Effects of Finite Element Modeling Parameters on Seismic Response of a Hospital Building

Muhammad Puja Fathurrachman; Syahrul Satar; Multasam; Adhriyansyah Effendy Saputra

doi:10.30736/cvl.v11i2.1705

Authors

Muhammad Puja Fathurrachman Institut Teknologi Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie
Syahrul Satar Institut Teknologi Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie
Multasam Institut Teknologi Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie
Adhriyansyah Effendy Saputra Institut Teknologi Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30736/cvl.v11i2.1705

Keywords:

Structural Modeling, Seismic Response, Mesh Convergence, Insertion Point, End Length Assumption, Equivalent Lateral Force

Abstract

Accurate structural modeling is essential for reliable seismic performance evaluation, yet default software settings in finite element analysis tools are frequently adopted without adequate calibration. This study investigates the sensitivity of seismic response in a five-story reinforced concrete hospital building to three key modeling parameters: shell element mesh size, insertion point configuration, and beam end length assumption. A mesh convergence study was first conducted across six discretization levels to identify an optimal mesh size. Subsequently, four structural models were developed using a Design of Experiment (DoE), with M1 (top insertion point, clear length) serving as the reference baseline. Linear seismic analysis was performed using the Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) method in accordance with SNI 1726:2019, with natural period, base shear force, and story displacement adopted as response indicators. Results show that a 1 m mesh size provides an optimal balance between accuracy and computational efficiency. Insertion point configuration was identified as the dominant parameter, with centroid-based models producing up to 21% longer natural periods and 46% greater story displacements compared to M1. Base shear was exclusively governed by the end length assumption, as the ELF method renders it insensitive to stiffness-related parameters.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] M. Algamati, A. Al-Sakkaf, E. Mohammed Abdelkader, and A. Bagchi, “Studying and Analyzing the Seismic Performance of Concrete Moment-Resisting Frame Buildings,” CivilEng, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 34–54, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.3390/civileng4010003.

[2] K. Morfidis, A. Athanatopoulou, A. Giaralis, A. Sextos, and I. Avramidis, Eurocode-Compliant Seismic Analysis and Design of R/C Buildings. 2015.

[3] S. Abdel Raheem, A. Abdel Zaher, A. Taha, and M. Omar, “Effects of numerical modeling simplification on seismic design of buildings,” Coupled Systems Mechanics, vol. 7, pp. 731–753, 2018, doi: 10.12989/csm.2018.7.6.731.

[4] O. Kumbhar and R. Kumar, “Effect of Modeling Assumptions on Seismic Performance of RC Building,” in Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, 2019, pp. 73–84. doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-0362-3_6.

[5] D. Zebua, A. A. S. Putra, L. S. B. Wibowo, and S. Alfiani, “EVALUATION OF SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF HOSPITAL BUILDING USING PUSHOVER ANALYSIS BASED ON ATC-40,” Journal of Civil Engineering, Science and Technology, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 138–145, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.33736/jcest.5326.2023.

[6] I. Imran, D. M. Siringoringo, and S. S. Rainayana, “Seismic evaluation and retrofit of a typical reinforced concrete hospital building in Indonesia with DCFP isolation system,” Structures, vol. 64, p. 106593, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.istruc.2024.106593.

[7] L. Nirmalkar, “Modelling And Analysis the Structures by Finite Element Methods,” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, vol. 09, no. 04, pp. 1–9, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.55041/IJSREM45365.

[8] J. Kwon and W. Ghannoum, “Assessment of international standard provisions on stiffness of reinforced concrete moment frame and shear wall buildings,” Eng. Struct., vol. 128, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.09.025.

[9] S. E. Abdel Raheem, A. K. Abdel Zaher, and A. M. Taha, “Finite element modeling assumptions impact on seismic response demands of MRF-buildings,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 821–834, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.1007/s11803-018-0478-1.

[10] Md. M. Sazzad, Md. S. Azad, Md. T. Islam, and F. Ibna Rahman, “Effect of Mesh Size of Floor Slab against Lateral Loads while using Etabs Program,” vol. 06, pp. 40–44, 2017.

[11] S. Sattar, “Evaluating the consistency between prescriptive and performance-based seismic design approaches for reinforced concrete moment frame buildings,” Eng. Struct., vol. 174, pp. 919–931, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.07.080.

[12] CSI, CSI Analysis Reference Manual for SAP2000, ETABS, SAFE, and CsiBridge. 2017.

[13] Ondrej, “Effect of insertion point on beam reactions,” CSI America Wiki. Accessed: Dec. 30, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://wiki.csiamerica.com/display/tp/Effect+of+insertion+point+on+beam+reactions.

[14] Ondrej, “Insertion point,” CSI America Wiki. Accessed: Dec. 30, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://wiki.csiamerica.com/display/kb/Insertion+point

[15] Dr. G. H. Powell, Modeling for Structural Analysis. Berkeley: CA: Computers and Structures, Inc., 2010.

[16] M. P. Fathurrachman, I. Satyarno, and D. Sulistyo, “Modeling’s Effect of Irregular Building Structure with Vegetated Roof on Seismic Evaluation per ASCE 41-17,” Semesta Teknika, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 168–181, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.18196/st.v27i2.22775.

[17] Y. Septiarsilia, E. Susanti, D. K. Fitriyah, Dewi Pertiwi, and Umbu Miron, “Seismic Performance Evaluation Of Building Structures Modified With Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBF),” Civilla : Jurnal Teknik Sipil Universitas Islam Lamongan, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 77–88, Apr. 2026, doi: 10.30736/cvl.v11i1.1617.