The agenda circulated by the chairman immediately prior to the meeting was adopted with the running order to be adjusted as required to suit availability of participants, particularly those participating online.

The minutes (PSI-07-02) from the sixth meeting held in Munich and circulated by the chairman prior to the meeting were agreed with an amendment of the attendee list.

Mr Hogan summarized the action list from the 6th meeting of the Pole Side Impact (PSI) GTR informal group, noting the work that had been done with respect to each action item and where items were to be covered later in the agenda.

In Australian and Canadian testing, the WorldSID 50th percentile male dummy responses indicated a significantly lower AIS 3+ thorax injury risk for the Canadian vehicle. This presentation includes further results and analysis to investigate and explain the differences.

Mr Belcher presented an updated summary of results from joint Australian and Canadian pole side impact crash test research (PSI-07-03). This update provided further details of oblique and perpendicular pole side impact tests of Australian and Canadian market Fiat 500s.

The WorldSID 50th percentile male dummy responses indicated a significantly lower AIS 3+ thorax injury risk for the Canadian model. It was noted that the thorax airbag in the Canadian market vehicle had deployed significantly earlier and was substantially larger than the thorax airbag in the Australian market vehicle. There had been significantly less kinetic impact energy absorbed through deflection of the dummy ribs in the Canadian vehicle and there was no evidence of a substantial increase in impact energy absorption for other body regions. The improved thorax responses observed for the Canadian model were therefore most heavily linked to earlier airbag deployment and more impact energy being absorbed by the larger thorax airbag design.

Results presented for repeated 32 km/h oblique pole side impact tests of the Canadian market Fiat 500 showed excellent repeatability in dummy responses and test configuration (alignment etc).

Mr Hogan noted that the degree of adaptation required for vehicles to meet a 32 km/h oblique pole test standard was likely to be relatively minor for countries with a substantial proportion of 5 star NCAP rated vehicles.

Ms Versailles added that many of the development costs associated with meeting a 32 km/h oblique pole test regulation have already been incurred by manufacturers who have designed vehicles to meet the FMVSS 214 pole side impact requirements. This means many manufacturers have already developed effective countermeasures that are already in production and costs will be likely to decrease with time.

Professor Younghan Youn presented an evaluation of WorldSID and ES-2 50th male pole side impact test results (PSI-07-04). These tests were part of a WorldSID and PSI joint research program conducted by Hyundai Motor Company and KATRI.

Professor Youn explained that car-to-car accidents are the major source of side impact fatalities in South Korea. UN R95 is applied in South Korea, but a significant proportion of fatalities are due to head injury. UN R95 cannot guarantee head protection. A reduction in head injury fatalities is a benefit that will come from a pole side impact regulation.
WorldSID and ES-2 50th males indicated similar AIS 3+ abdominal and pelvic injury risks in 32 km/h oblique pole side impact tests of the same vehicle model. However, the WorldSID 50th predicted a substantially higher head injury risk and ES-2 indicated a higher thorax injury risk. The WorldSID test was done using the ISO WorldSID seating procedure (draft) and the ES-2 test was done using the EuroNCAP pole side impact seating procedure.

Ms Tylko suggested the WorldSID 50th male may possibly have impacted a seam or sub-optimal portion of the curtain airbag, given the very high head injury risk recorded.

Dr Yoganandan summarized results observed from MCW oblique post mortem human subject (PMHS) sled tests (PSI-07-05). Oblique loadings have been found to produce more severe injuries in recent NASS field crash data. The peak PMHS thorax rib loadings were observed to be greater in the oblique sled tests.

Mr Humm presented a summary (PSI-07-06) of MCW 2" rigid abdomen offset sled tests conducted to investigate the influence of pelvis flesh and lower abdominal rib interference on the WorldSID 50th male rib response. The tests were conducted in upright and reclined seating positions using the standard pelvis flesh and a modified (partially cut-away) pelvis flesh. The tests showed that the WorldSID 50th lower abdominal rib responses were not substantially affected by pelvis flesh interference. On the basis of these results, the ISO WorldSID 50th working group had decided not to recommend changing the WorldSID 50th male pelvis flesh geometry.

