Analysis of A High-Rise Steel Structure With Viscous Damped Outriggers

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS
Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 23, 963979 (2014)

Published online 10 June 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/tal.1098
Analysis of a high-rise steel structure with viscous damped

outriggers
Ying Zhou1,2*, and Hexian Li2
1
State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
2
College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
SUMMARY
Damped outriggers for tall buildings draw increasingly attentions to engineers. With a shaking table test, two
models of a high-rise steel column-tube structure are established, one with outriggers xed to the core and
hinged at the columns, whereas the others cantilevering outriggers are connected to columns by viscous
dampers. According to their dynamic properties, ve earthquake waves are selected from the Ground
Motion Database of Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), and two articial waves are generated by software SIMQKE_GR. Under various peak ground accelerations (PGAs), nonlinear time-history
analysis is applied to compare structural elastic seismic responses, including accelerations, inter-story drifts,
base shear force, dampers response and additional damping ratios. It is concluded that under minor earthquakes, accelerations, inter-story drifts and base shear force of structure with damped outriggers are larger than
or nearly equal to those of the one with xed outriggers, and the viscous dampers hardly work. But as PGA
increases, the contrary situation happens, and the effect of viscous dampers is enhanced as well. The additional
damping ratio reaches around 4% under mega earthquakes. Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 4 September 2012; Revised 3 April 2013; Accepted 12 May 2013
KEY WORDS:
tall building; steel structure; viscous damper; damped outrigger
1. INTRODUCTION
Having a history of 110 years, the modern tall buildings originated from the USA and evolved in the
developed countries. Tall buildings are not only the symbol of economic prosperity and social progress
but also the combination of traditional engineering and innovative technology. With the rapid
economic development in China, tall buildings mushroomed in the past two decades. According to
the statistics of Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH, 2012), 8 of top 15 super-tall
buildings currently locate in China. It is estimated that the urban super-tall buildings in China will
break through in height, story numbers and amount in the next 2030 years.
As buildings in China grow increasingly taller than before, it is critical for them to resist lateral
loads, especially wind loads and seismic actions. Different countries have various seismic fortication
targets to guarantee buildings safety. According to Recommended Seismic Provisions of National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) (FEMA P-750) in the USA, for example, structural
response under two stages of earthquake ground motions should be calculated: design-based
earthquakes (DBE) and maximum considered earthquakes (MCER) China Ministry of Construction
(CMC) (2010). Comparatively, under Code for Seismic Design of Buildings (GB 50011-2010) in
China, the seismic fortication objectives can be simplied as No damage under minor earthquake,
repairable under moderate earthquake, and no collapse under major earthquake. DBE in USA corresponds to the moderate level in China, and MCER equals to the major level.
*Correspondence to: Ying Zhou, State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University,
Shanghai 200092, China.
E-mail: yingzhou@tongji.edu.cn
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
964
Y. ZHOU AND H. LI
On the basis of the seismic fortications above, in the engineering practice of China, structural
elastic force and deformation are strictly checked under minor earthquake to keep the structure in
an elastic state; under moderate earthquake, structural detailing is specied in the code; and under
major earthquake scenario, elasto-plastic deformation is calculated to prevent structural collapse.
Therefore, one characteristic for the seismic design in China is that the elastic inter-story drift
should strictly meet the code requirement under minor earthquakes. This is not difcult for
regular buildings but sometimes a problem for tall buildings.
Dual or triple systems of tall buildings, which include two or three structural elements such as
frames and shear walls, are intensively used to obtain an efcient structure to resist strong wind and
earthquakes. When the responses of the systems are checked, however, it is found that the inter-story
drift under minor earthquakes is hard to meet code requirements. For example, the elastic inter-story
drift limitation to a 150-m-high reinforced concrete frame-core wall building under minor earthquake is
only 1/800. Under this circumstance, outriggers are usually added in systems to provide more stiffness.
Smith and Willford (2007) proposed the concept of damped outrigger for tall buildings bearing large
wind loads. In this type of structure, the connection between the end of outrigger and perimeter column
is not xed. Instead, viscous dampers are set there. Under wind and earthquakes, there exists relative
vertical motion between perimeter column and the end of outrigger; therefore, the damper can begin to
work, providing the structure with additional damping ratio. By now, the only high-rise building using
damped outrigger system is the Saint Francis Shangri-la Place in Manila. The building is 217 m high
and comprises two towers, which have 60 oors. For each tower, at half of the overall height, eight
two-story high outrigger walls are attached to the concrete core, and two viscous dampers link the
end of each outrigger wall and exterior column, i.e. a total of 16 dampers per building. It is concluded
that the supplemental damping ratio for 100-year wind can reach between 5.2% and 11.2%.
Outriggers have both advantages and disadvantages. One of the advantages of outrigger is that
it enhances structural overall stiffness, and inter-story drift can be controlled under earthquakes.
Besides, the overturning moment can be balanced between peripheral frame and central core
walls by outrigger. However, stiffness of the outrigger story will be larger than other stories. This
is not recommended, since the change of stiffness will form vulnerable stories under strong
earthquakes. Zhou et al. (2011) analyzed a 240-m composite frame-core wall building without
outrigger, with one set of outrigger and with two sets of outriggers. It is concluded that interstory drifts can be considerably limited by setting outriggers, and the effect of two sets is better
than one. Yet the inter-story drifts at outrigger stories are dramatically smaller than other stories,
due to the stiffness change caused by outriggers.
The primary goal of Smith and Willford is to reduce buildings motion under wind, and its response
under earthquake needs to be further explored. Entrusted by Arup, Guangzhou University in China
(2010) conducted a shaking table test on a 7.2-m high eight-story column-core wall steel structure with
outriggers to evaluate its seismic performance. Two sets of outriggers were installed on the fourth and
eighth oors, respectively (Figure 1). First, the structure with outriggers xed to the core and hinged at
exterior columns was tested under three earthquake records and six articial accelerograms with peak
ground accelerations (PGAs) being scaled to 0.2 g, 0.4 g, 0.6 g and 1.0 g. Then, the connection between
the end of each outrigger and column was cut, and a viscous damper was added there. The structure
was tested again under the same earthquake inputs. By comparing the structural responses such as
accelerations, displacements and base shear force, it is concluded that under minor earthquakes, the
damped structure did not work better than the traditional one, whereas the opposite situation happened
as PGA increased.
On the structure mentioned above, viscous dampers are directly connected to the middle part of
columns. As a consequence, the columns endure non-benecial lateral forces provided by dampers
in the middle. As a modication of this structure, this paper establishes two model structures using
nite element software SAP2000 (CSI, 2004). The rst model structure is the same as the structure
without viscous dampers mentioned above, whereas in the second model structure, viscous dampers
are connected to the columnslab joints instead of the middle part of columns. Then, with the
consideration of their dynamic properties, seven earthquakes are determined. Five strong records
are selected from the PEER Ground Motion Database, and two articial accelerograms are generated
by software SIMQKE_GR (2012). Under various PGAs, nonlinear time-history analysis is applied to

