# Pedestrian Comfort Analysis and Parameterized Optimization Design for Raised Floors
## 3 Results
### Dynamic Response Analysis
#### 3.2.2 Dynamic Response Analysis Calculation Results  
The deformation-time curves of four different types of raised floors were analyzed under a pedestrian load excitation with a stepping frequency of 1.7 Hz, as shown in Figure 8. It is evident that the curves exhibit harmonic deformation characteristics attributed to the pedestrian load excitation function being represented as a superposition of harmonic loads. Among the raised floors studied, the CeramicEPS and SteelFloor, which incorporate easily deformable foam in their structure (EPS), exhibited larger maximum deformation displacements. The CeramicCement composite floor displayed the most significant deformation amplitude. In contrast, the SmcFloor and SteelFloor, composed of materials with lower elastic moduli, exhibited relatively smaller deformation amplitudes. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Activity** & **Step Frequency (Hz)** & **Velocity (m/s)** & **Step Length (m)** \\ \hline Slow walk & 1.7 & 1.1 & 0.6 \\ Normal walk & 2 & 1.5 & 0.75 \\ Fast walk & 2.3 & 2.2 & 1.00 \\ Slow running & 2.5 & 3.3 & 1.30 \\ Fast running & \textgreater{}3.2 & 5.5 & 1.75 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Common step frequency, velocity, and step length. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Load Frequency** & **1** & **2** & **3** \\ \hline \(\gamma_{i}\) & 0.5 & 0.2 & 0.1 \\ \(\varphi_{i}\) & 0 & \(\pi/2\) & \(\pi/2\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Motivating factors and phase angles of walking incentives. The study involves a dynamic response analysis simulation of raised floors subjected to these five distinct walking patterns, assuming a pedestrian weight of 70 kg. The results, presented in Table 6, suggest that while all four raised floor models comply with the comfort standards established in this study, the dynamic response analysis for the CeramicCement and the SmcFloor models under fast walk and fast running conditions approaches the comfort threshold, potentially compromising pedestrian comfort. Conversely, the SteelFloor model consistently demonstrates superior comfort performance across all conditions when compared to the other models. In assessing the pedestrian comfort on raised flooring, it is crucial to consider the significant influence of pedestrian body weight on the calculation results [41; 42; 43]. This study undertakes a comprehensive analysis of outcomes calculated across various weight categories, as depicted in Figure 9. To improve the accuracy of these calculations, the figure incorporates colored blocks to delineate the 95% confidence intervals pertinent to the specific type of flooring. The findings reveal that the peak acceleration of the computed results predominantly demonstrates a linear relationship with body weight, which can be mathematically represented by Equation (7). However, it is essential to note that the linear proportionality constant (\(k\)) varies across different flooring types. A higher \(k\) value suggests increased sensitivity of the flooring to weight, indicating that the perception of pedestrian comfort will differ more noticeably among individuals with varying body weights. Based on the analysis of pedestrian comfort across a spectrum of weights, the comfort ranking for the four types of raised flooring is determined as follows: SteelFloor > CeramicEPS > \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Slow Walk** & **Normal Walk** & **Fast Walk** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Slow** \\ **(mm/s2)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Fast** \\ **(mm/s2)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Slow** \\ **Running** \\ **(mm/s2)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Fast** \\ **Running** \\ **(mm/s2)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline CeramicEPS & 29.704 & 19.664 & 36.820 & 26.697 & 38.844 \\ CeramicCement & 36.716 & 24.379 & 45.651 & 33.098 & 48.142 \\ SteelFloor & 6.397 & 4.234 & 4.234 & 5.748 & 8.363 \\ SmcFloor & 33.429 & 22.130 & 41.440 & 30.043 & 43.714 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}