INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH

Int. J. Energy Res. 2007; 31:364375

Published online 18 October 2006 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/er.1260

Performance analysis of the vapour compression cycle using

ejector as an expander

E. Nehdiz, L. Kairouani*,y and M. Bouzaina

Unite de Recherche Energetique et Environnement, Ecole Nationale d Ingenieurs de Tunis, Tunisia

SUMMARY

The purpose of incorporating an ejector into vapour compression cycle is to improve the COP by reducing
the throttling loss associated with the expansion device. A computer simulation of the improved cycle is
carried out using a one-dimensional model based on mass, momentum and energy balances. Refrigerant
characteristics were evaluated using NIST subroutines for equations of state solutions.
According to the results of simulation of the improved cycle, it has been shown that the geometric
parameters of the ejector design have considerable eects on the systems performance. The maximum
COP is obtained for Fopt whose value is around 10.
Several refrigerants are considered; it has been observed, at Fopt and for given operating conditions, that
the best performances are obtained with R141b. Compared with the standard cycle the COP of the
improved cycle shows an increase of about 22%. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS: COP; ejector; expansion device; model; optimum performance; simulation

1. INTRODUCTION

There are dierent principles to reduce the throttling losses in the refrigeration cycle. A number
of ways have been discussed by Lorentzen (1983) and Auracher (1980). Among the process,
leading to the reduction of the irreversibility on the expansion device, is the use of an ejector
which is replacing the throttling valve. Applying ejector to the conventional refrigeration
compression cycle is one of the remarkable alternatives. The appropriate installation
conguration introduces improvement of COP by raising the compression suction pressure to
a level higher than that in the evaporator and, consequently, to reduce the load on the
compressor and motor. A schematic diagram of the system and its corresponding cycle states on
pressure-enthalpy plot are given in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. As can be seen in Figure 1, the

*Correspondence to: L. Kairouani, Unite de Recherche Energetique et Environnement, Ecole Nationale dIngenieurs de
Tunis, Tunisia.
y
E-mail: lakdar kairouani@yahoo.fr
z
E-mail: nahdi1957@yahoo.fr

Received 7 June 2006

Revised 11 August 2006
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 19 August 2006
 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF THE VAPOUR COMPRESSION CYCLE 365

Condenser
Compressor

4
6

1
ejector Separator
2
3 7

9 Evaporator Throttling valve

8

Figure 1. Schematic of the improved system cycle.

6 5
Log P

3
7
4

8 9
1 2

Figure 2. The log Ph diagram of the improved cycle.

ejector is installed at the outlet of the condenser, and the motive uid (liquid from the
condenser) enters into the nozzle at a relatively high pressure. Reduction of the pressure of the
liquid in the nozzle provides the potential energy for conversion to kinetic energy of the liquid.
The driving ow entrains vapour out of the evaporator. The two phases are mixed in mixing
chamber and leave it after a recovery of pressure in the diuser part of the ejector. The liquid
portion is directed to the evaporator through a small-pressure-drop expansion device while the
vapour portion enters the compressor suction.

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2007; 31:364375
DOI: 10.1002/er
366 E. NEHDI, L. KAIROUANI AND M. BOUZAINA

The ejector process on log Ph chart is shown in Figure 2. The lines from points 4 to 6 is a
series process in the compressor and the condenser. The lines from points 7 to 9 is a series
process in the expander and the evaporator. Points 1 and 2 are the state of the ow at the exit of
the primary nozzle and in the mixing area of the ejector while point 23 is a compression
process.
From the literature survey, it appears that none of the previous investigation has concerned
the eect of the main geometric parameter on the performance of the improved cycle. Indeed
this system was studied theoretically by Domanski (1995), Daqing and Groll (2005),
Kornhauser (1990), Harrell and Kornhauser (1995) and experimentally by Disawas and
Wongwises (2004), it was found that the integration of an ejector improves the COP by more
than 16% compared to the standard cycle, Domanski (1995) and Daqing and Groll (2005).
The present study is to investigate the performance of the refrigeration cycle using a two-
phase ejector as expander device. The eect of the section ratio F of mixing chamber to primary
nozzle throat area and the uid nature, have been considered. In this study the REFPROP
(2002) thermodynamic characteristic routines were employed in simulation model to evaluate
their performance.

2. THERMODYNAMIC ANALYSIS

A system analysis of improved refrigeration system is carried out in the present study.
Governing equations based on the balance of mass, momentum and energy are derived for
component of the system.

2.1. Analysis of the ejector

The ejector under consideration is shown in Figure 3. The motive ow from the condenser
enters the ejector at a relatively high pressure and zero velocity, i.e. stagnation condition
corresponding to state (0) and expands to a pressure at state (1). The secondary ow from the
evaporator is then induced into the ejector by the low pressure ow at its nozzle exit. Both uids
mix together in the mixing chamber section. The mixed ow at the end of the mixing duct state
(2) is discharged into a diuser, and then the diused ow exits from the ejector at section (3) to
the separator. To simplify this analysis, the following assumptions are made in this study:
1. The refrigerant was at all times in thermodynamic quasi-equilibrium.
2. Characteristics and velocities were constant over cross section (one-dimensional model).
3. All uid characteristics are uniform over the cross section after complete mixing at the exit
of the mixing tube.
4. There is no external heat transfer.
5. There is no wall friction.

The control volume between sections (1) and (3) is divided in two regions and those are the
control volume (12) and (23) as shown in Figure 3, to analyse the conserved quantities.

2.1.1. Flow nozzle. The exit velocity from the nozzle is calculated from
p
V1 2Zn hc
h1 1

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2007; 31:364375
DOI: 10.1002/er
 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF THE VAPOUR COMPRESSION CYCLE 367

Motive Nozzle Mixing tube Diffuser

Motive fluid

Secondary fluid

0 1 2 3

Figure 3. Conguration of the ejector.

h1 is the enthalpy, at the outlet of the motive nozzle, for an isentropic process
h1 hSc ; P1 10

h1a hc
Zn hc
h1 2
The density, at the outlet of the motive nozzle, is calculated from h1a and P1
r1 rh1a ; P1 20
The mass ow rate is
0 r1 V1 A1
m 3

2.1.2. Flow in the mixing tube. Using the continuity equation, the total mass ow through the
mixing tube is computed as
0m
m 00 r2 V2 A2 4
A momentum balance of the mixing tube yields
0 V 1
m
P2
P1 A2 m 0m
00 V2 5
Combining the above equations, we can obtain the pressure rise in the mixing tube from
    2
P2
P1 A1 2 r1 A1
1 2 2
21 U 6
2r 1 V 1 A2 r2 A2
where U m 00 =m
0 represents the ow entrainment ratio and the density ratio, r1 =r2 ; can be
approximated by Chen (1988) as
r2 U rv 1
7
r1 1 U r1 1 U
rv is the refrigerants vapour density at the evaporator outlet.
The mixing velocity is dened as
1
V2 V1 8
1U
The velocity at the outlet section nozzle is insignicant.

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2007; 31:364375
DOI: 10.1002/er
368 E. NEHDI, L. KAIROUANI AND M. BOUZAINA

At the outlet of the mixing section, by conservation of energy

1 U V2
h2 hc he
2 9
1U 1U 2
The entropy, at the outlet of the mixing section, is calculated from h2 and P2

S2 Sh2 ; P2 90

2.1.3. Diuser ow. At the outlet of the diuser, by conservation of energy

V22
h3 h2 2 10
The exit diuser velocity is insignicant, so the exit diuser actual enthalpy is written by
V22
h3a h2 Zd 2 11
The exit diuser pressure is dened by S2 and h3a
P3 PS2 ; h3a 110
From P3 and h3, the exit diuser intensive state is known (x3, r3,. . .).
When the geometry parameters of the ejector are known, such as F A2 =A1 ; the eciencies
of nozzle and diuser and the operating conditions, we can determine the outlet diuser
parameters such as P3 and h3.

