• Welcome to TalkWeather!
    We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion.
    CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER

joshoctober16

Member
Messages
113
Reaction score
85
Location
Canada New brunswick
and after seeing that... Picher went from 190 to now 200 mph on that calculation , also what type of walls did this home even have? the one with the broken foundation, was it wood? brick? concrete?
 

Western_KS_Wx

Member
Messages
207
Reaction score
583
Location
Garden City KS
Yeah, never gotta question these.
It's just there were tornados did very similar things but never got its reputation maybe because no surveyor regret it or tornadotalk never made a article about it. But the damage was there.
Like Alpena, it leveled quite well constructed house, completely debarked trees, completely dismantled combined and tossed, wrapped cars around trees, violently scoured the ground, completely shredded shurbs. It had all of it.
View attachment 23451View attachment 23452View attachment 23453View attachment 23454View attachment 23455View attachment 23456View attachment 23457
I’ve always thought Alpena was an EF5 candidate, but those photos are incredibly impressive and pretty much shows it undoubtedly achieved EF5 intensity. I think the sheer violence of the June 16-18, 2014 outbreak gets brushed over at times, 5 EF4’s and 2 particularly intense EF3’s as well. It’s quite likely that 3 day stretch had 5 or more tornadoes that reached EF5 strength. Stanton NE, both Pilger NE twins, Alpena SD, and Coleridge NE all likely were of EF5 intensity, and Capitol MT was also extremely intense.
 

TH2002

Member
Sustaining Member
Messages
3,039
Reaction score
4,530
Location
California, United States
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
and after seeing that... Picher went from 190 to now 200 mph on that calculation , also what type of walls did this home even have? the one with the broken foundation, was it wood? brick? concrete?
I believe it was a wood-framed house, but the walls were secured with cut nails rather than bolts.
 

TH2002

Member
Sustaining Member
Messages
3,039
Reaction score
4,530
Location
California, United States
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
Also that Picher home appears to have similar construction to the 190 MPH home in Bremen, KY. Appears to be a thin slab, resting on top of some kind of gravel fill underneath. Weird construction.

There was an episode of a Weather Channel show where they actually interviewed the people who lived in that house. I think it was Storm Stories? If I remember correctly, they survived by hiding in the bathtub visible in the second photo.
Wasn't the home in Bremen mostly sitting on top of concrete blocks though? If I'm not mistaken it was basically a CMU foundation home, but rather than having a basement (like this home in Niles) it had a concrete slab underneath. But apart from the section around the storm shelter, I don't think the home was actually sitting on the slab. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this. Anyhow, I find Picher to be a bit more impressive since it was an actual foundation slab that got damaged.
bremen-ef5-damage-home2-jpg.11267
 

buckeye05

Member
Messages
3,078
Reaction score
4,492
Location
Colorado
Wasn't the home in Bremen mostly sitting on top of concrete blocks though? If I'm not mistaken it was basically a CMU foundation home, but rather than having a basement (like this home in Niles) it had a concrete slab underneath. But apart from the section around the storm shelter, I don't think the home was actually sitting on the slab. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this. Anyhow, I find Picher to be a bit more impressive since it was an actual foundation slab that got damaged.
bremen-ef5-damage-home2-jpg.11267
You are mostly correct. It was essentially a CMU foundation home, but the CMU wasn’t built on top of a slab. Instead, the empty space under the subfloor you usually have in a CMU foundation was filled with some type of gravel or gravel/concrete mixture. Then there were multiple large, but thin square concrete slabs that went on TOP of the gravel fill. I’m not sure how well anchored these slabs were, as they blew away and were smashed to pieces. In the photo above you can see a grey area of the foundation to the left of the person. That is where one of the slabs blew away, leaving the gravel underneath exposed. But yeah seems like a similar thing happened in Picher.

