Energy 141 (2017) 2458e2469

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Exergetic and economic evaluation of safety-related concepts for the

regasification of LNG integrated into air separation processes
Stefanie Tesch*, Tatiana Morosuk, George Tsatsaronis
Institute for Energy Engineering, Technische Universit €
at Berlin, Marchstr. 18, D-10587, Berlin, Germany

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

Article history: Natural gas is an important primary energy carrier and plays an important role for the energy supply. The
Received 19 December 2016 growing liquefied natural gas (LNG) market enables more flexibility in the entire natural gas market. In
Received in revised form
the regasification terminal, the LNG is regasified, stored and finally distributed to the gas grid. Usually,
5 April 2017
the low-temperature exergy of the LNG is destroyed while regasified. Alternatively, there are systems
Accepted 10 April 2017
Available online 12 April 2017
where the low temperature of the LNG is used within power systems. A further option is the integration
of the regasification of LNG into an air separation process. In this paper, the concepts of integration of
LNG regasification into an air separation processes are developed taking into account different possible
Keywords:
LNG
structures of air separation units (with and without a nitrogen liquefaction block) and safety-related
Regasification issues. For the evaluation of the novel concepts, exergetic and economic analyses are conducted. The
Air separation results show that for safety-related concepts the exergetic efficiency is reduced from 53.4% to 51.8%. The
Exergy analysis results of the economic analysis demonstrate that the systems with a nitrogen liquefaction block are by
Economic analysis 10% more expensive, and that the systems where the safety aspect is included are 9% less expensive.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In the last decades (1965e2016), the market for natural gas was
the fastest growing among all fossil fuels with an average increase
of 1.8% per year [1]; this growth is expected to continue. Natural gas
makes up to one quarter of the global energy supply with a share of
liquefied natural gas (LNG) of approximately 10% of the global gas
supply. In the last 20 years, the LNG supply grew rapidly with an
average rate of 6% per year [2]. With a total trade of 244.8 MT of
LNG, the amount of LNG that was traded in 2015 corresponds to an
increase of 2.5% compared to the year 2014 [2,3]. One of the ad-
vantages of using LNG instead of natural gas are the low trans-
portation costs in case the distance between exporting and
importing countries is more than 2000 km. Additionally, LNG en-
ables a flexible gas market and a continuous supply of natural gas.
The total LNG chain consists of four parts e liquefaction of
natural gas, transportation of the LNG, storage, and regasification
and distribution to the gas grid. For the regasification normally
open-seawater heaters or submerged combustion chambers are
used [4]. In these processes the low-temperature exergy is
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: stefanie.tesch@tu-berlin.de (S. Tesch), tetyana.morozyuk@tu-
berlin.de (T. Morosuk), georgios.tsatsaronis@tu-berlin.de (G. Tsatsaronis).
destroyed without any use. However, there are also other types of
technologies like the simultaneous production of electricity [4,5] or
the use of the low-temperature energy of LNG in another process,
such as for example, an air separation process. This combination of
two cryogenic processes has already been established in France,
Japan, and Taiwan [6] and is discussed in the literature.
In Ref. [7] a system for the production of nitrogen and oxygen is
proposed while the reheated purge gas stream coming from the air
separation unit is used to evaporate liquefied natural gas.
An air separation unit where the recycled nitrogen stream is
used to evaporate the liquefied natural gas has been reported in
Ref. [8]. This combination leads to a decrease of approximately 40%
in the power consumption compared to a conventional two-
column air separation unit.
There are also some publications where the regasification of
LNG is introduced into an air separation unit with a single-column
design [9,10]. In Ref. [9] the LNG regasification is introduced in the
liquid nitrogen cycle (nitrogen liquefaction block), where nitrogen
or argon serve as a heat transfer medium. The LNG is not included
in the distillation part, in order to lower the potential of hazardous
mixtures with oxygen.
In general, cryogenic liquids are associated with a high potential
for different kind of hazards. Most liquids in cryogenics could be
assigned to one of the following three groups: (a) inert gases, (b)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.043
0360-5442/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Tesch et al. / Energy 141 (2017) 2458e2469
flammable, and (c) oxygen. Additionally, hazards related to liquids
in cryogenics could be divided into health hazards and flammability
hazards [11]. For the operation and design of cryogenic processes
like an air separation unit and LNG terminal, the hazards due to
flammability are particularly important and therefore should be
prevented.
Industrial air separation units have several potential categories
of risks, which have to be considered during the operation. The
main categories of risks are related to electricity, pressurized gases,
low temperatures, presence of pure or enriched oxygen streams
which could accelerate a combustion and the suffocating effects of
nitrogen, argon and noble gases [12]. Additionally, problems could
occur due to impurities like content of water, carbon dioxide, hy-
drocarbons, and sulfur dioxide. They could be classified into ma-
terials which will lead to clogging, to form reactive mixtures or/and
corrosives. The hydrocarbon impurities form reactive mixtures and
accumulate within the oxygen streams.
The safety issues within LNG terminals are the focus of in-
vestigations [13]. The off-shore terminals have a higher safety level
in addition to the fact that these terminals are not located close to
