RMS U.S. Hurricane Model Presentation to Presenta i n to€¦ · 16/05/2006 · RMS®. U.S. Hurricane . Model Presentation to . Presenta i n to . Florida Commission on Hurricane

RMSRMS®® U.S. Hurricane U.S. Hurricane ModelModel

Presenta i n to Presentation to

Florida Commission on Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Hurricane Loss Projection

MethodologyMethodology

May 17, 2006May 17, 2006

©© 2006 Risk Management Solutions, Inc.2006 Risk Management Solutions, Inc.

Presentation OverviewPresentation Overview

Hurricane model component overviewHurricane model component overview

Discussion of changes to model componentsDiscussion of changes to model components

Overview of changes in output rangesOverview of changes in output ranges


Overview of the Hurricane Model MethodologyOverview of the Hurricane Model Methodology

D ine Define H icaneHurricane

al ul e Calculate D eDamage

A sess Assess Wi d peedWind speed

LLOOSSSS

BasinBasin--wide track wide track a and pa amet rparametersimulation and simulation and calibrationcalibrationPressure history Pressure history simulation and simulation and calibration calibration Importance Importance sampling of sampling of simulated trackssimulated tracks

Ti eTime--st ppi wind stepping wind f el calcula i of field calculation of overover--water gradient water gradient windwindDirectional factors Directional factors for surface for surface roughness upstream roughness upstream of overof over--land locationland locationVariable Resolution Variable Resolution Grid data resolutionGrid data resolution

Engin ring mo l Engineering model ca ib ated i h calibrated with historical claimshistorical claimsOver 50 vulner bility Over 500 vulnerability classes based on classes based on material, height, material, height, occupancy, and year occupancy, and year builtbuiltMitigation measuresMitigation measures


Changes in the ModelChanges in the Model

HazardHazard–– Event rates have been updated to include the 2004 and 2005 hurriEvent rates have been updated to include the 2004 and 2005 hurricane cane

seasonsseasons–– Rmax has been updated to take into consideration recent hurricanRmax has been updated to take into consideration recent hurricaneses

VulnerabilityVulnerability–– Wood frame and masonry vulnerability functions have been updatedWood frame and masonry vulnerability functions have been updated to to

take into account loss data from the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes.take into account loss data from the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes.–– Specific vulnerability curves have been developed for different Specific vulnerability curves have been developed for different age age

ranges as opposed to applying a year modifierranges as opposed to applying a year modifier–– The degree of uncertainty given a mean damage has been updated The degree of uncertainty given a mean damage has been updated

based on 2004based on 2004--2005 claims data analyses2005 claims data analysesOtherOther–– Vintage of ZIP codes has been updatedVintage of ZIP codes has been updated–– Output ranges consider an annual deductibleOutput ranges consider an annual deductible


BasinBasin--Wide Hurricane Track Set SimulationWide Hurricane Track Set Simulation

Use randomUse random--walk model to simulate storm trackwalk model to simulate storm track–– Calibr e m el over wat based on istor c ossings n Calibrate model over water based on historic crossings in 2°°x2x2°°

cellscells–– Calibrate model at coastline based on historic crossing rates Calibrate model at coastline based on historic crossing rates

and forward speed distributions along linear coastal segmentsand forward speed distributions along linear coastal segments


Pressure History Model for Each TrackPressure History Model for Each Track

Use randomUse random--walk model to add pressure histories along length of walk model to add pressure histories along length of each mulated rackeach simulated track

–– Overland filling rates follow functional form of Kaplan and Overland filling rates follow functional form of Kaplan and DeM ia (1995DeMaria (1995)

–– Minimum pressures constrained by sea surface temperatureMinimum pressures constrained by sea surface temperature

–– Calibr e m el at coastli e b d o histori pressure Calibrate model at coastline based on historic pressure distributions along linear coastal segmentsdistributions along linear coastal segments


Importance Sampling of Simulated StormsImportance Sampling of Simulated Storms

100,000 years of hurricane activity for Florida is reduced to 100,000 years of hurricane activity for Florida is reduced to 19,067 events 19,067 events

Total rate of occurrence in model equals observed mean Total rate of occurrence in model equals observed mean annual rate of occurrence of historic stormsannual rate of occurrence of historic storms

Rates updated by adding the last 2 years of observed Rates updated by adding the last 2 years of observed hurricane activity (2004 and 2005)hurricane activity (2004 and 2005)


Wind Field Calculation Over WaterWind Field Calculation Over Water

Based on the work of Geo giou (1983; 1985) the odel Based on the work of Georgiou (1983; 1985), the model calculates the gradient wind fieldcalculates the gradient wind field

Wind field at 10 m height is calculated as a function of the Wind field at 10 m height is calculated as a function of the gradient wind speedgradient wind speed

Update of Rmax DistributionUpdate of Rmax Distribution–– RMAX remains modeled as a lognormal distributionRMAX remains modeled as a lognormal distribution–– Used HRD/AOML H*Wind Data for recent storms and Used HRD/AOML H*Wind Data for recent storms and

updated the Mean and Standard Deviation coefficients updated the Mean and Standard Deviation coefficients within the Rmax distributionwithin the Rmax distribution


Estimation of Over Land Peak Gust Wind SpeedEstimation of Over Land Peak Gust Wind Speed

Creation of a database describing the land surface in terms Creation of a database describing the land surface in terms of roughness length using:of roughness length using:–– National Land Cover Data dataset produced by the United National Land Cover Data dataset produced by the United

States Geological Survey (based on midStates Geological Survey (based on mid--1990s Landsat 1990s Landsat Thematic Mapper satellite data)Thematic Mapper satellite data)

–– Adva ced Spaceborne Ther al Emission nd Re l ction Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) satellite imagery to ensure the Radiometer (ASTER) satellite imagery to ensure the timeliness of the datatimeliness of the data

Representative roughness length is assigned to each landRepresentative roughness length is assigned to each land--cover classcover classCoefficients describing the impact of land friction are Coefficients describing the impact of land friction are calculated by sampling the roug ness le gths or lo l and calculated by sampling the roughness lengths for local and upstream conditions based on the direction of the windupstream conditions based on the direction of the wind


