Wind and Structures, Vol. 31, No.

2 (2020) 85-102
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12989/was.2020.31.2.085 85

Towards performance-based design under thunderstorm winds:

a new method for wind speed evaluation using historical records and
Monte Carlo simulations
Haitham Aboshosha1, Thomas G. Mara2 and Nicole Izukawa1
1
Civil Engineering Department, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2
The Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada

(Received September 27, 2019, Revised February 18, 2020, Accepted February 19, 2020)

Abstract. Accurate load evaluation is essential in any performance-based design. Design wind speeds and associated wind
loads are well defined for synoptic boundary layer winds but not for thunderstorms. The method presented in the current study
represents a new approach to obtain design wind speeds associated with thunderstorms and their gust fronts using historical data
and Monte Carlo simulations. The method consists of the following steps (i) developing a numerical model for thunderstorm
downdrafts (i.e. downbursts) to account for storm translation and outflow dissipation, (ii) utilizing the model to characterize
previous events and (iii) extrapolating the limited wind speed data to cover life-span of structures. The numerical model relies on
a previously generated CFD wind field, which is validated using six documented thunderstorm events. The model suggests that
10 parameters are required to describe the characteristics of an event. The model is then utilized to analyze wind records
obtained at Lubbock Preston Smith International Airport (KLBB) meteorological station to identify the thunderstorm parameters
for this location, obtain their probability distributions, and utilized in the Monte Carlo simulation of thunderstorm gust front
events for many thousands of years for the purpose of estimating design wind speeds. The analysis suggests a potential
underestimation of design wind speeds when neglecting thunderstorm gust fronts, which is common practice in analyzing
historical wind records. When compared to the design wind speed for a 700-year MRI in ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 7-16, the
estimated wind speeds from the simulation were 10% and 11.5% higher, respectively.
Keywords: thunderstorm; gust front; downdraft; downburst; design speed; historical records; numerical simulations; gust
factor

1. Introduction is primarily due to the localized nature of those downdrafts

Thunderstorms are convective meteorological processes
in which warm air at the surface of the earth is exchanged
with the cooler air at higher altitudes. This results in upward
vertical motion of the warmer air (updrafts) and downward
vertical motion of the cooler air (downdrafts). When the
downdraft impinges on the ground, the flow is redirected,
resulting in an outflow of wind which convects radially
outward from the point of impingement. The leading edge
of this outflow is characterized by high wind speeds and is
typically referred to as the gust front. Strong downdrafts,
which result in high gust front wind speeds, are
conventionally referred to as downbursts.
Medium and intense downdrafts can lead to significant
wind speeds near the ground, which endangers low-rise
structures. There are numerous failures of structures due to
gust fronts resulting from downbursts; despite this fact,
most design codes or standards do not include provisions
for those events. One of the main challenges hindering the
inclusion of thunderstorm gust front winds in design codes
is the lack of comprehensive full scale measurements. This
Corresponding author, Assistant Professor
E-mail: habo@ryerson.ca
Copyright © 2020 Techno-Press, Ltd.
http://www.techno-press.com/journals/was&subpage=7
which have a typical size of 500-4000 m (Hjelmfelt 1988).
In the case of downbursts, that is quite small when
compared with the scale of synoptic events. Also,
downbursts have a relatively low frequency of occurrence
compared to extratropical synoptic events for which wind
speeds are often recorded hourly.
The challenges that exist in obtaining full scale
measurements have motivated many researchers to study
thunderstorm downdrafts and their strong version of
downbursts experimentally and numerically. Many of the
initial numerical simulations focused on the steady-state
downdrafts (Oseguera and Bowles 1988, Vicroy 1991,
1992, Selvam and Holmes 1992, Holmes and Oliver 2000,
Wood et al. 2001, Chay et al. 2006, Xu and Hangan 2008),
while more recent numerical simulations focused on the
unsteady characteristics (Kim and Hangan 2007, Mason et
al. 2009, 2010, Vermeire et al. 2011, Orf et al. 2012,
Aboshosha et al. 2015). These studies provide very good
insight regarding the detailed wind field which occurs
during strong downdraft (downburst) events and the
differences to synoptic wind. For example, downburst wind
speeds are localized with non-stationary nature (i.e., a
varying mean component) and exhibit a high gust factor
(i.e., ratio between gust speed to mean speed). This is not
the case for synoptic winds, which have stationary (i.e.,
constant) mean and a low gust factor. A number of studies
ISSN: 1226-6116 (Print), 1598-6225 (Online)
86 Haitham Aboshosha, Thomas G. Mara and Nicole Izukawa
in the literature have documented and investigated full scale
thunderstorm events. These studies can be classified into
two groups, with the first group is aimed at characterizing a
specific event identified based on the meteorological
conditions. This group includes studies conducted by
Charba (1974), Goff (1976), Wakimoto (1982), Hjelmfelt
(1988), Fujita (1990), Gast and Schroeder (2003), Holmes
et al. (2008) and Gunter and Schroeder (2013). The second
group is focused on automatic separation and classification
of large wind datasets into thunderstorm events and
synoptic events and includes studies conducted by Gomes
and Vickery (1976), Riera and Nanni (1989), Twisdale and
Vickery (1992), Choi (1999), Choi and Hidayat (2002),
Choi and Tanurdjaja (2002), Cook et al. (2003), Duranona
et al. (2006), Lombardo et al. (2009), Rowcroft (2011) and
De Gaetano et al. (2014). This group aims at developing
statistical models for wind speeds associated with
thunderstorm events suitable for design. The recent studies
conducted by Solari et al. (2012) and De Gaetano et al.
(2014) showed that synoptic winds are typically stationary
and Gaussian having a large mean speed and a small gust
factor, Gv, less than 1.10Gv0, where Gv0 is the gust speed
estimated theoretically assuming a neutrally-stable synoptic
event. The study showed also that thunderstorm gust fronts
are non-stationary and non-Gaussian with a low mean speed
and a Gv greater than 1.25G0. This criterion of having a
relatively high gust factor is very useful in distinguishing
between thunderstorm and synoptic wind records and is
used in the current study.
The study presented in this paper belongs to the second
grouping of research and utilizes historical wind records
observed at meteorological stations. Although, these records
are typically available at a coarse temporal resolution (i.e.,
every 1 hour), when wind exceeds a certain threshold, or
when there is a drastic change in the wind characteristics,
measurements are taken at an increased frequency. For
example, Table 1 shows a summary of the wind records
taken at Lubbock Preston Smith International Airport
(KLBB) anemometer, Texas, USA, on the 4th of June 2002.
As listed in Table 1, measurements had been taken hourly
until 1:53 pm until gust speed exceeded a threshold of 42.5
km/hr then measurements were taken at an increased
frequency (i.e., 10 to 20 minutes). Measurements were also
taken at an increased frequency after 8:13 pm. These high
wind speeds were attributed to a downburst activity (Gast
and Schroeder 2005, Holmes et al. 2008). The trend of
taking measurements at an increased frequency is typical
among many wind stations. Fortunately, these more
frequent measurements can be sufficient to identify
important thunderstorm gust front events and will be
utilized later in this paper.
It should be mentioned that available studies aimed at
estimating wind speeds for thunderstorm downdrafts do not
account for the localized nature of downdrafts which is
deemed to be very important (Shehata and El Damatty
2007, Darwish and El Damatty 2011, Aboshosha and El
Damatty 2015, Aboshosha et al. 2016, Elawady et al.
2016). For example, strong downdrafts (downbursts)
typically have a diameter of 500-4000 m, and an influence
zone in the order of 4-5 times that diameter (Kim and
Hangan 2007, Aboshosha et al. 2015), which means that the
downdraft can touchdown and dissipate without being
observed at a particular (if any) wind station. In addition,
downdraft outflows have a complex wind field in which the
magnitude and direction of the wind changes significantly
within a short time and space. This means that wind speeds
due to strong downdrafts (downbursts) recorded at a wind
station (if at all) can be significantly lower than the
maximum speed especially if the station is located at the
outer edge of the downdraft influence zone. Such a
localized nature is accounted for in the current study.
There is an analogy between historical wind records for
thunderstorm gust fronts (resulting from medium and
intense downdrafts) and hurricanes as both are somehow
localized (regardless of the difference in their sizes) and are
not of sufficient length or completeness to estimate
potential speeds suitable for design. In the past few decades,
this challenge was overcome for hurricanes (Russell and
Schueller 1974, Tryggvason et al. 1976, Georgiou et al.
1983, Vickery et al. 2000a, b, Vickery et al. 2009, Li and
Hong 2016) by carrying out the following course of study:
(i) developing and validating numerical models for
hurricanes; (ii) calibrating the models using full scale wind
records to obtain the model parameters, then obtaining the
probability distribution of those parameters, and; (iii)
generating hurricanes numerically using Monte Carlo
method to simulate events happening in thousands of years
simulation based on the distribution of hurricane parameters
and analyzing these events to obtain wind speed suitable for
design. Inspired by hurricanes, a similar three-step method
is developed in the current study to predict thunderstorm
gust front speeds suitable for design. Firstly, a thunderstorm
downdraft (downburst) model is developed and validated.
This model is based on the CFD simulations by Aboshosha
et al. (2015), but accounts for the storm translation and
downdraft outflow dissipation. The model description and
validation are provided in Section 2 of this paper. Secondly,
as will be discussed in Section 3, a sample wind station (in
a region known to be affected by thunderstorm events) is
selected and wind records are analyzed to identify past
thunderstorm events. These events are then used to calibrate
the model by obtaining the model parameters and their
probability distributions. Thirdly, as provided in Section 4,
thunderstorm gust fronts are simulated using Monte Carlo
method for multiple thousands of years and analyzed to
estimate the speeds suitable for design. The main
conclusions obtained from the study are listed in Section 5.
2. Numerical model for thunderstorm downdrafts
An updated numerical model capable of simulating
thunderstorm downdrafts and their resulting gust fronts is
proposed and validated. The model is based on the
downdraft wind field obtained from the Computational
Fluid Dynamic (CFD) Large Eddy Simulations (LES)
developed by Aboshosha et al. (2015) and modified to
account for storm translation and outflow dissipation. A
brief description of the
CFD model and the resulting wind field are provided in
 Towards performance-based design under thunderstorm winds:… 87

