On the influence of FEM modelling approach upon the seismic analysis results for RC framed

structures modelled using dedicated software

Sorin-Codrut FLORUT, Civ. Eng, PhD

Assistant Lecturer, Politehnica University Timisoara

Karoly TOKES, Civ. Eng, MSc

ConSoft Romania Ltd.

Valeriu STOIAN, Civ. Eng, PhD

Professor, Politehnica University Timisoara

Tams NAGY-GYRGY, Civ. Eng, PhD

Lecturer, Politehnica University Timisoara

The present paper introduces a study that aims to identify the similarities and differences generated by
applying various approaches within a Finite Element Method (FEM) software. The situation that the study
refers to is represented by modelling the seismic behaviour of Reinforced Concrete (RC) framed structures,
using a spectral modal analysis. A variability matrix was conceived, leading to 34 numerical models. The
parameters that vary from one model to another are related to the type of finite element, the lack/presence
of horizontal constraints or shell finite elements that reproduce the effect of the slabs, mesh. The structure
chosen for the study is an8 storey office building with high regularity both horizontally and in elevation.
Both the transversal spans and the bays in longitudinal direction have 6 meters in length and the height of
each level is 3 meters. The results obtained by performing the analyses are discussed through the
perspective of a series of important parameters, such as: stiffness, modal shapes, seismic force distribution,
displacements, stress distribution and stress values. The results of the study are quite interesting,
generating important guideline for software users in order to achieve truthful models, which reproduce best
the real behaviour of the structure.

1. Introduction

In modern Finite Element Method (FEM) software packages, the capacities and possibilities of users to model
the behaviour of designed structures are quite large and numerous. However, no software developer really
provides detailed guidelines for the optimal approach on the structural behaviour modelling of each type of
structures. Even if theoretical information is provided, users which are not completely familiarized with detailed
theory of FEM could approach the model in various ways which could seem correct, but could also often lead to
inaccurate results. For the present study, AxisVM FEM package was chosen for the modelling of Reinforced
Concrete (RC) framed structures. The aim of the paper is to present and discuss the results of a series of models
generated in order to evaluate the behaviour of a structure, the modelling approached varying in terms of type of
Finite Elements (FE), mesh configuration, use of constraints or shells.

AxisVM is a structural analysis and design software developed by InterCAD Company. AxisVM is used by
over 4500 civil engineers on five continents (registered users worldwide). It represents a structural analysis
software that is intuitive and graphically driven so it is exceptionally easy to use and truly easy to start. It
provides the users with possibilities of linear, nonlinear, buckling, vibration, seismic and dynamic analyses for
truss, beam, rib, membrane, plate and shell two dimension and three dimension structures. Response-spectrum,
pushover and time history analysis as well as code checking and design modules for steel, concrete and timber
materials are available. [1]
2.
2 Short theooretical descrription of FE
E available in
n AxisVM

2.1
2 Finite Eleement - Beam m Model
T Euler-Naavier-Bernoulli type (2-noode, cubic Hermitian elem
The ment) Beam model
m - assu
umes that the internal
energy
e of Beeam member is entirely duue to bendingg strains and stresses. Thiis model negllects transverrse shear
deformations
d and cross-seections remainn plane durinng deformatioon and perpenndicular to the longitudinaal axis of
the
t linear eleement. Thus, the main chaaracteristics thatt may be observed (Figg. 1 - a) are as follows: ssectional
shape does not
n change inn its (y, z) plan, the sectiion remains plane
p during movement (deformation)
( ), andthe
section planee is always perpendicular
p to the curveed axis of thee Beam. Thiss type of elemment may bee used to
model
m framedd structures.

