IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific Research & Development| Vol.
4, Issue 12, 2017 | ISSN (online): 2321-0613
A Study on High Rise Structure with Outrigger System Subjected to
Seismic Loading Supported on Different Soil Types
Shyam Sundar Roy1 Gore N. G2
1
PG Student 2Assistant Professor
1,2
Department of Civil Engineering
1,2
MGM’S college of Engineering Kamothe, Navi Mumbai, India
Abstract— ETABS model has been prepared for a G+60 and
finite element analysis has been done for gravity load along
with lateral (Seismic) load, to study the behaviour of HIGH
RISE building in terms of time period, base shear, base
moment, story displacement, and story drift. Due to
reduction of lateral stiffness with the increase in height of
structures, outrigger system has been proposed in the present
study to minimize the effect due to loss of stiffness.
Equivalent Static Method (Static) and Response Spectrum
Method (Dynamic) has been carried out, IS 1893:2002 has
been used for seismic loading calculation and analysis. Six
models have been prepared one for each soil type, hard soil,
medium soil, and soft soil with & without outrigger and the
results have been compared to understand the behaviour of
high rise structure supported on different soil types.
Key words: Outrigger, Seismic Load, Response Spectrum,
Tall, Slender, Soil Type
I. INTRODUCTION
High rise structures have always been in the list of top
priority of a country, as they this a symbol of strength and
this is the main reason why high rise structures are
increasing day by day, and in advancement of structural
engineering now day it is quite possible to design high rise
structure, one of the most important criteria for the design of
high rise structure is lateral sway (deflection) and storey
drift along with the strength criteria.
It is required to keep the lateral sway and story drift
within the limit and IS code has laid some guidelines to limit
the lateral sway and drift, according to the IS456:2000,
Clause 20.5 “Under transient wind load the lateral sway at
the top of should not exceed H/500, where H is the total
height of the building” and according to IS1893:2002,
Clause 7.11.1 “The storey drift in any storey due to the
minimum design lateral force, with partial load factor of 1.0
shall not exceed 0.004 times the storey height”, and as per
Clause 4.23, Storey drift may be defined as the displacement
of one level relative to the other level above or below.
A. Outrigger
Outriggers connects the central core to the exterior columns
which help in keeping the columns in their position, and
when the lateral force attacks the structure central tilt
against the lateral force, and its rotation at the outrigger
level induces a tension-compression couple in the outer
columns acting in opposition to that movement acting on the
core at that level.
Outriggers have been used in high rise structures
for nearly half a century, but the design principles has been
used for millennia, the oldest “outriggers’ were horizontal
beams connecting the main canoe shaped hulls of
Polynesian oceangoing boats to outer stabilizing floats or
“amas”, the outrigger concept is in widespread use today in
the design of tall buildings. In this concept, “outrigger”
trusses extend from a lateral load-resisting core to columns
at the exterior of the building.
The key idea in conceptualizing the structural
system for a narrow tall building is to think of it as a beam
cantilevering from the earth, The laterally directed force
generated, either due to wind blowing against the building
or due to the inertia forces induced by ground shaking, tends
both to snap it (shear), and push it over (bending), therefore,
the building must have a system to resist shear as well as
bending. In resisting shear forces, the building must not
break by shearing off and must not strain beyond the limit of
elastic recovery, when an outrigger-braced building deflects
under wind or seismic load, the outrigger which connects to
the core wall and the exterior columns/shear walls, makes
the whole system to act as a unit in resisting the lateral
force, the primary result of the outrigger trusses is the
development of axial forces in the exterior columns due to
lateral load action.
Outrigger serve to reduce the lateral deflection,
story drift & overturning moment in the core that would
otherwise act as a pure cantilever, and to transfer the
reduced moment to columns, outside the core by the way of
tension-compression coupled, which take advantage of the
increase moment arm between these columns, in high-rise
building this same benefit can be realized by a reduction of
the base core over-turning moments and the associated
reduction in the potential core uplift forces.
There are two types of outrigger system
 Conventional outrigger system
 Virtual outrigger system
1) Conventional Outrigger System
Fig. 1: Outrigger Types
In the conventional outrigger system, the outrigger trusses or
girders are connected directly to shear walls or braced
frames at the core and to columns located outboard of the
core. Typically (but not necessarily), the columns are at the
outer edges of the building. Figure 1.9 is an idealized
section through a tall building.
All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 663
 A Study on High Rise Structure with Outrigger System Subjected to Seismic Loading Supported on Different Soil Types
(IJSRD/Vol. 4/Issue 12/2017/174)

