Proceedings: Building Simulation 2007

Time Lags and Decrement Factors under Air-Conditioned and Free-Floating conditions
for Multi-Layer Materials

C. Luo, B. Moghtaderi1, H. Sugo, and A. Page

Priority Research Centre for Energy, School of Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Built
Environment, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan NSW 2308,
Australia

following parameters: thermal capacitance (product

ABSTRACT of the density and the thermal capacity coefficient),
Time lags and decrement factors for multi-layer thermal conductivity, thickness, convective heat
materials without air gaps under air-conditioned and transfer coefficients on both surfaces of the material
free floating conditions were obtained using the layer and the angular frequency. Mackey and Wright
response factor and finite volume methods. The (1944, 1946) similarly developed mathematical
definitions under free floating conditions, which are expressions for homogeneous walls or roofs and
independent of the external environmental conditions, composite walls and roofs. They defined the
are proposed for the first time. A special version of decrement factor as the ratio of the amplitude of the
the finite volume method was employed in which the temperature at the inside surface of the building
surfaces of materials were used as computational material to the amplitude of the outside sol-air
nodes and temperatures and heat fluxes on surfaces temperature. The lag angle of the inner wall
as primitive (state) variables. While the time lag is temperature was also defined corresponding to the
defined as a phase shift, the decrement factor is sol-air temperature.
defined as the ratio of the amplitude of the temporal Yumrutas et al. (2007) presented a study on the
evolution of the temperature on the inner surface of estimation of total equivalent temperature values for
the multi-layer material to that of the sol-air multi-layer walls by complex finite Fourier
temperature or the outer surface temperature. To transformation (CFFT). They defined the time lag as
verify this analytical method, the time lags and the phase shift between the inside and outside
decrement factors calculated by the response factor surfaces of the building material. They used the
method were compared with the published results. thermal properties of the multi-layer materials
The analytical expressions for the time lag and reported by Mackey and Wright (1946) and
decrement factor of multi-layer materials under free- calculated their time lag and decrement factors.
floating conditions were then obtained. Comparison of results from Yumrutas et al. (2007)
Recommendations are made for choosing a proper and Mackey and Wright (1946) shows some
definition for the time lag and decrement factor. discrepancies. It is, however, not known whether the
discrepancies are due to the difference in definition
KEYWORDS of the time lag or that of the decrement factor.
Response factor method; time lag; decrement factor; The objective of the present paper is to shed some
thermal capacitance; thermal resistance; thermal light on the underlying reasons behind the above-
performance simulation. mentioned discrepancy. Using the response factor
and finite volume methods the application of the
INTRODUCTION time lag and decrement factor are extended to any
Alford et al. (1939) derived an analytical solution for multi-layer material.. The new methodology is then
the inside surface temperature of a homogeneous employed to derive relevant mathematical
material under air-conditioned circumstances. Their expressions for the time lags and decrement factors
definition of the decrement factor was the total of multi-layer materials under free-floating
thermal resistance of the material multiplied by the conditions (i.e. not air-conditioned).
ratio of the amplitude of the inside surface heat flux
to the amplitude of the outside sol-air temperature. MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSIONS
The phase lag of the inner surface was defined with
respect to the phase of the outside sol-air temperature. Assumptions on the free floating condition
Accordingly, the phase lag and decrement factor Assuming that the zone (room) air temperature is
from Alford et al. (1939) are dependent on the uniform in the zone and the six room surface

1
Corresponding author. Tel.: 61-2-4921-16183; fax: 61-2-4921-6920.
E-mail address: [email protected]

- 95 -
 Proceedings: Building Simulation 2007

temperatures are identical, the governing equation for

the room air energy balance reads,
T0 Tin
∂ ( ρ a C paVTrm ) Q0 Qin
= 6 Ahrs (Trs − Trm ) + q& (1)
∂t •
in which ρ a C pa is the thermal capacitance of the air, x