populated areas. The leakage of LNG could lead to different hazards,
which depend on the pressure of the LNG. For example, pool fire,
vapor cloud explosion, flash fire, jet fire or a boiling liquid
expanding vapor explosion.
This paper evaluates new concepts for the regasification of LNG
integrated into an air separation unit, where the safety aspect is
considered. Additionally, the effect of the nitrogen liquefaction
block is analyzed.
Previous publications by the authors highlighted that the inte-
gration of the regasification of LNG into an air separation unit leads
to an increase in the exergetic efficiency [14]. The main advantage
of the new concept is the isolation of oxygen or oxygen-enriched
streams and LNG streams, in order to minimize the explosion
hazard. Exergy and economic analyses are applied to the new
concepts and compared with already reported concepts.
2. Process description
A conventional air separation unit consists of four main blocks:
(a) air purification and compression block, (b) liquefaction of the air
in the main heat exchanger, (c) column block, and (d) nitrogen
liquefaction block, which is not mandatory. A conventional air
separation unit and two approaches related to the integration of
regasification of LNG were evaluated and reported by the authors in
Ref. [14]. One of these systems needs to be repeated in order to
show the continuation of the research: CAD2 in Ref. [14] is called
CAD2N in this paper.
The four systems being analyzed have different schematics: (a)
with or without nitrogen liquefaction block, and (b) with or
without considering safety aspects. Table 1 shows an overview of
the simulated cases in this paper. In the names of the systems, ’N0
means ’ with nitrogen liquefaction block’ and ’S0 means ’considering
safety aspects'.
2.1. Case A design 2 (with and without nitrogen liquefaction block)
The generalized schematic of Case A Design 2 including a
Table 1
Simulated cases.
name nitrogen liquefaction block safety aspects
CAD2N yes no
CAD2 no no
CAD2NS yes yes
CAD2S no yes
2459
nitrogen liquefaction block (CAD2N) is shown in Fig. 1. This sche-
matic was already published in Ref. [14], but it has been modified in
this paper.
The dustless air enters the processes and is compressed to
5.6 bar [15]. Between the compressors the air is cooled within three
interstage coolers. Furthermore, the water vapor and the carbon
dioxide are removed. These components will freeze at low tem-
peratures and could block the down streaming components. The
limitations for both components are 0.1 ppm for water vapor and
1.0 ppm for carbon dioxide [16]. In real plants the cleaning of the air
is done by adsorption, which is not simulated in this process. The
purified air which enters the main heat exchanger (MHE) (stream
9), is cooled to a temperature of 173  C, fed to the column block
and enters the undermost tray of the high-pressure column (stream
10). The column block consists of two columns which are thermally
coupled by a condenser/reboiler. The high- and low-pressure col-
umns (HPC and LPC) are simulated as a sieve tray column. Impor-
tant parameters such as the reflux ratio, the number of stages [15],
and the pressure drop over the sieve trays [17] are considered. The
top-products of the HPC are gaseous and liquid nitrogen. At the
bottom of the HPC an oxygen-enriched mixture is gained, throttled
and fed to the LPC. The oxygen content in this stream is 41%, which
is close to a literature value of 38% [18]. Furthermore, some side
streams are withdrawn from the HPC, throttled and fed to the LPC.
The products of the LPC are liquid (stream 14) and gaseous (stream
20) oxygen at the bottom, and gaseous nitrogen (stream 15) at the
top of the column. The gaseous product streams of the LPC and a
purge gas stream (stream 25) are fed to the MHE. These four
streams are used to cool the incoming air in a counter-current heat
exchanger. The streams leave the MHE with ambient temperature.
The gaseous nitrogen stream from the HPC (stream 30) is fed to the
nitrogen liquefaction block. This block consists of a heat exchanger
(HE2) and two nitrogen compressors (NC1 and NC2). The incoming
nitrogen stream is heated and compressed to 46 bar [15]. After-
wards this stream is cooled by the incoming stream (stream 31) and
leaves the nitrogen liquefaction block (stream 34). Finally, it is
throttled, split and fed to both columns as a reflux (stream 37 and
29). The product streams (streams 22 and 17) leaving the MHE are
compressed to 20 bar, but this value depends on the consumer. In
the end, the purge gas stream (stream 26) is heated to 170  C [19],
because this stream is used to desorb the impurities in the
adsorption block. The LNG is fed to a system via a pump and is split
into two parts (stream 48 and 41). One stream is heated in the MHE
while the second stream is fed to the HE2 in the nitrogen lique-
faction block. Afterwards both streams are mixed and heated in the
interstage coolers of the air compression block. Finally, the LNG
(stream 46) is heated to ambient temperature in HE4.
In the system without nitrogen liquefaction block (CAD2) some
streams are different. Fig. 2 shows the generalized schematic of this
system. The air compression and purification block remains the
same. The air (stream 9) is cooled to the liquefaction temperature
of 173  C in the MHE and enters the undermost tray of the HPC
(stream 10). The column block was adjusted with a subcooler,
where the stream at the top of the LPC cools the condensed stream
at the top of the HPC. The gaseous stream at the top of the HPC is
throttled and completely fed to the LPC. From the column block one
gaseous nitrogen stream (16), one gaseous oxygen stream (21), and
the purge gas stream (25) are fed to the MHE. The two product
streams are compressed and used to heat the purge gas stream
(HE3).
Also in this process the LNG is fed with a pump to the system
and split into two parts (streams 45 and 47). While one part (stream
45) is heated in the MHE, the second part (stream 47) is heated in
the first interstage cooler (IC1) of the air compression block. Then
both streams are mixed (stream 49) and further heated in
2460 S. Tesch et al. / Energy 141 (2017) 2458e2469

