The Use of Outrigger System in Steel Plate Shear Wall

Structures

M. Gholipour, E. Asadi and M.M. Alinia*

Department of Civil Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran 15875-4413, Iran.

(Received: 25 Jun 2014; Received revised form: 14 Oct 2014; Accepted: 20 Oct 2014)

Abstract: The use of capacity design method (CDM) in steel plate shear wall (SPSW)
structures results in large vertical boundary elements (VBEs). One way to reduce the
force demands on VBEs is to employ outrigger beams in the adjacent spans of SPSW.
In this paper, twelve dual SPSW-moment resisting frames are designed and analyzed
by FE method to investigate the effects of outrigger system on the behavior of SPSW
structures. Results show that outrigger beams can transfer considerable amount of
axial force and bending moment from VBEs to the outer spans columns; resulting in
smaller sections for VBEs. In addition, the most effective stories to employ outrigger
beams are shown to be the stories which undergo larger drifts. Outrigger system also
results in a more uniform distribution of structural stiffness along the height of SPSW
frames. Furthermore, a design procedure based on the direct analysis method is
proposed for the design of SPSW-Outrigger system. The procedure eliminates the
excessive capacities in CDM, while satisfying all CDM requirements.

Key words: steel plate shear wall, outrigger beam, capacity design method, direct analysis method.

1. INTRODUCTION To reduce VBE demands, various solutions have

The steel plate shear wall system (SPSW) is known to
efficiently resist lateral loads in high seismic regions. A
typical SPSW consists of infill steel plates connected to
the beams, known as the horizontal boundary elements
(HBEs); and columns, or the vertical boundary
elements (VBEs). All HBE-VBE connections are of
moment resisting type.
According to the requirements of AISC-341 (2010),
the infill plates are allowed to buckle in shear and form
diagonal tension fields. HBEs and VBEs are designed
to remain essentially elastic under forces generated by
the fully yielded plates, even though the development of
plastic hinges is permitted at the ends of HBEs and base
of VBEs. This approach, commonly known as the
capacity design method (CDM), results in high design
forces in the VBEs; and thus large column sections are
required. Bulky VBE sections decrease the rentable
area of building, increase weight of the structure, and
are uneconomic.
been proposed and investigated by researchers. Chen
and Jhang (2006) and Berman and Bruneau (2005)
incorporated low yield steel (LYS) for infill plates.
Using of LYS ensures the infill plates to yield before
boundary frame members. Vian et al. (2009) studied the
behavior of perforated SPSWs with reduced beam
section (RBS) for HBEs. Placing holes in the infill
plates allows the effective strength of the solid plate to
be reduced; and diminishes force and moment demands
in the boundary frame members. RBS connection, on
the other hand, reduces HBEs’ plastic moment, which
subsequently results in reduced axial and moment
demand sin VBEs. Tsai and Li (2008) used a pin-ended
horizontal strut at mid-height of VBEs. This strut helps
resist the pull-in forces and reduces the moment
demands in VBEs. To provide resistance against large
VBE demands, Astaneh-asl and Zhao (2002) proposed
the use of concrete filled tubular columns. SPSW with
adjacent outrigger beams (AISC-820 2007) has been

*Corresponding author. Email addresses: m.alinia@aut.ac.ir; Fax: +98 21 6641 4013; Tel.: +98 21 6454 3034.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 6 2015 853

 The Use of Outrigger System in Steel Plate Shear Wall Structures

proposed as an alternative solution to reduce force Steel plate shear wall Moment resisting frames
demands in VBEs.
The outrigger system is commonly utilized in tall
buildings to control the lateral displacement of
structures (Gunel and Ilgin 2007). The system consists
of a central resisting core, including shear walls or
braced frames, which are connected to external columns
through some horizontal trusses or girders. Using
outrigger system, a considerable amount of core
moment is transferred to the perimeter columns
resulting in reduced demands in the interior columns.
There are many studies on the outrigger systems utilized
in reinforced concrete structures (Kamath et al. 2012;
Nanduri et al. 2013) and braced steel frames
(Hoenderkamp and Bakker 2003; Nicoreac and
Hoenderkamp 2012). Both types of outrigger systems,
including trusses and deep stiff beams, have been
investigated in the references. Figure 1. Typical considered frames
In SPSWs, however, the proposed outrigger system
(AISC-820 2007) is somehow different. Instead of using
concentrated trusses, beam sections in the adjacent
spans of SPSW, here called outrigger beams, are Y
enlarged. This way, VBE’s axial force and bending
SPSW
moment demands are reduced and transferred to the
outer spans columns. Truss type outriggers have been
utilized in the 74-story Tianjin Jinta Tower located in
6.5 m

China (Nie et al. 2013; Mathias et al. 2008) and another

55-story building (Kang et al. 2013). In both buildings,
the main lateral load resisting system is the steel plate
shear wall. To the authors’ knowledge, however, there is
6.5 m

no study on the use of the proposed outrigger beam

system in SPSW structures.
In this paper, the results of FE simulation studies on
the behavior of SPSW-Outrigger systems are presented.
6.5 m

At first, the effects of using outrigger beams on the

behavioral characteristics of SPSWs, such as pushover
curve, energy absorption of the structure, and internal X
forces of columns are investigated. Results are SPSW

presented for various arrangements of outrigger beams.

Then a design method for the SPSW-Outrigger system Figure 2. Typical floor plan of studied frames
is presented.

2. METHOD OF STUDY
2.1. Geometric Specifications of Frames
Twelve dual SPSW-moment resisting frames, having 3,
9 and 14 stories were designed in this study. All frames
have three bays with the middle bay filled with steel
plates, see Figure 1.The dead, live and seismic loads
were calculated based on ASCE 7-10 (ASCE 2010) for
a building with a typical floor plan as depicted in Figure
2. The building design included dual SPSW-moment
resisting frames in the X-direction; and moment
resisting frames in the Y-direction. The story height was
presumed to be 4 m. The bay spans in the X-direction
vary from 4 m to 9 m; so that the aspect ratio of SPSWs
varies from 1 to 2.25, complying with the range of 0.8
to 2.5 recommended in the AISC-341 (2010). The frame
names are in accordance with their number of stories
and the spans of internal and external bays. For
example, the 3-story frame, with mid-bay span of 4 m
and external spans of 6.5 m is named “model 3-4-6.5”.