and V is the air volume in the zone, Trm is the

temperature for the room air, hrs is the convective
heat transfer coefficient for the room internal Fig. 1 The configuration of a multi-layer wall.
surfaces, A is the area of the room internal surface Assuming H = jωi / α L and R = L / k , the relationship
and q& is the energy source from other sources. If between the temperature and heat flux coefficients on
the left side of Eq. (1) is ignored considering that the the left (x = 0) and right wall surfaces (x = L) for a
thermal capacitance of air is almost 10-3 of that of homogeneous material layer can be obtained from
typical solid materials, and further assuming q& = 0, Walsh and Delsante (1983),
it can be derived from Eq. (1) that, ⎛ TL ⎞ ⎛ cosh( H ) − R sinh( H ) / H ⎞⎛ T0 ⎞
⎜ ⎟=⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ (6)
⎜ Q ⎟ ⎜ − H sinh( H ) / R cosh( H ) ⎟⎠⎜⎝ Q0 ⎟⎠
Trs = Trm (2) ⎝ L⎠ ⎝

Because the temperature of the surrounding walls is For a multi-layer material, the temperature and heat
identical, thermal radiation among the internal wall is flux coefficients of the inside surface (the right wall
zero. Moreover, the convective heat transfer is also surface) can be related to those of the outside surface
zero due to Eq. (2). Thus, the heat flux at the internal using the following expression,
room surface can be assumed as zero: ⎛ Tin ⎞ ⎛ T0 ⎞ ⎛ a11 a12 ⎞⎛ T0 ⎞
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎜ Q ⎟ = AN AN −1 K A1⎜ Q ⎟ = ⎜ a ⎟⎜ ⎟ (7)
⎝ in ⎠ ⎝ 0 ⎠ ⎝ 21 a22 ⎠⎝ Q0 ⎠
q& rs = 0 (3)
This is called the adiabatic condition as applied to the Note that the matrix components a11, a 12, a 21 and a 22
room internal surfaces. are all complex numbers.
For free floating cases (i.e. not air-conditioned) Qin =
Time lag and decrement factor with respect to 0.0 and hence,
outside wall surface temperature
a a a −a a
Tin = a11T0 − a12 21 T0 = 11 22 12 21 T0 (8)
Starting from a one-dimensional energy balance a22 a22
equation for a homogeneous material, as shown by
Luo et al. (2006), the temperature and heat flux Therefore, the time lag and decrement factor of the
solutions can be expressed as, inner surface with respect to the outer surface are:
⎛ a a −a a ⎞
N jω i / α x − jω i / α x jω t Tlag = arg⎜⎜ 11 22 12 21 ⎟⎟ (9)
T ( x, t ) = A + Bx + ∑ ( Ai e + Bi e )e i ⎝ a22 ⎠
i =1 (4)
N jω t a a −a a
= A + Bx + ∑ Ti ( x)e i f L = 11 22 12 21 (10)
i =1 a22

N jωi / α x − jωi / α x jωit For air conditioned cases, the room temperature is
Q( x, t ) = −kB − ∑ k jω i / α ( Ai e − Bi e )e
i =1 assumed to be constant at a set value (Trm).
N
(5)
= − kB + ∑ Qi ( x)e jωit Assuming that T’ = T – Trm, ignoring the prime, the
i =1
supplementary equation is Qin = hin(Tin – Trm) = hin Tin,
In which T is the temperature, x the distance from and the coefficients for temperature and heat flux at
the left wall surface as illustrated in Fig. 1, t the time the inner surface read,
variable, ωi the angular frequency, α the thermal h a −a a a −a a
Tin = a11T0 + a12 in 11 21 T0 = 11 22 12 21 T0 (11)
diffusivity coefficient (k/ρCp), Q the heat flux, and A, a22 − hin a12 a22 − hin a12
B, Ai and Bi are arbitrary constants determined by
a −h a a a −a a
initial/boundary conditions. Ti(x) and Qi(x) are also Qin = a21 22 in 12 Q0 + a22Q0 = 11 22 12 21 hinQ0 (12)
hin a11 − a21 hin a11 − a21
the coefficients of the complex Fourier expansions
for temperature and heat flux, respectively. T, Q, Ti, Thus, the time lag and decrement factor of the inner
Qi, A, B, Ai and Bi are all complex numbers and j is surface with respect to the outer surface under air-
the unit imaginary part of the complex numbers. conditioned cases are:
⎛ a a −a a ⎞
Tlag = arg⎜⎜ 11 22 12 21 ⎟⎟ (13)
⎝ a22 − hin a12 ⎠

