Global Technical Regulation No. 1

Name:Global Technical Regulation No. 1
Description:Door Locks and Door Retention Components.
Official Title:Door Locks and Door Retention Components.
Country:ECE - United Nations
Date of Issue:2004-11-18
Amendment Level:Amendment 1 of August 29, 2012
Number of Pages:46
Vehicle Types:Car, Component, Heavy Truck, Light Truck
Subject Categories:Occupant Protection
Available on InterRegs.NET

Our online subscription service, offering immediate access to our extensive library of global vehicle regulations, standards and legislation. A fully searchable, accurate, user-friendly resource for consolidated regulations that are updated quickly and frequently.

Tell me more | Already a subscriber

Available on SelectRegs.com

Our fast and easy means of purchasing up-to-date global vehicle and component standards and regulations on a pay-as-you-go basis. Pay securely by credit card and your documents are delivered directly and immediately to your computer as PDF files.

Tell me more | Go straight to site

Keywords:

door, test, latch, vehicle, load, system, doors, force, requirements, hinge, direction, position, device, paragraph, application, america, united, states, gtr, striker, inertial, side, interior, sliding, latched, longitudinal, applied, vehicles, fixture, retention, fully, regulation, back, tests, components, procedure, regulations, figure, mass, opening, plate, accordance, vertical, apply, failure, achieved, primary, failures, means, crashes

Text Extract:

All InterRegs documents are formatted as PDF files and contain the full text, tables, diagrams and illustrations of the original as issued by the national government authority. We do not re-word, summarise, cut or interpret the regulatory documents. They are consolidated, published in English, and updated on a regular basis. The following text extract indicates the scope of the document, but does not represent the actual PDF content.

ECE/TRANS/180/Add.1/Amend.1
August 29, 2012
GLOBAL REGISTRY
Created on November 18, 2004, Pursuant to Article 6 of the
AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHING OF GLOBAL TECHNICAL
REGULATIONS FOR WHEELED VEHICLES, EQUIPMENT AND PARTS WHICH
CAN BE FITTED AND/OR BE USED ON WHEELED VEHICLES
(ECE/TRANS/132 and Corr.1)
DONE AT GENEVA ON JUNE 25, 1998
Addendum:
GLOBAL TECHNICAL REGULATION NO. 01
DOOR LOCKS AND DOOR RETENTION COMPONENTS
(ESTABLISHED IN THE GLOBAL REGISTRY ON NOVEMBER 18, 2004)
Incorporating:
Amendment 1 dated August 29, 2012

GLOBAL TECHNICAL REGULATION NO. 01
A. STATEMENT OF TECHNICAL RATIONALE AND JUSTIFICATION
I. INTRODUCTION
Current Regulations were designed to test for door openings in vehicles that were built in the
1960s. Aside from changes made to United States of America and Canadian requirements in
the early to mid-1990s to address rear door openings, no significant changes have been
made to any of the current Regulations. While existing Regulations governing door openings
have proven largely effective, door openings continue to present a risk of serious injury or
death to vehicle occupants, particularly when an occupant is unbelted.
The precise size of the safety problem posed by inadvertent door openings is difficult to
quantify because very few jurisdictions gather the type of crash data needed to evaluate the
problem. This task is further compounded by the effect of occupant belt use on injury risk.
Notwithstanding the difficulty in quantifying the overall benefit associated with the
establishment of a Global Technical Regulation internationally, the types of changes to door
retention components needed to upgrade existing Regulations and Standards appear to be
quite small. Additionally, vehicle manufacturers and the ultimate consumers of motor vehicles
can expect to achieve further cost savings through the formal harmonisation of differing sets
of Regulations and Standards that already largely replicate each other.
Research conducted by the United States of America indicates that there are approximately
42,000 door openings in crashes in the United States of America per year. While this
number corresponds to less than one percent of the roughly six million crashes that occur in
that country each year, the majority of those crashes do not occur at speeds where a door
opening is likely. Rather, door failures appear to be most common in moderate- to high-speed
crashes.
Structural failures of the latch and striker are the leading cause of door openings. The United
States of America’s evaluation of its data indicates that about two-thirds (64.5%) of door
openings involve damage to the latch or striker, either alone or in combination with damage to
one or more hinges. The next most likely causes of a door opening are the failure of the
vehicle structure holding the door in place or the door itself. In 8.37% of the evaluated cases,
the door support, e.g., B-pillar or C-pillar, was damaged; while in 9.68% of the evaluated
cases, the door structure caused the door to open without damaging the actual door retention
components. Only rarely did a door open with no damage to the door whatsoever (2.15%).