854 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 6 2015

M. Gholipour, E. Asadi and M.M. Alinia

2.2. Material Properties
The ASTM-A36 and ASTM-A572 steel material
properties were respectively used for infill plates and
frame members. The presumed nonlinear stress-strain
characteristics of materials are given in Figure 3. The
yield stress of infill plate (325 MPa) was selected less
than that of frame members (385 MPa) to reduce the
forces induced by infill plates on the HBEs and VBEs.
2.3. Design Procedure
All frames were designed according to the AISC-341
(2010) and the AISC-360 (2010) rules and specifications.
Design of frames was performed on a site class D soil;
and adjusted maximum considered earthquake spectral
response parameters at 0.2 and 1 s. periods, SMS and SM1,
were 1.61 g and 1.19 g respectively. The resulting design
spectral acceleration parameters at 0.2 and 1 s, SDS and
SD1, were 1.07 g and 0.79 g respectively. The calculation
of design seismic base shear and the distribution of
seismic forces along the height of frames were carried out
according to the equivalent lateral force procedure
specified in the ASCE 7-10 (2010).
The thickness of infill plates was calculated to resist the
full story shear. HBEs and VBEs were then designed to
resist forces induced by the fully yielded plates according
to the principles of CDM. Based on the requirements of
ASCE 7-10 (2010), the moment resisting frames in dual
systems should be able to resist at least 25% of the lateral
forces. Hence, the beams and columns of moment
resisting frames in the outer spans were designed to
withstand 25% of seismic forces and the gravity loads.
Infill plate thicknesses were selected from those
available in the ASTM-A36 steel presented in reference
(AISC-820 2007). According to Berman (2011), infill
plates thinner than 3 mm are less practical; and require
additional care and effort in the fabrication and erection
processes. On the other hand, it is not recommended to
overdesign SPSW plates and use thicker plates than
required. The minimum plate thickness available in the
ASTM-A36 steel is 1.59 mm (AISC-820); and has been
used for infill plates in references (AISC-820 2007;
Berman 2011). In the present study, the minimum plate
thickness was presumed to be 1.59 mm to prevent
unnecessary large HBEs and VBEs. The design infill
plate thicknesses and frame member sizes for the twelve
considered frames are given in Tables 1−12.
2.4. FE Modeling
All frames were modeled via the ABAQUS finite
element software package (ABAQUS 2010) and
analyzed via pushover analysis. Amongst various
available methods, modeling with the shell element
showed higher accuracy in comparison with
experimental results (Habashi and Alinia 2010;
Behbahanifard et al. 2003). However, when the number
of elements increases, especially in high-rise SPSW

600 600

500 500
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Strain (mm/mm) Strain (mm/mm)
(a) Infill plates (b) Frame members

Figure 3. Stress-strain characteristics of materials

Table 1. Design plate thicknesses and member sizes- Model 3-4-4

Plate thickness SPSW SPSW Outer Outer

Level (mm) VBEs HBEs columns beams
3 1.59 W14 × 370 W24 × 162 W10 × 45 W10 × 17
2 1.59 W14 × 370 W18 × 50 W10 × 45 W10 × 17
1 1.59 W14 × 370 W18 × 50 W10 × 45 W10 × 17

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 6 2015 855

 The Use of Outrigger System in Steel Plate Shear Wall Structures

Table 2. Design plate thicknesses and member sizes- Model 3-4-6.5

Plate thickness SPSW SPSW Outer Outer

Level (mm) VBEs HBEs columns beams
3 1.59 W14 × 257 W18 × 119 W10 × 45 W12 × 19
2 1.59 W14 × 257 W18 × 50 W10 × 45 W12 × 19
1 1.59 W14 × 257 W18 × 50 W10 × 45 W12 × 19

Table 3. Design plate thicknesses and member sizes- Model 3-4-9

Plate thickness SPSW SPSW Outer Outer

Level (mm) VBEs HBEs columns beams
3 1.59 W14 × 370 W24 × 162 W10 × 68 W14 × 26
2 1.59 W14 × 370 W18 × 50 W10 × 68 W14 × 26
1 1.59 W14 × 370 W18 × 50 W10 × 68 W14 × 26

Table 4. Design plate thicknesses and member sizes- Model 3-6.5-6.5

Plate thickness SPSW SPSW Outer Outer

Level (mm) VBEs HBEs columns beams
3 1.59 W14 × 370 W24 × 162 W10 × 45 W12 × 19
2 1.59 W14 × 370 W18 × 50 W10 × 45 W12 × 19
1 1.59 W14 × 370 W18 × 50 W10 × 45 W12 × 19

Table 5. Design plate thicknesses and member sizes- Model 3-9-6.5

Plate thickness SPSW SPSW Outer Outer

Level (mm) VBEs HBEs columns beams
3 1.59 W36 × 395 W30 × 357 W10 × 45 W12 × 19
2 1.59 W36 × 395 W14 × 68 W10 × 45 W12 × 19
1 1.59 W36 × 441 W14 × 68 W10 × 45 W12 × 19

Table 6. Design plate thicknesses and member sizes- Model 9-4-4

Level Plate thickness SPSW SPSW Outer Outer

(mm) VBEs HBEs columns beams
9 1.59 W14 × 426 W18 × 65 W10 × 68 W12 × 19
8 1.59 W14 × 426 W18 × 50 W10 × 68 W12 × 19
7 1.59 W14 × 605 W18 × 50 W10 × 68 W12 × 19
6 1.59 W14 × 605 W18 × 50 W10 × 68 W12 × 19
5 1.59 W14 × 665 W18 × 50 W10 × 68 W14 × 26
4 1.59 W14 × 665 W18 × 50 W10 × 68 W14 × 26
3 1.59 W14 × 665 W18 × 50 W10 × 68 W14 × 26
2 1.59 W14 × 665 W18 × 50 W10 × 68 W14 × 26
1 1.90 W14 × 665 W18 × 65 W10 × 68 W14 × 26

856 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 6 2015

M. Gholipour, E. Asadi and M.M. Alinia

Table 7. Design plate thicknesses and member sizes- Model 9-4-6.5

Plate thickness SPSW SPSW Outer Outer

Level (mm) VBEs HBEs columns beams
9 1.59 W36 × 194 W18 × 55 W10 × 68 W14 × 26
8 1.59 W36 × 194 W18 × 55 W10 × 68 W14 × 26
7 1.59 W36 × 395 W18 × 55 W10 × 68 W14 × 26
6 2.68 W36 × 395 W18 × 97 W10 × 68 W14 × 26
5 2.68 W36 × 529 W18 × 86 W10 × 68 W16 × 31
4 2.68 W36 × 529 W18 × 86 W10 × 68 W16 × 31
3 2.68 W36 × 529 W18 × 86 W10 × 68 W16 × 31
2 2.68 W36 × 529 W18 × 86 W10 × 68 W16 × 31
1 2.68 W36 × 529 W18 × 86 W10 × 68 W16 × 31

