## 4 Results and Analysis
### Producing the Final Seismic Vulnerability Map  
In this phase, a weighted overlay in the GIS environment was used to overlay the alternatives of each criterion. The final vulnerability map was produced by overlaying four final seismic vulnerability maps derived from the geotechnical, socio-economic, structural, and physical distance criteria for a considered building. In the SEVUCAS environment, running the model consisted of two separate pages; the input and the output page, which are shown in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. On the input page, all the parameters mentioned in Table 2 were inserted as the input. It was possible to import shape files (*.shp) into SEVUCAS (Figure 6). As represented in Figure 6, after running the software, the final seismic vulnerability map for schools of the Tehran city was obtained. For example, for a selected school \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Class Values** & \(S_{j}\) & \(K_{j}\) & \(Q_{j}\) & \(W_{j}\) & **References** \\ \hline
1501\(<\) & - & 1.00 & 1.00 & 0.27 & \\
1201–1500 & 0.25 & 1.25 & 0.80 & 0.22 & \\
901–1200 & 0.25 & 1.25 & 0.64 & 0.18 & \\
601–900 & 0.25 & 1.25 & 0.51 & 0.14 & \\
301–600 & 0.20 & 1.20 & 0.43 & 0.12 & \\
0–300 & 0.55 & 1.55 & 0.28 & 0.08 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Each class’ calculated weight of police station as an alternative using SWARA. Figure 5: Example of the calculated weight using SWARA and its optimization using RBF and TLBO. marked in Figure 7, all attributes (PGA = 0.43 gal, slope = 15 degree, etc.) and final vulnerability value (0.174) are visualized. In addition, the vulnerability value of geotechnical, socio-economic, structural, and physical distance criteria for this school were 0.221, 0.164, 0.135, and 0.158, respectively. In the other words, the geotechnical vulnerability was high for this building due to its vicinity to the North Tehran fault and the 15 degree slope on which the considered building is located. Moreover,  
Figure 6: A view of the SEVUCAS input page. Figure 7: A view of output tab of SEVACUS. the structural vulnerability was high for this building, given the fact that the building is made of unreinforced masonry and is 44 years of age. This resulted in a high vulnerability in this building class. The socio-economic vulnerability was average for this school since the ratio of women, as well as the ratio of children, to the total population were high. On the other hand, the ratio of elderly people to the population was low and the ratio of educated people to the total population was high; both of which leads to lower vulnerability in this class. Finally, the physical distance vulnerability was low in this case since the considered building was far from the gas pipelines, high-voltage electrical power transmission lines, and the gasoline stations. In general, the resultant vulnerability for this building was high because of high geotechnical and structural vulnerability; both of which possessed a comparatively high weighting factor. In summary, the results on the output page of SEVUCAS, as given in Figure 7, have four major parts, which are as follows:  
1. The tool could be used to generate geotechnical, structural, socio-economic, and physical distance vulnerability maps in order to separately evaluate the four aforementioned vulnerabilities. 2. After providing the four vulnerabilities as separate contour maps, the vulnerability of the considered buildings was determined based on their geographical position. Finally, SEVUCAS calculated the overall vulnerability of the considered building by combining all four aforementioned vulnerabilities. 3. In some cases, a specific building had a great importance such that its seismic vulnerability assessment was included in a case study. The option \"Gage\" is designed in SEVUCAS to show each of the four abovementioned vulnerability items separately by clicking on that building in the software output window. 4.