ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy 33 (2008) 1399 1406

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Optimization of ejector-expansion transcritical CO2 heat pump cycle

Jahar Sarkar 
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Technology, BHU, Varanasi 221005, India

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: Optimization studies along with optimum parameter correlations, using constant area mixing model
Received 28 December 2007 are presented in this article for ejector-expansion transcritical CO2 heat pump cycle with both
conventional and modied layouts. Both the energetic and exergetic comparisons between valve,
Keywords: turbine and ejector-expansions-based transcritical CO2 heat pump cycles are also studied for
Ejector-expansion CO2 cycle simultaneous cooling and heating applications. Performances for conventional layouts are presented
Modelling by maximum COP, optimum discharge pressure and corresponding entrainment ratio and pressure lift
Entrainment ratio ratio of ejector, whereas for modied layout by maximum COP, optimum discharge pressure and
Pressure lift ratio
corresponding pressure lift ratio. The optimization for modied layout can be realized for certain
Optimization
entrainment ratio, evaporator and gas cooler exit temperature combinations. Considering the trade-off
Performance comparison
between the system energetic and exergetic performances, and cost associated with expansion devices,
the ejector may be the promising alternative expansion device for transcritical CO2 heat pump cycle.
& 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Use of ejector as an expansion device in transcritical CO2 cycle
seems to be a promising modication to improve the system
performance [13]. Kornhauser [4] analyzed the thermodynamic
performance of the ejector-expansion refrigeration cycle using R-
12 as a refrigerant based on constant mixing pressure model and
found a COP improvement of up to 21% over the standard cycle
under standard operating conditions. Liu et al. [5] rst performed
a thermodynamic analysis of the transcritical CO2 vapor compres-
sion/ejection hybrid refrigeration cycle. Another theoretical study
on transcritical CO2 systems with ejector to study the effect of
internal heat exchanger on the performance was reported by Elbel
et al. [6]. Use of ejector in transcritical CO2 cycle not only improve
the COP, also simplies the process of controlling the gas cooler
pressure in the CO2 cycle by changing the throat area of the
ejector nozzle [7]. Experiment showed that the COP of the car air-
conditioner using the ejector cycle increases by 20% over the
conventional cycle [7]. Ejector is much more benecial to CO2
systems with maximum COP improvement of 44% compared with
R134a system of 13% for 100% isentropic ejector efciency,
however, key is to build highly efcient ejectors [2].
Li and Groll [8] recently modied the ejector-expansion cycle
by allowing part of the vapor in the separator feed back to the
evaporator, which regulates the quality at the evaporator inlet and
through theoretical analysis, they showed the COP improvement
 Tel.: +91 991 9787557; fax: +91 542 2368428.
E-mail address: js_iitkgp@yahoo.co.in
to be more than 16%. Through comparative study, Deng et al. [9]
showed that the ejector improves the maximum COP by up to
18.6% compared with the internal heat exchanger system and by
22.0% compared with the conventional system with greatly
reducing the throttling losses. Although optimization studies for
other cycle modications have been reported in open literature
[1012], such theoretical optimization studies with ejector for
simultaneous cooling and heating are scarce.
The present study, on transcritical CO2 cycle for simultaneous
cooling and heating, consists of three parts. The rst part presents
the optimization of high pressure along with entrainment ratio
and pressure lift ratio based on the maximum system COP for the
ejector-expansion transcritical CO2 heat pump cycle with conven-
tional layout (CEETC) by using constant area mixing model. The
second part presents the optimization of ejector-expansion
transcritical CO2 heat pump cycle with modied layout (MEETC)
by using constant area mixing model. The third part presents the
comparison of optimum high side pressure, performances and
expansion exergy loss for transcritical CO2 heat pump cycle based
on three expansion devices: valve, turbine and ejector.
2. Ejector-expansion CO2 heat pump cycle layout
In the present study, the compressor discharge pressure
optimization to get the maximum COP has been done for two
ejector-driven transcritical CO2 cycle layouts. First one is the
conventional ejector-driven cycle, proposed by Kornhauser [4],
which is shown in Fig. 1 and the corresponding Ph diagram is
shown in Fig. 2. The primary ow from the gas cooler and the

0360-5442/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2008.04.007
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1400 J. Sarkar / Energy 33 (2008) 13991406

Nomenclature ZII second law efciency

a cross-sectional area (m2) Subscripts

TA temperature approach (K)
COPs system coefcient of performance c compressor
h specic enthalpy (kJ/kg) cd compressor discharge
P pressure (bar) d ejector diffuser
PLR pressure lift ratio ed expansion device
q specic cooling/heating effect (kJ/kg) ej ejector
t,T temperature (1C, K) ev evaporator
T0 reference temperature (K) gc gas cooler
u uid velocity (m/s) gc,out gas cooler outlet
w specic work (kJ/kg) max maximum
x vapor quality n ejector nozzle
m entrainment ratio opt optimum
r uid density (kg/m3) si/so secondary uid inlet/outlet
Z isentropic efciency

secondary ow from the evaporator are passing through nozzle,

mixing and diffuser sections of the ejector and then separating in
forms of vapor and liquid so that this ratio should matched with
the inlet ratio of primary and secondary ows. Second one is the
modied ejector-driven cycle, proposed by Li and Groll [8], which
is shown in Fig. 3 and the corresponding Ph diagram is shown in
Fig. 4. The main difference with conventional ejector cycle is that
some part of vapor from separator is feed back to evaporator
through throttle valve to regulate the quality of evaporator inlet.
Two ejector performance parameters signicantly inuence the
system performance with an optimum ratio, which can be dened
by [13]
masss of secondary flow
Entrainment ratio; m (1)
mass of primary flow

static pressure at diffuser exit

Pressure lift ratio; PLR
static pressure at secondary flow inlet
(2)

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of conventional ejector-expansion transcritical CO2

cycle.
3. Mathematical modeling and simulation

The ejector-driven transcritical CO2 heat pump cycle for the

both layouts has been modeled based on the mass, momentum
and the energy conservations. To simplify the theoretical model
and set up the equations per unit total ejector ow for the both
cycle layouts, the following assumptions are made:
3 Pgc 2
(i) Neglect the pressure drop in the gas cooler and evaporator
and the connection tubes.
(ii) No heat transfer with the environment for the system.
(iii) The refrigerant condition at the evaporator outlet is
Pressure

saturated.
(iv) The vapor stream from the separator is saturated vapor and
the liquid stream from the separator is saturated liquid.
(v) The ow across the expansion valve or the throttle valves is
6 5
isenthalpic.
1
(vi) The compressor has a given isentropic efciency.
8 Pev (vii) Both the motive stream and the suction stream reach the
7
4 10 same pressure at the inlet of the constant area mixing
9
section of the ejector. There is no mixing between the two
streams before the inlet of the constant area mixing section.
Specific enthalpy (viii) The expansion efciencies of the motive stream and suction
stream are given constants. The diffuser of the ejector also
Fig. 2. Ph diagram of conventional ejector-expansion transcritical CO2 cycle. has a given efciency.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

J. Sarkar / Energy 33 (2008) 13991406 1401

And for the diffuser section the energy balance is given by

h5 h10 u210 =2 (8)

The overall energy balance in the ejector for both cycle layouts is
given by
1 mh5 h3 mh8 (9)
For both cycle layouts, the specic compressor work and heating
effect can be found by
1
wc h2  h1 (10)
1m

1
qgc h2  h3 (11)
1m
For the conventional ejector cycle (Fig. 1), the specic cooling
effect:
m
qev h8  h6 (12)
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of modied CO2 cycle with ejector-expansion device. 1m
Whereas for the modied ejector cycle (Fig. 3),
 
m 1
qev h8  1  x5 h6  x5  h1 (13)
1m 1m
The system COP (combined cooling and heating) can be calculated
by
3 Pgc 2
COP s qev qgc =wc (14)

Based on the theoretical model of ejector-driven transcritical

CO2 heat pump cycles, the simulation code was developed to
investigate the effect of different operating parameters for both
Pressure

