Received: 1 November 2017 Revised: 27 February 2018 Accepted: 15 March 2018

DOI: 10.1002/tal.1492

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Outrigger system analysis and design under time‐dependent

actions for super‐tall steel buildings
Baoyi Fang1 | Xin Zhao2,3 | Juyun Yuan1 | Xiaoping Wu4

1
Department of Geotechnical Engineering,
Tongji University, Shanghai, China Summary
2
Tongji Architectural Design (Group) Co., Ltd., The outrigger system has been widely adopted as an efficient structural lateral‐load
Shanghai, China
resisting system for super‐tall buildings in recent years. Although the outrigger system
3
Department of Structural Engineering, Tongji
University, Shanghai, China
has many structural advantages, it has a significant defect due to differential shorten-
4
Shanghai Construction Group Co., Ltd., ing, which cannot be neglected. Due to the shrinkage and creep of concrete, as well as
Shanghai, China the differential settlement of foundation, the shortening of the structural member is
Correspondence
an important time‐dependent issue, which leads to additional forces in the outriggers
Dr Xin Zhao, PhD, Engineering Professor,
Tongji Architectural Design (Group) Co., Ltd., after the lock‐in of the outriggers. As a result, it will increase the size of the structural
Siping Road No. 1230, Shanghai 200092,
member cross section in the design. In a real project, engineers can delay the lock‐in
China.
Email: 22zx@tjadri.com time of the outrigger system to release the additional forces caused by the differential
shortening during the construction phase. The time‐dependent actions, such as the
Funding information
column shortening and the differential settlement of the foundation, were estimated.
Shanghai Excellent Discipline Leader Program,
Grant/Award Number: 14XD1423900 A mega frame steel structure was employed to illustrate the analysis and design of the
outrigger under the time‐dependent actions. Furthermore, a simple optimal method,
considering the structural stability and overall stiffness, was proposed to optimize
the construction sequence of the outrigger system.

KEY W ORDS

construction sequence analysis, differential settlement, mega concrete‐filled tubular column,

optimization of outrigger system, shrinkage and creep, super‐tall steel building

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N

With the development of modern society, buildings are becoming taller and slimmer in cities. To make this slender structure possible, many struc-
tural systems for high‐rise buildings have been conceived and designed. Among them, the outrigger structural system has proven to be an efficient
lateral stiffness system to reduce lateral drift under wind or seismic loadings in high‐rise buildings. However, this structural system suffers from
excessive stress to structural members under time‐dependent actions, such as shrinkage and creep, as well as differential settlement of the
foundation.

Notation: c´, Effective cohesion; φ´, Effective friction angle; ε(t), Total strain; J(t, t'), Strain at time t caused by a unit uniaxial constant stress; εsh(t), Shrinkage strain;
εsh∞, Ultimate shrinkage strain; kh, Coefficient of humidity dependence; S(t), The time function for shrinkage; q1, Instantaneous strain due to unit stress; C0(t, t'),
Basic creep; Cd(t, t', t0), Additional function due to simultaneous drying; σc0,σs0, Stress of concrete, stress of steel tube at loading time; Ec,Es, Modulus of elasticity,
concrete and steel, respectively; Ac,As, Cross‐sectional area, concrete and steel, respectively; β, Reduction coefficient; εct, Strain of concrete at loading time t;
N
σct,σst, Stress at loading time t, concrete and steel, respectively; ΔT i, Time increment of ith floor construction; ∑ ΔT i , Total construction time of N floors; Δi, j,
i¼1
Vertical deformation increment of ith floor during the ΔTj time; Δ−, Pre‐installation shortening of nth floor; Δ+, Post‐installation shortening of nth floor; εcr, Creep
strain; εe, Elastic strain; ϕ(t), Creep coefficient; ku, Superstructure stiffness matrix; kr, Raft foundation stiffness matrix; kps, Spring stiffness matrices; U, Node
displacement vector; P, Load vector; k, Average stiffness of piled soil spring; N, Total axial vertical forces; n, Total amount of piles; s, Predicted settlement; γ, Unit
weight; A, Cross‐sectional area; I, Moment of inertia; H, Building height; Gi, Design weight of ith story; EJd, Elastic equivalent lateral stiffness; λ, λ′, Rigidity–gravity
ratio, revised rigidity–gravity ratio; β, Correction coefficient; A, Weight distribution factor

Struct Design Tall Spec Build. 2018;e1492. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tal Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 of 20
https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1492
2 of 20 FANG ET AL.

Column shortening is one of the major considerations in the design and construction of the outrigger system in tall buildings. The differential
column shortening could cause adverse effects on the nonstructural elements of buildings, such as the curtain walls, partitions, electrical pipelines,
and elevators, and may also result in redistribution of structural member forces. If the horizontal members, especially the outrigger system in
super‐tall buildings, are connected between the core service tube and the perimeter columns, the differential shortening may cause huge internal
forces on these structural members.
Over the past few decades, several researchers have studied the prediction and compensation method for the column shortening of tall build-
ings. Fintel et al.[1] evaluated the total and post‐installation column shortening considering the construction sequences. It is based on rate of creep
method, which is one of the long‐term analysis methods that give nearly the exact shortening of the columns connected with simple shear joints.
Kim[2] proposed a long‐term analysis method of a reinforced concrete frame by iterating the simple linear elastic frame analysis program and con-
sidering the equivalent nodal load of creep and shrinkage, transformed section, and effective elastic modulus. Various studies have proposed
methods to compensate for such differential shortenings to eliminate damage to both structural and nonstructural components.[3] Maru et al.[4]
proposed an analysis method for column shortening in a rigidly connected frame. The method includes inelastic shortening, as well as elastic short-
ening, and takes into consideration the shearing action of beams. Efforts have been made by various researchers to investigate vertical deforma-
tion and the effects of differential column shortening on the internal forces of outriggers.[5,6]
Additionally, for buildings built on compressible soils, the differential settlement of the foundation is another important factor that influences
the relative changes in the elevation of the columns. The load imbalance between any two columns is continually changing, making an accurate
assessment of column shortening a challenging task. Thus, the differential settlement is also an important consideration in the design and con-
struction of outriggers. In this paper, a super‐tall steel building was employed to analyze the outrigger system under differential settlement of
the foundation.
Engineers can delay the lock‐in time of the outrigger system to release the additional forces caused by the differential shortening between the
adjacent vertical members. The different lock‐in schemes of the outrigger system yield different absolute deformation and differential deformation
of the vertical members. Apart from the normal fixing scheme and the experiential delayed joint scheme, a simple optimal method considering the
structural stability and overall stiffness was proposed to optimize the construction sequence of the outrigger system. The results obtained have
proven to have many advantages in terms of building performance, quality control, and cost reduction.

