2014-01-0788

AbstractUse of adhesives in automotive require in-depth material, design, manufacturing & engineering knowledge. It is also necessary to understand functional requirements. For perfect and flawless adhesive joinery, the exact quantity of adhesive, its material composition, thickness of adhesive layer, substrate preparation methods for adhesive bonding, handling and curing time of the adhesive have to be studied & optimized.

This paper attempts to describe different aspects of adhesive bonding in automotive industry to include: Selection of adhesives based on application and design of the components, surface preparation of adherend, designing of adhesive joint, curing conditions of adhesives, testing and validation of adhesive joints. Emphasis was given to study & verify the performance of different adhesive joints to meet end product requirements.

Samples were prepared with a variety of adhesive and adherend combinations. These combinations were tested for tensile, single lap shear, T-peel, flexural & fatigue tests according to standard testing methods. Since the performance of the adhesive depends upon weathering parameters, the test samples were also subjected to mechanical testing after conditioning them under extreme temperatures, exposing samples to fuels (diesel, petrol) & oils (gear oil, axle oil) to develop the confidence on performance of the part and to simulate actual field conditions. This material level data generated in lab is used for 1) Selection of adhesive 2) Optimize the adhesive curing parameters, based on

manufacturing practice 3) Carrying out design modification to get desired level of adhesive strength 4) Inputs for carrying out crash / NVH CAE on vehicle level.

IntroductionLight weighting in design is the current trend in automotive industry. This initiative is to improve fuel efficiency of the vehicle and also to address issue of depleting energy resources. Besides enabling fuel economy, it is difficult task for automotive industry to ensure optimum mechanical, NVH & crash safety performance while designing component [1].

For light weighting components / assemblies, it is necessary to design parts for hybrid structures which have multi materials. Use of structural adhesive for joining different parts is felt for following reasons:

a. For sheet metal parts / assemblies, mechanical joinery by spot welding, riveting, brazing etc. are conventional methods and these methods can't be used if joinery is between dis-similar materials such as metal, plastic etc.

b. The conventional joinery has certain limitations of lower endurance life and lower impact strength, which results in having lower life of the component

c. Adhesive bonding is an effective method of joining structures made up of different material having complex design.

Comparative Studies of Adhesive Joints in Automotive 2014-01-0788Published 04/01/2014

Debabrata Ghosh, Lokesh Pancholi, and Asmita SathayeTata Motors Ltd.

CITATION: Ghosh, D., Pancholi, L., and Sathaye, A., "Comparative Studies of Adhesive Joints in Automotive," SAE Technical Paper 2014-01-0788, 2014, doi:10.4271/2014-01-0788.

Copyright 2014 SAE International

Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Monday, September 15, 2014

d. While addressing the drawbacks of conventional joining techniques, adhesive bonding enables applications ranging from flexible sealings to high-performance structural bonding. Hence this offers design freedom while designing the part.

e. Adhesive bonding can be more effective for non-conventional vehicle manufacturing methods, where parts are made at main plant & joined / assembled at different multiple locations i.e., satellite plant.

f. Use of adhesives also improves crash, BSR & NVH performance of the vehicle.

Light weighting concept has been adopted in 1980s when formula 1 racing cars were manufactured with structural fiber reinforced composites [2]. Since that time the cars have become increasingly dependent on adhesives to facilitate fabrication.

The major factors that determine the integrity of an adhesive bond are selection of the most appropriate adhesive, joint design, preparation of the bonding surfaces and quality control in production and condition monitoring in service.

Selection of adhesive for a particular application is based on substrate type, surface condition of substrate, curing condition (corrosion protection coating, painting) open time, strength requirement, end temperature conditions, gaps filling, vibration damping etc. [3]. The smooth appearance of the joints produced using adhesives results in lower stress concentrations at the joint edges. Thus, the load is more evenly distributed and stress concentrations are minimized. As a result, a more effective dynamic-fatigue resistance of the component or structure can be obtained. A good joint design will be energy-absorbing, and tend to have good noise and vibration damping properties.

1. Types of AdhesivesAdhesive: A polymeric material which, when applied to the surfaces of materials, can join them together and resist separation.

In a conventional car body there is extensive use of adhesives. Depending on the application, the adhesive should satisfy a wide range of requirements like, compatibility with the substrate, open time, curing time, strength, chemical resistance, temperature resistance, fatigue, weldability (for spot weld adhesive), emissions during baking. Adhesives can be categorized based on the following parameters.

