## 5 Results
### Damage Patterns
An examination of the tensile damage within the structural frames reveals that the columns of the first story in all frames attained the established tensile damage threshold of 0.90. Within the framework of the CDP model, the tensile damage variable spans from 0.0 (undamaged) to 1.0 (total cracking with no tensile stiffness left). A score of 0.90 indicates that the tensile capacity in the afflicted area is virtually depleted, often interpreted as severe but not yet catastrophic cracking. This barrier was not externally imposed but arose from material deterioration due to cyclic stress. This research used values near 0.90 as qualitative indicators of significant damage intensity, especially at beam-column junctions. The CDP approach does not provide a definitive \"failure\" threshold; nonetheless, locations with damage indices over 0.85 were deemed likely to need post-earthquake repairs, aligning with standard methods in damage-oriented seismic evaluation. Moreover, in the columns situated on the second story, the application of ACPH resulted in a modest decrease in tensile damage in the region of the beam-column joint; 2. In the examination of the beams within the 1B1S and 1B2S frame configurations, it is noted that the RC frame experiences tensile damage that has approached the critical limit of 0.9. This high damage zone begins at the column face and extends toward the midspan of the beam. Meanwhile, the tensile damage observed near the midpoint ranges between 0.45 and 0.7. Conversely, within the ACPH frame, tensile damage similarly reaches the threshold of 0.90 near the column face. However, the integration of replaceable joints significantly mitigates tensile damage in the central beam situated between the ACPH frames. This reduction in tensile damage attributed to the ACPH system is particularly pronounced on the second floor, especially as the number of stories increases; 3. In analyzing the beams of the two-bay frames, specifically the 2B1S and 2B2S configurations, it is observed that the RC frame has attained a tensile damage threshold of 0.9, measured from the column face to the vicinity of the beam's midpoint. In contrast, tensile damage recorded near the midpoint is approximately between 0.45 and 0.7. In the case of the ACPH frame, tensile damage similarly reaches the limit of 0.90 in the section of the beam adjacent to the column face. However, as evidenced in the one-bay frames, the integration of ACPH results in a significant reduction in tensile damage within the middle beam situated between the ACPHs when compared to the RC frame. Notably, this reduction in tensile damage becomes increasingly evident on the second floor as the number of stories rises; 4. The implementation of ACPH is likely to aid in the preservation of middle beams in an undamaged state, aligning with the underlying principles associated with the utilization of replaceable connections. The outcomes of the plastic strain damage simulated using the FEM are represented visually in Figure 14. In this figure, 1. The plastic strain value in the earthquake direction, denoted as PE33, indicates that the area experiencing the highest strain in both RC frames and ACPH frames is located at the base of the columns; 2. In the analysis of one-bay frames designated as 1B1S and 1B2S, the data indicate that the PE33 value reaches its peak intensity near the column face of the beam at the first floor of the RC frame. Within the central portion of the beam, however, the plastic strain value registers at its lowest level. The integration of replaceable joints within the ACPH frame has resulted in a significant reduction in the PE33 value, observed in both the region adjacent to the column face and the mid-span of the beam between the ACPH elements. Notably, the distribution of plastic strains tends to concentrate on the energy absorption plates, which have a thickness of 3 mm.