Finite Element Modeling and Nonlinear Analysis for Seismic Assessment of Off-Diagonal Steel Braced RC Frame

4.1 Models Characteristics

The flexural RC frame, the basic frame, was designed in according to ACI 318-02 concrete manual. In finite element models used scale of 2/5 same as the scale factor of experimental models and according to other geometric characteristics. The dimensions of 1.76 m for length, 1.38 m for height and 0.16 × 0.14 m of rectangular section dimensions is considered through the FE modeling of flexural frame. In both of the beam and column reinforcements, 4M10 are assigned for longitudinal reinforcement (Rebar’s diameter of M10 is equal to 11.3 mm). In the plastic hinge regions (350 mm from each end), the transverse reinforcement of beams and columns used from 6 mm steel wires spaced at 35 mm and for other places far from plastic regions, the 6 mm steel wires spaced at 70 mm are used. The beam–column joint was transversely reinforced with two 6 mm wires corresponding to lateral shear force. Also in the x-braced RC frames, the two steel plates of 150 × 150 × 8 mm were placed at each corner of the RC frames by cast in place method (Youssefa et al. 2007). Each plate was anchored to the RC frame using four 5/8-inch headed studs as shown in Fig. 1. Self-consolidated concrete with 28 days compressive strength of 40 MPa is used to concrete compressive stress of models. The yield stress of the steel reinforcement applied as 400 MPa. A brace by double-angle cross-section, consisting of two 25 × 25 × 3.2 mm angles, by a cross-sectional area of 300 mm², is selected for the flexural frame F₁ and also a C 30 × 3.5 mm channel with a cross-sectional area of around 500 mm² is selected for the frame F_X, as indicated in Fig. 1. The yielding capacity of 300 MPa is considered for the bracing members. The braced frame by off-diagonal bracing system (F _ODBS , the RC cross sections and semi-diagonal steel braces are such as characteristics of F_X model (x-braced frame) and their difference is only about third member of steel bracing system.

The beam–column joint of the moment frame was transversely reinforced with two 6 mm steel wires according to the special seismic provisions of the ACI code (ACI Committee 318 2002). For the braced frame, the column stirrups were continued in the joint by one 6 mm wire in the joint area. Thus, the additional strength of gusset plates, during the braced frame, the beam–column joints inside the stiffeners are expected to eliminate the undesirable shear failure without the need for any special joint detailing. However, this needs further testing to reach final recommendations (Youssefa et al. 2007). Comparison results of Pushover analysis indicate that Off-Diagonal Bracing System can increase lateral flexibility by velocity control or on the other hand by increasing Damping characteristics. In X-Bracing system after yielding steel members, the strength of RC frame was decreased suddenly but in ODBS model, the steel and concrete materials have been contributed better than other models. The schematic finite element model of ODBS and its behaviour are brought in Fig. 2.

4.2 Material Nonlinearity

Concrete and steel are the two constituents of RC braced frame. Among them, concrete is much stronger in compression than in tension (tensile strength is of the order of one-tenth of compressive strength). While its tensile stress–strain relationship is almost linear, the stress–strain relationship in compression is nonlinear from the beginning. The Elastic-Perfectly-Plastic (EPP) model for steel, which is used in this work, assumes the stress to vary linearly with strain up to yield point and remain constant beyond that (Anam and Shoma 2011).

In this research the Willam and Warnke (1974), the yield and failure criteria, is considered for concrete model behaviour. Also, since the SAP2000 (2010) assumption applies the Drucker–Prager criteria for concrete material modeling and its behaviour, both of mentioned criteria’s are considered in analysis of models. By this method, the analytical comparison of applied criteria’s is done.

In steel material modeling, the bilinear curve of behaviour is used. This model is included in two parts, linear and Elastic–Plastic behaviour. The elasticity modulus isE₁ = 2 × 10⁶ kg/cm² for linear part andE₂ = 2 × 10⁴ kg/cm² for the nonlinear part of the behaviour. These specifications are indicated in Fig. 3.

On the other hand, the uniaxial stress–strain relationship for confined concrete, known as the modified Kent and Park model, has been incorporated in the FE model constructed here. This model shows a good agreement with the experimental results (Kent and Park 1971; Scott et al. 1982) and offers a good balance between simplicity and accuracy (Taucer et al. 1991).

