inventions

Review
Current Advances in Ejector Modeling,
Experimentation and Applications for Refrigeration
and Heat Pumps. Part 2: Two-Phase Ejectors
Zine Aidoun, Khaled Ameur *, Mehdi Falsafioon and Messaoud Badache
CanmetENERGY Natural Resources Canada, 1615 Lionel Boulet Blvd., P.O. Box 4800, Varennes, QC J3X1S6,
Canada; [email protected] (Z.A.); [email protected] (M.F.);
[email protected] (M.B.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-450-652-3090




Received: 14 January 2019; Accepted: 28 February 2019; Published: 6 March 2019


Abstract: Two-phase ejectors play a major role as refrigerant expansion devices in vapor compression
systems and can find potential applications in many other industrial processes. As a result, they
have become a focus of attention for the last few decades from the scientific community, not only
for the expansion work recovery in a wide range of refrigeration and heat pump cycles but also in
industrial processes as entrainment and mixing enhancement agents. This review provides relevant
findings and trends, characterizing the design, operation and performance of the two-phase ejector
as a component. Effects of geometry, operating conditions and the main developments in terms of
theoretical and experimental approaches, rating methods and applications are discussed in detail.
Ejector expansion refrigeration cycles (EERC) as well as the related theoretical and experimental
research are reported. New and other relevant cycle combinations proposed in the recent literature are
organized under theoretical and experimental headings by refrigerant types and/or by chronology
whenever appropriate and systematically commented. This review brings out the fact that theoretical
ejector and cycle studies outnumber experimental investigations and data generation. More emerging
numerical studies of two-phase ejectors are a positive step, which has to be further supported by
more validation work.

Keywords: ejector; two-phase; modeling; design; simulation; cycle; application

1. Introduction
Ejectors have been extensively studied for decades mainly for use in ejector cooling and
refrigeration systems, as a potential alternative to conventional compression systems or more generally
to assist conventional systems and improve their overall performance. Ejectors may be used with
almost any fluid without any need for lubricants. They are simple passive components, reliable, low
cost and almost maintenance-free.
Today, ejectors may be found in several fields of applications such as vacuum creation, fluid
circulation, water desalination or refrigerant expansion, as reported in previous papers such as Elbel
and Hrnjak [1], Kumar et al. [2] to name only two cases. In novel refrigeration systems, they can
operate in single-phase mode to boost or even replace the compressor, in two-phase mode to recover
the energy usually lost in the throttling valve of refrigeration or heat pump cycles. Irrespective of
their type, ejectors offer good opportunities to build cycles potentially more efficient and less energy
demanding than the conventional mechanical refrigeration systems [3]. In view of the many potential
uses, different ejector types are available. They are categorized as single-phase or two-phase devices.
Single phase, liquid–liquid ejectors generally serve as feed pumps and flow circulators. An
application example was considered by Li et al. [4] for water chillers where the ejector worked as a

Inventions 2019, 4, 16; doi:10.3390/inventions4010016 www.mdpi.com/journal/inventions

Inventions 2019, 4, 16 2 of 54

liquid recirculation component in a horizontal tube falling-film evaporator with R134a. Supersonic
gas–gas ejectors can recover waste heat and they have been the most widely studied to date (see Part 1
of this review for details).
Two-phase ejectors refer generally to the condensing ejector (vapor stream condenses in the
ejector), or to the conventional two-phase ejector (two-phase, liquid–vapor flow throughout the
ejector) [5]. Two-phase ejectors where a primary liquid drives a secondary vapor are finding an
increased use as expansion devices. They reduce throttling losses and recover expansion work
(replacement of expansion valves) in heat pumps, air-conditioning and refrigeration systems.
Available literature reviews dedicated to two-phase ejectors and their applications focused mainly
on refrigeration and heat pumps [1,3,6–10]. Elbel and Hrnjak [1] summarized the historical background
of the ejector technology and its development in air-conditioning and refrigeration. Two-phase
ejector application to CO2 heat pumps occupies an important place among the available works.
Sarkar [6] compared several important such cycles with transcritical CO2 for the purpose of expansion
recovery. Elbel [7], building on previous work [1], provided a detailed account of the transcritical
CO2 ejector application in air-conditioning, in addition to analytical and experimental results on
system performance improvements. Further work by Sumeru et al. [3] extended the investigation to
issues like thermodynamic modeling and comparison with the conventional cycle, irrespective of the
refrigerant type. Around the same time, Sarkar [8] also proposed a review of ejector expansion cycle
including geometric parameters, refrigerant and operating considerations. This work included a good
description of various cycle configurations as well as performance characteristics of both subcritical
and transcritical systems. A recent paper by Besagni [11], gives a concise rundown of last two-year
achievements in areas of ejector-based refrigeration, power conversion and chemical processes, with
future research and development perspectives.
Colarossi and Yazdani teams [12,13] summarized the first trials for the determination of spatial
fields (Mach number, pressure and quality) inside CO2 ejector passages by means of validated CFD
modeling. The recent work of Elbel and Lawrence [10] provided more information on emerging CFD
efforts, new control measures, alternate cycle configurations and progress towards the development of
applications based on ejectors for expansion recovery in cooling-refrigeration setups.
Given the large amount of ejector material accumulated over the years and the availability of
well-documented works in the literature, focus here will be put on highlighting the main characteristics
of the technology and the latest development trends.
This work therefore presents updates of representative and recent progress in two-phase ejector
modeling, integration in air-conditioning, refrigeration and heat pump cycles as well as in diverse
potential applications.

2. Two-Phase Ejector Characteristics

Like other ejector types, two-phase ejectors are simple devices with no moving parts and similar
geometric components: a primary nozzle, a mixing chamber and a diffuser. Two fluid streams, a liquid
phase and a gas (or vapor phase) are involved. Generally, both phases are of the same fluid such as is
the case with conventional refrigerants or water. Depending on the role of each phase, a different type
of ejector is obtained with its specific design, local geometry, operation and application [14].
If the vapor is the moving agent of the liquid, the device generally represented by this
configuration is the condensing ejector (often called steam injector) [15].
If on the contrary, the liquid is the moving agent of the vapor, then the device is simply called
two-phase ejector [16–18].
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 3 of 54

2.1. Ejector Types

2.1.1. Gas–Liquid Injectors

Inventions 2018, 3, x 3 of 54
A condensing ejector (also known as steam injector) uses vapor at high pressure as a motive
stream
than the to pump
vapor coldinletliquid at lowIts
pressure. pressure,
operation and relies
to produce
only an onoutlet pressure potentially
thermodynamic processes higher than
of mass,
the vapor inlet pressure. Its operation relies only on thermodynamic
momentum, and heat transfer between the two phases in order to produce the compression effect. processes of mass, momentum,
and heat
Such transfer
a device canbetween
be usedthe as two phases
a safety in order
pump to produce
in light the compression
water reactors, as steameffect.
supplySuch a device
is generally
can be used as a safety pump in light water reactors, as steam supply
available in power plants and a high-pressure water supply can be useful for heat removal in case is generally available in power of
plants
incidentand a high-pressure water supply can be useful for heat removal in case of incident [14,19,20].
[14,19,20].
A schematic
A representation of
schematic representation of aa steam
steam injector
injector is is shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 1a,1a, where
where fourfour zones
zones cancan bebe
distinguished. The first zone is the vapor nozzle, with a converging–diverging
distinguished. The first zone is the vapor nozzle, with a converging–diverging shape, where the shape, where the
vapor
vapor isis accelerated
accelerated to to supersonic
supersonic velocity
velocity through
through aa nearly
nearly isentropic
isentropic expansion.
expansion. Liquid
Liquid feeds
feeds into
into
the injector by means of the liquid nozzle. Two nozzle arrangements
the injector by means of the liquid nozzle. Two nozzle arrangements can be found in the literature: can be found in the literature:
vapor-central
vapor-central or or liquid-central.
liquid-central.In Inthis
thisfigure
figurethethearrangement
arrangementshown shown is is
a vapor-central
a vapor-central nozzle
nozzleandandan
annular
an annularouter liquid
outer nozzle
liquid nozzlefor for
illustration
illustration purposes.
purposes.
In the mixing section, vapor and
In the mixing section, vapor and liquid exchangeliquid exchange heat, momentum and mass (due
heat, momentum and tomasscondensation
(due to
of steam on the
condensation wateron
of steam droplets
the water extracted
dropletsfrom the water
extracted from cone at the
the water exitatofthe
cone the water
exit of the nozzle).
water
Condensation
nozzle). is achieved
Condensation in the shock
is achieved in thewaveshockoccurring
wave occurringat the exit of exit
at the the of
mixing section
the mixing in thein
section form
the
of condensation shock. The major pressure rise results from this process,
form of condensation shock. The major pressure rise results from this process, further liquid slow further liquid slow down
and a and
down low-pressure
a low-pressureincrease is obtained
increase is obtainedin the diffuser
in the diffuser [21]. Review
[21]. Reviewdetails
detailsononinjector
injector modeling
modeling
and application may be found in [22]. In a recent paper, Miwa et al. [23] extended their previous
and application may be found in [22]. In a recent paper, Miwa et al. [23] extended their previous
experimental study
experimental studyononsteam steam injectors
injectors with central
with liquid
central jet to jet
liquid widen the operating
to widen range and
the operating improve
range and
pumping performance.
improve pumping The conditions
performance. The investigated were within 0.02–0.81
conditions investigated were within MPa0.02–0.81
for inlet steam
MPa pressure
for inlet
and 0.21–0.80
steam pressure kg/s
andfor inlet water
0.21–0.80 kg/sflow
for rate,
inlet respectively.
water flow rate, The authors considered
respectively. the liquid
The authors jet break-up
considered the
length jet
liquid to assess
break-up the length
injectortooperation
assess themode, injectorconfirming
operationthe existence
mode, of inletthe
confirming water flow rate
existence and
of inlet
steam flow
water pressure
rate limits;
and steam by using the liquid
pressure limits;jet
bystability
using the analysis,
liquid jetthey also proposed
stability analysis,an theyexplanation
also proposedto its
operating range.
an explanation to its operating range.
Bergander [24]
Bergander [24]usedusedthisthis
concept to propose
concept to proposea modified vapor compression
a modified cycle for refrigeration
vapor compression cycle for
with R22 where the condensing ejector was used. In such a
refrigeration with R22 where the condensing ejector was used. In such a system, the mechanicalsystem, the mechanical compressor
pressurized
compressor the vapor to approximately
pressurized the vapor to 2/3 of the final pressure.
approximately 2/3 of the Thefinal
ejector device provided
pressure. The ejector additional
device
compression,
provided therefore
additional significantly
compression, reducing
therefore the amount
significantly of mechanical
reducing the amount energy required energy
of mechanical by the
compressor.
required A thermodynamic
by the analysis of the system
compressor. A thermodynamic analysisshowed a potential
of the system showed efficiency
a potentialimprovement
efficiency
of 38% above of
improvement the38%conventional vapor compression
above the conventional cycle and preliminary
vapor compression experimentsexperiments
cycle and preliminary on a 10 kW
prototype
on a 10 kWsuggested
prototypeabout 16% energy
suggested about 16% savings.
energy savings.

Figure
Figure 1.
1. Typical
Typical geometry of two-phase ejectors: (a) vapor–liquid ejector; (b) liquid–vapor ejector.
ejector.

2.1.2. Liquid–Gas Ejectors

Additionally referred to, as two-phase ejectors, they use the potential energy of the liquid flow
(primary motive stream) to entrain a secondary fluid of the same or of a different type (gas or vapor
stream) and impress on it some compression effect (generally weak in comparison to single-phase
supersonic ejectors). The geometry consists of a convergent or convergent–divergent nozzle, a mixing
chamber and a diffuser, as shown in Figure 1b. In the commonly intended ejector-expansion
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 4 of 54

2.1.2. Liquid–Gas Ejectors

Additionally referred to, as two-phase ejectors, they use the potential energy of the liquid flow
(primary motive stream) to entrain a secondary fluid of the same or of a different type (gas or vapor
stream) and impress on it some compression effect (generally weak in comparison to single-phase
supersonic
Inventions 2018,ejectors).
3, x The geometry consists of a convergent or convergent–divergent nozzle, a mixing 4 of 54
chamber and a diffuser, as shown in Figure 1b. In the commonly intended ejector-expansion
saturated
refrigeration pressure, or slightly the
cycle application, sub-cooled.
motive liquidNearly isentropic
stream, expansion
is provided by theoccurs in theatprimary
condenser nozzle,
high, saturated
accelerating
pressure, the liquid
or slightly into the mixing
sub-cooled. Nearlychamber
isentropic where a secondary
expansion occurs in vapor stream from
the primary theaccelerating
nozzle, evaporator
is
thedrawn
liquidand intoentrained.
the mixingInchamber
the zonewhere of the amixing
secondarychambervaporwith constant
stream from cross-section,
the evaporator sometimes
is drawn
called the ejector
and entrained. Insecond
the zone throat,
of thethe resulting
mixing two-phase
chamber mixture is
with constant assumed to sometimes
cross-section, go throughcalled
a processthe
of shock
ejector wavethroat,
second formation before heading
the resulting two-phase towards
mixturethe is
diffuser
assumed fortofinal compression.
go through Thisofmixing
a process shock
process
wave is not yetbefore
formation well understood
heading towardsand duethe to diffuser
its complexity,
for final little confirmed information
compression. This mixingisprocess
available is
in
nottheyetliterature.
well understoodTwo-phase andejector
due tomodest compression
its complexity, littleisconfirmed
likely due,information
mainly to weak shocks and
is available in theto
the limitedTwo-phase
literature. compressibility of the
ejector two-phase
modest mixtureis[25].
compression likely due, mainly to weak shocks and to the
limited compressibility of the two-phase mixture [25].
2.2. Ejector Geometry
2.2. Ejector Geometry
The geometrical features of an ejector have an important influence on performance, irrespective
of itsThe
type. geometrical features ofcommonly
Typical parameters, an ejector have an important
identified to affectinfluence on performance,
optimal ejector design for irrespective
maximized
of its type. Typical
performance parameters,
are generally commonly
the area ratio (ϕ)identified
which is theto affect
ratio of optimal ejectorarea
the constant design for maximized
cross-section zone
performance are generally the area ratio (φ) which is the ratio
or second throat to the nozzle throat cross-section area, the nozzle exit position (NXP) and the of the constant area cross-section
zone or second
constant throat to thezone
area cross-section nozzle throat(Lcross-section
length m) as definedarea, the nozzle
in Figure 2. The exit position
mixing (NXP) and
chamber and the
constantangles
diffuser area cross-section
(respectivelyzone φ and length (Lm )as
η) as well asthe
defined
angle in of Figure
the primary2. The mixing
nozzle chamber
divergent β, and
also the
are
diffuser angles
sometimes considered. (respectively ϕ and η) as well as the angle of the primary nozzle divergent β, also are
sometimes considered.
As previously discussed (Part 1 of this review), two alternate ejector geometry concepts
As previously
proposed by Keenan discussed (Part
et al. [26] are1 of
thethis review),
constant two alternate
pressure mixingejector
(CPM) geometry concepts
and constant proposed
mixing area
by Keenan et al. [26] are the constant pressure mixing (CPM) and
(CMA). In spite of the fact that the CPM concept is usually preferred for its secondary flow constant mixing area (CMA). In spite
of the fact that
entrainment the CPMunder
capability concept is usually
given conditions,preferred
both for its secondary
concepts are equally flowused,
entrainment
depending capability
on the
under given conditions, both concepts are equally used, depending on
ejector intended use and its environment conditions. Very recent work of Atmaca et al. [27] compared the ejector intended use and its
environment
the two mixing conditions.
concepts by Very
meansrecent work of Atmacaanalysis.
of thermodynamic et al. [27]Similar
compared the two mixing
performance concepts
improvement of
by means
the expansion of thermodynamic
ejector refrigeration analysis.
cycle,Similar
under bothperformance
CAM and improvement of the expansion
CPM configurations, was found. ejector
refrigeration
In heat cycle,
pumpunder both CAM and
and refrigeration CPM configurations,
applications, the geometric was found.
parameters used for two-phase
In heat
ejectors pump and refrigeration
are essentially the same as thoseapplications,
used tothe geometric
qualify parameters
single-phase used In
ejectors. forthe
two-phase
case of ejectors
are essentially
serving other the same asinthose
purposes used toand
industrial qualify single-phase
process applications ejectors.someIn the casedifferences
slight of ejectors serving
in the
other purposes in industrial and process applications some slight
definitions and terminology may sometimes be encountered in the literature. Geometric parameters differences in the definitions and
terminology
have an effectmay sometimes
on ejector be encountered
performance and operationin thetoliterature. Geometric
various extents, parameters
depending on thehave an effect
ejector type,
on ejector performance and operation to various extents, depending
the working fluids, the application and operating conditions. The nozzle exit position, NXP is the on the ejector type, the working
fluids, the
relative application
nozzle andto
distance operating
the mixing conditions.
chamber Thethroat
nozzleinlet exit position,
and sometimesNXP is the relativeinnozzle
reported non-
distance to the
dimensional form mixing
as NXP/Dchamber throat inlet
m. It generally hasand sometimes
an effect on bothreported in non-dimensional
the entrainment form as
and the compression
NXP/D
ratios . It generally has an effect on both the entrainment and the compression ratios of ejectors.
ofmejectors.

Figure 2. Typical ejector geometry parameters.

Liu et al. [28] investigated the effects of various ejector geometries and operating conditions on
the performance of an air conditioner working with CO2 under transcritical conditions. A maximum
COP value was reached when the motive nozzle exit positioned before the mixing chamber inlet was
three times the diameter of the constant-area mixing section. Hu et al. [29] experimented a two-phase
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 5 of 54

Liu et al. [28] investigated the effects of various ejector geometries and operating conditions on the
performance of an air conditioner working with CO2 under transcritical conditions. A maximum COP
value was reached when the motive nozzle exit positioned before the mixing chamber inlet was three
times the diameter of the constant-area mixing section. Hu et al. [29] experimented a two-phase ejector
with the refrigerant R410A, in an air-conditioning system. The distance between the nozzle outlet and
the constant section mixing chamber was varied from 0 to 9 mm. An optimal position of the nozzle
for system capacity and performance was found to be 3 mm. Experimental results obtained by Wang
and Yu [30] with R600a two-phase ejector showed no optimal position for the nozzle. A slight increase
of entrainment ratio with NXP was observed, but at 6 mm upstream of the mixing chamber, the
entrainment ratio tended to remain constant. Unlike this trend, experiments of Ameur and Aidoun [31]
with R134a two-phase ejector have shown an optimal position of the primary nozzle in the ejector, and
this position was not very sensitive to operational conditions. The authors noticed a sharp drop in
performance of the ejector when the nozzle was placed close to the inlet of the constant-area section.
Nehdi et al. [32] showed by means of thermodynamic analysis the importance of the area ratio
on EERC system’s performance for several refrigerants. A maximum COP was obtained for φ value
around 10. Along the same lines of investigations, Sarkar [33] thermodynamic analysis of EERC with
ammonia, isobutane and propane confirmed the importance of the area ratio on performance. In the
conditions of the study (Te = 5 ◦ C and Tc = 40 ◦ C), isobutane yielded maximum COP improvement of
21.6% followed by propane (17.9%) and ammonia (11.9%), for area ratios of 10, 7.7 and 5.7 respectively.
The area of the mixing chamber cross-section affects ejector performance differently, depending
on inlet conditions. Small mixing areas are more favorable with low inlet pressures in terms of
entrainment and compression ratios while larger cross-section areas are more suitable with high ejector
pressures or low temperatures for more capacity [8].
Nakagawa et al. [34] experimentally showed 10% COP difference between smallest and largest
mixing areas. As shown by Hu et al. [29] by means of thermodynamic analysis and experiments on
an EERC type air-conditioning apparatus working with R410A, NXP and the area ratio φ sensibly
affected system performance by exhibiting optimum working conditions.
The effects of the second throat length (i.e., the zone of the mixing chamber with constant
cross-section) were identified to play a role in ejector performance. Nakagawa et al. [35] investigated
the effects experimentally of the mixing section’s geometry on the performance of a two-phase ejector
with R12. Results indicated an enhancement of the pressure recovery by increasing the length and
decreasing the diameter of the mixing section. Tested Lm /Dm ratios ranged from 4 to 21. However, no
significant improvement in pressure recovery was observed beyond Lm /Dm = 16.
In another paper, Nakagawa et al. [36] analyzed experimentally the effect of mixing length of
a transcritical CO2 two-phase ejector with rectangular cross-section. Three mixing lengths were
experimented (5 mm, 15 mm, and 25 mm); the 15 mm case yielded the highest ejector efficiency and
COP in all tested conditions. Along the same lines of investigations with transcritical CO2 two-phase
ejector, Banasiak et al. [37] tested three mixing section length (Lm /Dm = 5, 10 and 20); the ratio
Lm /Dm = 10 was associated with the highest ejector efficiency. In a recent study, Jeon et al. [38],
investigated the effects of Dt and Dm on the performance of an ejector expansion air conditioner using
R410A, under various climatic conditions. Dt was varied from 1.04 to 1.21 mm, and Dm from 7 to
13 mm, while the ratio Lm /Dm was fixed at 10. At the smallest Dt , the maximum COP increase was
observed. The optimum Dm was determined to be 9 mm. Dm was optimized based on the climatic
conditions. The optimum Dm increased with an increase in the average annual outdoor temperature.
In general, results about mixing length indicated that an optimization procedure might be crucial
for proper ejector design. Indeed, a substantial length can result in considerable friction forces with a
negative impact on the mechanism of pressure recovery, whereas a shorter length may result in an
inefficient mixing of the two streams. Angles ϕ and η do not seem to have a systematic influence
despite some cases where said influence was reported [29,39,40].
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 6 of 54

Nakagawa et al. [41] investigated the effect of the divergent angle of the primary nozzle, showing
that it played an important role in the decompression boiling phenomena of transcritical CO2 , such that
the pressure profiles did not correspond to the predictions of the isentropic homogeneous equilibrium
model because the flow was in a non-equilibrium and supersaturated state.
More
Inventions recently,
2018, 3, x the variable nozzle throat area was proposed and thus the area ratio, as control
6 of 54
means to improve the operating performance of the transcritical CO2 ejector refrigeration system [42].
A further
A further geometry
geometry concept of the the two-phase
two-phase ejector was introduced by Zhou et al. [43]
[43] as
as the
the
dual ejector,
ejector,shown
shownininFigure
Figure3.3.It It
is equipped with two nozzles and will be further discussed in a latera
is equipped with two nozzles and will be further discussed in
later section
Section 5.2.1. (5.2.1).

Figure 3. Dual-nozzle ejector [43].

Recent
Recent work
work by
by Bodys
Bodys et
et al.
al. [44]
[44] proposed
proposed aa two-phase
two-phase ejector
ejector for
for CO with a
CO22 with a bypass
bypass on on the
the
suction nozzle duct (Figure 4). The study assessed numerically the bypass positioning and
suction nozzle duct (Figure 4). The study assessed numerically the bypass positioning and its angleits angle of
incidence under
of incidence several
under working
several working conditions. Encouraging
conditions. preliminary
Encouraging preliminaryresults in the
results order
in the of 22.4%
order to
of 22.4%
30.4% efficiency
to 30.4% improvement
efficiency improvement at low-pressure conditions
at low-pressure were
conditions obtained
were butbut
obtained more work
more is needed
work for
is needed
higher pressures.
for higher pressures.

Figure 4. Ejector
Figure with
4. Ejector a bypass
with [44].
a bypass [44].

2.3. Ejector Performance

2.3. Ejector Performance
Two-phase ejector performance in the refrigeration context is defined in the same manner as
Two-phase ejector performance in the refrigeration context is defined in the same manner as for
for the familiar
the familiar single
single phase,
phase, supersonic
supersonic ejector.
ejector. TheThe entrainment
entrainment ratio
ratio ω, ω, characterizes
characterizes thethe capacity
capacity of
of the ejector to draw secondary mass flow rate by a primary mass flow rate determined by the
the ejector to draw secondary mass flow rate by a primary mass flow rate determined by the inlet
inlet conditions,
conditions, .
ms
ω = ω, = m . , (1)
(1)
p
and the compression ratio relates the outlet to secondary inlet pressures.
and the compression ratio relates the outlet to secondary inlet pressures.
τ= , (2)
In the context of EERC, primary and secondary P
τ = b , inlet pressures are typically defined by the
(2)
condenser and the evaporator temperatures, affectingPs both the entrainment and compression ratios.
As the
In wascontext
shown by of Disawas and Wongwises
EERC, primary [45], theinlet
and secondary motive mass flow
pressures arerate of the ejector
typically definedis by
highly
the
dependent on the heat sink temperature and independent of the heat source temperature.
condenser and the evaporator temperatures, affecting both the entrainment and compression ratios. This is due
to theAs
fact thatshown
was choked byflow occursand
Disawas at the motive nozzle,
Wongwises [45], and the upstream
the motive condition
mass flow rate has a significant
of the ejector is
effect on the mass flow rate. On the other hand, the heat source and heat sink
highly dependent on the heat sink temperature and independent of the heat source temperature. temperatures have
Thisa
significant
is due to theeffect on the
fact that cooling
choked flowcapacity.
occurs atLiquid sub-cooling
the motive nozzle, was shown
and the to have
upstream an effect
condition hasona
performance. The entrainment ratio is generally higher for small amounts of sub-cooling
significant effect on the mass flow rate. On the other hand, the heat source and heat sink temperatures [46].
have a significant effect on the cooling capacity. Liquid sub-cooling was shown to have an effect on
2.3.1. Ejector Efficiency
performance. The entrainment ratio is generally higher for small amounts of sub-cooling [46].
The performance characterization of all ejector types requires two performance parameters, the
entrainment and the compression ratios defined above, respectively as ω and τ. During ejector
operations, these parameters vary in opposite direction: if ω increases, τ decreases and vice-versa,
while it is generally desired that both factors be simultaneously maximized. This represents a
limitation for comparing ejector design alternatives in practical conditions. As a result, ways were
sought to represent ejector performance by a single characteristic factor, accounting for both aspects
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 7 of 54

2.3.1. Ejector Efficiency

The performance characterization of all ejector types requires two performance parameters, the
entrainment and the compression ratios defined above, respectively as ω and τ. During ejector
operations, these parameters vary in opposite direction: if ω increases, τ decreases and vice-versa,
while it is generally desired that both factors be simultaneously maximized. This represents a
limitation for comparing ejector design alternatives in practical conditions. As a result, ways
were sought to represent ejector performance by a single characteristic factor, accounting for both
aspects of entrainment and compression. Hence, various efficiency definitions were proposed,
differing particularly on their interpretation of the energy accounting and the required steps for
their computation.
Lawrence and Elbel [47], compared several different ejector efficiency definitions, noting that
each definition resulted in a different numerical value for the same ejector operating conditions. They
discussed their respective features and the requirements for their application. They concluded that the
performance of ejectors from different studies were not directly comparable unless they were measured
with the same efficiency. They also noted that in the case of efficiencies developed for single-phase
ejectors, the large enthalpy differences between saturated liquid and vapor hinder their application in
two-phase ejectors.
For these reasons, Elbel and Hrnjak [48] efficiency definition seems to be better adapted to handle
two-phase situations without having recourse to assumptions on internal non-measured parameter
values. They defined the ejector efficiency as the actual work recovered by the ejector, divided by
the theoretical maximum amount that could be recovered by an isentropic expansion of the motive
stream from motive inlet to diffuser outlet pressure, as shown in Equation (3). This efficiency was
introduced by Koehler et al. [49] and was subsequently confirmed by Elbel and Hrnjak [48] with a
different derivation procedure.
h(Pb , Ss ) − hs
ηej = ω
(3)
hp − h Pb , Sp
Thermodynamic models accuracy depends largely on ejector component efficiencies. Some studies
were dedicated to assess the ejector internal efficiencies [50–53]. An analysis based on measured
parameters allowed Liu et al. [28] to generate information and operational data on parameters
affecting ejector performance and components efficiencies in the cycle. These results served to
establish correlations for the ejector internal efficiencies. In a subsequent work, the authors found
that ejector component efficiencies do not remain constant but rather vary with internal geometry and
operating conditions. They further established and incorporated empirical correlations into a CO2
air-conditioning system model to estimate ejector component efficiencies at different ejector geometries
and operating conditions [52].

