676 Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 5 September/October 2011 doi: 10.1785/gssrl .82.5.676 E Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Pakistan Unreinforced Masonry Buildings at a National Scale Hamid Mahmood and Jason M. Ingham Hamid Mahmood and Jason M. Ingham University of Auckland, New Zealand Online material: Seven tables showing a comparison of unre- inforced masonry (URM) buildings in Pakistan and New Zealand; and results of seismic vulnerability assessment of Pakistan’s URM buildings using three assessment methods. INTRODUCTION Seismic activity in Pakistan has generally been concentrated in the northern part of the country, the northern and south- western parts of Balochistan Province, and the coastal areas of Sindh Province, as relected in the Pakistan seismic zoning map (Figure 1). In the last one hundred years alone, the coun- try has experienced the M 7.5 1935 Quetta earthquake (30,000 fatalities), M 8.0 1945 Makran Coast earthquake (4,000 fatali- ties), M 6.2 1974 northern Pakistan earthquake (5,300 fatali- ties), and M 7.6 2005 Pakistan earthquake (86,000 fatalities) (U.S. Geological Survey historic worldwide earthquakes, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/world/historical_country. php#pakistan ). Pakistan unreinforced masonry (URM) build- ings sufered extensive damage in the 2005 Pakistan earth- quake (Rossetto and Peiris 2009) and other historical earth- quakes; however, URM construction continues to be prevalent in Pakistan primarily due to the availability of raw materials and the continued use of traditional construction practices. Pakistan has experienced high human and economic losses in previous earthquakes, and similar or even worse statistics can be ▲ Figure 1. Seismic zoning map of Pakistan (reproduced from MHW 2007; however, province names were added). KP = Khyber Pakhtunkhwa; FATA = Federally Administered Tribal Areas; AJK = State of Azad Jammu and Kashmir; GB = Gilgit-Baltistan.