Title slide only.

Title slide only.

SAE paper authored by Michael Hamm, Wolfgang Huhn, and Johannes Reschke of Audi AG concerning automated vehicle “light-driven messages” to pedestrians.

German-language research paper reporting on tests conducted with 35 participants (English extract included). GAR note: This document was re-posted on 18 December.

Progress report was given by K. Kolesa (WLTP-11-23e). IWG supported the proposed approach. Draft proposal for inclusion in gtr 15 was adopted by WLTP IWG.

Implementation prescription will be introduced in WLTP phase 2. DC will clarify the use of reserved paragraph.

Progress report on RLD issues was given by R. Cuelenaere (WLTP-11-11e).

OIL # 18: Wind tunnel method as alternative RLD method: Updated GTR proposal (WLTP-11-12e), incl. tolerances, was reviewed by the task force and was adopted by IWG WLTP. Drafted text for the wind tunnel method will be finished in the next Drafting Subgroup meeting. Flat Belt /dyno part will be developed further; proposal expected for adoption at IWG meeting #12.

OIL # 48: Correction Algorithms (Dyno load setting (2.7)) Proposal on time gaps between warm up and coast down by Audi (WLTP-10-19-rev1e) was accepted by the task force and adopted by the IWG. Drafted text is provided to the DC. On request of the RLD TF coordinator the Chair clarified that no further RLD related issues from the COM proposal for correction algorithms (WLTP-08-38e) will be put on the RLD TF agenda for Phase 1B.

OIL# 1b_5: Manufacturer’s responsibility for accuracy of road load specifications: Proposal was presented by Japan (WLTP-11-13e). Chair welcomed the more generic approach in phase 1b of WLTP, since in-use-provisions are foreseen in phase 2. EU Com welcomed the proposal for phase 1b, but stressed the importance of a specification of tolerances within WLTP phase 2. Proposal was discussed and adopted by the IWG with the following changes: “specification” —> “coefficients”, “should” —> “shall”.

OICA remarked the lacking alignment of specified tolerances in Annex 4 and will develop an amendment for review in the RLD TF and SG Drafting (no IWG document required).

RLD TF will provide the Japanese overview matrix of applied Annex 4 tolerances for information purposes in advance of IWG meeting #12.

OIL # 11, 13: Onboard-anemometry / wind conditions: Draft GTR proposal (WLTP-11-14e) was presented by Ford. Discussion arose about referring to SAE or ISO standards. Chair recommended a standalone text in the GTR with explanation in the technical report (note: the issue has been reported to GRPE on June 11th and guidance was requested. The UN Secretariat informed about the ongoing general discussions on WP.29 level and offered to prepare the discussions with the SAE representative). T&E asked for the need of other mounting positions. Ford will provide background to the task force.

Proposed deletion of regional option of more open wind conditions was adopted by the IWG. DC will change the GTR accordingly. OIL #11 is closed.

OIL # 4, 7, 14- 16, 20: Torque meter method (incl. road load curve correction/chassis dyno load setting). Validation results presented by Ford (WLTP-11-15e) showed good equivalence, which was confirmed as sufficient by WLTP IWG. Rob Cuelenaere explained the draft gtr proposal (WLTP-11-16e) and outlined the approaches to solve the remaining OIL items. WLTP IWG agreed to the approaches. TF will further work on the text and involve the SG Drafting in advance before the meeting #12.

EU Com raised concerns about the chain of tolerances in getting road load coefficients backwards out of the road measurement and followed dyno setting. TF will handle that issue within a dedicated torque meter meeting. Basic approach is accepted by the IWG.

OIL# 17: Default road load parameters.: Combined progress report by RDW/Daimler (WLTP-11-17e) incl. initial draft GTR proposals for the so called Road Load Matrix Family. TF Leader appreciated the constructive work in the task force. Chair welcomed the progress on this open issue.

EU Com appreciated the summarizing overview of methods (table page 31) and recommended inclusion in GTR (technical report). Approach for selection of a representative test vehicle was supported by IWG.

Compromise proposal by TF on the necessary amount of safety margin was explained. T&E requested greater margin. EU Com will review the safety margin in EU-WLTP. Japan had no reservation as long as the method is restricted to heavy cars as proposed. Political decision is expected. Taskforce is asked to prepare a decision paper for gaining feedback of the CP’s until end of June.

OICA will provide a proposal for an adapted range of CO2 for a road load matrix family (Bill Coleman).

OIL # 1b_3: Tyre selection status report was given by K. Steininger. Data from ETRTO will be further investigated. EU will consider circulating a proposal well in advance before meeting#12.

OIL# 10: Wind tunnel for combined approach: editorial updated draft document (WLTP-11-18e) was already adopted in meeting#10. OIL#10 is closed.

Report on the development of Annex 9 on system equivalency in order to provide a procedure for comparison and validation of alternative measurement equipment and measurement procedures.

