See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/281832774

Investigation of wind load probability models and their effect on structural

reliability

Article · June 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 1,925

4 authors, including:

Mohsenali Shayanfar Hassan Baji

Iran University of Science and Technology Central Queensland University
131 PUBLICATIONS 1,374 CITATIONS 55 PUBLICATIONS 532 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hamid Reza Ronagh

Western Sydney University
230 PUBLICATIONS 4,198 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Composite overwrap repair system for pipelines View project

Structural Reliability View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hassan Baji on 17 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Investigation of wind load probability models and their effect on structural
reliability

M.A. Barkhordari, M.A. Shayanfar, H. Baji, H.R. Ronagh

Abstract
Wind loads are very important in the design of buildings as the load combinations, including
the wind load, often govern the design. Compared to other loads, such as gravity load, wind
loads are more uncertain and therefore bring about a lower safety index as the ratio of wind to
gravity loads increases. Wind load, which is evaluated in terms of wind pressure, is a product
of several factors. Wind speed is the main parameter. Other factors depend on the structural
shape and geometry. In order to perform a realistic and accurate reliability analysis, it is
important to find a suitable model for wind pressure. Previous studies have used Extreme
Type I for modeling the wind load. In this study, based on wind speed data for 105 stations
located in non-hurricane regions, this wind pressure model is evaluated and then modified.
The best-fit models investigated were Lognormal and Extreme Type I. For these, the
probability distribution parameters were averaged and general models were then obtained.
Results show that lognormal probability distribution could better model wind pressure,
although the Extreme Type I model is also close to Lognormal. It is shown that using
lognormal probabilistic distribution leads to more conservative reliability indices than those
from Extreme Type I.

Keyword: Wind load, Wind Speed, Load combination, Reliability, Safety index, Monte Carlo
method

1. Introduction
Modern structural design codes have adopted reliability-based approaches for code
calibration and determination of design safety factors. Assessments of risk and reliability
analysis of structures require statistical descriptions of loads and resistance. Loads on
structures are one of the main sources of uncertainty in the design process. Load studies, in
general, serve two main objectives, being i) estimation of statistical characteristics of the load
and development of stochastic models, and ii) estimation of nominal design values which are
usually calculated at an acceptable level of risk during the service lifetime (typically = 50
years) of the structure. The acceptable level of risk differs for each load. Modern reliability
procedures require full definition of the statistical model for loads, which contains mean and
standard deviation as well as probability distribution function. A general load, Q, in a
reliability analysis is often defined as:

Q=A×B×C (1)
Where A, B and C represent the load itself, the variation due to load models (which transform
the actual spatially and temporarily varying load into a statistically equivalent uniformly
distributed load), and uncertainties that arise from analysis methods that transform the loads
to load effects respectively.

Apart from dead and live loads, which are classified as gravity loads, all other loads have
environmental sources. Wind, snow and earthquake loads are representative of wind speed,
snow thickness and ground acceleration respectively. These environmental loads are
associated with a high degree of uncertainty. Evaluation of these loads is possible upon
knowing some basic parameters, some of which relate to the environmental parameters,
whilst the others depend on the specification of the structure. Statistical description of these
loads is based on statistical data for each of the basic parameters that define the load.

Wind load mainly depends on wind speed, which varies based on the type of terrain
surrounding the structure, height above ground, shielding from other buildings, and location
of the building. The basic equation for calculating wind pressure is defined as

(2)

Where ρ is the density of the air and V is the wind speed. The basic pressure, q, in the above
equation is used to evaluate the wind force on the structure. When dealing with building
structures, some other factors, such as wind gust factor, exposure and pressure coefficients,
transform the basic wind pressure, calculated using above equation, to actual wind pressure
on the structure. Compared with Equation 1, the basic wind pressure, q, corresponds to factor
A. Wind speed is the more important parameter in the probabilistic study of wind load. The
natural wind speed contains a high level of uncertainty in comparison with other parameters.
The combination of gust, exposure and pressure coefficients corresponds to factor B of
Equation 1. Factor C, however, is related to the approximation in applied analysis methods
and model idealization. In order to define a statistical model for wind load, it is necessary to
have statistical models for basic parameters that represent factors A, B and C.

