Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 850–861

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Advanced exergy analyses of an ejector expansion transcritical CO2

refrigeration system
Tao Bai, Jianlin Yu ⇑, Gang Yan
Department of Refrigeration and Cryogenic Engineering, School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents a thermodynamic investigation on an ejector expansion transcritical CO2 refrigera-
Received 14 April 2016 tion system with advanced exergy analysis. By splitting the exergy destruction into endogenous/exoge-
Received in revised form 15 August 2016 nous and unavoidable/avoidable parts, more valuable information of the interactions among the system
Accepted 20 August 2016
components and the components improvement potential is provided. The results indicate that the com-
Available online 28 August 2016
pressor with largest avoidable endogenous exergy destruction possesses the highest priority of improve-
ment, followed by the ejector, evaporator and gas cooler. The system exergy destruction is dominantly
Keywords:
endogenous, and 43.44% of the total exergy destruction can be avoided by improving the system compo-
Transcritical refrigeration cycle
Carbon dioxide
nents. The evaporator has a serious impact on the exogenous exergy destruction within the compressor
Ejector and ejector, and its own exergy destruction is entirely belongs to endogenous part. The effects of the dis-
Advanced exergy analysis charge pressure, compressor efficiency and ejector efficiency on the system exergetic performance are
Exergy destruction discussed. There is an optimal discharge pressure with respect to the minimum endogenous exergy
destruction in the compressor. Avoidable endogenous exergy destruction rates of the compressor and
ejector are respectively reduced by 93.6% and 81.7% when the corresponding component efficiency varies
from 0.5 to 0.9.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction performance of vapor compression refrigeration systems [1]. In

Currently, climate change caused by the emissions of green-
house gases has been an alarming problem worldwide. Thus, natu-
ral refrigerants get an increasing concern in the refrigeration
industry. In this situation, natural carbon dioxide CO2 with zero
ozone depletion potential (ODP) and a low global warming poten-
tial (GWP) of 1 is regarded to be a promising alternative to the syn-
thetic refrigerants. And the refrigeration system with CO2 has
attracted an increasing concern. However, CO2 refrigeration sys-
tems generally operate with transcritical cycle at common refriger-
ation conditions due to the properties of the CO2, i.e. low critical
temperature (31.1 °C), high critical pressure (7.37 MPa). And the
corresponding system coefficient of performance (COP) is often
lower than the conventional cycles using CFCs and HCFCs refriger-
ants. Much work has been carried out to improve the performance
of the CO2 refrigeration system by reducing the throttling losses.
An ejector has no moving parts, simple structure, low cost and bet-
ter energy saving effect, and thus it is recognized as an ideal expan-
sion device to recovery the throttling losses and improve the
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yujl@mail.xjtu.edu.cn (J. Yu).
the past decades, much effort has been paid on the cycle modifica-
tion and the research on operating characteristics of the system
and ejector itself for the ejector expansion transcritical CO2 refrig-
eration cycles. Li et al. [2] modified the ejector expansion CO2 tran-
scritical cycle with a feed-back valve, and the thermodynamic
investigations showed that the COP was improved by 16% over
the basic cycle. Bai et al. [3] proposed a two-stage ejector enhanced
CO2 transcritical refrigeration cycle, and the theoretical analyses
showed that the improvement of the system COP could reached
37.61% over the conventional dual-temperature CO2 transcritical
refrigeration cycle. Liu et al. [4] examined the performances of an
ejector expansion CO2 transcritical cycle with adjustable ejector
and variable speed compressor at simultaneous cooling and heat-
ing mode, and illustrated that the total COP reached the maximum
value at the ejector throat diameter of 2 mm under extreme oper-
ation conditions. Lee et al. [5] performed experimental research on
the performances of a CO2 air conditioning systems with respect to
variation of ejector geometry, and indicated that the COP of the
system with ejector was 15% higher than that of the conventional
system. Liu et al. [6] made a comprehensive investigation on the
ejector performances in CO2 transcritical refrigeration cycle, and
they presented the methods of determining the efficiencies of the
ejector motive nozzle, secondary nozzle and mixing section.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.08.057
0196-8904/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 T. Bai et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 850–861 851

Nomenclature

E_ exergy flow rate (kW) Subscripts

e specific exergy (kJ kg
1) CM compressor
h specific enthalpy (kJ kg
1) GC gas cooler
m _ mass flow rate (kg s
1) D exergy destruction
P pressure (MPa) d diffsuer
Q Re refrigerating capacity (kW) EJE ejector
s entropy (kJ kg
1 K
1) EXP expansion valve
T temperature (°C) EV evaporator
W compressor power (kW) F exergy fuel
i inlet
Greek symbols is isentropic process
/ exergy destruction ratio j state point
e component exergy efficiency k kth component
gEx system exergy efficiency L exergy loss
l entrainment ratio m mixing chamber
n nozzle
Superscripts o outlet
AV avoidable P exergy product
EN endogenous r rth component
EX exogenous tot total
I ideal condition 1–13 state point
M mechanical 0 reference condition
mex mexogenous
PH physical
T thermal
UN unavodiable