Sampling Surface RoughnessSampling Surface Roughness

#

#

South MiamiSouth Miami


Variable Resolution GridVariable Resolution Grid

Variable Resolution Grid (VRG) makes it possible to model wind aVariable Resolution Grid (VRG) makes it possible to model wind at t a higher resolution than ZIP Codea higher resolution than ZIP CodeHighest resolution cells are in areas of high exposure (major Highest resolution cells are in areas of high exposure (major metropolitan areas) and high hazard gradient (e.g., coastal regimetropolitan areas) and high hazard gradient (e.g., coastal regions)ons)

Miami: ZIP Code vs. VRG cell sizes


Vulnerability MethodologyVulnerability Methodology

Over 500 base curves (including residential and commercial linesOver 500 base curves (including residential and commercial lines) ) developed separately for building and contents based on a developed separately for building and contents based on a com nation of:combination of:–– Construction classConstruction class–– OccupancyOccupancy–– Building heightBuilding height–– Year BuiltYear Built

Additional Living Expenses (ALE) are a function of building damaAdditional Living Expenses (ALE) are a function of building damage ge and occupancyand occupancy


Changes to the Vulnerability ModelChanges to the Vulnerability Model

Update of wood and masonry vulnerability functions Update of wood and masonry vulnerability functions based on claims data from the 2004 and 2005 based on claims data from the 2004 and 2005 hurricaneshurricanesNew ar bands introdu d as primary vari ble instead New year bands introduced as primary variable instead of modifierof modifierIntroduction of new vulnerability region for South FloridaIntroduction of new vulnerability region for South FloridaUpdate to modeled uncertaintyUpdate to modeled uncertainty


Secondary Modifier MethodologySecondary Modifier Methodology

Building specific attributes or mitigation measuresBuilding specific attributes or mitigation measures–– Modeled y scaling vul ra l t f nctions p o Modeled by scaling vulnerability functions up or

d n from the known vul er il t curvedown from the unknown vulnerability curve

00

10

2020

3030

40

5050

6060

7070 l er ilBasic vulnerability

Modified vulnerabilityModified vulnerability

od vuln ab ityModified vulnerability

MD

R (

)M

DR

(%)

Wind speed (mph)Wind speed (mph)50 180


Form AForm A--9 : Percent Change in Output Ranges by County9 : Percent Change in Output Ranges by County

21.379 19.756

22.93

13.316

11.798

12.743

18.062

16.145

14.316

12.906

21.115

21.658

12.544

14.375

16.197

16.768

10.698

-12.766

15.698

14.208

This Year Rank

Last Year Rank

CHARLOTTE 22 22

DESOTO 24 25

ESCAMBIA 10 16

FRANKLIN 2 2

GLADES 13 17

HARDEE 27 30

HENDRY 20 21

HIGHLANDS 35 37

HILLSBOROUGH 31 31

HOLMES 45 46

LAKE 48 48

OKALOOSA 18 18

OKEECHOBEE 19 19

ORANGE 58 62

OSCEOLA 49 51

PINELLAS 16 15

POLK 38 45

SANTA ROSA 7 9

SARASOTA 15 14

SEMINOLE 59 61


Change in Loss by County (All Policy Forms)Change in Loss by County (All Policy Forms)Hazard Vulnerability Total

FRANKLIN -4% -9% -13%

SARASOTA 14% -3% 11%

HILLSBOROUGH 9% 3% 12%

HOLMES 8% 5% 13%

SANTA ROSA 17% -5% 13%

CHARLOTTE 18% -5% 13%

HENDRY 10% 3% 13%

PINELLAS 4% 10% 14%

OKALOOSA 17% -3% 14%

LAKE 9% 5% 14%

SEMINOLE 10% 6% 16%

GLADES 13% 4% 16%

OKEECHOBEE 13% 4% 16%

ESCAMBIA 17% 0% 17%

ORANGE 12% 6% 18%

OSCEOLA 15% 5% 20%

DESOTO 20% 1% 21%

POLK 18% 4% 21%

HARDEE 20% 1% 22%

HIGHLANDS 20% 3% 23%

Statewide 3.2% 2.1% 5.3%


Change in Loss by County Change in Loss by County –– Hazard ComponentHazard ComponentBased on Owners FrameBased on Owners FrameRmax Rate

FRANKLIN -4% -1%

SARASOTA -4% 19%

HILLSBOROUGH -3% 12%

HOLMES -1% 8%

SANTA ROSA -3% 21%

CHARLOTTE -3% 24%

HENDRY -1% 12%

PINELLAS -4% 8%

OKALOOSA -3% 21%

LAKE -1% 8%

SEMINOLE -2% 11%

GLADES -1% 13%

OKEECHOBEE -2% 13%

ESCAMBIA -3% 20%

ORANGE -1% 12%

OSCEOLA -1% 15%

DESOTO -2% 23%

POLK -1% 19%

HARDEE -1% 23%

HIGHLANDS -1% 20%

Compliance withCompliance with2005 Standards2005 Standards

Presenta i n to Presentation to

Florida Commission on Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Hurricane Loss Projection

MethodologyMethodology

May 17, 2006May 17, 2006


General StandardsGeneral Standards


Standard GStandard G--1: Scope of the Computer Model and its 1: Scope of the Computer Model and its ImplementationImplementation

Model version number: RiskLink 5.1aModel version number: RiskLink 5.1a–– Updated rom RiskLi 4.5a n 2004 subm ssiUpdated from RiskLink 4.5a in 2004 submission

Concise technical description of the model provided in the 2005 Concise technical description of the model provided in the 2005 submission documentsubmission document–– Vulnerability updates to reflect number of new functions as wellVulnerability updates to reflect number of new functions as well

as new vulnerability regionsas new vulnerability regions–– Minor changes to improve clarityMinor changes to improve clarity


Standard GStandard G--1: Scope of the Computer Model and its 1: Scope of the Computer Model and its Implementation (2)Implementation (2)

Flow diagram illustrating interactions among major model Flow diagram illustrating interactions among major model componentscomponents–– No material changes in component interactionsNo material changes in component interactions

Pertinent references were consolidated, expanded, and arranged Pertinent references were consolidated, expanded, and arranged by standard groupingby standard grouping

Other aspects of this standard remain unchanged from 2004Other aspects of this standard remain unchanged from 2004


Standard GStandard G--2: Qualifications of Modeler Personnel and 2: Qualifications of Modeler Personnel and Independent ExpertsIndependent Experts

Employee/client statistics and biographies updatedEmployee/client statistics and biographies updated–– Revenue dat by m ket en emovedRevenue data by market segment removed

