09 NVC-0231
Design and Analysis of a Gear Rattle Test Rig
Copyright © 2008 SAE International
ABSTRACT
Gear rattle in manual transmission systems is a complex
phenomenon and problematic to transmission and
vehicle manufacturers. In the last three decades some
inroads have been made in applying analytical and
numerical analysis to understand rattle, however
solutions and design methodologies for low rattle or no
rattle are elusive. Problems with rattling transmissions
continue to plague the industry. Controlled experiments
for transmission rattle are required for research, to aid in
the development of design tools and for validation of
these tools. This paper presents a test rig which utilises
a Hooke’s joint to induce the torsional oscillations that
lead to rattle. The design process relies on torsional
lumped mass modeling and linear and transient
nonlinear analyses and this paper details how the correct
specification of the required driving motor isolation
system is achieved. The rig complements the ongoing
development of advanced rattle simulation tools and
design methodologies and is intended for validation and
research work.
INTRODUCTION
Gear rattle is the audible noise caused by repeated loss
of contact of gear teeth. It is often associated with
automotive transmissions, but may also occur in other
geared systems such as pumps or power-take-off units.
Gear rattle is typically excited by a time-varying input,
although it may also, in rare cases, be caused by
excitation from gear teeth themselves [1]. Neutral gear
rattle occurs when an externally applied pulsating torque,
with a small or zero mean value, is applied to the gears
causing the gear mesh vibration amplitude to exceed
their mean twist due to drag torque [2]. This vibration
level is often referred to as the rattle threshold. The idling
power plant provides the torsional fluctuations from
engine firing and dynamic characteristics of the
crankshaft. Then the flywheel and clutch springs provide
a transmission path which modifies the vibration before
the geartrain. The gear impacts result in impulsive
responses which are broadband in the frequency
spectrum.
This paper details the design and analysis for a test rig
intended for the study of neutral gear rattle under
controlled laboratory conditions. The test rig utilises a
A. R. Crowther and M. K. Rozyn
Romax Technology Limited
telescopic Hooke’s joint with gimbals phased so as to
deliberately induce torsional oscillations at the second
order of input speed. At this order lies the major
component of (crankshaft) torsional vibration when a
vehicle is fitted with a four cylinder engine. The vibration
amplitude for a particular test may be controlled by
adjusting the angle across the Hooke’s joint. An
essential design requirement is that the induced torsional
vibration is pronounced at the transmission and
suppressed at the electric drive and the large inertia of
the transmission flywheel significantly complicates this
task. The analysis relies on a torsional lumped mass
model with electric drive, isolation system, Hooke’s joint,
flywheel/clutch and transmission. Linear analysis tools
are first used to understand the natural frequencies and
modes of the system and for isolation design. Then
transient non-linear time domain analyses are performed
for drive speed run-ups and used to check the maximum
loads when passing through critical speeds, to predict
the vibratory torque seen at the transmission and to
confirm low accelerations at the drive motor. By this
analysis the key design decisions were able to be made,
e.g. the sizing of shafts, bearings and motor, and
importantly, the correct design of an isolation system was
ascertained. To highlight the latter point, the paper
provides analysis results with no isolation system, a
simple isolation system and finally a dual mass system,
which is implemented in the final design.
The testing project aims to validate a numerical code
used to predict gear rattle [3]. The code is used by
transmission designers for rattle analysis prior to
construction of prototypes, which allows for reduced lead
times and a superior end product. The rig will also be
used for research and validation of models for drag
torque, clutch characteristics and impact damping. The
gear rattle code is part of an advanced gearbox design
software (RomaxDesigner), where specific models for
gear rattle are exported from the main package for
analysis. Similarly, the software has gear whine and
other noise, vibration, harshness (NVH) analysis
capabilities. This allows rattle and whine studies and
optimisation to be performed in parallel using one model.
The software includes calculation of the drag torque from
bearings, gear meshes, churning and windage, for which
various industry accepted models, including those from
ISO standards [4] may be applied.
GEAR RATTLE TEST RIG

