EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Sciengine logo
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 17 (2026) Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim., 17 (2026) 13 Full HTML
Open Access
Issue
Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim.
Volume 17, 2026
Article Number 13
Number of page(s) 13
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/smdo/2025009
Published online 11 June 2026

© Z. Wu and M. Fu, Published by EDP Sciences, 2026

Licence Creative CommonsThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1 Introduction

FSSWs were developed in the 1970s. This system is used in many executive applications due to its significant advantages [1]. SSWs, initially employed in the form of flat plates, have since evolved into various forms, including hardened SSWs [2–5], SSWs with slotted plates [6–8], and composite SSWs [9,10]. One of the biggest shortcomings of using a flat plate in a SSW is the premature buckling of the plate, which may even buckle under gravity loads. The out-of-plane buckling stiffness of the flat plates is very low, which causes buckling of the infill plates [11,12], resulting in a pinching phenomenon in the hysteresis curves [13]. In addition, in a conventional steel plate shear wall, the main factor in resisting lateral loads is the formation of diagonal tensile fields in the web plate, which may cause high bending demands on the columns and even damage them [14,15]. Therefore, research was conducted on the use of infill elements with better buckling strength. The research depicted that the corrugated plate has an elastic buckling strength compared to a flat plate. In this regard, Qiu et al. [16], and Emami et al. [17] displayed that the stiffness and energy absorption of a CSSW are greater than those of an FSSW with the same boundary members. However, the lateral strength of the FSSW exceeded that of the corrugated wall. Numerous studies conducted on CSSWs at the laboratory indicate that it is a system with high resistance capacity, energy dissipation, and ductility [18–24]. CSSWs generally show a strength loss in the lateral load-displacement curve just after buckling at low drifts [25]. In addition, since corrugated plates are produced in a cold-rolling process, their maximum thickness is confined to 7∼8 mm owing to the capacity of cold rolling machines [26]. To overcome these problems, Tang et al. [26–28] proposed DCSSWs, which consist of two identical trapezoidal corrugated plates. These walls exhibit better stiffness and stability performance compared to ordinary CSSWs. They also found that DCCWs have a significant energy dissipation capacity. Ghodratian-Kashan et al. [29] observed through laboratory studies that double corrugated walls have a spindle-shaped hysteresis curve with excellent lateral bearing capacity and energy absorption. Deng et al. [21] noted, through laboratory research and numerical simulations, that DCSSWs exhibit stable energy absorption and better shear stiffness than single-layer corrugated walls. Single-layer corrugated walls have a lower load-bearing capacity compared to flat walls [16,17]. Hosseinzadeh et al. [30] also studied the behavior of DCSSWs with low yield points. Tong et al. [31] observed that the hysteresis curve of the DCSSWs is steady and plump. Continuing the development of SSWs, a new system called FCSSWs has recently been proposed. The infill plates in this system are composed of combined flat and corrugated plates. It was introduced drawing on the notion that the interacting effect in the flat and corrugated plates can effectively enhance the lateral performance [32,33]. Boroujerdian et al. [25] examined a four-layer SSW entailing a double trapezoidal corrugated plate and two surrounding flat plates. They found this system more economical than traditional steel walls, with reduced stress on the boundary members. Dou et al. [33] tested a three-layer SSW with a buried trapezoidal corrugated plate and two surrounding flat plates, finding that the residual strength in this configuration was 50% higher than in a standard CSSW. LV [34] also investigated an FCSSW comprising a flat and corrugated plate, while Abbaszadeh et al. [35] studied a novel four-layer SSW, revealing that four-layer walls have superior seismic parameters compared to DCSSWs. Nayel et al. [36] reviewed the behavior of four-layer semi-constrained FCSSWs. Given the limited research in this field, this exploration aims to compare the hysteresis behavior of DCSSWs with FCSSWs made from an embedded trapezoidal corrugated plate surrounded by flat plates. For this purpose, a single-story and one-span steel frame with trapezoidal double-corrugated and three-layer flat-corrugated plates with diverse corrugation angles and thicknesses is reviewed under cyclic loads utilizing finite element software Abaqus. The hysteresis curve, maximum strength, gained energy, initial stiffness, and equivalent viscous damping were investigated in the current paper.