Table 8. Design plate thicknesses and member sizes- Model 9-4-9

Plate thickness SPSW SPSW Outer Outer

Level (mm) VBEs HBEs columns beams
9 1.59 W36 × 194 W18 × 55 W14 × 68 W16 × 31
8 1.59 W36 × 194 W18 × 55 W14 × 68 W16 × 31
7 2.68 W36 × 441 W18 × 97 W14 × 68 W16 × 31
6 2.68 W36 × 441 W18 × 97 W14 × 68 W18 × 50
5 3.18 W36 × 652 W18 × 97 W14 × 68 W18 × 50
4 3.18 W36 × 652 W18 × 86 W14 × 68 W18 × 50
3 3.42 W36 × 652 W18 × 86 W14 × 68 W18 × 50
2 3.42 W36 × 652 W18 × 86 W14 × 68 W18 × 50
1 3.42 W36 × 652 W18 × 86 W14 × 68 W18 × 50

Table 9. Design plate thicknesses and member sizes- Model 9-6.5-6.5

Plate thickness SPSW SPSW Outer Outer

Level (mm) VBEs HBEs columns beams
9 1.59 W36 × 302 W24 × 176 W14 × 48 W14 × 26
8 1.59 W36 × 302 W18 × 55 W14 × 48 W14 × 26
7 1.59 W36 × 441 W18 × 55 W14 × 48 W14 × 26
6 1.59 W36 × 441 W18 × 55 W14 × 48 W14 × 26
5 1.59 W36 × 441 W18 × 55 W14 × 48 W16 × 31
4 1.59 W36 × 441 W18 × 55 W14 × 48 W16 × 31
3 1.59 W36 × 441 W18 × 55 W14 × 48 W16 × 31
2 1.59 W36 × 441 W18 × 55 W14 × 48 W16 × 31
1 1.90 W36 × 441 W18 × 71 W14 × 48 W16 × 31

Table 10. Design plate thicknesses and member sizes- Model 9-9-6.5

Plate thickness SPSW SPSW Outer Outer

Level (mm) VBEs HBEs columns beams
9 1.59 W36 × 652 W30 × 357 W14 × 48 W16 × 31
8 1.59 W36 × 800 W18 × 65 W14 × 48 W16 × 31
7 1.59 W36 × 800 W18 × 50 W14 × 48 W16 × 31
6 1.59 W36 × 800 W18 × 50 W14 × 48 W16 × 31
5 1.59 W36 × 800 W18 × 50 W14 × 48 W16 × 31
4 1.59 W36 × 800 W18 × 50 W14 × 68 W18 × 50
3 1.59 W36 × 800 W18 × 50 W14 × 68 W18 × 50
2 1.59 W36 × 800 W18 × 50 W14 × 68 W18 × 50
1 1.59 W36 × 800 W18 × 50 W14 × 68 W18 × 50

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 6 2015 857

 The Use of Outrigger System in Steel Plate Shear Wall Structures

Table 11. Design plate thicknesses ad member sizes- Model 14-4-4

Plate thickness SPSW SPSW Outer Outer

Level (mm) VBEs HBEs columns beams
14 1.59 W36 × 395 W16 × 89 W14 × 48 W14 × 26
13 1.59 W36 × 395 W14 × 53 W14 × 48 W14 × 26
12 1.59 W36 × 395 W14 × 53 W14 × 48 W14 × 26
11 1.59 W36 × 395 W14 × 53 W14 × 48 W14 × 26
10 2.68 W36 × 652 W16 × 89 W14 × 48 W14 × 26
9 2.68 W36 × 652 W14 × 68 W14 × 48 W14 × 26
8 2.68 W36 × 800 W14 × 68 W14 × 48 W14 × 26
7 2.68 W36 × 800 W14 × 68 W14 × 48 W16 × 31
6 2.68 W36 × 800 W14 × 68 W14 × 48 W16 × 31
5 3.18 W36 × 800 W16 × 89 W14 × 68 W16 × 31
4 3.18 W36 × 800 W14 × 68 W14 × 68 W16 × 31
3 3.18 W36 × 800 W14 × 68 W14 × 68 W16 × 31
2 3.18 W36 × 800 W14 × 68 W14 × 68 W16 × 31
1 3.18 W36 × 800 W14 × 68 W14 × 68 W16 × 31

Table 12. Design plate thicknesses and member sizes- Model 14-9-6.5

Plate thickness SPSW SPSW Outer Outer

Level (mm) VBEs HBEs columns beams
14 1.59 W36 × 652 W30 × 357 W14 × 48 W16 × 31
13 1.59 W36 × 652 W18 × 86 W14 × 48 W16 × 31
12 1.59 W36 × 800 W18 × 55 W14 × 48 W16 × 31
11 1.59 W36 × 800 W18 × 55 W14 × 48 W16 × 31
10 1.59 W36 × 800 W18 × 55 W14 × 48 W16 × 31
9 1.59 W36 × 800 W18 × 55 W14 × 68 W18 × 50
8 1.59 W36 × 800 W18 × 55 W14 × 68 W18 × 50
7 1.90 W36 × 800 W21 × 147 W14 × 68 W18 × 50
6 1.90 W36 × 800 W18 × 86 W14 × 68 W18 × 50
5 1.90 W36 × 800 W18 × 86 W14 × 68 W18 × 50
4 1.90 W36 × 800 W18 × 86 W14 × 68 W18 × 50
3 2.68 W36 × 800 W24 × 279 W14 × 68 W18 × 50
2 2.68 W36 × 800 W18 × 86 W14 × 68 W18 × 50
1 2.68 W36 × 800 W18 × 86 W14 × 68 W18 × 50

frames, such modeling method is time consuming and Tension Beam

produces convergence complications. strips elements
∆x
The strip model method is another well-accepted
technique for modeling of SPSW structures (AISC-
820; Berman 2011); and the Canadian steel design
standard (CSA 2001) and AISC-341 (2010) α
recommend its use for the analysis of SPSW systems.
In this method, the infill plates are replaced by h

discrete pinned tension-only strips; and HBEs and

VBEs are simulated with beam elements, see Figure 4.
The strip method is computationally expedient and
adequately captures the global behavior of SPSWs;
and has been widely used in the analysis of SPSWs; L
e.g. see references (Berman 2011; Shishkin et al.
2005). Figure 4. Strip model

858 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 6 2015

M. Gholipour, E. Asadi and M.M. Alinia

In this study, SPSW frames were modeled using the 3500

strip method. Each infill plate was modeled by 10 strips
3000
using the truss element T2D2. According to (AISC-820)

Base shear (kN)

using at least ten strips per panel ensures the accuracy of 2500

results. The area of each tension strip (Ast) and the 2000
length of the beam segments (∆x) were calculated 1500
respectively by Eqns 1 and 2.
1000
ABAQUS strips model
500
[ L cos(α ) + h sin(a)]t Experiment
Ast = (1) 0
n 0 20 40 60 80
1st story lateral displacement (mm)

Figure 5. Verification of FE modeling procedure

∆ x = 1 n [ L + h tan (α )] (2)

where t is the thickness of infill plate; L is the span S, Mises

length of SPSW between the centerline of VBEs; h is Lower flange, left end
(Svg: 75%)
the story height; α the angle of tension strips with
+4.820e + 02
respect to VBE; and n is the number of strips. +4.425e + 02
+4.029e + 02
All frame members, including HBEs and VBEs in the +3.634e + 02
+3.238e + 02
span of SPSW and beams and columns of the outer +2.843e + 02
+2.447e + 02
spans were modeled by the beam element B21. +2.052e + 02
+1.656e + 02
To validate the modeling procedure, the 4-story +1.261e + 02
SPSW frame tested by Driver et al. (1998) was modeled +8.650e + 02
+4.695e + 02
and analyzed via pushover analysis. Gravity loads of +7.401e + 02
720 kN were applied at the top of each VBE and lateral
loads were applied at the HBE-VBE connections. To
simulate the boundary conditions used in the test, all
base nodes were restrained against displacements. VBEs
base nodes were also restrained against rotations. The
comparison of experimental and FE results is presented
in Figure 5, exhibiting the base shear versus the first
story displacement. Based on this figure, the strip
method adequately represents the behavior of SPSW in
both elastic and inelastic stages. Figure 6 presents the
Mises stress distribution at the ultimate load. As shown,
significant yielding occurred in the strips and VBEs of Figure 6. von Mises stress distribution at the ultimate load
the 1st story, which comply with the test results.

3. SPSW-OUTRIGGER SYSTEM BEHAVIOR
For a preliminary investigation of the effects of
outrigger beams on the behavior of SPSW system, the
second moment area of the primary designed outer span
beams were augmented to an arbitrary value of 70 times
in three arrangement types: a) in all stories; b) in two
adjacent stories; and c) in only one story (see Figure 7).
It should be noted that other values of augmentation,
rather than 70, were also investigated. Those values did
not result in significant changes in the arrangement type
(c). The value of 70, on the other hand, made
considerable changes in the studied parameters in all
arrangement types. However, the resulting outrigger
beam sections were so large that they might not be
practical in real design. Also, the strong column-weak
beam concept required by the codes of practice might
not be satisfied. Therefore, the value of 70 was selected
only for theoretical investigation on the effect of
outrigger beams on the behavior of SPSW structures. In
section 4.3., beam sections are enlarged regarding both
practical applications and design requirements.
In the following sections, specific behavioral
characteristics, such as pushover curve, energy absorption,
and internal forces of columns in both the original SPSW
frame and those strengthened by outrigger beams are
presented and discussed for the typical model 9-6.5-6.5.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 6 2015 859

 The Use of Outrigger System in Steel Plate Shear Wall Structures

(o) Original SPSW structure (a) Outrigger beams in all stories

(b) Outrigger beams in two adjacent stories (c) Outrigger beams in only one story

Figure 7. Various arrangements of outrigger beams

3.1. Pushover Curve and Energy Absorption 8

The pushover curve for the arrangement type (a), along 7
with that of the original structure are presented in Figure 8. 6
Base shear (MN)

The comparison shows that using outrigger beams in every 5

story of the SPSW structure, substantially increases the
4
overall structural load capacity. The initial (elastic) and the
secondary (inelastic) stiffness of the SPSW frame have 3

been also improved. The energy absorption of the SPSW- 2 Original structure
Outrigger beams in all stories
Outrigger frame, depicted by the area under the pushover 1
curve, has increased by 51% compared to the original Drift = 2.5 %
0
structure. The enclosed area of the pushover curve has been 0 200 400 600 800 1000
calculated for the roof displacement corresponding to the Roof displacement (mm)

2.5 % story drift limit, as specified in ASCE 7-10 (2010). Figure 8. Pushover curve for outrigger arrangement type (a)

860 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 6 2015

M. Gholipour, E. Asadi and M.M. Alinia

The corresponding pushover curves for the
arrangement type (b), where outrigger beams are
applied to the two adjacent stories, are presented in
Figure 9. The pushover curves of all cases are not given
for brevity. Similar to the arrangement type (a), the
employment of outrigger beams in two adjacent stories
increases both the stiffness and load carrying capacity of
SPSW system. In this arrangement, the increase in the
amount of energy absorption in comparison with the
original structure is given in Table 13. The results
indicate that the greatest increase in energy absorption
(22 %) belongs to the case where outriggers are
concurrently applied to the 2nd and 3rd story beams.
The pushover curves for the third arrangement type,
in which outrigger beams are applied to only one story,
are depicted in Figure 10. Results are presented for odd
stories only. As shown, the employment of outrigger
beams in the 3rd story has the most increase effect in
structural capacity. The increase in the energy
absorption for each case compared to the original
structure is given in Table 14.
On the other hand, Figure 11 depicts the story drift
diagram of the original structure at the design base
shear. As shown, the maximum drift occurred at the 3rd
story. The correlation between the two latter results in
Figures 10 and 11 indicates that the maximum increase
in the energy absorption occurred when outrigger beams
were applied to the story with the maximum drift.
Similar results were obtained for the arrangement type
(b), where the simultaneous enlargement of the 2nd and
3rd story beams proved to be the most effective case.
3.2. Internal Forces of Columns
The variation of internal forces and moments at the base
of both tension and compression VBEs of the original
structure and those of the arrangement type (a) are
plotted in Figure 12. The results show that the
employment of outrigger beams in every story reduced
axial forces and bending moments by 38% and 21%,
respectively. There was no considerable change in the
shear force of tension VBE; but in compression VBE,
the shear force increased by 29%. The increase occurred
after partial yielding of infill plates and HBEs. The
reduction of the axial forces and bending moments in
VBEs allow smaller sections.
It is further observed that the internal forces in the
tension and compression VBEs are very similar. Thus,
for the sake of brevity, only the internal forces of
compression VBE is presented hereafter. Figures 13 and
14, respectively, represent the variations of internal
forces and moments at the base of compression VBE in
the arrangement types (b) and (c), where they are also
compared to those of the original structure. Results are
given only for the cases corresponding to Figures 9 and
10.
The results for the arrangement type (b) show that a
maximum reduction of 13.8% in the axial force of
compression VBE took place when the 4th and 5th story

