Research Article | | Peer-Reviewed

Performance Assessment of Commercial Building for Symmetric and Asymmetric Plan Configurations in Different Seismic Zones of Bangladesh Using ETABS

Received: 5 April 2024     Accepted: 17 April 2024     Published: 28 April 2024
Views:       Downloads:
Abstract

Bangladesh is among the nations most vulnerable to earthquakes worldwide. Being a developing country, it has been a challenging issue to ensure commercial prosperity along with safety against seismic hazards. Structural engineers also face difficulties in accurately designing buildings with maximum economy and efficiency. ETABS, a leading global engineering software with BNBC 2020 guidelines plays a vital role in these cases. In this study, analysis of a B+G+6 storied building for Symmetric & Asymmetric Plan configuration has been performed using ETABS software. Both kinds of structures have experienced a range of loads for example- dead loads, live loads, partition loads, wind loads, and seismic loads, as well as load combinations that have been pursued following BNBC 2020 requirements. The objective of this work is to evaluate the seismic impact resulting from varying seismic coefficients for four seismic zones in Bangladesh, given identical symmetric and asymmetric plan arrangements. Four required metrics were evaluated between the structural performances of symmetric and asymmetric structures: storey drift, overturning moment, storey shear, and storey stiffness. The structural software provided the analytical results and parameter computations. The comparison's result demonstrates that the asymmetric structure exhibits greater storey rigidity and less storey drift over the longer axis.

Published in American Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology (Volume 9, Issue 2)
DOI 10.11648/j.ajset.20240902.13
Page(s) 60-95
Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright

Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Symmetric & Asymmetric Plan, Commercial Building, Storey Drift, Overturning Moment, Storey Shear, Storey Stiffness, ETABS, BNBC 2020

1. Introduction
The seismic vulnerability of structures is a critical consideration in the design and construction of buildings, particularly in regions prone to seismic activity. Bangladesh, situated in a seismically active zone, faces unique challenges in ensuring the safety and resilience of its built environment. This research focuses on a comprehensive performance assessment of commercial buildings of both symmetric and asymmetric plan configurations across various seismic zones in Bangladesh. The behavior of structures will be compared responses in the form of storey drift, overturning moment, storey shear and stiffness for both plans .
Numerous elements, such as ground motion characteristics, material attributes, and structural geometry, affect a building's seismic performance. The uniform distribution of mass and stiffness found in symmetric structures has historically led to their favorability due to their apparent simplicity and balance. On the other hand, asymmetric structures depart from this homogeneity by displaying differences in stiffness, mass, or both along various axes. These differences may result from preferences for specific architectural designs, limitations on available space, or utilitarian needs.
Extended Three-Dimensional Analysis of Building Systems (ETABS), a popular engineering program, is an important tool for this research since it integrates all relevant forces- static, dynamic, linear, and non-direct into one integrated system. This tool is also used to calculate forces, bending moments, deformation, and deflection for a complicated underlying framework .

1.1. Symmetric & Asymmetric Plan

A symmetric plan in structural engineering refers to a building layout where the arrangement of structural components, spaces, and loads exhibits a mirror-like balance or proportionality about one or more axes. In a symmetrically designed building, the geometry and distribution of elements on one side are essentially identical or nearly identical to the other side. Symmetry is commonly observed in buildings with a central axis, resulting in a balanced and aesthetically pleasing design. Symmetric plans often simplify the analysis and design process, as the load distribution is more predictable.
On the other hand, an asymmetric plan in structural engineering refers to a building layout where the distribution of structural elements, spaces, and loads lacks mirror-like balance or proportionality about any axis. Asymmetry introduces intentional irregularities in the building's layout, which can impact its structural response to lateral loads, including seismic forces that can make the structure susceptible to damage . Thus, it requires additional engineering considerations to address potential torsional effects and uneven load distributions, especially in regions prone to seismic activity.

1.2. Seismic Zones of Bangladesh

According to the Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC)-2020, Bangladesh is divided into four seismic risk zones considering the severity of an earthquake. They are-
Figure 1. Seismic Zones (Four) in Bangladesh (www.researchgate.net, 2024).
Zone-I (seismic intensity: low), Zone-II (seismic intensity: moderate), Zone-III (seismic intensity: severe), and Zone-IV (seismic intensity: very severe). They have different seismic coefficients shown in the (Figure 1) map.

1.3. Statement of the Study

This paper offers comparative research on the performance of a B+G+6 story commercial building with both symmetric and asymmetric plan configurations. ETABS 2019 version was used for modelling and analysis of the structures. Load patterns and load combinations for this analysis were considered as per BNBC 2020, Indian IS 875:2015, and IS 1893:2016. For four desired parameters- storey drift, overturning moment, storey shear and stiffness, comparative analysis was done for different seismic zones of Bangladesh. Also, this study's evaluation of the deviation between software and manual calculation is another concern.

1.4. Objectives of the Study

1. To assess the multistory commercial building's seismic susceptibility with regard to storey drift, overturning moment, storey shear, and stiffness in Bangladesh's various seismic zones.
2. To compare the performance of symmetric and asymmetric buildings considering software and manual calculation.

1.5. Literature Review

The research was performed on comparative analysis of asymmetrical and symmetrical (T, L & H shape) structures for seismic load. T-shaped buildings showed the susceptible result to seismic load, whereas L-shaped and H-shaped buildings showed similar displacement. Overall symmetrical buildings performed better than asymmetrical which justifies our findings also in particular cases . The research was conducted on a comparative study on the lateral displacement of a multi-storey building under lateral load actions using the base shear method and ETABS. There was a little discrepancy between the base shear method and ETABS software. However, though the base shear approach could be utilized when there is no irregularity, ETABS result was superior for the overall condition. It justifies our research as the manual seismic load calculation process showed a small difference to ETABS . A G+10 structure was analyzed in three dimensions for various seismic zones in India. Various storey responses such as lateral load, storey drift, storey displacement & storey stiffness were determined by ETABS for different seismic zones. Whereas in this manuscript, comparative research was conducted for different seismic zones in Bangladesh . Another research was conducted on the (G+9) story building by the response spectrum method for seismic analysis. The response spectrum function was used to determine the maximum storey displacement, maximum storey drift, storey stiffness and storey shear. Also, these storey data were used to compare structures in this research . A case study was also performed on seismic analysis, design, and retrofit method which used various nonlinear force-deformation curves and response spectrum for analysis. Also, the retrofit method was studied for various existing vulnerable structures . As per BNBC 2020, a striking occurrence of three intended parameters- story displacement, story drift, and overturning moment- has been examined and contrasted across four seismic zones in Bangladesh for various plan configurations. Based on an analysis of the maximum percentage increase in maximum storey displacement, maximum storey drift, and maximum overturning moment of rectangular and H-shaped buildings compared to L-shaped buildings, it was determined that L-shaped buildings have the best overall economic design qualities . Regular shape plan configuration is advised in an ETABS analysis of the auxiliary conduct of a 12-story reinforced concrete frame structure with various shapes (rectangular shape, H, U, L, and plus shape). This is because irregular shape plan configurations experience more deformation than configurations . Lateral load analysis, especially seismic analysis can be done using various methods and can be compared with manual calculation following specific building codes. In a study on seismic analysis of multistoried buildings, the seismic coefficient method was adopted using the software ETABS and further analysis was recommended using the response spectrum and time history .
2. Methodology

