## 4 Results and Discussion  
The results of the performed models for the four soil conditions are shown in Figures 5-8 in terms of maximum longitudinal drifts for the considered seismic scenario. The limit states (LS1, LS2, LS3, LS4) are shown with horizontal lines in order to define the occurrence of exceedance. This condition is fundamental to derive the L on the basis of Table 4. In particular, Table 6 shows the state limits exceeded (for every configuration) deduced from the results (Figures 5-8). In particular, the columns represent the condition of exceeding the four limit states for the selected models (models B1, B2 and B3 and for the four soil conditions: F1, F2, F3 and F4). Figure 4: Selected Input motions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Input Motion** & & **PGA (g)** \\ \hline Superstition Hills-PTS & BPT & 0.45 \\ Loma Prieta-BRAN & BRN & 0.48 \\ Erzincan & ERZ & 0.52 \\ Cape Mendocino-Petrolia & PET & 0.59 \\ Northridge & RRS & 0.83 \\ Kobe & KOB & 0.35 \\ Duzce-Bolu & BOL & 0.46 \\ Chy Chy & CHY & 0.18 \\ Northridge BH & MUL & 0.27 \\ Landers-Yermo & YER & 0.24 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Selected input motion characteristics. Figure 5: Results: model B1, B2, B3 considering soil F1. Figure 6: Results: model B1, B2, B3 considering soil F2. Figure 8: Results: model B1, B2, B3 considering soil F4. Figure 7: Results: model B1, B2, B3 considering soil F3. Table 7 shows the calculation of the losses, while Table 8 shows the RT resulted from the application of (2) by using a \(\gamma\) equal to 1. It is possible to see how RT increases with the intensities and how it varies for the 3 models. It is worth noticing that soil deformability plays an important role for increasing RT in case of model 1 (fixed case), white its effects are not linear for the other two models. It is also significant to consider that RT values for model 2 (linear model) are bigger than those obtained for model 3, since the role of non-linearity reduce the damage. Therefore, neglecting the non-linear mechanisms that occur in the bearings, is conservative, if compared with model 3, as previously demonstrated in [13; 50]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c 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 & LS3 & LS3 & LS3 & LS3 & LS1 & LS1 & LS1 & LS2 & LS1 & LS1 & LS2 & LS2 \\ YER & LS3 & LS3 & LS3 & LS3 & LS2 & LS2 & LS2 & LS2 & LS3 & LS2 & LS2 & LS3 & LS3 \\ MUL & LS3 & LS3 & LS4 & LS4 & LS2 & LS2 & LS3 & LS3 & LS3 & LS3 & LS3 & LS3 & LS3 \\ KOB & LS3 & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 & LS3 & LS3 & LS3 & LS3 & LS4 & LS3 & LS3 & LS3 & LS4 \\ BPT & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 & LS3 & LS3 & LS3 & LS4 & LS3 & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 \\ BRN & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 & LS3 & LS3 & LS3 & LS4 & LS3 & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 \\ ERZ & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 & LS3 & LS3 & LS3 & LS4 & LS3 & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 \\ PET & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 & LS3 & LS3 & LS3 & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 \\ RRS & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 & LS4 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Assigned limit states (LS) on the basis of the previous Figures 5–8. The columns represent the condition of exceeding the four limit states for the selected models (models B1, B2 and B3 and for the foure soil conditions: F1, F2, F3 and F4).