Mr Abraham summarized OICA’s PSI GTR scope (PSI-07-07) and preamble text (PSI-07-09) proposals. Mr Abraham referred to van and passenger car dimensions (PSI-07-08) OICA members had provided, showing the types of vehicles which would be captured by OICA’s proposed exemption criteria.

Ms Versailles was not convinced that the exemptions OICA were proposing were justified for all countries. Ms Versailles agreed that appropriate text could be included in the preamble describing the types of vehicles Contracting Parties may exclude in domestic regulation, but the GTR should not require all countries to exclude these vehicles.

Ms Tylko and Ms Versailles both suggested that it would be technically feasible to conduct pole side tests on vans. Ms Versailles also noted that the FMVSS 214 pole test requirements are currently applied to vans.

Mr Damm suggested the OICA proposal could be enhanced by including data and further safety need related justification of why a Contracting Party may consider exclusion of these vehicles. Mr Damm supported inclusion of appropriate text in the preamble, but agreed the scope of the GTR would need to remain as drafted.

Mr Belcher indicated that the alpha criterion (in particular) that OICA had proposed had merit, as it would allow vans and light trucks to be differentiated from pickups. This would enable Contracting Parties to exclude vans/light trucks when implementing the PSI GTR in domestic regulation without exempting all Category 2 vehicles (i.e. without exempting pickups), if this was warranted by safety need data. The alpha criterion would identify vehicle types where the driver is typically seated in a high position over the front axle. These vehicles, typically vans and light trucks, were not commonly involved in pole side impact crashes in Australia (for example), and high seating positions would make occupant head to striking vehicle contact less likely in vehicle-to-vehicle side impact crashes.

Increasing fitment rates of ESC for Category 2 vehicles were also discussed. Most Category 2 vehicles in Europe will soon be required to be fitted with ESC. These vehicles will therefore go from very low ESC fitment rates to almost complete ESC fitment in a relatively short period of time. However, it was also noted that Contracting Parties applying the PSI GTR are not necessarily all going to require ESC for Category 2 vehicles and the PSI GTR would provide benefits for other side impact crashes not significantly influenced by ESC.

Mr Hogan suggested the preamble would deal with safety need, including the likely impact of ESC for all vehicle types based on data from presentations made by BAST, NHTSA and Australia. The preamble would also cover the need for longer lead times for certain vehicle categories. Australia would work with OICA to ensure appropriate text is included in the preamble.

ACTION: OICA in consultation with Australia to revise text proposed for the preamble of the PSI GTR (PSI-07-09) to include a more detailed explanation including supporting statistics and detailed side impact safety related arguments explaining why contracting parties may specifically consider exempting vans and light trucks when implementing the pole side impact GTR in domestic regulations.

Mr Abraham summarized OICA’s PSI GTR scope (PSI-07-07) and preamble text (PSI-07-09) proposals. Mr Abraham referred to van and passenger car dimensions (PSI-07-08) OICA members had provided, showing the types of vehicles which would be captured by OICA’s proposed exemption criteria.

Ms Versailles was not convinced that the exemptions OICA were proposing were justified for all countries. Ms Versailles agreed that appropriate text could be included in the preamble describing the types of vehicles Contracting Parties may exclude in domestic regulation, but the GTR should not require all countries to exclude these vehicles.

Ms Tylko and Ms Versailles both suggested that it would be technically feasible to conduct pole side tests on vans. Ms Versailles also noted that the FMVSS 214 pole test requirements are currently applied to vans.

Mr Damm suggested the OICA proposal could be enhanced by including data and further safety need related justification of why a Contracting Party may consider exclusion of these vehicles. Mr Damm supported inclusion of appropriate text in the preamble, but agreed the scope of the GTR would need to remain as drafted.