Professional credentials updated to include reflect changes the Professional credentials updated to include reflect changes the model team or in employment status, and relevance to the previoumodel team or in employment status, and relevance to the previous s or latest model generationor latest model generation–– Project and/or employment departures: Kyle Beatty, Project and/or employment departures: Kyle Beatty, FouadFouad

Bendi eradBendimerad, , Hem tHemant Nag lNagpal, , P ojaPooja SaSayal, Mohan Sharma, Mohan Sharma–– Additions to project:Additions to project: EnricaEnrica BelloneBellone, , AmanAman BhardwajBhardwaj, , VijayaVijaya

Diva un , al naDivakaruni,Kalpana anesaGanesan David , David la maGlaubman Nathal e , Nathalie GrimaGrima, Jason Lin, Charles , Jason Lin, Charles MenunMenun, Paul MacManus, , Paul MacManus, KannanKannanNarayanan, Matthew Nielsen, Adam Narayanan, Matthew Nielsen, Adam OO’’ShayShay, , GhanshyamGhanshyamPar amParasram, Ag i Rodr gue illiam , Agustin Rodriguez, William SuchlandSuchland, and , and Jia minJianminWangWang


Standard GStandard G--2: Qualifications of Modeler Personnel and 2: Qualifications of Modeler Personnel and Independent Experts (2)Independent Experts (2)

Relevant reviews h be cited and have not chang since he Relevant reviews have been cited and have not changed since the prior submissionprior submissionVersion of the odel p t time mp oyees / consultants tribVersion of the model part time employees / consultants contributed ed to added to Table 8to added to Table 8Forms G1Forms G1--G6 on Expert Certification updated with each revision G6 on Expert Certification updated with each revision cyclecycleUpda ed flowch t in igure for cl rityUpdated flowchart in Figure 5 for clarityAdded Dr. Rex Added Dr. Rex BritterBritter to table 2to table 2Updated affiliation for Dr. Timothy Reinhold (NonUpdated affiliation for Dr. Timothy Reinhold (Non--profit Org)profit Org)



Standard GStandard G--3: Risk Location3: Risk Location

ZI Code data provid by a hi dZIP Code data provided by a third-part developer a is of party developer and is of an August 2005 United States Postal Service vintageAugust 2005 United States Postal Service vintage

The RMS model does not use ZIPThe RMS model does not use ZIP--Code Code centroidscentroids as proxies for as proxies for exposure. If a building location is entered as a ZIP Code, then exposure. If a building location is entered as a ZIP Code, then the the model uses wind speeds that are exposure weighted averages of model uses wind speeds that are exposure weighted averages of wind speeds across the ZIPwind speeds across the ZIP--Code extent.Code extent.

ZIZIP-- ode informa i is exa i ed R S f r consi ency and is Code information is examined by RMS for consistency and is subject to standardized quality control testing and checking by subject to standardized quality control testing and checking by experts employed by RMS for that purpose.experts employed by RMS for that purpose.


Standard GStandard G--4: Submission Specifications4: Submission Specifications

All units of measurement are clearly defined and have been All units of measurement are clearly defined and have been inspected by the Professional Team for consistency throughout thinspected by the Professional Team for consistency throughout the e OnOn--Site Au itSite AuditMeasurements in the model have not changed since the 2004 Measurements in the model have not changed since the 2004 subm ssi nsubmission


Standard GStandard G--5: Independence of Model Components5: Independence of Model Components

RMSRMS’’ response to this standard remains unchanged from 2004response to this standard remains unchanged from 2004

The vulnerability, meteorological, and actuarial model componentThe vulnerability, meteorological, and actuarial model components s ar theoretically sou an ha each t ro hly and are theoretically sound and have each thoroughly and independently tested and calibratedindependently tested and calibrated

They have also been tested in an integrated way to ensure that tThey have also been tested in an integrated way to ensure that the he re at onships tween he com onents are re nablrelationships between the components are reasonable


Meteorological StandardsMeteorological Standards


Standard MStandard M--1: Base Hurricane Storm Set1: Base Hurricane Storm Set

Stochastic model frequencies updated to include the 2004 Stochastic model frequencies updated to include the 2004 a d 2005 h rrica e seasons and 2005 hurricane seasons –– Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne, Dennis, Rita, WilmaCharley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne, Dennis, Rita, Wilma

Other aspects of RMSOther aspects of RMS’’ response to this standard remains response to this standard remains unchanged from last yearunchanged from last year’’s submissions submission

““The hurricane set used to develop the RMS U.S. Hurricane The hurricane set used to develop the RMS U.S. Hurricane model for Florida includes both landfalling and bymodel for Florida includes both landfalling and by--passing passing hurricanes that produce losses in Florida. The hurricane set hurricanes that produce losses in Florida. The hurricane set used by RMS matches the Official Storm Set provided by the used by RMS matches the Official Storm Set provided by the Commission, including storms through 2005.Commission, including storms through 2005.””


Standard MStandard M--2: Hurricane Characteristics2: Hurricane CharacteristicsC r cted r sponse in disclosure MCorrected response in disclosure M--2.1 to indicate the s ecific s 2.1 to indicate the specific dates

r nding corresponding to the hurricane characteristic data--setssets–– ““The historical data used for the pressure profile parameter and The historical data used for the pressure profile parameter and the the

gradient to surface reduction factors is the H*Wind data, for thgradient to surface reduction factors is the H*Wind data, for the period e period 19981998--2001. The data used for the Rmax relationship consists of a 2001. The data used for the Rmax relationship consists of a combination of Extended Best Track data from 1988combination of Extended Best Track data from 1988--2000, the H*Wind 2000, the H*Wind data from 2000data from 2000--2005 and also data from NWS 23 & 38. The data used 2005 and also data from NWS 23 & 38. The data used for the central pressure and forward speed components comes frofor the central pressure and forward speed components comes from the m the National Hurricane Center HURDAT (1900National Hurricane Center HURDAT (1900--2005), NWS 23 & 38 and 2005), NWS 23 & 38 and supplemented by National Hurricane Center storm reportssupplemented by National Hurricane Center storm reports””

Updated Figure 6 to account for multiple landfalls per event, wiUpdated Figure 6 to account for multiple landfalls per event, within the thin the stochastic countsstochastic counts

Other aspects of RMSOther aspects of RMS’’ response remain unchanged from last yearresponse remain unchanged from last year’’s s submissionsubmission

““Each of the methods for depicting hurricane characteristics in tEach of the methods for depicting hurricane characteristics in the RMS U.S. he RMS U.S. Hurricane model is based on currently accepted scientific literaHurricane model is based on currently accepted scientific literature or RMS ture or RMS information previously accepted by the FCHLPM.information previously accepted by the FCHLPM.””


