Journal of Power Sources 412 (2019) 391–397

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Power Sources

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jpowsour

Error of Darcy's law for serpentine flow fields: Dimensional analysis T

∗
Xuyang Zhang, Xu Zhang, Hidetaka Taira, Hongtan Liu
Clean Energy Research Institute, College of Engineering, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, 33146, USA

H I GH L IG H T S

• Two approaches of dimensional analyses of Darcy's law error in serpentine flow field.
• The two approaches result in four π -terms and two π -terms, respectively.
• The two π -terms from the analytical approach are simple to predict Darcy law errors.
• Two π -terms can provide Darcy law's suitability for any accuracy requirements.
• The accuracy of the model is validated by experimental data.

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A serpentine flow field is commonly used in both fuel cells and redox flow batteries. Accurate prediction of mass
Darcy's law transfer in the porous gas/liquid diffusion layer (GDL/LDL) is essential for both flow field design optimization
Modified Darcy's law and pressure drop predictions. Darcy's law has been widely used to predict fluid flow through GDL/LDL in fuel
Porous medium cells and flow batteries. However, since the inertial effect is neglected in the Darcy's law, significant errors can
PEM fuel cell
arise when it is applied to serpentine flow fields. In this work, dimensional analyses are performed using both the
Under-land cross-flow
Buckingham Pi-theorem and the analytical models developed earlier based on Darcy's law and modified Darcy's
Dimensional analysis
law. From the Pi-theorem, four and five non-dimensional parameters are obtained from the Darcy's law and the
modified Darcy's law, respectively. The variations of Darcy's law errors in predicting under-land cross-flow rate
with each of the non-dimensional parameters are studied. By comparing the coefficient of each term of the two
models, two independent Pi-terms for under-land cross-flow rate are obtained. The criterion for applicability of
Darcy's law is developed based on the two Pi-terms. The model predicted errors of Darcy's law compared very
well with experimental data, thus further confirms the applicability of developed criterion.

1. Introduction flow batteries), under-land convection (cross-flow) through the porous

Porous media, such as carbon paper and carbon cloth, are widely
used in various energy devices including proton exchange membrane
(PEM) fuel cells [1–3], redox flow batteries [4,5] and so on [6,7], and
the mass transfer rate in them affects the performance of the energy
devices significantly. Ferreira et al. [1] found that the hydrophobic
treatment of the porous medium increased the fuel cell performance by
decreasing the mass transfer loss at high current densities. Zhang et al.
[8] found that the increase of mass transfer loss was one of the main
reasons that caused a decrease in fuel cell performance after the ac-
celerated stress test. Houser et al. [9] showed that a suitable design of
flow field could significantly decrease the mass transfer loss and in-
crease the performance for redox flow batteries. For serpentine flow
fields (the most commonly used flow fields in PEM fuel cells and redox
medium is induced by pressure difference between two adjacent
channels. The under-land cross-flow not only enhances transport of
reactants to the catalyst layer, but also facilitates the removal of excess
products, such as liquid water, from the catalyst layer [10–12]. Vinh
et al. [13] showed that fuel cell performance could be increased by
increasing the under-land cross-flow rate in a modified serpentine flow
field. Latha and Jayanti [14] demonstrated that when the under-land
cross-flow was not considered, the pressure drop predicted was much
higher than the experimental results, so the required pumping power
would be over-predicted. Therefore, an accurate prediction of the
under-land cross-flow rate is critical to predict both performances and
pumping power, as well as the optimization of water management
strategies.
Darcy's law is widely used to predict the fluid flow through the

