International Journal of Research in Engineering and Innovation Vol-1, Issue-4 (2017), 111-125

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

International Journal of Research in Engineering and Innovation

(IJREI)
journal home page: http://www.ijrei.com
ISSN (Online): 2456-6934

________________________________________________________________________________________

Energy-Exergetic performance and parametric evaluation of Haylent liquefaction

system using different gasses system
R.S. Mishra, Devender Kumar
Department of Mechanical, Production and Automobile Engineering, Delhi Technological University, Delhi, India
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Abstract
The present studies concern on energy and exergy analyses of various cryogenics system up to their sub component level. A
parametric study is conducted to investigate the effects of variation of various system input parameters such as pressure ratio,
expander mass flow ratio, compressor output temperature on different performance parameters like COP , work input ,liquefaction
rate ,specific heat and exergy. The numerical computations have been carried out for six system are study with six different gases
for liquefaction like oxygen, argon, methane, fluorine, air and nitrogen respectively. Effect of different input gas also studies carefully
and behavior of different gases in different system is concluded. © 2017 ijrei.com. All rights reserved
Keywords: Energy-Exergetic Performance, Parametric Evaluation, Haylent liquefaction system
_____________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction

Cryogenics has been an important area of refrigeration because
of its application in industrial and commercial utilization, and
many scientific and engineering researches are going on by
using low temperature liquefied gases. Cryogenics isa branch
of physics which deals with the achieving very low
temperatures (below the 173 K.) and study their effects on
matter .Cryogenic study presents broad goals for cryogenic
support for various gas liquefaction systems. Due to industrial
revolution, various issues like cost, efficiency and reliability
are the challenges factors in employment of cryogenic support
technology. In field of mechanical engineering we try to refine
or improve the ability or quality of material to get in maximum
use at maximum level at a reduce cost. In past many
fantasticclaimhave been made as to the degree of improve
performance achieved by employing cryogenics technology
In 1949 Helandt Davies in his research noticed that if the
Claude system work on relative high pressure,e.g., approx. 200
bar for air liquefaction. The first heat exchanger in the system
can eliminate; such modified system is extensively used in
high-pressure liquefaction plant of air and known as high
pressure modifiedClaude system or Haylent system. The
problem of lubrication in expander is successfully eliminated
in this modification. Use of light lubricant are quite suitable
because, in the air-liquefaction system, the gas enters the
expander at ambient temperature and leaves the expander at
approximately 150 K (-190°F), so that light lubricants
properties not much detroit. In high pressure Haylent system
expander adjustment is also very crucial. All sub-component
like compressor, expander, two heat exchangers with throttle
valve and separator are arranged as shown in Figure .1.The
block diagram completely define the working of system. The
gas which has to be liquefied is fed in compressor at ambient
condition like at 1.013 bar and 300 K .The gas is compressed
up to their optimized pressure ratio selected on the basis of
chosen gas. This compressed gas is further divided in two parts
in perfect ratio for expander. One part of gas goes into
expander while other part fed into the heat exchanger as a hot
stream. Expander gives additional refrigeration effect in the
system by giving additional cooling effect to the cold stream
of gas into exchanger. After passing through the heat
exchanger gas reached up to their critical temperature.

Corresponding author : R.S. Mishra 111

Email Id: rsmishradtu@gmail.com
 R.S. . Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 4 (2017), 111-125

𝑚 ∗ 𝑇1 ∗ (𝑠1 − 𝑠2 ) −
𝐸𝑑𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 = 𝑎𝑏𝑠 ( 𝑇 ) (7)
(𝑄 ∗ ( 0))
𝑇1
𝐸𝑑𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝
𝐸𝑑𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝% = ( ) ∗ 100 (8)
𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝑥𝑓 = 0 (9)
𝑥𝑔 = 1 (10)
𝑟 = 0.3 (11)
𝑚
𝑟= 𝑒 (12)
𝑚
𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡
=𝑧 (13)
𝑚
𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡
=𝑡 (14)
𝑚𝑓
ℎ1 −ℎ𝑓
𝐶𝑂𝑃 = 𝑎𝑏𝑠 ( ) (15)
𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡
(ℎ𝑓 −ℎ1 )−𝑇0 ∗(𝑠𝑓 −𝑠1 )
Figure 1: Schematic diagram of Haylent system 𝐸𝑡𝑎2𝑛𝑑% = 𝑎𝑏𝑠 (( ∗ 𝑚𝑓 ) ∗ 100) (16)
𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡

Now gas is passed through the J-T valve to get liquefy form of
gas at the inlet pressure. The liquefy part is separate into the 2.1 First Heat Exchanger (HX_1) analysis
separator and gas part is recirculated back to the system via
mixing with outlet of expander cooled gas. This mixed gas help 𝑇𝑦𝑝𝑒𝐻𝑋1$ =′ 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 ′
into the exchanger to reduce the gas temperature up to their 𝑒𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑛𝐻𝑋1 = 0.85 (17)
critical level via exchanging heat with hot stream. This cold 𝑇ℎ𝑖 = 𝑇2 (18)
stream after exchanging heat with hot stream add up with make 𝑇𝑐𝑜 = 𝑇8 (19)
gas to go again in cycle. The main difference in refrigeration 𝑇ℎ𝑜 = 𝑇3 (20)
and liquefier is that in refrigeration cycle the gas of system 𝑇𝑐𝑖 = 𝑇7 (21)
always constant while in liquefier the gas is continuously 𝑚𝑑𝑜𝑡ℎ = 𝑚 − 𝑚𝑒 (22)
𝐻𝑋1
extracted as a liquefy part.
𝑚𝑑𝑜𝑡𝑐 = 𝑚 − 𝑚𝑓 (23)
𝐻𝑋1
2. Literature Review and Research gap identified 𝐶𝑑𝑜𝑡ℎ = 𝑚ℎ𝐻𝑋1 ∗ 𝑐𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 (24)
𝐻𝑋1 𝐻𝑋1
𝐶𝑑𝑜𝑡𝑐 = 𝑚𝑐𝐻𝑋1 ∗ 𝑐𝑝𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 (25)
𝐻𝑋1 𝐻𝑋1
R. Agrawal, D.W. Woodward,[1] carried out exergy analysis,
𝑞𝐻𝑋1 = 𝐶ℎ𝐻𝑋1 ∗ (𝑇ℎ𝑖 − 𝑇ℎ𝑜 ) (26)
for the efficient cryogenic nitrogen generators: Yasuki
Kansha, et.al [2] , evaluated novel cryogenic air separation 𝑞𝐻𝑋1 = 𝐶𝑐𝐻𝑋1 ∗ (𝑇𝑐𝑜 − 𝑇𝑐𝑖 ) (27)
process based on self-heat recuperation. Gadhiraju 𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥𝐻𝑋1 = 𝐶min 𝐻𝑋1 ∗ (𝑇ℎ𝑖 − 𝑇𝑐𝑖 ) (28)
Venkatarathnam [3], caried out simulation of cryogenic 𝑞
𝑒𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑛𝐻𝑋1 = 𝐻𝑋1 (29)
𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥𝐻𝑋1
processes” using cryogenic mixed refrigeration Processes. 𝐺𝐻𝑋1
R.L. Cornelissen, G.G. Hirs,[4] carried out energy-exergy 𝑁𝑡𝑢𝐻𝑋1 = (30)
𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛𝐻𝑋1
analysis of cryogenic air separation,There is not enough
𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑛𝐻𝑋1 = (𝑚 − 𝑚𝑒 ) ∗ ((ℎ2 − ℎ3 ) − (𝑇0 ∗ (𝑠2 − 𝑠3 ))) (31)
literature available on second law performance on Haylent
system. The thermodynamic analysis of Haylent system is 𝐸𝑥𝑜𝑢𝑡𝐻𝑋1 = (𝑚 − 𝑚𝑓 ) ∗ ((ℎ7 − ℎ8 ) − (𝑇0 ∗ (𝑠7 − 𝑠8 ))) (32)
presented here.
𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑋1 = 𝑎𝑏𝑠 ((𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑛𝐻𝑋1 ) − (𝐸𝑥𝑜𝑢𝑡𝐻𝑋1 )) (33)
3. Thermal analysis of Haylent system 𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑋1
𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑋1% = ( ) ∗ 100 (34)
𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡

The work done by the compressor is given as 𝑇6 = 𝑇7 (35)

𝑊𝑒 = (𝑚𝑒 ∗ ℎ2 − 𝑚𝑒 ∗ ℎ𝑒 ) (1)
2.2 Second Heat Exchanger( HX_2) analysis
𝑊𝑐 = (𝑚 ∗ ((ℎ2 − ℎ1 )) − 𝑇2 ∗ (𝑠2 − 𝑠1 )) (2)
𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 𝑊𝑐 − 𝑊𝑒 (3) 𝑇𝑦𝑝𝑒𝐻𝑋2$ =′ 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 ′
𝑄 = 𝑚 ∗ (ℎ2 − ℎ1 ) (4) 𝑒𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑛𝐻𝑋2 = 0.85 (36)
ℎ1 −ℎ2 ℎ2 −ℎ𝑒
𝑦=( )+𝑟∗( ) (5) 𝑚𝑐𝐻𝑋2 = 𝑚 − 𝑚𝑓 (38)
ℎ1 −ℎ𝑓 ℎ1 −ℎ𝑓
𝑚𝑓 𝐶𝑐𝐻𝑋2 = 𝑚𝑐𝐻𝑋2 ∗ 𝑐𝑝𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 (39)
𝑦= (6) 𝐻𝑋2
𝑚 𝑞𝐻𝑋2 = 𝐶ℎ𝐻𝑋2 ∗ (𝑇3 − 𝑇4 ) (40)
𝑞𝐻𝑋2 = 𝐶𝑐𝐻𝑋2 ∗ (𝑇6 − 𝑇𝑔 ) (41)
𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛𝐻𝑋2 = min(𝐶ℎ𝐻𝑋2 , 𝐶𝑐𝐻𝑋2 ) (42)

112
 R.S. . Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 4 (2017), 111-125

𝑞max 𝐻𝑋2 = 𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛𝐻𝑋2 ∗ (𝑇3 − 𝑇𝑔 ) (43) 𝑇𝑔 𝑅$ 𝑥1 𝑃1

