applied

sciences
Article
Influence of Multiple Openings on Reinforced
Concrete Outrigger Walls in a Tall Building
Han-Soo Kim * , Yi-Tao Huang and Hui-Jing Jin
Department of Architecture, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Korea; icyhyt@konkuk.ac.kr (Y.-T.H.);
hg1827@daum.net (H.-J.J.)
* Correspondence: hskim@konkuk.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-2-2049-6110




Received: 1 October 2019; Accepted: 13 November 2019; Published: 15 November 2019


Featured Application: The reinforced concrete outrigger wall with multiple openings can be used
to replace the conventional steel outrigger trusses in tall building structures.

Abstract: Outrigger systems have been used to control the lateral displacement of tall buildings.
Reinforced concrete (R.C.) outrigger walls with openings can be used to replace conventional steel
outrigger trusses. In this paper, a structural model for an R.C. outrigger wall with multiple openings
was proposed, and the effects of the multiple openings on the stiffness and strength of the outrigger
walls were evaluated. The equivalent bending stiffness of the outrigger wall was derived to predict
the lateral displacement at the top of tall buildings and internal shear force developed in the wall.
The openings for the passageway in the wall were designed by the strut-and-tie model. The stiffness
and strength of the outrigger wall with multiple openings was analyzed by the nonlinear finite
element analysis. Taking into consideration the degradation in stiffness and strength, the ratio of
the opening area to the outrigger wall area is recommended to be less than 20%. The degradation of
stiffness due to openings does not affect the structural performance of the outrigger system when the
outrigger has already large stiffness as the case of reinforced concrete outrigger walls.

Keywords: outrigger wall; multiple openings; deep beam; stiffness; shear strength; tall building

1. Introduction
With the development of tall building structures, the outrigger system has become one of the most
popular structural systems that control the lateral displacement of such buildings. Several researchers
and engineers have been studying and developing the outrigger system because it performs well in
controlling the lateral displacement at the top of a tall building by reducing the overturning moment [1].
For example, the Shanghai Tower, Hong Kong IFC2, and Taipei 101 are successful applications of the
system in tall buildings [2]. Most of the previous research studies focused on the optimum location of
outriggers and lateral stiffness of the whole structure. Taranath [3] assumed a rigid outrigger beam for
single-outrigger structures, and proposed that the optimum location of an outrigger is 0.455 of the total
height from the top. McNabb and Muvdi [4] proposed that the optimum locations for two outriggers
are 0.312 and 0.685 of the total height from the top based on Taranath’s research. Smith and Nwaka [5]
presented generalized results for optimum locations in multi-outrigger structures by assuming rigid
outriggers in flexure. Smith and Salim [6] proposed equations for the optimum locations of outriggers
by considering their flexibility. Hoenderkamper and Bakker [7] considered the bending and racking
shear stiffness of the outrigger truss to determine the optimum location of the outrigger. The research
studies on outrigger-braced structures have been summarized and some further studies have been
attempted by Wu and Li [8]. Recently, Kim et al. [9] proposed a dual-purpose outrigger system to
reduce the lateral displacement and differential column shortening.

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4913; doi:10.3390/app9224913 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 18

Recently, Kim et al. [9] proposed a dual-purpose outrigger system to reduce the lateral displacement
and differential column shortening.
Even though
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9,some
4913 researchers assumed equivalent beams for the outriggers to derive equations
2 of 18
for the optimum locations, most of the outriggers built were made of steel trusses. Although there
are a few applications of reinforced concrete outrigger walls, such as Chong Qing Raffles City [10],
Even though some researchers assumed equivalent beams for the outriggers to derive equations
discussing the walls is not enough.
for the optimum locations, most ofFurthermore,
the outriggerstoo builtlittle
wereattention has trusses.
made of steel been paid to thethere
Although reinforced
concreteareoutrigger walls with
a few applications openings.
of reinforced concrete outrigger walls, such as Chong Qing Raffles City [10],
Indiscussing
theory, the the deeper the enough.
walls is not outrigger, the stiffertoo
Furthermore, thelittle
structure [11].
attention has It means
been paid that
to thea reinforced
deep outrigger,
concrete outrigger walls with openings.
such as an outrigger wall, can provide more effective lateral load-resistance for high-rise structures.
At the same In theory, the deeper the
time, reinforced outrigger,
concrete the stifferwalls
outrigger the structure
can be[11]. It means that
cost-effective a deep outrigger,
systems because of the
such as an outrigger wall, can provide more effective lateral load-resistance for high-rise structures.
same construction procedure as reinforced concrete core walls. However, as large concrete structures,
At the same time, reinforced concrete outrigger walls can be cost-effective systems because of the
the reinforced concrete outrigger walls are heavy and space consuming. As a result, it is necessary to
same construction procedure as reinforced concrete core walls. However, as large concrete structures,
solve the problemsconcrete
the reinforced associated withwalls
outrigger making better
are heavy anduse
spaceof the space occupied
consuming. As a result,byit isoutrigger
necessary walls.
to In
this study, a model for arranging multiple openings on reinforced concrete outrigger
solve the problems associated with making better use of the space occupied by outrigger walls. In this walls, as shown
in Figure 1, aismodel
study, proposed. Moreover,
for arranging the openings
multiple study investigates
on reinforced the influence
concrete of multiple
outrigger walls, asopenings
shown in on the
Figure 1, is proposed. Moreover, the study investigates the
stiffness and strength of the outrigger walls and whole tall building structure. influence of multiple openings on the
stiffness and strength of the outrigger walls and whole tall building structure.

Figure 1. A typical tall building structure with reinforced concrete outriggers walls with
Figuremultiple
1. A typical tall building structure with reinforced concrete outriggers walls with multiple
openings.
openings.
Given the aspect ratio of the outrigger walls, they can be designed as deep beams with openings.
Kong the
Given andaspect
Sharpe ratio
[12] proposed a shear strength
of the outrigger equation
walls, they can for
be deep reinforced
designed concrete
as deep beams beams
withwith
openings.
web openings. Tan et al. [13] have predicted the capacity of deep beams with openings
Kong and Sharpe [12] proposed a shear strength equation for deep reinforced concrete beams using the with
strut-and-tie model. Tang and Tan [14] paid more attention in the evaluation of the ultimate shear
web openings. Tan et al. [13] have predicted the capacity of deep beams with openings using the
strength of deep beams, but there was only an opening in every shear region while the opening is
strut-and-tie model. Tang and Tan [14] paid more attention in the evaluation of the ultimate shear
strength of deep beams, but there was only an opening in every shear region while the opening is
placed in the critical load path. Although several studies have been performed on deep beams with
web openings, there are still difficulties in predicting the structural behavior of deep beams with
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 18

multiple openings. In this study, analytic equations used to predict the internal shear forces on
outrigger walls due to the lateral loads are derived and the results are verified through numerical
examples.
Appl.After that,
Sci. 2019, an outrigger wall with four openings was proposed through the 3strut-and-tie
9, 4913 of 18

model. Subsequently, the linear and nonlinear finite element method and strut-and-tie model were
used to placed
evaluate in thethe influence
critical load path.of Although
the size several
of multiple
studiesopenings on the stiffness
have been performed and shear
on deep beams strength of
with web
reinforced concrete outrigger walls. The study ends up investigating the influence of multiple
openings, there are still difficulties in predicting the structural behavior of deep beams with multiple
openingsopenings. In this study,
on the lateral analytic equations
displacement of wholeused to predict
tall buildingthe structures
internal shearbyforces
usingon the
outrigger walls analytic
proposed
due to the lateral loads are derived and the results are verified through numerical examples. After that,
equations.
an outrigger wall with four openings was proposed through the strut-and-tie model. Subsequently,
the linear and nonlinear finite element method and strut-and-tie model were used to evaluate the
2. Design of Reinforced
influence of the size Concrete
of multipleOutrigger
openings onWall with Multiple
the stiffness Openings
and shear strength of reinforced concrete
outrigger walls. The study ends up investigating the influence of multiple openings on the lateral
In this section, analytic equations used to predict the lateral displacement at the top of the
displacement of whole tall building structures by using the proposed analytic equations.
building and shear forces developed in each outrigger wall are derived and verified with the result
of finite 2. Design of
element Reinforced
analysis. Concrete Outrigger
Subsequently, Wall with
a structural Multiple
model Openings
for the outrigger wall with four openings
is proposed.In this section, analytic equations used to predict the lateral displacement at the top of the
building and shear forces developed in each outrigger wall are derived and verified with the result of
finite
2.1. Effect andelement
Demand analysis. Subsequently,
of Outrigger Walls a structural model for the outrigger wall with four openings
is proposed.
The internal shear force of the outrigger walls due to lateral loads is derived based on the
2.1. Effect and Demand of Outrigger Walls
simplified model of the core wall and outrigger structural system [15]. A simplified model of tall
The internal
building structures shear
with force ofoutriggers
multiple the outrigger walls due
is shown in to lateral2.loads
Figure Theiscorederived
wallbased on the
is connected to the
simplified model of the core wall and outrigger structural system [15]. A
perimeter columns through the outriggers. When lateral loads are applied at the central core wall, simplified model of tall
building structures with multiple outriggers is shown in Figure 2. The core wall is connected to the
the outrigger develops axial forces in the perimeter columns. The limitation of the simplified model
perimeter columns through the outriggers. When lateral loads are applied at the central core wall,
is that only flexuraldevelops
the outrigger deformation of the
axial forces outrigger
in the perimeter is considered,
columns. and the
The limitation length
of the of the
simplified outrigger is
model
assumedis that
as the
only distance from theofcenter
flexural deformation of theis considered,
the outrigger core to that and of the the
lengthperimeter column.
of the outrigger is These
assumed
assumptions areasdifferent
the distancefrom
from the
thecenter
actualof the core to that
behavior of of the perimeter
outrigger column.
walls. These assumptions
To enhance the accuracy of
are different from the actual behavior of outrigger walls. To enhance the accuracy
this simplified model, an equivalent bending stiffness (𝐸𝐼) was proposed by considering the shear of this simplified
model, an equivalent bending stiffness (EI )O was proposed by considering the shear deformation of
deformation of beams and the clear span of outrigger walls.
beams and the clear span of outrigger walls.

