BB32 - Ejector and Vapor Injection Enhanced Novel Compression-Absorption - 23tr

Energy Conversion and Management 289 (2023) 117190
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman
Ejector and Vapor Injection Enhanced Novel Compression-Absorption

Cascade Refrigeration Systems: A Thermodynamic Parametric and
Refrigerant Analysis
Yasin Khan a, Md Walid Faruque b, Mahdi Hafiz Nabil a, M. Monjurul Ehsan a, *
a
Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering, Islamic University of Technology (IUT), Board Bazar, Gazipur 1704, Bangladesh
b
School of Engineering, Faculty of Applied Science, The University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus, 1137 Alumni Ave, Kelowna, BC, Canada
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: This study investigates the performance of two novel compression absorption cascade refrigeration systems, the
Absorption cycle Ejector Compression Absorption Cycle (ECAC) and Ejector Injection Compression Absorption Cycle (EICAC), in
Cascade refrigeration comparison to traditional system. In these cascaded systems, the absorption cycle (top cycle) is modified by
Ejector refrigeration cycle
adding a refrigerant hear exchanger (RHX) which provides higher mass flow of refrigerant to increase the COP.
Exergy analysis
Vapor injection
The simple vapor compression cycle (bottom cycle) performance is enhanced by incorporating the ejector and
Vapor Injection technologies. A systematic analysis is accomplished to establish the optimal operating conditions
for performance enhancement, taking into account of ejector parameters and the effect of different environ
mentally friendly refrigerants by the energy and exergy method. The findings demonstrate that both ECAC and
EICAC systems can achieve near 15 % and 6 % higher COP, respectively, compared to conventional cascade
system when using the R41-LiBr/H2O refrigerant pair under different working conditions. Maximum exergy
efficiency is found to be achieved at around 73 ◦ C, with ECAC and EICAC showing higher exergy efficiency of
near 20 % and 10 %, respectively than the conventional system. The analysis also reveals that while the COP of
all layouts augments linearly with increasing evaporator temperature, the exergy efficiency decreases at different
rates, making the cascade systems more efficient for low-temperature applications. The LiBr/H2O refrigerant pair
demonstrates superior COP and exergy efficiency as HTC refrigerant, while R161, R290, and R1270 perform
better as low-temperature refrigerants for both ECAC and EICAC from both energetic and exergetic perspectives.
The results of this detailed theoretical thermodynamic analysis provide a comprehensive understanding of the
performance of ECAC and EICAC systems and offer valuable insights for further improvement and optimization.
refrigeration systems [1]. Researchers in this field have recently moved

their attention to discovering alternative working fluids for these sys
1. Introduction tems to combat global warming and ozone layer depletion [2]. Re
frigerants have been identified as a significant contributor to global
The refrigeration industry plays an essential part in modern society. warming and ozone layer depletion [2,3]. Moreover, almost all modern
Not only does it provide comfortable and healthy living surroundings, conveniences require electricity to function; electricity can be thought of
but it’s also essential for food storage and surviving severe weather as the lifeblood of progress. It’s no secret that as the world rapidly in
conditions. Specifically, food preservation is essential to global eco dustrializes and the quality of life steadily rises, so does the demand for
nomic growth and stability. To preserve food, metabolic activities are power [4,5]. The application of refrigeration and air conditioning sys
slowed down to prevent the proliferation of microorganisms. This is tems contributes significantly to world energy consumption because
simply achievable through cooling or freezing, without the addition of these systems require external energy to complete their cycles. Modifi
preservatives [1]. One of the primary goals in the field of refrigeration is cations and enhancements of these thermal power consumption systems
the development of low-temperature cooling systems that use environ are necessary to meet the rising demand, as they will enable these sys
mentally friendly, compatible refrigerants with optimal performance in tems to utilize electricity more effectively to create the desired result.
response to the rising demand for cost-effective, safe, and effective
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M.M. Ehsan).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117190
Received 6 March 2023; Received in revised form 26 April 2023; Accepted 13 May 2023
Available online 21 May 2023
0196-8904/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Khan et al. Energy Conversion and Management 289 (2023) 117190
Nomenclature Ẇ Rate of work [kW]

Ex
˙ Rate of exergy [kJ kg− 1]
Abbreviations ĖD Exergy destruction rate [kW]
VCR Vapor compression refrigeration cycle ηII Exergy efficiency
CRS Cascade refrigeration system ηis Isentropic efficiency
ARC Absorption refrigeration cycle ΔT Temperature difference
CARC Compression absorption refrigeration cycle mn Motive nozzle of ejector
ECAC Ejector compression absorption cycle sn Suction nozzle of ejector
EICAC Ejector injection compression absorption cycle m Mixing chamber of ejector
HTC High-temperature cycle d Diffuser of ejector
LTC Low-temperature cycle ε Effectiveness of heat exchanger
GWP Global warming potential
ODP Ozone depletion potential Subscripts
COP Coefficient of performance 1, 2, 3, 4… State points
HFC Hydrofluorocarbon i inlet
CHX Cascade heat exchanger e outlet
RHX Refrigerant heat exchanger 0 Dead state point
gen Generator
Symbols evp Evaporator
P Pressure [kPa] comp Compressor
T Temperature [◦ C] cond Condenser
s Entropy [kJ kg− 1 K− 1] abs Absorber
h Enthalpy [kJ kg− 1]
Q̇ Heat transfer rate [kW]
1.1. Features of simple VCR and cascaded VCR systems The amount of subcooling shifts the expansion towards an isentropic
process. This is achieved by introducing a suction line heat exchanger
The vapor compression refrigeration system (VCR) is the most (SLHX) [12–14] which is utilized to sub cool the working fluid after
preferred option for traditional cooling in the industrial sector because condenser by rejecting the heat to the working fluid entering the
of its simplicity. The most common applications of vapor compression compressor. There are other methods of achieving subcooling as well (e.
refrigeration cycle (VCR) are in liquefying natural gas (108 K or g., thermoelectric sub cooler, mechanical sub cooler etc.).
− 165 ◦ C), household refrigeration, the use of cooled water to supple In systems that utilize vapor refrigerant injection, there are two
ment industrial procedures (− 2 ◦ C to − 35 ◦ C), medicines storage distinct systems that are employed: vapor injection that incorporates a
(− 50 ◦ C to − 35 ◦ C), and cryogenic processes (below − 100 ◦ C) [6]. But flash tank (FTVI), and vapor injection that incorporates an internal heat
single stage VCR are not suited for low temperature applications, ac exchanger (IHX). Both of these configurations are considered as vapor
cording to Kilicarslan et al. [7]. Compressing the refrigerant between injection [15]. In 2021, Wang et al. [16] experimentally examined these
high pressure and solidification temperature is challenging. Johnson two configurations. The results were compared to the IHX where the
et al. [8] mentioned two limitation of single-stage vapor compression flash tank system has a larger heating capacity and COP by a range of
refrigeration system. First, if the pressure drop is too low, compression 3.2 %–13 % and 0.1 %–2.2 %, respectively.
becomes too expensive. Second, following compression, the re The most efficient strategy for enhancing the cycle’s energy effi
frigerant’s pressure must be below its critical pressure to ensure two- ciency is to swap out the throttle valve with an expander and use it for
phase condensation. However, in applications where the condenser work recovery [17,18]. Using ejector [19–21] instead of throttling valve
temperature is 40 ◦ C higher than the evaporator temperature and in is another way of improving the performance of the VCR. Bypassing the
which a high ratio of compression cooling is required, the first law ef flash gas (the evaporated working fluid during expansion) and recov
ficiency of a VCR is quite low. For above mentioned reasons, simple VCR ering the work lost during expansion are two more methods for
is not a viable solution for cryogenic process and other very low tem increasing a system’s COP. If an ejector is employed in place of a con
perature applications from a thermodynamic and cost perspective. ventional expansion valve, then both goals can be met at once [22]. The
A solution to this issue is the utilization of two-stage or three-stage implementation of an ejector in a compression system by E. Nehdi et al.
cascade refrigeration systems (CRS) that are capable of performing [23] resulted in a 22 % improvement over the simple VCR. Utilizing an
cooling operations at moderately low temperatures [9,10]. The system ejector rather than a throttle valve in a VCR system has been proven to
has the ability to operate between both desirable lower evaporator improve performance by 5.29 %–9.62 % depending on different working
temperature and higher condensation temperature. Several research has conditions, according to Wang et al. [24]. An experiment conducted by
been carried out to optimize and reconfigure individual subsystems of Liu et al. [25] to inspect the heating and cooling capabilities of an ejector
CRS, ensuring their safe and effective operation across various appli expansion system equipped with a customizable ejector under a variety
cations, taking into account both energetic and economic perspectives of various conditions of operation in more depth. The total COP raised
[11]. by as much as 71.4 % while the total capacity reduced by 21.3 %.
To enhance the overall performance of an ejector-based system, the
injection technique can be integrated with ejector in the configuration.
1.2. Study on the development and advancement of VCR technology
Wang et al. [26] proposed an ejector-integrated vapor injection system
for heat pumps where an ejector is paired with a flash tank to improve
There are a variety of improvements to vapor compression systems
the performance of a system. An ejector-enhanced vapor injection sys
that is found in the literature that aim to improve the overall system
tem simulation was conducted by Bai et al. [27] which showed COP and
efficiency [6]. There are a number of strategies to enhance the COP of
volumetric heating capacity enhancements over standalone injection
VCR system, one of which is to include subcooling prior to expansion.
2
Table 1
The relevant physical characteristics of the chosen refrigerants [55].
Refrigerant Critical pressure/MPa Boiling point/◦ C Formula weight/(Kg/kmol) Critical temperature/◦ C GWP ODP Security classification
R1234ze 3.63 9.746 114.05 109.38 4 0 A1

R161 4.72 − 37.13 48.05 102.21 12 0 A2
R717 11.33 − 33.34 17.02 132.32 <1 0 B2
R170 4.88 − 88.92 30.06 32.23 ~20 0 A3
R41 5.91 − 78.13 34.02 44.11 97 0 A2
R744 7.37 − 78.43 44.02 312 1 0 A1
R1270 4.67 − 47.73 42.07 92.42 20 0 A3
R290 4.24 − 42.13 44.11 96.73 20 0 A3
system up to 7.7 % and 9.5 %, respectively. Advanced studies on opti include not being able to attain lower temperature because of the
mization of ejector geometries also have been carried out with different recrystallization phenomenon [43] and having low COP [44].
conditions of inlet fluids for performance enhancement [28].
Although the aforementioned systems produce the required cooling 1.4. Integrated compression-absorption cascade refrigeration systems
effect with better performance, the refrigerants that are utilized in these
systems are often harmful to the environment because they possess In the case of ARC, it is challenging to achieve both COP and low-
considerable GWP and ODP [1]. So, it is essential to identify options that temperature range due to the competing characteristics of these two
are less harmful to the environment. factors. Cascading absorption refrigeration cycle (ARC) with another
cycle (i.e., VCR/advanced VCR) can facilitate the system to reach lower
1.3. Study on the exploration and potential applications of ARC systems temperature and improve the overall COP [45–47]. A novel compression
absorption refrigeration system, proposed by Chen et al. [48] is
Scientists and researchers are currently investigating and developing comprised of three components. The temperature range of this system
alternative refrigerants that have a lower impact on the environment. was − 55 ◦ C. Unfortunately, the system had a relatively lower COP of
However, ongoing efforts are also to design and study alternative sys 0.277. Han et al. [49] presented a hybrid absorption compression system
tems that don’t require these refrigerants. The issue of how much elec that ran on a mid-temperature waste heat source. A highest COP of 1.04
tricity these systems consume is also becoming more contentious. and minimum operating temperature of 10 ◦ C was attained with this
Consequently, a system that efficiently uses power is essential. Vapor system. Yu et al. [50] investigated a cascaded ARC where they optimized
absorption refrigeration has shown to be a viable option for dealing with the system and achieved 24.44 % lower exergy destruction than the base
both of these problems [29]. The absorption refrigeration cycle (ARC) system, along with a lower cost rate. Due to lower exergy destruction,
utilizes renewable energy sources and waste heat from other thermo the system performance was improved. Two stage of ARC system was
dynamic cycles [30]. Absorption system replaces the traditional cascaded by Yang et al. [51] which reached as low as − 40 ◦ C. However,
compressor system of classic vapor compression system, which results in the system COP and exergy efficiency was found to be 0.19 and 9.71 %,
low electricity consumption [31] i.e., the reduction of work input of the which are very low compared to VCR system. Cimsit et al. [52,53] in
system. Research has been carried out on the improvement of basic ARC tegrated VCR with ARC as a cascade system using Libr/H2O in ARC
by implementing different modifications in the system components system and R134a in VCR system. Analysis shows that COP and Exergy
[32,33]. were improved by 7 % and 3.1 %, respectively. From the literature, it is
Kaynakli et al. [34] conducted a thermal assessment on double-effect evident that there is still a lot of scope for improvement in the field of
ARC system with series configuration. A solar PV integrated DC ab cascade absorption systems.
sorption system using H2O-LiBr was analyzed by Selvaraj et al. [35],
which showed a power saving capability of 525.6 kWh. However, COP of 1.5. Research scope and problem statement
0.14 was achieved which is way lower than conventional VCR system.
An experimental study of an ARC was performed by Said et al. [36] The cascaded compression absorption refrigeration technology per
utilizing solar power and NH3-H2O. The analyzed system achieved COP mits the system to ensure cooling at lower evaporator temperature due
of 0.69 while evaporator temperature was maintained at − 2 ◦ C and 0.42 to the use of VCR technology at LTC and significant reduction of com
when maintained at − 4 ◦ C. Tugcu et al. [37] conducted an analysis on pressor’s energy consumption due to the use of ARC system at HTC. In
ARC using NH3-H2O, where out of 3660 combinations of different de traditional cascaded compression-absorption refrigeration cycle
signs and different working parameters, the optimum condition was (CARC), a single-effect ARC and a simple VCR are integrated through a
identified. The optimized system achieved COP and energy efficiency of cascade heat exchanger. However, this system has several limitations,
0.5722 and 62.01 % respectively. Salmi et al. [38] presented a steady such as energy waste during throttling in expansion valve [54], lower
state model of ARC on the basis of thermodynamics for ship application heat removal in simple Vapor Absorption Refrigeration (VAR) [53], and
using two different refrigerant pairs (H2O-LiBr, NH3-H2O). Using 10 0C the need for a single-stage compressor in VCR [54], which results in a
evaporator temperature, the COP of 0.85 was achieved, where it drop relatively higher compressor power requirement.
ped to 0.79 in case of 5 ◦ C evaporator temperature. In 2019, Canbolat This research focuses on solving the problem by combining a modi
et al. [39] showed the contributions of evaporator and absorber tem fied ARC cycle with an improved VCR to achieve better energy and
perature on the overall system performance. A solar collector integrated exergy performance. The ARC system can be improved by implementing
ARC system was analyzed by Christop et al. [40] using both simulation a RHX at evaporator outlet, which allows for more heat to be removed
and experimental setup, where a maximum cooling effect of 2.68 kW from heat exchanger, increasing the mass flow rate of refrigerant and
was achieved. To examine how different operating conditions affect the solution, and leading to a higher system COP. In addition, the potential
COP, cooling load, and exergy efficiency, a comparative analysis was use of sophisticated VCR systems coupled with ejector and vapor in
conducted on five arrangements of ARC system [41]. Using a series jection in LTC are investigated to develop novel compression absorption
configuration yields a maximum COP of 1.39, whereas a parallel setup cascade system ECAC (Ejector compression absorption cycle) and EICAC
yields a maximum COP of 1.44 for double-effect devices. (Ejector injection compression absorption cycle). The integration pro
Despite having these benefits, ARC has some drawbacks as well, vides refrigeration at low evaporation temperatures with reduced en
which makes it less preferred in industrial applications [42]. These ergy loss during throttling.
3
freezing temperature of water [56]. Crystallization of salt in the solution

is another phenomenon to be concerned about. When dealing with LiBr
solution, it should be noted that crystallization can occur due to an
increased concentration ratio or a decrease in solution temperature
below the crystallization condition. Crystallization occurs mainly when
a strong solution is fed into the absorber. The formation of crystals in the
solution can lead to a number of issues, such as reduced heat and mass
transfer rates, decreased system efficiency, formation of slush in the
piping system, and potential damage to equipment due to blockages in
the system. Therefore, it is essential to maintain proper operating con
ditions to stop crystallization and confirm the optimum performance of
the LiBr solution [43].
As a solution to this issue, Cimsit et al. [52,53] recommended
cascading a VCR with an ARC by integrating a heat exchanger as is
illustrated in Fig. 1. Because of this addition, the system will be able to
function at a lower cooling temperature by using VCR as LTC, and the
amount of energy input into the compressor will be decreased because
ARC will be used as the HTC. But the performance of this system is not
up to par because there is a significant amount of energy wasted during
throttle [53], inferior heat removal in ARC [53], and a relatively higher
compressor input due to the use of a single-stage compressor [54].
2.2. Proposed novel cascade systems
This study primarily concentrates on resolving this matter by