𝑞
𝑒𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑛𝐻𝑋2 = 𝐻𝑋2 (44) 𝑠𝑔 𝑅$ 𝑥1 𝑃1
𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥𝐻𝑋2
𝑁𝑡𝑢_𝐻𝑋2 = (𝐺_𝐻𝑋2)/𝐶 min (45) 𝑇3 𝑅$ ℎ3 𝑃2
𝐻𝑋2
𝑠3 𝑅$ 𝑇3 𝑃2
𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑛𝐻𝑋2 = (𝑚 − 𝑚𝑒 ) ∗ ((ℎ3 − ℎ4 ) − (𝑇0 ∗ (𝑠3 − 𝑠4 ))) (46)
ℎ3 𝑅$ 𝑇3 𝑃2
𝐸𝑥𝑜𝑢𝑡𝐻𝑋2 = (𝑚 − 𝑚𝑓 ) ∗ ((ℎ𝑔 − ℎ6 ) − (𝑇0 ∗ (𝑠𝑔 − 𝑠6 ))) 𝑐𝑝(ℎ𝑓)𝐻𝑋1 𝑅$ 𝑇2 𝑃2
(47) 𝑐𝑝(𝑐𝑓)𝐻𝑋1 𝑅$ 𝑇7 𝑃1
𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑋2 = 𝑎𝑏𝑠 ((𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑛𝐻𝑋2 ) − (𝐸𝑥𝑜𝑢𝑡𝐻𝑋2 )) (48) 𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛 - 𝐶ℎ𝑜𝑡_𝐻𝑋1 𝐶𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑_𝐻𝑋1
𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑋2% = (
𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑋2
) ∗ 100 (49) 𝑐𝑝(ℎ𝑓)𝐻𝑋2 𝑅$ 𝑇3 𝑃2
𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝑐𝑝(𝑐𝑓)𝐻𝑋2 𝑅$ 𝑇𝑓 − 1 𝑃1
"c) J-T Valve analysis"
ℎ4 = ℎ5 (50) 𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛 - 𝐶ℎ𝑜𝑡_𝐻𝑋2 𝐶𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑_𝐻𝑋2
𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑛𝑉𝑎𝑙 = (ℎ4 − ℎ0 ) − 𝑇0 ∗ (𝑠4 − 𝑠0 ) ℎ7 𝑅$ 𝑇7 𝑃1
𝐸𝑥𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑣𝑎𝑙 = (ℎ5 − ℎ0 ) − 𝑇0 ∗ (𝑠5 − 𝑠0 ) (51) 𝑠7 𝑅$ 𝑇7 𝑃1
𝐸𝑑𝑣𝑎𝑙 = 𝑎𝑏𝑠(𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑛𝑉𝑎𝑙 − 𝐸𝑥𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑣𝑎𝑙 ) (52) ℎ8 𝑅$ 𝑇8 𝑃1
𝐸𝑑𝑣𝑎𝑙% = (
𝐸𝑑𝑣𝑎𝑙
) ∗ 100 (53) 𝑠8 𝑅$ 𝑇8 𝑃1
𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝑠5 𝑅$ ℎ5 𝑇𝑓
"c) Sepeator analysis"
𝑠4 𝑅$ ℎ4 𝑇4
(𝑚 − 𝑚𝑒 ) ∗ ℎ5 = 𝑚𝑓 ∗ ℎ𝑓 + (𝑚 − 𝑚𝑒 − 𝑚𝑓 ) ∗ ℎ𝑔 (54)
ℎ4 𝑅$ 𝑇4 𝑃2
𝑚𝑔 ∗ 𝑠𝑔1 − 𝑚𝑔 ∗ℎ𝑔 −𝑚𝑓 ∗ℎ𝑓
𝐸𝑑𝑠𝑒𝑝 = 𝑎𝑏𝑠 (𝑇0 ∗ (( )+( ))) 𝑠𝑔1 𝑅$ ℎ𝑔 𝑃1
(𝑚𝑔 + 𝑚𝑓 ) ∗ 𝑠5 𝑇0
𝑠5 𝑅$ 𝑥5 𝑃1
(55) ℎ6 𝑅$ 𝑥6 𝑃1
𝐸𝑑𝑠𝑒𝑝
𝐸𝑑𝑠𝑒𝑝% = ( ) ∗ 100 (56) 𝑠6 𝑅$ 𝑇6 𝑃1
𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡
ℎ6 𝑅$ 𝑇6 𝑃1
𝑚𝑔 = (𝑚 − 𝑚𝑒 − 𝑚𝑓 ) (57)
𝑠𝑔1 = 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑦(𝑅$, ℎ = ℎ𝑔 , 𝑃 = 𝑃1 ) (58)
4. Results and Discussions
𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝐸𝑑𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 + 𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑋1 + 𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑋2 + 𝐸𝑑𝑣𝑎𝑙 + 𝐸𝑑𝑠𝑒𝑝
(59) In this study, Haylent system for liquefaction of various gases
𝑁𝑡𝑢𝐻𝑋1 = 𝐻𝑋(𝑇𝑦𝑝𝑒𝐻𝑋1$ , 𝑒𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑛𝐻𝑋1 , 𝐶ℎ𝐻𝑋1 , 𝐶𝑐𝐻𝑋1 , ′𝑁𝑡𝑢′ ) such as oxygen, nitrogen, argon, methane, fluorine and air are
(60) studied. Fig.2 shows the variations between COP of the system
𝑁𝑡𝑢𝐻𝑋2 = 𝐻𝑋(𝑇𝑦𝑝𝑒𝐻𝑋2$ , 𝑒𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑛𝐻𝑋2 , 𝐶ℎ𝐻𝑋2 , 𝐶𝑐𝐻𝑋2 , ′𝑁𝑡𝑢′ ) and the cycle pressure ratio. It has been seen that COP is
(61) decreasing with an increase in cycle pressure ratio and methane
has the highest value of COP, which is decreasing from 1.662
In Non ideal gas any variable can be defined by two other to 1.244 between pressure ratio 40 to 220, followed by
dependent variable on them: fluorine, oxygen, air, nitrogen and argon has the least value of
𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑛−𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 𝑓𝑥(𝑏, 𝑐) COP, i.e., varies from 0.8802 to 1.247 for the cycle pressure
ratio of 40 to 220. On the other hand, fig-2 shows the variations
Table 1: Variable Table (Heylant System) in second law efficiency with respect to cycle pressure ratio. It
Variable (a) Gas Variable (b) Variable (c ) has been demonstrated that methane has the highest value of
second law efficiency, which is increasing from 5.792% to
ℎ0 𝑅$ 𝑇0 𝑃1
21.23% for the cycle pressure ratio of 40 to 220, followed by
ℎ1 𝑅$ 𝑇1 𝑃1 argon, oxygen, air, nitrogen and fluorine has the minimum
ℎ2 𝑅$ 𝑇2 𝑃2 value of second law efficiency i.e., changes from 2.889% to
𝑠0 𝑅$ 𝑇0 𝑃1 9.342% for the cycle pressure ratio of 40 to 220. Furthermore,
𝑠1 𝑅$ 𝑇1 𝑃1 fig.-3 shows the variations in mass liquefaction rate of various
gases as described above with respect to cycle pressure ratio.
𝑠2 𝑅$ ℎ2 𝑃2
It has been observed that methane has the highest liquefaction
𝑇𝑒 𝑅$ 𝑠2 𝑃1 rate, which is varying from 0.02952kg/s to 0.1446kg/s for the
ℎ𝑒 𝑅$ 𝑇1 𝑃1 cycle pressure ratio of 40 to 220, followed by argon, oxygen,
𝑠𝑓 𝑅$ 𝑥𝑓 𝑃1 air, nitrogen and fluorine, it has the minimum value of mass
flow rate i.e., varies from 0.01222kg/s to 0.05655kg/s for the
𝑇𝑓 𝑅$ 𝑥0 𝑃1
selected range of cycle pressure ratio of 40 to 220.
ℎ𝑓 𝑅$ 𝑥𝑓 𝑃1

