See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326608405

Studies on Damped Hybrid Outrigger Systems of Composite Walls and Steel

Bracings

Article  in  Structures & Buildings · July 2018

DOI: 10.1680/jstbu.17.00047

CITATIONS READS

0 67

1 author:

Aaron J. Wang
CapitaLand
72 PUBLICATIONS   195 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

High performance shear connectors for long span composite floor systems View project

Studies into high performance composite joint in building structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Aaron J. Wang on 15 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Cite this article Research Article Keywords: composite structures/seismic
Wang AJ Paper 1700047 engineering/strength & testing of
Studies on damped hybrid outrigger systems of composite walls and steel bracings. Received 28/03/2017; materials
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Structures and Buildings, Accepted 19/07/2018
https://doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.17.00047
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Structures and Buildings

Studies on damped hybrid outrigger systems

of composite walls and steel bracings
Aaron J. Wang BEng, PhD, CEng, CPEng, FICE, FIStructE, FCIOB,
MIEAust
Director, Centre of Innovation for Building and Construction, CapitaLand
China Corporate, Shanghai, P. R. China (aaron.juan.wang@icloud.com)

Both experimental and numerical investigations were conducted on a new type of steel–concrete hybrid outrigger
system developed for high-rise building structures. The steel bracing is embedded in the reinforced concrete outrigger
wall, and the steel bracing and concrete outrigger wall work together to enhance the overall structural performance
of tower structures under extreme loads. At the same time, metal dampers of a low-yield steel material are used as a
‘fuse’ device between the hybrid outrigger and the column. The damper is engineered to be ‘sacrificed’ and yield first
in moderate to severe earthquakes to protect the structural integrity of important structural components of the
hybrid outrigger system. Thus, brittle failures are unlikely to occur due to severe cracking in the concrete outrigger
wall. A comprehensive experimental research programme was conducted to examine the structural performance of
this new type of hybrid outrigger system. Finite-element models were also proposed and verified to be able to
conservatively predict the structural performance of the hybrid outrigger system in both elastic and non-linear plastic
stages. The key component and overall system tests were examined, which reveal the detailed structural response
under various levels of static and cyclic loads.

1. Introduction system exhibits sufficient ductility under seismic action with

A new type of steel–concrete hybrid outrigger system is devel-
oped in two mega high-rise towers 370 m tall in Raffles City
Chongqing (Wang, 2015), where steel bracing is embedded
in the reinforced concrete outrigger wall, as shown in
Figures 1(a) and 1(b). The steel bracing and concrete outrigger
wall works compositely to enhance the overall structural per-
formance of the tower structures under extreme loads. In
addition, metal dampers of a low-yield steel material are used
as a ‘fuse’ device between the hybrid outrigger and the mega
column. The dampers are engineered to be ‘sacrificed’ and
yield first in moderate to severe earthquakes to protect the
structural integrity of the important structural components of
the hybrid outrigger system. Thus, brittle failure is not likely
to occur due to severe concrete cracking, which results in a
higher level of structural integrity and energy dissipation per-
formance. In addition, the design may enable the contractor
to break through the critical path of the laborious and time-
consuming on the steel outrigger truss in the refugee floors
and ‘shoot’ the core by leaving the construction joints between
the core and the outrigger walls, which also shortens the
overall construction period of a high-rise structure.
Both experimental and numerical investigations were con-
ducted into a new type of steel–concrete hybrid outrigger
system for high-rise building structures. Finite-element models
were also proposed with the incorporation of geometrical and
material non-linearities. Key component and overall system
tests were conducted, which revealed the detailed structural
response under various levels of monotonic and quasi-static
cyclic loads. The metal dampers are verified to be able to
effectively work in earthquakes and enhance the overall
structural performance. In addition, the hybrid outrigger
effective protection for the ‘fuse’ devise of the low-yield steel
damper.
2. Literature review
Numerous analytical and numerical studies have been con-
ducted in the past three decades on the effectiveness and key
components of the steel outrigger system (Lee et al., 2015;
Nie et al., 2014; Smith and Irawan, 1981). The damping
system has also been considered in recent years to further
enhance the overall energy dissipation capacity of such
systems, which effectively enhances the performance of the
building structure (Zhou and Li, 2014; Zhou et al., 2017).
2.1 Analytical investigation
The effectiveness of the outrigger system on the modern high-
rise building has been investigated since the 1980s. Smith and
Irawan (1981) established an analytical approach to assess the
deflection and internal forces in moment frame and braced
moment frame structures with the steel outrigger. The analyti-
cal results were calibrated using the virtual energy approach
and minimum potential energy approach. Design formulae
were derived to calculate the distribution of inter-floor drifting
and internal forces and moments on typically rectangular build-
ings. These design formulae were further adopted by Smith
and Irawan (1983) and Coull and Lao (1988) to optimise the
structural layout for typical high-rise buildings with outriggers
in earthquakes. The free vibration mode was also analytically
investigated by Moudarre and Coull (1985).
2.2 Numerical optimisation and study
With the advances in the finite-element technique and numeri-
cal optimisation technology, more numerical investigations

