Professional Documents
Culture Documents
org/papers
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat / Hi Sun Choi; Leonard Joseph
International Journal of High-Rise Buildings International Journal of
September 2012, Vol 1, No 3, 237-246 High-Rise Buildings
www.ctbuh.org
Abstract
Outrigger systems have been widely used in super tall buildings constructed since the 1980s, eclipsing previously favored
tubular frame systems. However, outriggers are not listed as a seismic lateral load resisting system in any code. Design
guidelines are not available. The CTBUH formed the Outrigger Working Group to develop the first-ever outrigger system
design guide with an historical overview, considerations for outrigger application, effects on building behavior and design
recommendations including concerns specific to this structural system such as differential column shortening and construction
sequence impacts. Project examples are presented for various outrigger system types, including advancements in their
technology. The guide provides a basis for future discussions on this important topic.
Keywords: Outrigger, Code, Design guidelines, CTBUH, Outrigger working group, Tall building design
Corresponding author: Leonard Joseph direct or conventional outrigger system, models with
Tel: +1-310-417-1816; Fax: +1-310-417-1817 incorrect or unrealistic diaphragm properties will report
E-mail: ljoseph@ThorntonTomasetti.com incorrect force values in outrigger chords supporting
238 Hi Sun Choi and Leonard Joseph | International Journal of High-Rise Buildings
slabs, as well as incorrect building deformations. Dia- since the stories between outriggers still provide ductility.
phragm stiffness modeling is particularly important for In a core-and-outrigger system, the strong column weak
indirect virtual outrigger/belt truss systems, as the beam provision does not appear necessary or appropriate
diaphragms are key elements in the load paths that make at perimeter columns because the central core walls or
the system work. core braced bays already provide a strong spine. The
Conventional or directly-framed outrigger system designs strong column weak beam philosophy could be appro-
must address the potential for load redistribution between priately applied to the interaction of outriggers and the
columns and core resulting from differential axial strains. core through capacity based design limiting outrigger
Unlike all-steel systems, concrete buildings experience forces, or performance based design evaluating forces
long-term vertical deformations due to cumulative creep from realistic seismic excitation.
and shrinkage strains in addition to elastic shortening.
The magnitude and timing of such deformations will 1.3. Conditions Less Suitable for Outrigger Systems
differ between members as stresses, concrete mixtures, Structural systems governed by story shear deforma-
volume-to-surface ratios and reinforcing ratios differ. tions, such as moment frames, would not benefit enough
This makes prediction of differential movements a com- from outriggers to justify their cost. Outrigger systems
plex time- and sequence-related challenge. Force trans- interact with cores based on relative stiffness. If a core is
fers can also occur through conventional or direct outrig- already comparatively stiff or the aspect ratio (building
gers when the columns and core experience differential height/core width) is low, it may be impractical or
temperature conditions, as from perimeter columns expo- inefficient to attempt providing further stiffness through
sed to weather. outriggers.
Outriggers located at just a few points along building An unsymmetrical system may have outrigger force
height tend to generate large forces to help counteract couples involving axial forces in the core, complicating
core overturning moments. The challenge increases at core analysis and design. Gravity force transfers in an
mixed systems such as steel outrigger trusses between unsymmetrical system can result in an overturning mo-
concrete mega columns and concrete core walls, and at ment cranked into the building, leading to lateral dis-
composite systems with steel members embedded within placements under gravity loads. However, this does not
or enclosing concrete. mean unsymmetrical systems cannot be used.
The numerous special members and heavy connections If controlling torsional forces and deformations is of
of outriggers and belt trusses and changes from typical primary importance, a perimeter tube (frame) or belt truss
floor framing at outrigger levels can significantly slow system would be more effective than an outrigger system
the erection process. Delaying outrigger connections to without belts.
allow for initial differential shortening would reduce Limitations on outrigger column sizes may render an
gravity load transfer forces, but on some projects out- outrigger system ineffective, especially if outriggers are
riggers must act for potentially high winds during the limited to locations high in a building since larger column
construction period, as well as for deflection control for sizes would be needed for increased stiffness to offset the
partial operation of buildings still under construction, a softening effect of the long distance to the outrigger.
practice common in some parts of the world.
