Vanadium Flow Battery: Pumping and Shunt Current Loss Optimiser

Optimise VRFB flow and manifold diameters with a coupled shunt-current circuit, pressure losses and velocity-dependent electrode mass transfer. Compare pumping loss and instantaneous system efficiency.

#Darcy flow #flow optimisation #Kozeny–Carman #mass transfer #shunt currents #VRFB

Find an electrolyte flow rate and manifold geometry for a vanadium redox flow battery stack. This VRFB pumping loss and shunt current calculator helps engineers compare flow frames, students study stack losses, and designers assess a change in feed-channel or manifold diameter.

Electrolyte creates ionic bypasses between cells connected electrically in series. Longer, narrower feed channels reduce shunt current but require more pumping pressure. Larger manifolds reduce hydraulic resistance while increasing electrical coupling. Flow rate also controls transport from the bulk electrolyte to the electrode surface: sufficient bulk reactant does not ensure that the surface can sustain the applied current.

Start with the operating point and compressed felt dimensions. Enter conductivity, viscosity, density and formal cell voltage for your electrolyte. Use measured felt permeability where available, or the Kozeny–Carman option with its stated coefficient convention. Compressed porosity remains necessary with either option because it determines pore velocity. The defaults describe an illustrative 40-cell flow-through stack.

The mass-transfer inputs specify a velocity-dependent coefficient and its exponent. The default correlation follows the Tang flow-optimisation treatment. Use a measured fit for your electrode when possible, with the same pore-velocity and projected-area current-density convention. The limiting-current fraction provides a margin against surface reactant depletion at the outlet. Every cell's reaction current includes its shunt contribution.

Enter the existing feed and manifold diameters, then choose diameter and flow bounds for the search. Loop flow applies separately to each electrolyte; pump power includes both loops. Each half-cell has an inlet and an outlet feed passage. External piping adds hydraulic loss without electrically connecting the tanks.

Pumping + shunt loss minimises those parasitic losses subject to bulk supply, electrode mass transfer, header uniformity and Darcy-flow constraints. Maximum system efficiency additionally accounts for cell resistance and bulk and surface concentration polarisation, and can favour a higher flow rate. The circuit and concentration-dependent cell voltages are solved together. Recommended dimensions are the best admissible candidate found within the bounds; narrow the bounds for a finer search.

The flow charts hold the entered diameters fixed and show their feasible flow window. When no such window exists, the curves are empty and a message identifies the inputs to change. The feed-diameter chart illustrates the unconstrained pumping/shunt trade-off at the entered flow and manifold size. Cell-current bars show additional electrochemical discharge from ionic bypasses, including lost charging current during charge.

This instantaneous, isothermal model does not predict a complete cycle, voltage cut-off, crossover, ageing, thermal limits or pump suction performance. System efficiency is a power-conversion ratio at the chosen state of charge, not round-trip energy efficiency. Designs with significant branch-flow variation or inertial felt drag require a hydraulic distribution or pressure-data model.

How it is calculated

The electrical model follows the equivalent-circuit approach of Xing, Zhang and Ma (2011), with the four-rail topology checked against Glazkov et al. (2022), Section 2.1. Positive and negative electrolytes each have an inlet and outlet manifold. Identical inlet/outlet rails are reduced by symmetry; positive taps connect at cell node k and negative taps at node k−1. Every cell retains its resistance and EMF.

For a circular passage, Rc=Lc/(σAc)R_c=L_c/(\sigma A_c) and each manifold segment has Rm=p/(σAm)R_m=p/(\sigma A_m). Kirchhoff equations for the 2(N−1) manifold mesh currents form a symmetric pentadiagonal system. The solution gives each channel current, manifold current and cell reaction current. Shunt loss is the sum of I2RI^2R over all four rails, not stack current multiplied by channel resistance.

Hydraulics uses Darcy flow through the compressed felt, Δpf=μLfq/(KAf)\Delta p_f=\mu L_f q/(K A_f), and K=df2ϵ3/[KKC(1−ϵ)2]K=d_f^2\epsilon^3/[K_{KC}(1-\epsilon)^2]. The coefficient convention is explicit. The example uses an assumed effective coefficient of 24 in this convention. Xing et al. (2015) reports measured calibration of a felt coefficient; that paper's numerical coefficient must not be transferred without checking its geometric convention. Circular channels, pipes and each manifold segment use Darcy–Weisbach with Churchill's (1977) continuous friction correlation, converted to the Darcy convention, plus the entered minor-loss coefficients. Segment flow decreases by one cell flow at each tap. Both-loop pump input is 2QΔpeq/ηp2Q\Delta p_{eq}/\eta_p, where manifold dissipation is weighted by each segment's actual flow.

