4.6 Article

Optimization of Two-Phase Ejector Mixing Chamber Length under Varied Liquid Volume Fraction

Journal

ENTROPY
Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/e25010007

Keywords

ejector; entrainment ratio; liquid volume fraction; numerical simulation; mixing chamber length

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Numerical simulations were conducted to optimize two mixing chamber lengths of a two-phase ejector under varied liquid volume fractions. The findings showed that the optimal lengths for constant-pressure and constant-area mixing chambers were within 23-44 mm and 15-18 mm, respectively, when the primary inlet fluid was in two-phase. For the secondary inlet fluid, the optimal lengths were 2-5 mm and 9-15 mm, respectively. The presence of little liquid within the inlet fluid had a significant influence on ejector performances.
The ejector performance varies with the mixing chamber length which is largely dependent on the fluid liquid volume fraction at the inlet. In this study, numerical simulations are conducted to optimize two mixing chamber lengths of a two-phase ejector under varied liquid volume fractions of 0-0.1 in two inlet fluids. The main findings are as follows: (1) The two optimal lengths of constant-pressure and constant-area mixing chambers are identified within 23-44 mm and 15-18 mm, respectively, when the primary inlet fluid is in two-phase; (2) the two optimal lengths are 2-5 mm and 9-15 mm, respectively, when the secondary inlet fluid is in two-phase; (3) when both inlets are in two-phase, the two optimal lengths are ranged in 5-23 mm and 6-18 mm; (4) little liquid within inlet fluid has a significant influence on ejector performances; and (5) optimal constant-pressure mixing chamber length and the sum of the two optimal lengths increase with the primary flow inlet liquid volume fraction but decrease with that of the secondary flow inlet.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available