Draft Study Plan and Research 

Overview

Briefing for NCST Advisory Committee 

November 7, 2011 

Marc L. Levitan

Joplin Tornado Study Team Leader 

Lead, National Windstorm Impact Reduction 

Program (NWIRP) Research and Development 

May 22, 2011 

Joplin, MO Tornado Study 
Presentation Outline 

• Background and Draft Study Plan – Marc Levitan 

– Rating Tornadoes – The Enhanced Fujita Scale 

– Joplin Tornado Overview 

– Preliminary Reconnaissance 

– National Construction Safety Team 

– Draft Technical Study Plan 

• Tornado Hazard Characteristics – Frank Lombardo 

• Emergency Communications and Public Response 

– Erica Kuligowski 

• Building and Lifeline Performance – Long Phan 

NOTE: The information contained in this presentation is preliminary and subject to change as 

additional data is collected and analysis is performed. 

2 
Rating Tornadoes – 

The Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale 

• EF Number is assigned to a tornado based on observed damage 

• Estimated wind speed ranges associated with EF Numbers 

• Typical damage state with EF-scale rating: 

EF Number Wind Speed (mph) % of US Tornadoes1

0 65-85 62.2 

1 86-110 26.5 

2 111-135 8.0 

3 136-165 2.6 

4 166-200 0.58 

5 200+ 0.04 

11991-2010, Data Source: NOAA 

© 2004 Texas Tech University. 

Used with permission. 

EF1 

3 

EF3 

© 2004 Texas Tech University. 

Used with permission. 

EF5 

© 2004 Texas Tech University. 

Used with permission. 
• Touched down in Joplin beginning at 5:34 PM CDT, Sunday, May 22, 2011 

• Enhanced Fujita Scale EF-5 tornado (highest category) 

• Maximum estimated wind speeds: 200+ mph 

• Path: up to 1 mile wide, 22.1 miles long (6 miles in Joplin) 

• Track: generally West to East across Joplin (Newton and Jasper counties) 

• ≈ 8,000 structures damaged or destroyed (≈30% of Joplin) 

• 162 fatalities, >1,000 injuries (Joplin Population: 49,024) 

Sources: National Weather Service (NWS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), City of Joplin

Joplin Tornado Overview 

Source: NOAA 4 
Four person NIST team 

• Departed from NIST afternoon of May 24, 

(< 48 hours following tornado) 

• Returned May 28, 2011 

Objectives: Collect information and data on 

• Tornado hazard 

• Pattern, location, and cause of fatalities and injuries 

• Tornado warning system, evacuation, emergency response, and 

occupant behavior 

• Response of buildings, tornado shelters, and designated safe areas 

• Damage to lifelines (natural gas, electrical distribution, etc.) and 

resulting fires 

Preliminary Reconnaissance 

5 
Preliminary Reconnaissance - 

Data Collection Scope and Sources

• Warning Procedures/Emergency 

Operations 

– Director of Joplin/Jasper County 

Emergency Management Agency 

– NWS Incident Meteorologists 

– St. John’s Medical Center, Director of 

Quality and Risk Management 

– St. John’s Medical Center staff, Safety 

and Security 

• Federal and State Tornado Mitigation 

and Response Efforts 

– FEMA Region VII Mitigation Division 

Director 

– MO State Emergency Management 

Agency (SEMA) Branch Chief, Logistics, 

Resources, Mitigation, and Floodplain 

Management Branch 

– SEMA Earthquake Program Manager 

• Building Codes and Documents 

– City of Joplin Building Official and Code 

Enforcement Supervisor 

• Fires and Lifelines 

– City of Joplin Fire Chief and Fire Marshall 

– Media Relations for Missouri Gas Energy 

– Engineering Manager of Missouri 

American Water 

• Building and Infrastructure Performance 

– Observed and documented over 20 

buildings and structures 

• Behavioral Response 

– Interviewed 25 persons who 

experienced the tornado 

6 
National Construction Safety Team 

 Based on analysis of the data collected and other criteria required by law and 

regulation, NIST Director Patrick Gallagher established a Team under the 

NCST Act on June 29, 2011, to proceed with a more comprehensive study of 

the impacts of the disaster.

• Team Members 

– Four NIST Engineering Laboratory employees 

• Dr. Marc Levitan: Study Team Leader, 

 Wind Engineer, Leader of NIST NWIRP R&D 

• Dr. Erica Kuligowski: Fire Protection Engineer and Sociologist 

• Dr. Frank Lombardo: Wind Engineer and Meteorologist 

• Dr. Long Phan: P.E., Structural Engineer, 

 Experienced in wind disaster studies 

– One National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) employee 

• Dr. David Jorgensen: Research Meteorologist and Chief, 

 National Severe Storms Lab (NSSL)/Warning R&D Div. 