Flow factor is Q/[NI/(Fcxreact)]Q/[NI/(Fc x_{react})]. Uniform reaction along each flow-through felt gives creact(z)=cxreact−∣Ik∣z/(FqLf)c_{react}(z)=c x_{react}-|I_k|z/(FqL_f). The Tang velocity law is km=kref(up/1 m/s)bk_m=k_{ref}(u_p/1\,\mathrm{m/s})^b, with up=q/(ϵAf)u_p=q/(\epsilon A_f); defaults are kref=1.6×10−4k_{ref}=1.6\times10^{-4} m/s and b=0.4b=0.4. Each half-cell has jlim=Fkmcreactj_{lim}=Fk_m c_{react} and film concentration overpotential −(RT/F)ln⁡(1−∣j∣/jlim)-(RT/F)\ln(1-|j|/j_{lim}). Current density uses projected active area. The two half-cell losses are added to the local ideal bulk Nernst polarisation.

The logarithmic voltage expression is integrated analytically over the felt length, retaining the velocity-dependent film loss and changing bulk concentration. The resulting cell EMFs and the exact shunt circuit are iterated to 10⁻⁹ V, up to 12 passes. Cell reaction current, including shunts, sets both bulk depletion and electrode-surface depletion. Outlet limiting-current fraction and surface concentration are checked for every cell. Invalid trial voltages are regularised only to keep the solver finite; such trials cannot be accepted by the search.

The constrained search varies flow factor, feed diameter and manifold diameter. For discharge pumping-plus-shunt optimisation, a Newton solve for the limiting-current flow bound is coupled to the circuit; the bulk-utilisation bound is also enforced. Other objectives sample flow as well as both diameters. A seed grid is followed by shrinking neighbouring searches. Every candidate must satisfy the surface-transport, bulk-utilisation, header-uniformity and felt Reynolds-number limits. The recommended candidate is checked again.

Chemical conversion at the inlet state is balanced against terminal power, cell resistance, bulk concentration loss, surface concentration loss and ionic Joule loss. Instantaneous discharge efficiency subtracts both pumps from terminal output and divides by chemical conversion power; charge efficiency divides stored chemical power by terminal demand plus both pumps.

Assumptions

A single series stack has parallel, identical flow-through felt half-cells and circular feed passages. Both electrolytes have the same viscosity, density, geometry, flow, pump efficiency and mass-transfer law, but may have different conductivities. Inlet and outlet ionic paths on a given side are identical. Properties are constant at the entered temperature and SOC; temperature changes Nernst and film voltages, not the entered material properties.

The closed tanks provide no external electrical shunt or net static lift. Branch flows are assumed equal; manifold friction is summed segment by segment. Ideal activities, balanced half-cell reactant fractions and uniform projected reaction current along the felt are assumed. The empirical mass-transfer coefficient uses the lumped projected-area convention of the requested Tang treatment; it must be calibrated in that same convention.

Default properties and dimensions are illustrative inputs, not a product specification. The schematic shows representative cells and one electrolyte loop; both loops and every entered cell are calculated. The model does not reproduce Tang's full charge–discharge cycle simulations.

Where it applies

A design is admissible only when every cell has positive voltage and the intended current direction, bulk utilisation is below its entered limit, and outlet |j|/(F k_m c) is below the entered limiting-current fraction with positive surface reactant concentration. The inlet supply check alone is insufficient. The fibre Reynolds number, based on superficial velocity and fibre diameter, must be at most one for every search candidate and the final recommendation. Darcy flow neglects inertial drag and anisotropy; measure permeability for the actual felt compression and flow direction.

The U-header pressure spread must be at most 10% of the felt-plus-feed drop. This screens the equal-flow assumption; pressure drop is an energy-equivalent value, not a pump shut-off head or a detailed branch-pressure solution. Junction momentum recovery is omitted; include measured junction losses in the minor-loss budget when material. If the lower flow endpoint is infeasible or no positive feasible interval remains, the flow charts contain no samples and an input message explains what to change.

