Analysis of the Effects of Different Factors on Damage Potential Ranking

Qinghui Lai, Jinjun Hu (), Lili Xie and Longjun Xu
Additional contact information
Qinghui Lai: State Key Laboratory of Precision Blasting, Jianghan University, Wuhan 430056, China
Jinjun Hu: Key Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, Harbin 150080, China
Lili Xie: State Key Laboratory of Precision Blasting, Jianghan University, Wuhan 430056, China
Longjun Xu: State Key Laboratory of Precision Blasting, Jianghan University, Wuhan 430056, China

Sustainability, 2023, vol. 15, issue 2, 1-13

Abstract: A quantitative evaluation of the damage potential of ground motions to structures can provide a basis for the selection of input ground motions. To determine the main factors influencing the damage potential ranking of ground motions, the corresponding effect factors were analyzed. First, the structural period range from 0.05 to 10 s was divided into three types of period ranges based on an improved Newmark–Hall spectrum. The intensity measures ( IMs ) that can characterize the damage potential in every period range were determined. Second, the effect of yield strength coefficient ( C y ), vibration period ( T ), and type of site on the damage potential ranking are explained. A recommended damage potential ranking is given in the same period range. Finally, to demonstrate the rationality of the recommended damage potential ranking in this paper, two representative reinforced concrete (RC) shear structure models are established for analysis. For the same type of structures, the damage potential rankings under different C y and T conditions have high correlation with the recommended damage potential ranking, and the discreteness is very low. When considering the site factors, the corresponding correlation and dispersion change little. Based on the analysis of two typical structural models, the R 2 between the recommended damage potential ranking and structural response ranking were 0.89 and 0.94, respectively. It is proven that the methods of C y , T , and the type of site are reasonable when establishing the recommended damage potential ranking in this paper. This study provides a theoretical basis for simplifying the evaluation of ground motion damage potential and for selecting input ground motions.

Keywords: damage potential ranking; period ranges dividing; yield strength coefficient; vibration period; type of site (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/2/1583/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/2/1583/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:2:p:1583-:d:1035107

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().