408
Dynamic response of structures to
thunderstorm winds
Edmund C C Choi and Ferry A Hidayat
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Summary
A study of the dynamic response of structure to
different types of wind is reported in this
paper. Response to large-scale (monsoon
wind) and small-scale winds (thunderstorm)
of a SDOF structure is investigated. The
monsoon wind is observed to be relatively
stationary, and structure response predicted by
the gust response factor (GRF) method is
reasonably accurate. However, for thunderstorm
events, the wind processes are observed to be
non-stationary, and predictions using GRF
Key words: structure response; thunderstorm wind; gust response factor method; non-stationary
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:408–416 (DOI: 10.1002/pse.132)
Introduction
The study of along-wind structural response by a
statistical method was first reported by Liepmann[1] in
1952. In the 1960s random vibration theory was
applied to the study of structural response under
wind actions, and a procedure for the calculation of
structural response was proposed by Davenport[2–5].
The random process theory was first used in the field
of communication studies and was adopted by
wind engineers for the study of wind action on
structures.
The dynamic response of a structure to wind
turbulence can be modelled as a Gaussian random
process and, by using frequency domain analysis and
statistical concepts such as up-crossing rate, the
expected largest response in a given time can be
predicted[6,7]. The gust response factor (GRF)
method[8,9] is found to be a useful and convenient
approach to predict the response of a structure to
wind load. While the method gives satisfactory results
to many wind loading problems, there are situations
where the application of the method does not give
good results. These are situations when the wind is
non-stationary, such as during a thunderstorm. A
modification to the existing method is proposed to
predict the dynamic response of a structure under the
action of thunderstorm winds.
Published online 14 October 2002
Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
method very much under-estimate the actual
response.
A modification to the GRF method is proposed
for thunderstorm winds whereby a running-mean
procedure is introduced. The fluctuation about
the running-mean is observed to be more
stationary. The result obtained from the running-
mean GRF method is more accurate. For the
thunderstorm events studied, the best
predictions are obtained for a running-mean
period of around 60 s.
Thunderstorm winds
Thunderstorms are common occurrences around the
world. There are nearly 2000 thunderstorms in
progress at any time over the Earth’s surface. Every
thunderstorm is produced by a cumulonimbus cloud
and is always accompanied by thunder and
lightning[10]. Although they occur worldwide, the
frequency of thunderstorm occurrence varies greatly
in different areas. Most thunderstorms are found in
tropical regions. A thunderstorm usually lasts no
more than 1 h and it begins when a parcel of air, either
warmer than the surrounding or being pushed up by
colder encroaching air such as a cold front, begins to
rise. This unstable, up-draught forms the embryo of
the thunderstorm. If the rising air is sufficiently moist,
condensation will occur to form cloud droplets.
A large amount of moisture condenses and
precipitation particles begin to grow as the cell
continues to build up. The latent heat released during
condensation adds buoyancy to the vapour. The rising
air stream forms an up-draught that is strong enough
to keep the water droplets and ice crystals suspended
in the clouds. The continuous release of latent heat
supplies energy to the system and further accelerates
the up-draught. As precipitation gathers momentum,
the frictional drag induces down-draught. During the
mature stage of the thunderstorm, down-draught
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:408–416

