Aerodynamic characteristics of plate-type windborne debris

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Journal of Wind Engineering

and Industrial Aerodynamics 94 (2006) 5176
www.elsevier.com/locate/jweia
Investigation of plate-type windborne debris.

Part I. Experiments in wind tunnel and full scale$
Ning Lina, Chris Letchforda,, John Holmesb
a
Civil Engineering, Texas Tech University, P.O. Box 41023, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
b
JDH Consulting, P.O. Box 269, Mentone, Victoria 3194, Australia
Received 30 December 2004; received in revised form 26 September 2005; accepted 6 December 2005
Available online 10 January 2006
Abstract
Modeling of the trajectory of windborne debris for incorporation in wind hazard risk assessment
requires the knowledge of debris aerodynamics. On-going experiments to determine the ight
characteristics of various types of debris are being carried out in the Texas Tech University (TTU)
wind tunnel. This paper investigates the aerodynamic characteristics of plate-type debris. Useful data
are presented in dimensionless form. Empirical expressions for estimating the horizontal ight speed
and distance are derived. Results from wind-tunnel experiments are in reasonable agreement with
those from full-scale tests. These results can be used to validate numerical calculations of trajectories
of plate-type windborne debris.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Debris; Plate type; Hurricane; Trajectory; Aerodynamics; Wind tunnel
1. Introduction
Debris is a major cause of damage and building destruction in strong wind events such
as hurricanes and tornadoes. Potential debris includes roof gravel, roof members, and
other building components, as well as tree limbs and vehicles. In hurricanes, strong
sustained winds that only change direction slowly often lead to building failures that
launch debris into the wind eld, causing a cascade of subsequent building damage. In a
$
Please note that Part II: Investigations of plate-type windborne debris Part II: Computed Trajectories, has
been published in Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics, Volume 94, issue 1, (2006) pp. 2139.
Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 806 742 3476; fax: 1 806 742 3446.
E-mail address: chris.letchford@ttu.edu (C. Letchford).
0167-6105/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2005.12.005
ARTICLE IN PRESS
52
N. Lin et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 5176
tornado, the faster speeds combined with a vertical component tend to pick up heavier
debris items and sustain them in the wind eld, allowing them to accelerate to much higher
velocities. This fast-ying debris may cause loss of human life and great damage to
building surfaces. Once the envelopes of buildings are penetrated, internal pressurization
approximately double the loads on suction zones, a phenomenon often sufcient to cause
failure of roong and wall cladding which generates new debris.
The problem of debris may be summarized as one of ight initiation, ight trajectory
(involving travel time, distance, and velocity), and impact. Wills et al. [1] classied debris
into three generic types: compact, plate-like, and rod-like, and studied the ight initiation
for each. Wang and Letchford [2] studied the ight initiation of plate-like objects in a wind
tunnel; the test results compared favorably with the model of Wills et al. Wills et al. [1] also
established a damage model of debris impact as a function of debris velocity. However,
debris velocity itself has received little attention. This is despite there being a number of
standard impact test specications (e.g., [3,4]) which have largely been developed from
post-damage investigations, with little research on the aerodynamics of ying debris.
Knowledge of debris aerodynamics and proper estimation of debris trajectory are
necessary to establish rational impact criteria and risk assessment models.
Research on ight behavior and trajectory of debris has been undertaken sporadically
since the 1970s, e.g., Lee [5,6] and Twisdale et al. [7] studied missile transport in tornados.
Assumptions about debris aerodynamics were made to calculate debris trajectories. In the
1980s, Tachikawa [8,9] rst conducted experiments on at plates in a wind tunnel, and
revealed the existence of ight modes occurring as a function of the initial angle of attack.
Tachikawa [8] established non-dimensional equations of debris motion and introduced a
non-dimensional parameter K describing the ight behavior based on both ow and debris
characteristics. Holmes et al. [10] describe numerical modeling of cube and plate
trajectories. Baker [11] also made an analytical and numerical study of debris ight
behavior, using an alternative non-dimensional form.
Model experiments to determine the ight characteristics of the three generic types of
debris have been carried out in the Texas Tech University (TTU) wind tunnel. Full-scale
tests on plates were also conducted, using a C-130 aircraft to generate strong winds. This
paper presents these experimental studies of plate-type debris. The experimental
procedures are described in detail. Flight features of plates are examined, including the
mode of motion, trajectory, and velocities, all of which are affected by the wind eld,
model characteristics, and initial support conguration. Data are interpreted in
Tachikawas non-dimensional form [8]. Simple empirical expressions are derived to
estimate the horizontal ight speed (with given ight distance) and ight distance (at given
ight time) of plate-type debris. Wind-tunnel and full-scale test results are in reasonable
agreement. These expressions may be used to establish rational debris impact test criteria.
Part 2 of this paper [12] presents numerical modeling of the ight of plate-type objects, and
compares computed trajectories with the experimental results.
2. Experiments
2.1. Wind-tunnel experiments
Model experiments were carried out in the closed circuit 1.8 m wide by 1.2 m high wind
tunnel at TTU. The wind tunnel was cleared of all roughness elements. The turbulence
ARTICLE IN PRESS
53
intensity varied from 0.5% at launch position in the center of the wind tunnel to about 3%
in the wall boundary layers approximately 250 mm thick. A circular electromagnetic
support (diameter b 18 mm) was placed 0.6 m high and 6.65 m in front of a catch net. A
BK Precision DC power supply provided a steady 12 V potential to the electromagnet.
Small metal tabs glued to the models held them to the magnet. A schematic drawing of the
debris velocities
Z
B- perpendicular to flow
Um
vm
um
D
0
X
b
Wind, U, a
debris model, m,
electromagnet
Fig. 1. Diagram of debris launch support in wind tunnel.
Table 1
Plate models for the wind-tunnel experiments
Plate no.
Material
Size (B D h) (mm mm mm)
Mass (g)
D=B
p
h= BD %
b/B (%)
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
#11
#12
#13
#14
#15
#16
#17
#18
#19
#20
#21
#22
Basswood
Balsa
Plastic
Balsa
Plywood
Balsa
Balsa
Plywood
Plywood
Basswood
Basswood
Aluminum
Floppy disc
Basswood
Plastic
Balsa
Basswood
Plywood
Plywood
Balsa
Plastic
Basswood
26 26 9
40 40 1.5
42 42 2
50 50 3
50 50 6
55 55 3
75 75 3
75 75 3
75 75 6
75 75 9
76 76 1.5
76 76 1.5
90 90 2.5
150 50 9
120 50 1
126 56 4.5
126 56 4.5
120 75 3
75 120 3
56 126 4.5
50 120 1
50 150 9
3.8
1.1
5.1
2.1
11.1
2.6
3.2
12.3
22.3
24.8
5.0
25.2
15.0
31.7
10.5
4.0
5.7
19.0
19.0
4.0
10.5
31.7
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.30
0.42
0.44
0.44
0.63
1.60
2.25
2.40
3.00
34.6
3.75
4.76
6.00
12.0
5.45
4.00
4.00
8.00
12.0
1.97
1.97
2.78
10.4
1.29
5.36
5.36
3.16
3.16
5.36
1.29
10.4
69.2
45.0
42.9
36.0
36.0
32.7
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
23.7
23.7
20.0
12.0
15.0
14.3
14.3
15.0
24.0
32.1
36.0
36.0
ARTICLE IN PRESS
54
Table 2
Plate debris for the full-scale tests
p
h= BD %
Plate no.
Material
Size (B D h) (m m m)
Mass (kg)
D/B
C2
3/800 MDF
2.46 1.24 0.0095
22.5
0.50
D1
Tempered Hardboard+Styrofoam
2.44 1.22 0.025
2.44 1.22 0.025
15.0
19.3
0.50
0.50
14.5
14.5
2.46 1.24 0.019

