Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI: 10.1002/tal.1492
RESEARCH ARTICLE
1
Department of Geotechnical Engineering,
Tongji University, Shanghai, China Summary
2
Tongji Architectural Design (Group) Co., Ltd., The outrigger system has been widely adopted as an efficient structural lateral‐load
Shanghai, China
resisting system for super‐tall buildings in recent years. Although the outrigger system
3
Department of Structural Engineering, Tongji
University, Shanghai, China
has many structural advantages, it has a significant defect due to differential shorten-
4
Shanghai Construction Group Co., Ltd., ing, which cannot be neglected. Due to the shrinkage and creep of concrete, as well as
Shanghai, China the differential settlement of foundation, the shortening of the structural member is
Correspondence
an important time‐dependent issue, which leads to additional forces in the outriggers
Dr Xin Zhao, PhD, Engineering Professor,
Tongji Architectural Design (Group) Co., Ltd., after the lock‐in of the outriggers. As a result, it will increase the size of the structural
Siping Road No. 1230, Shanghai 200092,
member cross section in the design. In a real project, engineers can delay the lock‐in
China.
Email: 22zx@tjadri.com time of the outrigger system to release the additional forces caused by the differential
shortening during the construction phase. The time‐dependent actions, such as the
Funding information
column shortening and the differential settlement of the foundation, were estimated.
Shanghai Excellent Discipline Leader Program,
Grant/Award Number: 14XD1423900 A mega frame steel structure was employed to illustrate the analysis and design of the
outrigger under the time‐dependent actions. Furthermore, a simple optimal method,
considering the structural stability and overall stiffness, was proposed to optimize
the construction sequence of the outrigger system.
KEY W ORDS
1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N
With the development of modern society, buildings are becoming taller and slimmer in cities. To make this slender structure possible, many struc-
tural systems for high‐rise buildings have been conceived and designed. Among them, the outrigger structural system has proven to be an efficient
lateral stiffness system to reduce lateral drift under wind or seismic loadings in high‐rise buildings. However, this structural system suffers from
excessive stress to structural members under time‐dependent actions, such as shrinkage and creep, as well as differential settlement of the
foundation.
Notation: c´, Effective cohesion; φ´, Effective friction angle; ε(t), Total strain; J(t, t'), Strain at time t caused by a unit uniaxial constant stress; εsh(t), Shrinkage strain;
εsh∞, Ultimate shrinkage strain; kh, Coefficient of humidity dependence; S(t), The time function for shrinkage; q1, Instantaneous strain due to unit stress; C0(t, t'),
Basic creep; Cd(t, t', t0), Additional function due to simultaneous drying; σc0,σs0, Stress of concrete, stress of steel tube at loading time; Ec,Es, Modulus of elasticity,
concrete and steel, respectively; Ac,As, Cross‐sectional area, concrete and steel, respectively; β, Reduction coefficient; εct, Strain of concrete at loading time t;
N
σct,σst, Stress at loading time t, concrete and steel, respectively; ΔT i, Time increment of ith floor construction; ∑ ΔT i , Total construction time of N floors; Δi, j,
i¼1
Vertical deformation increment of ith floor during the ΔTj time; Δ−, Pre‐installation shortening of nth floor; Δ+, Post‐installation shortening of nth floor; εcr, Creep
strain; εe, Elastic strain; ϕ(t), Creep coefficient; ku, Superstructure stiffness matrix; kr, Raft foundation stiffness matrix; kps, Spring stiffness matrices; U, Node
displacement vector; P, Load vector; k, Average stiffness of piled soil spring; N, Total axial vertical forces; n, Total amount of piles; s, Predicted settlement; γ, Unit
weight; A, Cross‐sectional area; I, Moment of inertia; H, Building height; Gi, Design weight of ith story; EJd, Elastic equivalent lateral stiffness; λ, λ′, Rigidity–gravity
ratio, revised rigidity–gravity ratio; β, Correction coefficient; A, Weight distribution factor
Struct Design Tall Spec Build. 2018;e1492. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tal Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 of 20
https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1492
2 of 20 FANG ET AL.