7 
Draft Technical Study Plan 

• Draft study plan available at 

– http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/weather/joplin_tornado_2011.cfm 

• Goals 

– To study the wind environment and technical conditions that caused 

fatalities and injuries in the May 22, 2011, Joplin, MO, tornado, the 

performance of emergency communications systems and public 

response, and the performance of residential, commercial, and critical 

buildings; designated safe areas in buildings; and lifelines. 

– To serve as the basis for: 

• Potential improvements to design and construction of buildings, designated 

safe areas, and lifeline facilities in tornado-prone regions; 

• Potential improvements to guidance for tornado warning systems and 

emergency response procedures; 

• Potential revisions to building, fire, and emergency communications codes, 

standards, and practices; and 

• Potential improvements to public safety. 8 
Draft Technical Study Plan - 

Objectives 

1. Determine the tornado hazard characteristics and associated wind 

fields in the context of historical data 

2. Determine the pattern, location, and cause of fatalities and injuries, 

and associated emergency communications and public response 

3. Determine the response of residential, commercial, and critical 

buildings, including the performance of designated safe areas 

4. Determine the performance of lifelines as it relates to the continuity 

of operations of residential, commercial, and critical buildings 

5. Identify, as specifically as possible, areas in current building, fire, 

and emergency communications codes, standards, and practices 

that warrant revision 

9 
Draft Technical Study Plan - 

Technical Approach 

1. Identification of Issues Requiring Technical Study 

2. Data Collection 

3. Analysis and Comparison of Designs, Codes and 

Practices for Buildings and Emergency Communications 

Systems 

4. Technical Findings and Recommendations 

5. Identification of Needs for Revisions to Codes, 

Standards, and Practices 

10
Draft Technical Study Plan - 

Expected Outcomes 

• Findings and recommendations that provide the 

technical basis for: 

– Assessing tornado hazard probabilities at the local, 

regional, and national levels 

– Potentially improving emergency communications 

systems and public response to those communications 

– Potentially improving tornado-resilient design and 

construction of buildings and structures, including 

residential buildings, designated safe areas within 

buildings, and lifeline facilities as related to maintaining 

building operations 

11
Draft Technical Study Plan - 

Anticipated Impacts 

• Improved resilience of buildings, infrastructure, and 

communities to tornadoes 

– specifically focused on life safety objectives and enhanced 

performance of buildings during tornadoes to better protect 

building occupants and property 

• Enhanced emergency communications systems and 

lifeline performance in future disasters 

• Inform future research for the development and 

dissemination of guidance and tools for 

– assessing and reducing vulnerabilities related to tornadoes 

– producing the technical basis for cost-effective changes in 

national codes, standards, and practices 

12
Tornado Hazard 

Characteristics

Briefing for NCST Advisory Committee 

November 7, 2011 

Frank Lombardo

Study Task Leader 

NRC Postdoctoral Research Associate, NWIRP 

David Jorgensen

Study Task Leader 

Research Meteorologist and Chief, NOAA/National 

Severe Storms Lab/Warning R&D Division 

May 22, 2011 

Joplin, MO Tornado Study 
Primary Objective 

• Determine the tornado hazard characteristics 

and associated wind fields in the context of 

historical data 

Presentation Outline 

• Meteorological Conditions 

• Near Surface Wind Environment 

• Historical Context 

• Tornado Climatology and Associated Risk 

• Spatial Characteristics 

• Enhanced Fujita Scale Assessment 

14
JOPLIN: MAY 22, 2011, 2:00 PM CDT 

Meteorological Conditions 

• Severe Weather Outbreak Likely 

– Instability and wind shear were sufficient for severe weather 

– 1:30 PM CDT - Tornado Watch issued for Joplin and vicinity 

– 3:00 PM CDT - Moderate (MDT) risk of severe storms 

– 3:00 PM CDT - 10% probability of strong tornadoes (EF2 or greater) 

 within 25 miles of Joplin 

– 5:34 PM CDT - Approximate tornado touchdown in Joplin 

 Source: NOAA 

Categorical Severe Risk Tornado Probabilities 

Source: NOAA 

15

Source: NOAA 

Enhancements: NIST 

CAPE: Convective Available Potential Energy 

Source: NOAA 
Near Surface Wind Environment 

• Tornado Flow Regions 

• Direct Wind Speed Measurements 

Ia. Outer Flow 

Ib. Core Flow 

II. Boundary Layer 

III. Corner Flow 

IV.Mesocyclone 

Joplin airport 10m anemometry data 

showing effects of tornado even 

though ~ 5-6 miles away! (Region II) 

• Gusts ~50 mph 

• Sustained ~40 mph 

• Wind direction corroborates 

tornado position (south of airport) 

© 2004 Frank Lombardo. Used with permission. 