The search gives a bounded numerical candidate, not a proof of the global minimum. Through 60 cells it uses a 5 × 5 diameter seed grid and five neighbourhood refinements for discharge parasitic loss. Other objectives use a 3 × 3 × 5 diameter/flow seed grid and three refinements. Above 60 cells, diameter grids are 3 × 3 with two refinements; above 90 cells one axis-wise refinement is used. Reduced search resolution keeps the full coupled physics within a few seconds, but can miss narrow feasible regions or secondary minima. Narrow the bounds around a promising result to refine it.

Curves are solved at 41 flow and 31 diameter points through 60 cells; at 31 and 17 points through 90 cells; and at 21 and 9 points above 90 cells. The pictures use PCHIP interpolation to 81 flow and 61 diameter points. This reduces runtime while retaining every circuit cell and the complete transport model, but can smooth narrow features. The diameter comparison is unconstrained and may extend beyond accepted transport, header or utilisation limits.

The default mass-transfer correlation is empirical, not universal for every felt or compression. Fit its coefficient and exponent to your electrode using the stated pore-velocity and projected-area conventions; changing the area convention changes the required coefficient. Tai et al.'s Table 3 provides independent checks of this transport branch. Its rounded limiting currents differ slightly from F k c, which is retained without fitting.

Crossover, nonideal activities, gas generation, tank dynamics, ageing, thermal feedback and full-cycle voltage cut-offs are omitted. Instantaneous efficiency is not round-trip efficiency. Tang et al. appeared online in 2013 and in Journal of Power Sources 248 (2014); their cycle-optimal factor 7.5 is not a universal target.

References

  • Xing, F., Zhang, H. and Ma, X. (2011). Shunt current loss of the vanadium redox flow battery. Journal of Power Sources 196, 10753–10757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2011.08.033
  • Tang, A., Bao, J. and Skyllas-Kazacos, M. (online 2013; journal 2014). Studies on pressure losses and flow rate optimization in vanadium redox flow battery. Journal of Power Sources 248, 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.09.071
  • Glazkov et al. (2022). Current Distribution in the Discharge Unit of a 10-Cell Vanadium Redox Flow Battery: Comparison of the Computational Model with Experiment. Membranes 12, 1167, Sections 2.1 and 3.2. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes12111167
  • Xing et al. (2015). The measurement of Kozeny-Carman constant in porous electrode of vanadium flow battery. Energy Storage Science and Technology 4(5), 506–509. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.2095-4239.2015.05.008
  • Churchill, S.W. (1977). Friction-factor equation spans all fluid-flow regimes. Chemical Engineering 84(24), 91–92. https://files.engineering.com/files/85c0f3a6-a102-4a22-9d35-f15858c0dd2b/CEM_-_Friction-factor_equation_%281977%29.pdf
  • Tai et al. (2021). Effects of Carbon Fiber Compression Ratio and Electrolyte Flow Rate on the Electrochemical Performance of Vanadium Redox Batteries. Journal of Chemistry, 6646256, Section 3.3, equations (8)–(10) and Table 3. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6646256

