Seismic Behaviour of Offcentre Bracing S

Journal of Constructional Steel Research 51 (1999) 177–196
www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr
Seismic behaviour of offcentre bracing systems

Hassan A. Moghaddam*, Homayoon E. Estekanchi
Civil Engineering Department, Sharif University, Tehran, Iran
Received 25 November 1997; received in revised form 19 February 1999; accepted 30 March 1999
Abstract
A geometric and material nonlinear model has been applied to the analysis of a particular
offcentre bracing system (OBS). The introduction of an off-diagonal eccentricity in these sys-
tems results in a geometrically nonlinear behaviour. A displacement based iterative approach
has been devised and implemented for hysteretic analysis of OBS with geometrical and
material nonlinearities. The results of the analysis indicate that the load–deflexion behaviour
of OBS follows a nonlinear stiffness-hardening pattern with two yielding points, which reflect
the tensile failure of different bracings. This analytical algorithm was incorporated in a
dynamic programme, used for the dynamic and seismic analysis of single-storey and multi-
storey OBS. The results indicate that OBS can be designed to behave like a base isolation
system, with adequate reserved strength, to safeguard against instability in collapse level earth-
quakes.  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Offcentre bracing; Seismic response; Steel frames; Dynamic analysis; Passive control;
Eccentric bracing
1. Introduction
As the magnitude of seismic forces applied to a structure depends partly on the

characteristics of the structure itself, there is a growing trend to investigate and
identify effective methods of enhancing the seismic behaviour of structures by con-
trolling their deformation rather than strength characteristics [1–5]. The impact of
* Corresponding author.
0143-974X/98/$ - see front matter  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 3 - 9 7 4 X ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 0 7 - 3
178 H.A. Moghaddam, H.E. Estekanchi / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 51 (1999) 177–196
this on seismic design has been the emergence of a variety of new structural forms.
Eccentric and offcentre bracing may be regarded as examples of such new forms.
The realisation of the fact that structures undergo severe excursions in the nonlin-
ear range during destructive earthquakes has led to the development of various
expedients and innovations to either increase the ductility and the capacity for energy
dissipation, or reduce stiffness by using base isolation systems or other relevant
techniques, for example, the knee-bracing systems and eccentrically braced frame.
In these systems, the energy dissipation takes place more efficiently as a result of
plastic bending and shear failure, rather than a simple tensile yielding.
Another expedient is to apply a base isolation system in order to reduce seismic
loads. The basic idea is to uncouple a structure from the ground and thereby protect
it from the damaging effects of earthquake motions; this is achieved by introducing
an additional flexibility, usually at the base of the structure [6–9].
In an earlier report [10], offcentre bracing was introduced as an alternative efficient
expedient to enhance the seismic performance of framed structures. As will be shown
later, offcentre bracing systems are capable of producing a certain amount of seismic
isolation action as well as energy dissipation; the former emerges from the geometri-
cal nonlinearity and the latter relies on the material nonlinearity of such systems.
This paper presents a brief introduction of the offcentre bracings, and the results of
investigation into their cyclic and dynamic behaviour in both nonlinear elastic and
nonlinear inelastic ranges.
As shown in Fig. 1, an offcentre bracing system consists basically of the non-
straight tension strut BOC with an eccentricity designated as e. The mid-point O is
connected to the corner by the third member AO. Once the load is applied, all these
three members are stretched and, therefore, act in tension. As the load increases, the
original geometry changes and a new formulation of equilibrium equations, based
on the new geometry, is required. Hence, the characteristics of such an offcentre
system are geometrically nonlinear. An earlier investigation [10] revealed that the
degree of nonlinearity depends mainly on the amount of eccentricity and the relative
stiffness of the third bracing member. It was also shown that this nonlinear behaviour
could be employed for mitigation of seismic loads. In this early study all the models
Fig. 1. Offcentre bracing frame. (a) Undeformed, (b) deformed.