Guangming et al. [7] experimentally investigated the performance
of the CO2 ejector and obtained the ejector characteristic-curve
equations.
Thermodynamic analysis is a common and convenient method
to study the operating behaviors of refrigeration systems. Exergy
analysis is considered an effective method to evaluate the irre-
versibility and measure the thermodynamic inefficiencies [8].
Therefore, the exergy analysis method is widely used to discuss
the behaviors of the energy utilizations of ejector expansion refrig-
eration cycles. Deng et al. [9] conducted a theoretical investigation
on an ejector enhanced transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle, and
indicated that the system exergy destruction could be reduced by
23.1% and the largest exergy destruction occurs in the evaporator,
followed by the ejector. Yu et al. [10] found that the compressor
and ejector account for the major exergy destruction in the
Joule–Thomson cryogenic refrigeration cycle with an ejector.
Shuxue and Guoyuan [11] conducted an exergy-based analysis
on the experimental performance of the quasi two-stage compres-
sion heat pump system coupled with ejector, and pointed out the
system exergy efficiency could be enhanced by 3–5% at nearly con-
stant exergy output. It is noted that these exergy analysis men-
tioned above is called as conventional exergy analysis, which
could locate the irreversibility. However, it cannot provide any
information about how one component affects another one and
the share of the inefficiencies which can be avoided.
Recently, a newly developed method called advanced exergy
analysis gets an increasing concern [12]. This exergy analysis
method splits the exergy destruction into four parts [13], i.e.
endogenous/exogenous parts and unavoidable/avoidable parts,
and the exergy destruction is distinguished in detail. Thus further
understandings on the exergy destruction and the interaction
among the system components could be gained with this method.
Thus the advanced exergy analysis method is gradually adopted in
theoretical investigations of various energy systems in recent
years. Keçebasß and Go} kgedik [14] carried out the advanced exergy
analysis on an existing geothermal binary power system, and
pointed out the condenser 1, condenser 2 and pre-heater should
be improved primarily. Petrakopoulou et al. [15] comparatively
investigated a combined cycle power plant with conventional
and advanced exergy analysis, and the results showed that the
more attentions should be paid on the expander of the gas turbine
system and the high-pressure steam turbine to reduce the exergy
destruction of the plant. Morosuk and Tsatsaronis [16] studied
two novel LNG-based cogeneration systems using advanced exergy
analysis, and presented some new developments on the advanced
exergy analysis. Keçebasß et al. [17] assessed two geothermal heat-
ing systems advanced exergy analyses and illustrated that most of
the system exergy destruction are endogenous. Hepbasli and
Keçebasß [18] demonstrated that the interconnections among all
the components of the geothermal district heating systems are
not very strong according to the results associated with the
advanced exergy evaluation. Vatani et al. [19] adopted advanced
exergy method to evaluate five mixed refrigerant natural gas lique-
faction processes, and found that the structural optimization can-
not be useful to decrease exergy destruction of the overall
process. Yang et al. [20] carried out the advanced exergy analyses
on Fushun-type oil shale retorting process used in China, and found
that the retort has the greatest potential for decrease in exergy
destruction. Additionally, further optimization work with
advanced exergoeconomic analysis indicated that the total cost
per exergy unit of product is reduced by 5.62% [21]. Furthermore,
advanced exergy analysis method has been used in the various
refrigeration systems. Morosuk et al. [22] studied the system per-
formance of the refrigeration machine using the Voorhees’ com-
pression process with advanced exergy analysis method, and
suggested that the evaporator should be given highest priority of
improvement. Morosuk et al. [23] carried out advanced exergetic
evaluation on vapor compression refrigeration systems with
different refrigerants, attempting to specify the influences of
different refrigerants properties on the results of advanced exergy
analysis. Gong et al. [24] performed an advanced exergy investiga-
tion on a water-lithium bromide absorption refrigeration machine,
852 T. Bai et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 850–861
and discussed the sensitivity of the different performance indica-
tors with parametrical study. Chen et al. [25] evaluated the ejector
refrigeration system with conventional and advanced exergy anal-
yses and pointed out that the highest priority should be given to
the ejector. Gullo et al. [26] applied advanced exergy analysis in
a R744 booster refrigeration system with parallel compression,
and suggested that gas cooler/condenser should be mainly
enhanced by reducing the approach temperature of the medium
temperature evaporator. From the open literature mentioned
above, it can be noted that advanced exergy analysis is a valuable
method of evaluating the system exergetic performance and opti-
mizing the refrigeration systems. However, no work has been con-
ducted on ejector expansion vapor compression refrigeration
cycles with this method.
This paper presents a theoretical study on an ejector expansion
transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle (EERC) with the conventional
and advanced exergy analysis. The effects of the important operat-
ing parameters, i.e. discharge pressure and efficiencies of the com-
pressor and ejector, on the system exergetic characteristics are
studied. The main objectives of this research are to evaluate the
irreversibility occurring in an individual component and clarify
the interactions among the system components, and then obtain
the achievable improvement potential of the system. With this
study, it is expected to get a reliable improvement strategy of the
EERC system and enable the system work efficiently in practical
applications.
2. Cycle description
Fig. 1(a) and (b) shows the schematic and temperature-entropy
diagrams of the ejector expansion CO2 transcritical refrigeration
cycle. This is a conventional ejector expansion vapor compression
refrigeration cycle, which consists of a compressor (CM), a gas
cooler (GC), an ejector (EJE), an evaporator (EV), an expansion valve
(EXP) and a separator. The main working principle is described as
follows: The saturated vapor from the separator enters the com-
pressor (state 1) and is compressed to be high temperature and
pressure vapor (state 2); then the discharged vapor enters the
gas cooler where it dissipates the heat to the surroundings and
becomes low temperature gas (state 3). The high pressure vapor
leaves the gas cooler and enters the ejector nozzle as the primary
flow, and then it jets out with high velocity (state 4) to entrain
Fig. 1. EERC cycle: (a) schematic diagram; and (b) temperature-entropy diagram.
the secondary flow, i.e. the vapor coming from the evaporator.
The primary and secondary flows mix at the mixing chamber and
then enter the diffuser (state 5). Then the mixed stream achieves
a pressure rise and exits the ejector at the two-phase state (state
6). The two-phase flow is further separated into saturated gas
and liquid at the separator (states 1 and 7). The saturated liquid
enters the evaporator after a pressure drop in the expansion valve
and provides a cooling effect. And the saturated vapor reenters the
compressor. In this way, the whole cycle is completed.
3. System simulation model
To establish the system simulation model, some assumptions
are made as follows [27,28]:
(1) All the system components operate at steady state, and the
flow in the system is one-dimensional and homogeneous
equilibrium.
(2) The pressure drops and heat losses in the connecting pipes
are neglected and the fluids leaving the evaporator and sep-
arator are saturated.
(3) The compressor works with adiabatic and non-isentropic
compression process, and the compression efficiency is kept
at gCM ¼ 0:75.
(4) The working process in the ejector applies the conservations
of mass, energy and momentum. The velocities at the inlet
and outlet of the ejector are negligible. At common operating
condition, the working efficiencies of the nozzle, mixing
chamber and diffuser of the ejector are assumed to be con-
stant, i.e. gn ¼ 0:8, gm ¼ 0:9 and gd ¼ 0:8.
(5) The system refrigeration capacity is assumed a fixed value,
i.e. Q Re ¼ 500 W. The system operates at atmospheric condi-
tion of T 0 ¼ 25  C and P 0 ¼ 101:325 kPa as the reference
state.
The ejector is a key component in EERC cycle, and its perfor-
mance directly influences the mass flow rate allocation and state
parameters of each cycle point. In this study, the constant mixture
pressure model is adopted to simulate the performance of the
ejector. It should be noted that the ejector model is common and
is widely used for the thermodynamic analysis in ejector cycles
[29]. For simplicity, the detailed process of simulating for the
 T. Bai et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 850–861 853

ejector are not presented in this paper, and can be seen in Ref. [3]. Table 1
The entrainment ratio l is an important parameter to evaluate the Definition of fuel and production exergy flow rates of the EERC cycle components.

performance of the ejector, which is defined as the mass flow rate Component Fuel Product
ratio of the secondary flow to the primary flow, i.e. l ¼ m_ s =m
_ p . It CM E_ F:CM ¼ W CM E_ P:CM ¼ m_ 1 ðe2
e1 Þ
directly influences the allocation of the refrigerant. Applying the GC E_ F:GC ¼ m_ 2 ðe2
e3 Þ E_ P:GC ¼ m
_ 13 ðe13
e12 Þ
conservations of the mass, energy and momentum, the entrain- EV E_ F:EV ¼ m_ 8 ðe8
e9 Þ E_ P:EV ¼ m
_ 10 ðe10
e11 Þ
ment ratio l can be derived as Eq. (1). EJE E_ F:EJE ¼ m_ 3 ðe3
e4 Þ E_ P:EJE ¼ mðe
_ 6
e9 Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi EXP E_ F:EXP ¼ m
_ 7 ðeM E_ P:EXP ¼ m_ 7 eT8
7
e8 þ e7 Þ
M T

l ¼ gn gm gd ðhn:i
hn:is:o Þ=ðhd:is:o
hd:i Þ
1 ð1Þ

where gn , gm and gd are the efficiencies of the ejector components
(nozzle, mixing chamber, and diffuser), respectively. hn:i is the
refrigerant specific enthalpy at the ejector nozzle inlet, and the
hn:is:o is ideal outlet specific enthalpy of the ejector outlet after an
isentropic expansion process in the nozzle. hd:is:o is the ideal exiting
specific enthalpy at the ejector outlet after an isentropic compres-
sion process in the diffuser. hd:i is the specific inlet enthalpy of
the diffuser.
3.1. Conventional exergetic model
Exergy analysis is a common method to identify the location,
cause and magnitude of the irreversible loss in energy conversation
systems. In refrigeration cycle systems, the effects of the magnetic,
electrical and nuclear on the exergy are not considered, and thus
the exergy E_ can be expressed as the sum of physical exergy E_ PH ,
chemical exergy E_ CH , kinetic exergy E_ KN and potential exergy E_ PT
[30], given as,
E_ ¼ E_ PH þ E_ CH þ E_ KN þ E_ PT
where the total exergy production of the system E_ P:tot represents the
desired refrigeration exergy and equals to the exergy production
within the evaporator E_ P:k , and the total exergy fuel E_ F:tot is the com-
pressor power W CM . The system exergy loss E_ L is caused by the
heating exergy wasted to the surroundings, which is only associated
with the overall system instead of a component. In EERC cycle the
exergy loss refers to the heating exergy transferred to the surround-
ings. The total exergy destruction rate of system E_ D:tot is the total
exergy destruction generated in the system components, i.e. com-
pressor, gas cooler, evaporator, ejector and expansion valve, given
as,
_ D:tot ¼ E_ D:CM þ E_ D:GC þ E_ D:EV þ E_ D:EJE þ E_ D:EXP
Ex ð7Þ
To evaluate the component exergetic performance, the exergy
efficiency and exergy destruction ratio of kth component are
defined as follows, respectively.
E_
ek ¼ _ P:k ð8Þ
EF:k
ð2Þ

