U.P.B. Sci. Bull., Series D, Vol. 75, Iss.

4, 2013 ISSN 1454-2358

ENERGY AND EXERGY ANALYSIS OF AN EJECTOR

REFRIGERATION SYSTEM

George Adrian UNTEA1, Alexandru DOBROVICESCU2, Lavinia GROSU3,

Emilia Cerna MLADIN4
In this study we conducted an energy and exergy analysis of an ejector
refrigeration system with different working fluids. The system operates on waste
heat provided by the exhausted gas of an internal combustion engine.Four working
fluids are studied: water, methanol, ammonia and R134a. Best performances were
achieved for water. The influence of the heating temperature (tG), evaporation (tEv)
and condensation (tCd) was studied. An optimum value was reached for tG=140° C,
tCd=30° C, tEv=5°C resulting COP=0.48 and ηex=0.085. The numerical simulations
were carried in Engineering Equation Solver (EES ).

Keywords: ejector, refrigeration, exergy, water, performance

1. Introduction

Nowadays in order to assure comfort during summer, mechanical

compression air conditioning systems are widely used. These systems have the
advantage of being easy to use, and having a simple adjustment of temperature.
The weakness of these systems is due to increasing electricity price. An
alternative is represented by the three-therm systems, namely those with
absorbtion or ejection. These systems have two major advantages: energy is the
heat source that can be provided by renewable sources: solar, geothermal or waste
heat and as well as increased reliability, due to the fact that there are no moving
parts, except the solution pump. Due to high initial cost for the absorbtion
systems, the ejection systems are more advantageous [1].
This study focuses on the optimization of an ejection refrigerating
machine, both in terms of working fluid and of the system parameters. Different
researchers [2-8], performed theoretical and experimental studies over the jet
compression systems.
In 1999, Sun [2] realized a theoretical study comparing the COP of an
ejector system using working fluids such as R718, R123, R134a, R11, R12,
R113, R21, R142b, R152a, R318 and R500. The results show that steam jet

1
PhD Student, University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest, Romania, e-mail:
adrianuntea@yahoo.com
2
Prof., University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest, Romania, e-mail:adobrovicescu@yahoo.com
3
University Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, France, e-mail: : mgrosu@u-paris10.fr
4
Prof., University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest, Romania, e-mail:cerna_mladin@yahoo.fr
112 George A. Untea, Al. Dobrovicescu, Lavinia Grosu, Emilia Cerna Mladin

systems have very low COP values. The system using R152a as an working fluid
has better performance.
Rogdakis and Alexis [3], theoretically studied a jet system using ammonia
as refrigerant. The authors developed a computational model and studied the
effect of the variation of different temperatures in the components of the system
such as: generator, condenser and evaporator over the COP and the ejector
performance.
Comparative studies were also developed by Cizung et al. (2001) [4],
Selvaraju and Mani (2004) [5]. They concluded that the system performance
depends mainly on the ejector geometry, compression ratio and on the type of
refrigerant.
Riffat and Omer [6] present the results of an analysis and an experimetal
investigation of a system with methanol. They obtained experimental values of
COP between 0.2 and 0.4 at operating conditions achievable using low-grade heat
such as solar energy and waste heat [6].
Sankaral and Mani [7] in 2007 published the results of an experiment
performed over an ejector system with ammonia, and concluded that entrainment
ratio and COP increase with increase in ejector area ratio and expansion ratio and
with the decrease of the compression ratio.
Ziapour and Abbasy [8] theoretically investigated an ejector system with
water according to first and second law.The second law efficiency of the heat
pipe/ejector refrigeration cycle increases with increasing in evaporator
temperature and decreasing in condenser temperature.
In this paper, we have concentrated our study on the ejector refrigerating
that will operate on waste heat provided by the exhausted gas of an internal
combustion engine. We developed a computational model in Engineering
Equation Solver (EES) according to first and second law. In the first part of the
work, we have conducted a comparative study of the performances of the system
with different refrigerants: water, methanol, ammonia and R134a. The results
show that the system using water in given conditions has better perfomance and
also is a feasible solution, considering the boiling pressure level.
The objective of the present work was to study in terms of energy and
exergy the performance of the system and it’s main components, for different
temperatures. Simulations were made for variations in the temperature of the
generator, the condenser, the evaporator and an optimum was established.