1
Structures and Buildings
Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com
Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
Metal damper
Concrete flange
Steel bracing
Outrigger wall
Ring beam
on core wall
(a)
Concrete flange
Steel bracing
Embedded
Metal
steel
Outrigger wall
damper
Steel bracing
Concrete flange
Column
(b)
Figure 1. Hybrid outrigger system: (a) three-dimensional view;
(b) elevation view. A full-colour version of this figure can be
found on the ICE Virtual Library (www.icevirtuallibrary.com)
were conducted on buildings with steel outrigger trusses
(Mohsen and Rahgozar, 2011; Wu and Li, 2003). The effecti-
veness of steel outrigger trusses on concrete core and moment
frame structures were studied by Bayati et al. (2008),
Malekinejad and Reza (2011) and Zhang (2007). Both design
formulae and guidance were established considering the con-
tribution from the concrete core wall and steel outrigger truss.
Wang (2010) proposed a three-dimensional finite-element
model and a simplified two-dimensional finite-element model
to study the non-linear structural behaviour of composite end-
plate connections under gravity loads. The three-dimensional
finite-element model was extended by Wang (2011) to study
the structural behaviour of end-plate composite connections
under combined gravity and lateral loads. A refined numerical
model on composite beam-to-column joints under seismic
loads was proposed by Amadio et al. (2017). Further research
by Moon (2013, 2015) provided more insight and understand-
ing in relation to the performance of high-rise buildings of
more different shapes. The numerical approach was further
extended to optimise the structural performance of steel and
2
Studies on damped hybrid outrigger
systems of composite walls and
steel bracings
Wang
composite buildings with steel outriggers. Material topology
optimisation was used by Lee et al. (2015) to optimise the out-
rigger layout in high-rise buildings. The steel outrigger under
wind loads was studied by Fawzia and Fatima (2016). A
genetic-algorithm-based minimal-weight approach was used
by Park et al. (2016) and Farshid and Payam (2015) to opti-
mise the design for high-rise buildings with the lightest possible
outrigger for the same level of structural performance.
2.3 Component study and damping system
Various components of the steel outrigger and connection
system have also been studied in the past decade. The coupling
effect between the concrete and steel shear wall and the out-
rigger truss was studied by Lee et al. (2008) and Gholipour
et al. (2015), respectively. The effectiveness of the shear wall
and outrigger truss on the foundation settlement was also
numerically and analytically studied by Hoenderkamp (2004).
Lee (2016) studied the utilisation rate of the steel outrigger
system in two-dimensional and three-dimensional scenarios.
Core
Nie et al. (2014) experimentally and numerically investigated
the performance of the k-style joint between the outrigger
truss and the concrete core. With the recent demand for
seismic hazard mitigation of high-rise buildings, the appli-
cation of the viscous damper on the steel outrigger system was
studied by Zhou and Li (2014) and Zhou et al. (2017) for the
seismic proofing of building structures. A similar system was
analytically studied by Tan et al. (2015). Until now, most
studies have focused on the steel outrigger truss and its effects
on the structural performance of the high-rise building, but
there are notably few systematic studies on the concrete and
composite outrigger wall.
Furthermore, there is no comprehensive study on the new type
of concrete–steel hybrid outrigger system with metal dampers
considering seismic and wind actions.
3. Objectives and scope of the work
This paper experimentally and numerically investigates the
structural performance of this new type of hybrid outrigger
system. Finite-element models were established and verified
against the results of the mechanical tests.
The key component and overall system studies were conducted,
which reveal the detailed structural response under various
levels of monotonic and quasi-static cyclic loads. Particular
attention was typically given to the following aspects in the
investigation
& load-carrying capacity and deformation characteristics
& stress distribution and concentration
& connection energy dissipation capacities
& typical failure modes and damage locations.
Structures and Buildings
Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com
Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
4. Research programme
The effect of horizontal earthquakes on high-rise building is
considered; these are typically transferred into vertical forces
as perpendicular to the outrigger arm through the outrigger
actions (Moudarres and Coull, 1985; Smith and Irawan, 1983).
The research programme comprises the following groups of
mechanical tests and numerical studies.
4.1 Component test on the hybrid outrigger arm
Two specimens of hybrid outrigger arms are tested under
monotonic and quasi-static cyclic loads; the specimens com-
prise the steel bracing, embedded steel section and concrete
outrigger wall. Various key structural responses, including the
load–deformation characteristics, development of stress in steel
members and growth of cracks in concrete, were observed
and studied, which provides valuable insight into the load–
deformation characteristics and damage mechanism of the
hybrid outrigger arm under monotonic and quasi-static cyclic
loads. No low-yield steel damper was included in this group of
mechanical tests.
4.2 System study on the hybrid outrigger system with
steel dampers
This group of tests studies the performance of the overall
hybrid outrigger system including the low-yield steel damper
and hybrid outrigger arm, which are connected to the column
and core wall. The load–deformation characteristics under
monotonic and quasi-static cyclic loads were examined in
detail. The damage and failure modes at various key com-
ponents of the hybrid outrigger system were also investigated.
4.3 Numerical modelling
Three-dimensional finite-element models were proposed with
the geometrical and material non-linearities under monotonic
loads. Thus, the load–deformation characteristics of the outrig-
ger system at elastic and large-deformation plastic stages could
be properly captured. The structural performance under
various conditions was studied and calibrated: the load-carry-
ing capacities, load–deformation curves, stress distribution,
stress concentration and so on.
4.4 Loading procedure
For the monotonic loading tests, each load step was initially
set to 5% of the estimated overall load-carrying capacity and
refined to 2·5% near the failure of the specimen. A pre-load of
15% of the estimated load-carrying capacity was applied to
ensure a direct hard contact of the loading cell and the speci-
men. For the quasi-static cyclic loading tests, the displacement
control approach was used with the applied displacement
of ±Δy/2, ±Δy, ±2Δy, ±3Δy, ±4Δy and ±6Δy, where Δy is the
displacement at the first yield of the steel connection. The
loading protocol ensured a suitable preloading and sufficient
applied displacements to test the overall ductility of the
Studies on damped hybrid outrigger
systems of composite walls and
steel bracings
Wang
composite connection. The test methods and procedures in
CABR (1997) and ASTM (2011) were also considered.
5. Test on hybrid outrigger arm
In total, two specimens of the hybrid outrigger arm were fabri-
cated to test under monotonic and quasi-static cyclic loads. No
low-yield steel damper was covered in this group of tests. The
welding inspection and testing were conducted to ensure the
welding quality throughout the joint regions of the specimen.
The designed scale of the specimen was 1 : 5. Figure 2 shows
the geometrical configuration of the specimen, and the test
set-up is shown in Figure 3. The specimen was turned 90° as
per its normal position in the high-rise building. The loading
was applied horizontally as perpendicular to the outrigger arm
with a displacement control mechanism. One 250 t capacity
loading cell was positioned on each side of the loading
position of the specimen, which enabled the generation of
monotonic and quasi-static cyclic loads. The steel grade of the
bracing member was S275, and that of the other steel members
was S355. C50 concrete was used for the concrete portion of
the hybrid outrigger arm. Tables 1 and 2 preset the measured
material properties of the concrete and steel materials.
5.1 Monotonic loading test
Specimen HOA1 was tested under monotonic loads. The load–
deflection curves of the specimen are shown in Figure 4.
Figure 5 is the crack propagation of specimen HOA1. The
initial crack in the concrete section was from the end of the
concrete T-shaped flanges near the concrete base. Shear cracks
800
1660
500
1700
Figure 2. Details of hybrid outrigger arm. Note: all dimensions
are in mm
3
Structures and Buildings Studies on damped hybrid outrigger
systems of composite walls and
steel bracings
Wang