According to the United States of America statistics, less than one percent of occupants who
sustain serious and fatal injuries in tow-away crashes are ejected through doors. Yet, despite
the relatively rare occurrence of door ejections in crashes, the risk of serious or fatal injury is
high when ejection does occur. Door ejections are the second leading source of ejections in
all crashes in the United States of America. They are particularly likely in rollover crashes.
Door ejections constitute 19% (1,668) of all ejection fatalities and 22% (1,976) of all ejection
serious injuries in the United States of America each year. Of the approximately 42,000 door
openings in the United States of America each year, side door openings constitute
approximately 90% (1,501) of all door ejection fatalities and 93% (1,838) of the serious
injuries.
The rate of ejections through doors is heavily dependent on belt use. 94% of serious injuries
and fatalities attributable to ejections through doors in the United States of America involve
unbelted occupants. While the risk of ejection will likely vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction,
based on differing rates of belt use, the incidence of door openings should be relatively
constant among various jurisdictions given the similarity in door designs and the lack of
occupant behaviour patterns as a factor in door failures.
II.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
During the one-hundred-and-twenty-sixth session of WP.29 of March 2002, the Executive
Committee (AC.3) of the 1998 Global Agreement (1998 Agreement) adopted a Programme of
Work, which includes the development of a Global Technical Regulation (gtr) to address
inadvertent door opening in crashes. The Executive Committee also charged the Working
Party on Passive Safety (GRSP) to form an informal working group to discuss and evaluate
relevant issues concerning requirements for door locks and door retention components to
make recommendations regarding a potential gtr.
The informal working group was established in September 2002. The United States of
America volunteered to lead the group’s efforts and develop a document detailing the
recommended requirements for the gtr. The United States of America presented a formal
proposal to the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement, which was adopted in
June 2003 (TRANS/WP.29/2003/49). The GRSP developed the door locks and door retention
gtr. At its May 2004 session, the GRSP concluded its work and agreed to recommend the
establishment of this gtr to the Executive Committee.
III. EXISTING REGULATIONS, DIRECTIVES, AND INTERNATIONAL VOLUNTARY
STANDARDS
There are several existing Regulations, Directives, and Standards that pertain to door locks
and door retention components. All share similarities. The Canadian and US Regulations are
very similar to each other and the Japanese and UNECE Regulations are very similar to each
other. The European Union Directive is an exact alternative of the UNECE Regulation
requirements. The Australian Regulation has commonalities to both of the above-mentioned
pairs. A preliminary analysis has been made to identify the differences in the application,
requirements, and test procedures of the North American and UNECE Regulations
(TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2001/1 and TRANS/WP.29/2003/49). There are no apparent conflicts
between the gtr and other existing international Regulations or Standards. However, the gtr
does incorporate aspects of the existing Regulations, Directives and Standards that are not
common to all existing requirements. Given the generally minor variability in the door
retention designs among these jurisdictions that currently regulate door design, it is not
expected that the additional requirements imposed by the gtr are likely to drive major, costly
changes to existing door retention designs.

Heavy trucks in the United States of America have been subject to that country’s door
retention requirements since 1972. The United States of America requirement was
extended to trucks because researchers from a major United States of America
university determined in a study published in 1969 that the rate of door ejection from
truck doors was approximately twice that from doors on passenger cars that met the
door retention requirements. The authors of the study concluded that at 40.3%, the
level of door failure in the truck fleet was approximately four times the failure rate of
regulated passenger cars and roughly equivalent to the rate of failure in passenger
cars manufactured before 1956. They also concluded that insufficient door retention
was a problem across vehicle weight classifications, with pick-up trucks,
medium-weight trucks and tractor trailers all exhibiting a door failure rate in excess
of 33%.
To accommodate both positions, the gtr will apply to all vehicles except buses, with
exceptions for specific door designs. The gtr incorporates the definitions of
Category 1-1 vehicles and Category 2 vehicles developed in draft Special Resolution 1
(S.R. 1) concerning common definitions and procedures to be used in Global Technical
Regulations, which will be submitted as an informal document at the
one-hundred-and-thirty-fourth WP.29 session and with an expected adoption at the
one-hundred-and-thirty-fifth WP.29 session. If a jurisdiction determines that its
domestic regulatory scheme is such that full applicability is inappropriate, it may limit
domestic Regulation to vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of 3,500kg or less. The
jurisdiction could also decide to phase-in the door retention requirements for heavier
vehicles, delay implementation for a few years, or even to impose only some of the gtr
requirements to these heavier vehicles. For example, it is unlikely that a jurisdiction
would want to require heavier truck doors to meet the dynamic inertial test rather than
the calculation. On the other hand, the longitudinal and transverse load requirements
have been applicable to heavy trucks in the United States of America and Canada for
over thirty years without imposing any hardship on vehicle manufacturers.
(b)
Definitions
Definitions, used in this gtr, are defined in Section B, Paragraph 3 of this Regulation,
with the exception of those related to the applicability. Definitions that relate to the
applicability are drawn from a draft version of S.R. 1 and are listed in Annex 5.

(d)
Performance Requirements
(i)
Hinged Doors Issues
Currently, UNECE Regulation No. 11 has similar hinged door requirements to
the North American Regulations, although UNECE Regulation No. 11 does not
distinguish between cargo and non-cargo door latches. The Working Party
agreed to recommend that cargo doors (i.e., double doors) meet the same
requirements as hinged doors if they provide access to the occupant seating
compartment. Additionally, the term "cargo door" has been eliminated to clarify
that doors that do not lead into an occupant compartment with one or more seat
positions are not regulated by the gtr.
(ii)
Load Tests
Both Regulations require load tests of the hinge systems in the longitudinal and
transverse directions. These tests remain, but have been reworded such that the
loads are applied based on the alignment of the hinge system and not the
alignment of the vehicle. A load test in the vertical direction was evaluated and
ultimately rejected except for back doors. Since a large number of door openings
occur during vehicle rollovers, it was suggested that perhaps a load test in the
vertical direction would help reduce these types of openings. However, it was
ultimately determined that the addition of a load test conducted in a direction
orthogonal to the existing tests could not be justified at the present time. Those
countries concerned about protecting against rollover crash door openings may
determine that such a test would be useful outside the context of the gtr.
(iii)
Inertial Test
A dynamic inertial test requirement was added to the gtr, as an option to the
inertial calculation. There are provisions for this type of testing in both the
UNECE and North American Regulations, but there is no specified test
procedure. A test procedure was developed based on the testing currently
conducted for the UNECE requirement and validated by the United States of
America and Canada. In addition to the longitudinal and transverse tests, tests in
the vertical direction were considered. Conducting the inertial test in the vertical
direction is feasible, but it is much more difficult to conduct than the tests in the
longitudinal and transverse directions. Since the most common failure mode
demonstrated in the inertial tests conducted by Canada was in the direction of
door opening, it was determined that a test in the vertical direction appeared to
be beneficial only for back door designs, which commonly open in the vertical
direction. However, those countries concerned about protecting against rollover
crash door openings may determine that such a test would be useful outside the
context of the gtr.

(v)
Door Hinges
Both the UNECE and North American Regulations have the same load testing
requirements for door hinges. The current side door requirements for hinges,
which are based on SAE Recommended Practice J934, Vehicle Passenger Door
Hinge Systems, appear to test adequately the strength and design of door
hinges. The United States of America’s comprehensive analysis of its data and
possible failure modes has not revealed problems with door hinges. Accordingly,
these requirements have been included in the gtr. The current UNECE
requirements only allow for the hinges to be mounted on the forward edge in the
direction of travel. This requirement was based on the safety concern of a
possible inadvertent opening while the vehicle is in motion. This requirement, as
stated, was found to be design restrictive and the safety concerns were resolved
by developing text to regulate the design and not prohibit it.
(vi)
Hinged Side Door System Tests (Full Door Tests)
A new series of test procedures was designed to simulate real world door
openings in crashes. These tests consist of door-in-frame quasi-static (full door)
tests in both longitudinal and lateral directions, independent from the door
system.
The lateral full door test is designed to simulate latch failures in crashes that
produce outwards forces on the door (i.e., through occupant loading or inertial
loading) such as side crashes that result in vehicle spin and rollover. The
longitudinal full door test is designed to simulate a collision in which the side of
the vehicle is stretched, leading to the possibility that the striker could be torn
from its mated latch (i.e., far side door in side impacts, and front and rear offset
crashes on the opposite side door).
The inclusion of the full door tests in the gtr was not supported because the tests
raise concerns about unduly restricting door designs, developing a repeatable
and enforceable test procedure, and addressing door openings under real world
conditions. Because of the current UNECE requirement for both the component
tests and a door closure requirement in dynamic tests, there is some question as
to whether a full door test provides any additional value. In an analysis of the
proposed tests using its FARS and NASS databases, the United States of
America was unable to correlate the proposed tests with a reduction on door
openings in real world crashes at a level that was statistically significant.
The contemplated test procedures were evaluated and concerns were expressed
that the new procedure will end up being unduly design restrictive, given the
limitations of the test frame. For example, it may be that multiple test frames
would be required to ensure an appropriate "fit" between the door and the test
frame. This is because placement of the test load relative to the latch mechanism
may be sufficiently different to produce significantly different results, and
because door specific holes must be drilled into the test frame. Additionally, the
test frame may not adequately address new latch designs that may be mounted
in non-traditional locations. Likewise, the procedure does not allow
manufacturers the benefit of non-latch attachments that are primarily used for
side impact purposes but also may have a positive effect on door closure.

