773

Performance characteristics of multi-evaporator

transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycles with
hybrid compression/ejection
J Sarkar
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Technology, BHU, Varanasi, UP 221005, India.
email: js_iitkgp@yahoo.co.in

The manuscript was received on 6 January 2010 and was accepted after revision for publication on 28 April 2010.
DOI: 10.1243/09576509JPE957

Abstract: The theoretical analyses and optimization studies of two novel multi-evaporator tran-
scritical CO2 refrigeration systems using constant pressure mixing ejector are presented in this
article. Comparisons of novel hybrid compression–ejection CO2 cycles, based on coefficient of
performance (COP) improvement over conventional cycle and other optimum parameters, are
also done for various operating conditions. Study shows that the cycle performance is depen-
dent on allocation of evaporator cooling capacities for both cycles. The optimum discharge
pressure for both cycle layouts compared to corresponding basic cycle reduces by the use of
ejection–compression. For both cycle layouts, the effect of gas cooler exit temperature on COP
improvement is negligible, whereas the COP improvement at optimum condition increases with
the increase in temperature difference between evaporators. Results reveal that the CYC1 is supe-
rior due to lower discharge pressure and significantly higher COP improvement (maximum of
38.1 per cent for CYC1 whereas 21.4 per cent for CYC2 at optimum condition for the studied
ranges).

Keywords: CO2 system, multi-evaporator, hybrid compression–ejection, optimization, perfor-

mance improvement, comparison

1 INTRODUCTION pressure in the CO2 cycle by changing the throat area

The natural working fluid CO2 has been revived as a
potential refrigerant recently due to its various advan-
tages along with zero Ozone-layer depletion potential
(ODP) and negligible global warming potential (GWP).
However, the major disadvantage of transcritical CO2
cycle is lower coefficient of performance (COP) due to
huge expansion loss compared to conventional refrig-
erants [1], and hence the challenging research is to
reduce the expansion loss by means of some cycle
modifications. Owing to low cost, no moving parts and
ability to handle two-phase flow, etc., use of ejector as
an expansion device in transcritical CO2 cycle seems
to be a promising modification to improve the sys-
tem performance by reducing the expansion losses.
Liu et al. [2] first performed a thermodynamic analysis
of the transcritical CO2 vapour compression/ejection
hybrid refrigeration cycle. Use of ejector in transcrit-
ical CO2 cycle not only improve the COP, but also
simplifies the process of controlling the gas cooler
of the ejector nozzle [3]. Experiment showed that the
COP of the car air conditioner using the ejector cycle
increases by 20 per cent over the conventional cycle
[3]. Li and Groll [4] modified the ejector–expansion
cycle by allowing part of the vapour in the separator
feedback to the evaporator and through theoretical
analysis; they showed the COP improvement to be
more than 16 per cent. Through comparative study,
Deng et al. [5] showed that the ejector improves the
maximum COP by up to 18.6 per cent compared with
the internal heat exchanger system and by 22.0 per
cent compared with the conventional system with
greatly reducing the throttling losses. Another theo-
retical study [6] showed that the use of ejector not only
improves the energetic and exergetic performances
but also reduces the optimum high-side system pres-
sure significantly. Ksayer and Clodic [7] tested different
prototype ejectors for different operating parameters.
Elbel and Hrnjak [8] tested a transcritical R744 ejector
system prototype and showed that cooling capacity

JPE957 Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part A: J. Power and Energy