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hliu@miami.edu (H. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2018.11.071
Received 17 August 2018; Received in revised form 1 November 2018; Accepted 22 November 2018
0378-7753/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
X. Zhang et al.
Nomenclature
A Channel cross-section area (m2)
β GDL inertial coefficient (m−1)
f Friction coefficient of the channel
D Hydraulic diameter of the channel cross-section (m2)
Eo Non-Darcy's term
η Darcy's law's error from models (%)
δ GDL thickness (m)
k GDL permeability (m2)
KU Effective pressure loss coefficient of the U-turn
L Channel length (m)
μ Dynamic viscosity (kg m−1 s−1)
P Pressure (kg m−1 s−2)
ΔPch Pressure drop along the channel (kg m−1 s−2)
Π1 First Pi term
Π2 Second Pi term
porous medium in PEM fuel cell [10,15–17] and redox flow batteries
[12,18,19], where a linear relation between the pressure drop and
under-land cross-flow rate is assumed [20–22]. Park et al. [23,24]
employed the Darcy's law in their model and showed that the GDL
thickness had a large effect on the under-land cross-flow rate. Sun et al.
[25] applied the Darcy's law to study the effect of flow channel with
trapezoidal cross-sectional shape on the under-land cross-flow rate.
Zhang et al. [22] evaluated the flow distribution in porous medium and
fuel cell performance using the Darcy's law when adding baffles in the
cathode channels. Pressure drop and under-land cross-flow rate can be
predicted in numerical models based on Darcy's law [4,9,14,23,24,26]
if such a linear relationship is maintained. Shi et al. [15] utilized Dar-
cy's law in their model and found that both under-land cross-flow rate
and performance could be over-predicted without taking the assembly
compression into consideration. You et al. [19] used Darcy's law and
found that pressure drop was reduced by increasing channel depth and
width. The under-land cross-flow rate is essential to fuel cell perfor-
mance, especially in under-land region in serpentine flow fields
[27–29]. Pharoah [16] and Ye et al. [17] both found that the under-
land cross-flow rate through the porous gas/liquid diffusion layer
(GDL/LDL) increased rapidly in serpentine flow fields, when the GDL/
LDL permeability was greater than 1 × 10−13 m2. Park and Li [23,24]
found that the under-land cross-flow rate through the GDL accounted
for more than 5% of the inlet gas flow rate, when the GDL permeability
reached a certain level. Since it is difficult to directly measure the
under-land cross-flow rate, the overall pressure drop rather than under-
land cross-flow rate itself, is often used to evaluate the accuracy of
Darcy's law in various numerical studies [14,19,23,24,26].
Neglecting the inertial effect is considered to be the primary source
of Darcy's law errors [20,30–34]. Gostick et al. [35] and Pant et al. [36]
both found that Darcy's law was acceptable only when the under-land
cross-flow rate was low. However, when the flow rate increases, the
inertial effect becomes more and more significant. Pressure drops pre-
dicted by Darcy's law resulted in significant errors at high under-land
cross-flow rate [30,33,35,37], since the pressure difference between
two adjacent channels is no longer a linear function of the under-land
cross-flow rate [38,39]. Yuan et al. [40] found that the inertial effect
became important when the GDL permeability was greater than
2 × 10−11 m2. Taira and Liu [39] also found that the inertial effect was
not negligible when the under-land cross-flow rate was high. Moreover,
the inertial effect increased with under-land cross-flow rate, and when
the inlet gas changed from humid to dry conditions. As a result, without
considering the inertial effect, the under-land cross-flow rate can be
over-predicted by the Darcy's law under either high permeability or
high inertial coefficient [20,30,40].
Darcy's law has been modified to various forms, but the Darcy-
392
Journal of Power Sources 412 (2019) 391–397
Π3 Third Pi term
Qcr Under-land cross-flow rate (m3 s−1)
QcrD Under-land cross-flow rate from Darcy's law (m3 s−1)
QcrMD Under-land cross-flow rate from modified Darcy's Law (m3
s−1)
Qcrexp Experimental under-land cross flow rate (m3 s−1)
Qin Inlet flow rate (m3 s−1)
Qout Outlet flow rate (m3 s−1)
QU U-turn flow rate (m3 s−1)
Re Average Reynolds number in channel
u Fluid velocity in the U-turn (m s−1)
ū Average fluid velocity in channel (m s−1)
v Under-land cross-flow velocity (m s−1)
v0 Maximum under-land cross-flow velocity (m s−1)
w Land width (m)
ζ Darcy's law error compared with experimental data (%)
Forchheimer form (or called the modified Darcy's law) that includes an
addition term with the under-land cross-flow velocity to the power of
two is the most suitable to account for the inertial effect [41,42]. For-
chheimer [41] was first to point out that Darcy's law was not accurate
for high-Reynolds-number flows, since the inertial effect was not in-
cluded. Although several researchers have changed the inertial term
with the under-land cross-flow velocity to the power of different values,
instead of two, Irmay [43], Whitaker [44] and Giorgi [45] all found
that the inertial term with the under-land cross-flow velocity to the
power of two, derived from Navier-Stokes equation, had a rational
basis. Also, Takhanov [42] found that this modified Darcy's law fitted
the experimental results best for fluid flows in both unconsolidated and
consolidated porous media. It is obvious that a systematic error analysis
of the Darcy's law when applied to serpentine flow fields will be very
valuable to avoid large errors.
Dimensional analysis is a powerful method to systematically eval-
uate PEM fuel cell performance [46,47] and the fluid transport inside
the porous medium [32,39,48,49], but has not been applied to analyze
the error of Darcy's law. Iranzo et al. [46] and Chevalier et al. [47] use a
non-dimensional parameters: Damkhöler number, which is the ratio of
the electrochemical reaction rate to the mass transport rate in the GDL,
to study the limiting transport process and the current density dis-
tribution, respectively. Suresh and Jayanti [49] used a non-dimensional
parameters: Peclet number, defined as the ratio of the contributions to
mass transport by convection to those by diffusion, to study the effect of
permeability and inlet flow rate on the under-land cross-flow rate
predicted by Darcy's law, but the inertial effect was neglected. Taira
et al. [39] performed a dimensional analysis of their experimental data
and found the non-dimensional under-land cross-flow rate increases
linearly with the non-dimensional pressure difference between two
adjacent channels. Zeng and Grigg [32] proposed a non-dimensional
parameters: non-Darcy's term, defined as the ratio of the pressure gra-
dient caused by liquid-solid interactions to the total pressure gradient,
to represent the inertial effect. They proposed that Darcy's law was
acceptable when the non-Darcy's term was no more than 10%, but er-
rors caused by neglecting the inertial effect were not studied. It can be
seen from the above that a systematic dimensional study of the error of
Darcy's law to specify when Darcy's law is acceptable in predicting the
under-land cross-flow rate is still lacking.
In summary, even though Darcy's law has been widely used to
predict the fluid flow in porous GDL in fuel cells and redox flow bat-
teries, its accuracies under different conditions have not been system-
atically studied. In this work, non-dimensional analyses are performed
using both the Pi-theorem and the analytical models based on Darcy's
law and modified Darcy's law. From the Pi-theorem, four non-dimen-
sional parameters are obtained from the Darcy's law and five non-
X. Zhang et al. Journal of Power Sources 412 (2019) 391–397

