An Analytical Model For High-Rise Wall-Frame Structures With Outriggers

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS
Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 839–851 (2008)

Published online 1 October 2007 in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/tal.406
AN ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR HIGH-RISE WALL-FRAME

STRUCTURES WITH OUTRIGGERS
JAEHONG LEE1*, MINSIK BANG1 AND JAE-YEOL KIM2

1
Department of Architectural Engineering, Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
2
Department of Architectural Engineering, Hyupsung University, Kyunggi-Do, Korea
SUMMARY
In this paper, the governing equations of wall-frame structures with outriggers are formulated through the con-
tinuum approach and the whole structure is idealized as a shear–flexural cantilever with rotational springs. The
effect of shear deformation and flexural deformation of the wall-frame and outrigger trusses are considered and
incorporated in the formulation of the governing equations. A displacement-based one-dimensional finite element
model is developed to predict lateral drift of a wall-frame with outriggers under horizontal loads. Numerical static
results are obtained and compared with previously available results and the values obtained from the finite element
package MIDAS. The proposed method is found to be simple and efficient, and provides reasonably accurate
results in the early design stage of tall building structures. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1. INTRODUCTION
A tall building consisting of frames and shear walls properly coupled together is one of the most
efficient and economical structural systems. In this system, the shear walls are often parts of the
elevator and service cores, while the frames are arranged in plan, and they are linked by floor slabs
such that the building will deflect as a structure with rigid section. When a wall-frame structure is
loaded laterally, the wall deflects in a flexural mode with concavity downward and a maximum slope
at the top, and the frame deflects in a shear mode with concavity upward and a maximum slope at the
base. Accordingly, the deflected shape of the whole structure has a flexural profile in the lower part
and a shear profile in the upper part. The interacting forces cause the wall to restrain the frame near
the base and the frames to support the wall at the top, and thus reduce the lateral drift of the struc-
ture. The major advantages of a wall-frame structure depend on the amount of horizontal interaction,
which is governed by the relative stiffness of the walls and frames, and the height of the structure.
Tall buildings are usually so complicated that even an elaborate computational model is a considerable
simplification, and the results from an analysis will always be approximate, being at best only as good
as the quality of the chosen model and method of analysis. For this reason, many simplified analysis
techniques have been developed for the analysis of wall-frame structures in past decades. Rosenblueth
and Holtz (1960) were perhaps the first researchers to study the behavior of wall-frame structures.
Khan and Sbarounis (1964) investigated the interaction of frames and shear walls. Heidebrecht and
Stafford Smith (1973) proposed an analytical model for wall-frame structures. They considered the
frame and the spandrel beams as shear continua and solved the whole structure as a shear–flexural
* Correspondence to: Jaehong Lee, Department of Architectural Engineering, Sejong University, 98 Kunja Dong, Kwangjin Ku,
Seoul 143-747, Korea. E-mail: jhlee@sejong.ac.kr
Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

840 J. LEE, M. BANG AND J.-Y. KIM
cantilever. Stafford Smith et al. (1981) presented a generalized technique to calculate the lateral drift
of braced frame, rigid frame and coupled shear walls. Stafford Smith and Coull (1991) presented
continuum-based analytical models for various kinds of structural systems. Swaddiwudhipong et al.
(2001) employed the continuum model to study the behavior of core-frame interaction in tall build-
ings. Recently, they also investigated the effects of axial deformation on vibration characteristics of
tall buildings (Swaddiwudhipong et al., 2002).
A wall-frame with outrigger trusses is one of the most efficient and economical structures in tall
buildings. At the outer ends they are connected to the foundation through exterior columns. When the
structure is subjected to horizontal loading, the wall and outrigger trusses will rotate, causing com-
pression in the downwind column and tension in the column on the upwind side. These axial forces
will resist the rotation in the wall. A simplified analytical method for this outrigger structure has
been presented earlier by Stafford Smith and Coull (1991) and Taranath (1988, 1997). Most recently,
Hoenderkamp (2004; Hoenderkamp and Bakker, 2003) investigated the effects of a shear wall with
outrigger trusses on wall and column foundations using a simplified model.
Most studies up to now have concentrated on analyzing the interaction of the frame and shear
wall neglecting the shear deformation of the shear wall and flexural deformation of the frame.
However, the effects of shear deformation of the wall or flexural deformation of the frame can
sometimes cause significant results. In this regard, the present research focuses on deriving the
governing equations for wall-frame structures under lateral loads based on the continuum approach,
in which the whole structure is idealized as a shear–flexural cantilever. Both the effects of
shear deformation of the shear wall and flexural deformation of the frame are considered and
incorporated in the formulation of the governing equations. The finite element method is developed
to formulate the problem.
2. GOVERNING EQUATIONS OF WALL-FRAME STRUCTURES

