Report on Correlation of SCRIM

with the Mark 2 GripTester

Trial at TRL, Crowthorne
21 April 2004

PRO 1961 28 September 2004

Jacobs Babtie 95 Bothwell Street, Glasgow G2 7HX
Tel 0141 204 2511 Fax 0141 226 3109

Copyright Jacobs UK Limited. All rights reserved

No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written
permission from Jacobs UK Limited. If you have received this report in error, please destroy all
copies in your possession or control and notify Jacobs UK Limited.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless
otherwise agreed in writing by Jacobs UK Limited, no other party may use, make use of or rely
on the contents of the report. If others choose to rely upon this report they do so entirely at their
own risk. No liability is accepted by Jacobs UK Limited for any use of this report, other than for
the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided.

Opinions and information provided in the report are on the basis of Jacobs UK Limited using due
skill, care and diligence in the preparation of the same and no explicit warranty is provided as to
their accuracy. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of
any of the documents or information supplied to Jacobs UK Limited has been made.

As of 12 August 2004, Babtie Group became part of the Jacobs group of companies
and is now known as Jacobs Babtie.
Report on Correlation of SCRIM
with Mark 2 GripTester

PRO 1961 1
Report on Correlation of SCRIM
with Mark 2 GripTester

Contents
Page

1. Introduction 3

2. Resources 3

3. Procedure 4

4. Data Processing – Stage 1 5

5. Data Processing – Stage 2 (Precision) 5

6. Data Processing – Stage 3 6

(Correlation of “SCRIM line” with “GripTester line”)

7. Data Processing – Stage 4 7

(Correlation of SCRIM with GripTester)

8. Discussion 8

9. Recommendations 8

10. Acknowledgements 9

Tables 1 to 6

Figures 1 to 5

PRO 1961 2
Report on Correlation of SCRIM
with Mark 2 GripTester

1. Introduction
1.1 The GripTester braked wheel fixed slip device for measuring the skid resistance of
pavement surfaces has been undergoing development for several years, and a “Mark 2”
version has now been launched. A Precision Trial in November 2003 had indicated that
reproducibility of the Mark 2 GripTester should be significantly better than that of the
Mark 1 version.

1.2 In March 2004, Findlay Irvine Ltd. requested Babtie to define the scope of a further trial
of a group of Mark 2 ‘D-Type’ GripTesters to investigate their correlation with SCRIM,
and to provide independent management and reporting services for such a trial.

1.3 A request was made to the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) for consideration of
collaborative trial to coincide with the annual SCRIM Correlation trials undertaken by
TRL for the Highways Agency (HA). Permission was given by HA and TRL for limited
access to the TRL Test Track by a group of GripTesters during one day of the SCRIM
Trials. Exchange of summary data from both types of machine would then take place.

1.4 Members of the GripTester Users Group had been invited to participate in the trial. The
only member with a Mark 2 Griptester to take up this invitation was Gwynedd Council.
TRL had purchased a Mark 2 GripTester in April 2004, and also wished to participate in
the trial.

1.5 The event subsequently took place at the TRL Test Track on Wednesday 21 April 2004.
This report summarises the procedures followed in collecting and analysing test data
from the trial.

2. Resources
2.1 The TRL Test Track was in use for the main SCRIM correlation trial, with all vehicle
movements being controlled by a Marshall. A convoy of five towing vehicles with
GripTesters was permitted on to the test circuit during various intervals when not
required by any of the SCRIM convoys. Two circular routes, containing nine test
sections, had been set out as shown in Figures 1 and 2.

2.2 Mastrad Ltd provided five new GripTesters, three towing vehicles, operating staff, a
supervisor, and a technical support team. Gwynedd Council and TRL each provided
one GripTester, a towing vehicle, and operating staff. Checking of all procedures and of
all test data gathered was carried out by Babtie.

2.3 Each of the seven GripTesters has been designated with a code letter for reference
throughout the remainder of this report.

