Structural Safety 33 (2011) 367–378

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structural Safety
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/strusafe

Performance-Based Wind Engineering: Towards a general procedure

M. Ciampoli ⇑, F. Petrini, G. Augusti
Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Sapienza Università di Roma, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: It is widely recognized that the most rational way of assessing and reducing the risks of engineered facil-
Received 8 September 2009 ities and infrastructures subject to natural and man-made phenomena, both in the design of new facilities
Received in revised form 30 June 2011 and in the rehabilitation or retrofitting of existing ones, is Performance-Based Design, usually indicated
Accepted 5 July 2011
by the acronym PBD (but a better term would be ‘‘Performance-Based Engineering’’). The first formal
Available online 17 August 2011
applications of PBD were devoted to seismic engineering and design; later it has been extended to other
engineering fields, like Blast Engineering and Fire Engineering.
Keywords:
Wind Engineering has appeared of great potential interest for further developments of PBD. The expres-
Eolian risk
Probabilistic risk assessment
sion ‘‘Performance-Based Wind Engineering’’ (PBWE) was introduced for the first time in 2004 by an Ital-
Performance-Based Design ian research project. In this paper, the approach proposed by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Performance-Based Wind Engineering Center (PEER) for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering is extended to the case of PBWE.
Suspension bridge The general framework of the approach is illustrated and applied to an example case: the assessment of
Out-of-service risk the collapse and out-of-service risks of a long span suspension bridge.
Flutter instability A discussion of the open problems and the relevance of various sources of uncertainty conclude the
paper.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
A modern approach to structural design should not be limited
to optimize safety vs. costs, but consider as key objectives the
whole range of ‘‘performances’’ in a probabilistic context and
throughout the whole life-cycle of the structure: this has led to
the recent significant development of ‘‘Performance-Based Design’’
(PBD) procedures (for recent reviews, see e.g. [1] and [2]).
The first formal applications of PBD were devoted to seismic
engineering and design [3]. More recent, but rapidly expanding,
are extensions of PBD to other problems, and in particular to Wind
Engineering (the definition ‘‘Performance Based Wind Engineer-
ing’’, PBWE, appeared for the first time in 2004 [4]).
The approach is not new. During the last decades, the problem
of the assessment of structural safety under wind action has been
studied extensively: advanced probabilistic approaches have been
largely adopted in Wind Engineering due the aleatory nature of
winds (e.g. [5–7]). Great efforts have been devoted to the probabi-
listic characterization of both wind actions (e.g. [8–12]) and
response of structures with uncertain characteristics under wind
(e.g. [13–16]).
Also the performance assessment of structures subject to wind
actions has been the object of many studies in the past decade.
Among the others: Unanwa et al. [17] developed a procedure to
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 06 44 585 300;, fax: +39 06 48 84 852.
E-mail address: marcello.ciampoli@uniroma1.it (M. Ciampoli).
predict the wind damage to low and medium rise buildings subject
to hurricanes; Rosowski and Ellingwood [18], Ellingwood et al. [19]
and van de Lindt and Dao [20] focused on wood structure perfor-
mances under synoptic winds or hurricanes; Khanduri and Morrow
[21] studied the vulnerability of buildings to windstorms; Garciano
et al. [22] developed a procedure for the assessment of the critical
performances for wind turbines subject to typhoons; Bashor et al.
[23], Bashor and Kareem [24], Tamura [25] and Kim et al. [26]
focused on comfort of tall building occupants.
Notwithstanding this large effort in probabilistic assessment of
structural performances, there is not yet consensus on a general
Performance-Based approach for the assessment of risk under wind
action (‘‘Eolian risk’’). The goal of this paper is a self-contained
presentation of the probabilistic procedure for the application of
Performance-Based Design concepts to Wind Engineering that the
authors have outlined in previous paper [1,27–30]. The procedure
is then applied to an example case: the assessment of both the fail-
ure probability due to flutter instability and the out-of-service risk
of a bridge design derived from a preliminary design of the suspen-
sion bridge over the Messina Strait (Italy) [31]. A discussion of the
open problems concludes the paper.
2. Sources of uncertainty in Wind Engineering
As previously stated PBWE must be tackled in probabilistic
terms, due to the stochastic nature of both resistance and loading
parameters. First, in characterizing the wind field and the corre-

0167-4730/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.strusafe.2011.07.001
368 M. Ciampoli et al. / Structural Safety 33 (2011) 367–378

sponding actions, different sources of uncertainty are to be taken
into account: they must be considered differently according to
their relation to the structure (Fig. 1).
By definition, in the environment the wind field is considered as
if the structure were absent (free-field wind). In the environment
the basic site-dependent parameters of the wind field (mean value
of the velocity in each direction, turbulence intensity, dominant
direction of strong winds, etc.) are not influenced by the presence
of the structure, while they can be affected by the interaction with
other environmental agents; a typical example is the interaction
between wind and waves in offshore sites.
The exchange zone is the region around the structure where the
structure and the wind field are strongly correlated, and the effects
of the interaction between the relevant properties of both the
structure and the wind field, as well as the presence of nearby
structures, cannot be disregarded. Hence aerodynamic and aero-
elastic phenomena are essential in determining the relevant
features of the wind effects. Also non environmental actions can
influence the structural response by modifying the aerodynamic
and aeroelastic characteristics of the structure; a relevant example
is represented by the transit of trains on a railway bridge, as it
determines a change of the dynamic characteristics of a flexible
superstructure.
As concern the characterization of the wind field in the environ-
ment, the uncertainty is due to: (i) the intrinsic variability of the
basic parameters (the inherent or aleatory uncertainty), arising from
the unpredictable nature of magnitude and direction of the wind
velocity and turbulence intensity; (ii) the errors associated to the
experimental measures and the incompleteness of data and infor-
mation (the epistemic uncertainty); (iii) the modeling of wind ac-
tions and their effects on structural response (the model
uncertainty, often included in the epistemic uncertainty).
In the exchange zone, the interaction parameters are strongly
dependent on the basic parameters that characterize the wind field

ENVIRONMENT EXCHANGE ZONE STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

Aerodynamic and
aeroelastic
phenomena
Wind site basic Structural
parameters systems
Wind action Structural
Site-specific system as
Wind modified by
service loads
Environmental Non
effects (like environmental
waves) actions

Types of uncertainties
1. Aleatory 1. Aleatory 1. Aleatory
2. Epistemic 2. Epistemic 2. Epistemic
3. Model 3. Model 3. Model

Basic parameters ( IM ) Derived parameters ( IP) Independent parameters (SP )

2 Exchange zone

Stru
ctu
re
1 Environment

Vm+ v(t)

Turbulent wind velocity profile

r
rive

Vm

Mean wind velocity profile

Fig. 1. Sources of uncertainty in Wind Engineering.