Mr Belcher indicated that the alpha criterion (in particular) that OICA had proposed had merit, as it would allow vans and light trucks to be differentiated from pickups. This would enable Contracting Parties to exclude vans/light trucks when implementing the PSI GTR in domestic regulation without exempting all Category 2 vehicles (i.e. without exempting pickups), if this was warranted by safety need data. The alpha criterion would identify vehicle types where the driver is typically seated in a high position over the front axle. These vehicles, typically vans and light trucks, were not commonly involved in pole side impact crashes in Australia (for example), and high seating positions would make occupant head to striking vehicle contact less likely in vehicle-to-vehicle side impact crashes.

Increasing fitment rates of ESC for Category 2 vehicles were also discussed. Most Category 2 vehicles in Europe will soon be required to be fitted with ESC. These vehicles will therefore go from very low ESC fitment rates to almost complete ESC fitment in a relatively short period of time. However, it was also noted that Contracting Parties applying the PSI GTR are not necessarily all going to require ESC for Category 2 vehicles and the PSI GTR would provide benefits for other side impact crashes not significantly influenced by ESC.

Mr Hogan suggested the preamble would deal with safety need, including the likely impact of ESC for all vehicle types based on data from presentations made by BAST, NHTSA and Australia. The preamble would also cover the need for longer lead times for certain vehicle categories. Australia would work with OICA to ensure appropriate text is included in the preamble.

ACTION: OICA in consultation with Australia to revise text proposed for the preamble of the PSI GTR (PSI-07-09) to include a more detailed explanation including supporting statistics and detailed side impact safety related arguments explaining why contracting parties may specifically consider exempting vans and light trucks when implementing the pole side impact GTR in domestic regulations.

Mr Abraham summarized OICA’s PSI GTR scope (PSI-07-07) and preamble text (PSI-07-09) proposals. Mr Abraham referred to van and passenger car dimensions (PSI-07-08) OICA members had provided, showing the types of vehicles which would be captured by OICA’s proposed exemption criteria.

Ms Versailles was not convinced that the exemptions OICA were proposing were justified for all countries. Ms Versailles agreed that appropriate text could be included in the preamble describing the types of vehicles Contracting Parties may exclude in domestic regulation, but the GTR should not require all countries to exclude these vehicles.

Ms Tylko and Ms Versailles both suggested that it would be technically feasible to conduct pole side tests on vans. Ms Versailles also noted that the FMVSS 214 pole test requirements are currently applied to vans.

Mr Damm suggested the OICA proposal could be enhanced by including data and further safety need related justification of why a Contracting Party may consider exclusion of these vehicles. Mr Damm supported inclusion of appropriate text in the preamble, but agreed the scope of the GTR would need to remain as drafted.

Mr Belcher indicated that the alpha criterion (in particular) that OICA had proposed had merit, as it would allow vans and light trucks to be differentiated from pickups. This would enable Contracting Parties to exclude vans/light trucks when implementing the PSI GTR in domestic regulation without exempting all Category 2 vehicles (i.e. without exempting pickups), if this was warranted by safety need data. The alpha criterion would identify vehicle types where the driver is typically seated in a high position over the front axle. These vehicles, typically vans and light trucks, were not commonly involved in pole side impact crashes in Australia (for example), and high seating positions would make occupant head to striking vehicle contact less likely in vehicle-to-vehicle side impact crashes.

Increasing fitment rates of ESC for Category 2 vehicles were also discussed. Most Category 2 vehicles in Europe will soon be required to be fitted with ESC. These vehicles will therefore go from very low ESC fitment rates to almost complete ESC fitment in a relatively short period of time. However, it was also noted that Contracting Parties applying the PSI GTR are not necessarily all going to require ESC for Category 2 vehicles and the PSI GTR would provide benefits for other side impact crashes not significantly influenced by ESC.

Mr Hogan suggested the preamble would deal with safety need, including the likely impact of ESC for all vehicle types based on data from presentations made by BAST, NHTSA and Australia. The preamble would also cover the need for longer lead times for certain vehicle categories. Australia would work with OICA to ensure appropriate text is included in the preamble.

ACTION: OICA in consultation with Australia to revise text proposed for the preamble of the PSI GTR (PSI-07-09) to include a more detailed explanation including supporting statistics and detailed side impact safety related arguments explaining why contracting parties may specifically consider exempting vans and light trucks when implementing the pole side impact GTR in domestic regulations.

