Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 300310

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Performance study of ejector cooling cycle at critical mode under

superheated primary ow
Bourhan Tashtoush a,, Aiman Alshare b, Saja Al-Rifai a
a
b

Mechanical Engineering Department, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Jordan

Mechanical and Maintenance Engineering Department, German Jordanian University, Jordan

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 5 November 2014
Accepted 14 January 2015

Keywords:
Air-conditioning
Ejector
Renewable energy
Refrigerants
Cooling cycle
TRNSYS
EES

a b s t r a c t
In this work the performance of the ejector cooling cycle is investigated at critical mode, where, the
effects of ejector geometry, refrigerant type, and operating condition are studied. The ejector cooling
cycle is modeled with EES Software. The mass, momentum, and energy conservation principles are
applied to the secondary and primary ows to investigate the performance of the ejector cooling cycle
under superheated primary ow.
The refrigerant R134 a is selected based on the merit of its environmental and performance characteristics. The primary working uid in the refrigeration cycle is maintained at superheated conditions for
optimal ejector performance. The solar generator temperature ranges are 80100 C. The operating temperature of evaporator range is 812 C and the optimal condensation temperature is in the range of 28
40 C. It is found that constant-pressure mixing ejector generates higher backpressure than constant-area
mixing ejector for the same entrainment ratio and COP. The type of ejector is selected based on the performance criteria of the critical backpressure and choking condition of the primary ow, the so called EJ2
type ejector meets the criteria. The COP is found to be in the range of 0.590.67 at condenser backpressure of 24 bar due to higher critical condenser pressure and higher generator temperature.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Demands on refrigeration and air conditioning have been
increased in recent years. The increased demand on electrical
energy for refrigeration and air conditioning combined with the rise
of oil prices encouraged researchers to investigate the possibility of
replacing the high cost fossil fuels energy with renewable energy
resources such as solar energy. This strategy will reduce the dependence on fossil fuel resources and contribute to conservation of
both efcient use of energy resources and reduction of CO2 emissions [14]. In the past, an ejector was used in the steam jet cooling
in HVAC systems for commercial buildings. The mechanical compressor systems in the vapor compression cycle were replaced by
steam jet cooling systems [5]. Nowadays, ejector cooling system
(ECS) is of high signicance due to its special specications, i.e.
low cost, simple system design, simple installation and operation,
and can be run by a low thermal grade source such as solar energy.
Several mathematical models were developed to study 1-D ejector system with analysis and uid dynamics theories applied to the
primary and secondary ow [614]. The 1-D model was initially
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bourhan@just.edu.jo (B. Tashtoush).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.01.039
0196-8904/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

developed by Keenan et al. [6]. In this model, the pressure of primary and secondary ows was assumed equal at the nozzle exit,
and the mixing of the two uids starts at the inlet of the constant
area section. Huang et al. [79] used this 1-D model to study 11 different ejectors geometry to select an optimal ejector dimension
with the highest COP and using R141b as working uid. Sun and
Emes [10] presented a computer simulation model for ejector
refrigeration systems that was developed using an existing ejector
theory. Their model assumes internal irreversibilities within the
ejector to be included and caters for the addition of a regenerator
and a precooler for improving the system coefcient of performance. Sun [11] analyzed the effect of ejector geometries on performance. Technical data including ow rates, entrainment ratio and
ejector geometry were provided for a 5 kW steam-jet refrigerator.
Later, Sun [12] studied the characteristics of the experimental ejector in a steam refrigeration system over a range of evaporator temperatures from 5 to 15 C, boiler temperatures from 95 to 135 C,
and condenser pressures from 23.37 to 53.18 mbar. He found that
when increasing the boiler temperature, the entrainment ratio rst
increased and then decreased.
Jia and Wenjien [13] selected the 1-D model to evaluate the effect
of the COP, entrainment ratio and cooling capacity. Zhu et al. [14]
presented a computational uid dynamics (CFD) technique to inves-

B. Tashtoush et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 300310

301

Nomenclature
A3
At
A
a
D
Cp
Cv
H
M
Pc
Pcrit
Pe
Pg
Qg
R
rp
T
Tg
Tc
Tcrit
Te
mp
ms
1-D
CFD

area of mixing chamber, m2

area of nozzle throat, m2
primary ow location at the inlet of the nozzle
speed of around, m/s
diameter, m
specic heat at constant pressure, kJ/kg K
specic heat at constant volume, kJ/kg K
enthalpy at inlet conditions, kJ/kg
mach number
condenser backpressure, bar
critical backpressure, bar
evaporator pressure, bar
generator pressure, bar
generator heat transfer rate, kW
gas constant, kJ/kg K
compression ratio, pressure ratio between condenser
and evaporator pressure
temperature, C
generator temperature, C
condenser temperature, C
critical condenser temperature, C
evaporator temperature, C
mass ow rate of primary uid, kg/s
mass ow rate of secondary uid, kg/s
one dimensional
computational uid dynamic tools

tigate the effects of two important ejector geometry parameters;

