THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OPTALLAND SPECIAL BUILDINGS Srruct. De.rign Tall Spec. Build. U , 335350 (2003} Published online 10 July 2003 in Wiley lnterscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOl: 10.1002/tal226
ANALYSIS OF HIGHRISE BRACED FRAMES WITH OUTRIGGERS
J. C. D. HOENDERKAMP* AND M . C. M. BAKKER
Depanment of Arr:hitectun and Building. Eindhoven University of Technology. Eindhoven, The Netherlands
SUMMARY
A graphical method of analysis for the preliminary design of tall building structures comprising braced frames
with outrigger trusses subjected to horizontal loading is presented. For this method of analysis it is necessary to
determine five stifnesses for the uniform structure: bending and racking shear stiffnesses of the braced frame and outriggers in addition to a stiffness parameter representing the axial lengthening and shortening of the exterior columns. The analysis allows a simple procedure for obtaining the optimum location of the outrigger up the height
the structure and a rapid assessment of the impact of the outrigger on the behaviour of the highrise strucrure.
is concluded that all five stiffnesses should be included in the preliminary analysis of a proposed tall building
structure as the reductions in horizontal detlections and bending moments of the braced frame are intluenced by all stiffness parameters. Copyright @ 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
I.
INTRODUCTION
braced frame with ouriggers is shown in Figure 1 together with its deflected shape resulting from
lateral loading. The structure comprises a central!y located braced frame with a particular bracing system which is connected to two equallength outriggers. The bracing system of these outriggers may have a different configuration. The behaviour of such a steel structure is similar to that of a concrete wall with outriggers. The deflected shapes of the vertical and horizontal members show the stiffening effect of the outriggers. The columns in the fayade of the structure resist further rotation of the out
riggers. The induced compression and tension forces in these columns create a large resisting moment
the applied horizontal loading. In the analysis of outriggerbraced walls it has been shown (Stafford Smith and Salim,
1981; Stafford
Smith and Coull, 1991) that the horizontal deflection behaviour of the concrete wall can be represented by a single bending stiffness parameter, thereby assuming that the deformations in the concrete wall due
to shear forces can be neglected. It wa~ further a~sumed that the outriggers consisted of prismatic
members which were rigidly connected to the wall and pin connected to the exteriorcolumns and could thus be represented by a single bending stiffness parameter. In the analysis the columns were also assumed to be pin connected to the foundation. With throe stiffness parameters representing the wall, outriggers and the columns it was possible to combine them in a single dimensionless parameter which allowed a rapid graphical procedure to detennine the optimum location of the outriggers up the height
the structure in order to cause the largest reduction in horizontal deflection at the top of the structure.
This method forms the base for the suggested analysis of braced frames with outriggers.
• Correspondence to: J. C. D. Hoenderkamp, Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Architecture and Building, PO Box 513, Route 7, 5600MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Email: j.c.d.hoenderkamp@bwk.tue.nl
Received August 2002 Accepted September 2002
Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
336
1. C. D. HOE!NOERKAMP AND M. C. M. BAKKER
l
~
'
Figure I. Braced frame with outriggers
1n the structure in Figure R the outriggers are shown as storey height trusses. The assumed inplane rigidity of the floor strucrures will cause identical rotations in the braced frame and fayade columns
at outrigger level. ll is taken that the riggers are attached to the braced frame and exterior columns
only, thereby allowing double curvature in the outriggers to take place. The forced double curvature
will increase its flexural stiffness. The horizontal and vertical trus
cannot be accurately represented
by a single stiffness parameter. The deflected shape of a truss is not a function of bending only as a result of axial strain in the columns but will allow additional deformations due to strain in the diago nal members, i.e. racking. ll ha~ been shown (Hoenderkamp and Snijder, 2000) that the racking shear deformations and double curvature in the outriggers can quite easily be included in the existing method
of analysis.ll also allows the usc of the existing design graphs without additional curves. The method was further developed (Hoendcrkarnp and Suijder, 2002) to include braced frames with fa<;:ade riggers. Braced frames with outriggers increases the complication of the analysis as the outriggers are forced to deflect with the braced frame which will be subject to bending and racking shear defonnations. The a~sumption for concrete walls in which the shear deformations have been neglected, i.e. plane sec tions remain plane, does not hold for braced frames. The simple wide column behaviour applied to concrete walls cannot be assumed for trusses.
>es
2. BRACED FRAME
The rotations in the braced frame at outrigger level due to uniformly distributed lateral loading w are, for bending resulting from axial strain in the columns
(I)
where H is the total height of the structure, x is the distance measured from the top to midheight of the outrigger and the bending stiffness of the braced frame is
Cq>yri£la 0 2003 John Wiley & Sons. Ltd
Stnu:t. Desljm Tall Spec. Build. 12. 335350 (2003)
HlGHRISE BRACED FRAMES WITH OUTRJGGERS
r:,
'+~";
~1
I
I
1p,
~·lt:K
1r,
P,
J··+'7~~tJ
I 
Fr 
r, I 
Fr 
1 
F, 
I 