H.A. Moghaddam, H.E. Estekanchi / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 51 (1999) 177–196 179
were assumed to be elastic. Subsequently, further research was conducted to establish

the characteristics and behaviour of OBS taking into account material nonlinearity.
This paper presents the results of the recent investigation on inelastic character-
istics and behaviour of offcentre bracing frames, as well as a brief revision of their
elastic behaviour. The performance of typical OBS systems as applied to the multi-
storey frames has also been investigated (Fig. 2).
2. Elastic behaviour
Elastic behaviour of offcentre bracing systems has been discussed in detail else-
where [10]. Preliminary studies proved that even within the elastic range, OBS
behaved nonlinearly. The effects and implications of this nonlinear behaviour on
dynamic and seismic response of OBS was then investigated.
2.1. Modelling
A computer programme was developed for nonlinear elastic analysis of OBS. The
programme took into account the changes in geometry of an offcentre bracing frame
by solving a system of 18 nonlinear equations, based on the instantaneous geometry
and equilibrium condition, and adopting a numerical-iterative procedure. The formu-
lation and structure of this programme has been presented in Ref. [10]. An extensive
study of the load–deflexion behaviour of OBS, using this computer programme,
revealed that the eccentricity and relative stiffness of the third bracing member AO
in Fig. 1, had a predominant effect. It was also shown that the position of point O
with respect to the diagonal BC as defined by e2 in Fig. 4 was less significant.
Fig. 2. A typical OBS bracing configuration for a multistorey frame.

Fig. 3. The effect of the third member stiffness (a is the ratio of the area of AO to BO in Fig. 1).
The effect of stiffness of the third member AO in Fig. 1 is represented in Fig. 3.

In this figure, a is defined as the ratio of the area of the third member AO to the
area of the diagonal members BO or CO (see Fig. 1). Fig. 3 indicates that the degree
of nonlinearity depends strongly on a, and that the stiffness of the third member
relative to the other two members needs to be markedly smaller in order to obtain
nonlinear behaviour.
The effect of eccentricity, however, was proved to be significant. As shown in
Fig. 5, the load–deflexion behaviour of an OBS is given for different values of
eccentricity e1 (e1 is defined as the ratio of OH/CH9 according to Fig. 4). The results
indicate that when e1 is as small as 0.05–0.1, the behaviour is almost linear. As e1
increases, the stiffness decreases markedly and the system tends to become nonlinear.
It can be noticed that when e1 varies from 0.05 to 0.3, the initial stiffness decreases
Fig. 4. Eccentricity parameters e1 and e2.

almost fivefold, from 4238 to 863 t/m (Fig. 5). It will be shown later that this
reduction in stiffness can result in the mitigation of seismic forces.
2.2. Seismic response
A computer programme was developed for dynamic analysis of nonlinear elastic

OBS models. In this programme, using the step by step integration method, the
previous technique was employed to analyse instantaneous stiffness as discussed in
more detail in Ref. [10]. Using this programme, the elastic response spectra for OBS
systems were determined. In general, to calculate the seismic response spectra for a
nonlinear system, a nominated period should be defined as a datum. For OBS sys-
tems, a corresponding system without eccentricity was taken as the datum, and its
period was used as a nominal period to plot the seismic spectra of offcentre systems.
It should be noted that the real period of an offcentre system depends on the ampli-
tude of excitation, and it may be quite different from the nominal period. However,
presenting seismic response against such nominal periods, we are able to compare the
response of an offcentre bracing system with the same system when no eccentricity is
introduced. Hence, it would be possible to evaluate the reducing effect of eccentricity
on seismic forces. As an example, the nonlinear elastic response spectra of OBS
with different eccentricities subjected to the Naghan earthquake of 1977 with a mag-
nitude of 6.2 and a peak acceleration of 709.5 cm/s2 are depicted in Fig. 6. It can
be concluded that once the eccentricity is high enough to make the system nonlinear,
say 0.3, a significant decrease in seismic forces occurs, especially for structures of
low to medium height with fundamental periods of less than 1.0 s.
As might be expected, reduction in the initial stiffness can have a reverse effect
on the displacement response as shown in Fig. 6(b). Therefore, it may be concluded
Fig. 5. The effect of eccentricity on load–deflexion relation (see Fig. 4 for e1).
Fig. 6. The effect of eccentricity on seismic response of elastic models to the Naghan earthquake, 1977
(see Fig. 4 for e1).
that (i) when eccentricity is small, the degree of nonlinearity is also small and conse-
quently the seismic response is not affected significantly, and (ii) as eccentricity
increases, the degree of nonlinearity also increases, leading to a remarkable decrease
in seismic forces, accompanied by a significant increase in displacements. This is a
general characteristic of most base isolation systems, where mitigation of seismic
forces is achieved at the expense of an increase in displacements. However, since this
increase is mainly concentrated at first floor level, a particular architectural design is
required to avoid severe damage to non-structural elements, as well as electrical and
mechanical equipment. Special attention is also required to consider the p–d effects
on either high-rise buildings, or medium-rise buildings with heavy gravity loads, due
to extensive displacement at the first floor level.
3. Inelastic behaviour
3.1. Method of analysis
In the previous section, the geometrically nonlinear behaviour of an offcentre brac-