Column shortening is one of the major considerations in the design and construction of the outrigger system in tall buildings. The differential
column shortening could cause adverse effects on the nonstructural elements of buildings, such as the curtain walls, partitions, electrical pipelines,
and elevators, and may also result in redistribution of structural member forces. If the horizontal members, especially the outrigger system in
super‐tall buildings, are connected between the core service tube and the perimeter columns, the differential shortening may cause huge internal
forces on these structural members.
Over the past few decades, several researchers have studied the prediction and compensation method for the column shortening of tall build-
ings. Fintel et al.[1] evaluated the total and post‐installation column shortening considering the construction sequences. It is based on rate of creep
method, which is one of the long‐term analysis methods that give nearly the exact shortening of the columns connected with simple shear joints.
Kim[2] proposed a long‐term analysis method of a reinforced concrete frame by iterating the simple linear elastic frame analysis program and con-
sidering the equivalent nodal load of creep and shrinkage, transformed section, and effective elastic modulus. Various studies have proposed
methods to compensate for such differential shortenings to eliminate damage to both structural and nonstructural components.[3] Maru et al.[4]
proposed an analysis method for column shortening in a rigidly connected frame. The method includes inelastic shortening, as well as elastic short-
ening, and takes into consideration the shearing action of beams. Efforts have been made by various researchers to investigate vertical deforma-
tion and the effects of differential column shortening on the internal forces of outriggers.[5,6]
Additionally, for buildings built on compressible soils, the differential settlement of the foundation is another important factor that influences
the relative changes in the elevation of the columns. The load imbalance between any two columns is continually changing, making an accurate
assessment of column shortening a challenging task. Thus, the differential settlement is also an important consideration in the design and con-
struction of outriggers. In this paper, a super‐tall steel building was employed to analyze the outrigger system under differential settlement of
the foundation.
Engineers can delay the lock‐in time of the outrigger system to release the additional forces caused by the differential shortening between the
adjacent vertical members. The different lock‐in schemes of the outrigger system yield different absolute deformation and differential deformation
of the vertical members. Apart from the normal fixing scheme and the experiential delayed joint scheme, a simple optimal method considering the
structural stability and overall stiffness was proposed to optimize the construction sequence of the outrigger system. The results obtained have
proven to have many advantages in terms of building performance, quality control, and cost reduction.
2 | P R O J E C T DE S C R I P T I O N
the periphery of the structure, which has been optimized for their numbers and positions, is adopted in the design. The dimensions of the mega
column range from 3,000 mm × 5,000 mm at the lower zone to 1,500 mm × 1,500 mm at the higher zone.
Compared with a steel reinforced concrete core tube, which was popularly used in tall buildings, the steel frame core tube with diagonal sup-
port is used less often in super‐tall buildings. Some examples, such as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (415 m) and Taipei 101 (508 m),
which adopt a frame core tube, have been reported. In this case, the dimensions of the core tube column decrease from 1,000 mm × 1,000 mm at
the low story to 600 mm × 600 mm at the high story. The diagonal braces are connected between adjacent columns across 2–3 floors, which are
used to increase the lateral stiffness of the core tube, and some braces have been adjusted to eccentric supports to meet the architectural require-
ments. All the perimeter mega columns and core tube columns are concrete‐filled steel tubular columns (CFT).
