You are on page 1of 19

The 3rd International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation 2016 (ICEEDM-III 2016)

Performance Based Design for Tall RC Building with Outrigger &


Belt-Truss Under Seismic Loading
Budiono,B.a, Jonathan,M.A.b
a
Institute of Technology Bandung, Jl. Ganesha 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
b
Institute of Technology Bandung, Jl. Ganesha 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia

Abstract
Tall building is often faced with main problems, such as: excessive lateral deformation and large overturning moment.
Therefore, the outrigger and belt-truss system is most likely required to enhance the lateral stiffness of a tall building on
reducing the excessive lateral deformation and the overturning moment. This case study is conducted to observe the
effectivity of RC outrigger and steel belt-truss system on high-rise building with 90 floors (tall building) and total height
of 406.0 meters. The preliminary design was based on the design for special RC structural wall using Indonesian
Seismic Code Standard 1726:2012 which is compatible with the ASCE Code 07-2010. The Non Linear Pushover and
Non-Linear Time History Analysis (NLTHA) are used to evaluate the performance of tall building with outrigger and
belt-truss system. Based on the preliminary design code, the results show that the use of outrigger & belt-truss is capable
to enhance the stability of tall building and reducing overturning moment on shear wall. Under the Pushover and
NLTHA, it is shown that the failure mechanisms was dominated by yielding of the coupling beams and shear walls.
However, RC wall outrigger and steel belt-truss were still remain elastic during the excitation of Maximum Considered
Earthquake Risk Targeted motion. The results of NLTHA also showed that the use of seismic coefficient with response
modification factor R equals 6.0 in designing tall building resulted in a good performance level of the structure.
Keywords: Tall building, RC outrigger and steel belt-truss system, performance based design, non-linear pushover analysis, non-
linear time history analysis, response modification factor R, seismic coefficient Cs.

1. INTRODUCTION

The development of tall buildings in the last decade is an inevitability caused by limited available land for
construction. Nowadays engineers have no other recourse than to design tall buildings in areas with limited space. In
addition, tall buildings can also become an icon of a city, even a country, so the fact that many developed and developing
countries are beginning to compete to construct the world's tallest building is no surprise. Generally, tall buildings have a
very flexible characteristic compared to short buildings. Based on these characteristics the main issue of tall buildings is
the lateral deformation on the structure due to lateral forces to withstand the seismic loads. Therefore, tall buildings
should have sufficient lateral stiffness so that the maximum deformation and strength caused by lateral seismic force are
still below the permitted deformation and strength limit and fulfills serviceability.
Conventionally, a way to increase the stiffness of a building is to increase the element’s cross-sectional dimensions on
the tall building. However, this method is very wasteful and will reduce the aesthetics of the building which makes this
method is no longer applicable. A common method is to use a special RC structural wall consisting of shear wall and
frame structure on high rise buildings. Special RC structural wall is sufficient for reducing lateral deformation due to the
seismic loading, however it is only effective for buildings as specified in SNI 1726:2012 [7] with the height of maximum
48 meters in Jakarta under the seismic design category D. In addition, for taller buildings, by using special RC structural
walls for the structures, wall elements will require large reinforcement ratios to withstand the large bending moment
generated by major earthquake motion. Therefore, other structural components are needed to increase the lateral stiffness
reducing both lateral displacement and the bending moment in the shear walls of tall buildings. These additional
structural component systems are called the outrigger and belt-truss system.
This study will deeply discuss about the behavior of a tall building with outrigger and belt-truss system when subjected
to major seismic loadings. As there is no special provisions for the design of the structures based on The Indonesian
Seismic Design Standard 1726: 2012 [7] (ASCE 07-2010 [8]), then for the preliminary design the provisions of special
RC concrete wall system was used. The outriggers are treated as collector element, therefore the outriggers should be
multiplied by 0 and not allowed to yield during under a major seismic loading. Analysis was conducted using the
concept of performance based design. The static push over analysis and dynamic response history analysis ranging from
elastic to non-linear responses of the structure are used to evaluate the performance of the structure. Note that the non-
linear analysis with the concept of Performance-Based Design (PBD) [1, 14] is important given the absence of specific
design rules for tall buildings and especially for the outrigger and belt-truss system. Discussions in this study are
expected to provide information on the effectiveness of the belt-truss and outrigger system on tall buildings so that it can
be applicable in the construction world.