7 6

6
5
5
Base shear (mm)
Base shear (MN)

4
4
3
3 Original structure
Outrigger beams in the 1st story
Original structure 2
2 Outrigger beams in the 3rd story
Outrigger beams in the 2nd and 3rd stories
Outrigger beams in the 5th story
Outrigger beams in the 4th and 5th stories 1
1 Outrigger beams in the 7th story
Outrigger beams in the 6th and 7th stories
Outrigger beams in the 9th story
Outrigger beams in the 8th and 9th stories 0
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Roof displacement (mm) Roof displacement (mm)

Figure 9. Pushover curves for outrigger arrangement type (b) Figure 10. Pushover curves for outrigger arrangement type (c)

Table 13. Increase in energy absorption-outrigger arrangement type (b)

Outrigger beams stories

1, 2 2, 3 3, 4 4, 5 5, 6 6, 7 7, 8 8, 9
% Increase
17.99 22.41 21.42 18.03 12.53 7.80 5.10 3.02

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 6 2015 861

 The Use of Outrigger System in Steel Plate Shear Wall Structures

Table 14. Increase in energy absorption-outrigger arrangement type (c)

Outrigger beams story

% Increase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
7.98 10.12 11.54 10.42 8.33 5.61 3.22 1.71 1.29

9 type (b), the results correspond to the case in which the

2nd and 3rd stories had outrigger beams. In the
8 arrangement type (c), the results belong to the case
where beams in the 3rd story were enlarged. In all cases,
7 the axial forces in the outer span column increased due
to the spread of overturning moment to the outer spans.
6
In the arrangement type (a), where outrigger beams
were applied to all stories, the stiffness of the outer
Story

5
4
3
2 As discussed in the previous section, the use of
1 SPSW span columns, but increases those of the outer
0 0.5 1 1.5
Story drift (%)
Figure 11. Story drift diagram at design base shear
beams were enlarged. Additionally, using outrigger
beams in the 1st and 2nd stories reduced bending
moments by up to 23.5%. Nonetheless, when the
combination of axial forces and bending moments is
considered, using outrigger beams concurrently in the
2nd and 3rd stories resulted in the maximum reduction of
demands by 13.5% and 15.5%, respectively.
In the arrangement type(c), the maximum reduction
in the axial force and bending moment were 8.1% and
14.9%, respectively. These percentages correspond to
the cases where outrigger beams were applied to the 3rd
and 1st stories, respectively. Here too, when the
combination of axial forces and bending moments is
considered, the enlargement of the 3rd story beams
showed to be more effective and reduced axial force
and bending moment by 8.1% and 8.6%, respectively.
Similar to the results obtained for the energy
absorption of the SPSW system, it is observed that the
most effective results regarding the reduction in the
demands of VBEs, were obtained when outrigger
beams were applied to the story with the maximum
drift.
The effect of outrigger beams on the internal forces
of outer span columns is discussed herein by the use of
the results presented in Figure 15. In the arrangement
spans increased substantially; resulting in a
considerable raise in all internal forces of the outer span
column.
4. DESIGN OF SPSW-OUTRIGGER SYSTEM
outrigger beams decreases the internal forces of the
spans. These changes, in turn, affect the internal
forces of beams. Consequently, it is necessary to
revise and redesign all structural members. In this
section, the current popular design methods of SPSW
system are revisited by considering the use of
outrigger beams.
4.1. Capacity Design Method
The FE analysis results obtained on the considered
frames show that the maximum load carrying capacity
of SPSW structures are much greater than those
calculated via ASCE 7-10 (2010). On the other hand,
the study of the yielding sequence of structural
members in the considered frames indicates that infill
plates at the upper stories do not yield fully, even after
the overall failure of the structure. According to the
CDM rules, however, all HBEs and VBEs of a SPSW
system should be designed for the forces induced by
the fully yielded infill plates. This approach is based
on a desirable yield sequence in which infill plates
yield first; and then plastic hinges are formed within
the ends of HBEs and base of VBEs, respectively. In
this regard, boundary frame members must possess
adequate strength and stiffness to sustain and anchor
the tension field stresses induced by infill plates.
Although this design approach is conservative, and
that the additional capacity may have a positive
influence on the performance of the structure, it
results in having large HBE and VBE sections, high
usage of steel and high cost.

862 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 6 2015

M. Gholipour, E. Asadi and M.M. Alinia

12 −12

10 −10
Axial force (MN)

Axial force (MN)

8 −8

6 −6

4 −4

2 Original structure −2 Original structure

Outrigger beams in all stories Outrigger beams in all stories
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Base shear (MN) Base shear (MN)

14 14

12 12

Bending moment (MN.m)

Bending moment (MN.m)

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 Original structure 2 Original structure

Outrigger beams in all stories Outrigger beams in all stories
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Base shear (MN) Base shear (MN)

3.5 2

3
1.5
Shear force (MN)
Shear force (MN)

2.5

2
1
1.5

1
0.5
Original structure Original structure
0.5
Outrigger beams in all stories Outrigger beams in all stories
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Base shear (MN) Base shear (MN)

Tension VBE Compression VBE

Figure 12. Variation of internal forces and moment at the base of VBEs, outrigger arrangement type (a)

4.2. Direct Analysis Method
In the direct analysis method (DAM), the design of
structural members is subjected to the actual state of
their internal forces. For the models considered in this
research, the design story drifts were limited to 2.5%.
Using the previously obtained pushover curves, the
revised design base shear which corresponds to the
design story drift was determined. All beams and
columns were then redesigned according to the forces
calculated from the revised design base shear. Hereafter,
the models designed according to the capacity design
method (the original frames) will be called CDM and
those obtained via the direct analysis method will be
called DAM. For the typical model 9-6.5-6.5, Figure 16

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 6 2015 863

 The Use of Outrigger System in Steel Plate Shear Wall Structures

−12 −12

−10 −10

Axial force (MN)

−8
Axial force (MN)

−8

−6
−6 Original structure
−4 Outrigger beams in the 1st story
−4 Original structure Outrigger beams in the 3rd story
Outrigger beams in the 2nd and 3rd stories Outrigger beams in the 5th story
Outrigger beams in the 4th and 5th stories −2 Outrigger beams in the 7th story
−2 Outrigger beams in the 6th and 7th stories Outrigger beams in the 9th story
Outrigger beams in the 8th and 9th stories 0
0 0 2 4 6
0 2 4 6 Base shear (MN)
Base shear (MN)

12
12

Bending moment (MN.m)