ing system was studied within the elastic range. As the induced seismic forces exceed
the elastic limit, the structure undergoes inelastic deformations, which in turn
increases the degree of nonlinearity. To investigate the effects of material nonlin-
earity on the seismic behaviour of offcentre bracing systems, it was required to
develop an appropriate method for the analysis of load–deflexion and hysteretic
behaviour which could then be incorporated into a programme. In general, there are
two main approaches for analysing the structural systems with a combination of
geometrical and material nonlinearity, namely, force method and displacement
method. Each of these methods have their own advantages and shortcomings. To
avoid some of the shortcomings, a combination of the two approaches was incorpor-
ated in a computer programme as discussed in the following sections.
3.1.1. Force approach

Consider an offcentre frame with the type of geometrical nonlinearity similar to
the frame in Fig. 1. As a lateral load is applied, the structure undergoes a lateral
deflexion, and the three bracing members are displaced to their new positions,
satisfying the equilibrium condition. The problem is to find the new position of point
O in Fig. 1(a) corresponding to the lateral load F. Now considering the bracing
system consisting of members AO, BO, and CO, it can be seen that for a lateral
deflexion D the position of nodes A, B, and C can readily be calculated, and therefore,
the new geometry of the bracing system depends merely on the position of point O
(neglecting the minor effect of the axial deformation of the beam and the columns).
To determine an equilibrium position for point O, we assume first an arbitrary pos-
ition and calculate the axial deformation in bracings, and subsequently determine
the corresponding axial loads. Had the given position for O been the correct one,
the resultant would have been zero. However, we are usually left with an imbalance
resultant force due to incorrect assumption for the position of O. The analysis then
proceeds by applying a small displacement in the direction of the imbalance force,
and recalculating its new value. The calculations are repeated and continued until
the imbalance force vanishes. One main problem here is to determine the optimum
values for displacement. Several available approaches were examined in the course
of the present investigation. Convergence was found to be a stumbling block in
some cases. The problem arises when the stiffness of the system in one direction is
significantly greater than in the other direction. In such a case, even a smaller dis-
placement in the direction of the imbalance force may produce a new larger imbal-
ance force.
3.1.2. Displacement approach

The instantaneous nodal stiffness matrix for node O may be established by apply-
ing small displacements along the normal axes of a given coordinate system. For
better results, it is recommended that the coordinate system is chosen according to
the imbalance force. Once the instantaneous stiffness matrix is determined, one can
calculate the required displacement to account for a given imbalance force. For small
geometrical nonlinearities, there is a fast convergence. However, this approach may
result in gross errors when the stiffness in one direction becomes nil, and conse-
quently the results become misleading. In such cases, the ‘force approach’ must
be employed.
3.1.3. Combinational approach

It was decided to combine the previous approaches to encounter some of the short-
comings. Hence, the computer programme NEAT was developed to analyse the load–
deflexion characteristics of the offcentre bracing systems with geometrical and
material nonlinearities. The logical structure of the core subroutine of this programme
is presented as follows.
1. Imbalance force IF is determined.
2. If IF is less than a given value, or the number of iterations exceeds a given limit
while IF is below a given value, exit the loop.
3. The instantaneous nodal stiffness matrix is calculated, and used for evaluating
the incremental displacement.
4. If the stiffness in the direction of IF is too small, or the incremental displacement
is too large, an incremental displacement equal to a fraction of the number of the
cycle is assumed. When the number of cycles exceeds 50, it switches to the
force approach.
5. The amounts of IF and the potential energy at the destination point are checked
to ensure they are less than the existing position, otherwise the increment is
reduced until either of these requirements is met. A similar check is also conduc-
ted at the midpoint to ascertain the possibility of replacing it with the desti-
nation point.
6. The new imbalance force is calculated.
7. Iteration is continued, resuming from step 2.
The computer programme NEAT was then employed to investigate the hysteretic
behaviour of the offcentre bracing systems as discussed in the following section.
3.2. Load–deflexion and hysteretic characteristics
Consider the offcentre bracing system in Fig. 1. As a result of a small lateral

deflexion of the frame, all three bracing members undergo elastic elongation, which
cause a reduction in the eccentricity as shown in Fig. 1(b). As a result of this geo-
metrical change, stiffness increases. This trend continues until the third member
yields (as it has been designed to do), and consequently stiffness vanishes tempor-
arily, as shown in Fig. 7. However, the occurrence of the first yielding stage does
not indicate that the ultimate strength is gained. On the contrary, following the yield-
ing of the third member, the other two members start aligning, and consequently
stiffness increases until the second stage of yielding occurs, as a result of failure in
either of these two members, and as shown in Fig. 7 the strength reaches its ultimate
value. It is noticeable that the flexibility of the third member has a significant effect
Fig. 7. Schematic load–deflexion behaviour of OBS models.

Table 1
General properties of OBS models
Structural steel ST37a

Modulus of elasticity 200 000 MPa
Yield stress 235 MPa
Bracing buckling load 0.098 N
Panel width 400 cm
Panel height 300 cm
Total mass 2747 kN
Area of member 1 19.2 cm2
Area of member 2 19.2 cm2
Area of member 3 (OBSPx series) 1.45 cm2
Area of member 3 (OBSHx series) 0.02 cm2b
a
According to DIN standards.
b
This is a hyper elastic member.
on the load–deflexion characteristics, and that for very flexible members, the first
yielding stage may not occur, and the system remains elastic up to the occurrence
of the final yielding in the other two members.
In the present study two sets of OBS models, called OBSP and OBSH, with vary-
ing eccentricity rations were analysed. These two sets were identical except for the
properties of the third bracing member (as given in Fig. 1). The properties of the
models are given in Tables 1 and 2, where it can be seen that the cross-section of
Table 2
Specific properties of OBS models
No. Model ID e1a Initial stiffness Initial period (s)