 M. Ciampoli et al. / Structural Safety 33 (2011) 367–378
and the structural behavior. Examples of derived parameters in
case of suspension bridges are the aerodynamic coefficients
(whose plots are sometimes referred to as ‘‘polar lines’’), the aero-
dynamic derivatives (or ‘‘aeroelastic derivatives’’), the Strouhal
number (see [32] Chapters 4 and 6). In order to derive the proba-
bility density functions of these parameters, the uncertainty of
the basic parameters must be taken into account, while the uncer-
tainty of the relevant parameters in the exchange zone has no
influence on the basic parameters.
The parameters that characterize the structural behavior, like
the mechanical and material properties of the structure, are inde-
pendent of the basic parameters of the wind field, and often their
inherent uncertainty can be considered negligible. In what follows,
the uncertain basic parameters in the environment are grouped in
the intensity measure vector IM; the uncertain parameters of inter-
est in the exchange zone are grouped in the two vectors of derived
interaction parameters IP and independent structural parameters
SP (Fig. 1). The vectors IM and SP can be assumed not correlated
with each other and not affected by the uncertainty of the param-
eters IP, i.e.
PðIMjIPÞ ¼ PðIMjSPÞ ¼ PðIMÞ
PðSPjIPÞ ¼ PðSPjIMÞ ¼ PðSPÞ
where P(|) is a conditional probability.
In PBWE procedures, conditional probabilities, conditional den-
sity functions and the total probability theorem are essential. From
elementary theory of probability, given Eqs. (1), (2), the joint prob-
ability of IM, IP and SP is:
PðIM; IP; SPÞ ¼ PðIPjIM; SPÞ  PðIMjSPÞ  PðSPÞ
¼ PðIPjIM; SPÞ  PðIMÞ  PðSPÞ
and the complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) of
a continuous random variable X dependent on the basic, derived
and independent parameters is:
GðxÞ ¼ PðX > xÞ
Z 1
¼ GðxjIM; IP; SPÞ  f ðIM; IP; SPÞ dIM dIP dSP
1
Z 1
¼ GðxjIM; IP; SPÞ  f ðIP jIM; SPÞ  f ðIMÞ
1
 f ðSPÞ dIM dIP dSP
where f() is a probability density function (PDF) and f(|) a condi-
tional probability density function (CPDF).
3. A procedure for Performance-Based Wind Engineering
(PBWE)
The procedure for PBWE presented in this paper has been ob-
tained by extending the approach proposed for Performance-Based
Seismic Design (PBSD) by the researchers of the Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center (PEER) (see e.g. [3]). The central
objective of any procedure for Performance-Based Design is the
assessment of the adequacy of the structure through the probabi-
listic description of a set of decision variables DVs. Each DV is a
(quantitative) measure of a specific structural performance that
can be defined in terms of interest of the stakeholder or the society
in general. In Wind Engineering, relevant examples of DVs are the
number of lives lost during windstorms, the economic losses
resulting from windstorms, the exceeding of a (collapse or service-
ability) limit state, the discomfort of the occupants, the length of
the out-of-service time due to a windstorm, etc.
The starting points of the procedure are the relationships, ex-
pressed in probabilistic terms, between the performances specific
369
to the considered construction (no collapse, occupant safety, acces-
sibility, full functionality, limited displacements or accelerations,
etc.) and different ‘‘intensities’’ or mean return periods of the wind
action. With reference to a specific performance, usually the struc-
tural risk is conventionally measured by the probability of exceed-
ing a relevant value of the corresponding DV. This probability of
exceedance is expressed in terms of a mean annual frequency or
a complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF), that
are evaluated by taking into account the Eolian hazard (i.e. the fre-
quency of occurrence of wind actions of specified intensity and
characteristics at the site), the calculated structural response and
damages, and the correlation between the attained damage level
and the relevant DV. The structural design should be optimized
by applying a decisional strategy to the risk analyses, with the
objective of minimizing the total risk or of maximizing a utility
function. Thus, in general terms, a procedure of PBWE should con-
sist of the following steps.
First, the Eolian hazard at the site, in terms of wind intensity
and/or parameters of the wind velocity field shall be defined. The
assessment of the Eolian hazard requires the use of efficient tech-
niques for modeling wind actions on a slender structure, and the
ð1Þ
choice of the intensity measure vector IM whose stochastic charac-
teristics are able to describe sufficiently and efficiently the Eolian
ð2Þ
hazard at the site. Hence IM must be chosen by considering the
characteristics of the wind turbulence, direction and arrival pro-
cesses, the relevant features of the construction site, the structural
properties and the interaction phenomena (wind turbulence, vor-
tex shedding, aeroelastic phenomena, aerodynamic effects). How-
ever, the choice must be done by paying attention to minimizing
the needed information, since today the available data (essentially
turbulence spectra and maps of expected wind speeds) are still
ð3Þ rather limited. Then, the interaction phenomena shall be modeled
in probabilistic terms. This implies the choice and probabilistic
characterization of the interaction parameter vector IP, that allow
to take into account the relevant aspects of the interaction be-
tween the environment and the structure in the exchange zone.
The following step is the analysis of the structural response,
mainly in the context of stochastic dynamics. The probabilistic
modeling of the structural response requires the choice of the rel-
evant engineering demand parameter vector EDP (inter-storey
drifts, accelerations and velocities of selected points, stresses and
displacements, etc.). The evaluation of the structural damage (in-
ð4Þ tended as unacceptable performance) requires the choice (and
probabilistic characterization) of a damage parameter vector DM,
that is able to quantify the structural damage due to wind actions
in relation to the considered performances. The choices of EDP and
DM are strongly dependent on the considered structural type and
performances. Different parameters can be assumed as DM: they
can be defined by one or a combination of relevant EDPs (e.g. the
inter-storey drift), or by other parameters, representing e.g. the
damage to the partition or façade walls in a building as a function
of the inter-storey drift. However, in the latter case it is usually
rather difficult to establish sound correlations between the evalu-
ated EDPs and the chosen DMs.
The following step is the definition of the decision variables DVs
that are appropriate to quantify the performances required for the
structure, in terms of consequences of damage (personal damages,
restoration costs, costs due to loss or deterioration of service, alter-
ations of users comfort, etc.). The decision variables DVs must dis-
tinguish between low and high performances or performance
levels: the former (low performances) imply possible consequences
on structural and personal safety (e.g. partial or total collapse and
permanent damages); the latter (high performances) affect only ser-
viceability and comfort (e.g. small displacements, limited vibra-
tions, and wind discomfort also in the area around the
construction) [33,34]. For low performances, the significant DV
370 M. Ciampoli et al. / Structural Safety 33 (2011) 367–378
