NATL INST. OF STAND & TECH

A111DS T73A3M

Publications

\

*"*eA u of * NBS TECHNICAL NOTE 1197

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/National Bureau of Standards

hQC —

100

U5753

1197

19d4

Fastest-Mile

Wind Speeds in

Hurricane Alicia
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards' was established by an act of Congress on March 3, 1901. The Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and technology

and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts

research and provides: (1) a basis for the Nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety. The Bureau's technical work is per- formed by the National Measurement Laboratory, the National Engineering Laboratory, and

the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology.

THE NATIONAL MEASUREMENT LABORATORY provides the national system of

physical and chemical and materials measurement; coordinates the system with measurement

systems of other nations and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform

physical and chemical measurement throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry,

and commerce; conducts materials research leading to improved methods of measurement,

standards, and data on the properties of materials needed by industry, commerce, educational

institutions, and Government; provides advisory and research services to other Government

agencies; develops, produces, and distributes Standard Reference Materials; and provides

calibration services. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Absolute Physical Quantities2 — Radiation Research — Chemical Physics —

Analytical Chemistry — Materials Science

THE NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY provides technology and technical ser- vices to the public and private sectors to address national needs and to solve national problems; conducts research in engineering and applied science in support of these efforts; builds and maintains competence in the necessary disciplines required to carry out this research and technical service; develops engineering data and measurement capabilities;

provides engineering measurement traceability services; develops test methods and proposes

engineering standards and code changes; develops and proposes new engineering practices;

and develops and improves mechanisms to transfer results of its research to the ultimate user. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Applied Mathematics — Electronics and Electrical Engineering2 — Manufacturing

Engineering — Building Technology — Fire Research — Chemical Engineering2

THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts

research and provides scientific and technical services to aid Federal agencies in the selection, acquisition, application, and use of computer technology to improve effectiveness and

economy in Government operations in accordance with Public Law 89-306 (40 U.S.C. 759), relevant Executive Orders, and other directives; carries out this mission by managing the Federal Information Processing Standards Program, developing Federal ADP standards

guidelines, and managing Federal participation in ADP voluntary standardization activities; provides scientific and technological advisory services and assistance to Federal agencies; and

provides the technical foundation for computer-related policies of the Federal Government.

The Institute consists of the following centers:

Programming Science and Technology — Computer Systems Engineering.

'Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, MD, unless otherwise noted; mailing address Washington, DC 20234. 'Some divisions within the center are located at Boulder, CO 80303.
Fastest-Mile Wind Speeds in Hurricane Alicia

Richard D. Marshall

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

ERRATA SHEET

NBS Technical Note 1197

June 1984

Pa<3e 21 Second paragraph, fifth line

"500 m" should read "5 km"

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

Issued June 1 984

HATTOMAL BUREAU QV STANDARDS

LI.vHAHY

QC

1 00

","7 5 3

iqs4
National Bureau of Standards Technical Note 1 1 97

Natl. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Tech. Note 1 197, 68 pages (June 1984)

CODEN: NBTNAE

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1984

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1

.

INTRODUCTION 1

2. STORM SUMMARY 2

3. WIND SPEED RECORDS AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS 3

4. ANALYSIS OF WIND SPEED RECORDS 17

4.1 ESTABLISHED FLOW REGIMES 17

4.2 TRANSITION ZONES 20

4.3 ESTIMATION ERRORS 23

4.4 PROBABLE RANGE OF ERROR IN ESTIMATES OF WIND SPEEDS 26

5. FASTEST-MILE SPEEDS FOR STANDARD HEIGHT AND EXPOSURE 29

5.1 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AT INDIVIDUAL SITES 29

5.2 DISTRIBUTION OF FASTEST-MILE WIND SPEEDS 31

5.3 COMPARISON OF Ufm WITH RECOMMENDED DESIGN SPEEDS 33

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 34

7

.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 36

Appendix I — References 37

Appendix II — Notation 38

in
ABSTRACT

Surface wind speeds recorded during the passage of Hurricane Alicia through the

Galveston- Houston area on August 18, 1983, are used to estimate fastest-mile wind

speeds at 10 m above ground in open terrain. The paper describes the relationships

between wind speeds for various averaging times and the boundary-layer representations

used in the transformation to fastest-mile speeds. These speeds are compared

with wind speeds recommended for the design of buildings and other permanent

structures. Errors inherent in the original wind speed records and in the transformations are estimated.

Keywords: Boundary layers; buildings (codes); hurricanes; structural engineering;

tropical cyclones; wind speeds.

iv
LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Characteristics of Anemometer Sites 39

Table 2. Estimated Terrain Roughness at Dow Plant B 40

Table 3. Observations Reported from Hobby Airport Control Tower

August 18, 1983 40

Table 4. Estimated Terrain Roughness at Exxon-Baytown 41

Table 5. Ufm for Standard Height and Open Terrain

(z = 10 m, z = 0.05 m) 42

Table 6. Relative Reliability of Estimates of Ufm 43

Table 7. Comparison of Extreme Fastest-Mile Wind Speeds with

Recommended Design Speeds 43

v
Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10,

Figure 11

Figure 11

Figure 1.

Figure 14,

Figure 15

Figure 16,

Figure 17,

Figure 18,

Figure 19,

Figure 20,

Figure 21

Figure 22,

Figure 23

Figure 24

Figure 25,

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Location map and hurricane track 44

Plot of c(t) 45

Ufcoo vs uhr at IAH 46

U2 vs Uhr at IAH 47

u60 vs uhr at IAH 48

U600 vs uhr at NWS Alvin 49

u2 vs uhr at NWS Alvin . 50

Uhr (Met 5, 10 m) vs Uhr (AQM 4) 51

Uhr (Met 5, 90 m) vs Uhr (AQM 4) 52

Ufm at USCGC Buttonwood 53

Ufm at NWS Galveston 53

Ufm at TCAAMN AQM 4 and Met 5 54

Ufm at Dow Plant A 54

Ufm at Dow Plant B 55

Ufm at CBAAMN-Amoco 55

Ufm at NWS Alvin 56

Ufm at Ellington AFB . 56

Ufm at William P . Hobby Airport 57

Ufm at Exxon-Baytown 57

Ufm at U.S. Industrial Chemicals 58

Ufm at USCGC Clamp 58

Ufm at Houston Health Department 59

Ufm at Braes Meadow 59

Ufm at Houston Intercontinental Airport (IAH) 60

U900 (Braes Meadow) vs Us (Hobby) 61

vi
1 . INTRODUCTION

Although the frequency of hurricane crossings along the Atlantic and Gulf

Coasts is approximately 1.8 per year [1], the number of cases where direct and

reliable measurements of surface wind speeds over land have been obtained is

quite small. Reasons for this lack of reliable data include the sparseness of anemometer sites with unobstructed wind exposure, equipment damage or

malfunction, power failures, and, perhaps, a lack of dedicated effort to assemble

and analyze wind speed data that have been recorded. Even when reliable records

are available, substantial adjustments for nonstandard exposures may be required,

employing models based in large part on data obtained in extratropical storms.

There are a number of arguments to support the collection and assessment

of wind speed records following a hurricane. First, direct measurements of

surface wind speeds aid in the interpretation of data obtained by remote sensing

techniques, e.g., radar and satellite. Second, these measurements, along with

data obtained from reconnaissance aircraft, provide a means for checking and

improving analytical models of hurricanes. Third, reliable estimates of surface

wind speeds are essential to the evaluation of the performance of buildings and

other structures subjected to loads that approach or exceed the design wind

load. Finally, the documentation of surface wind speeds and the transformation

of these speeds to standard conditions provide a consistent measure of hurricane

intensity. Unfortunately, this has not been done as a matter of course for

past hurricanes and there is a tendency to rank hurricanes by wind speed without

due regard for the conditions under which those speeds were obtained.
The studies carried out by Reinhold [2] and by Powell [3] following

Hurricane Frederic in 1979 appear to represent the most comprehensive collection

and analysis of hurricane surface wind speed data to date. Reinhold's results

were subsequently applied to the evaluation of structural performance in the

region affected by Hurricane Frederic [4] . The motivation for a detailed

assessment of surface wind speeds following the passage of Hurricane Alicia

through the Galveston-Houston area on August 18, 1983, was to obtain estimates

of speeds in the format followed by most building codes, thereby providing a

basis for evaluating structural performance. Also, Hurricane Alicia presented

an opportunity to evaluate further the procedures used in reference 2 for the

transfer of wind speeds to standard conditions.

2. STORM SUMMARY

Hurricane Alicia had its origins in a low-pressure system located

approximately 300 km south of New Orleans late on August 14. The system moved

slowly to the west over the next 2 days and was designated a tropical storm on

August 15. This designation was upgraded to a hurricane at 2200 hours 1 on

August 16, at which time the center of the storm system was located approximately

270 km southeast of Galveston, moving to the west-northwest. Hurricane Alicia

continued on a west-northwest heading over the next 24 hours. This heading

shifted to the north-northwest early on August 18 when Alicia was approximately

110 km south-southeast of Galveston. Alicia came ashore near the southwest

tip of Galveston Island at about 0730 hours on August 18, passing to the

southwest of Alvin, Texas at 1030 hours and over the western section of Houston

1 Unless otherwise noted, all times refer to GMT. Note that CST = GMT - 6.

2
from 1230 to 1400 hours. The track shown in figure 1 represents a composite

of a storm track prepared by Lambeth [5] and information assembled and interpreted by Golden [6]. Figure 1 will probably be subject to some revision as

more information becomes available through the analysis of barometric pressure

records and radar data.

The lowest barometric pressure officially recorded over land was 28.55

inches Hg (966.7 mb) at the National Weather Service office at Alvin. An unusual

feature of this hurricane was an outer convective band, principally in the

northeast quadrant, which produced surface wind speeds as high or higher than

those near the eyewall. This band was clearly visible on radar and, for a

number of anemometer sites to the northeast of the storm track, appeared on

the wind speed records as a double peak. This double peak was also observed

at one anemometer site on the southwest (left) side of the storm track. Estimates

of eye diameter, based on radar data, range from 30 to 35 km [7], Transit time

through the Galveston-Houston area was approximately 8 hours and the average

translation speed was about 15 km/hr.

3. WIND SPEED RECORDS AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Copies of stripchart records and daily records of surface weather

observations were obtained from a number of sources during a visit by the

author to the affected area from August 29 to September 1, 1983. In many

cases it was possible to make a first-hand assessment of the wind exposure and

instrumentation. This information was later supplemented by topographic maps

and, in some cases, photographs. Records from other sites became available

during the course of this study, usually with only a cursory description of the

wind exposure and instrumentation.
There were 17 sites in all from which useful information was obtained.

