Language
Country/Area
No result found
The Secret of the Enhanced Fugita Scale: Why is it More Accurate than the Old One?
The Enhanced Fugita Scale has become the accepted standard in many countries for assessing tornado intensity, including the United States and France. This scale not only accurately assesses the damage caused by a tornado, but also better reflects the actual wind speed. However, the accuracy of this measure is closely related to the improvement process behind it.
The design of the enhanced Fugita scale follows the basic structure of the original Fugita scale, with six intensity categories, from zero to five, representing increasing levels of damage.
In the traditional Fujita scale, wind speed estimation is subjective and lacks detailed standards and guidelines. However, the revision of the Enhanced Fugita scale in this regard has significantly improved the understanding of the relationship between wind speed and damage. The update to the scale aims to standardize and clarify previously vague assessment criteria and adds a variety of structure and plant types, effectively expanding the definition of damage severity.
The Enhanced Fujita Scale not only incorporates considerations for building quality, but also introduces an "EF-Unknown" (EFU) category to handle unpredictable tornadoes.
On February 1, 2007, this new standard was officially implemented in the United States and then entered the Canadian market in 2013. European countries such as France also began to use this scale in 2008 and made minor adjustments based on local building standards. In addition, the international expansion of the Enhanced Fugita scale has also attracted the attention of meteorological scientists around the world, including related implementations in Brazil and Japan. These adjustments not only take into account the country's building codes, but also more accurately conform to the local climate and natural environment.
The core of this new scale is that its assessment does not rely solely on wind speed data, but is based on in-depth observation and research on the actual damage effects of three-second wind speeds.
In the enhanced Fujita scale assessment process, there are 28 types of damage indicators, each with a different degree of damage, making the wind speed estimation more detailed and accurate. These improvements not only reflect the latest research results in the meteorological community, but also take into account the actual needs of public safety and construction projects.
Compared to the original Fugita scale, the enhanced version's wind speed limits are more underestimated, allowing for a more reasonable assessment of the damage caused by a tornado.
For example, an EF5 on the original Fugeta scale predicted winds of 261 to 318 mph, but an enhanced EF5 would only need to exceed 200 mph to cause significant damage. It can be seen that the consideration of different building structures and materials has improved the accuracy of the degree of damage. The change also means that, in practice, there will not be a significant increase in tornadoes rated EF5 as a result of using the Enhanced Fugita Scale.
In addition, with the development of science and technology, new wind speed estimation technologies have emerged, such as mobile Doppler radar and forensic engineering, which will further improve this scale in future research. In 2024, researchers from the National Severe Storms Laboratory published a study that showed that more than 20% of supercell tornadoes have the potential to cause EF4 to EF5 damage. This not only reminds us to re-examine the destructive power of tornadoes, but may also affect Future evaluation criteria.
Overall, the enhanced Fugita scale is not only an innovation in constructing intensity assessments, but also marks an important advancement in meteorology in the field of tornado research.
The new scale not only improves the standard for damage assessment, it also forces meteorologists to rethink their ability to predict and respond to tornadoes. In the future, in response to the challenges of climate change and natural disasters, how should we use these scientific tools to strengthen disaster prevention capabilities and reduce human losses?
