Lateral Load-Resisting Systems 234

FIGURE 3.43 Burj Dubai, schematic plan.

3.12 SPINAL WALL SYSTEMS

In this relatively new system, well suited for ultra tall residential towers, shear walls are placed
along both sides of corridors. These walls, often referred to as “spine” walls, run through the
length of the fl oors to resist lateral loads acting parallel to the corridors. To resist loads in a
perpendicular direction, cross walls are placed in an orthogonal direction to the spine walls.
Interaction between the cross walls occurs through the interconnecting fl oor system and /or link
beams. To improve the torsional resistance, additional shear walls are placed around the elevator
and stair cores.
An outstanding example is the Burj Dubai, the “world’s tallest” building in Dubai, UAE
(Figure 3.43). The building is “Y”-shaped in plan. Each wing, with its own core and perimeter
columns, buttresses the others via a six-sided core or hub. Each tier of the building steps back in a
spiral pattern. Further discussion of this building is presented in Chapter 8. The architectural and
structural design is by the Chicago offi ce of Skidmore Owings and Merrill.

3.13 OUTRIGGER AND BELT WALL SYSTEM

The structural arrangement for this system consists of a main concrete core connected to exterior
columns by relatively stiff horizontal members such as a one or two-story deep walls commonly
referred to as outriggers. The core may be centrally located with outriggers extending on both
sides (Figure 3.44), or it may be located on one side of the building with outriggers extending to
the building columns on one side (Figure 3.45).
The basic structural response of the system is quite simple. When subjected to lateral loads, the
column-restrained outriggers resist the rotation of the core, causing the lateral defl ections and
moments in the core to be smaller than if the freestanding core alone resisted the loading. The
external moment is now resisted not by bending of the core alone, but also by the axial tension and
compression of the exterior columns connected to the outriggers. As a result, the effective depth of
the structure for resisting bending is increased when the core fl exes as a vertical cantilever, by the
development of tension in the windward columns, and by compression in the leeward columns.
In addition to those columns located at the ends of the outriggers, it is usual to also mobilize
other peripheral columns to assist in restraining the rotation of outriggers. This is achieved by
235 Reinforced Concrete Design of Tall Buildings

tying the exterior columns with a one- or two-story deep wall commonly referred to as a “belt
wall,” around the building.
Shear

FIGURE 3.44 Outrigger and belt wall system with centrally located core.

Shear
core

Outrigger

Exterior
columns

FIGURE 3.45 Outrigger and belt wall system with an offset core.

To achieve effi ciency, the outriggers and belt walls are made one—and often two—stories
deep with door-size openings in the outriggers for circulation. It is also possible to use vierendeel
frames extending through several fl oors to act as outriggers, as shown in Figure 3.46. Yet another
option is to use girders, such as haunch girders, at each fl oor (see Figure 3.47). It should be noted
that whereas the outrigger is effective in increasing the structure’s fl exural stiffness, it does not
increase resistance to shear, which must be carried only by the core.
To understand the behavior of an outrigger system, consider a building stiffened by a story-high
outrigger wall at top, as shown in Figure 3.48. Because the outrigger is at the top, the system is
often referred to as a cap or hat wall system. The tie-down action of the cap wall generates a
restoring couple at the building top, resulting in the occurrence of a point of contrafl exure some
distance from the top. The resulting reversal in curvature reduces the bending moment in the core
and hence the building drift.
Lateral Load-Resisting Systems 236

Although belt walls function as a horizontal fascia stiffener mobilizing other exterior columns,
for simplicity in explaining the structural behavior, we will assume that the cumulative effect of
the exterior columns may be represented by two equivalent columns, one at each end

Interior
shear wall

Two story deep

ductile vierendel frame

Shear wall
boundary elements

Shear base

FIGURE 3.46 Vierendeel frames acting as outrigger and belt wall system.