DOI: 10.1002/tal
HIGH-RISE STEEL STRUCTURE WITH VISCOUS DAMPED OUTRIGGERS
965
Figure 1. Shaking table test model in Guangzhou University.
compare structural elastic responses including accelerations, inter-story drifts, base shear force
and additional damping ratios. The aim of this paper is to provide some recommendations for the
application of damped outriggers.

DOI: 10.1002/tal
966
Y. ZHOU AND H. LI
2. STRUCTURAL INFORMATION
2.1. Model information
The model has eight stories with each storys height of 900 mm, and the total height is 7200 mm
(Figure 2).The plan dimension is 1600 mm (X direction) by 400 mm (Y direction). A box-section
core tube is in the middle of the structure, with a plan dimension of 200 mm (X direction) by
400 mm (Y direction) and a thickness of 8 mm. Four box-section frame columns are located at
the corner points of the structure. The cross-section is 50 mm by 50 mm with 5 mm thick. Two
3 mm-thick L-section steel beams, with a cross-section of 30 mm by 30 mm, are set at every story
to link frame columns in the Y direction. The core tube and frame columns are connected by
two 12 mm-thick slabs at each story. To be comparable with the test, a 280-kg load is added
(a) X-Y direction plan layout of the structures
(b) X-Z elevation view of
(c) X-Z elevation view of
(d) Details of the area
structures without dampers
structure with dampers
around dampers
Figure 2. Model structure design.