intensifies. This is the most active period of a
thunderstorm with gusty winds and heavy
precipitation.
The leading edge of the cold air resulting from the
downdraft is called the gust front. The gust front is
characterized by an abrupt change of temperature,
wind speed, and an increased in pressure in severe
thunderstorms. The strong down-draught develops
into a downburst, which diverges horizontally as an
outburst of destructive winds upon reaching the
ground. The gust front usually moves ahead of the
thunderstorm. Unlike monsoon winds or even
typhoon winds where the wind moves in the
horizontal direction over a substantial stretch of
ground, winds from thunderstorms rush vertically
down and spread outwards (Fig. 1). Thus, the ground
roughness has little effect on the wind.
Singapore is situated in the equatorial belt at
around 18 N. There are two monsoon seasons and,
during the inter-monsoon periods, there are frequent
occurrences of tropical thunderstorms. Over an area
of about 40
20 km, there are more than 200
thunderstorms in a year. This makes Singapore an
ideal place for the study of small-scale weather
systems. Previous studies[11] on extreme winds in
Singapore indicate that the extreme gusts are
dominated by thunderstorm events.
A comprehensive wind research station was set up
at Tuas, close to the western tip of Singapore within
1 km of the coastline. Five levels of anemometers were
mounted on a 150-m-high tower. Three-component
ultrasonic high-frequency anemometers were used to
measure the horizontal as well as vertical wind
speeds. At the same five levels, temperature and
humidity sensors were also installed. Barometric
pressure and rainfall are measured close to the
ground. From this wind station, horizontal and
vertical wind speeds, wind direction, temperature
and humidity, barometric pressure and rainfall are
monitored at 100 Hz. For normal conditions, the
10-min statistics (mean, maximum, minimum and
standard deviation) are recorded. During high-wind
conditions, the raw data are also recorded.
There are some previous studies on wind
characteristics of thunderstorms, e.g. Twisdale &
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of a thunderstorm
Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
WIND RESPONSE OF STRUCTURES 409
Vickery[12] and Choi[13]. Fig. 2 shows a typical plot of a
thunderstorm event. As can be seen from the figure,
the wind speed increases quite suddenly from about
3 to 12 m/s and over a short period it decreases
sharply. The wind direction also shows a sudden
change from around 2258 to 458. The temperature
sensors also recorded a sudden drop in temperature
whereas the humidity sensors recorded a gradual
increase in humidity. Rainfall was recorded, starting
at the time at which the change of temperature
occurred. From these measurements, it is recognized
that the wind process for this event can hardly be
treated as stationary.
Dynamic response to random loading
The buffeting action of wind load on structures has
traditionally been treated by the GRF method
proposed by Davenport[8]. Under this method the
expected maximum along-wind dynamic response is
equal to the mean response multiplied by the GRF.
The GRF may be defined as the ratio of the expected
maximum response in a defined time period to the
mean response in the same period. In this approach
the wind speed, pressure and resulting response have
generally been treated as stationary random
processes. This assumption is appropriate for large-
scale wind systems where the wind process is
reasonably stationary. However as shown in the
previous section, not all wind processes are stationary.
Wind events such thunderstorms can be highly
non-stationary and therefore, the application of this
method might not be satisfactory. The following
examines the GRF method with applications to
large-scale and thunderstorm cases. For simplicity, the
response of a single degree of freedom system is
investigated.
The equation of motion of SDOF system under the
drag force FD ðtÞ is given by
mẍ þ cẋ þ kx ¼ FD ðtÞ (1)
where m is the mass of the system, c is the damping
constant, k is the structural stiffness, and x is the
displacement of the system. The total drag force FD ðtÞ
experience by the structure is given by:
FD ðtÞ ¼ 12 rCD Au2 ðtÞ (2a)
where r is the specific density of air and CD is the
drag coefficient. With the velocity expressed in terms
of a mean component, ū and the component
fluctuating about the mean u0 , and knowing that in
general u0 is small compared with ū, FD ðtÞ can be
expressed as follows:
FD ðtÞ ¼ F̄D þ F0D ’ 12 rCD Aū2 þ rCD Aūu0 (2b)
where F̄D and F0D are the mean and fluctuating drag
forces, respectively.
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:408–416
410 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND CAD

Fig. 2 Measurements of wind speed, direction, temperature, humidity and atmospheric pressure during a typical thunderstorm event

The spectral density of the fluctuating part of the account for this effect:
drag force can be expressed in terms of the spectral
F̄2D 2
density of the wind speed as follows: SFðDÞ ðnÞ ¼ 4 w ðnÞSu ðnÞ (3c)
ū2
2
SFðDÞ ðnÞ ¼ ðrCD AūÞ SuðnÞ (3a)
where Su ðnÞ is the spectral density of the longitudinal
or turbulence of the wind speed, and wðnÞ can be
F̄2D expressed by the following empirical formula, as
SFðDÞ ðnÞ ¼ 4 Su ðnÞ (3b) suggested by Vickery[14].
ū2
For larger structures, the velocity fluctuations may 1
wðnÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffi!4=3 (4)
not occur simultaneously over the whole area A, so
2n A
that a correction factor known as the aerodynamic 1þ
ū
admittance function wðnÞ may be introduced to

Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:408–416
 WIND RESPONSE OF STRUCTURES 411

