THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 73–87 (2004)

Published online in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI:10.1002/tal.235

SHEAR WALL WITH OUTRIGGER TRUSSES ON WALL AND

COLUMN FOUNDATIONS

J. C. D. HOENDERKAMP
Department of Architecture and Building, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

SUMMARY
A graphical method of analysis is presented for preliminary design of outrigger truss-braced high-rise shear wall
structures with non-fixed foundation conditions subject to horizontal loading. The method requires the calcula-
tion of six structural parameters: bending stiffness for the shear wall, bending and racking shear stiffnesses for
the outrigger, an overall bending stiffness contribution from the exterior columns, and rotational stiffnesses for
the shear wall and column foundations.
The method of analysis employs a simple procedure for obtaining the optimum location of the outrigger up
the height of the structure and a rapid assessment of the influence of the individual structural elements on the
lateral deflections and bending moments of the high-rise structure. It is concluded that all six stiffnesses should
be included in the preliminary analysis of a proposed tall building structure as the optimum location of the out-
rigger as well as the reductions in horizontal deformations and internal forces in the structure can be significantly
influenced by all the structural components. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1. INTRODUCTION
The outrigger-braced high-rise shear wall shown in Figure 1 consists of a centrally located wall with
two equal-length trusses positioned at a distance x from the top of the structure. The outriggers connect
the shear wall to columns in the façade of the structure. This way the horizontally applied load will
force the wall to behave compositely with the exterior structure by introducing axial forces in the
columns. These forces form a restraining moment which is in the oposite direction to the bending
moment from the horizontal load. This effect will decrease the bending moments in the wall from out-
rigger level down to the base and it will reduce the horizontal deflections of the structure. The bending
moments in the shear wall and axial forces in the columns are resisted by foundation structures on
piles which are indicated by translational springs. Combined with the laterally applied loading the
restraining moment will force a triple curvature in the wall up the height and double curvature in the
trusses as shown in Figure 1.
In the horizontal deflection analysis of outrigger-braced shear walls on fixed foundations it has been
shown (Stafford Smith and Coull, 1991; Stafford Smith and Salim, 1981) that the wall can be repre-
sented by a single flexural stiffness parameter. The outriggers were assumed to be prismatic members
rigidly connected to the wall and hinge connected to the exterior columns. The resulting single cur-
vature behaviour of these flexural members was represented by a single bending stiffness parameter.

* Correspondence to: J. C. D. Hoenderkamp, Department of Architecture and Building, Structural Design Group, Eindhoven
University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, Route 7 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
E-mail: j.c.d.hoenderkamp@bwk.tue.nl

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received January 2003
Accepted February 2003
74 J. C. D. HOENDERKAMP

x
outrigger outrigger
h

H
facade shear facade
column wall column

piles ground level

deflected shape
b c c b

Figure 1. Shear wall with outrigger trusses

It was further taken that the columns are pin connected to a fixed foundation and could thus be rep-
resented by a parameter which represents the axial stiffnesses of the columns only. With three stiff-
ness parameters representing the wall, outriggers and exterior columns it was possible to combine
them in a single dimensionless parameter which allowed a graphical procedure to obtain the optimum
location of the outriggers such that they would cause the largest reduction in horizontal deflection at
the top of the structure.
Figure 1 also shows simplified models for the foundations of the central shear wall and exterior
columns. In the structural analysis the individual elements are only subjected to forces resulting from
horizontal loading on the structure. The foundations under the pin-connected façade columns are taken
to be piled foundations which act in a vertical direction only. They are modelled as linear springs. The
shear wall foundation is only subjected to a bending moment. The net axial load on this foundation
as a result of lateral loading is zero as it is positioned in the centre of a symmetric structure. The foun-
dation of the wall can thus be modelled by a rotational spring with a rotational spring constant. The
outriggers consist of trusses of which the deformations due to shear cannot be ignored. The shear stiff-
ness of the trusses in addition to their flexural stiffness must be included in the analysis. In order to
allow the truss to be subjected to flexural deformations it will be necessary to assume the structural
floors of the building to be connected to the trusses at the exterior columns and shear wall locations
only; i.e. the floor structure is not part of the outrigger structure but it will cause the shear wall and
exterior columns to have identical rotations at all floor levels. Further simplifying assumptions are:
the structure behaves linear elastically; the sectional properties of the shear wall, exterior columns and
outriggers are uniform througout their height or length; and the distribution of the lateral loading is
uniformly distributed along the height of the structure.
A compatibility equation is to be developed for the rotations in the wall and outrigger at the inter-
section of the neutral line of the outriggers and the face of the shear wall. This leads to an expression