2.3.2. Second Law Analysis of Ejectors

Analysis of irreversibility in an ejector refrigeration cycle (ERC or EERC) and its contribution to
overall performance represents a further step in the evaluation process. Entropy and exergy approaches
allow identifying the distribution of irreversible losses in the system, their magnitude and makes
comparisons possible with other processes.
Banasiak et al. [54] numerically analyzed the contribution of the local irreversibility losses to the
overall entropy increase in CO2 ejectors by introducing a new factor to evaluate performance, based on
the reference entropy increase in a classic expansion valve. The parameter ςej introduced by the authors
quantifies the entropy increase avoided with the use of an ejector relative to a reference process:

∆Sej
ςej = 1 − (4)
∆Sref
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 8 of 54

where ∆Sej and ∆Sref are the generated entropies across the ejector and reference process respectively.
In the case of an EERC, ∆Sref represents the throttling stage of a standard refrigeration cycle under the
same operating conditions.
For an experimental EERC with CO2 , Banasiak et al. [54] observed ςej in the range (−0.062; 0.223).
Negative ςej values mean that more irreversibilities were generated across the ejector than the reference
did. In addition, the influence of the diameter and length of the mixing chamber was shown to
significantly affect performance. In the conditions considered in this study, an enlargement of the
mixing cross section area by 17.4% and shortening the mixing length by 33.3% resulted in an increase
of the overall entropy growth rate by 8.9% and 5.4%, respectively.
Another useful performance parameter resulting from the second law is the exergy efficiency ξχ ,
defined as the ratio of outlet to input exergy flow rates:

.
. .

ξχ = χb / χp + χs , (5)

.
with χi being the exergy flow rate, that is: the maximum work rate theoretically available between the
thermodynamic conditions at surface i and a reference dead state 0:
. .
χi = mi [(hi − h0 ) − T0 (Si − S0 )], (6)

Typical reference (or dead state) choices for isolated ejector studies are the secondary inlet state or
the working fluid at normal conditions (1 atm and 288 K). For refrigeration cycles, it is usual to choose
the condenser inlet conditions. The value of ξχ represents the amount of potential work recovered
using an ejector.
Ersoy and Bilir [50] assessed the effects of two-phase ejector internal efficiencies on performance
and for a given set of these efficiencies, a comparison of the exergy destruction in the cycle components
with and without ejector. The results indicated that increased ejector efficiencies enhanced cycle
performance, exergy efficiency and reduced the optimum ejector area ratio.
Later, Bilir et al. [55] experimentally compared the performance of a vapor compression
refrigerator using R134a and its ejector-expander equivalent under the same conditions. The
ejector-expander refrigeration system’s coefficient of performance was higher than that of the basic
system by 7.34–12.87%, while the exergy efficiency values were 6.6–11.24% higher. The authors
measured ξej ≈ 98% for an EERC with R134a. The exergy efficiency of the whole EERC system was on
average 18%, always two points over that of the standard refrigeration system without ejector tested
under the same operating conditions.

2.4. Internal Flow Structure

The flow structure inside the ejector influences operation and performance. Information on
flow distribution is therefore necessary to explore gas–liquid phenomena and the nature of streams
interaction. Global analyses resulting from thermodynamic treatment or experimental operations
hardly give access to this type of information. Theoretical and experimental studies conducted in order
to establish links between the internal structure and performance are still scarce. Multi-dimensional
numerical studies based CFD are emerging in two-phase ejector area but need more local validation.
Visualization experiments are important in boosting numerical capabilities to reliably predict the
complex flow structure inside ejectors and link it to their operation.
Most visualization experiments available in the literature are single-phase ejectors, with air,
nitrogen or steam at low to moderate pressures. Visualization techniques commonly employed in
theses cases are the Schlieren, Shadowgraph and laser tomography methods as discussed in Part 1
of this work. However, limited studies were conducted to illustrate the mixing process and shock
patterns in two-phase ejectors.
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 9 of 54

Banasiak et al. [9] pointed out in relation to experimental methods of flow visualization in
transcritical CO2 ejectors, the scarcity of experimental identification or classification of flow patterns for
the two-phase CO2 ejector passages. In this respect and for two-phase ejector internal flow structures
in general, visualization methods with high resolution are needed to capture shock phenomena in
specially limited component sizes such as found in two-phase ejectors operating with common and
natural refrigerants. Schlieren visualization and PIV techniques applied in single-phase devices are
also progressively introduced to capture two-phase flow structures and velocity effects.
Experiments supported by visualization techniques in two-phase flow are performed in nozzles
as they are utilized in many applications. For example, pressure drop mechanisms as well as flow
choking conditions that determine mass flow rate in refrigerant expansion devices are relevant to heat
pumps and refrigerators, areas where expansion work recovery is nowadays one of the privileged
methods to improve refrigeration cycle performance [56].
Two-phase ejector flow visualization was first applied with water, air, steam or other gases before
the conventional refrigerants and carbon dioxide.
In the development context of a suitable standard for the design of jet pumps for chemical
industries, Takashima [57] conducted a theoretical and experimental study on several water–air ejector
geometries. The jet-pump setup was made out of two pairs of steel plates forming the internal shape,
inserted between two Perspex plates in order to allow visual observation by trans-illumination. The
author did not detail his observations of the actual motion of the liquid–gas compound, which he
considered as too intricate to be analyzed. However, these preliminary visualizations served as
guidance to simplifying assumptions for modeling the flow.
Much later, and in order to develop a CFD application of a large-scale steam injector, Narabayashi
et al. [19] conducted visualization experiments on a reduced scale injector to generate the needed
information. The mixing nozzle was made of stacked heat-resisting acrylic resin annuluses to visualize
water and the steam jet inside. The central nozzle introduced a water jet, while the steam jet was blown
into the mixing nozzle through the annulus gap formed by water jet and the mixing nozzle. Steam
velocity measurement, made by means of a Laser Doppler Velocimetry (LDV) system, consisted of 1 W
laser source, transmitting optics, a fiber-optic probe, receiving optics and a high-speed signal processor
(up to 150 MHz). A frequency shifting technique was used to decrease the observed Doppler frequency.
The laser beam was such that mist droplets moving with the steam could be used as tracer particles.
Moreover, and considering the fact that an ejector can be viewed as a combination of an internal
nozzle (motive) and an external nozzle (main body) many studies on nozzle flow are relevant to
ejectors. Therefore, some visualization work on two-phase nozzle operation is worth mentioning. In
this respect, Simoes-Moreira et al. [58] performed flashing liquid jet experiments in a simple convergent
with iso-octane, using Shlieren images to analyze flashing jet structure and geometry. Berana et al. [59]
conducted visualization experiments on two-phase flow fluid structure in a converging–diverging
nozzle operating with CO2 in transcritical conditions. Images of flashing CO2 flow were captured for
both under-expanded and over-expanded flow by using an analog microscope and a camera. The
flows could be observed through the transparent polycarbonate wall on one side of the nozzle.
Ohira et al. [60] conducted their study on cavitation instability behavior of sub-cooled cryogenic
liquid flows in a converging–diverging circular nozzle with several throat diameters (Figure 5). The
working fluid was sub-cooled liquid nitrogen and the flow visualization of cavitation phenomena was
undertaken at the outlet of a converging–diverging nozzle, using a high-speed video camera with
imaging at a high frame rate and backlighting, so that the bubble clouds appeared as shadows.
Kim et al. [61] tested a two-phase injector to study hydrodynamic characteristics of the annular
type ejector system. In contrast to Narabayashi et al. [19] device, steam was the central stream
and water the annular stream. The injector module was made of acrylic materials to allow visual
observation of the formation of air bubbles by PIV measurement. A high-speed camera and a 12 W
LED lamp used as a continuous volume illumination light source to get bubble images were installed.
Flow visualization revealed that water/air mixed flow was immediately generated in the throat region
 Kim et al. [61] tested a two-phase injector to study hydrodynamic characteristics of the annular
type ejector system. In contrast to Narabayashi et al. [19] device, steam was the central stream and
water the annular stream. The injector module was made of acrylic materials to allow visual
observation of the formation of air bubbles by PIV measurement. A high-speed camera and a 12 W
LED lamp
Inventions used
2019, 4, 16as a continuous volume illumination light source to get bubble images were installed.
10 of 54
Flow visualization revealed that water/air mixed flow was immediately generated in the throat
region of the mixing chamber. The instantaneous shadow images of bubbles illuminated by the LED
of theshowed
lamp mixing typical
chamber. The instantaneous
characteristics shadow images
of homogeneous bubblyofflow.
bubbles illuminated
At high water flowbyrate,
the LED lamp
the whole
showed typical characteristics of homogeneous bubbly flow. At high water flow rate, the whole
section was filled with small bubbles. However, buoyant effects are partially observed at low water section
was
flowfilled
rate. with small bubbles. However, buoyant effects are partially observed at low water flow rate.

Inventions 2018, 3, x 10 of 54

In a similar configuration as Kim et al. [61], Kwidzinski [62] investigated the condensation wave
structure in a steam–water injector for validation purposes and visualized the phenomenon with a
high-speed video camera. To this end, the light source was placed behind the observed flow section
and the two-phase parts of the flow, which were translucent, appeared dark in the still frames (Figure
6). This recording synchronized with the measurements of pressure and temperature along the
mixing chamber and diffuser walls, helped reveal the flow dynamics and the structures associated
with the final stages of condensation.
Subsequently, Choi et al. [63] used the same visualization procedure for the case of recovering
air pollutant generated in an oil tank into the crude oil using a gas–liquid ejector system. The flow
visualization experiments were conducted on an air–water ejector, using a high speed, 60 mm lens
camera. An LED lamp rated at 12 W, installed at the back of a rectangular visualization chamber
made of transparent acrylic, served as the light source to obtain bubble images through a light
scattering.
Relevant to refrigeration studies, Little and Garimella [64] designed a transparent ejector test
section which they tested in an ejector-based chiller operating with R134a. The undistorted visual
access allowedFigure
for detailed shadowgraph
5. Photographs visualization
of cavitation of throat
at nozzle the motive
throat (D jet in
(Dtt = 1.5 mm)the[60].
mixing section at
various degrees of condensation. They used high-speed imaging with measured temperatures and
In a similar
pressures configuration
at the ejector inletsas forKim et al.
model [61], Kwidzinski
validation [62] investigated
purposes (Figure 7). the condensation wave
structure The
in ainterest in the use
steam–water of Carbone
injector Dioxide in
for validation transcritical
purposes andheat pump and
visualized therefrigerator
phenomenon cycles
with a
paved the
high-speed waycamera.
video for the first visualization
To this works
end, the light on thewas
source flowplaced
structure in these
behind the devices.
observed flow section and
Elbel and
the two-phase Hrnjak
parts of the[65] in their
flow, investigations
which on high-side
were translucent, pressure
appeared control
dark of astill
in the transcritical R744 6).
frames (Figure
two-phase ejector system to maximize the COP, used a semi-transparent ejector on which images of
This recording synchronized with the measurements of pressure and temperature along the mixing
the mixing section were taken through high-speed flow visualization and under realistic operating
chamber and diffuser walls, helped reveal the flow dynamics and the structures associated with the
conditions. In addition, their measurements of the static wall pressure distributions along the axis of
final stages of condensation.
the ejector allowed them to identify the existence of mixing shock waves, confirmed by visualization.

Figure6.6.Condensation
Figure Condensation wave
wavestructure
structure[62].
[62].
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 11 of 54

Subsequently, Choi et al. [63] used the same visualization procedure for the case of recovering
air pollutant generated in an oil tank into the crude oil using a gas–liquid ejector system. The flow
visualization experiments were conducted on an air–water ejector, using a high speed, 60 mm lens
camera. An LED lamp rated at 12 W, installed at the back of a rectangular visualization chamber made
of transparent acrylic, served as the light source to obtain bubble images through a light scattering.
Relevant to refrigeration studies, Little and Garimella [64] designed a transparent ejector test
section which they tested in an ejector-based chiller operating with R134a. The undistorted visual
access allowed for detailed shadowgraph visualization of the motive jet in the mixing section at various
degrees of condensation. They used high-speed imaging with measured temperatures and pressures
at the ejector inlets for model validation purposes (Figure 7).
The interest in the use of Carbone Dioxide in transcritical heat pump and refrigerator cycles paved
the way for the first visualization works on the flow structure in these devices.
Elbel and Hrnjak [65] in their investigations on high-side pressure control of a transcritical R744
two-phase ejector system to maximize the COP, used a semi-transparent ejector on which images of
the mixing section were taken through high-speed flow visualization and under realistic operating
conditions. In addition, their measurements of the static wall pressure distributions along the axis of
the ejector
Inventions allowed
2018, 3, x them to identify the existence of mixing shock waves, confirmed by visualization.
11 of 54

Figure 7. Motive jet condensation in mixing chamber inlet [64].

Deng
Deng etet al. [66] visual
al. [66] visual investigation
investigation of of aa two-phase
two-phase ejector
ejector for
for aa transcritical
transcritical CO cycle was
CO22 cycle was based
based
on
on aa shadowgraph
shadowgraph visualization
visualization approach.
approach. The The study
study concerned
concerned the the mixing
mixing chamber
chamber and focused on
and focused on
suction and mixing processes as well as configuration variations in flow
suction and mixing processes as well as configuration variations in flow structure with operational structure with operational
parameters
parameters or or geometry
geometry features
features suchsuch as
as primary pressure conditions,
primary pressure conditions, cross-section
cross-section area area mixing
mixing and
and
the primary nozzle divergent length. Images of the mixing process
the primary nozzle divergent length. Images of the mixing process showed that these parameters showed that these parameters
played
played an an important
important role role in
in premixed
premixed vortex
vortex formations,
formations, their
their size
size and
and their
their location
location in in the
the suction
suction
chamber. The geometry features in particular, seemed to substantially influence
chamber. The geometry features in particular, seemed to substantially influence the stream mixing the stream mixing and
the flow homogeneity, a condition that affects
and the flow homogeneity, a condition that affects performance.performance.
More
More recently,
recently, ZhuZhu et et al.
al. [67]
[67] investigated
investigated the the internal
internal structure
structure of of aa CO
CO22 two-phase
two-phase ejector
ejector
operating in transcritical flow conditions, relying of visualization experiments
operating in transcritical flow conditions, relying of visualization experiments by direct photography. by direct photography.
The
The method
method usedused aa single
single lens
lens reflex
reflex camera
camera and and aa light
light film
film for
for uniform
uniform light
light and
and more
more brightness
brightness
adjustment to better distinguish vapor and liquid droplets
adjustment to better distinguish vapor and liquid droplets in the flow medium. in the flow medium.
The
The Schlieren
Schlierenmethodmethod was wasused without
used success
without to visualize
success the flowthe
to visualize field,
flowbecause
field, this approach,
because this
based on the deflection of light by the refractive index gradient was
approach, based on the deflection of light by the refractive index gradient was very sensitive very sensitive to CO 2 and oil2
to CO
droplets in the flow.
and oil droplets The
in the results
flow. Theof the investigations
results have shown
of the investigations have the influence
shown of parameters
the influence such as
of parameters
the inlet pressures and the expansion angle at the nozzle
such as the inlet pressures and the expansion angle at the nozzle exit. exit.

2.5. Applications Potential of the Two-Phase Ejector

2.5. Applications Potential of the Two-Phase Ejector
As early as 1858, Henri Giffard [68] patented a two-phase ejector to supply water for steam
As early as 1858, Henri Giffard [68] patented a two-phase ejector to supply water for steam
locomotives. Nowadays, significant efforts are undertaken to use the two-phase ejector in several
locomotives. Nowadays, significant efforts are undertaken to use the two-phase ejector in several
applications such as fuel cells [69,70], desalination system [2,71], ballast water treatment [72], nuclear
applications such as fuel cells [69,70], desalination system [2,71], ballast water treatment [72], nuclear
power plant [22], evacuation and exhaust of gases [73].
power plant [22], evacuation and exhaust of gases [73].
Two-phase ejectors unique feature of static devices with no moving parts, which makes them
Two-phase ejectors unique feature of static devices with no moving parts, which makes them
particularly reliable and requiring no or minimal maintenance is most attractive for many applications
particularly reliable and requiring no or minimal maintenance is most attractive for many
in industry. They can handle phase-changing streams and two-phase mixtures, irrespective of the fluid
applications in industry. They can handle phase-changing streams and two-phase mixtures,
irrespective of the fluid nature and its level of cleanliness. They are widely used as mixing devices or
for pumping corrosive fluids, slurries, fumes and dust-laden gases. In chemical industries and in
biochemical industry they are used in gas–liquid reactions, serve for absorption and stripping [74].
Ejectors produce high mass transfer rates by generating small bubbles/droplets, which can then be
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 12 of 54

nature and its level of cleanliness. They are widely used as mixing devices or for pumping corrosive
fluids, slurries, fumes and dust-laden gases. In chemical industries and in biochemical industry they
are used in gas–liquid reactions, serve for absorption and stripping [74]. Ejectors produce high mass
transfer rates by generating small bubbles/droplets, which can then be injected into a reaction vessel
thereby improving the contact between phases. In this context, numerical and experimental studies
were made, showing that there was an optimum area ratio, at which the liquid entrainment rate was
the highest. The liquid entrainment rate increased with the pressure difference between the water
surface in the suction chamber and the throat exit for a wide variety of ejector geometries and operating
conditions [40,75–77]. For example, the Kandakure et al. [76] use of two-phase ejector as a liquid–gas
contactor, relied on CFD in order to assess the hydrodynamic characteristics with reference to the
ejector geometry. In this case water as the motive fluid and air as the entrained fluid were considered.
It was found that there was an optimum area ratio for the maximum air entrainment rate.
Liquid–gas ejectors were studied experimentally by Choi et al. [63] to explore methods of
dissolving the volatile organic compounds generated from crude oil into the oil itself, in an oil
tanker. These unique features make them a potential alternative to several competing technologies for
energy
Inventionsintegration
2018, 3, x schemes in a wide range of industries. 12 of 54
In nuclear plants, two-phase, vapor–water ejectors serve as emergency systems [22,78].
The sector
The sector ofof cooling,
cooling, refrigeration
refrigerationandand heat
heat pumps
pumps seems
seems the
the most
most promising
promising forfor the
the two-phase
two-phase
ejector. In
ejector. In this
this field,
field, the
the two-phase
two-phase ejector
ejector is
is mainly
mainly used
used according
according to totwo
twoapproaches:
approaches: ejector
ejector as
as an
an
expander (Figure
expander (Figure8a) 8a)and
andejector
ejectorasasaarecirculator
recirculator(Figure
(Figure8b).
8b).
The conventional
The conventional EERC EERC (Figure
(Figure 8a)
8a) was
was patented
patented by by Kemper
Kemper in in 1966
1966 [79].
[79]. The
The acronym
acronym EERC
EERC
referstotorefrigeration,
refers refrigeration, butbut
alsoalso to air-conditioning
to air-conditioning applications
applications and heating.
and heating. Depending Depending on the
on the working
working
fluid, twofluid,
typestwo typescycles
of EERC of EERC cycles areinreported
are reported in theliterature:
the published publishedsubcritical
literature:cycles
subcritical cycles
[30,80] and
[30,80] and transcritical CO cycle [48,81]. The performances of the transcritical
transcritical CO2 cycle [48,81]. The performances of the transcritical CO2 cycles are generally superior
2 CO 2 cycles are
generally
to the other superior to the other refrigerants.
refrigerants.
The second
The second way way to to use
use the
the two-phase
two-phase ejector
ejector is
is as
as aaliquid
liquidrecirculator
recirculator(ERC)
(ERC)(Figure
(Figure8b).
8b). The
The
benefit of this cycle configuration is essentially due to a more performant evaporator.
benefit of this cycle configuration is essentially due to a more performant evaporator. Overfeeding the Overfeeding
the evaporator
evaporator allowsallows a better
a better heatheat transfer
transfer [82,83].
[82,83].

Figure 8.8. Refrigeration

Figure Refrigeration cycles with two-phase
cycles with two-phase ejector:
ejector: (a)
(a) ejector-expander
ejector-expander (EERC);
(EERC); (b) ejector-
(b) ejector-
recirculator(ERC).
recirculator (ERC).

There
There are
are several
several variants
variants of
of the
the conventional
conventional cycle
cycle with
with two-phase
two-phase ejector
ejector as
as an
an expander,
expander, such
such
as
as those with
with two
twoevaporators
evaporatorsand andnonoseparator
separator (Figure
(Figure 9).9).
More More details
details on different
on different cycles
cycles with with
two-
two-phase ejector
phase ejector are presented
are presented in Section
in Section 5.2. 5.2.
 Figure 8. Refrigeration cycles with two-phase ejector: (a) ejector-expander (EERC); (b) ejector-
recirculator (ERC).

There are several variants of the conventional cycle with two-phase ejector as an expander, such
as those
Inventions with
2019, 4, 16 two evaporators and no separator (Figure 9). More details on different cycles with two-
13 of 54
phase ejector are presented in Section 5.2.

Figure
Figure 9. Variants
9. Variants of the
of the conventionalEERC:
conventional EERC:(a)
(a) Condenser
Condenser outlet
outletsplit
splitcycle (COS)
cycle [84];[84];
(COS) (b) diffuser
(b) diffuser
outlet split cycle (DOS)
outlet split cycle (DOS) [85]. [85].

3. Two-Phase Ejector
3. Two-Phase Modeling
Ejector Modeling

The modeling of two-phase ejectors and cycles for heat pumps, refrigeration an air-conditioning
presents a high interest for the optimization because performance can be predicted for the ejector in
terms of its specific efficiency parameters and for EERC or its variants in terms of COP and other
efficiency expressions discussed in previous paragraphs. The design of cycle components can be
handled to ensure overall maximized performance for the system. A great deal of research and
development work along this path is available in the literature.
A major part of design and simulation effort consists of one-dimensional and thermodynamic
modeling, depending on the nature of the task. Typically, cycle design and simulation is based
on thermodynamic, first and second law modeling. Ejector modeling is more generally handled
by 1-D and thermodynamic approaches. Methods combining thermodynamic considerations and
experimental based correlations were useful in specific cases [33,86,87].
Multi-dimensional CFD methods have been relatively scarce due to the flow complexity in
two-phase ejectors (in comparison with the supersonic type) and the high computational cost but
due to the progress in computational power becoming increasingly available, studies based on these
techniques are emerging [88,89]. A good description of the progress in two-phase ejector modeling up
to 2015 can be found in the review of Elbel and Lawrence [10].

3.1. Thermodynamic and Analytical Modeling

Methods of ejector analysis based on thermodynamics and the solution of the integral form of
conservation equations are generally the simplest way to estimate the influence of geometry and
operating conditions on performance, provided that simplifying assumptions on two-phase flow
structure and conditions are adopted in different zones of the device. A key component in the
development of these models is the motive nozzle which, according to experimental observations has
a considerable influence on ejector operations and performance.
A great deal of research has been devoted to nozzle flow, due to its importance in many fields
of applications, driven by the impetus for developing ways to convert fluid energy at high pressure
and/or temperature in the form of velocity to favor momentum transfer between streams and in the
case of ejectors to accurately determine the primary mass flow rate for fluid maximized entrainment
and compression ratios.
Flashing nozzles have been most researched for ejector use because their conditions of moderate
to low sub-cooling and low quality mixtures are the most encountered in EERC machines. Effects of
inlet sub-cooling, fluid quality and flashing inception in expanding fluid flow on mass flow rates, have
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 14 of 54

been among the main elements in the quest for relevant information on nozzle design criteria and
mostly experimental [90–93].
Later, Liu et al. [94] modeled sub-cooled water flow in a convergent–divergent nozzle with the
flashing process occurring immediately past the throat. They considered an oblique evaporation wave
with a velocity direction change of the supersonic flow downstream the shock occurrence. Expansion
downstream was assumed to be in Isentropic Homogeneous Equilibrium (IHE) except near the throat.
In this zone, heterogeneous equilibrium conditions were considered to prevail and the length of said
zone increased with the inlet degree of sub-cooling.
Further theoretical modeling of convergent–divergent nozzles was performed for CO2 by Banasiak
and Hafner [95], who investigated the influence of the phase transition model on the mass flow
rate prediction. The delayed equilibrium model with homogeneous nucleation, superimposed to
homogeneous and heterogeneous nucleation was used for the purpose of the metastable state analysis
of a transcritical flow with delayed flashing over the motive nozzle.
In two-phase ejector studies, the liquid–vapor flow mixture reaches sonic conditions at fairly low
stream velocity. However, determining the choked conditions is particularly difficult since a reliable
speed of sound computation still remains an open question, despite the many works available so
far [25,96]. A convenient way to overcome this issue is by maximizing the mass flow rate per unit area
G which, for an isentropic expansion, can be expressed as:
.
m
G(P, h0 , S0 ) = (7)
At

Local enthalpy, h and density $, solely depend on P and S0 . At choking conditions, the mass flux
G is maximized. There is therefore less need to determine the local speed of sound for this particular
purpose and the mass flux approach can be easily applied in two-phase flows, where critical conditions
lie mostly over the saturation line. The model of Ameur et al. [18,25] employs this approach to compute
the thermodynamic properties of liquid–vapor in the primary nozzle in critical conditions. In the
application to ejectors for EERCs, deviations of up to 7–14% and 6–14% were respectively observed in
the primary jet critical mass flow rate and the compression ratios.
The relative simplicity, the low cost in terms of computational memory and time with the ability
to rapidly generate results is an advantage of the thermodynamic approach over 1-D modeling, which
remains based on the resolution of a differential form of the conservation equations.
Some representative theoretical highlights from previous work with respect to two-phase ejectors
are worth mentioning first. They relate to two-phase ejector modeling proposed for flash system use in
refrigeration, where a refrigerant condensate close to saturation is expanded.
Kornhauser [97] developed a thermodynamic model for two-phase ejectors, widely cited in the
literature and used by many researchers, given its simplicity [98–101]. Kornhauser [97] first set up such
a simple model extended to the ejector which he applied with various refrigerants, mainly halocarbons.
The approach used the Homogeneous Equilibrium Model (HEM), the assumption of constant pressure
mixing and isentropic efficiencies to account for friction losses. An updated version by Menegay and
Kornhauser [102] accounted for under-expansion of the flow, a condition found to favor better overall
ejector efficiency.
Improvements to the Kornhauser model were subsequently brought by researchers such as
Nakagawa et al. [35] who proposed a hybrid approach, consisting of a combination of 1-D and
thermodynamic considerations. The isentropic flow treatment was used to model the primary nozzle
while a 1-D approach was applied in the remaining zones to both phases in terms of the momentum
equation conservation, where a wall friction coefficient was only used in the vapor phase which
was assumed to be in contact with the wall. In this way the authors could analyze the geometric
characteristics of the mixing chamber.
Liu and Groll [103] computed the critical flow in the primary nozzle of the ejector by assuming
choking conditions at the throat. They evaluated the sonic velocity with an equation derived by
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 15 of 54

Attou and Seynhaeve [104]. Momentum exchange in the mixing chamber was accounted for by
the conventional coefficient method and a recovery factor was used in the diffuser according to the
recommendation of Owen et al. [105]. Later Liu and Groll [52] used this model to study performance
characteristics of a transcritical CO2 EERC.
The effects of thermal and mechanical non-equilibrium taking place between vapor and liquid
were modeled by Kwidziński [106] for the case of a steam–water ejector. The model simulations were
compared with experiments which they predicted within 15% in terms of discharge pressure and 1 K
in terms of temperature.
A similar line of development was followed by Banasiak et al. [37,95,107] in the context of
expansion work recovery by means of two-phase ejectors. The authors proposed a 1-D method utilizing
the Delayed Equilibrium Model along with the homogeneous nucleation theory, the treatment of the
metastable state analysis for a transcritical CO2 flow with delayed flashing over the motive nozzle.
More recent analytical work regarding the treatment of CO2 expansion process in ejectors was
proposed. Zhu and Jiang [87], in a study of transcritical CO2 ejector expansion refrigeration cycle
proposed an analytical model taking into account non-equilibrium effects by means of a correlation
based on experimental data of several case studies and capable of predicting primary and secondary
mass flow rates. A further correlation simplifying computations at the ejector throat was developed
for the primary mass flow rate. Accounting for non-equilibrium was to be important when the liquid
mass fraction at the nozzle throat was higher than 0.65. A number of analytical and thermodynamic
ejector models are reported in Table 1.