2.46 1.24 0.019
2.46 1.24 0.019
1.24 2.46 0.019
43.2
42.5
43.7
46.2
0.50
0.50
0.50
2.00
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.9
D2
3/400 MDF
0.4
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
0.1
0.2
0.3 0.4 0.5

Time (sec)
0.6
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
4
3
2
1
0
0.7
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.3 0.4 0.5

Time (sec)
0.6
0.7
6
Horizontal
displacement (m)
Vertical displacement
(m)
(a)
0.5
0.4
0.3
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
0.2
0.1
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
0.1
0.2
(b)
(m)
-0.6
0
0.3 0.4 0.5

Time (sec)
0.6
0.7
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Time (sec)
0.6
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
(c)
Horizontal
displacement (m)
0.6
Horizontal
displacement (m)
(m)
E1
E2
E3
E4
5.44
0.1
0.2
0.3 0.4 0.5

Time (sec)
0.6
0.7
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Time (sec)
Fig. 2. Analysis of debris trajectory. (a) Trajectories of plate #8, U 9.1 m/s (a0 01), (b) trajectories of plate #8,
U 21:5 m=s (a0 01), (c) trajectories of plate #8, U 16:4 m=s (a0 01).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
55
debris launch support is shown in Fig. 1. In this gure and throughout the study, debris
ight coordinates are xhorizontal displacement, zvertical displacement, Sresultant
displacement, and tight time; debris velocity components are um horizontal debris
velocity, vm vertical debris velocity, and U m resultant debris velocity; dimensions of a
debris model are hthickness, Bwidth perpendicular to ow, Dlength parallel to ow;
rm debris density; ra air density; Uwind speed; a0 initial angle of attack.
Wind velocities were measured by a 4-hole Cobra Probe (T.F.I. Series 100) located
adjacent to the launch support. Switching off the current to the electromagnet allowed the
debris to begin ight at any desired wind speed. An Olympus American Encore MAC PCI
version 2.18 digital video camera (60 Hz, 0.0167 second per frame) was used to capture
ight paths. Flight time and coordinates were obtained from the images. Parallax
corrections were made to ight paths assuming that the object stayed largely on the
centerline plane of the wind tunnel. Flight speeds were calculated from the corrected data
of ight time and coordinates.
1
plate speed / windspeed
Um
Um = s / t
0.8
Um
dt )
Um =(d
dss// dt
um
um = s / t
0.6
um =(d
dsx// dt
um
dt )
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.1
0.2
(a)
0.3
Time (sec)
0.4
0.5
0.6
plate speed / wind speed
0.8
0.6
Um = s / t
0.4
Um = ds / dt
um = s / t
0.2
um = ds / dt
0
0
(b)
0.1
0.2
0.3
Time (sec)
0.4
0.5
0.6
Fig. 3. Calculation of debris horizontal and resultant velocities. (a) Plate #8, U 9.1 m/s, a0 01, (b) Plate #8,
U 16:4 m=s, a0 01.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
56
Twenty-two plate models were used. The plate materials included wood, plastic, and
aluminum, so as to provide a wide variety of densities. The square and rectangular plates
ranged in weight from 1.1 to 31.7 g and in side length from 26 to 150 mm. Wind speeds
ranged from 4.5 up to 26 m/s. Model dimensions and wind speeds were designed to provide
a range of debris side ratio, support condition, and the Tachikawa parameter K (2.232 in
this study). The details of the plate models are shown in Table 1.
All models were released at an initial angle of attack, a0 of 01. In order to investigate the
effects of initial angle of attack on debris trajectory, a square plate (#8), two rectangular
plates (#15 and #21) were also tested at other initial angles of attack. All models were
supported at the center. A square plate (#3) supported at different places was also tested to
investigate the inuence of initial support. Three trials were undertaken for each case.
2.2. Full-scale tests
Full-scale tests were conducted with a C-130 Hercules aircraft to simulate strong winds,
at the west runway of Reese Technology Center, Lubbock, Texas. The site is characterized
as Exposure Category C in ASCE 7. Previous experiments demonstrated that the propeller
wash of a C-130 aircraft is suitable for use as a source of extreme winds [13]. Table 2 shows
details of the full-scale debris which mainly consisted of rectangular 4 ft 8 ft plate debris
ranging in weight from 15 to 45 kg. The plates were launched from a 1 m high table in the
eld. Wind velocities were measured by an RM Young propeller/vane anemometer located
1 m high and 1 m upstream of the launch table. The same camera used in the wind-tunnel
tests was employed here.
3. Data analysis
In the wind tunnel, each of the plate models was tested at increasing wind speeds until
the plate hit the wind-tunnel ceiling. The coordinates and the time intervals were exported
0.6
Vertical displacement (m)
U=8.5 m/s
0.4
10 m/s
10.8 m/s
0.2
11.9 m/s
0
13.9 m/s
15.3 m/s
-0.2
16.3 m/s
18.0 m/s
-0.4
20.8 m/s
-0.6
0
2
4
3
5
Horizontal displacement (m)
p
Fig. 4. Plate trajectories at different wind speeds (Plate #8, ra =rm 0:0015, D=B 1, h= BD 4%,
b=B 24%, a0 01, s center).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
57
from the digital camera le to EXCEL spreadsheets. The data were analyzed to determine
horizontal displacements, vertical displacements, and velocities. Parallax corrections were
undertaken at this stage. Time nominally started at the moment of release.
Fig. 2 shows examples of trajectory analyses for one plate model (#8) at three different
speeds. As shown in Fig. 2a, at a relatively low wind speed, each trial of a plate had quite
consistent trajectories when falling. This consistency was also apparent at high wind speeds
when the plate ew up (Fig. 2b). Fig. 2c shows that, at a critical wind speed, trials
presented some differences. However, these differences are predominately in the vertical
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
#7
-0.2
#8
-0.4
-0.6
0
2
3
4
p
Fig. 5. Plate trajectories affected by debris density (U 12:5 m=s, D=B 1, h= BD 4%, b=B 24%, a0 01,
s center).
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
h / BD
-0.2
-0.4
#13
2.78 %
# 8
4.0 %
# 9
8.0 %
-0.6
0
2
3
4
6
5
p
Fig. 6. Plate trajectories affected by geometrical feature h= BD (U 18.1 m/s, ra =rm 0:0015, D=B 1,
b=B 20224%, a0 01, s center).
1
ARTICLE IN PRESS
58
direction. Horizontal displacements are practically constant for each trial of a plate at a
given wind speed.
Fig. 3 shows examples of velocity analyses for one model (#8) at two different
wind speeds. Both horizontal (um ) and resultant (U m ) velocities were calculated by
two methods. The rst method used discrete displacements to calculate velocities:
um Dx=Dt (U m DS=Dt), with Dt 0:083 s (ve video frames). The second method
involved tting best t polynomials to the displacements and differentiating to obtain
velocities: um dx=dt (U m dS=dt), in which xt and St are tted polynomial
functions (R2 values over 0.99). The second method results in smooth graphs. Although the
results from the second method do not reect the real debris velocity very well at the
beginning of ight, the two methods yield close results for the portions of high-debris ight
speed. At a relatively low wind speed, the resultant velocity of a plate is higher than
its horizontal velocity due to the relative importance of its vertical velocity component
(Fig. 3a), while at a higher wind speed, the resultant and horizontal velocities are
much closer (Fig. 3b). This difference in velocities reects the inuence of the lift force on
the debris. The closer the two curves, the smaller is the vertical velocity (vm ), which
indicates the greater the lift force sustaining the debris ight and counteracting the effects
of gravity.
Horizontal and resultant plate velocities used in the following discussion were obtained
by averaging the results from the two calculation methods. The vertical velocity was
calculated using the rst method (vm Dz=Dt).
Non-dimensional analyses were undertaken with non-dimensional variables
according to Tachikawas non-dimensional equations of debris motion [8]: horizontal
displacement (x gx=U 2 ), horizontal velocity (u um =U), vertical displacement
m U m =U), and time
(z gz=U 2 ), vertical velocity (v vm =U), resultant velocity (U
(t gt=U).
0.6
#7 K=9.1
0.4
#8 K=4.6
#9 K=3.0
0.2
#10 K=2.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
0
2
3
4
Fig. 7. Plate trajectories affected by K ra U 2 =2hgrm . (D=B 1, b=B 24%, a0 01, s center).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
59
4. Results and discussion