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

A
B
C

D
250 t 250 t
Loading cell loading cell

Test frame

Specimen

Ground
anchor

Figure 3. Test set-up for hybrid outrigger arm

Table 1. Material strength of test specimens

Yield strength, fy: MPa Compressive strength, fc: MPa

Specimen Steel bracing Embedded steel section Reinforcement Damper Concrete

HOA1 279 372 484 180 53

HOA2 279 372 485 182 55
HOD1 283 373 487 181 55
HOD2 283 373 486 181 58

were also observed near the upper end portion of the concrete the tip of the steel bracing and 1/2200 at the tip of the concrete
outrigger wall at the load level of 900 kN, which is approxi- outrigger wall. With the increase in applied loads, the cracks
mately 36% of the ultimate load-carrying capacities of the further propagated upwards, and the joint between the con-
outrigger arm, with an approximate joint rotation of 1/1100 at crete flange and web of the outrigger wall began to crack.

4
Structures and Buildings Studies on damped hybrid outrigger
systems of composite walls and
steel bracings
Wang

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

Table 2. Elastic modulus of test specimens

Steel elastic modulus, Es: 103 MPa Concrete elastic modulus, Ec: 103 MPa

Specimen Steel bracing Embedded steel section Reinforcement Damper Concrete

HOA1 206 206 205 205 35

HOA2 206 206 205 206 36
HOD1 206 205 205 204 35
HOD2 205 205 205 205 34

3000
A
B
2500 C

2000
Applied load: kN

1500

Test – A
1000 FEM – A
Test – B
FEM – B
500 Test – C
FEM – C

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Deflection: mm

Figure 4. Load–deflection curves for specimen HOA1 under monotonic loads. FEM, finite-element method

(a) (b)

Figure 5. Cracks on specimen HOA1: (a) side view; (b) end view

5
Structures and Buildings Studies on damped hybrid outrigger
systems of composite walls and
steel bracings
Wang

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

U-shaped cracks were observed at the flange section of the
concrete outrigger wall, with a crack width of approximately
0·05 mm.
The steel bracing began to yield at the load level of 1500 kN
for the measurement from the strain gauge along the bracing
member, and the crack at the middle concrete section and joint
region between the concrete flange and the web continued
to grow to approximately 0·1 mm. At the applied load of
2500 kN, most of the embedded steel section and rebar
yielded, the maximum recorded width of the concrete crack
was 0·7–1·5 mm, and the unloading was recorded afterwards,
as shown in Figure 4.
5.2 Quasi-static cyclic loading test
Specimen HOA2 was tested under quasi-static cyclic loads.
Figure 6 shows the load–deflection curves of the specimen at
various key locations under the quasi-static cyclic loads.
Similarly to the monotonic test, the initial cracks in the con-
crete section appeared at the end of two flanges near the con-
crete base at the load level of 800 kN. Bi-directional shear
cracks were also observed with a crack width of approximately
0·05 mm, as shown in Figure 7. This loading level is approxi-
mately 30% of the ultimate load-carrying capacities of the
specimen. The corresponding rotation was 1/1300 and 1/1700
at the tip of the steel bracing and the concrete outrigger wall,
respectively.
Figure 7 also shows that the shear crack in the concrete
web and the tensile crack in the concrete flange further
grew to approximately 0·2 mm at the cyclic load level of
1400 kN. U-shaped cracks were also observed on the outer
surface of the two concrete flanges of the outrigger
wall. Major yielding in steel bracing and embedded steel
sections occurred at the load level of 1800 kN, and the
width of the noticeable concrete cracks was 0·3–1·8 mm.

3500 3500
3000 3000
2500 2500
2000 2000
1500 1500
Applied load: kN
Applied load: kN

1000 1000
500 500
0 0
–500 –500
–1000 –1000
–1500 –1500 B
–2000 A –2000
–2500 –2500
–3000 –3000
–40 –30 –20 –10 0 10 20 30 40 –40 –30 –20 –10 0 10 20 30 40
Deflection: mm Deflection: mm
(a) (b)

3500 3500
3000 3000
2500 2500
2000 2000
1500 1500
Applied load: kN
Applied load: kN

1000 1000
500 500
0 0
–500 –500
–1000 –1000
–1500 C –1500 D
–2000 –2000
–2500 –2500
–3000 –3000
–40 –30 –20 –10 0 10 20 30 40 –40 –30 –20 –10 0 10 20 30 40
Deflection: mm Deflection: mm
(c) (d)

Figure 6. Load–deflection curves for specimen HOA2 under quasi-static cyclic loads: (a) transmitter A; (b) transmitter B; (c) transmitter C;
(d) transmitter D

6
Structures and Buildings Studies on damped hybrid outrigger
systems of composite walls and
steel bracings
Wang

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

(a) (b)

Figure 7. Cracks on specimen HOA2: (a) side view; (b) end view

Steel bracing 1081

Core
Metal Outrigger wall
damper

Steel bracing

Column

400 475 1037·5

Figure 8. Details of hybrid outrigger system with damper. Note: all dimensions are in mm

No apparent damage was observed after 30 cycles of the ulti-
mate load capacity on the specimen under the maximum
deflection of ±15 mm, which shows the good composite action
and performance of this hybrid outrigger arm. The strength
and stiffness decreased when the maximum applied displace-
ment was larger than 20 mm, as shown in Figure 6. More
severe cracks on the concrete outrigger wall were also observed
during the process, which implies the necessity of the low-yield
steel damper as the sacrificing member, which protects the
hybrid outrigger arm from severe concrete cracking and
material degradation.
6. System test on the hybrid outrigger with
low-yield steel dampers
The investigation moved to system studies by combining the
hybrid outrigger arm and the low-yield steel damper. Two
system tests were conducted on the hybrid outrigger system
with low-yield steel dampers under monotonic and quasi-static
cyclic loads. Figure 8 shows a typical configuration of the test
specimen, which comprised the concrete core, hybrid outrigger
arm, low-yield steel dampers and composite column. For the
ease of specimen erection, only one-quarter of the core wall
and one hybrid outrigger arm were erected and tested. The

7
Structures and Buildings Studies on damped hybrid outrigger
systems of composite walls and
steel bracings
Wang

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

specimens were scaled by 1 : 8. The steel grades of the bracing
members and other steel members were S275 and S355,
respectively. C50 concrete was used for the concrete portion of
the hybrid outrigger arm. Tables 1 and 2 present the measured
material properties of the concrete and steel materials.
S180 low-yield steel dampers were used at the connection
between the steel bracing member and the composite column.
Figure 9 shows the overall set-up of the test. The loading was
applied onto the composite columns as transferred to the
hybrid outrigger system through the low-yield steel damper.
The detailed findings of the tests are presented in the following
paragraphs. In total, two loading cells were used; one was
placed on the top and the other was on the bottom side of the
column to generate the monotonic and quasi-static cyclic
loads. Bracings were also placed to ensure the stability of the
composite column during the test. Sliding panels were placed
between the bracing and the column to prevent any possible
generated friction in the loading and unloading process.
6.1 System test under monotonic loads
Specimen HOD1 was tested under monotonic loadings. The
crack initiated from the concrete ring beam around the core
region. The width of the crack was 0·05 mm at a load level of
300 kN. With the increase in applied load, notably minor
cracks also appeared near the T-joint between the flange and

Test frame Roller support Loding frame

Stub column Loading cell

Specimen Reaction
wall

Ground anchor Lateral bracing

Reaction slab Sliding panel

Loading cell

Elevation view

Figure 9. Test set-up for hybrid outrigger system with damper

8
Structures and Buildings Studies on damped hybrid outrigger
systems of composite walls and
steel bracings
Wang

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

E D C

800 B
J
A
K
700
H F
I G
600

L
Apllied load: kN

500 FEM – A
FEM – B
400 FEM – C
FEM – D
FEM – E
300
Test – A
Test – B
200 Test – C
Test – D
100 Test – E

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Deflection: mm

Figure 10. Load–deflection curves for specimen HOD1 under monotonic loads

the web of the concrete outrigger wall. These cracks further
grew towards the end of the outrigger wall near the core wall
with a maximum crack width of 0·05 mm. The crack develop-
ment in the outrigger and core wall was slow with the increase
in load, with a maximum width of 0·1 mm at the yielding of
the low-yield steel damper. Meanwhile, the maximum recorded
crack width was approximately 0·15 mm, which occurred on
the ring beam around the concrete core wall. It is worth noting
that a limited number of cracks developed on the hybrid out-
rigger arm under the ‘protection’ from the low-yield steel
damper.
Figure 10 shows the load–deflection curves of specimen HOD1
under a monotonic load. The low-yield steel damper yielded at
an applied load near 400 kN, whereas the predicted yielding
load of the steel outrigger truss is 570 kN. The recorded dis-
placement at the loading cell continuously increased until
approximately 35 mm after the steel damper yielded. No appar-
ent unloading damage or material degradation was observed
on the low-yield damper. In the meantime, the maximum
recorded strain in the steel section of the bracing member was
1800 micro strain, which is well below the yield strain of the
steel member. The recorded strain in the rebar was even lower at
1600 micro strain, which demonstrates the good ductility and
energy-dispersing potential of the hybrid outrigger system under
the protection of the low-yield steel damper.
6.2 System test under quasi-static cyclic loads
For specimen HOD2 in quasi-static cyclic loads, micro con-
crete cracks occurred near the joint between the outrigger and
core walls at a load level of 300 kN. Micro cracks of diagonal
patterns were observed near the end of the outrigger wall at an
applied displacement of ±8 mm. The low-yield damper began
to yield at an applied load level of 400 kN, which is similar to
the monotonic test on specimen HOD1. The maximum
recorded crack width was 0·15 mm on the ring beam at the
applied displacement of ±3·5 mm.
No apparent damage on the concrete wall or steel bracing was
observed after 30 cycles of ±13 mm applied displacement, as
shown in Figure 11. After 58 cycles of maximum applied dis-
placement and loads, de-bonding was observed at the welded
joint between the web and the flange of the low-yield steel
damper with a 10% decrease in load-carrying capacities. The
decrease continued to 15% after 60 cycles of the maximum
applied displacement before the test was terminated. No yield
was observed in the steel bracing members or rebar in the
concrete outrigger and core walls at this extreme applied
displacement and large number of cycles. This result shows the
good energy-dispersing capacity of this innovative type of out-
rigger system. The comparison between Figure 11 (specimen
HOD2) and Figure 6 (specimen HOA2) also reveals the effec-
tiveness of the low-yield steel damper in enhancing the energy
dissipation capacity of the hybrid outrigger system.
7. Three-dimensional finite-element
modelling
A three-dimensional finite-element model was set up with the
commercial finite-element package Abaqus (2014) to study
the structural behaviour of the hybrid outrigger system with
the metal damper. Figures 12(a) and 12(b) show the steel
portion and the concrete portion of the model, respectively.
The main features of the finite-element model are described in
the following sections.

9
Structures and Buildings Studies on damped hybrid outrigger
systems of composite walls and
steel bracings
Wang

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

800 800
600 600
400 400
Applied load: kN

Applied load: kN
200 200
0 0
–200 –200
B
–400 –400
–600 A –600
–800 –800
–16 –12 –8 –4 0 4 8 12 16 –16 –12 –8 –4 0 4 8 12 16
Deflection: mm Deflection: mm
(a) (b)

800 800
600 600
400 400
Applied load: kN

Applied load: kN

200 200
0 0
–200 –200
C D
–400 –400
–600 –600
–800 –800
–16 –12 –8 –4 0 4 8 12 16 –16 –12 –8 –4 0 4 8 12 16
Deflection: mm Deflection: mm
(c) (d)

800
E D C
600
J B
400 A
K
Applied load: kN

200
H F
0 I G

–200
–400
–600 E
–800
–16 –12 –8 –4 0 4 8 12 16
Deflection: mm
(e)

Figure 11. Load–deflection curves for specimen HOD2: (a) transmitter A; (b) transmitter B; (c) transmitter C; (d) transmitter D;
(e) transmitter E

7.1 Finite-element model
The concrete outrigger wall was modelled with eight-node
solid elements C3D8. Typically, 16 elements were arranged in
the vertical direction, and ten elements were arranged in the
transverse direction. Thus, the distributions of cross-sectional
direct and shear forces can be modelled with sufficient accu-
racy. Smeared reinforcement layers were incorporated into the
concrete elements to simulate the effectiveness of the steel
reinforcement on the concrete outrigger wall.
All steel bracings, metal dampers and embedded steel members
were also modelled with the same type of solid element.
Typically, eight elements were provided in the vertical direction
of the webs of the steel bracing and six elements were provided

10
Structures and Buildings Studies on damped hybrid outrigger
systems of composite walls and
steel bracings
Wang

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

(a)

(b)

Figure 12. Finite-element model for hybrid outrigger system: (a) steel portion; (b) concrete portion

in the transverse direction of the flanges of the steel bracing. All
embedded steel members were assumed to be perfectly bound
with the concrete outrigger wall; thus, the embedded steel solid
element shares the same translational and rotational displace-
ments at points of connections with the concrete solid elements.
To model the direct contact condition and enable vertical
shear forces to be properly transferred from the concrete
section to the steel sections, spring contact elements were pro-
vided at the interface between the concrete and the steel sec-
tions to model the interaction between the embedded steel
member and the concrete outrigger wall. Thus, the distri-
butions of vertical shear forces between the steel and concrete
sections were adequately modelled. The mesh sensitivity study
found that the stress concentration around the joint between
the column, metal damper and steel bracing can be success-
fully captured. The possible damage and cracks in the concrete
outrigger wall can also be successfully modelled.
7.2 Material models
A bilinear stress–strain curve is used in the material model of
the steel. The failure of the steel bracing and embedded steel

11
Structures and Buildings Studies on damped hybrid outrigger
systems of composite walls and
steel bracings
Wang

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

σ
Esh = 0·005E0 σ1
fy
1

E0
1 ε
0·01 0·02

σ2
–fy

σ3

Uniaxial loading Triaxial failure surface

(a)

σ k(ε /ε'c)
σ= p
k–1(ε /ε'c)k c
fc σ1

0·3 pc E = 5·5√fcu

0·001 1 ε
εc 0·0035 0·025
ft = 0·1fc

ε'c = 2·4 × 10–4√fcu

pc σ2
k= + 1·55
32·4

pc = 0·8fcu σ3

Uniaxial loading Triaxial failure surface

(b)

Figure 13. Material models: (a) steel; (b) concrete

members follows the von Mises failure criteria, as shown in
Figure 13(a). The typical elongation limits for the steel sections
and rebars are 0·02–0·025. To avoid numerical discontinuity,
the unloading of the steel material is assumed to be from the
uniaxial strain of 0·01, and the steel strength linearly reduces
to 0 at the strain of 0·02, which will ensure a numerical conver-
gence and conservatively predicts the structural behaviour of
the hybrid outrigger. Figure 13(b) shows the material model
for the concrete section under uniaxial and triaxial conditions.
A non-linear stress–strain curve is used in the material model
of the concrete under uniaxial compression (BSI, 2004).
Crushing is also included in the material model of the concrete
by properly defining the stress–strain curves under the uniaxial
loading condition.
follow the Drucker–Prager failure criteria (Abaqus, 2014)
under triaxial loading. The frictional angle of concrete ß is
taken as 67·5° for a tensile strength/compressive strength ratio
of 0·1 – for example, the tensile strength of the concrete
material is 1/10 of its compressive strength. Cracks in the con-
crete slabs are also incorporated and simulated with a smeared
cracking model, where the growth of a physical crack across a
concrete section can be captured and traced through the
micro-cracks in a series of solid elements in the section with
tension stiffening and softening. The tensile strength of the
concrete is taken as 10% of its compressive strength and
assumed to reduce linearly from its peak value to zero at a
tensile strain of 0·1% when the cracks are considered fully
open in each solid element.

The material damage surfaces of concrete and steel are shown The reinforcement is also simulated assuming it is perfectly
in Figures 13(a) and 13(b). The failure of steel follows von bound to the surrounding concrete using smeared layers for
Mises failure criteria, and that of the concrete is assumed to reinforced concrete, where the steel reinforcements have the

12
Structures and Buildings Studies on damped hybrid outrigger
systems of composite walls and
steel bracings
Wang

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

identical strain to concrete at each load level. Smeared layers low-yield steel damper and composite column, which
are formed for reinforced concrete, whose compressive and decreased the apparent stiffness as measured from the test.
tensile strengths are taken as the resultant values of the steel
reinforcement and surrounding concrete at various strain
8.2 Stress distribution
levels.
Figures 14(a) and 14(b) show the distribution of stress in the
reinforcement and steel members of the hybrid outrigger arm
7.3 Material and geometrical non-linearities with and without cross-reinforcement, respectively. It should be
With material and geometrical non-linearities in the finite- noted that cross-reinforcement of a number 18 of Φ18 rebars is
element models, a large deformation in the severely yielded considered in the specimen of HOA1. The rebar is simulated
regions in the end-plate of the beams and the column flanges in the finite-element model through a smeared layer function
because of the pull-out actions in the tensile bolts can be appro- of Abaqus (2014), in which both the strength and elasticity of
priately modelled. Moreover, the large out-of-plane deformation the rebar element are ‘smeared’ into the concrete element
and yielding in the column flange due to the direct bearing of (Abaqus, 2014). The cross-reinforcement in the outrigger is
the end-plate can be modelled. The first eigenmode is used as well mobilised at relatively high working stress levels, as shown
the initial imperfection in the non-linear analyses, and the mag-
nitude of the maximum initial imperfection is taken as 25% of Principal stress
the web thicknesses of the steel beams (Wang, 2015). 1·0fy
0·9fy
0·8fy
0·7fy
7.4 Solution procedure 0·6fy
0·5fy
In this investigation, the solution procedure requires that the 0·4fy
0·3fy
full load is applied in a series of small increments, so that the 0·2fy
0·1fy
solutions may closely follow the load–slippage. A value of 5% 0
of the yield strain is recommended as the maximum plastic
strain increment in each incremental load. To accurately model
the large deformation at critical locations after steel yielding,
concrete crushing and splitting, the material and geometrical
non-linearities were incorporated into the finite-element model.

