## 5 Discussion  
This section focuses on the comparative analysis of various analytical models, particularly examining the hysteretic energies and deformation characteristics. It emphasizes the role of these parameters in determining the overall energy dissipation capabilities of the braces. The findings reveal that the models successfully represent the nonlinear behavior that occurs under time history loading, which has considerable consequences for the design and application of these structural systems. The cyclic response of RC structures is inherently nonlinear due to the complex interaction between concrete and steel reinforcement. When subjected to seismic loading, these structures experience a progressive loss of stiffness and strength, leading to increased lateral deformations and potential structural collapse. Hysteretic behavior is primarily governed by the constitutive properties of concrete and steel, as well as the interaction mechanisms between these materials. Material nonlinearity plays a fundamental role in shaping the hysteretic response of RC members. Concrete exhibits brittle behavior in tension and strain softening in compression, leading to progressive damage accumulation under repeated loading cycles [39]. In contrast, reinforcing steel exhibits yielding and strain hardening, which contribute to the energy dissipation capacity of RC members [40]. The interaction between these materials is governed by bond-slip behavior, which significantly influences stiffness degradation and pinching effects in the hysteresis loops [41]. Poor bond strength between concrete and steel reinforcement exacerbates energy dissipation deficiencies, resulting in early failure of substandard structures. Structural failure mechanisms in RC buildings under cyclic loading are predominantly classified as shear-dominated or flexure-dominated. Flexural failures, often associated with ductile behavior, are characterized by gradual stiffness degradation and stable hysteresis loops [42]. In contrast, shear failures are highly brittle, leading to abrupt strength loss and unstable hysteretic responses [43]. Substandard RC structures, which often lack adequate shear reinforcement, are particularly vulnerable to shear-induced collapse. Experimental studies have demonstrated that deficient shear reinforcement leads to significant pinching in the hysteresis loops, which is indicative of poor energy dissipation capacity and rapid stiffness degradation [44]. Another key aspect of hysteretic behavior is the progressive accumulation of damage, often referred to as cyclic degradation. This phenomenon manifests as a reduction in peak load capacity and stiffness with increasing loading cycles [45]. Cumulative damage effects are particularly pronounced in older RC structures, where inadequate confinement detailing results in premature spalling of cover concrete and buckling of longitudinal reinforcement [46]. The lack of sufficient transverse reinforcement in substandard structures further accelerates strength degradation, increasing the likelihood of collapse under seismic loading [47]. Hysteresis loops serve as a visual representation of energy dissipation characteristics in RC structures. Well-designed structures with sufficient confinement exhibit stable hysteresis loops with wide energy dissipation areas, whereas substandard structures with inadequate detailing show narrow, pinched loops. Experimental studies have confirmed that the presence of sufficient transverse reinforcement enhances the stability of hysteresis \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Specimen No** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Ground** \\ **Motion** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Shake Table** \\ **Test (mm)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Analytic** \\ **Model (mm)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Error (\%)** \\ \hline
1 & 0.35 g & 53.14 & 53.57 & 0.43 \\
2 & 1 g & 19.86 & 18.97 & 4.48 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison of the top displacements.