You are on page 1of 8

International Journal of Refrigeration 27 (2004) 587–594

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrefrig

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

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

Etude experimentale sur la performance d’un cycle frigorifique
employant un e´jecteur en tant que de´tendeur
Mots-cle´s: Syste`me frigorifique; Expe´rimentation; De´tente; Ejecteur; COP; R-12; R-134a

1. Introduction
Throttling loss in the expansion device, through which
the refrigerant is expanded from the condenser pressure to
the evaporator pressure, is one of the thermodynamic losses
in a conventional vapor compression refrigeration cycle.
This expansion results during the isenthalpic process in
which the kinetic energy developed as the refrigerant
pressure decrease is dissipated to the refrigerant as friction
heat. The isenthalpic process causes the larger amount of the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ662-470-9115; fax: þ 662-4709111.
E-mail address: somchai.won@kmutt.ac.th (S. Wongwises).

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

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

The operating conditions of the apparatus are similar to those of a typical airconditioning application. respectively. liquid receiver. It consists of the vapor compression cycle components: compressor.9 to 7.6% with R-134a as a refrigerant.588 S.8% of the COP over the conventional cycle under standard conditions with R-12 as the refrigerant. 2. this result is not as good as was expected. The main concern of this work is to experimentally investigate the performance of the refrigeration cycle using a two-phase ejector as an expansion device. Harrell et al. The system consists of three main loops: the refrigerant loop. the purpose of the ejector is to replace the throttling valve. Experimental apparatus The schematic diagram of the experimental apparatus is shown in Fig. Schematic diagram of experimental apparatus. [5] showed that the longer the length of the divergent part of the motive nozzle. Disawas. He found a theoretical COP improvement of up to 21% over the standard cycle under standard conditions. condenser. The principal modifications from the standard refrigeration system are the addition of a Fig. It was found that the COP improvement ranged from 3. in addition to serving as an expansion device. The refrigerant loop is designed in order to operate in both the conventional refrigeration cycle (CRC) and the two-phase ejector refrigeration cycle (TPERC). using R-12 as a refrigerant. Harrell and Kornhauser [2] and Manegay and Kornhauser [3]. and the hot-water loop. Nakagawa et al. [3] developed a bubbly flow tube to reduce the thermodynamic non-equilibrium in the motive nozzle. in which. This device was installed upstream of the motive nozzle. [2] tested a two-phase ejector and used its performance obtained from the test rig to estimate the COP of the refrigeration cycle. An ejector using the bubbly flow tube improved up to 3. study of the ejector expansion refrigeration cycle should be extended. Therefore. The overall performance between the TPERC and CRC is compared. The evaporator is therefore flooded with refrigerant and becomes a liquidrecirculation system. However. filter/drier. Wongwises / International Journal of Refrigeration 27 (2004) 587–594 Nomenclature COP cp coefficient of performance specific heat at constant pressure (kJ kg21 K21) m _ mass flow rate (kg s21) n circulation ratio P power (kW) Q cooling capacity (kW) T temperature (8C) Subscripts comp compressor e evaporize evap evaporator hw hot water in inlet section out outlet section p primary or motive s suction by Kornhauser [1]. expansion valve and evaporator. Therefore. The effects of relevant parameters are discussed. This was likely caused because the longer divergent part provided a longer period of time for the two-phase flow to achieve equilibrium. S. the ejector also acts as a refrigerant pump for the low-pressure side of the system. 2 15 and 30 8C for evaporator and condensor temperatures. and other accessory parts-the oil separator. Menegay et al. the cold-water loop. the higher the motive nozzle efficiency could be achieved. Kornhauser [1] analyzed the thermodynamic performance of the ejector expansion refrigeration cycle. Domanski [4] found that the theoretical COP of the ejector expansion refrigeration cycle was very sensitive to the ejector efficiency. . The published papers mentioned above focus on using the two-phase ejector as an expansion device operating with a dry-expansion evaporator in that they still use an expansion valve installed downstream of the liquid– vapor separator. However. This result is based on ideal cycle components and constant mixing pressure in the ejector. 1. sight glass and the accumulator. 1. any throttling device in the system should be avoided.

