Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (2023) 24:759–778

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-022-00528-7

RESEARCH

An investigation on optimal outrigger locations for hybrid outrigger

system under wind and earthquake excitation
Neethu Elizabeth John1 · Kiran Kamath1

Received: 14 September 2022 / Accepted: 23 October 2022 / Published online: 8 November 2022
© The Author(s) 2022

Abstract
Outriggers are considered as an effective system to alleviate the responses caused due to the lateral loads on high rise
buildings. The concept of hybrid outrigger system which has a conventional and a virtual outrigger at different levels has
been proposed. This study analyzes the static and dynamic behaviour of hybrid outrigger system based on stiffness of core,
stiffness of outrigger beam and belt wall, length of the outrigger arm, and height of the building as varying parameters, and
investigated on optimal positions of hybrid outrigger system under wind and earthquake loads. The dynamic behaviour was
evaluated using nonlinear time history analysis, and the static wind and earthquake response using Indian Standard codes.
Analytical models of 40, 60 and 80 storeys having building heights of 140 m, 210 m and 280 m, respectively were considered
for the parametric study. The optimal positions for hybrid outrigger system were obtained based on the response from absolute
maximum inter storey drift ratio ­(ISDmax), roof displacement ­(disproof), roof acceleration ­(accroof) and base bending moment.
A performance index criterion was introduced which was utilized to obtain the optimal position of the hybrid outrigger system
considering the combined effect of I­ SDmax, ­accroof and ­disproof under each load. The study concludes with a flowchart giving
the preliminary recommendations for choosing the optimal position of hybrid outrigger system.

Keywords Hybrid outrigger system · Parametric analysis · Time history analysis · Performance index · Optimal hybrid
outrigger system position

Introduction and compressive forces on the columns which can create

Outrigger structures are used in high rise buildings since
decades as a lateral load resisting member. The significance
of outrigger system has emerged rapidly due to its ability to
enhance the behavioural performance of the building under
wind and earthquake excitation. The conventional outrig-
gers which are restrained to the peripheral columns and
core, try to counter the rotation of the core on application of
lateral excitations and hence reduces the deformation and
moments acting in the core (Smith & Salim, 1981). The
overall persuasion is to increase the effective depth of the
structure on bending of core wall, thus, generating tensile
* Kiran Kamath
kiran.kamath@manipal.edu
Neethu Elizabeth John
neethuejohn@gmail.com
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Manipal Institute
of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education,
Manipal, India
a couple that reduces the effective bending moment in the
core (Smith & Coull, 1991; Smith & Salim, 1983; Taranath,
2006). Thus, the outrigger system enhances the stiffness of
the structure which can effectively reduce the inter storey
drift ratio, acceleration if an optimal damping design is pro-
posed and roof displacement as well (Huang & Takeuchi,
2017).
The outrigger system can be classified as conventional
and virtual outriggers based on their direct and indirect con-
nection between core wall and peripheral columns. The con-
ventional outriggers which have direct connection between
core wall and columns can cause space obstruction at the
outrigger level and difficulties in the architectural planning.
Thus, as an alternative to overcome such difficulties, virtual
outriggers were developed which transfer moments indirectly
through floor diaphragms (Nair, 1998). The semi rigid floor
diaphragms transfer the equivalent horizontal couple from
the core to the vertical belt wall/truss which converts it into
vertical couple and is transferred to the columns. This action
reduces the bending moment in the core by generating tensile

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
760
and compressive forces on the columns (Horton, 2000; Nair,
1998). The installation of virtual outriggers can eliminate
the problems caused due to space hindrance by conventional
outrigger arms, thus, utilizing that floor for occupants which
makes it more cost effective. As conventional outriggers are
directly connected to the core, the effectiveness of it in resist-
ing lateral loads are better when compared to virtual outrig-
gers (Bayati et al., 2008; Nair, 1998). Thus, taking both the
effectiveness and space obstruction into consideration, a new
lateral load resisting system termed hybrid outrigger system,
which contain one conventional and one virtual outrigger at
different levels, is proposed in this study. A 77-storey structure
in Kuala Lumpur named Plaza Rakyat Tower can be given as
an example for hybrid outrigger system (Baker et al., 2013).
Commonly, we have noticed that steel or composite construc-
tion is used in outrigger and belt structures, and reinforced
concrete construction in the core wall. This form of connec-
tion can increase the time of construction period and make
the connection detailing complicated (Eom et al., 2019). This
can be avoided by using concrete construction for both core
wall and outrigger systems, thus, eliminating the complicated
connection details and minimising the cost and intervention
between construction procedure (Eom et al., 2019).
Installing the outriggers at their optimal position rather
than keeping the outrigger at plant rooms can reduce the
stiffness of core and outrigger systems, which can further
reduce the overall cost of construction (Xing et al., 2021).
Fig. 1  Pictorial representation of hybrid outrigger system and its force transfer mechanisms
13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (2023) 24:759–778
Therefore, in this study, the efficacy of a concrete hybrid
outrigger system for various parameters and the optimal
hybrid outrigger system location under wind and earthquake
excitations is studied. Figure 1 shows the pictorial repre-
sentation of hybrid outrigger system and its force transfer
mechanisms.
Behavioural analysis of conventional outriggers
considered influence of optimal locations and, variation
in elemental stiffness of core and outriggers on vibration
period, base moment, and drift under triangular and uniform
loadings (Wu & Li, 2003). The study (Wu & Li, 2003)
reported that the optimal position differs with the type of
loading. Behavioural analysis of facade-riggers considered
axial stiffness of the columns, bending stiffness of core
walls, bending and racking shear stiffnesses of the facade
riggers, bending and shear stiffness of floor structures
(Hoenderkamp, 2009; Hoenderkamp & Snijder, 2000, 2003;
Hoenderkamp et al., 2012). The studies (Hoenderkamp,
2009; Hoenderkamp & Snijder, 2000, 2003; Hoenderkamp
et al., 2012; Wu & Li, 2003) reported that the considered
parameters and loadings greatly influenced the behaviour
and position of outriggers. Several studies considered inter
storey drift, displacement, base bending moment, base shear,
axial forces in core and columns, vibration period, frequency,
acceleration, energy dissipation and mass/weight as the
dependent parameters for analysing the optimal location
outrigger (Chen & Zhang, 2018; Hoenderkamp, 2008;
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (2023) 24:759–778
Moghadam et al., 2015; Park et al., 2016; Patil & Sangle,
2016; Po, 2001; Tan et al., 2015; Zhao & Jiang, 2014). The
studies reported that the optimal position of outrigger varies
with the dependent parameter. It was suggested that placing
the outrigger between 0.5 and 0.8 was efficient in resisting
the inter storey drift and displacement (Chen & Zhang, 2018;
Hoenderkamp, 2008), placing the outriggers near the base
was efficient in resisting the base bending moment (Park
et al., 2016), and placing the outrigger at higher levels was
efficient in reducing acceleration (Moghadam et al., 2015)
and for greater energy dissipation in case of dampers (Tan
et al., 2015).
Based on the above literature review, a study has been
conducted for analysing the behaviour of hybrid outrigger
system. In this study, the static and dynamic behaviour of
hybrid outrigger system were analysed based on stiffness
of core, stiffness of outrigger beam and belt wall, length
of the outrigger arm, and height of the building as varying
parameters and investigated on optimal positions of hybrid
outrigger system under wind and earthquake loads. A non-
dimensional parameter termed β considered as the stiffness
ratio between core and outrigger was used to represent
the independent parameters stated above. The dynamic
Earthquake response of the models was studied using fast
nonlinear time history analysis, and the static wind and
earthquake response using Indian Standard codes. The
optimal position of hybrid outrigger system was evaluated
based on the results from absolute maximum inter storey drift
ratio ­(ISDmax), roof displacement ­(disproof), roof acceleration
­(accroof) and base bending moment ­(BMbase). A detailed
procedure for the parametric analysis is given in “Procedure
for Parametric analysis”. A performance criterion termed
as Performance Index (PI) was established to evaluate the
optimal position of hybrid outrigger system considering the
combined effect of I­ SDmax, ­accroof and d­ isproof under each
load. This study concludes with a design flowchart which
could serve as preliminary recommendations for choosing
the optimal position of hybrid outrigger system.
Parametric analysis
Parametric definitions
The parameters which could influence the performance
of hybrid outrigger system were identified as stiffness of
core, stiffness of outrigger beam and belt wall, length of
the outrigger arm, the height and width of the building. The
above parameters were represented in the form of a non-
dimensional parameter termed β which was considered as
the stiffness ratio between core and outrigger (Smith &
Coull, 1991). The expression is given in Eq. (1)
761
EIcore d
𝛽= × (1)
EIo H
where E is the modulus of elasticity of concrete,Icore is the
moment of inertia of core, Io is the moment of inertia of the
outrigger, d is the width of the building and H is the height
of the building. As the hybrid outrigger system consist of
one conventional outrigger (CO) and one virtual outrigger
(VO), two β values were formulated (βCO and βVO) as the
moment of inertia of both were calculated differently. The
values for Icore and Iconv were calculated based on Eq. (2) and
(3) (Park et al., 2016) and Ivirt based on Eq. (4).
4
b4 (b − 2tcore ) (2)
Icore = −
12 12
t o h3
Iconv = (3)
12
( )2
h
Ivirt = 2Aslab (4)
2
where b is the breadth of the core wall, tcore the thickness of
the core, Iconv the moment of inertia of conventional outrig-
ger, Ivirt the moment of inertia of virtual outrigger, to the
thickness of outrigger, h is the height of the storey and Aslab
is the area of the slab. For the parametric analysis, 12 β val-
ues were generated by varying the thickness of core, outrig-
ger thickness and the width of the building over a specific
range. Building width d was varied from 35 to 50 m in 5 m
increment and outrigger thickness to from 500 to 950 mm in
150 mm increment. For uniformity, the core wall breadth b
was assumed to be fixed at 18 m for all the models and tcore
was varied proportionally keeping the ratio of floor area to
core wall area a constant. But the ratio can’t be a constant in
cases where the variation effect of tcore and d is being studied
(Sl. No. 2–4, 6–8). Practical values for thickness of core and
outrigger were assumed and used in the calculation of β val-
ues. Table 1 shows the design variables used for formulating
the values of βCO and βVO.
Assumptions used in analysis
The analysis was based on certain assumptions (Smith &
Coull, 1991) (a) The structure was assumed to be linearly
elastic (b) In the columns only axial forces were induced
(c) The connection between the core and outrigger was
rigid and the core was attached rigidly to the foundation
(d) Uniform sectional property was assumed throughout
the core, outriggers, and the columns.
13
762 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (2023) 24:759–778

Table 1  Design variables Sl. No tcore (mm) d (m) to (mm) β values for 40, 60, and 80 storey models
(assumed values) for
formulating βCO and βVO βCO–40 βVO–40 βCO–60 βVO–60 βCO–80 βVO–80

1 405 35 800 128.7 6.9 85.8 4.6 64.4 3.4

2 535 35 800 166.3 8.9 110.9 5.9 83.2 4.4
3 680 35 800 206.3 11.0 137.6 7.3 103.2 5.5
4 850 35 800 250.6 13.4 167.1 8.9 125.3 6.7
5 405 35 650 158.4 6.9 105.6 4.6 79.2 3.4
6 405 40 650 181.0 6.9 120.7 4.6 90.5 3.4
7 405 45 650 203.7 6.9 135.8 4.6 101.8 3.4
8 405 50 650 226.3 6.9 150.9 4.6 113.1 3.4
9 535 40 500 304.2 8.9 202.8 5.9 152.1 4.4
10 535 40 650 234.0 8.9 156.0 5.9 117.0 4.4
11 535 40 800 190.1 8.9 126.7 5.9 95.1 4.4
12 535 40 950 160.1 8.9 106.7 5.9 80.0 4.4

Outrigger positions CO below VO and the remaining sets represent VO below

A preliminary analysis was conducted in choosing the
interval between the conventional and virtual outrigger in
hybrid outrigger system for 40 storey models where, two
approaches were followed. The first approach had virtual
outrigger fixed at mid-height storey and the conventional
outrigger was varied along the building height at regular
intervals starting from the 5th storey and vice versa (with
conventional outrigger fixed at the mid-height storey and
varying the virtual outrigger along the building height).
In the second approach, the conventional and virtual
outrigger was varied along the building height keeping the
interval between them as H/3, initially with conventional
outrigger below the virtual outrigger and later with virtual
outrigger below the conventional outrigger. According to the
preliminary analytical findings, the second method resulted
in a better reduction in the values for the lateral response
from roof displacement, base bending moment, and absolute
maximum inter storey drift ratio. The results from the
second approach were agreeing to the past research results
(Chen & Zhang, 2018; Moon, 2016; Patil & Sangle, 2016;
Samarakkody et al., 2017; Smith & Coull, 1991). Therefore,
the positions of conventional and virtual outrigger in hybrid
outrigger system were varied along the building height
keeping interval H/3. Due to brevity of content the results
of preliminary study is not included in this manuscript.
Table 2 gives the relative positions for the hybrid outrig-
ger system in the studied 40,60 and 80 storey models. In 40
storey models, 6 positions of hybrid outrigger system were
chosen. In that, the first three set (1–40-sq-β, 2–40-sq-β,
3–40-sq-β) have CO below the VO and in the next three sets
(4–40-sq-β, 5–40-sq-β, 6–40-sq-β) have VO below the CO.
Similarly, 60 and 80 storey models have 8 and 10 positions,
respectively for hybrid outrigger system where the first four
sets in 60 storey and five sets in 80 storey models represent
CO. The positions having virtual outrigger below the con-
ventional outrigger are marked in italics under Table 2.
Figure 2(a) shows the floor plan at the conventional outrig-
ger level and Fig. 2(b) shows the 3-D view for βCO–40 = 128.7
and corresponding βVO–40 = 6.9 with outrigger position at
2–40-sq-β and the benchmark model for it. The benchmark
model is one without outriggers and with a core wall of 18 m
wide. In this study, the models for each β value was compared
with its corresponding benchmark model to analyse the per-
formance of hybrid outrigger system. In Fig. 2(a), lo represent
the length of the outrigger arm which was varied from 8.5 m
to 16 m in 2.5 m increment to study the effect of length of
outrigger arm on outrigger behaviour. Figure 3 shows the floor
plan at conventional outrigger level for βCO–40 = 226.3 and
corresponding βVO–40 = 6.9 for a better understanding of the
variation of lo.
Model details
The models considered were symmetrical along x and y axis,
and the storey height and compressive strength of concrete
was assumed to be 3.5 m and 60 MPa, respectively. The
dead and live loads were assigned as per IS codes (1987b;
IS, 1987a) with live load as 3.5 kN/m2, live load in roof as
1.5 kN/m2 and super dead load as 1.5 kN/ ­m2. The typical
slab thickness was assumed as 160 mm and as 250 mm in
the mechanical floors due to heavier impact loads (Baker
et al., 2013; Khan & Gore, 2018; Mousleh & Batikha, 2020).
The analysis was performed in a finite element software,
ETABS. The core wall and outriggers were designed as wall
elements with modelling type as shell thin. The slabs were
defined as shell thin elements, and beam and columns as
frame elements. For slabs connecting the virtual outrigger,
semi-rigid diaphragms were assigned to simulate actual in-
plane stiffness properties and force transfer through slabs

