T a b l e 1 2 . D e m a n d to capacity ratios associated with DS3 as a function of intensity m e a s u r e (IM) level, b u i l d i n g site, b u i l d i n g story, a n d partition system.

The v a l u e s l a r g e r t h a n one are reported in bold italic font. The interstory drift ratio (IDR) capacities associated with DS3 were equal to 0.97, 1 .4 9 , a n d

2 . 1 0 % for h o l l o w brick ( H B ) , standard plasterboard (SP), a n d innovative plasterboard (I P ) partition systems.

dir story

HB 0.08 0.05 0.03 0 .1 7 0.14 0.06 0.28 0.27 0.09 0.48 0.43 0 . 13 0.57 0.55 0.17 0.69 0. 70 0.20 1.02 0.81 0.29 1.32 0.95 0.37 2.37 1. 0 7 0.45 4. 6 6 1.36 0.64

3rd
SP 0.05 0.03 0.02 0 .1 1 0.09 0.04 0.19 0 .1 7 0.06 0.31 0.28 0.08 0.37 0.36 0 . 11 0.45 0.46 0 . 13 0.67 0.52 0.19 0.86 0.62 0.24 1.54 0.70 0.29 3. 03 0.89 0.42

IP o.03 0.02 o.o2 o.os 0.o6 0.o 0. 1 o . 1 2 o.o+ 022 020 0.06 0.27 025 0.os 0.352 033 0.09 o.47 037 o 1 3 0.61 0.44 o. 1 7 1.09 0.50 0.21 21s 0.6 o.3o
HB 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.24 0.19 0.08 0.42 0.38 0.12 0.71 0.62 0.18 0.80 0.82 0.23 0.94 1. 1 0 0.28 1. 4 7 1.38 0.35 2.15 1.53 0.47 3.44 1.85 0.66 >5 2.40 0.95

X 2n SP 0.06 0.04 0.03 0 .1 5 0 . 13 0.05 0.27 0.25 0.08 0.46 0.40 0.12 0.52 0.53 0.15 0.61 0.72 0.18 0.95 0.90 0.23 1.40 1.00 0.30 2.24 1.21 0.43 4.29 1.56 0.62

IP 0.o+ o.0s oo2 o.11 0.09 o.o4 o. 1 9 0. 1 s o.06 0.33 0.29 0.o o. 3 7 03s o. 1 1 0.4+ 0 . 5 1 0.1 0.68 0.64 0. 1 6 0.99 0. 7 1 0.22 1.59 0.86 0 . 3 1 3. 0 1.11 o.44
HB 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.19 0.15 0.07 0.33 0.29 0.11 0.53 0.50 0.16 0.60 0.67 0 .2 1 0. 7 1 0.88 0.26 1.09 1.12 0.31 1.80 1.28 0.44 2.80 1.54 0.62 >5 2.08 0.90

1s SP 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.12 0.10 0.05 0.21 0.19 0.07 0.35 0.33 0.11 0.39 0.44 0.14 0.46 0.57 0.17 0.71 0.73 0.20 1.17 0.83 0.29 1.82 1.00 0 .4 1 3.62 1.35 0.58

IP 0.03 o.0 0.02 0.o9 o.o7 0.0 o. 1 s o . 1 3 o.os 024 0.2» 0.0s 028 0 . 3 1 0. 1 0 033» 041 0. 1 2 0.s0 0.52 0. 1 4 0.83 0.s9 0.2o 1.29 0.71 0.29 2.57 0.96 o . 4 1

HB 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.14 0.14 0.06 0.25 0.27 0.08 0.42 0.37 0.11 0.58 0.48 0.13 0.72 0.58 0 .1 7 0.99 0.68 0.23 1.36 0.83 0.30 1.84 0.92 0.33 4.05 1.21 0.44

3rd
SP 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.17 0.18 0.05 0.27 0.24 0.07 0.38 0.31 0.08 0.47 0.37 0 . 11 0.65 0.44 0.15 0.88 0.54 0.19 1.20 0.60 0.22 2.64 0.79 0.29