Some of the wind speed records were automatically recorded, and others were

manually logged. Site locations are indicated on figure 1 using the numbering

sequence of table 1 which lists the anemometer height, assumed roughness

length, type of anemometer, and type of observation.

The following site descriptions provide the information required for the

transfer of wind speeds to standard conditions. Consistent with reference 2,

standard conditions are taken to mean a height of 10 m above flat, open terrain

of sufficient extent to allow full development of an equilibrium boundary

layer. The corresponding terrain roughness is characterized by a roughness

length parameter, z , which is taken to be 0.05 m. Wind speeds and barometric

pressure are reported in the units of the original observations (1 knot - 0.51

m/s; 1 mph - 0.45 m/s; 1 inch = 25.4 mm). Consistent with standard practice,

barometric pressure is expressed simply as "inches" rather than "inches Hg."

USCGC Buttonwood (Site 1)

The Coast Guard Cutter Buttonwood was berthed at the U.S. Coast Guard

Station in Galveston during the passage of Hurricane Alicia. The station is

located on the northeast tip of Galveston Island adjacent to Old Fort San

Jacinto and faces Galveston Channel to the west. Hourly and special observations of sustained speeds and peak gusts were obtained from a propeller-vane

anemometer mounted 13.7 m above the water. Wind speed data provided by the

Buttonwood cover the period 1800 hours on August 17 to 2100 hours on

August 18.

Peak gusts of 110 and 105 knots were observed at 0730 and 1000 hours,

respectively. The maximum sustained speed (visually averaged over 1 minute)
of 83 knots was observed at 1000 hours from a direction of 210 degrees. Wind

direction shifted clockwise from 45 degrees at 0000 hours to 205 degrees at

1700 hours. The maximum rate of shift occurred at 0730 hours. The minimum

barometric pressure was 29.27 inches at 0945 hours.

For wind direction of 45 to 170 degrees the fetch consists of very smooth

and open terrain extending approximately 2.7 km from the station to the Gulf of

Mexico. From 170 to 230 degrees, the overland fetch includes the central

business district and dock area of Galveston (approximately 6.4 km) followed by

about 2.4 km of open water along Galveston Channel. No other ships were berthed

or moored near the Buttonwood and there are no major buildings or other

obstructions that would have altered the wind field significantly. In converting the wind speeds observed by the Buttonwood to open exposure, a uniform

roughness length of z = 0.01 m was assumed.

NWS Galveston (Site 2)

The National Weather Service wind instrumentation is mounted on a mast

located on top of City Hall on Rosenberg Avenue in the central business district. Anemometer height is 32 m above street level. A continuous record

covering the period from 1200 hours on August 17 to 0100 hours on August 19

was obtained from a Mod. F-420 C anemometer. Hourly observations of sustained

speed and peak gust were also recorded. Due to an equipment malfunction, wind

direction was not recorded other than by entry of quadrant in the daily record.

It was necessary, therefore, to rely on observations of wind direction made by

USCGC Buttonwood which was berthed approximately 4.5 km northeast of City

Hall.
Peak gusts of 89 and 82 knots were recorded at 0634 and 0919 hours,

respectively, on August 18. The highest hourly mean speed of 50.3 knots

occurred between 0900 and 1000 hours with a corresponding wind direction of

approximately 220 degrees. Minimum barometric pressure was 29.22 inches at

0900 hours.

Because of the limited wind fetch over the central business district, the

boundary layer at the anemometer site was assumed to be in transition and the

transfer of wind speeds to open terrain was carried out using the procedure

described in section 4.2.

For the wind direction corresponding to the highest speeds recorded

(approximately 220 degrees), a fetch of 4 km and a roughness length of

z = 1.5 m was assumed for the central business district. A correction for

zero plane displacement (the height above ground level at which the wind speed

effectively becomes zero), z<j = 5 m, was also applied. Upwind of the central

business district the boundary layer was assumed to be fully developed over

relatively open terrain with a roughness length of z = 0.15 m.

TCAAMN-AQM 4 (Site 3)

This site is located on the seawall that runs north-south along the east

side of Texas City. The site has a clear exposure to Galveston Bay for wind

directions in the north-to-southeast sector. Anemometer height is 10 m. The

site is part of the Texas City Ambient Air Monitoring Network and wind speeds

are recorded as hourly mean speeds by a digital data logging system. Due to a

power failure the last wind speed entry was made at 0400 hours on August 18, at

which time the hourly mean speed was 52.5 mph. The corresponding wind direction
was 65 degrees. A roughness length z = 0.005 m was assumed in the transfer of

wind speeds to open terrain.

TCAAMN-Met 5 (Site 4)

This site is also operated by the Texas City Ambient Air Monitoring Network

and is located in the northeast corner of the Amoco refinery complex near

20th Street and 5th Avenue, S. The meteorological tower is instrumented at two

levels (10 and 90 m) and wind speed and direction are recorded as both 10 minute

sequential averages and hourly means by a digital data logging system. The

anemometers are 3-cup, fast response units. As with site AQM 4, this site was

also affected by a power failure and no data were recorded after 0600 hours on

August 18.

Maximum 10 minute mean speeds were 38.9 and 73.0 mph at the 10 and 90 m

levels, respectively. For the period 0000 to 0600 hours, wind direction at the

10 m level shifted clockwise from 35 to 80 degrees. The corresponding shift at

the 90 m level was from 30 to 60 degrees. Barometric pressure at the time of

power failure was 29.47 inches.

The wind exposure for the final 2 hours of record involved a long fetch

over Galveston Bay, followed by a fetch of approximately 3.2 km over the

central business district of Texas City and three to four city blocks of

residential area with numerous trees. In the analysis, a roughness length

z = 0.005 m was assumed for the over-water fetch and z = 1.0 m over land.

A correction of 2 m was applied to the anemometer heights to account for zero

plane displacement. A detailed description of the analysis of data for this

site is given in section 4.2.
Dow Plant A - Freeport (Site 5)

Plant A of Dow Chemical USA is located on the north bank of the Old

Brazos River directly east of Freeport. The anemometer site has a relatively

open exposure and is located approximately 1.6 km west-northwest of Plant A and

4 km from the Gulf of Mexico. It was not possible to visit this site, but the

anemometer was described as being mounted on a mast on top of a one-story

building at a height of approximately 10 m. The stripchart record for this

site covers the period 2300 hours on August 17 to 1500 hours on August 18.

The wind speed record indicates two distinct peaks with a peak gust of

87 mph at 0816 hours and a second peak of 83 mph at 0956 hours. Wind direction

shifted counterclockwise from 360 degrees at 0000 hours to 220 degrees at 1500

hours. Barometric pressure was not reported.

The wind fetch includes the city of Freeport for directions between 290

and 220 degrees. Over this same range of direction the length of urban exposure

varies from 1.3 to 1.0 km with fairly open terrain between the city and the

anemometer site ranging from 2.4 down to 0.8 km. In the transfer of wind

speeds to open terrain, a uniform roughness length of z = 0.15 m was assumed.

Dow Plant B - Freeport (Site 6)

Plant B of Dow Chemical USA is located on the north bank of the Brazos

River approximately 8 km west-northwest of Plant A. The anemometer at this site

is a propeller-vane and is mounted on a mast on top of a two-story building at

the east entrance to the plant. The height of the anemometer was estimated to

be 13 m. The stripchart record for this site covers the period 2300 hours on

August 17 to 1600 hours on August 18.
The peak gust recorded at this site was 94 mph at 0731 hours with a

corresponding wind direction of 295 degrees. The wind direction shifted

counterclockwise from 360 degrees at 0000 hours to 215 degrees at 1500 hours.

Maximum rate of shift occurred at approximately 0700 hours. The minimum

barometric pressure was reported to be 28.53 inches at 0600 hours.

Because of the proximity of the chemical plant, adjustments were made to

account for profile transition using the approach described in section 4.2.

The assumptions made regarding surface roughness and wind fetch are summarized

in table 2.

CBAAMN - Amoco (Site 7)

The meteorological tower operated by the Chocolate Bayou Ambient Air

Monitoring Network is located between the Amoco and Monsanto chemical plants

on Chocolate Bayou, just west of Route 2004 and approximately 40 km west of

Galveston. Anemometers are mounted at the 10 and 90 m levels and 1 hour averages of wind speed and direction are recorded by a digital data logging system.

Due to a power failure no data were recorded after 0500 hours on August 18.

Hourly mean wind speeds logged at 0400 hours were 38.6 and 50.0 mph at the 10

and 90 m levels, respectively. The terrain surrounding the Chocolate Bayou

site is very flat and open. Estimates of surface roughness based on average

speeds at the 10 and 90 m levels suggest z - 0.01 m. Barometric pressure

during the last hour of record averaged 29.49 inches.

NWS Alvin (Site 8)

Alvin, Texas is approximately 40 km south-southeast of the Houston central

business district and 45 km west-northwest of Galveston. The National Weather

Service facility is located on Route 6, 2.5 km east of town. The anemometer

9
is a Mod. F-420 C mounted on a 10 m mast. The surrounding terrain is flat and

fairly open with a few isolated buildings and trees. The stripchart record

obtained from NWS covers the period 2000 hours on August 17 to 1900 hours on

August 18. Wind direction was not recorded.

The wind speed record clearly indicates passage of the eye at 1025 hours.

Peak gusts before and after eye passage were 63 knots at 0742 hours and

62 knots at 1136 hours. Minimum barometric pressure was 28.55 inches at 1025

hours

A uniform roughness length of z = 0.20 m was used in the conversion of

hourly mean speeds to fastest-mile speeds at 10 m in open terrain. This

roughness length appears high based on a purely subjective assessment of the

wind exposure, but it is somewhat low when compared with the gust ratios

obtained from the wind record. The analysis of this record is discussed in

section 4.1.

Ellington Air Force Base (Site 9)

Ellington AFB is located approximately 25 km southeast of the Houston

central business district and 15 km inland from Galveston Bay. Hourly and

special observations of sustained speeds and peak gusts were obtained from a

propeller-vane anemometer located adjacent to the main runway. Anemometer

height is approximately 4 m. Observations used in this analysis covered the

period 0630 to 1700 hours on August 18.

Peak gusts of 64 and 69 knots were observed at 0755 and 1337 hours,

respectively, and the maximum sustained speed was 48 knots at 0755 and at 1255

hours. Wind direction shifted clockwise from 40 to 180 degrees with the maximum

10
rate of shift occurring at approximately 1130 hours. The minimum barometric

pressure of 29.00 inches was observed at 1155 hours.

