See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303547784

Re-design and Optimization of Traditional Undershot Wheel using High

Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Blades

Conference Paper · April 2016

CITATIONS READS

2 515

5 authors, including:

Lokesh Paudel Pratisthit Lal Shrestha

Kathmandu University Kathmandu University
2 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Design and Development of Bionic Prosthetic Hand View project

DESIGN OF A SMALL SCALE CFB BOILER COMBUSTION CHAMBER FOR LABORATORY PURPOSES View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pratisthit Lal Shrestha on 27 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the International Symposium on Current Research in Hydraulic Turbines

CRHT – VI
March 14, 2016, Turbine Testing Lab, Kathmandu University, Dhulikhel, Nepal
Paper no. CRHT2016-14

Re-design and Optimization of Traditional Undershot Wheel using High

Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Blades
Abinish Kr Dutta1*, Bibhor Shrestha1, Janak Shahi1, Vijay Kr Chaudhary1 and
Pratisthit Lal Shrestha1
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kathmandu University, Dhulikhel, Nepal

*Corresponding author (abinishdutt@rocketmail.com)

Abstract
Undershot wheel, one of the oldest types of water-wheels, is a vertical water-wheel with a horizontal shaft which
rotates by the continuous strike of water flowing underneath the wheel on its blades/paddles/buckets. Relatively
simple and inexpensive to fabricate, it has been used widely in the past to generate electricity or to obtain torque
to run certain mechanisms. Conventional undershot wheels made of wood used to have flat paddles which are
considered to be less efficient. For the sake of its further simplicity and efficiency, an undershot wheel has been
designed using high-density polyethylene pipes which are comparatively inexpensive and more resistant to water
being non-corrosive and non-decaying. Additionally, it’s easier to form curve-shaped blades from these pipes
than from conventional wood materials, thus increasing the wheel’s efficiency. Similarly, considering its
applications which range from production of small-scale electricity to irrigation, the wheel has been preferably
optimised for irrigation. 24 blades have been used in making an undershot wheel with a diameter of 1m and 0.5m
width which was applied to run a reciprocating pump to lift water up to a height of 15 m given a stream discharge
of 70.5L/s and a stream velocity of 1.41 m/s. The result was found to be promising for its broad-scale application
in irrigation systems in a wide variety of water streams in Nepal, where most operators use external energy
sources other than water’s mechanical energy itself for irrigation. Its prospects in Nepal seem bright in terms of
affordability, ease of fabrication and adaptability to a wide number of applications under varied conditions.

Keywords: Undershot wheel, HDPE blades, Reciprocating pump, Small-scale irrigation

1. Introduction
Generally called a stream wheel, the undershot wheel is one of the oldest kinds of water wheels in
existence. Originally used by the ancient Greeks and Romans [1], it is simple, cheap and easy to
fabricate. It is a vertically mounted wheel conventionally placed in a fast-flowing river or stream with
the lower part submerged in water such that the water directly strikes the lower blade/s and makes the
wheel rotate in the flow’s direction by imparting momentum as it passes through. Although less efficient
than the other vertical wheels [2], it is more efficient than the horizontal wheel and has been studied
here considering its potential utility to the local farmers. The farmers can easily afford the fabrication
and maximize its efficiency through simple modifications discussed in the later sections of this paper.
The paper subtly examines the required parameters and makes modifications for its prospective broad
scale use in Nepal.
Traditionally, wood was the most widely used material for the wheel’s blades making the fabrication
difficult and the wheel less durable. Through discussions in the section below, various commonly used
materials have been examined using comparison tables. The traditional wood material has been replaced
with high-density polyethylene (a commonly used thermoplastic) because of its advantages over other
usable materials. In the other two sections, the optimization of the wheel for maximum efficiency and
its application to testing for power-transmission at a local site have been discussed. The discussions
include design calculations and modifications made for the reasons stated.