DOI: 10.1002/tal
967
on each slab as additional mass. The material for all members is Q345 steel that has yield
strength of 345 MPa.
Two sets of channel-section outriggers, whose cross-section is 63 mm by 43 mm by 7.5 mm,
are attached at fourth and eighth stories, respectively. As for the structure without dampers, the
outriggers are xed to the core tube and hinged at the columns. As for the structure with
dampers, hinges between the outriggers and columns are cancelled, and instead, a vertical viscous
damper is attached to link the end of each outrigger and the joint of column and slab. Viscous
dampers are provided by Shanghai Research Institute of Materials. The equation given for the
viscous dampers is F = 10000v0.2, with a damping coefcient C = 10000 N/(m/s)0.2 and damping
exponent of 0.2.
The model structures are established by using nite element software SAP2000, as shown
in Figure 3.
2.2. Dynamic properties

Through modal analysis, dynamic properties of the rst three modes are shown in Table 1. The rst
period of the model structure without damped outriggers is 0.485 s, which is the same as that obtained
from the shaking table test in Guangzhou University (2010). Therefore, the analytical model is
veried. It can be also seen that the periods of the structure with dampers are longer than those
of the structure without dampers. Theoretically, attaching velocity-dependent viscous dampers
will not affect structural stiffness. However, in this paper, the hinges between outriggers and
columns are cut in the damped-outrigger structure, so its stiffness becomes smaller and consequently periods are longer than those of the undamped structure.
(a) Structure without dampers
(b) Structures with dampers
Figure 3. Analytical model of the structures in SAP2000.


DOI: 10.1002/tal
968
Y. ZHOU AND H. LI
Table 1. Structural period and mode description.

Mode
1
2
3
Period of the structure

without dampers (s)
Period of the structure

with dampers (s)
Mode description
0.485
0.435
0.128
0.667
0.440
0.129
Translation in the X direction

Translation in the Y direction
Torsion
3. GROUND MOTION SELECTION

Data of accelerograms, which were used for the shaking table test, are not provided with the test
report, so in this paper, ground motions are selected on the basis of requirements of the Chinese
seismic design code (GB50011-2010). It is recommended to select seven earthquake inputs to
perform time-history analysis, including ve strong earthquake records and two articial
accelerograms. Specic requirements in the code for ground motion selection are as follows:
(1) The average seismic effect coefcient curve of all time-history accelerations should match
up with that of response spectrum in the statistical sense, i.e. the difference at the main modal
periods should not exceed 20%. (2) Under each time-history accelerograms calculation, the base
shear force of the structure should not be smaller than 65% or larger than 135% of that of
response spectrum method. (3) Under multiple time-history acclerograms calculation, the average
base shear force should not be smaller than 80% or larger than 120% of that of response spectrum method.
First, it is necessary to determine the main modal periods. Considering the structural conguration,
only responses in the X direction are analyzed in this paper. Therefore, the modal participating mass
ratios of the rst three mode shapes in the X direction are shown in Table 2. With this table, for each
structure, the rst mode can be considered as the main mode, since its modal participating mass ratio is
far more than those of the other two mode shapes.
Secondly, the response spectrum analysis is carried out to obtain base shear force for comparison.
The response spectra in the Chinese code are shown in Figure 4. The structural damping ratio is
0.04 and 0.05 under minor and major earthquake, respectively. The maximum seismic coefcient
under intensity 7 is 0.086 and 0.500 under minor and major earthquake, respectively. The site characteristic period is 0.45 s for minor earthquakes and 0.50 s for major ones. The seismic effect coefcients
at the main mode are listed in Table 4.The maximum base shear force in the X direction under minor
earthquake is 3484.08 N.
3.1. Strong earthquake records
After inputting the target response spectrum into PEER Ground Motion Database, ve strong earthquake
records are selected. They are as follows: 1940 El Centro, 1968 Borrego Mountain, 1999 Chi-Chi, 1999
Hector Min and 2002 Alaska. Their time-history accelerations are shown in Figure 5.
After scaling their PGAs to 0.035 g (minor earthquake) and 0.22 g (major earthquake), the time-history
accelerations are transferred to acceleration spectra by software SeismoSignal (2012). After nishing
comparison of acceleration spectra among the ve records, their average values and the target response
spectra are shown in Figure 6, and values at the main mode can be seen in Table 3. One can easily nd
that the requirements for seismic effect coefcient in the code are satised. And then, after doing time-
Table 2. Modal participating mass ratio in the X direction (%).