2 | P R O J E C T DE S C R I P T I O N

2.1 | Structural system description

To show the analysis of outrigger system under time‐dependent actions, a 138‐story super‐tall steel building was employed. The main tower has
128 floors above ground and five basement levels. The total height of this building is approximately 700 m. A typical floor plan is shown in Figure 1
. Several important characteristics of the structural layout are described below. There are three parallel structure systems, the mega‐frame consists
of mega columns and belt trusses, the steel braced frame core tube, and the outrigger trusses, which are combined to resist the lateral loads
(Figure 2).
The layout of the perimeter mega columns has an obvious influence on the performance of the structure. A meticulous and proper design not
only improves the space utilization efficiency but also provides the most effective lateral system. A scheme with eight mega columns arranged on

FIGURE 1 Typical floor plan

FANG ET AL. 3 of 20

FIGURE 2 Structural lateral resistant system

the periphery of the structure, which has been optimized for their numbers and positions, is adopted in the design. The dimensions of the mega
column range from 3,000 mm × 5,000 mm at the lower zone to 1,500 mm × 1,500 mm at the higher zone.
Compared with a steel reinforced concrete core tube, which was popularly used in tall buildings, the steel frame core tube with diagonal sup-
port is used less often in super‐tall buildings. Some examples, such as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (415 m) and Taipei 101 (508 m),
which adopt a frame core tube, have been reported. In this case, the dimensions of the core tube column decrease from 1,000 mm × 1,000 mm at
the low story to 600 mm × 600 mm at the high story. The diagonal braces are connected between adjacent columns across 2–3 floors, which are
used to increase the lateral stiffness of the core tube, and some braces have been adjusted to eccentric supports to meet the architectural require-
ments. All the perimeter mega columns and core tube columns are concrete‐filled steel tubular columns (CFT).
This structure has been divided into 12 zones by the locations of the refuge story and mechanical floor. Twelve belt trusses around the struc-
ture are located at the top of each zone. Five outriggers, which connect the central service core and eight perimeter mega columns, were set in
mechanical floors at Zones 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10 (they are marked as O1, O2, O3, O4, and O5 in Figure 2, respectively). The outriggers and belt trusses
effectively limit the lateral drift to acceptable limits without paying a high premium in steel tonnage. When subjected to lateral loads, the column‐
restrained outriggers resist the rotation of the core, causing the lateral deflections of the building to be smaller than if the free‐standing core alone
resisted the loading. The result is an increase in the effective depth of the structure when it bends as a vertical cantilever, by including tension in
the windward columns and compression in the leeward columns.[7]
The following properties of concrete were used in the analysis of shrinkage and creep of the concrete‐filled steel tube: (a) Type I cement con-
crete; (b) age at loading t′=28 days; (c) age when drying begins t0 = 7 days; (d) relative humidity h = 0.9; (e) cement content is 724.1 kg/m3; (f)
water–cement ratio w/c = 0.36; (g) water content of concrete w = 216.4 kg/m3; (h) aggregate–cement ratio a/c = 3; and (i) volume‐to‐surface
ratio = ∞.
For such a super‐tall building, it is necessary to perform a detailed construction simulation to consider the structure, load, and material
changes with time. The construction procedure is described as follows. The steel core tube and eight perimeter mega columns are constructed
at the same time, and the floor is cast approximately 7–8 floors below the core. The estimated construction cycle of one typical floor is 3 days,
and that of the mechanical floor is 7 days. It will take almost 630 days to complete the main tower. Apart from the dead loads, the live load of
1 kN/m2 during the construction phase is assumed in the analysis of the shrinkage and the creep of the CFT.

TABLE 1 Geological parameters for design

Hydraulic
Thickness(m) Unit weight Compression modulus Effective cohesion c´ Effective friction angle φ´ conductivity
Soil name (kN/m3) (MPa) (kPa) (°) (m/d)

Silt and sand 13.1 18.6 75 0.3 32.5 1.17

Silty clay 12.7 18.6 60 25.8 15.2 0.03
Silt sand and sand 13.1 16.7 75 8.9 27.3 1.34
Clay 9.7 17.3 80 28.4 15.5 0.01
Silty clay 8.7 18.5 75 3 31 0.14
Silty sand 9.5 18.5 75 5 32.5 0.24
Sand 46.3 18 110 1 33 ‐‐
Clay 27 18.4 70 18 20 ‐‐
Silty sand 5.7 18.5 120 9 29 ‐‐
Silty clay ‐‐ 19.0 80 3 35 ‐‐
4 of 20 FANG ET AL.

2.2 | Foundations and site conditions

The tower foundation consists of a pile‐supported raft. The solid reinforced concrete raft is 6.3 m thick, and C50 self‐consolidating concrete was
poured. The tower raft is supported by 721 bored cast‐in‐place piles. The piles are 1.1 m in diameter and approximately 52–56 m long, with a
design capacity of 13,000–16,000 kN each. Bored piles (grouting) were used in this engineering practice, and the concrete grade of these piles
is C50. The bearing layer of these piles is silty sand layer. The geological parameters for the foundation settlement analysis are shown in
Table 1.