113
 R.S. . Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 4 (2017), 111-125

750
2.6 COP oxygen h2nd,%oxygen
2.5 22 700
COP argon h2nd,%Argon Wnet(Oxygen)
2.4
2.3
COP Fluorine h2nd,% Fluorine 20 650 Wnet(Argon)
2.2 COP Methane h2nd,%Methane
18 Wnet(Fluorine)
2.1 COP Air h2nd,%Air 600

Wnet(Net work)(kW)
COP Nitrogen h2nd,%Nitrogen Wnet(Methane)
2 16 550
1.9 Wnet(Air)

h2nd, %
1.8 14 500 Wnet(Nitrogen)
COP

1.7
1.6 12 450
1.5 400
10
1.4
1.3 8 350
1.2
1.1 6 300
1
0.9 4 250
0.8 200
2
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi ) Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi )
Figure 2: Variations in COP and second law efficiency with cycle Figure 4: Variation in net work done with cycle pressure ratio
pressure ratio

0.16
mf(Oxygen) cphot,fluid,HX1(Oxygen) cphot,fluid,HX1(Fluorine)
1.35
0.14 mf(Argon) cphot,fluid,HX1(Argon) cphot,fluid,HX1(Air)
1.3
mf(Liquefaction mass) (kg/s)

mf(Fluorine) cphot,fluid,HX1(Nitrogen)
0.12 1.25
cphot,fluid,HX1(Kj/Kg-K)

mf(Methane) 1.2
0.1
mf(Air) 1.15
0.08 mf(Nitrogen) 1.1
1.05
0.06
1
0.04
0.95

0.02 0.9
0.85
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi ) Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi )
Figure 3: Variation in liquefaction mass flow with cycle pressure Figure 5: Variation in specific heat of hot fluid in HX1 with cycle
pressure ratio

114
 R.S. . Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 4 (2017), 111-125

3.6 2.7 cphot,fluid,HX2(Oxygen) cphot,fluid,HX2(Fluorine) cphot,fluid,HX2(Air)

3.5 2.6
cphot,fluid,HX2(Argon)
2.5 cphot,fluid,HX2(Methane) cphot,fluid,HX2(Nitrogen)
3.4
cphot,fluid,HX1(Methane)
3.3 2.4
3.2 2.3

cphot,fluid, HX2(Kj/Kg-K)
cphot,fluid,HX1(Kj/Kg-K)

2.2
3.1
2.1
3
2
2.9 1.9
2.8 1.8
2.7 1.7
2.6 1.6
2.5 1.5
2.4 1.4
2.3 1.3

40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi ) Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi )
Figure 6: Variation in specific heat of hot fluid in HX1 with cycle Figure 7: Variation in specific heat of hot fluid in HX2 with
pressure ratio cycle pressure ratio

Fig.4 illustrates the variations in net work done with respect to

6
NtuHX1(Oxygen) NtuHX1(Flurone) NtuHX1(Air)
cycle pressure ratio. It has been analyzed that methane has the 5.8 NtuHX1(Argon)
highest value of net work done, which is increasing from NtuHX1(Methane) NtuHX1(Nitrogen)
549.9kW to 734.8kW and argon has the least value of net 5.6
workdone i.e., increasing from 226kW to 367.2kW for the 5.4
selected range of cycle pressure ratio of 40 to 220.Fig.6 shows
the variation in specific heat of hot fluid in HX1 with respect 5.2
to cycle pressure ratio of 40 to 220. Fig.6 illustrates that
methane has the highest value of specific heat for hot fluid,
5
which is increasing from 2.493kJ/kg-K to 3.561kJ/kg-K. On 4.8
NTUHX1

the contrary side, fluorine has the least value of specific heat
for hot fluid, which is enhanced from 0.8623kJ/kg-K to 4.6
1.04kJ/kg-K. Fig.7demonstrates the variations in specific heat 4.4
of hot fluid in HX2 with respect to cycle pressure ratio of 40 to
220. It has been clearly understood from the fig.7 that nitrogen 4.2
has the highest value of specific heat of hot fluid in HX2
among the other considered gases, which varies from 2.045 4
kJ/kg-K to 1.9411.04kJ/kg-K, and maximum value of specific 3.8
heat of hot fluid is found to be 2.404 at cycle pressure ratio of
100, which is followed by oxygen, air, fluorine and argon, 3.6
respectively.
3.4

40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi )
Figure 8: Variation in NTU in HX1 with cycle pressure ratio

115
 R.S. . Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 4 (2017), 111-125

6 NtuHX2(Oxygen) 170 EdHE(Oxygen) EdHE(Fluorine) EdHE(Nitrogen)

NtuHX2(Argon) 160 EdHE(Argon) EdHE(Methane) EdHE(Air)
5.6 NtuHX2(Flurone) 150
NtuHX2(Methane)
NtuHX2(Air) 140
5.2 NtuHX2(Nitrogen) 130
120
4.8