Beams
B are twwo-node, straaight elementts with constant or variabble (linearly changing)
c crooss-section prroperties
along
a the beaam length. A reference point
p is used to arbitrarilyy orient the element
e in3-ddimensional sspace (to
define
d the loocal x-z plane). A maxim mum of threee translationall and three rrotational deggrees of freedom are
defined
d for each
e node of the elements. The ends off the elementts can have arbitrary
a releaases.Three ortthogonal
internal
i forcees, one axial and two sheaar (Nx, Vy, Vz), and three internal
i momments, one torrsion and twoo flexural
(Tx, My, Mz) are calculateed at each crooss-section of each elemeent. The direcctions (local coordinate
c syystem) in
which
w an elem ment has stiff
ffness and thee correspondinng local displlacement com mponents are as follows: ex and x
on
o u directiion, ey and y on v direcction and ez annd z on w direction (Fiig. 1 - c).

2.2
2 Finite Eleement - Rib Model
The
T Timosheenko type (3--node, quadraatic, isoparam metric elemennt)Rib modell - is based ono Timoshenkko beam
theory;it
t incoorporates a firrst order corrrection for traansverse sheaar effects andd the cross-seections do noot remain
perpendicular
p r to the longgitudinal axiis during defformation.Thuus, the mainn differences of Rib elem ments in
comparison
c tto Beam elem ments resides in the fact that Rib elemennts account for f transverse shear effectss and the
cross-section
c s do not remaain perpendicular to the lonngitudinal axis during defoormation (Figg. 1 - b). Rib eelements
may
m be used independentlly or in conjuunction with surface s elemeents (plates, membranes
m annd shells). Whhen used
independently
i y, the Ribs caan model fram me structures in a similar way
w to the Beeam element,, but supplem mentary it
can
c take intoo account thhe shear defoormations. When W used atttached to suurface elemennts, the Ribss can be
connected
c cenntrically or ecccentrically too the surface elements to model
m ribbed surface structtures also.

a) b) c)
Fig. 1 - Mainn characteristic of Beam and Rib
R finite elem
ments [1]

Rib
R elements are isoparam metric, three node,
n straight elements withh constant or variable (lineearly changing) cross-
section propeerties along thhe Rib length,, and with quaadratic interpolation functiions. A refereence point or vector is
required
r to aarbitrarily oriient the elem
ment in the 3D 3 space buut the propertties of the correspondingg surface
elements
e are also used to orient the element (to define the locall x-z plane). As in the casse of Beam elements,e
three
t translattional and three rotational degrees of frreedom are deefined for thee nodes of thee element whhile three
orthogonal
o innternal forcesand three inteernal moments are calculaated at each nnode of each element.
e How wever, in
t situation of eccentrically Rib elem
the ments modelled in conjunnction with surfaces elem ments another flexural
internal
i mom ment is calculaated (MyD). The
T variation of the internal forces withhin an elemen nt can be reggarded as
linear.
l Similaar to Beam finite
f elementts, the directiions (local cooordinate sysstem) in whicch a Rib elem ment has
stiffness and the corresponnding local diisplacement components
c arre provided inn Fig. 1 - c.
2.3 Finite Element - Surface Model; Diaphragm constraint
Surface elements can be used to model membranes (Membrane FE), thin and thick plates (Plate FE) and shells
(Shell FE) assuming that the displacements are small.In order to define surface elements, six node triangular or
eight/nine node quadrilateral finite elements formulated in an isoparametric approach can be used. The surface
elements are flat and have constant thickness within the elements. It is preferable that the element thickness does
not exceed one tenth of the smallest characteristic size of the modelled structural element. Displacements are
small compared to the plate thickness (the deflection (w) of a plate or shell structural element is less than 20%
of its thickness).Use of elements with the ratio of the longest to shortest element side lengths larger than 5, or
with the ratio of the longest structural element side length to the thickness larger than 100 are not
recommended.In some cases when the elements are used (that are flat with straight edges) to approximate
curved surfaces or boundaries, poor results may be obtained.

A Shell element can be loaded within its plane and/or perpendicular to its plane. The Shell internal forces are:
nx, ny and nxy forces (membrane components), mx, my, mxy, vx, vy moments and shear forces (plate components).
In addition, the principal internal forces and moments, other characteristic values are calculate:n1, n2, the angle
n, m1, m2, the angle m and the resultant shear force vSz. The variation of internal forces within an element can
be regarded as linear.

In theory, using diaphragms leads to an important simplification of the model. Diaphragms are special rigid
bodies for which therelative position of the element nodes remains constant in a global plane. They can be
defined as plates totally rigid in their planes.Diaphragms considerably reduce the amount of required calculation
and it can be of great advantage when running vibration analysis of large models.

3. Modelling methods and results

3.1 Characteristics of modelled structure, loads

The structure chosen for the study is an8 storey office building with high regularity both horizontally and in
elevation. The building had three transversal spans and three longitudinal bays, all measuring 6000mm. The
height of each level (ground and seven storeys) is 3000mm. The cross-sectional characteristics of the structural
elements were: 550x500mm - columns, 300x600mm - beams (both transversal and longitudinal). In order to
satisfy pre-calculation requirements, thickness of the slabs was considered 150mm. A concrete class of C30/37
according to EN 1992-1-1 [2] was assigned for all structural elements. A load of 7.50kN/m2 was applied at each
level and the self weight of columns and beams was accounted for automatically, considering a density of the
concrete of 2500kg/m3.This load actually incorporates all dead loads with their characteristic values and the live
loads (with a 3kN/m2 value as provided in EN 1991-1-1 [3]) with the quasi-permanent value (2Qk) as provided
by EN 1990 [4]. The geometry of the structure is presented in Fig. 2 through a 3D view and a horizontal section.

The mass for the modal analysis was obtained by concentrating all the loads mentioned above in the nodes of
the structure. The evaluation and representation of the seismic action was based on response spectrum method,
as presented in EN 1998-1 [5] and Romanian Seismic Design Code P100-1/2006 [6]. A location characterized
by a Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) value of ag=0.16g and a ground control period (the upper limit of the
period of the constant spectral acceleration branch) of Tc=0.7s was chosen. Also, the amplification factor by the
structure of the horizontal acceleration of ground was considered 0=2.5. In the Romanian P100-1/2006 code,
the approach for evaluation of normalized response spectrum is somehow similar to that within EN 1998-1
standard. However, it should be noted that the characteristics taken into account in order to represent the seismic
action are not of direct importance for this study, as it is being focused on variability of results when applying
different modelling approaches. It should be noted that no reduction of the stiffness was imposed for the
structural elements (even if provided so by P100-1/2006) since this was not relevant for the aim of the study.
However, it should also be noted that stiffness reduction that affects the Eb*Iy product (Youngs Modulus of
Elasticity*Moment of Inertia) should be applied to the value of Iy (this is the procedure recommended in
AxisVm; otherwise, if reducing the value of Youngs Modulus of Elasticity, Shear Modulus is also reduced).
 Fig. 2 - G
Geometry of thhe modelled strructure (in meters)

3.2
3 Descriptiion of FE mo odels
This
T simple and a straightfoorward approaach previouslly described enabled
e the auuthors to easiily compare rresults of
various
v versiions of the models.
m In tootal, 34 moddel versions werew generateed, one version to another being
different
d as changes werre made in teerms of FE type, lack/exxistence of S Shell elementts and/or Diaphragm
constraints
c annd the overalll mesh of eleements. The characteristiccs of all 34 m models are iddentifiable in Table 1.
Clearly,
C for aall 34 models the loads, maaterials, crosss-sectional geometry of linnear elements and overall ggeometry
o the model were identicaal.
of