10
Bending moment (MN.m)

10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0 0 2 4 6
0 2 4 6 Base shear (MN)
Base shear (MN)
1.2
1.4
1
1.2
Shear force (MN)

0.8
Shear force (MN)

1
0.6
0.8

0.6 0.4

0.4 0.2

0.2 0
0 2 4 6
0 Base shear (MN)
0 2 4 6
Base shear (MN)

Figure 13. Variation of internal forces and moment at the base of Figure 14. Variation of internal forces and moment at the base of
compression VBE, outrigger arrangement type (b) compression VBE, outrigger arrangement type (c)

presents the pushover curves from the revised design
(DAM) and that of previously obtained (CDM) frames.
The beam and column sections designed according to
the DAM are given in Table 15. The corresponding
design sections obtained by CDM were previously
presented in Table 9. According to Figure 16, both
CDM and DAM frames have similar stiffness and load
carrying capacity.
Figure 17 shows the reduction of the weight in DAM
frames compared to CDM frames. For the typical model
9-6.5-6.5, DAM frame is 26% lighter than CDM frame.
The significant reduction shown in the figure is mainly
due to the reduction of the weight of VBEs in the mid
and upper stories.
4.3. Design of SPSW Frames with Outrigger
Beams
In section 3, the second moment area of the beams in the
outer spans was augmented to the value of 70 times to
simulate outrigger beams. Although the value of 70

864 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 6 2015

M. Gholipour, E. Asadi and M.M. Alinia

−4 Original structure 6
Outrigger beams in all stories
−3.5
Outrigger beams in the 2nd and 3rd stories
5
−3 Outrigger beams in the 3rd story
Axial force (MN)

Base shear (MN)

−2.5 4

−2 3
−1.5
2
−1
Original frame (CDM)
−0.5 1
Revised frame (DAM)
Drift = 2.5%
0
0 2 4 6 8 0
Base shear (MN) 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Roof displacement (mm)

0.6
Figure 16. Pushover curves for various designs of the typical
model 9-6.5-6.5
0.5
Bending moment (MN.m)

0.4
conjunction with the direct analysis method design.
0.3
Larger values of augmentation could result in
0.2
significant additional load capacity and great amount
of over strength in the structure, which in turn, would
0.1 increase the steel usage and cost which is not
desirable.
0 When applying outrigger beams, each structural
0 2 4 6 8
member should be redesigned accordingly. In this
Base shear (MN)
respect, the design forces of all members were
recalculated at the same base shear as those used in the
0.14 original DAM frames. The latter models, strengthened
by outriggers and redesigned using the direct analysis
0.1 method, are then called O-DAM. For the typical model
Shear force (MN)

9-6.5-6.5, beam and column sections designed

0.06 according to the O-DAM concept are given in Table
16. It is necessary to note that all design requirements,
0.02 including strong column-weak beam concept, were
satisfied in design of both DAM and O-DAM models.
−0.02 0 2 4 6 8 To compare the behavior of frames designed according
to DAM and O-DAM concepts, their structural
−0.06 characteristics, such as pushover curve, energy
Base shear (MN) absorption, weight, internal forces of frame members,
story drift and yielding sequence are compared and
Figure 15. Variation of internal forces and moment at the base of
discussed in the following section.
the outer span compression column

4.3.1. Pushover curve and energy absorption

resulted in considerable reduction in the internal forces The pushover curves of three typical 3-, 9-and 14-
of VBEs, the resulting outrigger beam sections were so story SPSW frames, designed according to DAM and
large that they might not be practical in real cases. On O-DAM concepts are respectively depicted in Figures
the other hand, the outrigger arrangement type (a) in 18-20. For the typical model 9-6.5-6.5, the lateral
which outrigger beams were applied to all stories, stiffness of DAM and O-DAM frames are also
showed the most effective results. In this section, the compared in Figure 21. As listed in Table 17, an
second moment area of the beams in the outer spans of average of 26% increase in the energy absorption and
SPSW frames (DAM models) was enlarged 10 times in the maximum load carrying capacity of frames due to
all stories, to apply the outrigger beam concept in the employment of outrigger beams are observed.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 6 2015 865

 The Use of Outrigger System in Steel Plate Shear Wall Structures

Table 15. Design member sizes- Model 9-6.5-6.5, DAM

SPSW SPSW Outer Outer

Story
VBEs HBEs columns beams
9 W36 × 135 W14 × 68 W14 × 48 W12 × 35
8 W36 × 135 W14 × 68 W14 × 48 W12 × 35
7 W36 × 135 W14 × 68 W14 × 48 W12 × 35
6 W36 × 210 W14 × 68 W14 × 48 W12 × 35
5 W36 × 210 W18 × 86 W14 × 48 W14 × 48
4 W36 × 210 W18 ×86 W14 × 48 W14 × 48
3 W36 × 210 W18 × 86 W14 × 48 W18 × 50
2 W36 × 441 W18 × 86 W14 × 48 W14 × 48
1 W36 × 441 W27 × 102 W14 × 48 W14 × 48

3-4-4 3-4-6.5 3-4-9 3-6.5-6.5 3-9-6.5 9-4-4 9-4-6.5 9-4-9 9-6.5-6.5 9-9-6.5 14-4-4 14-9-6.5

−14
−17
−20 −20 −22 −21
−26
−30
−34
−38
−40

−58

Figure 17. Reduction of structural weight in DAM frames compared to CDM frames (%)

Table 16. Design member sizes- Model 9-6.5-6.5, O-DAM

SPSW SPSW Outer Outer

Story
VBEs HBEs columns beams
9 W27 × 84 W16 × 50 W18 × 50 W14 × 53
8 W27 × 84 W16 × 50 W18 × 50 W14 × 53
7 W27 × 84 W16 × 50 W18 × 97 W14 × 53
6 W27 × 161 W16 × 50 W18 × 97 W27 × 94
5 W27 × 161 W18 × 86 W18 × 97 W27 × 94
4 W27 × 161 W18 × 86 W18 × 97 W27 × 94
3 W27 × 161 W18 × 86 W18 × 119 W27 × 102
2 W27 × 368 W18 × 86 W18 × 119 W27 × 102
1 W27 × 368 W30 × 116 W18 × 119 W27 × 102

