Applied Thermal Engineering 61 (2013) 649e656

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Numerical investigation of geometry parameters for pressure recovery

of an adjustable ejector in multi-evaporator refrigeration system
Chen Lin a, b, Wenjian Cai b, *, Yanzhong Li a, Jia Yan b, Yu Hu b, Karunagaran Giridharan b
a
School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, PR China
b
EXQUISITUS, Centre for E-City, School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore

h i g h l i g h t s

Study the optimum geometries of an adjustable ejector for the refrigeration system.

CFD models are established and validated by the experimental results.

PRR is sensitive to nozzle diverging angle and length of the CPMS.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) technique is used to investigate the optimum ge-
Received 13 October 2012 ometry parameters of the adjustable ejector, which is used in variable cooling loads conditions, for the
Accepted 26 August 2013 performance of pressure recovery in a multi-evaporator refrigeration system (EMERS) using R134a as the
Available online 4 September 2013
refrigerant. The performance of pressure recovery reflects the performance of the compression energy
saving. The developed CFD model is first validated by actual experimental data of an EMERS. The keu
Keywords:
esst model is chosen as the turbulence model, and then used to find the optimum geometry parameters:
Geometry parameters
nozzle diverging angle, length of the constant-pressure mixing section, nozzle exit position and
Adjustable ejector
Pressure recovery ratio
converging angle of the constant-pressure mixing section, for high performance in pressure recovery
Multi-evaporator refrigeration system properties. Through the analysis of physical mechanism, the results indicate that the pressure recovery
Experimental rig ratio can be efficiently improved after the geometries optimization which is very sensitive to the nozzle
Validated CFD model diverging angle and the length of the constant-pressure mixing section.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction considered to be mixed. In the diffuser, the mixed flow is deceler-

Ejector, which had been widely used in many industry processes
since it was invented, was first applied in refrigeration field by
Maurice Leblanc in 1910 [1e3]. Generally, an ejector, see Fig. 1,
consists of four main parts: nozzle, suction chamber, mixing section
(including constant-pressure section and constant-area section)
and diffuser, of which the operating process can be described as:
the high pressure primary flow goes through the nozzle with the
aim to increase its velocity and decrease its static pressure. At the
exit of the nozzle, the primary flow undergoes a series of complex
oblique/normal shock waves, called the shock train, and draws the
secondary flow into the suction chamber. The secondary flow is
accelerated by the primary shock train and reaches sonic velocity
somewhere in the mixing section, at which point the two flows are
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ65 6790 6862; fax: þ65 6793 3318.
E-mail address: ewjcai@ntu.edu.sg (W. Cai).
ated and recompressed, also accompanied a shock train. The
mixture, thus, may obtain an improvement in pressure at the exit of
the ejector, where the exit pressure is higher than the secondary
flow inlet pressure, though it is lower than the primary flow inlet
pressure.
Based on the working process of the ejector, ejectors have, so far,
been used for two types of application in refrigeration field: 1)
using high pressure flow to draw low pressure flow for refrigeration
cycle [4e6]; 2) using high pressure flow to improve the pressure of
low-pressure flow [7e12]. In each ejector application, intensive
research interests have been attracted to improve the performance
of ejector.
One of the hot topics is the influence of geometry parameters on
the ejector system performance. Varga et al. [4], Ma et al. [13],
Yapici et al. [14], Chunnanond et al. [15] and Yan et al. [16] inves-
tigated the area ratio between mixing section and the primary
nozzle throat for better performance of ejector. Yapici et al. [14],
Eames et al. [17] and Zhu et al. [18] evaluated the effect of nozzle

1359-4311/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.08.033
650 C. Lin et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 61 (2013) 649e656

Suction
Nozzle Chamber
Primary
Flow Mp, Pp
P Stefan [3], was adopted in the ejector-based multi-evaporator
Secondary
Flow Ms, Ps
Pp
Ps
p e1 2
Fig. 1. The schematic diagram of the ejector.
exit position to constant area section inlet (NXP) on ejector per-
formance. Varga and Li et al. [4,19] discussed about the optimum
length of constant area mixing section for both single-phase and
two-phase ejectors. Zhu et al. [18] also studied the influence of
converging angle of constant pressure mixing chamber on ejector
performance. These studies are significant to guide the ejector
design for better performance of ejector system.
In the second application of ejector in refrigeration system,
Kairouani et al. proposed to use ejectors for improving the suc-
tion pressure before compressor in such a refrigeration system to
reduce the compression energy consumption [7]. Based on their
research, we further proposed a novel multi-evaporator refrig-
eration system with ejectors (EMERS). The schematic of the
system and its (peh) diagram are shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b),
respectively. The detailed working principle and operating pro-
cedure of the system can be found in our previous study [20]
(Fig. 3).
The performance of pressure recovery through the ejectors can
be evaluated by the pressure recovery ratio (PRR) which is
described as below [20]:
pb  ps
PRR ¼  100%
ps
where, pb and ps are the back pressure and the secondary flow inlet
pressure of ejector.
Mixing Conventional fixed nozzle ejector cannot sustain the good per-
section Diffuser formance once the primary load changes. In a real multi-evaporator
refrigeration system, varying of cooling loads, especially the air-
conditioning load may be drastic. This means that as the cooling
Mixing loads vary, a conventional ejector may be inefficient in the system.
Flow In order to solve this problem, an adjustable ejector using spindle to
adjust the throat area of primary nozzle, which was described by
refrigeration system, and the adaptability of the adjustable ejector
for variable cooling loads and the characteristics of pressure re-
covery were investigated [21].
However, so far, the optimum geometry parameters for the
Pm
adjustable ejector in EMERS have not been focused on. In this work,
the effects of geometry parameters such as nozzle diverging angle,
length of the constant-pressure mixing section, nozzle exit position
and converging angle of constant-pressure mixing section in the
3 4 5 m adjustable ejector on the pressure recovery properties were
L numerically evaluated based on CFD technique. The CFD model was
firstly validated by the experimental results. Then 84 different
ejector geometries were created to investigate the effects of these
geometry parameters on the pressure recovery properties of the
ejectors. The manners in which these geometry parameters affect
the pressure recovery properties of ejector are carefully analyzed
and may provide a design guideline for the EMERS.
2. CFD model
In the numerical study, the commercial package, Gambit 2.3 and
Fluent 6.3, were used for grid generating and CFD solver, respec-
tively. The initial ejector geometry parameters for CFD modeling
were shown in Fig. 4.
For each ejector, we applied the axi-symmetric method to
model the ejector geometry in a 2D domain instead of the complex
3D model, in which case the initial mesh was made at about
24,000e28,000 structured quadrilateral elements depending on
the geometry of the ejector. To predict the internal flow status
better, solution-adaptive mesh refinement was employed when the
pressure gradient was 10 or above in the simulation region, and
totally over 43,000 cells were finally reached. The adapted mesh, as
shown in Fig. 5, thus could better resolve the features of the flow
field.
In the solver set, the “Segregated-implicit” solver was chosen to
solve the non-linear governing equations for the flow inside the
(1)
ejector. The SIMPLEC algorithm was applied to solve the coupled
pressure and velocity. The second-order upwind scheme was
adopted to discretize convective terms. Three turbulence models:
Standard keε model, Renormalization-group (RNG) keε model and