The purpose of the rattle test rig is to provide controlled

conditions where the amplitude of input torsional
vibrations may be increased so as to excite neutral gear
rattle in a manual transmission (the test article). The rig
is designed to provide sufficient excitation across typical
engine idle speeds with some extra range (500-
1500rpm). The design maximum for transmission input
shaft peak to peak vibration is 2Nm. Figure 1 provides a
schematic of the rattle rig concept. The electric motor
drives the transmission at a steady mean speed via a
double telescoping Hooke’s joint (universal joint), which Figure 2: Rattle Rig Torsional Model. Note Damping Elements (not
is installed with the gimbals deliberately phased so as to shown) are included in Parallel with the Stiffness Elements.
induce the torsional vibration. By changing the angle of
the joints (shown as α in Figure 1) the amplitude of the The five degrees of freedom are sufficient to represent
vibration may be adjusted. This is practically achieved by the torsional modes of interest and have the following
sliding the motor in the lateral direction on the base plate. generalised coordinate vector:
The telescopic function considerably simplifies the
mounting as the longitudinal dimension remains fixed. {
θ = θ1 θ 2* θ 3 θ 4 θ 5 } T
(1)

The system of equations of motion is:

J&θ& + Cθ& + Kθ = T (2)

Where J, C and K are the inertia, damping and stiffness

matrices, and T is the vector of input torque:

Figure 1: Schematic of Gear Rattle Test Rig. J = diag [J 1 J2 J3 J4 J5] (3)

The transmission flywheel (and clutch housing) rotates at

the mean speed set by the motor with superimposed  c12 − c12 0 0 0 
vibrations principally at the second order of rotational − c c12 + c 23 − c 23 0 0 
speed. The flywheel significantly reduces the vibration  12
amplitude before it reaches the transmission input shaft C= 0 − c 23 c 23 + c34 − c34 0  (4)
 
and thus the induced vibration needs to be large, as it is
 0 0 − c34 c34 + c 45 − c 45 
in the case of the combusting engine. The inertia and  0
stiffness distribution of the system needs to be carefully 0 0 − c 45 c 45 
considered so that the Hooke’s joint vibrates the
transmission, not the electric drive. The engineering  k12 − k12 0 0 0 
analysis leads to a design utilising a similar concept to − k
the dual mass flywheel used in vehicle transmissions. A  12 k12 + k 23 − k 23 0 0 
main flywheel, flexible coupling and auxiliary flywheel K= 0 − k 23 k 23 + k 34 − k 34 0  (5)
(see Figure 1) decouple the motor from second order  
vibrations across the operating speed range.  0 0 − k 34 k 34 + k 45 − k 45 
 0 0 0 − k 45 k 45 
Instrumentation is fitted for the following measurements:
flywheel input torque and velocity, transmission input
T = {T1 0 0 0 0}
T
shaft torque and velocity and housing accelerations. A (6)
lubrication circuit is designed for heating to a specified
set point and includes a level gauge. This allows the
control of oil temperature and level in the transmission;
both are critical parameters for rattle testing.

