INTRODUCTION

 Tall building development is rapidly increasing around the world, posing new
challenges that must be met through engineering judgement. Lateral loads
induced by wind or earthquake are frequently resisted in modern tall
buildings by a system of coupled shear walls.
 However, as the structure of building rises in height, the structure's stiffnes
becomes increasingly significant, necessitating the adoption of a lateral load
resisting system to give adequate lateral stiffnes.
 The dyanamic load resisting system effectively controls excess laterals load
drift, lowering the risk of structural and non-structural damage caused by
small or medium lateral loads caused by wind or earthquake. This system is
chosen as an appropriate structure for high-rise buildings, especially those in
seismically active zones or wind-load- dominant areas
 From over course of the twentieth century, advances in concrete technology,
including materials, structural systems, analyse, and constructions processes,
made it feasible create concrete high structures. The primary needs of the
building are met by structural systems.The influence of laterals load, such as
wind & earthquake, on the structure of a buildings rises as it grows in height.
Tall buildings are subjected to wind and seismic forces. become an essential
design consideration. Tall structures' structural systems can be improved to
regulate their dynamic response.

 Building deflection is influenced by earthquakes and wind loads. A concrete

core has been installed at the centre of the building to counteract lateral loads
caused by earthquakes and wind. Concrete core is an extremely efficient and
practical structural method for decreasing bending caused by seismic and
wind stresses. The hybrid frame-concrete core wall structure has grown in
popularity in recent years, with owners worried about its performance and
cost savings.
LITERATURE REVIEW
A research work carried out by Shivancharan K, Chandrakala S, Narayan G, Karthik in their
paper entitled “ANALYSIS OF OUTRIGGER SYSTEM FOR HIGH VERTICAL
IRREGULARITES STRUCTURES SUBJECTED TO LATERAL LOAD”. In this
investigation the author has analyzed a G+30 storey building with vertical irregularity for zone V
of IS 1893:2002 by using E-tabs. The three-dimensional structure is designed to withstand gravity
loads such as dead load, live load, and floor load. Then outriggers is placed at certain height and
drift and deflection is checked. Then the outrigger position is fix as the first position of outrigger,
then the second outrigger position is fix by varying its position and simultaneously checking the
drift and deflection. The author analyzed the building by equivalent static method for wind and
earthquake and has calculated the building performance for lateral displacement and storey drift.
From the study it was observed that first The best outrigger position was 0.67H and second
optimum position was observed to be compatible at 0.5H. When compared to the bare frame, one
position outrigger at 0.67 height controls 29.8 percent and 36.9 percent of the deflection and drift,
respectively. When compared to the bare frame, outriggers with belt truss control 45.1 percent
and 40 percent of the Deflection and drift, respectively. By comparing the first and second
positions of the building's outrigger systems, a 13 percent and 14.64 percent of the deflection and
drift are controlled. The outrigger's optimal location is between 0.5 times its heights.
 A study on “INFLUENCE OF THE OUTRIGGER IN RC STRUCTURES FOR
DIFFERENT SEISMIC ZONES” was carried out by M.R Suresh, Pradeep K.M. In this
research work the scholar has analyzed a 30 storey RC-frame building. Outriggers system is
considered at various points along the building's height (H), such as 0.25H, 0.5H, 0.75H, and 1H.
Depths of Outrigger beams were increased according to ratio of do/d from 1 to 5 ETABS finite
element software is used for modelling and analysis. The equivalent static method is used in the
analysis, and loads are taken into account in accordance with Indian standards. IS: 875(Part 1):
1987, IS: 875(Part 2): 1987, and IS: 1893(Part-1): 2002

 According to the findings of the study, the lateral displacement was controlled by 60% to about
65% for the various models with varying depths of outriggers for all the seismic zones. The drift
controlled was about 60% to 65% for all the models for ZONE II and about 62% to 67%of drift is
controlled by various models for ZONE III, ZONE IV and ZONE V.
 Abdul Kareem and Srinivas B. carried out research work on “A STUDY ON OUTRIGGER
SYSTEM IN A HIGH RISE R.C STRUCTURE WITH STEEL BRACING” In this
investigation the scholar has analyzed a G+20 storey building for all the zones given in the
code by Analysis methods include the Equivalent Static Method and the Response Spectrum
Method.. This study contains a comparison study on regular buildings with and without
outriggers, as well as irregular buildings with and without outriggers, using a centrally rigid
shear wall and steel bracings as outriggers. The results for base shear and inter storey drifts are
studied in this research.