The upwind terrain for the directions of interest is flat and open with the

nearest development located approximately 5 km to the southeast. A uniform

roughness length z = 0.10 m was assumed in the wind speed analysis.

Hobby Airport (Site 10)

William P. Hobby Airport (formerly known as Houston International Airport)

is located 15 km southeast of the Houston central business district and 12 km

west-northwest of Ellington AFB. Records of regularly scheduled and special

surface weather observations made by FAA Flight Services and obtained from the

National Climatic Data Center are incomplete for Hobby Airport due to a power

interruption from 0600 to 1400 hours on August 18. The last hourly observation

prior to power failure was taken at 0450 hours, indicating a sustained speed of

25 knots from 50 degrees and gusts to 40 knots. The next observation was

taken at 1419 hours with a sustained speed of 37 knots from 190 degrees and

gusts to 56 knots. The peak gust for the hour was 68 knots at 1446 hours.

The anemometer is a Mod. F-420 C and its height was reported to be 6.1 m. The

anemometer location is approximately midfield.

Additional unofficial observations of wind speeds at Hobby Airport were

obtained by a member of the FAA staff who was on duty in the control tower

during the passage of Alicia. The control tower receives wind speed and direction data from the anemometer location just described. Although the top floor

of the control tower was evacuated during the period of highest winds, speed

and direction were observed at irregular intervals. These observations are

summarized in table 3 and are discussed further in section 5.1.

11
Because the area surrounding. Hobby Airport is relatively well developed

with numerous trees, a uniform roughness length of z = 0.15 m was assumed in

the transfer of wind speeds to open terrain.

Exxon-Baytown (Site 11)

This site is located on the west side of Baytown and is approximately 35

km due east of the Houston central business district. Continuous records of

wind speed and direction were obtained from a propeller-vane anemometer mounted

on a 36.6 m mast located near the center of the Exxon refinery complex. Records

provided by Exxon Company USA cover the period 2000 hours on August 17 to

0500 hours on August 19.

The wind speed recorder contains three pens with full-scale ranges of

0-50, 0-100, and 0-200 mph, respectively. Although each pen has a different

color, overlap of the records made it very difficult to identify peak gusts

during the period of highest winds, in particular from 0930 to 1600 hours on

August 18. However, it was possible to estimate 30 minute mean speeds for the

entire length of record. A second recorder provides a moving time average

(time constant - 1 minute) of wind speed at full-scale ranges of 0-50 and 0-200

mph. This second recorder indicated some problems with intermittent loss of

signal and its stripchart was not used in the analysis reported herein. Circuit

diagrams for the recording system indicate an analog conversion of anemometer

output to correspond to a height of 30 ft (9.1 m). Based on a comparison with

other records available in the Baytown area before and after the passage of

Alicia, it does not appear that the anemometer output was subjected to any

modification and it has been assumed in this analysis that the wind speeds

recorded on the stripcharts do, in fact, correspond to the actual speeds at

12
the 36.6 m level. Rainfall, tide data, and barometric pressure were also

recorded.

The highest 30 minute mean speed was 70 mph, which occurred three times

between 1130 and 1500 hours on August 18. The corresponding wind direction

ranged from 95 to 140 degrees. The highest 1 minute average appears to have

been 76 mph at 1220 hours and several gusts above 110 mph were recorded between

1130 and 1430 hours on August 18. Directional data prior to 0900 hours on

August 18 are missing, but the remainder of the record indicates a clockwise

shift from 75 degrees at 0900 hours to 145 degrees at 2000 hours on August 18.

Maximum rate of shift occurred between 1200 and 1230 hours. Minimum barometric

pressure was 29.44 inches at 1200 hours.

Because of the large and abrupt variations in surface roughness surrounding

the site, adjustments had to be made to account for boundary layer transition.

Assumptions regarding surface roughness, zero plane displacement, and length of

fetch are summarized in table 4.

U.S. Industrial Chemicals (Site 12)

This site is located on the west side of Galveston Bay, approximately 30

km east of the Houston central business district and 7 km west-southwest of the

Exxon refinery at Bay town. Both wind speed and direction were recorded by

stripchart and the record covers the period 0630 to 1700 hours on August 18.

The recorder is of the dot-printing type and the quality of the ricord made it

impossible to estimate gust speeds. However, 15 minute averages were extracted

for use in the wind speed analysis. Anemometer height was reported to be 30 ft

(9.1 m) [5] and a uniform roughness length of z = 0.2 m was assumed in the

transfer of speeds to open terrain.

13
The maximum 15 minute average speed was 59 mph at 1100 to 1115 hours and

wind direction over the length of record ranged from 80 to 190 degrees. The

wind shift was clockwise with the maximum rate of shift occurring at

approximately 1130 hours. Barometric pressure was not reported.

USCGC Clamp (Site 13)

The Coast Guard Cutter Clamp was berthed at Greens Bayou near the Houston

Ship Channel during the passage of Hurricane Alicia. This location is 19 km

due east of the Houston central business district. Hourly and special observations of sustained speeds and peak gusts were obtained from a propeller-vane

anemometer mounted at a height of 10.7 m. Wind speed data obtained from the

Clamp cover the period 0600 to 2000 hours on August 18.

A peak gust of 104 knots was observed at 1200 hours and the highest

sustained speed of 55 knots was observed at 1400 hours. The corresponding

directions were 80 and 135 degrees. The wind shift was clockwise and changed

from 045 degrees at 0600 hours to 190 degrees at 2000 hours. Maximum rate of

shift occurred at 1330 hours. The minimum barometric pressure of 29.11 inches

was observed at 1230 hours.

The site at Greens Bayou was not visited, but it is understood that the

Clamp had a clear exposure to the maximum winds. Based on recent maps showing

commercial development in the area, a uniform roughness length of z = 0.20 m

was assumed.

USCGC Hatchet (Site 14)

The Coast Guard Cutter Hatchet was moored at Greens Bayou on August 18,

and hourly observations were obtained for the period 0600 to 2200 hours.

Observed speeds and directions exhibit considerable scatter from 1300 to 1800

14
hours and this data set was not used in this study. The peak gust reported by

Hatchet was 107 knots at 1115 hours. Minimum barometric pressure was 29.10

inches at 1200 hours.

Houston Health Department (Site 15)

The Houston Health Department maintains a wind recording station at

1115 N. MacGregor, approximately 5.5 km south-southwest of the central business

district. The anemometer is mounted close to the roof of the penthouse on a

multistory building, about 23 m above street level. Stripchart records of wind

speed and direction were obtained for the period 0800 to 1700 hours on August 18

and it is clear from the low mean speeds and high gust ratios that the anemometer

was severely obstructed by the building on which it is mounted. It is doubtful

whether any meaningful information can be extracted from this wind speed record

without resorting to a wind tunnel model study.

The wind direction at this site ranged from 30 to 200 degrees. The wind

shift was clockwise with the maximum rate of shift occuring at 1300 to 1330

hours. Barometric pressure was not reported.

Braes Meadow (Site 16)

This record was obtained at a private residence located approximately 17

km southwest of the Houston central business district. The anemometer height

is approximately 6.7 m and the surrounding area is residential development with

single-story houses and numerous trees close to the height of the anemometer.

The recorder is of the dot-printing type and, as was the case for the

US Industrial Chemicals record, it was not possible to extract gust speed data.

However, it was possible to estimate 15 minute wind speeds which indicated a

15
maximum of 24 mph between 1100 and 1200 hours on August 18. Wind direction

was not recorded.

The wind speed data suggest passage of the eye at 1300 to 1400 hours.

Barometric pressure was continuously recorded with a minimum pressure of 28.86

inches occurring at 1300 hours. Problems encountered with the analysis of the

Braes Meadow data are discussed in section 5.1.

Houston Intercontinental Airport (Site 17)

Houston Intercontinental Airport (IAH) is located approximately 25 km

north of the Houston central business district. Stripchart records of wind

speed provided by the National Weather Service cover the period from 2300

hours on August 17 to 0100 hours on August 19. The recording was interrupted

by a power failure from 1130 to 1230 hours on August 18. Hourly and special

observations of sustained speed, peak gust and direction were also obtained at

IAH. The anemometer is a Mod. F-420 C and is mounted at a height of 6.1 m

with an open exposure.

In contrast with most other stations located to the northeast of the storm

track, the wind record at IAH exhibits only one clear peak. The highest gust

was 68 knots at 1346 hours. Maximum sustained speed obtained from the hourly

observations was 44 knots at 1353 hours and the corresponding wind direction

was 80 degrees. The wind direction shifted clockwise from 50 degrees at 0100

hours to 180 degrees at 2000 hours. Maximum rate of shift occurred at

approximately 1430 hours. A uniform roughness length of z = 0.10 m was

assumed. The analysis of records for IAH is described in detail in section

4.1.

16
4.0 ANALYSIS OF WIND SPEED RECORDS

The transformation of observed wind speeds to fastest-mile speeds at 10 m

above flat, open terrain makes use of representations of the atmospheric boundary

layer that are based upon mean wind speeds averaged over a period of approximately

1 hour. As the observed speeds correspond to various averaging times, they

are converted to hourly mean speeds prior to applying adjustments for anemometer

height and terrain roughness. The hourly mean speeds so adjusted are then

converted to fastest-mile speeds, i.e., speeds based upon the time required for the

passage of a volume of air with a longitudinal dimension of 1 mile.

4.1 ESTABLISHED FLOW REGIMES

The approach used herein to estimate wind speeds corresponding to standard

conditions has been described by Reinhold [2] and is based in large part on

procedures developed by Simiu and Scanlan [8]. Briefly, the wind speeds actually

observed at the anemometer sites are converted to hourly mean speeds using the

relationship:

DeO - m«C«> [i * °to( z /^) ] a)

where Ut(z) is the maximum mean wind speed at height z averaged over t seconds,

U"hr ( z ) is the corresponding hourly mean speed, c(t) is a coefficient that depends

on t and on the longitudinal component of turbulence, z is the height of the

anemometer, and z is the roughness length corresponding to the terrain upwind

of the anemometer site. Figure 2 gives values of c(t) that are consistent with

gust ratios reported by Durst [9] for open terrain conditions. Wind speed

records obtained in fully established flows over surfaces of uniform roughness

suggest that equation 1 and the values of c(t) in figure 2 are applicable to

17
roughness lengths of up to z = 1.0 m [8]. For roughness lengths greater

than z = 1.0 m, larger values of c(t) may be appropriate.

The choice of t in equation 1 depends upon the type of wind speed record

obtained at the site. If stripcharts are available, the hourly mean speed can

be estimated from sequential time averages (usually 10 or 15 minutes) without

resorting to equation 1. Alternatively, the peak gust within the hour can be

used with the assumption that the associated averaging time for most mechanical

anemometer/recorder systems is approximately 2 seconds.