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (2023) 24:759–778 763

Table 2  Relative outrigger positions for 40,60 and 80 storey models

No. of storeys Outrigger Abbreviation Position of Position of virtual Relative position of Relative position
interval conventional outrigger conventional outrigger of virtual outrigger
outrigger

40 13 1–40-sq-β 5 18 0.125 0.450

2–40-sq-β 15 28 0.375 0.700
3–40-sq-β 25 38 0.625 0.950
4–40-sq-β 18 5 0.450 0.125
5–40-sq-β 28 15 0.700 0.375
6–40-sq-β 38 25 0.950 0.625
60 20 1–60-sq-β 5 25 0.083 0.417
2–60-sq-β 15 35 0.250 0.583
3–60-sq-β 25 45 0.417 0.750
4–60-sq-β 35 55 0.583 0.917
5–60-sq-β 25 5 0.417 0.083
6–60-sq-β 35 15 0.583 0.250
7–60-sq-β 45 25 0.750 0.417
8–60-sq-β 55 35 0.917 0.583
80 27 1–80-sq-β 5 32 0.063 0.400
2–80-sq-β 15 42 0.188 0.525
3–80-sq-β 25 52 0.313 0.650
4–80-sq-β 35 62 0.438 0.775
5–80-sq-β 45 72 0.563 0.900
6–80-sq-β 32 5 0.400 0.063
7–80-sq-β 42 15 0.525 0.188
8–80-sq-β 52 25 0.650 0.313
9–80-sq-β 62 35 0.775 0.438
10–80-sq-β 72 45 0.900 0.563

Fig. 2  Floor plan at the outrigger level and 3-D view of hybrid outrigger system and benchmark model for βCO– 40 = 128.7 and corresponding
βVO–40 = 6.9 with outrigger position at 2–40-sq-β

13
764
Fig. 3  Floor plan at conventional outrigger level for βCO–40 = 226.3
and corresponding βVO–40 = 6.9
and beams connecting to the virtual outrigger walls. The
frame elements were designed to carry the gravity loads and
the beam and column size was 1 m x 1 m and 2.5 m × 2.5 m,
respectively for all the models to keep the mass source con-
stant. The typical slab thickness for benchmark model is
160 mm, and the frame elements' size and loading distribu-
tion are the same as for other models.
Static and dynamic analysis
All the models underwent static wind and earthquake
analysis, uniform wind analysis and dynamic earthquake
Fig. 4  Response spectra of time
history cases of the selected
earthquakes matched to target
response spectrum of the site
13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (2023) 24:759–778
analysis. The building was assumed to be in Mumbai, so
the corresponding wind speed and seismic zone was chosen
as 44 m/s and 0.16 – III, respectively (IS, 2015, 2016). The
soil type was assumed as type 2- medium soil and building
importance factor and response reduction factor were
chosen as 1 and 5, respectively (IS, 2016). These factors
were defined in ETABS software for carrying out the static
wind and earthquake analysis. For the uniform wind loads,
a windward uniform load of 2 kN/m2 and a leeward uniform
load of 1 kN/m2, chosen from past research (Hoenderkamp
& Bakker, 2003; Hoenderkamp & Snijder, 2000, 2003; Kim
et al., 2020), were defined in both x and y directions. The
uniform loads were converted to point loads taking the area
of distribution around each joint and they were assigned as
joint loads in ETABS software.
Dynamic analysis was carried out using time history
method of analysis by taking Peak Ground Acceleration
(PGA) from known Earthquakes. Time history analysis is
used for describing the real time behaviour of a structure
during an earthquake as it considers the non-linear
properties of the structure. It analyses the dynamic response
of the structure at each time increment when the base of the
structure is subjected to a particular ground motion. Ground
motions were selected based on their frequency content (FC)
and magnitude classification. Ground motions corresponding
to low, intermediate, and high frequency class and with
magnitude classification as major, strong, and moderate were
chosen. To stimulate the design event, spectrum matching
was adopted and the maximum response from the ground
motions were selected to analyse the building performance
(IS, 2017).
Figure 4 shows response spectra of time history cases
matched to target response spectrum of the site considered.
The ground motions selected were Imperial Valley-02,
5/19/1940- El Centro Array #9 of magnitude 6.95 and PGA
of − 0.28 g in x direction (Intermediate FC) and − 0.21 g in
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (2023) 24:759–778
y direction ( Low FC), Imperial Valley-06,1979-El Centro
Array #5 of magnitude 6.53 and PGA of − 0.51 g in x direc-
tion (Intermediate FC) and − 0.38 g in y direction (Low
FC), San Francisco-Golden Gate Park,1957 earthquake of
magnitude 5.28 with PGA of − 0.068 g in x direction (High
FC) and PGA of − 0.095 g in y direction (High FC). Fast
nonlinear analysis (FNA) is often recommended over direct
integration methods because of its efficient formulation.
Time history FNA was adopted for the dynamic analysis and
the functions were matched to the target response spectrum
having damping ratio 0.05 in soil type 2 and seismic zone 3.
Procedure for parametric analysis
Parametric analysis mainly involves analysing the behaviour
of the selected models for various parameters considered.
In this study, the behaviour of hybrid outrigger system was
analysed based on certain parameters and from the analysis
results, the optimal position of the hybrid outrigger system
was obtained. The independent parameters considered were
the stiffness of core, stiffness of outrigger beam and belt
wall, length of the outrigger arm, and the height of the
building. These independent parameters were combined
to from a non-dimensional parameter β. The independent
parameters as defined in “Parametric definitions” were
varied over a specific range as given in Table 1 for all the
three heights of 140 m, 210 m and 280 m. For each variation
of β value, the position of hybrid outrigger system was
varied along the height of the building as per their relative
height positions as given in Table 2. For these variations, the
behaviour of hybrid outrigger system was analysed under
various loads as defined in “Static and dynamic analysis”.
All the 324 models were analysed in ETABS software. The
behaviour of hybrid outrigger system was evaluated based on
the roof displacement (­ disproof), roof acceleration (­ accroof),
base bending moment (­BMbase) and absolute maximum
inter storey drift ratio ­(ISDmax) which were considered
as the dependent parameters in this study. A preliminary
analysis was done for hybrid outrigger system which
showed the efficiency of using hybrid outrigger system
over conventional and virtual outriggers (John & Kamath,
2022). From those preliminary analysis results, need for a
detailed analysis of hybrid outrigger system was required to
authenticate its efficiency.
To evaluate the optimal position of hybrid outrigger
system the following procedure was adopted. For each β
value, the hybrid outrigger system position was varied
along the building height and the position which gave
the maximum reduction in d­ isproof, ­accroof, ­BMbase and
­ISDmax under each load was evaluated for all the three
building heights and was considered as the optimal hybrid
outrigger system position. Once the optimal position for
each dependent parameter was obtained, a performance
765
index (PI) was formulated to evaluate the optimal position
considering the dependent parameters ­disproof, ­accroof and
­ISDmax together. For calculating the PI, the limit for roof
displacement, roof acceleration and absolute maximum inter
storey drift ratio for wind and earthquake (EQ) loads were
selected as per Indian Standards. The procedure for fixing
PI is explained in detail under “Optimal positions of hybrid
outrigger system using Performance Index (PI)”. The study
concludes with the design guidelines flowchart which can
serve as a base for the preliminary recommendations of
hybrid outrigger system positions.
Analysis results
The models with outriggers installed showed a good
reduction in d­ isp roof, ­a cc roof, ­B M base and I­SD max when
compared to the benchmark model which indicate that
the outriggers can provide supplementary stiffness to the
building. Conclusions drawn for various independent
parameters are as follows:
(i) For β values which compare the outrigger behaviour
based on increase in core thickness (tcore ): when the
core thickness was increased, the ­disproof, ­accroof and
­ISDmax for the benchmark model showed reduction
in its values for all three building heights. When
hybrid outrigger system was installed, for wind loads,
there was a percentage reduction of almost 15–19%
in terms of ­ISDmax and ­disproof, 11–12% for ­accroof
and 22–26% for B ­ Mbase in 40 storey models when
compared to the benchmark model. For 60 storey
models, ­ISDmax and d­ isproof reduced by 10.5–12%,
­accroof by 5.8–6.5% and ­BMbase by 21–27%. For
80 storey models, I­ SDmax and d­ isproof reduced by
8.5–10%, ­accroof by 3.5–4% and B ­ Mbase by 22–31%.
When the earthquake loads were compared, the effect
of outriggers were slightly seen to reduce. The above
percentage reduction values were almost reduced by
2–3% for 40 storey models and 1.5–2% for 60 and 80
storey models when ­disproof, ­ISDmax and ­BMbase was
compared to the benchmark model. The lower limit
in the percentage reduction value is for the lowest
tcore and the upper limit is for the highest tcore value.
(ii) For β values which compare the outrigger behaviour
based on increase in length of Outrigger arm (lo):
when the length of outrigger arm was increased the
­disproof, ­accroof and I­ SDmax for the benchmark model
showed a rise in its values for all three building
heights. When hybrid outrigger system was installed,
for wind loads, there was a percentage reduction
of almost 18–36% in terms of I­ SDmax and d­ isproof,
12–26% for ­accroof and 25–34% for ­BMbase in 40
13
766 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (2023) 24:759–778