2. LITERATURE

2.1. Outrigger & Belt-Truss Working Principle

Outrigger & belt-truss system is one of the resisting lateral seismic forces that allows it to be used for tall buildings
say higher than 60 floors. Besides adding lateral stiffness, the use of outrigger and belt-truss system can reduce the need
of rebar in the shear walls as a result of the transferred moment in the shear wall to the adjacent mega columns at the
perimeter. In practice, the outriggers will be installed as a structural element that directly connects shear walls to the
mega-column perimeter. CTBUH [3] has proved when there is lateral seismic force on the building, the bending moment
of the shear walls will be transformed by the outrigger through the series of axial coupling force mechanisms on the
mega columns located at perimeter of the building. The use of belt-truss is as a binder for the mega columns to the other
perimeter columns, so that enabling the axial coupling forces from the outrigger is distributed to other perimeter columns
as seen in Fig. 1. Generally, the use of outrigger and belt-truss is as high as 1 to 2 storeys to obtain sufficient lateral
stiffness. Therefore, the use of an outrigger and belt-truss is often on the MEP floor so it does not disturb other functional
spaces.

Fig. 1 Shear Wall Bending Moment Transfer Mechanism to Outrigger into Axial Column Coupling Force

Taranath, B.S. [2] has studied that the magnitude of the coupling axial force that is transferred can be represented as a
moment generated by the outrigger (mo) in the opposite direction with the moment due to lateral seismic force. The mo
magnitude will serve to reduce the amount of shear wall bending moment which also implicates to a decreased lateral
deformation that occurs in the building as seen in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Outrigger Influence on Building under Lateral Load

2.2. Advantages & Disadvantages of Outrigger & Belt-Truss System

Generally in the design practice, outrigger is often combined with belt-truss system to support each other. As
previously explained, by using the outrigger system, the bending moment of the shear wall due to lateral seismic force
will cause the mega columns to react in axial force coupling mechanism. Due to this axial force, an additional axial force
both tension and compression will arise on the mega columns only which is directly connected to the outrigger, whilst
the other mega columns resisted only smaller amount of these axial forces. In order to design the better redistribution of
the axial force to the other mega columns, the belt-truss system is constructed around the perimeter of the building as
seen in Fig. 6. In addition, combining the outrigger and belt-truss system increases the lateral stiffness of the building so
it will indirectly improve the stability of the tall building.
Besides the issue of lateral deformation and moment reduction, the use of outrigger system is beneficial to the interests
of the architectural aspect. This is because the use of the outrigger system will increase lateral stiffness and stability of
tall buildings so that the building’s blueprint configuration will not require dense columns on each floor. This provides
more flexibility for the architectural and the interior aspects in designing the interior of the building. Behind some of the
advantages of the outrigger system, there are also disadvantages that cannot be avoided from the use of the outrigger
system, one of which is the issue of creep. This cannot be avoided because outrigger elements interact directly with mega
columns and shear walls are often made of concrete material. As we know that the axial rigidity and tributary areas
possessed by shear walls and mega columns are different, therefore the differential shortening phenomenon would very
likely appear due to creep in the concrete that will lead to the emergence of an additional moment in the outrigger
element. Creep can be reduced by designing in the staging method during construction.

Table 1. Advantages & Disadvantages of Outrigger System


No Outrigger Advantages Outrigger Disadvantages
1 Reduces lateral deformation Risks to the differential shortening
2 Reduces bending moments on shear walls Unspecified rules and regulations in the Code of
Practice
3 Effective for high-rise buildings higher than 60 Complex detailed installation of rebar and
floors connection
4 Easier planning of aesthetic aspects -
5 Reduces bending moments on the foundation Increases axial compressive and possibility of
tensile force on the columns

Table 2. Advantages & Disadvantages of Belt-Truss System


No Belt-Truss Advantages Belt-Truss Disadvantages
1 Reduces lateral deformation Not effective in reducing moments on the wall
2 Distributes the mega column’s axial force to the Unspecified rules and regulations in the Code of
perimeter columns Practice
3 Withstands the uplift force on the column -
4 Reduces bending moments on the foundation -
5 No interference with the building’s interior -
function
6 Undeterred by differential shortening -
2.3. Non-Linear Pushover Analysis