where the chemical exergy E_ CH could be neglected, since no chem- E_ D:k

/k ¼ ð9Þ
ical reaction occurs in the EERC cycle. The variations of the kinetic _EF:tot
exergy E_ KN and potential exergy E_ PT at the components are negligi- The exergy efficiency of the system is defined as the ratio of
ble. Thus, the exergy at each state point E_ j is just the physical exergy exergy production rate E_ P:tot to the system exergy fuel rate E_ P:tot ,
E_ PH , given as,
j
i.e. the compressor power W CM , expressed as,

E_ j ¼ EPH _ j ePH
¼m _ j ½hj
h0
T 0 ðsj
s0 Þ
¼m ð3Þ E_ F:tot
E_ D:tot
Ex
E_ _ L E_ D:tot þ E_ L
j j gEx ¼ _ P:tot ¼ ¼1

EF:tot W CM W CM
where the specific physical exergy ePH could be further split into !
j
X
n
thermal exergy eTj and mechanical exergy eM
j [31], expressed as, ¼1
/k þ /L ð10Þ
1
ePH
j ¼ eTj þ eM
j ¼ ½ðhj
hPj ;T0 Þ
T 0 ðsj
sPj ;T0 ÞP¼constant
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}
eTj
3.2. Advanced exergetic model
þ ½ðhPj ;T0
h0 Þ
T 0 ðsPj ;T0
s0 ÞT ¼constant ð4Þ
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl
0
ffl} Compared with the conventional exergy analysis, more in-depth
eM
j
understandings on the system exergetic performance could be
where the thermal exergy eTj and mechanical exergy eM obtained with the advanced exergy analysis method. The interac-
j represent
tions among the components could be quantitatively assessed,
the available work due to the temperature and pressure difference
and the real potential of the system and the components could be
between the fluid and the environment, respectively.
determined. The advanced exergy analysis model is established on
The exergy destruction within a component being considered
the basis of the following two viewpoints. The first one is that the
(e.g. kth component) E_ D:k could be expressed as,
exergy destruction within a system component is caused by com-
E_ D:k ¼ E_ F:k
E_ P:k ð5Þ bined action of the component itself and the other remaining com-
ponents. The second one is that the technical and commercial
where E_ F:k and E_ P:k represent the exergy fuel and production, respec- constraints of improving the system components (e.g. manufactur-
tively. It is noted that the exery fuel E_ F:k is not the real fuel like coal ing methods, cost and availability of materials) are taken into
and petrol, yet it represents the exergy consumed on kth compo- account to evaluate their real improvement potentials. Based on
nent, like the power spent in compressor. And the exergy produc- the two viewpoints, the exergy destruction within a component is
tion E_ P:k is the desired result in a component, just as the cooling split into endogenous/exogenous or unavoidable/avoidable parts.
exergy of the evaporator. The exergy balance equations in the sys- Moreover, by combining these two splitting methods, the
tem components are listed in Table 1 [25,32,33]. unavoidable-endogenous, unavoidable-exogenous, avoidable-
For the overall system, the exergy balance can be expressed endogenous and avoidable-exogenous exergy destructions could
as [16], be calculated, respectively. This would be conductive to get a pro-
found understanding on the system exergetic performance
E_ F:tot ¼ E_ P:tot þ E_ D:tot þ E_ L ð6Þ [14,16,23].
854 T. Bai et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 850–861

3.2.1. Endogenous and exogenous exergy destruction
When considering the interaction among the system compo-
nents, exergy destruction within kth component E_ D;k is split as
endogenous and exogenous exergy destruction parts, i.e. E_ EN and
E_ EX
D;k , expressed as,
E_ D;k ¼ E_ EN _ EX
D;k þ ED;k
where E_ EN
D;k represents the endogenous destruction exergy rate,
which is associated only with the irreversibility generated in kth
component. The E_ EX represents the exogenous exergy destruction
D;k
of the kth component, which is caused by imperfect operating per-
formance of the remaining components. To calculate E_ EN , a hybrid
cycle (called hybrid cycle-I) is established, in which the kth compo-
nent operates with the same efficiency as in real system (as shown
in column 3 of Table 2), and the remaining components work with
ideal efficiencies (as shown in column 4 of Table 2) to obtain zero or
minimum exergy destruction if possible, e.g. the heat exchanger
works ideally with the minimum temperature of zero, i.e.
DT min ¼ 0  C. The calculation procedure for the endogenous exergy
destruction by the example of the ejector is described as follows.
The hybrid cycle-I for the ejector is established first, and the effi-
material cost, the temperature difference of 0.5 °C is used to model
unavoidable operation conditions, i.e. DT UN UN 
GC ¼ DT EV ¼ 0:5 C [13].
For the expansion valve, the working processes at real and
D;k
unavoidable conditions are both isenthalpic, and the correspond-
ing throttling process is assumed isentropic at ideal operation con-
dition. The efficiencies of the system components at real operation
conditions are listed in column 3 of Table 2, which are determined
ð11Þ with authors’ experience and the open references [13,32,35].
Moreover, to quantify the contribution of a component (rth
component) to the exogenous exergy destruction rate of a compo-
nent being considered (kth component) the parameter E_ EX;r needs
D;k
to be specified further. In the calculation of E_ EX;r
D;k , another cycle
called hybrid cycle-II needs to be established first, in which the
D;k component being considered (kth component) and another compo-
nent (rth component) both operate with real efficiencies, and the
remaining n-2 components operate with ideal conditions. In this
situation, the exogenous exergy destruction rate of the kth compo-
nent caused by the rth component E_ EX;r can be obtained. Mean-
D;k
while, the effect of kth component on the rth component, i.e.
E_ EX;k
D;r , could be gained in this cycle calculation. The total contribu-
tion of the remaining components to the exogenous exergy
P
destruction within kth component n
1 _ EX;r may be not equal to
r¼1 E
r–k D;k

ciencies of system components are selected as: the ejector works the exogenous exergy destruction within kth component E_ EX D;k .
at real efficiencies, i.e. gn ¼ 0:8, gm ¼ 0:9 and gd ¼ 0:8; the com- And the difference is called as mexogenous exergy destruction
pressor works ideally, i.e. gCM ¼ 1; the heat exchangers including E_ mex , which is resulting from the simultaneous interconnections
D;k
gas cooler and evaporator are assumed to be working with mini-
of three or more components, expressed as follows [14,23],
mum temperatures, i.e. DT GC ¼ 0  C and DT EV ¼ 0  C. In this situa-
tion, the hybrid cycle-I for ejector is established, and E_ EN could D;EJE X
n
1

be determined with this cycle calculation. Using analogy methods, E_ mex _ EX

D;k ¼ ED;k
E_ EX;r
D;k ð12Þ
r¼1
the hybrid cycle-I for each component could be established, and r–k