PRO 1961 3
Report on Correlation of SCRIM
with Mark 2 GripTester

3. Procedure
3.1 During an initial familiarisation tour of the test circuit it was discovered that the target wheel
track for SCRIM had been set out using twin lines of temporary marker studs for all test
sections apart from 23 and 24. The gap between the stud lines was only slightly less than
the GripTester wheelbase width, and to successfully tow between them would have been
almost impossible. It was therefore decided to define an alternative test line for GripTester,
parallel to that for SCRIM, but on the same type of surfacing material. It was also decided
not to attempt inclusion of Section 29, due to its curvature combined with marker studs.

3.2 Additional familiarisation tours were then made for all GripTester teams to learn the revised
plan, including location of event markers to be recorded during testing.

3.3 The operating staff and vehicles were formed into five teams, two of them being assigned
to a pair of GripTesters.

3.4 Immediately after static calibration checks, each GripTester Team was asked to perform
five test runs at 50 km/hr on each GripTester. Test results collected from these runs were
then transferred to a portable PC on site for checking their general validity. Water flow rate
had been standardised as 11 litres per minute, for the purposes of this trial on a clean
surface. Calibration of this flow rate was checked for each towing vehicle at the start of the
day.

3.5 Locational referencing was by means of start and finish points (as marked out by TRL
for the SCRIM Trial) being recorded by each operator. No other event recording was
attempted.

3.6 Measurements of GripNumber were all intended to be in the nearside wheeltrack of each
lane, the towing vehicles being fitted with a left-mounted tow ball. The TRL vehicle had a
centre-mounted tow ball, but the driver attempted to compensate for this.

3.7 Weather conditions were wet and windy with light showers during most of the day.

3.8 The original plan had been for each GripTester to complete at least five test runs on all
sections. This was not completely achieved for Machines J and K due to the limitations of
track availability and some missing event records discovered subsequently. However, most
of the other five machines did more than five test runs. Machine L covered eleven test
runs, being included in all convoys for the purpose of monitoring any trends due to the test
track friction changing during the day.

3.9 The change of plan regarding line of test, as described in 3.1 above, necessitated some
additional testing in order to link the two different lines of test being followed by SCRIMs
and Griptesters. This was duly carried out on Friday 23 April 2004 by TRL using their own
SCRIM and GripTester after the temporary marker studs had been removed. Nine test
runs were carried out with SCRIM, and at least three test runs with GripTester, on both the
“SCRIM line” and the “GripTester line”.

PRO 1961 4
Report on Correlation of SCRIM
with Mark 2 GripTester

4. Data Processing – Stage 1

4.1 All data files were checked for correct filename, time, number of test runs contained, and for
any obvious errors in event recording. Several minor discrepancies were discovered and
corrected.

4.2 All raw data files (.csv) for each machine had been recorded as a single sequence of one or
more test runs on all eight test sections. The first task was thus to identify each run/section
within each file using Microsoft Excel. In performing this task it was found for a very few
sections that data was either missing or had to be discarded due to missing event records.
The remaining spreadsheets were then arranged such that all data from the eight test
sections could be identified, using an automated standard template.

4.3 The next step was to calculate the mean value of GripNumber for each section and for
each of the runs for each machine. A draft table of these mean values was compiled and
examined for any possible trends within each set of test runs per machine and section. It
was seen that the lowest mean result occurred at random position within each set, whereas
the highest mean result tended to be from the first test run in the set.

4.4 It was decided to exclude the results from the first test run of every machine from
subsequent calculations. This was on the basis that the track surface may well have
changed slightly after the first run, and also that the drivers may not have become
completely familiar with the wheel track position required, during the first run.

4.5 As mentioned above in 3.8, the number of valid test runs varied widely between machines.
It was considered that, for a fair comparison between machines, only the first four valid runs
(after Run 1) would be used for subsequent calculations. The first four valid mean run
values, and the overall mean value for each machine and section is thus presented in
Table 1.

5. Data Processing – Stage 2 (Precision)

5.1 The first step was simply to reduce the volume of data by calculating and presenting only
the mean result for each machine on each section. This is presented in Table 2, which also
gives overall mean values for all sections and all machines, followed by the standard
deviation and coefficient of variation between machines.

