From: Davis, Richard [mailto:richard.davis@fmglobal.com] 

Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 4:28 PM

To: Levitan, Marc

Cc: Harrington, John; Ali, Hosam; Nong, Shangyao; Doddipatla, Lakshmana

Subject: RE: NIST Draft Report on Joplin Tornado

Marc, I was not sure who I should address this to so I thought I would start with you. The report is very 

detailed and I appreciate all the effort that went into it. I am in general agreement with most of the 

findings and recommendations as I understand that at this phase they must remain general in nature. It 

seems that the estimated wind speeds causing major damage to large structures was 165-170 mph (+/- 

20 mph). I do have the following comments:

1. On page 94 of the report, in talking about the SJRMC it states, "Given SJRMC's functionality as a 

critical facility that should remain operational, current building code would have designated its buildings 

as Risk Category IV structures for design purposes, meaning that they would have been designed for a 

basic wind speed of 120 mph based on today's design standards."

I believe it should say the facility should have "withstood" 120 mph, as opposed to "been designed for" 

120 mph. The basic wind speed design is 90 mph (3 sec gusts) for that area. The importance factor and 

safety factors applied to pressure, would be 1.15 and 1.6, respectively. That would equate to a velocity 

at yield (not design) of 90 mph(1.15)^1/2(1.6)^1/2 = 122 mph. As written, the statement seems 

misleading, although I am sure there is additional robustness provided on the material side of the 

design.

2. I feel that Finding 19 on page 353 is subject to misinterpretation and should be re-worded as it tends 

to downplay the significance of the windborne roof aggregate and seemingly contradicts testimony on 

page 100 of the report. The roof aggregate broke windows which reportedly resulted in occupants 

receiving cuts.

From page 100 -"Most of us had abrasions and cuts and that sort of thing but no one expired and it's an 

absolute miracle. Mostly because the fourth wall in from the outside, from the south part of the hospital 

stayed up. So the exterior window walls came in, the inside patient room walls came in and another 

interior wall came down part way and the fourth wall stayed up and that sort of sheltered the interior 

hallway where we were". (NIST Interview 6) "And so that was really, really the most difficult thing about 

that was getting people out once we got them uncovered because there was debris on top of people, on 

top of us, walls in, doors in, door frames in, debris everywhere. You can't imagine the shattering that 

goes on when you have materials exposed to that kind of wind. Plus just the wires that were down from 

the ceiling, all the equipment that's inside a room,"

From page 353 - "Finding 19- 

While there was no direct evidence that roof aggregate contributed to any injuries or fatalities in Joplin, 

there was evidence that roof aggregates contributed to envelope damage in SJRMC buildings and 

surrounding structures, thus adding to the tornado debris hazard and the potential for injuries or 

fatalities."

Hopefully I will see you next month at the WLSC meeting. Thanks and regards.

Dick
Richard J. Davis, P.E., FSFPE, M.ASCE

AVP, Senior Engineering Technical Specialist FM Global, Engineering Standards Division

This electronic transmission, including any attachments, is the property of FM Global. It may contain 

information confidential in nature or subject to legal privilege. It may also include information 

developed to reduce the possibility of loss to property. FM Global undertakes no duty to any party by 

providing such information. Disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this transmission 

by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited If you have received this message in 

error, please notify me by reply e-mail and delete the original transmission.















From: Plisich, John 

Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 3:18 PM

To: 'disaster@nist.gov'

Subject: Plisich comments; Draft NIST NCSTAR 3 Joplin tornado technical investigation

To NIST,

 Please find attached, comments to your draft report: NIST NCSTAR 3 (Draft) For Public 

Comment; Draft Final Report Technical Investigation of the May 22, 2011, Tornado in Joplin, Missouri.

 Per your website, http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/weather/joplinpubliccomments.cfm , 

I have included the relevant information you requested for your deadline of 6 Jan 14.

 Please call with any questions you may have on these comments.

 Thanks for the opportunity to review and comment.

 Have a Happy and healthy New Year to you and your loved ones.

Bud

FEMA Region IV

ATTN: John "Bud" G. Plisich (Mitigation)

3003 Chamblee Tucker Rd (Hollins Bldg)

Atlanta, GA 30341

Civil Engineer

Mitigation Division / RA Branch

Building Codes / 406 Mit / Grants / 

Building Sciences / Dam Safety

(O) 770 - 220- 5380

(BB) 404-354-5283

(F) 770-220-5440

john.plisich@fema.dhs.gov