Generalized Wind Loading Chain: Time-Frequency

Modeling Framework for Nonstationary

Wind Effects on Structures
Ahsan Kareem, Dist.M.ASCE 1; Liang Hu 2; Yanlin Guo, A.M.ASCE 3; and Dae-Kun Kwon, M.ASCE 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 07/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This study proposes a generalized wind loading chain to describe a complete relationship among wind, force, and response
induced by nonstationary wind events such as tropical storms or downbursts to complement the Davenport wind loading chain. In the pro-
posed chain, nonstationary winds are represented as a nonstationary model in terms of the time-varying mean and nonstationary fluctuating
wind components similar to a stationary model involving the mean and stationary fluctuating wind components in the Davenport’s stationary
wind loading chain. Specifically, the five chain components of the fluctuating wind in the Davenport’s chain such as gustiness of wind,
aerodynamic transfer/admittance, aerodynamic force, structural transfer/admittance, and response statistics are recast as time-dependent
counterparts in the time-frequency domain to capture nonstationary winds effects on structures. These components are formulated using
the evolutionary power spectral density (EPSD) as a form of time-frequency representation that captures salient features of nonstationary
tropical storm and downburst winds. As an alternative, a wavelet-based representation is also offered. A numerical example demonstrates the
estimation of nonstationary response using the proposed generalized chain. For possible codification of nonstationary wind effects on struc-
tures, a preliminary examination suggests that the extreme nonstationary response computed by the generalized chain may be conveniently
meshed with the gust front factor or its generalized version frameworks. This may facilitate a rapid shift in the current design approach from
stationary to nonstationary winds. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002376. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Generalized wind loading chain; Nonstationary winds; Evolutionary power spectral density (EPSD); Wavelet
transform; Extreme response; Gust front factor (GFF).

Introduction
Over the years, it has been noted that some extreme wind events
recorded, while exhibiting dominant wind speeds, may not fall
broadly in the category of stationary synoptic winds, e.g., tropical
storms (typhoons, hurricanes, cyclones), downbursts, etc. With
strong vertical components of vorticity and convection, the chang-
ing kinematics and dynamics of these exceptional winds modify
or vitiate the boundary layer structure and develop an organized
structure in the horizontal plane, resulting in nonstationary and
even transient nature of winds. Impacts of nonstationary features of
such exceptional winds on the wind resistant design of civil struc-
tures thus need further examination.
Nonstationary winds involve time-dependent statistical prop-
erties, in contrast to the time-invariant properties of stationary
1
Robert M. Moran Professor, NatHaz Modeling Laboratory, Dept. of
Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, Univ. of Notre
Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556. Email: kareem@nd.edu
2
Ph.D. Student, NatHaz Modeling Laboratory, Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, Univ. of Notre Dame,
Notre Dame, IN 46556 (corresponding author). Email: peettr@gmail.com
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523. Email: yanlin.guo@
colostate.edu
4
Research Assistant Professor, NatHaz Modeling Laboratory, Dept. of
Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, Univ. of Notre
Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556. Email: dkwon@nd.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 19, 2018; approved on
January 15, 2019; published online on July 16, 2019. Discussion period
open until December 16, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
synoptic winds. Field measurements have shown that the mean
wind as well as the spectral content of fluctuating components of
nonstationary winds may vary with time considerably (Wang et al.
2016; Wang and Kareem 2004; Xu and Chen 2004). Accordingly,
the nonturbulent component of nonstationary winds needs be char-
acterized by the time-varying mean wind estimated or modeled
based on full-scale measurements (Bendat and Piersol 2010; Chen
et al. 2007; Chen and Letchford 2007), whereas the turbulent
(or fluctuating) wind component may be captured by the time-
frequency tools such as evolutionary power spectral density
(EPSD) (e.g., Chay et al. 2006; Chen and Letchford 2004a; Chen
2008, 2015; Kwon and Kareem 2009, 2013; Priestley 1965; Wang
and Kareem 2004), empirical modal decomposition (EMD) (Huang
et al. 2016; Kareem et al. 1999), and wavelet transform (Gurley and
Kareem 1999; Spanos and Failla 2005), etc. Furthermore, these
nonstationary characteristics may amplify structural response in
consideration of the transient aerodynamics and structural dynam-
ics (Kareem 2009). Based on the nonstationary modeling, the tran-
sient aerodynamic effects of nonstationary winds on structures have
been investigated through wind tunnel tests (Butler et al. 2010) and
numerical simulations (Chay et al. 2006), which highlighted that
research needs to evaluate the nonstationary wind-induced re-
sponse (e.g., Chen and Letchford 2004b; Chen 2008, 2015; Hu
et al. 2013; Kawai 2000; Kwon and Kareem 2009, 2013). Conse-
quently, nonstationary winds may significantly affect the design
wind loading, rendering the application of the widely used gust
loading factor approach in codes and standards problematic, as
it is based on the stationary assumption of synoptic winds.
Based on past studies regarding nonstationary winds and their
impacts on structures in recent decades, we are at an appropriate
juncture to reflect on recent advances, reassess their advantages

© ASCE 04019092-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(10): 04019092

 and shortcomings, and identify the need for embarking on general
modeling philosophies and paradigms. The current paradigms con-
cerning the wind resistant design are based on the well-established
Davenport’s wind loading chain (Davenport 1967; Isyumov 2012),
which was proposed for synoptic winds and primarily focused
on stationary winds. Implicit or partial extension of Davenport’s
chain in the context of nonstationary winds has been attempted
for tropical storm and thunderstorm/downburst wind events (Chen
2008, 2015; Hu et al. 2013; Kwon and Kareem 2009; Solari et al.
2015). However, a more comprehensive framework for shaping the
design practice to encapsulate the generic nature of nonstationary
winds that seamlessly reduces to Davenport’s loading chain in
the case of stationary winds is missing. To this end, this paper
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 07/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
proposes a generalized wind loading chain framework that extends
Davenport’s wind loading chain to appropriately model a nonsta-
tionary wind-force-response relationship in time-frequency represen-
tations. This framework reduces to the Davenport’s formulation for
stationary winds and thus enables researchers to capture both sta-
tionary and nonstationary wind effects on structures, and therefore
has been referred to as the generalized loading chain. In this study,
the generalized chain is formulated using evolutionary power
spectral density and wavelet transform as time-frequency represen-
tations for capturing salient features of nonstationary tropical
storm and downburst winds. Its efficacy is demonstrated through
a numerical example. Finally, a preliminary examination of its fea-
sibility that the extreme nonstationary response computed by the
generalized chain may be conveniently coupled with the gust front
factor (GFF) or generalized gust front factor (G-GFF) frameworks,
which may enable to rapidly shift the current design paradigm from
stationary to nonstationary winds, has been made.
Modeling of Nonstationary Winds
Modeling of nonstationary wind events is the most critical but also
the most delicate step. Universal parametric models for stationary
winds (e.g., mean wind, wind spectrum of fluctuating wind com-
ponent, wind profile, etc.) have been refined over decades based on
full-scale observations and advances in modeling. Using the prop-
erties of ergodicity and homogeneity, these models are applicable
anytime and anywhere with adjustable site-specific parameters.
However, developing such models for nonstationary winds is quite
challenging. Both the forms and parameters of nonstationary mod-
els are contingent on temporal and spatial features and the mecha-
nism of nonstationarity (e.g., distinct characteristics of tropical
storms and downbursts), i.e., the inherent lack of ergodicity and
inhomogeneity of nonstationary winds as compared to stationary
ones. The paucity of measurement data under such wind events
further compounds the difficulty of universal models. Currently,
the development of universal models for nonstationary wind char-
acteristics (e.g., time-varying mean and time-frequency wind spec-
trum, vertical wind profile, etc.) is still in progress and far from
maturation, which although it suggests multiple research opportu-
nities, is beyond the scope of this paper.
Time-Varying Mean Wind
In this study, similar to the stationary wind model comprised of
the sum of mean and fluctuating wind components, a nonstationary
wind model involving time dependency is utilized, which is ex-
pressed as the sum of time-varying mean and zero-mean nonsta-
tionary fluctuating (or turbulent) wind components (Fig. 1)
Uðz; tÞ ¼ Ūðz; tÞ þ uðz; tÞ ð1Þ
© ASCE 04019092-2
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(10): 04019092
where Uðz; tÞ = the nonstationary wind; Ūðz; tÞ = the time-varying
mean wind; and uðz; tÞ = the nonstationary fluctuating wind.
Assuming that the nonstationary wind field may be factorized into
a product of time and space components, the time-varying mean
wind may be expressed as
Ūðz; tÞ ¼ Ū 0 · Ū H ðzÞ · Ū T ðtÞ ð2Þ
where Ū 0 = the reference horizontal mean wind at a specified
height H0 (e.g., 10 m above the ground); Ū H ðzÞ = the vertical
profile of nonstationary winds; and Ū T ðtÞ = the time function
normalized with respect to Ū 0 . Among these three components,
Ū 0 describes the intensity of nonstationary winds events, whereas
Ū H ðzÞ and Ū T ðtÞ represent the spatial and temporal variation of
nonstationary winds that may differentiate themselves from con-
ventional stationary winds.