Data Source: NOAA 16
• Observed Damage 

(Using EF-scale) 

• Three data sources 

1. NIST rated from aerial 

photos and ground 

photos/videos 

2. Jasper County Geographic 

Information Services (GIS) 

3. US Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) 

Near Surface Wind Environment – Indirect 

17

EF 1-2 

(“Medium”) 

EF4 

(“Extensive”) 

Aerial Photo Source: NOAA 

Enhancements: NIST 
• Back calculations of wind speed from discrete structural failures 

– Lower and upper bounds on wind speed 

– Sign/Lightpost Failure 

• Used in other studies  obtained samples from Joplin Public Works 

• Tree fall analysis 

– Recent work (Beck and Dotzek, 2010) incorporates both: 

• Wind Field and Tree Damage Model  estimate wind speed 

Near Surface Wind Environment – Indirect 

18

← Actual and Modeled → 

tree fall patterns near 

St. Johns Hospital 
• Photogrammetry 

– Surveillance videos obtained from Joplin School District for 

– Joplin High School 

– Joplin East Middle School 

– Estimate object speeds (i.e., windborne debris) from surveillance 

videos given distances and frame rates 

– Done in previous tornado investigations 

– Distances available from site survey and aerial photos 

– Object Speed = Distance/Time Elapsed Between Frames 

– Inferred as lower bound on wind speed 

Near Surface Wind Environment – Indirect 

19
Historical Context of Joplin Tornado 

• Local Tornadic Events Prior to May 22, 2011 (Source: NOAA) 

– May 5, 1971 (F2)  1 fatality, 60 injuries, $2.5M 

– Three Nearby Significant Events (< 25 miles from Joplin) 

• April 3, 1956 (F4)  118 injuries 

• May 4, 2003 (F3)  17 fatalities, 116 injuries, $95M 

• May 10, 2008 (EF4)  43 fatalities, 710 injuries, $122M 

• US Tornadic Events - 58 F5 or EF5 tornadoes in official record (NOAA) 

• Figure suggests causative factors at play in addition to size of tornado 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Fatalities

F(x)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Path Width (yds)

F(x)

0 50 100 150 200 250

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Path Length (miles)

F(x)

JOPLIN 

JOPLIN 

JOPLIN 

Cumulative Probability 

FATALITIES PATH LENGTH PATH WIDTH 

20
Joplin Area Tornado Climatology (1950-2010)

(25 mile radius) 

Tornado Climatology and 

Associated Risk 

(E)F Number Tornado Count Fatalities Injuries 

0 30 0 2 

1 57 2 49

2 15 0 12

3 7 19 179

4 4 45 840

Unknown 2 0 0 

Total 115 66 1082

Data Source: NOAA 

5 (May 22, 2011) 1 162 1000+

21
• Tornado Hazards Specified in Standards and Guidelines 

• ANSI/ANS-2.3-2011 (for Nuclear Facilities) 

• ASCE/SEI 7-10 (Commentary)  10-5 annual probability (ANSI map) 

• ICC 500, FEMA 361 (for Storm Shelters, Safe Rooms) 

• Typically based on a “point” approach  design of a single structure 

Tornado Safe Room 

Design Wind Speed 

Map (FEMA 361) 

Consistent with Tornado 

Hazard Map in the 

ICC 500 Storm Shelter 

Standard 

Tornado Climatology and Associated Risk 

JOPLIN Source: FEMA 

22

ANSI: American National Standards Organization; ANS: American Nuclear Society; ASCE: American Society of Civil Engineers; 

SEI: Structural Engineering Institute; ICC: International Code Council 
Spatial Characteristics of Joplin Tornado 

• Tornado/Damage Path  Using ArcGIS, other sources 

• Losses (Economic, Human, Physical) 

– Have locations of a majority of fatalities, structural damage, property info 

– Total estimated number of damaged and destroyed structures 

• 7,608 per Jasper County GIS 

• 8,369 per USACE 

• Majority are residential structures 

• Comprehensive characterization of all information described 

Light Medium Totaled Demolished

Residential 3562 608 1010 2058

Commercial 245 90 185 272

Agricultural 7 20 12 98

Excepted 51 18 31 92

Limited Moderate Extensive Catastrophic

Residential 1381 1166 1192 1612

Commercial 58 65 60 138

Industrial 13 1 1 0

Unknown 561 409 379 572

Jasper County GIS Damage Estimate 

USACE Damage Estimate 

23
Enhanced Fujita Scale Assessment 

• History 

– Fujita (F) Scale developed in 1971  operational in late 1970’s 

– Limited damage indicators and construction quality issues 

(Phan and Simiu, 1998) 

• Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale proposed 

• 28 “DIs”  damage indicators (homes, trees, etc...) 