The sliding door test procedure specifies that the test be conducted with force
application devices that, when installed as part of the test setup, are each
capable of reaching a total displacement of at least 300mm after placement of
the loading plates against the interior of the door. Under the test, the force
application device displacement must be sufficiently large to permit a test failure.
Assuming a distance between the interior of the door and its outside skin of
approximately 100mm, the force application device must be capable of
displacing at least 200mm. Additionally, because one force application device
may displace (typically on a door edge without a latch system) while the other
holds a constant steady force, some additional displacement may be required to
move the failing edge of the door at least 100mm. Accordingly, the test
procedure has been changed to specify the use of force application devices
capable of at least 300mm displacement. Longer force application devices may
be used, but are not required.
The test procedure has been further refined to ensure the load is maintained for
a sufficient period to allow measurement of any separation between the door and
doorframe. Concerns were raised regarding the sustained application of an
18,000N load while measuring the gap between the door and its frame. The
safety of the technicians conducting the test is a paramount concern. However,
the complete release of the load prior to measuring the gap could result in a
relaxation of the door position and a consequent reduction of the maximum gap
achieved. It is likely that many test facilities may choose to measure separation
during the application of load by some means other than attempting to pass an
item through the door opening.
(viii)
Door Locks
Unlike the door lock and door retention component requirements in North
America, UNECE Regulation No. 11 does not have provisions for door locks. It
was agreed to recommend the North American requirements for front door locks
of having the outside handle be inoperative when the locking mechanism is
engaged, since this is already standard practice in Europe and Japan. There was
more debate over the requirements for rear door locks.
The North American Standards require that when the door lock is engaged, both
the inside and outside release controls shall be inoperative. Concerns were
expressed about including such requirements in the gtr, because it might hamper
egress from the vehicle in a post-crash environment. It was, conversely, argued
that such requirements are necessary for the protection of children in the rear
seat. In discussing this issue, several recommendations were made for inclusion
in the gtr:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
a door that can be opened with a single movement of the door handle
when the door is in a locked position must be fitted with a child safety lock,
automatic door locks that allow the driver to engage or disengage the child
safety locks from the front seat would be acceptable,
doors that require some action other than the release of the door with a
single movement of the door handle when the door is in a locked position
may have child locks, but would not be required to have such locks; these
doors could be required to have a manual door-lock release that would
allow rear-seat passengers to open the door in the event of a crash.

It is estimated that the addition of secondary latching requirements to double
doors and sliding doors not equipped with a telltale would not constitute an
additional cost to manufacturers for the United States of America and Canadian
market (UNECE Regulation No. 11 already has such a requirement). This is
because a cursory survey of vehicles equipped with double doors in the United
States of America revealed that all such doors were already equipped with
latches with both a fully and secondary latch position. The same was true of
sliding doors. However, inclusion of a secondary latch requirement for these
doors will insure that future design changes will not eliminate latches with a
secondary latch position. Additionally, it is possible that there are some vehicles
manufactured in two or more stages that have double or sliding doors without a
secondary latch position. Many of the double doors on these vehicles may be
outside of the scope of the gtr because they do not lead directly into an occupant
compartment. Others may need to have a secondary latch position added.
Based on a 1995 evaluation of its new back door requirements, the United
States of America estimates that the cost of adding a secondary latch position is
not more than $1.20 (United States of America) per latch, when adjusted for
inflation.
The gtr also proposes to offer an option for inertial testing, while retaining a
calculation for determining whether a latch has been designed to sufficiently
withstand inertial forces. While UNECE Regulation No. 11 already provides an
abbreviated test requirement that may be conducted in lieu of the calculation, the
United States of America and Canadian Standards do not. Because the gtr
allows for a calculation rather than testing, it is possible that this addition will
have no corresponding cost. Even if the United States of America and Canada
were to require inertial testing for some door latch systems, there is no indication
that existing latches would need to be redesigned. This is because the
calculation requirements should already insure that sufficient countermeasures
have already been taken to address inertial loading. In the event some redesigns
are required, the cost of such redesigns cannot be quantified at this time.
The primary new requirement impacting only manufacturers producing vehicles
under the aegis of UNECE Regulation No. 11 is the addition of new back door
requirements. Back door retention systems have been regulated in the United
States of America, Canada and Australia since the mid-1990s. These
requirements apply to hatchbacks, station wagons, vans, and sport utility
vehicles. In the final rule establishing new back door requirements in the United
States of America, the United States of America estimated that by 1998 there
would be approximately 160 fatalities and 200 serious injuries in the United
States of America each year resulting from back door ejections. Adding new
back door requirements was expected to reduce these numbers by 13 fatalities
and 17 serious injuries per year. The United States of America determined that
the cost of needed door upgrades would amount to no more than $5.00 (United
States of America) per affected vehicle. These costs are further broken down by
the addition of a secondary latch position ($0.00-1.00 (United States of
America)), the addition of an interior door handle and latch release mechanism
($0.00-1.00 (United States of America)), and improvements required to meet
hinge force requirements ($0.00-3.00 (United States of America)). The cost
associated with meeting the new latch force requirements in three directions was
too nominal to be calculated. When adjusted for the inflation rate in the United
States of America, the overall cost of back door requirements would be no more
than $6.00 (United States of America) per door.

3. DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of this gtr, vehicle Categories, listed in Paragraph 2., are defined in a draft
version of S.R. 1 and listed in Annex 5.
3.1. "Auxiliary Door Latch" is a latch equipped with a fully latched position, with or without a
secondary latch position, and fitted to a door or door system equipped with a primary door
latch system.
3.2. "Auxiliary Door Latch System" consists, at a minimum, of an auxiliary door latch and a
striker.
3.3. "Back Door" is a door or door system on the back end of a motor vehicle through which
passengers can enter or depart the vehicle or cargo can be loaded or unloaded. It does not
include:
(a)
(b)
A trunk lid; or
A door or window that is composed entirely of glazing material and whose latches
and/or hinge systems are attached directly to the glazing material.
3.4. "Body Member" is that portion of the hinge normally affixed to the body structure.
3.5. "Child Safety Lock System" is a locking device which can be engaged and released
independently of other locking devices and which, when engaged, prevents operation of the
interior door handle or other release device. The lock release/engagement device may be
manual or electric and may be located anywhere on or in the vehicle.
3.6. "Door Closure Warning System" is a system that will activate a visual signal located where
it can be clearly seen by the driver when a door latch system is not in its fully latched position
and while the vehicle ignition is activated.
3.7. "Door Hinge System" is one or more hinges used to support a door.
3.8. "Door Latch System" consists, at a minimum, of a latch and a striker.
3.9. "Door Member" is that portion of the hinge normally affixed to the door structure and
constituting the swinging member.
3.10. "Door System" is the door, latch, striker, hinges, sliding track combinations and other door
retention components on a door and on its surrounding doorframe. The door system of a
double door includes both doors.
3.11. "Double Door" is a system of two doors where the front door or wing door opens first and
connects to the rear door or bolted door, which opens second.
3.12. "Fork-bolt" is the part of the latch that engages and retains the striker when in a latched
position.
3.13. "Fork-bolt Opening Direction" is the direction opposite to that in which the striker enters the
latch to engage the fork-bolt.
3.14. "Fully Latched Position" is the coupling condition of the latch that retains the door in a
completely closed position.

5. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS
5.1. Hinged Doors
5.1.1. Load Test One
5.1.1.1. Each primary door latch system and auxiliary door latch system, when in the fully latched
position, shall not separate when a load of 11,000N is applied in the direction perpendicular to
the face of the latch such that the latch and the striker anchorage are not compressed against
each other, when tested in accordance with Paragraph 7.1.1.1.
5.1.1.2. When in the secondary latched position, the primary latch system shall not separate when a
load of 4,500N is applied in the same direction as in Paragraph 5.1.1.1., when tested in
accordance with Paragraph 7.1.1.1.
5.1.2. Load Test Two
5.1.2.1. Each primary door latch system and auxiliary door latch system, when in the fully latched
position, shall not separate when a load of 9,000N is applied in the fork-bolt opening direction
and parallel to the face of the latch, when tested in accordance with Paragraph 7.1.1.1.
5.1.2.2. When in the secondary latched position, the primary latch system shall not separate when a
load of 4,500N is applied in the same direction, as in Paragraph 5.1.2.1., when tested in
accordance with Paragraph 7.1.1.1.
5.1.3. Load Test Three (Applicable Only to Back Doors that Open in a Vertical Direction)
5.1.3.1. Each primary door latch system on back doors shall not disengage from the fully latched
position when a load of 9,000N is applied in a direction orthogonal to the directions specified
in Paragraphs 5.1.1.1. and 5.1.2.1., when tested in accordance with Paragraph 7.1.1.1.
5.1.4. Inertial Load. Each primary door latch system and auxiliary door latch system shall meet the
dynamic requirements of either Paragraph 5.1.4.1. and 5.1.4.2. or the calculation of inertial
load resistance requirements of Paragraph 5.1.4.3.
5.1.4.1. Each primary door latch system and auxiliary door latch system on each hinged door shall not
disengage from the fully latched position when an inertial load of 30g is applied to the door
latch system, including the latch and its activation device, in the directions parallel to the
vehicle's longitudinal and transverse axes with the locking device disengaged and when
demonstrated in accordance with Paragraph 7.1.1.2.
5.1.4.2. Each primary door latch system and auxiliary door latch system on each hinged back door
shall also not disengage from the fully latched position when an inertial load of 30g is applied
to the door latch system, including the latch and its activation device, in the direction parallel
to the vehicle’s vertical axis, with the locking device disengaged and when demonstrated in
accordance with Paragraph 7.1.1.2.
5.1.4.3. Each component or subassembly can be calculated for its minimum inertial load resistance in
a particular direction. The combined resistance to the unlatching operation must assure that
the door latch system, when properly assembled in the vehicle door, will remain latched when
subjected to an inertial load of 30g in the vehicle directions specified in Paragraphs 5.1.4.1.
and 5.1.4.2., as applicable, in accordance with Paragraph 7.1.1.2.