namely the primary nozzle exit position and the mixing section converging angle, on the ejector performance. The optimum position of
primary nozzle was studied by using 1-D model.
Recently, CFD tools were used to model different modes of ejector operation, ranging from on-design to chocking (maximum
capacity) to even complete malfunctioning when the primary ow
is reversed and rejected at the inlet of the secondary ow. In addition, CFD were used to predict the shock-induced ow separation,
the performance, and mixing quality, which can efciently
improve the ejector design [15]. Other research works experimentally investigated the effects of ejector geometry and operating
condition on the ejector performance. In a two part study of a
steam ejector cooling cycle Sriveerakul et al. [16,17] investigated
the use of CFD to predict the performance of a steam ejector used
in refrigeration applications. They found that the CFD results predicted the ejector performance and agreed with the results
obtained from the experiments. Also, Vargaet et al. [18] a 2-D axisymmetric model to investigate the performance of a steam ejector
cooling system powered by solar energy. Yan et al. [19] used a CFD
model to evaluate the inuence of various geometry parameters on
the performance of an air-cooled ejector cooling system and provide an optimal design. In an experimental and computational
study, Zhang et al. [20] analyzed the ejector performance. It was
found that a diffuser angle of 8 degrees and the distance of nozzle
exit to mixing chamber of 23 mm and the diffuser length of 88 mm
has the best performance. The CFD can predict not only ejector performance, but also gives a better understanding of ejector process
such as mixing and ow conguration. However, the CFD models
failed to predict subcritical operation [21], the discrepancies were
about 4050%. In general, CFD method is considered a complex
method, consumes time, and requires a suitable turbulence model
and a suitable grid size. Whereas, 1-D model is considered rapid,
cheap, and can predict overall ejector performance operational
modes easily in comparison to CFD method.

COP
CFC
EES
ODP
ECS
GWP

coefcient of performance
chlorouorocarbon
engineering equation solver
ozone depletion potential
ejector cooling system
global warming potential

Greek symbols
x
entrainment ratio
g
efciency
V
specic heat ratio, Cp/Cv
Um
coefcient of heat losses
Subscript
16
e
c
g
is
p
P1
Py
s
sy
m

refers to Fig. 2
evaporator
condenser
generator
isentropic
primary ow
primary nozzle exit
primary ow at section yy
secondary ow
secondary ow at section yy
mixing section mm

Cardemil and Colle [22] developed a theoretical ejector model

to evaluate the performance of vapor ejectors operating in critical
mode. They used three different working uids to evaluate the
effectiveness of the model and compare it with available experimental data. The steam jet refrigeration system with constant area
and variable area ejectors was presented by Chandra and Ahmed
[23]. They found that stable operation of the steam jet refrigeration
system can be obtained at low boiler temperature and supersonic
ejector can enhance the performance of the system by eliminating
the shock from the ejector. Zhu and Jiang [24] investigated the
shock structure and entrainment ratio for convergent and convergentdivergent nozzle ejectors. They found that as the shock wave
wavelength is increased the entrainment performance will
decrease. Soroureddin et al. [25] presented a thermodynamic analysis of employing ejector and organic Rankine cycles for different
congurations.
Several studies on ejector cooling cycle performance using environmentally friendly refrigerants were carried out under different
operating conditions. The studies extended to use different working uid, i.e. R152a, R134a, R290, R600a, R600, R717, R141b,
R142b, R114 and R245fa. The result of Selvaraju and Mani [26]
shows that R134a achieves high critical entrainment ratio and
good performance. Where Roman and Hernandez [27] choose
R290 as best refrigerants due to highest COP, maximum entrainment ratio and required least ejector area ratio, and R600 has an
intermediate COP value and R600a has a smaller value. Also, is
found the SECS using R290, R134a and R152a suitable for higher
pressures and more strong construction. In the experiment carried
out by Nehdi et al. [28] R717 achieved higher COP followed by
R152a, R290 and R134a. Boumaraf and lallemand [29] proved that
R142b can produce better performance than R600a, because R142b
consider a heavier uid than R600a. R142b is more efcient than
R114 [30]. Petrenko and Volvyk [31] founds that the R600 and
R600a are most suitable working uid can be used in the ejector
cycle. Water has a unique advantage when using as a working uid

302

B. Tashtoush et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 300310

to transfer the heat through the system. The system using water
also studied [3234].
In the present work, the 1-D model of an ejector cooling system
and selection of the optimum conditions, equipment size and type
and operating parameters to operate the ejector cooling system is
carried out. In addition, a comparison between two ejector categories, selection of working uid, parametric analysis of the cooling
cycle, and the performance of cooling cycle under superheating
of the primary ow at critical mode are investigated.
2. 1-D analysis of the ejector cooling cycle
In an ejector cooling system, the ejector is used to replace the
compressor in the traditional vapor compression cooling system.
The low-grade energy source is used to drive the ejector cooling
cycle in contrast to electrical energy that powers the compression
cooling cycle.
The primary ow enters the ejector through a convergent divergent nozzle, which accelerates the ow coming from the generator
from subsonic to supersonic velocity and creates a low pressure
region at the nozzle exit. This entrains the secondary ow coming
from the evaporator. The two streams do not mix directly at the nozzle exit, the primary ow discharges out along with the entrained
secondary ow and mixing starts in the constant constant-area
section of the device at a cross section labeled yy in Fig. 1.

The ejector operates in three different modes, the critical, subcritical and back ow modes as shown in Fig. 1(b), which describes
the relation between the critical condenser pressure and the
entrainment ratio. Critical modes are more favorable in terms of
high entrainment ratio and enhanced ejector performance. The
backpressure or condenser pressure is the determining factor of
ejector mode. The entrainment ratio remains constant with
increasing condenser pressure until the back pressure reaches
the critical point, after which the entrainment ratio decrease rapidly with further increase in the back pressure. The cooling capacity and COP remain constant when the ejector is operated under
the critical pressure mode. Further increase in the backpressure
above the critical pressure moves the normal shock wave into
the mixing zone and prevents the secondary ow from chocking
and reaching sonic velocity. The drop in the momentum of the secondary ow to zero results in reversing the primary ow to the
evaporator and the ejector rendered dysfunctional. The ejector system attains its highest performance at the chocked mode.
The ejector cooling cycle consists of two phase heat exchangers;
generator, condenser and evaporator, In addition to the constant
pressure-mixing ejector, pump and expansion valve, as shown in
Fig. 2. The system performance is evaluated by the coefcient of
performance COP for the cooling cycle, COP is the indicator of thermal system performance, which is equal to the ratio between the
cooling effect (Qe) to the total energy input to the generator Qg.