By means of random vibration theory, the spectrum where g is the peak factor, given by:
of displacement response can be expressed as: pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 0:577
g ¼ 2 lnðuTÞ þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (11)
F̄2D 1 2 2 lnðuTÞ
Sx ðnÞ ¼ 4 w ðnÞjHðnÞj2 Su ðnÞ (5)
ū2 k2
with u being the number of times the mean value is
where jHðnÞj is the mechanical admittance function crossed per unit time and given as:
given by: sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
R1 2 ffi
1 0R n Sx ðnÞ dn
jHðnÞj2 ¼ " (6) u¼ 1 (12)
 2 #2  2 0 Sx ðnÞ dn
n 2 n
1 þ4zs As given in Eqs. (7, 8), the root-mean-square of the
n0 n0
response can be expressed in terms of the root-mean-
where n0 is the natural frequency of the structure. square of the wind speed fluctuation. Thus, the
The variance of deflection is found by integrating expected peak response can be expressed as:
the auto-spectrum, and can be expressed in terms of su pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
x̂ ¼ x̄ þ gx̄2 ðB þ RÞ (13)
the normalized velocity spectrum, Su ðnÞ=s2u , as ū
follows: and the GRF is obtained as follows:
Z
s2x s2u 1 2 Su ðnÞ x̂ su pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
¼ 4 w ðnÞjHðnÞj2 2 dn (7) GRF ¼ ¼ 1 þ 2g ðB þ RÞ (14)
x̄2 ū2 0 su x̄ ū
This can roughly be separated into two From the derivation of the GRF equations, it can be
components, a component response B to background seen that certain assumptions are made. First of all, in
turbulence and a resonant component R. using spectral analysis, it is assumed that the process
s2x s2u being studied is a stationary process in which the time
¼ 4 ðB þ RÞ (8a) domain fluctuations are represented as infinite
x̄2 ū2
numbers of fixed-frequency oscillations in the
with frequency domain. Furthermore, in the derivation of
Z n0
Su ðnÞ the GRF, the process is also assumed to have a normal
B¼ w2 ðnÞ dn (8b)
0 s2u distribution. While these assumptions are generally
accepted to be valid for many wind loading problems,
and
their application may not be appropriate for
Su ðn0 Þ pn0 thunderstorm winds.
R ’ w2 ðn0 Þ (8c)
s2u 4 zs
Studies on the auto-spectrum Su ðnÞ of the wind
speed have been carried out by many research Application of the GRF method
workers[15–18]. As the turbulence of the large-scale
wind is generated by the friction on the ground, it is The GRF method is used to predict the response of
generally agreed that the spectrum is mainly a structure for different wind events measured at the
function of the terrain roughness. Many forms of the Tuas wind station. The wind events are classified into
equation have been proposed for Su ðnÞ. However they two types: (i) monsoon winds; and (ii) thunderstorm
are mostly expressed in terms of a dimensionless winds. Monsoon wind events belong to the large-scale
frequency term and either the frictional wind speed or wind system where the wind speed is relatively
the variance of fluctuation. In the present study, the consistent for hours or even days. The thunderstorm
following equation, proposed by Davenport is used: wind events are small-scale wind systems.
A thunderstorm usually lasts no more than 1 h, with
x2
Su ðnÞ dn ¼ 4:0u2 dx (9) the really high wind speeds lasting for just minutes.
ð1 þ x2 Þ4=3 In the present investigation, the structure used for
where x ¼ 1200n=ūz . The frictional wind speed u can demonstration is a SDOF arc lamp. The structural
be estimated from the velocity profile. properties are detailed as follows:
* natural frequency, n0 ¼ 0:5 Hz
* Damping z ¼ 0:01
Gust response factor * mass, M ¼ 6000 kg
* area, A ¼ 25 m2
The GRF method estimates the peak value of * height above ground, H ¼ 35 m
the response from the mean value and the
root-mean-square of the fluctuating component. The For every wind event studied, a time record of the
expected peak value of x within a certain period can wind speed, consisting of 10 min duration at 100 Hz
be written as: intervals is obtained from the wind station. With the
instantaneous wind speed time-history, the
x̂ ¼ x̄ þ gsx (10) instantaneous wind force is calculated and, using

Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:408–416
412 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND CAD

