When teams compare seismic options, the conversation often starts and ends with the line item for the seismic device itself. That’s understandable: device cost is visible and easy to quote.
But it’s also how projects end up making the wrong call.
What really matters is Total System Cost: the all-in cost of choosing one lateral system over another, including structure, connections, foundations, labour, and the flow-on impacts to programme and risk.
In other words: you don’t buy dampers or braces in isolation – you buy the building that has to work with them.
Total System Cost is the combined impact of a lateral system choice across:
A device that looks ‘expensive’ as a line item can still be cost-neutral (or cost-saving) once it reduces demand on the surrounding structure.
In seismic design, you can change the economics of the whole system by reducing the forces the building has to resist and by reducing the knock-on ‘capacity design’ requirements that inflate adjacent members and connections.
More energy dissipation + more controlled behaviour → lower seismic demand → smaller members and connections → lower foundation demand → faster, simpler construction
That plays out in three different ways.
1) Structural materials: smaller demand, smaller frame
When seismic demand is reduced, you often see:
If the lateral system reduces the forces the rest of the frame must carry, the value engineering opportunities become quickly apparent - particularly in important buildings (IL3/4) or those on poor soils where seismic forces are higher to begin with.
2) Connections: fewer 'difficult details'
Connection work is an underrated budget driver. Lower demand can mean:
For construction teams, that can translate into time and certainty - not just steel weight.
3) Foundations: where cost and risk often live
Foundation work is where projects tend to produce surprises - unknown ground conditions, schedule slips, and escalation when the design becomes heavier than expected.
Reducing seismic demand on the superstructure can reduce foundation demand too. That can mean:
This is often where Total System Cost is won or lost.
Most teams understand the idea of reducing seismic demand by adding damping and/or ductility. Seismic devices are great at this whether BRBs, viscous dampers, or generic friction dampers.
The less obvious lever is overstrength - the capacity design factor that forces surrounding members and connections to be designed for more than the device’s nominal strength.
In plain terms: if the brace/damper can deliver higher peak forces than its ‘rating’ under real loading, everything around it has to be designed heavier to cope.
That’s why device comparisons based only on unit price are misleading: two devices with similar prices can drive very different downstream steel, connection, and foundation costs.
As a reference point, buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) often require overstrength factors in the range of roughly 1.5–2.2 because they rely on yielding for energy dissipation.
Tectonus devices are typically designed with a capacity design factor in the range of 1.15–1.35.
What does that mean in practice? A 1000kN Tectonus brace requires adjacent members to be designed for 1150kN whereas a BRB would require adjacent members be designed for 1500-2200kN.
Structural engineers consistently report that the biggest savings show up when damping, ductility and overstrength are considered early – and treated as design levers.
On one data centre project, the engineer reported reductions of:
Those material reductions unlocked secondary benefits that matter to project teams:
Even when the device cost is comparable to other lateral systems, these system-level impacts can shift the whole project outcome.
Yes, post-earthquake performance matters. Reduced damage and reduced downtime can protect revenue, tenants, and operations. For many building assets, those impacts can dwarf initial capex.
But even if you ignore the ‘after earthquake’ benefits entirely, the upfront Total System Cost argument still stands.
If a seismic solution reduces structural demand and overstrength penalties, it can reduce steel, simplify connections, and shrink foundations. That’s a construction cost story - and a delivery risk story - not just a resilience story.
If you’re evaluating lateral systems, here are the questions to keep in mind:
If your team can answer those, you’re no longer buying seismic devices -you’re making a building decision.
Total System Cost is the lens that stops seismic choices being made on sticker price, and shifts them towards project outcomes: total capex, constructability, and delivery certainty.
If you'd like to know more please get in touch.