Shaking table test of a full-scale PC exterior wall panel connected to a steel frame with flexible node

Shaking table test of a full-scale PC exterior wall panel connected to a steel frame with flexible node | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Shaking table test of a full-scale PC exterior wall panel connected to a steel frame with flexible node Beibei Yang, Zhenbao Li, Ping Liu, Hua Ma, Jiulong Yang, Zhicheng Kang This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3638503/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract A cantilever block-wall panel attachment strip (CBW) flexible connection node was designed to connect precast concrete (PC) exterior wall panels to steel frames. To investigate the performance of the CBW flexible connection node and PC exterior wall panels during earthquakes, a partial two-storey steel frame was extracted from an actual engineering structure, and a full-scale steel frame-exterior wall panel shaking table model was designed. Two sets of shaking-table tests were conducted under seismic intensity 7, 8, and 9 (Chinese Seismic Intensity Scale) earthquakes. The acceleration and displacement responses of the composite wall panel, open window panel, and integral wall panel along the in-plane and out-of-plane motions were analysed. The acceleration amplification factors of the PC exterior wall panels ranged from 0.753 to 1.400 (in-plane) and from 0.998 to 2.199 (out-of-plane). The CBW flexible connection node had a deformation capacity that could coordinate the deformation of the exterior wall panel and prevent severe damage. The surfaces of the PC exterior wall panels remained intact during a very strong seismic intensity 9 earthquake. Physical sciences/Engineering/Civil engineering Physical sciences/Materials science/Structural materials CBW flexible connection node PC exterior wall panel steel frame shaking table test acceleration amplification factor Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 1. Introduction Exterior wall panels are the most frequently used enclosure components in prefabricated buildings. Two types of connections exist between the exterior wall panels and main structure: line-supported and point-supported connection nodes [ 1 ]. Despite being considered as non-load-bearing components in structural design, exterior wall panels significantly affect the seismic performance of the main structure [ 3 , 4 ]. If a dependable connection is not established between the main structure and exterior wall panels, they could easily detach under earthquake activity, thus leading to additional casualties and damages due to falling wall panels. Numerous researchers, including Jingfeng [ 5 , 6 ], De Matteis [ 7 ], Cao [ 8 ], Gokmen [ 9 ], Bo Wang [ 10 ], and Carrradine [ 11 ], have conducted quasi-static tests on single-storey steel frame structures with or without exterior wall panels. Ding [ 12 ] and Hwang [ 13 ] investigated the out-of-plane (wind, earthquake) and in-plane forces of an outer wall panel using finite element analysis. Under normal conditions, the exterior wall panel did not experience cracking. Vaghei [ 17 ] and Liu [ 18 ] studied the performance of flexible connection nodes under cyclic loads. The results revealed that flexible connection nodes can withstand multidirectional earthquakes and reduce the adverse impact of earthquakes on the surrounding structural system. To investigate the dynamic performance of the exterior wall panel and connection nodes, several studies have performed shaking table tests on steel frame-exterior wall panel models [ 19 , 20 ]. Dong [ 21 ] conducted shaking table tests on a two-storey steel-tube-concrete-frame-exterior wall panel structure. The results revealed that an exterior wall panel with flexible connection nodes can absorb considerable energy, and reduce the displacement and deformation of the structure. Okazaki [ 22 ] conducted shaking table tests on a three-storey full-scale steel frame-exterior AAC wall panel structure and analysed the effects of the exterior wall panel and sway nodes on the structural performance. McMullin et al. [ 23 ] conducted shaking table tests on two groups of five-storey full-scale exterior wall panel steel frame specimens and studied the performance of precast concrete (PC) exterior wall panels and connection nodes. However, the aforementioned studies focused on the seismic performance of exterior wall panels in-plane, and less attention was paid to the out-of-plane performance of exterior wall panels. The failure of the exterior wall panels during out-of-plane loading mainly originates from acceleration and inertial forces, as reported by Song [ 24 ]. However, most researchers have conducted static tests on the deformation capacity of exterior wall panels [ 25 ]. The bending performance of PC wall panels was studied by Joseph [ 26 ] through quarter-point loading tests, and the deflection, stiffness, and cracking moment of the panels were calculated based on linear elastic theory. The loading conditions significantly impacted the bending performance of the prefabricated PC wall panels. Gu [ 27 ] and Alawad [ 28 ] studied the out-of-plane performance of PC wall panels and proposed a formula for calculating the ultimate bearing capacity. The PC exterior wall panel had high in-plane stiffness but low out-of-plane stiffness. The exterior wall panel under out-of-plane earthquake loading was weak. The evaluation of the out-of-plane performance of exterior wall panels by static tests alone cannot reflect the dynamic characteristics of the exterior wall panels and connection nodes. Traditional nodes with poor deformation capacity [ 29 – 31 ] are the focus of most current research on connection nodes. A cantilever block-wall panel attachment strip (CBW) flexible connection node was proposed in this study. A local two-storey steel frame was selected from an assembled building structure, and three different full-scale types of exterior wall panels were designed to connect to the steel frame. Two sets of shaking table tests were conducted on a full-scale two-storey steel frame-exterior wall panel structure model by inputting 12 natural seismic. In the first set of tests, the composite wall panel and integral wall panel were in-plane, and the open window panel was out-of-plane. In the second set of tests, the composite and integral wall panels were out-of-plane, and the open window panel was in-plane. The acceleration amplification factor (amplification of acceleration of exterior wall panels relative to the steel beam) and deformation of the CBW flexible connection nodes on three exterior wall panel types were analysed for in-plane and out-of-plane loadings under the effects of rare but very strong earthquakes with seismic intensities of 7, 8, and 9. The results of this study have a significant impact on the reference values utilised for the development of prefabricated buildings. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. CBW flexible connection node A CWB attachment strip flexible connection node was used to connect the exterior panel to the main structure of an assembled steel structure, as shown in Fig. 1 . The CBW flexible connection node was composed of a wall panel attachment strip and a cantilever block, both of which were steel members with fixed types and sizes that can be used in combination (Fig. 2). The wall panel attachment strip was connected to the exterior wall panel, the cantilever block was connected to the steel frame beam, and the wall panel attachment strip was bolted to the cantilever block to connect the exterior wall panel to the main structure. The self-weight, seismic, and wind loads of the exterior wall panels were transmitted to the main structure through a wall panel attachment strip and cantilever block. The size, quantity and spacing of the connecting bolts and the spacing of the cantilever block were determined by calculations, all of which satisfied the requirements of the technical standard [ 32 ]. Three cantilever blocks were arranged on each steel frame beam at intervals of 1,200 and 600 mm. The exterior wall panel was connected to the wall-panel attachment strip with four 12-mm-diameter bolts, and the cantilever block was connected to the steel frame beam with two 14-mm-diameter bolts. 2.2. Test specimen and material properties The test model was derived from the top two-storey section of an actual 15-storey assembly building located in Beijing. The location has experienced earthquakes up to 8 in seismic intensity and is classified as a Level II site. The design of the steel frame and exterior wall panels in the prototype structure followed relevant seismic design specifications [ 32 , 33 ]. The sizes of the steel-frame beams and columns in the test model were identical to those of the prototype building structure. The steel beam dimensions were H250 × 6 × 180 × 10 × 140 × 10 mm, and the steel frame column dimensions were H300 × 300 × 10 × 12 mm. The floor height was 2,900 mm, and the one-way span was 2,400 mm. A small T-shaped steel beam with a cross-section of T100 × 6 × 10 mm was welded to the steel beam to facilitate connection with the CHG flexible connector. The design of exterior wall panels considered combinations of self-weight, wind, and seismic loads [ 34 ]. The thickness of the PC exterior wall panels was 50 mm, and a row of 8-mm-diameter reinforcement mesh was arranged inside without considering insulation. The steel frame, PC exterior wall panels, and CBW flexible connection nodes were prefabricated components. All connectors were installed and bolted onsite. The installation method was consistent with actual engineering practice, and the model could be assembled quickly. The four steel-frame columns were fixed to the shaking table using high-strength bolts. The assembly process of the model involved assembling the steel frame (Fig. 3 (1)), combining the CBW flexible connection node (Fig. 3 (2)), installing the CBW flexible connection node (Fig. 3 (3)), and installing the exterior wall panel (Fig. 3 (4)). Considering the existence of various exterior wall panel types in buildings, three common PC exterior wall panel types were incorporated into the test model: the composite wall panel, open window wall panel, and integral wall panel (numbered SP-1, SP-2 and SP-3, respectively), which were installed on the two-storey steel frame. The shaking-table study involved two sets of tests. The first set of test models is shown in Fig. 4 (1). Composite wall panel SP-1 