IP 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.12 0.13 0.o4 0 . 1 9 0. 1 7 0.o5 0.27 0.22 006 0.33 0.27 0.08 046 o. 3 1 o. 1 1 0.63 0.38 0 . 1 4 0.85 0.42 0. 1 5 1.s7 0.56 0.21
HB 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.19 0.21 0.07 0.37 0.41 0 . 10 0.62 0.59 0.15 0.89 0.78 0.18 1. 1 6 0.92 0.25 1.61 1.13 0.35 2.19 1.30 0.42 2.94 1.55 0.50 >5 2.27 0.77

y 2n SP 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.12 0.14 0.04 0.24 0.27 0.07 0.40 0.38 0.10 0.58 0.51 0 . 11 0.75 0.60 0.17 1.05 0.74 0.23 1.43 0.84 0.27 1.91 1.01 0.33 4.11 1.48 0.50

IP 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.09 0 . 1 0 0.03 0 . 1 7 0 . 1 9 o0.0s5 0.29 0.27 0.o7 0.41 0.36 0.08 0.53 0.43 0. 1 2 0.74 0 . 5 2 0 . 1 6 1.o1 0.60 0. 1 9 1.36 0.72 0.23 291 1.05 0 . 3 6
HB 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.15 0.17 0.06 0. 2 9 0.38 0.10 0.51 0.51 0.15 0.70 0.68 0.18 0.93 0.82 0.26 1.30 0.97 0.36 1.88 1.12 0.44 2.68 1.41 0 . 53 >5 2.15 0.79

1· SP 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.10 0.11 0.04 0 .1 9 0.25 0.07 0.33 0.33 0 . 10 0.45 0.44 0.11 0.60 0.54 0.17 0.85 0.63 0.23 1.23 0. 73 0.28 1. 74 0.92 0.35 4. 06 1.40 0.51

IP 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.13 0.17 0.05 023 0.23 0.o7 0 . 3 2 0. 3 1 0.08 0.43 0 . 3 8 0. 1 2 0.60 0.45 o. 1 7 o.s7 0 . 5 2 0.20 1.24 0.65 0.25 2.88 0.99 0.36

AQ NA MI AQ NA MI AQ NA MI AQ NA MI AQ NA MI AQ NA MI AQ NA MI AQ NA MI AQ NA MI AQ NA MI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

IM level
T a b l e 1 3 . Damage states (DSs) occurrence as a function of intensity measure (IM) level, b u i l d i n g site, b u i l d i n g story, a n d partition system. D50, D 5 1 ,

DS2, a n d DS3 o c c u r r e n c e s c o r r e s p o n d to t h e f o l l o wi n g s y m b ol s : V, ., i, a n d , respectively.

dir story

k k
HB ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ k ✓ k *
k ✓ * * ✓ *
k *
k ✓ #. * k A * * A. # 5. A *
* * * * * * * *
k k k k
3 SP ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ k k ✓ k k ✓ ✓ k k k k k k k # *
k A k k
* * * * *

IP
« «4 «4 ✓ I I ✓ J I ✓ «v * II * II ✓ + • 4 • ✓
*
kk
II *
k ✓ : .

k k k k k k
HB ✓ ✓ ✓ k ✓ ✓ k ✓ *
k k ✓ *
k * k k # k # A k A A. * 5 # k #. # k
* * *
k k k k k k
2nd
X SP ✓ ✓ ✓ k ✓ ✓ k k ✓ k k ✓ k k k k k k k 4 k k $ $ k $ 4. k
* *

IP
vuv « • « * II * II ✓ • • • + : : v : . s .
k k k k k k k
HB ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ k k ✓ k k ✓ k ✓ k k # 5 k # ± *
k # # k # # *
* * *
k k k
15 SP ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ k k ✓ k k ✓ k k k k k k k k k 4 k k 5 # k $ #e k