Table 1 Sample wind records for Lubbock Airport wind station (KLBB) taken on June 4th 2002
(www.wunderground.com)
Wind
Temperature Dew Humidit Sea Level Visibilit Wind Gust Speed Precipitation WindDirDe
TimeCDT SpeedK Events Conditions
C PointC y PressurehPa yKm Direction Km/h mm grees
m/h
12:53 AM 25 14.4 52 1003.6 16.1 SE 25.9 - N/A Clear 130
1:53 AM 24.4 14.4 54 1003.3 16.1 SE 22.2 - N/A Clear 140
2:53 AM 24.4 13.9 52 1003.1 16.1 SE 24.1 - N/A Clear 140
3:53 AM 23.9 13.3 51 1003.2 16.1 SSE 24.1 - N/A Clear 160
4:53 AM 23.9 13.9 53 1003.4 16.1 SSE 24.1 - N/A Clear 160
5:53 AM 23.3 13.9 55 1003.7 16.1 South 24.1 - N/A Clear 170
6:53 AM 23.3 15.6 62 1004 16.1 South 31.5 - N/A Clear 170
Scattered
7:53 AM 23.3 17.2 68 1004.1 16.1 South 27.8 - N/A 170
Clouds
Scattered
8:53 AM 24.4 17.8 67 1004.8 16.1 SSE 31.5 40.7 N/A 160
Clouds
Scattered
9:53 AM 23.9 18.3 71 1005.6 16.1 South 22.2 - N/A 190
Clouds
10:53 AM 25 16.7 60 1005.9 16.1 Calm Calm - N/A Partly Cloudy 0
N/A Scattered
11:53 AM 27.2 14.4 45 1005.8 16.1 East 5.6 - 100
Thunderstorm Clouds
Scattered
12:53 PM 28.9 17.8 51 1005.6 16.1 East 18.5 - 0activity was 90
Clouds
1:53 PM 28.9 18.3 53 1005.1 16.1 ESE 20.4 - N/Adetected Mostly Cloudy 120
2:15 PM 28 18 54 1009.7 16.1 ESE 33.3 42.6 N/A Thunderstorm Thunderstorm 110
2:53 PM 28.3 17.2 51 1001.5 16.1 ESE 42.6 63 N/A Thunderstorm Thunderstorm 120
3:28 PM 23 16 65 1010.7 14.5 West 55.6 66.7 N/A Thunderstorm Thunderstorm 280
Light
Fog-Rain-
3:33 PM 19 17 88 1012.4 0.4 WNW 61.1 79.6 0.21 Thunderstorms 290
Thunderstorm
and Rain
Heavy
Rain-Hail-
3:41 PM 16 15 94 1010.7 0.4 North 37 72.2 0.9 Thunderstorms 350
Thunderstorm
with Hail
Heavy
Rain-
3:53 PM 15.6 15 96 1006.8 0.4 North 40.7 50 1.31 Thunderstorms 10
Thunderstorm
and Rain
35.2 Heavy
Rain-
3:55 PM 16 15 94 1011.4 2 North 50 0.05 Thunderstorms 360
Thunderstorm
and Rain
Light
Rain-
4:11 PM 19 16 83 1009.4 11.3 NW 35.2 63 0.16 Thunderstorms 310
Thunderstorm
and Rain
4:21 PM 19 16 83 1009.4 16.1 WNW 46.3 61.1 0.16 Rain Light Rain 290
Light
Rain-
4:42 PM 18 17 94 1009.4 16.1 North 20.4 48.2 0.17 Thunderstorms 10
Data were taken at a high resolution after high wind Thunderstorm
and Rain
4:53 PM 17.2 16.1speeds
93 were 1004.9
measured 16.1 NNW 31.5 51.9 0.17 Thunderstorm Thunderstorm 340
5:00 PM 18 16 88 1010 16.1 NNW 29.6 - N/A Thunderstorm Thunderstorm 340
5:35 PM 18 16 88 1010.4 16.1 North 31.5 42.6 N/A Overcast 10
5:53 PM 18.9 15 78 1005.6 16.1 NNE 38.9 48.2 N/A Overcast 20
6:53 PM 21.1 16.1 73 1005.2 16.1 ENE 40.7 48.2 N/A Partly Cloudy 70
7:53 PM 18.9 15.6 81 1004.9 16.1 NE 29.6 - N/A Partly Cloudy 50
8:13 PM 19 16 83 1008 16.1 NE 40.7 59.3 N/A Thunderstorm Thunderstorm 40
Rain-Hail- Thunderstorms
8:24 PM 19 16 83 1010.4 12.9 NE 38.9 75.9 0.02 40
Thunderstorm with Hail
Rain-Hail- Thunderstorms
8:30 PM 19 16 83 1010.7 12.9 North 48.2 75.9 0.03 10
Thunderstorm with Hail
Light
Rain-
8:43 PM 19 15 78 1010.4 16.1 North 46.3 59.3 0.03 Thunderstorms 10
Thunderstorm
and Rain
Light
Rain-
8:53 PM 17.8 15 84 1006.4 16.1 NE 37 42.6 0.04 Thunderstorms 50
Thunderstorm
and Rain
Heavy
Rain-
9:42 PM 18 16 88 1012.4 8 East 31.5 40.7 0.26 Thunderstorms 80
Thunderstorm
and Rain
9:53 PM Light
Rain-
17.2 16.1 93 1008 16.1 NE 27.8 42.6 0.28 Thunderstorms 40
Thunderstorm
and Rain
10:06 PM 17 16 94 1012.4 16.1 NNE 33.3 - 0 Thunderstorm Thunderstorm 20
10:37 PM 18 16 88 1016.1 16.1 NNW 29.6 44.4 0.01 Rain Light Rain 330
10:44 PM 17 16 94 1016.5 16.1 NNW 29.6 - 0.02 Rain Light Rain 340
10:53 PM 15.6 13.9 90 1012.7 16.1 NNW 40.7 51.9 0.03 Rain Rain 340
11:53 PM 15.6 13.3 86 1012.5 16.1 North 33.3 40.7 0 Thunderstorm Thunderstorm 10
 88 Haitham Aboshosha, Thomas G. Mara and Nicole Izukawa