Many stations record only the sustained speed which is mentally averaged

by the observer over a period of approximately 1 minute. It is usual for those

observations to be made within the last 10 minutes of each hour, although

special observations may be made more frequently. Since the sustained speeds

entered in the record are not necessarily the maximum sustained speeds within

the hour, an adjustment is required prior to estimating Uhr . This is done

by converting the hourly observation of sustained speed, Us , to the extreme

fastest-mile speed, Ufm , within the hour using the empirical relationship:

Ufm (z) = 9.55 + 0.999 Us (z) (2)

which has been suggested by Thorn [10] based on the analysis of records

obtained under strong-wind conditions. The corresponding averaging time for

Ufm is t = 3600/Ufm . The hourly mean speed then is obtained using equation 1.

The transfer of hourly mean speeds at the anemometer site to standard

height (z = 10 m) in open terrain (z = 0.05 m) is accomplished using the

relationship developed in reference 8,

- S~05 ; 05 0.0706 , v U(10) = Uhr (z) ^± ( iil^ ) (3)

£n (—) Z °

z o

18
where U(10) is the hourly mean speed at 10 m in open terrain and z and z are

the anemometer height and roughness length, respectively, at the anemometer

site. To make a direct comparison with basic design wind speeds presented in

standards such as ANSI A58.1 [11], U(10) is transformed to an equivalent fastestmile wind speed using equation 1. Because the averaging time, t, depends upon

the value of Ufm , this last step requires an iterative solution of equation 1.

Wind speed observations made over a 20-hour period at Houston Intercontinental

Airport (IAH) are used to demonstrate the procedure just outlined. As noted

in section 3.0, both stripchart records and hourly observations of sustained

speed were obtained at IAH. Anemometer height is 6.1 m and the exposure is

uniform and reasonably open for all directions. Hourly mean speeds, U^r , at

z = 6.1 m are based on visual estimates of the time-averaged speed for each 10

minute segment of the stripchart within the hour. The maximum value of U6Q0

within the hour is plotted against U^r i- n figure 3. Equation 1 is also

plotted on figure 3 for three values of z . The maximum value of U2 within

the hour is plotted against U^r in figure 4, along with equation 1 for the

same three values of z . Equation 1 is not particularly sensitive to the

choice of z for averaging times of 10 minutes or longer. For t = 2 seconds

the data suggest z = 0.1 m at the higher wind speeds.

Estimates of the maximum sustained wind speeds, Ufco* are plotted against

the corresponding hourly mean speeds in figure 5. To obtain U£o> tne hourly

observations of Us were converted to Ufm using equation 2 and U50 was then

obtained from equation 1. In making this transformation it was assumed that

z = 0.1 m. It appears that equation 2 overestimates Ufm (and thus U60)

at the lower speeds, but the corresponding values of U50 appear to be consistent

with z = 0.1 m at the highest speeds. This is not surprising given the

19
form of equation 2 and the fact that it is based on the analysis of maximum

speeds within a storm. Assuming that the hourly observations of sustained

speed do in fact correspond to 1 minute averages, the uncertainty involved in

estimating Uhr from Us would be about the same as that involved in estimating

Uftr from U2» Once U^r has been established, equations 3 and 1 are used

to obtain U(10) and Ufm , respectively, for standard height and open terrain.

Results of an analysis similar to that just described are shown on

figures 6 and 7 for NWS Alvin. The wind exposure is reasonably uniform and a

roughness length of z = 0.2 m was selected based on a subjective assessment

of the terrain roughness. Anemometer height is 10 m. Wind speed data are

limited to a stripchart record and no hourly observations of sustained speeds

were made.

The data for NWS Alvin exhibit much more scatter at the higher speeds than

do the data for IAH. This may be due in part to the isolated buildings and

slightly rougher terrain at Alvin. However, it is important to note that the

edge of the eyewall passed over the station and the wind characteristics at Alvin

were likely quite different from those at IAH. The gust speeds plotted in

figure 7 suggest a roughness length greater than z = 0.2 m, but this is not

consistent with the local terrain. Estimates of U^r taken directly from the

stripchart are believed to be at least as reliable as those for IAH.

4.2 TRANSITION ZONES

The procedure used to estimate wind speeds in fully established flow

regimes must be modified where changes in terrain roughness do not allow the

boundary layer to reach full equilibrium at the anemometer site. This is

usually the case for anemometers located in an industrial complex or in a

20
downtown area. Methods for dealing with this situation have been the subject

of a number of papers, e.g., references 12 and 13. However, the validation of

these methods is based in large part on wind tunnel test results or on measurements

in full-scale where the roughness lengths were typically less than 0.1 m. The

procedure used here is developed in reference 14 and has been shown to be

consistent with roughness lengths of the order of z = 1 m.

For a smooth-to-rough transition the characteristics of the smooth terrain

(equilibrium) boundary layer are assumed to be preserved above a height

6 = X/12.5 where X is the distance downwind from the roughness change. Below

this height the mean velocity profile is assumed to be logarithmic and continuous

with the undisturbed profile at height 6. For X >^ 500 m, the boundary layer is

assumed to be fully developed and in equilibrium with the rougher terrain.

Upwind of the roughness change and for z ^ 6 downwind of the roughness change

we have the relationship:

rr-= C(z) rr- (4) Uhr (10, z«) — in (10

}

where Zq is the upwind (smooth terrain) roughness length. Downwind of the

change from Zq to z (smooth-to-rough) and for z < 6 the relationship:

11 (z, z ) in

<f->

°rr-C<«) £- (5) Uhr (10, z&) £n ( 6_

}

is assumed to apply.

z o

21
Wind speed data from two sites at Texas City provide a means of checking

the consistency of the approach just outlined. The two sites, AQM 4 and Met 5,

have been described in section 3.0. The wind speed records cover the period

0700 hours on August 17 to 0600 hours (0400 hours for AQM 4) on August 18 and

consist of hourly mean speeds logged by a digital data system. Unfortunately,

the records were terminated by a power failure about 2 hours before the speeds

reached their maximum. Wind direction for the period of record ranged from 45

to 75 degrees which is approximately along the alignment of AQM 4 - Met 5. The

wind fetch between AQM 4 and Met 5 includes the central business district of

Texas City and a short segment of residential area with numerous trees and

bushes

Hourly mean speeds at the 10 and 90 m levels at Met 5 are plotted against

the corresponding speeds at AQM 4 in figures 8 and 9. Speeds at the two sites

are highly correlated and there appears to be a shift in the wind regime

beginning at about 1800 hours (1200 hours CST) on August 17.

In the analysis a roughness length of z = 0.005 m was assumed for the

wind fetch over Galveston Bay. Between AQM 4 and Met 5, the value of z =

1.0 m was assumed and, because of houses and trees near Met 5, an adjustment

for zero plane displacement z^ = 2.0 m was applied to equation 5. Height of

the nonequilibrium or inner boundary layer was taken to be 256 m as suggested

by the relation 6 = X/12.5

The transformation of Uhr (10, z ) at Met 5 to U^r (10, Zq) using

equation 5 gives U^r (10, Zq) = 1.87 U^r (10, z ). The corresponding transformation for the 90 m level at Met 5 gives Uhr (10, z£) = 0.87 U"h r (90, z ). The

transformation of Ujir (10, z ) is in good agreement with the relationship

indicated in figure 8. The transformation of U^r (90, z ) underestimates

22
Uhr (10,Zo) by approximately 10 percent. The choice of z = 1 .0 m for the

wind fetch between AQM 4 and Met 5 is consistent with the roughness lengths

suggested in reference 14. However, the relatively good agreement between

AQM 4 and the 10 m level at Met 5 is effected by the adjustment for zero plane

displacement. The data at the 90 m level of Met 5 suggests that 6 should be

increased slightly and that a better estimate might be provided by 6 = X/10.

4.3 ESTIMATION ERRORS

The errors involved with estimating fastest-mile wind speeds in open

terrain from wind speed records obtained from various sites involve three

general types of errors: (1) observation errors; (2) site characterization

errors; and (3) modeling errors.

1 . Observation Errors

Observation errors include faulty speed measurements due to mechanical

and/or electrical problems with the anemometer and recording system; errors in

equipment calibration; and human error in making and logging observations.

Government agencies such as NWS, FAA, and USCG, and many private firms that

make routine meteorological measurements maintain quality assurance programs

that include periodic equipment calibration and observer certification. The

typical accuracy of a mechanical anemometer and stripchart recorder would be

+ 1 mph up to 30 raph and +_ 3 percent above 30 mph. Observer errors are more

difficult to quantify, but are probably less than 5 percent in the case of

sustained speeds and about 1 to 2 mph for peak gusts. Errors involving untrained

observers would be higher, particularly in the case of sustained wind speeds

which require a subjective assessment on the part of the observer.

23
Additional observation errors are involved with the analysis of stripchart

records. If the stripchart has a reasonably open scale (chart speed = 75 mm/hr

and dynamic range - 100 mm), errors in extracting peak gust data, U2, are probably

no larger than + 1 mph. Errors of + 3 percent in estimating U^ , where 10 ^ t

<^ 30 minutes, can be expected. These errors tend to be systematic rather than

random and, therefore, errors associated with estimating U^r on the basis of

Ut are of approximately the same magnitude.

2. Site Characterization Errors

Site characterization errors arise from uncertainties in anemometer height,

the effect of local obstructions such as buildings and trees, the effective

roughness length and wind fetch for the terrain in the immediate vicinity of

the site, and changes in terrain roughness upwind of the site. At some sites

the density of local obstructions may be high enough to require an adjustment

for zero plane displacement.

Standard anemometer heights are usually specified by the agency making the

meteorological measurements. For heights of 10 m or less, expected deviations

would be 0.5 m or less. For nonstandard heights greater than 10 m, it is likely

that errors in estimating heights would not exceed the smaller of 5 percent or

2 meters.

Although the effects of local obstructions may become apparent with changes

in wind direction, they are not necessarily obvious from a wind speed record

alone. These effects can be very difficult to quantify without resorting to

special studies. Wind speed records from such sites are usually of limited

value, although the directional data may be fairly reliable. With regard to

roughness length, various terrain categories have been defined and subjectively

24
described, based on numerous studies carried out on equilibrium boundary layers.

For reasonably uniform terrain it is doubtful that the assumed roughness length

would differ from the true roughness length by more than x 2 for z < 0.1 m and,

perhaps, by no more than x 1.5 for z ^ 0.1 m. The greatest uncertainties arise

with rough exposures where it becomes difficult to differentiate between local

obstructions, roughness length, and zero plane displacement. Also, relatively

few reliable studies have been carried out on equilibrium boundary layers

developed over rough terrain, e.g., z > 1 m. The problem is compounded

where there are abrupt and significant changes in the terrain roughness that

produce a transition boundary layer. In some cases the only alternative is to

discount the value of the wind speed record.