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 73–87 (2004)
 SHEAR WALL WITH OUTRIGGER TRUSSES 75

for the restraining moment allowing the reduction in horizontal deflection at the top to be determined.
Maximizing this reduction will yield the optimum location of the outrigger.

2. SHEAR WALL
The rotations in the shear wall are the result of a uniformly distributed horizontal load w, and a restrain-
ing moment M caused by a reverse action of the outriggers. They will cause rotations at outrigger
level due to bending in the wall and rotation of the wall foundation as presented in Figure 2. For the
shear walls it will be assumed that plane sections remain plane in bending so that the rotations at the
shear wall centre line are identical to those at the face of the wall.

2.1 Rotations due to lateral loading w

The rotation in the reinforced concrete shear wall at level x can quite simply be expressed as follows:

w( H 3 - x 3 )
q s ; b ;w = (1)
6 EIs

where H is the total height of the structure, x is the distance measured from the top of the stucture and
EIs is the flexural stiffness of the shear wall. The rotation of the wall due to the rotation of its foun-
dation is

wH 2
q s ;Cs ;w = (2)
2Cs

in which Cs is the rotational stiffness of the shear wall foundation.

2.2 Rotations due to restraining moment M

The rotation in the shear wall at level x as a result of bending in the wall is given by

M ( H - x)
q s ;b ;M = - (3)
EIs

qs;b;w qs;b;M qs;Cs;w qs;Cs;M

x

EIs EIs
Cs Cs

Figure 2. Rotations in shear wall

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 73–87 (2004)
76 J. C. D. HOENDERKAMP

The rotation of the shear wall and its foundation are

M
q s ;Cs ;M = - (4)
Cs

It is noted here that the rotations caused by restraining moment M are in the opposite direction to those
by horizontal load w.

3. OUTRIGGER
The rotations in the outrigger due to the restraining moment are obtained by splitting up this action
as shown in Figure 3, where the outriggers have been separated from the braced frame for clarity. The
restraining moment in the structure due to outrigger action is the product of the axial force in the exte-
rior columns and the distance between them:

M = Fa (2 b + 2c) = Fa (2l) (5)

in which Fa is the restraining force in the exterior columns, l is the distance from the exterior column
to the centre line of the shear wall and b is the length of the flexible outrigger measured from the
façade column to the outrigger/shear wall interface. Considering the free body diagram of a single
outrigger, then

Fa ¥ b = Fr ¥ h (6)

where Fr represents the complementary shear forces in the outriggers and h is the vertical dimension
of the outrigger. The free body diagram in the centre of Figure 3 allows an expression for the restrain-
ing moment on the shear wall to be written as

M = 2 Fa c + 2 Fr h (7)

Fr Fr Fr Fr x

Fa outrigger Fa Fa outrigger h
Fa
Fa Fa
Fr Fr Fr Fr H
shear
wall

b c c b

Figure 3. Free body diagram restraining forces

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 73–87 (2004)
 SHEAR WALL WITH OUTRIGGER TRUSSES 77

Fr/2 qr;b;Fr Fr/2

Fr/2 Fr/2

(a)
qr;s;Fr Fr

a Fr
(b)
b

Figure 4. Bending and shear deformations in truss

Substituting Equations (6) and (7) into Equation (5) will lead to an expression for the effective restrain-
ing moment causing bending and shear deformations in the outriggers as shown in Figure 4.