Grid

Sample Terrain Roughness for Open Exposure

a) Computational Domain b) Employed Grid and Terrain Roughness

c) Vorticity/(DjVj) at Time.Dj/Vj=8 e) Radial Speed/ Jet Speed (Ur/Vj) at Time.Dj/Vj=8

d) Vorticity/(DjVj) at Time.Dj/Vj=12 f) Radial Speed/ Jet Speed (Ur/Vj) at Time.Dj/Vj=12

1.6

1.4 U
Umean+turb
mean+turb
Radial Speed Ur / Vj

Umean
1.2 Umean
1
j
U/V

0.8

0.6

0.4
Time Interval of Maximum Peak
Speed with al length of 1.67Vj/Dj
0.2

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time.Vj/Dj

g) Total and mean wind field

Fig. 1 Thunderstorm outflow CFD model by Aboshosha et al. (2015)

 Towards performance-based design under thunderstorm winds:…
Fig. 2 Parameters affecting the thunderstorm outflow speed at a site
Section 2.1, while the modifications applied to the wind
field are discussed in Section 2.2 and validation of the
modified model is provided in Section 2.3.
2.1 Wind field for non-translating downdraft
Aboshosha et al. (2015) conducted CFD simulations for
strong thunderstorm downdraft (downburst) events with no
translation speed. The simulations are based on the
impinging jet method (Fujita 1985) with a jet of 1000 m
diameter located at 2000 m elevation that impinges on the
ground, forming an outflow and thunderstorm gust front.
Four terrain exposures characterized by the aerodynamic
roughness zo were considered in the simulations namely: (i)
open exposure with zo=0.03 m; (ii) countryside exposure
with zo=0.1 m; (iii) suburban exposure with zo=0.3 m, and;
(iv) urban exposure with zo=0.7 m (ESDU 2001, 2002). Fig.
1 shows the computational domain and grid used for the
simulations, radial velocity and vorticity contours plots at
two time instances, and sample wind speed evolution with
89
the time. Radial wind speeds obtained from the model were
spatially averaged circumferentially and then temporally to
obtain the mean component Vrm (r, z, t), which is a function
of the radial distance r, height z and time t, as shown Fig.
1(g). It should be noted that close to the ground vertical
wind speeds are negligible. The circumferential spatial
averaging was conducted for grid points laying inside every
0.05Dj radial and 0.01Dj vertical distances. The temporal
averaging was conducted by averaging the speeds over an
interval of 1.67Dj/Vj, where Dj is the downdraft jet diameter
and Vj is the downdraft speed. Such an interval represents
half the shedding period of the main downdraft vortex (Kim
and Hangan 2007). More information about the spatial and
temporal averaging can be obtained from Aboshosha et al.
(2015).
The simulations showed that the ratio between the peak
speed Vp to the mean speed Vm, commonly referred to as the
gust factor Gv, can be expressed by Eq. (1), where gv is the
peak factor and equals to ~2.0 and I is the turbulence
intensity and equals to 0.1 for open and 0.12 for suburban
90 Haitham Aboshosha, Thomas G. Mara and Nicole Izukawa
1
terrain exposures at the time instance of the maximum
speed. 2
Vp
Gv   1  gv I 3 (1)
Vm
4
This leads to a gust speed factor of 1.2 for open terrain,
which is consistent with the findings by Holmes 5et al.
(2008) and Solari et al. (2015). Values of the turbulence
intensity I and the peak factor gv provided above are 6taken
at the time interval (i.e., 1.67Dj/Vj) containing the maximum
peak speed which is marked in Fig. 1(g).
The resulting outflow wind field from the simulations is
a function of the downdraft jet diameter, Dj, and the jet
speed, Vj, and can be scaled using the approach developed
by Hangan et al. (2003) and Shehata et al. (2005) to obtain
the wind field for other Dj and Vj. Such an approach has
been used extensively to study downdraft outflows and their
effects on structures (Shehata and El Damatty 2007,
Darwish and El Damatty 2011, Abd-Elaal et al. 2013,
Aboshosha et al. 2016). Based on the CFD simulations of
thunderstorm downdrafts conducted by Aboshosha et al.
(2015) and the scaling technique by Shehata et al. (2005),
mean and peak speeds, Vm(r,z,t) and Vp(r,z,t), can be
evaluated as functions of the following three parameters: (i)
Downdraft jet diameter Dj; (ii) Downdraft jet speed Vj; and
(iii) ground roughness zo, where r is the radial distance to
the downdraft center, z is the elevation, and t is the time.
2.2 Thunderstorm gust front model considering storm
translation and outflow dissipation
As discussed above, wind fields resulting from the CFD
simulations are for non-translating downdrafts. Also those
wind fields do not account for downdraft outflow
dissipation since the inflow jet (i.e., downdraft) is
maintained during the entire simulation. Those two factors
are accounted for in the proposed model.
In order to describe the proposed model, a translating
downdraft shown in Fig. 2 is considered. The downdraft has
a diameter Dj and exists at a location R0 and φ0 measured
from the site at time t0. This downdraft translates with a
speed Vt in a direction θ. In order to obtain the wind speed
Vmi and the direction αi at the site at any time ti, the steps
provided in the flowchart shown in Fig. 3 are followed.
First, the transformed location of the downdraft
characterized by xi, zi, ri, and φi is obtained. This is followed
by interpolating the mean radial speed Vrmi from the CFD
model using the radial distance ri and the time ti in addition
to the height of interest z. Such a radial speed acts at an
angle φi. Finally, mean wind speed at the site Vmi and its
direction αi can be evaluated by resolving radial speed Vrmi
and ambient speed nST Vt, where nST is a factor to relate the
ambient speed to the storm translation speed Vt. The effect
of outflow dissipation is introduced to the radial speed Vrmi
throughout a multiplication with a time-dependent function
Ft, which has a value of 1.0 when t < t1, 0 when t > t2, and
less than 1.0 when t1 < t < t2, where t1, and t2 are time
instances characterizing the dissipation. Such a time
dependent function is inspired by the study conducted by
Determine xi yi, where R is the traveled storm distance, and obtain the effective radius ri
and angle αi, at time ti.
xi  r0 sin(0 )  R cos( ) yi  r0 cos(0 )  R sin( ) R  (ti  t0 )Vt
x 
ri  xi 2  yi 2 , i  tan 1  i 
 yi 
Use the CFD downburst data to extract the radial speed at ti Vrmi(ri, z, ti) using information
regarding the jet diameter Dj, jet speed Vj, and the aerodynamic roughness zo.
Evaluate the effective mean speed Vmi peak speed Vp and direction φi at time ti as functions
of translation storm speed Vt and the radial speed Vrmi.
V 
Vmi  Vxi 2  Vyi 2 ,  i  tan 1  xi  , VP  GvVmi (1  2.0 I )Vmi
 Vyi 
 
where Vxi  nST Vt cos( )  FV t rmi sin(i ) , Vyi  nST Vt sin( )  FV
t rmi cos(i )
 1.0 t  t1 

 t t


Ft   2 t1  t  t2 
 t2  t1 
 0.0
 t  t2  
Fig. 3 Flowchart for evaluating mean and peak storm speeds
and direction at a given site
Abd El-aal et al. (2013) which investigated different
outflow dissipation models. Peak speed Vp can be estimated
from the mean speed Vmi by multiplying it with the gust
factor Gv.
It is worth mentioning that the proposed model can
describe thunderstorm downdrafts and their outflow gust.
This is achieved through altering the ambient speeds nST Vt
and the jet speeds Vj. Strong downdrafts (downbursts) are
expected to have high Vj compared with nST Vt, while
weaker downdrafts are expected to have lower ratios. To the
best of the authors’ knowledge, there is no accepted method
to discern between outflows resulting from strong
downdrafts (downbursts) and gust front outflows resulting
from weaker downdrafts using anemometer records.
It is worth mentioning that although the implemented
CFD simulation is based on a non-translating downdraft
with circular footprint, the model after implementing the
storm translation VT and outflow dissipation is capable for
simulating “skewed” downdrafts with oval footprints. Fig. 4
shows a typical circular and oval footprints resulting from
the model. The figure also shows the footprint of a real
event (attributed to the fallen trees) which is close to the
oval shape. It should be also noted that some footprints of
real events may deviate from circular or oval shape as
indicated by Fujita (1985). However, the current model is
expected to produce the closest oval representation.
2.3 Validating the proposed model
As discussed earlier, variation of mean and gust speeds,
Vm and Vg, as well as wind direction, αi, with the time at a
specific site can be estimated as a function of 10
thunderstorm parameters. Those parameters represent initial
downdraft location (R0, φ0) with respect to the anemometer,
translation speed and direction (Vt and θ), ratio between
ambient speed and the translation speed (n ST ), jet
diameter(Dj), jet speed (Vj), initial time (t0) and time
instances controlling the dissipation (t 1 , t 2 ). Those
 Towards performance-based design under thunderstorm winds:… 91