2.1. Structural Model

For this study, a B+G+6 storied commercial building was chosen. Both symmetric (Figure 2) and asymmetric (Figure 3) floor plan for the commercial building was prepared by using AutoCAD. With symmetric designs, stability and balance were carefully considered, producing visually pleasing and robustly functional results. On the other hand, asymmetric structures were investigated, defying accepted conventions and embracing dynamic geometry. Each structure was created by meticulous planning and drafting with the proper integration of engineering principles. For both symmetric and asymmetric plans same number of columns and beams were used to emphasize enhanced acceptance through uniformity and optimized structural design. Internal loading arrangement has made the difference between symmetric and asymmetric structures. The dimensions for both structures were also kept same 148’6’’ in length and 75’6’’ in width.
Figure 2. Symmetric Plan View.
Figure 3. Asymmetric Plan View.
Figure 4. Symmetric Plan View (ETABS).
Figure 5. Asymmetric Plan View (ETABS).
Then both plans were taken for modelling in ETABS. Figure 4 shows the view of a typical floor of the symmetrical plan of the structure. Figure 5 shows the view of a typical floor of the asymmetrical plan of the structure. Suitable material and section properties (Tables 1, 2, 3) were chosen and different load patterns and load combinations (Tables 4, 5, 6) were applied as per BNBC 2020 for further analysis.
Figure 6. Symmetric Plan 3D View.
Figure 7. Asymmetric Plan 3D View.
The 3D model was generated automatically. Figure 6 shows the diagram of the symmetrical structure in 3D view. Figure 7 shows the diagram of the asymmetrical structure in 3D view. Then, using ETABS analysis, we examined the structure as well as the data on deflection, drift, storey shear, overturning moment, storey drift, etc. for various seismic risk zones. These facts served as the basis for the comparison.

2.2. Tables

Table 1. Material Properties.

Name

Type

Unit Weight, lb/ft2

Modulus of Elasticity, lb/in2

Grade

Concrete 4000psi

Concrete

150

3604996.53

f’c=4000psi

Rebar 60,000psi

Rebar

490

29000000

f’c=60000psi

Table 2. Frame Section Properties.

Name

Material

Section Shape

Beam 2’x 1.5’

Concrete 4000psi

Concrete Rectangular

Column 2’x 2’

Concrete 4000psi

Concrete Rectangular

Column 2.5’x 2.5’

Concrete 4000psi

Concrete Rectangular

Stair Beam 1’x 1’

Concrete 4000psi

Concrete Rectangular

Table 3. Shell Section Properties.

Name

Type

Element Type

Material

Thickness, in

Shear Wall Lift 8”

Wall

Shell-thin

Concrete 4000psi

8

Slab 8”

Slab

Membrane

Concrete 4000psi

8

Underground Slab 10”

Slab

Membrane

Concrete 4000psi

10

Waist Slab 8”

Slab

Membrane

Concrete 4000psi

8

Table 4. Seismic Properties.

Zone

Zone Coefficient

Wind Speed (m/s)

Zone-I (Rajshahi)

0.12

49.2

Zone-II (Dhaka)

0.20

65.7

Zone-III (Chittagong)

0.28

80.0

Zone-IV (Kurigram)

0.36

65.6

Table 5. Load Pattern.

Load

Type

Self-weight Multiplier

Auto Load

Dead

Dead

1

Self-weight

Live

Live

0

---

Floor Finish

Super Dead

0

---

Parapet Wall

Super Dead

0

---

Partition Load

Dead

0

---

Eq X

Seismic

0

IS 1893:2016

Eq Y

Seismic

0

IS 1893:2016

Wind Load X

Wind

0

Indian IS 875:2015

Wind Load Y

Wind

0

Indian IS 875:2015

Table 6. Load Combinations.

Sl. No.

Load Combination

Sl. No.

Load Combination

1

1.4DL

17

1.2DL +LL +0.3Ex - Ey

2

1.2DL+1.6LL

18

1.2DL +LL -0.3Ex + Ey

3

1.2 DL+LL

19

1.2DL +LL -0.3Ex - Ey

4

1.2DL +0.8 Wx

20

0.9 DL + Wx

5

1.2DL +0.8 Wy

21

0.9 DL + Wy

6

1.2DL -0.8 Wx

22

0.9 DL - Wx

7

1.2DL -0.8 Wy

23

0.9 DL - Wy

8

1.2 DL +LL + 1.6 Wx

24

0.823 DL + Ex + 0.3 Ey

9

1.2 DL +LL + 1.6 Wy

25

0.823 DL + Ex - 0.3 Ey

10

1.2 DL +LL - 1.6 Wx

26

0.823 DL - Ex + 0.3 Ey

11

1.2 DL +LL - 1.6 Wy

27

0.823 DL - Ex - 0.3 Ey

12

1.2DL +LL + Ex + 0.3 Ey

28

0.823 DL +0.3Ex + Ey

13

1.2DL +LL + Ex - 0.3 Ey

29

0.823 DL +0.3Ex - Ey

14

1.2DL +LL - Ex + 0.3 Ey

30

0.823 DL -0.3Ex + Ey

15

1.2DL +LL - Ex - 0.3 Ey

31

0.823 DL -0.3Ex - Ey

16

1.2DL +LL +0.3Ex + Ey

* DL = DL' + FF + PW

3. Result

3.1. Seismic Zone-I (z=0.12)

3.1.1. Maximum Storey Drift Due to Seismic Load

The variation in storey drift to storey along X-axis (longer direction) is displayed in Figure 8 and Table 9. It is visible from the figure that, drift drift is higher for symmetric cases along X-axis (longer direction).
Again, the variation in storey drift to storey along Y-axis (shorter direction) is displayed in Figure 9 and Table 10. It is portrayed from the figure that, drift is higher for asymmetric cases along Y-axis (shorter direction).
Drift is observed to be increased from the 2nd to 3rd floor and then decreased gradually for the other stories.
Figure 8. Variation in Storey Drift for Ex.
Figure 9. Variation in Storey Drift for Ey.

3.1.2. Overturning Moment Due to Seismic Load

The variation in overturning moment with respect to storey along X-axis is displayed in Figure 10 and Table 17. It is visible from the figure that, overturning moment for both symmetrical and asymmetrical plans is non-linear. The value is higher for asymmetric plan in this case.
Again, the variation in overturning moment with respect to storey along Y-axis is displayed in Figure 11 and Table 17. It is portrayed from the figure that, the moment for both symmetrical and asymmetrical plans is non-linear and the value is lesser for the asymmetric case.
The overturning moment is observed to be increased till the middle of the building height and then decreased giving parabolic shape to the graph.
Figure 10. Variation in Overturning Moment with respect to Ex.
Figure 11. Variation in Overturning Moment with respect to Ey.

3.1.3. Storey Shear Due to Seismic Load

The variation in storey shear with respect to storey along X-axis is displayed in Figure 12 and Table 9. It is visible from the figure that, storey shear for both symmetrical and asymmetrical plans is non-linear. The value is higher for asymmetric plan in this case.
Again, the variation in storey shear with respect to storey along Y-axis is displayed in Figure 13 and Table 10. It is portrayed from the figure that, the shear for both symmetrical and asymmetrical plans is non-linear and the value is lesser for the asymmetric case.
The shear for both cases gradually decreased with the increase in the height of the building.
Figure 12. Variation in Storey Shear with respect to Ex.
Figure 13. Variation in Storey Shear with respect to Ey.

3.1.4. Storey Stiffness Due to Seismic Load

The variation in storey stiffness with respect to storey along X-axis is displayed in Figure 14 and Table 9. Stiffness seemed to be higher for the asymmetric case as represented in the figure.
Again, the variation in storey stiffness with respect to storey along Y-axis is displayed in Figure 15 and Table 10. It is visible from the graph that stiffness is lesser for the asymmetric case but on the 6th floor, the value of stiffness seems to be the same for both cases.
Figure 14. Variation in Storey Stiffness with respect to Ex.
Figure 15. Variation in Storey Stiffness with respect to Ey.

3.2. Seismic Zone-II (z=0.20)

3.2.1. Maximum Storey Drift Due to Seismic Load

The variation in storey drift to storey along X-axis (longer direction) is displayed in Figure 16 and Table 11. It is visible from the figure that, drift drift is higher for symmetric cases along X-axis (longer direction).
Again, the variation in storey drift to storey along Y-axis (shorter direction) is displayed in Figure 17 and Table 12. It is portrayed from the figure that; drift is higher for asymmetric cases along Y-axis (shorter direction).
Drift is observed to be increased from the 2nd to 3rd floor and then decreased gradually for the other stories.
Figure 16. Variation in Storey Drift with respect to Ex.
Figure 17. Variation in Storey Drift with respect to Ey.

