The primary objective of this master’s thesis was to automate the seismic design and analysis cycle of buildings. The automation of the building models was performed using the computer-aided design (CAD) software Rhinoceros and its implemented visual programming environment Grasshopper. Additionally, one of the third-generation programming languages, C#, embedded within Grasshopper, was used to develop custom components to export the building models to external structural and seismic analysis software, ETABS. The seismic analyzes were performed in ETABS using the nonlinear time-history analysis (THA) method, with strong ground motion recordings from the 2023 Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) earthquake obtained at the station in Narlı, Pazarcık, in Kahramanmaraş. The guidelines for conducting seismic analyzes specified in the European seismic building codes and regulations, Eurocode 8 (2004), were primarily used. However, for certain aspects, such as the selection of material and structural properties and coefficients related to dynamic analysis, some of the guidelines specified in the Turkish Building Earthquake Code (2018) were adopted.A further objective of this study was to compare different lateral force resisting systems (LFRS), with a focus on configurations consisting of shear walls. In total, five configurations were compared, where these differed in terms of shear wall placement, including locations at the building periphery, such as corners, edges, and inner parts, and also at the center of the building, and combinations of these. Moreover, different shapes of shear walls were constructed, such as L-shaped, rectangular-shaped, and box-shaped, the latter representing the shear core located at the center of the building. The performance of these configurations was evaluated from different perspectives, including building height, where a variety of total floors were examined, and the column length on the ground floor, for which the same column length as and a longer column length than other floors were investigated. Nevertheless, in this study, a total of 70 building models were analyzed, all of which had the same material and structural properties, except for the length of the shear walls.The results indicated that the shear wall configuration with only the shear core performed best in contrast to other configurations, when comparing the result outputs such as story displacement, story drift, story shear, and story stiffness. At the same time, this configuration also exhibited the highest natural frequencies, where one of the building models experienced resonance due to the earthquake’s close match of frequency content. It was also implied that the shear walls located along the building periphery were more efficient in decreasing the base shear force demand. However, the configuration with only the shear core has shown a higher shear resistance. Another crucial finding was that the lengths of the shear walls that define the shear core in the L-shaped and rectangular-shaped shear wall configurations were insufficient, as there was no significant impact of the shear core on increasing the earthquake resistance. Consequently, the results for these shear wall configurations were remarkably close to those without a shear core. In general, the L-shaped shear wall configurations performed better than the rectangular-shaped shear wall configurations in the x-direction, whereas the opposite was observed in the y-direction. Notably, none of the analyzed building models has shown soft and weak story failure modes.For further research, it was recommended to expand the scope of the study by including other shear wall configurations and a wider range of building heights and column lengths on the ground floor in the comparison frame. Furthermore, incorporating enlarged structural properties of columns, beams, shear walls, and slabs into the comparison frame could provide deeper insights into their influence on earthquake resistance. In addition, using strong ground motion recordings from other stations and comparing them to the findings of this study may provide a broader perspective for the conclusions. However, based on the suggested recommendations for further research, another significant factor affecting earthquake resistance is the structural layout. Therefore, considering other placements of columns was also addressed as an enhancement of this study. Finally, to perform a more comprehensive analysis, the inclusion of soil-structure interaction effects was mentioned as a crucial factor influencing building responses and overall results.