Fig. 4 Sample thunderstorm outflow footprint

Table 2 Lower limit, upper limit and initial thunderstorm parameters used in the optimization routine
Parameter r0 φ0 Vt ϴ Dj Vj t0 t1 t2
nST
\ Limits (m) (deg) (m/s) (deg) (m) (m/s) (sec) (sec) (sec)
Lower 0 0 ½ min (Vm) 0.0 0 500 ½ (max(Vg)-min(Vm)) -T 0.4T 0.5T
Initial 0 0 ½ min (Vm) 1.0 0 1000 (max(Vg)-min(Vm)) 0 0 0
Upper 5500 359 Min (Vm) 5.0 359 4000 1.2 (max(Vg)-min(Vm)) T 1.4T 1.4T
Where Vm is the mean speed taken over an interval equals the sampling interval; Vg is the gust speed within the sampling
interval; T is the overall duration of the record to be fitted in seconds.

Table 3 Thunderstorm parameters from the full-scale measurements

Parameter
r0 (m) φ0 (deg) Vt (m/s) nST ϴ (deg) Dj (m) Vj (m/s) t0 (sec) t1 (sec) t2 (sec) max(Vg)(m/s) Rg2
\Event*
1 1858 156 5.1 3.51 58 1520 45.8 109 813 630 43 0.99
2 2844 111 2.6 0.75 304 2140 17.1 895 2561 2357 13 0.97
3 2988 337 3.7 1.68 152 2071 21.8 460 1350 1835 19 0.97
4 4393 293 5.2 2.02 127 1871 27.6 25 1439 1493 30 0.99
5 2261 64 3.4 1.12 219 1501 18.0 189 631 1178 13 0.95
6 4593 42 2.8 2.32 201 2242 20.5 67 2070 2485 18 0.96
*Anemometer is assumed at 10 m height, and an open terrain condition is considered for all cases; Vg is the gust speed.

parameters are estimated by splitting the records into a another 100 sets are generated based on the characteristics
number of ns segments (in the order of 6 with ~10 min each (i.e., genes) taken from the parent sets identified from the
to mimic the statistics available at the wind stations) and earlier generation. The process is repeated for a number of
utilizing optimization techniques to minimize the 40 generations until the parameter set leading to the global
differences between resulting mean speed Vmi gust speed minimum is identified. Practical lower and upper limits are
Vpis and mean wind direction αi within each segment introduced while generating the parameter sets as
obtained from the model and those obtained from the wind summarized in Table 2. The initial set used for the first
records (Vms, Vps and αs), as indicated in Eq. (2). The generation is also summarized in Table 2.
expression given in Eq. (2) represents the objective function The model is validated using records from 6 full scale
Fobj used for the optimization, which equals to 0 for an events happened at or near:
exact match between the modeled and recorded speeds. • Andrews Air Force (AAFB), near Washington, D.C.,
 2

U.S.A. in 1983 (Fujita 1985), with the data collected at
Vmis   V pis 
ns 2

  1  V    cos(i )  cos(is )    sin(i )  sin(is )   5.0 m height.

2 2
Fobj    1    (2)
ms   V ps
s 1
   • Rondonia region of the Brazilian Amazon on 17
February 1999 (Atlas et al. 2004).
The optimization is conducted using the genetic
• Brisbane Airport on 17 January 2001(FSF 2003)
algorithm because of its reliability and efficiency in
• Reese Air Force Base (RAFB), near Lubbock, Texas,
obtaining the optimum solution without being trapped by
U.S.A. in 2002 from tower 4 at 10 m height (Gast and
local minimums. In the algorithm, a number of 100 sets (i.e.
Schroeder 2005).
population) is used to generate the 10 parameters (i.e. 100
• Hyytiälä (Juupajoki, Finland) on the afternoon of 3
sets with 10 parameters each) and the objective function is
July 2004, recorded by a field station at 23 m height
evaluated to identify best few sets that may lead to the
(Järvi et al. 2007).
global minimum (i.e., referred to as the parent sets). Then
92 Haitham Aboshosha, Thomas G. Mara and Nicole Izukawa

a) Andrews Air Force

(R2Base Speeds (m/s) Wind Direction

450
45 400
40
350
35
300
Speed (m/s)

Angle (deg)
30
250
25
200
20
150
15

10 100

5 50

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800
1 Time (sec) Time (sec)

b) Rondonia region
Speeds (m/s) Wind Direction
350
12
300
10
250
Speed (m/s)

Angle (deg)

200
6

150
4

2 100

0 50
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
2 Time (sec) Time (sec)

c) Brisbane Airport
Speeds (m/s) Wind Direction
350
18 300
16
250
14
200
Speed (m/s)

12
Angle (deg)

150
10
100
8
50
6

4 0

2 -50

0 -100
0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500
3 Time (sec) Time (sec)

Fig. 5 (Continued) Comparison between modeled and observed wind speed and direction

• North of Innsbruck (Kematen, Igls) at around 1930
UTC on 29 July 2008, (Welzenbach 2008).
These records are similar to those considered by Abd El-
all et al. (2012) in validating their numerical model. Fig. 5
shows six target and simulated thunderstorm gust front
events. In the figure, mean and peak wind speeds as well as
mean wind direction obtained from the records (i.e. Mean
WS, Peak WS, Th Records) and those obtained from the
model (i.e., Mean Th Model, Peak Th Model, Th Model)
are shown as well. As indicated from the figure, the
proposed model can reasonably simulate all six of the
observed events both in terms of the wind speed and
 Towards performance-based design under thunderstorm winds:… 93
1
Read time statistics from meteorological station in terms of mean and peak speeds, wind
direction, and the event type (if provided)
2

Extract data corresponding to mean and gust speeds Vm , Vp greater than a chosen
3 threshold, which is taken equal to 10 m/s and 15 m/s for mean and gust speeds, respectively.

4 For the chosen high speeds, evaluate the gust speed factor Gv=Vp/Vm and compare it with the
gust speed factor for synoptic winds assuming neutrally stratified boundary layer Gvsy .

5 Records having Gv/Gvsy greater than 1.25 are identified as thunderstorm events as
recommended by De Gaetano et al. (2014).

6
Estimate number of thunderstorm gust front NGF events by counting the number of records
with a separation time greater than typical storm duration TStorm (which is chosen as 3600
7 sec). Then estimate the average occurrence rate λ= NGF/(number of years considered in the
analysis, which is taken here as 40 years)

8
Extract events having high temporal resolution (i.e. at least 4 points taken every 10 min or
less). Such data will be used for fitting with the numerical thunderstorm model.

