An investigation of the effects of aspect ratio and opening on CSPSW and TSCSW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to study, the effects of opening shape, size and position as well as the aspect (height-to-length) ratio on the shear capacity, stiffness, ductility and energy dissipation capacity of triple-skin profiled steel-concrete composite shear wall (TSCSW) and investigate and compare them to those of concrete-stiffened steel plate shear walls (CSPSW). Two kinds of opening, circular and square, with different sizes and positions and two aspect ratios of 1:1 and 3:1 are considered in the simulations. Design/methodology/approach This study presents a novel TSCSW and compares its behavior with the existing CSPSW under the effect of monotonic and cyclic loadings. TSCSW is composed of three corrugated steel plates filled with concrete. The two external side plates are connected to the concrete core by means of several intermediate fasteners and the third one is an inner steel plate embedded within the concrete panel. The internal plate is a buckling restrained plate surrounded by concrete. This is the main superiority of TSCSW over other kinds of existing composite shear walls. Findings The results show that the shear capacity and the energy dissipation capacity of the proposed composite wall, TSCSW, are respectively about 16 and 12% higher than those of CSPSW when there is no opening. If an opening is considered in the wall, as the size of the opening is increased, the shear capacity, stiffness, ductility and absorbed energy of the two walls are decreased similarly. The destructive effect of square openings on the performance of the walls is more than that of circular openings. Originality/value This is an original work.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".