I 
1 
1 
I 

1 
bm.ccd 
I 

fr'.unc 

b 
c 
b 

'I 
'I 
X
H
Figure 2. Free body diagam~
337
(2)
where A . is the crosssectional area of the column of the braced frame and c is its width. The rota tion due to axial strain in the diagonals is
9 ~
,, ;w  GA,
^{(}^{3}^{)}
in which GA, is a tenn expressing the racking shear stiffness of the braced frame. For several types of bracing systems the racking shear stiffness is given in Appendix A. The rotations in the braced frame due to the restraining moment are obtained by splitting up this action as shown in Figure 2, 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 exterior columns and the distance between them:
M , =F. x(2b+c) = F. xU
(4)
in which F. is the restraining force in the exterior columns, e is !he distance from the exterior column to the centre line of the braced frame and b is the length of the flexible outrigger measured from the fa9ade column to !he outriggerbraced frame interface. The full restraining moment M, will cause a reverse rotation due to bending in the braced frame which is given by
(5)
Considering the free body diagram of a single outrigger, then
_{C}_{o}_{p}_{y}_{r}_{i}_{g}_{h}_{t} _{c}
_{2}_{0}_{0}_{3} _{J}_{o}_{h}_{n} _{W}_{i}_{l}_{e}_{y} _{&} _{S}_{o}_{n}_{s}_{.} _{l}_{l}_{d}_{.}
F. xh=F, xh
(6)
Strod. De,tign Tall Spec. Build. 12, 33.>350 (2003)
_{3}_{3}_{8}
J . C. D. HOBNDBRKAMP AND M_ C. M. BAKKER
where F, represents the complementary shear forces in the outriggers and h is the vertical dimension of the outrigger. The free body diagam in the centre of Figure 2 allows an expression for the restrain ing moment on the braced frame to be written as
M , = M,"'+ M ,"'= F, xc+2F,. Xh
(7)
The racking shear rotation in the braced frame due to the restraining moment is the result of the hor izontal force component from Equation (7) only, i.e.
e
 
·~:F.
M,'/l
hGA.
^{(}^{8}^{)}
The vertical force component of the .restraining moment will not induce racking shear deformations. Substituting Equations (6) and (7) into Equation (4) will lead to an expression for the effective restrain ing moment causing a reverse rotation doe to strain in the diagonals of the braced frame at outrigger level:
where a dimensionless parameter
(.
rx=  _{b}
(9)
(10)
The rotation due t o the horizontal restraining forces F , can now be written a~ follows:
(LI)
11te total rotation of the braced frame at outrigger level then becomes
e,
w(H ^{3}
1
x
)
'~ +

