Unloader Selection for

Reciprocating Compressors
Plug vs. Finger Design
by: John R. Metcalf, Engineering Manager

Compressor Tech2
March / April 1997

COOK MANLEY
A member of the

INTRODUCTION
Reciprocating compressor cylinders and their components have changed little over the years. With the
exception of new material development, a state of the art compressor cylinder design looks very much
like one that that was manufactured twenty years ago. One notable exception to this is the capacity
control mechanisms, which have been refined and redesigned regularly due to their problematic
nature. Unloading devices are an essential component in many reciprocating compressor designs and
are often the source of a great deal of the maintenance headaches that accompany any compressor.
They are primarily used to accomplish one or more of three tasks.
1. Reduce the load on the driver during start up.
2. Eliminate the compression of gas in one or more cylinder ends to reduce capacity.
3. Access a clearance pocket to reduce capacity.
Although cylinder bypass systems can be used to accomplish some of these tasks, the design of
reliable and efficient unloaders has been a critical aspect of compressor design from their inception.
There are four principal unloader configurations that have been commonly used over the years. They
are:

Port and Plug type. A hole in the cylinder, blank or active valve is used to access the inlet
passage, allowing the gas to recycle from cylinder to inlet passage instead of discharging.
Finger type. A depressor is used to hold the inlet valve elements open throughout the stroke to
access the inlet passage and eliminate compression in that end of the cylinder.
Valve Lifters. This device actually lifts the inlet valves from their seat in the cylinder, accessing
the inlet passage through the valve ports.
Infinite Step Control. This is a finger style unloader which depresses the inlet valve elements at
a predetermined crank angle to mechanically control the inlet volumetric efficiency and resulting
cylinder capacity.

Of these four arrangements, the two that are still prominently used are the plug/port and finger style.
The other two (valve lifters and infinite step) are eliminated from this discussion, as they have proven
to be difficult to maintain and are considered, by most, to be unreliable design options. As a result,
they are very rarely used unless very special circumstances are involved. In addition, this discussion
will focus on end unloading, rather than the access of clearance pocket volumes, which is inherently
more forgiving from a design standpoint.
The primary thrust of this discussion will be to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the
plug/port (hereto referred to as plug) and finger unloader designs in order to allow the end user to best
decide which design should be used for any given application. Naturally, there will always be
exceptions to any rule, but we should be able to set some good guidelines for the application of these
unloading devices.
It is important to stress that the remarks made in this article should be applicable to any plug and
finger unloader design, regardless of the manufacturer. It is not the purpose of this paper to
distinguish between different manufacturers designs but to summarize which type of unloader might
be best suited for a given compressor application or cylinder design.

BASIC DESIGN CONCEPTS

Figures 1 and 3 are pictures of a typical plug and finger unloader installed in a compressor cylinder.
Additionally, Figures 2 and 4 represent cross sectional drawings of each of these designs, respectively.
If the two drawings are compared, the unloading concepts of each become obvious.

OPEN POSITIO N

Figure 1

CLOSED POSITIO N

Figure 2

The plug style unloader (Figures 1 & 2) can be used with a partial valve (a standard valve with a hole
in the center for the plug - as shown in the illustrations), a donut (a blank valve with a hole in the
center for the plug) or with the seating surface machined directly in the cylinder. Typically, when this
type of unloader is used in conjunction with a valve, it is referred to as a plug unloader. When it is
used without an active valve (with a donut or seating directly on the cylinder) it is usually termed a
port unloader. As previously noted, we will avoid confusion by using the term plug unloader for all
of these scenarios.

LOADED POSITIO N

Figure 3

UNLOADED POSITIO N

Figure 4

The finger style unloader (Figures 3 & 4) is always used in conjunction with a standard single deck
valve. Rather than accessing the inlet passage through a hole, the inlet valve elements are depressed
and the passage is accessed through the valve in the reverse flow direction.
Although each of these designs accomplishes roughly the same task, they perform these duties in
dramatically different ways and their respective applications have distinctly different effects on
cylinder efficiency and reliability under both loaded and unloaded conditions. In the subsequent
sections, we will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each of these design philosophies. It is
not the purpose of this article to recommend one style unloader over an other but to provide some
solid engineering logic to procure an educated decision based on the merits of each and considering
the application at hand. When all of the conclusions are drawn, however, it will become clear that,
when they can be effectively applied (and this should be a majority of the time), plug unloaders offer
superior reliability and, in many cases, efficiency than finger unloaders.
The following sections will be divided into two principal areas; Efficiency and Reliability.
Although one can argue that each of these holds equal importance, there is no doubt that reliability is
the most important. As many wise compressor engineers have been over heard to say; the efficiency
of my unit is zero when it isnt running. Despite the obvious truth to this statement, efficiency is still
a very important aspect of design and needs to be considered. In the end, reliability and efficiency
must be effectively balanced in order to provide the performance required in most refinery,
petrochemical and injection/withdrawal applications.

