New Journal and we have not received input yet 25 (2021) 101016

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thermal Science and Engineering Progress

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/thermal-science-and-engineering-progress

One dimensional steam ejector model based on real fluid property

Borirak Kitrattana a, Satha Aphornratana a, *, Tongchana Thongtip b
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology, Thammasat University, P.O. Box 22 Thammasat Rangsit PO, Patumthani
12121, Thailand
b
Advanced Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Laboratory (ARAC), Department of Teacher Training in Mechanical Engineering, King Mongkut’s University of
Technology North Bangkok, 1518 Phacharat 1 Rd., Bang Sue, Bangkok 10800, Thailand

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

Keywords: The one-dimensional ejector model based on the real fluid property is proposed to design the steam ejector
Steam ejector geometries and to predict its performance. This model is developed from the one-dimensional compressible flow
Ejector refrigeration of steam-water which was firstly proposed by Stoecker (1958). The ejector geometry and performance deter­
Jet pump
mined by the proposed model are validated with the experimental results to ensure that the proposed model can
be used efficiently for designing the steam ejector. Also, the results obtained from the one-dimensional model
based on the ideal gas are compared with those obtained from the proposed model. It is found that both models
can efficiently be used to design the ejector geometry and to predict the performance (in terms of entrainment
ratio and critical condenser pressure). However, the one-dimensional model based on the ideal gas provides
relatively low temperatures at each state compared to the proposed model. The calculated temperature is well
below the freezing point while that calculated by the proposed model provides fluid properties at equilibrium
condition. In addition, the condensation process of the supersonic flow is involved in many processes inside the
ejector. This indicates that the ideal gas assumption for the wet fluid (steam is classified as the wet fluid) might
not suitable for analysing the process of the ejector.

an ideal gas while the conservative equations of mass, momentum and

1. Introduction
An ejector refrigeration system is a heat powered refrigeration sys­
tem which can convert thermal energy into useful refrigeration. The
power source of the ejector refrigeration system is available from in­
dustrial waste heat, solar energy, or geothermal energy, etc., which is
cheap or even free. However, performance of the system, in terms of
COP, is relatively low compared with an absorption refrigeration system
(the most widely used heat powered refrigeration system). However, the
ejector refrigeration system is much simpler, both in system configura­
tion and operation. In order to make the ejector refrigeration system
more competitive with the absorption refrigeration system, the system
COP should be improved.
One aspect to improve the system performance is through the precise
design of the ejector geometries because it strongly affects the entire
system performance. The change in the ejector geometries has a sig­
nificant influence on the ejector efficiency as reported in many previous
studies [1,2]. To design the ejector geometry, one of the commonly used
methods is a one-dimensional flow theory which was first proposed by
Keenan et al. [3]. Using this theory, the working fluid was assumed to be
energy were used simultaneously. The Keenan theory was further
developed by Munday and Bagster [4], B.J. Huang et al. [5], and
Ruangtrakoon and Aphornratana [6] for providing a reasonably accu­
rate result as compared with the experimental results.
With the rapid development in personal computers and commercial
software, the performance of the designed ejector is easily predicted by
implementing the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation. The
previous research by Ruangtrakoon et al. [7] and Sriveerakul et al. [8]
showed that the predicted steam ejector performance via CFD simula­
tion agreed well with the experimental results at the same working
condition. Also, performance prediction of the ejector working with
R141b and R134a as working fluid using the CFD technique [9,10]
showed good agreement with the experimental result. In addition, the
contour of relevant parameters, such as the Mach number contour, can
efficiently represent the flow process inside the ejector. This can be used
to discuss the parameter which affects the ejector performance as pro­
posed by previous work [7]. Even though the CFD simulation technique
has been extensively used to discuss and to predict the ejector perfor­
mance, it cannot be used for directly designing the ejector geometries.
This is because a particular ejector geometry must initially be designed

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: satha@siit.tu.ac.th (S. Aphornratana).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2021.101016
Received 24 September 2020; Received in revised form 7 July 2021; Accepted 7 July 2021
Available online 15 July 2021
2451-9049/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B. Kitrattana et al.
Nomenclature
A Cross-sectional area (m2)
COP Coefficient of performance
D Diameter (mm)
h Specific enthalpy (kJ⋅kg− 1)
M Mach number
m˙ Mass flow rate (kg⋅sec-1)
P Absolute pressure (kPa, bar, mbar)
Q˙boiler Heat input to the boiler (kW)
Q˙evap Cooling load at the evaporator (kW)
Rm Entrainment ratio
S Slip ratio
s Specific entropy (J⋅K− 1)
T Temperature (◦ C, K)
V velocity (m⋅sec-1)
for creating the CFD modelling. Later, performance of the ejector is
predicted by means of numerical methods when all boundary conditions
are specified. Hence, the one-dimensional flow ejector theory must still
be used to design the ejector geometries. This is the reason why at
present, one-dimensional theory is still widely used for designing the
ejector geometry.
The one-dimensional ejector theory was first developed for working
with air which is assumed to be an ideal gas. Thus, most of the mathe­
matical models which have been developed by many researchers [4–6]
are based on the ideal gas assumption in which the working fluid
properties can easily be determined by the ideal gas equation of state.
However, some of the working fluids used with the ejector, such as
steam-water, cannot be assumed to be ideal gas. This is because the
condensation process is involved in the flow processes within the
ejector. Moreover, the temperature calculated by the ideal gas
assumption is well below the fluid freezing point. Therefore, the ideal
gas assumption might not be appropriate for the ejector working with
steam-water.
In 1958, Stoecker [11] proposed a mathematical model for designing
the ejector geometry which employs the real fluid property instead of
those obtained by the ideal gas assumption. This model requires itera­
tion to calculate the flow states occurring inside the ejector and across
the normal shock wave. The calculation process requires several fluid
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of an ejector refrigeration system.
2
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 25 (2021) 101016
W˙pump Work input at the pump (kW)
x Dryness quality
Greek letter
ρ Density (kg⋅m− 3)
υ Specific volume (m3⋅kg− 1)
Subscript
boiler Boiler
cri Critical
evap Evaporator
f Saturated fluid
fg Difference between saturated vapour and saturated fluid
g Saturated vapour
p Primary fluid
s Secondary fluid
properties for achieving the solution. Therefore, at that time, it was quite
difficult to calculate the flow state of the working fluid with only the use
of a calculator and a conventional fluid properties table (especially at
very low absolute pressure and close to the freezing temperature). Thus,
the designed model for the steam ejector proposed by Stoecker [11] has
been long forgotten and was even removed from his text book in the
later editions (this also may be due to the unpopularity of steam ejector
refrigeration systems at that time).
Nowadays, various models used to determine the real fluid proper­
ties are available and reliable. Moreover, the saturation properties can
be achieved by means of a computer software package. This makes it
easily available as well as providing high accuracy. In addition, it re­
quires little calculation time for achieving the real working fluid prop­
erties under various working conditions. This makes Stoecker’s ejector
model feasible today. However, Stoecker’s ejector model has not been
developed comprehensively for the steam ejector based-refrigeration.
There is still no evidence to prove that the model is efficient for
designing the whole steam ejector.
In this paper, an ejector model based on Stoecker’s theory is used to
design and to analyse the steam ejector which is used for a refrigeration
application. The mathematical models of two-phase flow based on a
homogeneous equilibrium assumption [12] are developed for designing
the ejector geometries. The Stoecker model was to include the loss
B. Kitrattana et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 25 (2021) 101016

Fig. 2. Processes within the steam ejector on a Temperature–Entropy chart.

coefficient of the primary nozzle, the mixing chamber, and the diffuser
to be more realistic. The calculated results are validated with experi­
mental data for indicating the efficient use of the developed mathe­
matical models. The calculated results based on this model are also
compared with those based on the classical one-dimensional ejector
model based on ideal gas (Keenan’s model).
The results show that both the Stoecker’s model and the Keenan’s
model provide accurate results (in term of critical condenser pressure,
entrainment ratio, and geometries) when compared with the experi­
mental data. Even though both models can be used to design a steam

