Applied Thermal Engineering 96 (2016) 576–582

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a p t h e r m e n g

Research Paper

Analysis for the ejector used as expansion valve in vapor compression

refrigeration cycle
F. Wang *, D.Y. Li, Y. Zhou
State Key Laboratory for Geomechanics & Deep Underground Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China

H I G H L I G H T S

• The mixing pressure was determined by using the optimization method.

• Whether the entrained flow would be choked at outlet of suction nozzle was studied.
• Whether a condensation shock would happen at the end of mixing chamber was studied.
• System performance at off-design condition is close to that with optimum ejector.
• No condensation shock happens before the mixed flow flows into the diffuser.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: An ejector was used in a compression refrigeration cycle for improving its efficiency. A constant-
Received 5 October 2015 pressure mixing model was adopted to simulate the ejector. Whether or not the entrained flow would
Accepted 21 November 2015 be choked at the outlet of the suction nozzle and whether or not a condensation shock would happen
Available online 9 December 2015
at the end of the mixing chamber were both considered. The effect of the mixing pressure on the per-
formances of the ejector and the hybrid system was evaluated. The mixing pressure was finally determined
Keywords:
by using the optimization method. The performances of the ejector and the hybrid system at different
Two-phase ejector
operating conditions were studied. Lastly, the performances of the ejector with fixed geometry and the
Mixing pressure
Condensation shock corresponding hybrid system at off-design operating conditions were also theoretically studied. The results
Choking indicate that the optimum ejector mixing pressure is a little lower than the entrained fluid’s pressure,
Off-design but far larger than its critical pressure. No condensation shock happens before it flows into the diffuser.
The theoretical performances of the hybrid compression refrigeration system with fixed geometry ejector
at off-design conditions are very close to that with the optimum geometry ejector.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction accounted in the momentum balance equation. Unal [5] deter-

Refrigeration system is a kind of large energy-consumption equip-
ment. With the increasing demand of environment protection and
energy conservation, it is significant to further improve the effi-
ciency of refrigeration system. Kemper et al. [1] suggested using a
two-phase ejector in compression refrigeration system to improve
the system performance in 1966. Kornhauser et al. [2] did a first-
order analysis for the two-phase ejector in the vapor compression
refrigeration cycle with R12. His results show the significant in-
crease in system performance with ejector. Nehdi et al. [3] studied
the performance of the improved compression refrigeration cycle
with various refrigerants. Ameur et al. [4] proposed a thermody-
namic model of the two-phase ejector, in which the nozzle throat
can be calculated and the wall friction in the mixing chamber is
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 0516 83883210; fax: +86 0516 83883210.
E-mail address: wangf2821@163.com (F. Wang).
mined the dimensions of the ejector in the bus air condition system
by the thermodynamic analysis. Lastly, experimental data were used
to validate the theoretical results. Liu et al. [6] proposed a modi-
fied ejector-expansion refrigeration cycle using mixture R290/
R600a for applications in domestic refrigerator/freezers, and
theoretically evaluated the cycle performances using energy and
exergy methods. Elbel et al. [7] compared the standard two-phase
ejector refrigeration cycle with two less commonly considered two-
phase ejector refrigeration cycles with first and second laws, and
it was suggested that these and other alternate ejector cycles may
be worth additional attention in future studies due to their poten-
tial practical advantages. Elbel et al. [8] experimentally compared
the two-phase ejector cycle and expansion valve cycle with mul-
tiple evaporation temperatures. Ersoy et al. [9,10] studied the R134a
refrigeration system using a two-phase ejector as an expander. It
was found that the COP of the refrigeration system with an ejector
as the expander was 6.2–14.5% higher than that of the convention-
al system, while the exergy efficiency values were 6.6–11.2% higher

