International Journal of Refrigeration 27 (2004) 587594

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrefrig

Experimental investigation on the performance of the refrigeration

cycle using a two-phase ejector as an expansion device
Somjin Disawas, Somchai Wongwises*
Fluid Mechanics, Thermal Engineering and Multiphase Flow Research Lab. (FUTURE), Department of Mechanical Engineering,
King Mongkuts University of Technology Thonburi, Bangmod, Bangkok 10140, Thailand
Received 9 September 2003; received in revised form 25 March 2004; accepted 1 April 2004

Abstract
In the present study, new experimental data on the performance of a never before seen two-phase ejector refrigeration cycle
(TPERC) is presented. In this cycle, a two-phase ejector is used as an expansion device. The TPERC enables the evaporator to
operate as in a liquid-recirculation system. The results are compared with those of the conventional refrigeration cycle (CRC).
The effects of external parameters, i.e., heat sink and heat source temperatures on the system performance are discussed. The
results show that the coefficient of performance of the TPERC is higher than that of the CRC over the whole range of
experimental conditions. This is due to a higher refrigerant-side heat transfer coefficient in the evaporator, resulting from the
higher refrigerant mass flow rate passing through the evaporator. However, the increase becomes relatively smaller as the heat
sink temperature increases.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Refrigerator system; Experiment; Expansion; Ejector; COP; R-12; R-134a

Etude experimentale sur la performance dun cycle frigorifique

employant un ejecteur en tant que detendeur
Mots-cles: Syste`me frigorifique; Experimentation; Detente; Ejecteur; COP; R-12; R-134a

1. Introduction
Throttling loss in the expansion device, through which
the refrigerant is expanded from the condenser pressure to
the evaporator pressure, is one of the thermodynamic losses
in a conventional vapor compression refrigeration cycle.
This expansion results during the isenthalpic process in
which the kinetic energy developed as the refrigerant
pressure decrease is dissipated to the refrigerant as friction
heat. The isenthalpic process causes the larger amount of the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 662-470-9115; fax: 662-4709111.
E-mail address: somchai.won@kmutt.ac.th (S. Wongwises).

refrigerant to flash into a vapor than in the isentropic

process. As a result, the refrigerating effect of the cycle is
reduced.
In order to recover the potential kinetic energy in the
expansion process, various researchers have attempted to
use other expanders rather than the expansion engine. Due to
the low cost, no moving parts and ability to handle twophase flow without damage, an ejector is an attractive
alternative for the expansion device in the refrigeration
system.
To the best of the authors knowledge, relatively little
information is currently available on the application of the
ejector as an expansion device in a refrigeration cycle. The
most productive studies have been continuously carried out

0140-7007/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2004.04.002

588

S. Disawas, S. Wongwises / International Journal of Refrigeration 27 (2004) 587594

Nomenclature
COP
cp

coefficient of performance
specific heat at constant pressure
(kJ kg21 K21)
m
_
mass flow rate (kg s21)
n
circulation ratio
P
power (kW)
Q
cooling capacity (kW)
T
temperature (8C)
Subscripts
comp
compressor
e
evaporize
evap
evaporator
hw
hot water
in
inlet section
out
outlet section
p
primary or motive
s
suction