a a −a a
f L = 11 22 12 21 (14)
a22 − hin a12

- 96 -
 Proceedings: Building Simulation 2007

Time lag and decrement factor with respect to the For a free floating case the Tlag and fL with respect to
sol-air temperature the outer wall surface temperature are,
Ignoring the thermal radiation in the inside wall ⎛ 1 ⎞
Tlag = arg⎜⎜ ⎟ = arg tg (tgσ tanh σ )
⎟ (25)
surface, the heat flux coefficients for inner and ⎝ cosh( H ) ⎠
outside surfaces are,
1
fL = = 1.0 / cos 2 σ cosh 2 σ + sin 2 σ sinh 2 σ (26)
Q0 = h0 (Ta 0 − T0 ) (15) cosh( H )

Qin = hin (Tin − Trm ) (16) in which σ = ω i /(2α ) L .

in which Ta0 is the complex Fourier coefficient for For an air conditioned case with respect to the outer
the sol-air temperature. Combining Eqs. (7), (15) wall surface temperature, Tlag and fL become
and (16), the complex Fourier expansion coefficients
⎛ 1 ⎞
of the temperature and heat flux at both surfaces (T0, Tlag = arg⎜⎜ ⎟ (27)
⎟
Tin, Q0, and Qin) can be expressed as, ⎝ cosh( H ) + hin R sinh( H ) / H ⎠

h0 (a 22 − h L a12 ) 1
T0 = Ta 0 fL = (28)
hin (a11 − h0 a12 ) − (a 21 − h0 a 22 ) cosh( H ) + hin R sinh( H ) / H
(17)
hin
+ Trm
hin (a11 − h0 a12 ) − (a 21 − h0 a 22 ) Similarly, Tlag and fL for a free-floating case with
respect to the sol-air temperature can be obtained
h0 (a11a 22 − a12 a 21 )
Tin = Ta 0 from,
hin (a11 − h0 a12 ) − (a 21 − h0 a 22 )
(18)
hin (a11 − h0 a12 ) ⎛ h0 ⎞
+ Trm Tlag = arg⎜⎜ ⎟
⎟ (29)
hin (a11 − h0 a12 ) − (a 21 − h0 a 22 ) ⎝ h0 cosh( H ) + H sinh( H ) / R ⎠

⎡ h0 (a 22 − h L a12 ) ⎤ h0
Q0 = ⎢1.0 − ⎥ h0Ta 0 fL = (30)
⎣⎢ hin (a11 − h0 a12 ) − (a 21 − h0 a 22 ) ⎦⎥ h0 cosh( H ) + H sinh( H ) / R
(19)
h0 hin
− Trm
hin (a11 − h0 a12 ) − (a 21 − h0 a 22 ) And for an air-conditioned case with respect to the
sol-air temperature,
hin h0 (a11a 22 − a12 a 21 )
Qin = Ta 0
hin (a11 − h0 a12 ) − (a 21 − h0 a 22 ) ⎛ h0 ⎞
(20) Tlag = arg⎜⎜ ⎟
⎟ (31)
⎡ hin (a11 − h0 a12 ) ⎤ ⎝ cosh( H )( hin + h0 ) + sinh( H )( h h
in 0 R / H + H / R ) ⎠
+⎢ − 1.0⎥ hin Trm
⎢⎣ hin (a11 − h0 a12 ) − (a 21 − h0 a 22 ) ⎥⎦
h0
fL = . (32)
For air-conditioned cases, the room temperature Trm cosh( H )(hin + h0 ) + sinh( H )(hin h0 R / H + H / R)
is assumes to be 0.0. According to Eq. (18), the time
lag and decrement factor with respect to sol-air RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
temperature are,
Four different definitions for time lag and decrement
⎛ h0 (a11a22 − a12a21) ⎞ factor were derived in the previous section based on
Tlag = arg⎜⎜ ⎟
⎟ (21)
⎝ hin (a11 − h0a12 ) − (a21 − h0a22 ) ⎠ sol-air temperature or outer surface temperature
under both air-conditioned or free floating conditions.
h0 (a11a22 − a12a21)
fL = (22) In this section, we first verify the validity of these
hin (a11 − h0a12 ) − (a21 − h0a22 )
definitions by comparing their prediction with those
For free-floating cases, Qin = 0.0. Hence, by reported in the literature and then discuss the
combining Eq. (7) and (15) the time lag and differences among the four definitions. Values
decrement factor with respect to sol-air temperature presented in Table 1 are the thermal properties for
take the following forms, the 2- or 3-layer walls used in our calculation.
⎛ (a a − a a )h ⎞ Shown in the last column in Table 2 is the time lag
Tlag = arg⎜⎜ 11 22 12 21 0 ⎟
⎟ (23)
⎝ h0a22 − a21 ⎠ and decrement factor calculated using Eqs. (21) and
(22) with the thermal properties from Table 1 and the
fL =
(a11a22 − a12a21)h0 (24) angular frequency equating to π/12 (1/hr). It can be
h0a22 − a21
seen that the maximum relative error between the
results of the present study and those of Mackey and
Time lag and decrement factor for a Wright (1946) is very small (0.35% for the
homogeneous layer decrement factor and 1.53% for the time lag).
Considering a11a22 − a12a21 = 1 for a homogeneous layer, Considering the computational difficulties in 1946,
the time lag and decrement factor can be reduced Mackey and Wright (1946) can be viewed as reliable.
from the expressions (9-10), (13-14), and (21-24) for This is further examined by comparing the time lag
the multi-layers as shown below. and decrement factor for two layer walls in Table 3,
showing similar good agreement between the current

