Adsil Glass Coating Study 

Holly Cyrus 

September 2005 

DOT/FAA/AR-TN05/43 

This document is available to the public through the National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 22161. 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration

ote technical note technic

a

ote technical note technic

a
NOTICE 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The 

United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use 

thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or 

manufacturers. Trade or manufacturer's names appear herein solely 

because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. This 

document does not constitute FAA certification policy. Consult your local 

FAA airports office as to its use. 

This report is available at the Federal Aviation Administration William J. 

Hughes Technical Center’s Full-Text Technical Reports page: 

actlibrary.tc.faa.gov in Adobe Acrobat portable document format (PDF). 
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

DOT/FAA/AR-TN05/43

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

 4. Title and Subtitle 

ADSIL GLASS COATING STUDY 

5. Report Date

September 2005

6. Performing Organization Code

ATO-P 

7. Author(s) 

Holly M. Cyrus 

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Federal Aviation Administration 

William J. Hughes Technical Center

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

Airport and Aircraft Safety 

Research and Development Division 

Airport Technology Research and Development Branch 

Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405 

11. Contract or Grant No.

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

 Technical Note

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Aviation Research 

Washington, DC 20591

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

 AAS-100

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract 

Paint markings on runways and taxiways are damaged from ultraviolet rays, stained by aircraft fuel, and discolored. Glass 

coatings, used as a sealant for the paint, have shown promise as a possible solution to these problems. 

The research effort described in this report investigates the effectiveness of an Anchored Dendritic Silicate Interactive Linkages 

(Adsil) Ambient Temperature Cure glass coating material in protecting the color and retro-reflectivity of the paint markings. The 

paint markings in this study included two types of beads for better visual acquisition. 

Testing was conducted at the Jacksonville Naval Air Station and Whitehouse Outlying Landing Field. The tests measured 

resistance to abrasion, mildew, rust staining, oil staining, and ultraviolet weathering. 

The results of the tests showed Adsil glass coating reduced retro-reflectivity. The white markings with type I beads and Adsil

reduced the retro-reflectivity by 66% from 318 to 109 millicandelas per meter squared per lux (mcd/m2

/lx). The white markings 

with type III beads and Adsil reduced the retro-reflectivity by 57% from 1270 to 549 mcd/m2

/lx. The yellow marking with type I 

beads and Adsil reduced the retro-reflectivity by 34% from 144 to 94 mcd/m2

/lx. The yellow markings with type III beads and 

Adsil reduced the retro-reflectivity by 44% from 475 to 265 mcd/m2

/lx. The combination of Adsil coating with type I beads was 

not recommended due to the very low retro-reflectivity of 109 mcd/m2

/lx for white and 94 mcd/m2/lx for yellow. When using 

type III beads, the retro-reflectivity, while still reduced (549 mcd/m2

/lx for white and 265 mcd/m2/lx for yellow), was not as low 

as with type I beads. In the second case, Adsil should only be considered when other benefits such as resistance to mildew, rust 

staining, and oil staining would make the reduced retro-reflectivity an acceptable compromise. 

17. Key Words 

Retro-reflectivity, Marking material, Mildew, Oil staining, 

Rust staining 

18. Distribution Statement 

This document is available to the public through the National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 

22161.

