A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN BNBC CODE PROVISIONS AND

DETERMINATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ACI MOMENT

COEFFICIENT METHOD IN MID-RISE BUILDING DESIGN

ANIMESH BISWAS1 • SHAH MOHAMMAD RAIHAN2

Abstract Tectonic framework of Bangladesh and adjoining areas indicate that Bangladesh lies
on active seismic zone. The after effect due to earthquake is more severe in a developing and
densely populated country like Bangladesh than any other developed countries. So it is a serious
concern for an engineer to take an important consideration of earthquake impact into any
building design in our country. In this study, a design of a mid-rise (six-storied) RC building
with different plan layout has been carried out by using Bangladesh National Building Code
(BNBC-2006 and proposed BNBC-2014) provisions. The analysis (bending moment, shear force
and axial force of beam and column) has been done by GRASP (Graphical Rapid Analysis of
Structures Program) software and ACI Moment Coefficient Method especially in flexural
member design considering gravity load. In ACI Moment Coefficient Method, lateral load
(seismic load) could not be considered. The comparison between the moments which is found
from GRASP software and ACI Moment Coefficient Method (vary from 2% to 9% in different
condition) has been analyzed in this study. Some cases are being considered for showing the
differences between the code provisions (BNBC-2006 and proposed BNBC-2014) in slab, beam
and column design value. The results of the design values show that the proposed BNBC-2014
provides 2% to 15% more design value than that of in BNBC-2006 indicating sound
convenience.

Keywords Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC-2006 and proposed BNBC-2014),

gravity load, seismic load, slab design, beam design, column design, ACI Moment Coefficient
Method, GRASP.

Introduction

There are different types of code used widely in construction of building structure according to
the geological and environmental condition of different country in the world. In Bangladesh,
most of the engineer prefers Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC) which is conducted by
Housing and Building Research Institute (HBRI) and Bureau of Research, Testing and
Consultation (BRTC). Till now there is a legitimate version of BNBC which is known as BNBC-
2006 provision. But in recent days, for some necessary moderation a new version of BNBC is
proposed which is known as BNBC-2014. So a comparative study between these two provisions
is needed to convince the engineers which version is more convenient. Also a few engineers
prefer ACI Moment Coefficient Method which is conducted by American Concrete Institute
Code. But this method has some limitations. In order to use this method in designing, it is
important to determine the effectiveness of this method over GRASP analysis.

Objectives of the study

The main objective of this work is to compare the current BNBC code with the proposed
BNBC code. In detail, the objectives are:

1. To compare between the results in flexural member design analysis accomplished by

GRASP software and ACI Moment Coefficient Method.
2. To compare between the design value calculated by BNBC-2006 and proposed
BNBC-2014 in slab, beam and column design.

Scope of the study

This investigation is based on BNBC-2006 and proposed BNBC-2014 provisions with GRASP
software and ACI Moment Coefficient Method for mid-rise building for rectangular and square
plan. In this study, both gravity load and lateral load is considered for GRASP analysis where in
ACI Moment Coefficient Method, only the gravity load is considered. With this research work
the difference between the BNBC code provisions as well as the effectiveness of ACI Moment
Coefficient Method have been analyzed. It can also be done as the same for other geometrical
plans and study the differences as well. This comparison will give an idea regarding where our
country stands when it comes to the safety against earthquake and it may provide much safer
building design in the consideration of earthquake effect.

Research outline
A detailed comparison between BNBC-2006 and proposed BNBC-2014 is presented for both
gravity and lateral load (seismic load only) analysis. For earthquake load analysis equivalent
static method is implemented. The case study on a typical apartment building is performed for
Sylhet city only. The results may vary for other cities of Bangladesh. In this work, two different
shapes (square and rectangular) with same area are being considered and designed by GRASP
software. ACI Moment Coefficient Method is also considered to design the flexural member and
finally compared this value with the moment found by GRASP software. Then for some
limitations in ACI Moment Coefficient Method, moments from GRASP analyses have been
considered for final design. The details comparison of BNBC-2006 and proposed BNBC-2014
have been shown later in this paper.

Structural forms of multistory buildings

In the structural modeling and design process of a multistory building, a thorough knowledge of
multi-story building structural components and their modes of behavior is a prerequisite to
devising an appropriate load resisting system. Such a system must be efficient, economic and
should minimize the structural penalty for height and span while maximizing the satisfaction of
the basic serviceability requirements. A conventional structural form (Rigid Frame Structure) is
described here in brief.