2 Research methodology

2.1 Specifications of the frameworks

In the present investigation, a trapezoidal DCSSW was developed at the first stage. The design of DCSSWs was conducted according to Refs. [37,38].

As per the classical elastic theory, the interactive shear buckling stress of a trapezoidal corrugated plate (τcr.ineMathematical equation) is computed as equation (1) [38,39]:

(1τcr.ine)2=(1τcr.Le)2+(1τcr.Ge)2+(1τy)2Mathematical equation(1)

Where τcr.LeMathematical equation and τcr.GeMathematical equation denote the local and global shear buckling stresses, respectively. τy signifies the shear yield stress. τcr.LeMathematical equation and τcr.GeMathematical equation values are obtained via equations (2) and (3):

τcr.Le=[5.34+4(ah)2]π2E12(1−μ2)(ta)2Mathematical equation(2)

τcr.Ge=36φE[12(1−μ2)]2[(dt)2+16γ]0.75(th)2.Mathematical equation(3)

In the above equations, E, ν, t, h, φ, and γ are Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio, the sum of the thicknesses of the trapezoidal double corrugated plates, panel height, boundary condition factor, and flat sub-panel width, respectively. The flat sub-panel width is determined as follows:

γ=a+ba+cMathematical equation(4)

a, b, and c signify the metrics of the trapezoidal corrugated plate depicted in Figure 1. Here, θ displays the corrugation angle.

When τcr.LeMathematical equation and τcr.GeMathematical equation values were obtained via equations (2) and (3), then τcr.ineMathematical equation are obtained via equation (1). Hereafter, σty (yield tension field stress) is determined by equation (5) [38]:

σty2+(3τcr.inesin2θ)σty+(3τcr.ine2−σy2)=0.Mathematical equation(5)

Then, boundary elements of the perimeter frame, including the beam and columns of the DCSSW, are satisfied as per equation (6) [38,39]:

Mpb>σtytL28sin2(θ)Mpc>σtyth28cos2(θ)Mathematical equation(6)

Where Mpb and Mpc are the plastic moments of the beam and columns.

In addition, the minimum moment of inertia of the column should be met by equation (7) [41]

IC>0.00307twh4LMathematical equation(7)

tw implies the thickness of the web plate, h signifies the height of the panel, and L depicts the width of the panel. Ic depicts the moment of inertia of the column.

In this paper, the first stage involves designing a single-bay, one-story DCSSW. For the vertical and horizontal boundary elements (VBE and HBE), the cross-sections I380 × 300 × 35 × 25 and I300 × 300 × 25 × 20 were employed, respectively. The thickness of each single-corrugated infill plate was considered to be 1, 2, and 3 mm, resulting in total thicknesses of 2, 4, and 6 mm for the double-layer infill plates. After investigating the behavior of the DCSSWs, the productivity of FCSSWs is also studied.

In the FCSSW systems, the infill plates consist of both corrugated and flat plates. This combination of a flat plate and a trapezoidal-corrugated plate forms FCSSW, as illustrated in Figure 2. Additionally, a double-corrugated plate consists of two identical plates, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 4 illustrates the details of the studied models. As depicted, the distance between the axes and the axes of the columns is 3680 mm. Also, the distance from the axis to the axis of the beams is 3050 mm.

Thumbnail: Fig. 1 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 1

Parameters of the trapezoidal corrugated plate [40].
Thumbnail: Fig. 2 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 2

Flat-corrugated steel shear plates.
Thumbnail: Fig. 3 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 3

Double-corrugated plates.
Thumbnail: Fig. 4 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 4

Details of the studied models.

2.2 Boundary conditions and lateral loading

Figure 5 displays that the out-of-plane displacements of the panel zone were restricted (UX in Abaqus), and the bottom nodes of the column feet and the bottom beam were fixed. A lateral load was deployed to the upper beam according to the SAC loading protocol until a drift proportion of 2% was attained [42].

