## 4 Examples
### Three-Bay Ten-Story Framework
#### 4.2.1 Parameter Tuning in PFAM for the Three-Bay Ten-Story Framework
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & \(\mathbf{\beta_{0}}\) & \(\mathbf{t_{c}}\) & \(\mathbf{\alpha_{0}}\) & \(\mathbf{\gamma_{0}}\) & \(m\) & \(nt\) & \(\mathbf{k_{max}}\) \\ \hline
**Values** & 1 & [0.1, 0.3] & [0.3, 1.0] & [10,25] & [1, 2] & 1000 & 100 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 37: Three-bay ten-story framework with EEP2 semi-rigid connections. Optimum values of PFAM parameters. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\(k_{max}\)} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & **100** & **200** & **300** \\ \hline  & 250 & 1062.06 & 418.96 & 464.40 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 350 & 855.65 & 482.26 & 730.82 \\ \cline{2-5} \multirow{-2}{*}{\(nt\)} & 450 & 421.07 & 890.25 & 414.91 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 550 & **358.55** & **248.38** & **227.97** \\ \cline{2-5}  & 650 & 422.30 & 480.08 & **345.64** \\ \cline{2-5}  & 750 & 466.57 & **219.60** & **256.73** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 39: Three-bay ten-story framework with rigid connections. Sensitivity analysis for \(nt\) and \(k_{max}\). Standard deviation. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\(k_{max}\)} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & **100** & **200** & **300** \\ \hline  & 250 & 1062.06 & 418.96 & 464.40 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 350 & 855.65 & 482.26 & 730.82 \\ \cline{2-5} \multirow{-2}{*}{\(nt\)} & 450 & 421.07 & 890.25 & 414.91 \\ \cline{2-5}  & 550 & **358.55** & **248.38** & **227.97** \\ \cline{2-5}  & 650 & 422.30 & 480.08 & **345.64** \\ \cline{2-5}  & 750 & 466.57 & **219.60** & **256.73** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 38: Three-bay ten-story framework with rigid connections. Sensitivity analysis for \(nt\) and \(k_{max}\). Accuracy. In Table 42, the maximum accuracy values have been highlighted in bold, as have the minimum values of standard deviation in Table 43. The ranges of both parameters \(\alpha_{0}\) and \(\gamma_{0}\) produced good and similar results. As a result of the sensitivity analyses performed in this example, PFAM initially seems efficient and robust for the parameter values in Table 44. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\(\gamma_{0}\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Mean**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & & **0.1** & **1** & **10** & **25** & **50** & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(\alpha_{0}\)} & 0.3 & 633.18 & 526.82 & 272.53 & 404.81 & 675.01 & 502.47 \\  & 0.4 & 680.30 & 478.73 & 252.84 & 607.21 & 453.03 & 494.42 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 0.5 & 574.85 & 348.84 & 380.81 & 405.75 & 421.31 & 426.31 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 0.6 & 810.14 & 98.94 & **125.15** & 400.91 & 396.91 & **366.41** \\ \cline{1-1}  & **mean** & & 674.62 & 363.33 & **257.83** & 454.67 & 486.57 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 43: Three-bay ten-story framework with rigid connections. Sensitivity analysis for \(\alpha_{0}\) and \(\gamma_{0}\). Standard deviation. Figure 30: Three-bay ten-story framework with rigid connections. Accuracy vs. \(m\) and standard deviation vs. \(m\). If we take into account the values of the parameters in Table 37 (EEP2 semi-rigid connections) and Table 44 (rigid connections), and look for the intersection or common values of both tables for the three-bay two-story framework, we can conclude that PFAM seems efficient and robust for the parameter values in Table 45.