IJSRED-V2I4P17

International Journal of Scientific Research and Engineering Development-– Volume 2 Issue 4, July – Aug 2019
Available at www.ijsred.com
ISSN : 2581-7175 ©IJSRED:All Rights are Reserved Page 161
Performance Analysis of Outriggers System in Triple Towers
Coupled with Cantilever Meeting at Point
Harish kumar p*, Abhinandhan k s**,Doraiswamy***
*Department of civil engineering, Dayananda SagarCollege of Engineering, Bengaluru, India
** Department of civil engineering, Dayananda Sagar College of Engineering, Bengaluru, India
***Structural consultant, manickya engineering services, Bengaluru,india
----------------------------------------************************----------------------------------
Abstract:
Tall building development has been rapidly increasing worldwide introducing new challenges. As the height
of the building increases, the stiffness of the building reduces. The Outrigger and Belt trussed system is the one of
the lateral load resisting systems that can provide significant drift control for tall buildings. Thus, to improve the
performance of the building under seismic loading, this system can prove to be very effective. The outrigger and
belt truss system is commonly used as one of the structural system to effectively control the excessive drift due to
lateral load, so that, during small or medium lateral load due to either wind or earthquake load, the risk of structural
and non-structural damage can be minimized. For high-rise buildings, particularly in seismic active zone or wind
load dominant, this system can be chosen as an appropriate structure. The objective of this paper is to study, the
performance of outrigger structural system in triple towers coupled with cantilever meeting at center and to compare
the vertical and horizontal displacement of nodes at extreme ends with the rigid jointed structure of same plan and
elevation. The structure is analyzed and designed using staad.pro v8i software.an (G+9) Irregular structure is
assumed for analysis and the material used for the purpose of analysis is steel.
Keywords —out rigger and belt trussed bracing, rigid joint, triple towers etc.
----------------------------------------************************----------------------------------
I. INTRODUCTION
In the past years, structural members were assumed
to carry primarily the gravity loads. Today,
however, by the advances in structural
design/systems and high strength materials,
building weight has reduced, in turn increasing the
slenderness, which necessitates taking into account
majorly the lateral loads such as wind and
earthquake. Specifically for the tall buildings, as the
slenderness, and flexibility increases, buildings are
severely affected from the lateral loads resulting
from wind and earthquake. Hence, it becomes more
necessary to identify the proper structural system
for resisting the lateral loads depending upon the
height of the building. There are many structural
systems that can be used for the lateral resistance of
tall buildings.in this study
Structural systems for tall buildings are a. Rigid
frame systems, b. Braced frame and shear-walled
frame systems, c. Braced frame systems, d. Shear-
walled frame systems, e. Outrigger systems, f.
Framed-tube systems, g. Braced-tube systems, h.
Bundled-tube systems. For the purpose of this study
1.rigid frame system and
2. Outrigger systems are considered
1.Rigid frame system
The use of portal frames, which consist of an
assemblage of beams and columns, is one of the
very popular types of bracing systems used in
building design because of minimal obstruction to
architectural layout created by this system. Rigid
frames are most efficient for low rise to mid-rise
buildings that are not excessively slender. To
attain maximum frame action, the connections of
beam to columns are required to be rigid. Rigid
RESEARCH ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS

International Journal of Scientific Research and Engineering
©IJSRED: All Rights are Reserved
connections, are those with sufficient stiffness to
hold the angles between members virtually
unchanged under load. It gets strength and
stiffness from the no deformability of joints at the
intersections of beams and columns, allowing the
beam, in reality, to develop end moments which
are about 90 to 95 percent of the fully fixed
condition. Rigid frames generally consist of a
rectangular grid of horizontal beams and vertical
columns connected in the same plane by means of
rigid connections. Because of the continuity of
members at the connections, the rigid frame resists
lateral loads primarily through flexure of beams
and columns.
The rigid frame can prove to be quite expensive.
Resisting the lateral loads through bending of the
columns exhibits inefficiency in the system and
requires more material than would another
structural system. Rigid frames also require
labour-intensive moment resisting connections.
Limited field welding is desirable by using bolted
connections where possible; however, achieving
full rigidity of a connection with bolts only is
nearly impossible
2. Outrigger system
The outrigger and belt truss system is used in high
rise structures to resist the lateral loads like wind
and earthquake loads in which the external columns
in the structure are tied to the central core wall with
very stiff outriggers and belt truss at one or more
levels. The belt truss tied the external columns of
building while the outriggers engage them with
main or central shear wall. The outrigger and belt
truss system is mostly used as one of the structural
system to effectively control the excessive drift due
to lateral load, so that, during small or medium
lateral load due to either wind or earthquake load,
the risk of structural and non-structural damage can
be minimized. For high-rise buildings, particularly
in seismic active zone or wind load dominant, this
system can be chosen as an appropriate structure.
International Journal of Scientific Research and Engineering Development-– Volume 2 Issue 4, July
©IJSRED: All Rights are Reserved
connections, are those with sufficient stiffness to
mbers virtually
unchanged under load. It gets strength and
stiffness from the no deformability of joints at the
intersections of beams and columns, allowing the
beam, in reality, to develop end moments which
are about 90 to 95 percent of the fully fixed
ndition. Rigid frames generally consist of a
rectangular grid of horizontal beams and vertical
columns connected in the same plane by means of
rigid connections. Because of the continuity of
members at the connections, the rigid frame resists
primarily through flexure of beams
The rigid frame can prove to be quite expensive.
Resisting the lateral loads through bending of the
columns exhibits inefficiency in the system and
requires more material than would another
. Rigid frames also require
intensive moment resisting connections.
Limited field welding is desirable by using bolted
connections where possible; however, achieving
full rigidity of a connection with bolts only is
The outrigger and belt truss system is used in high
rise structures to resist the lateral loads like wind
and earthquake loads in which the external columns
in the structure are tied to the central core wall with
t one or more
levels. The belt truss tied the external columns of
building while the outriggers engage them with
main or central shear wall. The outrigger and belt
truss system is mostly used as one of the structural
sive drift due
to lateral load, so that, during small or medium
lateral load due to either wind or earthquake load,
structural damage can
rise buildings, particularly
dominant, this
system can be chosen as an appropriate structure.
Fig: outrigger bracing
2.1 Load transfer
In a high rise structure, an outrigger system
connects a central core lateral system to external
columns through horizontal trusses or girde
These horizontal elements leads windward external
columns in tension and leeward
compression (Figure 1).
Figure 1.2: Tension compression couple
Due to this coupling action bending moment is
reduced in the core, leading to reduced story
while gravity columns can typically handle this
increased compressive loading, tension capacity
should always be verified
II. BUILDING DESCRIPTION
For the analytical purpose a ten storied (G+9) high
rise irregular steel towers coupled with cantilever
meeting at center. The storey height of each floor
was taken as 5.5 while at 7th
floor 15 m cantilever
portion is extended in each towers to carry the
central hexagonal portion. The
assumed to be located in Bengaluru
wind speed 33m/s.
Table 4.2 Building General details
A. Cantilever Dimension 15m*15m
B. Tower Dimension 15m*55m
C. Storey Height 5.5m
D. Seismic Zone 2
E. Soil Type Medium
F. Response Reduction Factor 4
G. Structure Type Steel Building
H. Damping Ratio 2%
Volume 2 Issue 4, July – Aug 2019
www.ijsred.com
Page 162
Fig: outrigger bracing
In a high rise structure, an outrigger system
connects a central core lateral system to external
columns through horizontal trusses or girders.
These horizontal elements leads windward external
tension and leeward columns in
Tension compression couple
Due to this coupling action bending moment is
reduced in the core, leading to reduced story drift
while gravity columns can typically handle this
increased compressive loading, tension capacity
For the analytical purpose a ten storied (G+9) high-
rise irregular steel towers coupled with cantilever
ting at center. The storey height of each floor
floor 15 m cantilever
portion is extended in each towers to carry the
portion. The structure was
Bengaluru with Basic
Building General details
15m*15m
15m*55m
Medium
Steel Building
2%

ISSN : 2581-7175 ©IJSRED: All Rights are Reserved Page 163
I. Importance Factor 1
J. Steel Grade Fe 250
K. Steel’s Elastic Modulus 2.1 ∗ 10 kN/m²
L. Steel’s Poisson’s Ratio 0.3
M. Steel Density 76.819kN/m
N. Concrete Density 25kN/m
O. Concrete’s Elastic Modulus 27386*10 kN/m²
P. Concrete’s Poisson’s Ratio 0.2
FIG.3 PLAN OF THE STRUCTURE
FIG.4 RIGID JOINT FRAME
Fig 5 outrigger bracing system frame
III. RESULTS AND DISCISSIONS
3.1 Comparison in horizontal displacement
Displacements at extreme nodes of the tower are
considered for the comparison of horizontal
displacement in both towers. The corresponding
horizontal displacements at extreme nodes of
structure at top are given in below table7.1 and 7.2
in x and z direction. We can observe from the tables
given below that the horizontal displacement in
model without any bracing is approximately 76%
more than the structure with outrigger bracing
system. Form the observed results we can say that
Bracings have significant role in reducing the
effects of horizontal loads like earthquake load and
seismic load.
Table .2Horizontal Displacements in x direction
NODE
Displacements
in Model 1
(in mm)
Displacements
in Model 2
(in mm)
19 122.052 21
20 91.813 18.994
43 122.150 17.470
44 91.882 14.690
83 56.180 12.339
86 56.180 12.305
Fig:6Horizontal Displacements in x direction
Table.3 Horizontal Displacements in z direction
NODE
Displacements
in Model 1
(in mm)
Displacements
in Model 2
(in mm)
19 144.832 24.335
20 145.039 24.503
43 145.558 26.979
44 145.601 28.127
83 121.420 24.510
86 120.209 23.952
Fig:7 Horizontal Displacements in z direction
3.2 Comparison in vertical displacement
Extreme nodes, with the maximum displacement,
in the central hexagonal portion are considered for
the comparison of vertical displacement in model
122.052
91.813
122.15
91.882
56.18 56.18
21 18.994 17.47 14.69 12.339 12.305
19 20 43 44 83 86rigid bracing
144.83 145.039 145.039 145.601 121.42 120.209
24.335 24.503 26.979 28.127 24.51 23.952
19 20 43 44 83 86
rigid bracing