can be identified with the cost necessary to restore the construc-
tion to the undamaged state (or rebuild it in case of collapse); cor-
respondingly, DM is the set of damages to be restored, and EDP
includes the most significant response parameter for the specific
case (peak displacement or acceleration at the building top, overall
action at the base, local pressure, etc.). The shortcoming of this def-
inition is the impossibility of including in it the ‘‘intangible’’ losses,
i.e. the losses that cannot be measured in ‘‘monetary’’ terms. High
performances are related to the users’ comfort/discomfort and, in
case of buildings, to inconvenient alterations of the wind field in
pedestrian areas around the construction. Appropriate discomfort
criteria, that is, statements specifying the maximum acceptable
frequencies of occurrence for various degrees of discomfort can
be defined [35]. Using the ‘‘limit states’’ approach (i.e. if the struc-
tural risk is quantified by the probability of exceeding a limit state),
ultimate limit states (ULS) are related to low performances (exam-
ples are the attainment of the capacity of any significant part of
the structure, the fatigue collapse of some elements, the instability
of parts or of the whole structure, etc.), while serviceability limit
states (SLS) are related to high performances (examples are exces-
sive deformations or vibrations compromising the use of the struc-
ture or its function in service).
The structural risk is then evaluated on the basis of the proba-
bilistic characterization of the decision variables. Appropriate rela-
tionships between any DM and the relevant EDP allow evaluating
the damage states corresponding to given values of the response
parameter EDP, and also the resulting losses, taking into consider-
ation the relationships between DM and DV. According to the usual
definition of risk as the convolution of hazard, vulnerability and
exposure [36], the relationships between DM and DV take into ac-
count the exposure that reflects the consequences of damage. In
the PBWE procedure adopted in this paper (as in the PEER’s ap-
proach), the structural risk is defined as the probability of exceed-
ing a threshold level of a relevant DV:
Z Z Z Z Z
GðDVÞ ¼ GðDV jDMÞ  f ðDM jEDP Þ
 f ðEDPjIM;IP; SPÞ  f ðIP jIM; SPÞ  f ðIMÞ  f ðSPÞ  dDM
 dEDP  dIM  dIP  dSP
where, as already stated: DM is a damage measure; EDP is the cor-
responding engineering demand parameter, representing the struc-
tural response; the basic parameters characterizing the Eolian
hazard (Section 2) are described by a vector IM of intensity mea-
sures; the vector of the interaction parameters IP contains the set
of aerodynamic and aeroelastic parameters that allow to take into
account the relevant aspect of the interaction between the environ-
ment and the structure; SP is the vector of the parameters charac-
terizing the structural systems and non environmental actions.
By means of Eq. (5), the problem of risk assessment is disaggre-
gated into the following elements: site and structure-specific haz-
ard analyses, that is, the assessment of the probability density
functions f(IM), f(SP) and f(IP|IM, SP); structural analysis, aimed at
assessing the probability density function of the structural re-
sponse f(EDP|IM, IP, SP) conditional on the parameters characteriz-
ing the wind field and the structural properties; damage analysis,
that gives the damage probability density function f(DM|EDP) con-
ditional on EDP; finally, loss analysis, that is the assessment of
G(DV|DM).
Under these assumptions, a flowchart similar to the PEER flow-
chart can be defined for the proposed PBWE procedure (Fig. 2).
With respect to the PEER approach, the step of probabilistic char-
acterization of the interaction parameters IP has been introduced.
This step requires the assessment of the probabilistic correlation
between IP and IM, and can be based on either wind tunnels tests
or CFD techniques [37,38]. Moreover, the characterizations of the
environment (in terms of IM) and of the structural system (in
terms of SP) are made separately, the former depending on the can-
didate location of the structure, and the latter depending on the
candidate design configuration.
Eq. (5) can be simplified by assuming that the chosen EDP is a
measure of the structural damage (that is, EDP  DM), and express-
ing the performance by a Limit State (LS). The risk assessment is thus
based on the evaluation of the probability of exceedance, given by
Z Z Z Z
GðLSÞ ¼ GðLSjEDPÞ  f ðEDPjIM;IP; SPÞ  f ðIP jIM; SPÞ
 f ðIMÞ  f ðSPÞ  dEDP  dIM  dIP  dSP ð6Þ
If the limit state is quantified in terms of EDP, the whole procedure
simply requires the evaluation of the probability of exceedance:
Z 1
GðEDPÞ ¼ GðEDP jIM;IP; SPÞ  f ðIPjIM; SP Þ  f ðIMÞ  f ðSPÞ
1
 dIM  dIP  dSP ð7Þ
There are several methods for computing the integrals (5–7). In the
numerical example below (Section 4), a crude Monte Carlo simula-
tion will be used.
The final step of the procedure is the optimization of design,
that is the minimization of risk, by appropriate techniques of deci-
sion analysis. The optimization of design in PBWE would require
the development and implementation of a decisional strategy
aimed at minimizing the total risk or at maximizing an appropri-
ately defined utility. In the high performance case, the relevant
DVs could be identified with the economical losses due to wind-
storms, evaluated taking into account the whole lifetime of the
construction; in the low performance case, casualties and losses
of lives would be involved. The ethical and practical difficulties
of taking both aspects into account add to the overwhelming ana-
lytical difficulties and to the lack of reliable data: as suggested in
[39], it is realistic to leave the intangible and monetary aspects
separate, and open the final decision. These aspects are currently
being developed [40]. Moreover, it has to be noted however that
the ‘‘complete’’ decisional process is seldom fully pursued in PBSD,
and likewise in PBWE: actual procedures, like those discussed and
ð5Þ
presented in this paper, omit the last step, i.e. are limited to eval-
uating the risk, and at most to comparing the risk associated to dif-
ferent design alternatives.
4. Model of the wind field
The modeling of the wind field assumed in this paper is summa-
rized in this section: it is described in detail in several texts, e.g.
[32,41]. A discussion of the influence of the uncertainties in the
considered model and the effect of alternative models is reported
in Section 6. Indicating by x, y, z respectively the horizontal axis
orthogonal to the structure (in the example case, a suspension
bridge), the horizontal axis parallel to the structure and the vertical
axis, the three components of the wind velocity field Vx(j), Vy(j),
Vz(j) in each point j(x, y, z) of the structure (the indication of the
dependence on time is omitted for simplicity of notation) can be
expressed as the sum of a mean value Vm(j), that is time-invariant
and depends only on the height z above terrain of point j, and tur-
bulent components u(j), v(j), w(j) with zero mean. It is assumed
that Vm(j) = Vm(z) is parallel to the x axis and its value is deter-
mined from a database of values recorded at or near the site, and
evaluated as the record average over a proper time interval (e.g.
10 min) at a proper height (e.g. 10 m); the probability distribution
function of Vm(z) is assumed as [42]:
 " k #
1 V m ðzÞ
PðV m ðzÞÞ ¼ 1  exp  ð8Þ
2 r
 M. Ciampoli et al. / Structural Safety 33 (2011) 367–378 371