• Each DI has a number of “DODs”  Degrees 

of Damage 

• Each DOD has a range of wind speeds determined by 

expert elicitation (wind engineers, meteorologists) 

• NWS adopted in 2007 

• NIST Preliminary Finding 

– Tornado rating procedure (i.e., Enhanced Fujita intensity scale) 

lacks adequate indicators for distinguishing intense tornadoes 

(observations used in the determination not included as 

indicators in EF scale) 

24
Next Steps 

• Finalize analysis of meteorological conditions leading to and during the 

Joplin, MO, tornado 

• Perform detailed analysis of direct and indirect wind speed estimates 

• Assess the Joplin, MO, tornado in a climatological context. Probabilistic 

approaches to assess the tornado hazard at the local, regional, and national 

levels will be investigated. 

• Evaluation of the overall spatial characteristics, including in a 

historical context. 

• Assess rating tornadoes based on observed damage, using the EF scale. 

Implementation, directives and usage of the current EF scale and 

appropriateness and sufficiency of the existing damage indicators and 

degrees of damage will be studied. 

• Identify issues and develop findings pertaining to tornado 

hazard characteristics 

• Make recommendations, as warranted, for potential changes to building 

codes, standards, and practices to increase tornado resilience of buildings, 

lifelines, and communities 

25
Emergency Communications 

and Public Response

Briefing for NCST Advisory Committee 

November 7, 2011 

Erica D. Kuligowski

Study Task Leader 

Fire Protection Engineer, Fire Research Division 

May 22, 2011 

Joplin, MO Tornado Study 
Study Objective 

• Determine the pattern, location, and cause of 

fatalities and injuries, and associated emergency 

communications systems and public response 

Presentation Outline 

• Warnings 

• Public Response to U.S. Tornadoes 

• Historical Context of Joplin Tornado– 

Joplin/Jasper County, MO 

• May 22, 2011 Joplin, MO Tornado 

27
Warnings 

History 

Federal laws, codes, and standards 

• No federal law requiring local broadcasters to provide tornado warnings 

• FCC requires a broadcaster to operate in public interest (most TV/radio 

stations do provide severe weather info – varying degrees) 

Sources: Coleman et al. (2011), National Weather Service (NWS) 

1887 

Official warning for 

tornadoes banned by 

US Army Signal Corps 

- fear of panic/harm 

1934

U.S. Weather 

Bureau lifted ban 

(for warnings), but 

many significant 

tornadoes occurred 

with no warning 

1948

Successful 

forecast of a 

tornado at Tinker 

Air Force base 

1950 

U.S. Weather 

Bureau lifted ban 

completely 

(including 

tornado 

forecasts) 

1950s/60s 

Warnings via 

commercial TV 

and radio 

~ 1970 

Outdoor “air raid” 

sirens are allowed 

for use in tornado 

warnings 

1974

Expansion of NOAA’s 

Weather Radio 

ordered (after Super 

Outbreak of 

tornadoes in U.S. in 

April 1974) 

1980s/90s 

Some TV stations 

using ‘crawls’ or 

‘bugs’; maps of 

viewing area; Wallto-wall coverage of 

events 

Current 

Mobile, internetbased; GPSbased; Expansion 

of NOAA Weather 

Radio network and 

technology 

2007

NWS moves from 

county- to storm 

(polygon)-based 

warnings 

28
Warnings (Cont.) 

NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, Chapter 24 on Emergency 

Communications Systems

NFPA 1221 Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Emergency Services 

Communication Systems, Chapter 14 on Public Alerting Systems

UL 1971 Standard for Signaling Devices for the Hearing Impaired

• Others focus primarily on sound and intelligibility levels 

(including how to measure each) 

ANSI S1.13 Measurement of Sound Pressure Levels in Air

ANSI S1.26 Method for the Calculation of Absorption of Sound by the Atmosphere

ANSI S3.2 Method for Measuring the Intelligibility of Speech over Communications Systems

ANSI S3.5 Methods for the Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII)

ISO 9921 Ergonomic Assessment of Speech Communication

UL 1480 Standard for Speakers for Fire Alarm, Emergency, and Commercial and 

Professional Use

UL 1989 Standard for Standby Batteries

Codes/Standards applicable to public alerting systems (FEMA 2006)

• Codes/Standards on the system itself – focus on the construction, 

performance and testing of the individual physical components of the system 

• Also standards devoted to the individual physical components of the systems 

NFPA: National Fire Protection Association; ISO: International Organization for Standardization 29
Warnings (Cont.) 

