## 4 Numerical Modeling and Methodology
### Case-Study Frames  
Subsequently, a thorough analysis will be undertaken by integrating the ACPH within four distinct types of categorization substandard frames, which will be detailed in this section. These classifications are designated as follows: One Bay-One Story (1B1S), One Bay-Two Stories (1B2S), Two Bays-One Story (2B1S), and Two Bays-Two Stories (2B2S). In configurations devoid of the ACPH, traditional monolithic connections were simulated by extending longitudinal reinforcement over the beam-column contact, signifying a cast-in wet joint. These connections ensured complete moment transmission continuity, with concrete and reinforcing characterized as continuous across the joint area. The interface behavior was exclusively dictated by the material nonlinearities of the RC section. In the ACPH-equipped variants, the conventional beam-column contact was substituted with a steel hinge subassembly, as detailed in Section 4. The ACPH was constructed with a mix of steel plates and connector components, secured to the precast beam on one side and the column face on the other side by tie restrictions. As described by [PERSON] et al. [15], the hinge assembly was situated 300 mm away from the column face. This distance pertains to the necessary clear depth to house the whole ACPH device, ensuring enough flexural lever arm while preserving local strain compatibility between the steel and the adjacent concrete. Each frame configuration had two ACPH devices per floor (one for each beam-column connection), and in two-bay frames, supplementary ACPHs were situated at the joints between the beam segments and all supporting columns. The modeling differentiation between the two connection types enabled a uniform geometric arrangement across all frame configurations, thereby isolating the impact of the ACPH on seismic response parameters such as base shear, period elongation, and damage localization. In the examination of the seismic response of the frames, it is assumed that they are constructed in the Kahramanmaras region of Turkiye. The seismic evaluation of these frames involved subjecting them to the intense earthquake that impacted Kahramanmaras (Pazarcik) in 2023, which was quantified with a moment magnitude of Mw = 7.7. A significant proportion of the PRC structures exhibited deficiencies, failing to adhere to the requisite safety standards. Consequently, to accurately model the performance of regional PRC structures, the FEM employed concrete and steel of reduced strength. Further, it should be highlighted that prior to 1998, the design principles for precast reinforced concrete structures were largely overlooked by existing codes (TEC 1975 [39]). The initial adoption of precast systems in Turkiye traces back to approximately 1965, with a notable rise in their use for industrial buildings occurring after the 1980s [40]. These historical developments potentially elucidate the subpar performance of certain structures constructed before the year 2000, which exhibited inadequate seismic energy dissipation and were prone to failure in a brittle manner. The selected structures are compact industrial facilities situated within the specified region. They are designed to comprise either single or double stories as well as one or two bays. Each bay has a horizontal span of 5.0 m, while the vertical clearance for each story reaches 3.0 m. The layout of the bays incorporates two columns positioned at the transverse boundaries, with beams connecting these columns along the vertical plane. The cross-sectional dimensions of each column are 45 cm by 45 cm, whereas the beams measure 25 cm in width and 40 cm in depth. It is important to note that each column is intended to have a fixed base at the foundation level, which aligns with the assumption of negligible rotation of the footing during computer analysis.