Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36984199›Full record

ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Optimal Design of Bubble Deck Concrete Slabs: Sensitivity Analysis and Numerical Homogenization.

Natalia Staszak, Tomasz Garbowski, Barbara Ksit

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Natalia StaszakDoctoral School, Department of Biosystems Engineering, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 28, 60-637 Poznań, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-8960-9573
Tomasz GarbowskiDepartment of Biosystems Engineering, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 50, 60-627 Poznań, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-9588-2514
Barbara KsitInstitute of Building Engineering, Poznan University of Technology, Piotrowo 5, 60-965 Poznań, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-6459-8783

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of layered or hollow floors in the construction of buildings obviously reduces the self-weight of the slab, and their design requires some expertise. In the present work, a sensitivity analysis and numerical homogenization were used to select the most important characteristics of bubble deck floors that have a direct or indirect impact on their load capacity. From the extensive case study, conclusions were drawn regarding the optimal selection of geometry, materials, and the arrangement and size of air voids in such a way as to ensure high stiffness of the cross-section and at the same time maximally reduce the self-weight of the slabs. The conducted analyses showed that the height of the slab and the geometry of the voids had the greatest impact on the load-bearing capacity. The concrete class and reinforcement used are of secondary importance in the context of changes in load-bearing capacity. Both the type of steel and the amount of reinforcement has a rather small or negligible influence on the bubble deck stab stiffness. Of course, the geometry of the voids and their arrangement and shape have the greatest influence on the drop in the self-weight of the floor slabs. Based on the presented results of the sensitivity analysis combined with numerical homogenization, a set of the most important design parameters was ordered and selected for use in the optimization procedure.

Indexed as

bubble deck slabhollow concrete slabnumerical homogenizationoptimal designsensitivity analysis

Identifiers

PMID36984199
PMCPMC10053465

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.