To derive the analytical model for a wall-frame structure, the following basic assumptions are
made:
(1) The materials are linearly elastic and homogeneous.
(2) The wall-frame structures do not twist, and thus can be analyzed as an equivalent planar model.
(3) The wall and the frame are modeled as shear deformable beams, respectively, and they are con-
nected by a rigid bar. Therefore, the deflections of the wall and the frame are identical, while the
deflection slopes are different.
According to assumption 3, the displacement field for the shear wall part can be expressed using
the shear-deformable beam model:
U w = zψ w (1a)
Ww = w (1b)
Similarly, the displacement field for the frame can be expressed as
U f = zψ f (2a)
Wf =w (2b)
Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 839–851 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
HIGH-RISE WALL-FRAME STRUCTURES WITH OUTRIGGERS 841
where yw and yf denote rotations of a transverse normal of shear wall and frame, respectively, and
w denotes the transverse displacement of shear wall and frame (Figure 1). It should be noted that the
deflections for the wall and the frame are assumed to be the same, while the slopes are different. The
linear strains associated with the shear wall can be written as
dψ w
ε xw = z (3a)
dx
dw
γ xw = + ψw (3b)
dx
Similarly, the linear strains of the frame can also be given as
dψ f
ε xf = z (4a)
dx
dw
γ xf = + ψf (4b)
dx
Total potential energy of the wall-frame structure is calculated by the sum of the strain energy and
the work done by external forces:
Π =U +V (5)
Figure 1. Deformed configuration of wall-frame structures
DOI: 10.1002/tal
where U is the strain energy of the wall-frame structures, and the strain energy of the shear wall and
frame can be stated, respectively, by
1
2 ∫v
Uw = (σ xwε xw + σ xzwγ xzw ) dv (6)
1
2 ∫v
Uf = (σ xf ε xf + σ xzfγ xzf ) dv (7)
The variation of the total strain energy of the wall-frame structure can now be given by adding the
energy for the wall and the frame as
dδψ w dδ w dδψ f dδ w
δ U = ∫  M xw + Qxzw  + δψ w  + M xf + Qxzf  + δψ f   d x
L
(8)
0  dx  dx  dx  dx 
where M wx and Q wxz are the bending moment and shear force in the wall, while Q xzf and M xf are the bending
moment and shear force in the frame. These stress resultants are respectively defined by integrating
the cross-sectional area:
dψ w
M xw = EI w (9a)
dx
Qxzw = GAw ( ddwx + ψ )

w (9b)
dψ f
M xf = EI f (9c)
dx
Qxzf = GA f  + ψ f 
dw
(9d)
 dx 
In Equation (9), EIw and EIf are effective flexural rigidities of the shear wall and the frame, and
GAw and GAf are effective shear rigidities of the shear wall and the frame, respectively. While all the
effective rigidities can be computed directly from the material and sectional properties of the structure,
the effective shear rigidity of the frame, GAf, can be calculated by using the following expression
(Stafford Smith and Coull, 1991):
12 E f
GA f = (10)
h (1 G + 1 C )
where h is a story height. G and C are stiffness of the girder and column, respectively.
In Equation (5), V is the potential of transverse load acting on the cross-section:
L
V = − ∫ qδ wd x (11)
0
where q is transverse load.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
The principle of total potential energy can be stated as
0 = δΠ (12)
Substituting Equations (5), (8) and (11) into Equation (12), the following weak statement is
obtained:
L dψ w dδψ w dψ f dδψ f dδ w
+ GAw  + ψ w  
dw 
0 = ∫  EI w + EI f + δψ w  +
0  dx dx dx dx  dx   dx 
(13)
 dw +   dδ w +
GA f  ψf   δψ f  − qδ w  dx
 dx   dx  
The governing equations of the present approach can now be derived by integrating the derivatives
of varied quantities by parts, and collecting the coefficients of
d 
GAw  + ψ w   +
d 
GA f  + ψ f   + q = 0
dw dw (14a)

dx   dx   dx   dx 
d  dψ w   dw + ψ  = 0
 EI w  − GAw  w

(14b)
dx dx dx
d  dψ f  − GA  dw + ψ  = 0
 EI f  f f (14c)
dx  dx  dx 
The essential and natural boundary conditions are of the form
essential : natural
δψ w : M w (15a)
δψ f : M f (15b)
δ w : Qw + Q f (15c)
3. MODELING OF OUTRIGGER TRUSS