The ASCE7-05 standard referenced in model building 2. Design Considerations for Outrigger
codes such as the International Building Code includes 82 Systems
seismic structural systems and combinations but no out-
riggers. This omission is not surprising since no single 2.1. Appropriate Conditions for Outrigger Systems
standard design approach is suitable for all outrigger For an aspect ratio exceeding 8 or so the structural
situations. Outriggers and belt trusses are stiff and strong premium to control drift and resist overturning is large
elements at discrete locations within a structure. This can enough to consider introducing outriggers to alleviate
be inconsistent with seismic design approaches based on dependence on the core for overturning resistance and
distributed stiffness and strength. Strong outriggers may maximize useful space between the core and exterior
also apply forces large enough to load other elements to columns.
the point of damage and non-ductile behavior. When direct or conventional outrigger walls or trusses
Soft story seismic provisions in model building codes are not acceptable for the building due to space limi-
typically look at the change in story stiffness from one tations or a column layout which is not aligned with the
story to the next story up. In an outrigger system the out- core walls, an indirect, virtual outrigger or belt truss
rigger floors exhibit smaller story drift from a reverse system may be used. In an indirect or virtual outrigger
shear force in the core. As a result, outriggers could be belt truss design, corner columns tend to provide most
considered as inherently stiff stories and the stories overturning resistance, but may not attract much of the
immediately below an outrigger are always soft stories. gravity load unless specific attention is paid to relative
This should not disqualify use of an outrigger system stiffness of all system elements. Ideally the same member
Outrigger System Design Considerations 239
diaphragm modeling assumption must not be used. the perimeter columns. In a concrete core and steel peri-
Improperly modeled diaphragms will result in misleading meter design, for example, all post-construction core
behaviors and load paths, and incorrect member design shortening generates differential shortening. That can be
forces, for both indirect virtual outrigger/belt truss a large number, reaching several inches (cm) over time.
systems and direct, conventional outrigger systems. Time-based load combinations should be considered.
Because gravity load transfer forces vary with time, espe-
2.5. Stiffness Reduction cially from creep and shrinkage effects, total forces in the
Analytical studies must consider appropriate stiffness core and outrigger columns will vary with time as well.
regimes depending on the load conditions, especially for To cover both the immediate and long-term load distri-
concrete construction. When considering concrete core bution cases, separate load combinations should be deter-
walls and columns, different stiffness reduction factors mined both with and without the transfer forces present.
apply for service-level wind (gross sections), factored Construction strategies can also affect transfer forces, as
wind and factored seismic cases, as well as further reduc- discussed in section 2.10 below.
tions in the presence of cracking, as described in ACI
318. If a nonlinear analysis has modeled explicit changes 2.7. Thermal Effects Management
in member stiffness at different load levels there is no Outriggers that link exposed perimeter columns and a
need to apply general stiffness reduction factors as well. temperature-controlled internal core can experience large
However, nonlinear analyses are typically performed only forces induced by temperature differences. The magnitude
after preliminary member sizing has been performed on of temperature difference should consider realistic heat
the basis of simpler, elastic models. To the extent that flow paths, including the ratio of surfaces exposed to the
geometric nonlinearity (P-Delta effect) is not explicitly exterior and interior, and the thermal properties of the
considered by the analysis method, lateral stiffness should material. At a minimum the effect should be considered
be reduced to reflect it. in all load combinations that include the self-strain load T
arising from thermal effects for a realistic range of
2.6. Differential Column Shortening Effects exterior and interior temperatures. The load factor applied
In a high-rise building, columns are typically highly should reflect the probability of occurrence: a larger
strained from gravity loads, and small differences in factor should apply if using seasonal or daily average
strain between adjacent columns, or between columns maximum and minimum temperatures, while a smaller
and the core, will accumulate to result in significant factor could apply if extreme recorded temperatures are
differences in axial shortening over a buildings height. used.
Large strains can be induced in outriggers that link ASCE 7-10 is not yet referenced in current codes, but
columns and a core that shorten by different amounts. it addresses self-strain load(s) T with general statements.