wx
6£1,
GA,
M, (H x)
;
:
:_
El,
3.
OUTRIGGERS
M,
haGA,
^{(}^{1}^{2}^{)}
A single outrigger comprising five braced segments is shown in Figure 3(a). The bending rotation in the two outriggers of the structure due to restraining forces F, is indicated in Figure 3(b) and can be expressed as follows:
0
_
ZF h
•'I>;F. 'L(12EI./b)
M,b
24o:EI.
^{(}^{1}^{3}^{)}
where EI. is the bending stiffness of the outrigger, which is determined by
Copyright 0 1003 John Wiley & So.,, Ltd.
(14)
Stru<'. De.tig n Tall Sf"'<:. Build. 12, 335350 (2003)
HlGHRJSB BRACED FRAMES WITH OUTRlGGBRS
339
where A b is the crosssectional area of the top and bottom chords of the rigger. The restraining forces F, will cause axial strain in the diagonals, resulting in the deformed shape of the outrigger as shown in Figure 3(c). The rotation of the riggers is given by
2F,h
^{8} '"F. = /UXJA,
M,
haGA.
^{(}^{1}^{5}^{)}
where GA. is an expression for the total racking shear stiffness of the two outriggers. Jt bas been shown earlier (Hoenderkamp and Snijder, 2000) that the racking shear stiffness of a
GA. , is the sum of the individual racking shear stiffnesscs of all the bracing segments in that
rigger. So for the outrigger structure
rigger,
(16)
where s represents the total number of segments in the two outriggers and GA _{1} 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 in Appendix A. The column shortening and lengthening in the braced frame due to horizontal loading will cause rigid body rotations of the outriggers as shown in Figure 4. This reverse rotation is given by
8
 
r;rb;.t 
(jr.b:w 
b

 c8,:b:••
2b
Substituting Equation (I) into Equation (17) yields
( 17)
Olpyright C 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Struct. De.tign Th/1 Sp<c. Built!. 11, 3353$0 (2003)
340
J. C. D. HOENDERKAMP AND M. C. M. BAKKER
w
H
Figure 4. Rigid body rotation of outriggers
There will be an additional rigid body rotation of the outriggers due to the restraining moment M , which causes axial strain in the braced frame columns. ln this case the braced frame will deflect in the opposite direction as shown in Figure 4 and the rigid body rotation of the outriggers will now be
in the clockwise direction:
8
_
nb;Mr 
0 _{1} p;Mr _
b

c8,p;Mr
2b
Substituting Equation (5) into Equation ( 19) yields
8

r;rl>;Mr 
{M,(H  x)}_£_
Ef,
2b
(19)
^{(}^{2}^{0}^{)}
A third rigid body rotation of the outriggers is the result of shortening and lengthening of the exterior
columns due to restraining forces F•. The outrigger rotation can be defined as the colwnn change in length divided by the length of the outrigger. This leads to
Br;c;F
F;,(H  x) bEA.,
(2 1)
where A . is the crosssectional area of the exterior column. Defining an overall bending stiffness parameter for the exterior column structure to _{b}_{e}
(22)
and substituting Equation (4) into Equation (21) will yield the following expression:
M,(H x)a
EI.
The total rotation of the outriggers becomes
Copyrigl< 0 1003 John Wiley & S<>r>S, Ltd.
(23)
Slnu:l. Design Tall Spec. Build. U . 335350 (2003)
HIGHRISE BRACED FRAMES WITH OlJTRIGGERS
M,b
M,
(1, = 12aEI, + haGA,
{ ^{w}^{(} ^{H} ^{3} ^{}^{x} ^{3} ^{)}^{[}^{f}
6El,
£.}+{w(H
El,
f\.2b
^{x}^{)}^{l}^{f}
£ }+M,
Jl2b
(H x)a
EI.
341
(24)
4. HORIZONTAL DEFLECTION
The compatibility equation for rotation at the interface of one outrigger and the braced frame on the centre line of the outriggers can simply be stated as
e,= e, 
(25) 
substituting for both rotations and simplifying yields
By introduci.ng two characteristic structurdl parameters
(27)
(28)
an expression for the restraining moment can be obtained as follows:
w(H ^{3}  x ^{3} )
6 El,
wx H
+
H
aGA,
( H x)Sv+H Sh
}
(29)
The horizontal deflection at the top of the structure can now easily be computed with the following equation:
M,
aGA,
^{(}^{3}^{0}^{)}
where the first two terms on the righthand side represent the 'free' horizontal deflections of the braced frame at the top due to bending and racking shear as a direct result of laterdl loading. The third term is a combination of laterdl deflection at outrigger level caused by reverse bending due to M, and the additional deflection above the outrigger due to rotation at outrigger level. The last term represents a horizontal deflection in the braced frame over a singlestorey height at outrigger level.
5. OPTIMUM LOCATION OF OUTIUGGERS
It is interesting to find out at what level the outriggers should be placed in order to have a maximum impact on the lateral deflection behaviour of the s tructure. The deflection reduction of the braced frame is represented by the last two terms on the righthand side in Equation (30):
Copyright 0
2.003 John Wi ley & So ns, Ud.
Struct Dc.<ign Tall Sft«C. B uild. 12, 33S3SO (2003)
342
J. C. D. HOBNDERKAMP AND M. C. M. BAKKER
(31)
The reduction can be maximized by differentiating it w.r.t. x, setting it equal to zero and solving for x . TI1is yield~ the following expression:
(32) 

