9. Report Requirements
9.1 General Requirements
The results of the portfolio seismic risk assessment investigation shall be documented in a written report following a format acceptable to the User. The report shall contain a statement indicating who may rely upon the report’s findings and conclusions. The report shall contain a statement describing omissions and deviations from this guide, if any.
The report shall specify clearly how seismic risks and hazards were evaluated and represented, and any special assumptions made in the seismic risk assessment that could substantially influence the results. The report shall describe the level of overall uncertainty (e.g., high, moderate, low) of the risk results. See also Chapter 8.
The report shall identify the individual(s) responsible for preparation of the data, vulnerability modeling and risk analysis and describe their technical qualifications.
The report shall include documentation (e.g., references) to support the analysis, opinions, and conclusions found in the report. All sources of information should be sufficiently documented to facilitate retrieval or re-use at a later date. The report shall state any specific limitation or exclusions that impact the technical reliability of the conclusions. The report shall list any previous seismic risk assessment reports (“PML reports”) that have been used, their author and dates, and the Level of Investigation conducted at the time, using terminology suggested in ASTM E2026. The report shall describe any new investigations performed, identify the assessor(s), and the Level of Investigation conducted.
The report shall present the overall portfolio risks (Probable Loss or PL) for a range of return periods. Risks shall be presented as loss estimates, in dollars, from a ground-up position, as well as for any specific stakeholder position(s) and return period(s) requested by the User. For example, the User may request risks for both ground-up and net of earthquake limits and deductibles. The report may present the results in tables and/or risk curves. The report shall identify the hazards considered in addition to ground shaking for each set of results presented (i.e., liquefaction, landslide, fire-following, fire sprinkler leakage, etc.), and whether the losses have been inflated to consider post-earthquake loss amplification or “demand surge." Probable losses shall be described as annual exceedance probability or occurrence exceedance probability.
9.1.1 Options. At the option of the User, the report may:
• Present details of risks from seismic hazards and identify the principal contributors to the seismic risks, using regional risk curves, location risk details, scenario risk details or other useful de-aggregations
• Identify risk reduction opportunities
• Recommend further investigation where warranted, to reduce critical uncertainties
The Provider may also:
• Return the modeling data for archiving and re-use in future studies
• Participate in presentations and discussions
• Perform other follow-up actions
9.2 Matters of Interest and Technical Details:
9.2.1 The report shall describe the basis for the analysis. Specifically, it shall:
• Identify and describe the catastrophe risk model used for the analysis, including the vendor and the version of the software used.
• Identify the basis of the earthquake ground-shaking modeling (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project, citing the year and version, or other authoritative model) and describe its adaptation for use in portfolio seismic risk assessment.
• Define the exposure – including the replacement values for buildings, and (if applicable) for contents and equipment and business interruption loss rates, and identify the source of the exposure data. Summary totals should be presented from the exposure to ensure agreement on values. Optionally, exposure summaries may include breakdowns by: line of business, division or zonal totals; along with totals for construction and occupancy types. In addition, exposures may be mapped in relation to active earthquake faults, to provide feedback on local accumulations.
• Where insured losses are presented, earthquake limits and deductibles shall be documented. Where other stakeholder risk allocation mechanisms are used, the logic for allocation of loss shall be explained.
• Describe ground conditions (Site Class) at each site and list any special seismic hazards considered in the risk estimates (e.g., liquefaction). List any sites where site coordinates were not successfully geo-coded, address errors, etc.
• Define the sources and quality of the vulnerability data used in the study (e.g., past PML reports), including steps to improve data and reduce uncertainty.
9.2.2 The report shall state whether the vulnerability modeling for each building is derived from a classification system based on building usage or occupancy, or from a classification system based on the structural system. For buildings modeled based on the structural system, the report shall detail the level of structural investigation for each building using terminology derived from ASTM E2026, specifically, whether a Civil or Structural Engineer conducted a visual inspection of the building and/or reviewed the design documents (especially Structural design drawings), and whether such review provided the basis for any Secondary characteristics (i.e., structural condition, load path discontinuity, irregularities in plan or height, etc.) specified. See also Section 8.3.
9.2.3 The report should clearly describe limitations of the information provided, of the investigations conducted, and of the analytical model(s) used so that the User may draw appropriate conclusions regarding the quality of the results.