## 6 Comparison of the Pseudo-Dynamic Test and Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis Results
### Comparison of the Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis and Pseudo-Dynamic Test Results  
Nonlinear dynamic analysis was conducted using CANNY based on the restoration force models (Table 6) described in Section 6.1 using Hachinohe (EW) seismic waves of 200 and 300 cm/s\({}^{2}\), which were used in the pseudo-dynamic test. As mentioned previously, 200 cm/s\({}^{2}\) was applied to the unreinforced specimen in the pseudo-dynamic test, while 200 and 300 cm/s\({}^{2}\) were applied to the CCSS-reinforced specimen. Figure 17 shows the seismic response load-displacement and time-displacement history curves on the first floor from the nonlinear dynamic analysis and pseudo-dynamic test of the unreinforced specimen under 200 cm/s\({}^{2}\). Figures 18 and 19 show the seismic response load-displacement and time-displacement history curves from the nonlinear dynamic analysis and pseudo dynamic test of the first-floor framework of the CCSS-reinforced specimen under input ground motions of 200 and 300 cm/s\({}^{2}\). In addition, Table 7 compares the maximum response load-displacement relationships by nonlinear dynamic analysis and the pseudo-dynamic test. Under an input seismic acceleration of 200 cm/s\({}^{2}\), the maximum seismic response load and displacement of the unreinforced specimen (PD-FR) were 263.1 kN and 71.9 mm in the nonlinear dynamic analysis and 272.5 kN and 70.5 mm in the pseudo-dynamic test (Figure 17 and Table 7). Under 200 cm/s\({}^{2}\), the maximum seismic response load and displacement of the CCSS-reinforced specimen (PD-CCSS) were 562.9 kN and 12.2 mm in the nonlinear dynamic analysis and 488.6 kN and 11.0 mm in the pseudo-dynamic test (Figure 18 and Table 7). For the ground motion of 200 cm/s\({}^{2}\), the nonlinear dynamic analysis and pseudo-dynamic test results were similar as the average difference was approximately 10%. Under the input ground motion of 300 cm/s\({}^{2}\), the maximum seismic response load and displacement of the CCSS-reinforced specimen (PD-CCSS) were 748.1 kN and 22.4 mm in the nonlinear dynamic analysis and 708.2 kN and 20.6 mm in the pseudo-dynamic test (Figure 19 and Table 7). Meanwhile, the anchor bolt that combines the existing R/C member and CCSS reinforcement, which was assumed to be a bilinear elastic model in Table 6, showed elastic behavior under all ground motions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Member** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Restoration Force Model**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Model Name**} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Beam} & Flexural spring & CP3 & Cross-peak trilinear model \\ \cline{2-4}  & Shear spring & OO3 & Trilinear origin-oriented \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Column} & Flexural spring & CA7 & CANNY sophisticated trilinear hysteresis model \\ \cline{2-4}  & Shear spring & OO3 & Trilinear origin-oriented \\ \cline{2-4}  & Axial spring & AE1 & Axial stiffness model \\ \hline Wall & Shear spring & OO3 & Trilinear origin-oriented \\ \hline Anchor bolt & Shear spring & EL2 & Bilinear elastic model \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{CCSS} & Flexural spring & SL2 & Modified dough model (CL2) \\ \cline{2-4}  & Shear spring & EL1 & Linear elastic model \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Restoration force characteristics of each member used in the non-linear dynamic analysis. These analysis results show that the nonlinear analysis model and method constructed in this study can simulate the CCSS method and the seismic behavior of the R/C framework reinforced with the method well. Based on the analysis model and method constructed as described in Section 6.1, it is judged that the seismic strengthening effect of the developed CCSS method can be effectively evaluated using nonlinear dynamic analysis. Figure 17: Comparison of the nonlinear dynamic analysis and pseudo-dynamic test results of the R/C frame with non-reinforcement (PD-FR) (first floor, 200 cm/s\({}^{2}\)): (a) load–displacement curves and (b) time–displacement history curves.