## 4 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **B1** & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**B2**} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**B3**} \\  & **F1** & **F2** & **F3** & **F4** & **F1** & **F2** & **F3** & **F4** & **F1** & **F2** & **F3** & **F4** \\ \hline CHY & 0.75 & 0.75 & 0.75 & 0.75 & 0.25 & 0.25 & 0.25 & 0.5 & 0.25 & 0.25 & 0.5 & 0.5 \\ YER & 0.75 & 0.75 & 0.75 & 0.75 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 0.75 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 0.75 & 0.75 \\ MUL & 0.75 & 0.75 & 1 & 1 & 0.5 & 0.75 & 0.75 & 0.75 & 0.75 & 0.75 & 0.75 \\ KOB & 0.75 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.5 & 0.75 & 0.75 & 1 & 0.75 & 0.75 & 0.75 & 1 \\ BPT & 0.75 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.75 & 0.75 & 0.75 & 1 & 0.75 & 0.75 & 0.75 & 1 \\ BOL & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.75 & 0.75 & 0.75 & 1 & 0.75 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ BRN & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.75 & 0.75 & 0.75 & 1 & 0.75 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ ERZ & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.75 & 0.75 & 0.75 & 1 & 0.75 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ PET & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.75 & 0.75 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ RRS & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Losses (L). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **B1** & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**B2**} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**B3**} \\ \hline  & **F1** & **F2** & **F3** & **F4** & **F1** & **F2** & **F3** & **F4** & **F1** & **F2** & **F3** & **F4** \\ \hline CHY & 2.69 & 2.81 & 2.90 & 3.06 & 2.53 & 2.37 & 2.22 & 1.90 & 2.06 & 2.09 & 1.94 & 1.98 \\ YER & 3.56 & 3.42 & 3.45 & 3.56 & 5.98 & 5.46 & 6.65 & 6.21 & 4.89 & 5.04 & 6.14 & 7.76 \\ MUL & 3.68 & 3.85 & 4.91 & 5.29 & 9.72 & 8.69 & 11.57 & 10.80 & 7.93 & 8.26 & 9.34 & 11.80 \\ KOB & 5.07 & 4.92 & 4.96 & 5.22 & 9.34 & 9.01 & 12.60 & 11.76 & 9.15 & 9.71 & 10.77 & 12.65 \\ BPT & 4.54 & 5.18 & 5.25 & 5.41 & 14.33 & 13.32 & 13.65 & 12.74 & 11.70 & 12.30 & 11.02 & 13.39 \\ BOL & 5.56 & 5.72 & 5.75 & 6.21 & 21.80 & 19.69 & 20.76 & 13.25 & 15.70 & 16.98 & 14.18 & 14.61 \\ BRN & 5.25 & 5.94 & 5.97 & 6.39 & 18.76 & 16.79 & 19.36 & 14.61 & 13.51 & 14.21 & 13.80 & 15.42 \\ ERZ & 5.20 & 5.74 & 5.87 & 6.09 & 22.09 & 20.35 & 21.04 & 13.50 & 14.88 & 15.50 & 14.02 & 14.87 \\ PET & 6.91 & 7.03 & 7.01 & 7.38 & 24.40 & 21.90 & 23.24 & 18.08 & 16.60 & 17.78 & 15.64 & 19.01 \\ RRS & 10.26 & 11.12 & 11.28 & 11.64 & 33.23 & 30.31 & 38.24 & 29.74 & 27.12 & 29.60 & 26.62 & 31.05 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Repair Time (RT). Table 9 shows the results in terms of Seismic Resilience (SR), and same observations regarding the dependency on the seismic intensity, the role of soil deformability and non-linear mechanisms of bearings in the quantification of SR. Figure 9 plots the last line of Table 9 in order to show the dependency of the SR with the soil deformability (in terms of Vs) for the most intense input motion (RRS) and by comparing the three models. It is worth noting that (1) isolation technique has beneficial effects in increasing the Seismic Resilience of the system (even if RT are bigger) and (2) the value of resilience does not significantly vary for model 1, while the trends for the isolated models differ significantly between each other. In particular, the best performance in terms of resilience seems to occur for model 2 (linear isolation) for deformable soils. However, this outcome is affected by the fact that non-linear mechanisms of the bearings are considered. Therefore, the more realistic model 3 shows that the isolation technique performs well at higher values of Vs (rigid soil). Smaller values of resilience at low intensities for model 3 are due to the interaction between the soil deformability and the isolator, that may become unconservative, as previously demonstrated in [13; 50].