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 6 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 1 2 2 0 e1 2 3 2

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

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

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

Theoretical and practical comparison of two-phase ejector

refrigeration cycles including First and Second Law analysis

Neal Lawrence, Stefan Elbel*

Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Center, Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
1206 West Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

article info abstract

Article history: This paper compares the standard two-phase ejector refrigeration cycle with a liquid
Received 9 September 2012 evapor separator to two alternate, less commonly considered two-phase ejector refriger-
Received in revised form ation cycles as well as to a conventional cycle with an expansion valve. An analytical
4 March 2013 comparison of the different ejector cycles’ theoretical COP’s is presented and used to show
Accepted 6 March 2013 that they have the same theoretical COP. Numerical models are used to further compare
Available online 15 March 2013 the cycles in terms of theoretical COP and availability destruction. The results show that
the standard two-phase ejector cycle has lower availability destruction and higher Second
Keywords: Law efficiency than the alternate ejector cycles despite having the same theoretical COP.
Ejector Some advantages and disadvantages of the different ejector cycles that are not accounted
Expansion work recovery for in the theoretical COP are discussed. The potential practical advantages offered by the
Throttling loss alternate ejector cycles show that these and other alternate ejector cycles may be worth
Availability additional attention in future studies.
Destruction ª 2013 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.
Cycle-comparison

Comparaison théorique et pratique des cycles frigorifiques

diphasiques à éjecteur, y compris à l’aide d’analyse fondée
sur les premier et second principes
Mots clés : éjecteur ; récupération du travail de détente ; perte en charge à l’étranglement ; disponibilité ; destruction ; cycle e comparaison

1. Introduction reversed Rankine cycle with an expansion turbine. A more

The throttling of a high-pressure saturated or subcooled liquid
to a low-pressure two-phase fluid in the vapor-compression
refrigeration cycle is an irreversible process which limits the
potential performance of the cycle in comparison to the
desirable process would be an isentropic expansion across
this pressure differential, increasing the cooling capacity
of the cycle and allowing for the potential to recover some
of the expansion work that would otherwise have been lost by
the throttling process. Several methods of expansion work

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 217 344 7663; fax: þ1 217 333 1942.
E-mail addresses: elbel@illinois.edu, stefanelbel@gmail.com (S. Elbel).
0140-7007/$ e see front matter ª 2013 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2013.03.007
 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 6 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 1 2 2 0 e1 2 3 2 1221

Nomenclature Subscripts
II referring to the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Abbreviations and variables Carnot referring to the Carnot COP
CFD computational fluid dynamics cond condenser
COP coefficient of performance cp compressor
COS condenser outlet split cv control volume
DOS diffuser outlet split dest destruction (of availability)
h specific enthalpy (kJ kg1) diff diffuser of the ejector
LMTD logarithmic mean temperature difference (K) evap evaporator
m_ mass flow rate (kg s1) high high-temperature evaporator
P pressure (kPa) in inlet
Q_ cooling capacity (kW) isen referring to an isentropic process
r ratio of motive to total flow () low low-temperature evaporator
s specific entropy (kJ kg1 K1) m ejector motive flow
SC subcooling mn ejector motive nozzle
SH superheat o referring to the thermodynamic dead state
T temperature (K) out outlet
V velocity (m s1) s ejector suction flow
W _ power (kW) sn ejector suction nozzle
x quality () Standard standard two-phase ejector cycle with liquid
vapor separator
Greek
total referring to the combined cooling capacity of
h efficiency ()
multiple evaporators
f specific availability (kJ kg1)
F_ total availability rate (kW)