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.11.095
1359-4311/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 F. Wang et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 96 (2016) 576–582 577

than in the basic system. Hrnjak et al. [11,12] experimentally in-

vestigated an R410a vapor compression system working with an
ejector. The objective of this study was to quantify separately two
major improvements of the ejector system: work recovery and liquid-
fed evaporator.
The two-phase ejector is the key component of the vapor com-
pression refrigeration cycle with ejector as the expander. According
to the ways to calculate the mixing process in the mixing chamber,
the calculation models of the ejector can be classified into two cat-
egories, one is constant-pressure mixing model [13,14], and the other
is constant-area mixing model [15]. For the constant-pressure mixing
model, it is assumed that when the primary and secondary streams Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of ejector.
first interact and mix together, their pressures are equal. For the
constant-area mixing model, it is assumed that the place where the
two streams first interact is in the constant-area mixing chamber
of ejector, and the pressures of the two streams are different. It was
(2) The streams from the condenser and the evaporator are both
found that the constant-pressure mixing ejector has a better per-
saturated.
formance than the constant-area one [16]. Therefore, most of current
(3) The kinetic energy of the fluids flowing into and out of the
studies about ejector have been focused on the constant-pressure
ejector is neglected.
mixing ejector. For the constant-pressure mixing model, there are
(4) The ejector is adiabatic.
mainly three types of methods to determine the mixing pressure.
(5) The wall friction is neglected.
The first type is to assume that the mixing pressure is equal to the
evaporator pressure [17], the second is to assume that the pres-
sure drop in the receiving section of the ejector is a constant value 2.1.1. Primary nozzle
[13], and the last one is to optimize the mixing pressure by calcu- The flow parameters at the outlet of the primary nozzle are cal-
lation [18]. The suction chamber of ejector is converging, so the culated by defining the isentropic efficiency.
entrained flow’s velocity at the outlet of the suction nozzle cannot
be higher than sonic, that is, the mixing pressure must not be lower h1b ,is = f (s 1, P1b ) (1)
than the entrained flow’s critical pressure. In addition, affected by
the high back pressure of the ejector, the mixed fluid at the inlet w 1b = 2ηn (h1 − h1b ,is ) (2)
of the diffuser should be a stream of subsonic flow. If not, a shock
wave would happen. However, these two special phenomena have w 12b
not been considered for the study of the two-phase ejector in the h1b = h1 − (3)
2
published literatures.
In this paper, a hybrid compression refrigeration cycle with an v 1b = f (h1b , P1b ) (4)
ejector was analyzed by using a constant-pressure mixing model
for the ejector. The mixing process is also assumed to happen in
m 1v 1b
the constant cross section of the ejector mixing chamber. The mixing A1b = (5)
w 1b
pressure was determined by using optimization method. Whether
or not the entrained flow would be choked at the outlet of the
suction nozzle and whether or not a condensation shock would
2.1.2. Suction nozzle
happen at the end of the mixing chamber were both studied. The
The suction chamber forms a converging passage like a contrac-
performances of the ejector and the hybrid refrigeration system at
tion nozzle for the entrained flow. Similarly, the analysis equations
different condensation temperatures and evaporation tempera-
for the entrained flow can be derived as:
tures were studied. Lastly, their performances with fixed geometry
ejector at off-design condensation temperatures and evaporation h2b ,is = f (s 2, P2b ) (6)
temperatures were also studied.
w 2b = 2ηs (h2 − h2b ,is ) (7)
2. Thermodynamic analysis

w 22b
2.1. Analysis of the ejector at design condition h2b = h2 − (8)
2
The schematic diagram of ejector is shown in Fig. 1. The ejector
v 2b = f (h2b , P2b ) (9)
is mainly made up of a supersonic nozzle, a suction chamber, a
mixing chamber and a diffuser. It is assumed that the mixing process
ω gl m 1v 2b
happens in the constant cross section of the ejector mixing chamber A 2b = (10)
with an identical pressure when they first interact in the constant- w 2b
area mixing chamber. So the ejector schematized in Fig. 1 is not only
The suction chamber of the ejector is converging, so the en-
a constant-pressure mixing ejector, but also a constant-area mixing
trained flow’s velocity at the outlet of the suction chamber cannot
ejector. The model of ejector is set up based on the balance of mass,
be higher than sonic, that is, the outlet pressure of the entrained
momentum and energy. To simplify the analysis, the other assump-
flow must not be lower than its critical pressure. The critical pres-
tions are made as follows:
sure of the entrained flow is calculated by:
(1) The flow in every part of the ejector except the mixing k
⎛ 2 ⎞ k −1
chamber is considered as a one-dimensional homogeneous P2,cr = P2 ⎜ (11)
equilibrium flow. ⎝ k + 1⎟⎠
578 F. Wang et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 96 (2016) 576–582