In the current study, a probabilistic analysis of wind load in the United States is presented. A
wind load model for non-hurricane-prone sites was considered in this study. The statistical
data for wind speed were derived from a recent study by Cheng and Yeung [2]. The wind
speed data used by Cheng and Yeung were obtained from the US National Climatic Center
database. Since their study only dealt with wind models for non-hurricane-prone sites,
hurricane-prone sites are not considered here either. Statistical data for other random
parameters other than wind speed were derived from a recent study by Ellingwood and Tekie
[3], in which the revised uncertainty models for basic variables were evaluated using the
Delphi model. Results of the Delphi model have also been used in other recent investigations
[1 and 2].

The Monte Carlo simulation method is then used to develop a statistical model for wind load.
The statistical data and probability distribution function (PDF) for normalized wind load
(with respect to nominal wind according to ASCE 7-05 [1]) in all sites were obtained, and
then these data averaged over different sites.

2. Wind speed data

Probability distributions, selected to model annual extreme wind speed as well as its mean
and standard deviation, are important for the wind load definition. Several studies have been
performed to find models that best fit a set of wind speed data. Three types of extreme value
probability distributions, which are Type I (Gumble), Type II (Frechet) and Type III (Reverse
Weibull), are available for wind speed data fit. The Type I distribution has a thinner upper tail
than Type II, but is still not bounded from above. Previous probabilistic considerations as
well as available empirical evidence suggest that the asymptotic probability distributions of
the largest values with unlimited tail are appropriate for modeling the largest annual wind
speed [3]. ASCE 7 building code [1] wind map is based on Extreme Type I distribution.
Extreme Type I distribution is the most common distribution function and has been used
worldwide in many design codes. A recent study by Simiu and Heckert [9], however, has
shown that Type I is conservative, and that Type III’s extreme value distribution may provide
a better fit to the annual extreme wind speed data. Their results, however, have not been
confirmed by others. For example, Cheng and Yeung [2] later stated that, based on the
conditional mean exceedance (CME) method, the annual extreme gust wind speeds are better
predicted by the Extreme Type III model. However, the results that can be obtained from a
simple statistical analysis and a graphic curve fitting approach can equally reveal that Type I
is in fact a better model for the estimation of the wind probability function. In this study, it
was assumed that wind speed data follow Extreme Type I function.

The method of order statistics and the method of moment should both be examined to
estimate the best-fit Extreme Type I probability distribution function for the wind speed data
[8]. In this study, the method of moment has been applied to estimate the statistical data for
wind speed probability distribution function. Because we are only concerned with the wind
load model in non-hurricane regions in this research, only the 105 stations (of the total 143
stations in Cheng and Yeung’s study) that are not located in the eastern coastal hurricane
regions were selected. These are shown in Table 1. The eastern states of US contiguous have
been removed. According to the map provided by Petreka and Shahid [6], the nominal wind
speeds for selected stations (which are also reflected in ASCE 7/98 and its following revised
edition) are 90 or 85 mph. Petreka and Shahid used the superstations concept and the Extreme
Type I distribution to estimate the 50-year normal target and many other recurrence periods
corresponding to the wind speed maps.
 Table 1. Wind speed statistical data in 105 stations in US contiguous (Cheng and Yeung [2])

