Study of supersonic ow in a constant rate of momentum change

(CRMC) ejector with frictional effects

Virendra Kumar
a,
*
, Gaurav Singhal
b
, P.M.V. Subbarao
a
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Hauzkhas, Delhi 110016, India
b
Laser Science and Technology Center, Metcalfe House, Delhi 110054, India
h i g h l i g h t s
CRMC ejector eliminates the irreversibility due to occurrence of thermodynamic shock.
Frictional effect based apparently present more realistic solution for ejector.
Static pressure variation between proposed model and numerical study is nearly 2.29%.
Static pressure variation between analytical and experimental values is nearly 4%.
Experimentally observed entrainment ratio shows 3% variation w.r.t. design point value.
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 2 April 2013
Accepted 24 June 2013
Available online 3 July 2013
Keywords:
CRMC
Frictional ow
Ejector
Jet-pump
Flow modelling
a b s t r a c t
The constant rate of momentum change (CRMC) is a newapproach towards design of supersonic ejectors.
CRMC methodology was rst proposed by Eames [1] in a study which was primarily based on isentropic
ow inside the diffusing region of a supersonic ejector. The prime benet that accrues from employing a
CRMC ejector is that it can effectively eliminate the irreversibility associated with occurrence of ther-
modynamic shock process. The present study examines the supersonic ow in a CRMC ejector from the
perspective of an adiabatic ow with frictional effects inside the variable cross-section of supersonic
ejector, which is apparently more realistic. An analytical model has been discussed for the prediction of
ow parameter variation in a space marching formulation taking into account change in localized fric-
tional coefcient due to corresponding changes at each step. The analytical results have been validated
by conducting a computational study based on 2-D axi-symmetric viscous compressible ow formula-
tion with turbulence in FLUENT. The results are in good agreement at on-design conditions. The pre-
dictions especially for the recovered pressure made through the analytical formulation incorporating
friction are found to be in signicantly better agreement than the isentropic approach. The experimental
validation for the approach has also been presented with the results being in close agreement with
analytically predicted values.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Ejectors are simple mechanical devices, which may be utilized
to pump, compress, mixing and/or recompression of two uids by
momentum and energy transfer from a high velocity primary jet.
Therefore, they are highly reliable devices with low capital and
maintenance costs. Due to their simplicity and high reliability, they
are widely used in power plant, aerospace, propulsion and refrig-
eration applications. Thus, ejectors have potential applications in
energy savings and environmental protection by their ability to
utilize waste/lowgrade thermal energy such as in refrigeration and
air conditioning and pressure recovery. However, one of the
limiting factors is the fact that ejectors in their conventional forms
are typically low efciency devices.
The design of conventional supersonic ejector systems is based
either on the assumption of constant area mixing (CAM) or con-
stant pressure mixing (CPM). An important source of irreversibility
in both these conventional design approaches is the occurrence of
shock in the constant area and diffuser regions where pressure
recovery occurs at the expense of kinetic energy, the mixed gas ow
velocity as it decelerates from supersonic to subsonic velocity [2,3]
as shown in Fig. 1.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 91 8587800407; fax: 91 11 25582053.
E-mail addresses: veer.iitdmech@gmail.com (V. Kumar), gaurav.nids@gmail.com
(G. Singhal), pmvs@mech.iitd.ac.in (P.M.V. Subbarao).
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Applied Thermal Engineering
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ apt hermeng
1359-4311/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.06.045
Applied Thermal Engineering 60 (2013) 61e71
The recovery occurs via a series of thermodynamic shocks or
shock train ideally contained in the constant area region. Since
shock train also interacts with the boundary layer ow it is spread
over a substantial distance leading to increase in volume of the
supersonic ejector as well. Thermodynamic shock is a major
impediment towards designing a high efciency supersonic ejector.
Numerous studies towards quantication of losses have been car-
ried out in terms of isentropic efciency, and named accordingly as
nozzle efciency h
nozz
for primary uid ow, suction or secondary
uid ow efciency h
suc
, mixed uid ow efciency h
mix
and
diffuser efciency h
diff
[4e6]. The other major losses that are of
importance in supersonic ejector design apart from shocks are the
frictional losses, mixing and kinetic energy losses. The frictional
losses occur throughout the length of the ejectors, whereas the
latter two are limited in the mixing section where the two gas
streams rst come in contact.
All of the above stated irreversibilities or losses limit ejector
efciency. It is appropriate here to mention that one of the key
measures of ejector performance is entrainment ratio (u), dened
as the ratio of secondary gas mass ow rate to primary mass ow
(also refer nomenclature). Therefore, the prime challenge in ejector
design is to maximize the entrainment ratio i.e. to minimize the
Nomenclature
A area (m
2
)
C
p
specic heat capacity at constant pressure (J kg
1
K
1
)
V velocity (m s
1
)
D diameter (m)
L length
M
_
momentum of the stream (kg m s
1
)
M Mach number (e)
m
_
mass ow rate (kg s
1
)
P static pressure (Pa)
u entrainment ratio m
_
s
=m
_
p

T temperature (K)
K wall roughness (mm)
x axial distance (m)
R individual gas constant (J kg
1
K
1
) 287
q diffuser half angle (

)
u velocity (m s
1
)
s stress tensor (N m
2
)
E total energy (J)
k turbulence kinetic energy (m
2
s
2
)
3 turbulence kinetic energy dissipation
s the turbulent Prandtl number
l constant ()
r density (kg m
3
)
g ratio of specic heat values () 1.4
f Fanning coefcient of friction
a thermal conductivity (W m
1
K
1
)
m dynamic viscosity (N s m
2
)
G kinetic energy generation
Y uctuating dilatation
C
2
, C
1 3
, C
m
, s
k
, s
d
model coefcients
Subscripts
n nozzle
d diffuser
p primary ow
s secondary ow
o stagnation condition
x co-ordinate along axial axis of ejector
m mixing
e exit
i, j space components
t eddy
b buoyancy
Fig. 1. Conventional ejector system.
V. Kumar et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 60 (2013) 61e71 62
primary owfor a given secondary ow. In order to accomplish this
it is necessary to limit the various irreversible ow processes that
occur in a supersonic ejector. Entrainment ratio (u) of a supersonic
ejector is primarily a function of the ejector geometry [7e10] and
its operating conditions [11e14].
An isentropic ejector design approach based on CRMC that re-
places the constant area section employed in both CAM and CPM
with a variable area section was rst proposed by Eames [1]. In this
approach, it is assumed that the momentum of the mixed gas ow
varies at a constant rate undergoing a shockless diffusion in a
diffuser with a variable cross-section. At the design condition it
eliminates the total pressure losses attributed to thermodynamic
shock, which is invariably associated with a conventional ejector.
This approach has subsequently been studied by various re-
searchers to improve the ejector performance in terms of pressure
recovery in gas lasers [8], pumping efciency [11] and high
condenser pressure operation in refrigeration [15] systems.
However, investigation of CRMC method taking into account
frictional effects from an analytical viewpoint is a more realistic
approach, which will directly impact on ejector design. It is an
aspect that requires attention, and which forms the focus of the
present study. The analytical formulation proposed in this paper is
also validated numerically and experimentally, which have also
been described.
2. Analytical formulation
The nozzle, mixing section and diffuser were designed using
CRMC frictional approach. Thus, the present discussed prescription
is for the CRMC design with frictional effect. The thermodynamic
properties at the end of mixing section (1e1
0
) shown in Fig. 2 were
calculated by assuming that the mixing takes place at constant
static pressure (refer Appendix A) [16,17]. It was further assumed
that the entrainment ratio (u) is constant in the mixing section.
The analytical study for frictional ow with constant rate of
momentum change requires formulation of basic equations appli-
cable for 1-D steady state, adiabatic compressible owwith friction
in a duct of variable area. These are closed by employing the CRMC
baseline equation [1]. The system of equations including their dif-
ferential forms are listed below,
Mach number is dened as,
M
2