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

 Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

 Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

 19 

22. Price

Form DOT F1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii 

INTRODUCTION 1 

Purpose 1 

Objective 1 

Background 1 

Discussion 1 

Related Documentation 2 

EVALUATION APPROACH 2 

Method 2 

Retro-Reflectivity 2 

Color Chromaticity 3 

Data Collection 4 

TEST RESULTS 4 

Retro-Reflectivity Test 4 

Chromaticity Test 4 

SUMMARY 5 

CONCLUSIONS 5 

iii
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure Page 

1 White Arrow With Type I (Stem) and Type III (Arrowhead) Glass Beads 6 

2 Yellow Paint Markings With Type III, Type I, and No Glass Beads 6 

3 White Paint Markings With Adsil and Type I Beads 7 

4 Retro-Reflectivity Reading Percentages for White Paint Markings 8 

5 Retro-Reflectivity Reading Percentages for Yellow Paint Markings 9 

6 Color Readings for White Paint Markings 10 

7 Color Readings for Yellow Paint Markings 11 

8 White Adsil Coated Versus White Uncoated Paint 12 

iv
LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

1 Retro-Reflectivity Readings for White Paint Markings 8 

2 Percent Remaining for Retro-Reflectivity (White) 8 

3 Retro-Reflectivity Readings for Yellow Paint Markings 9 

4 Percent Remaining for Retro-Reflectivity (Yellow) 9 

5 Color Readings for White Paint Markings 10 

6 Color Readings for Yellow Paint Markings 11 

v
LIST OF ACRONYMS 

Adsil Anchored Dendritic Silicate Interactive Linkages 

ATC Ambient temperature cure 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization 

IOR Index of refraction 

JNAS Jacksonville Naval Air Station 

OLF Whitehouse Outlying Land Field 

R&D Research and development 

UV Ultraviolet 

vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Paint markings on runways and taxiways are damaged by ultraviolet rays, stained by aircraft 

fuel, and discolored. Glass coatings, used as a sealant for the paint, have shown promise as a 

possible solution to these problems. 

The research effort described in this report investigates the effectiveness of an Anchored 

Dendritic Silicate Interactive Linkages (Adsil) Ambient Temperature Cure (version AD490) 

glass coating material in protecting the color and retro-reflectivity of the paint markings. The 

paint markings in this study included two types of beads for better night visibility. 

Testing was conducted at the Jacksonville Naval Air Station and Whitehouse Outlying Landing 

Field. The tests included resistance to abrasion, mildew, rust staining, oil staining, and 

ultraviolet weathering. 

The tests showed that Adsil glass coating reduced retro-reflectivity. The white markings with 

type I beads and Adsil reduced the retro-reflectivity by 66% from 318 to 109 millicandelas per 

meter squared per lux (mcd/m2

/lx). The white markings with type III beads and Adsil reduced 

the retro-reflectivity by 57% from 1270 to 549 mcd/m2

/lx. The yellow marking with type I 

beads and Adsil reduced the retro-reflectivity by 34% from 144 to 94 mcd/m2/lx. The yellow 

markings with type III beads and Adsil reduced the retro-reflectivity by 44% from 475 to 265 

mcd/m2

/lx. The combination of Adsil coating with type I beads was not recommended due to the 

very low retro-reflectivity of 109 mcd/m2/lx for white and 94 mcd/m2/lx for yellow. When using 

type III beads, the retro-reflectivity, while still reduced (549 mcd/m2

/lx for white and 265 

mcd/m2

/lx for yellow), was not as low as with type I beads. In the second case, Adsil should 

only be considered when other benefits such as resistance to mildew, rust staining, and oil 

staining would make the reduced retro-reflectivity an acceptable compromise. 

vii/viii
INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE. 

This research effort was conducted to determine whether Anchored Dendritic Silicate Interactive 

Linkages (Adsil) Ambient Temperature Cure (ATC) glass coating material would be a viable 

solution to protecting paint markings on airport surfaces. The Airport Technology Research and 

Development (R&D) Branch in response to a request from the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) Airport Engineering Division, AAS-100, conducted this study. 

OBJECTIVE. 

The objective was to determine the effectiveness of the Adsil ATC glass coating material at 

protecting color and retro-reflectivity of paint markings with type I and type III glass beads. 

BACKGROUND. 

Often times paint markings on runways and taxiways display damage caused from ultraviolet 

(UV) rays, staining from aircraft fuel, and discoloration. Using the Adsil ATC glass coating as a 

sealant for the paint showed promise as a possible solution to these problems. This research was 

important because the paint markings, without some sort of coating, are turning from black to 

gray, from white to yellow, and vice versa. Consequently, this causes the pilot problems in 

distinguishing the paint markings in the daytime and comprehending their meaning. 