EdHX1 (KJ/Kg)
110
NTUHX2

4.4 100
90
4 80
70
3.6 60
50
3.2 40
30
2.8
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi ) Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi )
Figure 9: Variation in NTU in HX2 with cycle pressure ratio Figure 11: Variation in exergy destruction in HX1 with cycle
pressure ratio

1400 130
Edcomp(Methane) EdHE(Oxygen)
1300 120
Edcomp(Nitrogen) EdHE(Argon)
1200 110
Edcomp(Air) EdHE(Fluorine)
1100 Edcomp(Oxygen) 100 EdHE(Methane)
1000 Edcomp(Fluorine) 90 EdHE(Air)
Edcomp(Argon)
EdHX2 (KJ/Kg)

900 80
Edcomp (KJ/Kg)

EdHE(Nitrogen)
800 70
700 60
600 50
500 40
400 30
300 20
200
10
100
0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi ) Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi )
Figure 10: Variation of exergy destruction in compressor with cycle Figure 12: Variation in exergy destruction in HX2 with cycle
pressure ratio pressure ratio

116
 R.S. . Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 4 (2017), 111-125

23
22 EdVal(oxygen) Edval(Fluorine) Edval(Nitrogen) 240 EdSep(Oxygen)
21 Ed val (Argon) Edval(Air) EdSep(Argon)
20 220
19 EdSep(Fluorine)
18 200 Edsep(Air)
17
16 Edsep(Nitrogen)
15 180
Edcomp (KJ/Kg)

14

Edsep (KJ/Kg)
13 160
12
11 140
10
9 120
8
7
6 100
5
4 80
3
2 60
1
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi ) Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi )
Figure 13: Variation in exergy destruction in compressor with cycle Figure 15: Variation in exergy destruction in separator with cycle
pressure ratio pressure ratio

160 500
EdSep(Methane)
Ed Sep(Methane)
140
400
120

300
Edsep (KJ/Kg)
Edcomp (KJ/Kg)

100

80 200

60
100
40

0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi ) Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi )
Figure 14: Variation in exergy destruction in compressor with cycle Figure 16: Variation in exergy destruction in separator with cycle
pressure ratio pressure ratio

117
 R.S. . Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 4 (2017), 111-125

20
EdHX2%(Nitrogen) 36 Edsep,%(Oxygen)
18 Edsep,%(Fluorine)
EdHX2%(Air)
32 Edsep,%(Argon)
16 EdHX2%(Fluorine)
Edsep,%(Methane)
EdHX2%(Oxygen) 28
14 Edsep,%(Air)
EdHX2%(Argon)
24 Edsep,%(Nitrogen)
12
EdestHX2,%

EdHX2%(Methane)

Edestsep,%
10 20

8 16

6 12

4 8

2 4

0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi ) Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi )
Figure 17: Variation in percentage exergy destruction in HX2 with Figure 19: Variation in percentage exergy destruction with cycle
cycle pressure ratio pressure ratio

12 2.7 6
Edval,%(Methane) COP oxygen h2nd,%oxygen
5.5
11 Edval,%(Air) COP argon h2nd,%Argon
2.4
10
Edval,%(Nitrogen) COP methane h2nd,% Methane 5
Edval,%(Oxygen)
COP Fluorine h2nd,%Fluorine 4.5
9 Edval,%(Argon) 2.1
Edval,%(Argon) COP Air h2nd,%Air
8 h2nd,%Nitrogen
4
COP Nitrogen

h2nd, %
1.8 3.5
Edestval,%

7
COP

6 3
1.5
5 2.5

4 1.2 2

3 1.5
0.9 1
2
1 0.5
0.6
0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480
Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi ) To(Compressor.outlet.Temp)(K)
Figure 18: Variation in percentage exergy destruction in valve with Figure 20: Variations in COP and second law efficiency with the
cycle pressure ratio compressor outlet temperature

118
 R.S. . Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 4 (2017), 111-125

Fig.8 shows the variations in NTU of HX1 with the cycle

mf(Oxygen) pressure ratio of 40 to 220. It has been seen that maximum
0.028 incremental variations in NTU are found to be in methane
mf(Liquefaction mass) (kg/s)

mf(Argon) i.e., 5.66 at cycle pressure of 80 and then its value suddenly
decreases, which is followed by argon, oxygen, fluorine,
0.024 mf(Fluorine) air, and nitrogen shows the continuous increasing
behaviour, i.e., varies from 3.487 to 4.682. On the other
mf(Methane) hand, fig.9 shows the variations in NTU of HX2 with the
0.02 cycle pressure ratio of 40 to 220. It has been seen that
methane shows decrement in NTU value initially then
mf(Air) suddenly increase and goes up to the maximum point i.e.
0.016 5.553 at around 160. While all other gases shows almost
mf(Nitrogen) the same type of behaviour i.e., increase first and then
decrease. Oxygen shows the better results for NTU in HX2
0.012 i.e. changes from 3.577 to 4.217 followed by argon, air,
fluorine, and nitrogen shows the least value i.e., varies from
3.362 to 3.333.Fig.10 illustrates the exergy destruction rate
of compressor with respect to cycle pressure ratio of 40 to
0.008 220. It has been clearly understood from the graphs that
exergy destruction rate is continuously increasing, and
methane has the highest value of exergy destruction rate
0.004 among the other gases and it is increasing from 638.3kJ/kg
to 1168kJ/kg. Alternatively, argon has the least value of
exergy destruction rate of compressor i.e. increases from
300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 242.4kJ/kg to 371.5kJ/kg.
To(Compressor.outlet.Temp)(K) Fig.11 demonstrates the exergy destruction rate of HX1
Figure 21: Variation in liquefaction mass flow with the with respect to cycle pressure ratio of 40 to 220. It has been
compressor outlet temperature found that nitrogen shows the highest exergy destruction
rate in HX1, i.e., 148.4kJ/kg to 169.2kJ/kg. On the other
900 side, fig.12 illustrates that nitrogen and air both show the
highest rate of exergy destruction in HX2 among the other
850 gases, i.e., 123.8kJ/kg and 120.9kJ/kg, respectively. Fig.13
and fig.14 shows the exergy destruction rate of valve with
800 W net(Oxygen) respect to cycle pressure ratio of 40 to 220. Methane shows
750 W net(Argon) the highest value of exergy destruction among the other
W net(Fluorine) gases, and it attains maximum value i.e. 153.4kJ/kg at cycle
Wnet(Net work)(kW)