3. Modeling Errors

Modeling errors result from the use of mathematical representations of

wind speed that depart from the true wind speed characteristics at a given

site. For the most part, validation of the relationships presented in sections

4.1 and 4.2 has been carried out in extratropical storms and their validity for

hurricane winds is uncertain. A possible limitation on equation 1 for large

roughness lengths has already been noted in section 4.1. Based on full-scale

measurements summarized in reference 14, equation 3 may underestimate U(10) by

about 3 percent for z - 0.3 m and by about 10 percent for z - 1.5 m. A

modified expression for U(10) is developed in reference 14, based on

full-scale measurements, and is shown in reference 15 to be in very close

agreement with actual measurements of hurricane winds retarded by water-to-land

transitions.

25
4.4 PROBABLE RANGE OF ERROR IN ESTIMATES OF WIND SPEEDS

With the information given in section 4.3, it is possible to establish a

range of error associated with estimates of Ufm at a given site. For the

case of UgQO at IAH, the range of observation errors (equipment and stripchart

analysis) would be about 4 percent. Since these errors tend to be systematic

,

they would also apply to estimates of U^r . Errors in estimating U(10) from

Uhr using equation 3 would result from incorrect anemometer height, incorrect

choice of roughness length, and incorrect functional form of equation 3 as

discussed in section 4.3. Underestimating z by 0.5 m would overestimate U(10)

by about 2 percent. If the true roughness length were z = 0.05 m, the choice

of z = 0.1 m would overestimate U(10) by about 11 percent. The error due to

the functional form of equation 3 is believed to be negligible for the

conditions at IAH. If these errors are assumed to be uncorrelated, the range

of error in estimating U(10) from the stripchart record would be about + 12

percent, using standard error analysis. From this it is seen that uncertainties

with regard to the roughness length are by far the most significant.

If Unr is estimated on the basis of either U2 or U^Q) t^e range of

scatter for IAH is about + 5 percent at the highest speeds and substantially

more at the intermediate speeds as can be seen from figures 4 and 5. Assuming

that the other sources of error are unchanged, the range of error in estimating

U(10) at IAH on the basis of U2 or U^o would be about + 14 percent.

In the case of NWS Alvin, the range of scatter for U2 vs Uftr is about

+ 10 percent at the highest speeds as can be seen from figure 7. Accounting for

observation and site characterization errors, the range of error in estimating

U(10) on the basis of U2 would be about + 16 percent.

26
Roughness lengths at IAH and at NWS Alvin are relatively small compared

with roughness lengths at, for example, Exxon-Baytown (see table 4). Overestimating

any one of the roughness parameters (zq, z , or z^) will lead to an overestimate

of U(10). If the true characterization of the Exxon-Baytown site were

z = 0.20 m, z = 1.0 m, and z^ = 1.5 m, use of the roughness parameters

in table 4 would overestimate U(10) by about 8 percent. Assuming the roughness

parameters are either all overestimated or all underestimated, and accounting

for observation errors and the uncertainty in anemometer height, the corresponding

range of error in estimating U(10) would be about + 10 percent. To this must

be added the error resulting from incorrect fetch length and from modeling

errors, estimated to be about 2 and 8 percent, respectively. Thus, the range

of error associated with estimates of U(10) at Exxon-Baytown is about + 13

percent. The reported anemometer height at Exxon-Baytown is 36.6 m. Errors

in estimating the roughness parameters would become more significant at lower

anemometer heights.

Errors discussed up to this point apply to estimates of U(10). Estimates

of Ufm involve an additional error whose magnitude depends upon the degree to

which equation 1 represents the true relationship between Ufm and U(10).

Unfortunately, none of the records obtained during the passage of Hurricane

Alicia permits a direct comparison of observed Ufm with U(10) for standard

height and wind exposure. However, it is possible to place some bounds on the

estimation error associated with equation 1 by examining the variation of

Ufcoo/Uhr anc* ^2/Uhr f°r those sites approximating standard conditions. Three

such sites having open-scale stripcharts are IAH, NWS Alvin, and Dow Plant A.

Recall that data for U6Q0 an(* ^2 are plotted in figures 3 and 4 for IAH and

in figures 6 and 7 for NWS Alvin.

27
Using the site characteristics listed in table 1, the ratios of Ugoo/Uhr

obtained by use of equation 1 are 1.07, 1.07, and 1.08 for IAH, NWS Alvin, and

Dow Plant A, respectively. Based on the total length of record at each site,

the corresponding measured ratios of U600/Uhr average 1.11, 1.09, and 1.07.

The coefficients of variation are 0.05, 0.06, and 0.04, respectively. Ratios

of U2/Uhr obtained by use of equation 1 are 1.69, 1.68, and 1.73 for IAH,

NWS Alvin, and Dow Plant A, respectively. The corresponding measured ratios

are 1.85, 1.69, and 1.84. The corresponding coefficients of variation are

0.11, 0.10, and 0.08.

Averaging times associated with the estimated fastest-mile speeds at these

three sites range from 40 to 140 seconds. In view of the differences between

predicted and measured values of U5oo/Unr

an<^ ^/Uftj- just described, and given

that both z and z are specified for standard conditions, it is reasonable

to expect that estimates of Ufm based on U(10) in equation 1 will involve a

mean error of about + 3 percent. The coefficient of variation for Ufm/U(10)

would be about 0.08. For Ufm

= 70 mph, this would correspond to a standard

deviation of about 6 mph.

To summarize the errors associated with the estimation of fastest-mile

wind speeds, observation errors are believed to be of the order of + 4 percent

while errors of + 10 percent can be expected from uncertainties with respect to

site characterization. When combined with modeling errors, estimates of Ufm

can be expected to have a range of error of about + 12 percent when derived from

stripchart records, and about + 16 percent when derived from hourly

observations

28
5.0 FASTEST-MILE SPEEDS FOR STANDARD HEIGHT AND EXPOSURE

Using the approach outlined in section 4.0, the hourly mean speeds,

Uhr( z > zo)» were converted to equivalent fastest-mile speeds for standard height

(z = 10 m) and open terrain (z = 0.05 m) . The results are presented in

figures 10 to 24. For those sites where the hourly mean speed was extracted

from a stripchart record, successive 1 hour intervals used in the analysis

overlap by 1/2 hour. Thus, any two successive estimates of U^r are not

independent. The estimates of Ufm are plotted at the midpoint of the corresponding

1 hour interval. For those sites where the record consists only of hourly

observations of sustained speed, the corresponding estimates of Ufm are plotted

at the time of observation. Wind direction is also plotted for those sites

where directional data were available. Some records exhibit data gaps or were

terminated due to power failures before passage of the eye. Extreme fastestmile speeds for the sites considered in this study are listed in table 5.

5.1 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AT INDIVIDUAL SITES

A general description of each site, types of wind speed records obtained,

and the assumptions made regarding wind fetch, roughness length, and corrections

made for zero plane displacement have been addressed in section 3.0. Table 6

rates the anemometer sites in terms of relative reliability of wind speed

estimates. This assessment is necessarily subjective and is based on the type

of wind speed record available, the complexity of the terrain at the anemometer

site, the proximity of buildings and other obstructions, and the height

adjustment required. Because of problems encountered with the data analysis and

interpretation of results, two of the anemometer sites deserve additional

comment

.

29
Hobby Airport

As was noted in section 3.0, a power failure caused an 8 hour gap in the

hourly surface weather observations made by FAA Flight Services. Unfortunately,

this gap corresponds to the closest approach of the eye to Hobby Airport. The

unofficial observations made by the control tower staff partially cover this

gap and these observations have been summarized in table 3.

Estimates of Ufm based on sustained wind speeds of table 3 exhibit much

more scatter than do the estimates based on peak gusts. This is consistent

with the subjective nature of sustained speed measurements and the unambiguous

definition of peak gust. Therefore, the estimates of Ufm derived from control

tower data and plotted on figure 18 are based on gust speeds.

Where the control tower and Flight Services data overlap (approximately

1400 to 2000 hours), there appears to be a time lag of 1 hour or more in the

control tower data. Referring to table 3, the wind shift was observed at

approximately 1530 hours while figure 1 suggests 1200 to 1230 hours for wind

shift. Although there are uncertainties with regard to the true storm track,

the time marks for 1100 and 1300 hours in figure 1 can be established with

some confidence based on the data sets for NWS Alvin, Houston Health Department,

and Braes Meadow. Also, the observation at 1300 hours indicates an eye position

to the south of Hobby Airport when, in fact, the eye was very close to Houston

Health Department and Braes Meadow. Thus, there is good reason to believe

that the first three observations in table 3 should be plotted 2 to 3 hours

earlier in figure 18, and the last two observations 1 to 2 hours earlier.

This does not alter the validity of the wind speed estimates.

30
Braes Meadow

Because of the difficulty in assessing the effects of local terrain and

obstructions on the wind speeds recorded at Braes Meadow, no attempt was made

to make a direct transfer to open terrain. The approach used was to examine

the relationship between U900 at Braes Meadow and Us at Hobby Airport over a

15 hour interval beginning at 0900 hours on August 17, well in advance of the

eye passage. Wind direction at Hobby Airport ranged from 30 to 80 degrees

during this interval. The two sets of data are plotted in figure 25 with the

15 minute intervals at Braes Meadow selected to coincide with the hourly

observations at Hobby Airport. The relationship suggested by this limited

data set is:

U900 (Braes Meadow, mph) - 0.4 Ug (Hobby, knots) (6)

Estimates of Ufm for Braes Meadow were then obtained using the site

characteristics for Hobby Airport as described in section 3.0. Because of the

very substantial corrections involved with using this approach, the wind speeds

plotted in figure 23 must be viewed with some skepticism and it is reasonable

to expect errors of the order of 15 to 20 percent.

5.2 DISTRIBUTION OF FASTEST-MILE WIND SPEEDS

With reference to table 5, the higher values of Ufm estimated for USCGC

Buttonwood and NWS Galveston range from 86 to 91 mph. To the northwest at

Exxon-Baytown and U.S. Industrial Chemicals, Ufm ranges from 92 to 100 mph.

All of these stations are located approximately the same distance from the

storm track (45 km) and, with the exception of U.S. Industrial Chemicals,

each site exhibits a double peak in the wind speed record. In each case the

time differential for first and second peaks is approximately 3 hours. The

31
time lag for corresponding peaks at Galveston and Baytown is approximately 4

hours, in good agreement with the hurricane translation time indicated on

figure 1. It seems clear that the maximum speeds at these sites to the right

of the storm track are associated with an outer convective band, as noted in

section 2.0.