Figure 2. Simplified analysis model with multiple outriggers. The core wall is connected to the
Figure 2. Simplified analysis model with multiple outriggers. The core wall is connected to the
perimeter columns through the outriggers.
perimeter columns through the outriggers.
Because the outrigger walls belong to the category of deep beams [16], the total deformation is the
Becauseofthe
sum flexural and shear
outrigger deformations,
walls belong to and thecategory
the actual flexural distance
of deep is the[16],
beams clear the lo , asdeformation
spantotal
is shown
the sum of flexural and shear deformations, and the actual flexural distance is the clear span 𝑙 , as
shown in Figure 3. According to the principle of virtual works, for the outrigger wall with a moment
of inertia 𝐼 and cross-sectional area 𝐴 , the equivalent bending stiffness (𝐸𝐼) can be obtained by
the following equation.
 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4913 4 of 18

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18

in Figure 3. According to the principle of virtual works, for the outrigger wall with a moment of
inertia Io and cross-sectional area Ao , the equivalent bending stiffness (EI )o can be obtained by the
following equation. 𝑐 12𝐸𝐼
(𝐸𝐼) = 1 + 3 𝐸𝐼 1 + (1)
2𝑙 𝐺𝜅o 𝐴 𝐿
!
c 12EI
(EI )o = 1 + EIo / 1 + (1)
2lo Gκs Ao L2
where 𝐸 and 𝐺 are the modulus of elasticity and shear modulus, respectively. 𝜅 is the shear
where E and G are the modulus of elasticity and shear modulus, respectively. κs is the shear coefficient
coefficient to account for the shear deformation, which is 0.83 for a rectangular section. 𝑐 is the width
to account for the shear deformation, which is 0.83 for a rectangular section. c is the width of the core
of the core
wall,wall, is the 𝐿
and L and is thefrom
distance distance from
the center the
of the center
core wall toof
thethe core
center wall to the
of perimeter center
column, of perimeter
as shown
column, inasFigure
shown 3. in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Shear and flexural deformations of the outrigger wall are considered and the clear span rather
than center-to-center span is used in the equivalent bending stiffness of the outrigger wall.
Figure 3. Shear and flexural deformations of the outrigger wall are considered and the clear span
rather than
For center-to-center span
the core, the rotation θtiisatused inoutrigger
the ith the equivalent bending
level due stiffness
to the lateral loadofwthe
andoutrigger wall.
the restraining
moment Mri can be given by the following equation.
For the core, theR rotation 𝜃 atR the 𝑖 th outrigger levelR due to the lateral load  𝑤 and the
x2  wx2 x3  wx2  H  wx2
θ
restraining moment
ti = 1
(EI )𝑀 x1 can
− M dx +
2 be given by
r1 x2 the 2 − M − M dx +
following equation.
r1 r2 . . . + xn 2 − M r1 − . . . − Mrn dx (2)
t

where (EI )t represents1the bending𝑤𝑥 stiffness of the core wall. At𝑤𝑥the same outrigger level, the rotation of
𝜃 = − 𝑀 𝑑𝑥 + − 𝑀 − 𝑀 𝑑𝑥 + ⋯
(𝐸𝐼)
the inboard end of the outrigger θ oti2
, where it attaches to the 2 is due to the axial forces of perimeter
core,
columns and overturning moment Mri . It was noted that the restraining moment for the core and (2)
𝑤𝑥
+ walls have
overturning moment for the outrigger −𝑀 − ⋯value
the same − 𝑀 and 𝑑𝑥
opposite directions. Hence, Mri
is used to represent both. The rotation θoti 2 can be obtained by the following equation.

where (𝐸𝐼) represents the 2Mr1bending

(H − X1 ) stiffness
2Mr2 (H −of X2the
) core2Mwall. At the M
ri (H − Xi )
same
ri L
outrigger level, the
θoti = + + . . . + + (3)
rotation of the inboard end ofLthe outrigger
2 (EA )c L𝜃2 (EA
, where
)c it attaches
L2 (EAto)c the core,
12(EIis)oidue to the axial forces
of perimeter columns and overturning moment 𝑀 . It was noted that the restraining moment for the
where (EA)c represents the axial stiffness of perimeter columns.
core and overturning moment for the outrigger walls have the same value and opposite directions.
Hence, 𝑀 is used to represent both. The rotation 𝜃 can be obtained by the following equation.
2𝑀 (𝐻 − 𝑋 ) 2𝑀 (𝐻 − 𝑋 ) 2𝑀 (𝐻 − 𝑋 ) 𝑀 𝐿
𝜃 = + + ⋯+ + (3)
𝐿 (𝐸𝐴) 𝐿 (𝐸𝐴) 𝐿 (𝐸𝐴) 12(𝐸𝐼)
where (𝐸𝐴) represents the axial stiffness of perimeter columns.
Because of 𝜃 = 𝜃 , the restraining moment 𝑀 can be obtained in the following matrix form.
𝑀 𝐵 + 𝐶(𝐻 − 𝑋 ) 𝐶(𝐻 − 𝑋 ) ⋯ 𝐶(𝐻 − 𝑋 ) ⋯ 𝐶(𝐻 − 𝑋 ) 𝐻 −𝑋
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4913 5 of 18

Because of θti = θoti , the restraining moment Mri can be obtained in the following matrix form.
−1 
 B1 + C(H − X1 ) C ( H − X2 ) ··· C ( H − Xi ) ··· C ( H − Xn )

  H3 − X3 
  
 Mr1  1 
C ( H − X2 ) B2 + C(H − X2 ) ··· C ( H − Xi ) ··· C ( H − Xn )
  

 Mr2

    H3 − X3 
   2 

 .
  .. ... .. .. .. ..   ..

 ..
  
    . . . . .  
. 
w
(4)
 
 = 6(EI ×
   
 Mri
 )t 
 ..  
  H3 − X3 




 C ( H − Xi ) C ( H − Xi ) ··· Bi + C(H − Xi ) ··· .   i  
 . .. .. .. .. ..
  ..
 ..
 
    .

   . . . . . C ( H − Xn )   


Mrn
    3
H − X 3 
C ( H − Xn ) C ( H − Xn ) ··· C ( H − Xn ) ··· Bn + C(H − Xn ) n

where the parameter Bi and C are defined in the following equations.

L 1 2
Bi = C= + (5)
12(EI )oi (EI )t L2 (EA)c

where (EI )oi represents the equivalent bending stiffness of the ith outrigger wall, as given in Equation (1).
Applying the restraining moment Mri on the core, the displacement at the top of the building ∆top
can be obtained by using the following equation.
n
wH4 1 X  
∆top = − Mri H2 − Xi 2 (6)
8(EI )t 2(EI )t
i=1

The outriggers are subjected to the overturning moment Mri and shear forces at the far edge due
to the axial forces of the perimeter columns. According to the resulting rotation θoti , the internal shear
forces of the outrigger walls can be calculated by dividing Mri by L as follows.
−1 
 B1 + C(H − X1 ) C ( H − X2 ) ··· C ( H − Xi ) ··· C ( H − Xn )

  H3 − X3 
  
 V1  1 
C ( H − X2 ) B2 + C(H − X2 ) ··· C ( H − Xi ) ··· C ( H − Xn )
   3
  H − X3 

V2
  
   2 

..
  .. .. .. .. .. ..  
. 
..
      