cascading a modified ARC with an improved VCR to achieve enhanced
thermal performance. At the evaporator outflow, a RHX (refrigerant
heat exchanger) can be incorporated to improve the absorption cycle.
This integration enables the refrigerant from evaporator outlet to be
superheated by the heat provided by subcooled refrigerant of condenser
outlet. With the enthalpy of the liquid reducing, the cooling capacity
increases; hence the COP enhances [57].
Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of the traditional CARC (compression absorption
In this study, two novel cascade systems are proposed in which the
refrigeration cycle).
modified absorption cycle is cascaded with advanced ejector-based VCR
systems. Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 2(b) illustrate the proposed novel ejector
In order to assess the validity of the hypothesis, the proposed systems cascade absorption cycle (ECAC) and ejector injection cascade absorp
are subjected to a first and second law analysis, which evaluated five key tion cycle (EICAC) respectively to overcome the limitations of conven
performance metrics, namely the COP, generator load, compressor load, tional compression absorption refrigeration cycle (CARC). Ejector-based
exergy destruction, and exergy efficiency. Using these metrics, a refrigeration systems reduce the energy loss in the expansion valve
comprehensive comparison was made between the proposed and significantly by ensuring a near isentropic throttle process. Recent
traditional systems under different operating conditions. advancement in the field of ejector refrigeration system facilitates vapor
Furthermore, the study thoroughly examines the effects of ejector injection in a two-stage refrigeration system which ensures a higher
parameters to identify the optimal operating conditions for performance cooling effect.
enhancement while taking into account the effect and impact of each An ejector-enhanced expansion cycle is employed in the ECAC as the
component. Additionally, the study evaluates the impact of various LTC, as depicted in Fig. 2(a). Diffuser, nozzle, and mixing chamber are
refrigerant combinations on system performance, with a focus on pro the main components of an ejector. After rejecting heat at the CHX, the
moting safe, efficient, and environmentally friendly operations by high-pressure refrigerant becomes saturated liquid and is passed as the
considering their ODP and GWP. Table 1 provides the relevant proper motive fluid for the ejector inlet (point 14). This fluid is driven through
ties of the refrigerants. the motive nozzle of an ejector and exits as a low-pressure refrigerant.
Due to the generation of low pressure, the refrigerant which exits
2. System Description evaporator as saturated vapor, is drawn as suction fluid of the ejector
inlet at point 20. The suction fluid is in a low temperature and pressure
2.1. Conventional compression absorption refrigeration cycle (CARC) state and is subjected to a pressure drop of Δp in the suction nozzle.
After acceleration, both fluids are homogenously mixed in the mix
Absorption cycles have become a more sustainable alternative to ing chamber (point 16). Then the flow is expanded in the diffuser to
vapor compression systems in the field of refrigeration systems. In this recover the pressure energy and the flow exits a two-phase refrigerant
system, absorber-generator is incorporated to replace the compressor. (Point 17). Then the flow is separated in a flash tank, where the satu
Heat is given as input in the generator from external sources is the rated vapor is compressed and eventually rejects heat at the CHX. The
primary source of energy input. In LiBr/H2O system, H2O is the refrig saturated liquid is expanded and passed through evaporator to remove
erant, while in NH3/H2O system, NH3 (ammonia) is used as the refrig heat from refrigerated space. The flow of refrigerant can be depicted
erant. The variation in load has no effect on the system’s COP. The more easily from Fig. 3 which displays P-h diagram of ECAC cycle.
Absorption cycle has a lower COP than VCR due to the utilization of In EICAC, the Ejector integrated vapor-injection cycle is used as an
lower-grade thermal energy compared to the higher-grade electrical alternative of simple VCR to facilitate the separation of liquid refrigerant
energy used in vapor compression cycles. The limit in pressure ratio is in two stages to ensure vapor injection in a double stage compression
also a factor contributing to lower COP. Moreover, the system has lim process as shown in Fig. 2(b). At first, two-phase mixture refrigerant at
itations of water being frozen when evaporator temperature is below the ejector exit (state 17) is separated by Flash tank-l into saturated
4
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the proposed novel (a) Ejector compression absorption cycle (ECAC) and (b) Ejector injection compression absorption cycle (EICAC).
Fig. 3. Pressure-enthalpy diagram of proposed ECAC with pressure-Temperature diagram of the Solution.
5
Fig. 4. Pressure-enthalpy diagram of proposed EICAC with pressure-Temperature diagram of the Solution.
liquid (state19) and saturated vapor (state 18); the saturated vapor is ( )
∑ V2 ∑ ( V2
)
passed to the mixing chamber for high-pressure vapor injection, and ṁi hi + i + gzi + Q̇ = ṁe he + e + gze + Ẇ (3)
saturated liquid is passed through the throttling valve-l and leaves as a 2 2
two-phase mixture (state 20). Next, the flow is directed to Flash tank-II, Potential and kinetic energy is ignored in the formulation and the
where the refrigerant is segregated into saturated vapor (state 21) and equation is simplified as [59]:
saturated liquid (state 22). The saturated vapor is taken as the suction ∑ ∑
fluid for the ejector. The saturated liquid is expanded in throttling Valve ṁi hi + Q̇ = ṁe he + Ẇ (4)
II and transferred to evaporator (state 23) where it is evaporated
where m˙, Q˙, and W˙ are the rate of mass, heat, and work transfer
completely (state 24) and further compressed in low-pressure
across the system boundary, respectively and X is the concentration of
compressor to reach the intermediate pressure (state 25). Afterward, it
solution.
is mixed with the injected vapor in the mixing tank and further com
COP is expressed as a quantity to assess the efficiency of the refrig
pressed in the high-pressure compressor to reach CHX pressure. The
eration system
vapor rejects heat in CHX to become saturated liquid (state 14) and
enters the ejector as motive fluid. Desirableoutput
COP = (5)
To facilitate two stage separation, two stage compression is incor CycleInput
porated into the system. Double separation ensures a higher flow of
The 1st law of thermodynamics focused on the quantity of energy
refrigerant through CHX, also lower required input power due to double-
rather quality, and the work and heat load are considered based on only
stage compression. The refrigerant flow can be depicted more easily
enthalpy changes inside the refrigeration cycle. So, the total input en
from Fig. 4, which displays the corresponding P-h diagram of EICAC
ergy to operate the cycle is given as the summation of energy input to the
cycle.
generator and compressors separately. The desirable output of the sys
tem is the cooling effect produced at evaporator. So, the following
3. Thermodynamic modelling equation to calculate the overall system COP can be written. Existing
literature on cascade systems also follows the same convention
3.1. Energy analysis [52,53,60–62]
Mass, energy and exergy balance equations can be applied to each Q̇evp
COPsystem = (6)
component of the corresponding cycle to calculate all the state proper Q̇gen + Ẇ comp
ties as well as performance parameters. The equations are as follows:
To offer a comprehensive understanding of each input separately,
Mass balance: Each component can be regarded as a control volume
COP of each sub cycle can be calculated from the following equations. In
system where continuity equations can be applied to develop the mass
this, COPLTC is associated with the compressor load only, while COPHTC
balance equation as follows:
∑ ∑ is concerned exclusively with the generator load.
ṁi = ṁe (1)
Q̇evp Q̇CHX
COPLTC = , COPHTC = (7)
Solution concentration balance equation: Ẇ comp Q̇gen
∑ ∑
ṁi Xi = ṁe Xe (2)
3.2. Exergy analysis
Energy balance: 1st law of thermodynamics is applied to derive SFEE
(Steady flow energy equation) to estimate the total energy flow through Exergy represents the maximum potential work that can be obtained
open systems as described [58]: from a system when it reaches a state of equilibrium with its sur
6
Fig. 5. Working mechanism of Ejector.
roundings. For an open system, exergy can be defined as [58]: Whereas, Useful exergy input in the generator,
[ ] ( ) ( )
V2 To
Ėx = ṁr (h − h0 ) − T0 (s − s0 ) + + gz (8) Ėxin,Generator = Q̇gen 1 − = Ėxe − Ėxf (16)
2 Tgen
Ignoring the exergy of kinetic and potential energy the equation can Useful exergy input in the compressor,
be simplified as follows:
Ėxin,Compressor = Ẇ compressor (17)
Ėx = ṁr [(h − h0 ) − T0 (s − s0 )] (9)
Exergy destruction across each component is calculated and corre
By considering a control volume system, the exergy balance equation sponding equations are stated in Table,3 and 4. So, the total rate of
can be written as [63]: exergy destruction is calculated by:
∑ ∑
Ėxi + ĖQ = Ėxe + ĖxW + ĖxD (10) ĖD,total =ĖD,CHX + ĖD,abs + ĖD,RHX + ĖD,SHX + ĖD,gen + ĖD,expansionvalve + ĖD,ejector
+ ĖD,flashtank + ĖD,evp + ĖD,comp
The subscript’ i’ refers to the incoming streams of each component
within the control volume, while the subscript ’e’ refers to the outgoing (18)
streams. On the other hand, the subscript ’o’ pertains to the reference Ultimately the following equation is solved to find the value of
state. ĖxD, the exergy destruction can be inscribed as: exergy efficiency:
∑ ∑
ĖxD = Ėxi − Ėxe + ĖxW + ĖxQ (11) ĖxD
ηex = 1 − [ ] (19)
Q̇gen × 1 − TTgeno + Ẇ comp
Here, the terms ĖxQ and ĖxW represent the rates of thermal and
power exergy, which are defined in the following manner [58]: Although a high rate of energy is rejected in absorber and condenser,
(
T0
) which are operating at near ambient temperature of T0. This is why the
ĖxQ = 1 − Q̇k (12) rate of rejection of useful energy or exergy in condenser/absorber is very
Tk
negligible.
ĖxW = Ẇk (13) Hence the exergy product can be written as,
In addition, since chemical exergy has a negligible impact compared Ėxp = Ėxin,Evaporator (20)
to physical exergy, it has been omitted in present study, as in most
This is the reason in many studies performed on cascade absorption
previous works in the literature [64]. It should be noted that the con
compression system, the equation to find exergetic efficiency has been
tributions of kinetic and potential exergies have been disregarded in the
simplified to [67]:
formulation [65]. The 2nd law efficiency is expressed from the defini ⃒ ⃒
tion as follows [66]: ⃒ ⃒
Q̇evp × ⃒1 − TTevpo ⃒
ηex = [ ] (21)
Ėxp ĖxD Q̇gen × 1 − TTgeno + Ẇ comp
ηex = = 1− (14)
Ėxf Ėxf
Here Ėxp and Ėxf represent the exergy rates of product and fuel of the 3.3. Ejector modeling
system and ĖxD is the total exergy destruction rate. The product exergy is
the desired exergy achieved from system (net exergy of cooling effect Ejectors play a fundamental role in the operation of proposed sys
excluding exergy lost in absorber and condenser), whereas the fuel is tems. The working principle and modelling of ejector is conducted based
defined as consumed exergy by the system to operate (input exergy on the study of Li et al. [21]. Various studies have shown that constant-
including generator and compressor load). pressure mixing ejector outperforms the ejector with fixed area [68,69].
In our system of cascade refrigeration system, This is why a const-pressure mixing ejector is modelled and employed in
Exergy appended, this study, as shown in Fig. 5.
The simulations of the ejector are based on several assumptions,
Ėxf = Ėxin,Generator + Ėxin,Compressor (15) which include the following:
7
Fig. 6. A Mathematical Framework and flow chart of the operation for the Proposed Systems.
8
Table 2
Governing equations for the analysis of single effect modified absorption system.
Component Mass Energy balance Exergy destruction
balance
( ))
Cascade heat ṁ3 =ṁ4 Q̇CHX = ṁ13 × ĖD,CHX = Ėx3 + Ėx13 − Ėx4 − Ėx14 = ṁ3 ((h3 − h4 ) − T0 (s3 − s4 ) + ṁ13 (h13 − h14 ) − T0 (s13 − s14
exchanger ṁ13 =ṁ14 (h13 − h14 ) = ṁ3 ×
(h4 − h3 )
Expansion valve ṁ11 =ṁ13 h11 = h13 ĖD,TV− I = Ėx11 − Ėx3 = ṁ11 ((h11 − h13 ) − T0 (s11 − s13 ))
2
( )
refrigerant heat ṁ2 =ṁ11 Q̇RHX = ṁ2 × ( )
ĖD,RHX = Ėx2 + Ėx4 − Ėx11 − Ėx12 = ṁ2 (h2 − h11 ) − T0 (s2 − s11 ) +ṁ4 (h4 − h12 ) − T0 (s4 − s12
exchanger ṁ4 =ṁ12 (h2 − h11 ) = ṁ4 ×
(h12 − h4 )
( )
Absorber ṁ12 + Q̇abs = ṁ12 × h12 +
(
ĖD,abs = Ėx12 + Ėx10 − Ėx5 + Ėxc − Ėxd = ṁ12 (h12 − h0 ) − T0 (s12 − s0 ) +
)
ṁ10 = ṁ5 ṁ10 × h10 − ṁ5 × h5 ( ) ( ) ( )
ṁ10 (h10 − h0 ) − T0 (s10 − s0 ) − ṁ5 (h5 − h0 ) − T0 (s5 − s0 ) + ṁc (hc − hd ) − T0 (sc − sd )
Solution Pump ṁ5 = ṁ6 h6s − h5 ĖD,Pump = Ėx5 − Ėx6 = ṁ5 ((h5 − h6 ) − T0 (s5 − s6 ))
Ẇpump = ṁ5 ×
ηs
( ))
SHX ṁ6 = Q̇SHX = ṁ6 × ĖD,SHX = Ėx6 + Ėx8 − Ėx7 − Ėx9 = ṁ6 ((h6 − h7 ) − T0 (s6 − s7 ) + ṁ7 (h8 − h9 ) − T0 (s8 − s9
ṁ7 ṁ8 = ṁ9 (h7 − h6 ) = ṁ8 ×
(h8 − h9 )
( )
Generator ṁ7 = ṁ8 + Q̇gen = ṁ1 × h1 + ṁ8 × ĖD,gen = Ėx7 − Ėx8 − Ėx1 + Ėxe − Ėxf =
ṁ1 h8 − ṁ7 × h7 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
ṁ7 (h7 − h0 ) − T0 (s7 − s0 ) − ṁ8 (h8 − h0 ) − T0 (s8 − s0 ) − ṁ1 (h1 − h0 ) − T0 (s1 − s0 ) + ṁe (he − hf ) − T0 (se − sf )
Expansion valve ṁ9 =ṁ10 h10 = h9 ĖD,TV− II = Ėx10 − Ėx9 = ṁ10 ((h10 − h9 ) − T0 (s10 − s9 ))
1
( ) ( ))
Condenser ṁ1 =ṁ2 Q̇cond = ṁ1 × (h1 − h2 ) ĖD,con = Ėx1 − Ėx2 + Ėxg − Ėxh = ṁ1 ((h1 − h2 ) − T0 (s1 − s2 ) + ṁa (hg − hh ) − T0 (sg − sh
• No external heat transfer occurs. From these properties, the other properties can be found as:
• The flow through ejector is regarded to be a One-dimensional ho ( )
Idea enthalpyhsn , out, is = f ssn , out, is , Psn, out (26)
mogeneous and equilibrium flow
• The motive and suction streams are assumed to reach the same
Actual enthalpy hsn , = hsn , − ηm (hsn , − hsn , ) (27)
pressure after acceleration through respective nozzles. out in in out, is
• At the exit of the mixing chamber, fluid properties are assumed to be √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
uniform over cross-section. Velocity csn, out = 2(hsn , in − hsn , out ) (28)
• The simulations take into consideration the impact of friction losses
occurring in nozzle, diffuser, and mixing chamber, which are quan Cross sectional Area : asn, out =
w
(29)
tified by the expression of efficiency parameters. The nozzle and cmn, out ρmn, out (1 + w)
diffuser efficiencies are both estimated to be 85 %, while the mixer At motive nozzle outlet (mn, out).
efficiency is assumed to be 95 % [21]. The isentropic expansion in motive nozzle results in outlet pressure
decreased to suction nozzle outlet pressure. So, the properties at the
With these assumptions taken, mathematical modelling for the outlet become:
Ejector is developed.
In this research, steady-state ejector calculations employ an iterative Pressure : pmn,out = psn,out (30)
method initially proposed by Kornhauser [70]. This homogeneous
equilibrium model involves the acceleration of both motive and suction Entropy : smn,out = smn,in (31)
fluids through separate nozzles. The nozzles must be designed to ensure From these properties, the other properties can be found:
equal exit pressures, facilitating uniform mixing within the mixing ( )
chamber. This outlet pressure symbolized as Pb must have a lower value Idea enthalpy : hmn,out,is = f smn,out,is , Pmn,out (32)
than suction side where it is controlled by,
Actual enthalpy : hmn,out = hmn,in − ηm (hmn,in − hmn,out,is ) (33)
Pb = Psuction − ΔP (22)
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Here, ΔP represents the pressure drop in suction nozzle. The Fluid velocity : cmn,out = 2(hmn,in − hmn,out ) (34)
entrainment ratio, w, is a crucial performance indicator for the ejector:
msuction 1
w= (23) Cross sectional Area : amn,out = (35)
mmotive cmn,out ρmn,out (1 + w)
With the goal to verify that the vapor quality at the diffuser outlet At mixing chamber, properties of the mixed refrigerant at outlet can
matches system theoretical value, an initial estimate for the entrainment be calculated as (m, out):
ratio is presumed in this investigation and iterated as stated in flow chart
Pressure remains constant, sopm = pmn,out = psn,out (36)
Fig. 6. For a certain suction nozzle pressure drop ΔP each computation is
simulated which is further optimized for COP. ( )
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ 1 w
At suction nozzle outlet (sn, out): Fluid velocity : cm,out = ηms cmn,out + csn,out (37)
1+w 1+w
The isentropic expansion in suction nozzle results in a pressure drop
of Δp, so at the suction nozzle outlet:
1 c2mn,out w c2sn,out c2m,out
Enthalpy : hm,out = (hmn,out + )+ (hsn,out + )−
Pressure : psn,out = psn,in − Δp (24) 1+w 2 1+w 2 2
(38)
Entropy : ssn,out = ssn,in (25)
Entropy : sm,out = s(pm , hm,out ) (39)
9
Table 3
Governing equations for the analysis of ejector expansion VCR cycle.
Component Mass balance Energy balance Exergy destruction
( )
Evaporator ṁ19 =ṁ20 Q̇evp = ṁ19 × ĖD,Evp = Ėx19 − Ėx20 + Ėxa − Ėxb
(
= ṁ19 ((h19 − h20 ) − T0 (s19 − s20 ) + ṁa (ha − hb ) − T0 (sa − sb
))
(h20 − h19 )
( )
Ejector ṁ14 + ṁ20 = ṁ15 = ĖD,ejector = Ėx14 + Ėx20 − Ėx17 = ṁ14 (h14 − h0 ) − T0 (s14 − s0 ) +
ṁ16 = ṁ17 ( ) (
ṁ20 (h20 − h0 ) − T0 (s20 − s0 ) − ṁ17 (h17 − h0 ) − T0 (s17 − s0 )
)
Flash Tank ṁ18 =ṁ17 (1 − x17 ) ṁ17 h17 = ĖD, FT = Ėx17 − Ėx18 − Ėx21 =
( ) ( ) ( )
ṁ21 =ṁ17 x17 ṁ18 h18 + ṁ17 (h17 − h0 ) − T0 (s17 − s0 ) − ṁ18 (h18 − h0 ) − T0 (s18 − s0 ) − ṁ21 (h21 − h0 ) − T0 (s21 − s0 )
ṁ21 h21
Expansion ṁ18 =ṁ19 h18 = h19 ĖD, TV− III = Ėx18 − Ėx19 = ṁ18 ((h18 − h19 ) − T0 (s18 − s19 )
valve 3
Compressor ṁ5 = ṁ6 ĖD, = Ėx21 − Ėx13 = ṁ21 ((h21 − h13 ) − T0 (s21 − s13 )
Ẇcomp = ṁ21 × comp
h13s − h21
ηs
At the Diffuser outlet of the ejector (d, out) the fluid properties can be • Pressure fluctuations and thermal losses in the pipelines are deemed
calculated as follows: negligible.
• The throttling process in the expansion valve is considered as isen
c2m,out
Enthalpy : hd,out = hm,out + (40) thalpic process whereas the pump and compressor operate in an
2 isentropic process.
Ideal enthalpy : hd,out,is = hm,out + ηd (hd,out − hm,out ) (41) • The state of refrigerant at the evaporator and condenser exit is
considered as saturated conditions.
So, the pressure at the outlet of ejector : Pd,out = p(hd,out,is , sm,out ) (42) • The solutions leaving generator and absorber are regarded to be in
saturated state.
The quality of the refrigerantxd,out = f (hd,out,is , Pd,out ) (43) • Pumping work in the absorption cycle is regarded as insignificant
[53].
To ensure balance of energy across ejector, velocity at the diffuser
exit is considered to be very minimal [71]. So, the entrainment ratio is The ECAC and EICAC both have a modified single-effect ARC con
calculated by compounding the equations above, sisting of 9 components. The components are as follows: generator,
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ condenser, absorber, solution heat exchanger, refrigerant heat
hmn,in − hmn,out,is
w = ηm ηms ηd − 1 (44) exchanger, cascade heat exchanger, solution pump, and two expansion
hsn,in − hsn,out,is
valves. Each component is modelled as a control volume, and energy-
exergy balance equations are displayed in Table 2.
3.4. Mathematical modelling ECAC contains an ejector refrigeration system as LTC, whereas
EICAC contains an ejector enhanced vapor injection system as LTC. Both
The following are the assumptions used to construct governing systems contain the following components: cascade heat exchanger,
equations for CARC, ECAC, and EICAC components. To facilitate the ejector, flash tank, throttling valve, compressor and evaporator. As a
model simulation, these assumptions are made prior to simulation difference between EICAC and ECAC, EICAC has an additional
execution [52,53,72]: compressor, throttling valve, along with a mixing chamber to facilitate
the vapor injection. Also, each component is regarded as control volume
Table 4
Governing equations for the analysis of ejector enhanced vapor injection VCR.
Component Mass balance Energy balance Exergy destruction
( )
Evaporator ṁ23 =ṁ24 Q̇evp = ṁ23 × ĖD,evp = Ėx23 − Ėx24 + Ėxa − Ėxb
(
= ṁ23 ((h23 − h24 ) − T0 (s23 − s24 ) + ṁa (ha − hb ) − T0 (sa − sb
))
(h24 − h23 )
( )
Ejector ṁ14 + ṁ21 = ṁ15 = ĖD,ejector = Ėx14 + Ėx21 − Ėx17 = ṁ14 (h14 − h0 ) − T0 (s14 − s0 ) +
ṁ16 = ṁ17 ( ) (
ṁ21 (h21 − h0 ) − T0 (s21 − s0 ) − ṁ17 (h17 − h0 ) − T0 (s17 − s0 )
)
Flash Tank 1 ṁ19 =ṁ17 (1 − x17 ) ṁ17 h17 = ṁ18 h18 + ĖD,FT− I = Ėx17 − Ėx18 − Ėx19 =
( ) ( ) ( )
ṁ18 =ṁ17 x17 ṁ19 h19 ṁ17 (h17 − h0 ) − T0 (s17 − s0 ) − ṁ18 (h18 − h0 ) − T0 (s18 − s0 ) − ṁ19 (h19 − h0 ) − T0 (s19 − s0 )
Flash Tank 2 ṁ22 =ṁ20 (1 − x20 ) ṁ20 h20 = ṁ22 h22 + ĖD,FT− II = Ėx20 − Ėx22 − Ėx21 =
( ) ( ) ( )
ṁ21 =ṁ20 x20 ṁ21 h21 ṁ20 (h20 − h0 ) − T0 (s20 − s0 ) − ṁ22 (h22 − h0 ) − T0 (s22 − s0 ) − ṁ21 (h21 − h0 ) − T0 (s21 − s0 )
Expansion ṁ19 =ṁ20 h19 = h20 ĖD,TV− III = Ėx19 − Ėx20 = ṁ19 ((h19 − h20 ) − T0 (s19 − s20 )
valve 3
Expansion ṁ22 =ṁ23 h22 = h23 ĖD,TV− IV = Ėx22 − Ėx23 = ṁ22 ((h22 − h23 ) − T0 (s22 − s23 )
valve 4
Compressor 1 ṁ24 = ṁ25 ĖD,comp− I = Ėx24 − Ėx25 = ṁ24 ((h24 − h25 ) − T0 (s24 − s25 )
Ẇcomp− I = ṁ24 ×
h25s − h24
ηs
Compressor 2 ṁ26 = ṁ13 ĖD,comp− = Ėx26 − Ėx13 = ṁ26 ((h26 − h13 ) − T0 (s26 − s13 )
Ẇcomp− II = ṁ26 × II
h13s − h26
ηs
( )
Mixing ṁ18 + ṁ25 = ṁ26 ṁ25 h25 + ĖD,mixingchamber = Ėx25 + Ėx18 − Ėx26 = ṁ25 (h25 − h0) − T0 (s25 − s0 ) +
chamber ṁ218 h18 = ṁ26 h26 ( ) (
ṁ18 (h18 − h0) − T0 (s18 − s0 ) − ṁ26 (h26 − h0) − T0 (s26 − s0 )
)
10
Table 5 compression absorption system.