Inputs

InputSymbolUnitDefault
Cells in seriesN_cell40
Terminal currentI_loadA100
Operating modeop_modeDischarge
State of chargesoc0.5
Total vanadium concentrationc_vmol/L2
Electrolyte temperatureT_eldegC25
Cell OCV at 50% SOC
Formal potential at the entered electrolyte composition and temperature.
E_midV1.4
Cell area resistance
Include ohmic and linearised activation losses; exclude flow-dependent concentration loss.
ASRohm*cm^21.5
Positive electrolyte conductivitysigma_pS/m25
Negative electrolyte conductivitysigma_nS/m25
Dynamic viscositymu_elmPa*s4
Densityrho_elkg/m^31350
Pump and motor efficiencyeta_pump0.65
Felt flow lengthL_feltmm300
Felt widthW_feltmm500
Compressed felt thicknesst_feltmm4
Permeability modelperm_modeKozeny–Carman
Compressed porosityeps_f0.9
Fibre diameterd_fibreum10
Kozeny–Carman coefficient
Convention: permeability = d² ε³ / [K (1 − ε)²]; coefficients from other conventions must be converted.
K_kc24
Measured in-plane permeabilityK_measm^23e-10
Mass transfer at 1 m/s
Effective coefficient for projected-area current density; use a fit for your felt when available.
km_refm/s0.00016
Velocity exponentkm_exp0.4
Maximum limiting-current fraction
Allowed |j|/(F k c) at the felt outlet, including each cell's shunt current.
mt_limit0.95
Each feed channel lengthL_chmm200
Circular feed channel diameterD_chmm3
Circular manifold diameterD_manmm14
Cell pitch along manifoldpitchmm10
Absolute wall roughnessroughum1.5
Minor loss coefficient per channel
Sum bends, entrance and exit coefficients using channel velocity.
K_ch2
External loop pipe lengthL_pipem2
External loop pipe diameterD_pipemm20
External loop minor loss coefficientK_pipe5
Operating flow factor
Actual flow divided by the Faraday flow for the inlet reactant; applies to each electrolyte loop.
factor7.5
Minimum permitted flow factorf_min2
Maximum searched flow factorf_max15
Minimum feed diameterdc_minmm1.5
Maximum feed diameterdc_maxmm6
Minimum manifold diameterdm_minmm6
Maximum manifold diameterdm_maxmm24
Design objectiveobjectivePumping + shunt loss
Maximum single-pass reactant utilisation
The search rejects a design if any cell consumes more than this fraction of its inlet reactant.
u_max0.5

Results

With the default inputs above, the calc gives:

ResultValue
Recommended flow factor2.603
Recommended flow per electrolyte6.475 L/min
Recommended feed diameter2.06 mm
Recommended manifold diameter10.64 mm
Recommended pumping plus shunt loss15.99 W
Recommended two-pump electrical power6.04 W
Recommended ionic shunt loss9.95 W
Recommended system efficiency (%)85.82
Pumping plus shunt current loss52.46 W
Electrical power for both pumps30.38 W
Joule loss in all four ionic bypass rails22.08 W
Operating system efficiency (%)89.46
Operating flow per electrolyte18.656 L/min
Energy-equivalent loop pressure drop31,759 Pa
Maximum individual channel shunt current0.0168 A
Maximum individual manifold shunt current0.1613 A
Maximum additional cell discharge0.6444 A
Design interpretationSurface mass-transfer limit
Recommended outlet limiting-current fraction0.95
Largest outlet limiting-current fraction0.443
Minimum outlet surface reactant concentration482.1 mol/m³
Electrode-surface concentration loss109.39 W

Checked against sources

Each case below was calculated by this calc and agrees with the value from its source (within the tolerance where one is shown).

Published 10-cell shunt-only coulombic efficiency

Source: Glazkov et al. (2022), Membranes 12, 1167, DOI 10.3390/membranes12111167, Section 3.2. E=1.4 V, Rcell=0.2 Ω, Rchannels=2327 Ω, Rmanifold=7 Ω, I=0.4 A, N=10. Geometry is chosen only to reproduce those measured resistances. Checks the fixed-inlet-SOC circuit, not the concentration or hydraulic model. Reported efficiency is rounded.

Inputs: Cells in series = 10; Terminal current = 0.4 A; Felt flow length = 20 mm; Felt width = 20 mm; Cell area resistance = 0.8 Ω·cm²; Circular feed channel diameter = 2.092 mm; Circular manifold diameter = 8.53 mm; the others as above.

ResultSourceThis calc
Shunt-only charge-transfer ratio at fixed inlet SOC0.91 ± 0.0040.9081

Published 50% channel-resistance increase

Source: Glazkov et al. (2022), DOI 10.3390/membranes12111167, Section 3.2 and Figure 6. A 50% channel-resistance increase gives a 3.3% relative improvement from the rounded base efficiency 0.91, giving 0.94003. Tolerance accommodates the rounded base and percentage; no parameters are fitted to this efficiency.

Inputs: Cells in series = 10; Terminal current = 0.4 A; Felt flow length = 20 mm; Felt width = 20 mm; Cell area resistance = 0.8 Ω·cm²; Each feed channel length = 300 mm; Circular feed channel diameter = 2.092 mm; Circular manifold diameter = 8.53 mm; the others as above.

ResultSourceThis calc
Shunt-only charge-transfer ratio at fixed inlet SOC0.94 ± 0.0040.9372

Reviewer regression: undersized manifold gives no flow curve

Source: Independent reviewer reproduction supplied in this conversation: D_man=6 mm violates the 10% header-pressure criterion even at the lower flow endpoint. The advertised admissible flow curves must contain zero samples.