 .  . . . . . .   
w
(7)

 = 6(EI ×
    
)t ..   H − X3 
  3 
Vi
 




  C ( H − Xi ) C ( H − Xi ) ··· Bi + C(H − Xi ) ··· .   i 
 ..  
 .. .. .. .. ..   .. 


 . 
 
 . . . . . C ( H − Xn )
 
  . 


Vn
   3
H − Xn3
C ( H − Xn ) C ( H − Xn ) ··· C ( H − Xn ) ··· B n + C ( H − Xn )


2.2. Verification by Numerical Examples

The accuracy of the proposed equations for lateral displacement at the top of tall buildings and
shear forces developed at the outrigger walls are verified by comparing with the results from linear
finite element analysis. MIDAS-Gen [17] was used for the linear finite element analysis because it is
widely used in the structural design practice. The outrigger walls and cores were modeled with the
quadrilateral plane stress elements with incompatible modes [17].
Six models were analyzed to verify the proposed equations. Models A1~A3 were the single-
outrigger structures. Model A4 and A5 were the two-outrigger structures. Model A6 included
the three-outrigger structures. The overall height of the structure is H = 280 m, with story height
being equal to 3.5 m with 80 stories. The additional dimensional conditions are shown in Figure 4.
The uniform lateral load w is applied at the center of the core wall. The floor diaphragm was neglected
to assign the same boundary conditions as assumed in Equations (6) and (7). Except for the locations,
all outriggers have the same dimensions and elastic modulus of 36.4 GPa. The lateral displacement
at the top of the structure ∆top and internal shear forces of the outrigger walls V from two analysis
methods are presented in Table 1. The difference shown in Table 1 is the percentage of the absolute
value of the difference between the two results, which is compared to the results from the finite element
method. As shown in Table 1, the differences in the top drift and shear forces between two analysis
results were less than 5%. A possible explanation for the discrepancy might be that the effective
bending stiffness given in Equation (1), in which the clear distance and shear deformation are included,
does not represent the actual deformation of the outrigger walls. However, these differences can be
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4913 6 of 18

regarded as permitted in a structural design practice. Taken together, these results can hold the view
that the proposed analytical equations for the outrigger walls that introduce the equivalent bending
stiffness are valid.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 18

Figure 4. Dimensions of the analysis model to verify the proposed analytical equations.
Figure 4. Dimensions of the analysis model to verify the proposed analytical equations.
Table 1. Results from Equations (6) and (7) and finite element analysis (FEA).
Table 1. Results from Equations (6) and (7) and finite element analysis (FEA).
∆top (m) V (kN)
Model Outrigger X (m) Diff. (%) Diff. (%)
∆𝒕𝒐𝒑 (𝐦) Diff. 𝑽 (𝐤𝐍)FEA Diff.
Model Outrigger X (m) Equation (6) FEA Equation (7)
Equation (6) FEA (%) Equation (7) FEA (%)
A1 O11 89.25 0.4964 0.5134 3.30 6790 6876 1.25
A1A2 O11
O21 89.25
138.25 0.4964
0.4715 0.5134
0.4905 3.30
3.87 6790
8267 6876
8331 0.771.25
A2A3 O21
O31 138.25
183.75 0.4715
0.5782 0.4905
0.5985 3.87
3.39 8267
9842 8331
9840 0.020.77
A3 O31
O41 183.75
89.25 0.5782 0.5985 3.39 9842
3669 9840
3808 3.650.02
A4 0.3701 0.3789 2.34
O42
O41 183.75
89.25 6273
3669 6225
3808 0.773.65
A4 0.3701 0.3789 2.34
O51
O42 68.25
183.75 3908
6273 4028
6225 2.970.77
A5 0.3831 0.3908 1.96
O52 208.25 6967 6890 1.11
O51 68.25 3908 4028 2.97
A5 O61 68.25 0.3831 0.3908 1.96 2111 2220 4.921.11
O52 208.25 6967 6890
A6 O62 138.25 0.3412 0.3429 0.42 3597 3528 1.95
O61
O63 68.25
208.25 2111
5232 2220
5155 1.514.92
A6 O62 138.25 0.3412 0.3429 0.42 3597 3528 1.95
O63of Multiple
2.3. Arrangement 208.25
Openings 5232 5155 1.51

Outrigger walls
2.3. Arrangement behaveOpenings
of Multiple as cantilever deep beams, which have nonlinear distribution of stresses.
It is not easy to analyze and design outrigger walls through design methods and formulas developed for
slender Outrigger
beams. Inwalls
thisbehave as cantilever
study, the deep
strut-and-tie beams,
model waswhich
used have nonlinear
to perform distribution
a preliminary of stresses.
design of the
It is not easy
reinforced to analyze
concrete and design
outrigger walls. outrigger walls through
The strut-and-tie design
model was methods
proven to be and formulas
a desirable developed
approach for
for slender beams. In this study, the strut-and-tie model was used to perform a
designing reinforced concrete members with discontinuous regions (D-regions). The method is based preliminary design
of athe
on reinforced
truss analogy, concrete
which was outrigger walls. to
first presented The strut-and-tie
explain model was
the contribution proven to
of transverse be a desirable
reinforcement to
approach for designing reinforced concrete members with discontinuous regions (D-regions).
the shear strength of a beam by Wilhelm Ritter in 1899. Following this, Schlaich et al. [18] developed a The
method is based
strut-and-tie modelon as aadesign
truss method
analogy, forwhich was first
the D-region, andpresented to explain
later discussed the contribution
some designing of
details [19].
transverse reinforcement to the shear strength of a beam by Wilhelm Ritter in
Furthermore, the strut-and-tie model method has been adopted by some design provisions, such as 1899. Following this,
Schlaich etConcrete
American al. [18] developed
Institute (ACI) a strut-and-tie
318-14 [16] model as a method
as a design design method for thewith
for structures D-region, and later
D-regions.
discussed some designing details [19]. Furthermore, the strut-and-tie model method has been
adopted by some design provisions, such as American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318-14 [16] as a design
method for structures with D-regions.
By using the strut-and-tie model, which assumes that all the stresses are condensed in struts and
ties, horizontal and diagonal reinforcements were placed in the region with high tensile stresses.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4913 7 of 18

By using the strut-and-tie model, which assumes that all the stresses are condensed in struts
and ties, horizontal
Appl. Sci. 2019, and diagonal
9, x FOR PEER REVIEW reinforcements were placed in the region with high tensile stresses. 7 of 18
Meanwhile, in a practical situation, lateral loads coming from different directions lead to the fact
every
that half-side
every outrigger
half-side should
outrigger be able
should to support
be able upward
to support and and
upward downward
downward forces. ThisThis
forces. means that
means
the tension
that zoneszones
the tension couldcould
likelylikely
become compressive
become zoneszones
compressive in an outrigger wall, and
in an outrigger wall,compressive zones
and compressive
shouldshould
zones also bealso able
betoable
resist tension
to resist forces.forces.
tension Thus, Thus,
every every
half-side of an of
half-side outrigger wall wall
an outrigger with with
four
reinforcements
four reinforcements can becanobtained by a symmetric
be obtained by a symmetricsuperposition of the of
superposition side
thesupported upward
side supported forces
upward
and side
forces andsupported downward
side supported forces,forces,
downward as shown in Figure
as shown 5 in which
in Figure the blue
5 in which the lines represent
blue lines steel
represent
reinforcements.
steel reinforcements.

Figure 5. Outrigger walls with multiple openings. The

The blue
blue lines
lines represent
represent the steel reinforcements to
forces.
resist tension forces.

