## 5 Results
### Dynamic Analyses  
An analytical examination of the base shear-time graphs derived from the chosen earthquake record yields the following observations. In the case of frames characterized by two spans, an analysis was conducted to evaluate the base shear values transmitted by the central column in relation to other parameters. The analysis of the base shear-time graph presented in Figure 11a for the 1B1S frame reveals that the maximum base shear force for the RC frame is 1400 kN, whereas the ACPH frame reaches a lower peak of 934 kN. This demonstrates a substantial decrease of 51% in base shear for the ACPH frame when compared to its RC equivalent. Temporal analysis indicates that the RC frame achieves its maximum base shear at 5.09 s, while the ACPH frame does so slightly earlier at 5.03 s during the recorded earthquake event. In Figure 11b, the base shear-time graphs for the 1B2S frames show that the RC frame attains a peak base shear force of 876 kN, contrasting with the ACPH frame, which has a significantly lower peak of 468 kN. This results in a considerable reduction of 93% in base shear for the ACPH frame against the RC frame. The timing analysis further indicates that the RC frame reaches its peak at 5.08 s, whereas the ACPH frame does so much earlier at only 2.03 s. Moving on to Figure 11c, the base shear-time graph for the 2B1S frames indicates that the RC frame records a maximum base shear force of 2339 kN, compared to the ACPH frame's noted base shear force of 1446 kN. This results in a reduction of 65% for the ACPH frame in relation to the RC frame. Analysis of the peak timing indicates that the RC frame achieves its maximum at 5.04 s, while the ACPH frame records this value slightly later at 5.09 s. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**1B1S**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**1B2S**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**2B1S**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**2B2S**} \\  & **RC** & **ACPH** & **RC** & **ACPH** & **RC** & **ACPH** & **RC** & **ACPH** \\ \hline Period (s) & 0.178 & 0.206 & 0.349 & 0.442 & 0.170 & 0.198 & 0.322 & 0.411 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Period results of frames. Lastly, Figure 11d illustrates the base shear-time graphs for the 2B2S frames, where the RC frame has a maximum base shear force of 1596 kN, whereas the ACPH frame demonstrates a notably lower peak of 768 kN. This analysis reveals a significant reduction of 108% in base shear for the 2B2S configuration. Furthermore, the timing of peak base shear reveals that the RC frame reaches its maximum at 5.08 s, while the ACPH frame achieves this at 4.92 s, indicating a slight variation in response times. An analysis of the base shear variations in the 1B2S and 2B1S frame configurations, both exhibiting an identical number of ACPHs, reveals that the 1B2S frame, characterized by an increased number of stories, experiences a more significant reduction in base shear. Furthermore, upon examining the structural period data, it becomes evident that the increment in stories plays a more substantial role in elongating the structural period. Consequently, one can infer that a greater vertical expansion of the structure yields more pronounced effects on both the increase in period and the alterations in base shear. An analysis of the distribution of base shear across middle columns in two-bay frames reveals noteworthy differences in the proportion of shear attributed to these columns. At 5.09 s, during the peak base shear of the 2B1S ACPH frame, the middle column accounts for 35.64% of the total base shear. Comparatively, in the RC frame at this same moment, the middle column is responsible for a larger share, specifically 41.13%. At 4.92 s, when the 2B2S ACPH frame reaches its maximum base shear, the middle column's contribution is slightly lower, at 35.16%. In contrast, the RC frame at this time shows the middle column carrying 38.38% of the base shear.