2. Description of the system

In this paper we studied different operating regimes of a jet compression

system which should ensure a cooling load of 45.6 kW. The main parameters of
 Energy and exergy analysis of an ejector refrigeration system 113

the system, the temperatures of: evaporation, condensation, cooled and cooling
water are presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Basic parameters of the refrigerating machine
QEv [kW] 45,6
tEv [°C] 5
tCd [°C] 30
tEvi [°C] 12
tEve [°C] 7
tCdi [°C] 25
tCde [°C] 29
Considering the parameters from Table 1, a computer simulation was done
according to energy and exergy analysis. The temperature was varied at the steam
generator. The simulation was performed for the next agents: R718 (water),
methanol, R717 (ammonia) and R134a.
In an ejection system, the mechanical compressor is replaced by the
ejector. The ejector is the key component in this combined cycle. The ejector
consists of several parts: a nozzle section for a primary flow and a suction
chamber for the secondary flow, a mixing chamber where the primary flow and
secondary flow mix, a throat section in which the mixed fluid undergoes a
transverse shock and a pressure rise [9]. The last section is the diffuser in which
the mixed fluid recompresses to the back pressure.The schematic of an ejector
refrigeration system is presented in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 Scheme of an ejector refrigeration system

114 George A. Untea, Al. Dobrovicescu, Lavinia Grosu, Emilia Cerna Mladin

3. Analysis

3.1. Energy analysis

An energy analysis was perfomed using the EES software. EES or

Engineering Equation Solver, gives the numerical solution of a set of equations. In
order to simulate the ejector system, the mathematical model of the machine was
build. The model of the ejector chiller is constituted of a set of energy, mass and
momentum equations. In order to establish the model, the following assumptions
are made: the flow inside the ejector is in steady state, the pressure drops due to
friction in evaporator and on the pipes are neglected, the mixing process in the
mixing section of ejector occurs at constant pressure and complies with the
conservation of energy, the ejector is adiabatic.
The equations that describe the processes in the system and in the ejector
are according to the model presented by other authors [10, 11]. The equations that
describe the processes in the ejector, the heat capacities, the mass and energy
balance for the various components of the ejection system are presented below.
- velocity at the exit of the primary nozzle of the ejector
wVIII = ϕ1 2(h7 − hVIII ' ) (1)
where φ1=0,95 with it’s recommended values between 0,92 – 0,96 [11], is a
coefficient of velocity reduction due to gas friction.
- velocity at the exit of the mixing chamber of the ejector
w
wI = ϕ 2 VIII (2)
1 + ur
where φ2=0,975 is the coefficient of velocity reduction due to friction
- enthalpy increase in the mixing chamber
2
wVIII ϕ2
ΔhMC = (1 − 2 ) (3)
2(1 + u r ) 1 + ur
In order to determine the real state at the exit of the mixing chamber, state
I, we apply the energy balance equation for this part of the ejector:
• • • • • •
m hVIII + m 0 h5 + (m + m 0 )ΔhMC = ( m + m 0 )hI
(4)
h + u r h5 + (1 + u r )ΔhMC
hI = VIII (5)
1 + ur
- enthalpy at the exit of the difuser
h −h
hII = hI + II ' 2 I
ϕ4 (6)
where φ3=0,90 is a coefficient of velocity reduction due to friction with it’s
recommended values between 0,88 – 0,92.
 Energy and exergy analysis of an ejector refrigeration system 115

After the determination of the real state, it is necessary to recalculate the

ejection factor and specific steam consumption according to the relations 7 and 8.
h7 − h8
u rec = ϕ1ϕ 2ϕ 3 −1 (7)
hII ' − hI
1
a rec = (8)
u rec
With these recalculated values further on are determined: flows, thermal
loads and COP.
- determination of the specific heat capacity of the evaporator
q Ev = h5 − h4 (9)
- secondary flow or refrigerant flow
•
• Q
m 0 = Ev (10)
q Ev
- primary flow or entraining steam
• •
m = a rec m 0 (11)
- the heat load of the components
• • •
Q Cd = (m 0 + m)(hII − h3 ) (12)
• • •
Q G = (m 0 + m)(h7 − h3' ) (13)
- performance of the cycle
Q Ev
COP = (14)
Q G + W P
In our study, it will be assumed that the pumping work, W P , is neglected.

