i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f r e f r i g e r a t i o n 3 4 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 7 0 7 e1 7 1 6

available at www.sciencedirect.com

w w w . i i fi i r . o r g

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

Performance of ejector cooling systems using low ecological

impact refrigerants

Raul Roman a, Jorge I. Hernandez b,*

a
Posgrado en Ingenierı́a, Energı́a, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apdo. Postal 34, Temixco, Morelos 62580, Mexico
b
Centro de Investigación en Energı́a, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apdo. Postal 34, Temixco, Morelos 62580, Mexico

article info abstract

Article history: The theoretical behaviour of an ejector cooling system, using as working fluids propane,
Received 16 March 2010 butane, isobutane, R152a and R134a, is obtained. The ejector works as a thermo-
Received in revised form compressor that is simulated with a validated one-dimensional mathematical model,
18 February 2011 whose errors are lower than 6%. For a system unitary cooling capacity, a parametric study
Accepted 12 March 2011 is carried out varying the generation, condensation and evaporation temperatures. From
Available online 21 March 2011 the obtained data, a complete analysis of the system performance can be achieved when
the ejector and system operation parameters are considered. The best performance
Keywords: corresponds to the system using propane, because has the highest system coefficient of
Cooling performance and its ejector has the maximum entrainment ratio value, the least area ratio
Ejector system value and the highest efficiency value. The considered generation temperature ranging
Performance from 70
C to 95
C is appropriate for low-grade energy sources assisting thermal cooling
Hydrocarbon systems. After this system performance, come those in which R152a and R134a are
R134a employed, with isobutane and butane at the end. The obtained results represent potential
R152a design points of an efficient ejector cooling system operation, because to each combination
of the above mentioned temperatures corresponds one and only one ejector geometry.
ª 2011 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.

Performance des systèmes de refroidissement à éjecteur

employant des frigorigènes exerçant un faible impact sur
l’environnement
Mots clés : Refroidissement ; Système à éjecteur ; Performance ; Hydrocarbure ; R134a ; R152a

1. Introduction Chunnanond and Aphornratana, 2004; Abdulateef et al.,

2009).
The current searching of new refrigerants to operate Ejector ECS employing halocarbon refrigerants have reached good
Cooling Systems, ECS, has a dual purpose: to improve its efficiencies as well as appropriate levels of operation versatility.
performance and decrease its ecological impact (Sun, 1995; Unfortunately, the phasing-out of ozone-damaging refrigerants

* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: þ55 56229791.