- 97 -
 Proceedings: Building Simulation 2007

response factor method and Mackey and Wright temperature obtained by the finite volume method
(1946). and the response method. It can be observed that the
results of the finite volume method are identical to
But why are the results reported by Yumrutas et al.
those by the response factor method. Fig. 3 shows
(2007) different from those of Mackey and Wright
the good agreement for the inner heat flux obtained
(1946) and the present study? We believe the
by the two methods.
underlying reason is the different definition of the
time lag and decrement factor used in these studies. For the free-floating situation, According to Eq. (3)
Using the same thermal properties from Table 1, the the time lag and decrement factor for multi-layer
time lag and decrement factor with respect to the walls can be calculated either by Eqs. (9) and (10) or
outer surface temperature for walls subjected to an by Eqs. (23) and (24) depending on the different
air-conditioned case can be calculated by Eqs. (13) definitions with respect to the outer surface
and (14) (see Table 4). It can be observed that the temperature or the sol-air temperature. All the
current results are not consistent with those of calculated results are tabulated in Table 4, showing
Yumrutas et al. (2007) by comparing with Table 2 that the decrement factor under free floating
for wall No. 31-34. This might be caused by conditions is higher than that under air-conditioned
different convective heat transfer coefficients by environments. The lower decrement factor for walls
Yumrutas et al. (2007) which were not presented in subjected to air-conditioned environments is due to
their corresponding paper. the constant room air temperature, not due to the
thermal properties of the constructing materials.
Under the same convective heat transfer coefficients
for all materials, the ranking of the construction walls 45
Temperature ( C)
o

based on the decrement factor is the same for 40

different definitions of the time lag and decrement 35

factor. However, the time lag and decrement factor 30
with respect to the outer surface temperature does not 25
depend on the convective heat transfer coefficient of
20
the outer surface, resulting in a lower sensitive to
15
external environmental conditions (e.g wind speed, Response Factor
etc). 10 Finite Volume
Sol-Air Temperature
5
To verify the expression given by Eqs. (21) and (22),
0
solution of the thermal balance equation across the 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
wall is sought by a special finite volume method -5
Time (hr)
developed by Luo et al. (2007). The advantage of
this method is that only two computational nodes Fig. 2 Comparison of the inner surface temperatures
(both surfaces) are needed for most homogeneous obtained by the response factor method and the finite
layers with O(L/3)4 level of accuracy. For high volume method for wall No. 33 with the sol-air
thermal mass materials, the accuracy can be temperature Tsol = 20 + 22 cos( ωt-191π/180) oC,
improved by splitting the single layer into two or constant room air temperature set as 23 oC, h0 =
more layers. The time lag and decrement factor 22.8 and hin = 9.405 W/m2K.
calculated by the finite volume method are listed in 40

the middle columns in Table 3. The time step is 600 30

s or 10 minutes, meaning that the possible maximum 20
Response Factor
time delay error could be as high as 600 s or 0.167 hr. Finite Volume
Surface Heat Flux (W/m )

