SIMULATION OF WINDBORNE DEBRIS TRAJECTORIES by NING
Transcript of SIMULATION OF WINDBORNE DEBRIS TRAJECTORIES by NING
SIMULATION OF WINDBORNE DEBRIS TRAJECTORIES
by
NING LIN, B.S.
A THESIS
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Approved
Chris W. Letchford Chairperson of the Committee
Xinzhong Chen
Accepted
John Borrelli Dean of the Graduate School
August, 2005
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my most sincere gratitude to my mentor, Dr. Chris W.
Letchford, for his constant guidance, encouragement, and support throughout my
graduate study. His interactive teaching, openmindedness, and kindness have been
inspiring to me.
I am grateful to Dr. John D. Holmes for his instruction, particularly for his advice
concerning the development of experimental models based on theoretical equations, and
the numerical solutions he provided to use for comparisons in this research.
My thanks also go to Dr. Xinzhong Chen for his insightful comments, and to Drs.
Douglas A. Smith and Kishor C. Mehta for their support throughout my graduate study at
Texas Tech. I am indebted as well to Dr. Ahsan Kareem of the University of Notre Dame
and Dr. Yukio Tamura at Tokyo Polytechnic University for their valuable advice.
This study was conducted under the auspices of the NIST/TTU Wind Storm
Mitigation Initiative. I am very grateful to Mr. Taylor Gunn, Mr. Dejiang Chen, and Ms.
Shannon Smith, for their assistance in carrying out these extensive experiments.
I would also like to thank Dr. Sharon Myers of the Department of Classical and
Modern Languages for her great guidance in my English learning and her cheerful
encouragement of my pursuit of excellence.
My deepest appreciation is reserved for my family. I want to thank my fiance, Lei
Yang, for his love and moral support from my home country of China. I am extremely
grateful to my parents, Baoshuo Lin and Anning Luo. Their enduring love and trust are
the foundations of my every achievement. I dedicate this thesis to them.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vi
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS ................................................................................................x
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1
1.1 Debris Identification .........................................................................................3
1.2 Debris Flight Initiation ......................................................................................4
1.3 Debris Flight Trajectory ....................................................................................6
1.4 Risk Analysis of Windborne Debris ...............................................................10
1.5 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................15
1.6 Research Objectives ........................................................................................15
1.7 Organization of the Thesis ..............................................................................16
II. SIMULATION OF WINDBORNE DEBRIS TRAJECTORY...................................18
2.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................18
2.2 Wind-tunnel Test ............................................................................................19
2.3 Full-scale Experiment .....................................................................................24
2.4 Data Analysis and Interpretation ....................................................................26
III. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .....................................................38
3.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................38
3.2 Characteristics of Debris Trajectory ...............................................................39
3.3 Non-dimensional Horizontal Debris Trajectory .............................................60
3.4 Comparison of Full-scale and Model-scale Simulations ................................70
3.5 Application to Debris Impact Criteria .............................................................75
iv
IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................80
4.1 Summary .........................................................................................................80
4.2 Recommendations for Further Research .........................................................81
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................82
v
ABSTRACT
Windborne debris is possibly the major cause of building damage and destruction
in strong wind events such as hurricanes and tornadoes. It has been long recognized that
fast-flying debris can penetrate building envelopes, inducing internal pressurization and
doubling the net loading on roofs, side walls, and leeward walls. Consequently, failed
roofing structures, damaged wall cladding panels, and broken glass become debris
sources, threatening downwind areas. Knowledge of debris aerodynamics is necessary for
proper estimation of debris trajectory and for establishment of rational debris impact
criteria.
This research aims to investigate the aerodynamics of flying debris through
simulating debris trajectories. Extensive wind-tunnel tests on 3D (compact-like), 2D
(plate-like), and 1D (rod-like) debris are carried out in the Texas Tech University wind
tunnel. The simulation procedure is introduced. Full-scale simulation is explored,
employing a C-130 Hercules aircraft to generate strong winds.
Three categories of parameters affecting debris trajectories are investigated: wind
field, debris properties, and debris initial support. It is determined that although many
parameters influence debris trajectory in the vertical direction, the Tachikawa parameter
K (1983) governs the horizontal trajectory of debris. Aerodynamic functions for debris
horizontal trajectory are established based on both experimental data and theoretical
equations of debris motion. These functions can be used to predict debris horizontal
speed (at a given flight distance) and flight distance (for a given flight time).
The application of these functions in debris impact criteria is discussed. The
incorporation of these functions into debris risk analysis is recommended for the further
research.
vi
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 2D-plate models used in free flight tests in wind tunnel ............................................22
2.2 Wind speeds in free flight tests of plate models in wind tunnel .................................23
2.3 3D-cube models used in free flight tests in wind tunnel .............................................23
2.4 3D-sphere models used in free flight tests in wind tunnel ..........................................24
2.5 1D-rod models used in free flight tests in wind tunnel ...............................................24
2.6 Details of full-scale debris ..........................................................................................26
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1 Test setup in wind tunnel ............................................................................................19
2.2 Debris launch support in wind tunnel .........................................................................20
2.3 Full-scale experiment of debris trajectory ..................................................................25
2.4 Analysis of debris trajectories (Plate #8, U=9.1 m/s, α0 = 00) ....................................28
2.5 Analysis of debris trajectories (Plate #8, U=21.5 m/s, α0 = 00) ..................................29
2.6 Analysis of debris trajectories (Plate #8, U=16.3 m/s, α0 = 00) ..................................30
2.7 Calculation of debris horizontal and resultant velocities ............................................31
2.8 Analysis of debris horizontal velocity (Plate #8, U=9.1 m/s, α0 = 00) .......................32
2.9 Analysis of debris vertical velocity (Plate #8, U=9.1 m/s, α0 = 00) ............................33
2.10 Non-dimensional analysis of debris displacements (Plate #8, K =2.1, Fr =8.9 x 10-3, α0 = 00) ...............................................................35
2.11 Non-dimensional analysis of debris horizontal velocity (Plate #8, K =2.1, Fr =8.9 x 10-3, α0 = 00) ...............................................................36
2.12 Non-dimensional analysis of debris vertical velocity (Plate #8, K =2.1, Fr =8.9 x 10-3, α0 = 00) ...............................................................37
3.1 Plate trajectories at different wind speeds (Plate #8, ma ρρ / =0.0015, BD / =1, BDh / =4%, Bb / =24%, 0α =00, s -center) ...40
3.2 Plate trajectories affected by debris density (U = 12.5m/s, BD / =1, BDh / =4%, Bb / =24%, 0α =00, s -center) ........................40
3.3 Plate trajectories affected by geometrical feature BDh / (U = 18.1m/s, ma ρρ / =0.0015, BD / =1, Bb / =24%, 0α =00, s -center) ....................41
3.4 Plate trajectories affected by mhgUK ρρ 2/2a=
( BD / =1, Bb / =24%, 0α =00, s -center) ......................................................................41
3.5 Plate trajectories affected by geometrical feature BD / ..............................................42
3.6 Plate trajectories affected by relative support dimension Bb /
( K =7.6, BD / =1, 0α =00, s -center) ...........................................................................43
3.7 Plate trajectories affected by support place s ( K =3.37, BD / =1, Bb / =43%, 0α =00) ......................................................................44
viii
3.8 Variations in mode of motion and trajectory with initial angle of attack 0α (Plate #8, BD / =1, Bb / =24%, s -center) ...................................................................45
3.9 Variations in mode of motion and trajectory with initial angle of attack 0α (Plate #15, BD / =0.42, Bb / =15%, s -center) ............................................................46
3.10 Variations in mode of motion and trajectory with initial angle of attack 0α (Plate #21, BD / =2.4, Bb / =36%, s -center) ............................................................47
3.11 Horizontal plate trajectories affected by mhgUK ρρ 2/2a=
( BD / =1, Bb / =24%, 0α =00, s -center) ....................................................................49
3.12 Horizontal plate trajectories affected by side ratio ( ≥BD / 1) ( K =6.7, Bb / =33%, 0α =00, s -center) .....................................................................50
3.13 Horizontal plate trajectories affected by side ratio ( ≤BD / 1) ( K =6.7, Bb / =15-20%, 0α =00, s -center) ..............................................................51
3.14 Horizontal plate trajectories affected by Bb / ( K =7.6, BD / =1, 0α =00, s -center) .........................................................................52
3.15 Horizontal plate trajectories affected by s ( K =3.37, BD / =1, Bb / =43%, 0α =00) ....................................................................53
3.16 Horizontal trajectories affected by initial angle of attack 0α (Plate #8, BD / =1, K =5.9, Bb / =24%, s -center) ....................................................54
3.17 Horizontal trajectories affected by initial angle of attack 0α (Plate #8, BD / =1, K =11, Bb / =24%, s -center) .....................................................55
3.18 Horizontal trajectories affected by initial angle of attack 0α (Plate #15, BD / =0.42, K =4.5, Bb / =15%, s -center) .............................................56
3.19 Horizontal trajectories affected by initial angle of attack 0α (Plate #15, BD / =0.42, K =12.5, Bb / =15%, s -center) ...........................................57
3.20 Horizontal trajectories affected by initial angle of attack 0α (Plate #21, BD / =2.4, K =4.5, Bb / =36%, s -center) ...............................................58
3.21 Horizontal trajectories affected by initial angle of attack 0α (Plate #21, BD / =2.4, K =11.2, Bb / =36%, s -center) .............................................59
3.22 Non-dimensional plate trajectories in the horizontal direction ( K =2) ....................61
3.23 Non-dimensional plate trajectories in the horizontal direction ( K =4) ....................62
ix
3.24 Non-dimensional plate trajectories in the horizontal direction ( K =6) ....................63
3.25 Non-dimensional plate trajectories in the horizontal direction ( K =9) ....................64
3.26 Horizontal trajectory of 2D (plate) debris ( pC = 0.911) ............................................67
3.27 Horizontal trajectory of 3D (compact) debris ( cC = 0.809, sC =0.496) ......................68
3.28 Horizontal trajectory of 1D (rod) debris ( rC =0.801) ................................................69
3.29 u versus xK of plates with ≤BD / 1 (above) and BD / >1 (below) .........................71
3.30 xK versus tK of plates with ≤BD / 1 (above) and BD / >1 (below) .......................72
3.31 Comparison of debris trajectories from wind-tunnel (above) and full-scale (below) tests .......................................................................................73
3.32 Comparison of debris velocities from wind-tunnel (above) and full-scale (below) tests ........................................................................................74
3.33 Comparison of debris horizontal trajectories from wind-tunnel and full-scale tests ........................................................................75
3.34 Trajectory of a concrete tile (300 x 300 x 15mm, 3.1kg, 0α =00) .............................77
3.35 Trajectory of a steel ball (8mm, 2g) ..........................................................................77
3.36 Trajectory of a ‘2 by 4’ missile (2.4 x 0.1x 0.05m, 4.1kg, 0α =00) ..........................78
3.37 Trajectory of a ‘2 by 4’ missile (4.0 x 0.1 x 0.05m, 6.8kg, 0α =00) .........................78
3.38 Comparison of horizontal speed and resultant speed of plates ( pC = 0.911) .............79
3.39 Comparison of horizontal speed and resultant speed of rods ( rC = 0.801) ................79
x
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
Journal Papers under Review
1. Ning Lin, John D. Holmes, and Chris W. Letchford (2005). Trajectories of windborne debris and applications to impact testing. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE).
2. Ning Lin, Chris W. Letchford, and John D. Holmes (2005). Investigations of plate-
type windborne debris, I. Experiments in wind tunnel and full-scale. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics.
3. John D. Holmes, Chris W. Letchford and Ning Lin (2005). Investigations of plate-
type windborne debris, II. Computed trajectories. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics.
Journal Papers Published
4. Ning Lin, Chris W. Letchford, Yukio Tamura, Bo Liang, and Osamu Nakamura (2005). Characteristics of wind forces on tall buildings. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 93, 217-242.
5. Lin Ning, Liang Bo, Yukio Tamura (2003), “Experimental investigation on local
wind force coefficients and power spectra of high-rise buildings.” Chinese Journal of Vibration Engineering, Vol.16, No.4.
6. Huang Hengwei, Zhang Yaoting, Qiu Jisheng, Lin Ning (2002), “The application of
neural network to forecast the concrete strength”, Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology, March, 2002.
7. Zhang Yaoting, Lei Pingan, Liu Zaihua, Lin Ning (2001), “Research on practicability
and feasibility for a new-type of tuned mass damper system”, Journal of China University of Geosciences, December, 2001.
Conference Proceedings
8. Ning Lin, Chris W. Letchford, and Taylor Gunn (2005). Investigation of the flight mechanics of 1D (rod-like) debris. Fourth European & African Conference on Wind Engineering (EACWE2005), Prague, Czech Republic, July 11 – 15, 2005.