storey models when compared to the benchmark Table 3  Modal analysis results for βCO–60 = 150.9 and corresponding
model. For 60 storey models, I­SDmax reduced by βVO–60 = 4.6
12.2–32.5%, ­disproof reduced by 10.8–31.8%, ­accroof Model Period (s)
by 5.5–18.5% and ­BMbase by 25.8% -35.4%. For
Mode
80 storey models, I­ SDmax and d­ isproof reduced by
8.4–24%, ­accroof by 3.4–11.4% and ­BMbase by 29.5% 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
-37%. When the earthquake loads were compared, Benchmark model 5.39 5.384 2.841 1.418
the effect of outriggers were slightly seen to reduce. 1–60-sq-β 4.881 4.88 2.646 1.346
The above percentage reduction values were almost 2–60-sq-β 4.581 4.573 2.676 1.325
reduced by 2% -3% for 40 storey models and 1.5–2% 3–60-sq-β 4.55 4.541 2.738 1.36
for 60 and 80 storey models when d­ isproof, ­ISDmax 4–60-sq-β 4.747 4.743 2.803 1.312
and ­BMbase was compared. The lower limit in the 5–60-sq-β 4.515 4.508 2.607 1.384
percentage reduction value is for the lowest loand the 6–60-sq-β 4.55 4.543 2.688 1.329
upper limit is for the highest lo. 7-60-sq-β 4.739 4.736 2.76 1.262
(iii) For β values which compare the outrigger behaviour 8–60-sq-β 4.987 4.986 2.825 1.289
based on increase in Outrigger thickness (to ): When
hybrid outrigger system was installed, for wind loads,
there was a percentage reduction of almost 22.2–
25% in terms of I­ SDmax and d­ isproof, 15.6–18.2%
for ­accroof and 24.5–28.5% for B ­ Mbase in 40 storey
models when compared to the benchmark model. For
60 storey models, I­ SDmax reduced by 17.8–20.2%,
­disproof reduced by 15.7–17.9%, ­accroof by 8.2–9.9%
and ­BMbase by 24.6–29.2%. For 80 storey models,
­ISDmax reduced by 14.5–16.1%, ­disproof reduced
by 12.3–14.3%, a­ cc roof by 5.2–6.1% and B ­ M base
by 27.5–33%. When the earthquake loads were
compared, the effect of outriggers were slightly seen Fig. 5  Time period in mode shapes 1, 2,3 and 4 for modal analysis
results for βco = 150.9
to reduce. The above percentage reduction values
were almost reduced by 1–2% for all building heights
when ­disproof, ­ISDmax and B
­ Mbase was compared. The loand to on the behaviour of outrigger, increase in logave
lower limit in the percentage reduction value is for the best performance. It is noticeable that, when l o was
the lowest to and the upper limit is for the highest to. increased from 35 to 50 m, there was a rise of 10–20% in
the percentage reduction values of the dependent param-
From the above percentage values, it is noticed that, as eters but, only 2–4% rise in the percentage reduction val-
the height of the building increased from 40 to 80 storey, ues when tcore and to was increased. Thus, the length of
the percentage reduction for d­ isproof, ­accroof and I­ SDmax the outrigger arm has maximum effect on the behaviour
has reduced but has increased for ­BMbase. When outriggers of outrigger performance when compared to the thick-
are installed, there was a reduction in the time period in ness of core and outrigger. Table 4 shows the percentage
all the locations when compared to the time period of the reduction for various β values considered in studying the
benchmark model. A sample modal analysis results for increase in length of outrigger arm under static wind loads
βCO–60 = 150.9 and corresponding βVO–60 = 4.6 is given for 40 storey models and the values showing maximum
in the Table 3 and Fig. 5 shows its pictorial representation. percentage reduction is marked in bold. Similarly, per-
Also, the first three mode shapes showing centre of mass centage reduction values for all β values in Table 1 were
displacement in diaphragm 1 for modal analysis results tabulated for 40, 60 and 80 storey models corresponding
of the same model is shown in Fig. 6. Observing the per- to each dependent parameter and loads considered. From
centage reduction values of the dependent parameters, those tables, the position of hybrid outrigger system which
reduction in ­accroof was less compared to other dependent showed maximum reduction in the corresponding values
parameters which can be due to increased stiffness and of ­disproof, ­ISDmax, ­accroof and ­BMbase were noted as the
elastic responses. From the above values it can be inferred optimal position.
that the hybrid outrigger system is more effective in reduc- The optimal position of hybrid outrigger system for
ing the wind loads when compared to the earthquake loads. each dependent parameter is shown below from Figs. 7, 8,
On comparing the effect of independent parameters tcore , 9, 10. The x axis shows the β variation and y axis shows

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (2023) 24:759–778 767

Fig. 6  The Centre of mass displacement diagrams for diaphragm 1 in mode shapes 1, 2 and 3 for modal analysis results for βCO–60 = 150.9 and
corresponding βVO–60 = 4.6 along x axis