in which a characteristic structural parameter for the braced frame has been set as follows: 

(33) 

and for the entire structure the following dimensionless parameter is introduced: 

(34) 
Setting a dimensionless location parameter for the outriggers as

X
x= 
H
leads to the following simplified differential equation:
d

d:x
[{
1
_2
 x
_ 3
 x
_ 5
+x
+
2+6x  8x
(/3H )2
3
12.x x
+
1
} ]
(f3H)4 1 X +CO
=0
(35)
(36)
which includes a characteristic dimensionless parameter for the braced frame:
raGA:
_{E}_{J}_{,}
f3H= H1~
_{~}
(37)
Differentiating Equation (36) w.r.t. x allows a graphical presentation as shown in Figure 5, of the optimum locations for the outriggers as a function of two dimensionless characteristic parameters, ro and f3H, for a braced frame structure with outriggers.
6.
ACCURACY
Approximations exist in simplifying the horizontal and vertical trussed structures into s imple pris matic beam members acting at their neutral axes to make them suitable for a rapid graphical method of analysis. ln a beam rotations can vary continuously along its length, whereas in a truss rotations are constant in a braced segment. ln Appendix B it is shown that the accuracy of the model improves by calcnlat
C<Jpyrighlo 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
SlnlL•. Design Tall Spec Bul7d. 12, 335 350 (2003)
I{[GHRISB BRACED FRAMBS wn'H OUTRlGGBRS
343
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Values of (.()
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Figure 5. Optimum location of outriggers
ing the rotations in the truss at the bottom of the outrigger (H  x  h/2) and adding the rotations in the outrigger separately (Van Lier, 2000) instead of at level (H  x). Unfortunately, this results in more complicated formulae and makes the method of analysis unsuitable for graphical solutions. The Limited number of segments into which an outrigger is divided can be an additional source of error. The bending moments which are carried by the axial forces in the chords have to be constant in a segment. Appendix C gives factors allowing an adjustment to be made to the flexural stiffness of the outrigger in order to compensate for this segmental behaviour of the actual structure. Table l shows the configurations of three structures that have been used to find out what the dif
ferences
are in horizontal deflection at the top of the structure between the proposed simplified method
of analysis and a computer matrix method of analysis. Structure 2 was used a~ the basic model for an
error analysis with the following properties: braced frame A. = _{3}_{}_{4}_{0} _{x} _{I}_{Q}_{} ^{2} m\ A _{=} _{8}_{·}_{0} 
_{x} 
_{J}_{0}_{·} ^{3} m ^{2} _{;} 

horizontal trusses, 
A b=2·0 x 10 ^{2} m ^{2} _{,} A dr = 80 x I0· ^{3} m ^{2} and exterior col umns, A .= 2·0 
x 
1Q ^{2} m ^{2} _{•} 
The crosssections of the members were independently varied between 2·0 x 10 ^{2} m ^{2} and 80 x 10 ^{8} m ^{2} • This caused a variation in characteristic parameters a~ follows: 0 · 05 ~ liJ ~ 095 and 12 ~ {JH ~ 1000. The results showed that maximum errors of 4% occurred with extreme values for the sectional areas of the braced frame members: for diagonals to approach the maximum set value and for columns to approach the rninimwu set value.
Thble I. Structures for error analysis 

