Tornado Damage Assessment For Structural Engineers: Forensic Engineering Symposium © 2007 ASCE

Forensic Engineering Symposium © 2007 ASCE
Tornado Damage Assessment for Structural Engineers

James W. Jordan, SE, PE, M.ASCE1
Abstract: The number of tornadoes reported annually in the U.S. has steadily increased
over the past 50 years. In recent times, the U.S. has averaged 1,200 tornadoes per year.
The central portion of the U.S. has been dubbed “tornado alley” since more tornadoes
have formed in this area than the rest of the world. The unique combination of warm gulf
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 03/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
air, cold artic air, and western mountain ranges creates conditions that produce frequent
supercell thunderstorms – which will on occasion spawn strong tornadoes. Given the
relatively large quantity of strong tornadoes in recent years, structural engineers have
had many opportunities to investigate building damage caused by these destructive
weather phenomena. Prospects for building damage assessment will likely continue to
increase in the near future.
The purpose of this paper is to provide structural engineers with an understanding of

basic damage assessment to buildings from tornado events. We will review how high
wind forces and large hail from tornado events may damage a building, and delve into
situations where the structural engineer must discern between damage caused by a
tornado event and damage caused by other means. We will review several case studies
depicting damage (both obvious and not-so-obvious) from recent tornadoes, including a
2004 tornado that killed 8 people in Utica and Joliet, Illinois, and a tornado that struck
Caruthersville, Missouri in 2006. We will also review how tornadoes are classified per
the Fujita system, and how this system was revised to the Enhanced Fujita scale
beginning in February, 2007.
The author has been involved with damage assessment to a variety of structures that were
subjected to forces from recent tornadoes in the central portion of the U.S. (i.e.,
Midwest). The author has also performed hundreds of investigations from storm damage,
including tornadoes, hurricanes, hail, rain, and snow events over the past several years.
1
District Manager and Property Division Manager, Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc., 8910
Purdue Road – Suite 170, Indianapolis, IN 46268; PH (317) 510-6484; FAX (317) 510-
6488; email: jwjordan@rimkus.com. Mr. Jordan earned his BSCE from Texas A & M
University, College Station, TX in 1985, and has over 20 years of experience in design
and forensic evaluations.
Introduction
The evaluation of tornado damage to buildings requires a good understanding of wind

forces during a tornado event, and the performance of structural systems and building
components subjected to storm forces. Many of us have pre-conceived notions that
buildings and tornadoes behave as shown in the movie, “The Wizard of Oz”. Contrary to
these notions, buildings do not typically remain intact as they are whisked away to
magical, far-away lands. If one were to rely upon Hollywood for their understanding of
Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Forensic Engineering (2007)
tornado damage, then the movie “Twister” would probably be a more accurate
representation.
In all seriousness, tornado reports have become more frequent in recent years (see Figure
1). Currently, about 1,200 tornadoes are reported per year. Some argue that the apparent
increased frequency of tornadoes is misleading, and that it is simply due to increased
national Doppler radar coverage, a growing population, and more attention given to
tornado reporting. Regardless of the reason for the increased frequency of tornado
reports, the necessity for damage assessment from structural engineers remains strong.
Insurance companies and property owners often need structural engineers to determine
the safety of a structure after subjected to a tornado. Structural engineers are typically
asked to determine the extent of damage to structures, discern between recent and old
damage, identify design/construction defects that may have contributed to the damage,
provide repair recommendations, and evaluate damage to the building envelope (e.g., hail
impact damage).
No. of Tornadoes
Year
Figure 1: Frequency of tornado reports per year in the US. The black line
shows the 5-year trend.
Tornadoes 101: The Basics
The National Weather Service defines a tornado as “A violently rotating column of air,
usually pendant to a cumulonimbus, with circulation reaching the ground. It nearly
always starts as a funnel cloud and may be accompanied by a loud roaring noise. On a
local scale, it is the most destructive of all atmospheric phenomena.” Tornadoes are
typically generated by supercell thunderstorms. These are large thunderstorms, often

with a long-lasting rotating updraft that produces large hail as well as tornadoes. Note
that a tornado does not meet the official definition unless it is in contact with the ground
(see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Image of tornado provided by NOAA.
The US has the greatest number of tornadoes compared to any other country in the world;
however, the United Kingdom has more tornadoes per area of land (see Figure 3). The
cause for the increased frequency of tornadoes in certain parts of the world is attributed to
combinations of cold polar air, warm sub-tropical air, and layered air currents that
generate large thunderstorm events, and subsequently produce tornadoes.
Figure 3: Locations on earth where tornadoes have occurred.