V
2
gRT
:
dM
M

dV
V

dT
2T
0 (1)
Equation of state is dened as,
P rRT :
dP
P

dr
r

dT
T
0 (2)
Continuity equation is dened as,
m
_
rAV :
dr
r

dA
A

dV
V
0 (3)
Conservation of energy is dened as,
T
0
T
V
2
2C
p
: dT
VdV
C
p
0 (4)
Conservation of momentum equation is dened as,
rVdV dP
1
2
V
2
4f
dx
D
0:
dP
P

g
2
M
2
4f dx
D
gM
2
dV
V
0 (5)
where, friction factor relation
f
0:0625
_
log
10
_
K
3:7D

5:74
Re
0:9
__
2
; (5a)
The Fanning friction factor f is dened by using the Darcy
friction factor and SwamiJan equation [18]. It is computed at each
step (dx 0.5 mm) in a space marching formulation for compu-
tation along the CRMC ejector. The Reynolds number Re is
calculated from the corresponding velocities and Sutherland vis-
cosity [19] at each location in an upwinding manner. The above set
of equations Eqs. (1)e(5) are then closed by employing the CRMC
baseline equation enunciated below,
CRMC baseline equation is denes as,
dM
_
dx
m
_
p
1 u
dV
dx
l :
dV
V
1;x

ldx
m
_
p
1 uV
1;x
(6)
Here, l is the rate of momentum change which is a constant in
the present case. The above set of equations may be manipulated to
yield relations for variation in quantities of interest primarily
change in area along the ejector accompanied with corresponding
change in ow parameters such as Mach number, pressure and
temperature. The deduced set of relations are given below,
Area calculation
dA
A
1;x

g
2
M
2
1;x
4f
1;x
dx
D
1;x

_
M
2
1;x
1
_
ldx
m
_
p
1 uV
1;x
(7)
Pressure calculation
dP
P
1;x

_
1 g 1M
2
1;x
_
ldx
m
_
p
1 uV
1;x

dA
A
1;x
(8)
Temperature calculation
Fig. 2. Geometry of a CRMC ejector.
V. Kumar et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 60 (2013) 61e71 63
dT
T
1;x

_
1 gM
2
1;x
_
ldx
m
_
p
1 uV
1;x
(9)
Mach number calculation
dM
M
1;x

_
1
g 1
2
M
2
1;x
_
ldx
m
_
p
1 uV
1;x
(10)
Total pressure calculation
P
0;1;x
P
1;x
_
1
g 1
2
M
2
1;x
_
g=g1
(11)
Total temperature calculation
T
0;1;x
T
1;x
_
1
g 1
2
M
2
1;x
_
(12)
Assuming complete mixing at the exit of mixing section (1e1
0
)
the thermodynamic properties at the section are determined using
relations given in Appendix A. Hence, the CRMC mixer and diffuser
radius and corresponding ow parameters viz., local pressure,
temperature and Mach number distributions may then be calcu-
lated along the axial direction moving away from section (1e1
0
) in
either direction using Equations (7)e(12). The changes in mixer/
diffuser radius at each small step, typically dx 0.5 mm, were
rounded off to 3 signicant decimal places in order to reduce
computational time. A ow chart showing the algorithm for
analytical solution with friction for a CRMC mixer/diffuser is shown
in Fig. 3.
Design point data listed in Table 1 were used to simulate and
geometry generation of the CRMC mixer/diffuser using MATLAB
code employing Eulers method for the explicit scheme shown in
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4 shows the computed spatial prole of constant rate of
momentum change (CRMC) mixerediffuser region incorporating
friction for owthrough supersonic ejector. This geometry replaces
the mixer, constant area and diffuser region of a conventional
ejector module.
3. Computational modelling
A comprehensive computational study for the determined ge-
ometry was carried out using Fluent 6.3.26. NaviereStokes equa-
tions for a viscous and compressible ow with turbulence were
solved using a control volume based discretization technique. A 2-D
axi-symmetric, viscous compressible ow formulation with tur-
bulence ow has been employed to solve the computational
domain.
In this study, a coupled solver with explicit scheme was used to
solve the discretized equations. The coupled solver directly links
the pressure to density. In a second step, other scalar equations
such as turbulence are solved in a segregated fashion. Initialization
of the calculation with patching variables, controlling under-
relaxation factors and the use of multi-grid techniques can all
accelerate the converged solution, and therefore, have been used in
this study.
The geometry of the ejector is designed using GAMBIT software,
which is a powerful mesh generating tool and easy to use. A
quadrilateral mesh has been utilized since it provides a better
quality of mesh and also allows maintaining a near constant cell
aspect ratio. Further, it enables the mesh to be easily aligned with
the dominant ow direction.
The governing NaviereStokes system (NSS) [20] of equations
employed for the solution of the computational domain and closed
by the ideal gas equation are given below,
Equation of state is dened as,
r
P
RT
(13)
Continuity equation is dened as,
vr
vt