This structure has been divided into 12 zones by the locations of the refuge story and mechanical floor. Twelve belt trusses around the struc-
ture are located at the top of each zone. Five outriggers, which connect the central service core and eight perimeter mega columns, were set in
mechanical floors at Zones 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10 (they are marked as O1, O2, O3, O4, and O5 in Figure 2, respectively). The outriggers and belt trusses
effectively limit the lateral drift to acceptable limits without paying a high premium in steel tonnage. When subjected to lateral loads, the column‐
restrained outriggers resist the rotation of the core, causing the lateral deflections of the building to be smaller than if the free‐standing core alone
resisted the loading. The result is an increase in the effective depth of the structure when it bends as a vertical cantilever, by including tension in
the windward columns and compression in the leeward columns.[7]
The following properties of concrete were used in the analysis of shrinkage and creep of the concrete‐filled steel tube: (a) Type I cement con-
crete; (b) age at loading t′=28 days; (c) age when drying begins t0 = 7 days; (d) relative humidity h = 0.9; (e) cement content is 724.1 kg/m3; (f)
water–cement ratio w/c = 0.36; (g) water content of concrete w = 216.4 kg/m3; (h) aggregate–cement ratio a/c = 3; and (i) volume‐to‐surface
ratio = ∞.
For such a super‐tall building, it is necessary to perform a detailed construction simulation to consider the structure, load, and material
changes with time. The construction procedure is described as follows. The steel core tube and eight perimeter mega columns are constructed
at the same time, and the floor is cast approximately 7–8 floors below the core. The estimated construction cycle of one typical floor is 3 days,
and that of the mechanical floor is 7 days. It will take almost 630 days to complete the main tower. Apart from the dead loads, the live load of
1 kN/m2 during the construction phase is assumed in the analysis of the shrinkage and the creep of the CFT.
3 | S H R I N K A G E A N D C R E E P OF C F T C O L U M NS
Due to the advantages of high bearing capacity, good seismic performance, and convenient construction of mega concrete‐filled steel tubular col-
umns, it is the preferred structural member used in super‐tall buildings. The Taipei 101 tower (508 m) is the first high‐rise building to use a mega
CFT column in China. There are also many other engineering practices using mega CFT columns, such as the Kingkey Finance Center Plaza
(439 m), the CTF Finance Center (530 m), and the Tianjin Goldin Finance 117 tower (596 m).
The time‐dependent behavior is a major concern in the design and construction of tall buildings. Steel members have elastic deformations
only, whereas CFT members have both elastic and inelastic deformations due to the shrinkage and creep of concrete. A CFT column is the com-
bination of a steel tube on the outside and a concrete filling; therefore, its time‐dependent behavior is different from ordinary concrete columns.
The shortening of the concrete‐filled steel tubular column has been studied by some researchers,[8–10] but the columns in the tests or theoretical
studies have been small in size; the time‐dependent behavior has not been ascertained for mega CFT columns with a larger size.
εðtÞ ¼ J t; t' σ þ εsh ðtÞ; (1)
where J(t, t') is the strain (due to creep and elasticity) at time t caused by a unit uniaxial stress applied at age t', σ is the uniaxial stress, and εsh (t) is
the shrinkage strain.
The shrinkage of a concrete member is caused by water evaporation, cement hydration, and carbonization of concrete. The mean shrinkage
strain of a concrete member in the cross section is calculated as follows:
where εsh∞ is the ultimate (final) shrinkage strain, kh is a coefficient of humidity dependence, and S(t) is the time function for shrinkage.
J(t, t') can further be composed as follows:
J t; t' ¼ q1 þ C0 t; t' þ Cd t; t' ; t0 ; (3)
where q1 is instantaneous strain due to unit stress, C0(t, t') is a function of basic creep (creep at constant moisture content and no moisture move-
ment through the material), and Cd(t, t', t0) is an additional function due to simultaneous drying. Additional information on this model is found in the
literature.[11]
1. Due to the compatibility of strain between the concrete and steel tube in the CFT, as the concrete shrinks and creeps, the steel tube must
attract additional compressive stress to maintain the same strain as the concrete. A part of the load in the CFT is transferred from the con-
crete to the steel tube as time passes.
