See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268278641

Inclusion of the vertical seismic acceleration in one-story buildings analysis

Article · January 2003

DOI: 10.2495/ER030051

CITATIONS READS
0 19

4 authors, including:

Víctor I. Fernández-Dávila
Pontifical Catholic University of Peru
64 PUBLICATIONS   75 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

XXXVIII South American Congress on Structural Engineering View project

Directional seismic effects in the analysis and design of conventional and non-conventional structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Víctor I. Fernández-Dávila on 15 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Inclusion of the vertical seismic acceleration in
one-story buildings analysis
V. Fernández-Dávila1, S. Cominetti2, F. Oliva3 & O. Zúñiga1
1
School of Civil Engineering at Civil Works. Universidad Central.
Santiago,Chile. ifdavila@almagro-sur.ucentral.cl
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Universidad de Santiago, Chile.
scominet@lauca.usach.cl

Abstract
The principal parameters that control the elastic behavior of one-story reinforced
concrete building models are analyzed in this paper. Models are subjected to
seismic ground motions considering the action of the three-recorded ground
accelerations, üx, üy and üz. The horizontal components, üx and üy, are considered
acting in a critical angle of incidence determined to each analyzed model. This
effect has been thoroughly studied in previous works. The influence of the
vertical ground acceleration on the seismic response has not been exhaustively
studied. Adequate and simple methods to consider the combined effects of the
three ground motion components for seismic design are proposed in this work.
Three-dimensional one-story models, characterized by parameters as the lateral
period of vibration, the lateral-transverse period ratio and the lateral-torsional
period ratio, the vertical period, the slenderness of the corner columns, the
eccentricity, the aspect ratio of the plan, the beam-column stiffness ratio, and the
border conditions of the floor slab, are studied.

Seismic responses are obtained using time history response analysis method.
Models are subjected to different ground motions. The compatibility of vertical
deformations is enforced, and the transversal and torsional stiffnesses of the
elements are considered. Maximum local and global responses are studied.

The responses of vertically flexible models are especially affected by the

inclusion of vertical ground acceleration. It should be considered in the seismic
design. Additionally, diaphragm behaves like a floor slab under vertical cyclic
loads. It doesn’t act like a rigid body in the vertical direction, particularly if its
dimensions are large.
1 Introduction
Actually, many buildings have projected using responses provided to apply
independent horizontal seismic in each of two principal directions of the plan. In
some cases, such responses have combined through any rule in order to consider
an approximate form of the orthogonal effects of ground seismic movement.
Such movement has only a spatial component of an arbitrary direction and
variable intensity in the time, but for practical effects is recorded through three
orthogonal components (two horizontals and one vertical). Is common to use
only one horizontal component to analyze buildings, for which is important to
know the effect of the three seismic components acting simultaneously on the
structure. Moreover, is important to know the effect of the vertical component,
and the seismic incidence direction.

It has observed that in rigid structures, the ratio of spectral responses

Vertical/Horizontal exceed the value of 2/3 [1]. In other works have been
detected high values of vertical acceleration in different earthquakes with ratio
av/ah from 1 to 3,82 [2]. The columns of frames subjected to vertical and
horizontal components suffered axial forces 1,5 times more than the axial forces
becoming only from horizontal components. Due to alternating behavior of
vertical seismic axial forces expect changes in column behavior such as
excessive compression in a specific time. Wilson et al. [3] demonstrates that, for
an one-story pseudo three-dimensional model subjected to horizontal spectral
accelerations, the combination rules such as weighted sum 100/30 o 100/40 (the
combination is to be performed for 100 percent loading in one direction and 30
or four percent in the orthogonal one) are not valid, being the most appropriate
rule the SRSS (square root of the square sum of the responses). Fernández-
Dávila et al [4] and Lobos and Fernandez-Davila [5] demonstrates that 100/30,
100/40 and SRSS combination rules underestimate the maximum responses for
all cases studied and its application is not very recommendable.

2 Methodology
A total of 135 one-story three-dimensional building models of reinforced
concrete have been studied. Four perimeter frames, and at least one intermediate
frame in U direction constitute the model (Fig. 1). The floor slab was modeled
as rigid diaphragm in its own plane and as flexible diaphragm out of its own
plane. The slab has a thickness e = 16 cm, and was partitioned by finite elements
type shells of dimensions 1.5m x 2.0m. The beams and columns are frame
elements of uniform rectangular section in all its length. Consequently, to
modify such dimensions allows to have models in different of fundamental
vibration periods without alter other characteristics, modify the location of
intermediate frame that allows to analyze systems with different eccentricities of
stiffness in plan. For all modes the damping ratio is equal to 5%. The seismic
mass was calculated considering a load distributed uniformly equal to W= 1.0
ton/m2 (self weight of the structure and the overload of normal use for
buildings).

The models depend on the following parameters: period of lateral vibration Tv,
ratio of lateral-vertical periods Tv/Tz, ratio of lateral-torsional periods Tv/Tθ,
slenderness of the corner columns, aspect ratio (minor length/major length), the
relative flexural stiffness of beams and columns ρ, and the eccentricity of static
stiffness of the plan. The different values of lateral and vertical periods of the
systems have obtained to modify the dimensions of square columns and vary
from 32x32 up to 80x80 cm2. The change of these dimensions generates
variation in the vertical period of the system, as well as the torsional stiffness
variation.

The different values of eccentricity have obtained to move the intermediate

resistant axis since the center of the plan until a quarter of it. The changes of this
location generate variation in the aspect ratio of the two slabs showed in Fig. 1.
The different values of ρ have been obtained considering different height of
beams such as h = 16, 60, 160 cm, and the variation of this height generates
changes in the edge conditions of the slabs. The values adopted for the
parameters were:

a) Lateral vibration period, Tv = 0.12 a 2.11 s.

b) Ratio of vertical – lateral period, Tv / Tz = 0.2 a 13.8.
c) Ratio of lateral-torsional period, Tv / Tθ= 1.4 a 1.9.
d) Aspect ratio of the slab = 1:1, 1:2, 1:3 y 1:4.
e) Eccentricity of stiffness in plan = null and low.
f) Edge conditions of the slab in U direction, ρu = hslab/hbeam u = 0.1, 0.27 y 1.0.
g) Edge conditions of the slab in V direction, ρv = hslab/hbeam v = 0.1, 0.27 y 1.0.
h) Seismic loads from four real events.

The edge condition parameters ρu and ρv indicates the stiffness ratio of slab-
beam (for example, a small value of this parameter indicates fixed edge of slabs,
due to ρu,v → 0). Besides, ρu and ρv represents the kind of column behavior in
both directions as well as slenderness. Such properties varying from cantilever
columns with major slenderness (until columns fixed in both ends with low
slenderness (ρu,v → 0). Table 1 shows the studied models and its relevant
characteristics.

2.1 Seismic loads

The horizontal and vertical acceleration records of the earthquakes occurred in

different countries such as Japan (Kobe, 1995), USA (Sylmar, 1994), Mexico
(Central de Abastos, 1985), and Chile (1985) have been used [7]. The time
history of response method (HRT) was used considering linear-elastic behavior
of the material and integration step ∆t = 0.002 s. The models were analyzed
using the computational program SAP2000 [8].
2.1.1 Seismic records
The seismic excitations used in the analysis correspond to acceleration records
indicated in Table 2.

2.1.2 Loads application

Models have been analyzed subjected to the following loads:
a) Load Uni-U: horizontal principal component in the direction U.
b) Load Uni-V: horizontal principal component in the direction V.
c) Load Uni-Z: Vertical component acting in the direction Z.
d) Load Tri U-V-Z: horizontal components varying each 15º from 0º up to 360º,
together with the vertical component acting in direction Z.

2.2 Combination of responses due to Uni–directional loads

In order to estimate correctly the maximum responses obtained from seismic

loads Tri U-V-Z using the maximum responses obtained from Uni–directional
loads, the following combination rules have been evaluated:

C1 = UniP + 0.4 ⋅ UniS ; C2 = UniP + 0.3 ⋅ UniS (1a,b)

C3 = (UniP ) 2 + (UniS) 2 ; C 4 = UniP + 0.3 ⋅ UniS + 2 UniP (1c,d)
3
C5 = UniP + 0.3 ⋅ UniS + 1 UniP ; C6 = UniP + 0.3 ⋅ UniS + 1 UniP (1e,f)
3 2
C7 = (UniP)2 + (UniS)2 + 2 UniP ; C8 = (UniP)2 + (UniS)2 + 2 (UniP)2 (1g,h)
3 3
C9 = (UniP ) 2 + (UniS ) 2 + ( 2 UniP ) 2 ; C10 = (UniP)2 + (UniS)2 + (UniZ )2 (1i,j)
3

The rule C10 has disadvantage to require the three Uni-directional loads. In Eq.
1, UniP correspond to principal component (major horizontal acceleration)
applied in the analysis direction, UniS correspond to secondary component
applied orthogonal in the analysis direction, and UniZ correspond to vertical
component.