This method is selected because it is more likely in real life [10]. The temperatures are measured by T-type thermocouples having accuracy of 0. The volumetric flow rate of hot water is fixed at 12 LPM. According to the experimental conditions in Table 1.3 to 3. Hot water acts as a heat source while cold water acts as a heat sink of the system. The three main parts of the ejector are connected by fine screws. the mixing process is assumed to occur at constant pressure. The water in the tank is heated with a 4. .7].3 LPM.. 2. driven by an electric motor. This model is used because it considers the metastable effect of the expansion of saturated liquid into the liquid– vapor mixture region. The manufacturer’s listed accuracy is 0. A commercial R-134a is used as the working fluid. HEM is based on the assumption that vapor and liquid are in thermal and mechanical equilibrium. The speed of the motor is varied to regulate the refrigerant flowing through the motive nozzle by an inverter (Yaskawa. In order to collect data at various conditions. 10. [5].1 8C.0 kW. The motive and the suction mass flow rates are measured by volumetric flow meters (Bailey F and P. Model III). i. evaporating and condensing temperatures. All static pressure taps are mounted flush in the tube wall. respectively. Each value of heat sink temperature is tested at varying heat source temperatures of 8. the suction chamber. 3. Water is used as the heat transfer fluid.1% of the full scale.e. the heat load to the evaporator is supplied by using the hot-water loop. sight glass and a helical copper tube coil immersed in water being cooled in an insulated tank. An oil separator is used to keep the oil content in the refrigerant to a minimum. All the temperature-measuring devices are well calibrated in a controlled temperature bath using standard precision mercury glass thermometers. 10A3225) located downstream of the sight glass and of the liquid – vapor separator. The evaporator referred to in this paper is the main evaporator as shown in Fig. A filter/drier.7 and 3. 1.5 kW electric heater and supplied through the evaporator by the circulating pump. The second one is based on external parameters such as the inlet temperature and the flow rate of the heat transfer fluid (HTF) [9. A comparison of the cycle performance for the two modes of operation. TPERC and CRC. filter/drier. is designed in three main parts: the motive nozzle. All flow meters are specially calibrated for R-134a from the manufacturer (Bailey F and P). The total capacity of all refrigerant flow meters is 0. Compact plate heat exchangers (SWEP. 12. a capillary tube.S. S. and the mixing chamber with diffuser. placed downstream of the receiver. CBE-B8-24/C) are used for condenser and evaporators.6 ton of refrigeration. including the lengths of each section and the convergent and divergent angles. This method requires the different modes to be compared at the same evaporating and condensing temperatures. The other dimensions. CIMR-G5A47P5). the comparison between the TPERC and the CRC is based on the second method. Three orings. Refrigerant is discharged by a two-cylinder single stage reciprocating compressor (Bitzer. can be made by two approaches. The condenser rejects heat to the water coming from a cold water tank. In this paper. Motive nozzle. The two-phase ejector. Furthermore. is provided to keep the circulating refrigerant free from harmful substances: moisture and foreign particles that might remain in the system. The motive nozzle throat area is designed according to the Henry and Fauske model [6]. are used to prevent refrigerant leakage. the test runs are done at heat sink temperatures ranging between 27 and 37 8C while the volume flow rate of cold water is kept constant at 14 LPM. Wongwises / International Journal of Refrigeration 27 (2004) 587–594 589 two-phase ejector and a liquid– vapor separator. 14 and 16 8C. The water is cooled by a separated refrigeration system using R-22 as refrigerant. 3. The test runs are done at the cooling load ranging between 1. The remaining crosssectional areas of the ejector are designed according to the homogeneous equilibrium model (HEM) [1. These volumetric flow rates of cold water and hot water are employed to prevent water Fig. are used to measure the pressures. Ejector assembly. are based on recommendations from the ASHRAE Handbook [8] and from Nakagawa et al. This method allows each mode of operation to operate under the same external conditions. shown in Fig. as shown in Fig. Brass is used as material for the ejector. The separated refrigeration system consists of a condensing unit with a capacity of approximately 2. 2. The detailed drawing of the tested motive nozzle is shown in Fig. The first one is based on internal parameters. calibrated against the dead weight test. Disawas. Fig. Bourdon gauges. 2.10].