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at MOUNT ALLISON UNIV on June 10, 2015
774 J Sarkar

and COP simultaneously improved by up to 8 per cent

Gas cooler
and 7 per cent, respectively, compared to conven- 3 2
tional valve expansion system, and ejector was able
to recover up to 14.5 per cent of the throttling losses.
Experiments confirmed that the high-side pressure ED1 Compressor
control integrated into the ejector could be used to
maximize the system performance. In recent years, a Separator 1
Japanese manufacturer successfully commercialized Evaporator 1
8 10
an R744 heat pump water heater with ejector [8]. 4 5 6 11
Yari and Sirousazar [9] theoretically studied an Separator
ejector–expansion transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle Ejector
using an internal heat exchanger and two-stage com- 14 9
15 16 12
pression with intercooler and showed that compared Evaporator 2
with the conventional transcritical CO2 cycle and 6 7 ED3
ejector–expansion transcritical CO2 cycle, the COP and ED2
13
second law efficiency of the new cycle were increased
by about 55.5 per cent and 26 per cent, respectively, Fig. 1 Multi-evaporator CO2 refrigeration system with
for the evaporator temperature of 10 ◦ C and gas cooler hybrid compression/ejection (CYC1)
outlet temperature of 40 ◦ C. Through the second law
optimization studies, Yari [10] also showed that the 2
second law efficiency of new cycle is on average 16.5 3
per cent, 18.4 per cent, and 28.4 per cent higher
than that of the two-stage cycles with internal heat
exchanger and intercooler, with flash gas by-pass and
with flash gas inter-cooling, respectively. Optimum
intermediate pressure of new cycle is approximately 5
14 6
equal to geometric mean of evaporator and gas cooler
Pressure

pressures [10, 11]. However, unlike other refrigerants
[12, 13], any attempt to use an ejector in a multi-
evaporator CO2 refrigeration system for performance
enhancement is scarce in open literature.
In this article, two new layouts of multi-evaporator
transcritical CO2 refrigeration system using constant
pressure mixing ejector are presented. These systems
use hybrid ejection–compression to improve perfor-
mance. The detailed thermodynamic analyses and
high-side pressure optimization for both layouts are
done. Finally, comparisons with corresponding multi-
evaporator systems using basic expansion are pre-
sented based on performance and other parameters
at optimum condition.
2 MATHEMATICAL MODELLING AND
SIMULATION
The thermodynamic analyses of multi-evaporator
transcritical CO2 refrigeration system using constant
pressure mixing ejector has been done for two cycle
layouts. Cycle layout and p−h diagram of first one
(CYC1) are shown in Figs 1 and 2, respectively. The
system employs ten components: a compressor, an
ejector, a gas cooler, two separators, two evaporators,
and three expansion devices. The refrigerant vapour at
state 1 at low pressure and temperature is compressed
to the gas cooler pressure. The fluid leaving the com-
pressor at state 2 enters the gas cooler where it cools to
state 3 by rejecting heat to the surroundings. The fluid
4
12 11
1
7
13 9
16 15 8 10
Specific enthalpy
Fig. 2 p-h diagram of multi-evaporator CO2 refriger-
ation system with hybrid compression/ejection
(CYC1)
at state 3 enters evaporator 1 via expansion device 1
between states 3 and 4. The two-phase refrigerant from
evaporator 1 at state 5 is separated into two tributaries:
the vapour refrigerant at state 6 flows to the ejector,
and the liquid refrigerant at state 14 flows to expan-
sion device 2 (states 14 and 15) and mixes with liquid
from separator 2 via expansion device 3. Thus, the two
evaporators have different matching evaporation tem-
peratures. The fluid entering evaporator 2 is vaporized
from state 16 to state 7 and produces cooling effect
by absorbing heat from the refrigerated space. The
primary flow (state 6) and the secondary flow (state
7) are going through primary and secondary nozzles,
respectively, to the constant pressure mixing and dif-
fuser (states 10 and 11) sections of the ejector and then
separated in forms of vapour (state 1) and liquid (state
12). The layout and p–h diagram of corresponding
multi-evaporator basic cycle are shown in Fig. 3.

Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part A: J. Power and Energy JPE957

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at MOUNT ALLISON UNIV on June 10, 2015
 Performance characteristics of multi-evaporator transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycles with hybrid compression/ejection 775

3
Gas cooler 2 Gas cooler
ED1
3 2
Compressor
4 Evaporator 1
5
ED2 1 Compressor
Evaporator 2
6 2 ED1
3 Evaporator 1 Separator 1
8 10
Pressure

4 6 11

4 5 Ejector
9
5 14 12
1 Evaporator 2
6 ED3
6 7
ED2
13
Specific enthalpy
Fig. 4 Multi-evaporator CO2 refrigeration system with
Fig. 3 Basic multi-evaporator CO2 refrigeration system hybrid compression/ejection (CYC2)
(similar to CYC1)
3 2

The second cycle (CYC2) employs nine components:

a compressor, an ejector, a gas cooler, a separator,
two evaporators, and three expansion devices. Cycle
layout and p−h diagram are shown in Figs 4 and 5, 6
4
respectively. Evaporator 1 has a higher evaporation
Pressure

temperature, and the saturated vapour leaving evap-

orator 1 is used as the ejector motive fluid (state 6)
to compress the refrigerant vapour leaving evapora- 12 11
1
tor 2 (state 7), and it increases the suction pressure of 7
the compressor and decreases the pressure ratio and 13 14 5 8 10 9
work of the compressor. The refrigerant exiting from
ejector (state 11) separates in forms of vapour and liq-
Specific enthalpy
uid. The vapour enters the compressor at low pressure
at state 1 and is compressed to the high-side pres- Fig. 5 p-h diagram of multi-evaporator CO2 refriger-
sure at state 2. The fluid enters the gas cooler where ation system with hybrid compression/ejection
it cools to state 3 by rejecting heat to the surround- (CYC2)
ings. Then the refrigerant is divided into two flows. One
enters evaporator 1 after a pressure reduction in the 3 2
Gas cooler
expansion device 1 (state 4) and gives useful cooling
ED1
effect by evaporating (states 4–6); the other mixes with 4
6 Compressor
expanded liquid from separator (states 12 and 13) after Evaporator 1
a pressure reduction in expansion device 2 (states 3–5) 7
ED2
and then enters evaporator 2 at state 14 to give useful Evaporator 1
2
cooling effect at lower temperature. The primary flow 5 2
3
(state 6) and the secondary flow (state 7) are going
Pressure

through primary and secondary nozzles, respectively,

to the constant pressure mixing and diffuser sections
6
of the ejector. The layout and p–h diagram of corre- 4
sponding multi-evaporator basic cycle are shown in
Fig. 6.
The ejector-driven multi-evaporator CO2 refrigera- 5 7
tion systems for both the layouts have been modelled
based on the mass, momentum, and energy conser- Specific enthalpy
vations. To simplify the theoretical model and set up
the governing equations for both cycle layouts, the Fig. 6 Basic multi-evaporator CO2 refrigeration system
following assumptions are made. (similar to CYC2)

JPE957 Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part A: J. Power and Energy

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at MOUNT ALLISON UNIV on June 10, 2015
776 J Sarkar

1. Neglect the pressure drop in the gas cooler and The ejector geometric area ratio is given by
evaporators and the connection tubes.
(a8 + a9 )
2. There is no heat transfer with the environment for φ= (8)
the system except gas cooler. a9
3. Evaporator 2 exit vapour is saturated for both The following momentum and energy equations in
layout and evaporator 1 exit is saturated for CYC2. the constant pressure mixing section of ejector can be
4. The vapour stream from the separator is saturated identified
vapour and the liquid stream from the separator is
saturated liquid. (1 + m2 )u10 = (1 − m1 )u8 + (m1 + m2 )u9 (9)
5. The separation and mixing processes are isobaric

1 − m1 u82 m 1 + m2
and adiabatic. h10 = h8 + +
1 + m2 2 1 + m2
6. The flow across the expansion devices is isen-

