Significant Tornado Events

[Juliett Bravo Kilo]

Every time I see photos from New Richmond I am more convinced that it was the strongest tornado of the 19th century.

Well 1884 Enigma and May 1896 probably had come of the most violent tornadoes of the 19th century (Sherman in particular comes to mind). It's definitely the most well-documented tornado of the 19th century, that's for sure.

 

[Casuarina Head]

Every time I see photos from New Richmond I am more convinced that it was the strongest tornado of the 19th century.

The major problem with statements like this is that New Richmond is one of the very few nineteenth-century events for which we have genuinely adequate public documentation in the visual sector. My personal perspective on this is that I feel that people have been too quick to dismiss anecdotal or oral reports but tend to make sweeping judgments about a historical tornado’s intensity based on a very limited or nonexistent photographic sample. Until recently people in this thread were even questioning Xenia’s F5 rating, doubting Dr. Fujita’s judgment, etc., until someone posting photographs showing that not only was Xenia deserving of its F5 ranking, but also that it was not a low-end F5 event either, based on extreme debris granulation, low-level debarking of shrubbery, massive wind-rowing, and so on. Until Smithville came along people were also doubting J. B. Elliot’s accounts about entire foundations being dislodged in Guin (incidentally, another event whose extreme violence was anecdotally attested but frequently discounted for a lack of visual evidence, until photographs came along that documented scouring down to bare soil, the tree reduced to a debarked stub in front of a building, and so on). Then Smithville uplifted a large portion of a poured concrete foundation. At one point even San Justo was doubted, until people posted Jarrell-like photographic evidence for the latter. People are making dismissive judgments that upon closer inspection and/or access to a fuller range of data all too often end up being discredited.

 

[Casuarina Head]

I'm sure I've mentioned it before, but what's amazing is there's a decent case to be made that it may have actually been even stronger southwest of town. I only have photos from near the very beginning of the track so far unfortunately, but the damage was apparently incredibly impressive immediately north and east of Boardman, where the tornado also reached its max size of a little over three-quarters of a mile.

Don't feel like rewriting a summary so I'm just gonna copy/paste:

It's hard to really get a good sense of it without pictures, but some of the descriptions I've read sound positively Jarrell/Bridge Creek-esque. Man, what I wouldn't give for a 4K drone video of the New Richmond path lol

Many of the largest structures that New Richmond obliterated were not only extremely well built, but also were better constructed, thicker, and heavier than many of their present-day counterparts. That alone, along with the additional evidence that you mentioned, suggests that New Richmond’s potential intensity, including within New Richmond itself, was fully on a par with that of the most extreme “recent” events mentioned in this thread, if not even stronger. New Richmond was basically another San Justo, Jarrell, Moore 2013, Smithville, El Reno 2011, or Joplin, if not topping all those events. Another important factor is the fact that New Richmond was not a rain-wrapped tornado, but was widely visible well before entering town, yet still killed and mutilated hundreds of people in ghastly fashion. My supposition is that near-ground-level wind speeds in New Richmond were probably well in excess of 260 kt (300 mph).

 

[MNTornadoGuy]

The major problem with statements like this is that New Richmond is one of the very few nineteenth-century events for which we have genuinely adequate public documentation in the visual sector. My personal perspective on this is that I feel that people have been too quick to dismiss anecdotal or oral reports but tend to make sweeping judgments about a historical tornado’s intensity based on a very limited or nonexistent photographic sample. Until recently people in this thread were even questioning Xenia’s F5 rating, doubting Dr. Fujita’s judgment, etc., until someone posting photographs showing that not only was Xenia deserving of its F5 ranking, but also that it was not a low-end F5 event either, based on extreme debris granulation, low-level debarking of shrubbery, massive wind-rowing, and so on. Until Smithville came along people were also doubting J. B. Elliot’s accounts about entire foundations being dislodged in Guin (incidentally, another event whose extreme violence was anecdotally attested but frequently discounted for a lack of visual evidence, until photographs came along that documented scouring down to bare soil, the tree reduced to a debarked stub in front of a building, and so on). Then Smithville uplifted a large portion of a poured concrete foundation. At one point even San Justo was doubted, until people posted Jarrell-like photographic evidence for the latter. People are making dismissive judgments that upon closer inspection and/or access to a fuller range of data all too often end up being discredited.

There is still no evidence for the dislodging of foundations by Guin.

 

[Casuarina Head]

There is still no evidence for the dislodging of foundations by Guin.

My point was that people did not believe such an occurrence was possible, yet Smithville proved that it was/is conceivable. We still do not have enough photographic evidence to conclusively disprove J. B. Elliot’s assertions about Guin. Given the evident strength of the tornado, it could have produced foundational damage similar to that which occurred in Smithville. Guin produced such intense ground scouring that I believe it was certainly capable of at least partly uplifting concrete foundations, like Smithville. Maybe Guin uplifted and blew away part of a concrete foundation.

 

[CLP80]

The major problem with statements like this is that New Richmond is one of the very few nineteenth-century events for which we have genuinely adequate public documentation in the visual sector. My personal perspective on this is that I feel that people have been too quick to dismiss anecdotal or oral reports but tend to make sweeping judgments about a historical tornado’s intensity based on a very limited or nonexistent photographic sample. Until recently people in this thread were even questioning Xenia’s F5 rating, doubting Dr. Fujita’s judgment, etc., until someone posting photographs showing that not only was Xenia deserving of its F5 ranking, but also that it was not a low-end F5 event either, based on extreme debris granulation, low-level debarking of shrubbery, massive wind-rowing, and so on. Until Smithville came along people were also doubting J. B. Elliot’s accounts about entire foundations being dislodged in Guin (incidentally, another event whose extreme violence was anecdotally attested but frequently discounted for a lack of visual evidence, until photographs came along that documented scouring down to bare soil, the tree reduced to a debarked stub in front of a building, and so on). Then Smithville uplifted a large portion of a poured concrete foundation. At one point even San Justo was doubted, until people posted Jarrell-like photographic evidence for the latter. People are making dismissive judgments that upon closer inspection and/or access to a fuller range of data all too often end up being discredited.

I think most of the Xenia skepticism on this board has been more geared around people questioning if that was really one of the “strongest tornadoes in history” or if it was even the strongest on 4/3/74, like so widely reported for the last 40-50 years. I don’t think any of the recent photos of Xenia have changed the opinions of those on this board, either. There’s nothing groundbreaking in those recent photos to suggest that Xenia was anything more than a low-end F5. The type of damage shown in those photos is what I’d consider to be the minimum requirement for an F5 rating.

 

[locomusic01]

Many of the largest structures that New Richmond obliterated were not only extremely well built, but also were better constructed, thicker, and heavier than many of their present-day counterparts.

By all accounts many of the structures were well-built by the standards of the time, and some (particularly the businesses along Main Street) were certainly more substantial than typical modern buildings, but I'm not sure your conclusion follows from that. Thicker and heavier doesn't necessarily mean better constructed. I'm not an engineer by any means, but unreinforced masonry doesn't usually do so well with massive lateral loads, nor do timber frames secured with cut nails. I'd imagine even the most extreme examples, like the Ward Williams Dry Goods Store (a large one-story structure w/18"-thick double stone walls), probably weren't quite as robust as they might seem.

That said, the complete demolition of block after block of homes & businesses is still incredibly impressive, and the contextual damage absolutely supports the idea that New Richmond ranks somewhere among the most violent tornadoes ever documented.

 

[Sawmaster]

I meant to comment on New Richmond but forgot. The above average brickwork was probably what is called "bonded" This is where instead of all bricks being laid end-to-end, every so often one is laid crosswise forming a 'bond' to another parallel brick wall. This offers greater resustance to horizontal deflection (being two walls) as well as resistance against toppling (being a wider base). This can be extended into any number of layers but 2 or 3 is the norm. Also the cavity between the walls can be mortar-filled which would add some weight and strength. Better then our usual brick veneer on a wood frame wall, but still a long way from the strength of reinforced concrete of the same dimensions.

On the two layers of stone there are too many variables which could come into play but if the stones were well-fitted strength would be considerable yet always below reinforced concrete of equal size. Fitted stone and bonded brick were common in military forts and castles until the mid 1800's being able to resist cannons, but when rifled cannons came into use these kinds of walls failed as the projectile had less proclivity to glance off, thus concentrating the force of the hit into a smaller area. For purposes of wind resistance good structures could probably withstand high-end EF3 on a good foundation, and maybe a little more.

 

[locomusic01]

I meant to comment on New Richmond but forgot. The above average brickwork was probably what is called "bonded" This is where instead of all bricks being laid end-to-end, every so often one is laid crosswise forming a 'bond' to another parallel brick wall. This offers greater resustance to horizontal deflection (being two walls) as well as resistance against toppling (being a wider base). This can be extended into any number of layers but 2 or 3 is the norm. Also the cavity between the walls can be mortar-filled which would add some weight and strength. Better then our usual brick veneer on a wood frame wall, but still a long way from the strength of reinforced concrete of the same dimensions.

On the two layers of stone there are too many variables which could come into play but if the stones were well-fitted strength would be considerable yet always below reinforced concrete of equal size. Fitted stone and bonded brick were common in military forts and castles until the mid 1800's being able to resist cannons, but when rifled cannons came into use these kinds of walls failed as the projectile had less proclivity to glance off, thus concentrating the force of the hit into a smaller area. For purposes of wind resistance good structures could probably withstand high-end EF3 on a good foundation, and maybe a little more.

Thanks for the insight, Phil! I was hoping you'd be along eventually.

One of the problems with New Richmond is that the structures were so thoroughly destroyed and/or buried in debris from other buildings that it's hard to make out much about their construction. The few small sections of wall from the Ward Williams building that remained somewhat intact-ish do look pretty robust, though.

 

[Juliett Bravo Kilo]

Thanks for the insight, Phil! I was hoping you'd be along eventually.

One of the problems with New Richmond is that the structures were so thoroughly destroyed and/or buried in debris from other buildings that it's hard to make out much about their construction. The few small sections of wall from the Ward Williams building that remained somewhat intact-ish do look pretty robust, though.

This pic reminds me of the aftermath of Gainesville, GA 1936. Of course that thing was "only" F4. I wonder what would've happened with New Richmond if the tornado wasn't clearly visible, fast-moving and/or occurred in the early morning or after dark. Probably would've caused Tupelo-level casualties.

 

[locomusic01]

This pic reminds me of the aftermath of Gainesville, GA 1936. Of course that thing was "only" F4. I wonder what would've happened with New Richmond if the tornado wasn't clearly visible, fast-moving and/or occurred in the early morning or after dark. Probably would've caused Tupelo-level casualties.

Just a couple of hours earlier and it would've been the 19th century equivalent of rush hour traffic. There were people leaving work downtown (especially the mills), people coming into town to visit the banks before they closed, a large passenger train at the Omaha Depot (which was basically toothpicked) and a whole flock of people leaving the circus, which was like half a mile SE of the track.

Who knows how reliable they are, but I've seen estimates that there were at least 500 to 1,000 extra people in town that day for the circus. Some of them stuck around for a dance that was supposed to happen that night, but many had already left. The conventional story is that the toll was so high because of the circus crowd, but in working my way through the deaths, I was surprised to find that relatively few were out-of-towners. I can only imagine how much worse the situation would've been had that whole crowd still been there.

Also worth noting that there's some uncertainty to the actual toll for obvious and gruesome reasons. Incidentally, the Ward Williams store is a good example of that as well. So far, I've been able to confirm seven people who were killed there, but they were still occasionally finding bits of remains even in early July, so who knows what the real number is? The store owner and some of the others who were there claimed just after the tornado that there were "at least 20" victims, though it probably wasn't that many. At least 10 seems pretty likely though, and similar situations played out in a number of other places as well.

I doubt the actual toll was hugely different from the official number of 117, but I'd be fairly surprised if it was under 125.

 

[Juliett Bravo Kilo]

Just a couple of hours earlier and it would've been the 19th century equivalent of rush hour traffic. There were people leaving work downtown (especially the mills), people coming into town to visit the banks before they closed, a large passenger train at the Omaha Depot (which was basically toothpicked) and a whole flock of people leaving the circus, which was like half a mile SE of the track.

Who knows how reliable they are, but I've seen estimates that there were at least 500 to 1,000 extra people in town that day for the circus. Some of them stuck around for a dance that was supposed to happen that night, but many had already left. The conventional story is that the toll was so high because of the circus crowd, but in working my way through the deaths, I was surprised to find that relatively few were out-of-towners. I can only imagine how much worse the situation would've been had that whole crowd still been there.

Also worth noting that there's some uncertainty to the actual toll for obvious and gruesome reasons. Incidentally, the Ward Williams store is a good example of that as well. So far, I've been able to confirm seven people who were killed there, but they were still occasionally finding bits of remains even in early July, so who knows what the real number is? The store owner and some of the others who were there claimed just after the tornado that there were "at least 20" victims, though it probably wasn't that many. At least 10 seems pretty likely though, and similar situations played out in a number of other places as well.

I doubt the actual toll was hugely different from the official number of 117, but I'd be fairly surprised if it was under 125.

The situation reminds me of Joplin: the tornado touched down 2 hours after high school graduation and hundreds of out-of-towners had left for the day. I do know that quite a bit of the fatalities with Joplin were visitors who didn't know the area that well. The problem with counting fatalities back then is that people who succumbed to their injuries later weren't always followed up on. It wouldn't surprise me if this thing killed ~150 or so people, but no way to know for sure.

 

[Juliett Bravo Kilo]

Anyone here know of any sources that have damage photos from the 1991 Red Rock tornado? I've been trying to find damage photos of the oil tanks, well pumps, and oil rig toppled by this thing and still no luck. Someone out there probably has a collection we'd all love to see. Red Rock and Guin are the two tornadoes I'd love to get the most damage photos from, because of how violent they were yet so difficult to find much info on them.

 

[pohnpei]

My point was that people did not believe such an occurrence was possible, yet Smithville proved that it was/is conceivable. We still do not have enough photographic evidence to conclusively disprove J. B. Elliot’s assertions about Guin. Given the evident strength of the tornado, it could have produced foundational damage similar to that which occurred in Smithville. Guin produced such intense ground scouring that I believe it was certainly capable of at least partly uplifting concrete foundations, like Smithville. Maybe Guin uplifted and blew away part of a concrete foundation.

There were still lots of reports from recent tornados later been proved to be rumors or things that not overly impressive. For Smiville, the claim that it destroyed a road had later been proved not ture and the claim that it pulled water pipe out of the ground was also most likely not true. If Newton tornado on that day occurred several decades ago, it would be regarded as potential EF5 tornado because it " destroyed "a concert bridge which also been proved that not a really impressive damage feature.

Also most of the concrete foundation I've seen from modern day tornados was due to debris hitting or the construction problem. Like the concrete foundation swept away in Bremen was due to the improper construction(foundation attached to CMU around rather than gravels below). Overall, imho, when evidence that tornado already did extreme damage to relatively common DIs like houses, trees, vehicles, those more bizarre claims can be more seriously considered. Otherwise, I would at least have suspection.

For xenia, I think we know xenia fully granulated a lot of houses long time ago. It was very violent but didn't specificly need high end EF5 winds to make, especially just granulated houses with poor construction.

 

[Tomcats Forever!]

There were still lots of reports from recent tornados later been proved to be rumors or things that not overly impressive. For Smiville, the claim that it destroyed a road had later been proved not ture and the claim that it pulled water pipe out of the ground was also most likely not true. If Newton tornado on that day occurred several decades ago, it would be regarded as potential EF5 tornado because it " destroyed "a concert bridge which also been proved that not a really impressive damage feature.

Also most of the concrete foundation I've seen from modern day tornados was due to debris hitting or the construction problem. Like the concrete foundation swept away in Bremen was due to the improper construction(foundation attached to CMU around rather than gravels below). Overall, imho, when evidence that tornado already did extreme damage to relatively common DIs like houses, trees, vehicles, those more bizarre claims can be more seriously considered. Otherwise, I would at least have suspection.

For xenia, I think we know xenia fully granulated a lot of houses long time ago. It was very violent but didn't specificly need high end EF5 winds to make, especially just granulated houses with poor construction.

Also worth noting regarding the Bremen house is that the slab was poured wrong and never incorporated the steel mesh.

 

[Juliett Bravo Kilo]

There were still lots of reports from recent tornados later been proved to be rumors or things that not overly impressive. For Smiville, the claim that it destroyed a road had later been proved not ture and the claim that it pulled water pipe out of the ground was also most likely not true. If Newton tornado on that day occurred several decades ago, it would be regarded as potential EF5 tornado because it " destroyed "a concert bridge which also been proved that not a really impressive damage feature.

Also most of the concrete foundation I've seen from modern day tornados was due to debris hitting or the construction problem. Like the concrete foundation swept away in Bremen was due to the improper construction(foundation attached to CMU around rather than gravels below). Overall, imho, when evidence that tornado already did extreme damage to relatively common DIs like houses, trees, vehicles, those more bizarre claims can be more seriously considered. Otherwise, I would at least have suspection.

For xenia, I think we know xenia fully granulated a lot of houses long time ago. It was very violent but didn't specificly need high end EF5 winds to make, especially just granulated houses with poor construction.

Well EF5 tornadoes like Smithville and Hackleburg can rip away the masonry so violently that chunks of the foundation get taken with it (also happened with Chapman, come to think of it) but that's not the same thing as "dislodging" a foundation, like a certain poster seems to think.

 

[TH2002]

There were still lots of reports from recent tornados later been proved to be rumors or things that not overly impressive. For Smiville, the claim that it destroyed a road had later been proved not ture and the claim that it pulled water pipe out of the ground was also most likely not true. If Newton tornado on that day occurred several decades ago, it would be regarded as potential EF5 tornado because it " destroyed "a concert bridge which also been proved that not a really impressive damage feature.

Not home at the moment so I’ll post the photo later, but unless TornadoTalk was refuted Smithville DID rip a metal waste pipe out of the ground. The culvert dug out post-tornado was an entirely different spot altogether.

 

[Juliett Bravo Kilo]

Re

Not home at the moment so I’ll post the photo later, but unless TornadoTalk was refuted Smithville DID rip a metal waste pipe out of the ground. The culvert dug out post-tornado was an entirely different spot altogether.

So, I found the section. As the tornado crossed over the intersection of L and S Circle and Highway 25, an underground waste pipe was partially ripped upwards. The short version is it wasn't officially noted, but plenty of contextual and photographic clues support the occurrence.

 

[Sawmaster]

There were still lots of reports from recent tornados later been proved to be rumors or things that not overly impressive. For Smiville, the claim that it destroyed a road had later been proved not ture and the claim that it pulled water pipe out of the ground was also most likely not true. If Newton tornado on that day occurred several decades ago, it would be regarded as potential EF5 tornado because it " destroyed "a concert bridge which also been proved that not a really impressive damage feature.

Also most of the concrete foundation I've seen from modern day tornados was due to debris hitting or the construction problem. Like the concrete foundation swept away in Bremen was due to the improper construction(foundation attached to CMU around rather than gravels below). Overall, imho, when evidence that tornado already did extreme damage to relatively common DIs like houses, trees, vehicles, those more bizarre claims can be more seriously considered. Otherwise, I would at least have suspection.

For xenia, I think we know xenia fully granulated a lot of houses long time ago. It was very violent but didn't specificly need high end EF5 winds to make, especially just granulated houses with poor construction.

Things which can't be proven are not necessarily disproven by that. I can see the possibility of wellpipe being pulled out of the ground. Shallow wells common in areas like Smithville often have the pump on top and lightweight PVC piping dropped into the hole. The pump is fairly heavy but not at the level of a car engine, an object known to have been lofted and thrown in many proven cases. Moreso they sit on a raised concrete skirting around the hole which adds a lot of area for winds to affect once dislodgement begins. Shallow well 'jet pumps' with the pump at the bottom are also sometimes piped with PVC. That would be harder to draw up from the ground, but not if the skirting came loose and pulled the pipe with it. Deep wells and some shallow ones (especially older ones) use 1 1/4" steel pipe. Add the jet pump at the bottom and even with the skirting dislodged I'd be gobsmacked to discover that heavy mass had been pulled up as surely a pipe joint would have broken first. I'd sure love to know all those details here.

I may have the wrong tornado but I recall seeing a pic where a concrete drain culvert pipe such as are found under driveways and roads had been thrown and was misidentified as a "concrete sewer pipe" in the caption which are always much deeper. The "Details Devil" strikes again. And again there are several proven instances where water pipe was pulled from the ground and even up through concrete slabs, so I find that too as being quite possible, especially in the south where a pipe just one foot underground will never freeze and there's plenty of them installed that shallow. In a slab if the pipe is foam-insulated there's really not much holding it, and it's not a stretch to see it pulling loose with a wall with only a few inches of concrete slab around it.

We should be suspicious of every claim; even good pictures can be misleading based on shot angle, field of depth, lighting etc. Confirmation bias is strongest with pictures too. AZ healthy suspicion of everything helps ensure clarity and makes it easier to sort through the possibilities with less chance for erroneous results. Eyewitness reports by reasonable people should be given the benefit of doubt toward their being more true than false, especially if other indications point toward that possibility. But what we must never do is pull the "pics or it didn't happen" BS as things do happen whether it gets pictures or not. If a supposed 'fact' seems questionable then report it as such, explaining why you hesitate to believe it, then leave it for posterity to decide. The proof you lacked may turn up later.

 

[Sawmaster]

Also worth noting regarding the Bremen house is that the slab was poured wrong and never incorporated the steel mesh.

Wire mesh isn't always necessary with a house slab and many are poured without that. If there's a good "toe down" at the perimeter which has rebar properly placed and the soil has been properly tested or prepared, there's little chance of structural cracking due to a lack of wire mesh. Also there's a trend toward use of 'fiber reinforced concrete' which offers similar properties as mesh in the concrete itself. In fact, it is said that it can actually out-perform wire mesh but I'm old-fashioned and am not personally so sure about that.

The most common house slab failures are due to improper soil support; pouring too wet, curing too fast, inadequate thickness, and improper rebar use and/or placement. Residential builders tend to know nearly nothing about concrete but folks with industrial concrete experience like me see how shoddy the work really is almost universally.