objectives. Simplifying assumptions, such as using a representative tube winding for each tube stream and lumping the shell-side annular rings into a single shell stream, were made when formulating the mathematical model so as to balance these objectives. The model formulation incorporates an axially distributed model for the mate- rial flows in the multiple tube streams and the shell stream, and an axially and radi- ally distributed model for the heat flow through the tube walls and the shell wall and insulation. To predict phase change in the tube streams and the shell stream, the model for the material flows incorporates an isobaric-isenthalpic (PH) flash at each grid point. The solution of a spatially distrib- uted model incorporating flash calculations for a multiple-tube stream countercurrent flow configuration is very challenging from a computational perspective stability, robustness and speed. Solution stability is addressed by employing the equations-ori- ented solution architecture that solves all the modeling equations for the unit operation simultaneously. Solution robustness and calculation speed are addressed by replacing the highly nonlinear PH flash equations by first-order Taylor series expansions whose coefficients are updated by exception as the solution moves through the operating space and by employing a multilayer grid for the process streams, calculating some quantities on a course grid and projecting values for these quantities onto the finer solution grid. The model formulation and solution methodology employed in the spirally- wound tube-bundle unit operation is proven technology, having been successfully deployed in dynamic simulation models of more than 10 LNG plants. 3 The power of dynamic simulation. The key value of dynamic simulation is the improved process understanding it provides. 6 After all, plant operations are by nature dynamic. Realistic dynamic models can be used to enhance the design of the control system, improve basic plant operation, and train both opera- tors and engineers. Plant life cycleearly stages. In the design phase, dynamic simulation mod- els can help identify operability and control issues and influence the design accordingly. They serve as valuable tools for designing, testing and tuning control strategies prior to startup. They can also be used for recon- ciling trade-offs between optimized steady- state design (targeted at minimizing capital expenditures and operating utility costs) and dynamic operability. In addition, such models often assist in the development of operating procedures. However, using dynamic models for training plant opera- tors before commissioning is, by far, the most well-known application of dynamic simulation. 7 With a good understanding of the production process and knowledge of the control procedures applicable to nor- Spirally-wound heat exchanger with four streams. 5 FIG. 3 Standard views of the spirally-wound tube-bundle module of the process modeling package. FIG. 4 HYDROCARBON PROCESSING JULY 2010 13027.indd 3 7/30/10 3:55 PM LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENTS SPECIALREPORT mal and abnormal operations, well-trained operators ensure productive plant opera- tions from day one. Throughout the lifetime of a plant. Once a plant is in operation, it can benefit from dynamic simulation models for improved operation on a daily basis. The dynamic models allow process engineers and plant operators to perform what-if studies; test out the impact of potential changes in feed stocks, operating conditions, control strategies or operat- ing schemes and troubleshoot difficulties encountered during plant operation. It reduces the risk of disruption and, hence, improves the efficiency and reliability of process operation. In parallel, the dynamic models used in precommissioning operator training can be updated to as-built and used for continuous training. 8 Analysis has shown that approxi- mately 90% of plant incidents are prevent- able and that the majority of incidentsby some estimates the vast majorityresult from the actions or inactions of people. Because people will always play an integral role in plant operations, continuous train- ing of plant personnel is crucial to achieving safe, reliable and efficient operation. Dynamic simulation has the power to create significant value throughout the life cycle of a project, from initial investigation of the processing concepts right through to plant operation. Although this value is described here in broad terms without specific reference to LNG projects, it can certainly be realized in LNG projects, as shown by the following case study. Case studyRas Laffan LNG Train 3. A precommissioning dynamic simulation study (DSS) was undertaken for Train 3 of the Ras Laffan LNG facility to confirm operational readiness of key plant assets. 