According
According toto American Concrete
American Institute
Concrete (ACI) 318–14,
Institute (ACI) the distributed
318–14, the transverse
distributed reinforcement
transverse
should be positioned 0
fc not exceeding 42𝑓MPa
reinforcement shouldforbecompressive
positioned strength of concrete
for compressive strength of concrete not(6000 psi). However,
exceeding 42 MPa
there
(6000 ispsi).
someHowever,
difficulty there
in the placement of the distributed
is some difficulty transverseof
in the placement reinforcement
the distributedin antransverse
outrigger
wall with multiple
reinforcement in anopenings,
outrigger which is shown
wall with multiplein Figure 5. In
openings, this study,
which is shownthe in
compressive
Figure 5. Instrength of
this study,
concrete that was strength
the compressive used in the outriggerthat
of concrete walls was
was greater
used than
in the 42 MPa walls
outrigger in orderwastogreater
evade the
than requirement
42 MPa in
for web
order to reinforcement. Therefore,
evade the requirement forthe
web outrigger wall was
reinforcement. reinforced
Therefore, thewith four main
outrigger wall reinforcements
was reinforced
along the tension
with four zone. The sectional
main reinforcements areatension
along the of eachzone.
reinforcement
The sectionalwasarea
given of by As1reinforcement
each , As2 , As3 , and was
As4 .
These
given by 𝐴 , 𝐴 , 𝐴 divide
reinforcements , and 𝐴the. outrigger wall into four
These reinforcements parts,the
divide asoutrigger
shown inwall Figure 6, four
into in which
parts,the
as
yellow
shown colored
in Figure regions were subjected
6, in which the yellowtocolored
low stresses.
regionsIt were
is essential to install
subjected to lowopenings
stresses.in It the regions
is essential
subjected
to install
Appl. to low
openings
Sci. 2019, stresses.
9, x FOR inPEER
the REVIEW
regions subjected to low stresses. 8 of 18
Through geometrical symmetry, the right triangular region was the same as the left one with the
length, ∆𝑥 , and height, ∆𝑦 . On the other hand, the bottom triangular region was the same as the
top one with length, ∆𝑥 , and height, ∆𝑦 . A half-side outrigger wall has a shear span, 𝑎, an effective
depth, 𝑑, and overall depth of outrigger wall, ℎ, as shown in Figure 6. The effective width of the tie,
𝑙 , is equal to 2(ℎ − 𝑑) and is also a limitation to the location of the top and bottom openings.
In order to get the maximum rectangular openings, rectangular openings should be inscribed in
the triangular zones. In a practical view, the height of rectangular openings is assumed to be 2 m
since it used to be the passageway. With the specified opening height, ℎ , the maximum length of
the top and bottom openings, 𝑙 , , as well as the maximum length of the left and right openings,
𝑙 , , can be obtained by the following geometrical calculation.
(∆𝑦 − 2) (∆𝑦 − 2)
𝑙 , = ∆𝑥 𝑙 , = ∆𝑥 (8)
∆𝑦 ∆𝑦
where ∆𝑥 , ∆𝑦 , ∆𝑥 , and ∆𝑦 are defined in Figure 6.
Figure6.6. Arrangement
Figure Arrangement of
of multiple
multiple openings
openings ininaareinforced
reinforcedconcrete
concreteoutrigger
outriggerwall.
wall. The
The height
heightof
of
openings was assumed to be 2 m for it to be used as a passageway.
openings was assumed to be 2 m for it to be used as a passageway.

If the four openings are assumed to be the same size, among the length of the four openings, 𝑙
is the smaller one compared to 𝑙 , and 𝑙 , .
𝑙 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛 (𝑙 , ,𝑙 , ) (9)
The total area of openings 𝐴 can also be obtained using the equation below.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4913 8 of 18

Through geometrical symmetry, the right triangular region was the same as the left one with the
length, ∆x2 , and height, ∆y2 . On the other hand, the bottom triangular region was the same as the
top one with length, ∆x1 , and height, ∆y1 . A half-side outrigger wall has a shear span, a, an effective
depth, d, and overall depth of outrigger wall, h, as shown in Figure 6. The effective width of the tie, lt ,
is equal to 2(h − d) and is also a limitation to the location of the top and bottom openings.
In order to get the maximum rectangular openings, rectangular openings should be inscribed in
the triangular zones. In a practical view, the height of rectangular openings is assumed to be 2 m since
it used to be the passageway. With the specified opening height, hop , the maximum length of the top
and bottom openings, lop,1 , as well as the maximum length of the left and right openings, lop,2 , can be
obtained by the following geometrical calculation.

(∆y1 − 2) (∆y2 − 2)
lop,1 = ∆x1 lop,2 = ∆x2 (8)
∆y1 ∆y2

where ∆x1 , ∆y1 , ∆x2 , and ∆y2 are defined in Figure 6.

If the four openings are assumed to be the same size, among the length of the four openings, lop is
the smaller one compared to lop,1 and lop,2 .
 
lop = min lop,1 , lop,2 (9)

The total area of openings Aop can also be obtained using the equation below.

Aop = 4lop hop (10)

3. Evaluation of the Influence of Multiple Openings

In order to study the influence of the size of openings on the outrigger wall and whole structure,
structural performances associated with the stiffness and strength are investigated by using both
linear and nonlinear analyses. Since the strength of the reinforced concrete outrigger wall cannot
be evaluated by linear analysis, the strength of the outrigger wall is obtained by the nonlinear finite
element analysis and compared with the results from the strut-and-tie models presented in ACI
318-14. On the other hand, the initial stiffness of the outrigger wall can be estimated by linear analysis.
Therefore, the stiffness of the wall was evaluated by linear and nonlinear finite element analyses,
and the results from both analyses were compared.
A single-outrigger-braced tall building with a 3-story-high outrigger system located in 39th, 40th,
and 41st floor of the tall building structure shown in Figure 1 was studied as a numerical example.
The overall depth, h, of the outrigger wall was 10.5 m. As a symmetrical structure, only the half-side
outrigger wall subjected to downward forces was analyzed. Through the proposed design procedure,
the cross-sectional areas of the diagonal reinforcements (As2 and As3 ) and horizontal reinforcements
(As1 and As4 ) were assumed to be 0.057 m2 and 0.099 m2 , respectively. The outrigger wall had a shear
span, a, of 14 m and an effective depth, d, of 10 m. The compressive strength of concrete fc0 was 60 MPa.
The size of the openings was changed through 12 analyses models. The models were named by
assigning a capital M followed by a number i (i = 0, 1, 2, . . . , 11). Among them, model M0 refers to
the outrigger wall without opening a reference model. All the openings have the specified height
(hop = 2 m). Since the 250 mm × 250 mm size of the rectangular element was used in the finite element
mesh, the length of the opening starting from 0 increased by 0.5 m steps and reached their limitations
in model M11. The opening ratios (Aop /Aout ) are defined as the area ratios of the four openings and
outrigger walls. This study aimed to find out whether and how the stiffness and the shear strength of
outrigger walls change by increasing the opening ratio. In order to illustrate the influence upon the
stiffness and shear strength, parameters expressing the variation are introduced. The parameter βK
is the ratio of the stiffness Ki of each outrigger wall to the stiffness K0 of the outrigger wall without
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4913 9 of 18

openings. The parameter βV is the ratio of the shear strength Vi to the shear strength V0 of the outrigger
wall without openings.

3.1. Finite Element Modelling

In this study, Abaqus [20], which is a commercial nonlinear finite element analysis program,
was used. Several researchers have used Abaqus in analyzing the nonlinear behavior of reinforced
concrete structures [21–24]. The program provides three material models for concrete. These are
the smeared crack concrete, brittle crack concrete, and concrete damaged plasticity models. In this
paper, the concrete damaged plasticity (CDP) model was used because it can represent the complete
inelastic behavior of concrete, both in compression and tension [25,26]. The CDP is a continuum,
plasticity-based, damage model for concrete. It assumes that the main two failure mechanisms of
concrete material are tensile cracking and compressive crushing, which are represented by the uniaxial
tension and compression behavior. Under uniaxial tension, the stress-strain response follows a linear
elastic relationship until the value of the failure stress is reached. The failure stress corresponds to the
onset of micro-cracking in concrete material. Beyond the failure stress, the formation of micro-cracks is
represented macroscopically with a softening stress-strain response, which induces strain localization
in concrete structures. Under uniaxial compression, the response is linear up to the value of the initial
yield. In the plastic regime, the response is typically characterized by stress hardening, which is
followed by strain softening beyond ultimate stress.
The CDP model in Abaqus is a plasticity material model that requires the definition of the
yield surface and requires hardening and flow rules. The model makes use of the yield function
proposed by Lee and Fenves [27] to account for varying degrees of evolution of concrete strength
under tension and compression. The CDP model assumes a non-associated potential plastic flow.
The flow potential is the Drucker-Prager hyperbolic function, which requires the dilation angle (ψ),
flow potential eccentricity (), ratio of the initial biaxial compressive yield stress to the initial uniaxial
compressive yield stress (σb0 /σc0 ), and the ratio of the second stress invariant on the tensile meridian
to that on the compressive meridian (Kc ). The viscosity parameter should be entered to overcome some
of the convergence difficulties caused by material models exhibiting softening behavior and stiffness
degradation. The values of the parameters for the plasticity model used in this study are shown in
Table 2 below.

Table 2. Plasticity parameter of concrete damaged plasticity (CDP) specified for this study.

Parameter Value
ψ 38
 0.1
σb0 /σc0 1.16
Kc 0.667
Viscosity parameter 0.0001

CDPs require a stress-strain relationship of concrete in uniaxial compression and tension.

The relationship suggested by Carreira and Chu [28], as shown in Figure 7, was used for the
compression model. For the tension model, the stress-strain relationship proposed by Wahalathantri
et al. [29] was used. The tension model as shown in Figure 8 includes the tension stiffening to simplify
the post cracking behavior for concrete and the interaction between reinforcement and concrete.
The CDP model was used in predicting the shear behavior of reinforced and prestressed concrete deep
beams and confirmed that the shear strengths predicted by the finite element analysis agreed well with
those obtained by experiments [30].
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4913 10 of 18
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18

Figure 7. Compressive stress-strain relationship of concrete.

