## 5 Conclusions  
The purpose of this study was to develop a curtain wall that can respond to simulated static and dynamic displacements based on the method according to the AAMA 501.4 and AAMA 501.6 standards without damage in the event of an earthquake. The study also aimed to verify the effectiveness of the proposed curtain wall through experimental and numerical assessment of its seismic performance. The conclusions are as follows:  
1. The results of analyzing the vulnerabilities of a large conventional curtain wall through experiments and numerical analysis were similar. In general, the stress was concentrated at the junction edge of the mullion and the transom, indicating vulnerability. In particular, it was confirmed that the gasket, which is a super-elastic \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Specimen Size**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Height (mm)**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Width (mm)**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**2000**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**2000**} \\ \hline Test Grade & \multicolumn{4}{c}{280 Grade (Maximum test pressure: \(\pm\)2800 Pa)} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Pressure \\ (Pa) \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\begin{tabular}{c} Displacement by measurement \\ location (mm) \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Displacement \\ location (A) \({}^{\#1}\) \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Displacement \\ rate \\ (A/H) \({}^{\#2}\) \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} Deformation \\ (\(\delta\)) \({}^{\#3}\) \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} Strain \\ (\(\delta\)/L) \({}^{\#4}\) \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \cline{2-9}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\circ\)} & \(\circ\)} & & & & & \\ \hline
700 & \(-\)0.84 & \(-\)6.54 & \(-\)0.82 & \(-\)6.54 & \(-\)0.0035 & \(-\)5.71 & \(-\)0.0031 \\ \hline
1400 & \(-\)2.09 & \(-\)11.09 & \(-\)1.63 & \(-\)11.09 & \(-\)0.0059 & \(-\)9.23 & \(-\)0.0050 \\ \hline
2100 & \(-\)3.06 & \(-\)14.64 & \(-\)2.40 & \(-\)14.64 & \(-\)0.0078 & \(-\)11.91 & \(-\)0.0065 \\ \hline
2800 & \(-\)4.03 & \(-\)17.63 & \(-\)3.09 & \(-\)17.63 & \(-\)0.0094 & \(-\)14.07 & \(-\)0.0076 \\ \hline \(-\)700 & 0.36 & 6.55 & 0.64 & 6.55 & 0.0035 & 6.05 & 0.0033 \\ \hline \(-\)1 400 & 1.11 & 11.41 & 1.30 & 11.41 & 0.0061 & 10.21 & 0.0055 \\ \hline \(-\)2 100 & 2.29 & 15.39 & 1.91 & 15.39 & 0.0082 & 13.29 & 0.0072 \\ \hline \(-\)2 800 & 3.41 & 18.54 & 2.42 & 18.54 & 0.0099 & 15.63 & 0.0085 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} Test Result \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\({}^{\#1}\) Displacement (A): Displacement at measurement position(\(\frac{\circ}{2}\) \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{\({}^{\#2}\) Displacement rate (A/H): H = 1880 mm} \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{\({}^{\#3}\) Deformation (\(\delta\)): \(\delta\) = \(\frac{\circ}{2}-(\frac{\circ}{1}+\frac{\circ}{3})/2\)} \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{\({}^{\#4}\) Strain (\(\delta\)/L): L = 1840 mm} \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{Deformation test} & OK \\ \hline Cyclic test & OK \\ \hline Safety test & OK \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{Grade 280 suitable} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 16: Wind resistance test results. material that constrains the glass facade, yielded and caused sliding. As a result, fallout occurred due to the collision of the aluminum-to-glass facade;
2. The calculated stresses at the maximum drift compared in the finite element analysis according to the static lateral drift application were as follows: the peak stresses of the non-seismic curtain wall were 405, 460.5, and 2486 MPa in the X-, Y-, and Z-axes, respectively, and the peak stresses of the seismic curtain wall were 3.38, 455.5, and 1.2 MPa in the X-, Y-, and Z-axes, respectively. Therefore, it was confirmed that the earthquake-resistant curtain wall, to which the fastener with displacement absorption performance was applied, can significantly reduce the stress transmitted to the exterior material in the main structure.