International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 4 Issue 02, February-2015
Design and Simulation of Paddle Wheel Aerator
with Movable Blades
Samsul Bahri Radite P.A. Setiawan
Department of Mechanical Engineering Department of Mechanical and Biosystem Engineering
Lhokseumawe State Polytechnic, Indonesia Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia
Wawan Hermawan Muhammad Zairin Junior
Department of Mechanical and Biosystem Engineering Department of Aquaculture
Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia
Abstract— The development of movable blade is based on Aerator Taiwan model had standard aeration efficiency
fact that power is required only when blade of paddle wheel (SAE ) value of 1.063 kg O2 kW h-1 (Peterson & Walker
aerator entering water and in contrary action of aeration effect 2002). Aerator designed by Bhuyaret al (2009) had SAE
only when the blade is about leaving the water. This study was value 2.269 kg O2 kWh-1. The most appropriate paddle wheel
carrier out to design and simulate paddle wheel aerator with
aerator was designed by Moore and Boyd with SAE value
movable blade which will open when entering water and close
when leaving water. Wheel closed at quadrant I to IV (entering 2.54 kg O2 kW h-1. Some of fabrications use aerator design
water surface) and was about to open at quadrant III to II with specification of 2.25-7.5 kW and SOTR 17.4- 23.2 kg
(leaving water surface). The blade was designed referring to O2 h-1 and average value of SAE was 2.2 kg O2 kW h-1
commonly used Taiwan wheel type. The component of mobable (Moore & Boyd 1992).
blade mechanism consisted of cam and shaft, velg, velg cap, Until now, the development of paddle wheel aerator still
blade holder, follower, spring and bearing. Follower was able uses non-movable blade which result in less optimum power
rotate with angle of rotation was 1250, rotational displacement consumption because power is linear with the increasing of
was 50 mm, maximum velocity was 0.55 m/s and acceleration aeration rate. Therefore, development of movable blade is
was 6.09 m/s2. Average drag force using movable blade at needed due to aeration power is only required when blade
operating depth 4 cm. 6 cm and 8 cm was 34.44 Nm, 55.54 Nm, entering water and in contrary the aeration effect only occurs
and 93.37 Nm, respectively. Torque was 9.90 Nm, 15.54 Nm, and when blade is about to leaving the water. Therefore movable
23.41 Nm, respectively. The reduction torque was 26.90%, blade was designed to open when leaving water and close
35.96% and 23.74%, respectively. The largest angle of pressure
when entering water. This study was aimed to design and
occurred between cam and follower was 40.120 and the
maximum torque required to rotate movable wheel was 80.09
simulate paddle wheel aerator with movable blade to reduce
Nm. drag force acting on blade as well as power consumption.
II. DESIGN METHOD
Keywordt; Paddle wheel aerator; movable blade aerator;
follower mechanism; drag force of aerator; torque of aerator A. Design
Wheel was designed to rotate clockwise with movable
blade that enabled to open and close. The blade was about to
I. INTRODUCTION close at quadrant I to IV (entering water surface) and open at
Aerator is used to increase air and water contact by means quadrant III to II (leaving water surface). Blade opened to 45 0
of mechanical device. Paddle wheel aerator is one type of from its close position which parallel to rim. Wheel dimension
widely used aerator device in pond farming. Laksitanonta was designed similarly with commonly used wheel size i.e. 20
(2003) confirmed that paddle wheel aerator is considered as cm width, 30 cm rim diameter and 60 cm total dimension.
the most appropriate aerator device due to aeration B. Simulation
mechanism and wide usable driven power. Simulation was carried out at different operating depths
Several parameters including water and air surface (h) and different follower position with a combination of
contact, differential oxygen concentration, film surface rotational speed (n) of 115 rpm. Operating depth was set at 4,
coefficient and turbulence influence aeration rate (Boyd
6 and 8 cm at position 1 (follower was perpendicular to the
1998). Aeration performance was influenced by geometry,
water surface), position 2 (follower was rotated to 15 0) and
size and wheel velocity (Moulicket al. 2002). Higher size
position 3 (follower was rotated to 300).
tends to have higher aeration whichsimultaneously followed
Simulation was carried out using computational fluid
by higher driven power needs due to higher drag force. This dynamic. The type of analysis was external flow with x-axis
condition creates certain problem in utilizing paddle wheel
as reference axis. The size of computational domain was
aerator as it may increase operational cost including electrical
80x30x14 cm and meshing was set at 2 mm (Figure 1). Fluid
and fuel consumption.