• Federal Guidance on outdoor warning 

systems (FEMA 1980, 2006) 

– Guidance on the use of these systems 

for two different hazards: 

– Attack signal 

– Alert signal 

• Current practice in over 75 U.S. counties, cities 

and towns 

– Use of outdoor warning systems vary significantly 

among U.S. counties, cities, towns 

– Many communities (e.g., small towns and rural areas) 

do not have outdoor sirens 

Source: FEMA 

30
Public Response to U.S. 

Tornadoes 

• Factors that contribute to injuries and fatalities 

(Simmons and Sutter, 2011) 

• 4 major vulnerabilities for casualties: 

• Tornadoes that occur overnight 

• Tornadoes that occur during the fall/winter months 

• Living/located in a manufactured home 

• Location in the United States 

(Southeastern part of the US, specifically) 

• The influence of warning lead time 

31
Historical Context of Joplin Tornado 

• Emergency communications systems 

• Outdoor warning sirens (Source: Joplin/Jasper 

County Emergency Management Agency) 

• 25 sirens in Joplin “zone,” all tied to the 

same system (if one activated, they all 

activated) 

• Tested weekly at 10:00 AM (CDT) on 

Mondays, sounded for 1 min only 

• Other channels (Source: Joplin/Jasper County 

Local Emergency Operations Plan) 

• Primary and local Emergency Alert 

System (EAS) TV and radio stations 

• Reverse 911 

• NOAA Weather Radios 

32

© 2011 Federal Signal. 

Used with permission. 

© 2011 Joplin/Jasper County Emergency 

Management Agency. Used with permission 
Historical Context of Joplin Tornado 

• Procedures for tornadoes 

(Source: Joplin/Jasper County Local Emergency Operations Plan) 

– Communication 

• Warning systems are sounded only after... 

– Communications Operator has been notified that a tornado has been 

sighted 

– Tornado warning is issued by the NWS for Jasper, Newton or Cherokee 

County 

– Sustained winds are 75 mph or higher 

• Sounded for 3 minutes continuously, 

once, no “all clear” 

– Protective Actions 

• The burden of heeding warnings - individual 

communities and citizens 

• No guaranteed safe place during a tornado 

• Some locations are better than others 

33

SOURCE: FEMA 
• Emergency Communications Timeline Prior to 

Tornado Touchdown 

– 26 minutes - First siren sounded 

• Source: Joplin/Jasper County Emergency Management Agency 

– 17 minutes – NWS Tornado Warning 

• Included parts of the City of Joplin (Source: NWS) 

– Second siren sounded (time not logged) 

• Not usual procedure to sound second siren (Source: 

Joplin/Jasper County Emergency Management Agency) 

• "So...what other factors, if any, influenced the 

behavior and fate of individuals, and what did they 

do in response?" 

May 22, 2011 Joplin, MO Tornado 

34
NIST Interview Recruitment Strategies 

and Methods 

• Tornado survivors, families/friends of victims, 

building managers/owners 

• Recruitment of survivors and families/friends of 

victims for interviews 

May 22, 2011 Joplin, MO Tornado 

– Over 100 eyewitness media accounts 

– NIST Tech Beat article (10/14/11) 

– NIST flyer 

– Contacts in Joplin – radio stations, 

newspapers, public information 

officer, local emergency managers, 

faith-based organizations, chamber of 

commerce 

– In-person and phone interviews 

35
 NIST Interview Recruitment Strategies and Methods 

• Interview methods (2 phases) 

– Convenience sample to generate specific knowledge about a 

particular event; 

– Data collection will cease when the Team deems the topics of interest 

as saturated 

– Phase 1: Respondents will be asked to describe their experiences 

from the time when they first became aware that something was 

wrong until the moment when they responded to the disaster 

– Phase 2: Unstructured, follow-up or clarification questions about 

important topics 

May 22, 2011 Joplin, MO Tornado 

36
• Survivors’ Behavior (n≈70) 

– Not everyone heard sirens 

– People did not react until perceiving 

danger

– Residents delayed taking protection; 

some did not take shelter 

• Findings from NWS Service 

Assessment Study (NWS, 2011) 

– Initial siren given little credibility; 

confirmation was key 

– Residents were desensitized to the 

warnings 

– Information/warnings provided via 

multiple means or channels 

Preliminary Findings – Interviews 

37
Fatalities and Injuries Analysis 

• 162 fatalities 

• Locations of death vary: 

residences, businesses, 

outdoors, and vehicles 

• Other information on 

fatalities: date of birth, date 

of death, home address 

• Factors of interest (to obtain): 

– Cause of death 

– Exact location found 

– Experiences of the deceased 

during the event 

May 22, 2011 Joplin, MO Tornado 

Sources: NWS; MO State Police; Dr. Andrew Curtis; Media accounts; NIST Survivor interviews 