4.3.2. Weight of frames energy absorption for various design concepts. It is

In SPSW structures, VBEs have a major contribution to
the structural weight. Moreover, in some cases, the main
issue in SPSW design is that no available standard
section can provide the required strength for VBEs.
Figure 22 illustrates VBEs share of the total structural
weight of frames in various design concepts. As shown,
when the SPSW structure is designed according to
DAM concept with the outrigger beams, the weight of
VBEs are considerably reduced.
On the other hand, Figure 23 presents the total
structural weight of frames divided by the amount of
shown that for the same amount of energy absorption,
the O-DAM frames have the least use of steel material.
4.3.3. Internal forces of frame members
For the typical model 9-6.5-6.5, the internal forces of
columns including axial forces, bending moments and
shear forces, are presented in Figure 24. Internal forces
are measured at the revised design base shear. As
expected, the use of outrigger beams decreased the
internal forces of columns in the SPSW span. The
reduction in the axial force and bending moment was

866 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 6 2015

M. Gholipour, E. Asadi and M.M. Alinia

5 10
O-DAM O-DAM
DAM DAM
4 8

Base shear (MN)

Base shear (MN)

3 6

2 4

1 2

Drift = 2.5% Drift = 2.5%

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Roof displacement (mm) Roof displacement (mm)

Figure 18. Pushover curves for the typical model 3-4-6.5, Figure 20. Pushover curves for the typical model 14-9-6.5,
DAM and O-DAM frames DAM and O-DAM frames

7 25
O-DAM
6 DAM
20
Stiffness (kN/mm)

5
Base shear (MN)

15
4

3 10
2 D-DAM
5 DAM
1
Drift = 2.5%
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Roof displacement (mm) Roof displacement (mm)

Figure 19. Pushover curves for the typical model 9-6.5-6.5, Figure 21. Lateral stiffness curves for the typical model 9-6.5-6.5,
DAM and O-DAM frames DAM and O-DAM frames

Table 17. The increase in energy absorption and Max. load capacity of O-DAM frames compared to DAM frames

Max. load Energy

carrying capacity (%) absorption (%) Model
17 18 3-4-4
41 39 3-4-6.5
31 30 3-4-9
17 14 3-6.5-6.5
23 20 3-9-6.5
30 33 9-4-4
35 31 9-4-6.5
24 27 9-4-9
28 27 9-6.5-6.5
18 20 9-9-6.5
24 31 14-4-4
21 19 14-9-6.5

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 6 2015 867

 The Use of Outrigger System in Steel Plate Shear Wall Structures

100

80

VBEs share 60
CDM
40
DAM
20 O-DAM

0
4

-4

.5
4-

6.

4-

6.

6.

4-

6.

4-

6.

6.

-6
-4
4-

5-

9-

4-

5-

9-
3-

3-

9-

9-

-9
14
3-

6.

3-

9-

6.

9-

14
3-

9-
Figure 22. VBEs share of the total structural weight (%)

4 E − 04

CDM
3 E − 04
Weight/energy absorption (N/N.mm)

DAM
3 E − 04 O-DAM

2 E − 04

2 E − 04

1 E − 04

5 E − 05

0 E + 00
4

-4

.5
4-

6.

4-

6.

6.

4-

6.

4-

6.

6.

-6
-4
4-

5-

9-

4-

5-

9-
3-

3-

9-

9-

-9
14
3-

6.

3-

9-

6.

9-

14
3-

9-

Figure 23. Total structural weight of frames divided by energy absorption, various design concepts

considerable, especially in the lower stories of SPSW of the 2nd to 6th stories were reduced considerably. The
frame. On the other hand, Figure 25 illustrates the figure also shows that by utilizing outrigger beams, the
corresponding changes in the 3rd story beams of the structural stiffness became more uniform through the
typical model 9-6.5-6.5. While there are little changes in height of SPSW frame. Therefore, drift concentrations
the axial force, considerable changes in shear force and at specific stories, and consequently, excessive demands
bending moment are observed. in frame members are diminished.
Accordingly, when outrigger beams were employed
in the SPSW structure, the stiffness of the outer spans 4.3.5. Yielding sequence
increased; therefore, the contribution of the outer spans Since both DAM and O-DAM frames were designed via
in absorbing the lateral loads became greater. the direct analysis method (and not the capacity design
rules), it is necessary to investigate the compliance of
4.3.4. Story drift the yielding sequence of members with those stated in
In general, the main purpose of utilizing outriggers in reference (AISC-341 2010). Figure 27 presents the
tall buildings is to control excessive story drifts (Gunel frame displacement profile at different steps of loading
and Ilgin 2007). For the typical model 9-6.5-6.5, the history of the typical model 9-6.5-6.5, for DAM and O-
story drift diagrams at revised design base shear are DAM frames as well as the reference CDM frame.
depicted in Figure 26, for both DAM and O-DAM As shown, in both DAM and O-DAM frames, the
frames. Results show that in the O-DAM frame, the drift yielding patterns were desirable. First yielding appeared

868 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 6 2015

M. Gholipour, E. Asadi and M.M. Alinia

35 DAM frame 35 35 35

O-DAM frame
30 30 30 30

25 25 25 25
Column height (m)

20 20 20 20

15 15 15 15

10 10 10 10

5 5 5 5

0 0 0 0
−100 400 900 1400 −1000 3000 7000 −10000 −5000 0 −3000 −1000
Axial force (kN) Axial force (kN) Axial force (kN) Axial force (kN)

35 DAM frame 35 35 35
O-DAM frame
30 30 30 30

25 25
Column height (m)

25 25

20 20 20 20

15 15 15 15

10 10 10 10

5 5 5 5

0 0 0 0
−600 −300 0 300 600 −2000 2000 6000 −2000 2000 6000 −600 −300 0 300 600
Bending moment Bending moment Bending moment Bending moment
(kN.m) (kN.m) (kN.m) (kN.m)

DAM frame 35 35 35 35
O-DAM frame
30 30 30 30

25 25 25 25
Column height (m)

20 20 20 20

15 15 15 15

10 10 10 10

5 5 5 5

0 0 0 0
−400 −200 0 −2000 −1000 0 −1500 −500 500 −400 −200 0
Shear force (kN) Shear force (kN) Shear force (kN) Shear force (kN)
Outer span Tension VBE Compression Outer span
tension column VBE compression column

Figure 24. Internal forces of columns of the typical model 9-6.5-6.5

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 6 2015 869

 The Use of Outrigger System in Steel Plate Shear Wall Structures

200
First yield of infill plate
Axial force (kN)

−200 0 5 10 15 20 First yield of SPSW span beam

Design step
−600 First yield of outer span beam
First yield in the base of SPSW span column
−1000 DAM frame
First yield in the base of outer span column
O-DAM frame
−1400
9
Beam length (m) CDM
8

7
Bending moment (KN.m)

1600
6
1000

Story
5
−400
−200 0 5 10 15 20
4

−800 3

−1400 2
Beam length (m) 1
0 200 400 600 800
Displacement (mm)
Shear force (kN)

600
9
DAM
400 8

200 7

6
Story

0
0 5 10 15 20 5
Beam length (m)
4

3
Figure 25. Internal forces of the 3rd story beams of the typical
model 9-6.5-6.5 2

1
0 200 400 600 800
Displacement (mm)

9 9
O-DAM
DAM frame 8
8 O-DAM frame
7

7 6
Story

5
6
4
Story

5 3

2
4
1
0 100 200 300 400
3
Displacement (mm)

2
Figure 27. Frame displacement profile of the typical model
1 9-6.5-6.5, various design concepts
0 0.5 1 1.5
Story drift (%)
in infill plates; then plastic hinges developed in the
Figure 26. Story drift diagrams of the typical model 9-6.5-6.5, beams of inner and outer spans; and finally, the base of
DAM and O-DAM fames columns yielded.