When the composite member is loaded (t = t0), the strains on the concrete and the steel tube are equal. Therefore, the stress of the concrete
and steel can be obtained as follows:
N
σc0 ¼ ; (4)
ð1 þ nμÞ Ac
nN
σs0 ¼ ; (5)
ð1 þ nμÞ Ac
with
μ ¼ As =Ac ; (7)
where N is the total axial load, Ec (t0) is the initial modulus of elasticity at loading, Ac is the concrete cross‐sectional area of the CFT column, and As
is the cross‐sectional area of the steel tube.
When experiencing constant loadings (t > t0), the creep deformation of the concrete is reduced to βε crdue to the restraining effect of the steel
tube. The factor β can be obtained as follows:
1
β¼ : (8)
1 þ nμ
The total strain in the concrete and the steel tube is εcr = εc0 + βεcr, and the steel stress isσst = (εc0 + βεcr)Es. The stress of concrete can be
obtained by the following:
N − σs As
σct ¼ ; (9)
Ac
where εc = σc / Ec (t), ε c is the initial strain when the CFT column was loaded.
2. As the concrete is placed in steel tubes, the moisture diffusion from the concrete may be very small or may be eliminated totally, which indi-
cates that the obstruction of moisture diffusion causes a reduction in both the drying creep and shrinkage strain in the CFT column. We sug-
gest modifying the volume‐to‐surface ratio of concrete with a large value to meet the actual situation, when using the B3 model to calculate
the shrinkage and creep of the CFT.
n n
Δ − ¼ ∑ ∑ Δ i; j ; (10)
i¼1 j¼i
n N
Δþ ¼ ∑ ∑ Δ i; j : (11)
i¼1 j¼nþ1
εcr
ϕðtÞ ¼ ; (12)
εe
… … … … … …
n Δn, n Δn, n + 1 … Δn, N
n+1 Δn + 1, n + 1 … Δn + 1, N
… … …
N ΔN, N
Note. red area = pre‐installation shortening of the nth floor is the sum of all deformations; blue area = post‐installation shortening of nth floor is the sum of
all deformations
FANG ET AL. 7 of 20
FIGURE 4 Elastic, shrinkage, and creep strain of the mega column and core tube concrete‐filled steel tubular (CFT) column
In this paper, the creep coefficient of the mega column is 1.22 at 50 years after construction. This finding is consistent with the recommen-
dations of Terrey,[8] who quotes coefficients in the range of 1.15 to 1.25.
150
100
Story
50
Structure completion
1 year after structure completion
5 years after structure completion
10 years after structure completion
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Displacement(mm)
150
100
Story
50
Structure completion
1 year after structure completion
5 years after structure completion
10 years after structure completion
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Displacement(mm)
FIGURE 5 Total shortening of the mega column and core tube concrete‐filled steel tubular (CFT) column
The change of axial forces in the core tube CFT column is greater than in the mega column, because the core tube column has a smaller size, and it
is subjected to the same transferred forces as the mega column. Another consequence is that the differential column shortening increases.
Although the differential shortening becomes larger, it does not induce additional force in the outriggers when the joint connections of the out-
riggers are flexible.
4 | D I F F E R E N T I A L SE T T L E M E NT O F F O U N D A T I O N
FIGURE 7 Post‐installation shortening of the core tube concrete‐filled steel tubular column
In the current interaction analysis of a piled raft foundation in tall buildings, the method generally used is to build a model including the super-
structure (including basement), raft foundation, and soils. To reduce the number of nodes and simplify the calculation, the action of the pile and
soils is equivalent to the vertical spring on the pile top (Figure 10), and the interaction basic formula can be expressed as follows:
FANG ET AL. 11 of 20
Fixed‐joint method 92 95 3
Experiential delayed joint method 88 112 24
where ku is the superstructure stiffness matrix; kr is the raft foundation stiffness matrix; kps is the spring stiffness matrices representing the
equivalent stiffness of the entire pile‐raft system; U is the node displacement vector; and P is the load vector.
12 of 20 FANG ET AL.
