Linear Analysis of RCC High-Rise Structures with Multiple Combinations of Outrigger Systems under Seismic Loads

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 09 Issue: 07 | July 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2021, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 1077
Linear Analysis of RCC High-Rise Structures with Multiple
Combinations of Outrigger Systems under Seismic Loads
Rafid Kunglay1, Dr. N.G. Gore2
1Post Graduate Student in Civil Engineering, MGM’s College of Engineering and Technology, Kamothe, India.
2Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, MGM’s College of Engineering and Technology, Kamothe, India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - It has been widely known that outrigger
beams/truss are generally appropriate for resistance
against eminent wind loads, but incorporating outriggers
for earthquake resistance has been intriguing area for
research. In the past many researchers have analyzed the
effects of featuring outriggers with various configurations
in the high-rise building in frames with different loading
condition in order to reduce and control the deflections and
stresses. However, the performance of various other possible
outrigger systems under seismic loads has not been studied
extensively for commercial high-rise structures. In this
paper the feasibility of various Outrigger Structural Systems
for Commercial High-rise structures under Seismic load is
studied. This includes linear methods of analysis, namely
Response Spectrum Analysis and Equivalent Static Load
Method. It is concluded that the two outriggers with belt
truss combination offers maximum reduction in deflection of
18%.
Key Words: High-Rise Buildings, seismic loads, outrigger
systems, belt truss systems, linear analysis
1. INTRODUCTION
In modern tall buildings, lateral loads induced by wind or
earthquake are often resisted by a system of coupled shear
walls. The design of skyscrapers is usually governed by the
lateral loads imposed on the structure. More specifically
the design of tall and slender structures is controlled by
three governing factors, strength (material capacity),
stiffness (drift) and serviceability (motion perception and
accelerations), produced by the action of lateral loading,
such as wind. The overall geometry of a building often
dictates which factor governs the overall design. As a
building becomes taller and slenderer, drift considerations
become more significant. Proportioning member efficiency
based on maximum lateral displacement supersedes
design based on allowable stress criteria. Through the
design of a high-rise structure, numerous problems appear
such as the number of columns or size and shape of
concrete core or even basic dimensions of the structure
itself. Having constraints for the building immediately
defines and solves part of the unknown variables but it is
the geometry of the structural system inside these basic
parameters that identifies an efficient design.
Undoubtedly, the factor that governs the design for a tall
and slender structure most of the times is not the fully
stressed state but the drift of the building. There are
numerous structural lateral systems used in high-rise
building design such as: shear frames, shear trusses,
frames with shear core, framed tubes, trussed tubes, super
frames etc. However, the outriggers and belt trusses
system is the one providing significant drift control for the
building.
1.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
Many researchers have analysed the effects of featuring
outriggers with various configurations in the high-rise
building in frames with different loading conditions in
order to reduce and control the deflections and stresses.
Akash Kala et. al. studied the optimum position of
outrigger with belt truss in tall building under horizontal
load. The main aim of this study is to study the use of
outrigger and belt truss placed at different location
subjected to wind loads. The study concluded the optimum
outrigger location of high-rise building under action of
wind load is between 0.25-0.33times the height of building
(from bottom of building) [1]. Akshay Khanorkar et. al.
reviewed various parameters such as lateral displacement,
storey drift, core moment and optimum position related to
outrigger and belt truss for controlling deflections in tall
buildings. The concluded Optimum position of structural
system for deflection criteria is different than bending
moment criteria [2]. Suresh and Pradeep K.M. analysed
the effect and performance of outrigger in 30 storey
building provided different levels along the building
height by varying relative stiffness. They concluded the
percentage reduction of lateral displacement and inner
storey drift with respect to bare frame varies for different
model configuration for different seismic zone and the
maximum inner storey drift is observed at building height
in range of 5-15m [3]. Mohd Abdus Sattar et. al. studied
the effect of building displacements in lateral direction
with shear core, outrigger and belt truss. They concluded
that floor rigidity is not required to be increased beyond
that required for the load carrying of Dead load and Live
load on floors. Column forces and moments are minimum
in case of “Building frame with Double Core arrangement
of shear wall and Stringer beams” for which drift and
displacement are also comparatively less. Moments in
Corner column are less compared to the middle column.
Moments in outer periphery columns are less compared to
the moments in interior columns [4]. Kiran Kamath et. al.