IP
vuv v « ✓ I I ✓ I I ✓ v v k
• * II * II ✓
+ : v :
k

*
✓ kk
:
k
* *
kk
II *
k
*
k k k k k
HB ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ k k ✓ k k ✓ * * ✓ k k ✓ k * # *
k k # *
k k # # *
* * * * *
k k
3rd
SP ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ k k ✓ k ✓ k ✓ k ✓ *
k k
*
k k # k k 4 k k
* * * * *
IP ✓ I I ✓ I I ✓ v « v « «v vu v v « . v v * • ✓
: . ✓
• ✓ + v
k k k k
HB ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *
k k ✓ k *
k ✓ *
k *
k ✓ A *
k # A k 4 A k # # *
k 3 A *
k
*
k k k
y 2nd
SP ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
k k k k k k k k # k k # * # $ $ A k
* * * * *
IP
uv ✓ Jl ✓ II ✓ v . vd • • v • v + 4 t v v •
k k k k k k k k k k k k
HB ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ k k ✓ k k ✓ k k ✓ k k k # k k 4 4 k # # k # 4 k

k k k k k
1° SP ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ k k ✓ k k ✓ k k ✓ k k k k k k 4 k k A k k # A k

IP v v v v v v« * II * II ✓ * II * II ✓
• v *
k
II *
k ✓ *
kk
II *
k ✓ #
•

AQ NA MI AQ NA MI AQ NA MI AQ NA MI AQ NA MI AQ NA MI AQ NA MI AQ NA MI AQ NA MI AQ NA MI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

IM level
7736 ) G. M A G L I U L O ET AL.

Figure 8. Architectural layout assumed for all b u i l d i n g floors with focus on the partitions.

The interpretation of the results is not trivial since each partition system shows both strengths and

weaknesses depending on (a) costs to be taken into account (Res or ks & Res), (b) site (or seismicity),

and (c) IM level. In this context, a partition system is considered to be more efficient if it is associated

with relatively lower seismic loss costs related to the considered DSs. In terms of Res, IP system is the

most efficient (a) for low IM levels (IM level lower than 5) and medium-to-high seismicity (AQ and

NA) and (b) all IM levels except IM level 1 0 for low seismicity (MI). Conversely, HB system is the least

efficient in all cases but very high IM levels (IM level higher than 8) together with high seismicity. SP

efficiency is in between the other two in all cases but (a) medium IM levels (IM level within 4 and 8)

and medium-to-high seismicity and (b) IM level 10 and low seismicity. In these latter exception cases,

SP efficiency is comparable to IP ones or slightly lower. If the sum between ks and Res is considered,

HB partitions are the most efficient when the seismic demand is (a) very low given their smaller initial

costs (compared to the other systems) and (b) very high given their higher repair costs. In particular,

this occurs for IM levels (a) lower than three (six) for medium-to-high (low) seismicity, and (b) higher

than seven or eight (six) for medium-to-high (low) seismicity, respectively. For medium-to-high

seismicity cases and medium IM levels, the plasterboard systems are the most efficient; in particular,

IP (SP) system is the most efficient for lower (higher) IM levels.

Table 14 reports an overview of the loss analysis results including ks, damaged partitions (Dps) to

total partitions (Tps) ratios, Res, and Res to ks ratios. The cost parameters are reported for all DSs and

partition systems, considering IM levels 1 to 5 . HB is particularly uneconomical for IM levels higher

than two and medium-to-high seismicity sites; in fact, Res almost reaches ks. Furthermore, from IM

levels higher than three, all HB partitions exhibit DS2, and this is likely to result in injuries and human

losses. For medium to high seismicity, IP partitions are more efficient than SP for IM equal to three

and four, whereas they have Res and (Res/ks) more similar to SP ones. For low seismicity, the

difference among the different partition efficiency is irrelevant (null Res), and HB (IP) represents the

most (least) efficient system given their reduced (large) initial costs.
 J O U R N A L OF EARTHQUAKE E N G I N E E R I N G ) 7737