TORSIONAL MODEL

For the analysis the test rig is simplified to a lumped

mass torsional model as illustrated in Figure 2 with
system parameters of Table 1.
 tests in general; the test device should not modify the
Symbol Parameter dynamic characteristics of the test article (where
J1 Inertia of electric motor and main flywheel
possible). For this machine the goal is to design the
isolating system so as to decouple the vibration modes
J2 Inertia of joint and auxiliary flywheel of the driving system (upstream of transmission flywheel)
J3 Inertia of gearbox transmission flywheel from the transmission (transmission flywheel, clutch and
J4 Inertia of gearbox clutch hub gears). Note the rig is designed to run from 500 to 1500
rpm (16.7 to 50 Hz at the second order).
J5 Inertia of transmission gears
c12 Damping between motor and joint ANALYSIS
c23 Damping between joint and transmission flywheel
c34 Damping of clutch spring This section details some of the analysis undertaken in
the design of the rig and the decoupling effects of the
c45 Damping from clutch hub to 1st gear dual flywheel and flexible coupling system. This is
k12 Torsional stiffness between motor and joint achieved through an analytical study of the mode shapes
k23 Torsional stiffness between joint and transmission for three cases with the inertia and stiffness parameters
as per Table 2. The three cases are as follows:
k34 Torsional stiffness of clutch damper spring
k45 Torsional stiffness from clutch hub to 1st gear Case 1: No primary or auxiliary flywheel, no flexible
θ1 Coordinate of electric motor and main flywheel coupling.
θ2 Coordinate of auxiliary flywheel and joint input
Case 2: Primary flywheel and flexible coupling.
θ2* Coordinate of joint output
θ3 Coordinate of transmission flywheel Case 3: Primary and auxiliary flywheel and flexible
θ4 Coordinate of transmission clutch hub coupling.
θ5 Coordinate of transmission gears Thus in these cases the parameters for J1, J2 and k12
T1 Input torque from electric motor vary (refer Figure 2 and Table 1). The other system
parameters remain fixed. Damping parameters are
Table 1: Inertia, Damping, Stiffness and Generalized Coordinate assigned to give reasonable damping ratios and where
Elements of the Torsional Model Figure 2. time histories are shown the examples have assume an
joint angle of 10º (2α=20º).
Note that the bearing and gear drag may be neglected
for the purpose of these analyses so no drag terms are Case
present in equation (6). To describe the Hooke’s joint Item Unit
excitation a non-linear kinematic constraint is applied 1 2 3
2
between coordinates θ2 and θ2*. Reference [5] provides J1 kg.m 7.00e-3 120e-3 120e-3
the typical equations and the constraint is applied in the J2 kg.m
2
60.0e-6 60.0e-6 40.0e-3
numerical simulations as follows: 2
J3 kg.m 180e-3 180e-3 180e-3
2
J4 kg.m 1.70e-3 1.70e-3 1.70e-3
θ 2* = tan −1 (tan(θ 2 ) cos(2α )) (7) 2
J5 kg.m 2.40e-3 2.40e-3 2.40e-3
k12 Nm/rad 30000 30000 170
θ&2 cos(2α )
θ&2* =
(1 − sin 2 (θ&2 ) sin 2 (2α )) (8) k23
k34
Nm/rad
Nm/rad
30000
490
30000
490
30000
490
k45 Nm/rad 17600 17600 17600
The angle in the equation (2α) is twice the physical angle
due to the joint having two phased gimbals. If the
gimbals are not phased, or if their combined angle is Table 2: Inertia and Stiffness Values for Cases 1-3.
zero, then the output motion is identical to the input (less
any deflection due to stiffness of joint). The vibration Complementing the analytical study are several transient
amplitude increases with joint angle and velocity and the simulations performed to predict responses including the
fundamental excitation frequency is twice that of the non-linear excitation of the Hooke’s joint. The
input (second order). Generally, for proper machine simulations apply the kinematic constraints of Equations
function the natural frequencies of the rig should not (7-8). The electric drive input torque, T1, (Figure 2) is
coincide with these vibrations. Yet if the test article so assumed as a half cosine taper for the initial 0.5s (ramp
happened to have natural modes within the operating function) to represent motor start up and then as a
range, then the gear rattle would be expected to be constant value for t → ∞ . This sufficiently describes
severe and coupling the test article with the driving the motor action that will be achieved in practice. The
machine should not interfere with these dynamics. This simulations have sufficient duration to record response
is an important consideration in the design of dynamic as the mean input speed rises from 0 to 1500 rpm.
 8 contour plots. These plots are then utilised for
7 optimization of the rig design, to size components and to
6 minimize points of excessive vibration or load.
Torque (Nm)

5
1500
4

Velocity (RPM)
2 1000

0 500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (s)

0
Figure 3: Input Torque from the Electric Drive for Cases 1-3. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time (s)
CASE 1
Figure 4: Velocity of Electric Drive.
Case 1 provides a baseline example where no primary or
4000
auxiliary flywheel is installed and the inertia of the
transmission flywheel is two orders of magnitude higher 3000

than any other components in the rotating system. The 2000

torsional stiffness between the electric drive and the

Accel (rad/s )
2
1000
Hooke’s joint input is assigned as 30000 Nm/rad, which
0
is approximate for an appropriate steel shaft and rigid
coupling. Table 3 provides the results for the -1000