M
2Fr h = (8)
a

where a dimensionless parameter

l
a= (9)
b

3.1 Rotations due to restraining force Fr

The double curvature bending in the outrigger as shown in Figure 4(a) is caused by axial strain in the
top and bottom cords. The rotations in the truss at both ends are identical because the structural floors
are assumed to be connected to the outrigger at the columns and shear wall only. The rotation due to
bending at the outrigger/wall interface is given by

2 Fr h Mb
q r ;b ;Fr = = (10)
 (12 EIr b) 24aEIr
where EIr is the bending stiffness of the outrigger, which can be obtained as follows:

EIr = EAr h 2 2 (11)

where Ar is the cross-sectional area of the top and bottom chords of the rigger.
The rotation due to racking shear results from strain in the diagonals as is indicated in Figure 4(b)
and can be expressed as

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 73–87 (2004)
78 J. C. D. HOENDERKAMP

2 Fr h M
q r ;s ;Fr = = (12)
h GAi haGAr

It has been shown earlier (Hoenderkamp and Snijder, 2000) that the racking shear stiffness of a rigger,
GAr, is the sum of the individual racking shear stiffnesses of all the bracing segments in that rigger.
So for the outrigger structure
n
GAr = Â GAi (13)
i =1

where n represents the total number of segments in the two outriggers and GAi is the racking shear
stiffness of a single segment of width a. For several types of bracing systems the racking shear stiff-
ness is given Appendix A.

3.2 Rigid body rotations of outrigger

The wide-column behaviour of the shear wall due to bending caused by horizontal load w will result
in rigid body rotations of the outriggers as shown in Figure 5. This reverse rotation is given by

d s ;b ;w ˆ c
q r ;b ;w = - Ê = - (q r ;b ;w ) (14)
Ë b ¯ b

Substituting Equation (1) into Equation (14) yields

Ï w( H - x ) ¸ c
3 3
q r ;b ;w = - Ì ˝ (15)
Ó 6 EIs ˛b

An additional reverse rotation in the trusses occurs due to the rotation of the wall foundation when
subjected to horizontal loading and is shown in Figure 6. This rigid body rotation for the outrigger
can be expressed as follows:

d s ;Cs ;w ˆ c
q r ;Cs ;w = - Ê = - (q s ;Cs ;w ) (16)
Ë b ¯ b

qs;b;w

qr;b;w qr;b;w
d s;b;w

b c d s;b;w
c b

Figure 5. Rigid body rotation of outriggers due to bending in shear wall

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 73–87 (2004)
 SHEAR WALL WITH OUTRIGGER TRUSSES 79

qs;Cs;w

qr;Cs;w qr;Cs;w
d s;Cs;w

b c d s;Cs;w
c b

Figure 6. Rigid body rotation of outriggers due to rotation of wall foundation

substituting Equation (2) into Equation (16) yields

2
Ï wH ¸ c (17)
q r ;Cs ;w = - Ì ˝
Ó 2Cs ˛ b

Restraining moment M will also cause rigid body rotations of the outriggers. The shear wall will deflect
in the opposite direction as shown in Figures 5 and 6. The rigid body rotation of the outriggers will
now be in the clockwise direction. For bending in the wall:

d s ;b ;M ˆ c
q r ;b ;M = - Ê = - (q s ; b ;M ) (18)
Ë b ¯ b

Substituting Equation (3) into Equation (18) yields

M ( H - x) ¸ c
q r ;b ;M = ÏÌ ˝ (19)
Ó EIs ˛ b

For rotation of the shear wall foundation:

d s ;Cs ;M ˆ c
q r ;Cs ;M = - Ê = - (q r ;Cs ;M ) (20)
Ë b ¯ b

Substituting Equation (4) into Equation (20) yields

M c
q r ;Cs ;M = ÏÌ ¸˝ (21)
Ó Cs ˛ b

3.3 Rotations due to restraining force Fa

The restraining forces in the exterior columns will cause two more rigid body rotations of the outrig-
gers: one resulting from shortening and lengthening of the exterior columns and another due to ver-
tical displacements in the column foundations.