layouts, which was integrated with the thermodynamic property

code CO2PROP [10] to compute relevant thermodynamic para-
meters of carbon dioxide in sub- and super-critical regions. For
6 5 given compressor discharge pressure, evaporator and gas cooler
1 exit temperatures, the algorithm of code for conventional cycle is
11
8 as follows:
Pev
7
4 9
10 (i) Properties at states 8 and 3 are calculated. Enthalpies and
0 other thermodynamic properties at states 9 and 4 are
calculated by given nozzle efciency and P8P9. Velocities
Specific enthalpy
at the corresponding states are calculated by using Eqs. (3)
Fig. 4. Ph diagram of modied ejector-expansion transcritical CO2 cycle. and (4) and then areas are also calculated.
(ii) Some value of entrainment ratio is assumed for iteration.
(iii) Using Eqs. (5)(7), the pressure, enthalpy and uid velocity
at exit of mixing section (state 10) are calculated by effective
iteration technique, which satisfy the condition:
(ix) Kinetic energies of the refrigerant at the ejector inlet and
r10(a4+a9)u10 1 (for unit ow rate) and then other proper-
outlet are negligible.
ties are calculated.
(iv) Using Eqs. (9) or (8) and given diffuser efciency, enthalpy,
Based on the above assumptions, the following equations can be
pressure and vapor quality at state 5 are calculated and then
setup in the nozzle section of ejector for both the layouts:
other properties are also calculated.
h3 h4 u24 =2 (3) (v) If the condition (1+m)x5 1 is not satised, steps (iii)(iv)
will repeated by using new value of m [ (1x5)/x5] until the
h8 h9 u29 =2 (4) condition satised.
(vi) Properties at states 6, 7 and 1 are calculated. Then the
For given entrainment ratio, the following mass, momentum properties of state 2 are calculated using given compressor
and energy equations in the constant area mixing section of isentropic efciency.
ejector can be identied for both cycle layouts [8]: (vii) Using Eqs. (10)(12) and (14), the performance parameters:
u10 u4 mu9 =1 m (5) wc, qev, qgc and COPs are calculated and PLR ( P1/Pev) is also
calculated.
1 m
P 10 a4 a9 u10 P9 a4 a9 u4 u9 (6)
1m 1m For the modied ejector-driven cycle simulation, similar
 algorithm has been used excluding iteration loop for entrainment
2  
u210 1 u m u2 ratio as it is user dened, i.e. steps (i), (iii)(iv), (vi)(vii), only qev
h10 h4 4 h9 9 (7)
2 1m 2 1m 2 is calculated by using Eq. (13) instead of Eq. (12) at the last step.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1402 J. Sarkar / Energy 33 (2008) 13991406

In the present numerical model, following tolerances have
been used for convergence in simulation for the overall satisfac-
tion: 103 for temperature (K) and enthalpy (kJ/kg), 104 for mass
ow rate (0.01% for unit mass ow rate) and 105 for entrainment
ratio, which may give the error for mass balance as 0.01%, in
energy balance below 0.01% and system COP computation in the
range of 104.
The ejector-driven transcritical CO2 cycle for combined cooling
and heating applications is optimized on the basis of maximum
system COP. These values are obtained for various operating
conditions along with variation of the compressor discharge
pressure having a step size of 0.5 bar. In general, for the CEETC and
MEETC, respectively, the system COP can be expressed by
COP sys f t ev ; t gc;out ; P 8  P 9 ; P d ; Zc ; Zn ; Zd
COP sys f t ev ; t gc;out ; P 8  P 9 ; P d ; m; Zc ; Zn ; Zd
Based on the assumptions made, the optimum discharge pressure,
entrainment ratio and pressure lift ratio and maximum system
COP for CEETC are expressed by
P cd;opt ; COP s;max ; mopt ; PLRopt f t ev ; t gc;out
Similarly, for MEETC, optimum Pcd and PLR, and maximum COPs
can be expressed by
P cd;opt ; COP s;max ; PLRopt f t ev ; t gc;out ; m
discharge pressure contours and maximum system COP contours
are shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively, where the evaporator
temperature varies from 45 to 5 1C and the gas cooler exit
temperature varies from 30 to 60 1C. It may be noted that
optimum discharge pressure varies from 73 to 180 bar, whereas
the maximum system COP varies from 2.2 to 11.2 and the
variations are very similar to the basic valve expansion cycle
[10]. Variation clearly shows that the effect of gas cooler exit
temperature are much more signicant compared with the
evaporator temperature on the optimum discharge pressure
where as equally signicant on maximum system COP. Both the
iso-optimum pressure lines and iso-maximum system COP lines
are nearly parallel and the optimum pressure vary least towards
the minimum gas cooler exit temperature and maximum
(15)
evaporator temperature, whereas the maximum system COP
varies least towards the maximum gas cooler exit temperature
(16)
and minimum evaporator temperature. So the design of system
for lowest possible gas cooler exit temperature and the highest
(17)
(18)

