You are here: Home / Products / Pager Phase IV Final Report
<< Return to the Knowledge Center Landing Page

Pager Phase IV Final Report

Providing Building Vulnerability Data and Analytical Fragility Functions for PAGER
May 2012

This report summarizes the research findings of the fourth and final phase of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI)’s World Housing Encyclopedia (WHE)‐Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER) initiative. Since the launch of the WHE‐PAGER collaboration in early spring of 2008, this joint effort has led to identifying and compiling a range of input parameters on structural inventory and vulnerability of non‐U.S. construction types. The information compiled through this effort over the years has benefited the development of
PAGER’s engineering‐based loss estimation models.

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 modellers (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.

This report thus presents capacity curves and fragility curves 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. The main difference with respect to the HAZUS typologies is the ductility ratio at the level of the element and at the global level. Four main concrete typologies are studied: bare frames designed according to seismic code requirements (C1), bare frames designed only for gravitational loads or
very low seismic capacity but without ductility detailing provisions (C4), infilled frames designed according to seismic code requirements (C1‐I), infilled frames designed only for gravitational loads or very low seismic capacity but without ductility detailing provisions (C3). For each of the infilled frame typologies the case of irregularity of the infill in elevation, i.e. lack of infill at the ground floor, has also been considered. For masonry, adobe (A), stone (S), unreinforced fired brick (UFB) and unreinforced concrete block (UCB) masonry have been considered. For each of the main typologies some different sub‐typologies have been considered, either dependent on the masonry
fabric, rubble and dressed stone, or on the type of horizontal structures, timber or concrete floors. The typologies are representative of different regions of the world: the concrete frames studied represent buildings from India, Italy, Greece and Turkey; the masonry typologies represent buildings from Turkey.


EERI Members receive a 15% discount at checkout

Price: $0.00

Loading Updating cart...