Initial operating parameters and design values considered for the thermody The Compression Absorption Refrigeration Cycle (CARC) system was
namic simulation. modeled and compared with the findings of a previous study by Cimsit
Parameters Values et al. [53]. The reference study incorporated a simple VCR bottoming
Generator temperature, Tgen 75 ◦ C
cycle with an ARC system at the top, and conducted refrigerant analysis.
Condenser temperature, Tcond 30 ◦ C The system was developed in a code-based platform modelling theo
Evaporator temperature, Tevp − 30 ◦ C retical energy equations across system components using integrated li
Absorber temperature, Tabs 30 ◦ C brary for state point property calculation. Properties of the solution are
Refrigeration load, Qevp 10 KW
calculated from empirical equations. The system is validated with the
Ambient temperature, T0 25 ◦ C
Ambient pressure, P0 101.325 kPa following parameters: TGenarator = 90 ◦ C, TEvaporator = − 10 ◦ C, TCondenser
Effectiveness of SHX (solution heat exchanger),εSHX 0.9 = TAbsorber = 40 ◦ C, εSHX = 0.6, and QEvporator = 50 kW. The results
Temperature difference across CHX, ΔT 5 presented in Table 6 indicate that our model is highly consistent with the
Effectiveness of RHX (refrigerant heat exchanger),εRHX 0.7 findings of Cimsit et al. Nevertheless, slight differences between our
Inlet external air temperature in Evaporator Tevp + 8
Outlet external air temperature in Evaporator Tevp + 3
system and the reference study can be observed due to the use of
Inlet cooling water temperature in Absorber TAbs − 5 empirical equations for calculating the state point parameters in the
Outlet cooling water temperature in Absorber TAbs + 5 reference study, whereas our thermodynamic system was modelled in
Inlet heat source water temperature in Generator TGen + 15 EES and solved using its integrated solution and refrigerant libraries
Outlet heat source water temperature in Generator TGen + 10
based on Refprop.
Inlet cooling water temperature in Condenser TCond − 8
Outlet cooling water temperature in Condenser TCond − 3 To ensure more accuracy, a conventional single-effect ARC is also
Diffuser efficiency, ηd 0.85 validated with the work of Aman et al. [76] for NH3/H2O and Modi et al.
Nozzle efficiency, ηn 0.85 [73] for LiBr/H2O solution. In these studies, analytical models were also
Compressor efficiency,ηcomp 0.85 established using the same approach of utilizing energy analysis in a
Mixer efficiency, ηm 0.95
code-based platform. The authors have employed integrated libraries
from REFPROP, which is a widely recognized software for calculating
to formulate the mass, energy, and exergy balance equation as stated in thermophysical properties of various fluids. The systems were developed
Table 3 and Table 4, for ejector expansion (LTC of ECAC) and ejector using empirical equations derived from various research studies to
enhanced vapor injection VCR respectively (LTC of EICAC). calculate the properties of the solutions streams. The validation results
are presented in Table 7 with comparison with detailed comparison. In
the validation of the model for LiBr/H2O solution, the parameters
3.5. System flow chart and analysis chronology considered were: TGenerator = 87.8 ◦ C, TEvaporator = 7.2 ◦ C, TCondenser =
TAbsorber = 37.8 ◦ C, εshx = 0.7 and ṁrefrigerant = 1 kg s−. 1 On the other
In EES, a mathematical model is created using mass, energy, and hand, for the validation of the model for NH3/H2O solution, TGenarator =
exergy balance equations presented in Sections 3.1–3.4. The properties 80 ◦ C, Tevaporator = 2 ◦ C, Tcondenser = Tabsorber = 30 ◦ C, εSHX = 0.8, and
of the refrigerant and solutions are obtained from library of EES. The evaporator load = 10 kW, and QEvporator = 10 kW were taken into ac
program is initialized by considering a set of operating parameters as count. The validation results demonstrate that the single effect ARC
shown in Table 5. The steps of the simulation model are depicted in modeled in this study exhibits satisfactory agreement with Modi et al.
Fig. 6. [73], which confirms the accuracy of the model. Nevertheless, a slight
The selection of the range of controllable variables for the proposed discrepancy between present work and Aman et al. [76], which can be
systems was taken from previous literature, which has extensively attributed to the different approaches used by the two studies. Aman
analyzed the impacts of various parameters on absorption cycle. The et al. [76] used analytical equations of the NH3/H2O solution to deter
range was also influenced by the potential for crystallization. Specif mine the properties of streams of the absorption system, while the
ically, Tgen and Tabs define the concentration of the solution, which in present study employed EES using its integrated thermodynamic library
turn determines the feasible workable range. To support the assumption for solutions. Furthermore, advanced vapor compression systems used in
of a feasible workable range, thorough research and review on several LTC were also modelled and validated against existing studies.
existing studies has been conducted including Modi et al. [73], Talbi Fig. 7 displays validation of the Ejector expansion VCR system model
et al. [74], Razmi et al. [75]. The Tcond and Tabs have been varied from with the study performed by Li et al. [21] with R1234yf as working fluid.
25 ◦ C to 35 ◦ C to reflect the realistic operating conditions of the system. The operating conditions of the simulation are: TCondenser = 50 ◦ C,
TEvaporator = 5 ◦ C, ηmn = ηsn = ηd = 0.85, and ηms = 0.95. The illustration
4. Model validation demonstrates that the ejector-enhanced compression refrigeration cycle
has been accurately modeled.
Given the novelty of the proposed cycle, it is not feasible to validate it Ejector enhanced vapor injection refrigeration system has been
against any existing literature. However, mathematical models of the validated against the study performed by Wang et al. [26] for R22,
sub-systems of the proposed systems can be reviewed, validated and R290and R32 as refrigerants. Fig. 8 shows corresponding comparison of
compared with previous individual studies. These sub-systems include COP between the reference and present model respectively. The oper
single effect ARC, ejector-based VCR systems and conventional cascade ating conditions for this comparison are: TCondenser = 50 ◦ C, TEvaporator =
Table 6
Validation for compression absorption refrigeration cycle (CARC) [53].
Parameters LiBr-H2O/R134a Relative difference (%) NH3-H2O/R134a Relative difference (%)
Present Work Ref. [53] Present Work Ref. [53]
Generator load, Q̇gen (kW) 76.45 76.41 0.01 117.86 118.47 0.51
Absorber load, Q̇abs (kW) 72.76 72.72 0.01 109.24 109.70 0.42
Condenser load, Q̇cond (kW) 61.06 61.02 0.01 66 65.81 0.28
Cascade heat exchanger, Q̇CHX (kW) 57.41 57.40 0.01 57.41 57.40 0.01
COPcycle 0.590 0.591 0.01 0.396 0.393 0.75
11
Table 7
Model validation for conventional single effect ARC.
Parameters Present Work (LiBr/ Ref. [73] Present Work (NH3/ Ref. [76] Relative difference with Relative difference with
H2O) (LiBr/ H2O) (NH3/ [73] (%) [76] (%)
H2O) H2O)
Generator Input, Q̇Genarator (kW) 3092 3092 17.07 16.75 0.00 1.78
Absorber Heat Rejection, Q̇Absorber 2941 2942 15.64 15.34 0.03 1.88
(kW)
Condenser Heat Rejection, 2505 2505 11.46 11.44 0.00 0.18
Q̇Condenser (kW)
Evaporator load, Q̇Evaporator (kW) 2355 2355 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00
Table 8
Uncertainties in measurements associated with instruments employed for
acquiring experimental outcomes.
Instrument Description/ Accuracy Range
location
Air-side capacity
Type-T welded Air Higher than 0.5 ◦ C 200 ◦ C–200 ◦ C
thermocouple wire temperatures and 0.4 % reading
above 0 ◦ C
Differential Across evap 0.25 % Full scale 0–1246 Pa
pressure transducer nozzle
Across gc 0.25 % Full scale 1246 Pa
nozzle/evap
Ambient-gc in/ 0.25 % Full scale 0–3738 Pa
evap in
Capacitive Relative 1 % RH absolute 0.2–100 % RH
humidity probe humidities
Refrigerant-side capacity
Fig. 7. Validation and assessment of ejector refrigeration cycle employed in
Type-T Refrigerant Greater than 0.5C 200C–220C
ECAC with reference study [21].
thermocouple temperatures and 0.4 % reading
immersion probe above 0C
Absolute pressure High-side 0.50 % Full scale 0–20.7 MPa
transducer pressures
Evap out/ejec 0.10 % Full scale 0–6.9 MPa
diff out
Differential Ejec pressure lift 0.10 % Full scale 690 kPa
pressure transducer Across evap 0.25 % Full scale 345 kPa
Coriolis-type mass Mass flow rate 0.2 % Reading 0–0.333 kg s1
flow meter gc/evap
COP
Watt transducer Electric 0.2 % Reading 0–12 kW
compressor
power
wind tunnels, with the refrigeration system installed within the ducts.
The ejector is equipped with a systematic control unit, ensuring precise
operation and control throughout the experiment.
Experimental rig employed for R744 ejector in the study is shown in
Fig. 9.
Furthermore, the control system is composed of different sensors and
actuators. Below is an overview of the precision of the instruments used
Fig. 8. Validation and assessment of ejector enhanced injection cycle employed
for taking the experimental measurements to provide proof of precision
in EICAC with reference study [26].
and reliability of the experiment, as shown in Table 8
The entrainment ratio obtained from various experimental condi
5 to − 35 ◦ C, ΔTsub-cool = 5 ◦ C, ηnozzle = 0.9, ηmixer = 0.85, ηdiffuser = 0.8
tions in this study is compared to our numerical ejector model based on
and ηs = 0.75. During this validation, the maximum error was less than
Li et al.’s approach. The numerical model is developed in EES using
1.0 %.
equations based on 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics. The results in
The ejector is a key component in both proposed models, serving the
Table 9 indicate that the numerical model more accurately represents
important function of recovering energy losses during the expansion
the ejector’s experimental model with a 5◦ diffuser angle.
process and thereby increasing system efficiency. In order to ensure that
the proposed models are accurate and reliable, it is necessary to validate
5. Result and discussion
the performance of ejector against experimental data. A study conducted
by Elbel et al. [77] is used as a benchmark for this purpose, and the
After verification of the thermodynamic model, the comparative
results are presented in Table 9. The study focuses on investigating the
thermal analysis of the proposed ECAC and EICAC systems was carried
impact of geometric parameters on ejector performance and uses R744
out against the conventional CARC system. The assessment was based on
as the working fluid. The experimental rig comprises two closed-loop
12
Table 9
Validation of ejector model with experimental study [77].
Diffuser Angle, αdiff Pmn (MPa) Tmn, (◦ C) Psn, (MPa) xsn, msuction Pdiffuser
in Entrainment ratio,w = Suction pressure ratio,π =
mmotive Psuction
Reference work [77] Numerical model Reference work [77] Numerical model
5◦ 9.33 37.2 3.68 0.98 0.50 0.54 1.095 1.174