eigensolutions. The first mode is a rigid body mode -2000

representing the rotational motion of the unconstrained -3000
system. The damped natural frequencies are outside the
-4000
range of the fundamental excitation frequency for the 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Hooke’s joint across the operating speed range (16.7 to Time (s)
50Hz at the second order). The entire system responds
to the joint excitation as the frequency of the first mode is Figure 5: Acceleration (rad/s2) of Electric Drive for Case 1 with 2α=20º.
above the operating range. The numerical solutions
300
predict this response. Figure 4 plots the velocity of the
250
input. Figures 5-6 plots the acceleration of the electric
200
drive and transmission shaft. The acceleration levels in
the former are undesirable for motor function, while the 150
Accel (rad/s )
2

high accelerations in the transmission gears are intended 100

by design to excite rattle. The transmission input shaft 50

torque (Figure 7) is minimal as there is little mass to 0

oscillate on the downstream side of transmission -50

flywheel. -100
-150

Mode Mode Mode Mode Mode

Item 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
1 2 3 4 5 Time (s)
Damped Natural
0.00 55.2 237 672 5032
Frequency (Hz) Figure 6: Acceleration (rad/s2) at Transmission Gears for Case 1 with
Generalised 2α=20º.
Normalised Modal Vector (Undamped)
Coordinates
θ1 1.00 -0.02 1.00 0.00 0.00
0.6
θ2 1.00 -0.02 0.48 0.00 1.00
θ3 1.00 -0.02 -0.04 0.00 0.00 0.4
Torque (Nm)

θ4 1.00 0.98 0.00 1.00 0.00

0.2
θ5 1.00 1.00 0.00 -0.70 0.00
0
Table 3: Damped Natural Frequencies and Mode Shapes for Case 1.
-0.2

The design specification is to achieve a peak to peak

-0.4
value of 2Nm in the input shaft and the numerical
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
simulations are performed for a design of experiment Time (s)
where the joint angle and mean operating speed are the
two design variables. The peak to peak accelerations Figure 7: Torque (Nm) at Transmission Input Shaft for Case 1 with
and torques are then mapped for these variables in 2α=20º.
To illustrate Figure 8 provides the contour plot for the
transmission input shaft peak to peak torque for Case 1.
To achieve the design specification the combined joint
angle would need to be in excess of 40º. The dotted
thick line on the plot represents the joint angle versus
speed that achieves the 2Nm design specification (for
Case 1). This ‘2Nm’ line is subsequently translated to
contour plots for other simulated responses, e.g. in
Figures 9 the peak to peak acceleration at the electric
drive is shown and the corresponding values at the ‘2Nm
line’ are unacceptably high. Similarly the corresponding
torque at the Hooke’s Joint (plot not shown) would stress
the component well past the yield point. The analysis
demonstrates that the dynamics of the machine are not
satisfactory and the design needs to be modified.
demonstrate, adding a reasonable sized flywheel does
not provide the desired dynamic characteristics. For this
2
case the main flywheel inertia is assigned as 0.116 kgm
(added to coordinate 1) while the auxiliary flywheel is still
omitted. The inertia parameter is that for a taper lock
bush and rigid coupling that is low cost and suitable for
the task. The damped natural frequencies and mode
shapes are given in Table 4. Mode 3 has shifted from
237 to 72.5 Hz and is more global (all coordinates
participating in the mode shape). This mode is still far
enough from the fundamental excitation frequency of the
joint across the operating speed range for resonance to
not be an issue. Note: if the machine was run at a higher
speed, say 2000-2500rpm then resonance with this
mode would definitely be an issue.

Mode Mode Mode Mode Mode

Item
1 2 3 4 5
Damped Natural
0.000 54.7 72.5 672 5026
Frequency (Hz)
Generalised
Normalised Modal Vector (Undamped)
Coordinates
θ1 1.00 -0.03 1.00 0.00 0.00
θ2 1.00 -0.02 0.15 0.00 1.00
θ3 1.00 0.00 -0.70 0.00 0.00
θ4 1.00 0.98 0.92 1.00 0.00
θ5 1.00 1.00 0.94 -0.70 0.00

Table 4: Damped Natural Frequencies and Mode Shapes for Case 2.

The numerical solutions provide the transmission input

shaft torque versus joint angle and RPM (Figure 10).
Again the ‘2Nm’ line is overlaid on the plot. For this case
Figure 8: Contour Plot of Transmission Input Shaft Torque (Nm) for the combined maximum combined joint angle to meet
Case 1. design requirements is 18-32º depending on speed, a
significant improvement on Case 1. Referring Figure 11
the analysis shows the acceleration at the electric drive
is reduced by a factor of ten. However the torque across
the Hooke’s Joint is stiff sufficient to break the
component. The typical addition of a single flywheel is
not sufficient to obtain the desired machine dynamics.

