Effect of Ejector Location in Absorption Refrigeration Cycles Using Different Binary Working Fluids

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (01) ◽  
pp. 1950003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salem Yosaf ◽  
Hasan Ozcan

In this study, three novel modifications of ejector-absorption refrigeration cycles (E-ARC) are investigated to evaluate the effect of ejector location on cycle performances. In the first modification (triple pressure level absorption refrigeration cycle TPL-ARC), the ejector is located at the evaporator inlet. In the second modification (double ejector absorption refrigeration cycle DE-ARC), two ejectors are used; one is located at the evaporator inlet and the other at the absorber inlet, which are coupled to each other. In the third modification (low pressure condenser absorption refrigeration cycle LPC-ARC), the steam ejector is installed at the downstream of the vapor generator discharging line. An additional flow splitter is integrated to the steam ejector outlet and part of the vapor is extracted and returned to the absorber at a pressure equal to the diffuser pressure. Effect of ejector location on thermodynamic performances are evaluated considering three different working fluids, namely ammonia–water solution (NH3–H2O), lithium bromide-water solution (H2O–LiBr), and lithium chloride–water solution (H2O–LiCl). Even though all three configurations enhance the conventional absorption refrigeration cycle (C-ARC) performances, the LPC-ARCs work at high temperature and improve the cycle performance. The TPL-ARC proves to improve the COP and exergy efficiency up to 9.14% and 7.61%, respectively, presenting the highest thermodynamic performance enhancement and lowest operating temperature.

Author(s):  
Parth Mody ◽  
Jatin Patel ◽  
Nishant Modi ◽  
Bhargav Pandya

This research study compares the thermodynamic performance of 10[Formula: see text]kW lithium chloride–water (LiCl–H2O) and lithium bromide–water (LiBr–H2O) absorption cooling systems through first and second law of thermodynamics. Further, the exergy degradations happening in each component have been split into unavoidable and avoidable exergy degradations as well as endogenous and exogenous exergy degradations through advanced exergy analysis. Pressure–temperature–concentration ([Formula: see text]–[Formula: see text]–[Formula: see text] diagrams are drafted to clarify the real, ideal, and unavoidable cycles for LiCl–H2O and LiBr–H2O absorption cycles. Moreover, this paper exhibits the sensitivity of various system components towards the generator, condenser, and absorber temperature for both pairs. Energetic observation proves that LiCl–H2O pair is 10% more efficient as compared to LiBr–H2O pair. Exergetically, LiBr–H2O cycle struggles with additional (nearly 13.45%) exergy destruction than LiCl–H2O cycle. The major contribution (around 70% to 80%) of irreversibility comes from the generator and absorber. Comprehensively, the parametric partitions of irreversibility rate in each component provide broad indications to prioritize the system components for enhancements.


Author(s):  
I. W. Eames ◽  
S Wu

This paper describes a novel vapour absorption refrigeration cycle which uses a steam ejector to enhance the concentration process of the cycle. The paper provides a complete description of the cycle and presents the results of a theoretical study before going on to describe and evaluate the outcomes of an experimental programme. The results of this investigation showed that with the addition of a steam ejector as described the coefficient of performance (COP) of the single-effect lithium bromide absorption cycle can be increased from about 0.7 to at least 1.0 without any increase in corrosion rates often associated with high temperature vapour generators used in conventional machines of this type.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document