In a wall-frame structure the wall is connected to the frame by means of links at each floor level
representing the floor action of the structure. It will cause the lateral deflections of the wall and frame
to be identical up the height of the structure. All the structural members of the frame are assumed to
be pin-connected to each other.
For wall-frame structures with outriggers, the outrigger trusses are attached to a shear wall, and
they act directly together with the frame structure and indirectly through the adjacent floor structures
with the shear walls. In this study, the outrigger truss is modeled as a rotational spring (Figure 2), and
the rigidity of the spring, K can be given by
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 2. Modeling of outriggers as rotational springs
1
K= (16)
θ
where q denotes the total rotation in the outrigger due to the restraining moment, and can be obtained
by splitting up the action.
First, the restraining forces in the exterior columns will cause rotation of the outrigger resulting from
the axial lengthening and shortening of the columns. The outrigger rotation (qa) due to the resulting
restraining moment can then be defined as the column change in length divided by the length of the
outrigger, d:
2L
θa = (17)
d 2 EAc
where L is the vertical location of the outrigger from the ground, and EAc is the axial rigidity of the
exterior column.
The flexural deformation of the outrigger due to the action of the column force will cause additional
drifts between adjacent floors. The resulting rotation qb is given by
d
θb = (18)
12 EI o
where EIo is the flexural stiffness of the outrigger.

The rotation due to shear force in the outrigger (qs) results from strain in diagonals, and can be
expressed as
1
θs = (19)
GAo h
where h is the height of the outrigger, and GAo is racking shear stiffness of the outrigger. This racking
shear stiffness can be calculated for specific outrigger truss types (Stafford Smith and Coull, 1991).
The rotational stiffness of the outrigger can now be determined using Equations (16), (17), (18)
and (19):
−1
K =  2
2L d 1 
+ +  (20)
 d EAc 12 EI o GAo h 
DOI: 10.1002/tal
4. FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION

The present theory for wall-frame structures with outriggers described in the previous section was
implemented via a displacement-based one-dimensional finite element method. The generalized dis-
placements are expressed over each element as a linear combination of the one-dimensional Lagrange
interpolation function fj associated with node j and the nodal values:
n
w = ∑ w jφ j (21a)
j =1
n
ψ w = ∑ ψ wj φ j (21b)
j =1
n
ψ f = ∑ ψ f jφ j (21c)
j =1
Substituting these expressions into the weak statement in Equation (8), the finite element model of
a typical element can be expressed as
 K11 K12 K13   w   f1 

   
 K 22 K 23  ψ w  =  0  (22)
sym. K 33  ψ f   0 
The explicit form of [K] is given by
l
K ij11 = ∫ ( GAw + GA f ) φi′φ ′j d x (23a)
0
l
K ij12 = ∫ GAw φi′φ ′j d x (23b)
0
l
K ij13 = ∫ GA f φi′φ ′j d x (23c)
0
l
K ij22 = ∫ ( EI w φi′φ ′j + GAw φi φ j ) d x (23d)
0
K ij23 = 0 (23e)
l
K ij33 = ∫ ( EI f φi′φ ′j + GA f φi φ j ) d x (23f)
0
In Equation (22), {f1} is the force vector given by

l
fi1 = ∫ qφi d x (24)
0
DOI: 10.1002/tal
5. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
In order to verify the accuracy and efficiency of the present analytical model, the wall-frame building
structure is considered (Figure 3). The plan of the structure is of a 27 m wide (w = 27 m) and 72-story
(H = 288 m) double-core wall-frame structure. The horizontal resistance to wind acting on its long
side is provided by five rigid frame bents and double cores. The structure is assumed to be under a
uniform wind loading of 2 kN/m. The elastic moduli of the wall and the frame are assumed to be Ew
= 25 GPa and Ef = 210 GPa, respectively. Poisson’s ratios of the wall and the frame are assumed to
be ␯w = 0·17 and ␯f = 0·3, respectively. The thickness of the concrete core is assumed to be 0·4215 m.
The moments of inertia of columns and girders are given in Table 1.
It should be noted here that the stiffnesses of the columns and the beams are considered to be
uniform over the building height, for simplicity of analysis. For a building structure with different
properties of columns and beams over the building height, the analysis can be done by discretizing
the finite element mesh and applying the calculated effective rigidities of the structures for given
columns and beams.
The effective flexural and shear rigidities of the wall and the frame can be calculated as
GAw = 3⋅24 × 108 kN (25a)
EI w = 1⋅03 × 1010 kNm 2 (25b)
GA f = 8⋅58 × 106 kN (25c)
EI f = 3⋅14 × 1011 kNm 2 (25d)
Figure 3. Plan of 72-story single-core wall-frame structure
Table 1. Moments of inertia of columns and girders
Interior column I Exterior column I Girder I