Fig. 1. Conceptual schematic of Case AD2N.

interstage coolers 2 and 3. Finally, HE4 is used to heat the LNG
(stream 51) to ambient temperature (similar to CAD2N).
2.2. Case A design 2 safety (with and without nitrogen liquefaction
block)
Fig. 3 shows the conceptual schematic of the regasification of
LNG which is integrated into an air separation process with a ni-
trogen liquefaction block and with safety considerations (CAD2NS).
The processes CAD2N and CAD2NS are quite similar. The pres-
surized LNG exiting the pump (LNGP) is fed to the system and
heated (stream 40) in HE2 within the nitrogen liquefaction block.
Afterwards it is heated in an additional heat exchanger (HE5) to
ambient temperature. In comparison to CAD2N some streams

Fig. 2. Conceptual schematic of Case AD2.

 S. Tesch et al. / Energy 141 (2017) 2458e2469
connecting the column block, the nitrogen liquefaction block, the
main heat exchanger and streams inside the air purification and
compression block were modified. The LNG stream is not intro-
duced to the MHE in order to avoid presence of oxygen and LNG
streams in one component. It will minimize the explosion hazard
due to potential direct contact of LNG and oxygen or oxygen-
enriched streams. Consequently, the required heat/cold could not
be covered, which leads to a rearrangement of some streams. In
CAD2N, the gaseous product stream (nitrogen, stream 30) of the
HPC was directly fed to the nitrogen liquefaction block. In the new
system (CAD2NS) this stream is first fed to the MHE, where it is
heated to 110  C, and then is fed to the HE2 within the nitrogen
liquefaction block. The missing heat/cold within the HE2 is covered
by the LNG stream. It is heated to 100  C within the HE2. The
remaining part of regasification and heating is done within the new
heat exchanger (HE5). The stream arrangement within the air pu-
rification and compression is adjusted with the intention to avoid
direct contact between the LNG and the air stream. Fig. 5 shows the
air compression and purification block for the new concept
(CAD2NS). The air compression and purification block of CAD2N
was already reported in Ref. [14]. In this concept, the natural gas
stream is directly used to cool the air in the interstage coolers (IC1,
IC2 and IC3). In the new concept, a secondary working fluid is
introduced, which transfers the heat from the air stream to the
natural gas stream. The advantage of the introduction of the sec-
ondary stream is the division of the air stream and the natural gas
stream. As secondary working fluid, a mixture of water ethylene
glycol, is used and fed to the HE5, IC2, IC3, IC1, HE4, and finally to a
pump (WEGP), to overcome the pressure drops in the heat ex-
changers. This forms the cooling cycle.
The generalized schematic of Case A Design 2 without nitrogen
liquefaction block and with considering the safety aspect (CAD2S)
is shown in Fig. 4. It combines the column block of CAD2 and the air
compression and purification block of CAD2S.
Fig. 3. Conceptual schematic of Case AD2NS.
2461
3. Simulation and energy analysis
The simulation was conducted using AspenPlus [20]. The Peng-
Robinson-Equation was selected as equation of state. The air enters
the system at ambient conditions: p0 ¼ 1:013 bar and T0 ¼ 15  C.
The LNG is fed to the system with a pressure of pLNG;in ¼ 1:3 bar and
a temperature of TLNG;in ¼ 160  C. The mass flow rates of the air
and LNG streams amount to 16.4 kg/s and 10 kg/s, respectively. The
composition of the incoming air and LNG streams are shown in
Tables 2 and 3. Table 4 shows important assumptions for the col-
umn block and the main heat exchanger for the simulation of the
different Cases. The main differences are related to the nitrogen
liquefaction block. If a nitrogen liquefaction block is used in the
system, the amount of the liquid products is significantly higher.
In the heat exchangers a pressure drop of Dp ¼ 3% is assumed. In
the cases where the safety aspect is considered, the mass flow rate
of the water ethylene glycol amounts to 30 kg/s and it is composed
of 40 mass-% of water and 60 mass-% of ethylene-glycol.
The total power consumption is shown in Table 5. Fig. 6 shows
the power consumption of each compressor. The purity of the four
product streams is shown in Fig. 7. The mass flow rates, pressure
and temperature of the streams appearing in the simplified sche-
matics are shown together with the results obtained from the
exergy analysis in Tables 7e10.
4. Exergy analysis
The exergy analysis is performed according to [21], thus for each
component the exergy of fuel and exergy of product are defined.
The exergy destruction for the overall system and each component
are calculated with Equations (1) and (2), respectively. Due to the
fact, that the processes occur above and below the temperature of
the environment, for the correct definition of the exergy of the fuel
and exergy of the product the physical exergy of each material
stream has to be split in its thermal and mechanical parts [22e24].
2462 S. Tesch et al. / Energy 141 (2017) 2458e2469

Fig. 4. Conceptual schematic of Case AD2S.

These definitions will be published elsewhere. Here the only gen-

eral form of the exergy balances are given
_ _ _ _
EF;tot ¼ EP;tot þ E D;tot þ E L;tot (1)

and
_ _ _
EF;k ¼ E P;k þ ED;k (2)

Table 6 shows the overall results of the exergy analysis for all
systems. The exergy destruction within each component is shown
in Fig. 8. The results obtained from the exergy analysis for the
streams demonstrated in the simplified schematics are shown in
Tables 7e10
Fig. 5. Air compression and purification block of Case AD2NS.

5. Economic analysis
Table 2
Composition of the incoming air.
For the estimation of the costs, all components are divided into
component mole fraction (%) the following groups: columns, heat exchangers, turbomachines
nitrogen 77.20
(compressors and pumps), and adsorption block. It is important to
oxygen 20.80 estimate the costs of the components as accurately as possible,
argon 0.95 therefore special attention has been given to the calculation of PEC
water 1.02 from the point of view of considering material, temperature and
carbon dioxide 0.03
pressure factors for cryogenic equipment. These factors have to be
considered because normally the data for the purchased equipment
costs obtained from graphs in the literature are only for normal
operation conditions and standard materials. Thus special materials
Table 3 for low-temperature applications will are included in the material
Composition of the incoming natural gas.
factor. In addition, the temperature and pressure factors are used in
component mole fraction (%) order to adjust the costs associated with low or high temperatures
methane 86.98
and pressures. The material and temperature factors have a high
ethane 9.35 influence on the cost of the components. In Ref. [25], typical tem-
propane 2.33 perature, pressure, and material factors are given. For the temper-
nitrogen 0.71 ature factor the range is only available from 0  C to 500  C, thus for
butane 0.63
temperatures below 0  C the temperature factors had to be
 S. Tesch et al. / Energy 141 (2017) 2458e2469 2463

Table 4
Selected settings in AspenPlus.

variable unit Tair;MHE;out m_ purge gas m_

O2;g nHPCkg=s m_ O2;l _
m N2;l
C kg=s
kg/s kg/s kg/s kg/s

Case AD2 173.4 3.28 3 0.95 0.05 0.05

Case AD2N 173.4 3.28 3 0.75 0.5 2.89
Case AD2S 173.4 3.28 3 0.95 0.05 0.05
Case AD2NS 173.38 3.28 3 0.75 0.5 2.89

Table 5
Results obtained from the energy analysis of the overall
systems.
_
W tot , MW

Case AD2 7.47

Case AD2N 6.84
Case AD2S 8.37
Case AD2NS 8.35

assumed. The given factors and the assumptions for all components
are shown in Table 11. All components where the temperature of
the working fluid is higher than 29  C are made of carbon steel.
Components with a temperature lower than - 29 C are produced of
stainless steel [12], because at low temperatures the deformability
of carbon steel decreases and it will get rough.
In addition to the purchased equipment costs, the fixed capital
and total capital investment are calculated according to [21]. The
fixed capital investment costs consist of direct and indirect costs.
The direct costs could be further divided into onsite and offsite
costs. The onsite costs include the purchased equipment costs and
additional cost for the installation, piping, and electrical equipment
and materials. These additional costs are calculated as a percentage
of the purchased equipment costs based on data given in Ref. [26]. Fig. 7. Purity of the products streams in Cases AD2, AD2N, AD2S, and AD2NS.
The costs for land, civil, structural, and architectural work, and
service facilities are part of the offsite costs, but they were
Table 6
neglected in this paper. The total indirect costs consist of engi- Results obtained from the exergy analysis of the overall systems.
neering and supervision, construction cost and contractor's profit, _ _ _ _
and contingency. E F ;tot , MW E P;tot , MW E D;tot , MW EL;tot , MW εtot , %