Rigid frame structures consist of columns and girders jointed by moment resistant connections.
The lateral stiffness of a rigid-frame bent depends on the bending stiffness of the columns,
girders, and connections in the plane of the bent. If used as the only source of lateral resistance in
a building, in its typical 6 to 9 meters’ bay size, rigid framing is economic only for buildings up
to about 25 stories. Rigid-frame construction is ideally suited for reinforced concrete buildings
because of the inherent rigidity of reinforced concrete joints. The sizes of the columns and
girders at any level of a rigid frame are directly influenced by the magnitude of the external shear
at that level, and they therefore increase towards the base. Consequently, the design of the floor
framing cannot be repetitive as it is in some braced frames. A further result is that sometimes it is
not possible in the lowest stories to accommodate the required depth of girder within the normal
ceiling space. Gravity loading also is resisted by the rigid frame action. Negative moments are
induced in the girders adjacent to the columns causing the mid-span positive moments to be
significantly less than in a simply supported span. In structures in which gravity loads dictate the
design, economics in member sizes that arise from this effect tend to be offset by the higher cost
of the rigid joints. While rigid frames of a typical scale that serve alone to resist lateral loading
have an economic height limit of about 25 stories, smaller scale rigid frames in the form of a
perimeter tube, or typically scaled rigid frames in combination with shear walls or braced bends
can be economic up to much greater heights (Smith, Coull et al. 1991).

Reinforced concrete floor systems

Different types of RC floor systems are being used for building construction. Some typical floor
systems are described below in brief.

One-way slab on beams or walls

A solid slab of up to 200 millimeters thick shown in Figure 1(a), spanning continuously over
walls or beams up to 7.3 meter apart, provides a floor system requiring simple formwork, with
simple reinforcement. The system is heavy and inefficient in its use of both concrete and
reinforcement. It is appropriate for use in cross-wall and cross-frame residential high rise
construction and when construction in a number of uninterrupted continuous spans lends itself to
pre-stressing (Smith, Coull et al. 1991).

One-way pan joists and beams

A thin, mesh-reinforced slab shown in Figure 1(b), sits on closely spaced cast-in-place joists
spanning between major beams which transfer the loads to the columns. The slab may be as thin
as 65 millimeters while the joists are from 150 to 500 millimeter in depth and spaced from 500 to
750 millimeter centers. The compositely acting slab and joists form in effect a set of closely
spaced T-beams, capable of large, up to 12 meter, spans. The joists are formed between reusable
pans that are positioned to set the regular width of the joist, as well as any special widths (Smith,
Coull et al. 1991).

One-way slab on beams and girders

A one-way slab shown in Figure 1(c), span between beams at a relatively close spacing while the
beams are supported by girders that transfer the load to the columns. The short spanning may be
thin, from 75 to 150 millimeters thick, while the system is capable of providing long spans of up
to 14 meter. The principal merits of the system are its long span capability and its compatibility
with a two-way lateral load resisting rigid-frame structure (Smith, Coull et al. 1991).

Two-way slab and beam

The slab shown in Figure 1(d), spans two ways between orthogonal sets of beams that transfer
the load to the columns or walls. The two-way system allows a thinner slab and is economical in
concrete and reinforcement. It is also compatible with a lateral load-resisting rigid-frame
structure. The maximum length-to-width ratio for a slab to be effective in two directions is
approximately 2 (Smith, Coull et al. 1991).

(a)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 1: Different types of RC floor systems, (a) One-way slab on beams, (b) One-way pan
joists and beams, (c) One-way slab on beams and girders and (d) Two-way slab and beam.

Seismic design parameters

To determine earthquake forces on a structure, static analysis has gained popularity in the
country and also in many other countries because of the simplicity of the method. The majority
of earthquakes are caused by the rupture of the rock along a fault or multiple faults, and
thousands of square kilometers of fault plane surface may be involved in this rupture (Jia 2017).
On the basis of distribution of earthquake epicenters, ground motion attenuation, geophysical and
tectonic data available, Bangladesh was mapped dividing into three generalized seismic zones in
BNBC-1993. Each zone has a seismic zone coefficient (Z) which represents the maximum
considered peak ground acceleration (PGA) on very stiff soil/rock in units of g (acceleration due
to gravity). Structural importance coefficient (I) is found higher in BNBC-2010 (Draft) and
increased up to 25 % for some cases (Bari and Das 2013).