studied the performance of multi-outrigger based on
location of outrigger and also performance in term of
lateral displacement in top, storey drift, shear force and
bending moment in core wall based on relative axial
rigidity. They found the maximum percentage of reduction
in bending moment achieved when outriggers were placed
between top and 67% of total height when compared with
model without outrigger [5].
In this paper the feasibility of various Outrigger Structural
Systems for Commercial High-rise structures under
Seismic load is studied. This includes linear methods of
analysis, namely Response Spectrum Analysis and
Equivalent Static Load Method.
1.2 Outrigger systems
For design of tall structures, the use of core-wall system
has been a very effective and efficient structural system
used in reducing the drift due to lateral load. However, as
and when the height of the building increases, the core
does not have the adequate stiffness to keep the drift
down to acceptable limits. For such high-rise structures,
horizontal structural systems known as outriggers are
introduced. The layout of an outrigger in a building is
shown in figure 1.
Fig - 1 Layout of conventional of outriggers in tall
buildings [2]
1.3 Working principle of outriggers
Outriggers are primarily conceived to reduce the global
deformation of the building, caused by the flexural
behaviour of the resistant core. This is achieved by
reducing the overturning moment of the cantilever
scheme and by transferring the reduced moment to the
outer members through extremely rigid horizontal beams
connected to the core at specific levels. These horizontal
beams are referred to as outriggers. The efficiency of the
outrigger system depends upon the flexural stiffness of the
girder and the axial stiffness of perimeter vertical
columns. Additionally, by including deep spandrel girders,
which work as belts surrounding the entire building, it is
possible to mobilize also the other peripheral columns to
assist in restraining the outriggers, providing an
improvement up to 25-30 per cent in stiffness. In order to
have the outrigger and belt girder adequately stiff in
flexure and shear, they often present a vertical extension
which covers at least one or two storey. Figure 2 shows
the structural behaviour and mechanics of buildings with
and without outriggers.
Fig - 2 Structural behaviour of an outrigger system and
comparison of moment diagrams with and without
outrigger bracings [6]
2. STRUCTURAL MODELING
In this study 3D models were prepared using Finite
Element based software ETABS. The software is able to
run, analysis and obtain results according to Indian
Standard Code of practice. The following design criteria
were considered for modeling purposes:
1. A 54 storey building with different outrigger
configurations. The models shall be based on an actual plan
of a commercial building.
2. Storey height shall be kept constant at 3.9meters for all
stories
3. The plan of the structure shall be square in shape with
size 49.7m. X 49.7m.
4. The structure shall be analyzed in Seismic Zone-IV and
soil type selected shall be Type-1 (Rock and Hard soil) as
per IS: 1893(part-I):2002.
2.1 Loading parameters
The various loading parameters for dead load, live load and
seismic loads are shown in Tables 1-3