Case AD2 16.04 7.20 8.72 0.11 44.92

Case AD2N 15.40 8.37 6.94 0.09 54.34
Case AD2S 16.94 7.26 9.48 0.20 42.85
Case AD2NS 16.79 8.56 8.11 0.12 50.99

5.1. Costs of the columns

The estimation of the costs of the columns is divided into two

parts. First of all the costs for the empty shell for the high-pressure
and low-pressure columns are determined followed by the esti-
mation of the costs for the trays. Both columns are simulated as a
sieve tray column with 54 stages and 96 stages [15] for the HPC and
LPC, respectively. The costs for the shell of the columns depend on
the height and the diameter of each column. According to the three
References [17] [27] , and [28] the average distance between two
trays lies between 80 and 300 mm, 300 and 600 mm and around
610 mm, respectively. We assumed a distance of 400 mm, which
results in a height of 21.6 m (HPC) and 38.4 m (LPC). Hence, the total
height of both columns is 60 m, which corresponds to the typical
height of the cold box [28]. The diameter is assumed to be 3 m for
each column, because a diameter up to 4e5 m is costly for sieve
trays and could cause problems associated with holding the liquid
phase [29]. The costs for the shell are determined by a cost chart
[26], as a function of the height and the diameter. For the trays the
Fig. 6. Power consumption of the turbomachines in Cases AD2, AD2N, AD2S, and costs also depend on the diameter of the column and are also
AD2NS.
2464 S. Tesch et al. / Energy 141 (2017) 2458e2469

Table 7 Table 9
Case AD2 - Stream results obtained from the exergy analysis. Case AD2S - Stream results obtained from the exergy analysis.
_ _ _ _
stream number m, p, T, eCH , eM , eT , E, stream number m, p, T, e CH, eM , eT , E,
kg/s bar 
C kJ/kg kJ/kg kJ/kg MW kg/s bar 
C kJ/kg kJ/kg kJ/kg MW

1 16.4 1.0 15.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.06 1 16.4 1.0 15.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.06
9 16.3 5.7 26.8 5.3 142.9 0.2 2.42 9 16.3 5.7 26.8 5.3 142.9 0.2 2.42
10 16.3 5.6 173.4 5.3 141.2 132.9 4.557 10 16.3 5.6 173.4 5.3 141.2 130.8 4.51
14 0.1 1.6 178.7 121.0 33.3 539.4 0.03 14 0.1 1.6 178.7 120.9 33.3 539.4 0.035
16 9.9 1.3 191.9 17.6 21.2 166.3 2.03 16 9.9 1.3 191.9 17.6 21.2 166.2 2.03
17 9.9 1.3 40.0 17.6 21.2 6.2 0.45 17 9.9 1.3 20.6 17.6 21.2 0.1 0.38
18 9.9 20.0 286.5 17.6 252.9 85.1 3.52 18 9.9 20.0 425.5 17.6 252.9 166.4 4.32
20 9.9 20.0 44.2 17.6 252.9 7.7 2.75 20 9.9 18.8 30.0 17.6 247.7 4.3 2.67
21 3.0 1.6 178.7 120.4 33.2 116.7 0.81 21 3.0 1.6 178.7 120.4 33.2 116.7 0.81
22 3.0 1.6 13.1 120.4 33.2 0.0 0.46 22 3.0 1.6 20.6 120.4 33.2 0.0 0.46
23 3.0 20.0 357.8 120.4 220.3 113.2 1.36 23 3.0 20.0 372.7 120.4 220.3 121.5 1.39
24 3.0 20.0 44.2 120.4 220.3 6.7 1.04 24 3.0 20.0 30.0 120.4 220.3 3.7 1.03
25 3.3 1.4 189.9 6.3 25.6 157.5 0.62 25 3.3 1.4 189.9 6.3 25.8 157.6 0.62
26 3.3 1.3 13.1 6.3 19.5 0.0 0.08 26 3.3 1.3 20.6 6.3 19.5 0.1 0.08
28 3.3 1.2 44.2 6.3 16.8 7.2 0.10 28 0.0 1.9 20.0 451.5 35.1 0.0 0.004
35 0.1 5.3 177.6 11.4 139.5 487.4 0.03 35 0.1 5.3 177.6 11.3 139.5 487.3 0.03
39 0.5 5.4 174.0 50,656.0 137.5 126.7 0.13 42 10.0 1.3 162.0 50,656.0 32.4 850.1 8.83
40 0.5 1.5 180.6 50,656.0 34.5 134.5 0.08 43 10.0 20.0 160.9 50,656.0 381.3 501.4 8.83
45 4.5 20.0 160.9 50,656.0 381.3 501.4 3.97 44 10.0 20.0 15.0 50,656.0 381.3 0.0 3.81
46 4.5 20.0 115.0 50,656.0 381.3 327.5 3.19 45 30.0 1.5 20.0 50,656.0 0.1 0.1 0.006
47 5.5 20.0 160.9 50,656.0 381.3 501.4 4.86 46 30.0 1.5 68.5 50,656.0 0.0 47.3 1.42
48 5.5 20.0 112.5 50,656.0 381.3 320.1 3.86 49 30.0 1.4 38.4 50,656.0 0.0 17.7 0.53
49 10.0 20.0 113.6 50,656.0 381.3 323.4 7.05 50 30.0 1.4 20.0 50,656.0 0.0 0.1 0.005
51 10.0 17.7 103.3 50,656.0 366.4 196.5 5.63
52 10.0 17.7 15.0 50,656.0 366.4 0.0 3.66