dimensional parameters are obtained from the modified Darcy's law. In velocity in the U-turn.
the analytical approach, two independent Pi-terms are obtained by Since the pressure drop through the GDL between the inlet point
comparing the coefficients of each term of the two analytical models. and outlet point should be equal to the pressure loss along the flow
The criterion of the applicability of Darcy's law for serpentine flow channel, a function of the U-turn flow rate QU can be derived from the
fields is provided based on the two independent Pi-terms. Darcy's law and modified Darcy's law, respectively [30]:
ρ 2 ⎛ fμL 2μw ⎞ fμL 2μw ⎞
2. Non-dimensional analysis KU QU + + QU + ⎛ 2 − Qin = 0
2A2 2
⎝ 2D A kδL ⎠ ⎝ 2D A kδL ⎠ (7)
Model Development: In a serpentine flow channel, the gas flows
⎛KU ρ − 4βρw ⎞ QU2 + ⎛ fμL + 2μw + 8βρw Qin ⎞ QU
from the inlet channel to the outlet channel as shown in Fig. 1. Since a 2A2 δ 2L2 ⎠ 2 δ 2L2
⎝ ⎝ 2D A kδL ⎠
porous GDL is used underneath the flow field, though a large portion of
⎛ fμL 2 μw 4βρw ⎞
the inlet gas flows along the channel, some gas flows through the GDL + 2
− − 2 2 Qin Qin = 0
due to the pressure difference between the upstream channel and the ⎝ 2D A kδL δL ⎠ (8)
downstream channel. The under-land cross-flow rate between the inlet where A is the cross-sectional area of the flow channel, D is the hy-
point (circle point) and the outlet point (star point) is the highest owing draulic diameter of the flow channel, w is the land width. After solving
to the highest local pressure difference. The local under-land cross-flow the quadratic equations Eqs. (7) and (8), the under-land cross-flow rate
rate decreases along the upstream channel, due to the decrease of the Qcr can be obtained from Eq. (5). Detailed derivations and analytical
local pressure difference between the two channels caused by frictional solutions and experimental verification of the functions of the U-turn
losses. In developing the models, the following assumptions were made flow rate QU can be found in Ref. [30].
[30]: (a) The gas mixture is considered as an ideal gas; (b) the flow is Dimensional Analyses: Since the analytical solutions of Eq. (7) and
considered to be laminar; (c) the properties of the gas are constant; and Eq. (8) are complicated [30], a systematic method is required to study
(d) the flow is single-phase; (e) the flow in the channel is fully-devel- the error of Darcy's law in predicting the under-land cross-flow rate,
oped, i.e. pressure drop increases linearly with channel length. such as dimensional analysis. For a constant dynamic viscosity, there
For the Darcy's law, the pressure gradient through a GDL is a linear are six variables for Darcy's law case (QcrD∗, Qin , L , w , δ, k ). Since there
function of the under-land cross-flow velocity, shown as: are two reference dimensions (length and time) in these six variables, a
μ full dimensional analysis based on the Buckingham Pi-theorem results
∇P = − v in four independent non-dimensional parameters [50]:
k (1)
where μ is the dynamic viscosity of the gas, k is the GDL effective QcrD
QcrD∗ =
permeability, v is the apparent under-land cross-flow velocity through Qin (9)
the GDL in the y-direction. For the modified Darcy's law, an additional
L
term, i.e. the Forchheimer term, is added to account for the inertial L∗ =
w (10)
effect, shown as:
μ δ
∇P = − v − βρv 2 δ∗ =
k (2) w (11)