1.1. Based on Base MaterialsTable 1. Types of adhesives based on base materials and associated properties.


1.2. Based on Curing ConditionsTable 2. Types of adhesives based on curing conditions and associated properties.

1.3. Based on Number of ComponentsTable 3. Types of adhesives based on number of components and associated properties.

1.4. Based on Strength RequirementTable 4. Types of adhesives based on strength and associated properties.

2. ExperimentalIn order to have robust design guideline on selection of adhesive for various substrates, laboratory level experiments covering different adhesive materials (epoxy based, PU based, acrylic based, cyanoacrylate based, silicone based) in combination with following substrates were carried out.

i. Steel : EDD-513, non-coated, thickness: 1, 1.2 mm ii. Polypropylene (PP): PP with 20% talc filled, MFI: 20gms/10

minutes at 230C with 2.16kg load, thickness: 3mm)

2.1. Adhesive NomenclatureThe nomenclature for various adhesives is as follows:

Table 5. Nomenclature for different adhesives used in the experiment.

3. Testing and Validation

3.1. Mechanical TestingTensile strength, lap Shear strength, Peel strength, fatigue and Flexural strength tests are designed to evaluate various mechanical properties of adhesive joint.

3.1.1. Sample PreparationAll the samples were prepared as follows:

A) Sample Cutting: For steel substrates, samples were cut using laser cutting machine to have the exact size

For polypropylene substrates, samples were cut by mechanical cutter and grinding was carried out to make samples of exact size. All the samples were cut as per Table 6 to perform mechanical tests.

Table 6. Sample sizes for carrying out various mechanical tests.


B) Surface Treatment: All the cut samples mentioned above were given surface treatment depending on the substrate type.

For steel substrates: The surface of the substrates were abraded and then cleaned with acetone properly so that no traces of abraded particles remains on the surface and then dried in the oven at 60C for 1 hour.

For polypropylene substrates: The surface of the substrates were cleaned with iso-propanol and dried at room temperature.

3.1.2. Adhesive Application and Joint DesignAll selected adhesive were applied on the samples for which surface treatment was given. Except for epoxy & acrylic based adhesives which have two component systems. For two component system adhesive, resin and hardener were mixed in 1:1 ratio by weight (as per technical data sheet). These were mixed thoroughly through nozzles using dispensing gun until a homogeneous mixture was formed. Glass beads having 0.5mm diameter were used to control the thickness of adhesive. In all the cases thickness of the adhesives were maintained at 0.5mm. A thin layer of adhesive (mixed with glass beads) was applied on both the surfaces of the substrates and then gentle pressure has been applied so that excessive adhesive comes out and thickness maintained by glass beads. Care has been taken to prevent the substrates displacement during application of pressure. Once the joint was prepared it was cured according to the conditions mentioned in technical data sheet.

Table 7. Adhesive and substrate combinations for different mechanical testing

All the five tests are possible for steel + steel combinations but for other two combinations i.e. PP + PP and PP + steel, only lap shear test can be done. For every combination of substrates and adhesives for the tests mentioned in table 7, five samples were prepared and tested.

3.1.3. TestsA) Tensile Test: After preparing samples, they were tested for Tensile strength as per ASTM D897 [4]. The samples for tensile test were prepared as per figure 1.

Figure 1. Specimen sample for tensile test

B) T-peel Test: After preparing samples, they were tested for T-peel strength as per ASTM D1876 [5]. The samples for T-peel test were prepared as per figure 2.

Figure 2. Specimen sample for T-peel test [5]


C) Lap Shear Test: After preparing samples, they were tested for lap shear strength as per ASTM D1002 [6]. The samples for lap shear test were prepared as per figure 3.

Figure 3. Specimen sample for lap shear test [6]

D) Flexural Test: Two steel plates according to the size mentioned in table-7 were joined by adhesive forming a sandwich structure. After curing the samples, they were tested for flexural strength as per ASTM D790 [7]. Flexural strength was measured with displacement control mode. 20 mm displacement was allowed for this test. The test result does not necessarily reflect the actual flexural strength of adhesive as test sample involves adhesive sandwiched between steel plates. However the results can be used for comparative study. The test was mainly intended to find out the delamination of adhesive layer from the substrate.