4 4
Frame type 1 0·083 m 0·050 m 0·011 m4
Frame type 2 0·050 m4 0·034 m4 0·005 m4
DOI: 10.1002/tal
In calculating the flexural rigidity of the frame (EIf), the moments of inertia of the columns are
considered. The flexural rigidity of the wall (EIw) is directly calculated by an elementary mechanics
of materials approach. The shear rigidity of the wall can be calculated by
Ew
GAw = Aw (26)
2 (1 + vw )
where Aw is sectional area of the wall. The shear rigidity of the frame (GAf) can be calculated using
Equation (10).
The lateral drift of the wall-frame structure by the present approach is compared with the analytical
model by Stafford Smith and Coull (1991) and the three-dimensional finite element package MIDAS
(MIDAS IT, 2004) in Figure 4. All the beams and columns as well as the core walls are modeled in
detail in the MIDAS model, and thus the MIDAS model can be considered to be accurate. As can
be seen in Figure 4, the Stafford Smith model, which neglects shear deformation of the wall and the
flexural deformation of the frame, seriously underestimates the lateral drift of the structure, and the
discrepancy becomes significant for the top of the structure. The model with shear deformation of
the wall does not show an improved result, while the model with shear deformation of the wall and
the flexural deformation of the frame exhibit excellent agreement with the MIDAS result. That is, the
flexural deformation of the frame is crucial and the shear deformation of the wall is negligibly small
in this case. This is because of the relatively high aspect ratio of the example building structure (H/w
= 10·67). It is well known that the shear deformation of a beam becomes negligibly small for a high
aspect ratio.
As a next example, an outrigger with rotational spring K = 3·0 × 108 kNm is assumed to be installed
at h = 216 m (h/H = 0·75) of the wall-frame structure considered. The lateral drift of the wall-frame
structure with an outrigger is presented in Figure 5 for various analytical models. Again, the result with
‘shear + bending considered’ agrees very well with the MIDAS result, while the model with ‘shear
considered’ shows remarkable disagreement with MIDAS.
Figure 4. Lateral drift of a wall-frame structure under uniform lateral load
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 5. Lateral drift of a wall-frame structure with an outrigger under uniform lateral load
Figure 6. Lateral drift of a wall-frame structure with an outrigger for various outrigger stiffnesses
In order to investigate the effect of outrigger stiffness on the behavior of the structure, the following
non-dimensional relative stiffness of the outrigger with respect to the wall is used:
K
β= (27)
EI w H
The lateral drift of the structure with the outrigger for various values of b is presented in Figure 6.
As expected, the drift significantly decreases with increasing outrigger stiffness. Figure 7 illustrates
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 7. Bending moment of a wall-frame structure with an outrigger for various outrigger stiffnesses
Figure 8. Optimum outrigger location for top lateral drift with various outrigger stiffnesses
the resisting moment distribution of the wall-frame structure for various outrigger stiffness. It also
shows that the resisting moment at the bottom of the structure decreases as the outrigger stiffness
increases.
The optimum outrigger location is investigated to minimize the top drift (Figure 8) or maximum
moment (Figure 9) for various outrigger stiffness. The top drift and the maximum moment of the struc-
ture with an outrigger are non-dimensionalized by those of the structure without outrigger, respectively,
in Figures 8 and 9. It seems that the optimum outrigger location for the lateral drift and moment are
near h/H = 0·4 and h/H = 0·3, respectively.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 9. Optimum outrigger location for maximum bending moment with various outrigger stiffnesses
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
An analytical model was developed to study the lateral drift of wall-frame structures with outriggers.
The model is capable of predicting accurate drift for various outrigger stiffnesses. To formulate the
problem, a one-dimensional displacement-based finite element method is employed. Based on the
theoretical developments and numerical results, the following concluding remarks can be made:
• The previous conventional wall-frame model, which neglects the shear deformation of the
wall and the flexural deformation of the frame, overestimates the rigidity of the wall and the
frame. Accordingly, the model significantly underestimates the lateral deflection of wall-frame
structures.
• The analytical model, which considers the shear deformation of the wall and neglects the
flexural deformation of the frame, gives marginally better results than the conventional model,
and still has remarkable discrepancy in lateral deflection compared to the detailed finite element
analysis.
• The analytical model, which considers both the shear deformation of the wall and the flexural defor-
mation of the frame, shows excellent agreement with the detailed finite element solution for all the
types of wall-frame structures considered, indicating that the flexural deformation of the frame is
much more significant than the shear deformation of the wall in analyzing wall-frame structures.
Accordingly, the proposed model can give sufficiently accurate results with considerably less effort
and time.
• The proposed analytical model is found to be very accurate and efficient for the analysis of the
behavior of a wall-frame structure with outriggers. That is, the model can give sufficiently accurate
results with considerably less effort and time.
The proposed analytical model of wall-frame structures with outrigger trusses is valuable in provid-
ing a fundamental understanding of the behavior of a tall building structure and in allowing the initial
sizing of primary members as part of the preliminary design process.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The support of the research reported here by Korea Ministry of Construction and Transportation
through 03RND C103A1040001-03A0204-00110 is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Heidebrecht AC, Stafford Smith B. 1973. Approximate analysis of tall wall-frame structures. Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE 99(2): 199–221.
Hoenderkamp JCD. 2004. Shear wall with outrigger trusses on wall and column foundations. Structural Design
of Tall Buildings 12: 73–87.
Hoenderkamp JCD, Bakker MCM. 2003. Analysis of high-rise braced frames with outriggers. Structural Design
of Tall Buildings 12: 335–350.
Khan FR, Sbarounis JA. 1964. Interaction of shear walls and frames. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE
90(3): 285–335.
MIDAS IT. 2004. MIDAS/GEN. V6.32 Users Manual, MIDAS IT: Orpington, UK.
Rosenblueth E, Holtz I. 1960. Elastic analysis of shear walls in tall buildings. ACI Journal 56(12): 1209–1222.
Stafford Smith B, Coull A. 1991. Tall Building Structures: Analysis and Design. Wiley: New York.
Stafford Smith B, Kuster M, Hoenderkamp JCD. 1981. A generalized approach to the deflection analysis of braced
frame, rigid frame and coupled wall structures. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 8(2): 230–240.
Swaddiwudhipong S, Lee SL, Zhou Q. 2001. Effect of axial deformation on vibration of tall buildings. Structural
Design of Tall Buildings 10: 79–91.
Swaddiwudhipong S, Sidji S, Lee SL. 2002. The effects of axial deformation and axial force on vibration char-
acteristics of tall buildings. Structural Design of Tall Buildings 11: 309–328.
Taranath BS. 1988. Structural Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings. McGraw-Hill: New York.
Taranath BS. 1997. Steel, Concrete and Composite Design of Tall Buildings. McGraw-Hill: New York.
DOI: 10.1002/tal