SOLV
Ejector 2
9 10 1 2
7
P
8 Compressor
Ejector 1
3 2
Evaporator 2

Evaporator 3

Evaporator 1

Condenser

10
4
7
5 1
5 6 4 9
8
EEV2 EEV3 EEV1 6
3

(a) Schematic diagram (b) Pressure-enthalpy diagram

Fig. 2. The proposed multi-evaporator refrigeration system [20].
 C. Lin et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 61 (2013) 649e656
Primary Flow
Motor
Spindle Nozzle
Secondary Flow
Fig. 3. Drawing of the variable ejector with spindle in primary nozzle.
keuesst model were tried out for the simulation of the ejector and
thus compared with the results from the experiments. The keuesst
model was finally chosen as the turbulence model in this study for
its more accurately predicting ejector performance than the other
two turbulence models.
In order to solve governing equations, several boundary con-
ditions were applied. The primary and secondary inlets of ejector
were set as “pressure inlet” condition. The “pressure outlet” con-
dition was adopted on the outlet of the ejector. Adiabatic thermal
condition was applied for the ejector wall by setting a zero heat
flux at the wall surface. The refrigerant R134a was chosen as the
working fluid and its properties such as density, specific heat,
thermal conductivity, viscosity and molecular weight were derived
from R134a’s real fluid thermodynamic properties provided in
NIST [22].
For each simulation, the solution was iterated until convergence
was achieved, that is, until the residual for each equation fell below
104 and changes in mass flow rates for both primary flow and
secondary flow were negligible. In general, it was observed that the
residual for continuity equation was below 105 while the residuals
for other equations were below 107.
To verify the meshes are enough for the reliable results, sparse
meshes, normal meshes and refined meshes were adopted for the
ejector models under different working conditions. The sparse
meshes contained about 16,000 elements, while the refined
meshes reached over 66,600 cells, twice as much as the cell amount
of normal meshes. The comparison of sparse meshes, normal
meshes and refined meshes can be seen in Table 1.
The results of Table 1 were calculated at primary inlet pressure
3.7 bar, secondary inlet pressure 1.0 bar and back pressure 1.2 bar. It
is obvious that the flow rates under sparse meshes are much less
Primary nozzle NXP Constant-
- +
pressure mixing
Spindle
section
8°
15
4 4 6 10
Primary fluid
20 15
15
Secondary fluid
Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of the variable ejector.
651
Mixing Section
Mixed Flow
Diffuser
Suction Chamber
than the rates under the normal meshes and refined meshes while
the rates under refined meshes are almost the same with the rates
under normal meshes, which means that the normal meshes are
enough and accurate to obtain the reliable results.
3. Experimental validation
In order to validate the CFD model for the adjustable ejector, an
experimental rig was built, as shown in Figs. 6 and 7. The system
mainly consists of a compressor type of BITZER 2CC-4.2Y, two
ejectors including one adjustable ejector and one conventional
ejector, an air-cooled condenser, three electronic expansion valves
(EEV) and three evaporators.
In order to measure the primary and secondary flow rates,
temperatures and pressures, several sensors were installed, list as
below:

pressure transmitters with a full scale error of 0.5% (0e10 bar);

temperature sensors of PT1000 platinum resistance with error
of 0.3  C;

calibrated mass flow rate meters with error of 1.6%.
The designed evaporating temperatures for air-conditioning
(Evaporator 1), refrigeration (Evaporator 2) and freeze (Evapo-
rator 3) of the system are 7  C, 5  C and 30  C, respectively.
Since both ejectors have similar working procedure and are used
to improve the pressure of secondary flow, we only investigated
Ejector 1 in our study. Designed conditions for Ejector 1 are shown
in Table 2.
To validate the CFD model, several experiments were conducted
and the results are listed in Table 3; the primary nozzle throat area
Diffuser
Throat
Outflow
40 80
652 C. Lin et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 61 (2013) 649e656

as the secondary inlet pressure increases, the secondary flow rate is

increased correspondingly.
The results of the three turbulence models compared with the
experimental data are presented in Fig. 8. It can be seen that the
“keuesst model” agrees best with experiments, while the results
from RNG and standard model do not agree well with the experi-
mental results at some points (over 10% error). Concerning the
secondary flow rate, the maximum and average relative prediction
errors of the keuesst model are 9.3% and 4.4%, respectively, while
for the primary flow rate, the two values go down to 7.6% and 3.9%,
respectively.