Tornadoes range in size and have varied wind speeds. At the time this paper was written,
the largest recorded width of a tornado was about 2.5 miles in Hallem, Nebraska on May
22, 2004 (an F4 tornado); and the fastest wind speed recorded was 318 mph near Bridge
Creek, Oklahoma on May 3, 1999 (an F5 tornado). For comparative purposes, a wind
speed of 90 mph (the basic design wind speed for most US locations) will produce a basic
lateral pressure of 21 psf, whereas a 318 mph wind speed will produce a basic lateral
pressure of 259 psf! Typically, the most destructive tornadoes have multiple vortexes
within relatively close proximity. This can essentially cause “surgical damage” to a
neighborhood, where the destruction appears to “skip” some buildings.
The classification of a tornado’s strength relies upon an assessment of the damage left in
its aftermath. Often, there is no recorded wind speed from a meteorological device for a
given tornado, so wind speeds are typically estimated based upon the damage caused.
Figure 4 provides a summary for the Fujita Scale (F-Scale), a rating system used to
classify tornadoes based upon examining damage. This system has been used since the
1970s, and an improved version, the Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF-Scale), became effective
in February 2007. After decades of use, it is believed that the F-Scale often over-
estimates wind speeds from rated tornadoes. The EF-Scale considers a greater range of
damage to various structures, and should provide a more accurate representation of wind
speeds associated with this damage. The new system considers 8 levels of damage for 28
different indicators. See Figure 5 for a comparison of the F-Scale to the EF-Scale.
Figure 4: Summary of the Fujita Scale used to classify tornadoes.

Figure 5: Comparison of the F-Scale and EF-Scale.
The 28 indicators of damage for the EF-Scale consistent of the following structures or
objects:
Small Barns / Farm Buildings (SBO) One- or Two-Family Residences (F12)

Single-Wide Mobile Home (MHSW) Double-Wide Mobile Home (MHDW)
Apt/Condo/Twnhse ≤ 3 Stories (ACT) Motel (M)
Masonry Apt or Motel (MAM) Small Retail Bldg – Fast Food (SRB)
Small Professional Bldg (SPB) Strip Mall (SM)
Large Shopping Mall (LSM) Large Isolated Retail Bldg (LIRB)
Automobile Showroom (ASR) Automotive Service Bldg (ASB)
School – 1 story Elementary (ES) School – Jr or Sr High (JHSH)
Low-Rise (1-4 Story) Bldg (LRB) Mid-Rise (5-20 Story) Bldg (MRB)
High-Rise (>20 Story) Bldg (HRB) Institutional Bldg (IB)
Metal Bldg System (MBS) Service Station Canopy (SSC)
Warehouse Bldg (WHB) Transmission Line Tower (TLT)
Free-Standing Tower (FST) Free-Standing Pole (FSP)
Tree- Hardwood (TH) Tree-Softwood (TS)
General Response of Buildings to Strong Winds
There are four primary modes of failure in a building subjected to overloading from
strong winds (see Figure 6): translation or sliding, overturning, racking, or
material/component failure. Material/component failure is the most common mode of
destruction typically observed after a tornado event. This mode of failure can result in
breaches in the building envelope such that wind entering a building creates strong

positive pressure applied concurrently with strong negative pressure, and subsequently
“blows the building apart” (see Figure 7). In simplistic terms, a failure in the building
envelope may cause the building to behave like a sail capturing more wind force than
before the breach occurred. Often, material/component failures occur prior to sliding,
overturning, or racking failures.
Figure 6: General building failure modes due to strong winds. Material

failure is the most common mode, and often occurs before the other
three failure modes.
Figure 7: Internal pressurization due to wind entering breaches in the

building envelope.
A review of typical design pressure distribution on buildings helps us understand where

material/component failures typically occur in a tornado event. As shown in ASCE 7

Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, design wind pressures are
greater at the edges of buildings (i.e. eaves, ridges, corners). ASCE 7 provides
adjustment factors to account for increased wind loading in these areas, termed “end
zones” and “corner zones”. This design standard also shows that wind forces are stronger
at higher elevations. As such, we typically expect to find initial damage to buildings
from strong winds in the roof components. Figure 8 shows an example of the varied
pressures on building faces due to the same basic wind speed of 250 mph (3 second gust).
Figure 8: Pressures on various building configurations due to a 250 mph 3-second gust (example
provided by FEMA).
Case Study No. 1: F3 Tornado in Caruthersville, Missouri on April 2, 2006
This tornado passed through a populated southern portion of Caruthersville, causing 64

injuries and no fatalities. This tornado was ½ to ¾ mile wide and traveled approximately
70 miles on the ground (see Figures 9 and 10). It was one of 8 tornadoes produced by the
same the supercell thunderstorm.
Figure 9: View of the Caruthersville Tornado provided by the National Weather Service.

Figure 10: Tornado paths that traveled eastward, including the F3 tornado that struck
Caruthersville, Missouri.
This tornado caused severe structural damage to buildings and structures in its path. The
following figures 11 through 15 depict some of the damage sighted in or near
Caruthersville from this storm.
Figure 11: Note that damage was most severe on the roof structure of this wood-framed house in
Caruthersville.

Figure 12: Breaches in the building envelope likely resulted in component failures that resulted in
the destruction of this Caruthersville house.
Figure 13: In some areas, buildings were completely demolished by the tornado event such that
none of the structure remained standing. In addition to direct wind forces, wind-borne debris may
inflict severe damage to buildings and structures. Note in this view how a large automobile had
been overturned and thrown onto a Caruthersville house.

Figure 14: Note that damage from tornadoes can be seemingly selective, where relatively weak
components remain intact – as in this Caruthersville house.
Figure 15: Some damage may be rather spectacular in the aftermath of a tornado – such as this
water tower that collapsed as the tornado approached Caruthersville. In this particular tower
structure, the failure of one of the top diagonal bracing rods led to the separation of the tank. This
tank was reportedly over half full at the time of collapse.

Case Study No. 2: F3 Tornado in Utica, Illinois on April 20, 2004
This tornado passed through downtown Utica, causing 8 fatalities as a building collapsed
onto bar patrons seeking shelter in the basement of an old structure. This was a multi-
vortex tornado that caused selective damage throughout the city. It was one of 14
tornadoes that occurred on the same day in Illinois. See Figure 16 for an F-Scale map
and Figures 17 through 21 for damage examples from this tornado.
Figure 16: Utica tornado path. This tornado traveled from

southwest to northeast.
Figure 17: View near downtown Utica. Note in the foreground a house where only the interior
walls were left standing, while portions of roofs were tarped in the background.

Figure 18: Localized damage to one of the downtown buildings in Utica. Note that portions of the
brick façade had fallen outward from the building, while windows for the round bay window were
missing (a good example of damage as illustrated in Figure 7).
Figure 19: The owner of this building on the same street as that shown in Figure 18 claimed that
his building was racked by the tornado event. The stairs were sloped downward to the left. See
Figures 20 and 21 for more on this structure.

No separation of
ceiling and wall
systems.
The door has

been planed in
the past due to
on-going
settlement
problems, and
still fit within
the door frame
without binding.
Figure 20: Physical evidence showed that this building had long-term settlement problems, and
was not damaged by the tornado event.
Figure 21: So what caused the stairs to tilt in

Figure 18? An improperly supported floor
structure and severe long-term deterioration of
the wood framing.