3 | S H R I N K A G E A N D C R E E P OF C F T C O L U M NS

Due to the advantages of high bearing capacity, good seismic performance, and convenient construction of mega concrete‐filled steel tubular col-
umns, it is the preferred structural member used in super‐tall buildings. The Taipei 101 tower (508 m) is the first high‐rise building to use a mega
CFT column in China. There are also many other engineering practices using mega CFT columns, such as the Kingkey Finance Center Plaza
(439 m), the CTF Finance Center (530 m), and the Tianjin Goldin Finance 117 tower (596 m).
The time‐dependent behavior is a major concern in the design and construction of tall buildings. Steel members have elastic deformations
only, whereas CFT members have both elastic and inelastic deformations due to the shrinkage and creep of concrete. A CFT column is the com-
bination of a steel tube on the outside and a concrete filling; therefore, its time‐dependent behavior is different from ordinary concrete columns.
The shortening of the concrete‐filled steel tubular column has been studied by some researchers,[8–10] but the columns in the tests or theoretical
studies have been small in size; the time‐dependent behavior has not been ascertained for mega CFT columns with a larger size.

3.1 | Shrinkage and creep model of concrete‐B3 model

Accurate analysis of creep and shrinkage is necessary for a super‐tall steel building, as this time‐dependent behavior may have a significant effect
on the structure. The shortening of the vertical structural members can be divided into three components: elastic, shrinkage, and creep deforma-
tion. The linear elastic part is easy to calculate and is governed by Hooke's law. However, predicting shrinkage and creep is not simple because
they depend on the concrete composition, temperature, humidity, column‐to‐surface ratio, reinforcement ratio, and so forth.
Numerous models are used to estimate the shrinkage and creep of concrete, such as the ACI 209‐92, CEB‐FIP model, PCA model, GL2000,
and B3 model. The B3 model used in the analysis is calibrated by test data obtained in various laboratories throughout the world. The model com-
plies with the general guidelines recently formulated by the International Union of Laboratories and Experts in Construction Materials, Systems
and Structures. It was applied to estimate the shrinkage and creep of concrete in this paper.
The total shortening of a concrete member consists of two parts: One is caused by the load, and the other is caused by a nonload effect, such
as shrinkage. This means that for the strain applied at age t',


εðtÞ ¼ J t; t' σ þ εsh ðtÞ; (1)

where J(t, t') is the strain (due to creep and elasticity) at time t caused by a unit uniaxial stress applied at age t', σ is the uniaxial stress, and εsh (t) is
the shrinkage strain.
The shrinkage of a concrete member is caused by water evaporation, cement hydration, and carbonization of concrete. The mean shrinkage
strain of a concrete member in the cross section is calculated as follows:

εsh ðt; t0 Þ ¼ − εsh∞ kh SðtÞ; (2)

where εsh∞ is the ultimate (final) shrinkage strain, kh is a coefficient of humidity dependence, and S(t) is the time function for shrinkage.
J(t, t') can further be composed as follows:




J t; t' ¼ q1 þ C0 t; t' þ Cd t; t' ; t0 ; (3)

where q1 is instantaneous strain due to unit stress, C0(t, t') is a function of basic creep (creep at constant moisture content and no moisture move-
ment through the material), and Cd(t, t', t0) is an additional function due to simultaneous drying. Additional information on this model is found in the
literature.[11]

3.2 | Shrinkage and creep of CFT column

The time‐dependent behavior of the CFT column is different from ordinary concrete columns in several aspects, as follows:
FANG ET AL. 5 of 20

1. Due to the compatibility of strain between the concrete and steel tube in the CFT, as the concrete shrinks and creeps, the steel tube must
attract additional compressive stress to maintain the same strain as the concrete. A part of the load in the CFT is transferred from the con-
crete to the steel tube as time passes.

When the composite member is loaded (t = t0), the strains on the concrete and the steel tube are equal. Therefore, the stress of the concrete
and steel can be obtained as follows:

N
σc0 ¼ ; (4)
ð1 þ nμÞ Ac

nN
σs0 ¼ ; (5)
ð1 þ nμÞ Ac

with

n ¼ Es =Ec ðt0 Þ; (6)

μ ¼ As =Ac ; (7)

where N is the total axial load, Ec (t0) is the initial modulus of elasticity at loading, Ac is the concrete cross‐sectional area of the CFT column, and As
is the cross‐sectional area of the steel tube.
When experiencing constant loadings (t > t0), the creep deformation of the concrete is reduced to βε crdue to the restraining effect of the steel
tube. The factor β can be obtained as follows:

1
β¼ : (8)
1 þ nμ

The total strain in the concrete and the steel tube is εcr = εc0 + βεcr, and the steel stress isσst = (εc0 + βεcr)Es. The stress of concrete can be
obtained by the following:

N − σs As
σct ¼ ; (9)
Ac

where εc = σc / Ec (t), ε c is the initial strain when the CFT column was loaded.

2. As the concrete is placed in steel tubes, the moisture diffusion from the concrete may be very small or may be eliminated totally, which indi-
cates that the obstruction of moisture diffusion causes a reduction in both the drying creep and shrinkage strain in the CFT column. We sug-
gest modifying the volume‐to‐surface ratio of concrete with a large value to meet the actual situation, when using the B3 model to calculate
the shrinkage and creep of the CFT.

FIGURE 3 Construction sequence for column shortening analysis

6 of 20 FANG ET AL.

3.3 | Construction sequence analysis

Some studies have been performed over the past few decades on the prediction and compensation method for the column shortening of tall build-
ings. The long‐term analysis methods include the effective modulus method, the rate of creep method, the age‐adjusted effective modulus
method, and the step‐by‐step method. Among these methods, step‐by‐step method, generally known as construction sequence analysis, is the
most precise method for the column shortening of tall buildings, because it can address any creep function and any complexity of the tall building
structure.[12] A construction sequence is shown in Figure 3, in which the structure and loads are added to the structure step by step. However, it
requires considerable computation and takes a long time to conduct the analysis of complex structures, such as super‐tall buildings. Therefore,
several floors are lumped into one construction unit to increase the speed of the analysis in the design. Some scholars, such as Kim, investigate
the effect of the lumped construction sequences method for a 3D model.[13]
The total time is divided into a number of time steps in the construction sequence analysis method. Each time step represents the construc-
tion cycle of one or several floors. Table 2 shows that the incremental deformation is calculated in each time step for the column shortening anal-
ysis. According to the construction process, the total shortening consists of two parts: pre‐ and post‐installation shortening. The pre‐installation
shortening is defined as the displacement that occurred before the construction of the floor. The post‐installation shortening is defined as the dis-
placement that occurred after the construction of the floor. It should be noted that the differential post‐installation shortening can cause addi-
tional forces in the vertical structural members linking the adjacent columns, whereas the pre‐installation shortening cannot.
where ΔT i is the time increment of the ith floor construction and Δi, j is the incremental displacement of ith floor during the ΔTj time.
The pre‐installation shortening of the nth floor is the sum of all deformations in the red area, and the post‐installation shortening of nth floor is
the sum of all deformations in the blue area (Table 2). The pre‐ and the post‐installation shortening can be described as follows:

n n
Δ − ¼ ∑ ∑ Δ i; j ; (10)
i¼1 j¼i

n N
Δþ ¼ ∑ ∑ Δ i; j : (11)
i¼1 j¼nþ1

3.4 | The elasticity, shrinkage, and creep strain of CFT columns

The elastic, shrinkage, and creep strain of the mega column and core tube CFT column on the first floor are shown in Figure 4. For both the mega
column and core tube CFT column, the elastic strain increases almost linearly as the structure builds. After the structure is complete, creep strain
gradually increases to approach a constant value, whereas the elastic strain remains at almost the same level, as no extra vertical loads were
imposed on the completed structure. The maximum creep strain values of the first floor are 790 and 1,220 με for the mega column and core tube
CFT column, respectively, 10 years after structure completion. During the construction phase, the elastic strain accounts for the major part of the
total shortening. The value of the shrinkage strain is so small that it can be neglected in the design.
The creep coefficient is given by

εcr
ϕðtÞ ¼ ; (12)
εe

where εcr is the creep strain and εe is the elastic strain.

Ten years after the structure was completed, the creep coefficient of the mega column is 0.96, and the core tube CFT column value is lower,
at 0.75. One of the main reasons for this difference is that the core tube CFT column has a much higher steel ratio (9.75%) than the mega column
(4.80%), leading to more restrain in the shrinkage and creep of the concrete. In any case, the effects of creep have a large influence on the total
shortening, which should be considered in the design and construction.

TABLE 2 Column shortening analysis

ΔT1 ΔT2 … ΔT n ΔT n + 1 … ΔTN

1 Δ1, 1 Δ1, 2 … Δ1, n Δ1, n + 1 … Δ1, N

2 Δ2, 2 … Δ2, n Δ2, n + 1 … Δ2, N

… … … … … …
n Δn, n Δn, n + 1 … Δn, N

n+1 Δn + 1, n + 1 … Δn + 1, N

… … …
N ΔN, N

Note. red area = pre‐installation shortening of the nth floor is the sum of all deformations; blue area = post‐installation shortening of nth floor is the sum of
all deformations
FANG ET AL. 7 of 20

FIGURE 4 Elastic, shrinkage, and creep strain of the mega column and core tube concrete‐filled steel tubular (CFT) column

In this paper, the creep coefficient of the mega column is 1.22 at 50 years after construction. This finding is consistent with the recommen-
dations of Terrey,[8] who quotes coefficients in the range of 1.15 to 1.25.

3.5 | Shortening of mega column and core tube CFT column

Figure 5 shows the total shortening of the mega column and core tube CFT column. As the building increases in height, the total shortening
increases, and as a result, the maximum displacement occurs at the top of the structure. The total shortening continues after the structure com-
pletion due to the effect of shrinkage and creep on the CFT column. For the mega column, the maximum shortening is approximately 250 mm at
the structure completion, and it increases by 32.0% to 331 mm after 10 years. During the same period, the total shortening rises from 310 to
397 mm, and it increases by 28.1% for the core tube CFT column.
As mentioned in Section 3.3, the total column shortening can be divided into two parts, that is, pre‐ and post‐installation shortening. The dif-
ferential post‐installation shortening can cause an adverse effect on the structural or nonstructural members. The post‐installation shortening of
the mega column is shown in Figure 6. This shortening reaches the maximum value at the mid‐height of the building. Among the three compo-
nents of total shortening, creep increases with the time lapses especially in the higher stories, whereas the elasticity remains the same, and shrink-
age experiences a marginal rise. The maximum post‐installation shortening of the mega column is 95 mm at the 65th floor when the building is
complete, rises to 111 mm at the 85th floor in the next year (see Figure 6b), and further increases to 162 mm at the 89th floor 10 years after
the building's completion (see Figure 6c).
Figure 7 shows the post‐installation shortening of core tube CFT column, which is more complex than Figure 6. We can see that the curve is
approximately divided into four parts along the height, because the core tube has an area contraction at the 27th, 75th, and 111th floors, leading
to the discontinuity of the corner column in the tube. The maximum deformation of the core tube CFT column occurs between the 25th and 75th
floor when the structure is complete. With the growth of the shrinkage and creep, the deformation in the higher stories rises faster than the lower
ones. By 10 years after structure completion, post‐installation shortening at the higher stories is almost equal to the shortening at the middle
stories.
8 of 20 FANG ET AL.

150

100

Story
50
Structure completion
1 year after structure completion
5 years after structure completion
10 years after structure completion
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Displacement(mm)

150

100
Story

50
Structure completion
1 year after structure completion
5 years after structure completion
10 years after structure completion
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Displacement(mm)

FIGURE 5 Total shortening of the mega column and core tube concrete‐filled steel tubular (CFT) column