(1) (2)

10°
8 5 4 1 0 °
A
7 2.1
#
6
r 1.8

g 5 -g-9e-eo @ 1 s

.l!l 4 --0- ,,_ -- ,,. � .l!l 1.2

(/)

· z•
(a) & 3
0
0.9

;7
0

2
• 0.6

0.3

0 � 0

3 9 2 3 4 5
2 4 5 6 7 8 10

10°
8 2 4 . 1 0

7 2.1

6 A 1.8

g 5 so--­
@-¥_ g 1 5

(/)
4 1.2
(b ) %
0
0 3
4 ±-'di T +
%%
0
0.9
o

:7
2 0.6

0.3

0 0

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5

10
8 2 4 . 1 0

7
2.1

6
1.8

g 5
5 1 5

(e) % 4
8 % 9= 9 .l!l 1.2

8 % 44444 k= ·- F
(/)

8 0.9
O- -O O 0- O
2 0.6

1 0.3

0 0

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5

IM level[-] IM level[-]

---e-- HB Res --+-- SP Res ----A-- IP Res - e - HB Ics & Rcs - + - SP Ics & Rcs - A Ip Ics & Rcs

Figure 9. Global losses evaluated for the investigated partition systems versus intensity measure (IM) levels for (a) L'Aquila (AQ), (bl

Naples (NA), and (c) M il a n (Ml), considering ( 1 ) repair costs (Res) and initial costs added to repair costs (les & Res) and (2) repair costs

(Res) and IM levels 1 to 5.

Table 1 4 . Overview of the global losses for intensity measure (IM) levels 1 to 5.

HB SP IP

{z ( 8 $z ( 0 $E (o

IM[-] Site lcs [€] DS1 DS2 DS3 Rcs [Cl { 1el lcs [€] DS1 DS2 DS3 Rcs [€] 1, 1 8 l lcs [€] DS1 DS2 DS3 Rcs [€] '; (6

AQ 22800 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 29450 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 34200 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0

NA 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

Ml 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

2 AQ 12.8 0.0 0.0 2440 10.7 12.8 0.0 0.0 1098 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0

NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 19.3 0.0 0.0 1647 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0

Ml 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

3 AQ 67.9 32.1 0.0 19991 85.3 100.0 0.0 0.0 8550 29.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0

NA 65.7 34.3 0.0 20654 90.6 100.0 0.0 0.0 8550 29.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0

Ml 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

4 AQ 100.0 0.0 22087 97.9 100.0 0.0 0.0 8550 29.0 32.1 0.0 0.0 4270 12.5

NA 100.0 0.0 22087 97.9 100.0 0.0 0.0 8550 29.0 12.8 0.0 0.0 1708 5.0

Ml 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

5 AQ 100.0 0.0 22087 97.9 100.0 0.0 0.0 8550 29.0 67.9 0.0 0.0 9030 26.4

NA 100.0 0.0 22087 97.9 100.0 0.0 0.0 8550 29.0 67.9 0.0 0.0 9030 26.4

Ml 12.8 0.0 0.0 2440 10.7 27.2 0.0 0.0 2322 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Table 1 0 . D e m a n d to capacity ratios associated with DS 1 as a f u n c t i o n of i n t e n s i t y m e a s u r e (I M ) level, b u i l d i n g site, b u i l d i n g story, a n d p a r t i t i o n

system. The v a l u e s l a r g e r t h a n o n e are reported i n b o l d i t a l i c font. The interstory drift ratio (I D R ) c a p a ci t i e s associated with D S 1 were e q u a l to

0 . 2 1 , 0 . 1 9 , a n d 0 .5 8 % for h o ll o w brick ( H B ) , s t a n d a r d p l a s t e r b o a r d (SP), a n d i n n o v a t i v e p l a s t e r b o a r d (IP) p a r t i t i o n systems.