2.1.3. Mixing process in the mixing chamber 2.1.6. The ejector area ratio
When the two streams first interact in the constant area mixing The primary flow is choked at the throat of the convergent-
chamber with an identical pressure, they begin to mix together, and divergent nozzle. The throat area is the smallest, so the mass flow
at the end of the mixing chamber, the mixing is completed. The gov- rate per unit area at this position is the biggest. The ejector throat
erning equations of the balance of mass, momentum and energy area can therefore be calculated out according to this principle. The
for the mixing process can be derived as: cross section of the mixing chamber is the total of the primary nozzle
exit cross section and the suction nozzle exit cross section. The
P1b = P2b = Pb (12) ejector area ratio is defined as the ratio of the mixing chamber cross
section area to the nozzle throat area:
m 1w 1b + m 2w 2b + Pb ( A1b + A 2b ) = (m 1 + m 2 )w 3ma + P3ma ( A1b + A 2b )
(13) Am
φm = (28)
⎛ w2 ⎞ At
m 1h1 + m 2h2 = (m 1 + m 2 ) ⎜ h3ma + 3ma ⎟ (14)
⎝ 2 ⎠
Am = A1b + A 2b (29)

w 3ma ( A1b + A 2b )
(m 1 + m 2 ) = (15) 2.2. Performance of the vapor compression ejection refrigeration
v 3ma
cycle with ejector
v 3ma = f (h3ma, P3ma ) (16)
Fig. 2a and b is the schematic of vapor compression refrigera-
tion cycle with ejector and its schematic in P-h diagram respectively.
The cycle performance coefficient is defined as the ratio of the re-
2.1.4. The judgment for the shock and governing equations frigerating output to the compression work of the compressor:
Affected by the high back pressure of the ejector, the mixture
fluid at the inlet of the diffuser should be a stream of subsonic flow. Q m (h − h7 ) h − h7
COPej =  e = e 2 = ω gl 2 (30)
If not, a shock wave would happen. The sonic in the two-phase fluid W com m c (h5 − h 4 ) h5 − h 4
can be derived as:
h5,is − h 4
xk g T g h5 = + h4 (31)
agl = (17) ηcom
⎡ R gT g ⎛ cT ⎞ ⎤
k g ⎢1 − 2− g ⎟⎥
⎣ h gl ⎜⎝ h gl ⎠ ⎦ The isentropic efficiency of the compressor is calculated by the
following empirical correlation proposed by Brunin et al. [19]:
1− x
c = c pg + c pl (18)
x
(a)
The governing equations of the balance of mass, momentum and
energy for the shock can be derived as:

ρ3maw 3ma = ρ3mbw 3mb (19)

ρ3maw 32ma + P3ma = ρ3mbw 32mb + P3mb (20)

w 32ma w2
h3ma + = h3mb + 3mb (21)
2 2

2.1.5. Diffuser
The pressure of the mixing fluid restores by flowing through the
diffuser. (b)
h1 + ω gl h2
h3 = (22)
1 + ω gl

h3,is = ηd (h3 − h3mb ) + h3mb (23)

P3 = f (h3,is , s 3,is ) (24)

s 3,is = s 3mb (25)

x 3 = f (h3, P3 ) (26)

In order to maintain the cycle’s stability and continuity, the

dryness of wet steam from the two-phase ejector should meet the
following equation:

1
x3 = (27) Fig. 2. (a) Schematic of vapor compression refrigeration cycle with ejector. (b) Sche-
1 + ω gl matic of vapor compression refrigeration cycle with ejector in P-h diagram.
 F. Wang et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 96 (2016) 576–582 579

Pc 100
ηcom = 0.874 − 0.0135 (32)
P4
90
The performance improvement ratio of the improved cycle over
80
the basic one is calculated by:
Tc=45 [ C]
COPej − COPb 70 Te=5 [ C]
COPi = × 100% (33)

m
COPb 60

area ratio
50
3. Results and discussion
40
In the literature [3], the performance of the vapor compression
cycle using ejector as an expander with several refrigerants was ana- 30
lyzed, and the results indicated that R141b obtains the best
performance. Therefore, R141b was selected for study here. The soft- 20
ware Refprop was used to calculate the thermophysical parameters
of the refrigerant. The isentropic efficiencies of the primary nozzle, 10
2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5
the suction nozzle and the diffuser are respectively taken as 0.9, 0.9
mixing pressure ( 104) [Pa]
and 0.8.
Fig. 4. The area ratio of ejector under different mixing pressure.
3.1. The effect of the mixing pressure