9.66 35.2 3.57 0.95 0.54 0.57 1.072 1.155
10◦ 9.38 37.2 3.73 0.99 0.47 0.56 1.094 1.169
9.52 37.2 3.65 0.95 0.50 0.57 1.078 1.156
15◦ 9.38 37.6 3.77 0.98 0.46 0.55 1.071 1.176
9.72 36.1 3.73 0.96 0.54 0.62 1.021 1.47
Fig. 9. Experimental rig employed for R744 ejector performance study by Elbel et al. [77].
13
Table 10 Table 12
Thermodynamic state properties of ECAC for R41-LiBr/H2O solution at Tgen = Comparison of performance between proposed system and conventional system
75 ◦ C, Tevp = − 30 ◦ C, Tabs = 30 ◦ C, Tcond = 30 ◦ C, and ΔTCHX = 5 ◦ C. at Tgen = 75 ◦ C, Tevp = − 30 ◦ C, Tabs = 30 ◦ C, Tcond = 30 ◦ C, and ΔTCHX = 5 ◦ C.
1
State T (◦ C) P (kPa) h (kJ s (kJ kg− x (%) ṁ(kg s− 1) Component Conventional System Proposed system
Point kg− 1) K− 1)
CARC ECAC EICAC
1 75 4.247 2641 8.714 – 0.005005
Generator, Q̇gen (kW) 15.13 14.85 13.89
2 30 4.247 125.7 0.4368 – 0.005005
3 5 0.8725 52.51 0.1895 – 0.005005 Condenser, Q̇cond (kW) 13.18 12.89 12.19
4 5 0.8725 2510 9.025 – 0.005005 Evaporator, Q̇evp (kW) 10 10 10
5 30 0.8725 66.62 0.1944 0.5257 0.03756 Absorber, Q̇abs (kW) 14.56 14.36 13.62
6 30 4.247 66.62 0.1944 0.5257 0.03756 Compressor, Ẇcomp (kW) 2.689 2.499 1.93
7 65.1 4.247 132.8 0.4261 0.5257 0.03756 2.45 2.09 1.716
Exergy destruction, ĖD,total (kW)
8 75 4.247 188.1 0.421 0.6066 0.03255
Coefficient of performance, COP 0.5688 0.595 0.6319
9 34.5 4.247 111.7 0.1875 0.6066 0.03255
Exergetic efficiency,ηII 0.4804 0.5206 0.5687
10 34.5 0.8725 111.7 0.1875 0.6066 0.03255
11 12.5 4.247 52.51 0.1879 – 0.005005
12 29 0.8725 2583 9.271 – 0.005005
13 50.27 2666 606.7 2.416 – 0.0324 5.1. Thermodynamic performance analysis
14 10 2666 227.1 1.093 – 0.0324
15 − 31.27 783.5 218.1 1.1 – 0.0324 Proposed models are simulated using an in-house EES-developed
16 − 31.27 783.5 356.3 1.671 – 0.05739 program. R41-LiBr/H2O has been considered as the refrigerant pair for
17 − 26.97 907 361.2 1.674 0.05739
thermal performance evaluation and comparison. The availability and
–
18 − 26.97 907 135.1 0.7553 – 0.02499
19 − 30 818.5 135.1 0.756 – 0.02499 environmentally favourable qualities are the driving factors for the
20 − 30 818.5 535.2 2.402 – 0.02499 choice. R41 has a lower boiling point temperature (− 78.2 ◦ C), nil ODP,
20′ − 31.27 783.5 533.3 2.403 – 0.02499 and an extremely low GWP (around 97) [61]. Because of this, it is
21 − 26.97 907 535.7 2.383 0.0324
–
extremely suitable for use in LTC. Also, for its superior performance in
low-temperature applications, existing literature also encourages its use
[60,61]. As an illustration, the thermodynamic state parameters of the
Table 11 proposed novel cascade compression-adsorption refrigeration cycles are
Thermodynamic state properties of EICAC for R41-LiBr/H2O solution at Tgen = provided as an example in Table 10 and Table 11 for ECAC and EICAC,
75 ◦ C, Tevp = − 30 ◦ C, Tabs = 30 ◦ C, Tcond = 30 ◦ C, and ΔTCHX = 5 ◦ C.
respectively.
1
State T (◦ C) P (kPa) h (kJ s (kJ kg− x (%) ṁ(kg s− 1)
Point kg− 1) K− 1) 5.1.1. Comparison between proposed and conventional system
1 75 4.247 2641 8.714 – 0.004845 Furthermore, the performance comparative analysis between the
2 30 4.247 125.7 0.4368 – 0.004845 proposed systems (ECAC and EICAC) and conventional system (CARC)
3 5 0.8725 52.51 0.1895 0.004845
has been carried out at a specific working condition of Tgen = 75 ◦ C, Tevp
–
4 5 0.8725 2510 9.025 – 0.004845
5 30 0.8725 66.62 0.1944 0.5257 0.03636 = − 30 ◦ C, Tabs = 30 ◦ C, Tcond = 30 ◦ C, and ΔTCHX = 5 ◦ C. The result is
6 30 4.247 66.62 0.1944 0.5257 0.03636 displayed in Table 12. It has been discovered that ECAC improves per
7 65.1 4.247 132.8 0.4261 0.5257 0.03636 formance by 4.6 %, while EICAC improves performance by nearly 18 %
8 75 4.247 188.1 0.421 0.6066 0.03151 over traditional compression absorption systems.
9 34.5 4.247 111.7 0.1875 0.6066 0.03151
10 34.5 0.8725 111.7 0.1875 0.6066 0.03151
11 12.5 4.247 52.51 0.1879 – 0.004845 5.1.2. Effect of pressure drop across ejector nozzle on the system
12 29 0.8725 2583 9.271 – 0.004845 performance
13 44.76 2666 597.6 2.399 – 0.031 Performance and operation of both cascade systems equipped with
14 10 2666 227.1 1.093 0.031
–
ejector is controlled by the pressure drop of the refrigerant after accel
15 − 13.91 1345 210.2 1.098 – 0.031
16 − 13.91 1345 215.8 1.568 – 0.03143 erating through motive and suction nozzle. For a definite working
17 − 11.51 1477 217.1 1.57 – 0.03143 condition an optimal value of pressure drop can be found by continuous
18 − 11.51 1477 536 2.289 – 0.003937 iteration of the model for maximum system performance. Fig. 10 depicts
19 − 11.51 1477 171.4 0.8956 – 0.02749 the impact of pressure drop over COP. For ECAC, COP augments with
20 − 13.91 1375 171.4 0.8962 – 0.02749
21 − 13.91 1375 536.3 2.303 – 0.0006726
increasing pressure drop up to an optimal value obtained near 35 kPa.
21′ − 13.91 1345 535.2 2.307 – 0.0006726 Increasing pressure drop further, results in a gradual decrement of COP.
22 − 13.91 1375 165.6 0.8738 – 0.02706 For EICAC, the gradual increment is less steep with pressure drop in
23 − 30 818.5 165.6 0.8818 – 0.02706 crease. The optimal value of COP can be found near 80 kPa, after which
24 − 30 818.5 535.2 2.402 0.02706
–
further increment of pressure drop has minimal effect on COP.
25 5.907 1477 566.7 2.413 – 0.02706
26 3.506 1477 562.8 2.387 – 0.031 Furthermore, For ECAC, the COP changes on a scale of approximately
0.005 as pressure drop in suction nozzle increases from 0 to 120 kPa. In
contrast, the COP changes for EICAC are on a scale of 0.001, which is five
various performance metrics, such as COP, generator input load (Q̇gen ), times smaller than that of ECAC. The impact of pressure drop is more
compressor input load (Ẇcomp ), exergetic efficiency (ηII ), and total prominent for ECAC with a change of COP 0.0001428 per kPa increase
exergy destruction (ĖD,total ). Four working parameters are taken as of pressure drop before reaching the maximum COP. Whereas for EICAC,
controllable variables, as such: condenser temperature (Tcond), generator the change is 0.0000125 per kPa pressure drop increase. Hence it is
temperature (Tgen), absorber temperature (Tabs), and evaporator tem found that pressure drop has minimal impact on EICAC.
perature (Tevp). Afterwards, a refrigerant analysis is conducted for the The change of COP can be further demonstrated by Fig. 11(a), which
proposed novel cascade systems to evaluate the suitable pairs for oper describes the change of entrainment Ratio, ER with the pressure drop.
ation in different working conditions. The effect of ER on COP is due to the change of m˙evaporator with the change
of pressure drop for the same range. For ECAC, with pressure drop
increasing, ER varies in the same manner as COP. Because with ER
increasing m˙suction = m˙20 = m˙ evaporator = m˙19 increases, which results in
14
Fig. 10. The impact of ΔP on COP at Tcond = 35 ◦ C, Tabs = 35 ◦ C, Tevp = − 30 ◦ C, Tgen = 75 ◦ C.
Fig. 11. The impact of ΔP on (a) Entrainment ratio (ER) and (b) mevaporator at Tcond = 35 ◦ C, Tabs = 35 ◦ C, Tevp = − 30 ◦ C, Tgen = 75 ◦ C.
higher cooling load as well as higher coefficient of performance. The with Tevp increasing, pressure ratio as well as required compressor input
relationship between COP, ER and m˙evaporator is linear; for this reason in LTC decreases as a result COPLTC increases. As illustrated in Fig. 12(a),
their behaviour with pressure drop increasing depicts similar pattern. COPLTC increases significantly for higher evaporator temperatures, with
But for EICAC, with pressure drop increasing, the entrainment ratio the LTC of EICAC and ECAC maintaining approximately 15 % and 5 %
decreases until a minimum value is attained. Decrement of ER results in higher COP compared to the conventional CARC.
decrement of m˙ suction = m˙21. Which in terms results in an increment of Similarly, when Tgen changes, COPHTC varies with the varying
m˙evp = m˙23 (because ṁsuction = 1−x20x20 mevap ) as described in Fig. 11(b). The generator load, but COPLTC remains unchanged due to the fixed pressure
higher m˙evp results in the enhancement of cooling load as well as COP. ratio across LTC (as Tevp is fixed at − 30 ◦ C). COPLTC of the proposed
So, COP is proportional to m˙evp; for this reason, their behaviour with systems keeps around the same enhancement as stated before.
pressure drop increasing depicts a similar pattern. But both are inversely Regarding COPHTC, both HTC-ARC systems exhibit very low, nearly
proportional to ER, for this reason the pattern is reversed in this case. identical COP at lower Tgen as shown in Fig. 12(b). However, as Tgen
increases, COPHTC rises rapidly within the range of Tgen = 75 ◦ C. Upon
5.1.3. System sub-cycle performance analysis reaching the optimal value, COPHTC decreases, but at a slower rate. Over
Before conducting a comprehensive analysis of the system perfor this range of Tgen, the modified ARC maintains a roughly 5 % perfor
mance, the impact of working conditions on the subsystems is evaluated mance enhancement compared to the conventional ARC.
at first. In this context, COPLTC is associated with the compressor load,
while COPHTC is concerned with the generator load only. In this analysis, 5.1.4. Impact of operating conditions on system performance
TevpHTC is fixed at 5 ◦ C with ΔTCHX = 5 ◦ C. So with increasing Tevp, To facilitate additional analysis and comparison across various
pressure ratio in the HTC remains the same (as Tgen is fixed at 75 ◦ C). As a working conditions, the COP is optimized with respect to the pressure
result, COPHTC of the systems remains constant with Tevp change. But drop of ejector during each simulation. Fig. 13 is shown to demonstrate
15
Fig. 12. The effect of (a) evaporator temperature and (b) generator temperature on COPLTC and COPHTC at Tcond = 35 ◦ C, Tabs = 35 ◦ C, ΔTCHX = 5 ◦ C, TevpHTC = 5 ◦ C.
(a) ECAC (b) EICAC