2.2. Analysis of the improved cycle

The compressor undergoes a non-isentropic process for vapour compression. The power input
to the compressor can be represented by the owing equation
0 h5
h4
m
Wco 12
Zco
where h4 is the saturated vapour enthalpy at P3, h5 is the isentropic enthalpy at the compressor
outlet, Zco is the isentropic compressor eciency which determined by an empirical relation
proposed by Brunin et al. (1997)
Zco 0:874
0:0135t 13
The cooling capacity is dened by
00 h9
h7
Qe m 14
where h9 is the saturated vapour enthalpy at Pe, h7 is the saturated liquid enthalpy at P3.
The coecient of the performance of the improved cycle system, COPi, is determined by the
following denition:
Qe h9
h7
COPi U Z 15
Wco h5
h4 co
The relative performance of the ejector expansion cycle to the basic cycle is dened as

COPi
COPr 16
COPs

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2007; 31:364375
DOI: 10.1002/er
 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF THE VAPOUR COMPRESSION CYCLE 369

2.3. Computational procedure

For the given geometry of the ejector and operating conditions, Equations (7), (6), (8), (9), (90 ),
(10), (11) and (110 ) are solved simultaneously. P3 is evaluated by iteration assuming the
entrainment ratio. First a value of U is guessed, P3 and h3 are determined.
By using REFPROP (2002), P3 and h3 give the vapour quality, x, at the diuser outlet. Then
the value of x is compared to 1=1 U:
This computation process is repeated till Equation (17) is satised
1
x 17
1U
Finally, P3 and h3 are known and the COPi and COPr are calculated.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A computer simulation program based on iterative procedures is developed. Given the operating
conditions, the software gives the prediction of the system performance. Several uids were selected as
refrigerant in the current study. Their characteristics were evaluated by using REFPROP (2002). The
following results were calculated by assuming ejector nozzle and diuser eciency of Zn 0:85 and
Zd 0:85; both given by Sun and Eames (1996a,b), Yapici and Ersoy (2005) and Jianlin et al. (2006).
The predicted system COPi value for the improved cycle was compared with standard cycle.

3.1. Inuence of geometric ratio F on the improved cycle

For given values of Tc, Te and a given refrigerant, an optimum ejector solution that satises the
equation derived in the previous section is found. The curves on Figure 4 indicate the eect of

5 R134A
R141B
R142B
R404A
COPi

4.5

4
3.5 5.5 7.5 9.5 11.5 13.5 15.5 17.5 19.5

Figure 4. Variation of the COPi, versus geometric ratio for dierent uids (Tc=308C and Te=
158C).

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2007; 31:364375
DOI: 10.1002/er
370 E. NEHDI, L. KAIROUANI AND M. BOUZAINA

the area ratio on the coecient of performance COP, it has been shown that for the improved
cycle the COP increases until a maximum value is reached and then decreases with increasing
area ratio F. The change in COP is associated with the change of the compression suction
pressure, when the compression suction pressure increases, the load on the compressor
decreases, and conversely. For xed condenser and evaporator temperatures, there is only one
area ratio F at which the COPi have maximum value. For example, as seen from Figure 4, the
COPi is at its maximum value at Fopt=10 for Tc=308C and Te=
158C; COPi is 4.9 for R141b.
The optimum of F was obtained experimentally by Matsuo et al. (1982), (F=15.7) and by
Nehdi et al. (1993). In the Nehdi work, the performances of R11 ejectors have been studied over
a large range of area ratio (from 4 to13). For a given operating conditions, it has been shown the
existence of an optimum value of F (9.9), giving the maximum of COP.

1.25

1.2
COPr

1.15

1.1

1.05
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Figure 5. Variation of the relative COPr, versus geometric ratio for R141b (Tc=308C and Te=
158C).

7.5
Compression ratio

6.5

5.5
3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

Figure 6. Variation of compression ratio, versus geometric ratio for R141b (Tc=308C and Te=
158C).

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2007; 31:364375
DOI: 10.1002/er
 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF THE VAPOUR COMPRESSION CYCLE 371

Also the optimum of F was established theoretically by Cizungu et al. (2005), (F=5.5) and by
Yapici (2005), (F=11.46), for dierent operating conditions.
By selecting R141b as the refrigerant, Figure 5 shows that for Tc=508C, Te=
308C and
F=Fopt, the COPi value of improved system is about 22% greater than those of standard
system (COPr=1.22).
For the improved cycle an addition of an ejector contributes to reduce the compression ratio,
consequently the load on the compressor decreases. By selecting R141b as the refrigerant,
Figure 6 shows the variations of compression ratio with F. It appears that the compression ratio
decreases until a minimum value is reached and then increases with increasing area ratio.
Therefore, there exists an optimum area ratio (Fopt), which means that the system has maximum
performance, COP. If the ejector operates beyond (Fopt), some energy is wasted and
consequently the compression ratio increases and the COP decreases.

3.2. Inuence of uid nature on the COP

Considering that the highest eciencies are obtained at the optimal area ratio Fopt, it is
important to know how the uid nature inuences the performance.
For optimal area ratio and for xed operate conditions (Te=
158C, Tc=308C), several uids
have been studied to nd the uid which gives the maximum performance. The refrigerants
considered in the study are pure and non-azeotropic mixtures, Figures 7 and 8.

Improved cycle
Standard cycle
5

4
COP

0
R22

R23

R32
R41
R236fa

R245fa
R115
R116
R123
R124
R125
R134a
R141b
R142b
R143a
R152a

Rc318
R227ea

R236ea

R245ca

Pure fluid
Figure 7. Improved cycle and standard COP for various pure uids. (Tc=308C and Te=
158C).

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2007; 31:364375
DOI: 10.1002/er
372 E. NEHDI, L. KAIROUANI AND M. BOUZAINA

5 Improved cycle
Standard cycle
4.5

3.5

3
COP

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
R401a
R401b
R401c
R402a
R402b
R404a
R405a
R406a
R408a
R409a
R409b
R410a
R410b
R411a
R411b
R414b
R500
Fluid mixture

Figure 8. Improved cycle and standard COP for various mixture uids. (Tc=308C and Te=
158C).

It is noticed that the best performances are obtained with the following uids:
* For the pure uids R141b and R123, the value of the COP is located around 4.9, Figure 7.
* For the non-azeotropic refrigerants, R408a, R410a, R410b, R500, the value of the COP is
located around 4.6, Figure 8.

3.3. Inuence of thermodynamic characteristics on the COP

Figure 9 represents, for R141b, the inuence of the evaporator temperature on the COP ratio
(COPr).
It is noted that for a xed condenser temperature, this ratio decreases when the evaporator
temperature increases.
If the condenser temperature increases and for the same evaporator temperature, this ratio
increases more.
This result shows that for a given evaporator temperature, the COP of the standard cycle
decrease much more than that of the improved cycle, when the condenser temperature increases,
and conversely.
Figure 9 shows that for Tc=508C, Te=
308C and Fopt, the COPi value of improved system is
about 22% greater than those of standard system.
Figure 10 presents simulation results for several refrigerants at a xed condensation and
evaporation temperatures (Tc=308C and Te=
158C). It was shown that in addition to the
COP improvement the ejector cycle also increase the volumetric refrigeration capacity. This
improvement varies with the uid nature; it can reach 20% with R141b.

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2007; 31:364375
DOI: 10.1002/er
 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF THE VAPOUR COMPRESSION CYCLE 373

1.23

1.21
30 C
40 C
1.19
50 C

1.17

1.15
COPr

1.13

1.11

1.09

1.07

1.05
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10
Evaporator temperature (C)

Figure 9. Relative COP (COPr), versus evaporator temperature for R141b.

8800
8400
8000 Standard cycle
7600 Improved cycle
7200
Volumetric refrigeration Capcity [kJ/m3]

6800
6400
6000
5600
5200
4800
4400
4000
3600
3200
2800
2400
2000
1600
1200
800
400
0
R116
R123
R124
R125
R134a
R141b
R142b
R143a
R152a
R22
R227ea
R23
R236ea
R236fa
R245ca
R245fa
R32
R41
Rc318

Fluid nature

Figure 10. Volumetric refrigeration capacity for various uids. (Tc=308C and Te=
158C).