0
Reference Mean Wind U
The reference mean wind speed at a specific height is defined as the
wind speed averaged over a specified time period (T 0 ) of concern.
Note that the time scales of tropical storms and downbursts are sig-
nificantly different. The tropical storms usually have a much larger
time scale (usually 1–2 days) compared to that of downburst
(about 5–30 min) (e.g., Letchford and Chay 2002) and this differ-
ence may contribute to the discrepancy of models. Variable T 0 also
should be selected with reference to empirical time periods em-
ployed for characterizing winds commonly in the past. In this study,
the values of 10 min and 1 h are used for downbursts and tropical
storms, respectively. For downbursts, Ū 0 has usually been taken as
the maximum of the short time-averaged mean wind speed within
T 0 , while for tropical storms Ū 0 takes the average wind speed
over T 0.
It is desirable that Ū 0 at a specified site is provided according to
an occurrence probability of the event. Data-fitted models of Ū 0 at
one site may be obtained from long-term measurements of nonsta-
tionary wind events, under the assumption that such wind events
can envelop extreme wind conditions at the site (e.g., hurricanes
for Miami, Florida). Insufficient local measurements may be sup-
plemented by the Monte Carlo simulation of the events [e.g., down-
bursts (Aboshosha et al. 2017) and tropical storms (Emanuel et al.
2006; Huang and Xu 2013; Vickery et al. 2009a)].

H
z
Vertical Wind Profile U
Wind profiles of tropical storms and downbursts have reached solid
suggestions on their shapes. It has been reported in the literature
that the vertical profile of tropical storms is similar to stationary
winds. Based on full-scale observations, the logarithmic law has
been shown to be efficient and universal (Vickery et al. 2009b),
although the power law may also be applicable (Song et al. 2016).
A logarithmic profile of typhoon winds is presented in Fig. 2. In
consideration of local complex terrains, the CFD simulation may
be used to determine the site-specific vertical profile (Huang and
Xu 2013).
Conversely, a limited number of full-scale measurements of
downburst wind events (e.g., Fujita 1981; Gunter and Schroeder
2015; Hjelmfelt 1988; Lombardo et al. 2014) has suggested a
nose-shape profile as shown in Fig. 2. Some analytical or empirical
models have been developed to describe the salient feature of the
downburst profile as a function of several parameters (e.g., Abd-
Elaal et al. 2014; Chay et al. 2006; Vicroy 1992; Wood et al. 2001).
Normalized Time Function U
T
t
The time function [Ū T ðtÞ] is one of the essential characteristics
of nonstationary winds. A variety of methods have been proposed
to extract Ū T ðtÞ from time histories, such as moving average
J. Struct. Eng.
 Generalized Nonstationary Wind Loading Chain
Non-Gaussian
Non-linear Non-linear

Time-varying Time-varying Time-varying

mean velocity mean force mean response
Non-
Nonstationary
stationary
Response
wind
Fluctuating Fluctuating Fluctuating
gust velocity wind force response

Time- Instantaneous Time- Instantaneous Time-

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 07/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

frequency aerodynamic frequency transfer frequency

gust transfer force function of response
spectrum function spectrum structure spectrum

EPSD

Wavelet

Drop time variable

Davenport Wind Loading Chain

Velocity Force Response

Time-
domain

Gust Spectrum Aero Admittance Force Spectrum Mechanical Admittance Response Spectrum

Frequency
-domain

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of generalized wind loading chain (in contours, brighter color: higher values, darker color: lower values).

(Choi 2000; Hu et al. 2013), empirical modal decomposition shown as dash lines. In the figure, T 1 was selected as 10 and 1 min
(Kareem and Kijewski 2002; Xu and Chen 2004), and wavelet for the tropical storm and downburst winds, respectively.
analysis (Chen and Letchford 2005; Wang and Kareem 2004). Modeling of Ū T ðtÞ for tropical storms are rather limited.
Appropriateness and efficiency of these methods depend on the Although Monte Carlo simulation of tropical storms may generate
characteristics of data (Su et al. 2015). In this paper, only the mov- Ū T ðtÞ at arbitrary locations, its accuracy is constrained by the usual
ing average method is presented due to its simplicity and popularity 6-h averaged physical parameters (Vickery et al. 2009a), which
Z thus may not be suitable for the response evaluation in this paper
1 tþT 1 =2 UðtÞ
Ū T ðtÞ ¼ dt ð3Þ
T1 t−T 1 =2 Ū 0 Ū H ðzÞ
300
Downburst
where the averaging time interval T 1 can be a constant or variable. Tropical storm
Height (m)

The variable T 1 may be determined by the trial-and-error method 200

(Bendat and Piersol 2010), by testing the randomness and tur-
bulence characteristics of the fluctuating turbulent component
(McCullough et al. 2014), or with reference to widely-accepted 100
values for stationary winds (Hu et al. 2013). The typical averaging
time for downbursts has been reported in the range of 30–60 s 0
using the moving average filter. A summary of past studies regard- 10 15 20
ing the averaging time of downbursts based on full-scale data can Wind speed (m/s)
be found in Solari et al. (2015). In Figs. 3(a) and 4(a), time-varying
Fig. 2. Example of vertical profiles of nonstationary winds.
mean winds extracted from the downburst and typhoon data are

© ASCE 04019092-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(10): 04019092

 105
Time-varying mean Time-varying mean 0.02 Time-varying mean
30 2

Wind speed (m/s)

Displacement (m)
Force (N)
20 0.01
1

10 0
0

0 -0.01
-1
100 200 300 400 500 600 100 200 300 400 500 600 100 200 300 400 500 600
(a) Time (s) (b) Time (s) (c) Time (s)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 07/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Time histories of downburst: (a) wind; (b) force; and (c) displacement.

105
Time-varying mean Time-varying mean
3
Wind speed (m/s)

Displacement (m)
30 0.02
Force (N)

2
20 0.01
1
10 0
0
0 Time-varying mean -0.01
0 1000 2000 3000 0 1000 2000 3000 0 1000 2000 3000
(a) Time (s) (b) Time (s) (c) Time (s)

Fig. 4. Time histories of tropical storm: (a) wind; (b) force; and (c) displacement.

concerning a shorter time period (normally up to 1 h). Furthermore,
an analytical form for Ū T ðtÞ over multiple measured wind events is
currently not available.
For downburst events, attempts to establish analytical models of
Ū T ðtÞ has been made through limited full-scale data (e.g., Holmes
and Oliver 2000; Abd-Elaal et al. 2014; Aboshosha et al. 2016;
Chay et al. 2006) or CFD simulation (Chay et al. 2006; Kim and
Hangan 2007; Li et al. 2012). A simple form of a half-sinusoid
function was even utilized to describe the largest peak among
two distinct peaks shown in typical downburst events (Kwon and
Kareem 2009, 2013), which has been confirmed in Solari et al.
(2015) recently that the half-sine shape was close to the inner
envelope of full-scale data.
Generalized Wind Loading Chain: Overview
A generalized wind loading chain is proposed in this paper to
encompass the effects of nonstationary winds, recasting the well-
established stationary wind loading chain (Davenport 1967) into a
nonstationary format involving time-dependent nature. Invoking a
nonstationary wind model, a nonstationary response is comprised
of two components, namely time-varying mean and nonstationary
fluctuating responses, which correspond to the mean and fluctuat-
ing responses in a stationary response.
A schematic diagram of the proposed generalized nonstationary
wind loading chain is shown in Fig. 1. The first row represents the
wind-force-response relationship originated from the time-varying
mean component of nonstationary winds. The second and third
rows represent the centerpiece of the proposed chain, i.e., rewriting
the fluctuating part of the stationary chain (from the gust to the
corresponding force and finally to the response) into a nonstation-
ary format in the time-frequency domain. The first box of the third
row describes the nonstationary gust spectrum in terms of a time-
frequency representation, e.g., evolutionary power spectral den-
sity or wavelet transform format, which will be discussed in the
next sections. The wind spectrum is related to the time-frequency
force spectrum (third box) through the instantaneous aerodynamic
transfer/admittance function (second box), exhibiting the wind-
force relationship for the nonstationary fluctuating wind compo-
nent. Similarly, the force-response relationship is achieved by
invoking the structural transfer function (mechanical admittance
function) (fourth box). In this manner, the time-frequency response
spectrum (the last box) is obtained through a product of the force
spectrum and the structural transfer function. Accordingly, a com-
plete wind-force-response relationship for nonstationary winds can
be established throughout the proposed chain. Finally, statistics
of extremes of structural response may be estimated by combining
the time-varying mean and the nonstationary fluctuating responses,
which will also be discussed in a later section. This generalized
wind loading chain of nonstationary fluctuating wind component
may be introduced by substituting different types of time-frequency
representations to EPSD (fourth row) or wavelet transform (fifth
row), thus providing a toolbox with multiple options.
A comparison between the proposed generalized chain and the
Davenport’s stationary chain (lower half of Fig. 1) highlights this
key feature of analogy. Both chains are statistical methods based
on the random vibration theory, pursuing probabilistic properties
of wind-induced response by the wind-force-response relation-
ship connected through the aerodynamic and structural transfer/
admittance functions for wind-force and force-response chains, re-
spectively. Conversely, the major difference between the two is also

