World Housing Encyclopedia
an EERI and IAEE project

WHE Pager Project

The WHE-PAGER project aimed to summarize worldwide construction types, building inventory and seismic vulnerability. Final reports from the project are available here:


Additional information about the project including background, methodology, and data collected through the project is available on this page.

About

The WHE-PAGER project was a the collaboration between the World Housing Encyclopedia (WHE) project of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), the International Association for Earthquake Engineering (IAEE), and the Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER) Project of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The WHE Project participated in an effort to understand and summarize worldwide construction types, building inventory and seismic vulnerability. The construction types and estimates of who lives and works in these buildings were used in the development of a rapid post earthquake casualty estimation program, PAGER, at the USGS. The data also enhanced the housing stock distribution and vulnerability data for existing WHE housing reports for different countries.

The project had several phases:

PHASESUMMARY OF WORKTIME FRAME
Phase IExpert opinion (empirical model) from individual countries, estimating vulnerability & inventoryApril-December 2007
Phase IIWorkshop of international experts to decide on analytical approach. Experts then provided data for some major non-US construction classes.May-December 2008
Phase IIIBased on expert evaluation of the data provided in Phase I at the May 2008 workshop, significant improvements have been made to the forms and instructions used to solicit expert opinion (the empirical model). Experts are being given a chance to revise their opinions (solicited in Phase I above) AND experts from new countries are being recruited, to round out this phase of the PAGER model.Identification of critically important non-HAZUS building typologies and the compilation of respective capacity curves and fragility functions within the analytical framework of HAZUS-MHJanuary-December 2009
Phase IVEarlier phases of this collaboration identified wide variation in the capacity curves provided by different researchers for similar structure types. It was thus decided that the core of the work in Phase IV should concentrate on understanding these discrepancies. To that end, five groups of modelers (that had already contributed to Phase III) agreed to exchange the structural model and vulnerability data on construction typologies that were derived by each of them separately in the previous phase and to perform vulnerability analyses (using their own procedures) on data provided by the other groups. Capacity and fragility curves were developed for concrete and masonry buildings that do not comply with the HAZUS typologies, either because they are not designed to code standards or because the construction details substantially differ from U.S. code provisions.January-December 2011

Project Steering Committee

NAMEAFFILIATION
Dina D’Ayala, Committee ChairUniversity of Bath, United Kingdom
Marcial BlondetCatholic University of Peru
Craig D. ComartinCDComartin Inc., Stockton, CA, USA
Agostino GorettiNational Seismic Survey, Italy
Polat GülkanMiddle East Technical University, Turkey
William T. HolmesRutherford & Chekene, San Francisco, CA, USA
Andreas KapposUniversity of Thessaloniki, Greece
Dominik LangNORSAR, Oslo, Norway
Marjana LutmanSlovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute
Roberto MeliNational University of Mexico
Stefano PampaninUniversity of Canterbury, New Zealand
Durgesh RaiIndian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India
Miha TomazevicSlovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute
Susan K. Tubbesing, Project PIEERI Executive Director
Marjorie Greene, Project StaffEERI Special Projects Manager
 

Data Available

As part of the PAGER project, experts have collected data both empirically and analytically. For more information on the types of data that has been collected so far, visit the links below.

Construction Types

As part of this project, considerable attention has been paid to evaluating existing classifications and modifying classifications of construction types to ensure the most accurate depictions of performance.  For purposes of the PAGER model, this means very detailed classifications, that distinguish among roof types, number of stories, etc. The file below lists PAGER construction types, and corresponding types from various other sources, such as HAZUS, WHE, EMS-98, Coburn and Spence 2002, and RISK-EU.

LISTING OF PAGER CONSTRUCTION TYPES

Empirical Data

During Phase I, experts in a number of countries provided estimates of the vulnerability of major construction types in their countries, as well as rough estimates of inventory and occupancy. These data are called the EMPIRICAL DATA. (Please note that some of these forms have a higher level of certainty than others. See Jaiswal and Wald paper for more detailed discussion.)