Mode
Structure without dampers
Structure with dampers
72
15
5
68
19
6
1
4
7

DOI: 10.1002/tal
969
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
T (s)
0
0.1 0.45
2.25
(a) Minor earthquake
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
T (s)
0
0.1 0.5
2.5
(b) Major earthquake
Figure 4. Seismic coefcient curves of the response spectrum.

history analysis under PGA of 0.035 g, comparison of structural base shear forces among the ve records
and the target response spectra are shown in Table 4. It can be seen that the requirements for base shear
force in the code are satised as well.
3.2. Articial accelerograms
By using software SIMQKE_GR, 10 articial time-history accelerations are simulated, and two of
them are selected to do time-history analysis.
The procedures of simulating articial accelerograms are as follows:
Input the target response spectrum into the software, i.e. the spectrum of Figure 4(a).
Input parameters needed for simulating articial accelerograms as follows.
TS:
Minimum period. Periods in the target spectrum shorter than TS will be neglected.
TS = 0.02 s.
TL:
Maximum period. Periods in the target spectrum longer than TL will be neglected.
TL = 6 s.
TRISE:
Start time of accelerations smooth segment. TRISE = 5 s.
TLVL:
Duration of accelerations smooth segment. TLVL = 30s.
DUR:
Duration of accelerations total time. DUR = 40s.
NCYCLE: Iterations plus one. NCYCLE = 20.
AGMAX: Peak ground acceleration which is calculated by software automatically.
NPA:
Number of articial accelerograms. NPA = 10.
IIX:
Any odd number. Default value is 1235.
AMOR:
Damping ratio of the response spectrum. AMOR = 0.04.

DOI: 10.1002/tal
970
Y. ZHOU AND H. LI
Figure 5. Time-history accelerations of ve strong earthquake records.
After ten articial accelerations are generated, two of them are selected by the following rules.
PGA
PGAs of the 10 articial accelerograms are all 36 cm/s2, which are very close to 35 cm/s2 specied in
the code. Therefore, their PGAs are all satised.
Error between spectrum of articial accelerograms and target spectrums
After scaling the PGAs to 0.035 g and 0.22 g, the time-history accelerations are transferred to acceleration spectra. And then, the mean square deviation between each spectrum of articial acceleration and
target spectrums is calculated by
v
2
uXkmax 0
u
t kkmin a k ak
kmax kmin 1
(1)

DOI: 10.1002/tal
971
Figure 6. Comparison of acceleration spectra between strong earthquake records and the target response spectrum.
Table 3. Comparison of seismic coefcient between strong earthquake records and target response spectrum
at the main mode.
Structure without dampers
Minor earthquake
(difference)
Major earthquake
(difference)
Structure with dampers

Minor earthquake
(difference)
Major earthquake
(difference)
Target
spectrum
0.0790
0.5000
0.0561
0.3853
El Centro
Borrego
Mountain
Chi-Chi
Hector Min
Alaska
No. 8
No. 9
Average
0.0884 (12%)
0.0682 (14%)
0.5318 (6%)
0.3841 (23%)
0.0653 (16%)
0.0542 (3%)
0.3984 (3%)
0.3085 (20%)
0.0838 (6%)
0.0907 (15%)
0.0818 (4%)
0.0831 (5%)
0.0778 (2%)
0.0820 (4%)
0.4847 (3%)
0.5418 (8%)
0.4790 (4%)
0.4847 (3%)
0.4536 (9%)
0.4800 (4%)
0.0561 (0%)
0.0596 (6%)
0.0551 (2%)
0.0593 (6%)
0.0596 (6%)
0.0585 (4%)
0.3336 (13%)
0.3627 (6%)
0.3288 (15%)
0.3418 (11%)
0.3269 (15%)
0.3430 (11%)
where a0 k is the value at point k of articial accelerogram spectrum and ak is the value at point k of the
target spectrum.
By carefully examining mean square deviations and errors, articial accelerogram No. 8 and
No. 9 are nally selected. Their time-history accelerations are shown in Figure 7, and comparison
between target acceleration spectrums and articial accelerograms is shown in Figure 8.