where β is the GDL inertial coefficient and ρ is the fluid density. The k
k∗ =
pressure gradient becomes a second-order function of the under-land w2 (12)
cross-flow velocity through the GDL for the modified Darcy's law.
where QcrD is the under-land cross-flow rate predicted by the Darcy's law.
The under-land cross-flow velocity can be assumed to be a linear
Then, the non-dimensional under-land cross-flow rate (QcrD∗) can be
distribution in the GDL along the channel (in the x-direction) [24],
written as a function of the other three non-dimensional parameters for
x
v (x ) = v0 ⎛1 − ⎞
⎝ L⎠ (3)
where v0 is the maximum under-land cross-flow velocity.
In order to satisfy flow conservation (continuity), the inlet flow rate
must equal the sum of the gas flow rate in the U-turn and the under-land
cross-flow rate,
L

∫ v (x ) δdx + QU = Qin
0 (4)
Or
Qcr = Qin − QU (5)
where δ is the GDL thickness, QU is the flow rate in the U-turn, Qin is the
inlet gas flow rate, and Qcr is the under-land cross-flow rate.
The pressure drop along the channel owing to the frictional loss and
U-turn can be calculated by Ref. [50]:
f L ρu¯ 2 ρu2
ΔPch = + KU
Re D 2 2 (6)
where f is the friction coefficient of the channel, Re is the average
Reynolds number along the channel, L is the channel length (the length
of the channel before it reaches the U-turn), D is the hydraulic diameter
of the flow channel, ū is the average fluid velocity in the channel, KU is Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the fluid flow in the single serpentine flow field
the effective pressure loss coefficient of the U-turn [50,51], u is the fluid with two adjacent channels [30].

393
X. Zhang et al. Journal of Power Sources 412 (2019) 391–397

the Darcy's law case.

