Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 21 (2015) 292297

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry

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

Optimizing ethane recovery in turboexpander processes

Laura Kherbeck, Rachid Chebbi *
Department of Chemical Engineering, American University of Sharjah, PO Box 26666, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:
Received 5 October 2013
Accepted 19 February 2014
Available online 5 March 2014
Keywords:
Simulation
Ethane recovery
Natural gas liquids (NGL)
Turboexpander
Cold residue recycle (CRR)
Gas subcooled process (GSP)

A B S T R A C T

Optimization of ethane recovery using the CRR process shows that, except for the case of lean gas at low
demethanizer pressure, the CRR process reduces to GSP, in which there is no reux stream and therefore
no added cryogenic compression and heat exchange equipment. Adding a second cold separator,
operating at lower temperature, in GSP is found to lead to more or less recovery depending on the NGL
content of the feed gas and the demethanizer pressure. GSP is also compared with the conventional
turboexpander process. Optimization shows that adding more equipment or even ow splitting may
lead to less ethane recovery.
2014 The Korean Society of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights
reserved.

1. Introduction
There are many extraction processes for natural gas liquids
which include JouleThompson (JT) expansion, refrigeration using
propane in a chiller, and turboexpansion. More often than not, all
three processes are used at once. Mixed refrigerants can also be
used [1] but the most popular process in the natural gas liquids
(NGL)-recovery industry is turboexpansion. A review of NGL
recovery can be found in Manning and Thompson [1], McKee [2],
Pitman et al. [3], GPSA [4], Chebbi et al. [5,6], Mehrpooya et al. [7]
and in the references therein. The optimized conventional process
for ethane recovery [5], to which the present results are compared,
is shown in Fig. 1. The cold residue recycle (CRR) process, examined
in this paper (Fig. 2), is claimed to provide very high ethane
recovery, above 98% [4]. The CRR process [3,4,8] is built upon the
gas subcooled process (GSP). In the GSP [4], the gas leaving the
separator is split, with one fraction subcooled by heat exchange
with the overhead stream from the demethanizer, and the other
fraction entering the turboexpander. The fraction subcooled by the
demethanizer overhead stream is ashed in a valve and fed to the
tower as reux [4]. The GSP process is considered in the present
work (Fig. 3). The process in Fig. 4, referred to as GSP with cold
separator in the rest of the manuscript, has a cold separator
operating at a lower temperature than the chiller temperature. The

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +971 65152983.

E-mail address: rchebbi@aus.edu (R. Chebbi).

CRR process has one addition when compared to the GSP process
(Fig. 3): a reux stream to rectify the vapors in the demethanizer
tower in order to minimize the amount of ethane and other heavier
hydrocarbons that leave with the overhead. A compressor is used
to boost part of the demethanizer overhead stream to a slightly
higher pressure so that a fraction of the methane could be liqueed
by the ashed stream and sent to the top stage of the demethanizer
(see Fig. 2). The ashed feed to the demethanizer would condense
some of the ethane from the turboexpander outlet vapor and the
liquid reux stream would condense some of the remaining ethane
vapors at the top of the tower.
Maximum ethane recovery can be carried out by changing a
select number of design variables. Ethane and NGL recovery
problems are characterized by a large number of design variables
affecting ethane and NGL recovery that include, but are not limited
to demethanizer pressure and split ratio(s) if any.
The present paper considers the effect of demethanizer
pressure on maximum ethane recovery for the CRR process as
compared to a conventional turboexpander process [5]. Furthermore, GSP (without or with cold separator) is considered and its
performance compared to both the CRR process and the
conventional turboexpander process [5] for a lean and a rich feed
gas at different demethanizer pressures. Optimization is performed by maximizing the percent ethane recovery. Ethane
recovery as a function of demethanizer pressure is then reported
and analyzed for the two types of feed. Feed composition, ow
rates, temperature and pressure are identical to the values used in
Bandoni et al. [9], and Chebbi et al. [5,6] for feeds A and D.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2014.02.035
1226-086X/ 2014 The Korean Society of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

[(Fig._1)TD$IG]

L. Kherbeck, R. Chebbi / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 21 (2015) 292297

[(Fig._2)TD$IG]

Fig. 1. Conventional ethane recovery process optimized for maximum ethane recovery in [5].

[(Fig._3)TD$IG]

Fig. 2. CRR process ow sheet.

293

Fig. 3. Gas subcooled process (GSP) ow sheet.