Compared with Galveston, there is no discernible attenuation of wind

speeds in the Baytown area; in fact, the speeds at Baytown are slightly higher.

Galveston Bay appears to have a considerable influence on the windfield to the

right of the storm track.

Ellington AFB, Hobby Airport, and USCGC Clamp are also located to the

right of the storm track, but at distances ranging from 15 to 30 km. While

these sites do not exhibit the clear double peaks noted above, the period over

which the highest peaks occurred at each site is approximately 5 hours. Note

that the times indicated for Hobby Airport control tower observations are

believed to be in error as discussed in section 5.1. The range of peak speeds

for these three sites is 67 to 84 mph with some indication that the speeds

increase slightly with distance from the storm track. Again, this suggests the

influence of an outer convective band.

Dow Plants A and B at Freeport are located approximately 25 km to the left

of the storm track, and although they are within 6 km of each other, only Plant

A exhibits a clear double peak. Based on Texas A & M radar data, Powell suggests

that the peaks observed at both sites at approximately 0800 hours are due to

passage of the eyewall while the second peak at plant A is associated with the

intense portion of an outer convective band [7]. The peak speeds range from

74 to 84 mph and reflect the retardation due to surface shear over land. The

peak speeds at Freeport lag those at Galveston by approximately 30 minutes, in

32
reasonable agreement with their locations relative to the storm track shown in

figure 1

.

The peak speeds listed for NWS Alvin in table 5 do not correspond to

passage of the eyewall as can be seen from figure 16. At the eyewall the values

of Ufm range from 59 to 63 mph while the highest value of Ufm is 64 mph,

occurring 1-1/2 hours after passage of the eyewall. The time history of passage

at Alvin is highly symmetric about the center of the eye and again suggests the

influence of an outer convective band. What is most surprising about the record

at Alvin is the relatively low speeds when compared with other sites with

substantial overland wind fetch such as Hobby Airport and the sites at Freeport.

Also the peak speed at Braes Meadow, which is believed to have experienced eye

passage, is substantially higher (87 mph), even taking into account the

uncertainty that must be attached to the Braes Meadow record.

The last site affected by Hurricane Alicia for which reliable data are

available is IAH. The record indicates only one clear peak of 74 mph at 1330

hours. However, the stripchart record was interrupted by a power failure from

1130 to 1230 hours and the hourly observations suggest that a lesser peak

occurred at about 1230 hours. This site is located approximately 25 km to the

right of the storm track and is probably the best indicator of wind speed

attenuation as Hurricane Alicia moved inland. Taking 89 mph as an average peak

value for the Galveston area, the attenuation factor for Galveston-IAH is about

0.8. The translation distance is about 95 km.

5.3 COMPARISON OF Ufm WITH RECOMMENDED DESIGN SPEEDS

As was pointed out in section 1.0, part of the motivation for this study

was the estimation of wind speeds in a format that could be compared with

33
wind speeds recommended for the design of buildings and other permanent

structures, thereby providing a basis for evaluating structural performance.

The basis for this comparison is the fastest-mile speed at a height of 10 m in

open terrain (z = 0.05 m) that has an annual probability of being exceeded

equal to 0.02 (50 year mean recurrence interval). Reference 11 denotes this

as the "basic wind speed" and, for the Galveston-Houston area, indicates basic

wind speeds of approximately 100 mph at the coastline and 90 mph inland at

Houston.

Table 7 is based on the storm track shown in figure 1, the estimated

fastest-mile speeds plotted in figures 10 to 24, and the distribution of peak

speeds discussed in section 5.2. While the resolution of basic wind speeds in

table 7 is probably not justified, it appears that wind speeds produced by the

passage of Hurricane Alicia exceeded the design wind speeds recommended in

reference 11 only in the Baytown-La Porte area and, possibly, near the southwest end of Galveston Island where no wind speed measurements were obtained.

It would appear, therefore, that Hurricane Alicia was an event that one would

expect to occur once each 50 years or so on the average.

6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Wind records obtained from 17 anemometer sites that experienced strong

winds during the passage of Hurricane Alicia through the Galveston-Houston area

on August 18 are analyzed. Results of this analysis are expressed as fastestmile wind speeds at a height of 10 m in open terrain (z = 0.05 m). Of the

original 17 sites, two sites were rejected because of unreliable wind speed data

and one site was considered to be suspect because of the large wind speed

corrections required. Three sites had their records terminated by power fail34
ures prior to the onset of maximum winds and two sites had their records

interrupted by power failures. Thirteen of the sites yielded estimates of

fastest-mile wind speeds that are believed to be of medium to high reliability.

Observations and conclusions reached during the course of this study are

summarized below:

1. Hurricane Alicia made landfall near the southwest tip of Galveston Island

at approximately 0730 hours on August 18.

2. The path of Hurricane Alicia through the Galveston- Houston area was

generally on a line from SW Galveston Island — Chocolate Bayou —

Alvin — SW Houston — NW Houston.

3. Transit time of the eye through the Galveston- Houston area was about 8

hours with a corresponding speed of translation of 15 km/hr.

4. Eye diameter at landfall was approximately 30 km, based on radar data.

5. The lowest barometric pressure officially recorded during the overland

phase of Hurricane Alicia was 28.55 inches Hg. at NWS Alvin. This pressure

was recorded at 1025 hours on August 18.

6. Several anemometer sites registered a double peak in the wind record.

This double peak correlates well with outer convective bands observed

on radar images

7. The range of error in estimating fastest-mile wind speeds, Ufm , from

stripchart records is believed to be about + 12 percent. When hourly

observations of sustained speed are the basis for the estimate, the range

of error can be as large as + 16 percent.

8. Site characterization errors are typically + 10 percent and are by far

the most significant component of the estimation errors.

35
9. Relationships used herein to calculate hourly mean and fastest-mile

speeds appear to be reliable for terrain of moderate roughness

(z <^ 0.20 m) . However, additional studies are needed for rough

terrain and for wind exposures with abrupt and significant changes in

roughness length.

10. Estimates of extreme fastest-mile wind speeds for standard conditions

ranged from 100 mph at the Exxon refinery at Baytown to 64 mph at NWS

Alvin. The fastest-mile speeds are believed to have been in the range

80-85 mph near the Houston central business district.

11. A comparison of estimated fastest-mile wind speeds with design speeds

recommended by ANSI Standard A58. 1-1982 suggests that only in the BaytownLa Porte area and, possibly, near the west end of Galveston Island were

the recommended design speeds exceeded.

12. The mean recurrence interval associated with Hurricane Alicia is believed

to be about 50 years.

7.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The success of studies such as the one reported herein is highly dependent

upon the interest and support of those who contribute to the collection of

storm data. Among those who contributed to the documentation of Hurricane

Alicia are: Steve Harned of WSO Houston, Bill Blum of WSO Galveston, Kenneth

Hill and James Maple of Exxon Company USA, Charles Rice of Amoco Oil Company,

Harry Walker of Monsanto, W. Smith of Dow Chemical USA, Lt. John Allen and

QMC Michael Martin of USCG Group Galveston, David Burrows of FAA, MSgt. Larry

Franklin of 111th Weather Fit USAF, Jimmy O'Donnel of Houston, Lyman Cox of

Charter International Oil Co., and R. L. Abshier of Houston Lighting and Power.

36
For their assistance in providing critical information and for their

helpful comments and suggestions, special thanks are due Joseph Golden of

ERL/NOAA, Mark Powell of AOML/HRD/NOAA, and Ahsan Kareem of the University of

Houston.

Appendix I — References

1. Cry, C. W. "Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean - Tracks and

Frequencies of Hurricanes and Tropical Storms, 1871-1963," Technical

Paper No. 55, U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Washington,

DC, 1965.

2. Reinhold, T. A., "Surface Winds from Hurricane Frederic: An Engineering

Viewpoint , " Proceedings of the Twelfth Joint UJNR Panel Conference on Wind and Seismic Effects , May 1980, NBS Special Publication No. 665,

National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC, January 1984, pp. 96-114.

3. Powell, M. D., "The Transition of the Hurricane Frederic Boundary-Layer

Wind Field From the Open Gulf of Mexico to Landfall," Monthly Weather

Review , 110, 1982, pp. 1912-1932.

4. Reinhold, T. A. and Mehta, K. C, "Wind Damage in Hurricane Frederic,"

Proceedings of Second Specialty Conference on Dynamic Response of

Structures , ASCE, Atlanta, GA, 1981, pp. 532-546.

5. Lambeth, B., "Hurricane Alicia: Special Report," DCN #83-120-280-38,

Radian Corporation, Austin, TX, November 1983.

6. Golden, J. H. , Private communication.

7. Powell, M. D., Private communication.

8 Simiu, E. and Scanlan, R. H. , Wind Effects on Structures , John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1978.

9. Durst, C. S., "Wind Speeds Over Short Periods of Time," Meteor. Mag. , 89,

1960, pp. 181-186.

10. Thorn, H. C. S., "Predictions of Design and Operating Velocities for Large

Steerable Radio Antennas," Large Steerable Radio Antennas - Climatological

and Aerodynamic Considerations, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , Vol. 116, Art. 1, New York, NY, 1964, pp. 90-100.

11. "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures," ANSI A58. 1-1982,

American National Standards Institute, New York, NY, 1982.

37
12. Wood, D. H. , "Internal Boundary Layer Growth Following a Step Change in

Surface Roughness," Boundary Layer Meteorology , 22, 1982, pp. 241-244.

13. Deaves, D. M. , "Computations of Wind Flow Over Changes in Surface Roughness,'

Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics , Vol. 7., No. 1,

January 1981, pp. 65-94.

14. Bietry, J., Sacre, C. , and Simiu, E., "Mean Wind Profiles and Change of

Terrain Roughness," Journal of the Structural Division , ASCE Vol. 104,

No. ST10, Proc. Paper 14099, October 1978, pp. 1585-1593.

15. Batts, M. E., Russell, L. R. , and Simiu, E., "Hurricane Wind Speeds in

the United States," Journal of the Structural Division , ASCE, Vol. 106,

No. ST10, Proc Paper 15744, October 1980, pp. 2001-2016.