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2007; 31:364375
DOI: 10.1002/er
374 E. NEHDI, L. KAIROUANI AND M. BOUZAINA

4. CONCLUSIONS

In the present study a new refrigeration cycle that combines an ejector cycle and compression
cycle was described. Results have been computed for standard and improved cycle by using
REFPROP.
The eect of the geometry of the ejector section ratio and the uid nature has been studied.
It appears that the geometric parameters of the ejector design have considerable eects on the
systems performance. The maximum COP is obtained for Fopt whose value is around 10.
For the considered refrigerants, it has been observed at Fopt and for given operating
conditions that the best performances are obtained with R141b (COP=4.9) and R408a
(COP=4.6), respectively.
Also the study shows that for a given evaporator temperature, the COP of the standard cycle
decreases much more than that of the improved cycle, when the condenser temperature
increases, and conversely.

NOMENCLATURE

A =section (m2)
COP =coecient of performance
h =specic enthalpy (J kg
1)
m =mass ow rate (kg s
1)
P =pressure (Pa)
Q =cooling capacity (W)
S =entropie (J kg
1 K
1)
T =temperature (K)
U =ow entrainment ratio
V =velocity (m s
1)
W =specic work (J kg
1)
W =power (W)
F =geometric area ratio
Z =eciency
r =density (kg m
3)
t =compression ratio

Subscripts
a =actual
c =condenser
co =compressor
d =diuser
e =evaporator
i =improved
m =mixture chamber
n =nozzle
opt =optimal
r =ratio, relative

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2007; 31:364375
DOI: 10.1002/er
 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF THE VAPOUR COMPRESSION CYCLE 375

s =standard
v =saturated vapour at the evaporator outlet
0
=primary
00
=secondary

REFERENCES
Auracher H. 1980. Analysis of Less Current Refrigeration Systems and Processes. IIF/IIR: Paris.
Brunin O, Feidt M, Hivet B. 1997. Comparison of the working domains of some compression heat pumps and a
compression-absorption heat pump. International Journal of Refrigeration 20(5):308318.
Chen LT. 1988. A new ejectorabsorber cycle to improve the COP of an absorption refrigeration system. Applied Energy
30:3751.
Cizungu K, Groll M, Ling ZG. 2005. Modeling and optimization of two-phase ejectors for cooling systems. Applied
Thermal Engineering 25:19791994.
Daqing L, Groll EA. 2005. Transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle with ejector expansion device. International Journal of
Refrigeration 28(5):766773.
Disawas S, Wongwises S. 2004. Experimental investigation on the performance of the refrigeration cycle using a two-
phase ejector as an expansion device. International Journal of Refrigeration 27(6):587594.
Domanski PA. 1995. Theoretical evaluation of the vapor compression cycle with a liquid-line/suction-line heat
exchanger, economizer, and ejector. NISTIR 5606. NIST.
Harrell GS, Kornhauser AA. 1995. Performance tests of a two-phase ejector. IECEC PAPER NO. CT-69 ASME, 4953.
Jianlin Y, Hua C, Yunfeng R, Yanzhong L. 2006. A new ejector refrigeration system with an additional jet pump.
Applied Thermal Engineering 26(23):312319.
Kornhauser AA. 1990. The use of an ejector as a refrigerant expander. Proceeding of the 1990 USNC/IIR-Perdue
refrigeration Conference, Purdue University, U.S.A., 1019.
Lorentzen G. 1983. Throttling, the Internal Haemorrhage of the Refrigeration Process. Institute of Refrigeration:
London, U.K., 3947.
Matsuo K, Sasaguchi K, Kiyotoki Y, Mochizuki H. 1982. Investigation of supersonic air ejector: Part 2: eects of
throat-area ratio on ejector performance. Bulletin of the JSME 25:18981905.
Nehdi E, Champoussin JC, Hostache G, Cheron J. 1993. Optimal geometric parameters of a cooling ejector compressor.
International Journal of Refrigeration 16:6772.
REFPROP. 2002. Thermodynamic Properties of Refrigerant Mixtures, Version 7. National Institute of Standards and
Technology: Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Sun DW, Eames IW. 1996a. Performance characteristics of HCFC-123 ejector refrigeration cycles. International Journal
of Energy Research 20:871885.
Sun DW, Eames IW. 1996b. Variable geometry ejectors and their applications in ejector refrigeration systems. Energy
21:919929.
Yapici R, Ersoy HK. 2005. Performance characteristics of the ejector refrigeration system based on the constant area
ejector ow model. Energy Conversion and Management 46:31173135.

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2007; 31:364375
DOI: 10.1002/er