Standard MStandard M--2: Hurricane Characteristics (2)2: Hurricane Characteristics (2)

Updated Figure 6.Updated Figure 6.Page 95Page 95


Standard MStandard M--3: Landfall Intensity3: Landfall Intensity

Corrected response to disclosure MCorrected response to disclosure M--3.3 in providing all modeled 3.3 in providing all modeled characteristics of the Florida hurricane in the stochastic set wcharacteristics of the Florida hurricane in the stochastic set with the ith the greatest overgreatest over--water intensity at the time of landfall water intensity at the time of landfall

Other aspects of RMSOther aspects of RMS’’ response to this standard remain unchanged from response to this standard remain unchanged from last yearlast year’’s submissions submission

““The maximum wind speeds produced by the model per hurricane The maximum wind speeds produced by the model per hurricane category are consistent with the Saffircategory are consistent with the Saffir--Simpson Scale.Simpson Scale.””

Updated Table 8Updated Table 8Page 98Page 98


Standard MStandard M--4: Hurricane Probabilities4: Hurricane Probabilities

Corrected disclosure MCorrected disclosure M--4.1 to include a statement of any 4.1 to include a statement of any assum i ns u in the ea i of the hur icane ra eristicassumptions used in the creation of the hurricane characteristicdatabasedatabase

–– ““The 2005 hurr canes in udi g ennis, Katr na, Rita d The 2005 hurricanes including Dennis, Katrina, Rita and Wilma have been included in the analysis of landfalling rates Wilma have been included in the analysis of landfalling rates a byand by--passi g ratespassing rates””

Corrected Form MCorrected Form M--1 to account for multiple landfalls for stochastic 1 to account for multiple landfalls for stochastic storm storms –– as ell a t e text below the t ble in Form Mas well as the text below the table in Form M-- 1 (response to (response to ‘‘CC’’))

Other aspe s RMSOther aspects of RMS’’ response t this stan rd r ma ns response to this standard remains unchanged from last yearunchanged from last year’’s submissions submission

““Modeled ro ability d st i utions for rri a inte t orwaModeled probability distributions for hurricane intensity, forwa d rd speed, radii for maximum winds and landfall angle are consistentspeed, radii for maximum winds and landfall angle are consistentwi h observed histor cal hurricane i the tlant c sin. The with observed historical hurricanes in the Atlantic basin. The basis for developing probability distributions for each of thesebasis for developing probability distributions for each of thesepar me ers is the ecord of hi orical hu ricaneparameters is the record of historical hurricanes””


Standard MStandard M--4: Hurricane Probabilities (2)4: Hurricane Probabilities (2)

Updated Form MUpdated Form M--1 Table 91 Table 9Page 106Page 106

Updated response to Updated response to ‘‘CC’’


Standard MStandard M--4: Hurricane Probabilities (3)4: Hurricane Probabilities (3)

Updated Figure 10.Updated Figure 10.age 07Page 107


Standard MStandard M--5: Land Friction and Weakening5: Land Friction and WeakeningCorrected response in disclosure MCorrected response in disclosure M--5.1 to revise the filling rate description5.1 to revise the filling rate description–– ““Decay rates are assumed to have a Gaussian distribution with a mDecay rates are assumed to have a Gaussian distribution with a mean ean

as given by the Kaplan and DeMaria model and a coefficient of vaas given by the Kaplan and DeMaria model and a coefficient of variation riation of 38% and truncated at one standard deviationof 38% and truncated at one standard deviation””

C r cted r sponse in disclosure MCorrected response in disclosure M--5.5 to 5.5 to reflect the data provided in Figure 9–– ““Figure 9 illustrates a comparison of the normalized windspeeds fFigure 9 illustrates a comparison of the normalized windspeeds for or

historical Florida landfalling storms compared with the RMS stochistorical Florida landfalling storms compared with the RMS stochastic hastic modelmodel’’s fastest and slowest filling rates as well as the Kaplans fastest and slowest filling rates as well as the Kaplan--DeMaria DeMaria filling rate.The decay rates for the four Florida landfalling stfilling rate.The decay rates for the four Florida landfalling storms orms (Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne) of 2004 have been enumerated(Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne) of 2004 have been enumeratedwithin figure 9within figure 9””

Corrected figures 11 and 12 (within Form MCorrected figures 11 and 12 (within Form M--2) to include the maximum 2) to include the maximum windspeed over Floridawindspeed over Florida

Other aspects of land friction in this standard remain unchangedOther aspects of land friction in this standard remain unchanged from last from last yearyear’’s submissions submission


Standard MStandard M--6: Logical Relationships of Hurricane 6: Logical Relationships of Hurricane CharacteristicsCharacteristics

Form MForm M-3 and i ur 12 r l ct this ye3 and figure 12 reflect this year’’s upd ed r lation p for s updated relationship for Rmax variableRmax variable–– T e radius to aximu wi ds is odeled ased n h st ical The radius to maximum winds is modeled based on historical

values of radii of maximum windsvalues of radii of maximum winds

Other aspects of this standard remain unchanged from last yearOther aspects of this standard remain unchanged from last year’’s s subm ssi nsubmission

The magnitude of asymmetry increases with increasing translationThe magnitude of asymmetry increases with increasing translational al speeds, all other factors being held constant.speeds, all other factors being held constant.The wind speeds decrease with increasing surface roughness, all The wind speeds decrease with increasing surface roughness, all other factors held constant.other factors held constant.


Vulnerability StandardsVulnerability Standards


Standard VStandard V--1: Derivation of Vulnerability Functions1: Derivation of Vulnerability FunctionsA A -- Vulnerability functions are based on wellVulnerability functions are based on well--supported structural supported structural and wind engineering principles and detailed analyses of and wind engineering principles and detailed analyses of historical claims datahistorical claims data

–– The vulnerability update utilized data from the hurricanes of The vulnerability update utilized data from the hurricanes of 2004/2005, in addition to prior event data2004/2005, in addition to prior event data

–– Over 3.1 billion dollars in FL losses from 2004/2005 were Over 3.1 billion dollars in FL losses from 2004/2005 were used in the updateused in the update

–– Resulted in wider difference between new and old buildings Resulted in wider difference between new and old buildings –– Moderate changes stateModerate changes state--wide of approximately 5%wide of approximately 5%–– Changes to contents curves for multiChanges to contents curves for multi--story wood masonry story wood masonry

changes is largest and results in largest changes shown in changes is largest and results in largest changes shown in output ranges output ranges –– particularly for inland areas.particularly for inland areas.