The samples were prepared and tested as per figure 4.

Figure 4. Specimen sample for flexural test [7]

E) Fatigue Test: After preparing samples, they were tested for fatigue life as per ASTM D3166 [8]. The samples for fatigue test were prepared as per figure 5.

Figure 5. Specimen sample for fatigue test [6]

3.2. Environmental TestingIn order to determine the effectiveness of different adhesive systems, processing variables and surface pretreatments, it is necessary to expose adhesively bonded joints to various environmental and loading conditions that can simulate actual service conditions. The predominant factors in climatic exposure are solvent, moisture and temperature.

3.2.1. Sample PreparationOnly single lap shear test was carried out to evaluate the effect of different environmental conditions on adhesive joints. All the samples were cut as per the dimension of single lap shear test specimen mentioned in table 6.

All the cut samples mentioned above were given surface treatment depending on the substrate type.

For steel substrates: The surface of the substrates were abraded and then cleaned with Acetone properly so that no traces of abraded particles remains in the surface and then dried in the oven at 60C for 1 hour.

For polypropylene substrate: The surface of the substrates were cleaned with Iso-propanol and dried at room temperature.

3.2.2. Adhesive Application and Joint DesignAdhesive application and joint design were done as per clause-3.1.2. Only single lap shear test specimens were made for environmental testing.


Table 8. Adhesive and substrate combinations for different environmental testing

For every combination of substrates and adhesives for the tests mentioned in table 8, five samples were prepared and tested.

3.1.3. TestsTest samples were exposed to different environment and immersion conditions to which the adhesive bonded joint may get exposed during the service. The samples were exposed to the test condition for specific period at specific temperature as mentioned in table 9 and then lap shear strength was measured.

Table 9. Environmental and immersion conditions considered for testing adhesive joints.

4. Results and DiscussionsAlong with the testing to validate the mechanical performances, environmental tests were also carried out to validate the road load conditions. It is clear from the test results that adhesive performances are substrate specific i.e. all the type of adhesives are not suitable for every type of substrates. Each type of adhesives has some advantages and disadvantages, i.e. even if an adhesive is compatible to a particular substrate, it may not perform well in all the environmental conditions.

Figure 6, shows the tensile strength of five different types of adhesives with steel substrate.

All the three structural adhesives show very good tensile strength. Epoxy based adhesive provides highest tensile strength (30.8 MPa) among all the adhesives tested. PU and silicone based adhesives because of their rubbery state shows higher elongation but very low tensile strength.


Figure 6. Tensile strength of adhesive with steel substrate.

Figure 7, shows the T-peel strength of five different types of adhesives with steel substrate.

Generally adhesives are weak in peel strength and it is very important to design adhesives joints in such a way that the load experienced by the bond is not a peeling or cleavage type load.

From the figure 7 it is clear that epoxy and acrylic based adhesives are relatively resistant to peel loading as compared to other three. Cyanoacrylate based adhesives are very poor in this regard and shows the lowest T-peel strength. PU and silicone based adhesives shows moderate peel strength with high elongation.

Figure 7. T-peel strength of adhesive with steel substrate.

Figure 8, shows the flexural strength of five different types of adhesives with Steel substrate.

Flexural strength has been measured with displacement control mode. 20 mm displacement was allowed for this test. The test was mainly intended to find out the delamination of adhesive layer from the substrate.

In the structural adhesive category, epoxy has got the higher flexural strength i.e. higher resistance to bending followed by acrylic and cyanoacrylate. Though in case of both epoxy and acrylic based adhesives no delamination was found after 20 mm deflection but, in case of cyanoacrylate, the adhesive layer

got delaminated from one side. Because of highly flexible nature of both PU and silicone based adhesives, they have very low flexural strength as compared to the structural adhesives. But also in case of PU and silicone, the adhesive layer did not delaminate from the steel substrate after 20 mm of deflection.

Figure 8. Flexural strength of adhesive with steel substrate.

Figure 9, shows the fatigue life of five different types of adhesives with Steel substrate.

65% of the lap shear load was considered as the maximum load for fatigue test for all the adhesives with steel substrate. Load was applied in the sine wave form. Test was carried out at a frequency of 6 Hz and the cycle to failure was recorded.

