Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Wednesday, August 01, 2018
A Comparative Study on Sound Transmission Loss
and Absorption Coefficient of Acoustical Materials
John G. Cherng
Univ. of Michigan-Dearborn
Qian Xi and Pravansu Mohanty
University of Michigan
Gordon Ebbitt
Carcoustics USA Inc
ABSTRACT
Acoustical materials are widely used in automotive vehicles
and other industrial applications. Two important parameters
namely Sound Transmission Loss (STL) and absorption
coefficient are commonly used to evaluate the acoustical
performance of these materials. Other parameters, such as
insertion loss, noise reduction, and loss factors are also used
to judge their performance depending on the application of
these materials. A systematic comparative study of STL and
absorption coefficient was conducted on various porous
acoustical materials. Several dozen materials including
needled cotton fiber (shoddy) and foam materials with or
without barrier/scrim were investigated. The results of STL
and absorption coefficient are presented and compared. As
expected, it was found that most of materials are either good
in STL or good in absorption. However, some combinations
can achieve a balance of performance in both categories.
INTRODUCTION
The need for noise control treatments in vehicles
(automobiles, trucks, farm tractors, construction equipment,
etc.) has become increasingly important. This is likely to
continue with the current emphasis on higher fuel efficiency
which creates a need for lighter weight vehicles. It is essential
to have a good understanding of the wide range of materials
available for sound packages in order to create a cost
effective design. To this end, many acoustical laboratories
were established in the Detroit area with facilities for
2011-01-1625
Published
05/17/2011
Copyright © 2011 SAE International
doi:10.4271/2011-01-1625
measurement of the Sound Transmission Loss (STL) and
sound absorptive characteristics of acoustical materials. At
the same time, advances were made in acoustical
instrumentation, which made it easier to perform detailed
experimental studies of the sound transmission loss and
absorption coefficient of acoustical materials.
In terms of the Source-Path-Receiver model, a cost effective
vehicle sound package often blocks the transfer path of the
noise at the source. This can be accomplished by adding
either or both sound barrier and sound absorber in the vicinity
of the noise source. The absorptive materials used for noise
control are usually porous materials, such as fiber, felt, glass
wool, foams, etc. Barrier materials are loaded vinyls, such as
EVA, and impermeable films. In fact, highly compressed
fibers may also exhibit some of the characteristics of barriers.
Experimental studies on acoustical materials have been
published for many years such as; Veen discussed the
material construction, manufacturing process and acoustical
performance of fibrous material [1]. It was found that the
acoustical performance of fibrous absorbers is strongly
influenced by the direction of the material selection, the fiber
process techniques and fiber pad post processing
improvement. Prodi, et. al. presented an improved method in
measuring absorption of acoustical materials [2]. Hirabayashi
et. al. discussed the possibilities of using heat insulation
material for noise reduction [3]. Smith, et. al. presented a
detailed study on closed cell foam [4].
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Wednesday, August 01, 2018
Due to the desire to reduce weight in modern vehicles,
lightweight acoustical material design has attracted
considerable attention. Hurley compared needle punched
shoddy with thermal bonded structure of short natural fiber
based materials [5]. The thermal bonded Southern Softwood
Kraft (SSK) fiber can provide superior sound absorption
properties at similar basis weights versus polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) fiber based material. More systematic
studies in acoustical materials were presented by Cherng et.
al. [6, 7]. Both macroscopic and microscopic properties of the
acoustical materials in absorption and sound transmission
loss were investigated. It was determined that the
macroscopic properties are closely related to the
microstructure of acoustical material.
However, there is a lack of information in a couple of areas:
(1) performance of multiple layer acoustical materials and (2)
consideration of the trade off between absorption and sound
transmission loss. In general, a thin scrim is added for surface
protection. The effectiveness of scrims on acoustical
performance needs to be addressed. An ideal acoustical
material would have better performance in both absorption
and sound transmission loss. Therefore, the objectives of this
study are:
1. A systematic investigation on acoustical material
characteristics, including both single and multiple layer
materials at normal and random incident conditions.
2. Determination of the inter-relationship between its
performance, i.e. absorptions and sound transmission loss and
the microstructures,
TEST FACILITIES AND TEST
METHODS
Experimental measurements of airflow resistivity, sound
absorption, and sound transmission loss were conducted [8, 9,
10]. A mid-sized (57 cubic meters), and an impedance tube
were used for Random Incident (RI) and Normal Incident
(NI) absorption measurements respectively. Random incident
sound transmission loss was measured in a reverberation
room / anechoic room suite [11] and normal incident sound
transmission loss was measured with a 4-microphone
impedance tube apparatus. The normal incidence
transmission loss measurements were conducted in a manner
similar to what has since been implemented as an ASTM
standard [12], though that standard did not exist when this
study was conducted. The microscopic structures of test
samples were investigated by using an electron microscope.
Figure 1 shows the airflow resistivity testing apparatus.
Figure 1. Equipment for Airflow Resistivity Testing
Many testing standards and codes have been developed, such
as airflow resistance testing as per ASTM C522, normal
incidence absorption using an impedance tube as per ASTM
E1050, random incidence absorption using a reverberation
room as per ASTM C423, and sound transmission loss as per
SAE J1400. The test methods and procedures listed in these
standards were followed carefully in all related
measurements. Figure 2 shows the reverberation side and
anechoic side of a STL test set-up. The specimen size for
airflow resistivity test is 100 mm. Three test specimens were
cut from the flat sheet in random positions. When conducting
the impedance tube test, the sample size is 29 mm. These
samples were cut from the same samples used for the airflow
tests. Finally, even smaller specimens were taken from the
impedance tube samples for microscopic evaluation.
TEST SAMPLES AND PHYSICAL
PROPERTIES
Two commonly used cotton samples were selected for single
layer investigation. One is needled cotton and is referred to as
“needled shoddy”. The other is bonded together with a
phenolic resin and is named “resinated shoddy” for
identifications. The physical properties of both resinated and
needled shoddy samples are listed in Table 1. Among all
tested samples, the surface density of resinated shoddy (avg.
1,128 gram/ m2) is slightly larger than needled shoddy (1,061
gram/ m2), though due to the differences in thickness the
volumetric density of the resinated shoddy is actually a bit
less than the needled shoddy (approx. 13% less).
Interestingly, the resinated shoddy has a much higher airflow
resistivity (avg. 37,277 Rayls/m) than the airflow resistivity
of needled shoddy (avg. 13,507 Rayls/m). In general, it may
have been expected that the material with the higher
volumetric density will have the higher airflow resistivity, but
that is not the case here. It may also have been expected that
the resinated shoddy will have poorer airflow resistance
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Wednesday, August 01, 2018

