Characteristics of optimum power extraction in a MHD generator with subsonic

and supersonic inlets

S.M. Aithal
*
HyPerComp Inc., 2629 Townsgate Rd, Suite # 105, Westlake Village, CA 91361, United States
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 20 June 2007
Received in revised form 3 March 2008
Accepted 30 September 2008
Available online 17 November 2008
Keywords:
Compressible ow
Optimization
Subsonic
Supersonic
MHD generators
Electrical conductivity
a b s t r a c t
Analytical expressions for optimum power extracted in a MHD generator with constant channel width
and constant electrical conductivity proposed by Neuringer was investigated for a range of subsonic
and supersonic inlet Mach numbers. Characteristics of uid-dynamical variables, optimum power
extracted and the voltage drop in the external load were studied for a range of Mach numbers and inter-
action parameters. It was observed that the characteristics of voltage drop across the load with the inter-
action parameter differed signicantly for subsonic and supersonic inlet Mach numbers. For each
subsonic inlet Mach number, there exists a critical value of interaction parameter beyond which there
is an abrupt change in terminal voltage, and uid-dynamic variables. Also beyond this critical interaction
parameter, the ow at the exit plane is choked. Supersonic inlets do not display the presence of such a
critical interaction parameter or choking at the exit plane.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
MHD power generators are efcient energy conversion devices,
which convert the kinetic energy of a conducting gas or liquid di-
rectly to electrical energy without using any moving parts. In the
recent years, there is a renewed interest in the possible use of
MHD for hypersonics and aerospace applications ([15] and refer-
ences therein). The overall design and optimization of a MHD
based power generating system is a complicated process requiring
considerations of cost, efciency, size and technical feasibility. This
process of overall design/optimization can be simplied by obtain-
ing an understanding of various sub-systems in a stand-alone
manner.
Over the years, several authors have conducted detailed analyt-
ical and numerical studies to examine various aspects of design,
analyses and optimization of MHD generators [622]. Refs. [6
12] address optimization issues with regards to MHD generators
whereas Refs. [1322] focus on the performance analyses and de-
sign. Refs. [622] are a representative list of the vast body of liter-
ature available on the subject on MHD power generation. Early
attempts to study the problem of optimization of MHD generators
focused on deriving analytical expressions relating electrical and
uid-dynamic variables [68]. These analyses were based on sim-
plied assumptions to make the problem tractable. For instance,
Ref. [6] uses a constant electrical conductivity in a channel with
constant cross-sectional area to obtain the optimum power for a
given inlet Mach number and interaction parameter. Refs. [7,8]
use a power-law model of electrical conductivity to optimize the
shape of the MHD generator. Based on these simplifying assump-
tions, Refs. [68] derived analytical expressions for the optimum
value of the desired cost function (total power extracted or opti-
mum shape of the duct). More recent optimization studies of
MHD generators [1012] involve the use of computationally inten-
sive methods to tackle more realistic situations. These optimiza-
tion methodologies can be coupled with detailed numerical
simulations of MHD generators [21,22]. However, the computa-
tional cost of such analyses can be onerous and hence should be
undertaken at a later stage of the design cycle. Analytical results
as in Refs. [68] provide meaningful insight into the optimization
of MHD generators. The low computational cost of such analyses
allows the designer to consider a number of scenarios, thus provid-
ing useful guidelines in the early design stages. Such simplied
analyses also provide estimates of upper and lower bounds for var-
ious design parameters, further justifying their use. Optimization
of power extracted from a MHD generator is an important de-
sign/optimization problem. Inlet Mach number and interaction
parameter are two important design variables in this optimization
problem. As mentioned above, Ref. [6] discusses such an optimiza-
tion problem and is the focus of this work. The goal of this work is
to study the impact of the inlet Mach number and interaction
parameter on the uid-dynamical variables for optimum power
extraction. The author extends the analyses for a compressible
inviscid plasma ow discussed by Neuringer in [6] since it can have
0196-8904/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2008.09.037
* Tel.: +1 805 371 7500x112; fax: +1 805 371 7559.
E-mail address: shashi@hypercomp.net
