在台灣，鋼結構建築以發展將近四十年，因規範的修訂與期間受地震影響導致建築材料強度與接合性能的衰減，既有鋼結構建築有耐震性能不足之疑慮。此外，高樓建築因有較高模態反應參與，不能僅使用非彈性靜力分析(側推分析)，需進行非彈性動力分析(歷時分析)，檢視未預期到的較大變位反應。本研究將建立高樓鋼結構建築耐震性能評估與補強方法為主要目的，進而了解高樓建築反應以及常見補強方法之特性。
本研究將建立四組模型，分別為15層、20層、28層以及35層樓高鋼結構建築，皆以過去規範(內政部,1982,1994)進行設計，預期此四組模型皆需進行補強，再參考台灣與美國規範對於耐震性能評估流程與標準，建立一建議耐震能力評估方法，並對本研究設計案例與一實際案例進行評估。經評估過後，使用挫屈束制支撐以及非線性黏滯性阻尼器進行補強。再分別以側推及歷時分析，比較其強度及位移上的變化。
本研究結果顯示，在地震歷時選取與使用上，不應將兩水平分量地震歷時分開使用，因地震頻率與持續時間一致，而地震頻率是影響結構反應一大主因，故建議考慮其兩水平地震歷時關聯性。在15層樓的鋼結構建築的層間轉角上，使用非彈性側推與歷時分析反應相近，更高樓層鋼結構建築則有高模態效應，因此超過15層樓鋼結構建築應進入歷時分析。此外，在越高樓層建築使用挫屈束制支撐控制位移效率越低，而在較高樓層鋼結構建築使用非線性黏滯性阻尼器的效率較好，但設計非線性黏滯性阻尼器的變數多，不易掌控，建議須進入非彈性歷時分析檢討。每一棟建築補強都是個案，必須先了解建築需求以及各個補強策略的優缺點，才能有效地進行補強設計。

In Taiwan, steel structures have been under development for nearly forty years. Due to the revision of building codes and the attenuation of the materials strength and beam-culmn joint performance of building caused by the earthquake during the period, there are doubts about the lack of seismic performance of steel structures. In addition, high-rise buildings are involved in higher modal reactions, not only using inelastic static pushover analysis, but also inelastic dynamic time-history analysis to examine unexpected large displacement reactions. This study will establish a method for seismic evaluation and retrofit of high-rise steel structure building, and understand the characteristics of high-rise building responses and common retrofit methods.
This study will establish four models, 15th, 20th, 28th and 35th floor high-rise steel structures, all designed in the past specifications (1982,1994), it is expected that these four models need to be retrofit. Referring to the Taiwan and U.S.A. specifications for seismic performance evaluation procedures and standards, establish a recommended seismic capacity evaluation method, and evaluate the design case and a real case. After evaluation, retrofit was performed using buckling restrained braces and nonlinear viscous dampers. Then, the inelastic static pushover analysis and inelastic dynamic time-history analysis were used to compare the changes in intensity and displacement.
The results of this study show that the two horizontal component earthquake records should not be used separately. Because frequency and the duration of the earthquake records is the same, and the frequency is a major cause of structural response, it is recommended to consider the relation of two horizontal component earthquake records. In the story drift, of a 15-story steel structure, the use of inelastic static pushover analysis is similar to inelastic dynamic time-history analysis reaction, and the higher-rise steel structure has a high-modal effect, so more than 15 floors of steel structure should enter the inelastic dynamic time-history. In addition, the higher steel structure building, the lower efficiency of the control using the buckling restrained braces, and the higher efficiency of using the nonlinear viscous damper in the steel structure of the higher steel structure building. But the nonlinear viscous damper difficult to control, recommended to enter the inelastic dynamic time-history analysis. Each building evaluation and retrofit is a different case. It is necessary to understand the building requirements and the advantages and disadvantages of each retrofit strategy in order to effectively retrofit the design.

[1] ATC40, (1996), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of concrete buildings, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.
[2] Anil K.Chopra, (2014), Dynamics of Structures, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
[3] Hancock, J., Watson-Lamprey, J., Abrahamson, N. A., Bommer, J. J., Markatis, A., McCoy, E., and Mendis, R., (2006). “An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets,” Journal of Earthquake Engeering 10, pp. 67–89.
[4] Boore, D. M., Watson-Lamprey, J., and Abrahamson, N. A. (2006), ”Orientation-Independent Measures of Ground Motion,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, vol. 96, no. 4A, pp. 1502–1511
[5] Boore, D. M. (2010), “Orientation-Independent, Nongeometric-Mean Measures of Seismic Intensity from Two Horizontal Components of Motion, ” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 1830–1835
[6] ASCE7(2002,2005,2010,2016), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, Manual of Practice
[7] ASCE41(2006, 2013), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, Manual of Practice
[8] UBC(1997, 2000, 2003), Structural Engineering Design Provisions, Uniform Building Code, California, USA.
[9] FEMA356(2000), Prestandard and Complementary for the Seicmic Rehabilitation, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.
[10] FEMA351(2000), Recommend Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame Building, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.
[11] SEAOC(1999), Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Structural Engineers Association of California, California, USA.
[12] J. S. Hwang, W. C. Lin, N. J. Wu(2010), “Comparison of distribution methods for viscous damping coefficients to buildings,” Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
vol. 9, no. 1, January 2013, pp. 28–41
[13] Ramiro Vargas and Michel Bruneau(2007), “Effect of Supplemental Viscous Damping on the Seismic Response of Structural Systems with Metallic Dampers,” Journal of structural engeering, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, Manual of Practice.
[14] 內政部 (1982,1994)，「建築技術規則」
[15] 內政部營建署(2011)，「建築物耐震設計規範及解說」
[16] 內政部建築研究所，(2005)，「建築物耐震性能設計規範之研擬」
[17] 內政部建築研究所，(2017)，「鋼結構耐震能力詳細評估方法與示範例之研擬」
[18] 吳安傑、林保均、莊明介、蔡克銓，(2015)，「挫屈束制支撐構架設計概要與工程應用」，結構工程 第三十卷 第一期 第11‐33 頁
[19] 黃震興、李昭逸，(2002)，「含黏性阻尼器減震結構之非彈性地震反應試驗與分析」，行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫成果報告
[20] 蕭輔沛等，(2013)，蕭輔沛、鍾立來、葉勇凱、簡文郁、沈文成、邱聰智、周德光、趙宜峰、翁樸文、楊耀昇、涂耀賢、柴駿甫、黃世建，「校舍結構耐震評估與補強技術手冊」，國家地震研究中心，台灣
[21] 林克強、莊勝智、張福全與張柏彥，(2008)，「台灣典型鋼梁與箱型柱採梁翼切削或梁翼加蓋板抗彎接頭之破壞模式」，鋼結構耐震設計與分析研討會，國家地震中心