Figure 2. Sound Transmission Loss Test Set-Up (a) Reverberation Room and (b) Anechoic Chamber.

Table 1. Physical Properties of Single Layer Shoddy Samples

values since a significant portion of its density is due to resin
which will tend to make the fiber diameters appear to be
larger. Perhaps this particular sample of needled shoddy
happened to have much larger fiber diameters than the
resinated. It would be interesting to see a similar study
performed with additional samples of material.
An additional 33 multiple layer samples were evaluated and
the significant ones (23 out of 33) are presented in Table 2.
All test samples were in flat sheets with various dimensions,
such as 1.405 m × 0.69 m, 1.355 m × 0.98 m, and 1.2 m by
1.0 m. etc. The thickness of these samples varies from 5 mm
to 25 mm. The majority of them are in the average of 14 mm
with 2 to 3 mm deviation. These samples are all multilayer in
nature though some of the surface scrims have a relatively
minimal influence on the acoustic performance and would be
very similar in performance to samples without the scrim.
The surface density of selected samples has large deviations,
ranging from 285 gsm (M20) to 1,542 gsm (M18) as can be
expected from this wide range of materials, such as foam,
fiber glass, and wood fiber, etc. Similarly, the air flow
resistivity of these samples ranges from 17,870 Rayls/m (M4)
to 240,039 Rayls/m (M13). Since the test results are quite
massive, only significant materials are presented and
discussed in this paper.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Wednesday, August 01, 2018

Table 2. Physical Properties of Multiple Layer Samples

 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Wednesday, August 01, 2018

Note that the measurements in this study are aimed at
quantifying the acoustical performance of the materials. With
the exception of airflow resistivity, the material parameters
that control the acoustic performance (porosity, tortuosity,
thermal and viscous lengths, etc) were not measured. That
said, the thickness and airflow resistivity are generally the
most important factors for determining acoustic absorption.
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
SINGLE LAYER INVESTIGATIONS
Cotton shoddy is a very commonly used sound absorber. It is
often made from post-industrial needled blue jean fibers.
When it is mixed with phenolic resin and heated, it turns into
a green color because the resin turns yellow as it is cured as
shown in Figure 3.
Figure 4 presents microscopic photos of (a) needled shoddy
and (b) resinated shoddy at 1000x magnification. The fiber
structures of the two shoddy samples are clearly revealed. It
appears that there are more free spaces among needled
shoddy fibers than resinated shoddy fibers and that some of
the needled shoddy fibers are larger than the fibers in the
resinated shoddy. The needled shoddy fibers are obviously
free of any bonding material on their surfaces, while the
phenolic resin is clearly seen on the resinated shoddy fibers.
The resinated shoddy has higher airflow resistivity and sound
waves should experience more loss when passing through
these resinated shoddy fibers than the needled shoddy fibers.
The difference in airflow resistivity and the difference in
thickness of these materials likely provides the higher
absorption performance seen in the resinated shoddy studied
here.
Figure 5 presents the normal incident (NI) absorption results
of all resinated (in dash lines) and needled shoddy (in solid
lines) using an impedance tube. The resinated shoddy is
better than needled shoddy in the frequency ranges of 400 -
5000 Hz. Small variations of absorption coefficient in

Figure 3. Impedance Tube Test Samples

Figure 4. Microscopic Photos of (a) Needled Shoddy and (b) Resinated Shoddy)
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Wednesday, August 01, 2018
Figure 5. Comparison of NI Absorption between Needled and Resinated Shoddy
resinated shoddy are observed, but rather large variations in
the needled shoddy test samples were noticed. Needled
shoddy fibers are tightly knitted together without using
phenolic resin for binding. Apparently, the needle knitting
process may create some non-uniformities within the sample
flat sheet. There may also be greater variability in the fiber
diameters in the needled shoddy samples.
Figure 6 shows the random incident (RI) absorption data
measured in the mid-sized reverberation room (sample area =
1.2 square meters). The absorption coefficient of resinated
shoddy (in dash line) is better than that of needled shoddy (in
solid lines) in the whole frequency range, 250 - 8000 Hz. In
mid-sized reverberation room measurement, the variations of
absorption coefficient within resinated shoddy samples are
almost the same as in needled shoddy samples. Similar results
of absorption performance between resinated shoddy and
needled shoddy were found in large reverberation room
measurements.
From the physical properties and micro structure of these two
single layer cotton shoddy, it may be concluded that material
with higher surface density, larger airflow resistivity and a
bonded fiber structure will perform better in noise absorption
than the material with lower surface density, smaller airflow
resistivity and un-bonded fiber structure.
As expected, it should also be noted that the random incident
absorption coefficient measured in the mid-sized
reverberation room is much higher than the normal incident
values measured by the impedance tube.
Figures 7 and 8 present the NI and RI STL of resinated and
needled shoddies respectively. The RI STL was measured
and calculated with two different references: (1) using a
heavy sheet of EVA as a reference and (2) using an “open
window” as a reference. The SAE J1400 standard makes use
of a reference material to “calibrate” the transmisison loss
suite. The transmission loss of the reference material is
calculated and compared to the noise reduction measured in
the two rooms with the reference material installed. The
difference between the two is called a correlation value. This
value is used in subsequent measurements of unknown
samples to calculate their TL based on the noise reduction.
The TL of the open window was assumed to be 0 dB at all
frequencies. The TL of the heavy sheet of EVA was based on
a simple mass law calculation:
There are obvious differences in STL between these two
references, with an open window providing a better reference
for these lightweight materials. Since these measurements
were conducted, SAE J1400 has been updated to include
provisions for measuring lightweight materials such as the
ones used in this study. The updated standard makes use of a
reference that is similar in surface density to the samples
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Wednesday, August 01, 2018

