# Pedestrian Comfort Analysis and Parameterized Optimization Design for Raised Floors
## 3 Results
### Optimized Design  
#### 3.3.1 Establishing an Optimization Model  
Raised floors are typically composed of supporting surfaces, beams, and adjustable supports, yet the influence of these elements on pedestrian comfort remains to be fully understood. Practical experience suggests that the thickness of the supporting surface may have a positive correlation with pedestrian comfort, but further qualitative and quantitative analysis is needed to explore the impact of panel size, support foot spacing, beam spacing, and other factors. This study focuses specifically on raised floors within prefab bathroom units, necessitating waterproof features, and therefore utilizes an integrated proofed plate design. The size of the supporting surface is tailored to suit actual engineering requirements and is not included in the overall structural optimization scope. Drawing from the case of CeramicEPS, optimization analysis is conducted in collaboration with manufacturers to identify parts that can be optimized, taking into consideration production and installation constraints. Table 7 and Figure 10 present the optimized components and their corresponding size ranges, demonstrating the efforts of this research to enhance the function and comfort of raised floors in prefab bathroom units. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Description** & **Abbreviated Form** & **Optimized Options (mm)** \\ \hline The thickness of EPS & h\({}_{1}\) & 3;4;5;6;7;8 \\ The thickness of proofed plate & h\({}_{2}\) & 8;10;12;15;20 \\ Support foot diameter & d & 8;10;12;15;16;20 \\ Span length of the crossbeam & beamSpan & 300;310;320;330;430;350;360;370; \\  & beamSpan & 380;390;400;410;420;430;450 \\ Inner retraction length of the crossbeam & beamIndent & 50;60;70;80;90;100;110;120;130;140; \\  & beamIndent & 150;160;170;180;190;200;210;220 \\ Beam width & beamWidth & 55;65;70;75;80;85;90;100 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Optimizing component table. Figure 9: Linear correlation between body weight and peak acceleration. The design of raised floors aims to achieve the separation of building pipelines, with the raised layer utilized for the installation of various building pipelines such as plumbing and electricity. Figure 2 illustrates the specific layout. In consideration of the underfloor heating pipelines, along with conducting vibration reduction design, it is imperative to ensure that the thermal conductivity of the floor meets the necessary requirements. In accordance with the \"code for thermal design of civil building (GB50176-2016)\" [44], Equation (8) delineates the calculation method for the thermal resistance R of a single homogeneous material. Increasing the thickness of the raised floor support board can enhance pedestrian comfort, yet it also amplifies the thermal resistance, leading to ineffective heat transfer to the upper part of the floor. \[R=\delta/\lambda \tag{8}\]  
where \(R\) is the thermal resistance of material layer, \(\mathrm{m^{2}\cdot K/W}\); \(\delta\) is the thickness of material layer, \(\mathrm{m}\); and \(\lambda\) is the thermal conductivity of material, \(\mathrm{W/(m\cdot K)}\). Taking into consideration a wide range of factors, this study focused on optimizing the shape and size of components. The constraints related to factory production, construction, and building module coordination were set as boundary conditions, as shown in Table 5. The first-order vertical natural frequency was utilized as a constraint, with the peak acceleration at the most critical point and the thickness of support boards being the optimization objectives. Equations (9)-(11) present the relevant mathematical models for this optimization process. \[X=\{h_{1},h_{2},d,beamSpan,beamIndent,beamWidth\} \tag{9}\]  
\[Minimum \begin{cases}a_{p}(beamSpan,beamWidth\ \cdots)\\ h_{1}+h_{2}\end{cases}