2. Simulation and optimization

2.1. CRR process
The study was conducted by rst simulating the CRR process.
Fig. 2 demonstrates the process ow sheet for the CRR process. The

gure does not depict the refrigeration loop, which is connected to

the main process through the chiller. The feed is rst cooled by
providing the duty necessary for the reboiler, and further cooling of
the feed is achieved by heat exchange with the residue gas. The
four demethanizer pressures considered are 100, 215, 335, and
450 psia as in [5,6]. The pressures are grouped as low (100 psia),

[(Fig._4)TD$IG]

294

L. Kherbeck, R. Chebbi / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 21 (2015) 292297

Fig. 4. GSP with cold separator.

intermediate (215 psia), and high (335 and 450 psia) and cover the
typical range of demethanizer operating pressures, 100450 psia
[1]. The reboiler duty cannot be provided through heat integration
at high demethanizer pressures (335 and 450 psia) due to the fact
that the temperature prole in the column is shifted up and the
feed gas temperature ceases to be enough to provide the reboiler
duty, as also indicated in [6].
The pre-cooled feed is sent to a chiller where propane is used to
reduce its temperature to 31 8F. This temperature was selected
to maximize cooling; taking into account the lowest temperature
allowed in the chiller of 40 8F required to avoid air leakage into
the system [1], and temperature approach in the chiller. The cold
feed from the chiller enters a separator where the gas is separated
from the liquid. A portion of the separated gas is cooled by heat
exchange with a fraction of the overhead stream leaving the
demethanizer column. It is then expanded through JT expansion
and enters another heat exchanger designed to cool a portion of
the recycled overhead, following which the stream enters the
demethanizer. The other portion of the separated gas is expanded
in a turboexpander and sent to the demethanizer at a lower stage.
A fraction of the liquid leaving the separator is mixed with the
separator gas outlet that goes into heat exchange, while the
remainder undergoes JT expansion to column pressure and enters
the demethanizer at a lower stage than the feed stream from the
turboexpander. The ashed split-vapor stream is not cold enough
to condense partially the overhead methane reux stream at the
operating pressure of the demethanizer. Thus, a cryogenic
compressor is used to boost part of the demethanizer overhead
to a slightly higher pressure so that a fraction of the methane can
then be condensed [3]. The compressed overhead is cooled, and
then expanded through a valve before being supplied to the top of
the tower. The fraction of the overhead that is not reuxed back is
termed the residue gas. Part of the power required to recompress
the residue gas is provided by the turboexpander, but a
recompressor is needed to bring the residue gas pressure up to
882 psia. Two different feeds are considered: feed A and feed D as
in [5,6,9]. The compositions in terms of mole fractions are given in
Table 1. Feed A is a lean gas with 6% C2+ content, and D is a rich feed
with 30% C2+ content. The feed gas enters the NGL recovery unit at
100 8F and 882 psia, the residue gas is recompressed to 882 psia,
and the molar ratio of C1 to C2 in the NGL stream is set to 0.02 in

Table 1
Feed gas composition.
Component

Feed A

Feed D

Nitrogen
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Butanes
Pentanes
Hexanes
C2+ (%)

0.01
0.93
0.03
0.015
0.009
0.003
0.003
6

0.01
0.69
0.15
0.075
0.045
0.015
0.015
30

consistency with the typical range in [1]. In all cases, the feed gas
ow rate is 10,980 lbmol/h. The maximum conventional turboexpander ethane recovery values were obtained from [5].
2.2. GSP and GSP with cold separator
The gas subcooled process (GSP) and GSP with cold separator
are shown in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively.

3. Results and discussion

The simulation was performed using Aspen HYSYS with the
Peng-Robinson thermodynamic package. The optimization involved changing the design variables affecting ethane and NGL
recovery to maximize the objective function, dened as the ratio of
ethane in the NGL stream to the ethane in the feed. The design
variables selected were the split ratios in all of the splitters, the
temperatures at the outlet (higher temperature side) of the heat
exchangers following the mixer, and the cryogenic compressor
outlet pressure. The constraints were set so as to prevent
temperature cross in all the heat exchangers and to ensure that
the reux stream is colder than the ashed split-vapor stream as
they enter the demethanizer. Optimization thus yielded the
optimum values of the design variables affecting ethane and
NGL recovery for each demethanizer pressure for both lean and
rich feeds, i.e. the values that contributed to the highest ethane
recovery.

[(Fig._5)TD$IG]

[(Fig._7)TD$IG]

L. Kherbeck, R. Chebbi / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 21 (2015) 292297

100

295

100

Feed A

90

Feed D

80

90

C2 recovery, %

C2 recovery, %

70
60
50
40

80

70

30
CRR/GSP (CRR at 100 psia, GSP at higher P)
Conventional turboexpander
GSP with cold separator (GSP at 100 & 215 psia)

20
10

GSP
Conventionel turboexpander
GSP with cold separator

60

50
50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Demethanizer pressure, psia

Fig. 5. Effect of demethanizer pressure on ethane recovery for the lean gas feed A;
conventional turboexpander results from [5].

