• Journal of Korean Society of Steel Construction
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.1-12
• /
• 2010

According to the capacity design concept which forms the basis of the current steel seismic codes, the braces in concentrically braced frames (CBFs) should dissipate seismic energy through cyclic tension yielding and cyclic compression buckling while the beams and the columns should remain elastic. Brace buckling in inverted V-braced frames induces unbalanced vertical forces which, in turn, impose the additional beam moments and column axial forces. However, due to difficulty in predicting the location of buckling stories, the most conservative approach implied in the design code is to estimate the column axial forces by adding all the unbalanced vertical forces in the upper stories. One alternative approach, less conservative and recommended by the current code, is to estimate the column axial forces based on the amplified seismic load expected at the mechanism-level response. Both are either too conservative or lacking technical foundation. In this paper, three combination rules for a rational estimation of the column axial forces were proposed. The idea central to the three methods is to detect the stories of high buckling potential based on pushover analysis and dynamic behavior. The unbalanced vertical forces in the stories detected as high buckling potential are summed in a linear manner while those in other stories are combined by following the SRSS(square root of sum of squares) rule. The accuracy and design advantage of the three methods were validated by comparing extensive inelastic dynamic analysis results. The mode-shape based method(MSBM), which is both simple and accurate, is recommended as the method of choice for practicing engineers among the three.

• Journal of Technology Innovation
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.1-48
• /
• 2009

Recently we have found some symptoms that R&D fiscal incentives might not work well what it has intended through the analysis of current statistics of firm's R&D data. Firstly, we found that the growth rate of R&D investment in private sector during the recent decade has been slowdown. The average of growth rate (real value) of R&D investment is 7.1% from 1998 to 2005, while it was 13.9% from 1980 to 1997. Secondly, the relative share of R&D investment of SME has been decreased to 21%('05) from 29%('01), even though the tax credit for SME has been more beneficial than large size firm, Thirdly, The R&D expenditure of large size firms (besides 3 leading firms) has not been increased since late of 1990s. We need to find some evidence whether fiscal incentives are effective in increasing firm's R&D investment. To analyse econometric model we use firm level unbalanced panel data for 4 years (from 2002 to 2005) derived from MOST database compiled from the annual survey, "Report on the Survey of Research and Development in Science and Technology". Also we use fixed effect model (Hausman test results accept fixed effect model with 1% of significant level) and estimate the model for all firms, large firms and SME respectively. We have following results from the analysis of econometric model. For large firm: i ) R&D investment responds elastically (1.20) to sales volume. ii) government R&D subsidy induces R&D investment (0.03) not so effectively. iii) Tax price elasticity is almost unity (-0.99). iv) For large firm tax incentive is more effective than R&D subsidy For SME: i ) Sales volume increase R&D investment of SME (0.043) not so effectively. ii ) government R&D subsidy is crowding out R&D investment of SME not seriously (-0.0079) iii) Tax price elasticity is very inelastic (-0.054) To compare with other studies, Koga(2003) has a similar result of tax price elasticity for Japanese firm (-1.0036), Hall((l992) has a unit tax price elasticity, Bloom et al. (2002) has $-0.354{\sim}-0.124$ in the short run. From the results of our analysis we recommend that government R&D subsidy has to focus on such an areas like basic research and public sector (defense, energy, health etc.) not overlapped private R&D sector. For SME government has to focus on establishing R&D infrastructure. To promote tax incentive policy, we need to strengthen the tax incentive scheme for large size firm's R&D investment. We recommend tax credit for large size film be extended to total volume of R&D investment.