Hazard analysis

f (IM|O)
Environment Aerodynamic Loss analysis
Structural analysis Damage analysis
info analysis

f (IP|IM,SP) f (EDP|IM,IP,SP) f (DM|EDP) f (DV|DM )

O f (IM )
Decision-
making
IM: intensity measures

O: location Select
f (IP) G(EDP) G (DM ) G (DV )
O, D
D: design
SP: structural system
parameters IP: interaction EDP: engineering DM: damage measures DV: decision variables
parameters demand parameters
D f (SP)

Structural
system info

f (SP|D)

Structural
characterization

Fig. 2. Performance-Based Wind Engineering flowchart.

The variation of Vm(z) with the height z above a horizontal terrain of 5. Application of PBWE to the design of a long span suspension
homogeneous roughness is well described by the logarithmic law bridge
[11,42]:
  In order to check the validity of the proposed procedure for
u z
V m ðzÞ ¼  ln ð9Þ PBWE, a bridge design derived from the 2005 preliminary design
Ka z0
of the suspension bridge over the Messina Strait [31] has been con-
where Ka is the von Kármán’s constant, usually set equal to 0.41; z0 sidered as a case example (Fig. 3). To develop this example, a num-
is defined as the ‘‘roughness length’’; u is the friction or shear ber of simplified assumptions are introduced into the general
velocity (in m/s), given by: [(F)1/2  V10], where F is a coefficient procedure described so far. For details of the computations, see
dependent on the roughness length z0. [45]. The main span of the bridge is 3300 m; the total length,
The turbulent components of the wind velocity are modeled as including the side spans, is 3666 m. The cross section of the deck
Gaussian ergodic independent processes [11]. By considering the (61 m wide) is composed of three box elements, the external ones
wind acting on N points, and neglecting the component v, the tur- for the roadways and the central one for the railway. Each roadway
bulent components u and w are completely characterized by the is composed of three lanes 3.75 m wide (two driving lanes and one
power spectral density matrices [S]i (i = u, w). The diagonal terms emergency lane), and the railway has two tracks. The towers are
(auto-spectra) Sij ij ðnÞ of [S]i (j = 1, 2,. . ., N) can be expressed in 383 m high; the bridge suspension system is made by two steel
terms of normalized one-side power spectral density ([11,43]) as cables, each with a diameter of 1.24 m and a total length, between
nSuj uj ðnÞ 6:868  nu the anchor blocks, of approximately 4700 m, and by 121 pairs of
¼ ð10Þ rope hangers.
r2u ½1 þ 10:302 n2u ðzj Þ5=3
As indicated in Section 3, the structural performances are dis-
nSwj wj ðnÞ tinguished between high and low performances. In what follows,
6:103 nw
¼ ð11Þ the serviceability of the bridge under wind actions (high perfor-
r2w ½1 þ 9:1545 n2w ðzj Þ5=3 mances) is investigated by considering the behavior of the deck
where n is the current frequency (in Hz); z is the height above ter- in service, while, with regard to structural safety (low perfor-
rain (in m), r2u and r2w are the variances of the velocity fluctuations, mances), the flutter stability is considered. A more detailed descrip-
given by tion of the required performances for this complex structure can be
found in [46]. Adopting the Limit State format, hence the simplified
r2u ¼ ½6  1:1 arctanðlogðz0 Þ þ 1:75Þ  u2 ð12Þ form of PBWE [Eq. (7)], the first step of the procedure requires the
choice of appropriate EDPs (i.e. DMs), that are able to quantify the
rw considered performances. For high performances, relevant EDPs
¼ 0:5 ð13Þ
ru could be the deck rotational velocity, the deck translational and
ni(z) is a non-dimensional height-dependent frequency given by rotational accelerations, the deck twist that could generate a mis-
alignment of the rails, etc. In the example case, three EDPs have
nLi ðzÞ
ni ðzÞ ¼ ð14Þ been considered: the rotational velocity (Vrot) and the components
V m ðzÞ of the acceleration in the longitudinal Al and vertical Av directions,
In the example case, the integral scale Li(z) of the turbulent compo- all referred to the centroid (center of mass) of the cross section.
nents for i = u, w have been derived according to the procedure Two high performance levels (SLS-1 and SLS-2) have been identi-
given in [44]. fied, that correspond to full serviceability (SLS-1: both train and
372 M. Ciampoli et al. / Structural Safety 33 (2011) 367–378

+383 m +383 m
+63 m
+52 m
+118 m
+53 m +77 m

183 m 183 m
S C
777 m 3300 m 627 m

Main suspension cables (twin)

50.63 m
variable

Wind
2.78 m 12.00 m Hangers barriers

7.18 m
Service
2.69 m

lane
Railway grider Roadway grider
3.67 m

14.74 m 8.48 m

53.08 m

61.00 m

Fig. 3. Characteristics of the long-span suspension bridge considered as an example case (2005 preliminary design).

vehicle transits are allowed) and partial serviceability (SLS-2: only
train transit is allowed). The two levels are identified by different
thresholds. In the low performance criterion (ULS-FL: avoidance
of flutter instability), the motion must not diverge: the EDP is iden-
tified with the total damping d of a relevant displacement time-his-
tory, i.e. the vertical displacement of the mid-span section, that
must be positive. For each performance, failure is attained when
the peak value (with reference to the whole bridge deck) of the rel-
evant EDP overcomes the corresponding threshold (that defines the
‘‘failure criterion’’) during the considered windstorm. Relevant
threshold values are summarized in Table 1.
The analyses have been carried out in time domain on a finite
element model of the bridge; the total number of elements (beams,
no compression cable elements and gaps) is 1614, and the number
of nodes is 1140. A Newmark’s time integration scheme has been
adopted, to take into account nonlinear and second order effects.
The incident turbulent wind velocity time series have been gener-
ated as components of a multivariate, multidimensional Gaussian
stationary stochastic process; the Weighted Amplitude Wave
Superposition method (WAWS) and a Proper Orthogonal Decom-
position (POD) of the PSD matrix [43] have been adopted. Starting
from the wind velocity time series, the wind actions have been
evaluated by aeroelastic theories [47,48]. With regard to low per-
formance (ULS-FL) and the determination of the flutter velocity,
the wind flow has been modeled as non turbulent (laminar).
The PBWE procedure requires, for each considered perfor-
mance, the evaluation of the annual probability of exceeding the
threshold value of each response parameter [Eq. (7)]. In the numer-
ical example, the IP and SP parameters have been considered deter-
ministic, and IM is reduced to one parameter, namely the mean
wind velocity evaluated at the height of 10 m, that is assumed as
a random variable, with the Weibull CDF given by Eq. (8). In order
to describe the 10-min average wind velocity, the parameters r
and k have been set equal to 6.02 m/s and 2.02 according to a data-
base available for the site of the bridge. The roughness length z0
has been set equal to 0.05 m. This value, that corresponds to a ter-
rain of second category according to Structural Eurocode EN 1991
[49], is higher than the currently adopted value for over-water
roughness length: however, it has been specifically indicated in
the guidelines for the design of the bridge (see Section 6.1 for an
investigation of the effect of this value). Starting from the mean
wind velocity evaluated at the height of 10 meters, the mean wind
velocity Vm(zdeck) at the height of the deck zdeck (equal at midspan
to 77 m) is evaluated by Eq. (9).