9. Ning Lin, Chris W. Letchford, and John D. Holmes (2005). Experimental investigation of trajectory of windborne debris with applications to debris impact criteria. Tenth Americas Conference on Wind Engineering (10ACWE), Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA, June 1-4, 2005.
xi
10. John D. Holmes, Chris W. Letchford, and Ning Lin (2005). Trajectories of windborne debris of the plate-type. Tenth Americas Conference on Wind Engineering (10ACWE), Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA, June 1-4, 2005.
11. Ning Lin, Chris W. Letchford, and John D. Holmes (2004). Aerodynamics of 2D wind-borne debris in wind-tunnel and full-scale tests. 6th UK Conference on Wind Engineering, Cranfield University, United Kingdom, September 15-17, 2004.
12. Ning Lin, Chris W. Letchford, and John D. Holmes (2004). Wind tunnel and full-scale tests of 2D windborne debris. The International Conference on Storms and the Annual National Conferences of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (AMOS) and the Meteorological Society of New Zealand (MSNZ), Brisbane, Australia, July 5-9, 2004.
13. Ning Lin, Chris W. Letchford, and John D. Holmes (2004). Investigation of 2D wind-borne debris in wind-tunnel and full-scale tests. 11th Australian Wind Engineering Society Workshop, Darwin, Australia, June 28-30, 2004.
14. Ning Lin, Osamu Nakamura, Bo Liang, and Yukio Tamura (2003). Local wind forces
acting on tall buildings. Eleventh International Conference on Wind Engineering (11ICWE), Lubbock, Texas, June 2-5, 2003.
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Windborne debris is possibly the major cause of building damage and destruction
in strong wind events such as hurricanes and tornadoes. Various debris sources have been
observed in the environment: tree branches, signboards, communication antennas, fence
posts, utility poles, storage tanks, and cars. Other prevalent debris are less well fixed
building components or damaged structural members, which can be picked up by strong
winds. These debris include roof gravel, roof sheathing, roof tiles, and timber roof beams.
A worst case is that of strong winds passing by structures under construction, where large
amounts of structural materials, framing members, and scaffold poles become airborne.
As a result, fast-flying debris penetrate building envelopes, inducing internal
pressurization and doubling the net loading on roofs, side walls, and leeward walls.
Consequently, failed roofing structures, damaged wall cladding panels, and broken glass
become debris sources, threatening downwind areas.
In the 1970’s, when the safety of nuclear power plants was of great concern,
McDonald (1976) claimed that the biggest problem in tornado-resistant design of nuclear
power plants and structures is protection from missiles. Missile penetration of those
structures housing radioactive materials poses considerable danger to the environment.
Windborne debris was also considered a critical design factor for other structures: above-
ground shelters, schools, and hospitals, where the protection of people is the primary
concern (McDonald, 1976). In modern urban areas, windows and architectural glazing
systems of tall buildings are among the structures which are most vulnerable to
windborne debris. Minor (1994) illustrated the serious window damage caused by
windborne debris in severe windstorms over a twenty year period, including Hurricane
Alicia, in Houston, Texas in August, 1983, and Hurricane Andrew in Florida, in August,
1992. Recently, Lee and Wills (2002) reported on the significant glazing damage to one
of Asia’s tallest buildings, Central Plaza, Hong Kong, during Typhoon York, in
September 1999.
2
Direct and indirect damage and losses caused by windborne debris have long been
recognized. Building envelopes are required to be designed against windborne debris in
hurricane and tornado zones. However, how strong the building envelopes should be built
to resist debris impact has been an issue. Although a large number of impact tests have
been conducted to decide the required strength of various materials to resist certain debris
impacts (e.g., McDonald, 1990; Minor, 1994; McDonald, 1999), in practice, the
properties and velocities of debris impacting structures are uncertain. In order to address
this problem, the following questions need to be answered: what speed does debris
become airborne? Does airborne debris impact the building of interest, and if so, what is
the impact velocity?
Although research on these questions has been ongoing since the early 1970’s,
there have been few articles on this topic compared with those on wind loading. Holmes
(2003) compared windborne debris to ‘the forgotten land’ in his keynote address to the
Eleventh International Conference on Wind Engineering (Lubbock, Texas, 2003). More
research on this topic is necessary.
Most of the studies fall into two categories: flight initiation and flight trajectory,
both of which involve debris aerodynamics. Investigation of debris flight initiation or
generation includes surveying debris sources and their restraining conditions. The
aerodynamics coefficients of static debris, which greatly affect the flight initiation, can be
determined through general wind-tunnel tests. Following release, the aerodynamic
characteristics of flying debris, however, are much more complex. The present study
applies controlled wind-tunnel simulation to investigate the aerodynamic characteristics
of flying debris so as to predict debris trajectory. The experimental data produced here
can be used to establish rational debris impact criteria.
Studies of debris classification and flight initiation are reviewed in Sections 1.1
and 1.2, respectively. Previous studies of debris trajectory are reviewed in Section 1.3.
Established frameworks of debris risk analysis and risk-based design are reviewed in
Section 1.4. The limited work that has been published, however, provides significant
information and guides the present research. Section 1.5 states the problems the present
3
study aims to address. Section 1.6 specifies the objectives and scope of this research.
Section 1.7 presents the organization of this thesis.
1.1 Debris Identification
Identifying debris is the first step in solving the debris damage problem. Over
thirty years of documented windstorm damage experiences found in the files of the
Institute for Disaster Research at Texas Tech University reveal the major types and
characteristics of actual debris. For research and design purposes, however, debris have
to be identified by their physical properties.
McDonald and Kiesling (1988) categorized windborne debris as light-, medium-,
and heavy-weight, according to their observed damage performance. Light-weight
missiles, which primarily break glass or damage building finishes, include roof gravel,
sheet metal panels, and small tree branches. Medium-weight missiles, which can
perforate ordinary wall constructions, include various objects such as pieces of timber
planks and fence posts. Heavy-missiles include utility poles, storage tanks, and
automobiles, which may cause structural response rather than simple perforation.
Minor (1994) investigated glazing breakage of tall buildings in urban areas and
identified the most prevalent windborne debris as ‘small’ missiles, generally roof gravel,
and ‘large’ missiles, such as framing timbers and roofing material, categorizing them
according to their potential impact elevations on building envelopes, higher and lower,
respectively.
The representative debris used in impact tests have traditionally been roof gravel
and timber poles. For example, the Southern Florida Building Code for Dade County
(SFBC, 1997) specifies a 4.1 kg ‘2 by 4’ timber plank, with cross-section dimensions of
100 mm by 50 mm for use in design and product qualification testing. Even though
roofing tiles were observed to be the major windborne debris in south Florida, following
Hurricane Andrew in 1992,SFBC (1997) still recommended ‘2 by 4’ timbers as
representative debris due to the difficulties in defining a representative roofing tile.
4
Recently, Wills et al. (2002) classified diverse debris geometrically into three
types: ‘compact-like (3D),’ ‘plate-like (2D),’ and ‘rod-like (1D).’ The actual examples of
these three debris types were cubes and spheres (3D); plywood, roof tiles, and shingles
(2D); and ‘2 by 4’ timbers in North America and bamboo poles in Pacific Rim countries
(1D). Debris was characterized by its physical dimension, that is, the typical dimension of
compact objects, the thickness of plate objects, the thickness of rectangular cylinders, or
the equivalent diameter of circular rods. This classification identifies various debris by
their shapes and characteristic dimensions, providing engineering models for study of the
aerodynamics of debris. Wills et al. (2002) further studied the flight initiation of the three
debris types, which will be discussed in Section 1.2. The present research uses this
classification to study flight trajectories of cubes and spheres (3D), plates (2D), and ‘2 by
4’ rods (1D).
1.2 Debris Flight Initiation
The aerodynamic force on a static debris object in a wind field can be expressed
as
Fa ACUF 2
21 ρ= (1.1)
where, aρ is the density of air; U is the wind speed; FC is an aerodynamic force
coefficient; and A is the reference debris area for FC .
Equation (1.1) indicates that as wind speed increases, the aerodynamic force on
the debris increases. If the debris is unattached, the debris is picked up when the
aerodynamic force is greater than the debris gravity force, mgF > . A more typical case is
that of debris which is attached to an object. When the aerodynamic force on the debris is
greater than its restraining force, denoted as fF , debris becomes airborne, falling through
the force of gravity, or flying up if the aerodynamic lift force exceeds the gravity force.
Thus, the threshold of debris flight is:
fFa FACU =2
21 ρ (1.2)
5
or
Fa
f
ACF
Uρ
22 = . (1.3)
Equation (1.3) can be used to estimate the wind speed at flight initiation.
Wills et al. (2002) studied debris flight initiation based on dimensional analysis.
They defined a fixing strength integrity parameter, I , as the wind force required for
debris release expressed as a multiple of debris weight. Equation (1.2) was thus expressed
as:
mgIACU Fa =2
21 ρ . (1.4)
Since gAhmg mρ= ( mρ is the density of the debris material), Equation (1.3)
became:
Fa
m
ChgI
Uρρ22 = (1.5)
where h is a debris characteristic dimension. As mentioned in Section 1.1, this debris
characteristic dimension, h , represents the typical dimension of compact-like objects, the
thickness of plate/sheet objects, or the thickness of slender cylinders.
An unattached horizontally supported object becomes airborne when the drag on
it exceeds its restraining friction force. In this case, I is the ratio between the wind force
required to overcome the friction force, divided by debris weight. It should be noted that
the above model of debris flight initiation was meant to describe cases of straight-line
winds such as those in traditional atmosphere boundary layers including hurricanes. The
vertical component of a tornado wind can pick up debris, even relatively well fixed debris.
Also note that the release of structural components is a question about at what wind
speeds structures are damaged by direct wind loading.
Wills et al. (2002) studied the flight initiation of cubes and plates in two wind
tunnels, with Equation (1.5) expressed as:
6
hg2ρUρ
m
2a=
FCI . (1.6)
For cubes and plates, the experimental data showed that the relationship between
the wind speed U at which flight occurs and the debris characteristic [ 2/1am )]ρ/ρ(2[ hg
was approximately linear. The slope of the regression line between U and 2/1
am )]ρ/ρ(2[ hg was the dimensionless parameter 2/1)/( FCI , which was considered to
be constant for a given debris shape. Wang and Letchford (2003) studied rectangular
sheets in a different wind tunnel and their experimental results confirmed Wills et al.
model.
Thus, the first question of the debris problem can be answered. After investigating
debris physical properties (shapes, materials, and characteristic dimensions) and debris
fixing conditions, Equation (1.3) or (1.5) can be used to determine at what speeds freely
supported or attached debris become airborne. The aerodynamic force coefficient FC can
be obtained from wind-tunnel tests. As reported by Wills et al. (2002), when the wind
speed increases gradually from a low value, as Equation (1.3) or (1.5) is satisfied for a
particular object, that object becomes airborne. If the threshold wind speeds of the debris
are greater than the peak wind speed expected for a given site, debris is not likely to be
picked up at all. Since the duration of debris flights is of the order of 1-2 seconds
(Holmes, 2004), the initial wind speed can be assumed to be reasonably constant. It is
rational to use the threshold wind speed of flight initiation to calculate the debris
trajectory whatever this may be for the given debris and its fixity. However, it is always
conservative to use the design gust speed for the region when the flight initiation speed
cannot be accurately determined due to the complexity of debris initial situations.
1.3 Debris Flight Trajectory
Debris, once airborne, will accelerate in the wind field until hitting the ground or
impacting other objects. Following study of flight initiation, the next problem to be
studied is debris trajectory, which includes travel time, distance, and velocity. Debris
trajectory can be described by dynamic equations of motion of objects.
7
In straight-line winds such as those in hurricanes or typhoons with nominally 2D
flow, the aerodynamic drag ( D ), lift ( L ), and moment force ( M ) on flying debris can be
expressed as:
Dmma CvUuAD ])[(21 22 +−= ρ (1.7)
Lmma CvUuAL ])[(21 22 +−= ρ (1.8)
Mmma CvUuAlM ])[(21 22 +−= ρ (1.9)
where DC , LC , and MC are drag, lift, and moment force coefficients, respectively; mu is
horizontal debris velocity and mv is vertical debris velocity; A is the reference debris area;
l is a reference length; and aρ is the air density.
Based on Newton’s second law, the equations of motion of flying debris in
horizontal, vertical, and rotational directions, respectively, are:
)sincos]()[(21 22
2
2
ββρ LDmma CCvuUAdt
xdm −+−= (1.10)
mgCCvuUAdt
zdm LDmma −++−= )cossin]()[(21 22
2
2
ββρ (1.11)
Mmmam CvuUAldtdI ])[(
21 22
2
2
+−= ρθ (1.12)
where x and z are horizontal and vertical displacements of debris; θ is the angular
rotation; mI is the mass moment of inertia; and β is the angle of the relative wind vector
to the horizontal. β is induced by the vertical motion of the debris and can be expressed
as )]/([tan 1mm uUv −= −β .