2 2
thalpic. u u
× h9 + 9 − 10 (10)
7. The compression process in the compressor is 2 2
adiabatic and non-isentropic.
For the diffuser section, the energy balance is given
8. Both the motive stream and the suction stream
by
reach the same pressure at the inlet of the constant
pressure mixing section of the ejector. There is no 2
u10
mixing between the two streams before the inlet h11 = h10 + (11)
2
of the mixing section.
9. The flow friction losses in expansion and com- The overall energy balance in the ejector is given by
pression processes within ejector are considered
(1 − m1 )h6 + (m1 + m2 )h7 = (1 + m2 )h11 (12)
in terms of isentropic efficiencies of nozzles and
diffuser. The motive nozzle, suction nozzle, and The entrainment ratio can be obtained as follows
diffuser of the ejector have given efficiencies.
m1 + m2
10. The flow inside the ejector is in the steady state and µ= (13)
is one dimensional. The velocities at the ejector 1 − m1
inlet and outlet are negligible. Energy balance in separator 2 for both CYC1 and
For unit compressor mass flowrate, mass flowrates CYC2 gives
of motive stream and suction stream through ejector
(1 + m2 )h11 = h1 + m2 h12 (14)
are assumed to be 1 − m1 and m1 + m2 , respectively.
Based on the assumption, flow through the expansion Energy balance in mixing for CYC1 and CYC2,
devices for CYC1 and CYC2, respectively, gives respectively, gives

h3 = h4 , h12 = h13 , h14 = h15 (1) (m1 + m2 )h16 = m1 h15 + m2 h13 (15)
h3 = h4 = h5 , h12 = h13 (2) (m1 + m2 )h14 = m1 h5 + m2 h13 (16)

Energy balance in separator 1 for CYC1 gives Compressor discharge enthalpy for both cycles can
be found by
h5 = (1 − m1 )h6 + m1 h14 (3)  
h[pco , entropy1 ] − h1
h2 = h1 + (17)
Based on the above assumptions, the following ηc
energy balance equations can be set up in the primary The compressor work for both CYC1 and CYC2 can
and secondary nozzle sections of the ejector be found by
u82 wc = (h2 − h1 ) (18)
h6 = h8 + (4)
2
u92 For CYC1 (Fig. 1), the cooling capacities are given by
h7 = h9 + (5)
2 qev1 = (h5 − h4 ) (19)
Exit areas of primary and secondary nozzles are qev2 = (m1 + m2 )(h7 − h16 ) (20)
given by
For CYC2 (Fig. 4), the cooling capacities can be
1 − m1 found by
a8 = (6)
ρ 8 u8
m1 + m 2 qev1 = (1 − m1 )(h6 − h4 ) (21)
a9 = (7)
ρ 9 u9 qev2 = (m1 + m2 )(h7 − h14 ) (22)

Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part A: J. Power and Energy JPE957