dir story

HB 0.35 0.24 0.16 0.8 0.64 0.28 1.32 1.23 0.43 2.22 1.98 0.6 2. 6 5 2.55 0.79 3.19 3.26 0.91 4. 72 3.72 1.33 >5 4.37 1. 6 9 >5 4. 9 7 2.09 >5 >5 2.97

3rd SP 0.38 0.27 0.17 0.88 0.7 0.31 1.45 1.36 0.48 2.45 2. 1 9 0.67 2.93 2.82 0.87 3.52 3.6 1 >5 4.12 1.47 >5 4.84 1.86 >5 >5 2.31 >5 >5 3.28

IP 0. 1 o.09 o.o6 o29 02 o1 o4s 0.44 0 . 1 6 o.s o7 0.22 o96 o.92 0.29 1.1s 1.1 o.3 1.71 13s 04s 2 1.8s 06 3.96 1. 79 0.76 >s 227 1.o
HB 0.43 0.32 0 .1 8 1. 0 9 0.89 0.36 1.93 1. 77 0.57 3.28 2.86 0.82 3.67 3. 77 1.05 4.36 >5 1.28 >5 >5 1. 6 >5 >5 2. 1 6 >5 >5 3.06 >5 >5 4.38

2nd
X SP 0.47 0.35 0.2 1.21 0.98 0.39 2.13 1.96 0.63 3.63 3.16 0.9 4.06 4.17 1.17 4.82 >5 1.41 >5 >5 1. 77 >5 >5 2.39 >5 >5 3.38 >5 >5 4.84

IP o. 1 s o.1 o.o o.39 o32 0.1 o. 7 0.64 0. 2 1 1.9 1.o3 o3 1.3 1.36 o3 1.5s 1.84 0.46 2.4s 231 0.58 3.59 2.55 0.78 >s 3.09 1.0 >s 4o 1.5»

HB 0.34 0.27 0.17 0.87 0.69 0.33 1.51 1.35 0.52 2.45 2.32 0.76 2.77 3.1 0.98 3.29 4.06 1.21 >5 >5 1.44 >5 >5 2.04 >5 >5 2.88 >5 >5 4.14

1s SP 0.38 0.3 0 .1 9 0.96 0.77 0.36 1.66 1.49 0.57 2.71 2.56 0.84 3.06 3.43 1.08 3.63 4.49 1.34 >5 >5 1.59 >5 >5 2.25 >5 >5 3.18 >5 >5 4.57

IP o. 1 o1 oo6 o.3 o2s 0. 1 2 0.54 0.49 0. 1 9 o.s9 0.s4 o.27 1 1.1 o3s 1.19 1.47 044 1.82 1.7 0.52 3 21 07 4.68 2.57 1.04 >5 3. 4 7 1.49

HB 0.32 0.23 0.16 0.64 0.66 0.28 1.17 1.25 0.38 1.92 1. 7 0.51 2.67 2.21 0.6 3.3 2.66 0.78 4.59 3.15 1.08 >5 3.84 1.37 >5 4.24 1.53 >5 >5 2.05

3r SP 0.36 0.25 0.18 0.7 0.73 0.31 1.3 1.39 0.42 2.12 1.88 0.57 2.95 2.44 0.66 3.65 2.94 0.86 >5 3.48 1. 2 >5 4.24 1.51 >5 4.69 1.69 >5 >5 2. 2 7

IP 0 . 1 2 oos o.o6 0.2 024 o 1 0.42 0.45 0 . 1 4 0.69 0. 6 1 o . 1 9 0.96 o.s o.22 1. 1 9 096 0.28 1.66 1.14 o.3 9 226 1.39 0.49 3. 0 7 1.53 0. 5 5 >5 2.02 0 . 7 4
HB 0.42 0 . 27 0.18 0.88 0.97 0.31 1. 7 1.89 0.47 2.87 2.72 0.7 4.11 3.59 0.82 >5 4.25 1.17 >5 >5 1.63 >5 >5 1.93 >5 >5 2.32 >5 >5 3.56

y 2n SP 0 .4 6 0.3 0.2 0.97 l. 0 7 0.34 1.88 2.09 0.52 3.17 3.01 0.78 4.54 3.97 0.9 >5 4.7 1.29 >5 >5 1.8 >5 >5 2.14 >5 >5 2.57 >5 >5 3.93