In non-linear dynamic analysis, the non-linear properties of the structure are considered as part of a time domain analysis. This approach is the most rigorous, and is required by some building codes for buildings of unusual configuration or of special importance. However, the calculated response can be very sensitive to the characteristics of the individual ground motion used as seismic input; therefore, several analyses are required using different ground motion records to achieve a reliable estimation of the probabilistic distribution of structural response.

Since the properties of the seismic response depend on the intensity, or severity, of the seismic shaking, a comprehensive assessment calls for numerous nonlinear dynamic analyses at various levels of intensity to represent different possible earthquake scenarios. This has led to the emergence of methods like the Incremental Dynamic Analysis (Bozorgnia and Bertero 2004).

4.3 Geometric Nonlinearity

For specification of nonlinear geometry of ODBS, concrete nonlinearity is added to material nonlinearity in this paper. Only steel nonlinearity for third member of ODBS is considered in this article’s analysis. Steel, on the other hand, is linearly elastic up to a certain stress (called the proportional limit) after which it reaches yield point (f _y ) where the stress remains almost constant despite changes in strain. Beyond the yield point, the stress increases again with strain (strain hardening) up to the maximum stress (ultimate strength,f _ult ) when it decreases until failure at about a stress quite close to the yield strength.

Nonlinear static procedures use equivalent SDOF structural models and represent seismic ground motion with response spectra. Story drifts and component actions are related subsequently to the global demand parameter by the Pushover or capacity curves that are the basis of the non-linear static procedures. Nonlinear dynamic analysis utilizes the combination of ground motion records with a detailed structural model, therefore is capable of producing results with relatively low uncertainty. In nonlinear dynamic analyses, the detailed structural model subjected to a ground-motion record produces estimates of component deformations for each degree of freedom in the model and the modal responses are combined using schemes such as the sum of squares square root.

Complete comparisons of the studied Retrofitted Frames in ANSYS program (version 15) with the Micro modeling structural element indicate that ODBS steel bracing RC frame has two yielding point that were related to main RC flexural frame and third steel member of ODBS. It’s so useful for structures that are under Impact Loads and loads by high velocity specifically according to Fig. 2 of the previous page.

5.1 Finite Element Modeling Procedure

After doing the consecutive try and error, the possibility of FE models creation is provided for two models, flexural and X-bracing systems. Results verification is performed by more than 95 % of convergence accuracy based on two models. After this double precision, comparative models were found the best parameters for simulation processing. Some parameters same as materials definition, element type, elastic constants, nonlinear properties, contact surface and other structural characteristics, are contributed in ODBS modeling and processing. The finite element analysis is performed in term of various investigations to obtain the results after ODBS modeling. As indicated in Fig. 4d, other verification is based on cracking analysis for two comparative models in RC frame by comparing the experimental results; the created cracks of two models were being as same as each other. The 3-D finite element deformed shapes are given in Fig. 4a–c for each model.

The main Flexural RC frame is calibrated by results of experimental modeling of the same flexural frame and X-Braced frame that constructed in laboratory (Maheri and Hadjipour 2003).

5.2 Comparison Between FE and Experimental Results

As explained before, after performing the finite element 3-D modeling, for the next phase, the models were being analyzed and some results about them are obtained. The important status is concerned about results calibration for both of comparative models, flexural and X-braced frames where their results are indicated in Fig. 5, in the form of pushover diagrams calculated by nonlinear static analyses on reinforced concrete frame. The results are converged within the acceptance criteria for experimental and numerical investigations. As shown in Fig. 5, the flexural frame convergence is more than the x-braced frame, because in the existence of approximately modeling proceed in various elements such as gusset plates, expected length of reinforcement, steel brace section areas and also the other approximation are related to defining and modeling contact element. According the nonlinear static analysis, compared results of experimental and numerical models, have shown by Force–Displacement diagram and related control. Numerical modeling is base on exact modeling and Real parameters. This diagram shows that errors in modeling were minimized and convergence condition was satisfied.

As consequences from the geometric properties of ODBS, a diagonal eccentricity is the one important parameters affected on this system’s behavior. So the different kinds of models are simulated and tested by various eccentricities. Optimum eccentricity from the viewpoint of geometric characteristics of ODBS is about 0.3–0.4 for e₁ and 0.5 for e₂. The e₂ eccentricity is concerned about geometric properties, position of members, angle of braces, height and span dimensions and etc. Increasing ductility is directly in relation with increasing eccentricity but some ingredients such as allowable drift, crack width and deflection are from limitations applying eccentricitye₁. However if the structural purpose be proportional to large amount of stiffness, the off-diagonality should be decreased, but for the purpose of high ductility it was inverse. Some comparative results of possible eccentricities are indicated in Fig. 6.