Energy Conversion and Management 50 (2009) 765771
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Conversion and Management
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ enconman
important implications in MHD generators for ground-based as
well as aerospace applications.
In Ref. [6], analytical expressions for optimum power extraction
were used to study a MHD generator with an inlet Mach number of
0.3. At this Mach number, the results showed an asymptotic behav-
ior of uid-dynamical variables as a function of interaction param-
eter. The presence of asymptotic limits in system design
parameters, such as generator efciency, has important implica-
tions on the overall design/optimization of MHD generators and
hence merits further investigation. In this work, we seek to com-
pare and contrast the characteristics of various uid-dynamic vari-
ables and voltage drop across the load for optimum power
extraction for subsonic and supersonic inlet Mach numbers for a
range of interaction parameters. This paper is organized as follows.
Section 2 discusses the optimization problem and the simplifying
assumptions. Section 3 briey describes the governing equations
and analyses developed by Neuringer. Neuringers analysis has
been extended to include the effects of friction and heat transfer.
Section 4 describes the numerical results followed by the
conclusions.
2. Problem statement
Simplied analysis of power extracted in a MHD generator as
presented in Ref. [6] is described in this section. Fig. 1 shows a sim-
plied MHD channel with uniform cross-section. The magnetic
eld B is directed into the plane of the paper (B = 1T for all results
in this paper).
The simplifying assumptions are as follows:
1. Since the electrical conductivity and magnetic Reynolds num-
ber is small for practical MHD generators, the effect of the gen-
erated currents on the applied magnetic eld are ignored and
hence the applied magnetic eld is assumed to be constant.
2. It is assumed that the ow is one-dimensional (no variations of
the uid-dynamical variables in the y & z-directions).
3. For an ideal segmented Faraday generator, induced currents in
the x-direction are small and hence Hall effects are ignored.
4. The plasma is assumed to be electrically neutral, hence there
are no space-charge sheaths near the walls.
5. Effects of friction and heat transfer have been neglected in Ref.
[6]. These effects can be included as explained in Section 3.
Based on these assumptions it is possible to use Kirchoffs volt-
age law to express a relationship between the induced electric eld
(E) and the current density (J). If r(x) represents the external unit
resistance at a location x along the channel, J(x) represents the in-
duced current per unit length of channel at location x, r repre-
sents the plasma conductivity in the channel and y represents
the channel width
Ey Jr
Jy
r
; 1
where E = uB is the induced electric eld, Jr is the voltage drop in
the external resistance and Jy/r is the voltage drop due to the inter-
nal resistance of the plasma. If the drop in voltage across the exter-
nal resistance is denoted by k, then the above equation can be
rewritten in terms of the current density as follows:
J
r
y
fuBy kg 2
The power generated per unit length of the generator would
then be
^
P
length
rJ
2
kJ kr uB
k
y
_ _
3
The total power generated in a channel with length l would then
be
^
P k
_
l
0
r uB
k
y
_ _
dx 4
The optimization problem seeks to determine the axial velocity
distribution u(x) and the voltage drop in the external resistance k,
in order to maximize
^
P .
Nomenclature
A
1
, B
1
parameters
B magnetic eld
E electric eld
F friction loss per unit volume
G heat loss per unit volume
J current density
k voltage drop across the load
k dimensionless terminal voltage
l channel length
m mass ow rate
M
o
inlet Mach number
P pressure
P dimensionless pressure
^
P total electric power
R resistance/length
T temperature
u velocity
u
0
inlet velocity
U dimensionless velocity
x distance along the channel
X dimensionless distance along the channel
y channel width
y
0
channel width at inlet
Greek symbols
d interaction parameter
g efciency
r electrical conductivity
c ratio of specic heats (=5/3 for all cases studied in this
work)
q density
x = 0 x = L
B
u
o
, y
o
I
Fig. 1. Simplied diagram of an MHD generator (ideal segmented Faraday
generator).
766 S.M. Aithal / Energy Conversion and Management 50 (2009) 765771
3. Governing equations and analyses
This section briey explains the governing equations and anal-
yses presented by Neuringer in Ref. [6]. Important equations are
reproduced in this section for completeness. More details of the
derivations and mathematical simplications can be obtained from
Ref. [6]. The following non-dimensional variables and parameters
are used to non-dimensionalize the governing equations
U
u
u
0
; X
x
y
0
; P
p
q
0
u
2
0
K
0

