Packings Ralu-Flow

The comparison of the pressure drop of the pl ic packings Ralu-Flow No 2 PP and RSR No 2 PP, which have close speci surl s, shows that the pressure drop of the Ralu-Flow is between 23 and 40 % lower (und the loading point) than this of the coiTesponding RSR. Over the loading point the difference is bigger. 

Figure 3-27. Resistance coefficient i]/ as function of Reynolds number of vapour or gas Rev, valid for random Ralu Flow packing size 2, made of plastic - (pp = 0.604 for Eq. (3-26)...

Figures 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14 and 5-15 show the spread of the experimental pressure drop data for various random packings Pall, Bialecki and Hiflow rings, Mc-Pac and Envipac, VSP rings, Hackette, Top-Pak, Ralu-Flow, Ralu rings, Intalox saddles, Raschig rings, SR-Pak, R-Pak, Nor-Pac at al. as well as for structured packings.

Figure 5-12. Relative deviation S(Ap/H) of experimental data for determination of pressure drop (Ap/H)exp up to flooding point acc. to Eqs. (5-9) and (5-10), valid for saddle packing made of plastic and ceramic, for plastic Ralu rings and Ralu-Flow and for metal Super rings by Raschig. No. of system see Table 2-2. Test conditions see Table 5-la-c...

The comparison between die effective surface of plastic RSR and Ralu-Flow paokinp with close specific areas, is presented in Fig. 25 (for RSR No 2PP and Ralu-Flow No 2 PP) and Fig. 26 (for RSR No 0.6 and Ralu-Flow No 1 PP). The specific surface areas for the first two packings are 117.2 for RSR and 98.4 m /m for the Ralu-Flow. 

In Fig. 13A a comparison of the pressure drop of plastic Ralu-Flow and plastic Pall-Ring [17] is presented. The loading limits of the same packings are compared in Fig. 14A. 

Fig. 14A.Comparison of loading limits for Ralu-Flow No 1 and No 2 to 25 and SO mm Pall-Rings [17]. Hie geometaical characteristics of die compart packings are given in Table lA.

Figure 3-8. Influence of column diameter ds on single-phase flow pressure drop Apo/H, valid for (a) sheet-metal packing produced by Montz type BI-300 [15], (b) sheet-metal packing type Ralu-Pak 250 YC, produced by Raschig [15], (c) sheet-metal packing type Mellapak 250 Y, produced by Sulzer [18, A, 25], (d) schematic representation of the installation of structured packings in columns with small and large diameter...

The comparison of the inlet pressure of the two packings Montz-pak (Fig. 67) and Ralu-pak (Fig. 66) indicates considerable difference between their dry pr ute drops. With a correction for the difference in the superficial velocities of tiie compared profiles, it can be seen that the pressure drop of Ralu-pak is almost 30% lower. The explanation of this difference is the more vertically orientated flow due to completely porous channel walls (Fig. 6S). 

---