© ASCE 04019092-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(10): 04019092

 apparent; the proposed chain introduces the time-dependent
statistics of wind, force, and response. Particularly, the frequency
domain formulation of fluctuating component in the Davenport’s
chain is extended to the time-frequency domain representation,
enabling us to capture the time-dependent effects. The treatment of
such effects, although it requires more technical and computational
efforts, is essential for nonstationary winds due to a potential
amplification of response in comparison with stationary case.
Note that the generalized chain can be seamlessly reduced to the
Davenport’s chain by dropping the time variable, which highlights
the generality of the proposed nonstationary chain.
In the following, time-frequency modeling of the proposed wind
loading chain and its components is discussed in detail. Note that
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 07/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
when illustrating the formulation of the generalized chain, this
study primarily concerns tropical storms and downbursts; however,
the proposed chain can also accommodate other types of nonsta-
tionary winds events with proper modeling.
Time-Varying Mean Wind-Force-Response
To elaborate, a generic structural system subjected to winds is con-
sidered without the loss of generality. The structure is modeled as a
N degree-of-freedom (DOF) dynamic system with its N × N mass,
and damping and stiffness matrices (M, C, and K, respectively).
The proposed chain aims at evaluating the structural response XðtÞ
under the nonstationary wind field UðtÞ.
Similar to the treatment in the stationary wind model, the two
components of nonstationary wind model [Eq. (1)] are transformed
to the time-varying mean F̄ðtÞ and nonstationary fluctuating dy-
namic forces Fb ðtÞ, eventually leading to the time-varying mean
X̄ðtÞ and nonstationary fluctuating responses xðtÞ of the structure
(see the first two rows in Fig. 1)
FðtÞ ¼ F̄ðtÞ þ Fb ðtÞ; XðtÞ ¼ X̄ðtÞ þ xðtÞ ð4Þ
The time-varying mean response, as depicted in the first row of
Fig. 1, is induced by the time-varying mean wind. For the case
of buffeting, the time-varying mean wind is first transferred to
along-wind force
F̄ðtÞ ¼ 0.5ρAT CD ðtÞŪðtÞ2 ð5Þ
where ρ = air density; CD ðtÞ = instantaneous aerodynamic drag
force coefficient; and AT = tributary area. Note that if F̄ðtÞ varies
slowly with time that no transient dynamics is involved, then the
time-varying mean response X̄ðtÞ may be determined by solving
the following static equilibrium equation
KX̄ðtÞ ¼ F̄ðtÞ ð6Þ
at each time instant t. Possible static nonlinearity can be readily
dealt with by an iteration procedure (e.g., Cheng et al. 2002; Hu
et al. 2013).
Nonstationary Fluctuating Wind-Force-Response:
EPSD-Based Approach
Modeling of the nonstationary fluctuating wind-force-response re-
lationship in the time-frequency domain is central to this proposed
wind loading chain (the third row in Fig. 1). Various time-
frequency representations may be employed, e.g., EPSD, wavelet
transform, Chirplet transform (Wang et al. 2002), Yeh-Wen instan-
taneous spectra (Yeh and Wen 1990), response spectrum (Solari
and De Gaetano 2018), and time-varying autoregressive (AR)
model. Among them, the EPSD is a natural extension of the
power spectral density (PSD) used in modeling fluctuating wind
© ASCE 04019092-5
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(10): 04019092
component of stationary winds in frequency domain. The EPSD
is defined by accompanying a time variable with the frequency var-
iable of PSD, therefore the EPSD-based generalized chain is readily
reduced to its stationary counterpart by dropping the time variable,
thus the word generalized.
Time-Frequency Gust Spectrum
The EPSD (and also other time-frequency representations) of
nonstationary fluctuating winds may be estimated from full-scale
measurement of nonstationary tropical storms or downbursts in the
absence of universal models. Assuming that a nonstationary fluc-
tuating wind is described as a zero-mean evolutionary random
process (Priestley 1965), the auto-EPSD of the fluctuating wind
Su~ u~ ðf; tÞ may be expressed as a product of a time-frequency modu-
lation function Aðf; tÞ and the PSD Su~ u~ ðf; tÞ of a zero-mean sta-
tionary process uðtÞ~
Suu ðf; tÞ ¼ jAðf; tÞj2 Su~ u~ ðfÞ ð7Þ
where Aðf; tÞ satisfies slowly-varying conditions (Priestley 1965).
Estimation of EPSD from sample time histories has been
extensively investigated, resulting in methods such as windowed
Fourier transform (Priestley 1965, 1966), time-varying correlation
function-based method (Benowitz et al. 2015), time-varying AR
model (Chen 2006), and wavelet-based methods (Huang and Chen
2009; Spanos and Failla 2004). However, all of these methods face
an inherent difficulty in practice, i.e., the inability to establish
the ensemble average of EPSD because sample time histories of
nonstationary events are rare and only one sample time history is
usually available (Wang et al. 2014). The lack of ensemble average
may lead to large random errors in the ESPD. Therefore, all these
estimation methods should be used with careful consideration of
uncertainties, even if special procedures have been incorporated to
alleviate the random error. In this paper, the estimating method by
Priestley (1965) is briefly described, which temporally smooths the
EPSD estimation by means of a short time window
ζðf p ; tr Þ ¼ ½gðtr Þ  ½uðtr Þ expð−i2πfp tr Þ ð8Þ
Suu ðf p ; tr Þ ¼ ½Gðtr Þ  ½jζðfp ; tr Þj2  · 2ðΔtÞ3 · 2π ð9Þ
where the symbol ∗ = the discrete convolution; tr ¼ ðr − 1ÞΔt and
fp ¼ ðp − 1ÞΔf = discrete time and frequency series with time
step (Δt) and frequency step (Δf), respectively; and gðtÞ and
GðtÞ = window functions with properly selected forms and lengths,
respectively. The corresponding random error and condition to
achieve an unbiased estimation have been formulated in Priestley
(1966), underpinning this method. It is thus rigorous, but also stable
and convenient due to avoiding the solution of delicate equations
associated with other methods (e.g., wavelet-based methods).
Alternatively, parametric modeling of EPSD of nonstationary
tropical storm and downburst winds has been attempted based
on limited full-scale data. Observations reported in the literature
(Chen and Letchford 2006; Hu et al. 2013; Huang and Chen 2009;
Huang et al. 2015; Lombardo et al. 2014; Wang et al. 2016) have
suggested that in many cases, wind spectrum models of stationary
winds may be extended to describe the characteristics of nonsta-
tionary winds by plugging in a time dimension in order to describe
the time-dependent turbulence spectral contents [e.g., the evolu-
tionary Karman wind spectrum in Hu et al. (2013)]. This type of
fully nonstationary model may be further simplified as an ampli-
tude modulation function.
The EPSD-based model also allows incorporation of other
essential characteristics of nonstationary winds. For example, Hu
et al. (2017a) recently considered the time-dependent boundary of
J. Struct. Eng.
 inertial subrange especially in the high-frequency range of EPSD,
as the fundamental frequency of large civil structures may fall
within the range. This improved EPSD model encompasses the
conceptual spectral model for tropical storms developed by Li et al.
(2015), which has been based on theoretical consideration and veri-
fied by full-scale measurements.
After the auto-EPSD of wind speed component at different
locations is established, the cross-EPSD between each pair of
components can be defined analogous to the cross-PSD through
a coherence function γ u ðfÞ, which is time-invariant because of
the constraint by EPSD theory (Mélard and Schutter 1989; Priestley
1966)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 07/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Su;ij ðf; tÞ ¼ Su;i ðf; tÞSu;j ðf; tÞγ u;ij ðfÞ
¼ jAu;i ðf; tÞj2 jAu;j ðf; tÞj2 ½Su;i
~ ðfÞSu;
~ j ðfÞγ u;ij ðfÞ
The time-invariant coherence function γ u ðfÞ relates the coher-
ence between PSDs Su;i ~ ðfÞ and Su;j ~ ðfÞ to model the stationary
processes u~ i ðtÞ and u~ j ðtÞ in Priestley’s model [Eq. (7)], while the
nonstationarity is modeled by the time-frequency modulation func-
tions Au;i ðf; tÞ and Au;j ðf; tÞ. Measurements of coherence function
of nonstationary winds is rare (e.g., Chen and Letchford 2005). Thus,
the format of coherence function introduced by Davenport for sta-
tionary winds may be utilized for nonstationary winds
 1
½C2z ðzi − zj Þ2 þ C2y ðyi − yj Þ2 2
γ ij ðfÞ ¼ exp −f 1
ð11Þ
2 Ū 0 ½Ū H ðzi Þ þ Ū H ðzj Þ
where yi = the lateral coordinates; and Cz and Cy = decay co-
efficients. More full-scale data may suggest better models. For
example, recently the time-invariant coherence function has been up-
graded to the time-varying counterpart γ ij ðf; tÞ, by modeling ui ðtÞ
as the summation of multiple time-frequency modulated stationary
processes (Peng et al. 2018). In terms of the auto- and cross-EPSDs,
the EPSD matrix of multivariate nonstationary winds Suu ðf; tÞ can
then be established.
Instantaneous Aerodynamic Transfer/Admittance Function
and Time-Frequency Force Spectrum
Time-dependent properties of nonstationary tropical storms or
downbursts may cause time-varying characteristics of wind-structure
interactions. Specially designed wind tunnel tests (e.g., Butler et al.
2010; Cao et al. 2002; Chay and Letchford 2002; Jesson et al.
2015) have been carried out to study the transient relationship be-
tween nonstationary wind-induced force and simulated downburst
winds (e.g., by multiple-fan wind tunnels or impinging jets) and
have revealed the nonstationary wind-force relationship different
from its stationary counterpart.
The EPSD of nonstationary wind-induced buffeting force may
be expressed as (e.g., Hu et al. 2013, 2017a)
SFb Fb ðf; tÞ ¼ Ξðf; tÞSuu ðf; tÞΞðf; tÞT
where Ξðf; tÞ can be expressed as
Ξðf; tÞ ¼ Ts ðtÞχðf; tÞCb ðtÞ
where Ts ðtÞ, χðf; tÞ, and Cb ðtÞ are the matrices of instantaneous
coordinate transformation coefficients, aerodynamic admittance
function, and aerodynamic coefficients, respectively. Moreover, the
horizontal/lateral joint acceptance function jJ y ðfÞj2 may also be
included in Eq. (12) (e.g., Chen 2008; Kwon and Kareem 2009).
Under the quasi-stationary assumption (Langley 1987), both Ts ðtÞ
and Cb ðtÞ are coefficients slowly varying with structural motion
due to the time-varying mean wind loading. For a point-like
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(10): 04019092
structure, the instantaneous aerodynamic transfer/admittance func-
tion [χðf; tÞ] may be obtained from incorporating the time-varying
mean wind into the aerodynamic transfer/admittance function
widely used in stationary buffeting analysis. Note that the quasi-
stationary assumption may be appropriate when the instantaneous
statistical properties of nonstationary winds evolve with time so
slowly that transient effects of the fluctuating wind components
on aerodynamic interaction are not significant. Once further obser-
vations suggest an advanced model, the formulation of the transient
aerodynamic function can be updated in Eq. (13). Eq. (12) indicates
that Fb ðtÞ is an evolutionary vector process as inherited from the
fluctuating wind speeds.
Nonstationary Fluctuating Response: Instantaneous
Structural Transfer Function and Time-Frequency
ð10Þ
Response Spectrum
Given the EPSD of buffeting force SFb Fb ðf; tÞ in the previous sec-
tion, the EPSD of fluctuating responses Sxx ðf; tÞ may be estimated
by solving the following equations of motion in the time-frequency
domain:
MẍðtÞ þ CẋðtÞ þ KxðtÞ ¼ Fb ðtÞ ð14Þ
The solution of the equations of motion for nonstationary pro-
cess has been extensively examined in various fields of researches
(e.g., wind, earthquake, and aerospace engineering). The fully-
nonstationary theoretical solution reported in Howell and Lin
(1971) was derived by extending the stationary solution in terms
of PSD, which can give an accurate solution of Sxx ðf; tÞ, but is
computationally inefficient. To enhance computational efficiency,
approximate closed-form solutions have been proposed with par-
ticularly designed analytical approximations of EPSD to take
advantage of separable time and frequency modulation functions
(Conte and Peng 1996; Li et al. 2016; Li and Kareem 1991). For
reference, closed-form solutions of SDOF system concerning sim-
ple amplitude modulating functions can also be found in Jangid
(2004). In solving the problem, some common issues may arise
from structural characteristics requiring special treatment and have
been addressed, such as nonclassical damping (Chen 2015), non-
linearity (Canor et al. 2016; Kareem and Wu 2013), time-dependent
structural parameters (Hu et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2010), and un-
certainty (Li and Chen 2009). Conversely, there are still exclusive
issues of nonstationary response analysis deserving attention as
well, including sensitivity to initial conditions (Li and Chen 2009)
and the lag-time effects (Chen 2008; Hammond 1973; Igusa 1989;
Langley 1987). In the following, the fully nonstationary solution in
terms of both original and modal coordinates, as well as an approxi-
mated solution are briefly discussed for general interests. However,
one may always adopt other methods in the generalized chain if
special issues discussed emerge.
Fully nonstationary solution can be achieved by the direct
ð12Þ integration method (Howell and Lin 1971; Li and Chen 2009)
Sxx ðf; tÞ ¼ Pðf; tÞSFb Fb ðfÞPðf; tÞH ð15Þ
ð13Þ Z t
Pðf; tÞ ¼ hðt − τ ÞAFb Fb ðf; tÞ expð−i2πfτ Þdτ ð16Þ
0
where the superscript H denotes conjugate transpose; and hðtÞ =
impulse response function of dynamic system in Eq. (14) deter-
mined under the impulse loading matrix IðtÞ ¼ diag½δðtÞ and zero
initial conditions. Although this integration-based method fully
accounts for the effects of the transient dynamics, it may be com-
putationally prohibitive for a system with a large amount of
04019092-6 J. Struct. Eng.
 DOFs due to the time-consuming integration in Eq. (16). A more
computationally efficient solution can be achieved via modal super-
position and the stochastic decomposition (Li and Kareem 1995) or
pseudo excitation method (Lin 2004). In this manner, Eq. (14) can
be decomposed into modal coordinates
~ Ẏ j ðf; tÞ þ KY
Ÿ j ðf; tÞ þ C ~ b;j ðf; tÞ
~ j ðf; tÞ ¼ Q
where Y j ðf; tÞ (j ¼ 1 : : : N S ) = the pseudo modal response, which
can be solved using the step-by-step integration in time domain;
N S = the number of modes; C ~ ¼ ΦT CΦ and K ~ ¼ diag½ð2πf j Þ2  =
the generalized modal damping and stiffness matrices, respectively;
f j = the natural frequency of the jth mode; Φ = the mode shape
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 07/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
matrix normalized with respect to the mass matrix (ΦT MΦ ¼
~ b;j ðf; tÞ ¼ BQ ;j ðf; tÞei2πft = pseudo modal excitation;
IN S ×N S ); Q
b
BQb ;j = the jth column vector of the matrix BQb ¼ ΦT AFb Fb
ðf; tÞBFb Fb ðfÞ; and BFb Fb ðfÞ = the lower triangular matrix from
Cholesky decomposition of SFb Fb ðfÞ. Using the pseudo response
solved in modal coordinates, the EPSD matrix of xðtÞ is ex-
pressed as
X
NS
Sxx ðf; tÞ ¼ ½ΦY j ðf; tÞ · ½ΦY j ðf; tÞT
j¼1
where the superscript * denotes conjugate. The solution obtained
through Eqs. (17) and (18) reserves the transient effects almost
the same with Eqs. (15) and (16) but with a reasonable reduction
in computation. To further improve computational efficiency, an
approximate solution of Eq. (17) can be achieved under the quasi-
stationary assumption, that is
~ b;j ðf; tÞ
Y~ j ðf; tÞ ¼ HðfÞQ
where HðfÞ ¼ ½K ~ −1 = the steady-state trans-
~ − ð2πfÞ2 þ i2πf C
fer function of the dynamic system in Eq. (17). This approximate
 
