Nozzle type check valves are often employed in compressor stations in three locations: compressor outlet, station discharge, and station bypass. The fundamental design concept of these valves is based on creating a converging diverging flow through the valve internal geometry such that a minimum area is achieved at a location corresponding to the back of the check valve disk at the fully open position. This will ensure maximum hydrodynamic force coefficient which allows the valve to be fully open with minimum flow. Spring forces and stiffness determine the performance of this type of check valves and impact the overall operation and integrity of the compressor station. This paper examines the effects of various spring characteristics and stiffness in relation to the compressor and station flow characteristics. The results show that when the spring forces are higher than the maximum hydrodynamic force at minimum flow, the disk will not be at the fully open position, which will give rise to disk fluttering and potential for cyclic high velocity impact between components of the internal valve assembly. This could lead to self destruction of the check valve and subsequent risk of damage to the compressor unit itself. The paper also points to the fact that the spring selection criteria for a unit check valve are different than that for station and bypass check valves. An example of a case study with actual field data from a high pressure ratio compressor station employing this type of check valves is presented to illustrate the associated dynamic phenomena and fluid-structure interaction within the internal assembly of the check valve.

References

1.
Botros
,
K. K.
,
Jones
,
J. B.
, and
Roorda
,
O.
, 1997, “
Effects of Compressibility on Flow Characteristics and Dynamics of Swing Check Valves - Part I
,”
ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol.
,
119
, pp.
192
198.
2.
Botros
,
K. K.
, and
Roorda
,
O.
, 1997, “
Effects of Compressibility on Flow Characteristics and Dynamics of Swing Check Valves - Part II
,”
ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol.
,
119
, pp.
199
206.
3.
http://www.flovel.com/brochure/brochure3.pdfhttp://www.flovel.com/brochure/brochure3.pdf, NON SLAM Nozzle Check Valve, by Flovel Valves Pvt. Ltd. 1201, GIDC, Vitthal Udyognagar-388 121, Anand, Gujarat, India, last viewed May 28, 2011.
4.
Sibilla
,
S.
, and
Gallati
,
M.
, 2008, “
Hydrodynamic Characterization of a Nozzle Check Valve by Numerical Simulation
,”
ASME J. Fluids Eng.
,
130
, pp.
121101.
5.
Thorley
,
A. R. D.
, 1984, “
The Dynamic Response of Check Valves
,”
Chemical Engineering
,
402
, pp.
12
15.
6.
Ellis
,
J.
, and
Mualla
,
W.
, 1986, “
Numerical Modelling of Reflux Valve Closure
,”
ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol.
,
108
, pp.
92
97.
7.
Hong
,
H.
,
Svoboda
,
J. V.
, and
Blach
,
A. E.
, 1985, “
Design Considerations for Wafer Type Check Valves for Nuclear and Power Plant Services
,”
International Conference on Developments in Valves & Actuators for Fluid Control
, Oxford, England, September 10–12, pp.
37
56.
8.
Provoost
,
G. A.
, 1980, “
The Dynamic Behaviour of Non-Return Valves
,”
3rd International Conference on Pressure Surges
, Canterbury, England, March 25–27, pp.
415
427.
9.
Provoost
,
G. A.
, 1983, “
A Critical Analysis to Determine Dynamic Characteristics of Non-Return Valves
,”
4th International Conference on Pressure Surges
,
University of Bath
,
England
, September 21–23, pp.
275
286.
10.
Koetzier
,
H.
,
Kruisbrink
,
A. C. H.
, and
Lavooij
,
C. S. W.
, 1986, “
Dynamic Behaviour of Large Non-Return Valves
,”
5th International Conference on Pressure Surges
,
Hannover
,
Germany
, September 22–24, pp.
237
243.
11.
Kruisbrink
,
A. C. H.
, 1988, “
Check Valve Closure Behaviour, Experimental Investigation and Simulation in Waterhammer Computer Programs
,”
2nd International Conference on Developments in Valves and Actuators for Fluid Control
,
Manchester
,
England
, March 28–30, pp.
281
300.
12.
Perko
,
H. D.
, 1986, “
Check Valve Dynamics in Pressure Transient Analysis
,”
5th International Conference on Pressure Surges
,
Hannover
,
Germany
, September 22–24, pp.
229
235.
13.
Lee
,
C. L.
,
Jocson
,
A. T.
, and
Hsu
,
S. T.
, 1992, “
On the Dynamic Performance of Large Check Valves
,”
Unsteady Flow and Fluid Transients Conference
,
Durham
,
U.K.
, pp.
365
369.
14.
Andrews
,
F.
, and
Carrick
,
H. B.
, 1983, “
Check Valves for Compressor Protection—A User View
,”
Proceedings of the 12th Turbomachinery Symposium
,
College Station
,
TX, U.S.A.
, November 15–17, pp.
45
52.
15.
Thorley
,
A. R. D.
, 1989, “
Check Valve Behaviour Under Transient Flow Conditions: A State of-the-Art Review
,”
ASME J. Fluids Eng.
,
111
, pp.
178
183.
16.
Electrical Producers Research Institute, Application Guidelines for Check Valves in Nuclear Power Plants, EPRI NP-5479, Final Report, January 1988.
17.
Kruisbrink
,
A. C. H.
and
Thorley
,
A. R. D.
, 1994, “
Dynamic Characteristics for Damped Check Valves
,”
2nd International Conference on Water Pipeline Systems
,
BHR Group Ltd.
,
Edinburgh, Scotland, U.K.
, May 24–26.
18.
Fluent v6.3.26, Fluent Inc.,
Lebanon
,
N.H.
, 2006, www.fluent.comwww.fluent.com.
19.
Roorda
,
O.
, 2009,
“Time for Check Up,”
World Pipelines
, February pp.
57
61
.
21.
http://www.premiervalves.co.za/Pdf%20downloads/Nozzle_CheckValves.pdfhttp://www.premiervalves.co.za/Pdf%20downloads/Nozzle_CheckValves.pdf, Nozzle Check Valve, DN50~DN2200, PN10, PN16 and PN25, by Premier Valves (Pty) Ltd, P.O. Box 11735, Randhart, South Africa, 1457, last viewed May 28, 2011.
24.
Mohitpour
,
M.
,
Botros
,
K. K.
, and
Van Hardeveld
,
T.
, 2008,
Pipeline Pumping and Compression Systems: A Practical Approach
,
ASME Press
,
New York
, Chap. 10.
25.
Botros
,
K. K.
, 2011,
“Single vs. Dual Recycle System Requirements in the Design of High Pressure Ratio, Low Inertia Centrifugal Compressor Stations,”
ASME Turbo Expo
,
Vancouver, B.C. Canada
, June 6–10.
You do not currently have access to this content.