R. Damm presented the informal document GTR9-C-07 (based on GTR9-C-03 and the reports of GRSP and WP.29) that summarizes the rational for establishing this group:

During the May 2011 session of GRSP in Geneva the expert of the US had presented some concerns with the documents proposing the FlexPLI for amending gtr9. As a result of this and some following discussion where the US were supported by other contracting parties it was agreed to request the establishing of an informal group that should work on amending gtr 9 by implementing the FlexPLI.

In June 2011, WP.29 and AC.3 gave consent to mandate the Informal Group, subject to the submission of appropriate Terms of Reference (ToR). At WP.29 it had been noted that Germany and Japan will co-chair the informal group and OICA will provide the Secretary. Japan and Germany will inform WP.29 and AC.3 that this will be changed and aligned to the proposal of Terms of Reference presented to GRSP (informal document GRSP-49-38).

According to this proposal, Germany will chair the group and Japan will act as Vice-chair. R. Damm informed the attendees that it is proposed that he would act as the Chairman; Dr. A. Konosu (JARI) would act as Vice-chairman and Th. Kinsky (General Motors Europe) would act as Secretary of this informal group. There were no objections.

The Chairman presented the proposed Operating Principles as well as the draft ToR (see also informal document GTR9-C-07). It was mentioned that, on request of the GRSP secretariat, the name of the group had already been changed before the group started working to be consistent with the naming of other informal groups under GRSP supervision. The official name is “Informal Group on Global Technical Regulation No. 9 – Phase 2” (IG GTR9-PH2).

Y. van der Straaten (OICA) asked whether this change indeed is necessary since the originally planned name would perfectly reflect the intentions of this group. However, it was agreed that the new name also fits the needs of the group and that the ToR should clearly reflect the work to be done.

On request of B. Frost (UK) it was clarified that Japan and Germany will not just sponsor the IG but also the gtr9 and the (draft) UN Regulation (formerly referred to as ECE Regulation) amendments. E. Wondimneh (US) pointed out that the group in fact only has the mandate for the gtr9 amendments according to the AC.3 decision but accepted that the UN Regulation amendments are done in parallel. Y. van der Straaten made reference to the WP.29 and AC.3 decisions and pointed out that the UN Regulation is as important as the gtr and that OICA clearly would like to have the UN Regulation amended at the same time. The Chairman explained that of course the gtr9 amendments need to be agreed first but that the group should also prepare the UN Regulation amendments. However, Dr. A. Otubushin (BMW) pointed also out that both documents should be amended in parallel.

After some discussion it was agreed that a wording should be found underlining that the gtr9 amendment is the main focus of the group but that the UN Regulation will also be amended.

Finally, it was agreed that the respective sentence in the introduction of the ToR will be deleted and under the section objectives it will state that (new wording in bold) “The main objective of the Informal Group… is… in order to enhance the safety level of lower leg pedestrian protection. The work of the informal group shall not be limited to the proposals to amend GTR No 9, but shall cover the development of a complementary proposal to amend the draft UN Regulation on pedestrian safety. The IG GTR9-PH2 shall work…”

O. Zander (BASt) and Y. van der Straaten asked whether the work of the IG GTR9-PH2 should be limited to the FlexPLI only or whether other items may be covered. R. Damm pointed out to not see any issue with covering other details of the test procedures related to the legform testing but this is of course also depending of the capacities and time available.

Dr. B. Gottselig (Ford) and Y. van der Straaten proposed to add the following wording to the objectives: The IG may also review further draft proposals to improve and/or clarify aspects of the legform test procedure.

Comments made are reflected in document GTR9-C-07r1.

Dr. O. Ries (Volkswagen) introduced the OICA comments regarding the activity list in document GTR9-C-07. He pointed out that in some cases a more detailed description seems necessary to assure that nothing will be overseen and to also make clear that the existing EEVC legform impactor is the “reference”.

B. Frost proposed to split some of the additions (test procedure and certification tests) into separate tasks.

R. Damm added that it is clear that several technical details need to be covered and that there even may be a need to have some task forces established that could cover only certain subjects.