2) Virtual Outrigger System  Response reduction factor – 4, Table 7 of IS1893:2002

In the conventional outrigger system, outrigger trusses  Soil Type – I, II & III Table 1 of IS1893:2002
connected directly to the core and to outboard columns  Importance factor – 1, Table 6 of IS1893:2002
convert the “virtual” outrigger concept, the same transfer of  Time Period – 3.769 Sec, user defined
overturning moment from the core to elements outboard of  No. of modes to be considered – 12
the core is achieved, but without a direct connection  Modal Analysis – Ritz
between the outrigger trusses and the core. The elimination
 Modal combination – CQC, cl 7.8.4.4 of IS1893:2002
of a direct connection between the trusses and the core
 Directional combination – SRSS
avoids many of the problems associated with the use of
 Initial scale factor – Ig/2R
outriggers.
 Minimum eccentricity – 0.05
II. OBJECTIVES OF STUDY  Damping – 5 percent, cl 7.8.2.1 of IS1893:2002
 Mass source – 1DL + 0.25 LL
1) To study various parameters such as Base shear, Base  Diaphragm type – Semi rigid
moment, Time period, Story displacement & Story
drift, when high rise structure supported on different
types of soil
2) To compare the behaviour of the structure with &
without outrigger system.
3) To carryout static and dynamic analysis for seismic
loading.
4) To compare the effect of outriggers by both Equivalent
static method and Dynamic Analysis method
(Response spectrum method).
5) To insure that the deflection and displacement are
within the permissible limits as specified by IS
standards. Fig. 2: Typical Floor Plan View
6) To prepare a three dimensional model in ETABS and
to analyze the structure using Finite element analysis B. Method of Analysis
approach Following analysis has been carried in addition to analysis
for gravity loading
III. METHODOLOGY 1) Seismic Analysis
High rise structure (G+60) is modeled as three dimensional  Static method – Equivalent static method
structure and all the loads are applied, gravity loading such  Dynamic method – Response spectrum method
as dead load and live load in the direction of gravity, lateral
loads such as seismic load and behaviour of the structure has
been studied and it has been insured the drift and
displacements are within the limits specified by Indian
standards.
A. Model Data
1) Material Properties
 Core wall & column – M70
 Slab & beam – M35
 Reinforcement – FE415
 Structural steel – FE490
2) Section Properties
 Beam - 300X600mm modeled as line elements
 Shear wall - 600mm thk. modeled as shell
 Slab – 150 mm thk. Modeled as shell
 Outrigger – SHS 500X500X60mm
3) Gravity Loading Fig. 3: Typical Elevation View
 Floor Finish – 1.5 kN/m2 Equivalent static analysis has been done as per IS
 Water proofing - 1.5 kN/m2 1893:2002, seismic weight of structure is calculated
 Live Load – 2 kN/m2, 3 kN/m2 including the dead load and 25 % of the live load, and to do
 Terrace Live load – 1.5 kN/m2 so mass source has been defined in ETABS as
 Wall load 230 mm thk. – 12.6 kN/m, 1.2DL+0.25LL. Terrace live has been defined in another
 Wall load 150 mm thk. – 8.63 kN/m load case namely Terrace live load and has not been
included in the mass source definition.
 parapet wall load – 6.09 kN/m
To consider the local buckling effect accurately
4) Seismic loading
second order analysis has been included with the load
 Zone factor – 0.36, for zone V, Table 2 of IS1893:2002
combination of 1.2 DL + 1.2 LL.
 Building Frame Systems – Ductile shear walls