3.6 | The effect of differential column shortening on the outriggers

The aim of elevation compensation is to make the floors level at a specific time, but it cannot prevent the shortening itself. Elevation compensation
cannot eliminate the adverse effects, such as the additional forces in outriggers caused by the differential column shortening after the lock‐in of
the outriggers.
Differential shortening between the core tube and eight perimeter mega columns can be large, reaching several centimeters over time. If this
behavior is not managed, the forces developed in the outrigger trusses would be large enough to overload the members, causing yielding and
potential failure. Large strain can be induced in outriggers when the perimeter mega columns and service core tube shorten by different amounts
(Figure 8). The resulting strain can generate large additional stress in the outrigger system, transferring a portion of gravity loads between the
mega columns and the core tube. Minimizing this additional stress would preserve more of the outrigger's capacity to resist lateral forces and
reduce the utilization of steel.
Two types of outrigger construction sequences were compared in this paper: One is the fixed‐joint method, which means that the outriggers
were constructed and fixed immediately. The other is the delayed joint method (DJM). With the delayed joint method, the connection of the out-
rigger system and mega columns is delayed until a certain amount of shortening occurs, and then a permanent connection is made afterwards.
Sometimes, in a tall building project, fixing the outrigger was delayed until the next outrigger is installed temporarily, which is called the experi-
ential DJM (EDJM).
Figure 9a shows the time‐dependent stress of the outrigger diagonal web caused by the differential shortening when the joint of the outrigger
system was connected immediately. It can be seen that the maximum axial stress is 157 MPa in O3. The outrigger's material is Q420 steel, and this
additional stress accounts for 52.4% of the design strength. For another construction sequence of outriggers, the maximum axial stress decreases
to 67 MPa when the fixing of the outrigger connection was delayed, shown in Figure 9b. By delaying the outrigger connection by only 119 days,
the additional stress due to differential shortening can be reduced by half during the construction period. The later the outrigger is connected, the
more additional forces, which are caused by the differential column shortening, would be reduced in the outriggers.
Delaying the connection of the outriggers joint can mitigate the load transfer between the columns and service core and influence the column
shortening.
Table 3 compares the maximum post‐installation shortening in two types of outrigger construction sequences. When the outrigger connection
is delayed, the maximum shortening decreases from 92 to 88 mm in the mega column and increases from 95 to 112 mm in the core tube column.
FANG ET AL. 9 of 20

FIGURE 6 Post‐installation shortening of the mega concrete‐filled steel tubular column

The change of axial forces in the core tube CFT column is greater than in the mega column, because the core tube column has a smaller size, and it
is subjected to the same transferred forces as the mega column. Another consequence is that the differential column shortening increases.
Although the differential shortening becomes larger, it does not induce additional force in the outriggers when the joint connections of the out-
riggers are flexible.

4 | D I F F E R E N T I A L SE T T L E M E NT O F F O U N D A T I O N

4.1 | Finite element method

Piled raft foundation has become a major type of foundation for tall building in soft soil areas because it has many advantages, including good
bearing capacity and differential shortening reduction. With the development of computer technology, the finite element method has gradually
become the most effective method for the superstructure‐foundation interaction analysis. The analysis theory has experienced three stages:
the simplified analysis method, which considers the static forces balances; the incomplete interaction analysis method, which only considers
the interaction of the soil and foundation or the superstructure and foundation; and the complete interaction analysis method, which considers
the interaction of the integrated subgrade‐foundation‐superstructure (SFS) system.[14]
10 of 20 FANG ET AL.

FIGURE 7 Post‐installation shortening of the core tube concrete‐filled steel tubular column

FIGURE 8 Typical outrigger system

In the current interaction analysis of a piled raft foundation in tall buildings, the method generally used is to build a model including the super-
structure (including basement), raft foundation, and soils. To reduce the number of nodes and simplify the calculation, the action of the pile and
soils is equivalent to the vertical spring on the pile top (Figure 10), and the interaction basic formula can be expressed as follows:
FANG ET AL. 11 of 20

FIGURE 9 Additional axial stress in outrigger diagonal web

TABLE 3 Maximum post‐installation shortening (mm)

Mega column Core tube column Differential shortening

Fixed‐joint method 92 95 3
Experiential delayed joint method 88 112 24

FIGURE 10 Piled soil spring model

½ku þ kr þ kps  fUg ¼ fPg; (13)

where ku is the superstructure stiffness matrix; kr is the raft foundation stiffness matrix; kps is the spring stiffness matrices representing the
equivalent stiffness of the entire pile‐raft system; U is the node displacement vector; and P is the load vector.
12 of 20 FANG ET AL.

In the above integrated SFS system analysis, the pile‐soil spring is a basic unit, and the spring stiffness matrices can be obtained by some
methods, such as the average settlement calculation method, the P‐S curve of piles method, the Q‐S curve of static load test method, the variable
coefficient of the subgrade reactions' iteration method, and the empirical method.[14]

4.2 | The stiffness of the piled soil spring

In this paper, the piled soil spring only considering the vertical stiffness is used to represent the compression of the pile and soil under gravity. The
value of the piled soil spring that is employed in the model is an important issue that deserves to be investigated. Generally, the value of the piled
soil spring varies during the construction period due to its time‐dependent behavior. In a practical engineer design, we can assume it as a constant
value, and the average value can be predicted as follows:

N
k¼ ; (14)
ns

where k is the average stiffness of the piled soil spring, N is the total axial vertical force, n is the total amount of piles, and s is the predicted
settlement.
According to method of calculating the settlement of piled foundation provided by the Chinese code, Technical Code for Building Pile Foun-
dations (JGJ 94‐2008[15]), the overall predicted settlement of this tall building is approximately 71.5 mm. From the computer model, the total ver-
tical force is estimated to be 4,369,000 kN, and the amount of piles is 721, so the average stiffness of the piled soil is 84.8 kN/mm. Only an
average value can be obtained by this method. In practice, the stiffness of the piled soil varies across the raft. As a result, a more accurate analysis
is needed to acquire the stiffness of each spring.
To achieve the stiffness value, a 2D finite element program was employed to perform the analysis. The soil strata and piled raft foundation are
modeled in the finite element program (Figure 11). In consideration of the symmetric foundation, half of the foundation and soil are built in the
finite element program. The whole model is taken as 200 m × 200 m, three times the width and one time the depth of the foundation. The typical
design parameters of soils and a piled raft foundation are shown in Tables 1 and 4. The raft and piles are modeled as elastic plate elements in the
finite element program, with full fixity at the connections. The initial pre‐construction at‐rest earth pressures (Ko) was determined based on an
assessment of the site history. The effective soil friction angles (φ′) and effective cohesion (c′) were determined from consolidated drained triaxial
tests. ES represents the compression modulus.
The axial force and settlement of each pile can be obtained from the geotechnical analysis results. We can obtain the equivalent stiffness of
the piled soil spring by dividing the axial force by its settlement of each pile. The stiffness of the pile soil spring is shown in Figure 12. The value
increases from the midpoint of the foundation to the margin, varying from 64 to 110 kN/mm. Finally, we distribute the value of stiffness of each
pile in three different areas, shown in Figure 13. The piled raft spring in the SFS system analysis has been assigned a value of 70, 80, and 100 kN/
mm for Zones A, B, and C, respectively, in the SFS system analysis.

