Experimental comparison of cycle modifications and ejector control methods using variable geometry and CO 2 pump in a multi-evaporator transcritical CO 2 refrigeration system
International Journal of Refrigeration, ISSN: 0140-7007, Vol: 169, Page: 226-240
2025
- 6Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures6
- Readers6
Article Description
To reduce the direct global warming impact of refrigerants in HVAC&R applications, low-global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants, including natural refrigerants, have been extensively investigated as alternatives to hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants. Among the natural refrigerants, Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) offers several advantages, such as excellent transport and thermo-physical properties, being neither toxic nor flammable, and having a low price and high availability around the world. However, the high critical pressure and low critical temperature of CO 2 often lead to transcritical operation, resulting in lower efficiency due to the additional compressor power necessary to achieve transcritical operation relative to subcritical HFC cycles. Therefore, a number of cycle modifications are used to enhance the coefficient of performance (COP) of transcritical CO 2 cycles to meet or surpass those of HFC cycles. This paper provides a systematic experimental investigation of four such cycle architectures by employing the same multi-stage, two-evaporator CO 2 refrigeration cycle test stand, 3 of these configurations in transcritical and 1 in subcritical conditions. The four cycles architectures included intercooling, open economization, an internal heat exchanger and two different ejector control approaches. Specifically, a variable-diameter motive nozzle and a variable-speed liquid CO 2 pump located directly upstream of the ejector motive nozzle inlet were analyzed. Based on the experimental data, the maximum COP improvements are 4.64 % and 9.47 % when the ejector and the internal heat exchanger are used, respectively. The CO 2 pump, once successfully stabilized, can control the ejector, increase its efficiency by up to 15 % and increase the cooling capacity to a maximum of 6.2 %. Nevertheless, a reduction in COP is measured when the pump is in use; however, unlike the other three different configurations, it was only analyzed under subcritical conditions.
Bibliographic Details
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know