1 − exp −π a−mðtÞ
1 σẊ ðtÞ 1
ηVþ
XðmÞ ða; tÞ ¼ 2π σ ðtÞ ½1 − ρX Ẋ ðtÞ ·
2 h 
X exp 12 a−mðtÞ
where ϕðxÞ and ΦðxÞ denote the probability density function (PDF)
and CDF of standard Gaussian distribution; qX ðtÞ, ρXẊ ðtÞ, ξ V ðtÞ =
nongeometric spectral parameters; and details can be found in
Hu and Xu (2014). Once FXmax ða; T 0 Þ is given, the mean, standard
deviation, and percentile of the extreme response X max can be
readily determined.
Time-Domain Realization of Generalized Wind Loading
Chain
The generalized wind loading chain is proposed in terms of time-
frequency representation of statistical properties of nonstationary
winds, force, and response, but it can also be realized in the time
domain in a way similar to the time domain representation of
Davenport’s stationary chain. The procedure of time-domain re-
alization may include the following steps. Sample time histories
of nonstationary fluctuating winds uðtÞ targeted at the time-
frequency gust spectrum can be generated using nonstationary
winds simulation methods [e.g., spectral representation (Deodatis
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(10): 04019092
solution takes the advantage of multiplication against the time-
consuming time domain integration, thus leading to higher com-
putational efficiency. However, it ignores the transient lag-time
effects of structural dynamic transfer function, and thus may over-
estimate response (Chen 2008; Langley 1987). This overestima-
tion decreases with the increase in natural frequencies and/or
ð17Þ damping ratios of the system, while increases with the increase
in the changing rate of EPSD of nonstationary winds. Because
EPSD of tropical storms usually changes in a lower rate, it is
expected that this quasi-stationary solution would be more accu-
rate for tropical storm winds than for downburst winds (Langley
1987).
Extreme Response
Extreme response is of critical concern in structural design and reli-
ability analysis, and has been examined for nonstationary random
processes (Corotis and Vanmarcke 1975; Corotis et al. 1972;
Michaelov et al. 2001). In the proposed chain, the probabilistic
characteristics of the extreme response under nonstationary winds
may be assessed by an approximation reported in Hu and Xu
(2014) incorporating the aforementioned time-varying mean and
time-frequency representation of fluctuating responses.
ð18Þ Considering the nonstationary response XðtÞ ¼ mðtÞ þ xðtÞ
[let mðtÞ ¼ X̄ðtÞ for the sake of brevity], the cumulative distribu-
tion function (CDF) of its extremes X max within the time period of
concern (0, T 0 ) may be approximated in terms of the time-varying
mean response [mðtÞ] and the EPSD of fluctuating response
[Sxx ðf; tÞ]
 Z 
T0
FXmax ða; T 0 Þ ¼ exp − ½ηþ
~
Xð−mÞ
ða; tÞ þ ηþ
XðmÞ ða; tÞdt ð20Þ
0
ð19Þ
The instantaneous up-crossing rate ηþ
X ða; tÞ is computed by (Hu
and Xu 2014)
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
q2X ðtÞ−ρ2XẊ ðtÞ