Case Study No. 3: F1 Tornado in Joliet, Illinois on April 20, 2004
This tornado passed through populated portions of Joliet on the same day as the tornado
shown in our Case 2 example in Utica. See Figure 22 for an F-Scale damage map, and
Figures 23 through 24 for examples of damage from this tornado.
Figure 22: Joliet tornado path. This tornado traveled from southwest to northeast.
Figure 23: View of racked position of a carriage house (detached storage building) along the
weak wall. The direction of the lean and presence of fresh cracks at trim joints showed that
racking occurred during the tornado event.

Figure 24: View of damaged house in Joliet. The front porch structure was missing, windows
were blown out, and there was localized damage from debris impacts. Although floors sloped
inside the house, the absence of cracks in wall and ceiling corners, the evenly-gapped position
of doors within their frames, and the absence of separations in the floor trim and wall bases
showed that the out-of-level condition of the structure existed prior to the tornado event.
Case Study No. 4: Two F2 Tornadoes in Springfield, Illinois on March 12, 2006
These tornadoes passed through populated portions of Springfield and caused damage to
many commercial structures. See Figure 25 for an aerial view showing the F-Scale
damage to the area, and see Figure 26 for examples of typical damage from this tornado.

Figure 25: Springfield tornado path. This tornado traveled from southwest to northeast.
Figure 26: Examples of damage caused

by the Springfield tornado. Note that
portions of roof structures failed, but that
buildings were generally left standing.

References
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2005. Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures [ASCE/SEI 7-05].
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2006. Tornado Climatology,

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/tornadoes.html (Sept. 24, 2006).
National Weather Service (NWS). National Weather Service Glossary,

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/glossary/index.php (Sept. 24, 2006).
Storm Prevention Center (SPC). Fujita Tornado Damage Scale,

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/f-scale.html (Sept. 24, 2006).
Storm Prevention Center (SPC). Enhanced F Scale for Tornado Damage,

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/ef-scale.html (Sept. 24, 2006).
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2000. Design and Construction

Guidance for Community Shelters, Chapter 3 – Characteristics of Tornadoes and
Hurricanes, http://www.fema.gov/fima/fema361.shtm (Sept. 24, 2006).


Tornado Damage Assessment For Structural Engineers: Forensic Engineering Symposium © 2007 ASCE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tornado Damage Assessment For Structural Engineers: Forensic Engineering Symposium © 2007 ASCE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Forensic Engineering Symposium © 2007 ASCE

Tornado Damage Assessment for Structural Engineers

The purpose of this paper is to provide structural engineers with an understanding of

The evaluation of tornado damage to buildings requires a good understanding of wind

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Tornadoes 101: The Basics

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Figure 2: Image of tornado provided by NOAA.

Figure 3: Locations on earth where tornadoes have occurred.

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Figure 4: Summary of the Fujita Scale used to classify tornadoes.

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Figure 5: Comparison of the F-Scale and EF-Scale.

Small Barns / Farm Buildings (SBO) One- or Two-Family Residences (F12)

General Response of Buildings to Strong Winds

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Figure 6: General building failure modes due to strong winds. Material

Figure 7: Internal pressurization due to wind entering breaches in the

A review of typical design pressure distribution on buildings helps us understand where

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Case Study No. 1: F3 Tornado in Caruthersville, Missouri on April 2, 2006

This tornado passed through a populated southern portion of Caruthersville, causing 64

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Case Study No. 2: F3 Tornado in Utica, Illinois on April 20, 2004

Figure 16: Utica tornado path. This tornado traveled from

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

The door has

Figure 21: So what caused the stairs to tilt in

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Case Study No. 3: F1 Tornado in Joliet, Illinois on April 20, 2004

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Figure 26: Examples of damage caused

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2006. Tornado Climatology,

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/tornadoes.html (Sept. 24, 2006).

National Weather Service (NWS). National Weather Service Glossary,

Storm Prevention Center (SPC). Fujita Tornado Damage Scale,

Storm Prevention Center (SPC). Enhanced F Scale for Tornado Damage,

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2000. Design and Construction

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

You might also like