3.2. Exergy analysis

Exergy analysis is used to estimate the exergy destructions and thus to

point out the malfunctions occurring in every component of the refrigerating
system [12]. An exergetic analysis was performed in EES software. The reference
status was considered at p0=1 atm and t0=tCdi=25ºC. In order to study every
component according to second law, the following elements were associated: a
Fuel (the exergetic resources supplied or the exergetical potential at the beginning
of the process), a Product (what offers the component exergetically) and the
Irreversibilities, meaning the exergy consumed [13].
A mathematical model for the study on the entropy generation for a
refrigeration machine was developed by Petrescu et. al in 2012, considering the
116 George A. Untea, Al. Dobrovicescu, Lavinia Grosu, Emilia Cerna Mladin

direct method[14]. Also an exergy analysis for choosing the optimal temperature
difference in a recuperative heat exchanger of a cryogenic system was performed
by Dobrovicescu et al. [15].
The corresponding expressions for the Fuel, Product and Irreversibility of
the system components are presented below according to Dobrovicescu, [13,15].
First of all we have calculated the reference state to which we relate.
A0 = h0 − T0 s0 (15)
where A0 is the water exergy at reference state “0”, respectively t0=tCdi=25ºC and
p0=101,325kPa.
The specific exergy of every state point is calculated as follows:
ex = h − T0 s − A (16)
Evaporator:
PEv = E x Eve − E x Evi (17)
CbEv = E x5 − E x 4 = m 0 (ex 5 − ex 4 ) (18)
PEv
η exEv =
CbEv
(19)
I Ev = Cb Ev − PEv
(20)
I Ev
IrEv = 100 (21)
I tot
The expressions for the exergy efficiency (η), exergy destruction (I) and
percentage of exergy destruction (Ir), relative to total destruction, are similar to all
components.
Condenser:
• •
PCd = E x3 + E xQCd = (m+ m 0 ) ex 3 + E xQCd (22)
• • T0
Ex QCd = Q Cd (1 − )=0 (23)
T0
• •
CbCd = E x II = (m+ m 0 ) ex II (24)
Steam Generator:
•
PG = E x7 = m ex7 (25)
• • • •
CbG = Ex 3' + Ex QG = m ex 3' + Ex QG (26)
T
E xQG = Q G (1 − 0 ) (27)
TG
Ejector:
 Energy and exergy analysis of an ejector refrigeration system 117

• •
PEj = E x II = (m+ m 0 )exII (28)
• • • •
CbEj = Ex 5 + Ex 7 = m0 ex5 + m ex7 (29)
The overall exergetic efficiency of the refrigerating machine is:
P
η exMEJ = Ev (30)

ExQG
4. Results and discussions
4.1. Numerical results for different working fluids
The ejector refrigerating machine will operate on waste heat provided by
the exhausted gas of an internal combustion engine of 3319 cm3. We studied the
performance of the system, working with different fluids considering various
generator temperatures, while tCd=30°C and tEv=5°C The working fluids are:
water (R718), methanol, ammonia (R717) and R134a. The results are presented in
table 2.
Table 2
Variation of the energy and exergy performance with the generator temperature
Water Methanol Ammonia R134a
tG ηex COP ηex COP ηex COP ηex COP
°C - - - - - - - -
70 0.0597 0.1442 0.4572 0.1435 0.0173 0.1309 0.0146 0.0968
80 0.7088 0.2033 0.2592 0.2025 0.0233 0.1877 0.0198 0.1402
90 0.0772 0.2546 0.2076 0.2538 0.0278 0.2376 0.0232 0.1762
100 0.0809 0.2996 0.1823 0.2988 0.0312 0.2820 0.0240 0.2037
110 0.0830 0.3392 0.1660 0.3381 0.0336 0.3223
120 0.0841 0.3744 0.1558 0.3746 0.0352 0.3600
130 0.0846 0.4058 0.1478 0.4070 0.0361 0.3982
140 0.0850 0.4341 0.1410 0.4357
160 0.0841 0.4829 0.1327 0.4896
180 0.0832 0.5242 0.1255 0.5325
200 0.0822 0.5601 0.1202 0.5694
220 0.0814 0.5928 0.1178 0.6044
240 0.0808 0.6236 0.1194 0.6391