[table id=2 /]

CountryAuthor(s)Link to Report
AlgeriaMohammed N. Farsi, Farah LazzaliAlgeria.pdf
ArgentinaFrancisco J. Crisafulli, Alejandro GiulianoArgentina.pdf
ChileMaria Ofelia MoroniChile.pdf
ChinaSun Baitao, Zhang Guixin, Chen HonfuChina.pdf
ColombiaLuis G. MejiaColombia.pdf
CyprusVsevolod LevtchitchCyprus.pdf
FranceChristian ThibaultFrance.pdf
GeorgiaPaata RekvavaGeorgia.pdf
GermanySergey Tyagunov, Lothar Stempniewski, Christian MünichGermany.pdf
Greece1. Andreas Kappos, G. Panagopoulos; 2. Antonios Pomonis, Faye KarababaGreece_Pomonis.pdf Greece_Kappos.pdf
GuatemalaJuan Carlos Villagran de LeonGuatemala.pdf
India1. C.V.R.Murty; 2. Kishor JaiswalIndia_Murty.pdf India_Jaiswal.pdf
IndonesiaSugeng WijantoIndonesia.pdf
IrelandRobin SpenceIreland.pdf
ItalyAgostino GorettiItaly.pdf
JapanCharles ScawthornJapan.pdf
MacedoniaMihail GarevskiMacedonia.pdf
MexicoSergio M. AlcocerMexico.pdf
MoroccoKhalid HarrouniMorocco.pdf
NepalJitendra Kumar BotharaNepal.pdf
New ZealandJim (W.J.) CousinsNew Zealand.pdf
PakistanQaisar AliPakistan.pdf
PeruAlejandro MunozPeru.pdf
RomaniaDan Lungu, Radu VacareanuRomania.pdf
RussiaJacob EisenbergRussia.pdf
SloveniaMarjana LutmanSlovenia.pdf
SpainAlex H. BarbatSpain.pdf
SwitzerlandKerstin Pfyl-LangSwitzerland.pdf
TaiwanWei-Chang ChenTaiwan.pdf
ThailandChitr LilavivatThailand.pdf
Turkey1. Polat Gulkan, Ahmet Yakut; 2. Mustafa Erdik, Karin SesetyanTurkey_Gulkan.pdf Turkey_Erdik.pdf
United KingdomRobin SpenceUnited Kingdom.pdf

Analytical Data Phase I (after SF workshop)

A small workshop was held in May 2008 to evaluate some of the reports that came in during the first phase, and to discuss if there might be a more effective way to determine vulnerability of various global construction types. At the workshop it was decided that the experts in attendance would provide some basic engineering parameters for the construction types for which they are familiar.

These reports then became the basis for the Analytical Phase–it became apparent in that many engineering parameters are not readily available for all construction types. The “raw” data that came in after this workshop are identified in the table below. Some of the experts were able to use the Excel file developed by Keith Porter (and further revised in 2009); others provided data in a more “raw” form:

[table id=3 /]

Construction TypeExpertsReports
Reinforced Concrete (Greece/Mediterranean)Andreas Kappos and Georgios Panagopoulos
  1. Inelastic_static_analysis_RC.pdf
  2. RC1_Greece.pdf
  3. RC3_Greece.pdf
  4. Seismic_vulnerability_risk_assessmt_so_Europe.pdf
  5. Summary_of_Procedure.pdf
Reinforced (Turkey)Polat Gulkan and Ahmed Yakut
  1. RC_Turkey.pdf
Unreinforced Masonry (India)Durgesh Rai
  1. Masonry_Bldg_India.pdf
Masonry (Mexico)Robert Meli
  1. Mexico_Masonry.pdf
Masonry (Slovenia/Mediterranean)Miha Tomazevic and Marjana Lutman
  1. Masonry_005.xls
  2. Masonry_010.xls
  3. Masonry_025.xls
  4. Masonry_050.xls
  5. Masonry_075.xls
  6. Masonry_100.xls
  7. Masonry_Slovenia_Description.pdf
Confined Masonry (Peru)A Muñoz et al
  1. Capacity curves masonry Peru.pdf

Analytical Data Phase II & III (2010)

During this phase of the project, experts from different countries provided information on various engineering parameters for a variety of construction types.

[table id=4 /]