3.2.2. Overturning Moment Due to Seismic Load

The variation in overturning moment with respect to storey along X-axis is displayed in Figure 18 and Table 18. It is visible from the figure that, the overturning moment for both symmetrical and asymmetrical plans is non-linear. The value is higher for asymmetric plan in this case.
Again, variation in overturning moment with respect to storey along Y-axis is displayed in Figure 19 and Table 18. It is portrayed from the figure that, the moment for both symmetrical and asymmetrical plans is non-linear and the value is lesser for the asymmetric case.
Figure 18. Variation in Overturning Moment with respect to Ex.
Figure 19. Variation in Overturning Moment with respect to Ey.
The overturning moment is observed to be increased till the middle of the building height and then decreased giving a parabolic shape to the graph.

3.2.3. Storey Shear Due to Seismic Load

The variation in storey shear with respect to storey along X-axis is displayed in Figure 20 and Table 11. It is visible from the figure that, storey shear for both symmetrical and asymmetrical plans is non-linear. The value is higher for asymmetric plan in this case.
Again, the variation in storey shear with respect to storey along Y-axis is displayed in Figure 21 and Table 12. It is portrayed from the figure that, the shear for both symmetrical and asymmetrical plans is non-linear and the value is lesser for the asymmetric case.
The shear for both cases gradually decreased with the increase in the height of the building.
Figure 20. Variation in Storey Shear with respect to Ex.
Figure 21. Variation in Storey Shear with respect to Ey.

3.2.4. Storey Stiffness Due to Seismic Load

The variation in storey stiffness with respect to storey along X-axis is displayed in Figure 22 and Table 11. Stiffness is seemed to be higher for the asymmetric case as represented in the figure. Again, the variation in storey stiffness with respect to storey along Y-axis is displayed in Figure 23 and Table 12. It is visible from the graph that stiffness is lesser for asymmetric cases but on the 6th floor, value of stiffness seems to be the same for both cases.
Figure 22. Variation in Storey Stiffness with respect to Ex.
Figure 23. Variation in Storey Stiffness with respect to Ey.

3.3. Seismic Zone-III (z=0.28)

3.3.1. Maximum Storey Drift Due to Seismic Load

The variation in storey drift to storey along X-axis (longer direction) is portrayed in Figure 24 and Table 13. It is visible from the figure that, drift drift is higher for symmetric cases along X-axis (longer direction).
Again, the variation in storey drift to storey along Y-axis (shorter direction) is displayed in Figure 25 and Table 14. It is depicted from the figure that; drift is higher for asymmetric cases along Y-axis (shorter direction).
Drift is observed to be increased from the 2nd to 3rd floor and then decreased gradually for the other stories.
Figure 24. Variation in Storey Drift with respect to Ex.
Figure 25. Variation in Storey Drift with respect to Ey.

3.3.2. Overturning Moment Due to Seismic Load

The variation in overturning moment with respect to storey along X-axis is portrayed in Figure 26 and Table 19. It is visible from the figure that, the overturning moment for both symmetrical and asymmetrical plans is non-linear. The value is higher for asymmetric plan in this case.
Again, the variation in overturning moment with respect to storey along Y-axis is displayed in Figure 27 and Table 19. It is portrayed from the figure that, the moment for both symmetrical and asymmetrical plan is non-linear and the value is lesser for asymmetric case.
The overturning moment is observed to be increased till the middle of the building height and then decreased giving parabolic shape to the graph.
Figure 26. Variation in Overturning Moment with respect to Ex.
Figure 27. Variation in Overturning Moment with respect to Ey.

3.3.3. Storey Shear Due to Seismic Load

The variation in storey shear with respect to storey along X-axis is displayed in Figure 28 and Table 13. It is visible from the figure that, storey shear for both symmetrical and asymmetrical plans is non-linear. The value is higher for asymmetric plan in this case.
Figure 28. Variation in Storey Shear with respect to Ex.
Figure 29. Variation in Storey Shear with respect to Ey.
Again, variation in storey shear with respect to storey along Y-axis is portrayed in Figure 29 and Table 14. It is visible from the figure that, the shear for both symmetrical and asymmetrical plan is non-linear and the value is lesser for asymmetric case.
The shear for both cases gradually decreased with the increase of the height of the building.

3.3.4. Storey Stiffness Due to Seismic Load

The variation in storey stiffness with respect to storey along X-axis is displayed in Figure 30 and Table 13. Stiffness seemed to be higher for the asymmetric case as represented in the figure.
Figure 30. Variation in Storey Stiffness with respect to Ex.
Figure 31. Variation in Storey Stiffness with respect to Ey.
Again, the variation in storey stiffness with respect to storey along Y-axis is displayed in Figure 31 and Table 14. It is visible from the graph that stiffness is lesser for asymmetric case but at the 6th floor, value of stiffness seems to be same for both the case.

3.4. Seismic Zone-IV (z=0.36)

3.4.1. Maximum Storey Drift Due to Seismic Load

The variation in storey drift to storey along X-axis (longer direction) is displayed in Figure 32 and Table 15. It is visible from the figure that, drift drift is higher for symmetric cases along X-axis (longer direction).
Again, the variation in storey drift to storey along Y-axis (shorter direction) is displayed in Figure 33 and Table 16. It is portrayed from the figure that; drift is higher for asymmetric cases along Y-axis (shorter direction).
Drift is observed to be increased from the 2nd to 3rd floor and then decreased gradually for the other stories.
Figure 32. Variation in Storey Drift with respect to Ex.
Figure 33. Variation in Storey Drift with respect to Ey.

3.4.2. Overturning Moment Due to Seismic Load

The variation in overturning moment with respect to storey along X-axis is displayed in Figure 34 and Table 20. It is visible from the figure that, overturning moment for both symmetrical and asymmetrical plan is non-linear. The value is higher for asymmetric plan in this case.
Again, variation in overturning moment with respect to storey along Y-axis is displayed in Figure 35 and Table 20. It is portrayed from the figure that, the moment for both symmetrical and asymmetrical plans is non-linear and the value is lesser for the asymmetric case.
The overturning moment is observed to be increased till the middle of the building height and then decreased giving parabolic shape to the graph.
Figure 34. Variation in Overturning Moment with respect to Ex.
Figure 35. Variation in Overturning Moment with respect to Ey.

3.4.3. Storey Shear Due to Seismic Load

The variation in storey shear with respect to storey along X-axis is displayed in Figure 36 and Table 15. It is visible from the figure that, storey shear for both symmetrical and asymmetrical plan is non-linear. The value is higher for asymmetric plan in this case.
Again, the variation in storey shear with respect to storey along Y-axis is displayed in Figure 37 and Table 16. It is portrayed from the figure that, the shear for both symmetrical and asymmetrical plans is non-linear and the value is lesser for the asymmetric case.
The shear for both cases gradually decreased with the increase of the height of the building.
Figure 36. Variation in Storey Shear with respect to Ex.
Figure 37. Variation in Storey Shear with respect to Ey.

3.4.4. Storey Stiffness Due to Seismic Load

The variation in storey stiffness with respect to storey along X-axis is displayed in Figure 38 and Table 15. Stiffness seemed to be higher for the asymmetric case as represented in the figure.
Again, the variation in storey stiffness with respect to storey along Y-axis is displayed in Figure 39 and Table 16. It is visible from the graph that stiffness is lesser for asymmetric cases but at the 6th floor, value of stiffness seems to be the same for both cases.
Figure 38. Variation in Storey Stiffness with respect to Ex.
Figure 39. Variation in Storey Stiffness with respect to Ey.