E-mail addresses: rra@cie.unam.mx (R. Roman), jhg@cie.unam.mx (J.I. Hernandez).
0140-7007/$ e see front matter ª 2011 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2011.03.006
1708 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f r e f r i g e r a t i o n 3 4 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 7 0 7 e1 7 1 6
Nomenclature
COP coefficient of performance (dimensionless)
d diameter (m)
ECS ejector cooling system
Ff evaluated friction factor (dimensionless)
F0f friction factor datum (dimensionless)
G mathematical function
h specific enthalpy (kJ kg1)
k specific heat ratio, cp/cv, (dimensionless)
l distance, length (m)
L length ratio (dimensionless)
m _ mass flow rate (kg s1)
M* critical Mach number (dimensionless)
MFPM modified false position method
p pressure (MPa)
Q_ heat flow rate (kW)
T temperature (
C)
U entrainment ratio m _ 1 (dimensionless)
_ 2 =m
V velocity (m s1)
W_ mechanical power or work rate (kW)
f ejector area ratio, (dm/dt)2, (dimensionless)
G ejector expansion ratio, p1/p2, (dimensionless)
h efficiency (dimensionless)
U diffuser area ratio, (dd/dm)2, (dimensionless)
j main nozzle area ratio, (de/dt)2, (dimensionless)
has made necessary the research of alternatives, among which,
the hydrocarbons are advisable candidates in small refrigera-
tion systems. They are environmentally friendly with null or
negligible ozone depletion and global warming potentials, but
are explosive as well as flammable and require special manip-
ulation in practical usage. In order to know how the ECS behaves
thermodynamically in typical cooling applications employing
some hydrocarbons as refrigerant, certain theoretical research
has been carried out (Haidar et al., 1995; Selvaraju and Mani,
2004; Pridasawas and Lundqvist, 2007; Nehdi et al., 2008;
Boumaraf and Lallemand, 2009). The main information avail-
able in literature for some of the hydrocarbon and nowadays
accepted halocarbon refrigerants is shown in Table 1. As
observed, the temperature difference TGE  TCO and TCO  TEV is
an important parameter related to the expansion and
compression processes carried out internally in the ejector, in
which the first has to be higher as a work provider for the
compression process. So, for an ECS employing isobutane were
obtained entrainment ratio values between 0.12 and 0.45 for
generator, condenser and evaporator temperatures varying
from 82
C to 90
C; 25
C to 52
C and 4
C to 10
C, respectively
(Haidar et al., 1995; Selvaraju and Mani, 2004; Pridasawas and
Lundqvist, 2007). The entrainment ratio value of 0.12 resulted
to be high for an expansion and compression temperature
difference of 30
C and 48
C, whose values have a contrary
tendency to the other reported results. For the butane only one
study was found with an entrainment ratio value of 0.31 for
generator and evaporator temperatures of 90
C and 15
C with
a condenser temperature of 35
C (Nehdi et al., 2008). A similar
situation of inconsistency was also found for the propane and
halocarbon refrigerants, according to the results shown in
q ejector temperature ratio, T2/T1, (dimensionless)
x ejector driving pressure ratio, p1/p3,
(dimensionless)
Subscripts
a ideal condition at the main nozzle exit
a’ actual condition at the main nozzle exit
c mixing chamber exit
CO condenser
comp compression
d diffuser
e main nozzle exit
E ejector
exp expansion
EV evaporator
GE generator
i ideal
m mixing chamber
n main nozzle, between main nozzle exit and
mixing chamber inlet
pr reversible pump
s system
t main nozzle throat
1,.,6 thermodynamic cycle states or mathematical
function increasing numeration
Table 1. As seen, these data do not agree and certainly the
experimental information available by that time was insuffi-
cient to validate the employed ejector mathematical models.
On the other hand, and from a practical point of view, some
domestic mechanical compression systems employing isobu-
tane are nowadays available commercially, because operation
risks have been lessened with appropriate designs.
In order to clarify the discrepancies above mentioned,
a careful study on an ECS with low ecological impact refriger-
ants is necessary. Therefore, the purpose of the present work is
to obtain theoretically the performance parameters of an ECS,
for the system and ejector, through a parametric study in
which the temperatures of the generator, TGE, condenser, TCO,
and evaporator, TEV, are varied. A one-dimensional ejector
mathematical model performing under secondary flow
choking shall be used with a previous validation with experi-
mental data available in the recent literature. As well, the
refrigerants with low ecological impact, propane, butane, iso-
butene and R152a are employed. Refrigerant R134a is also
included because it has appropriate thermodynamic proper-
ties, in spite of being considered as a refrigerant in transition as
a consequence of its medium global warming potential value.
2. Parametric study
2.1. System characteristics
The ECS is made up by a generator, condenser, evaporator,
ejector, pump and expansion valve, as indicated in Fig. 1,
where the system thermodynamic states are also included.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f r e f r i g e r a t i o n 3 4 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 7 0 7 e1 7 1 6 1709

Table 1 e Principal characteristics of the ECS behaviour obtained from literature.

Author Type of 2nd flow ln Ff TGE TCO TEV Working U f TGE  TCO 
study choking (mm) (
C) (
C) (
C) fluid TCO (
C) TEV (
C)

Sun, 1999 Th. Yes e e 90 35 5 R152a 0.235 5.32 55 30

R134a 0.23 5.37 55 30
R123 0.20 7.19 55 30
Haidar et al., Th. e e e 82 52 4 R600a 0.12 2.29 30 48
1995
Kairouani et al., Th. Yes s0 0.06 5 11 18 R290 0.365 2 16 7
2009 9 R600a 0.29 14 9
9 R152a 0.28 14 9
8.5 R134a 0.275 14.5 9.5
Boumaraf and Th. Yes e e 100 45 0 R600a 0.02 4.42 55 45
Lallemand, 2009 105 0.04 4.95 60 45
115 0.075 6.14 70 45
125 0.105 7.5 80 45
Nehdi et al., Th. Yes e e 90 35 15 R152a 0.385 6.06 55 20
2008 a R134a 0.38 6.12 55 20
R290 0.37 5.13 55 20
R600 0.31 6.41 55 20
Cizungu et al., Th. Yes 0 0.03 90 30 4.6 R134a 0.35 6.68 60 25.4
2001 a
Selvaraju and Th. Yes e e 80 25 5 R134a 0.48 6.63 55 20
Mani, 2004 R600a 0.45 6.42 55 20
Selvaraju and Ex. e 1.8 e 80 29 10 R134a 0.27 5.64 51 19
Mani, 2006
Pridasawas and Th. Yes e e 90 45 10 R600a 0.225 3.63 45 35
Lundqvist, 2007

a Values in the U column correspond to COPs.

 2
de
The ejector is shown in Fig. 2 with its main geometric j¼ (2)
dt
variables, where subscripts 1 and 2 correspond to the inlet of
primary and secondary flows and 3 to the exit flow. From the being de the main nozzle exit diameter. Other important ejector
cross-sectional areas belonging to the throat and exit of the geometrical relations are the mixing chamber length ratio
ejector’s main nozzle, inlet of the cylindrical mixing chamber
lm
and exit of the diffuser, the following ejector dimensionless Lm ¼ (3)
dm
geometrical parameters result: the ejector area ratio
where lm is the mixing chamber length; and the main nozzle
 2
dm separation distance ratio
f¼ (1)
dt
ln
in which dm is the mixing chamber diameter and dt is the main Ln ¼ (4)
dm
nozzle throat diameter; the main nozzle area ratio
in which ln is the distance between the mixing chamber inlet
and the main nozzle exit. The considered ejector’s thermo-
dynamic parameters are its entrainment ratio

_2
m
U¼ (5)
_1
m

Fig. 1 e Ejector cooling system configuration. Fig. 2 e Ejector configuration.

1710 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f r e f r i g e r a t i o n 3 4 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 7 0 7 e1 7 1 6

_ 1 and m
being m _ 1 the mass flow rates for the primary and Ma ¼ G1 ðk; GÞ (11)
secondary fluids; and its efficiency
 1

_ com f ¼ G2 k; G; Uq =2 ; Ma (12)
W
hE ¼ (6)
_ exp
W  1

_ com is the work rate required in the secondary M3 ¼ G3 k; f; U; x; Uq =2 (13)
in which W
fluid’s isentropic compression process and W _ exp the work rate


produced in the main fluid’s isentropic expansion process Mc ¼ G4 k; hd ; U; M3 (14)
(Mooney David, 1955). Considering the conservation equations
 
for the actual and ideal processes, the resulting efficiency is 1
Ff ¼ G5 k; Lm ; Mc ; Ma ; Uq =2 (15)

hE ¼ hcom hexp
where hcom and hexp are the efficiencies for the compression
and expansion processes, respectively. As these efficiencies
behave contrary, a couple of these parameters shall maximize
the ejector efficiency. A more common form of the ejector
efficiency is found when the equations of conservation and
production of entropy for the ideal and actual processes are
employed, resulting
U of Lu is shown in Fig. 3. The input values to find G converging
hE ¼
Ui
where Ui is the ideal entrainment ratio for the ejector’s
reversible processes of expansion and compression (Chen and
Hsu, 1987). In regard to the ECS, its coefficient of performance is
Q_ EV
COPs ¼ (7)
_
Q GE þ Wp _ r
(6a) where k is the refrigerant specific heat ratio, cp/cv, G is the
ejector expansion ratio, p1/p2, q the ejector temperature ratio,
T2/T1, x the ejector driving pressure ratio, p1/p3, hd the diffuser
efficiency, U the diffuser area ratio, (dd/dm)2, Ff the friction
factor and Ma ; Mc andM3 are the exit critical Mach numbers for
the main nozzle, mixing chamber and ejector, respectively. Lu
found from experimental results a friction factor of 0.07 for an
ECS operating with refrigerant R11.
The algorithm employed to solve the mathematical model
(6b)
to F0f datum are T2, T3, U, f, hd and k. Firstly, G values enclosing
its converging solution are found. Then, with the Modified

whose terms are the heat flow rate transferred at the evapo-
rator and generator as well as the rate of mechanical work
required by the reversible pump, which are defined as

Q_ GE ¼ m
_ 1 ðh1  h5r Þ (8)

Q_ EV ¼ m
_ 2 ðh2  h6 Þ (9)

_ r¼m
Wp _ 1 ðh5r  h4 Þ (10)

and subscripts are indicated in Fig. 1, where the reversible

pump exit enthalpy is given by h5r. Substitution of Eqs. (5) and
(8) to (10) into Eq. (7), gives
ðh2  h6 Þ
COPs ¼ U (7a)
ðh1  h4 Þ

2.2. Validation of the ejector mathematical model

The ejector simulation is performed with the one-dimen-

sional mathematical model of Lu (Lu, 1986), in which the
secondary fluid choking is considered in conjunction with the
following assumptions:

1. Steady state performance;

2. Fluids behave as perfect gases;
3. Flow along the main nozzle is isentropic;
4. Friction losses in mixing chamber are considered as pipe-
line minor losses;
5. Null main nozzle separation distance;
6. Complete fluid mixture at mixing chamber exit which gave Fig. 3 e Algorithm to solve the Lu’s mathematical model
rise to the next system of dimensionless nonlinear explicit (Lu, 1986), for the ejector operating under secondary flow
relations. choking.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f r e f r i g e r a t i o n 3 4 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 7 0 7 e1 7 1 6 1711

False Position Method, MFPM, converging G is determined as

Table 2 e Errors obtained in the validation of the Lu’s
well as the respective entrainment ratio U. ejector model with experimental data of Yapici et al.
In order to validate Lu’s model with other ejector geome- (2008).
tries and refrigerants, the experimental results of Yapici et al.
TEV TCO TGE f Error U Error
(2008) were employed. Using refrigerant R123, they considered (
C) (
C) (
C) % %
the influence of the ejector area ratio on optimum ejector Lu Exp. Lu Exp.
performance. Six different ejectors were used with a fixed 10 33.75 83 6.54 6.56 0.305 0.398 0.376 5.851
separation distance of the main nozzle of 5 mm and 10 33.75 90 8 7.86 1.781 0.441 0.454 2.863
a constant mixing chamber length ratio of 7.5. This separation 10 33.75 91 8.25 8.32 0.841 0.472 0.448 5.357
allows the ejector to reach higher U values which render in 10 33.75 98.2 10.09 9.97 1.204 0.516 0.524 1.527
10 33.75 103.3 11.39 11.45 0.524 0.548 0.555 1.261
a system improvement. Therefore, original Lu’s model was
modified and a similar algorithm was employed having T1, T2,
T3, f, U, hd, lm and U as inputs. Eqs. (11) and (12) are uncoupled
and the ideal critical Mach number, Ma , is determined with the
first equation and the actual critical Mach number, Ma0 , with important to point out that this algorithm allows obtaining an
the second one. The rest of the unknowns are found efficient ejector for every group of inlet data. Therefore, the
sequentially until Ff. With these critical Mach numbers, the results found correspond to the characteristics of a particular
main nozzle efficiency, hn, is evaluated as ejector and one ejector obtained in this way shall never satisfy
two different groups of inlet data.
  2
Ma0
hn ¼ (16)
Ma 2.3. Selected refrigerants characteristics
The results obtained are shown in Fig. 4, where the friction
factor and nozzle efficiency are plotted against dimensionless The working fluids chosen for the ECS operation are the
abscissa Ln and j, respectively. A straight line was adjusted to hydrocarbon refrigerants: propane, isobutane and butane, as
every group of results and the extrapolation of Ff for a null nozzle well as halocarbon refrigerants R152a and R134a, in which
separation distance reached a value of 0.066 which agrees with R123 is also included because it was employed in the ejector
that obtained by Lu for R11. With these distributions, a general- model validation. Table 3 shows their main physical, envi-
ised algorithm was employed to validate the ejector performance ronmental and safety characteristics. In the first column is
giving T1, T2, T3, U, hd, lm, k, Ff like function of Ln and hn as function indicated the refrigerant name. The second column contains
of j in order to obtain the theoretical values of U and f, whose the refrigerant molecular mass which has been related to the
errors with Yapici data were lower than 6%, as Table 2 shows. ejector size. From the third to the fifth column are indicated
So, a reliable ejector model with such main nozzle geometry the critical values of temperature, pressure and density. The
and mixing chamber characteristics is available. As well, it is first two parameters are related to the higher conditions at
which the generator can operate in a subcritical system. As
well, the ratio of this pressure to its temperature is a parameter
related to the level of pressure in which the system will oper-
ate. Thus, an ECS employing R290, R152a and R134a will
experience the higher pressures and will have the more robust
construction. The sixth and seventh columns contain the
typical saturation conditions at which the generator and
evaporator can operate. So, when higher the saturation pres-
sure is at the generator, the more robust the generator will be.
While, higher the latent heat ratio is, the higher the system
COP will be. The eighth column is indicating the normal boiling
point, and as lower this temperature is higher the pressures in
the system will be. The next column is related to the quality the
refrigerant has when falling or not into the saturation curve at
the main nozzle exit in its expansion process. Finally, the
environmental and safety characteristics of the refrigerants
are shown in the last four columns. In regard to the ODP, all the
refrigerants have null values and for the GWP only the R134a
has a high value for which is transition refrigerant. In relation
to the flammability, only two halocarbon refrigerants have null
values and the hydrocarbon have medium values, the highest
value corresponds to R152a. Regarding the toxicity, the
propane and halocarbon R152a and R134a have the highest
values. So, the selected refrigerants, excepting partially the
Fig. 4 e Friction factor Ff and nozzle efficiency hn against the R134a, satisfy the condition of being environmental friendly
double dimensionless abscissa, main nozzle separation and only their thermodynamic behaviour in the operation of
distance ratio Ln and main nozzle area ratio j. an ECS needs to be study.
1712 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f r e f r i g e r a t i o n 3 4 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 7 0 7 e1 7 1 6

