## 2 Simplified Vulnerability Assessment Methods for Masonry and RC Building Structures
### Application of Methods of Group A
#### 3.3.5 Discussion of Results and Comparison among Methods of Group A  
Tables 12 and 13 report the comparison of the results provided by the simplified methods of Group A for masonry and RC buildings, respectively. It is worth noting that the methods SAVE, S&C, and DM58/17 provide the definition of vulnerability classes for buildings based on structural typology and retrieved on the classification proposed by the European macrosiismic scale (EMS98 [22]). For SAVE and S&C methods, the vulnerability class starts from 'A', meaning the highest vulnerability, and decreases to the 'D'. DM58/17 suggests six vulnerability classes from 1 (lowest vulnerability) to 6 (highest vulnerability). Conversely, the S&C method gives three ranges of PGA capacity that can be associated to a high, medium, and low vulnerability. Note that for the SAVE method the not corrected vulnerability judgments were reported, i.e., the vulnerability classes were based on the only vertical structure typologies.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
\begin{tabular}{c} **Seismic** \\ **Vulnerability** \\ \end{tabular} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Number of RC Buildings out of 707**} \\ \cline{2-3}  & **SAVE** & **S\&C** \\ \hline High & 0 & 311 \\ \hline High-medium & 0 & \\ \hline Medium & 0 & 0 \\ \hline Medium-low & 0 & \\ \hline Low & 707 & 396 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 13: Comparisons of vulnerability judgments for 707 RC buildings given by the methods of Group A.  
Figure 11: Vulnerability class for 228 masonry buildings according to the DM 58/17 simplified method.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
\begin{tabular}{c} **Seismic** \\ **Vulnerability** \\ \end{tabular} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Number of Masonry Buildings out of 228**} \\ \cline{2-3}  & **SAVE** & **DM58/17** & **S\&C** \\ \hline High & 2 & 1 & 89 \\ \hline High-medium & 226 & 55 & 0 \\ \hline Medium & 0 & 172 & 68 \\ \hline Medium-low & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline Low & 0 & 0 & 71 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 12: Comparisons of vulnerability judgments for 228 masonry buildings given by the methods of Group A.  
According to the SAVE method, almost all the masonry buildings (226 out 228, Table 12) fell in the 'high-medium' vulnerability class (i.e., B\({}_{\rm V}\) that corresponds to class B\({}_{\rm EMS}\)/C\({}_{\rm EMS}\) of EMS98) while, according to DM58/17, 24% fell in the 'high-medium' class and 75% in the'medium' classes (i.e., classes V\({}_{5}\) and V\({}_{4}\), which corresponded to class B\({}_{\rm EMS}\) and C\({}_{\rm EMS}\) of ESM98, respectively). The vulnerability judgments provided by these two methods were, thus, comparable. For the S&C method, the masonry buildings were almost equally distributed in the three classes, evidencing, thus, more distributed vulnerability judgment within the classes in comparison with the other two methods.  
For all the RC buildings (Table 13), the SAVE method provides a 'low' vulnerability class, while the S&C method predicted for 44% buildings of the sample a 'high' vulnerability class and for the remaining 56% a 'low' vulnerability class. Again, the S&C method provides more distributed vulnerability judgment within the proposed classes. It is worth noting that the DM58/17 did not provide a simplified method for RC buildings.  
Finally, Tables 12 and 13 show also that, according to the analyzed methods of Group A, the masonry buildings were characterized by more severe vulnerability judgments in comparison with the RC buildings. This result is expected due to the intrinsic vulnerability of masonry buildings with reference to horizontal actions when designed for gravity loads only.