700 pressure ratio of 80 as shown in fig.14. While argon having

W net(Methane) the least value of exergy destruction rate, i.e., increases
650
W net(Air) from 0.0399kJ/kg to 6.552kJ/kg as shown in Fig.13.
600
W net(Nitrogen) 5.2
550
5
500
4.8
450 4.6
Ntu HX1(Oxygen)
Ntu HX1(Argon)
400 Ntu HX1(Flurone)
4.4 Ntu HX1(Methane)
NTUHX1

Ntu HX1(Air)
350 4.2 Ntu HX1(Nitrogen)

300 4
3.8
250
3.6

300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 3.4
3.2
To(Compressor.outlet.Temp)(K) 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480
Figure 22: Variation in net work done with the compressor outlet T o(Compressor.outlet.Temp)(K)
temperature Figure 23: Variation in NTU in HX1 with compressor outlet
temperature

119
 R.S. . Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 4 (2017), 111-125

4.8 4.6
4.4 cphot,fluid,HX2(Oxygen)
4.6 NtuHX2(Oxygen) 4.2
NtuHX2(Argon) 4 cphot,fluid,HX2(Argon)
4.4 NtuHX2(Flurone) 3.8
NtuHX2(Methane) 3.6
4.2 NtuHX2(Air) 3.4
NtuHX2(Nitrogen) 3.2
4

cphot,fluid,HX2
3 cphot,fluid,HX2(Fluorine)
NTUHX2

3.8 2.8
2.6 cphot,fluid,HX2(Methane)
3.6 2.4 cphot,fluid,HX2(Air)
2.2
3.4 2 cphot,fluid,HX2(Nitrogen)
3.2 1.8
1.6
3 1.4
1.2
2.8 1
0.8
2.6
300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480
To(Compressor.outlet.Temp)(K) To(Compressor.outlet.Temp)(K)
Figure 26: Variation in specific heat of hot fluid in HX2 with the
Figure 24: Variation in NTU in HX2 with compressor outlet
temperature compressor outlet temperature

2.9 900 Edcomp Edcomp

2.8 Edcomp
2.7 Edcomp
2.6 800 Edcomp
2.5 cphot,fluid,HX1(Oxygen) Edcomp
2.4
2.3 700
2.2 cphot,fluid,HX1(Argon)
2.1 600
cphot,fluid,HX1(Fluorine)
Edcomp (KJ/Kg)
cphot,fluid,HX1

2
1.9
1.8 cphot,fluid,HX1(Methane) 500
1.7
1.6 cphot,fluid,HX1(Air) 400
1.5
1.4 cphot,fluid,HX1(Nitrogen)
1.3 300
1.2
1.1
1 200
0.9
0.8 100
0.7
0.6
0.5 0
300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480
To(Compressor.outlet.Temp)(K) To(Compressor.outlet.Temp)(K)
Figure 27: Variation in exergy destruction in compressor with the
Figure 25: Variation in specific heat of hot fluid in HX1 with the
compressor outlet temperature
compressor outlet temperature

120
 R.S. . Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 4 (2017), 111-125

180 20
EdHX1(oxygen)
EdHX1(Argon) Edval(Oxygen Edval(Methane)
160 18
EdHX1(Fluorine) Edval(Argon) Edval(Air)
EdHX1(Methane) 16 Edval(Fluorine) Edval(Nitrogen)
140 EdHX1(Air)
EdHX1(Nitrogen) 14
120
12

Edval (KJ/Kg)
100
EdHX1 (KJ/Kg)

10
80
8
60
6
40 4
20 2

0 0
300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 300 330 360 390 420 450 480
To(Compressor.outlet.Temp)(K) To(Compressor.outlet.Temp)(K)
Figure 28: Variation in exergy destruction in HX1 with the Figure 30: Variation in exergy destruction in VALVE with the
compressor outlet temperature compressor outlet temperature

135 560
520 Edsep(Oxygen)
120 EdHX2(oxygen)
480 Edsep(Argon)
EdHX2(Argon)
105 EdHX2(Fluorine) 440 Edsep(Fluorine)
EdHX2(Methane) Edsep(Methane)
EdHX2(Air) 400
90 EdHX2(Nitrogen) Edsep(Air)
EdHX2 (KJ/Kg)

360
Edval (KJ/Kg)

Edsep(Nitrogen)
75 320
60 280
240
45
200
30 160
120
15
80
0
300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 300 330 360 390 420 450 480
To(Compressor.outlet.Temp)(K) To(Compressor.outlet.Temp)(K)
Figure 29: Variation in exergy destruction in HX2 with the Figure 31: Variation in exergy destruction in valve with the
compressor outlet temperature compressor outlet temperature

121
 R.S. . Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 4 (2017), 111-125

68
21 EdHX2,%(Nitrogen) EdHX2,%(Fluorine)
66 20 EdHX2,%(Argon)
Edcomp,%(Air)
19 EdHX2,%(Air) EdHX2,%(Oxygen) EdHX2,%(Methane)
64 Edcomp,%(Nitrogen) 18
62 Edcomp,%(Methane) 17
Edcomp,%(Argon) 16
60 15
58 Edcomp,%(Oxygen) 14
Edcomp,%(Fluorine) 13