u
0
y
0
B
k
; a
l
y
0
;
p
0
q
0
u
2
0

1
cM
2
0
; d
B
2
y
2
0
r
m
l
y
0
Equations describing continuity, momentum and energy for 1-D
inviscid compressible uid ow are given below. For the sake of
simplicity, Neuringer ignored the effects of friction and heat loss,
though their effects can be included for more detailed analyses
as explained later in this section.
Continuity equation:
quy q
0
u
0
y
0
m
:
5
Momentum equation:
qu
du
dx

dp
dx
JB ruB
2

rkB
y
_ _
6
Energy equation
d
dx
p
c 1

1
2
qu
2
_ _
uy
_ _

d
dx
fpuyg uJBy
J
2
r
y 0 7
Using Eqs. (2) and (7) can be rewritten as
d
dx
c
c 1
p
q

1
2
u
2
_ _
quy
_ _
kr uB
k
y
_ _
0 8
Integrating Eq. (8) and noting the denition of total power in Eq. (4),
it is seen that
^
P
c
c 1
p
q

1
2
u
2
_ _
m
_ _
0

c
c 1
p
q

1
2
u
2
_ _
m
_ _
l
9
Eq. (9) shows that the power delivered to the external load
equals the difference between the total enthalpy ux between
the inlet and exit of the channel. Therefore, for a given inlet enthal-
py ux, the power delivered to the external load is at a maximum,
if the enthalpy ux at the channel exit is minimum. Neuringer used
this argument to derive analytical expressions for maximum
power extracted in a MHD generator for compressible inviscid
plasma owing through a channel of constant cross-section across
a uniform transverse magnetic eld. Using non-dimensional forms
of Eqs. (6) and (8), Neuringer derived an analytical expression for
the variation of the non-dimensional velocity U as an implicit func-
tion of the non-dimensional distance X, as shown below. More de-
tails of this derivation are explained in Ref. [6]
cc1
2
1 cc 1k
0
a k
0
b
_ _
log
1k
0
U
1k
0
_ _

cc1
c

c
2
1c1
2c
cc 1k
0
a k
0
b
_ _
log
1c=c1k
0
U
1c=c1k
0
_ _

c
2
c1
k
0
2
a k
0
b
c1
2
k
0
_ _
U1
1c=c1k
0
U1c=c1k
0

_ _

d
a
X
10
The non-dimensional form of the total enthalpy ux at the exit
plane is given by
mu
2
o
c
c 1
PaUa
1
2
U
2
a
_ _
11
where P(a) and U(a) represent the values of the non-dimensional
pressure and velocity at the exit plane.
The total enthalpy at the exit plane will be a minimum when its
derivative with respect to k
0
is equal to zero. Using the non-dimen-
sional expression for pressure given below and Eq. (11)
P
a k
0
b U
1
2
k
0
U
2
_ _
1
c
c1
_ _
k
0
U
12
where
a 1
1
cM
2
o
; b
1
c 1M
2
o

1
2
_ _
Neuringer derived a condition ensuring that the derivative of
the exit plane enthalpy with respect to k
0
is equal to zero. This con-
dition is shown below as
fT1 T2 T3gB
1
fT4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9gA
1
0 13
where
A
1

2cc 1k
0
a k
0
b 2c
2
1U cc 1k
0
U
20
2c 1
2
f1 c=c 1k
0
Ug
2
B
1

2cc 1bU 2c
2
aU
2
cc 1k
0
U
30
2c 1
2
f1 c=c 1k
0
Ug
2
T1
k
0
1 k
0
U
cc 1
2
1 cc 1k
0
a k
0
b
_ _
T2
ck
0
1 c=c 1k
0
U
1
c

c
2
1
2c
ck
0
a k
0
b
_ _
T3
2c
2
k
0
2
a k
0
b c
2
1k
0
_ _
2c 11 c=c 1k
0
U
2
T4 cc 1k
0
a 2
0
blog
1 k
0
U
1 k
0
_ _
T5
cc 1
2
1 cc 1k
0
a k
0
b
_ _
U 1
1 k
0
U1 k
0