recovery have been proposed, and among them is the two-
phase ejector. A two-phase ejector is a combined pump-
expansion device that uses the expansion of a high-pressure
fluid to entrain and increase the pressure of a low-pressure
fluid. In a two-phase ejector, a high-pressure liquid (motive)
stream is sent through a converging-diverging nozzle and
expanded to a high velocity and low pressure. This high ve-
locity motive stream is used to entrain a low-pressure vapor
(suction) stream through momentum transfer between the
two streams. The two streams are mixed, enter a diffuser,
where they are decelerated and compressed to a pressure
higher than the initial pressure of the suction stream, and exit
the ejector as a two-phase fluid; the result is a pressure in-
crease provided to the low-pressure vapor that is being
pumped by the high-pressure liquid.
The concept of using a two-phase ejector to reduce throt-
tling losses in a refrigeration cycle was first proposed by Gay
(1931). Kornhauser (1990) developed a thermodynamic model
for the combined expansion and pumping processes in the
ejector and found theoretical COP improvements for the
ejector cycle of 21% over the expansion valve cycle with R12 as
the working fluid. Domanski (1995) used the model of
Kornhauser (1990) to analyze 38 different refrigerants with the
standard two-phase ejector cycle and found that most com-
mon refrigerants, including R12, R22, R32, R134a, propane,
isobutane, and ammonia, offer between 10 and 30% theoret-
ical COP improvement. Initial experimental results by Harrell
and Kornhauser (1995) showed an ejector system could ach-
ieve COP improvements of 3.9e7.6% over the expansion valve
cycle using R134a as the refrigerant. Disawas and Wongwises
(2004) also used R134a with the ejector cycle and observed COP
improvements between 5% and 10%.
Much of the recent work on two-phase ejectors has been
focused on transcritical CO2 systems because of the high
throttling loss and high potential for improvement associated
with the throttling of transcritical CO2 in the expansion valve
cycle. Liu et al. (2002) performed one of the first numerical
analyses on the transcritical CO2 ejector cycle and calculated a
COP improvement of up to 14% compared to an expansion
valve cycle. Elbel and Hrnjak (2004a) and Li and Groll (2005)
both showed that the gas cooler pressure could be used
maximize the COP of the transcritical CO2 ejector cycle, and
they calculated maximum COP improvements of 10% and
18%, respectively. Deng et al. (2007) performed a Second Law
analysis of the transcritical CO2 ejector cycle. They found
that the high-side pressure that maximized COP was the same
as the high-side pressure that resulted in the minimum
availability destruction; they also found that at this optimum
high-side pressure, the ejector cycle resulted in a 23% reduc-
tion in the amount of availability destroyed and a 22% COP
improvement compared to the expansion valve cycle. Elbel
and Hrnjak (2008) presented experimental results of a tran-
scritical CO2 ejector cycle and achieved a simultaneous in-
crease in cooling capacity and COP of 8% and 7%, respectively.
Similar experimental studies of the transcritical CO2 ejector
cycle were also performed by Nakagawa et al. (2011) and Lee
et al. (2011) resulting in maximum COP improvements of
27% and 15%, respectively.
Several modifications to the two-phase ejector cycle of Gay
(1931) have been proposed. Kemper et al. (1966) proposed
placing a liquid pump upstream of the ejector motive nozzle
in the ejector cycle in order to increase the inlet pressure of
the motive stream. Bergander (2006) also used this idea of
using a pump to increase the ejector motive pressure and
1222 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 6 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 1 2 2 0 e1 2 3 2
proposed a cycle similar to the expansion valve cycle; in
Bergander’s cycle, the compressor is supplemented by a pump
and a two-phase ejector to further increase high-side pressure
after the compressor discharge. Newton (1972a) and Newton
(1972b) proposed modifications to the ejector cycle of Gay
(1931) to allow for capacity control by adding additional
valves or bypass lines. It should be noted that none of the
previously mentioned modifications to the original two-phase
ejector cycle have been widely adopted, possibly because two-
phase ejector cycles have not experienced large-scale
commercialization. Several additional refrigeration cycles
involving two-phase ejectors, different than the original two-
phase ejector cycle with a liquidevapor separator, have also
been proposed. Two of these cycles, proposed by Burk et al.
(2006) and Oshitani et al. (2005), will be described below.
These two cycles differ from the cycle proposed by Gay (1931)
in that they do not require a liquidevapor separator and they
allow for evaporation at two different temperatures.
The objective of this paper is to present a comparison of
three different two-phase ejector refrigeration cycles as well
as a comparison to an expansion valve refrigeration cycle with
two evaporation temperatures. An analytical comparison of
the theoretical COP’s of the ejector cycles will be presented.
Thermodynamic cycle models will also be used to compare
the theoretical COP’s of the different cycles numerically. An
availability analysis of each of the cycles will be performed
numerically, and the cycles will be further compared in terms
of each cycle’s availability destruction and Second Law effi-
ciency. The implications of each cycle’s theoretical COP and
availability destruction will be discussed. Finally, the advan-
tages and disadvantages of each cycle that are not reflected
in the theoretical COP’s or Second Law efficiencies will be
discussed.
2. Two-phase ejector cycles
Gay (1931) was the first to propose the use of a two-phase
ejector for expansion work recovery in a refrigeration cycle.
This cycle, with a liquidevapor separator, has become the
standard cycle for two-phase ejectors and has been the focus
of the majority of two-phase ejector studies. The cycle will be
referred to as the standard two-phase ejector cycle for the
remainder of the paper. A layout diagram of the standard two-
Fig. 1 e (a) Cycle layout of standard two-phase ejector cycle, (b) Pressureespecific enthalpy diagram of standard two-phase
ejector cycle.
phase ejector cycle can be seen in Fig. 1(a), and the corre-
sponding Peh diagram can be seen in Fig. 1(b).
Two additional refrigeration cycles that incorporate two-
phase ejectors are discussed here. Oshitani et al. (2005) pro-
posed an ejector cycle in which the two-phase flow discharged
from the ejector is sent through an evaporator, which leads
directly into the compressor. In this cycle, the ejector is used
to pump refrigerant through a second evaporator. The liquid
exiting the condenser is split into the ejector’s suction and
motive streams; one stream of liquid directly enters the
ejector motive nozzle as in the standard two-phase ejector
cycle, and the other stream of liquid is throttled, evaporated in
a second evaporator, and enters the ejector suction nozzle.
Because of the pressure increase associated with the ejector,
there will also be a saturation temperature increase between
the suction of the ejector and the diffuser, resulting in
different evaporation temperatures in the evaporators. Note
that because an evaporator is placed between the ejector and
compressor, there is no need for a liquid vapor separator in
this cycle. Because the liquid is split at the condenser outlet,
this cycle will be referred to as the COS (condenser outlet split)
ejector cycle. A layout diagram of the COS ejector cycle can be
seen in Fig. 2(a), and the corresponding Peh diagram can be
seen in Fig. 2(b).
Burk et al. (2006) proposed a similar two-phase ejector
cycle. In this cycle, the two-phase flow at the diffuser outlet is
split instead of the liquid at the condenser outlet, and the
ejector is again used to pump refrigerant through a second,
low-temperature evaporator; this cycle will be referred to as
the DOS (diffuser outlet split) ejector cycle. This cycle also
allows for two different evaporation temperatures and
does not require a liquidevapor separator because there is an
evaporator placed between the ejector and compressor. A
layout diagram of the DOS ejector cycle can be seen in Fig. 3(a),
and the corresponding Peh diagram can be seen in Fig. 3(b).
3. First Law analysis of cycles
3.1. Analytical performance comparison
It can be shown algebraically that the theoretical COP’s of the
three two-phase ejector cycles mentioned above are the same.
This may be counterintuitive as one may expect the throttling
 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 6 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 1 2 2 0 e1 2 3 2 1223

Fig. 2 e (a) Ejector cycle with condenser outlet split (COS) layout, (b) COS ejector cycle pressureespecific enthalpy diagram.

of the high-pressure liquid at the condenser outlet to result in h7 ¼ ð1  rÞh9 þ rh3 (4)
a larger amount of availability destruction (causing a larger
Inserting Equation (4) into Equation (2) and proceeding with
decrease in COP) than the throttling processes in the other
the algebra shows that the theoretical COP’s of the COS and
cycles; this will be discussed in detail later. The COP’s of the
DOS ejector cycles are indeed equivalent, as shown in Equa-
COS and DOS ejector cycles will be compared first. The COP of
tion (5).
the COS cycle is given in Equation (1); the state points in
Equation (1) can be seen in Fig. 2. Similarly, the COP of the DOS ðh1  h7 Þ þ ð1  rÞðh9  h3 Þ
COPDOS ¼ ¼ COPCOS (5)
cycle is given in Equation (2); the state points in Equation (2) ðh2  h1 Þ
can be seen in Fig. 3.
The expression in Equation (5) can be further simplified
Q_ high þ Q_ low ðh1  h7 Þ þ ð1  rÞðh9  h3 Þ by inserting Equation (4) into Equation (5), as shown in
COPCOS ¼ ¼ (1) Equation (6).
W_ ðh2  h1 Þ
h1  h3
Q_ high þ Q_ low rðh1  h7 Þ þ ð1  rÞðh9  h7 Þ COPDOS;COS ¼ (6)
h2  h1
COPDOS ¼ ¼ (2)
W_ rðh2  h1 Þ
This analysis can be extended to show that the COP of the
In Equation (1), the specific enthalpy at the low-temperature
COS and DOS ejector cycles is the same as the COP of the
evaporator inlet (h8) has been replaced by the specific enthalpy
standard two-phase ejector cycle. Equation (7) gives the COP
at the condenser outlet (h3) because the expansion valve is
of the standard two-phase ejector cycle; the states in Equation
assumed to operate isenthalpically; similarly, the specific
(7) can be seen in Fig. 1.
enthalpy at the low-temperature evaporator inlet (h8) has
been replaced by the specific enthalpy at the diffuser outlet Q_ ð1  rÞðh9  h8 Þ
COPStandard ¼ ¼ (7)
(h7) in Equation (2). Equations (1) and (2) have used r, the ratio W_ rðh2  h1 Þ
of the motive mass flow rate to the total mass flow rate, as
defined in Equation (3). The refrigerant flow rates in terms of r From the definition of the quality of a two-phase fluid, a
are shown in Figs. 2 and 3 as well. relation for the specific enthalpy at the diffuser outlet (h7) can
be seen in Equation (8). Equation (8) can also be obtained by
_m
m
r¼ (3) performing an energy balance on the separator. Kornhauser
_m þm
m _s
(1990) noted that in the standard two-phase ejector cycle
An energy balance on the ejector in either the COS or DOS with a liquidevapor separator, a mass balance on the separator
ejector cycle yields a relation for diffuser outlet specific can show that the quality at the diffuser outlet (x7) must be
enthalpy (h7), as shown in Equation (4). equal to the mass flow ratio r. If Equation (8) is rearranged