The uncertainties of measured quanties and calculated parameters are shown in Tables 2 and 3.75 ^ 3. ^ 1. Fig.5 8C increment 14 Pressure ratio Circulation ratio Cooling capacity COP ^1.1 ^0. the cooling capacity. average evaporator pressure. Results and discussion The experimental apparatus presented in the previous section was tested in order to determine the effects of the heat sink and heat source temperatures on the relevant parameters. Comparison of the mass flow rate of the TPERC and the CRC as a function of heat sink temperature for various heat source temperatures. the high-pressure side mass flow rate refers to the flow rate through the motive nozzle ðm _ p Þ for the TPERC.0 8C increment 12 450 R-134a Water from freezing on the surface of equipment. This speed is employed after problems were encountered at several different speeds used in previous experiments.16– ^4. The experiments are performed for both the TPERC and the CRC systems. The compressor speed is maintained at 450 rpm by controlling the inverter frequency. Also if the compressor speeds of lower than 450 rpm are used. it is found that at lower heat sink temperature. the pressure in the liquid– vapor separator decreases. and through the expansion device for the CRC.5(^3. Experimental uncertainties in the measured quantities are estimated according to Holman [11]. compressor pressure ratio. Considering the mass flow rate through the expansion device. coefficient of performance. In fact.47– ^3. Thermodynamic properties of R-134a were evaluated by using REFPROP [12].90) ^0. . 12 and 16 8C. In this paper.02 ^0. The method is based on a combining of all the uncertainties in the various primary experimental measurements. 4. This enables the liquid in the separator to become increasingly vaporized and finally result in the increase of the vapor temperature.2 ^5 8C Psi (kPa) Psi (kPa) LPM LPM rpm Fig.45) ^1. This results in compressor failure. They are then circulated through the condenser and evaporator at constant temperatures and constant volume flow rates by the circulating pumps. This high temperature vapor probably causes the compressor to become damaged. Wongwises / International Journal of Refrigeration 27 (2004) 587–594 Table 1 Experimental conditions Parameters Heat sink Temperature (8C) Volumetric flow rate (LPM) Heat source Temperature (8C) Volumetric flow rate (LPM) Compressor Speed (rpm) Refrigerant Heat transfer fluid Table 3 Range of uncertainties of calculated parameters Range Parameters Range of uncertainties (%) 27–37 with a 2. the amount of liquid in the separator gradually increases. Disawas. S.32 ^ 4. It has been found that if the compressor speeds of over 450 rpm are used. the refrigerant mass flow rate in the CRC is constant throughout the system whereas the TPERC has a different mass flow rate for high-pressure and lowpressure sides.0 (^6. the CRC has a higher mass flow rate than the TPERC. mass flow rate.590 S. Finally. 1) and flows to the compressor. while the low-pressure side mass flow rate to that flowing through the evaporator ðm _ s Þ for both modes of operation.16– 8–16 with a 2. the liquid refrigerant floods the outlet of the separator (see Fig. 4 shows the variation of the measured mass flow rate of refrigerant with heat sink temperature in the TPERC and in the CRC for the different heat source temperatures of 8.65 3.21– ^9. It can also be seen that the mass flow rate of the TPERC increases with increasing heat sink temperature and Table 2 Uncertainties of measured quantities Parameters Uncertainty Unit Temperature Pressure (low-side) Pressure (high-side) Flow rate (refrigerant) Flow rate (water) Compressor speed ^0.88 ^ 10. All parameters are plotted for comparative purposes. It should be noted that this speed is appropriate for this experimental set up. and the discharge temperature. respectively. The water temperatures are kept constant at the required values in both the hot and the cold water tanks.