∗
QcrD = ∅ (L∗, δ ∗, k ∗) (13)
There are seven variables for the modified Darcy's law (QcrMD∗, Qin ,
L,
w , δ, k , β ). According to the Buckingham Pi-theorem, there are five
independent non-dimensional parameters in the case for the modified
Darcy's law, and the non-dimensional under-land cross-flow rate (QcrMD∗)
can be written as a function of the other four non-dimensional para-
meters.
∗
QcrMD = ∅ (L∗, δ ∗, k ∗, β ∗) (14)
where
QcrMD
QcrMD∗ =
Qin (15)

β ∗ = βw (16)
where QcrMD
is the under-land cross-flow rate predicted by the modified
Darcy's law.
Since the modified Darcy's law has much better accuracy in pre-
dicting the under-land cross-flow rate [30,42,52,53], in this study the
under-land cross-flow rate predicted by modified Darcy's law (QcrMD ) is
taken as the reference. Thus, the error (η) of under-land cross-flow rate
predicted by the Darcy's law from the analytical models can be obtained
as:
|QcrMD − QcrD |
η= ∗ 100%
QcrMD (17)
Therefore, this error is also a function of the four independent non-
dimensional parameters in Eq. (13), shown as:
η = ∅ (L∗, δ ∗, k ∗, β ∗) (18)
In the following analyses, when the under-land cross-flow rate error
(η ) is greater than 10%, it is assumed that Darcy's law is no longer
acceptable. The error (ζ) of under-land cross-flow rate caused by
Darcy's law compared with experimental data can be obtained as:
|Qcrexp − QcrD |
ζ= ∗ 100%
Qcrexp (19)
where Qcrexp
is the under-land cross-flow rate obtained from experiments
[30].
Fig. 2 shows how the under-land cross-flow rate error varies with L∗
when fixing the other non-dimensional parameters. Generally, as L∗
increases, the error of the under-land cross-flow rate first increases and
then decreases. The reason for this is that when the channel length
increases, the total friction loss along the channel increases and more
gas flows through the GDL under the land area. As the under-land cross-
flow velocity increases, the inertial effect increases, so the error of the
under-land cross-flow rate increases. When the channel length increases
further, the under-land cross-flow dominates the fluid transport inside
the serpentine flow field, and even though the under-land cross-flow
rate increases, the under-land cross-flow velocity starts to decrease due
to the increases in the GDL cross-section area. The decrease of under-
land cross-flow velocity leads to a decrease in the inertial effect, so the
under-land cross-flow rate error decreases.
For a fixed L∗, the under-land cross-flow rate error increases with
both k ∗ and β ∗ and decreases with δ ∗, as shown in Fig. 2. The reason is
that either the increase in GDL permeability or decrease in GDL
thickness leads to an increase in the under-land cross-flow velocity and
the inertial effect, thus the under-land cross-flow rate error increases.
Besides, an increase in GDL inertial coefficient directly causes the in-
ertial effect to increase, leading to an increase in the under-land cross-
flow rate error.
Similar graphs of the variations of Darcy's law error with each of the Fig. 2. Under-land cross-flow rate error versus L∗: a) under different δ ∗; b)
under different k ∗; c) under different β ∗ .
other four non-dimensional parameters can be shown. To avoid
showing a very large number of graphs, only some examples of the