Among the structural adhesives acrylic based adhesive shows highest fatigue life of 250351 cycles, followed by epoxy (213762 cycles) and cyanoacrylate (32566 cycles). Among the non-structural adhesives, silicone based adhesive showed superior fatigue life as compared to that of PU based one but in both the cases the fatigue life was lower as compared to epoxy and acrylic based structural adhesives. Because of the brittle nature of cyanoacrylate, it showed poor fatigue life.

Figure 9. Fatigue life of adhesives with steel substrate.

Figure 10, shows the lap shear strength of five different types of adhesives with (i) steel, (ii) polypropylene (PP) and (iii) steel + PP substrate combination.


It is clear from the chart that with steel substrates, epoxy based adhesives provides the highest strength followed by cyanoacrylate, acrylic based adhesives. One of the problems associated with cyanoacrylate is that after curing it becomes very hard and brittle. Polyurethane and silicone based adhesives though compatible with steel substrates but can't be used as a structural adhesive because of their low strength but can be used for applications where high elongation and gap filling is required.

It is very difficult to find out a suitable adhesive for bonding PP because of its very low surface energy [9, 10]. However cyanoacrylate can provide good bond strength for PP to PP joint. Most of the time it was observed that adhesive doesn't fail but the substrate itself fails. Epoxy based adhesives can also provide good strength but the failure mechanism is adhesive type and not the cohesive type i.e. the joint does not fails through the adhesive but separated out from PP surface which is not acceptable. From the figure it is also clear that the other three adhesives i.e. acrylic, polyurethane and silicone based are not compatible with PP and therefore PP to PP combination for these three adhesives were not considered for the future tests.

For steel and PP combination again cyanoacrylate is the best possible solution available. Though epoxy provides moderate strength but is not acceptable for adhesive failure. Other three adhesives i.e. acrylic, polyurethane and silicone based were not compatible with PP and it has been found that the failure was at the PP-adhesive interface and not at the adhesive-steel interface. The loads carried by the joints were very low and therefore PP to steel combination for these three adhesives was not considered for the future tests.

Figure 10. Lap shear strength of adhesives with steel, PP and steel + PP substrates in dry condition.

Figure 11, shows the lap shear strength of five different types of adhesives with (i) steel, (ii) polypropylene (PP) and (iii) steel + PP substrate combination after diesel immersion.

It is very clear from the chart that the lap shear strength of all the three structural adhesives i.e. epoxy, acrylate and cyanoacrylate didn't change much after diesel immersion as compared to the lap shear strength in dry condition. So it can be concluded that diesel immersion doesn't have any adverse

effect on the performance of these three adhesives. For PU based and silicone adhesives, diesel immersion had an adverse effect and the lap shear strength decreased by 20.5% and 23.2% respectively. The effect of diesel on epoxy and cyanoacrylate based adhesives with PP as substrate was also very marginal. The decreases in lap shear strength were 11% and 7.5% respectively as compared to the lap shear strength in dry condition. However as the overall lap shear strength is very small for epoxy based adhesive with PP substrate, these adhesives can not be considered for bonding PP to PP.

For steel and PP combination with epoxy and cyanoacrylate again there is no adverse effect of diesel on the lap shear strength.

Figure 11. Lap shear strength of adhesives with steel, PP and steel + PP substrates after diesel immersion.

Figure 12, shows the lap shear strength of five different types of adhesives with (i) steel, (ii) polypropylene (PP) and (iii) steel + PP substrate combination after petrol immersion.

Petrol being more aggressive fuel than diesel, it shows adverse effect on adhesive performance. After 24 hours in petrol, epoxy, PU and Silicone based adhesives showed 19%, 32% and 26% decrease in lap shear strength respectively.

The lap shear strength for cyanoacrylate based adhesive showed significant reduction after petrol immersion which is around 70%.

For acrylic based adhesive there is marginal reduction in lap shear strength.

Both the PP to PP joint and PP to steel joint with epoxy based adhesive were significantly affected by petrol and complete delamination was observed under immersed condition. In view of this failure, PP to PP and PP to steel samples were discarded.

The lap shear strength of similar joints prepared through cyanoacrylate based adhesives was also affected by petrol but not as much as with the epoxy based ones. For PP to PP joint


and PP to steel joint through cyanoacrylate based adhesives, the lap shear strength decreased by 14.8% and 11.2% respectively as compared to lap shear strength in dry condition.

