STRUCTURAL CONTROL AND HEALTH MONITORING

Struct. Control Health Monit. 2017; 24: e1864

Published online 31 March 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/stc.1864

Seismic performance of a damping outrigger system for tall

buildings

Ying Zhou*,†, Cuiqiang Zhang and Xilin Lu

State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China

SUMMARY
A novel damping outrigger system is proposed for tall buildings by replacing the diagonal members with buckling
restrained bracings. To investigate the conceptual design of the system, a simplified mechanical model for the out-
rigger system is first put forward in this paper. Four configurations of outriggers, which are commonly used in
practical engineering, are compared from the aspects of stiffness, strength, and energy-dissipating capacity. The
damping outriggers of the best configuration with buckling restrained braces acting as diagonal web members of
outriggers are then proposed. The effect of the system on the whole structure is demonstrated through a 632-m-tall
building. The results indicate that the damping outrigger can serve as stiffness member under the frequently occurred
earthquakes and energy dissipating member under the rarely occurred earthquakes to protect the main structure from
severe damages. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 13 July 2014; Revised 24 December 2015; Accepted 7 March 2016

KEY WORDS: outrigger; damping; buckling restrained brace; energy dissipation; tall building; seismic
performance

1. INTRODUCTION
An outrigger structure is considered to be one of the most efficient structural systems to resist the lat-
eral loading such as wind and earthquake loads. It is widely used in the high-rise buildings around the
world. In China, a majority of the high-rise buildings, including those under construction and those
completed, use outriggers in structural systems. The working mechanism of outrigger system is that
the outriggers effectively reduce the lateral deflection and the core wall moment by coupling the core
wall and the perimeter columns. As a results, the building of entire width works as an arm to resist the
lateral load. Smith and Salim [1] put forward a simplified model to study the effect of the number and
position of outriggers on the roof displacement under wind load as early as 1981. In 1984, Moudarres
[2] successfully solved the system with outrigger at the top of a couple shear wall structure by using the
continuous connecting medium standing for the coupling beams. Wu and Li [3] gave the closed-form
solutions based on the continuum approach in which the set of outriggers is smeared over the height to
resemble an equivalent uniform bracing system. Hoenderkamp, however, employed a graphically
method, quite different from the continuum approach, to study the effect of outrigger on the braced
frame structure [4] and high-rise shear wall structures [5]. From the studies mentioned earlier, the out-
rigger is able to connect the core wall and perimeter columns together to resist the overturn moment.
However, the shear force and moment are prone to change abruptly at the outrigger-located floors
when subjected to severe earthquakes. The concept of a damping outrigger system is thus proposed
in recent years.

*Correspondence to: Ying Zhou, State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai,
China.
†
E-mail: yingzhou@tongji.edu.cn

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 of 16

2 of 16 Y. ZHOU, C. ZHANG AND X. LU

A novel damped system by adding viscous dampers between outriggers and perimeter columns in a
frame-core tube structure was first presented in 2006 [6]. The engineering concept of damping outrig-
ger was put forward in 2007 [7] and successfully applied to high-rise buildings in Philippine [8] and in
Korea [9]. From then on, increasing attention has been given to this kind of damping outrigger system
[10–12]. The studies mentioned earlier focused on adding the viscous dampers to the building outrig-
gers. Other important innovative retrofit techniques using damping are also available [13,14]. The vis-
cous damping outriggers only provide damping force without increasing any stiffness for the building.
The stiffness can be crucial, however, to control the inter-story drift of tall buildings [15].
This paper proposes a new damping outrigger system, which contributes stiffness to the whole
structure under the frequently occurred earthquakes (FOEs; 63.2% exceeding probability in 50 years)
and changes the stiffness when subjected to the rarely occurred earthquakes (ROEs; 2% exceeding
probability in 50 year). The outrigger not only minimizes the abrupt changes of shear force and mo-
ment of the core wall around the outrigger floors but also dissipates the energy input into the structure
by adding additional damping to the structure.