and integral wall panel SP-3 were in-plane; the open window panel SP-2 was out-of-plane. The second set of test models was obtained by lifting and rotating the first set counter clockwise by 90°, as shown in Fig. 4 (2). The composite wall panel SP-1 and integral wall panel SP-3 were out-of-plane, whereas the open window panel SP-2 was in-plane. The model dimensions are shown in Fig. 4. Q345 steel was used for the steel frame and Q235 steel was used for the CBW flexible connection nodes. The material properties was f y= 360.96 MPa, and 323.14 MPa. The concrete used had a strength grade of C35, and its material strength was f cu= 37.93 MPa. 2.3. Test setup and instrumentation The experiment was conducted in the structural test hall at Beijing University of Technology, utilising a 3 × 3 m shaking table that was shaken solely along the east–west axis. To measure the seismic response of the test model, 25 acceleration sensors, nine displacement sensors, and 33 strain gauges were installed, as shown in Fig. 5. Two acceleration sensors (A-1 and A-2) were placed on the shaking table surface to measure the seismic motion precisely. Acceleration sensors were positioned on the steel frame beam of each storey: on the exterior wall panel at the same height as the steel frame beam, and at the centre of the exterior wall panel to study the acceleration amplification of the exterior wall panel relative to the steel frame. Displacement gauges were placed between the exterior wall panels and the steel beam to calibrate the displacements derived from the acceleration integral. Finally, strain gauges were positioned at the centre of each exterior wall panel and on the diagonal plate of each cantilever block to measure the strain response. 3. Inputs To assess the seismic response of the model, twelve representative groups of natural seismic waves ( )were selected, such as : El-Centro (1940, NS), Kobe (1995, NS), and Tianjin waves (1976, EW); their spectrum of reaction and time–history acceleration curves are depicted in Figs. 6 and 7. To account for the unidirectional vibration limitation of the shaking table and to consider both the in-plane and out-of-plane movements of the exterior wall panels during earthquakes, the tests were divided into two groups. The first group of tests involved out-of-plane motion for test composite wall panel SP-1 and integral wall panel SP-3, whereas in-plane motion was applied to test open window wall panel SP-2; the test model is shown in Fig. 4 (1). After confirming the structural integrity of the first group of test models, the second group of tests was conducted. In this group, in-plane motion was applied to test the SP-1 and integral wall panel SP-3, whereas out-of-plane motion was applied to test open window wall panel SP-2; the test model is shown in Fig. 4 (2). To simulate the seismic effects of infrequent earthquakes with seismic intensities 7, 8, and 9, amplitude modulation was applied to the input shaking tables at 0.22, 0.4, and 0.62 g, respectively. To determine the model natural frequency, a white noise excitation with a peak acceleration of 0.01 g was introduced with each change in the input acceleration degree. The test conditions were consistent for both groups, with each degree of input following the numbering sequence listed in Table 1 for ground shaking. Table 1 Numbers of the inputs Order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Numbering El-Centro RE-05 RE-10 RE-15 Kobe RK-05 RK-10 RK-15 Tianjin RT-05 RT-10 RT-15 4. Results and Discussion 4.1 Experimental observations Similar phenomena were observed in both test models. The dynamic response of the exterior wall panel increased with increasing seismic acceleration. Moreover, the vibration was most evident at the centre of the wall panel on the second floor. For the same exterior wall panel, the restrained acceleration response of the wall panel at the connection node position was smaller, whereas the acceleration response at the centre of the panel was larger. After the earthquake, no exterior wall panel shedding or damage to the CBW flexible connector was observed. A comprehensive record of the test phenomena at different seismic intensities is presented in Table 2 . The test results are shown in Fig. 8. Table 2 Description of test phenomena Seismic Intensity During test After test 7 (0.22 g) Exterior wall panels followed the movement of the steel frame The exterior wall panels were in good surface condition. 8 (0.4 g) The centre of the exterior wall panel (out-of-plane movement) protruded; a "bang" sound was heard as the exterior wall panel collided with the steel frame. A small amount of broken concrete was present at the vertical joint of the composite wall panel SP-1. Concrete cracked at the corner of the exterior wall panel. The concrete surface at the connection between the exterior wall panel and the CBW flexible connection node cracked (Fig. 8 (1)). The CBW flexible connection node bolt was loose (Fig. 8 (2)). 9 (0.62 g) Concrete debris dislodged from the corners of the exterior wall panel. The centre of the exterior wall panel (out-of-plane movement) protruded significantly (Fig. 8 (1)). The sound made by the exterior wall panels colliding with steel frame was stronger. The surface of the exterior wall panel was largely intact and slightly broken concrete at corners. Small cracks appeared around open window wall panel SP-2. The CBW flexible connection node bolts slipped, as in Fig. 8. (1),. A CBW flexible connection node was deformed, as in Fig. 8 (2). 4.2 Dynamic characteristics The white noise was scanned before and after each earthquake simulation. The natural frequency of the model was obtained by analysing the time-history response of the acceleration sensor. The initial period of the first set of test models was 0.210 s (Fig. 9 (1)), whereas the second set of test models had an initial period of 0.185 s (Fig. 9 (2)). This indicates that the addition of the two exterior wall panels in the direction of shaking increased the stiffness in that direction. The natural frequency of the tested model remained relatively constant when the earthquake seismic intensity was between 7 and 9. The damping ratio was 1.60%. This indicates that the test model was intact. 4.3. Acceleration response In this study, the acceleration amplification factor α is defined as the acceleration amplification of the exterior wall panel relative to the steel frame at the same height (Eq. ( 1 )). As the seismic acceleration was transmitted to the exterior wall panel through the CBW flexible connection node, the performance of the CBW flexible connection node can be evaluated from the acceleration amplification factor: where x max and x max−0 are the maximum acceleration responses measured by the accelerometers arranged on the exterior wall panel and steel frame, respectively. The acceleration amplification factor at the centre of the wall panel was considered as the ratio of the acceleration at the centre of the wall panel to the average of the maximum acceleration values of the upper and lower steel beams. The open window wall panel SP-2 was used as an example, and Fig. 10 illustrates the acceleration response of the exterior wall panel and steel beam under the influence of the El-Centro wave. The exterior wall panel remained securely connected to the steel frame. In addition, the CBW flexible connection node proved effective in infrequent but strong seismic events up to intensity 9. The acceleration amplification factors of the open window wall panel SP-2 under strong earthquakes with seismic intensities of 7, 8 and 9 were 1.201, 1.212 and 1.338, respectively. The acceleration amplification factors for each measurement point of the exterior wall panel under the action of ground motion were collated, and the following observations were drawn. (1) The acceleration amplification factors of the exterior wall panels at different storey locations were all approximately one, and the distribution was relatively uniform. This indicates the dynamic adjustment effect of the CBW flexible connection nodes on the steel frame. (2) The acceleration amplification factor at the centre of the wall panel out of the plane was greater than that at the storey height. Therefore, studying the out-of-plane performance of exterior wall panels is important. (3) Different seismic waves had slightly different effects on the acceleration response of the exterior wall panels under the same earthquake intensity. Different types of exterior wall panels exhibited distinct acceleration responses under the same seismic waves. (4) For exterior wall panels of the same type, the acceleration amplification factor of the exterior wall panels out-of-plane was larger than that in-plane. For different types of exterior wall panels, the in-plane and out-of-plane acceleration amplification coefficients of the open window panel SP-2 were the largest, primarily because the in-plane and out-of-plane stiffnesses of the window panels weakened after opening the holes. 4.4. Displacement response The measured acceleration response was integrated to obtain the displacement response. The relative displacement β of the exterior wall panels was obtained by subtracting the steel beam displacement from the displacement of exterior wall panel: where x max and x max−0 are the maximum acceleration responses measured by the accelerometers arranged on the exterior wall panel and steel frame, respectively. The relative displacement at the centre of the wall panel was defined as the difference between the displacement at the centre of the wall panel and the average of the maximum values of the displacement of the upper and lower steel beams. The relative in-plane and out-of-plane displacements of the exterior wall panel were primarily caused by the deformation of the CBW flexible connection node. Therefore, the relative displacement of the exterior wall panel reflected the condition of the CBW flexible connection node. The open window wall panel SP-2 was used as an example, and the displacement responses of the exterior wall panel and steel beam under the influence of the El Centro waves are illustrated in Fig. 11. The CBW flexible connection nodes have a deformation capacity. With an increase in the earthquake intensity from 7 to 9, the deformation of the CBW flexible connection node increased from 1.870 mm to 5.093 mm. The relative displacement for each measurement point of the exterior wall panel under the action of ground motion were collated, and the results revealed the following. (1) The relative displacement of the exterior wall panels at the connection nodes was constrained, thus indicating a reliable connection with the flexible CBW connection node. (2) When the exterior wall panel moved along the plane, the bottom relative displacement was nonzero because the lower CBW flexible connection node had a sliding capacity. (3) The relative displacement at the centre of the exterior wall panel was greater than that at the connection nodes, thus indicating that the exterior wall panel deformed when it moved in and out of plane. As earthquake acceleration increased, the deformation of the exterior wall panel increased. (4)The relative displacement of the exterior wall panel increased with the seismic intensity, thus indicating an increase in the deformation of the CBW connection node. The maximum relative displacements of the composite wall panel SP-1, open window wall panel SP-2, and integral wall panel SP-3 in the plane were 3.902, 5.101, and 4.273 mm, respectively. For the out-of-plane motion, the maximum values were 2.676, 2.573, and 3.569 mm, respectively. The results indicated that the CBW flexible connection nodes provided good in-plane and out-of-plane deformation capabilities. The CBW nodes coordinate the deformation of the exterior wall panels to prevent serious damage to the exterior wall panels even under a very strong seismic intensity 9 earthquake. 