Journal Pre-proof

Single-phase air parallel ejectors: An experimental and numerical study

Charles P. Rand, Michel Poirier, Sébastien Poncet

PII: S0140-7007(23)00018-X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2023.01.018
Reference: JIJR 5763

To appear in: International Journal of Refrigeration

Received date : 18 December 2022

Accepted date : 16 January 2023

Please cite this article as: C.P. Rand, M. Poirier and S. Poncet, Single-phase air parallel ejectors:
An experimental and numerical study. International Journal of Refrigeration (2023), doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2023.01.018.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the
addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive
version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it
is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article.
Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Crown Copyright © 2023 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

 Journal Pre-proof

Single-Phase Air Parallel Ejectors: An Experimental And Numerical Study

of
Charles P. Randa,∗, Michel Poirierb , Sébastien Ponceta
a
Département de génie mécanique, Université de Sherbrooke, 2500 boulevard de l’Université, Sherbrooke, QC J1K 2R1,
Canada
b
CanmetÉNERGIE-Varennes, Ressources naturelles Canada, 1615 boulevard Lionel-Boulet, Varennes, QC J3E 1P7,
Canada

pro
Abstract

Ejector-based refrigeration systems (ERS) raise a lot of interest, given their lower electrical consump-
tion compared to conventional refrigeration systems. However, a single ejector suffers from a lack of
capacity flexibility, while the commercial success of this technology often relies on its ability to handle
re-
the fluctuating heating load availability and cooling load requirements. To that end, this work proposes
the use of multiple ejectors having similar performance curves that could operate individually or simul-
taneously, according to the needs. To investigate the suitability of the proposed solution, a test bench
equipped with two ejectors having different capacities, and a turbulence model, are used. The results
show that the performance of the two ejectors is exactly the same, whether they are used separately or
lP
simultaneously. To the best of the author’s knowledge, it is shown here for the first time that, when
several ejectors are used simultaneously, they each retain their performance, without any disturbance
of their entrainment ratio or critical outlet pressure. This important new finding paves the way for the
design of ERS for variable capacity applications, such as solar cooling systems.
rna

Keywords: Parallel Ejector, Variable Power, Single-phase, Experimental set-up, CFD

Jou

∗
Corresponding author
Email address: Charles.Rand@USherbrooke.ca (Charles P. Rand)

Preprint submitted to International Journal of Refrigeration January 19, 2023

 Journal Pre-proof

Nomenclature
Abbreviations

of
AR Area ratio [−]
CAS Constant area section
CF D Computational fluid dynamics
COP Coefficient of Performance
ERS Ejector refrigeration system

pro
NR Nozzle ratio [−]
N XP Nozzle exit position
RAN S Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes
Variables
CR Compression ratio [−]
ṁ Mass flow rate [kg · s−1 ]
P Pressure [kP a]
T Temperature [◦ C]

ε
ω

crit
Greek symbols
Relative error [−]
Entrainment ratio [−]
Subscripts and superscripts
Critical double choking conditions
re-
out Outlet conditions
1 Primary nozzle inlet conditions
lP
2 Secondary inlet conditions

1. Introduction

In the face of global warming, innovation is needed in order to reduce the carbon footprint of
refrigeration technologies. The electrification of the energy grid also poses problems in some parts of
rna

the world. One solution that has been extensively studied is waste heat recovery to produce cooling. The
use of an ejector as a thermal vapour compressor allows to reduce electricity consumption associated
in traditional compressor refrigeration systems. The heat generated by solar or geothermal sources
may also be utilized in ejector-based refrigeration systems (ERS). The reader may refer to Grazzini
et al. [1], Aidoun et al. [2] and Besagni [3] for recent reviews on ejector-based refrigeration technologies.
Experimental test benches have been designed to work with various vapor fluids including natural
Jou

refrigerants such as steam [4], hydrocarbons [5] and low global warming synthetic refrigerants such as
hydrofluoroolefins [6]. The ejector itself utilizes the Venturi effect [7]. A primary motive flow entrains
a secondary suction flow. The thermal gas compression occurs in the diffuser as the kinetic energy is
transformed into pressure. The ratio of secondary mass flow rate over the primary mass flow rate is
known as the entrainment ratio (ω). The compression ratio is defined as the outlet pressure divided
by the secondary pressure. Both the entrainment and compression ratios can be used to evaluate the

2
 Journal Pre-proof

ejector global performance. For a given ejector operated at fixed primary (P1 ) and secondary (P2 )

of
pressures, the entrainment ratio is constant for a fixed interval of outlet pressures. For this interval, the
ejector performance is said to be "on-design" as both primary and secondary flows are choked. Beyond
this critical pressure point, the ejector performance is "off-design" or in the single choke range and a
further increase of the outlet pressure may lead to back-flow (negative entrainment ratio) [8]. This is

pro
illustrated at Figure 1.

re-
lP
Figure 1: Typical performance curve of the ejector operated at fixed primary and secondary pressure.