Sta. Sta. m Mean Cov Vn Sta. Sta. m Mean Cov Vn

No. Abv. (years) m/sec - m/sec No. Abv. (years) m/sec - m/sec
3860 HTS 16 23.96 0.127 40.23 23065 GLD 16 31.40 0.083 40.23
3872 BKW 16 24.78 0.109 40.23 23066 GJT 16 29.06 0.121 40.23
3927 DFW 32 28.14 0.146 40.23 23154 ELY 15 27.42 0.058 40.23
3945 COL 21 30.44 0.155 40.23 23155 BFL 20 21.23 0.141 38.00
3947 MCI 18 28.18 0.161 40.23 23157 BIH 16 27.82 0.123 38.00
13729 EKN 15 24.23 0.110 40.23 23160 TUS 21 27.80 0.149 40.23
13741 ROA 16 27.87 0.161 40.23 23169 LAS 20 30.35 0.159 40.23
13748 ILM 19 27.38 0.161 40.23 23174 LAX 40 21.85 0.130 38.00
13866 CRW 16 26.02 0.141 40.23 23185 RNO 21 31.65 0.131 40.23
13877 BRI 18 26.55 0.171 40.23 23188 SAN 21 20.46 0.158 38.00
13882 CHA 19 25.02 0.190 40.23 23234 SFO 40 28.62 0.187 38.00
13891 TYS 18 25.50 0.129 40.23 24011 BIS 21 27.57 0.123 40.23
13893 MEM 15 28.51 0.132 40.23 24029 SHR 16 29.67 0.067 40.23
13897 BNA 21 26.68 0.181 40.23 24033 BIL 21 28.88 0.095 40.23
13962 ABI 18 28.08 0.137 40.23 24089 CPR 15 29.82 0.059 40.23
13966 SPS 27 29.33 0.133 40.23 24090 RAP 17 31.71 0.077 40.23
13967 OKC 21 29.98 0.143 40.23 24127 SLC 36 29.29 0.140 40.23
13968 TUL 21 26.99 0.130 40.23 24128 WIN 17 27.51 0.166 40.23
13985 DDC 19 29.34 0.103 40.23 24131 BOI 21 25.60 0.121 40.23
13994 STL 21 27.70 0.149 40.23 24144 HLN 17 27.55 0.109 40.23
13995 SGF 19 25.35 0.110 40.23 24146 FCA 17 25.11 0.132 40.23
13996 TOP 21 30.01 0.140 40.23 24149 LWS 16 25.57 0.109 40.23
14820 CLE 19 29.43 0.131 40.23 24153 MSO 17 26.14 0.122 40.23
14821 CMH 22 27.84 0.155 40.23 24155 PEN 21 28.29 0.115 38.00
14826 FNT 15 27.48 0.148 40.23 24156 PIH 21 29.39 0.122 40.23
14827 FWA 17 28.31 0.058 40.23 24157 GEG 21 25.88 0.090 38.00
14836 LAN 19 27.53 0.112 40.23 24221 EUG 19 23.97 0.128 38.00
14837 MSN 19 28.92 0.197 40.23 24225 MFR 21 23.09 0.124 38.00
14839 MKE 17 29.95 0.116 40.23 24227 OLY 16 22.55 0.145 38.00
14842 PIA 16 28.60 0.154 40.23 24229 PDX 32 26.96 0.189 38.00
14847 CIU 16 26.51 0.097 40.23 24232 SAE 19 24.53 0.142 38.00
14852 YNG 15 28.42 0.140 40.23 24233 SEA 18 22.73 0.135 38.00
14860 ERI 15 29.43 0.112 40.23 24243 YKM 21 25.91 0.112 38.00
14891 MFD 15 29.14 0.116 40.23 93193 FAT 21 20.01 0.131 38.00
14898 GRB 16 26.66 0.181 40.23 93814 CVG 17 28.78 0.145 40.23
14913 DLH 24 26.52 0.132 40.23 93817 EVV 17 27.17 0.145 40.23
14914 FAR 21 25.12 0.125 40.23 93819 IND 23 31.00 0.262 40.23
14918 INL 16 25.44 0.112 40.23 93820 LEX 18 25.35 0.128 40.23
14922 MSP 18 26.85 0.104 40.23 93821 SDF 20 28.25 0.191 40.23
14923 MLI 18 30.32 0.117 40.23 93822 SPI 19 27.11 0.117 40.23
14925 RST 19 32.10 0.119 40.23 94008 GGW 21 29.65 0.131 40.23
14933 DSM 21 29.01 0.107 40.23 94014 ISN 16 27.31 0.099 40.23
14936 HUR 16 29.84 0.106 40.23 94224 AST 20 31.67 0.112 38.00
14939 LNK 18 28.79 0.143 40.23 94789 JFK 15 27.71 0.093 40.23
14943 SUX 19 29.75 0.097 40.23 94814 HTL 16 23.49 0.099 40.23
14944 FSD 19 30.14 0.131 40.23 94822 RFD 19 28.21 0.138 40.23
23034 SJT 19 31.49 0.146 40.23 94830 TOL 16 26.54 0.103 40.23
23042 LBB 18 30.64 0.137 40.23 94846 ORD 24 27.22 0.147 40.23
23044 ELP 21 28.41 0.168 40.23 94847 DTW 24 25.49 0.131 40.23
23047 AMA 21 30.86 0.093 40.23 94849 APN 16 23.63 0.104 40.23
 23050 ABQ 18 29.83 0.053 40.23 94860 GRR 21 28.09 0.130 40.23
23061 ALS 16 27.11 0.108 40.23 24143 GTF 17 27.30 0.118 40.23
23062 DEN 35 25.54 0.077 40.23

In Table 1, parameter m represents the number of years corresponding to the wind speed
records. Cov, Mean and Vn are coefficient of variation, mean and nominal wind speed
respectively. Data shown in Table 1 that are available in the Cheng and Yeung study were
obtained from the US National Climatic Center database. Figure 1 shows the frequency of
coefficient of variations among the selected stations. In almost 70 percent of the stations the
coefficient of variation is between 0.10 and 0.15.