Figure 6 displays the geometrical details of the corrugated plates. As shown, the flat sub-panel width and inclined sub-panel width are both set at 150 mm, with three corrugation angles of 30, 45, and 60 degrees used for the corrugations. Figure 7 depicts a plan view of double-corrugated plates, indicating that each single-corrugated plate in double-corrugated walls with corrugation angles of 30, 45, and 60 degrees measures 3552 mm, 3838 mm, and 4360 mm, respectively. Figure 8 shows a plan view of flat-corrugated plates, where each single-corrugated plate in flat-corrugated walls with the same angles measures 3552 mm, 3838 mm, and 4360 mm, respectively. The flat plate width is consistently 3310 mm across all flat-corrugated samples. Consequently, the total length of steel employed in DCSSWs with 30, 45, and 60-degree corrugation angles is 7104 mm, 7676 mm, and 8720 mm, respectively. In contrast, the total length of steel in FCSSWs with corrugation angles of 30, 45, and 60 degrees is 6862 mm, 7148 mm, and 7670 mm, respectively. These comparisons indicate that the steel used in flat-corrugated walls is 3.4%, 6.8%, and 12.04% less than in the corresponding double-corrugated walls, respectively.

All steel components in this exploration were simulated using S4R shell elements in Abaqus. Tie constraints were employed to simulate the connection between infill plates and edge components. Additionally, the connections between flat-corrugated plates and double-corrugated plates were modeled using the tie command.

Thumbnail: Fig. 5 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 5

Boundary conditions and lateral loading.
Thumbnail: Fig. 6 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 6

Details of the corrugated plates, Corrugation angle of a:30°, b:45°, and c:60° (unit: mm).
Thumbnail: Fig. 7 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 7

Plan view of double corrugated plates (unit: mm).
Thumbnail: Fig. 8 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 8

Plan view of flat-corrugated plates (unit: mm).

2.3 Materials

Q235B steel with a yield strength of 235 MPa and an ultimate tensile strength of 370 MPa was used for the steel components in this exploration. Poisson's proportion was set to 0.3, and the modulus of elasticity was considered to be 200 GPa. Additionally, the true behavior of the steel material components was accounted for in the analysis.

3 Validation

A vertically placed CSSW examined by Ding et al. [43] was employed for validation. As depicted in Figure 9, specimen CSPSW-1 from Ding et al.'s test was selected. This specimen employs 150 × 100 × 6 cross-sections that were used for the beams and columns. Also, a trapezoidal corrugated plate with a thickness of 1.6 mm was employed. Table 1 presents the material properties of CSSW tested in Ding et al.'s study. As presented, the yield stress of the corrugated plate and boundary element is 388 and 394 MPa, respectively.

This sample was loaded horizontally in the upper beam during the test. Applying boundary conditions and lateral loading in the software Abaqus has been depicted in Figure 10.

The comparison of the hysteresis diagrams attained from both the test and the finite element evaluation in the Abaqus software is depicted in Figure 11. The empirical findings and the Abaqus simulation are strongly correlated. The maximum strength recorded in the test for the positive and negative directions is 287 kN and 283 kN, respectively. In contrast, the hysteresis curve from the Abaqus simulation shows the highest strengths of 308 kN and 318 kN in the positive and negative directions, respectively. Thus, the prediction error in Abaqus for the highest strength is 7.3% and 12.3% for the positive and negative directions, respectively. Additionally, Figure 12 compares the deformation observed in the test with that predicted [43] by Abaqus at the end of loading. The comparisons suggest that Abaqus is a reliable tool for projecting the reaction of CSSWs.

Thumbnail: Fig. 9 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 9

The real shape of the Specimen CSPSW-1 in Ding et al.'s test [43].
Table 1

Material capacities of the steel components in Ding et al.'s study [43].

Thumbnail: Fig. 10 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 10

Applying boundary states and lateral loading in Abaqus.
Thumbnail: Fig. 11 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 11

Verification of CSSW with the finite element method in Abaqus software.
Thumbnail: Fig. 12 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 12

Juxtaposition of the deformation of the test [43] and Abaqus modeling.

4 Discussion and outcomes

4.1 Hysteresis curves

The hysteresis curves for the studied samples with thicknesses of 2, 4, and 6 mm are depicted in Figures 13–15, respectively. The outcomes reveal that DCSSWs with an angle of 30 degrees experience a strength loss at approximately 0.5% relative drift. In contrast, flat-corrugated walls with varying corrugation angles maintain their lateral bearing capacity up to a 2% relative drift without a reduction in strength. As illustrated in these figures, some FCSSWs (e.g., the FC-SSW-30-4 sample) exhibit noticeable pinching. Although pinching is also present in double-CSSWs, these walls display a fuller hysteresis curve. The curves further demonstrate that raising the plate thickness across different samples outcomes in fuller hysteresis curves.

Thumbnail: Fig. 13 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 13

Hysteresis curvature of the FCSSW and DCSSW samples with the thick 2 mm infill plates.
Thumbnail: Fig. 14 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 14

Hysteresis curvature of the FCSSW and DCSSW samples with the thick 4 mm infill plates.
Thumbnail: Fig. 15 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 15

Hysteresis curvature of the FCSSW and DCSSW samples with the thick 6 mm infill plates.

4.2 Maximum strength

Figure 16 compares the maximum strength of the samples investigated in the research. It is noted that the maximum strength means the peak load of the hysteresis curve. Flat-corrugated samples exhibit greater bearing capacity than their double-corrugated counterparts. Specifically, the strength of flat-corrugated samples with 2 mm thick plates and various corrugation angles is at least 1.7% and up to 12.0% higher than that of double-corrugated walls. For samples with a 4 mm plate thickness, the strength difference ranges between 2.2% and 5.4%. The FC-SSW-60-6 samples show a strength that is 1.9% lower than the DC-SSW-60-6 samples. Conversely, the strength of flat-corrugated samples with a 6 mm plate thickness and corrugation angles of 30 and 45 degrees is higher by 5.4% and 1.8%, accordingly, compared to the double-corrugated samples. Additionally, the outcomes indicate that raising the corrugation angle of the plate consistently leads to greater maximum strength in different samples. Specifically, raising the angle from 30 to 60 degrees outcomes in strength improvements of 3.1%, 5.4%, and 6.1% for flat-corrugated samples with 2, 4, and 6 mm thicknesses, respectively. Therefore, since the rise in strength with higher corrugation angles is relatively modest and considering that more steel is used for angles of 60 degrees, using a flat-corrugated wall with a 30-degree corrugation angle is recommended. For double-corrugated samples, raising the angle from 30 to 60 degrees increases strength by 13.6%, 5.1%, and 14.0% for thicknesses of 2, 4, and 6 mm, accordingly.

Thumbnail: Fig 16 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig 16

Comparing the maximum strength of the reviewed models.

4.3 Absorbed energy

Figure 17 depicts the amount of absorbed energy in the studied cases. The energy absorption has been determined by the area enclosed within the hysteresis loops. As shown, energy absorption in flat-corrugated wall samples is typically lower than in double-corrugated wall samples, except for the FC-SSW-30-2 sample. However, according to Figure 17, the difference in energy absorption between these two types of samples is relatively small. Specifically, the reduction in energy absorption for flat-corrugated samples compared to double-corrugated samples ranges from 0.7% to 4.4%. It is noted that the difference in the energy absorption of the FCSSWs and DCSSWs with the plate thickness of 2 mm and a corrugation angle of 30°, 45°, and 60° is 3.75%, 1.13%, and 0.7%, respectively. For the plate thickness of 4 mm, these differences are 2.5%, 2.7%, and 1.6%, respectively. Also, these differences are 2.8%, 3.9%, and 4.4%, respectively, for the plate thickness of 6 mm. Notably, the FC-SSW-30-2 sample absorbs 3.7% more energy than the DC-SSW-30-2 sample. Additionally, Figure 17 highlights the significant impact of the corrugation angle of the plate on energy absorption in FCSSWs. The comparisons indicate that raising the corrugation angle from 30 to 60 degrees results in raised energy absorption for flat-corrugated cases with thicknesses of 2, 4, and 6 mm by 8.3%, 15.8%, and 14.0%, respectively. Similarly, for double-corrugated samples with the same thicknesses, raising the angle from 30 to 60 degrees leads to energy absorption increases of 13.2%, 14.6%, and 19.1%, respectively.

Thumbnail: Fig. 17 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 17

Comparing the gained energy of the reviewed schemes.

4.4 Primary stiffness

The amount of primary stiffness in the reviewed samples is depicted in Figure 18. As depicted, the primary stiffness of FCSSWs is greater than that of double-corrugated samples, with a difference ranging from a minimum of 3.0% to a maximum of 12.1%. Additionally, a rise in the angle in flat-corrugated samples outcomes in a decrease in primary stiffness. Specifically, as the angle rises from 30 to 60 degrees, the primary stiffness of the samples decreases by an average of 5.5%.

Thumbnail: Fig. 18 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 18

Comparing the primary stiffness of the investigated patterns.

4.5 Equivalent viscous damping (ζeq)

ζeq is another important index that displays the energy dissipation efficacy of the samples. It is computed by equation (8)

ζeq(%)=Ed2πEso×100=S(ABC+ACD)2π×S(OBE+OFD)×100.Mathematical equation(8)

Figure 19 displays the energy dissipation factor measurement tactic.

In this article, ζeq for some samples is calculated for the last cycle. The load-displacement curve for the last cycle for some models is depicted in Figure 20.

The ζeq of the reviewed cass is depicted in Figure 21. As shown, the ζeq in flat-corrugated walls with full connection ranges from 39.07% to 46.6%. In contrast, double-corrugated samples exhibit viscous damping ranging from a lowest of 40.4% to a highest of 47.71%. Notably, the equivalent viscous damping in flat-corrugated walls is lower than that in double-corrugated walls, with a difference ranging between 2.7% and 11.5%. As discussed in Section 4.1, the hysteresis curves for double-corrugated walls are more pronounced than those for flat-corrugated walls, with a more noticeable pinching phenomenon. Therefore, the observed reduction in equivalent viscous damping in flat-corrugated walls compared to double-corrugated walls can be attributed to these factors. For plate thicknesses of 2, 4, and 6 mm, the ζeq of the FCSSWs is 40.49%, 42.34%, and 43.84%, respectively. For plate thicknesses of 2, 4, and 6 mm, the ζeq of the DCSSWs is 42.02%, 45.22%, and 47.07%, respectively. Therefore, with the increase in plate thickness, ζeq has increased.

Thumbnail: Fig. 19 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 19

Energy dissipation factor measurement tactic.
Thumbnail: Fig. 20 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 20

The last cycle of some samples.
Thumbnail: Fig. 21 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 21

Comparing the ζeq of the studied models.

4.6 Deformations

The deformed shapes of some studied models at their ultimate state are illustrated in the figures below. Figures 22–24 show the distribution of out-of-plane displacement in samples FC-SSW-30-2, FC-SSW-45-2, and FC-SSW-60-2, respectively. As observed, diagonal tensile fields have appeared in both plates, with the plates in the flat-corrugated system experiencing global buckling. In contrast, Figure 25 illustrates that double-CSSWs have undergone interactive buckling.

Thumbnail: Fig. 22 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 22

Out-of-plane displacement spread of the (a) FC-SSW-30-2, (b) corrugated plate, and (c) flat plate.
Thumbnail: Fig. 23 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 23

Out-of-plane displacement spread of the (a) FC-SSW-45-2, (b) corrugated plate, and (c) flat plate.
Thumbnail: Fig. 24 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 24

Out-of-plane displacement spread of the (a) FC-SSW-60-2, (b) corrugated plate, and (c) flat plate.
Thumbnail: Fig. 25 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 25

Out-of-plane displacement spread of the (a) DC-SSW-30-2 sample.

