Accepted Manuscript

An experimental analysis of the impact of primary nozzle geometries on the

ejector performance used in R141b ejector refrigerator

Tongchana Thongtip, Satha Aphornratana

PII: S1359-4311(16)31459-4
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.08.100
Reference: ATE 8899

To appear in: Applied Thermal Engineering

Received Date: 8 April 2016

Revised Date: 12 August 2016
Accepted Date: 18 August 2016

Please cite this article as: T. Thongtip, S. Aphornratana, An experimental analysis of the impact of primary nozzle
geometries on the ejector performance used in R141b ejector refrigerator, Applied Thermal Engineering (2016),
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.08.100

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
AN EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF PRIMARY NOZZLE
GEOMETRIES ON THE EJECTOR PERFORMANCE USED IN R141b EJECTOR
REFRIGERATOR

Tongchana Thongtipa and Satha Aphornratanaa, *

* Corresponding author

E-mail satha@siit.tu.ac.th

Tel. +(662) 9869009 ext 2203

Fax. +(662) 9869009 ext 2201

a Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology, Thammasat University, P. O. Box

22, Thammasat Rangsit Post Office, Pathumthani 12121, Thailand

Abstract

This paper gives an experimental discussion of the geometrical impact of the primary nozzle
on the ejector performance in an R141b ejector refrigerator. Primary nozzle area ratio is
varied to observe its effect on the ejector performance. Six primary nozzles are investigated
experimentally. Four of them (D2.4M2.5, D2.8M2.5, D3.2M2.5, and D3.6M2.5) are designed
with different throat diameters, but they have an identical nozzle area ratio. Two of them,
D2.4M2.0 and D2.4M3.0, have an identical throat diameter, but they have different nozzle
area ratio, resulting in a different nozzle exit Mach number. All nozzles are tested with one
fixed geometry ejector at various operating conditions. Variations of the primary momentum
caused by the change in primary nozzle throat and nozzle exit Mach number on the ejector
performance is observed and discussed. The purpose is to determine the optimal primary
nozzle geometries at given operating conditions. It is found that using a bigger nozzle throat,
operated with lower generator temperature, is preferable. The primary nozzle exit Mach
number should be as high as possible. It should also be designed to be consistent with the
heat source’s temperature for implementing the nozzle at the designed conditions. The
primary nozzle exit diameter must be consistent with the mixing chamber used. Therefore,
the minimum required generator temperature (T gen-min) at various nozzle exit Mach numbers
and the largest possible nozzle exit diameter for one particular ejector are provided for this
present work.

1
Nomenclature

A Cross sectional area (mm2)

COP Coefficient of Performance
Cal Data obtained from the calculation
D Diameter of ejector geometries (mm)
Exp Data obtained from the experiment
h Enthalpy (kJ kg-1)
k Specific heat ratio
M Mach number
m Mass flow rate (kg sec-1, kg min-1)
NXP Nozzle Exit Position (mm)
P Absolute pressure (bar)
Psuc-min Minimum suction pressure (mbar)
Qcon Heat rejected at the condenser (kW)
Qevap Cooling effect produced at the evaporator (kW)
Qgen Thermal energy supplied to the generator (kW)
R Ideal gas constant (kJ kg-1k-1)
Rm Mass entrainment ratio of an ejector
T Temperature (°C)
Tgen-min An essentially required minimum generator temperature
Ø Diameter (mm)
Δh Specific enthalpy change (kJ kg -1)

Subscripts
cond condition at condenser
ej condition at ejector’s throat
evap condition at evaporator
exit condition at nozzle exit plane
gen condition at generator
P primary fluid
S secondary fluid
suc condition at ejector’s suction port
cri critical condition

2
1. Introduction

Currently, the thermally driven refrigerator is gaining popularity in the field of refrigeration

systems because it can be powered by heat which may be captured from industrial waste heat,

solar water heater, geothermal, etc. In other words, the thermally driven refrigerator can

convert low grade heat to produce useful refrigeration or thermal comfort. Therefore, a

reduction in electricity consumption for the refrigeration process can be made with the use of

the thermally driven refrigerator.

An ejector refrigeration system, which is a kind of a thermally driven refrigerator, is

of current interest. This is due to its simplicity of construction, operation, and maintenance. It

also has no-chemical corrosion and chemical reaction unlike another heat-driven system

(absorption refrigeration system). In addition, many kinds of refrigerants, such as HFC,

HCFC, and hydrocarbons, can be used as the working fluid as presented by several previous

works [1], [3], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [17], [18], and [19]. This has encouraged

researchers to investigate the ejector refrigerator with various working fluids. Chen et al.

[14], developed the mathematical model to predict coefficient of performance (COP) with

various refrigerants. Their results concluded that with identical operating conditions, COP of

a refrigerator could vary with the type of refrigerant used. Also, an ejector refrigerator was

tested experimentally with various working fluids, as proposed by [6], [7], [15], [16], [25],

[26], [27] and [28]. Some conclusions indicated that type of refrigerant used played an

important role on the ejector performance. However, for practical use, the working fluid used

for an ejector refrigerator should be based on these criteria: it is non-toxic; it is

nonflammable; it provides a reasonable COP; it is reasonable ODP (ozone depleting

potential) and GWP (global warming potential); and it is easily available at low cost or

moderate cost.

3
 From the existing works [20], [21, [23], [31] and [32], it is evident that the working

conditions (Tgen, Tevap, and Pcon) and ejector’s area ratio (Dej/Dt)2 of an ejector significantly

influence the ejector performance. However, the primary nozzle area ratio (Dexit/Dt)2 is also a

key parameter to dominate the ejector efficiency. Variation in the primary nozzle area ratio

also causes the change in primary nozzle geometries. To demonstrate the effect of the

primary nozzle area ratio on the ejector performance, many researchers have conducted the

experimentation to prove such effect as proposed by [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. Some of them,

Varga et al. [3], Li, et al. [2] have developed an ejector refrigerator test bench equipped with

a spindle primary nozzle, in which the primary nozzle area ratio can be varied by moving the

spindle position. Their aim is to further develop it for a solar-driven ejector refrigerator where

there is a fluctuation of the generator temperature (due to variation of solar radiation). The

purpose is to maintain the primary mass flow rate allowed through the nozzle, so that the

system performance is kept constant at the optimal point. However, the change in the spindle

position results in a variation of the primary nozzle area ratio. This has caused the primary

nozzle exit Mach number and the primary mass flow rate to vary simultaneously (tested at

fixed boiler temperature). In other words, two parameters of interest (nozzle exit Mach

number and primary mass flow rate) are varied simultaneously with moving the spindle

position. Based on the principle of conducting experimentation, two parameters of interest

should not be investigated simultaneously (They should be separately studied in order to

clarify each effects).

As for the existing works [22], [24], [29], and [30], there is still a lack of experimental

work to investigate the effect of the primary nozzle area ratio which results in the variation of

nozzle exit Mach number. There are not many previous works to investigate this effect [4],

[28], and [30], unfortunately, it was implemented based on the numerical simulation without

4
experimental proof. Only one experimental work to examine such effects was proposed by

Ruangtrakoon et al. [21] by using water as the working fluid. Many primary nozzles were

tested with various boiler temperatures (varied between 110ºC and 150ºC) while the

evaporator temperature was fixed at 7.5ºC. Their investigation was aimed at determining the

optimal primary nozzle area ratio at a certain value of primary mass flow rate. Their

conclusion is that with a higher nozzle area ratio, the ejector performed better.