Fig. 3 10-min wind speeds at heights of 35.7, 62 and 125 m during monsoon winds

Eq. (1), a time-history of the instantaneous response of 0.25

the structure is obtained. The highest response during 0.20

X-GRF (m)
the 10-min period is picked out and expressed as the
0.15
peak divided by mean response ratio. This actual
peak factor is used to compare with results calculated 0.10
by the GRF method. 0.05
As the GRF method involves several assumptions, 0.00
the method has been tried out at different stages of 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
application. Three cases are calculated. Case 1 applies X-Dynamic (m)
the GRF equations listed in the previous section, also Case 1
using an estimated turbulence intensity appropriate
to the terrain of the site (Z0 ¼ 0:7 m) and with Eq. (9) 0.25
for the wind spectrum. Only the 10-min mean wind 0.20
X-GRF (m)

speed from the actual record is used. Case 2 is similar

0.15
to Case 1, but using the actual measured turbulence
intensity instead of the estimated value. For Case 3, 0.10
the actual measured turbulence intensity as well as 0.05
the actual spectral density function calculated from 0.00
the wind record are used. The predicted peak 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
responses from the three cases are compared with that X-Dynamic (m)
obtained from time-history response analysis. Case 2
Calculations are done for several monsoon wind
events. A plot of the wind speed for one event is 0.25
shown in Fig. 3 which shows the 10-min wind records 0.20
X-GRF (m)

measured at heights of 35.7, 62 and 125 m at the Tuas 0.15

station. Comparison of the predicted peak response
using the GRF method for the three cases with the 0.10
time-history analysis is given in Fig. 4. In the graphs, 0.05
the peak from the time-history analysis is plotted on 0.00
the horizontal axis and the peak from the GRF method 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
on the vertical axis. It can seen that the points lie more X-Dynamic (m)
or less on the diagonal line, which means that the GRF Case 3
method performs reasonably well. Cases 1 and 3
perform better than Case 2. This shows that either Fig. 4 Comparison of GFR result with time-history analysis for
monsoon winds
using the actual turbulence intensity and the actual
spectral density function or using equations based on
terrain roughness for these values give better result
than using the actual turbulence intensity with a with Fig. 3, it can be seen that the wind is much more
spectral density function based on terrain roughness. turbulent, there are large fluctuations about the mean.
Similar studies are carried our for thunderstorm The wind speed is not just random in its fluctuations,
events. Plots of the wind speed time series recorded at a certain structure can be observed; e.g. a bulk of
heights of 35.7, 62 and 125 m at the Tuas station for a strong wind is observed to arrive quite suddenly at
thunderstorm event are shown in Fig. 5. Compared around 120 s. This means that the mean wind speed

Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:408–416
 WIND RESPONSE OF STRUCTURES 413

Fig. 5 10-min wind speeds at heights of 35.7, 62 and 125 m during thunderstorm winds

should not be assumed to be constant for the 5-min 0.25

period. 0.20
Comparisons of the predicted peak response by the

X-GRF (m)
0.15
GRF method with that of the time-history analysis for
thunderstorm events are given in Fig. 6. In the graphs, 0.10
the peaks for the three cases of the GRF method are 0.05
plotted on the vertical axis and compared with that of
0.00
the time-history analysis on the horizontal axis. It can 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
be seen that for all three cases, the predicted peak by
X-Dynamic (m)
the GRF method underestimated the actual response.
Case 1
While Case 1 performs best for monsoon winds, its
performance is worst for thunderstorm winds. This 0.25
means that the commonly accepted equations for 0.20
spectrum and turbulence intensity based on terrain
X-GRF (m)

0.15
roughness are not suitable for thunderstorm winds.
Of the three cases for thunderstorm winds, Case 3 0.10
seems to perform better. However, even with the 0.05
actual measured wind spectrum and the actual
turbulence intensity, the GRF method underestimated 0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
the peak response. It seems that GRF method with the X-Dynamic (m)
stationary assumption might not be applicable for the
Case 2
study of structural response under thunderstorm
winds. 0.25

0.20
X-GRF (m)

0.15
Response by running-mean analysis
0.10
As pointed out in the previous sections, the mean
0.05
wind speed during thunderstorms varies with time,
and thunderstorm wind process should not be treated 0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
as stationary. As such, the fluctuating component
X-Dynamic (m)
about a constant mean might not be a good way to
represent the turbulent characteristics of a Case 3
thunderstorm wind. The following running-mean Fig. 6 Comparison of GFR result with time-history analysis for
approach is proposed. thunderstorms
From the original raw data of 5 min duration at
0.01-s data intervals, a time series of TRM -seconds
The fluctuation term u0RM is the fluctuation about
running-mean values is constructed. The value of the
the running-mean:
running-mean at any time j is obtained as the average
of the data from ð j  TRM Þ=2 to ð j þ TRM Þ=2. u0RM ð jÞ ¼ uð jÞ  ūRM ð jÞ (16)

Z jþTRM =2 In the present study, different values of the

1
ūRM ð jÞ ¼ uðtÞ dt (15) averaging period TRM have been tried, ranging from
TRM j-TRM =2 10 to 120 s.

Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:408–416
414 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND CAD

This new definition of the fluctuating component
separates out the more structured variations of the
wind and is more representative of the random
turbulent fluctuation. Thus it is expected to be more
stationary. Spectra of the u0RM are calculated for
different thunderstorms at recording heights
of 35.7, 62 and 125 m. Fig. 7 shows the spectra for
different averaging periods, TRM ¼ 10, 30, 60, 90
and 120 s, for a thunderstorm. It seems that, except
for the low-frequency end, where the values are
affected by the filtering effect of the length of the
averaging period, the values of the spectra are quite
consistent with one another for frequencies higher
than 0.1 Hz.
100
10
The running-mean wind force is calculated from the
running-mean ūRM time series and applied to Eq. (1)
to calculate the response of the structure. The largest
response is selected and compared with the static
response to the largest ūRM value. It is observed that,
for the TRM values used in this study, the ratio
of the largest response to the static response is
never greater than unity. This shows that, for the TRM
values used for the averaging period, there is no
dynamic magnification of the response to the
running-mean.
The next step of the process is to predict the peak
instantaneous response, using a modified version of
the GRF method. In terms of the running-mean series,
the peak expected response given in Eq. (10) is
modified to:
x̂ ¼ x̄RM þ gsxðRMÞ (17)

1 where x̄RM is the largest response to the running-mean

0.1 and sxðRMÞ is the root-mean-square fluctuation about
Su(n)

0.01
the running-mean. With this modification, the format
of the other equations remains unchanged, except all
0.001
the mean terms are replaced by the largest running-
0.0001
mean and the fluctuation terms replaced by
0.00001 fluctuations about the running-mean. That is, ū is
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Frequency (Hz)
replaced by ūRM, su by suðRMÞ and all the spectral
density terms are replaced by the spectral density of
10-second 30-second 60-second 90-second 120-second
the fluctuation about the running-mean.
Height of 35.7m In this running-mean GRF method, the peak
response is calculated and compared with that
100
obtained from time-history analysis. Fig. 8 shows
10
comparisons for TRM values of 10, 30 60, 90 and 120 s.
1 From the graphs, it can be observed that the
0.1 running-mean GRF method performs much better
Su(n)

0.01 than the original GRF method. The predicted peak

0.001 agrees better with that of the time-history analysis. A
closer examination of the graphs further reveals that
0.0001
the best result is with a running-mean period TRM of
0.00001
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
around 60 s, which gives the most accurate
Frequency (Hz) predictions. It seems that a running-mean period
much longer or shorter than 60 s will adversely affect
10-second 30-second 60-second 90-second 120-second
the prediction. If the period is too long, the process
Height of 62m within the averaging period will become non-
100
stationary. On the other hand, if the running-mean
period is too short, the longer wavelength fluctuations
10
might be excluded. Furthermore, too short a running-
1
mean period might risk a dynamic amplification of
0.1 the running-mean response exceeding unity.
Su(n)

0.01

0.001

0.0001 Discussion
0.00001
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 This paper examines the dynamic response of
Frequency (Hz) structure to different types of wind. Monsoon winds,
10-second 30-second 60-second 90-second 120-second
classified as large-scale wind systems and
thunderstorm winds, classified as small-scale, are
Height of 125m studied. Monsoon winds are observed to be relatively
Fig. 7 Spectra of the fluctuating velocity about the running-mean stationary, and structure response predicted by the
(with different averaging periods) gust response factor (GRF) method is reasonably

Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:408–416
 WIND RESPONSE OF STRUCTURES 415

Total Displacement (m) -Gust Factor

0.25 accurate. However, for thunderstorm events, the wind
0.20 processes are observed to be non-stationary, and the
predictions of the GRF method greatly under-estimate
0.15
the actual response. The study shows that the
0.10
commonly accepted expressions based on terrain
0.05 roughness for wind characteristics, such as,
0.00 turbulence intensity and spectral density functions,
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
might not be applicable for thunderstorm winds.
Total Displacement (m) - Time Histories
Furthermore, the GRF method is not suitable for non-
18290239 20081104 20171331 22060705 Ratio
stationary wind processes such as thunderstorm
TRM = 10 seconds events.
A modification of the GRF method is proposed
Total Displacement (m) -Gust Factor