Table 3 e Properties of the refrigerants used as working fluid in an ECS, obtained partially from Calm and Hourahan (2001).
Name Molecular Critical Critical Critical Saturation Ratio of latent NBPa Wet/ ODPb GWPb LFLc (%) Toxicity
mass temperature pressure density pressure at heats at 10
C (
C) dry (ppm)
(kg/kmol) (
C) (MPa) (kg/m3) 95
C (MPa) and 95
C vapour

R290 44.10 96.7 4.25 222.22 4.12 4.51 42.2 Wet 0 20 2.1 2500
R600 58.12 152.0 3.80 227.83 1.38 1.40 0.5 Dry 0 20 1.5 800
R600a 58.12 134.7 3.64 222.22 1.80 1.55 11.7 Dry 0 20 1.7 800
R134a 102.03 101.1 4.06 507.87 3.59 2.92 26.50 Wet 0 1300 None 1000
R152a 66.05 113.3 4.52 364.96 3.17 1.97 25.0 Wet 0 120 3.7 1000
R123 152.93 183.8 3.66 554.94 0.70 1.30 27.33 Dry 0.012 120 None 50

a Normal boiling point.

b Ozone depletion potential relative to R11 (ODP). Global warming potential relative to CO2 (GWP); integration time ¼ 100 years.
c Lower flammability limit in % concentration ambient air.

2.4. Obtention of results capacity is unitary, consequently, m_ 2 remains constant. As TGE

In order to determine the ejector and ECS performance with
different hydrocarbon and halocarbon refrigerants, a para-
metric study with lowest Ff and highest hn was carried out for
a constant cooling capacity of 1 kW. Temperatures for the
generator, condenser and evaporator varied from 70
C to
100
C; 25
C to 35
C and 5
C to 15
C, respectively. A super-
heating of 5
C was considered at the generator exit while the
saturation at condenser and evaporator exits. Corresponding
results are shown from Figs. 5e13.
3. Analysis of results
3.1. Ejector Performance
The behaviour of U and f against TGE is shown in Fig. 5 for the
five refrigerants chosen. In this case, the condenser and
evaporator temperatures are fixed and the system cooling
increases, the primary fluid pressure and enthalpy also grow
and unvarying m _ 2 requires a lower m _ 1 to be entrained,
resulting thus an increase in U. In regard to the working fluid
influence on the ejector behaviour, the highest U values
correspond to a device operating with R290 and the lowest
with R123. The ejectors using R152a, R134a and R600a have
almost the same U values and are immediately below the
ejector employing R290. Finally, the ejector using R600 is
beneath the tendency before mentioned as well as above that
for the ejector operating with R123. In regard to f, it increases
at higher generation temperatures because a reduction in m _1
entails a decrease in dt, while dm remains almost constant. On
the other hand, an ejector operating with R290 has lower f
values than using R123. This behaviour is caused by the larger
dm required with R123, due to the higher m_ 1 and m
_ 2 required to
operate at the given temperatures and cooling capacity. This
means that an ejector using R290 is smaller than another
operating with R123. The ejectors using R600a, R152a, R134a
and R600 have larger dimensions than the one employing
R290 with very similar f values.