one without bracing system and one with outrigger
bracing system. Results obtained from the analysis
of both models are given in table 7.5.
Vertical displacement in the model without
bracing system is 12% less than the model without
rigger bracing system due to rigid joints provided in
the model 1
Table 7.5 Vertical Displacements
node
Displacements in
Model 1
(in mm)
Displacements in
Model 2
(in mm)
319 55.750 63.341
322 55.627 63.302
325 72.690 68.836
328 62.763 55.556
331 63.336 55.515
334 73.049 68.885
Fig: Vertical Displacements
3.3 Comparison in Steel take-off
Steel take-off is the quantity of steel required for
the building, drawn by the means of material
properties assigned in the model
Steel used in model one without any bracing
=4049078.418 kg
Steel used in model two with outrigger bracing
system =2573274.749kg
From the above observation we can observe that
steel used in model without any bracing system is
more 36% more than the steel used in the model
with outrigger bracing system. Steel used in model
one can be reduced.
Fig: steel take off
IV. CONCLUSIONS
Points concluded by the study as follows
1. Model, provided with the outriggers was
found to be effective in all aspects: Steel
take-off, vertical displacement and
horizontal displacement.
2. In terms of Steel take-off, model 1 requires
36% more steel than the model with
outrigger system in terms of economy using
outrigger system is beneficial
3. The percentage increase in steel usage of
Model 2, when compared with Model 1,
would have been still more, if there was no
suppression of the forces by the adjacent
tower.
4. In terms of horizontal displacement, Model
1 showed upto70% more displacement,
when compared with Model 2 in both z and
x direction
In terms of vertical displacement, Model 1 showed
and up to 12% less displacement, when compared
with Model 2 due to rigid jointed nature
REFERENCES
[1] AkshayKhanorkar, ShrutiSukhdeve, S. V Denge and S. P Raut (2016)
“Outrigger andBelt Truss System for Tall buildings to control
deflection: A Review” Global Research and Development Journal for
Engineering, Volume-1, Issue-6, Page 6-15
[2] Bayati Z, M Mahdikhani and A Rahaei (2008) “Optimized use of
Multi-Outriggerssystem to stiffen Tall buildings” The 14th
World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering. October 12-17, Beijing, China
[3] IS: 1893 (Part 1)-2002, Code of practice-Criteria for earthquake
resistant.
[4] IS: 800-2007, General construction in steel -code of practice.
[5] IS: 875-1987 (Part 1) Dead loads, Code of practice for designloads
(other than earthquake) for buildings and structures.
[6] IS: 875-1987 (Part 2) Live loads, Code of practice for designloads
[7] IS: 875-1987 (Part 3) Wind loads, Code of practice for designloads
[8] Karan Dipak Sitapura and Prof. N. G Gore (2016) “Review on
feasibility of High-riseOutrigger Structural System in Seismically
activeregions” International Research Journal, Volume-3, Issue-7, Page
197-203
[9] Raad Abed Al-Jallal Hasan (2016) “Behavior of Beam andWall
Outrigger in High-rise buildings and their comparison” International
0
50
100
319 322 325 328 331 334
Chart Title
rigid bracing
0
5000
rigid bracing
steel take off
steel

Journal of Civil, Structural Environmental and Infrastructure
Engineering Research and Development, Volume-6, Issue-1, Page 19-
30
[10] Raj Kiran Nanduri P. M. B, B. Suresh, M. D. Ihtesham Hussain (2013)
“Optimum position for Outrigger system for High-rise Reinforced
Concrete Buildings under windand earthquake loadings” American
Journal of Engineering Research (AJER), Volume-2, Issue-8, Page 76-
89
[11] S. Fawzia, A. Nasir and T. Fatima (2011) “The use ofOutrigger and
Belt-truss systemfor High-rise Concrete Buildings”
DimensiTeknikSipil, Volume-3, Issue-1, Page36-41
[12] Shankar Nair R (1998) “Belt Trusses and Basements Virtual
Outriggers for TallBuildings” Engineering Journal, Fourth quarter,
Page 140-146
[13] Shivacharan K, Chandrakala S, Narayana G, Karthik. N. M (2014)
“Analysis ofOutrigger system for Tall vertical Irregularities Structures
subjected to Lateral Load’ International Journal of Research in
Engineering and Technology”, Volume-4, Issue-5, Page 84-88

IJSRED-V2I4P17

More Related Content

IJSRED-V2I4P17