4. Results and discussion

The present numerical model is veried with the theoretical

and experimental data available in open literature [8,14,15].
Performance comparison of CEETC for tev 2 1C with 5 K super-
heat, tgc,out 35 1C, Zn 0.8, Zd 0.75 and Zc 0.8 shows that the
optimum discharge pressure (85 bar), entrainment ratio (0.542)
and cooling COP (3.68) values are closely matching with design
data of experimental prototype, which was validated with test
results [14]. Comparison with another experimental results [15]
shows similar behavioral trends of entrainment ratio (increases)
and pressure lift ratio (decreases) with gas cooler exit pressure, Fig. 5. Optimum compressor discharge pressure (in bar) contour for CEETC.
although absolute values comparison is not possible due to
insufcient available data. Performance comparison of MEETC for
tev 5 1C with 5 K superheat, tgc,out 40 1C, Zn 0.9, Zd 0.8 and
Zc 0.75 shows also very close result (ratio of COP with ejector
and expansion valve is 1.147) with literature data [8].
The performance of both CEETC and MEETC being studied for
simultaneous cooling and heating applications are evaluated on
the basis of maximum system COP for various evaporator
temperature (45 to 5 1C) and gas cooler outlet temperature
(3060 1C). To investigate the characteristics of the ejector-
expansion transcritical CO2 cycle, the pressure drop of secondary
ow in the ejector nozzle (P8P9) has been taken as 0.3 bar. The
ejector is assumed to have the following efciencies: Zn 0.8,
Zd 0.8. The compressor is assumed to have an isentropic
efciency of 0.75. The maximum system COP along with
corresponding optimum gas cooler pressure, entrainment ratio
and pressure lift ratio are suitably plotted to illustrate the various
performance trends.

4.1. Optimization of conventional ejector-expansion transcritical CO2

cycle

The performance of CEETC being studied based on maximum

system COP at optimum discharge pressure and corresponding
entrainment ratio and pressure lift ratio. Optimum compressor Fig. 6. Maximum system COP contour for CEETC.

possible evaporator temperature is more effective for not only
maximum system COP also for lower optimum high side pressure.
On the other hand, for high-temperature heating application or
low-temperature cooling, the system is not protable in term of
system COP as well as cost due to high optimum discharge
pressure.
The variations of entrainment ratio and pressure lift ratio at
optimum discharge pressure with gas cooler exit temperature for
different evaporator pressure are shown in Fig. 7. It may be noted
that optimum entrainment ratio varies from 0.35 to 0.62, whereas
the optimum PLR varies from 1.1 to 1.7 for the given ranges of
evaporator and gas cooler exit temperatures. Variations show that
the optimum entrainment ratio increases towards the minimum
gas cooler exit temperature and maximum evaporator tempera-
ture, whereas the optimum PLR increases towards the maximum
gas cooler exit temperature and minimum evaporator tempera-
ture. As the gas cooler exit temperature increases or the
evaporator temperature decreases and corresponding optimum
gas cooler pressure increases, the vapor quality is increases at
ejector nozzle exit as well as at the diffuser exit of ejector, which
gives the lower entrainment ratio. Due to simultaneous increase
in nozzle pressure drop with higher optimum gas cooler pressure
and decrease in optimum entrainment ratio, kinetic energy
increases at the nozzle exit, which can give higher pressure lift
in proceeding mixing and diffuser sections and hence the PLR is
increases with the increase of gas cooler exit temperature and
decrease of evaporator temperature.
Performing a regression analysis on the data obtained from the
cycle simulation, the following relations have been established to
predict estimates the optimum design parameters: optimum
discharge pressure in bar (R2 99.9%), maximum system COP
(R2 96.8%), optimum entrainment ratio (R2 99.8%) and pres-
5C 5C
5C 5C
15C
15C
25C 25C
35C 35C
45C 45C
0.63
- without marker
PLR - with marker
0.59
0.55
Entrainment ratio
0.51
0.47
0.43
0.39
0.35
30 35 40 45 50
Gas cooler outlet temperature (C)
Fig. 7. Variation of optimum m and PLR with gas cooler outlet temperature for
different evaporation temperatures.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Sarkar / Energy 33 (2008) 13991406 1403
sure lift ratio (R2 99.9%), valid for the ranges of the evaporator
temperature from 45 to 5 1C and the gas cooler exit temperature
from 30 to 60 1C:
Pcd;opt 22:7 0:21t ev 1:06t gc;out  0:0094t ev t gc;out
0:0213t 2gc;out (19)
COP s;max 19:168 0:2662t ev  0:4445t gc;out
 0:003458t ev t gc;out 0:003007t 2gc;out 001086t 2ev (20)
mopt 0:8736 0:00426t ev  0:01086t gc;out
 0:00005t ev t gc;out 0:000053t 2gc;out (21)
PLRopt 0:998 0:0013t ev 0:00245t gc;out
 0:000107t ev t gc;out 0:0000247t 2gc;out
000105t 2ev (22)
4.2. Optimization of modied ejector-expansion
transcritical CO2 cycle
The optimum performance of MEETC is dependent on
evaporator and gas cooler exit temperatures as well as entrain-
ment ratio. Optimum compressor discharge pressure contours and
maximum system COP contours for m 0.6 are shown in Figs. 8
and 9, respectively, for given ranges of evaporator and gas cooler
exit temperatures. It may be noted that the variations trends are
similar as for CEETC, although the optimum discharge pressure
gives higher value, varies from 74 to 195 bar and the maximum
system COP gives lower value, varies from 2.1 to 10. Void portion
in both contour plots indicates that the optimization of MEETC
cannot be realized at that lower gas cooler exit temperature and
higher evaporator temperature. Similar to CEETC, the effect of gas
cooler exit temperature is much more signicant compared with
the evaporator temperature on the optimum discharge pressure
whereas equally signicant on maximum system COP. Results
indicate that the design of system for lowest possible gas cooler
exit temperature and the highest possible evaporator temperature
1.7
1.6
1.5
Pressure lift ratio
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
55 60
Fig. 8. Optimum discharge pressure (bar) contour for MEETC at m 0.6.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1404 J. Sarkar / Energy 33 (2008) 13991406

