• Two inlet fluids of the ejector have four liquid volume fraction combinations. • Multi-round optimization with six sequences of three geometries is conducted. • Optimal three geometries and ER under six optimization sequences are obtained. • Recommended sequence for each liquid volume fraction combination is presented. • Ultimate optimal three parameters and ER largely depend on inlet fluid states. The performance of the ejector relies on the geometrical parameters and the fluid phase state. Although the optimization of geometries of the ejector has been conducted in previous studies, the influence of different optimization sequence of geometric parameters was ignored in previous literatures. To close the knowledge gap, the goal of this paper is to investigate whether different optimization sequences affect the ejector performance and whether the ejector performance is the same under different optimization sequences after multiple rounds of optimization. Therefore, three geometrical parameters, namely the constant-pressure mixing chamber length (L pm ), the constant-area mixing chamber length (L am ) and diameter (D am ), are selected for the optimization study; besides, multi-round optimization with six optimization sequences of these three parameters is conducted by CFD simulations under four different combinations of primary flow liquid volume fraction (LVF 1 ) and secondary flow liquid volume fraction (LVF 2 ) (LVF 1 = 0 plus LVF 2 = 0, LVF 1 = 0 plus LVF 2 = 0.06, LVF 1 = 0.06 plus LVF 2 = 0, LVF 1 = 0.06 plus LVF 2 = 0.06) for the first time. The results showed that: (1) for each LVF combination, the three optimal parameters and corresponding maximum ER produced by one round optimization of six different optimization sequences are evidently different; (2) after multiple rounds of optimization, for LVF 1 = 0 plus LVF 2 = 0 or LVF 1 = 0.06 plus LVF 2 = 0.06, ultimate optimal geometrical parameters and maximum ER are the same with each other for six optimization sequences, however, for LVF 1 = 0 plus LVF 2 = 0.06 or LVF 1 = 0.06 plus LVF 2 = 0, each of them still has two different ultimate maximum ER; (4) for those four combinations, different sequence takes different optimization rounds, recommended sequences are D am → L am → L pm (S6), L pm → L am → D am (S1) or L pm → D am → L am (S2), and L am → L pm → D am (S3) and D am → L am → L pm , respectively; and (5) the ultimate optimal parameters and maximum ER in four combinations differ significantly because they are largely dependent on the inlet fluid states.
Read full abstract