4.5. Strain response The strains of the exterior wall panel during the out-of-plane motion were analysed owing to their large acceleration and displacement responses. The maximum strains of the CBW flexible connection node and exterior wall panel are shown in Fig. 12. As the seismic acceleration increased, both the CBW flexible connection node and exterior wall panel experienced an increase in strain. For a strong seismic intensity 9 Tianjin wave earthquake, the maximum strain of the CBW flexible connector was 352 µE, which is significantly lower than the calculated yield strain of 1576 µE based on the material properties. The maximum strain of the concrete in the exterior wall panel under a seismic intensity 9 earthquake with an RK-05 wave was 63.63 µE, which does not exceed the cracking strain of the concrete. These results indicate that both the CBW flexible connection node and exterior wall panel had a significant strength capacity. 5. Conclusions A CBW flexible connection node was designed and shaking table tests were conducted on a two-storey full-scale steel frame-exterior wall panel. The acceleration, displacement and strain responses of the three types of exterior wall panels under the action of 12 types of seismic waves of intensity 7, 8, and 9 were analysed. The conclusions are as follows. (1) The acceleration amplification coefficient in-plane for the exterior wall panels connected by flexible CBW connection nodes was between 0.753 and 1.400, and the acceleration amplification coefficient out of the plane was between 0.998 and 2.199. In engineering design, the out-of-plane performance of external wall panels should be considered. (2) The CBW flexible connection node had in-plane and out-of-plane deformation capacities that allowed it to coordinate the deformation of the exterior wall panel. In-plane and out-of-plane deformation of 5.101 mm and 3.569 mm were observed for the CBW flexible connection node under a very strong seismic intensity 9 earthquake. (3) The surfaces of the PC exterior wall panels connected by the flexible CBW connection nodes remained intact after intensity 7, 8 and 9 earthquakes, with only the corners damaged, which meet the building code standards. Declarations Data availability All data is available in the main text. The data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. CRediT authorship contribution statement Beibei Yang: Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing – original draft. Zhenbao Li: Investigation, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition. Ping Liu: Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Formal analysis. Hua Ma: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. Jiulong Yang: Formal analysis, Project administration. Zhicheng Kang: Formal analysis, Investigation. Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant no. 51978014]. References Wang, W. Li, Z. Wang, W. Wang, H. A Review on the Seismic Performance of Assembled Steel Frame-Precast Concrete Facade Panels, IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng 2019 690 (1) 012003, https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/690/1/012003. Wang, R. Cao, W.-L. Yin, F. Dong, H.-Y. Experimental and Numerical Study Regarding a Fabricated CFST Frame Composite Wall Structure, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2019 162 105718, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.105718. Baek, J.-W. Hwang, H.-J. Kang, S.-M. Park, H.-G. Shaking Table Test for Dimension Stone Cladding with Dowel Pin Connection, Journal of Building Engineering 2023 70 106390, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106390. Lee, H.-S. Oh, M.-H. Kim, W.-S. Structural Performance of Curtain Wall Using Separate Interstorey Modules and Three-Axis Mobile Fasteners, J. Korean Soc. Adv. Comp. Struc 2020 11 (5) 34–45, https://doi.org/10.11004/kosacs.2020.11.5.034. Wang, J. Shen, Q. Li, B. Seismic Behavior Investigation on Blind Bolted CFST Frames with Precast SCWPs, Int J Steel Struct 2018 18 (5) 1666–1683, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-018-0068-0. Wang, J. Li, B. Cyclic Testing of Square CFST Frames with ALC Panel or Block Walls. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2017 130 264–279, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.12.006. De Matteis, G. Effect of Lightweight Cladding Panels on the Seismic Performance of Moment Resisting Steel Frames. Eng Struct 2005 27 (11) 1662–1676, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.06.004. Zhenggang, C. Peng, D. Feng, F. Ming, F. Cyclic Testing and Parametric Analyses of the Fabricated Steel Frames Infilled with Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Panels, Adv in Struct Eng 2017 20 (4) 629–640, https://doi.org/10.1177/1369433216659288. Gokmen, F. Binici, B. Aldemir, A. Taghipour, A. Canbay, E. Seismic Behavior of Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Low Rise Buildings with Reinforced Wall Panels, Bull Earthquake Eng 2019 17 (7) 3933–3957, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00630-3. Wang, B. Wang,J. Gong, X. Liu, B. Experimental Studies on Circular CFST Frames with ALC Walls under Cyclic Loadings, Int J Steel Struct 2014 14 (4) 755–768, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-014-1207-x. Carradine, D. M. Woeste ,F. E. J. Dolan, D. J. Loferski R., Utilizing Diaphragm Action for Wind Load Design of Timber Frame and Structural Insulated Panel Buildings, Forest Products Journal 2004 54(5) 73-80. Ding, K. Zong, D. Liu, Y. He, S. Shen, W. Experimental and Finite Element Analysis of External ALC Panel Steel Frames with New Semi-Rigid Connector, Applied Sciences 2021 11 (22) 10990, https://doi.org/10.3390/app112210990. Hwang, S.H. Kim, S. Choi, Y.S. K. Yang, H. Out-of-plane lateral load capacity of unreinforced masonry walls, Journal of Structural Integrity and Maintenance 7 (4) (2022) 217–225, https://doi.org/10.1080/24705314.2022.2088057. Olmati, P. Petrini, F. Gkoumas, K. Fragility Analysis for the Performance-Based Design of Cladding Wall Panels Subjected to Blast Load, Engineering Structures 2014 78 112–120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.06.004. Hunt, J. P. Seismic Performance Assessment and Probabilistic Repair Cost Analysis of Precast Concrete Cladding Systems for Multistorey Buildings, University of California, Berkeley ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2010. 3413397. Gong,Y. Cao, L. Laflamme, S. Quiel, S. Ricles, J. Taylor, D. Characterization of a novel variable friction connection for semiactive cladding system, Structural Control and Health Monitoring 25(6) 2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2157 Vaghei, R. Hejazi, F. A. Firoozi, A. Analytical Model for Precast Wall Equipped with U-Shaped Steel Channel Connection, Structures 2021 32 406–432, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.02.054. Liu, R. Zhang, K. Tao, M. Test Study on Slipping Performance of the Flexible Nodes of the Precast Concrete Exterior Wall Cladding Panel, International Conference on Automobile and Traffic Science, Materials, Metallurgy Engineering, 2013. Li,J. Wang, Y. Zhang, Z. Mou, B. Seismic Behavior of Steel Frames with Different Joints: Shaking Table Test and Finite Element Analysis, Journal of Building Engineering 2023 70 106377, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106377. Huang, B. Lu, W. Günay, S. Shaking Table Tests of Granite Cladding with Dowel Pin Connection. Bull Earthquake Eng 2020 18 (3) 1081–1105, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00741-x. Dong, H. Qin, J. Cao, W. Yang, Yin, L. F. Wang, R. Shaking Table Tests on Concrete-Filled Steel Tubular-Framed Building Assembled with Microcrystalline Foam Boards. Structures 2021 34 2098–2114, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.08.064. Okazaki, T. Nakashima, M. Suita, K. Matusmiya, T. Interaction between Cladding and Structural Frame Observed in a Full-Scale Steel Building Test, Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007 36 (1) 35–53, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.618. Mcmullin, K. M. Ortiz, Patel, M. Yarra, L. Steed, S. B. Response of Exterior Precast Concrete Cladding Panels in NEES-TIPS/NEESGC/ E-Defense Tests on a Full Scale 5-Storey Building, Structures Congress, 2012:1305-1314. Song, Z. Zhou, Lu, Y. Y. Shaking table test of a 10-storey self‐centering tube building, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eqe.3827 (accessed 2023-03-21). Getz, D. R. Memari,A. M. Static and Cyclic Racking Performance of Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Cladding Panels, J. Archit. Eng. 2006, 12 (1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0431(2006)12:1(12). Daniel Ronald Joseph,J. Prabakar, J. Alagusundaramoorthy, P. Flexural Behavior of Precast Concrete Sandwich Panels under Different Loading Conditions Such as Punching and Bending, Alexandria Engineering Journal 2018 57 (1) 309–320, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2016.11.016. Gu, Q. Deng, Q. Tan, Y. Tian, S. Wang, X. Research on the Out-of-Plane Mechanical Performance of Double-Face Superposed Shear Walls with Different Horizontal Connections, Journal of Building Engineering 2022 59 105157, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105157. Alawad, O. M. Gombeda, M. J. Quiel, S. Naito, E. C. J. Flexural Performance of Non-Loadbearing Blast-Resistant Precast Concrete Cladding Panels with Discrete Connections, Journal of Building Engineering 2020 32 101438,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101438. Zhang, C. Ling, B. Huang, Deng, W. Ding, X. Gao, C. Cyclic Behavior of Semi-Rigid Steel Frame Infilled with Damping Wall Panels, Journal of Building Engineering 2022 51 104238, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104238. Huang,Z. Chen, Z. Huang, D. Chui, Y.