Non-Linear Pushover Analysis [4, 5] is conducted to evaluate performance and determine earthquake parameters (R,
Cd, Ω0) of tall buildings using the outrigger and belt-truss system. The pushover analysis uses the concept of which the
building is driven with lateral load until the building reaches its lateral deformation limit. Buildings are categorized to
withstand earthquakes when the earthquake design spectra (2500 year return period, Maximum Considered Earthquake
Risk Targeted-MCER level) curve intersects the capacity curve of the building, known as the performance point. This
performance point is the important parameter for evaluating the performance of the building just as the earthquake load
curve intersects the capacity. Because the variety of vibrations of tall buildings are generally not dominated by the first
mode only, then the incremental lateral load applied uses the CQC (complete quadratic combination) distributed load to
represent the higher mode contribution. The process of determining the performance level of this pushover analysis uses
the capacity spectrum method.

2.4. Non-Linear Time History Analysis

In addition to the static pushover analysis, series of NLTHA [5, 6] analysis consisting of linear to non-linear responses
of the tall building were conducted in the study. It is believed that the response generated by time history analysis is
generally smaller and more representative than the pushover analysis. This is because with time analysis, the building
directly experiences the earthquake excitation history which is already scaled in correspondence with the design spectra,
and higher modes are directly taken into account in the analysis. Another use of the time history is to apply the concept
of performance-based design in tall buildings with outrigger and belt-truss system, where the building are excited with 7
ground motions time history. Each ground motion consists of earthquake at Service (43 year return period), at Design
(500 year return period) and at MCER (2500 year return period) levels. The performance-based design concept is applied
because there has been no standard and specific Code of Practice for tall buildings with outrigger and belt-truss system.
The concept used for the time history analysis is the constant average acceleration with Newmark-β discretization
method with a value of β = ¼. The SNI 1726-2012 [7] allows to design the appoarch using the average of the 7 ground
motions mentioned above.

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The study was conducted using the following methods:

a. Literature study, which includes :

 Determine initial assumption of earthquake parameters for tall buildings with outrigger and belt-truss system
 Advantages and disadvantages of the outrigger and belt-truss system
 Determine material specifications of structural elements, the building’s functional specification, and load specification
on the building

b. Structure modelling using ETABS program v.9.7.4 [9] for preliminary and rebar design in accordance with the
requirements of the Indonesian Seismic Code Standard of SNI 1726:2012 [7] (compatible with ASCE 07-2010 [8]).
c. Structure modelling using PERFORM 3D v.5.0 [10] software to perform the analysis which include both pushover
and time history analysis.
d. Evaluate and compare the response of both elastic and non-linear analysis of tall building both for conventional and
the outrigger & belt-truss systems.

The study method used can be expressed in the figure of a flowchart as seen in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3. Study Flowchart

4. STRUCTURAL MODELLING

The structural model used in this study is a 90 floor building with primary lateral resisting system which are as
follows: (1) RC multiple shear wall system; (2) mega composite columns perimeter; (3) concrete wall outrigger; and (4)
steel belt-truss. While the frame system consists of composite column, steel beams, steel joists, steel perimeter beams
and metal filled deck plates which all is functioned only as a gravity resisting members. The dimensions of the building
plan both for X and Y directions are 54 meters whilst the height of first floor is 5.5 meters and the height of the typical
floors is 4.5 meters. The total height of the building is 406.0 meters. Outrigger walls are located at floors 30 and 60,
while the belt-trusses are on floors 29 to 31 and floors 59 to 61. The typical plans of the tall building with and without
outrigger and belt-truss are presented in Fig. 4. The modelling of shear wall and outrigger element use fiber element,
meanwhile the modelling of coupling beam; mega composite column; steel beam; composite column and belt-truss use
line element which has rigid area diaphragm on metal filled deck.
The shear wall vary in thickness from 1.1 to 0.8 meters every 18 floor with concrete compressive strength (fc’) 60
MPa. The mega composite column vary from dimension 2.4 m x 2.2 m to 1 m x 1 m every 10 floor with fc’ 80 MPa. The
composite column vary from dimension 1.9 m x 1.9 m to 0.6 m x 0.6 m every 10 floor with fc’ 80 MPa. The RC
coupling beam, with fc’ 60 MPa, differ to 3 cross section, such as: 1 m x 1.8 m; 0.8 m x 1.6 m; and 0.7 m x 1.4 m. The
steel beams used in building are typical in each floor, which consist of 3 steel profile with yield strength (fy) 345 MPa:
IWF 600.600.30.30 for primary steel beam; IWF 400.400.25.25 for secondary steel beam; and IWF 700.700.50.50 for
perimeter steel beam. The thickness of RC wall outrigger element are 0.9 m and 0.8 m and on floor 30th and floor 60th,
respectively. Belt-Truss element consists of 3 main elements, such as: top & bottom chord element (IWF 800.800.50.50);
vertical chord element (IWF 600.600.30.30), and diagonal brace element (IWF 600.600.40.40).