Table 4  Percentage reduction βCO–40 βVO–40 Dependant Outrigger positions

values under static wind load in parameters
40 storey models for various β 1–40-sq-β 2–40-sq-β 3–40-sq-β 4–40-sq-β 5–40-sq-β 6–40-sq-β
values considered in studying
the increase in length of 158.4 6.9 ISDmax 0.60 12.05 13.25 18.67 5.42 3.61
outrigger arm disproof 12.37 18.68 16.54 18.73 17.40 11.43
accroof 6.37 10.80 12.29 9.97 11.38 10.25
BMbase 25.76 14.08 5.87 15.62 7.15 2.99
181.0 6.9 ISDmax 2.87 17.70 20.57 25.84 11.48 9.57
disproof 15.78 25.17 24.81 25.58 25.55 18.56
accroof 8.27 15.28 17.54 14.29 16.71 14.81
BMbase 28.97 19.05 9.81 20.28 11.20 5.77
203.7 6.9 ISDmax 4.67 21.79 26.07 30.74 16.73 14.40
disproof 18.43 31.57 31.43 30.83 32.13 24.73
accroof 9.88 18.73 21.68 17.46 20.94 18.79
BMbase 30.94 22.84 13.36 23.87 14.81 8.62
226.3 6.9 ISDmax 11.92 30.79 31.13 35.76 25.83 22.85
disproof 22.39 38.00 38.31 36.44 39.24 31.47
accroof 11.95 22.91 26.24 20.97 25.61 22.92
BMbase 34.05 26.93 17.05 28.39 19.08 11.93

the optimal position of hybrid outrigger system. The βCO is Under dynamic earthquake loads, the position of hybrid
marked in x axis to show the distribution as few values of outrigger system was varying due to the random nature of
βVO remain unchanged in cases where the tcore is unvaried. its ground motions but for all the cases the position with

13
768 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (2023) 24:759–778

Fig. 7  Optimal positions for maximum reduction in ­ISDmax in 40,60 and 80 storey models under each load

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (2023) 24:759–778 769

Fig. 8  Optimal positions for maximum reduction in ­disproof in 40,60 and 80 storey models under each load

13
770 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (2023) 24:759–778

Fig. 9  Optimal positions for maximum reduction in ­accroof in 40,60 and 80 storey models under each load

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (2023) 24:759–778
Fig. 10  Optimal positions for maximum reduction in ­BMbase in 40,60 and 80 storey models under each load
VO below CO gave better results except in the case where
bending moment at base was the critical factor.
Optimal position of hybrid outrigger system
when absolute maximum inter‑storey drift ratio
is the critical factor
Inter-story drift ratio is one of the significant factor for
controlling the design of tall structures compared to top drift
(Chen & Zhang, 2018; Chen et al., 2018; Patil & Sangle,
2016). Placing the outrigger at the position where the inter
storey drift is critical can mitigate the response caused due
to it. From the results of wind loads, it was noticed that for
771
40 storey models the optimal position of hybrid outrigger
system were near to the base with VO below the CO giving
better results, but for 60 and 80 storey models the position
was towards the mid-height with CO below the VO giving
better results. The shift in the position of conventional
and virtual outrigger as the height increased can be due to
adverse effect caused by the heavier mass at the top.
From the results of static earthquake loads, it was
noticed that for 40 storey models the optimal position
of hybrid outrigger system were near to the roof with
CO below the VO giving better results, but for 60 and
80 storey models the position was almost towards the
mid-height with VO below the CO giving better results.
13
772
Similar results of wind loads were obtained in past
research (Chen et al., 2018; Moon, 2016). Also, it was
noted that regardless of increase in core thickness or
outrigger thickness or length of outrigger arm, the optimal
position of hybrid outrigger system remained unchanged
for 40 and 60 storey models under both wind and static EQ
loads. In 80 storey models, under wind loads, the optimal
position of hybrid outrigger system remained unchanged
with increase in core thickness and outrigger thickness,
but, shifted downwards from 4–80-sq-β to 3–80-sq-β
with increase in length of outrigger arm and in the case
of static EQ loads, optimal position shifted upwards from
7–80-sq-β to 8–80-sq-β with increase in core thickness and
remained unchanged for increase in outrigger thickness
and outrigger arm length. For dynamic loads, when inter-
storey drift ratio was the critical factor, the position of
conventional outrigger approximately varied from 0.4
to 0.75 and the position of virtual outrigger varied from
0.08–0.42 for all the models with exceptions in very few
cases which can be due to its random nature. Figure 7
shows the distribution of optimal positions for maximum
reduction in I­ SD max in 40,60 and 80 storey models for
various β values as in Table 1.
Optimal position of hybrid outrigger system
when displacement is the critical factor
Usually in structures the horizontal deflections are
considered either using roof drift or inter storey drift.
Controlling the response due to the roof displacement is also
a critical factor in tall structures as its widely dependent on
the building height and stiffness of the core and outrigger
(Gerasimidis et al., 2009; Park et al., 2016; Radu et al.,
2014). From the results of wind loads, it was noticed that
the optimal position of hybrid outrigger system was almost
same as obtained in the case of ­ISDmax results. From the
results of static earthquake loads, it was noticed that for 40,
60 and 80 storey model the optimal position was almost
towards the mid-height with VO below CO giving better
results. Similar results were obtained in past research
(Chen & Zhang, 2018; Hoenderkamp, 2008; Lin et al.,
2019). Also, it was noted that the optimal position of hybrid
outrigger system remained unchanged for all storey heights
under static EQ loads and for 80 storey models under wind
loads, regardless of increase in core thickness or outrigger
thickness or length of outrigger arm. Under wind loads, for
40 storey models, the optimal position remained unchanged
with increase in core thickness and outrigger thickness but
shifted upwards from 4–40-sq-β to 5–40-sq-β with increase
in length of outrigger arm, and for 60 storey models, the
position shifted upwards from 2–60-sq-β to 3–60-sq-β with
increase in core thickness and length of outrigger arm but
remained unchanged with increase in outrigger thickness.
13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (2023) 24:759–778
For dynamic loads, when roof displacement was the critical
factor, the position of conventional outrigger approximately
varied from 0.4 to 0.95 and the position of virtual outrigger
varied from 0.06 to 0.42 for all the models with exceptions
in very few cases. Figure 8 shows the distribution of optimal
positions for maximum reduction in ­disproof in 40,60 and 80
storey models for various β values as in Table 1.
Optimal position of hybrid outrigger system
when acceleration is the critical factor
Acceleration is one of the dominant factors in tall buildings
which can affect the human sensation to vibrational
motion. Thus, placing the outrigger at the position where
the response due to acceleration is critical can reduce the
perception to motion. The peak acceleration for wind loads
were calculated as per IS code (IS, 2015) and for dynamic
loads results from ETABS software was considered. From
the results of wind loads it was noticed that for 40, 60 and
80 storey models, placing the hybrid outrigger system near
to the roof with CO below VO gave maximum reduction in
­accroof. Similar results were obtained in past research (Huang
& Takeuchi, 2017). Also, it was noted that the optimal
position of hybrid outrigger system remained unchanged
for 40 and 60 storey models regardless of increase in core
thickness or outrigger thickness or length of outrigger arm,
and in 80 storey models the position remained unchanged
at 5–80-sq-β with increase in core thickness and at 4–80-
sq-β with increase in length of outrigger arm and outrigger
thickness.
For dynamic loads, when peak acceleration was the
critical factor, the position of conventional outrigger
approximately varied from 0.45 to 0.95 and the position of
virtual outrigger varied from 0.25 to 0.62 for all the models
with exceptions in very few cases. Figure 9 shows the
distribution of optimal positions for maximum reduction in
­accroof in 40,60 and 80 storey models for various β values
as in Table 1.
Optimal position of hybrid outrigger system
when base bending moment is the critical factor
Installation of outriggers on a structure make it more stiff
by applying a resisting moment at the outrigger level,
thus, reducing the base bending moment. It was seen that
positioning of outriggers near to the base can reduce the
base bending moment effectively than placing in the upper
storeys of the structure (Wu & Li, 2003). When the hybrid
outrigger system was varied along the building height, it
was found that the maximum reduction in ­B M base was
when the outrigger was near to the base (1–40-sq-β, 1–60-
sq-β, 1–80-sq-β) for all the chosen loads and β values.
It was also noted that for maximum reduction in ­BMbase,
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (2023) 24:759–778
Fig. 11  Optimal position for maximum reduction in I­ SDmax in 40,60 and 80 storey models under wind and static earthquake loads
Fig. 12  Optimal position for maximum reduction in d­ isproof in 40,60 and 80 storey models under wind and static earthquake loads
the position with CO below the VO gave better results
and the position remained same regardless of increase in
core thickness or outrigger thickness or length of outrigger
arm. The obtained values were close to the optimal values
received for conventional outriggers from the past research
(Lee et al., 2008; Wu & Li, 2003; Zeidabadi et al., 2004).
Figure 10 shows the distribution of optimal positions for
maximum reduction in ­B M base in 40,60 and 80 storey
models for various β values as in Table 1.
Comparison of optimal position for wind and static
earthquake loads
On examining the optimal position of hybrid outrigger
system for maximum reduction in I­SD max and d­ isp roof
under wind and static earthquake loads, it was noticed that,
for 40 storey models the optimal position for earthquake
loads were above wind loads position but as the height
increased, there was a swap in its position. For 60 and 80
773
storey models the optimal position for wind loads were
above the position of earthquake loads which can be due
to greater response caused due to wind loads with increase
in height. Similar results were obtained in past research
(Xing et al., 2021). Figures 11 and 12 shows the optimal
position for maximum reduction in I­ SDmax and d­ isproof in
40,60 and 80 storey models under wind and static earth-
quake loads.
Optimal positions of hybrid outrigger system using
performance index (PI)
In this study, a performance criterion was fixed which
considered the combined response of all the dependent
parameters and was termed as Performance Index (PI). The
aim was to get an optimal position for the hybrid outrigger
system considering the effect of ­ISDmax, ­accroof and ­disproof
under each load. The procedure for fixing the PI is as
follows:
13
774 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (2023) 24:759–778