Fig. 13. The impact of Tgen and evaporator temperature on COP at Tcond = 35 ◦ C, Tabs = 35 ◦ C.
that the effective performance of the suggested refrigeration systems is EICAC system. For a detailed analysis, the effect of each operating
significantly influenced by Tgen and Tevp. Under similar operational cir parameter is analyzed separately while taking other variables as con
cumstances, EICAC exhibits a greater COP than ECAC. With Tevp stant. This analysis provides an in-depth analysis with a plausible
increasing, the COP of both ECAC and EICAC increases. However, operating range and limiting factors for swift operation of the system.
increment rate intensifies more at lower Tgen. The COP variation relating Fig. 15(a) is presented to illustrate the comparison of performance of
to the Tgen exhibits a comparable pattern for varying constant evaporator the cascade refrigeration systems based upon the impact of generator
temperatures. System COP experiences a rapid increase in response to temperature. As the Tgen rises, the system COP experiences a rapid in
increasing Tgen, within the lower range of approximately 70 ◦ C to 77 ◦ C. crease for lower generator temperatures (approximately within the
reaching a specific optimal value, the change in COP with Tgen becomes range of 70 ◦ C to 77 ◦ C). Upon reaching a specific optimal Tgen, the rate
negligible. It has been found that, EICAC reaches the optimal condition of COP change diminishes to a minimal level. It has been found that,
at a slightly higher evaporator temperature than ECAC and CARC. EICAC reaches the optimal condition slightly later (near 77 ◦ C generator
Fig. 14 illustrates the impact of operating circumstances on the 2nd temperature) than ECAC and CARC. EICAC and ECAC also maintains an
law efficiency of the proposed systems. EICAC displays a significant enhancement of system COP of 19.83 % and 5.66 % respectively after
enhancement of exergy efficiency for similar operating conditions. It can reaching the optimal condition over CARC.
be found that with evaporator temperature increasing, exergy efficiency The above stated behaviour of the COP curve can be clearly
increases. Also, EICAC shows higher increament rate at lower evapo explained in Fig. 15(b). EICAC rejects higher heat through cascade heat
rator temperature than ECAC. For a fixed Tevp, the exergy efficiency exchanger, resulting in lower mass flow rate of LiBr/H2O circulating the
increases with the increment of Tgen in the range of 70 ◦ C to 77 ◦ C. But absorption sub cycle. Which in terms decrease the generator load hence
after reaching an optimal condition, it decreases gradually with Tgen results in higher COP than ECAC and conventional CARC. With Tgen
increasing. The figure demonstrates that optimal generator temperature increasing from 70 ◦ C to 77 ◦ C, the generator load decreases rapidly. But
increases with the Tevp increasing and the rate is slightly higher for after reaching the minimum load, the change with evaporator
16
(a) ECAC (b) EICAC

Fig. 14. The impact of Tgen and evaporator temperature on Exergy Efficiency at Tcond = 35 ◦ C, Tabs = 35 ◦ C.
Fig. 15. The effect of Tgen on (a) COP of the proposed system and (b) Total input power at Tcond = 35 ◦ C, Tabs = 35 ◦ C, Tevp = − 30 ◦ C.
Fig. 16. The effect of Tgen on (a) exergetic efficiency and (b) ĖD,total at Tcond = 35 ◦ C, Tabs = 35 ◦ C, Tevp = − 30 ◦ C.
17
Fig. 17. The effect of Tevp on (a) COP and (b) Entrainment ratio (ER) at Tcond = 35 ◦ C, Tabs = 35 ◦ C, Tgen = 75 ◦ C.
Fig. 18. The influence of Tevp on ĖD,total and Ėx,in at Tcond = 35 ◦ C, Tabs = 35 ◦ C, Tgen = 75 ◦ C.
temperature increasing is minimal resulting in minimal change of COP generator significantly affects the system. This leads to higher exergy
as described in Fig. 15(a). EICAC and ECAC requires around 19.87 and destruction rates at generator, condenser, and absorber resulting in
5.41 % lesser generator load than CARC respectively for the same rapid increase of total exergy destruction rate as depicted in Fig. 16(b).
evaporator temperature. This leads to a significant reduction of exergy efficiency with increasing
Fig. 16(a) depicts the exergetic perspective of the impact of generator Tgen. To maintain optimal performance, it is crucial to keep the Tgen
temperature. The optimal temperature for attaining maximum exergy within the range of 73 ◦ C to 75 ◦ C.
efficiency is approximately 73 ◦ C. The EICAC and ECAC exhibit superior Fig. 17(a) illustrates the influence of Tevp on system COP. As Tevp
exergy efficiency of 21.47 % and 10.66 % respectively, in comparison to increases, the required compressor load for a fixed cooling effect de
the conventional CARC. While the system’s energy performance may creases, resulting in a linear increase in COP. EICAC and ECAC maintains
exhibit minimal changes beyond the optimal value, the exergetic effi an enhancement of system COP of around 13 % and 8 % respectively
ciency experiences a significant decrease once the optimum condition is over conventional CARC for different evaporator temperatures. This
reached. At Tgen below 73 ◦ C, the rate of decrease is notably steep, phenomenon can be further explained by Fig. 17(b) which shows the
leading to a limiting operational state of the system. The observational impact of Tevp on ER. For EICAC, with Tevp increasing mevp increases,
evidence suggests that the exergy efficiency is more susceptible to resulting in lower msuction hence lower ER. But for ECAC, with Tevp
fluctuations in generator temperature as opposed to variations in the increasing mevp = msuction increases resulting in higher ER.
system COP. However, the exergetic efficiency falls in contrast to the aforemen
As Tgen increases, the refrigeration potential of the system also im tioned patterns with Tevp increasing as shown in Fig. 19. Total exergy
proves, resulting in a rapid intensification in exergy efficiency. How destruction doesn’t increase, rather it also decreases with Tevp increasing
ever, when the optimal limit of the generator temperature is reached, as shown in Fig. 18 (a). With the Tevp increasing, the refrigerant’s heat
the increase in the amount of refrigerant vapor produced at the absorbtion capacity for vaporization decreases, reducing the system’s
18
Fig. 19. The influence of Tevp on exergetic efficiency at Tcond = 35 ◦ C, Tabs = Fig. 21. The effect of Tcond on exergy efficiency at Tevp = − 30 ◦ C, Tabs = 35 ◦ C,
35 ◦ C, Tgen = 75 ◦ C. Tgen = 75 ◦ C, and TevpHTC = 5 ◦ C.
high-pressure ratio across the LTC, leading to greater differences in