5 Conclusion

In the investigation, the behavior of double-corrugated and double-layer SSWs, consisting of a flat and corrugated plate—referred to as a flat-corrugated shear wall—was explored under cyclic loading using Abaqus software. A one-story, one-span perimeter frame with trapezoidal corrugated plates at corrugation angles of 30°, 45°, and 60°, and thicknesses of 2 mm, 4 mm, and 6 mm, was considered. The outcomes indicated that FCSSWs exhibit the highest strength and primary stiffness compared to trapezoidal DCSSWs. Specifically, the maximum strength and initial stiffness of flat-corrugated walls are 12% and 12.1% higher, respectively, than those of the corresponding trapezoidal systems. However, energy absorption between the two systems was not significantly different. The lateral load-displacement curves for flat-corrugated walls consistently displayed an ascending trend, while some double-corrugated walls experienced a sudden drop in strength after buckling at low relative drift. Additionally, the equivalent viscous damping in FCSSWs was found to be between 2.7% and 11.5% lower than in double-corrugated walls.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Data availability statement

Not applicable.

Author contribution statement

Zhengping Wu: Original draft preparation, validation, statistical analysis. Miaomiao Fu: Conceptualization, methodology, proof reading, supervision, Review and Editing.

References

  1. C. Dou et al., Elastic shear buckling of sinusoidally corrugated steel plate shear wall, Eng. Struct. 121, 136–146 (2016) [Google Scholar]
  2. M. Wang, H. Duan, G. Shi, Cyclic behavior of improved low-yield point steel plate shear walls with T-shaped stiffeners, J. Build. Eng. 94, 109997 (2024) [Google Scholar]
  3. M.A. Sigariyazd, A. Joghataie, N.K. Attari, Analysis and design recommendations for diagonally stiffened steel plate shear walls, Thin-Walled Struct. 103, 72–80 (2016) [Google Scholar]
  4. Z. Mu, Y. Yang, Experimental and numerical study on seismic behavior of obliquely stiffened steel plate shear walls with openings, Thin-Walled Struct. 146, 106457 (2020) [Google Scholar]
  5. A. Rahmzadeh et al., Effect of stiffeners on steel plate shear wall systems, Steel Compos. Struct. 20, 545–569 (2016) [Google Scholar]
  6. M.A. Faizy, S.B. Beheshti-Aval, Seismic behavior of a novel slotted steel plate shear wall under monotonic, cyclic, and time history analysis, in: Structures (Elsevier, 2023) [Google Scholar]
  7. Y. Ru, L. He, Investigation on laminated steel slit shear walls with low yield steel, J. Build. Eng. 89, 109321 (2024) [Google Scholar]
  8. Z. Ahmadi, A.A. Aghakouchak, S.R. Mirghaderi, Steel slit shear walls with an efficient geometry, Thin-Walled Struct. 159, 107296 (2021) [Google Scholar]
  9. J. Mo et al., A review of the behaviour and design of steel-concrete composite shear walls, in: Structures (Elsevier, 2021) [Google Scholar]
  10. A. Astaneh-Asl, Seismic behavior and design of composite steel plate shear walls (Structural Steel Educational Council Moraga, CA, USA, 2002) [Google Scholar]
  11. Y. Yu et al., Research on the specially-shaped corrugated steel plate shear walls with horizontal corrugation, J. Constr. Steel Res. 188, 107012 (2022) [Google Scholar]
  12. H.-J. Sun et al., Local and global buckling prevention design of corrugated steel plate shear walls, J. Build. Eng. 68, 106055 (2023) [Google Scholar]
  13. M.N. Olabi et al., Numerical study on the response of composite shear walls with steel sheets under cyclic loading, J. Build. Eng. 34, 102069 (2021) [Google Scholar]
  14. S. Ghodratian-Kashan, S. Maleki, Numerical investigation of double corrugated steel plate shear walls, J. Civil Eng. Constr. 10, 44–58 (2021) [Google Scholar]
  15. W. Abdul Ghafar et al., Experimental and numerical study of an innovative infill web-strips steel plate shear wall with rigid beam-to-column connections, Buildings 12, 1560 (2022) [Google Scholar]
  16. J. Qiu et al., Experimental studies on cyclic behavior of corrugated steel plate shear walls, J. Struct. Eng. 144, 04018200 (2018) [Google Scholar]
  17. F. Emami, M. Mofid, A. Vafai, Experimental study on cyclic behavior of trapezoidally corrugated steel shear walls, Eng. Struct. 48, 750–762 (2013) [Google Scholar]
  18. L. Hosseinzadeh, F. Emami, M. Mofid, Experimental investigation on the behavior of corrugated steel shear wall subjected to the different angle of trapezoidal plate, Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 26, e1390 (2017) [Google Scholar]
  19. S. Shon, M. Yoo, S. Lee, An experimental study on the shear hysteresis and energy dissipation of the steel frame with a trapezoidal-corrugated steel plate, Materials 10, 261 (2017) [Google Scholar]
