ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Wind Engineering

and Industrial Aerodynamics 94 (2006) 2139
www.elsevier.com/locate/jweia

Investigations of plate-type windborne debrisPart

II: Computed trajectories
J.D. Holmesa,, C.W. Letchfordb, Ning Linb
a
JDH Consulting, P.O. Box 269, Mentone, Victoria, 3194, Australia
Wind Science and Engineering Research Center, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-1023, USA

Received 30 December 2004; received in revised form 7 October 2005; accepted 7 October 2005
Available online 28 November 2005

Abstract
In Part I, trajectories of plates, carried by strong winds, were studied experimentally by windtunnel and full-scale tests. The application is to windborne debris occurring in severe windstorms
such as hurricanes. In this paper (Part II), a numerical model of square plate trajectories is described
and compared with experimental data from Tachikawa, and that described in Part I. Generally, good
to excellent agreement is found; lift forces induced by the Magnus effect were found to be signicant
in determining trajectories.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Debris; Hurricane; Plate; Wind loads

1. Introduction
Windborne debris is known as a major source of damage in strong wind events such as
hurricanes. Using the classication scheme proposed by Wills et al. [1], generic debris types
can be classied as either compact, sheets/plates, or rods. Although the types of test
missile used in impact tests have traditionally been of the compact or rod type [2], there
is also evidence of considerable damage produced by plate-type objectsfor example,
concrete roof tiles during Hurricane Charley in 2004.
Published work on windborne debris was reviewed in a previous paper by Holmes [3].
This included the pioneer work by Tachikawa [4,5] who studied the trajectories of small
Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: jdholmes@bigpond.net.au (J.D. Holmes), chris.letchford@ttu.edu (C.W. Letchford).

0167-6105/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2005.10.002

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.D. Holmes et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 2139

22

at plates, and other objects, in a wind tunnel. Wang and Letchford [6] also studied ight
trajectories of small sheet objects in a wind tunnel.
This paper is a companion to Part I [7], in which new experimental data on the
trajectories of plates of various aspect ratios are described. The present paper describes
numerical solutions of the ight characteristics of plates of square planform, following
initiation of ight. Unlike compact objects, such as spheres [3], which are driven only by
drag forces, the trajectories of plates in strong winds are subject to drag and lift forces, and
also pitching moments, for motion in a vertical plane.
2. Aerodynamic forces and moments on square plates
2.1. Normal force coefficient
The dimensions of a square planform plate, and the angle of attack, a, of the relative
wind are shown in Fig. 1. Flachsbart [8] measured the force coefcient on a square at
plate as a function of the angle of attack. These data were reported by Hoerner [9], and is
also the basis of an ESDU Data Item [10]. Similar measurements were carried out by
Tachikawa [11], and more recently by the present authors at Monash University and Texas
Tech University.
At an angle of attack of about 401 the plate stalls, and the normal force coefcient
shows a sharp peak before falling to a near-constant stalled value of 1.11.2. The assumed
line, as shown in Fig. 2, consisting of linear segments shows quite good agreement with the
experimental data.
The model is as follows:
C N 1:7a=40

for ao40
,

(1a)

for 40
pao140
,

(1b)

C N 1:7180  a=40 for 140
pap180
.

(1c)

C N 1:15

centre of pressure

thickness, h
chord, l
span, l
Fig. 1. Dimensions and angle of attack for a square plate.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.D. Holmes et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 2139

23

2.0
1.6

CN

1.2
0.8
assumed
measured-Monash
measured-TTU
measured-Tachikawa
measured-Flachsbart

0.4
0.0
0

45

90
angle of attack (deg.)

135

180

Fig. 2. Normal force coefcient for a square at plate.

The normal force is resolved into drag and lift components, but an additional drag
coefcient of 0.1 has been added to allow for the skin friction component. Thus
(2a)
C D 0:1 C N sin a,
C L C N cos a.

