Comparative analysis of floor systems for high-rise buildings : Examining diverse floor systems within the context of high-rise building construction aimed to identify the most efficient solution.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The rapid growth of metropolitan areas worldwide has led to an increasing need for tall buildings. This has resulted in the requirement for the design of efficient, strong and stable buildings that meet the environmental, economic, and structural requirements. One approach to fulfilling these requirements is by carefully selecting structural elements such as beams, columns, walls, and floors. An efficient building element integrates considerations of environmental sustainability, user comfort, and structural necessities. Therefore, during the preliminary design phase, it is crucial to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the performance of structural elements types to identify those that effectively address these pressing needs. This master’s thesis aims to thoroughly examine the overall performance of floor systems in tall buildings. The research methodology involves doing a literature review to build a theoretical framework and identify key factors that affect the performance of floor systems. An extensive evaluation of several floor systems was carried out, taking into account numerous criteria. This analysis involved performing manual calculations for certain factors, while also utilizing available data for others. The final results were organized in tables, with the floor span used as a shared parameter. The tables were divided into distinct sections for 5-meter and 10-meter span designs. Following the results of this step, specific floor systems were selected based on their superior overall performance in relation to the indicated variables. In the next step, the chosen floors were modeled in an existing high-rise building using RFEM structural analysis software. The structural model, obtained from the Dlubal website, relates to a building located in Vancouver, Canada. The structural frame underwent a conversion from a combination of timber and concrete to a full steel frame with additional beams. Afterward, the specific floors identified were modeled individually. The findings from the first phase of the study revealed that concrete floors offer significant advantages in terms of their first natural frequency and fire resistance. In contrast, timber floors excel in terms of carbon footprint, thermal transmittance (U-value), and reduced weight, which benefits foundation design. A holistic assessment showed that precast concrete hollow core, CLT panel, and composite steel deck flooring are comparatively superior choices. As a result, these flooring types were selected for the second phase: structural analysis. The structural analysis findings indicate that the composite floor system outperforms the other alternative floors in terms of stiffness and structural integrity. However, when considering both the comparative and structural analysis results, the hollow core floor system emerges as the optimal choice in the construction of high-rise buildings.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».