Figure 1. Frequency of coefficient of variations over selected stations

In all stations, the years of record-keeping are greater than 15. The overall mean of
coefficient of variation in the 105 selected stations is about 0.131. The variation of extreme
annual wind speed with the standard deviation in each station is shown in Figure 2. A linear
regression line forced through the origin has a slope, which is the coefficient of variation, of
0.1283. The tendency for the standard deviation of the maximum annual wind speed to
increase as the mean value of the maximum annual wind speed increases is not strong. The
correlation factor between maximum annual wind speed standard deviation and mean is about
0.30.
 Figure 2. Best fitted line for annual wind speed mean and standard deviation

Figure 3 shows the relationship between the reference wind speed for various return periods
and the coefficient of variation in all selected stations. The relationship is based on Extreme
Type I distribution. In Figure 3, only the variability of wind speed has been considered and
the other uncertainties have been neglected. The wind pressure is proportional to the square
of the wind speed. Figure 3 shows that in the range of 0.10 to 0.15, which includes the
coefficient of variation of a majority of stations, the wind load factor that equals the 500-year
to 50-year wind pressure ranged from almost 1.31 to 1.42 respectively. This factor is close to
the value of (1.6)*(0.85) =1.36 that is used in ASCE 7-05. The factor of 0.85 represents the
directionality effect.

Return periods of 25 and 100 years have been used to estimate the importance factor for
temporary and post-disaster buildings. For a 100-year return period and the most frequent
range of coefficient of variation, the importance factor range between 1.09 and 1.12. The
estimated importance factor for temporary buildings, based on a 25-year return period, also
ranges between 0.88 and 0.92. Importance factors for temporary and post-disaster buildings
according to ASCE 7-05 are 1.11 and 0.87 respectively.
 Figure 3. Normalized wind pressure with respect to 50-year return period

Wind load factors are sensitive to the selected probability distribution function. Whalen and
Simiu [12] showed that for long return periods, using the Extreme Type I model leads to
more conservative load factors than Extreme Type III. Current ultimate strength design is
based on a 500-year return period and for this return period, the results for Extreme Type III
and I are close to each other.

3. Wind load analysis

Main wind-force resisting systems (MWFRS) should be designed to resist gravity and wind
loads. In moment resisting frames and other lateral resistance systems, load combinations
containing the wind load are dominant combinations in design, especially in tall building
structures. In these types of structures, ultimate strength limit states as well as serviceability
limit states are considered.

According to ASCE 7-05, design wind load pressure for MWFRS of buildings of all heights
shall be determined by Equation 3.

(3)
In Equation 3, and are velocity pressure at heights z and h. Parameter h is the height of
the building, Cp is the external pressure coefficient for windward and leeward faces, and G is
the peak gust wind factor. Equation 4 is used to determine the velocity pressure along the
height.

(4)

, and are velocity pressure exposure coefficient, topographic factor and basic wind
speed respectively. The factor is the importance factor. Basic design wind speed is defined
as the wind speed measured at the standard height of 10 meters above ground in open country
with a 50-year mean recurrence interval, which is equivalent to 2 percent annual probability
of exceedance.

Ultimate strength states are used to check the strength of load-bearing systems against
applied loads. The 500-year return period is often used to check the structural members
against ultimate limit states. The design load combinations for structures, components and
foundations according to ASCE 7-05 are shown in Equations 5 and 6. In these load
combinations, the wind load factors convert the 50-year wind pressure to almost 500-year
wind pressure. It is assumed that wind directionality has been considered in evaluating the
nominal or design wind load.

(5)

(6)

The above load combinations are based on maximum wind load and average live load. Some
other codes, such as the Australian code, make direct use of the 500-year wind map instead of
the 50-year wind map. In this case, wind load appears with no factor in the load combinations
like those shown in Equations 5 and 6. As discussed in the following sections, the upper tail
of the probability distribution function is used to fit the best probability model. The fitted
model is very sensitive to the selected upper tail region.

For serviceability limit states that are used to provide building comfort ability and
functionality, excessive deflection, vibration and deterioration are checked. Chapter C,
Appendix C of ASCE 7-05 code commentary defines the load combination with a 5% annual
probability of exceedance for checking the short-term effects, as shown in Equation 7. This
load combination corresponds to a 20-year return period.