3.5. Comparison Between ETABS & Manual Calculation

A manual calculation is performed using traditional method and MS Excel software to calculate the applied lateral force for both “X” and “Y” directions at every story. The lateral force values found from both ETABS and Excel have been compared for both symmetric and asymmetric structures. All manual calculations have been performed by following BNBC 2020.

3.5.1. For Symmetric Plan

The variation in seismic force with respect to storey height for the symmetric plan view is portrayed in Table 7.
Table 7. ETABS vs Manual Calculation for Symmetrical.

Horizontal Force Act on Floor Due to Seismic Action-Symmetrical

Story

Elevation (ft)

X-Dir-ETABS (kip)

Y-Dir-ETABS (kip)

X-Dir-EXCEL (kip)

Y-Dir-EXCEL (kip)

Upper Roof

91

32.71

33.70

57.92

56.99

Roof

81

926.49

954.43

784.49

617.53

Story6

71

767.44

790.58

635.91

482.69

Story5

61

570.91

588.13

463.34

379.93

Story4

51

401.99

414.11

318.80

250.95

Story3

41

259.95

267.79

201.92

149.01

Story2

31

148.72

153.21

112.29

73.66

Story1

21

68.27

70.33

49.35

24.28

GF

11

19.35

19.94

12.35

6.08

Underground

1

0.59

0.61

0.47

0.19

Figure 40. Variation in Ex with respect to Storey Height.
The variation in seismic force along X-axis with respect to storey height for the symmetric plan view is portrayed in Figure 40. Again, the variation in seismic force along Y-axis with respect to storey height for the symmetric plan view is displayed in Figure 41.
Figure 41. Variation in Ey with respect to Storey Height.
From the graph, the difference of value is near between ETABS and manual calculation at X axis. Which can be acceptable. But in Y axis, the horizontal force value varies much from story 5 to roof. This may happen because we have used complex load distribution in ETABS but in Excel, we used the total possible building load; for which ETABS shows superior values.
For the safety of the structure, software calculated value was considered for the design of the structure.

3.5.2. For Asymmetric Plan

The variation in seismic force with respect to storey height for the symmetric plan view is displayed in Table 8.
Table 8. ETABS vs Manual Calculation for Asymmetrical.

Horizontal Force Act on Floor Due to Seismic Action-Asymmetrical

Story

Elevation (ft)

X-Dir-ETABS (kip)

Y-Dir-ETABS (kip)

X-Dir-EXCEL (kip)

Y-Dir-EXCEL (kip)

Upper Roof

91

71.95

57.87

32.18

31.66

Roof

81

534.47

429.85

435.83

343.07

Story6

71

462.25

371.76

353.28

268.16

Story5

61

341.34

274.52

257.41

211.07

Story4

51

238.60

191.89

177.11

139.42

Story3

41

154.20

124.02

112.18

82.79

Story2

31

88.18

70.92

62.38

40.92

Story1

21

40.48

32.56

27.41

13.49

GF

11

11.31

9.10

6.86

3.38

Underground

1

0.32

0.26

0.26

0.10

The variation in seismic force along X-axis with respect to storey height for the asymmetric plan view is displayed in Figure 42. And the variation in seismic force along Y-axis with respect to storey height for the asymmetric plan view is portrayed in Figure 43.
Figure 42. Variation in Ex with respect to Storey Height.
Figure 43. Variation in Ey with respect to Storey Height.
From the graph, the difference in value is near between ETABS and manual calculation at both X & Y axis; Which can be acceptable. The variation may happen because ETABS used complex load distribution but in manual approach, we used the total possible building load; for which ETABS shows superior values.
We observed Asymmetric structure shows better acceptance compared to Symmetric structure; as variation is close at both axes between ETABS and manual calculation.
However, For the safety of the structure, software calculated value was considered for the design of the structure.
4. Discussions
From our research, we have found that-
The symmetric structure has more drift along length, more stiffness along width, and more overturning moment along width.
The Asymmetric structure has more drift along width, more stiffness along length, and more overturning moment along length.
From these, we have reached a decision that-
1. The symmetric structure may be considered better in terms of stiffness along the width and resistance to overturning moment along the width.
2. The asymmetric structure may be considered better in terms of drift along the width and stiffness along the length.
In summary, the specific project requirements, including the direction and magnitude of loads, the desired performance criteria such as- minimizing drift, maximizing stiffness, resisting overturning moments, and other factors like construction constraints and cost considerations, all play a role in determining which structure is better. Greater resistance to overturning moments in a certain direction would be preferred if that direction is required by the design.
However, an important factor is how a structure is called symmetric or asymmetric. A symmetric structure can be symmetric along both axis or either one. Again, a symmetric-looking structure can be asymmetric by internal loading arrangement. In this manuscript, emphasis has been given on the loading. For such reason, same number of columns and beams has been used in both structures and arranged differently.
5. Conclusion
From our observation, we can conclude that-
i. Symmetric structure performed better in terms of drift and stiffness along width; overturning moment and shear along length.
ii. Asymmetric structure performed better in terms of drift and stiffness along the length; overturning moment and shear along the width.
iii. The symmetric structure may be somewhat better in the absence of particular project needs or priorities because of its improved ability to withstand overturning moments along its width—a crucial factor in many structural designs. Also, symmetric structure may be preferable due to its lower drift along the width. The finding also matched the generalized preference of Engineers as asymmetricity may impose additional torsion and sway. However, the asymmetric structure might be preferred if increasing stiffness is a crucial requirement for specific construction because it has more stiffness along its length.
iv. The comparison of seismic force between manual and software calculation is another concerning interest of this study, the graphical evaluation represents a slight deviation between both the calculations. The difference may have caused due to the use of sophisticated load distribution in ETABS compared to the use of the total possible building load in the manual technique, for which ETABS offers superior figures. We observed asymmetric structure exhibits higher acceptability than symmetric structure because the difference between ETABS and manual computation is much closer throughout both axes compared to symmetric.
Abbreviations
BNBC: Bangladesh National Building Code
ETABS: Extended Three-Dimensional Analysis of Building System
EQX: Earthquake Load in X Direction
EQY: Earthquake Load in Y Direction
WX: Wind Load in X Direction
WY: Wind Load in Y Direction
psf: Pounds Per Square Foot
ksf: Kilo-pound Per Square Foot
Acknowledgments
In the beginning, the authors are grateful to almighty ALLAH. The authors wish to express their profound gratitude and honest appreciation to all the honorable teachers from the Department of Civil Engineering, Rajshahi University of Engineering and Technology for their proper guidance, valuable advice, inspiration and persistent help in the completion of the research work. In addition, we would also like to thank our parents for their wise counsel and motivation to do this research work.
Author Contributions
Md. Sohel Rana: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Project administration, Supervision.
Syed Fardin Bin Kabir: Software, Formal Analysis, Writing – original draft.
Samiha Tabassum Sami: Investigation, Visualization, Resources.
Md. Mahin Shahriar: Data curation, Methodology, Validation.
Funding
The research work was conducted without the support of any specific funding. The work was completed as a part of the author's individual research activities, which they recognize.
Data Availability Statement
1. The data available from the corresponding author can be provided for verification purposes.
2. The data supporting the outcome of this research has also been mentioned in this manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Appendix
All the additional tables that justify the findings of this manuscript are provided as follows-
Table 9. Storey Shear, Storey Drift and Storey Stiffness for Symmetric Structure when Z=0.12.

