international journal of refrigeration 74 (2017) 517–527

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / i j r e f r i g

Performance analysis of a combined vapor

compression cycle and ejector cycle for
refrigeration cogeneration

K. Megdouli a,b,*, B.M. Tashtoush c, E. Nahdi a, M. Elakhdar a, A. Mhimid b, L. Kairouani a

a
Unité de Recherche Energétique et Environnent, Ecole National d’ingénieur de Tunis, 37 Le Belvédère, Tunis, Tunisia
b
Laboratoire d’Études des Systèmes Thermiques et Énergétiques, Ecole National d’ingénieur de Monastir,
Avenue Ibn El Jazzar, 5019 Monastir, Tunisia
c
Mechanical Engineering Department, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan

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

Article history: A hybrid vapor compression refrigeration (HVCR) system, which combines a vapor com-
Received 27 July 2016 pression refrigeration (VCR) system and an ejector refrigeration (ER) system, was developed.
Received in revised form 5 The waste heat energy from the gas cooler in the VCR system is applied as driven source
December 2016 towards ER system.
Accepted 7 December 2016 Thermodynamic investigations on the performance of the HVCR system, using CO2 as
Available online 12 December 2016 a refrigerant, are performed with energetic and exergetic methods, and the comparative analy-
ses with the VCR system are conducted. Comprehensive effects of key operating parameters
Keywords: on the system performance are also studied. The results indicate that for the same cooling
Thermodynamic analysis capacity, the coefficient of performance (COP) of the HVCR system shows 25% higher COP
Ejector and the total mechanical power consumption is reduced by 20% than that of conventional
Energy VCR system, respectively. The performance characteristics of the proposed cycle show its
Exergy application potential in cooling and air-conditioning.
Waste heat © 2016 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.

Analyse de performance d’un cycle à compression de vapeur

combiné et d’un cycle à éjecteur pour la cogénération de froid
Mots clés : Analyse thermodynamique ; Éjecteur ; Énergie ; Éxergie ; Chaleur perdue

regulated. Adopting appropriate natural refrigerant such as CO2

1. Introduction is one of the advanced methods of enhancing system perfor-
mance and reducing ozone depletion and global warming.
Due to the environmental concerns about ozone depletion and Carbon dioxide as a refrigerant has attracted the interest of
global warming, CFC, HCHC and HFC refrigerants are now being researchers because of its unique thermal characteristics, such

* Corresponding author. Unité de Recherche Energétique et Environnent, Ecole National d’ingénieur de Tunis, 37 Le Belvédère, Tunis, Tunisia.
Fax: +216 71872729.
E-mail addresses: karima.megdouli@gmail.com (K. Megdouli), lakdar_kairouani@yahoo.fr (L. Kairouani).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2016.12.003
0140-7007/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.
518 international journal of refrigeration 74 (2017) 517–527