3
B. Kitrattana et al.
Fig. 3. Schematic view of a steam ejector used in the analysis.
Fig. 4. Schematic view at the primary nozzle exit and the mixing chamber inlet.
ejector, the calculated temperatures of the steam-water within the
ejector from Keenan’s model are extremely low; for example, at the
primary nozzle, the temperature of the supersonic primary steam was
calculated to be around − 149 ◦ C at the primary nozzle exit plane. This is
in contrast to the result obtained from Stoecker’s model which is 2.4 ◦ C.
Moreover, the process within the ejector (especially the fluid tempera­
ture) is significantly different. The Stoecker’s model demonstrates that
the state of the steam-water within the mixing chamber is in the two-
phase region which is significantly different from the ideal gas
assumption.
2. Background
Fig. 1 shows a schematic diagram of an ejector refrigeration system.
It consists of 5 main components: a boiler, an ejector, a condenser, an
evaporator, and a circulating pump.
From Fig. 1, it can be seen that the system consists of an evaporator, a
condenser, and an expansion valve which is similar to an electrically
powered vapour compression refrigeration system. However, the
elevation of the refrigerant pressure is achieved by means of the ejector
and boiler instead of a mechanical compressor as is used in a vapour
compression refrigeration system.
Fig. 2 shows the flow state of the working fluid on a temperature-
entropy diagram. Figs. 3 and 4 typically show the location of each
state within the ejector. From the figures, a high pressure and high
temperature primary fluid (1) flows and expands through the primary
nozzle. The primary fluid accelerates to sonic velocity (Mach number of
1.0) at the primary nozzle throat (2). The fluid is then further expanded
4
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 25 (2021) 101016
and accelerated to supersonic velocity at the nozzle exit. The low-
pressure region is created by this primary fluid supersonic stream (jet
stream) at the nozzle’s exit plane (3). The low-pressure region draws the
low pressure and low temperature fluid, known as the secondary fluid
(4), into the mixing chamber.
Within the mixing chamber, the converging duct which is formed
between the primary fluid jet core and mixing chamber wall is created as
shown in Fig. 4. The secondary fluid is accelerated along this converging
duct until its velocity reaches sonic velocity (Choked flow). Munday and
Bagster [4] proposed that the primary fluid and the secondary fluid
started to mix together when the secondary fluid was accelerated to
sonic velocity (choked flow). At the mixing chamber throat section (6), it
is assumed that the two fluid streams are completely mixed and their
velocity is still at supersonic level. Later, the mixed fluid stream (low
pressure supersonic stream) experiences a high-pressure region which is
caused by the condenser pressure. This causes the creation of the normal
shock wave (which is classified as the compression shock wave). Across
the normal shock (7), flow velocity of the mixed fluid is reduced sud­
denly to subsonic level. The kinetic energy of the flow is converted back
to enthalpy. This causes the temperature, pressure, and density of the
mixed fluid to increase sharply. The velocity of the mixed stream is
further reduced to almost a stagnation state at the subsonic diffuser exit
(8) before discharging to the condenser.
From the temperature-entropy diagram shown in Fig. 2, it can be
seen that, upstream of the normal shock all the processes involved are on
the two-phase region, and, therefore, the behaviour of the working fluid
is far from that based on the ideal gas assumption. This means the flow
state based on the ideal gas assumption may not correctly represent the
B. Kitrattana et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 25 (2021) 101016

process occurring inside the steam ejector. Herein, the Stoecker’s model
is employed to explain the actual process (occurring on two-phase re­
gion) for which the ideal gas model proposed by Keenan is limited.
As explained earlier, upstream of the normal shock all the processes
involved occur under a two-phase region (saturated liquid–vapour
mixture region). Thus, this steam ejector model must deal with the two-
phase flow model to be more realistic. The fundamental two-phase flow
[14] model can be categorized into two main types: the homogenous
flow model and the separate flow model.
For the homogenous flow model, it is assumed that both phases are
well mixed and flow with the same velocity. This model is simpler than
the separate flow model. However, this flow model is not valid for all
cases because the velocity and property of each phase is different. For
the separate flow model, it is assumed that each phase is separated from
each other, and, thus, the velocity of each phase is different. In this
situation, the proportion of the vapour phase to the liquid phase plays an
Fig. 5. Performance of a steam ejector based on experimental data provided by
important role in the flow behaviour. The factors which have significant Kitrattana et.al. [13]
influence on two-phase flow are defined as the “void fraction” and the
“slip ratio”. The void fraction is the fractional area occupied by gas
phase. The slip ratio is defined as the ratio between the velocities of the
vapour phase to that of the liquid phase. The slip ratio S = 1 for the
homogenous flow model where both phases travel at the same velocity.
Usually, the slip ratio is indirectly determined by experiment since
the velocity of each phase cannot be measured directly. Many re­
searchers have developed the method to calculate the slip ratio [15–17].
The slip ratio depends on many factors, such as the mixture quality, mass
flow rate, temperature, pressure, flow direction, heat loss or heat gain,
and shape of the cross-section flow area.
Moreover, the effect of supersaturation takes place within the su­
personic nozzle [18]. The supersaturated flow or metastable flow occurs
when the vapour expands through the nozzle without condensation at
the saturation line. This is because the fluid flows with very high ve­
locity. The time of the vapour traveling through the nozzle is very short.
Hence, the time may not be sufficient for forming the liquid droplet
(condensation). The condensation is then delayed and the properties of Fig. 6. Effect of the boiler saturation temperature and the evaporator satura­
the supersaturated vapour do not rely on the equilibrium condition. This tion temperature on the system performance.
makes it more complicated for calculating the fluid properties due to the
lack of availability of the fluid properties in supersaturated state. Based on the operating temperatures of the boiler and the evapo­
In this study, for simplicity of calculation, the two-phase flow in the rator, it can be assumed that the enthalpy change at the evaporator is
steam ejector is assumed to be homogenous equilibrium [14]. This approximately equal to that of the boiler:
means the vapour and liquid phases travel together with the same ve­ Δh@evap ≈ Δh@boiler (4)
locity, at the same time, the pressure and temperature of both phases are
the same. This is because the flow process in the ejector occurs at very and therefore, it may be assumed that:
high velocity and at relatively high dryness quality. Moreover, the effect
COP ≈ Rm (5)
of supersaturated flow is not applied to this present work because of its
complexity. However, the loss coefficient of the nozzle is included Basically, the system COP or the entrainment ratio is plotted against
during the development of the model in order to compensate for the the condenser pressure for determining the critical point of operations.
effect of supersaturation. This provides a much simpler calculation and a This critical point indicates the highest possible condensation pressure
reasonably accurate result when compared with experimental data. while the entrainment ratio is still kept constant at the highest possible
Performance of the ejector is usually described by the entrainment value. The typical performance curve of a steam ejector obtained from
ratio which is the ratio of secondary mass flow rate to primary mass flow the previous experiments [13] is shown in Fig. 5. The experimental
rate: steam ejector has a mixing chamber throat diameter of 19 mm and the
primary nozzle has a throat diameter of 2.0 mm. Such a performance
ṁevap
Rm = (1) curve was obtained when the boiler (primary fluid) and the evaporator
ṁboiler
(secondary fluid) saturation temperatures were fixed at 130 ◦ C and
Coefficient of performance (COP) of the ejector refrigeration system 7.5 ◦ C, respectively. During the test, the condenser pressure was
is: increased from the lowest possible value (depending on the temperature
and flow rate of the cooling water supplied) until the ejector failed to
Q̇evap operate.
COP = (2)
Q̇boiler + Ẇ pump From Fig. 5, there are three operating regions: choked flow in the
The mechanical work required for the circulating pump is negligible mixing chamber; unchoked flow in the mixing chamber; and reversed
since it is relatively small compared to the heat input required at the flow in the mixing chamber [1]. Since the primary nozzle is always
boiler. The COP is: choked due to the boiler saturation temperature being fixed, the mass
flow rate of the primary fluid generated by the boiler remained constant
COP = Rm⋅
Δh@evap
(3) throughout the test. In the choked flow region, the choked flow of sec­
Δh@boiler ondary fluid at the effective area is found. In this region, the secondary