Table 5  Sample calculation of Relative position of Relative posi- ISDmax disproof accroof PIwind
­PIwind for βCO–60 = 150.9 and Conventional outrigger tion of Vir- (mm) (mm/s2)
corresponding βVO–60 = 4.6 tual outrigger

Benchmark model 0.00047 80.4 94.7 0.760

0.083 0.417 0.00038 64.8 85.2 0.649
0.250 0.583 0.00034 56.9 80.0 0.593
0.417 0.750 0.00032 54.4 77.0 0.567
0.583 0.917 0.00038 56.6 76.7 0.593
0.417 0.083 0.00032 55.6 79.3 0.576
0.583 0.250 0.00034 54.6 77.2 0.577
0.750 0.417 0.00037 56.7 76.8 0.590
0.917 0.583 0.00041 61.4 78.9 0.625

calculated, the position having the least PI was consid-

ered as the optimal position.
ISDmax disproof accroof
PIwind = + + (5)
ISDmax limit disproof limit accroof limit

ISDmax disproof
PIEQ = + (6)
ISDmax limit disproof limit

Table 5 gives a sample calculation of P ­ I wind for

Fig. 13  Distribution of ­PIwind corresponding to its relative outrigger
position for the values in Table 5
a) For each β variation as per Table 1, the values of ­ISDmax,
­accroof and ­disproof corresponding to each outrigger posi-
tion as per Table 2, was noted.
b) A performance limit was fixed for each parameter as per
IS codes. Under wind loads, the limit for displacement
at top was fixed as H/500, where H is the total height of
the building (IS, 2000), the limit for roof acceleration
was fixed as 250 mm/s2 (IS, 2017), and for absolute
maximum inter-storey drift ratio as 1/400 (IS, 2017).
Under earthquake loads, the limit for displacement at
top was fixed to H/500, where H is the total height of
the building (Husain et al., 2021; Lin et al., 2019) and
for absolute maximum inter-storey drift ratio as 1/250
(IS, 2017).
c) Once the limit was set, the values of I­ SDmax, ­accroof and
­disproof was divided by its corresponding limit. This was
done for each β value, at each outrigger level. Then, the
PI for wind and earthquake loads were calculated based
on Eqs. 5 and 6, respectively. Once the PI values were
βCO–60 = 150.9 and corresponding βVO–60 = 4.6. The rela-
tive positions marked in italics has virtual outrigger below
the conventional outrigger. From Table 5, the ­PIwind for
benchmark model is seen maximum compared to the other
values, which shows the efficiency of using an outrigger
system. The optimal position for outrigger was chosen as
the one which gives the minimum value for ­PIwind. There-
fore, in Table 5 the relative outrigger position at 0.417 and
0.750 marked in bold is chosen as the optimal position.
Figure 13 shows the distribution of ­PIwind corresponding
to its relative outrigger position, for the values given in
Table 5. Similar calculation was done for other β values for
all the three building heights under each load. Figure 14
shows the distribution of optimal positions of hybrid out-
rigger system based on performance index study under
each load for all the β values considered.
From the results of wind loads, the optimal position of
hybrid outrigger system was almost towards the mid-height
with CO below the VO giving better results. For static
earthquake loads, the optimal position of hybrid outrigger
system was towards the roof with CO below VO giving better
results in 40 storey models, but, for 60 and 80 storey models
the optimal position shifted almost to mid-height with CO
over VO giving better results. Also, it was noted that the
optimal position of hybrid outrigger system remained
unchanged under static EQ loads for all storey heights and
under wind loads for 40 and 60 storey models, regardless of
increase in core thickness or outrigger thickness or length

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (2023) 24:759–778 775

Fig. 14  Optimal positions of hybrid outrigger system for 40,60 and 80 storey models under each load based on Performance Index

of outrigger arm. In 80 storey models under wind loads, downwards from 4 to 80-sq-β to 3–80-sq-β when the length
the optimal position of hybrid outrigger system remained of outrigger arm was increased. For dynamic earthquake
constant at 4–80-sq-β and 3–80-sq-β with increase in core loads the position of hybrid outrigger system were varying
thickness and outrigger thickness, respectively but shifted due to the random nature of its ground motions but for all

13
776 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (2023) 24:759–778

Target lo and to as Fix H and d, calculate size of Calculate β

large as possible elements based on load demands

If response due to ISDmax If response due to disproof If response due to accroof

is the critical factor is the critical factor is the critical factor

Str. Wind EQ TH Str. Wind EQ TH Str. Wind TH

40 0.45 0.63 40 0.45~0.7 40
CO 60 0.4~0.75 CO 60 0.53~0.7 0.4~0.95 CO 60 0.44~0.63 0.45~0.9
0.31~0.44 0.53~0.58 0.25~0.42
80 80 80
40 0.12 0.96 40 0.12~0.37 40
VO 60 0.08~0.42 VO 60 0.19~0.37 0.06~0.42 VO 60 0.77~0.96 0.25~0.62
0.65~0.77 0.19~0.25 0.58~0.75
80 80 80