Table -1: Consideration of Dead Loads
Unit weight of Concrete 25kN/m3 (for calculating
self weight of structure)
Unit weight of floor finish 24kN/m3
Unit weight of Brick masonry
walls
20kN/m3
Table -2: Typical live loads for commercial buildings
Commercial area 4.0kN/m2
Staircases 3.0kN/m2
Terrace 2.0kN/m2
Lift machine room
10.0kN/m2 or as per Lift
Vendor (whichever is higher)
Table -3: Seismic loads
Zone factor (Z) 0.36
Response reduction factor 5
Importance factor 1.5
Frame type
Special Moment Resisting
Frame (SMRF)
The time period calculations is shown in Table-4
Table -4: Time period calculations
With infill panel (with
brick wall)
Without infill panel
(without brick wall)
T=0.09 x H/D0.5 T=0.075 x H0.75
Where, T= time period in second,
H=total building height from bottom to terrace level
D=x & y Dimension of the building
Wind loads are calculated as per IS: 875 (Part 3) using the
following parameters:
Basic wind speed (Vb) = 44m/sec
Design Wind Speed (Vz) = Vb * k1 * k2 * k3
Where, k1 = Probability factor = 1
k2 = Terrain, height and structure size factor
k3 = Topography factor (Class: C)
(Terrain Category: 2)
Design wind pressure (Pz) = 2 6 .0z
2.2 Loading combinations
Following load combinations are considered for
calculating the forces at ultimate limit states as per IS:
875-1987 (Part-V) and IS: 1893-2002 (Part-I)
•1.5DL + 1.5LL
•1.2DL + 1.2 LL ± 1.2EQX 1.2DL + 1.2 LL ± 1.2EQY
•1.5DL ± 1.5EQX 1.5DL ± 1.5EQY
•0.9DL ± 1.5EQX 0.9DL ± 1.5EQY
•1.2DL + 1.2 LL ± 1.2WLX 1.2DL + 1.2 LL ± 1.2WLY
•1.5DL ± 1.5WLX 1.5DL ± 1.5WLY
•0.9DL ± 1.5WLX 0.9DL ± 1.5WLY
Where,
DL = Dead Load EQ = Earthquake Load
WL = Wind Load LL = Live Load
2.3 Combinations of structural models
Based on the literature review and the gaps found in the
research, the combinations of model for different
Outrigger systems are obtained. The various model
combinations are as follows:
•RCC bare frame with shear core walls (base model for
comparison)
•RCC bare frame with shear core and two outriggers
(outrigger at top + outrigger at mid height)
•RCC bare frame with shear core, two outriggers and
peripheral belt truss (outrigger at top + outrigger at 0.6th
height)
•RCC bare frame with shear core and three outriggers
(outrigger at top + two equally spaced throughout the
height)
3. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
In this paper two linear analysis methods have been
studied namely Equivalent Static Load Method and
Response Spectrum method.
3.1 Equivalent static load method
As per IS-1893-2002, the mass of the structure multiplied
by design Equivalent coefficient, acts statically in a
horizontal direction. It is also assumed here that the
magnitude of the coefficient is uniform for the entire
members of the structure. Design shears at different levels
in a building shall be computed from the assumption of
linear distribution horizontal accelerations, varying from
zero at the base of the structure to a maximum at the top.
This method includes the following design components.
a) Design Seismic Base Shear
b) Seismic Weight of Building
c) Fundamental Natural Time Period
d) Distribution of Design Force
Detailed description and formulation for the above can be
found in IS-1893(2002) and the same have been used in
the ETABS software.

3.2 Response spectrum method
The response spectrum represents an envelope of upper
bound responses, based on several different ground
motion records. This method is an elastic dynamic analysis
approach that relies on the assumption that dynamic
response of the structure may be found by considering the
independent response of each natural mode of vibration
and then combining the response of each in same way.
This method includes following components:
a) Modal mass (Mk)
b) Modal Participation factor (Pk)
c) Design lateral force at each floor in each mode
d) Storey shear forces in each mode
e) Storey shear force due to all modes considered
Detailed description and formulation for the above can be
found in IS-1893(2002) and the same have been used in
the ETABS software
3.3 ETABS Models
As discussed in section 2, a generic commercial building
having 54 storey and floor area of 49.7x49.7m has been
assumed. The ETABS model for the building along with the
outrigger combinations is shown in figures 3 to 5.
Fig - 3 Floor View of Shear Core and Two Outriggers with
Belt Truss Model
Fig - 4 Elevation of Shear Core and Two Outriggers with
Belt Truss Model
Fig - 5 3D View of Shear Core and Two Outriggers with
Belt Truss Model
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The above analysis for the various structural model
combination listed in section 2.2 were performed on basis
of the two performance evaluations parameters namely
Top storey displacement and storey drift ratios.
4.1 Top storey displacement
The top storey displacement represents the maximum
deflection that a tall building experiences. In this study
this displacement is compared for various structural
models along the x and y directions as shown in Chart 1.
Chart - 1 Top Story Displacement using Response
Spectrum method (RS) and Equivalent static method (EQ)
It is seen that the equivalent static method shows greater
displacement as compared to the response spectrum along
both the direction. Furthermore, it is seen that deflection
along the y direction is greater than x direction despite