Fig. 1. (a) Constant-pressure mixing ejector. (b) Ejector operational mode [7].

B. Tashtoush et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 300310

303

Fig. 3. Variation of ejector area ratio and entrainment ratio with the critical
condenser pressure at the nozzle inlet. At Te = 8 C, Pe = 0.04 Mpa. (Comparison
between the present model and Huang et al. [7] model).

Fig. 2. (a) Ejector cooling cycle. (b) TS diagram of ejector cooling cycle.

COP

Qe
h2  h6 e
x
h1  h5 g
Qg

Entrainment ratio and compression ratio also are important

parameters that have described the ejector system performance,
these parameters related to the compressor work and cooling
capacity and directly depend on the refrigeration type and ejector
geometry. The entrainment ratio is the ratio between the mass
ow rate of the secondary ow and the mass ow rate of the primary ow, and the compression ratio is the pressure ratio between
condenser and evaporator, given as:

m_

x _s
mp
rp

Pc
Pe

2.1. Validation of ejector mathematical model and analysis of results

The mathematical model of the ejector used in this study is
based on analyzing the ejector performance at the critical mode
operation shown in Fig. 1, the principles of momentum, mass
and energy conservation are applied on the secondary and primary
ows through ejector [7]. Flow mixing and frictional losses are
taken into account to describe the real process in the ejector. To
verify the validity of the ejector code developed in EES, the
obtained results from the ejector model were compared with published data having the same operating conditions and the same
working uid, [7]. After the validation, the ejector cooling system
model is utilized for parametric study. Fig. 3 and Table 1 shows
the results of validation.
It was found that there is a good agreement between the model
results and the published data. The model results are sensitive to
specic heat ratio; an increase in the specic heat ratios increases

the entrainment ratio. Huang et al. [7] did not report the actual
value of specic heat ratio that was used in their analysis. The error
percentage compared to Huang et al. [7] theoretical results Table 1
are in the range of  (0.1211)%, except at results of ejector type
(AG) where the error percentage exceeded 11%. Nevertheless,
Huang et al. [7] comparative study between theoretical and experimental results with the same refrigerant and same operating conditions, also reported similar error percentage for this ejector
dimension and pressure level. Similar error range found when
the results are compared to Huang et al. [7] experimental results.
The ejector code results also checked with the results of the Chen
et al. [21], the author mentioned the actual value of specic heat
ratio that was used in the analysis; the same value was used in
the present model. Therefore, an excellent agreement between
their results and model of the present study is found with an average error of less than 0.5% for all congurations. Fig. 3 shows the
comparison between results for the area and entrainment ratio.

2.2. Selection of ejector

Ejectors are classied into two types depending on the position
of the nozzle; constant-pressure mixing ejector and constant-area
mixing ejector, as shown in Fig. 4. In the constant-pressure mixing
ejector the exit plane of the nozzle is located within the suction
zone upstream of the constant area section, the static pressure
throughout the mixing zone is assumed constant. In the constant-area mixing ejector, the primary nozzle exit is located in
the constant area section, where the mixing of the primary and
secondary ows occurs and the pressures of the two streams are
not equal, [29].
Depicted in Fig. 5 is the relationship between the entrainment
ratio and the back pressure at different generator temperatures.
It can observed that for the ejector with a xed geometry, the
increase in the generator temperature and saturation pressure will
cause a decrease in the entrainment ratio and the COP, and it will
increase the backpressure. The dashed lines describe the ejector
mode, where the entrainment ratio remains constant until the
backpressure reaches the critical point. After this point, if the backpressure increases, the shock wave will penetrate the mixing section and the secondary ow will be chocked to a stop. This is the
reason behind the decrease of the entrainment ratio. Similar values
of entrainment ratio are obtained at a given generator temperature
for both ejector types, however, in the constant area mixing ejector
lower backpressure values are expected in comparison to the constant pressure mixing ejector.
Fig. 6 shows the difference between the two types of ejectors. In
the case of a constant pressure mixing ejector, the normal shock

304

B. Tashtoush et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 300310

Table 1
Comparison results at Te = 8 C, Pe = 0.040 MPa.

Tg
(K)

AA

368 604
363 538
357 465
351 400

0.156
0.2023
0.2691
0.3492

0.1554
0.2156
0.2880
0.3525

0.1859
0.2246
0.288
0.3257

0.1595
0.205
0.2705
0.3491

0.386
6.168
6.562
0.936

16.083
9.928
6.562
7.215

1.317
0.517
0.028
0.805

AB

363 538
357 465
351 400

0.2463
0.3195
0.4073

0.2093
0.3042
0.442

0.2718
0.3117
0.3922

0.2483
0.3202
0.4063

17.677
5.029
7.850

9.381
2.502
3.850

0.218
0.246
0.838

AG

368 604
363 538
357 465
351 400

0.2484
0.3054
0.3874
0.4855

0.2144
0.2395
0.3704
0.4609

0.2552
0.304
0.3883
0.4393

0.2505
0.3065
0.387
0.4833

15.85
27.515
4.589
5.337

2.664
0.460
0.231
10.516

0.358
0.103
0.455
0.517

AC

368 604
363 538
357 465
351 400

0.2883
0.3499
0.4385
0.5444

0.2983
0.3552
0.4605
0.5966

0.2814
0.3488
0.4241
0.4889

0.2898
0.3503
0.4373
0.5413

3.3523
1.4921
4.777
8.749

2.452
0.315
3.395
11.352

0.114
0.274
0.572
0.0542

AD

368 604
363 538
357 465
351 400

0.3691
0.44
0.5418
0.6635

0.3476
0.4178
0.5215
0.6944

0.3457
0.4446
0.5387
0.6627

0.3693
0.439
0.539
0.6586

6.185
5.313
3.892
4.449

6.768
1.034
0.575
0.120

0.227
0.519
0.744
0.744

pg
Present study
Huang et al.
Huang et al.
Chen et al. Error % Huang et al. Error % Huang et al. Error %
(kPa) entrainment ratio model results [7] experiment results [7] results [21] theoretical
experiment
Chen et al.

Fig. 4. (a) Constant-pressure mixing ejector and (b) constant-area mixing ejector.

1.6
1.4

Constant area-mixing ejector

Tg=60 c

Tg=60 c

Constant pressure-mixing ejector

Entrainmnet ratio

1.2
70 c

1.0

70 c

0.8

80 c

0.6

80 c
90 c

90 c
100 c

0.4

100 c
110 c

110 c

0.2
0.0
30

31

32

33

34

36

40

51

59

68

79

90

Condenser back pressure pc , Kpa

Fig. 5. Entrainment ratio vs. condenser back pressure at different generator temperature-saturation pressure, for R141b at Te = 8 C and Pe = 40 kPa.

wave raises the pressure to a higher level than the constant areamixing ejector. In the case of constant area-mixing ejector, the
backpressure does not rise signicantly nor does the generator
temperature. For this reason, constant pressure-mixing ejector
can achieve higher compression ratio than the constant area mixing type. Furthermore, an increase in the generator temperature, Tg
results in a signicantly higher compression ratio for the constant
pressure mixing ejector type in contrast to the constant area
mixing type. Although both ejectors types can achieve the same
entrainment ratio and COP at the same operating conditions, how-

ever, the constant pressure-mixing ejector can achieve higher

backpressures and higher pressure ratios than the constant areamixing ejector. It is well known that the backpressure is the determining factor of ejector mode to be maintained in superheating
conditions and avoid any possible condensation. Therefore, constant-pressure mixing ejector is more promising than the constant
area-mixing ejector, because it generates better critical and backpressure as well as compression ratio for the same entrainment
ratio and COP. In the present study, the constant pressure mixing
ejector model will be adopted.

305

180

Constant pressure mixing

solid lines: Pc
Dash lines :rp
Dots line:COP

160
140

3.0
2.5

rp
Pc

120

2.0

100

1.5

80

Constant area mixing

rp

60

1.0

Pc

40

0.5

20

COP for both ejector type

the ejector cooling cycle. Detailed analysis of the ejector cooling

cycle is carried out by using different working uids such as
R717, R134a, R600, R600a, R141b, R152a, R290 and R123 as shown
in the Fig. 7. Refrigerants with a smaller value of molar mass
required for the same system capacity to operate with ejector cooling cycle, the molar mass in g/mol for the candidate refrigerants as
follows: R717 (17.02), R134a (102.3), R600 (58.12), R600a (58.12),
R141b (116.9), R152a (66.05), R290 (44.097) and R123 (152.93).
The generator temperature and pressure are one of the determining factors of the system COP. It can be seen that increasing the
absolute pressure for the various refrigerants will increase the
COP and entrainment ratio of the cooling cycle, as shown in Figs. 7
and 8. Whereas, the increase in the generator temperature and saturation pressure together will decrease the entrainment ratio. The
ejector performance differs according to the working uid type.
The highest entrainment ratio, x values and COP corresponds to
ejector cooling cycle used R717 and the lowest correspond to the
ejector cycle with R123 and R141b as refrigerants. The ejectors
using refrigerants R152a, R134a have almost the same x values
and COP and are less than the values for the cycle used refrigerant
R290. Also, the x values and COP of the cycle eighth R600 and
R600a as refrigerants are lower than that of ejector cooling cycles
with R152a and R134a as refrigerants and higher than the values of
the cycle with R123 and R141b as refrigerants. Among investigated
refrigerants; R717, R290, R152a and R134a are shown to yield a
better performance and COP due to higher absolute pressure.
As shown in Figs. 7 and 8, Ammonia, R717, has the highest
entrainment ratios COP, respectively. It has been used in industrial
applications and is generally acknowledged as being the most efcient refrigerant. It has a low boiling point, good transport properties, good thermodynamic properties and is favored because it is
highly energy efcient refrigerant which also has minimal environmental impact, having zero ozone depletion potential ODP and zero
global warming potential GWP. However; R717 is slightly ammable and a toxic refrigerant and therefore it is not suitable for small
scale refrigerant systems or domestic cooling systems. In addition,
these gures show that the refrigerant R290 has a favorable entrainment ration and COP. It is known that this refrigerant has no ODP
and minimal GWP. The maximum generator temperature can be
used for ejector work with R290 about 95 C, because it has a critical
temperature and pressure equal to 96.7 C and 42.48 bar, respectively. Also, R290 needs high pressures and will robust construction
in comparing to other refrigerants. R290 has low backpressure and

Compression ratio (rp) and COP

Condenser back pressure (Pc) Kpa

B. Tashtoush et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 300310

0.0
60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

Tg, c (at stauration pressure)

Fig. 6. Back pressure and compression ratio for both constant pressure mixing and
constant area mixing ejectors type at the same condition, for R141b.

2.3. Selection of working uid

The performance of the cooling cycle depends mainly on the
refrigerant type. The selection criteria of the refrigerant depend
on its thermodynamic characteristic and include environmental
impact (low ozone depletion potential ODP and low global warming potential GWP), safety, economic, and availability. Two categories of working uid can be considered in the selection; the dry
vapor (i.e. R600a, R123, and R141b) and wet vapor (i.e. R134a
and Steam). No phase change occurs for the dry vapor during the
expansion process. In contrast, when using wet vapor uid which
may forms mall droplets at the nozzle exit and subsequently
adheres into the nozzle wall, which results in reducing the effective area, and adversely affects the ejector performance. Hence,
dry vapor is more favorable than wet vapor uid. The problem of
droplet formation of wet refrigerant can be eliminated by having
superheated primary uid enter the ejector. However, a working
superheated generator uid raises the COP and decreases the ejector efciency slightly. Using chlorouorocarbon CFC (R11, R12,
R113, R114, R115) in the ejector cooling cycle will eliminate the
needs for high generator temperature and pressure. Unfortunately,
these types of refrigerants have high ODP and GWP and therefore
not recommended.
Fig. 7 shows the saturated temperature-absolute pressure curve
for different working uids, which are candidates to be utilized in

45.0

1.8

40.0

1.6

35.0

1.4

30.0

1.2

25.0

1.0

20.0

0.8

15.0

0.6

10.0

0.4

5.0

0.2

R134a

Saturaon Pressure, Bar

R152a
R290
R141b
R123

0.0

R600a
R600

0.0
60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

R717

Tg C, at saturaon pressure
Fig. 7. Saturated pressure and entrainment ratio vs. generator temperature of some interesting working uid, at Te = 8 C, Tc = Tcrit.

306

B. Tashtoush et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 300310

R152a

1.80

60.00
Solid lines: Tcrit
Dashed lines :COP

COP

Tcrit

50.00

1.60

R290

1.40
R141b
1.20

Tcrit

1.00
30.00
0.80
20.00

COP

40.00

R123
R600a

0.60
0.40

R600

10.00
0.20
0.00

R717

0.00
60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

R134a

Tg C, saturaon pressure
Fig. 8. Tcrit and COP of cooling cycle vs. generator temperature of some interesting working uid, at Te = 8 C, Tc = Tcrit.

small differences between the critical and backpressures. Unfortunately, R290 is highly ammable and must only be used after careful
consideration is given to safety, therefore, it will not be selected in
this work. R152a and R134a are a single hydro uorocarbon or
HFC compound. It has no chlorine content, no ODP, and only a modest GWP. R134a and R152a are suitable for ejector cooling cycle
more than other refrigerants due to their high COP and x values
as shown in Figs. 7 and 8. R134a has a critical temperature of
101.1 C and low boiling point of 26.5 C, while the critical temperature for R152a is 114 C and the boiling point is 25 C. Since the
entrainment ratio for R134a is higher than that of R152a and the
boiling point for R134a is higher, the refrigerant R134a will be considered as the e working uid for the cooling cycle in this study.
From Figs. 7 and 8, it can be seen that the difference between
the COP of various refrigerants and the corresponding entrainment
ratio is small. Since the COP is a function of the entrainment ratio,
x (Eq. (1)), and the effect of the enthalpy differences is less than
that of the entrainment ratio, hence the COP values are dominated
by the x.
Fig. 9 shows how the primary ow rate increases with increasing generator temperature and pressure. At constant cooling
_ s remains constant. As the Tg
capacity the secondary ow m
increases, the pressure of primary uid increases as well as the
enthalpy. Which creates the required suction of the same amount
_ p , resultof secondary ow at the lowest amount of primary ow m
ing in an increase in entrainment ratio and COP. This explains the
reduction in the required primary ow for the refrigerants that
have highest COP and x. For the selected refrigerant R134a, it
can be seen from Fig. 9 that the primary mass ow rate is between
0.08 kg/s and 0.175 kg/s in the operating range of the generator
temperature.

Primary mass flow rate mg, kg/s

0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25

R134a

R152a

R290

R141b

R123

R600a

R600

R717

0.20

2.4. Parametric analysis of ejector cooling cycle using R134a as a

refrigerant
Parametric analysis of the ejector cooling cycle is carried out
using R134a as a working uid. The mathematical model was written using the EES program to perform all calculations. Fig. 15 in the
appendix shows the ow chart of the ejector mathematical 1-D
model following the model proposed by Huang et al. [7]. The critical and back pressures are both calculated theoretically to determine the required generator pressure, to operate under critical
mode for the given ejector dimension. The main purpose of this
model is to determine the ejector cooling cycle performance over
a different operating conditions for xed ejector dimensions. In
the analysis, the loss coefcients at section yy as shown in
Fig. 1, constant pressure ejector type, are set equal to the default
values that were suggested by Huang et al. [7]. The available refrigerant properties, stored in the EES data bank, are incorporated in
the program. The program runs with a given set of the input values,
including nozzle efciency, diffuser efciency, gas constant, specic heat ratio, and operating temperatures for ejector cooling
and heating cycles; generator temperature, condenser temperature, and evaporator temperature. The condenser temperature is
set to be equal to the critical condenser temperature Tcrit in all
calculations.

2.4.1. Effect of generator pressure

The ejector mathematical model depends on three major parts:
primary nozzle, suction zone, and constant area section. Two ejector geometries are selected to study the performance of cooling
cycle at critical mode, the selection criteria of ejector geometry
are based on the COP and the critical backpressure. Vidal et al.
[35] studied the performance characteristics of the ejector dimensions to meet the cooling cycle requirements. He found that the
geometric dimensions of ejector type EJ2 are calculated according
cooling load capacity. They used ejector type EJ2 with the specications and dimensions given in Table 2. In addition, Huang et al.
[7,9] studied experimentally and theoretically ejector type EJ1 with
a cooling capacity of 10 k W and with the specications shown in

0.15
0.10

Table 2
Ejector geometry.

0.05
0.00

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Tg C, saturation pressure
Fig. 9. Primary mass ow rate vs. generator temperature of some interesting
working uid, at Te = 8 C, Tc = Tcrit, cooling capacity = 7 kW.

Ejector specication

EJ1 (mm)

EJ2 (mm)

Throat diameter
Exit diameter
Constant area section diameter

2.64
4.5
8.10

9.16
15.6
22.5

307

B. Tashtoush et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 300310

60.0

2.5

Te=8 C, Tg=100 C, R134a

Ideal cycle

50.0

2.0

Pg=24 bar
26 bar

COP

Tcrit, C

40.0
30.0

28 bar

1.5

EJ1

1.0

EJ2

0.5

20.0
10.0

26 bar

18

21

24

27

30

33

36

60

40

Fig. 10. Critical condenser temperature at different generator pressure, at Te = 8 C,

Tg = 100 C, R134a.

16.0

Te=8 c, Tg=100 c, R134a

14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
Pbc

4.0

Pcrit

2.0
0.0
9

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

33

36

39

Pg, Bar
Fig. 11. The behavior of critical backpressure and back pressure at different level of
generator pressure for EJ2, at Te = 8 C, Tg = 100 C, R134a.

Table 2. The two ejector types can meet the cooling load requirement of this study. However, the superheating of primary uid is
very important in case of using wet working uid, R134a. An ejector geometry that can be operated under superheated generator
pressure will be selected to avoid potential condensation conditions and droplet formation that may occur on the nozzle walls
as explained earlier. In addition, the performance of the two types
of ejectors in terms of critical condenser temperature and backpressure will be investigated to nd the best choice of these two
ejectors.
The performance of the ejector cooling cycle is dominated by
two parameters; the amount of secondary uid entrained to the

0.16

2.5

0.12
0.10

1.5

0.08
1.0

0.06
0.04

Mass Flow rate, Kg/s

0.14
2.0

0.5
0.02
0.00

0.0
9

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

33

36

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Tg C

Pg , bar

Bar

28 bar

0.0

0.0

Rao, diminsionless

Actual cycle

Pg=24 bar

39

Pg, Bar
Fig. 12. The behavior of entrainment ratio x, compression ratio rp and mass ow
_ p and secondary ow m
_ s at different level of generator
rate of primary ow m
pressure and Tg = 100 C.

Fig. 13. COP of cooling cycle at different generator temperature and superheating
pressure, at Te = 8 C, Tc = Tcrit, EJ2.

mixing zone and the momentum of the mixed uid. The primary
ow decreases when the generator pressure decreases, resulting
in an increase in the secondary ow, which increases the COP
and the cooling capacity. The momentum of the mixed ow also
will decrease, which reduces the critical backpressure. An increase
in the evaporator pressure will increase the critical backpressure.
Thus, the mass ow rate through the mixing zone will increase
and consequently the COP will increase.
The critical pressure is a function of the convergentdivergent
nozzle (primary nozzle). When the mach number equals unity,
the throat pressure is equal to the critical pressure. The critical
condenser temperature, Tcrit is the saturation temperature of the
critical pressure; the condensing temperature is set equal to the
critical temperature. Fig. 10 shows the critical condenser temperature for both types of ejector at different generator pressure. The
best condensation temperature for the cooling cycle is found to
be in the range of 2840 C. This range can be achieved for ejector
EJ1 at generator pressure above 33 bar. In the case of using ejector
type EJ2, the pressure of the superheated vapor is in the range of
(2329) bar, which is sufcient to reach the condensation condition. Therefore, EJ2, which has a larger dimension, is more suitable
for working under superheating condition of primary ow.
The ejector function is strongly dependent on the backpressure
or the condenser pressure. In order to maintain the ejector functionality is essential to provide adequate condenser cooling. The
backpressure and critical pressure for ejector type EJ2are shown
in Fig. 11. It can be observed that the backpressure is well below
the critical pressure and difference between the two pressures
grows larger as the generator pressure increases, which indicates
that the ejector function normally at the critical mode.
A change in the operating temperature in any of the three main
cycle components, generator, condenser and evaporator, will affect
the performance of the ejector system and ultimately the overall
performance of the cooling cycle. Therefore, evaluation of the
COP, entrainment ratio and compression ratio of the system at different operating conditions will follow.
The primary ow coming from the generator is choked at the
nozzle throat. The amount of choked ow rate is inuenced by
the generator pressure. Whereas this pressure increases the
chocked ow rate increases rapidly. The secondary ow rate slight
increases with generator pressure as a result of the increase in the
primary ow. The entrainment ratio will decrease as a result of the
increase in the generator pressure, which indicative of rising critical pressure. But the increases generator pressure will increase in
compression ratio, as shown in Fig. 12.
It can be seen from Fig. 13 that the maximum COP of the ejector
cooling cycle is considerably less than the ideal COP for Carnot
cycle. The low entrainment ratio affects the overall performance
of the ejector cycle. Low ejector efciency is the reason behind

B. Tashtoush et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 300310

1.00

8.0

Solid Lines: COP

Dots lines: Condenser back pressure

0.90

7.0

0.80
6.0
0.70
5.0

COP

0.60

4.0

0.50
Pg=28 Bar

0.40

3.0

0.30

Pg=26 Bar

0.20

Pg=24Bar

2.0

Condenser Back Pressure Pc, bar

308

1.0

0.10
0.00

0.0
2

10

12

14

16

Te, C
Fig. 14. COP for cooling cycle and condenser back pressure at a different evaporator temperature, at Tg = 100 C, Tc = Tcrit.

Fig. 15. Calculation ow chart of ejector cooling cycle.

B. Tashtoush et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 300310

the large discrepancies between the actual and ideal entrainments

ratios and COP. A great amount of kinetic energy is lost in mixing
process when the high velocity-primary ow entrains the low
velocity-secondary ow. Also, the kinetic energy is lost through
the shock wave, and the mixed gas experienced an increase in its
entropy due to a decrease in its available energy. The COP is lower
at higher generator pressure due to lowering of entrainment ratio,
and the critical back pressure is higher to maintain the ejector
function. The COP increases signicantly at the generator temperature between 85 and 100 C. The heights COP is in the range of
0.590.67 at Pg = 24 bar due to higher critical condenser pressure
and higher generator temperature, this referred to the decreases
the required amount of primary ow to entrain the same amount
of secondary ow at higher temperature, where the COP did not
show any signicant change in generator temperature less than
85 C.
The variation of the COP and condenser backpressure with
evaporating temperature is shown in Fig. 14. It is found that at different generator pressures the entrainment ratio increases with
increasing evaporating temperature. At the higher evaporating
temperature and pressure the value of entrainment ratio and condenser backpressure also are higher. This is because a small
amount of primary vapor is required and is sufcient to create suction and entrain the required quantity of secondary vapor in the
ejector. Further, it is seen that at lower generator pressure the
entrainment ratio is higher. For instance, increasing the evaporator
temperature from 8 C to 12 C at a generator temperature of
100 C will increase the COP of ejector cooling cycle from 0.508
to 0.6143, as shown in Fig. 14. For instance, increasing the generator temperature from 90 C to 100 C at a 8 C evaporator temperature will decrease the COP of ejector cooling cycle from 0.59 to
0.67, as shown in Fig. 13. Therefore, the change of the generator
temperature has a lesser effect on the performance of the system
in comparing to the evaporator and condenser temperatures. Actually, the desired evaporator temperature range to achieve cooling
and heating purposes is in the range 712 C, where the COP
0.480.7 for cooling cycle.

3. Conclusion
The 1-D analysis of the ejector cooling system using R134a is
studied. Analysis of the ejector performance at the critical mode
is studied by applying the principle of momentum, mass and
energy conservation principles on the secondary and primary
ows. Constant-pressure mixing ejector is better than constantarea mixing ejector, because it generates better backpressure and
compression ratios for the same entrainment ratio and COP, which
generates better performance of the cooling cycle.
Characteristics of the cooling cycle are studied for various kinds
of working uids. There are various refrigerant type candidates for
the ejector cooling system. The environmental constraints restrict
the use of some refrigerants that are used in HVAC system for residential and commercial buildings. Dry vapor is better than wet
vapor since there is no phase change during the expansion process.
Therefore, superheating of primary uid is very important in case
of using wet working uid such as R134a, because the possibility
of condensation of the vapor through the isentropic expansion will
seriously affect the ejector performance and gas dynamic process
in the ejector.
Parametric analysis of the ejector cooling system using R134a
was carried out. The COP of the system is inuenced strongly by
operating temperatures and pressures. The primary ow decreases
when the generator pressure decreases, resulting in an increase in
the secondary ow, which increases the COP and the cooling
capacity. The momentum of the mixed ow will decrease, which