0.25
whereby a running-mean procedure is introduced. It
0.20
seems that with the running-mean procedure, the
0.15
fluctuation about the running-mean for
0.10 thunderstorms is more stationary. It is observed that
0.05 the running-mean GRF method produced more
0.00
accurate results. For the thunderstorm events studied,
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 the best predictions are obtained for a running-mean
Total Displacement (m) - Time Histories
period of around 60 s.
18290239 20081104 20171331 22060705 Ratio Further investigations are being carried out to study
TRM = 30 seconds the characteristics of the running-mean process of
during thunderstorms, for example, to obtain
Total Displacement (m) -Gust Factor

0.25

0.20
generalized expressions for the spectral density
function for the fluctuation about the running-mean,
0.15
or the relationship between the largest value and
0.10 mean value of the running-mean process for different
0.05 TRM periods.
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Total Displacement (m) - Time Histories

18290239 20081104 20171331 22060705 Ratio

References
TRM = 60 seconds
Total Displacement (m) -Gust Factor

0.25 [1] Liepmann HW. On the application of statistical concepts to the buffeting
problem. Journal of Aeronautical Science 1952: 19(12): 793–800.
0.20
[2] Davenport AG. The application of statistical concepts to the wind loading
0.15 of structures. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers 1961: 19: 449–472.
[3] Davenport AG. The response of slender, line-like structures to a gusty
0.10
wind. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers 1962: 23: 389–408.
0.05 [4] Davenport AG. The buffeting of structures by gusts. Proceedings of the
Symposium on Wind Effects on Buildings and Structures, UK, June 1963. London: HMSO,
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 1965. 358–391.
Total Displacement (m) - Time Histories [5] Davenport AG. Buffeting of large superficial structure by atmospheric
turbulence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1964: 16: 135–159.
18290239 20081104 20171331 22060705 Ratio
[6] Davenport AG. Note on the distribution of the largest value of a random
TRM = 90 seconds
function with application to gust loading. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers
1964: 28: 187–196.
Total Displacement (m) -Gust Factor

0.25 [7] Melbourne WH. Probability distributions associated with the wind
0.20 loading of structures. Civil Engineering Transactions (IEAust) 1977: 19: 58–67.
[8] Davenport AG. Gust loading factors. Journal of the Structural Division
0.15
(ASCE) 1967: 93(ST3): 1295–1313.
0.10 [9] Vickery JB. On the reliability of gust loading factor. Civil Engineering
Transactions (IEAust) 1971: 13: 1–9.
0.05
[10] Kessler E (Ed.) Thunderstorm Morphology and Dynamics Vol. 2. Thunder-
0.00 storms: a Social, Scientific and Technological Documentary. 2nd edn. Norman Oklahoma:
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
University of Oklahoma Press. 1983.
Total Displacement (m) - Time Histories
[11] Choi ECC. Extreme wind characteristics over Singapore}an area in the
18290239 20081104 20171331 22060705 Ratio equatorial belt. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 1999: 83:
TRM = 120 seconds 61–69.
[12] Twisdale LA & Vickery PJ. Research on thunderstorm wind design
Fig. 8 Comparison using running-mean for thunderstorms parameters. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 1992: 41–44:
545–556.
[13] Choi ECC. Wind characteristics of tropical thunderstorms. Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 2000: 84: 215–226.

Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:408–416
416 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND CAD

[14] Vickery BJ. Load fluctuations in turbulent flow. Journal of the Mechanics
Division (ASCE) 1968: 94(EM1): 31–46.
[15] Busch NE & Panofsky HA. Recent spectra of atmospheric turbulence.
Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 1968: 94: 132–148.
[16] Davenport AG. The spectrum of horizontal gustiness near the ground in
high wind. Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 1961: 87: 194–211.
[17] Choi ECC. Correlation and spectral functions of atmospheric turbulence.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Wind Effects on Buildings and
Structures, Tokyo, 1971: 45–52.
[18] Teunissen HW. Characteristics of Mean Wind and Turbulence in the
Planetary Boundary Layer. Institute of Aerospace Studies, University of Toronto,
Review 32, 1970.

Edmund CC Choi
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
NanyangTechnical University, Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798
E-mail: cechoi@ntu.edy.sg

Ferry A Hidayat
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
NanyangTechnical University, Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798

Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:408–416