## 5 Comparison of the Pseudo-Dynamic Test and Non-Linear Dynamic Analysis Results
### Comparison of the Non-Linear Dynamic Analysis and Pseudo-Dynamic Test Results  
The non-linear dynamic analysis was conducted using CANNY based on the model described in Section 5.1 with Hachinohe (EW) seismic waves of 200, 300, and 400 cm/s\({}^{2}\), which were used in the pseudo-dynamic test. As mentioned above, the Hachinohe (EW) seismic wave of 200 cm/s\({}^{2}\) was applied to the non-reinforced specimen in the pseudo-dynamic test, while 200, 300, and 400 cm/s\({}^{2}\) were applied to the LLFD-reinforced specimen. Figure 26 shows the seismic response load-displacement and time-displacement hysteresis curves for the first floor based on the non-linear dynamic analysis and pseudo-dynamic test of the non-reinforced specimen subjected to 200 cm/s\({}^{2}\). Figures 27-29 show the seismic response load-displacement and time-displacement hysteresis curves for the first floor based on the non-linear dynamic analysis and pseudo-dynamic test of the specimen retrofitted with the LLFD V-bracing system and subjected to 200-400 cm/s\({}^{2}\). In addition, Figures 30-32 show the seismic response load-displacement and time-displacement hysteresis curves for the LLFD subjected to 200-400 cm/s\({}^{2}\). In the load-displacement curves shown in Figures 30-32, a yield strength (\(V_{d,y}\)) of 125 kN was used, the same as in the non-linear dynamic analysis, because no load on the LLFD was measured in the pseudo-dynamic test. Table 15 compares the maximum response load-maximum response displacement relationships based on the non-linear dynamic analysis and pseudo-dynamic test. Figure 26: Comparison of seismic response load–displacement and displacement hysteresis based on pseudo-dynamic test and nonlinear dynamic analysis of non-strengthened specimen (1F, 200 cm/s\({}^{2}\)). Figure 29: Comparison of seismic response load–displacement and displacement hysteresis based on pseudo-dynamic test and nonlinear dynamic analysis of LLFD-strengthened specimen (1F, 400 cm/s\({}^{2}\)). Figure 27: Comparison of seismic response load–displacement and displacement hysteresis based on pseudo-dynamic test and nonlinear dynamic analysis of LLFD-strengthened specimen (1F, 200 cm/s\({}^{2}\)). Figure 31: Comparison of seismic response load–displacement and displacement hysteresis based on pseudo-dynamic test and nonlinear dynamic analysis of LLFD (1F, 300 cm/s\({}^{2}\)). Figure 32: Comparison of seismic response load–displacement and displacement hysteresis based on pseudo-dynamic test and nonlinear dynamic analysis of LLFD (1F, 400 cm/s\({}^{2}\)). Figure 30: Comparison of seismic response load–displacement and displacement hysteresis based on pseudo-dynamic test and nonlinear dynamic analysis of LLFD (1F, 200 cm/s\({}^{2}\)). Under an input seismic acceleration of 200 cm/s\({}^{2}\), the maximum seismic response load and displacement values for PD-RC were 263.1 kN and 71.9 mm in the non-linear dynamic analysis and 251.4 kN and 67.3 mm in the pseudo-dynamic test, respectively (Figure 26 and Table 15). Under 200 cm/s\({}^{2}\), the maximum seismic response load and displacement values for PD-LLFD-V were 416.5 kN and 9.4 mm in the non-linear dynamic analysis and 439.6 kN and 6.5 mm in the pseudo-dynamic test, respectively (Figure 27 and Table 15). Under 300 cm/s\({}^{2}\), the maximum seismic response load and displacement values were 553.0 kN and 17.0 mm in the non-linear dynamic analysis and 610.9 kN and 15.7 mm in the pseudo-dynamic test, respectively (Figure 28 and Table 15). Under 400 cm/s\({}^{2}\), which assumed a large earthquake, the maximum seismic response load and displacement values were 662.6 kN and 29.5 mm in the non-linear dynamic analysis and 756.6 kN and 27.1 mm in the pseudo-dynamic test, respectively (Figure 29 and Table 15). Overall, for the ground motion with 200-400 cm/s\({}^{2}\), the non-linear dynamic analysis and pseudo-dynamic test results were similar, with an average difference of less than 10%.