Fig. 3 e (a) Ejector cycle with diffuser outlet split (DOS) layout, (b) DOS ejector cycle pressureespecific enthalpy diagram.
1224 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 6 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 1 2 2 0 e1 2 3 2
to solve for the specific enthalpy at the liquid port of the liq-
uidevapor separator (h8), and the quality at the diffuser
outlet (x7) is replaced by the mass flow ratio r, the result is
Equation (9).
h7 ¼ h8 þ x7 ðh1  h8 Þ
h7  rh1
h8 ¼
1r
Equation (9) can then be substituted into Equation (7) to
obtain Equation (10).
ð1  rÞh9  h7 þ rh1
COPStandard ¼
rðh2  h1 Þ
Equation (4) can again be used and substituted into Equation
(10). The result shows that the COP of the standard two-phase
ejector cycle is the same as the COP of the COS and DOS
ejector cycles, as seen in Equation (11).
h1  h3
COPStandard ¼ ¼ COPDOS;COS
h2  h1
Assuming that the compressor inlet state, compressor
outlet state, and condenser outlet state are the same for all
three cycles, which will be true for the thermodynamic cycle
models presented below, the COP of the COS ejector, DOS
ejector, and standard two-phase ejector cycles is the same.
Thus, using an alternate two-phase ejector cycle imposes no
penalty on the system in terms of theoretical performance
potential. This may be counterintuitive as one would expect
the wasted recovery potential in the COS ejector cycle, due to
the throttling across a larger pressure difference, to lower the
cycle’s COP below that of the standard ejector cycle; however,
as will be discussed later, this is not the case.
3.2. Thermodynamic cycle models
Thermodynamic models were developed in order to further
investigate the performance of the three different two-phase
ejector cycles and compare them to an expansion valve
cycle with two evaporation temperatures in terms of the First
Law efficiency (COP); the three ejector cycles have already
Fig. 4 e (a) Expansion valve cycle with two evaporation temperatures layout, (b) Expansion valve cycle with two evaporation
temperatures pressureespecific enthalpy diagram.
been shown to have the same theoretical COP. A layout dia-
gram of this expansion valve cycle is shown in Fig. 4(a), and
the corresponding Peh diagram is shown in Fig. 4(b). The
following assumptions were made in the thermodynamic
models:
(8)
1. Pressure drop in heat exchangers and tubing is neglected.
2. Heat transfer to or from tubing is neglected.
(9)
3. Temperature difference between air and refrigerant
streams does not affect heat transfer in the heat ex-
changers (0 K LMTD).
4. Liquidevapor separator in the standard two-phase ejector
cycle has perfect separation efficiency, and the vapor and
(10)
liquid at the outlets of the separator are at saturated
conditions.
5. Ejector is modeled using analysis of Kornhauser (1990).
6. Compressor operates with a specified isentropic efficiency.
7. All valves operate isenthalpically.
8. Flow through the high-temperature evaporator in the
expansion valve cycle is throttled to the pressure of the low-
(11)
temperature evaporator before entering the compressor.
The required inputs for the Kornhauser (1990) ejector
model are the motive inlet pressure (P3), motive inlet specific
enthalpy (h3), suction inlet pressure (P9), suction inlet specific
enthalpy (h9), and the ratio of motive flow rate to total flow
rate, which has previously been defined as the parameter r, as
shown in Equation (3). The ejector model requires the
assumption of isentropic efficiencies of the motive nozzle,
suction nozzle, and diffuser. The respective definitions of
these efficiencies are shown in Equation (12) through (14). The
ejector model also requires the assumption of a mixing sec-
tion pressure (P6). Fig. 5 shows the complete calculation
routine of the Kornhauser (1990) ejector model. The definition
of isentropic efficiency of the compressor is shown in Equa-
tion (15). The assumed values of all of the parameters
mentioned here and used in the thermodynamic models will
be discussed below.
h3  h4
hmn ¼ (12)
h3  h4;isen
 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 6 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 1 2 2 0 e1 2 3 2
Fig. 5 e Two-phase ejector calculation routine from
Kornhauser (1990).
h9  h5
hsn ¼
h9  h5;isen
h7  h6
hdiff ¼
0:5V62
h2;isen  h1
hcp ¼
h2  h1
The cooling capacities of the evaporators as well as the
compressor power are calculated from energy balances on the
components. The compressor power for all four cycles is
calculated as shown in Equation (16). The compressor outlet
state (h2) is determined from the condensation pressure
(based on the specified condensation temperature) and the
isentropic efficiency of the compressor. The compressor inlet
state (h1) is assumed to be the same as the vapor outlet of the
separator in the standard two-phase ejector cycle, the outlet
state of the high-temperature evaporator in the COS and DOS
ejector cycles, and the outlet state of the low-temperature
evaporator in the expansion valve cycle.
_ cp ¼ m
W _ cp ðh2  h1 Þ
1225
For the standard two-phase ejector cycle, the cooling ca-
pacity of the single evaporator is determined as shown in
Equation (17). The outlet states of all evaporators in all cycles
are determined using the specified evaporation temperature
and the specified amount of superheat. The standard ejector
cycle evaporator inlet state (h8a) is determined using
the specified evaporation temperature and the saturated
liquid specific enthalpy at the separator pressure. For steady
operation of the standard ejector cycle, the ejector outlet
quality must equal the value of the parameter r, as shown in
Equation (18).
Q_ evap;Standard ¼ m
_ s ðh9  h8a Þ (17)
x7 ¼ r (18)
For the COS and DOS ejector cycles, the cooling capacity of
the low-temperature evaporator is determined as shown in
Equation (19). For the COS ejector cycle, the low-temperature
evaporator inlet specific enthalpy (h8) is equal to the
condenser outlet specific enthalpy (h3). For the DOS ejector
cycle, the low-temperature evaporator inlet specific enthalpy
is equal to the ejector outlet specific enthalpy (h7). The cooling
capacity of the high-temperature evaporator for the COS
ejector cycle is determined as shown in Equation (20), and the
cooling capacity of the high-temperature evaporator for the
DOS ejector cycle is determined as shown in Equation (21). The
high-temperature evaporator inlet state in the COS and DOS
ejector cycles are equal to the ejector outlet state (h7).
Q_ low;COS;DOS ¼ m
_ s ðh9  h8 Þ (19)
Q_ high;COS ¼ m
_ diff;out ðh1  h7 Þ (20)
Q_ high;DOS ¼ m
_ m ðh1  h7 Þ (21)
The cooling capacities of the expansion valve cycle evapo-
rators can be calculated in a similar manner. Both of the
evaporator inlet enthalpies in the expansion valve cycle are
set equal to the condenser outlet enthalpy. The ratio of flow
(13)
through the evaporators in the expansion valve cycle is set to
be the same as the ratio of flow through the evaporators in the
DOS ejector cycle. The COP of the cycles is calculated as
(14)
shown in Equation (22). For the cycles with two evaporation
temperatures, the sum of the individual cooling capacities is
(15)
used in the COP calculation.
Q_ evap
COP ¼ (22)
W _ cp
In order to fairly compare the COS ejector, DOS ejector, and
expansion valve cycle with two evaporation temperatures,
both of the evaporation temperatures and the condensation
temperature must be the same. The standard two-phase
ejector cycle with a liquidevapor separator has only a single
evaporation temperature. In order to relate this cycle to the
other two ejector cycles, the diffuser outlet pressure of the
standard two-phase ejector cycle is used as the diffuser outlet
pressure in the COS and DOS ejector cycles. Because the outlet
of a two-phase ejector is saturated, matching the diffuser
outlet pressure results in matched diffuser outlet tempera-
(16) ture. This then specifies the higher evaporation temperature
1226 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 6 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 1 2 2 0 e1 2 3 2
in the COS ejector, DOS ejector, and expansion valve cycles,
which is necessary in order to fully constrain the system. This
is a fair way to compare the three different ejector cycles
because the ejector will be operating at the same conditions
and providing the same benefit in each of the cycles. Addi-
tionally, the total cooling capacity of all cycles is set to be
5 kW, and the refrigerant used for the simulation is R134a.
Klein (2012) is used to evaluate thermodynamic properties and
solve the models iteratively.
Table 1 lists the values of the parameters used in the
thermodynamic cycle models. Two different cases are tested.
The first case is an idealized cycle in which the ejector and
compressor both operate reversibly, and the outlets of all heat
exchangers are saturated. The second case is a more realistic
case, in which the ejector components and the compressor
have isentropic efficiencies less than unity, and some amount
of subcooling and superheat are assumed at the outlets of the
heat exchangers. The mixing section pressure (P6) also must
be specified in the model. For the ideal case, the mixing sec-
tion pressure is chosen such that mixing losses in the ejector
are eliminated. For the realistic case, the mixing section
pressure is set to be the saturation pressure that corresponded
to a 0.5  C drop in saturation temperature from the suction
nozzle inlet saturation temperature.
The values of ejector component efficiencies seen in
Table 1 will be discussed here to show that they are
reasonable efficiencies for the respective components.
Nakagawa and Takeuchi (1998) showed experimentally that
the efficiency of an R134a nozzle could reach 0.8, and this
will be the assumed value of motive nozzle efficiency for the
realistic case. No experimental data could be found in the
open literature on the efficiency of the suction nozzle with
R134a. However, Liu et al. (2012) showed experimentally
with CO2 that the suction nozzle can achieve similar effi-
ciency as the motive nozzle. Thus, the suction nozzle is also
assumed to have an efficiency of 0.8. Additionally, no data
on the efficiency R134a diffusers was found in the open
literature. However, Varga et al. (2009) calculated a range of
diffuser efficiencies between 0.5 and 0.9 using a CFD model
of a steam ejector; the value of 0.75 assumed in this study is
within that range of efficiencies. Elbel (2011) showed for
several data points with CO2 that the drop in saturation
temperature between suction nozzle inlet and mixing sec-
tion is about 0.5  C; a similar value of drop in saturation
Table 1 e System operating parameters and efficiencies
of various components used in the thermodynamic cycle
models for both ideal and realistic cases.
Ideal case Realistic case