2. Material choice justification

The following properties are desirable for a material’s use in the local low-head streams or rivers for
the purpose specified:
Table 1: Properties and reasons for their desirability

S.N. Properties Reason/s

i) Light weight/ low density Floatability and ease of on-stream assembly

ii) High impact strength Resistance to unpredictable impacts from stones, etc

iii) High erosion resistance Durability

iv) High abrasion resistance Durability

v) High chemical resistance Durability, non-contaminative

vi) Low moisture absorption Steady long-term behavior

vii) High tensile strength Durability

viii) High specific strength Durability, ease of on-stream assembly and greater
deformation-resistance

ix) Greater hardness Durability

x) Low friction coefficient Durability, predictability in behavior

xi) Low toxicity Non-polluting

xii) Low decay-ability Durability

High-density polyethylene satisfies all of these properties. But although some other usable materials
possess these properties too, HDPE has been selected by making the following comparisons.
2.1 Comparison to wood
Woods come with a wide range of properties, but the most common wood materials (specifically
hardwood) that have features comparable to those of HDPE are far too expensive and rare [3].
Ochroma pyramidale, for example, which is light as well as strong and water-resistant is too rare in the
Nepali market and highly expensive. Most cheap woods available have low moisture- resistance and
strength [4] and are vulnerable to deformation while processing which makes them inept for precise
fabrication when many wooden parts with the same dimensions are to be made [5]. And it’s easier to
cut out curved blades of required dimensions from readily available HDPE pipes than to make them
from wood. The size of an undershot wheel can vary according to the local flow conditions of a stream,
which may sometimes cause the use of wood to have a much higher environmental impact than HDPE,
which, although made of petroleum, has a lower environmental footprint if recycled [6,7,8].
Additionally, most cheap woods have lower specific strength than that of HDPE, which makes HDPE
a better choice. From an economic standpoint, locally available water-resistant woods with high
specific-strengths are comparatively more expensive as the table below shows.
 Table 2: Rounded off prices of woods compared to that of HDPE (as of 26th February, 2016 in Nepal)

Particulars Price (Rs.)

Dalbergia sissoo (Sheesham) 6500/cu. ft.

Shorea robusta (Sal) 6000/cu. ft.
Ficus religiosa (Peepal) 1200/cu. ft.
Terminalia elliptica (Asna) 3500/cu. ft.
Adina cordifolia (Haldu) 2800/cu. ft.
HDPE 146/ft. (for 5” diameter hollow pipe)

2.2 Comparison to other plastic materials

HDPE is the most commonly used thermoplastic of all, and also the most easily available in the local
market. Other pipe materials like PVC, etc. have similar advantages, but HDPE is found to be more
suitable due to the differences in the values of certain parameters stated in the following table:
Table 3: Comparison of the most relevant properties of HDPE, LDPE and PVC [9, 10, 11]
Plastics HDPE LDPE PVC
Properties (all types) (all types) (all types)
Density [g/cc] 0.959-0.965 0.91-0.925 1.16-1.35
Tensile strength [psi] 5000-6000 600-2300 1500-7500
Tensile modulus [psi] 150K-158K 25K-41K 350K-600K
Tensile elongation [%] 10-1300 100-650 40-450
Strength to weight
21-63 8 6-20
ratio[kN-m/kg]
Water absorption [24 0.04-0.4 (flexible)
<0.01 <0.01
hrs, 1/8 thick (%)] 0.15-0.75 (rigid)
Impact strength [izod (ft-
0.5-20 No break 1
lb/in. of notch]
Hardness [Shore (D)] 60 (min.) 40 60 (approx.)
Friction coefficient 0.25-0.3 0.3 0.4
Chemical resistance Good Good Good

2.2.1 Discussion
The lower density of HDPE than that of PVC and higher average strength make for a high strength to
weight ratio which is desirable for its use in local streams because the gravitational torque does not
vary significantly and the on-stream disassembly and reassembly of the wheel becomes much easier
because of its lightness. Bigger ranges of tensile elongations and impact strengths mean that we can
choose the required HDPE’s according to varying concentrations of sediments and particle-sizes.
Greater hardness and lower friction-coefficient mean that the HDPE has a higher erosion – resistance
than those of the other two. Since the flow-speed isn’t modified significantly for an undershot wheel,
the abundance of erosive materials like quartz, etc. [12, 13] can’t have a pronounced effect on the service
life of HDPE blades in the short-term. HDPE is chemically resistant, which makes it applicable for
long-term use in rivers, although higher hydrocarbon concentrations can deteriorate the quality and
performance HDPE just as those of the other pipes. Lower level of water absorption causes the
variations in overall efficiency with seasonal and flow changes to stay minimum. All these advantages
make HDPE a better choice for the wheel than the traditional materials.