Story Data- Symmetrical Structure

Story

Case

Shear X- Symmetrical

Drift X- Symmetrical

Stiff X- Symmetrical

Shear Y- Symmetrical

Drift Y- Symmetrical

Stiff Y- Symmetrical

(kip)

(kip/in)

(kip)

(kip/in)

Upper Roof

Eq X

10.903

0.00036

283.7037

0

-

0

Roof

Eq X

319.733

0.000357

7241.6954

0

-

0

6th Floor

Eq X

575.545

0.000543

9402.8999

0

-

0

5th Floor

Eq X

765.849

0.000678

10545.9857

0

-

0

4th Floor

Eq X

899.845

0.000782

11017.7181

0

-

0

3rd Floor

Eq X

986.494

0.000838

11365.5951

0

-

0

2nd Floor

Eq X

1036.067

0.00084

11956.0186

0

-

0

1st Floor

Eq X

1058.822

0.00072

14675.5982

0

-

0

GF

Eq X

1065.273

0.000371

26113.5454

0

-

0

Underground

Eq X

1065.47

0.000031

3118623.621

0

-

0

Upper Roof

Eq Y

0

-

0

11.232

0.000414

257.0164

Roof

Eq Y

0

-

0

329.375

0.000423

6959.2916

6th Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

592.902

0.00061

9280.1365

5th Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

788.945

0.000757

10359.3911

4th Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

926.982

0.000863

10955.4339

3rd Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

1016.244

0.000916

11555.3489

2nd Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

1067.312

0.000898

12712.0519

1st Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

1090.754

0.000789

16668.4111

GF

Eq Y

0

-

0

1097.4

0.000496

28514.5306

Underground

Eq Y

0

-

0

1097.602

0.00004

3343496.276

Table 10. Storey Shear, Storey Drift and Storey Stiffness for Asymmetric Structure when Z=0.12.

Story Data-Asymmetrical Structure

Story

Case

Shear X- Asymmetrical

Drift X- Asymmetrical

Stiff X- Asymmetrical

Shear Y- Asymmetrical

Drift Y- Asymmetrical

Stiff Y- Asymmetrical

(kip)

(kip/in)

(kip)

(kip/in)

Upper Roof

Eq X

42.766

0.000322

1043.3535

0

-

0

Roof

Eq X

360.728

0.000317

8362.0607

0

-

0

Story6

Eq X

635.734

0.000461

10974.5249

0

-

0

Story5

Eq X

838.806

0.000586

12105.8438

0

-

0

Story4

Eq X

980.754

0.000675

12771.3469

0

-

0

Story3

Eq X

1072.485

0.000726

13388.8204

0

-

0

Story2

Eq X

1124.943

0.000733

14565.8617

0

-

0

Story1

Eq X

1149.025

0.000658

19336.835

0

-

0

GF

Eq X

1155.75

0.000318

33465.9957

0

-

0

Underground

Eq X

1155.941

0.00004

2665366.323

0

-

0

Upper Roof

Eq Y

0

-

0

34.623

0.000256

1162.4255

Roof

Eq Y

0

-

0

292.038

0.000415

7635.9501

Story6

Eq Y

0

-

0

514.678

0.000676

9151.027

Story5

Eq Y

0

-

0

679.081

0.000898

9477.5899

Story4

Eq Y

0

-

0

793.999

0.001058

9620.2314

Story3

Eq Y

0

-

0

868.263

0.001155

9824.6743

Story2

Eq Y

0

-

0

910.732

0.001174

10439.8795

Story1

Eq Y

0

-

0

930.228

0.001012

13274.3293

GF

Eq Y

0

-

0

935.672

0.000451

26305.6606

Underground

Eq Y

0

-

0

935.828

0.00005

2175045.588

Table 11. Storey Shear, Storey Drift and Storey Stiffness for Symmetric Structure when Z=0.20.

Story Data - Symmetrical Structure

Story

Case

Shear X- Symmetrical

Drift X- Symmetrical

Stiff X- Symmetrical

Shear Y- Symmetrical

Drift Y- Symmetrical

Stiff Y- Symmetrical

(kip)

(kip/in)

(kip)

(kip/in)

Upper Roof

Eq X

18.171

0.000601

283.7037

0

-

0

Roof

Eq X

532.888

0.000596

7241.6954

0

-

0

6th Floor

Eq X

959.241

0.000908

9402.8999

0

-

0

5th Floor

Eq X

1276.415

0.001131

10545.9857

0

-

0

4th Floor

Eq X

1499.742

0.001304

11017.7181

0

-

0

3rd Floor

Eq X

1644.156

0.001398

11365.5951

0

-

0

2nd Floor

Eq X

1726.778

0.001401

11956.0186

0

-

0

1st Floor

Eq X

1764.704

0.001199

14675.5982

0

-

0

GF

Eq X

1775.455

0.000616

26113.5454

0

-

0

Underground

Eq X

1775.783

0.000052

3118623.621

0

-

0

Upper Roof

Eq Y

0

-

0

18.719

0.000699

257.0164

Roof

Eq Y

0

-

0

548.959

0.000711

6959.2916

6th Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

988.169

0.001024

9280.1365

5th Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

1314.909

0.001268

10359.3911

4th Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

1544.971

0.001445

10955.4339

3rd Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

1693.74

0.001532

11555.3489

2nd Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

1778.854

0.001502

12712.0519

1st Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

1817.924

0.001318

16668.4111

GF

Eq Y

0

-

0

1828.999

0.000826

28514.5306

Underground

Eq Y

0

-

0

1829.336

0.000067

3343496.276

Table 12. Storey Shear, Storey Drift and Storey Stiffness for Asymmetric Structure when Z=0.20.

Story Data -Asymmetrical Structure

Story

Case

Shear X- Asymmetrical

Drift X- Asymmetrical

Stiff X- Asymmetrical

Shear Y- Asymmetrical

Drift Y- Asymmetrical

Stiff Y- Asymmetrical

(kip)

(kip/in)

(kip)

(kip/in)

Upper Roof

Eq X

71.277

0.00058

1043.3535

0

-

0

Roof

Eq X

601.213

0.000541

8362.0607

0

-

0

Story6

Eq X

1059.557

0.000787

10974.5249

0

-

0

Story5

Eq X

1398.009

0.000994

12105.8438

0

-

0

Story4

Eq X

1634.59

0.00114

12771.3469

0

-

0

Story3

Eq X

1787.476

0.001223

13388.8204

0

-

0

Story2

Eq X

1874.905

0.001233

14565.8617

0

-

0

Story1

Eq X

1915.041

0.001103

19336.835

0

-

0

GF

Eq X

1926.249

0.000531

33465.9957

0

-

0

Underground

Eq X

1926.569

0.000066

2665366.323

0

-

0

Upper Roof

Eq Y

0

-

0

57.705

0.000441

1162.4255

Roof

Eq Y

0

-

0

486.73

0.00069

7635.9501

Story6

Eq Y

0

-

0

857.796

0.001124

9151.027

Story5

Eq Y

0

-

0

1131.801

0.001495

9477.5899

Story4

Eq Y

0

-

0

1323.332

0.001762

9620.2314

Story3

Eq Y

0

-

0

1447.105

0.001923

9824.6743

Story2

Eq Y

0

-

0

1517.887

0.001956

10439.8795

Story1

Eq Y

0

-

0

1550.38

0.001687

13274.3293

GF

Eq Y

0

-

0

1559.454

0.000751

26305.6606

Underground

Eq Y

0

-

0

1559.713

0.000084

2175045.588

Table 13. Storey Shear, Storey Drift and Storey Stiffness for Symmetric Structure when Z=0.28.