Tachikawa (1983) developed dimensionless equations of motion as:
)sincos]()1[( 222
2
ββ LD CCvuKtd
xd−+−= (1.13)
1)cossin]()1[( 222
2
−++−= ββ LD CCvuKtd
zd (1.14)
8
MCvuFrKtd
d ])1[( 2222
2
+−∆=θ (1.15)
where the dimensionless variables are 2/Ugxx = , 2/Ugzz = , Ugtt /= , Uuu m /= ,
and Uvv m= ; dimensionless parameters are ma ghUAK ρρ 2/2mg/Uρ 22a == , a
measure of the relationship between the aerodynamic force and the gravity force;
mIml /2=∆ , a measure of the relationship between the mass and the rotational inertia;
and glUFr /= , a Froude Number.
Baker (2004) expressed alternative equations of motion in the following
dimensionless form:
)sincos]()1[('
' 222
2
ββ LD CCvutd
xd−+−= (1.16)
)/1()cossin]()1[('
' 222
2
KCCvutd
zdLD −++−= ββ (1.17)
MCvutd
d ])1[('
222
2
+−∆=θ (1.18)
where the dimensionless variables are ma hxx ρρ 2/'= , ma hzz ρρ 2/'= , ma hl ρθρθ 2/= ,
ma htUt ρρ 2/'= , Uuu m /= , and Uvv m= ; dimensionless parameters K and ∆ are the
same as in Equations (1.13-1.15).
When comparing Tachikawa’s dimensionless Equations (1.13-1.15) and Baker’s
dimensionless Equations (1.14-1.15), it can be noted that Baker’s dimensionless form
incorporates Tachikawa’s K into its dimensionless variables. This can be demonstrated
by rewriting Baker’s dimensionless variables as: KxghUUgxx ma == )2/)(/(' 22 ρρ ,
KzghUUgzz ma == )2/)(/(' 22 ρρ , KtghUUgtt ma == )2/)(/(' 2 ρρ , and
2/2/ FrKhl ma θρθρθ == . As a result, K is absent from the dimensionless equations of
horizontal trajectory (Eq.1.16), but is included in dimensionless horizontal displacement
'x . The Tachikawa’s parameter K is seen to be the right side of flight initiation (Eq.1.6).
Therefore, this dimensionless parameter not only describes flight initiation, but also the
9
characteristics of flying debris. This feature is demonstrated by the present research and
will be discussed later.
The equations of debris motion can be solved by numerical integration if the
aerodynamic coefficients DC , LC , and MC are known. These coefficients are different
for various debris shapes and they are functions of the angle of attack. Study of the
aerodynamic characteristics of debris flight has been key to determining debris trajectory.
In the 1970’s several trajectory models for missiles in the tornados were
developed based on assumptions about debris aerodynamics at different levels of
complexity. A particle model considered only the drag force on the debris. The average
drag coefficient was developed by Simiu and Cordes (1976) to account for random
missile tumbling. Assuming only a drag force, the motion of these objects is governed
exclusively by the parameter WACD / (W is the weight of the debris) at a given wind
speed. This parameter was termed the missile-flight parameter (McDonald et al., 1974).
Lee’s model (1974) of tornado-generated missiles considered both drag and lift forces,
resulted in two significant parameters for missile initiation, WACD / and WACL / ;
however, DC and LC were considered constants during the flight. Twisdale et al. (1979)
developed a 3D random orientation model which considered random drag, lift, and side
force coefficients varying with the orientation of the missile with respect to the relative
wind vector. Redmann et al. (1976) developed a full 6D trajectory model considering
pitching, rolling and yawing moments, as well as drag, lift, and side forces. These
investigations undertaken in the 1970’s contributed insights into the aerodynamic
characteristics of tornado-generated missiles; however, the aerodynamic models were not
validated by wind-tunnel experiments.
Tachikawa (1983) was the first to combine numerical simulation with wind-tunnel
experiments to study plate trajectories. He measured drag, lift, and moment force
coefficients on rotating plates, developed experimental expressions of these coefficients
as functions of rotational velocity, incorporated these expressions into numerical
simulations, and compared the calculated trajectories with experimental trajectories.
Tachikawa (1988) then calculated the two-dimensional trajectories of plates and prisms
10
with constant drag and lift force coefficients. The lift force coefficient was determined
from the equations of motion with an assumed constant drag coefficient and measured
distribution of impact positions.
Recently, Holmes (2004) calculated the trajectory of ‘compact’ debris (cubes and
spheres), with an average value for drag coefficient over the flight, and studied the
influence of vertical air resistance and small-scale turbulence. Using a quasi-steady
assumption and drag, lift, and moment force coefficients as functions of the angle of
attack, Holmes et al. (2004) solved the trajectory of square plates. In their studies, the
force coefficients for ‘compact’ debris and square plates were obtained from wind-tunnel
tests, and the numerical trajectories were compared with experimental trajectories.
Baker (2004) discussed numerical solutions of the trajectories of ‘compact,’
‘plate’, and ‘rod’ debris in dimensionless forms, also with force coefficient models as
functions of the angle of attack. He compared his numerical trajectories with the
experimental results of Tachikawa (1983) and Wills et al. (2002).
It is clear that great efforts have been made to develop aerodynamic models of
flying debris. Without proper functions of aerodynamic force coefficients, the great time
and effort involved in computer simulation does not lead to accurate solutions for debris
trajectory. However, in practice, specifying the functions of aerodynamic force
coefficients for actual debris of interest will be significantly difficult, especially for
debris with irregular shapes. Fortunately, wind tunnel experiments can be used to study
the aerodynamics of flying debris in an effort to reduce the complexity of the debris
problem and this will be discussed at length in this thesis.
1.4 Risk Analysis of Windborne Debris
There have been two approaches to the debris problem: deterministic and
probabilistic (McDonald, 1992). When studying debris trajectory characteristics, the
deterministic approach has been used. The dynamic equations of motions presented in
Section 1.3 are numerically solved with certain wind field models and deterministic
aerodynamic models (Lee, 1974; Tachikawa, 1983; Holmes, 2004; Holmes et al., 2004;
11
Baker, 2004). For practical proposes, however, the windborne debris problem is
probabilistic in nature. This is because of the inherent uncertainties in the phenomena:
wind events, debris spectra and locations, and resulting debris trajectories and impact. In
order to describe and quantify the debris problem, assumptions involving modeling
uncertainties are made when establishing models. Modeling uncertainties will be reduced
as more knowledge is gained about the phenomena. Natural uncertainties cannot be
eliminated but have to be considered in the dimension of probabilistic mechanics. A
probabilistic approach often involves Monte Carlo simulation, in which each simulation
trial is conducted with random wind field characteristics, a randomly selected debris type,
and a random model of debris trajectory. Statistics on the results of all trials are obtained
and can be incorporated into debris risk analysis and risk-based design.
Debris damage is a result of a sequence of random events, including ejection,
flight, and impact with structures. Thus a joint probability model is proper in debris risk
analysis. At a given wind speed, the damage probability for a debris object ( i ), )( iDP ,
can be expressed as:
)()()()( iidii GPIPPDP ξξ >= (1.19)
where )( iGP = probability of generation of this debris; )( iIP = probability of impact of
this debris following generation and flight; and )( diP ξξ > = probability of this debris
attaining a damage threshold at impact. Impact parameter ξ was introduced by Twisdale
et al. (1996) and used to define damage as impact velocity, impact energy, or impact
momentum. dξ represents the corresponding damage threshold value. Damage events
from all debris sources on a target are independent. Assuming that the target fails with at
least one debris damage event (Twisdale et al., 1996), the damage probability for n given
debris items, )(DP , can be expressed as:
)...()( 21 nDDDPDP ∪∪= , i =1, 2…n (1.20)
and assuming cumulative damage from multiple impacts is negligible (Twisdale et al.,
1996),
12
))(1(1)(0
∏=
−−=M
iiDPDP (1.21)
where M is the number of all the potential debris items at the site.
Defining R to be the reliability for protection against debris damage,
)(1 DPR −= (1.22)
so the reliability of the target, tR , is given by:
∏=
=M
iit RR
0
(1.23)
where )(1 ii DPR −= , reliability of the target for the individual debris ( i ) impact.
To calculate individual debris damage probability )( iDP , )( iGP can be obtained
with a generation model, and )( iIP and )( diP ξξ > can be obtained with a trajectory
model. A Monte Carlo simulation can be employed accounting for the random
characteristics of the wind field at the site. Impact parameter dξ is determined by the
resistant ability of the target. Target reliability can be obtained by Eq.(1.23).
Twisdale et al. (1996) developed an analysis framework for hurricane windborne
debris impact risk for a residential area. They employed an end-to-end Monte Carlo
simulation incorporating debris generation and trajectory in each simulation trial. In
addition to hurricane characteristics, debris sources as well as the description of the target
houses were also considered random variables for the residential site. Statistics on the
number of debris impacts, impact velocity, momentum, and energy distributions were
incorporated into the risk analysis for the whole residential area at a given wind speed.
Their model for quantifying debris damage risk is introduced as follows.
For a given peak gust wind speed at a location, the probability that at least one
missile impacts the vulnerable area with impact parameter ξ greater than dξ is:
∑∞
=
=0
)()()(n
w nPnDPDP (1.24)
where )(DPw = probability of damage at a given wind speed; )( nDP = probability of
damage ( )( dP ξξ > ) given n impacts on the vulnerable area; and )(nP = probability of n
13
impacts on the vulnerable area. Note that damage is defined as the velocity, momentum,
or energy (denoted as ξ ) of a single missile type, and the corresponding damage
threshold value of the target house is denoted as dξ .
)( dP ξξ > distribution includes all the debris types in the simulation for each
wind speed, thus )( nDP can be expressed as:
nd
n PDPnDP )(1)](1[1)( ξξ <−=−−= (1.25)
with the assumption that one impact with dξξ > can produce damage and that cumulative
damage from multiple impacts is negligible.
The probability of n impacts on the vulnerable area is given by:
∑∞
=
=nN
NPNnPnP )()()( (1.26)
where )(NP = probability of N hits on the house.
Assuming )(NP is a Poisson distribution,
)exp(!
)( λλ−=
NNP
N
(1.27)
where λ is the mean number of hits on a house envelope at a given wind speed.
Assuming that the hits on the building envelope are uniformly random, a binomial
distribution is chosen as the model for )( NnP ,
nNn qqnN
NnP −−⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛= )1()( (1.28)
where )!(!
!nNn
NnN
−=⎟⎟
⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛ and q = the vulnerable fraction of the house envelope area.
Substituting Eqs.1.25-1.28 into Eq.1.24 yields the relation of )(DPw , )( dP ξξ > ,
λ , and q ,
∑ ∑∞
=
∞
=
− −−⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛<−=
0)exp(
!)1(])(1[)(
n nN
NnNnn
dw Nqq
nN
PDP λλξξ (1.29)
which is reduced to a closed form solution,
14
)]}(1[exp{1)( dw PqDP ξξλ <−−−= . (1.30)
Then the reliability for protection is
)]}(1[exp{ dPqR ξξλ <−−= . (1.31)
Reliability of protection of a house from debris damage can be qualified with
Equation 1.31. Contrarily, for risk-based design, to meet the reliability goal R ,
)( dP ξξ > can be determined
qRP d λ
ξξ ln1)( +=> (1.32)
Then, dξ can be calculated from )( dP ξξ > distribution. dξ is the damage threshold
value parameter and decides the resistance requirement for protective system design.
To conduct this risk analysis or perform risk-based design developed by Twisdale
et al. (1996), a Monte Carlo simulation can be employed to calculate the value of λ and
the distribution of )( dP ξξ > . A Monte Carlo simulation as a probabilistic approach
includes deterministic models: wind field description, debris generation, and debris
trajectory. Hurricane wind-field models have been well developed in wind engineering.
In Twisdale et al.’s simulation (1996), the modeling of the hurricane wind field consisted
of two components: a description of mean hurricane wind field and a description of
turbulence and wind profile. Debris flight initiation or generation modeling requires site
investigation and can be compared with hurricane damage observations. In Twisdale et
al.’s simulation, the main missile sources for residential neighborhoods were roof
missiles and yard accessories. Roof failure models were developed and validated through
comparisons with full-scale observations from Hurricane Erin and Hurricane Andrew
damage surveys. However, field debris flight is rarely observed or used for comparisons
to numerical trajectory models, in which aerodynamic modeling has long been a difficult
question. As a result of the great uncertainty of trajectory models, the direct outputs from
trajectory simulation, λ and )( dP ξξ > , may be questionable. In Twisdale et al.’s
simulation, a random orientation model was used. It considered drag, lift, and side forces
as functions of randomly selected angle of attack and roll angle. Although numerical
15
results of flight distance were compared with some field observations of debris initial and
final locations, flight time and impact velocity were not compared quantitatively with
experimental trajectories. Therefore, studies of the aerodynamics of flying debris to
establish random debris trajectory models are critical for debris risk analysis.