ejector cooling cycle driven by low grade heat energy is con-

Nomenclature sidered to be combined with the transcritical refrigeration cycle
in the present paper. It is hoped that the obtained results could
COP coefficient of performance
provide some guidelines for refrigeration system designers.
Exdes exergy destruction rate [kW]
Therefore, as well known, an ejector cooling system, which
h specific enthalpy [kJkg−1]
 utilizes natural or renewable thermal energy, offers several ad-
m mass flow rate [kgs−1]
vantages. The distinctive characteristic of ejector refrigeration
P pressure [MPa]
system is its ability to utilize low grade heat energy which can
Q heat load rate [kW]
be easily acquired from automobile waste gas, solar radiation,
s specific entropy [kJ(kg.K)−1]
industrial process and geothermal energy. Moreover, because of
SL second law efficiency [%]
the application of ejector, the system possesses many advan-
T temperature [°C or K]
tages, such as passive device (no moving components), durable
T0 environmental temperature [K]
life span, and little maintenance cost and high reliability. Several
Tr the temperature of secondary fluid in the
research works on ejector cooling technology driven by low-
evaporator [K]
grade energy were carried out extensively in the past decades.
U entrainment ratio
A great effort was devoted to theoretical and experimental evalu-
W mechanical power [kW]
ations of the ejector cycle performance (Chen et al., 2011, 2014,
2015; Huang et al., 2001, 2014; Manjili and Yavari, 2012; Megdouli
Subscripts
et al., 2015; Pridasawas, 2006; Shuxue and Guoyuan, 2011;
0 reference environment
Tashtoush et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2016; Yan et al., 2016). The
1, 2, 3. cycle
.. location
technology is becoming mature for commercialization.The main
bo booster
restriction of prevalence of ejector refrigeration system is its rela-
c compressor
tive low efficiency compared to vapor compression system.Their
cd condenser
typically low COP of around 0.5 (Huang et al., 1999b; Huang and
ej ejector
Chang, 1999a) can be improved substantially when combined
e evaporator
with other systems such as absorption or vapor compression.
exp expansion valve
For example, Sun (1998) studied a combined ejector compres-
gc gas cooler
sion refrigeration system in which an inner heat exchanger was
is isentropic process
used to combine the ejector cycle and the vapor compression
pu pump
cycle. Huang et al. (2001) proposed a combined cycle refrigera-
sys system
tion system (CCRS) that combines a conventional refrigeration
tot total
and air conditioning by using a mechanical compressor and an
’ primary fluid [or motive fluid]
ejector cooling cycle. The system performance was signifi-
’’ secondary fluid [or entrained aspirated]
cantly increased and the improvement in the coefficient of
performance (COP) can be as high as 18.4% for evaporating tem-
Greek symbols
perature at −5 °C. Hernandez et al. (2004) developed a theoretical
Φ area ratio between mixing tube and primary
analysis on the thermodynamics of a hybrid ejector compres-
nozzle throat [d3/dt]
ξ driving pressure ratio [P7/P9] sion refrigeration system. The effects of the working fluid and
r the pressure lift ratio [P9/P6] operation conditions on the hybrid system performance were
η efficiency [%] analysed. Zhu and Jiang (2012) studied a combined ejector com-
pression refrigeration system. The results show that the COP is
improved by 9.1% for R22 system.
By considering the published literature, there will be no
as low viscosity, excellent heat transfer coefficient, no toxic- doubt that use of combined ejector compression refrigera-
ity and no inflammability. At the same time, CO2 has zero ODP tion (CECR) systems would exhibit a reasonable performance.
(ozone depletion potential), negligible GWP (global warming po- Although CECR systems have been studied from different
tential) and very low cost. However, in common refrigeration angles, use of an ejector refrigeration (ER) system as a way to
conditions, the refrigeration system using CO2 needs to be op- improve the performance of CO2 transcritical refrigeration
erated with a transcritical cycle mode because of the lower system has not yet been performed and needs to be consid-
critical temperature of CO2 which results in a lower first and ered. In order to do so, a hybrid vapor compression refrigeration
second law efficiencies. Large amount of efforts were devoted (HVCR) system with carbon dioxide refrigerant with dual cooling
to enhance the performance of these cycles. temperature that combines a basic vapor compression refrig-
For thermodynamic reasons, the working fluid exiting the eration (VCR) system with an ejector refrigeration (ER) system
compressor (usually at 100–200 °C for CO2) should be cooled is described in this paper. The ER system is driven thermally
down to about 35–55 °C in the gas cooler providing a large by the gas cooler waste heat from the CO2 transcritical system.
amount of energy and exergy, which will be rejected to the en- The HVCR system can be used as a support system to favour
vironment. This is an ideal thermal energy source to be utilized the implantation of transcritical system and reduce the con-
to increase the refrigeration system performance. sumption of limited fuel supplies.
In order to improve the system performance of the CO2 VCR In order to deeply evaluate thermodynamic performances
system and obtain dual-temperature refrigeration function, an of the proposed cycle, energetic and exergetic methods are used
 international journal of refrigeration 74 (2017) 517–527
in this paper. A parametric study of a combined ejector com-
pression refrigeration system has been performed. The results
are compared with a basic refrigeration system.
2. Cycle description
Fig. 1 shows the basic VCR system and its p-h diagram. The
layout and pressure-enthalpy diagrams of the HVCR system
are shown in Fig. 2. The proposed system consists of two cycles.
It includes the basic refrigeration cycle and a heat driven ejector
cooling cycle.
The cycle working principle is described as follows: the su-
perheated gas discharge by the compressor (state 2) enters the
gas cooler and leaves at state 3. In gas cooler, the com-
pressed gas rejects heat to the fluid coming from the condenser.
This heat is used to drive the ER system. The gas from state 3
enters a throttling device (Exp A), where the pressure and tem-
perature are reduced and enters evaporator (A) at state 4, where
it evaporates and absorbs the heat in evaporator (A). After this,
the working fluid enters the compressor as saturated vapor
(state 1), and the cycle continues. The ER system is driven ther-
mally by waste heat of the VCR system. The heat transfer
between these two cycles is linked through the gas cooler. The
Fig. 1 – (a) Schematic of a VCR system. (b) P-h diagram of a VCR.
519
high temperature and pressure refrigerant vapor (the primary
flow, state 7) enter the ejector through a convergent–divergent
nozzle, which accelerates the primary flow from subsonic to
supersonic velocity and creates a low pressure region at the
nozzle exit. This entrains the low temperature, low-pressure
vapor (the secondary flow, state 5) from the evaporator (B) outlet.
The secondary flow from the evaporator (B) is first com-
pressed to a relatively high pressure in the booster and then
enters the ejector at state 6. The primary and secondary flows
mix in the ejector and then the mixture is discharged to con-
denser (state 8). After the condensation, the refrigerant at state
9 is divided into two streams; the first one is directed through
a pump to gas cooler at state 10 and the second one is di-
rected through an expansion valve (B) (state 11) and into the
evaporator (B). The liquid vapor refrigerant mixture evapo-
rates in the evaporator (B) and the ER system thus provides
an additional cooling capacity.
3. System modelling
In order to analyse the HVCR system, the energetic and the
exergetic models based on the first and the second laws of ther-
modynamics are established.
520 international journal of refrigeration 74 (2017) 517–527

Fig. 2 – (a) Schematic of an HVCR system. (b) P-h diagram of an HVCR.