(2b)

2.2. Centre of pressure position

The distance of the centre of pressure position, c, from the centre of the plate, shown in
Fig. 1, determines the pitching moment on a plate. For a pitching moment coefcient
dened as
CM

M
,
1=2rU 2 3

(3)

the relationship between the moment coefcient, the normal force coefcient, and the
centre of pressure position is
C M C N c=.

(4)

Fig. 3 shows the assumed model of the relative centre of pressure position, c/, as a
function of angle of attack. This is a segmented model adjusted to t the available
experimental data, with the following values of c/:
c= 0:3  0:22a=38 for the angle of attack; ap38
,
c= 0:08 cos 2a  38
c= 0:0

for 38
oao82:5
,

(5b)

for 82:5
pao97:5
,

c= 0:08 cos 2142  a

(5a)

(5c)

for 97:5
oap142
,

(5d)

c= 0:3 0:22180  a=38 for 142 oap180 .

(5e)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.D. Holmes et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 2139

24

0.4
0.3
0.2

c/l

0.1
0.0
0

45

-0.1

90

135

180

assumed
measured-Monash
measured-TTU
measured-Tachikawa
measured-Flachsbart

-0.2
-0.3
-0.4

angle of attack (deg.)

Fig. 3. Centre of pressure position for a square at plate.

2.3. Alternative models of static force and moment coefficients

Linear segmented models of the normal force coefcient variation, and centre of
pressure position variation with angle of attack were previously adopted by the authors in
Ref. [12]. These have been improved to better reect the available experimental data for a
square plate, as described in Sections 2.1 and 2.2.
Alternative models of the drag, lift and normal force coefcient, and centre of pressure
position, have also been proposed by Baker [13]. However, these have not been compared
with experimental data, and do not reect the stall region at around 401 angle of attack.
2.4. Magnus effect forces
Tachikawa [4] carried out measurements of aerodynamic lift and drag forces on autorotating plates, and was able to determine the Magnus effect forces due to the angular
rotational velocities. The effects of rotation on lift forces are signicant; however, the
Magnus components of drag and moment are small and less well dened. Following
Tachikawa [4], the following bilinear function was assumed for the component of lift
coefcient due to the rotational velocity, o dy=dt:
C Lr 0:422:5o=o0 for o=o0 o0:2,

(6a)

C Lr 0:420:375 0:625o=o0 for o=o0 X0:2,

(6b)

where the steady-state angular velocity, o0, is given by [4]

o0

0:64U
,

where U is the wind speed.

(6c)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.D. Holmes et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 2139

25

The total lift coefcient is then given by the sum of CL from Eq. (2b), and CLr from Eqs.
(6a) or (b). Magnus effect components for the drag force and pitching moment were not
included in the numerical calculations in this paper.
3. Equations of motion
Fig. 4 shows the total angle of attack, a, of the relative wind to a plate. It consists of the
sum of two components: bthe angle of attack of the relative wind induced by the vertical
motion of the sheet, with respect to the horizontal, and ythe angle of the sheet to the
horizontal, i.e. the initial angle of attack at the start of the ight, plus the angle the sheet
has rotated under the action of the rotational moments.
The horizontal acceleration of the plate is given by
d2 x ra C D cos b  C L sin bU  um 2 v2m 
.

dt2
2rm h

(7)

The vertical acceleration of the plate is given by

d2 z ra C D sin b C L cos bU  um 2 v2m 
 g.

dt2
2rm h

(8)

The angular acceleration is given by

d2 y ra C M AU  um 2 v2m 
,

dt2
2I

(9)

um

vm

vm

U-um

Fig. 4. Relative angle of attack of the wind for a translating, rotating plate. (Note: positive vm is upwardsthe
negative direction is shown above).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
26

