# Pedestrian Comfort Analysis and Parameterized Optimization Design for Raised Floors
## 2 Material and Methods
### Evaluation Method for the Comfort of Walking on Raised Floors  
Currently, despite significant research advances in evaluating pedestrian comfort in floor systems, there is still an absence of specific standards for assessing comfort on raised floors. Historically, pedestrian comfort on floor structures has often been managed by restricting deformation of components. However, as floor structures become lighter, more flexible, and less damped, the strategy of controlling structural vibrations purely through deflection constraints has proven increasingly ineffective. In response, numerous researchers have embarked on a variety of theoretical, experimental, and empirical investigations into floor vibrations, striving to redefine the evaluation framework from the perspectives of loading and the dynamic characteristics of building structures. Traditional comfort control standards primarily focus on frequency and acceleration thresholds. As illustrated in Table 2, ongoing exploration and practice have gradually seen these insights incorporated into relevant codified standards. These design standards aim to mitigate the susceptibility to structural vibrations and control dynamic responses to ensure the safety and comfort of pedestrians. By carefully adjusting the primary vibration frequencies during the design phase to avoid resonance with pedestrian footstep frequencies, the requirements stipulated by the design standards can be fulfilled. In addition to meeting vibration frequency criteria, it is crucial to limit the dynamic response of the structure to ensure that the maximum acceleration response within the most affected areas complies with these design standards. Through a comprehensive analysis of international standards for floor \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Raised Floors** & **Abbreviated Form** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Length and** \\ **Width** \\ **Dimensions** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Surface Layer** \\ **Composition** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Thickness** \\ **(mm)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Density** \\ **(g/cm\({}^{3}\))** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Young’s** \\ **Modulus** \\ **(GPa)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Poisson’s** \\ **Ratio** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \begin{tabular}{c} Hybrid \\ ceramic-EPS \\ composite raised floor \\ \end{tabular} & CeramicEPS & 900 \(\times\) 1200 mm & \begin{tabular}{c} Ceramic \\ EPS \\ Waterproofed \\ plate \\ \end{tabular} & 93 & \(1.2\times 10^{-2}\) & \(3.5\times 10^{-3}\) & 0.13 \\ \hline \begin{tabular}{c} Hybrid \\ ceramic-cement \\ board composite floors \\ \end{tabular} & CeramicClement & 1130 \(\times\) 1200 mm & \begin{tabular}{c} Ceramic \\ Waterproofed \\ plate \\ \end{tabular} & 5 & 2.6 & 73.368 & 0.3 \\ \hline \begin{tabular}{c} Hybrid \\ ceramic-cerm \\ board composite floors \\ \end{tabular} & CeramicClement & 1130 \(\times\) 1200 mm & \begin{tabular}{c} Ceramic \\ Waterproofed \\ plate \\ \end{tabular} & 15 & 7.85 & 200 & 0.26 \\ \hline \
\begin{tabular}{c} Stainless steel \\ raised floor \\ \end{tabular} & SteelFloor & 1600 \(\times\) 800 mm &
\begin{tabular}{c} Stainless steel \\ EPS \\ Stainless steel \\ \end{tabular} & 2 & 7.85 & 200 & 0.26 \\ \hline SMC raised floor & SmFloor & 1600 \(\times\) 800 mm & SMC & 40 & 2 & 30 & 0.25 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Introduction to four types of raised floors. structures, [PERSON] [34] proposed recommended pedestrian comfort limits, which serve as the basis for the quantitative evaluation of pedestrian comfort in raised floors in this study. This study is based on the evaluation method of pedestrian comfort in floor system. By determining the corresponding sensitive frequencies, crowd load standards, and dynamic response limits for the use scenarios of raised floors, this study provides the basis for the parameters of pedestrian comfort indicators.