DOI: 10.1002/tal
972
Y. ZHOU AND H. LI
Table 4. Comparison of base shear force under earthquake records and response spectrum method.
Base shear force under
PGA of 0.035 g (N)
Base shear force of time-history analysis/that

of response spectrum method
Response spectrum
3484.08
El Centro
Borrego Mountain
Chi-Chi
Hector Min
Alaska
No. 8
No. 9
Average
3846.62
2805.66
3344.01
3827.74
3749.74
3304.47
3343.80
3460.29
1.10
0.81
0.96
1.10
1.08
0.95
0.96
0.99
Figure 7. Time-history accelerations of two articial accelerograms.

Through time-history analysis under PGA of 0.035 g, comparison of structures base shear forces
between the articial accelerograms and the target response spectrum is shown in Table 4. It can be
seen that the requirements for base shear force in the code are satised as well.
4. NONLINEAR TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS OF THE STRUCTURES WITHOUT AND WITH

DAMPED OUTRIGGERS
PGAs of the ve strong earthquake records and two articial accelerograms are scaled to 0.035 g,
0.1 g, 0.22 g and 0.4 g, i.e. minor earthquake, moderate earthquake, major earthquake and mega earthquake, respectively. Then nonlinear time-history analysis is applied to the structures in the X direction,
which is parallel to the outriggers, to gure out structural elastic responses. Finally, structural

DOI: 10.1002/tal
973
Figure 8. Comparison of acceleration spectra between articial accelerograms and the target response
spectrum.
accelerations, inter-story drifts, base shear force and additional damping ratios are compared between
two model structures to analyze the effect of damped outriggers.
4.1. Structural acceleration
Table 5 and Figure 9 show the average value of peak structural accelerations and damping effects at
each story under the seven ground motions.
Under minor earthquake, at almost every story, the acceleration of the damped structure is greater
than that of the undamped structure, and the largest increase is about 15%. This indicates that the
viscous dampers probably do not work since, under minor earthquake, the velocity of dampers is very
slow. Additionally, on the structure with dampers, there is no hinge between outriggers and columns,
and viscous dampers do not provide stiffness to the structure, so its stiffness is smaller than that of the
structure without dampers. Consequently, the acceleration of the structure with dampers will be greater
than the other structures.
However, situation changes oppositely as PGA increases. Under moderate earthquake, two structures accelerations are similar at each story. Under major earthquake, the accelerations of the damped
structure are smaller than the other, and the highest damping effect is nearly 25%. Under mega earthquake, the damping effect of the structure with damped outriggers becomes more obvious, and the
highest effect is more than 30%. This implies that the dampers begin to work under moderate earthquake. Their velocity increase with the enhancement of PGA; gradually, the damping effect becomes
greater as well.
4.2. Inter-story drift
Table 6 and Figure 10 show the average value of inter-story drifts and damping effects at each story
under the seven ground motions.

DOI: 10.1002/tal
974
Y. ZHOU AND H. LI
Table 5. Average value of peak accelerations and damping effect at each story under seven ground motions.
Story
Structure without
dampers (g)
Structure with
dampers (g)
Damping effect (%)