_ _
T6 cc 1k
0
a 2k
0
blog
1 c=c 1k
0
U
1 c=c 1k
0
_ _
T7
1
1
2
c
2
1 c
2
k
0
a k
0
b
_ _
f1 Ug
1 c=c 1k
0
U1 c=c 1k
0

T8
c
2
c1
2ak
0
3k
0
2
b
1
2
c 1
_ _
fU 1g
1 c=c 1k
0
U1 c=c 1k
0

T9
c
2
c1
k
0
2
a k
0
b
c1
2
k
0
_ _
c
c1
U 1 1 U
2c
c1
_ _
k
0
U
_ _ _ _
1 c=c 1k
0
U
2
1 c=c 1k
0

2
Given the parameter c (gas constant), M
o
(inlet Mach number),
a (non-dimensional channel width) and d (interaction parameter),
the simultaneous solution of the two transcendental equations,
namely, Eqs. (10) and (13) yield values for the voltage drop across
the external load (k
0
) and the exit plane velocity U(X = a) for max-
S.M. Aithal / Energy Conversion and Management 50 (2009) 765771 767
imum power generation. In this work an iterative scheme was used
to solve Eq. (10) evaluated at X = a (exit plane) and Eq. (13) simul-
taneously to obtain the value of (k
0
). Knowing (k
0
), it is possible to
obtain the variation of velocity (U(X)) along the channel using Eq.
(10). Knowing U(X), it is possible to evaluate the axial variation
of non-dimensional pressure using Eq. (12). The axial variation of
Mach number can be evaluated using the expression M

U=cP
_
.
The optimum power extracted can be evaluated using Eq. (14)
^
P
B
2
u
2
o
ry
o
l
k
0
2
k
0
a
_
l
0
UdX 1
_ _
: 14
3.1. Friction and heat loss
Losses due to surface effects such as friction and heat transfer
can be neglected in large MHD generators typically used in com-
mercial power generation. However, these effects can be included
in the above analysis in a manner similar to that described in Ref.
[7]. The friction forces F adds to the retarding force JB in Eq. (6) and
the heat loss term G, adds to the electrical power output in Eq. (7).
The derivation and analyses presented in Ref. [6] would be valid if
one were to replace the parameter k
0
with k
0 0
, where k
0 0
is dened
as
K
00