Figure 7 illustrates a typical mode of failure of the tested reinforced concrete frame with and without bracing systems under static push-over loading. A typical deformed shape from the FE model is also provided in right side of figures, which perfectly matches the actual mode of failure.

Figure 7 shows a front view of this modeled RC frame. In Fig. 7a and b, the experimental and numerical force–displacement curves are compared for flexural frame and x-braced frame, respectively. Lateral displacements are measured at the base points at the top height of the frames. A comparison between these two figures shows the amount of calibration level in compare with the experimental modeling frames. The specific purpose of 3D finite element modeling is based upon the complex behavior of reinforced concrete nonlinearity and the geometric nonlinearity that applied for this paper.

The response modification factor (R factor) is the one of important factors for introducing the structural behavior specially to define ductility and stiffness of structures. To doing this aim, the separated calculations are performed to obtaining the factor of behaviour. Related force–displacement diagrams in form of bilinear pushover curves and the samples of finite element modeling are shown also in left side of Fig. 7.

After generating the pushover curves, the response modification factors are obtained for each model. The highest ductility and the large amount of energy dissipation are from ODBS system results.

5.3 The Response Modification Factor for ODBS Braced RC Frame

According to Fig. 8; Table 1 and by considering Pushover curves, to calculate the response modification factor, some basic formula is needed. As shown in Fig. 8, usually real nonlinear behaviour is idealized by a bilinear elastic perfectly plastic relationship. The yield base shear coefficient of structure is shown byV _y and the yield displacement isΔ _y . In this figure,V _e corresponds to the elastic response strength of the structure. The maximum base shear ratio in an elastic perfectly behaviour isΔ _y (Uang 1991). The ratio of maximum base shear coefficient considering elastic behaviourV _e to maximum base shear coefficient in elastic perfectly behaviourV _y is called force reduction factor.

Model	Δ y (m)	Δ max (m)	Δ s (m)	Δ w (m)	V e (kg)	V y (kg)	V s (kg)	V w (kg)	µ	R
(flexural RC frame) F1	0.0173	0.0665	0.0112	0.067	17,272	4,500	2,875	1,740	3.84	9.92
(X-Braced frame) FX	0.0103	0.039	0.0058	0.0547	33,034	12,200	9,147	5,480	2.69	6.04
(ODBS-Braced frame) FODBS	0.0125	0.1101	0.0082	0.0781	26,177	7,800	5,032	3,012	9.58	23.2

$$R=R_{\mathit{\mu }}·R_s·Y,R_{\mathit{\mu }}=V_e/V_y$$

(1)

The response modification factor (R) is included of the inherent ductility and ductility and overstrength effects of a structure and the difference in the design methods and limitations about related manual. Also Ductility reduction factor Rμ is a function of both of the characteristics of the structure including ductility, damping and fundamental period of vibration (T), and the characteristics of earthquake ground motion. Figure 8 explains the schematic behaviour and its corresponding parameters to calculating response modification factor.

WhereR _s is the overstrength factor and Y is termed the allowable stress factor (Maheri and Akbari 2003).

The results indicate the highest amount of response modification factor (R) is obtained for ODBS proportional to the other systems. By considering the presented formulation, the obtained results are gathered in Table 1. TheR factor for ODBS is same as the system of displacement and vibration control, particularly same as the systems isolator and friction dampers. The author has other research paper about the ODBS innovation considering a new friction dampers substituted by third member. The system of composed damper-spring can be a suitable subject for further researches.

5.4 Crack Evaluation Through Finite Element Models

The next step of ODBS evaluation is concerned about control and compare of the existing and progressive cracks at the different time steps by the various FE models. Before any concluding for ODBS model, at the first, the flexural and X-braced models are compared along their cracking pattern with experimental models. To verifying the numerical model’s cracks for this meaning, all happened cracks at the last phase of loading are represented and then they are compared with cracks on experimental model. Verifying assessments are performed on cracks place, directions, cracks width, time of occurrence and their geometry, that, they are matched by experimental results and fortunately they were similar up to 85 %. Figure 9 indicates comparative cracks in flexural and X-bracing frames.

After confirming the compared cracks, for the next stage, the crack analysis is performed on ODBS braced RC frame for further assessments. The ODBS braced frame is analyzed through 94 time steps by displacement control method. The cracking analysis is checked for three times in steps of 28, 65 and 92 from imposed displacement of ODBS model. The reasons for selecting the mentioned time steps along main cracking investigation are at first, effective parameters about crack development and performing plastic hinges along different rotations and at second existed deformation in steel bracing members concerned about important stage of behavior such as yielding and plastic behavior for steel material.

As observed in Fig. 10 in 28th time step, the lateral displacement level is notated about 23 mm that it was equivalent to imposing 51 kN lateral loads on the ODBS braced frame. Until this step only the flexural cracks were observable and have not shown the major weakness along the structural concrete. Almost the third member is yielded and its behavior is investigated simultaneously with plastic behavior, but entirely does not exhibit any plastic behavior till this stage.

The time step 65, where flexural cracks developed densely and the shear cracks are started in some regions. Along 65th step, the lateral displacement is reached to 37 mm in upper level of the ODBS braced frame that this stage’s displacement was equivalent to 101.5 kN in term of lateral force. Most of the longitudinal reinforcements were yielded and the relevant RC section is experienced the nonlinear strain perpendicular to section’s surface. Members near the diagonal axis are yielded and also prepared to endure the large strain. The third member of steel bracing system achieved the maximum deformation and its plastic behavior was clearly obvious. And also some points of RC frame are experienced the plastic deformation. Crack pattern of step 65 is indicated in Fig. 11.

According to last considered time step, 92th step, adjacent to the collapse limit, the upper level’s lateral displacement of the ODBS braced frame is reached about 100 mm that it was equivalent to 96.43 kN in term of lateral force. The second stage of yielding phenomenon and the second stage of plastic behaviour are created within the steps of 65–92 and maximized the displacement according to the last pages schematic shape. In this stage, sustainable lateral force is lower than the last stage because of plastic behavior happened in both of RC frame and steel ODBS members, conjugately. In this last stage many plastic zones are performed on the RC frame and the plastic strain is observed along three steel members. The third member of ODBS is given necking and lost its strength entirely. Crack pattern of step 92 is indicated in Fig. 12.

Through the stages of consideration, the ODBS braced RC frame is experienced various behaviours as elastic, elastic–plastic, secondary elastic, secondary elastic–plastic and plastic, then it was in threshold of collapse and also bracing members are formed parallel to each other and they were on diagonal axis. In this position, if the diagonal members lost their strength, then the whole frame was being collapsed.

Comparison between ODBS and other frames is not only about high ductility results of ODBS proportional to flexural and specially x-bracing system, but also the ODBS braced frame entirely used from flexural capacity of RC frame. Whereas the x-braced RC frame did not use more than 20 percent from its flexural capacity. So the energy dissipation in the system of flexural and x-braced frame is lower than the ODBS braced frame. Figure 13 indicates the behaviour of ODBS for time step 28 in ANSYS finite element software. In another figure the plastic behaviour is concerned about concrete strain energy as shown.

7.1 Time History Records

Macro modeling method was used to analyze the nonlinear behaviour of reinforced concrete frame strengthened by steel bracing system (macro element by lowest accuracy related to micro modeling elements). The model was calibrated using existing laboratory work results and then, larger number of floors and openings were analyzed. The SAP2000 (2010) software was employed to modeling the reinforced concrete frame braced with ODBS system. Dynamic time history analysis is done for modeling high rise concrete frames by increased height and width. Time history analysis using earthquake accelerograms is one of the suggested methods by most regulations to investigate the seismic behaviour of structures. In this study is used the three accelerograms of Naghan, Tabas and Elcentro. Their general characteristics are listed in Table 2.

The various maximum ground acceleration after scaling is set to 0.3 g. Three groups of records are selected based on two parameters; the closest distance to a fault rupture surface [greater than 50 km (far field), nearer than 10 km (near fault)] and the moment magnitude in every scales (Berberian 1977and Jamison et al. 2000). The other characteristics of the real accelerograms such as directivity, fault mechanism, and etc. are the same. The peak ground acceleration of all accelerograms is greater than 0.1 g. These accelerograms are selected from strong ground motion records. The specifications and classification of each group before doing matching procedure are tabulated in Table 2.

