## 4 Experimental Results and Discussion
### Hysteretic Curves  
The relationships of the lateral loading force versus the loading drift of the three tests are shown in Figure 9.  
Figure 9: Hysteretic curves of the tests. (**a**) RW1-1; (**b**) RW1-2; (**c**) RW1-3; (**d**) Comparison.  
The hysteretic curves of Test RW1-1 exhibited typical flag-shaped loops after the wall panels were lifted. An obvious inflection point appeared in the curves at the drift level of 0.67%, which corresponded to the yielding of the SEDPs. As the drift increased, the hysteresis areas grew significantly due to the continuous plastic deformation of the SEDPs, indicating the enhanced energy dissipation capacity of the system.  
The SEDPs also yielded at the drift level of 0.67% in Test RW1-2, at which the first inflection point of the curves appeared and the system reached the yielding stage. During the process of drift level rising to 1.5%, two events successively followed: (1) the Belleville springs were completely compressed (see Figure 5), and the MBSFs began to function, leading to an obvious increasing portion in the curves; (2) the MBSFs yielded rapidly after working, and the curves showed the second inflection point at 1.5% drift level, indicating full yielding of the energy dissipaters. In the loading stage above 1.5% drift, both the MBSFs and the SEDPs deformed plastically, participating in energy dissipation jointly. Once the Belleville spring was compressed, the MBSFs were initiated to restrict the opening and closing of the wall-footing joint gap, so that the strength of Test RW1-2 was greater than that of the corresponding Test RW1-1. Compared to RW1-1, the strength of RW1-2 (229.2 kN) was 33% larger than RW1-1 (172.4 kN) at the maximum loading drift level.  
Theoretically, the loading strength of Test RW1-3 should be higher than that of Test RW1-2. However, the local concrete damage weakened the wall panel stiffness and consequently affected the strength of Test RW1-3. The achieved strength was close to that of Test RW1-2 because the MBSFs could provide a certain anti-overturning force in the early loading stage. However, with the yielding of the MBSFs and SEDPs at the 0.67% drift level, the anti-overturning force provided by the energy dissipaters was limited, so that the system strength was relatively lower compared to that of Test RW1-2.  
The structural capacities of energy dissipation and self-centering tended to be mutually balanced. Overall, the proposed system achieved the optimal solution of energy dissipation and self-centering capacities. The hysteresis curves of the PRW-TSD were significantly fuller compared to the curves of the rocking wall structure without dissipaters [10], which indicated the nonnegligible effect of the dissipaters in improving the structural energy dissipation capacity. However, compared to the hysteresis curve of the monolithic shear walls [42], the fullness of the curves of the PRW-TSD was obviously weaker. It is necessary to acknowledge that the residual deformation of the PRW-TSD structure following unloading was extremely low, i.e., the self-centering behavior of the proposed structure was quite excellent relative to that of the monolithic shear walls.