(a) (b)
Fig. 4. (a) Typical Floor Plan of Floor 30 & 60; (b) Typical Floor Plan without Outrigger & Belt-Truss

The building is assumed to be constructed in Jakarta on soft soil with the values of SDS = 0.74 g and SD1= 0.7 g. The
seismic coefficient C of MCER is as seen in Fig. 5. The building itself has a Building Risk Category (BRC) = III and
Important Level (Ie) = 1.25. Therefore, the structure is classified into Category Design Seismic of D (ductile structure).
Gravity load used refers to the minimum load stipulated in The Indonesian Loading Code of SNI 1727: 2013 [11]
(ASCE 7-10 [8]) as seen in Table 3.
Table 3. Gravity Load

Floor SIDL LL
(KN/m2) (KN/m2)
Office Floor 1.72 2.4
MEP Floor 1.72 5
Roof Floor 0.5 0.96
Fig. 5. Response Spectrum of Jakarta on Soft Soil Condition

5. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

5.1. Structural Design Stage

Structural design is performed using the v.9.7.4 ETABS [9] software utilizing a combination of LRFD loadings in
accordance with SNI 1726: 2012 [7] and the response spectra shown in Fig. 5. As for the determination of the seismic
resisting parameters a special RC concrete walls system is used as the initial design assumption with the parameters as
follows: R =5, Cd = 5, and Ω0 = 2.5. The manual design of RC element based on Moehle, J. [15] and SNI 2847:2013 [12]
(compatible with ACI 318-11 [13]).The manual design of steel element based on SNI 1729:2015 [16] (compatible with
AISC 360-10 [17]). The vertical cross sections of the structures both for the conventional system and the outrigger and
belt-truss system are presented in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6. Vertical Cross Section of Conventional System (Left) and Outrigger & Belt-Truss System (Right) Structural Models
Table 4 shows the first five modes of 3D fundamental periods both for special RC concrete wall system connected to
Ordinary Steel Frame (Conventional System) and the outrigger and belt-truss system. It is clear that the use of outrigger
and belt-truss system will increase the lateral stiffness of tall buildings. This can be seen that the period of the special RC
structural wall when it is compared to the outrigger and belt-truss system, is reduced by 3.61 and 4.91 seconds for X and
Y directions, respectively. Increasing lateral stiffness of the outrigger and belt-truss system will reduce the lateral
deformation of the structure leading to improvement of the stability of the tall building.

Table 4. Period of Building Model


Conventional Period Outrigger & Belt-Truss
No Mode
(Second) Period (Second)
1 1-Y 13.26 8.35
2 1-X 11.34 7.73
3 1-θ 3.44 3.32
4 2-Y 2.59 2.24
5 2-X 2.25 2.01
6 2-θ 1.29 1.24
7 3-Y 1.09 1.08
8 3-X 0.96 0.95
9 3-θ 0.76 0.76
10 4-Y 0.66 0.60
11 4-X 0.60 0.56
12 4-θ 0.54 0.52
13 5-Y 0.46 0.45
14 5-X 0.42 0.41
15 5-θ 0.42 0.41

Under the design stage, Fig. 7 to Fig. 9 show all of the lateral, inter story drifts and the stability ratio of the
conventional system are larger when they are compared to the outrigger and belt-truss system. In the Y directions, the
conventional system exceeds the limits of inter story drift which is 1.5% and the stability ratio (θ) or P-Delta effect of
0.1, as seen in Fig.7 to Fig. 9, respectively. Based on the results, it is proven that in the design stage, the outrigger and
belt-truss system is effective to reduce the drift between floors and increasing the stability of high-rise buildings.