Fig. 6 Detection of thunderstorm events from meteorological records

Fig. 7 Wind speed records at KLBB station

direction. The estimated thunderstorm parameters are
provided in Table 3, which also summarizes the peak
outflow horizontal speed as well as the goodness of the
fitting characterized by the Rg2 value (defined as the ratio of
the sum of squared regression values divided by the sum of
squared data values). High values (0.95-0.99) of Rg2 close to
1.0 are obtained which indicates an excellent match.
3. Meteorological records and detection
thunderstorm gust fronts
In many places, historical hourly wind records are
available for a significant length of time (i.e., 40 years or
more). For regions in which thunderstorms are common, it
is plausible that portions of thunderstorm gust fronts are
present in the historical wind records. However, there are
challenges associated with the identification of winds
occurring due to thunderstorm gust front as opposed to
those representing strong synoptic winds. In the current
study, wind records at Lubbock International Airport
(KLBB; ISD Station 722670) are considered as an example
to extract and identify thunderstorm gust front events. As
discussed earlier, a sample of the daily records obtained
from KLBB station is provided in Table 1 and the following
of
observations can be made by investigating that table:
• Some records have both mean speed and gust speeds
reported and typically those records are provided when
the wind is intense.
• As discussed earlier, most wind records were obtained
at an hourly rate, unless an important weather event
94 Haitham Aboshosha, Thomas G. Mara and Nicole Izukawa
occurs or wind speed exceeds a certain threshold, then
measurements were taken at a higher frequency.
These observations are utilized to identify potential
important thunderstorm gust front events using a three-step
filter described in Fig. 6 as follows:
• A first step filter is applied based on existence of gust
speed records. Since gust wind speed is typically
provided for intense wind, which is true for
thunderstorms with medium to strong downdrafts, the
existence of the gust speed record can be taken as a
basic filtering between strong and non-strong winds.
This first stage filter was applied to the wind records
obtained at KLBB wind station in the period between
1975 and 2015 and the resulting strong wind records are
shown by the black dash lines “--” in Fig. 7.
• A second step filter is applied based on the gust speed
factor, which is defined as the ratio between the gust
speed and the mean speed. This gust factor was used
effectively by De Gaetano et al. (2014) to distinguish
between thunderstorm wind and other synoptic wind
events. As indicated in Fig. 6, gust factor Gv for the
selected records out from the previous step is calculated
and is compared with the gust factor for synoptic wind
assuming neutrally stratified boundary layer Gvsy.
Records showing Gv/Gvsy > 1.25 are identified as
thunderstorm data. According to De Gaetano et al.
(2014), this 1.25 cutoff ratio was found to be sufficient
to distinguish thunderstorms from mixed weather data
The filtered records are marked by the small circles in
Fig. 7, regardless of the color of the circles.
• Thunderstorm downdrafts are often of short duration
(i.e. in the order of 1 hour or less) and based on that,
records happening within 1 hour are considered to be for
the same event. This leads to the total number of events
NGF, which when divided by the duration time (in
years) leads to the average annual occurrence rate λ.
Such a rate is found equal to 4.76 events/year for
Lubbock. A third step filter is introduced based on the
data resolution in time for each event. Since it is
important to have a resolution higher than the typical 1
hour to be able to characterize the events, records are
further filtered based on the temporal resolution and
those having a resolution equal to or finer than the target
(chosen here as 10 minutes) are considered for event
characterization. Records marked by the blue circles in
Fig. 7 represent events with coarse resolution (i.e.
greater than 10 minutes) while those marked by the red
circles represent events with high resolution. It worth to
mention that records with high resolution data extends
from 1997 to 2015.
Thunderstorm gust front records resulting from the third
filtering stage are used here to characterize the events by
obtaining their parameters employing the model discussed
in Section 2. The records resulting from the third filter step
for each identified event (in terms of the mean speed, peak
speed and the mean wind angle) are set as the optimization
target for the model discussed and validated in Section 2.
Fig. 8 shows sample of identified thunderstorm gust
front events and their model fit, which indicates that the
model can reasonably express the identified events with
reasonable accuracy. A list of the model parameters
obtained from the fitting process is provided in Table 4 as
well as the R2 value which is typically used to evaluate the
goodness of the fitting. As listed in the table, R2 has an
average value of 0.92 which indicates a very good match. It
should be noted that only events with decent fitting (R2
value greater than 0.8) are summarized in the table and
employed in Monte Carlo simulation as discussed in the
following Section.
4. Prediction of thunderstorm gust front speeds
suitable for design purposes
Analysis of the historical records at KLBB wind station
showed an average occurrence rate λ of 4.76 events/ year.
Further analysis was conducted on events having high
temporal resolution to characterize the event parameters. As
discussed earlier, the historical records are not long enough
to predict thunderstorm gust front wind speeds and,
therefore, it is proposed to simulate thunderstorm
downdrafts numerically similar to the technique used for
hurricanes (Russell and Schueller 1974, Tryggvason et al.
1976, Georgiou et al. 1983, Vickery et al. 2000a, b, Vickery
et al. 2009, Li and Hong 2016), where parameters listed in
Table 4 are utilized to numerically simulate events
happening in multiple thousands of years employing Monte
Carlo method. Design wind speeds can be evaluated by
analyzing the speeds obtained from the simulated events.
Monte Carlo simulation is conducted in three steps:
• In the first step, correlation matrix for the 10 fitting
parameters listed in Table 4 is evaluated and shown in
Fig. 9. This is to identify parameters with high cross
correlation values. In the current study, parameters with
cross correlation value exceeding a threshold of 0.4 (or
less than -0.4) are considered strongly correlated and
their correlations are accounted for in the simulation.
For example, parameters (t1 and t2 as well as Φ0 and θ)
exhibit high correlations.
• In the second step, parameters listed in Table 4 are
examined independently to find the best standard
distributions matching their probability distribution, as
shown in Fig. 10. The standard distributions are utilized
to generate uncorrelated parameters Xun for multiple
thousands of years (taken here as 50,000 years to avoid
missing any important speeds). Histograms of the
generated parameters Xun compared with the target
histograms are shown also in Fig. 10, which indicates an
acceptable match. Table 5 summarizes the types and
characteristics of the standard distributions used for the
event parameters. It should be noted that the generated
parameters Xun are independent and do not include any
correlations yet.
• In the third step, correlated parameters Xcor are
generated from the uncorrelated parameters Xun and the
target correlation matrix C. The expression given in Eq.
3 is utilized, where L is the lower triangle matrix
resulting from Cholesky factorization of the correlation
matrix C = L·LT). More details about the method can be
obtained from Kyng and Konstandatos (2014).
 Towards performance-based design under thunderstorm winds:… 95

Table 4 Thunderstorm parameters for events detected at KLBB

Event R0 Φ0 Vt Θ Dj Vj t0 t1 t2 R2
(m) (deg) (m/s) nST (deg) (m) (m/s) (sec) (sec) (sec) Date (--)
No.
1 2619 357 4.1 2.8 241 2029 18.1 405 1446 1214 24-May-1997 0.98
2 3071 81 5.0 2.0 168 2033 26.5 786 1362 1690 12-Jun-1997 0.99
3 4435 70 2.4 2.1 245 1285 16.9 543 1537 1766 31-Oct-1998 0.93
4 912 161 5.3 2.7 56 2275 23.8 1246 4119 4008 29-Apr-1999 0.86
5 1950 268 3.1 3.9 61 2627 17.7 748 5670 3141 29-Apr-1999 0.94
6 7508 233 2.3 3.8 11 2320 12.6 1113 3793 3525 29-Apr-1999 0.91
7 2808 290 4.4 2.5 57 2425 15.6 675 5621 4701 29-Apr-1999 0.91
8 1000 17 5.4 3.4 263 1899 20.8 223 1026 1443 9-May-1999 0.99
9 1148 14 4.8 3.7 276 1087 19.6 146 1205 1002 9-May-1999 0.99
10 1444 77 2.7 3.2 123 2391 22.7 702 4342 2518 11-Jun-1999 0.90
11 1605 161 3.6 2.5 102 2568 15.7 1552 4746 4721 11-Jun-1999 0.91
12 8616 132 2.4 4.5 102 3855 23.0 -1423 7220 9351 11-Jun-2000 0.91
13 5137 130 3.1 3.2 124 2095 22.0 832 6332 6562 11-Jun-2000 0.83
14 1508 181 3.4 2.9 87 1923 20.0 741 6720 7239 11-Jun-2000 0.81
15 3366 210 3.9 3.2 133 2049 19.6 895 3644 2490 4-Jun-2002 0.98
16 706 211 5.2 2.9 70 1913 16.8 739 5000 5000 4-Jun-2003 0.94
17 4780 351 2.6 3.9 278 2124 14.1 -362 2799 3782 8-Sep-2003 0.88
18 5882 220 2.5 3.6 75 3394 18.1 164 2058 2210 30-Nov-2006 0.89
19 5627 98 3.4 1.8 187 2122 20.6 -267 1308 2010 29-Mar-2007 0.85
20 5109 87 4.2 3.0 184 1187 11.1 -318 1666 1094 29-Mar-2007 0.89
21 1879 222 4.3 2.7 67 2082 20.9 356 1215 981 1-Jun-2007 0.95
22 1408 244 4.5 2.7 73 2285 19.0 212 1206 1109 1-Jun-2007 0.98
23 1754 122 5.7 2.4 84 1276 16.1 819 1778 1746 2-Jun-2007 0.92
24 6050 217 5.7 2.0 97 3279 18.4 961 2241 2145 25-Aug-2007 0.96
25 3284 215 3.4 1.9 36 1973 27.2 706 2839 3138 25-Aug-2007 0.85
26 2026 72 4.5 3.6 32 3041 22.5 1971 2134 3131 19-Jun-2008 0.94
27 1243 357 3.1 1.8 36 1624 27.3 413 2267 2356 8-Sep-2009 0.91
28 1415 40 3.1 0.9 36 1870 25.3 834 2883 2350 8-Sep-2009 0.92
29 5125 251 4.1 2.8 49 2832 16.4 -258 3491 3460 21-Oct-2010 0.87
30 5923 23 2.7 2.3 227 2394 15.3 586 4122 3032 20-Mar-2011 0.92
31 5584 60 2.2 3.2 232 1394 11.7 1297 4800 3283 20-Mar-2011 0.82
32 3216 18 5.7 3.0 88 2003 22.6 780 2162 1932 4-Apr-2011 0.93
33 6291 40 3.2 2.4 199 2922 15.5 206 2388 1745 11-May-2011 0.89
34 2988 318 4.2 2.5 339 2679 29.9 326 4500 4500 15-Aug-2012 0.85
35 3730 302 5.0 2.2 351 2971 25.1 683 4500 4500 15-Aug-2012 0.81
36 1895 35 5.1 3.3 181 2423 20.3 189 3246 3200 14-Dec-2012 0.96
37 5944 146 4.1 3.1 126 2325 15.2 -210 4551 4876 20-Jun-2013 0.96
38 2822 164 6.8 2.1 105 3431 13.3 1002 3955 3630 29-Apr-2014 0.97
39 2974 282 3.7 2.3 77 2014 19.2 950 3778 4331 30-Dec-2014 0.95