Both the entrainment and compression ratios are dictated by the operating conditions [9]. There-
rna

fore, the ejector refrigeration system is designed to work for a specific set of operating conditions.
However, in real applications, the available energy for vaporizing the primary flow and/or the cooling
requirement will vary. To handle those variations, different strategies are possible. First, for a fixed
throat diameter of the primary nozzle, a variation of the primary pressure allows a corresponding vari-
ation of the primary capacity but this leads to unwanted changes in the entrainment ratio and the
critical outlet pressure (Pcrit ) [10]. Another strategy is the use of a spindle moving into the throat of
Jou

the primary nozzle to vary the open area and thus the primary mass flow rate at fixed primary pressure.
However, this strategy also leads to unwanted changes in the entrainment ratio and the critical outlet
pressure. Indeed, Rand et al. [11] found that the reduction of the throat area caused by the presence of
the spindle leads to an increase in the entrainment ratio and a decrease of the critical outlet pressure.
An appropriate strategy for variable capacity ejector systems could be the use of multiple ejectors in
a parallel configuration. For years, parallel steam ejectors were used in industrial vacuum applications
to provide flexibility in variable capacity processes [12]. Though parallel ejectors reached a certain

3
 Journal Pre-proof

degree of success, very few details are given in regards to design strategies used to ensure accurate

of
capacity control provided by multiple ejectors.
Some works on multiple vapor ejectors are reported in the scientific literature. In one of these
works, Sokolov and Hershgal [13] proposed to use multiple ejectors, each having a different critical out-
let pressure to deal with the fluctuations of the outside air temperature. They found that the ejector

pro
changeover was smooth, which makes the use of multiple ejectors a promising technology. However, the
objective of their work was to handle the variation in the operating conditions of the cooling system,
not to handle a variation of its capacity, and thus they did not investigate the simultaneous operation
of two or more ejectors. Some other works were reported for the same application, which is the use
of multi-ejectors for varying operating conditions [14, 15, 16, 17, 18]. In all of these works, there was
always only one ejector that is in operation. Moreover, the change in the operating conditions results

re-
in a change in the performance. For example, switching for an ejector having a higher critical pressure
leads to a lower entrainment ratio [13, 14, 15]. To avoid this situation and assure a constant entrain-
ment ratio, Eveloy and Alkendi [19] proposed the use of compression boosters to keep an equal ratio of
discharge pressure over suction pressure for all ejectors.
The simultaneous use of parallel ejectors has attracted a lot of interest for transcritical CO2 refrig-
lP
eration systems for supermarkets [20]. In this case, the primary stream is liquid CO2 coming from the
condenser and the operating pressures are the same for all ejectors. Although this application is quite
different compared to vapor ejector, some of the findings could be of interest. Thereby, Banasiak et al.
[21] tested parallel ejectors for expansion work recovery in transcritical CO2 system and observed a
slight entrainment ratio decrease when more than one ejector is used simultaneously. Also, Bodys et al.
rna

[22] numerically showed that several ejectors having different capacities can be used simultaneously
in transcritical CO2 refrigeration systems, but they observed that the entrainment ratio and ejector
efficiency decrease slightly when using more than one ejector.
Few more works could be mentioned. For a pressure recovery system, Kim et al. [23] experimentally
compared one 200 g · s−1 ejector with two identical 100 g · s−1 ejectors working simultaneously, and
found equivalent results. They thus concluded that the secondary mass flow rate is proportional to
Jou

the number of individual units in use. In a different application, Abed et al. [24] thermodynamically
analyzed an absorption system with two parallel ejectors, one acting on the evaporator and the other
acting on a flash tank. In this system, both ejectors would operate simultaneously at the same primary
inlet and outlet pressures, but at different suction pressures. Their simulations found up to 14% COP
(Coefficient of Performance) increase using the parallel ejectors.
Finally, to the best of our knowledge, there is only one previous mention of the use of a multi-ejector

4
 Journal Pre-proof

system to address the capacity variation of ejector cooling systems. It is from a group in Thailand who

of
reported both numerically and experimentally the use of two identical ejectors in a solar-driven refrig-
eration system [25, 26]. Their simulation showed that two identical ejectors used simultaneously would
produce twice the cooling load compared to the use of only one ejector [25]. Then, they reported a
14.7% higher experimental COP when the two identical ejectors are used simultaneously, but important

pro
information is missing, such as pressures and flow rates for each ejector, which does not allow to know
if the performances of the ejectors are the same when operated together or alone [26].
The objective of this work is to validate if an ejector system with several parallel ejectors is an
appropriate strategy to handle the capacity variation of a heat driven refrigeration cycle. This implies
that each ejector is designed to yield the same performance when operated at the same conditions. To
that aim, a test bench allowing the simultaneous operation of parallel ejectors has been built. Then,

re-
two ejectors having different capacities were designed and individually tested at the same operating
conditions to verify their performances. Finally, both ejectors were simultaneously operated to validate
the strategy.

2. Experimental setup
lP
A parallel air ejector test bench has been built and the tests were conducted at the CanmetENERGY
Research Laboratory of Natural Resources Canada in Varennes.