394
X. Zhang et al. Journal of Power Sources 412 (2019) 391–397

ranges of non-dimensional parameters where Darcy's law can be used 1 × 105 m−1 and 1 × 108 m−1 [20,21,35,38,54–56] are used. The re-
are provided below. For instance, when (k ∗, β ∗) = (5.83 × 10−7, lations of the under-land cross-flow rate error versus Π1 and Π2 , re-
1.29 × 104), Darcy's error is lower than 10% when δ ∗ is greater than spectively, are shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 4 (a) shows that when Π1 increases,
0.05 and L∗ is lower than 300; for e.g. (δ ∗, β ∗) = (0.41, 1.29 × 104), the under-land cross-flow rate error increases due to the increased di-
Darcy's law's error is lower than 10% when k ∗ is lower than 2 × 10−6 vergence of the Darcy's law from the modified Darcy's law. However, as
and L∗ is greater than 350. Π1 increases to certain values, the under-land cross-flow rate error
Obviously, it is rather tedious to check all four non-dimensional reaches plateaus. Fig. 4 (b) shows that the under-land cross-flow rate
parameters to determine whether Darcy's law is acceptable in pre- error increases with Π2 , obviously due to the increased difference of the
dicting the under-land cross-flow rate. In the following we are going to Darcy's law from the modified Darcy's law.
develop non-dimensional parameters directly from the analytical From the above, either Π1 or Π2 cannot be solely used to determine
models developed earlier, i.e. Eqs. (7) and (8). Closely examine the when Darcy's law is acceptable in serpentine flow fields. If the under-
coefficients of Eq. (7) and Eq. (8), one can find that the model from land cross-flow rate error is not negligible, both Π1 and Π2 have to be
modified Darcy's law (Eq. (8)) has an extra term in each of the coeffi- large enough at the same time. When both Π1 and Π2 are small, the
cients of the quadratic equations. For Eq. (7), the coefficients for the under-land cross-flow rate error is low. For instance, the error is lower
quadratic, linear and constant terms for Darcy's law are, than 10%, when both Π1 and Π2 are lower than 0.6 and the Darcy's law
ρ may be acceptable for some applications. For higher accuracy re-
a1 = KU quirement, e.g. if the under-land cross-flow rate error must be lower
2A2 (20)
than 6%, both Π1 and Π2 must be lower than 0.3.
fμL Fig. 5 plots the Darcy's law error in under-land cross-flow rate
b1 =
2D 2A (21) predicted by the model (η) versus that obtained by comparing with
2μw experimental results (ζ ) [30]. The results show that the criterion de-
b2 = veloped can be a very valuable tool in predicting the errors of Darcy's
kδL (22)
law for under-land cross flow rate in serpentine flow fields.
fμL
c1 = Qin
2D 2A (23)
3. Conclusions
2μw
c2 = − Qin
kδL (24)
Dimensional analyses are first performed using the Buckingham Pi-
Since b1 is normally much smaller than b2 , and the absolute value of theorem. Four non-dimensional parameters are obtained from the
c1 is normally much smaller than the absolute value of c2 , b2 and c2 are Darcy's law and five non-dimensional parameters are obtained from the
the dominant coefficients in the linear and the constant terms, respec- modified Darcy's law. The variations of Darcy's law errors in predicting
tively. under-land cross-flow rate with each of the non-dimensional para-
In modified Darcy's law (Eq. (8)), the additional coefficients in the meters are studied. Further dimensional analyses are also performed
quadratic, linear and constant terms are, respectively, using the analytical models based on Darcy's law and modified Darcy's
4βρw law. By comparing the coefficients of each term of two models, two
aex = − independent non-dimensional Pi-terms, Π1 and Π2 , are obtained and
δ 2L2 (25)
used to determine the errors of Darcy's law in predicting the under-land
8βρw cross-flow rate, when the flow is assumed to be single-phase. Based on
bex = Qin
δ 2L2 (26) the dimensional analyses, the following conclusions can be obtained:
4βρw 2
cex = − Qin
δ 2L2 (27)
When all the extra coefficients are negligibly small, Eq. (8) reduces
to Eq. (7). Thus it is reasonable to hypothesize that if all the additional
terms are small compared to the original dominant coefficients in the
Darcy's law, the error of Darcy's law must be small. Therefore, the ratios
of the additional terms to the original dominant coefficients can be
taken as non-dimensional parameters in evaluating the errors of Darcy's
law in serpentine flow fields. The three ratios are,

aex 8βwA2
Π1 = =
a1 KU δ 2L2 (28)

cex 2ρkβQin
Π2 = =
c2 μδL (29)

bex 4ρkβQin
Π3 = = = 2Π2
b2 μδL (30)
There are three non-dimensional Pi-terms, but only two are in-
dependent, since Π3 equals twice Π2 . Thus, only two Pi-terms are re-
quired. Fig. 3 shows the comparison of the Darcy's law errors predicted
by the model (η) and that based on the experimental data (ζ ). The re-
sults show that the model results of the under-land cross-flow rate error Fig. 3. Comparisons of under-land cross-flow rate errors of the Darcy's law
compared well with the experimental data. obtained from the model (η ) and that by compared with experimental data (ζ )
In this study, realistic ranges of GDL permeability from as Π1 varies from 0 to 1 and Π2 equals to 0.461 (i.e. k = 4.718 × 10−13 m2,
5 × 10−14 m2 to 1 × 10−10 m2 and GDL inertial coefficient between β = 1.13 × 107 m−1, L = 0.06 m, w = 0.002 m, Qin = 0.75 L/min [30]).