FIGURE 3.47 Haunch girders as outriggers.

of the outrigger wall. This idealization is not necessary in developing the theory, but keeps the
explanation simple.
The core may be considered as a single-redundant cantilever with the rotation restrained at the
top by the stretching and shortening of windward and leeward columns. The resultant of theses
237 Reinforced Concrete Design of Tall Buildings

forces is equivalent to a restoring couple opposing the rotation of the core. Therefore, the cap wall
may be conceptualized as a restraining spring located at the top of the shear core. Its rotational
stiffness may be defi ned as the restoring couple due to a unit rotation of the core at the top.
One-way joist system Concrete
or PT slab shear walls

Story-high
perimeter wall
(belt wall)

Story-high outrigger wall

(a)

Cap wall
Outrigger

Belt wall

Shear wall
External columns

Tension Compression
(b)

FIGURE 3.48 Cap wall system: (a) Plan and (b) Schematic section.

Assuming bending rigidity of the cap truss as infi nitely rigid, the axial elongation and
shortening of columns is simply equal to the rotation of the core multiplied by their respective
distances from the center of the core. If the distance of the equivalent columns is d/2 from the
center of the core, the axial deformation of the columns is then equal to θd/2, where θ is the
rotation of the core. Since the equivalent spring stiffness is calculated for unit rotation of the core
(i.e., θ = 1), the axial deformation of the equivalent columns is equal to 1 × d/2 = d/2 units. The
corresponding axial load is given by

P = AEd/2L

where
Lateral Load-Resisting Systems 238

P is the axial load in the column

A is the area of column E is the modulus of elasticity d is the distance between the exterior
columns (d/2 from the center of core to exterior columns) L is the height of the building

The restoring couple, that is, the rotational stiffness of the cap truss, is given by the axial load in
the equivalent columns multiplied by their distance from the center of the core. Using the notion K
for the rotational stiffness, and noting that there are two equivalent columns, each located at a
distance d/2 from the core, we get

K = P /2 2 × d ×
= Pd

AEd
Substituting P= we get
2L

AE d2

K =
L 2

The reduction in the building drift due to the presence of outrigger and belt walls depends on the
equivalent stiffness K of the system and the magnitude of rotation θ at the top.
Before proceeding with the calculations for drift reduction, let us ask ourself certain engaging
questions related to the interaction of the core with the outriggers located not at the top, but
somewhere up the height. How does the location of outriggers infl uence the building drift and
moment in the core? Is the top location the best for achieving maximum effi ciency? What if the
outrigger is moved toward the bottom, say, to the midheight of the building? Is there an optimum
location that reduces the drift to a minimum?
Before answering these rather intriguing questions, it is perhaps instructive to study the
behavior of the system with an outrigger located at specifi c heights of the building, say, at the top,
threequarters height, midheight, and one-quarter height.

3.13.1 DEFLECTION CALCULATIONS

3.13.1.1 Case 1: Outrigger Wall at the Top
The rotation compatibility condition at z = L (see Figure 3.49) can be written as

θ −θ = θw S L

(3.a)
239 Reinforced Concrete Design of Tall Buildings

Deflection
Moment
due to Moment in
outrigger
(c) (d) core with
outrigger
FIGURE 3.49 Outrigger located at top, z = L.
where Moment in
core without
θw is the rotation of the cantilever at z = L due to a
outrigger
uniform lateral load W (rad)
θS is the rotation due to spring restraint located at z = L
(rad). The negative sign for θS in Equation 3.a
indicates that the rotation of the cantilever due to the spring stiffness is in a direction
opposite to the rotation due to the external load
θL is the fi nal rotation of the cantilever at z = L (rad)

For a cantilever with uniform moment of inertia I and modulus of elasticity E subjected to
uniform horizontal load W

WL3
θ =w
6EI

If M1 and K1 represent the moment and stiffness of the spring located at z = L, Equation 3.a can
be rewritten as

WL3 M L1 = M 1
−
6EI EI K1

and

WL3/6EI
M1 = (3.b)
MK +
Lateral Load-Resisting Systems 240

1 L EI/

The resulting defl ection Δ1 at the building top can be obtained by superposing the defl ection of
the cantilever due to the external uniform load W, and the defl ection due to the moment induced
by the spring, thus

Δ = Δ1load − ΔLspring

= WL4 M L1 2
−
8EI 2EI L2 ⎛ WL2

= EI ⎜⎝ 4 − M1⎟⎠ (3.1)

3.13.1.2 Case 2: Outrigger Wall at Quarter-Height from the Top

The general expression for lateral defl ection y, at distance x measured from the top for a cantilever
subjected to a uniform lateral load (see Figure 3.50) is given by

W
y= (x4 − 4L x3 + 3L4)
24EI

Note that x is measured from the top and is equal to (L – z).

