## 7 Summary and Concluding Remarks
It was observed that the bidirectional effects were significant for the capacity-to-demand (C/D) ratios, particularly in terms of rotational and shear responses, as demonstrated in Figures 22 and 23. Beams on the second and third floors, and columns on the first and third floors, exhibited substantial variations under alternate ground motion directions, with differences in C/D ratios reaching approximately 10-15% as indicated in Figures 22 and 23. The results therefore draw on the importance of applying bidirectional loading in seismic assessments that will incorporate conditioned vulnerabilities in dependence of direction. The results also showed that although rotational demands were sensitive to direction of earthquake loading, the shear demands showed less sensitivity to it. _Performance Assessment of Analytical Methods_: The efficiency of various analysis methods was studied, namely RSA, pushover analysis, and the TH analysis. In accordance, it was found that among all these methods, the strongest was the TH analysis for highlighting the critical C/D ratio and the structural weaknesses related to torsional and inter-storey drift demands. For instance, as illustrated in Figures 24 and 25, certain second-floor column elements under TH analysis showed rotation C/D ratios close to 1.0-1.5, whereas the RSA method yielded values frequently above 5, and the pushover method approached or exceeded 10 for the same elements. Similarly, in beam shear demands, TH analysis commonly identified C/D ratios around 1.0-5.0, while RSA produced values of about 5-15, and pushover exceeded 10 in many cases. While performing the TH analysis, detailed potential failure mechanisms and areas of concern that were underlined were more clearly obtained as compared to RSA or pushover analysis. RSA, estimated more conservatively, especially for shear demands, provided an overall view but without as informed insight as TH analysis. Pushover analysis using uniform and triangular loading patterns provided critical drift distributions at the DL limit effectively, serving conservatively but with less depth than TH analysis in complex bidirectional loads. _Member Behaviour and Structural Vulnerability_: Individual beam and column member assessment showed that the C/D ratio for most members was adequate, although several members at higher floors were at or below critical levels, which flagged areas in which strengthening may be required. Columns at higher floors were relatively more susceptible, especially in shear, because of lower C/D ratios. The C/D ratios of ground motion directionality were quantified based on normalized percentage differences in the case results for XY versus YX. This was included to carry out an analysis that could show whether some members have direction-sensitive behaviour with notable differences of more than 10% to support some retrofit measures that might be warranted in mitigating such vulnerabilities. _Structural Observations Across Floors_: Analysis showed that lower floors exhibited robust ductile and shear capacities, whereas upper floors, particularly columns, were more vulnerable to shear-related issues. In particular, some beams on the second floor approached shear capacity thresholds, identifying this floor as critical for potential brittle failure under high seismic loads. The higher floors' reduced C/D ratios, especially for columns, suggest a requirement for targeted reinforcement to enhance seismic resilience. The present study represents a further step towards seismic vulnerability assessment; however, this includes some shortcomings to be investigated in greater depth. Material properties and actual in situ conditions may vary considerably from what was assumed in the original design. Calibration of the numerical model, in the work, has been performed primarily on available documentation and sensor data--not directly by testing material.