Table 1. Ejector global models.

Ejector
Author(s) Fluid(s) Boundary Component Validation Remarks
Efficiencies
R11, R12, R22, R113, -ηp : 0–1
Kornhauser, Te : −15 ◦ C Neglecting losses in mixing
R114, R500, R502, -ηs : 0–1 -
1990 [97] Tc : 30 ◦ C process.
R717 -ηdif : 0–1
Te : −15 ◦ C Extension of Kornhauser
Menegay and
Tc : 30 ◦ C -ηp : 0.75–1 model, accounting for flow
Korhauser, R134A -
∆Tsup : 5 ◦ C -ηs : 0.9–1 under-expansion and
1994 [102]
∆Tsub : 5 ◦ C efficiencies.
-Efficiencies -Correlation of Attou [103],
Pgc : 9.5 MPa -ηp : 0.986
Liu and Groll, adjusted to reflect for the speed of sound.
CO2 Tgc : 30 ◦ C -ηs : 0.972
2008 [103] the experiments. -Correlation of Owen [104]
Ps : 3.7 MPa -ηdif : 0.882
-Uncertainty <5.9%. for the diffuser.
-ηp : 0.8 Correlations of optimal φ
Sarkar, Isobutane, Propane, Tc : 35–30 ◦ C
-ηs : 0.8 - for each refrigerant in
2010 [33] Ammonia Te : −5 to 15 ◦ C
-ηdif : 0.8 terms of Te and Tc .
-Nozzle
Steam:
(velocity
85–130 kg/h and 3.9 bar Pb within 15% and Steam injector model for
Kwidinski, coefficient): 0.9
Water–steam (∆Tsup : 0–40 ◦ C) Tb 1 K of pressure discharge
2010 [106] -Diffuser
Water: experiments. prediction.
(resistance
1–6 m3 /h
coeff.): 0.1–0.2
Discrepancies less -Hybrid method (0D + 1D).
Banasiak et al., Pgc : 9.94–11.1 MPa -Friction factor
CO2 than 5% on ∆Ps -Delayed Equilibrium
2011 [107] Pe : 3.68–4.6 Mpa considered.
and mp . Model.
Pgc : 4.5 MPa -ηp : 0.7–0.9 Predictions within
Liu & Groll, Efficiency coefficients
CO2 P : 3.8 MPa -ηs : 0.8–0.9 7.6% on COP and
2012 [51] . e correlations provided.
me : 0.07 kg/s -ηmix : 1 11.23% on Qe .
Pc : 1.4–1.65 MPa
Hassanian -ηp : 0.5–1 Design procedure using
Pe : 0.37–0.43 MPa Errors on COP less
et al., R134a -ηs : 0.5–1 Henry-Fauske to evaluate
∆Tsup : 14.1–0.6 than 3%.
2015 [86] -ηdif : 0.5–1 the critical mass flux.
∆Tsub : 1.38–2.25
CO2 : Pp : 6.1–9.1 MPa
-Error on Pth :
Tp : 21.8–35.8 ◦ C -ηp : 0.85
0.21–14.2% Design nozzle performed
Ameur et al., R134a, R410A, R410A: Pp : 2.9–3.0 MPa -ηs : 0.85
-Error on ∆P: by maximizing the mass
2016 [25] CO2 Ps : 0.97–1.19 MPa -ηmix : 0.97
0.63–2.26% (R410a) flow at the throat.
R134a: Pp : 15.3 MPa -ηdif : 0.7
0.09–6.14%(R134a)
Ps : 0.35 MPa
Pgc : 8–10.3 MPa -ηp : 0.95 Error on mass flow Primary flow: use of
Zhu & Jiang, Tgc : 32–43 ◦ C -ηmix :
rate: correlation accounts for
CO2 . . .
2018 [87] Pe : 2.6–4.3 MPa f mp , ms mp : ±3.5% non-equilibrium when x >
.
Te : 22 ◦ C. -ηdif : 0.9 ms : ±15% 0.65
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 16 of 54

3.2. CFD Modeling of Two-Phase Ejectors

Computational Fluid Dynamics techniques allow the detailed study of ejector flow, based on
the solution of the Navier–Stokes (NS) equations. In order to manage the otherwise prohibitive
computational cost, a statistically averaged version of these equations in the form of the Favre-Averaged
Navier–Stokes (FANS) or compressible Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equations is
commonly solved. In such an approach, the mean features of the flow are all preserved but extra terms
for turbulent effects need to be handled by means of turbulence models in order to close the system
of equation. In addition, an equation of state relating pressure, temperature and density is required.
As discussed earlier for supersonic ejectors, turbulence models need to be carefully selected on a
case-by-case basis and the issue is no different for two-phase ejectors. Regarding the fluid properties,
NIST database for refrigerants, REFPROP is generally used.
The computational power and the simulation flexibility provided by the recent CFD platforms
have resulted in the treatment of several two-phase ejectors being undertaken. The CFD modeling of
two-phase flows (flashing liquid or vapor condensation) is a challenging task. Many phenomena on the
local scale are not yet well understood, such as nucleation characteristics and bubble-droplet growth.
The complex structure of the gas–liquid interface and the transfer mechanism require more elaborate
models with empirical correlations or assumptions which are so far insufficiently tested [108,109].

3.2.1. Treatment of Two-Phase CO2 Ejectors

Bulinski et al. [110] conducted a preliminary CFD work on CO2 transonic ejector flow by using
homogeneous and heterogeneous flow models in order to account for non-equilibrium effects. They
then compared the predictions of both approaches in terms of pressure distribution in the mixing
chamber, which were well predicted by both approaches. Unfortunately, this partial validation was
insufficient since the heterogeneous approach predicted the lowest pressure by an order of magnitude
right after the nozzle throat. In addition, according to the authors, entrainment ratio predictions were
also different.
Colarossi et al. [13] built a multi-dimensional simulation model based on a pseudo-fluid concept
where two phases mass, momentum and energy conservation equations were treated as a single
fluid with combined transport equations. The flow was assumed to be in non-equilibrium state
and a modified form of the homogenous relaxation model (HRM) was employed to describe the
delay in nucleation. Standard k-ε turbulence model was used and the fluid properties were obtained
from REFPROP database. Simulations performed with CO2 as the working fluid were based on
Nakagawa et al. [36] for validation in terms of pressure recovery. Even though the trends of the
results were comparable, the discrepancies between simulations and experiments were important.
The authors attributed this poor concordance to the challenges of modeling two-phase, turbulent
non-equilibrium flow and the selection of the turbulence model.
This paper was followed by the work of Yazdani et al. [12], consisting of a numerical
model of transcritical CO2 ejector-expander applications for refrigeration and heat pumps. It is
a non-homogeneous mixture model, including several sub-models for local interphase energy and
mass transfer, two-phase velocity of sound formulation and real fluid properties of the refrigerant.
The turbulence model formulation used was the k-ω SST type and the thermophysical properties of
CO2 were obtained from the NIST-REFPROP database. The simulations indicated that the ejector
performance was only slightly influenced by the inclusion of the slip model. The cavitation portion
of phase change was generally small but could be dominant near the walls and at the motive nozzle
throat. Compression and entrainment ratios were predicted to within 10% of experimental data and
there was a threshold diameter at which performance was characterized with a gentle shock in the
mixing zone. In a subsequent investigation, Yazdani et al. [111] put more focus on the flow process of
transcritical and subcritical cases of CO2 in converging–diverging nozzles. This study showed that
phase change is generally small but can be dominant near the walls and at the motive nozzle throat.
Choking occurred downstream of the throat, where void generation promoted flow acceleration while
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 17 of 54

leading to a drop in the sound speed. The nozzle configuration and the upstream operating conditions
were found to shape the two-phase jet and affect the void generation rate.
Back to ejector simulation, Smolka et al. [112] three-dimensional CFD model of a transcritical
CO2 ejector was developed on the assumption of homogeneous equilibrium flow. An enthalpy-based
formulation, in which the specific enthalpy, instead of the temperature, as an independent variable
was employed. Gas–liquid mechanical and thermal equilibrium between phases was assumed for
two-phase flow and the turbulence effects were modeled by the RNG k-ε turbulence model. In
addition, NIST-REFPROP database was again used for the extraction of the fluid properties. Maximum
discrepancies on the prediction of primary and secondary flows were respectively 14% and 19.7%.
Lucas et al. [113] numerical model also based on the homogeneous equilibrium approach and
validated by the authors’ data with and without suction in order to isolate effects of mixing and friction.
High Reynolds k-ω SST turbulence model in its standard implementation in OpenFOAM was used.
The numerical results were compared with experimental data previously published by the authors for
validation needs. Simulations allowed for the prediction of the driving mass flux and the pressure
recovery within an error margin of 10%. However, this error increased to 20% when the ejector was
operated with a suction flow.
In the conditions of a supermarket application CFD modeling was applied as well in order to test
the validity of HEM model for ejector transcritical CO2 operations. The comparison of the experimental
and computational results showing accurate results could be obtained when operating near or above
the critical point. The model accuracy decreased with the decreasing temperature and decreasing
distance to the saturation line [114].
More recently, Haida et al. [115] applied the HRM model to CO2 two-phase ejectors. The predictive
accuracy of the motive nozzle mass flow rate improved, in comparison to currently available numerical
models for subcritical regimes. For operating regimes in transcritical conditions, comparable high
accuracy to the HEM model was found. Further, the authors reported that HRM application for motive
pressures above 59 bar predicted motive flow within 15% accuracy. Below 59 bar, the motive mass
flow rate prediction was 5% to 10% more accurate than with HEM formulation.
The CFD approach was also employed to assess locally the ejector’s internal irreversibility.
Banasiak et al. [54] analyzed numerically the overall entropy increase in CO2 ejectors by introducing
a new factor to evaluate the ejector performance based on the reference entropy increase in a classic
expansion valve. They found that the shock train at the primary nozzle outlet and the turbulent
interaction process in the mixing chamber were a major source of irreversibility. Moreover, and based
on the model predictions, the authors recommend that all ejector dimensions must be optimized
simultaneously, otherwise, the irreversibility reduction in one ejector section may translate into an
increase in the next section, thus neutralizing the overall gain. In addition, the influence of the diameter
and length of the ejector mixing chamber was shown to significantly affect performance.
In addition to CFD investigation mainly focusing on the ejector component and the local flow
characteristics, Palacz et al. [116] conducted their study on the ejector from the viewpoint of shape
optimization and efficiency enhancements. More particularly, the authors applied a scheme combining
CFD and a genetic algorithm to optimize CO2 ejectors for refrigeration systems. They worked on
ejector geometries to adjust several parameters for maximized performance. The optimization of the
results showed that the ejector efficiency could be improved by up to 6%. A recently published paper
by Haida et al. [117] numerically assessed the effects of heat transfer on the wall of a CO2 ejector in the
context of air-conditioning. The results indicated the reduction of the mass entrainment ratio could be
as high as 13%, as a result of the non-adiabatic assumption condition.

3.2.2. Phase Change in the Motive Nozzle

Vapor condensation phenomena in convergent–divergent nozzles were well described by
Mikasser [118]. Generally, superheated vapor at the nozzle inlet first expands with a decrease in
temperature until the saturation condition is reached. Beyond this point the expansion process is
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 18 of 54

no more in equilibrium but continues in metastable conditions (non-equilibrium) until a maximum

sub-cooling is attained accompanied by a sudden appearance of a cloud of droplets (Wilson point).
This spontaneous condensation releases latent heat which is absorbed by the vapor flow, elevating its
temperature to near thermodynamic equilibrium. Vapor phase change reduces the specific volume,
decelerating the supersonic flow and producing a local characteristic compression increase, known as
a condensation shock Figure 10. Further theoretical and experimental details of this process showed
that spontaneous condensation reduced the overall Mach number along the nozzle diverging section
but increased the entropy generation linked to droplet nucleation, an effect found to be reduced by
injecting droplets mixed with the inlet flow [119,120].
Spontaneous condensation may produce unstable flow conditions at the nozzle exit, especially
when it takes place immediately after the nozzle throat. The nozzle should be designed in such a way
as to move the nucleation inception downstream of the throat in order to avoid flow oscillations across
the sonic threshold. In the case of ejector design where the ideal gas assumption was commonly used,
Grazzini et al. [121] undertook to check the validity of such an assumption for the condition of their
refrigeration case, since high-speed flow generally prevailed in the primary nozzle, suggesting the
existence of metastable conditions. Their findings indicated that the isentropic expansion of vapor
through the nozzle, modeled as ideal gas was well within the metastable zone and the classic nucleation
theory showed that the Wilson line was crossed at the nozzle throat.
Wang et al. [122] numerical simulations of steam spontaneous condensation in the motive nozzle,
resulted in 10%
Inventions 2018, 3, x higher outlet pressure than predicted by the perfect gas assumption and an equally 18 of 54
higher temperature. The analysis demonstrated that the steam condensation would hinder the
supersonic
the supersonicexpansion process
expansion in theindivergent
process and reduce
the divergent the nozzle
and reduce efficiency,
the nozzle which which
efficiency, in turnin
would
turn
affect the pumping performance of the steam-jet pump. Similar work by Ariafar et
would affect the pumping performance of the steam-jet pump. Similar work by Ariafar et al. [123] al. [123] investigated
this effect in this
investigated a steam
effectejector and ejector
in a steam nozzlesand
with different
nozzles witharea ratios.
different areaWet steam
ratios. Wetsimulations showed
steam simulations
that nozzle
showed thatstatic pressures
nozzle were higher
static pressures werethan thosethan
higher predicted
those by the ideal
predicted bygas
themodel. Enhanced
ideal gas model.
mixing between streams, which arises because primary stream condensation
Enhanced mixing between streams, which arises because primary stream condensation reduces reduces compressibility
in the mixing layer,
compressibility was mixing
in the proposed to explain
layer, the increased
was proposed entrainment
to explain ratio predicted
the increased by wet steam
entrainment ratio
ejector simulations.
predicted by wet steam ejector simulations.

Figure 10. Pressure

Pressure distribution along the nozzle centerline with condensation shock [120].

Little and Garimella [64,124] suggested a simple way to promote the formation of liquid droplets
by adjusting the degree of superheat at the motive nozzle inlet. Depending on the time scale of this
expansion and the kinetics of droplet formation, droplets may form to produce a “wet” motive jet at
the nozzle exit. Information
Information on its metastable states states and sub-cooled
sub-cooled droplet
droplet nucleation
nucleation and
and growth,
growth,
critical totounderstanding the mechanisms of suction flow entrainment and overall
understanding the mechanisms of suction flow entrainment and overall ejector ejector performance
was the focus was
performance of thethe
numerical
focus ofand
the visual studies
numerical andundertaken by the
visual studies authors onby
undertaken an the
R134a heat-driven
authors on an
ejector-based chiller. It was found that shadowgraph imaging combined with a numerical
R134a heat-driven ejector-based chiller. It was found that shadowgraph imaging combined with a assessment
based on k-εassessment
numerical RNG turbulencebased model
on k-εthat
RNGthe turbulence
assumptionmodel
of motive
thatflow
the leaving the primary
assumption nozzle
of motive in
flow
thermodynamic
leaving equilibrium
the primary nozzle was reasonable. Shock
in thermodynamic and expansion
equilibrium wave inceptions
was reasonable. Shock were
andobserved
expansionto
wave inceptions were observed to start at the motive nozzle throat and dissipate in the mixing
section. Moreover, a decrease of enthalpy at nozzle inlet increased the amount of condensate at the
outlet which in turn, expanded to span the entire width of the mixing section, steadily deteriorating
in the process the ejector entrainment ratio. However, no information on the critical pressure was
reported.
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 19 of 54

start at the motive nozzle throat and dissipate in the mixing section. Moreover, a decrease of enthalpy
at nozzle inlet increased the amount of condensate at the outlet which in turn, expanded to span the
entire width of the mixing section, steadily deteriorating in the process the ejector entrainment ratio.
However, no information on the critical pressure was reported.
Another aspect that attracted the interest of researchers was the influence of droplets injection
on supersonic ejector performance. The point of injection may be the inlet of the primary stream or
any favorable location in the mixing chamber. The injection of droplets in the primary inlet has for
main objective the reduction of the velocity mismatch at the mixing section by decelerating the motive
flow while maintaining its momentum, reducing entropy generation and enhancing mixing [125]. The
intensity of shocks in the constant area section may be attenuated by droplet injection before the shock
wave occurrence [126]. However, the amount of research on this subject is still very limited to draw
reliable conclusions.
Al-Ansary and Jeter [125] first experimented the effect of droplets on ejector performance, by
introducing 17 µm droplets in the primary nozzle inlet of air ejector. Numerically, these droplets
were considered as spherical, inert particles with constant size and simulated in a Lagrangian frame
of reference. In off-design operation corresponding to a pressure range of 107 kPa to 446 kPa, an
increase of up to 98% of suction flow was achieved experimentally in the best case, within a range
of liquid injection between 4.3% and 11.2% in terms of pressure ratio. The reliability of these results
may be limited, due to uncontrolled liquid–air phase-change exchanges, water accumulation in the
ejector due to wall effects and the additional air from the atomizing device. Further investigations
were later conducted numerically and experimentally by Hemidi et al. [127]. They indicated that
with a liquid injection of 1%, the presence of water droplets had no significant effect at on-design
operation but beyond the critical point (off-design operation) it reached on average 10–40% increase
with some loss in back pressure. These findings somewhat disagree with the numerical findings of
the same authors indicating that performance decreased by the addition of water droplets. It is worth
underlining, however, that the abovementioned studies were based on an air–water ejector operation.
In the refrigeration context, the working fluids are generally the phases of the same fluid with different
thermophysical properties and likely significantly different overall operational behavior.
Very recent thermodynamic and CFD modeling development work of Croquer [126] concerned
about the effect of droplet injection in the mixing chamber. Vapor and liquid were both of R134a and the
investigation was performed in the context of refrigeration. The droplets were injected normally to the
flow in the first half of the mixing chamber throat and had a negative impact on the ejector performance.
No noticeable changes in the internal flow structure were observed until mass fractions of about 10% of
the primary flow mass flow rate were attained. At these conditions, the shock wave intensity decreased
by 8% and thus the entropy associated with these shocks but for a given entrainment condition, the
compression ratio was diminished by 10%, relative to the case without injection. These negative results
were attributed to the additional losses generated by the mixing interaction between the droplets and
the primary stream as well as the additional entropy of the injection process. Table 2 contains a few
relevant two-phase ejector CFD studies from current literature.
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 20 of 54

Table 2. Two-phase ejector computational fluid dynamics (CFD) studies.

Turbulence Boundary
Author(s) Fluid(s) Solver Validation Remarks
Model(s) Conditions
Burlinski High discrepancies Homogeneous/
ANSYS
et al., 2010 CO2 RNG k-ε - in the entrainment heterogeneous model for
Fluent
[110] ratio prediction. non-equilibrium effects.
-Assumed non-equilibrium
Colarossi Average error on
Pgc : 9.5–10.5 MPa state.
et al., 2012 CO2 Open-FOAM k-ε pressure recovery:
Tgc : 42◦ C, Te : 2 ◦ C -Nucleation delay treatment
[13] 18.6%.
by HRM.
Pp : 12.33 MPa
Yazdani Used a non-homogeneous
ANSYS Tp : 313.1 K Within 10% of own
et al., 2012 CO2 k-ω SST mixture model and NIST
Fluent V12.0 Pb : 3.71 MPa data of ω and τ.
[12] Refprop.
Ts : 268.2 K
Fairly good Phase change on walls and
Yazdani Used data from
ANSYS concordance throat. Non-homogenous
et al., 2014 CO2 k-ω SST Nakagawa et al.,
Fluent V12 simulations- model + drift flux model for
[111] 2009 [40]
experiments slip of phases.
Pp :8.4–9.9 MPa
-Average
Tp :30–36 ◦ C . HEM assumption. Phases in
Smolka et al., ANSYS discrepancies for mp
R141B, CO2 k-ε RNG Ps : 3.5–5.1 MPa . thermal and mechanical
2013 [112] Fluent V12.0 and ms : 5.6% and
Ts :6–20 ◦ C equilibrium.
10.1%.
Pb : 3.8–5.5 MPa
.
Error max on mp
Lucas et al., Tgc : 36.3–29.9 ◦ C . Assumption of
CO2 Open-FOAM k-ω SST and ms : 8% and
2014 [113] Te : 20.7–6.6 ◦ C homogeneous equilibrium.
6.4%.
Banasiak Pp : 8–8.5 MPa Prediction error on Performance and entropy
ANSYS . .
et al., 2014 CO2 k-ε RNG Tgc : 303 K mgc and me : 7.4% generation in the flow was
Fluent
[54] Ps : 3.5 MPa and 13%. proposed for analysis.
-HEM approach.
Pp : 4–9.5 MPa
Accuracy of mass -Model generally accurate
Palacz et al., ANSYS Tp : 6–36 ◦ C
CO2 realizable k-ε flow rate predictions close to saturation line but
2015 [114] Fluent Ps : 2.7–3.2 MPa
are highly variable. deteriorates with the
Ts : 3–21 ◦ C
temperature decrease.
Pp : 7.2–9.8 MPa -HEM approach.
Palacz et al., ANSYS Tp : 26.8–38.7 ◦ C -Genetic algorithm used for
CO2 realizable k-ε -
2017 [116] Fluent Ps : 2.5–2.9 MPa optimization (efficiency
Ts : −2 + 3 ◦ C increase of up to 6%).
-Improvement of HRM.
.
Haida et al., ANSYS Pgc : 50–95 bar Error on mp < 15% -Influence of relaxation time
CO2 k-ω SST
2018 [115] Fluent Pe : −10 to −6 ◦ C. (for Pp > 59 bar) on the flow by using a
correlation.
Pp : 10.3–10.7 bar Evaporation-condensation
ANSYS
Baek et al., Realizable Tp : 40–41 ◦ C Error on ms ≤ model of the phase transition
R134a Fluent
2018 [88] k-ε Ps : 2.75–3.87 bar 8.47%. calibrated with experimental
V16.1.0
Tp : 18–20 ◦ C data of Lawrence, 2012 [100].

4. Experiments on Ejectors
Much experimental work currently available in the literature about two-phase ejectors was
generated to support the theoretical developments discussed in the previous sections. A large
percentage of this endeavor was intended to validate theories. Other studies were devoted to
generate data as well as operational information. A good deal of the experiments was formulated
in terms of characteristic performance indicators, that is the entrainment and compression ratio or
accessorily thermodynamic first and second law efficiencies previously introduced. These studies are
very important because they establish the link between the ejector and its application environment.
Similarly, to single-phase ejectors, local experiments in two-phase ejectors are limited to wall
pressure distribution.
As pointed out in the previous section, numerical work requires more local information in terms
of variable distributions and flow visualization, since the effort is mainly concentrated on internal flow
structure and the complex interactions between various phenomena influencing the ejector operation.
Less experimental work was devoted to this aspect so far due to its cost, even though the prospects are
encouraging as more focus is increasingly being put on this task. Indeed, the highly complex internal
ejector flow structure has not yet fully been clarified despite a very extensive ground breaking work,
and most existing experimental literature does not provide a complete picture linking ejector operation
under various conditions and its internal structure.
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 21 of 54

A sample of the relevant work on nozzle flow includes the studies of Menegay and
Starkman [80,90] and two consecutive papers of Nakagawa [41,59,128]. More specifically, the
Starkman [90] experimental investigation had for main objective the determination of mass flow
rate in nozzles under choked two-phase flow operations. The data analysis indicated that the nozzles
were operating in over-expanded conditions. Shock waves were observed to occur inside the nozzles
with a deleterious effect on efficiency. Menegay and Kornhauser [80] used on the other hand, flashing
flow motive nozzles in tests of a refrigeration system incorporating a two-phase ejector. In later tests,
the researchers attempted to improve nozzle efficiency by seeding the motive flow with small bubbles.
Nakagawa et al. [128] in a first instance carried out experiments on a rectangular
converging–diverging nozzle in which CO2 was expanded. The decompression pressure profile was
recorded. It was found that the optimum supersonic decompression before shock waves occurrence
obeyed the homogeneous equilibrium model, while behind the shock, the pressure profile displayed
no equilibrium condition as indicated by the thickness of the shock waves and the subsonic flow
behind them. These measurements indicated that the decompression process in the motive nozzle
divergent could not be correctly predicted by the IHE model, which hinted to a thermal and mechanical
non-equilibrium state. In a subsequent work, Nakagawa et al. [41] observed and experimentally
addressed the CO2 decompression phenomena in the nozzle divergent when metastable fluid flashes to
low quality two-phase flow. As was previously established, the fluid in the nozzle was in temperature
and pressure equilibrium, in accordance with the experimental measurements. Two-phase flow results
through converging–diverging nozzles with divergence angles ranging from 0.07◦ and 0.612◦ at inlet
pressure and temperature conditions of 6 to 9 MPa and about 20 to 37 ◦ C, respectively were gathered.
The authors confirmed by both calculation and experiment that optimum decompression for the
largest divergent angles (>0.306◦ ) and inlet temperature above 35 ◦ C, was in homogeneous equilibrium
condition. Similar experimental observations were reported by Berana et al. [59] who also measured
the wall pressure along the nozzle divergent in an attempt to trace the shock wave occurrence.
An interesting experimental and numerical study performed by Kim et al. [61] is that of a
water-driven annular type ejector loop, designed and constructed for air absorption. The application
of annular ejectors can be found in the ship-building industry for the recovery of volatile organic
compound which is grossly generated during crude oil shipping and transporting process [129].
Airflow rate measurement and PIV experiments were performed. Visualizations revealed that
water/air mixed flow was immediately generated in the throat region of the annular ejector. Different
bubble-liquid flow regimes were observed and served to guide comparative CFD simulations on
air/water arrangements. Little and Garimella [64] is probably the only visualization work with R134a
refrigerant, currently available for two-phase ejector in a real EERC system. The authors conducted a
detailed shadowgraph visualization of the ejector motive jet at various degrees of condensation. The
main intent was to clarify the effect of the condensation on momentum and heat transfer characteristics
in the mixing section.
Further visualization studies are available with CO2 , in view of the growing interest for this
refrigerant. Berana et al. [59] investigated the two-phase flow field in a converging–diverging nozzle
with transcritical pressure CO2 . This work concerned a flashing flow with different lengths but with
the same divergence angle and in the presence of shocks and non-equilibrium effects measurements.
Kwidzinski [62] experimentally investigated the structure of condensation waves in steam–water
injectors by means of a high-speed video camera. Simultaneous recordings of pressure and temperature
distributions were captured. Vapor clouds were observed to form and then disappear accompanied
by pressure pulses. Simultaneous pressure fluctuations were sensed at the injector outlet. It was
observed that these pressure variations had no influence on upstream conditions indicating supersonic
conditions in the mixing chamber.
More recent visualization experiments were conducted on an ejector running on CO2 by
Zhu et al. [67]. The flow structure was recorded by means of direct photography under various
operating conditions in the zones of suction and mixing after the primary nozzle exit. Observations
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 22 of 54

highlighted the effect of inlet pressures on the primary mass flow rate. The primary flow angle at the
nozzle exit decreased with increasing secondary pressures. Large expansion angles of the primary
flow reduced the entrainment of the secondary stream. It was also observed that both primary and
the secondary flows mix over short mixing region in the chamber and the resulting stream became
rapidly uniform.
Experimental studies on two-phase ejectors also concerned geometry aspects such as those
presented by Butrymowicz et al. [130] with the refrigerant R123. These authors evaluated the effects
of the mixing chamber geometry in terms of area ratio and the operating conditions on ejector
efficiency. Their results suggested that for the operating conditions of the investigation corresponding
to air-conditioning environment, the liquid to vapor density ratio was very high, resulting in a small
mass entrainment ratio and isothermal compression in the ejector.
Similar investigations were also conducted in the context of a chemical process, generally as
liquid–gas-contacting devices. Due to their favorable mass transfer and mixing characteristics,
ejectors are being increasingly used in diverse processes of this industry. In this respect, the work of
Kim et al. [75] is an example of such an application. Effects of the ejector geometry and the operating
conditions on the hydraulic characteristics in a rectangular bubble column with a horizontal flow
ejector were analyzed. Gas phase holdup obtained in the water column was shown to increases
with increasing liquid circulating rate and decreases with increasing liquid level in the column and
nozzle diameter.
Further experiments on an ejector cycle operating with R600a were generated under various
conditions of operation by Wang and Yu [53]. Combining the measured data with the predictions of an
ejector model, a computational procedure was devised by the authors in order to derive the efficiencies
of the characteristic components for two-phase ejectors, including the motive nozzle, the mixing
chamber and the diffuser. Operating conditions and geometry were shown to influence component
efficiencies which vary sensibly within the range of the conditions considered. The results generated
by this study were gathered to build empirical correlations for two-phase ejector design purposes.
Even more recently, Ameur et al. [46,93] reported new experiments on the operation of a two-phase
ejector run on R134a with no induced flow and aimed at generating data in addition to information
about the effects of the primary stream conditions and primary geometry on the flow through a
converging–diverging nozzle. The intent was to develop a better understanding of the parameters and
conditions influencing the critical flow, necessary for efficient and stable ejector operation, generally
desirable to increase EERC overall performance. Tests conducted with two nozzles of different
divergent lengths over a range of inlet pressures, inlet sub-cooling and geometry led to several
observations. The inlet sub-cooling played a more important role than motive pressure in the ejector
operation. The critical flow was strongly influenced by the nozzle geometry and the operating
conditions. The influence of inlet sub-cooling appeared to be at least as important as the pressure in
this process. Compared with an isenthalpic expansion valve, a two-phase ejector was shown to be
a pseudo-isentropic device which produced less refrigerant flashing, a fact that may translate into
potential efficiency improvements of the conventional refrigeration cycle.
Ejector using spindle to adjust the throat area of primary nozzle is a common solution to control
the ejector performance across variable operating conditions [131]. Recently, Zhu and Elbel [132]
experimentally tested a novel nozzle flow control mechanism called vortex control. Without changing
the nozzle geometry, the authors showed that the strength of the nozzle inlet vortex could change the
restrictiveness of the two-phase convergent–divergent nozzle with initially sub-cooled R134a. The
nozzle becomes more restrictive as the strength of the vortex increases. Representative experiments on
ejector are summarized in Table 3.
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 23 of 54

Table 3. Experiments on ejector operation.