(a) (b)
Fig. 7. (a) Lateral Displacement of Building Models toward X Direction; (b) Lateral Displacement of Building Models
toward Y Direction
(a) (b)
Fig. 8. (a) Lateral Inter Story Drift of Building Models toward X Direction; (b) Lateral Inter Story Drift of Building
Models toward Y Direction

(a) (b)
Fig. 9. (a) Stability Ratio (ϴ) of Building Models toward X Direction; (b) Stability Ratio (ϴ) of Building Models toward Y
Direction

Fig. 10 shows that the use of outrigger and belt-truss system reduces the amount of bending moment on the shear
walls. In this study, the outrigger and belt-truss system is capable of reducing the moment of the shear walls base to
23.8% for X direction and 31.6% for Y direction compared to that of the conventional system. The effectiveness of
additional belt-truss to the outrigger reducing the maximum axial compression of the mega columns is evaluated. The
belt-truss will redistribute the axial force to the all columns not only the mega column. It can be seen in Fig. 11, the axial
force on mega column A (mega columns located on the west and east plan) underwent 15.40% reduction in compression
force. Meanwhile, the axial compression force of the mega column B (mega columns located at the north and south plan)
is reduced close to 17%.
(a) (b)
Fig. 10. (a) Moment of Shear Wall due to Lateral Load in X Direction; (b) Moment of the Shear Wall due to Lateral Load
in Y Direction

(a) (b)
Fig. 11. (a) Axial Force on Mega Column A due to Seismic Load in X Direction; (b) Axial Seismic on Mega Column B due
to Lateral Load in Y Direction
5.2. Analysis Results of Non-linear Pushover Analysis

Non-Linear Pushover analysis [4, 5] were conducted using perform 3D v.5.0 [10] software. The demand spectrum was
subjected to the MCER and utilizes the capacity spectrum method.

(a) (b)
Fig. 12. (a) Outrigger & Belt-Truss Building Capacity Curve Cs Minimum in X Direction; (b) Outrigger & Belt-Truss
Building Capacity Curve Cs Minimum in Y Direction

(a) (b)
Fig. 13. (a) Outrigger & Belt-Truss Building Capacity Curve Cs Actual in X Direction; (b) Outrigger & Belt-Truss
Building Capacity Curve Cs Actual in Y Direction

(a) (b)
Fig. 14. (a) Outrigger & Belt-Truss Building Capacity Curve R = 5.5 in X Direction; (b) Outrigger & Belt-Truss Building
Capacity Curve R = 5.5 in Y Direction
The first design is based on the minimum seismic coefficient (Cs minimum) as required by the Indonesian Code of the
lesser between 0,044 SDSIe or 0.01. In the design Cs min equals 0.0407. It can be seen in Fig. 12, the results of pushover
analysis system for the outrigger and belt truss system using Cs min are at IO’s both for the X and the Y directions. As
the performance level limit for buildings with Building Risk Category (BRC) III are allowed to achieve the performance
level of LS to CP under MCER, therefore the first design using Cs min is categorized as a conservative design. Based on
this results, it is necessary to attempt a comparison study to optimize the design for the building using a lower Cs than Cs
min. The terminology used for a lower Cs min are as follows: (1) Cs. actual; (2) Cs with R=5.5 which is higher than the first
assumption (R=5). Cs, actual is the seismic coefficient as given by the equation of the response spectra under constant
velocity (SD1/T). Cs actual used in the design equals 0.0283 and the Cs of R=5.5 is 0.0257. This is done in order to achieve
the level of performance corresponding to the BRC III target that is LS to CP. The summary of the pushover analysis [4,
5] is presented in Table 5.
Based on Fig. 13, it is found that the performance level of the building are LS and IO, in the X and Y directions,
respectively. As for the design of the R = 5.5 (see Fig. 14), the performance levels are CP and LS in the X and Y
directions, respectively. The latter is disadvantage, therefore R=5.5 is not recommended in the design. However, when
NLTHA [5, 6] is used the results will be different as discussed later in Section 5.3. The parameters Cd and Ω0 under push-
over analysis [4, 5] compared to those of design parameters using the conventional system is presented in Table 6.