Moreover, regarding many previous works, there is no work in both experimentation

and simulation using HCFC or HFC refrigerants as the working fluid in order to

comprehensively examine the effect of the primary nozzle exit Mach number and primary

mass flow rate on the ejector performance. An investigation conducted by using HFC or

HCFC as the working fluid is expected to provide a new perspective on the ejector

performance assessment. Hence, experimental work to investigate the above effects should be

carried out to provide a deep insight for discussion of each parameter affected. Consequently,

the properly designed criteria for the primary nozzle geometry for one particular ejector can

be determined via the experimentation. This is so that the ejector will be workable at its best

performance.

As mentioned above, this present work aims to provide a deep insight of the

geometrical impact of the primary nozzle (primary nozzle area ratio) and its operating

conditions on the ejector performance. R141b, which is a kind of HCFC refrigerant, is used

as the working fluid. Primary nozzles with different throat sizes, but with identical area

ratios, are tested at a fixed primary mass flow rate. In addition, the primary nozzle with an

identical throat diameter, but with different area ratios is also discussed. With the change in

two such parameters, the effect of the primary nozzle throat (at fixed mass flow rate) and

primary nozzle exit Mach number is able to be discussed and concluded. The main purpose is

to determine the optimal primary nozzle geometries used for an ejector refrigerator at given

5
operating conditions (a suitable nozzle area ratio and operating temperature of the generator).

As the ejector is operated at the optimal conditions, the ejector will expect to give the highest

critical condenser pressure and an acceptable mass entrainment ratio, at certain operating

conditions. A variation of the suction pressure against the condenser pressure is initially

introduced (which is an alternative way to assess the ejector performance) and is later used to

simultaneously assess the ejector performance. By means of this analysis, the highest possible

range of condenser pressures for the ejector’s operation (breakdown condenser pressure) can

be determined alternatively. Therefore, the critical condenser pressure and breakdown

pressure can be easily determined. In addition, the limitation of the evaporating temperature

can also be indicated.

To conduct the experimentation, an R141b ejector refrigerator with a cooling capacity

of 2 kW was developed. Six primary nozzles were manufactured precisely. Four of them

(D2.4M2.5, D2.8M2.5, D3.2M2.5, and D3.6M2.5) were designed with different throat

diameters, but with the identical nozzle area ratios. That means, they produce the same

primary nozzle exit Mach number for all nozzles, if the generator pressure is high adequate.

Two of them (D2.4M2.0 and D2.4M3.0) had the same throat diameter, but with different

nozzle exit Mach numbers. All nozzles were tested with one fixed ejector’s geometry while

operating conditions were varied. It was found that the change in the primary nozzle

geometries strongly affected the ejector performance. With one certain value of primary mass

flow rate, using a larger primary nozzle (but with identical area ratio) operating with lower

generator temperature, was preferable for the ejector operation. In addition, it was also found

that the primary nozzle designed to produce a relatively high Mach number is preferable.

However, the generator temperature (or pressure) must be high enough so that the primary

nozzle is workable at the designed conditions. The primary nozzle exit diameter (Dexit) must

be consistent with the mixing chamber’s geometry. Therefore, the minimum required

6
generator temperature (Tgen-min) and largest possible Dexit at various Mach numbers are also

provided for this present work.

2. Background of an ejector refrigeration cycle

For an ejector refrigeration system, the ejector is recognized as the important equipment to

dominate a cycle’s efficiency. The ejector used in a refrigeration system is similar to a

mechanical compressor, and thus, it is known as a “thermal compressor” (because it is

thermally powered equipment). An ejector refrigeration system which is mainly composed of

generator, evaporator, ejector, condenser, expansion device, and liquid pump, is

schematically shown in Fig.1.

Usually, the ejector consists of four principle components which are the primary

nozzle, mixing chamber, throat, and subsonic diffuser. All components are assembled as

schematically shown in Fig.2. The purpose of using an ejector is to convey a secondary fluid

by means of a high pressure fluid (primary fluid). The working principle of the ejector, which

is based on the supersonic flow theory, is well documented by Ruangtrakoon [22]. The flow

characteristics of two streams (primary and secondary fluids) through the ejector, which is

inspired by Ruangtrakoon et al. [22], is illustrated in Fig.2.

Based on the ejector working principle, secondary fluid can be drawn into the mixing

chamber by means of the motive fluid (primary mass flow rate). This is obtained by

accelerating the primary fluid through the primary nozzle, which results in a low pressure

region. By means of the supersonic flow of primary stream within the mixing chamber, there

is the presence of the expansion wave and shock trains. The flow state of the expansion wave,

which significantly affects the ejector performance, is described by previous works [2], [7],

7
and [22]. The secondary stream is thought to be accelerated via a shear-mixing process at the

interface of the two fluid streams until its flow reaches sonic speed and chokes at some

section along the ejector’s throat. Later, a mixing process will take place. The location where

the secondary flow is choked is thought to be either at the ejector’s throat or at the subsonic

diffuser, depending upon the working conditions [31] and [32]. The mixed stream

experiences high back pressure within the subsonic diffuser, which results in a compression

oblique shock wave [20], [21], [22], and [32]. Across the zero thickness layer of the shock

wave, its static pressure increases suddenly, resulting in a sudden reduction of velocity from

supersonic to subsonic is the result.

Referring to Fig.1, the refrigeration process occurs when a low pressure region is

produced within the mixing chamber by means of the primary fluid produced by the

generator. This causes the refrigerant within the evaporator to be evaporated at low pressure.

The mixed fluid leaving the subsonic diffuser is liquefied within the condenser. COP of the

ejector refrigeration system can be defined by Eq.1.

(1)

Since the work required for the liquid pump is much lower than the heat added to the

generator, it can be ignored for calculating COP. Therefore, COP of the ejector refrigeration

system can be simplified to eq.2.

(2)

The ratio of the secondary mass flow rate to the primary mass flow rate is the mass

entrainment ratio, which is stated by eq.3.

(3)

8
 The enthalpy change of the refrigerant within the evaporator and that in the generator

is not much different, and therefore, COP is approximately equal to the mass entrainment

ratio as stated by Eq.4.

(4)

The mass entrainment ratio (Rm) is regarded as a key performance parameter to

indicate the ejector’s performance. It indicates the energy efficiency of the ejector’s

operation. A higher Rm is preferable for the ejector’s operation.

Performance of an ejector at various operating conditions and ejector’s geometries are

extensively assessed by using the traditional performance curve which shows how the mass

entrainment ratio varies with the condenser pressure variation. This curve is obtained by

testing the ejector refrigerator at fixed evaporator and generator temperatures while the

condenser pressure is varied. A typically traditional performance curve is illustrated in Fig.3.

Many researchers used this performance curve to evaluate the ejector performance [1], [2],

[10], [17] and [18]. By using this curve, the critical condenser pressure can be determined,

which is regarded as another key performance parameter to dominate the ejector efficiency.

As seen in Fig.3, there are three operating regions of the ejector refrigerator, which consist of

Choked flow, Unchoked flow, and Reversed flow of secondary fluid.

The ejector draws approximately an identical secondary fluid mass flow rate, as it is

operated in “Choked flow region”. Choked flow of secondary fluid within the mixing

chamber is found even when condenser pressure is varied. The cooling capacity of the

refrigerator is able to be kept constant when operating in this mode. A wider range of choked

flow mode is more desirable for operation. Therefore, many researchers have attempted to

develop an ejector for performing wider choked flow mode [9], [11], [24], and [28]. As the

condenser pressure is operated in the “Unchoked flow region”, Rm drops sharply with

9
slightly increasing condenser pressure. The secondary mass flow rate is believed to be no-

longer choked within the mixing chamber. If the condenser pressure is operated in the

“Reversed flow region”, the ejector is not workable. Secondary fluid is not able to be drawn

into the mixing chamber. Moreover, some primary fluid is forced back to the suction port. It

is considered to be a failure mode of operation. Since the traditional performance curve

indicates a working state of the ejector, many researchers employ it to interpret their results

as proposed in many previous works [12], [13], [14], [18], [19], [25] and [26].

3 Experimental apparatus

3.1 Manufacture of ejector refrigerator

Fig.4 shows the schematic diagram and photograph of an experimental R141b ejector

refrigerator. It comprises a generator, an evaporator, an ejector, a condenser, a liquid pump,

and measuring devices. The generator’s shell was fabricated from 6 inch stainless steel pipe

304 (SUS 304), schedule 40s. The evaporator’s shell was made up of 3 inch stainless steel

pipe 304 (SUS 304), schedule 10s. An immersion electric heater is used to generate heat for

the generator and evaporator. A water-cooled plate heat exchanger was used as the

condenser. An electrically driven gear pump was used to circulate liquid refrigerant. The

criterion used in designing the experimental ejector refrigerator and more details of

construction have been reported by Thongtip et al. [6].

The pressure at the points of interest, as shown in Fig.4, were detected by means of a

pressure gauge and pressure transducer, with an uncertainty of ±1.0% of full scale. Type-k

thermocouple probes, with an uncertainty of ±0.5°C, were used for monitoring the

temperature at points of interest. The temperature of the generator and evaporator was

maintained at setting point by means of a digital thermostat. The refrigerant level of all

10
vessels was monitored using an attached sight glass. The mass flow rate of the primary and

secondary fluid can be obtained by calculating the dropping rate of liquid refrigerant within a

certain time interval. Therefore, the mass entrainment ratio (Rm) or COP of the refrigerator

can be determined. During the experimentations, each case of experimentations was tested

repeatedly at least 3 times to ensure that the experimental results are obtained accurately.

However, the experimental results which is repeatedly tested causes the variation in the

experimental results due to the uncertainty of measuring devices even when the

experimentation is conducted at the same working conditions. The uncertainty of the

experimental results for this present work is provided in all graph (showing the tested results)

which will be presented later.

3.2 Manufacture of the ejector and primary nozzles

The ejector used for this present work was designed based on the criteria provided by

Sriveerakul [32]. It was designed to produce a cooling load of about 2000 W. Its significant

dimensions are shown in Fig.5. The suction chamber was fabricated from stainless steel 304

(SUS 304). Mixing chamber, throat, and subsonic diffuser were made from brass. They were

manufactured via the electrical discharging machine method (EDM) in which the desired

shape is obtained precisely with an electrical spark. This is a high precision manufacturing

process.

Six primary nozzles were manufactured. They were fabricated from brass because it is

easier to manufacture. Four of them were designed with an identical area ratio, subsequently

producing the same nozzle exit Mach number. The rest were designed with different nozzle

area ratios, producing different nozzle exit Mach numbers. The primary nozzle area ratio with

different Mach numbers can be determined by Eq.4. The primary nozzle geometries designed

11
for this present work are shown in Table 1. All the nozzles were investigated with only one

fixed ejector geometry as shown in Fig.5 at various operating conditions.

- -
(4)

Throughout the experimentation, the nozzle exit position (NXP) was placed at NXP =

+20 mm. where it is able to perform an optimized entrainment ratio. NXP is positive as it is

located inside the mixing chamber.

4 Results and discussion

4.1 Primary mass flow rate with various generator temperatures

This section is aimed at measuring the primary mass flow rate of each nozzle at various

generator temperatures. During the test, the ejector’s suction chamber was isolated by closing

a valve connected between the evaporator and the suction chamber. Six primary nozzles,

D2.4M2.0, D2.4M2.5, D2.4M3.0, D2.8M2.5, D3.2M2.5, and D2.6M2.5, were tested.

Generator temperature (Tgen) increased from 80 to 130°C with increments of 5°C. The

calculated primary mass flow rate using one dimensional compressible flow based on the

ideal gas assumption was also determined in order to compare with the actual value. It was

calculated by Eq.5. The tested value and calculated value are shown in Fig.6.

k
k k-
mp t gen (5)
Tgen k

It can be seen from Fig.6 that the calculated value determined by eq.5 is in good

agreement with those obtained experimentally. This implies that the flow across the primary

nozzles is very close to an isentropic flow process. It has also been proven that the primary

12
mass flow rate is a function of the stagnation properties (generator temperature and pressure)

which agrees well with the compressible flow theory.

Referring to Fig.6, it is found that primary mass flow rate increases with increasing

Tgen and with the use of a larger nozzle throat. It is also independent of the ejector’s

downstream condition (condenser pressure and temperature). The use of the same nozzle

throat with different nozzle exit Mach numbers performs at approximately the same primary

mass flow rate at a fixed Tgen. This reflects the fact that primary mass flow rate is also

independent of the nozzle exit Mach number. These effects agree well with the principle of

compressible flow theory in case of the supersonic flow that travels through the converging-

diverging nozzle [33]. Therefore, Eq.5 can be adequately used to estimate the primary mass

flow rate precisely.

4.2 Suction pressure against the variation of condenser pressure

This section presents an advantage of using the suction pressure against the condenser

pressure to alternatively analyze the ejector performance. This investigation shows how the

suction pressure varies with the change in the condenser pressure and how this relates to the

ejector performance. Throughout the investigation, the ejector’s suction port was isolated by

closing the valve between the evaporator and the ejector’s suction port. Therefore, no

secondary fluid was entrained. The saturation temperature occurring at the suction pressure

represents the lowest possible evaporator temperature at which this ejector is able to produce.

Fig.7 shows the variation of the suction pressure with the condenser pressure together

with the conventional performance curve. The generator temperature (Tgen) was fixed at

100°C. Primary nozzle, D3.2M2.5, was used. The condenser saturation pressure increased

13
from 0.75 to 1.20 bar. The suction pressure at various condenser pressures was recorded. The

commonly used performance curve at a given evaporator temperature ranked from -6 to 10°C

was also determined. It can be seen that the suction pressure occurring at one particular

condenser pressure represents the breakdown condenser pressure operated at a fixed

evaporator temperature (fixed at the saturated point of that suction pressure) as stated by

points a, b, c, d. This is because when the ejector is implemented with no secondary fluid

entrained, the suction pressure always reaches the minimum point.

Referring to the Fig.7a, for the condenser pressure at below 950 mbar, the suction

pressure is approximately maintained constant with variation of the condenser pressure. This

implies that throughout this range of condenser pressure, the suction pressure is independent

of the condenser pressure’s variation. The reason is that an influence of the compression

effect caused by shock wave does not disturb the flow at the entrance of the mixing chamber

as shown in Fig.8a. As a result, the formation of the expansion wave will not be influenced

by the shock as explained by Ruangtrakoon et al. [22]. Therefore, the suction pressure

reaches its minimum value.

However, at the condenser pressure above 950 mbar, the suction pressure increases

linearly with the condenser pressure. The reason for this effect is that the position where the

shock takes place is thought to be located closer to the primary nozzle. Its influence can

disturb the flow of supersonic stream and also affect the formation of the expansion wave. In

such a case, the expansion wave may not be completely formed as shown in Fig.8b. A linear

increase of the suction pressure with increasing condenser pressure is obtained, as a

consequence.