395
X. Zhang et al.
Fig. 4. Variations of the under-land cross-flow error with the two Pi-terms
when one of them is constant: a) Under-land cross-flow rate error versus Π1 for
different Π2 ; b) Under-land cross-flow rate error versus Π2 for different Π1 .
➢ Dimensional analyses based on the Buckingham Pi-theorem results
in four independent dimensionless parameters and the dependence
of errors of the Darcy's law on each can be determined.
➢ Dimensional analyses based on the analytical models resulted in
only two independent Pi-terms.
➢ The two Pi-terms can be easily used to predict the errors of Darcy's
law for under-land cross flow rate and the accuracy of the model is
validated by experimental data.
➢ Both the modeling and experimental results show that Darcy's law
can cause large errors in predicting under-land cross flow rate in
serpentine flow fields with real-life material properties and oper-
ating conditions.
➢ The potential error of using Darcy's law should be checked before it
is used in serpentine flow fields.
396
Journal of Power Sources 412 (2019) 391–397
Fig. 5. Comparison of Darcy's law error predicted by the model with those
obtained by comparison with experimental results [30].
References
[1] R.B. Ferreira, D.S. Falcão, V.B. Oliveira, A.M.F.R. Pinto, Electrochim. Acta 224
(2017) 337–345.
[2] S. Chen, X. Zhang, H. Liu, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42 (2017) 4667–4672.
[3] S. Chen, Z. Xia, S. Xing, X. Zhang, Y. Wu, Int. J. Simulat. Process Model. 10 (2015)
372–382.
[4] J. Houser, J. Clement, A. Pezeshki, M.M. Mench, J. Power Sources 302 (2016)
369–377.
[5] O. Nibel, S.M. Taylor, A. Pătru, E. Fabbri, L. Gubler, T.J. Schmidt, J. Electrochem.
Soc. 164 (2017) A1608–A1615.
[6] Z. Kang, J. Mo, G. Yang, Y. Li, D.A. Talley, S.T. Retterer, D.A. Cullen, T.J. Toops,
M.P. Brady, G. Bender, B.S. Pivovar, J.B. Green, F.-Y. Zhang, Appl. Energy 206
(2017) 983–990.
[7] Y. Wang, X. Qiao, C. Zhang, X. Zhou, ECS Trans. 72 (2016) 31–44.
[8] X. Zhang, L. Guo, H. Liu, J. Power Sources 296 (2015) 327–334.
[9] J. Houser, A. Pezeshki, J.T. Clement, D. Aaron, M.M. Mench, J. Power Sources 351
(2017) 96–105.
[10] J.P. Feser, A.K. Prasad, S.G. Advani, J. Power Sources 161 (2006) 404–412.
[11] V.N. Duy, J. Lee, K. Kim, J. Ahn, S. Park, T. Kim, H.-M. Kim, J. Power Sources 293
(2015) 447–457.
[12] Q. Xu, T.S. Zhao, P.K. Leung, Appl. Energy 105 (2013) 47–56.
[13] N. Vinh, H.-M. Kim, Energies 9 (2016) 844.
[14] J.T. Latha, S. Jayanti, J. Power Sources 248 (2014) 140–146.
[15] Z. Shi, X. Wang, J. Power Sources 185 (2008) 985–992.
[16] J.G. Pharoah, J. Power Sources 144 (2005) 77–82.
[17] Q. Ye, T.S. Zhao, C. Xu, Electrochim. Acta 51 (2006) 5420–5429.
[18] D.M. Bernardi, M.W. Verbrugge, AIChE J. 37 (1991) 1151–1163.
[19] X. You, Q. Ye, P. Cheng, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Tran. 75 (2016) 7–12.
[20] M.S. Ismail, T. Damjanovic, D.B. Ingham, L. Ma, M. Pourkashanian, J. Power
Sources 195 (2010) 6619–6628.
[21] O.M. Orogbemi, D.B. Ingham, M.S. Ismail, K.J. Hughes, L. Ma, M. Pourkashanian, J.
Energy Inst. 19 (2018) 270–278.
[22] G. Zhang, L. Fan, J. Sun, K. Jiao, Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 115 (2017) 714–724.
[23] J. Park, X. Li, J. Power Sources 163 (2007) 853–863.
[24] J. Park, X. Li, Int. J. Energy Res. 35 (2011) 583–593.
[25] L. Sun, P.H. Oosthuizen, K.B. McAuley, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 45 (2006) 1021–1026.
[26] S. Kumar, S. Jayanti, J. Power Sources 360 (2017) 548–558.
[27] P.V. Suresh, S. Jayanti, A.P. Deshpande, P. Haridoss, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 36
(2011) 6067–6072.
[28] K.-S. Choi, B.-G. Kim, K. Park, H.-M. Kim, Comput. Fluids 69 (2012) 81–92.
[29] R.M. El-Zoheiry, S. Ookawara, M. Ahmed, Energy Convers. Manag. 144 (2017)
88–103.
[30] X. Zhang, X. Zhang, H. Taira, H. Liu, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 43 (2018) 6686–6695.
[31] Z. Shi, X. Wang, Proceedings of the COMSOL Conference Boston, 2007.
[32] Z. Zeng, R. Grigg, Transport Porous Media 63 (2006) 57–69.
[33] S. De Schampheleire, K. De Kerpel, B. Ameel, P. De Jaeger, O. Bagci, M. De Paepe,
Materials (2016) 9.
[34] W. Sobieski, A. Trykozko, Tech. Sci. 17 (2014) 321–335.
[35] J.T. Gostick, M.W. Fowler, M.D. Pritzker, M.A. Ioannidis, L.M. Behra, J. Power
Sources 162 (2006) 228–238.
[36] L.M. Pant, S.K. Mitra, M. Secanell, J. Power Sources 206 (2012) 153–160.
[37] J. Zhao, S. Shahgaldi, I. Alaefour, Q. Xu, X. Li, Appl. Energy 209 (2018) 203–210.
X. Zhang et al. Journal of Power Sources 412 (2019) 391–397