Once we have covered these two areas, we will discuss one of the primary regions for confusion when
moving from plug to finger unloaders and visa versa. The Air to Load and Air to Unload
designations for each design are very important to understand. These sections will define which
classification is standard for each style and why.
The final section (Conclusions) will attempt to list, in tabular form, the primary benefits and
drawbacks of each design.

EFFICIENCY
UNLOADED CONDITION
The efficiency of an unloader is usually determined based on two issues. First, it must completely
unload the end in question. That is, the discharge valves must not open and all of the gas brought into
that end of the cylinder during the expansion stroke must simply cycle between the cylinder bore and
inlet passage. If this criteria is not met, all bets are off, as the primary goal of putting an unloader on
the cylinder to begin with has not been met. The second criteria is the brake horsepower (BHP) of the
cylinder in this unloaded condition compared to the same measurement in the loaded state.
In general, the concept for determining the unloaded BHP for a given cylinder end is the same as for a
loaded cylinder. The higher the flow area of the unloader, the lower the BHP will be in the unloaded
state, just as more compressor valve area reduces the horsepower requirements of a cylinder in the
loaded state. There are a variety of methods used to determine what is an allowable level of unloaded
BHP and each valve and unloader manufacturer uses their own guidelines. We will not attempt to set
these guidelines, but, in general, if the unloaded cylinder BHP is equal to or less than 15% of the
loaded BHP, the unloader should be considered reasonably sized. Naturally, this can be expected to
significantly less when compressing very light gases, such as hydrogen. Conversely, this rule of
thumb should be expanded somewhat for heavier gases, such as Carbon Dioxide and Ethylene. Many
other factors will also come into play, such as compression ratio, gas density (and compressibility),
driver speed and cylinder design. For best results, each application needs to be evaluated on its own
merits and boundaries.
When finger unloaders are applied it is almost always necessary to use one on each of the inlet valves
in a given end. This will offer the gas the full lift effective flow area (EFA) entering the cylinder and
some value less than that in the opposite direction. Since valves are designed for flow entering the
seat and exiting the guard, the flow coefficient for reverse flow is somewhat lower. Although this
reverse flow EFA varies from valve design to valve design, it is generally accepted to be no more than
80% of the forward flow EFA. This will certainly have an effect on the unloaded BHP but the real
determining factor for unloaded efficiency when using finger unloaders is the cylinder swept volume
vs. valve area ratio and the other extraneous factors covered in the previous paragraph.
Because the cylinder is using the valve porting as the unloader area, there can never be more unloader
EFA than what is available through the valves when a finger unloader is used. This level of unloading
area will always be sufficient to unload the end but will result in varying unloaded BHP. As
application windows and cylinder designs shift, so will the effectiveness of any unloader to efficiently

unload the cylinder. With a finger unloader, however, there is little flexibility to adjust unloader area
as required.
There is typically only one plug unloader applied per cylinder end, regardless of whether it is used in
conjunction with an active valve or not. For the most part, the engineer will try to size the plug
unloader such that the unloader EFA is equal or greater than the total EFA of the remaining inlet
valves in that end. This will insure that the unloader area always offers the path of least resistance and
that the discharge valves will not open (allowing for the compression of the gas) when in the unloaded
state. If this criteria is met, the unloaded BHP will commonly be slightly less than when finger
unloaders are used. This is because the plug unloader design will usually have similar flow
coefficients in both flow directions and will use less horsepower to move the gas from the cylinder to
the inlet passage. As previously discussed, the finger unloaders will always offer more resistance in
this direction.
Plug unloader designs also offer the option of adding more unloader EFA as needed for different
applications. Naturally, this can further reduce the amount of active valve flow area but offers a
flexibility that finger unloaders do not have. This can be important in applications in which the
cylinder needs to be unloaded for long time periods and temperature concerns come into play.

