Page 223 - Packed bed columns for absorption, desorption, rectification and direct heat transfer

213

300

200
1

« 100 -"1
eo • RSR No.0,8 PP
• Ralu-Flow No.1 PP
60
6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200
L h .rrf/fnfih)

Fig. 26. Comparison of the effective surface of plastic RSR No 0.6 and Ralu-Flow No 1 PP versus
liquid superficial velocity.

For the second two packings they are 206.3 and 177 m /m respectively.
In the first case the effective surface area of RSR is about 8 % higher for all
liquid superficial velocities. In the second, at low liquid superficial velocities, it
is about 11% higher, and at high values of L up to 11% lower. Because the
comparable packings have not exactly the same values of the specific surface, it
is difficult to tell which packing form is more proper to obtain higher effective
surface.
The comparisons of the investigated packings show also that the
pressure drop of IMTP 40 is higher with 3S% and more than those of RSR No
0.7 and RSR No 1. The specific surface area of IMTP 40 is between these of the
two RSR packings used for comparison. Similar results are obtained by the
comparison between the packings IMTP 50 and RSR 1.5.
The comparison of the pressure drop of the plastic packings Ralu-Flow
No 2 PP and RSR No 2 PP, which have close specific surfaces, shows that the
pressure drop of the Ralu-Flow is between 23 and 40 % lower (under the
loading point) than this of the corresponding RSR. Over the loading point the
difference is bigger.
A comparison of all investigated metal packings with all plastic ones
shows, as expected, that at the same specific surface and liquid superficial
velocity, the metal packing has greater effective surface area and lower pressure
drop.