years in the current work) as shown in Fig. 13. The

X cor  LX un (3)
Fig. 10 also shows histograms of the correlated
parameters which exhibit some variation than the
independent parameters especially for parameters θ, t1 and
t2. The correlation matrix for the output parameters is
evaluated and shown in Fig. 11. Comparison between the
matrices provided in Figs. 8 and 11 indicates that the
correlations are well simulated.
Fig. 12 shows sample thunderstorm parameters for a
number of 100 years (476 events) in terms of the event
initial location (R0 and φ0), translation speed and direction
(Vt, θ), downdraft jet diameter and speed (Dj and Vj).
Wind speeds suitable for design are obtained from the
simulated events resulting from the generated parameters.
This is achieved by considering each combination of the 10
parameters to represent a simulated thunderstorm event and
obtaining the maximum speed at the site corresponding to
each event. This leads to a list of maximum gust front
speeds corresponding for many thousands of years (50,000
probability distribution of those maximum speeds is shown
in Fig. 14 for different angles of attack. As indicated from
the figures, maximum simulated speed is found to be 68 m/s
and the dominant wind direction is wind approaching from
northwest.
Design wind speeds versus return period, RP,
relationship is obtained by evaluating the probability of
exceeding P(v>V) a wind speed V employing Eq. (4)
(BLWTL 2007).
1
𝑅𝑃(𝑉) = (4)
𝜆𝑃(𝑣 > 𝑉)
where λ is the average annual rate of storms
Fig. 15 shows the wind speeds obtained from the
simulation for various return periods. These speeds are
plotted by the black symbol “+”. In order to simplify the
wind speed-return period relationship, the records are fitted
using Type I Extreme Value (i.e., Gumbel) distribution,
which is also shown in the figure. It worth to mention that
96 Haitham Aboshosha, Thomas G. Mara and Nicole Izukawa

Fig. 8 Sample thunderstorm gust front events and their model estimate

Fig. 9 Correlation Matrix for the various parameters

 Towards performance-based design under thunderstorm winds:… 97

Fig. 10 Obtaining probability distribution of the model parameters and employing these distributions to generate model
parameters for simulated events
98 Haitham Aboshosha, Thomas G. Mara and Nicole Izukawa

Fig. 11 Correlations among output parameters from Monte Carlo simulation

Fig. 12 Plot indicating thunderstorm parameters occurring over a 100 year sample period

Fig. 13 Maximum synthesized thunderstorm gust front speeds for 50 x103 years
 Towards performance-based design under thunderstorm winds:… 99

Fig. 14 Predicted gust speed and direction for simulated events at Lubbock, Texas