1.5 Statement of the Problem
Windborne debris is one of the most perplexing problems in wind-structural
interaction. The trajectory is one of the most complex processes leading to debris damage,
and is also the process which directly determines debris impact parameters such as
velocity, momentum, and energy.
Previous studies of debris trajectory have focused on establishing aerodynamic
models and numerically solving the dynamic equations of motion. The application of this
scheme is problematic because of two difficulties: 1) establishing complex aerodynamic
models for windborne debris, which vary with debris shapes; and 2) numerically solving
the equations, which requires time and effort not desirable for practical purposes.
Pursuing an alternative scheme to address the debris trajectory problem is
necessary. An alternative method is needed to predict debris trajectory with more
accuracy and less effort. The method has to be capable of illustrating the flight
characteristics of the debris of interest. This would make it possible to establish rational
debris impact criteria based on the understanding of windborne debris aerodynamics. The
method has to be applicable in designs allowing for various debris sources. It can be
incorporated into risk analysis and risk-based design, reducing both modeling
uncertainties and calculation efforts in a Monte Carlo simulation.
1.6 Research Objectives
The aim of the present research is to explore an alternative method of addressing
the debris trajectory problem. Instead of modeling the debris aerodynamic parameters to
solve the equations of motions, wind-tunnel simulation can be conducted to directly
determine the relationships of variables of interest (time, distance, and velocity). With
16
dimensionless analysis, the experimental data illustrate aerodynamic characteristics of
windborne debris and can be used in full-scale design applications. Proper dimensionless
analysis also collapses data from extensive tests using models with different dimensions
at a range of wind speeds, providing the probabilistic characteristics of debris trajectories.
Specific objectives establishing this new scheme are to:
1. develop a systematic procedure of wind-tunnel simulation of debris trajectories
described by dimensionless variables and parameters based on equations of
motion of objects;
2. undertake extensive wind-tunnel simulations to investigate debris flight
mechanics and determine relationships between dimensionless variables for
typical debris: cubes, spheres, plates, and rods; and
3. discuss the application of empirical functions in debris impact criteria and debris
risk analysis.
1.7 Organization of the Thesis
The structure of this thesis is as follows:
Chapter 2 develops a procedure for wind-tunnel simulation of debris trajectory
and introduces model experiments and full-scale tests conducted in this research. The
representative models used are cubes and spheres (3D), plates (2D), and rods (1D).
Several full-scale tests using large rectangular plates were conducted with strong winds
generated by a C-130 Hercules aircraft, to provide comparative data.
Experimental data are analyzed and presented in Chapter 3. Flight characteristics
of various debris types in uniform flow are first investigated. Then non-dimensional
analyses are performed with all model test data, resulting in experimental expressions of
flight speed as a function of flight distance, and flight distance as a function of sustaining
time. Comparisons are made of different debris types, with the full-scale results, with
numerical solutions, and with standard specifications. Application examples in debris
impact criteria are shown.
17
Chapter 4 summarizes the findings of this research and recommends future
research on windborne debris.
18
CHAPTER II
SIMULATION OF WINDBORNE DEBRIS TRAJECTORY
2.1 Introduction
The present research investigates the windborne debris trajectory though wind-
tunnel simulation. The relationships of non-dimensional flight variables of interest are
obtained from experiments on three typical debris types: cubes and spheres (3D), plates
(2D), and ‘2 by 4’ rods (1D).
Debris trajectories can be simulated in a controlled condition in a wind tunnel.
The following procedure was used to conduct extensive wind-tunnel simulations of
debris trajectories. An electromagnet support was placed in the wind tunnel to hold a
debris model in position as wind speed was increased. Switching off the current to the
electromagnet allowed debris to begin flight at a desired wind speed, and a video camera
recorded the flight path. Flight variables (time, distance, and velocity) were obtained
from the images. Section 2.2 describes the wind-tunnel test procedure followed and the
debris models used in the study.
Debris trajectories can also be investigated in full-scale experiments with
generated strong winds. Debris begins flight at some initial wind speed, and since the
flight duration is often only a couple of seconds, the wind speed at initiation maybe
considered the average wind speed over the flight duration. Section 2.3 describes the full-
scale experiment conducted in this study to provide data comparable to the wind-tunnel
experimental results.
Data analysis and interpretation is discussed in Section 2.4. Systematic data
analysis makes it possible to interpret debris flight aerodynamics and facilitates
application to debris impact criteria and debris risk analysis.
19
2.2 Wind-tunnel Test
In the present research, model tests were carried out in the cross section 1.8 m
wide by 1.2 m high wind tunnel at Texas Tech University. The wind tunnel was cleared
of all roughness elements. The turbulence intensity varied from 0.5% at launch position
in the center of the wind tunnel to about 3% in the wall boundary layers. A circular
electromagnet 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. Wind
velocities were measured by a Series 100 Cobra Probe located adjacent to the launch
support. Figure 2.1 shows the test setup in the wind tunnel.
Figure 2.1. Test setup in wind tunnel
A schematic drawing of the debris launch support is shown in Figure 2.2. In this
figure and throughout the study, debris flight coordinates are x - horizontal displacement,
z - vertical displacement, S - resultant displacement, and t - flight time; debris velocity
components are mu - horizontal debris velocity, mv - vertical debris velocity, and mU -
20
resultant debris velocity; dimensions of a debris model are h - thickness ( h represents the
edge length of a cube and the diameter of a sphere), B - width perpendicular to flow, D -
length parallel to flow ( D equals to l used in the equations of motion); mρ is debris
density; aρ is air density; U is wind speed at release point; 0α is initial angle of attack.
Figure 2.2. Debris launch support in wind tunnel
An Olympus American Encore MAC PCI version 2.18 digital video camera
(60Hz, 0.0167 second per frame) was used to capture each flight path. Flight time and
coordinates were obtained from the images. Parallax corrections were made to flight
paths assuming that the object stayed largely on the centerline plane of the wind tunnel.
The correction expression for horizontal displacement was obtained by fitting a plot of
the true horizontal distance versus the camera’s x-coordinate; the expression of the
vertical distortion was obtained by fitting a plot of the true vertical distortion versus the
camera’s x-coordinate. The horizontal and the vertical displacements were calculated
from:
1158.00474.10415.00105.0 23 −+−= ccc xxxx (2.1)
0029.00238.00012.00004.0 23 −+−+= cccc xxxzz (2.2)
where cx is the camera’s x-coordinate and cz is the camera’s z-coordinate. Flight
velocity components are then obtained from the corrected displacements.
debris model, ρm,
α0
electromagnet
h
D
bWind, U, ρa
B - perpendicular to flow
x
z
um vm
Um
debris velocities
21
Model characteristics and wind speeds for a given debris type were designed to
provide a range of debris side ratio, support condition, and the Tachikawa parameter K .
The equations of motion (Eqs.1.13-1.15) involve not only the aerodynamic coefficients
( DC , LC , and MC ), but also three non-dimensional parameters mhgUK ρρ 2/2a= ,
mIml /2=∆ , and glUFr /= . In the case of plates or ‘2 by 4’ rectangular cylinders,
∆ =12, and Fr are not directly involved in equations of motion in horizontal and vertical
directions (Eqs. 1.13 and 1.14) and was found to weakly influence debris trajectory
(Holmes et al., 2004), or in the case of compact debris, MC = LC = 0, K becomes the only
significant parameter greatly influencing debris flight for a given debris shape.
The models used in the present research were twenty-two 2D plates, eleven 3D
cubes and spheres, and eight 1D rods at wind speeds ranging from 4.5 m/s to 26 m/s.
Debris materials included various types of wood, plastic, and aluminum, so as to provide
a wide variety of densities. The details of plate models are presented in Table 2.1. Square
and rectangular plates used ranged in weight from 1.1 to 31.7 grams and in side length
from 26 to 150 mm. Table 2.2 presents the wind speeds used for each plate model. The
K values of plates ranged from 2.2 to 32. Cubes and spheres ranging widely in size and
weight were used; the model details are presented in Tables 2.3 and 2.4. The wind speeds
used for each of cubes and spheres were 14.2, 18, 21.8, and 26.8 m/s. The K values of
cubes and spheres ranged from 0.6 to 7.5. The K values of 3D debris are limited, due to
the relatively large characteristic dimension h which requires a very high wind speed to
obtain a high value of K . The details of the ‘2 by 4’ 1D models are presented in Table
2.5; the wind speeds for each of those models were 12, 16, and 25 m/s. The K values of
rods ranged from 3.8 to 27.7.
Three trials were conducted for each model at each wind speed at the initial angle
of attack 0α = 00. In order to investigate the effects of initial angle of attack on debris
trajectory, plates #8, #15, and #21 were also tested at 0α = 150, 450, 900, and 1350, and all
rods were also tested at 0α = 150 and 450. Each model supported at its center was tested.
22
Plate #3 supported at its corner and edge was also tested to investigate the influence of
initial support situation.
Table 2.1. 2D-plate models used in free flight tests in wind tunnel
Plate No. Material Size ( B x D x h )
(mm x mm x mm) Mass
(gram) BD / BDh / (%)
Bb / (%)
#1 basswood 26 x 26 x 9 3.8 1.00 34.62 69.3 #2 balsa 40 x 40 x 1.5 1.1 1.00 3.75 45.0 #3 plastic 42 x 42 x 2 5.1 1.00 4.76 42.9 #4 balsa 50 x 50 x 3 2.1 1.00 6.00 36.0 #5 plywood 50 x 50 x 6 11.1 1.00 12.00 36.0 #6 balsa 55 x 55 x 3 2.6 1.00 5.45 32.7 #7 balsa 75 x 75 x 3 3.2 1.00 4.00 24.0 #8 plywood 75 x 75 x 3 12.3 1.00 4.00 24.0 #9 plywood 75 x 75 x 6 22.3 1.00 8.00 24.0 #10 basswood 75 x 75 x 9 24.8 1.00 12.00 24.0 #11 basswood 76 x 76 x 1.5 5.0 1.00 1.97 23.7 #12 aluminium 76 x 76 x 1.5 25.2 1.00 1.97 23.7 #13 floppy disc 90 x 90 x 2.5 15.0 1.00 2.78 20.0 #14 basswood 150 x 50 x 9 31.7 0.33 10.39 12.0 #15 plastic 120 x 50 x 1 10.5 0.42 1.29 15.0 #16 balsa 126 x 56 x 4.5 4.0 0.44 5.36 14.3 #17 basswood 126 x 56 x 4.5 5.7 0.44 5.36 14.3 #18 plywood 120 x 75 x 3 19.0 0.63 3.16 15.0 #19 plywood 75 x 120 x 3 19.0 1.60 3.16 24.0 #20 balsa 56 x 126 x 4.5 4.0 2.25 5.36 32.1 #21 plastic 50 x 120 x 1 10.5 2.40 1.29 36.0 #22 basswood 50 x 150 x 9 31.7 3.00 10.39 36.0
23
Table 2.2. Wind speeds in free flight tests of plate models in wind tunnel
Plate No. Wind speed U (m/s)
#1 17.9 20.4 20.8 22.7 25.5 26 #2 5.6 6.1 7.4 7.9 8.5 9.7 10.3 12.5 14.8 16.7 17.8 #3 10.3 11.3 13.3 14 14.6 14.8 15.4 15.6 17.3 18.8 19.8 21 22 23.1 24.3 #4 6.5 7.4 7.9 8.5 9.7 10.2 10.3 11.3 13.5 14.6 16.5 17.8 20.7 21.5 22 #5 13.2 15.6 16.4 18.1 19.3 21.4 23.1 24.8 25.6 #6 6 6.5 7.9 8.2 10 10.3 11.3 13.3 14 15.1 16.1 17.3 #7 4.5 4.8 5.2 5.6 6.1 6.8 7.4 8.3 9.7 10.2 11.3 12.5 13.3 13.6 #8 9.1 10.9 11.6 12.5 13.5 15.4 16.4 17.4 18.1 19.3 19.8 20.1 20.9 21.5 #9 12.5 14.6 15.6 17.3 18.1 20.1 22 23.5 24.3 25.6 #10 13.2 15.6 16.4 18.1 19.3 21.4 23.1 24.8 25.6 #11 5.2 5.6 6.5 6.8 7.4 7.9 8.5 9.7 10.2 11.3 13.6 14.8 15.9 16.5 #12 17.3 17.9 18.7 18.8 19.8 21 22 23 23.1 24 #13 9.7 10 12 14 15.1 15.4 18.1 18.8 19.9 #14 16.4 18.5 21 22.7 24 25 #15 7.9 8 9.3 9.6 11.3 12 13.3 14.6 15.1 15.2 15.6 17.3 20 #16 5.8 6.5 8.3 9.2 9.7 10.2 11 12 12.6 13.5 14 #17 5.8 6.5 8.3 9.2 11 12.6 13.5 #18 9.6 10.3 10.7 12.2 12.7 13.5 13.7 15 15.2 16 16.4 #19 9.1 10.9 11.6 12.5 13.6 14.6 16.1 17 17.3 17.7 18.9 19.3 19.8 20.9 21.4 #20 5.8 6.5 8.3 11 12.6 13.5 14.6 16 16.5 17.1 17.9 #21 7.9 11.2 11.3 12 13.2 14.6 15.2 15.6 17.3 18.9 19.2 19.9 21 22 23.1 #22 12.5 15.2 16.1 17.7 18.9 20.9 22.3 22.7 24.2 25.1
Table 2.3. 3D-cube models used in free flight tests in wind tunnel
Cube No. Material Size ( h )
(mm) Mass
(gram) hb /
(%) c1 pine 12 2.0 150 c2 balsa 14 1.3 129 c3 balsa 19 2.0 94.7 c4 pine 19 5.4 94.7 c5 maple 31 21.1 58.1 c6 balsa 38 8.6 47.4
24
Table 2.4. 3D-sphere models used in free flight tests in wind tunnel
Sphere No. Material Size ( h )
(mm) Mass
(gram) hb /
(%) s1 pine 19.1 3.6 94.2 s2 pine 24.9 8.1 72.3 s3 pine 31.8 12.2 56.6 s4 pine 50.1 47.5 35.9 s5 hollow hardboard 65.9 17.8 27.3
Table 2.5. 1D-rod models used in free flight tests in wind tunnel
Rod No. Material Size ( B x D x h )
(mm x mm x mm) Mass
(gram) BD / BDh / (%)
Bb / (%)
r1 pine 12.7 x 381 x 6.4 17.9 30.0 9.2 115 r2 balsa 12.7 x 381 x 6.4 6.0 30.0 9.2 115 r3 pine 381 x12.7 x 6.4 17.9 0.03 9.2 4.72 r4 balsa 381 x12.7 x 6.4 6.0 0.03 9.2 4.72 r5 balsa 12.7 x 330.2 x 6.4 5.5 26.0 9.8 115 r6 balsa 330.2 x12.7 x 6.4 5.5 0.04 9.8 5.45 r7 plywood 12.7 x 330.2 x 6.4 9.8 26.0 9.8 115 r8 plywood 330.2 x12.7 x 6.4 9.8 0.04 9.8 5.45
2.3 Full-scale Experiment
Full-scale experiments were conducted with a C-130 Hercules aircraft to generate
strong winds at the west runway of Lubbock Reese Technology Center. The site is
characterized as ASCE exposure category C (the surrounding terrain is open grasslands
and agricultural fields for approximately 1 mile in all directions). Previous experiments
demonstrated that the propeller wash of a C-130 aircraft is suitable for use as a source of
extreme winds (Letchford, 2000). Table 2.6 shows details of the tested full-scale debris
which mainly consisted of rectangular 4 ft x 8 ft plates ranging in weight from 15 to 45
kg, with K ranged from 1.8 to 6.8. The debris plates were launched from a 1 m high
table in the field. Wind velocities were measured by an RM Young propeller/vane
anemometer located 1 m high and 1 m upstream of the launch table. Figure 2.3 shows the
experimental field and the flight of a sheet. The same video camera used in the wind-
25
tunnel tests was employed here. The notation system is the same as that used in the wind-
tunnel tests.