a
1
b
1
k
0
;
where, a
1

JBF
JB
; b
1

JkG
Jk
. Hence the effect of friction and heat
transfer on uid-dynamical variables and generator performance
can be evaluated using k
0 0
(instead of k
0
).
4. Results and discussion
This section discusses the following:
(a) Validation of our iterative solver.
(b) Parametric study of subsonic inlets.
(c) Parametric study of supersonic inlets.
(a) Validation of iterative solver: Neuringers analysis was used to
obtain the variation of uid-dynamical variables such as velocity,
Mach number and pressure using our iterative solver. These results
were veried to be correct by comparing it with results presented
in Table 1 of Ref. [6]. Fig. 2 compares the axial variation of non-
dimensional velocity U (u/u
o
) and pressure (p/p
o
) shown in Fig. 4
of Ref. [6] with our results. It is seen that the agreement between
our results and those presented in Ref. [6] is excellent. Comparison
of the non-dimensional voltage (k
0
), efciency and various uid-
dynamic variables shown in Table 1, with those presented in Table
1 of Ref. [6] is also excellent, thus validating the results of our iter-
ative solver.
(b) Parametric study of subsonic inlet characteristics: Neuringer
conducted an analysis for a single inlet Mach number of 0.3. Vari-
ation of interaction parameter (d) showed an asymptotic behavior
of various uid-dynamical quantities after a critical value of inter-
action parameter (d
crit
). We sought to investigate the effects of inlet
Mach number on d
crit
using the analytical scheme presented by
Neuringer. Three subsonic inlet Mach numbers were studied in this
work, namely, M
o
= 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5. Since the analysis is for com-
pressible ow, we did not choose M
o
< 0.3. M
o
= 0.3 was chosen
to validate Neuringers results.
Fig. 3 shows the variation of k
0
(non-dimensional terminal volt-
age) as a function of interaction parameter (d) for three different
subsonic inlet Mach numbers. It is seen that for low values of d,
k
0
% 2, which signies that the internal voltage drop in the channel
is the same as that in the external load, as required by the maxi-
mum power transfer theorem. As d increases, k
0
increases till it
reaches a sharply dened critical value (d
crit
). From Table 1, it is
seen that ow at the exit is choked for values of d > d
crit
. It is seen
from Fig. 3 that the value of d
crit
decreases as the inlet Mach num-
ber increases. This is because a progressively lower value of elec-
tromagnetic interaction is required to choke the ow at the exit
plane. As the inlet Mach number tends to unity, the value of d
crit
tends to zero. For a given subsonic inlet Mach number, beyond
the critical value, the value of k
0
decreases exponentially and
asymptotically approaches unity at large values of d. The reason
for this behavior is that at large values of d, the electrical conduc-
tivity is large, thus making the internal resistance and hence the
voltage drop in the channel negligible. As a result of this, k
0
ap-
proaches unity, signifying that voltage drop in the external load al-
most equals the induced voltage. Hence, it is not possible to obtain
analytical solutions to the transcendental equations beyond a cer-
tain value of d
max
. Neuringer points out that for M
o
= 0.3, no solu-
tions could be obtained beyond d
max
% 30.0. It was found that as
the inlet Mach number increases, d
max
decreases (d
max
% 30.0 for
M
o
= 0.3, whereas d
max
% 10.0 for M
o
= 0.5 as shown in Fig. 3).
Table 1 shows the variation of uid-dynamical variables at the
exit plane (U(a), P(a) and M(a)) with interaction parameter for inlet
Mach numbers M
o
= 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5. The trends in the uid-
dynamical variables seen at M
o
= 0.3 are also seen at M
o
= 0.4 and
M
o
= 0.5. For d less than the critical value, normalized velocity,
Mach number and efciency show a slow monotonic rise, whereas
the pressure shows a slow monotonic drop. There is a sharp change