3 Analysis of the results

The overall and local responses are the maximum lateral displacements of center
of mass (CM) of the plan and the maximum forces in each element.

3.1 Influence of vertical load

Table 3 shows for some analyzed models the ratio between axial force due to
vertical component of the earthquakes and axial force due to gravitational static
loads PUniZ/Pg, observing similar values for a particular earthquake. In general,
this ratio has not represent great changes in spite of that structure characteristics
varying considerably. The influence of vertical component on the axial force in
columns is due to the kind of seismic movement. In some cases the ratio PUniZ/Pg
becomes to be equal to 2,7 times, in some cases is equal to 2,0 times, and in
many cases is minor to 1,0.

Also we can observe in Table 3, the ratio between axial force due to three
components of earthquake acting simultaneously and axial force due to only one
horizontal component of earthquake PThree/PUniH. In some cases the ratio
PThree/PUniH becomes to be equal to 5,6 times. This effect happens with almost all
earthquakes, indicating that this ratio is very important such as ratio PUniZ/Pg.

3.2 Estimating of the responses

In the Fig. 2 shown the relative frequencies have presented the values of ratio of
axial force responses PComb/PThree and ratio of shear force responses VComb/VThree.
PComb and VComb, indicate the forces obtained using the combination rules (Eq. 1;
PThree and VThree, indicate the forces obtained of three components acting
simultaneously. The better combination rule that estimate both axial and shear
force responses is C10 (Eq. 1j). In order to estimate correctly the axial force is
convenient to use combination rule C5, due to combination rules C1, C2, C3, C8
and C9 underestimate in excess the response and the combination rules C4, C6
and C7 overestimate up to 60% of the responses. In order to estimate correctly
the shear force Vu and Vv, the combination rule C9 seems to be more adequate,
due to combination rules C1, C2, C3 and C8 underestimate in excess the
response, and the combination rules C4, C5, C6 and C7 overestimate up to 70%
the responses.

4 Conclusions
The effects of vertical loads on the axial forces in columns are in some cases up
to 2,7 times bigger that gravitational load effects. Those effects depend basically
of the applied earthquake. The effect of three seismic components acting
simultaneously generates axial forces in columns up to 5,6 times the axial forces
obtained independent horizontal components. For this reason, we propose to get
a good estimation of the simultaneous seismic action through the combination of
the maximum responses due to application independent horizontal components.
The more adequate combinations rules were different, and depend of the kind of
response. Finally, the best combination rules were: i) C5 and C10, for the axial
response P, and ii) C9 and C10, for the shear response Vu and Vv.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank to the Vicerrectoría Académica de la Universidad
Central de Chile, for their financial support trough the research project Nº 28.
References
[1] Bozorgnia, Y., Niazi, M. (1995) Characteristics of free-field vertical ground
motion during the Northridge Earthquake. Earthquake Spectra (11)4.
[2] Yamazaki, F., Ansary, M. (1997) Horizontal-to-vertical spectrum ratio of
earthquake ground motion for site characterization. Earthquake Engineering
& Structural Dynamics, (26), pp- 671-689.
[3] Wilson, E. L., Suharwardy I., Habibullah, A. (1995) A Clarification of the
Orthogonal effects in a Three-Dimensional Seismic Analysis, Earthquake
Spectra, Vol. 11, N°4, November.
[4] Fernández-Dávila G., V. I., Cominetti C-C, S. and Cruz Z., E. F. (2000).
Considering the Bi-directional effects and the seismic angle variations in
building design. 12th World Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Auckland,
New Zealand. January.
[5] Lobos U., D., Fernández-Dávila G., V. I. (2002) Combination rules to
estimate the maximum seismic response in buildings. 7th U.S. National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering. July 21 – 25. Park Plaza Hotel,
Boston, Massachusetts. USA.
[6] Ceballos C., P., Lobos U., D., Fernández-Dávila G., I. (2002) Influencia del
ángulo de incidencia sísmico en edificios de un piso con asimetría en planta.
XXX Jornadas Sudamericanas de Ingeniería Estructural, Brasil. Mayo.
[7] Fernández-Dávila, V., Lamilla, S., Lobos U., D., (2003) Effect of the seismic
excitation on the elastic response of one-story buildings subjected to Uni-
and Bi-directional ground motions Fourth International Conference on
Earthquake Resistant Engineering Strucutures, Ancona, Italia. 22-24 Sept.
[8] Computers & Structures, Inc. (2003) SAP2000 Non linear version 8.2
Academic License. Proyecto de Investigación Nº 28. Universidad Central de
Chile. Enero.
 A B C A B C
12m 12m 6m 18m

