News Tonaquint upgrades its newly acquired 65,000-square-foot Oklahoma Data Center to withstand tornadoes

[punkncat]

Dude, it's ultimately just wind and pressure differences. They're heavily studied and well-understood. There are wind tunnels for testing out materials & construction techniques, as well as tools like air cannons for firing 2x4 wood beams at speeds that tornadoes fling them.

If people are willing to spend the money, you can do a good job of building structures that can withstand them. This is routinely done for critical infrastructure, like hospitals and emergency response centers, in hurricane-prone and tornado-prone locations.

I think you're somehow conflating the randomness of their impact with some kind of inability to prepare for them, but that's not at all the case. It's engineering, not gambling - and not even rocket science, at that.

See it how you want. Throw science at it and link supporting documents all you want.

A corrugated aluminum warehouse withstood not only a major hurricane but tornadoes and stood TWICE while EVERY SINGLE BUILDING around it was completely destroyed. Many of them newer, many of them up to stricter code requirements. Blatantly random in its manner of damage that had absolutely ZERO to do with (man's) design.

I ain't trying to change your mind for you...and this is all I will say about it.

 

[Deleted member 2969713]

Dude, it's ultimately just wind and pressure differences. They're heavily studied and well-understood. There are wind tunnels for testing out materials & construction techniques, as well as tools like air cannons for firing 2x4 wood beams at speeds that tornadoes fling them.

If people are willing to spend the money, you can do a good job of building structures that can withstand them. This is routinely done for critical infrastructure, like hospitals and emergency response centers, in hurricane-prone and tornado-prone locations.

I think you're somehow conflating the randomness of their impact with some kind of inability to prepare for them, but that's not at all the case. It's engineering, not gambling - and not even rocket science, at that.

I doubt that any amount of engineering will protect a building if a tornado decides to drop a semi-truck or another building on top of it. But yeah, you can harden buildings against tornadoes to make them more likely to withstand them, especially the less powerful ones.

Neither of these assertions is true. The fact that we can't exactly predict tornadoes doesn't mean the underlying dynamics are unknown.

Tornado Basics

Basic information about tornadoes, from the NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory.

www.nssl.noaa.gov

How do tornadoes form?

The truth is that we don't fully understand. The most destructive tornadoes occur from supercells, which are rotating thunderstorms with a well-defined radar circulation called a mesocyclone. (Supercells can also produce damaging hail, severe non-tornadic winds, frequent lightning, and flash floods.) Tornado formation is believed to be dictated mainly by things which happen on the storm scale, in and around the mesocyclone. Recent theories and results from the VORTEX2 program suggest that once a mesocyclone is underway, tornado development is related to the temperature differences across the edge of downdraft air wrapping around the mesocyclone. Mathematical modeling studies of tornado formation also indicate that it can happen without such temperature patterns; and in fact, very little temperature variation was observed near some of the most destructive tornadoes in history on 3 May 1999. We still have lots of work to do.

How and Why Do Violent Tornadoes Form?

Scientists hope new technology and computing power will help them understand destructive twisters

www.smithsonianmag.com

Tornadoes can be elusive research subjects. Through chasing storms and using computer simulations, scientists have worked out the basic ingredients needed to spin up a twister, but two crucial questions continue to vex them: Why do some thunderstorms form tornadoes while others don’t? And how exactly do tornadoes get their spin?

Regarding my other assertion, it's true that I didn't account for wind tunnels and whatnot, but those are still physical simulations that do not fully replicate the tornado experience. It is impossible to do so because one cannot exactly put up a building in the path of an oncoming tornado to test it.

 

[bit_user]

See it how you want. Throw science at it and link supporting documents all you want.

A corrugated aluminum warehouse withstood not only a major hurricane but tornadoes and stood TWICE while EVERY SINGLE BUILDING around it was completely destroyed. Many of them newer, many of them up to stricter code requirements. Blatantly random in its manner of damage that had absolutely ZERO to do with (man's) design.

You're thinking about this emotionally, not rationally. In plain engineering terms, many things we take for granted are far more challenging, for instance: mile-high skyscrapers, nuclear submarines, hydroelectric dams, deep sea oil drilling, and interplanetary rockets. All involve the control of forces far beyond that of a tornado on a building.

You seem to be stuck on the fact that newer and better buildings were clobbered, thereby concluding that we actually don't know anything about how to build things to withstand a tornado. However, no building code is strict enough to deal with a direct hit by such a tornado. So, the fate of those newer buildings really isn't the data point you're treating it as.

To understand why the older, looser building survived would require a lot more information about the particulars. As you've noted, the action of tornadoes is somewhat random and highly-localized. If that building were exposed to the same degree as its neighbors, perhaps it survived simply by being able to equalize pressure more rapidly. I have no idea, but that doesn't mean it's unknowable or that it represents the best in tornado-proof building designs.