Table 1
Considered performances and failure criteria.

Limit state Performance EDP Threshold

SLS SLS-1 Full serviceability Vrot Al Av max {Vrot} = 0.040 rad/s max {Al} = 2.5 m/s2 max {Av} = 0.7 m/s2
SLS-2 Partial serviceability max {Vrot} = 0.043 rad/s max {Al} = 2.5 m/s2 max {Av} = 1.0 m/s2
(only railway traffic is allowed)
ULS ULS-FL Preservation of structural integrity Total (structural + aerodynamic) min {d} = 0
damping d
 M. Ciampoli et al. / Structural Safety 33 (2011) 367–378
Obviously, considering just one parameter as the only source of
uncertainty in characterizing the wind field represents a drastic
simplification: however, in the Authors’ opinion this choice does
not affect the validity of the proposed procedure. The developed
numerical calculations shall be considered as a check of its feasibil-
ity; the role of different sources of uncertainty will be considered if
the real problem of the optimal design of the considered bridge
should be faced with. Moreover, in parallel with the development
of the procedure, a huge effort is currently devoted to collect data
about the probabilistic characterization of the relevant parameters,
together with their correlation. In the example case, only the alea-
tory uncertainty has been considered; however in the following,
some remarks about the relevance of the epistemic and model
uncertainties will be illustrated.
5.1. Results for high performances (serviceability)
The annual probability densities and distribution functions of
the three considered EDPs, evaluated by Monte Carlo simulation
(500 runs), are reported in Fig. 4. From Fig. 4c it is evident that
the longitudinal acceleration Al is always lower than the given
threshold; hence the corresponding serviceability criterion is auto-
matically satisfied in the considered example. This would suggest
that the criterion does not appear significant for the design: there-
fore, it has been neglected in the successive elaborations.
In Figs. 5 and 6, the fragility curves of the bridge deck, evaluated
considering three different threshold values of the two relevant
EDPs (the rotational velocity Vrot and the vertical acceleration Av)
are shown. By definition, the fragility functions P(EDP|IM) define
the probability of violation of a threshold: those shown in Figs 5
and 6 have been assessed by following a procedure analogous to
the procedure described in [50]. For each EDP, a performance indi-
cator Yi has been introduced, defined as
EDPi
Yi ¼ ð15Þ
EDPi
where EDPi is the threshold value corresponding to the relevant
performance criterion. Under these assumptions it is possible to
write the fragility function as follows:
PðEDPi P EDPi jIMÞ ¼ PðY i P 1jIMÞ ¼ PðIM P IMðY i ¼ 1ÞÞ ð16Þ
where IM(Yi = 1) is the value of IM for which Yi = 1. IM(Yi = 1) is as-
sumed as a stochastic variable described by a Lognormal distribu-
tion whose median and fractional standard deviation have been
computed by using the results of Monte Carlo simulation.
In Fig. 7, the fragility curves evaluated for the threshold values
corresponding to each full serviceability criterion (Table 1, SLS-1)
are shown (thin lines): it can be noted that for small wind veloci-
ties, the Av performance criterion (denoted by +) prevails, while for
large velocities the Vrot criterion (denoted by ) prevails. The ser-
viceability of the bridge should be evaluated with respect to viola-
tion of either performance criterion: the corresponding fragility
curve, derived directly from results of Monte Carlo simulation, is
plotted as a bold line in the same Fig. 7. In Figs 8 (a), (b), (c), the
complementary cumulative probability distribution functions
G(EDP), evaluated by Eq. (7) for each EDP, are reported. From these
functions, the exceedance probabilities corresponding to the
threshold values reported in Table 1 (i.e. the probabilities of not
satisfying the corresponding performances) are derived. These val-
ues are reported in Table 2, together with the values of the proba-
bility of exceeding any performance criterion for the same limit
state, evaluated for both SLS-1 and SLS-2.
373
5.2. Results for low performance (avoidance flutter instability)
In evaluating the flutter condition, the aerodynamic coefficients
in Fig. 9a have been considered. By means of a time-domain anal-
ysis based on the Quasi-Steady (QS) theory for the evaluation of the
aeroelastic forces [47,51], the time series of the vertical displace-
ment at bridge midspan for several values of Vm(zdeck) have been
obtained [Fig. 10a]. Damping has been evaluated as the parameter
d of the envelope function:
qðtÞ ¼ q  q0  edt ð17Þ
of the time series. d represents the total damping of the structural
system, which is the sum of the structural component (assumed
to be constant and equal to 0.5%) and the aerodynamic component.
In Fig. 10(b), the total damping d is shown as a function of Vm(zdeck).
The low performance criterion: d > 0 is satisfied for
Vm(zdeck) < 70 m/s. Hence the critical flutter velocity is:
Vcrit = 70 m/s. The probability of loss of the structural integrity as
a consequence of flutter instability is equal to the probability that
the mean wind velocity exceeds 70 m/s. Note that the design
guidelines for this bridge [31] indicate 57 m/s as the limit flutter
wind velocity; therefore the corresponding performance criterion
would be satisfied in a deterministic framework, since
Vcrit > 57 m/s. In Section 6, the role of the uncertainties of the mod-
el assumed for evaluating Vcrit and of the aerodynamic coefficients
will be discussed.
6. Investigation on further sources of uncertainty
6.1. Uncertainty of the roughness length
In the analyses illustrated in Section 5.1, only the randomness
of the mean value of the wind velocity has been considered. In Sec-
tion 2, it has been recognized that also the uncertainty of the
roughness length z0 should be taken into account; however, very
little research has been so far performed to characterize the vari-
ability of z0. As a preliminary check of its relevance, Monte Carlo
simulations have been repeated assuming three different values
of the roughness length: z0 = 0.05 m (the value assumed in
Section 5.1); z0 = 0.10 m; z0 = 0.20 m. In Fig. 11, the three resulting
functions G(Vrot) are reported: the large effect of variations in the
roughness length on the risk of the bridge appears evident (the risk
decreases when z0 is increased).
6.2. Uncertainty of the aerodynamic coefficients
In Section 5.2, only the variation of the mean wind velocity Vm
has been considered in deriving the critical (flutter) velocity Vcrit,
and the uncertainty of the interaction parameters IP (in this case,
the aerodynamic coefficients) has been disregarded. The relevance
of the uncertainty of the aerodynamic coefficients has been inves-
tigated by a parametric analysis, adopting a linear combination of
the two sets of aerodynamic coefficients A and B (Fig. 9), that were
derived in experimental tests on models at different scales [29,52]:
cL ðaÞ ¼ cL B ðaÞ  PL þ cL A ðaÞ  ð1  PL Þ
ð18Þ
cM ðaÞ ¼ cM B ðaÞ  PM þ cM A ðaÞ  ð1  PM Þ
where: ci_j (i = L, M and j = A, B) is the aerodynamic coefficient i, cor-
responding to the set j; a is the generic angle of attack; PL and PM are
combination parameters, which vary between 0 and 1. The resulting
flutter velocities are shown in Fig. 12; the points marked by a cross
have been evaluated by the FE analysis, the others have been de-
rived by linear interpolation. The response surface in Fig. 12 shows
that the uncertainty of the interaction parameters should not be
disregarded; in particular, the influence of the uncertainty of the
374 M. Ciampoli et al. / Structural Safety 33 (2011) 367–378