10
2

It can be observed that the maximum error of the

time delay using the finite volume method with 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
respect to the response factor method is 0.123 hr for -10
Time (hr)
wall No. 27, less than the time step. As for the
-20
decrement factor, the comparison of the results by
-30
the finite volume method with those of the response
factor is consistently satisfactory. For walls with -40

very high kρCp such as wall 26 and 27, it is -50

necessary to split the single layer into 2-5 layers.
Fig. 3 Comparison of the inner surface heat flux
In addition to the comparison for the time lag and obtained by the response factor method and the finite
decrement factor, the temporal evolvement profiles volume method for wall No. 33 with the sol-air
for the temperature and heat flux at the inner surface temperature Tsol = 20 + 22 cos( ωt-191π/180) oC ,
are also calculated by the finite voulme method and constant room air temperature set as 23 oC, h0 =
the response factor method using Eq. (4). Shown in 22.8 and hin = 9.405 W/m2K.
Fig. 2 is the comparison of the inner surface

- 98 -
 Proceedings: Building Simulation 2007

In general, the decrement factor and time lag is used Indoor Temperature and Solar Intensity on
to evaluate the thermal performance of a wall and Heat Transfer Through Walls. ASHVE
should not change with external environmental Trans., 45, 369-396.
conditions. Accordingly, Eqs. (9) and (10) are Luo, C., B., Moghtaderi, H., Sugo and A., Page
recommended for calculating the decrement factor (2006) The Verification of Finite Volume
and time lag, which only depends on ki(ρCp)i and Ri, Based Thermal Performance Software
for multi-layer walls under free-floating conditions. Using Analytical Solutions and
Measurements. IBPSA Australasia 2006
CONCLUSIONS Conference. The University of Adelaide,
Time lags and decrement factors for multi-layer Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
walls subjected to air-conditioned and free floating Luo, C., Moghtaderi, B., Sugo, H. And Page, A.
conditions were derived by the response factor and (2007) A new stable finite volume method
finite volume methods. The time lag and decrement for predicting thermal performance of a
factor by the response factor method agrees well with whole building. Building and Environment,
those obtained by Mackey and Wright (1946) and In Press, Corrected Proof.
those by the finite volume method for two- and three- Mackey, C. O. & Wright, L. T. (1944) Periodic Heat
layer walls. The decrement factor and time lag under Flow-Homogeneous Walls or Roofs.
free floating conditions with respect to outer surface ASHVE Trans., 50, 293.
temperature is independent of convective heat
Mackey, C. O. & Wright, L. T. (1946) Perodic Heat
transfer coefficients on outer and inner wall surfaces
Flow-Composite Walls or Roofs. ASHVE
and thus can be viewed as a parameter characterizing
Trans., 52, 283-296.
the thermal performance of the multi-layer walls.
Walsh, P. J. & Delsante, A. E. (1983) Calculation of
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS the thermal behaviour of multi-zone
buildings. Energy and Buildings, 5, 231-242.
This work has been supported by Think Brick
Australia (formally the Clay Brick and Paver Yumrutas, R., Kaska, O. & Yildirim, E. (2007)
Institute) and the Australian Research Council. The Estimation of total equivalent temperature
support of both organisations is gratefully difference values for multilayer walls and
acknowledged. flat roofs by using periodic solution.
Building and Environment, 42, 1878-1885.
REFERENCES
Alford, J. S., Ryan, J. E. & Urban, F. O. (1939)
Effect of Heat Storage and Variation in