Standard VStandard V--1: Derivation of Vulnerability Functions1: Derivation of Vulnerability Functions

B B –– Methods used to derive vulnerability functions are theoreticallMethods used to derive vulnerability functions are theoretically y soundsound–– A detailed description of the vulnerability update was presentedA detailed description of the vulnerability update was presented

to the Professional Team, including a review of the data utilizeto the Professional Team, including a review of the data utilized d in the update, and how t data as pro d a use i the in the update, and how the data was processed and used in the derivation of the updated vulnerability curves.derivation of the updated vulnerability curves.

C C –– Secondary Modifiers to Vulnerability functions based on Secondary Modifiers to Vulnerability functions based on engi er ng understa ing, ma stat st cs, building es, engineering understanding, damage statistics, building codes, engineering studies, wind tunnel experimentsengineering studies, wind tunnel experiments



D D –– Con ruction ypes and Primar C ar eristicsConstruction types and Primary Characteristics–– Over 500 functions in Florida for all occupanciesOver 500 functions in Florida for all occupancies–– 1 un que r dentia ui di funct ons in FL100 unique residential Building functions in FL

Table 1: RMS Hurricane Primary Building Classification Options

Construction Class # of Stories Occupancy Year Band (FL) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Wood Frame 1 Single Family Pre 1995 Masonry 2-3 Multiple Family 1995-2001 Reinforced Concrete 4-7 Non-Residential1 2002 +later Steel Frame 8-14 (For MH only) Light Metal Frame 15+ Region Pre 1976 Mobile Home w/o Tie-Downs South Florida 1976-1994 Mobile Home with Tie-Downs Rest of state 1995 + later 1There are multiple sub-categories of Non-Residential occupancy in RiskLink 5.1a that are not listed in detail here.



E E –– Changes in building codes/construction practices are modelled tChanges in building codes/construction practices are modelled through hrough separate vulnerability functions for three year bandsseparate vulnerability functions for three year bands

F F –– Separate vulnerability functions Separate vulnerability functions –– Derived for structures and mobile homes,Derived for structures and mobile homes,–– Appurtenant structures use same function as main structure, but Appurtenant structures use same function as main structure, but can can

be input separatelybe input separately–– Separate functions for contents, ALESeparate functions for contents, ALE

G G – Minimum wind speed generates damage–– 50 mph peak gust50 mph peak gust–– ~42 mph one minute sustained~42 mph one minute sustained

Form VForm V--1 has been submitted and reflects changes to the vulnerability 1 has been submitted and reflects changes to the vulnerability functionsfunctions


Standard VStandard V--2: Mitigation Measures2: Mitigation Measures

The following secondary modifiers are available in the model:The following secondary modifiers are available in the model:–– Roof sheathing strengthRoof sheathing strength–– Roof coveringRoof covering–– Roof anchorRoof anchor–– Foundation systemFoundation system–– Wind resistance of window openingsWind resistance of window openings–– Wind resistance of door openingsWind resistance of door openings–– Roof geometryRoof geometry–– Opening protection (shutters)Opening protection (shutters)

The application of modifier options are reasonable when applied The application of modifier options are reasonable when applied individually and in combination as shown in Form V2individually and in combination as shown in Form V2–– Reviewed onsiteReviewed onsite


Actuarial StandardsActuarial Standards


Standard AStandard A--1: Modeled Loss Costs1: Modeled Loss Costs

The track and pressure of each tropical cyclone are modeled The track and pressure of each tropical cyclone are modeled throughout its lifetime in the Atlantic basin from genesis to dethroughout its lifetime in the Atlantic basin from genesis to decay. cay.

For the ur ses o lculating osses, a st m is first consideFor the purposes of calculating losses, a storm is first consider d red when maximum winds reach Category 1 and damage is caused in when maximum winds reach Category 1 and damage is caused in Florida. Florida.

Fr m th poin n wind speeds and losse are ca cul ed From that point on wind speeds and losses are calculated regardless of whether maximum winds are greater than or less tharegardless of whether maximum winds are greater than or less than n Category 1.Category 1.


Standard AStandard A--2: Underwriting Assumptions2: Underwriting Assumptions


RMS uses historical loss information in the development of RMS uses historical loss information in the development of vulne ability fu i nsvulnerability functions–– Any adjustments, edits, inclusions, or deletions to insurance Any adjustments, edits, inclusions, or deletions to insurance

company input are based on accepted actuarial, underwriting, company input are based on accepted actuarial, underwriting, and statistical procedures and are documented in writingand statistical procedures and are documented in writing

–– T e vu nerability o ro rty ser d in st rical events is The vulnerability of property observed in historical events is assumed to be indicative of vulnerability of such property in assumed to be indicative of vulnerability of such property in future events where subjected to similar wind loadsfuture events where subjected to similar wind loads


Standard AStandard A--3: Loss Cost Projections3: Loss Cost Projections

RMSRMS’’ response to this standard remains unchanged from 2004.response to this standard remains unchanged from 2004.

RMS loss cost calculations do not include expense, risk load, RMS loss cost calculations do not include expense, risk load, investm nt inco e, p emium eserves, taxes, assessm nts, investment income, premium reserves, taxes, assessments, or profit margins.profit margins.

RMS loss cost projections do not make any prospective provision RMS loss cost projections do not make any prospective provision for conomic nflationfor economic inflation.

The RMS model does not include demand surge in its loss cost The RMS model does not include demand surge in its loss cost projectionsprojections


Standard AStandard A--4: User Inputs4: User Inputs

RMSRMS’’ response to this standard remains unchanged from 2004.response to this standard remains unchanged from 2004.

Input data to the RMS hurricane model is explicitly provided by Input data to the RMS hurricane model is explicitly provided by the the user for each particular alysis. user for each particular analysis.

The model assumes that inputs provided by the user are reflectivThe model assumes that inputs provided by the user are reflective e of actual exposures.of actual exposures.


