## 4 Conclusions
Again, as for masonry structures, the S&C method provided more distributed vulnerability judgment within the classes. The Grant method was much safer than the S&C one, but it was applicable to a very small subset of buildings, i.e., not to those realized before 1984 in Campania Region (when the parameter PGA\({}_{\rm c}\) could not be defined); * As expected due to their intrinsic vulnerability to seismic actions, the masonry buildings designed for gravity loads only had more severe vulnerability judgments (high or medium-high) in comparison with the RC buildings. 2. Reduced database (14 masonry buildings, application of method of Group A and B) * Methods of Group A * The vulnerability judgments provided by the SAVE method were the safest ones, since it provided for all 14 buildings a 'high' vulnerability. This result was consistent with that previously found by analyzing the larger set of 228 masonry buildings. Diversified judgments for the 14 buildings were provided by the S&C and DM 58/17 methods, with the latter one safer. * Methods of Group B * The GNDT method was the less safe approach since for all examined buildings the safety factor was largely \(>1\), probably because of an overestimation of the PGAcapacity due to uncertainness about the assessment of some parameters present in the GNDT form; - The DPCM and RE.SLSTO methods led to similar results, in a safe direction since the safety factors were less than 1 in most cases; - The safety factors given by L&R method came to be in between the two above extreme results; - With the exception of the Azizi method, only about 50% of the examined buildings had a 'low' or a'medium-low' vulnerability, confirming the intrinsic vulnerability to seismic actions of masonry buildings designed for gravity loads only, which was also evidenced by application of methods A to the whole database. (c) Comparison between methods of Group A and B - As expected, the more simplified methods of Group A led to safer results than those provided by methods of Group B; - The expeditious method DM 58/17, based on the EMS classification, was consistent with the 'envelope' related to the most sophisticated methods of Group B. This made the DM 58/17 method reliable, at least for masonry structures, whenever the available data was limited; - For the same building, the vulnerability judgment provided by the methods of Group B could be better or worse than that assessed by means of the method of Group A, but in most cases they were less safe. Moreover, the methods of Group B allowed to highlight the singularity of each building with diversified judgments within the examined buildings, since more detailed information (geometry and material properties) were required for their application, while the methods of Group A provided more uniform judgments suitable for 'classes of buildings', where specific data concerning the single building were not taken into account. Given the results above, for RC buildings, the authors suggest the application of the S&C method from Group A for assessing the large-scale seismic vulnerability, when an accurate level of knowledge is not available for the buildings in the set. Analogously, for masonry structures, when few data are available, a rational choice could be that of applying the DM 58/17 method from Group A. For masonry buildings, when it is possible to reach a better level of knowledge of the structures and, therefore, to apply one of the methods of Group B, the RE.SIS.TO (with more diversified judgments within the set of 14 buildings) or the DPCM 9/2/11 (more homogeneous judgments, on average safer than the L&R method) approach is preferable. The two methods require very different input parameters, in number and quality, and, thus, the designer can move towards one or the other depending on the data that he is able to collect and usable for the specific method. In particular, if the number of available parameters is small, it is advisable to adopt the method of DPCM 9/2/11, which is agreement with the judgments provided by DM 58/17 of Group A.