Table 1 Thermal properties for 2- or 3-layer walls from Mackey and Wright (1946)*
No. From Inner layer Middle (or outer) layer Outer layer
Mackey and L/k ρCpk L/k ρCpk L/k ρCpk
Wright (m2K/W) (J2/(m4K2s) (m2K/W) (J2/(m4K2s) (m2K/W) (J2/(m4K2s)
(1946)
1 (2-layer) 1.067E-01 6.020E+05 2.201E-01 5.661E+05
26 (2-layer) 2.134E-01 2.408E+06 8.804E-02 1.416E+07
27 (2-layer) 2.134E-01 9.632E+06 8.804E-02 1.416E+07
28 (2-layer) 2.134E-01 2.408E+06 8.804E-02 1.412E+05
29 (2-layer) 6.402E-01 6.020E+05 4.402E-02 3.543E+06
31 (3-layer) 1.067E-01 6.020E+05 1.067E-01 6.020E+05 4.402E-02 5.661E+05
32 (3-layer) 4.268E-01 6.020E+05 2.134E-01 6.020E+05 1.101E-01 5.661E+05
33 (3-layer) 1.067E-01 6.020E+05 1.067E-01 6.020E+05 1.101E-01 5.661E+05
34 (3-layer) 1.067E-01 6.020E+05 1.067E-01 6.020E+05 8.804E-02 1.412E+05
Notes: * Original data are in inch-pound (IP) units of measurement.

- 99 -
 Proceedings: Building Simulation 2007

Table 2 Comparison of the time lag (TL) and decrement factor (DF) for 3-layer walls
No. from Mackey and Wright Yumrutas et al. (2007)(2) Present (1)
(1)
Mackey and (1946)
Wright TL (hr) DF TL (hr) DF TL (hr) DF
(1946)
31 3.28 0.2142 4.06 0.25 3.38 0.2149
32 12.2 0.0219 12.84 0.03 12.22 0.0220
33(3) 4.6 0.1612 5.29 0.19 4.53 0.1613
34 3.6 0.1858 4.30 0.21 3.55 0.1863
Notes:
(1) Based on air-conditioned zones with respect to sol-air temperature;
(2) Based on air-conditioned zones with respect to outside surface temperature;
(3) Yumrutas et al. (2007) exchanged the order of 33 and 34;
(4) Convective heat transfer coefficients for outer and inner surface are 22.8 and 9.405 W/m2K.

Table 3 Comparison of the time lag (TL) and decrement factor (DF) for 2- or 3-layer walls by response
factor method and finite volume method.
No. From Mackey and Wright Present paper by finite Present paper by response
Mackey and (1946)* volume method* factor method*
Wright TL (hr) DF TL (hr) DF TL (hr) DF
(1946)
1 (2-layer) 4.52 0.1613 4.43 0.1588 4.51 0.1611
26 (2-layer) 15.80 0.0147 15.77 0.0146 15.79 0.0148
27 (2-layer) 24.00 0.0019 23.77 0.0019 23.89 0.0019
28 (2-layer) 8.47 0.0658 8.43 0.0661 8.49 0.0663
29 (2-layer) 12.60 0.0249 12.60 0.0249 12.56 0.0252
31 (3-layer) 3.28 0.2142 3.43 0.2145 3.38 0.2149
32 (3-layer) 12.2 0.0219 12.27 0.0218 12.22 0.0220
33 (3-layer) 4.6 0.1612 4.60 0.1608 4.53 0.1613
34 (3-layer) 3.6 0.1858 3.60 0.1860 3.55 0.1863
Notes: * Based on air-conditioned zones with respect to sol-air temperature.
Table 4 Comparison of the time lag (TL) and decrement factor (DF) for 2- or 3-layer walls by different
definitions using the response factor method.
No. From Air conditioned zones Free floating zones
Mackey To sol-air temp To outer surf. Temp To sol-air temp To outer surf. Temp
and TL (hr) DF TL (hr) DF TL (hr) DF TL (hr) DF
Wright
(1946)
1 4.51 0.1611 3.87 0.1940 6.41 0.3756 5.72 0.4646
26 15.79 0.0148 14.04 0.0332 17.05 0.0235 15.30 0.0527
27 23.89 0.0019 22.13 0.0043 0.65 0.0025 22.88 0.0055
28 8.49 0.0663 8.12 0.0852 9.71 0.1040 9.36 0.1340
29 12.56 0.0252 11.12 0.0352 14.34 0.0563 12.89 0.0788
31 3.38 0.2149 2.76 0.2578 5.15 0.5214 4.35 0.6417
32 12.22 0.0220 11.59 0.0267 13.99 0.0492 13.36 0.0599
33 4.53 0.1613 3.89 0.1946 6.41 0.3750 5.72 0.4645
34 3.55 0.1863 3.16 0.2180 5.45 0.4432 4.95 0.5315

- 100 -