When we model the spandrel beams in ETABS, we can model

them as shell elements or as frame elements. How and why the

spandrels internal forces outputs can vary using one than the
other?
Peter Placzek There is no difference and/or no comparison when modelled
correctly.
For deep beam L/d<3.5 finely meshed shell element is the only correct model.
For shallow beams L/d>3.5 frame element is the most "economical" way of
modelling. If shell element is used its stiffness will depend on how fine it is
meshed. (The finer the mesh the softer it will be)
But extreme fine meshing is not desirable - it slows the analysis too much.
I have tested it and come up with F12=0.3 stiffness reduction of spandrels
instead of extreme meshing.
For L/d<1.0 no issue (spandrel is very stiff)
For L/d=1 to 3.5 use shell with stiffness reduction F12=0.3
(actually came up with formula F12 =0.44-0.09L/d, but 0.3 does good enough
job)
For L/d>3.5 use frame element to avoid any issues.
Same incidentally applies to choice between shell pier and frame column (for
example the piers in the lift core at the doors).

Giorgio Albieri Great. Thank you Peter. At the moment I'm modelling the spandrel beams as
shells and what I've found that their axial force output gets an odd diagram. Tensile at one
end of the beam and compressive at the other end. Is this correct? Is this caused by the floor
diaphragm?
Peter Placzek must be the floor
Giorgio Albieri Yes. It must be the floor. But, theoretically, shouldn't we expect a constant
compressive force in the spandrel beam? How can we deal with this odd axial force output
(tension at one end and compression at the other end)?
Peter Placzek ETABS spandrel design takes the axial loads into account. They are secondary
forces of little concern. Actual value will again depend on the meshing of the floor. You could
factor the spandrel F11 stiffness down to minimise the axial load.
Syed Rummaan Ahmed, M.Eng. EIT Giorgio Albieri if you remember i suggested you (at
London Tall Design Course) to assign different spandrel label through out the length at small
intervals. In this way you might achieve what you are looking for.
Spandrel forces are integrated at begin and end of each spandrel assigned with the same label
while they vary linearly in between end value. Hope it helps

Nikolaos K. Gkogkos The f11 must be modified to incorporate the cracked stiffness
properties (moments come up as an integral of s11 normal stresses). No comment on f12
modification. On the other matter, if you have assigned a Spandrel name on an element and
you are using shell elements to simulate the floor slab then the axial loads at the edges comes
from the interaction between the slab and the spandrel (a product Ne where e is eccentricity
between the mean plane of the slab and the centreline of the spandrel is defined due to the
interaction). The same issue (and the same results) will come up if a linear element
representing the spandrel will be "placed" eccentrically to the slab through the insertion point
and the stiffness modification is requested (if not it will just be a picture and not a
consideration of the actual stiffness of the beam based on the Steiner's term Ae).
Furthermore, shells (thin) and frame elements have sufficiently different matrices. For in
plane actions, shell are more accurate but if you are dealing with short spandrels (that is
aspect ratio less than two that they are probably governed by shear) the current codes do not
treat them properly with the exception of NZS3101 that requires increased shear stiffness.

Nikolaos K. Gkogkos In addition, spandrels that extend over both sides of a slab attribute
their mass to the story that they are assigned (i.e above the level 1 slab the mass of the
spandrel will be encountered to the weight of the level 2 slab) and therefore you need to be
careful with the weight automatically assigned to the floor levels. The out-of-plane stiffness
(in plane to diaphragm) provided by the shell simulation in comparison to that of the frame
one is another issue as well.

Mahinda Ellegala CPEng MIPENZ Connectivity to the walls will be different based on the
selection.