Figure 2.3. Full-scale experiment of debris trajectory
26
Table 2.6. Details of full-scale debris
Plate No. Material Size ( B x D x h )
(m x m x m) Mass (kg) BD / BDh /
(%)
Wind speed (m/s)
C2 3/8" MDF 2.46 x 1.24 x 0.0095 22.5 0.50 5.44 24.1 D1 2.44 x 1.22 x 0.025 15.0 0.50 14.5 24.1 D2
Tempered Hardboard + Styrofoam
2.44 x 1.22 x 0.025 19.3 0.50 14.5 21.8
E1 2.46 x 1.24 x 0.019 43.2 0.50 10.9 26.4 E2 2.46 x 1.24 x 0.019 42.5 0.50 10.9 24.4 E3 2.46 x 1.24 x 0.019 43.7 0.50 10.9 20.3 E4
3/4 " MDF
1.24 x 2.46 x 0.019 46.2 2.00 10.9 21.5
2.4 Data Analysis and Interpretation
Data analysis procedure comprised three parts: exporting raw data from each
digital camera file, calculating flight variables for each trial, and conducting
dimensionless analysis to collapse the data.
The flight path was recorded as an image file. There were three steps to obtain the
raw data. First, calibrating the camera x-coordinate with a reference distance; second,
locating the object positions on the image at each time interval ∆t ≈ 0.083 secs (about
five frames) to obtain the coordinates; and third, exporting the raw data (including
coordinates and time intervals) to a WordPad file which was then imported into an Excel
spreadsheet.
The data was analyzed in Excel to determine the displacements and velocities at
each time step. Parallax corrections were undertaken at this stage to obtain the horizontal
and vertical displacements from the camera coordinates via Equations 2.1 and 2.2.
Horizontal, vertical, and resultant velocities were calculated from the displacements.
Time nominally started at the moment of release.
Figures 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 are examples of displacement analyses of one model
(plate #8) at three wind speeds. As shown in Figure 2.4, at a relatively low wind speed,
three trials showed quite similar trajectories of the debris when falling. This similarity is
also apparent at high wind speeds when the models fly up (Figure 2.5). Figure 2.6 shows
that, at a critical wind speed, trial results may show some difference. However, this
27
difference is predominately in the vertical direction, in which the displacement scale is
much lower than that of the horizontal direction. Horizontal displacements are quite
consistent for each trial of a model at a given wind speed.
Figures 2.7, 2.8, and 2.9 are examples of velocity analyses of one model (plate
#8). Figure 2.7 shows the calculation of horizontal ( mu ) and resultant ( mU ) velocities of
one trial by two methods. The first method used discrete displacements to calculate
velocities: txum ∆∆= / ( tSU m ∆∆= / ), with t∆ ≈ 0.083 secs. The second method
involved fitting the best fit polynomials to the displacements and derivation to obtain
velocities: dtdxum /= ( dtdSU m /= ), in which )(tx and )(tS are fitted polynomial
functions (R-squared values over 0.99). The second method results in smooth graphs.
Although the results from the second method do not reflect the real debris velocity very
well at the beginning of flight, the two methods yield similar results for the portions of
high debris flight speed. At low wind speeds, the resultant velocity of a model is higher
than its horizontal velocity due to the relative importance of its vertical velocity
component (Figure 2.7a), while at higher wind speeds, the resultant and horizontal
velocities are much closer in agreement (Figure 2.7b). This difference in velocities
reflects the influence of the lift force on the debris. The closer the two curves, the smaller
is vm, indicating the greater the lift force sustaining the debris flight and counteracting the
effects of gravity.
Figure 2.8 and Figure 2.9 show the horizontal and vertical velocities of a plate,
respectively. Horizontal and resultant debris velocities used in the following discussion
were obtained by averaging the results from the two calculation methods. The vertical
speed was calculated from the incremental vertical displacement (vm=∆z/∆t).
28
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
t (sec)
x (m
)
Trial 1Trial 2Trial 3
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
t (sec)
z (m
)
Trial 1Trial 2Trial 3
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x (m)
z (m
)
Trial 1Trial 2Trial 3
Figure 2.4. Analysis of debris trajectories (Plate #8, U=9.1 m/s, α0 = 00)
29
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
t (sec)
x (m
)
Trial 1Trial 2Trial 3
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
t (sec)
z (m
)
Trial 1Trial 2Trial 3
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5
x (m)
z (m
)
Trial 1Trial 2Trial 3
Figure 2.5. Analysis of debris trajectories (Plate #8, U=21.5 m/s, α0 = 00)
30
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
t (sec)
x (m
)
Trial 1Trial 2Trial 3
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
t (sec)
z (m
)
Trial 1Trial 2Trial 3
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5
x (m)
z (m
)
Trial 1Trial 2Trial 3
Figure 2.6. Analysis of debris trajectories (Plate #8, U=16.3 m/s, α0 = 00)
31
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Time (sec)
plat
e sp
eed
/ win
d sp
eed
UmUm (ds/dt)
umum (dx/dt)
(a) Plate #8, U=9.1 m/s, α0 = 00
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Time (sec)
plat
e sp
eed
/ win
d sp
eed
Um
Um (ds/dt)
um
um (dx/dt)
(b) Plate #8, U=16.4 m/s, α0 = 00
Figure 2.7. Calculation of debris horizontal and resultant velocities
tsU m ∆∆= /dtdsU m /=tsum ∆∆= /
dtdsum /=
tsU m ∆∆= /dtdsU m /=tsum ∆∆= /
dtdsum /=
32
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
t (sec)
um/U
Trial 1Trial 2Trial 3
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x (m)
um/U
Trial 1Trial 2Trial 3
Figure 2.8. Analysis of debris horizontal velocity (Plate #8, U=9.1 m/s, α0 = 00)
33
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
t (sec)
vm/U
Trial 1Trial 2Trial 3
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2
z (m)
vm/U
Trial 1Trial 2Trial 3
Figure 2.9. Analysis of debris vertical velocity (Plate #8, U=9.1 m/s, α0 = 00)
34
Figures 2.4, 2.8, and 2.9 presented the relationships of actual flight variables (time,
displacement, and velocity) of the trajectory of a debris model (plate #8) at a given wind
speed (9.1 m/s). In order to translate the experimental results to full-scale, the data was
non-dimensionalized: time - Ugtt /= , horizontal displacement - 2/Ugxx = , vertical
displacement - 2/Ugzz = , horizontal velocity - Uuu m /= , and vertical velocity -
Uvv m= . This scheme was based on the dimensionless equations of motion (Eqs. 1.13,
1.14, and 1.15) developed by Tachikawa (1983). In this scheme, Figures 2.4, 2.8, and 2.9
become Figures 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12, which present the displacements ( x ~t , z ~ t , and
z ~ x ), horizontal velocity (u ~t and u ~ x ), and vertical velocity ( v ~ t and v ~ z ),
respectively. All experimental trajectories were analyzed in this manner and are presented
in Chapter 3.
It should be noted that the non-dimensional relationships presented in Figures
2.10-2.12 cannot determine debris flight aerodynamics nor be directly applied to full-
scale design, because, for the same type of debris, the relationships change with the value
of K . In addition to the non-dimensional variables, the value of K was also calculated
for each test. This non-dimensional parameter K is then combined with the non-
dimensional variables so that the flight aerodynamic characteristics of debris can be used
for full-scale design. The results and applications are discussed in Chapter 3.
35
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 0.5 1 1.5
Trial 1Trial 2Trial 3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0 0.5 1 1.5
Trial 1Trial 2Trial 3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Trial 1Trial 2Trial 3
Figure 2.10. Non-dimensional analysis of debris displacements
(Plate #8, K =2.1, Fr =8.9 x 10-3, α0 = 00)
Ugtt =
2Ugxx =
2Ugzz =
2Ugzz =
Ugtt =
2Ugxx =
36
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
Trial 1Trial 2Trial 3
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Trial 1Trial 2Trial 3
Figure 2.11. Non-dimensional analysis of debris horizontal velocity
(Plate #8, K =2.1, Fr =8.9 x 10-3, α0 = 00)
Ugtt /= Ugtt /=
2/Ugxx =
Uu
u m=
Uu
u m=
37
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0 0.5 1 1.5
Trial 1Trial 2Trial 3
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1
Trial 1Trial 2Trial 3
Figure 2.12. Non-dimensional analysis of debris vertical velocity
(Plate #8, K =2.1, Fr =8.9 x 10-3, α0 = 00)
Ugtt /=
2/Ugzz =
Uvv m=
Uvv m=
38
CHAPTER III
SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Introduction
Wind-tunnel simulations of the trajectories of twenty-two 2D plates, six cubes,
five spheres, and eleven rods, at wind speeds ranging from 4.5 m/s to 26 m/s in uniform
flows were conducted. Although debris trajectories presented great variation, it was
found that a pattern emerged for the horizontal trajectory of debris. Non-dimensional
analysis collapsed the horizontal trajectories of debris for an extensive set of model tests,
and the results were comparable to full-scale results. Experimental expressions have been
developed and can be used in debris impact criteria. The results of plates have been
presented in a previous paper (Lin et al., 2005).
Section 3.2 presents debris trajectories from wind-tunnel tests. The main
parameters determining debris trajectories fall into three categories: wind field, debris
properties, and debris initial support. The effects on the debris trajectory of the
parameters were investigated.
Section 3.3 presents debris horizontal trajectories, using the non-dimensional
scheme developed by Tachikawa (1983). Experimental expressions of horizontal flight
speed as a function of flight distance, and flight distance as a function of sustaining time
were established, based on both wind-tunnel test results and theoretical equations of
debris motion.