If combined response due

Check whether the values of to ISDmax, disproof and If response due to BMbase
ISDmax, disproof and accroof are accroof is the critical factor is the critical factor
within the maximum limit else
redesign the elements Str. Wind EQ TH Str. Wind EQ TH
40 0.63 0.45~0.95 40
CO 60 0.31~0.625 0.42~0.92 CO 60 0.06~0.13
0.53~0.58
80 0.4~0.78 80
40 0.96 0.12~0.37 40
VO 60 0.65~0.96 0.08~0.42 VO 60 0.4~0.46
0.19~0.25
80 0.06~0.4 80

* TH- dynamic loads Str. – Storey CO-Conventional outrigger VO – Virtual Outrigger

Fig. 15  Flowchart of preliminary recommendations for choosing the optimal position of hybrid outrigger system

the cases except for Imperial Valley-02, El Centro Array
#9 – X and Golden Gate Park,1957-Y in 60 storey models,
the position with VO below the CO gave better results and
in majority of cases the optimal position obtained were
near to the mid height. For dynamic loads, the position of
conventional outrigger approximately varied from 0.4 to
0.95 and the position of virtual outrigger varied from 0.06
to 0.42 for all the models with exceptions in very few cases.
Preliminary design recommendations
Selecting the suitable outrigger positions is one of the main
agenda for design practises as they show maximum effect
on overall performance of the structure. Based on the results
obtained through the static and dynamic analysis, a design
flowchart was produced and is given in Fig. 15. The perfor-
mance of the hybrid outrigger system can be maximised by
increasing the outrigger thickness and length of outrigger
arm. Once the height and the width of the building is fixed,
the size of the main load bearing elements need to be evalu-
ated based on the load demands and this leads to the deter-
mination of β value. When the β value is fixed, the optimal
position for the hybrid outrigger system can be determined.
It’s necessary to place the outrigger at their optimal position
because it can reduce the size demands of the core and out-
rigger dimensions. The usual practice is to keep the outrig-
ger at the plant room or mechanical floors, but this leads to a
very stiff outrigger which makes it expensive. Thus, placing
the outrigger at their optimal position is significant and if
that floor can be used for occupancy it can be made more
beneficial and economical, which is possible in the virtual
outrigger level of hybrid outrigger system. The results from
Figs. 7, 8, 9, 10. and 14 which gives the optimal position
for hybrid outrigger for various β values is condensed in
Fig. 15 to create a design flowchart which can serve as pre-
liminary recommendations for choosing the optimal position
of hybrid outrigger system.
Conclusion
This study analysed the static and dynamic behaviour of
hybrid outrigger system based on stiffness of core, stiffness
of outrigger beam and belt wall, length of the outrigger arm,
and height of the building. The optimal positions for hybrid