2.1. Parallel air ejector test bench

Figure 2 displays a diagram of the parallel ejector test bench, which contains essentially two ejectors
rna

with valves, piping and instrumentation. The fluid used is air, which is provided to the primary inlet
of the ejectors by a Gardner screw compressor with a motor of 25 hp. The air flow rate going to the
secondary inlet of the ejectors is withdrawn from the air stream exiting the ejector. This arrangement
allows to maximize the use of the air capacity of the Gardner compressor. Main air inlet and outlet
pressures are adjusted by respective mechanical regulators. Pressures at both primary and secondary
inlets of the two ejectors are adjusted by hand valves.
Jou

Figure 3 is a scheme of the ejectors with identification of the important geometrical parameters.
The two ejectors are designed in-house at CanmetENERGY, and fabricated in steel with the nozzle
being made in brass. The primary nozzle can axially move inside the ejector main body, to adjust
the nozzle exit position (NXP). One pressure tap welded to small copper pipes is used to measure the
pressure inside the ejector main body at the entrance of the constant area section (CAS) (the section
identified mix in Figure 3). The ejector geometrical parameters are given in Table 1. Note that the

5
 Journal Pre-proof

of
pro
Figure 2: Schematic view of the parallel air ejector test bench available at CanmetENERGY with the positions of
temperature (T), pressure (P) and mass flow rate (F) measurements.

re-
accuracy on the throat diameter was measured to ±0.01 mm. The design of the two ejectors having
different capacities, but yielding identical performance when operating under similar conditions was
done using the following rules:

• The ejectors are generally similar to the one described by Poirier et al. [27].
lP
• The ejector capacity is a direct function to the nozzle throat diameter. A capacity ratio of about
1 2
3-3 was used; the throat diameters of the two ejectors were decided to 3.20 mm and 4.60 mm.

Lmix
• The four angles, the area ratio (AR), the nozzle ratio and the ratio of DP N T are kept the same
rna

for both ejectors.

• The other dimensions mostly resulted from the above rules and values.

2.2. Instrumentation and data acquisition

The instrumentation consists of seven pressure measurements (Endress+Hauser digital pressure

transmitter with metallic membrane), four temperature measurements (Platinum RTD, 100 U, 4-wires,
Jou

1/10 DIN) as well as four Coriolis mass flowmeters. All the instrument locations are shown in Figure 2
and their accuracy is provided in Table 2. A data acquisition system records the values of all instruments
at every second.

2.3. Methodology

The experimental setup allows to test the ejectors both individually or simultaneously. The system
allows total isolation of either the small or the large ejector. Given the size of the ejectors, the highest

6
 Journal Pre-proof

of
Table 1: Parallel ejector geometrical parameters (design values)

Parameter Small Large

DP N T Primary nozzle throat diameter (mm) 3.20 4.60

pro
DP N X Primary nozzle exit diameter (mm) 4.48 6.44
DP in Primary nozzle inside inlet diameter (mm) 18.00 26.00
DP N W Primary nozzle external inlet diameter (mm) 22.00 30.00
LP conv Length of the primary convergent (mm) 23.20 33.50
LP dif Length of the primary diffuser (mm) 5.62 8.07
δ Half angle primary convergent (◦ ) 17.7 17.7
Θ
Dmix
Devap
re-
Half angle of the primary divergent
Diameter of the constant area section (mm)
Diameter of the secondary convergent (mm)
(◦ ) 6.5
7.64
38.00
6.5
11.00
54.00
Dcond Exit diameter of the secondary diffuser (mm) 26.48 36.07
Lconv Length of the secondary convergent (mm) 41.80 59.10
lP
Lmix Length of the constant area section (mm) 56.30 81.40
Ldif Length of the secondary diffuser (mm) 180.00 239.00
α Half angle of the secondary convergent (◦ ) 20.0 20.0
β Half angle of the secondary divergent (◦ ) 3.0 3.0
 
rna

AR Area ratio AAPmix

NT
(-) 5.7 5.7
 
NR Nozzle ratio A P NX
AP N T (-) 1.96 1.96

Table 2: Accuracy of the instrumentation.

Jou

Instrument Range Accuracy

Seven RTD sensors -10 to 150◦ C ±0.1◦ C
Seven pressure sensors 0 to 4000 kPa ±0.5 kPa
Four Coriolis mass flowmeters for air 0 to 500 g · s−1 ±0.3% of reading

7
 Journal Pre-proof

of
pro
re-
Figure 3: Schematic representation of the supersonic ejector with relevant notations.

primary pressure allowed by the compressor when both ejectors are used simultaneously is 730 kPa.
However, individual ejectors can be tested at higher primary pressure values and such values are pre-
sented in the current study.
lP
Each test starts with the identification of the primary and secondary pressure values that are to
be used. Given the limitation of the primary pressure, the secondary pressure is usually adjusted to
offer flexibility on the desired entrainment ratio. Once the operation conditions are chosen, the next
step is the adjustment of the NXP to an optimal value where the entrainment ratio will be maximized.
rna

To that end, the pressure at the entrance of the CAS (PCAS−in ) is helpful since Poirier [28] showed
that the entrainment ratio is maximum close to NXP where PCAS−in is minimum. When a minimum
PCAS−in value is found, NXP needs only a slight adjustment for maximum entrainment ratio at the
prescribed value of P2 .
The test bench allows for the secondary inlet conditions to reach below the atmospheric pressure.
This permits to reach a greater range of entrainment ratio values even with the relatively low primary
Jou

pressure limit imposed by the air compressor.