Table 10
Case AD2NS - Stream results obtained from the exergy analysis.
_ _
stream number m, p, T, eCH , eM , e T, E,
kg/s bar 
C kJ/kg kJ/kg kJ/kg MW
Table 8
1 16.4 1.0 15.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.06
Case AD2N - Stream results obtained from the exergy analysis.
9 16.3 5.7 26.8 5.3 142.9 0.2 2.42
_ _
stream number m, p, T, e CH , eM , e T, E, 10 16.3 5.6 173.4 5.3 141.2 132.9 4.55
kg/s bar C kJ/kg kJ/kg kJ/kg MW 14 0.5 1.6 178.8 120.2 33.3 539.4 0.35
15 6.6 1.3 193.3 22.4 21.3 170.7 1.42
1 16.4 1.0 15.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.06
16 6.6 1.3 40.0 22.4 21.3 6.3 0.33
2 16.4 2.0 88.4 3.8 56.3 8.2 1.12
17 6.6 20.0 286.5 22.4 253.7 85.4 2.39
3 16.4 1.9 35.0 3.8 53.8 0.7 0.96
19 6.6 18.8 94.5 22.4 248.5 9.9 1.86
5 16.3 1.9 35.0 5.3 53.7 0.7 0.97 20 3.0 1.6 178.8 118.3 33.2 116.7 0.80
6 16.3 1.9 20.0 5.3 51.1 2.3 0.96 21 3.0 1.6 5.5 118.3 33.2 0.1 0.45
7 16.3 4.0 52.7 5.3 113.4 2.3 1.97
22 3.0 20.0 342.6 118.3 220.3 105.1 1.33
8 16.3 3.9 10.0 5.3 110.9 1.2 1.91
23 3.0 19.4 94.5 118.3 218.1 8.7 1.04
9 16.3 5.7 26.8 5.3 142.9 0.2 2.42
25 3.3 1.4 190.8 9.0 26.0 160.8 0.64
10 16.3 5.6 173.4 5.3 141.2 132.9 4.55 26 3.3 1.4 5.5 9.0 26.0 0.2 0.12
14 0.5 1.6 178.8 120.2 33.3 539.4 0.35
28 3.3 1.2 94.5 9.0 14.2 9.5 0.11
15 6.6 1.3 193.3 22.4 21.3 170.7 1.42
29 1.2 1.3 193.5 25.4 21.3 408.2 0.56
17 6.6 1.2 80.0 22.4 15.8 21.1 0.39
30 6.2 5.3 178.3 25.4 141.3 141.3 1.91
18 6.6 20.0 201.4 22.4 253.7 45.3 2.12 31 6.2 5.3 5.5 25.4 141.3 0.2 1.03
20 3.0 1.6 178.8 118.3 33.2 116.7 0.80
34 6.2 44.6 150.0 25.4 322.0 207.1 3.43
21 6.6 18.8 11.7 22.4 248.5 1.4 1.8
37 6.2 5.6 177.6 25.4 146.0 340.0 3.17
22 3.0 1.5 96.3 118.3 31.1 26.5 0.53
38 1.2 5.6 177.6 25.4 146.0 340.0 0.63
23 3.0 20.0 132.3 118.3 220.3 17.7 1.07 39 10.0 1.3 162.0 50,656.0 32.4 850.1 8.83
24 3.0 19.4 11.7 118.3 218.1 1.2 1.01
40 10.0 20.0 160.9 50,656.0 381.3 501.4 8.83
25 3.3 1.4 190.8 9.0 26.0 160.8 0.64
41 10.0 19.4 99.8 50,656.0 377.6 175.2 5.53
26 3.3 1.3 96.3 9.0 19.6 30.0 0.19
42 10.0 18.8 15.0 50,656.0 373.9 0.0 3.74
28 3.3 1.2 11.7 9.0 14.2 1.3 0.08 43 30.0 1.5 20.0 50,656.0 0.1 0.1 0.01
29 1.2 1.3 193.5 25.4 21.3 408.2 0.56 44 30.0 1.5 29.0 50,656.0 0.0 11.7 0.35
30 6.2 5.3 178.3 25.4 141.3 141.3 1.91
47 30.0 1.4 1.2 50,656.0 0.0 1.1 0.03
34 6.2 44.6 150.0 25.4 322.0 207.1 3.43
48 30.0 1.4 20.0 50,656.0 0.0 0.1 0.01
37 6.2 5.6 177.6 25.4 146.0 340.0 3.17
55 2.9 5.3 178.3 25.2 141.3 494.3 1.90
38 1.2 5.6 177.6 25.4 146.0 340.0 0.63 58 5.0 5.6 177.6 25.4 146.0 340.0 2.53
39 10.0 1.3 162.0 50,656.0 32.4 850.1 8.83
40 10.0 20.0 160.9 50,656.0 381.3 501.4 8.83
41 5.0 20.0 160.9 50,656.0 381.3 501.4 4.41
42 5.0 19.4 100.6 50,656.0 377.6 186.1 2.82 determined by a cost chart [26]. The material and pressures factors
43 10.0 19.4 98.8 50,656.0 377.6 163.4 5.41
for the shell and the tray are determined by data given in
44 10.0 18.8 90.9 50,656.0 373.9 109.7 4.84
46 10.0 17.7 52.5 50,656.0 366.4 24.3 3.91 Refs. [25,26], respectively.
47 10.0 17.2 15.0 50,656.0 362.6 0.0 3.63
48 5.0 20.0 160.9 50,656.0 381.3 501.4 4.41
49 5.0 19.4 96.3 50,656.0 377.6 141.5 2.60 5.2. Costs of the heat exchangers
55 2.9 5.3 178.3 25.2 141.3 494.3 1.91
58 5.0 5.6 177.6 25.4 146.0 340.0 2.53
The interstage coolers and HE5 are shell and tube heat
 S. Tesch et al. / Energy 141 (2017) 2458e2469
Fig. 8. Exergy destruction within the most important components in Cases AD2, AD2N, AD2S, and AD2NS.
exchangers, whereas the MHE, HE2, HE3, and HE4 are plate heat
exchangers. To estimate the area of each heat exchanger the heat
duty is taken from the AspenPlus simulation. Additionally the
logarithmic mean temperature difference is calculated based on the
results within the simulations and the overall heat transfer coeffi-
cient is assumed based on the literature [30]. For the interstage
coolers and HE5 U ¼ 42:5W=m2 K, for the MHE U ¼ 70W=m2 K, for
the HE2 to HE4 U ¼ 50W=m2 K, and for the condenser/reboiler U ¼
2000W=m2 K are assumed. For all heat exchangers the costs are
determined by a cost chart [31]. For the heat exchangers, the ma-
terial and pressure factors are directly taken from the cost charts
[31].
5.3. Costs of the turbomachines
This group contains the air, nitrogen, and oxygen compressors.
All compressors are centrifugal and driven by an electrical motor.
The costs for the compressors depend on the power consumption
and the degression exponent [25]. The pressure and material fac-
tors are determined by data given in Ref. [25].
The pump for the incoming LNG and the pump for the water-
ethylene-glycol cycle are centrifugal pumps. The costs are esti-
mated by a cost chart [31], where the power consumption is the