Figure 9: Contour Plot of Acceleration (rad/s2) at the Electric Drive for

Case 1.

CASE 2

The addition of a flywheel to an electric motor is typical in

rotating machinery and the poor result of Case 1 is not Figure 10: Contour Plot of Transmission Input Shaft Torque (Nm) for
surprising. However as the subsequent analysis will Case 2.
 quantify the magnitudes of accelerations and torques
under the forcing conditions. Figures 12-13 plot the time
history for acceleration at the electric drive and torque at
the gears. Given the low frequency of Mode 1 the
machine now needs to run through a critical speed at
start up. This is a disadvantage of the isolation system.
The input torque (Figure 3) is specified to run through
this speed as quickly as possible and the motor
controller will be programmed as such.

400

300

200

Accel (rad/s )
2
100

-100

-200

-300

-400
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Figure 11: Contour Plot of Acceleration (rad/s2) at the Electric Drive for Time (s)
Case 2.
Figure 12: Time History of Acceleration (rad/s2) at the Electric Drive for
CASE 3 Case 3 with 2α=20º.

The addition of the primary flywheel (Case 2) improves 1.5

the responses and the next obvious modification is to
add a flexible coupling between the flywheel and joint. 1

This does bring some improvement yet is not an

Torque (Nm)

adequate solution (Case not shown). Thus Case 3 0.5

examines the addition of the flexible coupling and an

0
auxiliary flywheel located at the joint input, by adjusting
k12 and J2 accordingly. It can be inferred that previously
-0.5
the transmissibility of the torsional excitation at the joint
to the electric drive was high, somewhere above unity. -1
With the adjustment of these system parameters what 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
was Mode 3 in Case 2 is now Mode 1 (Table 5) with Time (s)
natural frequency below that of the fundamental
excitation across the operating speed range. The Figure 13: Time History of Torque (Nm) at the Transmission Input
transmissibility between joint and electric drive will now Shaft for Case 3 with 2α=20º.
be much reduced at these speeds. Examining the mode
shapes it is also evident that the test device and test The advantages of the Case 3 can be seen from the
article are largely decoupled in their mode shapes, aside contour plots. The ‘2Nm’ line is drawn on the
from the lowest mode. transmission shaft torque diagram (Figure 14). The joint
angles are increased from Case 2, yet 20° at each joint
Mode Mode Mode Mode Mode
is not unreasonable. Transferring this line to the other
Item contour plots we see the acceleration at the electric drive
1 2 3 4 5
(Figure 15) is much reduced, especially at higher
Damped Natural
0.00 7.12 55.12 152.60 672.13 speeds. For a typical engine idle speed (850rpm) these
Frequency (Hz) 2
predicted values are 10000, 950 and 500 rad/s (Cases
Generalised
Coordinates
Normalised Modal Vector (Undamped) 1-3 respectively). Hence the drive is less likely to slip or
undergo damaging vibration magnitudes. Further the
θ1 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
torque across the Hooke’s joint and flexible coupling
θ2 1.00 -0.54 -0.02 1.00 0.00
(Figures 16-17) are now reasonable values and
θ3 1.00 -0.55 -0.02 -0.22 0.00 reasonable components can be easily sized to withstand
θ4 1.00 -0.56 0.98 0.03 1.00 the dynamic loads. Note that the magnitudes of dynamic
θ5 1.00 -0.56 1.00 0.03 -0.70 torque at the joint are significant (in the order of 100Nm
peak-peak) in order to produce values of 2Nm peak-
Table 5: Damped Natural Frequencies and Mode Shapes for Case 3. peak at the transmission input shaft. The underlying
difficulty in the design of this test device is that the
The simulations now allow the predictions of the non- transmission flywheel is an effective absorber of
linear responses to confirm the design improvement and vibration, as is intended in the vehicle powertrain. Yet
the use of the primary and auxiliary flywheel and flexible
coupling has provided a solution and the desired
dynamic characteristics of the machine are achieved: the
design specification of dynamic torque at the
transmission input shaft is achieved; the electric drive is
isolated from the joint excitation and the torques
developed in shafts and couplings of the test device are
reasonable.
Figure 14: Contour Plot of Transmission Input Shaft Torque (Nm) for
Case 3.
Figure 15: Contour Plot of Acceleration (rad/s2) at the Electric Drive for
Case 3.
Figure 16: Contour Plot of Torque across the Hooke’s Joint (Nm) for
Case 3.
Figure 17: Contour Plot of Torque across the Flexible Coupling (Nm)
for Case 3.
APPLICATION OF ANALYSIS
The engineering analysis allows the design layout to be
finalized and the components to be sized. The resulting
design is illustrated in Figure 18. Note that two flexible
couplings placed in series are required to achieve a soft
enough connection (170Nm/rad as per Table 2). There
is a difficult trade of for these components; the softer the
coupling the better the isolation and the lower the torque
developed across it. Specifying a stiffer (and stronger)
coupling just increases the dynamic torque at the critical
speed and brings no improvement. Operation of the
machine will need to be kept within design limits and the
critical speed passed through as quickly as possible.
 linearised value for this stiffness as provided by the
coupling manufacturer. See Figure 21 for a photograph
of the built machine.