3.1. Ejector model construction comprises four distinct parts: a convergent–

Ejector is the critical component in the ejector enhanced re-
frigeration cycles and its performance is closely related to the
system performance and energy efficiency.
Therefore, establishing a valid simulation model plays a sig-
nificant role in the prediction and analysis of the operating
characteristics of the ejector enhanced system. A typical ejector
divergent nozzle, a suction chamber attached to a constant area
duct and a diffuser (Fig. 3).
The typical processes inside an ejector begin with high tem-
perature and pressure stream from the generator entering the
ejector through the convergent–divergent nozzle. This stream
is accelerated and expanded to a supersonic speed at the nozzle
exit where it creates an aerodynamic duct to entrain the low

Fig. 3 – Schematic of an ejector (Huang et al., 1999b).

 international journal of refrigeration 74 (2017) 517–527 521

pressure and low temperature secondary stream into the mixing nent in HVCR system. The simulation code written by FORTRAN
chamber. is developed to investigate the effect of different operating pa-
The secondary stream is accelerated to a sonic velocity and rameters on the HVCR system performance, where the
mixes with the primary stream in the constant area duct. The thermodynamic properties of CO2 are taken from the NIST da-
region of supersonic flow is terminated by a normal shock wave tabase and subroutines (Lemmon et al., 2010)
further down the duct or in the diffuser. Across the shock, pres- For the compressor, the input power can be calculated as:
sure increases but Mach number (velocity) reduces to a subsonic
value. The mixed stream then enters the subsonic diffuser  1 (h2,s − h1 ) ηis
Wc = m (1)
where it undergoes a re-compression process to reach the back-
pressure (gas cooler pressure) at near zero velocity. In the past where ηis represents the isentropic efficiency of the compres-
decades, various ejector models have been developed for the sor (Yari and Mahmoudi, 2011):
theoretical and experimental analyses on the ejector cycles.
From the open literature on the thermodynamic modelling for ⎛P ⎞
ηis = 0.9343 − 0.04478 ⎜ 2 ⎟ (2)
ejector cycle, it could be found that ejectors are classified into ⎝ P1 ⎠
two types depending on the position of the nozzle; constant-
pressure mixing ejector and constant-area mixing ejector. In The input power of the liquid pump is calculated by isen-
the constant-pressure mixing ejector the exit plane of the nozzle tropic efficiency method (Ben Mansour et al., 2014; Dai et al.,
is located within the suction zone upstream of the constant 2009; Yu and Du, 2010), expressed as,
area section; the static pressure throughout the mixing zone
is assumed constant. In the constant-area mixing ejector, the  ′ (h10,s − h9 ) ηpu
Wpu = m (3)
primary nozzle exit is located in the constant area section,
where the mixing of the primary and secondary flows occurs where ηpu represents the isentropic efficiency of the liquid
and the pressures of the two streams are not equal (He et al., pump and is assumed to be constant.
2009). For a real non-isentropic efficiency of the compression
In order to simplify the ejector modelling process, the process, the input power to the booster can be expressed as
constant-area mixing model is adopted in the present work. (Zhu and Jiang, 2012):
The ejector operates in three different modes: the critical, sub-
critical and back flow modes. Critical modes are more favorable  ′′ (h6,s − h5 ) ηbo
Wbo = m (4)
in terms of high entrainment ratio and enhanced ejector per-
formance. For this reason, we will analyse the ejector in critical
where ηbo represents the isentropic efficiency of booster and
mode. A previous published paper (Kairouani et al., 2009) con-
is assumed to be constant.
tains a useful appendix, which explains additional steps in the
The total power input of the system can be given as:
model derivation. The model was validated in our previously
published data (Megdouli et al., 2016).
W = Wc + Wpu + Wbo (5)

3.2. Energetic model

For the evaporator A in the VCR system, the cooling capac-
ity is:
The energetic analysis as a fundamental method is widely used
to analyse the operating performance of thermodynamic cycles.
 1 (h1 − h4 )
Q e_A = m (6)
In the present paper, the energetic model is developed to assess
the energy utilization on the basis of the first law of thermo-
For the evaporator B in the ER system, the cooling capac-
dynamics. For simplicity, some assumptions are made as
ity is:
follows:

 ′′ (h5 − h11 )
Q e_B = m (7)
(1) The system is simulated under steady state conditions.
(2) The refrigerant leaving evaporators are assumed to be
at saturated vapor state. The total cooling capacity of the HVCR system is:
(3) The enthalpy before and after the expansion valve
remains constant. Q sys = Q e_A + Q e_B (8)
(4) The compression processes in the liquid pump, the
booster and the compressor are adiabatic and The heat flow rate at the gas cooler is:
non-isentropic.
(5) The total cooling capacity Q of the system is kept to be  1 (h2 − h3 )
Q gc = m (9)
100 kW for both HVCR and VCR systems.
(6) A temperature difference of 5 °C is assumed in the gas Using the ideal heat exchange condition and from an energy
cooler (ΔT = T2 − T7) (Wang et al., 2010). balance principle, it follows that (Tan et al., 2015):
(7) Ambient condition is specified as 1.01 bar and 25 °C.
 1 (h2 − h3 ) = m
m  ′ (h7 − h10 ) (10)
Based on these assumptions, the governing equations are
based on conservation of energy and mass for each compo- The heat flow rate at the condenser is:
522 international journal of refrigeration 74 (2017) 517–527