5C 5C
15C 15C

30C 30C

45C 45C
1.44 0.2
PLR -with marker

1.38
0.16

Feed back vapor fraction

1.32

Pressure lift ratio

0.12

1.26

0.08
1.2

0.04
1.14
Fig. 9. Maximum system COP contour for MEETC at m 0.6.

1.08 0
30 35 40 45 50 55 60
is protable in term of system COP as well as cost due to lower
Gas cooler outlet temperature (C)
optimum discharge pressure.
The variations of PLR and feedback vapor fraction Fig. 10. Variation of PLR and feedback fraction at optimum discharge pressure with
( 1[x5(1+m)]1) at optimum discharge pressure with gas cooler gas cooler outlet temperature for different evaporation temperature for m 0.6.
exit temperature for different evaporator pressure are shown in
Fig. 10. With the increase in gas cooler exit temperature and
decrease in evaporator temperature, nozzle pressure drop in- 2.9
6.5
creases as increase in optimum gas cooler pressure, which gives
higher PLR due to same reason discussed before. As the optimum
2.8
gas cooler pressure increases with the increase in gas cooler exit
temperature or decrease in evaporator temperature, the vapour 6
quality increases at ejector nozzle exit as well as at the diffuser 2.7
exit of ejector, which gives the higher feedback fraction. Effect of te = 45C, tco = 40C

System COP
System COP

entrainment ratio on optimum discharge pressure is negligible, te = 45C, tco = 50C

2.6
whereas the system COP decreases with increase in entrainment te = 5C, tco = 40C 5.5
ratio moderately as shown in Fig. 11. PLR decreases due to decrease te = 5C, tco = 50C
in kinetic energy at mixing section exit with the increase in 2.5
entrainment ratio.
Optimum correlations for CEETC are signicant in such a way 5
that the MEETC can be realised either above the mopt (in Eq. (21)) 2.4
for xed discharge pressure at Pcd,opt (in Eq. (19)) or bellow Pcd,opt
for xed entrainment ratio at mopt Performing a regression
2.3 4.5
analysis, the following relations for MEETC have been established 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7
to predict optimum discharge pressure in bar (R2 99.9%),
Entrainment ratio
maximum system COP (R2 97%) and pressure lift ratio
(R2 97.5%), valid for the ranges of the evaporator temperature Fig. 11. System COP variation with entrainment ratio at optimum condition.
from 45 to 5 1C, gas cooler exit temperature from 32 to 60 1C and
entrainment ratio from 0.52 to 0.6:
4.3. Energetic comparison of different expansion device-based CO2
P cd;opt 19:96 0:356t ev 0:965t gc;out  0:01535t ev t gc;out cycles
02485t 2gc;out 3:9m (23)
A comparison of CEETC and MEETC (m 0.6) with basic valve
expansion transcritical CO2 cycle (VETC) and turbine expansion
COP s;max 17:33 0:1913t ev  0:3628t gc;out
transcritical CO2 cycle (TETC) in terms of optimum discharge
 0:002812t ev t gc;out 0:002246t 2gc;out pressure and maximum system COP with gas cooler exit
 0:707m (24) temperature for the turbine isentropic efciency of 80% are
shown in Figs. 12 and 13 at the evaporator temperatures of 5 and
451C, respectively. The difference between valve and turbine
PLRopt 1:2  0:0044t ev 0:0043t gc;out  0:000021t ev t gc;out
expansion cycles is related to expansion process [16]: for valve,
 0:000015t 2gc;out  0:385m (25) expansion process is isenthalpic and system COP is calculated as
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