J.D. Holmes et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 2139

where ra is the density of air, rm is the density of the plate material, U is the wind speed, um
is the horizontal velocity of the plate, vm is the vertical velocity of the plate, h is the
thickness of the plate, is the side dimension of the plate (square here), A is the plan area
(2), I is the mass moment of inertia, CD, CL and CM are the drag, lift and moment
coefcients, x is the horizontal distance travelled, z is the vertical distance travelled, g is the
acceleration due to gravity, and t is time.
These equations can be solved numerically using small time steps, for the horizontal,
vertical, and angular velocities and displacements. The normal force coefcient and centre
of pressure positions obtained for static plates at various angles of attack, described in
Sections 2.1 and 2.2, can be used to obtain drag, lift and moment coefcients in the above
equations. Additional lift forces due to the Magnus effect are obtained using the
Tachikawa model, described in Section 2.4.
4. Computed trajectories and comparisons with experimental data
4.1. Comparison with Tachikawas experiments
Tachikawa [4] carried out a series of free-ight trajectory tests on small at plates in a
uniform ow in a wind tunnel. The various downstream positions of the plate in the early
part of the trajectories were photographed using a stroboscope. An important observation
was the differing trajectories and rotational behaviour, depending on the initial angle of
attack, a0, at release.
Numerical calculations were made to compare with the square plate trajectories reported
by Tachikawa. The previous linear segmented models of normal force coefcient and
centre of pressure position were used in these calculations [12], but the results are little
changed if the model shown in Figs. 2 and 3 are used instead. Examples of the comparisons
are given in Figs. 5 and 6. The plate was made of plastic with side length of 40 mm, and
thickness 2 mm. The Tachikawa parameter K (see Appendix A) was equal to 2.3. The

Fig. 5. Comparison of computed trajectories (upper) with Tachikawas recordings [4] (lower). Initial angle of
attack: 151. (Note: vertical scale of Tachikawas measurements is same as horizontal scale).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.D. Holmes et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 2139

27

Fig. 6. Comparison of computed trajectories (upper) with Tachikawas [4] recordings (lower). Initial angle of
attack: 451. (Note: vertical scale of Tachikawas measurements is same as horizontal scale).

agreement of the rotational positions with the experimental recordings is very good
in both Figs. 5 and 6. In the latter case, the plate rst rotates clockwise, and then anticlockwise in the experiments; this behaviour is also reproduced in the numerical
calculations. The vertical displacements in the calculations, in both cases, are slightly
lower than those recorded in the experiments (note that the vertical displacements are
plotted to a different scale to the horizontal displacements in the numerical calculations in
Figs. 5 and 6).
4.2. Influence of the Magnus effect
The numerical calculations for the Tachikawa plate used in the previous section were
also used to investigate the inuence of the Magnus effect terms on the calculations. The
assumed models for normal force coefcient and centre of pressure position in Figs. 2 and
3, respectively, were used. Some examples are shown in Fig. 7.
In the case of the 151 initial angle, the angular velocities are large and always in the
clockwise directionin that case the Magnus effect generates signicant additional
positive (upwards) lift forces and hence less negative vertical displacements. For the
a0 451, angular velocities are small, and in both clockwise and anti-clockwise directions,
resulting in negligible differences. For the 1501 initial angle, the rotational velocities and
displacements are anti-clockwise for motion from left to right [4], and the Magnus effect
gives negative lift; hence the calculated vertical displacements are more negative when the
Magnus effect is included.
For initial angles between 451 and 1501 (not shown), the angular velocities are small, and
trajectories with and without the Magnus effect forces included differ little from each
other.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.D. Holmes et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 2139

28

Comparison of trajectories - 15 degree initial angle

0.5
0.0

Vertical displ. (m)

-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
No Magnus
Effect
With Magnus
Effect

-2.0
-2.5
-3.0

Horizontal displ. (m)

Comparison of trajectories - 45 degree initial angle

0.5
0.0

Vertical displ. (m)

-0.5
No Magnus
Effect
With Magnus
Effect

-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0

Horizontal displ. (m)

Comparison of trajectories - 150 degree initial angle

0.0
0

Vertical displ. (m)