 tot (h9 − h8 )
Q cd = m (11) and the reduction of value of the energy utilized in the system
working process. In this section, the exergetic model is built
where: to assess the energy utilization of the HVCR system.
According to the definition of exergy and exergy balance at
 tot = m
m ′+m
 ′′ (12) steady operation, the exergy at any point and exergy destruction
in a component can be expressed as follows (Joybari et al., 2013):
For expansion valves:
 [(h − h0 ) − T0 (s − s0 )]
Ex = m (21)
h4 = h3 (13)

Exdes = Exin − Exout + ∑ ⎡⎢Q ⎛ 1 − 0 ⎤⎥

T
h11 = h9 (14) ⎣ ⎝ T ⎦in
⎡ ⎛ T0 ⎤
− ∑ ⎢Q 1 − ⎥ + ∑ Win − ∑ Wout (22)
For ejector: ⎣ ⎝ T ⎦ out

 tot h8 = m
m  ′′ h6 + m
 ′ h7 (15) where T0 is a reference temperature maintained at 25 °C and
the reference pressure is set at 0.101 MPa throughout this study
Entrainment ratio also is an important parameter that de- to obtained the reference enthalpy h0 and entropy s0. In Eq. (22),
scribes the ER system performance. This parameter is related the first term represents the exergy destruction resulting from
to the cooling capacity and directly depends on the refrigera- the fluid flow, the second term represents the exergy destruc-
tion type and ejector geometry. The entrainment ratio is the tions caused by the heat transfers, and the last term represents
ratio between the mass flow rate of the secondary flow and the exergy destruction by the mechanical and/or electrical work
the mass flow rate of the primary flow, given as: transfer through the component. Based on the definition of exergy
and exergy destruction mentioned above, the exergy destruc-
 ′′
m tion in each component of HVCR system can be derived as follows:
U= (16)
′
m For the compressor, the exergy destruction rate can be ex-
pressed as:
where m  ′′ and m ′ represent the mass flow rates of the sec-
ondary and the primary flows, respectively.  1 (s2 − s1 )
Exc = T0 m (23)
The coefficient of performance of the HVCR system, COP ,
is: For gas cooler, the exergy destruction rate can be calcu-
lated by:
Q sys
COP = (17)
W Exgc = T0 ( m  ′ (s7 − s10 ))
 1 (s3 − s2 ) + m (24)

For comparison, the coefficient of performance of the VCR For condenser, the exergy destruction rate can be calcu-
system, COPbasic , is: lated by:

Q e_A  tot ( h8 − h9 − T0 (s8 − s9 ))

Excd = m
COPbasic = (18) (25)
Wc
For ejectors, exergy destruction rate can be expressed as:
The ER system performance can be evaluated based on the
coefficient of performance, COPej ,  tot s8 − m
Exej = T0 (m  ′ s7 − m
 ′′ s6 ) (26)

Q e_B
COPej = (19) For expansion valve A:
Wpu + Wbo + Q gc
 1 (s4 − s3 )
Exexp_A = T0 m (27)
Another criterion is the COP improvement COPimp which
could be used to compare the performance of HVCR system For expansion valve B:
with that of the conventional VCR system, and is given as
follows:  ′′ (s11 − s9 )
Exexp_B = T0 m (28)

⎛ COP − COPbasic ⎞
COPimp (% ) = ⎜ × 100 For evaporator A:
⎠⎟
(20)
⎝ COPbasic

 1 ⎛⎜ (s1 − s4 ) + ( 4
h − h1 ) ⎞
Exe_A = T0 m ⎟ (29)
3.3. Exergetic model ⎝ Tr 1 ⎠

Exergy is defined as the maximum work potential of a mate- For evaporator B:

rial or of a form of energy in relation to its environment. Exergy
 ′′ ⎛⎜ (s5 − s11 ) + ( 11
based analyses help determine the entropy generation and h − h5 ) ⎞
Exe_B = T0 m ⎟⎠ (30)
quantify the inefficiencies of a given energy conversion process ⎝ Tr 2
 international journal of refrigeration 74 (2017) 517–527 523

For pump:
Table 1 – Condition of simulation for HVCR system.