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at MOUNT ALLISON UNIV on June 10, 2015
 Performance characteristics of multi-evaporator transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycles with hybrid compression/ejection
The cooling COP of both CYC1 and CYC2 can be
calculated by
(qev1 + qev2 )
COP =
wc
It can be noted that the configurations of corre-
sponding basic expansion cycles of CYC1 and CYC2
(Figs 3 and 6) are not same. However, the values of
cooling COP will be same for both cases and given by
(h1 − h3 )
COPb =
(h2 − h1 )
The COP improvement using ejector has been eval-
uated by
(COP − COPb )
COPi =
COPb
Based on the theoretical model of ejector-
driven multi-evaporator transcritical CO2 refrigeration
cycles, the simulation code was developed to inves-
tigate the effect of different operating parameters for
both layouts, which was integrated with the thermody-
namic property code CO2PROP [14] to compute rele-
vant thermodynamic parameters of carbon dioxide in
sub- and super-critical regions. For given compressor
discharge pressure, cooling capacity of evaporator 1,
and evaporator and gas cooler exit temperatures, the
algorithm of code for CYC1 is as follows.
1. Properties at states 3, 6, 7, and 14 are calculated.
Enthalpies of states 4, 15, and 5 are calculated using
equation (1) and given cooling capacity (qev1 <
h6 − h4 ). Then, mass flowrate m1 is calculated by
equation (3).
2. Some value of m2 (say 0) is assumed for iteration.
3. Enthalpies and other thermodynamic properties at
states 8 and 9 are calculated by given isentropic
efficiencies of primary and secondary nozzles (to
take care of flow friction) and p7 –p9 . Velocities and
areas at the corresponding states are calculated by
using equations (4) to (7). Using equations (9) and
(10), the enthalpy and fluid velocity at exit of mix-
ing section (state 10) are calculated and then other
properties are calculated.
4. Using equations (11) and (12) and given isentropic
efficiency of diffuser (to take care of flow friction),
enthalpy, pressure, and vapour quality at state 11
are calculated and then properties of states 1 and
12 are also calculated.
5. If equation (14) is not satisfied, steps 3 and 4 will
repeated by using new value of m2 (evaluated from
equation (14)) until the condition is satisfied.
6. Enthalpies at states 13, 16, and 2 are calculated
using equations (1), (15), and (17). Then the other
properties are also calculated.
JPE957
Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at MOUNT ALLISON UNIV on June 10, 2015
777
7. Using equations (8), (13), (18), (20), (23), and (25),
the parameters φ, µ, wc , qev2 , COP, and COPi are
calculated, and PLR (= p11 /p7 ) is also calculated.
(23) For given compressor discharge pressure, m1 , and
evaporator and gas cooler exit temperatures, the
algorithm of code for CYC2 is as follows.
1. Properties at states 3, 6, and 7 are calculated.
Enthalpies of states 4 and 5 are calculated using
equation (2).
2. Ejector calculations and iteration for m2 are similar
(24) to steps 2–5 of CYC1.
3. Enthalpies at states 13, 14, and 2 are calculated
using equations (2), (16), and (17). Then the other
properties are also calculated.
4. Using equations (8), (13), (18), (20), (23), and (25),
the parameters φ, µ, wc , qev2 , COP, and COPi are
(25) calculated, and PLR (= p11 /p7 ) is also calculated.
The results of all studied cycles are presented based
on the optimum discharge pressure leading to max-
imum cooling COP, which have been obtained for
various operating conditions along with variation of
the compressor discharge pressure having a step size
of 0.5 bar. It may be noted that optimum discharge
pressures of ejector–expansion cycle and basic cycle
may not be same for certain conditions. The COP
improvement for both cycles has been evaluated at
the optimum condition.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The performances of multi-evaporator ejection–
compression cycles at optimum compressor discharge
pressure being studied for various evaporator temper-
atures (−5 to 5 ◦ C and −50 to −20 ◦ C) and gas cooler
exit temperatures (30–60 ◦ C). The pressure drop of sec-
ondary flow in the ejector nozzle has been taken as
0.3 bar [6]. The ejector is assumed to have both nozzles
and diffuser isentropic efficiencies of 0.8. The com-
pressor is assumed to have an isentropic efficiency of
0.75.
The cycle performance is dependent on allocation
of evaporator cooling capacities. Figure 7 shows the
variation of cooling COP and COP improvement with
evaporator 1 to evaporator 2 cooling capacity ratio
(CCR) (qev1 /qev2 ) for both cycle layouts at gas cooler
exit temperature of 40 ◦ C and evaporator temperatures
of 5 and −20 ◦ C. In cycle simulation, the cooling capac-
ities have been varied by changing cooling capacity of
evaporator 1 for CYC1 and mass flowrate m1 for CYC2.
As the CCR increases, mass flowrate through primary
nozzle increases and that through secondary nozzle
decreases. As the primary flow is vital due to large
pressure drop, kinetic energy increases at the nozzle
exit, which can result in higher pressure rise in diffuser
Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part A: J. Power and Energy
778 J Sarkar

1.64 28 175
5, −20

Compressor discharge pressure (bar)

1.59 24 160 5, −35
5, −50

COP improvement (%)

145
1.54 20 −5, −20
Cooling COP

130 −5, −35

1.49 16 −5, −50
115
1.44 12
COP (Layout 1) 100
COP (Layout 2)
1.39 8
COPi (Layout 1) 85
tev1 ( oC ), tev 2 ( oC )
COPi (Layout 2)
1.34 4 70
0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 30 40 50 60
Cooling capacity ratio Gas cooler exit temperature ( oC)