(7)

The above load combination is used to check the lateral inter-story drift of buildings. ASCE
7-05 stated that using factored wind load in checking serviceability is excessively
conservative, so using the less conservative 20-year return period would seem to be more
reasonable. A previous study by Galambos and Ellingwood [5] suggested the 8-year wind
load for checking serviceability limit states.
In the next sections of this study, the statistical moment and probability distribution of annual
and 50-year wind load pressure are estimated.

4. Statistical analysis of wind load

Reliability assessment of various structural components requires statistical moments and
probability distribution of wind load. Statistical information on actual wind load is estimated
based on the wind speed and relevant statistical data relating to code factors. In Equations 3
and 4, the derivation of wind pressure is shown based on ASCE 7-05. Wind pressure is a
product of wind speed and other code factors. The main random variable is the wind speed,
but other code factors do affect the wind pressure statistical model.

Ellingwood [4] statistically characterized wind loads on structures for developing load factors
for the ANSI code. Statistical information for seven stations, which were located in non-
hurricane regions, was used in that study. These data had been directly obtained from a
previous study by Simiu [10]. Extreme Type I was used to model the annual wind speed data.
As the extent of information available for the estimation of statistical data for other code-
related factors (such as pressure and gust factors) is minimal, previous typical data for these
factors were used by Ellingwood. It was assumed that the means of these factors were equal
to their code values. The probability distribution function for all of these factors was assumed
to be a normal function.

Two methods that could generally be applied to estimate the statistical moments and the
probabilistic model for wind load are moment and order statistics methods. In the method of
moment, the distribution parameters are obtained by replacing the expectation and standard
deviation of wind pressure with the corresponding statistics of the sample. In the method of
order statistics, the evaluation of parameters of cumulative distribution function is based on
least squares fitting of straight line to the data on the probability paper. Since wind pressure is
the product of a number of random variables, the probabilistic model for it tends towards the
Lognormal distribution. However, Ellingwood [4] has proposed Extreme Type I (largest)
distribution, based on the method of order statistics for wind load model. Recently, Rosowsky
and Cheng [7] used the same procedure for three stations in hurricane-prone regions and
proposed the Lognormal model for wind load.

In this study, the same procedure as that applied in previous studies is used for estimating the
annual and the 50-year wind pressure probabilistic models. As mentioned in the previous
sections, statistical data for wind speed (shown in Table 1) are derived directly from the study
by Cheng and Yueng [2]. Statistical information on other code-related factors are obtained
from the recent study by Ellingwood and Tekei [3], in which the Delphi method was used to
revise uncertainties among these code factors. The statistical data for basic random variables
considered in this study are shown in Table 2 below.
 Table 2. Statistical data for basic random variables

Parameter Bias1 COV2 CDF

Wind Speed Table 1 Table 1 Extreme Type I
Exposure factor 0.96 0.116 Normal
Gust Factor 0.96 0.098 Normal
Windward pressure coefficient 0.86 0.145 Normal
Leeward pressure coefficient 0.92 0.152 Normal
Wind direction factor 1.01 0.093 Normal
Model error 1.00 0.050 Normal
1- Mean to nominal value
2- Coefficient of variation

All nominal values for basic variables were derived from ASCE 7-05 at 10 m height above
the ground. All other code-related factors, such as topographic factor, are assumed to be
deterministic. It is possible to include a directionality factor of 0.85 when calculating the
velocity pressure. In the recent revision of the ASCE code, this factor has been applied
directly in nominal wind load calculations and the wind load factor has been modified to
account for this consideration. In order to maintain consistency with the ASCE load
combinations, this factor has been incorporated into the statistical analysis of the current
study. The model error is used to account for approximation and errors arising from the
analysis methods and simplification. This factor reflects the uncertainty of converting the
load to load effects.

Assuming that the annual maximum gust wind speeds are statistically independent and
identically distributed, the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of N year maximum wind
speed can be derived from the CDF of the annual maximum gust wind speed. If V follows the
Type I distribution, the lifetime design speed for N years, VN, also follows Type I
distribution. The mean and coefficient of variation of VN are given by Equations 8 and 9 [8].