70
(a) 0.12 (b)
Vrot [rad/s] SLS-1
SLS-1 SLS-2
SLS- 2
0.10 100%
0.1

0.08
0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02
Vm (zdeck ) [m/s]
0
0.00 0 0%

Other
0.000
0.008
0.017
0.025
0.034
0.000
0.008
0.017
0.025
0.034
0.042
0.051
0.059
0.067
0.076
0.084
0.093
0.101
Other
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Other
0.000
0.008
0.017
0.025
0.034
0.042
0.051
0.059
0.067
0.076
0.084
0.093
0.101
210

(c) 3.00 (d)

Al [m/s2] 100%
100%
2.50
SLS-1 SLS-2

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50
Vm (zdeck ) [m/s]
0.00 0 0%

Other
0.000
0.036
0.071
0.107
0.134
0.178
0.214
0.250
0.285
0.321
0.357
0.392
0.428
0.000
0.036
0.071
0.107
0.143
0.178
0.214
0.250
0.285
0.321
0.357
0.392
0.428
Other
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

70
4.00
(e) Av [m/s2] SLS-1 SLS-2
(f)
3.50 100%
100%
3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50
Vm (z deck ) [m/s]
0.00 0 0%
0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Other
0.000
0.205
0.410
0.614
0.819
1.024
1.228
1.433
1.637
1.842
2.047
2.251
2.456
0.614
0.819

2.251

Other
0.000
0.205
0.410

1.024
1.228
1.433
1.637
1.842
2.047

2.456
Other

Fig. 4. High performances: results of Monte Carlo simulations (500 runs): (a), (c), (e): maximum values of Vrot, Al and Av; (b), (d), (f): corresponding histograms and
cumulative distribution functions.

moment coefficient cM is more relevant than the uncertainty of the
lift coefficient cL.
6.3. Uncertainty of the wind-action model
Also the uncertainties in modeling the aeroelastic actions play a
major role: this question has been investigated with some detail in
[28] and [47]. Lacking a quantitative treatment, four simplified
models of increasing complexity have been successively consid-
ered, namely: the non-aeroelastic (NO) theory (aeroelastic effects
are disregarded, and the angle of incidence of the wind changes
with time only due to wind turbulence); the steady (ST) theory
(the angle of incidence changes with time due to both the incident
wind turbulence and the torsional rotation – twist – of the deck);
the quasi-steady (QS) theory (the instantaneous aeroelastic forces
acting on the structure are the same that act on the structure when
it moves with constant translational and rotational velocities, with
values equal to the actual instantaneous ones: the angle of inci-
dence changes with time due to both the incident wind turbulence
and the torsional rotation – twist – of the deck, but is computed by
considering the relative velocity between the wind and the deck);
the modified quasi-steady (QSM) theory (the aerodynamic lift and
moment coefficients are considered variable with time and mea-
sured by wind tunnel tests [52]). The analyses have been per-
formed for mean incident wind speeds equal respectively to 21,
45 and 57 m/s. It has been noted (see [47]) that, when the action
model complexity increases (from NO to QSM), both the mean val-
ues and the variances of the deck response parameters (displace-
 M. Ciampoli et al. / Structural Safety 33 (2011) 367–378 375

1
P( Vrot > v rot*|V m(zdeck))
(a) 1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8

0.7

G(EDP)
0.6
0.6

0.5 0.4

0.4
0.2
0.3

0.2 0
0.1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
V m(zdeck) [m/s] EDP = Vrot - DM = max (vrot) [rad/s]
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Fig. 5. Fragility curves for EDP = Vrot and three different threshold values – D:
(b) 1.0
mrot = 0.02 rad/s; s: mrot = 0.03 rad/s; h: mrot = 0.04 rad/s (full serviceability).
0.8

G(EDP)
0.6

1
0.4
0 .9 P( A v > a v*|V m(z deck ))

0 .8 0.2

0 .7

0 .6
0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
0 .5
EDP = Al - DM= max (Al ) [m/s 2 ]
0 .4

0 .3 (c) 1.0
0 .2
0.8
0 .1 Vm(z deck ) [m/s]
G(EDP)

0 0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Fig. 6. Fragility curves for EDP = Av and three different threshold values – D: 0.4
am = 0.45 m/s2; s: am = 0.63 m/s2; h: am = 0.90 m/s2 (full serviceability).

0.2

0
1 0 1 2 3

0.9 * + EDP = A v - DM= max (a v) [m/s2 ]

0.8 Fig. 8. Exceedance probabilities (a) G(Vrot), (b) G(Al), (c) G(Av).

0.7
+*
0.6

0.5
Table 2
0.4 ‘‘Failure’’ probabilities.

0.3 Limit Failure Probability of Probability of not

state criterion not satisfying satisfying either
0.2 each performance performance
criterion criterion
0.1
Vm(zdeck ) [m/s] SLS SLS-1 Vrot P 0.04 rad/s 0.0720 0.1541
0 Al P 2.5 m/s2 ffi0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Av P 0.7 m/s2 0.150
SLS-2 Vrot P 0.043 rad/s 0.0620 0.0980
Fig. 7. Comparison between the fragility curves corresponding to each full Al P 2.5 m/s2 ffi0
serviceability criterion (+: Av; : Vrot) and (in bold line) to the violation of either Av P 1.0 m/s2 0.0920
performance criterion.
376 M. Ciampoli et al. / Structural Safety 33 (2011) 367–378

0.3 1.0
(a) z0=0.2
0.2 z0=0.1
0.8 z0=0.05
0.1

0
0.6

G(EDP )
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
-0.1
[deg]
-0.2 0.4