Closer photos showing where the slabs resting on top pf the gravel blew away and shattered. The weird gravel fill is more clearly visible here.
FGlSkQwXIAMbvll

FGlSnGZWUAcjRKD

FGrfpQUXMAMxN9f

FGlSQY6WQAM1Kvm
 
Last edited:

buckeye05

Member
Messages
3,078
Reaction score
4,492
Location
Colorado
That's why it isn't true when people claim that an anchor bolted, slab foundation home was completely swept away in Bremen. It was essentially a CMU foundation home wearing a slab foundation home costume lol.

Also what you're seeing in Picher isn't really what I would call a true foundation slab. True foundation slabs are about a full foot thick, and are poured into a square depression in the ground, so the slab itself is partially "buried" in the ground once the concrete sets. What we're seeing in Picher is less than a foot thick, and doesn't look set into the ground. It looks like it's resting on top of something else above ground level, like Bremen. I'd describe it as more of a floor. In fact, in an interview with one of the homeowners I saw on TV, either the narrator of the guy who was in the home said something along the lines of "It even smashed the concrete floor".

In this photo, you can see whatever sand/gravel substance was underneath it. Again, very Bremen-ish.
picher-ef5-buckled-foundation2-jpg.11038
 
Last edited:

TH2002

Member
Sustaining Member
Messages
3,039
Reaction score
4,530
Location
California, United States
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
That's why it isn't true when people claim that an anchor bolted, slab foundation home was completely swept away in Bremen. It was essentially a CMU foundation home wearing a slab foundation home costume lol.

Also what you're seeing in Picher isn't really what I would call a true foundation slab. True foundation slabs are about a full foot thick, and are poured into a square depression in the ground, so the slab itself is partially "buried" in the ground once the concrete sets. What we're seeing in Picher is less than a foot thick, and doesn't look set into the ground. It looks like it's resting on top of something else above ground level, like Bremen. I'd describe it as more of a floor. In fact, in an interview with one of the homeowners I saw on TV, either the narrator of the guy who was in the home said something along the lines of "It even smashed the concrete floor".

In this photo, you can see whatever sand/gravel substance was underneath it. Again, very Bremen-ish.
picher-ef5-buckled-foundation2-jpg.11038
Okay, I see where you're coming from. Still, given the presence of sill plating on the Picher home it technically is a true foundation slab, albeit poured way too thinly and not set in the ground like you said. To be honest though, apart from the ground scouring being comparable the contextual damage in Picher was a notch or two above anything photographed in Bremen.
 
Messages
16
Reaction score
31
Location
Hume, Virginia
That's why it isn't true when people claim that an anchor bolted, slab foundation home was completely swept away in Bremen. It was essentially a CMU foundation home wearing a slab foundation home costume lol.
This is actually the new typical way to build foundation slabs, at-least in the eastern states. I've kept an eye on this sub and noticed you said several things that are kind of inconsistent with what these homes actually are.

This is all intents and purposes still a footer home. It does not change whether CMU block walls are used or walls are poured concrete because either way, concrete is used in the process (footers go into the ground where they are built up upon, poured, and CMU blocks are connected throughout the entire process with poured concrete and sometimes mortar throughout the entire process)

With this particular home, I believe it was poured concrete, gravel, reinforcement, and then the slab on top. We call this a raised slab in my state, I don't know what they're called in others. The reason why the thin gravel is used as a fill is because it acts as a Capillary Break. It also helps distribute weight and forces way more easily and actually provides a more stable base for your slab. Most slabs have sublayers but not to the extent of this, although I've seen it used 2 other times in rural construction for raised slabs, especially in the Piedmont of VA.


While it is my personal opinion that it wouldn't take that strong of a violent tornado to do that to a home like what we saw as the 190 DI in Bremen. It is to note that the failure point was likely entirely within the slab and it still would take a ridiculously powerful, likely EF5-level tornado to do this, at least from my conversations with other engineers who have taken a look at it.