GRASP

GRASP Stands for Graphical Rapid Analysis of Structures Program. GRASP is a 2D structure
analysis software. Two dimensional analysis of frame structure like beams, trusses and rigid
frames can be carried out on it. GRASP has a graphical user interface so it is easy to draw frames
and trusses then apply loads and run analysis.

ACI Moment Coefficient Method

The ACI Moment Coefficients were derived by elastic analysis, considering alternative
placement of live load to yield maximum negative or positive moments at the critical sections.
ACI 318 section 8.3.3 summarizes code provisions for moment coefficients (see Figure 2) that
simplify the analysis of continuous beams. They consider both the transient nature of live load
and the various boundary conditions common in concrete structures. These code provisions
require two or more continuous spans, spans of equal length or having the larger of two adjacent
spans not being greater than the shorter by more than 20 percent, loads being uniformly
distributed, un-factored live load not exceeding three times un-factored dead load and the
members being prismatic. All provisions must be met when using the moment coefficients.
However, it is not apparent from the code language whether further provisions must also be met
to ensure that the moment coefficients apply when analyzing a structure (Iannelli and Swartz
2013).
Figure 2: Summary of ACI Moment Coefficients, (a) Beams with more than two spans, (b)
Beams with two spans only, (c) Slabs with spans not exceeding 10 feet and (d) Beams in which
the sum of column stiffness exceeds 8 times the sum of beam stiffness at each end of the
span(Nilson, Darwin et al. 2010).

Parameters considered for analysis

This research is a complete study which is based on different plans with different cases. A square
(60 feet×60 feet) and rectangular (75 feet×48 feet) plans are being considered for analysis (see
Figure 3 and 4 respectively).
 12.5’ 12.5’
12’
12’ 25’ 25’
24’
24’ 24’
24’

12’
24’
24’

12’
12’ 24’

24’
24’
12’

Figure 3: beam-column layout of square plan Figure 4: beam-column layout of rectangular plan

Preliminary selection of member’s dimension of the buildings

Firstly, it has been assumed that the wall thickness is 5 inch, story height is 10 feet, slab
thickness is 5 inch, beam size is 18 inch ×10 inch and column size is 15 inch×15 inch.

Design base shear

In earthquake load analysis, primary concern is to determine design base shear which is
distributed each floor of the building. Total design base shear in a given direction can be
determined according to the article 2.5.6 and 2.5.6.3 in BNBC-2006 and proposed BNBC-2014
respectively. The following equations are required to determine the base shear:

 ZIC
 W , for BNBC - 2006
R
V  ................................................................ (1)

 S aW , for proposed BNBC - 2014

where, V is design base shear, Z is seismic zone coefficient, I is structure importance coefficient,
R is response modification coefficient for structural systems, Sa is lateral seismic force
coefficient (see equation 3.4), W is total seismic dead load and C is numerical coefficient given
by the equation:
 1.25S
C 2
............................................................................................................... (2)
3
T

where, S is site coefficient for soil characteristics, T is fundamental period of vibration in

seconds. For all buildings the value of T may be approximated by the following equation:

3
T  Ct (hn ) 4
............................................................................................................. (3)

where, Ct is 0.083 for steel moment resisting frames, 0.073 for reinforced concrete moment
resisting frames and eccentric braced steel frames and 0.049 for all other structural systems, hn is
height in meters above the base to level n. The lateral seismic force coefficient Sa for the design
earthquake can be determined by the following equation:

2 ZI
Sa  C s ............................................................................................................ (4)
3 R

where, Cs is normalized acceleration response spectrum which is a function of structure

(building) period and soil type (site class) as defined by the following equation:

TC
C s  2.5S ( ) for TC  T  TD ............................................................................... (5)
T

where, TC is upper limit of the period of the constant spectral acceleration branch given in
function of site class, TD is lower limit of the period of the constant spectral displacement branch
given in function of site class,  is damping correction factor as a function of damping with a
reference value of 1 for 5% viscous damping.