σX ðtÞ 1−ρ2XẊ ðtÞ
fϕ½ξ V
ðtÞ þ ξ V
ðtÞΦ½ξ V
ðtÞg
2 i ð21Þ
σX ðtÞ −1
1996; Hu et al. 2017b; Liang et al. 2007), and many other can-
didates]. Next, the time histories of nonstationary fluctuating wind
force Fb ðtÞ] can be obtained by passing the wind time histories
through a filter with time-dependent parameters designed to re-
present the instantaneous aerodynamic transfer function. When
the aforementioned quasi-stationary assumption retains, a reason-
able design procedure of this filter carries the rational function
approximation (Chen and Kareem 2002) separately for each time
instant. Applying the superposition of the time-varying mean F̄ðtÞ
and Fb ðtÞ on the target structure, the sample time histories of
structural response can be obtained through the structural dy-
namics problem in Eq. (14) using time-integration methods
(e.g., Newmark method). Finally, the statistics of nonstationary
response may be computed by estimation over an ensemble aver-
age of the sample response time histories. This time-domain reali-
zation procedure has been applied to calculate the response of
long-span bridges to nonstationary winds (e.g., Chen 2015; Hao
and Wu 2017; Hu et al. 2017a).
04019092-7 J. Struct. Eng.
 Nonstationary Fluctuating Wind-Force-Response: E½W jx ðW jx ÞT 
Wavelet-Based Approach 2 3
Sxx ðfj ; t1 Þ 0
In lieu of the EPSD-based approach discussed in the previous sec- 6 7
6 Sxx ðfj ; tk Þ 7
tions, an alternative formulation to deal with nonstationary fluctu- ðn − mÞ 6
6
7
7
¼ ..
ating wind components using wavelet transform is presented in this T0 6 6 .
7
7
paper. Unlike EPSD that compromises frequency resolution due to 4 5
the fixed time window size, wavelet transform adopts flexible time 0 Sxx ðfj ; tN T Þ
window adaptive to frequency resolution requisite and thus can
achieve the best time-frequency resolution allowed by Heisenberg’s ð25Þ
uncertainty principle for different frequency bands (e.g., Kijewski-
Correa and Kareem 2003). Therefore, wavelet transform has be- A similar relationship also exists for the buffeting force W jFb .
come a popular time-frequency analysis tool, whereas the wavelet
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 07/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

scale can be directly related to the frequency in the context of

Fourier transform. Numerical Example
To represent the generalized loading chain using the wavelet-
based approach, the periodic generalized harmonic wavelet In this section, the proposed wind loading chain is demonstrated
(PGHW) is employed in this study, in which the wavelet function using an example building structure subject to nonstationary
is defined as (Kong and Li 2015; Spanos et al. 2016) winds. A high-rise building of 120 m is modeled as a 3-degree-
of-freedom (3DOF) system (Fig. 5). The natural frequencies of
the system are 0.6, 1.28, and 1.94 Hz, and the modal damping
nj −1
X −iq2πΔf ratios are assumed to be 0.01 for all three modes. Two nonsta-
1 kT
0
ψG;per
ðmj ;nj Þ;k ðtÞ ¼ e t−n−m
ð22Þ tionary winds are utilized in this example: (1) a downburst event
ðn − mÞ q¼m modeled by analytical time-varying mean function (Chen 2008),
j
analytical profile (Kwon and Kareem 2009), and amplitude-
modulated Karman spectrum; and (2) a tropical storm event
so that wavelet coefficients can be obtained by the wavelet whose detailed information can be found in Hu et al. (2017a).
transform The time period of concern is 600 s for the downburst and
3,600 s for the tropical storm. The vertical profile, time-varying
mean wind, and EPSD of nonstationary fluctuating components
Z for the two nonstationary winds are displayed in Figs. 2, 3(a),
n−m T0
W G;per
ðmj ;nj Þ;k ðxÞ ¼ xðtÞψ̄G;per
ðmj ;nj Þ;k ðtÞdt ð23Þ and 4(a), and Figs. 6(a) and 7(a), respectively. The coherence
T0 0 function in Eq. (11) with the decay parameter Cz ¼ 8 is used
for both events. Aerodynamic parameters include drag force co-
efficient Cd ¼ 1.3, and tributary area AT ¼ 800 m2 for Nodes 1
where T 0 ¼ N 0 Δt = the time period of concern (with reference and 2, and 400 m2 for Node 3.
to Section “Time-Varying Mean Wind”); j ¼ 1; : : : ; N f , N f ¼ In the following, the numerical results are presented using
N 0 =ðn − mÞ = the jth wavelet scale and the number of scales; time-frequency representations of the proposed chain such as the
and k; l ¼ 0; : : : ; N T − 1, N T ¼ ðn − mÞ ¼ nj − mj = the wave- EPSD-based and wavelet-based approaches to evaluate structural
let time shift and the number of shifts. The equations of motion in response. The quasi-stationary assumption is applied to the EPSD
Eq. (14) may be solved in terms of the PGHW, resulting in the model of wind speeds, aerodynamic transfer/admittance function,
wavelet scalogram of response and solution of dynamic equations in Eq. (19). Figs. 3(b) and 4(b)
show the time-varying mean wind force, whereas Figs. 3(c)
and 4(c) show the time-varying mean wind response (as indicated
T0 2 by the dashed lines). Fig. 6 (downburst) and Fig. 7 (tropical storm)
E½W jx ðW jx ÞT  ¼ ½ðAj Þ−1 fE½W jFb ðW jFb ÞT g½ðAj Þ−1 T illustrate the proposed generalized chain and its subcomponents
n−m
ð24Þ

ð2Þ
where Aj is a matrix comprised of block matrix Ajk;l ¼ Cj;k;l M þ
ð1Þ ð0Þ ð°Þ
Cj;k;l C þ Cj;k;l K; Cj;k;l = wavelet connection coefficients; W jx and
W jFb = vectors of wavelet coefficients of nonstationary fluctuating
response and buffeting force in Eq. (14), respectively; and de-
tailed information can be found in Kong and Li (2015) and Spanos
et al. (2016). Eq. (24) implies a wavelet-based representation
of second-order structural dynamics system, therefore by analogy
it may be extended to higher order linear systems. Accordingly,
the aerodynamics transfer relationship between nonstationary
fluctuating winds and attendant force may also be represented
in terms of wavelet coefficients, when this relationship can be
approximated by a high-order linear system with sufficient accu-
Fig. 5. Illustration of the 3-DOF system used in the numerical
racy. The wavelet scalogram of buffeting response may be trans-
example.
formed to EPSD by

© ASCE 04019092-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(10): 04019092

 10 -7
8

Transfer function
6

0.5 1 1.5
Frequency (Hz)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 07/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(f) (g) (h) (i) (j)

Fig. 6. Illustration of generalized wind loading chain of nonstationary fluctuating wind of downburst event and its components at Node 3:
(a) EPSD of fluctuating wind; (b) instantaneous aerodynamic transfer/admittance function; (c) EPSD of buffeting force; (d) structural transfer
function; (e) EPSD of fluctuating response; (f) wavelet scalogram of fluctuating wind; (g) wavelet-based instantaneous aerodynamic transfer/
admittance function; (h) wavelet scalogram of buffeting force; (i) wavelet-based structural transfer function; and (j) wavelet scalogram of
fluctuating response (in contours, brighter color: higher values, darker color: lower values).