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (2023) 24:759–778
outrigger system under wind and earthquake loads were
obtained based on the response from absolute maximum
inter storey drift ratio, roof displacement, roof acceleration
and base bending moment. The following conclusions were
drawn from the analysis results:
• The length of the outrigger arm gave maximum effect on
the behaviour of hybrid outrigger system performance
when compared to the thickness of core and outrigger
which suggest that the outrigger stiffness can be
maximised by increasing its arm length.
• For wind and EQ loads, the value of ­BMbase was best
reduced when the hybrid outrigger system was positioned
near to the base with conventional and virtual outrigger
in the range of 0.06–0.13 and 0.4–0.46, respectively.
For wind loads, maximum reduction in the response
due to acceleration is when the hybrid outrigger system
was positioned near to the roof with conventional and
virtual outrigger in the range of 0.44–0.63 and 0.77–0.96
respectively, and for dynamic EQ loads in the range of
0.45–0.95 and 0.25–0.62, respectively.
• For wind loads, the value of ­ISDmax and ­disp roof was
best reduced when the hybrid outrigger system was
positioned near to the base with conventional and
virtual outrigger in the range of 0.45–0.7 and 0.12–
0.37, respectively for 40 storey models, and for 60
and 80 storey models in the range of 0.25–0.44 and
0.58–0.77, respectively. In static EQ loads, ­ISDmax and
­d isp roof was best reduced when the hybrid outrigger
system was positioned near to the mid height with
conventional and virtual outrigger in the range of
0.53–0.7 and 0.19–0.37 respectively, and for dynamic
EQ loads in the range of 0.4–0.95 and 0.06–0.42,
respectively.
• For wind loads, when performance index was
considered, the optimal position of hybrid outrigger
system was near to the mid-height with conventional
and virtual outrigger in the range of 0.31–0.625 and
0.65–0.96, respectively. For static EQ loads, the
optimal position of conventional and virtual outrigger
was obtained at 0.63 and 0.96, respectively for 40
storey models, and in the range of 0.53–0.58 and 0.19–
0.28, respectively for 60 and 80 storey models. For
dynamic EQ loads, the optimal position of conventional
and virtual outrigger was obtained in the range of 0.4–
0.95 and 0.06–0.42, respectively.
Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Manipal Academy
of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India for all the support
provided.
Author contributions NEJ: conceptualization, methodology, for-
mal analysis, and investigation, writing—original draft preparation.
777
KK: review and editing, conceptualization and methodology review,
supervision.
Funding Open access funding provided by Manipal Academy of
Higher Education, Manipal. Authors declare that no funds were
received during the preparation of the manuscript.
Data availability statement The datasets generated during and/or
analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding
author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors have no competing interests to declare
that are relevant to the content of this article. This research did not
receive any specific grant from funding agencies in any sectors.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format,
as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate
if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​
org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.
References
Baker, W. F., Brown, C., Pawlikowski, J. J., & Rankin, D. S. (2013).
Tall Buildings and Their Foundations: Three Examples. In: Inter-
national Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineer-
ing. http://​schol​arsmi​ne.​mst.​edu/​icchge/​7icch​ge/​sessi​on10/5%​
0AThis
Bayati, Z., Mahdikhani, M., & Rahaei, A. (2008). Optimized use of
multi-outriggers system to stiffen tall buildings. In: Proceedings
of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering:Beijing,
China, October 12–17, 2008, Schueller 1977.
Chen, Y., Cai, K., & Wang, X. (2018). Parameter study of framed-
tube structures with outriggers using genetic algorithm. Structural
Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 27(14), 1–26. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1002/​tal.​1499
Chen, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2018). Analysis of outrigger numbers and loca-
tions in outrigger braced structures using a multiobjective genetic
algorithm. Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 27(1),
1–16. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​tal.​1408
Eom, T. S., Murmu, H., & Yi, W. (2019). Behavior and design of
distributed belt walls as virtual outriggers for concrete high-rise
buildings. International Journal of Concrete Structures and Mate-
rials, 13(1), 1–13. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s40069-​018-​0311-2
Gerasimidis, S., Efthymiou, E., & Baniotopoulos, C. C. (2009). Opti-
mum outrigger locations of high-rise steel buildings for wind
loading. EACWE.
Hoenderkamp, J. C. D. (2008). Second outrigger at optimum location
on high-rise shear wall. Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings, 17(3), 619–634. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​tal.​369
Hoenderkamp, J. C. D. (2009). The influence of non-rigid floor struc-
tures on facade rigger braced high-rise trussed frames. Advances
13
778
in Structural Engineering, 12(3), 385–397. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1260/​13694​33097​88708​428
Hoenderkamp, J. C. D., & Bakker, M. C. M. (2003). Analysis of high-
rise braced frames with outriggers. Structural Design of Tall and
Special Buildings, 12(4), 335–350. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 002/t​ al.2​ 26
Hoenderkamp, J. C. D., & Snijder, H. H. (2000). Simplified analysis
of facade rigger braced high-rise structures. Structural Design of
Tall Buildings, 9(4), 309–319.
Hoenderkamp, J. C. D., & Snijder, H. H. (2003). Preliminary analysis
of high-rise braced frames with facade riggers. Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, 129(5), 640–647. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​
(ASCE)​0733-​9445(2003)​129:​5(640)
Hoenderkamp, J. C. D., Snijder, H. H., & Hofmeyer, H. (2012).
High-rise structures with belt bracing subject to lateral load.
Advances in Structural Engineering, 15(1), 65–75. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1260/​1369-​4332.​15.1.​65
Horton, A. (2000). Virtual outriggers in tall buildings. https://​fdocu​
ments.​in/​docum​ent/​virtu​al-​outri​ggers-​in-​tall-​build​ings.​html
Huang, B., & Takeuchi, T. (2017). Dynamic response evaluation
of damper-outrigger system with various heights. Earthquake
Spectra, 33(2), 665–685.
Husain, M., Hassan, H., Mohamed, H. A., & Elgharbawy, E. S.
(2021). The seismic response of structural outrigger systems
in the tall buildings. Journal of Applied Engineering Science,
19(3), 570–577. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5937/​jaes0-​30837
IS 875: 1987. (1987a). IS 875-1: Code of practice for design loads
(other than earthquake) for buildings and structures, part 1:
Dead loads. Bureau of Indian Standards.
IS 875: 1987. (1987b). IS 875-2: Code of practice for design loads
(other than earthquake) for buildings and structures, part 2:
Imposed loads. Bureau of Indian Standards.
IS 456. (2000). Concrete, plain and reinforced. Bureau of Indian
Standards Concrete (pp. 1–114). Plain and Reinforced.
IS 875: 2015. (2015). IS 875-3: Code of practice for design loads
(other than earthquake) for buildings and structures, part 3:
wind loads. Bureau of Indian Standards.
IS 1893. (2016). IS 1893: Part-I-2016. Criteria for earthquake
resistant design of structures, part 1: general provisions and
buildings (pp. 1–27). Bureau of Indian Standards.
IS 16700. (2017). Criteria for structural safety of tall concrete build-
ings (pp. 1–44). Bureau of Indian Standards.
John, N. E., & Kamath, K. (2022). A review on the development of
outriggers and introduction to hybrid outrigger system on tall
buildings. In L. Nandagiri, M. C. Narasimhan, S. Marathe, & S.
Dinesh (Eds.), Sustainability trends and challenges in civil engi-
neering. Lecture notes in civil engineering. Springer. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​978-​981-​16-​2826-9_5
Khan, I. B. A. A., & Gore, P. N. G. (2018). Effect of outrigger struc-
tural system on highrise structures subjected to lateral loads.
IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-
JMCE), 15(6), 22–29. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​9 790/​1 684-​1 5060​
12229
Kim, H. S., Lim, Y. J., & Lee, H. L. (2020). Strength demand of dual-
purpose outrigger system for reducing lateral displacement and
differential axial shortening in a tall building. Structural Design of
Tall and Special Buildings, 29(4), 1–19. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​
tal.​1701
Lee, J., Bang, M., & Kim, J. Y. (2008). An analytical model for high-
rise wall-frame structures with outriggers. Structural Design of
Tall and Special Buildings, 17(4), 839–851. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1002/​tal.​406
Lin, P. C., Takeuchi, T., & Matsui, R. (2019). Optimal design of mul-
tiple damped-outrigger system incorporating buckling-restrained
braces. Engineering Structures, 194, 441–457. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2019.​05.​078
13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (2023) 24:759–778
Moghadam, M. A., Meshkat-Dini, A., & Moghadam, A. R. S. M.
(2015). Seismic performance of steel tall buildings with outrig-
ger system in near fault zones. Proceedings of the 7th Interna-
tional Conference on Seismology and Earthquake Engineering,
7, 18–21.
Moon, K. S. (2016). Outrigger systems for structural design of com-
plex-shaped tall buildings. International Journal of High-Rise
Buildings, 5(1), 13–20.
Mousleh, I., & Batikha, M. (2020). The cost efficiency by using outrig-
gers in tall buildings. https://​www.​resea​rchga​te.​net/​publi​cation/​
32940​3354
Nair, R. S. (1998). Belt trusses and basements as “virtual” outriggers
for tall buildings. Engineering Journal, 35(4), 140–146.
Park, H. S., Lee, E., Choi, S. W., Oh, B. K., Cho, T., & Kim, Y. (2016).
Genetic-algorithm-based minimum weight design of an outrig-
ger system for high-rise buildings. Engineering Structures, 117,
496–505. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2016.​02.​027
Patil, D. M., & Sangle, K. K. (2016). Seismic behaviour of outrigger
braced systems in high rise 2-D steel buildings. Structures, 8,
1–16. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​istruc.​2016.​07.​005
Po, S. K. (2001). The use of outrigger and belt truss system for high-
rise concrete buildings. Civil Engineering Dimension, 3(1),
36–41.
Radu, H., Bianca, P., Monica, N., & Bogdan, P. (2014). Optimum
design of outrigger and belt truss systems using genetic algorithm.
Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 8(6), 709–715.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​17265/​1934-​7359/​2014.​06.​005
Samarakkody, D. I., Thambiratnam, D. P., Chan, T. H. T., & Mora-
gaspitiya, P. H. N. (2017). Differential axial shortening and its
effects in high rise buildings with composite concrete filled tube
columns. Construction and Building Materials, 143, 659–672.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​2016.​11.​091
Smith, B. S., & Coull, A. (1991). Tall buildings strctures analysis and
design. A wiley interscience publication. John Wiley and Son Inc.
Smith, B. S., & Salim, I. (1981). Parameter study of outrigger-braced
tall building structures. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division,
107(10), 2001–2014.
Smith, B. S., & Salim, I. (1983). Formulae for optimum drift resist-
ance of outrigger braced tall building structures. Computers and
Structures, 17(1), 45–50.
Tan, P., Fang, C. J., Chang, C. M., Spencer, B. F., & Zhou, F. L. (2015).
Dynamic characteristics of novel energy dissipation systems with
damped outriggers. Engineering Structures, 98, 128–140. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2015.​04.​033
Taranath, B. S. (2006). Reinforced concrete design of tall buildings.
Concrete reinforcing steel institute.
Wu, J. R., & Li, Q. S. (2003). Structural performance of multi-outrig-
ger-braced tall buildings. Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings, 12(2), 155–176. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​tal.​219
Xing, L., Gardoni, P., Zhou, Y., & Aguaguiña, M. (2021). Optimal
outrigger locations and damping parameters for single-outrigger
systems considering earthquake and wind excitations. Engineer-
ing Structures, 245, 112868. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​r uct.​
2021.​112868
Zeidabadi, N. A., Mirtalae, K., & Mobasher, B. (2004). Optimized use
of the outrigger system to stiffen the coupled shear walls in tall
buildings. Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 13(1),
9–27. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​tal.​228
Zhao, X., & Jiang, X. (2014). Sensitivity analysis of outrigger systems
for super tall building structures under natural vibration period
constraints. IABSE Symposium Report, 102(37), 483–490.
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.