Comparative Study

This chapter includes comparative study based on shear force, axial load and bending moment of
slab, beam and column which are obtained from the different four cases describe on the previous
chapter. There are 3 cases of comparison including slab, beam and column. Comparison between
the square plan with BNBC-2006 and proposed BNBC-2014 (case-1), rectangular plan with
BNBC-2006 and proposed BNBC-2014 (case-2).
Comparison between the square plan with BNBC-2006 and proposed BNBC-2014 (case-1)

In slab design, for both cases a typical slab are being selected for comparative study which holds
the maximum area as well as the maximum moment, also the maximum reinforcement than other
panels of the slab. It has been found that the value of negative moment at continuous edge on
both directions of slab increases to 6.9%, the mid span positive moment and the negative
moment at discontinuous edge increases to 5.5% respectively from BNBC-2006 to proposed
BNBC-2014. In the same pattern the final reinforcement at mid span, continuous edge and
discontinuous edge increase to 8.8%, 5.5% and 12.5% respectively from BNBC-2006 to
proposed BNBC-2014 in square plan. So it seems that on square plan with proposed BNBC-
2014, moment and reinforcement are greater than BNBC-2006 in slab design (see Figure 5 and
Figure 6 for moment comparison and reinforcement comparison respectively).

8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Mb, neg. (lb-feet)

Mb, neg. (lb-feet)

Ma, neg. (lb-feet)

Ma, neg. (lb-feet)

Mb, pos. total (lb-feet)
Ma, pos. total (lb-feet)

BNBC-2006
Proposed BNBC-2014

Negative Mid span Negative

moment at positive moment at
continuous moment discontinuous
edge edge

Figure 5 Moment comparison of slab of square plan with between BNBC-2006 and Proposed
BNBC-2014
 0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
BNBC-2006
0.3 Proposed BNBC-2014
0.2

0.1

0
Mid span Continuous Discontinuous
(in2/feet) edge (in2/feet) edge (in2/feet)
Final reinforcement

Figure 6 Reinforcement comparison of slab of square plan with between BNBC-2006 and
Proposed BNBC-2014

In beam design, a beam has been chosen for comparative study as it is hold the maximum
amount of load rather than other beam. Firstly, the comparison between the design values of
beam from GRASP analysis and ACI Moment Coefficient Method has been done. It is seen that
in BNBC-2006, end span maximum negative moment, end span maximum positive moment and
mid span maximum positive moment of beam differ from 26.4% (decrease), 7.6% (increase) and
28.9% (increase) respectively from GRASP analysis to ACI Moment Coefficient. In proposed
BNBC-2014, end span maximum negative moment, end span maximum positive moment and
mid span maximum positive moment of beam differ from 22.9% (decrease), 16.9% (increase)
and 32.5% (increase) respectively from GRASP analysis to ACI Moment Coefficient. It seems
that a little variation in moment happens at the same span because ACI Moment Coefficient
Method has some limitation (see article 1.4.3). The comparison between GRASP and ACI
Moment Coefficient method has been shown in Figure 7.
 250
200
150
100
50
0 GRASP (kip-feet)
Mid span maximum

Mid span maximum

End span maximum

End span maximum

End span maximum

End span maximum

negative moment

negative moment
positive moment

positive moment
positive moment

positive moment
Moment Coefficient
Methods(kip-feet)

BNBC-2006 Proposed BNBC-

2014

Figure 7 Comparison between the values analyzed using GRASP analysis and ACI Moment
Coefficient Methods in beam of square plan

In the comparison of beam, moment analyzed by GRASP software, it has been seen that for a
typical beam the end span maximum negative moment, mid-span maximum positive moment
and shear force increase to 2.8%, 4.7% and 8% respectively from BNBC-2006 to proposed
BNBC-2014 in square plan. The end span maximum positive moment is decreased to 7.5% from
BNBC-2006 to proposed BNBC-2014 in square plan. In the same pattern the reinforcement in
negative end and mid-span increase to 7.96% and 3.3%, positive end decrease to 8.62% and
shear reinforcement is equal in the square plan in BNBC-2006 to proposed BNBC-2014. A
typical diagram of the comparison is shown in the Figure 8.
 250

200

150

100 BNBC-2006

50
Proposed BNBC-
0 2014
End span End span Mid span Shear
maximum maximum maximum force (kip)
negative positive positive
moment moment moment
(kip-feet) (kip-feet) (kip-feet)

Figure 8 Comparison between the design value of a beam of square plan with BNBC-2006 and
proposed BNBC-2014