  20. Q. Cao, J. Huang, Experimental study and numerical simulation of corrugated steel plate shear walls subjected to cyclic loads, Thin-Walled Struct. 127, 306–317 (2018) [Google Scholar]
  21. R. Deng et al., Cyclic shear performance of built-up double-corrugated steel plate shear walls: experiment and simulation, Thin-Walled Struct. 181, 110077 (2022) [Google Scholar]
  22. W. Wang et al., Experimental study and numerical simulation analysis on seismic performance of corrugated steel-plate shear wall with replaceable bottom corner dampers, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 152, 107061 (2022) [Google Scholar]
  23. Q. Cao et al., Experimental and numerical study on hysteretic behavior of corrugated steel plate shear walls under lateral loads, J. Build. Eng. 82, 108297 (2024) [Google Scholar]
  24. C.-B. Wen et al., Experimental and numerical study on seismic behaviors of corrugated plate shear walls, J. Constr. Steel Res. 229, 109496 (2025) [Google Scholar]
  25. V. Broujerdian, A. Ghamari, A. Abbaszadeh, Introducing an efficient compound section for steel shear wall using flat and corrugated plates, in: Structures (Elsevier, 2021) [Google Scholar]
  26. J.-Z. Tong et al., Experimental and numerical study on shear resistant behavior of double-corrugated-plate shear walls, Thin-Walled Struct. 147, 106485 (2020) [Google Scholar]
  27. J.-Z. Tong, Y.-L. Guo, J.-Q. Zuo, Elastic buckling and load-resistant behaviors of double-corrugated-plate shear walls under pure in-plane shear loads, Thin-Walled Struct. 130, 593–612 (2018) [Google Scholar]
  28. J.-Z. Tong, Y.-L. Guo, W.-H. Pan, Ultimate shear resistance and post-ultimate behavior of double-corrugated-plate shear walls, J. Construct. Steel Res. 165, 105895 (2020) [Google Scholar]
  29. S. Ghodratian-Kashan, S. Maleki, Experimental investigation of double corrugated steel plate shear walls, J. Construct. Steel Res. 190, 107138 (2022) [Google Scholar]
  30. L. Hosseinzadeh, D.-P.N. Kontoni, B. Babaei, Investigation of the behavior of steel plate shear walls considering double corrugated low-yield-point steel infill plate, Int. J. Civil Eng. 21, 1631–1642 (2023) [Google Scholar]
  31. J.-Z. Tong et al., Subassemblage tests on seismic behavior of double-corrugated-plate shear walls, Eng. Struct. 276, 115341 (2023) [Google Scholar]
  32. C. Dou et al., Hysteretic experimental study and lateral performance analysis of flat-corrugated steel plate shear walls, 工程力学, 39, 1–13 (2022) [Google Scholar]
  33. C. Dou et al., Cyclic loading test and lateral resistant behavior of flat-corrugated steel plate shear walls, J. Build. Eng. 66, 105831 (2023) [Google Scholar]
  34. P. Lv, Investigating the behavior of a steel shear wall consisting of a corrugated and flat plate with fully and semi connections to boundary elements, Multiscale Multidiscip. Model. Exp. Des. 7, 1–13 (2024) [Google Scholar]
  35. A. Abbaszadeh, A. Ghamari, V. Broujerdian, Seismic behavior of an innovative four-layer steel shear wall, KSCE J. Civil Eng. 27, 4770–4786 (2023) [Google Scholar]
  36. I.H. Nayel, A. Ghamari, V. Broujerdian, On the behavior of an innovative four-layer semi-supported steel plate shear wall, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 17, e01427 (2022) [Google Scholar]
  37. S. Sabouri-Ghomi, C.E. Ventura, M.H. Kharrazi, Shear analysis and design of ductile steel plate walls, J. Struct. Eng. 131, 878–889 (2005) [Google Scholar]
  38. A. Farzampour et al., Analysis and design recommendations for corrugated steel plate shear walls with a reduced beam section, Thin-Walled Struct. 132, 658–666 (2018) [Google Scholar]
  39. J. Yi et al., Interactive shear buckling behavior of trapezoidally corrugated steel webs, Eng. Struct. 30, 1659–1666 (2008) [Google Scholar]
  40. Y. Hu, X. Yan, Investigation of the lateral performance of trapezoidal double corrugated steel shear walls with two different corrugation angles, J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 72, 21 (2025) [Google Scholar]
  41. R. Sabelli, M. Bruneau, Design guide 20: steel plate shear walls (American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, USA, 2007) [Google Scholar]
  42. H. Krawinkler, Loading histories for cyclic tests in support of performance assessment of structural components, in: 3rd International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering, 2009 [Google Scholar]
  43. Y. Ding et al., Cyclic tests on corrugated steel plate shear walls with openings in modularized-constructions, J. Constr. Steel Res. 138, 675–691 (2017) [Google Scholar]