The system that operates with water and methanol has the best COP, while
for exergy efficiency methanol shows better characteristics. With increasing
boiling temperature, the exergy performance for methanol decreases, being closer
to the water performance. On the other hand, as it can be seen in Table 3, the
boiling pressures for methanol, ammonia and R134a have important values with
the increasing in tG , which involves the use of pipes with high nominal pressures
and risk of explosion. For example considering a generator temperature of
100° C, the vapor saturation pressure is 1 bar for water, 62 bar for ammonia and
118 George A. Untea, Al. Dobrovicescu, Lavinia Grosu, Emilia Cerna Mladin

almost 40 bar for R134A. If we consider methanol, the pressures are lower, but
even so, for temperatures over 160° C, pressures also increases to high values.
These elements, combined with the fact that the heat source are the
exhaust gases from an internal combustion engine, which provides high
temperatures, recommend using water as the most suited fluid for given
conditions. Table 3
Boiling pressure variation with tG
tG [°C] 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 160 180 200 220 240
pG Water 0.31 0.47 0.70 1.01 1.4 1.9 2.7 3.6 6.2 10.0 15.5 23.2 33.5
[bar]
pG 1.2 1.8 2.5 3.5 4.7 6.3 8.3 10.7 17.3 26.7 39.7 57.2 80.7
Methanol
[bar]
pG 33.1 41.4 51.2 62.6 75.8 91.2 108
Ammonia
[bar]
pG R134a 21.2 26.3 32.5 39.7
[bar]

4.2. Model validation

In order to validate the mathematical model, several theoretical and

experimental studies of ejection refrigerating machines were considered [5-8].
In Figure 2, simulation results obtained in this work are compared to those
of a simulation of a system that has water as refrigerant [8]. The parameters of
simulation were tCd=15° C and tEv=5º C.
0,5

0,45
COPpresent w ork
0,4 COPZiapour&Abbasy
COP

0,35

0,3

0,25

0,2

80 85 90 95 100 105 110

tG [°C]
Fig. 2 – COP comparation between present work and (Ziapour and Abbasy,2010)
 Energy and exergy analysis of an ejector refrigeration system 119

These authors [10], studied the system according to the second principle of
thermodynamics. For tG =100° C resulted the values presented in Table 4.

Table 4
Percentage of exergy destruction/component for tG=100ºC present work vs. the study of
Ziapour and Abbasy, (2010)
Ircomponent[%] Condenser Ejector Evaporator Generator
Present work 11 81 2,5 5,5
Ziapour and Abbasy, 2010 14 79 2 5

Riffat and Omer in 2001[6] conducted a theoretical study over a ejector

system working on methanol. For tG=180ºC, tCd=28ºC and tEv=-2ºC the COP
was 0,4, while for the present work simulation resulted a COP of 0.42.
Selvaraju and Mani in 2004 [5] developed an experimental study of ejector
refrigerating machine using different refrigerants. For R134a considering tG = 80°
C, tCd = 25° C and tEv = 5 ° C they obtained a COP of 0.26. Applying the
simulation program designed in this paper, we obtain a value of 0.247.
Sankaral and Mani in 2007 [7], in an experimental study, for and ejector
system working on ammonia, for tG = 72° C, tCd = 27° C and t\Ev = 15° C obtained
a COP of 0,29. For the same parameters, in the present work simulation was
achieved a COP of 0.35.
The simulation for the verification of the accuracy of the model was made
considering the same: type of the working fluid, tG,, tCd and tEv , data presented by
the authors in their papers. We didn’t possess the informations regarding to the
other coefficients, dimmensions and parameters that defines the ejector in order to
simulate with 100% accuracy the systems presented in the previous studies.
Taking into account the above considerations, the results presented and the
relatively errors, lying between 5-10%, comparatively with previous studies [5-7,
10],all these elements confirm the validity of the model.