As
A it may bee observed in Table 1, the first 24 versiions of the m models had noo surface (Sheell) elements defined.
For
F these verrsions only linear elementts were used to t model the structure, thee parameters that varied being
b the
type
t of FE, thhe mesh and the lack/existtence of Diapphragm constrraint. Thus, within
w the firsst Version (V
Ver01) all
line
l elementss (both colum mns and beam ms) were modelled using AxisVM Beeam type of FE F and no hoorizontal
constraint
c thaat would reprroduce the flooor diaphragm m behaviour was
w imposed.. The only diffference of thhe Ver02
model
m from tthe Ver01 resides in the fact that Diaphragm constraaints were appplied. Ver03 and a Ver04 moodels are
similar to Ver01 and Ver002 respectivelly, the beams of the structuure being moddelled with Rib R elements available
a
in
i AxisVM. Ver05 and Ver06 V are sim
milar to Ver033 and Ver04 respectively, using howeever the possiibility to
define
d eccenttrically Rib ellements (thuss the Rib+eccc notation inn Table 1). Obbviously, the provided ecccentricity
was
w defined iin such a mannner that the top fibre of the t beams woould be aligneed with the toop surface off the slab
(even thoughh for these moodels no Shelll elements were
w i order to model the slabs). The next group of
defined in
models
m (Ver007...Ver12) arre similar to the ones in thhe previous group
g (Ver01...Ver06) the difference coonsisting
in
i the fact thaat all columnss and beams ofo the structurre were meshhed with a 6000 mm size linnear mesh. Thhe 3rd and
4th group of models (Verr13...Ver18 annd Ver19...V Ver24) are sim milar to 1st annd 2nd groups (Ver01...Veer06 and
Ver07...Ver1
V 2) the differeence being thhat in all moddels in 3 andd 4th groups the columns of the structuure were
rd

modelled
m using Rib elemeents. For all Ver24 to Veer34 models, Shell elemennts are used in i order to mmodel the
existence
e of the RC floorrs. Clearly, ass Shell elemeents are definned, beams caan only be modelled
m by uusing Rib
elements.
e Mooreover, as th he Shell elemments have to be meshed (a ( quadrilateral mesh of 600mm was chosen in
order
o to mainntain mesh sizze of connectted Rib elements) it is cleear that all connected Rib elements reprroducing
the
t beams of the structure are also meshhed.
 Table 1 - Characteristics of all 34 models
Model Model FEM Mesh
groups Version Columns Beams Slab Constraints Columns Beams Slab Comments
Ver01 Beam Beam - - - - - -
Ver02 Beam Beam - Diaphragm - - - -
1st Ver03 Beam Rib - - - - - -
Ver04 Beam Rib - Diaphragm - - - -
Ver05 Beam Rib+ecc - - - - - -
Ver06 Beam Rib+ecc - Diaphragm - - - -

Ver07 Beam Beam - - 600 mm 600mm - -

Ver08 Beam Beam - Diaphragm 600 mm 600mm - -
2nd Ver09 Beam Rib - - 600mm 600mm - -
Ver10 Beam Rib - Diaphragm 600mm 600mm - -
Ver11 Beam Rib+ecc - - 600mm 600mm - -
Ver12 Beam Rib+ecc - Diaphragm 600mm 600mm - -

Ver13 Rib Beam - - - - - -

Ver14 Rib Beam - Diaphragm - - - -
3rd Ver15 Rib Rib - - - - - -
Ver16 Rib Rib - Diaphragm - - - -
Ver17 Rib Rib+ecc - - - - - -
Ver18 Rib Rib+ecc - Diaphragm - - - -

Ver19 Rib Beam - - 600mm 600mm - -

Ver20 Rib Beam - Diaphragm 600mm 600mm - -
4th Ver21 Rib Rib - - 600mm 600mm - -
Ver22 Rib Rib - Diaphragm 600mm 600mm - -
Ver23 Rib Rib+ecc - - 600mm 600mm - -
Ver24 Rib Rib+ecc - Diaphragm 600mm 600mm - -

5th Ver25 Beam Rib+ecc Shell hs=150 - - 600mm 600mm SlabDiaph

Ver26 Beam Rib+ecc Shell hs=150 - - 600mm 600mm -

6th Ver27 Beam Rib+ecc Shell hs=150 - 600mm 600mm 600mm SlabDiaph
Ver28 Beam Rib+ecc Shell hs=150 - 600mm 600mm 600mm -

