## 1 Introduction  
High seismicity observed in many regions globally has always been a critical concern for the safety and prosperity of their communities. To avoid losses caused by the occurrence of strong earthquake events, researchers have been stimulated to develop solutions, such as seismic damage assessment methods, that provide increased and justified knowledge on the structural safety of the built environment exposed to seismic hazard. The application of seismic damage assessment methodologies mainly results in the evaluation of the expected damage level for a range of seismic intensities. This outcome could be either used in the pre- or post-earthquake assessment phase. In the pre-earthquake assessment phase, such methods are used to verify the design effectiveness and structures contributing to retrofit prioritization and planning optimum retrofit schemes. In the post-earthquake assessment phase, such results could be used to rapidly estimate the actual damage level of buildings after earthquake events in aid to first responders and civil protection authorities and to evaluate the existing resistance level against the expected seismic intensity. Seismic damage assessment methods can be classified according to the anticipated complexity and the required computational effort. Several methodologies are available for the seismic assessment of structures, ranging from analytical to empirical and rapid visual screening (RVS) methods. Analytical methodologies require the development of appropriate mechanical models [1] and advanced analysis techniques for the estimation of the buildings' vulnerability [2], while empirical ones are based on damage statistics from past earthquakes [3] as well as on expert judgement [4]. The most common problem when applying a purely empirical approach is the unavailability of (sufficient and reliable)statistical data for several intensities [5], leading to a relative abundance of statistical data in the intensity range from 6 to 8. However, it should be highlighted that purely analytical approaches should be avoided, since they might seriously diverge from reality, typically (but not consistently) overestimating the cost of damage [5]. Finally, the ATC-13 fragility curves based on expert judgement were found to grossly overpredict structural damage, at least for some classes of structure for which damage statistics were compiled [3]. Moreover, many methodologies are available worldwide for either pre- or post-earthquake rapid visual inspection of structures, while the most popular and widely used is the FEMA method for rapid visual screening (RVS) of buildings [6; 7]. The NZSEE (New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering) [8], JBDPA [9] and the GNTD [10] are also widely applied methodologies for rapid visual screening. The RVS procedure prescribed by FEMA uses a methodology based on the building survey inspection, and it requires the filling of a data collection form based on visual observation of the building from the exterior, and if possible, the interior. As described above, several methods for rapid visual inspection (RVI) (or rapid visual screening (RVS)) are proposed [6; 7; 8], based on survey inspection and collection of data, thus not involving analyses and material strength justification. RVI methods are mainly based on visual observation and identification; therefore, they can be widely used for large-scale assessment (i.e., for entire cities or municipalities). However, in this manner, damage evaluation and assessment results strongly depend on expert judgment, thus affecting their effectiveness and reliability. The RVI methods are applicable for both pre-and post-earthquake assessment of structures contributing to the prioritization of interventions and development of emergency plans.