Optimization of a Waffle Slab for a Reinforced Concrete Structure. Economic and Environmental Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this research is to optimise a waffle slab for a reinforced concrete structure of a multifamily residential building.For this modelling, CYPE structural software has been used, as well as its respective economic and environmental database for the subsequent analysis.The optimisation of the floor slab has been achieved through various study alternatives, with the modification of its most characteristic parameters such as the type of concrete used, geometric distances of the various elements that make up the floor slab, as well as the material used for the coffer.All of this gives rise to a series of floor slab alternatives that allow a subsequent economic analysis to be carried out.This shows variations of up to 10% in the cost depending on the features of the floor slab.After this analysis, an environmental comparison of the alternatives is carried out by means of a life cycle analysis (LCA) of the floor slab, for which the results are significant with variations of 37% in kg of CO2 -equivalents emissions from one alternative to another.Through this research, it is possible to establish which parameters are the most important and have the greatest relevance when designing a floor slab.All of this, taking into account their economic and environmental impacts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".