I know that natural disasters can be an emotional subject, but just look at the strides made in earthquake-resistant building designs! If ever there was a disaster that would seem insurmountable, surely it would be earthquakes! And yet, the vast majority of Tokyo's buildings and skyscrapers remained unscathed by the 2011 earthquake.

As long as tornadoes aren't leveling entire mountains, you best believe buildings can be engineered to withstand them. The main question is one of cost.

 

[bit_user]

I doubt that any amount of engineering will protect a building if a tornado decides to drop a semi-truck or another building on top of it.

Nations around the world routinely build military bunkers capable of withstanding that and more!

The truth is that we don't fully understand.

That's a cop-out answer. If you dig a little deeper than a FAQ aimed at a 6th grade comprehension level, you can find quite a bit more science behind tornado formation and dynamics.

Sure, there are still some mysteries involving certain scenarios, but they're reasonably well understood and certainly well enough to build structures capable of withstanding a direct hit. Again, it's like you guys are too enthralled by the randomness and air of mystery around them, but tornadoes aren't new and we already know well more than enough about how to build protective structures.

Really, it's just a question of cost - and that's the brutal truth that a lot of people don't want to accept - we can save more lives, but businesses and society just aren't willing/able to spend the money to do so. You don't even need an entire building to be tornado-proof - just a good underground tornado shelter and an adequate warning system.

 

[Deleted member 2969713]

Nations around the world routinely build military bunkers capable of withstanding that and more!

Citation? You may be right, but has anyone tried actually dropping another building on top of an above-ground military bunker? I suspect the forces involved are a little different from those of an exploding artillery shell.

That's a cop-out answer. If you dig a little deeper than a FAQ aimed at a 6th grade comprehension level, you can find quite a bit more science behind tornado formation and dynamics.

So you're suggesting that the National Severe Storms Laboratory and the Smithsonian Magazine are simply lying about us not quite understanding the mechanics of tornadogenesis because it's easier than trying to explain?

Edit: To anyone reading this who believes we know all there is to know about tornadoes, I suggest reading the Smithsonian Mag article I linked in its entirety. There's a lot we still don't know.

 

[bit_user]

I suspect the forces involved are a little different from those of an exploding artillery shell.

Not artillery shells, but bombs - some of which can weigh in at several tons and have a far higher terminal velocity than your semi truck. And no, you typically don't build such structures above ground, but I'm sure you could if you had to.

So you're suggesting that the National Severe Storms Laboratory

Yes, they're glossing over the details, for whatever reason. Maybe the content or sources are outdated or the person writing it either lacked the expertise or the will to try and explain it in the context of a dumbed-down FAQ.

As for the ongoing research into tornadoes, it's like this: we didn't need to solve Superstring Theory in order to develop the Global Positioning System (GPS). General Relativity was good enough for that. Likewise, we don't need to know every detail and solve every mystery about tornadoes in order to have a good enough idea of their destructive nature that we can protect ourselves from them.

 

[Deleted member 2969713]

Not artillery shells, but bombs - some of which can weigh in at several tons and have a far higher terminal velocity than your semi truck. And no, you typically don't build such structures above ground, but I'm sure you could if you had to.

I thought we were talking specifically about above-ground buildings. I have no difficulty imagining a hardened building or a military bunker that's underground being able to survive any tornado. It would mostly just pass right over it.

Yes, they're glossing over the details, for whatever reason. Maybe the content or sources are outdated or the person writing it either lacked the expertise or the will to try and explain it in the context of a dumbed-down FAQ.

Glossing over details is one thing, flat out lying is another. If the problem were one of scope, they could have just said something to the effect of "Tornadogenesis is a complex subject. The basics of it are *simplified explanation* To learn more, see *link to article that delves into intricacies*."

As for the ongoing research into tornadoes, it's like this: we didn't need to solve Superstring Theory in order to develop the Global Positioning System (GPS). General Relativity was good enough for that. Likewise, we don't need to know every detail and solve every mystery about tornadoes in order to have a good enough idea of their destructive nature that we can protect ourselves from them.

I don't disagree with this. But I was referring specifically to the deficiencies in our understanding of tornadogenesis, not of their destructive potential.

 

[bit_user]

I thought we were talking specifically about above-ground buildings.

Like I said, it'd be possible, if there were a reason to do it. A fundamental property you might not have appreciated is that force is linear. Given an adequate superstructure and a large enough crumple zone, you can absorb any impact.

To design a safe structure, an engineer just needs to know the peak wind speeds and pressure differentials involved, as well as the speed and mass of the largest projectiles the building needs to withstand.