 From the study, it was concluded that 20% of lateral displacement was reduced when the
outrigger is introduced for a regular building and 19% of displacement for irregular building
was reduced, by Equivalent Static Method. In Response Spectrum Analysis, it was observed
about 11% and 7% top storey displacement was controlled by outriggers for regular and
irregular building respectively. The base shear in regular and irregular buildings without
outriggers is less than in regular and irregular buildings with outriggers. with outriggers in
equivalent static and response spectrum method by 20% and 10% respectively for all seismic
zones. From the above observations it can concluded that outriggers system proves to be
effective in reducing lateral displacement in a regular building as compared to irregular
building.
 “A PERFORMANCE BASED STUDY ON STATIC AND DYNAMIC BEHAVIOUR OF
OUTRIGGER STRUCTURAL SYSTEM FOR VERTICAL STRUCTURE” by
Prateekh N. Biradar & Mallikarjuna S. Bhandiwad. In this study, the researchers looked at a
3D 40 -story structure with three bay in the X-direction and three bay in Y-direction, as well as
a core shear wall of 7m x 8m. The outriggers is .5 m x 3.5 m in size, & ISLB 200 steel used for
belt truss and outrigger bracing. Outrigger bracing and belt truss have an X form.. The models
studied are
 A bare frame with concrete core wall without outriggers

 Four models are modeled by keeping one outrigger at 40th storey position and varying

the other outrigger’s position at 6th, 10th. 16th and 20th storey.
 Four more models were modeled by keeping one outriggers position at 20th storey and

varying the other outrigger’s position at 20th, 26th, 30th and 36th storey. Similarly
modeling a total of 17 models were studied for outrigger bracing with belt truss.
From the study, it is concluded that the model with outriggers placed at 20th and 26th proved to be
efficient in reducing lateral displacement with maximum percentage reduction of 15.02% for
Earthquake load, and 15.77% reduction for Wind load.
OBJECTIVES
 To investigate the impact of implementing outriggers in high-
rise buildings being subjected to dynamic loading
 To investigate the impact of the core wall and braced outriggers
on all four sides of building.
 To study effectiveness of each structural system on the
building , overall stiffness against lateral load
 To investigate the best location for an outrigger in a high-rise
building.
 Study the influence of x-bracing in outrigger
 To investigate Displacement, storey drift, base shear, time
period, and other parameters and overturning moments, among
others.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
LATERAL DISPLACEMENT

Graph 1: Comparison of Lateral Displacement for Various Models along Longitudinal Direction by Equivalent Static
Method

Graph 2: Comparison of Lateral Displacement for Various Models along Traverse Direction by Equivalent Static Method
Graph 3: Comparison of Lateral Displacement for Various Models along Longitudinal Direction by Response Spectrum
Method

Graph 4: Comparison of Lateral Displacement for Various Models along Traverse Direction by Response Spectrum Method
Table 1: Maximum Displacements (mm) By Equivalent Static Method and Response Spectrum
Method along Longitudinal and Traverse Direction

TOP STOREY DISPLACEMENT (mm)

MODEL Equivalent Static Method Response spectrum method

EQX EQY RSX RSY

1 148.821 162.333 112.797 112.797

2 116.951 128.632 80.544 84.192

3 114.95 127.071 79.028 83.032

4 112.103 124.704 77.683 82.033

5 109.851 122.847 75.984 80.754

6 104.729 118.07 72.993 77.907

7 92.159 97.14 62.858 63.884

8 91.399 96.576 62.818 63.885

9 91.933 96.941 63.515 64.35

10 87.366 93.741 63.016 64.894

STOREY DRIFT

Graph 5: Comparison of Storey Drift for Various Models along Longitudinal Direction by Equivalent Static
Method

Graph 6.: Comparison of Storey Drift for Various Models along Traverse Direction by Equivalent Static Method
Graph 7: Comparison of Storey Drift for Various Models along Longitudinal Direction by Response Spectrum Method

Graph 8: Comparison of Storey Drift for Various Models along Traverse Direction by Response Spectrum Method
Table 2: Maximum Storey Drifts by Equivalent Static Method and Response Spectrum Method along
Longitudinal and Traverse Direction

MAXIMUM STOREY DRIFTS

  Equivalent Static Method Response spectrum method
MODEL
EQX EQY RSX RSY
  0.00194 0.00209 0.001655 0.00163
1

2 0.00152 0.00165 0.0011 0.00112

3 0.00151 0.00164 0.0011 0.00112

4 0.00151 0.00164 0.0011 0.00112

5 0.00144 0.00158 0.00107 0.00109

6 0.00144 0.00157 0.00107 0.00109

7 0.00115 0.00121 0.00081 0.00081

8 0.00115 0.00112 0.00081 0.00081

9 0.00108 0.00117 0.0008 0.0008

 
10
0.00105 0.00119 0.00082 0.00082
BASE SHEAR

Table 3 : Base Shear by Equivalent Static Method and Response Spectrum Method along Longitudinal and
Traverse Direction

BASE SHEAR
     
  Equivalent Static Method Response spectrum method
MODEL

EQX EQY RSX RSY

1 5044.1967 5044.1967 5141.745 5141.708

2 4991.5257 4991.5257 5088.008 5088.192

3 4992.3817 4992.3817 5088.965 5088.809
4 4992.3817 4992.3817 5088.637 5088.892
5 4992.3817 4992.3817 5089.008 5088.988

