Severe Weather 2021 (6 Viewers)

MNTornadoGuy

Member
Messages
794
Reaction score
1,183
Location
Apple Valley, MN
1519213

Photos from DAT of the same house.
1519214

1519215

1519212
 

buckeye05

Member
Messages
1,243
Reaction score
1,436
Location
Riverside, Ohio
After reviewing the DAT and text survey, I do agree with the EF3 rating actually, There is clearly a severe anchoring issue with the house after looking at the foundation pictures. I don't even see any connecting nails around the subflooring perimeter. The house just slid right off. Also the tree damage behind that house is not consistent with EF4 intensity. Despite my initial doubts, I think NWS Mount Holly made the right call.
 

TH2002

Member
Messages
742
Reaction score
618
Location
California, United States
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
After reviewing the DAT and text survey, I do agree with the EF3 rating actually, There is clearly a severe anchoring issue with the house after looking at the foundation pictures. I don't even see any connecting nails around the subflooring perimeter. The house just slid right off. Also the tree damage behind that house is not consistent with EF4 intensity. Despite my initial doubts, I think NWS Mount Holly made the right call.
Upon further review it does seem the house just slid off its foundation and collapsed like two of the homes in Newnan. They could have mentioned earlier that the home was poorly anchored but whatever. That being said, regarding Newnan I did ask NWS FFC about the one home on Fairview Drive that was leveled but not swept away, but they haven't gotten back to me yet.
 

vanni9283

Member
Messages
177
Reaction score
36
Location
Wayne, PA
Upon further review it does seem the house just slid off its foundation and collapsed like two of the homes in Newnan. They could have mentioned earlier that the home was poorly anchored but whatever. That being said, regarding Newnan I did ask NWS FFC about the one home on Fairview Drive that was leveled but not swept away, but they haven't gotten back to me yet.
EF3 may be the correct call, but I do still feel the 150 mph estimate is a tad low.
 

TH2002

Member
Messages
742
Reaction score
618
Location
California, United States
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
That's what I'm thinking. If it's a newer home, it can't be so weak that it gets completely leveled at 150 mph.
I can see arguments about the rating of this tornado going a million different ways but I do agree with you. Even if the home was poorly anchored, it was a newer 2 story home (can't say when it was built but it was sold to a new owner about 2 years ago) and had a brick veneer while the similarly new homes in Newnan did not. That being said, two of the homes in Newnan were swept completely away while the home in Mullica Hill was not.
 

vanni9283

Member
Messages
177
Reaction score
36
Location
Wayne, PA
Latest tweet from NWS Mount Holly, showing the logistics on the September 1 tornadoes. Also read the info statement in the link provides, and it includes no information regarding the structural integrity of the house that was leveled to the ground on Salvatore Drive.
 

buckeye05

Member
Messages
1,243
Reaction score
1,436
Location
Riverside, Ohio
Latest tweet from NWS Mount Holly, showing the logistics on the September 1 tornadoes. Also read the info statement in the link provides, and it includes no information regarding the structural integrity of the house that was leveled to the ground on Salvatore Drive.
The DAT clearly shows anchoring issues, and the text survey summary explains the contextual discrepancy with the only moderately damaged trees behind the house in question. It’s not like they entirely failed to explain or show their logic behind the lower-bound rating.
 

vanni9283

Member
Messages
177
Reaction score
36
Location
Wayne, PA
The DAT clearly shows anchoring issues, and the text survey summary explains the contextual discrepancy with the only moderately damaged trees behind the house in question. It’s not like they entirely failed to explain or show their logic behind the lower-bound rating.
DAT? All it says is that a house was leveled "with no interior or exterior walls standing". It doesn't say a house 'without proper anchor bolting' was leveled "with no interior or exterior walls standing.

150 mph is barely above the lower bound value in the EF-scale guide for a DOD of 9 for a one or two family home (142). I know that the contextual evidence isn't there, but I've never heard of a newer home of this size, get totally blown to the ground, without anything left standing, at 150 mph.
 

MNTornadoGuy

Member
Messages
794
Reaction score
1,183
Location
Apple Valley, MN
DAT? All it says is that a house was leveled "with no interior or exterior walls standing". It doesn't say a house 'without proper anchor bolting' was leveled "with no interior or exterior walls standing.