Fig. 5 e Entrainment ratio U and ejector area ratio f against Fig. 6 e Entrainment ratio U and ejector area ratio f against
TGE for a constant TEV of 10
C and TCO of 30
C for TCO for a constant TEV of 10
C and TGE of 80
C for
refrigerants R290, R600a, R600, R152a, R134a and R123. refrigerants R290, R600a, R600, R152a, R134a and R123.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f r e f r i g e r a t i o n 3 4 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 7 0 7 e1 7 1 6
Fig. 7 e Entrainment ratio U and ejector area ratio f against
TEV for a constant TCO of 30
C and TGE of 80
C for
refrigerants R290, R600a, R600, R152a, R134a and R123.
According to Fig. 5, it is important to point out that an
ejector operating with R290 reaches a maximum generator
temperature of 95
C, because it operates nearly and under its
critical point, which is around 96
C as Table 3 shows. For the
other refrigerants, this limitation is not present and it is
possible to attain generator temperatures of 100
C. Also, as
the TGE of any refrigerant has a corresponding saturation
pressure and considering its critical point shown in Table 3, an
Fig. 8 e Ejector efficiency hE against TGE for a constant TEV of
10
C and TCO of 30
C for refrigerants R290, R600a, R600,
R152a, R134a and R123.
1713
Fig. 9 e Ejector efficiency hE against TCO for a constant TEV of
10
C and TGE of 80
C for refrigerants R290, R600a, R600,
R152a, R134a and R123.
ECS working with R290, R152a and R134a will experience the
higher pressures and will have the more robust construction.
The trend of U and f against TCO is shown in Fig. 6 for
a unitary capacity of the cooling system and constant gener-
ator and evaporator temperatures. In this plot, U decreases as
TCO increases because any increase in this temperature results
_ 1 and m
in a pCO growth, causing a rise in m _ 2 in order to provide
Fig. 10 e Ejector efficiency hE against TEV for a constant TCO
of 30
C and TGE of 80
C for refrigerants R290, R600a, R600,
R152a, R134a and R123.
1714 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f r e f r i g e r a t i o n 3 4 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 7 0 7 e1 7 1 6
Fig. 11 e System coefficient of performance COPs against
TGE for a constant TEV of 10
C and TCO of 30
C for
refrigerants R290, R600a, R600, R152a, R134a and R123.
a higher secondary fluid recompression and to maintain
a fixed cooling capacity, respectively. Then, as m _ 1 increases
much more than m _ 2 does, U decreases. In relation to the
refrigerant effect on the ejector operation, lower U values are
obtained for the ejector using R123 and higher with R290. For
the other refrigerants, the ejectors have intermediate U values
and follow the tendency above mentioned. Regarding f, the
rise in m _ 2 as TCO grows, causes an increase in dt and dm
_ 1 and m
Fig. 12 e System coefficient of performance COPs against
TCO for a constant TEV of 10
C and TGE of 80
C for
refrigerants R290, R600a, R600, R152a, R134a and R123.
Fig. 13 e System coefficient of performance COPs against
TEV for a constant TCO of 30
C and TGE of 80
C for
refrigerants R290, R600a, R600, R152a, R134a and R123.
in which the growing rate is higher for the first one, giving that
f decreases. Once again, the order in the magnitude of f above
mentioned in the feTGE plot is repeated and the lowest f
values correspond to an ejector operating with R290.
For a system unitary cooling capacity with constant
generator and condenser temperatures, the change of U and f
against TEV is shown in Fig. 7 in which U experiences a growth
tendency with TEV increments. As any increase in tempera-
ture goes with a pressure raise, for which m _ 2 remains almost
invariable and a lower m _ 1 is required as the reduction effect in
the secondary fluid recompression, U increases. Again, the
lower U values are obtained for an ejector employing R123 and
the higher using R290. Also, ejectors employing the other
refrigerants have intermediate U values and follow the
tendency already mentioned. Regarding f, as there is a higher
reduction of m _ 1 than m_ 2 as TEV grows, a lower decreasing rate
of dm than dt is found and gives rise to a f growth. Again, the
tendency already mentioned is repeated with the lower f
values belonging to an ejector using R290.
From the above U plots, an ejector operating at the same
temperatures and using hydrocarbon refrigerants has the
highest U values for R290, intermediate for R600a and lower
for R600. In regard to the halocarbon refrigerants, ejectors
employing R152a and R134a are immediately below that one
using R290 with R123 at the end of all. In relation to f, the
highest values are given for an ejector using R123 and the
lowest for R290. For the other refrigerants, intermediate f
values are found.
Finally, the last ejector parameter considered is its efficiency,
hE, which is shown from Figs. 8 to 10. In the plot of hE against TGE
shown in Fig. 8, as this temperature increases hE has a growing