Figure 7. Compressive stress-strain relationship of concrete.
Figure 7. Compressive stress-strain relationship of concrete.

Figure 8. Compressive stress-strain relationship of concrete.

Figure 8. Compressive stress-strain relationship of concrete.
Figure 8. Compressive stress-strain relationship of concrete.
When applying downward force on the loading plate for the analysis model used in this study,
When applying downward force on the loading plate for the analysis model used in this study,
the reinforcements with cross-sectional areas As1 and AS3 were subjected to compression. On the
When applyingwith
the reinforcements downward force onareas
cross-sectional 𝐴 and
the loading 𝐴 for
plate the subjected
were analysis model used in thisOn
to compression. study,
the
other hand, the reinforcements with cross-sectional areas As2 and As4 were subjected to tensile
the reinforcements with cross-sectional areas 𝐴 and 𝐴
other hand, the reinforcements with cross-sectional areas 𝐴 and 𝐴 were subjected to tensile
were subjected to compression. On the
forces. To model the behavior of stress reduction caused by buckling in a reinforcement subjected to
other
forces.hand, the reinforcements
To model the behavior of stresswith cross-sectional
reduction caused areas 𝐴 and in
by buckling 𝐴 a reinforcement
were subjected to tensile
subjected to
compression, the material model was defined differently from the material model of the reinforcement
forces. To model
compression, thethematerial
behaviormodel
of stresswasreduction
defined caused by buckling
differently frominthe a reinforcement
material model subjected
of theto
subjected to tension. For the reinforcement with cross-sectional areas As2 and As4 , which were subjected
compression, the
reinforcement material
subjected model For
to tension. wasthe defined differently
reinforcement withfrom the material
cross-sectional 𝐴 and
areasmodel of 𝐴the,
to tension, only the yield strength of 414 MPa and modulus of elasticity of 200 GPa were specified
reinforcement subjected
which were subjected to tension.
to tension, onlyFor
thethe reinforcement
yield strength of 414 with cross-sectional
MPa and modulusareas 𝐴 andof 𝐴200,
of elasticity
by assuming perfect plasticity, as shown in Figure 9. The compressive reinforcements were assumed
which
GPa werewere specified
subjected by to tension,
assuming onlyperfect
the yield strength of
plasticity, as 414 MPa in
shown andFigure
modulus 9. of elasticity
The of 200
compressive
to be buckled at a compressive strain of 0.003 and reduced the strength to 10% of the yield strength,
GPa were specified
reinforcements by assuming
were assumed perfectatplasticity,
to be buckled a compressiveas shown
strain ofin0.003
Figure
and 9. The compressive
reduced the strength
as shown in Figure 9.
reinforcements
to 10% of the yieldwere assumed
strength, astoshown
be buckled at a compressive
in Figure 9. strain of 0.003 and reduced the strength
The structures used in this study were symmetrical structures. For the convenience of analysis,
to 10%Theofstructures
the yield strength, as shown
used in this in Figure
study were 9.
symmetrical structures. For the convenience of analysis,
half of the entire outrigger wall was taken and modeled two-dimensionally. The half-side outrigger
The
half of thestructures used inwall
entire outrigger this study wereand
was taken symmetrical structures. For the convenience
modeled two-dimensionally. The half-side ofoutrigger
analysis,
wall was modeled with half of the core wall and the loading plate at which the vertical displacement
half
wall of themodeled
was entire outrigger
with halfwall was
of the taken
core walland
andmodeled two-dimensionally.
the loading plate at which the The half-side
vertical outrigger
displacement
was applied. The loading plate replaced the perimeter column and was assumed to be perfectly
wall applied.
was was modeled with halfplate
The loading of thereplaced
core wallthe
and the loading
perimeter plate and
column at which
was the verticaltodisplacement
assumed be perfectly
bonded to the concrete and modeled to share the nodes with concrete. Both concrete and loading plates
was applied.
bonded to theThe loading
concrete andplate
modeledreplaced the perimeter
to share the nodescolumn and was
with concrete. assumed
Both to and
concrete be perfectly
loading
were modeled by using CPS4R, which is a quadrilateral plane stress element with reduced integration.
bonded to the concrete and modeled to share the nodes with concrete. Both
plates were modeled by using CPS4R, which is a quadrilateral plane stress element with reduced concrete and loading
The reinforcements were represented with a T2D2 truss element and were modeled by embedding
plates were The
integration. modeled by using CPS4R,
reinforcements which is a with
were represented quadrilateral plane
a T2D2 truss stress element
element and werewith reduced
modeled by
them in concrete. It was assumed that the reinforcement and concrete were perfectly bonded and the
integration. them
embedding The reinforcements
in concrete. Itwere was represented
assumed that with
the areinforcement
T2D2 truss element and were
and concrete weremodeled
perfectlyby
interaction between two materials was indirectly represented by the tension stiffening, as shown in
embedding them in concrete. It was assumed that the reinforcement
bonded and the interaction between two materials was indirectly represented by the tension and concrete were perfectly
Figure 8. Vertical displacement was applied to the loading plate in the form of displacement control.
bonded and
stiffening, the interaction
as shown in Figure between
8. Verticaltwo materials was applied
displacement indirectly represented
to the by the
loading plate tension
in the form
The left, top, and bottom sides of the core wall were constrained as pinned boundary conditions.
stiffening, as shown in Figure 8. Vertical displacement was applied to the loading plate in the form
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18

of displacement control. The left, top, and bottom sides of the core wall were constrained as pinned
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18
boundary conditions.
of displacement control. The left, top, and bottom sides of the core wall were constrained as pinned
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4913 11 of 18
boundary conditions.

Figure 9. Material model of reinforcement subjected to tension and compression.

Figure 9. Material
Figure model
9. Material modelofofreinforcement subjectedtototension
reinforcement subjected tension and
and compression.
compression.

3.2.
3.2. Results
Results of
of Finite
Finite
3.2. Results Element
Element
of Finite Analysis
Analysis
Element Analysis
The
The absolute
absolute maximum
The absolutemaximum
maximum principal
principalstress
principal stressdistribution
stress distribution calculated
calculated
distribution calculated bybythethe
by the nonlinear
nonlinear
nonlinear finite
finite
finite element
element
element
analysis is
analysisshown
is in
shown Figure
in 10.
Figure In
10. the
In theoutrigger
outrigger wall
wall without
without web
web openings
openings
analysis shown in Figure 10. In the outrigger wall without web openings (M0), the results show (M0),
(M0), the the results
results show show
that
that that the compressive
the compressive
the compressive strutstrutstrut
was was was
formed formed
formedfromfromfrom the loading
the loading
the loading plate,
plate,
plate, and
and and the bottom
the bottom
the bottom of the outrigger
of outrigger
of the the outriggerwall
wallwall
and
and
tensileand
tensiletensile
zone waszone
zone was was formed
formed
formed at the
at theattop
the top
of top
theofof theoutrigger
the
outriggeroutrigger
wall.wall.
wall.In
Inthe
In the theoutrigger
outrigger
outrigger wall
wall with
wall
with webopenings
with
web openings
web openings
(M8),
(M8), (M8), compressive
compressive strutstrut
was was
moremore clearly
clearly formed
formed at
at the
the diagonal
diagonal line.
line.Additionally,
Additionally, the bottom
the strutstrut
bottom
compressive strut was more clearly formed at the diagonal line. Additionally, the bottom strut was
was formed separately from the diagonal strut. It was also observed that the cross-section of the
was
formedformed separately
separately from from the diagonal
the diagonal strut. It strut.
was Italsowas also observed
observed that thethat the cross-section
cross-section of the
of the diagonal
diagonal strut was slightly defected by the openings.
diagonal
strut wasstrut wasdefected
slightly slightly bydefected by the openings.
the openings.