4.1. Flight behavior of plates in the wind tunnel
The experimental results indicate that, for a certain debris shape, the debris trajectory
(T) is a function of at least nine parameters: wind speed (U), air density (ra ), plate
dimensions (B, D, and h), plate density (rm ), support dimension (b), support position
(s, e.g., center, corner, or edge), and initial angle of attack (a0 ), and can be expressed as
T f U; ra ; rm ; h; B; D; b; s; a0 .
(1)
The variations of two-dimensional plate trajectories within these parameters were

investigated. Fig. 4 shows the trajectories of plate #8 at wind speeds ranging from 8.5 to
20.8 m/s. The higher the wind speed, the higher the ight path. Fig. 5 shows the effect of
0.6
#6 D/B=1
0.4
#20 D/B=2.25
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
0
(a)
2
3
4
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
#15 D/B=0.42
-0.2
#18 D/B=0.63
-0.4
#13 D/B=1
-0.6
0
(b)
2
3
4
Fig. 8. Plate trajectories affected by geometrical feature D/B. (a) D=BX1 (K 6:7, b=B 33%, a0 01, s
center), (b) D=Bp1 (K 6:7, b=B 15220%, a0 01, s center).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
60
plate density on plate trajectories. With the same geometric dimensions but lower density,
plate #7 (ra =rm 0:0057) ew higher than plate #8 (ra =rm 0:0015), at the same wind
speed. Fig. 6 shows the effect of plate dimension
h on plate trajectories. Comparison of
p
trajectories of three square plates (h= BD 2:8 8:0%)
with similar b/B (2024%)
p
clearly show that the lift force increases with decreasing h= BD, and overcomes gravity to
accelerate the plate into the air.
The effects of U, ra , rm , and h on debris trajectories can be presented using the nondimensional Tachikawa parameter K ra U 2 A=2 mg ra U 2 =2ghrm [8], the ratio of
0.6
0.4
0.2
#10 b/B=24%
-0.2
#1 b/B=69%
-0.4
-0.6
0