defining factor. Also the material and pressure factors are deter-
mined by the cost chart given in Ref. [31].
5.4. Cost of the adsorption block
In Ref. [32] the contribution of the purchased component costs
Table 11
Typical equipment temperature capital cost factor.
T C
f T, - Assumption
0 1 [25]
100 1
300 1.6
500 2.1
0 1 author's
100 1.6
200 2.1
2465
on the total component costs is given for the main groups of
components and some auxiliary equipment for an air separation
unit. The costs for the cleaning and drying of the air are estimated
by using the given value of 13% of the total purchased equipment
costs of the conventional air separation unit (Case A). For all four
Cases, it is assumed that the adsorption block has the same cost in
each system.
Fig. 10 shows the purchased equipment costs for all groups of
components for the four simulated cases. The PEC for each heat
exchanger and each compressor are shown in detail in Figs. 11 and
12, respectively.
The estimation of the fixed and total capital investment (FCI and
TCI) are shown in Tables 12 and 13, which are based on the esti-
mation of the PEC .
6. Results and discussion
6.1. Energy analysis
As shown in Table 5, the power consumption is higher for the
two systems without a nitrogen liquefaction block compared to the
systems with a nitrogen liquefaction block. Furthermore, the power
consumption is higher for the two systems where the safety aspects
are considered. However, the difference in the power consumption
is almost negligible for these two systems (CAD2NS and CAD2S).
The power consumption of nitrogen compressor 5 (NC5) is different
in each of the four cases (Fig. 8). This is related to the different mass
flow rates of the gaseous nitrogen and the different temperature at
the outlet of the MHE.
Fig. 7 shows the molar composition for the product streams
(GOX, LOX, GAN, LN) of the four simulated systems. The molar
composition varies slightly for the gaseous and liquid oxygen
streams. In systems without a nitrogen liquefaction block, the purity
is slightly lower. However, the molar composition of the nitrogen
product streams is different in comparison to the systems with and
without a nitrogen liquefaction block. The molar composition of the
liquid nitrogen significantly decreases for the systems without ni-
trogen liquefaction block (x N2 ;CAD2 ¼ 0:92 and xN2 ;CAD2N ¼ 0:99 ). In
general, the results show the expected fact that the nitrogen
liquefaction block is necessary to obtain a high amount of liquid
2466 S. Tesch et al. / Energy 141 (2017) 2458e2469
_
Fig. 9. T, DH-diagram for IC1,IC2, and IC3 in cases AD2N and AD2NS.
Fig. 10. Purchased equipment costs of the component groups in Cases AD2, AD2N,
AD2S, and AD2NS.
products with a high purity.
6.2. Exergy analysis
The results of the exergy analysis demonstrate a decrease in the
exergetic efficiency of 6.1% for the new system (CAD2NS) compared
to CAD2N (Table 6). The difference in the exergetic efficiency is
caused by the higher exergy of fuel of the overall system (CAD2NS)
which is related to increased power consumption. Comparing
CAD2N and CAD2, the exergetic efficiency is lower for the system
without a nitrogen liquefaction block. This is related to the lower
exergy of product, due to the lower amount of liquid products and
the decrease in the purity of all four product streams. Also for the
systems where safety aspects are considered, the exergetic effi-
ciency is lower for the case without a nitrogen liquefaction block.
However, the difference in the exergetic efficiency is slightly higher
Fig. 11. Purchased equipment costs of the heat exchangers in Cases AD2, AD2N, AD2S,
and AD2NS.
Fig. 12. Purchased equipment costs of the compressors in Cases AD2, AD2N, AD2S, and
AD2NS.
for CAD2N (54.34%) and CAD2 (44.92%) compared to CAD2NS
(50.99%) and CAD2S (42.85%).
Fig. 8 shows the exergy destruction within components for all
four simulated systems. While the exergy destruction remains the
same in all three air compressors, it decreases in the three inter-
stage coolers in the air compression and liquefaction block. The
lowest exergy destruction occurs in CAD2NS. In these three com-
ponents together, the exergy destruction decreased by 1.18 MW
(from CAD2N to CAD2NS), which corresponds to a relative reduc-
tion of 68.9%. The large reduction in the exergy destruction within
the interstage coolers is explained in Fig. 9, which shows the
_
T; D H-diagram for the IC1, IC2, and IC3 for the systems CAD2N and
CAD2NS. In this figure, the curves for the hot side of the interstage
 S. Tesch et al. / Energy 141 (2017) 2458e2469 2467