(a) (b)
Figure 10. Absolute maximum principal stress distribution of (a) M0 and (b) M8.
(a) (b)
The Figure
maximum
Figure 10. plastic strain
10. Absolute
Absolute distribution
maximum
maximum principal
principalatstress
the ultimate
stress state
distribution
distribution ofis
of (a)shown
(a) M0 andin(b)
M0 and Figure
(b) M8. 11. The
M8.
maximum plastic strain represents the tensile strain in concrete, and the distribution shows the crack
pattern of the analysis models. In the M0 model,
The
The maximum
maximum plastic
plasticstrain distribution
strain distribution atthe
at the thewidest
ultimate crackisdeveloped
state
ultimate shown
state is in in the flexural
Figure
shown Thecritical
in11.Figuremaximum
11. The
section at which the outrigger wall meets the core wall. Several flexural cracks developed along the
plastic strain
maximum represents
plastic strainthe tensile strain
represents in concrete,
the tensile strain and the distribution
in concrete, and the shows the crack
distribution pattern
shows of the
the crack
top reinforcement. The diagonal crack initiated at the loading plate and developed along the diagonal
analysis
pattern models. In the M0 model, the widest crack developed in the flexural critical
of the analysis models. In the M0 model, the widest crack developed in the flexural critical section at which
reinforcement, which was subjected to compression, was also noticeable. In model M1, many cracks
the outrigger
section at
developed
wall
which the
along
meets the corediagonal
outrigger
the top andwall
wall. Several
meets flexural
the core wall.cracks
reinforcements, Several
which
developed
wereflexural
subjected
along
cracks the topItreinforcement.
developed
to tension. wasalong
also the
Thereinforcement.
top diagonal crack initiated
The diagonal at the loading
crack plate
initiated at and
the developed
loading plate along
and the diagonal
developed
noticed that wide local cracks were developed at the bottom left corner of the openings. In M8, thealong reinforcement,
the diagonal
which was subjected
reinforcement, whichtowas
compression, was
subjected to also noticeable.
compression, was In model
also M1, many
noticeable. cracksM1,
In model developed along
many cracks
the top andalong
developed diagonal reinforcements,
the top and diagonalwhich were subjected
reinforcements, which to were
tension. It was to
subjected also noticedItthat
tension. waswide
also
local cracks
noticed that were
widedeveloped at were
local cracks the bottom left corner
developed at theofbottom
the openings. In M8,
left corner theopenings.
of the crack initiated
In M8,at the
the
loading plate and propagated along the top reinforcement, which formed a large arc along the corners
of openings. In M11, in which the compressive struts interfered by the openings, the ultimate state
developed by the local failure at the corners of the top and right openings.
 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 18

crack initiated at the loading plate and propagated along the top reinforcement, which formed a large
arc along the corners of openings. In M11, in which the compressive struts interfered by the openings,
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4913 12 of 18
the ultimate state developed by the local failure at the corners of the top and right openings.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 11. Plastic
11. Plastic strain
strain distributionatatthe
distribution theultimate
ultimate state
stateof
of(a)
(a)M0,
M0,(b)(b)
M1, (c) (c)
M1, M8,M8,
andand
(d) M11.
(d) M11.

Figure Figure 12 shows

12 shows the relation
the relation between
between the applied
the applied vertical
vertical displacement
displacement and vertical
and total total vertical
reactions
reactions measured at the pinned nodes from the nonlinear analysis. It can be clearly observed
measured at the pinned nodes from the nonlinear analysis. It can be clearly observed that the outrigger that
the outrigger walls experienced a progressive decrease in both stiffness and strength as the size of
walls experienced a progressive decrease in both stiffness and strength as the size of the opening
the opening increased. However, the ultimate displacement of all the models, except M11, were
increased. However, the ultimate displacement of all the models, except M11, were around 60 mm and
around 60 mm and the initial yielding was developed at about 10 mm.
the
Appl.initial yielding
Sci. 2019,
In order towas
9, x FOR PEERdeveloped
REVIEW at aboutin10stiffness
quantify the degradation mm. due to the size of openings, the initial tangential 13 of 18

slope, 𝐾 , calculated from the load-displacement curves shown in Figure 12 and compared it with
the slope 𝐾 from the linear analysis. In order to evaluate the stiffness of outrigger walls, all the
analysis models were constructed as the same as the nonlinear analysis, with an exception of the
plastic modeling removed in the linear analysis. The slope of the linear analysis 𝐾 is defined as the
vertical force developing a unit deflection at the loading point of the i-th model in the linear analysis.
The term 𝐾 can be defined as the tangential stiffness of the outrigger walls. The initial tangential
slopes 𝐾 from the nonlinear analysis and stiffness 𝐾 from the linear analysis were identical.
To include the effect of initial cracking in the nonlinear analysis, the secant stiffness, 𝐾 , were
defined as the slope from the origin to the point with vertical displacement of 10 mm and are shown
in Table 3 with the stiffness 𝐾 from the linear analysis. As mentioned before, 𝛽 is defined as the
ratio of 𝐾 to 𝐾 or 𝐾 to 𝐾 of the outrigger wall without openings. 𝛽 is regarded as an index
to show the degradation of stiffness of the outrigger walls. It can be observed that, even though the
secant stiffness was slightly less than the tangential stiffness, 𝐾 and the degradation ratio 𝛽 were
almost identical.

Figure 12. Displacement-reaction curves of nonlinear analysis.

Figure 13 shows the degradation ratios in stiffness as the size of the opening increases. The ratios
of the stiffness decline almost linearly with a gentle slope from M0 to M8. When the opening area
exceeds 22% (M8), the decreasing trends are also regarded as being linear, but they become steeper.
From the similar trends in the results of linear and nonlinear analyses, it can be concluded that the
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4913 13 of 18

In order to quantify the degradation in stiffness due to the size of openings, the initial tangential
slope, Kti , calculated from the load-displacement curves shown in Figure 12 and compared it with
the slope Ki from the linear analysis. In order to evaluate the stiffness of outrigger walls, all the
analysis models were constructed as the same as the nonlinear analysis, with an exception of the plastic
modeling removed in the linear analysis. The slope of the linear analysis Ki is defined as the vertical
force developing a unit deflection at the loading point of the i-th model in the linear analysis. The term
K can be defined as the tangential stiffness of the outrigger walls. The initial tangential slopes Kti from
the nonlinear analysis and stiffness Ki from the linear analysis were identical.
To include the effect of initial cracking in the nonlinear analysis, the secant stiffness, Ksi ,
were defined as the slope from the origin to the point with vertical displacement of 10 mm and
are shown in Table 3 with the stiffness Ki from the linear analysis. As mentioned before, βK is defined
as the ratio of Ki to K0 or Ksi to Ks0 of the outrigger wall without openings. βK is regarded as an index
to show the degradation of stiffness of the outrigger walls. It can be observed that, even though the
secant stiffness was slightly less than the tangential stiffness, Ki and the degradation ratio βK were
almost identical.

Table 3. Evaluation of stiffness of the outrigger wall.

Linear Analysis Nonlinear Analysis

Model Aop /Aout
Ki (MN) βK Ksi (MN) βK
M0 0.00 2124 1.00 1817 1.00
M1 0.03 1973 0.93 1690 0.93
M2 0.05 1914 0.90 1642 0.90
M3 0.08 1858 0.87 1593 0.88
M4 0.11 1801 0.85 1542 0.85
M5 0.14 1742 0.82 1487 0.82
M6 0.16 1685 0.79 1435 0.79
M7 0.19 1625 0.76 1383 0.76
M8 0.22 1557 0.73 1332 0.73
M9 0.24 1468 0.69 1248 0.69
M10 0.27 1365 0.64 1156 0.64
M11 0.29 1234 0.58 1056 0.58

Figure 13 shows the degradation ratios in stiffness as the size of the opening increases. The ratios
of the stiffness decline almost linearly with a gentle slope from M0 to M8. When the opening area
exceeds 22% (M8), the decreasing trends are also regarded as being linear, but they become steeper.
From the similar trends in the results of linear and nonlinear analyses, it can be concluded that the loss
of area due to multiple openings is a more influential factor on the stiffness of outrigger walls than the
material degradation.
The maximum vertical reaction, Ri , in the nonlinear analysis can be defined as the strength of the
outrigger walls. The ratio βR refers to the ratio of the vertical reaction at the ultimate state of the i-th
models Ri to R0 of the M0 model. The maximum vertical reactions and degradation ratio in strength
from the nonlinear analysis are shown in Table 4 and Figure 14. The reduction in strength is a function
of the opening ratio, which is similar to the results of stiffness. However, the outrigger wall began
to experience larger losses in strength when the opening area reached 24% (M9) in which the shear
strength reduced to 77%. Comparing the reduction of stiffness and strength in model M0 to model M8,
where the sizes of openings were less than 22% of the overall area of the outrigger wall, the gentle
reductions in stiffness and strength were similar, while the sharp reduction occurred earlier in the
stiffness (M8) than in strength (M9).
the gentle reductions in stiffness and strength were similar, while the sharp reduction occurred earlier
in the stiffness (M8) than in strength (M9).
From the analysis results, it can be concluded that the reinforced concrete outrigger walls can
accommodate four openings without significantly decreasing the stiffness and strength of the
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4913 14 of 18
outrigger walls if the openings do not severely interfere with the critical load path.

Figure 13. Degradation of stiffness of the outrigger wall according to the size of openings.
Figure 13. Degradation of stiffness of the outrigger wall according to the size of openings.
Table 4. Evaluation of strength of the outrigger wall.
Table 4. Evaluation of strength of the outrigger wall.
Nonlinear Analysis
Model Aop /Aout Nonlinear Analysis
Model 𝑨𝒐𝒑 /𝑨𝒐𝒖𝒕 Ri (kN) βR
𝑹𝒊 (𝐤𝐍) 𝜷𝑹
M0 M0 0.00 0.00 39,932
39,932 1.00 1.00
M1 0.03 38,193 0.96
M1 0.03 38,193 0.96
M2 0.05 36,798 0.92
M2 M3 0.05 0.08 36,798
35,938 0.90 0.92
M3 M4 0.08 0.11 35,938
35,604 0.89 0.90
M4 M5 0.11 0.14 34,635
35,604 0.87 0.89
M5 M6 0.14 0.16 34,150
34,635 0.86 0.87
M7 0.19 33,314 0.83
M6 0.16 34,150 0.86
M8 0.22 31,729 0.79
M7 M9 0.19 0.24 33,314
30,815 0.77 0.83
M8 M10 0.22 0.27 31,729
27,853 0.70 0.79
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FORM9 M11
PEER REVIEW 0.24 0.29 19,083
30,815 0.48 0.77 15 of 18
M10 0.27 27,853 0.70
M11 0.29 19,083 0.48

Figure 14. Degradation of strength of the outrigger wall according to the size of the openings.
Figure 14. Degradation of strength of the outrigger wall according to the size of the openings.

3.3. Strength Predicted by Strut-and-Tie Models

According to Chapter 23 of ACI318-14, the nominal shear strength of the outrigger walls can be
calculated by using the strut-and-tie model. In this study, the nodal zones are assumed to be stiff
enough. Therefore, only the strengths of strut and tie were considered. The diagonal strut in the
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4913 15 of 18

From the analysis results, it can be concluded that the reinforced concrete outrigger walls can
accommodate four
Figure 14.openings without
Degradation significantly
of strength decreasing
of the outrigger wallthe stiffness
according to and strength
the size of the of the outrigger
openings.
walls if the openings do not severely interfere with the critical load path.
3.3. Strength Predicted by Strut-and-Tie Models
3.3. Strength Predicted by Strut-and-Tie Models
According to Chapter 23 of ACI318-14, the nominal shear strength of the outrigger walls can be
According
calculated by to Chapter
using 23 of ACI318-14,
the strut-and-tie model.the In
nominal shearthe
this study, strength
nodal of the outrigger
zones are assumed wallstocan
be be
stiff
calculated
enough. by using the
Therefore, strut-and-tie
only the strengthsmodel. In this
of strut andstudy, the considered.
tie were nodal zonesThe are assumed
diagonal to be in
strut stiffthe
enough.
centralTherefore, only theby
zone surrounded strengths of strut has
four openings andantie angle
were considered. The diagonal
𝜃 with the horizontal tie,strut in the in
as shown central
Figure
15. surrounded by four openings has an angle θ with the horizontal tie, as shown in Figure 15.
zone

Figure
Figure 15.15.
TheThe strut-and-tie
strut-and-tie model
model forfor
thethe outrigger
outrigger wall
wall with
with multiple
multiple openings.
openings.

The
The shear
shear strength
strength ofof the
the outrigger
outrigger wall
wall bybythethestrut-and-tie
strut-and-tiemodel
modelVstm𝑉 waswas
thethe smaller
smaller one
one of of
thethe shear
shear strengths
strengths provided
provided byby
thethe strut
strut andand
thethe
tie,tie,
as as shown
shown bybythethe following
following equations.
equations.
𝑉 = 𝐹 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 0.85𝛽 𝑓 0𝑏 𝑤 (11)
Vn = Fns sinθ ≤ 0.85βs fc bw wstr (11)
𝑉 = 𝐹 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 + 𝐹 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃 𝐴 𝑓 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 + 𝐴 𝑓 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃 (12)
Vn = Fnt2 sinθ + Fnt4 tanθ ≤ As2 f y sinθ + As4 f y tanθ (12)
where 𝐹 is the nominal compressive strength of a strut. 𝛽 is the reduction factor to account for
where Fns is the nominal compressive strength of a strut. βs is the reduction factor to account for the
the bottle-shaped strut. For a strut of a uniform cross-sectional area, 𝛽 = 1.0 and 𝑤 is the width
bottle-shaped strut. For a strut of a uniform cross-sectional area, βs = 1.0 and wstr is the width of strut.
of strut. 𝐹 and 𝐹 are the nominal tensile strengths of the top and diagonal reinforcements,
Fnt2 and Fnt4 are the nominal tensile strengths of the top and diagonal reinforcements, respectively.
respectively.
The indices representing the relative strength degradation βV as increasing the size of the openings
are presented in Figure 16. It can be observed that the βV remained 1.0 before the opening ratio reached
19% (M0–M7). This means that the steel reinforcements yielded before the failure of concrete until the
size of the openings reached 19%. When the size of the openings increased beyond 19%, the openings
reduced the width of the strut and, consequently, reduced the strength of the strut and strength of the
outrigger walls. The strength ratio βV began decreasing sharply from model M8 and dropped to 39% in
model M11. These results indicate that the failure of concrete preceded the yielding of reinforcements
in model M11. When comparing Figure 14 from the nonlinear finite element analysis and Figure 16
from the strut-and-tie model, it can be noticed that the strut-and-tie model is not conservative in
predicting the shear strength of outrigger walls with low opening ratios.

3.4. Influence on Lateral Stiffness of Tall Buildings

The influence of openings on the stiffness and strength of reinforced concrete outrigger walls was
investigated in the previous sections. In this section, the influence of openings on the lateral stiffness
of the whole structure was investigated by applying the degraded stiffness of outrigger walls due to
 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 18

Appl. Sci. 2019,

The9,indices
4913 representing the relative strength degradation 𝛽 as increasing the size of the16 of 18
openings are presented in Figure 16. It can be observed that the 𝛽 remained 1.0 before the opening
ratio reached 19% (M0–M7). This means that the steel reinforcements yielded before the failure of
openings given
concrete untilinthe
Table
size 3ofto
thethe proposed,
openings analytical
reached 19%. WhenEquations
the size (6) and
of the (7). Theincreased
openings equivalent bending
beyond
stiffness
19%, the openings reduced the width of the strut and, consequently, reduced the strength of the strutto the
of the outrigger wall without openings given in Equation (1) can be easily converted
equivalent bending
and strength stiffness
of the outriggerof the outrigger
walls. wall ratio
The strength with 𝛽openings, as shownsharply
began decreasing by the from
following
modelequation.
M8
and dropped to 39% in model M11. These results indicate that the failure of concrete preceded the
yielding of reinforcements in model M11. )oi = βcomparing
(EIWhen K (EI )o Figure 14 from the nonlinear finite (13)
element analysis and Figure 16 from the strut-and-tie model, it can be noticed that the strut-and-tie
where (EI )oiis is
model notthe equivalentinbending
conservative predictingstiffness
the shear the i-thofanalysis
ofstrength outriggermodels.
walls with low opening ratios.

Figure Strength
16.16.
Figure Strengthofofoutrigger
outrigger walls predictedbyby
walls predicted the
the strut-and-tie
strut-and-tie model.
model.

TheInfluence
3.4. lateral displacement at the
on Lateral Stiffness top Buildings
of Tall of the building and shear forces developed in each outrigger are
summarized in Table 5. The lateral displacement and shear forces were almost the same, even though
The influence of openings on the stiffness and strength of reinforced concrete outrigger walls
the minimum value of βK =
was investigated in the
0.58 (M11) was applied. According to a study by Kim [31], the relation
previous sections. In this section, the influence of openings on the lateral
between the lateral displacement
stiffness of the whole structure was atinvestigated
the top and by stiffness of the
applying the outrigger
degraded is nonlinear.
stiffness Moreover,
of outrigger walls
the lateral displacement
due to openings given is
in not
Tablesensitive to the stiffness
3 to the proposed, of Equations
analytical the outrigger
(6) and when theequivalent
(7). The outrigger has
sufficiently
bendinghigh stiffness,
stiffness such as wall
of the outrigger the outrigger walls in
without openings thisinstudy.
given Even
Equation though
(1) can the converted
be easily internal shear
forcetodeveloped
the equivalent bending
in each stiffness
outrigger of the outrigger
remained almostwall
the with
sameopenings, as shown
as seen in Table 5,bythethestrength
followingof the
equation.
outrigger wall with openings was reduced significantly, as seen in Table 4, since the size of the openings
increased. Therefore, the structural safety (𝐸𝐼) in=terms
𝛽 (𝐸𝐼) of strength should be carefully checked (13)when
designing the reinforced concrete outrigger walls.
where (𝐸𝐼) is the equivalent bending stiffness of the i-th analysis models.
The lateral displacement at the top of the building and shear forces developed in each outrigger
Table 5. The lateral displacement at the top of the building and shear forces developed in the outrigger
are summarized in Table 5. The lateral displacement and shear forces were almost the same, even
walls predicted by Equations (6) and (7).
though the minimum value of 𝛽 = 0.58 (M11) was applied. According to a study by Kim [31], the
relation between the lateral displacement
∆top (m) at the top and stiffness of the outrigger is nonlinear.
V (kN)
Model theOutrigger
Moreover, Diff.
lateral displacement is not sensitive to the (%) of the outrigger when the outrigger
stiffness Diff. (%)
M0 as the outrigger
has sufficiently high stiffness, such M11 walls in this study.M0 M11
Even though the internal shear
A1developed O11
force 0.4964remained
in each outrigger 0.5050
almost the1.73
same as seen6790
in Table 5,6732
the strength0.85
of the
A2
outrigger O21 openings0.4715
wall with 0.4833
was reduced 2.50as seen in
significantly, 8267 8173 the size 1.14
Table 4, since of the
A3
openings O31Therefore,
increased. 0.5782 0.5935
the structural 2.65 of strength
safety in terms 9842should be9679 1.66
carefully checked
when designing O41
the reinforced concrete outrigger walls. 3669 3707 1.04
A4 0.3701 0.3777 2.01
O42 6273 6133 2.23
O51 3908 3938 0.77
A5 0.3831 0.3918 2.22
O52 6967 6786 2.60
O61 2111 2144 1.56
A6 O62 0.3412 0.3470 1.70 3597 3594 0.08
O63 5232 5089 2.73
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4913 17 of 18