v
vx
i
ru
i
0 (14)
Energy equation is dened as,
v
vt
rE
v
vx
i
u
i
rE P V$
_
a
eff
vT
vx
i
u
j
_
s
ij
_
_
(15)
where, viscosity term is dened as,
Fig. 3. Algorithm for frictional based analytical formulation for CRMC ejector.
Table 1
Input parameter for computation of CRMC design.
Parameter Value
Primary ow total pressure Po;p 5.7 10
5
Pa
Primary ow total temperature To;p 306 K
Primary mass ow rate m
_
p
0.018 kg s
1
Secondary ow total pressure Po;s 101,325 Pa
Secondary ow total temperature To;s 300 K
Secondary ow velocity Vs 50 m s
1
Individual gas constant R 287 J kg
1
K
1
Entrainment ratio u 0.55
Ratio of specic heat value g 1.4
Working uid e air.
V. Kumar et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 60 (2013) 61e71 64
s
ij
m
eff
_
vu
i
vx
j

vu
j
vx
i
_

2
3
m
eff
vu
k
vx
k
d
ij
(15a)
Momentum equation is dened as,
v
vt
ru
i

v
vx
j
_
ru
i
u
j

vP
vx
i

vs
ij
vx
j
(16)
Although steady state is desired, the unsteady termis conserved
for the sense of completeness and also because from a numerical
point of view governing equations may be solved with the time
marching techniques.
Turbulence is incorporated into the solution by employing the
standard ke 3 model, which is capable of predicting precisely the
important global performance in reasonable computational cost
with no loss in accuracy compared to the other two equation tur-
bulence models [11,12]. In the derivation of the ke 3 model, it is
assumed that the ow is fully turbulent, and the effects of molec-
ular viscosity are negligible. The relevant transport equation are
given as under,
Turbulence kinetic energy is dened as,
v
vt
rk
v
vx
i
rku
i

v
vx
j
_
_
m
m
t
s
k
_
vk
vx
j
_
G
k
G
b
r 3 Y
M
(17)
Dissipation rate is dened as,
v
vt
r 3
v
vx
i
r 3 u
i

