Paper 91 NZSEE 2021 Annual Conference Performance comparison of standard and seismic glazing systems F. Arifin, T.J. Sullivan & R.P. Dhakal University of Canterbury, Christchurch. ABSTRACT Glazing systems are non-structural elements in a building that, more often than not, appear to be given little consideration in seismic design. Recent experimental work into glazing systems at the University of Canterbury, however, has shown that glazing systems can be very susceptible to serviceability damage, defined as loss of water-tightness. The focus of this paper is to highlight the difference in vulnerability of standard and seismic glazing systems and consider the implications of this for future repair costs and losses. The paper first describes the damage states chosen for glazing units according to the repair strategies required and expected repair costs. This includes three damage states: DS1: Water Leakage, DS2: Gasket Failure and DS3: Frame/Glass Failure. Implementing modern performance-based earthquake engineering, the paper proceeds to highlight a case study comparing costs and expected losses of a standard glazing unit and a seismic glazing unit installed on a case study building. It is shown that the use of seismic glazing units is generally beneficial over time, due to the early onset of serviceability damage in standard glazing units. Finally, the paper provides suggestions for designers aimed at reducing costs related to earthquake induced repairs of glazing. Keywords: Performance Based, Glazing, Seismic Performance, Fragility, Costs. 1 INTRODUCTION Recent studies into the seismic performance of glazing systems at the University of Canterbury have shed light into the vulnerability of glazing systems. This opens up the possibility of applying The Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PEER-PBEE) framework (Deierlein 2003), shown in Figure 1, to better understand the expected losses of glazing systems. There are many different types of glazing systems available (refer Lago and Sullivan 2012) and a number of studies into the seismic performance of glazing systems have been made (e.g. Behr and Belarbi 1996, Memari et al. 2006, O'Brien et al. 2012, Baird et al. 2014). In New Zealand, common glazing systems could be generalized into three different systems: standard glazing, seismic glazing and structural glazing systems. Issues with the