5.2. Sliding Side Doors
Load Test One
At least one door latch system, when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a
load of 11,000N is applied in the direction perpendicular to the face of the latch, when tested
in accordance with Paragraph 7.2.1.1.
In the case of a primary door latch system, when in the secondary latched position, the door
latch system shall not separate when a load of 4,500N is applied in the same direction as in
Paragraph 5.2.1.1., when tested in accordance with Paragraph 7.2.1.1.
Load Test Two
At least one door latch system, when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a
load of 9,000N is applied in the direction of the fork-bolt opening and parallel to the face of the
latch when tested in accordance with Paragraph 7.2.1.1.
In the case of a primary door latch system, when in the secondary latched position, the
primary latch system shall not separate when a load of 4,500N is applied in the same
direction as Paragraph 5.2.2.1., when tested in accordance with Paragraph 7.2.1.1.
5.2.3. Inertial Load
Each door latch system meeting the requirements of Paragraphs 5.2.1. and 5.2.2. shall meet
the dynamic requirements of either Paragraph 5.2.3.1. or the calculation of inertial
requirements of Paragraph 5.2.3.2.
5.2.3.1. The door latch system shall not disengage from the fully latched position when an inertial load
of 30g is applied to the door latch system, including the latch and its activation device, in the
directions parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal and transversal axes with the locking device
disengaged and when tested in accordance with Paragraph 7.2.1.2.
5.2.3.2. The minimum inertial load resistance can be calculated for each component or subassembly.
Their combined resistance to the unlatching operation must assure that the door latch system,
when properly assembled in the vehicle door, will remain latched when subjected to an inertial
load of 30g in the vehicle directions specified in Paragraph 5.2.1. or 5.2.2., as applicable, in
accordance with Paragraph 7.2.1.2.
5.2.4. Door System
5.2.4.1. The track and slide combination or other supporting means for each sliding door, while in the
closed fully latched position, shall not separate from the door frame when a total force of
18,000N along the vehicle transverse axis is applied to the door in accordance with
Paragraph 7.2.2.
5.2.4.2. The sliding door, when tested in accordance with Paragraph 7.2.2., fails this requirement if
any one of the following occurs:
5.2.4.2.1. A separation which permits a sphere with a diameter of 100mm to pass unobstructed
between the exterior of the vehicle and the interior of the vehicle, while the required force is
maintained.
5.2.4.2.2. Either force application device reaches a total displacement of 300mm.

7.2.
Sliding Side Doors
7.2.1.
Door Latches
7.2.1.1.
Load Test one and Two Force Application
Compliance with Paragraphs 5.2.1. and 5.2.2., is demonstrated in accordance with Annex 1.
7.2.1.2.
Inertial Force Application
Compliance with Paragraph 5.2.3. is demonstrated in accordance with Annex 2.
7.2.2.
Door System
Compliance with Paragraph 5.2.4. is demonstrated in accordance with Annex 4.

2.2. Load Test Two
2.2.1. Equipment. Tensile testing fixture (see Figure 1-2).
2.2.2. Procedures
2.2.2.1. Fully Latched Position
2.2.2.1.1. Attach the test fixture to the mounting provisions of the latch and striker. Mount the fixture
with the latch and striker in the fully latched position in the test machine so as to apply a
load in the direction of the latch opening.
2.2.2.1.2. Apply the test load, in the direction specified in Paragraph 5.1.2 of this Regulation and
Figure 1-4, at a rate not to exceed 5mm/min until the required load has been achieved.
Record the maximum load achieved.
2.2.2.2. Secondary Latched Position
2.2.2.2.1. Attach the test fixture to the mounting provisions of the latch and striker. Mount the fixture
with the latch and striker in the secondary latched position in the test machine so as to apply
a load in the direction of the latch opening.
2.2.2.2.2. Apply the test load, in the direction specified in Paragraph 5.1.2 of this Regulation and
Figure 1-4, at a rate not to exceed 5mm/min until the required load has been achieved.
Record the maximum load achieved.
2.3. Load Test Three (Only for Back Doors that Open in a Vertical Direction)
2.3.1. Equipment. Tensile testing fixture (see Figure 1-3).
2.3.2. Procedure
2.3.2.1. Attach the test fixture to the mounting provisions of the latch and striker. Mount the fixture
with the latch and striker in the fully latched position in the test machine so as to apply a
load in the direction specified in Paragraph 5.1.3. of this Regulation and Figure 1-4.
2.3.2.2. Apply the test load, in the direction specified in Paragraph 5.1.3 of this Regulation and
Figure 1-4, at a rate not to exceed 5mm/min until the required load has been achieved.
Record the maximum load achieved.

Figure 1-3
Door Latch − Tensile Testing Fixture for Load Test 3
(Only for Back Doors that Open in a Vertical Direction)

ANNEX 2
INERTIAL TEST PROCEDURES
1. PURPOSE
To determine the ability of the vehicle latch system to resist inertial loading by means of a
mathematical analysis of the component parts in their true car relationship or by evaluation
using a dynamic test.
2. TEST PROCEDURES
2.1. Option 1, Calculation
2.1.1. The procedure described in this section provides a means for analytically determining the
ability of a door latch system to withstand inertial loading. Spring forces are the average of
the minimum spring output in the installed position and the minimum spring output in the
release position. Friction effects and work to be done are not considered in the calculations.
Gravitational pull on components may also be omitted if it tends to restrict unlatching. These
omissions from the calculations are permissible because they provide additional factors of
safety.
2.1.2. Calculation Consideration − Each component or subassembly can be calculated for its
minimum inertial load resistance in a particular direction. Their combined resistance to the
unlatching operation must assure that the door latch system (when properly assembled in
the vehicle door) will remain latched when subjected to an inertial load of 30g in any
direction. Figure 2-1 is an example of the components and combinations of components to
be considered.
2.2. Option 2, Full Vehicle Dynamic Test
2.2.1. Test Equipment
2.2.1.1. An acceleration (or deceleration) device.
2.2.1.2. One of the following vehicles:
2.2.1.2.1. A full vehicle including at least door(s), door latch(es), exterior door handle(s) with
mechanical latch operation, interior door opening lever(s), the locking device(s), interior trim
and door seal.
2.2.1.2.2. A vehicle body in white (i.e., vehicle frame, doors and other door retention components)
including at least door(s), door latch(es), exterior door handle(s) with mechanical latch
operation, interior door opening lever(s), and the locking device(s)
2.2.1.3. A device or means for recording door opening .
2.2.1.4. Equipment for measuring and recording accelerations.