-H. Cyclic Loading Behavior of an Innovative Semi-Rigid Connection for Engineered Bamboo-Steel Hybrid Frames, Journal of Building Engineering 2019 24 100754, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100754. Li,Y. Gao;C. Li, X. Yan, Y. Ning, Z. Experimental Study on the Seismic Performance of Steel Frames with Infill ALC Wall Panels, Journal of Building Engineering 2023 65 105739, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105739. GB/T 51232-2016, Technical standard for assembled buildings with steel-structure. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China (2016). (in Chinese) GB 50010-2010, Code for design of concrete structures, Beijing: China Building Industry Press (2015). (in Chinese) JGJ/T 458—2018, Application technical standard of precast concrete external wall panel. Beijing：China Building Standards Design and Research Institute Co., Ltd., China Resources Land Co., Ltd. China Architecture and Building Press (2018). (In Chinese) Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3638503","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":252340446,"identity":"3bc46c25-b4bc-4830-8b96-5fc87c6b038c","order_by":0,"name":"Beibei Yang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ministry of Education, Beijing University of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Beibei","middleName":"","lastName":"Yang","suffix":""},{"id":252340448,"identity":"f28e93ef-13c1-4e2b-8bd9-b87260f4b42e","order_by":1,"name":"Zhenbao Li","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ministry of Education, Beijing University of Technology","correspondingAuthor":true,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zhenbao","middleName":"","lastName":"Li","suffix":""},{"id":252340451,"identity":"b4f97a8a-41db-40bd-ad0e-c593d68b47e8","order_by":2,"name":"Ping Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tianjin Renai College","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ping","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""},{"id":252340453,"identity":"ee7a8cba-6e32-4e33-917f-7cc2732f5025","order_by":3,"name":"Hua Ma","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ministry of Education, Beijing University of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hua","middleName":"","lastName":"Ma","suffix":""},{"id":252340454,"identity":"9adf8f2d-c1e6-46ac-ac7a-66dee2c40788","order_by":4,"name":"Jiulong Yang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Beijing Shoushi Industrial Design Limited Company","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jiulong","middleName":"","lastName":"Yang","suffix":""},{"id":252340456,"identity":"d346add1-772c-4a5d-801f-755c7cd77d78","order_by":5,"name":"Zhicheng Kang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Beijing Shoushi Industrial Design Limited Company","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zhicheng","middleName":"","lastName":"Kang","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2023-11-20 08:59:12","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3638503/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3638503/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":47224447,"identity":"e2ef797c-aabe-4aa0-9d5d-e0b94c5c21b6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-11-28 19:20:38","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":56987,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCBW flexible connection node\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3638503/v1/e0f4f07e00516e612ee255c7.jpg"},{"id":47224446,"identity":"b73d7a89-46b4-49a1-a919-f9f3a0751e5e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-11-28 19:20:38","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":87596,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSize of CBW flexible connection node\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3638503/v1/c8a8c3430680fbbaf05135ae.jpg"},{"id":47226115,"identity":"8ba1e305-b514-4656-9c60-e2f067b5168c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-11-28 19:28:39","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":147508,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAssembly process of test model\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3638503/v1/e29994d68a6bb478e4b494da.jpg"},{"id":47227467,"identity":"151e1b22-23b8-48c0-9ef5-aa7788f28b1e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-11-28 19:36:39","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":118947,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTwo sets of test models\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3638503/v1/508ef713914ba451139fe8fe.jpg"},{"id":47224451,"identity":"09d814ca-344b-47f5-9413-23d950752a23","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-11-28 19:20:39","extension":"jpg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":90852,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eInstrumentation arrangement\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3638503/v1/93a7a9c67c4252b213eb0068.jpg"},{"id":47226113,"identity":"1b800354-0999-408b-be5e-8c03fa46e632","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-11-28 19:28:39","extension":"jpg","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":65685,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTime–history curves\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3638503/v1/567ebd482748d6a67a98b19b.jpg"},{"id":47224448,"identity":"d359767a-d2f3-4292-b316-9ab5d9125a10","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-11-28 19:20:38","extension":"jpg","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":36840,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResponse spectra for the 12 inputs\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"7.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3638503/v1/4fb946c19a6c94ecc22bac28.jpg"},{"id":47224449,"identity":"c60e8622-1e73-4404-b94d-6ea26596ed70","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-11-28 19:20:38","extension":"jpg","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":215047,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTest phenomenon\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"8.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3638503/v1/ed8cb2907a441419a7a4b98b.jpg"},{"id":47226112,"identity":"594ce357-0ca5-4a31-9a8d-ca72c3ba3583","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-11-28 19:28:38","extension":"jpg","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":49979,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eNatural frequency of tested models\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"9.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3638503/v1/63bbcd03975cbb7d4d7f4705.jpg"},{"id":47224456,"identity":"510ef623-62e2-4d4b-8ddf-06a6d34dc3ff","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-11-28 19:20:39","extension":"jpg","order_by":10,"title":"Figure 10","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":75972,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAcceleration of exterior wall panel and steel beam\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"10.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3638503/v1/2e9c5a5ab15f053ef887919b.jpg"},{"id":47224455,"identity":"0a550e9c-45f1-41b1-9ff4-03ff46de9594","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-11-28 19:20:39","extension":"jpg","order_by":11,"title":"Figure 11","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":75754,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRelative displacement of exterior wall panel\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"11.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3638503/v1/b3acadba14134ac9f0a1218c.jpg"},{"id":47227468,"identity":"e1dcbdcb-8726-483d-aeaf-47537f89aeec","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-11-28 19:36:39","extension":"jpg","order_by":12,"title":"Figure 12","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":74239,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMaximum strain response of exterior wall panel (out-of-plane)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"12.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3638503/v1/5d15dd68730976739c8484c5.jpg"},{"id":51955470,"identity":"dac3e98a-2618-469b-9bee-dda908ec671c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-03-04 14:12:41","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1085904,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3638503/v1/d243d2d1-8b84-4c9e-8b29-d243ecb053e1.