v
vx
j
_
_
m
m
t
s
d
_
v 3
vx
j
_
G
1d
3
k
G
k
G
2d
G
b

C
2d
r
3
2
k
(18)
G
k
; G
b
andY
M
(also refer nomenclature) are the generation of
turbulence kinetic energy due to the mean velocity gradients, the
generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to buoyancy and the
contribution of the uctuating dilatation in compressible turbu-
lence to the overall dissipation rate respectively.
The model constants were given the following values.
C
1d
1:44; C
2d
1:92; C
m
0:09; s
k
1:0; s
d
1:3
The computational domain, using the analytically determined
geometry, with the corresponding employed mesh and the
boundary conditions is shown in Fig. 5. In total 13,158 structured
quadrilateral mesh cells have been used. Further, grid density in the
selected regions of the ow has been enhanced using adaptive grid
generation technique so as to better track pressure pulsations and
gradients.
The following ow boundary conditions have been used for the
solution:
Primary uid inlet (P): pressure inlet
Secondary uid inlet (S): pressure inlet
Ejector outlet (E): pressure outlet
Axis (A): symmetry boundary with gradients being zero
Wall (W): no-slip and adiabatic wall, standard near-wall
treatment
The turbulence intensity was taken as 5% of the inlet kinetic
energy and the length scale is taken as 7% of the inlet characteristic
dimension. A SIMPLE (Semi-Implicit Procedure for Pressure Linked
Equations) algorithm applicable for high speed compressible ow
was used. The solutions were obtained using a second order up-
wind scheme for interpolation, which was thought to be more ac-
curate for supersonic ows. In order to achieve convergence
suitable under-relaxations have been employed, with typical
relaxation of 0.3 for the momentum and turbulence equations and
0.5 for continuity and energy equation. The solution convergence
was based on the root mean square of the density residues with the
convergence criterion set as 1 10
5
representing a reasonably
well converged solution.
Fig. 4. Variation of passage radius with axial distance along CRMC mixer/diffuser.
Fig. 5. Computational domain showing the mesh employed.
V. Kumar et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 60 (2013) 61e71 65
4. Experimental study
Photograph of the CRMC ejector experimental setup and the
schematic diagram of the same are shown in Figs. 6 and 7 respec-
tively. The ejector geometrical parameters are given in Table 2.
CRMC ejector consists of following major components: com-
pressed air cylinder, air lter, pressure regulator with gauge,
rotameters, and pressure measurement bench. The different re-
gions of the CRMC ejector are the primary nozzle along with con-
necting tube, suction chamber, mixing region and the diffuser
section. The nozzle exit position (NXP) can be varied in either di-
rection along the ow with the help of the nozzle connecting tube.
As seen in Fig. 7, the NXP is dened as zero when the nozzle exit
plane is coincidental with the mixing chamber inlet. It is positive if
position of NXP is ahead of the mixing chamber inlet and negative
when the NXP lies before the mixing chamber inlet. The tests were
conducted using CRMC base frictional ow primary nozzle, mixing
section and diffuser. The effect of NXP on entrainment ratio (u) was
studied by varying the NXP between 20 mm.
The operating conditions of a CRMC ejector can essentially be
controlled by regulating the primary pressure. During each test run,
the entrained secondary mass ow is measured using the rota-
meter installed at the secondary inlet. Thus, it is possible to mea-
sure the entrained ow for varying primary pressure, primary ow
rate and NXP position. Therefore, ejector entrainment ratio which is
one of the critical ejector characterization parameters can be
evaluated for all test conditions of the ejector. Further, the static
pressure variation of the ow for numerous operating conditions,
both on/off-design, is determined using a series of pressure taps on
the ejector wall. The pressures are measured using M/s Metran
sensors with an accuracy of 15 Pa.
5. Results and discussions
A comparative analysis of the analytical predictions, numerical
studies and experimental results especially for the mixerediffuser
region was carried out. Initially, the analytical predictions were
tested against numerical results obtained using Fluent. One of the
Fig. 6. Experimental setup of CRMC ejector.
Fig. 7. Schematic diagram of experimental CRMC ejector.
V. Kumar et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 60 (2013) 61e71 66
key aspects in this respect is the variation of Mach number along
the ejector. Fig. 8 shows the numerically determined Mach number
variation along the CRMC ejector in comparison with the analyti-
cally predicted values.
The mixing chamber inlet Mach number corresponding to entry
of primary uid according to analytical design is nearly 1.65.
However, it is evident that Mach number at mixing region inlet
predicted numerically is close to 1.9, the variation is on account of
sudden expansion of the primary ow into the mixing chamber.
It is also apparent from the numerical results that the uids
undergo intense interaction in the mixing region with the Mach
number remaining largely supersonic showing signicant
Table 2
CRMC ejector geometrical parameters.
Geometry parameter mm
Nozzle throat diameter 4.31
Nozzle exit diameter 6.23
Nozzle converging section length 10
Nozzle diverging section length 90
Mixing section inlet diameter 12.19
Mixing section exit diameter 9.78
Mixing section length 86.5
Diffuser inlet diameter 9.78
Diffuser exit diameter 19.25
Diffuser length 250
Fig. 8. Mach number variation along the ejector central axis.
Fig. 9. Static pressure along the ejector central axis (Pe 1.4 bar).
V. Kumar et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 60 (2013) 61e71 67
pulsations followed by shockless diffusion. The Mach number
variation predicted analytically in the CRMC mixerediffuser region
qualitatively matches with the numerical predictions. The analyt-
ical formulation slightly under predicts the Mach number along the
mixerediffuser as compared to simulation results.
Fig. 9 shows the numerically determined variation of static
pressure along the CRMC ejector along with analytical variation.