Fig. 9. Plate trajectories affected by relative support dimension b/B (K 7.6, D/B 1, a0 01, s center).
0.6
0.4
#3 center
#3 corner
#3 edge
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
0
2
3
4
Fig. 10. Plate trajectories affected by support place s (K 3.37, D/B 1, b/B 43%, a0 01).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
90 deg
135 deg
165 deg
0 deg
15 deg
45 deg
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
1
2
3
4
5
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
0
(b)
90 deg
135 deg
165 deg
0.6
90 deg
135 deg
165 deg
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
1
2
3
4
5
0 deg
15 deg
45 deg
0 deg
15 deg
45 deg
(c)
1
2
3
4
0 deg
15 deg
45 deg
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
0
(d)
90 deg
135 deg
165 deg
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
0 deg
15 deg
45 deg
0.6
0.4
-0.6
0.4
-0.6
0
(a)
(e)
90 deg
135 deg
165 deg
0.6
0.6
0 deg
15 deg
45 deg
61
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
4
(f)
90 deg
135 deg
165 deg
1
2
3
Fig. 11. Variations in mode of motion and trajectory with initial angle of attack a0 (deg). (a) Plate #8 (D/B 1, b/
B 24%, s center), K 5.9, (b) Plate #8, K 11, (c) Plate #15 (D/B 0.42, b/B 15%, s center), K 4.5, (d)
Plate #15, K 12.5, (e) Plate #21 (D/B 2.4, b/B 36%, s center), K 4.5, (f) Plate #21, K 11.2.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
62
aerodynamic force to gravity force. Reducing the parameters, Eq. (1) can be rewritten as
T f K; D=B; b=B; a0 ; s.
(2)
Fig. 7 shows the trajectories of four square plates with different values of K while
holding the values of the other parameters constant. As expected, plate trajectories rise as
K increases.
The side ratio (D/B), another plate geometrical feature, also affects the trajectory. As
shown in Fig. 8, given the same K value and holding the other dimensionless parameters
constant, the smaller the side ratio, the higher the plate ies. The trajectory variation is
greater when D=B41 than when D=Bo1.
In addition to K and D/B, three initial support conguration factors signicantly
affected the plate trajectories: b, s, and a0 . Fig. 9 presents the inuence of the support
dimension. Given the same K, the trajectories of plate #10 (b/B 24%) and plate #1
(b=B 69%) show that the smaller the ratio of support diameter to plate width (b/B), the
Horizontal speed / Wind speed
0.8
0.6
#7 K=9.1
0.4
#8 K=4.6
#9 K=3.0
0.2
#10 K=2.2
0
0
2
3
4
3
#7 K=9.1
#8 K=4.6
#9 K=3.0
#10 K=2.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Time (sec)
0.8
1.2
Fig. 12. Horizontal plate trajectories affected by K ra U 2 =2hgrm (D/B 1, b/B 24%, a0 01, s center).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
63
0.8
0.6
0.4
#6 D/B=1
0.2
#20 D/B=2.25
0
0
(a)
(b)
1
4
2
3
5
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
#15 D/B=0.42
#18 D/B=0.63
0.2
#13 D/B=1
0
0
1
4
2
3
5
6
5
4
3
#6 D/B=1
#20 D/B=2.25
1
0
larger the initial lift force, increasing the ight altitude. Fig. 10 shows the trajectories of
plate #3 supported at the center, corner, and edge, respectively, at a given wind speed.
When the support was at the center of the plate, the lift force developed on the front half of
the plate was largely unaffected by the support; however, when the support was at the
middle of the plates leading edge, gross disturbance to the ow occurred at the critical lift
generation position, lowering the altitude of the plates ight. Support at a corner of the
plate resulted in a combination of these two effects.
Video records show that the trajectory pattern of a plate depends mainly on its mode of
motion, which in turn is closely related to the initial angle of attack (a0 ). Fig. 11 shows, at
different a0 , the trajectories of square plate #8 (a,b), rectangular plate #15 (D=B 0:42)
(c,d), and rectangular plate #21 (D=B 2:4) (e,f) at relatively low and high values of K.
Tachikawa [8] dened three ight modes for plates: auto-rotating, intermediate, and
translatory. In these tests, generally at a0 0 and a0 15 , plates entered into clockwise
auto-rotation and ew up over long distances. At a0 45 and a0 90 , the intermediate
mode changed from clockwise to counter-clockwise rotation at initial stages of ight and
then to translatory mode at 451 to horizontal before hitting the ground. For a0 135 , at
relatively low wind speeds, one or two counter-clockwise rotations were followed by