Ex pu  ′ (s10 − s9 )
= T0 m (31) Parameters Values
Ambient temperature, T0 [°C] 25
For booster: Evaporating temperature, Te_A [°C] −25 to −15
Evaporating temperature, Te_B [°C] 0
 ′′ (s6 − s5 )
Exbo = T0 m Gas cooler temperature, Tgc [°C] 40 to 50
(32)
Condenser temperature Tcd [°C] T0 + 5
Gas cooler pressure, Pgc [MPa] 9 to14
The total exergy destruction rate of the HVCR system is the
ΔT [°C] = T2 − T7 5
sum of the exergy destruction rate in each component: Liquid pump efficiency, ηpu [%] 0.8
Booster efficiency, ηbo [%] 0.8
Exdes = Exc + Ex pu + Exbo + Exe_A + Exe_B + Exgc
(33)
+ Excd + Exej + Exexp _A + Exexp_B
destruction rate under the standard operating condition: the
The parameter used to measure the performance of the cycle gas cooler exit temperature is 45 °C, and the evaporating tem-
based on the second law of thermodynamics is the second- peratures Te_A and Te_B are −20 °C and 0 °C, respectively. The
law efficiency. The second-law efficiency of the HVCR system highest COP value corresponds to a gas cooler pressure of
is written as follows: 11.4 MPa as shown in Fig. 4, indicating that this is an optimum
value for the gas cooler pressure. It should be mentioned that
⎛T ⎞ ⎛T ⎞ the mass flow rate of each state points is obtained by apply-
Q e_A ⎜ 0 − 1⎟ + Q e_B ⎜ 0 − 1⎟
⎝ Tr 1 ⎠ ⎝ Tr 2 ⎠ (34) ing the principle of mass and energy conversation.
SL =
W
4.1.1. Effects of gas cooler outlet pressure
where T0 is a reference temperature maintained at 25 °C,
The effect of varying gas cooler pressure Pgc on the COP and
Tr 1 = Te_A + ΔTe and Tr 2 = Te_B + ΔTe .
the total mechanical power consumption for the HVCR and the
It can be expressed as follows for the conventional VCR
VCR systems are shown in Fig. 4.
system:
According to references (Joneydi et al., 2016; Kauf, 1999; Liao
et al., 2000), there exists an optimal value for gas cooler pres-
⎛T ⎞
Q e_A ⎜ 0 − 1⎟ sure to reach the maximum COP in a carbon dioxide
⎝ Tr 1 ⎠ (35)
SLbasic = refrigeration cycle. In this respect, it can be observed in Fig. 4
Wc
that the corresponding optimum gas cooler pressure is 11.4 MPa
that maximizes the COP of both systems at the given operat-
The system exergy efficiency improvement of the HVCR
ing condition.
system over the conventional VCR system is evaluated by:
As can be seen in Fig. 4, the total mechanical work con-
sumption W of both cycles drops first and then increases. For
⎛ SL − SLbasic ⎞
SLimp (% ) = ⎜ × 100
⎝ SLbasic ⎟⎠
(36) this reason, the system COP rises first and then decreases as
previously noted. Since the cooling capacity is the same for
the two refrigeration systems, the performance improve-
ment appears in terms of lower mechanical power
consumption. The main reason for this is that the large tem-
4. Results and discussion
perature in the gas cooler is utilized to drive an ejector cooling
cycle. In this case, the HVCR system exhibits a reasonable value
Results are obtained from the developed model. Initially, for speci-
of COP.
fied temperatures ( Te_A = −20 °C, Te_B = 0 °C, Tgc = 45 °C) the effect
In order to illustrate the energy saving potential and ad-
of varying gas cooler pressure on the performance of a CO2 HVCR
vantages of excellent cooling performances, the energetic
system is reported. Optimum values of performance param-
performance comparisons between HVCR and VCR systems
eters (1st and 2nd law efficiencies) at different gas cooler pressure
using CO2 are carried out at the specific operating condition
for the HVCR system are compared with those of the VCR base-
and for the same cooling capacity. It can be observed that the
line system. During the entire analysis, the cooling capacity of
HVCR system has more advantages than the VCR system in
the HVCR system is assumed to be the same as the basic VCR
terms of system COP. Under the given operating condition and
system and both are assumed to be 100 kW.
at the optimum gas cooler pressure, the HVCR system shows
25% higher COP and the total mechanical power consump-
4.1. Energy analysis tion Wsys is reduced by 20%. Therefore, it could be concluded
that the use of the waste heat from the gas cooler in the VCR
Table 1 summarizes the basic assumptions and input param- system to drive the ejector cooling system could significantly
eter values in the simulation of two considered cycles. improve the system performance. This indicates that apply-
Tables 2 and 3 show the thermodynamic properties of each ing HVCR system to obtain better performance with lower
state point under the standard operating condition of simu- energy consumption is feasible.
lation for VCR and HVCR system, respectively. It is given in terms The variation of the entrainment ratio U and the ejector cycle
of pressure, temperature, enthalpy, entropy, flow rate and exergy COP with the gas cooler pressure Pgc are presented in Fig. 5. It
524 international journal of refrigeration 74 (2017) 517–527

Table 2 – Parameters of state points for the VCR system at optimum gas cooler pressure.
State point P (MPa) T (K) h (kJkg−1) s (kJkg−1K−1)  (kgs−1)
m Ex (kW)
1 1.96 253.15 436.89 1.9485 0.85 142.6
2 11.4 417.54 557.49 2.045 0.85 221.2
3 11.4 318.15 320.35 1.3723 0.85 190
4 1.96 253.15 320.15 1.48 0.85 160.4