exergy input, exergy destruction, and exergy efficiency of the compared
systems. However, at higher evaporator temperatures, the effect is
insignificant due to lower pressure ratio, causing the performance of the
systems to be nearly the same. So, through the analysis, it has been
found that, although with increasing Tevp, the COP of all the systems
increases linearly at a near similar rate but the exergy efficiency de
creases at a different rate.
Fig. 20 and Fig. 21 demonstrate the influence of Tcond on system
performance. As Tcond increases, the corresponding input loads also in
creases, leading to a lessening in system COP. The increased Tcond leads
to a reduction in heat rejection, causing a decline in the system’s utili
zation of potential energy. This, in turn, consequences in an increase in
exergy destruction and a reduction in exergetic efficiency. The system
COP and exergy efficiency decline linearly as the condenser temperature
decreases below 34 ◦ C. However, when the Tcond exceeds this limit, the
system’s performance experiences a sharp decline, resulting in limiting
operating conditions. In the safe range of condenser temperature, EICAC
and ECAC maintain an enhancement of COP of around 13 % and 4.6 %
Fig. 20. The effect of Tcond on COP at Tevp = − 30 ◦ C, Tabs = 35 ◦ C, Tgen = 75 ◦ C. respectively over conventional CARC at Tevp = − 30 ◦ C, Tabs = 35 ◦ C, Tgen
= 75 ◦ C.
potential to extract heat. As a result, the exergy destruction across each
component as well as total exergy destruction rate decreases with Tevp 5.2. Exergy analysis of the proposed systems
increasing as shown in Fig. 18(a).
Again, lower heat absorption capacity in evaporator, results in lower Subsequently, an elaborate exergy analysis of the proposed systems
QCHX, which ultimately results in lower requirement of generator input was performed under the following conditions: Tgen = 75 ◦ C, Tevp =
exergy. From Fig. 18(b), it can be seen that input generator exergy de − 30 ◦ C, Tabs = 30 ◦ C, Tcond = 30 ◦ C, and ΔTCHX = 5 ◦ C. In this context,
creases near linearly with Tevp increasing. But the required input Fig. 22 and Fig. 23 illustrates exergy flow diagram with corresponding
compressor exergy rate decreases at a higher rate due to significant component exergy destruction rate and percentage. The negligible
decrease of pressure ratio in LTC. So ultimately total input rate of exergy amount of ĖD in the flash tank, mixing chamber, and solution pump is
decreases at a higher rate than total exergy destruction. This eventually disregarded. Evidently, the most significant exergy loss occurs at the
results in the reduction of exergy efficiency as depicted in equation: generator, due to irreversibilities involved in high heat exchange be
tween heat source and solution refrigerant. Whereas the least occurs at
Ėxp ĖxD
ηex = = 1− the solution heat exchanger. The EICAC exhibits a lower total exergy
Ėxf Ėxf destruction rate than ECAC for the same output, hence has near 9 %
This phenomenon is observed in Fig. 19, where it is observed that, improved exergy efficiency. For both systems, the total destruction of
exergy efficiency declines with evaporator temperature increasing even exergy rate is nearly identical. Although due to double-stage compres
though total exergy destruction is decreasing. However, the decremental sion, the EICAC has a relative lower loss in compressor and generator.
rate is not the same for all the systems. For Tevp = − 35 ◦ C, EICAC and The system has also sustained considerable exergy loss from the
ECAC show exergy efficiency enhancement of around 23 % and 11 % condenser and the absorber.
respectively over conventional CARC, whereas for higher evaporator
temperature of Tevp = − 5 ◦ C, this increment reduces to 12.5 % and 7 % 5.3. Refrigerant analysis
respectively. This can be ascribed to the fact that, at lower Tevp, there is a
Finally, the assessment of the ECAC and EICAC is evaluated with
19
Fig. 22. Exergy flow rate with associated component exergy destruction rate of the ECAC at Tgen = 75 ◦ C, Tevp = − 30 ◦ C, Tabs = 30 ◦ C, Tcond = 30 ◦ C, and ΔTCHX
= 5 ◦ C.
Fig. 23. Exergy flow rate with associated component exergy destruction rate of the EICAC at Tgen = 75 ◦ C, Tevp = − 30 ◦ C, Tabs = 30 ◦ C, Tcond = 30 ◦ C, and ΔTCHX
= 5 ◦ C.
varying refrigerants to determine the most suitable refrigerant for refrigerants were chosen for LTC comparison based on their eco-
operation with optimal safety and environmental impact. The HTC re friendliness and high thermodynamic performance. The evaluation of
frigerants were restricted to LiBr/H2O and NH3/H2O, whereas a set of the systems was conducted through energetic and exergetic analyses to
20
Table 13 documented in Table 13. This comprehensive evaluation provides in