Table 5. Summary of the Non-linear Pushover Analysis


Cs min = 0.0407 Cs Actual = 0.0283 Cs (R=5.5) = 0.0257
Parameter
X Y X Y X Y
V perf. point (KN) 288900 270400 283300 275800 276700 268100
drift perf. Point 0.008086 0.008673 0.009342 0.009969 0.0101 0.01055
V first yield (KN) 186900 153100 162800 136000 162100 118000
Drift first yield 0.003889 0.003735 0.003272 0.003241 0.003277 0.002784
V design(KN) 114553 114553 102980.7 94513.17 93616.87 85919.32

Table 6. Building Parameters under Performance Point


Design Cs min = 0.0407 Cs Actual = 0.0283 Cs (R=5.5) = 0.0257
Parameter
Assumption X Y X Y X Y
Cd 5 4.22 4.24 3.79 4.57 3.09 4.54
Ω0 2.5 2.92 2.76 2.92 3.12 2.92 3.26

Based on the Fig. 15 to Fig. 17, every design conditions for high-rise buildings with outrigger and belt-truss system, it
can be seen that damage to the elements is dominated by the coupling beam elements and a fraction of the shear walls.
The damage of the shear wall elements are generally on the bases of the shear walls and the upper floor of the outrigger
and belt-truss location. At the performance point (PP) under MCER, it can be seen that the wall element of the outrigger
and belt-truss steel members remain undamaged. The maximum stress of the belt-truss element is only at 80.0% of the
yield phase which indicates that it is still in the elastic condition.
(Belt Truss and Outrigger No
Damage at PP)

(1st Yield) (IO)

Fig. 15. Element Damage at Yield and at IO Levels at Performance Level under Cs, minimum

(Belt Truss and Outrigger


No damage at PP)

(1st Yield) (IO) (LS)

Fig. 16. Element Damage at Yield, IO and LS Levels at Performance Point under Cs, actual

(Belt Truss and Outrigger


No damage at PP)

(1st Yield) (IO) (LS) (CP)

Fig. 17 Element Damage at Yield, IO, LS and CP Levels at Performance Point under Cs using R=5.5
5.3. Analysis Results of Non-linear Time History Analysis

NLTHA [5, 6] analysis is conducted using the performance based design (PBD) [1, 14] requirement namely at Service
(43 year Return Period), Design (2/3 of MCER), and MCER (2500 year Return Period) levels. The concept of PBD is
conducted by increasing the R value to achieve the optimal level of performance objective for Building Risk Category
(BRC) III. The variation of R values from the highest to lowest Seismic Design Coefficient are as follows: (1) C s, min; (2)
Cs, actual; (3) Cs at R=5.5; and (4) Cs at R=6.0.
The acceleration load history being used is scaled to match the site specific of Jakarta’s soft soil class area. This
artificial earthquake load data is the result of ITB’s geotechnical engineering research team chaired by
I. Wayan Sengara PhD. Each set of load history consists of a pair of earthquakes in the orthogonal direction, namely at X
and Y directions. The response result used for the analysis is the result of the average response of all 7 load history used
as required by SNI 1726:2012 [7] (ASCE 7-10 [8]). Table 7 shows the 7 (Seven) PGA Artificial Earthquake Motions of
MCER and Service Levels used in the study.

Table 7. Seven Artificial Earthquake Motions in Jakarta’s Soft Soil Class


Epicentral PGA PGA
Earthquake duration
Catalog Code Direction Magnitude Distance SouRCe Earthquake MCER service
Mechanism (seconds)
(km) (g) (g)
Tohoku
MYG013110311146EW EW
Earthquake
9 170 K-NET 299.99 0.35203 0.16933
11 MaRCh
MYG013110311146NS NS 2011
Sitka
212V5090 90 Earthquake
Megathrust 7.68 42.85 PEER 30 MaRCh 55.085 0.27469 0.13344
212V5180 180 1972,
ALASKA
Chi - chi
TCU089-W N Earthquake
7.62 7.04 PEER 20 78.995 0.31057 0.15075
TCU089-N W September
1999
Chi - chi
TCU 136 N N Earthquake
7.62 48.75 PEER 20 89.99 0.29498 0.13496
TCU 136 E E September
1999
Benioff
Chi - chi
TCU120-N N
Earthquake
7.62 25.57 PEER 20 89.995 0.28207 0.13874
TCU-120-W W September
1999
MEL090 90 Landers
Shallow Earthquake
7.28 138.49 PEER 36.93 0.31042 0.14635
Crustal MEL180 180 28 June
1992
ABY090 90 Landers
Shallow Earthquake
7.28 75.2 PEER 49.975 0.28925 0.13897
Background 28 June
ABY000 0
1992

Fig. 18 shows that the use of Cs, min design for tall building with outrigger and belt truss system under MCE R still
results in the performance levels of IO. This is far below the PBD target for BRC III that is at level of LS. The design is
then considered as uneconomical or conservative design. Therefore optimization should be done by increasing the value
of R obtaining the target performance level of LS. After several iterations of R values, it was found that the optimum R
value that is satisfying the requirement is equal to 6 (six) corresponding to Cs equals 0.0236. Using R = 6, The
performances of the structures are as follows: (i) at the service earthquake remains elastic; (ii) at the design earthquake is
at 0.9 IO; and for the MCER level at 0.7 LS. No CP occurred at the structures both for displacements and structural
members. The damaged level achieved from non-linear time history analysis [5, 6] are smaller than static the push-over
analysis [4, 5].

Fig. 18. Summary of the Performance Levels Based on NLTHA for Every Level of Earthquake Load for Each Design
Conditions

Table 8 shows the average of the seven different maximum of the inter story drifts of the structure both for X and Y
directions, under 7 (seven) different MCER. It can be seen that all inter story drifts satisfy the requirements both for
Tall Building Initiative (TBI) [1] and SNI 1726:2012 [7] (ASCE7-10 [8]) which allows for 125% from the elastic drift
limit when the NLTHA [5, 6] is used.

Table 8. Summary of the Average of Maximum Inter Story Drift at MCER


Design X Y TBI Limit SNI Limit
Cs min 0.52% 0.58% 3% 1.88%
Cs actual 0.49% 0.54% 3% 1.88%
R = 5.5 0.47% 0.53% 3% 1.88%
R=6 0.46% 0.52% 3% 1.88%

It is also required in TBI [1] that the residual in-elastic story drift after the earthquake loading should be less than 1%
of the story height. Table 9 shows that the average of the 7 (seven) different maximum residual in-elastic story drift
satisfy the TBI [1] requirement for all design conditions.

Table 9. Summary of the Average of Maximum In-Elastic Drifts at MCER


Design X Y TBI Limit
Cs min 0.08% 0.10% 1%
Cs actual 0.10% 0.10% 1%
R = 5.5 0.12% 0.11% 1%
R=6 0.12% 0.11% 1%

The responses of the structure under Earthquake Service Level (ESL) are presented on Table 10. It can be seen on
Table 10 that under seven types of ESL, the average maximum inter story drift of all structures with different R values
satisfy the requirement of Tall Building Initiatives (TBI) [1].
Table 10. Summary of Average of Maximum Inter Story Drifts at ESL
Desain X Y TBI Limit
Cs min 0.14% 0.14% 0.50%
Cs actual 0.14% 0.14% 0.50%
R = 5.5 0.14% 0.14% 0.50%
R=6 0.14% 0.14% 0.50%

As the R value increases the total weight of the rebar decreases. The difference in rebar volume due to several design
condition can be seen on Table 11.

Table 11. Summary of Total Weight Reduction of Rebars under Different Seismic Coefficient Design
Weight Reduction (KN x 103)
Design Condition Coupling Total Weight Reduction(kNx103)
Outrigger Wall Shear Wall
beams
Cs Min - - -
Cs Actual 3.27 (17%) 0.15 (26%) 1.28 (46%) 4.70 (20%)
R = 5.5 4.71 (24%) 0.20 (33%) 1.56 (57%) 6.47 (28%)
R=6 6.16 (31%) 0.25 (42%) 1.72 (62%) 8.13 (35%)

Fig. 19 to Fig. 21 show the examples of the performance levels using R=6 under the earthquake motions with code
MYG-013 (see Table 7) at MCER, DBE and ESL. The most severe damages were located mostly at coupling beams
where the level of damage reaching to a level of 70% LS. Outriggers and belt-trusses remained elastic during MCER.
Under DBE the damages were also dominated by the coupling beams elements reaching to the level of 0.9 IO. However,
under the ELS, all the structural elements remain elastic or undamaged.

Belt Truss and Outrigger


No Damage

(1st Yield) (IO) (LS)

Fig. 19. Element Damage at Yield, IO and LS Levels using Cs of R=6.0 under Maximum Displacement Response (MDR)
of MCER code MYG-013
Belt Truss and Outrigger
No Damage

(1st Yield) (IO)

Fig. 20. Element Damage at Yield and IO Levels using Cs of R=6.0 Under MDR of DBE code MYG-013

Fig. 21. Element Damage at Yield Level at Cs of R=6.0 Under MDR of ESL code MYG-013

The roof dynamic displacement responses of the building underwent artificial ground motions are presented in Figure
22 both in the X and Y directions. The ground motion shown in Fig. 22 are under the code no. MYG-013 consisting of
MCER, DBE, and ESL accelerations. It can bee seen that response in Y direction is larger compared to X directions as
the Y direction is more flexible. The differences among the periods are insignificant showing that the stiffness practically
does not change during the in-elastic responses compared to the elastic behaviour. However, the in-elastic responses
magnify significantly under the series of maximum acceleration.

(a) (b)
Fig. 22. Roof Displacement Responses of the Building under Artificial Ground Motions Code no. MYG-013
(a) in X directions; and (b) in Y directions
6. CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis and discussion, related studies conducted, some conclusions withdrawn are as follows:

 The use of the outrigger and belt-truss wall system is proven very effective for the tall building model in this study,
whereas a significant increase in lateral stiffness reducing of the inter story drift

 The use of the outrigger and belt-truss wall system has shown improving the stability of the high rise buildings

 The use of belt-truss is capable to distribute the axial force from the outrigger to the mega columns at the perimeter
reducing the axial compression force of the mega columns

 Based on the results of Pushover analysis [4, 5] and NLTHA [5, 6], it is shown that the use of Cs min for the design of
tall buildings resulting in conservative level of performance

 Results utilizing Pushover analysis [4, 5] are more conservative than that of NLTHA analysis [5, 6]

 Based on the Pushover analysis [4, 5] and NLTHA [5, 6], it is shown that coupling beams of tall building using
outrigger and belt-truss system are very effective as seismic energy dissipation

 Under MCER excitation, several shear wall elements also sustained damage, particularly at the shear wall located at
the base and the second floor just above the outrigger wall

 As for the outrigger and belt-truss under NLTHA [5, 6] using R equals 6 (six), wall elements of the outrigger and belt-
truss remain elastic during MCER ground motions

 The use of Cs actual and or modification of higher R may be a considered for the design of tall buildings in order to
obtain optimal performance and R equals 6 (six) is recommended in the study.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Authors would like to express their gratitude and appreciation to Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Institute Technology Bandung for the support and special thank is to our colleague Indrajati Sidi PhD who contributed
the fruitful discussion during the study.

REFERENCES

[1] PEER,“Tall Buildings Initiative : Guidelines for Performance Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings”, Pacific
Earthquake Engineering ReseaRCh Center, 2010, Berkeley.
[2] Taranath, B.S., “Reinforced Concrete Design of Tall Buildings”, 2010, Taylor & Francis Group.
[3] Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, “Outrigger Design for High Rise Buildings”, 2012, Taylor & Francis
Group.
[4] Applied Technology Council,“Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings Volume 1 (ATC-40)”,
California Seismic Safety Commission, 1996, California.
[5] Federal Emergency Management Agency., “Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings (FEMA 356)”, 2000, Wahington, D.C.
[6] Clough, R.W., Penzien, J., “Dynamic of Structures 3rd Edition”, Computer & Structures Inc Berkeley, 2003,
California.
[7] National Standardization Organization (BSN), “Procedures to Design Seismic Resistant Structure on Building and
Non-Building Structures (SNI 1726:2012)”, 2012, Jakarta.
[8] American Society of Civil Engineering Standards,“Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
(ASCE 7-10)”, Structural Engineering Institute ASCE, 2010, Virginia.
[9] ETABS v.9.7.4, “CSI Analysis Reference Manual for SAP 2000, ETABS, SAFE”, Computers and Structures Inc,
1995, Berkeley.
[10] PERFORM 3D v.5.0, “Non-linear Analysis and Performance Assesment for 3D Structures”, Computer and
Structures Inc, 2011, Berkeley.
[11] National Standardization Organization (BSN), “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
(SNI 1727:2013)”, 2013, Jakarta
[12] National Standardization Organization (BSN), “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(SNI 2847:2013)”, 2013, Jakarta.
[13] American Concrete Institute, “Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-11)”, ACI Committee
318, 2011, Michigan.
[14] Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council, “An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design
of Tall Buildings Located in The Los Angeles Region”, A Consensus Document, 2008.
[15] Moehle, J.,“Seismic design of ReinfoRCed Concrete Buildings”, 2015, McGraw-Hill Education.
[16] National Standardization Organization (BSN), “Spesification for Structural Steel Buildings (SNI 1729:2015)”, 2015,
Jakarta.
[17] American Institute of Steel Construction,“ Spesification for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC 360-10)”, AISC
Committee, 2010, Chicago.

You might also like