10-7
8

Transfer function 6

0.5 1 1.5
Frequency (Hz)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

(f) (g) (h) (i) (j)

Fig. 7. Illustration of generalized wind loading chain of nonstationary fluctuating wind of tropical storm event and its components at Node 3:
(a) EPSD of fluctuating wind; (b) instantaneous aerodynamic transfer/admittance function; (c) EPSD of buffeting force; (d) structural transfer
function; (e) EPSD of fluctuating response; (f) wavelet scalogram of fluctuating wind; (g) wavelet-based instantaneous aerodynamic transfer/
admittance function; (h) wavelet scalogram of buffeting force; (i) wavelet-based structural transfer function; and (j) wavelet scalogram of fluctuating
response (in contours, brighter color: higher values, darker color: lower values).

of nonstationary fluctuating winds, in which the first row of each
figure from the left to the right displays the EPSD-based ap-
proach such as the EPSD of gust spectrum, aerodynamic transfer/
admittance function, EPSD of force spectrum, structural transfer
function, and EPSD of displacement response. In addition, the
second row of each figure displays the same wind loading chain
but represented by the wavelet-based approach. Finally, the time
domain realization of the proposed chain as discussed earlier is
also demonstrated in Figs. 3 and 4. The spectral representation
method is utilized to simulation nonstationary winds speed time
histories. The simulated sample time histories of wind speed,
wind-induced force, and resulted displacement response at Node 3
are shown in Figs. 3 and 4 together with their time-varying mean
values, respectively.
Using the time-varying mean and the time-frequency represen-
tation of fluctuating responses, the extreme displacement re-
sponses are estimated from the method discussed earlier and
listed in Table 1, in comparison with the extreme responses

© ASCE 04019092-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(10): 04019092

 Table 1. Comparison of mean extreme displacement response (m)
Downburst Tropical storm
Node EPSD Wavelet Simulationa EPSD Wavelet Simulation
1 0.00494 0.00513 0.00526 0.00648 0.00669 0.00697
2 0.00890 0.00920 0.00955 0.0121 0.0126 0.0131
3 0.0119 0.0122 0.0127 0.0173 0.0178 0.0186
a
Simulation in time domain.
obtained in the time-domain with 1,000 samples of simulations. It
is observed that the results obtained from different approaches
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 07/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
match closely, which demonstrates the efficacy of the proposed
generalized chain.
Codification of Nonstationary Wind Effects on
Structures: Gust Front Factor Approach
In this paper, a preliminary examination of the feasibility for
codification of nonstationary wind effects on structures is made.
This kind of research is rather limited except for the following
two approaches: the gust front factor framework (Kwon and
Kareem 2009, 2013) and the thunderstorm response spectrum tech-
nique (Solari and De Gaetano 2018). From the two approaches, it is
observed that the extreme nonstationary response determined by
the generalized wind loading chain may be conveniently meshed
with the concept of the gust front factor (Kwon and Kareem
2009). In particular, the GFF framework has been aimed at estimat-
ing the design load induced by gust-front winds (originated from
thunderstorm/downburst), i.e., equivalent static wind load (ESWL),
which most wind codes and standards for stationary winds suggest.
Accordingly, the fusion of the generalized chain and the GFF may
enable to rapidly shift the current design paradigm from stationary
to nonstationary winds.
The GFF is defined as the relationship of the structural re-
sponses under nonstationary and stationary winds
max ðz; T 0 Þ
xGen
GG−F ¼ ð26Þ
max½xB−L ðz; tÞ
where xB−L ðz; tÞ = displacement response according to Daven-
port’s stationary wind loading chain prescribed in most wind design
codes and standards, thus one can easily calculate the response
max ðz; T 0 Þ = mean or
through the code/standard of interest; and xGen
percentile of extreme displacement response under nonstationary
winds, which can be computed by the proposed generalized wind
loading chain. For the case of ASCE 7 (ASCE 2016) standard, the
GFF leads to a design wind loading FDesign using the following
relationship:
FDesign ¼ FASCE7 · K z;G−F · GG−F ð27Þ
where FASCE7 denotes the design wind loading under stationary
boundary layer winds specified in ASCE 7, which involves the gust
loading/effect factor; and K z;G−F accounts for the effect of nonsta-
tionary wind profile (Kwon and Kareem 2009). Note at this junc-
ture that FASCE7 is usually based on the 3-s gust wind speed and
therefore the transformation between different averaging times (3 s
and T 1 in this paper) may be necessary (Kwon and Kareem 2009).
For reference, the GFF framework has also been implemented as a
web-enabled module to facilitate expeditious utilization in design
practice, which is available online (NatHaz Modeling Laboratory
2007).
© ASCE 04019092-10
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(10): 04019092
A generalized version of the gust front factor was later intro-
duced by Kwon and Kareem (2013), named generalized gust front
factor, which was intended not only to encapsulate dynamic load
effects associated with nonstationary winds independent of any
reference design code/standard but also to highlight other general
features like those found in the conventional gust loading factor
scheme. More detailed information concerning the GFF/G-GFF
can be found in Kwon and Kareem (2009, 2013).
Concluding Remarks
This paper deals with the changing dynamic of wind field charac-
teristics to address the challenges posed by nonstationary nature of
extreme wind events such as tropical storms and downbursts on the
structural response. To this end, a generalized wind loading chain
for evaluating structural response under nonstationary winds is pro-
posed in this study by recasting the Davenport’s chain into a non-
stationary format in terms of time-frequency representation and
nonstationary models. Using both the EPSD and wavelet transform
as the representation of nonstationary fluctuating wind component,
two sets of expressions of the proposed wind loading chain are in-
troduced in detail and demonstrated by a numerical example. The
solution of nonstationary wind-induced response in the time-
frequency domain using the quasi-stationary assumption enables
high computational efficiency, but sacrifices the accuracy of cap-
turing transient effects. Realization of the proposed chain in the
time domain is also discussed. It should also be emphasized that
despite the versatility of the time domain approach (e.g., nonlinear
problems exclusively achievable), the time-frequency represented
chain with its computational advantage is effective not only for
the efficient estimation of extreme response, but also for imple-
menting universal models of nonstationary winds effects akin to
the widely used stationary counterpart.
The generalized wind loading chain aims at facilitating seam-
less response analysis under nonstationary as well as stationary
wind events. More importantly, it offers a time-frequency domain
framework to make a case for a shift in the current design para-
digm that is attentive to the nature of nonstationary winds. An
immediate application of the proposed wind loading chain is a
possible codification of nonstationary wind effects on structures
in the context of a gust front factor and a generalized gust front
factor frameworks to estimate design wind loading. These are
briefly examined in this paper but will be detailed in a future pub-
lication. Note that the models for the nonstationary winds used in
this paper are for the sake of establishing the chain, which can
conveniently incorporate more reliable models when these be-
come available. Indeed, additional research efforts are needed
to develop robust, reliable, and well-accepted models for nonsta-
tionary winds.
Finally, at this juncture it is inspiring to see the formulation of
the proposed chain that promises to provide a roadmap for further
studies on the effects of nonstationary winds as well as the wind
resistant design of structures under nonstationary tropical storm or
downburst wind events.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial supports from the
US National Science Foundation (CMMI 1462076), and the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51308244).
Any opinions and concluding remarks presented in this paper
are entirely those of the authors.
J. Struct. Eng.
 References
Abd-Elaal, E. S., J. E. Mills, and X. Ma. 2014. “Empirical models for
predicting unsteady-state downburst wind speeds.” J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 129 (Jun): 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2014
.03.011.
Aboshosha, H., A. Elawady, A. El Ansary, and A. El Damatty. 2016.
“Review on dynamic and quasi-static buffeting response of transmis-
sion lines under synoptic and non-synoptic winds.” Eng. Struct.
112 (Apr): 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.01.003.
Aboshosha, H., T. Mara, and P. Case. 2017. “New framework for estimating
thunderstorm design speed.” In Proc., 13th Americas Conf. on Wind
Engineering (13ACWE). Gainesville, FL: Univ. of Florida.
ASCE. 2016. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 07/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ASCE 7. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Bendat, J. S., and A. G. Piersol. 2010. Random data: Analysis and
measurement procedures. New York: Wiley.
Benowitz, B. A., M. D. Shields, and G. Deodatis. 2015. “Determining evolu-
tionary spectra from non-stationary autocorrelation functions.” Probab.
Eng. Mech. 41 (Jul): 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.probengmech
.2015.06.004.
Butler, K., S. Cao, A. Kareem, Y. Tamura, and S. Ozono. 2010. “Surface
pressure and wind load characteristics on prisms immersed in a simu-
lated transient gust front flow field.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
98 (6–7): 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2009.11.003.
Canor, T., L. Caracoglia, and V. Denoël. 2016. “Perturbation methods in
evolutionary spectral analysis for linear dynamics and equivalent stat-
istical linearization.” Probab. Eng. Mech. 46 (Oct): 1–17. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.probengmech.2016.07.001.
Cao, S., A. Nishi, H. Kikugawa, and Y. Matsuda. 2002. “Reproduction of
wind velocity history in a multiple fan wind tunnel.” J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 90 (12): 1719–1729. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6105(02)
00282-9.
Chay, M. T., F. Albermani, and R. Wilson. 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.
Chay, M. T., and C. W. Letchford. 2002. “Pressure distributions on a cube
in a simulated thunderstorm downburst. Part A: Stationary downburst
observations.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (7): 711–732. https://doi
.org/10.1016/S0167-6105(02)00158-7.
Chen, J., M. C. H. Hui, and Y. L. Xu. 2007. “A comparative study of sta-
tionary and non-stationary wind models using field measurements.”
Boundary Layer Meteorol. 122 (1): 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s10546-006-9085-1.
Chen, L. 2006. “Vector time-varying autoregressive (TVAR) models and
their application to downburst wind speeds.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept.
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Texas Tech Univ.
Chen, L., and C. W. Letchford. 2004a. “A deterministic-stochastic hybrid
model of downbursts and its impact on a cantilevered structure.”
Eng. Struct. 26 (5): 619–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2003
.12.009.
Chen, L., and C. W. Letchford. 2004b. “Parametric study on the along-wind
response of the CAARC building to downbursts in the time domain.”
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 92 (9): 703–724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.jweia.2004.03.001.
Chen, L., and C. W. Letchford. 2005. “Proper orthogonal decomposition of
two vertical profiles of full-scale nonstationary downburst wind speeds
[lzcl].” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 93 (3): 187–216. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.jweia.2004.11.004.
Chen, L., and C. W. Letchford. 2006. “Multi-scale correlation analyses of
two lateral profiles of full-scale downburst wind speeds.” J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (9): 675–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2006
.01.021.
Chen, L., and C. W. Letchford. 2007. “Numerical simulation of extreme
winds from thunderstorm downbursts.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
95 (9–11): 977–990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2007.01.021.
Chen, X. 2008. “Analysis of alongwind tall building response to transient
nonstationary winds.” J. Struct. Eng. 134 (5): 782–791. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:5(782).
© ASCE 04019092-11
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(10): 04019092
Chen, X. 2015. “Analysis of multimode coupled buffeting response of long-
span bridges to nonstationary winds with force parameters from station-
ary wind.” J. Struct. Eng. 141 (4): 04014131. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001078.
Chen, X., and A. Kareem. 2002. “Advances in modeling of aerodynamic
forces on bridge decks.” J. Eng. Mech. 128 (11): 1193–1205. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2002)128:11(1193).
Cheng, J., J. J. Jiang, R. C. Xiao, and H. F. Xiang. 2002. “Nonlinear aero-
static stability analysis of Jiang Yin suspension bridge.” Eng. Struct.
24 (6): 773–781. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00006-8.
Choi, E. C. C. 2000. “Wind characteristics of tropical thunderstorms.”
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 84 (2): 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1016
/S0167-6105(99)00054-9.
Conte, J. P., and B. F. Peng. 1996. “An explicit closed-form solution for
linear systems subjected to nonstationary random excitation.” Probab.
Eng. Mech. 11 (1): 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-8920(95)
00026-7.
Corotis, R. B., and E. H. Vanmarcke. 1975. “Time-dependent spectral
content of system response.” J. Eng. Mech. Div. 101 (5): 623–636.
Corotis, R. B., E. H. Vanmarcke, and C. A. Cornell. 1972. “First passage of
nonstationary random processes.” J. Eng. Mech. Div. 98 (2): 401–414.
Davenport, A. G. 1967. “Gust loading factors.” J. Struct. Eng. 93 (3):
11–34.
Deodatis, G. 1996. “Non-stationary stochastic vector processes: Seismic
ground motion applications.” Probab. Eng. Mech. 11 (3): 149–167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-8920(96)00007-0.
Emanuel, K., S. Ravela, E. Vivant, and C. Risi. 2006. “A statistical deter-
ministic approach to hurricane risk assessment.” Bull. Am. Meteorol.
Soc. 87 (3): 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-87-3-299.
Fujita, T. T. 1981. “Tornadoes and downbursts in the context of generalized
planetary scales.” J. Atmos. Sci. 38 (8): 1511–1534. https://doi.org/10
.1175/1520-0469(1981)038<1511:TADITC>2.0.CO;2.
Gunter, W. S., and J. L. Schroeder. 2015. “High-resolution full-scale mea-
surements of thunderstorm outflow winds.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
138 (Mar): 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2014.12.005.
Gurley, K., and A. Kareem. 1999. “Applications of wavelet transforms in
earthquake, wind and ocean engineering.” Eng. Struct. 21 (2): 149–167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00139-9.
Hammond, J. K. 1973. “Evolutionary spectra in random vibrations.” J. R.
Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodol.) 35 (2): 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j
.2517-6161.1973.tb00950.x.
Hao, J., and T. Wu. 2017. “Nonsynoptic wind-induced transient effects on
linear bridge aerodynamics.” J. Eng. Mech. 143 (9): 04017092. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0001313.