4.3. Parametric study of the ejector refrigeration system with water

as working agent
Next we proceeded to study the behavior of the ejection system in which
the refrigerant is water. We started by varying the temperature of the generator,
while the other parameters presented in table 1, remain constant.
120 George A. Untea, Al. Dobrovicescu, Lavinia Grosu, Emilia Cerna Mladin

0,09 0,7

0,085
0,6

0,08
0,5
0,075

COPreal, urec
η exMEJ

0,4
0,07 COPreal
urec
0,065 η exMEJ 0,3

0,06
0,2
0,055
0,1
80 100 120 140 160 180 200
tG [°C]
Fig. 3 – Variation of COP, ejection factor and exergy efficiency with tG
0,09

0,08 m

0,07 m0

0,06
m[kg/s]

0,05

0,04

0,03

0,02

0,01
65 85 105 125 145 165 185 205
tG [°C]
Fig. 4 – Variation of primary and secondary flow with tG

In Fig. 3 one can observe that the exergy performance of the system reaches a
peak at about 140° C. In terms of the first principle, the energy performance
(COP) and the ejection factor (urec), which by definition is the ratio between the
flows of cold vapours and of the entraining steam [10], increases with the
increasing in the boiling temperature. This is explained by the increased speed of
the steam leaving the convergent-divergent nozzle. This fact leads to a decrease in
the pressure in the mixing chamber. Knowing that the speed is inversely
proportional to the pressure, this involves an increase in the gap between the
evaporating pressure, or the pressure of the cold vapour and steam, which
increases the driving capability of the steam. But considering the fact that the
•
cooling load, QEv, remains constant and so does the secondary flow, m 0 , (Figure
4), in order to obtain the same effect of refrigeration, a smaller amount of steam is
 Energy and exergy analysis of an ejector refrigeration system 121

•
required. So an increase of the urec means a decrease in the flow of steam, m ,
required to produce the same amount of cold, so the capacity to produce
refrigeration effect is increased, respectively the COP.
p
Ejection factor increases with the increase of G and it is inversely
p Ev
p
proportional with Cd ratio, that represents the compresion factor.
p Ev
1

0,8

η exCd
0,6 η exEj
η exEv
η ex

η exG
0,4

0,2

80 100 120 140 160 180 200

tG [°C]
Fig. 5 – Variation of exergy efficiency of the components with tG

30

25

20
I [kW]

ICd
15 IEj
IEv
IG
10

0
80 100 120 140 160 180 200
tG [°C]
Fig. 6 – Variation of the exergy destruction by components with tG

As it can be seen in Figures 5 and 6, the ejector is a key component in the

whole system. It has the lowest exergy efficiency ranging between 0.3 and 0.15,
Figure 5, and the highest exergy destruction, Figure 6. It results that any increase
or decrease in functional performances of this component leads to major
122 George A. Untea, Al. Dobrovicescu, Lavinia Grosu, Emilia Cerna Mladin

influences on the functioning of the entire system.It can be observed the

correlation between variation of ηexMEJ, which reaches a maximum at tG = 140 ° C,
and the decrease of the destruction in the ejector, at the same temperature, Figure
6. Subsequent drop of exergy efficiency over 140° C is justified by the increasing
of destruction in the generator, while at the ejector it remains almost constant.
The rate of exergy destruction variation shown in Figure 7, reconfirms that
the destruction of the ejector has a share of over 80% in the system.
90