Story Data - Symmetrical Structure

Story

Case

Shear X- Symmetrical

Drift X- Symmetrical

Stiff X- Symmetrical

Shear Y- Symmetrical

Drift Y- Symmetrical

Stiff Y- Symmetrical

(kip)

(kip/in)

(kip)

(kip/in)

Upper Roof

Eq X

25.44

0.000842

283.7037

0

-

0

Roof

Eq X

746.044

0.000835

7241.6954

0

-

0

6th Floor

Eq X

1342.937

0.001272

9402.8999

0

-

0

5th Floor

Eq X

1786.981

0.001585

10545.9857

0

-

0

4th Floor

Eq X

2099.638

0.001827

11017.7181

0

-

0

3rd Floor

Eq X

2301.819

0.001958

11365.5951

0

-

0

2nd Floor

Eq X

2417.49

0.001962

11956.0186

0

-

0

1st Floor

Eq X

2470.586

0.001678

14675.5982

0

-

0

GF

Eq X

2485.638

0.000864

26113.5454

0

-

0

Underground

Eq X

2486.096

0.000072

3118623.621

0

-

0

Upper Roof

Eq Y

0

-

0

26.207

0.001018

257.0164

Roof

Eq Y

0

-

0

768.542

0.001

6959.2916

6th Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

1383.437

0.001438

9280.1365

5th Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

1840.873

0.00178

10359.3911

4th Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

2162.959

0.002027

10955.4339

3rd Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

2371.236

0.002148

11555.3489

2nd Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

2490.396

0.002107

12712.0519

1st Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

2545.093

0.001847

16668.4111

GF

Eq Y

0

-

0

2560.599

0.001155

28514.5306

Underground

Eq Y

0

-

0

2561.071

0.000094

3343496.276

Table 14. Storey Shear, Storey Drift and Storey Stiffness for Asymmetric Structure when Z=0.28.

Story Data -Asymmetrical Structure

Story

Case

Shear X- Asymmetrical

Drift X- Asymmetrical

Stiff X- Asymmetrical

Shear Y- Asymmetrical

Drift Y- Asymmetrical

Stiff Y- Asymmetrical

(kip)

(kip/in)

(kip)

(kip/in)

Upper Roof

Eq X

99.788

0.000838

1043.3535

0

-

0

Roof

Eq X

841.698

0.000765

8362.0607

0

-

0

Story6

Eq X

1483.379

0.001112

10974.5249

0

-

0

Story5

Eq X

1957.213

0.001402

12105.8438

0

-

0

Story4

Eq X

2288.425

0.001605

12771.3469

0

-

0

Story3

Eq X

2502.466

0.00172

13388.8204

0

-

0

Story2

Eq X

2624.868

0.001732

14565.8617

0

-

0

Story1

Eq X

2681.058

0.001548

19336.835

0

-

0

GF

Eq X

2696.749

0.000745

33465.9957

0

-

0

Underground

Eq X

2697.196

0.000092

2665366.323

0

-

0

Upper Roof

Eq Y

0

-

0

80.787

0.000626

1162.4255

Roof

Eq Y

0

-

0

681.422

0.000964

7635.9501

Story6

Eq Y

0

-

0

1200.915

0.001572

9151.027

Story5

Eq Y

0

-

0

1584.522

0.002092

9477.5899

Story4

Eq Y

0

-

0

1852.665

0.002465

9620.2314

Story3

Eq Y

0

-

0

2025.948

0.002692

9824.6743

Story2

Eq Y

0

-

0

2125.042

0.002738

10439.8795

Story1

Eq Y

0

-

0

2170.532

0.002362

13274.3293

GF

Eq Y

0

-

0

2183.236

0.001052

26305.6606

Underground

Eq Y

0

-

0

2183.598

0.000117

2175045.588

Table 15. Storey Shear, Storey Drift and Storey Stiffness for Symmetric Structure when Z=0.36.

Story Data - Symmetrical Structure

Story

Case

Shear X- Symmetrical

Drift X- Symmetrical

Stiff X- Symmetrical

Shear Y- Symmetrical

Drift Y- Symmetrical

Stiff Y- Symmetrical

(kip)

(kip/in)

(kip)

(kip/in)

Upper Roof

Eq X

32.708

0.001084

283.7037

0

-

0

Roof

Eq X

959.199

0.001074

7241.6954

0

-

0

6th Floor

Eq X

1726.634

0.001636

9402.8999

0

-

0

5th Floor

Eq X

2297.548

0.002039

10545.9857

0

-

0

4th Floor

Eq X

2699.535

0.002349

11017.7181

0

-

0

3rd Floor

Eq X

2959.481

0.002518

11365.5951

0

-

0

2nd Floor

Eq X

3108.201

0.002523

11956.0186

0

-

0

1st Floor

Eq X

3176.467

0.002157

14675.5982

0

-

0

GF

Eq X

3195.82

0.001112

26113.5454

0

-

0

Underground

Eq X

3196.409

0.000093

3118623.621

0

-

0

Upper Roof

Eq Y

0

-

0

33.695

0.00127

257.0164

Roof

Eq Y

0

-

0

988.126

0.001288

6959.2916

6th Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

1778.705

0.001852

9280.1365

5th Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

2366.836

0.002291

10359.3911

4th Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

2780.947

0.002609

10955.4339

3rd Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

3048.732

0.002765

11555.3489

2nd Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

3201.937

0.002711

12712.0519

1st Floor

Eq Y

0

-

0

3272.262

0.002376

16668.4111

GF

Eq Y

0

-

0

3292.199

0.001485

28514.5306

Underground

Eq Y

0

-

0

3292.805

0.000121

3343496.276

Table 16. Storey Shear, Storey Drift and Storey Stiffness for Asymmetric Structure when Z=0.36.

Story Data -Asymmetrical Structure

Story

Case

Shear X- Asymmetrical

Drift X- Asymmetrical

Stiff X- Asymmetrical

Shear Y- Asymmetrical

Drift Y- Asymmetrical

Stiff Y- Asymmetrical

(kip)

(kip/in)

(kip)

(kip/in)

Upper Roof

Eq X

128.299

0.001096

1043.3535

0

-

0

Roof

Eq X

1082.183

0.000988

8362.0607

0

-

0

Story6

Eq X

1907.202

0.001438

10974.5249

0

-

0

Story5

Eq X

2516.417

0.00181

12105.8438

0

-

0

Story4

Eq X

2942.261

0.002071

12771.3469

0

-

0

Story3

Eq X

3217.456

0.002217

13388.8204

0

-

0

Story2

Eq X

3374.83

0.002231

14565.8617

0

-

0

Story1

Eq X

3447.074

0.001993

19336.835

0

-

0

GF

Eq X

3467.249

0.000959

33465.9957

0

-

0

Underground

Eq X

3467.824

0.000119

2665366.323

0

-

0

Upper Roof

Eq Y

0

-

0

103.869

0.000811

1162.4255

Roof

Eq Y

0

-

0

876.114

0.001238

7635.9501

Story6

Eq Y

0

-

0

1544.034

0.002021

9151.027

Story5

Eq Y

0

-

0

2037.242

0.002689

9477.5899

Story4

Eq Y

0

-

0

2381.997

0.003169

9620.2314

Story3

Eq Y

0

-

0

2604.79

0.00346

9824.6743

Story2

Eq Y

0

-

0

2732.197

0.00352

10439.8795

Story1

Eq Y

0

-

0

2790.684

0.003036

13274.3293

GF

Eq Y

0

-

0

2807.017

0.001352

26305.6606

Underground

Eq Y

0

-

0

2807.483

0.000151

2175045.588

Table 17. Overturning Moment for Symmetric and Asymmetric Structure when Z=0.12.

Level

Elevation

Symmetric Structure; z=0.12

Asymmetric Structure; z=0.12

Story Force/Shear (Vx)

Overturning Moment-X direction

Story Force/Shear (Vy)

Overturning Moment-Y direction

Story Force/Shear (Vx)

Overturning Moment-X direction

Story Force/Shear (Vy)

Overturning Moment-Y direction

Underground

1

-1065.47

1065.47

-1097.602

1097.602

-1155.941

1155.941

-935.828

935.828

GF

11

-1065.273

11718.003

-1097.4

12071.4

-1155.75

12713.25

-935.672

10292.392

Story 1

21

-1058.822

22235.262

-1090.754

22905.834

-1149.025

24129.525

-930.228

19534.788

Story 2

31

-1036.067

32118.077

-1067.312

33086.672

-1124.943

34873.233

-910.732

28232.692

Story 3

41

-986.494

40446.254

-1016.244

41666.004

-1072.485

43971.885

-868.263

35598.783

Story 4

51

-899.845

45892.095

-926.982

47276.082

-980.754

50018.454

-793.999

40493.949

Story 5

61

-765.849

46716.789

-788.945

48125.645

-838.806

51167.166

-679.081

41423.941

Story 6

71

-575.545

40863.695

-592.902

42096.042

-635.734

45137.114

-514.678

36542.138

Roof

81

-319.733

25898.373

-329.375

26679.375

-360.728

29218.968

-292.038

23655.078

Upper Roof

91

-10.903

992.173

-11.232

1022.112

-42.766

3891.706

-34.623

3150.693

Table 18. Overturning Moment for Symmetric and Asymmetric Structure when Z=0.20.