In addition to the glass coating material, two types of glass beads were included in this 

evaluation. The glass beads are used in paint markings to reflect light toward the pilot, giving 

the pilot better visual acquisition of the paint marking during nighttime operations. Glass beads 

are characterized by their index of refraction (IOR), which is a scale index of the rate at which a 

material refracts light toward the source. The characteristics that change the IOR are the basic 

composition of the two types of glass beads used. Both are detailed in the Federal Specification 

TT-B-1325C type I (1.5 IOR) and type III (1.9 IOR). Type I beads are used for roadway 

markings as well as airport markings, and type III beads are used exclusively for airport 

markings. 

DISCUSSION. 

The Adsil ATC glass coating material and the type I and type III beads were installed at the 

Jacksonville Naval Air Station (JNAS) and Whitehouse Outlying Landing Field (OLF) and 

evaluated for 1 year starting in August 2003. The airport pavement markings consisted of 

waterborne paint at 15-mil wet film thickness with either type I or type III drop-on beads and the 

Adsil glass coating applied over the beads and paint. 

During the study, the Adsil glass coating was subjected to mildew, oil staining, rust staining, and 

exposed to accelerated UV weathering. A certified laboratory conducted these particular tests 

for the Navy, while the FAA team collected color and retro-reflectivity readings of the paint 

markings. 

1 
Although the FAA has no standard for retro-reflectivity limits, a paint marking study conducted 

by the Airport Safety Technology R&D team determined that the recommended retro-reflectivity 

minima for paint markings to be acceptable were 100 millicandelas per meter squared per lux 

(mcd/m2

/lx) for white and 70 mcd/m2/lx for yellow. The research report that elaborates on this 

topic is DOT/FAA/AR-TN03/22, “Development of Methods for Determining Airport Pavement 

Marking Effectiveness.” 

RELATED DOCUMENTATION. 

Related document dealing with this evaluation project are: 

• FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10A, “Standards for Specifying Construction of 

Airports,” Item P-620, “Runway and Taxiway Painting,” February 17, 1989, with 

changes. 

• Specification TT-P-1952D, “Paint, Traffic and Airfield Marking, Water Emulsion Base,” 

January 7, 1994. 

• Specification TT-B-1325C, “Beads (Glass Spheres) Retroreflective,” June 1, 1993. 

• DOT/FAA/AR-02/128, “Paint and Bead Durability Study,” March 2003. 

• FAA Advisory Circular 150/5340-1H, “Standards for Airport Markings,” December 1, 

2000, with changes. 

• ICAO Annex 14, Volume I, “Aerodrome Design and Operation,” August 9, 2000. 

• ASTM-E-2177-01, “Standard Test Method for Measuring the Coefficient of 

Retroreflected Luminance (RL) of Pavement Marking in a Standard Condition of 

Wetness,” December 2001. 

EVALUATION APPROACH

METHOD. 

The Airport Safety Technology R&D team took quarterly readings on several pavement 

markings at the JNAS and the Whitehouse OLF for 1 year (figures 1 and 2) using a retroreflectometer (retro-reflectivity) and spectrophotometer (color). Figure 1 shows a white arrow 

with type I beads applied to the stem and type III beads on the arrowhead. Figure 2 shows three 

yellow lines: type III beads were applied to the top line, type I beads were applied to the second 

line, and no beads were applied on the bottom line. Adsil was evaluated at two coatings (1- and 

2-mils wet) and applied to each of the base coatings. Figure 3 shows how the paint markings 

look with Adsil applied. 

RETRO-REFLECTIVITY. The retro-reflectivity was obtained with a retro-reflectometer, which 

has a 30-meter geometry. The instrument has a tolerance of +5%. Prior to each use, the 

2 
instrument was calibrated. Retro-reflectivity readings were taken after initial painting was 

completed. Once the Adsil glass coating was applied, another reading was taken, with quarterly 

readings thereafter for 1 year (see figures 4 and 5). 