Height of 
Width of 
Length of 
Location 
Number of 

structure 
braced frame 
outrigger 
outrij!ger 
segments 

I 
57·6m 
80m 
IO·Sm 
23·4m 
6/12 

2 
720m 
7·2m 
7·2m 
30·6m 
418 

3 
93·6m 
7·2m 
1·2m 
378m 
4/8 
Copyrigh< 0 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Lld.
Stru<' Design Tall Spec. Build. 12, 33>350 (2003)
344
J. C. D. HOEND'BRKAMP AND M. C. M. BAKKER
7.
EXAMPLE
The structural floor plan of a 29storcy, 87 m high building in Figure 6 shows the arrangement of four identical onebay Xbraced frames. each containing horizontal trusses on both sides. Each truss is 9 m long, has a single storey height of 3m and comprises five Xbraced segments. The building is sub jected to a uniformly distributed lateral load of 1·6k.N/m ^{1} _{.} The clastic modulus of steel E = 2· 1 x JQI'k.N/m ^{2} _{•} For the braced f·rame columns, A,= J·043 X 1() ^{1} m ^{2} and diagonals, A"'= 1·78 x 10 ^{1} m ~.
For the horizontal trusses: top and bottom chords, A b= 1·78 x I0 ^{3} m ^{2} and for the exterior columns A .= 3·12 x J0 ^{1} m ^{2} _{.}
t0 ^{1} m ^{2} _{;} diagonals A
,
=9·726 x
The structural parameters for one outriggerbraced frame are obtained as follows. The nexural stiff ness a.~sociatcdwith the columns of the braced frame are given by Equation (2):
EA c ^{2}
E l , = 
2 ·
=
2·1X 10 ^{8} X 1·043 X JOl X 9 ^{2}
2
8.87 1X 10 ^{8} k.Nm ^{1}
The racking shear stiffness can be obtained from Equation (A. 1):
GA, =2a: h EAt,
d
The flexural stiffness of the outrigger structure is given by Equation ( 14):
The racking shear stiffness is the swn for I0 segments. Equation (A. I ) yields
The global second moment of area of the exterior columns can be obtained from Equation (22):
Ooebay bmced frames willl outriggers
Figure 6. Struclural tloor plan
Olpyrighl Q 1003 John Wiley & Snns. Ltd. 
Strua. Design 'Tbll Sf= BmUI. ll. 335350 (2003) 
HIGHRISE BRACBD FRAMES WITH OUTRIGGERS
345
The dimensionless parameter a in Equation (I 0) yields
a=!: 
= 
13·5 = 1·5 