IP o.1s o1 0.06 o32 03 5 0. 1 1 0.62 0.68 o . 1 7 1.o4 0.98 0.25 1.4s 1.3 o.29 1 9 1.54 0.42 2.6s 1.s9 o.s9 3.66 216 o.7 4 9 259 0.s4 >s 3.79 1.29

HB 0.33 0.23 0.15 0.7 0 . 77 0.3 1.32 1. 74 0.48 2.35 2.34 0.68 3.21 3.14 0.81 4. 2 7 3. 8 1.22 >5 4.48 1.66 >5 >5 2.01 >5 >5 2.47 >5 >5 3.64

15 SP 0.36 0.25 0.17 0 . 77 0.86 0.33 1.46 1.92 0.53 2.59 2.59 0.76 3.55 3.47 0.89 4.72 4. 2 1.34 >5 4.95 1.84 >5 >5 2.22 >5 >5 2.73 >5 >5 4.02

IP 0.12 0.o o.06 o.2s 02s o.1 0.48 0.63 o . 1 7 0.8s 0. 8 5 0.25 1.16 1.14 0.29 1.54 1.37 0.44 2.17 1.62 0.6 3.14 1 . 8 7 0.73 4.47 2.35 0.89 >5 3.5s 1.32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO

IM level
Table 1 1 . D e m a n d to capacity ratios associated with D52 as a function of intensity measure (I M ) level, b u i l d i n g site, b u i l d i n g story, a n d partition system.

The values larger t h a n one are reported i n bold italic font. The interstory drift ratio (IDR) capacities associated with D52 were e q u a l to 0.34, 0.89, a n d

0.98% for hollow brick ( H B ) , standard plasterboard (SP), a n d innovative plasterboard (IP) partition systems.

dir story

HB 0.21 0.15 0.10 0.49 0.39 0.17 0.81 0.76 0.27 1.37 1.22 0.37 1. 64 1. 5 7 0.49 1.97 2.01 0.56 2.92 2.30 0.82 3.76 2.70 1.04 >5 3.07 1.29 >5 3.88 1.83

3 SP 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.19 0.15 0.07 0.31 0.29 0 . 10 0.52 0.47 0.14 0.63 0.60 0.19 0.75 0.77 0.21 1.11 0.88 0.31 1.44 1.03 0.40 2.58 1.17 0.49 >5 1.48 0.70

IP o.o7 0.0s 0.os 0 . 1 70.14 0.06 0.28 026 o.o o.4s 0.4 o. 1 3 0.s7 oss 0. 1 7 o.6s 0.70 0. 1 9 1.o1 0.80 0.28 130 o.9+ 036 235 1.06 0.45 4.61 1.35 0.64
HB 0.26 0.20 0 .1 1 0.67 0.55 0.22 1.19 1.09 0.35 2.03 1.77 0.51 2.27 2.33 0.65 2.69 3.15 0.79 4.18 3.95 0.99 6.13 4.36 1.34 >5 5.28 1.89 >5 >5 2.70

X 2 SP 0.10 0.07 0.04 0.26 0.21 0.08 0.46 0.42 0.13 0 . 77 0.67 0.19 0.87 0.89 0.25 1.03 1.20 0.30 1.60 1.51 0.38 2.34 1.67 0.51 3.75 2.02 0.72 >5 2.62 1.03

IP o.o9 o.on 0.o+ 0.23 0. 1 9 0.o8 o41 0 3 s 0 . 1 2 o.70 0. 6 1 o 0 . 1 s o.7» o . s 1 o.23 0.93 1.09 0.27 1.4s 1.37 o.34 21 15s1 0.6 3.40 1.83 0.65 >5 238 0.94
HB 0.21 0.17 0.11 0.53 0.43 0.20 0.93 0.83 0.32 1.51 1.43 0.47 1.71 1.92 0.60 2.03 2.51 0.75 3.11 3.19 0.89 >5 3.64 1.26 >5 4.40 1.78 >5 >5 2.55