(kN/cm)b
1 OBSP0 0.0 491.78 0.47

2 OBSP1 0.1 315.59 0.59
3 OBSP2 0.2 158.53 0.83
4 OBSP3 0.3 77.50 1.19
5 OBSP4 0.4 37.77 1.71
6 OBSP5 0.5 17.36 2.52
7 OBSP6 0.6 6.50 4.12
8 OBSP7 0.7 1.23 9.48
9 OBSH0 0.0 491.78 0.47
10 OBSH1 0.1 21.19 2.28
11 OBSH2 0.2 4.68 4.86
12 OBSH3 0.3 1.71 8.04
13 OBSH4 0.4 0.73 12.28
14 OBSH5 0.5 0.32 18.70
15 OBSH6 0.6 0.114 31.14
16 OBSH7 0.7 0.021 72.55
a
Eccentricity ratio (see Fig. 4).
b
The area of member AO (see Fig. 1) equals 1.45 and 0.02 cm2 for models OBSP and OBSH respectively.
the third member in the OBSH group was made relatively very small so that the
models can represent offcentre bracing systems with a very flexible third member.
The computer programme NEAT was used to investigate the load–deflexion and
hysteretic characteristics of the OBSP and OBSH models, and some of the results
are presented in Figs. 8 and 9. Fig. 8(a) illustrates the load–deflexion behaviour of
typical OBSP models of varying eccentricity ratios. These results indicate that there
are two yielding points, and as discussed before, the first one relates to the occurrence
of yielding in the third bracing member (as designated in Fig. 1) and the second one
reflects the yielding in either of the other bracing members. Prior to both yielding
stages, the behaviour is nonlinear and resembles the behaviour of a stiffness harden-
ing spring. The increase in eccentricity has apparently resulted in a decrease in both
stiffness and first-yielding strength of OBSP models, as indicated in Fig. 8(a),
Fig. 8. Load–deflexion behaviour of OBS models with different eccentricities (see Fig. 4 for e1, and
Table 2 for OBSP and OBSH models). (a) OBSP models, (b) OBSH models.
Fig. 9. Typical hysteresis cycles of OBS models (see Table 2 for OBSP and OBSH models). (a) OBSP3
model, (b) OBSH3 model.
whereas the ultimate strength has remained unaffected. Fig. 8(b) illustrates the load–
deflexion behaviour of typical OBSH models of varying eccentricity ratios. The
results indicate that as a contrast to OBSP models, the first yielding stage does not
occur in OBSH models. This may be attributed to the excessive flexibility of the
third bracing member. However, other characteristics remain similar. OBSH models
exhibit a stiffness hardening type of behaviour, which is followed by the final yield-
ing of the first or the second bracing member (as designated in Fig. 1). Fig. 8(b)
also indicates that, similar to OBSP models, the stiffness of OBSH models decreases
with eccentricity. The ultimate strength, however, has not been affected noticeably.
The typical hysteretic characteristic of the offcentre bracing systems is depicted
in Fig. 9. This figure presents the hysteresis cycles for both OBSP and OBSH models.
In Fig. 9(a), two distinct yielding stages can be distinguished for the OBSP model
due to the failure in the third bracing member and the other two members (as defined
in Fig. 1), respectively. As a result of hyper-flexibility of the third member, the first
yielding stage has not taken place in the OBSH model, and as indicated in Fig. 9(b)
it has undergone less residual inelastic deformation.
3.3. Dynamic behaviour
The computer programme HISTORY was developed for the dynamic nonlinear
analysis of offcentre bracing systems, employing the step by step integration method
together with the NEAT programme as a subroutine for the calculation of the force
displacement history. This programme was then used for dynamic analysis of the
OBSP and OBSH models subjected to impact, harmonic and seismic loading.
3.3.1. Response to impact and harmonic loading

The previous OBSP and OBSH models were subjected to impact and harmonic
loading. The impact load consisted of a single half-sine ground acceleration with a
peak value of 1g, and a duration of 0.2 s. The maximum responses to the impact
loading are presented in Table 3, and the typical time-history diagrams are depicted
in Fig. 10. Table 3 indicates that for both models an increase in eccentricity results in
a decrease in acceleration response, and an increase in the velocity and displacement
responses. The displacement responses of the two models, as given in Fig. 10, indi-
cate that while both models have undergone some permanent inelastic deformation,
the OBSH model has sustained far less permanent deformation due to hyper-flexi-
bility of its third bracing member.
The models were also subjected to harmonic excitations with a peak value of
1g and a period of 0.4 s. The harmonic and impact responses were found to be
generally similar.
3.3.2. Seismic response