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Shaking table test of a full-scale PC exterior wall panel connected to a steel frame with flexible node","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eExterior wall panels are the most frequently used enclosure components in prefabricated buildings. Two types of connections exist between the exterior wall panels and main structure: line-supported and point-supported connection nodes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. Despite being considered as non-load-bearing components in structural design, exterior wall panels significantly affect the seismic performance of the main structure [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. If a dependable connection is not established between the main structure and exterior wall panels, they could easily detach under earthquake activity, thus leading to additional casualties and damages due to falling wall panels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumerous researchers, including Jingfeng [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e], De Matteis [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e], Cao [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e], Gokmen [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e], Bo Wang [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e], and Carrradine [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e], have conducted quasi-static tests on single-storey steel frame structures with or without exterior wall panels. Ding [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e] and Hwang [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e] investigated the out-of-plane (wind, earthquake) and in-plane forces of an outer wall panel using finite element analysis. Under normal conditions, the exterior wall panel did not experience cracking. Vaghei [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] and Liu [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e] studied the performance of flexible connection nodes under cyclic loads. The results revealed that flexible connection nodes can withstand multidirectional earthquakes and reduce the adverse impact of earthquakes on the surrounding structural system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo investigate the dynamic performance of the exterior wall panel and connection nodes, several studies have performed shaking table tests on steel frame-exterior wall panel models [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Dong [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e] conducted shaking table tests on a two-storey steel-tube-concrete-frame-exterior wall panel structure. The results revealed that an exterior wall panel with flexible connection nodes can absorb considerable energy, and reduce the displacement and deformation of the structure. Okazaki [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e] conducted shaking table tests on a three-storey full-scale steel frame-exterior AAC wall panel structure and analysed the effects of the exterior wall panel and sway nodes on the structural performance. McMullin et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e] conducted shaking table tests on two groups of five-storey full-scale exterior wall panel steel frame specimens and studied the performance of precast concrete (PC) exterior wall panels and connection nodes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the aforementioned studies focused on the seismic performance of exterior wall panels in-plane, and less attention was paid to the out-of-plane performance of exterior wall panels. The failure of the exterior wall panels during out-of-plane loading mainly originates from acceleration and inertial forces, as reported by Song [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. However, most researchers have conducted static tests on the deformation capacity of exterior wall panels [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. The bending performance of PC wall panels was studied by Joseph [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e] through quarter-point loading tests, and the deflection, stiffness, and cracking moment of the panels were calculated based on linear elastic theory. The loading conditions significantly impacted the bending performance of the prefabricated PC wall panels. Gu [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e] and Alawad [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e] studied the out-of-plane performance of PC wall panels and proposed a formula for calculating the ultimate bearing capacity. The PC exterior wall panel had high in-plane stiffness but low out-of-plane stiffness. The exterior wall panel under out-of-plane earthquake loading was weak. The evaluation of the out-of-plane performance of exterior wall panels by static tests alone cannot reflect the dynamic characteristics of the exterior wall panels and connection nodes. Traditional nodes with poor deformation capacity [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR30\" citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e] are the focus of most current research on connection nodes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA cantilever block-wall panel attachment strip (CBW) flexible connection node was proposed in this study. A local two-storey steel frame was selected from an assembled building structure, and three different full-scale types of exterior wall panels were designed to connect to the steel frame. Two sets of shaking table tests were conducted on a full-scale two-storey steel frame-exterior wall panel structure model by inputting 12 natural seismic. In the first set of tests, the composite wall panel and integral wall panel were in-plane, and the open window panel was out-of-plane. In the second set of tests, the composite and integral wall panels were out-of-plane, and the open window panel was in-plane. The acceleration amplification factor (amplification of acceleration of exterior wall panels relative to the steel beam) and deformation of the CBW flexible connection nodes on three exterior wall panel types were analysed for in-plane and out-of-plane loadings under the effects of rare but very strong earthquakes with seismic intensities of 7, 8, and 9. The results of this study have a significant impact on the reference values utilised for the development of prefabricated buildings.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Materials and methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.1. CBW flexible connection node\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA CWB attachment strip flexible connection node was used to connect the exterior panel to the main structure of an assembled steel structure, as shown in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. The CBW flexible connection node was composed of a wall panel attachment strip and a cantilever block, both of which were steel members with fixed types and sizes that can be used in combination (Fig.\u0026nbsp;2). The wall panel attachment strip was connected to the exterior wall panel, the cantilever block was connected to the steel frame beam, and the wall panel attachment strip was bolted to the cantilever block to connect the exterior wall panel to the main structure.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe self-weight, seismic, and wind loads of the exterior wall panels were transmitted to the main structure through a wall panel attachment strip and cantilever block. The size, quantity and spacing of the connecting bolts and the spacing of the cantilever block were determined by calculations, all of which satisfied the requirements of the technical standard [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Three cantilever blocks were arranged on each steel frame beam at intervals of 1,200 and 600 mm. The exterior wall panel was connected to the wall-panel attachment strip with four 12-mm-diameter bolts, and the cantilever block was connected to the steel frame beam with two 14-mm-diameter bolts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Test specimen and material properties\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe test model was derived from the top two-storey section of an actual 15-storey assembly building located in Beijing. The location has experienced earthquakes up to 8 in seismic intensity and is classified as a Level II site. The design of the steel frame and exterior wall panels in the prototype structure followed relevant seismic design specifications [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. The sizes of the steel-frame beams and columns in the test model were identical to those of the prototype building structure. The steel beam dimensions were H250 \u0026times; 6 \u0026times; 180 \u0026times; 10 \u0026times; 140 \u0026times; 10 mm, and the steel frame column dimensions were H300 \u0026times; 300 \u0026times; 10 \u0026times; 12 mm. The floor height was 2,900 mm, and the one-way span was 2,400 mm. A small T-shaped steel beam with a cross-section of T100 \u0026times; 6 \u0026times; 10 mm was welded to the steel beam to facilitate connection with the CHG flexible connector. The design of exterior wall panels considered combinations of self-weight, wind, and seismic loads [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]. The thickness of the PC exterior wall panels was 50 mm, and a row of 8-mm-diameter reinforcement mesh was arranged inside without considering insulation. The steel frame, PC exterior wall panels, and CBW flexible connection nodes were prefabricated components. All connectors were installed and bolted onsite. The installation method was consistent with actual engineering practice, and the model could be assembled quickly. The four steel-frame columns were fixed to the shaking table using high-strength bolts. The assembly process of the model involved assembling the steel frame (Fig.\u0026nbsp;3 (1)), combining the CBW flexible connection node (Fig.\u0026nbsp;3 (2)), installing the CBW flexible connection node (Fig.\u0026nbsp;3 (3)), and installing the exterior wall panel (Fig.\u0026nbsp;3 (4)).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConsidering the existence of various exterior wall panel types in buildings, three common PC exterior wall panel types were incorporated into the test model: the composite wall panel, open window wall panel, and integral wall panel (numbered SP-1, SP-2 and SP-3, respectively), which were installed on the two-storey steel frame. The shaking-table study involved two sets of tests. The first set of test models is shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;4 (1). Composite wall panel SP-1 and integral wall panel SP-3 were in-plane; the open window panel SP-2 was out-of-plane. The second set of test models was obtained by lifting and rotating the first set counter clockwise by 90\u0026deg;, as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;4 (2). The composite wall panel SP-1 and integral wall panel SP-3 were out-of-plane, whereas the open window panel SP-2 was in-plane. The model dimensions are shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;4.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQ345 steel was used for the steel frame and Q235 steel was used for the CBW flexible connection nodes. The material properties was \u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003ey=\u003c/sub\u003e 360.96 MPa, and 323.14 MPa. The concrete used had a strength grade of C35, and its material strength was \u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ecu=\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e37.93 MPa.