Figure 6. Comparison of RI Absorption between Needled and Resinated Shoddy

Figure 7. NI Sound Transmission Loss of Resinated and Needled Shoddy

under test. It also makes use of a mass law that is more
accurate than the equation above. In our case, the “open
window” reference is more appropriate for measuring light
weight materials. In fact, the simplified mass law that was
part of the old SAE J1400 standard leads to STL results that
are less than 0 dB when a heavy EVA reference is used.
Results that are less than 0dB are obviously not correct, but
are typical when measuring lightweight materials with a high
surface density reference and the mass law equation shown
above [13].
Due to its higher surface density, higher airflow resistivity,
and strong bonding within its fibers, resinated shoddy showed
significant higher STL than needled shoddy in both NI and
RI- STL measurements. This may imply that it is feasible that
an acoustical material could have better absorption as well as
better sound transmission loss, if it is structured properly.
That said, it should be noted that neither of these materials
has a particularly high sound transmission loss when
compared to most barrier materials.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Wednesday, August 01, 2018

Figure 8. RI Sound Transmission Loss of Resinated and Needled Shody

MULTIPLE LAYER INVESTIGATIONS worst in STL and vice versa. In addition, the difference in
sound transmission loss between the normal order and the
Figure 9 presents the normal incident absorption coefficients
reversed order is very small and can almost be totally
of seven tested samples (M1, M7, M8, M9, M10, M21, and
ignored. Apparently, the facing surface porosity is critical in
M22) that are similar in thickness. These multiple layer
absorption but not in STL.
samples were tested in two different orders, i.e. inverting the
sample so the back side faces the loudspeaker in the
The random incidence sound transmission loss of the same
impedance tube after the first test. Sample M22 (80gsm
test samples is presented in Figure 11. Although the RI - STL
Scrim A + 1000gsm Comp. Resinated Wood Fiber + 10mm
curves of all tested samples are very different from the NI
Melamine Foam + 50gsm Scrim B) has the highest
STL curves, the trend of STL ranking of test sample appears
absorption coefficient of all seven samples when the fiber
to be similar. Sample M8 is still the best material followed by
size faces the loudspeaker. The absorption coefficient became
M10 which exponentially increased STL value and
slightly lower when it is reversed. The difference in
outperformed all other materials above 2500 Hz. Samples M7
absorption could be significant as shown in sample M21 (80
and M9 are next to sample M8 and M10. Sample M21 still
gsm Scrim A +38gsf Fiberglass B + 50gsm Scrim B), which
has the lowest STL value among all tested samples. Note that
is also the lowest absorption coefficient of all test samples.
these STL measurements used a heavy EVA reference.
But in general the differences are relative small as shown in
Though the relative differences among samples are
other samples. However, one should make the best effort to
significant, the values at low frequencies (where the STL is
identify the proper sequence of the material layer before it
low) are not accurate. A better measurement would have
goes to production.
utilized a barrier with a similar surface density as the test
samples.
Figure 10 shows the normal incident STL of some selected
samples. Sample M8 (80gsm Scrim A + 1000gsm
By inspecting the physical properties of the test samples,
Compressed Resinated Wood Fiber + 60gsm Low
M22 is neither the heaviest in surface density nor the one
Permeability Scrim + PET + 50gsm Scrim B) has the best
with highest airflow resistivity. However, it outperforms M8,
sound transmission loss performance and followed by M10
M9 and M10 in absorption; they are either lighter in surface
(80 gsm Scrim A+ 15 mm Urethane Foam + 50 gsm Scrim
density or higher in airflow resistivity than M22. The possible
B). Sample M22, which was best in absorption is only
explanation to M22's good performance in absorption could
moderate in STL performance compared to the other samples.
be the Melamine foam included in sample M22, low
M21 which was the lowest in absorption is also the lowest in
permeability scrim used in M8 and M9, and urethane foam
STL among all test samples. Therefore, this further validated
used in M10. Melamine foam is very lightweight with a
that it is not necessary true that the best absorption is the
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Wednesday, August 01, 2018

