## 4 Seismic Risk Assessment
### Seismic Loss Assessment
#### 4.4.3 Results  
Figure 10 depicts the vulnerability curves, i.e., the expected total losses normalized with respect to the total replacement cost (3,929,937 \(\xi\)) for the completely infilled (Figure 10a) and partially infilled (Figure 10b) structural configurations. Moreover, the mean (\(\eta\)) and the dispersion (\(\pm\sigma\)) of the vulnerability curves, obtained when considering the five masonry infill types, are presented for both dispersion sets (MDL-1 and MDL-2). The more recent dispersion values [PERSON] in this study, as per [PERSON] et al. [16], confirmed higher loss ratios with respect to those taken from previous studies ([PERSON] and [PERSON] [11]), regardless of the presence or not of the openings; however, the difference in terms of loss ratio is higher in case of infilled frames with openings. Furthermore, the standard deviation of the loss ratio is in the range of [0.004-0.2] and [0.02-0.05] for the infilled frames with the MDL-1 and MDL-2 dispersion values, respectively. In case of infilled frames with openings, the standard deviation of the loss ratio, respectively for MDL-1 and MDL-2, is in the range of [0.01-0.18] and [0.01-0.09][PERSON]  
The resulting expected annual losses (EAL) are presented in Figure 11 as a function of the masonry infill typology and modeling approach (with or without openings)[PERSON] Since the presence of the masonry infills has proven to increase the PFA and reduce the IDR, as discussed in [PERSON] et al. [52] and [PERSON] et al. [41], an additional distinction was made, in terms of component groups: (1) both drift- and acceleration-sensitive components were considered in the non-structural components inventory; (2) only drift-sensitive components were considered in the non-structural components inventory. This catered for a better understanding of the effects of masonry infill properties on the loss estimation, as well as how much the different dispersion components (\(\beta_{\rm MDL}\), \(\beta_{\vartheta,\rm MDL}\), and \(\beta_{\rm A,MDL}\)) affect the estimation of EALs. Figure 10: Vulnerability curves: (**a**) completely and (**b**) partially infilled structural configurations. For what concerns the infilled frames (Figure 11a), when both drift and acceleration-sensitive components are considered, using the MDL-2 dispersion [16], the EALs are 1.3 to 1.6 times higher than those obtained with the MDL-1 dispersion [11], with the lowest difference occurring for strong masonry infills (type-5). The EAL always increases when going from weak to strong masonry infills. When the presence of openings is accounted for (Figure 11b), the same MDL-2/MDL-1 EAL ratio increases to the range of [1.3-1.8]; on the other hand, for the case completely infilled, no particular trend for the total EAL, as a function of the macro-classification of the infills, is observed. This could be due to the reduction of stiffness and strength, which is used to account for the presence of the openings, leading to a different structural response of the building when compared with the uniformly infilled typology. If only drift-sensitive non-structural components are considered for both structural configurations and dispersion values proposed, the EAL reduces substantially with the increase in strength of strong masonry infills. This result denotes that although the increase in the stiffness, or strength, of the masonry panel, leads to a reduction of damage/collapse of non-structural drift-sensitive components, the EAL related to acceleration-sensitive components increases much more (especially for very stiff masonry infills). Overall, considering the updated dispersion set suggested in [PERSON] et al. [16], MDL-2, the mean increment of EAL, when both acceleration- and drift-sensitive components are considered, is 61% and 49% for the completely and partially infilled frames, respectively. The corresponding standard deviation is close to 20% for both structural configurations considered.