Tevap.low [ C] 5 5
Tevap,high [ C] 11.3 7.4
DTSH [ C] 0 5
Tcond [ C] 45 45
DTSC [ C] 0 3
hcp [e] 1 0.75
hmn [e] 1 0.8
hsn [e] 1 0.8
hdiff [e] 1 0.75
temperature was also shown experimentally by Harrell and
Kornhauser (1995) with R134a. This value of 0.5  C drop in
saturation temperature is used for the present simulation
with R134a.
3.3. Results of thermodynamic models
The results of the thermodynamic cycle models for the ideal
case are shown in Table 2. The models confirm that all three
ejector cycles have the same theoretical COP. It can also be
seen in Table 2 that the required compressor mass flow rate to
achieve 5.0 kW cooling capacity is the same in all of the ejector
cycles. The mass flow rates through the ejector motive and
suction nozzles as well as through the low-temperature
evaporator differ in the different ejector cycles. However,
the ratio of motive flow to total flow (defined as the parameter
r) is the same in all ejector cycles. Additional advantages and
disadvantages of the three ejector cycles that are not
accounted for in the calculation of their theoretical COP will be
discussed below.
Table 2 also shows that the two-phase ejector cycles offer a
23% COP improvement when compared to the expansion
valve cycle with two evaporation temperatures at the given
operating conditions. In this simulation, the ratio of mass flow
between the high- and low-temperature evaporators in the
expansion valve cycle was the same as in the DOS ejector
cycle. However, because pressure drop and LMTD effects were
not considered in the thermodynamic cycle models, the dis-
tribution of flow between the two evaporators in the expan-
sion valve cycle makes very little difference in terms of total
cooling capacity or COP. The temperature difference between
the evaporators is small enough that there is not a significant
difference in outlet enthalpy (or, consequently, evaporator
enthalpy difference between inlet and outlet); thus, for a set
cooling capacity, there is little advantage, in terms of reduced
compressor mass flow rate, gained from using the evaporator
with the greater outlet enthalpy. The COP of the expansion
valve cycle varies from 5.59, for all flow through the low-
temperature evaporator, to 5.61, for all flow through the
high-temperature evaporator (but still throttled to the lowest
pressure).
It should be noted that the expansion valve cycle with a
single evaporation temperature is just the two evaporation
temperature cycle with all flow through the lower tempera-
ture evaporator, again resulting in a COP of 5.59. If all flow is
sent through the high temperature evaporator but not throt-
tled to a lower pressure before the compressor, then the COP
of the expansion valve cycle with a single evaporation tem-
perature is equal to 6.9, the same as the ejector cycles’ COP.
The expansion valve cycle’s evaporator enthalpy difference is
increased because of the higher evaporation temperature, but
the ejector cycles’ evaporator enthalpy difference is also
effectively increased because of the isentropic expansion,
resulting in the same evaporator enthalpy difference and
same COP for the cycles. It should also be noted that in reality,
a higher evaporation temperature would result from a higher
air temperature, which is not a fair way to compare cycles;
thus, it is not completely correct to say that the COP of the
expansion valve cycle can be equal to that of the ejector
cycles.
 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 6 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 1 2 2 0 e1 2 3 2 1227

Table 2 e COP comparison of standard two-phase ejector cycle, COS ejector cycle, DOS ejector cycle, and expansion valve
cycle with two evaporation temperatures for the ideal case.
Standard two-phase ejector COS ejector DOS ejector Expansion valve cycle with
cycle with separator cycle cycle two evaporation temperatures

Q_ total [kW] e 5.0 5.0 5.0

Q_ low [kW] 5.0 2.1 2.1 2.1
Q_ high [kW] e 2.9 2.9 2.9
COP [e] 6.9 6.9 6.9 5.6
m_ m [kg s1] 0.035 0.020 0.035 0.020
m_ s [kg s1] 0.027 0.015 0.027 0.015
m_ diff;out [kg s1] 0.062 0.035 0.062 e
m_ cp [kg s1] 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035