the endogenous exergy destruction rate E_ EN could be calculated.D;k

And then the exogenous exergy destruction part of each component
3.2.2. Avoidable and unavoidable exergy destruction
E_ EX could be determined by subtracting the endogenous destruc-
D;k
To reasonably evaluate the improvement potential of a system
tion E_ EN _ _ EX _ _ EN
D;k from the exergy destruction ED;k , i.e. ED;k ¼ ED;k
ED;k . component, the technical and economic constraints of reducing
Table 2 summarizes the settings for the real, theoretical and the exergy destruction should be taken into account. In this case,
unavoidable operating conditions. It is noted that the ideal working the exergy destruction of a component is split into avoidable and
processes of the ejector and compressor are isentropic and without unavoidable parts, i.e. E_ AV and E_ UN , expressed as,
D;k D;k
irreversibility. Thus, the efficiencies of the ejector and compressor
at ideal operation condition are assumed to be 1, i.e. E_ D;k ¼ E_ UN _ AV
D;k þ ED;k ð13Þ
gIn ¼ gIm ¼ gId ¼ 1 and gICM ¼ 1. When the technological and eco-
nomic constraints of efficiencies improvement are considered,
where E_ UN
D;k is the part of exergy destruction in a component which
the ejector and compressor efficiencies are assumed as
cannot be reduced due to the constraints. The remaining part of
gUN
n ¼ gm ¼ gd ¼ 0:95 [25] and gCM ¼ 0:95 [23]. For the gas cooler
UN UN I
the exergy destruction can be reduced as the developed technique
and evaporator, the ideal working conditions are considered that
and the decreasing cost, which is named as avoidable exergy
the minimum temperature of the heat exchanging processes are
destruction E_ AV . Hence, more attentions should be paid on reducing
zero, i.e. DT IGC ¼ DT IEV ¼ 0  C [34]. Considering the limit of the tech- D;k

nologies of the heat transfer and manufacturing as well as the this part exergy destruction rate. E_ UN
D;k is calculated in the unavoid-
able cycle, in which the system components all work with the most
favorable operating conditions, as shown in column 5 of Table 2.
Table 2 The favorable condition of each component represents the maxi-
Operating conditions for the real, ideal and unavoidable cycles.
mum improvement potential that could be achieved. From the cal-
Component Parameters Real Ideal Unavoidable culation of the unavoidable cycle, the ratio of exergy destruction per
condition condition condition  _ UN
E
unit of product exergy E_ D;k can be obtained. Thus, the unavoid-
Gas cooler DT GC 5 °C 0 0.5 °C P;k

Evaporator DT EV 5 °C 0 0.5 °C able exergy destruction E_ UN

D;k is calculated as follows [19],
Compressor gCM 0.75 1 0.95
Ejector gn 0.80 1 0.95 !UN
E_ D;k
gm 0.90 1 0.95 E_ UN _
D;k ¼ EP;k ð14Þ
gd 0.80 1 0.95 E_ P;k
Expansion – Isenthalpic Isentropic Isenthalpic
valve As a consequence, the avoidable exergy destruction within kth
  
component E_ AV _ UN
D;k could be obtained by subtracting the ED;k from
Operating condition: P dis ¼ 9:5 MPa, T 10 ¼ 5 C, T 11 ¼
5 C, T 12 ¼ 25 C,
T 13 ¼ 62:6  C. _ED;k , i.e. E_ AV ¼ E_ D;k
E_ UN .
D;k D;k
 T. Bai et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 850–861 855

3.2.3. Combination of splitting the exergy destruction

Combining the two methods of splitting the exergy destruction
mentioned above, the interactions among the components and
constraint of component improvement are both taken into
account. In this case, more detailed and valuable information on
behaviors of the exergy destruction can be conducted by splitting
the exergy destruction E_ D;k into 4 different parts, expressed as
follows,

E_ D;k ¼ E_ UN;EN
D;k þ E_ UN;EX
D;k þ E_ AV;EN
D;k þ E_ AV;EX
D;k ð15Þ

where the unavoidable endogenous exergy destruction E_ UN;EN

D;k and
the unavoidable exogenous exergy destruction E_ UN;EX
D;k of the kth
component cannot be reduced due to the technical or economic
constraints of the component itself and other remaining system
Fig. 2. Option of splitting the exergy destruction within kth component for the
components, respectively. E_ AV;EN represents the avoidable endoge-
D;k advanced exergy analysis.
nous exergy destruction, which can be reduced by improving the
efficiency of the component being considered. Thus, this is an
important parameter representing the achievable improvement components work at ideal condition. i.e. hybrid cycle-II. The option
potential of a component, which can be used to guide the system of splitting the exergy destruction within kth component is explic-
itly depicted in Fig. 2.
improvement. E_ AV;EX is the avoidable exogenous exergy destruction,
D;k
A flowchart of simulation model with advanced exergy analysis
which can be reduced by improving the efficiencies of the remain-
for the EERC system is summarized in Fig. 3. With assistant of this
ing components or optimizing the system structure. Thus, more
simulation model, the advanced exergy analysis method could pro-
efforts should be concentrated on the avoidable endogenous and
vide theoretical guidance to improve the system performances. It
avoidable exogenous parts of the exergy destruction. The calcula-
has large potential for optimizing the refrigeration system in real
tion procedure of these four parameters are as follows [20,34],
applications. The detailed procedures based on actual operational
!UN data are as follows. Firstly, the real cycle is established by adopting
E_ D;k components efficiencies from the system tests. And then the real
E_ UN;EN ¼ E_ EN ð16Þ
E_ P;k
D;k P;k exergy destruction within each component could be determined
with conventional exergy calculations. Secondly, applying the ther-
modynamic principle, the ideal operation conditions of the system
E_ UN;EX
D;k ¼ E_ UN _ UN;EN
D;k
ED;k ð17Þ
components are determined. Thus, the hybrid cycle-I and hybrid
cycle-II are established. Thirdly, by referring the open literature
E_ AV;EN
D;k ¼ E_ EN _ UN;EN
D;k
ED;k ð18Þ and surveying the new product techniques, the achievable favor-
able efficiencies of system components could be obtained and
E_ AV;EX
D;k ¼ E_ EX _ UN;EX
D;k
ED;k ð19Þ the unavoidable cycle could be established. Hence, the improve-
ment constraints at current technology level are considered in
the system optimization. In this situation, the advanced exergy
where E_ EN
P;k is the endogenous exergy production rate and is obtained
analysis model could be established, and further advanced exergy
simultaneously with the endogenous exergy destruction rate E_ EN in D;k calculations can be carried out as the flowchart shown in Fig. 3.
the calculation of hybrid cycle-I. The exogenous exergy destruction and its avoidable part (i.e. E_ EX;r D;k
To identify the impact of each system component on the overall
and E_ AV;EX;r ) can be gained, which are often used to evaluate the
system performance and reveal the real improvement potential of D;k

a component, the sum of avoidable exergy destructions caused by interactions of the components. What is more, the largest avoid-
kth component is calculated by, able endogenous exergy destruction rate E_ AV;EN and the sum of
P P D;k
X
n
avoidable exergy destruction rate E_ D:k
AV;
E_ D:k ¼ E_ AV;EN E_ AV;EX;k
AV; could be gained. Then,
D;k þ D;r ð20Þ
r¼1 the improvement priorities of system components could be
r–k
achieved and the system enhancement strategy can be drawn up.
where E_ AV;EX;k
D;r represents avoidable exogenous exergy destruction Consequently, more proper solutions would be processed on the
rates within the rth component caused by the kth component. components determined by the advanced exergy destruction anal-
Pn _ AV;EX;k ysis, such as optimizing the control parameters, modifying the
r¼1 E represents the total avoidable exogenous exergy
D;r
r–k
component structure, and even replacing the inappropriate com-
destruction of the remaining components caused by the kth compo-
ponent with a more efficient one. In this way, the practical applica-
nent. The derivation process of E_ AV;EX;k is expressed as follows [14],
D;r tion of the advanced exergy analysis could be performed to
!UN improve a real refrigeration system.
E_ D;k
E_ D;r
UN;EN;rþk
¼ E_ EN;rþk ð21Þ
E_ P;k
P;r
r 4. Results and discussion