Dr. O. Ries asked whether this means a “reactivation” of the Technical Evaluation Group and it was clarified that the intention is just to assure that the experts are closely working together at items that may not need to full attention of the whole IG. However, results of the work will be discussed in the IG and all information will be shared with all attendees.

Finally, it was agreed that dealing with very technical subjects via task forces should be a sufficient way. R. Damm proposed that a first subject to be solved in such a task force could be the issue of the certification corridors that was mentioned in advance of the meeting to be of great concern for several attendees. Dr. A. Konosu agreed to establish the TF and he will invite interested IG members.

Discussion came up on the possible benefits of the FlexPLI compared to the EEVC LFI [European Enhanced Vehicle Safety Committee Legform Impactor].

O. Zander (BASt) wondered whether it would be sufficient to just concentrate on the improved biofidelity due to the fact that both, the FlexPLI as well as the EEVC LFI, aim for addressing the identical lower leg injuries. Therefore, the demonstration of any additional benefit based on injury data and/or injury costs might not be possible at this stage. Dr. A. Otubushin (BMW) replied that the biofidelity is just one aspect. B. Frost (UK) added that costs are also a very important item since it often seems possible to achieve better test results with a superior test tool but that costs cannot be soundly justified.

An additional question was brought up by E. Wondimneh (US) regarding the transitional provisions: What would this mean for the work of the informal group? Y. van der Straaten (OICA) responded that the group should be able after finishing their work to assess how quick the test tool may replace the existing test tool.

Finally, the activity list had been reviewed line by line and modified according to the agreement of the attendees.

Informal document GTR9-C-07 was finally amended in parallel at the screen reflecting the discussion under agenda items 4.1, 4.2 and 7. The modified document was shared including all modifications and reviewed again. It was agreed that the modified document will be published as document GTR9-C-07r1.

The current schedule as proposed in informal document GTR9-C-07 was introduced by the Chairman. No ad-hoc comments were received and it was kept in document GTR9-C-07r1 for publication.

The chair presented both documents: document GTR9-C-07r1 that represents the ToR etc. of this group as well as document GTR9-1-09 containing the information regarding the IG GTR9-PH2 given to the November 2011 session of WP.29 and AC.3 (informal document WP.29-155-35). No comments were received on the documents. The document GTR9-C-07r1 will be submitted for the 50th session of GRSP as final draft version of the ToR etc. After approval by GRSP, it is planned to submit the ToR document to WP.29 and AC.3 for approval at their March 2012 session. The UNECE secretariat will be contacted on this.

The chair started the discussion with summarizing items that have already been brought up:

• - Mr. Broertjes (European Commission) had requested in writing to modify the legform test procedure in a way that makes it impossible to use styling elements to narrow the test areas;
• - Mr. Borde (Faurecia) had requested information on the availability of simulation tools for the impactor;
• - Mr. Martin (DTS) had brought up that there may be issues with the ISO coordinate system used for the FlexPLI;
• - Mr. Martin also was wondering where the filter classes for the measurement equipment had been derived from and where this was stated.

Mr. Broertjes (who apologized for not being able to attend this meeting) had sent his request in advance:

• Could you please discuss, on behalf of the Commission, that the Terms of Reference should
  preferably include a statement that the legform test zone shall also be re-assessed?
  Currently, we see that more and more manufacturers are using small bumps and pointy
  edges to artificially make the bumper test area as narrow as possible. The European
  Commission would like to address such circumvention of the spirit of the legislation by
  addressing the ‘misuse’ of jumping reference points for the test area determination planes.

The chair explained that the ToR already cover the possibility of modifying the pedestrian test procedures for the legform impact. This had been included on request of OICA and should also serve for the purpose of this request. Mr. Zander wondered which pieces of information are needed for this since e.g. Euro NCAP already discussed this and decided for a procedure that apparently is addressing this issue. The secretary noted that of course information like this should be shared and may serve the group as basis for the discussion.

Regarding Mr. Borde’s (Faurecia) request to inform the group about the availability of simulation models Mr. Been promised to present some more details on this during the next meeting. Mr. Freyburger (OICA) added that a consortium of OEM’s and Humanetics had been working on a simulation tool but recently stopped their work until the hardware issues are solved.