Differentiating the Equation above, with respect to x, the general expression for the slope of the
cantilever is given by dy W 3 − L3)
= (x dx 6EI
241 Reinforced Concrete Design of Tall Buildings

Moment in core with

Deflection
with

(a) (b) (c) (d)

FIGURE 3.50 Outrigger at quarter-height from top, z = 0.75L.

The slope at the spring location is given by substituting z = 3L/4, that is, x = L/4 in Equation 3.8.
Thus

dy ⎛ = 3L⎞⎟ = W ⎛ L3 ⎞ dx ⎝ z 4 ⎠
L3
6EI ⎜⎝ 64 − ⎟⎠
at
⎜

WL3 63
= ×
6EI 64

Using the notation M2 and K2 to represent the moment and the stiffness of spring at z = 3L/4, the
compatibility equation at location 2 can be written as

63
WL6EI3 ⎛⎝⎜ 64 ⎞⎟⎠ − MEI2 ⎛⎜⎝ 34L⎞⎟⎠ = MK22

Noting that K2 = 4K1/3, the expression for M2 can be written as

⎛ WL3/6EI ⎞ 63/64 ⎛ WL3/6EI ⎞

Lateral Load-Resisting Systems 242

Moment in core with

M2 1.31
= ⎜⎝ 1/K1 + L EI/ ⎟⎠ 3/4 = ⎝⎜ 1/K1 + L EI/ ⎟⎠

Noting that the terms in the parentheses represent M1, Equation 3.11 can be expressed in terms
of M1:

M2 =1.31M1

The drift is given by the relation

Δ =2WL8EI4 − M42EI3L ⎛⎜⎝L − 38L ⎟⎠⎞

or

L2 ⎛ WL2 ⎞
Δ =2 ⎜ −1.23M1 ⎟ (3.2)
2EI
⎝4 ⎠
Deflection
with
outrigger

outrigger

Moment
Deflection
due to Moment in
without
outrigger core without
outrigger
outrigger

(a) (b) (c) (d)

FIGURE 3.51 Outrigger at midheight, z = 0.5L.

3.13.1.3 Case 3: Outrigger Wall at Midheight

The rotation at z = L/2 due to external load W (see Figure 3.51) can be shown to be equal to
7WL3/48EI, resulting in the rotation compatibility equation

7WL3 − M L3 = M3
243 Reinforced Concrete Design of Tall Buildings

Moment in core with

48EI 2EI K3

where M3 and K3 represent the moment and stiffness of the spring at z = L/2. Noting that K3 = 2K1,
the equation for M3 works out as

⎛ WL3/6EI ⎞ 7
M3
= ⎜⎝ 1/K1 + L EI/ ⎟⎠ × 4

Since the equation in the parentheses is equal to M1, M3 can be expressed in terms of M1:

M3 =1.75M1

The drift is given by the equation

Δ =3WL8EI4M L2EI3 ⎛ − L ⎞⎟⎠

− ⎜⎝L 4

or

L2 ⎛ WL2 ⎞
Δ =3 ⎜ −1.31M1 ⎟ (3.3)
2EI
⎝4 ⎠

3.13.1.4 Case 4: Outrigger Wall at Quarter-Height from the Bottom

The rotation at z = L/4 due to the uniform lateral load (see Figure 3.52) can be shown to be equal
to WL3/6EI[(37/64)], giving the rotation compatibility equation

WL3 ⎛⎜⎝ 6437 ⎞− M L4= M4

Lateral Load-Resisting Systems 244

Moment in core with

6EI ⎟⎠ 4EI K4

outrigger

Moment Moment in
due to core without
outrigger outrigger

(a) (b) (c) (d)