The experimentally obtained static pressure variation is also shown
for the purpose of comparison. As expected the numerical and
experimental results shows rapid pressure pulsation in the mixing
region due to intense interaction of the high energy primary and
low energy secondary streams. The analytically expected static
pressure value of 1 bar in the mixing region is close to the mean
representative value of the pressure pulsations predicted numeri-
cally and observed experimentally. Therefore, the static pressure
variation in the mixerediffuser region predicted analytically is in
close agreement with the numerical and experimental trends.
The benet that accrues in prediction of static pressure from
using the present formulation by incorporating friction as
compared to isentropic formulation commonly employed for CRMC
ejectors may be understood from close examination of pressure
variation in the diffuser region depicted in Fig. 10.
It is clear that present formulation is in substantially better
agreement with the numerically and experimental predicted re-
sults also shown in the graph. The variation of values predicted by
isentropic model with respect to numerically predicted and
experimentally observed ones is nearly 18%. The variation between
the trends predicted by the present frictional model with respect to
numerical and experimental results is nearly 2.29% and 4%
respectively.
A similar comparison between numerical and analytical trends
of present model with isentropic model has been carried out for the
variation of total pressure in the diffuser region, depicted in Fig. 11.
In case of isentropic approach for shockless diffusion in CRMC
ejector the total pressure is constant in the diffuser. However, in
case of the present friction formulation the total pressure of the
mixed gas ow drops, which is qualitatively similar to the trend
depicted by the simulation results. It is also seen the variation
Fig. 10. Comparative assessment of static pressure variation in diffuser region.
Fig. 11. Comparative assessment of total pressure variation.
V. Kumar et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 60 (2013) 61e71 68
between the simulation and analytical results diminishes as one
moves from diffuser entry to the exit. The maximum departure in
the values is of the order of 10%.
It is also apparent that the loss of total pressure is small as
compared to the loss associated with owdiffusion with shock that
occurs in conventional ejectors. This enables the CRMC ejector to
operate at higher critical back pressure than conventional ejector
geometries.
One of the key measures of ejector performance is the
entrainment ratio (u). Fig. 12 shows the variation of entrainment
ratio with change in exit pressure condition predicted numerically
and experimentally for a xed geometry ejector. The current design
point for which the analytical formulation has been used for
computing ejector geometry is also shown for comparison. It is
evident that the design point value used for analytical design is in
fairly good agreement with the numerical predicted and
experimental observed value and the relative variation is within
3.45% and 3% respectively. Also, observable is the typically expected
trend of drop in entrainment ratio with increase in exit pressure.
Further, since entrainment is a self- predicted parameter as part
of the numerical computation which is perhaps sensitive to the
number of grids/cells used for the numerical solution. Hence a grid
independence study was undertaken to arrive at the optimal grid.
The variation is entrainment ratio with the number of grids studied
at the design point has been shown in Fig. 13. It is clearly seen that
the present grid sets varying fromnearly 7000 to 16,000 cells show
a variation within a range of 0.01 which is a practically acceptable
variation and there is no point in increasing the number of grids
leading to enhanced computational effort.
Further, experimental studies were undertaken to evaluate the
effect of NXP variation on observed entrainment ratio for a given
exit pressure (Pe 1.4 bar). The observed variation is shown in
Fig. 12. Variation of entrainment ratio with exit pressure (NXP 0).
Fig. 13. Grid independence study showing entrainment ratio variation with number of cells.
V. Kumar et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 60 (2013) 61e71 69
Fig. 14 with analytical design point and numerically predicted
values shown for comparison. However, it was observed that at
NXP 5 mm the entrainment is higher as compared to the on-
design NXP 0. Beyond this optimum (NXP 5 mm) and on-
design (NXP 0), the entrainment ratio sharply decreases.
5. Conclusions
A friction based analytical formulation applicable to shockless
diffusion in constant rate of momentum change ejector has been
developed. The formulation predicts variation of different ow
parameters viz., Mach number, static pressure, total pressure along
the CRMC ejector. Further, numerical simulation and experimental
study has been used to validate the analytical results. The analytical
results are in reasonably good agreement with simulation and
experimental results proving the efcacy of the model. Further, the
benet that accrues from using the present analytical model
compared to isentropic model has also been presented. The static
pressure prediction using present formulation shows a departure of
2.29% with respect to the numerical and 4% with experimental
results, which is a marked improvement over a nearly 18% variation
that occurs using isentropic formulation. Further, the utilized
entrainment ratio for analytical computation is found to be within
3.45% relative error with numerical and 3% with experimental re-
sults at the design point exit pressure of 1.4 10
5
Pa. Hence, the
present formulation may possibly enable better comprehension of
CRMC based ejector performance with minimal increment in re-
sources without the need for time intensive computational
simulation.
Appendix A. Mixing section calculation (section: 1e1
0
)
The entrainment process between the primary and secondary
ows may be modelled by considering the analytical solution of the
momentum equation [1] given as under:

F
_
Adp m
_
p
1 uV
m
m
_
p
V
n;e
m
_
s
V
s
(A.1)
Further, considering that static pressure remains constant (i.e.
dP 0) during the mixing, the properties at the end of mixing
region may be computed considering the reduced momentum
conservation Eq. (A.1).
V
1;x

V
n;e
uV
s
1 u
(A.2)
Applying energy conservation across the mixing, the total
temperature at the end of mixing section is given as follows,
T
0;x

T
0;p
uT
o;s
1 u
(A.3)
The static temperature at the end of mixing/diffuser inlet is
given by
T
1;x
T
0;x

V
2
1;x
2C
p
(A.4)
Assuming that the secondary owis incompressible at the entry
tothe mixing section, the static pressure at the nozzle exit is givenby
P
n;e
P
0;s

r
s
V
2
s
2
P
1;x
(A.5)
The total pressure at the end of mixing/diffuse inlet is given by,
P
0;x
P
n;e
_
T
0;x
T
1;x
_
g=g1
(A.6)
Mach number at the end of mixing section/diffuser inlet is
given by
M
1;x

V
1;x

gRT
1;x
_ (A.7)
The diameter of the mixing region exit/diffuser inlet may be
computed using the continuity equation given as,
D
1;x
2

m
_
p
1 uRT
1;x
pP
1;x
V
1;x

(A.8)
The subsequent calculations for the mixerediffuser section
require an estimation of the friction factor, which is evaluated using
Eq. (5a) (recalled here for ease of reading),
Fig. 14. Variation of entrainment ratio with NXP (Pe 1.4 bar).
V. Kumar et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 60 (2013) 61e71 70
f
1;x

0:0625
_
log
10
_
K
3:7D

5:74
Re1;x
0:9
__
2
; wall roughness K
1:5 10
6
m (A.9)
Re
1;x

r
1;x
V
1;x
D
1;x
m
1;x
(A.10)
where, dynamic viscosity (m) is computed using Sutherland law
given as [20],
m
1;x