[38] J.P. Feser, A.K. Prasad, S.G. Advani, J. Power Sources 162 (2006) 1226–1231. [50] B.R. Munson, T.H. Okiishi, W.W. Huebsch, A.P. Rothmayer, Fundamentals of Fluid
[39] H. Taira, H. Liu, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 37 (2012) 13725–13730. Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2013.
[40] J. Yuan, B. Sundén, Int. J. Green Energy 1 (2004) 47–63. [51] S. Kakac, H. Liu, A. Pramuanjaroenkij, Heat Exchangers: Selection, Rating, and
[41] P. Forchheimer, Z. des Vereins Deutsch. Ingenieure 45 (1901) 1782–1788. Thermal Design, CRC press, 2002.
[42] D. Takhanov, Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College [52] J. Kim, G. Luo, C.-Y. Wang, J. Power Sources 365 (2017) 419–429.
London, London, UK, 2011. [53] K. Chaudhary, M.B. Cardenas, W. Deng, P.C. Bennett, Geophys. Res. Lett. 38
[43] S. Irmay, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 39 (1958) 702–707. (2011) 24.
[44] S. Whitaker, Transport Porous Media 25 (1996) 27–61. [54] A.D. Santamaria, M.K. Becton, N.J. Cooper, A.Z. Weber, J.W. Park, J. Power Sources
[45] T. Giorgi, Transport Porous Media 29 (1997) 191–206. 293 (2015) 162–169.
[46] A. Iranzo, M. Muñoz, F.J. Pino, F. Rosa, J. Power Sources 196 (2011) 4264–4269. [55] D. Tehlar, R. Flückiger, A. Wokaun, F.N. Büchi, Fuel Cell. 10 (2010) 1040–1049.
[47] S. Chevalier, C. Josset, B. Auvity, Renewable Energy, (2018). [56] M.S. Ismail, T. Damjanovic, K. Hughes, D.B. Ingham, L. Ma, M. Pourkashanian,
[48] T. Reshetenko, A. Kulikovsky, J. Electrochem. Soc. 164 (2017) F1633–F1640. M. Rosli, J. Fuel Cell Sci. Technol. 7 (2010) 051016.
[49] P.V. Suresh, S. Jayanti, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 23 (2016) 20120–20130.

397