3. Optimization for higher efficiency

The efficiency of a water wheel is largely dependent upon the percentage of momentum of the striking
water that gets transferred to the vanes. Overshot wheels have higher efficiency because the vanes retain
the water for a longer time as they rotate and release water after having received enough momentum.
Undershot wheels have lower efficiency because the vanes encounter water for a relatively short time
and capture only a part of the kinetic energy causing the water to only slightly slow down. Traditional
undershot wheels used to have flat blades which were radially positioned along the rim. Much of the
incoming energy was lost as water bounced off the vanes subtracting the momentum. Jean-Victor
Poncelet (1788-1867) found a way to increase the efficiency by capturing maximum kinetic energy of
the water by retaining it for a longer time than normal flat radial vanes did [2]. He suggested the use of
curved or cylindrical blades shaped and positioned in a way that would cause the water to hit directly
on the edge instead of the side allowing the vanes to hold the water long enough for maximum
momentum transference. This resulted in a remarkable increase in the wheel’s efficiency.
The efficiency of an undershot wheel with flat blades is given by the following equation given by M.
Denny [2]:
Pout
ε= = 2c(1 − c)2 (1)
Pin

where c is a factor that represents the fraction of the initial water speed at the which the waterwheel
vane moves. We get the maximum efficiency at c = 1/3 of around 30%.
Upon Poncelet modification, the equation becomes:
ε = 2c (1 − c) (2)
Equation (2) gives us a maximum efficiency of 50% attained at c = 1/2.
Poncelet achieved efficiencies up to about 65%, which Denny attributes to gravitational torque which
can have a substantial effect.
Designing for the section of Roshi Khola near Panauti Powerhouse, Kavre, Nepal as discussed in the
following section, a pipe of 12.7 cm diameter was decided to be cut into three equal pieces along its
perimeter, each with a length of 54 cm and subtending an angle of 120° at the center. This was done
taking the ease of design and fabrication into consideration. For an even greater efficiency, a pipe with
a diameter of 10 cm could similarly be cut into two equal pieces of equal length each subtending an
angle of 180° at the center [14], in accordance with the design discussed below.

4. Design of the wheel for irrigation

[The values used are based on the experiment carried out at the particular site and can vary for other
streams.]
Required delivery height of 15m was considered for the site. The power required by the water lifting
device (i.e. a reciprocating pump in this case) of a system is calculated using the following formula:
Pp = 𝜌 g A L (Hs + Hd) f (Watt) (3)
where, 𝜌 is the density of water. (1000 kg/m3), g is the acceleration due to gravity. (9.8 m/s2), A is the
cross-sectional area of the cylinder of the pump (0.00385 m2) used in the experiment and L is the stroke
length of the pump (0.135 m). Hs is the suction height (≈ 0) for the experiment and Hd the delivery head
(= 15m) as targeted. The frequency f of the wheel’s revolution is given by:
𝑣
f= 2πR
(4)
where v represents the stream-velocity found to be 1.408 m/s and R the wheel’s radius. Substituting the
known and unknown values in the equation (3), the power required by the pump is obtained to be
 1075.76
Pp = W (5)
2πR

The graph obtained by plotting the data of Pp against the inversely proportional R is shown below:

300

250

200

Pp 150

(W) 100

50

R (cm)

Figure 1: Power required by the pump (Pp) vs Radius of the wheel (R)
Counterintuitive as it might sound, the graph shows that value of the power necessary to drive the pump
is inversely proportional to the radius of the wheel which provides the driving power. As the radius of
the wheel is increased, the frequency correspondingly decreases, which causes the work done given in
this case as W = mgh, to decrease per unit time. This explains why the power, which is equal to work
done per unit time, decreases as the wheel’s radius increases.
The power gained by the 50% efficient undershot wheel from the stream given by,
Stream Power (Ps) = 100×A×v3×C (6)
where A is area of the blade used in the undershot wheel(m ), v is velocity of stream(m/s ), C is the
2 2

water to wire efficiency (i.e. 2.5 for 50% efficiency).