But at the end of the day expect to see more of these, not to the extent of what we saw in Bremen, but these raised slab homes are incredibly useful, especially in hilly areas and in areas which the homeowners may want only one portion of the slab to count as a crawl space, basement, or safe space.
 
Messages
16
Reaction score
31
Location
Hume, Virginia
Only wanted to get this across because to call this a CMU foundation is wildly incorrect for what this foundation actually is. It isn't some weird construction, it's a legitimate practice that's actually a relatively sturdy type of foundation. The main difference is that CMU foundations often have large open crawlspaces that are the main failure point, the home sits and sags, there's no actual distribution of forces, and they do terribly in flood and wind events. This type of foundation does not suffer from these failure points and the walls are often poured and secured with rebar. I don't have the image but it exists somewhere where it shows just that while building this house and I speculate the use of CMU blocks and pouring concrete in those was likely a labor-saving decision.
 

TH2002

Member
Sustaining Member
Messages
3,039
Reaction score
4,530
Location
California, United States
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
Currently looking for a quote from Grazulis regarding the Jarrell tornado. I know it's probably buried here somewhere and said 'a study [by the NIST] concluded the damage at Jarrell could have been caused by F3 winds, yet F5 was quickly announced' or something along those lines. Anyone know the exact quote I'm talking about?

(Obviously I don't agree with that sentiment in the slightest, and that NIST study is a load of crap, but I just want to make sure my mind isn't playing tricks on me lol.)
Okay... found the quotes I was looking for. Was actually thinking of two different quotes regarding some of Grazulis' opinions about Jarrell and Hudsonville, and my mind sorta just mashed them together I guess. Anyhow:
qq%E6%88%AA%E5%9B%BE20210313165859-jpg.6806


Regarding Hudsonville:
screenshot-2022-03-05-at-12-13-11-wayback-machine-png.12483


This is gonna be controversial since Grazulis is truly an "expert" and I'm just a weather weenie, but I'm gonna say it anyway: I don't buy any of this. I'm not refuting that a tornado with (E)F3 level winds, which is truly nearly stationary and exposes structures to those winds for a minute or more can probably produce "F5-esque" structural damage. From what I've seen, that doesn't actually happen though. There is plenty of video evidence to confirm that even slower-moving EF4+ tornadoes do their most violent damage in a matter of seconds, not minutes. This is due to the most violent damage being attributable to a narrow (narrow in comparison the tornado's overall path width, which is really just the width of the EF0 damage contour) swath known as the 'inner core', and/or fast-moving subvortices. I made this point in a previous post, but that basically means the homes In Jarrell were for impacted by winds of at least F0/EF0 intensity for three full minutes, NOT F3 winds for three full minutes. Speaking of which, saying the damage in Jarrell could have been caused by a "160MPH F3" is absurd. The 2010 Bowdle tornado was a slow-moving and sometimes nearly stationary wedge that was (appropriately, IMO) given an EF4 rating. However, apart from some extremely impressive damage it did to an electrical transmission tower, the contextual damage in Bowdle was nowhere near as intense as in Jarrell. The ground scouring, vehicle mangling, tree debarking, and so on so forth were all much more intense in Double Creek. Also, last I checked Bowdle isn't often cited as an example of an "egregiously overrated tornado" despite the contextuals being less intense than in Jarrell.

I appreciate and respect Grazulis for his lifelong work in the field of tornado-centric meteorology, but I'd be lying if I said some of his quotes don't strike me as a bit... questionable, to say the least. But from what I hear, although he didn't save Vilonia he at the very least not list Jarrell as an F3 in SigTor2022.
 

pohnpei

Member
Messages
957
Reaction score
1,942
Location
shanghai
Okay, I see where you're coming from. Still, given the presence of sill plating on the Picher home it technically is a true foundation slab, albeit poured way too thinly and not set in the ground like you said. To be honest though, apart from the ground scouring being comparable the contextual damage in Picher was a notch or two above anything photographed in Bremen.
Yeah, it seems that Picher had stronger tree damage than Bremen. Contextually wise, scouring really stands out among all damage features in Bremen area. But I do have confusion that how much of it was actual grass scouring. From some pics I saw, it seems that much of the scouring was wheat rather than grass. And wheat isn't too hard to scour based on cases from past events. Like Washburn IL 2017

