Self-centering energy dissipative braces (SCEDB) have emerged as a promising seismic-resilient structural component by combining energy dissipation with the ability to reduce residual deformation and facilitate post-earthquake recovery. Over the past two decades, substantial advances have been made in the development of SCEDB configurations, self-centering mechanisms, energy dissipation technologies, and their applications in building structures. However, the rapid diversification of SCEDB has also resulted in considerable variations in mechanical behavior, performance evaluation, and engineering applicability, while a systematic understanding of their development and remaining challenges is still lacking. This paper presents a critical review of the development, mechanical characteristics, structural applications, and future prospects of SCEDB. Based on the source of self-centering capacity, existing SCEDB are classified into four major categories: shape-memory alloy-SCEDB, tendon-SCEDB, spring-SCEDB, and composite-based SCEDB. Their working mechanisms, hysteretic characteristics, self-centering capacity, energy dissipation, stiffness, strength, deformation capacity, and practical limitations are comparatively examined. Particular attention is given to the transition from component-level development to building-level applications, including moment-resisting frames, hinged steel frames, and rocking structural systems, as well as emerging performance-based seismic design approaches. The review further identifies key challenges associated with fabrication and assembly tolerances, long-term reliability, limited system-level validation, insufficient engineering applications, and the lack of mature design and codification frameworks. Finally, future research directions are proposed toward more reliable, replaceable, scalable, and performance-oriented SCEDB, with emphasis on integrating component-level innovation with building-level seismic resilience and post-earthquake functional recovery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: