Metal Pall Ring vs Metal Intalox Saddle (IMTP): Which Random Packing Should You Select?

Metal Pall Ring and Metal Intalox Saddle are both high-void metal random packings, but their geometries create different balances between surface area, free volume, bed weight and packing factor. DAIER's catalog data show that at directly comparable 25 and 50 mm classes, Metal Pall Ring provides slightly higher specific surface area, while Metal Intalox Saddle provides slightly higher free volume, lower bulk density and lower dry packing factor.

The practical engineering question is therefore:

Does the tower benefit more from the familiar open cylindrical Pall Ring geometry, or from the saddle-type geometry and lighter, more open bed position of Metal Intalox Saddle?

Neither product is universally superior.

---

1. Direct Answer

Choose Metal Pall Ring more readily when:

• the tower already uses Pall Rings successfully;
• like-for-like replacement is preferred;
• standardization and procurement familiarity matter;
• slightly higher geometric surface area is useful;
• there is no real hydraulic reason to change packing family.

Evaluate Metal Intalox Saddle / IMTP more strongly when:

• lower packed-bed weight is useful;
• high free volume is attractive;
• hydraulic margin is a stronger project constraint;
• a new tower allows packing geometry to be optimized;
• an existing Pall Ring tower is undergoing a deliberate performance retrofit.

The correct choice should solve an actual tower constraint—not follow a product-name hierarchy.

---

2. How Are the Two Geometries Different?

Metal Pall Ring

Metal Pall Ring retains a cylindrical ring body but adds:

• large wall openings;
• inward-formed metal tabs;
• additional internal contacting surfaces.

This gives it a much more open structure than a simple cylindrical ring.

Metal Intalox Saddle

DAIER's catalog labels this family:

Metal Intalox Saddle IMTP

and lists sizes from approximately 15 to 70 mm.

Its geometry is saddle-like rather than cylindrical, producing:

• curved metal surfaces;
• irregular random orientation;
• different gas and liquid pathways.

Therefore:

Pall Ring and Intalox Saddle cannot be treated as the same packing with a different external shape.

---

3. DAIER Catalog Data

DAIER's Metal Pall Ring series includes approximately 6–89 mm sizes, while Metal Intalox Saddle includes approximately 15–70 mm classes.

For comparison, the most useful overlapping or near-overlapping classes are:

 

The 38/40 and 76/70 comparisons are near-size-class comparisons, not exact dimensional equivalents.

That distinction matters.

---

4. 25 mm: Pall Ring Has Slightly More Surface Area

At the directly matched 25 mm class:

Metal Pall Ring

• 212 m²/m³ surface area;
• 96.2% free volume;
• 288 kg/m³ bulk density;
• 229.8 m⁻¹ packing factor.

Metal Intalox Saddle

• 199 m²/m³ surface area;
• 96.6% free volume;
• 266 kg/m³ bulk density;
• 221.0 m⁻¹ packing factor. 

The differences are not enormous, but they are meaningful.

Pall Ring provides:

more geometric area

while Intalox Saddle provides:

• slightly more free volume;
• lower bed weight;
• slightly lower packing factor.

---

5. What Does the 25 mm Comparison Actually Mean?

It does not mean that one product dominates the other.

The 25 mm data describe a genuine trade-off:

Pall Ring → Area-Oriented

versus:

Intalox Saddle → Slightly More Open / Slightly Lighter

For a clean service where hydraulic margin is comfortable, the Pall Ring's additional geometric area may be useful.

For a tower with tighter hydraulic or structural constraints, the Intalox Saddle deserves stronger screening.

---

6. 50 mm Gives a Clearer Hydraulic Difference

At 50 mm:

Metal Pall Ring

• 106 m²/m³ surface area;
• 97.5% free volume;
• 185 kg/m³ bulk density;
• 6,500 pcs/m³;
• 128.5 m⁻¹ packing factor.

Metal Intalox Saddle

• 97 m²/m³ surface area;
• 97.9% free volume;
• 169 kg/m³ bulk density;
• 15,550 pcs/m³;
• 103.9 m⁻¹ packing factor. 

Here the trade-off becomes clearer.

Pall Ring still provides slightly more geometric area.

Intalox Saddle provides:

• higher free volume;
• lower bulk density;
• substantially lower catalog packing factor.

---

7. Why the 50 mm Comparison Is Important

The surface-area difference is relatively modest:

106 vs 97 m²/m³

while packing factor changes from:

128.5 → 103.9 m⁻¹.

So where a tower is genuinely constrained by:

• gas/vapor capacity;
• pressure-drop margin;

50 mm Intalox Saddle may deserve stronger hydraulic evaluation.

But actual pressure drop still requires process data.

---

8. Lower Packing Factor Does Not Equal the Same Percentage Lower Pressure Drop

This boundary is critical.

You cannot calculate:

103.9 / 128.5

and claim the operating tower pressure drop will decrease by the same percentage.

Actual ΔP depends on:

• gas/vapor velocity;
• gas density;
• liquid load;
• liquid properties;
• packed height.

Packing factor describes the packing geometry and supports hydraulic correlations.

It is not an operating pressure-drop guarantee.

---

9. 38 mm Pall vs 40 mm Intalox Shows Why Simple Rules Fail

Now look at the approximate mid-size comparison.

38 mm Pall Ring

• 145 m²/m³;
• 96.7% free volume;
• 246 kg/m³;
• 151.7 m⁻¹ packing factor.

40 mm Intalox Saddle

• 151 m²/m³;
• 97.4% free volume;
• 203 kg/m³;
• 163.2 m⁻¹ packing factor. 

Here the Intalox Saddle has:

• slightly higher surface area;
• higher free volume;
• lower bulk density;

but its published packing factor is also:

slightly higher.

That is extremely useful engineering evidence.

---

10. Why You Should Never Publish “Intalox Saddle Always Has Lower Packing Factor”

Because DAIER's own verified 38/40 mm-class data do not support that universal statement.

The correct wording is:

At some matched sizes, such as 25 and 50 mm, Metal Intalox Saddle has a lower catalog packing factor than Metal Pall Ring. However, packing-factor ranking is product- and size-specific and should be checked from exact supplier data.

That is far more reliable than a generic marketing claim.

---

11. Packing Count Is Also Surprisingly Different

At 25 mm:

• Pall Ring — 53,500 pcs/m³;
• Intalox Saddle — 127,180 pcs/m³.

At 50 mm:

• Pall Ring — 6,500 pcs/m³;
• Intalox Saddle — 15,550 pcs/m³. 

So Intalox Saddle contains many more individual pieces per cubic meter.

Yet it can still provide:

• higher free volume;
• lower bulk density.

This shows why:

packing count alone is not a measure of bed openness.

Individual element geometry and metal content matter.

---

12. Which Has Higher Surface Area?

There is no single answer across the entire product family.

Exact 25 mm

Pall Ring higher:

212 vs 199 m²/m³.

Approximate 38/40 mm class

Intalox slightly higher:

151 vs 145 m²/m³.

Exact 50 mm

Pall Ring higher:

106 vs 97 m²/m³.

Therefore:

Do not publish “Pall Ring always has more surface area” or “Intalox always has more surface area.”

Exact model matters.

---

13. Which Has Higher Free Volume?

In the useful comparison classes, Intalox Saddle generally has slightly higher catalog free volume:

• 25 mm: 96.6% vs 96.2%;
• 40/38 mm: 97.4% vs 96.7%;
• 50 mm: 97.9% vs 97.5%;
• 70/76 mm: 98.7% vs 97.4%. 

This gives Intalox Saddle a strong:

high-free-volume product position.

But small percentage differences in voidage do not determine the entire hydraulic result.

---

14. Which Has Lower Bulk Density?

Metal Intalox Saddle is lighter in all of these useful comparison classes.

25 mm

Pall:

288 kg/m³

Intalox:

266 kg/m³

38/40 mm

246 vs 203 kg/m³

50 mm

185 vs 169 kg/m³

76/70 mm

265 vs 106 kg/m³.

The large-size comparison is especially dramatic, although 70 and 76 mm are not exact equivalents.

---

15. Why Packed-Bed Weight Matters

A lower dry bulk density can reduce:

• packing-support loading;
• total dry tower load;
• installation handling weight;
• freight weight.

For deep beds or large tower diameters, the difference can become substantial.

However:

bed weight is not a process-performance metric.

A lighter packing still needs to achieve the required:

• mass transfer;
• hydraulic stability;
• mechanical integrity.

---

16. Which Is Better for High Gas or Vapor Throughput?

Metal Intalox Saddle may deserve stronger preliminary screening because its catalog data show:

• high free volume;
• lower bed density;
• lower packing factor in several important size classes.

But the correct wording is:

Intalox Saddle may offer a stronger hydraulic position.

Not:

Intalox Saddle always has more capacity.

Actual capacity depends on tower operating conditions.

---

17. Which Is Better for Mass Transfer?

Neither product name determines this by itself.

Mass-transfer performance depends on:

• effective wetted area;
• gas-liquid loading;
• fluid properties;
• distributor quality;
• packed height.

Catalog geometric surface areas are often close in the directly comparable sizes.

For example:

25 mm

212 vs 199 m²/m³.

50 mm

106 vs 97 m²/m³.

This suggests the final selection should not be based on geometric area alone.

---

18. Which Is Better for Fouling?

Neither packing is universally non-fouling.

Fouling depends on:

• solids;
• crystals;
• polymerization;
• sticky contaminants;
• corrosion products.

Intalox Saddle's high free volume may make it worth evaluating where bed openness matters.

But complex saddle geometry can still accumulate deposits.

Large Pall Rings can also provide an open bed.

Therefore:

identify the fouling mechanism first, then compare actual packing size and geometry.

---

19. Severe Fouling May Make Both the Wrong Choice

If the process contains substantial:

• crystallization;
• solids;
• sticky deposits;

the correct answer may not be:

Pall Ring or Intalox Saddle?

A more open:

• random packing;
• grid packing;
• tower configuration

may be required.

A high-quality product matrix should know when neither candidate is ideal.

---

20. Which Is Better for Distillation?

For suitable random-packed distillation:

Metal Pall Ring

may be attractive when:

• conventional random packing is sufficient;
• existing tower performance is proven;
• standardization matters.

Metal Intalox Saddle

may deserve stronger consideration when:

• hydraulic margin is tighter;
• lower bed weight or greater free volume is useful.

However, very demanding:

• vacuum;
• high-efficiency;
• very-low-ΔP

distillation may favor structured packing instead.

---

21. Which Is Better for Absorption?

For an absorber, both can provide useful gas-liquid contacting.

Selection depends on:

• gas rate;
• liquid rate;
• removal duty;
• tower diameter;
• fouling;
• pressure-drop allowance.

Pall Ring may retain a small geometric-area advantage in some sizes.

Intalox Saddle may offer a stronger open-bed position.

Neither should be selected from one catalog parameter.

---

22. Which Is Better for Stripping?

Stripping service can involve substantial gas or vapor flow.

This can increase the importance of:

• free volume;
• hydraulic resistance.

That may move Intalox Saddle higher in the candidate list.

But the required stripping duty still depends on sufficient mass transfer.

Therefore:

hydraulic openness and contacting capability must be solved together.

---

23. Existing Pall Ring Tower: Should You Change to Intalox Saddle?

Only if there is a reason.

Potential reasons include:

• excessive pressure drop;
• desired throughput increase;
• support-load concern;
• deliberate packed-bed optimization.

If the existing Pall Ring tower:

• already meets duty;
• has acceptable pressure drop;
• only needs replacement packing;

then staying with Pall Ring may be the lower-risk decision.

---

24. Existing Intalox Saddle Tower: Should You Change to Pall Ring?

Again, not automatically.

Pall Ring might provide:

• slightly more surface area in some matched sizes.

But the change can also:

• increase packed-bed weight;
• reduce free volume;
• change packing factor.

Therefore:

Intalox → Pall is also an engineering retrofit, not a simple purchasing substitution.

---

25. Same Nominal Size Does Not Mean Same Physical Element

At 25 mm:

Pall Ring

25 × 25 × 0.4 mm.

Intalox Saddle

25.9 × 12.6 × 0.4 mm.

Their commercial class is similar.

Their actual geometry is not.

Therefore:

“25 mm metal random packing” is not a complete technical specification.

The packing family must be identified.

---

26. The 40 mm Intalox Saddle Naming Issue

DAIER's catalog calls the class:

1.5" (40 mm)

but lists an actual element dimension of approximately:

35.4 × 18.8 × 0.4 mm.

This illustrates another procurement lesson:

Commercial size class and actual physical dimensions are not always identical.

Always confirm the supplier's actual product drawing or data table.

---

27. Tower Diameter Can Change the Selection

Packing size must remain reasonable relative to tower internal diameter.

Large:

• 50;
• 60;
• 70+ mm

packing may be useful in larger towers.

But in a narrow tower:

• wall effects;
• low number of elements across the cross-section

can become significant.

Therefore:

Pall vs Intalox should always be evaluated together with the selected size and tower diameter.

---

28. Do Not Assume the Same Packed Height During Retrofit

Changing packing family changes:

• geometric area;
• random orientation;
• hydraulic behavior.

Therefore:

same tower + same bed height + different packing geometry does not guarantee the same process duty.

A retrofit should review:

• process requirement;
• hydraulic margin;
• packed height.

---

29. Support Grid Compatibility

The existing support grid should be checked for:

• smallest packing dimension;
• retention opening;
• bed load;
• open area.

Intalox Saddle can have a much smaller element height than the nominal Pall Ring diameter.

Therefore an existing Pall Ring support should not automatically be assumed suitable for every Intalox Saddle model.

---

30. Hold-Down Compatibility

Random packing may require restraint at high gas velocities.

The hold-down device should:

• restrain movement;
• remain compatible with the selected packing.

It should not:

• compress the bed.

A major geometry or size change should include a top-restraint review.

---

31. Alloy Selection Is Independent

Both Pall Ring and Intalox Saddle can be manufactured in suitable metal materials depending on project capability and specification.

The alloy decision answers:

Can the metal survive the process chemistry?

The geometry decision answers:

How should the bed balance mass transfer and hydraulics?

Do not select:

• SS304;
• SS316L;
• another alloy

based merely on whether the product is a Pall Ring or saddle.

---

32. Pall Ring vs Intalox Saddle Decision Table

 

---

33. Quick Selection Guide

Choose Metal Pall Ring more readily when:

• existing Pall Ring performance is proven;
• replacement should minimize change;
• slightly higher geometric area is useful;
• hydraulic margin is sufficient.

Evaluate Metal Intalox Saddle more strongly when:

• higher free volume matters;
• lower bed weight is valuable;
• hydraulic margin is constrained;
• a new tower or retrofit allows geometry review.

Do not choose either solely from:

• surface area;
• void fraction;
• packing factor;
• product name.

The entire process duty matters.

---

34. What Information Should Be Included in an RFQ?

Provide:

• Metal Pall Ring or Metal Intalox Saddle if known;
• preferred size;
• tower ID;
• packed height;
• metal grade;
• gas/vapor composition;
• liquid composition;
• flow rates;
• pressure;
• temperature;
• required process duty;
• allowable pressure drop;
• fouling conditions.

For retrofits also provide:

• current packing;
• current size;
• support-grid details;
• hold-down arrangement;
• current operating problem.

Ask the supplier to confirm:

• actual dimensions;
• thickness;
• surface area;
• free volume;
• bulk density;
• packing count;
• dry packing factor.

---

Common Selection Mistakes

Assuming Intalox Saddle Always Has Lower Packing Factor

The 38/40 mm-class DAIER data show the opposite ranking.