FIGURE 3.52 Outrigger at quarter-height from bottom, z = 0.25L.

where M4 and K4 represent the moment and the stiffness of the spring at z = L/4. Noting that K4 =
4K1, M4 in Equation 3.19 can be expressed in terms of M1:

M4 = 2.3M1

The drift for this case is given by the expression

Δ =4WL8EI4M L4EI4 ⎛ − L ⎞⎟⎠

− ⎜⎝L 8
or

L2 ⎛ WL2 ⎞
Δ =4 ⎜ − M1 ⎟ (3.4)
2EI
⎝4 ⎠
Equations 3.1 through 3.4 give the building drift for the four selected locations of the belt and
outrigger walls. All these equations are in terms of M1 (see Equation 3.b). Thus, given the
following parameters:

1. Building height L, and distance d between the perimeter columns

2. Magnitude of uniformly distribute lateral load W 3. A, E, and I of the
equivalent perimeter columns
245 Reinforced Concrete Design of Tall Buildings

Moment in core with

we can determine the reduced lateral defl ection for the four selected locations of
belt and outrigger system.

3.13.2 OPTIMUM LOCATION OF A SINGLE OUTRIGGER WALL

The preceding analysis has indicated that the benefi cial action of outrigger is a function of two
distinct characteristics: (1) the stiffness of the equivalent spring; and (2) the magnitude of the
rotation of the cantilever at the spring location due to lateral loads. The spring stiffness, which is a
function of column length below the outrigger location, varies inversely as the distance of the
outrigger from the base. For example, the stiffness is at a minimum when the outrigger is located
at the top and a maximum when at the bottom. On the other hand, the rotation, θ, of the free
cantilever subjected to a uniformly distributed horizontal load varies parabolically with a
maximum value at the top
Lateral Load-Resisting Systems 246

to zero at the bottom. Therefore, from the point of view of spring stiffness, it is desirable to locate
the outrigger at the bottom, whereas from consideration of its rotation, the converse is true. It must
therefore be obvious that the optimum location is somewhere in between.
To search for the optimum location of a single outrigger, we start with the following assumptions:

1. The building is prismatic and vertically is uniform; that is, the perimeter columns have a
constant area and the core has a constant moment of inertia for the full height.
2. The outrigger and the belt walls are fl exurally rigid.
3. The lateral resistance is provided only by the bending resistance of the core and the tiedown
action of the exterior columns.
4. The core is rigidly fi xed at the base.
5. The rotation of the core due to its shear deformation is negligible.
6. The lateral load is constant for the full height.
7. The exterior columns are pin-connected at the base.

Consider Figure 3.53, which shows schematics of a single outrigger located at a distance x from
the building top. To evaluate the optimum location, fi rst the restoring moment Mx of the outrigger
located at x is evaluated. Next, an algebraic equation for the defl ection of the core at the top due
to Mx is derived. Differentiating this equation and equating a zero results in a third-degree
polynomial, the solution of which yields the outrigger optimum location corresponding to the
minimum defl ection of the building at top due to external load. The details are as follows.
The rotation θ of the cantilever at a distance x from the top, due to uniformly distributed load w,
is given by the relation

θ= W (x3 − L3)
EI

The rotation at the top due to the restoring couple Mx is given by the relation

Mx
θ= (L − x )
EI

x =0.45H

Outrigger

H Belt
wall Interior
shear wall

Exterior
columns
Shear base
247 Reinforced Concrete Design of Tall Buildings

FIGURE 3.53 Outrigger at distance x from top.