80

70

60 IrCd
Ir [%]

IrEj
50
IrEv
40 IrG

30

20

10

0
80 100 120 140 160 180 200
tG [°C]
Fig. 7 – Variation of the rate of the exergy distruction in the main components

Fig. 8 presents the influence of the condensing temperature over the

energy and exergy performance. The study is performed for a constant evaporator
temperature of 5° C and for a tG of 100°, 120°, 140° and 160°C. The best energy
performance is achieved for tCd=30° C and tG=160°C. If the criteria is the second
law, the best performance is achieved for tCd=30° C and tG=140°C.
0,5

0,08 COPreal160 η exMEJ160 0,45

COPreal140 η exMEJ140
COPreal120 η exMEJ120 0,4
COPreal100 η exMEJ100
0,06 0,35
COP real

0,3
η exMEJ

0,04
0,25

0,2
0,02
0,15

0,1
30 32 34 36 38 40
tCd [°C]
Fig. 8 – The effect of tCd on COP and ηexMEJ
 Energy and exergy analysis of an ejector refrigeration system 123

The ejector has two roles:

- to compress the total flow pumped into the system from pEv to pCd. An
increase in pcd leads to a higher input work, which involves a decrease in the COP
and the exergy efficiency of the system, Fig. 7.
•
- to extract m 0 flow, that comes from the evaporator at p0 pressure. An
increase in tEv, consequently pEv, leads to a decrease in driving power required to
the ejector, which has a positive influence on system performance, Figure 9.
An increase of the evaporation temperature decreases the total
irreversibility mainly due to the reduction of the required heat to the generator and
the rejected heat from the condenser.
0,1
0,5

0,09 0,45

0,08 0,4

COPreal, urec
η exMEJ

0,35
0,07
COPreal
urec 0,3
0,06 η exMEJ

0,25
0,05
0,2
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
tEv [°C]
Fig. 9 – The influence of tEv on COP and on exergy efficiency for tG=140°C and tCd=30°C

4. Conclusions

A comparison according to first and second law, has been made on

different working fluids for the same operating parameters. It can be concluded
that the performances of all the selected working fluids are improved with higher
generator temperatures. Considering the boiling pressure, the performances and
that the fuel is waste heat, we considered water as the most suited fluid for the
given conditions. The variation in the performance of the water ejector
refrigeration system was evaluated based on a computer simulation in EES. The
operational parameters tG , tCd and tEv have been varied.
The conclusions of the computer simulation are:
- the COP of the ejector refrigeration system increases with increasing the
generator and evaporator temperature and decreasing condenser temperature.
124 George A. Untea, Al. Dobrovicescu, Lavinia Grosu, Emilia Cerna Mladin

- an increased performance involves a greater ejection factor, respectively

a lower specific steam consumption.
- the exergy efficiency curve follows the same variation with the COP,
except the variation with the tG, when it reaches a maximum at 140° C. For higher
tG , the exergy efficiency slowly decreases.
- the second-law efficiency of the ejector refrigeration system increases
with increasing evaporator temperature and decreasing condenser temperature.
- the ejector is a key component in the system; about 80% of the exergy
is destroyed here.

Nomenclature

a specific steam consmuption, [kg primary steam/ kg cold vapours ]

A0 exergy of the reference state
COP coefficient of performance
Cb fuel (resource), [kW]
ex specific exergy, [kJkg-1]
E x exergy flow rate, [kW]
h specific enthalpy, [kJkg-1]
I exergy destruction, [kW]
Ir rate of exergy destruction, [%]
m mass flow rate primary steam, [kg s-1]
m 0 mass flow rate cold vapours, [kg s-1]
p pressure, [bar]
P product, [kW]
q heat capacity, [kJkg-1]
Q heat flow rate, [kW]
s specific entropy, [kJkg-1K-1]
t temperature, [°C]
T temperature, [K]
u ejection factor, [kg cold vapours / kg primary steam]
w velocity, [ms-1]
W work [W]

Greek letters
φ coefficient of velocity reduction
Δt temperature difference, [°C]
ηex exergetic efficiency