Level

Elevation

Symmetric Structure; z=0.20

Asymmetric Structure; z=0.20

Story Force/Shear (Vx)

Overturning Moment-X direction

Story Force/Shear (Vy)

Overturning Moment-Y direction

Story Force/Shear (Vx)

Overturning Moment-X direction

Story Force/Shear (Vy)

Overturning Moment-Y direction

Underground

1

-1775.783

1775.783

-1829.336

1829.336

-1926.569

1926.569

-1559.713

1559.713

GF

11

-1775.455

19530.005

-1828.999

20118.989

-1926.249

21188.739

-1559.454

17153.994

Story 1

21

-1764.704

37058.784

-1817.924

38176.404

-1915.041

40215.861

-1550.38

32557.98

Story 2

31

-1726.778

53530.118

-1778.854

55144.474

-1874.905

58122.055

-1517.887

47054.497

Story 3

41

-1644.156

67410.396

-1693.74

69443.34

-1787.476

73286.516

-1447.105

59331.305

Story 4

51

-1499.742

76486.842

-1544.971

78793.521

-1634.59

83364.09

-1323.332

67489.932

Story 5

61

-1276.415

77861.315

-1314.909

80209.449

-1398.009

85278.549

-1131.801

69039.861

Story 6

71

-959.241

68106.111

-988.169

70159.999

-1059.557

75228.547

-857.796

60903.516

Roof

81

-532.888

43163.928

-548.959

44465.679

-601.213

48698.253

-486.73

39425.13

Upper Roof

91

-18.171

1653.561

-18.719

1703.429

-71.277

6486.207

-57.705

5251.155

Table 19. Overturning Moment for Symmetric and Asymmetric Structure when Z=0.28.

Level

Elevation

Symmetric Structure; z=0.28

Asymmetric Structure; z=0.28

Story Force/Shear (Vx)

Overturning Moment-X direction

Story Force/Shear (Vy)

Overturning Moment-Y direction

Story Force/Shear (Vx)

Overturning Moment-X direction

Story Force/Shear (Vy)

Overturning Moment-Y direction

Underground

1

-2486.096

2486.096

-2561.071

2561.071

-2697.196

2697.196

-2183.598

2183.598

GF

11

-2485.638

27342.018

-2560.599

28166.589

-2696.749

29664.239

-2183.236

24015.596

Story 1

21

-2470.586

51882.306

-2545.093

53446.953

-2681.058

56302.218

-2170.532

45581.172

Story 2

31

-2417.49

74942.19

-2490.396

77202.276

-2624.868

81370.908

-2125.042

65876.302

Story 3

41

-2301.819

94374.579

-2371.236

97220.676

-2502.466

102601.10

-2025.948

83063.868

Story 4

51

-2099.638

107081.53

-2162.959

110310.90

-2288.425

116709.67

-1852.665

94485.915

Story 5

61

-1786.981

109005.84

-1840.873

112293.25

-1957.213

119389.99

-1584.522

96655.842

Story 6

71

-1342.937

95348.527

-1383.437

98224.027

-1483.379

105319.90

-1200.915

85264.965

Roof

81

-746.044

60429.564

-768.542

62251.902

-841.698

68177.538

-681.422

55195.182

Upper Roof

91

-25.44

2315.04

-26.207

2384.837

-99.788

9080.708

-80.787

7351.617

Table 20. Overturning Moment for Symmetric and Asymmetric Structure when Z=0.36.

Level

Elevation

Symmetric Structure; z=0.36

Asymmetric Structure; z=0.36

Story Force/Shear (Vx)

Overturning Moment-X direction

Story Force/Shear (Vy)

Overturning Moment-Y direction

Story Force/Shear (Vx)

Overturning Moment-X direction

Story Force/Shear (Vy)

Overturning Moment-Y direction

Underground

1

-3196.409

3196.409

-3292.805

3292.805

-3467.824

3467.824

-2807.483

2807.483

GF

11

-3195.82

35154.02

-3292.199

36214.189

-3467.249

38139.739

-2807.017

30877.187

Story 1

21

-3176.467

66705.807

-3272.262

68717.502

-3447.074

72388.554

-2790.684

58604.364

Story 2

31

-3108.201

96354.231

-3201.937

99260.047

-3374.83

104619.73

-2732.197

84698.107

Story 3

41

-2959.481

121338.72

-3048.732

124998.01

-3217.456

131915.69

-2604.79

106796.39

Story 4

51

-2699.535

137676.28

-2780.947

141828.29

-2942.261

150055.31

-2381.997

121481.84

Story 5

61

-2297.548

140150.42

-2366.836

144376.99

-2516.417

153501.43

-2037.242

124271.76

Story 6

71

-1726.634

122591.01

-1778.705

126288.05

-1907.202

135411.34

-1544.034

109626.41

Roof

81

-959.199

77695.119

-988.126

80038.206

-1082.183

87656.823

-876.114

70965.234

Upper Roof

91

-32.708

2976.428

-33.695

3066.245

-128.299

11675.209

-103.869

9452.079

References
[1] Munshi, Sarfaraj, and M. S. Bhandiwad. Seismic Analysis of Regular and Vertical Irregular RC Buildings, Bonfring International Journal of Man Machine Interface. 4 (2016).
[2] Reddy, K. Harshavardhana, D. Mohammed Rafi, and C. Ramachandrudu. Comparative Study on The Analysis Results of Multi-Storeyed Commercial Building (G+ 12) by Using Staad. Pro and ETABS, (2019).
[3] Md Rajibul Islam, Sudipta Chakraborty, and Dookie Kim. Effect of Plan Irregularity and Beam Discontinuity on Structural Performances of Buildings under Lateral Loadings, Architectural Research 24.2 (2022): 53-61.
[4] N. Lingeshwaran, Satrasala Koushik, Tummuru Manish Kumar Reddy, and P. Preethi. Comparative analysis on asymmetrical and symmetrical structures subjected to seismic load, Materials Today: Proceedings, Volume 45, Part 7, (2021), pp: 6471-6475.
[5] Abdoulhakim Souhaibou, Ling-zhi Li. A comparative study on the lateral displacement of a multi-story RC building under wind and earthquake load actions using base shear method and ETABS software, Materials Today: Proceedings, (2023).
[6] Dhanapal Arunraj, Velchandran Sasirekha, Mullainathan Suganthi, Kumarasamy Vidhya K. Vidhya, Ramasamy Manirasu. Seismic analysis and design of high rise building by using ETABS in different seismic zones. AIP Conf. Proc, Volume 2782 (1): 020186, (15 June 2023).
[7] S. Sivakumar, R. Shobana, E. Aarthy, S. Thenmozhi, V. Gowri, and B. Sarath Chandra Kumar. Seismic analysis of RC building (G+9) by response spectrum method, Materials Today: Proceedings, (2023).
[8] Umer Bin Fayaz, Brahamjeet Singh. A Study of Seismic Analysis of Building Using ETABS, International Journal of Innovative Research in Engineering and Management (IJIREM), ISSN (Online): 2350-0557, Volume-10, Issue-6, (December 2023).
[9] Jose, Ragy, et al. Analysis and design of commercial building using ETABS, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology 4 (2017), Volume: 04 Issue: 06, June-2017.
[10] Kim, JH., Hessek, C. J., Kim, Y. J. et al. Seismic analysis, design, and retrofit of built-environments: a procedural review of current practices and case studies. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil 3, 11 (2022).
[11] Shohag, JM Raisul Islam, and Kowshik Mozumder. Performance Assessment of Residential Building for Different Plan Configurations in Different Seismic Zones of Bangladesh Using ETABS, Journal of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering. Vol. 7, No. 5, 2022, pp. 93-101, November 4, (2022).
[12] Shanker, Battu Jaya Uma, G. Kiran Kumar, and R. Sai Kiran. Analysis and comparison of seismic behaviour of multi-storied RCC building with symmetric and asymmetric in plan, AIP Conference Proceedings. Vol. 2358. No. 1. AIP Publishing, (2021).
[13] Patil, Mahesh N., and Yogesh N. Sonawane. Seismic analysis of multistoried building, International Journal of Eng. and Innovative Technology 4.9 Volume 4, Issue 9 (2015): 123-130.
Cite This Article
  • APA Style

