• Phase D:

This phase began when the model reached the ultimate load by exposure of all model elements that are situated above and below the shear stud to high stresses. The collapse of the reference model SW-D200mm (R) began with the occurrence of buckling in the infill steel plate because of using many shear studs. In other words, the small distance between the shear studs leads to high plastification around shear studs because of exposure to high compression, which leads to a global buckling failure mode.

After the comparison of the result in this phase at the same cycle of loading, it is noticed that the lateral displacement of SW-D210mm, SW-D220mm, SW-D230mm, SW-D240mm, and SW-D250mm is lower by 1%, 2%, 5%, 6%, and 9% as compared to the reference model SW-D200mm (R).

Overall, it was observed that the distance of the shear stud has a slight effect on the term of lateral displacement, as shown in Figure 25. *Materials* **2022**, *15*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 29

200 mm shear stud distance 210 mm shear stud distance 220 mm shear stud distance

230 mm shear stud distance 240 mm shear stud distance 250 mm shear stud distance

**Figure 25.** Out-of-plane displacement of group 4 for various shear stud distances. **Figure 25.** Out-of-plane displacement of group 4 for various shear stud distances.

2. Stiffness 2. Stiffness

Figure 26 gives the values of the stiffness for the fourth-group models. Figure 26 shows that increased distance between shear studs in the models SW-D210mm, SW-D220mm, SW-D230mm, SW-D240mm, and SW-D250mm enhances their stiffness by 1%, 3%, 5%, 6%, and 10%, respectively, compared to the reference model SW-D200mm as a result of the small lateral displacement of these models. From the results, it can be seen that the distance between shear studs has very little effect on the model stiffness. Figure 26 gives the values of the stiffness for the fourth-group models. Figure 26 shows that increased distance between shear studs in the models SW-D210mm, SW-D220mm, SW-D230mm, SW-D240mm, and SW-D250mm enhances their stiffness by 1%, 3%, 5%, 6%, and 10%, respectively, compared to the reference model SW-D200mm as a result of the small lateral displacement of these models. From the results, it can be seen that the distance between shear studs has very little effect on the model stiffness.

*Materials* **2022**, *15*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 26 of 29

**Figure 26.** Stiffness of group 4. **Figure 26.** Stiffness of group 4. Figure 27 shows the ductility values of the fourth-group models SW-D210mm, SW-

3. Ductility 3. Ductility D220mm, SW-D230mm, SW-D240mm, and SW-D250mm. From Figure 27, it can be con-

Figure 27 shows the ductility values of the fourth-group models SW-D210mm, SW-D220mm, SW-D230mm, SW-D240mm, and SW-D250mm. From Figure 27, it can be concluded that the increased distance between shear studs in the models SW-D210mm, SW-D220mm, SW-D230mm, SW-D240mm, and SW-D250mm enhanced their ductility substantially by 12%, 22%, 34%, 37%, and 40%, respectively. Figure 27 shows the ductility values of the fourth-group models SW-D210mm, SW-D220mm, SW-D230mm, SW-D240mm, and SW-D250mm. From Figure 27, it can be concluded that the increased distance between shear studs in the models SW-D210mm, SW-D220mm, SW-D230mm, SW-D240mm, and SW-D250mm enhanced their ductility substantially by 12%, 22%, 34%, 37%, and 40%, respectively. cluded that the increased distance between shear studs in the models SW-D210mm, SW-D220mm, SW-D230mm, SW-D240mm, and SW-D250mm enhanced their ductility substantially by 12%, 22%, 34%, 37%, and 40%, respectively. A gradual drop in the load-carrying capacity of these models was observed when they reached the ultimate load compared with the sudden and rapid drop of the reference model SW-D200mm (R).

195.44

**Figure 27.** Ductility ratio of group 4. **Figure 27.** Ductility ratio of group 4.

**Figure 27.** Ductility ratio of group 4. SW-D200mm( R) SW-D210mm SW-D220mm SW-D230mm SW-D240mm SW-D250mm A gradual drop in the load-carrying capacity of these models was observed when they reached the ultimate load compared with the sudden and rapid drop of the reference model SW-D200mm (R).