tendency with the higher value, for three of the employed
refrigerants that according to Table 3 are wet. For the ejectors
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f r e f r i g e r a t i o n 3 4 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 7 0 7 e1 7 1 6
using the other refrigerants, which are dry, hE reaches
a maximum value and starts decreasing. The behaviour above
mentioned is given by the growth rate of U and Ui with TGE,
regarding the wet refrigerants is lower for Ui than U and higher
for the dry refrigerants. Also, the change in ejector efficiency
growth tendency for the wet refrigerants is caused by the ejector
ideal exit, which falls inside the saturation curve. So, the higher
efficiency is obtained for the ejector operating with R290 and the
lower when R123 is used. In a descending order come the ejectors
using R152a and R134a, with very similar values, then comes an
ejector using R600a and finally that employing R600.
The plot of hE against TCO is shown in Fig. 9. As this
temperature grows, a maximum efficiency is reached by the
ejector operating with R290 and then starts decreasing. For the
other refrigerants, the ejectors have efficiencies with
a decreasing tendency. Again, the better performance is for an
ejector using R290 and the poorer when employing R123, while
the ejectors operating with the rest of refrigerants repeat the
above mentioned order in the magnitude of hE.
The variation of hE against TEV is shown in Fig. 10. As this
temperature increases, a maximum efficiency is reached once
more for the ejector employing R290 to start decreasing.
Ejectors operating with the rest of refrigerants have an
increasing tendency. The higher and lower hE values are given
by the ejector using R290 and R123, respectively. For ejectors
employing the other refrigerants, the above indicated order in
the magnitude of hE is followed.
From above hE plots, the highest values are obtained for an
ejector operating with R290, which also has higher U and
lowest f values. In regard to the ejector using refrigerants
R134a and R152a, they have similar hE values, which are lower
than those of R290, followed by ejectors employing R600a and
R600 with R123 at the end.
3.2. Ejector cooling system performance
Figs. 11e13 show the tendency of the system coefficient of
performance, COPs. Its variation with TGE is shown in Fig. 11
and follows a similar U growing path, due to its dependence
with this parameter as well as the refrigerant properties,
according to Eq. (7a). The best performance corresponds to the
system using R290 and R152a. So, at a TGE of 95
C an ECS
employing the first refrigerant has a COP around 0.72 and of
0.69 for the second, while the system operating with R134a
comes immediately below them. As well, COPs values for an
ECS operating with R600a and R600 are lower. At a tempera-
ture of 100
C, the system operating with R152a reaches the
higher COPs and if the tendencies for the ECS using refriger-
ants R134a, R600, R600a and R123 are continued, they can
operate at higher temperatures and efficiencies, having only
as limit their critical temperatures. Therefore, the best
performance using a hydrocarbon refrigerant is obtained for
an ECS employing R290 at TGE not higher than 95
C.
The change of COPs with TCO is shown in Fig. 12. As this
temperature grows the COPs follows the U decreasing
tendency, repeating the trend shown in Fig. 6.
The variation of COPs against TEV is shown in Fig. 13. As this
temperature is varied, a similar pattern between COPs and U is
observed. The highest COPs values belong to the system using
R290 and R152a with the lowest for R123. In between, higher
1715
values belong to the system employing R134a and then follow
those for R600a and R600, which are similar.
As observed from Figs. 11e13, the upper COPs is achieved at
higher TGE and TEV with lower TCO. For an ECS using hydro-
carbon refrigerants, the highest COPs are obtained with
a system employing R290, the intermediate values for that
with R600a and the lower for the one with R600. In regard to
the halocarbon refrigerants, the system with R152a is below
and very close to that with R290, the system with R134a is
under them and the one with R123 is at the end of all.
4. Conclusions
The theoretical behaviour of an ECS is obtained with a vali-
dated ejector one-dimensional mathematical model with
secondary fluid choking. The refrigerants considers are
hydrocarbons R290, R600a and R600 as well as halocarbons
R152a and R134a, among which only the last one is partially
environmentally friendly. For a system constant unitary
capacity, a parametric study is carried out varying the
temperatures of the generator, condenser and evaporator. The
ejector parameters found are: the entrainment ratio; area ratio
and efficiency. The system parameter found is the coefficient
of performance.
In regard to the ejector, the best performance is obtained