2.3.2. Test Setup
2.3.2.1. Mount the door assemblies either separately or combined to the test fixture. Each door and
striker should be mounted to correspond to its orientation on the vehicle and to the direction
required for inertial load tests (Paragraph 2.3.3.).
2.3.2.2. Mount the test fixture to the acceleration device.
2.3.2.3. Install the equipment used to record door opening.
2.3.2.4. Ensure that the door latch is in the fully-latched position, that the door is unlocked (doors
may be tethered to avoid damaging the recording equipment), and that the window, if
provided, is closed.
2.3.3. Test Directions (see Figure 2-3)
2.3.3.1. Longitudinal Setup 1. Orient the door subsystem(s) on the acceleration device in the
direction of a frontal impact.
2.3.3.2. Longitudinal Setup 2. Orient the door subsystem(s) on the acceleration device in the
direction of a rear impact.
2.3.3.3. Transverse Setup 1. Orient the door subsystem(s) on the acceleration device in the
direction of a driver-side impact.
2.3.3.4. Transverse Setup 2. Orient the door subsystem(s) on the acceleration device in the
direction opposite to that described in Paragraph 2.3.3.3.
2.3.3.5. Vertical Setup 1. (Only for back doors that open in a vertical direction). Orient the door
subsystem(s) on the acceleration device so that its vertical axis (when mounted in a vehicle)
is aligned with the axis of the acceleration device, simulating a rollover impact where the
force is applied in the direction from the top to the bottom of the door (when mounted in a
vehicle).
2.3.3.6. Vertical Setup 2. (Only for back doors that open in a vertical direction). Orient the door
subsystem(s) on the acceleration device so that its vertical axis (when mounted in a vehicle)
is aligned with the axis of the acceleration device, simulating a rollover impact where the
force is applied in the direction opposite to that described in Paragraph 2.3.3.5.

Given: Door latch system subjected to 30g deceleration average push-button spring output force − 4.5N
pawl spring output torque = 0.45N · m
a = 30g (m/s )
F
= ma = 30 mg = 294.2 m
M = 0.0163kg
M = 0.0227kg
M = 0.0122kg
M = 0.0422kg
d = 31.50mm
d = 10.87mm
d = 4.83mm
d = 31.50mm
d = 37.60mm
d = 1.91mm

Point
Upper Bound
Time
(ms)
Acceleration
(g)
Point
Lower Bound
Time
(ms)
Acceleration
(g)
A 0 6 E 5 0
B 20 36 F 25 30
C 60 36 G 55 30
D 100 0 H 70 0
Table 2-1
Acceleration Pulse Corridor
Figure 2-2
Acceleration Pulse

ANNEX 3
HINGE TEST PROCEDURE
1. Purpose. These tests are conducted to determine the ability of the vehicle hinge system to
withstand test loads in the longitudinal, transversal, and, for back doors only, vertical vehicle
directions.
2. TEST PROCEDURE
2.1. Multiple Hinge System
2.1.1. Longitudinal Load Test
2.1.1.1. Equipment
2.1.1.1.1. Tensile testing fixture
2.1.1.1.2. A typical static test fixture is illustrated in Figure 3-1.
2.1.1.2. Procedure
2.1.1.2.1. Attach the hinge system to the mounting provision of the test fixture. Hinge attitude must
simulate vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the hinge centreline. For test
purposes, the distance between the extreme ends of one hinge in the system to the extreme
end of another hinge in the system is to be set at 406 ± 4mm. The load is to be applied
equidistant between the linear centre of the engaged portions of the hinge pin and through
the centreline of the hinge pin in the longitudinal vehicle direction (Figure 3-2).
2.1.1.2.2. Apply the test load at a rate not to exceed 5mm/min until the required load has been
achieved. Failure consists of a separation of either hinge. Record the maximum load
achieved.
2.1.2. Transverse Load Test
2.1.2.1. Equipment
2.1.2.1.1. Tensile testing fixture
2.1.2.1.2. A typical static test fixture is illustrated in Figure 3-1.
2.1.2.2. Procedure
2.1.2.2.1. Attach the hinge system to the mounting provisions of the test fixture. Hinge attitude must
simulate vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the hinge centreline. For test
purposes, the distance between the extreme ends of one hinge in the system to the extreme
opposite end of another hinge in the system is to be set at 406 ± 4mm. The load is to be
applied equidistant between the linear centre of the engaged portions of the hinge pins and
through the centreline of the hinge pin in the transverse vehicle direction (Figure 3-2).
2.1.2.2.2. Apply the test load at a rate not to exceed 5mm/min until the required load has been
achieved. Failure consists of a separation of either hinge. Record the maximum load
achieved.