The resulting strains can generate very large forces within For factored load combinations, it states, Where appli-
the outriggers, transferring a portion of gravity loads cable, the structural effects of T shall be considered in
between columns and core. If no special measures are combination with other loads. Also, The load factor on
taken, for some designs gravity transfer forces can be of T shall not have a value less than 1.0. For load com-
similar magnitude to the outrigger design forces resisting binations under Allowable Stress Design the wording is
lateral loads. To avoid having to design for such large identical except for a 0.75 load factor. These statements
forces, or being surprised by potentially damaging forces validate the idea that T should not be limited to selected
and displacements in structural and nonstructural elements, load combinations, while complicating establishment of
differential shortening between vertical members should appropriate T values. Due to the low probability of simul-
be considered throughout the design and construction taneous extreme temperatures and earthquakes or rare
process. winds, a less-than-extreme value for T is recommended
Ideally the gravity system is coordinated with the lateral so that a load factor of 1.0 (or 0.75 for ASD) is appro-
system so that members of similar materials are used and priate in combinations with wind (W) or earthquake (E)
axial stress levels under gravity are similar for all vertical loads. For combinations without wind or earthquake
members. That will minimize differential column short- loads, a higher load factor on T can be applied to cover
ening. However, in real concrete buildings columns typi- potential extreme temperatures.
cally have higher axial stresses than core walls and
shorten more as a result. The reverse may be true in steel 2.8. Load Path from Connections
braced core buildings. Outriggers connecting the two When core, outrigger and column are all structural steel,
types of elements will try to transfer load through the the connections will be large but can be conventional.
outriggers, for example relieving concrete columns and When forces must transition between different materials,
loading concrete core walls. establishing an appropriate load path requires study and
Time-dependent differential shortening effects are grea- creativity; there is no single correct approach.
test when different materials are used in the core and in For a load path from steel outrigger to concrete core
Outrigger System Design Considerations 241
Figure 4. Outrigger connections with continuous steel Figure 6. Outrigger connections using steel stubs through
members. studs and end plates.
242 Hi Sun Choi and Leonard Joseph | International Journal of High-Rise Buildings
design, offers clear benefits for achieving better tall avoiding column failure relies on having non-column
building designs. It requires clearly defined performance members yield or buckle first. Establishing outrigger
objectives, procedures for selecting and scaling earth- members small enough to serve as fuses may be
quake ground motions for design, nonlinear modeling achievable by optimization. Where the lateral load resis-
methods that produce reliable estimates, acceptance ting system is being sized for stiffness, as may occur
criteria for calculated demands and a framework for the where wind criteria are governing the design, the require-
design and review of alternative-design buildings. Out- ment can be met by a variety of combinations of column
rigger members can be designed to remain elastic under stiffness and outrigger stiffness. For example, making
the Design Basis Earthquake or the Maximum Considered columns larger to resist capacity-based outrigger forces
Earthquake, or can be fused to limit the member forces will add to system stiffness. That may permit downsizing
and absorb seismic energy in a large earthquake event. the outrigger members themselves while meeting required
system stiffness. The smaller outrigger members would
2.12. Soft Story and Weak Story Seismic Requirements limit the maximum force columns could experience. Since
Prescriptive code seismic requirements limit the per- core-and-outrigger systems are indeterminate, changing
missible variation in stiffness or strength from story to the outrigger and mega column stiffnesses will also
story. In particular, codes discourage having a stiffer or change the forces they attract. Several design cycles may
stronger story above a softer or weaker story. This would be required to simultaneously achieve the required stiff-
appear to prohibit outrigger systems, since the story ness and a hierarchy of strength.
below an outrigger is usually significantly less stiff and
weaker in shear than the outrigger story. However, such 2.14. Strong Column Weak Beam Concept in
an objection would be short-sighted: the code requirement Outrigger Systems
is intended to guard against a uniformly stiff or strong The strong column, weak beam provision, called the
building having a soft or weak story where deformations column-beam ratio in AISC Seismic Provisions and mini-
would be concentrated, as may occur at a lobby or other mum flexural strength of columns in ACI 318 seismic
non-typical level. Outriggers create the opposite situation. provisions, specifically refers to special moment frames,
A building with multiple stories of similar stiffness and checking that lateral loads will cause yielding in beams
strength is additionally strengthened and stiffened at the rather than in columns. It is intended to avoid hinge
few outrigger floors. Having many similar floors provides formation in multiple columns at the same level, which
ample opportunities for well-distributed ductile behavior could cause story collapse.
