Tornadoes are violent, short-lived wind phenomena that may result in catastrophic damage to homes and property and significant fatalities. Based on statistical data, a majority of tornado-induced fatalities are related to building failures. As such, it is important to investigate damage and failure modes of buildings under tornado loadings to properly design tornado-resistant buildings. In this study, a literature review was conducted on recent tornado postevent damage surveys to identify representative failure modes of buildings under tornadoes. In addition, based on the direct observations and through analyzing the reconnaissance survey data collected from the Jefferson City, Missouri, tornado of May 22, 2019, different overarching damage types are presented with inferences behind the cause for each damage type and possible retrofits to improve building performance under tornadoes. The obtained research findings will enrich the knowledge base for tornado-resistant design, which will eventually improve the safety and welfare of individuals living in tornado-prone areas.

In the study, a series of wind tunnel tests were conducted to investigate wind effects acting on dome structures (1/60 scale) induced by straight-line winds at a Reynolds number in the order of 10⁶. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations were performed as well, including a Large Eddy Simulation (LES) and Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) simulation, and their performances were validated by a comparison with the wind tunnel testing data. It is concluded that wind loads generally increase with upstream wind velocities, and they are reduced over suburban terrain due to ground friction. The maximum positive pressure normally occurs near the base of the dome on the windward side caused by the stagnation area and divergence of streamlines. The minimum suction pressure occurs at the apex of the dome because of the blockage of the dome and convergence of streamlines. Suction force is the most significant among all wind loads, and special attention should be paid to the roof design for proper wind resistance. Numerical simulations also indicate that LES results match better with the wind tunnel testing in terms of the distribution pattern of the mean pressure coefficient on the dome surface and total suction force. The mean and root-mean-square errors of the meridian pressure coefficient associated with the LES are about 60% less than those associated with RANS results, and the error of suction force is about 40–70% less. Moreover, the LES is more accurate in predicting the location of boundary layer separation and reproducing the complex flow field behind the dome, and is superior in simulating vortex structures around the dome to further understand the unsteadiness and dynamics in the flow field.