If beams are designed In ETABS ,then the slab as shell or membrane makes a

considerable difference.The shell model will give lesser design forces for beams as
the slab is dragged-in, to contribute in beam section.In case of membrane, the slab
effect on beam is almost nullified. Membrane option is conservative for beam design
,but why not take advantage of slab which is monolithic with beam.? probably shell
with reduced stiffness is an answer.

Further when we transfer the model to SAFE with beam and slab integrated &
design the beams ,the beams attract very less moments compared to "UDL" on
beam situation.Here the dilemma again starts ,because the beams forces and the
reinforcements are drastically different in these two cases. Again --why not take
beam and slab together and stop thinking about this comparison because this is the
reality.?(Probably in safe we should take beams as T sections.).

If we look at ACI 318 ,the stiffness modifiers to consider cracking (0.25 for slab),play
a role here.When 0.25 is applied in global model ,it considerably reduces the slab
participation in lateral load transfers but still considers the slab effect.

Hence I would say ;

For beam design in global 3D model ,consider shell with modifier 0.25.
For slab design in safe ,transfer the same ETABS model with slab.Take a call on
whether you want to design the beam by safe or continue with ETABS beam design.
*********

Membrane: used for conventional slab with beam.

Shell: is used for flat slab and wall.

Plate thin: is used for raft foundation where bending is predominant.

Plate thick: is used where shear is predominant.

**********

Shell Vs membrane is a very commonly debated topic among Etabs users.I

am sharing response I got from E-tabs tech support Please bear with long
description:

The rigid diaphragm assumes infinite in-plane stiffness of floors and

therefore reduce the
stiffness matrix. The semi-rigid diaphragm uses the inplane stiffness of slab
and does not condense the stiffness matrix. For most of the concrete
structure where slab is sufficiently thick and we do not expect any
deformation, results for semi-rigid diaphragm will be same as rigid
diaphragm. Can use membrane definition.

However, if you are expecting the slab deformations then modeling a semi-rigid diaphragm will be the correct way to handle such cases. A semi-rigid
diaphragm is same as assigning no diaphragm except it allows you to assign
the accidental ECC due to Wind or Seismic load cases. At the same time ,
wind loads can be applied at the center of masses and you do not need to
use Area Exposure method to define Wind load case for semi-rigid diaphragm
cases.Need to use shell definition.

There are three levels of modeling for floors in ETABS.

1. The simplest level is that the floor is modeled as one big polygon and is
used only to

define the extent of the floor. It is assigned meshing type - "For Defining
Rigid Diaphragm and Mass only (No stiffness - No vertical load transfer)" . It
is assigned a rigid diaphragm so it connects all elements falling within
laterally but is unable to transfer any vertical load. This model can be used
for a quick study of the lateral load resisting system.

2. The second level is a step higher in that the floor is meshed coarsely and
given only
membrane or deck properties. One could assign a rigid diaphragm if needed,
otherwise
connectivity is still provided through the coarse mesh. The vertical load is
transferred to
edges of coarse mesh and is either supported directly by columns or by
beams and walls on the edges. This is commonly used with composite floors
and can be used for thinner concrete floors where beams are designed for
full gravity loads and slab bending stiffness is not important to the lateral
analysis.

3. The third level is to have a decent mesh of the floor either done externally
or internally
that connects the major structural elements and also models the correct
bending stiffness of the floor for frame action with columns. This obviously is
the correct model and the reason to go to the previous two levels is to avoid
getting a huge model that takes too much time solving or cannot even be
solved on current hardware.