the mass flow rates at higher heat source temperature are higher than at lower ones across the range of heat sink temperatures. For the same subcooling at the inlet. However. It can be clearly seen from the figure that at a specific heat source temperature. circulation ratio will decrease. This upstream pressure also depends directly on the heat sink temperature. For example. the refrigerant mass flow rate delivered to the evaporator ðm _ s Þ is almost constant at various heat source temperatures. leading to an increase in the specific work of the compressor. it is found that the system can provide enough refrigerant to the Fig. pressure at the inlet of expansion valve decreases and thereby repositions the valve closing to allow a smaller amount of liquid refrigerant to enter the evaporator. the refrigerant is fed at a higher mass flow rate than is required for evaporation. the mass flow rate of refrigerant flowing through motive nozzle at higher upstream pressure (higher heat sink temperature) is higher than that at lower upstream pressure (lower heat sink temperature). this also results in an increase of pressure drop across the evaporator. And at the same heat sink temperature. the circulation ratios at a higher heat source temperature are lower than at lower ones across the range of heat sink temperatures. 5. 12. S. Fig. . the experimental results show that Qevap decrease with increasing heat sink temperature. This is because expansion valve is a kind of variable area devices controlling the flow of liquid refrigerant to the evaporator. when the heat source temperature increases. Comparison of the average evaporator pressure between the TPERC and the CRC as a function of heat source temperature for various heat sink temperatures. 14 and 16 8C. and the amount of refrigerant required to accommodate the increased load also increases. Wongwises / International Journal of Refrigeration 27 (2004) 587–594 is almost constant for all heat source temperatures. The mass flow rate of refrigerant flowing through the motive nozzle depends on pressure at the inlet of the motive nozzle (upstream pressure). In contrast. in case of expansion valve. the mass flow rate of the CRC tends to decrease with increasing heat sink temperature. As the load for the evaporator increases. 4 it is found that both motive and suction flows are almost independent of the heat source temperature.S. From Fig. while the load decreases. 4 also shows that the evaporator mass flow rate of the TPERC increases with increasing heat sink temperature. This leads to the conclusion that the ejector can be used as an expansion device in a vapor compression refrigeration cycle with a wide range of cooling load variations. the circulation ratio also increases. it can be concluded that for the CRC. while the latent heat of vaporization ðhfg Þ decreases. 4. Variation of the circulation ratio with heat sink temperature of the TPERC. In the present work. Ejector is a fixed-area device working under choked flow condition at motive nozzle. if the cooling load decreases. the cooling capacity ðQevap Þ increases. the evaporator pressure increases. Moreover. is that when the evaporator pressure or the heat source temperature increases. From the result shown in Fig. In other words. the increasing heat sink temperature causes the refrigerant mass flow rate to decrease. Again. at specific heat source temperature. 6. 10. and can be written as: n¼ m _s m _e ð1Þ Fig. The ratio between refrigerant mass flow Fig. Therefore. 591 rate delivered to the evaporator ðm _ s Þ and flow rate of the vaporized refrigerant ðm _ e Þ is called the recirculation number or circulation ratio ðnÞ [13]. The increase of the evaporator mass flow rate of the TPERC leads to an increase in the heat transfer coefficient. For the TPERC. from Fig. as the heat sink temperature increases. 5 shows the variation of the circulation ratio with heat sink temperature in the TPERC for the different heat source temperatures of 8. as in the liquid-recirculation system. 5. the pressure and mass flow rate at the evaporator also decrease. at the same heat sink temperature. Disawas. The reason for this. Therefore. it can be clearly seen that at a specific heat sink temperature. therefore causing the flow rate of vaporized refrigerant ðm _ e Þ to increase.