when the hydrocarbon refrigerant R290 is used because has
the maximum U values, which mean lowest primary fluid
mass flow rates; least f values, meaning smallest sizes; upper
hE values denoting proficiency. Below this outstanding
behaviour, come those for ejectors employing halocarbon
refrigerants R152a and R134a with hydrocarbon refrigerants
R600a and R600 at the end.
For the ECS, upper COPs values are achieved at higher TGE
and TEV with lower TCO. An ECS operating with hydrocarbon
refrigerants has the highest COPs using R290, the intermediate
values when R600a is employed and the smallest ones when
operating with R600. In regard to the halocarbon refrigerants,
the COPs for a system using R152a is below but very close to
that of R290 with R134a under them and R123 at the end of all.
Therefore, the systems operating with R290 or R152a are good
options. Also, an ECS working with R290, R152a and R134a will
experience the higher pressures and will have the more robust
construction.
From the above mentioned data, it is important to consider
the system and ejector operation parameters to have
a complete sight of the system performance. So, the best
system is that using hydrocarbon R290 because it has the
highest COPs, meaning the most efficient system; and its
ejector has the highest U, connotation of the minimum
primary mass flow rate; lower f, denotation of the smallest
ejector; and the highest hE, implying the most efficient device.
Therefore, the use of R290 in an ECS gives the best perfor-
mance for TGE ranging from 70
C to 95
C, which are appro-
priate temperatures for thermal cooling systems. As to each
combination of the generation, condensation and evaporator
temperatures corresponds one and only one ejector geometry,
the obtained data represent possible design points of the
efficient operation of an ECS.
1716 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f r e f r i g e r a t i o n 3 4 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 7 0 7 e1 7 1 6
Acknowledgements
We thank to the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologı́a,
CONACYT, the financial support given to this research
through Project U-44764-Y.
references
Abdulateef, J.M., Sopian, K., Alghoul, M.A., Sulaiman, M.Y., 2009.
Review on solar-driven ejector refrigeration technologies.
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 13 (6e7), 1338e1349.
Boumaraf, L., Lallemand, A., 2009. Modeling of an ejector
refrigerating system operating in dimensioning and off-
dimensioning conditions with the working fluids R142b and
R600a. Appl. Therm. Eng. 29 (2e3), 265e274.
Calm, J.M., Hourahan, G.C., 2001. Refrigerant data summary.
Engineered Systems 18 (11), 74e88.
Chen, F.C., Hsu, C., 1987. Performance of ejector heat pumps. Int.
J. Energ. Res. 11, 289e300.
Chunnanond, K., Aphornratana, S., 2004. Ejectors: applications in
refrigeration technology. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 8, 129e155.
Cizungu, K., Mani, A., Groll, M., 2001. Performance comparison of
vapour jet refrigeration system with environment friendly
working fluids. Appl. Therm. Eng. 21 (5), 585e598.
Haidar, J., Kowalski, G., Foster, A., 1995. Examination of ejector
parameters in solar powered refrigeration systems,
Proceedings of the International Mechanical Engineering
Congress, Thermodynamics and Design, Analysis, and
Improvements of Energy Systems, AESD. ASME 35, 205e215.
Kairouani, L., Elakhdar, M., Nehdi, E., Bouaziz, N., 2009. Use of
ejectors in a multi-evaporator refrigeration system for
performance enhancement. Int. J. Refrigeration 32 (6), 1173e1185.
Lu L.-T.: Etudes théorique et expérimentale de la production de
froid par machine tritherme a ejecteur de fluide frigorigène,
Doctoral thesis from Institut National Polytechnique de
Grenoble, France, 1986.
Mooney David, A., 1955. Introduction to Thermodynamics and
Heat Transfer. Prentice Hall.
Nehdi, E., Kairouani, L., Elakhdar, M., 2008. A solar ejector air-
conditioning system using environment-friendly working
fluids. Int. J. Energ. Res. 32 (13), 1194e1201.
Pridasawas, W., Lundqvist, P., 2007. A year-round dynamic
simulation of solar-driven ejector refrigeration system with
iso-butane as a refrigerant. Int. J. Refrigeration 30, 840e850.
Selvaraju, A., Mani, A., 2004. Appl. Therm. Eng. 24 (5e6), 827e838.
Selvaraju, A., Mani, A., 2006. Experimental investigation on R134a
vapour ejector refrigeration system. Int. J. Refrigeration 29 (7),
1160e1166.
Sun, D.-W., 1995. Recent developments in the design theories and
applications of ejectors-a review. J. I. Energy 68 (June), 65e79.
Sun, D., 1999. Comparative study of the performance of an ejector
refrigeration cycle operating with various refrigerants. Energ.
Convers. Manage. 40 (8), 873e884.
Yapici, R., Ersoy, H.K., Aktoprakoglu, A., Halkaci, H.S.,
Yigit, O., 2008. Experimental determination of the
optimum performance of ejector refrigeration system
depending on ejector area ratio. Int. J. Refrigeration 31,
1183e1189.