used in this experiment was water with temperature 25 0C and
IJERTV4IS020783 www.ijert.org 994
(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 4 Issue 02, February-2015
pressure 1 atm, density 997 kg/m3 and dynamic viscosity width, 20 cm of length, trapezoid-shape with 150 of bottom
0.00089 Pa2 s. side and 300 of top side, had 40 holes with diameter of 1.6 cm.
Simulation was performed by setting fluid flew opposite to Blade holder was used to place blade with shaft of 8 mm and
the statorwheel with tangensial velocity was 3.372 m/s. The height of 25 mm and bolted at the end side of rim. The
main results of the analysis were force, torque and contour. follower stem was used to push blade to open and close
adjusting to cam profile. The follower stem was 150 mm of
height and bearing with 19 mm of external diameter was
attached on the two end-sides. Spring consisted of opening
blade and closing blade. The opening spring was inserted to
follower stem with diameter of the spring was 10.5 mm,
length was 60 mm, wire diameter was 1 mm and spring
constanta was 0.35 Nm. The closing spring of blade was
attached on the front blade holder with diameter of 10 mm,
length of 45 mm, wire diameter of 1 mm and spring constanta
of 0.5 Nm.
B. Motion Mechanism
Movable blade were driven using cam mechanism. The
cam is a simply mechanism that can provide almost all types
of follower movement. The movement analysis of cam
mechanism is shown in Figure 3.
Fig. 1. Meshing domain
III. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
A. Stuctural Design
The wheel structure consisted of two main components
i.e.stationary and rotary component as shown in Figure 2.
Fig. 3. Profile analysis of cam-follower
Fig. 2. Wheel structure with movable blade Diagram of displacement, velocity and acceleration of
cam is important factors in determining cam design (Martin
1982). Equation of cam displacement is written as follows:
Stationary component consisted of cam and shaft. The
longest and shortest radius of cam were 680 mm and 17.5 θ θ2
for ≤ 0.5 s = 2h
mm, respectively. Cam was mounted to shaft with diameter β β2
of 25 mm and attached to machine frame. θ θ 2
Rotary component consisted of the rim, rim cap, blade for ≥ 0.5 s = h 1-2 1- (1)
β β
holder, follower, bearing and spring. The rim was octagonal-
shape encircling tube with diameter of 218 mm and height of Equation of cam velocity is written as follows:
30 mm. One side of the tube was enclosed with metal sheet, 𝜃 ds 4hωθ
shaft seat and bearing with diameter of 25 mm. Outside the for ≤ 0.5 =
𝛽 dt β2
shaft seat, sprocket that engage onto chain was attached for 𝜃 ds 4hω θ
transmission purpose. The rim cap was a shaft seat made from for ≥ 0.5 = 1- (2)
𝛽 dt β β
metal sheet and similar bearing with rim tube which mounted
to rim tube using bolt. Blade was used to directly bursting up Equation of cam acceleration is written as follows:
water. Blades formed 300 of angle towards rim with radius of 𝜃 d2 s 4hω2
curvature was 40 cm. The size of the blade was 15 cm of for ≤ 0.5 =
𝛽 dt2 β2
IJERTV4IS020783 www.ijert.org 995
(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 4 Issue 02, February-2015
𝜃 d2 s 4hω2 C. Angle of Pressure
for ≥ 0.5 =- (3)
𝛽 dt2 β2
Angle of pressure determines the smoothness of cam
The result of follower displacement, velocity and movement. The analysis of angle of pressure was illustrated
acceleration is shown in Table 1. in Figure 3. Angle of pressure (Ø) for every angular position
TABLE I. MOTION OF FOLLOWER was equated as follows:
r = Rb +s
ds
tan ∅ = (4)
r dθ
The magnitude of pressure angle for every angle of
rotation is shown in Table 2.
TABLE II. PRESSURE ANGLE OF FOLLOWER
The maximum displacement of follower for one rotation
50 mm with angle of rotation 1250 is shown in Figure 4.
The largest angle of pressure between cam and follower
was 41.400. This magnitude was too large and not necessary
for cam-follower mechanism as it required high force and
caused mechanism failure that led to machine damage.
D. Drag Force
Fig. 4. Displacement of follower Drag force of a blade is a drag that inhibit blade
movement in a water. The most common drag force is
friction force that parallel to object’s surface and pressure
The maximum velocity of follower was 0.55 m/s as
force that perpendicular to object’s surface. Drag force is
shown in Figure 5.
applied as an dynamic fluid for an object that flow through
fluid.