Discharge Q used by the undershot wheel can be calculated as
Q = v ×d ×w
where, v is the velocity of the stream (i.e. 1.408 m/s, measured using the float method). d is the depth
to which the lower blade goes and w is the width of the wheel, determined by hit and trial method as
0.5 m. The discharge then becomes 70.4 L/s, approximated as 70.5 L/s when the velocity is rounded
off to 1.41 m/s.
Similarly, the equation:
v2
H= (7)
2g

gives us a stream-head of 0.10 m.

Substituting these values in equation (6), the stream power becomes Ps = 34.89 W.
This is the power used by the pump to lift the water.
From the graph in figure (1), the required radius of the wheel is obtained to be 0.50 m.
Length of each blade = 0.1 m (approximately equal to the head of the stream)
Working radius of the wheel = (0.5-0.1) m = 0.4 m
Working circumference of the wheel = 2.51 m
 For the construction of the undershot wheel, the blade spacing should be less than the head of the stream
(i.e. 0.1 m). Considering the curved blade profile and allowing space for the passage of water,
geometrically solving, the number of blades is obtained to be 24.
The system fabricated according to this design was subsequently tested at the site. It was able to lift the
water up to a height greater than 12 m. The obtained result was found to be promising for its future
application as an irrigation system, particularly by smallholder farmers.

5. Conclusion
With the advent of sophisticated hydraulic turbines, undershot wheel lost its ubiquity among urban and
rural communities around the world. The use of the wheel was thus far limited to running traditional
mills and generating electricity on a small-scale. The wheel’s potential application to irrigation methods
as discussed above can revive its use in the local Nepali communities. The ease of design with the
modifications stated above can make its broad-scale use entirely feasible in a country reeling under
energy shortages and an economic crisis.

References
[1] Reynolds, T.S. (1983), “Stronger Than a Hundred Men: A History of the Vertical Water Wheel”,
Johns Hopkins Studies in the History of Technology: New Series 7, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, ISBN 0-8018-2554-7
[2] Denny, M., “The efficiency of overshot and undershot waterwheels”, Institute of Physics
Publishing, European Journal of Physics, Eur. J. Phys. 25 (2004) 193–202
[3] Wilson, K., and D.J.B. White (1986), “The Anatomy of Wood: Its Diversity and Variability”
Stobart & Son Ltd, London.
[4] Green, D. W., Winandy, J. E. and Kretschmann, D. E. (2007), “The Encyclopedia of Wood”, U.S
Department of Agriculture
[5] Walker, John C.F. (2006), “Primary Wood Processing: Principles and Practice”, Springer Science
& Business Media
[6] Wood, T., “Paper or Plastic? Neither!”, Forest ecology network, Retrieved from
http://www.forestecologynetwork.org/climate_change/plastic_or_paper.html
[7] “Paper or Plastic?”, The Environmental Literacy Council”, Retrieved from
http://enviroliteracy.org/environment-society/life-cycle-analysis/paper-or-plastic/
[8] Muthu, S. S., Li, Y., Hu, J-Y., Mok, P-Y., “An Exploratory Comparative Study on Eco-Impact of
Paper and Plastic Bags” Journal of Fiber Bioengineering and Informatics, 03/2009; 1(4):307-
320.
[9] “Compare Materials: HDPE and LDPE”, Retrieved from
http://www.makeitfrom.com/compare/High-Density-Polyethylene-HDPE/Low-Density-
Polyethylene-LDPE/
[10] “Polyethylene (PE): Typical Properties Generic HDPE”, UL, Retrieved from
http://plastics.ulprospector.com/generics/27/c/t/polyethylene-pe-properties-processing/sp/5
[11] Titow, M.V. (1984), “PVC Technology”, Springer Science & Business Media
[12] Bastola, A. K., Neopane, H. P., "Mineral Analysis and Erosion Potential of Sediment Samples
from Nepalese Hydro Power Plant: A Case Study of Lower Marsyangdi Hydropower Plant",
Journal of Machinery Manufacturing and Automation, Sept. 2014, Vol. 3 Iss. 3, PP. 50-55
[13] Neopane, H. P., Sujakhu, S., “Particle size distribution and mineral analysis of Sediments in
Nepalese hydropower plant: A case study of Jhimruk hydropower plant”, Kathmandu University
Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology, VOL. 9, No. I, July, 2013, pp 29-36
[14] Douglas, J. F (2011), “Fluid Mechanics”, Prentice Hall

View publication stats