Evaluation of Steel Shear Walls Behavior with Sinusoidal and Trapezoidal Corrugated Plates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reinforcement of structures aims to control the input energy of unnatural and natural forces. In the past four decades, steel shear walls are utilized in huge constructions in some seismic countries such as Japan, United States, and Canada to lessen the risk of destructive forces. The steel shear walls are divided into two types: unstiffened and stiffened. In the former, a series of plates (sinusoidal and trapezoidal corrugated) with light thickness are used that have the postbuckling field property under overall buckling. In the latter, steel profile belt series are employed as stiffeners with different arrangement: horizontal, vertical, or diagonal in one side or both sides of wall. In the unstiffened walls, increasing the thickness causes an increase in the wall capacity under large forces in tall structures. In the stiffened walls, joining the stiffeners to the wall is costly and time consuming. The ANSYS software was used to analyze the different models of unstiffened one-story steel walls with sinusoidal and trapezoidal corrugated plates under lateral load. The obtained results demonstrated that, in the walls with the same dimensions, the trapezoidal corrugated plates showed higher ductility and ultimate bearing compared to the sinusoidal corrugated plates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".