7th Ver29 Rib Rib+ecc Shell hs=150 - - 600mm 600mm SlabDiaph

Ver30 Rib Rib+ecc Shell hs=150 - - 600mm 600mm -

8th Ver31 Rib Rib+ecc Shell hs=150 - 600mm 600mm 600mm SlabDiaph
Ver32 Rib Rib+ecc Shell hs=150 - 600mm 600mm 600mm -

9th Ver33 Rib Rib+ecc Shell hs=250 - 600mm 600mm 600mm SlabDiaph
Ver34 Rib Rib+ecc Shell hs=250 - 600mm 600mm 600mm -

As presented in Table 1, Ver24 model used Beam elements to define the columns, Ribs with eccentricity to
model the beams and Shell elements to model slabs. For this model, a special feature of the AxisVM software
was applied, enabling the conversion of slabs defined as Shell FE into Diaphragm constraints (this feature is
available only in calculations carried out for the Modal Analysis). Ver25 model is similar to Ver24, the
difference consisting in the fact that the slabs were not converted into Diaphragm constraints for the Modal
Analysis. Ver27 and Ver28 models are similar with Ver25 and Ver26 models respectively, the difference being
that the columns are also meshed in these two versions. Models in 7th and 8th groups are similar to those in 5th
and 6th group respectively, the difference consisting in the fact that Rib elements were used instead of Beam
elements in order to model the columns of the structure. Models in the 9th group are similar to those in the 8th,
the thickness of the slab being however of 250 mm instead of 150 mm (clearly, in order to maintain comparison
capability, no increase of mass and load is generated by the increase of the thickness of the Shell elements that
model the slabs).

3.3 Results
For each one of the 34 models, the obtained results are recorded and condensed in Table 2. As it can be
observed in Table 2 the recorded results are: modal shape and period (in seconds) of first three vibration modes,
max (described below), maximum relative displacements at Service Limit State (SLS) and Ultimate Limit State
(ULS) and internal forces from gravitational and seismic loads in base segment of column C2 (marked with a
circle in Fig. 2) and 1st floor beam 2_BC (marked with an ellipse in Fig. 2).The comparison of the results
obtained by modelling the structure in the 34 versions described above is to be made in terms of Modal
Response, displacement and 2nd order effects, and stress analyses results. The parameter represents the
seismic sensitivity coefficient, being calculated according to P100-1/2006 [6] as follows: =(Ptot* dr)/(Vtot*h),
where: Ptot - total vertical load for a considered storey, in the seismic loading hypothesis; dr - relative
displacement of the storey; Vtot - total shear force for the considered storey; h - height of the storey.

Table 2 - Main results of the parametric study

Model Modal response max dr,max Int. forces - Col C2 Int. forces - Beam 2 BC
Version T1 Shape T3 SLS ULS Loc Ngrav Ns Ms M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
Ver01 0,999 Ty 0,853 0,094 8,56 17,11 S3 2675 2685 248 57 98 52 86 248
Ver02 0,988 Tx 0,849 0,094 8,68 17,37 S3 2672 2681 227 57 98 42 82 237
Ver03 1,008 Tx 0,854 0,096 8,65 17,29 S3 2677 2686 246 0 0 148 148 148
Ver04 0,998 Tx 0,850 0,096 8,77 17,55 S3 2674 2683 227 0 0 137 137 137
Ver05 0,999 Tx 0,847 0,096 8,73 17,45 S3 2680 2689 245 0 0 149 149 149
Ver06 0,697 Ty 0,592 0,047 6,10 12,20 S2 2573 2573 258 0 0 57 57 57

Ver07 1,002 Ty 0,818 0,096 8,69 17,37 S3 2675 2685 249 57 98 53 86 248
Ver08 0,988 Tx 0,809 0,094 8,68 17,36 S3 2673 2681 228 57 98 42 82 237
Ver09 1,011 Ty 0,826 0,098 8,78 17,55 S3 2677 2686 248 59 97 51 86 246
Ver10 0,998 Tx 0,816 0,096 8,78 17,55 S3 2674 2683 227 59 97 40 82 235
Ver11 1,002 Ty 0,819 0,097 8,83 17,66 S3 2680 2689 245 59 97 52 87 246
Ver12 0,697 Tx 0,569 0,047 6,09 12,17 S2 2575 2603 259 60 96 99 120 307