translatory mode, also at 451 to ground. However, as wind speed increases, the translatory
mode of plates may change to clockwise rotation and the plates y up (b, d, and f). At
a0 165 , plates entered into counter-clockwise auto-rotation. It was noted that at
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Time (sec)
1.2
6
5
4
3
#15 D/B=0.42
#18 D/B=0.63
#13 D/B=1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Time (sec)
1.2
Fig. 13. Horizontal plate trajectories affected by side ratio (D/B). (a) D=BX1 (K 6.7, b/B 33%, a0 01, s
center), (b) D=Bp1 (K 6.7, b/B 1520%, a0 01, s center).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
64
a0 15 , plate #15 (D/B 0.42) had relatively low ight paths at both low and high wind
speeds (c,d), and that at a0 165 , its initial counter-clockwise rotation changed to
clockwise at high wind speed and the plate ew up (d).
4.2. Horizontal trajectories of plates in the wind tunnel
Although plate trajectories showed great variations in the vertical direction with each of
the ve parameters in Eq. (2), the horizontal component of the plate trajectories showed
1.2
#10 b/B=24%
#1 b/B=69%
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
3
2
4
#10 b/B=24%
#1 b/B=69%
3
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Time (sec)
0.8
1.2
Fig. 14. Horizontal plate trajectories affected by b/B (K 7.6, D/B 1, a0 01, s center).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
65
certain patterns. Figs. 1216 show the effect of each of the parameters on horizontal plate
trajectories, in terms of horizontal velocity versus horizontal displacement, and horizontal
displacement versus ight time.
It was seen in Fig. 7 that plate trajectories rise as K increases. K also greatly affects the
horizontal component of plate trajectories. Fig. 12 shows that horizontal speed (with a
given horizontal displacement) increases with K, as does the horizontal displacement (at a
given time).
Plate trajectories rise as side ratio (D/B) decreases (Fig. 8); however, D/B appears to only
slightly affect plate horizontal trajectory. In Fig. 13(a), horizontal velocities (with a given
horizontal distance) of plate #6 (D/B 1) and plate #20 (D/B 2.25) are quite close. The
horizontal displacement (at a given time) of plate #20 is slightly less than that of plate #6.
When D=B1, D/B has little inuence on either velocity or horizontal displacement, as
1
#3 center
#3 corner
#3 edge
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
2
3
4
5
#3 center
#3 corner
#3 edge
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Time (sec)
0.8
1.2
Fig. 15. Horizontal plate trajectories affected by s (K 3.37, D/B 1, b=B 43%, a0 00).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
66
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
(a)
2
4
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
90 deg
135 deg
165 deg
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
4
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
90 deg
135 deg
165 deg
0 deg
15 deg
45 deg
0.8
Time (sec)
0 deg
15 deg
45 deg
90 deg
135 deg
165 deg
0 deg
15 deg
45 deg
(b)
90 deg
135 deg
165 deg
0 deg
15 deg
45 deg
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Time (sec)
Fig. 16. Horizontal trajectories affected by initial angle of attack a0 (deg) (Plate #8, D/B 1, b/B 24%, s
center). (a) K 5.9, (b) K 11.
shown in Fig. 13(b). This indicates that given the same value of K, square and rectangular
plates present similar ight trajectories in the horizontal direction, even though they have
different aerodynamic coefcients.
The effects of initial support conguration on the horizontal plate trajectories are also
very small. Fig. 14 shows that there is little inuence of the support dimension (b/B) on
horizontal plate trajectories with the same K. Fig. 15 shows that plate #3 supported at the
center, corner, and edge, respectively, followed an almost identical horizontal trajectory.
Although the mode of motion, which is closely related to a0 , greatly affects the plate
trajectories in the vertical direction (Fig. 11), the corresponding horizontal trajectories are
almost independent of a0 (Fig. 16). Therefore, initial situation greatly inuences the
vertical trajectory of plates, but not the horizontal trajectory.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
67
The investigation of two-dimensional trajectory of plate-like debris was extended to