Operating
Author(s) Fluid(s) Capacity Performance Remarks
Conditions
-Convergent–divergent
Pp < 1000 psia nozzles.
Starkman et al., Flow rates up Weak shocks at
Steam–water Tp < 580 ◦ F -Satisfactory for HEM except
1964 [90] to 2.5 lbs/s overexpansion.
xp < 20% near saturation where other
models apply.
-Oversized nozzle design,
Menegay and mainly due to
-EERC standard Experiments not
Kornhauser, R12 3.5 kW non-equilibrium effects.
operation. conclusive
1996 [80] -Bubble formation in size and
quantity controlled.
-Experiments on ejector
Nakagawa, Thick shock in nozzles.
Berana et al., Pp : 9–10 MPa divergent. Increase -Shock-wave behavior
CO2 1.3–2 kW
2008–2009 Tp : 37–50 ◦ C in amplitude with assessment in accordance
[41,59,128] temperature. with geometry and
temperature.
Pp : 100–200 kPa Correlations for ejector
Wang and Yu,
R600A - Ps : 50–70 kPa - component efficiency
2016 [53]
xp : 0.313–0.531 established.
The expansion
Pp : 7–9 MPa -Visualization study
Zhu et al., angle and ω were
CO2 5 kW Tp : 30–35 ◦ C highlighting internal flow
2017 [67] measured for
Ps : 3–4.5 MPa. structure of CO2 .
varying conditions.
The critical mass
-Ejector operated with no
Pp : 7.7–16.8 bar flow rate
Ameur et al., induced flow.
Tp : 30–56◦ C significantly
2016, 2017 R134A 5 kW -Experimental critical flow
∆Tsub : 0.7–55 ◦ C depends on the
[18,93] rate compared with different
Pb : 3–7.5 bar level of the degree
models.
of sub-cooling.
Pp : 8.8–14.9 bar
Tp : 30–56◦ C Performance -Ejector operated with
Ameur et al., ∆Tsub : 0.2–45 ◦ C curves established induced flow.
R134A 5 kW
2018 [46] Ps : 3–4.44 bar for Pp : 14.9 bar and -Pressure variation inside the
∆Tsup : 6–13 ◦ C Ps : 3–4.4 bar. ejector monitored.
Pb : 3.1–4.8 bar

5. Two-Phase Ejector Cycles and Systems

Up to this point in the present review, the main focus was put on the study of the ejector as a
key component in terms of physics, operation, design, experimentation and modeling. Modeling as
shown was essentially handled by analytical or numerical methods validated by dedicated test bench
experiments. However, the end purpose of ejector developments is its application in many areas of
industry as previously discussed, even though the present discussion is limited to the refrigeration
and heat pumping area which has been by far the most researched [5,8,10].
Research in refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat pumps has been structured around key
aspects such as cycle refinement, refrigerant type, modeling approach among other things. The most
basic ejector cycle is the simplest configuration to produce a cooling effect at low cost but its operating
range is very limited, a fact that led to further work on hybrid cycles to extend the application range
and increase efficiency with no or minor complexity and cost. Theoretical and experimental papers
handling this aspect aim to go beyond air-conditioning applications and make ejector systems available
for refrigeration as well. Refrigerant properties are known to impact ejector-based and hybrid cycles.
Moreover, depending on the cycle configuration, refrigerant mixtures or more than one refrigerant may
be used in the cycle loops for more flexibility. Several recent studies investigated refrigerants ranging
from synthetic refrigerants to hydrocarbons and more recently some HFOs, due to their performance
potential but the current trend demonstrated by the number of published papers leans toward CO2 as
a natural refrigerant with good thermophysical properties and performance potential in transcritical
cycles [133]. Relevant theoretical and experimental developments in two-phase ejector treating these
aspects are briefly presented in the next subsections.
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 24 of 54

5.1. The Conventional Ejector Expansion Refrigeration Cycle

In a conventional EERC (Figure 8a), instead of an isenthalpic expansion, which results in
substantial throttling losses, a two-phase ejector is used to expand the condensate in a quasi-isentropic
manner, recovering part of the work that would otherwise be lost in the expansion valve. In the same
process, secondary flow from the evaporator is drawn at the ejection suction port, slightly compressed
and the mixture sent to a phase separator. This latter feeds vapor to the compressor to complete the
cycle and liquid to the evaporator through a metering valve.
This cycle combination differs from the conventional mechanical cycle by the replacement of the
isenthalpic expansion valve with a quasi-isentropic expansion ejector and a separator located between
the ejector discharge and the compressor suction. The main advantages of the new configuration are the
recovery of part of the energy release during the expansion to slightly compress the vapor drawn from
the evaporator. In addition, a two-phase ejector cycle can improve the evaporator performance due
to near liquid-feeding operation [134]. The combination of all these effects for a good system design
results in a more efficient cycle than the conventional one, working in the same conditions [3,135–137].
Similarly to conventional refrigeration, the performance of alternative cycles such as EERC is
expressed in terms of the Coefficient of Performance (COP), commonly defined as:

ωQ
COP = , (8)
wcom

This equation relates the heat absorbing capacity at low temperature (cooling effect) to the energy
consumed in the compression process, expressed as a ratio of the total heat extracted in the evaporator
to the compressor work. It is conveniently expressed in terms of the ejector entrainment ratio. The
system performance thus directly depends on the ejector drawing capacity, which in turn depends
on the refrigerant type, the operating conditions and the ejector design quality. It is clear that better
understanding the influence of operating conditions and design parameters on ejector performance is
crucial to enhance the competitiveness of alternative refrigeration cycles.

5.1.1. EERC Theoretical Studies

Suitable models for heat pump cycle performance and efficiency analysis rely on the laws of
thermodynamics. The first law is typically employed to evaluate the performance in terms of COP for
the complete cycle. The second law is typically used to evaluate the entropy generation. In addition to
one-dimensional considerations commonly employed in ejector treatment, both first and second laws,
as well as the concept of exergy, which is a combined formulation of both laws are frequently used in
cycle analysis, including at the component level.
Analysis of EERC performance by Kornhauser [97] indicated that improvements over the standard
cycle depended on the refrigerant employed and for several of them, a COP value 21% above the
standard COP was possible. However, COP improvements were highly sensitive to efficiency of the
ejector components [138].
Nehdi et al. [32] basing their analysis on thermodynamic model considerations involving
several conventional refrigerants concluded that the geometric parameters of the ejector design had
considerable effects on the system’s performance. They observed, at φ optimal and for given operating
conditions, that the best performances were obtained with R141b. Compared to the standard cycle, the
COP of the EERC showed an increase in COP of about 22%.
A theoretical study by Bilir and Ersoy [139] established that the EERC performance with R134a was
superior to the corresponding conventional compression refrigeration cycle (CRC), even in off-design
conditions. At optimal conditions, enhancements of up to 22.3% were predicted, depending on the
operating conditions.
Effects of refrigerants and optimized ejector geometry on EERC were analyzed by Sarkar [33].
Relying on thermodynamic analysis, the author compared the cycle operation with ammonia, propane
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 25 of 54

and isobutene for maximized performance in terms of COP. He proposed expressions for optimum
ejector geometric parameters, which offer useful guidelines for optimal design and operation. In
the conditions of the study (Te = 5 ◦ C and Tc = 40 ◦ C) with the use of the ejector as an expansion
device, isobutene yielded maximum COP improvement of 21.6% followed by propane (17.9%) and
ammonia (11.9%).
Along the same lines of investigations, Li et al. [140] thermodynamic study of EERC with R134a
and R1234yf confirmed the potential of this cycle over the conventional mechanical compression
cycle. For air conditioning, estimates indicate that EERC is superior in terms of COP and volumetric
capacity by over 13% and 11.5% respectively, depending on the suction pressure difference. In terms
of geometry effects, the area ratio was shown to have an optimum value for COP and capacity. Even
though R1234yf showed slightly less performance than R134a, its potential for cycle performance
improvements seemed to be superior.
An investigation with R134a/R143a zeotropic mixture in EERC by Zhao et al. [141], showed that
COP increased to maximum 10.47% for R134a mass fraction of 0.9 but decreased other mass fractions.
The cycle exergy efficiency, on the other hand, was maximized at nearly 25% with a mass fraction of
R134a of 0.7, most of the exergy losses being at ejector and compressor levels.
Luo [142] built a mathematical model to study the performance of an oil flooded compression
cycle enhanced by ejector and internal heat recovery. The investigation was conducted with R32,
−25 ◦ C evaporation and 45 ◦ C condensation respectively. The COP improvement of this cycle was
found to increase up to 8.5% in comparison to the conventional cycle.
The effect of heat recovery by internal heat exchanger (IHX) was recently revisited by
Rodríguez-Muñoz et al. [143] with R134a, R1234ze(E) and R290 as refrigerants. Energy and exergy
analysis were employed for two locations in the cycle: at the compressor suction and at the ejector
suction. Theoretical comparison suggested that both configurations reduced somewhat the cycle COP,
irrespective of the refrigerant selected.
Khosravi et al. [136] conducted a theoretical study including the design, thermodynamic and
technical–economic considerations for an ejector expansion cooling system in a refinery where 1631 kW
of water cooling was required from 40 ◦ C to 30 ◦ C. The refrigerant R134a was selected after evaluation
among a number of candidates and expected energy consumption reduction was estimated to be as
much as 22% in comparison to the conventional system with separator.
In the last few decades, there has also been a renewed interest in the use of Carbone dioxide (CO2 )
due to its favorable thermophysical properties generally and more particularly as a working fluid in
EERC cycles under transcritical operating conditions. In air-conditioning system applications, the use
of transcritical CO2 in two-phase ejectors as expanders presents advantageous features. The pressure
difference across the compressor is very high in comparison to ordinary refrigerants, thus representing
a high source potential for work in ejectors which otherwise will not be recovered. Moreover, the
compression ratio remains moderate, which means more reliable compressor operation and reasonable
electricity consumption.
In an early theoretical study by Li and Groll [144], the effect of operating conditions on the ejector
expansion transcritical CO2 cycle for air-conditioning was investigated. It was found that the COP of
EERC could be improved by more than 16% over the conventional compression CO2 cycle working in
the same conditions.
Ksayer and Clodic [145] employed a 1-D analysis of two-phase ejector-expander refrigeration
cycle in the conditions of air-conditioning with transcritical CO2 and R134a. It was found that the COP
of the ejector expansion transcritical CO2 cycle could be improved by more than 15% compared to the
conventional transcritical reference. Furthermore, a comparison of R-134a and CO2 based refrigeration
cycles showed a better performance with CO2 .
The next investigation on two-phase ejector transcritical CO2 refrigeration application by
Deng et al. [146] provided performance improvements in terms of system COP and capacity of 18.5%
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 26 of 54

and 8.2% respectively over the conventional case with an internal heat exchanger and 22% and 11.5%
respectively without the internal heat exchanger.
Sarkar [147] compared conventional expansion layouts for heating and cooling by means of
transcritical CO2 heat pumps, showing that the use of ejector as an alternative improved the energetic
and exergy performances, while significantly reducing the optimum high side system pressure. He
also proposed a correlation for the optimum pressure discharge of the system. A thermodynamic
analysis of transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycles performed by Perez-Garcia et al. [148] compared three
configurations: with internal heat exchanger, ejector (EERC) or turbine, as alternative replacement
devices to the conventional expansion valve. COP based estimations indicated that the turbine-using
cycle generally outperformed the other configurations under the same conditions. However, outlet
gas-cooler temperatures above 27 ◦ C favor the ejector configuration over the internal heat exchanger
one, for entrainment ratios higher than 0.5. Further, increasing the evaporation temperature from
−10 ◦ C to 0 ◦ C results in the highest COP improvement in comparison to the IHX and turbine
configurations (35.85%, 25.4%, and 24.21%, respectively).
The first and second laws of thermodynamics were also applied by Fangtian and Yitai [149] to a
transcritical CO2 cycle for air-conditioning purposes. They evaluated losses in different parts of the
cycle, the effect of ejector operation on overall performance and compared the EERC and the expansion
valve compression cycle. It was found that for any given running condition there was a critical point
for which the operating parameters corresponded to the optimized operation of the cycle. At this
point, the use of ejector instead of a throttling valve could reduce by more than 25% exergy losses and
increase COP by more than 30%.
The use of internal heat exchanger (IHX) in a transcritical CO2 ejector expansion cycles was
studied by Zhang et al. [150]. In their paper they reported simulations on the effect of IHX on the
performance of the ejector expansion refrigeration cycle. They found that unlike in a conventional
throttle valve cycle, the addition of an IHX in the CO2 ejector refrigeration cycle did not always
improve the system performance but rather depended on the isentropic efficiency level of the ejector.
The thermodynamic analysis was also applied by Zhang and Tian [151] for the case of the
transcritical CO2 EERC performance. Results from this study indicated that maximum COP could be up
to 45.1% higher than that of the conventional cycle. In addition, exergy losses of the ejector-expansion
could be reduced by about 43.0% in the same conditions.
In contrast with CFD investigations, typically focused on the ejector component and the internal
flow structure on its losses and its performance, Zheng et al. [152] considered the ejector as a component
of a system. More specifically, Zheng et al. [152] work consisted in modeling the dynamic operational
behavior of an EERC cycle for transcritical CO2 . This model helps monitoring changes in the expansion
valve openings or the ejector area ratio variations and understand the EERC operational characteristics.
As such, this tool can serve as a guide for better system control.
Liu et al. [153] developed a dynamic optimal control strategy for energy charging of both hot and
cold storages, using a transcritical CO2 ejector-expansion heat pump. Dynamic optimization control
strategy by genetic algorithm was used to obtain the optimal setting points. Results indicated the
overall performances during the charging process can be increased, the energy consumption and the
charging time can be reduced significantly.
Typical EERC relevant theoretical studies are summarized in Table 4 (synthetic refrigerants) and
Table 5 (transcritical CO2 ).
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 27 of 54

Table 4. Selection of EERC relevant theoretical studies (synthetic refrigerants).

Operating
Author(s) Fluid Performance Remarks
Conditions
-∆COP, up to 13%, ∆Qe up to
12% (at Tc = 50 ◦ C, Te = 5 ◦ C,
Li et al., ◦C
Tc : 30–55 and same ∆P in suction nozzle.) R1234yf EERC has a better
R1234yf
2014 [140] Te : −10 to +10 ◦ C -An optimum ∆P in suction performance than R134a.
nozzle exist for maximized
performance.
With mixture 0.9/0.1, ∆COP = EERC using zeotropic mixtures,
Zhao et al., Mixture Tc : 30–50 ◦ C
10.47% (compared to system fluid composition and working
2015 [141] R134a/R143a Te : −15 to −10 ◦ C
with pure R143a). conditions effects investigated.
EERC with injecting oil into the
-∆COP ≈ 4.3%.
Luo, Tc : 45 ◦ C compressor to approach a more
R32 -Expected improvement in COP
2017 [142] Te : −25 to +5 ◦ C isothermal compression process
of 8.5% with addition of IHX.
(oil-flooded compression cycle).
Rodríguez-Muñoz
R134a, R1234ze(E), Air-conditioning IHX presence promotes a Effects of heat recovery by IHX in
et al.,
R290 conditions decrease in COP. EERC
2018 [143]
-Application of a large scale
Fuel consumption reduced by
industrial EERC for process
R134A Tc : 50–63 ◦ C 22% and total cost of EERC
Khosravi et al., water-cooling in an oil refinery.
R407C Te : 20 ◦ C system 15.2% less than
2018 [136] -Energy, exergy and economic
R410A Q: 1631 kW conventional refrigeration with
analyses showed EERC as the
IHX.
best choice.

Table 5. Selection of EERC relevant theoretical studies (transcritical CO2 ).

Author(s) Operating Conditions Performance Remarks

-∆COP = 18.6%. ∆Qe = 8.2% (with
Deng et al., Pgc : 7.5–12.5 MPa IHX). Exergy analysis showed that EERC
2007 [146] Te : 0–10 ◦ C -∆COP = 22%, ∆Qe = 11.5% greatly reduces the throttling losses.
(without IHX).
Pgc : 8–9.2 MPa
Ejector instead of throttling valve
Fangian and Yitai, Tgc : 312–318 K Effects of working conditions on COP
can reduce 25% of exergy losses
2011 [149] Te : 267–290 K and exergy loss.
and increase COP by 30%.
∆Tsub : 5 K
.
Tgc,w,in : 30–40 ◦ C -The effect of me,w on system
Theoretical and experimental
Sarkar and T : 25–35 ◦ C performances is more pronounced
. e,w,in . investigations on the water-side
Bhattacharyya, mgc,w : 0.7–2 kg/min compared to mgc,w .
operating conditions of heat pump for
2012 [154] Qev : 1.5–2.3 kW -The effect of Tgc,w,in is more
water cooling and heating.
Qgc : 2.8–4 kW significant compared to Te,w,in .
IHX inclusion in EERC: IHX is only applicable with low ejector
Pgc : 8.5–13 MPa -increases ω and ejector efficiency. isentropic efficiencies or high gas cooler
Zhang et al.,
Tgc : 40–50 ◦ C -Pressure recovery decreases exit/evaporator temperatures for the
2013 [150]
Te : 0–10 ◦ C under the same gas cooler EERC system from the view of energy
pressures. efficiency.
∆P suction nozzle impact on ω is small
Pgc : 8.5–11 MPa
Zhang and Tian, -∆COP up to 45%. but exist an optimum value for which
Tgc : 40–50 ◦ C
2014 [151] -Exergy loss reduction up to 43%. COP and recovered pressure are
Te : 0–10 ◦ C
maximized.
The dynamic behaviors of the EERC
Pgc ; 8–9 MPa Pressure predictions in gas cooler, system undergoing the change of
Zheng et al.,
Pe : 3.2–3.6 MPa evaporator and separator within expansion valve opening and ejector
2015 [152]
ω: 0.48–0.57 1.8%, 4.2% and 6.7%, respectively. area ratio are predicted by the developed
model.

5.1.2. EERC Experimental Studies

First EERC experiments were mainly performed with synthetic refrigerants. However, in recent
years, studies are related mostly to natural refrigerants, particularly CO2 .
The apparatus of Menegay and Kornhauser [80,102] was a 3.5 kW capacity air-to-air-conditioning
system, using R12 as the refrigeration fluid. Unfortunately, the performance improvement of the
system was modest. The authors attributed this drawback firstly to the ejector inefficiency, designed
for single-phase conditions and then to the non-equilibrium effects which were underestimated by
the Henry and Fauske [155], approach introduced in their improved model. Building on these works,
subsequent ejector designs and experiments performed by several researchers were more successful.
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 28 of 54

Harrell and Kornhauser [156] tested a two-phase ejector with R134a and used its performance obtained
from the test rig to estimate the COP of the refrigeration cycle, ranging from 3.9 to 7.6%.
Wongwises and his team [45,157–159] conducted experiments on an EERC using R134a as
refrigerant and with recirculation in the evaporator. They considered the effects of the nozzle outlet size
and recirculation ratio variation on overall cycle performance which they compared to a CRC system.
The analysis of the experiments was reported in a series of papers in which the main conclusions
were that the EERC had lower compressor pressure ratio, lower discharge temperature, higher cooling
capacity and higher COP than those of the CRC. However, the authors did not report explicitly any
substantial performance improvement over CRC systems.
Reddick et al. [160] built and tested an EERC with R134a. Their preliminary performance results
were modest and in some cases even lower than those of a CRC in the same conditions, seemingly
due to the separator’s low efficiency. The authors then provided additional heat input to the separator
before the compressor suction in order to eliminate liquid droplets at suction. The additional heat input
was accounted for with cooling capacity and the system showed an enhanced overall performance of
up to 11%, particularly at low condenser temperatures. A similar observation made by Lawrence and
Elbel [101] explained that if the separation efficiency fell below 15%, there was no advantage in using
the ejector system.
Lawrence and Elbel [161] compared EERC systems with different working fluids against CO2 ,
more specifically R134a and its potential substitute, R1234fa, showing that higher COPs were achieved
with R1234fa and R134a, respectively 12% and 8% over the same cycle with CO2 . Yet, the latter is more
popular given its higher work recovery rate. Ersoy and Bilir [162] generated further experimental
results showing that the R134a refrigeration system with an ejector as the expander could reach a COP
between 6.2% and 14.5% higher than that of the conventional system.
Experiments with refrigerant R410A were conducted as well by Pottker et al. [163], on three
refrigeration cycle configurations: conventional (CC), flash-gas bypass (FGB) and ejector enhanced
conventional (EEC) systems. Performance comparisons CC-FGB, CC-EEC and FGB-EEC were
performed at the same cooling capacity. CC-FGB comparison identifies the flash gas separation
benefit, EEC-FGB comparison the work recovery benefit and CC-EEC the overall benefits (work
recovery + flash-gas separation). COP improvements per case were 4.9–9.0% for CC-FGB, 1.9–8.4% for
FGB-EEC and 8.2–14.8% for CC-EEC, while ejector efficiencies varied in the range 12.7–21%.
Similar work with refrigerant R410A conducted by Hu et al. [29], demonstrated that the
energy efficiency ratio of the conventional cycle could be improved by 9.1%, depending on the
operating conditions.
In further experiments of Pottker and Hrnjak [134] two important elements affecting the efficient
operation and performance improvement of an ejector system using R410A were quantified: work
recovery and liquid-fed evaporator. The ejector system was compared with a liquid-fed evaporator and
a conventional system under the same conditions. The results indicated that performance improvement
of 1.9% to 8.4% from work recovery and ∆COP of 8.2% to 14.8% from simultaneous benefits of
liquid-fed evaporator and work recovery. Overall, the system efficiency improved from 12.2% to 19.2%.
Popovac et al. [164] tested an ejector heat pump with butane as refrigerant. The cycle was
similar to a conventional EERC system. However, the tested conditions were suitable for industrial
applications: 50–80 ◦ C on the low temperature side, and 100–130 ◦ C on the high temperature side. The
preliminary measurement showed a COP improvement of 25% compared to a heat pump without
ejector. The ejector presented a pressure recovery of 1.3 with a corresponding entrainment ratio of 0.3
under the tested operating conditions.
Study undertaken by Elbel and Hrnjak [65] indicated that a transcritical CO2 EERC could increase
COP by up to 22% over a conventional CRC working in similar conditions. The author confirmed
that this increment in performance varied, depending on the operating temperature, ejector flow
ratio, nozzle and diffuser efficiencies. Elbel and Hrnjak [48] then generated experimental data in a
transcritical CO2 ejector system which they then compared to conventional expansion valve system
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 29 of 54

test results. Ejector integration in the cycle indicated that both the COP and the cooling capacity were
improved by up to 7% and 8%, respectively.
Nakagawa et al. [36] on the other hand focused their investigation on the size of the internal heat
exchanger, its effect on system operation and performance in the context of the ejector refrigeration
system (Figure 11). They tested the system without and with two heat exchanger sizes (30 cm and
60 cm). The system with the larger IHX resulted in 27% COP improvement over a similar conventional
system. The internal heat exchanger provided a good control of the inlet temperature to the motive
nozzle flow, which in turn had a significant effect on system performance. A lower inlet temperature in
the motive nozzle influenced positively both the ejector performance and the overall system efficiency.
The authors observed an excess of liquid in the vapor leaving the separator, which may be detrimental
to performance and to the compressor, depending on the size of the internal heat exchanger. They then
extended the experimental investigation to the effect of the ejector mixing length on the performance of
the transcritical CO2 EERC with or without an IHX, which they compared to the conventional system
in the same conditions. The results indicated that an optimum length existed, for which performance
in terms of ejector efficiency and cycle COP was maximized irrespective of the use of IHX. In this
condition, a COP improvement of up to 26% over the conventional system was attained. Away from
this optimum
Inventions 2018, 3,length,
x COP decreased by as much as 10% [165]. 29 of 54

Figure 11. EERC with internal heat recovery [36].

Lee et
Lee et al.
al. [166]
[166] experimental study focused
experimental study focused on on the
the system
system performance
performance with with respect
respect to
to different
different
ejector geometries
ejector geometries and and designs.
designs. AA CO air-conditioning system
CO22 air-conditioning system in in both
both expansion
expansion valve
valve and
and ejector
ejector
based configurations was assessed. The ejector design accounted for
based configurations was assessed. The ejector design accounted for the non-equilibrium state the non-equilibrium state in
in the
the evaluation
evaluation ofsonic
of the the sonic velocity
velocity andcritical
and the the critical
mass mass
flux influx
the in the motive
motive nozzle.nozzle. The variation
The variation of
of ejector
ejector geometry such as the motive nozzle throat and the mixing section
geometry such as the motive nozzle throat and the mixing section diameters, NXP as well as the diameters, NXP as well as the
separator volume
separator volume werewere carried
carried out. The system
out. The system configuration
configuration included
included an an internal
internal heat
heat exchanger
exchanger for for
heat recovery
heat recovery in in all
allcases.
cases.Experimental
Experimentalresults
resultsshowed
showedthat thatthere
thereexist
existoptimum
optimum design
designparameters
parameters in
each test. Comparison between the conventional air-conditioning system with
in each test. Comparison between the conventional air-conditioning system with a throttle valve and a throttle valve and an
ejector-based
an configuration
ejector-based revealed
configuration that thethat
revealed COPtheof this
COP latter
of was
thissuperior by 15%
latter was approximately.
superior by 15%
An extension
approximately. of this work [167] proposed more detailed information on system behavior
with Anrespect to various
extension of thisoperating
work [167] conditions.
proposed moreExperimental results wereon
detailed information compared with various
system behavior with
outdoortotemperatures
respect various operatingand inverter frequencies
conditions. for an air-conditioning
Experimental results were compared system using an ejector
with various and a
outdoor
conventional system,
temperatures based on
and inverter experiments
frequencies forwith
an the pressures and temperatures
air-conditioning system usingtoan which the system
ejector and a
conventional system, based on experiments with the pressures and temperatures to which theusing
is subjected. It was found that the cooling capacity and COP of the air-conditioning system systeman
ejector
is were sensibly
subjected. higher
It was found than
that thethose of the
cooling conventional
capacity and COP system
of the atair-conditioning
an entrainment ratio greater
system using than
an
0.76. Both cooling capacity and COP improved by approximately 2–5% and
ejector were sensibly higher than those of the conventional system at an entrainment ratio greater 6–9%, respectively.
than Liu
0.76.etBoth
al. [168] experiments
cooling on aCOP
capacity and transcritical
improved COby2 EERC used a controllable
approximately 2–5% and ejector. At constant
6–9%, respectively.
compressor speed,
Liu et al. [168]COP and capacity
experiments on a were enhanced
transcritical COby 60% and
2 EERC used 40% respectivelyejector.
a controllable at optimum nozzle
At constant
compressor speed, COP and capacity were enhanced by 60% and 40% respectively at optimum nozzle
throat, Dt and NXP. The variable speed compressor was found to significantly increase COP and
cooling capacity in comparison to conventional compression cycle.
Lucas and Koehler [169] conducted experiments on ejector operation with CO2 and the
corresponding cycle performance which they compared to a conventional cycle with an expansion
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 30 of 54

throat, Dt and NXP. The variable speed compressor was found to significantly increase COP and
cooling capacity in comparison to conventional compression cycle.
Lucas and Koehler [169] conducted experiments on ejector operation with CO2 and the
corresponding cycle performance which they compared to a conventional cycle with an expansion
valve in terms of the ejector efficiency, the entrainment ratio, and the pressure recovery. Investigations
were for constant evaporation pressures of 26 bar and 34 bar (respectively −10 ◦ C and −1 ◦ C), gas
cooler outlet temperatures of 30 ◦ C, 35 ◦ C and 40 ◦ C and nozzle inlet suction superheat about 4 ◦ C.
Maximum ejector efficiency as defined by Koehler et al. [49] was up to 22% and COP improvement
over the conventional cycle with expansion valve in similar conditions was up to 17% with respect to
the high side pressure.
This work was continued and reported in a second paper by the authors Lucas et al. [170].
Experimental ejector operation characteristics were validated and correlations for the ejector efficiency
and the driving mass flow rate were used, based on previously generated experimental data. The
correlations were used to simulate a simple CO2 ejector cycle to predict the experimental data within
10% for ejector efficiency and the mass flow rate within 5%.
Water heating and low-temperature refrigeration are among the priority interests in the use of
heat pumps and refrigerators with two-phase ejector enhanced CO2 configurations, which represent
an interesting performance improvement potential. In this respect, Guangming et al. [171] conducted a
theoretical analysis and experimentation with CO2 on two-phase ejectors for water heating applications.
Their theoretical predictions were in good agreement with the experiments. The system was tested in
both on-design and off-design conditions.
Experiments on a water-to-water, off-the-shelf, CO2 heat pump equipped with an ejector, were
performed by Minetto et al. [172] showing improved circulation of refrigerant in the evaporator. The
heat pump was both tested for water and space heating. The comparison to a conventional heat pump
employing an expansion valve was favorable according to the authors but no explicit performance
comparison was provided. Recently, Zhu et al. [133] investigated the effects of working conditions on
the performance of transcritical CO2 ejector-expansion heat pump water heater system. Results showed
a COP = 4.6 when the tap water outlet temperature was 70 ◦ C, corresponding to an improvement of
10.3% over the basic cycle.
The multi-ejector approach used by Hafner et al. [173] was later employed by Boccardi et al. [81]
to conduct experiments on an air-to-water CO2 heat pump for space heating under partial and full-load
conditions. The authors evaluated individual components and overall heat pump performance, varied
the ejector area ratio and the compressor frequency to adjust to ambient conditions from −15 to 12 ◦ C.
Optimal COP was possible by varying the ejector area, regulated to match with the pressures at the
inlet and outlet of the compressor. Optimal ejector performance does not necessarily match with
optimal system operation.
Zhu et al. [174] investigated experimentally the issue of the oil circulation in a transcritical CO2
EERC. Significantly higher oil circulation rate was observed at the evaporator inlet of the ejector cycle
than at the high-pressure side. To reduce the negative impact of evaporator oil circulation, the influence
of compressor speeds, ejector motive nozzle needle positions and evaporator inlet metering valve
openings were considered.
A representative sample of EERC experimental studies are summarized in Table 6 (synthetic
refrigerants) and Table 7 (transcritical CO2 ).
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 31 of 54

Table 6. Selection of EERC relevant experimental studies (synthetic refrigerants).

Operating
Author(s) Fluid Performance Remarks
Conditions
-∆COP up to 14.8% over
The two benefits effects of EERC
Tc : 40–60 ◦ C conventional system.
Pottker et al., system (flash gas separation and
R410A Te : 0–15 ◦ C -∆COP up to 8.4% over flash
2010 [163] work recovery) were investigated
Qe : 1.5–2.5 kW gas bypass system.
and quantified.
-ω: 0.62–0.71, τ: 1.04–1.11.
-∆COP: 6.2–14.5% over Under same external conditions,
Tc : 52–60 ◦ C
Ersoy and Bilir, conventional, depending on overall ∆P (in the evaporator
R134a Te : 10 ◦ C
2014 [162] operating conditions. particularly) is higher in
Qe : 4.47 kW
-ω: 0.63–0.65, τ: 1.063. conventional cycle.
Pc : 1.9–2.4 MPa -∆COP: up to 9.1% over
Hu et al., Adjustable ejector investigated
R410A Pe : 1.05–1.28 MPa conventional system.
2014 [29] under different conditions.
Qe : 4.2 kW -ω: 0.58–0.78
Over a conventional system: The irreversibility and efficiency of
Tc : 40 ◦ C -∆COP up by 7.34–12.24%. each cycle component determined
Bilir-Sag et al.,
R134a Te : 5 ◦ C -Exergy efficiency up by and compared with those of a
2015 [55]
Qe : 4.5 kW 6.6%–11.24%. vapor compression refrigeration
-ω: 0.73–0.83 system.
Tc : 40–60 ◦ C
Work recovery and liquid-fed
Pottker and Hrnjak, Tsink : 38–52 ◦ C -∆COP: 12.2–19.2%.
R410A evaporator in EERC separately
2015 [134] Te : 0–15 ◦ C -ω: 0.62–0.71, τ: 1.04–1.11.
quantified.
Tsource : 10–27 ◦ C
Pp : 1–2.6 bar τ increases and ω decreases with
Wang and Yu,
R600a xp : 0.3–0.6 ω: 0.18–0.33, τ: 1.01–1.30. increasing the quality of the
2016 [30]
Ps : 0.4–0.7 bar primary fluid.
Pc : 24–31 bar -∆COP: 7.5% over the base Effects of ejector geometries on the
Jeon et al.,
R410A Pe : 10–14 bar line cycle. performance of an ejector
2018 [38]
Qe : 7.5 kW -ω: 0.6–0.95, τ: 1.02–1.07. expansion air conditioner.

Table 7. Selection of EERC relevant experimental studies (transcritical CO2 ).

Author(s) Operating Conditions Performance Remarks

Pgc : 9–10.5 MPa - ∆COP: up to 27% over base -Effect of IHX size on EERC
Nakagawa et al., Tgc : 41–47 ◦ C case when IHX is properly performance.
2011, [36,165] Te : 0–8 ◦ C sized. -Effect of the mixing length on the
Qe : 0.4–2.7 kW - ω: 0.1–0.7, τ: 1.04–1.13 performance investigated.
Tgc : 30–70 ◦ C
Banasiak et al., -∆COP: 8%. Effects of different ejector geometries on
Te : 20 ◦ C
2012 [37] -ω: 0.41–0.7. performance were examined.
Qgc : 5–13 kW
Pgc : 71–103 bar
Lucas and Koehler, Tgc : 30–40 ◦ C -∆COP: 17%. Investigation of the working conditions
2012 [169] Pe : 26–34 bar -ω: 0.38–0.65, τ: 1.05–1.14. on the performance.
Te : −10 to −1 ◦ C
Pgc : 100 bar
Minetto et al., -∆COP: 7.5–23.3%. Technological issues related to lubricant
Tgc : 35 ◦ C, Te : 0 ◦ C
2013 [172] -ω: 0.8–1.6, τ: 1–1.143. recovery were faced.
Qgc : 5 kW
Depending on converter
Tgc : 30–40 ◦ C ω and the temperature of external fluid
Lee et al., frequency adjustment,
Te : 27 ◦ C in the gas cooler were among the main
2014 [167] -∆COP: 6–9%.
Qe : 3–5.7 kW controlling factors.
-∆Q: 5%.
Tgc : 26–36 ◦ C
-COP improved up to 7% over -Performance of multi-ejector expansion
Haida et al., Pe : 28 bar
parallel compression system. work recovery module compared to
2016 [175] Te : −8 ◦ C
-ω: 0.15–0.4, τ: 1–1.4 parallel compression system.
Qe : 46 kW
-Heat pump system with multi-ejector
Pgc : 80–100 bar -∆COP: 13.8%.
pack and IHX for space heating.
Tgc : 40–60 ◦ C -∆Qgc : 20%.
Boccardi et al., -There is a threshold value of the
Pe : 20–30 bar when proper configuration of
2017 [81] ambient temperature to switch from an
Te : −5 to 12 ◦ C multi-ejector is used.
ejector to another one in order to
Qgc : 29–36 kW -ω: 0.35–0.52, τ: 1.06–1.14.
maximize the performance.
A controller based on a
Pgc : 90–114 bar dynamic model tracking the Improving the operating performance
He et al.,
Nozzle throat optimal gas cooler pressure in of the transcritical CO2 EERC by
2017 [42]
area: 0.638–1.217 m2 real time to increase the controlling the nozzle throat area.
system performance.
Pgc : 81–121 bar
Tgc : 35–55 ◦ C Effects of working conditions on the
-COP improvement of 10.3%
Zhu et al., Pe : 50 bar (Tair : 22 ◦ C), performance of transcritical CO2
over the basic cycle.
2018 [133] Qgc : 5 kW ejector-expansion heat pump water
-ω: 0.5–0.9, τ: 1.1.
Tw,in : 20 ◦ C, heater system.
Tw,out : 50–90 ◦ C
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 32 of 54

5.2. Miscellaneous Two-Phase Ejector Cycles

Two-phase ejector obvious applications in refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat pump,
as detailed in the previous paragraphs rely on the EERC configuration with or without internal
heat recovery. However, many industrial uses of two-phase ejectors were also found in the literature
and highlighted. In addition, new cycle ejector-based combinations were proposed by the researchers
with the same purpose of improving efficiency and saving energy in many areas of application. The
following developments will however focus more on the area of refrigeration and heat pumping,
where several cycle configurations and application objectives have been explored.

5.2.1. Theoretical Studies

Boumaraf et al. [176] relied on thermodynamic modeling to study a bi-evaporator EERC based
on the patent of Oshitani et al. [84] (Figure 9a). The authors used R134a and R1234yf and analyzed
the effects of the area ratio on its operation and performance. The results showed COP improvements
of more than 17% at Tc = 40 ◦ C for both refrigerants. This increase in COP was higher for R1234yf,
especially at high condensing temperatures.
In another instance, the concept of a two-evaporator EERC proposed by Unal and Yilmaz [177]
for bus air-conditioning was similar to the case analyzed by Boumaraf et al. [176]. The theoretical
evaluation of this device showed that interesting performance gains could be reached (up to 15%
Inventions 2018, 3, x
COP
32 of 54
improvement), depending on the design parameters of the existing bus air-conditioning system.
Effect of
Effect of refrigerants
refrigerants and
and their
their mixtures
mixtures on on aa variant
variant of of aa two-evaporator
two-evaporator EERC
EERC (Figure
(Figure 12)
12)
performance were
performance were the
the subject
subject of
of the
the study
study by
by Liu
Liu et
et al.
al. [178].
[178]. The
The authors
authors worked with aa zeotropic
worked with zeotropic
mixture of R290/R600a
R290/R600aand anddemonstrated
demonstrated that
that aa theoretical
theoretical COP
COP andand cooling
cooling capacity
capacity improvements
improvements
over a conventional cycle of 6.71% and 35%, respectively, could be reached. The exergy efficiency
improved by about 6.71% and the total exergy loss diminished diminished approximately
approximately by by 24.47%.
24.47%.
The concept of dual-nozzle ejector represented in Figure 13a, was theoretically investigated by
Zhou et et al.
al.[43],
[43],for
foruse
useinina household
a household refrigerator
refrigerator freezer
freezer with with R134a.
R134a. The The ejector
ejector is equipped
is equipped with
with two nozzles
two nozzles for more
for more efficient
efficient expansion
expansion losseslosses recovery
recovery to formto form a dual-nozzle
a dual-nozzle which,which, not may
not only only
may operate the heat pump with two heat sources at the same time, but
operate the heat pump with two heat sources at the same time, but also may improve heat pump also may improve heat
pump performances.
performances. Simulations
Simulations predicted
predicted COPCOP improvements
improvements of of 22.9–50.8%over
22.9–50.8% overthe
the conventional
mechanical refrigeration
mechanical refrigeration cycle.
cycle. Compared
Compared to to aa conventional
conventional EERC,
EERC, the
the cycle
cycle COP
COP was 10.5–30.8%
superior ininsimilar conditions.
similar The authors’
conditions. preliminary
The authors’ estimates estimates
preliminary predicted even higher performances
predicted even higher
with R600 refrigerant.
performances with R600 refrigerant.

Figure 12. Variant

Variant of EERC cycle [178].

Zhu et al. [179] work on dual nozzle cycle shown in Figure 13b, is an extension of a previous
research by the same authors [43]. It consists of a cycle integrating an ejector equipped with two
nozzles. The first nozzle feeds from the condenser in liquid to draw vapor from a high-pressure
evaporator, which then feeds the second nozzle as shown in Figure 3. The compound flow becomes
the motive flow for drawing vapor from a second evaporator at low pressure. The cycle built on the
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 33 of 54
Inventions 2018, 3, x 33 of 54
Inventions 2018, 3, x 33 of 54

Figure 13. Multi-evaporator

Multi-evaporator cycles with dual-nozzle ejector: (a) Zhou cycle [43]; (b) Zhu cycle [179].
Figure 13. Multi-evaporator cycles with dual-nozzle ejector: (a) Zhou cycle [43]; (b) Zhu cycle [179].
Zhu et al. [179]
Two-phase work
ejector on dual nozzle
application cycle shown
to domestic in Figure
refrigerator 13b,has
freezer is an extension
a good of a previous
potential for cycle
research
performance by the
Two-phase same
ejectorauthors
enhancement, as [43].
application
shown It consists
to Wangofet
domestic
by a al.
cycle
refrigerator integrating
[180]. an ejector
a goodequipped
freezer configurations
Several has potential with two
forincycle
available the
nozzles.
performance The first nozzle
enhancement, feeds
as from
shown the
by condenser
Wang et in
al. liquid
[180]. to draw
Several vapor
configurations
literature were assessed theoretically and compared with a new, modified configuration. The authors from a high-pressure
available in the
evaporator,
literature
used R600a which
were thenproposed
inassessed
the feeds the second
theoretically and
cycle, nozzle as shown
compared
represented within in Figuremodified
aFigure
new, 3.
14.The compound flow
configuration.
Average COP andbecomes
The the
authors
capacity
motiveR600a
used flow for
improvements drawing
inoverthethe vapor from
proposed
conventional acycle
cycle, second evaporator
represented
were in at
respectively low
Figure
overpressure.
14. The 22%.
Average
11.4% and cycle
COP built
In and on capacity
the dual
addition, they
ejector principle
improvements may
over therefore
the use
conventional two heat
cycle sources
were at different
respectively temperature
over
were generally superior to other ejector-based configurations proposed in the literature. 11.4% and levels
22%. and
In improve
addition, heat
they
pump
were performance.
generally
More recently, Simulations
superior
Sarkar [181]conducted
to other analyzed by
ejector-based the
four authors and
configurations
different based
proposed
cycle on R410A
layouts in predicted
the three
with literature. approximate
evaporators and
performance
More improvements
recently, Sarkar in terms
[181] of COP
analyzed and
four volumetric
different capacity
cycle ranges
layouts
double two-phase ejectors with propane and R32. The author successively compared the new cycles of
with 4.60–34%
three and 7.8–51.9%
evaporators and
over
double
to conventional
conventional, ejector enhanced
two-phaseexpansion
ejectors with vapor-compression
propane
valve-based and R32. The
two-stage cycle, respectively.
author
compression successively
cycle, ejector compared
enhanced thesingle-stage
new cycles
to Two-phase
compression andejector
conventional, expansion application
conventional valve-basedto domestic
single-stage two-stage refrigerator
compression
compression freezer
systems withhas
cycle, a good
ejector
three potential
enhanced
evaporators. forauthor
cycle
single-stage
The
performance
compression enhancement,
and conventional as shown by
single-stage Wang et al.
compression [180]. Several
systems with configurations
reported COP enhancement of about 20% over expansion valve two-stage compression, 67% over thethree evaporators.available
The in the
author
literature
reported were assessed
COP enhancement
ejector enhanced theoretically
single-stage of about and compared
20% over and
compression with
expansion a
117% valve new, modified
over two-stage
the expansionconfiguration.
compression,
valve, 67%The authors
over the
single-stage
used R600a
ejector
compression insystem
enhancedthe proposed
in the cycle,
single-stage represented
compression
contexts in Figure
and
of air-conditioning117% 14.(5over
Average
°C), the COP and capacity
expansion
refrigeration (−20 °C)improvements
valve, single-stage
and freezing
over °C)
the applications,
compression
(−40 conventional
system in cycle
the were respectively
contexts
respectively. over 11.4%(5and
of air-conditioning °C),22%. In addition,
refrigeration they
(−20 °C)wereandgenerally
freezing
superior
(−40 to other ejector-based
°C) applications, configurations proposed in the literature.
respectively.

Figure 14. Ejector application in domestic refrigeration and freezing [180].

Ejector application
Figure 14. Ejector
Figure application in
in domestic
domestic refrigeration and freezing [180].
As for Xing et al. [182], they modified the EERC (Figure 15) so that the ejector loop is dedicated
More
As for recently,
Xinga et Sarkar
al. [182], [181] modified
analyzed the
fourEERC
different cycle15)layouts withejector
three loop
evaporators and
to sub-cooling main loop, they
including a flash tank, a(Figure so that
first expansion the
valve, the evaporator is dedicated
and the
double
to two-phase
sub-cooling ejectors
a main with propane and R32. The author successively compared the new cycles
compressor. The ejectorloop,
loopincluding
comprisesaaflash
feed tank,
pump,a afirst expansion
second valve,
expansion the and
valve evaporator and The
the ejector. the
to conventional,
compressor. The expansion
ejector loop valve-based
comprises two-stage
a feed compression
pump, a second cycle, ejector
expansion valve enhanced
and the single-stage
ejector. The
condenser is shared by both loops. The refrigerant leaving the condenser is split in two streams. The
compression and conventional
condenser single-stage compression systems with three evaporators. The author
first streamisisshared
expandedby both loops.
to the flashThe refrigerant
tank pressure.leaving
The liquidthe is
condenser is split
further expanded in to
two thestreams. The
evaporator
first stream is expanded to the flash tank pressure. The liquid is further expanded
pressure, then compressed to the condenser pressure to complete the compression sub-cycle. The to the evaporator
pressure, then compressed to the condenser pressure to complete the compression sub-cycle. The
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 34 of 54

reported COP enhancement of about 20% over expansion valve two-stage compression, 67% over
the ejector enhanced single-stage compression and 117% over the expansion valve, single-stage
compression system in the contexts of air-conditioning (5 ◦ C), refrigeration (−20 ◦ C) and freezing
(−40 ◦ C) applications, respectively.
As for Xing et al. [182], they modified the EERC (Figure 15) so that the ejector loop is dedicated
to sub-cooling a main loop, including a flash tank, a first expansion valve, the evaporator and the
compressor. The ejector loop comprises a feed pump, a second expansion valve and the ejector. The
condenser is shared by both loops. The refrigerant leaving the condenser is split in two streams. The
first stream
Inventions 2018,is3,expanded
x to the flash tank pressure. The liquid is further expanded to the evaporator 34 of 54
pressure, then compressed to the condenser pressure to complete the compression sub-cycle. The
second liquid stream is pumped to activate the two-phase ejector, drawing the vapor from the flash
tank, resulting
resulting from
fromthe
thefirst
firstexpansion.
expansion.The Thevapor–liquid
vapor–liquid mixture
mixture leaving thethe
leaving ejector merges
ejector mergeswithwith
the
superheated compressor discharge vapor, which is de-superheated at the condenser
the superheated compressor discharge vapor, which is de-superheated at the condenser inlet (Figure inlet (Figure 15).
Theoretical predictions
15). Theoretical of such
predictions a cycle
of such with
a cycle R404a
with R404a and
and R290aatat4545◦ C
R290a °Ccondenser
condensertemperature
temperature and
◦
evaporator
evaporator temperature
temperaturerangerangeof of−−40 −10°C,
40 to −10 C,improved
improvedCOP COPby by9.5%
9.5% and
and 7%7% and
and the
the refrigeration
refrigeration
capacity by 11.7% and 7.2%, respectively.
respectively.
Some work
work was was also
also devoted
devotedtotodemonstrate
demonstratethat thatit itisisstill
still possible
possible to to consider
consider using
using water
water as
as refrigerant. To this end, Sarevski and Sarevski [17,183]
refrigerant. To this end, Sarevski and Sarevski [17,183] analyzed several casesanalyzed several cases of refrigeration
configurations relying only on two-phase ejector to operate as water-chillers for air-conditioning and
other cooling applications.

Figure 15. Schematic diagram of ejector-sub-cooled EERC [182].

Shen
Shen et al. [184]
et al. [184] proposed
proposed to to replace
replace the
the feed
feed pump
pump in in supersonic
supersonic ejector cooling cycle
ejector cooling cycle powered
powered
by
by solar energy to form a bi-ejector setup. The cycle is represented in Figure 16. The main loop is
solar energy to form a bi-ejector setup. The cycle is represented in Figure 16. The main loop is an
an
ERS where the
ERS where the supersonic
supersonic ejector
ejector is
is activated
activated by
by aa solar
solar generator
generator inin order
order to
to produce
produce aa cooling
cooling effect
effect
in
in the
the evaporator.
evaporator. TheThe second
second loop
loop main
main component
component is is a
a vapor–liquid
vapor–liquid two-phase
two-phase ejector
ejector to
to drive
drive the
the
liquid from the condenser back to the solar generator. It is powered by the generator
liquid from the condenser back to the solar generator. It is powered by the generator which feeds which feeds
the
the primary
primary inlets
inlets of both
of both ejectors
ejectors in in high
high pressureand
pressure andtemperature
temperaturevapor.
vapor.The
Theauthors
authors analyzed
analyzed the
the
feasibility of this system for different refrigerants in terms of performance.
feasibility of this system for different refrigerants in terms of performance.
Research efforts were also consented in exploring ways to enhance other heating and cooling
technologies thermally activated such as absorption systems, more frequently encountered in the past
but limited to niche uses nowadays. As a result, ways to enhance their performance were sought
through ejector integration at strategic locations within the currently available absorption cycles. For
example, the integration of a two-phase ejector located at the absorber inlet to replace the solution
expansion valve can benefit the overall cycle because the absorber in these conditions will work at
higher pressure than the evaporator will, and reduces the energy consumed in the solution pump.
by solar energy to form a bi-ejector setup. The cycle is represented in Figure 16. The main loop is an
ERS where the supersonic ejector is activated by a solar generator in order to produce a cooling effect
in the evaporator. The second loop main component is a vapor–liquid two-phase ejector to drive the
liquid from the condenser back to the solar generator. It is powered by the generator which feeds the
primary inlets
Inventions 2019, of both ejectors in high pressure and temperature vapor. The authors analyzed
4, 16 the
35 of 54
feasibility of this system for different refrigerants in terms of performance.
Inventions 2018, 3, x 35 of 54

expansion valve can benefit the overall cycle because the absorber in these conditions will work at
higher pressure than the evaporator will, and reduces the energy consumed in the solution pump.
Ejector application to single effect absorption cycles was analyzed by Vereda et al. [185,186],
along this path. On the basis of a thermodynamic analysis, these authors proposed the integration of
a two-phase ejector with an adjustable nozzle in a single-effect absorption cycle with ammonia–
lithium nitrate solution as working fluid. The purpose was to replace the solution expansion valve at
the absorber inlet by an ejector and evaluate its influence. An example of such a configuration is
represented in Figure 17. The influence of the ejector geometry through the variable nozzle throat
area on cycle performance was first evaluated in order to determine the range of the heat source
temperature where it was convenient and beneficial to use a practical ejector in the absorption cycle.
Simulations indicated a decrease of the activation temperature by about 9 °C below the conventional
single-effect absorption with16.
Figure a Solar-powered
corresponding impact refrigeration
Solar-powered bi-ejector on performance.systemThe [184].activation temperature
decreased substantially and the cooling capacity increased. This work was extended in Vereda et al.
Ejector
[186]Research application
by considering a to
efforts were single
combined effect absorption
single-effect
also consented cycles was
absorption
in exploring ways analyzed
cycle coupled
to enhance by Vereda
with et
other a al. [185,186],
two-phase
heating along
ejector
and cooling
this path.
simultaneously
technologies On the basis of a
meetingactivated
thermally thermodynamic
the functions
such as analysis,
of absorption
pressure booster, these
systems, authors
adiabatic proposed
absorber and
more frequently the integration
solution expansion
encountered of a
in the past
two-phase
valve.
but Thisejector
limited with
configuration
to niche an adjustable
uses decreased nozzle
nowadays. the in a single-effect
As activation
a result, temperature
ways absorption
to enhance by about
theircycle
15 with ammonia–lithium
°C, for
performance a were
recirculation
sought
nitrate
through solution
ratio of 3ejector as
and increasedworking
integrationthe at fluid.
cooling The
capacity
strategic purpose was
for awithin
locations to
generation replace the
temperature
the currently solution expansion
of 80absorption
available °C. valve
cycles. Forat
the absorber inlet by an ejector
Othertheammonia/LiNO3
example, integration andammonia/NaSCN
and
of a two-phase evaluate
ejectoritslocated
influence. Anabsorber
combined
at the example of such
ejector-absorption
inlet a configuration
to replace cycles were
the solution is
represented
proposed byinGarousi
Figure 17. The et
Farshi influence
al. [187].ofThe
the ejector geometry
replaced thethrough
solutionthe expansion
variable nozzlevalves throat area
to allow
on cycle
for performance
pressure recoverywasfrom first
theevaluated
absorber in andorder to determine
to enhance mixingtheofrange of the solution
the weak heat sourceandtemperature
refrigerant
where it wasthe
vapor from convenient
evaporator. andTheoretical
beneficial to use a practical
predictions showedejector
thatinthetheperformance
absorption cycle. Simulations
potential of these
indicated
cycles wasa higher
decrease of the activation
than single effect temperature about 9 ◦temperatures.
cycle at lowbygenerator C below the conventional single-effect
absorption
Furtherwith a corresponding
search of new cycles and impact on performance.
performance enhancement The approaches
activation temperature decreased
are also available with
substantially
CO and thea cooling
2. In this respect, capacity
transcritical increased. refrigeration
CO2 two-stage This work was extended
cycle integratingin Vereda et al. [186]
a two-phase by
ejector,
considering a combined single-effect absorption cycle coupled with a two-phase
an internal heat exchanger and an inter-cooler was analyzed on the basis of the first and second laws ejector simultaneously
meeting
of the functions
thermodynamics by of pressure
Yari booster, adiabatic
and Sirousazar absorbertoand
[188]. Compared the solution
conventional expansion
two-stage valve.
cycleThis
in
configuration
the decreased
same conditions, the the
newactivation
configurationtemperature by about
performance’s 15 ◦ C,in
increase forterms
a recirculation
of COP and ratio of 3 and
second law
increased the
efficiency wascooling capacity
about 55.5% andfor a generation
26%, respectively temperature 80 ◦ C.
for typicalofair-conditioning conditions (Figure 18).