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 73–87 (2004)
80 J. C. D. HOENDERKAMP

The first outrigger rotation can be defined as the column change in length divided by the length of
the outrigger. This leads to

Fa ( H - x )
q r ;a ;Fa = (22)
bEAc

where Ac is the cross-sectional area of the exterior column.

Defining an overall stiffness parameter for the exterior column structure to be

EIc = 2 EAc l 2 (23)

and substituting Equations (5) and (23) into Equation (22) will yield the following expression:

M ( H - x )a
q r ;a ;Fa = (24)
EIc

The second outrigger rotation can be defined as the foundation displacement divided by the length of
the outrigger, which yields

Fa k aM
q r ;Cc ;Fa = = 2 (25)
b 2l k

where k represents the translational stiffness of the column foundation. Defining an overall rotational
stiffness parameter for the combined column foundations as

Cc = 2 l 2 k (26)

and substituting Equation (26) into Equation (25) leads to the following simplified expression:

aM
q r ;Cc ;Fa = (27)
Cc

4. HORIZONTAL DEFLECTION
Compatibility in rotation at level x requires that the rotations in the shear wall, qs, and outrigger,
qr, at their interface are identical. Substituting for the individual rotations yields the following
expression:

w( H 3 - x 3 ) wH 2 M ( H - x ) M Ï w( H - x ) ¸ c Ï wH ¸ c
3 3 2
+ - - = -Ì ˝ -Ì ˝
6 EIs 2Cs EIs Cs Ó 6 EIs ˛ b Ó 2Cs ˛ b
(28)
Mb M M ( H - x ) ¸ c Ï M ¸ c aM ( H - x ) a M
+ + + ÏÌ ˝ +Ì ˝ + +
24aEIr haGAr Ó EIs ˛ b Ó Cs ˛ b EIc Cc

Simplifying leads to

w( H 3 - x 3 ) wH 2 H-x H-x b 1 1 1
+ = M ÏÌ + + 2
+ 2
+ + ¸˝ (29)
6 EIs 2Cs Ó EIs EIc 24a EIr ha GAr Cs Cc ˛

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 73–87 (2004)
 SHEAR WALL WITH OUTRIGGER TRUSSES 81

Setting two characteristic flexibility parameters as

H H
S1 = + (30)
EIs EIc

and

b 1 1 1
S2 = + + + (31)
24a 2 EIr ha 2 GAr Cs Cc

leads to the following expression for the restraining moment:

Ï w( H - x ) wH ¸Ï
3 3 2
H ¸
M=Ì + ˝Ì ˝ (32)
Ó 6 EIs ( )
2Cs ˛Ó H - x S1 + HS2 ˛

The horizontal deflection at the top of the building can be now obtained as follows:

wH 4 wH 3 M ( H 2 - x 2 ) MH
ytop = + - - (33)
8 EIs 2Cs 2 EIs Cs

where the first two terms on the right-hand side represent the ‘free’ horizontal deflections of the shear
wall at the top due to bending of the wall and rotation of its foundation as a direct result of lateral
loading. The third term is due to the restraining moment M which causes a reverse deflection and rota-
tion at outrigger level, resulting in a deflection reduction at the top. The last term represents a hori-
zontal deflection at the top of the wall due to reverse foundation rotation.

5. OPTIMUM LOCATION OF OUTRIGGER

The reduction in horizontal deflection at the top of the structure due to restraining moment M is
represented by the last two terms on the right-hand side of Equation (33) and can be expressed as

2 2
ÏH - x H¸
yred = M Ì + ˝ (34)
Ó 2 EIs Cs ˛

This reduction is maximized by differentiating it w.r.t. x, setting it equal to zero and solving for x.
After simplifying this leads to

d ÈÏ 2 3 5 5 - 3x 2 - 2 x 3 6 ¸Ï 1 ¸˘ = 0
ÍÌ1 - x - x + x + (g H )
+ 2 ˝Ì ˝˙ (35)
dx ÎÓ (g H ) ˛Ó1 - x + w ˛˚

in which two characteristic non-dimensional parameters for the outrigger-braced shear wall structure
have been set as follows:

HCs
gH = (36)
EIs

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 73–87 (2004)
82 J. C. D. HOENDERKAMP

0.2

0.3
Rigger Location, x/H

0.4

Values of g H
0.5
> 100
10
6
0.6 4
3
2

0.7
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Values of w

Figure 7. Optimum location of outrigger

and

S2
w= (37)
S1

A dimensionless location parameter for the optimum position of the outrigger has been set as

x
x= (38)
H

Figure 7 shows a graphical presentation of optimum outrigger locations up the height of a shear wall
braced structure on wall and column foundations as a function of two non-dimensional characteristic
parameters, gH and w.

6. EXAMPLE
The structural floor plan of a 29-storey, 87 m high building in Figure 8 shows the arrangement of four
identical shear walls with horizontal steel trusses on both sides. Each truss is 9 m long, has a single
storey height of 3 m and comprises five X-braced segments. The building is subjected to a uniformly
distributed lateral load of 1·6 kN/m2. The flexural stiffness of the reinforced concrete shear wall EIs =
1·5 ¥ 109 kNm2. For the horizontal trusses: top and bottom chords Ar = 1·78 ¥ 10-2 m2, diagonals Ad =
9·726 ¥ 10-3 m2 and for the exterior columns Ac = 3·12 ¥ 10-2 m2. The elastic modulus of steel E = 2·1
¥ 108 kN/m2. The rotational stiffness of the shear wall foundation Cs = 2·0 ¥ 108 kNm and the trans-
lational stiffness of the column foundations k = 4·0 ¥ 105 kN/m.
The detailed calculations are shown here for a single shear wall with one outrigger on both sides.
The flexural stiffness of the outrigger structure is given by Equation (11):

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 73–87 (2004)
 SHEAR WALL WITH OUTRIGGER TRUSSES 83

Shear walls with outriggers

9m

9m

9m

9m 9m 9m 9m 9m

Figure 8. Structural floor plan

EIr = EAr h 2 2 = 2◊1 ¥ 10 8 ¥ 1◊78 ¥ 10 -2 ¥ 32 2 = 1◊682 ¥ 10 7 kNm 2

The racking shear stiffness is the sum for 10 segments. Equation (A.1) yields

2a 2 h ◊ 2¥3
2 ¥ 18
GAr = 10 EAd = 1◊ 5
¥ 2◊1 ¥ 10 8 ¥ 9◊726 ¥ 10 -3 = 9◊272 ¥ 10 6 kN
d3 (18
◊ 2 + 32 )

The global second moment of area of the exterior columns can be obtained from Equation (23):
2
9
◊ ¥ 10 -2 ¥ Ê 9 + ˆ = 2◊388 ¥ 10 9 kNm 2
EIc = 2 EAc l 2 = 2 ¥ 2◊1 ¥ 10 8 ¥ 312
Ë 2¯

An overall rotational stiffness parameter for the foundations under the exterior columns is given by
Equation (26):

Cc = 2 l 2 k = 2 ¥ 13◊52 ¥ 4 ¥ 10 5 = 1◊458 ¥ 10 8 kNm

The dimensionless parameter a in Equation (9) yields

l 13◊5
a= = = 1◊5
b 9

The characteristic parameters S1 and S2 are given by Equations (30) and (31):

H H 87 87 -1
S1 = + = + = 9◊443 ¥ 10 -8 (kNm)
EIs EIc 1◊5 ¥ 10 9 2◊388 ¥ 10 9

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 73–87 (2004)
84 J. C. D. HOENDERKAMP

b 1 1 1
S2 = 2
+ 2
+ +
24a EIr ha GAr C s C c

9 1 1 1 -1
= 2 7
+ 2 6
+ 8
+ 8
= 3◊775 ¥ 10 -8 (kNm)
24 ¥ 1◊5 ¥ 1◊682 ¥ 10 3 ¥ 1◊5 ¥ 9◊272 ¥ 10 2◊0 ¥ 10 1◊458 ¥ 10