Japanese Proposal for Narrow Vehicles (Kei Cars, Etc.) (Impact Velocity)

Japan presented a proposal for narrow vehicles (see PSI-07-10).

Ms Versailles commented that the proposal appeared to be very well justified for Japan, but that the crash circumstances would be unlikely to be the same for these narrow vehicles in all countries. Ms Versailles did not support the 26 km/h test speed for narrow vehicles being mandated for all Contracting Parties in the GTR, but was supportive of Contracting Parties being provided with the option to limit the test speed to 26 km/h in their own domestic legislation.

Mr Ammerlaan agreed that exceptions such as the proposed reduction in test speed for narrow vehicles should be a matter for each national territory and should not be required to be implemented by all nations.

Mr Szymanski concurred with Ms Versailles and Mr Ammerlaan, noting that narrow vehicles which may not satisfy authorities’ safety concerns may appear on European roads in the future. Mr Szymanski therefore supported retaining the original wording regarding the test speed option for narrow vehicles.

Mr Damm also supported retaining the original wording regarding the test speed option for narrow vehicles.

Mr Hogan noted that Japan could have dealt with this narrow vehicle issue through exemption in national legislation. Mr Hogan felt that Japan deserved credit for trying to find a way to include some requirements for narrow vehicles rather than exempting them completely. Mr Hogan’s view was that the GTR and resultant UN Regulation would be able to be drafted in a way that allowed Contracting Parties to exercise their own sovereign rights, in determining whether narrow vehicles tested to a lower speed were admitted to their markets, but also accommodated Japan’s concerns regarding narrow vehicles.

Ms Versailles suggested some concerns may relate to the mandating of a review period in the GTR, which could be alleviated by removing the time period for review from the GTR regulatory text and including a suitable statement in the preamble noting that the test speed for narrow vehicles should be reviewed in the future.

It was agreed that the 26 km/h maximum test speed for narrow vehicles (vehicles with a width less than 1.5m) would remain at the option of the Contracting Party and appropriate text recommending appropriate future review(s) of the technical need for this option would be included in the preamble.

Mr Ammerlaan presented results of TNO active human model simulations of the effect of sitting height in side impact (PSI-07-11) and an overview of shoulder loading for the WorldSID 50th male (PSI-07-12).

Mr Wernicke presented a WorldSID 50th male shoulder assessment proposal (PSI-07-13). Mr Wernicke noted that engagement of the human shoulder joint is likely to provide a valid means of protecting the human thorax and noted results of NHTSA and ISO biofidelity testing which had shown the WorldSID 50th shoulder to be a very biofidelic part of the dummy. Shoulder force deflection responses were analysed from a variety of pendulum, sled and vehicle-to-pole side impact tests. The results showed the shoulder force would typically plateau between 2-2.5 kN across the 40-70 mm deflection range. This indicated the shoulder rib of the WorldSID 50th percentile male would not have the attributes to be misused as a non-biofidelic load path. Mr Wernicke suggested that a shoulder criterion should only need to be used to prevent excessive non-biofidelic shoulder loadings. Shoulder force was not considered suitable because of the nature of the shoulder force-deflection responses and deflection may not be suitable due to limitations of the shoulder IRTRACC. Mr Wernicke suggested the use of a rib stop which replaces the IR-TRACC in the WorldSID shoulder. Detection of peak force in the shoulder load caused by bottoming out on a rib stop could be used to detect excessive shoulder loadings.

Ms Versailles was concerned the addition of a shoulder rib stop could delay the WorldSID 50th male timeline and noted that the WorldSID group had agreed to freeze the dummy design for the PSI GTR during the meeting held the previous day.

Mr Belcher suggested that even for the most severe shoulder loadings it may be likely to take 40-50ms to bottom-out the shoulder anyway. This would typically leave no more than 10 ms in which high shoulder load could be used to offload the thorax in a non-biofidelic way. Otherwise the thorax deflection would typically have peaked anyway. It may therefore be extremely difficult, if not impossible to use the shoulder of the WorldSID to offload the thorax in a non-biofidelic way.