by Kornhauser [1], Harrell and Kornhauser [2] and Manegay

and Kornhauser [3].
Kornhauser [1] analyzed the thermodynamic performance of the ejector expansion refrigeration cycle. He found a
theoretical COP improvement of up to 21% over the
standard cycle under standard conditions, 2 15 and 30 8C
for evaporator and condensor temperatures, respectively.
This result is based on ideal cycle components and constant
mixing pressure in the ejector, using R-12 as a refrigerant.
Harrell et al. [2] tested a two-phase ejector and used its
performance obtained from the test rig to estimate the COP of
the refrigeration cycle. It was found that the COP improvement ranged from 3.9 to 7.6% with R-134a as a refrigerant.
Menegay et al. [3] developed a bubbly flow tube to reduce the
thermodynamic non-equilibrium in the motive nozzle. This
device was installed upstream of the motive nozzle. An
ejector using the bubbly flow tube improved up to 3.8% of the
COP over the conventional cycle under standard conditions
with R-12 as the refrigerant. However, this result is not as
good as was expected. Therefore, study of the ejector
expansion refrigeration cycle should be extended. Domanski
[4] found that the theoretical COP of the ejector expansion
refrigeration cycle was very sensitive to the ejector
efficiency. Nakagawa et al. [5] showed that the longer the
length of the divergent part of the motive nozzle, the higher
the motive nozzle efficiency could be achieved. This was
likely caused because the longer divergent part provided a
longer period of time for the two-phase flow to achieve
equilibrium.
The published papers mentioned above focus on using
the two-phase ejector as an expansion device operating with
a dry-expansion evaporator in that they still use an
expansion valve installed downstream of the liquid vapor

separator. However, the purpose of the ejector is to replace

the throttling valve. Therefore, any throttling device in the
system should be avoided.
The main concern of this work is to experimentally
investigate the performance of the refrigeration cycle using
a two-phase ejector as an expansion device. The evaporator
is therefore flooded with refrigerant and becomes a liquidrecirculation system, in which, in addition to serving as an
expansion device, the ejector also acts as a refrigerant pump
for the low-pressure side of the system. The effects of
relevant parameters are discussed. The overall performance
between the TPERC and CRC is compared.

2. Experimental apparatus
The schematic diagram of the experimental apparatus is
shown in Fig. 1. The system consists of three main loops: the
refrigerant loop, the cold-water loop, and the hot-water loop.
The refrigerant loop is designed in order to operate in
both the conventional refrigeration cycle (CRC) and the
two-phase ejector refrigeration cycle (TPERC). It consists
of the vapor compression cycle components: compressor,
condenser, expansion valve and evaporator, and other
accessory parts-the oil separator, liquid receiver, filter/drier,
sight glass and the accumulator. The operating conditions of
the apparatus are similar to those of a typical airconditioning application. The principal modifications from
the standard refrigeration system are the addition of a

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of experimental apparatus.

S. Disawas, S. Wongwises / International Journal of Refrigeration 27 (2004) 587594

589

two-phase ejector and a liquid vapor separator. A commercial R-134a is used as the working fluid.
Refrigerant is discharged by a two-cylinder single stage
reciprocating compressor (Bitzer, Model III), driven by an
electric motor. The speed of the motor is varied to regulate
the refrigerant flowing through the motive nozzle by an
inverter (Yaskawa, CIMR-G5A47P5). Compact plate heat
exchangers (SWEP, CBE-B8-24/C) are used for condenser
and evaporators. The evaporator referred to in this paper is
the main evaporator as shown in Fig. 1. A filter/drier, placed
downstream of the receiver, is provided to keep the
circulating refrigerant free from harmful substances:
moisture and foreign particles that might remain in the
system. An oil separator is used to keep the oil content in the
refrigerant to a minimum.
The motive and the suction mass flow rates are measured
by volumetric flow meters (Bailey F and P, 10A3225)
located downstream of the sight glass and of the liquid
vapor separator, respectively. All flow meters are specially
calibrated for R-134a from the manufacturer (Bailey F and
P). The total capacity of all refrigerant flow meters is 0.3 to
3.3 LPM. The manufacturers listed accuracy is 0.1% of the
full scale. The temperatures are measured by T-type
thermocouples having accuracy of 0.1 8C. All the temperature-measuring devices are well calibrated in a controlled
temperature bath using standard precision mercury glass
thermometers. Bourdon gauges, calibrated against the dead
weight test, are used to measure the pressures. All static
pressure taps are mounted flush in the tube wall.
In order to collect data at various conditions, the heat
load to the evaporator is supplied by using the hot-water
loop. The water in the tank is heated with a 4.5 kW electric
heater and supplied through the evaporator by the circulating pump. The condenser rejects heat to the water coming
from a cold water tank. The water is cooled by a separated
refrigeration system using R-22 as refrigerant. The separated refrigeration system consists of a condensing unit with
a capacity of approximately 2.6 ton of refrigeration, a
capillary tube, filter/drier, sight glass and a helical copper