Appendix II — Notation

c(t) = Coefficient

t = Time in seconds

Uhr( z ) = Hourly mean speed at height z

Us (z) = Sustained speed at height z

Ut(z) = Maximum mean speed at height z averaged over t seconds

U(10) = Hourly mean speed at 10 m in open terrain

Uf m

= Fastest-mile wind speed

z = Height above ground

z = Roughness length

Zq = Roughness length for smooth terrain in smooth-to-rough

transition

6 = Depth of nonequilibrium boundary layer

38
C c c c o o o

to

at QJ

ffl

QJ

CO

u CO QJu 3 M

>>

u3 c 3 C 0J c 3 c

(0 co 3 CO CO u U o u CO 1-1 (0 • 4J jj o. « UH £ lIH bo U-i QJ OJ c c c >> c T3 kJ c l-l t-i -H JJ Ui QJ OJ JJ x> QJ JJ OJ QJ TJ 3 CO QJ X) 3

(0 OJ 3 0) XJ OJ 3 kJ • CD TH

U l-i o • M t-< JJ o JJ OJ • JJ o O O- CO JJ o Q. CO U OJ a a. CJ Ut OJ 0J OJ CJ t-< CO a o O to u o QJ >> 3 o (-. t-i i-H QJ >> 3 E O JJ jj

JJ

C 3

•H

O " >-> JO

U J2 o

J3

•" c3 c3

JJ >-< CO JJ

O

CA JJ XJ X> E J- XJ TJ

C JJ

X

O OJ X) QJ

U 0J x> o 0) o QJ

u XJ o o QJ

O

C E OJ E 0J

O E QJ JJ o E QJ 01 jj

m 3 3 JJ O 3 JJ D-<T 3 O- <^i 0J CO to CO \D c 3 — to OJ 0J to C 3 —

C CO c co xj o CO C o u CO XI XJ 0J o u

CO co COM

u o to 3 iH 1- o > E - o E • JJ 0) JJ CD CO cr jj QJ JJ u (-> CO U O JJ u i-l C c JJ C OJ 0) U 0J QJ to QJ 0J t-i QJ c o OJ o u- 0J c o O JJ JJ 3 jj o: JJ JJ 3 M •H O CJ CJ O 1- h cn H OJ 0) QJ OJ O •£> QJ jj E XJ £ E u E -D J3 •a T3 O E XJ X! XJ XJ TJ -^

CJ

O • 1-.O 3 O • )-< Ui

O • t-i i-lp fw

QJ E OJ o o E QJ -J E 0)

O©O E E 0J o o O X)

O E P QJ C u o 0J C -H QJ C CJ o c U O OJ c CJ u CJ c W O

tJ

CO OJ -3"C

O to c o OJ in QJ i- c o OJ QJ QJ T^ QJ

U

Q < N 06O < N 4-1 < M od o 3 ai »j-« < N ai ca ai 3 Qi U-i eo

JJ ^. ~-^ •^ •%. "-h. •~^ "^. ^ N* "•*. ^ CDUa

be><u -». ^ --». jr. -

bO><

x> c ^-

I-. iH O E

CJ 1 0) o

a:

—

a

a; xj

flj 0) a c

to -^

to 'v -^ ^ ^ "v •N.

C ED -H 3 S w

4_* CD3

CJ ^ ^*. ^. --». "V •^. '-fc J*

QJ a.u

jca j=u

p. ^fc. -"-»- *">. "^. •>^ -^. "-* ^». "-fc. u

JJ

C/j

OJ OJ

CO c c c

<D o o E a a 3 OJ CO 0J CD QJ 0) QJ 0J

I-. c OJ c 0J c c C c

4-1 CJ

u CO

U toU CO to CJ

CO > > > > > c 1 O JJ 1 JJ o \ o 1 1 1 o u (0 Im u u u u

OJ -d- CO QJ to <T OJ -T 0J QJ QJ *J 1 «-. ItJ 1 1 1 o to tu Cb to

OJ D. QJ o. OJ OJ 0) QJ D.

QJ

a 3 a 3 o. p, a.

a 3

a. o T3 CJ o 13 o T3 o o U XJ

>>

uO 1 n 1 O f-lOuuu 1 o H to £ (T) ex cn X p» X 0- 0- cu CI £ ^ ^v ^ -D

QJ iT\ E *-* o o o o in o o o 1 1 o 3 E o o O <T o m CM 1 1 CD N w 1 t CD o o O O o o o O o o o 1 1 o <

(-> QJ

ai o o y3 r^ r^ E • *-s o a> o m o\ o -J m OWE <£> vO o- o o vjD sO E X w CO fi o o m

QJ ti C<

,_, eo to ^H JJ

CO c o OJ

a> •H c E a.

OJ QJ en X)O

JJ

1-4 jjM

J=u

a c o ~J o O j=

ai 3 C a. o- CO JJ 25 §

jj jj

jj c o E QJ QJ o b- CO QJ 3 0J t-H OJ o JJ cr OJ 0J <c O a. J3 O JJ _- E CO < £ U) u. o a JJ u E U OJ X! c o 4-1 QJ Pfa to E c c u >% JJ JJ X tc t-l JJ E 3 > i 1 < o to CD OJ l-l OJ m 1 1 1 > < pa 3 o X c r c o c (S z z bO 1 o a < o cj < en < c >> c: 3 CJ> CJ CO JJ u o J3 o o O to OJ cj C/j- 3 3 en J3 K CJ o 3 to 3 <

en St CJ

u

O o aa » O

X c/j- C/3 en o O

=3 z H

H

a o o z Ed

XU =3 => ^ X pa

X - «. m ~J n *J3 - CO (T. o - « m <r m >£> -

39
Table 2. Estimated Terrain Roughness at Dow Plant B

Wind Direction (Upwind of Change) (Downwind of Change)

(Peg) (m) (m)

zd

(m)

Length of

Fet<

(km)

z Fetch

325 < < 360 0.20

230 < 6 < 325 0.15

6 < 230 0.05

0.20

0.40

0.40

>5

2.5

1.0

1 ft = 0.3048 m

Table 3. Observations Reported from Hobby Airport Control Tower

August 18, 1983.

Sustained Peak Barometric

Speed Gust Direction Pressure

CDT GMT (knots) (knots) (deg) (inches Hg.)

0545 1045 64 73 60 29.82

0800^) 1300 82 93 90 28.81

1030(2) 1530 58-63 89 180 28.81

1300 1800 50 60-65

1350 1850 28 37-39 29.90

Notes: (1) Eye reported to be approaching Pearland-Friendswood area,

(2) Wind shift at approximately this time.

1 knot - 0.51 m/s.

1 inch = 25.4 mm.

40
Table 4. Estimated Terrain Roughness at Exxon-Baytown

Zq z Length of

Wind Direction (Upwind of Change) (Downwind of Change) zj z Fetch

(Peg) On) (m) (m) (km)

75 < 6 <_ 95 0.30 1.5 3 2.1

95 < 6 < 125 Sudden wind shift in this sector

125 < 9 < 150 0.20 1.5 3 1.0

1 ft = 0.3048 m

41
Table 5. Ufm for Standard Height and Open Terrain

(z = 10 m, z = 0.05 m)

First Peak Second Peak

Anemometer Site

Ufm

(mph)

Direction

(deg)

Time

(GMT)

Ufm

(mph)

Direction

(deg)

Time

(GMT)

1 USCGC Buttonwood 86 120 0700 91 210 1000

2 NWS Galveston 88 (1) 0700 89 0930

3 TCAAMN - AQM 4 65 75 0530<2) —

4 TCAAMN - Met 5 (10 m)

TCAAMN - Met 5 (90 m)

65

58

80

60 0530< 2 > 0530< 2 > —

5 Dow A - Freeport 84 280 0730 74 240 1000

6 Dow B - Freeport 83 300 0730 —

7 CBAAMN-Amoco (10 m)

CBAAMN-Amoco (90 m)

44

40

45

50 0430^2)

0330(2) —

8 NWS Alvin 59 —(1) 0730 64 1330

9 Ellington AFB 84 40 0800 84 150 1300

10 Hobby Airport 82 90 1300( 3 > 67 200 1500

11 Exxon-Baytown 100 90 1130 93 140 1430

12 US Industrial Chemicals 92 125 1100 —

13 USCGC Clamp 77 40 0800 84 135 1400

14 USCGC Hatchet (A)

15 Houston Health Dept. (4)

16 Braes Meadow 87(5) (1) 1130 56(5) 1530

17 Houston Intercontinental

Airport (IAH)

74 80 1330(3) —

Notes: (1) Wind direction not recorded.

(2) Record terminated by power failure.

(3) Record interrupted by power failure.

(4) Record considered unreliable.

(5) Record of questionable reliability.

1 mph = 0.45 m/s.

42
Table 6. Relative Reliability of Estimates of Ufm

High Medium Low

USCGC Buttonwood

TCAAMN-AQM 4

Dow A

CBAAMN-Amoco

NWS Alvin

Ellington AFB

US Industrial

Chemicals

IAH

NWS Galveston

TCAAMN-Met 5 Dow B

Exxon-Baytown

USCGC Clamp

Hobby Airport

USCGC Hatchet

Houston Health Dept

Braes Meadow

Table 7. Comparison of Extreme Fastest-Mile Wind Speeds

with Recommended Design Speeds

Region

Estimated Range

of Ufm

(mph)

Basic Wind Speed

(Ref. 11)

(mph)

Freeport-Angleton 80-85 95-100

Galveston-Texas City 85-90 98

Baytown-La Porte 95-100 95

Greens Bayou-Deer Park 85-95 95

Alvin-Pearland 65-80 95

Pasadena-Houston 80-85 90-95

NW Houston 75-80 85-90

1 mph - 0.45 m/s.

43
30°00'

15' 95°0O'

46'

30'

15'

1 I •vT

-f-1500

\ y

^1400 HOUSTON

\ Central Business

45' 30'

-Approx Corporate Boundary

29«0O

45'

Figure 1. Location map and hurricane track

44
COc

o

o

4-1 o

o

fa

CMU

3

•H

fa

o

4 5
80

i r

70

IAH

Z=6.1 m

60

50

a

E

o

30 -

20 —

10 -

20 30 40

U hr (mph)

60

Figure 3. UfcQO vs u hr at IAH

46
a

E

CM 3

20 30 40

U hr (mph)

Figure 4. U2 vs U^r at IAH

47
E

o

CD D

10 20 30 40

U hr (mph)

50

Figure 5. U6Q vs Uhr at IAH

48
80

i r

70

NWS Alvin

Z = 10 m

60

50

a

E

*o 40

o

CO 3

50 60

Figure 6. U6Q0 vs Uhr at NWS Alvin

49
Q.

CM

ID

80

70 —

60 -

50 -

40 —

NWS Alvin

Z = 10 m

30 -

20 -

20 30

Uhr (mph)

50 60

Figure 7. U2 vs U^ at NWS Alvin

50
80

70 -

60 —

io

© 50

a.E

40

30 —

20 —

10

—

I I I I I

—

U hr (AQM 4)-1.90 U hr(Met 5) -

,-^22 is 1 g L^2

^S*\ **1 3 —

•

1 1

"" U hr (AQM 4)=2.08 Uhr (Met 5)

^ I

I I I I 10 20 30 40 50

U hr (mph)

AQM 4

60

Figure 8. Uhr (Met 5, 10 m) vs Uhr (AQM 4)

51
80

70

60

o 50

a

E

40

Uhr (AQM 4)-0.96 U hr(Met 5)

9

v2

112

'%13

14

30

20

10

>

ri 1

U hr (AQM 4)-1.02 U hr(Met 5)

10 20 30 40

U hr (mph)

AQM 4

50 60

Figure 9. Uhr (Met 5, 90 m) vs Uhr (AQM 4)

52
i i 1 1 I 1 • —r- ill!