In addition to the color and retro-reflectivity readings, the following tests were performed for 

JNAS by a certified laboratory: abrasion resistance, mildew resistance, resistance to rust 

staining, and resistance to oil staining, and accelerated (UV) weathering. All laboratory tests 

were performed without the addition of glass beads. 

COLOR CHROMATICITY. Color chromaticity was performed using a spectrophotometer. 

This data was obtained by placing the machine on the pavement marking and activating the 

device. Color readings were taken after initial painting was completed; once the Adsil glass 

coating was applied, another reading was taken, this continued every quarter for 1 year. The 

readings were charted on an International Commission on Illumination standard illuminant D65 

chromaticity chart found in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 14, 

Volume I – Aerodrome Design and Operations, pages 131 and 132 (see figures 6 and 7). The 

FAA boundaries for aviation yellow are not the same as for ICAO yellow. The region for the 

FAA in-service yellow was obtained and is documented in figure A-5 in appendix A of 

DOT/FAA/AR-TN03/22, “Development of Methods for Determining Airport Pavement Marking 

Effectiveness.” The region for white is the ICAO white region; there was no need to change this 

region. A yellow data point that crossed over the FAA in-service aviation yellow region was 

considered failed. A white data point that crossed over the ICAO white region was considered 

failed. 

A listing of the equipment used to perform the research on the Adsil marking material project 

and the evaluation participants that helped in the evaluation of the Adsil marking material is 

shown below. 

• Equipment Description 

- Retro-Reflectometer, Flint Trading, Inc., 30-meter geometry, LTL-X, built by 

Delta Lights and Optics of Denmark. This instrument was used to determine the 

pavement marking retro-reflectivity. 

- Spectrophotometer, Color-guide 45°/0°, BYK-Gardner USA, 20 mm, 6805-SVC, 

built by BYK-Gardner of Germany. This instrument was used to determine the 

chromaticity or color of the pavement markings. 

• Evaluation Participants 

- JNAS, Whitehouse OLF, Spiedel Construction Inc., Flex-O-Lite, Inc., and Adsil 

Corporation participated in this evaluation. 

3 
DATA COLLECTION. 

The data was collected using a spectrophotometer and a retro-reflectometer. The 

spectrophotometer produced (Y, x, y) coordinates in its readouts. The retro-reflectometer 

produced millicandela per meter squared per lux readings. 

TEST RESULTS

RETRO-REFLECTIVITY TEST. 

At the beginning of the evaluation, the white paint markings with type I beads had a 66% 

reduction (318 to 109 mcd/m2/lx) when Adsil glass coating was applied. At the end of the 

evaluation, the difference between coated and uncoated white markings resulted in a 70% 

reduction (351 to 107 mcd/m2

/lx). Retro-reflectivity for the white paint markings with type I 

beads without Adsil glass coating increased by 10% to 110%, though the white paint marking 

with Adsil decreased by 2% to 98% (see tables 1 and 2 and figures 4 and 8). 

Retro-reflectivity for type III beads had a 57% reduction (1270 to 549 mcd/m2/lx) when Adsil 

glass coating was applied at the beginning of the evaluation. At the end of the evaluation, there 

was a 54% difference between coated and uncoated with beads (1111 to 508 mcd/m2/lx). The 

type III beads without the Adsil glass coating decreased by 13% to 87%, while the white paint 

marking with Adsil decreased by 7% to 93% (see tables 1 and 2 and figure 4). 

Yellow paint markings with type I beads had a 35% reduction (144 to 94 mcd/m2/lx) when Adsil 

coating was applied at the beginning of the evaluation. At the end of the evaluation, there was a 

34% difference between coated and uncoated with beads (140 to 93 mcd/m2

/lx). Retroreflectivity for yellow paint markings with type I beads without Adsil glass coating decreased 

3% to 97%, though the yellow paint markings with Adsil decreased by 1% to 99%, (see tables 3 

and 4 and figure 5). 

At the start of the evaluation, yellow paint markings with type III beads had a 44% reduction 

(475 to 265 mcd/m2

/lx) when Adsil glass coating was applied. At the end of the evaluation, 

there was a 27% difference between coated and uncoated with beads (301 to 220 mcd/m2/lx). 