4. Results and discussion

In the real refrigeration system, cooling load for air-conditioning

usually changes with the cooling demand, while the cooling loads
for refrigeration and freeze are mostly unvaried. Since the spindle
Fig. 5. Grid structure of the ejector model. used in the primary nozzle could be efficient in controlling the
changes of the primary cooling load [21], such adjustable ejector
might be a good solution for the multi-evaporator refrigeration
Table 1
The inlet flow rates under different meshes. system.
Defining the blockage area ratio (BAR) as the ratio of the spindle
Nozzle throat Sparse meshes Normal meshes Refined meshes
area ratio (%)
blocking area and the throat area in the primary nozzle, the vari-
mp ms mp ms mp ms ation of the primary cooling load can be inferred from the BAR,
(kg/s) (kg/s) (kg/s) (kg/s) (kg/s) (kg/s)
because both have a one-to-one correspondence [21].The varying
100 0.0186 0.0238 0.0196 0.0249 0.0198 0.0252 of velocity contour with different BAR in such an adjustable ejector
90 0.0167 0.0235 0.0178 0.0247 0.0179 0.0249 and the PRR in each condition are presented in Fig. 9 and Table 4,
80 0.0145 0.0232 0.0158 0.0246 0.0160 0.0247
70 0.0121 0.0215 0.0139 0.0225 0.0140 0.0224
respectively. For the stability in secondary flow, the secondary flow
60 0.0102 0.0146 0.0119 0.0158 0.0120 0.0160 rate needs to be maintained in a range with slight varying, in which
50 0.0082 0.0035 0.0099 0.0044 0.0100 0.0045 case the back pressure decreases from 1.2 bar to 1.05 bar, causing
the descent in PRR. From the results, it is clear that the primary flow
rate can be controlled linearly for the varying of primary cooling
was varied from 100% to 70% by adjusting the spindle position, the load while the secondary flow rate is always kept in designed value.
secondary inlet pressure was varied over the range of 0.9e1.1 bar, Thus, the length of shock train becomes shorter with the increase of
while keeping the back pressure at 1.2 bar. It is clear from the re- the BAR, and the number of the shock waves is also reduced.
sults that as the nozzle throat area reduced from 100% to 70%, the Another interesting phenomenon is that as the BAR increases,
primary flow rate decreased as did the secondary flow rate when it causing the spindle moving into the supersonic zone of the primary
was lower than 1.0 bar, which implied that the primary flow rate flow, the shock waves are turned into the form of annular shock
can be linearly controlled by the spindle adjusting the throat area. waves, owing to the shapes of the spindle and nozzle. The annular
When the secondary flow inlet pressure was 1.1 bar, a peak appears shock waves disappear rapidly since they go into the mixing section
at the 80% throat area ratio for the secondary flow rate. Moreover, and the velocity of the fluid in mixing section decreases obviously.

V8
Super heated Vapor
Saturated Liquid
Liquid + Vapor 1
V10 V11 V9 Sole Valve
Liquid + Vapor 2
V6 V5
T12 Liquid + Vapor 3
P6 High pressure Vapor
PRV2 V7 T9 PRV1
T10 T11 Medium pressure Vapor
Low pressure Vapor
Testing Testing Testing
Accumulator Vapor Mixture 1
Chamber 2 Chamber 3 Chamber 1
Vapor Mixture 2
T7 T8 T6
Hand Valve
Evaporator 2 Evaporator 3 Evaporator 1 Pressure Regulating Valve
T4 T5 T3
P4 P5 P3 T1
Electronic Expansion Valve
Receiver P1
EEV2 EEV3 EEV1 Temperature Measurement
Pressure Measurement
V3 V4 V2 Condensor
Solenoid Valve
F Flowmeter 2 F Flowmeter 3 F Flowmeter 1
V1
Adjustable Ejector

Ejector
P2 T2

Fig. 6. Experimental system diagram.

 C. Lin et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 61 (2013) 649e656 653

Table 3
Experimental flow rates at different nozzle throat area ratio.

Nozzle throat area mp (kg/s) ms (kg/s)

ratio (%)

ps (bar): 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.9

100 0.0195 0.0194 0.0194 0.0260 0.0253 0.0200

90 0.0173 0.0168 0.0167 0.0265 0.0251 0.0171
80 0.0152 0.0152 0.0153 0.0267 0.0238 0.0128
70 0.0137 0.0133 0.0135 0.0262 0.0220 0.0067

flow rate is always kept the same. This also can be concluded by the
varying of PRR, which reflects the potential energy at the exit of
ejector. According to the results, PRR decreases from 18.8% to 5.0%,
which, therefore, is possibly caused by the reduction of maximum
exergy in primary flow.
In order to find a high PRR ejector which also has good adapt-
ability for the variable cooling loads, 84 CFD models were estab-
lished to research the optimum geometries of the ejector such as
nozzle diverging angle, length of the constant-pressure mixing
section, nozzle exit position and converging angle of the constant-
pressure mixing section.

Fig. 7. Photograph of the experimental rig and adjustable ejector [21].

A possible explanation for the varying of velocity contour with BAR

is that when the BAR increases, the primary flow rate is reduced
while the primary inlet pressure is maintained, that is, the total
exergy available in primary flow decreases. The maximum kinetic
energy in the mixture is consequently reduced while the secondary

Table 2
Designed conditions for ejector 1.