Fig. 15 Predicted gust speed for Lubbock, Texas

fitting the records by Type I extreme value distribution may
not be accurate for high return periods in the order of 1000
years (Torrielli et al. 2013, 2014, Harris 2014), however the
accuracy at such high periods was maintained by
eliminating velocity records belonging to low return periods
from the fitting process (i.e., lesser than 5 years).
In order to validate the simulated design speeds, gust
speeds identified from the historical records are also shown
in Fig. 15. The figure indicates that design speeds obtained
from the simulation well match the speeds resulting from
records. This validates the developed methodology by
satisfying the speeds seen at the meteorological station.
Another validation is conducted using peak thunderstorm
wind speeds seen in the records employing the technique
developed by Lombardo et al. (2009). As shown in Fig. 15,
a very good agreement between thunderstorm speeds
predicted by the current method (black +) and speeds
detected by Lombardo et al. (2009) (green dots) up to return
periods in the order of ~8 years, which further gives
confidence in the developed method. For return periods
greater than ~ 8 years, the agreement is not good which is
believed to be due to the insufficient number thunderstorm
records. It is important to note that thunderstorms generally
would require much larger number of records than synoptic
events to be considered sufficient as the peak thunderstorm
speed can be easily missed out from the records taken at the
met station. Fig. 15 shows also a good agreement between
thunderstorm speeds detected by the current technique (red
dots) and thunderstorm speeds predicted by Lombardo et al.
(2009) (green dots) which validates thunderstorm detection
technique employed in the study and described in Fig. 6.
An additional analysis of the wind records at KLBB wind
station is conducted assuming all events are due to synoptic
wind, which is a common practice in analyzing historical
wind records, and the speed-return period relationship is
provided also in Fig. 15 (blue “+” for the records and blue
100 Haitham Aboshosha, Thomas G. Mara and Nicole Izukawa
line for their Gumbel fit). Comparison between
thunderstorm speeds and synoptic wind speeds indicates
that thunderstorm speeds govern for high return periods
greater than approximately 15 years, which is in agreement
with the fundamental study conducted by Gomes and
Vickery (1978) and Lombardo et al. (2009). For instance,
the estimated peak wind speed for 1000 year return period
resulting from the thunderstorm simulation technique was
approximately 58 m/s, compared to approximately 42 m/s if
the historical wind data were analyzed in a traditional
fashion. This represents an underestimation of extreme
wind speed of approximately 38%, which clearly indicates
that importance of considering thunderstorm events when
analyzing historical records. The wind speed-return period
relationship provided in the ASCE 7-10 (ASCE 2010), and
ASCE 7-16 (ASCE 2016) are also plotted in Fig. 15 for
comparative purposes. It worth to mention that wind speed
maps in the ASCE 7-16 have included a new analysis of
thunderstorm wind data. The analysis is based on the study
conducted by Lombardo et al. (2009) and involves a peak-
over-thresholds (POT) model in fitting the data. Additional
information about the analyses went to the ASCE 7-16 can
be obtained from Levitan et al. (2017).
Fig. 15 shows that ASCE-based speeds are higher than
the speeds obtained in the current study considering
synoptic events. This is expected as the code tends to be
conservative and accounts for additional uncertainties.
However, those speeds are in fact less than the speeds
estimated using the thunderstorm simulation. For example,
the ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 7-16 predict a 51.4 m/s and 49.0
m/s, respectively, compared with 56.8 m/s for a 700 year
return period, which represents an underestimation of
approximately 10% and 11.5% in estimated wind speeds
due to thunderstorms. It should be noted that such an
underestimation is expected to exist when thunderstorm
records are treated similar to synoptic wind records, or
when insufficient thunderstorm records are analyzed to
assess the design wind speeds. These inherently neglect the
localized nature of thunderstorm downdrafts and assume
that any gust measurements observed at a met station reflect
the highest speeds during the event. The methodology
presented in this paper is intended to provide a way to
account for these aspects and to quantify the increases that
may be observed compared to a more traditional analysis of
historical wind data.
5. Conclusions
Accurate load evaluation is essential in any
performance-based design including thunderstorms wind
loads. Wind speeds specified in design codes and standards
often result from treating thunderstorm gust front records in
the same fashion as more common synoptic wind events.
This inherently neglects the localized nature of the events
and assumes that wind speed measurements recorded by the
anemometer are sufficient for estimating wind speeds
associated with such events. The method presented in
thispaper is a first attempt to estimate design wind speeds
associated with thunderstorm downdrafts and their outflows
while accounting for the localized nature. This is achieved
through the development of a numerical model based on
previous CFD simulations that account for storm translation
and outflow dissipation, and applying the developed model
to a particular region to estimate design wind speeds.
The meteorological station at the Lubbock Preston
Smith International Airport in Lubbock, TX (ISD Station
722670) is selected as an example, and the described model
is used to analyze potential thunderstorm gust front records
observed at the station and to obtain the parameters for
these events. The resulting parameters are then used to
simulate thunderstorm downdrafts and their outflow gust
fronts for 50,000 years using Monte Carlo method for the
purpose of obtaining design wind speeds. Design speeds
simulated using Monte Carlo method are validated using the
speeds observed in the historical record but modified to
account for the localized effect.
The results of the study indicate that design wind speeds
associated with thunderstorm gust fronts are higher than
those based on wind gust events being considered in a
similar fashion to synoptic winds for return periods greater
than approximately 15 years. For example, the estimated
wind speeds based on the simulation technique suggest that
the estimated 700-year return period wind speed is
approximately 38% higher than a traditional synoptic-based
analysis of the wind data at the station. This result was not
unexpected, as an important aspect of the analysis is that
higher wind speeds can occur which are not observed at the
anemometer. When compared to the design wind speed for
a 700-year MRI in ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 7-16, the
estimated wind speeds from the simulation were
approximately 10% and 11.5% higher, respectively. Again,
this can be attributed to differences in key assumptions
between the compared analyses where the current study
accounts for the localized effect.
The findings obtained in this study are based on the
wind records at the Lubbock International Airport; other
stations will require further analysis to evaluate the
robustness of selection of characteristic parameters.
However, it is very likely that neglecting the localized
nature of thunderstorm gust front winds has the potential to
underestimate extreme wind speeds, as estimates are most
commonly based on wind speed observations at a single
point (anemometer) which may not capture the highest
winds in a particular thunderstorm event. Through the
method developed in this paper, an approximate increase in
estimated design wind speeds to account for this aspect is
quantified and presented for Lubbock, Texas.
Acknowledgments
The first and third authors would like to thank Ryerson
University and the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council (NSERC) of Canada for the generous
funding of this research.
References
Abd-Elaal, E., Mills, J.E. and Ma, X. (2013), “An analytical model
 Towards performance-based design under thunderstorm winds:…
for simulating steady state flows of downburst”, J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerod., 115, 53-64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2013.01.005.
Abd-Elaal, E.S., Mills, J.E. and Ma, X. (2013), “A coupled
parametric-CFD study for determining ages of downbursts
through investigation of different field parameters”, J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerod., 123(Part A), 30-42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2013.09.010.
Aboshosha, H. and El Damatty, A. (2015), “Engineering method
for estimating the reactions of transmission line conductors
under downburst winds”, J. Eng. Struct., 99, 198-216.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.04.010.
Aboshosha, H., Bitsuamlak, G. and El Damatty A. (2015),
“Turbulence characterization of downbursts using LES”, J.
Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod., 136, 44-61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2014.10.020.
Aboshosha, H., Elawady, A., Ansary, A. and El Damatty, A.
(2016), “Review on the buffeting dynamic response of
transmission lines under synoptic wind”, J. Eng. Struct., 112(1),
23-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.01.003.
Alawady, A., Aboshosha , H., Bitsuamlak, G. and El Damatty, A.
(2016), “Wind tunnel testing of a multiple span aeroelastic
transmission line subjected to downburst wind”, Proceedings Of
The CSCE 2016. Natural Disaster Mitigation Specialty
Conference, 538-1-8.
ASCE 7-10 (2010), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures, ASCE; Reston, VA, U.S.A.
ASCE 7-16 (2016), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures, ASCE; Reston, VA, U.S.A.
Atlas, D., Ulbrich, C.W. and Williams, C.R. (2004), “Physical
origin of a wet microburst: Observations and theory”, J. Atmos.
Sci., 61, 1186-1196. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-
0469(2004)061%3C1186:POOAWM%3E2.0.CO;2.
Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory (BLWTL) (2007), Wind
Tunnel Testing: A General Outline, The University of Western
Ontario.
Charba, J. (1974), “Application of gravity current model to
analysis of squall-line gust front”, Mon. Weather Rev., 102,
140-156. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-
0493(1974)102%3C0140:AOGCMT%3E2.0.CO;2.
Chay, M.T., Albermani, F. and Wilson, R. (2006), “Numerical and
analytical simulation of downburst wind loads”, Eng. Struct.,
28(2), 240-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.07.007.
Choi, E.C.C. (1999), “Extreme wind characteristics over
Singapore – an area in the equatorial belt”, J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerod., 83(1-3), 61-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-
6105(99)00061-6.
Choi, E.C.C. and Hidayat, F.A. (2002), “Gust factors for
thunderstorm and nonthunderstorm winds”, J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerod., 90(12-15), 1683-1696. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-