The characteristic non-dimensional parameters for the structure can now be obtained from Equations
(36) and (37):

HCs 87 ¥ 2◊0 ¥ 10 8
gH = = = 11◊60
EIs 1◊5 ¥ 10 9

S2 3◊775 ¥ 10 -8
w= = = 0◊400
S1 9◊443 ¥ 10 -8

From the diagram in Figure 7 it can now quite easily be determined that the optimum location of the
outrigger will be at x/H = 0·34. Locating the outrigger at a mid-storey level nearest to the theoretical
optimum location, i.e. 28·5 m from the top, and using Equation (32) yields the restraining moment:

Ï w(H - x ) wH ¸ Ï
3 3
H ¸
M=Ì + ˝Ì ˝
Ó 6 EIs 2Cs ˛ Ó (H - x )S1 + HS2 ˛
Ï18(87 - 28◊5 )
3 3
18 ¥ 87 ¸ Ï 87 ¸
=Ì + 8 ˝Ì ˝
Ó 6 ¥ 1◊5 ¥ 10 9
2 ¥ 2◊0 ¥ 10 ˛ Ó 87 - 28◊5 ¥ 9◊443 ¥ 10 -8 + 87 ¥ 3◊775 ¥ 10 -8 ˛
( )
= 1◊592 ¥ 10 4 kNm

This is a 23·4% reduction in the bending moment at the base of the shear wall. It is not the maximum
possible moment reduction for the frame; this will occur with the outrigger at a lower position. The
reduction occurs between outrigger level and the base of the structure.
The horizontal deflections and reductions at the top of the structure are given by Equation (33):

wH 4 wH 3 M (H 2 - x 2 ) MH
Ytop = + - -
8 EIs 2Cs 2 EIs Cs
18 ¥ 87 4
18 ¥ 87 3
1◊592 ¥ 10 4 (87 2 - 28◊52 ) 1◊592 ¥ 10 4 ¥ 87
= 9
+ 8
- -
8 ¥ 1◊5 ¥ 10 2 ¥ 2◊0 ¥ 10 2 ¥ 1◊5 ¥ 10 9 2◊0 ¥ 10 8
= 0◊0859 + 0◊0296 - 0◊0358 - 0◊0069 = 0◊0728m m

The total reduction in horizontal deflection is 37·0%. The values in Table 1 give percentage reduc-
tions of lateral deflections at the top of the structure and of bending moments in the shear wall for the
optimum outrigger location. This location, xopt, is defined as the position for which the deflection reduc-
tion has a maximum value. The bottom row gives the horizontal deflections at the top of the struc-
ture. The percentages given in parentheses indicate values obtained from computer stiffness matrix
analyses.
In the column marked ‘Flexible’ all stiffness parameters have been given finite values. In the third
column the rotational stiffness of the shear wall foundation has been given an infinite value, the other
stiffnesses remaining unchanged. Similar reasoning has been applied to columns 4, 5 and 6.

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 73–87 (2004)
 SHEAR WALL WITH OUTRIGGER TRUSSES 85

Table 1. Structural performance

Flexible Cs = • Cc = • GAr = • Cs = Cc = GAr = •

w 0·400 0·347 0·327 0·231 0·105
gH 11·6 • 11·6 11·6 •
xopt. (m) 28·5 25·5 31·5 34·5 34·5
% Mred 23·4 (23·5) 18·9 (19·0) 25·7 (25·8) 29·4 (29·5) 27·1 (27·2)
% yred 37·0 (37·1) 34·6 (34·7) 39·8 (39·9) 44·3 (44·5) 45·7 (45·9)
ytop (mm) 72·8 56·2 69·6 64·3 46·7

The results show that increasing the stiffness of the exterior column foundations and the racking
shear of the outrigger yields larger reductions for the horizontal deflection and bending moments in
the shear wall. Increasing the stiffness of the shear wall foundation, however, will cause the outrig-
ger to be less effective. The last column assumes infinite stiffnesses for the foundations and the racking
shear of the outrigger. This can lead to seriously underestimating the deflections.