Parameter Value

Primary flow rate (mp,0) (kg/s) 0.020

Secondary flow rate (ms,0) (kg/s) 0.025
Primary inlet pressure (pp,0) (bar) 3.7
Fig. 8. Comparison of experimental data and CFD results by different turbulence
Secondary inlet pressure (ps,0) (bar) 1.0
models.
654 C. Lin et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 61 (2013) 649e656

BAR 0
BAR 10%
25 BAR 20%
BAR 30%
BAR 40%
BAR 50%
20

PRR (%)
15

10

0 2 4 6 8 10
NDA (°)

Fig. 10. Effect of NDA on PRR at different BAR.

primary flow appears in some section before the nozzle exit,

causing the kinetic energy of primary flow in the zone between the
maximum velocity section and nozzle exit cannot be efficiently
transferred to the secondary flow. Due to the extra energy loss, PRR
may subsequently decreases.
Fig. 9. Contour of velocity for different BAR: (a) 0%; (b) 10%; (c) 20%; (d) 30%; (e) 40%; Generally, the cooling load for air-conditioning seldom went
(f) 50%.
down to 70% or below, that is, the BAR can be less than 30% for
normally operating. Therefore, 5e10 NDA may be a suitable range
for better PRR performance.
4.1. Optimum primary nozzle diverging angle

In order to find out the optimum primary nozzle diverging angle
(NDA) of the adjustable ejector, the primary nozzle diverging angle
was increased in steps as 0 , 2.5 , 5 ,7.5 and10 . The PRR with the
varying NDA under different BAR is presented in Fig. 10.The sec-
ondary flow rates were all kept in the designed value. The results
indicate that when the BAR was 0, PRR increased from 16.6% to the
maximum of 19.1% as the NDA increased from 0 to 10 . When the
BAR increased to 10%, the peak of the PRR appeared at an NDA of
7.5 . As the BAR increased further, the points where the PRR starts
to drop occurred at subsequently lower NDA. For instance, as the
BAR was increased from 20% to 50%, the NDA at which the
maximum points of PRR occurred decreased from 5 to 0 . A
possible reason for the phenomenon is that as the BAR increases,
the shape of the flow domain in the nozzle changes, and the critical
area Acr of the nozzle decreases. According to the equation list
below:
   kþ1
A 1 2 k  1 2 2ðk1Þ
¼ 1þ Ma
Ma k þ 1
Acr 2
4.2. Optimum length of the constant-pressure mixing section
The effect of the length of the constant-pressure mixing section
(Lcm) on PRR was investigated and the results are shown in Fig. 11. It
can be seen from the results that when the BAR was 0, the PRR
increased from 18.6% to the maximum of 27.7% as the Lcm increased
from 15 mm to 25 mm, and decreased to 25.9% when the Lcm was
30 mm. Then, as the BAR increased, the trend of the PRR was
repeated wherein it initially raised and then decreased with
increasing Lcm. However, the available maximum PRR in each curve
decreased from 27.7% to 8.5% as the BAR was increased. In all
conditions, it is obvious that the peaks of PRR appeared in the range
BAR 0
BAR 10%
30 BAR 20%
BAR 30%
BAR 40%
(2)
BAR 50%

the area A where the flow reaches the maximum Ma is also

20
decreased, which means the maximum velocity point of the
PRR (%)

Table 4
Flow rates and available PRR under different BAR.
10
BAR (%) mp (kg/s) ms (kg/s) PRR (%)

0 0.0196 0.0249 18.8

10 0.0178 0.0249 17.8
20 0.0158 0.0250 17.8 15 20 25 30
30 0.0139 0.0250 14.9
Lcm (mm)
40 0.0119 0.0248 8.1
50 0.0099 0.0247 5.0
Fig. 11. Effect of Lcm on PRR at different BAR.
 C. Lin et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 61 (2013) 649e656 655

Table 5
Comparison of PRR before and after geometries optimization.

BAR (%) PRR at default PRR at optimum Improvement (%)

geometries (%) geometries (%)

0 18.8 28.0 48.9

10 17.8 24.5 37.6
20 17.8 21.1 18.5
30 14.9 17.4 16.8
40 8.1 12.8 58.0
50 5.0 8.5 70.0