Fig. 7 Cooling COP and COP improvement with cooling Fig. 8 Variation of optimum compressor discharge pres-
capacity ratio sure for CYC1

2.3
section, leading to decrease in the compressor pres- 5, −20
sure ratio and compressor work. Hence, cooling COP 5, −35
2
for both cycles increases with increase in the CCR. As
5, −50
the cooling COP is independent of the CCR in case of
corresponding basic multi-evaporator cycles, the COP 1.7 −5, −20
Cooling COP

improvement increases with increase in the CCR for −5, −35

both cycles. For the foregoing results, the CCR is taken 1.4 −5, −50
as 1 for both cycles.
Variations of optimum discharge pressure, maxi- 1.1
mum cooling COP, and corresponding COP improve-
ment with gas cooler exit temperature are shown in 0.8
Figs 8 to 10, respectively, for CYC1 at various evapo- tev1 ( oC ), tev 2 ( oC )
rator temperatures. As the gas cooler exit temperature 0.5
increases, the optimum discharge pressure increases 30 40 50 60
due to ‘S’ shape and divergent nature of isotherms and Gas cooler exit temperature ( oC)
corresponding cooling COP decreases similar to basic
cycle [14]. However, as the ejector is operating between Fig. 9 Maximum cooling COP variation with gas cooler
two evaporators, effect of gas cooler exit tempera- exit temperature for CYC1
ture on corresponding COP improvement is negligible.
Effect of evaporator temperatures on optimum dis-
39
charge pressure is negligible.With the decrease in tem-
perature of evaporator 1 or 2, cooling COP decreases (5, –50)
35
Cooling COP improvement (%)

due to increase in effective cycle temperature lift.

As the temperature of evaporator 1 increases and/or 31 (–5, –50)
temperature of evaporator 2 decreases, pressure differ-
ence between primary and secondary flows increases; (5, –35)
27
this gives more momentum at nozzle exit and more
pressure rise in diffuser and hence pressure lift ratio 23
(–5, –35)
increases, leading to more COP improvement at opti- (5, –20)
mum condition. As shown in Fig. 10, maximum COP 19
improvement (38.1 per cent) is obtained at maximum
15 tev1 ( oC ), tev 2 ( oC )
evaporator temperature difference (5 and −50 ◦ C).
(–5, –20)
Variations of optimum discharge pressure, maxi- 11
mum cooling COP, and corresponding COP improve- 30 40 50 60
ment with gas cooler exit temperature are shown Gas cooler exit temperature ( oC)
in Figs 11 to 13, respectively, for CYC2 at various
evaporator temperatures. Variation of optimum dis- Fig. 10 Variation of COP improvement at optimum con-
charge pressure with gas cooler exit temperature dition for CYC1

Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part A: J. Power and Energy JPE957

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at MOUNT ALLISON UNIV on June 10, 2015
 Performance characteristics of multi-evaporator transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycles with hybrid compression/ejection 779

201 23
5, −20 tev1 ( oC ), tev 2 ( oC )
Compressor discharge pressure (bar)

183 5, −35

Cooling COP improvement (%)

20
5, −50 (5, –50)
165
−5, −20 17
147 −5, −35 (–5, –50)
−5, −50 14
129 (5, –35)

11 (–5, –35)
111

8 (5, –20)
93
tev1 ( oC ), tev 2 ( oC )
(–5, –20)
75 5
30 40 50 60 30 40 50 60
Gas cooler exit temperature ( oC) Gas cooler exit temperature ( oC)

Fig. 11 Variation of optimum compressor discharge Fig. 13 Variation of COP improvement at optimum con-
pressure for CYC2 dition for CYC2
Table 1 Performance comparison of two CO2 cycle lay-
2.2 outs at optimum discharge pressure (CCR = 1,
5, −20 tco = 40 ◦ C, tev1 = 5 ◦ C, and tev2 = −20 ◦ C)
1.9 5, −35 Cycle Cycle
5, −50 Optimum parameters layout 1 layout 2
1.6 −5, −20 Discharge pressure (bar) 100.5 106.5
Cooling COP