USCQC Buttonwood

• • • . 80

Speed

•

•

**H • •

• • • £ 60 Q.E

WM( • • o

o •

•

E

40

Direction

o

coocooP

o o

• • •

o o o o o

-

20

o

o°

-

( n

> o

1

1

o

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

—

2 4 6 8 10 12

GMT

Aug. 18, 1983

14 16 18 20 22

300 ^

©

200 9

100 I

D

Z

Figure 10. Ufm at USCGC Buttonwood

100

80 -

a

E

60 -

E

3 40

20

I I I

•

•

•

!

•

•

•

•

r i i

• • ••

•

•

! I I NWS Qalv

T • tton

-

• •••

• ••

•

-

i i i I

•

i i i

• •

i i i i

-

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

GMT

Aug. 18, 1983

Figure 11. Ufm at NWS Galveston

53
100

80

2 60

a.E

I 40

20 -

AQM 4

• Speed

Direction

o o o o

1 1

Met 5 (10 m)

• • •

• • - •

o o o o

Met 5 (90 m)

• ••

• • •

o o o

I

300 a>w

O)®

TJ

*m* 200 X

»-D

2

100 N

<

a

z

6 2 4

GMT

Aug. 18, 1983

6

Figure 12. Ufm at TCAAMN AQM 4 and Met 5

a.E

100

80

60

40

20

Speed

• •*.

••

• • • ••• oooo oc.° o °o

Direction

o

° o o o

o ooopo° o o o

i

1 r Dow Plant A

10 12

GMT

Aug. 18, 1983

14 16 18 20 22

0)

0)

L.O)

0) 40 Q

I

D

300 1N

<

O

z

200 £

Figure 13. Ufm at Dow Plant A

54
100

a

E

80 -

60

20

• ••

• ^«

Speed

• •- • • • • ••

£" 40*-

f oooo 00 ° o°o

Direction

o 00 ?000(pOOO | 10 12 14

GMT

Aug. 18, 1983

"i

1 r Dow Plant B

16 18 20 22

0)at©

40 9

300 ^

N

<

200

Figure 14. Ufm at Dow Plant B

100

80

a

E

60 -

D 40

20

i 1 r Z=10 m

• •

• Speed

o o o

o o Direction

I I _L

Z = 90 m

. • • •

o o o

o o

1 1

CBAAMN - AMOC<

6 8 t0 2

GMT

Aug. 18, 1983

8 10

-I 300 -5a

i_

a> 200 9

I

100 N

<

a

z

Figure 15. Ufm at CBAAW-Amoco

55
Q.E

100

80 -

60 -

-r 40

20

I I i

i i i i i i i —

i

NWS Alvin

Eye

(1025 hrs)

- •" - • • •.

-

*....'

I ) i i i i i i i i i 8 10 12

GMT

Aug. 18. 1983

14 16 18 20 22

Figure 16. Ufm at NWS Alvin

a

E

100

80 -

60 -

40 -

20 -

T I I I —r

—

—I I I ! Ellington AFB

- • Speed

•

•

• • •

•

• •

--

-

•

• -

I

I

Direction

CO oo

I I l

o

i

oo

I

o

o

I

oo o

I

o

i i i

-

6 8 10 12

GMT

Aug. 18, 1983

14 16 18 20 22

300 a>©

i-0)©

200 a

i

K

Z> 100 2

N

<

Figure 17. Ufm at Ellington AFB

56
100

80 -

•c 60 Q.E

£ 40

20 -

I I Open symbols: FAA Flight Services

I 1 ! William P. Hobb y a

i irport

Solid symbols: FAA Control Tower % •

""

Speed • o° o

o

o o o o

<>- U Power Failure —

•

H

i

•

o

a

o

6

i

Direction

* £ a A a till A

i i i i i

-

6 8 10 12

GMT

Aug. 18, 1983

14 16 18 20 22

300 <j

200 9

100 5

<

Figure 18. Ufm at William P. Hobby Airport

100

80

•S 60 Q.

3 40

20 -

l 1 1 1 1 ""•"T • •••••'• —

i

1 r Exxon-Baytown

Speed .•••*

• ••

• •

o o o O ooo ooo oooooooooo8||

o o o Direction

o°o°

J I I J L J.

300 -J

l_O) 200 9

100 N

<

10 12 14 16 18 20 22

GMT

Aug. 18, 1983

£

Figure 19. Ufm at Exxon-Baytovm

57
a

E

100

80

60

D 40

20 -

• • —-i 1 1 r U.S. Industrial Chemicals

• • Speed •

ooooooo'jo

oo

Direction

o o o o °

Jl _L 8 10 12 14

GMT

Aug. 18, 1983

16 18 20 22

300

©

u.o>©

200 D

I

H-D

100 N

<

O

z

100

80

5 60 Q.

3 40

20 -

Figure 20. Ufm at U.S. Industrial Chemicals

"i r 1 r USCQC Clamp

• • • • Speed

o o o o •

Direction

o o o o

J_

o o

_L J_ J L 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

GMT

Aug. 18, 1983

Figure 21. Ufra at USCGC Clamp

^oo -j

<D H200 9

i

i-

<

Q

58
i i i i i i i f —T— 1 1 Houston Health Dept.

80 -

60 -

40 o0 o o Q

o _

-

20 o Direction

-

n °o ooo 000

.— i i i i i i i i i i i

-

2 4 6 8 10 12

GMT

Aug. 18, 1983

14 16 18 20 22

-I 300 ^

o

0) 200 9

I

I- 100 R

Q

Z

I

Figure 22. Ufm at Houston Health Department

a.E

uu I

• •

l I I 1 Braes Meadow

80

• • •

"

60 -

•

•

•

•

•

• •

-

40

• •

•

•

• •

e

—

20

n

• • • •

i i i

e

2 4 6 8 10 12

GMT

Aug. 18, 1983

14 16 18 20 22

Figure 23. Ufm at Braes Meadow

59
100

80 -

a

E

60

E

20 -

I I ! I ! 1 I I I ! 1 Houston Intercontinental

Power Fail ure Airport (IAH)

M. ••

-

- •

• • ••. - • •

•

• •

- • •• • Speed

# •••••••

_• • •

• #

• •••

o°

o °° o* °

o • -

Direction

o o o o

o

i i

o o

o o

o o

I I i

o °°

1

o

I 1 1 1 i 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

GMT

Aug. 18. 1983

Figure 24. Ufm at Houston Intercontinental Airport (IAH)

300

a

L.O)

a) 200 a

I

1-z> 100 N

<

a

JO

60
a

E

o

o

CO

CD

COa>

CO GO

o

o

O)

10 15 20

Us

(Hobby, knots)

30

Figure 25. U900 (Braes Meadow) vs Us (Hobby)

61
NBS-114A (rev. 2-8C) U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions)

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO. NBS TN 1197

2. Performing Organ. Report No 3. Publication Date

June 1984

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Fastest-Mile Wind Speeds in Hurricane Alicia

5. AUTHOR(S)

Richard D. Marshall

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS. see instructions)

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

7. Contract/Grant No.

8. Type of Report & Period Covered

Final

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State. ZIP)

Same as in item 6 above.

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

|] Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FiPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here)

Surface wind speeds recorded during the passage of Hurricane Alicia through the

Galveston-Houston area on August 18, 1983, are used to estimate the fastest-mile

wind speeds at 10 m above ground in open terrain. The paper describes the

relationships between wind speeds for various averaging times and the boundarylayer representations used in the transformation to fastest-mile speeds. These

speeds are compared with wind speeds recommended for the design of buildings and

other permanent structures. Errors inherent in the original wind speed records

and in the transformations are estimated.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolons)

boundary layers; buildings (codes); hurricanes; structural engineering; tropical

cyclones; wind speeds.

13. AVAILABILITY

QXj Unlimited

| | For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

[~X| Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

^] Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

68

15. Price

USCOMM-DC 6043-P80
NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH—The Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research and develop- ment in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which the Bureau is active. These include physics, chemistry,

engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences. Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement

methodology and the basic technology underlying standardization. Also included from time to time are survey articles on topics

closely related to the Bureau's technical and scientific programs. As a special service to subscribers each issue contains complete

citations to all recent Bureau publications in both NBS and non- NBS media. Issued six times a year. Annual subscription: domestic

$18; foreign $22.50. Single copy, $5.50 domestic; $6.90 foreign.

NONPERIODICALS

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical literature on

various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with in- terested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory

bodies. Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other special publications

appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and

bibliographies. Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and

studies of special interest to physicists, engineers, chemists,

biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a worldwide program coordinated by NBS under

the authority of the National Standard Data Act (Public Law

90-396).

NOTE: The principal publication outlet for the foregoing data is the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD)

published quarterly for NBS by the American Chemical Society

(ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions,

reprints, and supplements available from ACS, 1 155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Bureau on building materials, components,

systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results,

test methods, and performance criteria related to the structural and

environmental functions and the durability and safety characteristics of building elements and systems.

Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures

published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 1 5, of

the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally recognized requirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the

characteristics of the products. NBS administers this program as a supplement to the activities of the private sector standardizing

organizations. Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas of interest to the con- sumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide

useful background knowledge for shopping in today's tech- nological marketplace. Order the above NBS publications from: Superintendent of Documents. Government Printing Office, Washington. DC 20402. Order the following NBS publications—FIPS and NBSIR's—from

the National Technical Information Service . Springfield. VA 22161

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS

PUB)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register

serves as the official source of information in the Federal Govern- ment regarding standards issued by NBS pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended,

Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented by Executive Order 1 1717 (38 FR 12315, dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).

NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of interim or

final reports on work performed by NBS for outside sponsors

(both government and non-government). In general, initial dis- tribution is handled by the sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Service , Springfield, VA 22161,

in paper copy or microfiche form.
U.S. Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use. $300