## 3 Conclusions  
This work investigates the seismic response of a multi-story, multi-bay special truss moment frame (STMF) with shape memory alloys (SMAs) incorporated as X-diagonal braces in the special segment. The diameter of SMAs per diagonal on each floor was initially determined considering the expected ultimate strength of the special segment. To further investigate the structure's response with the SMAs incorporated, half the SMA diameter of each floor of the previous case were introduced. Continuing, the mean value of the SMA diameter was introduced at each floor (case DC1), half of it (case DC2), and twice of it (case DC3). The outcome of this investigation can be summarized as follows:  
* The analyses of the nine-story, five-bay structure's displacement time histories for the examined earthquakes along with the maximum inter-story drift diagrams show that in the case of the conventional structure, the energy dissipation is achieved through the formation of plastic hinges. Moreover, the desired yield mechanism requires that the distribution of yielding is even along with the height of the structure to prevent extensive yielding from concentrating at a few floors and to achieve uniform behavior. Maximum inter-story drift diagrams present a uniform distribution, in general, revealing that the structure responds as it was designed. Drifts exceeded the 2% target drift limit for three earthquakes, either on the two top floors or on all floors. * In the analyses of the first SMA distribution for all but one earthquake, the structure exhibits uniform drift distributions and a decrease in the drift at upper floors, especially on the 9 th floor, compared to the corresponding drift of the conventional structure. All drifts were below the 2% target drift except for the case of one earthquake. SMAs responded to the limits of superelasticity for all earthquakes on all floors except the SMAs on the 9 th floor for the Northridge earthquake, which slightly exceeded the 6% strain limit. * The second distribution (half the diameter of the previous case at each floor) showed larger drifts, larger SMA deformations (leading to failure of the SMAs), and more damage was encountered. * The third SMA bar distribution, which is related to the placement of the mean of the diameters of SMAs in all floors, as calculated from the original distribution, leads to the generation of a uniform drift distribution within the limits of superelasticity. The SMAs' maximum displacements at each floor are close to each other along the height of the structure for almost every ground motion. Compared to the structure incorporating SMAs according to the maximum expected vertical shear strength, the maximum SMA strains decrease on upper floors and increase on lower floors. This is also deduced from the maximum inter-story drifts, as case DC1 drifts are larger on lower floors and smaller on the upper floors. This scheme seems to introduce more strength than needed at special segments on the upper floors. Consequently, the relative rotation of chord members in the special segment to the members outside the special segment may be obstructed. In that case, input energy may be dissipated through the formation of plastic hinges in members outside of the special segment, an unwanted behavior as the concept of the incorporation of the SMAs was to absorb the input energy through their deformation. * DC2, the fourth SMA bar distribution, incorporates half the SMA diameter of case DC1 at each bay. SMAs respond to the limits of superelasticity except for one earthquake. However, larger inter-story drifts occur at upper floors, exceeding, for some earthquakes, the 2% target drift limit, and the drift distribution is uneven for all earthquake records examined. Finally, using twice the same diameters of SMAs along the structure's height leads to a very stiff special segment.