between outriggers, while the outriggers provide positive Applying the strong column weak beam provision to a
global effects. Performance-based analysis can demon- core-and-outrigger system building is inappropriate because
strate that behavior is acceptable under this system. outriggers are not moment frames. It is also problematic
because any realistic outrigger truss or outrigger wall
2.13. Strong Column Seismic Requirement and viewed as a beam connected to the outrigger column at
Capacity Based Design top and bottom chord levels will not yield in flexure
The intent of the amplified seismic load requirement (chords yielding or buckling) before the column does. In
may be met in some designs by performance based analy- a core-and-outrigger system where the core itself pro-
sis. For lateral systems sized for other criteria, such as vides the majority of inter-story stiffness, it is evident that
stiffness and strength under extreme wind loads, non- story collapse should not occur even if columns develop
linear time history studies may be able to demonstrate flexural hinges. By that logic, a strong column, weak
that demand under load combinations including seismic beam criterion should apply only for viewing the core as
effects never exceeds capacity at outriggers and the a column and the outriggers as beams because the cen-
columns to which they connect, even for the maximum tral core walls or core braced bays will provide the strong
considered earthquake event. This situation is more likely spine desired for favorable seismic performance. Even if
to occur at outriggers and mega columns near mid-height: perimeter columns hinge at outrigger top and bottom
gravity load will comprise a large portion of the column chord levels, the story cannot collapse as long as the core
axial demand, column net tension is less likely to occur is standing.
there than at outriggers high in the building, and out- Therefore the performance based seismic design approach
riggers may be designed for large forces that include for outrigger system buildings is highly recommended as
gravity load transfers between core and columns. it looks at responses to realistic seismic events. A PBD
Capacity based design can avoid the need for highly approach can demonstrate that capacity-limiting measures
ductile column axial performance, by limiting applied such as BRB diagonals work. Alternatively, the need to
forces from seismic events to a maximum value in com- design an outrigger as a weak beam can become moot
bination with well established factored gravity forces if members sized for strength and stiffness are shown to
from dead and live loads. The capacity-based approach to remain elastic in a nonlinear time history response
244 Hi Sun Choi and Leonard Joseph | International Journal of High-Rise Buildings
Outrigger design is not amenable to a standardized pro- D. (2008) Structural System of North-East Asia Trade
cedure due to the variety of challenges posed, solutions Tower in Korea. Proc. CTBUH 8th World Congress.
used and new concepts being developed. This may frus- Gerasimidis, S., Efthymiou, E. and Baniotopoulos, C. C.
trate designers looking for a single authoritative standard. (2009) Optimum Outrigger Locations of High-rise Steel
However, the real value of this guideline document is to Buildings for Wind Loading. Institute of Metal Structures,
stimulate thoughtful discussions of outrigger systems Department of Civil Engineering Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, July.
within the engineering profession, encourage researchers
Joseph, L., Poon, D. and Shieh, S. (2006) Ingredients of
to investigate behaviors related to such systems and
High Rise Design: Taipei 101, the Worlds Tallest Build-
address and resolve many of the issues through subse- ing. Structure Magazine, June.
quent editions. The authors look forward to participating Kian, P. S. and Siahaan, F. T. (2001) The Use of Outrigger
with the rest of the tall building community in these and Belt Truss System For High-Rise Concrete Build-
exciting developments. ings. Dimensi Teknik Sipil, 3(1).
Korista, S., Sarkisian, M. and Abdelrazaq, A. (1995) Jin
References Mao Towers Unique Structural System. Proc. Shanghai
International Seminar for Building Construction Techno-
Abdelrazaq, A., Baker, W., Chung, K. R., Pawlikowski, J., logy.
Wang, I. and Yon, K. S. (2004) Integration of Design Kwok, M. K. Y. and Vesey, D. G. (1997) Reaching for the
and Construction of the Tallest Building in Korea, Tower moon - A view on the future of tall buildings. Structures
Palace III, Seoul, Korea. Proc. CTBUH Conference, in the New Millennium, Lee (ed.), Balkema, pp. 199~205.
Seoul. Lahey, W. and Klemencic, J. (2008) A Tale of Two Cities:
Abdelrazaq, A., Kijewski-Correa, T., Song, Y.-H., Case, P., Collaborative Innovations for Sustainable Towers. Proc.
Isyumov, N. and Kareem, A. (2005) Design and Full- 8th World Congress, CTBUH.
Scale Monitoring of the Tallest Building in Korea: Tower Lame, A. (2008) Optimization of Outrigger Structures.
Palace III. Proc. 6th Asia-Pacific Conference on Wind Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Seoul, Korea. Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Ali, Mir M. and Moon, K. S. (2007) Structural Develop- Loesch, E. (2007) An Enduring Solution. Structure Maga-
ments in Tall Buildings: Current Trends and Future zine, June.
Prospects. Architectural Science Review, 50(3). Luong, A., Gibbons, C., Lee, A. and MacArthur, J. (2004)
AISC 341-02. (2002) Seismic Provisions for Structural Two International Finance Centre. Proc. CTBUH Con-
Steel Buildings. AISC. ference, Seoul, pp. 1160~1164.