in this slow monotonic behavior beyond the value of d
crit
. The nor-
Fig. 2. Comparison of normalized pressure (a) and velocity (b) with results in Ref. [6].
768 S.M. Aithal / Energy Conversion and Management 50 (2009) 765771
malized velocity (U(a)) and Mach number (M(a)) rise dramatically,
while the pressure (P(a)) drops steeply. Beyond the critical interac-
tion parameter, the Mach number equal unity. The efciency also
increases sharply for d > d
crit
. The sharp variations in the uid-
dynamical variables reach asymptotic values at large values of d.
The inuence of d on g (efciency) for different subsonic inlet
Mach numbers is also shown in Table 1. Efciency is calculated
using Eq. (27) given in Ref. [6] and is shown below for the benet
of the reader.
g 1
c=c 1PaUa
1
2
U
2
a
b
It is seen that the asymptotic value of efciency is lower at
higher inlet Mach numbers. Thus, the asymptotic efciency is
around 20% at M
o
= 0.3, whereas it is close to 10% at M
o
= 0.5. Addi-
tionally, beyond the critical value of d
crit
, efciency does not vary
strongly with interaction parameter. From Table 1, it is seen that
for M
o
= 0.3, the efciency at d = 8 is about 15.8% whereas at
d = 30, the efciency is about 20.4%. Since the interaction parame-
ter is dependent on electrical conductivity of the owing gas this
result has important implications for a designer. Sustaining high
levels of electrical conductivity for high values of interaction
parameter is difcult from an engineering standpoint, especially
for aerospace applications. Hence, a designer can opt for a slight
penalty in efciency for a substantial reduction (a factor of 3.75)
in the requirements for electrical conductivity.
(c) Parametric study of supersonic inlet characteristics: Neurin-
gers analyses were used to study supersonic inlet Mach numbers
in an MHD channel with constant r and cross-section. We investi-
gated three inlet Mach numbers, namely, M
o
= 3, M
o
= 4.5 and
M
o
= 6. These Mach numbers were chosen since they are of interest
to the MHD-bypass engines in hypersonic ight. Fig. 4 shows the
variation of k
0
with d for a range of supersonic Mach numbers. It
is seen that for a given inlet Mach number, as d increases, k
0
de-
creases and reaches an asymptotic value. As with the case of sub-
sonic inlet, for low values of d, k
0
is close to 2, signifying that the
voltage drop in the load is approximately the same as the drop in
the channel. However, unlike with low subsonic inlet Mach num-
bers, there is no sharply dened value of (d
crit
). It is seen that k
0
de-
creases monotonically and tends towards its asymptotic value
beyond d % 3, for all supersonic inlet Mach numbers studied in this
work. It is also seen that the asymptotic value of k
0
does not tend to
unity as was the case with subsonic inlets. Also, the asymptotic va-
lue of k
0
is not a strong function of the inlet Mach number. Thus, for
optimum power extraction, it is seen that the inuence of d on k
0
is
considerably different for subsonic inlets as compared to super-
sonic inlets. Fig. 5 shows the axial variation of Mach number corre-
sponding to optimum power extraction for different values of
interaction parameter (d), for an inlet Mach number of 6. It is seen
that as d increases, the gradient in Mach number near the inlet in-
creases. For all values of d, the Mach number reaches an asymptotic
value near the exit plane. This asymptotic value is approximately
constant for a given inlet Mach number. For optimum power
extraction at supersonic inlet Mach numbers, increasing d does
not drive the exit plane Mach number to unity; unlike the case
of subsonic inlets, where increasing d beyond d
crit
leads to a sonic
Mach number at the exit plane. Fig. 6 shows the axial variation
of non-dimensional velocity, pressure and Mach number for
M = 6, d = 4. It is seen that the axial variation of these quantities
are opposite to the trends for subsonic inlets (see Fig. 2 and 4 in
Table 1