√
̅ ̅ (8)

̅
̅
(9)

The method of ordered statistics and the curve fitting tool have been used in this research. For
comparison, different regions of the probability paper were used to find the best-fit model. As
mentioned previously, the probabilistic parameters of the estimated model are sensitive to the
regions selected on the probability paper. In addition to the inherent uncertainty in the sample
data, the errors of both sampling and observation have been considered in estimating the total
uncertainties in predicting N year wind speed data from limited available data. Observation
and sampling errors have been considered as described in the available literature [4, 8 and
11]. In the previous study by Ellingwood [1], the coefficient of variation due to sampling and
 ̅
observation errors for a 50-year return period were taken as ̅
and 0.02 respectively.
√
For other return periods, a similar formula could be derived using moment method.

5. Probabilistic analysis results

Monte Carlo simulations along with systematic Latin hypercube technique have been applied
to calculate the probability required for the curve-fitting process. Two probability distribution
functions, i.e. Lognormal and Extreme Type I, have been used. The goodness of fit for these
probability functions was checked by comparing the two. Firstly, at each station, the curve-
fitting procedure was conducted and the fitted curve parameters were then evaluated. The
fitted curves’ parameters were averaged at all stations. The fitted curve parameters are
sensitive to the probability region considered for the curve-fitting purpose.

The range above the 90th percentile is the most important region of probability density
function. In many of the past studies, such as the one that was used for ASCE code
calibration [4], the 90th percentile area was used. For comparison purposes, the entire range of
probabilities was used to find the best-fit curves.

The wind pressure was normalized based on nominal wind pressure calculated according to
ASCE 7-05. The main random variable considered is wind pressure over nominal wind
pressure ratio. Wind pressure data were obtained for the annual and the 50-year return
periods. Figure 4 contains the resulting fitted lines for several considered cases of the
probability paper coordinates. The horizontal axis in Figure 4 is the inverse of cumulative
density function. The vertical axis for Extreme Type I shows the normalized wind load while
that for Lognormal shows the logarithm of normalized wind load. The location and scale
parameters have been calculated based on linear fitting over wind load data at each station.
The resulting parameters were then averaged over all the stations. For Extreme Type I,
location and scale parameters were converted to probability function parameters and
averaged over the stations. Equations 10 and 11 show the parameters for Extreme Type I and
Lognormal distributions respectively.

( )
(10)

(11)

α and u are the scale and scale parameters for the Extreme Type I while and are
the location and scale parameters for the Lognormal function. Parameter represents the
cumulative normal probability function. The probability distribution parameters were
determined at each station, and then the mean and coefficient of variation of fitted curve were
calculated based on these parameters.
 Figure 4. Normalized wind pressure in probability paper

Figure 4 shows that for the range above the 90th percentile, the normalized wind pressure is
more linear than that in the entire range. Graphically, it seems that Lognormal probability
function is more suitable for modeling the wind pressure, especially for the range above the
90th percentile. Based on the Central Limit Theorem, since wind pressure is a product of
several parameters, it may tend towards the Lognormal distribution. However, as mentioned
previously, Ellingwood [4] has proposed Extreme Type I (largest) distribution for wind
pressure while recently, Rosowsky and Cheng [1] used Lognormal for modeling wind
pressure. They stated that neither Type I nor Type II largest distribution was found to fit for
the wind load data while Lognormal fitted for the wind data very well.

Figure 5 shows the histogram of scale and location parameters for both Extreme Type I and
Lognormal functions over different stations. The results are based on fitting above the 90 th
percentile, and show a large fluctuation. In a previous study [4], location and scale
parameters for seven stations were averaged. Then the mean and standard deviation of these
averages were used to model the wind load. This model was the basis for the ANSI code
calibration. Using the same procedure, the parameters of Lognormal and Extreme Type I
were averaged among the 105 selected stations. The average parameters and the
corresponding mean and coefficient of variation are shown in Table 3. The effect of using
average location and scale parameters on the structural reliability is considered in the next
section. It is reasonable to use averaging of parameters over stations that are near populated
areas like major cities. Using weighted averaging, in which at each station a weight is
considered based on the population of surrounding areas, would seem reasonable. However,
in this study, the results were averaged without considering any weight. As seen in Figure 5,
a wide difference exists between the scale and location parameters.

Figure 5. Scale and location parameters histogram

It should be noted that the results shown in Table 3 include the directionality factor. The
coefficient of variation calculated based on fitting over the entire range is less than that for
the range above the 90th percentile. Both fitted Lognormal and Extreme Type I distributions
have similar coefficients of variation and mean. The bias factor in Table 3 represents the
mean to nominal for the wind pressure.