tube coil immersed in water being cooled in an insulated

tank. The test runs are done at the cooling load ranging
between 1.7 and 3.0 kW.
The two-phase ejector, shown in Fig. 2, is designed in
three main parts: the motive nozzle, the suction chamber,
and the mixing chamber with diffuser. The motive nozzle
throat area is designed according to the Henry and Fauske
model [6]. This model is used because it considers the
metastable effect of the expansion of saturated liquid into
the liquid vapor mixture region. The remaining crosssectional areas of the ejector are designed according to the
homogeneous equilibrium model (HEM) [1,7]. HEM is
based on the assumption that vapor and liquid are in thermal
and mechanical equilibrium. Furthermore, the mixing
process is assumed to occur at constant pressure. The
other dimensions, including the lengths of each section and
the convergent and divergent angles, are based on
recommendations from the ASHRAE Handbook [8] and
from Nakagawa et al. [5]. The detailed drawing of the tested
motive nozzle is shown in Fig. 3.
Brass is used as material for the ejector. The three main
parts of the ejector are connected by fine screws. Three orings, as shown in Fig. 2, are used to prevent refrigerant
leakage.
A comparison of the cycle performance for the two
modes of operation, TPERC and CRC, can be made by two
approaches. The first one is based on internal parameters,
i.e., evaporating and condensing temperatures. This method
requires the different modes to be compared at the same
evaporating and condensing temperatures. The second one
is based on external parameters such as the inlet temperature
and the flow rate of the heat transfer fluid (HTF) [9,10]. This
method allows each mode of operation to operate under the
same external conditions. In this paper, the comparison
between the TPERC and the CRC is based on the second
method. This method is selected because it is more likely in
real life [10]. Water is used as the heat transfer fluid. Hot
water acts as a heat source while cold water acts as a heat
sink of the system.
According to the experimental conditions in Table 1, the
test runs are done at heat sink temperatures ranging between
27 and 37 8C while the volume flow rate of cold water is
kept constant at 14 LPM. Each value of heat sink
temperature is tested at varying heat source temperatures
of 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 8C. The volumetric flow rate of hot
water is fixed at 12 LPM. These volumetric flow rates of
cold water and hot water are employed to prevent water

Fig. 2. Ejector assembly.

Fig. 3. Motive nozzle.

590

S. Disawas, S. Wongwises / International Journal of Refrigeration 27 (2004) 587594

Table 1
Experimental conditions
Parameters
Heat sink
Temperature (8C)
Volumetric flow rate (LPM)
Heat source
Temperature (8C)
Volumetric flow rate (LPM)
Compressor
Speed (rpm)
Refrigerant
Heat transfer fluid

Table 3
Range of uncertainties of calculated parameters
Range

Parameters

Range of uncertainties (%)

2737 with a 2.5 8C increment

14

Pressure ratio
Circulation ratio
Cooling capacity
COP

^1.16
^4.47
^3.21
^9.16

816 with a 2.0 8C increment

12
450
R-134a
Water

from freezing on the surface of equipment. The compressor

speed is maintained at 450 rpm by controlling the inverter
frequency. It should be noted that this speed is appropriate
for this experimental set up. This speed is employed after
problems were encountered at several different speeds used
in previous experiments. It has been found that if the
compressor speeds of over 450 rpm are used, the pressure in
the liquid vapor separator decreases. This enables the
liquid in the separator to become increasingly vaporized and
finally result in the increase of the vapor temperature. This
high temperature vapor probably causes the compressor to
become damaged. Also if the compressor speeds of lower
than 450 rpm are used, the amount of liquid in the separator
gradually increases. Finally, the liquid refrigerant floods the
outlet of the separator (see Fig. 1) and flows to the
compressor. This results in compressor failure. The water
temperatures are kept constant at the required values in both
the hot and the cold water tanks. They are then circulated
through the condenser and evaporator at constant temperatures and constant volume flow rates by the circulating
pumps. The experiments are performed for both the TPERC
and the CRC systems. Experimental uncertainties in the
measured quantities are estimated according to Holman
[11]. The method is based on a combining of all the
uncertainties in the various primary experimental measurements. The uncertainties of measured quanties and calculated parameters are shown in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.