FIGURE 11 2D modeling
FANG ET AL. 13 of 20

TABLE 4 Piled raft foundation parameters in the model

Materials Models γ (kN/m3) EA (kN/m) EI (kN m2/m)

Raft Elastic 25 2.10 × 108 6.30 × 108
6
Pile Elastic 25 3.69 × 10 2.79 × 105

FIGURE 12 The stiffness value of piled soil spring. FEM = finite element method

FIGURE 13 Pile raft layout of the tower

4.3 | Overall settlement and differential settlement

Although the raft has a thickness of 6.3 m in this super‐tall building, the behavior of the piled raft foundation is not similar to that of a rigid body,
the settlement across the raft is not the same. The settlement would be a gradual curvature over the entire site. The settlement in the center of
the raft is bigger than in the edge. A differential settlement is more significant rather than the absolute settlement, as the differential settlement

TABLE 5 The axial force of typical columns at the first floor (kN)
Model A Model B Relative deviation (%)
Mega column 336,129 341,800 1.7
Core tube column 39,359 38,481 2.2

Note. Model A = the building fixed on the ground; Model B = the building founded on a piled raft foundation.
14 of 20 FANG ET AL.

may induce addition forces in the vertical structural member, especially for the outrigger system. Through the analysis of the 3D model with a piled
raft foundation, the maximum settlement is 78.8 mm, and the minimum settlement is 60.5 mm under the gravity loads, and the maximum differ-
ential settlement is 18.3 mm.

4.4 | The effect of the differential settlement on the axial forces of column
The differential settlement would cause the load redistribution between adjacent vertical members in the superstructure. This is another factor
that influences the shortening of the vertical structural members. The magnitude of load imbalance between any two columns is continually
changing during the construction period, making an accurate assessment of column shortening challenging.
In Table 5, the axial forces of typical columns in two analyses (Model A is the building fixed on the rigid ground, and Model B is the building
founded on a piled raft foundation) were compared. For the perimeter mega column at the first floor, the axial force of Model A is lower than that
of Model B by 1.7%, whereas the core tube column force in Model A is higher than that in Model B by 2.2%. The difference in the results from the
analyses of the two models is small and may be neglected in the preliminary design.

4.5 | The effect of the differential settlement on the internal forces of outriggers
The different settlement is an important factor that influences the relative changes in the elevation of the columns. However, in a subgrade‐foun-
dation‐superstructure interaction system, the differential settlement and column shortening (elastic, shrinkage, and creep) are not simply
superimposed. Therefore, it is essential to consider the overall foundation and superstructure. Large strain and additional stress can be induced
in outriggers when the perimeter mega columns and service core shorten by different amounts (Figure 8).
The time‐dependent stress of the outrigger diagonal web caused by differential shortening in Models A and B are shown in Figure 14. The
maximum axial stress is 157 MPa in O3 in Model A, and this figure has decreased to 138 MPa in O3 in Model B. In Model A, the building is fixed
on the ground without considering the effect of the differential settlement. The vertical displacement of the core tube column is smaller than the

(a)

(b)

FIGURE 14 Additional time‐dependent axial stress of the outrigger diagonal web

FANG ET AL. 15 of 20

mega column, leading to tension on the diagonal web of the outriggers. In Model B, the building is founded on a piled raft foundation, and the
settlement under core tube is larger than under perimeter columns. Comparing with the column shortening, the differential settlement has a
reverse effect on the shortening. Across these two charts, the addition forces of each outrigger diagonal web have decrease by 25, 42, 19, 18,
and 5 MPa, respectively, at the structure completion. This indicates that the differential settlement has a greater influence on the lower outriggers
than the higher ones. For this tall steel building, the structural engineer may not need to consider the effect of the differential settlement to obtain
a conservative design of the outriggers.

5 | O P T I M I Z A T I O N O F O UT R I G G E R I N S T A L L A T I O N S E Q U E N C E

Even though the outrigger system has many structural advantages, it has a significant defect due to the effect of time‐dependent actions, such as
column shortening and differential settlement, which cannot be neglected. To address issues from outriggers between the service core and perim-
eter columns experiencing differential shortening, an optimization method was proposed to determine the outrigger system construction
sequences. The outrigger joint is flexible initially, and the connection will be later fixed so that the additional forces due to the differential short-
ening that occurred during the construction phase can be mitigated. Generally, the later the joints were fixed, the more additional forces can be
reduced. However, the outriggers serve an important role in maintaining the stability and safety of the structure. Delaying the connection of the
outrigger system may reduce the ability of the structure to resist lateral loads and may cause potential damage. In this section, a simple optimal
method considering the structural stability and overall stiffness was proposed to optimize the construction sequence of the outrigger system.

5.1 | Theoretical basis

5.1.1 | Revised rigidity–gravity ratio in super‐tall buildings
Overall stability is a main concern in the structural design of tall buildings due to their great building height and huge building mass. The Chinese
code specifies rigidity–gravity ratio limits to ensure overall stability. Assuming the vertical loads of the structure are uniform along the vertical
direction, the rigidity–gravity ratio λ is given by (JGJ99‐2015[16])

 n

λ ¼ EJd = H2 ∑ Gi ≥ 0:7; (15)
i¼1

where H is building height, n is the total story number, Gi is the design weight of ith story, and EJd is the elastic equivalent lateral stiffness.