Subscripts
Cd condenser
Cde cooling water exit from condenser
Cdi cooling water inlet to condenser
Ej ejector
 Energy and exergy analysis of an ejector refrigeration system 125

Ev evaporator
Eve evaporator exit of the cooled water
Evi evaporator inlet of the cooled water
G generator
Ge heat exit to engine
Gi heat inlet from engine
MEJ refrigerating ejector machine
P pump
r real state
rec recalculated
V.L. throttling valve
0 environmental state
1-5,I,II,VIII state points

REFERENCES
[1] I.W. Eames, S. Aphornratana, D.W.Sun, The jet pump cycle - a low cost refrigerator option
powered by waste heat. Heat Recovery Systems and CHP, Volume 15, Issue 8, November
1995, pp. 711–721.
[2] D.W. Sun, Comparative study of the performance of an ejector refrigeration cycle operating
with various refrigerants.Energy Conversion and Management, Volume 40, Issue 8, May
1999,pp.873-884.
[3] E.Rogdakis, G. Alexis, Design and parametric investigation of an ejector in an air-conditioning
system., Applied Thermal Engineering, Volume 2, Number 20, February 2000, pp.213-226
[4] K. Cizung, A. Mani, M. Groll, Performance comparison of vapour jet refrigeration system with
environment friendly working fuids, Applied Thermal Engineering, Volume 21, Number 5,
April 2001,pp.585-598
[5] A. Selvaraju, A. Mani, Analysis of an ejector with environment friendly refrigerants, Applied
Thermal Engineering, Volume 24, Issues 5–6, April 2004, pp.827–838
[6] S.B. Riffat, S.A. Omer, CFD modelling and experimental investigation of an ejector
refrigeration system using methanol as the working fluid, International Journal of Energy
Research, Volume 25, Issue 2, February 2001, pp.115-128
[7] T. Sankaral, A. Mani, Experimental investigations on ejector refrigeration system with
ammonia, Renewable Energy, Volume 32, Issue 8, July 2007, pp.1403–1413
[8] B.M. Ziapour, A.Abbasy, First and second laws analysis of the heat pipe/ejector refrigeration
cycle, Energy, Volume 35, Issue 8, August 2010, pp. 3307-3314
[9] H. Keenan, E.P. Neumann, F. Lustwerk, An Investigation of Ejector Design by Analysis and
Experiment, Journal of Applied Mechanics Transactions, Volume 72, 1950, pp.299 – 309.
[10] V. Radcenco, S. Porneala, A. Dobrovicescu, Procese în instalaţii frigorifice (Refrigeration
Processes), Editura Didactica si Pedagogica, Bucureşti 1983
[11] E.E. Vasilescu, Instalaţii frigorifice cu absorbţie şi cu ejecţie (Absorbtion and ejection
refrigerating machines), Printech, Bucureşti,2003
[12] S. Kelly, G. Tsatsaronis, T. Morosuk, Advanced exergetic analysis: Approaches for splitting
the exergy destruction into endogenous and exogenous parts, Energy, Volume 34, Issue 3,
March 2009, pp. 384-391
[13] A. Dobrovicescu, Principiile analizei exergoeconomice (Exergo-economic analysis
principles), Politehnica Press, Bucureşti, 2007
126 George A. Untea, Al. Dobrovicescu, Lavinia Grosu, Emilia Cerna Mladin

[14] S. Petrescu, C. Dobre, M. Costea, A. Dobrovicescu, G. Tîrcă-Dragomirescu, Entropy

generation analysis and COP evaluation for a reversed quasi-Carnot cycle (Refrigeration
Machine) by using the direct method from finite speed thermodynamics, U.P.B. Sci. Bull.
Series D, Volume 74, Issue 4, 2012, pp. 117-136
[15] A. Dobrovicescu, D. Stanciu, E. C. Mladin, J. Padet, M. Prisecaru Analyse exergetique pour
le choix de la difference de temperature optimale dans le echangeurs de chaleur
recuperateurs d’un systeme cryogenique, U.P.B. Sci. Bull. Series D, Volume 71, Issue 4,
2009 .