1" SP 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.20 0.16 0.08 0.36 0.32 0.12 0.58 0.55 0.18 0.65 0.73 0.23 0.78 0.96 0.29 1.19 1.22 0.34 1.96 1.39 0.48 3.06 1.68 0.68 >5 2.26 0.98

IP o.on7 0.06 o.o+ 0.19 0. 1 5 0.07 0.32 0.29 o . 1 1 0.52 0.50 0. 1 6 0.s9 0.67 0 2 1 0.70 0 . 8 7 0.26 1.os 1.1 o. 3 1 1.78 1.26 0.44 2. 77 1.53 0.62 >5 2.0s0.s9
HB 0.20 0.14 0.10 0.39 0 .4 1 0.17 0.72 0 . 77 0.23 1.19 1.05 0.32 1.65 1.37 0.37 2.04 1.64 0.48 2.84 1.94 0.67 3.87 2.37 0.84 >5 2.62 0.94 >5 3.45 1.27

3 SP 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.28 0.30 0.09 0.45 0.40 0.12 0.63 0.52 0.14 0.78 0.63 0.18 1.08 0.74 0.26 1.48 0.91 0.32 2.00 1.00 0.36 4.41 1.32 0.48

IP o.on7 0.0s 0.0 0.14 0.14 0.06 0.25 027 0.os 041 036 0 . 1 0.57 047 0. 1 3 o. 7 1 0 . 5 7 0. 1 7 0.98 0.67 023 134 0.82 0.29 1.2 0.91 0.33 4.01 1.20 0.44
HB 0.26 0.17 0 .1 1 0.54 0.60 0.19 1.05 1.17 0.29 1.77 1.68 0.43 2.54 2.22 0.50 3.30 2.63 0 . 72 4.58 3.22 1.01 6.25 3. 70 1.19 >5 4.43 1.43 >5 >5 2.20

y 2n SP 0.10 0.06 0.04 0.21 0.23 0.07 0.40 0.45 0.11 0.68 0.64 0.17 0.97 0.85 0.19 1.26 1.00 0.28 1. 75 1.23 0.39 2.39 1.41 0.46 3.20 1.69 0.55 >5 2.47 0.84

IP o.09 0.06 0.o4 0 . 1 9 0. 2 1 0.07 0.36 0.40 0. 1 0 0. 6 1 0.58 0 . 1 5 o.s8 o.77 0 . 1 7 1.14 0.91 0.25 1.59 1.12 0. 3 5 2.17 1.2» .41 2.91 1.54 0.50 >5 225 0.76
HB 0.20 0.14 0.09 0.43 0.48 0.18 0.81 1. 0 7 0.30 1.45 1.45 0.42 1.98 1.94 0.50 2.64 2.35 0.75 3.71 2.77 1.03 5.3 7 3.20 1.24 >5 4.01 1.52 >5 >5 2.25

15 SP 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.16 0.18 0.07 0.31 0 .4 1 0 . 11 0.55 0.55 0.16 0.76 0.74 0.19 1.01 0.90 0.29 1.42 1.06 0.39 2.05 1.22 0.47 2.92 1.53 0.58 >5 2.34 0.86

IP o.on7 0.05 0.0 0. 1 5 0 . 1 7 0.06 o.2s 037 o. 1 0 0. 5 0 0.50 0. 1 5 0.6 0.67 o . 1 7 0.92 0. 8 1 0.26 1.29 096 0.36 1.86 1.11 0.43 2.65 1.39 0.53 >5 2.12 0.7
AQ NA MT AQ NA MT AQ NA MT AQ NA MI AQ NA MI AQ NA MI AQ NA MI AQ NA MI AQ NA MT AQ NA MI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

IM level