^ 1.32
^ 4.75
^ 3.88
^ 10.65

3. Results and discussion

The experimental apparatus presented in the previous
section was tested in order to determine the effects of the
heat sink and heat source temperatures on the relevant
parameters, the cooling capacity, coefficient of performance, mass flow rate, average evaporator pressure, compressor pressure ratio, and the discharge temperature. All
parameters are plotted for comparative purposes. Thermodynamic properties of R-134a were evaluated by using
REFPROP [12].
Fig. 4 shows the variation of the measured mass flow rate
of refrigerant with heat sink temperature in the TPERC and
in the CRC for the different heat source temperatures of 8,
12 and 16 8C. In fact, the refrigerant mass flow rate in the
CRC is constant throughout the system whereas the TPERC
has a different mass flow rate for high-pressure and lowpressure sides. In this paper, the high-pressure side mass
flow rate refers to the flow rate through the motive nozzle
m
_ p for the TPERC, and through the expansion device for
the CRC, while the low-pressure side mass flow rate to that
flowing through the evaporator m
_ s for both modes of
operation. Considering the mass flow rate through the
expansion device, it is found that at lower heat sink
temperature, the CRC has a higher mass flow rate than the
TPERC. It can also be seen that the mass flow rate of the
TPERC increases with increasing heat sink temperature and

Table 2
Uncertainties of measured quantities
Parameters

Uncertainty

Unit

Temperature
Pressure (low-side)
Pressure (high-side)
Flow rate (refrigerant)
Flow rate (water)
Compressor speed

^0.1
^0.5(^3.45)
^1.0 (^6.90)
^0.02
^0.2
^5

8C
Psi (kPa)
Psi (kPa)
LPM
LPM
rpm

Fig. 4. Comparison of the mass flow rate of the TPERC and the CRC
as a function of heat sink temperature for various heat source
temperatures.

S. Disawas, S. Wongwises / International Journal of Refrigeration 27 (2004) 587594

is almost constant for all heat source temperatures. Ejector is

a fixed-area device working under choked flow condition at
motive nozzle. The mass flow rate of refrigerant flowing
through the motive nozzle depends on pressure at the inlet of
the motive nozzle (upstream pressure). This upstream
pressure also depends directly on the heat sink temperature.
For the same subcooling at the inlet, the mass flow rate of
refrigerant flowing through motive nozzle at higher
upstream pressure (higher heat sink temperature) is higher
than that at lower upstream pressure (lower heat sink
temperature).
In contrast, in case of expansion valve, at specific heat
source temperature, the mass flow rate of the CRC tends to
decrease with increasing heat sink temperature. This is
because expansion valve is a kind of variable area devices
controlling the flow of liquid refrigerant to the evaporator.
For example, if the cooling load decreases, pressure at the
inlet of expansion valve decreases and thereby repositions
the valve closing to allow a smaller amount of liquid
refrigerant to enter the evaporator. In the present work, the
experimental results show that Qevap decrease with increasing heat sink temperature. Therefore, it can be concluded
that for the CRC, the increasing heat sink temperature
causes the refrigerant mass flow rate to decrease. Moreover,
at the same heat sink temperature, the mass flow rates at
higher heat source temperature are higher than at lower ones
across the range of heat sink temperatures.
Fig. 4 also shows that the evaporator mass flow rate of
the TPERC increases with increasing heat sink temperature.
The increase of the evaporator mass flow rate of the TPERC
leads to an increase in the heat transfer coefficient. However,
this also results in an increase of pressure drop across the
evaporator, leading to an increase in the specific work of the
compressor.
For the TPERC, as in the liquid-recirculation system, the
refrigerant is fed at a higher mass flow rate than is required
for evaporation. The ratio between refrigerant mass flow

Fig. 5. Variation of the circulation ratio with heat sink temperature

of the TPERC.