Inputs: Circular manifold diameter = 6 mm; the others as above.

ResultSourceThis calc
Admissible flow-curve samples00

Published low-velocity film transport

Source: Tai et al. (2021), Journal of Chemistry, DOI 10.1155/2021/6646256, Section 3.3, equations (8)–(10), Table 3. Local transport benchmark at reactant concentration 1.6 mol/L and projected current density 100 mA/cm². Geometry and flow are chosen solely to reproduce the reported pore velocity and current density, not the paper's complete stack. Temperature 25 °C is consistent with the table's logarithmic overpotentials. The printed limiting currents are about 0.7% above F k c using the stated concentration; the physical equation is retained. Tolerances allow that discrepancy and rounding. The reported overpotential is for one half-cell; the stack model sums both halves.

Inputs: Cells in series = 2; Terminal current = 5 A; State of charge = 0.8; Operating flow factor = 20; Felt width = 308 mm; Felt flow length = 16.235 mm; Compressed felt thickness = 3.6 mm; Compressed porosity = 0.95; Permeability model = Measured permeability; Maximum searched flow factor = 30; the others as above.

ResultSourceThis calc
Velocity-dependent mass-transfer coefficient8.32 × 10⁻⁶ ± 1 × 10⁻⁷ m/s8.311 × 10⁻⁶ m/s
Inlet limiting current density per half-cell1,292 ± 13 A/m²1,283 A/m²
Inlet film overpotential per half-cell0.03823 ± 8 × 10⁻⁴ V0.03883 V

Published higher-velocity film transport

Source: Tai et al. (2021), Journal of Chemistry, DOI 10.1155/2021/6646256, Section 3.3, equations (8)–(10), Table 3. Local transport benchmark at reactant concentration 1.6 mol/L and projected current density 100 mA/cm². Geometry and flow are chosen solely to reproduce the reported pore velocity and current density, not the paper's complete stack. Temperature 25 °C is consistent with the table's logarithmic overpotentials. The printed limiting currents are about 0.7% above F k c using the stated concentration; the physical equation is retained. Tolerances allow that discrepancy and rounding. The reported overpotential is for one half-cell; the stack model sums both halves.

Inputs: Cells in series = 2; Terminal current = 5 A; State of charge = 0.8; Operating flow factor = 20; Felt width = 126.3 mm; Felt flow length = 39.598 mm; Compressed felt thickness = 3.6 mm; Compressed porosity = 0.95; Permeability model = Measured permeability; Maximum searched flow factor = 30; the others as above.

ResultSourceThis calc
Velocity-dependent mass-transfer coefficient1.19 × 10⁻⁵ ± 1 × 10⁻⁷ m/s1.187 × 10⁻⁵ m/s
Inlet limiting current density per half-cell1,844 ± 19 A/m²1,833 A/m²
Inlet film overpotential per half-cell0.02008 ± 4 × 10⁻⁴ V0.02026 V

Published transport-limited case is rejected

Source: Tai et al. (2021), Journal of Chemistry, DOI 10.1155/2021/6646256, Section 3.3, equations (8)–(10), Table 3. Local transport benchmark at reactant concentration 1.6 mol/L and projected current density 100 mA/cm². Geometry and flow are chosen solely to reproduce the reported pore velocity and current density, not the paper's complete stack. Temperature 25 °C is consistent with the table's logarithmic overpotentials. The printed limiting currents are about 0.7% above F k c using the stated concentration; the physical equation is retained. Tolerances allow that discrepancy and rounding. The reported overpotential is for one half-cell; the stack model sums both halves. At 3.21×10⁻⁴ m/s the paper prints no finite overpotential because limiting current is below the applied 1000 A/m². The coupled operating solution must be rejected for surface depletion.

Inputs: Cells in series = 2; Terminal current = 5 A; State of charge = 0.8; Operating flow factor = 20; Felt width = 590 mm; Felt flow length = 8.474 mm; Compressed felt thickness = 3.6 mm; Compressed porosity = 0.95; Permeability model = Measured permeability; Maximum searched flow factor = 30; the others as above.

ResultSourceThis calc
Inlet limiting current density per half-cell996 ± 10 A/m²989.2 A/m²
Operating surface-transport admissibility00

Related Resources

Responses

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

L ading...