SAVE_20240119_083636.jpg
Screenshot_2024-01-19-08-41-54-361_com.miui.gallery-edit.jpg
Washburn
mmexport1705624648018.jpg
another view of 190mph house
SAVE_20240119_084542.jpg
 

pohnpei

Member
Messages
957
Reaction score
1,942
Location
shanghai
Okay... found the quotes I was looking for. Was actually thinking of two different quotes regarding some of Grazulis' opinions about Jarrell and Hudsonville, and my mind sorta just mashed them together I guess. Anyhow:
qq%E6%88%AA%E5%9B%BE20210313165859-jpg.6806


Regarding Hudsonville:
screenshot-2022-03-05-at-12-13-11-wayback-machine-png.12483


This is gonna be controversial since Grazulis is truly an "expert" and I'm just a weather weenie, but I'm gonna say it anyway: I don't buy any of this. I'm not refuting that a tornado with (E)F3 level winds, which is truly nearly stationary and exposes structures to those winds for a minute or more can probably produce "F5-esque" structural damage. From what I've seen, that doesn't actually happen though. There is plenty of video evidence to confirm that even slower-moving EF4+ tornadoes do their most violent damage in a matter of seconds, not minutes. This is due to the most violent damage being attributable to a narrow (narrow in comparison the tornado's overall path width, which is really just the width of the EF0 damage contour) swath known as the 'inner core', and/or fast-moving subvortices. I made this point in a previous post, but that basically means the homes In Jarrell were for impacted by winds of at least F0/EF0 intensity for three full minutes, NOT F3 winds for three full minutes. Speaking of which, saying the damage in Jarrell could have been caused by a "160MPH F3" is absurd. The 2010 Bowdle tornado was a slow-moving and sometimes nearly stationary wedge that was (appropriately, IMO) given an EF4 rating. However, apart from some extremely impressive damage it did to an electrical transmission tower, the contextual damage in Bowdle was nowhere near as intense as in Jarrell. The ground scouring, vehicle mangling, tree debarking, and so on so forth were all much more intense in Double Creek. Also, last I checked Bowdle isn't often cited as an example of an "egregiously overrated tornado" despite the contextuals being less intense than in Jarrell.

I appreciate and respect Grazulis for his lifelong work in the field of tornado-centric meteorology, but I'd be lying if I said some of his quotes don't strike me as a bit... questionable, to say the least. But from what I hear, although he didn't save Vilonia he at the very least not list Jarrell as an F3 in SigTor2022.
I think the best example to show what he said was at least in question was Lebanon KS EF3. TIV recorded 175mph winds before the worst coming so we don't know how high winds was in this video exactly.
It's a wide, slow moving tornado with winds higher than F3 level most likely lasted for a long time in TIV's intercept place. And the damage was no way to compare to Bowdle, let alone Jarrell. This was a case that violent winds do actually lasts minutes rather than seconds and it's enough to prove that "long duration of F3 winds lead to high end F5 damage" is wrong.

SAVE_20240119_090737.jpg

Also we do have some Jarrell esque very slow moving tornados like three Chifeng EF4 in 2017. They were moving around 3-4mph in village and none of them made Jarrell esque damage.
 
Last edited:

TH2002

Member
Sustaining Member
Messages
3,039
Reaction score
4,530
Location
California, United States
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
This is all intents and purposes still a footer home. It does not change whether CMU block walls are used or walls are poured concrete because either way, concrete is used in the process (footers go into the ground where they are built up upon, poured, and CMU blocks are connected throughout the entire process with poured concrete and sometimes mortar throughout the entire process)
A home having a concrete footer doesn't automatically make it a solid EF5 candidate. Also, what you're describing is definitely uncanny construction, especially compared to a regular poured slab or even a reinforced block foundation. Of course, uncanny construction doesn't necessarily equal poor construction though.