5
B. Kitrattana et al.
Fig. 7. The experimental entrainment ratio at critical condenser pressure operation.
mass flow and entrainment ratio are constant and independent from the
condenser pressure. The sudden drop of entrainment ratio with
increasing the condenser pressure is found when operating on the
unchoked flow region. This is because the impact of the shock wave
disturbs the mixing process, causing the ejector to draw less secondary
fluid. In the reverse flow region, the ejector malfunctions and the sec­
ondary fluid flows back to the suction port.
Fig. 6 shows the effects of the boiler saturation temperature and the
evaporator saturation temperature on the system performance. When
the boiler saturation temperature is decreased while the evaporator
saturation temperature is fixed, a slight increase in the secondary fluid is
achieved (the cooling capacity is also increased). Moreover, the critical
mass flow rate of the primary fluid (also the boiler heat input) is
dramatically reduced. Therefore, the entrainment ratio and the COP are
significantly increased. However, the ejector can operate at a lower
critical condenser pressure, and therefore, a lower temperature of the
cooling water is required.
If the evaporator saturation temperature is increased while the boiler
saturation is fixed, the ejector entrains more secondary fluid (the cooling
capacity is significantly increased). This results in an improvement of
the entrainment ratio and the COP. Moreover, the ejector can operate
with a higher critical condenser pressure. Therefore, the system can be
operated with relatively higher cooling water temperature.
It may be said that, for a specified boiler saturation temperature
(depending on the thermal energy supplied), and evaporator saturation
temperature (depending on the refrigerating temperature required), the
ejector should be designed to be operated at the critical condenser
pressure (depending on the temperature of the cooling water supplied).
Fig. 7 shows a performance map or carpet plot of the tested ejector. Any
point resulting from the intersection between the boiler isothermal line
and the evaporator isothermal line is the entrainment ratio or COP at the
relevant critical condenser pressure.
Performance of a steam ejector is usually analysed by using 1-D
ejector theory. It must be noted that, in this theory, the normal shock
is induced at the centre of the throat of the mixing chamber after the two
fluid streams are completely mixed. Due to this, the theory only can be
6
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 25 (2021) 101016
used to predict the ejector’s performance when it is operated at the
critical condenser pressure. In the next section a 1-D theory based on the
steam-water real properties as proposed by Stoecker will be described.
3. A steam ejector model based on thermodynamic properties of
steam-water
As mentioned earlier, the process inside the ejector is liquid–vapor
mixture, thus the Keenan’s model (assumption of working fluid as a
perfect gas) might not be appropriate. The model using real fluid
properties is more suitable. The aim of this study is to develop the simple
mathematical model using the real fluid properties. The model is
developed from the Stoecker’s model [11] with loss coefficient to be
more realistic. One dimensional flow theory and the conservative
equations of mass, momentum, and energy conservation are employed
for developing the mathematical models.
However, for simplicity, some assumptions have been made for this
model. The assumptions of this model are as follows:
3.1. General assumption
• The process is at steady state.
• Primary and secondary fluid are saturated vapor.
• Homogenous equilibrium two-phase flow model is considered.
• Fluid at the ejector outlet is at stagnation state (velocity = 0).
• No heat loss between the fluid to surroundings.
• Constant pressure mixing process is assumed (constant pressure from
state 3 through state 6).
• The solidification of working fluid is ignored.
• Super saturated, mixing loss and other losses are accounted by the
isentropic efficiency and mixing efficiency
3.2. Primary nozzle
A supersonic nozzle or De Laval nozzle was first invented by the
Swedish inventor Gustaf de Laval in 1888. In the steam ejector, the De
B. Kitrattana et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 25 (2021) 101016

Fig. 8. De Laval nozzle and the variation of Mach number.

Laval nozzle is known as the primary nozzle which is used to produce a Once the pressure (P2) and enthalpy (h2) are obtained, the actual
supersonic jet stream, resulting in producing a low-pressure environ­ state at the nozzle throat can be determined. Normally, when a two-
ment within the mixing chamber. Fig. 8 shows a drawing of a supersonic phase fluid flows through the nozzle, the velocity of each phase is
nozzle. High temperature and high-pressure steam, which is the dry different as explained by [12]. The liquid phase flows at a slower ve­
saturated steam produced by the boiler, enters the nozzle on the left- locity than the gas phase. However, in this present work, the different
hand side (1). It accelerates and expands through the elliptical velocity of each phase is not considered and the amount of fluid in the
converging duct profile. The steam velocity reaches sonic value and liquid phase is relatively low compared to fluid in the vapour phase
chokes at the throat of the nozzle (2). The steam further expands and (dryness quality more than 95%) at the nozzle throat. Thus, for
accelerates through the conical profile, diverging duct and discharges as simplicity, the flow can be assumed to be homogenous equilibrium. This
a supersonic jet stream on the right-hand side (3). means the two-phase fluid is well mixed while the pressure and tem­
For specified pressure and temperature at the inlet, when the nozzle perature for each phase are identical. The velocity of steam at the nozzle
is being choked, the mass flow rate of the steam reaches its maximum throat is obtained from
value. Thereafter, it cannot be increased even when the nozzle down­
V12 V2
stream pressure is reduced. This maximum mass flow rate is called a h1 + = h2 + 2 (11)
2 2
critical mass flow rate(ṁcri ).
The critical mass flow rate is usually calculated based on the ideal gas The flow velocity at the nozzle’s inlet is normally negligible (V1 ≈ 0
assumption as proposed by many previous studies [1,2]. However, this m⋅sec− 1). The actual dryness quality is
may not be perfectly correct for steam as mentioned previously. Theo­ h2 − hf @P2
retically, when the high temperature and high-pressure saturated steam x2 = (12)
hfg@P2
(1) expands isentropically through the nozzle, part of the vapour is
condensed. Therefore, during the expansion process, steam is two-phase The cross-sectional area of the nozzle throat is
fluid whose behaviour is far from that based on the ideal gas assumption.
ṁcri ⋅υ2
In this paper, the steam is treated as a homogenous equilibrium fluid for A= (13)
V2
simplicity as mentioned previously. Meanwhile, the loss coefficient of
the nozzle is also used for compensation of the non-isentropic flow and
supersaturation. 3.3. Secondary fluid at the primary nozzle exit plane
To design the primary nozzle based on the two-phase model pro­
posed in this present work, the properties of the inlet steam (1), the Based on the experimental investigation provided by Ruangtrakoon
nozzle efficiency, and the critical mass flow rate are all required. Since and Aphornratana, [2], at the primary nozzle exit it is assumed that the
the supersonic nozzle is always operated with the choked flow condi­ pressure is uniform over the cross section and is approximately equal to
tion, the critical mass flow rate and the flow state of the steam at the 70% of the saturation pressure inside the evaporator (P3 = P5 = 0.7⋅P4).
throat are independent of the downstream condition of the throat. The It is thought that the secondary fluid is expanded and accelerated
pressure at the primary nozzle throat (P2) is initially assumed and the isentropically from stagnation state (4) to some velocity at the nozzle
properties of the saturated vapour and saturated liquid are later defined. exit plane (5); therefore,
If the flow process is isentropic, the state of steam at the nozzle throat is
s5 = s4 (14)
s2′ = s1 (8)
Since the steam is wet vapour, the dryness quality is calculated from
Since the steam is the wet vapour, the dryness quality is calculated s5 − sf @P5
from x5 = (15)
sfg@P5
s2′ − sf @P2
x 2′ = (9) State of the secondary vapour at the primary nozzle exit plane (5) is
sfg@P2
then defined; therefore, the pressure (P5) and enthalpy (x5) are obtained.
If the nozzle’s isentropic efficiency is considered, the enthalpy at the The velocity of the secondary vapour is
nozzle throat (h2) can be calculated by
V42 V2
h1 − h2 h4 + = h5 + 5 (16)
ηnozzle = (10) 2 2
h1 − h2′
The flow velocity V4 is normally negligible. The cross-sectional area