The rotation compatibility relation at x is given by

W (x3 − L3)− M x (L − x ) = Mx
6EI EI Kx

where
W is the intensity of lateral load per unit height of the building
Mx is the resorting moment due to outrigger restraint
Kx is the spring stiffness at x equal to AE (L − x) × (d2/2)
E is the modulus of elasticity of the core
I is the moment of inertia of the core
A is the area of the perimeter columns
L is the height of the building
x is the location of truss measured from the top d
is the distance out-to-out of perimeter columns
Next, obtain the defl ection at the top due to Mx:

YM = Mx(L − x)(L + x)
2EI

From our defi nition, the optimum location of the outrigger is that location for which the defl
ection YM is a maximum. This is obtained by substituting for Mx into the equation above and
differentiating with respect to x and equating to zero. Thus, dy/dx of

⎡⎢
⎤
12W x( ) (( 32−1L/3AE)(L++1/xEI) )
=0⎥
⎣ EI ⎦

Simplifying this equation, we get a cubic equation in x:

4x3 +3x L2 − L3 = 0

This cubic equation has a single positive root, x = 0.445L. The solution is by trial-and-error.
Therefore, to minimize drift, the outrigger must be located at a distance x = 0.455L form the top
or, say, approximately at midheight of the building.
In the preceding discussion, several assumptions were necessary to simplify the problem for
hand calculations. However, in a practical building, many of these assumptions are rarely satisfi
ed. For example:

• The lateral load does not remain constant up the building height. It varies in a trapezoidal
or triangular manner, the former representative of wind loads and the latter, seismic
loads.
Lateral Load-Resisting Systems 248

• The cross-sectional areas of both the exterior columns and interior shear walls typically
reduce up the building height. A linear variation is perhaps more representative of a
practical building column, particularly so for a tall building of say, 40-plus stories.
• As the areas of core columns decrease up the height, so does the moment of inertia of the
core. Therefore, a linear variation of the moment of inertia of the core, up the height is
more appropriate.

Incorporating the aforementioned modifi cations aligns the analytical model closer to a practical
structure, but renders the hand calculations all but impossible. Therefore, a computer-assisted
Wind load varies from
20 psf at
bottom to 26
psf at top

4 @ 25 ft=100 ft

17 ft 17 ft
@ 25 ft=150 ft

Braced
core

Belt truss

Outrigger trusses

WF columns typical
249 Reinforced Concrete Design of Tall Buildings

WF beams and girders

typical

FIGURE 3.54 Schematic plan of a steel building with outriggers and belt trusses at a single level.

analysis has been performed on a representative 46-story steel building using the modifi ed
assumptions previously mentioned. A schematic plan of the building, its concrete version, and an
elevation of the idealized structural system, subject to lateral loading are shown in Figures 3.54
through 3.56. The lateral defl ections at the building top are shown in a graphical format in Figure
3.57 for various outrigger locations.
The defl ections shown in a nondimensional format in Figure 3.57 are relative to that of the
core without the outrigger. Thus, the vertical ordinate with a value of unity at the extreme right of
Figure 3.57 is the defl ection of the building without the restraining effects of the outrigger. The
defl ections including the effect of the outriggers are shown in curve designed “S.” This curve is
obtained by successively varying the outrigger location starting at the very top and progressively
lowering its location in single-story increments, down through the building height.
It is seen that lowering the outrigger down from its top location decreases the building drift
progressively until the outrigger reaches level 26. Moving it either above or below this “optimum
location” only reduces its effi ciency. Observe that this level is at distance (46 − 26/46)L =
0.435L from the top, very close to the optimum location of x = 0.455L for the building with
uniform characteristics. Furthermore, it can be seen from Figure 3.57 that the effi ciency of the
outrigger placed at midheight; that is, at level 23, is very close to that when it is at the optimum
location. Therefore, as a rule of thumb, the optimum location for a single outrigger may be
considered at midheight.
Observe that when the outrigger is at the top, the building drift is reduced to nearly half the defl
ection of the unrestrained core. Thus, for example, if the drift of the unrestrained core is, say, 20
in. at the top, the corresponding defl ection with an outrigger at level 46 is reduced to 0.48 × 20 =
9.6 in. A rather impressive reduction indeed, but what is more important is that the defl ection
continues to reduce as the outrigger is lowered from level 46 downward. The defl ection reaches a
Lateral Load-Resisting Systems 250

Wind load varies from

(20 psf at bottom to 26 psf at top
)