Optimum Δp for different refrigerant pairs in ECAC and EICAC. sights that can be utilized to optimize the selection of refrigerants and
Refrigerant Δp (kPa) Refrigerant Δp (kPa) enhance the overall efficiency of the systems.
Furthermore, the effect of utilizing various refrigerant combinations
ECAC EICAC ECAC EICAC
on the assessment of ECAC and EICAC is presented in graphical format in
R1234ze 45 78 R41 55 101 Fig. 24 and Fig. 25. It has been observed that, the LiBr/H2O demon
R161 52 90 R744 33 77
R717 47 80 R1270 67 93
strates dominance as HTC refrigerant over both COP and exergy effi
R170 63 92 R290 58 85 ciency. Because water being the refrigerant on LiBr/H2O solution, it’s
superior latent heat of evaporation makes it able to generate higher rates
of refrigeration. Furthermore, LiBr/H2O also has the advantage of being
identify the optimum value of pressure drop (Δp) for both ECAC and non-toxic and non-flammable. The comparison also exhibits that R161,
EICAC, with variations being observed depending on the refrigerant R290 and R1270 have achieved better performance for both ECAC and
pairs used under similar input conditions (Tgen = 75 ◦ C, Tevp = − 30 ◦ C, EICAC from energetic and exergy perspective as LTC refrigerant.
Tabs = 30 ◦ C, Tcond = 30 ◦ C, and ΔTCHX = 5 ◦ C). The variations in the
values of pressure drop for different refrigerant pairs have been
Fig 24. Energy analysis of various refrigerant pairs on the proposed systems based on COP.
Fig 25. Exergy analysis of different refrigerant pairs on the proposed systems based on exergy efficiency.
21
6. Conclusion [4] Hosseini SE, Wahid MA. Hydrogen production from renewable and sustainable
energy resources: promising green energy carrier for clean development. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2016;57:850–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.112.
The present work portrays a comprehensive investigation of the [5] Bista S, Hosseini SE, Owens E, Phillips G. Performance improvement and energy
assessment of two novel refrigeration systems, namely ECAC and EICAC, consumption reduction in refrigeration systems using phase change material
and a comparison with a conventional system. The optimal operating (PCM). Appl Therm Eng 2018;142:723–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2018.07.068.
conditions for performance enhancement are determined based on a [6] Park C, Lee H, Hwang Y, Radermacher R. Recent advances in vapor compression
systematic analysis of ejector parameters and the influence of various cycle technologies. Int J Refrig 2015;60:118–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
types of environmentally friendly refrigerants. The conclusion of the ijrefrig.2015.08.005.
[7] Kilicarslan A, Hosoz M. Energy and irreversibility analysis of a cascade
comprehensive theoretical thermodynamic analysis and refrigerant refrigeration system for various refrigerant couples. Energy Convers Manag 2010;
investigation is as follows:: 51(12):2947–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.06.037.
[8] Johnson N, Baltrusaitis J, Luyben WL. Design and control of a cryogenic multi-
stage compression refrigeration process. Chem Eng Res Des 2017;121:360–7.
• The results indicate that both ECAC and EICAC systems can achieve https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2017.03.018.
near 15 % and 6 % higher COP, respectively, compared to the [9] Dopazo JA, Fernández-Seara J. Experimental evaluation of a cascade refrigeration
traditional system when exploiting the R41-LiBr/H2O refrigerant system prototype with CO2 and NH3 for freezing process applications. Int J Refrig
2011;34(1):257–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJREFRIG.2010.07.010.
pair under different working conditions. [10] Walid Faruque M, Hafiz Nabil M, Raihan Uddin M, Monjurul Ehsan M, Salehin S.
• The peak exergetic performance can be accomplished at approxi Thermodynamic assessment of a triple cascade refrigeration system utilizing
mately 73 ◦ C, with the EICAC and ECAC demonstrating an exergy hydrocarbon refrigerants for ultra-low temperature applications. Energy Convers
Manage X 2022;14:100207. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECMX.2022.100207.
efficiency increase of around 20 % and 10 %, respectively, in com
[11] Walid Faruque Md, Khan Y, Hafiz Nabil M, Monjurul Ehsan M, Karim A. Thermal
parison with CARC system. While the system’s energy performance performance evaluation of a novel ejector-injection cascade refrigeration system.
may exhibit only minimal changes beyond the optimal value, the Therm Sci Eng Prog 2023;39:101745.
exergetic perspective reveals a significant decrease in exergy effi [12] Nasution DM, Idris M, Pambudi NA, Weriono. Room air conditioning performance
using liquid-suction heat exchanger retrofitted with R290. Case Stud Therm Eng
ciency once the optimum condition has been reached. At tempera 2019;13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2018.11.001.
tures below 73 ◦ C, the rate of decrease is notably steep, leading to a [13] Mota-Babiloni A, Navarro-Esbrí J, Pascual-Miralles V, Barragán-Cervera Á,
constraining operational state. This suggests that generator temper Maiorino A. Experimental influence of an internal heat exchanger (IHX) using
R513A and R134a in a vapor compression system. Appl Therm Eng 2019;147:
ature has a more significant impact on exergetic efficiency than on 482–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.10.092.
COP. [14] Domanski PA, Didion DA, Doyle JP. Evaluation of suction-line/liquid-line heat
• Although system COP of all systems increases linearly with exchange in the refrigeration cycle. Int J Refrig 1994;17(7):487–93. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0140-7007(94)90010-8.
increasing Tevp at a near similar rate, the exergy efficiency decreases [15] d’Angelo JVH, Aute V, Radermacher R. Performance evaluation of a vapor
at different rates. Hence, from an exergetic perspective, the absorp injection refrigeration system using mixture refrigerant R290/R600a. Int J Refrig
tion cycle demonstrates greater effectiveness in low-temperature 2016;65:194–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2016.01.019.
[16] Wang J, Qv D, Yao Y, Ni L. The difference between vapor injection cycle with flash
applications. The EICAC system exhibits a lower total exergy tank and intermediate heat exchanger for air source heat pump: an experimental
destruction rate than the ECAC system, leading to a near 9 % and theoretical study. Energy 2021;221:119796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
improved exergy efficiency. energy.2021.119796.
[17] Murthy AA, Subiantoro A, Norris S, Fukuta M. A review on expanders and their
• Finally, the study found that the LiBr/H2O refrigerant pair demon
performance in vapour compression refrigeration systems. Int J Refrig 2019;106:
strates superior performance as a high-temperature refrigerant, 427–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2019.06.019.
while R161, R290, and R1270 exhibit better performance as low- [18] She X, Yin Y, Zhang X. A proposed subcooling method for vapor compression
temperature refrigerants for both ECAC and EICAC from both ener refrigeration cycle based on expansion power recovery. Int J Refrig 2014;43:
50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2014.03.008.
getic and exergy perspectives. [19] Kornhauser AA. The use of an ejector in a geothermal flash system, In: Proceedings
of the intersociety energy conversion engineering conference, 1990;5:79–84. doi:
10.1109/iecec.1990.747930.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
[20] Sarkar J, Bhattacharyya S. Application of graphene and graphene-based materials
in clean energy-related devices Minghui. Arch Thermodyn 2012;33(4):23–40.
Yasin Khan: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, https://doi.org/10.1002/er.
[21] Li H, Cao F, Bu X, Wang L, Wang X. Performance characteristics of R1234yf ejector-
Writing – original draft. Md Walid Faruque: Conceptualization,
expansion refrigeration cycle. Appl Energy 2014;121:96–103. https://doi.org/
Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. Mahdi Hafiz 10.1016/J.APENERGY.2014.01.079.
Nabil: Methodology, Writing – original draft. M. Monjurul Ehsan: [22] Zhang Z, Feng X, Tian D, Yang J, Chang L. Progress in ejector-expansion vapor
Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision, Writing – review & compression refrigeration and heat pump systems. Energy Convers Manag 2020;
207:112529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112529.
editing. [23] Nehdi E, Kairouani L, Bouzaina M. Performance analysis of the vapour compression
cycle using ejector as an expander. Int J Energy Res 2007;31(4):364–75. https://
doi.org/10.1002/er.1260.
Declaration of Competing Interest [24] Wang F, Li DY, Zhou Y. Analysis for the ejector used as expansion valve in vapor
compression refrigeration cycle. Appl Therm Eng 2016;96:576–82. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.11.095.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial [25] Liu F, Groll EA, Ren J. Comprehensive experimental performance analyses of an
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence ejector expansion transcritical CO2 system. Appl Therm Eng 2016;98:1061–9.
the work reported in this paper. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.12.017.
[26] Wang X, Yu J, Xing M. Performance analysis of a new ejector enhanced vapor
injection heat pump cycle. Energy Convers Manag 2015;100:242–8. https://doi.
Data availability org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.05.017.
[27] 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.
Data will be made available on request.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2015.04.010.
[28] Yan J, Wen H. Multi-round optimization of an ejector with different mixing
References chamber geometries at various liquid volume fractions of inlet fluids. Appl Therm
Eng 2022;200:117709. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
APPLTHERMALENG.2021.117709.
[1] Bolaji BO, Huan Z. Ozone depletion and global warming: Case for the use of natural
[29] Nikbakhti R, Wang X, Hussein AK, Iranmanesh A. Absorption cooling systems –
refrigerant - a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;18:49–54. https://doi.org/
review of various techniques for energy performance enhancement. Alex Eng J
10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.008.
2020;59(2):707–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2020.01.036.
[2] Kerr RA. Global warming is changing the world. Science 2007;316(5822):188–90.
[30] Cimsit C, Ozturk IT. Analysis of compression-absorption cascade refrigeration
[3] Mota-Babiloni A, Barbosa JR, Makhnatch P, Lozano JA. Assessment of the
cycles. Appl Therm Eng 2012;40:311–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
utilization of equivalent warming impact metrics in refrigeration, air conditioning
applthermaleng.2012.02.035.
and heat pump systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020;129:109929.
22
[31] Srikhirin P, Aphornratana S, Chungpaibulpatana S. A review of absorption [54] Park C, Lee H, Hwang Y, Radermacher R. Recent advances in vapor compression
refrigeration technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2000;5(4):343–72. https:// cycle technologies. Int J Refrig 2015;60:118–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
doi.org/10.1016/S1364-0321(01)00003-X. IJREFRIG.2015.08.005.
[32] Srikhirin P, Aphornratana S, Chungpaibulpatana S. A review of absorption [55] Sun Z, Wang Q, Dai B, Wang M, Xie Z. Options of low Global Warming Potential
refrigeration technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2001;5(4):343–72. https:// refrigerant group for a three-stage cascade refrigeration system. Int J Refrig 2019;
doi.org/10.1016/S1364-0321(01)00003-X. 100:471–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJREFRIG.2018.12.019.
[33] Xu ZY, Wang RZ. Absorption refrigeration cycles: categorized based on the cycle [56] Horuz I. A comparison between ammonia-water and water-lithium bromide
construction. Int J Refrig 2016;62:114–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. solutions in vapor absorption refrigeration systems. Int Commun Heat Mass
IJREFRIG.2015.10.007. Transfer 1998;25(5):711–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1933(98)00058-X.
[34] Kaynakli O, Saka K, Kaynakli F. Energy and exergy analysis of a double effect [57] Kaynakli O, Kilic M. Theoretical study on the effect of operating conditions on
absorption refrigeration system based on different heat sources. Energy Convers performance of absorption refrigeration system. Energy Convers Manag 2007;48
Manag 2015;106:21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.09.010. (2):599–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2006.06.005.
[35] Selvaraj DA, Victor K, Priya SS. Design and performance of solar PV integrated [58] Cengel Y, Boles M, Kanoğlu M. Thermodynamics: an engineering approach. 2011.
domestic vapor absorption refrigeration system. Int J Photoenergy 2021;2021: Accessed: Dec. 01, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.academia.edu/dow
1–10. nload/55284132/Solution_Manual_8th_Ed.pdf.
[36] Said SAM, Spindler K, El-Shaarawi MA, Siddiqui MU, Schmid F, Bierling B, et al. [59] Ghaebi H, Parikhani T, Rostamzadeh H, Farhang B. Thermodynamic and
Design, construction and operation of a solar powered ammonia–water absorption thermoeconomic analysis and optimization of a novel combined cooling and power
refrigeration system in Saudi Arabia. Int J Refrig 2016;62:222–31. (CCP) cycle by integrating of ejector refrigeration and Kalina cycles. Energy 2017;
[37] Tugcu A, Arslan O. Optimization of geothermal energy aided absorption 139:262–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2017.07.154.
refrigeration system—GAARS: a novel ANN-based approach. Geothermics 2017;65: [60] Aktemur C, Ozturk IT, Cimsit C. Comparative energy and exergy analysis of a
210–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2016.10.004. subcritical cascade refrigeration system using low global warming potential
[38] Salmi W, Vanttola J, Elg M, Kuosa M, Lahdelma R. Using waste heat of ship as refrigerants. Appl Therm Eng 2021;184:116254. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
energy source for an absorption refrigeration system. Appl Therm Eng 2017;115: APPLTHERMALENG.2020.116254.
501–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.12.131. [61] Sun Z, Wang Q, Xie Z, Liu S, Su D, Cui Q. Energy and exergy analysis of low GWP
[39] Canbolat AS, Bademlioglu AH, Arslanoglu N, Kaynakli O. Performance refrigerants in cascade refrigeration system. Energy 2019;170:1170–80. https://
optimization of absorption refrigeration systems using Taguchi, ANOVA and Grey doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2018.12.055.
Relational Analysis methods. J Clean Prod 2019;229:874–85. https://doi.org/ [62] Faruque MW, Khan Y, Nabil MH, Ehsan MM. Parametric analysis and optimization
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.020. of a novel cascade compression-absorption refrigeration system integrated with a
[40] Christopher SS, Santosh R, Ponrajan Vikram M, Prabakaran R, Thakur AK, Xu H. flash tank and a reheater. Resul Eng 2023;17:101008. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
Optimization of a solar water heating system for vapor absorption refrigeration RINENG.2023.101008.
system. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 2021;40(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/ [63] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal design and optimization. 1995.
ep.13489. Accessed: Dec. 01, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.com/books?
[41] Maryami R, Dehghan AA. An exergy based comparative study between LiBr/water hl=en&lr=&id=sTi2crXeZYgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Thermal+design+and+
absorption refrigeration systems from half effect to triple effect. Appl Therm Eng optimization&ots=IdahfnBtRd&sig=TfcMiHdnc2J2VfuMYwr2YH3qv8A.
2017;124:103–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.05.174. [64] Avanessian T, Ameri M. Energy, exergy, and economic analysis of single and
[42] Talpada JS, Ramana PV. A review on performance improvement of an absorption double effect LiBr–H2O absorption chillers. Energy Build 2014;73:26–36. https://
refrigeration system by modification of basic cycle. Int J Ambient Energy 2019;40 doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2014.01.013.
(6):661–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/01430750.2017.1423379. [65] Alirahmi SM, Rahmani Dabbagh S, Ahmadi P, Wongwises S. Multi-objective design
[43] Wang K, Abdelaziz O, Kisari P, Vineyard EA. State-of-the-art review on optimization of a multi-generation energy system based on geothermal and solar
crystallization control technologies for water/LiBr absorption heat pumps. Int J energy. Energy Convers Manage 2020;205:112426.
Refrig 2011;34(6):1325–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJREFRIG.2011.04.006. [66] Nami H, Arabkoohsar A. Improving the power share of waste-driven CHP plants via
[44] Sözen A, Özalp M. Performance improvement of absorption refrigeration system parallelization with a small-scale Rankine cycle, a thermodynamic analysis. Energy
using triple-pressure-level. Appl Therm Eng 2003;23(13):1577–93. https://doi. 2019;171:27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2018.12.168.
org/10.1016/S1359-4311(03)00106-6. [67] Colorado-Garrido D. Advanced exergy analysis of a compression-absorption
[45] Kadam ST, Kyriakides A-S, Khan MS, Shehabi M, Papadopoulos AI, Hassan I, et al. cascade refrigeration system. J Energy Resour Technol Trans ASME 2019;141(4).
Thermo-economic and environmental assessment of hybrid vapor compression- doi: 10.1115/1.4042003/368161.
absorption refrigeration systems for district cooling. Energy 2022;243:122991. [68] Sumeru K, Nasution H, Ani FN. A review on two-phase ejector as an expansion
[46] Asensio-Delgado JM, Asensio-Delgado S, Zarca G, Urtiaga A. Analysis of hybrid device in vapor compression refrigeration cycle. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;
compression absorption refrigeration using low-GWP HFC or HFO/ionic liquid 16(7):4927–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2012.04.058.
working pairs. Int J Refrig 2022;134:232–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [69] Sarkar J. Ejector enhanced vapor compression refrigeration and heat pump
ijrefrig.2021.11.013. systems—a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16(9):6647–59. https://doi.
[47] Kairouani L, Nehdi E. Cooling performance and energy saving of a compression- org/10.1016/J.RSER.2012.08.007.
absorption refrigeration system assisted by geothermal energy. Appl Therm Eng [70] Harrell G, Kornhauser A. Performance tests of a two phase ejector. 1995, Accessed:
2006;26(2–3):288–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2005.05.001. Apr. 21, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/170393.
[48] Chen Y, Han W, Jin H. Proposal and analysis of a novel heat-driven [71] Wang X, Yu J, Xing M. Performance analysis of a new ejector enhanced vapor
absorption–compression refrigeration system at low temperatures. Appl Energy injection heat pump cycle. Energy Convers Manag 2015;100:242–8. https://doi.
2017;185:2106–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.12.009. org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2015.05.017.
[49] Han W, Sun L, Zheng D, Jin H, Ma S, Jing X. New hybrid absorption-compression [72] Sözen A, Özalp M. Performance improvement of absorption refrigeration system
refrigeration system based on cascade use of mid-temperature waste heat. Appl using triple-pressure-level. Appl Therm Eng 2003;23(13):1577–93. https://doi.
Energy 2013;106:383–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.01.067. org/10.1016/S1359-4311(03)00106-6.
[50] Yu M, Cui P, Wang Y, Liu Z, Zhu Z, Yang S. Advanced exergy and exergoeconomic [73] Modi B, Mudgal A, Patel B. Energy and exergy investigation of small capacity single
analysis of cascade absorption refrigeration system driven by low-grade waste heat. effect lithium bromide absorption refrigeration system. Energy Procedia 2017;109:
ACS Sustain Chem Eng 2019;7(19):16843–57. https://doi.org/10.1021/ 203–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2017.03.040.
acssuschemeng.9b04396. [74] Talbi MM, Agnew B. Exergy analysis: an absorption refrigerator using lithium
[51] Yang S, Wang Y, Gao J, Zhang Z, Liu Z, Olabi AG. Performance analysis of a novel bromide and water as the working fluids. Appl Therm Eng 2000;20(7):619–30.
cascade absorption refrigeration for low-grade waste heat recovery. ACS Sustain https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-4311(99)00052-6.
Chem Eng 2018;6(7):8350–63. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b00397. [75] Razmi A, Soltani M, M. Kashkooli F, Garousi Farshi L. Energy and exergy analysis
[52] Cimsit C, Ozturk IT, Kincay O. Thermoeconomic optimization of LiBr/H2O-R134a of an environmentally-friendly hybrid absorption/recompression refrigeration
compression-absorption cascade refrigeration cycle. Appl Therm Eng 2015;76: system. Energy Convers Manage 2018;164:59–69.
105–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2014.10.094. [76] Aman J, Ting DSK, Henshaw P. Residential solar air conditioning: Energy and
[53] Cimsit C, Ozturk IT. Analysis of compression–absorption cascade refrigeration exergy analyses of an ammonia–water absorption cooling system. Appl Therm Eng
cycles. Appl Therm Eng 2012;40:311–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. 2014;62(2):424–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2013.10.006.
APPLTHERMALENG.2012.02.035. [77] 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(3):411–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJREFRIG.2007.07.013.
23

BB32 - Ejector and Vapor Injection Enhanced Novel Compression-Absorption - 23tr

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BB32 - Ejector and Vapor Injection Enhanced Novel Compression-Absorption - 23tr

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BB32 - Ejector and Vapor Injection Enhanced Novel Compression-Absorption - 23tr

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy Conversion and Management 289 (2023) 117190

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

Ejector and Vapor Injection Enhanced Novel Compression-Absorption

refrigeration systems [1]. Researchers in this field have recently moved

Nomenclature Ẇ Rate of work [kW]

R1234ze 3.63 9.746 114.05 109.38 4 0 A1

freezing temperature of water [56]. Crystallization of salt in the solution

2.2. Proposed novel cascade systems

This study primarily concentrates on resolving this matter by

Fig. 5. Working mechanism of Ejector.

Table 5 compression absorption system.

Present Work Ref. [53] Present Work Ref. [53]

5◦ 9.33 37.2 3.68 0.98 0.50 0.54 1.095 1.174

Fig. 10. The impact of ΔP on COP at Tcond = 35 ◦ C, Tabs = 35 ◦ C, Tevp = − 30 ◦ C, Tgen = 75 ◦ C.

(a) ECAC (b) EICAC

(a) ECAC (b) EICAC

high-pressure ratio across the LTC, leading to greater differences in

Table 13 documented in Table 13. This comprehensive evaluation provides in­

You might also like

Table 13 documented in Table 13. This comprehensive evaluation provides in