Updated presentation showing relative risks of injuries within and outside the proposed bumper test area and comparing late-model (post-2006) cars against earlier models based upon GIDAS data.

Afterwards, Mr. Roth presented document TF-BTA-7-09. He explained that his company did a case-by-case analysis of accident data to assess whether the injury risk outside the existing corners of bumper is higher compared to the area inside and whether an extension of the bumper test area would be beneficial. Mr. Roth explained that in average about 74 % of the vehicle front ends are already covered by the current test area. Outside this area, neither the number of injuries in total nor the number of severe injuries is higher than inside but a trend to a lower frequency can be seen for the outside area. For vehicles launched to the market after 2006, there are even no severe injuries.

(Notes of the secretary: Mr. Roth confirmed afterwards that the one AIS2 case outside the current bumper test area for after 2006 vehicles was included by mistake since the respective injuries were not caused by the vehicle. Mr. Roth provided a corrected version of his presentation (see document TF-BTA-7-09r1).

Further comments on this, not part of the official discussion in the meeting: Mr. Zander commented on Mr. Roth’s presentation that the one case, where an AIS 2 leg injury (tibia fracture) occurred outside of the current bumper test area, reports an injury where the source is not fully clear. However, a later investigation showed that for this case it can be seen, that a pedestrian contact occurred outside the bumper test zone. Furthermore, spot checks of accidents coded with pedestrian contact inside the bumper test area resulted in actual pedestrian contacts outside this area. Mr. Roth commented on this again that the contact cannot necessarily be seen as the source of injury for this case, GIDAS clearly states that the injuries are caused by the road surface. However, it is common practice that, in case of uncertain details, cases are not considered for the analyses.) However, Mr. Roth also stated that (accident (and injury) numbers generally are low and therefore may not be representative.

Mr. Zander stated that still 4 out of 21 injuries (Note of the secretary: May need to read 3 out of 20, following the discussion of Messrs. Roth and Zander noted above.) are outside of 60° bumper corners but that BASt would strongly recommend to do something to include all accidents. Also, he wished a case-by-case analysis to include the details of the cases. The secretary noted that BASt had initially volunteered to do this analysis (see minutes of the 5th meeting) and that Mr. Zander had already explained in the 6th meeting that this may be too time consuming. Mr. Roth added that, however, the majority of the cases is already covered.

Mr. Zander wondered if it could be concluded from the presentation of Mr. Roth that the bumper test area could be defined in a very pragmatic and easily applicable way by just using 74 % of the entire vehicle width. This idea was rejected by Mr. Roth, referring to the information shown by industry in this group regarding the limitations of the impactor.

Clarification on temperature provisions (soak / type 1 test):
WLTP-08-34e was presented by M. Bergmann and adopted by WLTP IWG. Proposal will be provided to the drafting coordinator.

Initial comments concerning the chassis dynamometer calibration, force transducer and dynamometer parasitic loss calibrations, measurement equipment, and force measurement system under GTR No. 15.

#24-26: Starting note
WLTP-08-30e from Th. Adam was presented by M. Bergmann. Expert meeting will be scheduled for reporting and adoption in IWG meeting #9.

#59: System equivalency, Annex 9:
Starting note presented by K. Kolesa (WLTP-08-09e) Task force will be installed with members: Konrad Kolesa, Andre Rijnders, Iddo Riemersma, Christoph Lueginger, Les Hill; Bjoern Ramacherand external statistics experts

Presentation showing relative risks of injuries within and outside the proposed bumper test area and comparing late-model (post-2006) cars against earlier models based upon GIDAS data.

Afterwards, Mr. Roth presented document TF-BTA-7-09. He explained that his company did a case-by-case analysis of accident data to assess whether the injury risk outside the existing corners of bumper is higher compared to the area inside and whether an extension of the bumper test area would be beneficial. Mr. Roth explained that in average about 74 % of the vehicle front ends are already covered by the current test area. Outside this area, neither the number of injuries in total nor the number of severe injuries is higher than inside but a trend to a lower frequency can be seen for the outside area. For vehicles launched to the market after 2006, there are even no severe injuries.

(Notes of the secretary: Mr. Roth confirmed afterwards that the one AIS2 case outside the current bumper test area for after 2006 vehicles was included by mistake since the respective injuries were not caused by the vehicle. Mr. Roth provided a corrected version of his presentation (see document TF-BTA-7-09r1).

Further comments on this, not part of the official discussion in the meeting: Mr. Zander commented on Mr. Roth’s presentation that the one case, where an AIS 2 leg injury (tibia fracture) occurred outside of the current bumper test area, reports an injury where the source is not fully clear. However, a later investigation showed that for this case it can be seen, that a pedestrian contact occurred outside the bumper test zone. Furthermore, spot checks of accidents coded with pedestrian contact inside the bumper test area resulted in actual pedestrian contacts outside this area. Mr. Roth commented on this again that the contact cannot necessarily be seen as the source of injury for this case, GIDAS clearly states that the injuries are caused by the road surface. However, it is common practice that, in case of uncertain details, cases are not considered for the analyses.) However, Mr. Roth also stated that (accident (and injury) numbers generally are low and therefore may not be representative.

