Intraject - Improved chemical injection & mixing

Why?

Why do you need optimized injection nozzles?

Standard pipe junctions provide for very poor mixing.
Most injection quills are not optimized for each application. Typical results are only slightly better than pipe junction.
Learn about how your processes will perform or how they are currently performing.
May reduce or eliminate need for additional equipment and engineering to achieve necessary mixing.
Simplify process design

Single Intraject Optimized Injector - Example

Greater than 98% mixing efficiency

Orange - Injected Chemical Blue - Process Fluid

Chemical injected into process pipe. Rendered with Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software.

Vs. Standard Tee Pipe Junction

Almost always will result in very poor mixing.
The injected stream will typically stay along the wall of the pipe on the side where it was injected.
Example has 0% mixing efficiency

Vs. Standard Injection Quill

Performance is very sensitive to process conditions
Guesstimates on injection velocities and penetration depths can lead to performance that will be only slightly better than a standard pipe junction.
Requires proper analysis from Intraject for optimum performance.
Example below of standard injection quill.
Only 18% mixing efficiency achieved.

Cross-sectional view of mixing 9 feet downstream of injection point showing poor mixing.

Vs. Static Mixer

Causes pressure drop / energy losses resulting in increased energy costs (see later section for more).
May not provide adequate mixing by itself.
Typically an off-the-shelf solution which creates a big question mark about how it will work in your exact application.
Baffles can be damaged or worn, reducing performance.
May not be necessary.
Intraject can replicate mixing quality of most static mixers with our advanced injectors.

Deep Dive vs. helical style static mixer

The mixer elements shown below are your standard helical style with ever other element being reverse direction. We will analyze this style mixer to see how well it functions.

In the CFD flow profile results shown below, you can see the injected chemical (yellow) is mixed into the main process fluid (blue) as it enters the mixer. The mixer causes the fluid flow to swirl while splitting the flow and changing the swirling direction at each. Causing the entire flow to swirl to flow like this and changing that swirl direction at each mixer element requires energy, which represent itself as a pressure drop and resulting increased energy costs.

The resulting mixing efficiency measured 8 ft downstream of the chemical injection point for this particular example is calculated at being 96.1%. We can achieve greater mixing efficiency from an Intraject single non-protruding injector. The image below is the calculated concentration of the injected chemical at a cross section of the pipe at the point of measurement.

How much is your static mixer really costing you?

In addition to the upfront cost, static mixers operate by obstructing and changing the flow pattern of the entire pipe flow. The energy required to do this is represented by a pressure drop along the static mixer. Your pump has to use more energy to create more pressure to counteract this loss.

If you have a continuously running process, this energy loss adds up to some serious money. For example, with an 8psi pressure drop in a 2500 gpm flow assuming 90% motor efficiency 60% pump efficiency (pretty normal) and electricity price of $0.12 kW-hr, you are spending an extra $16,459 per year in additional electricity due to the static mixer!

Vs. Dynamic Mixer

Dynamic mixers can achieve high mixing quality but require significant upfront costs and operating costs.
Electrical feed, significant piping rework.
Excellent mixing capabilities but may not be necessary for application.
Limited product availability for larger pipe sizes and higher flows.
Additional expense of a mixer, foundation, motor, and various instruments and wiring for control and electricity and all associated engineering, programming, etc. to design and install the system.
Ongoing cost for maintaining rotating equipment.
Not necessary for many applications

Vs. Mixing Tank

Requires a lot of additional space
Major expenses for additional expense of a tank, foundation, mechanical mixer, and various instruments and wiring for control electricity and all associated engineering, programming, etc. to design and install the system.
Not necessary for many applications