Preliminary Locations of 

Deceased # of Victims

Academy Sports Store 1

AT&T store 1

Elks Lodge 5

Full Gospel Church 7

Greenbriar Nursing Home 21

Harmony Heights Baptist Church 3

Home Depot 8

Meadows Healthcare Facility 2

Outside (6 in vehicles) 14

Pizza Hut 5

Residences - apartments 11

Residences - single family home 54

Stained Glass Theater 2

St. John Regional Medical Center 15

Unknown 9

Walmart 3

Officer killed in the line of duty 1

38
Next Steps 

• Complete interviews on the response of individuals (survivors and 

victims) to the Joplin, MO tornado 

• Determine how situation awareness, decision-making, and the 

environment, including the tornado effects and physical location of 

the individual, influenced the performance of protective action (e.g., 

sheltering in place), injuries, and survival 

• Compare data on public response from previous tornadoes to the 

Joplin, MO tornado 

• Compare local community procedures and codes/standards on 

public alerting to practices in Joplin, MO 

• Make recommendations, as warranted, for potential changes to 

emergency communications and building and fire codes, standards, 

and practices to improve life safety in tornado disasters 

39
Performance of Buildings, 

Designated Safe Areas, 

and Lifelines 

May 22, 2011 

Joplin, MO Tornado Study 

Briefing for NCST Advisory Committee 

November 7, 2011 

Long Phan

Study Task Leader 

Research Structural Engineer, NWIRP 
Presentation Outline 

• Wind Design Context for Tornadoes 

• Joplin City Building Code History 

• Overview of Damage and Structures Surveyed 

• Performance of Facilities 

– Buildings 

– Designated Safe Areas 

– Lifelines 

• Preliminary Findings 

• Next Steps 

Primary Objectives 

• Determine the response of residential, commercial, and critical 

buildings, including the performance of designated safe areas 

• Determine the performance of lifelines as it relates to the continuity 

of operations of residential, commercial, and critical buildings 

41
 Wind Design Context for Tornadoes 

• Current national codes, standards, and practices: 

– Seek to achieve life safety for hazards considered in design 

– Do not require conventional buildings and other structures to 

withstand tornadoes 

– Design criteria specifically for tornado shelters and safe rooms 

are addressed, however, use of tornado shelters or safe rooms 

is not mandatory

• Trade-offs between risks and costs are made during 

the model building codes and standards development 

process and during adoption and enforcement at the 

state or local level 

42
Joplin City Building Code History 

Code Adopted (Date) 1 Relevant Amendments1 Required Increased Wind 

Loads for Critical Facilities2

1961 BOCA/NBC (7/1961) TBD

1965 BOCA/NBC (10/1966) TBD

1970 BOCA/NBC (3/1970) TBD

1978 BOCA/NBC (5/1980) Yes

1984 BOCA/NBC (7/1984) Yes

1990 BOCA/NBC (11/1990) Ord. 93-6 (snow and wind loads) Yes

1996 BOCA/NBC (7/1997) Yes

2000 IBC, IRC (3/2003) Yes

2006 IBC, IRC, IFC (5/2008) Ord. 08-068 (snow and wind loads, 

roofing and exterior finish materials)

Yes

BOCA/NBC: National Building Code, IBC: International Building Code, IRC: International Residential Code, 

IFC: International Fire Code 

1

 Data Source: Building and Code Enforcement, City of Joplin 

2

 Based on Model Code adopted 

• City of Joplin has long history of code adoptions, dating back to 1877. 

43
Overview of Damage and 

Structures Surveyed 

• NIST surveyed 20+ non-residential (critical1, commercial, industrial) and 

numerous residential structures 

– Representative construction types, with typical damage 

– Spatially distributed throughout damage area 

1 For example, hospitals, fire stations, schools 

44

Aerial Photo Source: NOAA 

Enhancements: NIST 
Overview of Damage and 

Structures Surveyed (Cont’d) 