Figure 9. Normal Incident Absorption Coefficient of Tested Samples

Figure 10. Normal Incident STL of Tested Samples

complex cell structure. The low permeability scrim is a thin
sheet with small diameter fibers and the urethane foam is a
lightweight (though much heavier than Melamine)
polyurethane foam with flame resistance capability. Figure 13
presents the micro structure of these three materials plus
38gsf fiberglass which is a typical acoustical insulator and
used in sample M21. This one has the worst performance in
both absorption and STL.
From the micro structure photos of the four materials, it was
noticed that Melamine foam has a very open cell structure.
The actual cell walls are much more obvious in the Urethane
foam. The Low Permeability Scrim has a very dense layer of
small diameter fibers. The resin can be seen in the fiberglass,
but there is much less of it than was seen in the photograph of
the resinated shoddy. In general, the fiberglass has about 60%
of the resin found in the shoddy. The structure seen in these
photographs may explain why M8 and M10 have good STL,
but not absorption.
To understand the correlation between random incident and
normal incident absorption of multiple layer materials, five
samples [A (M10), B(M11), C(M1), D(M23), and E (M6)]
were measured both in NI absorption by an impedance tube
and RI absorption in a mid-sized reverberation room as
shown in Figures 13 and 14. Regarding the correlation
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Wednesday, August 01, 2018