309

reduce the critical back pressure. The best range of condensation

temperature is 2840 C, which can be achieved at the generator
pressure in the range of 2329 bar for ejector EJ2, to ensure the
ejector work under superheating condition. The system COP is in
the range of 0.570.8 at 100 C generator temperature, 2427 bar
generator pressure and 812 C evaporator temperature.
Acknowledgement
The present study was supported by Scientic Research Support
Fund, Jordan, through Grant No. ENE/02/02/2012.
Appendix A. Calculation ow chart of ejector cooling cycle
Fig. 15.
References
[1] Fong KF, Chow TT, Lee CK, Lin Z, Chan LS. Comparative study of different solar
cooling systems for buildings in subtropical city. Sol Energy
2010;84(2):22744.
[2] Chidambaram LA, Ramana AS, Kamaraj G, Velraj R. Review of solar cooling
methods and thermal storage options. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2011;15(6):32208.
[3] Fong KF, Chow TT, Lin Z, Chan LS. Simulationoptimization of solar-assisted
desiccant cooling system for subtropical Hong Kong. Appl Therm Eng
2010;30:2208.
[4] Bilgili M. Hourly simulation and performance of solar electric-vapor
compression refrigeration system. Sol Energy 2011;85:272031.
[5] Chunnanond K, Aphornratana S. Ejectors: applications in refrigeration
technology. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2004;8:12955.
[6] Keenan H, Neumann EP, Lustwerk F. An investigation of ejector design by
analysis and experiment. ASME J Appl Mech Trans 1950;72:299309.
[7] Huang B, Chang J, Wang C, Petrenko V. A 1D analysis of ejector performance.
Int J Refrig 1999;22:35464.
[8] Huang BJ, Chang JM. Empirical correlation for ejector design. Int J Refrig
1999;22:37988.
[9] Huang BJ, Chang JM, Petrenko VA, Zhuk KB. A solar ejector cooling system
using refrigerant R141b. Sol Energy 1998;64:2236.
[10] Sun DW, Emes IW. Performance characteristics of HCFC-123 ejector
refrigeration cycles. Int J Energy Res 1996;20:87185.
[11] Sun DW. Variable geometry ejectors, their applications in ejector refrigeration
systems. Energy 1996;21:91929.
[12] Sun DW. Experimental investigation of the performance characteristics of a
steam jet refrigeration system. Energy Sources 1997;19:34967.
[13] Jia Y, Wenjian C. Area ratio effects to the performance of air-cooled ejector
refrigeration cycle with R134a refrigerant. Energy Convers Manage
2012;53:2406.
[14] Zhu Y, Cai W, Wen C, Li Y. Numerical investigation of geometry parameters for
design of high performance ejectors. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29:898905.
[15] Bartosiewicz Y, Aidoun Z, Desevaux P, Mercadier Y. Numerical and
experimental investigations on supersonic ejectors. Int J Heat Fluid Flow
2005;26:5670.
[16] Sriveerakul T, Aphornratana S, Chunnanond K. Performance prediction of
steam ejector using computational uid dynamics: Part 1. Validation of the
CFD results. Int J Thermal Sci 2007;8:81222.
[17] Sriveerakul T, Aphornratana S, Chunnanond K. Performance prediction of
steam ejector using computational uid dynamics: Part 2. Flow structure of a
steam ejector inuenced by operating pressures and geometries. Int J Therm
Sci 2007;46:82333.
[18] Varga S, Oliveira AC, Diaconu B. Numerical assessment of steam ejector
efciencies using CFD. Int J Refrig 2009;32:120311.
[19] Yan J, Cai W, Li Y. Geometry parameters effect for air-cooled ejector cooling
systems with R134a refrigerant. Renewable Energy 2012;46:15563.
[20] Zhang B, Song X, Lv J, Zuo J. Study on the key ejector structures of the waste
heat-driven ejector air conditioning system with R236fa as working uid.
Energy Build 2012;49:20915.
[21] Chen W, Liu M, Chong D, Yan J, Little AB, Bartosiewicz Y. A 1D model to predict
ejector performance at critical and sub-critical operational regimes. Int J Refrig
2013:12.
[22] Cardemill Jose M, Colle Sergio. A general model for evaluation of vapor ejectors
performance for application in refrigeration. Energy Convers Manage
2012;64:7986.
[23] Chandra Vineet V, Ahmed MR. Experimental and computational studies on a
steam jet refrigeration system with constant area and variable area ejectors.
Energy Convers Manage 2014;79:90714.
[24] Zhu Yinhai, Jiang Peixue. Experimental and analytical studies on the shock
wave length in convergent and convergent-divergent nozzle ejectors. Energy
Convers Manage 2014;88:90714.

310

B. Tashtoush et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 94 (2015) 300310

[25] Soroureddin A, Mehr AS, Mahmoudi SMS, Yari M. Thermodynamic analysis of

employing ejector and organic Rankine cycles for GT-MHR waste heat
utilization: a comparative study. Energy Convers Manage 2013.
[26] Selvaraju A, Mani A. Analysis of an ejector with environment friendly
refrigerants. Appl Therm Eng 2004;24:82738.
[27] Roman R, Hernandez JI. Performance of ejector cooling systems using low
ecological impact refrigerants. Int J Refrig 2011;34:170716.
[28] Nehdi E, Kairouani L, Elakhdar M. A solar ejector air-conditioning system using
environment-friendly working uids. Int J Energy Res 2008;32:1194201.
[29] Boumaraf L, Lallemand A. Modeling of an ejector refrigerating system
operating in dimensioning and off-dimensioning conditions with the
working uids R142b and R600a. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29:26574.
[30] Arbel N, Sokolov M. Revisiting solar-powered ejector air conditioner the
greener the better. Sol Energy 2004;77:5766.

[31] Petrenko VO, Volovyk OS. Theoretical study and design of a low-grade heatdriven pilot ejector refrigeration machine operating with butane and
isobutane and intended for cooling of gas transported in a gas-main
pipeline. Int J Refrig 2011;34:1699706.
[32] Ma X, Zhang W, Omer SA, Riffat SB. Experimental investigation of a novel
steam ejector refrigerator suitable for solar energy applications. Appl Therm
Eng 2010;30:13205.
[33] Chen X, Omer S, Worall M, Riffat S. Recent developments in ejector
refrigeration technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;19:62951.
[34] Pollerberg C, Ali AH, Dotsch C. Experimental study on the performance of a
solar driven steam jet ejector chiller. Energy Convers Manage
2008;49:331825.
[35] Vidal Humberto, Colle Sergio, Pereira Guilherme dos Santos. Modelling and
hourly simulation of a solar ejector cooling system. Appl Therm Eng
2006;26:66372.