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 664

 A Study on High Rise Structure with Outrigger System Subjected to Seismic Loading Supported on Different Soil Types
(IJSRD/Vol. 4/Issue 12/2017/174)

2) Load Case B. Base Shear & Base Moment

 DL – Selfweight of structure FX, MX, FX, MX,
 SDL – floor finish, waterproofing Type Load
FY MY FY MY
 LIVE – live load on floors of Soil Case
G+60-C G+60-OUT
 TERRACE LIVE – Live load on terrace Soil EQX 36081 5965959 36342 5631972
 LLNR – Non reducible live load, MEP load Type1, SPEC X 38309 3698550 38872 3625530
 EQX, EQY – Seismic load Hard EQY 36081 5335903 36342 5287632
 SPECX, SPECY – Response spectrum case Soil SPEC Y 46938 3223202 46641 3397333
3) Load Combinations Soil EQX 49070 8113704 49425 7659482
a) Limit state of strength Type2, SPEC X 45897 5028110 47537 4929143
 1.5DL Mediu EQY 49070 7256828 49425 7191179
 1.5DL+1.5LL m Soil SPEC Y 56693 4368721 56982 4609874
 1.5DL+1.5WL/EQ Soil EQX 60255 9963151 60691 9405393
 0.9DL+1.5WL/EQ Type3, SPEC X 52748 6173007 54586 6051494
 1.2DL+1.2LL+1.2WL/EQ Soft EQY 60255 8910957 60691 8830345
b) Limit state of Serviceability Soil SPEC Y 65033 5353675 66275 5654404
 1DL Table 3: Base Shear & Base moment, kN, m
 1DL+1LL
 1DL+1WL/EQ
 1DL+0.8LL+0.8WL/EQ
 P-Delta load combination – 1.2DL+1.2LL

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

 Case 1 – Conventional, without outrigger, G+60-C
 Case 2 – With outrigger system, G+60-OUT
A. Time Period
Analysis G+60-C G+60-OUT
ESA 3.769 3.769
RSA 7.9 6.262
Fig. 4: Base Moment comparison chart–X-Direction
ESA-Equivalent Static Analysis
MA-Modal Analysis
Table 1: Time Period of Structure

Fig. 5: Base Moment comparison chart–Y-Direction

C. Story Displacement
Fig. 4: Time period comparison chart
Mode No. G+60-C G+60-OUT
1 7.9 6.262
2 7.261 5.806
3 4.687 3.814
4 2.302 1.848
5 1.102 0.95
6 1.043 0.919
7 0.636 0.544
8 0.454 0.43
9 0.402 0.332
10 0.27 0.262
11 0.201 0.174
12 0.144 0.137
Table 2: Modal Time Period, Modal Analysis Fig. 6: Story Displacement comparison–X-Direction

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 665

 A Study on High Rise Structure with Outrigger System Subjected to Seismic Loading Supported on Different Soil Types
(IJSRD/Vol. 4/Issue 12/2017/174)

