## 8 Conclusions  
This paper investigated the seismic performance of GSPCW walls from the component level to the structural level, performing (1) numerical and parametric analysis of GSPCW walls using FEM DIANA software, (2) nonlinear analysis of a super-high-rise building as a case study with the application of GSPCW walls through the NTHA and MPA procedure. The following key findings can be drawn from the study. 1. Parametric analysis results show that the steel ratio has a critical effect on the load capacity and stiffness of GSPCW walls, since steel plate is the only source of steel in GSPCW walls, and no additional reinforcement (e.g., reinforcing bars) is used. The height-to-width ratio has a critical influence on the failure mode of GSPCW walls. The axial load ratio has some influence on the ductility of GSPCW walls, i.e., the ductility decreases as the axial load ratio increases, which is especially evident when the axial load ratio is greater than 0.5. Based on the current study, it is suggested that the axial load ratio be kept below 0.5 in practice in order to maintain good ductility. The aspect ratio of the grille determines the constraining effect from the steel plate on the filled concrete, which should be considered during the design process. Concrete compressive strength has little to no effect on the seismic performance of GSPCW. 2. After replacing the ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls with GSPCW walls with wall thickness reduced by 30%, the GSPCW building was still able to control the  
Figure 23: Comparison of material consumption: (**a**) RC models; (**b**) GSPCW models. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**RC Model**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**GSPCW Model**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Total** \\ **Area (m\({}^{2}\))** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Mass of** \\ **Concrete** \\ **(t)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Mass of** \\ **Steel (t)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Price** \\ **(JPY/m\({}^{2}\))** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Available** \\ **Area (m\({}^{2}\))** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Mass of** \\ **Concrete** \\ **(t)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Mass of** \\ **Steel (t)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Price** \\ **(JPY/m\({}^{2}\))** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Available** \\ **Area (m\({}^{2}\))** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \hline Total & 181,660.8 & 182,892.7 & 61,696.3 & 5182.9 & 45,754.7 & 174,796.8 & 64,181.8 & 5298.1 & 47,038.6 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Statistics of material mass and available area. overall deformation of the structures to a good extent, and the average deformation response from the analyses met the code requirements. 3. In this study, the MPA procedure using five modes was verified to be accurate enough to provide similar results to those obtained using the NTHA procedure for nonlinear analysis. However, the time required for MPA analysis is much less than that required for NTHA. 4. Based on a simple statistical analysis of the current case study, the amount of concrete consumed for the whole structure was decreased by 1.64% using the GSPCW model, while the steel consumption increased by 1.64%, which shows a marginal overall increase in steel consumption using GSPCW walls. Economic analysis shows the cost of materials for GSPCW models was only increased by about 2.2% per unit area. However, due to the reduction in the thickness of GSPCW walls, the available architecture area of GSPCW buildings is increased by almost 3% compared to the original area. Therefore, the economy of GSPCW walls can still be considered reasonable. Conceptualization, Y.L. ([PERSON]); Funding acquisition, H.W. ; Investigation, H.W. and Q.Y. ; Project administration, Y.L. ([PERSON]); Resources, J.L. ; Writing--original draft, H.W. and Q.Y.