5.2 The next step was to study the differences between machines and identify any possible
outliers. The mean results from Table 2 were plotted in the form of a frequency distribution
histogram. This can be seen in Figure 3. The shape of distribution varies between
sections and some machines vary in position slightly more than others. In particular, it was
noted that Section 26 showed a wide spread of results - very different in pattern to any of
the other sections. Discussion with TRL staff confirmed that a similar concern existed for
the main SCRIM data due probably to track surface variability, and it was decided to
exclude Section 26 from all subsequent calculations.

PRO 1961 5
Report on Correlation of SCRIM
with Mark 2 GripTester

5.3 The significance of the histogram patterns for individual machines was next investigated in
terms of standard deviations as follows. Every individual result in Table 2 was subtracted
from the 'mean of all machines' value. This deviation was then divided by the 'between-
machine standard deviation', and the results of these calculations are shown in Table 3.
The value given for any machine and section is thus the number of standard deviations
away from the mean. In a normal distribution it is expected that 95% of results will fall
within two standard deviations of the mean, and that the other 5% will occur at random. In
Table 3, only one value of greater than 2.00 (as highlighted) was found. It was therefore
concluded that none of the machines should be regarded as outliers.

5.4 Returning now to Table 1, the between-run standard deviations were computed for each
set of four runs, and are presented in Table 4. A pooled standard deviation for each
machine is given as a root mean square of the values for individual sections. Based on this
pooled value, the repeatability of each machine was also calculated and included in Table
4.

5.5 The final step in measuring precision was to compile Table 5. The first row, of mean Grip
Numbers, and the third row, of between-machine standard deviations, were both copied
straight from Table 2. The second row, of pooled between-runs standard deviation was
calculated as the root mean square of each column in Table 4. The following four rows
were then calculated from these means and standard deviations with their overall average
values being given in the right hand column.

5.6 Repeatability, r, is the maximum difference expected (with a probability of 95%) between
two measurements made by the same machine under the same conditions and in a short
space of time. Reproducibility, R, is the maximum difference (with a probability of 95%)
expected between two measurements made by two different machines in the same
conditions and in a short space of time. Overall values of r = 0.03 and R = 0.07 were found.

6. Data Processing – Stage 3

(Correlation of “SCRIM line” with “GripTester line”)
6.1 The original objective had been to compare representative summary data from SCRIM and
GripTester after both had tested the same track on the same day, but this could not be
achieved due to the problem described in 3.1 above.

6.2 An alternative indirect method of comparison was therefore intended, as described in 3.9
above. The method needed to address possible changes in track condition between
Wednesday 21st (the main trial) and Friday 23rd (the additional testing).

6.3 Two possible approaches were devised:

PRO 1961 6
Report on Correlation of SCRIM
with Mark 2 GripTester

6.3.1 After determining relationships between Friday and Wednesday for both SCRIM and
GripTester, correct all Friday results to equivalent Wednesday results. Then, after
determining correlations of TRL SCRIM / All SCRIMs and TRL GripTester / All
GripTesters, the overall relationship between “SCRIM line” and “GripTester line” for
both types of machine can be plotted.

6.3.2 Determine the relationship between “SCRIM line” and “GripTester line” directly from
the Friday results for both TRL SCRIM and TRL GripTester.

6.4 Both of the above methods were followed independently, and were found to give identical
end results. Therefore only the second one, being simpler, is reported below. The link from
the TRL GripTester on both lines on the Friday was considered to be unreliable due to
insufficient data. After discussion with TRL staff, it was decided to use only the link from the
TRL SCRIM on both lines on the Friday.

6.5 Table 6 shows all of the mean values which were to be used to derive the correlations
required. The values in rows 3 and 4 were plotted, as shown in Figure 4. The linear
correlation of SCRIM Readings between the two test lines was seen to be very strong, with
an R2 value of 0.9835 and a Standard Error of 1.484 on estimates of equivalent GT line
values.

7. Data Processing – Stage 4

(Correlation of SCRIM with GripTester)
7.1 The relationship between the two lines of test was applied to the data in row 2 of Table 6 to
produce an equivalent set of overall mean SCRIM Readings for the GT line, as shown in
row 5 of Table 6. The correction was not applied to the results for Sections 23 and 24
however, because (as mentioned in 3.1) the two lines of test coincided for these two
sections.

