## 3 Results and Discussion
### Displacement Ductility  
Displacement ductility is a key seismic parameter that reflects the inelastic deformation capacity of specimens without significant strength degradation in the post-yield phase. The methodology adopted in this study was based on an equal-energy system proposed by [PERSON] [31]. Figure 9 describes the idealized elastic-plastic envelop and experimental curve. The parameters used in the idealized elastic-plastic envelop and equivalent displacement ductility are summarized in Table 3. The idealized lateral capacity can be computed by Equation (1). \[\mathrm{V_{ideal}}=\mathrm{K_{e}}\times\left(\Delta_{0.85\mathrm{u}}-\sqrt{ \Delta_{0.85\mathrm{u}}{}^{2}-\frac{2\mathrm{A_{env}}}{\mathrm{K_{e}}}}\right) \tag{1}\]  
where \(\Delta_{0.85\mathrm{u}}\) is the lateral strength dropped to 85% of the peak resistance; \(\mathrm{A_{new}}\) is the area under the experimental resistance envelope. Table 2 shows the experimental displacement ductility (\(\mu_{\mathrm{exp}}\)), which is defined as the ratio between the lateral displacements when the lateral capacity dropped to 85% of the maximum load and when the first major diagonal crack occurred. The experimental displacement ductility ranged from 2.6 to 4.3, and the equivalent displacement ductility (\(\mu_{\mathrm{ideal}}\)) ranged from 2.3 to 3.8. It is obvious that the calculated equivalent displacement ductility was about 12% lower than the experiment displacement ductility. However, the ductility results from two methods displayed a consistent trend regarding the studied parameters. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Wall ID**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Direction**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**First Crack State**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Peak State**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Final State**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mu_{\mathrm{exp}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mu_{\mathrm{exp}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mu_{\mathrm{exp}}\)} \\  & & **V\({}_{\mathrm{e}}\)** & **\(\Delta_{\mathrm{e}}\)** & **V\({}_{\mathrm{u}}\)** & **\(\Delta_{\mathrm{u}}\)** & **V\({}_{0.85\mathrm{u}}\)** & **\(\Delta_{0.85\mathrm{u}}\)** & **(mm)** & & \\ \hline PCMW & \(\begin{pmatrix}+\end{pmatrix}\) & 624 & 5.9 & 731 & 11.9 & 621 & 26.7 & 4.5 & \multirow{2}{*}{3.8} \\  & \(\begin{pmatrix}-\end{pmatrix}\) & \(-\)675 & \(-\)8.9 & \(-\)723 & \(-\)12.0 & \(-\)615 & \(-\)26.7 & 3.0 & \multirow{2}{*}{2.6} \\ \hline CMW & \(\begin{pmatrix}+\end{pmatrix}\) & 651 & 5.9 & 675 & 8.9 & 574 & 14.5 & 2.5 & \multirow{2}{*}{4.3} \\  & \(\begin{pmatrix}-\end{pmatrix}\) & \(-\)577 & \(-\)5.9 & \(-\)628 & \(-\)9.0 & \(-\)534 & \(-\)15.7 & 2.7 & \multirow{2}{*}{2.6} \\ \hline PCMWT & \(\begin{pmatrix}+\end{pmatrix}\) & 790 & 4.0 & 906 & 8.1 & 770 & 23.3 & 5.8 & \multirow{2}{*}{4.3} \\  & \(\begin{pmatrix}-\end{pmatrix}\) & \(-\)848 & \(-\)8.0 & \(-\)857 & \(-\)11.8 & \(-\)729 & \(-\)21.7 & 2.7 & \multirow{2}{*}{4.3} \\ \hline CMWT & \(\begin{pmatrix}+\end{pmatrix}\) & 660 & 11.1 & 728 & 23.4 & 619 & 31.9 & 2.9 & \multirow{2}{*}{2.8} \\  & \(\begin{pmatrix}-\end{pmatrix}\) & \(-\)601 & \(-\)11.4 & \(-\)662 & \(-\)23.9 & \(-\)563 & \(-\)30.8 & 2.7 & \multirow{2}{*}{2.8} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Test results and experimental displacement ductility. The displacement ductility of prefabricated walls was 41% and 39% higher than that of cast-in-place walls regarding flanged and rectangular cross sections, respectively. This implies that the existence of vertical joints and continuous vertical reinforcement connections enhanced the deformability of the walls in the post-peak phase. This is also evidenced by the observation of uniformly distributed crack patterns in the prefabricated walls (PCMW and PCMWT). Nevertheless, the cracks of the cast-in-place walls were distributed mainly at the bottom of the wall. With respect to the cross section, the displacement ductility of the flanged walls was 19% and 17% higher than that of rectangular walls for prefabricated and traditional construction techniques, respectively.