EJd ¼ 11qH4 =120u; (16)

FIGURE 15 Lateral force

16 of 20 FANG ET AL.

where q is the peak value of lateral force, which is in an inverse triangular distribution, as depicted in Figure 15, and u is the peak horizontal dis-
placement under the lateral force.
In consideration of the non‐uniform distribution of vertical loads, a correction factor should be introduced in the calculation of the rigidity–
gravity ratio as follows:

λ′ ¼ β ⋅ λ; (17)

where λ′ is the revised rigidity–gravity ratio and β is the correction factor, as follows:

"   #
1 n n Hi 2
β ¼ ∑ Gi = ∑ Gi ; (18)
3 i¼1 i¼1 H

"   #
n Hi 2
where Hi is the elevation from the ground to the ith story. In this paper, weight distribution factor ∑ Gi is designated A.[17]
i¼1 H
Substitute Equations 15, 16, and 18 into Equation 17, and the revised rigidity–gravity ratio can be expressed as follows:

λ′ ¼ 11qH2 =360uA: (19)

5.1.2 | Wind load during construction

It is generally acknowledged that one of the most important stages of a structure's lifetime is that of construction. Although a structure is under
construction, it may be vulnerable to wind loads, which would not determinately affect the final structure. There is general uncertainty with regard
to the resistance capacity of the structure during this phase because the calculations of a design engineer are usually based on the completed con-
figuration. A great deal of damage and loss of property during construction is caused by wind. The damaging wind loads are usually much lower
than the design winds for completed structures. The determination of design wind speeds for permanent structures is well established in the
design practice, but there are no common methods and criteria to assess design wind loads on partially constructed structures.[18]
Many factors are involved in establishing design wind loads for temporary structures. These include the acceptable risks, both human and
financial, the consequences of failure, the predictability of occurrence of loads, the nature of the loads, and the intended life span of the structure
with increasing probability of maximum loads. The basic wind speed is given for a 50‐year mean recurrence interval (annual probability of 0.02) in
Chinese codes. It may be excessive to use a 50‐year return period wind for the construction phase, when the construction only lasts for one or
several years. The 50‐year wind speed can be modified for other recurrence intervals. Analytical research and filed observations are needed to
establish the proper winds for the short‐term exposures during construction. Liu[19] suggested a 5‐year return period wind for the analysis of
the Shanghai Tower during the construction stage.

FIGURE 16 The flowchart of the optimal design process

FANG ET AL. 17 of 20

5.2 | Optimal design procedure

One performance objective that is required in building codes is to design the building to have adequate stiffness to limit lateral drifts during fre-
quent lateral loading. Building codes also require the stability of a building under factored gravity loading be considered by limiting the rigidity–
gravity ratio. However, practicing engineers currently need to use their judgment in determining the load level and performance objectives, such
as limiting the interstory drift and rigidity–gravity ratio, for a super‐tall building during the construction phase. This paper limits the story drifts
under 5‐year return period wind to less than approximately 1/350 for structure protection during the construction phase and requires a revised
rigidity–gravity ratio λ′ of no less than 0.7 for the overall stability of the uncompleted structure.
This building has been divided into 12 zones by the locations of the mechanical floor. When a new zone was completed, this new structure
was set as a critical stage. For example, Stage 1 means that only the first zone was completed, and Stage 2 means that the first and second zones
were completed. The rest of critical stages are defined in the same way. Generally, a stage with a greater height is more vulnerable to the wind
loads. Stage 12 without any joint connection of outriggers is considered the most dangerous stage during the construction. To determine the latest
connection time of each outrigger, as well as maintain the building safety, a good way is to evaluate the performance objectives from the most
dangerous stage to the second most dangerous stage. The satisfied stage for connecting the outriggers can be obtained after 2–3 steps, generally.
The flowchart of the optimal design of outriggers is shown in Figure 16, and detailed implementation of a case is described in Section 5.3.

5.3 | Case study

At first, the overall stability performance of the most dangerous stage (Stage 12 without any joint connection of outriggers) was evaluated in
Table 6. The revised rigidity–gravity ratio is found to meet the requirement of the building code. In other words, the structure can maintain sta-
bility during the whole construction phase even if all the outriggers were not fixed. If the results cannot meet the codes, it means that we should
connect some outriggers in Stage 11 or even earlier. Then we evaluate whether the second most dangerous stage, Stage 11 without any joint
connection of outriggers, can satisfy the stability performance objectives. In this way, we will acquire a critical stage as the latest time for the joint
connection of outriggers.
As shown above, the joint connections of all outriggers are allowed to fix at the end of the construction when only considering the stability
performance objective. In the next step, engineers should limit the story drift to reduce the likelihood of structural or nonstructural damage.
Figure 17a represents the story drift of the building during a 5‐year wind when connecting all the outriggers at Stage 12. The X directional
story drift exceed the limit slightly at the 83th floor, which means some or all outriggers need to be fixed ahead of this schedule. In contrast,
Figure 17b shows that the story drifts satisfied the requirement when connecting all the outriggers at Stage 11, which means that some outriggers
are allowed to be fixed after this schedule.
From the above, it can be determined that some outriggers need to be fixed in Stage 11, and others can be delayed to fix in Stage 12. In prac-
tical engineering, the outriggers were always constructed in sequence from bottom to top. For this reason, there are several combinations, such as
O1; O1, O2; O1, O2, O3; O1, O2, O3, O4; and O1, O2, O3, O4, O5, that are likely to be fixed when Zone 11 was completed. The validation of the
story drift in these combinations is shown in Figure 18. The results show that with just the first outrigger fixed in Stage 11, the requirement of the
stiffness performance objective can be satisfied. The finial construction sequence of the outrigger system is given in Table 7. The schedule is
connecting the first outrigger (O1) at Stage 11 and connecting the rest of the outriggers at Stage 12. It can predict that O1 would generate little
additional stress, and the other outriggers will not generate any additional stress during the construction.
To show the economic efficiency of this optimal DJM, the results of the additional stress of outriggers due to differential column shortening
were compared with two other types of methods: the fixed‐joint method and the EDJM. The EDJM is delaying the joint connection until the next
outrigger is being installed, which is always employed in the construction of real tall buildings empirically. The comparisons among these three
methods were given in Table 8. The optimal delayed joint method can meet the demand and reduce the structural material for saving costs and
environmental damages, and it also provides the latest schedule of connecting outriggers for the structural safety during construction.
Differential shortening will lead to forces transferring between the core and column through the outriggers. Delaying the outrigger joint elim-
inates the distribution of forces in the construction period and affects the shortening of the vertical members. The maximum post‐installation
shortening of these three methods are compared in Table 9. The differential shortening of the optimal DJM is the largest among these three con-
struction sequences of the outrigger system.