As shown in Fig.7, at condenser pressure below 950 mbar, it is obvious that the

nozzle (D3.2M2.5) can produce the suction pressure of about 185-190 mbar (maintained at

14
lowest point). Therefore, the evaporator temperature of about -10°C can be produced via this

nozzle. The limitation of producing evaporator temperature depends significantly on the

designed value of the nozzle exit Mach number. Usually, the suction pressure at the

condenser pressure of below 950 mbar for this case is dependent on the designed value of the

exit’s Mach number (or nozzle area ratio). The value of the suction pressure can also be

estimated theoretically by using Eq.6.

(6)

For this case, using nozzle D3.2M2.5 (nozzle area ratio 1:4.6), the calculated results

and experimental results of the suction pressure performed by this nozzle can be determined

as tabulated in Table.3. It can be seen that the suction pressure calculated using eq.5 is higher

than those obtained experimentally. It can also be seen that all the nozzles with the same area

ratio (same exit Mach number) produce the same suction pressure at 290 mbar and exit Mach

number of 2.5. This implies that the suction pressure depends significantly on the nozzle area

ratio.

For the discrepancy of prediction, it is believed that after the primary fluid being

expanded through the primary nozzle, the jet stream will further expand to form the shock

train, resulting in the formation of the expansion wave (This causes the converging-duct to be

formed [22] which is the annulus area between the jet core and mixing chamber’s wall as

shown in Fig.8.). Therefore, the flow of fluid stream through this duct is further accelerated.

This also causes the suction pressure to drop lower than that of the designed value as

predicted via eq.5. The further acceleration of the expansion wave can be confirmed by

means of the CFD simulation in which the jet stream flow can be visualized graphically. For

this case, the authors have implemented the simulation to prove such an effect.

15
 Fig.9 graphically shows the filled contour of Mach number which represents the flow

inside the ejector based on the CFD simulation. The boundary condition (T gen and Pc) of the

CFD modeling is the same as the experimental operating condition. The grid of the

calculation domain is created based on the quadrilateral element at about 22,425 elements.

Density-based implicit solver is used to solve all governing equations. The turbulence

viscosity model, “ ealizable k-ɛ”, is selected to govern the turbulent flow of fluid. Near wall

treatment is defined by “standard wall function” which has been proven to be suitable for the

supersonic flow [22] and [32]. In order to avoid the complexity of heat transfer function, all

wall surfaces of ejector modelling are defined as “adiabatic wall” in which heat loss and gain

at outer surface is ignored. The simulation is considered to be converged as the calculation

residuals are lower than 10-6.

The graphic contour shows that after the primary stream leaves the nozzle exit (M =

2.5), the flow is further accelerated to produce the Mach number of about 3.2. This is the

result of the formation of shock train when the expansion wave is being formed. These cause

the suction pressure of about 200-210 mbar to be produced within the suction chamber which

agrees well with the suction pressure obtained experimentally. More details of CFD

simulation will be further explored.

However, there is another reason for the discrepancy of prediction. In case of using

eq.5 to predict the suction pressure, it can only be used to calculate the pressure at the nozzle

exit plane which is considered as its minimum value. In practice, the flow of the jet stream is

always expanded after leaving the nozzle as mentioned earlier. This makes the flow inside the

ejector more complicated. Therefore, the use of eq.5 to predict the suction pressure is

inadequate.

16
4.3 Effects of primary nozzle throat operated at a fixed primary mass flow rate

The purpose of this section is to determine the optimal primary nozzle used for one particular

ejector. It is determined under the assumption that the heat supplied to the generator (Qgen) is

kept approximately constant. To investigate this, the evaporator temperature was fixed at

10°C. Four primary nozzles, D2.4M2.5, D2.8M2.5, D3.2M2.5 and D3.6M2.5, were

investigated. They were designed with an identical area ratio of 1:4.6 and therefore, they

produce the same nozzle exit Mach number. During the test, the primary mass flow rate

allowed through the primary nozzle was kept approximately constant at about 1.26 kg min-1

which corresponded to the heat supplied to the generator of about 4.2 kW. To obtain the

primary mass flow rate of 1.26 kg min-1, each nozzle must be operated with T gen as follows:

D2.4M2.5 operating with Tgen of 127.5°C; D2.8M2.5 operating with Tgen of 118.5°C;

D3.2M2.5 operating with Tgen of 100.5°C; D3.6M2.5 operating with Tgen of 90.5°C. In

addition, the variation of the suction pressure against the condenser pressure is also applied to

assess the ejector performance.

As the primary mass flow rate and nozzle exit Mach number are both fixed, the

primary fluid momentum at the nozzle exit plane is expected to be constant throughout the

operation. Based on this assumption, the ejector should produce approximately the same mass

entrainment ratio and the same critical condenser pressure. However, it is found

experimentally that it does not agree with the above assumption. Fig.10 shows the

performance characteristics when the primary fluid momentum is approximately fixed while

Table.4 also shows the parameters of interest at the critical condition. It reveals that even

though the primary fluid momentum is held constant, the variation of both entrainment ratio

and critical condenser pressure are found. It is seen from Fig.10b and 10c that a slight

reduction in the entrainment ratio is obtained when larger nozzle operating with lower

generator temperature is investigated, except for the case of D2.4M2.5. In such a case, it

17
gives the lowest mass entrainment ratio for the choked flow region even when the nozzle

used is of the smallest size (usually, it produces highest mass entrainment ratio) which is in

contrast to the previous works proposed by [15], [18], [22] and [24].

Considering the secondary entrained rate for the choked flow region shown in

Fig.10b, a slight decrease in the entrainment ratio when a larger nozzle is operated with low

Tgen (except the case of using D2.4M2.5) is that the use of larger nozzle causes the ejector

area ratio (Dej/Dt)2 to be reduced. Moreover, the upstream pressure ratio (P gen/Pevap) is also

decreased, due to a reduction in Tgen. The ejector area ratio and upstream pressure ratio are

tabulated in Table 4. Reductions of the two parameters are the result of a slight decrease in

the mass entrainment ratio which is supported by previous works [15] and [18].

Variation of the mass entrainment ratio as mentioned earlier affects the total

momentum of the mixed fluid to be varied, resulting in the variation of the critical condenser

pressure. Fig.10 shows that as a larger nozzle operating with lower T gen is implemented, an

increase of the critical condenser pressure is achieved as a consequence (which is preferable).

However, in the case of using nozzle D3.6M2.5 operating with T gen of 90.5°C, it becomes

different. In this case, a decrease in the critical condenser pressure is obtained even when

lower amount of the secondary fluid entrained is drawn into the mixing chamber. It is thought

for this case that the primary fluid pressure is inadequate to produce a nozzle exit Mach

number of 2.5, due to Tgen being too low (this effect will be discussed later). Therefore, the

primary stream may not fully expand through the primary nozzle. A decrease in the primary

momentum is obtained and results in the lower critical condenser pressure. These effects

imply that there is an optimum primary nozzle geometry at given primary mass flow rates

that produces the highest critical condenser pressure for the ejector operation. In this case,

using nozzle D3.2M2.5 operating with T gen of 100.5°C provides a maximum critical

condenser pressure at fixed primary stream momentum.