3.3.2.1. Single-storey systems The single-storey offcentre bracing models OBSPs
with different eccentricity ratios were subjected to various seismic excitations, and
the results are given in Table 4 and Fig. 11. The responses to the El-Centro 1940
earthquake are summarised in Table 4. Fig. 11 illustrates the time-history acceleration
response of models OBSP2 and OBSP3, and Fig. 12 demonstrates the response for
various eccentricity and damping ratios. The responses to some of the most destruc-
tive earthquakes which occurred in Iran during the last two decades are compared
with El-Centro earthquake in Fig. 13. The results in Table 4 indicate that, as the
eccentricity ratio increases from 0.2 to 0.3, the peak acceleration is decreased mark-
edly from 0.129 to 0.029g. This is also shown in Fig. 11, where some of the peaks
in the time-history of the OBSP2 response are absent in the corresponding OBSP3
response due to the increase in eccentricity. This decrease in peak acceleration is
accompanied by a relatively small increase in displacement from 12.08 to 14.70 cm.
From these results it can be concluded that an increase in eccentricity reduces the
stiffness and results in a significant reduction of acceleration response, and hence
the seismic force. On the other hand, it causes a less significant increase in the
displacement response. For example, as given in Table 4, an introduction of an eccen-
Table 3
Response of OBS models to impact loading
Model ID e1 a Max. Max. Max. Model ID e1a Max. Max. Max.

acceleration velocity displacement acceleration velocity displacement
(g) (cm/s) (cm) (g) (cm/s) (cm)
OBSP0 0.0 0.183 98.57 40.92 OBSH0 0.0 0.183 98.57 40.92
OBSP1 0.1 0.181 102.94 44.11 OBSH1 0.1 0.183 105.77 46.48
OBSP2 0.2 0.181 112.82 51.15 OBSH2 0.2 0.181 114.49 53.92
OBSP3 0.3 0.175 115.46 60.89 OBSH3 0.3 0.167 116.9 62.99
OBSP4 0.4 0.164 116.33 74.61 OBSH4 0.4 0.150 117.28 74.98
OBSP5 0.5 0.151 116.83 92.89 OBSH5 0.5 0.132 117.42 90.32
OBSP6 0.6 0.135 117.15 116.31 OBSH6 0.6 0.111 117.48 109.46
OBSP7 0.7 0.116 117.38 145.58 OBSH7 0.7 0.087 117.51 133.87
a
Eccentricity ratio ( 5 OH/CH9 in Fig. 4).
Fig. 10. Displacement response to impact loading (see Table 2 for OBSP and OBSH models). (a) OBSP3
model, (b) OBSH3 model.
Table 4
Response of OBS models to the El-Centro earthquake
Model ID e1a Max. acceleration Max. velocity Max. displacement

(g) (cm/s) (cm)
OBSP0 0.0 0.150 39.04 11.32

OBSP1 0.1 0.143 38.39 11.24
OBSP2 0.2 0.126 41.06 12.08
OBSP3 0.3 0.029 32.73 14.70
OBSP4 0.4 0.027 34.69 15.01
OBSP5 0.5 0.024 35.26 14.66
OBSP6 0.6 0.022 35.36 13.82
OBSP7 0.7 0.020 35.28 12.97
a
Eccentricity ratio (see Fig. 4).
Fig. 11. Acceleration response to the El-Centro earthquake (see Table 2 for OBSP and OBSH models).
(a) OBSP2 model, (b) OBSP3 model.
Fig. 12. Peak acceleration response to the El-Centro earthquake.

Fig. 13. Peak acceleration responses to various earthquakes (see Fig. 4 for e1).
tricity ratio of 0.7 in OBSP7 has resulted in an almost sevenfold reduction in acceler-
ation (i.e. the seismic force) in comparison with the ordinary system without eccen-
tricity (model OBSP0 with zero eccentricity), accompanied by only a 15% increase
in displacement response. This may be regarded as having vital implications in seis-
mic design.
Fig. 12 indicates that the variation of the damping ratio does not change the pre-
vious trend for the influence of eccentricity ratio. A comparison between the
responses of models with different eccentricity ratios to various severe earthquakes
as shown in Fig. 13 leads to similar conclusions.
3.3.2.2. Multi-storey systems To investigate the prospective beneficial implications