Mr. Zander stated that still 4 out of 21 injuries (Note of the secretary: May need to read 3 out of 20, following the discussion of Messrs. Roth and Zander noted above.) are outside of 60° bumper corners but that BASt would strongly recommend to do something to include all accidents. Also, he wished a case-by-case analysis to include the details of the cases. The secretary noted that BASt had initially volunteered to do this analysis (see minutes of the 5th meeting) and that Mr. Zander had already explained in the 6th meeting that this may be too time consuming. Mr. Roth added that, however, the majority of the cases is already covered.

Mr. Zander wondered if it could be concluded from the presentation of Mr. Roth that the bumper test area could be defined in a very pragmatic and easily applicable way by just using 74 % of the entire vehicle width. This idea was rejected by Mr. Roth, referring to the information shown by industry in this group regarding the limitations of the impactor.

Supplemental Test for determination of CO2 emissions under representative regional conditions

Proposal of a test to reflect the CO2 values obtained under “real life temperature conditions”.

General: Presentations on Normalization procedures (Steininger, EC) and on Ambient Temperature Correction Test (ATCT) (Eder, BMW). EC recommended special meeting of RLD experts to discuss normalization approach in 1st Quarter 2014. ACEA will provide first validation data on the family characteristics until end of January.

Chair encouraged Contracting Parties and other stakeholders to show their interest to participate in the validation program for the ATCT procedure.

Chair requested Contracting Parties to give a feedback on the proposed normalization procedures and the interest to (partly) harmonize such procedures in the gtr. Feedback of CPs to WLTP Chair is requested until 14.2.2014.

Comparison of the behaviour from FlexPLI and Human Model THUMS in the outer area of the bumper.

21. Mr Roth presented document TF-BTA-03-03 comparing some simulations done with the FlexPLI and the Total Human Model for Safety (THUMS). [Note of the secretary: The document shown was supplemented by some videos. Mr Roth kindly provided an extended version of his presentation afterwards for publication on the Task Force’s website that adds some sketches of the respective impactor behaviour. This document is available as TF-BTA-03-03/Rev.1.] He explained that the FlexPLI, compared to the THUMS, well reflects the behaviour in two dimensional testing but that clearly deviates from the THUMS when hitting curved shapes. He concluded that the impactor behaves not biofidelic in those areas.

22. Mr Broertjes thanked Mr Roth for the work. He was wondering whether it would possible to e.g. replace one THUMS leg by the FlexPLI – so to say using the FlexPLI as prosthesis for the THUMS. This may provide more complex information on the biofidelity of the FlexPLI at more outside positions. It was noted that, however, there may be different codings used for the two simulation models that could prevent this to be done. Also, it is most likely a huge amount of work since the proper functioning of this new model would need to be validated. Mr Knotz confirmed this assessment from his experiences with the simulation models.

23. Mr Stammen asked what the behavior is at the vehicle centreline and it was confirmed that the 2D testing does not seem to be an issue. Mr Hardy wondered whether the effects would be the same at the other car side: the standing position of the leg of the THUMS may influence the test result. Mr Roth answered that this was not considered in this part of their company internal study but that the differences between FlexPLI and THUMS will remain. Mr Gehring added that the behavior may vary at different positions and that according to his opinion clearly the mass of the upper body is missing which may change things.

The chair invited the audience to discuss the issue. Discussion came up on when the rebound phase starts. Mr. Zander confirmed on request of Mr. Roth that the interval should be considered in which the FlexPLI behaves like the human or the human model respectively. Dr. Ries pointed out that then the interval proposed seems much too long since the legform is only for the first contact confirmed to be biofidelic. Also, this period may be different for tibia and knee. He and Mr. Roth wondered how BASt specified the length of their Biofidelic Assessment Interval and Mr. Zander responded that an objective method and automatic evaluation method was requested. There is no clue that the impactor biofidelity is limited to the pure contact phase with the vehicle only. The BAI can solve this issue. In addition, it covers all potential critical loadings during the test. Partly, the BAI interval is even shorter than the interval proposed by industry in document GTR9-5-30. This was demonstrated in document GTR9-6-07. The secretary reminded the attendees that some information on this had also been shown in the TF-BTA meeting held on 18 March 2013 and that the information is already available on the website. (Note of the secretary: The documents referred to were presented in the 3rd meeting of the Task Force Bumper Test Area as documents TF-BTA-3-03, TF-BTA-3-07 and TF-BTA-3-08 and are available on the respective UNECE website.)