Assuming Pall Ring Always Has Higher Surface Area

The 40 mm Intalox model slightly exceeds the 38 mm Pall Ring in the nearby size class.

Comparing 38 mm Pall Ring and 40 mm Intalox as Exact Equivalents

They are only approximate dimensional-class comparisons.

Assuming Higher Free Volume Guarantees Lower Pressure Drop

Operating gas and liquid conditions are still required.

Ignoring Packed-Bed Weight

Intalox Saddle is lighter in the principal comparison classes.

Assuming More Pieces Means a More Restrictive Bed

Intalox Saddle can have many more elements yet still have higher free volume.

Changing Packing Family Without Reviewing Bed Height

Process performance may change.

Ignoring Support-Grid Retention

Actual element dimensions differ significantly.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main difference between Metal Pall Ring and Metal Intalox Saddle?

Pall Ring uses an open cylindrical ring geometry, while Metal Intalox Saddle uses a saddle-type geometry that changes free volume, packed-bed weight, element population and packing factor.

Which has more surface area at 25 mm?

Approximately:

• Metal Pall Ring — 212 m²/m³;
• Metal Intalox Saddle — 199 m²/m³. 

Which has higher free volume at 25 mm?

• Pall Ring — 96.2%;
• Intalox Saddle — 96.6%.

Which is lighter at 25 mm?

• Pall Ring — 288 kg/m³;
• Intalox Saddle — 266 kg/m³.

What is the 50 mm comparison?

Approximately:

• Pall Ring — 106 m²/m³, 97.5% free volume, 185 kg/m³, 128.5 m⁻¹;
• Intalox Saddle — 97 m²/m³, 97.9% free volume, 169 kg/m³, 103.9 m⁻¹. 

Does Intalox Saddle always have lower packing factor?

No. DAIER's nearby 38 mm Pall / 40 mm Intalox data show approximately 151.7 versus 163.2 m⁻¹.

Does that mean Pall Ring is hydraulically better at that size?

Not necessarily. The sizes and geometries are not exact equivalents, and real hydraulic performance depends on operating flow conditions.

Is Metal Intalox Saddle always lighter?

In the catalog comparison classes used here, its bulk density is lower, but final supplier-specific data should always be confirmed.

Can I directly replace Pall Ring with Intalox Saddle?

Do not treat it as a like-for-like replacement. Geometry, element dimensions, bed weight and hydraulic characteristics change.

Which should I select for a new tower?

Pall Ring remains a strong standard candidate; Intalox Saddle deserves stronger screening where high free volume, lower bed weight or hydraulic margin are important. Final selection requires actual process conditions.

---

Selection Takeaway

Metal Pall Ring vs Metal Intalox Saddle is not a simple “old ring vs advanced saddle” decision. The verified data show a more nuanced trade-off.

At 25 mm:

Pall Ring → 212 m²/m³ / 96.2% free volume / 288 kg/m³ / 229.8 m⁻¹

versus:

Intalox Saddle → 199 m²/m³ / 96.6% free volume / 266 kg/m³ / 221.0 m⁻¹.

At 50 mm:

Pall Ring → 106 m²/m³ / 97.5% / 185 kg/m³ / 128.5 m⁻¹

versus:

Intalox Saddle → 97 m²/m³ / 97.9% / 169 kg/m³ / 103.9 m⁻¹.

But the near 38/40 mm comparison proves why no universal rule should be published:

38 mm Pall Ring → 151.7 m⁻¹

while:

40 mm Intalox Saddle → 163.2 m⁻¹.

Therefore the correct selection logic is:

Existing Proven Pall Ring Tower → Pall Ring Remains the Lowest-Change Option

while:

Hydraulic / Bed-Weight Constraint or New-Tower Optimization → Metal Intalox Saddle Deserves Strong Evaluation

The key principle is:

Compare the exact supplier model, not the product-family reputation. Surface area, free volume, bulk density and packing factor must be interpreted together with the real tower operating conditions.