An Analytical Model For High-Rise Wall-Frame Structures With Outriggers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Analytical Model For High-Rise Wall-Frame Structures With Outriggers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 839–851 (2008)

AN ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR HIGH-RISE WALL-FRAME

JAEHONG LEE1*, MINSIK BANG1 AND JAE-YEOL KIM2

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2. GOVERNING EQUATIONS OF WALL-FRAME STRUCTURES

Similarly, the displacement field for the frame can be expressed as

Similarly, the linear strains of the frame can also be given as

Figure 1. Deformed configuration of wall-frame structures

Qxzw = GAw ( ddwx + ψ )

where q is transverse load.

The principle of total potential energy can be stated as

The essential and natural boundary conditions are of the form

3. MODELING OF OUTRIGGER TRUSS

Figure 2. Modeling of outriggers as rotational springs

where EIo is the flexural stiffness of the outrigger.

4. FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION

 K11 K12 K13   w   f1 

The explicit form of [K] is given by

In Equation (22), {f1} is the force vector given by

GAw = 3⋅24 × 108 kN (25a)

EI w = 1⋅03 × 1010 kNm 2 (25b)

GA f = 8⋅58 × 106 kN (25c)

EI f = 3⋅14 × 1011 kNm 2 (25d)

Figure 3. Plan of 72-story single-core wall-frame structure

Table 1. Moments of inertia of columns and girders

Interior column I Exterior column I Girder I

Figure 4. Lateral drift of a wall-frame structure under uniform lateral load

You might also like