## 2 Finite Element Simulation
### Load-Deflection Response  
According to [PERSON] et al.'s experimental results presented in the literature, the \(V_{u}\) values for S2, S3, S4, S7, and S8 are 1127 kN, 699 kN, 722 kN, 1197 kN, and 734 kN, respectively. This includes 37.5 kN of the equipment's self-weight. As the numerical simulations use ideal state loading, the simulated results should be compared with the load  
Figure 16: Tension-side view of the specimen S4 experiment and FEA crack patterns: (**a**) simulation result; (**b**) test result [15].  
Figure 17: Tension-side view of the specimen S7 experiment and FEA crack patterns: (**a**) simulation result; (**b**) test result [15].  
Figure 18: Tension-side view of the specimen S8 experiment and FEA crack patterns: (**a**) simulation result; (**b**) test result [15].  
values without the 37.5 kN included. The simulated values for these plates are 1159 kN, 650 kN, 687 kN, 1142 kN, and 717 kN, respectively, with 1.06, 0.98, 1.00, 0.98, and 1.03 as the ratios to the experimental values, respectively. There is also little difference in the displacements. Therefore, the simulations have a high level of accuracy, confirming the accuracy of the parameters calibrated in the previous section. Figure 19 illustrates the comparison curve between the experimental and finite element model (FEM) results. Simulation of shear studs with truss units seems to improve the ductility of the plates. Figure 19a,d show plates S2 and S7 subjected to concentrated forces, respectively, and the initial stiffness of the curves for the simulated results is slightly greater than the experimental results. There could be many reasons for this, possibly due to the non-uniformity of the material during the casting of the actual experimental samples, the presence of initial cracks, or because the numerical simulations were performed under ideal conditions.  
Figure 19: Load – displacement response [PERSON] et al.’s experimental results [15] versus FEM: **(a)** S2; **(b)** S3; **(c)** S4; **(d)** S7; **(e)** S8.  
For the experiments of [PERSON] and [PERSON] (1999) [16], it can be seen from Figure 20 that the curve shapes of the experimental and simulated results are very similar, and the differences in the ultimate bearing capacity are small. The displacement response is essentially the same, except for P5 (within 10% error). Because of the large amount of shear studs in the P5 arrangement, the experimental results show that the plate is damaged outside the reinforced zone, so the change in deflection is not as pronounced as it is in P1-P4 when the damage is imminent. The numerical simulations were carried out under ideal conditions, and the stiffness and ductility were slightly greater than the experimental results, but were also within acceptable limits. The reliability of the simulation was verified. Therefore, the study of the bending moment can be added to this model. A transverse force of equal magnitude and the opposite direction was applied to both ends of the column to simulate the effect of the bending moment.  
Figure 20: Load–displacement response of [PERSON] and [PERSON]’s experimental results versus FEM: (a) P1; (b) P2; (c) P3; (d) P4; (e) P5.