Figure 12. Lap shear strength of adhesives with steel, PP and steel + PP substrates after petrol immersion.

Figure 13, shows the lap shear strength of five different types of adhesives with (i) steel, (ii) polypropylene (PP) and (iii) steel + PP substrate combination after axle oil immersion.

For epoxy based adhesive with steel substrate, the lap shear strength decreased by 22.6% as compared to lap shear strength in dry condition. However, acrylic, cyanoacrylate, PU and silicone based adhesive with steel substrates showed resistance to axle oil.

PP and steel combination with epoxy based adhesive showed a decrease in lap shear strength by 19.6% whereas the same combination with cyanoacrylate showed a decrease in lap shear strength by 29.2%. Epoxy based adhesive with PP substrate didn't show any changes in lap shear strength but in case of cyanoacrylate the lap shear strength decreased by 42.6%. The results show that the effect of immersion condition on adhesive performance varies with the variation in substrate.

Figure 13. Lap shear strength of adhesives with steel, PP and steel + PP substrates after axle oil immersion.

Figure 14, shows the lap shear strength of five different types of adhesives with (i) steel, (ii) polypropylene (PP) and (iii) steel + PP substrate combination after gear oil immersion.

The figure shows that gear oil is more aggressive to adhesive as compared to axle oil. The lap shear strength of each and every adhesive joint except silicone based one decreased as compared to that in dry condition. For epoxy based adhesive with steel, PP and PP + steel substrate, the lap shear strength decreased by 26.1%, 29.54% and 25% respectively as compared to lap shear strength in dry condition. For cyanoacrylate based adhesive with steel, PP and PP + steel substrate, the lap shear strength decreased by 38.7%, 22% and 38.1% respectively as compared to lap shear strength in dry condition. For acrylate and PU only steel substrates were used and the decreases in lap shear strength were 22.7% and 58.1%. The performance of silicone based adhesive remains unaffected after gear oil immersion.

Figure 14. Lap shear strength of adhesives with steel, PP and steel + PP substrates after gear oil immersion.

Figure 15, shows the lap shear strength of five different types of adhesive with (i) steel, (ii) polypropylene (PP) and (iii) steel + PP substrate combination after water immersion.

From the figure it is clear that the water does not have any effect on the lap shear performance of adhesives with all the surface combinations except for cyanoacrylate based adhesives with PP substrate. After water immersion for 7 days at RT, the lap shear strength of cyanoacrylate based adhesive with PP substrate decreased by 16.8% with respect to that in dry condition.

The polymeric adhesives used in this study are hydrophobic in nature and as we know that there is no interaction between hydrophobic and hydrophilic (water in this case) materials, these adhesives are resistant to water considering the polymeric base materials. Same has been reflected in the test results except for cyanoacrylate based adhesives with PP substrates.


Figure 15. Lap shear strength of adhesives with steel, PP and steel + PP substrates after water immersion.

Figure 16, shows the lap shear strength of five different types of adhesives with (i) steel, (ii) polypropylene (PP) and (iii) steel + PP substrate combination after temperature and humidity cycle.

After temperature and humidity cycle the lap shear strength of epoxy based adhesive joint with steel substrate decreased by 12% which is in the acceptable range considering the extreme temperature range. Cyanoacrylate based adhesive after curing become brittle and this property was reflected in the temperature humidity cycle. The adhesive joint failed in a brittle manner and with very low elongation. The decrease in lap shear strength is 24.7% with respect to the lap shear strength in dry condition.

The lap shear strength of acrylic based adhesive was not affected by this cycle and was the same as in dry condition. The adhesive joints which were affected the most were the steel to steel joint with polyurethane and silicon based adhesives and the decrease in the lap shear performance was found to be 26.8% and 30.3% respectively as compared to the original strength.

The effect of the temperature and humidity cycle was reflected in PP to PP and PP to steel joint with epoxy as well as cyanoacrylate based adhesives. For epoxy based adhesive the lap shear strength for these two combinations of substrates decreased by 21.6% and 24.5% respectively. The brittleness of cyanoacrylate is the major drawback of this adhesive and as a consequence after the temperature and humidity cycle the lap shear strength of the above two combination decreased by 31.8% and 31.68% respectively as compared to that in dry condition.

Figure 16. Lap shear strength of adhesives with steel, PP and steel + PP substrates after temperature and humidity cycle.