18
 However, it is interesting to see that for the case of nozzle D2.4M2.5 operating with

Tgen of 127.5°C, the ejector area ratio reaches the highest value (14:1), but produces the

lowest entrainment ratio compared to other cases. It does not agree with what was proposed

by previous works [22], [24] and [25]. A possible explanation is that to achieve the primary

mass flow rate of 1.26 kg min-1, the generator must be run at 127.5°C (saturation pressure of

11.87 bara). Therefore, the expansion wave is formed by means of a relatively high primary

stream pressure and subsequently the expansion angle is too large. In this case, the jet stream

may flow to contact the ejector’s wall and may result in the formation of the reflected shock

as proposed by Zhu et al. [20]. As a result, the supersonic stream flows with separation and

boundary layers as shown in Fig.11. It will affect the suction port of the ejector. These effects

are the result of the suction pressure at quite low condenser pressure being maintained at

higher value compared to others as shown in Fig.10a. Also, higher suction pressure causes

the ability of entraining the secondary fluid to reduce. In addition, at very high primary fluid

pressure, it also causes the expansion wave to further expand with a series of stronger oblique

shocks (called shock-diamond [20] and [22]) within the mixing chamber. This causes the

higher total loss in momentum, resulting in the lower critical condenser pressure as shown in

Fig.10. This means that there is no advantage in operating ejector at relatively high generator

temperature.

The effect discussed above implies that using larger nozzle operating with lower T gen

is more desirable for the ejector’s operation. However, it must be ensured that the generator

pressure (or temperature) is adequate to implement the nozzle for producing the designed

nozzle exit Mach number. In this present work, using a nozzle D3.2M2.5 operating with T gen

of 100.5°C provides the maximum critical condenser pressure while a slight reduction in the

entrainment ratio is obtained. It is considered as the optimal primary nozzle used for

operating with primary mass flow rate of 1.26 kg min-1 (Qgen = 4.2 kW).

19
4.4 Effects of the variation in primary nozzle exit Mach number

4.4.1 An essentially required minimum generator temperature (Tgen-min)

This section is aimed to experimentally determine a required minimum generator temperature

(Tgen-min) for operating the primary nozzle at the designed nozzle exit Mach number. Tgen-min

is the least value of the primary fluid pressure or temperature at which the nozzle is used for

ensuring that the primary stream will fully expand through the primary nozzle. As a result, it

will form the complete expansion wave within the mixing chamber. The parameter, which

can indicate the nozzle being operated at the designed condition, is the minimum value of the

suction pressure (Psuc-min) at a given condenser pressure. Therefore, in this section, the

primary nozzles with different nozzle exit Mach numbers are implemented in an attempt to

determine Tgen-min of each nozzle.

During the tests, three primary nozzles, D2.4M2.0, D2.4M2.5 and D2.4M3, were

used. All of them had the same throat diameter but with different nozzle area ratios as

tabulated in Table 1. Thus, they produce different exit Mach numbers. Each of them was

tested with various Tgen to observe the lowest possible value of the suction pressure which

such nozzles could produce. The test was implemented with a fixed condenser pressure at

0.85 bar and 0.95 bar (saturation temperatures of 25 and 30°C, respectively). The tested

results are shown in Fig.12.

It can be seen that for one particular nozzle, initially, an increase in Tgen causes the

sudden reduction of Psuc and it later reaches the minimum value. Thereafter, Psuc is almost

independent of the increase in Tgen. Therefore, the value of Tgen which begins to perform the

lowest Psuc can be considered as “an essentially minimum required generator temperature”

(Tgen-min) for the nozzle performing at the designed exit Mach number. It can be seen from

Fig.11 and Table.5 that the value of Tgen-min of each nozzle is as follows: 82°C for nozzle

D2.4M2; 93°C for nozzle D2.4M2.5; and 118°C for nozzle D2.4M3.

20
 For the generator temperature below T gen-min, it is thought that the normal shock may

be formed somewhere within the diverging part of the nozzle. This causes the nozzle to

perform P suc higher than the designed value which is not desirable for operation. As the

generator is being operated at T gen-min value, it is thought that the normal shock disappears

and therefore, the primary stream first expands to completely form a jet stream within the

mixing chamber. In such a case, it may be said that the nozzle is being operated closer to an

ideal process. This hypothesis is supported by fundamental fluid mechanics [33]. In addition,

Tgen-min value can also be predicted theoretically by the expansion ratio which is defined by

eq.6.

The calculated values of Tgen-min for this present work are tabulated in Table 5. They

are calculated based on the assumption that Pexit is produced at the same as the minimum

suction pressure obtained experimentally. From Table 5, it is shown that the calculated values

of all cases are lower than those obtained experimentally. This may be due to the fact that the

suction pressure which is measured experimentally is obtained by means of the further

expansion of the expansion wave. This causes the suction pressure to further drop as

described in section 4.2. Such reason causes the discrepancy in theoretically predicting Psuc.

For one particular case of using nozzle D2.4M2.5 where Tgen is higher than Tgen-min,

Psuc is almost kept constant with an increase of generator temperature. This is due to the fact

that Psuc is being limited by the nozzle exit Mach number. This is because static pressure at

the nozzle exit is approximately the same even when the generator temperature is varied.

However, suction pressure can reach a lower value when the nozzle with a higher Mach

number is used and vice versa. The reason is that nozzle exit pressure depends directly on the

nozzle exit Mach number. A higher nozzle exit Mach number yields a lower nozzle exit

pressure, resulting in the lower suction pressure.

21
 As discussed above, it can be concluded that Tgen used for operating the nozzle should

be higher than Tgen-min. In addition, Tgen-min should also be determined by conducting the

experiment in order to ensure that the primary nozzle will be run at the designed nozzle exit

Mach number. The primary nozzle designed with a relatively higher nozzle exit Mach

number must require higher primary fluid pressure to implement it. In practice, it may be

limited by the temperature of heat sources.

4.4.2 Variations in nozzle exit Mach number to the ejector performance

In this investigation, the generator temperature was fixed at 120°C throughout the test. Three

primary nozzles, D2.4M2.0, D2.4M2.5 and D2.4M3.0 were investigated. It is noted that

generator temperature is in the range in which all nozzles can operate at the designed nozzle

exit Mach number. Each test was implemented until the critical condenser pressure was

obtained. The suction pressure against condenser pressure is also applied to discuss this

effect.

Fig.13 shows the parameters affected by the variation in the nozzle exit Mach

number. It reveals that the critical condenser pressure increases with an increase of the nozzle

exit Mach number. In such a case, primary stream momentum is increased with the nozzle

exit Mach number while the primary mass flow rate is fixed (fixed primary nozzle throat

diameter and Tgen). The ejector, therefore, is able to operate at the higher critical condenser

pressure with an increase of the nozzle exit Mach number.

It can also be seen from Fig.13 that the entrainment ratio for nozzle D2.4M2.0

compared with nozzle D2.4M2.5 is slightly different. However, there is a larger difference in

entrainment ratio as two such nozzles are compared with the case of using nozzle D2.4M3.0.

22
A possible explanation is that referring to Fig.13a, Psuc at quite low condenser pressure for the

nozzle D2.4M2.0 compared with the case of using nozzle D2.4M2.5 is not much different.

However, there is a large difference in P suc when two such nozzles are compared with the case

of using nozzle D2.4M3.0. At relatively low suction pressure (using nozzle D2.4M3.0), the

ejector has higher potential to draw the secondary fluid into the mixing chamber even though

the upstream pressure ratio (Pgen/Pevap) and the ejector’s area ratio (Dej/Dt)2 are kept constant

(usually, Rm should be constant). This is because the expansion wave may be formed with a

smaller expansion angle, due to forming at a lower nozzle exit pressure [20] and [22] which

results in the larger effective area. A higher amount of secondary fluid is entrained, resulting

in a higher Rm. However, this effect should be further studied to obtain a better

understanding.