3. Numerical model

A two-dimensional axisymmetric Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) model working under

steady state conditions has been built using the commercial software ANSYS Fluent 2022R1 for a single-
phase supersonic ejector working with air. This numerical setup is based on the model benchmarked

8
 Journal Pre-proof

in Rand et al. [11].

of
3.1. Geometrical modelling

The geometry of the ejector corresponds to the scheme shown in Figure 3. The NXP has a value of
0 mm at the CAS entrance and increases positively when the primary nozzle is moved away from the

pro
CAS entrance. All the geometrical parameters are defined in Table 1.

3.2. Numerical method

The flow is assumed to be 2D axisymmetric and steady state. The conservation equations of total
energy, mass and momentum are solved using the finite volume method. Advective and diffusive terms
are discretized using, respectively, second-order upwind and second-order central difference schemes.

re-
The least square based method approximates the gradients. The Coupled algorithm provides the
pressure-velocity coupling with high-order term relaxation enabled.
The NIST REFPROP equation database is used to determine the fluid thermodynamic and trans-
port properties for air from the Helmholtz Free Energy equation of state [29]. As a preliminary step
necessary to ensure convergence, a perfect gas model is first employed using an average of inlet and
lP
outlet conditions to obtain the thermophysical properties.
Turbulence effects are accounted for using the two-equation shear stress transport (SST) k-ω of
Menter [30], which is a low-Reynolds number formulation by nature. Other two-equation models were
not considered based on the superiority of this model in terms of performance observed in the literature
[31, 32].
rna

3.3. Numerical settings

The inlet and outlet temperatures and pressures are provided by data collected using the experi-
mental test bench. The primary temperature and pressure are those of the ejector primary inlet. The
secondary inlet conditions are equal to the evaporator exit conditions.
The mesh is created with CENTAUR v15.1. Varying triangular elements with thirteen prismatic
Jou

layers along all walls form the mesh. Extra refinement is imposed near the NXP and in the diffuser,
as seen in Figure 4. For the large ejector, each case studied has roughly 2.1 × 106 elements in axisym-
metric modelling. This mesh allows for a maximum wall coordinate y + < 1 throughout the ejector. A
grid independence study was performed. Three meshes with total element counts of roughly 1.7 × 106 ,
2.1 × 106 and 3.2 × 106 were considered. The mesh grid composed of 2.1 × 106 elements provided
the best trade-off in terms of accuracy and computational cost. For the small ejector, a mesh size
of 1.7 × 106 elements provided the best compromise in terms of performance compared to two other

9
 Journal Pre-proof

meshes of 1.3 × 106 and 2 × 106 elements. The maximum errors in the prediction of the mass flow rates

of
remained lower than 0.1% when compared to the finest mesh. The analysis of the Mach and static
pressure contours along the ejector also revealed negligible differences between the selected mesh and
the finest one.
The perfect gas conditions are first used to obtain model convergence after roughly 1000 iterations.

pro
Scaled residuals are all well below the 10−6 threshold. Then using the real gas conditions, the model
converges after roughly 2000 iterations. All the computations were done on a workstation with 16 GB
of RAM and a 8 core 3.40 GHz CPU. The average total calculation (perfect gas followed by real gas)
is 12 hours using 8 processors.

re-
(a)
lP

(b)

Figure 4: Mesh refinements: (a) from the primary nozzle to the middle of the CAS and (b) from the exit of the CAS into
rna

the diffuser.

4. Results and Discussion

The performance curve, which is the entrainment ratio as a function of the outlet pressure, is first
used to characterize the behavior of the individual ejectors. The purpose of this first step is to verify
Jou

that both ejectors yield similar performances when tested at the same operating conditions, which
is a requirement of this work. In addition, the testing campaign will investigate if certain operating
conditions lead either to abrupt or rounded transition from the on-design to the off-design ranges. For
each set of operating pressures P1 and P2 , an optimal NXP value is obtained for which the entrainment
ratio is maximum. This practice and its methodology is explained in detail in Poirier et al. [33] and
Rand et al. [34]. Tests are then done for the two ejectors operating simultaneously (in parallel). The

10
 Journal Pre-proof

difference in individual and parallel operations is to be established in order to predict the potential

of
impact in an actual single-phase ejector-based refrigeration system.

4.1. Performance of the two ejectors when operated individually

The numerical model is first used to obtain the performance curves for the two ejectors. The sim-

pro
ulations were done for P1 =730 kPa and P2 =90 kPa, and the results are displayed in Figure 5a. These
results show that both the large and the small ejectors have both a critical outlet pressure close to 192
kPa with entrainment ratio values of 0.435 and 0.428, respectively. It also indicates that the intended
geometrical scaling is successful. In addition, the primary mass flow rates are 27.6 g · s−1 for the large
ejector and 13.2 g · s−1 for the small ejector, which is very close to the desired scale down of 50%.
Figure 5b presents the corresponding experimental results under the same operating conditions of

re-
P1 =730 kPa and P2 =90 kPa. It can be observed that the passage from on-design to off-design operation
is sudden and clear for the small ejector, while it is more gradual for the large ejector, which makes
it more difficult to determine the critical point. The experimental results thus indicate that the large
ejector does not perform as expected. The important results are ω=0.407 and Pcrit =187 kPa for the
small ejector, and ω=0.428 and Pcrit =171 kPa the large ejector. Finally, the primary mass flow rates
lP
for the large and the small ejectors are 27.4 g · s−1 and 13.5 g · s−1 , respectively. These latter values
are nearly identical to those predicted by the RANS model.
Thus, for the experimental results of the small ejector, the critical outlet pressure is in good agree-
ment with the one predicted by the numerical model, but the entrainment ratio is slightly lower (relative
error ε of 4.9%), while for the large ejector, the entrainment ratios are in good agreement (ε ' 1.6%),
rna

but the experimental critical pressure is significantly lower at 171 kPa, compared to 190 kPa obtained
by the RANS model (ε ' 11.1%). This critical pressure difference for the large ejector results from
a different pattern of its experimental performance curve. Indeed, contrary to the performance curve
of the small ejector that shows a sharper transition from the on-design to the off-design operation, as
predicted by the RANS model, the performance curve of the large ejector exhibits a more gradual de-
scent in the off-design operation range that starts at a lower outlet pressure value. However, for outlet
Jou

pressures higher than 200 kPa, the performance curves of both ejectors join. One should note that this
performance curve pattern makes it more difficult to determine the critical point; the estimated value
of 171 kPa being in between the experimental points made at Pout of 165 kPa and 177 kPa. Additional
experimental points might have improved the accuracy of the critical outlet pressure.
Differences between the numerical and experimental results are generally accepted, in the literature,
as long as the relative error on the entrainment ratio remains below 10% [35, 36], which is the case here.

11
 Journal Pre-proof

Furthermore, Mazzelli and Milazzo [35] suggested that the errors could arise from small geometrical

of
differences of the ejector nozzle. The measurements of the relevant dimensions of the experimental
ejectors were executed before the installation with a certain degree of confidence. Unfortunately, with
the current set of tools, it was impossible to check all the relevant dimensions of the nozzle as well as the
different converging and diverging angles. It is possible that differences exist between the designed and

pro
the as-built dimension values of the large ejector, which could explain the difference in its performance.
Additional measurements could be carried out on this ejector once the test bench is decommissioned. In
any event, results shown in Figure 5b indicate that the objective to obtain exactly the same performance
curve for the two ejectors when operated at the same conditions is not fully achieved. This means that
either the design rules used, which are described in Section 2.1, or the ejector manufacturing process,
are not perfect.

re-
Additional experimental tests have been carried out at a primary pressure of 800 kPa for both
ejectors. For these series of tests, different secondary pressure values are considered in order to inves-
tigate the possible pattern variations of the performance curves. Figure 6a indicates that the rounded
off-design pattern observed for the large ejector displayed in Figure 5b is maintained regardless of the
secondary pressure value. In the other hand, the results for the small ejector in Figure 6b allow to
lP
see that the transition from on-design to off-design operation is sharper at higher entrainment ratios.
Moreover, for the two ejectors, the increase in the secondary pressure leads to the increase of both the
critical outlet pressure and the entrainment ratio. These results are consistent with previous experi-
mental studies [27]. Looking at the large ejector being operated at P2 =127 kPa and P2 =153 kPa, a
double-plateau appears at the edge of the off-design section of the performance curve. This double-
rna

plateau, which was previously reported by Poirier [28] for a different ejector system, could be linked
to the choice of the optimal NXP. In addition, the difference in the critical outlet values between the
small and the large ejectors is more pronounced at higher values of P2 , which could be associated to
the double-plateau phenomenon.

4.2. Performance of the two ejectors when operated simultaneously

Jou

The two ejectors are now operated simultaneously at P1 =730 kPa and P2 =90 kPa. Figure 7a
presents the experimental performance curves obtained when the large ejector is operated individually
(separate) and simultaneously with the small one (parallel), as well as the individual performance
curve predicted by the RANS model, while Figure 7b offers the same comparison for the small ejector.
The important observation is that the experimental performance curves are essentially similar for the
individual and the simultaneous operations of both ejectors. The results for the RANS model differ

12
 Journal Pre-proof

of
pro
(a)
re- (b)

Figure 5: Entrainment ratio as a function of the outlet pressure at P1 =730 kPa and P2 =90 kPa for the large and the
small ejectors operating separately as obtained: (a) with the RANS model and (b) experimentally.
lP
rna
Jou

(a) (b)

Figure 6: Entrainment ratio as a function of the outlet pressure at P1 =800 kPa and different values of P2 for: (a) the
large ejector and (b) the small ejector. All the results have been obtained experimentally.

13
 Journal Pre-proof

slightly from the experimental ones, as previously described in Section 4.1. Another set of tests done at

of
different inlet conditions, namely P1 =500 kPa and P2 =70 kPa, also exhibit almost identical performance
curves for individual and simultaneous operation of the ejectors (Fig.8). It can thus be concluded that
each ejector, either operated individually or simultaneously to the other ejector, will show the same
performance curve. In other words, for a system with varying capacity, these results confirm that the

pro
simultaneous operation of more than one gas ejector would not lead to a decrease of performance of
either ejector, contrary to what was observed for CO2 transcritical systems [21, 22]. This important
finding paves the way for the design of multi-ejector systems to handle applications showing large
capacity fluctuations.

re-
lP
(a) (b)

Figure 7: Entrainment ratio as a function of the outlet pressure at P1 =730 kPa and P2 =90 kPa for: (a) separate and
parallel large ejector and (b) separate and parallel small ejector. The CFD results have been obtained for a single ejector.
rna