Because this problem is highly non-linear, the solution is

obtained through several equilibrium interactions for each load
step in an arch-length procedure, where the nodal displace- (a)
ments, out-of-balance forces and tangent stiffness matrix of the
structure are updated after each equilibrium interaction. A
force-based convergence criterion is used, which requires that Principal stress
1·0fy
the imbalance force is less than 0·5% of the average applied 0·9fy
0·8fy
force in each equilibrium interaction. 0·7fy
0·6fy
0·5fy
8. Numerical results 0·4fy
0·3fy
0·2fy
8.1 Load–deformation characteristics 0·1fy
0
The load–deflections from the numerical and experimental
studies are shown in Figures 4 and 10 for the hybrid outrigger
arm of specimen HOA1 and damped hybrid outrigger system
of specimen HOD1, respectively. The proposed model provides
a slightly conservative prediction for the elasticity and load-
carrying capacities of the hybrid outrigger arm. The load-car-
rying capacity obtained from the test was 2630 kN, whereas
Note:
that obtained from the finite-element model was 2289 kN.
fy = 360 N/mm2

The load-carrying capacity from the numerical simulation on (b)

the damped outrigger system of specimen HOD1 is 724 kN,
which is 2·3% lower than the value of 733 kN from the test, Figure 14. Stress distribution in specimen HOA1 at failure: (a)
with cross-reinforcement; (b) without cross-reinforcement. Note:
whereas the finite-element modelling provides a higher stiff-
fy = 360 N/mm2. A full-colour version of this figure can be found
ness, as shown in Figure 10, possibly because of the proximity on the ICE Virtual Library (www.icevirtuallibrary.com)
of the gaps at the connection between the steel bracing,

13
Structures and Buildings Studies on damped hybrid outrigger
systems of composite walls and
steel bracings
Wang

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

in Figure 14(a). Figure 14(b) also shows the concentrated
stress at the end of the concrete flange of the outrigger wall
without cross-reinforcement, which may cause early cracks in
this key structural component. This result demonstrates the
effective contribution of the cross-reinforcement on the even
stress distribution and overall diaphragm performance of the
outrigger wall.
The yielding in the highly ductile low-yield steel damper
prevents further yielding and damage of other key structural
components, as shown in Figure 15(a). Figure 15(b) shows
the maximum absolute principal stress in the reinforcement in
the concrete outrigger wall, and Figure 16 shows the tensile
damage – that is, ‘Damaget’ – distribution of the concrete
material under tensile stress. The reinforcement is less motiv-
ated than the case in Figure 14(b). The tensile damage of the
concrete material is also limited at specimen failure when the
overall structural integrity of the outrigger wall is maintained.
This result demonstrates the effective contribution from the
low-yield steel damper towards the overall energy dissipation
capacity of the damped outrigger system. The outrigger wall
behaves as a diaphragm under the contribution from the cross-
reinforcement.
9. Conclusions
This comprehensive research programme was conducted to
examine the structural performance of a new type of hybrid
outrigger system and revealed the detailed structural response

von mises stress

1·0fy
0·9fy
0·8fy
0·7fy
0·6fy
0·5fy
0·4fy
0·3fy
0·2fy
0·1fy
0

Note:
fy = 275 N/mm2
(a)

Principal stress
1·0fy
0·8fy
0·6fy
0·4fy
0·2fy
0
–0·2fy
–0·4fy
–0·6fy
–0·8fy
–1·0fy

Note:
fy = 360 N/mm2

(b)

Figure 15. Stress distribution in specimen HOD at failure: (a) steel; (b) reinforced concrete. Note: fy = 275, fy = 360 N/mm2. A full-colour
version of this figure can be found on the ICE Virtual Library (www.icevirtuallibrary.com)