of the previous findings in seismic design, the seismic behaviour of multi-storey
structures with an offcentre bracing system was studied. Three-, five- and ten-storey
shear building models with ideal elasto-plastic behaviour in all storeys except the
ground floor were employed. The offcentre bracing systems of various eccentricity
ratios were introduced to act as a seismic resistant system at the ground floor. The
computer programme STORY was developed for nonlinear dynamic analysis of these
multi-storey models, combining the routine procedure for dynamic analysis of an
elasto-plastic multi-storey shear model and the foregoing procedures for nonlinear
dynamic analysis of inelastic offcentre bracing systems.
These multi-storey models were subjected to various seismic excitations. Some of
the results of this study are demonstrated in Figs. 14 and 15. The response of the
five-storey model to the El-Centro earthquake of 1940 is given in Fig. 14. This model
represents the seismic resistant system for a typical five-storey building, in which
the offcentre bracings of various eccentricity ratios have been employed at the ground
floor. In other floors, ordinary elasto-plastic shear systems have been considered and
proportioned according to the Iranian seismic code. The acceleration response in Fig.
14(a) indicates that, the highest level of response has been exhibited by the model
with zero eccentricity, where in effect no offcentre behaviour had taken place. This
Fig. 14. Response of five-storey buildings with different eccentricity ratios to the El-Centro earthquake,
1940. (a) Acceleration, (b) lateral displacement, (c) interstorey drift.
Fig. 15. Response of ten-storey buildings with different eccentricity ratios to the Naghan earthquake,
1977 (Iran). (a) Acceleration, (b) lateral displacement, (c) interstorey drift.
case may be regarded as a datum to study the effect of eccentricity on the reduction
of seismic forces. As the eccentricity ratio increases to 0.1 and 0.2, the seismic
acceleration decreases. However, this decrease is more marked when the eccentricity
ratio varies from 0.2 to 0.3 where up to fivefold reduction in the acceleration response
can be observed. On the other hand, the increase in the eccentricity ratio has resulted
in an increase of both lateral displacements and interstorey drifts as indicated in Fig.
14(b) and (c). It can be noticed that once the eccentricity ratio exceeds a particular
value, in this case say 0.3 to 0.4, this trend slows down and reverses. For example,
as the eccentricity ratio increases from 0 to 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6, the displacement
at the top of the building varies from 13.42 to 16.84, 18.86, 21.37, 17.65 and
15.47 cm, respectively. A similar pattern is prevailing at other floors as shown in
Fig. 14. It should be noted that all floors receive more overall displacement as the
eccentricity ratio increases, but this is mainly due to the ground floor displacement,
and does not have noticeable adverse affect on design. This is more apparent in Fig.
14(c) where the interstorey drifts even decrease when the eccentricity increases
(except for the ground floor). Therefore, it can be concluded that the use of an
offcentre bracing system in a multi-storey building can result in a reduction of both
seismic forces and interstorey drifts except for the ground floor where an increased
drift is observed and consequently should be encountered in the design of such struc-
tures.
The response of the ten-storey model to the Naghan earthquake of 1978 is given
in Fig. 15. This model represents the seismic resistant system for a typical ten-storey
building, in which the offcentre bracings of various eccentricity ratios have been
employed at the ground floor. In other floors, ordinary elasto-plastic shear systems
have been considered and proportioned according to the Iranian seismic code. The
results illustrated in Fig. 15 indicate that, in general, the increase in the eccentricity
ratio results in a decrease in accelerations, and hence seismic forces. However, as
before, the effect on the lateral displacement and interstorey drifts given in Fig. 15(b)
and (c) is less pronounced.
From the results of these dynamic analyses of the multi-storey models, it can be
deduced that the use of offcentre bracings can result in a significant reduction of
seismic forces and interstorey drifts, normally accompanied by an increase in the
ground floor interstorey drift. However, this undesirable consequence should be taken
into account in the seismic design of such buildings.
4. Conclusion
From the results of static and dynamic analysis of single-storey and multi-storey
offcentre bracing systems with geometrical and material nonlinearities, the following
conclusions could be drawn.
1. The nonlinear stiffness-hardening load–deflexion characteristic of offcentre brac-
ing systems stems from their special unconventional geometry, and is controlled
mainly by the eccentricity and relative stiffness of the third bracing member.
2. The computer programme NEAT was developed and used to determine the hyster-
etic cycles for OBS. The results indicate that yielding occurs at two different
levels related, respectively, to the failure in the third bracing member and either
of the other two members. However, there is considerable reserve strength beyond
the first yielding stage. It was also shown that by providing sufficient flexibility in
the third bracing member, the hysteretic characteristics of OBS can be enhanced.
3. The computer program HISTORY was developed and used for dynamic and seis-
mic analysis of OBS. The results indicate that the increase in flexibility of OBS
(obtained by increasing the eccentricity ratio and flexibility of the third member)
results in a marked reduction of dynamic and seismic forces. This is believed to
have a vital implication on the seismic design of OBS.
4. The reduction of the seismic forces and inter-storey displacement was found to
be accompanied by an undesirable increase in the ground floor drift. This is a
general characteristic of most of the base isolation systems and should be taken
into account in the seismic design of such systems.
References
[1] Newmark NM, Rosenblueth E. Fundamentals of earthquake engineering. Prentice-Hall, Englewood