-0.5
No Magnus
Effect
With Magnus
Effect

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0

Horizontal displ. (m)

Fig. 7. Inuence of Magnus effect lift term on calculated trajectories. Plastic plate (Tachikawa),
40 mm  40 mm  2 mm. U 9:2 m=s, K 2:3.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.D. Holmes et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 2139

29

4.3. Comparison with the Texas Tech experiments

A large number of experimental runs were made in the wind tunnel at Texas Tech
University to determine ight trajectories of square plates and are reported in the
companion paper [7]. Most of these were released at an initial angle of attack, a0, of 01. A
range of wind speeds was used in each case.
Some examples of the comparisons between experiment and calculations are shown in
Figs. 810, for the same plate released at 01 angle of attack, for three different wind speeds.
Calculations were carried out with and without the Magnus effect on lift forces included
(Section 2.4). From these gures, it can be seen that the Magnus effect has a large inuence
on the computed vertical displacements, but that there is little inuence on the calculated
horizontal displacements and resultant plate velocities. However, it is clear that Magnus
effect lift forces should be included in the numerical calculations of plate trajectories. The
agreement between the computed trajectories (Magnus effect included) and the
experimental data is good, although the horizontal displacements are slightly underestimated in every case.
Figs. 11 and 12 show computed data and calculations for a plate released at initial
angles, a0, of 151 and 1351, respectively. Magnus effect lift forces are included, according to
Eqs. (6). The calculations give reasonable agreement with the experimental data for
vertical displacements, horizontal displacements and resultant plate velocities.
5. Discussion
Since the wind ow in the atmospheric boundary layers of severe windstorms such as
hurricanes, is highly turbulent, especially near the ground, the effect of turbulence on the
trajectories of debris items, such as plates, needs to be considered. The effect on trajectories
was studied in the previous paper on spheres (Holmes [3]) and found to introduce a large
degree of variability into trajectories under given mean wind conditions. However, most
ights of windborne debris in full scale last only a second or two and are determined by the
gust speed during, and particularly at the beginning of the ight. Thus, the variability in
trajectories noted in [3] is primarily due to the varying gustiness in the atmospheric
boundary layer. Thus the wind speed used in full-scale trajectory calculations can
conveniently be taken as a 23 s gust speed, assumed constant over the time of the
trajectory.
The effects of turbulence on the aerodynamic coefcients used in trajectory calculations
also need to be considered. Atmospheric turbulence has length scales much larger than the
dimensions of typical debris objects, and hence, it is expected that coefcients determined
in nominally smooth ow in a wind tunnel should be appropriate for full-scale trajectory
calculations. However, model objects with trajectories that nish in the oor boundary
layers of wind tunnels, may experience turbulence with scales that inuence the
aerodynamic forces acting (this was taken account of in a previous study of the
trajectories of cubes [12]).
Appendix A describes a non-dimensional analysis of the trajectories of plates. It is
apparent from this that the main parameter, apart from the initial angle of attack, a0,
determining the trajectories of plates is the Tachikawa parameter, K, equal to
ra U 2 =2rm hg, that represents the ratio between aerodynamic forces and gravity forces.
This parameter, in slightly different forms, is the governing parameter for trajectories of

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.D. Holmes et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 2139

30

Trajectory of basswood plate (plate10 - 0deg- 15.6 m/s)

vertical displacement (m)

0.2
1
2
3
Calculated
no Magnus Effect

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6
1

horizontal displacement (m)

Trajectory of basswood plate (plate10 - 0deg- 15.6 m/s)

resultant speed (m/s)

12
1
2
3
Calculated
no Magnus Effect

10
8
6
4
2
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

time (secs)
Trajectory of basswood plate (plate10 - 0deg- 15.6 m/s)

horizontal displacement (m)