Cite this article as: Zhengping Wu, Miaomiao Fu, Comparison of the performance of double-corrugated steel shear walls with flat-corrugated steel shear walls under cyclic lateral loading, Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim. 17, 13 (2026), https://doi.org/10.1051/smdo/2025009

All Tables

Table 1

Material capacities of the steel components in Ding et al.'s study [43].

In the text

All Figures

Thumbnail: Fig. 1 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 1

Parameters of the trapezoidal corrugated plate [40].
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig. 2 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 2

Flat-corrugated steel shear plates.
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig. 3 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 3

Double-corrugated plates.
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig. 4 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 4

Details of the studied models.
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig. 5 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 5

Boundary conditions and lateral loading.
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig. 6 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 6

Details of the corrugated plates, Corrugation angle of a:30°, b:45°, and c:60° (unit: mm).
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig. 7 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 7

Plan view of double corrugated plates (unit: mm).
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig. 8 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 8

Plan view of flat-corrugated plates (unit: mm).
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig. 9 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 9

The real shape of the Specimen CSPSW-1 in Ding et al.'s test [43].
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig. 10 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 10

Applying boundary states and lateral loading in Abaqus.
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig. 11 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 11

Verification of CSSW with the finite element method in Abaqus software.
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig. 12 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 12

Juxtaposition of the deformation of the test [43] and Abaqus modeling.
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig. 13 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 13

Hysteresis curvature of the FCSSW and DCSSW samples with the thick 2 mm infill plates.
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig. 14 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 14

Hysteresis curvature of the FCSSW and DCSSW samples with the thick 4 mm infill plates.
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig. 15 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 15

Hysteresis curvature of the FCSSW and DCSSW samples with the thick 6 mm infill plates.
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig 16 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig 16

Comparing the maximum strength of the reviewed models.
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig. 17 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 17

Comparing the gained energy of the reviewed schemes.
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig. 18 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 18

Comparing the primary stiffness of the investigated patterns.
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig. 19 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 19

Energy dissipation factor measurement tactic.
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig. 20 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 20

The last cycle of some samples.
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig. 21 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 21

Comparing the ζeq of the studied models.
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig. 22 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 22

Out-of-plane displacement spread of the (a) FC-SSW-30-2, (b) corrugated plate, and (c) flat plate.
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig. 23 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 23

Out-of-plane displacement spread of the (a) FC-SSW-45-2, (b) corrugated plate, and (c) flat plate.
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig. 24 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 24

Out-of-plane displacement spread of the (a) FC-SSW-60-2, (b) corrugated plate, and (c) flat plate.
In the text
Thumbnail: Fig. 25 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Fig. 25

Out-of-plane displacement spread of the (a) DC-SSW-30-2 sample.
In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.