    Rana, M. S., Kabir, S. F. B., Sami, S. T., Shahriar, M. M. (2024). Performance Assessment of Commercial Building for Symmetric and Asymmetric Plan Configurations in Different Seismic Zones of Bangladesh Using ETABS. American Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology, 9(2), 60-95. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajset.20240902.13

    Copy | Download

    ACS Style

    Rana, M. S.; Kabir, S. F. B.; Sami, S. T.; Shahriar, M. M. Performance Assessment of Commercial Building for Symmetric and Asymmetric Plan Configurations in Different Seismic Zones of Bangladesh Using ETABS. Am. J. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2024, 9(2), 60-95. doi: 10.11648/j.ajset.20240902.13

    Copy | Download

    AMA Style

    Rana MS, Kabir SFB, Sami ST, Shahriar MM. Performance Assessment of Commercial Building for Symmetric and Asymmetric Plan Configurations in Different Seismic Zones of Bangladesh Using ETABS. Am J Sci Eng Technol. 2024;9(2):60-95. doi: 10.11648/j.ajset.20240902.13

    Copy | Download

  • @article{10.11648/j.ajset.20240902.13,
      author = {Md. Sohel Rana and Syed Fardin Bin Kabir and Samiha Tabassum Sami and Md. Mahin Shahriar},
      title = {Performance Assessment of Commercial Building for Symmetric and Asymmetric Plan Configurations in Different Seismic Zones of Bangladesh Using ETABS
    },
      journal = {American Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology},
      volume = {9},
      number = {2},
      pages = {60-95},
      doi = {10.11648/j.ajset.20240902.13},
      url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajset.20240902.13},
      eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajset.20240902.13},
      abstract = {Bangladesh is among the nations most vulnerable to earthquakes worldwide. Being a developing country, it has been a challenging issue to ensure commercial prosperity along with safety against seismic hazards. Structural engineers also face difficulties in accurately designing buildings with maximum economy and efficiency. ETABS, a leading global engineering software with BNBC 2020 guidelines plays a vital role in these cases. In this study, analysis of a B+G+6 storied building for Symmetric & Asymmetric Plan configuration has been performed using ETABS software. Both kinds of structures have experienced a range of loads for example- dead loads, live loads, partition loads, wind loads, and seismic loads, as well as load combinations that have been pursued following BNBC 2020 requirements. The objective of this work is to evaluate the seismic impact resulting from varying seismic coefficients for four seismic zones in Bangladesh, given identical symmetric and asymmetric plan arrangements. Four required metrics were evaluated between the structural performances of symmetric and asymmetric structures: storey drift, overturning moment, storey shear, and storey stiffness. The structural software provided the analytical results and parameter computations. The comparison's result demonstrates that the asymmetric structure exhibits greater storey rigidity and less storey drift over the longer axis.
    },
     year = {2024}
    }
    

    Copy | Download

  • TY  - JOUR
    T1  - Performance Assessment of Commercial Building for Symmetric and Asymmetric Plan Configurations in Different Seismic Zones of Bangladesh Using ETABS
    
    AU  - Md. Sohel Rana
    AU  - Syed Fardin Bin Kabir
    AU  - Samiha Tabassum Sami
    AU  - Md. Mahin Shahriar
    Y1  - 2024/04/28
    PY  - 2024
    N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajset.20240902.13
    DO  - 10.11648/j.ajset.20240902.13
    T2  - American Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology
    JF  - American Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology
    JO  - American Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology
    SP  - 60
    EP  - 95
    PB  - Science Publishing Group
    SN  - 2578-8353
    UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajset.20240902.13
    AB  - Bangladesh is among the nations most vulnerable to earthquakes worldwide. Being a developing country, it has been a challenging issue to ensure commercial prosperity along with safety against seismic hazards. Structural engineers also face difficulties in accurately designing buildings with maximum economy and efficiency. ETABS, a leading global engineering software with BNBC 2020 guidelines plays a vital role in these cases. In this study, analysis of a B+G+6 storied building for Symmetric & Asymmetric Plan configuration has been performed using ETABS software. Both kinds of structures have experienced a range of loads for example- dead loads, live loads, partition loads, wind loads, and seismic loads, as well as load combinations that have been pursued following BNBC 2020 requirements. The objective of this work is to evaluate the seismic impact resulting from varying seismic coefficients for four seismic zones in Bangladesh, given identical symmetric and asymmetric plan arrangements. Four required metrics were evaluated between the structural performances of symmetric and asymmetric structures: storey drift, overturning moment, storey shear, and storey stiffness. The structural software provided the analytical results and parameter computations. The comparison's result demonstrates that the asymmetric structure exhibits greater storey rigidity and less storey drift over the longer axis.
    
    VL  - 9
    IS  - 2
    ER  - 

    Copy | Download

Author Information
  • Department of Civil Engineering, Rajshahi University of Engineering and Technology, Rajshahi, Bangladesh

    Biography: Md. Sohel Rana is currently working as a lecturer at Rajshahi University of Engineering & Technology, Department of Civil Engineering. He acquired his B.Sc. in Civil Engineering from Rajshahi University of Engineering & Technology in 2019 and currently doing Master’s in Civil Engineering from the same institution. He has published various research works and conference papers in recent years.

    Research Fields: Performance-Based Design, Soil-Structure Interaction, Composite Structures.

  • Department of Civil Engineering, Rajshahi University of Engineering and Technology, Rajshahi, Bangladesh

    Biography: Syed Fardin Bin Kabir has just completed undergraduate studies in Civil Engineering Department at Rajshahi University of Engineering & Technology. He will acquire his B.Sc. in Civil Engineering degree from Rajshahi University of Engineering & Technology in 2024.

    Research Fields: Seismic Engineering and Retrofitting, Structural Forensics and Failure Analysis, Performance-Based Analysis, ETABS.

  • Department of Civil Engineering, Rajshahi University of Engineering and Technology, Rajshahi, Bangladesh

    Biography: Samiha Tabassum Sami has just completed undergraduate studies in Civil Engineering Department at Rajshahi University of Engineering & Technology. He will acquire his B.Sc. in Civil Engineering degree from Rajshahi University of Engineering & Technology in 2024.

    Research Fields: Earthquake Engineering, Performance-Based Analysis, Retrofitting

  • Department of Civil Engineering, Rajshahi University of Engineering and Technology, Rajshahi, Bangladesh

    Biography: Md. Mahin Shahriar has just completed undergraduate studies in Civil Engineering Department at Rajshahi University of Engineering & Technology. He will acquire his B.Sc. in Civil Engineering degree from Rajshahi University of Engineering & Technology in 2024.

    Research Fields: Earthquake Engineering, Performance-Based Design, ETABS.

  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • Document Sections

    1. 2. Introduction
    2. 3. Methodology
    3. 4. Result
    4. 5. Discussions
    5. 6. Conclusion
    Show Full Outline
  • Abbreviations
  • Acknowledgments
  • Author Contributions
  • Funding
  • Data Availability Statement
  • Conflicts of Interest
  • Appendix
  • References
  • Cite This Article
  • Author Information