Table 3 shows the results of the thermodynamic models for
the realistic case. It can be seen that with the realistic as-
sumptions, the COP of the ejector cycles is reduced by about
33% and the ejector cycles now offer about 7% COP improve-
ment compared to the expansion valve cycle. It can also be
seen that even with non-ideal effects accounted for in the
cycle models, the COP of all three ejector cycles is still about
the same. The COS and DOS ejector cycles and the expansion
valve cycle actually have slightly reduced compressor flow
rate for the realistic case. This is due to the superheat at the
outlet of the high-temperature evaporator, which causes a
slightly larger specific enthalpy difference across this evapo-
rator in the COS and DOS cycles. The compressor suction in
the standard cycle draws saturated vapor from the liquid-
evapor separator, and thus, the evaporator superheat does
not reduce the compressor mass flow rate in this cycle. The
superheated compressor inlet state in the COS and DOS cycles
will create a slightly larger specific enthalpy difference across
the compressor in these cycles, which will partially counteract
the effect of reduced compressor flow rate.
4. Second Law analysis of cycles
101 kPa for this analysis. Equation (24) defines the availability
destroyed by a component of the system ðF_ dest Þ, from Moran
and Shapiro (2008), derived from a steady-state availability
balance on the component. The first term on the right-hand-
side of Equation (24) is the availability transfer associated
with heat transfer occurring at temperature T, with heat being
defined as positive going into the system. The temperature T
was assumed to be 10  C greater than the evaporation tem-
perature in the evaporators (15  C low-temperature evapo-
rator and 21.3  C and 17.4  C for the high-temperature
evaporator in the ideal and realistic cases, respectively) and
10  C less than the condensation temperature in the
condenser (35  C for the condenser). The second term on the
right-hand-side of the equation is the availability transfer
associated with work done by the system, with work being
defined as positive going out of the system. The third and
fourth terms on the right-hand-side of the equation are the
availability transfer associated with fluid flow into and out of
the system, respectively. The difference between the avail-
ability transferred into the system and the availability trans-
ferred out of the system is the availability destroyed in the
system ðF_ dest Þ.
f ¼ h  ho  To ðs  so Þ (23)

The specific availability of a thermodynamic state (f) is
 X X

To
defined in Equation (23) from Moran and Shapiro (2008). Note F_ dest ¼ Q_ 1  _ cv þ
W _ in fin 
m _ out fout
m (24)
T
that specific availability due to kinetic and potential energy
An availability analysis on each cycle was performed along
has been neglected here. Availability must be defined in
with the thermodynamic cycle models discussed above. The
reference to the thermodynamic dead state, here specified by
availability destruction in the heat exchangers, compressor,
a subscript “o”, which has been defined as R134a at 25  C and

Table 3 e COP comparison of standard two-phase ejector cycle, COS ejector cycle, DOS ejector cycle, and expansion valve
cycle with two evaporation temperatures for the realistic case.
Standard two-phase ejector COS ejector cycle DOS ejector cycle Conventional expansion valve
cycle with separator cycle with two evaporation
temperatures

Q_ total [kW] e 5.0 5.0 5.0

Q_ low [kW] 5.0 2.1 2.1 2.1
Q_ high [kW] e 2.9 2.9 2.9
COP [e] 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.3
_ m [kg s1]
m 0.035 0.020 0.034 0.020
_ s [kg s1]
m 0.025 0.014 0.025 0.014
_ diff;out [kg s1]
m 0.060 0.034 0.058 e
_ cp [kg s1]
m 0.035 0.034 0.034 0.034
1228 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 6 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 1 2 2 0 e1 2 3 2

Table 4 e Comparison of availability destruction in individual components and total in system for standard two-phase
ejector cycle, COS ejector cycle, DOS ejector cycle, and expansion valve cycle with two evaporation temperatures for the
ideal case.
Availability destruction in Standard two-phase ejector COS ejector DOS ejector Expansion valve cycle with
each component [kW] cycle with separator cycle cycle two evaporation temperatures

Compressor 0 0 0 0
Condenser 0.175 0.175 0.175 0.183
Ejector 0 0 0 e
Expansion/metering valve(s) 0.005 0.073 0.073 0.227
High-temperature evaporator e 0.103 0.103 0.103
Low-temperature evaporator 0.186 0.078 0.078 0.078
Evaporator (total) e 0.181 0.181 0.181
System 0.365 0.429 0.429 0.590
Carnot COP 6.95 7.73 7.73 7.73
Second law efficiency 0.99 0.89 0.89 0.72

ejector, and throttling valve(s) in each cycle was calculated,
and the results for the ideal case are shown in Table 4. The
table shows that standard two-phase ejector cycle results in
the lowest availability destruction, the COS ejector cycle and
the DOS ejector cycle result in the same availability destruc-
tion, and the expansion valve cycle results in the highest
availability destruction. The standard two-phase ejector cycle
results in 15% less availability destruction than the COS and
DOS ejector cycles at the given operating conditions, while the
expansion valve cycle results in 38% more availability
destruction than the COS ejector and DOS ejector cycles at the
given operating conditions.
The table also shows what causes the differences in
availability destruction in the different cycles. The ejector and
compressor are assumed to operate reversibly in all cycles and
do not destroy any availability. The condenser rejects the
same amount of heat at the same temperature in all three
ejector cycles, which results in the same availability destruc-
tion. Because the expansion valve cycle has a lower suction
pressure, the compressor pressure ratio will be higher, the
compressor will need to input more work, and the heat
rejection in the condenser will be higher for the same cooling
capacity, resulting in higher condenser availability destruc-
tion for the expansion valve cycle. Conversely, the evapora-
tors absorb the same amount of heat at the same
temperatures in the COS ejector, DOS ejector, and expansion
valve cycles, which results in the same availability destruction
in each of the evaporators for these cycles. In the standard
two-phase ejector cycle, all of the heat transfer takes place in a
single evaporator at the lower evaporation temperature,
resulting in slightly higher availability destruction in this cy-
cle’s evaporator. However, the differences in availability
destruction in the evaporators or the condensers of the
different cycles are not the major factors affecting the differ-
ences in total availability destruction in the cycles.
Table 4 shows that the availability destruction caused by
the throttling process of the expansion/metering valves in
each of the cycles is the major contributor to the difference in
the total availability destruction of the cycles. The availability
destruction due to throttling can be referred to as throttling
loss. Interestingly, the throttling process in the COS ejector
cycle results in the same availability loss as the throttling
process in the DOS ejector cycle. This may seem counterin-
tuitive as the throttling process in the COS ejector cycle takes
place across a much larger pressure difference than in the DOS
ejector cycle. In general, one may be inclined to associate
higher pressure difference with higher throttling loss; how-
ever, it is only fair to make this comparison about two different
throttling processes if the processes lie along the same isen-
trope. The slope of the isentropes is different in different areas
of the Peh diagram; the isentropes increase in slope, becoming
closer to vertical, as one moves to the left on the diagram into
regions of a lower quality or subcooled fluid. Thus, the isen-
trope at the start of the throttling process in the COS cycle has
a greater slope, corresponding to lower throttling loss for the
same pressure difference, than the isentrope at the start of the
throttling process in the DOS cycle. Additionally, because of
the smaller enthalpy difference of the low-temperature
evaporator in the DOS ejector cycle compared to the COS
ejector cycle, a larger low-temperature evaporator mass flow
rate is required, resulting in a larger mass flow that is throttled
in the DOS ejector cycle. This larger mass flow rate, combined
with the effect of different isentropes, makes it possible for the
throttling processes in the COS and DOS ejector cycles to result
in the same amount of availability destruction; the results of
the numerical simulation show that this is indeed the case.
The standard two-phase ejector cycle involves the throttling of
a saturated liquid across a small pressure difference and, thus,
results in the lowest availability destruction. In the expansion
valve cycle, there is no ejector, and all of the fluid is throttled
from the highest pressure to the lowest pressure, resulting in
the highest availability destruction.
Table 4 also shows the Carnot COP and the Second Law
efficiency of each cycle. In general, the Carnot COP of a cooling
cycle is defined as the absolute evaporation temperature
divided by the difference between condensation temperature
and evaporation temperature. However, this definition does
not work when there are multiple evaporation temperatures,
and a new definition of the Carnot COP must be applied for
this case. The proposed Carnot COP of a cycle that has mul-
tiple evaporation temperatures is shown in Equation (25). The
evaporation temperature in the conventional definition of
Carnot COP has essentially been replaced by an effective
evaporation temperature, which is a weighted average of the
two different evaporation temperatures. The Second Law ef-
ficiency of a refrigeration cycle is then defined as the ratio of
the cycle’s theoretical COP, as calculated above, to the cycle’s
Carnot COP, as shown in Equation (26). As would be expected
 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 6 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 1 2 2 0 e1 2 3 2 1229