Standard AStandard A--5: Logical Relationship to Risk5: Logical Relationship to Risk

RMSRMS’’ response to this standard remains unchanged from 2004response to this standard remains unchanged from 2004Loss s do t di p ay an llogi l elat on to r sk, nor Loss costs do not display an illogical relation to risk, nor do they they vary significantly when the underlying risk does not change vary significantly when the underlying risk does not change significantlysignificantlyLoss costs are positive and nonLoss costs are positive and non--zero for all Florida ZIP Codeszero for all Florida ZIP CodesLoss costs do not increase as roughness increasesLoss costs do not increase as roughness increasesAs illustrated in the output ranges, loss costs:As illustrated in the output ranges, loss costs:–– do not increase as quality increases, all other factors held do not increase as quality increases, all other factors held

constantconstant–– decrease as deductibles increasedecrease as deductibles increase–– exhibit relationships between coverages and loss costs for each exhibit relationships between coverages and loss costs for each

coverage that are consistent and reasonablecoverage that are consistent and reasonable


Standard AStandard A--6: Deductibles and Policy Limits6: Deductibles and Policy Limits

The calculation of loss costs based on occurrence The calculation of loss costs based on occurrence deductibles is unchanged from 2004.deductibles is unchanged from 2004.To calculate the loss costs based on an annual aggregate To calculate the loss costs based on an annual aggregate deductible, we apply factors by occupancy, construction type, deductible, we apply factors by occupancy, construction type, zip code, and deductible amount to the occurrencezip code, and deductible amount to the occurrence--based based loss costs.loss costs.These factors are calculated by estimating the loss net of the These factors are calculated by estimating the loss net of the deductible for each occurrence in the year times the deductible for each occurrence in the year times the probability that there are that many occurrences.probability that there are that many occurrences.


Standard AStandard A--7: Contents7: Contents


Contents and structure loss relativities are based on an analysiContents and structure loss relativities are based on an analysis of s of histor cal cl ims ta historical claims data

The relationship between structures and contents losses are The relationship between structures and contents losses are reasonablereasonable


Standard AStandard A--8: Additional Living Expenses (ALE)8: Additional Living Expenses (ALE)

The methods used in the development of Additional Living ExpenseThe methods used in the development of Additional Living Expense(ALE) loss costs are actuarially sound(ALE) loss costs are actuarially sound

ALE loss cost derivations consider the estimated time required tALE loss cost derivations consider the estimated time required to o repair or replace the propertyrepair or replace the property

The relationship between modelled structure and ALE losses is The relationship between modelled structure and ALE losses is based on an analysis of historical claims data and is reasonablebased on an analysis of historical claims data and is reasonable

ALE loss costs produced by the model are based on analysis of ALE loss costs produced by the model are based on analysis of historical claims data and appropriately consider ALE claims arihistorical claims data and appropriately consider ALE claims arising sing from damage to the infrastructurefrom damage to the infrastructure


Standard AStandard A--9: Output Ranges9: Output RangesDifferences in the updated output ranges from RMSDifferences in the updated output ranges from RMS’’s 2004 submission are s 2004 submission are reasonable and driven by the following model changes:reasonable and driven by the following model changes:

HazardHazard–– Event rates have been updated to include the 2004 and 2005 hurriEvent rates have been updated to include the 2004 and 2005 hurricane cane

seasons.seasons.–– RmaxRmax has been updated to take into consideration the 2004 and 2005 has been updated to take into consideration the 2004 and 2005

hurricane seasonshurricane seasonsVulnerabilityVulnerability–– Wood frame and masonry vulnerability functions have been updatedWood frame and masonry vulnerability functions have been updated to to

take into account loss data from the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes.take into account loss data from the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes.–– Specific vulnerability curves have been developed for different Specific vulnerability curves have been developed for different age age

ranges as opposed to applying a year modifier.ranges as opposed to applying a year modifier.–– The degree of uncertainty given a mean damage has been updated The degree of uncertainty given a mean damage has been updated

based on 2004based on 2004--2005 claims data analyses2005 claims data analysesOtherOther–– Vintage of ZIP codes has been updatedVintage of ZIP codes has been updated–– Output ranges consider an annual deductibleOutput ranges consider an annual deductible


Statistical StandardsStatistical Standards


Standard SStandard S--1: Modeled Results and Goodness of Fit1: Modeled Results and Goodness of Fit

We have updated the charts showing an assessment of uncertainty We have updated the charts showing an assessment of uncertainty in loss costs for output ranges.in loss costs for output ranges.

Other aspe ts this standard emain uncha ed rom 2004.Other aspects of this standard remain unchanged from 2004.

RMS uses empirical methods in model development and RMS uses empirical methods in model development and implementation to match stochastic storm generation to historic implementation to match stochastic storm generation to historic dat hi i suppo ted curr t y pte sci ntific iterdata, which is supported by currently accepted scientific literature. ture. The chosen distributions have been shown to have reasonable The chosen distributions have been shown to have reasonable agreement with the historic data.agreement with the historic data.


Standard SStandard S--2: Sensitivity Analysis for Model Output2: Sensitivity Analysis for Model Output

We have updated the charts that were shown last year.We have updated the charts that were shown last year.

Other aspects of this standard remain unchanged from 2004.Other aspects of this standard remain unchanged from 2004.

RMS has assessed the sensitivity of temporal and spatial outputsRMS has assessed the sensitivity of temporal and spatial outputswith respect to the simultaneous variation of input variables uswith respect to the simultaneous variation of input variables using ing currently accepted scientific and statistical methods and has tacurrently accepted scientific and statistical methods and has taken ken appropr ate actioappropriate action.


Standard SStandard S--3: Uncertainty Analysis for Model Output3: Uncertainty Analysis for Model Output

We have updated the charts that were shown last year.We have updated the charts that were shown last year.

Other aspects of this standard remain unchanged from 2004.Other aspects of this standard remain unchanged from 2004.

RMS has performed an uncertainty analysis on the temporal and RMS has performed an uncertainty analysis on the temporal and spatial outputs of the model using currently accepted scientificspatial outputs of the model using currently accepted scientific and and statistical methods and has taken appropriate action.statistical methods and has taken appropriate action.


Standard SStandard S--4: County Level Aggregation4: County Level Aggregation

We have updated the analysis that was done last year.We have updated the analysis that was done last year.

The standard error of each output range at the county level of The standard error of each output range at the county level of agg ega io i l ss than .5% of t loss cost e imate.aggregation is less than 2.5% of the loss cost estimate.