E_ UN;EX;k
D;r ¼ E_ UN;EN;rþk
D;r
E_ UN;EN
D;r ð22Þ To perform the simulations of advanced exergy analysis, the cal-
culation program is written by Fortran language. Natural refrigerant
E_ AV;EX;k
D;r ¼ E_ EX _ UN;EX;k
D;r
ED;r ð23Þ CO2 is adopted as the working fluid, and air is selected as the sec-
ondary fluid at the evaporator and gas cooler. The corresponding
where E_ EN;rþk
P;r is exergy production of rth component when rth and thermodynamic properties are obtained from the database of
kth components both operate at real condition and the remaining REFPROP 9.0 [36]. In the simulation process, the following operating
856 T. Bai et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 850–861

Fig. 3. Flowchart of simulation model with advanced exergy analysis.

conditions are selected: The discharge pressure of the compressor Table 3

Pdis is varying in the range of 8.0–10.0 MPa, and the gas cooler exit Results of conventional exergy analysis for EERC components.
temperature T 3 is fixed at 35 °C. The inlet air temperature at the ek /%
Component E_ F;k /W E_ P;k /W E_ D;k /W E_ L /W /k /%
gas cooler T 12 is set at 25 °C. The inlet and outlet air temperatures
at the evaporator, i.e. T 10 and T 11 , are kept at 5 °C and
5 °C, respec- CM 221.31 175.45 45.86 – 79.28 20.72
GC 62.94 42.20 20.74 – 67.05 9.37
tively. The refrigeration capacity remains constant, i.e. EV 66.50 45.82 20.68 – 68.90 9.34
Q Re ¼ 500 W. Other parameters of the system components at differ- EJE 77.80 33.14 44.66 – 42.60 20.18
ent operating conditions (real, ideal and unavoidable conditions) EXP 359.88 358.54 1.34 – 99.63 0.61
are listed in Table 2. It is known that the cooling process of CO2 in Overall system 221.31 45.82 133.28 42.21 19.07 60.23
the gas cooler occurs at supercritical zone and the corresponding Operating condition: P dis ¼ 9:5 MPa, T 10 ¼ 5  C, T 11 ¼
5  C, T 12 ¼ 25  C,
isobaric line is a curve in T-s diagram. This leads to a pinch point T 13 ¼ 62:6  C.
of the heat exchanging process at the gas cooler. The outlet air tem-
perature at the gas cooler is determined at a specified approach
temperature DT GC after careful search calculations. and gas cooler are comparable, i.e. /GC  /EV . The expansion valve
exhibits the lowest exergy destruction ratio. Therefore, from the
results of the conventional exergy analysis, the compressor and
4.1. Conventional and advanced exergy analysis ejector are considered to have nearly equal priority of primary
improvement, and the secondary priority should be given to the
Table 3 presents the results of conventional exergy analysis. It gas cooler or evaporator.
can be seen that the largest exergy destruction is caused by the The further splitting on the exergy destruction with the
compressor, i.e. /CM ¼ 20:72%, which is slightly higher than that advanced exergy analysis is performed in this study. And endoge-
of the ejector /EJE ¼ 20:18%. This indicates that the compressor nous/exogenous, avoidable/unavoidable parts of the exergy
and ejector have comparable improvement potentials, and they destruction in each component and the overall system are obtained,
have higher priority of improvement from the viewpoint of the as shown in Table 4. It can be found that 43.44% of the total exergy
conventional exergy analysis. Compared with the compressor and destruction cannot be avoided, and 85.65% of the system exergy
ejector, the evaporator and gas cooler contribute relatively lower destruction belongs to the endogenous part. This means that the
exergy destruction, and exergy destruction ratios of the evaporator component interactions, represented by the exogenous exergy
 T. Bai et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 850–861 857

Table 4
Results of advanced exergy analysis for EERC components.

Comp. E_ D:k /W E_ EN
D:k /W E_ EX
D:k /W E_ AV
D:k /W E_ UN
D:k /W E_ AV
D:k E_ UN
D:k

E_ AV;EN
D;k
/W E_ AV;EX
D;k
/W E_ UN;EN
D;k
/W E_ UN;EX
D;k
/W

CM 45.86 36.27 9.59 38.01 7.85 30.30 7.71 5.97 1.88

GC 20.74 14.90 5.84 11.36 9.38 8.02 3.34 6.88 2.50
EV 20.68 20.68 0.00 9.53 11.15 9.53 0.00 11.15 0.00
EJE 44.66 39.16 5.50 17.39 27.27 15.61 1.78 23.54 3.73
EXP 1.34 3.15
1.81
0.91 2.25 0.58
1.49 2.57
0.32
Overall system 133.28 114.16 19.12 75.38 57.90 64.04 11.34 50.11 7.79

Operating condition: P dis ¼ 9:5 MPa, T 10 ¼ 5  C, T 11 ¼
5  C, T 12 ¼ 25  C, T 13 ¼ 62:6  C.

Table 5
destruction, play a little role on the system exergy destruction.
Detailed splitting on the exogenous exergy destruction within the system
Additionally, 86.55% of the system unavoidable exergy destruction components.
is endogenous, which suggests that the unavoidable irreversible
losses in the system are mainly caused by the components them- kth E_ EN
D:k /W E_ EX
D:k /W
rth E_ EX;r
D:k
/W E_ AV;EX;r
D:k
/W E_ D:k
UN;EX;r
/W
Component Component
selves. It is noted that exogenous exergy destruction within the
evaporator is zero, and this means that the exergy destruction CM 36.27 9.59 GC 0.00 0.00 0.00
EV 4.17 3.37 0.80
within the evaporator is entirely caused by the evaporator itself. EJE 4.27 3.45 0.82
This conclusion agrees well with the conventional vapor compres- EXP 0.21 0.17 0.04
sion refrigeration machines with pure refrigerant [23,25]. It should mex 0.95 0.73 0.22
be noted that the negative E_ AV is mainly caused by the elevated
D:EXP GC 14.90 5.84 CM 2.75 1.99 0.76
unavoidable exergy destruction in the unavoidable cycle. It illus- EV 0.98 0.49 0.49
EJE 1.02 0.51 0.51
trates that there is no improvement potential in this component.
EXP 0.08 0.04 0.04
And the reduction of exergy destruction could be realized by mex 1.01 0.32 0.69
decreasing inlet exergy of the expansion valve [37]. The negative
EV 20.68 0.00 CM 0.00 0.00 0.00
values of E_ EX and E_ AV;EX denotes that improving efficiencies of
D:EXP D:EXP GC 0.00 0.00 0.00
the other remaining components would lead to an increase in the EJE 0.00 0.00 0.00
EXP 0.00 0.00 0.00
exergy destruction in the expansion valve. The main mechanism
mex 0.00 0.00 0.00
is as follows: The higher efficiency the ejector works with, the
EJE 39.16 5.51 CM
1.36
1.81 0.45
higher outlet pressure would be achieved. As a result, the pressure
GC
1.36
1.81 0.45
drop and the exergy destruction in the expansion valve increase. EV 4.03
0.11 4.14
Thus, E_ EX and E_ AV;EX have negative values at the given operation
D:EXP D:EXP EXP
1.26
1.77 0.51
condition. mex 5.45 7.29
1.84