The discussion above implies that the primary nozzle designed to produce a higher

Mach number is more desirable for ejector refrigerator operation. However, the nozzle exit

Mach number may be limited by primary nozzle geometries. To implement the nozzle with

higher Mach number, the nozzle must be designed with larger nozzle exit diameter. In this

present work, the nozzle exit diameter against the designed Mach number is tabulated in

Table 5.

Table.5 shows that the nozzle with a Mach number of 3.5 has an exit diameter of 10.4

mm. It is bigger than the mixing chamber throat’s diameter as shown in Fig.4. If this nozzle is

used, it may obstruct the secondary fluid flow at the entrance of the mixing chamber.

Moreover, the nozzle designed with higher Mach number essentially requires higher primary

fluid pressure for implementation as discussed in section 4.4.1. In practice, it is limited by the

heat sources for operating the generator.

23
 It can be concluded that the primary nozzle exit Mach number designed for the ejector

refrigerator should be as high as possible. However, the primary nozzle must be designed to

be consistent with the temperature of the heat source for operating it to achieve the designed

condition. Furthermore, the nozzle exit’s diameter must be designed properly so that it will

not obstruct the flow of secondary fluid at the entrance of the mixing chamber.

5 Conclusions

In this present work, the effect of the primary nozzle geometries and its operating conditions

on the ejector performance used in R141b ejector refrigerator was studied experimentally.

Variations of the primary momentum caused by the change in primary nozzle throat and

nozzle area ratio on the ejector performance were observed and discussed. With the changes

in the two such parameters, the effect of primary nozzle throat and the nozzle exit Mach

number were able to be investigated. The nozzle was tested at various operating conditions.

The investigation can be summarized as follows:

 With one certain value of primary mass flow rate and fixed nozzle exit Mach number

(while primary fluid momentum is kept constant), when a larger primary nozzle

operating with lower Tgen was implemented, the ejector performed better. However, it

must be ensured that Tgen is high enough to perform the designed condition of the

primary nozzle. For this present work, using nozzle D3.2M2.5 operating with T gen of

100.5ºC is the optimal operation because it provided the highest critical condenser

pressure.

 With a fixed primary mass flow rate and varied nozzle exit Mach numbers, the

primary nozzle designed with relatively high Mach number was more desirable for

operation. However, the higher nozzle exit Mach number required greater Tgen-min to

24
 implement to produce the designed condition. This may be limited by the heat source.

Moreover, the nozzle exit Mach number was limited by the nozzle exit diameter and

therefore, it should be designed to be consistent with the mixing chamber used.

Overall, the present work showed that the primary nozzle used in the R141b ejector

refrigerator should be designed properly to be consistent with the operating condition. This is

so that the ejector will perform at its best at given operating conditions. Therefore, this work

may be a tool for the researchers to efficiently design the ejector used in the refrigeration.

However, there are some effects found during the experimentation which will need to be

further studied to obtain better understanding.

Acknowledgements

The first author would like to thank the Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment

(JGSEE), King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi for academic sponsorship

(JGSEE/THESIS/238). The authors would also like to thank the Energy Policy and Planning

Office (EPPO), Thailand for research assistance. Finally, the authors would like to thank Dr.

Thanarath Sriveerakul of Mechanical Engineering Department at Ubonratchathani University

for valuable comments.

References

[1] Paulo R. Pereira, Szabolcs Varga, , João Soares, Armando C. Oliveira, António M.
Lopes, Fernando G. de lmeida, João F. Carneiro, “Experimental results with a
variable geometry ejector using 600a as working fluid”, Int. J. refrigeration,
46(2014). pp 77-85.
[2] Cui Li, Yanzhong Li, Wenjian Cai, Yu Hu, Haoran Chenb, Jia Yan, “ nalysis on
performance characteristics of ejector with variable area-ratio for multi-evaporator

25
 refrigeration system based on experimental data”. App. Therm. Eng. 68(2014). pp
125-132.

[3] Szabolcs Varga, edro M.S. Lebre, rmando C. Oliveira, “CFD study of a variable
area ratio ejector using 600a and 5 a refrigerants”. Int J. refrigeration. 36( 013).
pp 157-165.
[4] Szabolcs Varga, Armando C. Oliveiraa, Xiaoli Ma, Siddig A. Omer, Wei Zhang,
Saffa B. iffat. “Experimental and numerical analysis of a variable area ratio steam
ejector”. Int. J. refrigeration. 34( 0 ). pp 668-1675.
[5] Yosr Allouche, Chiheb Bouden, Szabolcs Varga. “ CFD analysis of the flow
structure inside a steam ejector to identify the suitable experimental operating
conditions for a solar-driven refrigeration system”. Int. J. efrigeration. 39( 0 4). pp
186-195.

[6] Tongchana Thongtip, Satha phornratana, “ n alternative analysis applied to

investigate the ejector performance used in R141b jet-pump refrigeration system”. Int.
J. Refrigeration. 53(2015). pp 20-33.
[7] J. García del Valle, J. Sierra-Pallares, P. Garcia Carrascal, F. Castro Ruiz. An
experimental and computational study of the flow pattern in a refrigerant ejector.
Validation of turbulence models and real-gas effects. App. Therm. Eng. 89(2015). pp
795-811.
[8] Jacek Kasperski, , Bartosz Gil. “ erformance estimation of ejector cycles using
heavier hydrocarbon refrigerants”. pp. Ther. Eng. 7 ( 0 4). pp 97-203.
[9] Hao Wang, Wenjian Cai, Youyi Wang, Jia Yan, Lei Wang. “Experimental study of
the behavior of a hybrid ejector-based air-conditioning system with 34a”. Enrg.
Convers. Mange. 112(2016). pp 31-40.
[10] Yan Jia, Cai Wenjian. “ rea ratio effects to the performance of air-cooled ejector
refrigeration cycle with 34a refrigerant”. Enrg. Convers. Manage. 53( 0 ). pp
240-246.
[11] Federico Mazzelli, Adriano Milazzo. “ erformance analysis of a supersonic ejector
cycle working with 45fa”. Int. J. refrigeration. 49( 0 5). pp 79-92.
[12] Ian W. Eames, Ali E. Ablwaifa, Volodymyr Petrenko. Results of an experimental
study of an advanced jet-pump refrigerator operating with R245fa. App. Therm. Eng.
27(2017). pp 2833-2840.
[13] K.O. Shestopalov, B.J. Huang, V.O. Petrenko, O.S. Volovyk. Investigation of an
experimental ejector refrigeration machine operating with refrigerant R245fa at
design and off-design working conditions. Part 2. Theoretical and experimental
results. Int. J. Refrigeration. 55(2015). pp 212-223.
[14] Jianyong Chen, Hans Havtun, , Björn Palm. Screening of working fluids for the
ejector refrigeration system. Int. J. Refrigeration. 47(2014). pp 1-13.
[15] Jianyong Chen, Hans Havtun, Björn Palm. Investigation of ejectors in refrigeration
system: Optimum performance evaluation and ejector area ratios perspectives. App.
Therm. Eng. 64(2014). pp 182-191.

26
[16] Chen Lin, Wenjian Cai, Yanzhong Li, Jia Yan, Yu Hu, Karunagaran Giridharan.
Numerical investigation of geometry parameters for pressure recovery of an
adjustable ejector in multi-evaporator refrigeration system. App. Therm. Eng.
61(2013). pp 649-656.