-0.3

-0.4 0.2

-0.5
Drag Lift Moment 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12

0.3 EDP = Vrot - DM = max ( vrot) [rad/s]

(b)
0.2 Fig. 11. Exceedance probability functions G(Vrot) for three values of the roughness
length.
0.1

0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
-0.1
[deg]
-0.2 Vcrit
400
-0.3

-0.4 300

-0.5
Drag Lift Moment 200

Fig. 9. Polar lines (plots of aerodynamic coefficients): (a) basic; (b) alternative.
100

0
(a) 0.525
1
q [m] 1
0
0.520 0.5
q=q+q0· e-δt PPMM 0.5
P
PL
L
0.515 0 0
= computed by the = obtained by minimum
0.510 FE model squares method

Fig. 12. Critical flutter velocities: response surface obtained by varying the polar
0.505 lines.

t t[sec]
[sec]
0.500 ments, rotations, velocities) decrease. The same trend appears also
600
600 700 800 900
900 1000
1000 in the distributions along the whole length of the bridge of the
maximum transversal and vertical displacements.
(b) 1.5
Damp (%)
1.0 7. Concluding remarks

0.5 This paper essentially aims at setting up a roadmap towards a

general procedure for the assessment of the performances of struc-
0.0 tures subject to wind actions. The approach proposed by PEER for
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Performance-Based Seismic Engineering has been extended to Per-
-0.5 formance-Based Wind Engineering (PBWE): the structural risk is
Wind Velocity [m/s]
identified with the mean annual probability of exceeding a thresh-
-1.0
old level of a Decision Variable. The general aspects of the proposed
approach have been outlined and exemplified with reference to a
-1.5
specific case: the assessment of the out-of-service and collapse
Total Structural Aerodynamic
risks of a long span suspension bridge. The main results of the
Fig. 10. (a) Typical time series of the vertical displacement at bridge midspan for a numerical calculations have been illustrated and discussed. In
given value of Vm; (b) damping as functions of Vm. the final Section 6, a few qualitative results on the effects of some
 M. Ciampoli et al. / Structural Safety 33 (2011) 367–378
sources of uncertainty have been presented: their great importance
is evident. It can be concluded that PBWE is feasible, but to make it
more reliable it is essential to improve the probabilistic description
of the parameters of the wind field at the site and the phenomena
that represent the interaction between the wind actions and the
structure. This will require collecting and elaborating many more
experimental data, and much further research work also to improve
the framework proposed in this paper, including optimization.
Acknowledgements
The researches presented in this paper have been developed
within the Wi-POD Project (2008–2010) and other research pro-
jects in wind engineering, partially financed by the Italian Ministry
for Education, University and Research (MIUR). This paper is an ex-
tended and updated version of the papers presented at ICOSSAR’09
[27], COMPDYN’09 [28] and IMECE’09 [30], and is a synthesis of the
results illustrated in [45].
References
[1] Augusti G, Ciampoli M. Performance-based design in risk assessment and
reduction. Probabilist Eng Mech 2008;23(4):496–508.
[2] Augusti G, Ciampoli M. Performance-based design as a strategy for risk
reduction: application to seismic risk assessment of composite steel-concrete
frames. In: Korytowski A, Malanowski K, Mitkowski W, Szymkat M, editors.
System modeling and optimization – 23rd IFIP TC7 Conference. Springer
Verlag; 2009. p. 3–22.
[3] Porter KA. An overview of PEER’s performance-based engineering methodology. In:
Armen Der Kiureghian A, Madanat S, Pestana JM editors. Applications of statistics
and probability in civil engineering – proceedings of the ninth international
conference on applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering ICASP9;
San Francisco, CA, USA. Rotterdam: Millpress; 2003. p. 973–80.
[4] Paulotto C, Ciampoli M, Augusti G. Some proposals for a first step towards a
performance based wind engineering. In: Proceedings of the IFED-
international forum in engineering decision making; First Forum, December,
5–9, Stoos, Switzerland; 2004. <http://www.ifed.ethz.ch>.
[5] Kareem A. Wind effects on structures: a probabilistic viewpoint. Probabilist
Eng Mech 1987;4(2):166–200.
[6] Schuëller GI, editor. A state-of-the-art report on computational stochastic
mechanics. Probabilist Eng Mech 1997;12(4):197–321.
[7] Kareem A. Numerical simulation of wind effects: a probabilistic perspective. J
Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2008;96:1472–97.
[8] Davenport AG. On the assessment of the reliability of wind loading on low
buildings. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 1983;11(1–3):21–37.
[9] Kasperski M, Niemann HJ. A general method of estimating unfavorable load
distributions for linear and non-linear structural behavior. J Wind Eng Ind
Aerodyn 1992;43(1–3).
[10] Holmes JD. Wind loading of structures, application of probabilistic methods.
Prog Struct Eng Mater 1998;1(2):193–9.
[11] Solari G, Piccardo G. Probabilistic 3-D turbulence modeling for gust buffeting
of structures. Probabilist Eng Mech 2001;16:73–86.
[12] Minciarelli F, Gioffrè M, Grigoru M, Simiu E. Estimates of extreme wind effects
and wind load factors: influence of knowledge uncertainties. Probabilist Eng
Mech 2001;16:331–40.
[13] Kareem A. Aerodynamic response of structures with parametric uncertainties.
Struct Safety 1988;5:205–25.
[14] Solari G. Wind-excited response of structures with uncertain parameters.
Probabilist Eng Mech 1997;12(2):75–87.
[15] Pagnini LC, Solari G. Serviceability criteria for wind-acceleration and damping
uncertainties. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 1998;74–76:1067–78.
[16] Zhang L, Jie L, Peng Y. Dynamic response and reliability analysis of tall
buildings subject to wind loading. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2008;96:25–40.
[17] Unanwa CO, McDonald JR, Mehta KC, Smith DA. The development of wind
damage bands for buildings. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2000;84:119–49.
[18] Rosowski DV, Ellingwood BR. Performance-based engineering of wood frame
housing: fragility analysis methodology. J Struct Eng 2002;128(1):32–8.
[19] Ellingwood BR, Rosowsky DV, Li Y, Kim JH. Fragility assessment of light-frame
wood construction subjected to wind and earthquake hazards. J Struct Eng
2004;130(12):1921–30.
[20] van der Lindt JW, Dao TN. Performance-based wind engineering for wood-
frame buildings. J Struct Eng 2009;135(2):169–77.
[21] Khanduri AC, Morrow GC. Vulnerability of buildings to windstorms and
insurance loss estimation. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2003;91:455–67.