C
1
T
3=2
1;x
T
1;x
C
2
(A.11)
C
1
1.458 10
6
kg m
1
s
1
K
1
and C
2
110.4 K for air at
moderate temperature and pressure.
References
[1] I.W. Eames, A new prescription for the design of supersonic jet-pumps: the
constant rate of momentum change method, Appl. Therm. Eng. 22 (2002)
121e131.
[2] Z. Aidoun, M. Ouzzane, The effect of operating conditions on the performance
of a supersonic ejector for refrigeration, Int. J. Refrig. 27 (2004) 974e984.
[3] Y. Bartosiewicz, Z. Aidoun, Y. Mercadier, Numerical assessment of ejector
operation for refrigeration applications based on CFD, Appl. Therm. Eng. 26
(5e6) (2006) 604e612.
[4] J. Godefroy, R. Boukhanouf, S. Riffat, Design, testing and mathematical
modelling of a small-scale CHP and cooling system (small CHP-ejector tri
generation), Appl. Therm. Eng. 27 (2007) 68e77.
[5] A. Selvaraju, A. Mani, Analysis of an ejector with environment friendly re-
frigerants, Appl. Therm. Eng. 24 (2004) 827e838.
[6] S. Elbel, Historical and present developments of ejector refrigeration systems
with emphasis on transcritical carbon dioxide air-conditioning applications,
Int. J. Refrig. 34 (2011) 1545e1561.
[7] A. Gaurav Singhal, L. Dawar, P.M.V. Subbarao, Application of proled ejector in
chemical lasers, Appl. Therm. Eng. 28 (2008) 1333e1341.
[8] Y. Zhu, W. Cai, C. Wen, Y. Li, Numerical investigation of geometry param-
eters for design of high performance ejectors, Appl. Therm. Eng. 29 (2009)
898e905.
[9] J.G. Valle, J.M.S. Jabardo, F.C. Ruiz, J.S.J. Alonso, A one dimensional model for
the determination of an ejector entrainment ratio, Int. J. Refrig. 35 (2012)
772e784.
[10] J. Fan, J. Eves, H.M. Thompson, V.V. Toropov, N. Kapur, D. Copley, A. Mincher,
Computational uid dynamic analysis and design optimization of jet pumps,
Comput. Fluids 46 (2010) 212e217.
[11] I.W. Eames, A.E. Ablwaifa, V. Petrenko, Results of an experimental study of an
advanced jet-pump refrigerator operating with R245fa, Appl. Therm. Eng. 27
(2007) 2833e2840.
[12] V.O. Petrenko, O.S. Volovyk, Theoretical study and design of a low-grade heat-
driven pilot ejector refrigeration machine operating with butane and iso-
butene and intended for cooling of gas transported in a gas-main pipeline, Int.
J. Refrig. (2011) 1699e1706.
[13] E.D. Rogdakis, G.K. Alexis, Design and parametric investigation of an ejector in
an air-conditioning system, Appl. Therm. Eng. 20 (2000) 213e226.
[14] Gaurav Singhal, Mainuddin, R. Rajesh, R.K. Tyagi, A.L. Dawar, Supersonic
diffuser for pressure recovery in SCOIL system, Opt. Laser Technol. 42 (2010)
219e224.
[15] B.J. Huang, J.M. Chang, C.P. Wang, V.A. Petrenko, A 1-D analysis of ejector
performance, Int. J. Refrig. 22 (1999) 354e364.
[16] ESDU Ejector and Jet Pump, Data Item 86030, ESDU International Ltd., London,
1985.
[17] Y. Bartosiewicz, Z. Aidoun, P. Desevaux, Y. Mercadier, Numerical and experi-
mental investigations on supersonic ejectors, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 26 (2005)
56e70.
[18] http://docs.bentley.com/en/HMWaterCAD/Bentley_WaterGEMS_Help-19-25.
html/ (accessed 02.06.13).
[19] http://cdlab2.uid.tuwien.ac.at/LEHRE/TURB/Fluent.Inc/uent6.3.26/help/
html/ug/node337.htm/ (accessed 02.06.13).
[20] A. Hemmidi, F. Henry, S. Leclaire, J.-M. Seynhaeve, Y. Bartosiewicz, CFD
analysis of a supersonic air ejector: part 1: experimental validation of single-
phase and two-phase operation, Appl. Therm. Eng. 29 (2009) 1523e1531.
V. Kumar et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 60 (2013) 61e71 71