Cell-Room Design

  • Thomas F. O’Brien
  • Tilak V. Bommaraju
  • Fumio Hine
Chapter

Abstract

In their design and construction, electrochemical plants differ from ordinary chemical plants in several ways:
  1. 1

    by the major importance of electrical supply and its conversion to direct current;

     
  2. 2

    by the fact that the electrolyzers and the fluids they contain are parts of electrical circuits;

     
  3. 3

    by the unique considerations that apply to the electrolysis area.

     

Keywords

Power Factor Current Efficiency Alternate Current Personal Protective Equipment Fiber Reinforce Plastic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    D.E. Bihary, Safety in Cellroom Design, 39th Chlorine Institute Plant Operations Seminar, Washington, DC (1996).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    W.H. Davis, Open Cell Room Operations, 24th Chlorine Institute Plant Operations Seminar, Houston, TX(1981).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Oliva, The Return of DeNora to Diaphragm Cell Technology with Glanor®. In Proceedings, Oronzio de Nora Symposium on Chlorine Technology, Venice (1979), p. 279.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.H. Nichols, Ventilation in Mercury Cell Rooms, 8th Chlorine Institute Plant Operations Seminar, New York, NY (1963).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.A. Heilala, Controlling Mercury Exposure, 32nd Chlorine Institute Plant Operations Seminar, Houston, TX (1989).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G.F. Gissel, Waste Water Minimization at the Vulcan Port Edwards Chlor-Alkali Facility, 39th Chlorine Institute Plant Operations Seminar, Washington, DC (1996).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Standard for Electrical Safety in Electrolytic Cell Line Working Zones, Standard No. 463, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, NY (1977).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Electrical Safety in Chlor-Alkali Cell Facilities, Pamphlet 139, Edition 3, The Chlorine Institute, Inc., Washington, DC (1998).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gravity Ventilation Systems, http://www.westerncanwell.com, Western Canwell, Denison, TX (2002).
  10. 10.
    D.L. Beeman, ed., Industrial Power Systems Handbook, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY (1955).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    W.H. Dickinson, AIEE Trans. (App. Ind.), Part II 81, 132, July (1962).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J.M. Lucas, Personal Communication (2002).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Cameron, Trends in Power Factor Correction with Harmonic Filtering, http://www.udgroup.com, Universal Dynamics Ltd., Vancouver (2001).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Recommended Practice for Harmonic Control in Electrical Power Systems, IEEE 519, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, NY (1992).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P.C. Buddingh, Even Harmonic Resonance-An Unusual Problem, IEEE Paper No. PCIC 2002-11 (2002).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A.G. Forster, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 1A-11(6), 716 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Y. Tominaga, T. Kanke, K. Takagai, and T. Miyazaki, Design, Installation and Operation of Ion-Exchange Membrane Chlor-Alkali Process. In N.M. Prout and J.S. Moorhouse (eds), Modern Chlor-Alkali Technology, vol. 4, Elsevier Applied Science, London (1990), p. 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    J.E. Harker, Catalytic International, Inc., Personal Communication (ca. 1978).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    W.H. McAdams, Heat Transmission, 4th ed, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York (1954), pp. 170–174.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    L.J. Istas, Aluminum Intercell Bus: A Case History, 19th Chlorine Institute Plant Operations Seminar, Montreal (1976).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    F. Hine, J. Electrochem. Soc. 117, 139 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    L.J. Updyke, Development of Energy Models for Chlorine Plants, 28th Chlorine Institute Plant Operations Seminar, Houston, TX (1985).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    P.W. Masding and N.D. Browning, A Dynamic Model of a Mercury Chlorine Cell. In J. Moorhouse (ed.), Modern Chlor-Alkali Technology, vol. 8, Blackwell Science, Oxford (2001), p. 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. Ullman, Cost Saving in Chlorine Plants by Benefitting from the Unique Properties of Titanium. In J. Moorhouse (ed.), Modern Chlor-Alkali Technology, vol. 8, Blackwell Science, Oxford (2001), p. 282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Influence of Hot/Wet Chlorine on FRP Performance, Bulletin, Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC (1986).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    R.C. Talbot, FRP Usage in the Chlorine Industry, Bulletin No. 1704, Ashland Chemical Co., Columbus, OH (1988).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Standard Specification for Reinforced Plastic Laminates for Self-Supporting Structures for Use in a Chemical Environment, Standard C-582, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA (1984).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    W. Pechenik, Catalytic, Inc., Personal Communication (ca. 1980).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    D.J. Sankey, M. Isaacs, and A. Gaines, Chem. Processing, p. 96, February issue (1981).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    E. Conroy and M. Cameron, Advances in Anode Monitoring, http://www.udgroup.com, Universal Dynamics, Ltd., Vancouver (2001).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    I.F. White, G. J. Dibble, J.E. Harker, and T.F. O’Brien, Safety Considerations in the Design of Chlor-Alkali Plants. In K. Wall (ed.), Modern Chlor-Alkali Technology, vol. 3, Ellis Horwood, Chichester (1986), p. 97.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    NFPA 70E, Standard for the Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Work Places, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA (1995).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    CF. Dalziel, IRE Trans. Med. Electron. PGME-5(7), 44 (1956).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Electromagnetic Fields in Chlorine Electrolyses: Effects on Health and Recommended Limits, Health 3, 1st ed, Euro Chlor, Brussels (2001).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    J.L. Marsh, Health Effects of Occupational Exposure to Steady Magnetic Fields, University of Michigan Dissertation, Ann Arbor, MI (1980).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    R. Park, Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000), pp. 140 et seq. Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    R.F. Adams, Static Electromagnetic Fields in Chlor-Alkali Plants, 34th Chlorine Institute Plant Operations Seminar, Washington, DC (1991).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Interaction of Static and Extremely Low Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields with Living Systems: Health Effects and Research Needs, World Health Organization, Geneva (1998).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), Health Phys. 66(1), 100 (1994).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    L. Bärregard, G. Sällsten, and B. Jarvholm, Brit. J. Ind. Med. 47, 99 (1990).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    On the Limitation of Exposure of the General Public to Electromagnetic Fields, European Council Recommendation 519/CE, Brussels (1999).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), Health Phys. 74(4), 494 (1998).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Board Statement on Restrictions on Human Exposure to Static and Time-Varying Electromagnetic Fields and Radiation, National Radiological Protection Board (UK), Chilton, Oxon (1999).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Emergency Response Planning Guidelines, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Akron, OH (1988).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas F. O’Brien
    • 1
  • Tilak V. Bommaraju
    • 2
  • Fumio Hine
    • 3
  1. 1.Independent Consultant MediaUSA
  2. 2.Independent Consultant Grand IslandNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Nagoya Institute of TechnologyNagoyaJapan

Personalised recommendations