Case studies
editMultiple in-depth studies have been conducted on the tornado, which detail what happened on May 27, and what caused the outbreak and subsequent Jarrell tornado to unfold.
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
editThe American Meteorological Society (AMS) conducted a case study on the event.[1] It discussed the meteorological conditions that caused the event and the significance of the Jarrell tornado.[1]
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 
Good to go, may need a bit of rewording
edit
A case study and critique was published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which covered the structural damage caused by the tornado and the track that it left. The NIST also published a detailed critique of the Fujita Scale as a direct result of the Jarrell tornado, which was at the time rated an F5.
"We ascribe the NWS rating to the failure of the Fujita tornado intensity scale to account explicitly for the dependence of wind speeds causing specified types of damage or destruction upon the following two structural engineering factors: (1) quality of construction, defined as degree of conformity to applicable standards requirements, and (2) the basic design wind speed at the geographical location of interest."[2]
The NIST had claimed that the Fujita Scale failed to account for critical pointers in the assessment of the Jarrell tornado. The case study concluded that some of the homes at Double Creek Estates did have small structural integrity issues,[3] which includes factors such as a lack of sufficient anchor bolts and steel straps in the house foundations.[3] After the critique was published, the rating was kept as an F5.
University of Wisconsin-Madison Good to go
edit
The University of Wisconsin-Madison also published a case study on the event, authored by Andrew Mankowski, which detailed the weather conditions that caused the tornado to form and how it became as violent as it was. The study said that:
"From a synoptic view the main feature was a cold front pushing its way south into Texas. Frontogenesis helped aid in forcing some of the upward vertical motions. From the Gulf of Mexico came a southerly low-level jet bringing warm moist air. This warm moist air from the LLJ helped destabilize the air. The air was already highly unstable with CAPE values reaching 6,000 J/kg."[4]
According to Mankowski, the CAPE values in the atmosphere at the time were extremely unstable, contributing to directional shear which formed the supercells. This caused the violent rotation that eventually produced the Jarrell tornado, and the subsequent strength of the tornado.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
editThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which is a U.S. government-affiliated disease control group, produced a study on the casualties of the tornado, which included in-depth explanations of the injuries sustained to the bodies of victims, lengths of hospital stays, among other things. The study and survey concluded that:
"A total of 33 persons presented to six area hospitals for treatment of injuries sustained directly or indirectly by the three tornadoes. Of these 33 persons, 13 (39%) had multiple diagnoses. The categories of injuries included lacerations (18 {55%}), contusions (15 {46%}), abrasions (10 {30%}), strains/sprains/muscle spasms (six {18%}), fractures (two {6%}), penetrating wound (one {3%}), and closed-head injury (one {3%}). The median age of the injured persons was 38 years (range: 1-75 years)."[5]
The case study had also noted the lack of shelters causing multiple of the deaths, and recommended that more storm shelters be installed in Jarrell.[6] Had shelters been implemented before the tornado, many more lives may have been potentially saved, and the tornado showed the importance of storm shelters.
Other studies
editMany other groups and organizations did small case studies and surveys in the wake of the tornado, which include the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)[7] and the Regional and Mesocale Meteorology Branch (RaMMB).[8] A small case study by the NOAA had concluded that the Emergency Alert System (EAS) was not activated in a timely manner to warn about the tornado.[9] Many warning systems had also failed, and the study recommended that emergency alerts and tornado warnings be issued earlier.[9]
Refs
- ^ a b Houston, Adam L.; Wilhelmson, Robert B. (2007-03-01). "Observational Analysis of the 27 May 1997 Central Texas Tornadic Event. Part II: Tornadoes". Monthly Weather Review. 135 (3): 727–735. Bibcode:2007MWRv..135..727H. doi:10.1175/MWR3301.1. ISSN 1520-0493.
- ^ Phan, Long T.; Simiu, Emil (1998-07-01). "Fujita Tornado Intensity Scale: A Critique Based on Observations of the Jarrell Tornado of May 27, 1997 (NIST TN 1426)". NIST.
- ^ a b Texas Event Report: F5 Tornado. Storm Events Database (Report). National Centers for Environmental Information. Retrieved April 7, 2021.
- ^ Andrew, Mankowski. "University of Wisconsin Case Study Jarrell 1997" (PDF). The Jarrell Tornado of May 27, 1997.
- ^ "Tornado Disaster -- Texas, May 1997". www.cdc.gov. Retrieved 2024-05-14.
- ^ "Tornado Disaster -- Texas, May 1997". www.cdc.gov. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
- ^ Houston, Adam L.; Wilhelmson, Robert B. (2007-03-01). "Observational Analysis of the 27 May 1997 Central Texas Tornadic Event. Part II: Tornadoes". Monthly Weather Review. 135 (3): 727–735. Bibcode:2007MWRv..135..727H. doi:10.1175/MWR3301.1. ISSN 1520-0493.
- ^ "RaMMB2".
- ^ a b "Storm Data" (PDF). Storm Data. 39 (5). Asheville, North Carolina: National Climatic Data Center. May 1997. ISSN 0039-1972. Retrieved April 7, 2021 – via National Centers for Environmental Information.[permanent dead link]