Figure 11. Random Incident STL of Tested Samples

Figure 12. Microstructure of Various Materials

 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Wednesday, August 01, 2018

Figure 13. Comparison of Normal Incident Absorption of Tested Samples

Figure 14. Comparison of Random Incident Absorption of Tested Samples

between these two methods, it appears that both
measurements have similar ranking order on an overall basis.
From the NI absorption results, we may divide five samples
into three groups: Group 1 consists of sample A(M10) and
sample E(M6), Group 2 consists of sample C(M1) and
sample B(M11), and Group 3 has sample D(M23) only. In
Group 1, sample A(M10) and sample E(M6) have similar
performance with sample E(M6) slightly better than sample
A(M10). A similar situation exists in Group 2, where sample
C(M1) and sample B(M11) perform similarly and sample
C(M1) is slightly better than sample B(M11). On an overall
basis, Group 1 is better than Group 2 and Group 2 is better
than Group 3, which is sample D(M23).
From RI absorption results the situation is a little more
complex because the curves overcrossing above 2500 Hz.
However, the same groups as in NI absorption results can be
formed: Group 1 consists of sample A(M10) and sample
E(M6), Group 2 consists of sample C(M1) and sample
B(M11), and Group 3 has sample D(M23) only. The main
difference is in Group 1, where sample A(M10) is slightly
better than sample E(M6) in a reversed sequence of NI
condition. Because the cross over of these two samples'
absorption coefficient curves, the overall difference could be
considered very small. The same ranking of tested samples as
in NI absorption; Group 1 is better than Group 2 and Group 2
is better than Group 3 still stands up.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Wednesday, August 01, 2018
Therefore, we may conclude that both NI and RI could
provide similar ranking in absorption coefficients of
acoustical material, especially, when the difference between
the materials is significant.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
A systematic comparative study on sound transmission loss
and absorption coefficient of acoustical material has been
performed. Both single layer and multiple layer samples were
prepared and tested according to applicable standards. The
conclusions of this study are summarized as followings:
1. The results have shown that the macroscopic properties,
such as absorption and sound transmission loss are closely
related not only to the type of material but also to the fiber
structure of the fibrous materials, similar conclusions are also
found for foams.
2. Resinated cotton fiber (resinated shoddy) out performed
the absorption of needled cotton fiber (needled shoddy) in
this study. This was somewhat unexpected since conventional
wisdom often considers needled shoddy to be superior to
resinated shoddy for a given surface density and thickness. In
this study the difference may have been caused by the larger
diameter fibers in the needled shoddy as compared to those
used in the resinated shoddy. It would be interesting to see
measurements of additional samples of each type of material.
3. In general, the ranking of NI absorption correlated well
with RI absorption. Similarly, the ranking of NI STL
correlated well with RI STL measurements.
4. There is a difference in normal incident absorption
between the normal order and the reversed order. The order
of the test material in an impedance tube can have a
significant influence on the results. Care should be taken in
design and in performing the test. However, for sound
transmission loss, the order of the test materials has little
influences.
5. Although the fundamental characteristics between an
absorber and an insulator is very different, i.e. one needs to
be light and porous and the other needs to be heavy and
impermeable, an acoustical material can achieve both better
absorption and sound transmission loss performance than
other comparative material, if it is structured properly.
REFERENCES
1. Veen, J., “Material Construction, Manufacturing Processes
and Acoustic Performance Characteristics of Fibrous
Absorber Materials Used in the Automotive Industry,” SAE
Technical Paper 2005-01-2381, 2005, doi:
10.4271/2005-01-2381.
2. Prodi, N., Pompoli, F., and Bonfiglio, P., “A New
Apparatus for Measuring the Effective Coupling of Acoustic
Absorption of Materials Used Inside Cabins,” SAE Technical
Paper 2005-01-2267, 2005, doi:10.4271/2005-01-2267.
3. Hirabayashi, T., McCaa, D., Rebandt, R., Rusch, P. et al.,
“Application of Noise Control and Heat Insulation Material
and Devices in the Automotive Industry,” SAE Technical
Paper 951375, 1995, doi: 10.4271/951375.
4. Smith, M. and Semrau, W., “Closed Cell Foam: A Sound
Barrier and More,” SAE Technical Paper 2005-01-2380,
2005, doi:10.4271/2005-01-2380.
5. Hurley, Hurley, J., “Natural Fiber Based Lightweight
Sound Absorber Materials,” SAE Technical Paper
2007-01-2197, 2007, doi:10.4271/2007-01-2197.
6. Cherng, J. G., Qian, X., Balte, R. and Mohanty, P.,
“Correlation between Microscopic Characteristics with
Macroscopic Acoustical Performance of Acoustical
Materials,” Proceedings of InterNoise Conference, Honolulu,
Hawaii, December 3-6, 2006.
7. Ebbitt, G., Qian, X., Cherng, J. G. and Mohanty, P.,
“Characterization and Correlation of Acoustical Materials,”
Proceedings of InterNoise Conference, Istanbul, Turkey,
August 28 - 31, 2007.
8. ASTM C522-03 Standard Test Method for Airflow
Resistance of Acoustical Materials
9. ASTM C423-06 Standard Test Method for Sound
Absorption and Sound Absorption Coefficients by the
Reverberation Room Method
10. ASTM E1050-07 Standard Test Method for Impedance
and Absorption of Acoustical Materials Using A Tube, Two
Microphones and A Digital Frequency Analysis System
11. SAE International Surface Vehicle Recommended
Practice, “Laboratory Measurement of the Airborne Sound
Barrier Performance of Automobile Materials and
Assemblies,” SAE Standard J1400, Rev. May 1990.
12. ASTME2611-09, Standard Test Method for
Measurement of Normal Incidence Sound Transmission of
Acoustical Materials Based on the Transfer Matrix Method
13. Ebbitt, G. and Hansen, M., “Mass Law - Calculations
and Measurements,” SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-2201,
2007, doi:10.4271/2007-01-2201.
CONTACT INFORMATION
John G. Cherng
Mechanical Engineering Department, University of
Michigan-Dearborn
4901 Everresinated Road, Dearborn, MI 48128
jgcherng@umich.edu
Tel: 313-593-5047
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Wednesday, August 01, 2018

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to the grant awarded by the Center
for Engineering and Education Practice, College of
Engineering and Science, the University of Michigan
Dearborn and contributions from Carcoustics North
American Center. The authors also deeply appreciate Dr.
Terry Ostrom, University of Michigan Dearborn for his
excellent work in electronic microscopic analysis.

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not
successfully completed SAE's peer review process under the supervision of the session necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper.
organizer. This process requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts. SAE Customer Service:
Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, Fax: 724-776-0790
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE. Email: CustomerService@sae.org
ISSN 0148-7191 SAE Web Address: http://www.sae.org
Printed in USA