Standard SStandard S--5: Replication of Known Hurricane Losses5: Replication of Known Hurricane Losses

We have added comparisons between observed and modeled We have added comparisons between observed and modeled losses for the 2004 hurricanes.losses for the 2004 hurricanes.


The RMS mo l is abl to rel ably an w t out si nificant ias The RMS model is able to reliably and without significant bias reproduce incurred losses on a large body of past hurricanes, boreproduce incurred losses on a large body of past hurricanes, both th for personal residential and mobile homes.for personal residential and mobile homes.


Standard SStandard S--6: Comparison of Projected Hurricane 6: Comparison of Projected Hurricane Loss CostsLoss Costs

The difference between historical and modeled annual average The difference between historical and modeled annual average statewide oss costs are reason le, establ shed sta i i statewide loss costs are reasonable, by established statistical expectations and norms.expectations and norms.


Standard CStandard C--1: Documentation1: Documentation

Computer Standards document binderComputer Standards document binder–– OnOn--line, in central locationline, in central location–– Folder hierarchy indexes material by standardFolder hierarchy indexes material by standard–– Links crossLinks cross--reference material common to multiple reference material common to multiple

standardsstandards–– Covers all software relevant to submissionCovers all software relevant to submission–– Includes documentation external to source codeIncludes documentation external to source code

Binder updated for RiskLink Binder updated for RiskLink 5.1a5.1a to reflect:to reflect:–– Model updatesModel updates–– Improvements in development processesImprovements in development processes


Standard CStandard C--2: Requirements (1)2: Requirements (1)

Requirement types covered in documents:Requirement types covered in documents:–– RiskLink Syst m AdministrationRiskLink System Administration

•• ResourceResource• Security•• DataData

–– RiskLink DLM User GuideRiskLink DLM User Guide•• User interfaceUser interface• Functionality

–– Coding StandardsCoding Standards• User interface•• Human factors designHuman factors design• Source code design•• Database design and codingDatabase design and coding• Component interface design



Requirement types covered in documents:Requirement types covered in documents:–– Market Requirements DocumentMarket Requirements Document

•• Functionality Functionality

–– Functional SpecificationsFunctional Specifications•• User interfaceUser interface•• FunctionalityFunctionality•• Data, resourcesData, resources•• Quality assuranceQuality assurance

–– Project management documentsProject management documents•• ResourcesResources



Requirement types covered in documents:Requirement types covered in documents:–– Visual SourceSafe 6.0Visual SourceSafe 6.0

•• DocumentationDocumentation•• SecuritySecurity

–– IT Security documents IT Security documents •• SecuritySecurity

–– Quality Assurance test plansQuality Assurance test plans•• Quality assuranceQuality assurance•• User interfaceUser interface•• FunctionalityFunctionality• ataData


Standard CStandard C--3: Model Architecture and Component 3: Model Architecture and Component DesignDesign

Control flow diagramsControl flow diagrams–– Illustrate key processes, branches, and loops within Illustrate key processes, branches, and loops within

softwaresoftwareData flow diagramsData flow diagrams–– Illustrate dataIllustrate data--dependency relationships between software dependency relationships between software

componentscomponents–– Illustrate hierarchical decomposition of componentsIllustrate hierarchical decomposition of components

Interface specificationsInterface specifications–– Document software module inputs and outputsDocument software module inputs and outputs

Data schema documentationData schema documentation–– Describes all data files / databasesDescribes all data files / databases–– Describes fields in data files / databases, including Describes fields in data files / databases, including

field typesfield types


Standard CStandard C--4: Implementation (1)4: Implementation (1)

Coding guidelines contain standards for:Coding guidelines contain standards for:–– Software codingSoftware coding–– Database developmentDatabase development–– Development environment setupDevelopment environment setup–– Component designComponent design–– File versioningFile versioning–– Source control system usage Source control system usage

Data procedures describe:Data procedures describe:–– Procedures for procuring or creating dataProcedures for procuring or creating data–– Procedures for verifying data Procedures for verifying data integrityintegrity


Standard CStandard C--4: Implementation (2)4: Implementation (2)

Component traceabilityComponent traceability–– Data flow diagramsData flow diagrams

• emo st te hierarchical decompo it on of roces eDemonstrate hierarchical decomposition of processes•• Processes range from very high level down to individual Processes range from very high level down to individual

methods in source codemethods in source code–– Data dictionaryData dictionary

•• Links processes on data flow diagrams to source codeLinks processes on data flow diagrams to source code

Count of lines of code and comment lines for Count of lines of code and comment lines for components maintainedcomponents maintainedComments within code (and good software Comments within code (and good software practices) allow components to be practices) allow components to be comprehensiblecomprehensible


Standard CStandard C--5: Verification (1)5: Verification (1)

Procedures for Procedures for generalgeneral testingtesting–– Design and prototypeDesign and prototype of model modifications/additionsof model modifications/additions–– Written specificationsWritten specifications describe purpose, algorithm (e.g., describe purpose, algorithm (e.g.,

pseudopseudo--code, control / data flow), and testing planscode, control / data flow), and testing plans–– Review of specificationsReview of specifications by modelers and software by modelers and software

engineers, and QAengineers, and QA–– Independent execution of test plansIndependent execution of test plans by RMS by RMS Software Software

andand Engineering Quality Assurance departmentsEngineering Quality Assurance departments–– Code inspectionsCode inspections, reviews, and walkthroughs to verify , reviews, and walkthroughs to verify

code correctnesscode correctness–– Run time errors caughtRun time errors caught by embedding numerous logical by embedding numerous logical

assertions, exception handling mechanisms, and flagassertions, exception handling mechanisms, and flag--triggered output statements in source codetriggered output statements in source code



Procedures for Procedures for componentcomponent testingtesting–– IBM/Rational EnterpriseIBM/Rational Enterprise tools used for analyzing tools used for analyzing

and testing all componentsand testing all components–– Software debuggersSoftware debuggers used to verify execution paths used to verify execution paths

and calculation resultsand calculation results–– Custom Unit TestsCustom Unit Tests used to check components using used to check components using

range of input values range of input values –– Suites of test scriptsSuites of test scripts run to:run to:

•• Check outputCheck output from collection of related componentsfrom collection of related components• hec o tp tCheck output f om ogi l asser i ns, exception handling from logical assertions, exception handling

mechanisms, and flagmechanisms, and flag--triggered output statementstriggered output statements• erf m Perform ““r r ssi estsregression tests”” comparing output t exp ed (comparing output to expected

esu ts) n ncr me al bu ldresults) on incremental builds



Procedures for Procedures for componentcomponent testing (continued)testing (continued)–– Aggregation testsAggregation tests performed by running the product as performed by running the product as

complete package to check all the components and data complete package to check all the components and data f le accessed by m delfiles accessed by model

–– Performance testsPerformance tests check for execution time and check for execution time and memory use problemsmemory use problems

–– Test execution of all componentsTest execution of all components ensured by:ensured by:•• Unit testing when a component is created or modifiedUnit testing when a component is created or modified•• Automated scripts which exercise all RiskLink product Automated scripts which exercise all RiskLink product

functionality relevant to this submissionfunctionality relevant to this submission•• Additional manual testsAdditional manual tests•• Test coverage reviewed by QA and Project Management Test coverage reviewed by QA and Project Management

teamsteams



Procedures for data testingProcedures for data testing–– Range of testing software toolsRange of testing software tools are used to are used to

check databases and data files accessed by check databases and data files accessed by componentscomponents•• Database packagesDatabase packages are used to check the are used to check the

range of values range of values •• Mapping SoftwareMapping Software is used to check the is used to check the

spatial distribution of dataspatial distribution of data•• Rational Robot Rational Robot ““regression testsregression tests”” are are

used to check values and integrity of all the used to check values and integrity of all the datadata filesfiles



Procedures for data testing (continued)Procedures for data testing (continued)–– Custom toolsCustom tools created in Excel, Access, or C++ created in Excel, Access, or C++

to perform cross checks, run statistical tests, & to perform cross checks, run statistical tests, & generate data visualization output (e.g. graphs generate data visualization output (e.g. graphs and charts) from datasetsand charts) from datasets•• Vulnerability DatabaseVulnerability Database checked for combination of checked for combination of

occupancy and construction classes, range of damage ratios, occupancy and construction classes, range of damage ratios, plot of damage ratios vs. peak gust etc. plot of damage ratios vs. peak gust etc.

•• All Binary filesAll Binary files accessed by components checked via accessed by components checked via software that converts data from text to binary, binary to text,software that converts data from text to binary, binary to text,then compares input and output text filesthen compares input and output text files

–– Aggregation testsAggregation tests performed to check all the performed to check all the components and data files accessed by modelcomponents and data files accessed by model

Testing verifies that model produces same results if Testing verifies that model produces same results if run repeatedly with same inputrun repeatedly with same input


Standard CStandard C--6: Model Maintenance and Revision (1) 6: Model Maintenance and Revision (1) HighHigh--level Model Revision Policylevel Model Revision Policy

TechnicalTechnicalMarketingMarketing

Internal &Internal &ExternalExternal

ResearchResearch

ProductProductFeedbackFeedback

MarketingMarketingCommitteeCommittee

ApprovedApprovedModel RevisionsModel Revisions

BusinessBusinessCaseCase

Other ProjectsOther Projects& Constraints& Constraints


Standard CStandard C--6: Model Maintenance and Revision (2)6: Model Maintenance and Revision (2)Detailed Model Detailed Model Revision PolicyRevision Policy

Comprehensive Comprehensive procedures for full procedures for full development cycledevelopment cycle

Our policy is Our policy is that all that all development development relevant to relevant to submission must submission must follow documented follow documented proceduresprocedures


Standard CStandard C--6: Model Maintenance and Revision (3)6: Model Maintenance and Revision (3)Visual InterceptVisual Intercept–– Primary tool used for tracking features and fixesPrimary tool used for tracking features and fixes

Client Response SystemClient Response System–– CRS kno l dge base a ticle d mo str tes sup ort ocumentati nCRS knowledge base article demonstrates support documentation–– CRS ticket demonstrates tracking of interaction with clientCRS ticket demonstrates tracking of interaction with client

File VersioningFile Versioning–– Software shipped to clients is explicitly labeled with a versionSoftware shipped to clients is explicitly labeled with a version–– Version is always changed when loss cost of model is changedVersion is always changed when loss cost of model is changed

Visual SourceSafeVisual SourceSafe–– Trac s cha ges by o o entTracks changes by component–– Changes tracked by date, revision number, version numberChanges tracked by date, revision number, version number

SpecificationsSpecifications–– Functional, technical or engineering specifications are preparedFunctional, technical or engineering specifications are prepared for for

all features and fixesall features and fixes


Standard CStandard C--7: Security (1)7: Security (1)

RMS has RMS has documented anddocumented and implemented security implemented security procedures for access to code, data, and documentation procedures for access to code, data, and documentation in accordance with standard industry practicesin accordance with standard industry practices–– Security requirements Security requirements documented and enforceddocumented and enforced by by

RMS Legal and IT DepartmentsRMS Legal and IT Departments–– Company Company personnel are trainedpersonnel are trained in security requirements in security requirements

and proceduresand procedures–– Company personnel required to sign Company personnel required to sign nonnon--disclosure disclosure

agreementagreement as condition of their employmentas condition of their employment–– Physical securityPhysical security maintained using locked doors, keymaintained using locked doors, key--

card access, video cameras, and security patrolscard access, video cameras, and security patrols–– Servers and desktops Servers and desktops audited for security complianceaudited for security compliance


Standard CStandard C--7: Security (2)7: Security (2)

RMS security procedures (continued)RMS security procedures (continued)–– Microsoft Microsoft Visual SourceSafeVisual SourceSafe

• ainta ns ur code i Maintains source code in en r tencrypted forform•• Accessed with Accessed with separate loginseparate login•• Nature and author of Nature and author of all changes recordedall changes recorded

–– RMS network protected via hardware RMS network protected via hardware firewallsfirewalls–– Security at client site ensured by Security at client site ensured by compiled binary compiled binary

filesfiles which canno be decompiled which cannot be decompiled –– Servers and desktops protected with Norton Servers and desktops protected with Norton

Antivirus softwareAntivirus software–– Servers backed upServers backed up nightly; nightly; offoff--site backupssite backups

maintained at secure commercial facility maintained at secure commercial facility

Documents

RMS U.S. Hurricane Model Presentation to Presenta i n to€¦ · 16/05/2006 · RMS®. U.S. Hurricane . Model Presentation to . Presenta i n to . Florida Commission on Hurricane