Fig. 12. Effect of NXP on PRR at different BAR.
of 20e25 mm constant-pressure mixing section. This is probably
because as the BAR increases, the total kinetic energy achieved in
primary flow is reduced, resulting in a shorter shock train. Since a
higher primary flow velocity is corresponding to a lower primary
flow pressure to obey the conservation law, the pressure in the
beginning of the constant-area mixing section is relatively higher
with the decreasing of the primary flow rate, under a certain length
of the constant-pressure mixing section before constant-area
mixing section, which means that more energy cost is needed to
draw the secondary flow of same rate into the constant-area mixing
section.
4.3. Optimum nozzle exit position
The nozzle exit position (NXP) was adjusted from 5 mm to
5 mm at step size of 2.5 mm, to evaluate the effect of nozzle exit
position on PRR. The results are given in Fig. 12. It illustrates that
the PRR increased slightly from 26.4% to the maximum 28% as the
NXP was changed from 5 mm to 2.5 mm, and then decreased to
25.7% as the NXP increased further. Similar behavior of PRR was
found in each curve at different BAR. The differences among these
curves can be concluded: 1) the peaks of the PRR appeared at
different NXP. For instance, the curve of 0 BAR gave the maximum
PRR at 2.5 mm NXP while the maximum PRR under 50% BAR
appeared at 2.5 mm NXP. 2) PRR at each NXP was reduced with the
increasing BAR. The explanation for the phenomenon may be the
same with the analysis of the length of the constant-pressure
mixing section. The pressure at the entrance of the constant-
area mixing section is relatively lower in case the distance be-
tween the nozzle exit and the entrance of constant-area mixing
section becomes shorter, causing a lower energy cost to entrain
the secondary flow. Accordingly, for a system that is operated
regularly, NXP should be controlled in the range of 2.5 mm
to 0 mm.
4.4. Optimum converging angle of constant-pressure mixing section
The effect of converging angle of constant-pressure mixing
section (q) on PRR was investigated to find out the optimum
converging angle, as shown in Fig. 13. The results indicate that
when the BAR was 0, 8 converging angle gave the maximum of
27.7% PRR, and then the PRR decreased slightly with the increasing
of q. As the BAR increased over 10%, each curve presented the same
behavior except that the peaks appeared at q ¼ 6 . For the
constant-pressure mixing section, a too low q means the constant-
pressure mixing section is inefficient and only constant-area
mixing section is involved in the ejector, which results in the
descent of the ejector performance. When the q is too high,
however, the horizontal kinetic energy of secondary flow in
constant-pressure mixing section may be reduced due to the
shape of the section. The q, thus, should be controlled in a
reasonable range according to different conditions. Based on the
results, 6e8 converging angle seems to be more suitable for the
adjustable ejector used in the system, of which the possible
explanation can be concluded that when the primary flow rate
decreases, as well as the exergy in primary flow, the q adopted in
normal condition becomes too large to achieve the maximum
horizontal kinetic energy of secondary flow in this section, causing
the descent of PRR.

5. Conclusions

In this study, the optimum values of several important ejector

geometry parameters nozzle diverging angle, length of the
constant-pressure mixing section, nozzle exit position and
converging angle of the constant-pressure mixing section were
investigated by CFD modeling. The CFD model was firstly validated
with the actual experimental results, and then 108 different ge-
ometries were created in CFD model to study the pressure recovery
behaviors of the adjustable ejector. The effects of these geometry

Table 6
The optimum important geometries for the adjustable ejector.

θ Geometries NDA ( ) Lcm (mm) NXP (mm) q ( )

Values 5e10 20e25 2.5 to 0 6e8
Fig. 13. Effect of q on PRR at different BAR.
656 C. Lin et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 61 (2013) 649e656

parameters on the PRR of the ejector were analyzed in details, References

which provided guidelines for the ejector design. The main findings
can be summarized as below: [1] R.B. Power, Steam Jet Ejectors for the Process Industries, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1994.
[2] Y. Bartosiewicz, Z. Aidoun, P. Desevaux, Y. Mercadier, Numerical and experi-

The pressure recovery performance of the adjustable ejector mental investigations on supersonic ejectors, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 26 (2005)
under optimum geometry parameters can be illustrated 56e70.
[3] E. Stefan, Historical and present developments of ejector refrigeration systems
as shown in Table 5. And based on the analysis of with emphasis on transcritical carbon dioxide air-conditioning applications,
physical mechanism, the optimum geometry parameters for Int. J. Refrig. 34 (2011) 1545e1561.
the performance of ejector can be concluded, shown in [4] S. Varga, A.C. Oliveira, B. Diaconu, Influence of geometrical factors on steam
ejector performance e a numerical assessment, Int. J. Refrig. 32 (2009) 1694e
Table 6. 1701.