7
B. Kitrattana et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 25 (2021) 101016

for the secondary vapour at the primary nozzle exit plane is Table 1
Actual operating condition of the experimental ejector.
ṁs ⋅υ5
A5 = (17) Boiler saturation temperature 130 ◦ C
V5
Boiler saturation pressure 270.1 kPa
Primary steam mass flow rate 4.58 kg⋅hour-1
3.4. Mixing process of the two fluid streams inside the mixing chamber Evaporator saturation temperature 7.5 ◦ C
Evaporator saturation pressure 1.036 kPa
Secondary vapour mass flow rate 1.19 kg⋅hour-1
Within the mixing chamber, primary stream with supersonic velocity
Ejector discharged pressure (condenser saturation pressure) 4.8 kPa
and the secondary vapour with subsonic velocity are mixed together Primary nozzle throat diameter 2.0 mm
under the constant pressure condition from the inlet (3 and 5) to the Mixing chamber throat diameter 19.0 mm
throat section (6). At the throat section, it is assumed that the two fluid
streams are completely mixed. The velocity of the mixed stream is ob­
tained from the conservation of momentum equation which is
(ṁp + ṁs )⋅V6 = ηmix ⋅(ṁp ⋅V3 + ṁs ⋅V5 ) (18)

where ηmix is mixing efficiency (which was introduced by [20]). The

mixing efficiency value of ηmix ≈ 90%is recommended for this present
work. The enthalpy of the mixed stream can be determined as

V62
(ṁp + ṁs )⋅(h6 + ) = ṁp ⋅h1 + ṁs ⋅h4 (19)
2
Since P6 and h6 are obtained, the state of mixed stream at the throat
section (6) is defined. The mixing chamber throat cross-sectional area is
(ṁp + ṁs )⋅υ6
A6 = (20)
V6

3.5. Normal shock at the mixing chamber throat

Within the throat, it is assumed that the primary stream and the
secondary stream are completely mixed and their velocity is still at su­
personic level. Usually, when the supersonic stream experiences high
downstream pressure (the condenser saturation pressure), the normal
shock wave is induced. Across the normal shock, the velocity of the
mixed stream drops suddenly to subsonic level. Pressure, temperature,
and density of the mixed stream are increased suddenly (normal shock Fig. 9. Calculation flow chart of the primary nozzle.
has zero thickness). To determine the downstream state of the normal
shock, mass conservation equation, energy conservation equation, and given as
momentum conservation equation are used simultaneously.
Mass conservation equation ηdiffuser =
h8′′ − h7
(24)
h8′ − h7
V6 V7
= (21)
υ6 υ7 4. Calculation procedure and calculation example
Energy conservation equation
For the input data and base-reference case, the experimental data
V62 V2 obtained from the authors’ previous study [13] is used. In such a case, an
h6 + = h7 + 7 (22)
2 2 experimental steam ejector with mixing chamber throat diameter of 19
Momentum conservation equation mm and primary nozzle throat diameter of 2.0 mm was tested with the
boiler saturation temperature of 130 ◦ C and the evaporator saturation
V6
(P7 − P6 ) = ⋅(V6 − V7 ) (23) pressure of 7.5 ◦ C. The details of the test are provided in Table 1. The
υ6
temperature, pressure, and mass flow rate of the primary fluid and those
of the secondary fluid, are used as the input data. The critical condenser
3.6. Subsonic diffuser
pressure and the ejector geometries are the calculated output results.
Thermodynamic properties of steam-water are available from the soft­
At the end of the mixing chamber, which is the downstream of the
ware package, Computer-Aided Thermodynamic Tables (CATT version
normal shock wave (7), velocity of the mixed fluid is at subsonic level.
3) [19].
To make further pressure recovery of the mixed fluid, its velocity must
By varying the static pressure between nozzle exit and primary flow
be slowed down while travelling through a subsonic diffuser to almost
pressure, the primary nozzle throat is where the cross-sectional area
stagnation state (8). Therefore, during this process, the kinetic energy is
reaches the minimum value. If the static pressure is further reduced, the
converted to enthalpy, resulting in further compression effect. The
steam’s velocity is accelerated to supersonic level in the diverging duct
compression process through the subsonic diffuser is shown in Fig. 2
section. The pressure at the nozzle exit is the outlet boundary condition.
(process 7–8).
Its value must be specified during the calculation. Based on the experi­
When the mixed fluid is brought to the stagnation state, the highest
mental results provided by Ruangtrakoon et al. [2], the nozzle exit
possible discharge pressure is obtained. In practice, the compression
pressure has been proven to be approximately 70% of the secondary
process within the subsonic diffuser may not be reversible, and, thus, the
fluid pressure. Thus, the nozzle exit pressure is about 0.725 kPa (P3 =
loss of stagnation pressure is the result. This can be indicated by isen­
0.7 × 1.036 kPa). It must be pointed out that, if 70% of the secondary
tropic efficiency of the subsonic diffuser (diffuser’s efficiency) which is

8
B. Kitrattana et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 25 (2021) 101016

Fig. 10. Variation of the primary nozzle flow area from the inlet to the exit.
Fig. 11. Variation of the primary fluid velocity, dryness quality, and specific
volume through the primary nozzle from the inlet to the exit.
fluid pressure is equal to or less than 0.613 kPa (saturation pressure at
0.01 ◦ C), a nozzle exit pressure of 0.613 kPa will be used, since it is the
lowest pressure at which water remains in a liquid phase according the
steam-water properties table. The calculation flow chart of the primary
nozzle is shown in Fig. 9.
Fig. 10 shows the variation of the calculated cross-sectional area of
the primary nozzle. Fig. 11 shows the variation of primary fluid velocity,
specific volume, and dryness quality along the nozzle from inlet to exit.
The calculated data are listed in Table 2. From Fig. 10, when the pres­
sure is decreased, the calculated flow area is the cross-sectional area
along the nozzle. From the inlet, the area is reduced to the minimum
value at the throat (P2 = 160 kPa). The steam is accelerated from
stagnation (V1 ≈ 0 m⋅sec− 1) at the nozzle inlet to sonic value (V2) at the
nozzle throat. If the pressure continues to decrease, the flow area is
increased while the steam’s velocity continues to accelerate to
supersonic level (due to the rapid increase in the specific volume). Thus,
the diverging duct is required for achieving the supersonic flow. At the
nozzle exit, the steam fans out with supersonic velocity (V3). Hence, the
converging–diverging profile duct can be achieved by calculating the
flow area as shown in Table 2.
After obtaining primary nozzle throat area and properties, the pro­
cess of calculation for the rest of the ejector is shown as a flowchart in
Fig. 12.
Table 3 shows the calculation results for the secondary vapour at the
primary nozzle exit plane using Eqs. (14)–(17). It must be noted that the
total size of the mixing chamber at the primary nozzle exit plane is
composed of the flow area for the primary fluid (A3) and the flow area
for the secondary fluid (A5) as shown in Fig. 13.
The mixing process is assumed to occur at the constant area section.
Table 4 shows the calculation results of the mixing process between the
primary fluid and the secondary fluid within the mixing chamber using
Eqs. (18)–(20).
To determine the downstream state of the normal shock wave (7),
these three governing equations must be employed simultaneously (Eqs.
(21) to (23)). However, there are two solutions when using these gov­
erning equations to determine the downstream state of the shock wave.
For the first solution, the mass conservation equation is combined with
the energy conservation equation. This combined equation is used when
the downstream velocity of the normal shock is decreased from the su­
personic level (V6) to the stagnation state. Hence, the series of the
calculated specific volume (υ7) and specific enthalpy (h7) are obtained.
When these calculated values are shown on an Enthalpy–Entropy chart,
the process line called the “Fanno line” is plotted.
For the second solution, the mass conservation equation is combined
with the momentum conservation equation for determining the down­
stream state of the shock wave. The series of the calculated specific
volume (υ7) and calculated pressure (P7) are obtained. These calculated
values are shown on the Enthalpy–Entropy chart, and the process line
called the “Rayleigh line” is determined.
The calculated result is tabulated in Table 5. From Fig. 14, it can be
seen that when two process lines (Fanno line and Rayleigh line) are
plotted together, there are two intersecting points. The first intersecting
point can indicate the upstream state of the normal shock (6). Mean­
while, the second intersecting point can indicate the state downstream
of the normal shock (7). Hence, the downstream state of the normal
shock wave, which is the goal of using the above governing equations,
can be determined accurately
It can be seen from Fig. 14 and Table 5 that across the normal shock
wave, the flow velocity drops sharply from 873 m sec− 1 to 202 m sec− 1.
The temperature and pressure increase suddenly from 2.4 ◦ C and 0.7252
kPa to 79.0 ◦ C and 4.3906 kPa, respectively. This indicates that the
shock wave causes a major compression effect in the ejector. This has a
significant impact on the condenser working pressure. However, further