In column design, there are three typical column have been selected. It has been seen that in first
column, the axial load increases to 7%, the bending moment in X direction decreases to 5.9%
and in Y direction increases to 4.3% from BNBC-2006 to proposed BNBC-2014. With the same
pattern in other column, the axial load increases to 9.8%, bending moment in X direction
decreases to 2.5% and bending moment in Y direction increases to 8.7 % from BNBC-2006 to
proposed BNBC-2014. In the last column, the variation is in same pattern that found in the
previous study. So in column design, it has been seen that axial load and bending moment in Y
direction are being increased and in X direction are being decreased in proposed BNBC-2014
than BNBC-2006. The comparison between the columns of the square plan with BNBC-2006
and proposed BNBC-2014 has been shown in Figure 9.
 800
700
600
500
400
300
200 BNBC-2006
100
0 Proposed BNBC-
Pu (kip)

Pu (kip)

Pu (kip)
Mx (kip-feet)
My (kip-feet)

Mx (kip-feet)
My (kip-feet)

Mx (kip-feet)
My (kip-feet)
2014

1st column 2nd column 3rd column

Figure 9 Comparison between the columns of the square plan with BNBC-2006 and proposed
BNBC-2014

After designing, it is found that the 2nd column hold the maximum amount of reinforcement in
both cases. In that column, the reinforcement is 13.50 in2 in BNBC-2006 and 14.63 in2 in
proposed BNBC-2014. It can be notified that the amount of reinforcement increases to 8.33% in
proposed BNBC-2014 from BNBC-2006.

Comparison between the rectangular plan with BNBC-2006 and proposed BNBC-2014
(case-2)

In slab design, for both cases a typical slab is being selected for comparative study which holds
the maximum area as well as maximum moment also maximum reinforcement than other panels
of the slab. It has been seen that the negative moment at continuous edge in both short and long
direction of slab increase to 6.8% from BNBC-2006 to proposed BNBC-2014. The mid span
positive moment in short and long direction is increased to 4.1% and 3.8% respectively from
BNBC-2006 to proposed BNBC-2014. The final reinforcement at mid span and continuous edge
in short direction is increased to 5.5% and 11.11% respectively and in long direction increases to
13.5% and decreases to a small amount of 2.86% respectively from BNBC-2006 to proposed
BNBC-2014. So it seems that on rectangular plan with proposed BNBC-2014 showing more
moment and reinforcement than BNBC-2006 except in the final reinforcement in long direction
at continuous edge in slab design (see Figure 10 and Figure 11 for moment comparison and
reinforcement comparison respectively).

8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000 BNBC-2006
2000
1000
0 Proposed BNBC-
2014
Ma, neg. Mb, neg. Ma, pos. Mb, pos.
(lb-feet) (lb-feet) total (lb- total (lb-
feet) feet)
Negative moment at Mid span positive
continuous edge moment

Figure 10 Moment comparison of slab of rectangular plan with between BNBC-2006 and
Proposed BNBC-2014

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 BNBC-2006
Mid span (in2/feet)
Mid span (in2/feet)

Continuous edge (in2/feet)

Continuous edge (in2/feet)

Proposed BNBC-
2014

Short direction Long direction

Final reinforcement
Figure 11 Reinforcement comparison of slab of rectangular plan with between BNBC-2006 and
Proposed BNBC-2014

In beam design, a beam has been chosen for comparative study which holds the maximum
amount of load rather than other beam. Firstly, the comparison between the design values of
beam A3 from GRASP analysis and ACI Moment Coefficient Method has been done. It is seen
that in BNBC-2006, end span maximum negative moment, end span maximum positive moment
and mid span maximum positive moment of beam differ from 22.7% (decrease), 84.4%
(decrease) and 22.8% (increase) respectively from GRASP analysis to ACI Moment Coefficient.
In proposed BNBC-2014, end span maximum negative moment, end span maximum positive
moment and mid span maximum positive moment of beam differ from 19.9% (decrease), 82%
(decrease) and 30.9% (increase) respectively from GRASP analysis to ACI Moment Coefficient.
It seems that a little variation in moment happens at the same span because ACI Moment
Coefficient Method has some limitation. The comparison between GRASP and ACI Moment
Coefficient method has been shown in Figure 12.

