Damage-Control Self-Centering Structures: From Laboratory Testing to On-site Applications

  • Stefano Pampanin
Part of the Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering book series (GGEE, volume 13)


The paper provides an overview of recent developments and emerging solutions for high-performance damage-control seismic resisting systems, based on unbonded post-tensioned techniques. Several alternative arrangements for dry jointed ductile connections have been developed and extensively tested in the laboratory, for either precast concrete and, more recently, laminated timber structures, prior to being successfully adopted into real on-site applications. The concept of external replaceable “plug&play” dissipaters, providing supplemental strength and dissipation capacity to the system, whilst acting as the only sacrificial fuses for the entire structure, is herein presented along with examples of practical implementation. Similarly, the potential of newly proposed technical solutions to reduce the floor damage by creating a “jointed” or articulated floor system, is discussed. Finally, a brief presentation of recent on-site applications of such systems, featuring some of the latest technical solutions developed in the laboratory, is given as a valuable example of a successful implementation of performance-based seismic design theory and technology in the real construction industry.


Shape Memory Alloy Laminate Veneer Lumber Floor System Timber Frame Precast Concrete 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Amaris AD, Pampanin S, Bull DK, Carr AJ, (2008) Solutions to control and minimize floor damage in precast concrete buildings under severe earthquake loading, NZ Concrete Industry Conference, Rotorua, 2–4 OctoberGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buchanan A, Pampanin S, Palermo A, Newcombe M (2009) Non-conventional multi-storey timber building using posttensioning. 11th international conference on non-conventional materials and technologies, Bath, UKGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cattanach A, and Pampanin S (2008) 21st century precast: the detailing and manufacture of NZ's first multi-storey PRESSS-Building, NZ Concrete Industry Conference, RotoruaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Englerkirk (2002) Design-construction of the paramount – a 39 story precast prestressed concrete apartment Building. PCI J 47(4):56–72Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fenwick RC, Megget LM (1993) Elongation and load deflection characteristics of reinforced concrete members containing plastic hinges. Bull NZ Nat Soc Earthq Eng 26(1):28–41Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    fib (2003) International federation for structural concrete. Seismic design of precast concrete building structures. Bulletin No. 27, Lausanne, 254 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kam WY, Pampanin S, Palermo A, Carr A (2006) Advanced flag-shaped systems for high seismic performance. 1st European Conference on Earthquake Engineering Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kurama Y, Shen Q (2004) Posttensioned hybrid coupled walls under lateral loads. J Struct Eng ASCE 130(2): 297–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kurama YC (2001) Seismic design of unbonded post-tensioned precast concrete walls with supplementary viscous damping. ACI Struct J 97(4):648–658Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marriott D, Pampanin S, Bull D, Palermo A (2008) Dynamic testing of Precast, post-tensioned rocking wall systems with alternative dissipating solutions. Bull NZ Soc Earthq Eng 41(2): 90–103Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marriott D, Pampanin S, Palermo A (2009) Quasi-static and pseudo-dynamic testing of unbonded post-tensioned rocking bridge piers with external replaceable dissipaters. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(3):331–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Matthews J, Bull D, Mander J (2003) Hollowcore floor slab performance following a severe earthquake. Procedings of fib symposium concrete structures in seismic regions, Athens, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Newcombe M, Pampanin S, Buchanan A, Palermo A, (2008) Section analysis and cyclic behavior of post-tensioned jointed ductile connections for multi-storey timber buildings. J Earthq Eng Special Issue 12(S1):83–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    NZS3101:2006 (2006) Appendix B: special provisions for the seismic design of ductile jointed precast concrete structural systems. Standards New Zealand, Wellington, NZGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Palermo A, Pampanin S, Buchanan AH, Newcombe M (2005) Seismic design of multi-storey buildings using laminated veneer lumber. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering Conference, Wairakei, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pampanin S (2005) Emerging solutions for high seismic performance of precast –prestressed concrete Buildings. J Adv Concr Technol 3(2):202–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pampanin S (ed) (2010) “PRESSS Design Hanbook”, New Zealand Concrete Society, Wellington, NZGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pampanin S, Amaris A, Akguzel U, Palermo A (2006) Experimental investigations on high-performance jointed ductile connections for precast frames. 1st European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pampanin S, Pagani C, Zambelli S (2004) Cable-stayed and suspended post-tensioned solutions for precast concrete frames: the Brooklyn System. NZ Concrete Industry Conference, QueenstownGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pampanin S, Palermo A, Buchanan AH, Fragiacomo M, Deam BL (2006) Code provisions for seismic design of multi-storey post-tensioned timber buildings, CIB W18, Florence, AugustGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Priestley MJN (1996) The PRESSS program-current status and proposed plans for phase III. PCI J 41(2):22–40Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Priestley MJN, Sritharan S, Conley JR, Pampanin S (1999) Preliminary results and conclusions from the PRESSS five-storey precast concrete test building. PCI J 44(6):42–67Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ranta Maunus A (1995) Laminated veneer lumber and other structural sections. In: Hans Blass et al. (eds) Timber Engineering STEP 1, 1st edn. Centrum Hout, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    SEAOC Vision 2000 Committee (1995) Performance-based seismic engineering. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smith T, Pampanin S, Buchanan M (2009) Post-tensioned timber building, construction, costs and business case study, ANIDIS Bologna 28 June – 2 JulyGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stanton JF, Stone WC, Cheok GS (1997) A hybrid reinforced precast frame for seismic regions. PCI J 42(2):20–32Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Natural Resources EngineeringUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations