The role of surface renewal and feedback phenomena in
devolatilization equipment is clearly illustrated via staged
models. A continuous model for the vented, single-screw de-
volatilizer is developed, including barrel evaporation and bulk
surface renewal as well as backmixing, which represents de-
volatilization data more accurately than previous models.
Numerous sample computations are included. The models are
used to demonstrate the sensitivity of devolatilization equip-
ment to certain design parameters.
INTRODUCTION
irtually all polymerization products require a post-
V reactor separation process, in which unreacted
monomer or diluent (solvent or water) is removed. Since
in most cases the unwanted components are volatile
relative to molten polymer, they are removed by vac-
uum stripping at elevated temperatures. Reactor dis-
charges generally contain volatile component in
amounts ofparts per hundred and often require purifica-
tion to the order of parts per million. When large
amounts of volatile are present, interfacial mass transfer
occurs by bubble transport under vacuum until rising
viscosities cause the bubbles to “freeze”. At low concen-
trations molecular diffusion is the sole transport mecha-
nism available. Consequently, there are at least two
regimes in the stripping process, one involving gross
purification of reactor effluent and the other ultimate
purification to exacting specifications. As expected, in-
terfacial transport via bubbles occurs more rapidly than
diffbsion.
The equipment used for the ultimate separation proc-
ess, which is frequently called devolatilization, ranges
from vented extruders to specially designed vessels with
large interfacial areas and with scraping and mixing
capabilities to generate surface renewal. The objective
of this paper is to develop quantitative design models for
the devolatilization process in general which simulate its
fundamental characteristics, and for the single screw
extruder in particular. Several previous models have
been presented for the single screw devolatilizer (1-3).
In modelling the devolatilization process, film evap-
oration for effective mass transport and mixing for sur-
face renewal will be regarded as the two basic elements.
They will be treated individually in detail and sub-
sequently combined in different configurations to simu-
late specific processes. They are termed the “diffusing
film” (DF) and the “ideal mixer” (IM), respectively.
Throughout this paper it is assumed that steady-state
conditions and uniform temperatures and pressures
prevail, that resistance to mass transfer in the gas phase
POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, OCTOBER, 1980, Vol. 20, No. 15
is negligible and that density changes are negligible.
Changes in stream flow rates due to loss of volatile
component by evaporation are also neglected.
Before commencing, we define two useful quantities:
the fraction of extractable volatile component remaining
unextracted C, and the stage efficiency of the diffusing
film E,. If [c] is the flow-average concentration of volatile
component in the effluent stream leavinga devolatilizer,
and c, is the uniform volatile concentration entering it,
then
c^ = ([c] - c,)/(c, - c,) (1)
where c, (small value) is the concentration of volatile
component in the liquid phase which is in equilibrium
with the contiguous vapor phase. A material balance for
volatile component yields
E = QAC, - [ c ] ) (2)
where E is the evaporation rate of volatile component
and fTf is the volumetric flow rate of the evaporating
molten polymer film. From equilibrium considerations
the largest attainable value for 8 is
Em,, = fqc, - c,) (3)
Thus, we can define a stage efficiency
0 5 E
..
E ~ EIEmaz 5 1
(4)
which permits us to write
E = Q~EXC,- c,) (5)
in lieu of E 9 I , and for a single-stage devolatilizer we
have
C=l-Ef (6)
THE DIFFUSING FILM
Consider a liquid polymer film with surface area Sf =
wl and depth h, shown in Fig. 1, moving a steady,
rigid-body .motion in the x direction with volumetric
flow rate Vf, and losing solute by evaporation in the
y-direction at a rate 8. If transport in the y direction
1015
 Joseph A . Biesenberger

transfer (see Ch. 5 of Ref. (5)).It is customary practice to

f+L-
F i g . 1 . Diffusing film(DF).
occurs by molecular diffusion alone, and if dispersion in
the x direction and changes in fir due to loss of volatile
are both neglected, we can develop an expression for E
which takes the form of E 9 5 , where c, is the liquid
concentration at the interface (y = 0) and E f is a function
E f ( A f / h D of
) the ratio of characteristic times A,/&,. Here
A, is the exposure time of the film.
A, = hSjfi,
AD is the characteristic time for diffusion
AD = h2/D
and D is the molecular diffusivity of volatile solute in
liquid polymer. It can be shown that when the criterion
A j A D I0 . 1
is satisfied the infinite film model applies, for which
function EXAjAD) is (4)
E, = [(4/?~)(hjA~)]'/~
but when
AjAD > 0.1
the finite film model must be used, for which (4)
E, = 1 - ( 8 / r 2 )exp[-.rr2/4)(A,fhD)]
A graph of EXAjA,) over the entire range of useful
values of AdAD, encompassing both Eqs 10 and 12, is
shown in Fig. 2 . Thus, to determine the stage efficiency,
E,, we first estimate the quotient
AjAD = A,=D/h2= Aj-D(SjVf)2
and then either substitute the result into the appropriate
equation ( E 9 10 or 12) or utilize Fig. 2 .
The infinite film model is frequently used by chemical
engineers in the penetration theory of interfacial mass
E,
define an effective mass transfer coefficient k by writing
the transport flux in terms of a difference between the
bulk concentration and the equilibrium concentration
E / S f = k(c, - c,) (14)
By comparing this expression with E 9 5 , we obtain
k = ~(D/TA,)'~~ (15)
with the aid o f E q s 7 , 8 , a n d l o . This result is well-known
(5) and has previously been applied to polymer de-
volatilization (1-3).However, since its applicability is
restricted to infinite films ( A j A D 5 0. l),we shall use E q s
5 , 10 and 12, which are general, in lieu ofEys 14 and 15
to express stage evaporation rate. It is noteworthy that
stage efficiency E , increases with rising values of char-
acteristic exposure time A, as seen from E 9 10 (or
E 9 12),whereas E decreases according to E q s 14 andl.5.
(7) The latter reflects the fact that E is determined by the
concentration gradient at the interface (dcldy),,,, which
is larger for short times Af than for long ones.
(8)
SURFACE RENEWAL
Owing to depletion of volatile component near the
liquid surface of the diffusing film (DF)as it moves in the
(9) x direction, and the concomitant decrease in concentra-
tion gradient (dcldy),,, to which the diffusion flux is
proportional, it is desirable to renew the film surface
periodically with fresh volatile component from below.
(10) This may be accomplished by feeding the film, after
exposure time A,, into an ideal mixer (IM) which
homogenizes the solution. The concentration emerging
(11) from the mixer is spatially uniform and equal to the
flow-average concentration of the film which feeds it.
Such a solution could be spread into a second film for
evaporation, which would then have a uniform concen-
(12) tration profile in the y direction at the entrance, and
could subsequently be fed into a second mixer for sur-
face renewal, and so on.
The j t h stage of an N stage cascade of such DF-IM
pairs in series is illustrated in Fig. 3. A material balance
for volatile component on thejth stage with the aid ofEq
(13) 5.
17$j-1 - 17,cj = E = VfEfj(cj-l - c,) (16)
yields a first-order difference equation, with constant
coefficients
cj - (1 - EJcj-1 = E~c? (17)
providing that all stage efficiencies are equal, i.e., when
E f j = const Ef for all j, 1 Ij 5 N . When, in addition,
values of AD are identical for all stages and the residence
t'

STAGE J
Xf/io = De
5R
F i g . 2 . Stuge efficiency. F i g . 3. Surface reneic;al.

1016 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, OCTOBER, 1980, Vol. 20, No. 15
 Polymer Devolatilization: Theory of Equipment

time of the I M is negligible, it follows that total film Tj

exposure time
N
Af Afi
j= 1

is just equal to
A, = NAf (19)
where Af is the exposure time per stage. The solution of
Eq 17 with initial condition cj = c, for j = 0 , when
written for the Nth stage, is

This result replaces Eq 6 for an N-stage devolatilizer

with intermittent surface renewal (SR). It should be
noted that the symbol for flow-average concentration [c] D E V O L A T 1 ~ 1 7 l h t GE X T R U D R Z
has been omitted from Eqs 16,17, and 20 owing to the Fig. 4 . Deuolatilizing extruder.
presence of the mixers.
The beneficial affect of SR upon devolatilization may
be demonstrated by comparing values of c^ computed
from Eqs 6 and 20 for the same total exposure time Af,
i.e., bysubstitutingAf = AfintoEq6and AfINinto20for
specific values of $'AD and N . For example, when A j A D
= 0.1 and N = 10,c^ takes on values of 0.643 and 0.302 for
film evaporation without and with SR, respectively. IM
Consequently, the reduction in Ef resulting from small STAGE J
values of Af is more than compensated for by SR. FF
STAGED MODELS
When attempting to implement the intermittent sur-
I
face renewal steps discussed theoretically above, it is
common practice to split from the main polymer melt DF
stream a separate stream for film evaporation, owing to % .\i
the irnpracticality of creating a thin film from the entire
v
do t
bulk material. A real example is the vented, single- 'j-i I J cj
screw extruder in which a thin film is dragged with flow IM
STAGE J
rate \ifthrough the clearance (2h)between screw flight FB
and harrel wall away from the bulk material, which is Fig. 5. Staged models.
being conveyed by drag flow at a flow rate f7, and is
remixed with it after a time delay of Af during which
volatile material evaporates. Evidently two mechanisms and a similar balance on t h e j t h FB stage gives
are operative in the screw devolatilizer, since the bulk f7 ~ j - Ccj = E = f7fEfj(cj - c,)
- ~ (22)
surface also loses volatile component by evaporation
By assuming equal stage efficiencies Ef once again, and
during exposure time Ab with subsequent renewal from
below owing to circulatory flow and mixing within the
by making use of a film flow ratio defined as
bulk roll. These processes are shown schematically in f E e f7jf7 (23)
Fig. 4 and have been described in detail elsewhere (1-3).
The option of stream-splitting within the context of we obtain first-order difference equations with constant
staged modelling allows at least two alternative intra- coefficients
stage configurations among the D F and I M elements,
cj - (1 - ex)cj-, = exc, (24)
distinguishable from one another by the manner in
which the D F stream is reunited with the mainstream in and
the IM. Each configuration may, ofcourse, be intercon-
nected in series to give an N-stage cascade, the jth stage
cj - [l/(l+ ex)]cj-, = [ex/(l + ex)]c, (25)
ofwhich is illustrated inFig. 5 . The second configuration respectively, where
is termed feedback (FB), for obvious reasons; and the ex =fif
first feed forward (FF).
A material balance for volatile component on the jth is the stage extraction number. Thus, the remaining
FF stage gives extractable fraction in the effluent after N FF stages is
G c,-I - CC,= B = f7fEfJ(c,-1 - c,) (21) CN = [I - ex]" (27)

POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, OCTOBER, 1980, Vol. 20, No. 15 1017
 Joseph A. Biesenberger
and after N FB stages is
= [1/(1 + ex)]"
i?N (28)
Both stream-splitting and feedback have a detrimental
effect on devolatilization efficiency as we shall demon-
strate usingEqs20,27 and28. For the FF configuration
f is the feedforward fraction
O I f 5 l (29)
and when f = 1 E9 20 is a special case ofEq 27 with ex =
E f . When f < 1, a comparison of these equations for
equal values of E f shows that stream-splitting reduces i?
and thus devolatilization efficiency. But when f is di-
minished by simply reducing h the quantity tN remains
unchanged as long as film evaporation satisfies infinite
film conditions. This is so because under these condi-
tions the productfif, and therefore ex, is independent of
h. Only when the film becomes sufficiently thin as to
require finite film consideration is i?" reduced because
the decrease in f caused by diminishing values of h is not
offset by the increase in E f . This effect is small, however,
and the FF configuration is actually similar in behavior
to simple SR.
For the FB configuration, f is the feedback ratio
where
0 5 f < 30 (30)
This configuration appears to be an appropriate staged
representation of barrel film evaporation in an extruder
(see Fig. 4 ) , which clearly constitutes a feedback stream
for which values o f f > are possible. Such a stream
actually results in backmixing, a well-known, adverse
phenomenon in separation processes. By comparing
values of I?,, vs N computed from Eqs 27 and 28 for equal
values ofex, graphs ofwhich have been plotted inFig. 6,
it is apparent that feedback is detrimental. For instance,
1018
for identical values ofex, a larger value of N is required
by FB than FF to achieve a given separation as mea-
sured by i?". Alternatively, for identical values of E f and
N, a greater feedback ratio f is required for a given 2". It
is also evident that the inherent difference between FF
and FB configurations widens as Ef and N become large.
CONTINUOUS MODELS
The single-screw extruder, whose devolatilization
mechanisms have been illustrated in Fig. 4 , is sketched
in greater detail in Fig. 7. W e denote screw speed in
revolutions per unit time by NR, flight angle by 4,
channel width and depth by W a n d H , respectively, and
the fraction of the channel filled with flowing polymer
melt by g. LB and dB are barrel length and diameter,
respectively, and L is channel length measured along
the z direction. The film wiped on the barrel wall has a
thickness h.
It is evident that the extruder requires a continuous
rather than a staged model because film is continuously
wiped from and returned to the flowing bulk material,
which is also continuous. The exposure time of the
wiped film as it travels like a rigid body with the barrel
surface from flight clearance to mainstream is
Af = (1 - g)/NR (31)
and its total volumetric flow rate is rrdBhLBNR.It should
be pointed out that this volumetric flow rate refers to the
entire devolatilizer of barrel length,
LB = L sin4 (32)
rather than each "stage" of barrel length Az sin4 as did
the quantity efappearing in the staged models. In the
same way the counterpart off for the continuous model
is the feedback ratio for the entire devolatilizer
F = rrdBhLBNR/f7 (33)
The transverse component of the film velocity per-
pendicular to the channel direction z is
t ? =
~ TdBNR sin4 (34)
Furthermore, owing to the angle 4 and the nonzero
thickness gw of the mainstream, the returning film,
Fig. 7 . Unwrapped screw channel.
POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, OCTOBER, 1980, Vol. 20, No. 15
 Polymer Devolatilization: The0y of Equipment

instead of entering the bulk material at the point of its 2 =ZlL (45)
departure as in the feedback configuration, actually en-
ters at a distance
8 =6/L (46)
P, E (2/8)[1/F(l - E$
- l)] (47)
6 = rdgg C O S ~ (35)
Ex [FE,+ kJZWf']/[l - F(l - E$] (48)
upstream from its point of departure, measured along z.
Therefore superimposed upon the aforementioned Insignificant backmixing is indicated by large values of
feedback phenomenon, there exists an additional longitudinal Peclet number (P, >> 1). The extraction
backmixing effect, measured by 6. Finally, t h e number E x is a measure of overall separation efficiency
mainstream surface also loses volatile component by in contrast with the stage extraction number ex defined
evaporation during exposure time hb due to circulatory earlier.
flow and subsequent renewal from below caused by Second-order differential models have been proposed
mixing within the bulk material. According to Roberts earlier by Latinen (1) and Roberts (3). Certainly the
(3) presence of the term d2C^/d2' is consistent with our
= H/UT (36) knowledge that backmixing generally manifests itself as
a second derivative term in differential balance equa-
It is reasonable to express the local bulk evaporation rate tions. It is noteworthy that the effects of backmixing
over distance 2 in terms of penetration theory (1-3) disappear when E f + l(3) as well as when 8 + 0. While
kbHAZ[C(Z)- C,] (37) the solution ofEq 43 is readily available, the approxima-
tion P, >> 1 leads to a simpler, apparently adequate
where differential model of the devolatilizing single-screw ex-
kb = 2(D/Thb)'" (38) truder
in accordance with Eqs 14 and 15.
A steady-state material balance for volatile compo-
nent on an infinitesimal element of mainstream cross
section, neglecting diffusion mixing in the direction of with solution
flow as well as transverse concentration gradients and C^ = exp(-Ex) (50)
changes in volumetric flow rates, gives
where
0 < ~ c ( z-) C ( Z + Az)] + u,hAz[c'(z) - ( z ) ]
=:

convec. transport film evap. E x = FEf + kbs& (51)

+ k b H h z [ C ( Z ) - C,] (39)
bulk evap.
where c'(z) is the concentration of film re-entering the
mainstream at point z after having left it a distance 6
downstream. Next we connect c(z +
6 ) and c(z) via a
Taylor series expansion,
When applying either of the above continuous models E f
is computed via Eqs 10 or 12 depending upon the value
of
AjfA, = (1 - g)D/NRh2 (52)
F is computed from E q 33 and k b H L / $ from

c(z + 6) = c(z) + 6 - +-
I
::Ii dZ2* s2

2
d2c
kbSd3 = kbHL/$ = 2Lg[HdsNRD/sin4]"2/Q
(53)
Thus, FE,, and therefore E x , is again seen to be inde-
(40)
pendent of h when all other parameters remain con-
following Roberts (3), and neglecting higher order stant, as long as evaporation is confined to the film
terms, equate this result to Eq 1 in the form surface as required by the infinite film model.
Graphs of E q 50 for the special case E x = Nex have
C(Z + 6) = [ l / ( l - E ~ ) ] [ c ' ( z-) EF,]
(41) been included in Fig. 6 for comparison. They show that
and substitute the result into Eq 39 to eliminate c'(z). the continuous model lies between the staged FF and
After taking the limit as Az + 0 we obtain a differential FB models, Eqs 27 and 28, respectively, a result which is
material balance not surprising for intuitive reasons. In fact, substitution of
d2c dc
Ef)SZ/27
dz
+ [t+h(l - *
V] -
dz
ef = adBhNRAzsin4 = vThAz (54)
and En E f into Eqs 21 and 22 yields

which may be written in dimensionless form

d2C^ -ddi
-t
W e ) - E,t=O (43) Both results are finite difference approximation of the
differential equation
by taking advantage of the relationship
Q- dc
dz
= -Ef +h(C - c,)
F = UThL/$ (44)
and by defining the following dimensionless quantities: which is a special case d E q 42 for 6 = 0 = k b . Another

POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, OCTOBER, 1980. Vol. 20, No. 15 1019
 Joseph A . Biesenberger
way of arriving at the same conclusion is to observe that
the solution of E 9 56 in dimensionless form
c^ = exp(- FE,)
is a good approximation of the RHS ofboth Eqs27 and28
when f is small. From E 9 23 and .54 we see that f is
indeed small for the extruder model because fJf is of the
order of Az. From this we conclude that
E,r = Nex
and therefore that
F = Nf
for equal film efficiencies Ef. Figure 8 compares the
simple continuous model described by E 9 .57 with the
staged SR model, E9 20, for whichf = 1. It is apparent
from the figure that F is the continuous counterpart ofN,
as suggested by Eq 59, when Efis small (E,S 0.1). From
the diverging differences between the curves, the de-
trimental effects of feedback in the continuous de-
volatilizer ar? seen to grow with increasing stage ef-
ficiency E, as well as with feedback ratio F .
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the foregoing analysis a generalized
format for the theory of all devolatilizing equipment is
proposed. We define overall equipment efficiency as
follows:
IC
10
h by Coughlin and Canevari (2) with no barrel film evap-
C
Id
IC
IC
Fig. 8. Plots of ;. r , > j l mc.fficic,ncyforc.ontinuous (C) und stuged
J S R )models.
1020
EF=l- 2 (60)
It appears (E9s 20, 26-28, 50-51 ; that E F is in general a
(57) function
EF = F ( E , N) (61)
of stage efficiency E, and number of surface renewal
steps N , or the equivalent (e.g., F for vented extruders),
where the function F differs for different equipment
(58) design configuration (extruders, falling film evaporators,
etc.). Stage efficiency E, is in turn a function of film
surface-to-volume ratio SAV, and exposure time A, via
(59) D,,
E, = f(S,/V,>Af) = m e ) (62)
a dimensionless group defined here as the devolatiliza-
tion number,
D, = Ajh, (63)
which from simple penetration theory is
AAA, = (S,/V,)2AfD (64)
A customary method for testing the validity of con-
tinuous models of the single-screw devolatilizer has
been (1-3) to use separation data in the form o f t together
with extruder parameters NR,Lg, dB,g, H , 4, and h, and
to attempt to predict reasonable values for molecular
diffusivity D . This presumes of course that c, is
sufficiently low to preclude bubble transport. As long as
P , is large, E9s 10, 12, and SO-53 may be used to com-
pute D . When the value of AdA, is such that E, > 0.1, it is
not possible to solve these equations explicitly for D . A
trial and error or iterative procedure is then required
utilizing Eq 12 for finite film evaporation in lieu ofEq 1 0
where appropriate. Such computations have been done
numerically with the aid of a computer for values of h = 5
mils. They are labelled “exact” in the tables.
The equation developed in the previous section may
also be specialized to give those used in earlier studies to
compute D . Thus, when F + 0 it follows from Eqs 47 and
48 that P , + ~0 and E ,= k&ILN. This is the case treated
oration (h = 0 ) and concomitantly no backmixing of
either kind. From E9s 50, 51, and 53 we obtain for this
case
D = [-In 8c2]2 (65)
where
Furthermore, when Ef += 1it follows from Eq s 47 and 48
that P , -+ a and E, = F +k,HL/+. This is the case
treated by Roberts (3)without the detrimental effects of
backmixing owing to small values of h and therefore
perfectly efficient barrel film evaporation. From Eqs 50,
51, and .53 we obtain for this case
D = [(-ln c^ - F ) / c ~ ] ~ (67)
Finally, when E, is small enough for infinite film
evaporation (Ad), I0.1) and P , is large because of
small values of 6, we obtain from E9s .50, 51, and 53
D = [-In 2/c, + c2)12 (68)
POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, OCTOBER, 1980, Vol. 20, No. 15
 Polymer Devolatilization: Theoy of Equipment

where or by observing that ratio AAAD is large and in most cases

exceeds the value 1.5 above which Efis very close to
c1 2LBdB[(1 - g)NR]”’/f7 (69)
unity as illustrated in Fig. 2 .
Values for separation data and extruder parameters
reported by Coughlin and Canevari are listed in Table 1 However, from E q s 33, SO, and .51 it is evident that
and computed quantities required by E q s 66-69 in Table the computation of D is sensitive to LB; in fact, a 3-fold
2 . It is noteworthy that acombination ofthe largest values increase in LB leads to an order-of-magnitude decrease
of8 and F together with E f = 0 give, via E q 4 7 , a value in in D . Furthermore, LB is one of the least accurately
excess of 100 for the smallest possible P,. This signifies known experimental quantities, b e s i d e 2 and g
that the simplest continuous model, E q SO, is applicable (Coughlin and Canevari estimated g from shape factor
to interpretation of the data. graphs). In fact, as noted by Roberts, the effective value
Following Roberts (3) a value of 5 mils has been as- of LBcould have been considerably larger than believed
sumed for h. Diffusivities estimated via Eqs 65 and 67, owing to penetration of vacuum well beyond the extrac-
labelled D, and DR, respectively, in Table 3 , agree with tion section of the extruder. On the other hand, the
values reported by Coughlin and Canevari and Roberts. computation of D is insensitive to h, as noted earlier,
As noted by Roberts, while his values (DR) are smaller unless infinite film evaporation (A,fAD I0.1) does not
than those of Coughlin and Canevari ( D J , they are still prevail, as in Roberts’ calculations of D,. where the
too large to represent molecular diffusivities under the opposite extreme of complete separation (E, = 1) was
prevailing experimental conditions and they fluctuate assumed.
over too wide a range. The origin of these fluctuations, In light of these observations, Deractwas recalculated
manifested by E y 67, could be Roberts’ assumption E, = for h = 5 mils as before, but using 3LB in lieu of the
I, which causes the diffusivity being evaluated to appear reported values. An approximate version DaPPrOS was
only in the bulk evaporation term, a relatively minor also computed from E q s 66, 68, and 69. Both sets of
contributor to evaporation. Nevertheless, this assump- values are listed in Table 3. As expected, values for
tion appears to be justified with respect to all the other diffusivity were obtained, which are significantly lower
numerical values used in his model. This may be seen in than DR on the average, and therefore more acceptable
Table 3 by comparing DR with the “exact” values Dpsact, as molecular diffusivities. The fluctuations among them
also appear to have diminished. Examination of the close
agreement between Drrucfand Dal)prosor the low values
Table 1. of ratio A j A D reveals that the assumption of infinite film
evaporation appears to be valid in most of these cases.
Extruder Volumetric
Sep’n Parameters* throu,ghput The use of 3LB in the above computations for the
data, NR LB ds H V length of the effective devolatilizing section is certainly
Case c (RPM) (in.) (in.) g (in.) (in.‘/min)
open to question. It does however seem plausible to take
1 0.32 40 17.5 3.5 0.41 0.437 96.1 this value as an upper limit, if it is assumed that the
2 0.53 80 17.5 3.5 0.40 0.437 186 overall LB/dBratio was 28 for the extruder in Ref. (2),
3 0.51 120 17.5 3.5 0.39 0.437 259 described only as being “of commercial size”, and if
4 0.58 120 22.5 4.5 0.20 0.5~ 274
5 0.39 75 22.5 4.5 0.27 0.50 222 conservative allowance is made for the length of meter-
6 0.13 30 22.5 4.5 0.27 0.75 125 ing and pumping sections. It must also be remembered
7 0.244 60 22.5 4.5 0.24 0.75 212 that efficiency E, for the extended devolatilizing section
8 0.41 90 22.5 4.5 0.21 0.75 292
9 0.0016 45 22.5 4.5 0.156 0.50 61.5
cannot be as large as that for the designated one owing to
10 0.0005 90 22.5 4.5 0.103 0.50 61.5 larger values of channel fill g.
11 0.0013 60 22.5 4.5 0.129 0.50 61.5
12 0.0028 47.5 22.5 4.5 0.152 0.50 82 It should be pointed out that neglecting transverse
concentration gradients in the continuous model is tan-
-4 = 17.6P.
tamount to assuming ideal mixing, which is certainly
questionable. Such mixing does, however, serve to
Table 2 renew the evaporating surface. The mechanism ofbarrel
- film evaporation is also controversial and even if such a
Case s CI c2 F film does exist it might not be completely scraped off and
1 0.075 11 5.2 0.40 removed with fresh melt during each screw revolution.
2 0.073 8.1 3.8 0.41
3 0.071 7.2 3.3 0.45
In conclusion, it appears imperative that more
4 0.036 13 4.9 0.70 single-screw devolatilization experiments be conducted
5 0.049 12 4.8 0.54 with carefully measured parameters and variables,
6 0.049 13 6.6 0.38 especially LEIg, h, and 2.Such experiments and compu-
7 0.044 11 5.5 0.45
8 0.038 10 4.9 0.49 tations are planned for the near future.
9 0.028 11 13 1.2
10 0.019 53 19 2.3
On the matter of staged devolatilizers, a new polymer
11 0.023 42 16 1.6 processor named the DISKPACK (6, 7) has recently
12 0.028 28 10 0.93 come to the attention of the author. Its potential mecha-
h = 5 mils nism for devolatilization appears to be identical to the

POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, OCTOBER, 1980, Vol. 20, No. 15 1021
 Joseph A. Biesenberger

Table 3

h(mils) 0 5 5 5 5
LB(in.) - LB LB 3LB 3LB
Case D C DR D,,,,, W h Dapprox D,,,,, hdb

1 4.9x lo-’ 2.0x lo-’ 2.0x lo-’ 11.8 5.5 x 10-* 5.6x 10-4 0.33
2 2.8x 10-’ 3.4x 10-3 4.0 x 10-3 1.2 3.2 x 10-4 3.2 x 10-4 0.096
3 4.1 x 10-’ 4.7x 10-3 5.6 x 10-3 0.73 4.6x 10-4 4.6 x 10-4 0.094
4 1.2x lo-’ 9.5x 10-4 9.4 x 10-4 0.25 1.1 x 10-* 1.2 x 10-4 0.032
5 3.9 x lo-’ 8.2 x lW3 7.1 x 10-3 2.8 3.5 x 1r4 3.6x 10-4 0.14
6 9.6x 117’ 6.4x lo-’ 6.3 x lo-’ 61 1.2 x 10-3 2.1 x 10-3 2.0
7 6.6x lo-’ 3.1 X 10-’ 3.0x lo-’ 15 7.8x 10-4 8.0x lt4 0.41
8 3.3x lo-’ 6.8x 6.7x 10-3 2.4 3.8x lW4 3.8x 10-4 0.13
9 2.3 X lo-‘ 1.6 x lo-’ 1.3 X lo-’ 98 7.5 x 10-3 3.8x 10-3 2.9
10 1.6x 1Cr’ 7.7 x 4.9 x 20 1.3x 10-3 9.6x 10-~ 0.38
11 1.8x 10-’ 1.1 x lo-’ 8.6x lo-’ 50 1.5x 10-3 1.6 x 10-3 0.93
12 3.3x lo-‘ 2.3X lo-’ 2.0x lo-’ 142 2.6x 10-3 8.3x 10-3 5.9
Units of D are in.Ymin.

SR model sketched in Fig. 3. If so, it is devoid of REFERENCES

streamsplitting and backmixing and might therefore be
quite efficient.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported in part by a grant from the
Farrel Company. The author also wishes to thank Mr.
David Wagner of Farrel for performing the digital com-
putations to evaluate Desact and Professor Zehev Tad-
mor for assistance in evaluating the appropriateness of
using 3LB in place of LB as the effective devolatilization
zone in conventional extruders.
1. G. Latinen, ACS Adu. Chem. Series, 34,235 (1962).
2. R. W. Coughlin and G . P. Canevari,AZChE I., 15, 560(1969).
3. G. W. Roberts, AZChE I., 16,878 (1970).
4. J: Crank, “Mathematics of Diffusion,” 2nd. Ed., Clarendon
Press, Oxford(1975).
5. R. Treybal, “Mass Transfer Operations,” 2nd Ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York (1968).
6. Z. Tadmor, P. Hold, and L. Valsamis, “The DISKPACK
Polymer Processor; A Novel Polymer Processing Machine,”
39th SPE ANTEC, New Orleans (1979).
7. P. Hold, Z. Tadmor, and L. Valsamis, “Applications and De-
sign of the DISKPACK Polymer Processor,” 39th SPE AN-
TEC, New Orleans (1979).

1022 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, OCTOBER, 1980, Vol. 20, No. 15