J. Sarkar / Energy 33 (2008) 13991406 1405

169 12.2 Table 1

Exergetic comparison of different expansion device-based CO2 cycles, tco 40 1C
VETC
157 TETC 11.2
Cycle VETC TETC CEETC MEETC
Optimum discharge pressure (bar)

CEETC
MEETC 10.2 tev (1C) 5 45 5 45 5 45 5 45
145

Maximum system COP

tso (1C) 64.3 114.1 59.0 89.5 59.7 92.7 61.06 102.6
9.2 ZII (%) 35.99 42.84 44.52 53.30 37.16 45.68 37.21 46.04
133 ied (%) 30.80 29.54 9.07 8.54 27.18 24.94 28.00 26.58
8.2
121
7.2 simultaneous constant temperature cooling at Tev+TA and variable
109 temperature heating from Tsi to Tso. The second law efciency is
6.2 calculated by
97   
5.2 To
ZII qev 1
T ev TA
85 4.2  
T o lnT so =T si
tev = 5C qgc 1  wnet (26)
T so  T si
73 3.2
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 where wnet is difference between compressor and turbine works
Gas cooler exit temperature (C) for TETC, otherwise wnet wc and temperatures are in K;
To Tsi 303.15 K and TA 5 K. Tso is found by iteration technique
Fig. 12. Comparison of difference cycles with gas cooler exit temperature, to satisfy TA at pinch point. Percentages of expansion exergy loss
tev 5 1C. of VETC, TETC have been calculated based on entropy change of
expansion device [9,16] and for CEETC and MEETC, same have
been calculated based on combined exergy losses for expansion
208 4 valve and ejector, which are given by, respectively:
VETC   
193 TETC 1 m m
3.7 ied T o s5  s3  s8 s7  s6 wc (27)
1m 1m 1m
Optimum discharge pressure (bar)

CEETC
178 MEETC  
1 m
Maximum system COP

3.4
ied T o s5  s3  s8 1  x5 s7  s6
163 1m 1m
  
3.1 1
148 x5  s11  s1 wc (28)
1m
133 2.8 Results indicated that the expansion exergy loss of ejector is
lower that of valve and second law efciency of transcritical CO2
118 system can also improve by using ejector over the valve
2.5
(maximum improvement of 9% can be obtain over the studied
103
ranges). Exergetic performance of TETC is signicantly better than
2.2 that of other cycles with penalty of higher cost associated with
88
tev = 45C turbine.
73 1.9
30 35 40 45 50 55 60
5. Conclusions
Gas cooler exit temperature (C)

