## 5 Comparison of the Pseudo-Dynamic Test and Non-Linear Dynamic Analysis Results
### Non-Linear Dynamic Analysis Results before and after Seismic Retrofitting
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Floor** \\ **Floor** \\ **Plament of** \\ **\(\delta_{ydp}\) **[mm]** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Yield** \\ **Strength of** \\ **Damper** \\ **[kN]** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Accumulated** \\ **Deformation** \\ **Factor** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Targeted** \\ **Performance** \\ **\(E_{R\omega}\)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Required** \\ **Strength** \\ **Q\({}_{ydp}\)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Number of** \\ **Applied** \\ **Dampers** \\ **[EA]** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Number of** \\ **Applied** \\ **Dampers** \\ **[EA]** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \hline
1 & & & & 0.52 & 500.1 & 4.01 & 4 \\ \hline
2 & 0.08 & 125 & 10 & 0.52 & 418.6 & 3.36 & 4 \\ \hline
3 & & & & 0.52 & 256.1 & 2.06 & 2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 17: Calculated seismic strengthening amount of LLFD V-typed seismic control system. Figure 35: Relationships of analysis results between non-strengthened and LLFD-strengthened buildings (1F): (**a**) Seismic response load-displacement relationship; (**b**) Seismic response time-displacement relationship. Figure 36: Relationships of seismic response load–displacement for analysis results of LLFD (1F). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Building**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Floor**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Maximum Response** \\ **Strength**\(V_{max}\) **[kN]** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Maximum Response** \\ **Displacement and** \\ **Displacement Ratio**\(\delta_{max}\) **[mm]** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{**Failure Mode**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Degree of** \\ **Damage \({}^{*}\)** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \cline{3-3} \multirow{3}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} Non- \\ strengthened \\ \end{tabular} } & 1 & 3584.2 & 49.1 & Shear failure & Collapse \\ \cline{2-6}  & 2 & 2651.9 & 38.2 & Shear failure & Large \\ \cline{2-6}  & 3 & 1411.3 & 22.6 & Shear crack & Small \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} NBSD- \\ strengthened \\ \end{tabular} } & 1 & 3373.2 & 7.5 [0.15] & Flexural and Shear crack & Light \\ \cline{2-6}  & 2 & 3200.8 & 8.9 [0.23] & Flexural and Shear crack & Light \\ \cline{2-6}  & 3 & 1739.4 & 8.1 [0.36] & Flexural and Shear crack & Light \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* The degree of earthquake-induced damage was evaluated based on JBDPA [48] and [PERSON] et al. [49].  
\end{table} 
Table 18: Comparison of maximum seismic response and extent of damage before and after seismic strengthening. Figure 37: Contribution of the LLFD V-bracing seismic control system to seismic response energy dissipation. Figure 39: Distribution of ductility ratios of columns with respect to shear displacement of LLFD-strengthened buildings based on the non-linear dynamic analysis. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Building** & **Kinetic Energy** & **Plastic Deformation** & **Damping Energy** & **Total Energy of LLFD** & **Plastic Deformation Energy of LLFD** & **LLFD System Contribution** \\  & **Energy** & **Energy** & \(E_{D}\) [kN\(\cdot\)m] & **\(E\) [kN\(\cdot\)m]** & **\(E\) [kN\(\cdot\)m]** & **\(\mathbf{\mathrm{\Delta}}\) [kN\(\cdot\)m]** & **\(\mathbf{\mathrm{\Delta}}\) [\%)** \\ \hline NBSD- & & & & & & \\ strengthened & 1.06 & 43.1 & 28.1 & 217.4 & 146.0 & 67.1 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 19: Contribution to total energy dissipation capacity by the seismic response of LLFD V-typed seismic control system. Figure 38: Distribution of ductility ratios of columns with respect to shear displacement of non-reinforced existing buildings based on the non-linear dynamic analysis.