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:
| PHASE | SUMMARY OF WORK | TIME FRAME |
| Phase I | Expert opinion (empirical model) from individual countries, estimating vulnerability & inventory | April-December 2007 |
| Phase II | Workshop of international experts to decide on analytical approach. Experts then provided data for some major non-US construction classes. | May-December 2008 |
| Phase III | Based 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-MH | January-December 2009 |
| Phase IV | Earlier 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
| NAME | AFFILIATION |
| Dina D’Ayala, Committee Chair | University of Bath, United Kingdom |
| Marcial Blondet | Catholic University of Peru |
| Craig D. Comartin | CDComartin Inc., Stockton, CA, USA |
| Agostino Goretti | National Seismic Survey, Italy |
| Polat Gülkan | Middle East Technical University, Turkey |
| William T. Holmes | Rutherford & Chekene, San Francisco, CA, USA |
| Andreas Kappos | University of Thessaloniki, Greece |
| Dominik Lang | NORSAR, Oslo, Norway |
| Marjana Lutman | Slovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute |
| Roberto Meli | National University of Mexico |
| Stefano Pampanin | University of Canterbury, New Zealand |
| Durgesh Rai | Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India |
| Miha Tomazevic | Slovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute |
| Susan K. Tubbesing, Project PI | EERI Executive Director |
| Marjorie Greene, Project Staff | EERI 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 /]
| Country | Author(s) | Link to Report |
| Algeria | Mohammed N. Farsi, Farah Lazzali | Algeria.pdf |
| Argentina | Francisco J. Crisafulli, Alejandro Giuliano | Argentina.pdf |
| Chile | Maria Ofelia Moroni | Chile.pdf |
| China | Sun Baitao, Zhang Guixin, Chen Honfu | China.pdf |
| Colombia | Luis G. Mejia | Colombia.pdf |
| Cyprus | Vsevolod Levtchitch | Cyprus.pdf |
| France | Christian Thibault | France.pdf |
| Georgia | Paata Rekvava | Georgia.pdf |
| Germany | Sergey Tyagunov, Lothar Stempniewski, Christian Münich | Germany.pdf |
| Greece | 1. Andreas Kappos, G. Panagopoulos; 2. Antonios Pomonis, Faye Karababa | Greece_Pomonis.pdf Greece_Kappos.pdf |
| Guatemala | Juan Carlos Villagran de Leon | Guatemala.pdf |
| India | 1. C.V.R.Murty; 2. Kishor Jaiswal | India_Murty.pdf India_Jaiswal.pdf |
| Indonesia | Sugeng Wijanto | Indonesia.pdf |
| Ireland | Robin Spence | Ireland.pdf |
| Italy | Agostino Goretti | Italy.pdf |
| Japan | Charles Scawthorn | Japan.pdf |
| Macedonia | Mihail Garevski | Macedonia.pdf |
| Mexico | Sergio M. Alcocer | Mexico.pdf |
| Morocco | Khalid Harrouni | Morocco.pdf |
| Nepal | Jitendra Kumar Bothara | Nepal.pdf |
| New Zealand | Jim (W.J.) Cousins | New Zealand.pdf |
| Pakistan | Qaisar Ali | Pakistan.pdf |
| Peru | Alejandro Munoz | Peru.pdf |
| Romania | Dan Lungu, Radu Vacareanu | Romania.pdf |
| Russia | Jacob Eisenberg | Russia.pdf |
| Slovenia | Marjana Lutman | Slovenia.pdf |
| Spain | Alex H. Barbat | Spain.pdf |
| Switzerland | Kerstin Pfyl-Lang | Switzerland.pdf |
| Taiwan | Wei-Chang Chen | Taiwan.pdf |
| Thailand | Chitr Lilavivat | Thailand.pdf |
| Turkey | 1. Polat Gulkan, Ahmet Yakut; 2. Mustafa Erdik, Karin Sesetyan | Turkey_Gulkan.pdf Turkey_Erdik.pdf |
| United Kingdom | Robin Spence | United 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 Type | Experts | Reports |
| Reinforced Concrete (Greece/Mediterranean) | Andreas Kappos and Georgios Panagopoulos |
|
| Reinforced (Turkey) | Polat Gulkan and Ahmed Yakut |
|
| Unreinforced Masonry (India) | Durgesh Rai |
|
| Masonry (Mexico) | Robert Meli |
|
| Masonry (Slovenia/Mediterranean) | Miha Tomazevic and Marjana Lutman |
|
| Confined Masonry (Peru) | A Muñoz et al |
|
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 Type | Experts | Reports |
| Reinforced Concrete (Greece/ Mediterranean) | Andreas Kappos and Georgios Panagopoulos | RC4_combined RC4 Analytical Phase III RC Analytical Phase III |
| Rectangular Cut Stone Masonry Block (Italy) | Dina D’Ayala et al | DS2 L’;Aquila DS2 Nocera DS2 Serravalle DS4 L’Aquila DS4 Nocera DS4 Serravalle |
| Rectangular Cut Stone Masonry (Turkey) | Dina D’Ayala et al | DS2 FenerBalat DS4 FenerBalat |
| Rubble Stone Masonry (Italy) | Dina D’Ayala et al | RS3 L’Aquila RS3 Nocera RS3 Serravalle RS4 Nocera RS4 Serravalle |
| Unreinforced Fired Brick Masonry (Italy) | Dina D’Ayala et al | UFB3 L’Aquila UFB3 Nocera UFB3 Serravalle UFB5 L’Aquila UFB5 Nocera UFB5 Serravalle |
| Unreinforced Fired Brick Masonry (Turkey) | Dina D’Ayala et al | UFB3 FenerBalat |
| Unreinforced Fired Brick Masonry (Iraq) | Dina D’Ayala et al | UFB1 Erbil UFB5 Erbil |
| Massive Stone Masonry (Italy) | Dina D’Ayala et al | MS Nocera Dina Analytical Phase III |
| Unreinforced Fired Brick Masonry (North Pakistan) | Naveed Ahmad; Helen Crowley; Rui Pinho; Qaisar Ali | UFB5 North Pakistan |
| Reinforced Concrete (India) | Hemant Kaushik | C3 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 tests | RM3_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:
| Presenter | Presentation Title |
| David Wald | Overview of PAGER (very large file–25 MB) This will take you to link where you can download file |
| Keith Porter | WHE-PAGER Analytical Phase |
| Kishor Jaiswal and David Wald | Summary of WHE-PAGER Survey (Phase I, II & III) |
| A.J. Kappos and G. Panagopoulos | Seismic vulnerability assessment of R/C buildings with brick masonry infills |
| Dina D’Ayala, Committee Chair | WHE-PAGER Project |
| Anna Lang | Characterization of Confined Masonry Structures for Integration with HAZUS |
| Yogendra Singh, JSR Prasad, Dominik H. Lang, and Rajesh Deoliya | Development of Seismic Capacity Curves for Claybrick Masonry Buildings in India |
| Hemant Kaushik | Data for Reinforced Concrete Building Type in India |
| Hyeuk Ryu and Nicolas Luco | Improved 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:
| Authors | Title |
| U.S. Geological Survey website with products and references for PAGER | https://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/pager/references.php |
| Kishor Jaiswal and David Wald U.S. Geological Survey, Golden, CO 80401 | Analysis of Collapse Fragilities of Global Construction Types Obtained During WHE‐PAGER Phase I Survey |
| Keith Porter, SPA Risk LLC | Cracking 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 LLC | Cracking 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 McGowan | Extracting 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 |