It can be clearly seen from Fig. regardless of the evaporator pressure. The graph shows that the TPERC has a higher evaporator pressure than the CRC. At the same heat source temperature. Fig.out Þ Qevap ¼ m ð2Þ . at the same heat source and heat sink temperature. A lower pressure ratio and lower discharge temperature enable the compressor to have better lubrication and a longer lifespan.hw is the specific heat at constant pressure of hot water Fig. This results in the higher heat transfer rate in TPERC causing the average evaporator pressure to be higher than that in the CRC. Disawas. while that in CRC is the two-phase mixture and superheated vapour. Fig. Considering Fig. the discharge temperature at higher heat sink temperature is higher than at lower heat sink temperature across the range of heat source temperatures. at a specific heat sink temperature. it can provide refrigerant to the evaporator under a variation of cooling loads. 7 and 8 present the variations of the compressor pressure ratio and the discharge temperature with the heat source temperatures. the discharge temperature of the TPERC slightly decreases while the heat source temperature increases. 7 that the pressure ratio of the TPERC is lower than that of the CRC at the same heat sink temperature. similar trend.592 S. Figs. 32. However. Fig. 8. 8. This is desirable from a thermodynamic point of view in that the system should be run at as high an evaporator pressure as possible in order to obtain the highest possible COP. The experimental results obtained from the CRC show a where m _ hw is the mass flow rate of the hot water (kg s21). although the ejector is a fixed-flow-area device. Fig. Due to the fact that the evaporator pressure in the CRC is lower than that in the TPERC (while the condenser pressure of both systems is nearly the same). This means that the corresponding evaporator temperature of the TPERC is also higher than that of the CRC. respectively. Wongwises / International Journal of Refrigeration 27 (2004) 587–594 evaporator as long as the circulation ratio is larger than one. resulting in a small temperature difference between the refrigerant and the heat transfer fluid (water). Comparison of the pressure ratio between the TPERC and the CRC as a function of heat source temperature for various heat sink temperatures. cp. Comparison of the discharge temperature between the TPERC and the CRC as a function of heat source temperature for various heat sink temperatures. 9. 6 also compares the average evaporator pressure obtained from the TPERC with that obtained from the CRC. The cooling capacity can be calculated according to the following equation: _ hw cp.hw ðThw. 7. 6 shows the variation of the average evaporator pressure with heat source temperature for superheating at the compressor inlet ranging between 4 and 8 8C for different heat sink temperatures of 27. S. the discharge temperature of the CRC is higher than that of the TPERC. the pressure ratio and the discharge temperature of the CRC are higher than those of the TPERC. The flooding refrigerant in the evaporator in the TPERC is the subcooled and two-phase mixture. Comparison of the cooling capacity between the TPERC and the CRC as a function of heat source temperature for various heat sink temperatures.in 2 Thw. Therefore. and 37 8C.

593 compressor and can be written as: COP ¼ Qevap Pcomp ð3Þ where Pcomp is the electrical power input to the motor of the compressor. 10. the COP also increases for both modes of operation. while the evaporator outlet in the TPERC is in a liquid– vapor mixture condition. In other words. This results from the increasing evaporator temperature which also affects the refrigerating effect. This is mainly because of the increment of the mass flow rate in the motive nozzle. This is because the temperature difference between the refrigerant and the water used as the heat transfer fluid. The heat source and heat sink temperatures have a significant effect on the cooling capacity. which is frequently encountered in real life situation. The power is directly obtained from the built-in function of the inverter. Disawas. Wongwises / International Journal of Refrigeration 27 (2004) 587–594 (kJ kg21 K21). causing a higher power input. The performance of the TPERC is then compared with that of the conventional refrigeration cycle (CRC) using a thermostatic expansion valve as an expansion device at the same external conditions. This causes the COP of the TPERC to be higher than that of the CRC over the whole range of experimental conditions. Furthermore. This is due to the fact that choked flow occurs at the motive nozzle. Comparison of the COP between the TPERC and the CRC as a function of heat sink temperature for various heat source temperatures. It can be seen from the figure that as the heat source temperature increases. the cooling capacity is higher than that of the CRC.S. Fig. The motive mass flow rate of the ejector is highly dependent on the heat sink temperature and independent of the heat source temperature. Thw. S. The use of the two-phase ejector as an expansion device enables the . the cooling capacity for both modes of operation also increases. Application range of the test results is shown in Table 1. 10 shows the variation of the coefficient of performance with the heat sink temperature for superheating at the compressor inlet ranging between 4 and 8 8C for the different heat source temperatures of 8. The COP of the TPERC becomes increasingly higher compared to that of the CRC as the temperature of the heat sink temperature decreases. 4. in the present work. the effect of geometric parameters on the data is not studied and the results are valid only with the ejector used in the present study. The following conclusions from this study are: 1. 12 and 16 8C. Fig. However. Thw. This is because of increases of the wetted area and mass flow rate in the evaporator and the fact that the evaporator of the CRC loses some area at the outlet for superheating. increases with increasing evaporator pressure. For the CRC. 32. This behavior can be explained in that the overall heat transfer coefficient of the evaporator in the TPERC is higher than that of the CRC under the same area of the heat exchanger. the graph demonstrates that the decreasing rate of COP in the TPERC is greater than that of the CRC as the heat sink temperature increases. increasing of the heat source temperature causes the cooling capacity to increase. The heat transfer rate in the evaporator of the TPERC is higher than that of the CRC. and 37 8C.in is the hot water temperature at the inlet of the evaporator (8C). However.out is the hot water temperature at the outlet of the evaporator (8C). the increase of the refrigerant density at the evaporator outlet leads to an increase of the mass flow rate drawn by the compressor which results in the increase of the cooling capacity. The system COP is defined as the ratio between the cooling capacity and the electrical power supplied to the Fig. although the temperature difference between the refrigerant and the water in the evaporator is lower. the improvement in COP diminishes as the heat sink temperature increases. It can be found that as the heat source temperature increases. 2. and the upstream condition has a significant effect on the mass flow rate. 9 shows the variation of the cooling capacity with the heat source temperature for superheating at the compressor inlet ranging between 4 and 8 8C for the different heat sink temperatures of 27. Conclusions This paper provides new data on the performance of the refrigeration system using a two-phase ejector as an expansion device. This shows the advantage of part-load conditions resulting from a lower ambient temperature. For the TPERC. The two-phase ejector refrigeration cycle (TPERC) enables the evaporator to operate as in a liquid recirculation system.