To get better understanding of the interactions among the sys- EXP 3.15
1.81 CM 0.00 0.00 0.00
tem components, further detailed splitting on exogenous exergy GC 0.00 0.00 0.00
EV 0.00 0.00 0.00
destruction is presented in Table 5. The impact of each remaining
EJE
1.70
1.59
0.11
system component (rth component) on the component being con- mex
0.11 0.11
0.22
sidered (kth component) E_ EX;r is determined. In addition, consider-
D:k Operating condition: P dis ¼ 9:5 MPa, T 10 ¼ 5  C, T 11 ¼
5  C, T 12 ¼ 25  C,
ing the economic and technical constraints of improving the T 13 ¼ 62:6  C.
component performance, the avoidable and unavoidable parts of
the E_ EX;r are specified. It could be found that the exergy destruction
D:k
within the compressor is seriously influenced by the evaporator as the evaporator efficiency correspondingly. The negative
and ejector, and the effects are comparable, i.e. E_ EX;EV  E_ EX;EJE . E_ AV;EX;EJE
D:EXP means that the exergy destruction within the expansion
D:CM D:CM
valve would increase as the ejector components efficiencies, i.e.
The positive value of the E_ EX;EV _ EX;EJE
D:CM and ED:CM means that improving
gn , gm and gd . The foremost reason is that the ejector outlet pres-
the efficiency of the evaporator and ejector could reduce the
sure (i.e. expansion valve inlet pressure) would rise as the increas-
exergy destruction in the compressor. This is mainly because the
ing ejector efficiency, which results in a rise of the pressure drop
compression ratio would reduce as the improving performance of
and the increasing exergy destruction in the throttling process
the ejector and evaporator, and this leads to an enhancement of
eventually.
the compressor efficiency and a reduction of compressor exergy
To get the real improvement potential of the components, the
destruction correspondingly. The compressor accounts for 47.09%
sum of avoidable exergy destructions caused by kth component
of exogenous exergy destruction within the gas cooler, and the P
E_ D:k
AV;
E_ EX;CM is larger than E_ EX;EV , E_ EX;EJE and E_ EX;EXP , which suggests that
D:GC D:GC D:GC D:GC
is calculated by Eq. (20). This parameter takes into account
the compressor exhibits the largest impact on the exergy destruc- of the endogenous exergy destruction E_ AV;EN as well as the impact
D;k
tion within the gas cooler. It is interesting that, expect for the evap- of kth component on the exogenous exergy destruction of the
orator, the other remaining components all have negative Pn _ AV;EX;k
remaining components r¼1 E
D;r . The component with higher
contribution on the exergy destruction of the ejector, i.e. E_ EX;r is P r–k
D:EJE
E_ D:k
AV;
negative. What is more, considering the improvement constraints, denotes that larger improvement potential exists in this
component. Thus more efforts should be paid on it to reduce the
the E_ AV;EX;EV has a negative value. This illustrates that improving the
D:EJE
exergy destruction. Table 6 shows the avoidable exergy destruction
evaporator performance (like enhancing the evaporation pressure)
caused by each system component. The compressor has the largest
would lead an increase in the exergy destruction within the ejec- P
E_ D:k , which nearly doubles that in the ejector. It indicates that
AV;
tor, since the mass flow rate through the ejector would increase
858 T. Bai et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 850–861

the compressor exhibits greatest influence on the overall system. Table 6

Therefore, the highest priority of the component improvement Results of advanced exergy analysis for evaluating the components improvement
potentials.
should be given to the compressor, followed by the ejector, evapo-
P Pn _ AV;EX;k P
Component E_ AV;EN E_ D:k /W
rator and gas cooler. It is noted that the E_ D:EJE is negative and neg-
AV; /W AV;
r¼1 E /W
D;k r–k
D;r

ligible when compared with those of other components. Therefore, CM 30.30 0.18 30.48
it is meaningless to expend more efforts on this component. Obvi- GC 8.02
1.81 6.21
EV 9.53 3.74 13.27
ously, with assist of the advanced exergy analysis, identifying the
EJE 15.61 2.37 17.98
interactions among the components and quantifying the achiev- EXP 0.58
1.56
0.98
able improvement potential of the system component can be
Operating condition: P dis ¼ 9:5 MPa, T 10 ¼ 5  C, T 11 ¼
5  C, T 12 ¼ 25  C,
achieved, and the priorities of component improvement can be
T 13 ¼ 62:6  C.
explicitly determined.

4.2. Effect of the discharge pressure

Generally, high side pressure seriously influences the system
performance of the CO2 transcritical refrigeration cycles, and an
optimum discharge pressure exists at a specified refrigeration
operating condition [38]. Thus, it is necessary to discuss the effect
of the discharge pressure on the system exergetic performances in
EERC. Fig. 4 shows the variations of the system exergy efficiency
g , exergy rates of fuel, total destruction and loss (i.e. E_ F:tot , E_ D:tot
Ex
and E_ L ) as the discharge pressure ranging from 8.0 MPa to
10.0 MPa. It can be seen that the exergy efficiency reaches the
maximum value of 0.211 at the optimal discharge pressure of
8.5 MPa. In addition, the exergy rate of fuel E_ F:tot (equals to com-
investigating with advanced exergy analysis. Fig. 5 depicts the vari-
ations of the endogenous and exogenous parts of the avoidable
exergy destructions within the compressor and ejector with the
discharge pressure. It is clearly shown that the endogenous part
of the avoidable exergy destruction is higher than that of the
exogenous part for each component at the discharge pressure of
8.0–10.0 MPa. This means that most of the avoidable exergy
destruction within the compressor and ejector are caused by them-
selves. Remarkable reduction in the component irreversible losses
could be gained if more efforts are made on the two components.
In addition, when the discharge pressure increases from 8.0 MPa
to 10.0 MPa, E_ AV;EN reaches the minimum value of 29.71 W and
D;CM

pressor power) first falls down to the minimum value of 216.4 W
at the pressure of 8.75 MPa and then increases as the discharge
pressure. As an increase in the discharge pressure, the total exergy
destruction E_ D:tot first shows a rapid reduction and then declines
slightly. The system exergy loss E_ L yields a slight reduction when
the discharge pressure ranges from 8.0 MPa to 8.25 MPa and then
increases. The main reason is as follows. On one hand, the ener-
getic calculation shows that the heating capacity reaches the min-
imum value at the discharge pressure of 8.5 MPa. The exergy loss,
indicating the heat exergy wasted to the ambient, would exhibit
similar variation tendency with the heating capacity, i.e. a mini-
mum E_ L exists in the given pressure range. On the other hand,
the reduction rate of total exergy destruction E_ D:tot and the system
exergy fuel rate E_ F:tot are different as the discharge pressure
increases from 8.0 MPa to 8.25 MPa, which eventually leads the
E_ L reach a minimum value at the pressure of 8.25 MPa.
From the discussions of Tables 4 and 6, we could find that the
then increases slightly, and E_ AV;EN
D;EJE shows a decrease from 45.90 W
to 14.81 W. It is interesting that the ejector exhibits higher avoid-
able endogenous exergy destruction than the compressor, i.e.
E_ AV;EN > E_ AV;EN , at the discharge pressure of 8.0 MPa. It is well
D;EJE D;CM
known that exergy destruction within a component is mainly
determined by the mass flow rate and specific entropy generation
rate. The calculation results show that the mass flow rate through
the ejector m_ 8 ð1 þ lÞ would be much higher than that of the com-
pressor at lower discharge pressure due to the increasing entrain-
ment ratio l and the mass flow rate at the evaporator (m _ 8 ). In this
situation, the mass flow rate plays dominant role on the exergy
destruction of the ejector. Thus, the ejector shows higher avoidable
endogenous exergy destruction than compressor at low discharge
pressure. At higher discharge pressure, the specific entropy gener-
ation rate of the compressor is much larger than that of the ejector.
And thus the compressor exhibits larger avoidable endogenous
exergy destruction rate than the ejector, i.e. E_ AV;EN > E_ AV;EN . There-
D;CM D;EJE

compressor and ejector account for the major part of the system fore, it is an effective method of reducing the system exergy
exergy destruction. Therefore, the effect of the discharge pressure destruction by improving the ejector itself at low discharge
on the exergy destruction within these two components is worth pressure.