Accelerograms of various time histories, the earthquake excitations, in the scaled form are indicated in Fig. 16 as below.

7.2 Structural Modeling

According to the last table, the design sections of reinforced concrete frame and steel brace members are shown as below. The reinforced concrete sections are selected from 5 types. Each stories column is considered corresponding to Fig. 17 (left). Designed sections according to ACI manual are from maximum stress ratio or in the other word according to optimum state of strength and ductility. The ODBS sections are indicated in Fig. 17 (right). The schematic model of ODBS braced RC frame is presented in term of using spring element instead of steel element for third member of bracing system. The composed form of ODBS by damper, spring and steel bracing member could be state of the art characteristics for lateral bearing system with passive energy dissipation.

One of the important analyses for investigating the seismic behaviour of a structure is the time history analysis. So for supplementary analysis, the nonlinear dynamic analysis (NDA) is performed for various time histories.

8.1 Inter-Story Drift Investigation

The obtained inter-story drift results are indicated the amount of dissipated displacement and energy dissipation is increased in a system by more ductility and deformability. The flexural frame is contributed more than x-braced frame in strain energy absorption, because of its ductile characteristics. Construction of ODBS system is divided by two patterns. First, adding off-diagonal steel brace to the first story RC frame, since the x-brace system is used for other stories (composed bracing system by ODBS at first story and x-bracing system for other stories). As second pattern, adding the off-diagonal bracing system to all stories of RC frame (without any composed bracing system). If the system of bracing selected from first pattern, the first story treats as a ductile system and other stories were being treat as a semi rigid body.

The first pattern advantage was a performance same as base isolation system that it is absorbed the vibrations of ground motion and the other stories had a minimum proportional displacement (limits of inter-story drift is checked always). What is too important by this pattern is the limitation of first inter-story’s drift in term of seismic manuals. This system is behaved exclusively, if the regarded drifts being in use. The decision making about second pattern is too important because of its complicated behaviour. When the ODBS is performed in all stories, the energy dissipation potential is created in each story of the structure. By considering the basic lateral resisting system along flexural frame for ODBS system, by adding steel braces, the lateral displacement decreased strongly at each story. In the other word each story equipped by a type of damper and vibrations are controlled and dissipated specially for stories up to fifth or sixth.

One another investigation is about recorded displacements in special base points. The base points are usually selected along the point nearest to center of mass and center of lateral stiffness. Some single base points are chosen at the last floor’s upper level, such as for pushover analysis, on each type of models, these points were monitored along the incremental static loads. Also in dynamic time history analysis, the central base points in each story are defined and monitored to control proportional displacement and/or in the other word, inter-story drift controlling.

Corresponding inter-story values are indicated in Fig. 18. The inter-story drifts shown in three types of flexural, x-brace and off-diagonal braced frame. Differences between various simulated models are compared for their behaviours under three records Naghan, Tabas and Elcentro that they are scaled previously. Figures show the ODBS braced frame has maximum inter-story drift between the base and the first floor but, in upper floors this drift is minimized higher than the other systems. According to Fig. 18 the maximum displacement of ODBS structures in the first story, demonstrate large amount of energy absorption in this system.

If the results of various types of bracing system have been considered, the maximum inter-story drift is happened in the medium height of flexural frame and x-bracing frame wherever their fractural mode was happened there, at the same levels. Whereas in the ODBS braced frame, the maximum inter-story drift was happened in the first story and the other inter-story drifts were occurred proportional to the first story and almost decreased. This is the optimal and the ideal behaviour in a structure but, in the other systems the pattern of stiffness sorting that, it is from high to low stiffness, have not been respected and this is the reason of increasing the cost of construction, especially for structural skeleton. ODBS system has not only decrease of drift in upper story levels but also decrease of stiffness. In an approximately estimation of cost, the ODBS system has lowest cost for construction compare with the other RC bracing systems.

