###### Abstract
It is worth noting that the RiskUE method derives from the observation of characteristics of Italian and Mediterranean typologies [21] and the classes are inspired by the building classes provided by EMS-98 [22], while the US methods [19] refer to typical US buildings. Analogously, the methodology provided by the Italian GNDT [11] proposes a typology calibrated on typical Italian buildings. Moreover, the particularity of the European buildings compared to the USA or Japan ones is highlighted by the prominence of masonry typologies, which are not considered in the US methods. Additionally, in New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering (2016), two levels of approach for evaluating the seismic vulnerability are proposed. The most simplified one (initial seismic assessment, ISA) requires the filling of spreadsheets for the single building aimed to collect information related to the critical structural weaknesses (CWS) and obtainable with an accurate survey of the building. The more detailed approach (DSA, Detailed Seismic Assessment) is based on simplified push-over analysis [23]. Macroseismic methods, on the other hand, are based on the statistical analysis of damage caused by past earthquakes according to damage probability matrices (DPM) [23; 24; 25; 26; 27]. Clearly, the level of accuracy in predicting damage depends on the amount and quality of the available observational data for homogeneous classes of buildings, generally being typological or functional indicators. These methods can be applied also to datasets of buildings different from those used for their calibration if they fall in the same homogeneous classes. An example is represented by the empirical LM1 approach provided by RiskUe [20] that is based on the classification of the buildings in different typological classes. The method adopts the vulnerability index method (VIM) for calculating the average damage according to the correlation suggested by [12] where the hazard is described through the macroseismic intensity (EMS-98). Fragility curves for different damage levels for the individuated homogeneous classes of buildings can be obtained too. In this frame, the detailed analysis of damages suffered by buildings after seismic events can be useful to assess their vulnerability too [28]. Finally, it is worth noting that in the literature another two groups of simplified methods for assessing the seismic vulnerability can be identified. One category is characterized by methods based on very few data concerning the buildings [9; 11; 15; 17; 18] as, for example, age of construction, number of floors, type of vertical and horizontal structures, and maintenance status. These methods, however based on the examination of damages observed in past earthquakes, usually provide a 'vulnerability' judgment, i.e., a 'qualitative' assessment of the vulnerability. A further category is represented by methods aimed to assess the strength capacity of the examined buildings by means of simplified calculations [5; 13; 16] and, thus, they request that some geometrical data of the buildings and mechanical properties of the materials are known in order to estimate a strength capacity-to-demand ratio, i.e., a safety factor, although simplified. In the first part of the paper, several simplified methods proposed in the literature for assessing the seismic vulnerability were analyzed. The simplified methods summarized in the paper were selected based on the possibility that they can be applied to the database presented in the second part of the paper and with a particular focus on the most suitable methods for the typical Italian buildings. It is worth noting, indeed, that masonry buildings represent a relevant part of the existing building stock in Italy and not all the methods available in the literature are applicable to such a typology. Moreover, the methods were selected also based on the possibility of comparing the provided vulnerability judgments.