economizer. Vamling L.594 S. Giuliani G. The authors also wish to acknowledge Mr. orifices. Lear WE. The compressor pressure ratio and the discharge temperature of the TPERC are lower than those of the CRC. 1995. The two-phase critical flow of onecomponent mixtures in nozzles. [3] Menegay P. Nakagawa M. Proceedings of the 30th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference. and ejector. 151 –158. Hoegberg M. 10 –19. American Society of Heating. Disawas. p. Proceedings of the 31th [11] [12] [13] Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference. National Institute of Standards and Technology. . Atikom Plertplaipan. This leads to a better heat transfer in the evaporator of the TPERC than that of the CRC. Nistir-5606. Analysis and modeling of a two-phase jet pump of a thermal management system for aerospace applications. 1995. Improvements to the ejector expansion refrigeration cycle. Mr. Berntsson T. 4. FL. Orlando. Stoecker WF. S. Hunt PL.01. 1998. Thermodynamic properties of refrigerant and refrigerant mixtures. This results in better lubrication and an increased lifespan. Sherif SA. Washington. Int J Refrigeration 1999. Performance of two-phase ejector in refrigeration cycle. p. March. 1987. REFPROP.42:185–98. 1–8. Calculation methods for comparing the performance of pure and mixed working fluids in heat pump applications. [8] [9] [10] References [1] Kornhauser AA. p. DC. 8–12 June 1998. Holladay JB. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Kornhauser AA. and short tubes. Fauske HK.May:179 –87. Holman JP. The use of an ejector as a refrigerant expander. the improvement becomes relatively less as the heat sink temperature increases. Lyon. Nipon Poorpromyod for their assistance in some of the experimental work. Wongwises / International Journal of Refrigeration 27 (2004) 587–594 evaporator to be flooded by refrigerant. Kornhauser AA. Hewitt NJ. Steadham JM. The TPERC shows an improvement in the COP during low heat sink temperature. 1969. version 6. ASHRAE handbook—guide and data book. Kanongsak Clusintragul and Mr. Chapter 13. p. However. 49– 53. Theoretical evaluation of the vapor compression cycle with a liquid-line/suction-line heat exchanger. 1998. 702– 706. Polonara F.22(6): 486 –98. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multiphase flow. [4] [5] [6] [7] Acknowledgements The authors would like to express their appreciation to the Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment (JGSEE) and the Thailand Research Fund (TRF) for providing financial support in this study. Gaithersburg MD. Henry RE. Performance tests of a two-phase ejector. Domanski PA. Marchesi Donati F. Int J Refrigeration 1993. ASME Trans J Heat Transfer 1971. 1996. ASHRAE. p. France. Takeuchi H. McGrawHill. Experimental methods for engineers. Composition shift in liquid-recirculation refrigeration systems: an experimental investigation for the pure fluid R134a and the mixture R32/134a. Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineering. 1990. Proceedings of the 1990 USNC/IIR-Purdue Refrigeration Conference. Industrial refrigeration handbook. 3. Int J Mech Sci 2000. 16(6):403–13. [2] Harrell GS. McGrawHill.