Packing performance, random structural

Structured packings are produced by a number of manufacturers. The basic construction and performance of the various proprietary types available are similar. They are available in metal, plastics and stoneware. The advantage of structured packings over random packing is their low HETP (typically less than 0.5 m) and low pressure drop (around 100 Pa/m). They are being increasingly used in the following applications ... 

Performance in hi Hxessure/higMiquid-flow services. The ctq>acily and efficiency advantage of structured packings over random packii rapidly erodes as liquid rate or pressure increases (e.g., Fig. 8.12a). Numerous cases of structured pa ng failures have been eaq)erien< d 1 the industry in h -pressure and/or high-liquid rate services. Successful e q>eriences in such services have also been reported (24, 31a, 31c, 31d, 31e). 

The still column is generally packed with random packing (structured packing can also be used for larger units) with one or two equivalent theoretical stages. One reflux coil is attached at the top section of the column, and the rich glycol from the contactor is used to condense some vapor in the column. This is done to generate some reflux for the proper performance of the column. 

In addition, Chen" gives typical performance data for trays, random packing, and structured packing in Table 11. 

Chen [133] highlights the long-term growth of the technically popular use of bubble cap trays, valve and sieve trays, followed by the increased popularity of packed columns accompanied by the development of random and structured packings. There are some applications in chemical/ petrochemical/petroleum/gas treating processes where one type of contacting device performs better and is more economical than others. Chen [133] points out ... 

There is a general trend toward structured packings and monoliths, particularly in demanding applications such as automotive catalytic converters. In principle, the steady-state performance of such reactors can be modeled using Equations (9.1) and (9.3). However, the parameter estimates in Figures 9.1 and 9.2 and Equations (9.6)-(9.7) were developed for random packings, and even the boundary condition of Equation (9.4) may be inappropriate for monoliths or structured packings. Also, at least for automotive catalytic converters. 

In the case of vancomycin [72], an original study was performed to obtain a well-defined stationary phase structure, since it was reasonably assumed that the antibiotic is randomly linked to the silica by one or both of its amino groups, one belonging to the disaccharide portion (primary), and the other one to the heptapeptide core (secondary). Thus, alternate fluorenylmethyloxycarbonyl (FMOC)-amino-protected derivatives were prepared and immobilized in a packed column, and then vancomycin was recovered by cleavage of the protecting groups. The two defined CSPs obtained, when compared with the CSP produced from native randomly linked vancomycin, showed lower retention and enantioselectivity, also if they still separated the same compounds. Thus, no advantages could be found to choose these phases as an alternative to the native vancomycin CSP. 

Filaments about 0.12 mm in diameter were obtained from unfractionated high-density polyethylene (Mi] = 8.0 x 104) by a melt-spinning at 220 ° C with a draft ratio of about 17. They were next stretched at 100 °C in polyethylene glycol with a molecular weight of 380—400 to different draw ratios, which are defined as the ratios of the drawn length to the original. NMR spectroscopy was carried out for the drawn filaments randomly packed into a glass tube 18 mm diameter. The three-component analysis of the spectrum at different temperatures was performed the results are discussed in relation to the phase structure of samples. 

Experiments were also performed to compare the holdup and flow distribution in a bed, randomly packed with 3 mm spherical alumina particle, under the same flow conditions as was done for structured packing. However, it was evident that the successful operating conditions for structured packing were too severe for random packed bed, due to very high pressure drop. For very low liquid velocity ( 1 mm/s) and no gas flow, when the experiment was possible, the liquid distribution was poor as indicated by a low uniformity factor ( 40%). However, this information is insufficient to compare the distribution characteristics of structured and random packings. 

Under defined conditions, the toughness is also driven by the content and spatial distribution of the -nucleating agent. The increase in fracture resistance is more pronounced in PP homopolymers than in random or rubber-modified copolymers. In the case of sequential copolymers, the molecular architecture inhibits a maximization of the amount of the /1-phase in heterophasic systems, the rubber phase mainly controls the fracture behavior. The performance of -nucleated grades has been explained in terms of smaller spherulitic size, lower packing density and favorable lamellar arrangement of the /3-modification (towards the cross-hatched structure of the non-nucleated resin) which induce a higher mobility of both crystalline and amorphous phases. 

Structured packings have replaced trays and random packings as their cost has decreased and more is known of their performance behavior. Initially thought to be appropriate only for high vacuum distillations, they are now used for absorbers, strippers, and pressure distillations. Because of their open structure (over 90% voids) and large specific surface areas, their mass transfer efficiency is high when proper distribution of liquid and gas over the cross section can be maintained. Table 13.15 shows a comparison of features of several commercial makes of structured packings. 

---