The optimal performance of an ejector system is obtained when it is operated at its critical point,
corresponding to the highest critical ratio for which the entrainment ratio is maximum. Now, for a
commercial system equipped with ejectors having slightly different performance curves, as it is the case
for the two ejectors of the present test bench, a trade-off in the operating conditions is required in order
to ensure maximum performance. For the purposes of this discussion, the performances of the small
Jou

and the large ejectors operating separately at P1 =730 kPa and P2 =90 kPa are presented in Figure
9a. This figure allows to see that the two ejectors cannot simultaneously operate at their respective
optimal performance when operated at the same inlet conditions. In regards of acceptable combined
performance, three trade-off outlet pressures are considered in Figure 9a. The first one, denoted (A) is
for an outlet pressure of 170 kPa, which ensures on-design performance for both ejectors. At this outlet
pressure, the compression ratio is 1.884, and the entrainment ratios are 0.435 and 0.407 for the large and

14
 Journal Pre-proof

of
pro
(a) (b)

Figure 8: Entrainment ratio as a function of the outlet pressure at P1 =500 kPa and P2 =70 kPa for: (a) separate and

re-
parallel large ejector and (b) separate and parallel small ejector. The CFD results have been obtained for a single ejector.

the small ejectors, respectively. Operating at a higher outlet pressure value would lead to a decrease in
the combined ejector performance. However, the change in the entrainment ratio would not be sudden
for a small increase in outlet pressure given the gradual descent towards off-design performance for
lP
the large ejector. Consequently, the second point at an outlet pressure of 180 kPa, denoted (B), has
a corresponding compression ratio of 2.007 and the entrainment ratio of both the large and the small
ejectors are close to 0.415 and 0.408, respectively. The last point, denoted (C), occurs at the critical
point for the small ejector (Pout =187 kPa and ω=0.407) for which the compression ratio is 2.078, and
the large ejector has an entrainment ratio value of 0.390. Point (A) would offer the highest cooling load,
rna

but at the lowest compression ratio. At the other end, point (C) would offer the highest compression
ratio value, but the lowest cooling load, as the large ejector would operate in the off-design range. Point
(B) would offer a good compromise with regards to both the compression ratio and the cooling load
values for both ejectors.
Another option would be to slightly decrease the primary pressure of the small ejector, which will
lead to a change in the performance curve towards a higher entrainment ratio and a lower critical
Jou

pressure, as shown in Figure 9b. Keeping the same secondary pressure of P2 =90 kPa, the large ejector
is operated at P1 =730 kPa while the small ejector is operated at P1 =703 kPa. The tests reveal that this
set of operating conditions leads to both ejectors having similar performance curves, with critical outlet
pressures of 175 kPa. Likewise, similar performance curves for both ejectors could have been obtained
by increasing the primary pressure of the large ejector instead of decreasing the primary pressure of the
small ejector. Modulating the primary pressure of one or several ejectors in a multiple ejector system

15
 Journal Pre-proof

offers a good way to correct slight difference in their operating performances.

of
pro
(a) (b)

re-
Figure 9: Entrainment ratio as a function of the outlet pressure at P2 =90 kPa: (a) P1 =730 kPa for both ejectors and (b)
P1 =730 kPa for the large ejector and P1 =703 kPa for the small ejector. All the results have been obtained experimentally.

5. Conclusions
lP
This study numerically and experimentally explored the performance of two ejectors having differ-
ent capacities when operated either individually or simultaneously. For each ejector, the experimental
results showed that their performance curves were identical, either when operated individually or si-
multaneously. This demonstrated that the simultaneous operation of two ejectors did not cause any
disturbance and loss of performance of one or the two ejectors. This work clearly confirmed that the
rna

proposal to use several parallel ejectors to handle the variable capacity of real ejector cooling systems
is an appropriate strategy.
Then, the simulation performed with a two-dimensional axisymmetric RANS model working under
steady-state conditions exhibited good agreement with the experimental results, with differences in
terms of entrainment ratio being less than 5% and in terms of the critical outlet pressure being just 1
kPa for the small ejector, but about 20 kPa for the largest one. The latter, more significant, difference
Jou

is intriguing and will be further investigated; it could result from the fact that one of the geometrical
parameters of the fabricated ejector is different from the design value that was used in the model. In
any case, the good agreement between the numerical and the experimental results confirmed that the
two-dimensional model used in this study is appropriate to simulate the behaviour of several ejectors
working simultaneously.
Finally, the experimental results of the two ejectors showed slightly different performance curves,

16
 Journal Pre-proof

although they were designed with the objective to yield identical performance curves. Indeed, when

of
tested at the same conditions, the large ejector showed a higher entrainment ratio but a lower critical
outlet pressure compared to the small ejector. However, using a slightly lower primary pressure for the
small ejector compared to the large one brought their performance curves to be almost identical. This
leads to the conclusion that by modulating the primary pressure of the different ejectors in a multi-

pro
ejector system offers a good way to correct the slight differences that could exist in their performance
curves.
This important new findings paves the way for the design of ejector-based refrigeration systems for
variable capacity applications, such as solar cooling systems. Future works will aim for the appropriate
control of multi-ejector systems that will smoothly follow the application constraints while maximizing
its performances.