Belt wall
4 @ 25 ft=100 ft

Outriggers

@ 25 ft=150 ft

Concrete columns
6

Two-way
slab
Shear
walls

FIGURE 3.55 Schematic plan of a concrete building with outriggers and belt walls at a single level.

stories

46

FIGURE 3.56 Schematic section showing outriggers and belt walls at a single level.
251 Reinforced Concrete Design of Tall Buildings

0.48
0.2outrigger
Story number for 0.4 location
0.6 0.8 1.0
46
Deflection index
without belt
40
0.25 wall system
36
32
26
24
20 s Single level outrigger
16 and belt wall

12
8

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Deflection index (DI)

FIGURE 3.57 Defl ection index verses outrigger and belt wall location.

Note: DI = Deflection
without outrigger . Deflection with
outrigger

minimum value of 0.25 × 20 = 5 in. as shown in Figure 3.57 when the outrigger is placed at the
optimum location, level 26. Further lowering of the outrigger will not reduce the drift, but
increases it. Its benefi cial effect vanishes to nearly nothing when placed very close to the bottom
of the building, say, at level 2 of the example problem.
Using the results of the example problem, the following conclusions can be drawn:

• Given a choice, the best location for a single outrigger is at about midheight of the
building.
• An outrigger placed at top, acting as a cap or hat wall, is about 50 % less effi cient than that
placed at midheight. However, in many practical situations, it may be more permissible to
locate the outrigger at the building top. Therefore, although not as effi cient as when at
midheight, the benefi ts of a cap truss are nevertheless quite impressive, resulting in up to a
50% reduction in building drift.

3.13.3 OPTIMUM LOCATIONS OF TWO OUTRIGGER WALLS

In the preceding conceptual analyses, only one compatibility equation was necessary because the
one-outrigger structure is once-redundant. On the other hand, a two-outrigger structure is
twiceredundant, requiring a solution of two compatibility equations. To seek a solution to the
problem, we proceed as before assuming the sectional areas of the exterior columns and the
moment of inertia of the core decrease linearly up the height. A trapezoidal distribution is
assumed, as before, for the lateral load. Schematics of conceptual analytical model and behavior of
the structural system are shown in Figures 3.58 through 3.61.
Lateral Load-Resisting Systems 252

The method of analysis for calculating the defl ections at the top is similar to that used for the
single outrigger. The moments at the outrigger locations are chosen as the unknown arbitrary
constants M1 and M2, see Figure 3.60. The structure is then rendered statically determinate by
removing the rotational restraints at the outrigger
locations. Next, the compatibility equations for the
rotations at the truss locations are set up and solved
simultaneously to obtain the values to M1 and M2. The fi nal
defl ection at the top is obtained by a superposition of the
defl ection due
Braced
core

Belt trusses

Outrigger arms

Exterior tie-down columns

FIGURE 3.58 Structural schematics; building with outrigger and belt walls at two locations.
253 Reinforced Concrete Design of Tall Buildings

stories

46

FIGURE 3.59 Analytical model of a building with outriggers and belt walls at two locations.
Lateral Load-Resisting Systems 254

loading

FIGURE 3.60 Method of analysis for two outrigger system: (a) Two-outrigger structure, (b) external moment
diagram, (c) M1 diagram, (d) M2 diagram, and (e) core resultant moment diagram.

to the external load and a counteracting defl ection due to the moments M1 and M2. The resulting
defl ections are summarized in Figure 3.61.
The building defl ection at top for a given location of the two outriggers is presented for three
conditions by assuming that the lateral loads are resisted by (1) core alone; (2) core acting together
with a single outrigger; and (3) core acting in conjunction with two outriggers.
As before, the vertical ordinate shown with a value of unity at the extreme right of Figure 3.61
is the defl ection index at the top derived by neglecting the restraining effect of the outriggers. The
resistance is provided by the cantilever action of the braced core alone. Curve S represents the top
defl ection of the core restrained by a single outrigger located anywhere up the height of the
structure.
The curves designated as 4, 8, …, 46 represent the defl ections at the top for two outriggers
located anywhere up the height of the structure. To plot each curve, the location of the upper
outrigger was considered fi xed in relation to the building height, while the location of the lower
outrigger was moved in single-story increments, starting from the fl oor immediately below the top
outrigger.
The number designations of the curves represent the fl oor number at which the upper outrigger
is located. The second outrigger location is shown by story levels on the vertical axis. The
horizontal distance between the curves and the vertical axis is the relative building drift for the
particular combination of outrigger locations given by the curve designation and the story level.
For example, let us assume that the relative defl ection at the top is desired for a combination (20,
255 Reinforced Concrete Design of Tall Buildings