Mr. Knotz wondered how the simulation data presented in several documents during the meeting can be assessed. Mr. Freyburger replied that an early version of the FE model is already available but still has limitations. Therefore, assessments of all data need to consider this. Some discussion on this came up and Dr. Konosu added that Japan is using FE models and that different models are available: e.g. JAMA and JARI had developed an FE model. This model was validated on component level and therefore should also be acceptable on assembly level; the model is used in their work and shows good correlation. In addition, Japanese manufacturers in some cases use own models.

Mr. Been (Humanetics) added that it is very hard to develop a simulation model due to the complex behavior of the impactor.

Mr. Zander requested to get an overview on currently existing FE models, if possible.

The chair stated that this informal group will not work on the development of FE models of the FlexPLI but can serve as a platform for brief exchange of information of the current activities to develop such models. It was finally mentioned that the IG GTR9-PH2 will take this up at the 2nd meeting. An item will be added to the agenda accordingly.

Mr. Martin explained that the ISO group has published the coding for the FlexPLI and that he sees potential issues with the coordinate system used: the EEVC LFI uses the vehicle coordinate system; the movement is coded in x-direction. In contradiction to this, the FlexPLI is coded in the direction of the human movement which is then the y-direction. He was wondering whether the group wishes to comment this. Mr. Been stated that he thinks the coding should follow the coding of other dummies (as it is currently used for the FlexPLI). However, he promised that Humanetics will specifically highlight this in the users’ manuals for the FlexPLI to avoid difficulties due to this.

Mr. Martin had also asked why the CFC 180 filter classes were decided to be used. SAE J 211 foresees other filter classes (specifically CFC 600) and some DTS customers have issues with the consistency of their data. Dr. Konosu mentioned that the same filter classes were used as in the human models. Also, the EEVC LFI is using these filter classes for the tibia acceleration where the filter class used might have an influence on the results. On the other hand, it was expected that the filter classes have a marginal effect on ligament elongation and bending moment results.

Discussion came up whether it would be sufficient to just mention this in the users’ manuals. However, Mr. Knotz was wondering whether this may be too easy: for a reliable assessment the differences between test results with CFC 180 and CFC 600 filtering should be compared.

The chair asked whether someone could provide data on this. Mr. Been added that in fact all data are stored in raw data format and that it just is a re-processing of the data. BASt, OICA, Bertrandt as well as Humanetics promised to check the data available in their companies organizations. It was finally agreed that the IG GTR9-PH2 will come back to this item during the next meeting.

Following the discussion above the chair requested Humanetics to provide the current version of the users’ manual. The manual will most likely need further modification during the work of this group but so all attendees can start at the same level of knowledge. Mr. Been promised to share an updated version as soon as possible.

Regarding the specifications and drawings the chair explained that WP.29 discussed this during their last session: in general, such details need to be available for all dummies.

However, it is clear that it does not make sense to share the information as long as the discussion is not finalized. Nevertheless, all details needs to be available before GRSP and WP.29 are going to decide on dummy items. Mr. Been stated that Humanetics is aware of this and that they will provide this as soon as the hardware status is finally agreed.

Mr. Zander was asking whether a preliminary version would help the group and it was agreed after some discussion that a version will be shared later which then should be closer to the final version. However, it is clear that each version marked “preliminary” may need to be further modified.

As the informal group is planning to set up a first draft of matrix of tests to cover items of the activity list of document GTR9-C-07r1 to be started after the finalization of the work of the TF-RUCC, the chair finally asked which members of the IG would be interested in supporting the testing activities. OICA, BASt, Concept Technologies and Faurecia mentioned to be interested in this. However, details need to be clarified.

Also, on request of the chair OICA as well as NHTSA stated to plan presentations of test results during the next meetings. Ms. Versailles outlined that NHTSA has undertaken several activities regarding vehicle testing, impactor comparison etc. The reports are currently prepared and will be shared in detail as soon as they are available, preferably at the 2nd meeting of the informal group.