Retro-reflectivity for yellow paint markings without Adsil glass coating decreased 37% to 67%, 

while the yellow paint markings with Adsil glass coating decreased 17% to 83% (see tables 3 

and 4 and figure 5). 

CHROMATICITY TEST. 

The acceptability range for the white x coordinate is 0.2895 to 0.3442 and the y coordinate is 

0.3100 to 0.3650. The acceptability range for the yellow x coordinate is 0.4261 to 0.5266 and 

the y coordinate is 0.4300 to 0.5346. The data indicated that two readings fell outside the 

acceptable range for white and one for yellow; both markings were uncoated. All of the coated 

markings for both white and yellow fell within their acceptable ranges (see tables 5 and 6). 

When the readings were taken 2 years out, the paint marking without Adsil was within the 

acceptable range, but the paint marking with Adsil was not. 

4 
SUMMARY 

Retro-reflectivity quality of the paint markings were influenced by the type of beads applied. 

The recommended retro-reflectivity minima for paint markings to be acceptable were 

100 mcd/m2/lx for white and 70 mcd/m2/lx for yellow. Type III beads offer a greater retroreflective value than type I at initial application. 

The white markings with type I beads coated with Adsil reduced the retro-reflectivity by 66% 

from 318 to 109 mcd/m2/lx. The final reading for type I beads coated with Adsil was 

107 mcd/m2/lx. While little change occurred, this value was very close to the recommended 

minimum of 100 mcd/m2/lx for white paint. The uncoated marking’s final reading was 

351 mcd/m2/lx. The white markings with type III beads coated with Adsil initially reduced retroreflectivity 57% from a value of 1270 to 549 mcd/m2/lx. The final reading for type III beads 

coated with Adsil was 508 mcd/m2/lx. Again, while not as close to the recommended minimum 

as the markings with type I beads, it was significantly closer than the uncoated. The uncoated 

markings final reading was 1111 mcd/m2/lx. 

The yellow markings with type I beads coated with Adsil reduced the retro-reflectivity by 34% 

from 144 to 94 mcd/m2/lx. The final reading for type I beads coated with Adsil was 

93 mcd/m2/lx. This value was very close to the recommended retro-reflective minimum of 

70 mcd/m2/lx for yellow paint. The uncoated marking’s final reading was 140 mcd/m2/lx. The 

yellow markings with type III retro-reflectivity coated with Adsil initially reduced the retroreflectivity by 44% from 475 to 265 mcd/m2/lx. The final reading for type III beads coated with 

Adsil was 220 mcd/m2/lx. The uncoated marking’s final reading was 301 mcd/m2/lx. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Based on the results of this evaluation effort, it was found that the Anchored Dendritic Silicate 

Interactive Linkages (Adsil) Ambient Temperature Cure (version AD490) glass coating, reduced 

the retro-reflectivity of the beads. The data clearly indicated that when Adsil was applied, the 

retro-reflectivity readings with the type I beads were very close to the minimums for white and 

yellow paint. Adsil should not be used with type I beads due to the very low retro-reflectivity 

when the coating was applied. When using type III beads, the retro-reflectivity, while still 

reduced, was not as low as with type I. In this case, Adsil should only be considered in an 

application where the other benefits resistance to mildew, rust staining, and oil staining would 

make the reduced retro-reflectivity an acceptable compromise. 

The chromaticity readings for white and yellow markings with retro-reflective material shows 

that the Adsil product slows the color fading. Several of the readings showed that without Adsil 

on the white and yellow paint markings, some faded outside the acceptable ranges, while all 

markings with Adsil glass coating remained in the acceptable ranges. When the readings were 

taken again at the 2 year mark, the color had started to fade out of the acceptable range for the 

Adsil glass coating markings. 