Comparisons of wind-tunnel test with full-scale test results are made in Section
3.4. Trajectories of full-scale sheets are comparable with those of model plates, especially
in the horizontal dimension.
As application examples, Section 3.5 presents the horizontal trajectories of
representative debris items which are usually used in debris impact tests. Good agreement
of experiment solutions and numerical solutions was obtained. The empirical method can
be used to establish rational debris impact test criteria.
39
3.2 Characteristics of Debris Trajectory
The experimental results indicate that, for certain debris shape, debris trajectory
(T ) is a function of at least nine parameters: wind speed (U ), air density ( aρ ), plate
dimensions ( B , D , and h ), plate density ( mρ ), support dimension (b ), support position
( s , e.g., center, corner, or edge), and initial angle of attack ( 0α ), and can be expressed as:
),,,,,,,,( 0αρρ sbDBhUfT ma= (3.1)
where U and aρ characterize the wind field, h , B , D , and mρ are the debris
characteristics, and b , s , and 0α describe the debris initial support configuration.
The variations of two-dimensional plate trajectories within these parameters were
investigated. Figure 3.1 shows the trajectories of plate #8 at wind speeds ranging from
8.5 m/s to 20.8 m/s. The higher the wind speed, the higher the flight path. Figure 3.2
shows the effect of plate density on plate trajectories. With the same geometric
dimensions but different material, plate #7 ( 0057.0/ =ma ρρ ) flew higher than plate #8
( 0015.0/ =ma ρρ ), at the same wind speed. Figure 3.3 shows the effect of plate
dimension h on plate trajectories. Comparison of trajectories of three square plates
( BDh / =2.8-8.0%) with similar b/B values (20 – 24%) clearly show that the lift force
increases with decreasing BDh / , and overcomes gravity to accelerate the plate into the
air.
The effects of U , aρ , mρ , and h on debris trajectories can be presented using the
non-dimensional parameter Tachikawa mhgUK ρρ 2/2a= (the ratio of aerodynamic
force to gravity force). Reducing the parameters, Equation (3.1) can be rewritten as:
),,/,/,( 0 sBbBDKfT α= . (3.2)
Figure 3.4 shows the trajectories of four square plates with different values of K
while holding the values of the other parameters in Equation (3.2) constant. As expected,
plate trajectories rise as K increases.
40
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Horizontal displacement (m)
Vert
ical
dis
plac
emen
t (m
) Vw=8.5Vw=10Vw=10.8Vw=11.9Vw=13.9Vw=15.3Vw=16.3Vw=18.0Vw=20.8
Figure 3.1. Plate trajectories at different wind speeds
(Plate #8, ma ρρ / =0.0015, BD / =1, BDh / =4%, Bb / =24%, 0α =00, s -center)
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6Horizontal displacement (m)
Vert
ical
dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
# 7
# 8
Figure 3.2. Plate trajectories affected by debris density
(U = 12.5m/s, BD / =1, BDh / =4%, Bb / =24%, 0α =00, s -center)
41
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Horizontal displacement (m)
Vert
ical
dis
plac
emen
t (m
)#13 2.78% # 8 4.0 %# 9 8.0 %
Figure 3.3. Plate trajectories affected by geometrical feature BDh /
(U = 18.1m/s, ma ρρ / =0.0015, BD / =1, Bb / =24%, 0α =00, s -center)
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Horizontal displacement (m)
Vert
ical
dis
plac
emen
t (m
) #7 K=9.1#8 K=4.6#9 K=3.0#10 K=2.2
Figure 3.4. Plate trajectories affected by mhgUK ρρ 2/2a=
( BD / =1, Bb / =24%, 0α =00, s -center)
42
Side ratio ( BD / ), another plate geometrical feature, also greatly affects the
trajectory. As shown in Figure 3.5, given the same K value and holding the other
parameters constant, the smaller the side ratio, the higher the plate flew. The trajectory
variation is greater when BD / > 1 than it is when BD / <1.
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Horizontal displacement (m)
Vert
ical
dis
plac
emen
t (m
)#6 D/B=1
#20 D/B=2.25
( K =6.7, Bb / =33%, 0α =00, s -center, 1/ ≥BD )
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Horizontal displacement (m)
Vert
ical
dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
#15 D/B=0.42
#18 D/B=0.63
#13 D/B=1
( K =6.7, Bb / =15-20%, 0α =00, s -center, 1/ ≤BD )
Figure 3.5. Plate trajectories affected by geometrical feature BD /
43
In addition to K and BD / , three initial situation factors greatly affected plate
trajectories: b , s , and 0α . Figure 3.6 presents the influence of the support dimension.
Given the same K values, the trajectories of plate #10 ( Bb / = 24%) and plate #1 ( Bb / =
69%) show that the smaller the ratio of support diameter to plate width ( Bb / ), the larger
the initial lift force, increasing the flight altitude. Figure 3.7 shows the trajectories of
plate #3 supported at the center, corner, and edge, respectively, at a given wind speed.
When 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 support was at the middle
of the plate’s leading edge, gross disturbance to the flow occurred at the critical lift
generation position, lowering the altitude of the plate’s flight. Support at a corner of the
plate resulted in a combination of these two effects.
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Horizontal displacement (m)
Vert
ical
dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
#10 b/B=24%
#1 b/B=69%
Figure 3.6. Plate trajectories affected by relative support dimension Bb /
( K =7.6, BD / =1, 0α =00, s -center)
44
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Horizontal displacement (m)
Vert
ical
dis
plac
emen
t (m
) #3 center#3 corner#3 edge
Figure 3.7. Plate trajectories affected by support place s
( K =3.37, BD / =1, Bb / =43%, 0α =00)
Video records showed 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 ( 0α ).
Figures 3.8, 3.9, and 3.10 show, with different α0, at relatively low and high values of K ,
the trajectories of square plate #8, rectangular plate #15 ( BD / =0.42), and rectangular
plate #21 ( BD / =2.4), respectively. Tachikawa (1983) defined three flight modes for
plates: auto-rotating, intermediate, and translatory. In the present study, plates generally
entered into clockwise auto-rotation and ‘flew up’ over a long distance at 0α =00 and
0α =150. At 0α =450 and 0α =900, the intermediate mode changed from clockwise to
counter-clockwise rotation at initial stages of flight and then to translatory mode at 450 to
horizontal until hitting the ground. At 0α =1350, at relatively low wind speed, one or two
counter-clockwise rotations were followed by translatory mode, also at 450 to ground
(Figures 3.8a, 3.9a, and 3.10a). However, as wind speed increases, the translatory mode
of plates may change to clockwise rotation and the plates fly up (Figures 3.8b, 3.9b, and
3.10b). At 0α =1650, plates entered into counter-clockwise auto-rotation. It was noted that
at 0α =150, plate #15 ( BD / =0.42) had low flight paths at both wind speeds (Figure 3.9).
45
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 2 4 6
Horizontal displacement (m)
Vert
ical
dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
0 deg15 deg45 deg90 deg135 deg165 deg
(a) K =5.9
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Horizontal displacement (m)
Vert
ical
dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
0 deg15 deg45 deg90 deg135 deg165 deg
(b) K =11
Figure 3.8. Variations in mode of motion and trajectory with initial angle of attack 0α
(Plate #8, BD / =1, Bb / =24%, s -center)
46
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5
Horizontal displacement (m)
Vert
ical
dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
0 deg15 deg45 deg90 deg135 deg165 deg
(a) K =4.5
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5
Horizontal displacement (m)
Vert
ical
dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
0 deg15 deg45 deg90 deg135 deg165 deg
(b) K =12.5
Figure 3.9. Variations in mode of motion and trajectory with initial angle of attack 0α
(Plate #15, BD / =0.42, Bb / =15%, s -center)
47
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 1 2 3 4
Horizontal displacement (m)
Vert
ical
dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
0 deg15 deg45 deg90 deg135 deg165 deg
(a) K =4.5
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5
Horizontal displacement (m)
Vert
ical
dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
0 deg15 deg45 deg90 deg135 deg165 deg
(b) K =11.2
Figure 3.10. Variations in mode of motion and trajectory with initial angle of attack 0α
(Plate #21, BD / =2.4, Bb / =36%, s -center)
48
Although plate trajectories showed great variations in the vertical direction within
each of the five parameters in Equation (3.2), the horizontal component of the plate
trajectories presented certain patterns. Figures 3.11-3.21 show the effect of each
parameter on horizontal plate trajectories, in terms of horizontal velocity versus
horizontal displacement, and horizontal displacement versus time.
It was seen in Figure 3.4 that plate trajectories rise as K increases. K also greatly
affects horizontal components of plate trajectories. Figure 3.11 shows that horizontal
speed (at a given horizontal displacement) increases with K , as does the horizontal
displacement (at a given time).
Plate trajectories rise as side ratio ( BD / ) decreases (Fig.3.5); however, BD /
appears to only slightly affect plate horizontal trajectory. In Figure 3.12, horizontal
velocities (at a given horizontal distance) of plate #6 ( BD / =1) and plate #20 ( BD / =2.25)
are practically identical. The horizontal displacement (at a given time) of plate #20 is
slightly less than that of plate #6. When ≤BD / 1, BD / has little influence on either
velocity or horizontal displacement, as shown in Figure 3.13. This indicates that given the
same value of K , square and rectangular plates present similar flight trajectories in the
horizontal direction, even though they have different aerodynamic coefficients. This
feature is further illustrated in Section 3.3 by comparing the horizontal trajectories of all
twenty-two plates with a range of K values.
The effects of initial situation on the horizontal plate trajectories are also very
small. Figure 3.14 shows that there is very little influence of the relative support
dimension ( Bb / ) on horizontal plate trajectories with the same K . Figure 3.15 shows
that plate 3 supported at the center, corner, and edge, respectively, followed an almost
identical horizontal trajectory. The initial angle of attack ( 0α ) has relatively little effect.
Although the mode of motion, which is closely related to 0α , greatly affects the plate
trajectories in the vertical direction (Figs. 3.8-3.10), the corresponding horizontal
trajectories are almost independent of 0α (Figs. 3.16-3.21), except that plate #15 showed
lower speeds at 0α =150, at the low wind speed (Fig. 3.18). Therefore, initial situation
greatly influences the vertical trajectory of plates, but not the horizontal trajectory.
49
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Horizontal displacement (m)
Hor
izon
tal s
peed
/ W
ind
spee
d#7 K=9.1#8 K=4.6#9 K=3.0#10 K=2.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time (sec)
Hor
izon
tal d
ispl
acem
ent (
m) #7 K=9.1
#8 K=4.6#9 K=3.0#10 K=2.2
Figure 3.11. Horizontal plate trajectories affected by mhgUK ρρ 2/2a=
( BD / =1, Bb / =24%, 0α =00, s -center)
50
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Horizontal displacement (m)
Hor
izon
tal s
peed
/ W
ind
spee
d#6 D/B=1
#20 D/B=2.25
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time (sec)
Hor
izon
tal d
ispl
acem
ent (
m)
#6 D/B=1
#20 D/B=2.25
Figure 3.12. Horizontal plate trajectories affected by side ratio ( ≥BD / 1)
( K =6.7, Bb / =33%, 0α =00, s -center)
51
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Horizontal displacement (m)
Hor
izon
tal s
peed
/ W
ind
spee
d#15 D/B=0.42
#18 D/B=0.63
#13 D/B=1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time (sec)
Hor
izon
tal d
ispl
acem
ent (
m)
#15 D/B=0.42
#18 D/B=0.63
#13 D/B=1
Figure 3.13. Horizontal plate trajectories affected by side ratio ( ≤BD / 1)
( K =6.7, Bb / =15-20%, 0α =00, s -center)
52
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6Horizontal displacement (m)
Hor
izon
tal s
peed
/ W
ind
spee
d #10 b/B=24%
#1 b/B=69%
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2Time (sec)
Hor
izon
tal d
ispl
acem
ent (
m)
#10 b/B=24%
#1 b/B=69%
Figure 3.14. Horizontal plate trajectories affected by Bb /
( K =7.6, BD / =1, 0α =00, s -center)
53
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Horizontal displacement (m)
Hor
izon
tal s
peed
/ W
ind
spee
d #3 center#3 corner#3 edge
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time (sec)
Hor
izon
tal d
ispl
acem
ent (
m) #3 center
#3 corner#3 edge
Figure 3.15. Horizontal plate trajectories affected by s
( K =3.37, BD / =1, Bb / =43%, 0α =00)
54
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 2 4 6
Horizontal displacement (m)
Hor
izon
tal s
peed
/ Win
d sp
eed
0 deg15 deg45 deg90 deg135 deg165 deg
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2Time (sec)
Hor
izon
tal d
ispl
acem
ent (
m)
0 deg15 deg45 deg90 deg135 deg165 deg
Figure 3.16. Horizontal trajectories affected by initial angle of attack 0α
(Plate #8, BD / =1, K =5.9, Bb / =24%, s -center)
55
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 2 4 6Horizontal displacement (m)
Hor
izon
tal s
peed
/ W
ind
spee
d
0 deg15 deg45 deg90 deg135 deg165 deg
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2Time (sec)
Hor
izon
tal d
ispl
acem
ent (
m)
0 deg15 deg45 deg90 deg135 deg165 deg
Figure 3.17. Horizontal trajectories affected by initial angle of attack 0α
(Plate #8, BD / =1, K =11, Bb / =24%, s -center)
56
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
Horizontal displacement (m)
Hor
izon
tal s
peed
/ W
ind
spee
d
0 deg15 deg45 deg90 deg135 deg165 deg
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time (sec)
Hor
izon
tal d
ispl
acem
ent (
m)
0 deg15 deg45 deg90 deg135 deg165 deg
Figure 3.18. Horizontal trajectories affected by initial angle of attack 0α
(Plate #15, BD / =0.42, K =4.5, Bb / =15%, s -center)
57
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
Horizontal displacement (m)
Hor
izon
tal s
peed
/ W
ind
spee
d
0 deg15 deg45 deg90 deg135 deg165 deg
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time (sec)
Hor
izon
tal d
ispl
acem
ent (
m)
0 deg15 deg45 deg90 deg135 deg165 deg
Figure 3.19. Horizontal trajectories affected by initial angle of attack 0α
(Plate #15, BD / =0.42, K =12.5, Bb / =15%, s -center)
58
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1 2 3 4
Horizontal displacement (m)
Hor
izon
tal s
peed
/ W
ind
spee
d
0 deg15 deg45 deg90 deg135 deg165 deg
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time (sec)
Hor
izon
tal d
ispl
acem
ent (
m)
0 deg15 deg45 deg90 deg135 deg165 deg
Figure 3.20. Horizontal trajectories affected by initial angle of attack 0α
(Plate #21, BD / =2.4, K =4.5, Bb / =36%, s -center)
59
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
Horizontal displacement (m)
Hor
izon
tal s
peed
/ W
ind
spee
d
0 deg15 deg45 deg90 deg135 deg165 deg
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time (sec)
Hor
izon
tal d
ispl
acem
ent (
m)
0 deg15 deg45 deg90 deg135 deg165 deg
Figure 3.21. Horizontal trajectories affected by initial angle of attack 0α
(Plate #21, BD / =2.4, K =11.2, Bb / =36%, s -center)
60
The investigation of two-dimensional trajectory of 2D plate-like debris was
expanded to 3D compact-like debris and 1D rod-like debris. Since only drag forces were
significant, 3D cubes and spheres traveled relatively short distances in the tests and initial
support situation had little influence on their trajectories, and their horizontal trajectories
presented similar characteristics to those of plates. With drag, lift, and pitching moments,
akin to plates, 1D rods were found to have more variation in the vertical direction than
plates; however, the horizontal component of the rod trajectories presented certain
characteristics comparable to the characteristics of plates.
3.3 Non-dimensional Horizontal Debris Trajectory
The horizontal trajectory of a particular debris type, then, is mainly dependent on
K . Data showed that non-dimensional horizontal trajectories of each debris shape with
different side ratio, in different initial situations, and at a range of wind speeds, collapsed
for each K ( 322 ≤≤ K ). Figures 3.22, 3.23, 3.24, and 3.25 are examples of horizontal
trajectories of plates when K is equal to 2, 4, 6, and 9, respectively. The data show that
non-dimensional horizontal velocity of debris with given K is primarily a function of
non-dimensional horizontal displacement, which is a function of non-dimensional time.
Note that the velocity of rectangular plates with BD / >1 decreases at the end of the
trajectory, due to mean wind speed reducing in boundary layers and due to boundary
layer turbulence close to the wind-tunnel ceiling or floor. This boundary layer turbulence
has scales which may influence the aerodynamic forces acting (Holmes, 2004). The
horizontal displacements of rectangular plates show little difference from those of square
plates, except for a slight decrease when BD / >1.
61
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
#15 (D/B=0.42) #17 (0.44)#18 (0.63) D/B=1#19 (1.6) #21(2.4)#22 (3.0)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
#15 (D/B=0.42) #17 (0.44)#18 (0.63) D/B=1#19 (1.6) #21(2.4)#22 (3.0)
Figure 3.22. Non-dimensional plate trajectories in the horizontal direction ( K =2)
2Ugxx =
Ugtt =
Uu
u m=
2Ugxx =
62
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
#14 (0.33) #15 (D/B=0.42)#16 (0.44) #18 (0.63)D/B=1 #19(1.6)#20 (2.25) #21 (2.4)#22 (3.0)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
#14 (0.33) #15 (D/B=0.42)#16 (0.44) #18 (0.63)D/B=1 #19(1.6)#20 (2.25) #21 (2.4)#22 (3.0)
Figure 3.23. Non-dimensional plate trajectories in the horizontal direction ( K =4)
2Ugxx =
Ugtt =
Uu
u m=
2Ugxx =
63
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
#14 (0.33) #15 (D/B=0.42)#17 (0.44) #18 (0.63)D/B=1 #19(1.6)#21 (2.4) #22 (3.0)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
#14 (0.33) #15 (D/B=0.42)#17 (0.44) #18 (0.63)D/B=1 #19(1.6)#21 (2.4) #22 (3.0)
Figure 3.24. Non-dimensional plate trajectories in the horizontal direction ( K =6)
2Ugxx =
Ugtt =
Uuu m=
2Ugxx =
64
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
#15 (D/B=0.42) #16 (0.44)
D/B=1 #19(1.6)#21 (2.4)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
#15 (D/B=0.42) #16 (0.44)D/B=1 #19(1.6)#21 (2.4)
Figure 3.25. Non-dimensional plate trajectories in the horizontal direction ( K =9)
2Ugxx =
Ugtt =
Uuu m=
2Ugxx =
65
Non-dimensional equation of debris motion in the horizontal direction developed
by Tachikawa (Eq. 1.13) is rewritten here:
])1)[(sincos( 222
2
vuCCKtdud
tdxd
LD +−−== ββ (3.3)
where 22)1(
1cosvu
u+−
−=β and
22)1(sin
vuv
+−=β .
Since debris horizontal trajectory is mainly dependent on K , the aerodynamic term
)sincos( ββ LD CC − can be denoted as C , and denote pC , cC , sC , and rC as the
coefficient for plates, cubes, spheres, and rods, respectively. Equation (3.3) becomes:
])1[( 222
2
vuCKtdud
tdxd
+−== . (3.4)
For u , v <<1 (i.e., in the early part of the flight), →βcos 1, →βsin 0, and
KCtdud
tdxd
D→=2
2
. Integrating,
tKCu D= , 2
21 tKCx D= , and xKCu D2= . (3.5)
Baker (2004) suggested similar limiting relationships, but only for compact (3D) objects.
Equations 3.4 and 3.5 indicate that for a certain debris type, u is a function of
xK , and xK is a function of tK . Accordingly, all experimental data are presented in
Figures 3.26, 3.27, and 3.28, for 2D, 3D, and 1D debris, respectively. Figure 3.26 shows
u as a function of xK collapse all plate data, except for the rectangular plates with
BD / >1 which decrease at the end of their trajectories. Also xK as a function of tK
collapses data well, except for rectangular plates with BD / >1 which present slightly
lower curves than those of square plates. Figure 3.27 shows that cubes fly farther and
faster than spheres, due to a larger drag force. In Figure 3.28, u as a function of xK
collapses all rod data, including the data of those at different initial angles of attack.
Values of xK of the rods placed parallel to the wind (r1, r2, r5, and r7) are lower than
those of the rods placed perpendicular to the wind, and moved very slowly in the early
flight in the tests, resulting in very small values of xK at small tK .
66
The data show that for the entire observed debris trajectory, u can be approximated
by an exponential function of xK , xCKeu 21 −−= . (3.6)
Noting that for small values of xCK2 , Equation (3.6) approximates to xCKu 2= .
The best fit parameter for Equation 3.6) is: pC = 0.911 with a standard deviation
of σ = 0.0814 for plate-like debris (2D); cC = 0.809 with σ = 0.0203 for cubes (3D);
sC =0.496 with σ = 0.0087 for spheres (3D); and rC =0.801 with σ =0.0616 for ‘2 by 4’
rods (1D). Note that cC approximates the aerodynamic drag coefficient of cubes (about
0.8), and sC approximates the aerodynamic drag coefficient of spheres (about 0.5).
Similarly, pC can be regard as an average aerodynamic coefficient for plate horizontal
trajectory, and rC the coefficient for rod horizontal trajectory.
The data also show that xK is a polynomial function of tK and can be expressed as:
...)()()()(21 5432 ++++= tKctKbtKatKCxK (3.7)
where for small times, 2
21 tKCx D≅ . The fitted expressions are: for plates,
5432 )(0014.0)(024.0)(148.0)(4555.0 tKtKtKtKxK −+−≈ (3.8)
with σ = 0.1341; for cubes, 5432 )(008.0)(052.0)(036.0)(405.0 tKtKtKtKxK +−−≈ (3.9)
with σ = 0.0087; for spheres, 5432 )(006.0)(1.0)(084.0)(248.0 tKtKtKtKxK +−+≈ (3.10)
with σ =0.0021; for rods placed perpendicular to wind, 5432 )(0032.0)(036.0)(16.0)(4005.0 tKtKtKtKxK −+−≈ (3.11)
with σ = 0.0854, for rods placed parallel to wind, 5432 )(0082.0)(088.0)(294.0)(4005.0 tKtKtKtKxK −+−≈ (3.12)
with σ =0.1492.
67
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
#1 #2 #3#4 #5 #6#7 #8 #9#10 #11 #12#13 #14 #15#16 #17 #18#19 #20 #21#22
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
#1 #2 #3#4 #5 #6#7 #8 #9#10 #11 #12#13 #14 #15#16 #17 #18#19 #20 #21#22
Figure 3.26. Horizontal trajectory of 2D (plate) debris ( pC = 0.911)
xK
tK
xKC peu 21 −−=
u
xK
Eq.(3.8)
68
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
Cubes c1-c6Spheres s1-s5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Cubes c1-c6
Spheres s1-s5
Figure 3.27. Horizontal trajectory of 3D (compact) debris ( cC = 0.809, sC =0.496)
xK
tK
Eq.(3.9)
Eq.(3.10)
xK
u
xKCceu 21 −−=
xKCseu 21 −−=
69
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
Rods- 0deg
Rods-15deg
Rods-45deg
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Rods D/B=0.03-0.04 (r3, r4, r6, and r8)
Rods D/B=26-30 (r1, r2, r5, and r7)
Figure 3.28. Horizontal trajectory of 1D (rod) debris ( rC =0.801)
xK
tK
xK
u
xKCreu 21 −−=
Eq.(3.11)
Eq.(3.12)
70
It was noted that the scatter in the data for plates (Fig. 3.26) were mainly from the
data for rectangular plates with BD / >1. This is due to mean wind speed reducing in
boundary layers and boundary layer turbulence close to the wind-tunnel ceiling or floor,
as mentioned before. Figure 3.29 presents the data of u versus xK for plates with
≤BD / 1 and BD / >1, respectively, and Figure 3.30 presents xK versus tK .
3.4 Comparison of Full-scale and Model-scale Simulations
Full-scale test results showed that 2D-debris flight behavior comparable with that
observed in the wind tunnel tests, especially in the horizontal direction. Figure 3.31
shows the trajectory of rectangular plate #17 ( BD / =0.44, K =2.9) in a wind-tunnel test
and the trajectory of plate E1 ( BD / =0.5, K =2.9) in a full-scale test. Full-scale plate E1
had higher trajectory than model plate #17 had, with same K . Figure 3.32 shows the
horizontal and resultant speeds of plate #17 and those of plate E1. Figure 3.33 presents all
horizontal debris trajectories (in semi-log scale), including wind-tunnel simulations of
plates, cubes, spheres, and rods, and full-scale simulations of plates, in the non-
dimensional form of u versus xCK . The scatter evident at full scale is not unexpected
given the quite different launch mechanism and the decaying and very non-uniform flow
behind the aircraft. Horizontal trajectories of different debris types are comparable with
each other, and are comparable with full-scale test results.