Table 2
Calculation results for the primary nozzle.
Boiler’s saturation temperature 130 ◦ C
Boiler’s saturation pressure 270.1 kPa
Isentropic efficiency 90 %
Critical mass flow rate 4.58 kg⋅hour-1

State P (kPa) T (◦ C) V (m⋅sec-1) h (kJ⋅kg− 1) x υ (m3⋅kg− 1) A (mm2)

1 270.1 130.0 0 2720.5 1.00 0.87 –

200.0 120.2 315.4 2670.3 0.98 0.96 3.52
180.0 116.9 366.4 2652.9 0.98 1.06 3.32
2 160.0 113.3 417.2 2633.0 0.97 1.07 3.23
150.0 111.4 438.9 2623.7 0.97 1.19 3.26
100.0 99.6 566.3 2559.7 0.95 2.98 3.62
50.0 81.3 722.9 2458.7 0.92 12.62 5.24
3 0.725 2.4 1220.0 1975.8 0.79 138.06 144.06

9
B. Kitrattana et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 25 (2021) 101016

Table 3
Calculation results for the secondary fluid at primary exit plane.
Evaporator saturation temperature 7.5 ◦ C
Evaporator saturation pressure 1.036 kPa
Primary nozzle exit pressure 0.725 kPa
Secondary vapour mass flow rate 1.19 kg⋅hour-1

State P T V h x υ A
(kPa) (◦ C) (m⋅sec- (kJ⋅kg− 1) (m3⋅kg− 1) (mm2)
1
)

4 1.036 7.5 0 2515.0 1.00 124.90 –

5 0.725 2.4 9.5 2469.9 0.99 172.76 602.1

Fig. 13. Cross sectional view of the mixing chamber at the primary nozzle
exit plane.

Table 4
Calculation results for the mixing process between the two fluid streams inside
the mixing chamber.
State P T V h x υ A
(kPa) (◦ C) (m⋅sec- (kJ⋅kg− 1) (m3⋅kg− 1) (mm2)
1
)

3 0.725 2.4 1220 1975.8 0.79 138.06 –

5 9.5 2469.9 0.99 172.76 –
6 873 2287.2 0.91 159.9 295.7

30–50 m⋅sec− 1, otherwise, the diffuser may be too large. However, the
diffuser is designed to have an exit cross-sectional area of approximately
5 times greater than that at the inlet cross-sectional area (A8 ≈ 5⋅A7).
This is to provide a suitable size for practical use. Table 6 shows the
calculation results for the process through the subsonic diffuser.

5. Validation with experimental results

In a previous section (Section 3), the proposed equation based on

Fig. 12. Calculation flowchart of the process in the mixing chamber to sub­
sonic diffuser.
pressure recovery process is achieved when travelling through the
subsonic diffuser. This will be presented later.
The diffuser’s efficiency is usually around 90 to 95 % which is rec­
ommended by Borgnakke et al. [21]. In this paper, the diffuser’s effi­
ciency of 90% is used throughout. It is also assumed that the flow is
brought to stagnation state at the diffuser exit. In practice, the diffuser
must be designed to discharge the mixed fluid with velocity of around
Stoecker’s model is employed for designing the ejector’s geometries. The
procedure to determine the flow area (ejector geometry) in each
component is also provided. The ejector geometries are designed asso­
ciated with the input data which is available from the authors’ previous
work. However, to ensure that the proposed ejector model can effi­
ciently be used to design the ejector or to predict the performance under
various working conditions, validation of the results is essential. This
will be presented in this section.
In this validation, the designed ejector’s geometries based on
Stoecker’s model and those based on a Keenan’s model are both vali­
dated with the experimental data at identical working conditions. The
Keenan’s model for designing the steam ejector was explained clearly by
Ruangtrakoon and Aphornratana [6].
The mass entrainment ratio and critical condenser pressure, which
are obtained experimentally, the primary nozzle, and mixing chamber
throat diameter are compared with those obtained from both models.

10
B. Kitrattana et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 25 (2021) 101016

Table 5
Calculation results for the normal shock.
State Fanno line Rayleigh line
-1 3 − 1 − 1 − 1
V (m⋅sec ) υ (m ⋅kg ) h (kJ⋅kg-1) T ( C)
◦
S (kJ⋅kg ⋅K ) υ (m3⋅kg− 1) P (kPa) T (◦ C) s (kJ⋅kg− 1⋅K− 1)

6 873 159.90 2287.2 2.4 8.278 159.90 0.7252 2.4 8.278

600 109.87 2488.4 9.3 8.810 109.87 2.2172 254.7 9.813
400 73.25 2588.4 46.7 8.899 73.25 3.3094 252.1 9.619
210 38.45 2646.3 77.7 8.732 38.45 4.3469 89.3 8.779
205 37.54 2647.4 78.3 8.723 37.54 4.3742 82.9 8.742
7 202 36.99 2648.0 79.0 8.720 36.99 4.3906 79.0 8.720
200 36.62 2648.4 78.8 8.714 36.62 4.4015 76.5 8.705
100 18.31 2663.4 87.1 8.427 18.31 4.9476 32.7 5.570

diameter of 19 mm is equipped with a primary nozzle with throat

diameter of 2.0 mm and 2.3 mm, respectively. The mixing chamber with
throat diameter of 13.4 mm is equipped with the primary nozzle with
throat diameter of 1.4 mm and 1.7 mm. The boiler temperature is varied
ranging from 115 to 135 ◦ C with increments of 5 ◦ C.
Table 9, and Figs. 15 and 16 show comparisons of the calculated
values of the primary nozzle throat diameter and the mixing chamber
throat diameter with those obtained experimentally. For the case of the
primary nozzle throat diameter, both models show good agreement with
the actual nozzle sizes used in the experiment. The average percent error
of the Stoecker’s model and the Keenan’s model are 2.13% and 1.73%,
respectively. In this case, the results based on the Keenan’s model are
slightly more accurate than the Stoecker’s model. However, the method
used to measure nozzle throat diameter is limited because a drill bit set
with incremental diameter of 0.1 mm was used to measure the primary
nozzle throat diameter. Therefore, the actual size of the primary nozzle
Fig. 14. Plot of calculated Fanno line and calculated Rayleigh line on an Ent­ comes with an uncertainty of ± 0.1 mm or approximately ± 5% to ± 7%
halpy–Entropy chart.
of the nozzle throat diameter which is greater than the percentage error
obtained from both models. Hence, both models could be used as an
Table 6
efficient tool for designing the primary nozzle.
Calculation results for the subsonic diffuser. For the mixing chamber throat diameter, both models provide almost
the same error. The average percent error for the Stoecker’s model and
state P T V h x (m3⋅kg− 1) A
(kPa) (◦ C) (m⋅sec- (kJ⋅kg− 1) (mm2)
the Keenan’s model are 4.2% and 4.04%, respectively. The Keenan’s
1
) model provides a slightly smaller mixing chamber throat diameter size
for all cases. However, the difference between the two models is not
7 4.391 79.0 202 2648.0 1.00 36.99 293.7
8 4.890 89.9 0 2668.4 1.00 34.21 – significant. Thus, for designing the ejector, both models are useful tools
for determining the primary nozzle throat diameter and mixing chamber
throat diameter.
Table 10 and Fig. 17 show comparisons of the calculated critical
Table 7
Dimension of the mixing chamber referring to Fig. 3.
condenser pressures with those obtained experimentally. It is seen that
the Stoecker’s model provides a slightly more accurate result than the
Mixing D5 D6 D8 L1 L2 L3
Keenan’s model with average percent error of 6.98% and 8.54%,
chamber (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
respectively. In addition, at a relatively high critical condenser pressure,
19 24 19 40 130 114 180
both models provide lower critical condenser than the experimental
13.4 17 13.4 38 110 70 220
values. It is noted that the Keenan’s model has more deviation than the
Stoecker’s model. It is thought that the mixing efficiency may be varied
by using different upstream conditions for achieving more accurate re­
Table 8 sults. However, the mixing efficiency of 90% is used for calculation
Dimension primary nozzles.
throughout this present work. Overall, the difference of calculated and
Nozzle Throat diameter, Nozzle’s area ratio (Aexit: Calculated exit Mach experimental result is acceptable.
mm Athroat) number Validation of the results shows that both models can be used to
D1.4 1.4 20:1 4 design the ejector geometries and efficiently predict the ejector perfor­
D1.7 1.7 mance. However, the calculated result of the flow state of the working
D2.0 2.0
fluid is significantly different. In the next section, the detailed compar­
D2.3 2.4
ison of the flow state (fluid temperature and pressure) will be discussed
in an attempt to show the advantage of the Stoecker’s model.
The experimental data used for validation are obtained from the au­
thors’ previous work [13]. Tables 7 and 8 show dimensions of the mixing 5. Comparisons between the Stoecker’s model and the Keenan’s
chamber and primary nozzles used for experiments. All of the primary model
nozzles have identical calculated exit Mach numbers of 4. The calculated
exit Mach number is obtained by assuming that the fluid is an ideal gas In this section, the ejector designs based on the Stoecker’s model and
(Keenan’s model). Two mixing chambers with throat diameter of 19 mm Keenan’s model are both discussed while concentrating on the flow
and 13.4 mm are used for validation. The mixing chamber with throat process within the ejector. The main purpose is to demonstrate an

11
B. Kitrattana et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 25 (2021) 101016

Table 9
Calculated and experimental primary nozzle and mixing chamber throat diameters.
Evaporator Temp. (◦ C) Boiler Temp. (◦ C) Nozzle Throat diameter (mm) Mixing chamber throat diameter Error (%)
(mm)

Stoecker Keenan Experiment Stoecker Keenan Experiment Nozzle Throat Mixing chamber throat
diameter diameter

Stoecker Keenan Stoecker Keenan

7.5 115 2.037 2.001 2 17.8 17.05 19 1.85 0.05 6.32 10.26
120 2.019 1.979 18.3 17.65 0.95 1.05 3.68 7.11
125 2.036 2.003 18.8 18.2 1.80 0.15 1.05 4.21
130 2.029 1.997 19.3 18.77 1.45 0.15 1.58 1.21
135 1.985 1.952 19.4 18.9 0.75 2.40 2.11 0.53
115 2.388 2.345 2.3 19.1 18.35 19 3.83 1.96 0.53 3.42
120 2.406 2.358 19.5 18.85 4.61 2.52 2.63 0.79
125 2.378 2.339 19.7 19.05 3.39 1.70 3.68 0.26
130 2.374 2.336 20.3 19.62 3.22 1.57 6.84 3.26
135 2.372 2.333 20.7 20 3.13 1.43 8.95 5.26
115 1.555 1.558 1.5 13 12.5 13.4 3.67 3.87 2.99 6.72
120 1.54 1.539 13.6 13.1 2.67 2.60 1.49 2.24
125 1.547 1.552 14.2 13.7 3.13 3.47 5.97 2.24
130 1.528 1.532 14.3 13.9 1.87 2.13 6.72 3.73
135 1.532 1.536 14.5 14.1 2.13 2.40 8.21 5.22
115 1.714 1.717 1.7 13.5 13 13.4 0.82 1.00 0.75 2.99
120 1.722 1.721 14 13.5 1.29 1.24 4.48 0.75
125 1.703 1.708 14.4 14 0.18 0.47 7.46 4.48
130 1.728 1.733 14.9 14.4 1.65 1.94 11.19 7.46
135 1.719 1.724 15 14.6 1.12 1.41 11.94 8.96

10 115 2.037 2.001 2 18.2 17.27 19 1.85 0.05 4.21 9.11

120 2.019 1.979 18.2 17.45 0.95 1.05 4.21 8.16
125 2.036 2.003 18.6 17.87 1.80 0.15 2.11 5.95
130 2.029 1.997 19.2 18.43 1.45 0.15 1.05 3.00
135 1.985 1.952 19.3 18.77 0.75 2.40 1.58 1.21
115 1.555 1.558 1.5 13.4 12.8 13.4 3.67 3.87 0.00 4.48
120 1.54 1.539 13.5 12.9 2.67 2.60 0.75 3.73
125 1.547 1.552 13.8 13.3 3.13 3.47 2.99 0.75
130 1.528 1.532 14 13.5 1.87 2.13 4.48 0.75
135 1.532 1.536 14.2 13.8 2.13 2.40 5.97 2.99
Average % error 2.13 1.73 4.20 4.04

Error (%) = 100 × (Calculated – Experimental)/Experimental.

Fig. 15. Calculated primary nozzle throat diameter. Fig. 16. Calculated mixing chamber throat diameter.

advantage of using the Stoecker’s model over the Keenan’s model. The
temperature, pressure and velocity of the working fluid at the points of
interest are calculated and compared with the experimental data. In
comparison, the results obtained from using mixing chamber 19 mm
with nozzle D2.0 tested with boiler temperature of 130 ◦ C and evapo­
rator of 7.5 ◦ C are used as the reference case. The results are presented in
Table 11. The flow process within the ejector is shown on temperature-
entropy charts which are shown in Figs. 18 and 19, respectively.
It can be seen from Table 11, Figs. 18 and 19 that at the primary
nozzle where the temperature, pressure and critical mass flow rate of the
primary steam are all specified, both the Stoecker’s and Keenan’s models
can efficiently be used to calculate the cross-sectional area (2) of the
primary nozzle throat (quite accurately as mentioned in previous sec­
tion). However, it is obvious that the temperature calculated from
Keenan’s model is much different from those of Stoecker’s model. At the
primary nozzle throat (state 2), the calculated temperature and pressure
from the Keenan’s model are 73.4 ◦ C and 141.0 kPa, respectively, while
those calculated by the Stoecker’s model are 113.1 ◦ C, 159.0 kPa and
with dryness quality of 0.97, respectively. At the pressure and temper­
ature obtained from Keenan’s model, the state of the water is in a sub­
cooled liquid phase. However, for the pressure and temperature values
obtained from the Stoecker’s model, the state of the water is a two-phase
mixture with a relatively high dryness quality.

12
B. Kitrattana et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 25 (2021) 101016

Table 10
Calculated and experimental critical condenser pressure.
Nozzle Evaporator Temp. (◦ C) Boiler Temp. (◦ C) Critical condenser pressure (mbar) Error (%)

Stoecker Keenan Experiment Stoecker Keenan

2.0 7.5 115 3.65 3.59 3.2 14.06 12.19

120 3.94 3.81 3.7 6.49 2.97
125 4.5 4.2 4.2 7.14 0.00
130 4.89 4.52 4.8 1.88 5.83
135 5.41 4.88 5.6 3.39 12.86
2.3 115 4.3 4.09 4.4 2.27 7.05
120 4.89 4.51 5.2 5.96 13.27
125 5.5 5 6 8.33 16.67
130 6.02 5.42 6.8 11.47 20.29
135 6.61 5.91 7.8 15.26 24.23
1.4 115 3.53 3.67 3.4 3.82 7.94
120 4.02 4.02 3.9 3.08 3.08
125 4.62 4.47 4.4 5.00 1.59
130 4.93 4.79 5 1.40 4.20
135 5.43 5.07 5.7 4.74 11.05
1.7 115 3.96 3.83 3.2 23.75 19.69
120 4.14 3.97 3.8 8.95 4.47
125 4.54 4.26 4.2 8.10 1.43
130 4.94 4.62 4.8 2.92 3.75
135 5.74 5.18 5.4 6.30 4.07

2.0 10 115 4.4 4.17 4.1 7.32 1.71

120 4.89 4.48 4.8 1.88 6.67
125 5.22 4.81 5.5 5.09 12.55
130 5.9 5.32 6.4 7.81 16.88
135 6.63 5.89 7.1 6.62 17.04
1.4 115 3.76 3.84 3.4 10.59 12.94
120 4.22 4.2 4 5.50 5.00
125 4.8 4.6 4.4 9.09 4.55
130 5.2 4.99 5 4.00 0.20
135 6 5.48 5.6 7.14 2.14
Average % error 6.98 8.54

Error (%) = 100 × (Calculated – Experimental)/Experimental.

Fig. 17. Plot of experimental and calculated critical condenser pressure.
From the Stoecker’s model, at state 3, the velocity of the primary
stream must be accelerated to around 1220 m⋅sec-1 so that the exit
pressure of 0.725 kPa is produced. Hence, the nozzle exit diameter must
be as large as 13.5 mm so that it is consistent with the exit pressure.
However, the nozzle exit diameter used for the experiment is 8.9 mm (as
shown in Table 11) which is quite a large difference. Theoretically, when
the exit diameter of 8.9 mm is used for this calculation, the exit velocity
of 1220 m⋅sec-1 and pressure of 0.725 kPa cannot be achieved. However,
for the experiment, the pressure of 0.725 kPa can still be produced
within the mixing chamber even when the nozzle exit diameter of 8.9
mm is used. This is the result of further expansion of the primary jet
stream after leaving the primary nozzle. This phenomenon can be clar­
ified by the CFD simulation provided by Ruangtrakoon, et al. and Sri­
veerakul, et al. [7,8] which is shown in Fig. 20. It is obvious that there is
a further expansion of the jet stream after leaving the primary nozzle.
This is the result of the formation of the expansion wave which causes
the jet stream to further expand with the series of the combined shock-
expansion fan. Therefore, the velocity of the primary stream is accel­
erated further after leaving the primary nozzle. This causes the pressure
within the mixing chamber to drop lower than the primary nozzle exit
pressure. In other words, the real value of the mixing chamber pressure
is the result of the expansion wave formation which is lower than the
nozzle exit pressure. As a result of this effect, the calculated primary
nozzle exit area (using both Keenan’s and Stoecker’s model) is larger
than that used for the experiment.
At the primary nozzle exit (3), the exit temperature obtained from
the Keenan’s model is − 149.2 ◦ C which is well below the freezing
temperature of water. On the other hand, the temperature calculated by
the Stoecker’s model is 2.4 ◦ C, which is the saturation temperature at
0.725 kPa. These two values are much different. The value obtained
from the Keenan’s model seems to be impossible since the temperature is
well below the freezing point; however, in reality, it is possible that the
fluid is still in vapour phase at temperature below freezing point. This is
because the velocity of the fluid at this point is very high, therefore there
is not enough time for the fluid to be condensed [18] or crystalized [22].
On the other hand, the results obtained from the Stoecker’s model is
under the fluid thermodynamic properties at equilibrium state. These
thermodynamic properties are realistic for most of the time. However,
there are some extreme working conditions in which the fluid is not
based on these thermodynamic properties, e.g., supersaturation condi­
tion [18], and super cooling condition [22]. Therefore, it cannot be
concluded which model is more correct because there is no experiment
proof.
The mixing process of both the Keenan’s and Stoecker’s model is
assumed to occur under the constant pressure conditions. At the mixing
chamber throat or the upstream of the normal shock (state 6), the
pressure is maintained constant at 0.725 kPa. Based on the Stoecker’s

13
B. Kitrattana et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 25 (2021) 101016

Table 11 (upstream of the normal shock, 6) to superheated vapour (downstream

Comparison between the calculated results obtained from the Stoecker’s model of the normal shock, 7).
and from the Keenan’s model. The subsonic mixed fluid (7) is then further slowed down to almost a
Boiler saturation temperature 130 ◦ C stagnation state as it travels through the subsonic diffuser (8). This
Boiler saturation pressure 270.1 kPa causes further pressure recovery. The pressure raised via the subsonic
Critical mass flow rate 4.58 kg⋅hour-1 diffuser is around 10% of the total pressure recovery process.
Evaporator saturation temperature 7.5 ◦ C
At state 7 and 8, the results obtained from both models are similar.
Evaporator saturation pressure 1.036 kPa
Secondary vapour mass flow rate 1.19 kg⋅hour-1 This is because the fluid at this state is the superheated steam based on
Primary nozzle exit pressure 0.725 kPa the Stoecker’s model of which behaviour is close to ideal gas. This may
Primary nozzle efficiency 90 % imply that for the dry fluid in which the expansion process occurs under
Mixing efficiency 90 %
the superheated region, the ideal gas assumption is acceptable [23].
Subsonic diffuser efficiency 90 %
In practice, if the mixed fluid is brought to stagnation state, a very
Stoecker Keenan Experiment large exit cross sectional area and very long length of diffuser are
Primary Nozzle required. Therefore, it is not suitable for practical use. Hence, the
Throat (2) T (◦ C) 113.1 73.4 calculation of the pressure recovery process of the mixed fluid is slowed
P (kpa) 159.0 141.0
down to the velocity around 30 to 50 m⋅sec-1 so that the proper geometry
V (m⋅s− 1) 420 460
υ (m3⋅kg− 1) 1.07 1.13 of the subsonic diffuser is achieved. From the calculations, the ejector
x 0.97 – discharge pressures calculated from both models are very close to those
A (mm2) 3.23 3.13 3.14 obtained experimentally as can be seen in the validation section.
D (mm) 2.03 2.00 2.00 Figs. 19 and 20 obviously show the difference of the flow state ob­
Primary Nozzle tained from both models. From Fig. 19, which shows the flow process of
Exit (3) T (◦ C) 2.4 − 149.2 the Stoecker’s model on the temperature-entropy chart, it can clearly be
P (kpa) 0.725 0.725
seen that all the processes upstream of the normal shock occur in a two-
V (m⋅s− 1) 1220 1022
υ (m3⋅kg− 1) 138.06 78.77 phase region. This is different from that of the flow process based on the
x 0.79 – Keenan’s model as shown in Fig. 20.
A (mm2) 144 98.1 62 Based on the Stoecker’s model, it can also be seen that temperatures
D (mm) 13.5 11.1 8.9 of the steam-water at any state in the ejector are higher than the freezing
Normal Shock temperature. This is in contrast to that obtained based on the Keenan’s
Upstream (6) T (◦ C) 2.4 − 60.1 model in which the minimum temperature of − 149.2 ◦ C is found (at the
P (kpa) 0.725 0.725
primary nozzle exit (3)). Moreover, the mixing process between the
V (m⋅s− 1) 873 785.5
υ (m3⋅kg− 1) 159.9 135.49
primary and secondary fluid occurs at a temperature far below the
x 0.91 – freezing point of the water.
A (mm2) 293 277 283 Another interesting point is that, for the Stoecker’s model, the mix­
D (mm) 19.3 18.8 19.0 ing process upstream of the normal shock occurs at a constant pressure
Normal Shock and also constant temperature. This is due to the fact that both primary
Downstream (7) T (◦ C) 78.8 87.55 fluid and secondary fluid are in a two-phase region (saturates liquid­
P (kpa) 4.39 3.81 –vapour mixture condition). On the other hand, for the Keenan’s model,
V (m⋅s− 1) 202 253
υ (m3⋅kg− 1) 36.99 43.65
only the pressure is maintained constant. Even though the velocity and
x Superheated – pressure obtained from both models are not much different, the tem­
A (mm2) 293 277 284 perature obtained from the Keenan’s model is much lower than that
D6 (mm) 19.3 18.8 19 obtained from the Stoecker’s model. However, it cannot be ensured
Discharge (8) T (◦ C) 89.61 104.72
which model yields a more accurate result or reflects a more realistic
P (kpa) 4.89 4.51 4.8
V (m⋅s− 1) 0 0 process. The ideal gas assumption based on the Keenan’s model may not
υ (m3⋅kg− 1) 34.21 38.57 be suitable for the wet fluid because the expansion process is in liquid­
x Superheated – –vapour mixture region because the fluid’s behaviour is far from ideal
gas. On the other hand, the limitation of Stoecker’s model is that all
processes are under the equilibrium state and the fluid properties are
model, the mixed fluid is the wet steam with dryness quality of 0.91 and
associated with the common thermodynamic properties. In reality, there
the temperature is 2.4 ◦ C (saturation temperature at 0.725 kPa).
is some extreme condition at which the process is under the non-
Meanwhile, for the Keenan’s model, temperature of the mixed fluid is
equilibrium state (the thermodynamic properties are not available).
− 60.1 ◦ C, which is below the freezing temperature of water. Even
Hence, the flow process inside the ejector obtained from these two
though the state of water obtained from the two models is significantly
models is significantly different as shown in Figs. 19 and 20. To clarify
different, the calculated velocity of the mixed fluid obtained from both
this, the calculated temperatures from both models need to be validated
models is not much different. Due to the higher specific volume for the
with the experimental result.
Stoecker’s model, the cross-sectional area of the ejector throat is slightly
Fig. 21 shows the performance comparison based on the perfor­
larger than that obtained from the Keenan’s model. However, the
mance map of the experimental result with those obtained from both
calculated cross-sectional area obtained from both models is very similar
models. In Fig. 21a, it can obviously be seen that the at higher boiler
to that of the experimental ejector used.
saturation temperature, the calculated result obtained from the Keen­
Across the normal shock, the velocity of the mixed fluid stream drops
an’s model is largely different from the experimental result. On the other
suddenly from supersonic to subsonic value. Thus, the temperature,
hand, the calculated result obtained from the Stoecker’s model is closer
pressure and density of the mixed stream increase sharply. This means
to the experimental result. This shows that the Stoecker’s model can be
the normal shock wave creates a compression effect or pressure recovery
used to predict the performance of the ejector for a wider range of the
process. It is believed that the pressure recovery via the normal shock
working condition. However, the Keenan’s model might not be suitable
wave is around 90% of the overall pressure recovery process (the
for high boiler saturation temperature. This shows the benefit of using
remaining 10% is obtained via subsonic diffuser). According to the flow
the Stoecker’s model over the Keenan’s model which is useful for
state, the mixed fluid stream is changed from a two-phase mixture
developing the modern design theory of the steam ejector.