Figure 17. Ejector-enhanced absorption system [186].

Other ammonia/LiNO3 and ammonia/NaSCN combined ejector-absorption cycles were

proposed by Garousi Farshi et al. [187]. The ejector replaced the solution expansion valves to allow for
pressure recovery from the absorber and to enhance mixing of the weak solution and refrigerant vapor
from the evaporator. Theoretical predictions showed that the performance potential of these cycles
was higher than the single effect cycle at low generator temperatures.
Further search of new cycles and performance enhancement approaches are also available with
CO2 . In this respect, a transcritical CO2 two-stage refrigeration cycle integrating a two-phase ejector,
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 36 of 54

an internal heat exchanger and an inter-cooler was analyzed on the basis of the first and second laws
of thermodynamics by Yari and Sirousazar [188]. Compared to the conventional two-stage cycle in
the same conditions, the new configuration performance’s increase in terms of COP and second law
Inventions
Inventions 2018,
efficiency was
2018, 3,
3, xabout
x 36
55.5% and 26%, respectively for typical air-conditioning conditions (Figure of
of 54
36 18).
54

Figure
Figure 18.
18. Modified
Modified transcritical
transcritical CO
CO222 ejector-expansion
ejector-expansion refrigeration
refrigeration cycle
cycle [188].
[188].

Goodarzi
Goodarzi et
Goodarzi et al.
al. [189]
[189] proposed new
proposed aa new two-stage
new two-stage multi-inter-cooling
two-stage multi-inter-cooling
multi-inter-cooling ejector-expansion
ejector-expansion system
system
transcritical
transcritical CO 22 refrigeration cycle, shown in This is a
transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle, shown in Figure 19. This is a modified multi-inter-cooling
refrigeration cycle, shown Figure 19. This is modified multi-inter-cooling
configuration
configuration of
configuration ofofthe
the previously
the proposed
previously
previously cycle
proposed
proposed by
by Manjili
cyclecycle and
and Yavari
by Manjili
Manjili and [190]
Yavari with
Yavari
[190] an
an ejector
[190]
with with an
ejector expansion
ejector
expansion
system.
expansion
system. system.

Figure
Figure 19.
Figure 19. Two-stage
19. Two-stage multi-inter-cooling
Two-stage multi-inter-cooling transcritical
transcritical EERC
EERC [189].
[189].

The second
The second intercooler cools
cools down the the compressed refrigerant
refrigerant by extracting
extracting a saturated vaporvapor
The second intercooler
intercooler cools down
down the compressed
compressed refrigerant by by extracting aa saturated
saturated vapor
flow
flow from the separator. An internal heat exchanger inserted between the gas cooler and the
flow from
from thethe separator.
separator. AnAn internal
internal heat
heat exchanger
exchanger inserted
inserted between
between thethe gas
gas cooler
cooler and
and the
the ejector-
ejector-
ejector-expansion
expansion system may improve the coefficient of performance. A portion of the saturated
expansion system
system may
may improve
improve the
the coefficient
coefficient ofof performance.
performance. A A portion
portion of
of the
the saturated
saturated vapor
vapor flow
flow
vapor
enters flow
the enters
internalthe internal
heat heat
exchanger exchanger
before before
entering entering
the first the first
compressor compressor
and and
cools cools the
down down the
high-
enters the internal heat exchanger before entering the first compressor and cools down the high-
high-pressure
pressure liquid leaving gas cooler before entering the ejector. Theoretical analysis indicated that
pressure liquid
liquid leaving
leaving gas
gas cooler
cooler before
before entering
entering thethe ejector.
ejector. Theoretical
Theoretical analysis
analysis indicated
indicated thatthat this
this
this configuration
configuration might operate more efficiently than the original cycle, more particularly at lower gas
configuration might
might operate
operate more
more efficiently
efficiently than
than thethe original
original cycle,
cycle, more
more particularly
particularly atat lower
lower gasgas
cooler
cooler pressures.
pressures. This
This is
is an
an important
important advantage
advantage from from thethe mechanical
mechanical and and metallurgical
metallurgical limitations
limitations
point of view.
point of view.
Other
Other scenarios
scenarios ofof two
two CO
CO22 cascade
cascade layouts
layouts (Figure
(Figure 20)
20) theoretically
theoretically evaluated
evaluated by by Yari
Yari and
and
Mahmoudi [191], yielding COP values in the respective ranges of 10.8–17.2%
Mahmoudi [191], yielding COP values in the respective ranges of 10.8–17.2% and 18–31.5% comparedand 18–31.5% compared
to a reference cascade cycle.
Inventions 2018, 3, x 37 of 54

Later
Inventions studies
2019, 4, 16 of potentially interesting configurations with this refrigerant were proposed 37
byofBai
54
et al., and Dokandari et al. [192–194]. Energy and exergy analyses are increasingly used to
theoretically investigate the effects of key parameters on the thermodynamic performance of the
cooler
currentpressures.
and newlyThis is an important
proposed advantage
cycles. Dokandari et from theprovided
al. [192] mechanical and metallurgical
a detailed analysis of limitations
a CO2/NH3
point of view.
cascade cycle based on the thermodynamics first and second laws. The results indicated that COP
and Other
secondscenarios of two of
law efficiency COthis
2 cascade
systemlayouts (Figureto20)
were found be theoretically
5–7% higherevaluated by Yari
on average than and
the
Mahmoudi [191], yielding COP values in the respective ranges of 10.8–17.2% and 18–31.5%
conventional cycle and exergy destruction rates roughly 8% lower as compared to the conventional compared
to a reference cascade cycle.
cycle.

Figure 20. Ejector-expansion based cascade refrigeration cycle layout [191].

Later
Bai et studies of potentially
al. [193,194] applied this interesting
approach configurations with this
to dual-evaporator refrigerantCO
transcritical were proposed by
2 refrigeration Bai
cycle
et al., and Dokandari et al. [192–194]. Energy and exergy analyses are increasingly
with two-stage ejector and an ejector enhanced vapor injection transcritical CO2 heat pump cycle with used to theoretically
investigate
sub-cooler, the effects of key
respectively. COP parameters
theoreticalonimprovements
the thermodynamic performance
over single ejector in ofCOthe2 current and newly
dual-temperature
proposed
refrigeration cycles. Dokandari etvapor
and conventional al. [192] provided
injection heatapump
detailed analysis
cycles of a CO2 /NH
were respectively cascade
up3 to 37.61%cycle
and
based
7.7%. on the thermodynamics first and second laws. The results indicated that COP and second law
efficiency of this system were found to be 5–7% higher on average
A recent configuration with R290/R170 mixture for low-temperature applications was studiedthan the conventional cycle and
exergy
by Liu destruction
et al. [195]rates whoroughly
proposed 8% alower
dualas compared
ejector to the conventional
auto-cascade refrigeration cycle.
cycle. A preliminary
Bai et al. [193,194] applied this approach to dual-evaporator
comparison was made with a conventional compression cascade and a single transcritical CO 2 refrigeration
ejector cascadecycle
with two-stage showing
configuration, ejector and a an ejector enhanced
significant potentialvapor injection transcritical
for throttling losses recovery. CO2 More
heat pump cycle with
theoretical and
sub-cooler, respectively. COP theoretical improvements
experimental investigations need to be performed to pursue this research. over single ejector in CO 2 dual-temperature
refrigeration
In addition andtoconventional
the importance vapor injection
of ejector heat on
design pumpcyclecycles were respectively
performance, evaporator updesign
to 37.61%
was
and 7.7%.
theoretically shown to have a major importance in this respect by Lawrence and Elbel [196] in
A recent of
continuation configuration
their previous with R290/R170 mixture
experimental for new
study. This low-temperature
investigationapplications was studiedthe
concerned particularly by
Liu et al. [195] who proposed a dual ejector auto-cascade refrigeration
effect of microchannel heat exchangers design and operation of ejector assisted compressor cycle. A preliminary comparison
was made with
refrigeration a conventional
cycle in the context compression cascade and
of the conventional a single
EERC andejector cascade
the ejector configuration,
recirculation cycleshowing
(ERC).
a significant potential for throttling losses recovery. More theoretical and
The analysis initiated by Hafner et al. [173] in the framework of supermarket applications had experimental investigations
need to be performed
for objective to pursue
to investigate the this research.
potential for a CO2 multi-ejector system and its comparison to a
reference CO2 booster system. The analysis design
In addition to the importance of ejector on cyclethat
demonstrated performance,
for different evaporator
climatic design was
conditions,
theoretically shown to have a major importance in this respect by
efficiencies and capacities of a system layout with ejectors and heat recovery, relevant improvementsLawrence and Elbel [196] in
continuation
of up to 30% of couldtheirbeprevious
expectedexperimental
(Figure 21). study. This new investigation concerned particularly the
effectRecently,
of microchannel heat exchangers
Haida et al. [197] proposed design and operationmapping
a performance of ejectorofassisted
four CO compressor refrigeration
2 ejectors installed in a
cycle in the context
multi-ejector module of to
thebeconventional
integrated with EERC and the ejector
supermarket recirculation
refrigeration cycle The
systems. (ERC).proposed model
The analysis
was generated by initiated by Hafner etdata
use of experimental al. [173] in the
together framework
with CFD model of supermarket applications
results. The developed had for
mapping
objective to investigate the potential for a CO multi-ejector system and
allowed determining the motive nozzle mass2 flow rate, entrainment ratio, pressure lift and ejector its comparison to a reference
CO 2 booster
efficiency at system. The analysis
the operating demonstrated
conditions typical forthat for differentrefrigeration,
supermarket climatic conditions, efficiencies
air-conditioning anda
and
capacities of
heat pump system. a system layout with ejectors and heat recovery, relevant improvements of up to 30%
could be expected (Figure 21).
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 38 of 54
Inventions 2018, 3, x 38 of 54

Figure 21. Multi-ejector CO22 application

application in
in supermarkets
supermarkets [173].
[173].

Recently,
In order toHaida et al.performance
improve [197] proposed of aCOperformance
2 supermarketmapping of four systems
refrigeration CO2 ejectors installedwith
in countries in a
multi-ejector
higher ambient module to be integrated
temperatures, Huang etwith supermarket
al. [198] modifiedrefrigeration
a conventional systems.
boosterThe proposedsystem
refrigeration model
wasmeans
by generated by use of experimental
of two-phase ejector, whichdatathey together withunder
simulated CFD model
variousresults. The developed
conditions. mapping
Results indicated
allowed determining
potential the motive nozzle
efficiency improvements of up mass
to 11% flow rate, when
in COP entrainment
ambientratio, pressure islifthigh.
temperature and At
ejector
low
efficiency at the operating conditions typical for supermarket refrigeration,
ambient temperatures, performance decreased below that of the conventional booster. air-conditioning and a heat
pump system.
Bodys et al. [199] investigated numerically different strategies to modify an existing CO2
In order system
refrigeration to improve performance
for fishing vessels,of CO 2 supermarket
to operate in warmerrefrigeration
climates systems
without inthecountries
need for with
an
higher ambient temperatures, Huang et al. [198] modified a conventional booster
additional compressor unit. Results showed the multi-ejector system is the only solution which refrigeration system
by means
ensures noofnecessity
two-phaseforejector, which they
an additional simulated
compressor under various
in warmer climatesconditions.
while stillResults
maintainingindicated
the
potential efficiency
designed improvements
cooling capacity. In thisofapproach,
up to 11%the in COP when
ejectors areambient
used astemperature
a booster foris high. At low
the parallel
ambient temperatures,
compressors. performance
Some miscellaneous decreased
theoretical below
cycles ofthat of the conventional
the two-phase ejector arebooster.
summarized in Table
8. Bodys et al. [199] investigated numerically different strategies to modify an existing CO2
refrigeration system for fishing vessels, to operate in warmer climates without the need for an
additional compressor unit. Results showed the multi-ejector system is the only solution which ensures
no necessity for an additional compressor in warmer climates while still maintaining the designed
cooling capacity. In this approach, the ejectors are used as a booster for the parallel compressors. Some
miscellaneous theoretical cycles of the two-phase ejector are summarized in Table 8.
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 39 of 54

Table 8. Miscellaneous two-phase ejector applications (theoretical studies).

Author(s) Application Fluid Operating Conditions Performance Remarks

-Theory and experiments of gas—liquid ejectors
-Fixed water- and airflows. Optimum area ratio for highest liquid rate
Balamurugan et al., for use as contactors in industrial and process
Liquid–gas contactor Air-water -Ejector outlet open to the of entrainment was determined
2008 [77] applications.
atmosphere. numerically.
- Validated CFD model.
Ejector expansion cascade absorption With respect to conventional cycle: Experiments required for validation and economic
Dokandari et al., Tc : 30–40 ◦ C, Te : −55 to −45◦ C, Qe :
cycle with two-phase ejector in each CO2 /NH3 -∆COP up by 7%. analysis for cost effectiveness, considering
2014 [192] 175 kW
loop. - Exergy destruction reduced by 8%. additional hardware and controls.
Two-phase ejector with 2 nozzles in a Improvement over conventional EERC: -Good potential of using simultaneously two
Zhu et al., Tc : 40 ◦ C, Te1 : −5 ◦ C, Te2 : −18 ◦ C,
vapor-compression cycle for solar R410A -∆COP: 4.6–34%. energy sources for heat pumps.
2014 [179] ∆Tsup : 0◦ C
assisted air-source heat pump systems -∆Q: 7.8–51.9%. -Need to be experimentally validated
R134a performance somewhat higher than for
Boumaraf et al., ∆COP: more than 17% over conventional
EERC with 2 evaporators R134a, R1234yf Tc : 40 ◦ C, Te1 : −5 ◦ C, Te2 : 0 ◦ C R1234yf but improvement is comparable
2014 [176] cycle for both refrigerants.
especially at high TC .
Wang et al., Tc : 40 ◦ C, ∆Tsub : 10 ◦ C, -∆COP: 11.4%. Application of EERC concept to
Modified EERC R600A
2014 [180] Te1 : −5 ◦ C, Te2 : −25 ◦ C -∆Q: 22%. refrigerator-freezers.
The heat transfer surface areas of the condenser
Unal and Yilmaz, EERC with two evaporators Tc : 48–48.8 ◦ C, Te1 : 1.3–6.3 ◦ C -∆COP: less than 15%.
R134a and evaporator can be reduced 5% and 51%,
2015 [177] (air-conditioner for buses) Te2 : −1.6–7.2 ◦ C, Q: 2–2.52 kW -ω: 0.06–0.59.
respectively.
-∆COP: 16.7%. -Using zeotropic mixture was investigated in
A modified vapor refrigeration cycle Tc: 35–55 ◦ C, ∆Tsub: 5–30 ◦ C
Liu et al., R290/ -∆Qe : 34.9%. terms of performances.
with a two-phase ejector for applications Te : −35 to −25 ◦ C, ∆Tsup : 10 ◦ C
2015 [178] R600A -Exergy efficiency: 6.71%. -An optimal mixture composition can further be
in domestic refrigerator freezers mcomp : 1 g/s
-Exergy destruction reduced by 24.4% found for maximizing system performance.
Two-phase ejector specifically assigned Need for experiments to confirm theoretical
Xing et al., R410a: ∆Q: 11.7%. ∆COP: 9.5%.
to provide mechanical sub-cooling to R410A, R290 Tc : 45 ◦ C, Te : −40 ◦ C to −10 ◦ C predictions for the real potential of the system and
2015 [182] R290: ∆Q: 7.2%. ∆COP: 7%.
vapor-compression refrigeration cycle. under which conditions.
Goodarzi et al., Transcritical two-stage mechanical-EERC Pgc : 80–120 bars Potential increase of COP, in particular for The model used was validated by data from
CO2
2015 [189] system with multi-cooling and IHX. Tgc : 36–44 ◦ C, Te : −30 to −5 ◦ C low gas cooler pressures similar setup, without IHX.
-Vapor injection with sub-cooler for lower
Bai et al., Vapor-injection in transcritical ejector Pgc : 8.55 MPa ∆COP up to 7.7%, ∆Qgc up to 9.5% discharge temperature and higher capacity.
CO2
2015 [193] heat pump cycle for cold climates. Tgc : 35–50 ◦ C, Te : −25 to −5 ◦ C ω: 0.75–1.13, τ: 1.06–1.12 -Exergy destruction showed gas cooler and
evaporator as main contributors.
Improvement over conventional
CO2 transcritical refrigeration cycle with Need for experiments to confirm theoretical
Bai et al., Tgc : 35–50 ◦ C, Te1 : −5 to 5 ◦ C dual-evaporator cycle:
bi-evaporator CO2 predictions for the real potential of the system and
2015 [194] Te2 : −35 to −15 ◦ C -∆COP: 37.61%
and with two-stage ejector. under which conditions
-Exergy efficiency: 31.9%.
The replacement of the mechanical pump by a
Two-phase injector as a feeding pump of Pp : 1.08–1.64 MPa; Tp : 70–90 ◦ C ω: 18–28, τ: 2.7–4.2
Smirciew et al., two-phase injector inside a conventional
the vapor generator in ejector Isobutane Ps : 0.404 MPa; Ts : 15 ◦ C (liquid) (condensation shock wave captured by
2015 [200] supersonic ejector cycle system leads to decrease
refrigeration cycle. ∆Tsub : 15 ◦ C calculations)
the COP of the system.
Tc : 40 ◦ C ∆COP: 20% over basic valve expansion
Sarkar, More studies (theory and experiments) for data on
Multi-evaporator EERC systems. R32, Propane Te : 5, −20, −40 ◦ C (multi-level two-stage mechanical cycle, 117% over
2017 [181] the potential of these concepts are needed.
evaporators) single-stage and 67% over EERC.
Ejector recirculation cycle expected to -Effect of microchannel heat exchangers design
Qe : 1 kW
Lawrence and Elbel, The ejector recirculation cycle and the perform more favorably at lower ambient and operation on ejector cycles.
R410A, CO2 R410A, Tc : 45 ◦ C, ∆Tsub : 1 K
2018 [196] conventional EERC. temperature or with an ejector with -CO2 ejector cycle performance is much less
CO2 Pgc : 100 bar Tgc : 44 ◦ C
low-pressure lift. sensitive to evaporator design.
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 40 of 54

5.2.2. Experimental Studies

Man-O et al. [201] proposed to enhance the evaporation heat transfer in refrigeration cycle
evaporators by means of two-phase ejectors. A two-phase ejector in this process plays the role of a
vapour recirculator from outlet to inlet of the evaporator, increasing the vapor quality and the mass
flow rate of refrigerant at the inlet. Experiments performed on plat-type evaporators with R404a
increased refrigerant mass velocity, improved flow distribution and heat transfer. The authors reported
more than 10% COP improvement as compared with the conventional cycle.
Dopazo and Fernández-Seara [82] considered the particular application of an ejector as a liquid
circulator in an overfed NH3 plate evaporator. The system includes a liquid/vapor separator to
separate the liquid and supply vapor to the compressor and saturated liquid to the evaporator by
means of an ejector instead of the conventional feed pump. The liquid refrigerant fills the entire
evaporator inner surface, thus improving the heat transfer coefficient with no electricity consumption
associated with the pump. The experimental results obtained in this work confirm that an ejector
linked to a manual expansion valve can be used as a liquid recirculator component in liquid overfeed
systems with NH3, under different operating conditions and with variable refrigeration capacity.
Feasibility tests on a cascade refrigeration system prototype showed recirculation rates between 2 and
4. The evaporating capacity varied from 9.48 kW to 18.37 kW, controlled by a valve located upstream
of the ejector primary inlet.
Lawrence and Elbel [161] conducted an experimental investigation in which the performance of
the low-pressure fluids R134a and R1234yf was compared in a two-phase ejector cycle and expansion
valve cycles. To this end, an alternate two-phase ejector cycle, the condenser outlet split (COS) system
configuration, in which the pressure lift provided by the ejector was utilized in order to provide
multiple evaporation temperatures, was tested. Comparison was made with a single and a double
evaporation temperature expansion valve cycle, respectively. The results showed that the ejector cycle
maximum COP improvements were up to 12% with R1234yf and up to 8% with R134a with two valves.
With one valve the comparison was 6% with R1234yf and 5% with R134a. A recent experimental
investigation of Jeon et al. [202], on an R600a domestic refrigerator freezer with a COS ejector cycle,
showed a COP improvement of 11.4% over the baseline cycle at an entrainment ratio of 0.18 (at similar
cooling capacity condition).
Further investigations by Lawrence and Elbel [203] focused on investigating the liquid
recirculation experimentally provided by using the ejector work recovery. In this way, and using R410A,
liquid was recirculated through the evaporator, rather than unloading the compressor. Comparison
was made with EERC and the conventional compression cycles, besides investigating the effects
of evaporator geometry and ambient temperature on the performance of the cycles. The authors
concluded that the ejector recirculation cycle was more favorable at lower ambient temperatures, while
the standard ejector cycle is more favorable at higher ambient temperatures. In addition, performance
improvement could be influenced the evaporator design as demonstrated in a further paper by the
authors [204] where it was shown that COP improvement of up to 16% with the ejector recirculation
cycle and 9% with the standard ejector cycle were obtained, but the COP of each cycle was very
dependent on evaporator design.
Recently, Li et al. [83] tested a water chiller where the ejector worked as a liquid recirculation
component in a horizontal-tube falling-film evaporator with R134a. The results showed a cooling
capacity increase for the system up to 9.5%.
Bai et al. [205] tested an ejector-enhanced auto-cascade refrigeration cycle (Figure 22) with
zeotropic refrigerant R134a/R23. Effects of working conditions and mass fraction ratio of the mixture
on the performance were investigated. The results indicated that the cycle had more advantages in
terms of lower refrigeration temperature and higher energy utilization efficiency over the conventional
cycle. The COP and exergy efficiency improvements of the system over conventional cycle reached
up to 9.6% and 25.1%, respectively. The mass fraction ratio of R23 significantly influences the system
Inventions 2018, 3, x 41 of 54
Inventions 2018, 3, x 41 of 54
Another potential use of ejectors is in the form of condensing ejector. Condensing ejectors can
serveAnother
as heat transfer
potential agents,
use ofand liquidispumps
ejectors in many
in the form applicationsejector.
of condensing where Condensing
an electric pump maycan
ejectors be
less
servesuitable,
as heat as for
transfer
Inventions 2019, 4, 16
example,
agents, solar
and activated
liquid pumpsabsorption
in many and ejection
applicationscycles.
where Smierciew
an electric et al.
pump [200,206]
may
41 ofbe
54
performed experimentation on such a device represented in Figure 23, in terms
less suitable, as for example, solar activated absorption and ejection cycles. Smierciew et al. [200,206]of operation
characteristics and internal heat
performed experimentation on transfer.
such a Further tests and analysis
device represented with isobutane
in Figure 23, in termswereofreported
operationin
performance.
[207].
characteristics and The internal
refrigerant
heatR134a/R23 with the
transfer. Further testsoptimal mass with
and analysis fraction ratio of
isobutane were0.70/0.30
reported was
in
proposed
[207]. to get the maximum system exergy efficiency.

Figure 22. Two-phase ejector auto-cascade refrigeration system [205].

Figure
Figure 22. Two-phase
Two-phase ejector auto-cascade refrigeration system [205].
Banasiak et al. [208] tested the concept of replacing a standard high-pressure expansion valve
Another
a block ofpotential
with Banasiak etproperly use
al. [208] of ejectors
designed
tested is in ejectors
theparallel
concept the
of form ofmaintaining
for
replacing condensing ejector.
a standardthe Condensing
discharge
high-pressure pressure ejectors
expansion can
in a valve
R744
serve as heat transfer
parallel-compression
with a block of properly agents,
system and liquid
of 70 kW
designed pumps
at a 35
parallel in many
°C gasfor
ejectors coolerapplications where
outlet temperature
maintaining an electric pump
and pressure
the discharge may
a 3 °C evaporation be
in a R744
less suitable, as
temperature. for demonstrated
They
parallel-compression example,
system solar activated
of 70that
kW the 35absorption
at arefrigeration andoutlet
system
°C gas cooler ejection cycles.
upgraded with
temperature Smierciew et evaporation
al. [200,206]
the multi-ejector
and a 3 °C block
performed
fully experimentation
retained its dynamic on such
operational a device represented
characteristics, and in Figure
precise 23,
discharge in terms
pressure
temperature. They demonstrated that the refrigeration system upgraded with the multi-ejector block of operation
adaptations
characteristics
according
fully to the
retained and
its internal
variable
dynamic loadheat
andtransfer.
ambient
operational Further
conditionstests
characteristics, areand
and analysis
possible,
precise with
even isobutane
with
discharge the were
use of
pressure reported
aadaptations
simplified
in [207]. tostrategy.
controlling
according Further
the variable loaddetails on a representative
and ambient conditions are sample of these
possible, evenstudies
with theareuse
given
of ain Table 9.
simplified
controlling strategy. Further details on a representative sample of these studies are given in Table 9.

Modified EERC system with two-phase injector [200].

Figure 23. Modified
Figure 23. Modified EERC system with two-phase injector [200].
Banasiak et al. [208] tested the concept of replacing a standard high-pressure expansion valve
with a block of properly designed parallel ejectors for maintaining the discharge pressure in a R744
parallel-compression system of 70 kW at a 35 ◦ C gas cooler outlet temperature and a 3 ◦ C evaporation
temperature. They demonstrated that the refrigeration system upgraded with the multi-ejector block
fully retained its dynamic operational characteristics, and precise discharge pressure adaptations
according to the variable load and ambient conditions are possible, even with the use of a simplified
controlling strategy. Further details on a representative sample of these studies are given in Table 9.
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 42 of 54

Table 9. Miscellaneous two-phase ejector applications (experimental studies).