71
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
#1 #2 #3#4 #5 #6#7 #8 #9#10 #11 #12#13 #14 #15#16 #17 #18
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
#19 #20
#21 #22
Figure 3.29 u versus xK of plates with ≤BD / 1 (above) and BD / >1 (below)
u
xK
u
xK
72
0
1
2
3
4
5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
#1 #2 #3#4 #5 #6#7 #8 #9#10 #11 #12#13 #14 #15#16 #17 #18
0
1
2
3
4
5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
#19 #20
#21 #22
Figure 3.30 xK versus tK of plates with ≤BD / 1 (above) and BD / >1 (below)
xK
xK
tK
tK
73
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Horizontal displacement (m)
Verti
cal d
ispl
acem
ent (
m)
(a) Trajectory of plate #17 ( K =2.9, α0 = 00)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Horizontal displacement (m)
Vert
ical
dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
(b) Trajectory of plate E1 ( K =2.9, α0 = 00)
Figure 3.31. Comparison of debris trajectories from wind-tunnel (above) and full-scale (below) experiments
74
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Time (sec)
plat
e sp
eed
/ win
d sp
eed
Um
Um (ds/dt)
um
um (dx/dt)
(a) Non-dimensional velocities of #17 ( K =2.9, α0 = 00)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time (sec)
plat
e sp
eed
/ win
d sp
eed
Um
Um (ds/dt)
um
um (dx/dt)
(b) Non-dimensional velocities of E1 ( K =2.9, α0 = 00)
Figure 3.32. Comparison of debris velocities from wind-tunnel (above) and full-scale (below) experiments
tsU m ∆∆= /dtdsU m /=tsum ∆∆= /
dtdsum /=
tsU m ∆∆= /dtdsU m /=tsum ∆∆= /
dtdsum /=
75
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
full-scale platesplates #1-#22cubes c1-c6spheres s1-s5rods r1-r8
Figure 3.33. Comparison of debris horizontal trajectories from wind-tunnel and full-scale tests (C denotes the empirical coefficients 911.0=pC , 809.0=cC , 496.0=sC , and
801.0=rC , for plates, cubes, spheres, and rods, respectively.)
3.5 Application to Debris Impact Criteria
The wind-tunnel tests were conducted in uniform flows, while the wind flow in
the atmospheric boundary layers is turbulent. However, full-scale debris flight usually
last only a couple of seconds and is determined by the 2-3 gust speed (Holmes et. al.,
2004). Thus the empirical Equation (3.6) can be used to approximate the debris
horizontal impact speed at a given distance using an average gust speed. The data can be
used to establish debris horizontal impact criteria.
As application examples, Figure 3.34 shows the horizontal speed of a roof tile,
Figure 3.35 of a 2 g, 8 mm steel ball, Figure 3.36 of a 4.1 kg (9 lb) ‘2 by 4’ missile, and
Figure 3.37 a 6.8 kg (15 lb) ‘2 by 4’ missile, respectively. Empirical estimations agree
well with the numerical solutions by Holmes et al. (2004) and Holmes et al. (2005).
u
xCK
76
Although roof tiles have been observed to be the major windborne debris in south
Florida, following Hurricane Andrew in 1992, SFBC (1997) still recommended ‘2 by 4’
timbers as representative debris due to the difficulties in defining a representative roofing
tile. Roof tiles also produced great damage during Hurricane ‘Charley’ in 2004 (Holmes
et al., 2005). The empirical Equation (3.6) provides a convenient approximation for the
speed of plate-like debris. ASTM standards (E1886-97, 1997) specified a steel ball as the
‘small missile’ representative with impact speed between 0.40 and 0.75 of the basic wind
speed (3-s gust in accordance with ANSI/ASCE 7), and ‘2 by 4’ missiles as
representatives of the ‘large missile’ with impact speed between 0.1 and 0.55 of the basic
wind speed. These specified impact speed ranges are covered by the empirical and
numerical solutions, which are speed curves increasing with flight distance. These
specifications may overestimate or underestimate actual debris impact speeds, depending
on how far the debris travels before impact.
It should be noted that impact speed increases with flight distance; however,
debris may have fallen to the ground before reaching the object of interest. Therefore, it
is rational to first estimate potential travel distance of debris with one of Equations (3.8)-
(3.12). Debris flight time is in the order of one or two seconds. Exact debris potential
flight time before hitting the ground depends on the initial height of debris and the
vertical trajectory.
It was also observed that, for plates and rods, the contribution of vertical speed to
resultant speed was very small, because the lift force sustained the debris flight (Figs.
3.38 and 3.39); however, 3D debris fell in the tests and had relatively large contribution
of vertical speed. Actual debris vertical speeds depend on debris vertical displacement.
Investigation of debris vertical trajectory is recommended as a topic for the further
research.
77
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
Horizontal displacement (m)
Hor
izon
tal v
eloc
ity /
win
d sp
eed
Empirical Eq.(3.6)
Numerical (Holmes et al., 2005)
Figure 3.34. Trajectory of a concrete tile (300 x 300 x 15mm, 3.1kg, 0α =00)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
Horizontal displacement (m)
Hor
izon
tal v
eloc
ity /
win
d sp
eed
Empirical Eq.(3.6)Numerical (Holmes et al., 2004)
Figure 3.35. Trajectory of a steel ball (8mm, 2g)
σ+u
σ−u
σ+u
σ−u
78
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
Horizontal displacement (m)
Hor
izon
tal v
eloc
ity /
win
d sp
eed
Empirical Eq.(3.6)
Numerical (Holmes)
Figure 3.36. Trajectory of a ‘2 by 4’ missile (2.4 x 0.1x 0.05m, 4.1kg, 0α =00)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
Horizontal displacement (m)
Hor
izon
tal v
eloc
ity /
win
d sp
eed
Empirical Eq.(3.6)
Numerical (Holmes)
Figure 3.37. Trajectory of a ‘2 by 4’ missile (4.0 x 0.1 x 0.05m, 6.8kg, 0α =00)
σ+u
σ−u
σ+u
σ−u
79
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Horizontal speed
Resultant speed
Figure 3.38. Comparison of horizontal speed and resultant speed of plates ( pC = 0.911)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
Horizontal speed
Resultant speed
Figure 3.39. Comparison of horizontal speed and resultant speed of rods ( rC = 0.801)
Debris speed / wind speed
xK
xK
xKC peu 21 −−=
xKCreu 21 −−=
Debris speed / wind speed
80
CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY AND RECOMANDATIONS
4.1 Summary
The primary goal of this research was to investigate the aerodynamic
characteristics of flying debris using wind-tunnel simulation. This knowledge will
facilitate the establishment of rational debris impact criteria and debris risk analysis.
Chapter 1 introduced the published studies on debris identification, debris
initiation, debris trajectory, and debris risk analysis. This research used Wills et al.’s
(2002) classification to study flight trajectories of cubes and spheres (3D), plates (2D),
and rods (1D). Debris initiation may influence debris trajectory and the release wind
speed can be assumed to be constant during debris trajectory. Tachikawa (1983) first
combined experimental and numerical studies on debris trajectory and established non-
dimensional equations of debris motion. The present research followed his pioneering
work. Numerical studies of debris trajectory by Holmes et al. (2004 and 2005) and Baker
(2004) also provided significant information and guided this research. Twisdale et al.
(1996) developed an analysis framework for debris impact risk. A proper debris
trajectory model is critical in debris risk analysis and the present study develops this
knowledge.
Chapter 2 described the wind-tunnel and full-scale tests. Extensive wind-tunnel
simulations of trajectories of 3D, 2D, and 1D debris were carried out. The test design, test
setup and procedure, and data analysis methods were introduced. The procedure can also
be used to study trajectories of irregular debris. Full-scale simulation of debris
trajectories was explored. Full-scale tests can provide calibration data for model-scale
tests.
Chapter 3 presented all the experimental data. Debris trajectories vary with the
characteristics of wind field, debris properties, and debris initial support. The Tachikawa
parameter, K , debris side ratio, and debris initial support configuration were found to
influence the debris trajectory. However, the Tachikawa parameter K governs the
81
horizontal trajectory of debris. Therefore, different debris types at different initial support
situations presented comparable non-dimensional horizontal trajectories. Furthermore,
based on theoretical equations of debris motion, K was combined into non-dimensional
flight variables, resulting in aerodynamic functions for horizontal debris trajectory (Eqs.
3.6-3.12). Good agreement was obtained when compared with numerical solutions.
Application examples of these functions were shown. ASTM standards ignored that
debris flight speed is a function of travel distance. These functions can be applied to
establish rational debris impact criteria
4.2 Recommendations for Further Research
Windborne debris problem is probabilistic in nature. Further research is
recommended to incorporate experimental debris trajectory models into debris risk
analysis. This study has established aerodynamic functions for debris horizontal
trajectory. Combining this knowledge with Monte Carlo simulations, the probability of
debris attaining a damage threshold (velocity, energy, or momentum) at impact can be
qualified. Further investigation of debris vertical trajectory is necessary to predict debris
flight time, which will decide debris travel distance and the probability of impact on a
target.
The use of data from field surveys of actual debris damage to calibrate
experimental models is also recommended for further studies.
82
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Society for Testing Materials (1997). Standard test method for performance of exterior windows, curtain walls, doors, and storm shutters impacted by missile(s) and exposed to cyclic pressure differentials, ASTM E 1886-97.
Baker, C.J. (2004). Solutions of the debris equations, In : Proc. 6th U.K. Conference on
Wind Engineering, Cranfield, September 15-17, 2004. Holmes, J.D. (2003). Emerging issues in wind engineering. In : Proc. 11th International
Conference on Wind Engineering(11ICWE), Lubbock, Texas, June 2-5, 2003. Holmes, J.D. (2004). Trajectories of spheres in strong winds with application to
windborne debris. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 92, 9-22.
Holmes, J.D., and English, E.C. (2004). Aerodynamics and trajectories of windborne
debris, part 1: compact objects, part 2: sheet objects. In : Proc. 11th Australasian Wind Engineering Society Workshop, Darwin, Australia, June 28-29, 2004.
Holmes, J.D., Letchford, C.W., and Lin, N. (2005). Investigations of plate-type windborne debris, II. Computed trajectories, submitted to Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics.
Lee, A.J.H. (1974). A general study of tornado-generated missiles. Nuclear Engineering
and Design, 30, 418-433. Lee, B.E. and Wills J. (2002). Vulnerability of fully glazed high-rise buildings in tropical
cyclones. Journal of Architectural Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 2. Letchford, C. W. (2000). Analysis of the propeller wash from a C-130 Hercules aircraft,
WISE Report for NIST, August 2000, Texas Tech University.
Lin, N., Letchford, C.W., and Holmes, J.D. (2005). Investigations of plate-type windborne debris, I. Experiments in wind tunnel and full scale, submitted to Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics.
McDonald, J.R., Mehta, K.C., and Minor, J.E. (1974). Tornado-resistant design of
nuclear power-plant structures. Nuclear Safety, Vol. 15, No.4. 432-439. McDonald, J.R. (1976). Tornado-generated missiles and their effects. In : Proc.
Symposium on Tornadoes, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, June 22-24, 1976.
83
McDonald, J.R. and Kiesling, E.W. (1988). Impact resistance of wood and wood
products to simulated tornado missiles. In : Proc. International Conference on Timber Engineering, Seattle, WA, September 19-22, 1988.
McDonald, J.R. (1990). Impact resistance of common building materials to tornado
missiles. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 36, 717-742. McDonald, J.R. (1999). Windborne debris impacts on metal wall panels and their
implications. Wind Engineering into the 21st Century, Larsen, Larose & Livesey (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5809 059 0, 1443-1449.
Minor, J.E. (1994). Windborne debris and the building envelope. Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 53, 207-227. Redmann, G.H, Radbill, J.R., Marte, J.E., Degarabedian, P., and Fendell, F.E.(1976).
Wind field and trajectory models for tornado propelled objects. Electrical Power Research Institute, Technical Report 1, Palo Alto, CA.
SFBC (1997). South Florida building code, Dade County edition. Simiu, E. and Cordes, M. (1976). Tornado borne missile speeds. NBSIR 76-1050,
National Bureau of Standards. Tachikawa, M (1983). Trajectories of flat plates in uniform flow with application to
wind-generated missiles. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 14, 443-453.
Tachikawa, M (1988). A method for estimating the distribution range of trajectories of
wind-borne missiles. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 29, 175-184.
Twisdale, L.A., Dunn, W.L., and Davis, T.L. (1979). Tornado missile transport analysis.
Nuclear Engineering and Design, 51, 295-308. Twisdale, L.A., Vickery, P.J., and Steckley, A.C. (1996). Analysis of hurricane
windborne debris impact risk for residential structures, prepared for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Companies.
Wang, K. and Letchford, C.W. (2003). Flying debris behavior. In : Proc. Eleventh
International Conference on Wind Engineering(11ICWE), Lubbock, Texas, June 2-5, 2003.
84
Wills, J.A.B., Lee, B.E., and Wyatt, T.A. (2002). A model of wind-borne debris damage. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 90, 555-565.
PERMISSION TO COPY
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s
degree at Texas Tech University or Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, I
agree that the Library and my major department shall make it freely available for research
purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the
Director of the Library or my major professor. It is understood that any copying or
publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my further
written permission and that any user may be liable for copyright infringement.
Agree (Permission is granted.)
Ning Lin ______________ ___ ___ June 29, 2005___ Student Signature Date Disagree (Permission is not granted.) _______________________________________________ _________________ Student Signature Date