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Test setup and instrumentation\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe experiment was conducted in the structural test hall at Beijing University of Technology, utilising a 3 \u0026times; 3 m shaking table that was shaken solely along the east\u0026ndash;west axis. To measure the seismic response of the test model, 25 acceleration sensors, nine displacement sensors, and 33 strain gauges were installed, as shown in Fig. 5. Two acceleration sensors (A-1 and A-2) were placed on the shaking table surface to measure the seismic motion precisely. Acceleration sensors were positioned on the steel frame beam of each storey: on the exterior wall panel at the same height as the steel frame beam, and at the centre of the exterior wall panel to study the acceleration amplification of the exterior wall panel relative to the steel frame. Displacement gauges were placed between the exterior wall panels and the steel beam to calibrate the displacements derived from the acceleration integral. Finally, strain gauges were positioned at the centre of each exterior wall panel and on the diagonal plate of each cantilever block to measure the strain response.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Inputs","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo assess the seismic response of the model, twelve representative groups of natural seismic waves ( )were selected, such as : El-Centro (1940, NS), Kobe (1995, NS), and Tianjin waves (1976, EW); their spectrum of reaction and time\u0026ndash;history acceleration curves are depicted in Figs. \u003cspan\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e and 7.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo account for the unidirectional vibration limitation of the shaking table and to consider both the in-plane and out-of-plane movements of the exterior wall panels during earthquakes, the tests were divided into two groups. The first group of tests involved out-of-plane motion for test composite wall panel SP-1 and integral wall panel SP-3, whereas in-plane motion was applied to test open window wall panel SP-2; the test model is shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;4 (1). After confirming the structural integrity of the first group of test models, the second group of tests was conducted. In this group, in-plane motion was applied to test the SP-1 and integral wall panel SP-3, whereas out-of-plane motion was applied to test open window wall panel SP-2; the test model is shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;4 (2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo simulate the seismic effects of infrequent earthquakes with seismic intensities 7, 8, and 9, amplitude modulation was applied to the input shaking tables at 0.22, 0.4, and 0.62 g, respectively. To determine the model natural frequency, a white noise excitation with a peak acceleration of 0.01 g was introduced with each change in the input acceleration degree. The test conditions were consistent for both groups, with each degree of input following the numbering sequence listed in Table \u003cspan\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e for ground shaking.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumbers of the inputs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOrder\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumbering\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEl-Centro\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRE-05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRE-10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRE-15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKobe\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRK-05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRK-10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRK-15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTianjin\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRT-05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRT-10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRT-15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Experimental observations\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSimilar phenomena were observed in both test models. The dynamic response of the exterior wall panel increased with increasing seismic acceleration. Moreover, the vibration was most evident at the centre of the wall panel on the second floor. For the same exterior wall panel, the restrained acceleration response of the wall panel at the connection node position was smaller, whereas the acceleration response at the centre of the panel was larger. After the earthquake, no exterior wall panel shedding or damage to the CBW flexible connector was observed. A comprehensive record of the test phenomena at different seismic intensities is presented in Table \u003cspan\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. The test results are shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;8.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDescription of test phenomena\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSeismic Intensity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDuring test\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAfter test\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.22 g)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExterior wall panels followed the movement of the steel frame\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe exterior wall panels were in good surface condition.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.4 g)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe centre of the exterior wall panel (out-of-plane movement) protruded; a \u0026quot;bang\u0026quot; sound was heard as the exterior wall panel collided with the steel frame.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA small amount of broken concrete was present at the vertical joint of the composite wall panel SP-1. Concrete cracked at the corner of the exterior wall panel. The concrete surface at the connection between the exterior wall panel and the CBW flexible connection node cracked (Fig.\u0026nbsp;8 (1)). The CBW flexible connection node bolt was loose (Fig.\u0026nbsp;8 (2)).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.62 g)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConcrete debris dislodged from the corners of the exterior wall panel. The centre of the exterior wall panel (out-of-plane movement) protruded significantly (Fig.\u0026nbsp;8 (1)). The sound made by the exterior wall panels colliding with steel frame was stronger.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe surface of the exterior wall panel was largely intact and slightly broken concrete at corners. Small cracks appeared around open window wall panel SP-2. The CBW flexible connection node bolts slipped, as in Fig.\u0026nbsp;8. (1),. A CBW flexible connection node was deformed, as in Fig.\u0026nbsp;8 (2).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Dynamic characteristics\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe white noise was scanned before and after each earthquake simulation. The natural frequency of the model was obtained by analysing the time-history response of the acceleration sensor. The initial period of the first set of test models was 0.210 s (Fig. 9 (1)), whereas the second set of test models had an initial period of 0.185 s (Fig. 9 (2)). This indicates that the addition of the two exterior wall panels in the direction of shaking increased the stiffness in that direction. The natural frequency of the tested model remained relatively constant when the earthquake seismic intensity was between 7 and 9. The damping ratio was 1.60%. This indicates that the test model was intact.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.3. Acceleration response\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn this study, the acceleration amplification factor \u003cem\u003e\u0026alpha;\u003c/em\u003e is defined as the acceleration amplification of the exterior wall panel relative to the steel frame at the same height (Eq. (\u003cspan\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e)). As the seismic acceleration was transmitted to the exterior wall panel through the CBW flexible connection node, the performance of the CBW flexible connection node can be evaluated from the acceleration amplification factor:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Equ1\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\u003cimg src=\"\" width=\"364\" height=\"52\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ewhere \u003cem\u003ex\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003emax\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e and \u003cem\u003ex\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003emax\u0026minus;0\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e are the maximum acceleration responses measured by the accelerometers arranged on the exterior wall panel and steel frame, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe acceleration amplification factor at the centre of the wall panel was considered as the ratio of the acceleration at the centre of the wall panel to the average of the maximum acceleration values of the upper and lower steel beams.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe open window wall panel SP-2 was used as an example, and Fig. 10 illustrates the acceleration response of the exterior wall panel and steel beam under the influence of the El-Centro wave. The exterior wall panel remained securely connected to the steel frame. In addition, the CBW flexible connection node proved effective in infrequent but strong seismic events up to intensity 9. The acceleration amplification factors of the open window wall panel SP-2 under strong earthquakes with seismic intensities of 7, 8 and 9 were 1.201, 1.212 and 1.338, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe acceleration amplification factors for each measurement point of the exterior wall panel under the action of ground motion were collated, and the following observations were drawn.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1) The acceleration amplification factors of the exterior wall panels at different storey locations were all approximately one, and the distribution was relatively uniform. This indicates the dynamic adjustment effect of the CBW flexible connection nodes on the steel frame.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2) The acceleration amplification factor at the centre of the wall panel out of the plane was greater than that at the storey height. Therefore, studying the out-of-plane performance of exterior wall panels is important.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(3) Different seismic waves had slightly different effects on the acceleration response of the exterior wall panels under the same earthquake intensity. Different types of exterior wall panels exhibited distinct acceleration responses under the same seismic waves.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(4) For exterior wall panels of the same type, the acceleration amplification factor of the exterior wall panels out-of-plane was larger than that in-plane. For different types of exterior wall panels, the in-plane and out-of-plane acceleration amplification coefficients of the open window panel SP-2 were the largest, primarily because the in-plane and out-of-plane stiffnesses of the window panels weakened after opening the holes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.4. Displacement response\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe measured acceleration response was integrated to obtain the displacement response. The relative displacement \u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e of the exterior wall panels was obtained by subtracting the steel beam displacement from the displacement of exterior wall panel:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cimg src=\"\" width=\"402\" height=\"25\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ewhere \u003cem\u003ex\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003emax\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e and \u003cem\u003ex\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003emax\u0026minus;0\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e are the maximum acceleration responses measured by the accelerometers arranged on the exterior wall panel and steel frame, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe relative displacement at the centre of the wall panel was defined as the difference between the displacement at the centre of the wall panel and the average of the maximum values of the displacement of the upper and lower steel beams.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe relative in-plane and out-of-plane displacements of the exterior wall panel were primarily caused by the deformation of the CBW flexible connection node. Therefore, the relative displacement of the exterior wall panel reflected the condition of the CBW flexible connection node.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe open window wall panel SP-2 was used as an example, and the displacement responses of the exterior wall panel and steel beam under the influence of the El Centro waves are illustrated in Fig. 11. The CBW flexible connection nodes have a deformation capacity. With an increase in the earthquake intensity from 7 to 9, the deformation of the CBW flexible connection node increased from 1.870 mm to 5.093 mm.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe relative displacement for each measurement point of the exterior wall panel under the action of ground motion were collated, and the results revealed the following.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1) The relative displacement of the exterior wall panels at the connection nodes was constrained, thus indicating a reliable connection with the flexible CBW connection node.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2) When the exterior wall panel moved along the plane, the bottom relative displacement was nonzero because the lower CBW flexible connection node had a sliding capacity.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(3) The relative displacement at the centre of the exterior wall panel was greater than that at the connection nodes, thus indicating that the exterior wall panel deformed when it moved in and out of plane. As earthquake acceleration increased, the deformation of the exterior wall panel increased.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(4)The relative displacement of the exterior wall panel increased with the seismic intensity, thus indicating an increase in the deformation of the CBW connection node. The maximum relative displacements of the composite wall panel SP-1, open window wall panel SP-2, and integral wall panel SP-3 in the plane were 3.902, 5.101, and 4.273 mm, respectively. For the out-of-plane motion, the maximum values were 2.676, 2.573, and 3.569 mm, respectively. The results indicated that the CBW flexible connection nodes provided good in-plane and out-of-plane deformation capabilities. The CBW nodes coordinate the deformation of the exterior wall panels to prevent serious damage to the exterior wall panels even under a very strong seismic intensity 9 earthquake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.5. Strain response\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe strains of the exterior wall panel during the out-of-plane motion were analysed owing to their large acceleration and displacement responses. The maximum strains of the CBW flexible connection node and exterior wall panel are shown in Fig. 12. As the seismic acceleration increased, both the CBW flexible connection node and exterior wall panel experienced an increase in strain. For a strong seismic intensity 9 Tianjin wave earthquake, the maximum strain of the CBW flexible connector was 352 \u0026micro;E, which is significantly lower than the calculated yield strain of 1576 \u0026micro;E based on the material properties. The maximum strain of the concrete in the exterior wall panel under a seismic intensity 9 earthquake with an RK-05 wave was 63.63 \u0026micro;E, which does not exceed the cracking strain of the concrete. These results indicate that both the CBW flexible connection node and exterior wall panel had a significant strength capacity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eA CBW flexible connection node was designed and shaking table tests were conducted on a two-storey full-scale steel frame-exterior wall panel. The acceleration, displacement and strain responses of the three types of exterior wall panels under the action of 12 types of seismic waves of intensity 7, 8, and 9 were analysed. The conclusions are as follows.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(1) The acceleration amplification coefficient in-plane for the exterior wall panels connected by flexible CBW connection nodes was between 0.753 and 1.400, and the acceleration amplification coefficient out of the plane was between 0.998 and 2.199. In engineering design, the out-of-plane performance of external wall panels should be considered.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(2) The CBW flexible connection node had in-plane and out-of-plane deformation capacities that allowed it to coordinate the deformation of the exterior wall panel. In-plane and out-of-plane deformation of 5.101 mm and 3.569 mm were observed for the CBW flexible connection node under a very strong seismic intensity 9 earthquake.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(3) The surfaces of the PC exterior wall panels connected by the flexible CBW connection nodes remained intact after intensity 7, 8 and 9 earthquakes, with only the corners damaged, which meet the building code standards.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eData availability\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll data is available in the main text. The data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eCRediT authorship contribution statement\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBeibei Yang: Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing \u0026ndash; original draft. Zhenbao Li: Investigation, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition. Ping Liu: Writing \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing, Methodology, Formal analysis. Hua Ma: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing. Jiulong Yang: Formal analysis, Project administration. Zhicheng Kang: Formal analysis, Investigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eDeclaration of Competing Interest\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant no. 51978014].\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, W. Li, Z. Wang, W. Wang, H. A Review on the Seismic Performance of Assembled Steel Frame-Precast Concrete Facade Panels, IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng 2019 690 (1) 012003, https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/690/1/012003.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, R. Cao, W.-L. Yin, F. Dong, H.-Y. Experimental and Numerical Study Regarding a Fabricated CFST Frame Composite Wall Structure, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2019 162 105718, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.105718.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaek, J.-W. Hwang, H.-J. Kang, S.-M. Park, H.-G. Shaking Table Test for Dimension Stone Cladding with Dowel Pin Connection, Journal of Building Engineering 2023 70 106390, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106390.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, H.-S. Oh, M.-H. Kim, W.-S. Structural Performance of Curtain Wall Using Separate Interstorey Modules and Three-Axis Mobile Fasteners, J. Korean Soc. Adv. Comp. Struc 2020 11 (5) 34\u0026ndash;45, https://doi.org/10.11004/kosacs.2020.11.5.034.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, J. Shen, Q. Li, B. Seismic Behavior Investigation on Blind Bolted CFST Frames with Precast SCWPs, Int J Steel Struct 2018 18 (5) 1666\u0026ndash;1683, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-018-0068-0.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, J. Li, B. Cyclic Testing of Square CFST Frames with ALC Panel or Block Walls. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2017 130 264\u0026ndash;279, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.12.006.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Matteis, G. Effect of Lightweight Cladding Panels on the Seismic Performance of Moment Resisting Steel Frames. Eng Struct 2005 27 (11) 1662\u0026ndash;1676, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.06.004.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhenggang, C. Peng, D. Feng, F. Ming, F. Cyclic Testing and Parametric Analyses of the Fabricated Steel Frames Infilled with Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Panels, Adv in Struct Eng 2017 20 (4) 629\u0026ndash;640, https://doi.org/10.1177/1369433216659288.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGokmen, F. Binici, B. Aldemir, A. Taghipour, A. Canbay, E. Seismic Behavior of Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Low Rise Buildings with Reinforced Wall Panels, Bull Earthquake Eng 2019 17 (7) 3933\u0026ndash;3957, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00630-3.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, B. Wang,J. Gong, X. Liu, B. Experimental Studies on Circular CFST Frames with ALC Walls under Cyclic Loadings, Int J Steel Struct 2014 14 (4) 755\u0026ndash;768, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-014-1207-x.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarradine, D. M. Woeste ,F. E. J. Dolan, D. J. Loferski R., Utilizing Diaphragm Action for Wind Load Design of Timber Frame and Structural Insulated Panel Buildings, Forest Products Journal 2004 54(5) 73-80.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDing, K. Zong, D. Liu, Y. He, S. Shen, W. Experimental and Finite Element Analysis of External ALC Panel Steel Frames with New Semi-Rigid Connector, Applied Sciences 2021 11 (22) 10990, https://doi.org/10.3390/app112210990.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHwang, S.H. Kim, S. Choi, Y.S. K. Yang, H. Out-of-plane lateral load capacity of unreinforced masonry walls, Journal of Structural Integrity and Maintenance 7 (4) (2022) 217\u0026ndash;225, https://doi.org/10.1080/24705314.2022.2088057.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlmati, P. Petrini, F. Gkoumas, K. Fragility Analysis for the Performance-Based Design of Cladding Wall Panels Subjected to Blast Load, Engineering Structures 2014 78 112\u0026ndash;120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.06.004.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHunt, J. P. Seismic Performance Assessment and Probabilistic Repair Cost Analysis of Precast Concrete Cladding Systems for Multistorey Buildings, University of California, Berkeley\u0026thinsp;ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2010.\u0026thinsp;3413397.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGong,Y. Cao, L. Laflamme, S. Quiel, S. Ricles, J. Taylor, D. Characterization of a novel variable friction connection for semiactive cladding system, Structural Control and Health Monitoring 25(6) 2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2157\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVaghei, R. Hejazi, F. A. Firoozi, A. Analytical Model for Precast Wall Equipped with U-Shaped Steel Channel Connection, Structures 2021 32 406\u0026ndash;432, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.02.054.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, R. Zhang, K. Tao, M. Test Study on Slipping Performance of the Flexible Nodes of the Precast Concrete Exterior Wall Cladding Panel, International Conference on Automobile and Traffic Science, Materials, Metallurgy Engineering, 2013. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi,J. Wang, Y. Zhang, Z. Mou, B. Seismic Behavior of Steel Frames with Different Joints: Shaking Table Test and Finite Element Analysis, Journal of Building Engineering 2023 70 106377, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106377.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHuang, B. Lu, W. G\u0026uuml;nay, S. Shaking Table Tests of Granite Cladding with Dowel Pin Connection. Bull Earthquake Eng 2020 18 (3) 1081\u0026ndash;1105, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00741-x.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDong, H. Qin, J. Cao, W. Yang, Yin, L. F. Wang, R. Shaking Table Tests on Concrete-Filled Steel Tubular-Framed Building Assembled with Microcrystalline Foam Boards. Structures 2021 34 2098\u0026ndash;2114, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.08.064.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOkazaki, T. Nakashima, M. Suita, K. Matusmiya, T. Interaction between Cladding and Structural Frame Observed in a Full-Scale Steel Building Test, Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007 36 (1) 35\u0026ndash;53, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.618.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcmullin, K. M. Ortiz, Patel, M. Yarra, L. Steed, S. B. Response of Exterior Precast Concrete Cladding Panels in NEES-TIPS/NEESGC/ E-Defense Tests on a Full Scale 5-Storey Building, Structures Congress, 2012:1305-1314.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSong, Z. Zhou, Lu, Y. Y. Shaking table test of a 10-storey self‐centering tube building, Earthquake Engineering \u0026amp; Structural Dynamics, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eqe.3827 (accessed 2023-03-21).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGetz, D. R. Memari,A. M. Static and Cyclic Racking Performance of Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Cladding Panels, J. Archit. Eng. 2006, 12 (1), 12\u0026ndash;23. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0431(2006)12:1(12).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDaniel Ronald Joseph,J. Prabakar, J. Alagusundaramoorthy, P. Flexural Behavior of Precast Concrete Sandwich Panels under Different Loading Conditions Such as Punching and Bending, Alexandria Engineering Journal 2018 57 (1) 309\u0026ndash;320, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2016.11.016.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGu, Q. Deng, Q. Tan, Y. Tian, S. Wang, X. Research on the Out-of-Plane Mechanical Performance of Double-Face Superposed Shear Walls with Different Horizontal Connections, Journal of Building Engineering 2022 59 105157, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105157.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlawad, O. M. Gombeda, M. J. Quiel, S. Naito, E. C. J. Flexural Performance of Non-Loadbearing Blast-Resistant Precast Concrete Cladding Panels with Discrete Connections, Journal of Building Engineering 2020 32 101438,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101438.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, C. Ling, B. Huang, Deng, W. Ding, X. Gao, C. Cyclic Behavior of Semi-Rigid Steel Frame Infilled with Damping Wall Panels, Journal of Building Engineering 2022 51 104238, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104238.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHuang,Z. Chen, Z. Huang, D. Chui, Y.-H. Cyclic Loading Behavior of an Innovative Semi-Rigid Connection for Engineered Bamboo-Steel Hybrid Frames, Journal of Building Engineering 2019 24 100754, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100754.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi,Y. Gao;C. Li, X. Yan, Y. Ning, Z. Experimental Study on the Seismic Performance of Steel Frames with Infill ALC Wall Panels, Journal of Building Engineering 2023 65 105739, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105739.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGB/T 51232-2016, Technical standard for assembled buildings with steel-structure. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People\u0026rsquo;s Republic of China (2016). (in Chinese)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGB 50010-2010, Code for design of concrete structures, Beijing: China Building Industry Press (2015). (in Chinese)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJGJ/T 458\u0026mdash;2018, Application technical standard of precast concrete external wall panel. Beijing：China Building Standards Design and Research Institute Co., Ltd., China Resources Land Co., Ltd. China Architecture and Building Press (2018). (In Chinese)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"CBW flexible connection node, PC exterior wall panel, steel frame, shaking table test, acceleration amplification factor","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3638503/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3638503/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eA cantilever block-wall panel attachment strip (CBW) flexible connection node was designed to connect precast concrete (PC) exterior wall panels to steel frames. To investigate the performance of the CBW flexible connection node and PC exterior wall panels during earthquakes, a partial two-storey steel frame was extracted from an actual engineering structure, and a full-scale steel frame-exterior wall panel shaking table model was designed. Two sets of shaking-table tests were conducted under seismic intensity 7, 8, and 9 (Chinese Seismic Intensity Scale) earthquakes. The acceleration and displacement responses of the composite wall panel, open window panel, and integral wall panel along the in-plane and out-of-plane motions were analysed. The acceleration amplification factors of the PC exterior wall panels ranged from 0.753 to 1.400 (in-plane) and from 0.998 to 2.199 (out-of-plane). The CBW flexible connection node had a deformation capacity that could coordinate the deformation of the exterior wall panel and prevent severe damage. The surfaces of the PC exterior wall panels remained intact during a very strong seismic intensity 9 earthquake.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Shaking table test of a full-scale PC exterior wall panel connected to a steel frame with flexible node","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2023-11-28 19:20:33","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3638503/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"766728ce-02ac-4016-b665-956d0fce0750","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 28th, 2023","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":26647499,"name":"Physical sciences/Engineering/Civil engineering"},{"id":26647500,"name":"Physical sciences/Materials science/Structural materials"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-03-04T14:10:18+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2023-11-28 19:20:33","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3638503","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3638503","identity":"rs-3638503","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"ApUGefWb6u5IBVtyqm6d5","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}