ASCE7-05. (2006) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings Moehle, J. O. (2007) The Tall Buildings Initiative for Alter-
and Other Structures. ASCE. native Seismic Design. Pacific Earthquake Research
ASCE7-10. (2010) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings Center, University of California, Berkeley.
and Other Structures. ASCE. Nair, R. S. (1998) Belt Trusses and Basements as Virtual
Arbitrio, V. and Chen, K. (2005) 300 Madison Avenue Outriggers for Tall Buildings. Engineering Journal,
Practical Defensive Design Meets Post 9/11 Challenge. AISC, Q4, pp. 140~146.
Structure Magazine, April. Nolte, C. (2006) Tall, SkinnyStable. San Francisco
Baker, J. and Tomlinson, W. (2009) Case Study: Trump Chronicle, July.
International Hotel & Tower. CTBUH Journal, Issue III. Poon, D., Hsiao, L., Zhu, Y., Joseph, L., Zuo, S., Fu, P. and
Baker, Korista, Sinn, Pennings, Rankin (2006) Trump Inter- Ihtiyar, O. (2011) Non-Linear Time History Analysis for
national Hotel and Tower. Concrete International, ACI, the Performance Based Design of Shanghai Tower.
July. Proc. ASCE Structures Congress.
Baker, W. F., Korista, D. S., Novak, L. C., Pawlikowski, J. Poon, D., Shieh, S., Joseph, L. and Chang, C. (2002). The
and Young, B. (2007) Creep and Shrinkage and the Skys the Limit, Modern Steel Construction, AISC,
Design of Supertall Buildings-A Case Study: The Burj December.
Dubai Tower. ACI SP-246-8, pp. 133~148. Roorda, R. (2008) Design of the Tallest Reinforced Concrete
Bayati, Z., Mahdikhani, M. and Rahaei, A. (2008) Opti- Structure in California- a 58-Story Residential Tower in
mized Use of Multi-Outriggers System to Stiffen Tall San Francisco. ASCE Structures Congress, USA.
Buildings. Proc. 14th World Conference on Earthquake Scarangello, T., Krall, K. and Callow, J. (2008) A State-
Engineering. ment in Steel. Proc. CTBUH 8th World Congress.
Callow, J., Krall, K. and Scarangello, T. (2009) Inside Out. Seismic Working Group (2008) Recommendations for the
Modern Steel Construction, AISC, Jan. Seismic Design of High-rise Buildings. CTBUH.
Chen, K. and Axmann, G. (2003) Comprehensive Design Smith, B. S. and Coull, A (2007). Tall Building Structures
and A913 Grade 65 Steel Shapes: the Key Design Factors Analysis and Design. John Wiley & Sons, USA.
of 300 Madison Avenue, New York City. Proc. NASCC. Smith, R. and Willford, M. (2008) Damped Outriggers for
Cheng, S., Liu, J. W., Jin, Z. and Bao, Z. (1998) A model Tall Buildings. The Arup Journal 3/2008.
shaking table test for Shanghai Ciros Plaza. Building The New York Times Building. (2006) Metals in Construc-
Science, 14(5), pp. 8~13. (in Chinese). tion, Fall.
Chung, K. R., Scott, D., Kim, D. H., Ha, I. H., and Park, K. Tomasetti, P., Hsiao (2001) The Tallest Concrete Building
246 Hi Sun Choi and Leonard Joseph | International Journal of High-Rise Buildings
in Shanghai, China Plaza 66. Proc. Tall Buildings and Willford, M. R. and Smith, R. J. (2008) Performance Based
Urban Habitat Cities in the Third Millennium, CTBUH. Seismic and Wind Engineering for 60 Story Twin Towers
Viswanath, H. R., Tolloczko, J. J. A. and Clarke, J. N., eds. in Manila. Proc. 14th World Conference on Earthquake
Multi-Purpose High-Rise Towers and Tall Buildings. E Engineering.
& FN Spon, London, pp. 333~346. Youssef, N., Wilkerson, R., Fischer, K. and Tunick, D. (2010)
Wada, A. (1990). How to Reduce Drift of Buildings. ATC- Seismic Performance of a 55-Storey Steel Plate Shear
15-3 Proc. 4th US-Japan Workshop on the Improvement of Wall. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings,
Building Structural Design and Construction Practices, Wiley Interscience, Vol. 19.
pp. 349~365.