# Prediction of the Load-Bearing Behavior of SPSW with Rectangular Opening by RBF Network
## 2 Finite Element Modeling (FEM)  
In order to evaluate the effect of opening on the behavior of SPSWs, 110 SPSW archetypes are modeled using ABAQUS 6.14 (Dassault, Paris, France) software [40]. Software verification is done to ensure the accuracy of responses using the Alavi and Nateghi experimental test [26]. In the experimental study, two models have been studied in a way that the first model is without any opening (SPSW2) and the other one is with an opening in the middle of the shear wall (SPSW s4). In Figure 1a,b experimental samples that are utilized for the verification of finite element models are shown. Fishplate connects the infill plate to the boundary elements which is not modeled. It is illustrated in [12], that the absence of the fish plate in finite element models does affect the results. The exact dimension of the SPSW of the experiments and the finite element models are illustrated in Figure 1b. Mechanical properties of steel material used in this modeling are listed in Table 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Name** & **Year** & **No. Sample** & **Investigated Parameters** & **No. Story** & **Type of Research** & **Ref.** \\ \hline [PERSON] & 1973 & 12 & SPSW with opening and without opening & 1 & Experimental & [19] \\ [PERSON] and Sabouri-ghemi & 1991 & 16 & Opening Dameter and Plate Thickness & 1 & Experimental & [20] \\ [PERSON] & 2000 & 50 & Plate thickness, opening aspect ratio and opening percentage & 1 & Analytical & [21] \\ [PERSON] & 2004 & 2 & Opening & 1 & Experimental & [22] \\ [PERSON] & 2007 & N.A. & Opening with a different infill plate thickness & 1 & Analytical & [24] \\ [PERSON] et al. & 2009 & N.A. & Dimension, position shape and orientation & 1 & Analytical & [23] \\ [PERSON] et al. & 2012 & 8 & Opening dimensions and slenderness factors & 1 & Experimental & [25] \\ [PERSON] et al. & 2012 & 45 & Opening dimensions and shapes & 1 & Analytical & [25] \\ [PERSON] and [PERSON] & 2013 & 3 & SPSW with and without Opening and Saffiner & 1 & Experimental and Analytical & [26] \\ [PERSON] & 2014 & N.A. & Opening Dameter, plate thickness and Aspect ratio & 1 & Analytical & [27] \\ [PERSON] and Brunneau & 2015 & 17 & Determination modes & 1 & Analytical & [28] \\ [PERSON] et al. & 2015 & 4 & Behavior of SPSW with 2 openings & 1 & Experimental & [29] \\ [PERSON] and [PERSON] & 2016 & 54 & Opening Location, Infill plate and Saffiner Thickness & 1 & Analytical & [29] \\ [PERSON] and [PERSON] & 2017 & 3 & Opening Dameter in mid-span SPSW & 1 & Experimental and Analytical & [20] \\ [PERSON] and [PERSON] & 2018 & N.A. & Opening Shape, Dameter, Location and H/h ratio of SPSW & 1 & Analytical & [17] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: A summary of the researches about the effects of openings on steel plate shear walls (SPSWs). In Figure 2, the load-displacement diagrams of the experimental and numerical specimens are presented. As can be seen, the numerical curve has more stiffness than experimental. It can be attributed to the inherent nature of FE analysis which leads to an increase in the stiffness of the elements. Besides, the material properties of the steel are considered to be bilinear isotropic/kinematic hardening model. This type of modeling consists of two components: first, an isotropic hardening component in which the yield surface remains the same shape but expands with increasing stress and defines the evolution of the yield surface size as a function of the equivalent plastic strain and, second, a kinematic hardening component in which the yield surface remains in the same shape and size but is translated in the stress space. Besides, the yield surface is defined by the function, using the von [PERSON] yield criterion. There is good agreement between the experimental data and numerical result and the differences can be related to the experimental results.