NIST Preliminary 

Reconnaissance, Building 

Performance and Emergency

Communications, Joplin, 

Missouri Tornado,

May 22, 2011 

Engineering 

Laboratory 

June 15, 2011

http://www.nist.gov/el/
Presentation Outline

• NIST National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program 

(NWIRP)

• NIST Disaster and Failure Studies Program (DFSP)

• Objectives of Preliminary Reconnaissance

• NIST Preliminary Reconnaissance Team

• The May 22, 2011 Joplin Tornado

• Data Collection Scope and Sources

• Overview of Observations

• Context for Preliminary Findings

• Preliminary Findings

• Next Steps

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

change as additional data is collected
National Windstorm Impact 

Reduction Program (NWIRP)

• Created by the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004 (Public Law 

108-360)

• Objective - “achievement of major measurable reductions in losses of life and 

property from windstorms”

• Interagency Working Group: NIST, NOAA, FEMA, and NSF

• NIST responsibilities (PL 108-360, Section 204(c)(1)): Support R&D to improve 

building codes and standards and practices for design and construction of 

buildings, structures, and lifelines

• Three program components, two of which address windstorm impact data 

collection and analysis

– Section 204(d)(2) Understanding of Windstorms : Activities include research to improve knowledge 

of and data collection on the impact of severe wind on buildings, structures, and infrastructure

– Section 204(d)(3)(A) Windstorm Impact Assessment: Activities include development of 

mechanisms for collecting and inventorying information on the performance of buildings, structures, 

and infrastructure in windstorms and improved collection of pertinent information from sources, 

including the design and construction industry, insurance companies, and building officials
NIST Disaster and Failure Studies

Earthquakes Hurricanes Construction/

Building 

Tornadoes Fires

San Fernando, CA 

(1971)

Mexico City, 

Mexico (1985)

Loma Prieta, CA 

(1989)

Northridge, CA 

(1994)

Kobe, Japan (1995)

Kocaeli, Turkey 

(1999)

Maule, Chile (2010)

Camille, MS/LA 

(1969)

Alicia, Galveston, 

TX (1983)

Hugo, SC (1989)

Andrew, FL (1992)

Hurricanes Mitch 

and Georges, 

LAC (1998)

Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita (2005)

Skyline Plaza 

Apartments, Bailey’s 

Crossroads, VA (1973)

Willow Island Cooling 

Tower, WV (1978)

Kansas City Hyatt 

Regency, Kansas City, 

MO (1981)

Riley Road 

Interchange, East 

Chicago, IN (1982)

Harbor Cay 

Condominium, Cocoa 

Beach, FL (1981)

L’Ambiance Plaza, 

Hartford, CT (1987)

Ashland Oil Tank 

Collapse, Floreffe, PA 

(1988)

U.S. Embassy, 

Moscow, USSR (1987)

Murrah Federal 

Building, Oklahoma 

City, OK (1995)

World Trade Center 

Disaster, New York, NY 

(2001)

Dallas Cowboys Indoor 

Practice Facility, May 

2009

Jarrell, TX (1997)

Spencer, SD 

(1998)

Oklahoma City, 

OK (1999)

DuPont Plaza Hotel, San Juan, 

PR (1986)

First Interstate Bank Building, 

Los Angeles, CA (1988)

Loma Prieta Earthquake, CA (1989)

Hillhaven Nursing Home (1989)

Pulaski Building, Washington, DC (1990)

Happyland Social Club, Bronx, NY (1990)

Oakland Hills, CA (1991)

Hokkaido, Japan (1993)

Watts St, New York City (1994)

Northridge Earthquake, CA (1994)

Kobe, Japan (1995)

Vandalia St, New York City (1998)

Cherry Road, Washington, DC (1999)

Keokuk, IA (1999)

Houston, TX (2000)

Phoenix, AZ (2001)

Cook County Administration Building Fire 

(2003)

The Station Nightclub, RI (2003)

