## 3 Overview of Pseudo-Dynamic Testing and Result Analysis
### Specim Preparation and Parameters  
A three-story RC school building frame (standard drawings of the 1980s) in Korea, as shown in Figure 7, was selected and used to verify the seismic performance of the proposed CFT-MF seismic retrofitting method. The story height was 3.3 m, the design concrete strength was 21 MPa. Pseudo-dynamic testing was performed on a full-size two-story frame with a size of one span of the domestic RC school building. The width (b) and depth (d) of the cross-section of the test frame column were 350 \(\times\) 500 mm. 8-D19 and 2-D16 were used as longitudinal reinforcing bars, while D10/300 was used as transverse reinforcing bars. The net height of the column was 2400 mm, and the shear span-to-depth ratio was 4.8. T-shape beams were used as each floor's beams, considering the effective slab width in accordance with KDS 41 [36]. Table 3 summarizes the applied specimen parameters.  
Figure 8 shows the bar arrangement details of the existing frame with no reinforcement applied (PD-FR specimen, control bare frame for pseudo-dynamic testing), along with an image of the corresponding specimen. Figure 9 presents the bar arrangement details of the frame retrofitted with the CFT-MF system (PD-CFT-MF), along with an image of its specimen. For pseudo-dynamic testing, a test frame retrofitted with the CFT-MF system was prepared, along with a test frame with no reinforcement applied for comparison. These two test frames were subjected to the tests, and the results were compared.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Specimen Name** & **Test Method** & **Reinforcing Method** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Input Seismic Wave** \\ **Intensity (cm/s\({}^{2}\))** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline PD-FR & Pseudo-dynamic testing & Control bare frame & 200 \\ \hline PD-CFT-MF & Pseudo-dynamic testing & CFT-MF seismic system & 200/300/400 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Pseudo-dynamic testing specimens and applied parameters.  
Figure 7: Shape of target building and target frame selected for pseudo-dynamic testing (**a**) front view and (**b**) top view.  
Figure 8: Bar arrangement details and image of existing frame with no reinforcement applied (PD-FR specimen, control bare frame for pseudo-dynamic testing): (**a**) bar arrangement details and (**b**) image.  
Figure 9: Bar arrangement details and image of test frame retrofitted with CFT-MF system (PD-CFT): (**a**) bar arrangement details and (**b**) image.  
According to [PERSON] [35], the Hachinohe wave (EW) exhibited the largest seismic response displacement (ductility) among the ten historical seismic waves set for middle- and low-rise RC structures (whose strength is less than 0.5 in terms of shear coefficient). Thus, in the present study, the Hachinohe wave was selected as the input seismic ground motion for pseudo-dynamic testing. The input seismic acceleration was set by standardizing the Hachinohe wave (EW) into 200, 300, and 400 cm/s\({}^{2}\). Two-hundred and 300 cm/s\({}^{2}\) are equivalent to two-thirds of the seismic magnitude of the earthquake, with a recurrence period of 2400 years (Seismic Zone-1 and Soil Profile Type S\({}_{4}\) and S\({}_{5}\)) defined in KDS 41 [36].  
Four-hundred cm/s\({}^{2}\) was defined to examine the seismic retrofitting performance of the CFT-MF seismic retrofitting method proposed in the present study when a large-scale earthquake occurs. It is equivalent to the seismic magnitude of an earthquake with a recurrence period of 2400 years. The axial force was determined based on the axial load exerted on the actual existing frame (two columns), i.e., 1000-kN. Thus, each of the two columns was subjected to a constant axial force of 500-kN.