Variation of uid-dynamical quantities as a function of inlet Mach number (M
o
) and
Interaction parameter (d) (subsonic inlets).
Inlet Mach
number (M
o
)
Interaction
parameter
(d)
k
0
Efciency
(g%)
U(a) P(a) Exit
Mach
number
0.3 0.1 2.0017 0.1466 1.0067 6.6096 0.30230
0.3 1.0 2.0236 1.5642 1.0799 6.0434 0.32745
0.3 2.0 2.0736 3.4129 1.2093 5.2425 0.37296
0.3 4.0 2.0077 9.2909 2.7903 1.6742 1.0
0.3 8.0 1.2407 15.801 2.6882 1.6130 1.0
0.3 12.0 1.1083 17.983 2.6533 1.5920 1.0
0.3 20.0 1.0340 19.496 2.6287 1.5772 1.0
0.3 30.0 1.0105 20.358 2.6146 1.5687 1.0
0.4 0.1 1.995 0.2549 1.013 3.6867 0.406
0.4 1.0 2.074 0.2952 1.205 2.940 0.4959
0.4 1.5 2.542 5.022 1.923 1.566 0.8583
0.4 1.75 2.0695 6.4 2.15 1.29 1.0
0.4 2.0 1.793 7.5 2.136 1.283 1.0
0.4 4.0 1.213 11.77 2.087 1.252 1.0
0.4 8.0 1.054 13.95 2.061 1.237 1.0
0.4 12.0 1.02 14.52 2.054 1.2329 1.0
0.4 15.0 1.01 14.70 2.052 1.2315 1.0
0.5 0.2 2.010 0.8 1.05 2.2436 0.53
0.5 0.4 2.039 0.17 1.123 2.051 0.573
0.5 0.6 2.1 0.273 1.246 1.78 0.648
0.5 0.8 2.174 0.406 1.75 1.075 0.9881
0.5 1.0 1.733 5.259 1.753 1.054 1.0
0.5 2.0 1.214 8.03 1.73 1.037 1.0
0.5 5.0 1.037 9.8 1.712 1.027 1.0
0.5 10.0 1.005 10.2 1.708 1.025 1.0
Fig. 3. Variation of k
0
with d for various subsonic inlet Mach numbers.
Fig. 4. Variation of k
0
with d for various supersonic inlet Mach numbers.
S.M. Aithal / Energy Conversion and Management 50 (2009) 765771 769
Ref. [6]). Table 2 shows the variation in efciency and uid-dynam-
ical quantities at the exit plane for a range of interaction parame-
ters for different supersonic inlet Mach numbers. For a given
supersonic inlet Mach number, the uid-dynamical variables reach
an asymptotic value at high values of interaction parameter. Fur-
thermore, they do not display any sharp change in values as with
the subsonic inlets.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, the characteristics of optimum power extraction
in an MHD generator were investigated for a range of subsonic
and supersonic inlet Mach numbers using analytical results pro-
posed by Ref. [6]. The inuence of interaction parameter on the ter-
minal voltage drop across the load was examined for a range of
subsonic and supersonic inlet Mach numbers. It was found that
optimum power extraction characteristics with supersonic inlets
varied signicantly as compared to subsonic inlets. For subsonic
inlets, the variation of terminal voltage showed a sharp peak at a
critical value of the interaction parameter. The higher the subsonic
inlet Mach number, the lower this critical value with the critical
value approaching zero as the inlet Mach number tends to unity.
Furthermore, for subsonic inlets, increasing the interaction param-
eter beyond a critical value led to a choking (M = 1) at the exit
plane. Similarly, the uid-dynamical variables such as velocity
and pressure at the exit plane varied sharply after the critical value
of interaction parameter. Supersonic inlets do not display such
characteristics. It is seen that the non-dimensional terminal volt-
age decreases monotonically with interaction parameter and tends
towards an asymptotic value when the interaction parameter ex-
ceeds 3. It is also seen that the asymptotic value of the non-dimen-
sional terminal voltage does not tend to unity as was the case with
subsonic inlets, nor is it a strong function of the inlet Mach
number.
References
[1] Brickin, DI, Kuranov AL, Sheikin EG. MHD-technology for scramjet control. In:
AIAA-98-1642, AIAA international space planes and hypersonic systems and
technologies conference, Norfolk, VA; 1998.
[2] Gurijanov EP, Harsha PT. AJAX: new directions in hypersonic technology. In:
AIAA-96-4609, Seventh aerospace planes and hypersonics technology
conference, Norfolk, VA; 1996.
[3] Murray RC, Zaidi SH, Carraro MR, Valilyak LM, Macheret SO, Shneider MN,
Miles RB. Observation of MHD effects with non-equilibrium ionization in cold
supersonic air ows. In: AIAA2004-1025, 42nd AIAA aerospace sciences