8.2 Plastic Hinges in terms of Levels of Performance

Subjoining the ODBS to concrete flexural frame is not only the cause of more plastic hinges formation in components of beam and column, but also the system ductility increases especially for three to ten story structures, as a result of producing axial plastic hinges of ODBS components. Considering the design of frame sections based on linear static analysis, a limited number of plastic hinges are formed in flexural frame and all of the members will not be able to produce plastic hinges, but when the steel off-diagonal bracing system is added to flexural frame, increasing the rotational capacity of RC members and also increasing the number of composed plastic hinge are some indices of increased ductility of ODBS braced RC flexural frame. Many results are generated along this analysis in ODBS braced RC frame before any damages, the third member of this system has been rotated and deflected near the plastic limit. In this hand, the initial sever vibrations have been damped through the flexibility of ODBS system and also its members elongation and energy absorption. Figure 19 illustrates the formation of plastic hinges and their rotational capacity.

Generated plastic hinges is indicated in Fig. 19. As shown in this figure, the off-diagonal system has the highest level of deformation not only in RC frame members but also in steel members, especially in third member of steel ODBS. The rotational capacity is increased in ODBS, the most ductile system. Performance levels of flexural and X-braced frames are limited to Life Safety (LS) level, but for ODBS, level of performance has been extended to higher ductility about related design criteria. Six and fifteen stories flexural frames have plastic hinges more than X-braced frame. On the other hand in ODBS, more members are contributed in absorption of defined existing energy by nonlinear ductile behavior of plastic rotation and deformation proportional to flexural frame. Non-linear static analyses as well as dynamic step by step seismic analyses are performed and special purpose elements are employed for the needs of this study. Results showing the influence of the maximum rotation of the multi-storey frame members in terms of ductility requirements and rotational requirements of the frame members (Karayannis et al.).

Acceptance criteria for flexural frame of LS level is 0.02 for primary components and also the acceptance criteria for ODBS braced frame of CP level is 0.025 and 0.05 for primary and secondary components respectively. A more detailed scrutinizing of the results reveals that the hinges formed in ODBS system endure the maximum deformation and earn the structure a very high performance level along ductile behavior. In addition, the more performance levels of plastic hinges are gathered in the structure, so by this level of ductility, the structure will be absorbed more quantity of energy. These results are deduced based on non-linear dynamic step by step analyses. The time steps for this analysis is considered less than ΔT = 0.02 s. Future research will be dedicated to the full time history analysis and investigate the proportional hysteresis curves. Assessing the stiffness and/or the strength degrading is the most important to diagnosing the exact behavior of this system.

8.3 Effects of Eccentricity on ODBS System

In other investigation, to recognize the effects of eccentricity on the seismic behaviour and the spectral response of ODBS, a six-story frame by previous properties is performed under spectral analysis. To this modeling, various eccentricities are considered from e = 0.0 to e = 0.7 and also the response of spectral acceleration, velocity and displacement is investigated for a base point on the upper level of sixth story floor. The ODBS system along primary spectral analysis is investigated under effect of Naghan earthquake and the related results are obtained as Fig. 20. Spectral acceleration quantities are registered for two different eccentricities e = 0.1 and e = 0.3. Figure 20 (left) indicates that the result of ODBS by more eccentricity (e = 0.3) was lower than the other one. As regards that the time domain of vibration for Naghan earthquake (measured period 5 s), by increasing the eccentricity, the response of ODBS is decreased in a short time. Also the oscillation’s intensity is decreased saliently. According to right figure, the amount of spectral displacements is indicated for ODBS by the same eccentricity. The spectral displacement for eccentricity about 0.3 was lower than the same by 0.1 for its eccentricity as indicated in right side of Fig. 20. The initial velocity for model by higher eccentricity is greater than the other model by lower eccentricity.

By investigating the recent results, it seems that the energy dissipation is increased by increasing eccentricity and indicates the optimum amount of eccentricity is about 0.1–0.4 for ODBS systems. The eccentricities out of the range of 0.1–0.4 are not suggested to use in structures. Table 7 includes the recorded spectral response as acceleration, velocity and spectral displacement for ODBS system by various eccentricities. By continuing the assessments, the spectral analysis is performed on x-braced frame too. The spectral response of ODBS in compare with x-braced frame indicated the advantage of ODBS system. The stiffness and displacement characteristics of models under Elcentro earthquake are illustrated in Table 7. The intense velocity of x-brace model proportional to ODBS is generated imposing loads by impulsive tendency within the time domain of acceleration. This phenomenon may be the cause of structural concrete deteriorations. The minimum amount of spectral velocity is concerned about ODBS braced frame by eccentricity equal to 0.3. The lowest amount of spectral displacement in concerned about x-braced frame and ODBS braced frame, respectively. Finally the lowest response acceleration is recorded through 0.7 for eccentricity in ODBS braced frame.