3 The dynamic model encompassed the liquefaction process (feed dryers, feed pre-coolers, scrub column and main cryo- genic heat exchanger) and the refrigeration process (closed-loop mixed-refrigerant and propane compression system). The DSS was conducted during the front-end engineering design (FEED) and detailed design stages of the project. Dur- ing FEED, the objective of the DSS was to confirm whether the project specifica- tions and plant design basis were suitable for equipment selection, and whether the control strategies met operability and asset- protection requirements. During this study phase, a simplified control implementation was necessarily employed because the con- trol system configuration was not available at this early stage of the project. Eighteen simulations were performed to predict and analyze the response of the process and the control system to upsets imposed in the pro- pane and mixed-refrigerant compressor sys- tems, including tripping anti-surge valves, tripping the gas turbine and loss of cooling to condensers. As is typical of such studies, model validation included a complete (vir- tual) startup of the liquefaction and refrig- eration systems, optimizing the sequence of operations and establishing reasonable guidelines for initial refrigerant charging. During detailed design, the objective of the DSS was to confirm operational readi- ness of all actual plant assets prior to con- struction and commissioning. The dynamic model was updated with the configuration data for the selected equipment; its scope was extended to include the nitrogen rejec- tion compressor and the LNG and mixed refrigerant turbines; and the simplified control implementation was replaced with the actual control system, emergency shut- down logic, gas turbine startup sequences and compressor anti-surge control. Evalu- ation of the automation system was critical to Ras Laffan because its configuration was new and unique. The simulations performed during the initial phase of the DSS were repeated and supplemented by six additional simulations using the updated and extended dynamic model. Generally, the DSS showed that the control strategies were sufficient to protect the equipment and personnel during upset situations and that the new and unique automation system was effective. A sig- nificant finding from an operability per- spective was sensitivity of the compressors to overload during upset conditions with high flow rates. However, possibly the greatest single result of the DSS was the confidence it provided in readiness for safe operation through realistic simulation of the many operating scenarios investigated. Following the conclusion of the DSS, the focus of the dynamic model shifted from engineering to operation. Operating pro- cedures were prepared and then validated against the dynamic model, and process operators were trained on process funda- mentals and process operation during nor- mal operation and abnormal situations. Conclusion. Dynamic simulation has the power to create significant value through- out the life cycle of an LNG project, testing and refining the design, virtually commis- sioning the control system prior to startup, training operations personnel both before and after initial startup, troubleshooting operating problems and validating pro- posed changes to plant operations before implementation. Addition of the spirally- wound tube bundle module to the pro- cess modeling package enables this value to be realized for mixed refrigerant LNG facilities. This is proven dynamic simula- tion technology, having been deployed in numerous dynamic simulation studies and operator training systems. HP LITERATURE CITED 1 Edwards, T. J., C. F. Harris, Y. N. Liu and C. L. Newton, Analysis of Process Efficiency for Baseload LNG Production, Cryogenic Processes and Equipment, Fifth Intersociety Cryogenics Symposium, ASME, New Orleans, 1984. 2 Lom, W. L., Liquefied Natural Gas, Applied Science Publications, 1979. 3 Henderson, P., H. Schindler and A. Pekediz, Dynamic Simulation Studies Help Ensure Safety by Conforming Operational Readiness of LNG Plant Assets, AIChE Spring Conference, New Orleans, 2004. 4 Crawford, D. B. and G. P. Eschenbrenner, Heat Transfer Equipment for LNG Projects, Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol. 68(9), p. 62, 1972. 5 Fredheim, A. and P. Fuchs, Thermal Design of LNG Heat Exchangers, Proceedings for the European Applied Research Conference on Natural Gas, Trondheim, Norway, p. 567, 1990. 6 Svrcek, W. Y., D. P. Mahoney and B. R. Yong, A Real-Time Approach to Process Control, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., Chichester, England, 2000. 7 Tang, A. K. C. and G. Stephenson, LNG Plant Operator Training, Petroleum Technology Quarterly, Autumn, 1997. 8 Stephenson, G., P. Henderson and H. Schindler, Profit More from Process Simulation, Chemical Processing, August, 2009. Grant Stephenson is an engi- neering fellow of Honeywell Automa- tion Control Solutions. In his current role, Mr. Stephenson serves as the global simulation architect for Hon- eywell Process Solutions. Based in London, Ontario, Canada, he has worked in the field of process simula- tion for more than 35 years and has held positions with DuPont, Atomic Energy of Canada, the University of Western Ontarios Systems Analysis Control and Design Activity (SACDA), and Honeywell. Mr. Stephenson is the originator of the Shadow Plant dynamic simulator and is a pioneer of the hybrid solution architecture and its application to large-scale dynamic simulation. He has an MS degree in applied mathematics. Laurie Wang is a senior prod- uct manager with Honeywell and is responsible for the UniSim Design Suite products. She is a registered professional engineer with a PhD from the University of Ottawa. She has hands-on expe- rience with process simulation and specializes in chemi- cal engineering thermodynamics. Ms. Wang has also worked at the National Research Council of Canada as a research scientist. Article copyright 2010 by Gulf Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A. Not to be distributed in electronic or printed form, or posted on a website, without express written permission of copyright holder. 13027.indd 4 7/30/10 4:00 PM