meeting & exhibit, Reno, NV; 2004.
[4] Macheret SO, Shneider MN, Miles RB. Potential Performance of supersonic
MHD power generators. In: AIAA-2001-0795, AIAA 39th aerospace sciences
meeting & exhibit, Reno, NV; January 811 2001.
[5] Macheret SO, Shneider MN, Miles RB, Lipinski RJ. Electron beam generated
plasmas in hypersonic MHD channels. AIAA J 2002;39(6):112738.
[6] Neuringer JL. Optimum power generation from a moving plasma. J Fluid Mech
1960;7:287301.
[7] Swift-Hook DT, Wright JK. The constant Mach number MHD generator. J Fluid
Mech 1962;15:97110.
[8] Carter C. The optimization of a magnetohydrodynamic generating duct. Brit J
Appl Phys 1966;17:86371.
[9] Sawhney BK, Verma SS. Optimum power generation characteristics of an MHD
generator with kerosene oil-heavy fuel oil mixture as working uid. Energ
Convers Manage 1995;36(5):34353.
[10] Ibez G, Cuevas S, Mariano Lpez de Haro. Optimization analysis of an
alternate magnetohydrodynamic generator. Energ Convers Manage
2002;43:175771.
[11] Kulkarni NV, Phan MQ. Performance optimization of the
magnetohydrodynamic generator at the scramjet inlet. J Prop Power
2005;21:82230.
[12] Aithal SM. Analysis of optimum power extraction in a mhd generator with
spatially varying electrical conductivity. Int J Therm Sci 2007. doi:10.1016/
j.ijthermalsci.2007.09.001.
[13] Gupta GP, Joshi NK, Rohatgi VK. Effect of velocity prole models on the
gasdynamic voltage drop in open-cycle MHD generators. J Energ Res
1982;6(3):2936.
[14] Inoue I, Ishikawa M, Umoto J. Numerical study of arc phenomena in boundary
layer on MHD generator. Energ Convers Manage 1992;33:87384.
[15] Bhadoria BS, Chandra A. Losses in diagonal MHD generator. Energ Convers
Manage 1999;40:198595.
Fig. 5. Axial Variation of Mach number as a function of d for an inlet Mach number
M
o
= 6.
Fig. 6. Axial variation of uid-dynamic variables for M
o
= 6, d = 4.
Table 2
Variation of uid-dynamical quantities as a function of Inlet Mach number (M
o
) and
Interaction parameter (d) (supersonic inlets).
Inlet Mach
number (M
o
)
Interaction
parameter (d)
k
0
Efciency
(g%)
U(a) P(a) Exit Mach
number
3.0 0.5 1.85 12.99 0.742 0.16427 1.646
3.0 1.0 1.686 18.39 0.667 0.19285 1.440
3.0 2.0 1.548 21.53 0.658 0.1863 1.455
3.0 3.0 1.513 22.09 0.663 0.1807 1.483
3.0 4.0 1.505 22.18 0.665 0.179 1.493
3.0 8.0 1.502 22.2 0.666 0.1782 1.497
4.5 0.5 1.883 15.51 0.757 0.1048 2.08
4.5 1.0 1.755 22.81 0.668 0.1317 1.744
4.5 2.0 1.621 27.91 0.638 0.1318 1.703
4.5 3.0 1.577 29.11 0.639 0.1269 1.734
4.5 4.0 1.56 29.43 0.642 0.1239 1.762
4.5 8.0 1.555 29.5 0.643 0.1231 1.769
6.0 0.5 1.89 16.59 0.762 0.0847 2.322
6.0 1.0 1.776 24.69 0.669 0.11 1.909
6.0 2.0 1.646 30.63 0.632 0.1114 1.845
6.0 3.0 1.601 32.15 0.631 0.1067 1.883
6.0 4.0 1.584 32.55 0.633 0.104 1.9087
6.0 8.0 1.575 32.7 0.635 0.1026 1.927
770 S.M. Aithal / Energy Conversion and Management 50 (2009) 765771
[16] Matsuo T, Ishikawa M, Umoto J. Stability of open-cycle subsonic disk MHD
generator. Energ Convers Manage 1998;39:91525.
[17] Inui Y, Ito H, Ishida T. Two dimensional simulation of closed cycle disk MHD
generator considering nozzle and diffuser. Energ Convers Manage
2004;45:19932004.
[18] Chen L, Gong J, Sun F, Wu C. Heat transfer effect on the performance of MHD
power plant. Energ Convers Manage 2002;43:208595.
[19] Sahin B, Kodal A, Yavuz H. A performance analysis for MHD power cycles
operating at maximum power density. J Phys D: Appl Phys 1996;29:14735.
[20] Bajovi VS. A reliable tool for the design of shape and size of faraday segmented
MHD generator channel. Energ Convers Manage 1996;37:175364.
[21] Li D, Keefer D, Rhodes R, Merkle CL, Kolokolnikov K. Analysis of
magnetohydrodynamic generator power generation. J Prop Power
2005;21:42432.
[22] Ishikwa M, Yuharaa M, Fujinoa T. Three-dimensional computation of
magnetohydrodynamics in a weakly ionized plasma with strong MHD
interaction. J Mater Process Technol 2007;181(13):2549.
S.M. Aithal / Energy Conversion and Management 50 (2009) 765771 771