Among these geometry parameters, two of the important ge- [5] M. Sokolov, D. Hershgal, Enhanced ejector refrigeration cycles powered by
ometries which are the most sensitive to the pressure recovery low grade heat. Part 3. Experimental results, Int. J. Refrig. 14 (1991) 24e31.
[6] J.H. Wang, J.H. Wu, S.S. Hu, B.J. Huang, Performance of ejector cooling system
properties are the nozzle diverging angle and the length of the
with thermal pumping effect using R141b and R365mfc, Appl. Therm. Eng. 29
constant-pressure mixing section. Therefore, these two ge- (2009) 1904e1912.
ometry parameters should be carefully considered in the [7] L. Kairouani, M. Elakhdar, E. Nehdi, N. Bouaziz, Use of ejectors in a multi-
evaporator refrigeration system for performance enhancement, Int. J. Refrig.
adjustable ejector design.
32 (2009) 1173e1185.
[8] Y. Liu, T. Xin, L. Cao, C. Wan, M. Zhang, Compression-injection hybrid refrigera-
Acknowledgements tion cycles in household refrigerators, Appl. Therm. Eng. 30 (2010) 2442e2447.
[9] M. Yari, Performance analysis and optimization of a new two-stage ejector-
expansion transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 48 (2009)
This work was funded by A*STAR-MND Green Building Joint 1997e2005.
Grant of Singapore: 1121760027. The assistance of Energy Research [10] S. Disawas, S. Wongwises, Experimental investigation on the performance of
the refrigeration cycle using a two-phase ejector as an expansion device, Int. J.
Institute @ NTU (ERI@N) is greatly appreciated.
Refrig. 27 (2004) 587e594.
[11] J. Sarkar, Optimization of ejector-expansion transcritical CO2 heat pump cycle,
Nomenclature Energy 33 (2008) 1399e1406.
[12] M. Nakagawa, A.R. Marasigan, T. Matsukawa, A. Kurashina, Experimental
investigation on the effect of mixing length on the performance of two-phase
A area (m2) ejector for CO2 refrigeration cycle with and without heat exchanger, Int. J.
BAR blockage area ratio Refrig. 34 (2011) 1604e1613.
[13] X. Ma, W. Zhang, S.A. Omer, S.B. Riffat, Experimental investigation of a novel
L length (mm) steam ejector refrigerator suitable for solar energy applications, Appl. Therm.
m mass flow rate (kg s1) Eng. 30 (2010) 1320e1325.
Ma Mach number [14] R. Yapıcı, H.K. Ersoy, A. Aktoprakog lu, H.S. Halkacı, O. Yigit, Experimental
determination of the optimum performance of ejector refrigeration system
NDA nozzle diverging angle ( )
depending on ejector area ratio, Int. J. Refrig. 31 (2008) 1183e1189.
NXP primary nozzle exit position (mm) [15] K. Chunnanond, S. Aphornratana, An experimental investigation of a steam
p pressure (bar) ejector refrigerator: the analysis of the pressure profile along the ejector,
PRR pressure recovery ratio Appl. Therm. Eng. 24 (2004) 311e322.
[16] Y. Jia, C. Wenjian, Area ratio effects to the performance of air-cooled ejector
refrigeration cycle with R134a refrigerant, Energ. Convers. Manage. 53 (2012)
240e246.
[17] I.W. Eames, A.E. Ablwaifa, V. Petrenko, Results of an experimental study of an
Greek letters advanced jet-pump refrigerator operating with R245fa, Appl. Therm. Eng. 27
q converging angle of constant-pressure mixing section ( ) (2007) 2833e2840.
k adiabatic exponent [18] Y. Zhu, W. Cai, C. Wen, Y. Li, Numerical investigation of geometry parameters for
design of high performance ejectors, Appl. Therm. Eng. 29 (2009) 898e905.
[19] C. Li, Y. Li, L. Wang, Configuration dependence and optimization of the
entrainment performance for gasegas and gaseliquid ejectors, Appl. Therm.
Subscripts Eng. 48 (2012) 237e248.
[20] C. Lin, W. Cai, Y. Li, J. Yan, Y. Hu, Pressure recovery ratio in a variable cooling
b back loads ejector-based multi-evaporator refrigeration system, Energy 44 (2012)
cm constant-pressure mixing section 649e656.
cr critical [21] C. Lin, W. Cai, Y. Li, J. Yan, Y. Hu, The characteristics of pressure recovery in an
adjustable ejector multi-evaporator refrigeration system, Energy 46 (2012)
p primary flow
148e155.
s secondary flow [22] NIST Chemistry WebBook, NIST standard reference database number 69, June
0 designed condition 2005 release, http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/.