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Demethanizer pressure, psia

Fig. 7. Effect of demethanizer pressure on ethane recovery for the rich gas feed D;
conventional turboexpander results from [5].

3.1. Feed A
The HYSYS optimizer tool indicated that the CRR process indeed
made recoveries of 99.9% possible only for a demethanizer
pressure of 100 psia and for the lean feed gas A. For all the higher
demethanizer pressures, results indicated that for feed A, the
optimum process would not include the reux. Initially, these
results were suspected after a sensitivity analysis was carried out
on the split ratio in the overhead splitter and the cryogenic
compressor outlet pressure. Later, optimization using the HYSYS
optimizer tool conrmed the results. The conguration in Fig. 2 has
hence been altered to discard the reux splitter, the cryogenic
compressor, heat exchanger, and expansion valve, while retaining
the two splitters at the top and bottom outlets of the rst separator.
The results summarized in Fig. 5, show how ethane recovery with
the CRR/GSP compares to the recovery from the conventional
turboexpander process [5]. It can be seen that the CRR process, and
hence the GSP, are not as effective at high demethanizer pressures,
while the conventional turboexpander process is not as effective as

the other two processes at low and intermediate demethanizer

pressures.
Some of the differences between the GSP (Fig. 3), and the
conventional turboexpander process in [5] (also shown in Fig. 1),
lie in the two splitters at the outlet of the separator operating at
31 8F in the GSP case, and also in the additional cold separator in
the conventional turboexpander process [5]. However, since the
GSP has been shown to give superior recovery at low and
intermediate pressures, and lower recovery at high pressures, it
was postulated that the difference could lie in the additional cold
separator utilized in the conventional turboexpander process.
Thus, the GSP was modied by adding a cold separator operating at
a temperature lower than the chiller temperature. At high
demethanizer pressures, GSP with cold separator provided higher
recoveries than GSP, and slightly higher ethane recoveries than the
conventional turboexpander values [5]. The separator overhead
stream splitter was found unnecessary, leading to the simplied
ow sheet in Fig. 6. At low and intermediate pressures, GSP with

[(Fig._6)TD$IG]

Fig. 6. GSP with cold separator process (feed A at high demethanizer pressure conguration or feed D at all demethanizer pressures).

[(Fig._8)TD$IG]

L. Kherbeck, R. Chebbi / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 21 (2015) 292297

296

(a)

compared to the recovery from the conventional turboexpander

process [5]. The results are shown in Fig. 7. At low and intermediate
demethanizer pressures, GSP and the conventional turboexpander
process were found to give close ethane recoveries. The deviations
in recovery were observed at high demethanizer pressures at
which the GSP gave better recovery than the conventional
turboexpander process. For this particular feed, the GSP with cold
separator was also tested and found to give recovery values similar
to the other processes tested for low and intermediate pressures. In
the high pressure range, the recovery from the GSP with a cold
separator fell between the values from the GSP and the conventional
turboexpander process [5]. At all demethanizer pressures, GSP with
cold separator (Fig. 4) reduced to the conguration in Fig. 6, with no
need for the separator overhead splitter.

100

CRR/GSP

90
80

C2 recovery, %

70
60
50
40
30
20

Feed A (CRR at 100 psia, GSP at higher P)

Feed D (GSP)

10
0

3.3. Ethane recovery

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Demethanizer pressure, psia

(b)

100

Conventional turboexpander
(Chebbi et al., 2008)

90
80

C2 recovery, %

70
60
50
40
30
20

Feed A
Feed D

10
0
50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Demethanizer pressure, psia

(c)
100

GSP with cold separator

90
80

C2 recovery, %

70
60
50
40
30
20

Feed A (GSP at 100 and 215 psia)

Feed D

10

4. Conclusion

0
50

100

150

200

250

300

Although the CRR process is frequently stated to allow for

ethane recoveries of 99% or higher values [8], the process
optimization yielded signicantly lower recovery values for
intermediate and high demethanizer pressures in the case of feed
A, and all pressures for feed D. At low demethanizer pressures
(100 psia), the reux stream entering the tower is 80.5 8F colder
than the turboexpander outlet stream entering the tower. For
intermediate pressure (215 psia), the temperature difference is
56.5 8F. It is speculated that it is the large temperature gap
observed at low demethanizer pressure that is responsible for the
superior ethane recovery as compression not only enhances
pressure but also temperature. The lowest recovery values for both
feeds A and D were the ones at the highest demethanizer pressure
(450 psia).
Fig. 8 shows the effect of demethanizer pressure on ethane
recovery for feeds A and D. For all the processes, the impact of the
demethanizer pressure on ethane recovery is signicantly less for
the rich gas D compared to the lean gas A over the range 215
450 psia. On the other hand, higher ethane recoveries are obtained
for the lean gas A at low demethanizer pressure, whereas higher C2
recoveries are attained for feed D at intermediate and higher
pressures.
For the lean gas A, the GSP with cold separator was found to be
the most viable process, reaping the benets of the split-stream
conguration at low and intermediate pressures, and those of the
conventional turboexpander process at high demethanizer pressures. However, the CRR process remains the process of choice for
the lean gas at low demethanizer pressure.
With the exception of low demethanizer pressure, the process
that yields the highest recovery for feed D is the GSP, which
excludes additional cryogenic compressor and heat exchanger
from the CRR process.