Table 3 – Parameters of state points for the HVCR system at optimum gas cooler pressure.
State point P (MPa) T (K) h (kJkg−1) s (kJkg−1K−1)  (kgs−1)
m Ex (kW)
1 1.96 253.15 436.89 1.9485 0.59 98.78
2 11.4 417.54 557.49 2.045 0.59 153.23
3 11.4 318.15 320.35 1.3723 0.59 131.62
4 1.96 253.15 320.35 1.48 0.59 111.09
5 3.48 273.15 430.8 1.8452 0.24 46.5
6 6.03 316.42 456.91 1.8592 0.24 51.63
7 11.4 412.54 550.8 2.0439 0.59 151.58
8 7.21 371.31 523.45 2.058 0.83 190.78
9 7.21 303.15 304.55 1.4288 0.83 179.08
10 11.4 316.07 312.84 1.4421 0.59 130.89
11 3.48 273.15 304.55 1.5 0.24 49.31

is clear from Fig. 5 that the entrainment ratio increases with
the gas cooler pressure Pgc and varies in the range of 0.43–
0.57. It is also demonstrated that the COPej is low compared
to the VCR system COP; the ejector cycle improves the COP
because the heat energy utilized in the ejector cycle is waste
heat from the gas cooler.
4.1.2. Effects of gas cooler outlet temperature on cycle
performance
The following results were obtained by varying the gas cooler
temperature from 40 °C to 50 °C. Fig. 6 shows the effect of Tgc
on the HVCR system COP and the total mechanical power
consumption. As shown in Fig. 6, increasing gas cooler tem-
perature results in an increase of the optimum gas cooler
pressure. The optimum gas cooler pressure varies from 9.8 to
12 MPa when the gas cooler temperature varies from 40 to
50 °C. The COPsys of the HVCR system decreases as the gas
cooler temperature increases because the enthalpy of the
CO2 at state 3 increases as the gas cooler temperature in-
creases, which leads to an increase in the total mechanical
power consumption, W, as shown in Fig. 6. Increasing gas
cooler outlet temperature will significantly decrease the system
performance.
4.1.3. Effects of evaporator outlet temperature on cycle
performance
Fig. 7 shows the effect of the evaporator outlet temperature
on the COP and the mechanical work consumption, W. The COP
increases as the evaporating temperature Te_A increases. The
maximum COP increases with the evaporating temperature Te_A;

Fig. 4 – The effect of the gas cooler pressure on the COP and
the mechanical power consumption of two systems under Fig. 5 – Variation of the ejector COP and the entrainment
specified operation conditions. ratio with the gas cooler pressure.
 international journal of refrigeration 74 (2017) 517–527
Fig. 6 – Variation of the COP and the mechanical power
consumption of the HVCR system with the gas cooler
temperature Tgc.
when the evaporating temperature Te_A ranges from −25 °C to
−15 °C, the COP is higher at the optimum gas cooler pressure.
As can be seen from Fig. 7, the mechanical work consump-
tion, W, decreases as the evaporating temperature Te_A increases.
This is because of the decrease in difference between the gas
cooler and evaporator temperatures. It is observed that for each
evaporating temperature, an optimum gas cooler pressure
exists, for which W is a minimum.
The variations of the ejector system COP and the entrain-
ment ratio with Te_A are presented in Fig. 8. It can be seen that
COPej and the entrainment ratio U increase with increasing Te_A.
Referring to Fig. 8, as the evaporating temperature increases,
the entrainment ratio is raised. This is justified by the fact that
the compressor exit temperature increase results in more vapors
generated to drive the ejector refrigeration system. The in-
crease in the entrainment ratio will increase the value of COPej
as depicted in Fig. 8.
Fig. 7 – Variation of the COP and the mechanical power
consumption of the HVCR system with the evaporating
temperature Te_A.
525
Fig. 8 – Variation of the ejector COP and the entrainment
ratio with the evaporating temperature Te_A.
4.2. Exergy analysis
4.2.1. Effects of gas cooler outlet pressure
The results are obtained with the operating condition kept at
Te_A = −20 °C , Te_B = 0 °C, Tgc = 45 °C and Φ = 7. Fig. 9 compares
the total exergy destruction rate and the second law effi-
ciency of the VCR and the HVCR system in which both of them
depict the same trend with minimum amount of exergy de-
struction rate according to the optimum P gc which is
approximately 11.4 MPa. However, the EXdest of the HVCR system
is 22% lower compared to the VCR system, as can be seen from
Table 4.
Table 4 outlines the exergy destruction rates in different
components of the systems at Te_A = −20 °C, Te_B = 0 °C,
Tgc = 45 °C and Φ = 7. As indicated in Table 4, the main irre-
versibility of VCR system occurring in the compressor, gas cooler
and expansion valve is lower for HVCR system.
Fig. 9 – Variation of the second-law efficiency and the total
exergy destruction rate of HVCR and VCR systems with gas
cooler pressure.
526 international journal of refrigeration 74 (2017) 517–527