6 5035.5289 4994.0936 5132.959 5090.698

7 6035.6292 5982.4479 6152.477 6098.15

8 6083.6976 6014.6664 6201.375 6130.695

9 6143.6985 6054.7718 6262.73 6171.859

10 6258.2614 6127.9986 6379.174 6246.661

 Graph 9: Base Shear Comparison for Various Models by Equivalent Static Method and Response Spectrum
Method along Longitudinal Direction

Graph 10: Base Shear Comparison for Various Models by Equivalent Static Method and Response Spectrum
Method along Traverse Direction
FUNDAMENTAL TIME PERIOD

MODEL TIME PERIOD (SEC)

1 4.825

2 4.21

3 4.203

4 4.175

5 4.115

6 4.08

7 3.355

8 3.337

9 3.315

10 3.275
OVERTURNING MOMENTS

Graph 11: Comparison of Overturning Moments for Various Models by Equivalent Static Method
Graph 12: Comparison of Overturning Moments for Various Models by Response Spectrum Method
Table 4: Comparison of Over Turning Moments By Equivalent Static Method And Response Spectrum
Method

OVER TURNING
MOMENTS
     
     
MODE EQUIVALENT STATIC METHOD RESPONSE SPECTRUM
L METHOD

1 385288 314893

2 381473 381473

3 381597 280124

4 381540 281380

5 381522 281441

6 381625 287006

7 457223 326124

8 459663 329429

9 462720 333080

10 468998 350244
Graph 13: Comparison of Over Turning Moments By Equivalent Static Method And Response
Spectrum Method
OBSERVATIONS
 It has been discovered that 21.71% of top storie displacement & 21.65% of The maximum
amount of storey drift is controlled by providing core wall as compared to bare frame, 29.73% of
storey displacement at top and 25.77% Outriggers at the top are used to control maximum storey
drift, 3/4 and mid height and 41.29% of storey displacement at top & 45.87% of The maximum
amount of storey drift is managed by providing outriggers and x bracing
 Also 10.45% of top displacement & 5.26% of storey drifts is reduced if bare frame with central
wall (Model 2) compared with outriggers X-braced type (Model 6).
 The Base Shear increased by 25.37% by providing outrigger with x bracing as compared to core
wall with no outrigger and bracing
 The overturning moment is increased by 25.37% by providing outrigger with x bracing as
compared to core wall with no outrigger and bracing.
 The natural period decreases as the stiffness of the building increases, resulting in an increase in
frequency.
 In comparison to other Outrigger shapes, the building frame with X-braced Outriggers will have
the least amount of lateral displacement.
CONCLUSIONS
  The X-braced Outriggers are very effective because they have minimal lateral displacement.
 The outrigger system and belt truss are used in high-rise buildings provide increased stiffness and
efficiency when subjected to winds or seismic load.
  When the outriggers system is used, the lateral deflection or displacement at the level structure's
top is much lower when the outriggers systems is not used.
  Because of the minimum deflection caused by the to control less movement conditions, an
outrigger system is used to control the specified condition of the shear wall at the structure's
centre.
  The maximum lateral displacement in 32-story structures subjected to earthquake lateral load is
reduced by 29.73 percent, and storey drift is reduced by 25.77 percent.
  The model 9 has the highest base shear of any of the model structures.
  The outrigger structure system can support up to a 50-story building.
  Where the zone is extremely severe, this outrigger system or belt truss system of structures can
be used.
REFERENCES
 Krunal Z. Mistry, Prof. 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.
 Akshay Khanorkar, Shruti Sukhdeve, S. V. Denge & S. P. Raut, “Outrigger and Belt Truss System for
Tall Building to Control Deflection: A Review” GRD Journals- Global Research and Development
Journal for Engineering | Volume 1 | Issue 6 | May 2016.
 P.S. Kian and F.T.Siahaan, “The use of outrigger and belt truss system for high-rise concrete buildings”.
Dimensi Teknit Sipil, Volume 3, No1, Maret 2001, Page 36-41,ISSN1410-9530.
 R. S. Nair, “Belt Trusses and Basements as ‘Virtual’ Outriggers for Tall Buildings”. Engineering Journal
/ Fourth Quarter/ 1998.
 Shivacharan K, Chandrakala S, Narayana G, Karthik N.M., “Analysis of Outrigger System for Tall
Vertical Irregularites Structures Subjected to Lateral Loads” IJRET: International Journal of Research in
Engineering and Technology, Volume: 04 Issue: 05 | May- 2015.
 M.R Suresh, Pradeep K.M, “Influence of Outrigger System in RC Structures for Different Seismic
Zones” IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific Research & Development| Vol. 3, Issue 05, 2015 |
ISSN (online): 2321-0613
 Abdul Karim Mullah, Srinivas B. N, “A Study on Outrigger System in a Tall R.C Structure with Steel
Bracing” International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), Vol. 4 Issue 07, July-
2015.