Drag force received by blade without using movable
blade mechanism at operating depth of 4 cm, 6 cm and 8 cm
for position 1, 2 and 3 was 51.35 N, 86.22 N, and 109.27,
47.48 N, 71.08 N and 110.51 N, and 54.67 N, 71.98 N and
106.70 N, respectively. While using movable blade
mechanism at operating depth of 4 cm, 6 cm and 8 cm was
34.41 N, 55.52 N, and 93.69 N, 13.24 N, 43.10 N, and 60.63
Fig. 5. Velocity of follower N and 19.13 N, 37.28 N and 69.98 N, respectively (Figure 7).
The constant acceleration was 6.09 m/s2 as shown in
Figure 6.
Fig. 6. Acceleration of follower
IJERTV4IS020783 www.ijert.org 996
(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 4 Issue 02, February-2015
Fig. 9. Reduction of drag force and torque
Fig. 7. Drag force of paddle wheel blade
According to the required torque, using Equation 6 and
Shallow operating depth caused low drag force due to without calculating other mechanical loss, required power to
contact surface area between blade and water as stated by rotate wheel using movable blade was about 0.34 kW. This
Munson et al (2006). magnitude of power was lower than commonly used standard
Torque is a quantitative measure of a force to rotate or power of fabricated-paddle wheel aerator which ranges
change the motion of an object. Torque that required by between 2.25-7.7 kW (Moore & Boyd 1992).
aerator is determined by the force acting and the
E. Spring Mechanism
perpendicular distance where the force is acted. Correlation
between the magnitude of torque and the magnitude of power Each blade had two types of spring i.e. blade-closing
(P) of the aerator to rotate paddle wheel aerator at certain spring and blade-opening spring. Blade-closing spring (s1)
angular velocity (ω) was calculated as follows: worked against drag force (Fd) and gravifty of the blade (w),
while blade-opening spring (s2) worked against force of
P=τω (6)
blade-closing spring from cam pressure due to wheel rotation.
Torque required by wheel without using movable blade Analysis of spring force is shown in Figure 10.
mechanism at operating depth of 4 cm, 6 cm and 8 cm for
position 1, 2 and 3 was 13.33 Nm, 23.89 Nm, and 31.28 Nm,
12.78 Nm, 20.19 Nm and 31.97 Nm, and 13.97 Nm, 18.88
Nm and 28.27 Nm, respectively. While torque required using
movable blade mechanism at operating depth of 4 cm, 6 cm,
dan 8 cm for position 1, 2 and 3 was 9.89 Nm, 15.54 Nm, and
23.45 Nm, 4.34 Nm, 12.33 Nm and 17.25 Nm, and 4.95 Nm,
9.19 Nm dan 17.65 Nm, respectively (Figure 8).
Fig. 10. Spring force analysis
Based on the calculation, some of spring data were
collected, including installed length, operating length,
operating force, springs material, wire diameter, average
diameter, inside diameter, outside diameter, free length,
number of coils and allowable shear stress for blade-opening
springs. The magnitude was 75 mm, 25 mm, 2.45 N, 49.05 N,
chromium-vanadium A231, 2 mm, 2 mm, 10.5 mm, 14.5 mm,
80 mm, 12 coils and 922.74 MPa, respectively. The magnitude
for blade-closing spring was 124 mm, 38 mm, 2.45 N, 264.50
N, chromium-vanadium A231, 2 mm, 2 mm, 8 mm, 125 mm,
Fig. 8. Torque of wheel blade 130 mm, 20 coils and 815.75 MPa, respectively.
Application of cam mechanism could reduce drag force of F. Innertia and Torque
the wheel. The average reduction at operating depth of 4, 6 Innertia and torque analysis are shown in Figure 11. The
and 8 cm was 56.50%, 40.73% and 31.30%, respectively. influencing parameters consisted of force acting on follower
While the average torque reduction using movable blade (P), inertia force of follower (f), force of gravity on follower
mechanism was 52.15%, 41.14% and 36.25%, respectively (W), shear stress acting on follower (F), normal force on rim
(Figure 9). towards follower (F1,F2), normal force of cam toward
follower (N), follower overhang (a), distance between
bearing surface (b), diameter of follower stem (d), pressure
IJERTV4IS020783 www.ijert.org 997
(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 4 Issue 02, February-2015
angle (Ø) and friction coefficient between follower (μ).