−5, −35 Discharge temperature (◦ C) 108.3 120.4

1.3 Entrainment ratio 0.362 0.896
−5, −50 Pressure lift ratio 1.281 1.149
Ejector geometric area ratio 3.595 7.432
1 Cooling COP 1.5359 1.4139
Discharge pressure reduction (%) 6.51 1.00
COP improvement (%) 20.81 11.22
0.7
tev1 ( oC ), tev 2 ( oC ) improves the cooling COP by several percentages but
0.4 also reduces the optimum gas cooler pressure.
30 40 50 60
Performance comparison of two novel ejector-
Gas cooler exit temperature ( oC)
driven multi-evaporator CO2 refrigeration cycles
Fig. 12 Maximum cooling COP variation with gas cooler shows that CYC1 gives significantly better perfor-
exit temperature for CYC2 mance than CYC2 due to higher pressure lift. One of
the comparisons at gas cooler exit temperature of 40 ◦ C
and evaporator temperatures of 5 and −20 ◦ C is listed
shows similar trend as CYC1. However, the optimum in Table 1 for CCR = 1. CYC1 is superior to CYC2 in
discharge pressure increases with decrease in temper- terms of discharge pressure, discharge temperature,
ature of evaporator 2, similar to the basic expansion pressure lift ratio, and cooling COP (maximum values
transcritical CO2 cycle [14]. Variation of maximum are 2.2836 and 2.1054, respectively, for given ranges) at
COP with the evaporators and gas cooler exit temper- optimum condition. However, the cost may be slightly
atures show similar trend as CYC1: COP increases with higher due to the use of extra separator. Entrainment
decrease in effective cycle temperature lift. Similar to ratio of CYC1 is lower, and hence the ejector geomet-
the CYC1, the COP improvement is nearly invariant ric area ratio is also lower than that of CYC2. Results
(marginally decreases) with the gas cooler exit tem- reveal that the cycle arrangement of CYC1 is prefer-
perature. Owing to the similar reason discussed above, able for multi-evaporator system due to significantly
the COP improvement by using ejection–compression higher COP improvement.
increases with the increase in the temperature of
evaporator 1 and/or decrease in the temperature of
evaporator 2. As shown in Fig. 13, maximum COP 4 CONCLUSIONS
improvement (21.4 per cent) at optimum discharge
pressure is obtained for maximum evaporator tem- Detailed thermodynamic analyses and optimiza-
perature difference (5 and −50 ◦ C). Use of ejector in tion followed by comparisons of two novel layouts
multi-evaporator CO2 refrigeration system not only of multi-evaporator transcritical CO2 refrigeration

JPE957 Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part A: J. Power and Energy

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at MOUNT ALLISON UNIV on June 10, 2015
780 J Sarkar