5 
FIGURE 1. WHITE ARROW WITH TYPE I (STEM) AND 

TYPE III (ARROWHEAD) GLASS BEADS 

FIGURE 2. YELLOW PAINT MARKINGS WITH TYPE III, TYPE I, AND 

NO GLASS BEADS 

6 
FIGURE 3. WHITE PAINT MARKINGS WITH ADSIL AND TYPE I BEADS 

7 
TABLE 1. RETRO-REFLECTIVITY READINGS FOR WHITE PAINT MARKINGS 

Date 

Type I 

No Coat 

Type I 

Coat 

Reduction

(%) 

Type III 

No Coat 

Type III 

Coat 

Reduction

(%) 

November 2003 318 109 66 1270 549 57 

August 2004 351 107 70 1111 508 54 

TABLE 2. PERCENT REMAINING FOR RETRO-REFLECTIVITY (WHITE) 

White November 2003 August 2004 

Remaining 

(%) 

Type I no coat 318 351 110 

Type I coat 109 107 98 

Type III no coat 1270 1111 87 

Type III coat 549 508 93 

98%

87%

93%

110%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

Type I No Coat

Type I Coat

Type III No Coat

Type III Coat

FIGURE 4. RETRO-REFLECTIVITY READING PERCENTAGES FOR 

WHITE PAINT MARKINGS 

8 
TABLE 3. RETRO-REFLECTIVITY READINGS FOR YELLOW PAINT MARKINGS 

Date 

Type I 

No Coat 

Type I 

Coat 

Reduction

(%) 

Type III 

No Coat 

Type III 

Coat 

Reduction 

(%) 

November 2003 144 94 35 475 265 44 

August 2004 140 93 34 301 220 27 

TABLE 4. PERCENT REMAINING FOR RETRO-REFLECTIVITY (YELLOW) 

Yellow November 2003 August 2004 

Remaining 

(%) 

Type I no coat 144 140 97 

Type I coat 94 93 99 

Type III no coat 475 301 63 

Type III coat 265 220 83 

97% 99%

63%

83%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Type I No Coat

Type I Coat

Type III No Coat

Type III Coat

FIGURE 5. RETRO-REFLECTIVITY READING PERCENTAGES FOR 

YELLOW PAINT MARKINGS 

9 
TABLE 5. COLOR READINGS FOR WHITE PAINT MARKINGS 

Acceptability 

Range 

Acceptability 

Range 

0.2895-0.3442 0.3100-0.3650 

Month Adsil X-reading Y-reading 

November Uncoated 0.3329 0.3503 

November Coated 0.333 0.353 

February Uncoated 0.3456 0.365 

February Coated 0.3332 0.3535 

June Uncoated 0.3457 0.366 

June Coated 0.3242 0.3462 

Outside Acceptability Range in red

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

X

Y

ORANGE

ICAO YELLOW

RED

WHITE

BLACK

FAA Yellow

FAA In-Service Yellow

FIGURE 6. COLOR READINGS FOR WHITE PAINT MARKINGS 

10 
TABLE 6. COLOR READINGS FOR YELLOW PAINT MARKINGS 

Acceptability 

Range 

Acceptability 

Range 

0.4261-0.5266 0.4300-0.5346 

Month Adsil X-reading Y-reading 

November Coat 0.4862 0.4372 

November No coat 0.4914 0.4352 

November Coat 0.4952 0.4352 

November No coat 0.4902 0.4355 

February Coat 0.4859 0.4374 

February No coat 0.4834 0.3459 

June Coat 0.4876 0.4371 

June No coat 0.4913 0.435 

August Coat 0.4734 0.4306 

August No coat 0.4737 0.4334 

Outside Acceptability Range in red

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

X

Y

ORANGE

ICAO YELLOW

RED WHITE

BLACK

FAA Yellow

FAA In-Service Yellow

FIGURE 7. COLOR READINGS FOR YELLOW PAINT MARKINGS 

11 
0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

X

Y

ORANGE

YELLOW

RED

WHITE

BLUE

GREEN

Uncoated 

Data Points

Coated 

Data Points

FIGURE 8. WHITE ADSIL COATED VERSUS WHITE UNCOATED PAINT 

12