The effects of the mixing pressure on the ejector entrainment
ratio, the ejector exit pressure and the hybrid system perfor-
mance were shown in Fig. 3. It can be seen that the bigger the ejector
entrainment ratio is, the higher the ejector exit pressure and the
system performance are. The reason can be explained as: the en-
trained fluid is saturated vapor, and its specific enthalpy is higher
than that of the primary flow, which is saturated liquid. According
to energy conservation, the larger the ejector entrainment ratio is,
the higher the specific enthalpy and the pressure of ejector exit fluid
are. So, the power of the compressor is decreased and the hybrid
system performance is improved when the ejector entrainment ratio
is increased. From Fig. 3, it can be seen that there exists an optimum
value for the mixing pressure, with which the entrainment ratio and
the exit pressure of the ejector and the system performance all reach
their maximum values. When the mixing pressure changes from 21
to 35 kPa, the performance of the hybrid system varies in the range
of 4.8–5.4, the rate of increase is 11.8%. So it can be concluded that
the mixing pressure is a very important parameter when optimiz-
ing the ejector geometry, which is controlled by the outlet area of
the primary nozzle of the ejector. It can also be seen that the
optimum mixing pressure is a little lower than the entrained fluid
pressure, but far larger than its critical pressure.
Fig. 4 presents the area ratios of ejector versus mixing pres-
sures. It can be seen that when the mixing pressure is lower than
the optimum value, the area ratio of ejector increases slowly with
the increasing of the mixing pressure. The reason for this is with
the increasing of the mixing pressure, the entrainment ratio of ejector
increases, and at the same time, the velocity of the entrained flow
decreases as the pressure difference of the suction chamber is de-
creased. However, when the mixing pressure is higher than the
optimum value, the area ratio of ejector increases abruptly, as the
inlet velocity of the entrained flow is too low.
Fig. 5 presents the pressure distribution along the ejector at
various mixing pressures. It can be seen that the pressure of the well
mixed flow at the end of the mixing chamber always equals to that
at the inlet of the diffuser at any mixing pressure, which proves that
no condensation shock happens at the end of the mixing chamber.
The reason for this is the velocity of the mixture at the end of the
mixing chamber is not higher than the sonic of the two-phase flow
and the flow is subsonic.

4
6 0.84 T = 45 [ C] P =3.5123 e+4 [Pa]
COPej c 2
gl T =5 [ C] P2,cr =2.0523e+4 [Pa]
P e
3
3.5
COPej or P3( 104) [Pa]

pressure( 104) [Pa]

5 0.82

3
gl

4 0.8
2.5

Tc=45 [ C] P =3.51e+4 [Pa]

e
Te=5 [ C] Pe,cr=2.05e+4 [Pa]
3 0.78 2
2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5 b 3ma 3mb 3
4
mixing pressure( 10 ) [Pa] pressure [Pa]

Fig. 3. Effect of mixing pressure on system performance, the entrainment ratio and Fig. 5. Diagram of pressure change trends in two-phase ejector at various mixing
exit pressure of ejector. pressures.
580 F. Wang et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 96 (2016) 576–582

3.5 0.88 3 0.9

(P −P ) T =40 [°C] ω
Te=5 [ C] e b opt c
3 0.86 (Pe−Pb)opt
( )
gl opt

(P −P ) [kPa]
[kPa]

2.5 0.84

gl opt

e b opt
2 0.85
b opt

)
(P −P )