compact- and rod-like debris. Although the results are not given herein, the horizontal
trajectories showed comparable characteristics to those of plates and are mainly dependent
on K.
4.3. Non-dimensional horizontal trajectories of plates in the wind tunnel
In this section, the experimental data are presented according to Tachikawas nondimensional scheme [8]. Since the horizontal trajectory of a particular debris type is mainly
dependent on K, non-dimensional horizontal debris velocity, u , at a given non-dimensional
1.2
1
u=
um
0.8
0.6
#1
#4
#7
#10
#13
#16
#19
#22
0.4
0.2
0
0.0
4.0
8.0
12.0
16.0
(a)
20.0
#2
#5
#8
#11
#14
#17
#20
24.0
28.0
#2
#5
#8
#11
#15
#18
#21
#3
#6
#9
#12
#16
#19
24.0
28.0
#3
#6
#9
#12
#15
#18
#21
32.0
36.0
K
1.2
1
U
0.6
u=
um
0.8
0.4
0.2
0
0.0
(b)
4.0
8.0
12.0
16.0
20.0
#4
#7
#10
#13
#17
#20
32.0
36.0
Fig. 17. Non-dimensional horizontal plate velocities versus Tachikawa K. (a) x xg=U 2 0:05, (b)
x xg=U 2 0:1.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
68
horizontal displacement, x,
is a function of K. Fig. 17 shows this relationship for plates at
given non-dimensional horizontal displacements. The data collapsed well at both a small
horizontal displacement (x 0:05) (Fig 17a) and a large horizontal displacement (x 0:1)
(Fig 17b), though u for some rectangular plates (#19 and #21) show relatively low values at
x 0:1.
1.2
0.6
u=
um
0.8
#14 (0.33)
#17 (0.44)
D/B=1
#21 (2.4)
0.4
0.2
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
#15 (D/B=0.42)
#18 (0.63)
#19(1.6)
#22 (3.0)
0.6
x=
0.8
1.0
gx
U2
0.8
#14 (0.33)
#17 (0.44)
D/B=1
#21 (2.4)
#15 (D/B=0.42)
#18 (0.63)
#19(1.6)
#22 (3.0)
x=
gx
U2
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
gt
t=
U
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Fig. 18. Non-dimensional plate trajectories in the horizontal direction (K 6).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
69
Alternatively, the data showed that non-dimensional horizontal trajectories of plates

with different side ratios, with different initial support congurations, and at a range of
wind speeds, collapsed for each K (2pKp32 in the experiments). Fig. 18 is an example of
horizontal trajectories of plates when K equal to 6. The data show that non-dimensional
debris horizontal velocity with given K is primarily a function of non-dimensional
horizontal displacement, which is a function of non-dimensional ight time.
1.2
0.8
0.6
#1
#4
#7
#10
#13
#16
#19
#22
u = 1 - e-1.8Kx
0.4
0.2
0
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
#2
#5
#8
#11
#14
#17
#20
#3
#6
#9
#12
#15
#18
#21
4.00
5.00
Kx
Fig. 19. Horizontal trajectory of plate-type debris (u versus K x).
Kx
#1
#5
#9
#13
#17
#21
#2
#6
#10
#14
#18
#22
#3
#7
#11
#15
#19
#4
#8
#12
#16
#20
Eq.(6)
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Kt
5.0
6.0
7.0
Fig. 20. Horizontal trajectory of plate-type debris (K x versus K t).
8.0
ARTICLE IN PRESS
70
u depends on both x and K, and x depends on both t and K. When combining K with
these non-dimensional variables, all experimental data for plates collapse well in Figs. 19
and 20, as u versus K x and K x versus K t, respectively. This combination is consistent with
Bakers non-dimensional equation of debris motion in the horizontal direction [11]. It is
noted that the gravitational constant, g, is cancelled in both K x and K t.
The data in Fig. 19 show that for the observed debris trajectory, u can be approximated
by an exponential function of K x
u 1 e
p
2CK x
(3)
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.00
1.00
2.00
(a)
3.00
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
#11
#12
#13
#14
#15
#16
#17
#18
4.00
5.00
Kx
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.00
(b)
1.00
2.00
3.00
#19
#20
#21
#22
4.00
5.00
Kx
Fig. 21. u versus K x of plates with various plan aspect ratios D/B. (a) D=Bp1, (b) D=B41.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
71
The best t parameter with all data of plate models is: C p 0:911 with a standard
deviation of s 0:0814. C p can be regard as an average aerodynamic coefcient for plate
horizontal trajectory. Thus for plates,
p
1:8K x
u 1 e
s 0:0814.
(4)
Eq. (4) represents a good empirical prediction of the horizontal velocity of a plate when it
reaches a given distance in a uniform wind ow.
Kx
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
#11
#12
#13
#14
#15
#16
#17
#18
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
#19
#20
#21
#22
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Kt
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
3.0
4.0
Kt
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
(a)
6
Kx
0
0.0
(b)
Fig. 22. K x versus K t of plates with various plan aspect ratios D/B. (a) D=Bp1, (b) D/B41.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
72
The data in Fig. 20 show that K x is a polynomial function of K t and can be expressed as
K x 12CK t2 aK t3 bK t4 cK t5 .
(5)
The tted expression,