(withwithout)/without
(a) PGA = 0.035 g

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.035
0.045
0.056
0.066
0.075
0.084
0.105
0.127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.100
0.128
0.159
0.188
0.213
0.241
0.299
0.363
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.218
0.265
0.324
0.379
0.425
0.492
0.614
0.735
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.396
0.482
0.589
0.689
0.772
0.894
1.117
1.335
0.035
0.046
0.059
0.072
0.085
0.096
0.117
0.140
(b) PGA = 0.1 g
0.100
0.130
0.164
0.189
0.212
0.239
0.294
0.354
(c) PGA = 0.22 g
0.218
0.259
0.313
0.341
0.362
0.378
0.443
0.552
(d) PGA = 0.4 g
0.396
0.465
0.542
0.570
0.566
0.577
0.672
0.906
0.00
2.22
5.36
9.09
13.33
14.29
11.43
10.24
0.00
1.56
3.14
0.53
0.47
0.83
1.67
2.48
0.00
2.26
3.40
10.03
14.82
23.17
27.85
24.90
0.00
3.53
7.98
17.27
26.68
35.46
39.84
32.13
By observing the data, one can nd the same conclusion with structural acceleration. When PGA is
small, the dampers do not provide additional damping ratio to the structure. As PGA increases, the
dampers become more active, and the damping effect becomes greater.
In addition, for the structure without dampers, there exists a sudden change for the inter-story drifts
at outrigger stories. The inter-story drifts there are smaller than their adjacent stories. This phenomenon
is caused by the abrupt change of stiffness at these levels, and stiffness change is not benecial for
structures under earthquakes. On the contrary, for the structure with dampers, this phenomenon is
eliminated since the stiffness of the damped outrigger levels is not that large.
4.3. Base shear force
Table 7 shows the average value of base shear forces and damping effects under the seven ground
motions.
From values in Table 7, one can obtain the consistent conclusion as mentioned earlier: Viscous
dampers hardly play a role under minor earthquake, yet their effect becomes more important as
earthquakes amplitudes increase. As for the tremendous damping effect of the structure with
dampers (damping effect is 38.53% with PGA equals to 0.4 g), there may be another reason

DOI: 10.1002/tal
Story
975
Story
Undamped
structure
Undamped
structure
Damped
structure
Damped
structure
(g)
1
0
0.1
(g)
0.2
0.15
(a) PGA=0.035g
0.3
0.45
(b) PGA=0.1g
Story
Story
Undamped
structure
Undamped
structure
Damped
structure
Damped
structure
(g)
1
0
0.3
0.6
(g)
0.9
(c) PGA=0.22g
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
(d) PGA=0.4g
Figure 9. Average value of peak accelerations under seven ground motions at each story.
as well: As PGA increases from minor to mega earthquake level, slabs of the structure tend to be
damaged. This damage not only contribute to increasing damping other than the effect of
dampers but also make dampers more important to structures since the effect of slabs is not as
high as under minor earthquakes.
4.4. Damper response and additional damping ratio
Figure 11 shows dampers serial number on the damped structure. Take damper No. 5 under Chi-Chi
for example, and its forcedisplacement hysteretic curve can be seen in Figure 12. From this gure,
one can learn that under minor earthquake, the hysteretic curve is almost a line, which indicates that
the damper does not dissipate energy. Yet the shape of the curve changes as PGA increases. Under
mega earthquake, the curve is nearly a parallelogram, which implies that the damper is working and
the energy it dissipates is large. However, the curves shape does not reach rectangle, i.e. the
ideal shape for viscous dampers. The explanation is that it can probably consume more energy
under stronger earthquakes.
In the Chinese code, the additional damping ratio provided by viscous dampers can be calculated by
the following equation:
xa
X
j
W cj =4pW s
(2)
where xa is the effective damping ratio added by viscous dampers, Wcj is the energy dissipated by
the jth viscous damper in one cycle of expected displacement of a structure, i.e. the total area of
the forcedisplacement curves, and Ws is the total strain energy of an energy dissipated structure
under expected displacement.

DOI: 10.1002/tal
976
Y. ZHOU AND H. LI
Table 6. Average value of inter-story drifts and damping effect at each story under seven ground motions.
Story
Structure without
dampers (g)
Structure with
dampers (g)
Damping effect (%)

(with-without)/without
(a) PGA = 0.035 g

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1/2491
1/1249
1/988
1/939
1/939
1/892
1/944
1/1085
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1/871
1/437
1/346
1/328
1/328
1/312
1/330
1/380
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1/430
1/215
1/170
1/160
1/160
1/152
1/161
1/185
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1/236
1/118
1/93
1/88
1/88
1/83
1/88
1/102
1/2208
1/1120
1/872
1/852
1/842
1/816
1/886
1/1036
(b) PGA = 0.1 g
1/893
1/450
1/347
1/334
1/328
1/319
1/346
1/403
(c) PGA = 0.22 g
1/539
1/269
1/207
1/193
1/188
1/184
1/196
1/220
(d) PGA = 0.4 g
1/330
1/162
1/122
1/110
1/104
1/101
1/104
1/111
Ws can be calculated by the following equation:

W s 1=2
F i ui
12.79
11.54
13.35
10.22
11.50
9.27
6.60
4.78
2.47
2.97
0.31
1.65
0.14
2.14
4.59
5.76
20.26
20.12
17.86
17.19
14.85
17.36
18.09
15.89
28.45
27.07
23.77
20.28
15.85
17.08
14.95
8.50
(3)
where Fi is the ith mass points standard value of horizontal seismic action and ui is the corresponding displacement.
According to the conclusions mentioned above, the dampers are not stimulated enough under
minor and moderate earthquakes, so in this paper, only the additional damping ratio under major
and mega earthquakes are calculated. Table 8 shows the average value of the additional damping
ratios under he seven ground motions. It can be seen that the additional damping ratio increases
as PGA is enhanced, which is in accordance with the conclusions presented previously. Yet one
should notice that in this structure, the additional damping ratio is far less than the upper limit in
the Chinese code that the additional damping ratio should not exceed 25%, because both the
amounts of dampers as well as the PGA are not high enough here.
4.5. Brief comparison with results of the shaking table test
There are two main differences between the shaking table test and the numerical analysis in this
paper. First, in the shaking table test, viscous dampers were connected from outriggers to exterior

DOI: 10.1002/tal
Story
977
Story
8
Undamped
structure
Damped
structure
Undamped
structure
Damped
structure
1
0
1/2000
2/2000
3/2000
1/500
(a) PGA=0.035g
2/500
(b) PGA=0.1g
Story
Story
8
Undamped
structure
Damped
structure
Undamped
structure
Damped
structure
1
0
1/250
(c) PGA=0.22g
2/250
1/200
2/200
3/200
(d) PGA=0.4g
Figure 10. Average value of inter-story drifts under seven ground motions at each story.
Table 7. Average value of base shear forces under seven ground motions.
PGA
0.035 g
0.1 g
0.22 g
0.4 g
Base shear force

Structure without
dampers (N)
Structure with
dampers (N)
Damping effect (%)

(withwithout)/without
3460.29
9 886.83
19 710.16
35 836.54
3 439.58
8 459.37
14 215.46
22 027.80
0.60
14.44
27.88
38.53
columns directly, whereas in this paper, dampers are linked from outriggers to slabcolumn
connection joints since in this way, the mid-points of columns will not bear any force transmitted
from dampers. Second, detailed data of the earthquake records used in the shaking table test were
not given in the report; therefore, in this paper, ground motions, which are different from those in
the test, are selected according to requirements in the Chinese seismic design code.
Nevertheless, the core idea of the shaking table test and this paper are consistent: taking advantages of the viscous dampers to absorb energy induced by earthquakes, especially by major and
mega ones. In the test report, by comparing the structural responses including accelerations,
displacements, base shear force and so forth, it was concluded that under minor earthquakes,
the damped structure did not work better than its counterpart, whereas the opposite situation
happened as PGA increased. Same thing is observed in this paper. The results mentioned in foregoing
sections imply that dampers do not work well under minor earthquake, whereas their effects become
clearer as the amplitude of earthquakes increase.

DOI: 10.1002/tal
978
Y. ZHOU AND H. LI
Figure 11. Dampers serial number.
(a) PGA=0.035g
(b) PGA=0.1g
(c) PGA=0.22g
(d) PGA=0.4g
Figure 12. Hysteretic curve of damper No. 5 under Chi-Chi.

Table 8. Average value of additional damping ratios under seven ground motions.
PGA
Additional damping ratio (%)
0.22 g
0.4 g
2.62
3.69
5. CONCLUSIONS
To analyze the seismic performance of a structure with damped outriggers, two high-rise steel structures are built in nite element software SAP2000, one with traditional outriggers while the other with
viscous-damped outriggers. With their dynamic properties, ve strong earthquake records are selected
from PEER database, and two articial accelerograms are simulated by software SIMQKE_GR. Their
PGAs are scaled to various levels, and time-history analysis is performed. Two structures seismic
responses are compared, including structural acceleration, inter-story drift, base shear force, dampers
response and additional damping ratio. Conclusions are reached as follows.