4. Conclusions
After studying outrigger systems, designing multiple openings on outrigger walls and evaluating
the influence of the size of openings on outrigger walls, several conclusions can be summarized
as follows.
The introduction of equivalent bending stiffness allows for the derivation of internal shear forces
on the outriggers. The proposed equations include the effect of clear span and shear deformation of
outrigger walls. In comparison with the results from the numerical analysis, the errors between the
results of developed equations and results of finite element analysis were less than 5%. This proves
that the shear reaction on outrigger walls due to lateral loads derived from a simplified model can be
used for the preliminary design of outrigger walls.
To use the space occupied by the outrigger walls more efficiently, a development of an outrigger
wall with four reinforcements and four openings was proposed through the strut-and-tie model.
The stiffness and strength of outrigger walls experience reductions in different levels since the size of
openings increases. The decrease in trends can be represented by two linear functions of the opening
ratios, which are the gentle and steep linear functions. The linear finite element analysis can replace
the time-consuming nonlinear finite element analysis when evaluating the stiffness degradation of
outrigger walls with multiple openings. Taking into consideration the degradation in stiffness and
strength, the ratio of the opening area is recommended to be less than 20%. The degradation of stiffness
due to openings does not significantly affect the global behavior of the whole structure when the
outrigger already has a large stiffness, as the case of reinforced concrete outrigger walls.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, validation, writing—review and editing, supervision,

H.-S.K. Formal analysis, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, Y.-T.H. Formal analysis, investigation,
H.-J.J.
Funding: This work was supported by Konkuk University in 2017.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declared no conflict of interest.

References
1. Choi, H.S.; Joseph, L. Outrigger system design considerations. Int. J. High-Rise Build. 2012, 1, 237–246.
2. Ali, M.M.; Moon, K.S. Structural developments in tall buildings: Current trends and future prospects.
Archit. Sci. Rev. 2007, 50, 205–223. [CrossRef]
3. Taranath, B.S. Optimum belt truss location for high-rise structures. Struct. Eng. 1975, 53, 18–21.
4. McNabb, J.W.; Muvdi, B.B. Drift reduction factors for belt high-rise structures. Eng. J. AISC 1975, 12, 88–91.
5. Smith, B.S.; Nwaka, I.O. The behaviour of multi-outrigger braced tall buildings. ACI SP-63 1980, 515–541.
6. Smith, B.S.; Salim, I. Parameter study of outrigger-braced tall building structures. J. Str. Div. ASCE 1981, 107,
2001–2014.
7. Hoenderkamp, J.C.D.; Bakker, M.C.M. Analysis of high-rise braced frames with outriggers. Struct. Des. Tall
Spec. Build. 2003, 12, 335–350. [CrossRef]
8. Wu, J.R.; Li, Q.S. Structural performance of multi-outrigger-braced tall buildings. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build.
2003, 12, 155–176. [CrossRef]
9. Kim, H.S.; Lee, H.L.; Lim, Y.J. Multi-objective optimization of dual-purpose outriggers in tall buildings to
reduce lateral displacement and differential axial shortening. Eng. Struct. 2019, 189, 296–308. [CrossRef]
10. Wang, A. Multi-dimensional hybrid design and construction of skyscraper cluster-innovative engineering of
Raffles City. Int. J. High-Rise Build. 2017, 6, 261–269. [CrossRef]
11. Ho, G.W.M. The evolution of outrigger system in tall buildings. Int. J. High-Rise Build. 2016, 5, 21–30.
[CrossRef]
12. Kong, F.K.; Sharp, G.R. Structural idealization for deep beams with web openings. Mag. Concr. Res. 1977, 29,
81–91. [CrossRef]
13. Tan, K.H.; Tong, K.; Tang, C.Y. Consistent strut-and-tie modeling of deep beams with web openings.
Mag. Concr. Res. 2003, 55, 65–75. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4913 18 of 18

14. Tang, C.Y.; Tan, K.H. Interactive mechanical model for shear strength of deep beams. J. Struct. Eng. 2004,
130, 1534–1544. [CrossRef]
15. Smith, B.S.; Coull, A. Tall Building Structures: Analysis and Design; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY,
USA, 1991.
16. ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (318R-14);
American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2014.
17. Midas-Gen On-Line Manual; MIDAS Information Technology Co. Ltd. Available online: http://manual.
midasuser.com/EN_Common/Gen/855/whnjs.htm. (accessed on 10 September 2019).
18. Schlaich, J.; Schäfer, K.; Jennewein, M. Towards a consistent design of structural concrete. PCI J. 1987, 32,
74–150. [CrossRef]
19. Schlaich, J.; Schäfer, K. Design and detailing of structural concrete using strut-and-tie models. Struct. Eng.
1991, 69, 113–125.
20. Abaqus. Abaqus Analysis User’s Guide; Dassault Systems Simulia Corp. Available online: http://130.149.89.49:
2080/v2016/books/usb/default.htm, (accessed on 10 September 2019).
21. Wosatko, A.; Pamin, J.; Polak, M.A. Application of damage-plasticity models in finite element analysis of
punching shear. Comput. Struct. 2015, 151, 73–85. [CrossRef]
22. Tao, Y.; Chen, J.F. Concrete damage plasticity model for modeling FRP-to-concrete bond behavior. J. Compos.
Const. 2015, 19. [CrossRef]
23. Mohamed, K.; Farghaly, A.S.; Benmokrane, B.; Neale, K.W. Nonlinear finite-element analysis for the behavior
prediction and strut efficiency factor of GFRP-reinforced concrete deep beams. Eng. Struct. 2017, 137,
145–161. [CrossRef]
24. Genikomsou, A.S.; Polak, M.A. Finite element analysis of punching shear of concrete slabs using damaged
plasticity model in ABAQUS. Eng. Struct. 2015, 98, 38–48. [CrossRef]
25. Ombres, L.; Verre, S. Flexural strengthening of RC beams with steel-reinforced grout: Experimental and
numerical investigation. J. Compos. Const. 2019, 23. [CrossRef]
26. Fortunato, G.; Funari, M.F.; Lonetti, P. Survey and seismic vulnerability assessment of the Baptistery of San
Giovanni in Tumba (Italy). J. Cult. Herit. 2017, 26, 64–78. [CrossRef]
27. Lee, J.; Fenves, G.L. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. J. Eng. Mech. 1998, 124,
892–900. [CrossRef]
28. Carreira, D.J.; Chu, K.H. Stress-strain relationship for plain concrete in compression. ACI Struct. J. 1985,
82, 797–804.
29. Wahalathantri, B.L.; Thambiratnam, D.P.; Chan, T.H.T.; Fawzia, S. A material model for flexural crack
simulation in reinforced concrete elements using Abaqus. In Proceedings of the First International Conference
on Engineering, Designing and Developing the Built Environment for Sustainable Wellbeing, Brisbane,
Australia, 28 April 2011; pp. 260–264.
30. Kim, H.J.; Kim, H.S. Finite element analysis to determine shear behavior of prestressed concrete deep beams.
J. Comput. Struct. Eng. Inst. Korea 2019, 32, 165–172. [CrossRef]
31. Kim, H.S. Optimum design of outriggers in a tall building by alternating nonlinear programming. Eng. Struct.
2017, 150, 91–97. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).