Charleston, SC, Sofa Super 

Store Fire (2007)

Witch Creek & Guejito Fire (2007)

NIST Disaster and Failure Studies

Condominium, Cocoa 

Hartford, CT (1987)

Collapse, Floreffe, PA 

Moscow, USSR (1987)

Building, Oklahoma 

World Trade Center 

Disaster, New York, NY 

Dallas Cowboys Indoor 

Practice Facility, May 

Keokuk, IA (1999)

Houston, TX (2000)

Phoenix, AZ (2001)

Cook County Administration Building Fire 

(2003)

The Station Nightclub, RI (2003)

Charleston, SC, Sofa Super 

Store Fire (2007)

Witch Creek & Guejito Fire (2007)

© iStockphoto.com/Serhiy Zavalnyuk © iStockphoto.com/Siarhei Kaspiarovich

© Shutterstock/Diagon

© Shutterstock/Diagon

© iStockphoto.com/Ani_Ka
NIST Disaster and Failure Studies

Results

• Probable 

technical cause

• Lessons learned: 

successes and failures

• Improvements to 

standards, codes, 

practices, technologies

• Future research 

priorities

NIST Authorities:

 NCST Act (2002): building failures, 

evacuation and emergency response 

procedures

 NIST Act (1985): structural 

investigations

 Fire Prevention and Control Act 

(1974): fire investigations

 NEHRP Reauthorization Act (1990):

earthquakes

 National Windstorm Impact Reduction 

Act (2004): wind, storms and floods

 Federal Response Framework:

structural and fire safety; disaster 

operations and situation assessment; 

urban and industrial hazard analysis; 

recovery

Program focus: Develop and maintain archival disaster and failure database of hazards, performance of buildings and 

infrastructure, evacuation and emergency response, and related factors (e.g., mitigation, response)


Types of NIST Disaster and Failure 

Studies

• A Preliminary Reconnaissance is a field study at the disaster or failure site to 

gather information and to determine if a technical investigation is warranted.

• A Technical Investigation is a fact-finding study that may include an assessment 

of the safety and performance of buildings and infrastructure, associated hazard(s), 

and/or emergency response and evacuation procedures and will likely result in 

recommendations for improvements to standards, codes, and practices and/or new 

knowledge. Studies may range anywhere from:

– limited scope, i.e., based on data collection and interpretation, modest 

analytical efforts, and judgment of technical experts, to 

– extensive scope, i.e., based on in-depth technical study—including extensive 

use of data, models, analytical and computational tools, laboratory and/or field 

experiments, and/or interviews.
NIST’s Role in Disaster and Failure 

Studies 

• NIST may use any one or a combination of the study options below in 

conducting a preliminary reconnaissance or a technical investigation:

– NIST may lead post-event studies. In many cases, these types of studies may involve a 

preliminary reconnaissance together with an extensive technical study that may include the 

characterization of the hazard, the safety and performance of buildings and structures, and 

the associated emergency response and evacuation procedures. Private sector and 

academic experts may be involved in these studies through contracts. Other public sector 

experts may also be involved in these studies.

– NIST may coordinate or participate in post-event studies. These types of studies may 

involve significant participation and/or coordination by other federal agencies with mission 

responsibilities and expertise. 

– NIST may sponsor or participate in private-sector led post-event studies. In many 

cases, these types of studies may a involve preliminary reconnaissance together with a 

technical study that is limited in scope. NIST participation may be limited to guidance, 

oversight, and/or serving as a technical expert. These types of studies typically may involve 

significant private sector leadership and participation augmented with public sector experts.

– NIST may provide technical assistance in the reconstruction process for international 

disaster and failure events at the request of US agencies, industry, private organizations, 

governments of other nations, or international organizations. 
Typical Study Objectives May 

Include:

1. Establishing the likely technical factor or factors responsible for the damage, 

failure, and/or successful performance of buildings and/or infrastructure in 

the aftermath of a disaster or failure event.