4 5 6 4 5 6

V V

L101 θ L102 6m L101 θ L102 6m

e=16 C.M. U e=16 e=16 C.M. U e=16

1 2 3 1 2 3
Aspect Ratio = 1:2 Aspect Ratio = 1:2 Aspect Ratio = 1:1 Aspect Ratio = 1:3

A C Z
24m

4 6

L101 θ 6m
e=16 C.M. U

ügZ V
ügu α
1 3
ügv
Aspect Ratio = 1:4

a) Models. U

b) Scheme of application of the seismic

components.

c) Vertical earthquakes.

d) Gravitational loads.

Figure 1: Models subjected to earthquakes and the deformations due to several loads.
 C1 C2 C1 C2

1 1 1 1

0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75

Frequency

Frequency

Frequency

Frequency
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0 0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

C3 C4 C3 C4

1 1 1 1

0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75

Frequency

Frequency

Frequency

Frequency
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0 0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

C5 C6 C5 C6

1 1 1 1

0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75

Frequency

Frequency

Frequency

Frequency
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0 0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

C7 C8 C7 C8

1 1 1 1

0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75

Frequency

Frequency

Frequency

Frequency

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0 0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

C9 C 10 C9 C 10

1 1 1 1

0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75

Frequency

Frequency

Frequency

Frequency

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0 0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

a) PComb/PThree b) Vu Comb/VuThree and Vv Comb/VvThree

Figure 2: Graphics of relative frequencies of the ratios of the estimates responses and
three components acting simultaneously, PComb/PThree and VComb/VThree.
 Table 1: Analyzed models.
Column ρu = 0.1 ρu =0.27 ρu = 1.0
2 ρv
cm Model Tz sec Tv sec Tθ sec Model Tz sec Tv sec Tθ sec Model Tz sec Tv sec Tθ sec
0.10 12-111 0.12 0.11 0.08 12-121 0.19 0.11 0.08 12-131 0.41 0.11 0.08
77x77 0.27 12-112 0.12 0.16 0.10 12-122 0.19 0.16 0.11 12-132 0.42 0.16 0.11
1.00 12-113 0.13 0.18 0.12 12-123 0.20 0.19 0.13 12-133 0.48 0.20 0.14
0.10 12-211 0.12 0.21 0.15 12-221 0.20 0.21 0.15 12-231 0.42 0.21 0.15
54x54 0.27 12-212 0.13 0.25 0.17 12-222 0.21 0.26 0.18 12-232 0.43 0.26 0.18
Aspect Ratio 1 : 2