591

rate delivered to the evaporator m

_ s and flow rate of the
vaporized refrigerant m
_ e is called the recirculation number
or circulation ratio n [13], and can be written as:
n

m
_s
m
_e

Fig. 5 shows the variation of the circulation ratio with heat

sink temperature in the TPERC for the different heat source
temperatures of 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 8C. It can be clearly
seen from the figure that at a specific heat source
temperature, as the heat sink temperature increases, the
circulation ratio also increases. And at the same heat sink
temperature, the circulation ratios at a higher heat source
temperature are lower than at lower ones across the range of
heat sink temperatures. The reason for this, is that when the
evaporator pressure or the heat source temperature
increases, the cooling capacity Qevap increases, while the
latent heat of vaporization hfg decreases, therefore causing
the flow rate of vaporized refrigerant m
_ e to increase. From
the result shown in Fig. 4, the refrigerant mass flow rate
delivered to the evaporator m
_ s is almost constant at various
heat source temperatures. Therefore, it can be clearly seen
that at a specific heat sink temperature, when the heat source
temperature increases, circulation ratio will decrease.
Again, from Fig. 4 it is found that both motive and
suction flows are almost independent of the heat source
temperature. This leads to the conclusion that the ejector can
be used as an expansion device in a vapor compression
refrigeration cycle with a wide range of cooling load
variations.
As the load for the evaporator increases, the evaporator
pressure increases, and the amount of refrigerant required to
accommodate the increased load also increases. In other
words, while the load decreases, the pressure and mass flow
rate at the evaporator also decrease. From Fig. 5, it is found
that the system can provide enough refrigerant to the

Fig. 6. Comparison of the average evaporator pressure between the

TPERC and the CRC as a function of heat source temperature for
various heat sink temperatures.

592

S. Disawas, S. Wongwises / International Journal of Refrigeration 27 (2004) 587594

evaporator as long as the circulation ratio is larger than one.

Therefore, although the ejector is a fixed-flow-area device, it
can provide refrigerant to the evaporator under a variation of
cooling loads, regardless of the evaporator pressure.
Fig. 6 shows the variation of the average evaporator
pressure with heat source temperature for superheating at
the compressor inlet ranging between 4 and 8 8C for
different heat sink temperatures of 27, 32, and 37 8C. Fig.
6 also compares the average evaporator pressure obtained
from the TPERC with that obtained from the CRC. The
graph shows that the TPERC has a higher evaporator
pressure than the CRC. The flooding refrigerant in the
evaporator in the TPERC is the subcooled and two-phase
mixture, while that in CRC is the two-phase mixture and
superheated vapour. This results in the higher heat transfer
rate in TPERC causing the average evaporator pressure to be
higher than that in the CRC. This means that the
corresponding evaporator temperature of the TPERC is
also higher than that of the CRC, resulting in a small
temperature difference between the refrigerant and the heat
transfer fluid (water). This is desirable from a thermodynamic point of view in that the system should be run at as high
an evaporator pressure as possible in order to obtain the
highest possible COP.
Figs. 7 and 8 present the variations of the compressor
pressure ratio and the discharge temperature with the heat
source temperatures, respectively. It can be clearly seen
from Fig. 7 that the pressure ratio of the TPERC is lower
than that of the CRC at the same heat sink temperature.
Considering Fig. 8, at a specific heat sink temperature, the
discharge temperature of the TPERC slightly decreases
while the heat source temperature increases. At the same
heat source temperature, the discharge temperature at higher
heat sink temperature is higher than at lower heat sink
temperature across the range of heat source temperatures.
The experimental results obtained from the CRC show a

where m
_ hw is the mass flow rate of the hot water (kg s21).
cp;hw is the specific heat at constant pressure of hot water

Fig. 7. Comparison of the pressure ratio between the TPERC and the
CRC as a function of heat source temperature for various heat sink
temperatures.

