## 5 Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Campi Alto di Norcia
### Application of Traditional Vulnerability Index (\(I_{V}\)) Methodologies and Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Vulnerability Parameters**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Short Description**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Vulnerability**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Class**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Weight**} \\ \cline{3-8} \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & **A** & **B** & **C** & **D** & \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{P1} & Organization of vertical structures & Age of the construction and connection typology between the walls & 0 & 5 & 20 & 45 & 1 \\  & P2 & Nature of vertical structures & Vertical element typology & 0 & 5 & 25 & 45 & 0.25 \\  & P3 & Qualitative resistance & Walls’ shear strength assuming box behaviour & 0 & 5 & 25 & 45 & 1.5 \\ \cline{2-8}  & P4 & Location of building and type of foundation & Slope and quality of the foundation soil & 0 & 5 & 25 & 45 & 0.75 \\  & P5 & Floor typology & Quality of floor type considering stiffness and connection with the walls & 0 & 5 & 15 & 45 & 1 \\  & P6 & Plan regularity & Length/width ratio of the building plan & 0 & 5 & 25 & 45 & 0.5 \\  & P7 & Height regularity & Mass variation in elevation and the presence of arcades or towers & 0 & 5 & 25 & 45 & 1 \\  & P8 & Distribution of plan & Spacing between walls & 0 & 5 & 25 & 45 & 0.25 \\  & P9 & Roof typology & Weight and characteristics (thrust) of the roof & 0 & 15 & 25 & 45 & 1 \\  & P10 & Non-structural elements & Presence, typology and connection to the building & 0 & 0 & 25 & 45 & 0.25 \\  & P11 & Physical conditions & Masonry quality and cracking scenario & 0 & 5 & 25 & 45 & 1 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{P1} & Organization of vertical structures & Age of the construction and connection typology between the walls & 0 & 5 & 20 & 45 & 1 \\  & Nature of vertical structures & Vertical element typology & 0 & 5 & 25 & 45 & 0.25 \\  & P3 & Location of building and type of foundation & Slope and quality of the foundation soil & 0 & 5 & 25 & 45 & 0.75 \\  & P4 & Floor typology & Quality of floor type considering stiffness and connection with the walls & 0 & 5 & 15 & 45 & 0.75 \\  & P5 & Plan regularity & Length/width ratio of the building plan & 0 & 5 & 25 & 45 & 0.5 \\  & P6 & Height regularity & Mass variation in elevation and the presence of arcades or towers & 0 & 5 & 25 & 45 & 1 \\  & P7 & Distribution of plan & Spacing between walls & 0 & 5 & 25 & 45 & 1.5 \\  & P8 & Roof typology & Weight and characteristics (thrust) of the roof & 0 & 15 & 25 & 45 & 0.75 \\  & P9 & Non-structural elements & Presence, typology and connection to the building & 0 & 0 & 25 & 45 & 0.25 \\  & P10 & Physical conditions & Masonry quality and cracking scenario & 0 & 5 & 25 & 45 & 0.5 \\  & P11 & Misalignment of openings SU & \% difference of openings in adjacent facades & \(-\)20 & 0 & 25 & 45 & 1 \\  & P12 & Masonry disconnections & Effect of structural or typological heterogeneity in adjacent SUs & \(-\)15 & \(-\)10 & 0 & 45 & 1.2 \\  & Presence of adjacent & Location of the SU in the SA and height’s & \(-\)20 & 0 & 15 & 45 & 1 \\  & Weight & Variation & & & & & \\ P14 & Position of the SU in the SA & Number of sides next to other SUs & \(-\)45 & \(-\)25 & \(-\)15 & 0 & 1.5 \\  & Presence and n\({}^{\circ}\) of staggered floors & Number of staggered floors in the SA & 0 & 15 & 25 & 45 & 0.5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Summary table of vulnerability parameters adopted by the different methods. Figure 8 shows the vulnerability classes and the influence that every single parameter has in the overall seismic vulnerability assessment, considering the three different methods. The topography of settlement (P4 for GDNT, P3 for Formisano and P6 for Vicente) strongly penalizes the seismic vulnerability of the buildings, resulting in class D.  
On the contrary, the small size of the buildings and the low spacing between walls have a positive impact on their vulnerability (P8 for GDNT, P7 for Formisano and P4 for Vicente), although relatively limited on the final I\({}_{\rm V}\).