Search Results

Much attention has been given in recent years to the use of two-phase ejectors and particularly to the performance of the standard ejector cycle with a liquid-vapor separator. However, this cycle may not be the best choice for automotive applications due to the large size required by an efficient separator as well as the cycle's performance at conditions of lower ejector potential. A limited amount of recent research has focused on alternate two-phase ejector cycles that may be better suited for automotive applications. One of these cycles, using the ejector to allow for evaporation at two different temperatures and eliminating the need for a separator, will be the subject of investigation in this paper. Previous investigations of this cycle have been mainly theoretical or experimental; this paper aims to provide a numerical analysis of the effect of evaporator design on the performance of the ejector cycles.

Two-phase ejectors are devices capable of recovering the expansion power that is lost by the throttling process in air conditioning cycles, resulting in improved system performance. High-pressure fluids such as CO2 have received the majority of attention in two-phase ejector studies in recent years due to the fluid's high throttling loss and high potential for improvement. However, low-pressure working fluids such as R134a, commonly used in automotive applications, have received considerably less attention owing to their lower recovery potential. While the two fluids have very different properties, both offer the potential for noticeable COP improvement with ejector cycles. Thus, understanding the operation and performance of ejectors with both fluids can be important to the design of ejector air conditioning cycles. This paper compares available experimental data for the performance of two-phase ejectors using CO2 and R134a.

Two-phase ejectors have received increased attention in recent years because of their ability to improve the performance of automotive air-conditioning cycles by means of expansion work recovery. Much attention in recent years has been given to how high-pressure fluids, such as carbon dioxide, perform with ejector cycles; high-pressure fluids tend to have higher throttling loss, making them more attractive for expansion work recovery cycles, such as the two-phase ejector cycle. However, low-pressure fluids, such as those commonly used in automotive air-conditioning applications, tend to offer significantly lower work recovery potential. Nonetheless, the limited previous work on low-pressure refrigerants in ejector systems has shown that there is some improvement potential when using these fluids with ejector cycles.