Ver13 1,010 Ty 0,863 0,096 8,65 17,30 S3 2680 2692 244 57 98 50 85 245
Ver14 1,000 Tx 0,859 0,096 8,78 17,55 S3 2677 2689 225 57 98 40 81 235
Ver15 1,020 Tx 0,864 0,098 8,74 17,48 S3 2681 2693 243 0 0 145 145 145
Ver16 1,010 Tx 0,860 0,098 8,87 17,73 S3 2679 2689 224 0 0 135 135 135
Ver17 1,011 Tx 0,857 0,098 8,82 17,64 S3 2685 2696 241 0 0 146 146 146
Ver18 0,713 Ty 0,606 0,049 6,27 12,55 S2 2684 2615 253 0 0 208 208 205

Ver19 1,014 Ty 0,828 0,098 8,78 17,56 S3 2680 2692 245 57 98 50 85 245
Ver20 1,000 Ty 0,819 0,097 8,78 17,55 S3 2677 2688 225 57 98 40 81 235
Ver21 1,023 Ty 0,835 0,100 8,87 17,74 S3 2681 2693 244 59 97 48 85 243
Ver22 1,010 Tx 0,826 0,098 8,87 17,73 S3 2679 2689 224 59 97 38 81 233
Ver23 1,014 Ty 0,828 0,100 8,92 17,84 S3 2685 2696 241 59 97 49 86 244
Ver24 0,714 Ty 0,583 0,050 6,25 12,51 S2 2686 2619 253 60 96 97 117 301

Ver25 0,759 CTx 0,605 0,070 8,29 16,57 S2 2705 2727 270 55 94 93 100 282
Ver26 0,847 CTx 0,704 0,070 7,39 14,78 S2 2705 2724 240 55 94 73 90 262

Ver27 0,759 CTx 0,605 0,070 8,29 16,57 S2 2705 2727 270 55 94 93 100 282
Ver28 0,846 CTx 0,704 0,070 7,39 14,78 S2 2705 2724 241 55 94 73 90 262

Ver29 0,775 CTx 0,617 0,072 8,39 16,79 S2 2713 2739 264 55 95 88 98 277
Ver30 0,860 CTx 0,715 0,072 7,51 15,03 S2 2713 2736 236 55 95 69 88 256

Ver31 0,775 CTx 0,617 0,072 8,39 16,79 S2 2713 2739 264 55 95 88 98 277
Ver32 0,860 CTx 0,715 0,072 7,51 15,03 S2 2713 2736 236 55 95 69 88 258

Ver33 0,829 CTy 0,661 0,067 7,30 14,59 S2 2709 2735 241 40 78 40 40 197
Ver34 0,831 CTx 0,695 0,067 7,27 14,53 S2 2709 2735 241 40 78 40 40 197

Notes regarding Table 2:

- as the structure is perfectly symmetrical, vibration modes 1 and 2 are identical as value and complementary in
shape. Thus, only Mode 1 was provided in the table. Moreover, the shape of Mode 3 is not presented, as this is in all 34
versions a general torsion mode. When discussing the shape, notations Tx=Translation in x direction, Ty=Translation in y
direction, CTx=Combined translation x direction prevailing, CTy=Combined translation y direction prevailing
- the location of max is always the 2nd Storey
- on the relative displacement location column S=Storey
- on the Int. forces - Beam 2_BC column, the moment M1...M5 represent:
M1=Minf,grav (bottom flexural moment on the beam from gravitational loads)
M2=Msup,grav (top flexural moment in the beam from gravitational loads - at supports)
M3=Minf,ls (bottom flexural moment at the outmost left section of the beam in seismic hypothesis.)
M4=Minf,max (maximum bottom flexural moment on the beam from seismic hypothesis)
M5=Msup,ls (top flexural moment at the outmost left section of the beam from seismic hypothesis.)
4 Discussions