#### 4. Energy Absorption

0.0

Figure 28 shows the energy absorption of each model through each phase. For SW-D210mm, SW-D220mm, SW-D230mm, SW-D240mm, and SW-D250mm in phase C, when increasing the distance between shear studs, the energy absorption increases by 14%, 23%, 32%, 33%, and 30% as compared to reference model SW-D200mm (R). While through

phase D, it can be seen that increased distance between shear studs increased the energy absorption by 9%, 15%, 20%, 22%, and 24% for SW-D210mm, SW-D220mm, SW-D230mm, SW-D240mm, and SW-D250mm as compared to reference model SW-D200mm (R). The models with a large distance (SW-D250mm) had good energy absorption, and it was due to the high area under the curve of load deflection. This refers to the improved resistance of the model to the deformation. From the results of stiffness, ductility, and energy absorption, it is noticed that the distance between shear studs for (2000\*1000) mm (length\*width) specimen dimensions should be limited by a specific value (250 mm). This is because large distances will cause widespread buckling of the steel plate in free sub-panels between the shear stud and thus will result in no improvement. Therefore, the ideal range for the distance between the shear studs was 200–250 mm.

Figure 28 shows the energy absorption of each model through each phase. For SW-D210mm, SW-D220mm, SW-D230mm, SW-D240mm, and SW-D250mm in phase C, when increasing the distance between shear studs, the energy absorption increases by 14, 23, 32, 33, and 30% as compared to reference model SW-D200mm (R). While through phase D, it can be seen that increased distance between shear studs increased the energy absorption by 9, 15, 20, 22, and 24% for SW-D210mm, SW-D220mm, SW-D230mm, SW-D240mm, and SW-D250mm as compared to reference model SW-D200mm (R). The models with a large distance (SW-D250mm) had good energy absorption, and it was due to the high area under the curve of load deflection. This refers to the improved resistance of the model to the

*Materials* **2022**, *15*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 27 of 29

4. Energy Absorption

deformation.

**6. Conclusions**  Based on the numerical results conducted in this study, the conclusions were drawn as follows: • Increasing the gap between the steel frame and concrete wall influences the sequences of the yielding of components, where yielding shows in the beam and infill From the results of stiffness, ductility, and energy absorption, it is noticed that the distance between shear studs for (2000 \* 1000) mm (length \* width) specimen dimensions should be limited by a specific value (250 mm). This is because large distances will cause widespread buckling of the steel plate in free sub-panels between the shear stud and thus will result in no improvement. Therefore, the ideal range for the distance between the shear studs was 200–250 mm.

#### did not buckle. The gap between the steel frame and the concrete wall should be **6. Conclusions**

limited by a specific value of 4% of the width, as this value has a considerable effect on delaying failures of the model. Moreover, this model is economical in terms of the Based on the numerical results conducted in this study, the conclusions were drawn as follows:

steel plate first. At the end of the test, the columns showed yielding at the base but

	- The thickness of the concrete wall for (2000\*1000) mm (length\*width) specimen dimensions should be limited by a specific value (max 150 mm) because the behavior of smart CSPSW remains the same beyond that thickness. Therefore, the best range for using the thickness of the concrete wall was 50–100 mm.
	- The distance between shear studs for 2000\*1000 mm (length\*width) specimen dimensions should be limited by a specific value of 250 mm because large distances will cause widespread buckling of the steel plate and will result in no enhancement. Therefore, the best range for the distance between the shear stud was 200–250 mm.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, H.M.N., A.M.I., M.M.S.S., A.H., S.M., N.S.M., M.M.A.E. and K.M.K.; methodology, H.M.N., A.M.I., M.M.S.S., A.H., S.M., N.S.M., M.M.A.E. and K.M.K.; software, H.M.N., A.M.I., M.M.S.S., A.H., S.M., N.S.M., M.M.A.E. and K.M.K.; validation, H.M.N., A.M.I., M.M.S.S., A.H., S.M., N.S.M., M.M.A.E. and K.M.K.; formal analysis, H.M.N., A.M.I., M.M.S.S., A.H., S.M., N.S.M., M.M.A.E. and K.M.K.; investigation, H.M.N.; resources, M.M.S.S.; data curation, H.M.N., A.M.I., M.M.S.S., A.H., S.M., N.S.M., M.M.A.E. and K.M.K.; writing—original draft preparation, H.M.N. and A.M.I.; writing—review and editing, H.M.N., A.M.I., M.M.S.S., A.H., S.M., N.S.M., M.M.A.E. and K.M.K.; visualization, H.M.N., A.M.I., M.M.S.S., A.H., S.M., N.S.M., M.M.A.E. and K.M.K.; supervision, H.M.N. and A.M.I.; project administration, M.M.S.S.; funding acquisition, M.M.S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** The research is partially funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation as part of the World-class Research Center program: Advanced Digital Technologies (contract No. 075-15-2022-311 dated 20 April 2022). This research work was supported by the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia, under grant number RGP. 2/246/43.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors extend their thanks to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia, for supporting this work. The authors also extend their thanks to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation for funding this work.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**