150 mph is barely above the lower bound value in the EF-scale guide for a DOD of 9 for a one or two family home (142). I know that the contextual evidence isn't there, but I've never heard of a newer home of this size, get totally blown to the ground, without anything left standing, at 150 mph.
New and large does not always been well-built or well-anchored.
 

vanni9283

Member
Messages
177
Reaction score
36
Location
Wayne, PA
New and large does not always been well-built or well-anchored.
Oh and I understand that. But I just wish the summary would have mentioned something about the structural integrity of the particular house than just talking about the contextual evidence surrounding the house. That would eliminate a lot of my doubts about the judgment of NWSMH regarding their 150 mph estimate.
 

buckeye05

Member
Messages
1,243
Reaction score
1,436
Location
Riverside, Ohio
DAT? All it says is that a house was leveled "with no interior or exterior walls standing". It doesn't say a house 'without proper anchor bolting' was leveled "with no interior or exterior walls standing.

150 mph is barely above the lower bound value in the EF-scale guide for a DOD of 9 for a one or two family home (142). I know that the contextual evidence isn't there, but I've never heard of a newer home of this size, get totally blown to the ground, without anything left standing, at 150 mph.
If you don’t know what the DAT is (Damage Assessment Toolkit) or how to use it, you are only getting half the survey information that is available. It’s not stated in words within the DAT, but anyone who knows a thing or two about construction can see obvious anchoring issues in the DAT photos. It was barely even attached to its subflooring.

Could they have gone 160 MPH? Sure, I possibly would have if it were up to me. But bottom line, this was a home that was not well anchored.

Also, size or date of construction isn’t really an indicator of structural integrity. Big and new does not always equal well-built. I’m busy at work right now and am not gonna bother with digging up pics, but there are plenty of examples of mid-range EF3s leveling poorly anchored homes. The Naperville, IL EF3 just a few months ago did literally the same thing to a similar home, and that was only a low-end EF3 with 140 MPH estimated winds.

There really isn’t anything screwy about this survey besides a slightly too low wind speed estimate, and even that is debateable.
 
Last edited:

vanni9283

Member
Messages
177
Reaction score
36
Location
Wayne, PA
If you don’t know what the DAT is (Damage Assessment Toolkit) or how to use it, you are only getting half the survey information that is available. It’s not stated in words within the DAT, but anyone who knows a thing or two about construction can see obvious anchoring issues in the DAT photos. It was barely even attached to its subflooring.

Could they have gone 160 MPH? Sure, I possibly would have if it were up to me. But bottom line, this was a home that was not well anchored.

Also, size or date of construction isn’t really an indicator of structural integrity. Big and new does not always equal well-built. I’m busy at work right now and am not gonna bother with digging up pics, but there are plenty of examples of mid-range EF3s leveling poorly anchored homes. The Naperville, IL EF3 just a few months ago did literally the same thing to a similar home, and that was only a low-end EF3 with 140 MPH estimated winds.

There really isn’t anything screwy about this survey besides a slightly too low wind speed estimate, and even that is debateable.
Did I say there was anything screwy with the survey? I was only saying it would be helpful to clarify the poor anchoring/construction flaws in the text summary rather than just making reference to contextual damage that was 20-30 feet away from the home itself.

I'm also curious to know what kind of home this was, and if there are links to similar examples.
 

buckeye05

Member
Messages
1,243
Reaction score
1,436
Location
Riverside, Ohio
Did I say there was anything screwy with the survey? I was only saying it would be helpful to clarify the poor anchoring/construction flaws in the text summary rather than just making reference to contextual damage that was 20-30 feet away from the home itself.

I'm also curious to know what kind of home this was, and if there are links to similar examples.
Nah but that’s what I thought you were implying. My bad.

I do agree that all surveys should include an explanation for why the surveyors went with a more lower-bound or upper-bound rating than what is expected. Trust me, I get super annoyed when I see a questionable rating, and the survey teams doesn’t elaborate at all (Looking at you MEG, SGF, and FWD).

But that’s where the DAT comes in. It’s full of pics that you won’t find on the main NWS event summary pages, and usually contains comments and footnotes about construction and rationale behind the ratings of each damage point from the survey team.

I was questioning the Mullica Hill rating until I looked at the DAT. It usually clears up a lot of questions and uncertainties.
 

vanni9283

Member
Messages
177
Reaction score
36
Location
Wayne, PA
Nah but that’s what I thought you were implying. My bad.

I do agree that all surveys should include an explanation for why the surveyors went with a more lower-bound or upper-bound rating than what is expected. Trust me, I get super annoyed when I see a questionable rating, and the survey teams doesn’t elaborate at all (Looking at you MEG, SGF, and FWD).

But that’s where the DAT comes in. It’s full of pics that you won’t find on the main NWS event summary pages, and usually contains comments and footnotes about construction and rationale behind the ratings of each damage point from the survey team.

I was questioning the Mullica Hill rating until I looked at the DAT. It usually clears up a lot of questions and uncertainties.
Right now, they have the pics up, but there are no comments as of yet. Hope that comments/footnotes are added in the coming days and weeks ahead that provide further explanation.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top