350

400

450

500

Demethanizer pressure, psia

Fig. 8. Effect of demethanizer pressure on ethane recovery for (a) CRR/GSP, (b)
conventional turboexpander process [5] and (c) GSP with cold separator for feeds A
and D.

cold separator was found to reduce to GSP, with zero vapor ow

rate leaving the cold separator.
3.2. Feed D
In the optimization for rich gas D, the CRR process was tested
rst and found to reduce to GSP. The ethane recovery from GSP was

The cold residue recycle (CRR) process was simulated to

maximize ethane recovery at different demethanizer pressures.
The optimized design variables included all split ratios, the outlet
temperatures (higher temperature side) from the heat exchangers
(downstream of the chiller) and the cryogenic compressor outlet
pressure. The CRR process is the most viable option for low
demethanizer pressure with ethane recovery of 99.9% for the lean
gas considered. However, adding more complexity to the process
may lead to lower ethane recovery. This result concurs with the
nding in Chebbi et al. [10]. In particular (i) the only case where a
cryogenic compressor is needed is for feed A (lean gas) at low
demethanizer pressure (100 psia). In all other cases, the CRR
process reduces to GSP where the cryogenic compressor followed
by the heat exchanger and JT valve following it are all not needed

L. Kherbeck, R. Chebbi / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 21 (2015) 292297

for higher ethane recovery. On the other hand (ii) adding a cold
separator to GSP, operating at a lower temperature than the chiller
temperature (in addition to the separator operating at 31 8F),
yields less recovery in the case of the rich feed gas D, except at
100 psia. Also (iii) the GSP with cold separator reduces to GSP in the
case of the lean feed gas A at low and intermediate pressures,
making the cold separator unnecessary. Furthermore (iv) in case
GSP with cold separator provides higher recovery (lean gas A at
high demethanizer pressures), only one splitter is required: the
separator liquid outlet splitter, with the separator vapor outlet
splitter discarded.
For feeds containing CO2, care should be taken to make sure CO2
frost [1] will not occur; this point is not addressed in the present
investigation since the two feeds considered are free from CO2. On
the other hand, the objective in this work is to maximize ethane
recovery; therefore costing is not required. Further investigations
could address the abovementioned two points.

297

References
[1] F.S. Manning, R.E. Thompson, Oileld Processing of Petroleum, rst ed., PennWell
Publishing Company, Tulsa, 1991.
[2] R.L. McKee, Evolution in design, in: Proceedings of the 56th Annual GPA Convention, Dallas, 1977.
[3] R.N. Pitman, H.M. Hudson, J.D. Wilkinson, K.T. Cuellar, Next generation processes for
NGL/LPG recovery, in: Proceedings of the 77th Annual GPA Convention, Dallas, 1998.
[4] GPSA, Engineering Data Book, Sec. 16, twelfth ed., Gas Processors Suppliers
Association, 2004.
[5] R. Chebbi, K.A. Al Mazroui, N.M. Abdel Jabbar, Oil & Gas Journal 106 (46) (2008) 50.
[6] R. Chebbi, N.S. Al-Amoodi, N.M. Abdel Jabbar, G.A. Husseini, K.A. Al Mazroui,
Chemical Engineering Research and Design 88 (2010) 779.
[7] M. Mehrpooya, A. Vatani, S.M.A. Mousavian, Chemical Engineering and Processing
49 (4) (2010) 376.
[8] J.D. Wilkinson, H.M. Hudson, Improved NGL recovery designs maximize operating
exibility and product recoveries, in: Proceedings of the 71st Annual GPA Convention, Anaheim, 1992.
[9] J.A. Bandoni, A.M. Eliceche, G.D.B. Mabe, E.A. Brignole, Computers & Chemical
Engineering 13 (1989) 587.
[10] R. Chebbi, A.S. Al-Qaydi, A.O. Al-Amery, N.S. Al-Zaabi, H.A. Al-Mansoori, Oil & Gas
Journal 102 (4) (2004) 64.