b 
9 
The characteristic parameters S, and S _{1} , are given by Equations (27) and (28):
H
H
s,.= +
El,
El,
87
8871X 10 ^{3}
+
87
2388 X 10 ^{9}
I
1·345 xi0' 0<Nmr
{b
1
1}
24El _{0} + hGA, + hGA,
l
= 1·5'2
{
9
1
I
24x 1·673x 10 7 + 3x 9272x 10 6 + 3x2128x 106
}
_{=} ^{9} ' ^{5}^{5}^{1} x J08(J<Nm)
•
The characteristic nondimensional parameters for the structure can now be obtained from Equations (34) and (37):
(J) = S,,
S,,
= 9551 X 10a _
0 ^{_} 710 1·345 X 10 ^{7} r
fJH=H~aGA, =8 7
El,
1·5x2·128x!Oc. = 5218 8·871 X 10 ^{3}
From the diagram in Figure 5 it can now quite easily be determined that the optimum location of the outrigger will be at x/H = 032. Locating the outrigger at a midstorey level nearest to the theo retical optimum location, i.e. 285m from the top, and using Equation (29) yields the restraining moment:
M ={w(H3 x3) +~ H
' 6EI,
H
aGA, fl (H  x)S. + HSh
}
18(87 ^{3}  28·5 ^{3} )
18x28 5
H
87
{ 6 x8870 x10 ^{8} + 1·5 x2128 x 10 ^{6} fl(87 2 85) x 1345 x 10 ^{7} + 87 x9 551 x 10a
=
= l.2419x 10 ^{4} kNm
}
This is an 182% reduction in the bending moment for the braced frame. The reduction occurs between outrigger level and the base of the structure. Jt is not the maximum possible moment reduction for the frame; this will occur with the outrigger at a lower position. The horizontal deflections and reductions at the top of the structure are given by Equation (30):
y
,
wH'
wH ^{2}
M,(H ^{2}  x ^{2} _{)}
2E/,
M,
aGA,
18x87 ^{2}
x2128 x 10 ^{6}
= +
=
2GA,
8EI,
18x87 ^{4}
8x 2·1 x 10 ^{8} x 8870x 10 ^{8}
+~
2
l242 x 10 ^{4} (87 ^{2} 2:85 ^{2} )
2
X 8870 X 10 ^{3}
= 01453+00320  00473  00039 = 0·126 1m
1·242 x1o•
l5x2128xl0 ^{6}
Copyright C 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Lui. 
S ITUd. 
De.tign Tall Spec. B uild. 12, 33>350 (2003) 
346
J. C. D. HOENDERKAMP AND M. C. M. BAKKER
Table 2. Structural perfom1ance
x
= 1·5m
x = 43·5m
_{F}_{l}_{e}_{x}_{i}_{b}_{l}_{e}
% y""'
25·3
(25·5)
26·7
(27·0)
% M"""
14·4
( 14·5)
19·8
(20·0)
(J) 0·7 10
5218
_{1}_{M}
_{x}_{•}
_{i}_{n} _{m}
Optimum
28·9
(29·1 )
28·5
18·2
(18·4)
^{%} ^{y}^{,}
27·2
(27·5)
29·6
(30·5)
GA. = ~
% M.,"d
15·5
(157)
21·9
(22·0)
GA. = El, = ~
% y"d
28·6
(28·8)
31·8
(32·6)
% M"""
16·3
( 16·4)
23·5
(2J.6)
().591 
0·518 
5·2 18 
5·218 
28·5 
28·5 
316
(31·9)
19·9
(20·1)
33·5
(33·8)
2 1·2
(2!4)
GA ,=
~
% y""
4 1·4
(41·6)
46· 1
(46·6)
% M""•
20·7
(20·9)
30·7
(3f.l)
0·192
00
31·5
48·6
(48·9)
27·9
(28·2)
The total reduction in horizontal deflection is thus 28·9%. For the bending and r acking shear compo nent~ of the lateral defom1ation separately these are 32·6% and 12·2% respectively. The values in Table 2 give percentage reductions of lateral deflections at the top of the structure and of bending moments in the braced frame. This is done for three locatio ns of the outrigger: mid height of top storey, x = 1·5 m; midheight of the building, x = 43·5m and at the optimum location, x.,., which is defined as the location for which the deflection reduction has a maximum value. It should be noted that the moment reduction here is not an optimum. The percentages in brackets give values obtained from computer stiffness matrix analyses. Applying the rigorous method of analysis given in Appendix B leads to the following results: M, = 1·2476 x IO"kNm andy"'~'=0·1453 + 0·0320  0·0475 0·0039 = 0·1259m. The differences are less than 0·5%.
In the column marked 'Flexible' all five stiffnesses have been given finite values. ln the third column the racking shear stiffness of the outriggers has been given an infinite value, the other four stiffncsses remaining unchanged. Similar reasoning has beeo applied to columns 4 and 5. The results show that increasing the stiffmesses of the outrigger yields larger reductions for the horizontal deflection and bending moments in the braced frames. The suggestion that a horizontal truss be represented by an element with infinite stiffnesse.<;, i.e. GA., = El, = oo, would lead to overestimating deflection and moment reductions. The results in column 5 are for a swcture where the diagonals of the vertical truss have been given an infinite stiffness. This allows full widecolumn action to take place in this truss, thereby markedly improving the effectiveness of the outriggers. The range of the values for ro between 0· 5 18 and 0·71 0 combined with a value of 5· 128 for fJH will yield different optimum locations for the outriggers. Since the horizontal trusses can only be posi tioned at midstorey levels, it turned out in this particular example to be at the same location for the three structures. The influence on the lateral deflectiou of the correction factor suggested. in Table 3 of Appendix C
was
for these examples less than 0·1 %.
8. CON CL US IONS
11te behaviour of a braced frame with outrigger trusses subject to lateral loading is similar to a con crete wall with outrigger beams. lt requires additional stiffness parameters representing the racking shear behaviour of the braced frame and outrigger trusses. The structural properties can be represented by two flexural parameters: S,, representing the strains in the vertical members and S _{1} _{,} for the strains in the horizontal and diagonal members.
Ccpy ri gl't ID 2003 Jolul Wil ey & Sons, Lttl.
Stm
1. Design Tall Sp ec. Built! t 2, 335350 (2003)
347
The simplified structure yields two characteristic nondimensional parameters, tiJ and fJH, which
HIGHRJSB BRACED FRAMES WITH OUTRIGGERS
can be used in a diagram to detennine the optimum level of the ol!ltrigger structure. The reductions in horizontal deflections and bending moments of the braced frame are influenced
by ail five stiffness parameters. It is therefore suggested that all stiffnesscs be included in the prelim inary analysis of a proposed taU building structure. For structures with practical dimensions for its sections the maximum expected error is 2%. The braced frame structure with outrigger trusses can be a very good Uatcral loadrcsistil\g element for a highrise structure.
APPENDIX A
Racking Shear Stijfnesses of Bracing Systems
Figure 7 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 givcn for a standard segment with a length a and a height h. AJJ connections are taken to be pinned with exceptions forK and knee bracing where the braces are pin cormected at the top to continuous beams of length a. lt should be noted that the vertical members do not have any in£Juence 011 the racking shear stiff11ess of thesegment.
The racking shear stiffues 
~for 
an Xbraced segment as shown in Figure 7(a) is given by 
(A.l)
where Ad is the crosssectionail area of the diagonal and d represents its length. The racking shear stiffness of the Kbraced scgme11t in Figure 7{b) is
Ccpyrigh< C 2003 John Wiley & Sons. lui.
GA,.K=
'
a~h£
2d

