Volume 36 Issue 8
Sep.  2021
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
Yahia Halabi, Wael Alhaddad, Hu Xu, Zhixiang Yu. Evaluation of Seismic Performance for Outrigger System and Ladder System in High Rise Buildings[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2021, 36(8): 1-19. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgSE20111001
Citation: Yahia Halabi, Wael Alhaddad, Hu Xu, Zhixiang Yu. Evaluation of Seismic Performance for Outrigger System and Ladder System in High Rise Buildings[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2021, 36(8): 1-19. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgSE20111001

Evaluation of Seismic Performance for Outrigger System and Ladder System in High Rise Buildings

doi: 10.13206/j.gjgSE20111001
Funds:

The work in this study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China under Grant No. 2016YFC0802205, the Department of Science and Technology of Sichuan Province under Grant No. 2019YJ0221.

  • Received Date: 2020-11-10
  • Rev Recd Date: 2021-01-31
  • Available Online: 2021-09-16
  • Excellent seismic performance of high-rise building is a continuous destination in structural engineering, that highly relies on the lateral load resisting system. As one of the most common lateral load resisting systems, the outrigger system is widely applied to skyscrapers. However, its mechanical properties are affected by the truss location, the topological form as well as construction process, in addition, the irregular vertical stiffness of the entire building occurs. Therefore, the actual seismic behavior and optimization methods are worthy paying attention to. The ladder system is a novel lateral load resisting system, in which the horizontal beams are set to connect the mega columns at each floor, resulting in a more uniform vertical stiffness compared with the outrigger system.
    In order to compare the seismic performance between the above two systems, the numerical models of 80-story building were established by means of the finite element program ETABS, and the performance-based seismic design method is adopted to carry out calculation and analysis. For the outrigger system, four levels of steel outrigger trusses were set along the height, and the specific locations that floor 17-18, floor 32-33, floor 46-47, and floor 62-63, respectively, were determined by considering the multiple factors including structural weight, base moment, base shear, inter-story drift, and core moment. In addition, the optimum topology of the outrigger truss was selected out of four different trusses' topologies with the same steel consumption according to the favorable natural period and the global response of the structure, such as base shear, bending moment and inter-story drift under the action of frequent and moderate earthquakes. Subsequently, the ladder system was generated based on the principle of the equivalent lateral stiffness with the outrigger model, and the cross section as well as the design parameters were presented.
    Nonlinear dynamic time history analysis was carried out to compare the global and components' performance between the outrigger, ladder, and stand-alone core systems under the FEMA356 guidelines requirements, where 7 sets of natural ground motions and 2 sets of artificial ground motions for different intensities were selected as a seismic input. The results showed that:1) comparing with the stand-alone core system, the inter-story drift under the frequent earthquake level was reduced by 60% and 47% in outrigger and ladder systems, respectively. While the modification factors of both systems equal to 1, denoting that outrigger system is more efficient in the elastic stage. However, under the rare earthquake, the inter-story drift reduction was 56% and 70% for outrigger and ladder systems, respectively. While the modification factors of two systems equal to 3 and 6, indicating that the ladder system has better ductility and energy dissipating performance in the elastoplastic stage. Besides, the top displacement response of both systems reflect the same structural deformation feature. This indicates that the outrigger system is more effective in the elastic stage, while the ladder system is more ductile in the elastoplastic stage dissipating more input energy. 2) The same trend was for the internal forces, where the outrigger system reduced the core bending moment under the frequent earthquake level, while the ladder system showed a superiority under the moderate and rare earthquake evaluation. 3)In terms of the damage state evaluation, all the structural components in both outrigger and ladder systems were under Immediate Occupancy (IO) performance level for the frequent earthquake; while for the rare earthquake, most of the coupling beams reached the Collapse Prevention (CP) performance level in the ladder system, while only some of them reached the Life Safety (LS) and CP performance levels in the outrigger system. At the same time, the damage state of the shear walls was CP in both systems under the rare earthquake, and the damage state grew severer from lower to higher floors in the ladder system, however, the global plastic damage distribution has similarity between two systems. It can be concluded that the principle of the equivalent stiffness is more adequate under the frequent earthquake evaluation than the high earthquake intensity, where the calculation errors on energy dissipating and damage distribution would occur.
  • loading
  • [1]
    Taranath B S. Structural analysis and design of tall buildings:steel and composite construction[M]. New York, USA:CRC Press, 2012.
    [2]
    Fung F. Design and analysis of tall and complex structures[M]. Oxford, United Kingdom:Elsevier, Butter Worth-Heinemann, 2018.
    [3]
    Khan F R. Recent structural systems in steel for high-rise buildings[C]//Proceedings of the British Constructional Steelwork Association Conference on Steel in Architecture. London, UK:1969:24-26.
    [4]
    Ali M M, Moon K S. Advances in structural systems for tall buildings:emerging developments for contemporary urban giants[J]. Buildings,2018,8(8):104-138.
    [5]