Table 3. Statistical parameters for fitted functions of normalized wind pressure

Above 0.90 Entire Rage

Function Parameters Statistical Data Parameters Statistical Data
1 2 1 2
location scale Bias COV location scale Bias COV
Lognormal -0.4050 0.3827 0.7177 0.3972 -0.3184 0.3158 0.7645 0.3239
Extreme Type I 4.6125 0.5637 0.6889 0.4035 5.2153 0.6646 0.7753 0.3171
1– Mean to Nominal Value 2– Coefficient of Variation

The appropriateness of fit for both Lognormal and Extreme Type I is calculated based on R-
square. Equation 12 shows the calculation of this parameter.
∑ ̂ ̅
∑ ̅
(12)
SSR is the sum of squares of the regression and SST is the sum of squares about the mean.
Mathematically, the residual for a specific predictor value is the difference between the
response value y and the predicted response value ̂. is the real response. R-square can take
up any value between 0 and 1, with a value closer to 1 indicating that a greater proportion of
variance is accounted for in the model. Figure 6 shows the variation in R-square at different
stations.

Figure 6. R-square variation over stations

In comparison to the Extreme Type I function, the Lognormal function fits the data better.
Results show that fitting in the range above the 90th percentile fits the wind pressure data
better than that in the entire range. Using these results, the average bias and coefficient of
variation for the Lognormal model are 0.72 and 0.40 respectively. For the Extreme Type I
model, the estimated bias factor and coefficient of variation are 0.69 and 0.40 respectively.
The bias factor of 0.69 in this case includes the directionality factor. Removing the 0.85
directionality factor will result in 0.81 for the bias factor. This could be compared with 0.78,
which was estimated in the Ellingwood study [4].

The same procedure was carried out for annual wind pressure. Again, Lognormal distribution
was found to be the best fit for wind pressure, and the estimated bias factor and coefficient of
variation were 0.37 and 0.42 respectively. Using Extreme Type I for modeling wind pressure
resulted in 0.35 for the bias factor and 0.46 for the coefficient of variation.

6. Effect of wind model on structural reliability

The type and parameters of probabilistic models for loads have direct effects on structural
reliability indices. In this section, the effect of using different models while averaging over
stations is studied. For simplicity, one of the main ASCE load combinations is considered.
The additive effect of dead, live and wind loads has been considered as in the load
combination below:

(13)
In Equation 13, DL, LL and WL represent dead load, live load and wind load respectively. In
the above load combination, the maximum lifetime (50-year) wind load is added to arbitrary
point in time live load. These data are constructed from the available literature. It is assumed
that the resistance component is tensile strength with a bias factor of 1.05 and a coefficient of
variation of 0.11. Table 4 shows the statistical information for dead and live loads and the
tensile strength. Live to dead load ratio is assumed to be 0.50. Different wind to dead load
ratios were considered. The so-called advanced first order-second moment method was
utilized to evaluate the reliability indices.

Table 4. Statistical parameters of loads and resistance

Component Bias1 COV2 Model

Dead load 1.05 0.10 Normal
Live Load 0.24 0.50 Gamma
Tensile Strength 1.05 0.11 Lognormal
1. Bias=Mean to Nominal2. COV=Coefficient of Variation

Using the statistical data shown in Table 4 and those obtained for the wind load for both
Lognormal and Extreme Type I, reliability analyses were performed in order to calculate the
reliability indices. Figure 7 shows the resulting reliability indices for different stations. These
results are based on wind to dead loads ratio of 1.0. The calculated reliability indices for each
station, based on Lognormal and Extreme Type I models, are very close to each other. This
indicates that there is minimal difference between using Lognormal and Extreme Type I
models in reliability analysis. The average reliability indices of all stations for Lognormal and
Extreme Type I were 2.982 and 3.120 respectively. Generally, using the Lognormal model
leads to more conservative results than the Extreme Type I model. Considering that the
Lognormal model fits the wind data much better than Extreme Type I, and that it leads to
more conservative results in comparison to Extreme Type I, it seems reasonable to use the
Lognormal model instead of Extreme Type I in any wind load reliability analysis.

