## 3 Effect of Strain Rate and BRB on Seismic Response of a CFST Frame Structure
### Analysis of the Influence of the Strain Rate on the Seismic Response of the CFST Structure
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Rood Displacement**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**ISDR (10\({}^{-3}\))**} \\ \cline{3-8}
**Input Motions** & **PGA (g)** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Rate-** \\ **Independent** \\ **(mm)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Rate-** \\ **Dependent** \\ **(mm)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Difference** \\ **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Rate-** \\ **Independent** \\ **(10\({}^{-3}\))** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Rate-** \\ **Dependent** \\ **(10\({}^{-3}\))** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Rate-** \\ **Dependent** \\ **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{10}{*}{San Fernando} & 0.1 & 25.68 & 25.46 & \(-\)0.9 & 0.85 & 0.85 & - \\  & 0.2 & 51.36 & 50.39 & \(-\)1.9 & 1.70 & 1.66 & \(-\)2.4 \\  & 0.3 & 77.10 & 75.42 & \(-\)2.2 & 2.53 & 2.48 & \(-\)2.0 \\  & 0.4 & 102.80 & 98.96 & \(-\)3.7 & 3.39 & 3.25 & \(-\)4.1 \\  & 0.5 & 128.59 & 122.68 & \(-\)4.6 & 4.24 & 4.04 & \(-\)4.7 \\  & 0.6 & 154.46 & 147.67 & \(-\)4.4 & 5.09 & 4.86 & \(-\)4.5 \\  & 0.7 & 180.49 & 172.38 & \(-\)4.5 & 5.94 & 5.69 & \(-\)4.2 \\  & 0.8 & 206.54 & 196.52 & \(-\)4.9 & 6.81 & 6.51 & \(-\)4.4 \\  & 0.9 & 233.30 & 220.98 & \(-\)5.3 & 7.87 & 7.44 & \(-\)5.5 \\  & 1.0 & 259.10 & 236.14 & \(-\)8.9 & 8.92 & 8.45 & \(-\)5.3 \\ \hline \multirow{10}{*}{Taft} & 0.1 & 38.75 & 38.56 & \(-\)0.5 & 1.24 & 1.24 & - \\  & 0.2 & 77.47 & 76.32 & \(-\)1.5 & 2.49 & 2.44 & \(-\)2.0 \\  & 0.3 & 118.76 & 115.04 & \(-\)3.1 & 3.73 & 3.64 & \(-\)2.4 \\  & 0.4 & 161.38 & 154.76 & \(-\)4.1 & 5.11 & 4.95 & \(-\)3.1 \\  & 0.5 & 204.14 & 196.36 & \(-\)3.8 & 6.56 & 6.17 & \(-\)5.9 \\  & 0.6 & 247.27 & 236.75 & \(-\)4.3 & 7.83 & 7.45 & \(-\)4.9 \\  & 0.7 & 272.47 & 244.68 & \(-\)10.2 & 9.29 & 8.65 & \(-\)6.9 \\  & 0.8 & 279.05 & 250.99 & \(-\)10.1 & 9.86 & 9.53 & \(-\)3.3 \\  & 0.9 & 287.44 & 269.36 & \(-\)6.3 & 10.67 & 10.11 & \(-\)5.2 \\  & 1.0 & 308.01 & 285.21 & \(-\)7.4 & 12.19 & 11.69 & \(-\)4.1 \\ \hline \multirow{10}{*}{Gengmaa} & 0.1 & 8.09 & 8.09 & - & 0.27 & 0.27 & - \\  & 0.2 & 16.24 & 16.02 & \(-\)1.4 & 0.56 & 0.55 & \(-\)1.8 \\  & 0.3 & 24.31 & 23.54 & \(-\)3.2 & 0.83 & 0.81 & \(-\)2.4 \\  & 0.4 & 32.40 & 31.24 & \(-\)3.6 & 1.11 & 1.06 & \(-\)4.5 \\  & 0.5 & 40.55 & 39.11 & \(-\)3.6 & 1.39 & 1.34 & \(-\)3.6 \\  & 0.6 & 48.71 & 46.73 & \(-\)4.1 & 1.67 & 1.59 & \(-\)4.8 \\  & 0.7 & 56.79 & 54.45 & \(-\)4.1 & 1.95 & 1.85 & \(-\)5.1 \\  & 0.8 & 64.96 & 61.84 & \(-\)4.8 & 2.23 & 2.11 & \(-\)5.4 \\  & 0.9 & 73.07 & 67.94 & \(-\)7.0 & 2.50 & 2.39 & \(-\)4.4 \\  & 1.0 & 81.22 & 76.14 & \(-\)6.3 & 2.79 & 2.67 & \(-\)4.3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: The influence of strain rate on a structural seismic response. Figure 7: Comparison of the rate-dependent and rate-independent numerical results of roof displacement and an inter-story drift ratio (Taft PGA = 0.2 g). Figure 8: Comparison of the rate-dependent and rate-independent numerical results of roof displacement and ISDRs (Taft PGA = 0.4 g). Figure 10: Comparison of the rate-dependent and rate-independent numerical results of roof displacement and ISDRs (Taft PGA = 0.8 g). Figure 9: Comparison of the rate-dependent and rate-independent numerical results of roof displacement and ISDRs (Taft PGA = 0.6 g).