Table 12
Estimation of the fixed capital investment for the Cases AD2, AD2N, AD2S and AD2NS.

Case Case Case Case

AD2 AD2N CAD2S AD2NS
mil US$ mil US$ mil US$ mil US$
(2015) (2015) (2015) (2015)

A. Direct costs
Total purchased equipment costs (PEC ) 12.2 13.7 10.8 13.0
Purchased-equipment installation (47% of PEC) 5.7 6.4 5.1 6.1
Piping (68% of PEC ) 8.3 9.3 7.3 8.8
Electrical equipment and materials (11% of PEC ) 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.4
Instrumentation and control (36% of PEC ) 4.4 4.9 3.9 4.7
Total direct costs 31.9 36 28.3 33.9
B. Indirect costs
Engineering and supervision (8% of DC ) 2.5 2.9 2.3 2.7
Construction costs and contractor's profit (15% of DC) 4.8 5.4 4.3 5.1
Contingency (15% of the above sum) 5.9 6.6 5.2 6.3
Total indirect costs 13.2 14.9 11.7 14.1

Fixed capital investment 45.1 50.9 40.1 48.0

Table 13
Estimation of the total capital investment for the Cases AD2, AD2N, AD2S and AD2NS.

Case Case Case Case

AD2 AD2N CAD2S AD2NS
mil US$ mil US$ mil US$ mil US$
(2015) (2015) (2015) (2015)

Date of commercial operation: January 1st, 2018

Plant Facilities Investment 1 (first year of construction) 60% of FCI 27.0 30.5 24.0 28.8
Plant Facilities Investment 2 (second year of construction) 40% of FCI 18.0 20.3 16.0 19.2
Interest for PFI 1 5.7 6.4 5.0 6.0
Interest for PFI 2 1.8 2.0 1.6 1.9

Total capital investment 52.6 59.3 46.7 56.0

coolers are identical for both systems. This is achieved by keeping
the temperature and pressure of the air stream constant for both
systems. Consequently, only one curve is shown for the hot side to
simplify the schematic. Thus, only the cold side is affected by the
changes in the structure. Comparing the curves for the cold side of
the interstage cooler, the cold streams enter and leave all three
interstage coolers in CAD2NS with a higher temperature. In CAD2N,
the LNG stream was used directly for cooling the air and, conse-
quently, for the regasification of LNG. As already mentioned, in
CAD2NS a mixture of water ethylene glycol is used for cooling the
air. Due to the higher freezing point (Tfreeze z  53  C) [33], the
temperature for the heat transfer process is higher which leads to
lower minimal temperature differences and, consequently, to lower
exergy destruction. The area in the figure between the hot and cold
curves represents the exergy destruction.
The exergy destruction in the MHE varies between 1.5 MW and
0.5 MW, which is cause by the different stream arrangements in
this component. The components with the highest contribution to
the overall exergy destruction are HE2, HE4, and HE5. However,
HE2 exists only in the two systems with a nitrogen liquefaction
block and HE5 exists only in the two systems where safety aspects
are considered. The exergy destruction in the HE4 could be
significantly decreased for the two systems with nitrogen lique-
faction, because the LNG stream is also heated in the HE2, but this
increases the exergy destruction in HE2 in turn. The new compo-
nent HE5 contributes significantly to the overall exergy destruction
in CA2DS, but this could be decreased if a nitrogen liquefaction
block is used.
6.3. Economic analysis
The results obtained from the economic analysis (Table 13) show
that the TCI is lower for the two systems where safety aspects are
considered. Furthermore, the two systems with a nitrogen lique-
faction block are more expensive than the system without a ni-
trogen liquefaction block. This is due to the fact, that two
compressors and one heat exchanger are additionally used.
Fig. 10 contains the estimated PEC for different groups of com-
ponents. The column block and the adsorption block have the same
costs among the four simulated systems. However, the costs of the
heat exchangers and compressors vary. Therefore the costs of all
heat exchangers and compressors are shown in detail in Figs. 11 and
12, respectively.
The heat exchangers with the highest costs are the MHE in all
four systems and the HE5 in both systems where the safety aspects
are considered. The cost for the MHE can be decreased by changing
the arrangement of the cold streams, which affects the temperature
differences inside the MHE. The heat transfer within MHE remains
constant for all four systems, because the incoming air should be
cooled to the same temperature. In addition to the safety aspect, it
is also from the economic point of view positive to take out the LNG
stream from the MHE, because the cost of this component de-
creases. On the other side, a new heat exchanger (HE5) has to be
added to the system. This component has the highest cost in
comparison to all other heat exchangers.
The PEC of the compressors have a higher influence on the total
component cost than the PEC of heat exchangers. The nitrogen
compressor 5 has a high contribution to the overall costs. These
costs are determined by the power consumption, which depends
on the mass flow rate and the differences in enthalpy. The mass
flow rate of the gaseous nitrogen stream is higher for both systems
without a nitrogen liquefaction block, because a lower amount of
liquid product is produced. Despite the fact, that the pressure ratio
for all NC5 is the same, the differences in suction/discharge
2468 S. Tesch et al. / Energy 141 (2017) 2458e2469