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Mid span maximum

Mid span maximum

End span maximum

End span maximum

End span maximum

End span maximum

negative moment

negative moment

GRASP (kip-feet)
positive moment

positive moment
positive moment

positive moment

Moment Coefficient
Methods (kip-feet)

BNBC-2006 Proposed BNBC-

2014

Figure 12 Comparison between the values analyzed using GRASP analysis and ACI Moment
Coefficient Methods in beam of square plan
In the comparison of beam moment analyzed by GRASP software, it has been seen that the end
span maximum negative moment, mid-span maximum positive moment and shear force increase
to 4.45%, 7.3% and 9% respectively and end span maximum positive moment decreases to
5.14% from BNBC-2006 to proposed BNBC-2014 in rectangular plan. In the same pattern the
reinforcement in negative end increases to 4.23%, positive end decreases to 6.38%, mid-span and
shear reinforcement are equal from BNBC-2006 to proposed BNBC-2014. A typical diagram of
the comparison is shown in the Figure 13.

300
250
200
150
BNBC-2006
100
50 Proposed BNBC-
0 2014
End span End span Mid span Shear
maximum maximum maximum force (kip)
negative positive positive
moment moment moment
(kip-feet) (kip-feet) (kip-feet)

Figure 13 Comparison between the design value of a beam of square plan with BNBC-2006 and
proposed BNBC-2014

In column design, there are three typical column have been selected. It has been seen that in first
column, the axial load and the bending moment in X direction increase to 9.5% and 9.8%
respectively and bending moment in Y direction decreases to 2.3% from BNBC-2006 to
proposed BNBC-2014. With the same pattern in the 2nd column, the axial load and bending
moment in X direction increase to 7.7% and 14.4% respectively and bending moment in Y
direction decreases to 5.6% from BNBC-2006 to proposed BNBC-2014. And in the last
comparison in 3rd column, the variations have been found as same as the above study. So it has
been found that in column design, in the case of axial load and bending moment in X direction
there are growth in the value in proposed BNBC-2014 than BNBC-2006. But on the other hand,
unlike square plan in the case of bending moment on Y direction there is drop in proposed
BNBC-2014 than BNBC-2006. The comparison between the columns of the square plan with
BNBC-2006 and proposed BNBC-2014 has been shown in Figure 14.

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0 BNBC-2006
Pu (kip)

Pu (kip)

Pu (kip)
Mx (kip-feet)

My (kip-feet)

My (kip-feet)

Mx (kip-feet)

My (kip-feet)
Proposed BNBC-
2014

1st column 2nd 3rd column

column

Figure 14 Comparison between the columns of the rectangular plan with BNBC-2006 and
proposed BNBC-2014

After design, it is found that the 2nd column hold the maximum amount of reinforcement in both
cases. In this column, the amount of reinforcement is 18 in2 in both proposed BNBC-2014 and
BNBC-2006.

Discussion

The comparative study indicates that there are differences in design value according to BNBC-
2006 and proposed BNBC-2014. In same plan layout it shows different values in slab, beam and
column design. It also indicates the difference between the GRASP and ACI Moment Coefficient
Method in the calculation of design moment of beam. It may consider proposed BNBC-2014 as
it has higher safety factor than BNBC-2006 for the design. At first, the difference between
BNBC-2006 and proposed BNBC-2014 code have been shown by a square plan in both case. It
shows that the design value with proposed BNBC-2014 provides almost higher value in every
parameter. It also investigates the difference between GRASP and ACI Moment Coefficient in
beam design for this square plan. The design value shows that ACI Moment Coefficient Method
is approximate and not fully good for the plan. Then it is discarded by the GRASP value.
Secondly in the case of rectangular plan layout it shows the same result like the upper case.

References

American Concrete Institute Code (2008), section 8.3, 8.3.3, 8.10.

Bangladesh National Building Code-2006, Housing and Building Research Institute (HBRI) and
Bureau of Research, Testing and Consultation (BRTC).

Bari, M. S. and T. Das (2013). "A Comparative Study on Seismic Analysis of Bangladesh
National Building Code (BNBC) with Other Building Codes." Journal of The Institution of
Engineers (India): Series A94(3): 131-137.

Iannelli, T. M. and B. Swartz (2013). Confirming ACI 318 Section 8.3. 3. ASEE Northeast
Section Conference 2013.

Jia, J. (2017). Characterize Ground Motions. Modern Earthquake Engineering, Springer: 107-
168.

Nilson, A. H., et al. (2010). ″Design of Concrete Structures ″[14]^ th edition in SI units, McGraw
Hill, ISBN-13.

Proposed Bangladesh National Building Code-2014, Housing and Building Research Institute
(HBRI) and Bureau of Research, Testing and Consultation (BRTC).

Smith, B. S., et al. (1991). Tall building structures: analysis and design, Wiley New York.