Category Name Construction 

Type Use Year Damage 

Condition

Fatalities/ 

Injuries

Critical

St. John’s Hospital RC, Steel, CMU Hospital 1965-1985 Envelope/Collapse 15/TBD 

Fire Station Wood Frame Fire TBD Roof 0/0 

Police Station Wood Frame Police TBD Minor Exterior 0/0 

Joplin High School RC, Steel, CMU School TBD Collapse 0/0 

Joplin East Middle School Tilt-up Wall, CMU School 2009 Collapse 0/0 

St. Mary’s School CMU School TBD Collapse TBD/TBD 

High Occupancy 

Home Depot Tilt-up Wall Retail 2000 Collapse 8/TBD 

Wal-Mart CMU Retail TBD Partial Collapse 3/TBD 

St. Paul’s Church Steel Frame Church TBD Roof/Envelope TBD/TBD 

Commercial

Ramesh Shaw Eye Center Steel Frame Office TBD Roof/Envelope TBD/TBD 

W. Meredith Eye Center Steel Frame Office TBD Roof/Envelope TBD/TBD 

4-Story RC Office Building RC Frame Office TBD Envelope TBD/TBD 

Residential

Mercy Village Wood Frame Apartment TBD Envelope TBD/TBD 

Greenbriar Wood Frame Nursing Home TBD Collapse 21/TBD 

Single family Wood Frame Residence TBD Envelope to collapse TBD/TBD 

Designated Safe 

Areas

Wal-Mart’s TBD TBD TBD TBD/TBD 

St. John’s Interior TBD TBD/TBD 

In-Residence RC room, Steel Box TBD Intact TBD/TBD 

Lifelines

Power Open Frame Substation TBD Collapse 0/0 

Water Treatment Plant Brick Storage 1898 Collapse 0/0 

RC: Reinforced Concrete; CMU: Concrete Masonry Unit 

45
Performance of Facilities

Critical/High Occupancy: Hospital 

• Main Buildings (RC, Steel Frame): Extensive 

damage to envelope (glazing; roof blow-off) and 

interior; No observed damage to Main Wind Force 

Resisting System (MWFRS); 

Loss of function 

• Ancillary Buildings (CMU): Collapsed or 

substantially damaged 

• Performance Issues: 

– Building envelope/Loss of function 

– Collapse/damage of ancillary buildings 

– Life safety, continuity of vital service not achieved 

RC Frame,1965 Steel Frame,1983 

Buildings 

Generator Plant Chiller Plant 

46
Critical/High Occupancy: Schools, “Big Box” Stores 

• Tilt-up Wall, CMU Wall with Long-Span Joist Roof: 

Partial or complete loss of roofing system; Failure 

of roof-to-wall connections; Collapse of walls 

• Performance Issues: 

– Load Path Continuity 

– Robustness 

Joplin East Middle School 

Gymnasium 

Performance of Facilities (Cont’d)

Buildings (Cont’d) 

Tilt-up walls 

Tilt-up walls 

Home Depot 

Joplin East Middle School 

Auditorium 

Tilt-up walls 

Collapsed roof trusses 

CMU walls 

Collapsed roof trusses 

CMU walls 

Wal-Mart 

47
Analysis of Video from 

Joplin School District 

Shows Damage Sequence 

at Joplin East Middle 

School’s Gymnasium 

• Loss of steel roof deck 

• Collapse of roof trusses 

(loss of roof-to-wall 

connection) 

Performance of Facilities (Cont’d)

Buildings (Cont’d) 

Critical/High Occupancy: Joplin East Middle School 

48

Collapsed Roof Trusses 

Remainders of Collapsed Exterior West Wall 
4-Story RC Frame Professional Building 

Performance of Facilities (Cont’d)

Buildings (Cont’d) 

Commercial 

Ramesh Shaw Eye Surgeon Building 

William Meredith Eye Center 

• RC Frame: Extensive damage to envelope; No 

observed damage to MWFRS; Loss of function 

• Light Steel Frame: Loss of roofing system and 

building envelope; Damage to structural frame 

varied from none to moderate, but no collapse 

• Performance Issues: 

– Building envelope/Loss of function

49
• Wood Frame Single and Multi-Family: 

– Both older (late 1980’s) and newer (early 2000’s) 

construction sustained similar damage 

– Damage typically ranged from damage to roof and 

exterior walls to complete collapse. 

• Performance Issues: 

– Building envelope 

– Collapse 

OLDER 

NEWER 

anchor bolts 

Performance of Facilities (Cont’d)

Buildings (Cont’d) 

Residential 

50
Performance of Facilities (Cont’d)

Designated Safe Areas 

• Definitions 

– Designated Safe Areas: Spaces within buildings that have been identified by owners 

or operators to provide shelter for occupants. 

– Best Available Refuge Areas: Safest areas in buildings based on FEMA P-431.

– Storm Shelters: Building, structure or portion(s) thereof, constructed in accordance 

with ICC 500-2008, Standard for the Design and Construction of Storm Shelters, and 

designated for use during a severe wind storm event such as a hurricane or tornado. 

– Safe Rooms: Building, structure or portion(s) thereof designed to meet FEMA 320 

(residential or small business) or FEMA 361 (community) safe room guidelines 

• No known community storm shelters or community safe rooms in Joplin 

(Sources: Joplin/Jasper County Emergency Management Agency and FEMA) 

• Uncommon for buildings in Joplin to have basements 

(Source: City of Joplin Building and Code Enforcement) 

• In-residence shelters (concrete room in basement and steel box on grade) and 

designated safe area at Wal-Mart 

51
• Power: (Source: Empire District Electric) 

– 1 power substation destroyed (supporting steel frame 

collapsed), 2 damaged. 20,000 without power. 