Figure 3-1
Static Test Fixtures

ANNEX 4
SLIDING SIDE DOOR
FULL DOOR TEST
1. Purpose. This test is intended to establish minimum performance requirements and a test
procedure for evaluation and testing sliding door retention components when installed on both
the door and the doorframe. This test complements the applicable tests in Annex 1 and
Annex 2
2. GENERAL PROVISIONS
2.1. Tests are conducted using a full vehicle or a body in white with the sliding door and its retention
components.
2.2. The test is conducted using two force application devices capable of applying the outward
transverse forces specified in Paragraph 5.2.4. of this Regulation. The test setup is shown in
Figure 4-1. The force application system shall include the following:
2.2.1. Two Force Application Plates
2.2.2. Two force application devices capable of applying the outward transverse load requirements for
a minimum displacement of 300mm.
2.2.3. Two load cells of sufficient capacity to measure the applied loads.
2.2.4. Two linear displacement measurement devices required for measuring force application device
displacement during the test.
2.2.5. Equipment for measuring at least 100mm of separation between the interior of the door and the
exterior edge of the doorframe, while respecting all relevant safety and health requirements.
3. TEST SETUP
3.1. Remove all interior trim and decorative components from the sliding door assembly.
3.2. Remove seats and any interior component that may interfere with the mounting and operation
of the test equipment and all pillar trim and any non-structural component that overlap the door
and cause improper placement of the force application plates.
3.3. Mount the force application devices and associated support structure to the floor of the test
vehicle. Each force application device and associated support structure is rigidly fixed on a
horizontal surface on the vehicle floor, while applying the loads.
3.4. Determine the forward and aft edge of the sliding door, or its adjoining vehicle structure, that
contains a latch/striker.
3.5. Close the sliding door, ensuring that all door retention components are fully engaged.

3.10. Attach any equipment used for measuring door separation that will be used to determine
separation levels during the test procedure.
3.11. Place the load application structure so that the force application plates are in contact with the
interior of the sliding door.
3.12. Apply a preload of 500N to each actuator and "zero" the displacement measuring device.
4. TEST PROCEDURE
4.1. Increase the force on each force application device as linearly as practicable until a force of
9,000N is achieved on each force application device in not less than 90s and not more 120s, or
until either force application device reaches a total displacement of 300mm.
4.2. If one of the force application devices reaches the target force of 9,000N prior to the other,
maintain the 9,000N force with that force application device until the second force application
device reaches the 9,000N force.
4.3. Once both force application devices have achieved 9,000N each, stop forward movement of
the force application devices and hold under the resulting load for a minimum of 10 seconds.
4.4. Maintain the force application device position of Paragraph 4.3. and within 30s, measure the
separation between the exterior edge of the doorframe and the interior of the door along the
perimeter of the door.
Figure 4-1
Sliding Side Door Full Vehicle Test Procedure
(Note: Sliding door is shown separated from the vehicle)

1.9. "Power driven vehicle" means any self-propelled vehicle designed and constructed to be
used on the road and having at least two wheels.
1.10. "Trailer" means any non-self propelled vehicle, which is designed and constructed to be
towed by a power driven vehicle.
1.11. "Unladen vehicle mass" means the nominal mass of a complete vehicle as determined by
the following criteria:
1.11.1. Mass of the vehicle with bodywork and all factory fitted equipment, electrical and auxiliary
equipment for normal operation of vehicle, including liquids, tools, fire extinguisher, standard
spare parts, chocks and spare wheel, if fitted.
1.11.2. The fuel tank shall be filled to at least 90% of rated capacity and the other liquid containing
systems (except those for used water) to 100% of the capacity specified by the
manufacturer.
1.12. "Vehicle" means any power driven vehicle or trailer.
2. Categorization of Vehicles. For the purpose of this gtr, vehicles are classified on the basis of
their design and construction features.
2.1. "Category 1 vehicle" means a power driven vehicle with four or more wheels designed and
constructed primarily for the carriage of (a) person(s).
2.1.1. "Category 1-1 vehicle" means a Category 1 vehicle comprising not more than eight
seating positions in addition to the driver’s seating position. A Category 1-1 vehicle cannot
have standing passengers.
2.1.2. "Category 1-2 vehicle" means a Category 1 vehicle designed for the carriage of more than
eight passengers, whether seated or standing, in addition to the driver.
2.2. "Category 2 vehicle" means a power driven vehicle with four or more wheels designed and
constructed primarily for the carriage of goods. This Category shall also include:
(i)
(ii)
tractive units
chassis designed specifically to be equipped with special equipment.
2.2.1. To determine whether a vehicle is to be regarded as a Category 1 vehicle or a Category 2
vehicle, the following shall apply in cases where it is not immediately apparent whether a
vehicle is a Category 1 or 2 vehicle:

Door Locks and Door Retention Components.