1.00 12-213 0.14 0.31 0.21 12-223 0.22 0.33 0.23 12-233 0.48 0.36 0.25
0.10 12-311 0.12 0.30 0.21 12-321 0.21 0.30 0.21 12-331 0.43 0.30 0.21
45x45 0.27 12-312 0.14 0.33 0.23 12-322 0.22 0.34 0.23 12-332 0.44 0.34 0.24
1.00 12-313 0.15 0.40 0.27 12-323 0.23 0.43 0.30 12-333 0.49 0.48 0.34
0.10 12-411 0.12 0.46 0.32 12-421 0.23 0.46 0.32 12-431 0.45 0.46 0.32
36x36 0.27 12-412 0.14 0.49 0.34 12-422 0.24 0.49 0.34 12-432 0.47 0.49 0.35
1.00 12-413 0.17 0.55 0.38 12-423 0.25 0.58 0.41 12-433 0.50 0.65 0.47
0.10 12-511 0.13 0.59 0.41 12-521 0.24 0.59 0.41 12-531 0.47 0.59 0.41
32x32 0.27 12-512 0.15 0.60 0.42 12-522 0.24 0.61 0.42 12-532 0.48 0.61 0.43
1.00 12-513 0.18 0.66 0.45 12-523 0.26 0.69 0.49 12-533 0.52 0.76 0.55
0.10 13-111 0.17 0.12 0.07 13-121 0.39 0.12 0.07 13-131 0.92 0.12 0.08
77x77 0.27 13-112 0.18 0.16 0.10 13-122 0.40 0.16 0.10 13-132 0.96 0.17 0.11
1.00 13-113 0.18 0.19 0.11 13-123 0.40 0.20 0.12 13-133 1.08 0.20 0.13
0.10 13-211 0.18 0.22 0.14 13-221 0.44 0.22 0.14 13-231 0.95 0.22 0.14
54x54 0.27 13-212 0.19 0.26 0.16 13-222 0.44 0.27 0.17 13-232 0.98 0.27 0.17
Aspect Ratio 1 : 3

1.00 13-213 0.19 0.33 0.20 13-223 0.44 0.35 0.22 13-233 1.09 0.38 0.24
0.10 13-311 0.19 0.31 0.20 13-321 0.48 0.31 0.20 13-331 0.98 0.31 0.20
45x45 0.27 13-312 0.19 0.34 0.21 13-322 0.48 0.35 0.22 13-332 1.01 0.35 0.22
1.00 13-313 0.20 0.42 0.26 13-323 0.48 0.45 0.29 13-333 1.11 0.50 0.31
0.10 13-411 0.19 0.48 0.30 13-421 0.55 0.48 0.30 13-431 1.05 0.48 0.30
36x36 0.27 13-412 0.20 0.50 0.32 13-422 0.56 0.51 0.32 13-432 1.08 0.51 0.32
1.00 13-413 0.21 0.57 0.36 13-423 0.56 0.61 0.38 13-433 1.16 0.68 0.43
0.10 13-511 0.20 0.60 0.38 13-521 0.53 0.60 0.38 13-531 1.11 0.60 0.38
32x32 0.27 13-512 0.20 0.62 0.39 13-522 0.53 0.62 0.39 13-532 1.13 0.63 0.40
1.00 13-513 0.22 0.68 0.43 13-523 0.53 0.72 0.45 13-533 1.20 0.79 0.50
0.10 14-111 0.25 0.12 0.07 14-121 0.67 0.12 0.07 14-131 1.63 0.12 0.07
85x85 0.27 14-112 0.25 0.17 0.09 14-122 0.67 0.17 0.10 14-132 1.69 0.17 0.10
1.00 14-113 0.25 0.19 0.11 14-123 0.68 0.20 0.11 14-133 1.95 0.20 0.11
0.10 14-211 0.31 0.21 0.12 14-221 0.72 0.23 0.12 14-231 1.65 0.21 0.13
60x60 0.27 14-212 0.31 0.27 0.15 14-222 0.72 0.27 0.15 14-232 1.71 0.28 0.16
Aspect Ratio 1 : 4

1.00 14-213 0.31 0.34 0.19 14-223 0.73 0.35 0.21 14-233 1.96 0.38 0.22
0.10 14-311 0.33 0.30 0.17 14-321 0.78 0.30 0.18 14-331 1.69 0.30 0.18
50x50 0.27 14-312 0.33 0.35 0.20 14-322 0.78 0.35 0.21 14-332 1.74 0.35 0.21
1.00 14-313 0.34 0.44 0.24 14-323 0.79 0.48 0.27 14-333 1.99 0.51 0.29
0.10 14-411 0.36 0.46 0.27 14-421 0.91 0.46 0.27 14-431 1.77 0.46 0.27
40x40 0.27 14-412 0.36 0.50 0.28 14-422 0.91 0.50 0.29 14-432 1.82 0.50 0.29
1.00 14-413 0.36 0.59 0.33 14-423 0.91 0.65 0.37 14-433 2.04 0.71 0.41
0.10 14-511 0.36 0.60 0.35 14-521 1.00 0.60 0.35 14-531 1.86 0.60 0.35
35x35 0.27 14-512 0.37 0.63 0.36 14-522 1.00 0.63 0.36 14-532 1.91 0.63 0.37
1.00 14-513 0.37 0.72 0.40 14-523 1.01 0.78 0.44 14-533 2.11 0.85 0.50
 Table 2: Seismic records.