In the above integrated SFS system analysis, the pile‐soil spring is a basic unit, and the spring stiffness matrices can be obtained by some
methods, such as the average settlement calculation method, the P‐S curve of piles method, the Q‐S curve of static load test method, the variable
coefficient of the subgrade reactions' iteration method, and the empirical method.[14]
N
k¼ ; (14)
ns
where k is the average stiffness of the piled soil spring, N is the total axial vertical force, n is the total amount of piles, and s is the predicted
settlement.
According to method of calculating the settlement of piled foundation provided by the Chinese code, Technical Code for Building Pile Foun-
dations (JGJ 94‐2008[15]), the overall predicted settlement of this tall building is approximately 71.5 mm. From the computer model, the total ver-
tical force is estimated to be 4,369,000 kN, and the amount of piles is 721, so the average stiffness of the piled soil is 84.8 kN/mm. Only an
average value can be obtained by this method. In practice, the stiffness of the piled soil varies across the raft. As a result, a more accurate analysis
is needed to acquire the stiffness of each spring.
To achieve the stiffness value, a 2D finite element program was employed to perform the analysis. The soil strata and piled raft foundation are
modeled in the finite element program (Figure 11). In consideration of the symmetric foundation, half of the foundation and soil are built in the
finite element program. The whole model is taken as 200 m × 200 m, three times the width and one time the depth of the foundation. The typical
design parameters of soils and a piled raft foundation are shown in Tables 1 and 4. The raft and piles are modeled as elastic plate elements in the
finite element program, with full fixity at the connections. The initial pre‐construction at‐rest earth pressures (Ko) was determined based on an
assessment of the site history. The effective soil friction angles (φ′) and effective cohesion (c′) were determined from consolidated drained triaxial
tests. ES represents the compression modulus.
The axial force and settlement of each pile can be obtained from the geotechnical analysis results. We can obtain the equivalent stiffness of
the piled soil spring by dividing the axial force by its settlement of each pile. The stiffness of the pile soil spring is shown in Figure 12. The value
increases from the midpoint of the foundation to the margin, varying from 64 to 110 kN/mm. Finally, we distribute the value of stiffness of each
pile in three different areas, shown in Figure 13. The piled raft spring in the SFS system analysis has been assigned a value of 70, 80, and 100 kN/
mm for Zones A, B, and C, respectively, in the SFS system analysis.
FIGURE 11 2D modeling
FANG ET AL. 13 of 20
FIGURE 12 The stiffness value of piled soil spring. FEM = finite element method
TABLE 5 The axial force of typical columns at the first floor (kN)
Model A Model B Relative deviation (%)
Mega column 336,129 341,800 1.7
Core tube column 39,359 38,481 2.2
Note. Model A = the building fixed on the ground; Model B = the building founded on a piled raft foundation.
14 of 20 FANG ET AL.
may induce addition forces in the vertical structural member, especially for the outrigger system. Through the analysis of the 3D model with a piled
raft foundation, the maximum settlement is 78.8 mm, and the minimum settlement is 60.5 mm under the gravity loads, and the maximum differ-
ential settlement is 18.3 mm.
4.4 | The effect of the differential settlement on the axial forces of column
The differential settlement would cause the load redistribution between adjacent vertical members in the superstructure. This is another factor
that influences the shortening of the vertical structural members. The magnitude of load imbalance between any two columns is continually
changing during the construction period, making an accurate assessment of column shortening challenging.
In Table 5, the axial forces of typical columns in two analyses (Model A is the building fixed on the rigid ground, and Model B is the building
founded on a piled raft foundation) were compared. For the perimeter mega column at the first floor, the axial force of Model A is lower than that
of Model B by 1.7%, whereas the core tube column force in Model A is higher than that in Model B by 2.2%. The difference in the results from the
analyses of the two models is small and may be neglected in the preliminary design.