ω
(
2 0.82
e

1.5 0.8

1 0.78
35 40 45
condensation temperature [ C]
Fig. 6. Effect of condensation temperature on optimum pressure drops in the suction
chamber and the ejector entrainment ratios.
From Fig. 5, it can be seen that the ejector exit pressure in-
creases with the increasing of the mixing pressure commonly, but
when the mixing pressure exceeds the optimum value, the ejector
exit pressure declines instead. The reason may be explained as: when
the mixing pressure is higher than the optimum value, the en-
trained flow expands little through the suction nozzle, so only a small
amount of thermal energy is converted into dynamic energy. Thus
the energy that can be converted into pressure energy is less.
3.2. The effect of condensation temperature
The variations of the optimum pressure drop in the suction
chamber and the corresponding ejector entrainment ratio with the
increasing condensation temperature were shown in Fig. 6. It can
be seen that the optimum pressure drop in the suction chamber in-
creases with the increasing of the condensation temperature. When
the condensation temperature increases from 35 °C to 50 °C, the
optimum pressure drop increases from 1.2 kPa to 3.1 kPa, and the
corresponding ejector entrainment ratio decreases from 0.86 to 0.8.
The variations of the optimum system performance coefficient
and the corresponding performance improvement ratio with the in-
creasing condensation temperature were shown in Fig. 7. It can be
1 0.8
−5 0 5 10
evaporation temperature [°C]
50
Fig. 8. Effect of evaporation temperature on optimum pressure drops in the suction
chamber and the ejector entrainment ratios.
seen that the higher the condensation temperature is, the lower the
optimum performance coefficient of the hybrid refrigeration system
is, but the higher the corresponding performance improvement ratio
is. When the condensation temperature increases from 35 °C to 50 °C,
the corresponding performance improvement ratio increases from
5.29% to 9.62%. The reason may be explained as with the increas-
ing of the condensation temperature, the pressure difference between
the evaporator and the condenser increases, thus the expansion work
recovered by the hybrid compression refrigeration system grows.
3.3. The effect of evaporation temperature
The variations of the optimum pressure drop in the suction
chamber and the corresponding ejector entrainment ratio with the
increasing evaporation temperatures were shown in Fig. 8. It can
be seen that the optimum pressure drop in the suction chamber de-
creases with the increasing of the evaporation temperature. When
the evaporation temperature increases from −5 °C to 10 °C, the
optimum pressure drop decreases from 2.3 kPa to 1.6 kPa, and the
corresponding ejector entrainment ratio increases from 0.8 to 0.86.
The variations of the optimum system performance coefficient
and the corresponding performance improvement ratio with the in-
creasing evaporation temperature were shown in Fig. 9. It can be
seen the higher the evaporation temperature is, the higher the

8 10 8 10

COP T =40 [ C] COPej

i c
T =5 [ C]
e
COPi
COP 7
7 ej

8 8
COPi [%]

COP [%]
COPej

COPej

6 6
i

6 6

5 5

4 4 4 4
35 40 45 50 −5 0 5 10
condensation temperature [ C] evaporation temperature [ C]

Fig. 7. Effect of condensation temperature on the optimum system performance co- Fig. 9. Effect of evaporation temperature on the optimum system performance co-
efficient and the corresponding performance improvement ratio. efficients and the corresponding performance improvement ratios.
 F. Wang et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 96 (2016) 576–582 581

0.84 3.33 0.835 4

Pb
=25.95 gl
0.835 m 3.32 =25.95
0.83 m Pb 3.8
gl

0.83 3.31
0.825 3.6

Pb( 10 ) [Pa]

P ( 10 ) [Pa]
0.825 3.3
gl

gl

4
0.82 3.4
0.82 3.29

b
0.815 3.2
0.815 3.28

0.81 3.27 0.81 3

0.805 3.26 0.805 2.8

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
condensation temperature [ C] evaporation temperature [ C]

Fig. 10. The entrainment ratios and the mixing pressures of ejector at deviated con- Fig. 12. The entrainment ratios and the mixing pressures of ejector at deviated evap-
densation temperatures. oration temperatures.