EFFICIENCY
LOADED CONDITION
The loaded cylinder horsepower will always be affected by the use of unloaders, regardless of which
style is used. The extent of the effect that a specific unloader design has on loaded cylinder
horsepower often dictates whether a finger or plug unloader is used for a given cylinder design.
In order to effectively use a plug unloader, there must be sufficient valve porting in the cylinder to
accommodate the unloader area, while still maintaining sufficient active valve area to efficiently
compress the required volume of gas. This immediately eliminates many single valve per corner (one
inlet and one discharge valve per end) cylinders which use valves smaller than 4.50 in diameter. In
these cases, there is simply not enough valve porting available to effectively apply an active valve and
a plug unloader. Therefore, finger unloaders are usually used on these types of cylinders.
Regardless of the size and number of valves in the cylinder, active valve area is always sacrificed to
provide a hole for a plug unloader. In most multiple valve per corner cylinders (especially in lighter
gases), a compromise between unloader area and active valve area can be made which offers good
efficiency in both the loaded and unloaded states. It is important to realize, however, that any
reduction in valve area will increase loaded BHP, regardless of the application. The level in which
this increase is noticed is often directly proportional to the method in which the horsepower is
measured. For example, judging power consumption changes from the amp meter will certainly be
less accurate than taking actual pressure/volume cards from the cylinder etc
There is a common misconception that no active valve area is sacrificed when using finger designs.
Although the lift area (the area between the elements and seat at full lift) of the valve is not affected,

the effective flow area (EFA) of the valve can be significantly lower when a finger unloader is
applied. The EFA of the valve is the proper tool for the evaluation of compressor valve pressure drop
and cylinder horsepower. Effective flow area takes, not only the lift area, but the seat and guard area
and the flow characteristics through each of these areas into account.
Because the finger assembly blocks some portion of the top of the seat and the fingers extend down
into the seat holes, greatly reducing the effective seat port area, the use of a finger unloader will,
indisputably, reduce valve EFA. In laboratory tests, it has been shown that the EFA of a valve can be
reduced up to 30% when used with a finger assembly. This is an area of analysis that is often
overlooked when predicting loaded cylinder horsepower. Since the full valve EFA is usually used for
compressor performance by most compressor manufacturers when using finger unloaders, the
difference in predicted loaded cylinder BHP when comparing finger and plug designs is often
misleading on paper. If the practical effect of finger assemblies on valve EFA were regularly used in
compressor performance prediction, the respective difference in loaded BHP, between plug and finger
unloaders, would be insignificant in many applications.

RELIABILITY
When properly designed and applied, both plug and finger unloader designs offer sound unloader
reliability. The main difference between the two lies in the maintenance required to sustain that
reliability and the effect that each has on the components around them, most notably the inlet
compressor valves.
Finger unloaders are generally considered inherently less reliable than plug unloaders, not because of
their design, but because they are much more difficult to maintain. All but the most modern designs
require painstaking adjustments to function properly. These older finger designs require either shim or
similar adjustment to set the proper clearance between the fingers and the plates in the loaded position
and to insure that the fingers actuate correctly when unloading the valve. Since .010 or .020 of an inch
can sometimes be the difference between a year of reliable service and immediate failure, this area
becomes critical. These adjustments need to be made each time the unloader is removed and
reinstalled in the cylinder. If maintenance personnel are not well trained on the proper procedures for
making these adjustments, costly errors are more likely to occur than not.
Even the more recent designs require some level of adjustment to insure that the stroke and clearances
are within tolerance. In the end, improperly adjusted finger unloaders are likely the cause of a
majority of the reliability issues associated with this type of unloading. A finger unloader that is not
properly adjusted can result in the elements fluttering between the fingers and the guard during the
unloaded and/or loaded position. This will obviously cause rapid failure of the valve elements and can
also result in finger assembly damage as well.
There are some designs which do not require adjustment in the field. These designs improve the
maintenance situation significantly and greatly reduce the possibility of valve and unloader damage.
There is still the inherent problem, however, that the valve elements are subjected to the impact of the
fingers each time the unloader is actuated. If properly designed, the stresses induced by this impact

should be relatively low, but it is simply one more impediment that the elements must endure during
operation. In the end, this can only reduce the life expectancy of the valves.
Plug unloaders require no such adjustment. The travel of any given plug unloader will usually vary
depending on the diameter of the plug, but should never be less than 0.500 inch. As a comparison,
most finger unloader strokes range between 0.125 and 0.250. Naturally, the clearances and tolerances
required in both the loaded and unloaded states for each differ greatly. Since plug designs can easily
accept greater fluctuations in this area, there is much less cause for special attention during
installation.
Perhaps the greatest reliability advantage that a plug unloader holds over its finger counterpart is that
the plug only impacts the top of the valve seat, blank or cylinder hole when actuated. Since the
elements are not in contact with the unloading device, they can not be damaged by it. The task of
designing a reliable compressor valve is difficult enough (and outside the scope of this article) without
asking the elements to further endure the stresses induced by the metal fingers pressing, often with
hundreds of pounds of force, into them. There are a few designs on the market which do not use the
element/guard contact as the stop, thus greatly reducing this effect, but even these result in a more
strenuous service for the valve than when a plug unloader is used.
In conclusion, under most circumstances, plug unloaders offer much more reliable service than finger
unloaders. Although it is accepted that most of the reliability problems associated with finger designs
are a result of improper maintenance, the inherent difficulty in properly caring for these devices makes
them a proposition that needs to be closely considered.
As previously mentioned, it is important to note that each application needs to be evaluated closely
and separately in order to determine which design is best, or even feasible, for a given application.

MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS
PRICING
It is impossible to make accurate statements on which unloader type is more expensive, as there are
too many different designs and manufacturers to generalize. When dealing with multiple valve per
corner cylinders, however, using a single plug unloader will be obviously more economical than three
or four (or more) finger unloaders for each cylinder.

MAINTENANCE
In addition to the adjustments required with some finger designs, there is also the added burden of
having to remove an unloader assembly each time an inlet valve needs to be removed. Even if a
partial active valve is used under the plug assembly, there is only one valve per end which will have
an unloader assembly over it, instead of all of the inlet valves.

AIR TO LOAD vs. AIR TO UNLOAD

FOR PLUG AND FINGER UNLOADERS
Figure 3 shows the standard Air to Load actuator style commonly used with plug unloaders.
Conversely, Figure 4 shows the standard Air to Unload actuator style commonly used with finger
unloaders. Although each unloader type can be effectively designed with either configuration, there
are inherent design obstacles that come into play when going against these standard arrangements.
These obstacles will usually result in higher manufacturing costs and other implications.
The standard actuator for any unloader has air on the top the piston or diaphragm and the spring
underneath. The air will then push the plug or finger assembly down. Of course this accomplishes
different tasks for the plug and finger unloaders respectively. In a finger unloader, the plunger moves
down and holds the elements open, thus unloading the cylinder. In a plug unloader, the plug seals
against the hole in the valve or cylinder and loads the cylinder. Therefore for a plug unloader, the
standard is Air to Load and for a finger unloader, the standard is Air to Unload.
The Air to Unload actuator for plugs and Air to Load actuators for fingers are often referred to as
reverse acting. These designs are usually much more expensive due to the large spring forces
required to actuate the plug or finger assembly. The design complications associated with these
reverse acting configurations are much more pronounced for plug unloaders, as the forces required to
hold the unloader in the down position are much greater. In addition, these difficulties are further
increased as the cylinder pressures increase.
Reverse acting designs also usually require significantly more removal distance, as the higher required
actuator spring forces results in larger springs with increased wire diameters, free lengths and
operating heights. There is usually a higher required air pressure for the reverse acting actuators as
well, as the air is required to overcome these, often extremely high spring forces, without allowing the
unloading device to flutter in the up position.
To summarize:
Actuator Type
Standard
Air on Top of Piston
Spring Under Piston
Non-Standard
Spring on Top of Piston
Air Under Piston

Plug Unloader
Air
To
Load
Air
To
Unload

Finger Unloader
Air
To
Unload
Air
To
Load

The standard configuration should always be used if at all possible. The end result will usually be
significantly less headaches during the design stage (for both vendor and end user), less expense per
unit, and, most importantly, a more maintainable and reliable design.

CONCLUSIONS
There is no doubt that, as individual designs are evaluated and compared to one another, some of the
arguments and statements made in his paper can, and will, be disputed. In the end, it is ultimately up
to the end user to decide which design best suits their requirements and application. If nothing else, be
sure that, if you are that end user, you make an educated and informed decision. Choosing a vendor
which you have faith in and can intelligently and confidently recommend a design which will offer the
best combination of reliability and efficiency for your compressor is the first step to better unloader
and valve reliability.
Although the advantages and drawbacks of each design listed below change with each manufacturer
and application scenario, they can be used as a general guideline for unloader selection in most cases.

Plug Unloader Advantages

Valve Elements are Not Impacted when the
Unloader is Actuated
No Adjustments are Required for Proper
Actuation
Can Result in Lower Unloaded BHP than
Finger Unloaders
Fewer Unloader Assemblies Required per
Cylinder in Most Cases

Plug Unloader Drawbacks

Can Not be Used on Many Single Valve per
Corner Cylinders, Especially w/ Small Valves
Valve Elements Need to be Removed in
Order to Make Room for the Plug
------

Finger Unloader Advantages

Can be Used on Any Cylinder Design,
Regardless of Number or Size of Valves
No Valve Elements Need to be Removed

Finger Unloader Drawbacks

Fingers Impact Valve Elements Each Time
the Unloader is Actuated
Assembly Often Needs to be Field Adjusted
for Proper Actuation
Finger Assembly Restricts Seat Ports, thus
Reducing Valve EFA

------

------