Table 4 – Exergy destruction rate and their ratio to the

total values for HVCR and VCR systems (under standard
operating conditions).
Process Rate of exergy Rate of exergy
destruction (kW) destruction (kW) of
of VCR system HVCR system
Compressor 24.86 17
Evaporator A 2.28 1
Gas cooler 31.21 0.92
Expansion valve A 29.63 20
Evaporator B — 0.60
Booster — 1.19
Ejector — 12.43
Condenser — 11.7
Pump — 0.92
Expansion valve B — 2.85
Total 87.9 68.64

Fig. 11 – Variation of the second law efficiency and the

Fig. 9 shows that the maximum second law efficiencies of
15.6% and 14.9% for HVCR and VCR system are obtained. The
optimal gas cooler pressure of approximately 11.4 MPa is at-
tained. It can be deduced that the HVCR system represents
approximately 4.7% increase as compared to the conven-
tional one.
The maximization of second law efficiency with the gas
cooler pressure can be justified if we note that an increase in
the gas cooler pressure causes a reduction in the total exergy
destruction rate when the Pgc is inferior to 11.4 MPa as shown
in Fig. 9. Further, the integration of the ER system with the con-
ventional VCR system leads to an improvement in total system
exergy destruction rate.
4.2.2. Effects of condenser outlet temperature on cycle
performance
The effect of gas cooler temperature on second-law effi-
ciency and the total exergy destruction rate are discussed in
Fig. 10. Referring to Fig. 10, when the Tgc varies from 40 °C to
exergy destruction rate of the HVCR system with the
evaporator temperature Te_A.
50 °C it could be observed that with the increase in gas cooler
temperature, SL and EXdest.tot increase. The main reason for this
variation tendency of the SL is that for a fixed cooling capac-
ity, when Pgc increases the total mechanical power consumption,
W increases (as shown in Fig. 6) and this leads to a reduction
in SL (Eq. 34). In addition, the exergy destruction in gas cooler
increases as the Pgc increases due to the increased tempera-
ture level (energy quality) of the fluid.
4.2.3. Effects of evaporator outlet temperature on cycle
performance
Fig. 11 shows the variation of second law efficiency and total
exergy destruction rate, with the evaporating temperature
ranging from −25 °C to −15 °C when Tgc = 45 °C and Φ = 7. It could
be found that with the increase in evaporating temperature,
the SL increases while the total exergy destruction rate shows
a remarkable decrease. The main reason for this is that the com-
pression ratio of decreases with the increasing evaporating
temperature which, leads a remarkable exergy destruction in
the compressor. The exergy destruction occurring in the com-
pressor is reduced, causing the decrease in the system’s total
exergy destruction rate.