Fig. 5. Effect of discharge pressure on the avoidable part of the endogenous and
Fig. 4. Effect of discharge pressure on the system exergetic performance. exogenous exergy destruction within the compressor and ejector.
 T. Bai et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 850–861
4.3. Effect of the compressor efficiency
Fig. 6 shows the variation of the system exergy efficiency and
exergy rates of fuel, total destruction and loss (E_ F;tot , E_ D;tot and E_ L )
with the compressor efficiency gCM . When the compressor effi-
ciency increases from 0.5 to 0.9, the system exergy efficiency gEx
approximately shows a linear increase from 0.138 to 0.248
(79.7% improvement), and the exergy rates of system fuel and total
destruction exhibit noteworthy reductions of 44.45% and 56.43%,
respectively. In addition, the exergy loss of the system E_ L is rela-
tively lower compared with the E_ D;tot , and it is reduced by 31.6%
when the compressor efficiency gCM increases from 0.5 to 0.9.
The main mechanism can be explained as: When the compression
efficiency increases, the specific entropy generation rate in the
compression process reduces, and the E_ F;tot (equals to the compres-
sor power) declines consequently. Furthermore, lower discharge
temperature and heating capacity would occur at higher compres-
sion efficiency, so the exergy loss (heat exergy) occurring at the gas
cooler reduces as the increasing gCM .
Fig. 7 shows the variation of the avoidable part of the endoge-
nous and endogenous exergy destruction within the compressor
and ejector as the compressor efficiency gCM . It could be found that
E_ AV;EN and E_ AV;EX reduce as the increasing compressor efficiency g .
D;CM D;CM CM
When gCM varies from 0.5 to 0.9, the E_ AV;EN _ AV;EX
D;CM and ED;CM are reduced
Fig. 6. Effect of the compressor efficiency on the system exergetic performance.
Fig. 7. Effect of the compressor efficiency on the avoidable part of the endogenous
and exogenous exergy destruction within the compressor and ejector.
859
by 93.6% and 94.0%, respectively. The reduction of E_ AV;EN
D;CM means
that the exergy destruction caused by the compressor itself is
remarkably reduced by improving the compressor performance.
The reduction E_ AV;EX as the increasing g indicates that the
D;CM CM
remaining components have little impact on the exergy destruc-
tion of the compressor at high compressor efficiency. This is rea-
sonable because the remaining components will have no impact
on the compressor if the compression is isentropic. In addition,
the avoidable endogenous exergy destruction of the ejector E_ AV;EN
D;EJE
reduces as the increasing compressor efficiency, and E_ D;EJE
AV;EX
shows
_ AV;EX
opposite variation tendency. It is noted that the E is negative
D;EJE
at low compressor efficiency ranging from 0.5 to 0.75. This is
mainly because that the exergy destruction of the ejector would
decrease as the deteriorating performance of the other remaining
components at lower compressor efficiency.
4.4. Effect of the ejector efficiency
Fig. 8 shows the effect of the ejector efficiency on the system
exergetic performance. It is noted that the ejector components
generally work with different efficiencies at various operating con-
ditions. For simplicity, the ejector components are assumed to be
working with same efficiency in the following discussions. The
symbol gEJE is adopted to represents the ejector efficiency and is
assumed to be equal to the ejector component efficiencies, i.e.
gEJE ¼ gn ¼ gm ¼ gd . When ejector efficiency gEJE increases from
0.5 to 0.9, the system exergetic efficiency gEx increases from
0.184 to 0.218 (18.5% improvement), and the system exergy fuel,
total exergy destruction and exergy loss, i.e. E_ F;tot , E_ D;tot and E_ L ,
are reduced by 15.6%, 21.4% and 11.0%, respectively. The main rea-
son for this is that the ejector outlet, i.e. the compressor inlet pres-
sure, increases as the increasing gEJE , which would result in the
reduction of compression ratio and heating capacity. As a result,
the system exergy fuel rate E_ F;tot (equals to the compressor power)
and exergy loss E_ L reduce. Due to the same reason, expect for the
expansion valve, the specific entropy generation rate of the
remaining system components all fall down as the increasing ejec-
tor efficiency. And thus the system total exergy destruction exhi-
bits low value at higher ejector performance. It is noted that the
gEx improvement of 18.5% is achieved when the ejector efficiency
gEJE increases from 0.5 to 0.9, which is lower than the improvement
of the system exergy efficiency gEx (79.7%) due to the increase of
the compressor efficiency from 0.5 to 0.9. This illustrates that the
Fig. 8. Effect of ejector efficiency on system exergetic performance.
860 T. Bai et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 850–861

system exergy efficiency is more sensitive to the compressor per-

formance instead of the ejector.
Fig. 9 shows the effect of the ejector efficiency on the exergy
destruction within the ejector. The detailed splitting of the
exergy destruction includes the endogenous and exogenous exergy
destruction (E_ EN , E_ EX ) as well as the avoidable and avoidable-
D;EJE D;EJE

endogenous exergy destruction (E_ AV _ AV;EN

D;EJE , ED;EJE ). The endogenous

exergy destruction E_ D;EJE is much higher than the exogenous part

EN

E_ EX , especially at lower ejector efficiency g . This indicates that

D;EJE EJE
the exergy destruction is mainly caused by the imperfect perfor-
mance of the ejector itself. Thus, more attention should be paid
on improving the ejector itself instead of the remaining compo-
nents. In this condition, significant reduction of the exergy destruc-
tion could be obtained for the ejector. In addition, the avoidable
endogenous exergy destruction E_ AV;EN is slightly lower than the
D;EJE

avoidable exergy destruction E_ AV

D;EJE . It means that major part of
the avoidable exergy destruction within the ejector is endogenous.
And E_ AV;EN is reduced by 81.7% when the ejector efficiency
D;EJE
increases from 0.5 to 0.9. There is no doubt that improvement
potential of the ejector would reduce as the increasing ejector
efficiency.
The ejector as a core component in EERC cycle directly connects
gas cooler, evaporator and separator. Thus, the performance of the
ejector significantly influences the system exergy destruction.
Fig. 10 shows the impact of the ejector efficiency on the exogenous
exergy destruction in the remaining components. The exogenous
exergy destruction of the compressor and ejector, i.e. E_ EX and
E_ EX
D;GC , decrease as the increasing ejector efficiency, because the
compression ratio and discharge temperature would reduce as
the enhancement of the ejector performance. This results in a
reduction in the irreversible loss generated in the two components
eventually. The exogenous exergy destruction within the evapora-
tor E_ EX remains constant as the variation of the ejector efficiency,
D;EV
since the exergy destruction of the evaporator is entirely from the
evaporator itself and is not impacted by the ejector performance.
The exogenous exergy destruction of the expansion valve E_ EX is
negative and varies from
2.92 W to
1.14 W as the ejector effi-
ciency ranging from 0.5 to 0.9. Therefore, it could be inferred that
the exergy destruction within the expansion valve increases as the
improvement of the ejector. This is reasonable because the pres-
sure drop in the throttle valve would rise as the increasing pressure
lifting effect at better ejector performances.
Fig. 10. Effect of the ejector efficiency on the exogenous exergy destruction within
each component.
5. Conclusions
The advanced exergy analysis method is adopted in this paper
to investigate the exergetic performance of the ejector enhanced
CO2 transcritical refrigeration cycle. The improvement potentials
and interactions of the system components are evaluated by split-
ting the exergy destruction into subparts. The most important find-
ings of this investigation are summarized as follows:
D;CM (1) The sum of avoidable exergy destructions caused by the
P
compressor E_ D:k
AV;
is obviously higher than those of the
remaining components, suggesting that the compressor
should be given the highest priority of improvement, fol-
lowed by the ejector, evaporator, gas cooler and expansion
valve, especially at high discharge pressure. This conclusion
is different from that the conventional exergy analysis
results, which indicates that the compressor and ejector
have the nearly equal priority of improvement.
D;EXP (2) The connection relations among the system components are
weak, and 85.65% of the system exergy destruction is
endogenous part. 43.44% of the total exergy destruction
could be avoided with component improvements at the
given operating condition.
(3) The evaporator and ejector show large contribution to the
exogenous exergy destruction of the compressor. The com-
pressor accounts for 47.09% of exogenous exergy destruction
within the gas cooler, indicating that the gas cooler is mostly
influenced by the compressor. The exergy destruction of the
evaporator is completely endogenous. The evaporator clo-
sely influences the exogenous exergy destruction generated
in the ejector.
(4) The discharge pressure significantly influences the endoge-
nous exergy destructions of the compressor and ejector,
and an optimal discharge pressure exists with respect to
the minimum avoidable endogenous exergy destruction.
About 93.6% and 81.7% reduction of the avoidable endoge-
nous exergy destruction within the compressor and ejector
could be achieved by improving the corresponding compo-
nents efficiencies from 0.5 to 0.9.

The advanced exergy analysis method employed for the investi-

Fig. 9. Effect of the ejector efficiency on the endogenous/exogenous and avoidable/
unavoidable exergy destruction within the ejector.
gation on the ejector expansion CO2 transcritical refrigeration cycle
contributes to an intensively understanding on the exergy destruc-
tion and interrelationship among the components, and would be as
a useful and supplementary method to the conventional exergy
analysis.
 T. Bai et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 850–861
Acknowledgements
This study is financially supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under the grant No.
51576149. The authors would like to thank NSFC for the
sponsorship.
References
[1] Elbel S, Lawrence N. Review of recent developments in advanced ejector
technology. Int J Refrig 2016;62:1–18.
[2] Li D, Groll EA. Transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle with ejector-expansion
device. Int J Refrig 2005;28:766–73.
[3] Bai T, Yan G, Yu J. Thermodynamics analysis of a modified dual-evaporator CO2
transcritical refrigeration cycle with two-stage ejector. Energy
2015;84:325–35.
[4] Liu F, Groll EA, Ren J. Comprehensive experimental performance analyses of an
ejector expansion transcritical CO2 system. Appl Therm Eng 2016;98:1061–9.
[5] Lee JS, Kim MS, Kim MS. Experimental study on the improvement of CO2 air
conditioning system performance using an ejector. Int J Refrig
2011;34:1614–25.
[6] Liu F, Groll EA, Li D. Investigation on performance of variable geometry ejectors
for CO2 refrigeration cycles. Energy 2012;45:829–39.
[7] Guangming C, Xiaoxiao X, Shuang L, Lixia L, Liming T. An experimental and
theoretical study of a CO2 ejector. Int J Refrig 2010;33:915–21.
[8] Ahamed JU, Saidur R, Masjuki HH. A review on exergy analysis of vapor
compression refrigeration system. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2011;15:1593–600.
[9] Deng J-Q, Jiang P-X, Lu T, Lu W. Particular characteristics of transcritical CO2
refrigeration cycle with an ejector. Appl Therm Eng 2007;27:381–8.
[10] Yu J, Tian G, Xu Z. Exergy analysis of Joule-Thomson cryogenic refrigeration
cycle with an ejector. Energy 2009;34:1864–9.
[11] Shuxue X, Guoyuan M. Exergy analysis for quasi two-stage compression heat
pump system coupled with ejector. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 2011;35:700–5.
[12] Kelly S, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. Advanced exergetic analysis: approaches for
splitting the exergy destruction into endogenous and exogenous parts. Energy
2009;34:384–91.
[13] Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. Advanced exergoeconomic evaluation and its
application to compression refrigeration machines. In: ASME 2007
international mechanical engineering congress and exposition. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2007. p. 859–68.
[14] Keçebasß A, Gökgedik H. Thermodynamic evaluation of a geothermal power
plant for advanced exergy analysis. Energy 2015;88:746–55.
[15] Petrakopoulou F, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T, Carassai A. Conventional and
advanced exergetic analyses applied to a combined cycle power plant. Energy
2012;41:146–52.
[16] Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. Comparative evaluation of LNG – based
cogeneration systems using advanced exergetic analysis. Energy
2011;36:3771–8.
861
[17] Keçebasß A, Coskun C, Oktay Z, Hepbasli A. Comparing advanced exergetic
assessments of two geothermal district heating systems for residential
buildings. Energy Build 2014;81:141–51.
[18] Hepbasli A, Keçebasß A. A comparative study on conventional and advanced
exergetic analyses of geothermal district heating systems based on actual
operational data. Energy Build 2013;61:193–201.
[19] Vatani A, Mehrpooya M, Palizdar A. Advanced exergetic analysis of five natural
gas liquefaction processes. Energy Convers Manage 2014;78:720–37.
[20] Yang Q, Qian Y, Kraslawski A, Zhou H, Yang S. Advanced exergy analysis of an
oil shale retorting process. Appl Energy 2016;165:405–15.
[21] Yang Q, Qian Y, Kraslawski A, Zhou H, Yang S. Framework for advanced
exergoeconomic performance analysis and optimization of an oil shale
retorting process. Energy 2016;109:62–76.
[22] Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G, Zhang C. Conventional thermodynamic and
advanced exergetic analysis of a refrigeration machine using a Voorhees’
compression process. Energy Convers Manage 2012;60:143–51.
[23] Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. Advanced exergetic evaluation of refrigeration
machines using different working fluids. Energy 2009;34:2248–58.
[24] Gong S, Goni Boulama K. Parametric study of an absorption refrigeration
machine using advanced exergy analysis. Energy 2014;76:453–67.
[25] Chen J, Havtun H, Palm B. Conventional and advanced exergy analysis of an
ejector refrigeration system. Appl Energy 2015;144:139–51.
[26] Gullo P, Elmegaard B, Cortella G. Advanced exergy analysis of a R744 booster
refrigeration system with parallel compression. Energy 2016;107:562–71.
[27] Yan G, Chen J, Yu J. Energy and exergy analysis of a new ejector enhanced auto-
cascade refrigeration cycle. Energy Convers Manage 2015;105:509–17.
[28] Fartaj A, Ting DSK, Yang WW. Second law analysis of the transcritical CO2
refrigeration cycle. Energy Convers Manage 2004;45:2269–81.
[29] He S, Li Y, Wang RZ. Progress of mathematical modeling on ejectors. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:1760–80.
[30] Ahern JE. The exergy method of energy systems analysis. New York: A Wiley-
Interscience Publication; 1980.
[31] Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. Advanced exergetic analysis of a refrigeration
system for liquefaction of natural gas. Int J Energy Environ Eng 2010;1:1–17.
[32] Bai T, Yan G, Yu J. Thermodynamic analyses on an ejector enhanced CO2
transcritical heat pump cycle with vapor-injection. Int J Refrig 2015;58:22–34.
[33] Garousi Farshi L, Mahmoudi SMS, Rosen MA. Exergoeconomic comparison of
double effect and combined ejector-double effect absorption refrigeration
systems. Appl Energy 2013;103:700–11.
[34] Boyaghchi FA, Molaie H. Sensitivity analysis of exergy destruction in a real
combined cycle power plant based on advanced exergy method. Energy
Convers Manage 2015;99:374–86.
[35] Nekså P. CO2 heat pump systems. Int J Refrig 2002;25:421–7.
[36] Lemmon EW, McLinden MO, Huber ML. Reference fluid thermodynamic and
transport properties (REFPROP). NIST Standard Reference Database 23, Version
9.0, 2010, p. 1.
[37] Açıkkalp E, Aras H, Hepbasli A. Advanced exergy analysis of a trigeneration
system with a diesel–gas engine operating in a refrigerator plant building.
Energy Build 2014;80:268–75.
[38] Sarkar J. Optimization of ejector-expansion transcritical CO2 heat pump cycle.
Energy 2008;33:1399–406.