But with that said, I do think the damage in Bremen (and arguably downtown Mayfield) potentially warrants EF5. High end EF4 is fine, but one could credibly argue for an EF5 rating. Ethan Moriarty reviewed the construction of that particular Bremen home in his Mayfield analysis video and labeled it potential EF5 damage. I do wonder if the upcoming EF scale update will take into account some previously unaccounted for construction methods for homes, and potentially even make the Bremen home eligible for an EF5 rating.
 

joshoctober16

Member
Messages
113
Reaction score
85
Location
Canada New brunswick
I think the best example to show what he said was at least in question was Lebanon KS EF3. TIV recorded 175mph winds before the worst coming so we don't know how high winds was in this video exactly.
It's a wide, slow moving tornado with winds higher than F3 level most likely lasted for a long time in TIV's intercept place. And the damage was no way to compare to Bowdle, let alone Jarrell. This was a case that violent winds do actually lasts minutes rather than seconds and it's enough to prove that "long duration of F3 winds lead to high end F5 damage" is wrong.

View attachment 23531

Also we do have some Jarrell esque very slow moving tornados like three Chifeng EF4 in 2017. They were moving around 3-4mph in village and none of them made Jarrell esque damage.

1705627954662.png
i made a little google spreadsheet of tornadoes with wind measurment + damage , and it seems all the time despite the non violent damage, the winds tend to be violent.

and yes there was a telephone pole close to the dominator in 2023, it was just sligthly leaning, not snap at all.
 

joshoctober16

Member
Messages
113
Reaction score
85
Location
Canada New brunswick
i wouldn't be surprise that the wind speed for tornadoes for each EF scale are more like this
EF0 = 56-97 MPH
EF1 = 98-136 mph
EF2 = 137-181 mph
EF3 =182-235 mph
EF4 = 236-291 mph
EF5 = 292+ mph

and even that seems too low still ... as seen with the tornado events
 

A Guy

Member
Messages
140
Reaction score
269
Location
Australia
View attachment 23532
i made a little google spreadsheet of tornadoes with wind measurment + damage , and it seems all the time despite the non violent damage, the winds tend to be violent.

and yes there was a telephone pole close to the dominator in 2023, it was just sligthly leaning, not snap at all.
What's the source of the Andover one? I have consistently banged on that photogrammetry, if done well, could answer a lot of questions about low level winds in tornadoes, and should be far easier to do with modern technology.
 

joshoctober16

Member
Messages
113
Reaction score
85
Location
Canada New brunswick
What's the source of the Andover one? I have consistently banged on that photogrammetry, if done well, could answer a lot of questions about low level winds in tornadoes, and should be far easier to do with modern technology.
well...
i tried to post one part but wouldnt let me, but at the very start of this video, the photogrammetry was made from this part

i think base on that one spot the tornado wind speed (ef0) lasted 14-15 seconds, it even stood still for a momment on that house, it wasnt swept clean.
 

TH2002

Member
Sustaining Member
Messages
3,039
Reaction score
4,530
Location
California, United States
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
What's the source of the Andover one? I have consistently banged on that photogrammetry, if done well, could answer a lot of questions about low level winds in tornadoes, and should be far easier to do with modern technology.
FgA7GSzXwBMT87C
 

joshoctober16

Member
Messages
113
Reaction score
85
Location
Canada New brunswick
the el reno 2011 ones are again... mostly behind paywall cause tornadotalk, and we all herd and saw about the lebanon part.

as for the 2023 one


(edit2: forgot to say that they place a EF1 di beside reeds spot)

(edit: looks like TH2002 posted what i wanted to post)
 
Logo 468x120
Back
Top