[17] S. Aphornratana, S. Chungpaibulpatana and P. Srikhirin. Experimental investigation

of an ejector refrigerator: Effect of mixing chamber geometry on system performance.
Int. J. Energy Res. 25(2001). pp 397-411.
[18] . Yapıcı, H.K. Ersoy, . ktoprakoğlu, H.S. Halkacı, O. Yiğit. Experimental
determination of the optimum performance of ejector refrigeration system depending
on ejector area ratio. Enrg. Convers. Manage. 31(2008). pp 1183-1189.
[19] . Yapıcı, C.C. Yetişen. Experimental study on ejector refrigeration system powered
by low grade heat. Enrg. Convers. Manage. 48(2007). Pp 1560-1568.

[20] Yinhai Zhu, Peixue Jiang, Experimental and numerical investigation of the effect of
shock wave characteristics on the ejector performance. Int. J. refrigeration. 40(2014).
pp 31-42.
[21] Natthawut Ruangtrakoon, Satha Aphornratana, Thanarath Sriveerakul, Experimental
studies of a steam jet refrigeration cycle: Effect of the primary nozzle geometries to
system performance. Exp. Thermal. Fluid. Sci. 35(2011). pp 676-683.
[22] Natthawut Ruangtrakoon, Tongchana Thongtip, Satha Aphornratana, Thanarath
Sriveerakul. CFD simulation on the effect of primary nozzle geometries for a steam
ejector in refrigeration cycle. Int. J. Ther. Sci. 63(2013). pp 133-145.
[23] Natthawut Ruangtrakoon, Satha Aphornratana, Development and performance of
steam ejector refrigeration system operated in real application in Thailand. Int. J.
Refrigeration. 48(2014). pp 142-152.
[24] Navid Sharifi, Majid Sharifi, Reducing energy consumption of a steam ejector
through experimental optimization of the nozzle geometry. Enrg. 66(2014). pp 860-
867.
[25] Jia Yan, Wenjian Cai, Yanzhong Li, Geometry parameters effect for air-cooled
ejector cooling systems with R134a refrigerant. 46(2012). pp 155-163.
[26] M.T. Zegenhagen, F. Ziegler, Experimental investigation of the characteristics of a
jet-ejector and a jet-ejector cooling system operating with R134a as a refrigerant. Int.
J. Refrigeration. 56(2015). pp 173-185.
[27] J. García del Valle, J.M. Saíz Jabardo, F. Castro Ruiz, J.F. San José Alonso, An
experimental investigation of a R-134a ejector refrigeration system. Int. J.
Refrigeration. 46(2014). pp 105-113.
[28] Srisha M.V. Rao, G. Jagadeesh, Novel supersonic nozzles for mixing enhancement in
supersonic ejectors. App. Therm. Eng. 71(2014). pp. 62-71.
[29] Jichao Hu, Junye Shi, Yuanyuan Liang, Zijiang Yang, Jiangping Chen. Numerical and
experimental investigation on nozzle parameters for R410A ejector air conditioning
system. Int. J. Refrigeration. 40(2014). pp 338-346.

27
[30] Matthew J. Opgenorth, Donn Sederstrom, William McDermott, Corinne S. Lengsfeld.
Maximizing pressure recovery using lobed nozzles in a supersonic ejector. App.
Therm. Eng. 37(2012). pp 396-402.

[31] Şaban Ünal. Determination of the ejector dimensions of a bus air-conditioning system
using analytical and numerical methods. App. Therm. Eng. 90(2015). pp 110-119.
[32] Sriveerakul T., 2008. CFD and Experimental analysis of an R141b ejector used in a
ejector refrigerator. Ph.D Thesis. Department of mechanical engineering, Sirindhorn
International Institute of Technology, Thammasat University, Thailand.
[33] Anderson J.D., 2002. Modern compressible flow: with historical perspective, Third
Edition, McGraw-Hill.

28
Figure(s)

List of figures

Fig.1 Ejector refrigeration system

Fig.2 Flow characteristics of two fluid stream occurred inside the ejector

Fig.3 Conventional performance characteristics curve of ejector’s operation

Fig.4 The photograph and schematic diagram of the experimental ejector refrigerator,
Thongtip et al. [6]

Fig.5 Ejector’s geometries and primary nozzle

Fig.6 Primary mass flow rate at various generator temperatures

Fig.7 Variation of the suction pressure against condenser pressure combined with the
conventional performance curve influenced by evaporator temperature

Fig.8 Typical flow characteristics occurring inside the ejector

Fig.9 The contour of Mach numbers representing the flow behavior of the primary stream
inside the ejector based on CFD simulation
Fig.10 Parameters affected by primary nozzle’s throat operated at a fixed primary mass flow
rate

Fig.11 The formation of the expansion wave influenced by the primary fluid flow state

Fig.12 Suction pressure against the generator temperature at various primary nozzle’s exit
Mach number

Fig.13 Parameters affected by primary nozzle’s exit Mach number

 Ejector
Primary fluid

Secondary fluid

Condenser
Evaporator
Generator

Expansion valve

Qevap Qcon
Qgen

Pump

Fig.1 Ejector refrigeration system

 Mixing chamber Subsonic diffuser
diulfSyra noceS Throat
Primary fluid Mixed fluid

diulfSyra noceS
Primary fluid expansion wave Shock wave
Effective area
Converging duct

Fig.2 Flow characteristics of two fluid stream occurred inside the ejector
 *The test is implemented at fixed evaporator
and generator temperature
Entrainment ratio, Rm

Unchoked flow
Choked flow
Reversed flow

Critical point
Breakdown point

Condenser saturation pressure

Fig.3 Conventional performance characteristics curve of ejector’s operation

 Ejector

Generator Ejector Condenser

Condenser
Flexible tube

Pressure transducer
Vapour-generator Liquid level sensor

Type K thermocouple

Evaporator
Relief valve

Pressure gauge Evaporator

Receiver tank

Receiver tank

Gear pump

Gear pump

Fig.4 The photograph and schematic diagram of the experimental ejector refrigerator, Thongtip et al. [6]
 - NXP = 0 +

Mixing chamber Throat Subsonic diffuser

R57mm

Ø9mm
Primary Nozzle
Ø37mm
Ø24mm

95mm 45mm 85mm

o
Ø 12 mm Dexit 10

Dt

Fig.5 Ejector’s geometries and primary nozzle

 4
Primary mass flow rate, kg min-1

D3.6M2.5 (Exp) D3.6M2.5 (Cal)

D3.2M2.5 (Exp) D3.2M2.5 (Cal)
D2.8M2.5 (Exp) D2.8M2.5 (Cal)
3 D2.4M2.0 (Exp) D2.4M2.0, D2.4M2.5, D2.4M3.0 (Cal)
D2.4M2.5 (Exp)
D2.4M3.0 (Exp)

Uncertainty
2 ±0.001 kg min-1

0
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Generator temperature, °C

Fig.6 Primary mass flow rate at various generator temperatures

 Condenser temperature, °C
26.5 29.8 33.2 35.8 38.3
800
D3.2M2.5, Tgen=100

Saturation temperature, °C
Suction pressure, mbar

D3.2M2.5, Tgen = 100°C 20

600
Uncertainty
Psuc ±0.11mbar
Psuc = 420 mbar
10
400 a
Psuc = 355 mbar
4
b Psuc = 235 mbar
-2
c Psuc = 205 mbar -6
200
d