Operating
Author(s) Application Fluid Performance Remarks
Conditions
Refrigeration cycle -∆COP: 10% Vapor quality and
Man et al., with two-phase Tc : 50 ◦ C compared to refrigerant mass flow rate
R404A
2007 [201] ejector for Te : −10 to 0 ◦ C conventional cycle. increase at the evaporator
recirculation (ERC) -ω: 0–0.98. inlet.
Refrigeration cycle
Lawrence and with two-phase -∆COP:
COS cycle had a slight
Elbel, ejector without Tp : 45 ◦ C 10% for R134a
R134a, R1234yf performance advantage
2012, 2014 separator and with Ts : 6–12.5 ◦ C 12% for R1234yf
over typical EERC.
[101,161] two evaporators -ω: 0.05–0.7.
(COS).
Tamb : 16 ◦ C The compressor
Three Evaporators Method for feeding
Te : −6 ◦ C energy saving was
Minetto et al., overfeeding by flooded evaporators
CO2 ∆Tsup : 6 K about 13% of the case
2014 [209] means of ejector arranged in parallel in
Qe1,2 : 3.1 kW of thermostatic
recirculator. CO2 (subcritical) plants.
Qe3 : 5.5 kW control.
Tgc : 35 ◦ C, Obtained low efficiency
Multi-ejector Te1 : −3 ◦ C At specific subcritical due to system design for
Banasiak et al., compressors system, Te2 : −30 ◦ C condition, performance mapping,
CO2
2015 [208] typical supermarket Capacity: ∆COP: 9.8% nor representative of a
application. 70 kW (at MT) ∆ξ: 13.1% complete supermarket
23 kW (at LT) installation.
ERC system. -∆COP up to 16% for
Lawrence and Refrigeration cycle Tc : 35 ◦ C the ERC system and The COP of each tested
Elbel, with two-phase R410A Te : 4–9 ◦ C 9% with the standard cycle is very dependent
2016 [204] ejector for Qe : 1 kW EERC. on evaporator design.
recirculation. -ω: 0.7–1.1, τ: 1.05.
Evaporating capacity Using liquid recirculating
A falling-film water Tamb : 35 ◦ C increases 9.5% with ratio larger than 1.2 is not
Li et al.,
chiller with ejector R134a Te : 4.8 ◦ C appropriate liquid significant for enhancing
2017 [83]
for recirculation. Qe : 55 kW recirculating ratio the performance of
(1.21). falling-film heat transfer.
Effects of operating
-∆COP: 6.8–11.4% conditions and ejector
Jeon et al., Pc : 500 kPa
over the baseline geometries on the
2017–2018 COS cycle. R600a Pe : 70 kPa
cycle. performance of a
[202,210] Qe : 0.3 kW
-ω: 0–0.6, τ: 1–1.09. small-sized household
refrigeration cycle.
Pc : 25–31 bar
-∆COP: 14% over the No improvement of the
Tc : 41–51 ◦ C
Kim et al., baseline cycle performance was noted
COS cycle. R410A Pe : 10.2–14.6 bar
2017 [211] (at ω = 0.1). for an entrainment ratio
Te : 8–20 ◦ C
-ω: 0–0.6, τ: 1–1.2. larger than 0.3
Qe1,2 : 12 kW
The refrigerant
-∆COP: 9.6% and ∆ξ: R134a/R23 with the
Two-phase ejector Tamb : 15–27 ◦ C 25.1% over the optimal mass fraction
Bai et al., R134a/
auto-cascade Te : −50 to −40 ◦ C conventional cycle. ratio of 0.70/0.30 was
2018 [205] R23
refrigeration system. Qe : 100 W -ω: 0.5–1.3, τ: proposed to get the
1.19–1.22. maximum system exergy
efficiency

6. General Remarks and Challenges

Previous ejector numerical investigations, irrespective of the ejector type have underlined the
importance of the numerical role in ejector design and performance prediction accuracy. However,
more needs to be done in this respect on two-phase ejectors.
For example, steam ejectors have until recently been treated as single-phase ejector cases and the
possible condensation during the expansion and mixing process within the ejector was not taken into
account, thus showing prediction discrepancies with the experimental results [125]. This particular
aspect is included in the present review as a case of two-phase flow ejector for which some more recent
work was devoted but more is needed, numerically to handle nucleation for a better physical approach,
and experimentally with more refrigerants.
Droplet injection in the primary nozzle of an ejector is another two-phase process which should
be handled as such. Al-Ansary and Jeter [125] and later Hemidi et al. [127] performed numerical and
experimental studies to explore the potentially positive effects on ejector performance. The results
were, however, not up to the expectations as was discussed in an earlier paragraph. Moreover, both
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 43 of 54

research teams worked on air ejectors with water injection in the motive flow, a case not compatible
with the refrigeration conditions. Very recently, an analytical model was developed for the purpose of
injecting droplets of the same refrigerant at different locations in the mixing chamber but preliminary
results seemed to reduce the compression effect [126]. This avenue thus remains an open question for
future prospecting.
Numerical studies focusing on the details of local flow interactions and structure in two-phase
ejectors are not yet widely available in the literature, due to the complexity of the task and the
computational power required. In this context, the number of full numerical ejector studies is still very
limited and the predictions often differ depending on the quality of the assumptions used and the
model setup. In two-phase ejector CFD simulations, the information of the complex structure of the
gas–liquid interface and the transfer mechanism require closure models. A lot of models exist in the
literature, but a thorough evaluation on the effective use of these models for ejector flow, is still missing.
Therefore, validation is critical. Ejector internal flow structure predictions in supersonic ejectors was
shown to depend on the turbulence model used among other things even if good agreement was
obtained in terms of global parameters [212,213] but no such information is yet available for two-phase
case, neither numerically nor experimentally.
In addition, more investigation work is still needed to clarify the conditions under which
homogeneous equilibrium model (HEM), homogeneous relaxation model (HRM) and non-equilibrium
flow models can reliably be used [114,115].
The application of the second law, commonly encountered in many thermodynamic analyses of
ejector-based cycles and more particularly in the assessment of carbon dioxide transcritical EERCs
raises the issue of a common reference temperature, which may sometimes be different from one author
to another. If not clearly stated, it makes comparisons difficult between different works [178,191].
Little numerical and experimental work is available to reflect the dynamic behavior of a
system fluctuating between on-design and off-design operating conditions. This issue concerns
both single-phase and two-phase ejector-based cycles where full interaction between components must
be accounted for as rightly pointed out by some works [214,215]. Under these conditions component
efficiencies are variable and do not correctly predict the system condition [152].

7. Conclusions
Two-phase ejectors are used for vacuum creation, fluid circulation and many other industrial
applications but the refrigeration and heat pump area has been the most prominent in terms of scientific
investigations on these devices. An ejector-based cycle allows for expansion work recovery, otherwise
lost in the throttling valve of the conventional cycle. Such a device offers good opportunities to build
new, more efficient and less energy demanding cycles than current configurations.
The proposed review updates the existing research background on the subject by discussing
relevant and most recent material. Representative and recent developments in two-phase ejector
modeling, integration in refrigeration cycles and in other potential applications are introduced and
discussed in their particular context. Issues of the day about the different types of two-phase ejectors
are reported. They include the modeling, design and experimentation of ejectors and corresponding
cycles with a special focus on new developments.
The structure of the document follows approximately the format adopted in Part 1. The ejector in
its different options is presented with its geometry configurations and operational characteristics in
detail. Next, starting from an overview of general applications, the focus is then put on refrigeration
and heat pumps with the cycle description and studies, both theoretical and experimental.
The review document organizes the information in specific paragraphs for each key aspect:
A general introduction of the context of ejector development and early work achievements is
followed by a detailed description of ejector types, geometry, performance, internal flow structure
and applications.
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 44 of 54

The two-phase ejector modeling in terms of analytical, thermodynamic and numerical procedures
applied where appropriate, are discussed in the context of applications to refrigeration, heat pumps
and accessorily other application types. To support the theoretical modeling work, experimental work
about two-phase ejectors are presented.
Finally, a review of theoretical and experimental studies of two-phase ejector cycles and systems
is made, followed by some comment about future works and challenges.

Funding: This research was funded by PERD, a program of Natural Resources Canada for R&D.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviation
A area
CAM Constant Area Mixing
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
COP Coefficient of performance
CPM Constant Pressure Mixing
D diameter
EERC Ejector Expansion Refrigeration Cycle
ERC Ejector recirculation cycle
ERS Ejector Refrigeration System
G mass flow rate
h enthalpy
HEM Homogeneous Equilibrium Model
HRM Homogenous Relaxation Model
IHE Isentropic Homogeneous Equilibrium
IHX Internal Heat Exchanger
L length
.
m mass flow rate
NXP nozzle exit position
P pressure
PIV Particle Image Velocimetry
Q capacity
T temperature
W energy consumption
Greek
x vapor quality
α nozzle convergent angle
β nozzle divergent angle
∆ difference; improvement
η diffuser angle; efficiency
θ nozzle area ratio (Dx /Dt )2
ξ exergy efficiency
$ density
ς entropy increase avoided
τ compression ratio (Pb /Ps )
φ area ratio (Dm /Dt )2
ϕ mixing convergent angle
. .

ω entrainment ratio ms /mp
.
χ exergy flow rate
Subscripts
0 stagnation
amb ambient
b back
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 45 of 54

c condenser
com compressor
dif diffuser
e evaporator
ej ejector
gc gas cooler
m mixing
n nozzle
p primary
ref reference
s secondary
sub sub-cooling
sup superheating
t throat
w water
x nozzle outlet

References
1. Elbel, S.; Hrnjak, P. Ejector Refrigeration: An Overview of Historical and Present Developments with an
Emphasis on Air-Conditioning Applications. In Proceedings of the International Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning Conference, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 14–17 July 2008; p. 884.
2. Kumar, R.S.; Kumaraswamy, S.; Mani, A. Experimental investigations on a two-phase jet pump used in
desalination systems. Desalination 2007, 204, 437–447. [CrossRef]
3. Sumeru, K.; Nasution, H.; Ani, F.N. A review on two-phase ejector as an expansion device in vapor
compression refrigeration cycle. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 4927–4937. [CrossRef]
4. Li, Y.; Tan, L.; Zhang, X.; Du, K. Experimental evaluation of an ejector as liquid re-circulator in a falling-film
water chiller. Int. J. Refrig. 2014, 40, 309–316. [CrossRef]
5. Besagni, G.; Mereu, R.; Inzoli, F. Ejector refrigeration: A comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2016, 53, 373–407. [CrossRef]
6. Sarkar, J. Review on Cycle Modifications of Transcritical CO2 Refrigeration and Heat Pump Systems. J. Adv.
Res. Mech. Eng. 2010, 1, 22–29.
7. Elbel, S. Historical and present developments of ejector refrigeration systems with emphasis on transcritical
carbon dioxide air-conditioning applications. Int. J. Refrig. 2011, 34, 1545–1561. [CrossRef]
8. Sarkar, J. Ejector enhanced vapor compression refrigeration and heat pump systems—A review. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 6647–6659. [CrossRef]
9. Banasiak, K.; Hafner, A.; Palacz, M. State of the Art in Identification of Two-Phase Transonic Flow Phenomena
in Transcritical CO2 Ejectors. In Proceedings of the ICR 2015, Yokohama, Japan, 16–22 August 2015.
10. Elbel, S.; Lawrence, N. Review of recent developments in advanced ejector technology. Int. J. Refrig. 2016, 62,
1–18. [CrossRef]
11. Besagni, G. Ejectors on the cutting edge: The past, the present and the perspective. Energy 2019, 170, 998–1003.
[CrossRef]
12. Yazdani, M.; Alahyari, A.A.; Radcliff, T.D. Numerical modeling of two-phase supersonic ejectors for
work-recovery applications. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2012, 55, 5744–5753. [CrossRef]
13. Colarossi, M.; Trask, N.; Schmidt, D.P.; Bergander, M.J. Multidimensional modeling of condensing two-phase
ejector flow. Int. J. Refrig. 2012, 35, 290–299. [CrossRef]
14. Miwa, S.; Endo, H.; Moribe, T.; Sakashita, H.; Mori, M.; Hibiki, T. Investigation of the thermal-hydraulic
characteristics of supersonic steam injector. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2016, 109, 261–271. [CrossRef]
15. Butrymowicz, D.; Matysko, R.; Angielczyk, W.; Trela, M.; Bergander, M. Model of steam-water
injector. In Proceedings of the International Seminar on Ejector/Jet-Pump Technology and Application,
Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 7–9 September 2009; p. 27.
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 46 of 54

16. Lawrence, N.; Elbel, S. Mathematical modeling and thermodynamic investigation of the use of two-phase
ejectors for work recovery and liquid recirculation in refrigeration cycles. Int. J. Refrig. 2015, 58, 41–52.
[CrossRef]
17. Sarevski, M.N.; Sarevski, V.N. Characteristics of R718 refrigeration/heat pump systems with two-phase
ejectors. Int. J. Refrig. 2016, 70, 13–32. [CrossRef]
18. Ameur, K.; Aidoun, Z.; Ouzzane, M. Analysis of the Critical Conditions and the Effect of Slip in Two-Phase
Ejectors. JAFM 2016, 9, 213–222.
19. Narabayashi, T.; Mizumachi, W.; Mori, M. Study on two-phase flow dynamics in steam injectors. Nucl. Eng.
Des. 1997, 175, 147–156. [CrossRef]
20. Trela, M.; Kwidzinski, R.; Butrymowicz, D.; Karwacki, J. Exergy analysis of two-phase steam-water injector.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 2010, 30, 340–346. [CrossRef]
21. Deberne, N.; Leone, J.F.; Duque, A.; Lallemand, A. A model for calculation of steam injector performance.
Int. J. Multiph. Flow 1999, 25, 841–855. [CrossRef]
22. Takeya, Y.; Miwa, S.; Hibiki, T.; Mori, M. Application of steam injector to improved safety of light water
reactors. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2015, 78, 80–100. [CrossRef]
23. Miwa, S.; Endo, H.; Moribe, T.; Mori, M. Investigation of the supersonic steam injector operation mode. Nucl.
Eng. Des. 2018, 334, 57–65. [CrossRef]
24. Bergander, M. Refrigeration cycle with two-phase condensing ejector. In Proceedings of the International
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 17–20 July 2006; p. 748.
25. Ameur, K.; Aidoun, Z.; Ouzzane, M. Modeling and numerical approach for the design and operation of
two-phase ejectors. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2016, 109, 809–818. [CrossRef]
26. Keenan, J.H.; Neumann, E.P.; Lustwerk, F. An investigation of ejector design by analysis and experiment.
J. Appl. Mech. 1950, 72, 299–309.
27. Atmaca, A.U.; Erek, A.; Ekren, O. Impact of the mixing theories on the performance of ejector expansion
refrigeration cycles for environmentally-friendly refrigerants. Int. J. Refrig. 2019, 97, 211–225. [CrossRef]
28. Liu, F.; Groll, E.A.; Li, D. Investigation on performance of variable geometry ejectors for CO2 refrigeration
cycles. Energy 2012, 45, 829–839. [CrossRef]
29. Hu, J.; Shi, J.; Liang, Y.; Yang, Z.; Chen, J. Numerical and experimental investigation on nozzle parameters
for R410A ejector air conditioning system. Int. J. Refrig. 2014, 40, 338–346. [CrossRef]
30. Wang, X.; Yu, J. Experimental investigation on two-phase driven ejector performance in a novel ejector
enhanced refrigeration system. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 111, 391–400. [CrossRef]
31. Ameur, K.; Aidoun, Z. Nozzle displacement effects on two-phase ejector performance: An experimental
study. JAFM 2018, 11, 1–8. [CrossRef]
32. Nehdi, E.; Kairouani, L.; Bouzaina, M. Performance analysis of the vapour compression cycle using ejector
as an expander. Int. J. Energy Res. 2007, 31, 364–375. [CrossRef]
33. Sarkar, J. Geometric parameter optimization of ejector-expansion refrigeration cycle with natural refrigerants.
Int. J. Energy Res. 2010, 34, 84–94. [CrossRef]
34. Nakagawa, M.; Marasigan, A.R.; Matsukawa, T. Experimental analysis of two-phase ejector system with
varying mixing cross-sectional area using natural refrigerant CO2 . Int. J. Air-Cond. Refrig. 2010, 18, 297–307.
[CrossRef]
35. Nakagawa, M.; Matumi, T.; Takeuchi, H.; Kokubo, N. Mixing of the Confined Jet of Mist Flow. JSME Int. J.
1996, 39, 381–386. [CrossRef]
36. Nakagawa, M.; Marasigan, A.R.; Matsukawa, T.; Kurashina, A. Experimental investigation on the effect of
mixing length on the performance of two-phase ejector for CO2 refrigeration cycle with and without heat
exchanger. Int. J. Refrig. 2011, 34, 1604–1613. [CrossRef]
37. Banasiak, K.; Hafner, A.; Andresen, T. Experimental and numerical investigation of the influence of the
two-phase ejector geometry on the performance of the R744 heat pump. Int. J. Refrig. 2012, 35, 1617–1625.
[CrossRef]
38. Jeon, Y.; Jung, J.; Kim, D.; Kim, S.; Kim, Y. Effects of ejector geometries on performance of ejector-expansion
R410A air conditioner considering cooling seasonal performance factor. Appl. Energy 2017, 205, 761–768.
[CrossRef]
39. Randheer, Y.L.; Patwardhan, A.W. Design aspects of ejectors: Effects of suction chamber geometry.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 2008, 63, 3886–3897.
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 47 of 54

40. Li, C.; Li, Y.; Wang, L. Configuration dependence and optimization of the entrainment performance for
gas-gas and gas-liquid ejectors. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2012, 48, 237–248. [CrossRef]
41. Nakagawa, M.; Berana, M.S.; Kishine, A. Supersonic two-phase flow of CO2 through converging–diverging
nozzles for the ejector refrigeration cycle. Int. J. Refrig. 2009, 32, 1195–1202. [CrossRef]
42. He, Y.; Deng, J.; Zheng, L.; Zhang, Z. Performance optimization of a transcritical CO2 refrigeration system
using a controlled ejector. Int. J. Refrig. 2017, 75, 250–261. [CrossRef]
43. Zhou, M.; Wang, X.; Yu, J. Theoretical study on a novel dual-nozzle ejector enhanced refrigeration cycle for
household refrigerator-freezers. Energy Convers. Manag. 2013, 73, 278–284. [CrossRef]
44. Bodys, J.; Smolka, J.; Banasiak, K.; Palacz, M.; Haida, M.; Nowak, A.J. Performance improvement of the R744
two-phase ejector with an implemented suction nozzle bypass. Int. J. Refrig. 2018, 90, 216–228. [CrossRef]
45. Disawas, S.; Wongwises, S. Experimental investigation on the performance of the refrigeration cycle using a
two-phase ejector as an expansion device. Int. J. Refrig. 2004, 27, 587–594. [CrossRef]
46. Ameur, K.; Aidoun, Z.; Ouzzane, M. Experimental performances of a two-phase R134a ejector. Exp. Therm.
Fluid Sci. 2018, 97, 12–20. [CrossRef]
47. Lawrence, N.; Elbel, S. Analysis of two-phase ejector performance metrics and comparison of R134a and
CO2 ejector performance. Sci. Technol. Built Environ. 2015, 21, 515–525. [CrossRef]
48. Elbel, S.; Hrnjak, P. Experimental validation of a prototype ejector designed to reduce throttling losses
encountered in transcritical R744 system operation. Int. J. Refrig. 2008, 31, 411–422. [CrossRef]
49. Koehler, J.; Richter, C.; Tegethoff, W.; Tischendorf, C. Experimental and theoretical study of a CO2 ejector
refrigeration cycle. In Proceedings of the VDA Alternative Refrigerant Winter Meeting, Saalfelden, Austria,
13–14 February 2007.
50. Ersoy, H.K.; Bilir, N. The influence of ejector component efficiencies on performance of ejector expander
refrigeration cycle and exergy analysis. Int. J. Exergy 2010, 7, 425–438. [CrossRef]
51. Liu, F.; Groll, E.A.; Li, D. Modeling study of an ejector expansion residential CO2 air conditioning system.
Energy Build. 2012, 53, 127–136. [CrossRef]
52. Liu, F.; Groll, E.A. Study of ejector efficiencies in refrigeration cycles. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2013, 52, 360–370.
[CrossRef]
53. Wang, X.; Yu, J. An investigation on the component efficiencies of a small two-phase ejector. Int. J. Refrig.
2016, 71, 26–38. [CrossRef]
54. Banasiak, K.; Palacz, M.; Hafner, A.; Bulinski, Z.; Smołka, J.; Nowak, A.J.; Fic, A. A CFD-based investigation
of the energy performance of two-phase R744 ejectors to recover the expansion work in refrigeration systems:
An irreversibility analysis. Int. J. Refrig. 2014, 40, 328–337. [CrossRef]
55. Bilir Sag, N.; Ersoy, H.K.; Hepbasli, A.; Halkaci, H.S. Energetic and exergetic comparison of basic and ejector
expander refrigeration systems operating under the same external conditions and cooling capacities. Energy
Convers. Manag. 2015, 90, 184–194. [CrossRef]
56. Bullard, C.W. Internal heat exchange, expanders and intercooling in trans-critical CO2 cycles. In Proceedings
of the 6 th IIR Gustav Lorentzen Conference on Natural Refrigerants, Glasgow, UK, 2004.
57. Takashima, Y. Studies on liquid-jet gas pumps. J. Sci. Res. Inst. 1952, 46, 230–246.
58. Simoes-Moreira, J.R.; Vieira, M.M.; Angelo, E. Highly Expanded Flashing Liquid Jets. J. Thermophys. Heat
Transf. 2002, 16, 415–424.
59. Berana, M.S.; Nakagawa, M.; Harada, A. Shock waves in supersonic two-phase flow of CO2 in
Converging-Diverging Nozzles. HVAC R Res. 2009, 15, 1081–1098. [CrossRef]
60. Ohira, K.; Nakayama, T.; Nagai, T. Cavitation flow instability of subcooled liquid nitrogen in
converging–diverging nozzles. Cryogenics 2012, 52, 35–44. [CrossRef]
61. Kim, Y.K.; Lee, D.Y.; Kim, H.D.; Ahn, J.H.; Kim, K.C. An experimental and numerical study on hydrodynamic
characteristics of horizontal annular type water-air ejector. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2012, 26, 2773–2781.
[CrossRef]
62. Kwidzinski, R. Experimental investigation of condensation wave structure in steam-water injector. Int. J.
Heat Mass Transf. 2015, 91, 594–601. [CrossRef]
63. Choi, S.H.; Ji, H.S.; Kim, K.C. Comparative study of hydrodynamic characteristics with respect to direction
of installation of gas-liquid ejector system. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2015, 29, 3267–3276. [CrossRef]
64. Little, A.B.; Garimella, S. Shadowgraph visualization of condensing R134a flow through ejectors. Int. J.
Refrig. 2016, 68, 118–129. [CrossRef]
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 48 of 54

65. Elbel, S.; Hrnjak, P. Experimental validation of a CO2 prototype ejector with integrated high-side
pressure control. In Proceedings of the VDA Alternative Refrigerant Winter Meeting, Saalfelden, Austria,
13–14 February 2007.
66. Deng, J.; Zhang, Y.; He, Y.; Zheng, L. Visual investigation on effect of structural parameters and
operation condition of two-phase ejector. In Proceedings of the International Compressor Engineering,
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, and High Performance Buildings Conferences, West Lafayette, IN, USA,
11–14 July 2016; p. 1632.
67. Zhu, Y.; Wang, Z.; Yang, Y.; Jiang, P. Flow visualization of supersonic two-phase transcritical flow of CO2 in
an ejector of a refrigeration system. Int. J. Refrig. 2017, 74, 354–361. [CrossRef]
68. Barrault, É. Histoire d’une grande invention, l’éjecteur Giffard. In La Nature; Masson, G., Ed.; La Nature:
Paris, France, 1882; pp. 65–70.
69. Kim, M.; Sohn, Y.; Cho, C.; Lee, W.; Kim, C. Customized design for the ejector to recirculate a humidified
hydrogen fuel in a submarine PEMFC. J. Power Sources 2008, 176, 529–533. [CrossRef]
70. Chen, J.; Li, J.; Zhou, D.; Zhang, H.; Weng, S. Control strategy design for a SOFC-GT hybrid system equipped
with anode and cathode recirculation ejectors. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2018, 132, 67–79. [CrossRef]
71. Yuan, G.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, H.; Wang, Z. Numerical and experimental investigation of performance of the
liquid-gas and liquid jet pumps in desalination systems. Desalination 2011, 276, 89–95. [CrossRef]
72. Song, X.; Cao, M.; Shin, W.; Cao, W.; Kang, S.; Park, Y. Numerical investigation of a liquid-gas ejector used
for shipping ballast water treatment. Math. Probl. Eng. 2014, 2014, 259593. [CrossRef]
73. Borovykh, A.E. Calculation of the parameters of evacuation systems for tanks with a liquid-gas ejector.
Chem. Pet. Eng. 1993, 29, 269–270. [CrossRef]
74. Opletal, M.; Novotný, P.; Linek, V.; Moucha, T.; Kordač, M. Gas suction and mass transfer in gas-liquid
up-flow ejector loop reactors. Effect of nozzle and ejector geometry. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 353, 436–452.
[CrossRef]
75. Kim, M.I.; Sin Kim, O.; Lee, D.H.; Done Kim, S. Numerical and experimental investigations of gas-liquid
dispersion in an ejector. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2007, 62, 7133–7139. [CrossRef]
76. Kandakure, M.T.; Gaikar, V.G.; Patwardhan, A.W. Hydrodynamic aspects of ejectors. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2005,
60, 6391–6402. [CrossRef]
77. Balamurugan, S.; Gaikar, V.G.; Patwardhan, A.W. Effect of ejector configuration on hydrodynamic
characteristics of gas-liquid ejectors. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2008, 63, 721–731. [CrossRef]
78. Abe, Y.; Shibayama, S. Study on the characteristics of the supersonic steam injector. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2014,
268, 191–202. [CrossRef]
79. Kemper, C.A.; Harper, G.F.; Brown, G.A. Multiple-Phase Ejectors Refrigerating System. U.S. Patent 3,277,660,
11 October 1966.
80. Menegay, P.; Kornhauser, A.A. Improvements to the ejector expansion refrigeration cycle. In Proceedings
of the 31st Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, IECEC 96, Washington, DC, USA,
11–16 August 1996.
81. Boccardi, G.; Botticella, F.; Lillo, G.; Mastrullo, R.; Mauro, A.W.; Trinchieri, R. Experimental investigation on
the performance of a transcritical CO2 heat pump with multi-ejector expansion system. Int. J. Refrig. 2017,
82, 389–400. [CrossRef]
82. Dopazo, J.A.; Fernández-Seara, J. Experimental evaluation of an ejector as liquid re-circulator in an overfeed
NH3 system with a plate evaporator. Int. J. Refrig. 2011, 34, 1676–1683. [CrossRef]
83. Li, Y.L.; Wang, K.; Wu, W.; Xia, X.Y.; Niu, B.L.; Zhang, Z. Bin Investigation on the effect of ejector liquid
recirculation system on the performance of falling-film water chiller with R134a. Int. J. Refrig. 2017, 74,
333–344. [CrossRef]
84. Oshitani, H.; Oshitani, H.; Yamanaka, Y.; Takeuchi, H.; Kusano, K.; Ikegami, M.; Aikawa, Y. Ejector Cycle
Having Multiple Evaporators. U.S. Patent 20050178150A1, 18 August 2005.
85. Burk, R.; Dürr, G.; Feuerecker, G.; Feuerecker, G.; Kohl, M.; Manski, R.; Strauss, T. Device for Automotive Air
Conditioning. European Patent EP1719650A1, 8 November 2006.
86. Hassanain, M.; Elgendy, E.; Fatouh, M. Ejector expansion refrigeration system: Ejector design and
performance evaluation. Int. J. Refrig. 2015, 58, 1–13. [CrossRef]
87. Zhu, Y.; Jiang, P. Theoretical model of transcritical CO2 ejector with non-equilibrium phase change correlation.
Int. J. Refrig. 2018, 86, 218–227. [CrossRef]
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 49 of 54