Fig. 9. Comparison of the cooling capacity between the TPERC and

the CRC as a function of heat source temperature for various heat
sink temperatures.

Fig. 8. Comparison of the discharge temperature between the

TPERC and the CRC as a function of heat source temperature for
various heat sink temperatures.

similar trend. However, at the same heat source and heat

sink temperature, the discharge temperature of the CRC is
higher than that of the TPERC. Due to the fact that the
evaporator pressure in the CRC is lower than that in the
TPERC (while the condenser pressure of both systems is
nearly the same), the pressure ratio and the discharge
temperature of the CRC are higher than those of the TPERC.
A lower pressure ratio and lower discharge temperature
enable the compressor to have better lubrication and a
longer lifespan.
The cooling capacity can be calculated according to the
following equation:
_ hw cp;hw Thw;in 2 Thw;out
Qevap m

S. Disawas, S. Wongwises / International Journal of Refrigeration 27 (2004) 587594

(kJ kg21 K21). Thw;in is the hot water temperature at the inlet
of the evaporator (8C). Thw;out is the hot water temperature at
the outlet of the evaporator (8C).
Fig. 9 shows the variation of the cooling capacity with
the heat source temperature for superheating at the
compressor inlet ranging between 4 and 8 8C for the
different heat sink temperatures of 27, 32, and 37 8C.
It can be seen from the figure that as the heat source
temperature increases, the cooling capacity for both modes
of operation also increases. This is because the temperature
difference between the refrigerant and the water used as the
heat transfer fluid, increases with increasing evaporator
pressure.
For the CRC, increasing of the heat source temperature
causes the cooling capacity to increase. This results from the
increasing evaporator temperature which also affects
the refrigerating effect. Furthermore, the increase of the
refrigerant density at the evaporator outlet leads to an
increase of the mass flow rate drawn by the compressor
which results in the increase of the cooling capacity. For the
TPERC, although the temperature difference between the
refrigerant and the water in the evaporator is lower,
the cooling capacity is higher than that of the CRC. This
behavior can be explained in that the overall heat transfer
coefficient of the evaporator in the TPERC is higher than
that of the CRC under the same area of the heat exchanger.
This is because of increases of the wetted area and mass flow
rate in the evaporator and the fact that the evaporator of the
CRC loses some area at the outlet for superheating, while
the evaporator outlet in the TPERC is in a liquid vapor
mixture condition.
The system COP is defined as the ratio between the
cooling capacity and the electrical power supplied to the

Fig. 10. Comparison of the COP between the TPERC and the CRC
as a function of heat sink temperature for various heat source
temperatures.

593

compressor and can be written as:

COP

Qevap
Pcomp

where Pcomp is the electrical power input to the motor of the

compressor. The power is directly obtained from the built-in
function of the inverter.
Fig. 10 shows the variation of the coefficient of
performance with the heat sink temperature for superheating
at the compressor inlet ranging between 4 and 8 8C for the
different heat source temperatures of 8, 12 and 16 8C. It can
be found that as the heat source temperature increases, the
COP also increases for both modes of operation. The heat
transfer rate in the evaporator of the TPERC is higher than
that of the CRC. This causes the COP of the TPERC to be
higher than that of the CRC over the whole range of
experimental conditions. However, the graph demonstrates
that the decreasing rate of COP in the TPERC is greater than
that of the CRC as the heat sink temperature increases. In
other words, the improvement in COP diminishes as the heat
sink temperature increases. This is mainly because of the
increment of the mass flow rate in the motive nozzle,
causing a higher power input. The COP of the TPERC
becomes increasingly higher compared to that of the CRC as
the temperature of the heat sink temperature decreases. This
shows the advantage of part-load conditions resulting from a
lower ambient temperature, which is frequently encountered
in real life situation.