EdHX2,%
56
Edcomp,%

12
54 11
10
52 9
50 8
7
48 6
46 5
4
44 3
42 2
1
40 0
300 330 360 390 420 450 480 300 330 360 390 420 450 480
To(Compressor.outlet.Temp)(K) To(Compressor.outlet.Temp)(K)
Figure 32: Variation in percentage exergy destruction in ompressor Figure 34: Variation in percentage exergy destruction in HX2 with
with the compressor outlet temperature the compressor outlet temperature

24 Fig.13 and fig.15 shows the exergy destruction rate of

EdHX1,%(Nitrogen) EdHX1,%(Fluorine) separator with the cycle pressure ratio of 40 to 220. It has been
22 seen that methane has the highest rate of exergy destruction in
EdHX1,%(Air) EdHX1,%(Oxygen) separator, which decreases from 163.9kJ/kg to 63.86kJ/kg
20 followed by oxygen, fluorine and argon. While air and nitrogen
EdHX1,%(Argon)
having the slightly increasing trend of exergy destruction rate
18 EdHX1,%(Methane) with the lowest value in separator among other gases.
Fig.16 illustrates the percentage exergy destruction in
16
compressor with cycle pressure ratio of 40 to 220. It has been
observed that methane has the highest percentage exergy
14
destruction rate and nitrogen having the least value of exergy
EdHX1,%

12
destruction rate, which is around 49.98% to 90% and 49.09%
to 66.19%, respectively. On the other hand, fig.17
10 demonstrates the percentage exergy destruction in HX1 with
the cycle pressure ratio as described above. Nitrogen having
8 the highest and methane has the lowest percentage of exergy
destruction rate, i.e., around 21.22% to 20.44% and 8.772% to
6 2.307%, respectively. Furthermore, the variations in
percentage exergy destruction in the HX2 with cycle pressure
4 ratio of 40 to 220 as shown in Fig.18. It has been noticed that
air has the highest percentage of exergy destruction, which is
2 changing from 18.28% to 4.163%. While methane and argon
have the minimum percentage of exergy destruction rate, i.e.,
0 varies from 2.193% to 4.228% and 5.074% to 2.588%. Fig.19
300 330 360 390 420 450 480 shows that methane has the highest variations in percentage of
To(Compressor.outlet.Temp)(K) exergy destruction rate in valve, which is found to be 11.49%
Figure 33: Variation in percentage exergy destruction in HX1 with at cycle pressure ratio of 80. Moreover, fig.20 illustrates that
the compressor outlet temperature fluorine and oxygen have comparatively highest percentage of

122
 R.S. . Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 4 (2017), 111-125

exergy destruction rate in separator among the other gases,

which varies from 31.88% to 19.23% and 34.2% to 15.98%, 45 Edsep,%(Methane) Edsep,%(Argon) Edsep,%(Air)
respectively. Also, fig.21 shows the variations in the COP and 42 Edsep,%(oxygen) Edsep,%(Fluorine) Edsep,%(Nitrogen)
second law efficiency with respect to compressor outlet
temperature of 300K to 480K. It has been noticed that fluorine 39
shows the highest value of COP and second law efficiency i.e., 36
1.447 to 1.296 and 2.889% to 0.4946%, respectively. Fig.22
shows the variations in the liquefaction mass flow rate with 33
respect to compressor outlet temperature of 300K to 480K. It 30
has been observed that methane has the highest value of
27

Edsep,%
liquefaction mass flow rate among the other gases i.e.,
0.02952kg to 0.00753kg. Fig.23 demonstrates the variations in 24
net work done with respect to compressor outlet temperature
of 300K to 480K. It has been seen that methane shows the 21
highest value of net work done among the other gases, which 18
is increasing from 549.9kW to 909.4kW. Alternatively, argon
having the minimum value of net workdone, i.e., increasing 15
from 226kW to 367.2kW. Fig.24 shows the variations in NTU 12
of HX1 with the compressor oulet temperature. The trend of
this graph is first slightly decreasing and then increasing
9
suddenly. It has been seen that methane has the highest NTU 6
in HX1 among the other gases, i.e., 5.222 at 480K. On the other
hand, Fig.25 illustrates the variations in NTU of HX2 with the
3
compressor outlet temperature. It has been analyzed that 0
methane has the maximum NTU in HX2, i.e., 4.75 at 300K 300 330 360 390 420 450 480
and, graph is continuously decreasing. Fig.26 demonstrates the To(Compressor.outlet.Temp)(K)
variations in specific heat of the hot fluid in HX1 and it has Figure 35: Variation in in exergy destruction in separator with the
been observed that methane has the highest value of specific compressor outlet temperature
heat among the other gases, which is increases from
2.493kJ/kg-K to 2.895kJ/kg-K. While all other gases show 2.6
slightly decreasing trend of specific heat of hot fluid in HX1.
Edval,%(Fluorine) Edval,%(Oxygen) Edval,%(Argon)
Alternatively, Fig.26 shows the variations in specific heat of 2.4
hot fluid in HX2 with compressor outlet temperature. Again
methane has the highest value of specific heat of hot fluid 2.2 Edval,%(Methane) Edval,%(Air)
among other gases, i.e., 4.468 kJ/kg-K at 300K, and it is Edval,%(Nitrogen)
decreasing continuously. Fig.26 indicates the variations in
2
exergy destruction rate variations with the compressor outlet 1.8
temperature. It has been analyzed that methane has the highest
rate of exergy destruction rate among the others i.e. 937.7kW 1.6
Edval,%