    Alhaddad W, Halabi Y, Xu H, et al. A comprehensive introduction to outrigger and belt-truss system in skyscrapers[J]. Structures,2020,27:989-998.
    [6]
    Alhaddad W, Halabi Y, Xu H, et al. Outrigger and belt-truss system design for high-rise buildings:a comprehensive review part II-guideline for optimum topology and size design[J/OL]. Advances in Civil Engineering,2020. http://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2589735.
    [7]
    Smith B, Coull A. Tall building structures; analysis and design[M]. New York, USA:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,1991.
    [8]
    Moudarres F R, Coull A. Free vibrations of outrigger-braced structures[J]. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 1985, 79(1):105-117.
    [9]
    Lu X, Lu X, Sezen H, et al. Development of a simplified model and seismic energy dissipation in a super-tall building[J]. Engineering Structures,2014,67:109-122.
    [10]
    Kim H S. Optimum design of outriggers in a tall building by alternating nonlinear programming[J]. Engineering Structures, 2017,150:91-97.
    [11]
    Chen Y, Zhang Z. Analysis of outrigger numbers and locations in outrigger braced structures using a multiobjective genetic algorithm[J/OL]. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings,2018(1). http://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1408.
    [12]
    Nie J G, Ding R. Experimental research on seismic performance of K-style steel outrigger truss to concrete core tube wall joints[C/OL]//Structures Congress 2013:Bridging Your Passion with Your Profession. 2013:2802-2813. http://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412848.244.
    [13]
    Nie J G, Ding R, Fan J S, et al. Seismic performance of joints between steel K-style outrigger trusses and concrete cores in tall buildings[J/OL]. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2014, 140(12). http://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001028.
    [14]
    Ho G W M. Outrigger topology and behaviour[J]. Advanced Steel Construction,2016(2):83-93.
    [15]
    Lee D. Additive 2D and 3D performance ratio analysis for steel outrigger alternative design[J]. Steel and Composite Structures,2016,20(5):1133-1153.
    [16]
    Poon D C, Hsiao L E, Zhu Y, et al. Performance-based seismic evaluation of ping an international finance center[C]//Structures Congress 2011. Las Vegas, United States:2011:983-993.
    [17]
    Jiang H J, Lu X L, Liu X J, et al. Performance-based seismic design principles and structural analysis of Shanghai Tower[J]. Advances in Structural Engineering,2014,17(4):513-527.
    [18]
    Kwok M, Gibbons C, Tsui J, et al. The structural design of the Mega Tower, China World Trade Centre phase 3, Beijing China[C]//Sixth International Conference on Tall Buildings. Hong Kong,China:2005:396-402.
    [19]
    Besjak C, Biswas P,Ullah S U, et al. Shenzhen Shum-Yip Tower one-gravity and lateral load resisting system optimization[C]//Structures Congress 2014. Boston:Massachusetts, 2014:2524-2536.
    [20]
    Alhaddad W, Halabi Y, Meree H, et al. Optimum design method for simplified model of outrigger and ladder systems in tall buildings using genetic algorithm[J]. Structures,2020,28:2467-2487.
    [21]
    American Institute of Steel Construction. TBI, Tall buildings initiative:guidelines for performance-based seismic design of tall buildings[S]. Berkeley, USA:Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center PEER, University of California,2017.
    [22]
    Willford M R, Smith R J. Performance-based seismic and wind engineering for 60 story twin towers in manila[C]//The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Beijing, China:2008.
    [23]
    Moehle J P. The tall buildings initiative for alternative seismic design[J]. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings,2007,16(5):559-567.
    [24]
    Park H S, Lee E, Choi S W, et al. Genetic-algorithm-based minimum weight design of an outrigger system for high-rise buildings[J]. Engineering Structures,2016,117:496-505.
    [25]
    Babaei M. Multi-objective optimal number and location for steel outrigger-belt truss system[J]. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology,2017,12(10):2599-2612.
    [26]
    Lee S, Tovar A. Outrigger placement in tall buildings using topology optimization[J]. Engineering Structures,2014,74:122-129.
    [27]
    Er G K,Iu V P. General procedure of formulating the governing equations for analyzing outrigger-braced structures[C/OL]//7th International Conference on Tall Building. Hong Kong, China:2009:589-595. http://doi.org/10.3850/9789628014194_0017.
    [28]
    Hulea R, Parv B, Nicoreac M, et al. Optimum design of outrigger and belt truss systems using genetic algorithm[J]. Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture,2014,8(6):709-715.
    [29]
    Brunesi E, Nascimbene R, Casagrande L. Seismic analysis of high-rise mega-braced frame-core buildings[J]. Engineering Structures,2016,115:1-7.
    [30]
    Sohail S, Ahmed P M, Abdulla P S. Optimization of multistory building with multi-outrigger system and belts truss[J]. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, 2016,5(7):509-517.
    [31]
    Coull A, Lau W O. Analysis of multioutrigger-braced structures[J]. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1989, 15(7):1811-1815.
    [32]
    Rutenberg A, Tal D. Lateral load response of belted tall building structures[J]. Engineering Structures,1987,9(1):53-67.
    [33]
    Kim H S. Optimum design of outriggers in a tall building by alternating nonlinear programming[J]. Engineering Structures, 2017,150:91-97.
    [34]
    Mander J B, Priestley M J, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete[J]. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1988,114(8):1804-1826.
    [35]
    American Society of Civil Engineers. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings:FEMA 356[S]. Washington, D C:Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2000.
  • 加载中

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Article Metrics

    Article views (414) PDF downloads(54) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return