4.5 | The effect of the differential settlement on the internal forces of outriggers
The different settlement is an important factor that influences the relative changes in the elevation of the columns. However, in a subgrade‐foun-
dation‐superstructure interaction system, the differential settlement and column shortening (elastic, shrinkage, and creep) are not simply
superimposed. Therefore, it is essential to consider the overall foundation and superstructure. Large strain and additional stress can be induced
in outriggers when the perimeter mega columns and service core shorten by different amounts (Figure 8).
The time‐dependent stress of the outrigger diagonal web caused by differential shortening in Models A and B are shown in Figure 14. The
maximum axial stress is 157 MPa in O3 in Model A, and this figure has decreased to 138 MPa in O3 in Model B. In Model A, the building is fixed
on the ground without considering the effect of the differential settlement. The vertical displacement of the core tube column is smaller than the
(a)
(b)
mega column, leading to tension on the diagonal web of the outriggers. In Model B, the building is founded on a piled raft foundation, and the
settlement under core tube is larger than under perimeter columns. Comparing with the column shortening, the differential settlement has a
reverse effect on the shortening. Across these two charts, the addition forces of each outrigger diagonal web have decrease by 25, 42, 19, 18,
and 5 MPa, respectively, at the structure completion. This indicates that the differential settlement has a greater influence on the lower outriggers
than the higher ones. For this tall steel building, the structural engineer may not need to consider the effect of the differential settlement to obtain
a conservative design of the outriggers.
5 | O P T I M I Z A T I O N O F O UT R I G G E R I N S T A L L A T I O N S E Q U E N C E
Even though the outrigger system has many structural advantages, it has a significant defect due to the effect of time‐dependent actions, such as
column shortening and differential settlement, which cannot be neglected. To address issues from outriggers between the service core and perim-
eter columns experiencing differential shortening, an optimization method was proposed to determine the outrigger system construction
sequences. The outrigger joint is flexible initially, and the connection will be later fixed so that the additional forces due to the differential short-
ening that occurred during the construction phase can be mitigated. Generally, the later the joints were fixed, the more additional forces can be
reduced. However, the outriggers serve an important role in maintaining the stability and safety of the structure. Delaying the connection of the
outrigger system may reduce the ability of the structure to resist lateral loads and may cause potential damage. In this section, a simple optimal
method considering the structural stability and overall stiffness was proposed to optimize the construction sequence of the outrigger system.
n
λ ¼ EJd = H2 ∑ Gi ≥ 0:7; (15)
i¼1
where H is building height, n is the total story number, Gi is the design weight of ith story, and EJd is the elastic equivalent lateral stiffness.
where q is the peak value of lateral force, which is in an inverse triangular distribution, as depicted in Figure 15, and u is the peak horizontal dis-
placement under the lateral force.
In consideration of the non‐uniform distribution of vertical loads, a correction factor should be introduced in the calculation of the rigidity–
gravity ratio as follows:
λ′ ¼ β ⋅ λ; (17)
where λ′ is the revised rigidity–gravity ratio and β is the correction factor, as follows:
" #
1 n n Hi 2
β ¼ ∑ Gi = ∑ Gi ; (18)
3 i¼1 i¼1 H
" #
n Hi 2
where Hi is the elevation from the ground to the ith story. In this paper, weight distribution factor ∑ Gi is designated A.[17]
i¼1 H
Substitute Equations 15, 16, and 18 into Equation 17, and the revised rigidity–gravity ratio can be expressed as follows:
Note. JGJ99‐2015 is a Chinese code, technical specification for steel structure of tall buildings.
18 of 20 FANG ET AL.
Stage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
O1 ■
O2 ■
O3 ■
O4 ■
O5 ■
Note. ■ represents that the joint of the outrigger system is connected at this stage.
FANG ET AL. 19 of 20
Note. ODJM = optimal delayed joint method; EDJM = experiential delayed joint method; FJM = fixed‐joint method.