Fig. 13. Comparison of difference cycles with gas cooler exit temperature,
tev 45 1C.
combined output by compressor work, whereas, for turbine,
expansion process is near isentropic and system COP is calculated
as combined output by net work (compressor workturbine
work). It can be noted that the performance difference between
CEETC and MEETC are negligible at higher evaporator temperature
due to values of m closer to 0.6. Results clearly shows that the both
CEETC and TETC are better in terms of optimum discharge
pressure as well as system COP. Although TETC is better with
respect to both low cost associated with lower optimum discharge
pressure and higher maximum system COP, negligible cost
associated with ejector as compared with turbine can make the
ejector-driven cycles more protable for the low capacity heat
pump applications.
4.4. Exergetic comparison of different expansion device-based CO2
cycles
Second law-based compression of VETC, TETC, CEETC and
MEETC at optimum discharge pressure are listed in Table 1 for
Optimizations of ejector-expansion transcritical CO2 heat
pump cycle for simultaneous cooling and heating with conven-
tional layout as well as modied layout, followed by energetic and
exergetic comparison with valve and turbine expansion cycles are
presented here. Studies shows that the effect of gas cooler outlet
temperature is more predominant compared with evaporator
temperature on both CEETC and MEETC performances. Optimum
entrainment ratio increases towards the minimum gas cooler exit
temperature and maximum evaporator temperature, whereas the
optimum PLR increases towards the maximum gas cooler exit
temperature and minimum evaporator temperature for CEETC.
Effect of entrainment ratio on discharge pressure is negligible
compared with COP at optimum conditions for MEETC. The MEETC
can be realized for certain discharge pressure and entrainment
ratio combinations. CEETC is always better than MEETC in term of
system COP as well as cost due to lower optimum discharge
pressure.
Expressions for optimum cycle parameters for both CEETC and
MEETC have been developed and these correlations offer useful
guidelines for optimal system design and for selecting appro-
priated operating conditions. Both energetic and exergetic
performance wise, CEETC and MEETC are better compared with
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1406 J. Sarkar / Energy 33 (2008) 13991406
VETC, but poorer compared with TETC. Second law efciency can
be improved by maximum 9% by using ejector over valve for given
ranges. In view of the trade-off between the system performance
and cost associated with expansion devices, the ejector may be
the best alternative expansion device at least for low-capacity
transcritical CO2 heat pump systems.
References
[1] Groll EA. Recent advances in the transcritical CO2 cycle technology. In: Eighth
national and seventh ISHMT-ASME heat and mass transfer conference, IIT
Guahati, India, 2006.
[2] Hrnjak PS. Improvement options for CO2 and R134a systems, MAC Summit,
Saalfelden, Austria, 2006.
[3] Groll EA, Kim JH. Review of recent advances toward transcritical CO2 cycle
technology. HVAC&R Research 2007;13(3):499520.
[4] Kornhauser AA. The use of an ejector as a refrigerant expander. In: Proceedings of
the 1990 USNC/IIR-Purdue refrigeration conference, USA, 1990. p. 109.
[5] Liu JP, Chen JP, Chen ZJ. Thermodynamic analysis on trans-critical R744 vapor-
compression/ejection hybrid refrigeration cycle. In: Proceedings of the fth
IIR Gustav Lorentzen conference on natural working uids, Guangzhou, China,
2002. p. 1848.
[6] Elbel SW, Hrnjak PS. Effect of internal heat exchanger on performance of
transcritical CO2 systems with ejector. In: Proceedings of the 10th interna-
tional refrigeration and air conditioning conference, Purdue, West Lafayette,
IN, USA, 2004.
[7] Ozaki Y, Takeuchi H, Hirata T. Regeneration of expansion energy by ejector in
CO2 cycle. In: Sixth IIR Gustav Lorentzen natural working uid conference,
Glasgow, UK, 2004. Paper 4/A/11.20.
[8] Li D, Groll EA. Transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle with ejector-expansion
device. Int J Refrig 2005;28(5):76673.
[9] Deng J, Jiang P, Lu T, Lu W. Particular characteristics of trans-
critical CO2 refrigeration cycle with an ejector. Appl Therm Eng 2007;27:
3818.
[10] Sarkar J, Bhattacharyya S, Ramgopal M. Optimization of a transcritical CO2
heat pump cycle for simultaneous cooling and heating applications. Int J
Refrig 2004;27(8):8308.
[11] Chen Y, Gu J. The optimum high pressure for CO2 transcritical refrigeration
systems with internal heat exchangers. Int J Refrig 2005;28:123849.
[12] Agrawal N, Bhattacharyya S, Sarkar J. Optimization of two-stage transcritical
carbon dioxide heat pump cycles. Int J Thermal Sci 2007;46(2):1807.
[13] Chunnanond K, Aphornratana S. Ejectors: applications in refrigeration
technology. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2004;8:12955.
[14] Ksayer EB, Clodic D. CO2 ejector refrigeration cycle: design, tests and results.
In: Twenty-second international congress of refrigeration, Beijing, 2007. Paper
1590.
[15] Elbel S, Hrnjak P. Experimental investigation of transcritical CO2 ejector
system performance. In: Twenty-second international congress of refrigera-
tion, Beijing, 2007. Paper 72.
[16] Robinson DM, Groll EA. Efciencies of transcritical CO2 cycles with and
without an expansion turbine. Int J Refrig 1998;21(7):57789.