and is shown in Table 4, Second Law efficiency decreases with
increasing availability destruction; the standard two-phase
ejector cycle has the highest Second Law efficiency and the
expansion valve cycle has the lowest.
rTevap;high þ ð1  rÞTevap;low
COPCarnot;2Evap ¼  
Tcond  rTevap;high þ ð1  rÞTevap;low
COP
hII ¼
COPCarnot
It is interesting to see that while all three cycles have the
same theoretical COP, the standard two-phase ejector cycle
has lower theoretical availability destruction and higher Sec-
ond Law efficiency than the COS and DOS ejector cycles.
Because of the higher evaporation temperature in the COS and
DOS ejector cycles, the Carnot COP for these two cycles is
higher. This means that in order to have the same theoretical
COP as the standard two-phase ejector cycle, the COS and DOS
ejector cycles must actually deviate further from their Carnot
cycle. This further deviation from Carnot is represented in the
increased availability losses and decreased Second Law effi-
ciency. However, it is important to understand that the
theoretical COP (in terms of energy) may be a more practical
means to compare cycles than the theoretical availability
destruction because energy input, and not availability input, is
what is of economic value when running a thermal cycle.
Table 5 shows the availability destruction results for
the realistic case. It can again be seen that the standard ejector
cycle results in the lowest availability destruction, the
expansion valve cycle results in the highest availability
destruction, and the COS and DOS ejector cycles result in the
same availability destruction. However, the differences in
total availability destruction and Second Law efficiency are
not as pronounced for the realistic case as they were for the
ideal case. This is because for the realistic case, the ejector
does not provide as great of a pressure (and temperature) lift,
and thus, the temperature difference between high- and low-
temperature evaporators is smaller. As a result, the Carnot
COP’s of the single and two evaporation temperature cycles
are much closer.
It can again be seen from Table 5 that the major contributors
to the differences in total availability destruction in the
different cycles are the expansion processes (through the
ejector and valve) in each cycle. It is interesting to see that the
valves in the COS and DOS ejector cycles no longer destroy the
same amount of availability. However, the sum of the avail-
ability destruction in the two expansion devices is the same in
(25) the COS and DOS ejector cycles. Table 5 shows that the valve in
the standard ejector cycle destroys less availability in the real-
istic case than in the ideal case. The reason for this is because
(26) the pressure difference that the valve throttles across is less in
the realistic case, which is again due to the lower pressure lift
provided by the ejector. The compressor destroys slightly more
availability in the standard ejector cycle than the COS and DOS
ejector cycles due to the slightly higher compressor mass flow
rate in the standard ejector cycle. However, because the
compressor inlet state is saturated instead of superheated
vapor in the standard ejector cycle, there is less superheat at the
compressor outlet, resulting in lower availability destruction in
the condenser in the standard cycle.
5. Discussion
Despite the fact that all three ejector cycles have the same
theoretical COP, it can be argued that there are additional
advantages and disadvantages of the cycles, not reflected in
the simple models used to calculate theoretical COP, that
would make one cycle more attractive than the other two.
5.1. Multiple evaporation temperatures
The first potential advantage of the COS and DOS ejector cy-
cles is that they offer the potential for two different evapo-
ration temperatures. Multiple evaporation temperatures can
make heat transfer in the evaporator more effective than the
single evaporation temperature if the two evaporators are
used to cool the same air stream because the average tem-
perature difference between the refrigerant and air streams
can be reduced when multiple evaporation temperatures are
used. Brodie et al. (2012) described how an ejector cycle with
two evaporation temperatures can be used for automotive
cabin cooling. It is important to note that a second evapora-
tion temperature does not necessarily mean that the

Table 5 e Comparison of availability destruction in individual components and total in system for standard two-phase
ejector cycle, COS ejector cycle, DOS ejector cycle, and expansion valve cycle with two evaporation temperatures for the
realistic case.
Availability destruction in Standard two-phase ejector COS ejector DOS ejector Conventional expansion valve
each component [kW] cycle with separator cycle cycle cycle with two evaporation
temperature

