## 4 Discussion and Study Implications
Though the values here are below that, the relative amplification (up to 3.3\(\times\)) signals a potential for dynamic resonance and local failure. The displacement (PGD) values, although modest (<2 cm), show a doubling from the basement to the sixth floor. In flexible buildings, amplified displacement can affect drift-sensitive components, like curtain walls or piping systems. The EW and NS sixth-floor amplifications (2.04 and 3.27) are well above unity, indicating that upper-story components may require additional detailing, bracing, or isolation measures. The amplification factor (sixth floor/basement) of \(\sim\)3.27 aligns with EC8 soil amplification expectations and highlights the building's dynamic response contribution, not solely due to soil amplification. While the absolute PGA values remain below standard design thresholds, the amplification at the upper levels suggests higher internal force demands, particularly for non-structural elements. Even for moderate ground shaking (\(\sim\)0.1 g base-level PGA), localized dynamic effects justify the use of response modification factors (R-factors) and non-linear time history analysis for critical or irregular structures. Although often neglected, the vertical PGA on the sixth floor (0.046 g) warrants evaluation of vertical load paths, especially in areas with high axial loads or slender columns. Additionally, the lower PGV/PGA on the sixth floor indicates a more abrupt acceleration profile, reflecting resonant amplification at higher modes. The basement's higher ratio suggests softer, broader waveform input, typical of soil-filtered ground motions. Although these values may not generate high structural forces, they could significantly impact inter-story drift, especially when resonance periods align. Structural response comparisons reveal stronger oscillations on the sixth floor, underscoring the importance of assessing resonance and damping. While the KY formula remains a valuable tool, further research is needed to refine its integration of non-lineardynamics and SSI effects. The findings reinforce the necessity of seismic retrofitting for older buildings and contribute to improving earthquake early warning systems, structural monitoring, and resilience strategies. Simplified structural models used in modeling may overlook complex non-linear behaviors in structures. The accuracy of predictions relies heavily on the availability and precision of accelerometric data. The KY formula does not explicitly account for SSI effects, which can significantly influence the seismic response. Despite these limitations, it remains a valuable tool in earthquake engineering for analyzing structural responses to seismic events. Its ability to integrate stochastic processes with accelerometric data offers a robust framework for seismic analysis. However, advancements in computational methods and a deeper understanding of non-linear dynamics and SSI effects are needed to address its limitations. Future research should enhance the formula to incorporate non-stationary ground motion and complex structural behaviors, ensuring greater accuracy and applicability in modern engineering practices.