K x 0:456K t2 0:148K t3 0:024K t4 0:0014K t5
(6)
with s 0:134, can be used to estimate the horizontal travel distance of a plate at a given
ight time.
It was noted that the scatter in the data were mainly from the data of the rectangular
plates with D=B41, which fell at relatively low wind speeds or ew highly at high wind
speeds. The horizontal velocities of these plates decrease at the end of their trajectory due
to lower mean wind speeds in the wind-tunnel oor or ceiling boundary layers. In addition,
these boundary layers will contain turbulence at scales that may inuence the aerodynamic
forces acting on the plates. Fig. 21 shows the data of u versus K x for plates with D=Bp1
and D=B41, respectively, and Fig. 22 shows K x versus K t.
The characteristics of non-dimensional horizontal trajectories of compact and rod-like
debris [14] are comparable to those of plates, which indicate that functions (3) and (5), are
applicable to the other debris types. It was also observed that the contribution of the
vertical component to resultant velocity was very small for plates, because the lift force
sustained the plate ight (Figs 23). Similar observations were drawn for rod-like debris.
Compact debris experienced no lift force, fell in the experiments, and showed relatively
large vertical velocity.
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
Horizontal speed
0.2
0
0.00
Resultant speed
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
Kx
Fig. 23. Comparison of horizontal and resultant velocities of plates.
5.00
ARTICLE IN PRESS
73
4.4. Full-scale experiments