4
1
2
3
Calculated
no Magnus Effect

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

time (secs)
Fig. 8. Comparison of computed trajectories with Texas Tech data. Plate 10, basswood, 75 mm  75 mm  9 mm.
U 15:6 m=s, K 3:0.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.D. Holmes et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 2139

31

Trajectory of basswood plate (plate10 - 0deg- 21.4 m/s)

vertical displacement (m)

0.2

-0.2

1
2
3

-0.4

Calculated
no Magnus
Effect

-0.6
0

horizontal displacement (m)

Trajectory of basswood plate (plate 10 - 0deg- 21.4 m/s)

resultant speed (m/s)

20

15

10

1
2
3

Calculated
no Magnus
Effect

0
0

0.5

1.5

time (secs)
Trajectory of basswood plate (plate 10 - 0deg- 21.4 m/s)

horizontal displacement (m)

6
5
4
3

2
3

Calculated
no Magnus
Effect

0
0

0.5

time (secs)
Fig. 9. Comparison of computed trajectories with Texas Tech data. Plate 10, basswood, 75 mm  75 mm  9 mm.
U 21:4 m=s, K 5:6.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.D. Holmes et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 2139

32

Trajectory of basswood plate (plate 10 - 0deg- 25.6 m/s)

vertical displacement (m)

0.6
0.4
0.2

1
2
3
Calculated
no Magnus
Effect

0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
2

horizontal displacement (m)

Trajectory of basswood plate (plate 10 - 0deg- 25.6 m/s)

resultant speed (m/s)

25
1
2
3
Calculated
no Magnus
Effect

20
15
10
5
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

time (secs)
Trajectory of basswood plate (plate 10 - 0deg- 25.6m/s)

horizontal displacement (m)

6
5

1
2
3
Calculated
no Magnus
Effect

4
3
2
1
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

time (secs)
Fig. 10. Comparison of computed trajectories
75 mm  75 mm  9 mm. U 25:6 m=s, K 8:0.

with

Texas

Tech

data.

Plate

10,

basswood,

other generic forms of debris (e.g. [3]). Its reciprocal has also been suggested by Baker [13]
as a suitable parameter. The effect of varying K can be seen in Figs. 810, in which the
Tachikawa parameter varies between 3 and 8.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.D. Holmes et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 2139

33

Trajectory of plywood plate (Plate8 - 15 deg)

vertical displacement (m)

0.5
2-15-1
2-15-2
2-15-3
Calculated

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

horizontal displacement (m)

Trajectory of plywood plate (Plate8- 15 deg)

reslutant speed (m/s)

14
12
10
8
2-15-1
2-15-2
2-15-3
Calculated

6
4
2
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

time (secs)
horizontal displacement (m)

Trajectory of plywood plate (Plate8- 15 deg)

6
5
4
3

2-15-1
2-15-2
2-15-3
Calculated

2
1
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

time (secs)
Fig. 11. Comparison of computed trajectories with Texas Tech data. Plate 8, plywood, 75 mm  75 mm  3 mm,
a0 151, U 15:4 m=s, K 5:9.

Figs. 13 and 14 present some results for plates with zero initial angle of attack, in a nondimensional form. In Fig. 13, numerical calculations of non-dimensional horizontal plate
velocity (um/U) are plotted as a function of the non-dimensional horizontal displacement
(xg/U2), for two values of the Tachikawa parameter, K. The weak dependency on the
Froude number, Fr, (dened in Eq. (A.4)), for the higher value of K, is shown in this
gure. A higher value of K corresponds to a lighter plate, and, not surprisingly, to a more
rapid increase in velocity with increasing distance.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.D. Holmes et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 2139

34

vertical displacement (m)

Trajectory of plywood plate (Plate 8- 135 deg)

0
2-135-1
2-135-2
2-135-3
Calculated

-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
0

0.5

1.5

horizontal displacement (m)

Trajectory of plywood plate (Plate 8- 135 deg)

resultant speed (m/s)

10
1-135-1
1-135-2
1-135-3
Calculated

8
6
4
2
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

horizontal displacement (m)

time (sces)
Trajectory of plywood plate (Plate 8- 135 deg)
1.5

1-135-1
1-135-2

0.5

1-135-3
Calculated

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

time (secs)
Fig. 12. Comparison of computed trajectories with Texas Tech data. Plate 8, plywood, 75 mm  75 mm  3 mm,
a0 1351, U 14:6 m=s, K 5:3.