optimum performance coefficient of the hybrid refrigeration system
is, but the lower the corresponding performance improvement ratio
is. When the evaporation temperature increases from −5 °C to 10 °C,
the corresponding performance improvement ratio decreases from
9.46% to 5.34%.
3.4. The performances at off-design conditions
The ejector area ratio is calculated with the optimum mixing pres-
sure, which provides the optimum system performance under the
design condition. When the system condensation temperature or
the evaporation temperature deviates from the design value in the
following section, the performances of the system with fixed ge-
ometry ejector at off-design conditions are evaluated by recomputing
the mixing pressure and the entrainment ratio until the cycle con-
tinuity equation is satisfied.
When the condensation temperature deviates from the design
value, the performances of the ejector with fixed geometry and the
corresponding hybrid system are respectively presented in Figs. 10
and 11. By comparing the values shown in these two figures with
Figs. 6 and 7, it can be seen that these characteristic values at
off-design conditions are very close to those with the optimum
geometry ejector. The reason may be explained as the optimum area
ratios of ejector at different condensation temperatures are very close.
When the evaporation temperature deviates from the design
value, the performance of the ejector with fixed geometry and the
corresponding hybrid system are respectively presented in Figs. 12
and 13. By comparing the values shown in these two figures with
Figs. 8 and 9, it can be seen that these characteristic values at off-
design conditions are very close to those at the design condition
with optimum geometry ejector. The reason may be explained as
the optimum area ratios of ejector at different evaporation tem-
peratures are very close.
4. Conclusions
An ejector is used in a compression refrigeration cycle for im-
proving its efficiency. A constant-pressure mixing model was adopted
to simulate the ejector. Whether or not the entrained flow would
be choked at the outlet of the suction nozzle and whether or not a
condensation shock would happen at the end of the mixing chamber
were both considered. The effects of the mixing pressure on the
performances of the ejector and the system were evaluated and the
optimum value was finally determined. The performances of

6 8.5 6 8.5
COP COP
ej ej
=25.95 =25.95
m COP m COPi
i
8 8
5.5 5.5
COPi [%]

COP [%]
ej

COPej
COP

7.5 7.5
i

5 5
7 7

4.5 6.5 4.5 6.5

42 45 48 2 5 8
condensation temperature [ C] evaporation temperature [ C]

Fig. 11. The performance coefficients of the hybrid system and the corresponding Fig. 13. The performance coefficient of the hybrid system and the corresponding
performance improvement ratios at deviated condensation temperatures. performance improvement ratio at deviated evaporation temperature.
582 F. Wang et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 96 (2016) 576–582