870 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 6 2015

M. Gholipour, E. Asadi and M.M. Alinia
5. CONCLUSIONS
In this study, twelve dual SPSW-moment resisting
frames with the story levels of 3, 9 and 14 were
designed and analyzed to investigate the effects of
outrigger beams on the behavior of SPSW system. Both
capacity design and direct analysis methods were
considered in the design of frames. Outrigger beams
were applied to the SPSW frames in three different
arrangements from only one story at a time, to two
adjacent stories, and all stories simultaneously. Based
on the results obtained in this research, the following
points were concluded.
- By applying outrigger beams to SPSW frames,
the stiffness, load carrying capacity and energy
absorption of the system were increased
considerably.
- The capacity design approach is conservative
and results in large VBE sections, as well as
additional capacity especially in the upper
stories.
- When outrigger beams were applied to the
SPSW frames, a substantial amount of axial
force and bending moment were transferred
from VBEs to the columns in the outer spans;
resulting in smaller VBEs sections.
- The most effective stories to employ the
outrigger beams are those which undergo larger
drifts.
- Outrigger system results in a more uniform
distribution of structural stiffness along the
height of SPSW frame. Therefore, drift
concentrations at specific stories and excessive
demands in frame members are diminished.
- For the same amount of energy absorption, the
SPSW-Outrigger frames designed according to
the direct analysis method use the least steel
material.
- The SPSW and SPSW-Outrigger frames
designed according to the direct analysis
method showed desirable yielding sequence,
similar to the recommended capacity design
method.
REFERENCES
ABAQUS (2010). Theory Manual: Version 6.10–1,
ABAQUS Inc., USA.
AISC-341 (2010). Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, USA.
AISC-360 (2010). Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, USA.
AISC-820 (2007). Steel Design Guide 20, American Institute
of Steel Construction, USA.
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 6 2015
ASCE-7 (2010). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, USA.
Astaneh-Asl, A. and Zhao, Q. (2002). “Cyclic behavior of steel shear
wall systems,” Proceeding of Annual Stability Congress,
Structural Stability Research Council, Seattle, WA, USA.
Behbahanifard, M.R., Grondin, G.Y. and Elwi, A.E. (2003). Experimental
and Numerical Investigation of Steel Plate Shear Wall, Structural
Engineering Report No. 254, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Alberta, Canada.
Berman, J.W. and Bruneau, M. (2005). “Experimental investigation
of light-gauge steel plate shear walls”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 2, pp. 259–267.
Berman, J.W. (2011). “Seismic behavior of code designed steel plate
shear walls”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 33, pp. 230–244.
Chen, S.J. and Jhang, C. (2006). “Cyclic behavior of low yield point
steel shear walls”, Thin Walled Structures, Vol. 44, pp. 730–738.
CSA-S16 (2001). Limit State Design of Steel Structures, Canadian
Standard Association, Canada.
Driver, R.G., Kulak, G.L., Laurie Kennedy, D.J. and Elwi, A.E.
(1998). “Cyclic test of four-story steel plate shear wall”, Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 2, pp. 112–120.
Gunel, M.H. and Ilgin, H.E. (2007). “A proposal for the
classification of structural systems of tall buildings”, Building
and Environment, Vol. 42, pp. 2667–2675.
Habashi, H.R. and Alinia, M.M. (2010). “Characteristics of the wall-
frame interaction in steel plate shear walls”, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 66, pp. 150–158.
Hoenderkamp, J.C.D. and Bakker, M.C.M. (2003). “Analysis of
high-rise braced frames with outriggers”, The Structural Design
of Tall and Special Buildings, Vol. 12, pp. 335–350.
Kamath, K., Divya, N. and Rao, A.U. (2012). “A study on static and
dynamic behavior of outrigger structural system for tall
building”, International Journal of Industrial Engineering and
Management Science, Vol. 2, pp. 15–20.
Kang, T.H.K., Martin, R.D., Park, H.G., Wilkerson, R. and
Youssef, N. (2013). “Tall building with steel plate shear walls
subject to load reversal”, The Structural Design of Tall and
Special Buildings, Vol. 22, pp. 500–520.
Mathias, N., Sarkisian, M., Long, E. and Huang, Z. (2008).
Steel Plate Shear Walls, Efficient Structural Solution for
Slender High-Rise in China, Technical Paper, Skimore,
Owings & Merril LLP, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban
Habitat, CA, USA.
Nanduri, R.K., Suresh, B. and Hussain, I. (2013). “Optimum
position of outrigger system for high-rise reinforced concrete
buildings under wind and earthquake loadings”, American
Journal of Engineering Research, Vol. 2, pp. 76–89.
Nicoreac, M. and Hoenderkamp, J.C.D. (2012). “Periods of
vibration of braced frames with outriggers”, Steel Structures
and Bridges, Vol. 40, pp. 298–303.
Nie, J., Fan, J., Liu, X. and Huang, Y. (2013). “Comparative
study on steel plate shear walls used in a high-rise building”,
871

Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 139, No. 1,
2013, pp. 85–97.
Shishkin, J.J., Driver, R.G. and Grondin, G.Y. (2005). Analysis
of Steel Plate Shear Walls Using the Modified Strip Model,
Structural Engineering Report No. 261, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta,
Canada.
872
The Use of Outrigger System in Steel Plate Shear Wall Structures
Tsai, K.C. and Li, C.S. (2008). “Experimental responses of four
2-story narrow steel plate shear walls”, Proceeding of
Structures Congress, Vancover, BC, Canada.
Vian, D., Bruneau, M., Tsai, K.C. and Lin, Y.C. (2009). “Special
perforated steel plate shear walls with reduced beam section
anchor beams. I: experimental investigation”, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 135, No. 3, pp. 211–222.
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 6 2015