14
Structures and Buildings
Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com
Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
Concrete tensile stress
1·0fy
0·9fy
0·8fy
0·7fy
0·6fy
0·5fy
0·4fy
0·3fy
0·2fy
0·1fy
0
Figure 16. Damage in concrete material. Note: concrete tensile strength, ft = 0·1, fc = 4·0 N/mm2. A full-colour version of this figure can
be found on the ICE Virtual Library (www.icevirtuallibrary.com)
under various levels of monotonic and cyclic loads. The con-
clusions are listed below.
(a) The strength and stiffness decrease when the maximum
applied displacement is larger than 20 mm. More severe
cracks on the concrete outrigger wall were observed in the
process, which implies the necessity of the protection from
the low-yield steel damper as the sacrificing member. The
comparison between Figure 7 for specimen HOD2 and
Figure 4 for specimen HOA2 also shows the effectiveness
of the low-yield steel damper in enhancing the energy
dissipation capacities of the hybrid outrigger system.
(b) The cross-reinforcement in the outrigger is well mobilised
at a relatively high working stress level, as shown in
Figure 11(a). Figure 11(b) also shows the concentrated
stress at the end of the concrete flange of the outrigger
wall without cross-reinforcement, which may cause
early cracks in this key structural component. This
result demonstrates the effective contribution of
the cross-reinforcement to the even stress distribution
and overall diaphragm performance of the outrigger wall.
(c) No yield was observed in the steel bracing members or
the rebar in the concrete outrigger and core walls for the
extreme cyclic load and displacement and the large
number of cycles under the ‘protection’ from the ‘fuse’ of
the low-yield steel damper. This result demonstrates the
good energy dissipation capacity of this new type of
hybrid outrigger system.
Both steel bracing and concrete outrigger walls can work
together with the low-yield steel damper and exhibit good
load-carrying capacities and energy dissipation performance in
the test programme. The studies provide detailed structural
Studies on damped hybrid outrigger
systems of composite walls and
steel bracings
Wang
Note:
Concrete tensile strength,
ft = 0·1 fc = 4·0 N/mm2
understanding of this new type of outrigger system. This
system can be applied to enhance the overall structural per-
formance of high-rise structures under extreme load levels.
More analytical and numerical investigations will be conducted
and calibrated to establish the parametric studies and new
design rules of this new hybrid outrigger system.
REFERENCES
Abaqus (2014) User’s Manual, Version 6.14. Hibbitt, Karlsson and
Sorensen, Inc., Pawtucket, RI, USA.
Amadio C, Bedon C, Fasan M and Pecce MR (2017) Refined numerical
modelling for the structural assessment of steel-concrete composite
beam-to-column joints under seismic loads. Engineering Structures
138: 394–409.
ASTM (2011) E 2126: Standard test methods for cyclic (reversed)
load test for shear resistance of vertical elements of the lateral
force resisting systems for buildings. ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Bayati Z, Mahdikhani M and Rahaei A (2008) Optimized use of
multi-outriggers system to stiffen tall buildings. Proceedings of
the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing,
China (Katayama T and Chen J (eds)), pp. 40–44.
BSI (2004) BS EN 1994-1-1: Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and
concrete structures. Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings.
BSI, London, UK.
CABR (China Academy of Building Research) (1997) Specification of
Test Methods for Earthquake Resistant Building. CABR, Beijing,
China.
Coull A and Lao WHO (1988) Outrigger braced structures subjected
to equivalent static seismic loading. Proceedings of
4th International Conference on Tall Buildings.
Farshid N and Payam A (2015) Weight and topology optimization
of outrigger-based tall steel structures subjected to the
wind loading using GA. Wind and Structures 20(4): 134–154.
Fawzia S and Fatima T (2016) Optimum position of steel outrigger
system for high rise composite buildings subjected to wind loads.
Advanced Steel Construction 12(2): 134–153.
15
Structures and Buildings
Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com
Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
Gholipour M, Asadi E and Alinia MM (2015) The use of outrigger
system in steel plate shear wall structures. Advances in Structural
Engineering 18(6): 853–872.
Hoenderkamp JCD (2004) Shear wall with outrigger trusses on wall and
column foundations. The Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings 13(1): 73–87.
Lee D (2016) Additive 2D and 3D performance ratio analysis for steel
outrigger alternative design. Steel and Composite Structures 20(5):
1133–1153.
Lee J, Minsik B and Kim JY (2008) An analytical model for high-rise
wall-frame structures with outriggers. The Structural Design of
Tall and Special Buildings 17(4): 839–851.
Lee D, Shin S, Lee J and Lee K (2015) Layout evaluation of building
outrigger truss using material topology optimization. Steel and
Composite Structures 19(2): 263–275.
Malekinejad M and Reza R (2011) Free vibration analysis of tall
buildings with outrigger-belt truss system. Earthquakes and
Structures 2(1): 89–107.
Moon KS (2013) Outrigger structures for twisted, tilted and tapered tall
buildings. In Structures and Architecture: New Concepts,
Applications and Challenges – Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Structures and Architecture (Cruz PJS (ed.)).
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp. 77–81.
Moon KS (2015) Structural design and construction of complex-shaped
tall buildings. International Journal of Engineering and Technology
7(1): 30–42.
Moudarres FR and Coull A (1985) Free vibration of outrigger based
structures. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 79(1):
105–117, https://doi.org/10.1680/iicep.1985.1082.
Nie JG, Ding R, Fan JS and Tao MX (2014) Seismic performance of joints
between steel k-style outrigger trusses and concrete cores in tall
buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 140(12),
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001028.
16
View publication stats
Studies on damped hybrid outrigger
systems of composite walls and
steel bracings
Wang
Park HS, Lee E, Choi SW et al. (2016) Genetic-algorithm-based minimum
weight design of an outrigger system for high-rise buildings.
Engineering Structures 117: 496–505.
Smith BS and Irawan S (1981) Parameter study of outrigger-braced tall
building structures. Journal of the Structural Division 107(10):
2001–2014.
Smith BS and Irawan S (1983) Formulae for optimum drift resistance of
outrigger braced tall building structures. Computers & Structures
17(1): 45–50.
Tan P, Fang CJ, Chang CM, Spencer BF and Zhou FL (2015) Dynamic
characteristics and novel energy dissipation systems with damped
outrigger. Engineering Structures 98: 128–140.
Wang AJ (2010) A study on composite end-plate connections with
flexible tensile reinforcements and shear connectors. Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering 37(11): 1437–1450.
Wang AJ (2011) Studies on composite joints under gravity and lateral
loads. Australian Journal of Structural Engineering 12(1): 69–85.
Wang AJ (2015) Re-engineering composite connections for a
higher construction and cost effectiveness. Proceedings of the
11th International Conference on Advances in Steel–Concrete
Composite Structures, Beijing, China (Han LH (ed.)), pp. 538–543.
Wu JR and Li QS (2003) Structural performance of multi-outrigger-
braced tall buildings. The Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings 12(2): 155–176.
Zhang J (2007) Safety analysis of optimal outriggers location in
high-rise building structures. Journal of Zhejiang University –
Science 8(2): 264–269.
Zhou Y and Li H (2014) Analysis of high-rise steel structure with viscous
damped outrigger. Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings
23(13): 963–979.
Zhou Y, Zhang C and Lu X (2017) Seismic performance of a damping
outrigger system for tall buildings. Structural Control and Health
Monitoring 24(1): 135–149.
How can you contribute?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial board, it will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions from the
civil engineering profession (and allied disciplines).
Information about how to submit your paper online
is available at www.icevirtuallibrary.com/page/authors,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.