7.2 Previous correlations of SCRIM with Griptester have been in terms of SCRIM Coefficient
(SC) rather than SCRIM Reading (SR), and that approach has been continued in this
report. The SR data from row 5 of Table 6 was thus converted to SC in row 6 using the
current index : SC = SR / 100 x 0.78

7.3 The final step was to plot GripNumber (on GT line) against SCRIM Coefficient (equivalent
to GT line) using the values in rows 1 and 6 of Table 6 respectively. This is shown in Figure
5, from which a good linear relationship is evident. The line passes through the origin and
has an equation of SC = 0.85 x GripNumber, with an R2 value of 0.9701.

7.4 The Standard Error on estimates of estimated SC values using the above correlation was
calculated to be 0.0415. This indicates that the 95% confidence limits could be as good as
8.3%. However, for this indirect comparison the possible errors in both steps of correlation
should be added together, giving 95% confidence limits of 10.6%.

PRO 1961 7
Report on Correlation of SCRIM
with Mark 2 GripTester

8. Discussion
8.1 Precision of the Mark 2 GripTester has again been shown to have a significant
improvement on the Mark 1 version. Overall repeatability of 0.03 is slightly better than 0.04
as found in the November 2003 Trial at TRL, whereas reproducibility of 0.07 is slightly
poorer than the previous level of 0.06. However, the conditions for GripTesters maintaining
consistent wheelpath position were less than ideal due to the last-minute change of plan,
and drivers being without clear guidance.

8.2 The process of comparing SCRIM and GripTester data in this trial has clearly become more
complex than it should normally be, due to the inability for GripTesters to test in exactly the
same line as SCRIM on the main day of the trial.

8.3 It has nevertheless been possible to see that the correlation between SCRIM and the Mark
2 GripTester is at least as good as that previously determined for the Mark 1 version. The
95% confidence limits for the latter were 10.8% - very similar to the 10.6% reported above.

8.4 It is reasonable to assume that if the comparison had been direct, then the correlation of
SCRIM with GripTester would have a greater level of confidence, but the equation of
{ SC = 0.85 x GripNumber } can nevertheless now be stated with acceptable confidence.

8.5 Considering the use to which this correlation may be put, it is suggested that GripTester
survey results should always be reported in terms of GripNumber. The results will usually
need to be compared with a standard Investigatory Level. Where such levels are based on
SCRIM Coefficient, it is suggested that Equivalent GripNumber Investigatory Levels should
be calculated from the above equation, rather than convert measured GripNumbers to
equivalent SC. This approach would reduce the scope for error.

9. Recommendations
9.1 It is recommended that when users of the Mark 2 GripTester need to compare measured
GripNumbers with SCRIM Coefficient, the correlation of SC = 0.85 x GripNumber should be
used, in the context of the 95 % confidence limits of 10.6%.

9.2 It is recommended that GripTester survey results should always be reported in terms of
GripNumber, with a statement of whether a Mark 1 or Mark 2 machine has been used.
When comparing results with a standard Investigatory Level based on SCRIM Coefficient, it
is recommended that an Equivalent GripNumber Investigatory Level is calculated using the
above equation, rather than convert the measured GripNumber to equivalent SC.

9.3 Follow-up studies to check this correlation should be made in due course. If these take
place on a test track, a direct comparison between SCRIM and Griptester on the same test
line will be essential.

PRO 1961 8
Report on Correlation of SCRIM
with Mark 2 GripTester

10. Acknowledgements

10.1 Grateful thanks are due to all staff of Highways Agency and TRL involved in the 2004
SCRIM Correlation trial for their assistance in enabling this comparative exercise to take
place, and for checking the interpretation of the results obtained. The hard work and co-
operation of all staff from Gwynedd Council and from Findlay Irvine on the day of the trial is
also gratefully acknowledged.