DOI: 10.1002/tal
979
(1) The stiffness of viscous dampers is very small, and normally, structural dynamic properties will
not change by adding them. However, in this paper, the hinges between outriggers and frame
columns are cancelled by attaching dampers, so that the damped outrigger is more exible than
its counterpart. Therefore, its vibration periods are longer.
(2) Under minor earthquakes, accelerations, inter-story drifts and base shear force of the structure with
damped outrigger are greater than or at least almost equal to those of the other structure, and the shape
of forcedisplacement curve of the viscous damper is almost a line. These phenomena indicate that
the velocity of dampers is slow, and they hardly provide any additional damping to the structure.
(3) As PGA increases, the damping effect of viscous dampers can be seen: accelerations, inter-story drifts
and base shear force of the structure with damped outrigger are less than those of the other, and under
mega earthquake, the highest energy dissipation effect is between 30% and 40%. Part of the damping
effect also originates from the damage of slabs under major and mega earthquakes. Additionally, the
shape of dampers begins to like parallelogram, and the largest additional damping ratio is about 4%.
(4) For the structure without dampers, because of the abrupt change of stiffness at outrigger stories,
inter-story drifts are obviously smaller than their adjacent stories. In contrast, the stiffness change
of the structure with dampers is not that sudden, and this phenomenon cannot be seen on the gures of inter-story drift. Thus, attaching viscous-damped outriggers could provide the structure
with damping, instead of stiffness, and have reasonable damping effect under strong earthquakes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful for nancial support received from the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (grant nos. 51078274, 51261120377, 51178354), National Key Technology R&D Program
(grant no. 2012BAJ13B02), Shanghai Rising-Star Program (grant no. 13QA1403700), and Key R&D
Research Project of Shanghai Education Committee (grant no. 12zz036). Dr. Ping TAN of Guangzhou
University is also acknowledged for providing us with the report of the shaking table test.
REFERENCES
China Ministry of Construction (CMC). 2010. Code for Seismic Design of Buildings (GB 50011-2010). China Architecture &
Building Press: Beijing. (in Chinese)
Computers and Structures Inc. 2004. CSI Analysis Reference Manual for SAP2000, ETABS and SAFE. Computers and Structures, Inc.: Berkeley, CA.
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat(CTBUH). 2012. 100 Tallest Completed Buildings in the World. http://
skyscrapercenter.com/list.php?list_type=1: Chicago.
Earthquake Engineering Research & Test Center of Guangzhou University. 2010. Report on simulated earthquake test research
of the structure model with dampers in vertical direction on a shaking table for Arup Company. (in Chinese)
FEMA P-750. 2009. NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures. Building Seismic
Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington, DC.
SeismoSignal. 2012. Seismosoft, Earthquake Engineering Software Solutions. http://www.seismosoft.com/en/SeismoSignal.aspx
SIMQKE_GR. 2012. A Program for Articial Motion Generation.
Smith RJ, Willford MR. 2007. The damped outrigger concept for tall buildings. Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings
16(4): 501517.
Zhou Y, Lu XL, Zhang CQ. 2011. Seismic performance of a super-tall building with energy dissipation outriggers. Journal of
Vibration and Shock 30(11): 186189. (in Chinese)
AUTHORS BIOGRAPHIES
Ying Zhou is a professor of structural engineering in Tongji University, Shanghai, China. She
received her doctoral degree from Tongji University in 2005 and worked as a visiting scholar at
University of California at Berkeley, USA, from January 2010 to January 2011. Her research interests
lie in seismic performance of tall and special buildings, structural passive control of buildings,
earthquake resilient building design, and structural dynamic testing technology.
Hexian Li is a graduate student in structural engineering at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
USA. She received her bachelor degree from Tongji University in 2012.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

Analysis of A High-Rise Steel Structure With Viscous Damped Outriggers

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Analysis of A High-Rise Steel Structure With Viscous Damped Outriggers

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 23, 963979 (2014)