– Approx. 3,900 poles damaged; 100 miles of line downed; 31 

circuits off 

– 10 transmission lines out of service; 135 transmission 

structures affected; 30 fiber lines cut 

• Water Treatment Plant: (Source: Missouri American Water 

Engineering)

– Unreinforced brick storage building (1898) collapsed 

– Plant remained operational on back-up power 

• High Pressure Gas Valve (Source: St. John’s Hospital) 

– Major leak adjacent to area used to triage tornado victims 

– Not shut off for some time 

• Water: (Source: Joplin Fire Department) 

– Numerous small leaks due to broken pipes in damaged 

buildings 

– Unable to use fire hydrants in some areas due to low pressure 

Performance of Facilities (Cont’d)

Lifelines 

52
Preliminary Findings 

• Performance of Buildings and Designated Safe Areas 

– The high level of fatalities indicates that life safety was not achieved; there is no such 

expectation in current model codes or standards 

– A large number of residential and non-residential buildings sustained complete 

loss of function 

– Critical and high-occupancy buildings did not perform better than those of similar 

construction type in lower risk categories with regard to loss of function or damage 

– Reinforced concrete and steel frame buildings suffered total loss of function and major 

damage to the envelope and the interior, but the structural frame remained largely intact 

– Most other buildings, including tilt-up wall construction, metal buildings, concrete and 

brick masonry, and wood-frame, suffered partial or complete collapse 

• Performance of Lifelines 

– Utility-related fires did not play a prominent role in fatalities, injuries, or property damage 

– Loss of power affected functionality of hospital 

– Residential water leaks presented potential negative effect on fire fighting effectiveness 

– High pressure gas leak at hospital presented potential hazardous condition 

53
Next Steps 

• Continue analyzing field performance data. Establish environmental conditions 

affecting facilities. Develop failure hypothesis for buildings of interest. 

• Obtain design and actual performance information, including drawings 

and available videos. Compare designs with field observations to assess 

consistency between design and actual construction. 

Refine failure hypothesis. 

• Review design/performance of designated safe areas within buildings, 

including shelters, safe rooms, and areas of buildings used for refuge 

from the tornado. 

• Review/evaluate appropriate model building code and standards requirements 

for building envelopes and main wind force resistance systems. Assess 

performance based on observed damage relative to code requirements. 

• Identify issues and develop findings pertaining to performance of buildings, 

designated safe areas, and lifelines. 

• Make recommendations, as warranted, for potential changes to building 

codes, standards, and practices to increase tornado resilience of buildings, 

lifelines, and communities. 

54
References 

• Brooks, H.E., Lee, J.W., Craven, J.P. (2003). “The Spatial Distribution of Severe Thunderstorm and Tornado 

Environments From Global Reanalysis Data”, Atmospheric Research, 67-68, 73-94

• Beck, V. and Dotzek, N. (2010). “Reconstruction of Near-Surface Tornado Wind Fields from Forest Damage”, J. 

Appl. Met. and Clim., 49, 1517-1537 

• Coleman, T.A., K.R. Knupp, J. Spann, J.B. Elliott, and B.E. Peters. (2011). “The History (and Future) of Tornado 

Warning Dissemination in the United States.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, pp 567-582. 

• FEMA (1980). “Outdoor Warning Systems Guide.” Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC. 

• FEMA (2006). “Outdoor Warning Systems, Technical Bulletin (Version 2.0).” Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, Washington, DC. 

• FEMA (2008). Design and Construction Guidance for Community Safe Rooms, 2nd Edition, Report FEMA 361. 

• FEMA (2009). Tornado Protection: Selecting Refuge Areas in Buildings, 2nd Edition, Report FEMA P-431.

• FEMA (2011) Taking Shelter from the Storm: Building a Safe Room for Your Home or Small Business, 3rd Edition, 

Report FEMA 320. 

• NWS (2011). “NWS Central Region Service Assessment Joplin, Missouri Tornado – May 22, 2011”. National 

Weather Service , 33 pp. 

• Phan, L. and Simiu, E. (1998). “ Tornado Aftermath: Questioning the Tools.” ASCE Civil Engineering Magazine 

• Simmons, K.M. and D. Sutter (2011). “Economic and Societal Impacts of Tornadoes.” American Meteorological 

Society: Washington, DC. 

55
Study Plan and Research Overview

Briefing for NCST Advisory Committee 

November 7, 2011 

Questions/Discussion

May 22, 2011 

Joplin, MO Tornado Study