Also the dynamic behaviour of the 6-story frames, retrofitted by Off-Diagonal bracing system, under three records of Tabas, Naghan and Elcentro, has been compared for optimizing normalized eccentricity ratio. Overall result related to several eccentricities is shown in Fig. 21.

The optimum levels for displacement and acceleration is affected from the structural stiffness and the mass inertia respectively. Manual limits should be considered for minimum displacement and allowable rotation. By knowing the optimum eccentricity about 0.2–0.5, the optimum behaviour of ODBS is generated. The relation between maximum acceleration response of ODBS and eccentricities variations under mentioned earthquake is specified as Fig. 21 (left). The results are converged for eccentricity about 0.1–0.3 under every excitation. Pushover curve due to different eccentricities is shown in Fig. 21 (right). Results are explained as how much the ductility levels are increased.

Approximation of the equivalent viscous damping ratio is effective parameters to verify the dynamic behaviour and is considered to predict the structural damping treatment and its energy dissipation capacity. The dynamic characteristic for comparison the various load bearing systems is proportional to equivalent damping and effective stiffness. Possibility to solving a simple linear braced frame instead of nonlinear ODBS braced frame is the reason why the equivalent viscous damping is estimated considering both elastic and inelastic energy dissipation.

The previous methods to approximate the equivalent viscous damping for present structure that this system is the composed structural material has indicated just for some hysteretic models, deformability or ductility range and frequency. Time history analysis carried out correspondent some results by amount of difference in present research from exact equivalent viscous damping. The exact and effective equivalent viscous damping ratio is related about two dependent factors, ductility and frequency (or period), because of this estimated values of equivalent viscous damping ratio has been changed along any hysteresis analysis. Then the average equivalent viscous damping should be considered to investigate the present research subject.

The average value has minimum variation compare with exact value. This means that it is not an essential object to have the exact evaluation for damping ratio.

10.1 Hysteresis Response of Models Under Earthquake Excitations

Connecting the pick points of hysteresis loops obtained the spectral response that, it is the one of important parameters for control the structural response in the range of period domain. Figure 23 indicates the spectral response acceleration and spectral response displacement in some different case studies. The various models by 2, 6 and 15 stories for three types of flexural, x-brace and off-diagonal bracing system are subjected to Elcentro, Naghan and Tabas accelerogram records.

It means that, after occurring large deformation (displacement or rotation), the flexural frame has been softened and the disability of load bearing in second stage, especially in term of strain hardening, may caused. The results indicate the ODBS system is the cause of adjustment in quantities of the energy stored and the hysteretic energy. This reason may be the cause of the upper equivalent viscous damping ratio for ODBS braced frame in compare with the others. Hysteresis analysis is performed for each system with their corresponding stories under earthquake records that are investigated one by one as shown in Figs. 24–29. Also as indicated in figures at center, another ODBS specification is about resisting along the earthquake loads up to last cycles of vibration or even to the moment of collapse, vice versa, sole use of flexural frame is not able to resist earthquake in the next cycles just similar to its initial behaviour.

10.2 Time History Analysis Response

Ultimately in last step, the diagrams of time history responses are investigated for different systems of load bearing and under the various seismic records. According to mentioned scaled records, the sightly accelerograms are defined for time history analysis within this research article. As indicated in comparative Fig. 30, the levels of vibration in ODBS system are compared for exciting acceleration and response acceleration.

The level of ODBS response acceleration (in each story by off-diagonal bracing system) is about 41 percent of exciting acceleration. Similar treatment of ODBS has been observed in friction damper device and/or in isolators. Figures 31, 32 and 33 indicate the variation of acceleration and displacement response for various systems and under different earthquakes. For the ODBS system, the number of mode and their vibration’s amplitude could be decreased, that this behaviour is suitable for a structure.

For the future, the exact modeling and analysis of ODBS by experimental investigation could be performed and verified by highest level of accuracy. According to obtained results, the influence factor for variation control and energy dissipation of ODBS system is more than other lateral resisting systems, specially compare with flexural and x-braced frame. The ODBS system was very advantages to controlling deteriorations due to loading by short time period just like an isolation damper or viscous damper and/or the composed system of them.