7. CONCLUSIONS
The analysis of shear wall structures with outriggers on non-fixed foundations subjected to lateral
loading is similar to that of outrigger structures on fixed foundations. The method requires six struc-
tural parameters: bending stiffness for the wall (EIs), bending and racking shear stiffnesses for the out-
rigger (EIr and GAr), an overall bending stiffness contribution from the exterior columns (EIc) and
rotational stiffnesses from the shear wall and column foundations (Cs and Cc).
In the analysis of a shear wall with outrigger trusses on non-fixed foundations, the structural prop-
erties can be combined into two characteristic flexibility parameters: S1 for the vertical structural ele-
ments, and S2 representing the outrigger and foundation structures.
The simplified model for analysis yields two characteristic non-dimensional parameters: w and gH,
which can be used in a diagram to determine the optimum level of the outrigger structure.
Increasing the rotational stiffness of the shear wall foundation will move the optimum location of
the outrigger higher up the structure but will not improve its efficiency.
Increasing the stiffness of the foundations of the exterior columns will lower the optimum location
of the outrigger structure and improve its performance w.r.t. horizontal deflection and moment
reduction.
Increasing the racking shear stiffness of the outriggers will also lower the optimum location of the
outriggers and improve its performance.
The reductions in horizontal deflections and bending moments of the shear wall are influenced by
all structural parameters. It is therefore suggested that all stiffnesses be included in the preliminary
design of a proposed tall building structure.

APPENDIX A: RACKING SHEAR STIFFNESS OF BRACING SYSTEMS

Figure 9 shows several types of bracing that can be used in the vertical and horizontal trusses of the
structure. The racking shear stiffnesses of these bracing systems are given for a standard segment with
a length a and a height h. All connections are taken to be pinned with exceptions for K- and knee-
bracings where the braces are pin connected at the top to continuous beams of length a. It should be
noted that the vertical members do not have any influence on the racking shear stiffness of the segment.

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 73–87 (2004)
86 J. C. D. HOENDERKAMP

Ar

Ad d Ad
d h
Ad Ad
Ar
a (a) (b) a

m e m
Ar Ar, Ir
d
Ad h Ad Ad
d
Ar Ar, Ir
a (c) (d) a

Figure 9. Typical truss bracings

The racking shear stiffness for an X-braced segment as shown in Figure 9(a) is given by

2a 2 h
GAi ;X = EAd (A.1)
d3

where Ad is the cross-sectional area of a diagonal and d represents its length.

The racking shear stiffness of the K-braced segment in Figure 9(b) is

a 2 hE
GAi ;K = (A.2)
2d 3 a3
+
Ad 4 Ar

in which Ar is the cross-sectional area of the horizontal member. Bracing systems with a single diag-
onal, N-bracing, as shown in Figure 9(c) have the following racking shear stiffness:

a 2 hE
GAi ;N = (A.3)
d 3 a3
+
Ad Ar

The racking shear stiffness of a full-height knee-braced segment as indicated in Figure 9(d) can be
expressed as

2 m 2 hE
GAi ;KB = (A.4)
d 3 m3 m2e2h2
+ +
Ad Ar 6 aIr

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 73–87 (2004)
 SHEAR WALL WITH OUTRIGGER TRUSSES 87

in which m is the horizontal distance between column and cord connections to bracing, e is the
horizontal distance between tops of knee-braces and Ir indicates the second moment of area for the
horizontal member.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to record his appreciation of H. H. Snijder, M. C. M. Bakker and M. R. Trouw for
their contributions to this project.

REFERENCES

Hoenderkamp JCD, Snijder HH. 2000. Simplified analysis of façade rigger braced high-rise structures. Structural
Design of Tall Buildings 9: 309–319.
Stafford Smith B, Coull A. 1991. Tall Building Structures. Wiley: New York.
Stafford Smith B, Salim I. 1981. Parameter study of outrigger-braced tall building structures. Journal of the Struc-
tural Division, ASCE 107(ST10): 2001–2013.

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 13, 73–87 (2004)