temperatures cause the differences in cost for each NC5 (required i i-th chemical substance
power, material and temperature factors). in inlet
k k-th component
7. Conclusion l liquid
L loss (exergetic analysis)
The comparative exergy analysis of the four different systems for LNG liquefied natural gas
the regasification of LNG integrated into an air separation unit M mechanical
shows that the minimization of the explosion hazard, due to the MHE main heat exchanger
direct contact between oxygen/oxygen-enriched streams and LNG out outlet
streams, leads to a rather small decrease in the exergetic efficiency P product
by 3.35 percentage-points. Additionally, the effect of the nitrogen T thermal (exergetic analysis)
liquefaction block on the systems is analyzed. Without a nitrogen T temperature (economic analysis)
liquefaction block, the amount of liquid products and their purity tot total
decreases, which finally leads to a lower exergetic efficiency
(CAD2N: 54.34% to CAD2: 44.92% and CAD2NS: 50.99% to CAD2S: Abbreviations
42.85%). However, comparing the results from the economic anal- AC air compressor
ysis, the investment costs are lower for the two systems where ADB adsorption block
safety aspects are considered. CAD2 Case A Design 2 with safety aspects
Finally, the system CAD2NS is a suitable alternative compared to CAD2N Case A Design 2 with a nitrogen liquefaction block
CAD2N, due to the large advantages associated with safety. The CAD2NS Case A Design 2 with a nitrogen liquefaction block and
exergetic efficiency is lower, but further optimization could lead to with safety aspects
an increase in the exergetic efficiency. In the future, an exer- CAD2S Case A Design 2 with safety aspects
goeconomic analysis will be applied for a deeper evaluation of the CB column block
design changes associated with safety aspects. CM compressor
GAN gaseous nitrogen
Acknowledgments GOX gaseous oxygen
HPC high-pressure column
Tatiana Morosuk gratefully acknowledges the financial support HE heat exchanger
from the ”Berliner Programm zur F €
orderung der Chancengleichheit IC interstage cooler
von Frauen in Forschung und Lehre”. LN liquid nitrogen
LNG liquefied natural gas
Nomenclature LNGP LNG pump
LOX liquid oxygen
DC direct cost, US $ LPC low-pressure columns
e specific exergy, kJ/kg MHE main heat exchanger
_ NC nitrogen compressor
E exergy rate, W
f factor, - OC oxygen compressor
FCI fixed capital investment, US $ P pump
H
_
enthalpy rate, W TV throttling valve
WEG water ethylene glycol
m_ mass flow rate, kg/s
p pressure, bar WEGP water ethylene glycol pump
PEC purchased equipment cost, US $
PFI plant facility investment, US $ References
T temperature,  C
[1] BP. BP energy outlook - 2016 edition: outlook to 2035. 2016 [cited April 13,
TCI total capital investment, US $ 2016], www.bp-energy-outlook-2016.pdf.
U overall heat transfer coefficient, W/m2 K [2] International gas union, world LNG report 2016. 2016 [cited May 26, 2016],
_ http://www.igu.org/publications/2016-world-lng-report.
W power, W
[3] International group of liquefied natural gas importers. 2016 edition. The LNG
xi molar composition, kmol/kmol Industry; 2016 [cited May 26, 2016]. http://www.giignl.org/sites/default/ files/
PUBLIC_AREA/Publications/giignl_2016_annual_report.pdf.
[4] Eisentrout B, Wintercorn S, Weber B. Study focuses on six LNG regasi fication
Greek symbols systems. LNG J 2006:21e2.
D difference, varies [5] Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. LNG e based cogeneration systems: evaluation
ε exergetic efficiency, % using exergy-based analyses. In: Gupta S, editor. Natural gas - extraction to
end use. InTech; 2012. p. 235e 66. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/51477.
n reflux ratio, kg/s/kg/s
[6] Sharratt C. LNG terminal cold energy integration opportunities offered by
contractors. LNG J 2012:22e4.
Subscripts and superscripts [7] Perrotin G, Anselmini J-P. Processes for the production of nitrogen and oxy-
gen. 3,886,758. 1975.
0 environmental conditions
[8] Yamanouchi N, Nagasawa H. Using LNG cold for air separation. CEP
D destruction 1979;75(7):78e82.
CAD2N Case A Design 2 with a nitrogen liquefaction block [9] Jieyu Z, Yanzhong L, Guangpeng L, Biao S. Simulation of a novel single-column
cryogenic air separation process using LNG cold energy. Phys Procedia
CAD2NS Case A Design 2 with a nitrogen liquefaction block and
2015;67:116e22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phpro.2015.06.021.
with safety aspects [10] Zhou H, Cai Y, Xiao Y, Mkhalel ZA, You B, Shi J, et al. Process configurations and
CH chemical simulations for a novel single-column cryogenic air separation process. In-
dustrial Eng Chem Res 2012;51(47):15431e9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/
F fuel
ie3022225.
freeze freezing [11] Masterplan, Rahmenplan. Flüssigerdags für Rhein-Main-Donau. 2015 [cited
g gaseous December 12, 2016], https://www.portofrotterdam.com/de/file/5263/
 S. Tesch et al. / Energy 141 (2017) 2458e2469
download?token¼2wwYWvFk.
[12] EIGA. Safe practices guide for cryogenic air separation plants [cited April 13,
2016], https://www.eiga.eu/fileadmin/docs_pubs/Doc_147_13_Safe_
Practices_Guide_for_Cryogenic_Air_Separation_Plants.pdf; 2013.
[13] Boyer J-P. Maximizing safety in LNG applications [cited November 24, 2016],
https://valves.pentair.com/~/media/websites/valves/media/brochures/
industry%20articles/2015/maximizing%20safety%20in%20lng%20%20valve%
20world%20may%2015.pdf; 2015.
[14] Tesch S, Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. Advanced exergy analysis applied to the
process of regasification of LNG (liquefied natural gas) integrated into an air
separation process. Energy 2016;117:550e61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2016.04.031.
[15] Cornelissen RL, Hirs GG. Exergy analysis of cryogenic air separation. Energy
Convers Manag 1998;39(16e18):1821e6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0196-
8904(98)00062-4.
[16] Jain R, Piscataway NJ. Pre-purification of air for separation. US005232474A.
August 3, 1993.
[17] H€aring H-W. Industrial gases processing. Weinheim: WILEY-VCH; 2008.
[18] Rode W. Verfahren zur Gewinnung von Rein-Argon aus der Luft [cited May 18,
2016], http://www.linde-gas.de/internet.lg.lg.deu/de/images/Rein-Argon565_
74408.pdf; 1994.
[19] Agrawal R, Herron DM. Air liquefaction: distillation, encyclopedia of separa-
tion science. 2000. p. 1895e910. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-226770-2/
04821-3.
[20] AspenPlus. Aspen plus v8.6, the software is a proprietary product of aspen-
tech. 2014. http://www.aspentech.com.
[21] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran MJ. Thermal design and optimization. New York
NY u.a: A Wiley Interscience publication, Wiley; 1996.
[22] Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. A new approach to the exergy analysis of absorp-
tion refrigeration machines. Energy 2008;33(6):890e907. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2007.09.012.
2469
[23] Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. Advanced exergetic analysis of a novel system for
generating electricity and vaporizing liquefied natural gas. Energy
2010;35(2):820e9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2009.08.019.
[24] Morosuk T, Yilmaz N, Tsatsaronis G. Exergy-based methods applied to the
chain n€atural gas - LNG - natural gas-€ Regasification of LNG. In: 3rd interna-
tional exergy, life cycle assessment, and sustainability workshop & sympo-
sium (ELCAS3); July 07-09, 2013.
[25] Smith R. Chemical process design and integration. Chichester, West Sussex,
England and Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2005.
[26] Peters MS, Timmerhaus KD, West RE. Plant design and economics for chemical
engineers. McGraw-Hill chemical engineering series. fifth ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill; 2003.
[27] Ebrahimi A, Meratizaman M, Akbarpour Reyhani H, Pourali O, Amidpour M.
Energetic, exergetic and economic assessment of oxygen production from two
columns cryogenic air separation unit. Energy 2015;90:1298e316. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.06.083.
[28] Bachmann C, Gerla J, Yang Q. Smaller is better - new 3-in-1 internals reduce
air separation column heights. 2013 [cited April 13, 2016], https://www.
sulzer.com/en/-/media/Documents/Cross_Division/STR/2013/STR_2013_3_
16_19_Bachmann.pdf.
[29] Kerry FG. Industrial gas handbook: gas separation and purification. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2007.
[30] Kakaç S, Liu H. Heat exchangers: selection, rating, and thermal design. second
ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2002.
[31] Ulrich GD, Vasudevan PT. Chemical engineering process design and eco-
nomics: a practical guide. second ed. Durham, N.H.: Process Pub; 2004.
[32] Epifanova VI, Akselrod LS. Air separation using deep cooling methods: tech-
nologies and equipment, Machinostroenie. Moscow: USSR; 1973.
[33] Engineering Toolbox, Ethylene Glycol Heat-Transfer Fluid [cited May 25,
2016]. URL http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ethylene-glycol-d_146.html.