Full-scale test results showed ight behavior of plates comparable with that observed in
the wind-tunnel experiments, especially for the horizontal trajectories. Fig. 24 shows the
trajectory of plate model #17 (D=B 0:44, K 2.9) in a wind-tunnel experiment and the
trajectory of plate E1 (D/B 0.5, K 2.9) in a full-scale test. Full-scale plate E1 had
higher trajectory than model plate #17 had, for the same K. Fig. 25 shows the horizontal
and resultant speeds of plate #17 and those of plate E1. Fig. 26 compares all the horizontal
plate trajectories in wind-tunnel experiments and full-scale tests (in semi-log scale).
Relatively good agreement is obtained. The scatter evident at full scale is not unexpected
given the quite different launch mechanism and the decaying non-uniform ow behind the
aircraft.
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
0
0.5
1.5
2
1
(a)
2.5
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
(b)
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Fig. 24. Comparison of plate trajectories from wind-tunnel (above) and full-scale (below) tests. (a) Trajectory of
plate #17 (D/B 0.44, K 2.9, a0 01), (b) trajectory of plate E1 (D/B 0.5, K 2.9, a0 01).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
74
1
0.8
0.6
Um = s / t
0.4
Um = ds / dt
um = s / t
0.2
um = ds / dt
0
0
0.2
(a)
0.4
Time (sec)
0.6
0.8
1
0.8
0.6
Um = s / t
0.4
Um = ds / dt
um = s / t
0.2
um = ds / dt
0
0
(b)
0.5
1
Time (sec)
1.5
Fig. 25. Comparison of plate velocities from wind-tunnel (above) and full-scale (below) tests. (a) Nondimensional velocities of #17 (D/B 0.44, K 2.9, a0 01), (b) non-dimensional velocities of E1 (D/B 0.5,
K 2.9, a0 01).
5. Concluding remarks
Flight behavior of plate-type debris was extensively investigated in uniform wind-tunnel
ow and in full-scale tests. The Tachikawa parameter K [8], side ratio D/B, and debris
initial support conguration greatly affected plate trajectories in the vertical direction;
however, K was the predominate inuence on horizontal trajectories.
The empirical equation (4) was derived based on extensive experimental data, and can be
used to estimate the plate speed at a given ight distance. It should be noted that debris
may have fallen to the ground before reaching the object of interest. Eq. (6) may be used
rst to estimate potential travel distance of the plate at a given ight time. Plate ight time
is in the order of 1 or 2 s, as shown in full-scale tests (Fig. 25b). Potential ight times
(before debris hits the ground) depend on the initial height of debris and the vertical
trajectory. Investigation of debris vertical trajectory is recommended for further research.
This paper answers the questions of what plate travels at what horizontal speed, to what
distance. These data and derived empirical expressions have been reasonably conrmed by
ARTICLE IN PRESS
75
1.2
full-scale plates
1
model plates #1-#22
0.8
0.6
u
u+
0.4
u = 1 - e-1.8Kx
0.2
0
0.00
0.01
0.10
Kx
1.00
10.00
Fig. 26. Comparison of plate horizontal trajectories from wind-tunnel and full-scale tests.
full-scale tests, and may be employed in validating numerical models, as described in Part
II [12].
The trajectories of compact objects (such as roof gravel) and rod-type objects (such as
roong members) and applications to impact test criteria are discussed in another paper
[14].
Acknowledgments
This work was carried out under the US Department of Commerce TTU/NIST
Windstorm Mitigation Initiative. The assistance of Mr. Taylor Gunn, Mr. Dejiang Chen,
and Ms. Shannon Smith in carrying out all the experiments is gratefully acknowledged.
Dr. Holmes was supported through the John P. Laborde endowed Chair at Louisiana
State University and the LSU Sea Grant Program.
References
[1] J.A.B. Wills, B.E. Lee, T.A. Wyatt, A model of windborne debris damage, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90
(2002) 555565.
[2] K.Y. Wang, C.W. Letchford, Flying debris behavior, in: Proceedings of the Eleventh International
Conference on Wind Engineering, Lubbock, TX, June 25, 2003, pp. 16631678.
[3] Experimental Building Station, Guidelines for evaluation of products for cyclone prone areas, Technical
Record 440, Experimental Building Station, Sydney, Australia, 1978.
[4] American Society for Testing Materials, Standard specications for performance of exterior windows, glazed
curtain walls, doors and storm shutters impacted by windborne debris in hurricanes, ASTM E1996-03, 2003,
American Society for Testing Materials Inc., West Conshocken, Pennsylvania, USA, 2003.
[5] A.J.H. Lee, A general study of tornado-generated missiles, Nucl. Eng. Des. 30 (1974) 418433.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
76
[6] A.J.H. Lee, Trajectory of tornado missiles and the design parameters, in: Proceedings of the Second ASCE
Specialty Conference on Structural Design of Nuclear Plant Facilities, New Orleans, Louisiana, December
810, 1979.
[7] L.A. Twisdale, W.L. Dunn, T.L. Davis, Tornado missile transport analysis, Nucl. Eng. Des. 51 (1979)
295308.
[8] M. Tachikawa, Trajectories of at plates in uniform ow with application to wind-generated missiles,
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 14 (1983) 443453.
[9] M. Tachikawa, A method for estimating the distribution range of trajectories of wind-borne missiles, J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 29 (1988) 175184.
[10] J.D. Holmes, E.C. English, C.W. Letchford, Aerodynamic forces and moments on cubes and at plates, with
applications to wind-borne debris. in: Fifth International Colloquium on Bluff-body Aerodynamics &
Applications, Ottawa, Canada, July 1115, 2004.
[11] C.J. Baker, Solutions of the debris equations, in: Proceedings of the Sixth UK Conference on Wind
Engineering, Craneld, September 1517, 2004.
[12] J.D. Holmes, C.W. Letchford, N. Lin, Investigations of plate-type windborne debris, II. Computed
trajectories, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 2139.
[13] C.W. Letchford, Analysis of the propeller wash from a C-130 Hercules aircraft, WISE Report for NIST,
August 2000, Texas Tech University.
[14] N. Lin, J.D. Holmes, C.W. Letchford, Trajectories of windborne debris and applications to impact testing,
J. Struct. Div- ASCE., accepted for publication.

Aerodynamic characteristics of plate-type windborne debris

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aerodynamic characteristics of plate-type windborne debris

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Wind Engineering

Investigation of plate-type windborne debris.

N. Lin et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 5176

Fig. 1. Diagram of debris launch support in wind tunnel.

Size (B D h) (mm mm mm)

2.46 1.24 0.0095

2.46 1.24 0.019

0.3 0.4 0.5

0.3 0.4 0.5

0.3 0.4 0.5

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

0.3 0.4 0.5

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

plate speed / windspeed

plate speed / wind speed

Vertical displacement (m)

Vertical displacement (m)

Vertical displacement (m)

Vertical displacement (m)

4. Results and discussion

The variations of two-dimensional plate trajectories within these parameters were

Vertical displacement (m)

Vertical displacement (m)

Vertical displacement (m)

Horizontal displacement (m)

Vertical displacement (m)

Vertical displacement (m)

Vertical displacement (m)

Vertical displacement (m)

Vertical displacement (m)

Vertical displacement (m)

Vertical displacement (m)

Horizontal speed / Wind speed

Horizontal displacement (m)

Horizontal speed / Wind speed

Horizontal displacement (m)

Horizontal displacement (m)

Horizontal speed / Wind speed

Horizontal speed / Wind speed

Horizontal displacement (m)

Horizontal speed / Wind speed

Horizontal displacement (m)

Horizontal displacement (m)

Horizontal displacement (m)

Horizontal speed / Wind speed

Horizontal speed / Wind speed

The investigation of two-dimensional trajectory of plate-like debris was extended to

Fig. 18. Non-dimensional plate trajectories in the horizontal direction (K 6).

Alternatively, the data showed that non-dimensional horizontal trajectories of plates

Fig. 20. Horizontal trajectory of plate-type debris (K x versus K t).

The tted expression,

plate speed / wind speed

4.4. Full-scale experiments

Vertical displacement (m)

Vertical displacement (m)

plate speed / wind speed

plate speed / wind speed

N. Lin et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 5176

You might also like