Fig. 14 shows a comparison of the computed variations of non-dimensional horizontal

plate velocity (um/U) against non-dimensional horizontal displacement (xg/U2), with
experimental values, for four different values of the Tachikawa parameter K. Although the
general trends are similar, the experimental data seem to indicate a more rapid increase of
um/U towards 1.0, than do the computations.
Non-dimensional presentations of data such as those in Figs. 13 and 14, are potentially
of practical value to facilitate prediction of horizontal impacts speeds of plate-type debris

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.D. Holmes et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 2139

35

Square Flat plate 0 degrees K=6.7

1.0
0.8

um/U

0.6
0.4
Fr2= 100
Fr2= 200
Fr2= 300

0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

x
Square Flatplate 0 degrees K=17.6
1.0

0.8

um/U

0.6
0.4
Fr2= 100
Fr2= 200
Fr2= 300

0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

x
Fig. 13. Non-dimensional horizontal plate velocity versus non-dimensional horizontal displacement. K 6:7,
upper; K 17:6, lower. Varying values of Fr2 .

on walls of buildings of xed distance, x, downstream from a source of debris. As an

example of this, consider a concrete roof tile of dimensions 300  300  15 mm3 with a
mass of 3.0 kg. In a (gust) wind speed of 60 m/s, the value of the Tachikawa parameter, K,
is 6.7. Fig. 14 can be used to estimate the horizontal impact speed when it hits a building
wall 20 m away (horizontally) from its release point; in that case the non-dimensional
displacement is 20  9.8/602 0.0544. From the graph for K equal to 6.66.8 in Fig. 14,
um/U is approximately 0.5, thus giving a horizontal impact velocity of one half of the wind
speedi.e. 30 m/s.

6. Conclusions
Numerical calculations of the trajectories of plates of square planform have been made,
and compared with experimental data from two wind tunnels. Generally, good to
excellent, agreement has been shown.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.D. Holmes et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 2139

36

Trajectory of squareplate (K=3.0)

Trajectory of squareplate (K=6.6-6.8)

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.8

#2 Vw=6.1m/s
#5 Vw=15.6m/s
#7 Vw=5.6m/s
#8 Vw=10.9m/s
#9 Vw=14.6m/s
#10 Vw=15.6m/s
#13 Vw=10.0m/s
Calculated

0.4
0.2
0
0.0

um/U

um/U

0.6

#1 Vw=26.0m/s
#3 Vw=18.8m/s
#4 Vw=10.2m/s
#5 Vw=23.1m/s
#7 Vw= 8.3m/s
#8 Vw=16.4m/s

0.4
0.2
0

0.2

0.4
xg/ (U2)

0.6

0.0

0.8

Trajectory of squareplate (K=11.8)

1.2

0.4
xg/U2

0.6

0.8

0.8

0.6

um/U

0.8

um/U

0.2

Trajectory of squareplate (K=17.3-17.9)

1.2

#4 Vw=13.5m/s
#8 Vw=21.5m/s
#11 Vw=13.6m/s
#13 Vw=19.9m/s
Calculated

0.4
0.2
0
0.0

#9 Vw=22.0m/s
#10 Vw=23.1m/s
#11 Vw=10.2m/s
#12 Vw=23.0m/s
#13 Vw=15.1m/s
Calculated

0.2

0.4

xg/ (U 2)

0.6

#2 Vw=14.8m/s
#4 Vw=16.5m/s
#7 Vw=13.6m/s
#11 Vw=16.5m/s
Calculated

0.6
0.4
0.2

0.8

0
0.0

0.2

0.4
xg/U2

0.6

0.8

Fig. 14. Non-dimensional horizontal plate velocity versus non-dimensional horizontal displacementcomparison of numerical calculations with experiments, for varying values of K.