15), the numbers 20 and 15 representing the fl oors at which the upper and lower outriggers are
located. To fi nd the defl ection index for this particular combination, the procedure is to select the
curve with the
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
46
46 Deflection index
without belt
40 truss system
40
36 X X1
36
32
Optimum
location 32
outrigger
26 locations
Story number for
(36, 23) 28
24
O O1 24
20
S Single belt truss
20
16
H1
H
16
12 (20, 15)
12
8
(28, 4)
K K1 8
4
4

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Deflection index

FIGURE 3.61 Defl ection index verses belt wall and outrigger locations.

designation 20, go down the vertical axis to level 15, and draw a horizontal line from this level to
curve 20. The required relative top defl ection is the horizontal distance between level 15 and
curve 20 (distance HH1 in Figure 3.60). Similarly, the length KK1 gives the relative defl ection at
the top for the combination (28, 4). It is seen from Figure 3.60 that the relative location of the
outriggers has a signifi cant effect on controlling the drift. Furthermore, it is evident that a defl
ection very nearly equal to the minimum can be achieved by placing the trusses at levels other than
at their optimum locations. For the example building, a relative defl ection of 0.15, which differs
negligibly from the optimum value of 0.13, is achieved by placing the outriggers at (40, 23), (32,
33), etc.

3.13.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPTIMUM LOCATIONS

Based on conceptual study presented thus for, the following recommendations are made for
optimum locations for outriggers. As stated previously the primary purpose to minimize the lateral
drift.
• The optimum location for a single outrigger is, perhaps unexpectedly, not at the top. The
reduction in the drift with the outriggers located at top is about 50%, as compared to a
maximum of 75% achievable by placing it at approximately midheight. However, since
other architectural requirements take precedence in a structural layout, the benefi ts of
placing a truss at the top are still worth pursing.
Lateral Load-Resisting Systems 256

• A two-outrigger structure appears to offer more options in the placements of outriggers.

Reductions in building defl ections close to the optimum results may be achieved with
outriggers placed at levels entirely different from the optimum locations. Thus, the
engineer and architect have some leeway in choosing the outrigger locations. However,
as a rule of thumb, the optimum location for a two-outrigger structure is at one-third and
two-third heights. And for a three-rigger system, they should be at the one-quarter, one-
half, and three-quarter heights, and so on. Therefore, for the optimum performance on an
outrigger

FIGURE 3.62 Optimum location of outriggers, (a) single outrigger, (b) two outriggers, (c) three outriggers, and
(d) four outriggers.

structure, the outriggers should be placed at (1/n + 1), (2/n + 1), (3/n + 1), (4/n + 1), …,
(n/n + 1) height locations. For example, in an 80-story building with four outriggers (i.e.,
n = 4), the optimum locations are at the 16th, 32nd, 48th, and 64th levels. A summary of
the recommendations is shown in Figure 3.62.

Although the analysis presented thus far is for a steel building, the author believes that the
conculsions are applicable equally to reinforced concrete buildings.

3.14 MISCELLANEOUS SYSTEMS

Figure 3.62 shows a building with a high plan aspect ratio. Buildings of this type tend to be ineffi
cient in resisting lateral loads because of shear lag effects. However, by introducing a limited
number of interior columns (three at every other fl oor in the example building shown in Figure
3.63),
257 Reinforced Concrete Design of Tall Buildings

FIGURE 3.63 Cellular tube with interior vierendeel frames.