PRO 1961 9
 Table 1 Mean GripNumber for each run on each section by each machine

Machine Section 21 Section 22 Section 23 Section 24 Section 25 Section 26 Section 27 Section 28

Code r2 r3 r4 r5 Mean r2 r3 r4 r5 Mean r2 r3 r4 r5 Mean r2 r3 r4 r5 Mean r2 r3 r4 r5 Mean r2 r3 r4 r5 Mean r2 r3 r4 r5 Mean r2 r3 r4 r5 Mean

J 0.62 - 0.60 0.60 0.61 0.68 - 0.66 0.65 0.66 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.54 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.80 0.75 0.75 - 0.77 0.64 0.58 0.61 - 0.61 0.80 - 0.78 - 0.79 0.77 - 0.78 - 0.78

K 0.69 0.67 0.64 - 0.67 0.71 0.71 0.72 - 0.71 0.60 0.62 0.60 - 0.61 0.10 0.10 0.09 - 0.10 0.83 0.80 0.81 - 0.81 0.73 0.73 0.69 - 0.72 0.83 0.82 0.82 - 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.84 - 0.83

L 0.67 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.65 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.67 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.58 0.61 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.83 0.80 0.81 0.79 0.81 0.76 0.73 0.72 0.74 0.74 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.77 0.80 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.83

M 0.62 0.64 0.62 0.64 0.63 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.65 0.67 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.76 0.74 0.76 0.74 0.75 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.61 0.64 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.80 0.79 0.81 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82

N 0.70 0.72 0.68 0.69 0.70 0.74 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.57 0.59 0.58 0.57 0.58 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.80 0.79 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.67 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.64 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.82 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.81 0.83

O 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.65 0.65 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.58 0.57 0.58 0.57 0.58 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.81 0.77 0.80 0.77 0.79 0.68 0.65 0.67 0.65 0.66 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.82

P 0.66 0.61 0.63 0.62 0.63 0.67 0.66 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.59 0.60 0.59 0.61 0.60 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.79 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.78 0.65 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.61 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.82 0.80 0.80 0.83 0.81 0.81
 Table 2 All-run mean GripNumber for each section and machine

Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Overall

Machine Code
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 mean
J 0.61 0.66 0.54 0.06 0.77 0.61 0.79 0.78 0.60
K 0.67 0.71 0.61 0.10 0.81 0.72 0.82 0.83 0.66
L 0.65 0.67 0.61 0.08 0.81 0.74 0.80 0.83 0.65
M 0.63 0.67 0.59 0.07 0.75 0.64 0.79 0.82 0.62
N 0.70 0.72 0.58 0.11 0.79 0.64 0.82 0.83 0.65
O 0.65 0.69 0.58 0.08 0.79 0.66 0.80 0.82 0.63
P 0.63 0.68 0.60 0.08 0.78 0.61 0.82 0.81 0.63
Mean of all machines 0.65 0.69 0.58 0.08 0.78 0.66 0.81 0.82 0.63
Between-machine
0.029 0.023 0.025 0.014 0.022 0.050 0.013 0.019
Standard Deviation
Between-machine
0.045 0.034 0.042 0.173 0.028 0.076 0.016 0.024
Coefficient of Variation

Table 3 Deviation from overall mean divided by standard deviation

Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section

Machine Code
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
J -1.36 -0.98 -1.89 -1.39 -0.78 -0.98 -1.23 -2.09
K 0.69 1.19 0.91 1.00 1.33 1.15 1.36 0.92
L 0.12 -0.69 1.05 -0.17 1.07 1.57 -0.45 0.49
M -0.56 -0.69 0.03 -0.69 -1.54 -0.38 -1.03 0.10
N 1.74 1.59 -0.27 1.58 0.05 -0.48 0.90 0.62
O -0.05 -0.04 -0.37 -0.17 0.16 0.07 -0.26 0.23
P -0.56 -0.37 0.54 -0.17 -0.29 -0.93 0.71 -0.28

Table 4 Between-run standard deviations for each section and machine

Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section All sections Machine
Machine Code
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pooled repeatability
J 0.0115 0.0153 0.0096 0.0050 0.0289 0.0141 0.0071 0.0150 0.04
K 0.0252 0.0058 0.0115 0.0058 0.0153 0.0058 0.0058 0.0127 0.04
L 0.0141 0.0082 0.0200 0.0082 0.0171 0.0245 0.0173 0.0166 0.05
M 0.0115 0.0141 0.0058 0.0050 0.0115 0.0050 0.0050 0.0091 0.03
N 0.0171 0.0126 0.0096 0.0058 0.0129 0.0171 0.0126 0.0130 0.04
O 0.0058 0.0058 0.0058 0.0000 0.0206 0.0050 0.0082 0.0094 0.03
P 0.0216 0.0150 0.0096 0.0000 0.0096 0.0058 0.0141 0.0126 0.04
 Table 5 Summary statistics including repeatability and reproducibility

Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section All

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 sections

Mean Grip Number 0.65 0.69 0.58 0.08 0.78 0.81 0.82 0.63

Pooled between-runs SD 0.016 0.012 0.011 0.005 0.018 0.013 0.011 0.013

Between-machine SD 0.029 0.023 0.025 0.014 0.022 0.013 0.019 0.021

CV between runs 0.025 0.017 0.019 0.062 0.022 0.016 0.013 0.020

CV between machines 0.045 0.034 0.042 0.173 0.028 0.016 0.024 0.034

Repeatability, r 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03

Reproducibility, R 0.10 0.07 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.07

Table 6 Comparison of mean GripTester results with SCRIM results

Row Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section

Description
Number 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Mean Grip Number

1 0.65 0.69 0.58 0.08 0.78 0.81 0.82
(on GT test line, Wednesday)

SR from mean of all SCRIMs

2 66.75 64.16 54.80 12.51 86.22 87.20 88.06
(on SCRIM test line, Wednesday)

SR from TRL SCRIM only

3 63.30 64.20 83.50 84.10 85.80
(on SCRIM test line, Friday)

SR from TRL SCRIM only

4 68.52 71.03 88.61 85.93 89.03
(on GT test line, Friday)

SR from mean of all SCRIMs

(equivalent to GT test line,
Wednesday)
5 72.40 70.14 54.80 12.51 89.39 90.24 90.99
(converted from Row 2 using the
correlation of Rows 3 & 4)

SC from mean of all SCRIMs

(equivalent to GT test line,
6 0.56 0.55 0.43 0.10 0.70 0.70 0.71
Wednesday)
(SC=SR/100*0.78)

NB SR denotes SCRIM Reading SR is mean of all SCRIMS

SC denotes SCRIM Coefficient for Sections 23 & 24 only
Figure 1. A Detailed diagram of the test sections on the long straight

Banked bend

Section 26
Section 22 180m

110m

10m
20m

Section 25

130m 160m
Section 21

50m
30m

Start point

"L" Data
Route A Route B

Bridge
From
track
control
Figure 2. A Detailed diagram of the test section on the loop and area L

Start Point Route B

Route A
"L" Data

50m
180m
Section 27

Section 28 80m

80m
10m

Section 23
80m
20m

100m
Section 24

80m

100m IMPACT
TEST
FACILITY

Section 29
Figure 3 Histograms of mean Grip Number for each machine on each section

Section Mean
¦
¦
¦
P O
J M L K N
0.55 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.70 0.71 0.72 0.73 Section 21
¦
¦
¦
M ¦
J L P O K N
0.59 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.70 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.76 0.77 Section 22
¦
¦
¦
O L
J N M P K
0.48 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.52 0.53 0.54 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.66 Section 23
¦
¦
P
O
J M L K N
-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 Section 24
¦
¦
¦
¦ O L
M J P N K
0.68 0.69 0.70 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.86 Section 25
¦
¦
¦
P N ¦
J M O K L
0.56 0.57 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.70 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.74 Section 26
¦
¦
¦ P
M O ¦ N
J L ¦ K
0.71 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89 Section 27
¦
¦
¦ N
O L
J P M K
0.72 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.90 Section 28
¦
¦
¦
¦
 Figure 4 Correlation of SCRIM test line with GT Line, from TRL SCRIM

95

90
SR from TRL SCRIM only (on GT test line)

y = 0.8725x + 14.156
85
R2 = 0.9835

80

75

70

65

60

55

50
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
SR from TRL SCRIM only (on SCRIM test line)

Figure 5 Correlation of all SCRIM's (equivalent to GT line) with all GripTesters on GT line

0.80

0.70

0.60

y = 0.85x
SCRIM Coefficient

0.50 R2 = 0.9701

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
GripNumber