Cliffs, 1971.
[2] Applied Technology Council. Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for
buildings. ATC publication ATC 3-06, 1978.
[3] New Zealand Standard NZS4203. Code of practice for general structural design and design loading
for buildings, 1992.
[4] Paulay T. The philosophy and applications of capacity design. In: 2nd Intn Conf on Seismology
and Earthquake Eng, 15–17 May, Tehran, 1995.
[5] Moghaddam HA. Earthquake engineering. RTRC publ, Tehran, 1996 (in Farsi).
[6] Kelly JM. Seismic base isolation: review and bibliography. Soil Dyn. and Earthquake Eng.
1986;5:202–16.
[7] Buckle LG, Mayes RL. Seismic isolation: history, application and performance — a world view.
Earthquake Spectra 1990;6(2):161–210.
[8] Aiken ID, Kelly JM, Mahmoodi P. The application of viscoelastic dampers to seismically resistant
structures. In: Proc 4th US Nat Conf on Earthqauke Eng, EERI, vol. 3, 1990:459–68.
[9] Tsai CS, Lee HH. Applications of viscoelastic dampers to high-rise buildings. J. of Struc Eng, ASCE
1993;119(4):1222–33.
[10] Moghaddam HA, Estekanchi HE. On the characteristics of off-centre bracing system. J. Construct
Steel Research 1995;35:361–76.

Seismic Behaviour of Offcentre Bracing S

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Behaviour of Offcentre Bracing S

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Constructional Steel Research 51 (1999) 177–196

Seismic behaviour of offcentre bracing systems

As the magnitude of seismic forces applied to a structure depends partly on the

Fig. 1. Offcentre bracing frame. (a) Undeformed, (b) deformed.

were assumed to be elastic. Subsequently, further research was conducted to establish

Fig. 2. A typical OBS bracing configuration for a multistorey frame.

The effect of stiffness of the third member AO in Fig. 1 is represented in Fig. 3.

Fig. 4. Eccentricity parameters e1 and e2.

2.2. Seismic response

A computer programme was developed for dynamic analysis of nonlinear elastic

3.1. Method of analysis

In the previous section, the geometrically nonlinear behaviour of an offcentre brac-

3.1.1. Force approach

3.1.2. Displacement approach

3.1.3. Combinational approach

3.2. Load–deflexion and hysteretic characteristics

Consider the offcentre bracing system in Fig. 1. As a result of a small lateral

Fig. 7. Schematic load–deflexion behaviour of OBS models.

Structural steel ST37a

No. Model ID e1a Initial stiffness Initial period (s)

1 OBSP0 0.0 491.78 0.47

3.3. Dynamic behaviour

3.3.1. Response to impact and harmonic loading

3.3.2. Seismic response

Model ID e1 a Max. Max. Max. Model ID e1a Max. Max. Max.

Model ID e1a Max. acceleration Max. velocity Max. displacement

OBSP0 0.0 0.150 39.04 11.32

Fig. 12. Peak acceleration response to the El-Centro earthquake.

3.3.2.2. Multi-storey systems To investigate the prospective beneficial implications

[1] Newmark NM, Rosenblueth E. Fundamentals of earthquake engineering. Prentice-Hall, Englewood

You might also like