## 4 Parametric Analysis of CSPSWs
### Influence of Different Plate Thicknesses on Energy Dissipation Capacity of CSPSWs  
The finite element simulation calculations were carried out using the four models, TCSPSW-C, TCSPSW-t-4, TCSPSW-t-8, and TCSPSW-t-10, with plate thicknesses of 4 mm, 6 mm, 8 mm, and 10 mm, respectively, as shown in Table 3. As illustrated in Figure 21, during the loading stage from the inter-story drift angle \(\Delta/\)H = 0 to \(\Delta/\)H = 0.5%, the E\({}_{0}\) of the four models is almost equal to 0. This stage is the elastic stage, during which the models hardly produce any energy dissipation. When the loading reaches around \(\Delta/\)H = 0.5%, the models begin to enter the elastoplastic stage, and energy dissipation starts to occur, with E\({}_{0}\) beginning to change. When the loading reaches the stage of \(\Delta/\)H = 2.0%, E\({}_{0}\) reaches its maximum value, and the cyclic loading ends. The steel plate thicknesses of the models TCSPSW-C, TCSPSW-t-4, TCSPSW-t-8, and TCSPSW-t-10 increase progressively. Correspondingly, the energy dissipation coefficient E\({}_{0}\) and the energy dissipation of the models also increase to varying degrees. This indicates that the energy dissipation efficiency and the amount of energy dissipation of the models increase with the increase in the steel plate thickness, showing a positive correlation. The model with a 10 mm steel plate thickness (TCSPSW-t-10) has the highest E\({}_{0}\) of 1.27 at the stage of \(\Delta/\)H = 2.0%, which is 49.38% higher than that of the model with the lowest E\({}_{0}\) (TCSPSW-t-4). The energy dissipation of the 10 mm steel plate thickness model (TCSPSW-t-10) is the highest at the stage of \(\Delta/\)H = 2.0%, reaching 78.12 kJ, which is 125.50% more than that of the model with the lowest energy dissipation (TCSPSW-t-4). The steel plate thickness has a significant  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Model Number** & **Variable** & **Plate Height (mm)** & **Plate Width (mm)** & **Plate Thickness** (mm)** & **Wave Height (mm)** \\ \hline TCSPSW-C & C & 1520 & 1040 & 6 & 75 \\ TCSPSW-t-4 & & 1520 & 1040 & 4 & 75 \\ TCSPSW-t-8 & t & 1520 & 1040 & 8 & 75 \\ TCSPSW-t-10 & & 1520 & 1040 & 10 & 75 \\ TCSPSW-w/H-0.5 & & 1520 & 760 & 6 & 75 \\ TCSPSW-w/H-1.0 & w/H & 1520 & 1520 & 6 & 75 \\ TCSPSW-w/H-1.5 & & 1520 & 2280 & 6 & 75 \\ TCSPSW-Ph-50 & & 1520 & 1040 & 6 & 100 \\ TCSPSW-Ph-100 & Ph & 1520 & 1040 & 6 & 125 \\ TCSPSW-Ph-150 & & 1520 & 1040 & 6 & 150 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Model parameters without stiffeners on both sides.  
Figure 20: Schematic diagram of finite element model modeling.  
impact on the energy dissipation capacity of the models. The E\({}_{0}\) of the model TCSPSW-t-4 is 0.85 at the stage of \(\Delta/\mathrm{H}\) = 2.0%, which is very close to the 0.87 of the model TCSPSW-C. Their energy dissipation amounts are 34.65 kJ and 37.1 kJ, respectively, indicating that the energy dissipation capacities of the two models are similar in the middle and late stages of loading.  
As can be seen from Figure 22, changing the steel plate thickness has little impact on the stress state of the models. The stress concentration areas of the four models are all distributed at the valleys of the corrugated steel plates (the side closer to the inside of the stress cloud diagram is the valley, and the side closer to the outside is the peak) near the free ends on both sides. As the steel plate thickness increases, the stress in the loading area at the upper left corner of the T-shaped transfer beam begins to gradually increase.  
Figure 21: Comparison diagram of different plate thicknesses: (**a**) Hysteresis curve, (**b**) Skeleton curves, (**c**) Energy dissipation coefficient, (**d**) Energy consumption per loading stage.  
Figure 22: Cont.