Horizontal Vertical
Description Amax/g Amax/g
Component Component
U.S.A., Sylmar, 1994 syln0 0.843
SylVert 0.535
Country Hosp. Parking syls90 0.604
lln10e 0.669
Chile, Llo-Lleo, 1985 LlVert 0.825 (*)
lls80e 0.426
kobn20 0.834
Japan, Kobe, 1995 KobVert 0.339
kobs10 0.629
México, Central de can90e 0.120
CaVert 0.026
Abastos (CAF), 1985 can00e 0.088
(*)
This record was truncated due to failure of the instrument. For this reason, was used the
horizontal record LlN10E scaled to the peak vertical acceleration recorded.

Table 3: Ratio of axial forces PUniZ/Pg and PThree/PUniH.

PUniZ/Pg
Aspect Ratio 1:2 Aspect Ratio 1:3 Aspect Ratio 1:4
Model 111 211 311 411 511 111 211 311 411 511 111 211 311 411 511
Sylmar 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.6 --- 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Llo-Lleo 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.2 --- 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.2
Kobe 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.6 --- 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5
C. Abas. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Model 112 212 312 412 512 112 212 312 412 512 112 212 312 412 512
Sylmar 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.8 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.6 --- 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Llo-Lleo 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.3 1.4 --- 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.4
Kobe 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.3 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.7 --- 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5
C. Abas. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Model 113 213 313 413 513 113 213 313 413 513 113 213 313 413 513
Sylmar 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3
Llo-Lleo 1.1 1.3 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.4 1.6 2.2 2.5 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.5
Kobe 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
C. Abas. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Model 121 221 321 421 521 121 221 321 421 521 121 221 321 421 521
Sylmar 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2
Llo-Lleo 1.5 1.9 2.7 2.7 2.6 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.5 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.0 0.9
Kobe 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6
C. Abas. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
PThree/PUniH
Aspect Ratio 1:2 Aspect Ratio 1:3 Aspect Ratio 1:4
Model 111 211 311 411 511 111 211 311 411 511 111 211 311 411 511
Sylmar 2.0 2.4 1.4 1.9 2.3 2.8 2.2 1.6 --- --- 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2
Llo-Lleo 2.6 1.9 2.3 2.7 3.0 3.3 2.3 3.6 --- --- 2.8 1.4 1.9 1.7 2.1
Kobe 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.8 2.7 2.5 1.6 --- --- 2.4 1.8 1.2 1.2 1.4
C. Abas. 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.9 1.6 1.7 --- --- 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1
Model 112 212 312 412 512 112 212 312 412 512 112 212 312 412 512
Sylmar 2.8 2.0 1.5 0.9 2.1 2.8 1.8 1.5 --- --- 1.9 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2
Llo-Lleo 2.8 2.1 3.0 1.3 3.5 3.1 3.1 3.8 --- --- 2.9 2.4 2.2 1.8 1.9
Kobe 2.2 1.2 1.3 0.6 1.8 2.8 1.9 1.5 --- --- 3.1 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.4
C. Abas. 1.7 1.3 1.2 0.0 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.1 --- --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Model 113 213 313 413 513 113 213 313 413 513 113 213 313 413 513
Sylmar 4.8 1.4 1.3 1.9 1.7 2.7 1.4 1.4 1.8 --- 2.1 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.2
Llo-Lleo 5.6 2.8 2.7 2.1 2.8 3.1 4.9 3.3 4.3 --- 5.4 4.1 2.4 2.6 2.7
Kobe 3.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.7 1.6 1.7 2.0 --- 5.4 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.9
C. Abas. 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.2 1.2 --- 1.8 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.2
Model 121 221 321 421 521 121 221 321 421 521 121 221 321 421 521
Sylmar 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.2 1.3 1.5 --- 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.4
Llo-Lleo 2.8 2.4 3.2 4.1 4.2 2.5 2.1 2.3 2.1 --- 1.6 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5
Kobe 2.6 2.2 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.7 1.3 1.3 1.3 --- 1.6 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.4
C. Abas. 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.8 --- 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.1 1.3

View publication stats