Mega column 82 88 95
Core tube column 122 112 92
Note. ODJM = optimal delayed joint method; EDJM = experiential delayed joint method; FJM = fixed‐joint method; CFT = concrete‐filled steel tubular
columns.
6 | C O N CL U S I O N S
In this paper, the effects of time‐dependent actions, such as shrinkage, creep, and foundation settling were estimated. A mega frame super‐tall
steel structure was employed to illustrate the analysis and design of an outrigger system under time‐dependent actions. The following conclusions
are drawn:
1. The column shortening cannot be neglected even in the construction phase for a super‐tall building. The additional force caused by differen-
tial shortening between the adjacent vertical members is an important consideration in the design and construction of super‐tall buildings.
The later the outrigger is connected, the more additional stresses can be reduced in the outriggers, caused by the differential column short-
ening. In the EDJM, delaying the outrigger connection by only 119 days can reduce half of the maximal additional stress due to differential
shortening during the construction period. At the same time, delaying the joint connection of outriggers increases the differential shortening
between the core tube and perimeter mega columns.
2. The differential settlement also influences the relative displacement of the columns and brings about additional force in the outriggers. Com-
pared with the column shortening, the differential settlement has a reverse effect on the post‐installation shortening for such a building, lead-
ing to a reduction of approximately 12% of the maximum additional axial stress in the outriggers. The structural engineer may not need to
consider the effect of the differential settlement to obtain a conservative design of the outriggers. Additionally, it is shown that the differen-
tial settlement has a bigger influence on the lower outriggers than higher ones.
3. Further, a simple optimal method considering the structural stability and overall stiffness was proposed to optimize the construction
sequence design of the outrigger system. The result obtained has proven to have many advantages in terms of building performance and cost
reduction.
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN T
The authors are grateful for the support from the Shanghai Excellent Discipline Leader Program (14XD1423900).
ORCID
Baoyi Fang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5594-9235
RE FE R ENC E S
[1] M. Fintel, S. K. Chosh, H. Iyengar, Column Shortening in Tall Structures: Prediction and Compensation, Portland Cement Association, Skokie 1987.
[2] H. S. Kim, J Archit Inst Korea. 2008, 24, 35.
[3] H. S. Park, Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build 2003, 12(1), 49.
[4] S. Maru, M. Asfaw, A. K. Nagpal, Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2009, 18, 327.
[5] J. L. Zhou, F. Yan, Build. Struct. 2007, 37(5), 100. (in Chinese)
[6] X. Zhao, P. P. Zhang, Y. M. Zheng, J. Arch. Civil Eng. 2010, 27(1), 108. (in Chinese)
[7] B. S. Taranath, Structural Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings: Steel and Composite Construction, CRC Press, Boca Raton 2011.
[8] P.J. Terrey, M.A. Bradford, R.I. Gilebert, Proc. of 6th inter. in symposium on tubular Struct. Melbourne, 1994, 293.
[9] B. Uy, S. Das, J. Struct. Des. Tall Build 1997, 6(1), 1.
[10] L. H. Ichinose, E. Watanabe, H. Nakai, J. Constr. Steel Research 2001, 57(4), 453.
20 of 20 FANG ET AL.
Baoyi Fang is a master student at Tongji University, China. His research interests include superstructure‐foundation interaction, time‐depen-
dent effect.
Xin Zhao is an engineering professor of Tongji Architectural Design (Group) Co., Ltd., China. He received his PhD degree from Tongji Univer-
sity. His research interests include high performance structural system design, control and optimization.
Juyun Yuan is a professor of Tongji University, China. His research interests include deep foundation and pile foundation, superstructure‐
foundation interaction.
Xiaoping Wu is an engineering professor at Shanghai Construction Group Co., Ltd., China. His research interests include shrinkage and creep,
construction technology and control.
How to cite this article: Fang B, Zhao X, Yuan J, Wu X. Outrigger system analysis and design under time‐dependent actions for super‐tall
steel buildings. Struct Design Tall Spec Build. 2018;e1492. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1492