6105(02)00279-9.
Choi, E.C.C. and Tanurdjaja, A. (2002), “Extreme wind studies in
Singapore. An area with mixed weather system”, J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerod., 90(12-15), 1611-1630.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6105(02)00274-X.
Cook, N.J. (1982), “Towards better estimation of extreme winds”,
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod., 9, 295-323.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(82)90021-6.
Darwish, M. and El Damatty, A. (2011), “Behavior of self
supported transmission line towers under stationary downburst
loading”, Wind Struct., 14(5), 481-498.
De Gaetano P., Repetto, M.P., Repetto, T. and Solari, G. (2014),
“Separation and classification of extreme wind events from
anemometric records”, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod., 126, 132-43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2014.01.006.
Duranona, V., Sterling, M. and Baker, C.J. (2006), “An analysis of
extreme non-synoptic winds”, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 95,
101
1007-1027.
ESDU 82026 (2002), Strong Winds in the Atmospheric Boundary
Layer. Part 1: Hourly-Mean Wind Speeds, Engineering
Sciences Data Unit; London, U.K.
ESDU 85020 (2001), Characteristics of Atmospheric Turbulence
Near the Ground. Part II: Single Point Data for Strong Winds,
Engineering Sciences Data Unit; London, U.K.
FSF Editorial Staff (2003), “Inadequate weather communication
cited in B-737 microburst-downdraft incident”, Airport
Operations., 29(1).
Fujita, T.T. (1985), The Downburst Report of Projects NIMROD
and JAWS, The University of Chicago.
Fujita, T.T. (1990), “Downbursts: meteorological features and
wind field characteristics”, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 36(1),
75-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(90)90294-M.
Gast, K.D. and Schroeder, J.L. (2003), “Supercell rear-flank
downdraft as sampled in the 2002 thunderstorm outflow
experiment”, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference
on Wind Engineering, Lubbock, Texas, U.S.A.
Gast, K.D. and Schroeder, J.L. (2005), “Extreme wind events
observed in the 2002 thunderstorm outflow experiment”,
Proceedings of the 10th Americas Conference on Wind
Engineering (10 ACWE), Baton Rouge, LA, U.S.A.
Georgiou, P.N., Davenport, A.G. and Vickery, B.J. (1983),
“Design wind speeds in regions dominated by tropical
cyclones”, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod., 13, 139-152.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(83)90136-8.
Goff, R.G. (1976), “Vertical structure of thunderstorm outflows”
Mon. Weather Rev., 104, 1429-1440.
https://doi.org/10.1175/15200493(1976)104%3C1429:VSOTO
%3E2.0.CO;2.
Gomes, L. and Vickery, B.J. (1976), “On thunderstorm wind gusts
in Australia”, Civil Eng.Trans. Inst. Eng. Aust., 18, 33-39.
Gomes, L. and Vickery, B.J. (1978), “Extreme wind speeds in
mixed climates”, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod., 2(4) 331-344.
Gunter, W.S. and Schroeder, J.L. (2013), “High-resolution full-
scale measurements of thunderstorm outflow winds”,
Proceedings of the 12th Americas Conference on Wind
Engineering, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.
Hangan, H., Roberts, D., Xu, Z. and Kim, J. (2003), “Downburst
simulation, experimental and numerical challenges”,
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Wind
Engineering, Lubbock, Texas, USA, Electronic Version.
Harris, R.I. (2014), “A simulation method for the macro-
meteorological wind speed and the implications for extreme
value analysis”, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod., 125, 145-155.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2013.12.003.
Hjelmfelt, M.R. (1988), “Structure and Life Cycle of Microburst
Outflows Observed in Colorado”, J. Appl. Meteorol., 27(8),
900-927. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-
0450(1988)027%3C0900:SALCOM%3E2.0.CO;2.
Holmes, J.D. and Oliver, S.E. (2000), “An empirical model of a
downburst”, Eng. Struct., 22(9), 1167-1172.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(99)00058-9.
Holmes, J.D., Hangan, H.M., Schroeder, J.L., Letchford, C.W. and
Orwig, K.D. (2008), “A forensic study of the Lubbock-Reese
downdraft of 2002”, Wind Struct., 11(2), 19-39.
https://doi.org/10.12989/was.2008.11.2.137.
Järvi, L., Punkka, A.J., Schultz, D.M., Petäjä T., Hohti, H., Rinne,
J., Pohja, T., Kulmala, M., Hari, P. and Vesala T. (2007),
“Micrometeorological observations of a microburst in southern
Finland”, Bound. Lay. Meteorol., 125, 343-359.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74321-9_13.
Kent, C., Grimmond, S., Barlow, J., Gatey, D., Kotthaus, S.,
Lindberg, F. and Halios, H. (2017), “Evaluation of urban local-
scale aerodynamic parameters: implications for the vertical
profile of wind speed and for source areas”, Bound. Lay.
102 Haitham Aboshosha, Thomas G. Mara and Nicole Izukawa
Meteorol., 164, 183-213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-017-
0248-z.
Kim, J. and Hangan, H. (2007), “Numerical simulations of
impinging jets with application to downbursts”, J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerod., 95(4), 279-298.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2006.07.002.
Kyng, T. and Konstandatos, O. (2014), “Multivariate Monte-Carlo
simulation and economic valuation of complex financial
contracts: an Excel based implementation”, Spreadsheets
Education, 3(2), article 5.
Levitan, M., Lombardob, F., Pintarc, A., Vickery, P. and Simiu E.,
(2017), “Development of new wind speed maps for the ASCE
7-16 standard”, 13th Americas Conference on Wind
Engineering, Gainsville, Florida, U.S.A., May.
Li, S. and Hong, H. (2016), “Typhoon wind hazard estimation for
China using an empirical track model”, Nat. Hazards, 82, 1009-
1029. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2231-2.
Lombardo, F.T., Main, J.A. and Simiu, E., (2009), “Automated
extraction and classification of thunderstorm and non-
thunderstorm wind data for extreme-value analysis”, J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 97, 120-131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2009.03.001.
Mason, M.S., Fletcher, D.F. and Wood, G.S. (2010), “Numerical
simulation of idealised three-dimensional downburst wind
fields”, Eng. Struct., 32(11), 3558-3570.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.07.024.
Mason, M.S., Wood, G.S. and Fletcher, D.F., (2009), “Numerical
simulation of downburst winds”, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod.,
97(11-12), 523-539.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2009.07.010.
Orf, L.G., Kantor, E. and Savory, E. (2012), “Simulation of a
downburst-producing thunderstorm using a very high resolution
three-dimensional cloud model”, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.,
104, 547-557.
Oseguera, R. and Bowles, R. (1988), “A simple, analytic 3-
dimensional downburst model based on boundary layer
stagnation flow”, NASA Technical Memorandum, 100632.
Riera, J.D. and Nanni, L.F. (1989), “Pilot study of extreme wind
velocities in a mixed climate considering wind orientation”, J.
Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod., 32, 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-
6105(89)90012-3.
Rowcroft, J. (2011), “Vertical wind shear profiles in downburst
events and the insufficiency of wind turbine design codes”,
Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Wind
Engineering, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Russell, L.R. and Schueller, G.F. (1974), “Probabilistic models for
Texas gulf coast hurricane occurrences”, J. Pet. Tech., March.
Selvam, R. and Holmes, J.D. (1992), “Numerical simulation of
thunderstorm downdrafts”, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod., 44(1-3),
2817-2825. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(92)90076-M.
Shehata, A. and El Damatty, A. (2007), “Behaviour of guyed
transmission line structures under downburst wind loading”,
Wind Struct., 10(3), 249-268.
https://doi.org/10.12989/was.2007.10.3.249.
Shehata, A.Y., El Damatty, A.A. and Savory, E. (2005), “Finite
element modeling of transmission line under downburst wind
loading”, Finite Elements Analy. Des., 42, 71-89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2005.05.005.
Solari, G., Burlando, M., De Gaetano, P. and Repetto, M.P.
(2015), “Characteristics of thunderstorms relevant to the wind
loading of structures”, Wind Struct., 20, 763-791.
http://dx.doi.org/10.12989/was.2015.20.6.763.
Solari, G., Repetto, M.P., Burlando, M., De Gaetano, P., Pizzo,
M., Tizzi, M. and Parodi, M. (2012), “The wind forecast for
safety management of port areas”, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod.,
104-106, 266-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2012.03.029.
Tryggvason, B.V., Surry, D. and Davenport, A.G. (1976),
“Predicting wind-induced response in hurricane zones”, J.
Struct. Div., 102(12), 2333-2350.
Twisdale, L.A. and Vickery, P.J. (1992), “Research on
thunderstorm wind design parameters”, J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerod., 41, 545-556.
Vermeire, B.C., Orf, L.G. and Savory, E. (2011), “Improved
modelling of downburst outflows for wind engineering
applications using a cooling source approach”, J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerod., 99(8), 801-814.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2011.03.003.
Vickery, P.J., Masters, F.J., Powell, M.D. and Wadhera, D.
(2009), “Hurricane hazard modeling: The past, present and
future”, J. Wind Eng. Ind Aerod., 97, 392-405.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2009.05.005.
Vickery, P.J., Skerlj, P.F. and L.A. Twisdale (2000a), “Simulation
of hurricane risk in the U.S. using and empirical track model”,
J. Struct. Div., 126(10), 1222-1237.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:10(1222).
Vickery, P.J., Skerlj, P.F. Steckley, A.C. and L.A. Twisdale
(2000b), “A hurricane wind field model for use in hurricane
wind speed simulations”, J. Struct. Div., 126(10), 1203-1221.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:10(1203).
Vicroy, D. (1991), “A simple, analytical, axisymmetric microburst
model for downdraft estimation”, NASA Technical
Memorandum, 10405.
Vicroy, D. (1992), “Assessment of microburst models for
downdraft estimation”, J. Aircraft, 29(6), 1043-1048.
https://doi.org/10.2514/3.46282.
Wakimoto, R.M. (1982), “The life cycle of thunderstorm gust
fronts as viewed with Doppler radar and rains data”, Weather
Rev., 110, 1060-1082. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-
0493(1982)110%3C1060:TLCOTG%3E2.0.CO;2.
Welzenbach, F. (2008), “Fallstudie zum 29. Juli 2008 –
Microbursts im Sellrain und Inntal”, Storm Case Studies.
Wood, G.S., Kwok, K.C., Motteram, N.A. and Fletcher, D.F.,
(2001), “Physical and numerical modelling of thunderstorm
downbursts”, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod., 89(6), 535-552.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6105(00)00090-8.
Xu, Z. and Hangan, H. (2008), “Scale, boundary and inlet
condition effects on impinging jets”, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod.,
96(12), 2383-2402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2008.04.002.