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<0900:SALCOM>2.0.CO;2.
Holmes, J. D., and S. E. Oliver. 2000. “An empirical model of a downburst.”
Eng. Struct. 22 (9): 1167–1172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296
(99)00058-9.
Howell, L. J., and Y. K. Lin. 1971. “Response of flight vehicles to nonsta-
tionary atmospheric turbulence.” AIAA J. 9 (11): 2201–2207. https://doi
.org/10.2514/3.50026.
Hu, L., and Y. L. Xu. 2014. “Extreme value of typhoon-induced non-
stationary buffeting response of long-span bridges.” Probab. Eng.
Mech. 36 (Apr): 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.probengmech.2014
.02.002.
Hu, L., Y. L. Xu, and W. F. Huang. 2013. “Typhoon-induced non-stationary
buffeting response of long-span bridges in complex terrain.” Eng.
Struct. 57 (Dec): 406–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013
.09.044.
Hu, L., Y. L. Xu, Q. Zhu, A. Guo, and A. Kareem. 2017a. “Tropical storm-
induced buffeting response of long-span bridges: Enhanced nonstation-
ary buffeting force model.” J. Struct. Eng. 143 (6): 04017027. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001745.
Hu, L., Z. Xu, Y. L. Xu, L. Li, and A. Kareem. 2017b. “Error analysis of
spatially varying seismic ground motion simulation by spectral repre-
sentation method.” J. Eng. Mech. 143 (9): 04017083. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0001282.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Huang, G., and X. Chen. 2009. “Wavelets-based estimation of multivariate
evolutionary spectra and its application to nonstationary downburst
winds.” Eng. Struct. 31 (4): 976–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct
.2008.12.010.
Huang, G., Y. Su, A. Kareem, and H. Liao. 2016. “Time-frequency analysis
of nonstationary process based on multivariate empirical mode decom-
position.” J. Eng. Mech. 142 (1): 04015065. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000975.
Huang, G., H. Zheng, Y. Xu, and Y. Li. 2015. “Spectrum models for non-
stationary extreme winds.” J. Struct. Eng. 141 (10): 04015010. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001257.
Huang, W. F., and Y. L. Xu. 2013. “Prediction of typhoon design wind
speed and profile over complex terrain.” Struct. Eng. Mech. 45 (1):
1–18. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2013.45.1.001.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 07/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Igusa, T. 1989. “Characteristics of response to nonstationary white noise:
Theory.” J. Eng. Mech. 115 (9): 1904–1918. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9399(1989)115:9(1904).
Isyumov, N. 2012. “Alan G. Davenport’s mark on wind engineering.”
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 104–106 (May–Jul): 12–24. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2012.02.007.
Jangid, R. S. 2004. “Response of SDOF system to non-stationary
earthquake excitation.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 33 (15): 1417–1428.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.409.
Jesson, M., M. Sterling, C. Letchford, and M. Haines. 2015. “Aerodynamic
forces on generic buildings subject to transient, downburst-type winds.”
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 137 (Feb): 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.jweia.2014.12.003.
Kareem, A. 2009. “The changing dynamics of aerodynamics: New fron-
tiers.” In Proc., 7th Asia–Pacific Conf. on Wind Engineering
(APCWQ-VII). Taiwan, Republic of China: Tamkang Univ.
Kareem, A., and T. Kijewski. 2002. “Time-frequency analysis of wind
effects on structures.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (12–15):
1435–1452. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6105(02)00263-5.
Kareem, A., T. Kijewski, and C. E. Smith. 1999. “Analysis and perfor-
mance of offshore platforms in hurricanes.” Wind Struct. Int. J.
2 (1): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.12989/was.1999.2.1.001.
Kareem, A., and T. Wu. 2013. “Wind-induced effects on bluff bodies in
turbulent flows: Nonstationary, non-Gaussian and nonlinear features.”
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 122 (Nov): 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.jweia.2013.06.002.
Kawai, H. 2000. “Response of structure during a typhoonwind.” In Proc.,
8th ASCE Specialty Conf. on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural
Reliability. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Kijewski-Correa, T., and A. Kareem. 2003. “Wavelet transforms for system
identification in civil engineering.” Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng.
18 (5): 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8667.t01-1-00312.
Kim, J., and H. Hangan. 2007. “Numerical simulations of impinging jets
with application to downbursts.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 95 (4):
279–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2006.07.002.
Kong, F., and J. Li. 2015. “Wavelet-expansion-based stochastic response of
chain-like MDOF structures.” J. Sound Vib. 359 (Dec): 136–153.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2015.09.011.
Kwon, D. K., and A. Kareem. 2009. “Gust-front factor: A new framework
for wind load effects on structures.” J. Struct. Eng. 135 (6): 717–732.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)135:6(717).
Kwon, D. K., and A. Kareem. 2013. “Generalized gust-front factor: A com-
putational framework for wind load effects.” Eng. Struct. 48 (Mar):
635–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.12.024.
Langley, R. S. 1987. “On quasi-stationary approximations to non-stationary
random vibration.” J. Sound. Vib. 113 (2): 365–375. https://doi.org/10
.1016/S0022-460X(87)80222-5.
Letchford, C. W., and M. T. Chay. 2002. “Pressure distributions on a cube
in a simulated thunderstorm downburst. Part B: Moving downburst ob-
servations.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (7): 733–753. https://doi.org
/10.1016/S0167-6105(02)00163-0.
Li, C., Q. S. Li, Y. Q. Xiao, and J. P. Ou. 2012. “A revised empirical model
and CFD simulations for 3D axisymmetric steady-state flows of down-
bursts and impinging jets.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 102 (Mar):
48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2011.12.004.
© ASCE 04019092-12
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(10): 04019092
Li, J., and J. Chen. 2009. Stochastic dynamics of structures. Singapore:
Wiley.
Li, L., A. Kareem, J. Hunt, Y. Xiao, C. Zhou, and L. Song. 2015.
“Turbulence spectra for boundary-layer winds in tropical cyclones:
A conceptual framework and field measurements at coastlines.” Boun-
dary Layer Meteorol. 154 (2): 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546
-014-9974-7.
Li, Y., J. P. Conte, and M. Barbato. 2016. “Influence of time-varying
frequency content in earthquake ground motions on seismic response
of linear elastic systems.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 45 (8):
1271–1291. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2707.
Li, Y. S., and A. Kareem. 1991. “Simulation of multivariate nonstationary
random-processes by FFT.” J. Eng. Mech. 117 (5): 1037–1058. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1991)117:5(1037).
Li, Y. S., and A. Kareem. 1995. “Stochastic decomposition and application
to probabilistic dynamics.” J. Eng. Mech. 121 (1): 162–174. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1995)121:1(162).
Liang, J., S. R. Chaudhuri, and M. Shinozuka. 2007. “Simulation of non-
stationary stochastic processes by spectral representation.” J. Eng.
Mech. 133 (6): 616–627. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399
(2007)133:6(616).
Lin, J. H. 2004. Pseudo excitation method in random vibration. Beijing:
Science Press.
Lombardo, F. T., D. A. Smith, J. L. Schroeder, and K. C. Mehta. 2014.
“Thunderstorm characteristics of importance to wind engineering.”
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 125 (Feb): 121–132. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.jweia.2013.12.004.
McCullough, M., D. K. Kwon, A. Kareem, and L. Wang. 2014. “Efficacy
of averaging interval for nonstationary winds.” J. Eng. Mech. 140 (1):
1–19. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000641.
Mélard, G., and A. H. D. Schutter. 1989. “Contributions to evolutionary
spectral theory.” J. Time Ser. Anal. 10 (1): 41–63. https://doi.org/10
.1111/j.1467-9892.1989.tb00014.x.
Michaelov, G., L. D. Lutes, and S. Sarkani. 2001. “Extreme value of re-
sponse to nonstationary excitation.” J. Eng. Mech. 127 (4): 352–363.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2001)127:4(352).
NatHaz Modeling Laboratory. 2007. “NatHaz gust-front factor.” Accessed
August 14, 2018. http://gff.ce.nd.edu.
Peng, L., G. Huang, X. Chen, and Q. Yang. 2018. “Evolutionary spectra-
based time-varying coherence function and application in structural re-
sponse analysis to downburst winds.” J. Struct. Eng. 144 (7): 04018078.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002066.
Priestley, M. B. 1965. “Evolutionary spectra and non-stationary processes.”
J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. (Methodol.) 27 (2): 204–237. https://doi.org
/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1965.tb01488.x.
Priestley, M. B. 1966. “Design relations for non-stationary processes.” J. R.
Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. (Methodol.) 28 (1): 228–240.
Solari, G., and P. De Gaetano. 2018. “Dynamic response of structures to
thunderstorm outflows: Response spectrum technique vs time-domain
analysis.” Eng. Struct. 176 (Dec): 188–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2018.08.062.
Solari, G., P. De Gaetano, and M. P. Repetto. 2015. “Thunderstorm
response spectrum: Fundamentals and case study.” J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerodyn. 143 (Aug): 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia
.2015.04.009.
Song, L. L., W. C. Chen, B. L. Wang, S. Q. Zhi, and A. J. Liu. 2016. “Char-
acteristics of wind profiles in the landfalling typhoon boundary layer.”
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 149 (Feb): 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.jweia.2015.11.008.
Spanos, P. D., and G. Failla. 2004. “Evolutionary spectra estimation using
wavelets.” J. Eng. Mech. 130 (8): 952–960. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9399(2004)130:8(952).
Spanos, P. D., and G. Failla. 2005. “Wavelets: Theoretical concepts and
vibrations related applications.” Shock Vib. Digest 37 (5): 359–375.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0583102405055441.
Spanos, P. D., F. Kong, J. Li, and I. A. Kougioumtzoglou. 2016. “Harmonic
wavelets based excitation-response relationships for linear systems:
A critical perspective.” Probab. Eng. Mech. 44 (Apr): 163–173. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.probengmech.2015.09.021.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Su, Y., G. Huang, and Y.-l. Xu. 2015. “Derivation of time-varying mean
for non-stationary downburst winds.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
141 (Jun): 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2015.02.008.
Vickery, P. J., F. J. Masters, M. D. Powell, and D. Wadhera. 2009a.
“Hurricane hazard modeling: The past, present, and future.” J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 97 (7–8): 392–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia
.2009.05.005.
Vickery, P. J., D. Wadhera, M. D. Powell, and Y. Chen. 2009b. “A hurricane
boundary layer and wind field model for use in engineering applica-
tions.” J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 48 (2): 381–405. https://doi.org/10
.1175/2008JAMC1841.1.
Vicroy, D. D. 1992. “Assessment of microburst models for downdraft es-
timation.” J. Aircr. 29 (6): 1043–1048. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.46282.
Wang, H., T. Wu, T. Tao, A. Li, and A. Kareem. 2016. “Measurements and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 07/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
analysis of non-stationary wind characteristics at Sutong bridge in
Typhoon Damrey.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 151 (Apr): 100–106.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2016.02.001.
Wang, J., L. Fan, S. Qian, and J. Zhou. 2002. “Simulations of non-
stationary frequency content and its importance to seismic assessment
of structures.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 31 (4): 993–1005. https://
doi.org/10.1002/eqe.134.
© ASCE 04019092-13
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(10): 04019092
Wang, L., and A. Kareem. 2004. “Modeling of non-stationary winds in
gust-fronts.” In Proc., 9th ASCE Joint Specialty Conf. on Probabilistic
Mechanics and Structural Reliability. CD-ROM. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Wang, L., M. McCullough, and A. Kareem. 2014. “Modeling and simu-
lation of nonstationary processes utilizing wavelet and Hilbert trans-
forms.” J. Eng. Mech. 140 (2): 345–360. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000666.
Wood, G. S., K. C. S. Kwok, N. A. Motteram, and D. F. Fletcher. 2001.
“Physical and numerical modelling of thunderstorm downbursts.”
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 89 (6): 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1016
/S0167-6105(00)00090-8.
Xu, Y. L., and J. Chen. 2004. “Characterizing nonstationary wind speed
using empirical mode decomposition.” J. Struct. Eng. 130 (6): 912–920.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:6(912).
Yeh, C. H., and Y. K. Wen. 1990. “Modeling of nonstationary ground mo-
tion and analysis of inelastic structural response.” Struct. Saf. 8 (1–4):
281–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4730(90)90046-R.
Zhang, Z. C., J. H. Lin, Y. H. Zhang, Y. Zhao, W. P. Howson, and
F. W. Williams. 2010. “Non-stationary random vibration analysis for
train-bridge systems subjected to horizontal earthquakes.” Eng. Struct.
32 (11): 3571–3582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.08.001.
J. Struct. Eng.