Presentation from Mr Depinet, Humanetics (GTR7-07-04):

Check list:

The definition of the tolerances for the vertebra pins will be updated, along with pin-fit check tests using a standard check-pin.

Heavy vs Light HR impactor:

Seven dummies have been tested with both impactors; the impactors give very different responses but both show differences between dummies, however, there is no clear indication that one highlights differences better than the other. Given this, Humanetics would like the informal group to decide which impactor to use going forward:
· Light impactor involves no changes or handling issues between tests and there is only one energy transfer device (ETD) to certify
· Heavy impactor gives a pulse more like a typical seat test and gives similar upper neck moments to a seat test.

Mr Frost recalled that the decision in Brussels was to continue with the heavy impactor, while also collecting light impactor data. He questioned whether seven tests was sufficient to make the decision, or to know what is important when seat tests are undertaken. Humanetics commented that they have shown that they can detect differences with both tests, but that running both tests is taking time away from other investigations. Humanetics would prefer to investigate the issues raised by PDB. It was noted that it was not known whether the dummy differences seen in the two certification tests correlated with different responses in seat tests.

There was considerable discussion regarding the pros and cons of running both “with-HR” certification tests. It was noted that it would be useful if seat tests could be performed with the dummy(ies) that were outlying in the recent certification tests, to see if this corresponds with differences seen in certification. This would also help to establish what is needed to control reproducibility in seat tests.

It was recalled that there was previously some discussion of adjusting the position of the head restraint in the “with-HR” certification test and it was asked whether there are any data that might demonstrate the influence of the backset?

Humanetics commented that data are being collected – the position the HR is set to, and how much it has to be changed in order to get the defined backset for the dummy.

It was also noted that, ultimately, not all dummy channels may be required for regulatory assessment and that the informal group will get more guidance on this point from the ongoing injury criteria work in the US and Japan. Mr Lorenz noted that the TEG urgently needs this information so that it can focus on the relevant areas of the dummy. It was noted that Japan had already indicated some preliminary assessment parameters at the formative meeting for the group (Washington 2009 – Meeting “0”) but that the joint programme of NHTSA and JARI would provide further guidance to the informal group.

Presentation from Mr Depinet, Humanetics (GTR7-07-04):

Certification tests:
· Collect 50+ dummies in 5+ labs
· MUST do checklists – this is part of the certification
· Certification using both “no-HR” and “with-HR” sleds
· Sled weight package verification tests
· Jacket tests
· Head restraint foam verification tests

Investigation of PDB dummy differences:
· Testing with half-arms during certification tests to load the shoulders – this gave different results with the two dummies during head restraint contact, but this had not been evident in retests
· No back support to exercise full spine motion
· May try a full rigid back plate with load cells

Humanetics will continue to look at other variables as previously identified. A timeline for the certification development work was presented, finishing in May 2012.

It was noted that the dummy was removed from the certification sled between sets of “with-arm” tests. Doing this “without-arms” gave repeatable results, but this was not the case when using arms, at least with this preliminary data. 12 more tests will be done.

It was noted that the extra arm mass will have the opposite effect of the seat loading in the PDB seat, but it may expose a difference in the stiffness of the shoulders. The differences seen in the first “with-arm” tests were of similar magnitude to the variations in the PDB data.

Mr Frost noted that this is the sort of technical detail that should be referred to the TEG, but it is useful for the informal group to have some oversight of the information.