4.8 Article

Performance characteristics of an R600a household refrigeration cycle with a modified two-phase ejector for various ejector geometries and operating conditions

Journal

APPLIED ENERGY
Volume 205, Issue -, Pages 1059-1067

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.148

Keywords

Two-phase ejector; Condenser outlet split; Household refrigerator; COP

Funding

  1. Human Resources Program in Energy Technology [20144010200770]
  2. Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) from the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy, Republic of Korea [20142010102660]
  3. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [20142010102660] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Even though a condenser outlet split (COS) ejector cycle offers several advantages over a standard two-phase ejector cycle, few experimental investigations on the performance of the COS ejector cycle are available in the literature. The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of the various ejector geometries on the performance of a small-sized household refrigeration cycle by using the refrigerant R600a under various operating conditions. The performance of the COS ejector cycle was measured and analyzed by varying the compressor speed, entrainment ratio (ER), nozzle position, and mixing section diameter. The enhancement in COP of the COS ejector cycle over that of the baseline cycle increased with the decrease in ER and increase in compressor speed, owing to the reduction in expansion loss. At a compressor speed of 45 Hz and an ER of 0.3, the maximum COP improvement of the COS ejector cycle with the optimum mixing section diameter over that of the baseline cycle was 6.8%. In addition, the optimum mixing section diameter for a given ER and compressor speed was proposed.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available