system using constant pressure mixing ejector are 8 Elbel, S. and Hrnjak, P. Experimental validation of a
presented in this article. Study shows that the prototype ejector designed to reduce throttling losses
cycle performance for both cycles increases with encountered in transcritical R744 system operation. Int.
the increase in cooling capacity ratio of high- J. Refrig., 2008, 31(3), 411–422.
temperature evaporator to low-temperature evapo- 9 Yari, M. and Sirousazar, M. Cycle improvements to
ejector–expansion transcritical CO2 two-stage refriger-
rator. The optimum discharge pressures for both
ation cycle. Int. J. Energy Res., 2008, 32(7), 677–687.
cycle layouts compared to corresponding basic cycle 10 Yari, M. Second law optimization of two-stage trans-
reduce by the use of ejection–compression. Varia- critical CO2 refrigeration cycles in the cooling mode
tion of maximum COP with the evaporators and gas operation. Proc. IMechE, Part A: J. Power and Energy,
cooler exit temperatures show similar trend. For both 2009, 223(A5), 551–562. DOI: 10.1243/09576509JPE682.
cycle layouts, the effect of gas cooler exit tempera- 11 Yari, M. Performance analysis and optimization of
ture on COP improvement is negligible whereas the a new two-stage ejector–expansion transcritical CO2
COP improvement at optimum condition increases refrigeration cycle. Int. J. Therm. Sci., 2009, 48(10),
with the increase in evaporator 1 temperature and/or 1997–2005.
decrease in evaporator 2 temperature. CYC1 is supe- 12 Elakdhar, M., Nehdi, E., and Kairouani, L. Analysis of
rior to CYC2 in terms of discharge pressure, discharge a compression/ejection cycle for domestic refrigeration.
Ind. Engng Chem. Res., 2007, 46, 4639–4644.
temperature, pressure lift ratio, and cooling COP. How-
13 Kairouani, L., Elakhdar, M., Nehdi, E., and Bouaziz, N.
ever, the cost may be slightly higher due to the use Use of ejectors in a multi-evaporator refrigeration system
of an extra separator. Ejector entrainment ratio and for performance enhancement. Int. J. Refrig., 2009, 32(6),
area ratio of CYC1 are lower than that of CYC2. Results 1173–1185.
reveal that the cycle arrangement of CYC1 is prefer- 14 Sarkar, J., Bhattacharyya, S., and Ramgopal, M. Natu-
able for multi-evaporator system due to significantly ral refrigerant-based subcritical and transcritical cycles
higher COP improvement. For temperature ranges for high temperature heating. Int. J. Refrig., 2007, 30(1),
used in this study, CYC1 gives maximum COP improve- 3–10.
ment of 38.1 per cent and CYC2 gives maximum COP
improvement of 21.4 per cent at optimum condition.
APPENDIX
© Author 2010
Notation
REFERENCES a cross-sectional area (m2 )
CCR cooling capacity ratio
1 Sarkar, J., Bhattacharyya, S., and Ramgopal, M. Trans- COP coefficient of performance
critical CO2 heat pump systems: exergy analysis includ- COPi improvement of COP (per cent)
ing heat transfer and fluid flow effects. Energy Convers. ED expansion device
Manage., 2005, 46(13–14), 2053–2067.
h specific enthalpy (kJ/kg)
2 Liu, J. P., Chen, J. P., and Chen, Z. J. Thermodynamic anal-
m mass flowrate (kg/s)
ysis on trans-critical R744 vapor compression/ejection
hybrid refrigeration cycle. In Proceedings of the Fifth IIR p pressure (bar)
Gustav Lorentzen Conference on Natural working fluids, PLR pressure lift ratio
Guangzhou, China, 2002, pp. 184–188. q cooling capacity (kW)
3 Ozaki, Y., Takeuchi, H., and Hirata, T. Regeneration of t temperature (◦ C)
expansion energy by ejector in CO2 cycle. In Proceedings u fluid velocity (m/s)
of the Sixth IIR Gustav Lorentzen Natural Working Fluid wc compressor work (kW)
Conference, Glasgow, UK, 2004, paper 4/A/11.20.
4 Li, D. and Groll, E. A. Transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle ηc compressor isentropic efficiency
with ejector–expansion device. Int. J. Refrig., 2005, 28(5), µ entrainment ratio
766–773.
ρ fluid density (kg/m3 )
5 Deng, J., Jiang, P., Lu, T., and Lu, W. Particular charac-
φ ejector area ratio
teristics of transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle with an
ejector. Appl Therm. Eng., 2007, 27(2–3), 381–388.
6 Sarkar, J. Optimization of ejector–expansion transcritical Subscripts
CO2 heat pump cycle. Energy, 2008, 33(9), 1399–1406.
7 Ksayer, E. B. and Clodic, D. CO2 ejector refrigeration b basic cycle
cycle: design, tests and results. In Proceedings of the 22nd co gas cooler exit
International Congress of Refrigeration, Beijing, 2007, ev1 evaporator 1
paper 1590. ev2 evaporator 2

Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part A: J. Power and Energy JPE957

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at MOUNT ALLISON UNIV on June 10, 2015