Construction TypeExpertsReports
Reinforced Concrete (Greece/ Mediterranean)Andreas Kappos and Georgios PanagopoulosRC4_combined
RC4 Analytical Phase III
RC Analytical Phase III
Rectangular Cut Stone Masonry Block (Italy)Dina D’Ayala et alDS2 L’;Aquila
DS2 Nocera
DS2 Serravalle
DS4 L’Aquila
DS4 Nocera
DS4 Serravalle
Rectangular Cut Stone Masonry (Turkey)Dina D’Ayala et alDS2 FenerBalat
DS4 FenerBalat
Rubble Stone Masonry (Italy)Dina D’Ayala et alRS3 L’Aquila
RS3 Nocera
RS3 Serravalle
RS4 Nocera
RS4 Serravalle
Unreinforced Fired Brick Masonry (Italy)Dina D’Ayala et alUFB3 L’Aquila
UFB3 Nocera
UFB3 Serravalle
UFB5 L’Aquila
UFB5 Nocera
UFB5 Serravalle
Unreinforced Fired Brick Masonry (Turkey)Dina D’Ayala et alUFB3 FenerBalat
Unreinforced Fired Brick Masonry (Iraq)Dina D’Ayala et alUFB1 Erbil
UFB5 Erbil
Massive Stone Masonry (Italy)Dina D’Ayala et alMS Nocera
Dina Analytical Phase III
Unreinforced Fired Brick Masonry (North Pakistan)Naveed Ahmad; Helen Crowley; Rui Pinho; Qaisar AliUFB5 North Pakistan
Reinforced Concrete (India)Hemant KaushikC3 Northern India
C4 Northern India
C3M Northeastern India
C3M (Open 1st story)
C3 (Open 1st story)
HBK Analytical Phase III
Reinforced/Confined Masonry (Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru)Anna Lang, reporting on results from various testsRM3_Aguilar (M)
RM3_Alcocer (M)
RM3_AlcocerMeli (M)
RM3_Kato (Ch)
RM3_Riahi(Ch,Co,M,P)
RM3_Zavala (P)
Summary of CM  Findings_RM3

Analytical Data Phase IV (Comparative Analytical Models)

During this process of the project, five groups of modelers (that had already contributed to Phase III) agreed to exchange the structural model and vulnerability data on construction typologies that were derived by each of them separately in the previous phase and to perform vulnerability analyses (using their own procedures) on data provided by the other groups. Capacity and fragility curves were developed for concrete and masonry buildings that do not comply with the HAZUS typologies, either because they are not designed to code standards or because the construction details substantially differ from U.S. code provisions.

Background Papers

September 2009 Workshop Presentations

A small workshop was held in Oakland, CA on September 23rd, 2009, to review progress made during summer 2009 on finding analytical variables for some of the important construction types. These presentations are available in pdf format below:

PresenterPresentation Title
David WaldOverview of PAGER (very large file–25 MB) This will take you to link where you can download file
Keith PorterWHE-PAGER Analytical Phase
Kishor Jaiswal and David WaldSummary of WHE-PAGER Survey (Phase I, II & III)
A.J. Kappos and G. PanagopoulosSeismic vulnerability assessment of R/C buildings with brick masonry infills
Dina D’Ayala, Committee ChairWHE-PAGER Project
Anna LangCharacterization of Confined Masonry Structures for Integration with HAZUS
Yogendra Singh, JSR Prasad, Dominik H. Lang, and Rajesh DeoliyaDevelopment of Seismic Capacity Curves for Claybrick Masonry Buildings in India
Hemant KaushikData for Reinforced Concrete Building Type in India
Hyeuk Ryu and Nicolas LucoImproved HAZUS vulnerabilities for PAGER
Stefano Pampanin 

Project Related Papers

Several papers have been published that summarize the work that has taken place in earlier phases. Links are provided here:

AuthorsTitle
U.S. Geological Survey website with products and references for PAGERhttps://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/pager/references.php
Kishor Jaiswal and David Wald U.S. Geological Survey, Golden, CO 80401Analysis of Collapse Fragilities of Global Construction Types Obtained During WHE‐PAGER Phase I Survey
Keith Porter, SPA Risk LLCCracking an Open Safe: HAZUS Vulnerability Functions in Terms of Structure-Independent Intensity, Earthquake Spectra, Vol 25, No 2, pp 361-378, August 2009
Keith Porter, SPA Risk LLCCracking an Open Safe: More HAZUS Vulnerability Functions in Terms of Structure-Independent Intensity, Earthquake Spectra, Vol 25, No 3, pp 607-618, August 2009
Porter, et. al.WHE-PAGER Project: A New Initiative in Estimating Global Building Inventory and Its Seismic Vulnerability, 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China
Sean McGowanExtracting Values of Some Key HAZUS-MH Seismic Vulnerability Parameters from Dynamic Test Results, with Application to Adobe Dwellings, University of Colorado Master’s Thesis
Goretti, et. al.The Italian Contribution to the USGS PAGER Project, 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China
Pomonis, et. al.Seismic Vulnerability and Collapse Probability Assessment of Buildings in Greece, Second International Workshop on Disaster Casualties, 15-16 June 2009, University of Cambridge, UK