V. CONCLUSION & FUTURE COPE OF STUDY

The most effective and deciding basic parameter studied
during this whole analysis was drift and deflection of the
structure. The result section shows the variation of drift and
deflection of the structure with & without outrigger system.
The following conclusions are made from the
present study.
1) The use of outrigger system in tall structure increases
the stiffness and makes the structure more efficient
under seismic and wind loading.
2) The reduction in displacement is more than 40 %, after
adding outriggers at 0.4H, 0.7H & 1H, where H is the
height of structure.
Fig. 7: Story Displacement comparison–Y-Direction 3) The reduction in drift is more than 50 % at the level
where outriggers are added.
D. Top Story Displacement 4) It has been observed that the base moment gets
Type of Load reduced when outriggers are added, and it is
Conventional Outrigger advantageous for the structural engineers.
soil Case
EQX 435.044 228.537 5) It can be concluded from this study that the outrigger
Soil system provides reduction in displacement, drift &
SPEC X 263.707 145.72
Type 1, base moment, which are the prime aspects for
EQY 162.582 102.538
Hard soil designing tall structure.
SPEC Y 93.449 63.775
Soil EQX 591.66 310.811 6) It has been observed that the maximum reaction has
Type 2, SPEC X 358.641 198.179 been generated in the soil type III, Soft soil, in all load
Medium EQY 221.111 139.452 cases studied
soil SPEC Y 127.077 86.719 7) It is safer to build tall structure on the soil type I (hard
soil) rather than soil type II, (medium soil) and soil
EQX 726.524 381.657
Soil type III (soft soil)
SPEC X 440.387 243.35
Type 3,
EQY 271.512 171.238 A. Scope of Future Study
Soft soil
SPEC Y 156.033 106.476 1) The effect of combining dampers and outrigger system
Table 4: Top story Displacement, mm will be studied in detail on the same structural layout
E. Story Drift plan.
2) Demand capacity ratio of the structural members will
be studied and the critical members will be compared.
3) While designing the structure, value engineering will
be done, to optimize the sizes of structural element.
4) Further optimization of the sizes of the structural
members will be done
5) Analysis will be done on one unsymmetrical plan and
the results will be compared with the symmetrical
layout plan.

Fig. 8: Story Drift comparison chart–X-Direction
Fig. 9: Story Drift comparison chart–Y-Direction
REFERENCES
[1] Dr. Vinod Hosur – “Earthquake – Resistant Design of
Building Structures” willey publications, first edition
2013.
[2] Shivacharan K, Chandrakala S, Karthik N M:
“Optimum Position of Outrigger System for Tall
Vertical Irregularity Structures”, IOSR Journal of
Mechanical and Civil Engineering, Volume 12, Issue 2
Ver. II (Mar - Apr. 2015), PP 54-63.
[3] Kiran Kamath, N. Divya, Asha U Rao: “A Study on
Static and Dynamic Behaviour of Outrigger Structural
System for Tall Buildings”, Confirming International
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management
Science, Vol2, No 4, December 2012
[4] Krunal z. Mistry, proff. Dhruti j. Dhyani: “Optimum
outrigger location in outrigger structural system for high
rise building”, International Journal of Advance
Engineering and Research Development Volume 2,
Issue 5, May -2015

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 666

 A Study on High Rise Structure with Outrigger System Subjected to Seismic Loading Supported on Different Soil Types
(IJSRD/Vol. 4/Issue 12/2017/174)

[5] Alpana L. Gawate J.P. Bhusari: “Behaviour of outrigger

structural system for high rise building”, International
Journal of Modern Trends in Engineering & Research,
e-ISSN No.:2349-9745, Date: 2-4 July, 2015
[6] Vijaya Kumari Gowda M R and Manohar B C: “A
Study on Dynamic Analysis of Tall Structure with Belt
Truss Systems for Different Seismic Zones”,
International Journal of Engineering Research &
Technology (IJERT) Vol. 4 Issue 8, August – 2015
[7] Kiran Kamath, Shashi kumar Rao and Shruthi :
“Optimum Positioning of Outriggers to Reduce
Differential Column Shortening Due to Long Term
Effects in Tall Buildings”, International Journal of
Advanced Research in Science and Technology,
Volume 4, Issue 3, 2015, pp.353-357.
[8] Prateek N. Biradar, Mallikarjun S. Bhandiwad: “A
performance based study on static and dynamic
behaviour of outrigger structural system for tall
buildings”, International Research Journal of
Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Volume: 02
Issue: 05 Aug-2015

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 667