being symmetrical building this difference in the
directional displacement because the outriggers in X
direction are aligned on either side of the Shear wall core
whereas; it is slightly staggered in Y direction.
Additionally, it is seen that the maximum top displacement
reduction of 18% compared to the bare frame occurs in
the case of two outriggers with peripheral belt truss.
4.2 Storey drift
Storey drift is the difference between the lateral
displacement of a floor to the floor below and the storey
drift ratio is the storey drift divided by the storey height.
Chart 2 show the storey drift ratios for various structural
combination using the equivalent static method along the
x and y directions. Similarly, Chart 3 shows storey drift
ratios using the response spectrum method.
Chart - 2 Storey drift variation using Equivalent Static
method (EQ) along X and Y directions
Chart - 3 Storey drift variation using Response Spectrum
method (RS) along X and Y directions
5. CONCLUSION
The work in this research has analyzed the effect of
outriggers in various configurations on the displacement
and drift of tall buildings in particular the linear analysis
was done using the equivalent static method and response
spectrum method in ETABS software. It is seen that
outriggers significantly reduce the maximum
displacement and storey drift in the structure. In
particular, the two outrigger with belt truss combination
performed the best offering maximum of 18% reduction in
top storey displacement and 27% reduction of top storey
drift compared to bare frame model.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Rafid Kunglay wishes his sincere thanks to all those who
had directly or indirectly contributed in successfully
completion of this paper publication and expressing his
gratitude to Dr. N.G.Gore, professor of civil engineering
department, MGMCET, Kamothe, M.H., India, for his
inspiring and valuable advice and guidance in publishing
this paper

REFERENCES
[1] Akash Kala, MadhuriMangulkar, Indrajeet Jain,
“Optimum Position of Outrigger with belt truss in tall
building under horizontal load” International
Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering,
February 2016.
[2] AkshayKhanorkar, ShrutiSukhdeve, S.V. Denge, S.P.
Raut, “Outrigger and Belt Truss System for Tall
Building to Control Deflection: A Review” GRD
Journals- Global Research and Development Journal
for Engineering, May 2016.
[3] M.R. Suresh, Pradeep K.M., “Influence Of Outrigger
System in RC Structures for Different Seismic Zones”,
IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific Research &
Development, May 2015.
[4] MohdAbdusSattar, SanjeevRao, Madan Mohan, DR.
Sreenatha Reddy,“Deflection Control in High Rise
Building Using Belt Truss and Outrigger Systems”,
International Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering
and Management, November 2014.
[5] Kiran Kamath, Avinash A. R., SandeshUpadhyaya K., “A
Study on the performance of multi-outrigger structure
subjected to Seismic loads”, IOSR Journal of
Mechanical and Civil Engineering, 2014.
[6] Dr. K. S. Sathyanarayanan, A. Vijay and S. Balachandar,
“Feasibility Studies on the Use of Outrigger System for
RC Core Frames” IJAITI,May 2012.
[7] IS 1893 (Part-1) - 2002,"criteria for earthquake
resistant design of structures"
[8] IS 875 (Part-3) - 1987,"criteria for wind resistant
design of structures"
[9] IS 456-2000,"Plain and Reinforced concrete"

Linear Analysis of RCC High-Rise Structures with Multiple Combinations of Outrigger Systems under Seismic Loads

More Related Content

Similar to Linear Analysis of RCC High-Rise Structures with Multiple Combinations of Outrigger Systems under Seismic Loads (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Linear Analysis of RCC High-Rise Structures with Multiple Combinations of Outrigger Systems under Seismic Loads