2. Evaluating the technical aspects of evacuation and emergency response 

procedures that contributed to the extent of injuries and fatalities sustained 

during the event.

3. Determining the procedures and practices that were used in the design, 

construction, operation and maintenance of the buildings and/or 

infrastructure.

4. Recommending, as necessary, specific improvements to standards, codes, 

and practices as well as any research and other appropriate actions based 

on study findings.

5. Promoting, enabling, and tracking adoption of recommendations through 

improved standards, codes, and practices as well as any research and 

other appropriate actions based on study findings.
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

Objectives of the Joplin Tornado 

Preliminary Reconnaissance
NIST Preliminary Reconnaissance 

Team

Four NIST Engineering Laboratory employees:

• Dr. Marc Levitan: Reconnaissance Team Leader, 

Wind Engineer, Leader of NIST 

NWIRP R&D

• Dr. Erica Kuligowski: Emergency Evacuation 

Specialist/Fire Protection Engineer

• Dr. Frank Lombardo: Wind Engineer/Meteorologist

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

experience in wind disaster studies

Deployment: Four days in Joplin, MO (5/25 to 5/28)
• Touched down in Joplin beginning at 5:41 PM CDT

• Initially rated a “high-end” Enhanced Fujita (EF)-4 tornado with estimated 

maximum wind speeds from 190-198 mph on May 23rd

• Upgraded to EF-5 on May 24th 

− Estimated maximum wind speeds 200+ mph

− Maximum path width: 3⁄4 mile, length: 13.8 miles (6 miles in Joplin)

− Source: National Weather Service

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

The May 22, 2011 Joplin Tornado

Courtesy: NOAA
Data Collection Scope and Sources

• Wind Environment/Basis For Tornado Rating

– NWS meteorologists who made EF-5 determination

• Fatalities, Injuries and Damage 

– FEMA Branch Chief Regional Response Coordination 

Center

– USACE1 Disaster Program Manager and Emergency 

Support Function #3 (ESF-3) Team Leader

– Building Official and Code Enforcement Supervisor, City of 

Joplin

1 Unites States Army Corps of Engineers 
Data Collection Scope and Sources 

(Cont’d)

• Warning Procedures/Emergency Operations

– Director of Joplin-Jasper County Emergency Management

– 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
Data Collection Scope and Sources 

(Cont’d)

• Building Damage

– Photographic data from site damage survey of 20+ nonresidential and numerous residential structures

– Construction Types: Reinforced Concrete (RC) Frame, 

Steel Frame (Welded, Bolted), Precast Concrete and 

Concrete Masonry (e.g., commonly used in “big box” 

stores and schools), and Single and Multi-Family Wood 

Frame, Unreinforced Brick

– Use: Hospital, Fire Station, Police Station, School,

Medical & Commercial Office, Large Retail, Church, 

Nursing Home, Single Family Residence, Lifeline 

(Power Station, Water Treatment Plant)
Data Collection Scope and Sources 

(Cont’d)

• Building Codes and Documents

– History of building and fire code adoptions, legislation, and ordinances in 

Joplin, dating back to 1877. Latest code adoption with City of Joplin 

amendments (May, 2008): 2006 International Building Code, 2006 

International Residential Code, 2006 International Fire Code (Building Official 

and Code Enforcement Supervisor, City of Joplin)

– Drawings requested for major buildings (City of Joplin Building Department)

– Tornado also affected unincorporated/rural areas nearby; code practices for 

these areas unknown at this time

• Fires and Lifelines

– City of Joplin Fire Chief

– City of Joplin Fire Marshall

– Media Relations for Missouri Gas Energy

– Engineering Manager of Missouri American Water
Overview of Observations

• Tornado Hazard

• Pattern, Location, and Cause of Injuries and 

Fatalities

• Tornado Warning System, Evacuation, 

Emergency Response, and Occupant Behavior 

• Responses of Buildings, Tornado Shelters and 

Designated Safe Areas

• Fires and Damage to Lifelines
Overview of Observations

Tornado Hazard

• Wind Speed (NWS)