The issue of how removal of the IRTRACC might influence the shoulder biofidelity was also discussed. Ms Tylko confirmed that a number of the WorldSID 50th male biofidelity and injury criteria tests had been conducted without shoulder IRTRACCs. Ms Tylko offered to make a presentation at the next meeting showing that the shoulder IRTRACC can be removed without adversely affecting results.

ACTION: Transport Canada to provide information for next meeting on results of matched WorldSID 50th male side impact tests with and without a shoulder IRTRACC fitted.

Mr Hogan took the key point from Mr Wernicke’s presentation to be that the shoulder cannot really be unreasonably exploited as a load path and suggested a shoulder criterion may therefore not be required.

Mr Ammerlaan was not comfortable with not including a shoulder criterion in the PSI GTR, but was also not sure (at this stage) what the best shoulder criterion would be.

Ms Tylko agreed that a satisfactory criterion had not yet been developed.

Mr Wernicke asked to keep the shoulder criterion discussions open till the next meeting. Mr Wernicke and Mr Ammerlaan noted the matter was also being considered within EuroNCAP.

Mr Hogan stated he was open to leaving shoulder criterion discussions open, but that it would be necessary to have a solid proposal by the next meeting for anything to be included in the first phase of the GTR.

ACTION: Sub-group including Hans Ammerlaan, Steve Ridella, Philipp Wernicke and Thomas Belcher to consider possible shoulder injury criterion.

Mr Ammerlaan presented results of TNO active human model simulations of the effect of sitting height in side impact (PSI-07-11) and an overview of shoulder loading for the WorldSID 50th male (PSI-07-12).

Mr Wernicke presented a WorldSID 50th male shoulder assessment proposal (PSI-07-13). Mr Wernicke noted that engagement of the human shoulder joint is likely to provide a valid means of protecting the human thorax and noted results of NHTSA and ISO biofidelity testing which had shown the WorldSID 50th shoulder to be a very biofidelic part of the dummy. Shoulder force deflection responses were analysed from a variety of pendulum, sled and vehicle-to-pole side impact tests. The results showed the shoulder force would typically plateau between 2-2.5 kN across the 40-70 mm deflection range. This indicated the shoulder rib of the WorldSID 50th percentile male would not have the attributes to be misused as a non-biofidelic load path. Mr Wernicke suggested that a shoulder criterion should only need to be used to prevent excessive non-biofidelic shoulder loadings. Shoulder force was not considered suitable because of the nature of the shoulder force-deflection responses and deflection may not be suitable due to limitations of the shoulder IRTRACC. Mr Wernicke suggested the use of a rib stop which replaces the IR-TRACC in the WorldSID shoulder. Detection of peak force in the shoulder load caused by bottoming out on a rib stop could be used to detect excessive shoulder loadings.

Ms Versailles was concerned the addition of a shoulder rib stop could delay the WorldSID 50th male timeline and noted that the WorldSID group had agreed to freeze the dummy design for the PSI GTR during the meeting held the previous day.

Mr Belcher suggested that even for the most severe shoulder loadings it may be likely to take 40-50ms to bottom-out the shoulder anyway. This would typically leave no more than 10 ms in which high shoulder load could be used to offload the thorax in a non-biofidelic way. Otherwise the thorax deflection would typically have peaked anyway. It may therefore be extremely difficult, if not impossible to use the shoulder of the WorldSID to offload the thorax in a non-biofidelic way.

The issue of how removal of the IRTRACC might influence the shoulder biofidelity was also discussed. Ms Tylko confirmed that a number of the WorldSID 50th male biofidelity and injury criteria tests had been conducted without shoulder IRTRACCs. Ms Tylko offered to make a presentation at the next meeting showing that the shoulder IRTRACC can be removed without adversely affecting results.

ACTION: Transport Canada to provide information for next meeting on results of matched WorldSID 50th male side impact tests with and without a shoulder IRTRACC fitted.

Mr Hogan took the key point from Mr Wernicke’s presentation to be that the shoulder cannot really be unreasonably exploited as a load path and suggested a shoulder criterion may therefore not be required.

