## 4 Comparison of Pseudo-Dynamic Test Results and Non-Linear Dynamic Analysis Results
### Comparison of Non-linear Dynamic Analysis and Pseudo-Dynamic Test Results  
Non-linear dynamic analysis was performed using the Hachinohe wave (EW) at 200, 300, and 400 cm/s\({}^{2}\) applied in the pseudo-dynamic tests. Further, the model described in Section 4.1, along with CANNY, was employed. As mentioned previously, 200 cm/s\({}^{2}\) of the Hachinohe wave (EW) was applied to the test frame with no reinforcement applied (PD-FR) in the pseudo-dynamic testing, while 200, 300, and 400 cm/s\({}^{2}\) of the Hachinohe wave (EW) were applied in the test frame retrofitted with the CFT-MF system (PD-CFT-MF). Figure 21 shows the seismic response load-displacement and time-displacement curves obtained from the first floor of the test frame with no reinforcement applied during non-linear dynamic analysis and pseudo-dynamic tests when the input seismic ground motion was 200 cm/s\({}^{2}\). Figures 22-24 show the seismic response load-displacement and time-displacement curves obtained from the first floor of the test frame retrofitted with the CFT-MF system during non-linear dynamic analysis and pseudo-dynamic tests when the input seismic ground motion was 200, 300, and 400 cm/s\({}^{2}\), respectively. Table 7 compares the maximum response load-displacement relationship between non-linear dynamic analysis and pseudo-dynamic test results. Figure 25 shows a contribution comparison of the lateral response load in terms of displacement relationships among the RC frame strengthened with the CFT-MF system, the CFT-MF system, and the un-reinforced RC frame. In the figure, the skeleton curves of lateral response load-displacement for the RC frame strengthened with the CFT-MF system were derived from both the non-linear dynamic analysis and the pseudo-dynamic test at 300 cm/s2, respectively. In contrast, the load-displacement curve of the CFT-MF system was derived based on the non-linear dynamic analysis results, because it could not be measured in pseudo-dynamic testing. The restoring force of the RC frame with no reinforcement applied, as shown in Figure 25, was derived based on non-linear seismic response analysis and pseudo-dynamic test results at 200 cm/s\({}^{2}\). In the RC frame with no reinforcement applied, a shear collapse occurred at the lower part of the first floor, as shown in Figure 10. Table 4 shows and compares the contribution of the seismic response load of each member to the response displacement determined based on Figure 25.  
Figure 21: Comparison of non-linear dynamic analysis and pseudo-dynamic test results of RC frame with no reinforcement applied (PD-FR) (first floor, 200 cm/s\({}^{2}\)): (**a**) load-displacement curves; (**b**) displacement-time hysteresis curves. Figure 23: Comparison of non-linear dynamic analysis and pseudo-dynamic test results of test frame retrofitted with CFT-MF system (PD-CFT-MF) (first floor, \(300\) cm/s\({}^{2}\)): (**a**) load-displacement curves; (**b**) displacement-time hysteresis curves. Figure 24: Comparison of non-linear dynamic analysis and pseudo-dynamic test results of the test frame retrofitted with the CFT-MF system (PD-CFT-MF) (first floor, \(400\) cm/s\({}^{2}\)): (**a**) load-displacement curves; (**b**) displacement-time hysteresis curves. When the input seismic acceleration was 200 cm/s\({}^{2}\), the maximum seismic response load and displacement of the test frame with no reinforcement applied (PD-FR) were 258.1 kN and 71.6 mm, respectively, in the non-linear dynamic analysis and 250.5 kN and 66.4 mm, respectively, in the pseudo-dynamic testing (Figure 21 and Table 7). When the input seismic acceleration was 200 cm/s\({}^{2}\), the maximum seismic response load and displacement of the test frame retrofitted with the CFT-MF system (PD-CFT-MF) were 514  
pseudo-dynamic test results was not significant at 10% or less on average.