The numerical models incorporate the angular displacements and velocities, and
Magnus effect lift forces. Simple segmented models of normal force coefcient, centre of
pressure position, and Magnus effect lift seem to be quite adequate for engineering
predictions of trajectories.
The Tachikawa parameter, K, is a governing non-dimensional parameter for
determining trajectories of windborne debris of all generic types, including the plate type.
Non-dimensional presentations of horizontal plate velocity against horizontal displacement (e.g. Figs. 13 and 14), have practical value to allow prediction of horizontal impacts
speeds of full-scale plate-type debris on walls of buildings of xed distance, x, downstream
from a debris source.

Acknowledgements
The research in this paper was supported through the John P. Laborde endowed Chair
at Louisiana State University held by the rst author, and by the L.S.U. Sea Grant
Program. The rst author also acknowledges Professor Bill Melbourne and Dr. John
Cheung of Monash University, Australia, for allowing access to the 450 kW wind tunnel
for force measurements on a at plate. Useful discussions with Professor Chris Baker
(University of Birmingham) and Associate Professor Elizabeth English (LSU) are also
acknowledged.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.D. Holmes et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 2139

37

Appendix A. Dimensional analysis

A.1. Non-dimensional parameters
The trajectories of windborne missiles are conveniently expressed in non-dimensional
terms.
It is clear from the analysis in the main text that the average horizontal velocity of a
square plate at the end of a ight path is a function of the following variables:
um f ra ; U; m; ; I; C D ; C L ; C M ; x; g; a0 ,

(A.1)

where, ra is the density of air, U is the wind speed, m is the mass of the plate, is the side
dimension of the plate, I is the mass moment of inertia, CD, CL and CM are the drag, lift
and moment coefcients, x is the horizontal distance travelled (or the distance to the wall
of a building at impact), g is the acceleration due to gravity, a0 is the initial angle of attack.
There are a number of different ways of reducing the above variables into nondimensional quantities.
Tachikawa [4] dened a non-dimensional number dening the trajectories of all types of
windborne objects. For a plate, this can be written as
K

ra U 2 2
r U2
a
,
2mg
2rm hg

(A.2)

where h is the thickness of the plate, and rm is the density of the material of the plate. This
parameter represents a ratio of aerodynamic forces to gravity forces on the plate.
K can also be written as follows:



2 
1 ra

U
K
,
2 rm
h
g
i.e. K is the product of a density ratio, a ratio of dimensions, and the square of a Froude
number, Fr, based on .
The ratio In was also dened by Tachikawa:
I
.
(A.3)
m2
For a square plate, In is xed and equal to 1/12.
Two Froude numbers, based on the characteristic plate length, , and the horizontal
distance travelled, x, can be obtained as
In

U
Fr p ,
g

(A.4)

U
Frx p .
gx

(A.5)

The drag, lift and moment coefcients are themselves functions of the angle of attack
during a trajectory.
Hence, for a square plate, Eq. (A.1) can be written as
u 
m
(A.6)
F K; Fr ; Frx ; a0 .
U

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.D. Holmes et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 2139

38

Baker [13] has dened some alternative parameters

mg
,
O
1=2ra AU 2
F

1=2ra A
,
m

(A.7)

(A.8)

m2
,
(A.9)
I
where A is the planform area, equal to 2 for a square plate.
O is the reciprocal of the Tachikawa parameter K. F was described as a buoyancy
parameter [13]it is effectively a density ratio. D is the reciprocal of In used by Tachikawa
[4], and is equal to 12 for a square plate.
For a rectangular plate with span B, and chord D, in the above relations should be
replaced by B, and an additional non-dimensional parameter, the aspect ratio, B=D
included.
D