Compressor 0.247 0.242 0.242 0.262

Condenser 0.191 0.198 0.198 0.203
Ejector 0.083 0.046 0.080 e
Expansion/metering valve(s) 0.001 0.060 0.026 0.167
High-temperature evaporator e 0.105 0.105 0.105
Low-temperature evaporator 0.185 0.077 0.077 0.077
Evaporator (total) e 0.182 0.182 0.182
System 0.706 0.728 0.728 0.814
Carnot COP 6.95 7.24 7.24 7.24
Second law efficiency 0.67 0.64 0.64 0.59
1230 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 6 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 1 2 2 0 e1 2 3 2
evaporator would be larger. In the case of automotive cabin
cooling, for example, the same size evaporator could be used,
but the refrigerant flow would be circuited such that the
portion of the evaporator that is downstream in the air flow
would have a lower evaporation temperature than the portion
of the evaporator that is upstream. Multiple evaporation
temperatures can also be useful in applications that require
two separate air streams at two different temperatures,
requiring two different refrigerant evaporation temperatures,
such as applications where it is desired to provide cooling
effect at both refrigerator and freezer temperatures with a
single compressor.
5.2. Effect of liquidevapor separator and splitting of a
two-phase flow
Another advantage of the COS and DOS ejector cycles is that
neither of them include a liquidevapor separator. The liq-
uidevapor separator can present a problem, as poor separa-
tion can harm the overall performance of the system.
Specifically, liquid that leaves at the vapor port (going to the
compressor) increases compressor work and decreases cool-
ing capacity, both of which will directly contribute to
decreased COP. Liquid entering the compressor can also
damage the compressor. Vapor that leaves at the liquid port
(going to the evaporator) does not directly affect cooling ca-
pacity or compressor work. However, the increased vapor flow
through the evaporator can increase low-side pressure drop,
which will hurt system performance. Additionally, increased
mass flow at the suction port of the ejector will increase the
entrainment ratio of the ejector, and because of the pump-like
nature of the ejector, the pressure increase provided by the
ejector will not be as high; this will lead to lower compressor
suction pressure and lower system performance. Lawrence
and Elbel (2012) presented the results of numerical simula-
tions demonstrating that a modest amount inefficiency of the
liquidevapor separator (about 15% by mass of liquid and vapor
not exiting at their respective correct ports) can actually
decrease the COP of the standard two-phase ejector cycle
below that of the expansion valve cycle. Elbel et al. (2012)
presented experimental results for a transcritical R744
ejector system showing that an excessive amount of liquid
leaving at the vapor port can decrease COP by as much as
5e10%. Depending on the size and design of the liquidevapor
separator, as well as the characteristics of the two-phase flow
into the separator, it is possible that poor liquidevapor sepa-
ration can have a significant effect on the performance of the
standard two-phase ejector system. If the COS or DOS ejector
cycle is used, the issue of separator efficiency is altogether
avoided. The liquidevapor separator does provide a means for
storing charge in the standard two-phase ejector cycle. How-
ever, this can also be accomplished in the COS and DOS
ejector cycles by means of a liquid receiver on the high-
pressure side of the system after the condenser.
The liquidevapor separator does offer a potentially sig-
nificant advantage to the standard two-phase ejector cycle;
the separator allows saturated liquid or very low quality fluid
to be fed into the evaporator. Elbel and Hrnjak (2004b) pointed
out the potential benefits of feeding liquid into an evaporator.
First, the absence of vapor in the flow that does not contribute
to cooling capacity decreases the pressure drop through the
evaporator, which will have a positive impact on system
performance. Second, if a heat exchanger design that in-
corporates headers is used, a very low quality fluid would be
easier to distribute more uniformly. Microchannel heat ex-
changers are particularly susceptible to maldistribution, and a
flooded evaporator can significantly improve their perfor-
mance. Third, some fluids, such as R744, have increased heat
transfer coefficient at lower qualities, though, as Elbel and
Hrnjak (2004b) showed, reduced pressure drop and improved
distribution are the main improvement mechanisms. It is
important to note that the COS and DOS ejector cycles would
not benefit from this, as none of the evaporators in either of
the two cycles have very low quality inlet fluid.
Splitting a two-phase flow without phase separation can be
difficult, and if phase separation does occur at the split in the
DOS ejector cycle, it could send a very large amount of liquid
to only one of the evaporators. If the heat exchangers are not
sized to accommodate this, it could result in one evaporator
having a very superheated exit and the other having a flooded
exit; neither of these evaporator outlet conditions are gener-
ally desirable in this cycle.
5.3. Effect of poor ejector performance
Operation of a two-phase ejector at off-design conditions or
poor ejector design are two problems that could make the
ejector fail to entrain suction flow properly. In the standard
two-phase ejector cycle, the suction flow rate is also the
evaporator flow rate, meaning that if ejector performance is
poor, there may be significantly reduced or close to no flow
through the evaporator, which could drastically harm both
the cooling capacity and COP of the cycle. Similarly, in the DOS
ejector cycle, poor ejector performance could reduce or elim-
inate flow through the low-temperature evaporator; the cycle
would not be a complete loss, however, as the flow through
the high-temperature evaporator would be affected very little.
The COS ejector cycle, on the other hand, would not lose flow
through either evaporator if the ejector failed to perform well,
as the flow through the low-temperature evaporator would
still be driven by the high pressure liquid out of the condenser.
The loss of evaporator flow in the standard and DOS ejector
cycles could hurt the cycles such that their performance is
actually below that of the expansion valve cycle. However,
with the COS ejector cycle, even if the ejector does not work at
all, it would simply result in an isenthalpic expansion of both
fluid streams, in which case the cycle would behave the same
as an expansion valve cycle with two evaporation tempera-
tures; thus, the COP of the COS ejector cycle, theoretically, can
never be lower than that of an expansion valve cycle with two
evaporation temperatures.
One phenomenon that has been observed with ejector
operation occurs when flow through the suction nozzle is
reversed; all flow enters the ejector through the motive
nozzle, but the flow then splits and exits through both the
diffuser and the suction nozzle. This type of operation is often
referred to as “broken” ejector operation. Because of the high
pressure driving the flow through the low-temperature
evaporator in the COS ejector cycle, this type of ejector oper-
ation should not occur in this cycle. This type of operation can
 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 6 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 1 2 2 0 e1 2 3 2
occur in the DOS ejector cycle, but in this case, reversed flow
through the suction nozzle would actually help the DOS
ejector cycle compared to the case of no flow through the
suction nozzle. Similar to the COS ejector cycle, flow would
proceed through the low-temperature evaporator in the
opposite direction, and both flows would pass through the
high-temperature evaporator and the compressor. Note that if
the DOS ejector cycle were to operate like this, the evaporator
that was intended to be at a higher temperature would actu-
ally be at a lower temperature; depending on the application,
operation with reversed evaporator roles may or may not be
acceptable.
5.4. Compressor oil return
Similar to how the flow arrangement of the COS ejector cycle
helps reduce the penalty of poor ejector performance on the
cycle, this flow arrangement can also aid the cycle when it
comes to oil return. In the standard two-phase ejector cycle,
oil can collect near the bottom of the separator tank with the
liquid and end up being sent to the evaporator, reducing
evaporator capacity. This can lead to some of the oil just
remaining in the evaporator loop of the cycle and failing to
ever return to the compressor. A similar scenario can occur in
the DOS ejector cycle, especially if the two-phase flow at the
outlet of the diffuser is not split correctly and a large portion of
the oil goes to the low-temperature evaporator. Too much oil
in an evaporator can reduce the refrigerant-side heat transfer
coefficient and increase pressure drop. Not enough oil
returning to a compressor can result in dry compressor