2. INNOVATIVE DAMPING OUTRIGGER

Conventionally, the outrigger system is designed as the common buckling steel members in order to
avoid excessive strength and stiffness loss under ROEs. The new type of outrigger presented in this
paper replaces the tilted belt members with buckling restrained braces (BRBs). The parameter of the
BRBs will be determined according to the seismic performance at different design levels. The force-
displacement relationship of the outriggers is shown in Figure 1.
To study the new type of outrigger system, four types of outrigger configurations are proposed in
this paper (Figure 2). The dimensions reflect the 632-m-tall Shanghai Center in practical scale. The
cross section of the members is listed in Table I.

3. SIMPLIFIED MECHANICAL MODEL OF OUTRIGGERS

To take an in-depth insight into component behavior of the outrigger system, the mechanical behavior
of the outrigger system is decomposed into rigid frame model and truss model. The rigid frame model

Figure 1. The sketch of the outrigger system.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2017; 24: e1864
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF A DAMPING OUTRIGGER SYSTEM FOR TALL BUILDINGS 3 of 16

Figure 2. Four configurations of the outrigger systems.

Table I. Member cross sections (mm).

Member Section D B Tw Tf
E H1000 × 1000 × 80 × 80 1000 1000 80 80
F H1000 × 1700 × 100 × 100 1000 1700 100 100
G H1000 × 1000 × 90 × 90 1000 1000 90 90
Column 3700 × 5300 — — — —

mainly considers the nonlinear property of the top and bottom chords, namely, member E and G. The
truss model simulates the nonlinear behavior of the diagonal bracing member F. The overall behavior
of the outrigger is equal to the superposition of the two models. The decompositions of all four outrig-
ger configurations are shown in Figure 3.
To prove the accuracy and feasibility of the simplified mechanical model proposed earlier,
PERFORM-3D is used to build a numerical model (shown in Figure 4) to simulate the testing speci-
mens which were tested at the State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji
University [16]. The scaled model shown in the Figure 5 contains two specimens, namely, JDA-1 and

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2017; 24: e1864
DOI: 10.1002/stc
4 of 16 Y. ZHOU, C. ZHANG AND X. LU

Figure 3. Simplified models for the four outrigger configurations.

Figure 4. Analytical model in PERFORM-3D.

JDB-1. In the figure, the members marked S1, S2, and S3 are the outrigger members whose material and
section dimension are listed in Table II and in Figure 6, respectively. The outrigger parts (S1–S3), the
mega-column, and the shear wall built in PERFORM-3D are shown in Figure 4. Members S1 and S3
are simulated by elastic beam with lumped plastic hinge located at the both ends, while member S2 uses
the truss link with a buckling behavior. The comparison between the analytical and experimental results

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2017; 24: e1864
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF A DAMPING OUTRIGGER SYSTEM FOR TALL BUILDINGS 5 of 16

Figure 5. Scaled model in the laboratory.

Table II. Yielding strength of steel in the prototype and scaled models (N/mm2).
Member JDA-1 JDB-1
Prototype Scaled model Prototype Scaled model
S1 345 295 345 250
S2 345 235 345 260
S3 295 235 295 295

is given in Figures 7 and 8. From the comparison, the model in PERFORM-3D can well capture the initial
stiffness, the ultimate strength, and the maximum displacement. As a consequence, the simplified mechan-
ical model proposed is able to simulate the behavior of outrigger.

4. CONFIGURATIONS OF OUTRIGGERS
Using the verified mechanical model, four configurations of the outriggers in Figure 3 are compared in
this section to investigate the nonlinear behavior. A displacement-controlled step-by-step loading pro-
gram with two cycles in every step level is set up for the outriggers. The loading steps can be seen in the
Figure 9. The maximum displacement is 1152 mm, and the ratio of the displacement to the outrigger
horizontal length is 0.064. The energy dissipated by the rigid frame and the truss is shown in Figures 10
and 11, respectively. The total energy of the rigid frame and the truss is illustrated in Figure 12. In
Figures 10–12, 96% of the energy dissipated by the damping outrigger is because of the web members
in the truss model, whereas the proportion of energy dissipated by the rigid frame model is about 4% of
the total energy. Therefore, the web members are the main energy-dissipating member in the outrigger.
The hysteresis loops of the four-type outriggers under the loading rules mentioned earlier can be
seen in Figure 13. The back bone curves of the hysteresis loops are shown in Figure 14. It can be con-
cluded that types C and D show superior behaviors than types A and B in strength and stiffness.
Table III shows the efficiency of material used in the four types of outriggers in four aspects includ-
ing stiffness, positive strength, negative strength, and energy dissipating capacity. It is obvious that
types C and D have larger stiffness, strength, and energy dissipating capacity than types A and B. In
other words, if given the stiffness, strength, or energy-dissipating demands in practical engineering,
types C and D can work more cost-effectively than types A and B.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2017; 24: e1864
DOI: 10.1002/stc
6 of 16 Y. ZHOU, C. ZHANG AND X. LU