Mr Ammerlaan was not comfortable with not including a shoulder criterion in the PSI GTR, but was also not sure (at this stage) what the best shoulder criterion would be.

Ms Tylko agreed that a satisfactory criterion had not yet been developed.

Mr Wernicke asked to keep the shoulder criterion discussions open till the next meeting. Mr Wernicke and Mr Ammerlaan noted the matter was also being considered within EuroNCAP.

Mr Hogan stated he was open to leaving shoulder criterion discussions open, but that it would be necessary to have a solid proposal by the next meeting for anything to be included in the first phase of the GTR.

ACTION: Sub-group including Hans Ammerlaan, Steve Ridella, Philipp Wernicke and Thomas Belcher to consider possible shoulder injury criterion.

Mr Ammerlaan presented results of TNO active human model simulations of the effect of sitting height in side impact (PSI-07-11) and an overview of shoulder loading for the WorldSID 50th male (PSI-07-12).

Mr Wernicke presented a WorldSID 50th male shoulder assessment proposal (PSI-07-13). Mr Wernicke noted that engagement of the human shoulder joint is likely to provide a valid means of protecting the human thorax and noted results of NHTSA and ISO biofidelity testing which had shown the WorldSID 50th shoulder to be a very biofidelic part of the dummy. Shoulder force deflection responses were analysed from a variety of pendulum, sled and vehicle-to-pole side impact tests. The results showed the shoulder force would typically plateau between 2-2.5 kN across the 40-70 mm deflection range. This indicated the shoulder rib of the WorldSID 50th percentile male would not have the attributes to be misused as a non-biofidelic load path. Mr Wernicke suggested that a shoulder criterion should only need to be used to prevent excessive non-biofidelic shoulder loadings. Shoulder force was not considered suitable because of the nature of the shoulder force-deflection responses and deflection may not be suitable due to limitations of the shoulder IRTRACC. Mr Wernicke suggested the use of a rib stop which replaces the IR-TRACC in the WorldSID shoulder. Detection of peak force in the shoulder load caused by bottoming out on a rib stop could be used to detect excessive shoulder loadings.

Ms Versailles was concerned the addition of a shoulder rib stop could delay the WorldSID 50th male timeline and noted that the WorldSID group had agreed to freeze the dummy design for the PSI GTR during the meeting held the previous day.

Mr Belcher suggested that even for the most severe shoulder loadings it may be likely to take 40-50ms to bottom-out the shoulder anyway. This would typically leave no more than 10 ms in which high shoulder load could be used to offload the thorax in a non-biofidelic way. Otherwise the thorax deflection would typically have peaked anyway. It may therefore be extremely difficult, if not impossible to use the shoulder of the WorldSID to offload the thorax in a non-biofidelic way.

The issue of how removal of the IRTRACC might influence the shoulder biofidelity was also discussed. Ms Tylko confirmed that a number of the WorldSID 50th male biofidelity and injury criteria tests had been conducted without shoulder IRTRACCs. Ms Tylko offered to make a presentation at the next meeting showing that the shoulder IRTRACC can be removed without adversely affecting results.

ACTION: Transport Canada to provide information for next meeting on results of matched WorldSID 50th male side impact tests with and without a shoulder IRTRACC fitted.

Mr Hogan took the key point from Mr Wernicke’s presentation to be that the shoulder cannot really be unreasonably exploited as a load path and suggested a shoulder criterion may therefore not be required.

Mr Ammerlaan was not comfortable with not including a shoulder criterion in the PSI GTR, but was also not sure (at this stage) what the best shoulder criterion would be.

Ms Tylko agreed that a satisfactory criterion had not yet been developed.

Mr Wernicke asked to keep the shoulder criterion discussions open till the next meeting. Mr Wernicke and Mr Ammerlaan noted the matter was also being considered within EuroNCAP.

Mr Hogan stated he was open to leaving shoulder criterion discussions open, but that it would be necessary to have a solid proposal by the next meeting for anything to be included in the first phase of the GTR.

ACTION: Sub-group including Hans Ammerlaan, Steve Ridella, Philipp Wernicke and Thomas Belcher to consider possible shoulder injury criterion.