## 7 Summary and Concluding Remarks  
This paper represents seismic vulnerability assessment of the hospital building in Orihuela, Spain, using field monitoring data combined with advanced numerical modelling. Both linear and nonlinear modelling methods were used in the analysis. Static and dynamic assessments were carried out in order to fully ascertain the behaviour of the building when subjected to seismic loads. Detailed consideration was given to accurately modelling masonry infill walls, which significantly influence building stiffness and overall seismic response, as part of a comprehensive approach to seismic vulnerability assessment. After careful selection, fourteen bidirectional ground motion records representative of both the DL and SD limit states were used to simulate realistic seismic conditions. The records were applied along principal building directions by considering the role of directionality on the structural response. The approach here described provided an evaluation of the safe seismic performance of the building in realistic earthquake conditions. Key findings from this study include the following:  
_Dynamic Characterisation_: Ambient noise measurements by means of Raspberry Shakes based sensors enabled the identification of fundamental frequencies and mode shapes, which were necessary for the calibration of the finite element model in order to provide bases for further analyses. Results of the refined model showed that the period decrease entailed by the consideration of RC walls and masonry infill was significant while confirming increased stiffness with respect to the bare frame model. For instance, the fundamental period decreased from approximately 0.244 s in the bare frame model to about 0.214 s once the RC walls and masonry infill were included, indicating a roughly 12% reduction in the fundamental period and reflecting a corresponding increase in building stiffness  
_Global and Local Response Analysis_: The research highlighted notable torsional effects, differential top displacement, and inter-storey drift ratios under various seismic loadings; it was deduced that masonry infills and RC walls contributed significantly to the lateral resistance provided. For example, under uniform lateral loading in the X direction (see Figure 12), the top displacement reached approximately 40-50 mm on the more flexible side of the structure, whereas the stiffer side maintained a smaller range of about 20-30 mm. Such differences underscore the influence of stiffness distribution on global response parameters. Comparing elastic and inelastic response analyses revealed significant discrepancies, emphasising the necessity of nonlinear methods for a realistic evaluation of seismic performance. As shown in Figure 16, the inter-storey drift ratios at the DL limit state consistently peaked at the second floor, with values ranging between approximately 0.25% and 0.4%, whereas upper floors remained below 0.2%. This pronounced concentration of deformation demand identifies the second floor as a probable soft storey that may require targeted retrofit strategies to enhance ductility and mitigate localized damage risks. This conclusion is further supported by capacity-to-demand (C/D) ratios reported in Figures 18, 19 and 21, where second-floor columns exhibited notably lower shear C/D ratios--often approaching or dropping below the critical 1.0 threshold--relative to first and third floors. Several second-floor column elements displayed C/D ratios in the range of 0.9-1.0 under certain seismic input cases, indicating limited shear capacity and a heightened vulnerability to brittle failure. In contrast, columns on the lower floors generally maintained higher C/D ratios, confirming that the second floor remains more susceptible to shear-related damage. _Bidirectional Seismic Input_: The application of 14 bidirectional ground motions at both Damage Limitation (DL) and Severe Damage (SD) limit states emphasized the building's differential behaviour under varying seismic directions.