4. Conclusions
This paper provides new data on the performance of the
refrigeration system using a two-phase ejector as an
expansion device. The two-phase ejector refrigeration
cycle (TPERC) enables the evaporator to operate as in a
liquid recirculation system. However, in the present work,
the effect of geometric parameters on the data is not studied
and the results are valid only with the ejector used in the
present study. Application range of the test results is shown
in Table 1. The performance of the TPERC is then compared
with that of the conventional refrigeration cycle (CRC)
using a thermostatic expansion valve as an expansion device
at the same external conditions. The following conclusions
from this study are:
1. The motive mass flow rate of the ejector is highly
dependent on the heat sink temperature and independent
of the heat source temperature. This is due to the fact that
choked flow occurs at the motive nozzle, and the
upstream condition has a significant effect on the mass
flow rate.
2. The heat source and heat sink temperatures have a
significant effect on the cooling capacity. The use of the
two-phase ejector as an expansion device enables the

594

S. Disawas, S. Wongwises / International Journal of Refrigeration 27 (2004) 587594

evaporator to be flooded by refrigerant. This leads to a

better heat transfer in the evaporator of the TPERC than
that of the CRC.
3. The TPERC shows an improvement in the COP during
low heat sink temperature. However, the improvement
becomes relatively less as the heat sink temperature
increases.
4. The compressor pressure ratio and the discharge
temperature of the TPERC are lower than those of the
CRC. This results in better lubrication and an increased
lifespan.

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their appreciation to
the Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment
(JGSEE) and the Thailand Research Fund (TRF) for
providing financial support in this study. The authors also
wish to acknowledge Mr. Atikom Plertplaipan, Mr.
Kanongsak Clusintragul and Mr. Nipon Poorpromyod for
their assistance in some of the experimental work.

[8]

[9]

[10]

References
[1] Kornhauser AA. The use of an ejector as a refrigerant
expander. Proceedings of the 1990 USNC/IIR-Purdue
Refrigeration Conference; 1990, p. 10 19.
[2] Harrell GS, Kornhauser AA. Performance tests of a two-phase
ejector. Proceedings of the 30th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference. Orlando, FL; 1995, p. 49 53.
[3] Menegay P, Kornhauser AA. Improvements to the ejector
expansion refrigeration cycle. Proceedings of the 31th

[11]
[12]

[13]

Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference.

Washington, DC; 1996, p. 702 706.
Domanski PA. Theoretical evaluation of the vapor compression cycle with a liquid-line/suction-line heat exchanger,
economizer, and ejector. Nistir-5606, National Institute of
Standards and Technology; March, 1995.
Nakagawa M, Takeuchi H. Performance of two-phase ejector
in refrigeration cycle. Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Multiphase flow. Lyon, France; 812 June
1998, p. 18.
Henry RE, Fauske HK. The two-phase critical flow of onecomponent mixtures in nozzles, orifices, and short tubes.
ASME Trans J Heat Transfer 1971;May:179 87.
Sherif SA, Lear WE, Steadham JM, Hunt PL, Holladay JB.
Analysis and modeling of a two-phase jet pump of a thermal
management system for aerospace applications. Int J Mech Sci
2000;42:18598.
ASHRAE, ASHRAE handbookguide and data book.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineering; 1969. Chapter 13, p. 151 158.
Hoegberg M, Vamling L, Berntsson T. Calculation methods
for comparing the performance of pure and mixed working
fluids in heat pump applications. Int J Refrigeration 1993;
16(6):40313.
Giuliani G, Hewitt NJ, Marchesi Donati F, Polonara F.
Composition shift in liquid-recirculation refrigeration systems: an experimental investigation for the pure fluid R134a
and the mixture R32/134a. Int J Refrigeration 1999;22(6):
486 98.
Holman JP. Experimental methods for engineers, McGrawHill; 1987.
REFPROP, Thermodynamic properties of refrigerant and
refrigerant mixtures, version 6.01, Gaithersburg MD. National
Institute of Standards and Technology; 1998.
Stoecker WF. Industrial refrigeration handbook. McGrawHill; 1998.