Torque (Nm)
50

-50
Time (s)

Speed (RPM)
1000

500

0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (s)

Figure 20: Rattle Rig Commissioning Measurement showing Output

Torque from the Hooke’s Joint and Electric Drive Speed with 2α=16º.

CONCLUSION
Figure 18: Rattle Rig Design Assembly.
The rig will be used for measurements of rattle
responses across the operating speed range under the
second order excitation of the joint. The principle aim of
the rig is to perform validation studies to non-linear
response predicted using the RomaxDesigner Gear
Rattle Analysis Module (see Figure 19 for a typical rattle
model). A companion paper [6] details the types of
investigations of rattling gears that may be performed.
Experimental work will include tests intended to increase
knowledge and improve parameters estimations for
impact damping, clutch hysteresis and gear and bearing
drag. The rig will be used for the assessment of rattle
severity of particular transmission prototypes and
accompany transmission NVH development work
performed by engineers using the Gear Rattle Analysis
Module.
Figure 19: RomaxDesigner Manual Transmission Model used for Gear
Rattle Analysis.

TEST RIG COMMISSIONING

Commissioning tests confirm that the performance of the

rig correlates with analysis predictions. A speed sweep
(Figure 20) demonstrates the machine runs through the
first critical speed at approximately 350-400RPM (excited
by the second order). Acceleration measurements
confirm that vibration at electric drive reaches a steady
level (similar to Figure 12) rather than continually
increasing with speed (as in Figure 5). The
measurement shows another critical speed at 700-
800RPM, here the first order excitation from shaft
imbalance excites the lowest mode. Improvement to the
shaft alignment with an additional bearing between the
flexible couplings will reduce this amplitude. The
excitation amplitudes show reasonable correlation with
analysis and the rig meets the design aims. Note that
the excitation amplitude does strongly depend on the
dynamic stiffness of the flexible coupling, which will vary
with mean load, temperature, amplitude and frequency. Figure 21: Rattle Rig As Built.
The analysis is approximate in that it assumes a single
REFERENCES
1. D Smith, ‘Gear Noise and Vibration’ (CRC Press,
2003).
2. R. Singh, H. Xie and R.J. Comparin, ‘Analysis of
Automotive Neutral Gear Rattle’, Journal of Sound
and Vibration, 131(2), 177-196, 1989.
3. ‘RomaxDesigner – Gear Rattle Module User
Manual’, Romax Technology Limited, 2008.
4. ‘Gear Reducers – Thermal Capacity Based on
ISO/TR 14179-1’, AGMA ISO 14179-1, ISBN: 1-
55589-821-1.
5. Stone R., Ball J.K., ‘Automotive Engineering
Fundamentals’, SAE International (2004).
6. A.R. Crowther, C. Halse, Z.Zhang, ‘Non-linear
Responses Loaded Driveline Rattle’, Submitted to
the SAE Noise and Vibration Conference 2009.
CONTACT
A.R. Crowther, Romax Technology Limited, Rutherford
House, Nottingham, NG71HR, UK, ph. +44 115 951
8800, ashley.crowther@romaxtech.com