14
B. Kitrattana et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 25 (2021) 101016

Fig. 18. Processes on Temperature-Entropy chart based on Stoecker’s model.

Fig. 19. Processes on Temperature-Entropy chart based on Keenan’s model.

15
B. Kitrattana et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 25 (2021) 101016

Fig. 20. Expansion wave form CFD simulation by Ruangtrakoon, et al. [7].

Fig. 21. Performance for the tested ejector calculated from the data obtained based on experiments, Keenan model, and Stoecker model.

16
B. Kitrattana et al.
Fig. 22. Plots of calculated critical mass flow rate through two different pri­
mary nozzles and compared with the data obtained experimentally.
Normally, the Keenan’s model is widely used to calculate the critical
mass flow rate of saturated steam through the primary nozzle. This is
because the calculation method is relatively easy and provides reason­
ably accurate results. Fig. 22 shows the experimental and calculated
critical mass flow rate of saturated steam through two different size
nozzles. It can be seen that the critical mass flow rate obtained from both
the Keenan’s and Stoecker’s model is in good agreement with the
experimental results. This comparison indicates that both models can be
used as the efficient tool for predicting the critical mass flow rate of the
steam through the primary nozzle.
The calculated result shows that the ideal gas assumption for steam
provides relatively low temperature compared to the real fluid proper­
ties. Moreover, the flow process from these two models is significantly
different as shown in Figs. 19 and 20. However, the calculated geome­
tries from these two models is not much different. This is because the
pressure at the nozzle exit is assumed to be 70% of the evaporator
pressure and is being kept constant throughout the mixing process for
both models. This causes the specific volume determined from both
models to be not much different. Therefore, the calculated flow area
from both models is not much different. Across the shock wave, the state
of the fluid is the superheated vapour based on the Stoecker’s model.
Hence, the fluid’s behaviour is close to the ideal gas. As a result, the
process at the downstream of the shock wave obtained from two such
models are not much different and, therefore, the critical condenser
pressure is not much different.
6. Conclusions
From this study, the Keenan’s model and Stoecker’s model are used
for analyse the steam ejector. The Keenan’s model uses ideal gas
assumption, while the Stoecker’s model uses real fluid properties. These
two models have been modified to be more precise for designing ejector
geometry and analysing the flow process. The calculated results from
these two models show both differences and similarities. It can be
concluded as follows:
• The validation result shows that both models can be used to design
ejector geometries and predict the ejector performance (in term of
entrainment ratio and critical condenser pressure)
• The calculated pressures at each state from both models are not much
different.
• The Stoecker’s model shows that condensation occurs in the ejector,
so an assumption of ideal gas might not be valid.
• The calculated temperature from the Keenan’s model is much lower
than the freezing point of water.
17
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 25 (2021) 101016
• The temperature and flow pressure based on the Stoecker’s models is
associated with the liquid–vapour mixture and superheated steam at
equilibrium state.
However, even though both models show a significant difference in
the temperature and flow process inside the ejector, it cannot be ensured
which models is more accurate. The experimental proof of the temper­
ature measurement inside the ejector is needed for validation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
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.
Acknowledgements
The first author would like to thank to Sirindhorn International
Institute of Technology for funding support for this study (Scholarship
Number: ETS-G-S1Y17/064).
References
[1] S. Aphornratana, I.W. Eames, A small capacity steam-ejector refrigerator:
experimental investigation of a system using ejector with movable primary nozzle,
Int. J. Refrig 20 (5) (1997) 352–358.
[2] N. Ruangtrakoon, S. Aphornratana, T. Sriveerakul, Experimental studies of a steam
jet refrigeration cycle: effect of the primary nozzle geometries to system
performance, Exp. Therm Fluid Sci. 35 (4) (2011) 676–683.
[3] Keenan, J. H. (1950). An investigation of ejector design by analysis and
experiment. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 17, 299.
[4] J.T. Munday, D.F. Bagster, A new ejector theory applied to steam jet refrigeration,
Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 16 (4) (1977) 442–449.
[5] B.J. Huang, J.M. Chang, C.P. Wang, V.A. Petrenko, A 1-D analysis of ejector
performance, Int. J. Refrig. 22 (5) (1999) 354–364.
[6] N. Ruangtrakoon, S. Aphornratana, Design of steam ejector in a refrigeration
application based on thermodynamic performance analysis, Sustain. Energy
Technol. Assess. 31 (2019) 369–382.
[7] N. Ruangtrakoon, T. Thongtip, S. Aphornratana, T. Sriveerakul, CFD simulation on
the effect of primary nozzle geometries for a steam ejector in refrigeration cycle,
Int. J. Therm. Sci. 63 (2013) 133–145.
[8] T. Sriveerakul, S. Aphornratana, K. Chunnanond, Performance prediction of steam
ejector using computational fluid dynamics: Part 1. Validation of the CFD results,
Int. J. Therm. Sci. 46 (8) (2007) 812–822.
[9] T. Thongtip, S. Aphornratana, Development and performance of a heat driven
R141b ejector air conditioner: Application in hot climate country, Energy 160
(2018) 556–572.
[10] J. Yan, S. Li, Z. Liu, Numerical investigation on optimization of ejector primary
nozzle geometries with fixed/varied nozzle exit position, Appl. Therm. Eng. 175
(2020) 115426, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.115426.
[11] W.F. Stoecker, Steam-jet refrigeration, Refrig. Air Condition. (1958) 194–205.
[12] Fauske, H. K. (1962). Contribution to the theory of two-phase, one-component
critical flow (No. ANL-6633). Argonne National Lab., Ill..
[13] B. Kitrattana, S. Aphornratana, T. Thongtip, The performance of steam ejector
refrigeration system based on alternative analysis, Energy Procedia 138 (2017)
482–487.
[14] P. Whalley, Boiling, Condensation, and Gas-Liquid Flow, Clarendon, Oxford, 1990.
[15] S.M. Zivi, Estimation of steady-state steam void-fraction by means of the principle
of minimum entropy production, J. Heat Trans. 86 (2) (1964) 247–251.
[16] Chisholm, D. (1972). Equation for velocity ratio in two-phase flow. Nat. Eng. Lab.
Rep.(U. K.), (535), 13.
[17] Premoli, A. (1970). An empirical correlation for evaluating two-phase mixture
density under adiabatic conditions. In European Two-Phase Flow Group Meeting,
1970.
[18] Sarkar, B. K. (1998). Thermal engineering. New Delhi: TATA McGraw-Hill.
[19] VanWylen, G. J., Sonntag, R. E., & Borgnakke, C. (1994). CATT: Computer-aided
thermodynamic tables. Fundamentals of classical thermodynamics.
[20] I.W. Eames, S. Aphornratana, H. Haider, A theoretical andexperimental study of a
small-scale steam jet refrigerator, Int. J. Refrig. 18 (6) (1995) 378–386.
[21] Borgnakke, Claus, et al. Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics. Wiley, 1994.
[22] F.C. Frank, Supercooling of liquids, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 215 (1120) (1952) 43–46.
[23] J.A. White, S. Velasco, Characterizing wet and dry fluids in temperature-entropy
diagrams, Energy 154 (2018) 269–276.