Figure 6. Member section of the scaled model.

Figure 7. Comparison of the experimental and analytical results (JDA-1).

Figure 8. Comparison of the experimental and analytical results (JDB-1).

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2017; 24: e1864
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF A DAMPING OUTRIGGER SYSTEM FOR TALL BUILDINGS 7 of 16

Figure 9. Loading system of the outrigger.

Figure 10. Cumulative energy of the rigid frame.

Figure 11. Cumulative energy of the truss.

5. DAMPING OUTRIGGER IN A TALL BUILDING

5.1. Basic information of the building
To investigate the effect of the damping outrigger on the whole structure, a 632-m-tall structure with
124 stories is used as the target building, Shanghai Center (Figure 15). The plan layout can be seen in
Figure 16. The detailed information of members in Shanghai Center is listed in Table IV. Type A is
applied here to demonstrate the effect of damping outriggers (Figure 17).
The characteristic period of construction site is 0.9 s, and the seismic intensity is 7 with a peak
ground acceleration of 0.035, 0.1, and 0.20 g under FOEs, design-based earthquakes, and ROEs,
respectively.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2017; 24: e1864
DOI: 10.1002/stc
8 of 16 Y. ZHOU, C. ZHANG AND X. LU

Figure 12. Cumulative energy of the outrigger model.

Figure 13. Hysteretic loops of the outrigger model.

Figure 14. Back bone curves of the outrigger model.

5.2. Model in PERFORM-3D

The 3-D model in PERFORM-3D is shown in Figure 18. The outrigger system and mega frame system
can be seen in Figure 19. The column used a fiber model to account for the P–M–M interaction. The
length of the fiber model is 0.5 times the depth of the column section. The shear behavior of the column
is considered to be elastic. Lumped plastic hinges are set at the both ends of the steel beams, and the
shear behavior is elastic. The web member in common outriggers employs truss link element with
buckling behavior, while the web member in damping outriggers uses BRB element.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2017; 24: e1864
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF A DAMPING OUTRIGGER SYSTEM FOR TALL BUILDINGS 9 of 16

Table III. Material efficiency of the four type outriggers.

Type A Type B Type C Type D
Material (kg) 115635 154392 139159 130230
Stiffness (kN/mm) 428 536 643 629
Positive Strength (kN) 67596 73439 118796 118002
Energy (kN * mm) 838525 908307 1241271 1227602

Figure 15. Shanghai Center building.

The selection of ground motions and performance limit [17] is very important to dynamic results.
Based on the matching degree between the site uniform hazard spectrum and the ground motion re-
sponse spectrum at the major periods of the building, shown in Figure 20, ground motions for analysis
are selected as given in Table V.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2017; 24: e1864
DOI: 10.1002/stc
10 of 16 Y. ZHOU, C. ZHANG AND X. LU

Figure 16. Plan layout of Shanghai Center.

Table IV. Detailed information of a tall building.

No. of Mega Corner Concrete Thickness of Thickness of Concrete
zone column* column* of column outer wall * inner wall * of wall
8 1.9 × 2.4 — C50 0.60 0.50 C60
7 2.2 × 2.3 — C50 0.60 0.50 C60
6 2.5 × 4.0 — C60 0.60 0.60 C60
5 2.6 × 4.4 1.2 × 4.5 C60 0.70 0.65 C60
4 2.8 × 4.6 1.5 × 4.8 C60 0.80 0.70 C60
3 3.0 × 4.8 1.8 × 4.8 C70 1.00 0.80 C60
2 3.4 × 5.0 2.2 × 5.0 C70 1.20 0.90 C60
1 3.7 × 5.3 2.4 × 5.5 C70 1.20 0.90 C60
*Unit in meter.