5. Conclusion

A proposed hybrid vapor compression refrigeration (HVCR) system

Fig. 10 – Variation of the second law efficiency and the
exergy destruction rate of the HVCR system with the gas
cooler temperature Tgc.
is proposed in this paper. Energetic and exergetic analyses are
conducted on the thermodynamic performances of this system
with CO2.The principal operating parameters including gas cooler
temperature, gas cooler pressure and evaporating temperature
on the system performance are discussed theoretically in detail
and then compared to the conventional vapor compression re-
frigeration (VCR) system. The simulation results indicated that
HVCR exhibits significant cooling performance improvement with
respect to COP and second law efficiency over the conventional
VCR system. It is also found that exergy destruction in the com-
pressor, the gas cooler and the ejector accounted for large
 international journal of refrigeration 74 (2017) 517–527
percentage in total exergy destruction and thus more effective
methods to reduce these exergy destructions should be devel-
oped to enhance system performance. Furthermore, the results
showed that the HVCR system is proposed to be a candidate
system in the cooler applications. Therefore, further theoreti-
cal and experimental investigations on the operating
characteristics of HVCR system are required in future studies
to confirm the practical usefulness of this system.
REFERENCES
Ben Mansour, R., Ouzzane, M., Aidoun, Z., 2014. Numerical
evaluation of ejector-assisted mechanical compression
systems for refrigeration applications. Int. J. Refrigeration 43,
36–49.
Chen, J., Havtun, H., Palm, B., 2014. Investigation of ejectors in
refrigeration system: optimum performance evaluation and
ejector area ratios perspectives. Appl. Therm. Eng. 64, 182–
191.
Chen, J., Havtun, H., Palm, B., 2015. Conventional and advanced
exergy analysis of an ejector refrigeration system. Appl.
Energy 144, 139–151.
Chen, X., Zhou, Y., Yu, J., 2011. A theoretical study of an
innovative ejector enhanced vapor compression heat pump
cycle for water heating application. Energy Build. 43, 3331–
3336.
Dai, Y., Wang, J., Gao, L., 2009. Exergy analysis, parametric
analysis and optimization for a novel combined power and
ejector refrigeration cycle. Appl. Therm. Eng. 29, 1983–1990.
He, S., Li, Y., Wang, R.Z., 2009. Progress of mathematical modeling
on ejectors. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13, 1760–1780.
Hernandez, J.I., Dorantes, R.J., Best, R., Estrada, C.A., 2004. The
behaviour of a hybrid compressor and ejector refrigeration
system with refrigerants 134a and 142b. Appl. Therm. Eng. 24,
1765–1783.
Huang, B., Chang, J., Wang, C., Petrenko, V., 1999b. A 1D analysis
of ejector performance. Int. J. Refrigeration 22, 354–364.
Huang, B.J., Chang, J.M., 1999a. Empirical correlation for ejector
design. Int. J. Refrigeration 22, 379–388.
Huang, B.J., Petrenko, V.A., Chang, J.M., Lin, C.P., Hu, S.S., 2001. A
combined-cycle refrigeration system using ejector-cooling
cycle as the bottom cycle. Int. J. Refrigeration 24, 391–399.
Huang, B.J., Ton, W.Z., Wu, C.C., Ko, H.W., Chang, H.S., Hsu, H.Y.,
et al., 2014. Performance test of solar assisted ejector cooling
system. Int. J. Refrigeration 39, 172–185.
Joneydi, O.S., Abolhassani, S.S., Rahmani, M., Nejad, M.Z., 2016.
Comparison of transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle with
expander and throttling valve including/excluding internal
heat exchanger: exergy and energy points of view. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 93, 779–787.
Joybari, M.M., Hatamipour, M.S., Rahimi, A., Modarres, F.G., 2013.
Exergy analysis and optimization of R600a as a replacement
of R134a in a domestic refrigerator system. Int. J. Refrigeration
36, 1233–1242.
Kairouani, L., Elakhdar, M., Nehdi, E., Bouaziz, N., 2009. Use of
ejectors in a multi-evaporator refrigeration system for
performance enhancement. Int. J. Refrigeration 32, 1173–1185.
527
Kauf, F., 1999. Determination of the optimum high pressure for
transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycles. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 38 (4),
325–330.
Lemmon, E.W., McLinden, M.O., Huber, M.L., 2010. NIST Standard
Reference Database 23: Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and
Transport Properties – REFPROP, Version 9.0. National Institute
of Standards and Technology, Standard Reference Data
Program, Gaithersburg, USA.
Liao, S.M., Zhao, T.S., Jakobsen, A., 2000. A correlation of optimal
heat rejection pressures in transcritical carbon dioxide cycles.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 20 (9), 831–841.
Manjili, F.E., Yavari, M.A., 2012. Performance of a new two-stage
multi-intercooling transcritical CO2 ejector refrigeration
cycle. Appl. Therm. Eng. 40, 202–209.
Megdouli, K., Elakhdar, M., Nahdi, E., Kairouani, L., Mhimid, A.,
2015. Performance evaluation of a solar ejector-vapour
compression cycle for cooling application. J. Phys. Conf. Ser.
596, 012004.
Megdouli, K., Tashtoush, B.M., Nahdi, E., Elakhdar, M., Kairouani,
L., Mhimid, A., 2016. Thermodynamic analysis of a novel
ejector-cascade refrigeration cycles for freezing process
applications and air conditioning. Int. J. Refrigeration 70, 108–
118.
Pridasawas, W., 2006. Solar-Driven Refrigeration Systems with
Focus on the Ejector Cycle. Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm.
Shuxue, X., Guoyuan, M., 2011. Research on air-source heat pump
coupled with economized vapor injection scroll compressor
and ejector. Int. J. Refrigeration 34, 1587–1595.
Sun, D.W., 1998. Evaluation of a combined ejector vapour
compression refrigeration system. Int. J. Energy Res. 22, 333–
342.
Tan, Y., Wang, L., Liang, K., 2015. Thermodynamic performance of
an auto-cascade ejector refrigeration cycle with mixed
refrigerant R32+ R236fa. Appl. Therm. Eng.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.03.047.
Tashtoush, B., Alshare, A., Alrifai, S., 2015. Performance study of
ejector cooling cycle at critical mode under superheated
primary flow. Energy Convers. Manag. 94, 300–310.
Wang, H., Cai, W., Wang, Y., Yan, J., Wang, L., 2016. Experimental
study of the behavior of a hybrid ejector-based air-
conditioning system with R134a. Energy Convers. Manag. 112,
31–40.
Wang, J., Sun, Z., Dai, Y., Ma, S., 2010. Parametric optimization
design for supercritical CO2 power cycle using genetic
algorithm and artificial neural network. Appl. Energy 87, 1317–
1324.
Yan, G., Bai, T., Yu, J., 2016. Energy and exergy efficiency analysis
of solar driven ejector–compressor heat pump cycle. Sol.
Energy 125, 243–255.
Yari, M., Mahmoudi, S.M.S., 2011. Thermodynamic analysis and
optimization of novel ejector-expansion TRCC (transcritical
CO2) cascade refrigeration cycles (novel transcritical CO2
cycle). Energy 36, 6839–6850.
Yu, J., Du, Z., 2010. Theoretical study of a transcritical ejector
refrigeration cycle with refrigerant R143a. Renew. Energy 35,
2034–2039.
Zhu, Y., Jiang, P., 2012. Hybrid vapor compression refrigeration
system with an integrated ejector cooling cycle. Int. J.
Refrigeration 35, 68–78.