operation, which can be very damaging to a compressor. In
the COS ejector cycle, all refrigerant in the system flows
through the compressor, which greatly aids oil return.
5.5. Summary of discussion points
It can be concluded from the above analysis that the COS and
DOS ejector cycles offer advantages when compared to the
standard two-phase ejector cycle, namely evaporation at
multiple temperatures as well as the absence of the liquid-
evapor separator. Depending on the design of the evaporator,
the very low quality refrigerant entering the evaporator in the
standard two-phase ejector cycle may provide potential ben-
efits for the evaporator not seen in the COS and DOS ejector
cycles: Improved refrigerant distribution, reduced pressure
drop, and (for some fluids) increased refrigerant heat transfer
coefficient. When comparing the COS and DOS ejector cycles,
it is seen that the COS ejector cycle offers a significant
advantage when operating at conditions that are not favorable
to the ejector. The flow arrangement in the COS ejector cycle
also helps oil return. Because of these advantages, and given
that all three cycles have the same theoretical COP, it seems
that the COS ejector cycle or other alternate two-phase ejector
cycles may deserve additional attention in future studies.
6. Conclusions
Three different two-phase ejector cycles for reduction of
throttling losses in refrigeration systems have been
1231
introduced; one of the cycles is the standard two-phase
ejector cycle with a liquidevapor separator, which is the
most commonly encountered of the two-phase ejector cycles,
and the other two are the COS and DOS ejector cycles, which
are encountered far less often in open literature. The cycles
have been compared to each other and to an expansion valve
cycle in terms of performance based on both the First Law and
the Second Law. The First Law analysis shows that the three
ejector cycles all have the same theoretical COP at a given
cooling capacity; this has been shown through numerical
simulations as well as algebraic simplification of the COP’s.
The three ejector cycles also showed an improved COP
compared to the expansion valve cycle. The Second Law
analysis shows that the COS and DOS ejector cycles have the
same theoretical availability destruction and that the throt-
tling processes in the two cycles actually destroy the same
amount of availability despite operating across different
pressure differences. The two-phase ejector cycle showed less
theoretical availability destruction and higher Second Law
efficiency than the COS and DOS ejector cycles.
Because the three ejector cycles have the same theoretical
COP, they were analyzed in terms of advantages and disad-
vantages that are not reflected in the theoretical COP. The COS
and DOS ejector cycles are advantageous because they offer
the potential for more than one evaporation temperature and
because they do not include a liquidevapor separator. The
standard two-phase ejector cycle with a liquid vapor separator
does offer the advantage of feeding a very low quality fluid
into the evaporator, potentially improving evaporator perfor-
mance. When comparing the COS and DOS ejector cycles to
each other, the COS ejector cycle offers important advantages
when considering oil return and operation at off-design con-
ditions for the ejector; in fact, it was determined that the COS
ejector cycle COP can, theoretically, never fall below that of an
expansion valve cycle, which cannot be said of the DOS or
standard two-phase ejector cycles. Because of these advan-
tages, it may be beneficial to further look into some of these or
other alternate ejector cycles in future studies.
Acknowledgment
The authors of this paper would like to thank the member
companies of the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Center at
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for their
support.
references
Bergander, M.J., 2006. Refrigeration cycle with two-phase
condensing ejector. In: Proceedings of Int. Refrigeration and
Air Conditioning Conference at Purdue, West Lafayette, IN,
USA, Paper R008.
Brodie, B., Takano, Y., Gocho, M., 2012. Evaporator with integrated
ejector for automotive cabin cooling. In: SAE 2012 World
Congress & Exhibition, Paper 2012-01-1048. Detroit, MI, USA.
Burk, R., Dürr, G., Feuerecker, G., Kohl, M., Manski, R., Strauß, T.,
2006. Vorrichtung zur Luftkonditionerung für ein
Kraftfahrzeug. D.E. Patent 10 2005 021 396 A1.
1232 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 6 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 1 2 2 0 e1 2 3 2
Deng, J., Jiang, P., Lu, T., Lu, W., 2007. Particular characteristics of
transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle with an ejector. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 27, 381e388.
Disawas, S., Wongwises, S., 2004. Experimental investigation on
the performance of the refrigeration cycle using a two-phase
ejector was an expansion device. Int. J. Refrigeration 27,
587e594.
Domanski, P.A., 1995. Theoretical Evaluation of the Vapor
Compression Cycle with a Liquid-line/suction-line Heat
Exchanger, Economizer, and Ejector. National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA, NISTIR
5606.
Elbel, S., 2011. Historical and present developments of ejector
refrigeration systems with emphasis on transcritical carbon
dioxide air-conditioning applications. Int. J. Refrigeration 34,
1545e1561.
Elbel, S.W., Hrnjak, P.S., 2004a. Effect of internal heat exchanger
on performance of transcritical CO2 systems with ejector. In:
Proceedings of Int. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Conference at Purdue, West Lafayette, IN, USA, Paper R166.
Elbel, S., Hrnjak, P., 2004b. Flash gas bypass for improving the
performance of transcritical R744 systems that use
microchannel heat evaporators. Int. J. Refrigeration 27,
724e735.
Elbel, S., Hrnjak, P., 2008. Experimental validation of a prototype
ejector designed to reduce throttling losses encountered in
transcritical R744 system operation. Int. J. Refrigeration 31,
411e422.
Elbel, S., Reichle, M., Bowers, C., Hrnjak, P., 2012. Integration of a
two-phase ejector into a compact, lightweight unitary-type
air-conditioner using R744 for energy efficient operation in hot
climates. In: Proceedings of IIR-Gustav Lorentzen Conference
on Natural Refrigerants, Delft, The Netherlands, Paper 180.
Gay, N.H., 1931. Refrigerating System. U.S. 1,836,318.
Harrell, G.S., Kornhauser, A.A., 1995. Performance tests of a two
phase ejector. In: Proceedings of Int. Energy Conversion
Engineering Conference, Orlando, Florida, USA, Paper CT-69.
Kemper, C.A., Harper, G.F., Brown, G.A., 1966. Multiple-Phase
Ejector Refrigerating System. U.S. 3,277,660.
Klein, S.A., 2012. Engineering Equation Solver Academic
Profession V9.206. F-Chart Software.
Kornhauser, A.A., 1990. The use of an ejector as a refrigerant
expander. In: Proceedings of the 1990 USNCR/IIR-Purdue
Refrigeration Conference, West Lafayette, IN, pp. 10e19.
Lawrence, N., Elbel, S., 2012. Experimental and analytical
investigation of automotive ejector air conditioning cycles
using low-pressure refrigerants. In: Proceedings of Int. Air
Conditioning and Refrigeration Conference at Purdue, West
Lafayette, IN, USA, Paper 2118.
Lee, J.S., Kim, M.S., Kim, M.S., 2011. Experimental study on the
improvement of CO2 air conditioning system performance
using an ejector. Int. J. Refrigeration 34, 1614e1625.
Li, D., Groll, E.A., 2005. Transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle with
ejector-expansion device. Int. J. Refrigeration 28, 766e773.
Liu, J.P., Chen, J.P., Chen, Z.J., 2002. Thermodynamic analysis on
trans-critical R744 vapor-compression/ejection hybrid
refrigeration cycle. In: Proceedings of 5th IIR-Gustav Lorentzen
Conference on Natural Working Fluids, Guangzhou, China, pp.
184e188.
Liu, F., Groll, E.A., Li, D., 2012. Investigation on performance of
variable geometry ejectors for CO2 refrigeration cycles. Energy
45, 829e839.
Moran, M.J., Shapiro, H.N., 2008. Fundamentals of Engineering
Thermodynamics, sixth ed. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.
Nakagawa, M., Takeuchi, H., 1998, Performance of two-phase
ejector in refrigeration cycle. In: Proceedings of 3rd Int.
Conference on Multiphase Flow, Lyon, France, Paper 382.
Nakagawa, M., Marasigan, A.R., Matsukawa, T., 2011.
Experimental analysis on the effect of internal heat
exchangers in transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle with two-
phase ejector. Int. J. Refrigeration 34, 1577e1586.
Newton, A.B., 1972a. Capacity Control for Multiple-Phase Ejector
Refrigerating Systems. U.S. 3,670,519.
Newton, A.B., 1972b. Controls for Multiple-Phase Ejector
Refrigerating Systems. U.S. 3,701,264.
Oshitani, H., Yamanaka, Y., Takeuchi, H., Kusano, K., Ikegami, M.,
Takano, Y., Ishizaka, N., Sugiura, T., 2005. Vapor Compression
Cycle Having Ejector. U.S. Patent Application Publication US
2005/0268644 A1.
Varga, S., Oliveira, A.C., Diaconu, B., 2009. Numerical assessment
of steam ejector efficiencies using CFD. Int. J. Refrigeration 32,
1203e1211.