at 480K. Fig. 33 shows the variations in exergy destruction rate

in HX1 with the compressor outlet temperature and it has been 1.4
observed that nitrogen has the highest rate of exergy
destruction rate i.e. 148.4kW at 300K. Fig.27 shows the
1.2
variations in exergy destruction rate in HX2 with the 1
compressor outlet temperature and it has been observed that
nitrogen has the highest rate of exergy destruction rate i.e., 0.8
139.9kW at 480K. Fig.28 shows the variations in exergy
destruction rate in valve with the compressor outlet 0.6
temperature and it has been observed that air has the again 0.4
highest rate of exergy destruction rate i.e., 19.13kW at 300K.
Fig.29 shows the variations in exergy destruction rate in 0.2
separator with the compressor outlet temperature and it has
been observed that methane has the highest rate of exergy 0
destruction rate i.e., 566.8kW at 480K. In addition, Fig.30 300 330 360 390 420 450 480
shows the variations in percentage exergy destruction rate in To(Compressor.outlet.Temp)(K)
compressor with the compressor outlet temperature and it has Figure 36: Variation in in exergy destruction in valve with the
been observed that air has the highest rate of exergy destruction compressor outlet temperature
rate i.e., 63.61% at 300K.

123
 R.S. . Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 4 (2017), 111-125

2.2 COPoxygen COP argon COP methane 8 570

2.1 COPNitrogen COP Air COP Fluorine 7.5 540
h2nd,%oxygen h2nd,% Methane 7

Wnet (Net work done)(KJ/Kg)

2 510
h2nd,%Argon 6.5 Wnet(Argon)
h2nd,% Fluorine

h2nd,%Nitrogen 480 Wnet(Air)

1.9 h2nd,%Air 6
5.5 450 Wnet(Methane)
1.8

h 2nd, %
5 420 Wnet(Oxygen)
COP

1.7 Wnet(Fluorine)
4.5 390
1.6 4 360 Wnet(Nitrogen)
1.5 3.5
330
3
1.4 300
2.5
1.3 2 270
1.5 240
1.2
1 210
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Ratio of Compressor Flow Through Expander (r) Ratio of Compressor Flow Through Expander (r)
Figure 37: Variation in COP and second law efficiency with the Figure 39: Variation in net work done with the ratio of compressor
ratio of compressor flow through expander flow through expander

Fig.30 shows the variations in percentage exergy destruction

mf(Oxygen) rate in HX1 with the compressor outlet temperature and it has
0.036 been observed that nitrogen has the again highest rate of exergy
mf(Fluorine) destruction rate i.e., 21.22% at 300K. Fig.31 illustrates the
0.032 mf(Argon) variations in percentage exergy destruction rate in HX2 with
the compressor outlet temperature and it has been observed
mf(Liquefaction rate)(kg/s)

0.028 mf(Nitrogen) that nitrogen has the highest rate of exergy destruction rate i.e.,
17.71% at 300K. Fig.32 illustrates the variations in percentage
mf(Methane) exergy destruction rate in separator with the compressor outlet
0.024 temperature and it has been observed that methane has the
mf(Air) highest rate of exergy destruction rate i.e., 38.36% at 300K.
0.02 Fig.33 indicates the variations in percentage exergy
destruction rate in valve with the compressor outlet
temperature and it has been observed that air has the highest
0.016 rate of exergy destruction rate i.e., 19.13% at 480K. Fig.34
illustrates variations in COP and second law efficiency with
0.012 respect to ratio of compressor flow through expander. It has
been seen that methane has the highest COP and second law
efficiency among other gases i.e., 1.723 at 0.8 and 7.344% at
0.008 0.1, respectively. Fig.35 shows the variations in mass
liquefaction rate with respect to ratio of compressor flow ratio
0.004 and it has been analyzed that methane has the highest mass
liquefaction rate i.e. 0.03795 at 0.1 and it is decreasing
continuously, i.e. 0.008433 at 0.8 followed by other considered
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 gases. Last but not the least, fig. 39 shows the variations in net
Ratio of Compressor Flow Through Expander (r) work done with respect to the ratio of compressor flow ratio. It
Figure 38: Variation in liquefaction mass flow with the ratio of has been observed that methane has the highest net work done
compressor flow through expander among other gases, which is exactly 557.6kW at 0.1
compressor flow ratio and argon shows the least value of net

124
 R.S. . Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 4 (2017), 111-125

work done i.e. 227.4kW at the same compressor flow ratio of

0.1.

5. Conclusions

Exergy analysis of Haylent system and its component with

different gasses help in determine the best thermodynamic
performance parameters for each given gas liquefaction
process. Various performance parameters have been studied
with increasing pressure ratio. Following points are concluded
from the present investigation
(1) COP and Second law efficiency of system is degrading at
high pressure for all gasses.
(2) The optimum performance pressure ratio range for system
is140-160 bar.
(3) Among all six gases methane gas liquefaction process
required more attention.
(4) Gas of the liquefaction is very important factor in
determine the most exergy destructions causing
component of Haylent system.

References

[1] R. Agrawal, D.W. Woodward, Efficient cryogenic nitrogen

generators: An exergy analysis, Gas Separation & Purification,
Volume 5, Issue 3, September 1991, Pages 139-150
[2] Yasuki Kansha, Akira Kishimoto, Tsuguhiko Nakagawa,
Atsushi Tsutsumi, A novel cryogenic air separation process
based on self-heat recuperation, Separation and Purification
Technology, Volume 77, Issue 3, 4 March 2011, Pages 389-396
[3] Gadhiraju Venkatarathnam , “Simulation of cryogenic
processes” , Cryogenic Mixed Refrigerant Processes
,International Cryogenics Monograph Series 2008, , Pages 51-63
[4] R.L. Cornelissen, G.G. Hirs, Exergy analysis of cryogenic air
separation, Energy Conversion and Management, Volume 39,
Issues 16–18, November–December 1998, Pages 1821-1826,.

125