the ejector and the hybrid system at different operating condi- n The primary nozzle of ejector
tions were studied, and lastly, their performances with fixed opt Optimum value
geometry ejector at off-design operating conditions were also the- p Constant pressure
oretically studied. The main conclusions are the following ones: s The suction nozzle of ejector
t The primary nozzle throat of ejector
1. The ejector mixing pressure has an optimal value, with which 1 Positions in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2; the primary flow
the hybrid system performance, the entrainment ratio and exit 1b The exit face of primary nozzle
pressure of ejector all achieve their highest values. 2 Positions in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2; the entrained flow
2. The optimum mixing pressure is a little lower than the en- 2b The exit face of suction chamber
trained fluid pressure, but far larger than its critical pressure. 3 Positions in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2; the discharged flow from
3. The mixed fluid at the end of the ejector mixing chamber is a ejector
stream of subsonic flow, and no condensation shock happens 3ma The end of ejector mixing chamber
before it flows into the diffuser. 3mb The inlet of ejector diffuser
4. The theoretical performances of the ejector with fixed geome- 4-7 Positions in Fig. 1
try and the corresponding hybrid compression refrigeration
system at off-design conditions are respectively very close to the Greek symbols
ejector with the optimum geometry and the corresponding hybrid η Efficiency
system. The reason is that the differences between the optimum ρ Density (kg m−3)
area ratios of ejector at different operating conditions are very φm Ejector area ratio
small.
References
Acknowledgements
[1] G.A. Kemper, G.F. Harper, G.A. Brown, Multiple Phase Ejector Refrigeration
The present study was supported by the project of National System, US, 3277660, 1966-10-11.
Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51406228) and was sup- [2] A.A. Kornhauser, The Use of an Ejector as a Refrigerant Expander, Proceeding
of the 1990 USNC/IIR-Perdue Refrigeration Conference, Purdue University, West
ported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Lafayette, USA, 1990, pp. 10–19.
Universities (2012QNA55). [3] E. Nehdi, L. Kairouani, M. Bouzaina, Performance analysis of vapour compression
cycle using ejector as an expander, Int. J. Energ. Res. 31 (4) (2007) 364–375.
Nomenclature [4] K. Ameur, Z. Aidoun, M. Ouzzane, Modeling and numerical approach for the
design and operation of two-phase ejectors, Appl. Therm. Eng. 90 (2014) 1–10.
[5] S. Unal, Determination of the ejector dimensions of a bus air-conditioning
A Area (m2) system using analytical and numerical methods, Appl. Therm. Eng. 91 (2015)
agl Sonic in the two-phase fluid (m s−1) 110–119.
[6] X.Q. Liu, J.L. Yu, G. Yan, Theoretical investigation on an ejector expansion
COP Performance coefficient refrigeration cycle using zeotropic mixture R290/R600a for applications in
c Specific heat (J kg−1 K) domestic refrigerator/freezers, Appl. Therm. Eng. 90 (2015) 703–710.
h Specific enthalpy (J kg−1) [7] N. Lawrence, S. Elbel, Theoretical and practical comparison of two-phase ejector
refrigeration cycles including First and Second Law analysis, Int. J. Refrig. 36
hgl Latent heat of vaporization (J kg−1) (2013) 1220–1232.
k Ratio of specific heat [8] N. Lawrence, S. Elbel, Experimental investigation o f a two-phase ejector cycle
m Mass flow rate (kg s−1) suitable for use with low-pressure refrigerants R134a and R1234yf, Int. J. Refrig.
38 (2014) 310–322.
P Pressure (Pa) [9] H.K. Ersoy, N.B. Sag, Preliminary experimental results on the R134a refrigeration
Pb Mixing pressure (Pa) system using a two-phase ejector as an expander, Int. J. Refrig. 43 (2014) 97–
Q Rate of heat transfer (W) 110.
[10] N.B. Sag, H.K. Ersoy, A. Hepbasli, Energetic and exergetic comparison of basic
R Gas constant (J kg−1 K−1)
and ejector expander refrigeration systems operating under the same external
s Specific entropy (J kg−1 K−1) conditions and cooling capacities, Energy Convers. Manage. 90 (2015) 184–
T Temperature (K) 194.
v Specific volume (m3 kg−1) [11] G. Pottker, P. Hrnjak, Ejector in R410A vapor compression systems with
experimental quantification of two major mechanisms of performance
W Power consumption (W) improvement: work recovery and liquid feeding, Int. J. Refrig. 50 (2015)
w Velocity (m s−1) 184–192.
x Dryness fraction [12] G. Pottker, B. Guo, P.S. Hrnjak, Experimental investigation of an R410A vapor
compression system working with an ejector, International Refrigeration and
ωgl Entrainment ratio of two-phase ejector Air Conditioning Conference at Purdue, July 12-15, 2010.
[13] D.Q. Li, E.A. Groll, Transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle with ejector-expansion
Subscripts device, Int. J. Refrig. 28 (5) (2005) 766–773.
[14] F. Wang, D.Y. Li, Y. Zhou, Theoretical research on the performance of the
b The beginning of mixing; basic cycle transcritical ejector refrigeration cycle with various refrigerants, Appl. Therm.
c Condenser Eng. 91 (2015) 363–369.
com Compressor [15] R. Yaplcl, H.K. Ersoy, Performance characteristics of the ejector refrigeration
system based on the constant area ejector flow model, Energy Convers. Manage.
cr Critical state 46 (18–19) (2005) 3117–3135.
d Diffuser of ejector [16] K. Chunnanond, S. Aphornratana, Ejectors: applications in refrigeration
e Evaporator technology, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 8 (2004) 129–155.
[17] J.Q. Deng, P.X. Jiang, T. Lu, W. Lu, Particular characteristics of transcritical CO2
ej The compression refrigeration cycle with ejector
refrigeration cycle with an ejector, Appl. Therm. Eng. 27 (2007) 381–388.
g Vapor phase in two-phase fluid [18] N. Bilir, H.K. Ersoy, Performance improvement of the vapour compression
gl The two-phase of gas and liquid refrigeration cycle by a two-phase constant area ejector, Int. J. Energ. Res. 33
is Isentropic process (5) (2009) 469–480.
[19] O. Brunin, M. Feidt, B. Hivet, Comparison of the working domains of some
l Liquid phase in two-phase fluid compression heat pumps and a compression-absorption heat pump, Int. J. Refrig.
m Mixing chamber of ejector 20 (5) (1997) 308–318.