Figure 7. Variation in reliability indices over stations

Although the average reliability indices for the Lognormal model is less than that for Extreme
Type I, in some of the stations investigated, the reliability indices resulting from the
Lognormal model were greater than those from the Extreme Type I model.
In order to quantify the effect of wind to dead load ratios on reliability indices, several
reliability analyses were conducted for different wind to dead load ratios. In these analyses,
the averaged statistical models (see Table 3) were used. Figure 8 shows the reliability indices
for both Lognormal and Extreme Type I models. Results show that the Lognormal model
leads to lower reliability indices over all wind to dead load ratios in comparison to the
Extreme Type I model. As expected, by increasing the wind to dead load ratio, the reliability
indices decrease. The difference between reliability indices for Lognormal and Extreme Type
I is low and in the range of 5 percent.

Figure 8. Reliability Indices variation over stations

Figure 8 shows that reliability indices for most of the stations lie between 2.0 and 4.0 for a
wind to dead load ratio of 1.0. The coefficient of variation of reliability indices is around 0.25
for both Lognormal and Extreme Type I. This coefficient of variation is twice the coefficient
of variation of annual wind speed, which is around 0.12.

7. Conclusion
Wind pressure is a product of several factors such as wind speed, pressure coefficient, peak
gust wind, velocity pressure coefficient, etc. In this study, nominal wind pressures were
calculated, based firstly on ASCE 7-05, and from these the normalized wind pressure was
obtained. Wind speed data for 105 stations in non-hurricane regions were extracted from data
presented in Cheng and Yeung [2]. These data were obtained from the US National Climatic
Center database. It was assumed that wind speed data followed Extreme Type I distribution.
Statistical data for other factors were obtained from a recent study by Ellingwood and Tekei
[3], which used the Delphi study to revise uncertainties among these code factors.

The method of statistical order (by the means of Monte Carlo simulation) was used to
evaluate the 50-year wind pressure model. In this method, the best-fitted linear equation was
extracted from plotted wind pressure data on the probability axes coordinate system.
Lognormal probability function, as well as Extreme Type I function, was used in this
research. Data fitting was performed on the entire set of data and on the set corresponding to
those above the 90th percentile, in order to find the probability model parameters. The
calculated model parameters for Lognormal and Extreme Type I were then averaged over the
stations to get the overall model for wind pressure. Results showed that Lognormal is a more
appropriate model for wind pressure than Extreme Type I.

In order to quantify the effect of the wind pressure model on structural reliability, a set of
reliability analyses were performed, based on the resultant wind pressure model, for the case
of tensile strength and for one of the basic load combinations in the ASCE code. Reliability
indices resulting from assumed Lognormal and Extreme Type I models were close to each
other, with differences as low as 5 percent. However, using the Lognormal model leads to
more conservative results in comparison to Extreme Type I. Considering that the Lognormal
model fits the wind pressure data better than the Extreme Type I model, and that it leads to
more conservative results, it can be confidently suggested that that the Lognormal model is
the better probability distribution function to use to model wind pressure.
 8. References
[1] ASCE 7-05, 2005, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. American
Society of Civil Engineering, Washington D.C.

[2] Cheng E, Yeung C. 2002. Generalized extreme gust wind speeds distributions. Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 90: 1657-1669

[3] Ellingwood B, Tekie P. 1999. Wind load statistics for probability-based structural design.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 125 (4): 453–463.

[4] Ellingwood B. 1981. Wind and snow load statistics for probabilistic design. Journal of the
Structural Division, 107 (ST7): 1345–1350.

[5] Galambos T, Ellingwood B. 1986. Serviceability limit states: deflection. Journal of

Engineering Structures, 112(1): 67-84

[6] Petreka J, Shahid S. 1998. Design gust wind speeds in the United States. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 124(2): 207-214

[7] Rosowsky D, Cheng N. 1999. Reliability of light-frame roofs in high-wind regions I:

wind loads. Journal of Structural Engineering, 125(7): 725-733

[8] Simiu E, Scanlan R. 1996. Wind effects on structures, Third edition. John Wiley and
Sons.

[9] Simiu E, Heckert A. 1996. Extreme wind distribution tail: a peaks over threshold
approach. Journal of Structural Engineering, 122(5): 539-547

[10] Simiu E. 1980. Extreme wind speeds at 129 airport stations. Journal of the Structural
Division, 106 (ST4): 809–817.

[11] Simiu E, Shaver J. 1979. Wind loading and reliability based design. Fifth International
Conference on Wind Engineering, Fort Collins: 1281-1292

[12] Whalen T, Simiu E. 1998. Assessment of wind load factors for hurricane-prone regions.
Structural Safety, 20: 271-281

View publication stats