[22] Garciano LE, Maruyama O, Koike T. Performance-based design of wind
turbines for typhoons. In: Augusti G, Schuëller GI, Ciampoli M, editors.
Safety and reliability of engineering systems and structures – proceedings of
the 9th international conference on structural safety and reliability
ICOSSAR05; Rome, Italy. Rotterdam: Millpress; 2005 (Paper in CD-ROM).
377
[23] Bashor R, Kijewski-Correa T, Kareem A. On the wind-induced response of tall
buildings: the effect of uncertainties in dynamic properties and human
comfort thresholds. In: Proceedings of the 10th Americas conference on wind
engineering, Baton Rouge, LA; 2005. <http://www.nd.edu/~nathaz/>.
[24] Bashor R, Kareem A. Probabilistic performance evaluation of buildings: an
occupant comfort perspective. In: Proceedings 12th international conference
on wind engineering, Cairns, Australia; 2007. <http://www.nd.edu/~nathaz/>.
[25] Tamura Y. Wind and tall buildings. In: Borri C, Augusti G, Bartoli G, Facchini L,
editors. Proceedings of the 5th European and African conference on wind
engineering; Florence, Italy. Florence: Firenze University Press; 2009. p. k3–
k28.
[26] Kim JY, Yu E, Kim DY, Kim SD. Calibration of analytical models to assess wind-
induced acceleration responses of tall buildings in serviceability level. Eng
Struct 2009;31(9):2086–96.
[27] Ciampoli M, Petrini F, Augusti G. A procedure for performance-based wind
engineering. In: Furuta I, Frangopol D, Shinozuka M, editors. Safety, reliability
and risk of structures, infrastructures and engineering systems – proceedings
of the 10th international conference on structural safety and reliability,
ICOSSAR09; Osaka, Japan, AK. Leiden: CRC Press; 2009 (Paper in CD-ROM).
[28] Petrini F, Ciampoli M, Augusti G. The role of uncertainties in Aeolian Risk
assessment. In: Papadrakakis M, Stefanou G, Papadopoulos V, editors.
Computational methods in stochastic dynamics, computational methods in
applied sciences, vol. 22. Springer; 2011. p. 187–208.
[29] Petrini F, Ciampoli M, Augusti G. A probabilistic framework for performance-
based wind engineering. In: Borri C, Augusti G, Bartoli G, Facchini L, editors.
Proceedings of the 5th European and African conference on wind engineering;
Florence, Italy. Florence: Firenze University Press; 2009 [abstract 119, paper in
CD-ROM].
[30] Augusti G, Ciampoli M, Petrini F. Reliability of structural systems under wind
action. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2009 international mechanical
engineering congress and exposition IMECE2009: mechanical systems and
control, Parts A and B, vol. 10, November 13–19, Lake Buena Vista, Florida,
USA; 2009 [Paper No. 12357 in CD-ROM].
[31] Bontempi F. Basis of design and expected performances for the Messina Strait
Bridge. In: Proceedings of the international conference on bridge engineering –
challenges in the 21st Century, November 1–3, Hong Kong, China; 2006 [Paper
in CD-ROM].
[32] Simiu E, Scanlan RH. Wind effects on structures, 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley
& Sons Inc; 1996.
[33] Augusti G, Ciampoli M. First steps towards Performance-based wind
engineering. In: Bartoli G, Ricciardelli F, Saetta A, Sepe V, editors.
Performance of wind exposed structures: results of the PERBACCO Project,
Florence: Firenze University Press; 2006. p. 13–20.
[34] Stathopoulos T. Wind and Comfort. In: Borri C, Augusti G, Bartoli G, Facchini L,
editors. Proceedings of the 5th European and African conference on wind
engineering. Florence: Firenze University Press; 2009. p. k67–k82.
[35] Kwok KCS, Burton MD, Hitchcock PA. Human perception of tall building
motions in strong wind environments. In: The 5th international
advanced school on wind engineering – GCOE program new frontier of
education and research in wind engineering; Opole, Poland, March 23–25,
2009. p. 159–74.
[36] Augusti G, Ciampoli M. Heritage buildings and seismic reliability. Prog Struct
Eng Mater 2000;2(2):225–37.
[37] Morgenthal G. Aerodynamic Analysis of Structures Using High-resolution
Vortex Particle Methods. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge, Department of
Engineering, Magdalene College; 2002.
[38] Bruno L, Khris S. The validity of 2D numerical simulations of vortical structures
around a bridge deck. Math Comput Model 2003;37:795–828.
[39] Augusti G, Borri A, Ciampoli M. Seismic protection of constructed facilities:
optimal use of resources. Struct Safety 1994;16(1,2):91–109.
[40] Spence SMJ. Time Domain Non-Gaussian Optimization of Wind Excited Tall
Buildings under Vulnerability Constraints. PhD Dissertation, University of
Florence and Technical University of Braunschweig (joint PhD course), Italy
and Germany; 2010.
[41] Holmes JD. Wind loading of structures. Spoon Press; 2001.
[42] Lungu D, Rackwitz R. Joint Committee on Structural Safety – Probabilistic
Model Code, Part 2: Loads; 2001. <http://www.jcss.ethz.ch/>.
[43] Carassale L, Solari G. Monte Carlo simulation of wind velocity field on complex
structures. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2006;94:323–39.
[44] ESDU (Engineering Sciences Data Unit) Report N. 86010. Characteristic of
atmospheric turbulence near the ground. Part III: variations in space and time
for strong winds (neutral atmosphere); 2001. <http://www.esdu.com>.
[45] Petrini F. A probabilistic approach to Performance-Based Wind Engineering
(PBWE). PhD Dissertation, University of Rome ‘‘La Sapienza’’, Rome, Italy;
2009.
[46] Petrini F, Bontempi F. Estimation of fatigue life for long span suspension bridge
hangers under wind action and train transit. Struct Infrastruct Eng
2010;7(7):491–507.
[47] Petrini F, Giuliano F, Bontempi F. Comparison of time domain techniques for
the evaluation of the response and the stability in long span suspension
bridges. Comput Struct 2007;85:1032–48.
[48] Salvatori L, Borri C. Frequency and time-domain methods for the
numerical modeling of full-bridge aeroelasticity. Comput Struct
2007;85:675–87.
[49] CEN 2004. EN 1991 1-4: actions on structures: Part 1–4: wind actions.
Brussels, BE.
378 M. Ciampoli et al. / Structural Safety 33 (2011) 367–378

[50] Jalayer F, Franchin P, Pinto PE. A scalar damage measure for seismic reliability [52] Diana G, Falco M, Bruni S, Cigada A, Larose GL, Damsgaard A, et al. Comparison
analysis of RC frames. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2007;36:2059–79. between wind tunnel tests on a full aeroelastic model of the proposed bridge
[51] Borri C, Costa C. Quasi-steady analysis of a two-dimensional bridge deck over Stretto di Messina and numerical results. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn
element. Comput Struct 2004;82:993–1006. 1995;54/55:101–13.