Figure 17. Typical outrigger configuration of the Shanghai Center.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2017; 24: e1864
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF A DAMPING OUTRIGGER SYSTEM FOR TALL BUILDINGS 11 of 16

Figure 18. Analytical model in PERFORM-3D.

5.3. Analytical results

The first three periods of the structure are 8.951, 8.911, and 4.637 s, respectively. The new outrigger
replaced by BRB possesses the same stiffness as the conventional outrigger (namely Non) under the

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2017; 24: e1864
DOI: 10.1002/stc
12 of 16 Y. ZHOU, C. ZHANG AND X. LU

Figure 19. Outrigger system and mega frame system in Shanghai Center.

FOE. So the inter-story drift of the whole structure is the same as drift of the structure with buckling
brace, as shown in Figure 21. Under the ROE, the new damping outrigger can decrease the inter-
story drift to a smaller degree than the conventional outrigger. This effect is illustrated in the
Figure 22.
The shear force envelop along the height of the concrete core wall indicates abrupt changes of the
shear force under the dynamic time history analysis, which can be seen in Figures 23 and 24. The dif-
ferences of shear force envelop between the structure with and without BRB element denote that the
damping outrigger can smooth the shear abruption moderately along the height of the concrete core
wall. It can protect the core wall from severe damages under the ROE.
The moment difference between the building with damping outrigger and conventional outrigger
can be found in Figure 25 under ROE level. The hysteresis loops of belt truss under ROE are shown in
Figure 26.
The energy dissipated by BRB elements can be calculated through the force-deformation hysteretic
curves. The additional damping ratio is derived from the following equation [18].

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2017; 24: e1864
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF A DAMPING OUTRIGGER SYSTEM FOR TALL BUILDINGS 13 of 16

Figure 20. Response spectra of ground motions (FOE).

Table V. Ground motions selection for the tall building.

Name of ground motion Name of earthquake Year Information of station
CHY004-E CHY004-N Chi-Chi,Taiwan 1999 CHY004
CHY016-E CHY016-N Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999 CHY016
MEX006 MEX007 Mexico City Earthquake 1985 Guerrero Array, Vile, Mexico
US2572 US2574 Imperial Valley Earthquake 1979 El Centro Array No. 2,Imperial Valley College
WSF-E WSF-N Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999 WSF
ZS7901 S7902 ~ 04 Artificial wave / /

Figure 21. Comparison of the inter-story drift ratio (FOE).

Figure 22. Comparison of the inter-story drift ratio (ROE).

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2017; 24: e1864
DOI: 10.1002/stc
14 of 16 Y. ZHOU, C. ZHANG AND X. LU

Figure 23. Shear force envelop of the shear wall (FOE).

Figure 24. Shear force envelop of the shear wall (ROE).

Figure 25. Moment envelop of the shear wall (ROE).

Ed
ξa ¼ (1)
4πE s

where Ed is the energy dissipated by all the BRB elements; Es is the strain energy of the whole struc-
ture, and ξ a is an additional damping to the whole structure by the BRB element.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2017; 24: e1864
DOI: 10.1002/stc
 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF A DAMPING OUTRIGGER SYSTEM FOR TALL BUILDINGS 15 of 16

Figure 26. Hysteresis loops of the belt truss (ROE).

Figure 27. Additional damping ratio at different time histories (ROE).

The additional damping ratio by the BRB elements at different time histories can be illustrated in
Figure 27. It can be concluded that the 48 BRB members effectively contribute an additional damping
ratio of 0.5% on average to the building.