TABLE 6 Structural rigidity–gravity radio of Stage 12

λ λ' Requirement (JGJ99‐2015) Structural performance

X direction 0.57 0.82 ≥0.7 OK

Y direction 0.58 0.84 OK

Note. JGJ99‐2015 is a Chinese code, technical specification for steel structure of tall buildings.
18 of 20 FANG ET AL.

FIGURE 17 Story drift of Stages 11 and 12 under wind loads

FIGURE 18 Story drift of Stage 12 under wind loads

TABLE 7 Optimal construction sequence of outriggers

Stage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
O1 ■
O2 ■
O3 ■
O4 ■
O5 ■

Note. ■ represents that the joint of the outrigger system is connected at this stage.
FANG ET AL. 19 of 20

TABLE 8 The maximum stress of the outrigger diagonal web

The maximum stress (MPa) Location

ODJM 5 O1
EDJM 67 O3
FJM 157 O3

Note. ODJM = optimal delayed joint method; EDJM = experiential delayed joint method; FJM = fixed‐joint method.

TABLE 9 The maximum post‐deformation of CFT column

ODJM (mm) EDJM (mm) FJM (mm)

Mega column 82 88 95
Core tube column 122 112 92

Note. ODJM = optimal delayed joint method; EDJM = experiential delayed joint method; FJM = fixed‐joint method; CFT = concrete‐filled steel tubular
columns.

6 | C O N CL U S I O N S

In this paper, the effects of time‐dependent actions, such as shrinkage, creep, and foundation settling were estimated. A mega frame super‐tall
steel structure was employed to illustrate the analysis and design of an outrigger system under time‐dependent actions. The following conclusions
are drawn:

1. The column shortening cannot be neglected even in the construction phase for a super‐tall building. The additional force caused by differen-
tial shortening between the adjacent vertical members is an important consideration in the design and construction of super‐tall buildings.
The later the outrigger is connected, the more additional stresses can be reduced in the outriggers, caused by the differential column short-
ening. In the EDJM, delaying the outrigger connection by only 119 days can reduce half of the maximal additional stress due to differential
shortening during the construction period. At the same time, delaying the joint connection of outriggers increases the differential shortening
between the core tube and perimeter mega columns.
2. The differential settlement also influences the relative displacement of the columns and brings about additional force in the outriggers. Com-
pared with the column shortening, the differential settlement has a reverse effect on the post‐installation shortening for such a building, lead-
ing to a reduction of approximately 12% of the maximum additional axial stress in the outriggers. The structural engineer may not need to
consider the effect of the differential settlement to obtain a conservative design of the outriggers. Additionally, it is shown that the differen-
tial settlement has a bigger influence on the lower outriggers than higher ones.
3. Further, a simple optimal method considering the structural stability and overall stiffness was proposed to optimize the construction
sequence design of the outrigger system. The result obtained has proven to have many advantages in terms of building performance and cost
reduction.

ACKNOWLEDGEMEN T
The authors are grateful for the support from the Shanghai Excellent Discipline Leader Program (14XD1423900).

ORCID
Baoyi Fang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5594-9235

RE FE R ENC E S
[1] M. Fintel, S. K. Chosh, H. Iyengar, Column Shortening in Tall Structures: Prediction and Compensation, Portland Cement Association, Skokie 1987.
[2] H. S. Kim, J Archit Inst Korea. 2008, 24, 35.
[3] H. S. Park, Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build 2003, 12(1), 49.
[4] S. Maru, M. Asfaw, A. K. Nagpal, Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2009, 18, 327.
[5] J. L. Zhou, F. Yan, Build. Struct. 2007, 37(5), 100. (in Chinese)
[6] X. Zhao, P. P. Zhang, Y. M. Zheng, J. Arch. Civil Eng. 2010, 27(1), 108. (in Chinese)
[7] B. S. Taranath, Structural Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings: Steel and Composite Construction, CRC Press, Boca Raton 2011.
[8] P.J. Terrey, M.A. Bradford, R.I. Gilebert, Proc. of 6th inter. in symposium on tubular Struct. Melbourne, 1994, 293.
[9] B. Uy, S. Das, J. Struct. Des. Tall Build 1997, 6(1), 1.
[10] L. H. Ichinose, E. Watanabe, H. Nakai, J. Constr. Steel Research 2001, 57(4), 453.
20 of 20 FANG ET AL.

[11] Z. P. Bazant, Mater. Struct. 1995, 28(6), 357.

[12] Z. P. Bazant, ACI 1972, 69(4), 212.
[13] H. S. Kim, S. H. Jeong, S. H. Shin, Des. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2012, 21, 764.
[14] S. H. Liu, J. Y. Yuan, X. Zhao, J. Build. Struct. 2015, 36(8), 150. (in Chinese)
[15] JGJ 94–2008, China, 2008. (in Chinese)
[16] JGJ 99–2015, China, 2015. (in Chinese)
[17] T. T. Lu, X. Zhao, et al., J. Build. Struct. 2011, 32(7), 8. (in Chinese)
[18] W. F. Chen, K. H. Mosallam, Concrete Buildings: Analysis for Safe Construction, CRC Press, Boca Raton 1991.
[19] N. X. Liu, Performance Research and Control during Construction of High‐Rise Mixed Structure with Outriggers, Tongji University, Shanghai, 2011 (in
Chinese).

Baoyi Fang is a master student at Tongji University, China. His research interests include superstructure‐foundation interaction, time‐depen-
dent effect.

Xin Zhao is an engineering professor of Tongji Architectural Design (Group) Co., Ltd., China. He received his PhD degree from Tongji Univer-
sity. His research interests include high performance structural system design, control and optimization.

Juyun Yuan is a professor of Tongji University, China. His research interests include deep foundation and pile foundation, superstructure‐
foundation interaction.

Xiaoping Wu is an engineering professor at Shanghai Construction Group Co., Ltd., China. His research interests include shrinkage and creep,
construction technology and control.

How to cite this article: Fang B, Zhao X, Yuan J, Wu X. Outrigger system analysis and design under time‐dependent actions for super‐tall
steel buildings. Struct Design Tall Spec Build. 2018;e1492. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1492