l
A.t
~
a
+
4~
(A.2)
,~l"c"'a .41"'(a)
+",+ a
(c)
h
h
Figure 7. Truss bracings
Struct. De.tign Ta/1S;pec: Brn1d. 12. 335350 (2003)
348
J. C. D. HOENDERKAMP AND M. C. M. BA.KKER
in which A b is the crosssectional. area of the horizontal member. Bracing systems with a single diag onal, Nbracing, as shown in Figurre 7(c) have the following racking sllear stiffness:
(A.3)
The racking shear stiffness of a fullheight kneebraced segment as indicated in Figure 7(d) can be expressed as
(A.4)
in which m is the horizontal distance between column and chord connections to bracing, e is the hor izontal distance between tops of kneebraces and lb indicates the second moment of area for the hor izontal member.
APPENDIXB
Rigorous Method of An.alysis
For a more accurate analysis it is necessary first to determine the rotation in the truss at the bottom of the outrigger level and adding the rotation in the outrigger separately. Equation (5) thus becomes
e M, (H  x 
_
•t>••tr 
EI,
h/ 2)
h ^{2} F,
2EI,
hcP.
_{4}_{E}_{I}_{,}
= M , (H  x  h / 4 )
_{(}_{B}_{.} _{I}_{)}
This adjusted rotation must now also be substituted into Equation ( 19), which repre the rigid body rotation of the outrigger. Solving the new compatibi1ity equation for rotation yields the following expression for the restraining moment:
o;enL~
Tite deflection at the top of the structure becomes
M,
aGA,
(B.2)
(B.3)
APPENDIXC
Bending Stiffness of Outrigger
ln the method of analysis the outrigger is treated as a prismatic member when calculating the rota tions due to bending in the strucrure. Figure 8 shows a prismatic beam subjected to end moments _{M}_{.}
Copyright 0 2003 John Wiley &
Son.<, Ltd.
SITilt:L Design Th/1 Spec. Build. 12, 335350 (2003)
HlGHRlSE BRACED FRAMES WITH OUTRIGGERS
M
M
c;.EJ,2!
A
b
B
(prismatic member)
EJ,
.
.
(r%1%J5
A
_{b}
B
(truSS)
M
£1.
r"7"::;

J
M
Er.
b
Figure 8. Outrigger rotations
349
The reduced bending moment area of the conjugate beam yields end rotations
Mb
()pm"b = 
6EI.
(C. I)
where the bending stiffness of a single outrigger is given by Equation (14). The above equation for rotation is an approximation of the rotation of the outrigger. Tilis is due to the fact that the bending moment in the outrigger, resulting from the normal forces iu the chords, cannot vary linearly over the length of the outrigger. A more accurate formula to calculate the rotation of the outrigger can be found by using the con jugate beam method. This is illustrated for a truss with only two Xbraced segments in Figure 8. For each segment the bending moment carried by the axial forces in the chords can be obtained by pa~singa section through the point of intersection of the diagonals and considering equilibrium of the resulting free bodies. The bending moments are constant over the length of the segment. The rotation from the newly obtained reduced moment area over the length of the truss then can be expressed as
^{(}^{C}^{.}^{2}^{)}
It can be concluded that for au outrigger with only two Xbraced segments Equation (C. I) results in a 33% overestimation of the rotation of the outrigger. The accuracy of the prediction of the rotation by Equation (C.l) can be improved by adjusting the bending stiffness of the outrigger as follows:
(C.3)
where r is a correction factor which can be detennined from the ratio between the angle of rotation as calculated with Equation (C. I) and the angle of rotation detennined with the conjugate beam method. Table 3 gives an overview of thus determined correction factors for an ourigger with a varying number of Xbraced segments.
_{C}_{<}_{l}_{p}_{y}_{r}_{i}_{g}_{h}_{t} _{0} _{2}_{0}_{0}_{3} _{J}_{o}_{h}_{n} _{W}_{i} _{l}_{e}_{y} _{&} _{S}_{o}_{n}_{s}_{,} _{l}_{A}_{d}_{.}
Struct. Design Tall SJKC. Build. 12, 33.)
350 (2003)
_{} 350
J. C. D. HOENDERKAMP AND M. C. M. BAKKER
Table 3. Correction factors for xbraced outrigger bending stiffness
Number segments 
L 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
Factory 
1·333 
1·125 
1·067 
1·042 
Hl29 
The accuracy of the approximation in Equation (C.I) increases with an increasing number of seg ments in the outrigger as the correction factor decreases rapidly with the number of segments.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to record their appreciation of S. van Lier for her coJltributions lo this project.
REFERENCES
Hoenderkamp JCD, Snijder HH. 2000. Simplified analysis of fa~de rigger braced highrise srructures. Srruc
htral Design of Tall Buildings 9 : 309319.
Roenderkamp JCD, Snijder HR. 2003. Preliminary analysis of higbrise braced frames with fa~de riggers.
Joumal of Strucntral Engineering, ASCE 129{5): 640647.
Stafford Smith B. Salim 1. 1981. Parameter study of outriggerbraced tall buildin.g srructures. Journal of rhe
Struchtral Division, ASCE 107(10): 20012013.
Stafford Smith B, Coull A. 1991. Tall Building Structltrcs. Wiley: New York. Van Lier S. 2000. Outrigger braced truss. Repon No. TUE BC0 0012. Department of Architecture and Build ing, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands.
Glpyrighl C 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Stnv t
. Design Tall Spec. Build. 12, 335350 (2003)
Mult mai mult decât documente.
Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.
Anulați oricând.