6. CONCLUSIONS
The average height of top 10 super-tall buildings in the world has reached 600 m. Most of them intro-
duce outriggers to coordinate the lateral systems to resist horizontal earthquake and wind loads. The
outriggers on one hand provide stiffness needed to control the drift, on the other hand, however, cause
the vulnerable stories easily formed under earthquakes. Thus, a damping outrigger that replaces the
diagonal web members with BRBs is proposed and studied in this paper. A simplified mechanical
model for the outrigger was presented, and the comparison of the damping outrigger and the effect
on the structures were studied. The main conclusions are as follows.
(1) The simplified mechanical model proposed in this paper is proved as an effective model to sim-
ulate the behavior of outrigger systems through the comparison between the experimental and
numerical results.
(2) Through the comparison analysis, types C and D outriggers behave better than the other types
of outrigger system, considering the initial stiffness, ultimate strength, as well as the dissipating
energy capacity.
(3) The damping outrigger system presented in this paper can provide stiffness to keep the inter-
story drift low under the FOE. When subjected to the ROE, the outrigger can change the stiff-
ness and dissipate the energy, protecting the main members from severe damage. The outrigger

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2017; 24: e1864
DOI: 10.1002/stc
16 of 16 Y. ZHOU, C. ZHANG AND X. LU

system can therefore force the super high-rise buildings to develop a more appropriate failure
mechanism when subjected to a ROE. The energy was mainly dissipated by the BRB in the
outrigger, which can be easily replaced by a new one after earthquakes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful for the financial support in part from the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(Grant No. 51322803 and 51261120377) and Shanghai Shuguang Project (Grant No. 14SG19).

REFERENCES

1. Smith BS, Salim I. Parameter study of outrigger-braced tall building structures. Journal of the Structural Division 1981; 107
(10):2001–2014.
2. Moudarres FR. Outrigger-braced coupled shear walls. Journal of Structural Engineering 1984; 110(12):2876–2890.
3. Wu JR, Li QS. Structural performance of multi-outrigger-braced tall buildings. The Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings 2003; 12(2):155–176.
4. Hoenderkamp JCD. Shear wall with outrigger trusses on wall and column foundations. The structural design of tall and
special buildings 2004; 13(1):73–87.
5. Hoenderkamp JCD, Bakker MCM. Analysis of high-rise braced frames with outriggers. The Structural Design of Tall and
Special Buildings 2003; 12(4):335–350.
6. Jeremiah C. Application of damping in high-rise building. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Boston, USA. 2006.
7. Smith RJ, Willford MR. The damping outrigger concept for tall buildings. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Build-
ings 2007; 16(4):501–517.
8. Willford MR, Smith RJ, Scott D, et al. Viscous dampers come of age. Structure Magazine 2008; 6:15–18.
9. Park K, Kim D, Yang D, et al. A comparison study of conventional construction methods and outrigger damper system for
the compensation of differential column shortening in high-rise buildings. International Journal of Steel Structures 2010; 10
(4):317–324.
10. Wang ZH, Chang CM, Spencer BF, et al. Controllable outrigger damping system for high rise building with MR dampers.
SPIE Smart Structures and Materials and Nondestructive Evaluation and Health Monitoring. International Society for Optics
and Photonics 2010; 7647(3Z):1–8.
11. Chen Y, McFarland DM, Wang Z, et al. Analysis of tall buildings with damped outriggers. Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing 2010; 136(11):1435–1443.
12. Zhou Y, Lu XL, Zhang CQ. Seismic performance of a super-tall building with energy dissipation outriggers. Journal of
Vibration and Shock 2011; 30(11):186–189(in Chinese).
13. Cimellaro GP, Soong TT, Reinhorn AM. Integrated design of inelastic controlled structural systems. Journal of Structural
control and Health Monitoring 2009; 16(7-8):689–702.
14. Reinhorn AM, Lavan O, Cimellaro GP. Design of controlled elastic and inelastic structures. Earthquake Engineering and
Engineering Vibration 2009; 8(4):469–479.
15. Zhou Y, Li HX. Analysis of a high-rise steel structure with viscous damped outriggers. The Structural Design of Tall and
Special Buildings 2014; 23(13):963–979.
16. Zhao XZ, Wang B, Chen YY. Monotonic static tests on outrigger truss and its connection with mega column and core tube
of the Shanghai Tower. Journal of Building Structures 2013; 34(2):20–28(in Chinese).
17. Cimellaro GP, Reinhorn AM. Multidimensional performance limit state for hazard fragility functions. Journal of Engineer-
ing Mechanics, ASCE 2011; 137(1):47–60.
18. Chopra AK. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, 2012.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2017; 24: e1864
DOI: 10.1002/stc