TABLE III. NORMAL FORCE OF CAM-FOLLOWER
G. Fluid Velocity
Fig. 11. Analysis of angle of pressure Fluid velocity contour occurred at wheel without using
movable blade is shown in Figure 12.
Total force along follower axis was:
F = P + f + W + Fs
(5)
Total vertical force was:
N cos ∅ = F + μ F1 + F2 (6)
Total horizontal force was:
F1 = F2 + N sin ∅ (7)
Summing moments to a point where F1works, gave:
F2 b - μd = Na sin ∅ +
d
F - N cos ∅ (8) Fluid velocity contour occurred at wheel using movable
2 blade mechanism is shown in Figure 13.
Fig. 12. Fluid velocity contour of fluid without using
By neglecting F1 and F2at the last 3 equations, normal force of movable blade mechanism
cam acting on follower was:
Fb Fluid velocity contour occurred at wheel using movable
N= (9)
b cos ∅- 2μa + μb - μ d sin ∅
2
blade mechanism is shown in Figure 13.
Torque required to rotate paddle wheel was calculated as
follow:
T = N (OB) (10)
The results of normal force, vertical force and horizontal
force are shown in Table 3. The maximum torque required to
activate blade mechanism was 80.09 Nm.
Based on the required torque, using equation 6 and
neglecting other mechanical loss, as much as 0.96 kW was
required to rotate movable blade on paddle wheel aerator.
Fig. 13. Fluid velocity contour using movable blade
Blade pushing flow pattern showed slight similar flow
pattern. Blade outcoming flow pattern showed that wheel
using movable blade mechanism had better flow pattern which
indicated by more uniform velocity.
IJERTV4IS020783 www.ijert.org 998
(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 4 Issue 02, February-2015
IV. CONCLUSION REFERENCES
The wheel structure consisted of two main components i.e. [1] Laksitanonta S, Singh S, and Singh G, A review of aerators and
stationary and rotary component. Stationary component aeration practices in Thai Aquaculture,”Agricultural Machanization in
consisted of cam and shaft. Rotary component consisted of a Asia, Africa and Latin America 34 (4):64-71. 2003.
rim, a rim cap, blade holders, followers, bearings and springs. [2] Moore JM and Boyd CE,” Design of small paddle wheel
The follower was able to rotate with angle of rotation was aerators,”Aquac Eng 11:55-69. 1992.
1250, rotational displacement was 50 mm, maximum velocity [3] Moulick S, Mal BC, and Bandyopadhyay,” Prediction of aeration
was 0.55 m/s and acceleration was 6.09 m/s2. The follower performance of paddlewheel aerators,”AquacEng 25:217-237.2002.
had constant acceleration. Average torque which required by [4] Peterson EL and Walker MB,” Effect of speed on Taiwanese
paddelwheel aeration,”AquacEng 26:129-147. 2002.
the paddle wheel using movable blade at operating depth of 4
cm, 6 cm and 8 cm were 9.90 Nm, 15.54 Nm, and 23.41 Nm, [5] Wyban JA, Pruder GD, and Leber KM,” Paddle wheel effect on shrimp
growth, production and crop value in commercial earthen ponds,”J
respectively. The drag force were 34.44 Nm, 55.54 Nm, and World Aquac Soc 20:18-23. 1989.
93.37 Nm, respectively. Torque reduction due to the used of [6] Bhuyar LB, Thakre SB, and Ingole NW,”Design characteristics of
movable blade at operating depth of 4 cm, 6 cm, and 8 cm curved blade aerator w.r.t. aeration efficiency and overall oxygen
were 26.90%, 35.96% and 23.74%, respectively.The largest transfer coefficient and comparison with CFDmodeling,”International
angle of pressure occurred between cam and follower was Journal of Engineering,Science and Technology 1: 1-15.2009.
40.120. The maximum torque required to rotate movable blade [7] Boyd CE,”Pond water aeration systems,”AquacEng18:9-40.1998.
was 80.09 Nm. Machine torque was largely used to activate [8] Martin, GH,”Kinematics and dynamics of machines”USA:McGraw-
movable blade mechanism rather than to use for reducing drag Hill,Ltd. 194-382, 1982.
force. [9] Munson, Young, and Okiishi,”Fundamentals of fluid mechanics” USA
: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 518-538, 2006.
IJERTV4IS020783 www.ijert.org 999
(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