88. Baek, S.; Ko, S.; Song, S.; Ryu, S. Numerical study of high-speed two-phase ejector performance with R134a
refrigerant. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2018, 126, 1071–1082. [CrossRef]
89. Zheng, P.; Li, B.; Qin, J. CFD simulation of two-phase ejector performance influenced by different operation
conditions. Energy 2018, 155, 1129–1145. [CrossRef]
90. Starkman, E.S.; Schrock, V.E.; Neusen, K.F.; Maneely, D.J. Expansion of a Very Low Quality Two-Phase Fluid
Through a Convergent-Divergent Nozzle. J. Basic Eng. 1964, 86, 247–254. [CrossRef]
91. Abuaf, N.; Jones, O.C.; Wu, B.J.C. Critical Flashing Flows in Nozzles with Subcooled Inlet Conditions. J. Heat
Transf. 1983, 105, 379–383. [CrossRef]
92. Kim, Y.S. Overview of geometrical effects on the critical flow rate of sub-cooled and saturated water.
Ann. Nucl. Energy 2015, 76, 12–18. [CrossRef]
93. Ameur, K.; Aidoun, Z.; Ouzzane, M. Expansion of subcooled refrigerant in two-phase ejectors with no flux
induction. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 2017, 82, 424–432. [CrossRef]
94. Liu, J.; Chen, J.; Chen, Z. Critical flashing flow in convergent-divergent nozzles with initially subcooled
liquid. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 2008, 47, 1069–1076. [CrossRef]
95. Banasiak, K.; Hafner, A. Mathematical modelling of supersonic two-phase R744 fl ows through converging e
diverging nozzles: The effects of phase transition models. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2013, 51, 635–643. [CrossRef]
96. Kong, N.; Qi, Z. Influence of speed of sound in two-phase region on 1-D ejector performance modelling.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 2018, 139, 352–355. [CrossRef]
97. Kornhauser, A.A. The Use of an Ejector as a Refrigerant Expander. In Proceedings of the International
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 17–20 July 1990; p. 82.
98. Al-Ansary, H.; Jeter, S. Development of a simple homogeneous flow model of a two-phase ejector.
In Proceedings of the 34th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada,
2–5 August 1999; p. 2698.
99. Elbel, S.; Hrnjak, P.S. Effect of Internal Heat Exchanger on Performance of Transcritical CO2 Systems with
Ejector. In Proceedings of the International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference, West Lafayette,
IN, USA, 12–15 July 2004; p. 708.
100. Li, D.; Groll, E.A. Transcritical CO2 Refrigeration Cycle with Ejector-Expansion Device. In Proceedings of
the International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 12–15 July 2004;
p. 707.
101. Lawrence, N.; Elbel, S. Experimental and Analytical Investigation of Automotive Ejector Air-Conditioning
Cycles Using Low-Pressure Refrigerants. In Proceedings of the International Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning Conference, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 16–19 July 2012; p. 116.
102. Menegay, P.; Kornhauser, A. Ejector expansion refrigeration cycle with underexpanded motive nozzle.
In Proceedings of the Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Monterey, CA, USA,
7–12 August 1994; pp. 915–920.
103. Liu, F.; Groll, E.A. Analysis of a Two Phase Flow Ejector For Transcritical CO2 Cycle. In Proceedings of the
International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 14–17 July 2008;
p. 924.
104. Attou, A.; Seynhaeve, J.M. Steady-state critical two-phase flashing flow with possible multiple choking
phenomenon Part 1: Physical modelling and numerical procedure. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 1999, 12, 335–345.
[CrossRef]
105. Owen, I.; Abdul-Ghani, A.; Amini, A.M. Diffusing a Homogenized Two-Phase. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 1992, 18,
531–540. [CrossRef]
106. Kwidziński, R. Control-volume-based model of the steam-water injector flow. Arch. Thermodyn. 2010, 31,
45–59. [CrossRef]
107. Banasiak, K.; Hafner, A. 1D Computational model of a two-phase R744 ejector for expansion work recovery.
Int. J. Therm. Sci. 2011, 50, 2235–2247. [CrossRef]
108. Liao, Y.; Lucas, D. Possibilities and limitations of CFD simulation for flashing flow scenarios in nuclear
applications. Energies 2017, 10, 139. [CrossRef]
109. Mazzelli, F.; Giacomelli, F.; Milazzo, A. CFD modelling of the condensation inside a Supersonic Nozzle:
Implementing customized wet-steam model in commercial codes. Energy Procedia 2017, 126, 34–41.
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 50 of 54

110. Bulinski, Z.; Smolka, J.; Fic, A.; Banasiak, K.; Nowak, A.J. A comparison of heterogenous and homogenous
models of two-phase transonic compressible CO2 flow through a heat pump ejector. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater.
Sci. Eng. 2010, 10, 012019. [CrossRef]
111. Yazdani, M.; Alahyari, A.A.; Radcliff, T.D. Numerical Modeling and Validation of Supersonic Two-Phase
Flow of CO2 in Converging-Diverging Nozzles. J. Fluids Eng. 2014, 136, 14503. [CrossRef]
112. Smolka, J.; Bulinski, Z.; Fic, A.; Nowak, A.J.; Banasiak, K.; Hafner, A. A computational model of a transcritical
R744 ejector based on a homogeneous real fluid approach. Appl. Math. Model. 2013, 37, 1208–1224. [CrossRef]
113. Lucas, C.; Rusche, H.; Schroeder, A.; Koehler, J. Numerical investigation of a two-phase CO2 ejector. Int. J.
Refrig. 2014, 43, 154–166. [CrossRef]
114. Palacz, M.; Smolka, J.; Fic, A.; Bulinski, Z.; Nowak, A.J.; Banasiak, K.; Hafner, A. Application range of the
HEM approach for CO2 expansion inside two-phase ejectors for supermarket refrigeration systems. Int. J.
Refrig. 2015, 59, 251–258. [CrossRef]
115. Haida, M.; Smolka, J.; Hafner, A.; Palacz, M.; Banasiak, K.; Nowak, A.J. Modified homogeneous relaxation
model for the R744 trans-critical flow in a two-phase ejector. Int. J. Refrig. 2018, 85, 314–333. [CrossRef]
116. Palacz, M.; Smolka, J.; Nowak, A.J.; Banasiak, K.; Hafner, A. Shape optimisation of a two-phase ejector for
CO2 refrigeration systems. Int. J. Refrig. 2017, 74, 212–223. [CrossRef]
117. Haida, M.; Smolka, J.; Hafner, A.; Mastrowski, M.; Palacz, M.; Madsen, K.B.; Nowak, A.J.; Banasiak, K.
Numerical investigation of heat transfer in a CO2 two-phase ejector. Energy 2018, 163, 682–698. [CrossRef]
118. Mikasser, S. Transfert de Masse et de Chaleur dans les Injecteurs-Condenseurs. Ph.D. Thesis, Institut
National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France, 2004.
119. Teymourtash, A.R.; Esfahani, J.A.; Mousavi Shaegh, S.A. The effects of rate of expansion and injection of
water droplets on the entropy generation of nucleating steam flow in a Laval nozzle. Heat Mass Transf. 2009,
45, 1185–1198. [CrossRef]
120. Yang, Y.; Shen, S.; Kong, T.; Zhang, K. Numerical investigation of homogeneous nucleation and shock effect
in high-speed transonic steam flow. Heat Transf. Eng. 2010, 31, 1007–1014. [CrossRef]
121. Grazzini, G.; Milazzo, A.; Piazzini, S. Prediction of condensation in steam ejector for a refrigeration system.
Int. J. Refrig. 2011, 34, 1641–1648. [CrossRef]
122. Wang, X.D.; Dong, J.L.; Wang, T.; Tu, J.Y. Numerical analysis of spontaneously condensing phenomena in
nozzle of steam-jet vacuum pump. Vacuum 2012, 86, 861–866. [CrossRef]
123. Ariafar, K.; Buttsworth, D.; Sharifi, N.; Malpress, R. Ejector primary nozzle steam condensation: Area ratio
effects and mixing layer development. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2014, 71, 519–527. [CrossRef]
124. Little, A.B.; Garimella, S. A critical review linking ejector flow phenomena with component- and system-level
performance. Int. J. Refrig. 2016, 70, 243–268. [CrossRef]
125. Al-Ansary, H.A.M.; Jeter, S.M. Numerical and experimental analysis of single-phase and two-phase flow in
ejectors. HVAC&R Res. 2004, 10, 521–538.
126. Croquer, S. Combined CFD and Thermodynamic Analysis of a Supersonic Ejector with Liquid Droplets.
Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada, 2018.
127. Hemidi, A.; Henry, F.; Leclaire, S.; Seynhaeve, J.-M.; Bartosiewicz, Y. CFD analysis of a supersonic air ejector.
Part I: Experimental validation of single-phase and two-phase operation. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2009, 29,
1523–1531. [CrossRef]
128. Nakagawa, M.; Berana, M.S.; Harada, A. Shock Waves in Supersonic Two-Phase Flow of CO2 in
Converging-Diverging Nozzles. In Proceedings of the International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Conference, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 14–17 July 2008; p. 926.
129. Kim, K.C.; Kim, H.D.; Kim, Y.K.; Ahn, J.H. Numerical simulation and experimental study on a water-air
ejector system for VOC recovery. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Multiphase Flow in
Industrial Plants, Napoli, Italy, 21–23 September 2011.
130. Butrymowicz, D.; Karwacki, J.; Miaskowska, D.; Trela, M. Performance of two-phase ejector of various
geometries. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Refrigeration, Beijing, China, 21–26 August 2007.
131. Smolka, J.; Palacz, M.; Bodys, J.; Banasiak, K.; Fic, A.; Bulinski, Z.; Nowak, A.J.; Hafner, A. Performance
comparison of fixed- and controllable-geometry ejectors in a CO2 refrigeration system. Int. J. Refrig. 2016, 65,
172–182. [CrossRef]
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 51 of 54

132. Zhu, J.; Elbel, S. Experimental investigation of a novel expansion device control mechanism: Vortex control
of initially subcooled flashing R134a flow expanded through convergent-divergent nozzles. Int. J. Refrig.
2018, 85, 167–183. [CrossRef]
133. Zhu, Y.; Huang, Y.; Li, C.; Zhang, F.; Jiang, P.X. Experimental investigation on the performance of transcritical
CO2 ejector-expansion heat pump water heater system. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 167, 147–155.
[CrossRef]
134. Pottker, G.; Hrnjak, P. Ejector in R410A vapor compression systems with experimental quantification of two
major mechanisms of performance improvement: Work recovery and liquid feeding. Int. J. Refrig. 2015, 50,
184–192. [CrossRef]
135. Lawrence, N.; Elbel, S. Theoretical and practical comparison of two-phase ejector refrigeration cycles
including First and Second Law analysis. Int. J. Refrig. 2013, 36, 1220–1232. [CrossRef]
136. Khosravi, A.; Koury, R.N.N.; Machado, L. Thermo-economic analysis and sizing of the components of an
ejector expansion refrigeration system. Int. J. Refrig. 2018, 86, 463–479. [CrossRef]
137. Sarkar, J. Performance characteristics of natural-refrigerants-based ejector expansion refrigeration cycles.
Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part A J. Power Energy 2009, 223, 543–550. [CrossRef]
138. Domanski, P.A. Minimizing Throttling Losses in the Refrigeration Cycle. In Proceedings of the 19th
International Congress of Refrigeration, The Hague, The Netherlands, 20–25 August 1995.
139. Bilir, N.; Ersoy, H.K. Performance improvement of the vapour compression refrigeration cycle by a two-phase
constant area ejector. Int. J. Energy Res. 2009, 33, 469–480. [CrossRef]
140. Li, H.; Cao, F.; Bu, X.; Wang, L.; Wang, X. Performance characteristics of R1234yf ejector-expansion
refrigeration cycle. Appl. Energy 2014, 121, 96–103. [CrossRef]
141. Zhao, L.; Yang, X.; Deng, S.; Li, H.; Yu, Z. Performance analysis of the ejector-expansion refrigeration cycle
using zeotropic mixtures. Int. J. Refrig. 2015, 57, 197–207. [CrossRef]
142. Luo, B. Theoretical assessment of an ejector enhanced oil flooded compression cycle. Int. J. Refrig. 2017, 73,
154–162. [CrossRef]
143. Rodríguez-Muñoz, J.L.; Pérez-García, V.; Belman-Flores, J.M.; Ituna-Yudonago, J.F.; Gallegos-Muñoz, A.
Energy and exergy performance of the IHX position in ejector expansion refrigeration systems. Int. J. Refrig.
2018, 93, 122–131. [CrossRef]
144. Li, D.; Groll, E.A. Transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle with ejector-expansion device. Int. J. Refrig. 2005, 28,
766–773. [CrossRef]
145. Ksayer, E.B.; Clodic, D. Enhancement of CO2 Refrigeration Cycle Using an Ejector: 1D Analysis.
In Proceedings of the International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference, West Lafayette, IN, USA,
17–20 July 2006; p. 790.
146. Deng, J.; Jiang, P.; Lu, T.; Lu, W. Particular characteristics of transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle with an
ejector. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2007, 27, 381–388. [CrossRef]
147. Sarkar, J. Optimization of ejector-expansion transcritical CO2 heat pump cycle. Energy 2008, 33, 1399–1406.
[CrossRef]
148. Pérez-García, V.; Rodríguez-Muñoz, J.L.; Ramírez-Minguela, J.J.; Belman-Flores, J.M.; Méndez-Díaz, S.
Comparative analysis of energy improvements in single transcritical cycle in refrigeration mode. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 2016, 99, 866–872. [CrossRef]
149. Fangtian, S.; Yitai, M. Thermodynamic analysis of transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle with an ejector. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 2011, 31, 1184–1189. [CrossRef]
150. Zhang, Z.; Ma, Y.; Wang, H.; Li, M. Theoretical evaluation on effect of internal heat exchanger in ejector
expansion transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2013, 50, 932–938. [CrossRef]
151. Zhang, Z.; Tian, L. Effect of suction nozzle pressure drop on the performance of an ejector-expansion
transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle. Entropy 2014, 16, 4309–4321. [CrossRef]
152. Zheng, L.; Deng, J.; He, Y.; Jiang, P. Dynamic model of a transcritical CO2 ejector expansion refrigeration
system. Int. J. Refrig. 2015, 60, 247–260. [CrossRef]
153. Liu, F.; Deng, J.; Pan, W. Model-based Dynamic Optimal Control of an Ejector Expansion CO2 Heat Pump
Coupled with Thermal Storages. Energy Procedia 2018, 152, 156–161. [CrossRef]
154. Sarkar, J.; Bhattacharyya, S. Operating characteristics of transcritical CO2 heat pump for simultaneous water
cooling and heating. Arch. Thermodyn. 2012, 33, 23–40. [CrossRef]
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 52 of 54

155. Henry, R.E.; Fauske, H.K. The Two-Phase Critical flow of One-Component Mixtures in Nozzles, Orifice, and
Short Tubes. J. Heat Transf. 1971, 93, 179–187. [CrossRef]
156. Harrell, G.S.; Kornhauser, A.A. Performance tests of a two phase ejector. In Proceedings of the 30th
Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Orlando, FL, USA, 30 July–4 August 1995.
157. Wongwises, S.; Disawas, S. Performance of the two-phase ejector expansion refrigeration cycle. Int. J. Heat
Mass Transf. 2005, 48, 4282–4286. [CrossRef]
158. Chaiwongsa, P.; Wongwises, S. Effect of throat diameters of the ejector on the performance of the refrigeration
cycle using a two-phase ejector as an expansion device. Int. J. Refrig. 2007, 30, 601–608. [CrossRef]
159. Chaiwongsa, P.; Wongwises, S. Experimental study on R-134a refrigeration system using a two-phase ejector
as an expansion device. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2008, 28, 467–477. [CrossRef]
160. Reddick, C.; Mercadier, Y.; Ouzzane, M. Experimental study of an ejector refrigeration system. In Proceedings
of the International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 16–19 July
2012; p. 2136.
161. Lawrence, N.; Elbel, S. Experimental investigation of a two-phase ejector cycle suitable for use with
low-pressure refrigerants R134a and R1234yf. Int. J. Refrig. 2014, 38, 310–322. [CrossRef]
162. Ersoy, H.K.; Bilir Sag, N. Preliminary experimental results on the R134a refrigeration system using a
two-phase ejector as an expander. Int. J. Refrig. 2014, 43, 97–110. [CrossRef]
163. Pottker, G.; Guo, B.; Hrnjak, P.S. Experimental Investigation of an R410A Vapor Compression System
Working With an Ejector. In Proceedings of the International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference,
West Lafayette, IN, USA, 12–15 July 2010; p. 1135.
164. Popovac, M.; Lauermann, M.; Baumhakel, A.; Drexler-, G. Performance analysis of a high-temperature heat
pump with ejector based on butane as the refrigerant. In Proceedings of the 12th IEA Heat Pump Conference
2017, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 15–18 May 2017; pp. 1–8.
165. Nakagawa, M.; Marasigan, A.R.; Matsukawa, T. Experimental analysis on the effect of internal heat exchanger
in transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle with two-phase ejector. Int. J. Refrig. 2011, 34, 1577–1586. [CrossRef]
166. Lee, J.S.; Kim, M.S.; Kim, M.S. Experimental study on the improvement of CO2 air conditioning system
performance using an ejector. Int. J. Refrig. 2011, 34, 1614–1625. [CrossRef]
167. Lee, J.S.; Kim, M.S.; Kim, M.S. Studies on the performance of a CO2 air conditioning system using an ejector
as an expansion device. Int. J. Refrig. 2014, 38, 140–152. [CrossRef]
168. Liu, F.; Li, Y.; Groll, E.A. Performance enhancement of CO2 air conditioner with a controllable ejector. Int. J.
Refrig. 2012, 35, 1604–1616. [CrossRef]
169. Lucas, C.; Koehler, J. Experimental investigation of the COP improvement of a refrigeration cycle by use of
an ejector. Int. J. Refrig. 2012, 35, 1595–1603. [CrossRef]
170. Lucas, C.; Koehler, J.; Schroeder, A.; Tischendorf, C. Experimentally validated CO2 ejector operation
characteristic used in a numerical investigation of ejector cycle. Int. J. Refrig. 2013, 36, 881–891. [CrossRef]
171. Guangming, C.; Xiaoxiao, X.; Shuang, L.; Lixia, L.; Liming, T. An experimental and theoretical study of a
CO2 ejector. Int. J. Refrig. 2010, 33, 915–921. [CrossRef]
172. Minetto, S.; Brignoli, R.; Banasiak, K.; Hafner, A.; Zilio, C. Performance assessment of an off-the-shelf R744
heat pump equipped with an ejector. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2013, 59, 568–575. [CrossRef]
173. Hafner, A.; Forsterling, S.; Banasiak, K. Multi-ejector concept for R-744 supermarket refrigeration. Int. J.
Refrig. 2014, 43, 1–13. [CrossRef]
174. Zhu, J.; Botticella, F.; Elbel, S. Experimental investigation and theoretical analysis of oil circulation rates in
ejector cooling cycles. Energy 2018, 157, 718–733. [CrossRef]
175. Haida, M.; Banasiak, K.; Smolka, J.; Hafner, A.; Eikevik, T.M. Experimental analysis of the R744 vapour
compression rack equipped with the multi-ejector expansion work recovery module. Int. J. Refrig. 2016, 64,
93–107. [CrossRef]
176. Boumaraf, L.; Haberschill, P.; Lallemand, A. Investigation of a novel ejector expansion refrigeration system
using the working fluid R134a and its potential substitute R1234yf. Int. J. Refrig. 2014, 45, 148–159. [CrossRef]
177. Unal, Ş.; Yilmaz, T. Thermodynamic analysis of the two-phase ejector air-conditioning system for buses.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015, 79, 108–116. [CrossRef]
178. Liu, X.; Yu, J.; Yan, G. Theoretical investigation on an ejector-expansion refrigeration cycle using zeotropic
mixture R290/R600a for applications in domestic refrigerator/freezers. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015, 90, 703–710.
[CrossRef]
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 53 of 54

179. Zhu, L.; Yu, J.; Zhou, M.; Wang, X. Performance analysis of a novel dual-nozzle ejector enhanced cycle for
solar assisted air-source heat pump systems. Renew. Energy 2014, 63, 735–740. [CrossRef]
180. Wang, X.; Yu, J.; Zhou, M.; Lv, X. Comparative studies of ejector-expansion vapor compression refrigeration
cycles for applications in domestic refrigerator-freezers. Energy 2014, 70, 635–642. [CrossRef]
181. Sarkar, J. Performance analyses of novel two-phase ejector enhanced multi-evaporator refrigeration systems.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 110, 1635–1642. [CrossRef]
182. Xing, M.; Yan, G.; Yu, J. Performance evaluation of an ejector subcooled vapor-compression refrigeration
cycle. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 92, 431–436. [CrossRef]
183. Sarevski, M.N.; Sarevski, V.N. Preliminary study of a novel R718 refrigeration cycle with single stage
centrifugal compressor and two-phase ejector. Int. J. Refrig. 2014, 40, 435–449. [CrossRef]
184. Shen, S.; Qu, X.; Zhang, B.; Riffat, S.; Gillott, M. Study of a gas-liquid ejector and its application to a
solar-powered bi-ejector refrigeration system. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2005, 25, 2891–2902. [CrossRef]
185. Vereda, C.; Ventas, R.; Lecuona, A.; Venegas, M. Study of an ejector-absorption refrigeration cycle with an
adaptable ejector nozzle for different working conditions. Appl. Energy 2012, 97, 305–312. [CrossRef]
186. Vereda, C.; Ventas, R.; Lecuona, A.; López, R. Single-effect absorption refrigeration cycle boosted with an
ejector-adiabatic absorber using a single solution pump. Int. J. Refrig. 2014, 38, 22–29. [CrossRef]
187. Garousi Farshi, L.; Mosaffa, A.H.; Infante Ferreira, C.A.; Rosen, M.A. Thermodynamic analysis and
comparison of combined ejector-absorption and single effect absorption refrigeration systems. Appl. Energy
2014, 133, 335–346. [CrossRef]
188. Yari, M.; Sirousazar, M. Cycle improvements to ejector-expansion transcritical CO2 two-stage refrigeration
cycle. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008, 32, 677–687. [CrossRef]
189. Goodarzi, M.; Gheibi, A.; Motamedian, M. Comparative analysis of an improved two-stage
multi-inter-cooling ejector-expansion trans-critical CO2 refrigeration cycle. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015, 81, 58–65.
[CrossRef]
190. Manjili, F.E.; Yavari, M.A. Performance of a new two-stage multi-intercooling transcritical CO2 ejector
refrigeration cycle. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2012, 40, 202–209. [CrossRef]
191. Yari, M.; Mahmoudi, S.M.S. Thermodynamic analysis and optimization of novel ejector-expansion TRCC
(transcritical CO2 ) cascade refrigeration cycles (Novel transcritical CO2 cycle). Energy 2011, 36, 6839–6850.
[CrossRef]
192. Dokandari, D.A.; Hagh, A.; Mahmoudi, S.M.S. Thermodynamic investigation and optimization of novel
ejector-expansion CO2 /NH3 cascade refrigeration cycles (novel CO2 /NH3 cycle). Int. J. Refrig. 2014, 46,
26–36. [CrossRef]
193. Bai, T.; Yan, G.; Yu, J. Thermodynamic analyses on an ejector enhanced CO2 transcritical heat pump cycle
with vapor-injection. Int. J. Refrig. 2015, 58, 22–34. [CrossRef]
194. Bai, T.; Yan, G.; Yu, J. Thermodynamics analysis of a modified dual-evaporator CO2 transcritical refrigeration
cycle with two-stage ejector. Energy 2015, 84, 325–335. [CrossRef]
195. Liu, Y.; Yu, J.; Yan, G. Theoretical analysis of a double ejector-expansion autocascade refrigeration cycle using
hydrocarbon mixture R290/R170. Int. J. Refrig. 2018, 94, 33–39. [CrossRef]
196. Lawrence, N.; Elbel, S. Numerical investigation of the effect of microchannel evaporator design and operation
on the improvement potential of ejector refrigeration cycles. Energy 2018, 164, 21–34. [CrossRef]
197. Haida, M.; Smolka, J.; Hafner, A.; Ostrowski, Z.; Palacz, M.; Madsen, K.B.; Försterling, S.; Nowak, A.J.;
Banasiak, K. Performance mapping of the R744 ejectors for refrigeration and air conditioning supermarket
application: A hybrid reduced-order model. Energy 2018, 153, 933–948. [CrossRef]
198. Huang, Z.; Zhao, H.; Yu, Z.; Han, J. Simulation and optimization of a R744 two-temperature supermarket
refrigeration system with an ejector. Int. J. Refrig. 2018, 90, 73–82. [CrossRef]
199. Bodys, J.; Hafner, A.; Banasiak, K.; Smolka, J.; Ladam, Y. Design and simulations of refrigerated sea water
chillers with CO2 ejector pumps for marine applications in hot climates. Energy 2018, 161, 90–103. [CrossRef]
200. Smierciew, K.; Butrymowicz, D.; Kwidziński, R.; Przybyliński, T. Analysis of application of two-phase
injector in ejector refrigeration systems for isobutane. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015, 78, 630–639. [CrossRef]
201. Man-O, T.; Tanino, M.; Okazaki, T.; Koyama, S. The enhanced heat transfer in the plate-type evaporator
by using an ejector for recirculation. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Refrigeration, Beijing,
China, 21–26 August 2007.
Inventions 2019, 4, 16 54 of 54

202. Jeon, Y.; Kim, D.; Jung, J.; Jang, D.S.; Kim, Y. Comparative performance evaluation of conventional and
condenser outlet split ejector-based domestic refrigerator-freezers using R600a. Energy 2018, 161, 1085–1095.
[CrossRef]
203. Lawrence, N.; Elbel, S. Experimental Investigation of Two-Phase Ejector Liquid Recirculation Cycles With
R410a. In Proceedings of the ICR 2015, Yokohama, Japan, 16–22 August 2015; p. 194.
204. Lawrence, N.; Elbel, S. Experimental investigation on the effect of evaporator design and application of work
recovery on the performance of two-phase ejector liquid recirculation cycles with R410A. Appl. Therm. Eng.
2016, 100, 398–411. [CrossRef]
205. Bai, T.; Yan, G.; Yu, J. Experimental investigation of an ejector-enhanced auto-cascade refrigeration system.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 2018, 129, 792–801. [CrossRef]
206. Smierciew, K.; Butrymowicz, D. Investigations of Two-Phase Injector Operating With Isobutane.
In Proceedings of the ICR 2015, Yokohama, Japan, 16–22 August 2015; p. 506.
207. Smierciew, K.; Butrymowicz, D.; Przybylinski, T. Investigations of Heat and Momentum Transfer in
Vapor-Liquid Isobutane Injector. In Proceedings of the International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Conference, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 11–14 July 2016; p. 1823.
208. Banasiak, K.; Hafner, A.; Kriezi, E.E.; Madsen, K.B.; Birkelund, M.; Fredslund, K.; Olsson, R. Development
and performance mapping of a multi-ejector expansion work recovery pack for R744 vapour compression
units. Int. J. Refrig. 2015, 57, 265–276. [CrossRef]
209. Minetto, S.; Brignoli, R.; Zilio, C.; Marinetti, S. Experimental analysis of a new method for overfeeding
multiple evaporators in refrigeration systems. Int. J. Refrig. 2014, 38, 1–9. [CrossRef]
210. Jeon, Y.; Kim, S.; Kim, D.; Chung, H.J.; Kim, Y. Performance characteristics of an R600a household
refrigeration cycle with a modified two-phase ejector for various ejector geometries and operating conditions.
Appl. Energy 2017, 205, 1059–1067. [CrossRef]
211. Kim, S.; Jeon, Y.; Joon Chung, H.; Kim, Y. Performance optimization of an R410A air-conditioner with a dual
evaporator ejector cycle based on cooling seasonal performance factor. Appl. Therm. Eng. Accept. Manuscr.
2018, 131, 988–997. [CrossRef]
212. Bartosiewicz, Y.; Aidoun, Z.; Mercadier, Y. Numerical assessment of ejector operation for refrigeration
applications based on CFD. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2006, 26, 604–612. [CrossRef]
213. Croquer, S.; Poncet, S.; Aidoun, Z. Turbulence modeling of a single-phase R134a supersonic ejector. Part 2:
Local flow structure and exergy analysis. Int. J. Refrig. 2016, 61, 153–165. [CrossRef]
214. Zegenhagen, M.T.; Ziegler, F. Experimental investigation of the characteristics of a jet-ejector and a jet-ejector
cooling system operating with R134a as a refrigerant. Int. J. Refrig. 2015, 56, 173–185. [CrossRef]
215. Hamzaoui, M.; Nesreddine, H.; Aidoun, Z.; Balistrou, M. Experimental study of a low grade heat driven
ejector cooling system using the working fluid R245fa. Int. J. Refrig. 2018, 86, 388–400. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).