Acknowledgements
re-
The authors acknowledge the support of the NSERC chair on industrial energy efficiency estab-
lished in 2019 at Université de Sherbrooke and funded by Hydro-Québec, Natural Resources Canada
(CanmetENERGY-Varennes) and Emerson Commercial and Residential Solutions. The authors extend
lP
their thanks to CanmetENERGY-Varennes’s Engineering and Technical Services Group for the build-
ing and the maintenance of the experimental setup, and particularly to Mr. Stéphane Günther for the
fabrication of the ejectors.
rna

References

[1] G. Grazzini, A. Milazzo, F. Mazzelli, Ejectors for Efficient Refrigeration: Design, Applications and
Computational Fluid Dynamics, Springer, 2018. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75244-0.

[2] Z. Aidoun, K. Ameur, M. Falsafioon, M. Badache, Current Advances in Ejector Modeling, Ex-
perimentation and Applications for Refrigeration and Heat Pumps. Part 1: Single-Phase Ejectors,
Inventions 4 (2019) 15. doi:10.3390/inventions4010015.
Jou

[3] G. Besagni, Ejectors on the cutting edge: The past, the present and the perspective, Energy 170
(2019) 998–1003. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.12.214.

[4] K. Chunnanond, S. Aphornratana, An experimental investigation of a steam ejector refrigerator:

the analysis of the pressure profile along the ejector, Applied Thermal Engineering 24 (2004)
311–322. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2003.07.003.

17
 Journal Pre-proof

[5] M. H. Eldakamawy, M. V. Sorin, M. Brouillette, Blowdown experimental study on butene ejector,

of
Applied Thermal Engineering 160 (2019) 114000. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.114000.

[6] B. Gil, J. Kasperski, Efficiency Evaluation of the Ejector Cooling Cycle using a New
Generation of HFO/HCFO Refrigerant as a R134a Replacement, Energies 11 (2018) 2136.

pro
doi:10.3390/en11082136.

[7] J. H. Keenan, E. P. Neumann, F. Lustwerk, An Investigation of Ejector Design by Analysis and

Experiment, Journal of Applied Mechanics 17 (1950) 299–309. doi:10.1115/1.4010131.

[8] B. J. Huang, J. M. Chang, Empirical correlation for ejector design, International Journal of
Refrigeration 22 (1999) 379–388. doi:10.1016/S0140-7007(99)00002-X.

re-
[9] I. W. Eames, A new prescription for the design of supersonic jet-pumps: the constant rate of
momentum change method, Applied Thermal Engineering 22 (2002) 121–131. doi:10.1016/S1359-
4311(01)00079-5.

[10] I. W. Eames, A. E. Ablwaifa, V. Petrenko, Results of an experimental study of an advanced

jet-pump refrigerator operating with R245fa, Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (2007) 2833–2840.
lP
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2006.12.009.

[11] C. P. Rand, S. Croquer, M. Poirier, S. Poncet, Experimental and numerical studies on the use
of a needle for variable capacity single-phase ejectors, International Journal of Refrigeration 144
(2022) 316–330. doi:10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2022.08.004.
rna

[12] G. Corporation, Graham corporation technical article: Operating ejectors in parallel, 2022. URL:
https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Graham-Corporation-Technical-Article–Operating-Ejectors-in-Parallel.

[13] M. Sokolov, D. Hershgal, Enhanced ejector refrigeration cycles powered by low grade heat. Part
3. Experimental results, International Journal of Refrigeration 14 (1991) 24–31. doi:10.1016/0140-
7007(91)90018-C.
Jou

[14] F. Aligolzadeh, A. Hakkaki-Fard, A novel methodology for designing a multi-ejector refrigeration

system, Applied Thermal Engineering 151 (2019) 26–37. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.01.112.

[15] J. Beyrami, A. Hakkaki-Fard, Performance evaluation of the solar-driven multi-ejector refriger-

ation cycle without an auxiliary heat source, Applied Thermal Engineering 217 (2022) 119214.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2022.119214.

18
 Journal Pre-proof

[16] J. E. Carrillo, F. S. de La Flor, J. S. Lissén, Seasonal performance optimisation of thermally driven

of
ejector cooling cycles working with R134a, International Journal of Refrigeration 104 (2019) 356–
366. doi:10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2019.05.020.

[17] L. Viscito, G. Lillo, G. Napoli, A. W. Mauro, Waste heat driven multi-ejector cooling systems:

pro
Optimization of design at partial load; seasonal performance and cost evaluation, Energies 14
(2021) 5663. doi:10.3390/en14185663.

[18] B. P. Pérez, M. Á. Gutiérrez, J. A. E. Carrillo, J. M. S. Lissén, Performance of solar-driven ejector

refrigeration system (sers) as pre-cooling system for air handling units in warm climates, Energy
238 (2022) 121647. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2021.121647.

[19] V. Eveloy, Y. Alkendi, Thermodynamic performance investigation of a small-scale solar

re-
compression-assisted multi-ejector indoor air conditioning system for hot climate conditions, En-
ergies 14 (2021) 4325. doi:10.3390/en14144325.

[20] P. Gullo, A. Hafner, K. Banasiak, S. Minetto, E. E. Kriezi, Multi-Ejector Concept: A

Comprehensive Review on its Latest Technological Developments, Energies 12 (2019) 406.
lP
doi:10.3390/en12030406.

[21] K. Banasiak, A. Hafner, E. E. Kriezi, K. B. Madsen, M. Birkelund, K. Fredslund, R. Ols-

son, Development and performance mapping of a multi-ejector expansion work recovery pack
for r744 vapour compression units, International Journal of Refrigeration 57 (2015) 265–276.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2015.05.016.
rna

[22] J. Bodys, M. Palacz, M. Haida, J. Smolka, A. J. Nowak, K. Banasiak, A. Hafner, Full-

scale multi-ejector module for a carbon dioxide supermarket refrigeration system: Numerical
study of performance evaluation, Energy Conversion and Management 138 (2017) 312–326.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2017.02.007.

[23] S. Kim, J. Jin, H. Kwon, S. Kwon, Development of a rational design procedure for a pres-
Jou

sure recovery system for HPCL, in: XV International Symposium on Gas Flow, Chemical
Lasers, and High-Power Lasers, volume 5777, SPIE, Prague, Czech Republic, 2005, pp. 149–154.
doi:10.1117/12.610987.

[24] A. M. Abed, M. Alghoul, K. Sopian, Performance evaluation of flash tank-absorption

cooling cycle using two ejectors, Applied Thermal Engineering 101 (2016) 47–60.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.02.074.

19
 Journal Pre-proof

[25] A. Pongtornkulpanich, S. Sukchai, S. Vaivudh, Simulation program for solar driven double-stage

of
ejector refrigeration system, in: Energy-Symposium Nutzung regenerativer Energiequellen und
Wasserstofftechnik, volume 21, Stralsund, Germany, 2014, pp. 133–138.

[26] J. Visedmanee, A. Pongtornkulpanich, S. Somkun, U. Ananchai, et al., Experimental investigation

pro
of solar-driven double ejector refrigeration system, Journal of Renewable Energy and Smart Grid
Technology 10 (2015) 13–26.

[27] M. Poirier, D. Giguère, H. Sapoundjiev, Experimental parametric investigation of vapor ejector

for refrigeration applications, Energy 162 (2018) 1287–1300. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.08.034.

[28] M. Poirier, Influence of operating conditions on the optimal nozzle exit position for vapor ejector,
Applied Thermal Engineering 210 (2022) 118377. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2022.118377.
re-
[29] E. W. Lemmon, R. T. Jacobsen, S. G. Penoncello, D. G. Friend, Thermodynamic properties of air
and mixtures of nitrogen, argon, and oxygen from 60 to 2000 K at pressures to 2000 MPa, Journal
of Physical and Chemical Reference Data 29 (2000) 331–385. doi:10.1063/1.1285884.

[30] F. R. Menter, Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications, AIAA
lP
Journal 32 (1994) 1598–1605. doi:10.2514/3.12149.

[31] Y. Bartosiewicz, Z. Aidoun, P. Desevaux, Y. Mercadier, Numerical and experimental investiga-

tions on supersonic ejectors, International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 26 (2005) 56—70.
doi:10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2004.07.003.
rna

[32] S. Croquer, S. Poncet, Z. Aidoun, Turbulence modeling of a single-phase R134a supersonic ejector.
Part 2: Local flow structure and exergy analysis, International Journal of Refrigeration 61 (2016)
153–165. doi:10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2015.07.029.

[33] M. Poirier, C. Reddick, H. Sapoundjiev, Variable capacity operation of a vapor ejector equipped
with an adjustable needle, in: Proceedings of the 25th IIR International Congress of Refrigeration
Jou

(ICR 2019), Montreal, 2019, pp. 2520–2527. doi:10.18462/iir.icr.2019.1105.

[34] C. P. Rand, S. Croquer, M. Poirier, S. Poncet, Optimal nozzle exit position for a single-phase ejector
(experimental, numerical and thermodynamic modelling), International Journal of Refrigeration
144 (2022) 108–117. doi:10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2022.08.014.

[35] F. Mazzelli, A. Milazzo, Performance analysis of a supersonic ejector cycle working with R245fa,
International Journal of Refrigeration 49 (2015) 79–92. doi:10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2014.09.020.

20
 Journal Pre-proof

[36] A. Hemidi, F. Henry, S. Leclaire, J.-M. Seynhaeve, Y. Bartosiewicz, CFD analysis of a supersonic

of
air ejector. Part II: Relation between global operation and local flow features, Applied Thermal
Engineering 29 (2009) 2990–2998. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2009.03.019.

pro
re-
lP
rna
Jou

21
 Journal Pre-proof

Highlights

of
• Two parallel single-phase air ejectors of different capacities are considered.
• The results show that the performance of the two ejectors is identical, whether they are
used separately or simultaneously.
• When the ejectors are used simultaneously, they each retain their performance, without
any disturbance of their entrainment ratio or critical outlet pressure.

pro
• The RANS model accurately predicts the scaling of different size ejectors.
• The use of several parallel ejectors to handle the variable capacity of real ejector cooling
systems is an appropriate strategy.

re-
lP
rna
Jou
 Journal Pre-proof

Declaration of interests

of
☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

pro
re-
lP
rna
Jou