JDR Vol.8 No.6 pp. 1061-1067
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2013.p1061


Residential Damage Patterns Following the 2011 Tuscaloosa, AL and Joplin, MO Tornadoes

David B. Roueche and David O. Prevatt

Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure and Environment, University of Florida, 365 Weil Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA

August 27, 2013
October 5, 2013
December 1, 2013
tornado, wood-frame, residential construction, damage patterns
Damage survey data was collected following the destruction caused by tornadoes in Tuscaloosa, AL and Joplin, MO that together destroyed over 13,000 buildings, caused over $5 billion in economic losses and left 226 persons dead. Using geotagged photographs for 1,814 residential structures in the two cities, damage ratings were assigned using the Enhanced Fujita Scale and mapped for each building, in an effort to establish the wind field for each tornado. The results depict the physical distribution of the damaging forces away from the centerline of the tornado. The spatial distribution of wind velocities estimated using the EF-Scale were in agreement with measured wind velocity distributions using Doppler radar in other violent tornadoes. A second part of the study identified common failure mechanisms within a data set of 365 light-framed wood residential structures from the Tuscaloosa tornado. The results of this analysis showed that tornado forces rapidly attenuate with distance away from the center of the tornado, as EFratings can be reduced from EF-4 to EF-2 within 100 meters. In addition, the seven most prevalent failure mechanisms were identified and the correlations among them are presented. Catastrophic failures are most common at or near the center of the tornado’s path (below the vortex). Buildings further away from the center experience damage patterns that are similar to structures subjected to straight-line hurricane force winds. These field studies and analyses are being used to inform the development of full-scale structural testing wall components with the goal of developing structural retrofits and improving design practices for tornado-resilient houses.
Cite this article as:
D. Roueche and D. Prevatt, “Residential Damage Patterns Following the 2011 Tuscaloosa, AL and Joplin, MO Tornadoes,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.8 No.6, pp. 1061-1067, 2013.
Data files:
  1. [1] SPC, Climatological or Past Storm Information
  2. [2] [Online], Available: [accessed September 8, 2013]
  3. [3] K. M. Simmons, D. Sutter, and R. Pielke, “Normalized tornado damage in the United States: 1950-2011,” Environmental Hazards, pp. 1-16, 2012.
  4. [4] Munich RE, “2011 Natural Catastrophe: Year in Review,” 2012.
  5. [5] D. O. Prevatt, J.W. van de Lindt, E. Back, A. J. Graettinger, S. Pei, W. Coulbourne, et al., “Making the Case for Improved Structural Design: The Tornado Outbreaks of 2011,” Leadership and Management in Engineering, 2012.
  6. [6] D. O. Prevatt, J. W. van de Lindt, A. Graettinger, W. Coulbourne, R. Gupta, S. Pei, et al., “Damage study and future direction for structural design following the Tuscaloosa tornado of 2011,” Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL, [accessed April 5, 2012]
  7. [7] D. Prevatt, J. W. Van de Lindt, B. Coulbourne, S. Pei, A. Graettinger, R. Gupta, et al., “The Joplin Tornado of 2011 – Damage Survey and Case for Tornado-Resilient Codes,” American Society of Civil Engineers, ed., 2011.
  8. [8] D. O. Prevatt, J. v. d. Lindt, R. Gupta, and B. Coulbourne, “Tuscaloosa Tornado: Preliminary Observations on Wood-Frame Buildings Damage Assessment,” Structure Magazine, 2011.
  9. [9] J. McDonald and K. C. Mehta, “A Recommendation for an Enhanced Fujita Scale,” 2006.
  10. [10] BAPT, “Midwest Tornadoes of May 3, 1999: Observations, Recommendations and Technical Guidance,” Federal Emergency Management Agency, October 1999.
  11. [11] R. S. Metzger and C. C.Weiss, “An Examination of the Structure of Two Tornadoes Using Mobile Ka-band Doppler Radar,” presented at the 25th Conference on Severe Local Storms, Denver, CO, 2010.
  12. [12] L. Kuai, F. Haan, W. Gallus, and P. Sarkar, “CFD simulations of the flow field of a laboratory-simulated tornado for parameter sensitivity studies and comparison with field measurements,” Vol.11, ed., Wind and Structures, pp. 75-96, 2008.
  13. [13] J.Wurman and C. R. Alexander, “The 30 May 1998 Spencer, South Dakota, storm. Part II: Comparison of observed damage and radarderived winds in the tornadoes,” Monthly weather review, Vol.133, No.1, pp. 97-119, 2005.
  14. [14] URS, “Tornado Damage Investigation Greensburg, Kansas,” Washington, DC 1699 DR-KS, 2007.
  15. [15] J. E. Minor, J. R. McDonald, and K. C. Mehta, “The tornado, an engineering-oriented perspective,” National Severe Storms Laboratory, and Texas Tech University, Institute for Disaster Research, 1978.
  16. [16] K. C. Mehta, J. R. McDonald, J. E. Minor, and A. J. Sanger, “Response of structural systems to the Lubbock storm,” Texas Tech. University, Department of Civil Engineering, 1971.
  17. [17] A. F. Mensah, P. L. Datin, D. O. Prevatt, R. Gupta, and J. W. van de Lindt, “Database-assisted design methodology to predict windinduced structural behavior of a light-framed wood building,” Engineering Structures, Vol.33, pp. 674-684, Feb. 2011.
  18. [18] H. Kikitsu, P. P. Sarkar, and F. L. Haan, “Experimental study on tornado-induced loads of low-rise buildings using a large tornado simulator,” presented at the 13th International Conference on Wind Engineering Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2011.
  19. [19] J. W. van de Lindt, S. Pei, T. Dao, and A. Graettinger, “A Dual-Objective-Based Tornado Design Philosophy,” Journal of Structural Engineering, New York, Jan. 1, 2012.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on May. 19, 2024