Figure 17, shows the lap shear strength of five different types of adhesives with Steel substrate after heat ageing at 120C.

From the figure it is clear that heat ageing at 120C for three days doesn't have any effect on the lap shear strength of epoxy and acrylic based adhesives. Sometimes it has been found that the lap shear strength increases after heat ageing. This may be due to the reason that during heat ageing crosslinking density of the adhesive increases and as a consequence the strength increases.

It was found that the cyanoacrylate which was rigid at room temperature becomes little soft after heat ageing and therefore the lap shear strength decreases. One of the problems associated with PU based adhesive is that they can't withstand high temperature and this is because of the chemical nature of polyurethane and it is also reflected in the heat ageing. The lap shear strength of PU based adhesive decreased by 61% after heat ageing as compared to that in dry condition. Silicones are well known for their high temperature stability and therefore no decrease in lap shear strength was found after heat ageing.

Figure 17. Lap shear strength of different adhesives with Steel substrate after heat ageing.


5. ConclusionsAdhesive bonding in automotive has led to a new direction of producing lightweight and energy efficient cars. Adhesive bonding is a proven substitute of conventional mechanical joining. The most important aspect in designing an adhesive joint is the appropriate choice of adhesive. Surface preparation plays a vital role in achieving the optimum performance of the joint. Following conclusions can be made based on the study:

a. Epoxy based adhesives are superior in structural bonding of steels in all conditions; however, they showed very low adhesive strength for polypropylene substrates.

b. Cyanoacrylate based adhesives were found suitable for PP substrate with very good bond strength. However cyanoacrylate based adhesives has low resistance for high and low temperatures and hence is not suitable for extreme temperature conditions. It also has very poor resistance to petrol and exhibit very low fatigue life.

c. Acrylic based adhesives has lower lap shear strength as compared with epoxy based adhesives, however these adhesives exhibit best fatigue life. Acrylic adhesive is recommended when components is experiencing fatigue cycles and moderate shear strength.

d. PU based adhesives though provides very low strength but their performance remains unchanged in most of the environmental conditions, except high temperature ageing and gear oil resistance.

e. Silicone based adhesives are suitable for high temperature applications. They are resistant to oil and hence are suitable for power train applications.6.

6. References1. Pizzi A. and Mittal K.L.., Handbook of Adhesive

Technology, Second Edition, Taylor & Francis group, ISBN: 978-0824709860, 2003

2. Savage Gray, Practical Aspects of Failure Prevention in Bonded Joints on Primary Load Bearing Structures, Anales De Mechanica De La Fractura, Vol. 22, 2005, P-273-282.

3. Durability of Adhesive joint, A Best Practice Guide, AE Bond, September 1998.

4. ASTM International, Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Adhesive Bonds, ASTM D897-08.

5. ASTM International, Standard Test Method for Peel Resistance of Adhesives (T-Peel Test), ASTM D1876-08.

6. ASTM International, Standard Test Method for Apparent Shear Strength of Single-Lap-Joint Adhesively Bonded Metal Specimens by Tension Loading (Metal-to-Metal), ASTM D1002-10.

7. ASTM International, Standard Test Method for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulation Materials, ASTM D790-10.

8. ASTM International, Standard Test Method for Fatigue Properties of Adhesives in Shear by Tension Loading (Metal/Metal), ASTM D3166-99 (Reapproved 2012).

9. Pinto A.M.G et al., Strength Prediction and Experimental Validation of Adhesive Joints Including Polypropylene, Carbon-Epoxy and Aluminium Adherends, Materials Science Forum, vol. 636-637, 2010, P- 1157-1164.

10. Novak I., Florian S., Study of the Change in Polarity of Polypropylene Modified in Bulk by Polar Copolymers, Journal of Materials Science, vol. 36, 2001, P- 4863-4867.7.

7. Definitions/AbbreviationsRT - room temperaturePP - polypropyleneEPDM - ethylene propylene diene monomerCAE - computer-aided engineeringBSR - buzz, squeak & rattleNVH - noise, vibration & harshnessMFI - melt flow index - applicable

- not applicableRH - relative humidityBS-IV - Bharat stage-IV

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed SAEs peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. The process requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE International.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper.

ISSN 0148-7191

http://papers.sae.org/2014-01-0788


2014-01-0788

Documents

Transcript of 2014-01-0788