0
0.65 0.85 1.05 1.25 1.45

0.4
Pc= 1.05 bar
Pc= 1.09 bar

Pc= 1.15 bar

Pc= 0.95 bar

Uncertainty
Rm ±0.005 Tgen=100, Tevap=10 °C Tevap= 10°C
Entrainment ratio, Rm

Tevap= 4°C
0.3
Tevap= -2°C
Tevap= -6°C

0.2

0.1
Breakdown pressure

d c b a
0
0.65 0.85 1.05 1.25 1.45
Condenser pressure, bar

Fig.7 Variation of the suction pressure against condenser pressure combined with the
conventional performance curve influenced by evaporator temperature
 Converging duct
Jet stream Shock wave

Subsonic flow

Flow without influence of

(a)
the shock wave

Jet stream Shock wave

Subsonic flow

Flow is influenced by shock wave

(b)

Fig.8 Typical flow characteristics occurring inside the ejector

 Mach number

Secondary fluid

Primary fluid

Secondary fluid Further expansion of

primary jet stream

Fig.9 The contour of Mach numbers representing the flow behavior of the primary stream
inside the ejector based on CFD simulation
 Condenser temperature, °C
26.5 29.8 33.2 35.8 38.3
800
D2.4M2.5, Tgen = 127.5°C
D2.8M2.5, Tgen = 110°C

Saturation temperature, °C
D3.2M2.5, Tgen = 100.5°C 20
600
Suction pressure, mbar

D3.6M2.5, Tgen = 90.5°C

Psuc = 420 mbar

10
400 Suction pressure maintained
at higher value Uncertainty 0
Psuc ±0.11 mbar
200 -10

Pc = 1.08 bar
0
0.65 0.85 1.05 1.25 1.45

Pc = 1.15 bar
Pc = 1.10 bar
0.5 Pc = 1.06 bar
Secondary mass flow rate, kg min-1

Uncertainty
0.4 ±0.002 kg min-1

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0.65 0.85 1.05 1.25 1.45

0.4
Uncertainty
Rm ±0.005

0.3
Entrainment ratio, Rm

0.2

0.1

0
0.65 0.85 1.05 1.25 1.45
Condenser pressure, bar

Fig.10 Parameters affected by primary nozzle’s throat operated at a fixed primary mass flow
rate
 Effective area
Expansion wave
Secondary fluid
Primary fluid

Secondary fluid

(a) At relatively low generator temperature

Effective area
Expansion wave
Secondary fluid
Primary fluid

Secondary fluid
Secondary fluid is disturbed

(b) At relatively high generator temperature

Fig.11 The formation of the expansion wave influenced by the primary fluid flow state
 1000
D2.4M2.0,Pc=0.85 bar
D2.4M2.5,Pc=0.85 bar
800
Ssuction pressure, mbar

D2.4M3.0,Pc=0.85 bar
D2.4M2.0,Pc=0.95 bar
600 D2.4M2.5,Pc=0.95 bar
D2.4M3.0,Pc=0.95 bar
Uncertainty
400 Psuc ±0.11 mbar

200

0
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Generator temperature, °C

Fig.12 Suction pressure against the generator temperature at various primary nozzle’s exit
Mach number
 Condenser temperature, °C
26.5 29.8 33.2 35.8 38.3
800

D2.4M2.0
D2.4M2.5

Saturation temperature, °C
Suction pressure, mbar 600 D2.4M3.0 20

Psuc = 420 mbar

10
400
Uncertainty
Psuc ±0.001 kg min-1 0

-10
200

Pc = 1.05 bar

Pc = 1.09 bar
0.65 0.85 1.05 1.25 1.45

0.4 Pc = 1.03 bar

Secondary mass flow rate, kg min-1

Uncertainty
0.3 ±0.001 kg min-1

0.2

0.1

0
0.65 0.85 1.05 1.25 1.45

0.4
Uncertainty
Rm ±0.005
Entrainment ratio, Rm

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0.65 0.85 1.05 1.25 1.45
Condenser pressure, bar

Fig.13 Parameters affected by primary nozzle’s exit Mach number

Table(s)

List of Tables

Table 1: Primary nozzle’s geometries

Table 2: The conditions at the breakdown point
Table 3: The predicted value of the minimum suction pressure using eq.5 at condenser
pressure of below 950 mbar
Table 4: The results tested at fixed primary mass flow rate of about 1.26 kg min-1
Table 5: A minimum required generator temperature (Tgen-min) at various nozzles
Table 1: Primary nozzle’s geometries
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nozzle Dt,mm Dexit,mm Area ratio, (Dt/Dexit)2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D2.4M2.0 2.40 4.72 1:3.8
D2.4M2.5 2.40 5.10 1:4.6
D2.4M3.0 2.40 6.83 1:8.1
D2.8M2.5 2.80 6.04 1:4.6
D3.2M2.5 3.20 6.82 1:4.6
D3.6M2.5 3.60 7.71 1:4.6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2: The conditions at the breakdown point
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Pc, (bar) Psuc, (mbar) Secondary flow (kg/min)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a 1.15 420 0
b 1.09 355 0
c 1.05 235 0
d 0.95 205 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3: The predicted value of the minimum suction pressure using eq.5 at condenser
pressure of below 950 mbar
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nozzle Area ratio, Mach Pgen Psuc-min
2
(Dt/Dexit) Exp Cal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D2.8M2.5 1:4.6 2.5 6.77 (100°C) 190 (-9°C) 290 (5°C)
D3.2M2.5 1:4.6 2.5 6.77 (100°C) 185 (-9.3°C) 290 (5°C)
D3.6M2.5 1:4.6 2.5 6.77 (100°C) 187 (-9.2°C) 290 (5°C)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4: The results tested at fixed primary mass flow rate of about 1.26 kg min-1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ejector area ratio Upstream pressure ratio
Nozzle (Dej/Dt)2 (Pgen/Pevap) Rm Pcri-cond
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D2.4M2.5 14.1:1 27.5 0.212a 1.042
D2.8M2.5 10.3:1 19.3 0.268 1.055
D3.2M2.5 7.9:1 14.9 0.255 1.072
D3.6M2.5 6.3:1 12.5 0.234 1.023b
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a
Entrainment ratio is lowest even if the ejector area ratio and upstream pressure ratio reach highest value
b
Critical condenser is lower with a fixed primary mass flow rate (due to primary stream being not fully
expanded through nozzle)
Table 5: A minimum required generator temperature (Tgen-min) at various nozzles

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nozzle Pexit Pgen/Pexit Pgen, bar (Tgen-min) (Dt/Dexit)2 Dexit, mm
Cal Exp %error
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D2.4M2.0 0.295 1:6.08 1.89 (52°C) 4.43 (82°C) 57% 1:3.8 4.72
D2.4M2.5 0.215 1:14.1 3.17 (70°C) 5.77 (93°C) 33% 1:4.6 5.10
D2.4M3.0 0.098 1:52.2 4.43 (82°C) 9.92 (118°C) 44% 1:8.1 6.83
D2.4M3.5 - 1:147 - - - 1:18 10.24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highlights

The Highlights of “ n Experimental nalysis of the Impact of rimary Nozzle Geometries

on the Ejector erformance Used in 4 b Ejector efrigerator”

 Effect of primary nozzle and exit Mach number were investigated.

 The suction pressure against condenser pressure was used for discussion.
 The optimal primary nozzle for one particular ejector was determined.
 A minimum required generator temperature of each nozzles was determined.

36