– Estimated EF-5 at 200+ mph in heaviest damage swath

– EF-5 rating partially based on indicators not in EF scale

– EF-1+ damage estimated over larger area (86+ mph)

• Debris

– Estimated 3 million cubic yards of debris (USACE)

Fill a football field (end zones included)~470 yards high (over 120 stories tall)

• Significant portion (20-30%) of Joplin affected resulting in:

– Estimated 4,000-8,000 structures damaged or destroyed (USACE/FEMA)

– Critical1, institutional, commercial, residential and lifeline facilities damaged and 

destroyed 

• NIST surveyed 20+ non-residential structures and multiple residential structures

Source: NIST

EF-2

EF-4

EF-5

EF-5

EF-5 EF-4

EF-3

Courtesy: NOAA/NWS 

3

1For example, hospitals, 

fire stations, schools 
Overview of Observations

Pattern, Location, and Cause of Injuries & Fatalities

• 138 confirmed and identified deceased (MO Department 

of Public Safety, June 2, 2011)

• Age and city of residence identified for 138 deceased 

(MO Department of Public Safety)

• Data on location and causes of injuries and fatalities 

requested but not yet available

– Six fatalities at St. John’s Medical Center (Source: St. John’s 

Medical Center staff and USA Today, May 24, 2011)

– Seven fatalities at the Home Depot (Source: USA Today, May 

24, 2011)
Overview of Observations

Tornado Warning System, Evacuation, 

Emergency Response, and Occupant Behavior

• Warning timeline

– Joplin-Jasper County Emergency Management initiated two sirens 

prior to tornado (warning time 26 minutes) (Source: Director of 

Joplin-Jasper County Emergency Management)

• First siren logged in at 5:11 PM (CDT)

• Exact time of second siren initiation unknown – sometime between 5:11 PM 

and 5:37 PM (CDT) (when local spotter observed a tornado on the ground)

• Uncommon procedure in City of Joplin to sound two sirens in sequence

– National Weather Service issued Tornado Warning at 5:17 PM that 

included city of Joplin; first report of tornado 5:41 PM (CDT) 

(warning time 24 minutes) (Source: NWS)

• National average NWS warning time is 13-14 minutes
Overview of Observations

Tornado Warning System, Evacuation, 

Emergency Response, and Occupant Behavior 

(cont’d)

• Warning siren information (Source: Director of Joplin-Jasper County 

Emergency Management)

– Intended to alert people outdoors; not intended to alert people inside buildings

– Continuous tone for 3 minutes, and then stop

– Tested in city of Joplin every Monday morning (same time)

– Average siren initiation in city of Joplin - 3 times per year for actual events

• Other Joplin Communications and Warning Capabilities – primary and 

local Emergency Alert System (EAS), TV and radio stations, reverse 

911, and personal NOAA weather radios (Source: Joplin and Jasper 

County Local Emergency Operations Plan)
Overview of Observations

Tornado Warning System, Evacuation, 

Emergency Response, and Occupant Behavior 

(cont’d)

• Some, but not all, people in Joplin received 

warnings via several sources, including sirens, news 

stations and radios, and word of mouth. (Sources: 

Print and social media)

• Eyewitness accounts document individuals who 

confirmed the warning information they received 

(Sources: Print and social media)

– For example, a Joplin resident called the Emergency 

Operations Center (EOC) seeking clarification about why 

the first siren was sounding (Source: Director of JoplinJasper County Emergency Management)
Media References

Tornado Warning System, Evacuation, 

Emergency Response, and Occupant Behavior

• Media Accounts

– Los Angeles Times: May 22, 2011; 

May 26, 2011

– CNN news: May 24, 2011

– Kansas City Star: May 25, 2011

– New York Times: May 25, 2011; 

May 29, 2011

– Joplin Globe: May 30, 2011; June 

2, 2011

– Springfield News-Leader: June 2, 

2011

• Social media/Eyewitness 

accounts

– CNN transcripts: May 23, 2011

– NPR news blog: May 23, 2011

– Survivor’s blogs

– Facebook: Joplin Tornado Info 

page

– YouTube eyewitness accounts
Overview of Observations

Responses of Buildings, Tornado Shelters and 

Designated Safe Areas 

• RC and Steel Frame Buildings

– Extensive damage to building envelope and interior

– Loss of function

– No observed damage to main wind force resisting systems

St. John’s Medical Center

RC Frame, built 1965 Steel Frame, built 1983

Source: NIST Source: NIST
Overview of Observations

Responses of Buildings, Tornado Shelters and 

Designated Safe Areas (cont’d)

• RC and Steel Frame Buildings

St. John’s Medical Center

Joplin High School

Steel Frame, built 1983

RC Frame

Source: NIST

Source: NIST
Overview of Observations

Responses of Buildings, Tornado Shelters and 

Designated Safe Areas (cont’d)

• RC and Steel Frame Buildings

4-Story RC Frame Professional Building

St. Paul’s United Methodist Church

Steel Frame

Source: NIST

Source: NIST

Source: NIST

Source: NIST
Overview of Observations

Responses of Buildings, Tornado Shelters and 

Designated Safe Areas (cont’d)

• Precast Concrete Wall Buildings

– Partial or complete loss of roofing system

– Failure of roof to wall connections

– Collapse of wall panels

Home Depot Joplin East Middle School

Tilt-up walls

Source: NIST Source: NIST
Overview of Observations

Responses of Buildings, Tornado Shelters and 

Designated Safe Areas (cont’d)

• Concrete Masonry Wall Buildings

– Partial or complete loss of roofing system

– Failure of roof to wall connection

– Collapse of walls

Franklin Technology Center

Steel roof trusses

Masonry 

cap beam

Concrete 

masonry 

wall

Walls 

occasionally 

not anchored 

into footing

Masonry 

cap beam

Source: NIST Source: NIST
Overview of Observations

Responses of Buildings, Tornado Shelters and 

Designated Safe Areas (cont’d)

• Concrete Masonry Wall Buildings

Wal-Mart

Joplin East Middle School

Square steel tube 

cap beam

Collapsed 

exterior wall End of roof truss 

to wall connection

Source: NIST

Source: NIST
Overview of Observations

Responses of Buildings, Tornado Shelters and 

Designated Safe Areas (cont’d)

• Tornado Shelters, Safe Rooms, Designated Safe Areas, and Best Available Refuge Areas

– Definitions:

• Buildings, structures, or spaces designed to ICC 500-2008, Standard for the Design and Construction of Storm Shelters, 

are called “storm shelters.” The standard defines a storm shelter as “a building, structure or portion(s) thereof, 

constructed in accordance with this standard, designated for use during a severe wind storm event such as a hurricane 

or tornado.”

• FEMA uses the term “safe rooms,” which applies to all shelters, buildings, or spaces designed to the FEMA criteria 

(FEMA 320 and 361), whether for individuals, residences, small businesses, schools, or communities. 

• “Designated safe areas” refers to spaces within buildings that have been identified to provide shelter for the building 

occupants.

– “Best Available Refuge Areas” are the safest areas in buildings identified using FEMA P-431 methodology.

– No known community storm shelters or safe rooms in affected area (Sources: Director of Joplin-Jasper 

County Emergency Management and FEMA)

– Uncommon for buildings in the City of Joplin to have basements (Source: City of Joplin Building Official 

and Code Enforcement Supervisor)

– Information on the performance of storm shelters, safe rooms, and designated safe areas was not 

available to collect during the preliminary reconnaissance
Overview of Observations

Single Family Residential Construction

• Surveyed two representative subdivisions near the beginning of the tornado track 

on the west side of Joplin within damage path

• Houses removed from foundation leaving only anchor bolts in some instances

• In some instances, homes in close proximity suffered a wide range of damage 

• Different ages of subdivision construction

• Avg. Age: Yellow – Late 1980’s, Blue – Early 2000’s 

• Both types sustained heavy roof damage

OLDER NEWER

anchor bolts

shingle loss only

complete loss

St. Pauls UMC

Courtesy: NOAA

Source: NIST Source: NIST

Source: NIST

Courtesy: NOAA
Overview of Observations

Lifelines and Fires

• Fires

– Initial estimates of less than ten fires following the tornado; fires 

confined to original structure (Sources: City of Joplin Fire Chief and Fire 

Marshall)

• Causes of fires: mainly due to gas leaks and downed power lines

• Joplin Fire Department received loaner equipment and mutual aid from surrounding 

departments (equipment/trucks were damaged)

• Lifelines

– Power substation damaged, supporting steel frame collapsed

– Unreinforced brick storage building at water treatment plant 

collapsed. Plant remained operational on back-up power (Source: 

Missouri American Water Engineering Manager)

•

Source: NIST Source: NIST
Context for Preliminary Findings

• Current national standards, codes, and practices do not 

require buildings and other structures to withstand 

tornadoes 

• Current national codes, standards, and practices seek 

to achieve life safety for hazards considered in design

• Current national model codes require critical and highoccupancy buildings to resist greater wind loads than 

other buildings

• 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
Preliminary Findings

• Tornado Hazard

– 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)

• Pattern, Location, and Cause of Fatalities & Injuries (Preliminary findings pending receipt of 

additional information requested)

• Tornado Warning Systems, Evacuation, Emergency Response, and Occupant 

Behavior

– More warning time for this event compared with NWS national average (almost doubled)

– The Joplin siren-based warning system was intended to alert people outdoors; it was not 

intended to alert people located indoors

– In the City of Joplin, there were no designated public safe rooms or tornado shelters

– In the City of Joplin, most buildings did not have basements; general NOAA Weather Radio 

guidance is to “...move to an interior room on the lowest floor of a sturdy building, avoid 

windows...”
Preliminary Findings (cont’d)

• Response of Buildings, Tornado Shelters, and Designated Safe Areas

– The City of Joplin has adopted a model building code over the past five decades with 

modifications (see table)

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

loss of function and require either major repair or replacement 

– The high level of fatalities in the Joplin tornado indicate that life safety was not achieved; 

there is no such expectation in current model codes or standards 

– The critical and high-occupancy buildings in Joplin did not perform better than buildings of 

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

– Reinforced concrete frame and steel frame buildings that were surveyed also 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 pre-cast concrete wall construction, metal buildings, 

concrete and brick masonry, and wood-frame construction, suffered partial or complete 

collapse 

• Lifelines and Fires

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

damage
City of Joplin Building Code Adoption 

Summary

Code Adopted Date

Required Increased 

Wind Loads1 for Critical 

Facilities2

1961 BOCA/NBC July 1961 TBD

1965 BOCA/NBC October 1966 TBD

1970 BOCA/NBC March 1970 TBD

1978 BOCA/NBC May 1980 Yes

1984 BOCA/NBC July 1984 Yes

1990 BOCA/NBC November 1990 Yes

1996 BOCA/NBC July 1997 Yes

2000 IBC, IRC March 2003 Yes

2006 IBC, IRC May 2008 Yes

Source: Building Official and Code Enforcement Supervisor, City of Joplin 

1 Based on Model Code adopted. 

2 For example, hospitals, fire stations, schools 
Next Steps

• NIST is in the process of analyzing the data 

collected from the field and will decide on its 

next steps as a result of this analysis.

• NIST may either issue a report with observations 

and findings based on the preliminary 

reconnaissance, or proceed with a more detailed 

technical study of the impact of the Joplin 

tornado before issuing its report.

• NIST will make recommendations for 

improvements to building codes, standards, and 

practices, if warranted.