A.2. Non-dimensional forms of the equations of motion

Baker [13] expressed the equations of motions in a dimensionless form using the
following dimensionless variables for horizontal, vertical and angular displacements, and
time:


x
z
tU

x
F; z
F; y yF; t
F:
(A.10)

Alternative variables, suggested by Tachikawa [4], have been used in the present paper:




tg
xg
zg

x
.
(A.11)
;
z

;
y;
t

U
U2
U2
For both schemes, the horizontal and vertical non-dimensional missile velocities are
dened as
u 
v 
m
m
u
; v
.
U
U
Using the variables dened in Eq. (A.11), the equations of motion (7), (8) and (9) can be
re-written in non-dimensional form as follows [4]:
d2 x
KC D cos b  C L sin b1  u 2 v 2 ,
dt2

(A.12)

d2 z
KC D sin b C L cos b1  u 2 v 2   1,
dt2

(A.13)

d2 y
DKF r2 1  u 2 v 2 ,
dt2
q

(A.14)

where cos b 1  u =

q
1  u 2 v 2  and sin b v = 1  u 2 v 2 .

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.D. Holmes et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 2139

39

The solutions to these equations are consistent with the non-dimensional relationship of
Eq. (A.6). The non-dimensional horizontal missile speed at impact depends primarily on
the Tachikawa parameter, K, and the non-dimensional displacement, x xg=U 2 . It also
depends on the initial angle of attack of the plate, a0, since this will determine the values of
the drag and lift coefcients during the trajectories. Noting Eq. (A.14), there is also a weak
dependency of the non-dimensional horizontal missile speed on the Froude number, Fr,
due to the effect of the rotational displacement on the force coefcients. Note that the nondimensional horizontal displacement x xg=U 2 is also the reciprocal of the square of a
Froude number based on the displacement x, as dened in Eq. (A.5).
References
[1] J.A.B. Wills, B.E. Lee, T.A. Wyatt, A model of wind-borne debris damage, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90
(2002) 555565.
[2] American Society for Testing Materials, Standard specications for performance of exterior windows,
curtain walls, doors and storm shutters impacted by windborne debris in hurricanes, ASTM E 1996-02, 2002.
[3] J.D. Holmes, Trajectories of spheres in strong winds with application to windborne debris, J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 92 (2004) 922.
[4] M. Tachikawa, Trajectories of at plates in uniform ow with applications to wind-generated missiles,
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 14 (1983) 443453.
[5] M. Tachikawa, A method for estimating the distribution range of trajectories of windborne missiles, J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 29 (1988) 175184.
[6] K. Wang, C.W. Letchford, Flying debris behaviour, 11th International Conference on Wind Engineering,
Lubbock, Texas, June 25, 2003.
[7] N. Lin, C.W. Letchford, J.D. Holmes, Investigations of plate-type windborne debris, Part I, Experiments in
full scale and wind tunnel, submitted for publication.
[8] O. Flachsbart, Messungen an ebenen und gewolbten Platten, Ergebnisse der AVA. IV, 1932.
[9] S.F. Hoerner, Fluid-dynamic drag, Hoerner Fluid Dynamics (1965).
[10] ESDU, Fluid Forces and Moments on Flat Plates. Data Item 70015, Engineering Science Data Unit,
London, 1970.
[11] M. Tachikawa, Trajectories and velocities of typhoon-generated missiles, Part I, Aerodynamic characteristics
of at plates and equations of motion, Trans Architect Inst Japan 314 (1981) 110.
[12] J.D. Holmes, E.C. English, C.W. Letchford, Aerodynamic forces and moments on cubes and at plates, with
application to windborne debris, Fifth International Colloquium on Bluff-body Aerodynamics and
Applications, Ottawa, Canada, July 1115, 2004.
[13] C.J. Baker, Solutions of the debris equations, Sixth UK Conference on Wind Engineering, Craneld,
September 1517, 2004.