4.1 Modal response

The influence of Diaphragm constraints on the overall results is completely insignificant in the case that the
beams of the framed structure are defined using AxisVM Beam FE or Rib FE placed centrically. This is clearly
identifiable by comparing the results obtained on versions of the model for which the only difference is the
lack/existence of the Diaphragm constraint (such as: Ver01 with Ver02, Ver03 with Ver04, Ver07 with Ver08,
Ver09 with Ver10, etc). Also meshing of linear elements seems to be completely irrelevant in terms of modal
response of models comprising of linear elements. This fact results quite clear by analyzing groups of versions
of the models for which the only the mesh differs (such as: 1st with 2nd model group and 3rd with 4thmodel
group).

Considering the Ver24...Ver32 models as being the most accurate ones and comparing their results with models
Ver06, Ver12, Ver18 and Ver24 it would appear that when modelling the beams using Rib elements with
eccentricity in conjunction with Diaphragm constraints, the stiffness of the entire structure is overrated. Again,
considering the Ver24...Ver32 models as being the most accurate ones and comparing results of model versions
such as Ver01...Ver04, Ver07...Ver10, Ver13...Ver16 or Ver19...Ver22 it appears that when using Beams FE or
Rib FE without eccentricity to model the beams of the structure, the stiffness of the model is underrated (a
normal thing considering the simplicity of these models). Comparing sets of models such as Ver01...Ver06 and
Ver07...Ver12 to corresponding models of sets Ver13...Ver18 and Ver19...24 respectively it results that using
either Rib FE or Beam FE to model the columns provides no important changes in the models results. This is
explicable as the ratio length to width/height of cross-section of columns is around 5.5, thus the transversal
shear deformation effect is negligible. However, when this ratio drops below 3, using Rib FE is recommended
instead of using Beams FE.

Another interesting observation could be that by using the option available in AxisVM of converting of slabs
modelled with Shell FE into Diaphragm constraints (only available for the modal analysis) the results should be
identical to those of corresponding models composed only of linear elements and with Diaphragm constraint
(i.e. Ver27 compared to Ver12 and Ver31 compared to Ver24). Still, this is not the case for the models in the
current study, the differences being quite obvious. It would seem that even by Converting slabs to
Diaphragms the floor stiffness considered in the model is influenced by the properties of the Shell FE defining
the slabs. Thus, if increased thickness is provided from one model to another (e.g. Ver33 compared to Ver31)
and the option is activated, different results of vibration periods are obtained. It is curious though why by
providing increased thickness for Shell FE defining the slabs, lower stiffness is obtained?

In all models comprising only of linear elements (with or without mesh and with or without Diaphragm
constraints) the deformed shape of the structure in the first two vibration modes was a clear translation on one of
the main directions of the structure (X or Y). For the models with slabs defined using Shell FE (with or without
the Convert slabs to Diaphragms option activated or deactivated) the deformed shape in the first two vibration
modes was of a combined translation (an oblique translation, with displacement components on both X and Y
main directions of the structure).

4.2 Displacement, 2nd order effects, seismic sensitivity of storeys

Again, as in the case of modal response of the models, the influence of Diaphragm constraints on the overall
results is completely insignificant in the case that the beams of the framed structure are defined using AxisVM
Beam FE or Rib FE placed centrically and meshing of linear elements seems to be completely irrelevant in
terms of displacements, 2nd order effects and seismic sensitivity of storeys (see paragraph 1 at 3.1.4). Moreover,
as the stiffness of the entire structure is overrated when modelling the beams using Rib elements with
eccentricity in conjunction with Diaphragm constraints, is clear that the displacements would end-up being
smaller and 2nd order effects and seismic sensitivity of storeys would be underrated (see paragraph 2 at 3.1.4).

Even though for models with Shell FE used in order to model slabs of the structure the results are identical in
terms of parameter, whether Convert slabs to Diaphragms option is activated or not, displacements diverge
quite in an important manner (10%) in terms of displacements (see Ver25...Ver32). On one hand, it is quite
normal to have larger displacements when Convert slabs to Diaphragms option is activated (this option when
activated leads to increase stiffness and lower vibration periods of the models and thus, larger seismic load;
since this option is available only for modal analysis, when evaluating displacements in the static calculation
one would have the same structural model but with different seismic load). On the other hand, the question is
why is this not valid also in the case of parameter?

4.3 Stress analyses, internal forces

Even though using or not the mesh for linear elements was irrelevant in terms of modal response, displacements,
2nd order effects and seismic sensitivity of storeys, in terms of stress distribution, meshing of Rib FE that define
the beams of the structure is extremely important. Using mesh-less Rib elements combined with surface loads
defined using Derived loads over beams/ribs... (with automatic distribution of loads onto structural elements)
leads to a completely incorrect stress distribution in these Rib elements from gravitational loads. Actually, the
un-meshed Rib elements have no internal forces from gravitational loads (see M1 and M2 for Ver03...Ver06 and
Ver15...Ver18). Clearly, since internal force distribution from gravitational loads is faulty, the internal forces
evaluated for the seismic hypothesis cannot be correct either.

Values of all internal forces from gravitational loads are extremely similar except for those of Ver03...Ver06
and Ver15...Ver18 described above). The force that stands out is the axial force in the C2 column in the case of
Ver06 and Ver12. It is not clear is these discrepancies are a result of un-meshed Rib elements of their
conjunction with the columns defined using Beam FE (this issue disappears when columns are defined using
Rib FE).By focusing on the results of models Ver06, Ver12, Ver18 and Ver24 it would appear that when
modelling the beams using Rib FE with eccentricity in conjunction with Diaphragm constraints, even though the
internal forces from gravitational loads are correct, the ones in the seismic hypothesis seem to be out of order.

5. Conclusions
In all models comprising only of linear elements the deformed shape of the structure in the first two vibration
modes was a clear translation, while for the models with slabs defined using Shell FE the deformed shape in the
first two vibration modes was of a combined translation. For versions with Shell FE modelling the slabs, the
results are identical in terms of parameter, whether Convert slabs to Diaphragms option is activated or not,
displacement values diverge quite significantly (10%).

The influence of Diaphragm constraints on the overall results is completely insignificant in the case that the
beams of the framed structure are defined using Beam FE or Rib FE placed centrically. Meshing of linear
elements seems to be completely irrelevant in terms of modal response of models, displacements, 2nd order
effects and seismic sensitivity of storeys comprising of linear elements. In terms of stress distribution, meshing
of Rib FE that defines the beams of the structure is extremely important. Moreover, using mesh-less Rib FE
combined with surface loads defined using Derived loads over beams/ribs... leads to a completely incorrect
stress distribution in these Rib elements from gravitational loads.

Modelling the beams using Rib elements with eccentricity in conjunction with Diaphragm constraints, the
stiffness of the entire structure is overrated. This combination should be avoided. Using Beams FE or Rib FE
without eccentricity to model the beams of the structure, the stiffness of the model is underrated, using either
Rib FE or Beam FE to model the columns provides no important changes in the models results (Beam elements
should however be used, as they are more simple elements). These simplified models should only be used in a
preliminary design stages, the complex model using Rib FE with eccentricity and shell elements to model the
slabs should be used in final design stage.

Bibliographic list
[1] AxisVM Manual, http://axisvm.eu/index.html
[2] EN 1992-1-1 - Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings
[3] EN 1991-1-1 - Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-1: General actions
[4] EN 1990 - Eurocode - Basis of structural design
[5] EN 1998-1 - Design of structures for earthquake resistance
[6] P100-1/2006 - Romanian Seismic Design Code (in Romanian)