## 3 Results and Discussion
### Deformation and Ductility  
The vertex displacement angle of the specimen was defined as \(\theta=\Delta/H\), where \(\Delta\) is the lateral displacement of the loading beam, and \(H\) is the height from the center of the loading beam to the upper surface of the base beam. The ductility coefficient can be defined as \(\mu=\Delta_{\text{u}}/\Delta_{\text{y}}\) to measure the plastic deformation capacity of the specimen, where \(\Delta_{\text{u}}\) is the lateral displacement corresponding to the ultimate state of the specimen, and \(\Delta_{\text{y}}\) is the lateral displacement corresponding to the yield load of the specimen. The corresponding loading beam displacement \(\Delta\), vertex displacement angle \(\theta\), and ductility coefficient \(\mu\) of all specimens at different stages (i.e., cracking, yielding, peak, and ultimate stages) are shown in Table 3.  
According to Table 3, the positive and negative displacements and displacement angles of the prefabricated walls (except for the negative loading of specimen LAPC-2) at the cracking stage were generally larger than those of the cast-in-place wall, which was mainly due to the longitudinal deformation of the concrete restrained by the sleeves.  
The yield displacement and ultimate displacement of the specimens LAPC-1 and LSW were not significantly different, both smaller than LAPC-2, and the vertex displacement angle of the prefabricated wall was larger than that of the cast-in-place wall at the ultimate state, indicating that the deformation capacity of the prefabricated wall was better than that of the cast-in-place wall. The displacement angle of each specimen at the ultimate state was greater than the elasto-plastic inter-story displacement angle limit of 1/120 (1/100) [32] of the shear wall (frame-shear wall) structure under the action of rare earthquakes, which indicated that the specimen had good deformation ability at the elasto-plastic stage.  
The ductility coefficient of each specimen was greater than 2, and the ductility coefficient of the prefabricated walls was higher than that of the cast-in-place wall, which  
Figure 10: Comparison of stiffness degradation curves of specimens.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Specimen**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Direction**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Cracking Stage**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Yield Stage**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Peak Stage**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Ultimate Stage**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mu\)} \\  & & \(\Delta_{\text{ce}}\)/mm & \(\theta_{\text{ce}}\) & \(\Delta_{\text{ye}}\)/mm & \(\theta_{\text{ye}}\) & \(\Delta_{\text{me}}\)/mm & \(\theta_{\text{me}}\) & \(\Delta_{\text{ue}}\)/mm & \(\theta_{\text{ue}}\) & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{LSW} & Positive & 4.82 & 1/622 & 12.48 & 1/240 & - & - & - & - & - \\  & Negative & 5.59 & 1/537 & 18.12 & 1/166 & 32.72 & 1/92 & 38.90 & 1/77 & 2.15 \\ \multirow{2}{*}{LAPC-1} & Positive & 5.23 & 1/574 & 13.52 & 1/222 & - & - & - & - & - \\  & Negative & 6.35 & 1/472 & 17.90 & 1/168 & 31.70 & 1/95 & 40.45 & 1/74 & 2.26 \\ \multirow{2}{*}{LAPC-2} & Positive & 4.96 & 1/605 & 14.36 & 1/209 & - & - & - & - & - \\  & Negative & 4.71 & 1/637 & 18.78 & 1/160 & 36.07 & 1/83 & 46.36 & 1/65 & 2.47 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Ductility coefficient of specimens.  
indicates that the deformation capacity of the prefabricated walls was better than that of the cast-in-place wall. However, in reference [10; 16], the deformation capacity of the prefabricated walls connected with traditional grouted splice connectors was lower than that of the cast-in-place wall due to the weak constraint of the region near the sleeve. The reason was that the APC sleeve and stirrups enhanced the confinement of the concrete at the bottom of the prefabricated specimens, and the type-II sleeve had stronger constraint ability due to its larger size, which made the bearing capacity decrease more slowly, and the ultimate displacement was larger under the ultimate load.