Global Technical Regulation No. 14
|Name:||Global Technical Regulation No. 14|
|Description:||Pole Side Impact.|
|Official Title:||Global Technical Regulation on Pole Side Impact.|
|Country:||ECE - United Nations|
|Date of Issue:||2013-11-13|
|Number of Pages:||66|
|Vehicle Types:||Bus, Car, 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
side, vehicle, impact, test, pole, seat, gtr, injury, dummy, angle, vehicles, group, position, working, informal, injuries, male, impacts, thorax, worldsid, requirements, annex, reference, head, machine, shoulder, paragraph, category, back, airbag, plane, rib, cushion, percentile, performance, means, costs, occupant, h-point, risk, abdominal, crashes, contracting, deflection, system, centre, iso, lower, vertical, safety
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.
January 15, 2014
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
GLOBAL TECHNICAL REGULATION NO. 14
GLOBAL TECHNICAL REGULATION ON POLE SIDE IMPACT
(ESTABLISHED IN THE GLOBAL REGISTRY ON NOVEMBER 13, 2013)
GLOBAL TECHNICAL REGULATION NO. 14
I. STATEMENT OF TECHNICAL RATIONALE AND JUSTIFICATION
A. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. At the 150 session of the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29)
in March 2010, the representative from Australia introduced Informal document
WP.29-150-11, proposing the development of a Global Technical Regulation (GTR) on
pole side impact. There were five key elements to this proposal, namely that:
A high number of fatalities occurred in pole side impacts (that is, impacts with
narrow objects such as telegraph poles, signposts and trees) and other side impacts
in Australia and other countries;
There was wide variation between side and pole side crash tests both in
Regulations and voluntary standards;
There was wide variation between the crash dummies being used in the crash tests
and concerns over their biofidelity, raising concerns about their effectiveness in
predicting real world injury outcomes;
(d) The development of the WorldSID 50 percentile adult male dummy, with its
superior biofidelity, provided a unique opportunity to improve the international crash
test regime for side impacts through development of a GTR on pole side impact,
thereby improving the safety of vehicle users and minimising costs to consumers
and industry; and
A pole side impact standard was likely to produce benefits for side impacts
generally by driving improvements in head protection.
2. The Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3) requested the secretariat of
WP.29 to distribute WP.29-150-11 with an official symbol for consideration and vote at its
June 2010 session. It was agreed to transmit WP.29-150-11 to the Working Party on
Passive Safety (GRSP) to consider at its May 2010 session and to assess the need for
establishing an informal working group.
3. At its forty-seventh session in May 2010, GRSP considered an official proposal made by
the expert from Australia (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/81) together with a further informal
document (GRSP-47-28), which included a proposed task list (subsequently developed
into terms of reference), and endorsed the establishment of an informal working group
under the chairmanship of Australia, subject to the consent of AC.3.
8. In developing the GTR, the informal working group has undertaken a significant
programme of work including:
Review of previous work, particularly the work undertaken on side impact protection
by: the International Harmonised Research Activities (IHRA) Side Impact Working
Group; the European Enhanced Vehicle Safety Committee (EEVC); the Advanced
Protection Systems (APROSYS) research programme; and the United States of
America, including its Final Regulatory Impact Analysis to amend Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 (FMVSS 214) to add an oblique pole side impact
test, published in 2007;
Conduct of extensive primary research, including crash tests programmes
conducted by Australia and Canada (including jointly), France, Japan, the Republic
of Korea and the United States of America. This research has been the subject of
detailed reporting in informal working group meetings and is available on the
informal working group's website at:
Consideration of work by the informal working group on the harmonization of side
impact dummies (see Section D below for more detail); and
Commissioning of research, through Australia, by the Monash University Accident
Research Centre (MUARC) on the safety need, effectiveness and benefits and
costs of the GTR.
Table 1 (Cont'd)
Fatalities and Injuries in Pole Side Impacts (PSI), other Side Impacts and Rollovers, 2009
1. si = serious injuries. Definitions of serious injury vary significantly between countries. Definitions
for individual countries are noted below.
2. The vehicle categories for which data was able to be provided varied between countries. The
vehicle category for which countries were most commonly able to provide data was '4-wheeled
vehicles'. Data has therefore been presented in the table for 4-wheeled vehicles where possible.
Where not possible, this has been noted for the countries concerned. 3. Notes on data provided
by each country:
– Australian fatality figures are estimates based on data from the states of
Victoria and Queensland. Serious injury figures are estimates based on
hospital admissions in Victoria.
– Fatality and serious injury figures include estimates for two provinces.
Figures for pole side and other side impacts and rollovers are for M and
N vehicles only, so percentages and rates may therefore be
understated. Serious injury figures are for Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS)
– Serious injury figures are for AIS3+ injuries.
– Population is at December 31, 2008; seriously injured figures represent
persons who were immediately taken to hospital for inpatient treatment
(of at least 24h); figures for pole side and other side impacts and
rollovers are for M vehicles only. Percentages of occupant fatalities may
therefore be understated.
– Figures do not include Northern Ireland. The serious injury definition
used is: An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an "in
patient", or any of the following injuries whether or not they the sufferer is
detained in hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushing,
burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, severe general shock
requiring medical treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days
after the accident. An injured casualty is recorded as seriously or slightly
injured by the police on the basis of information available within a short
time of the accident. This generally will not reflect the results of a
medical examination, but may be influenced according to whether the
casualty is hospitalised or not. Hospitalisation procedures will vary
– Figures for pole side impacts do not include impacts with trees, which
are included among other side impacts. Serious injuries are injuries
requiring 30 days or more for recovery. Figures for pole side and other
side impacts and rollovers are for vehicles up to and including 3.5t, so
percentages and rates may therefore be understated.
– Figures for pole side and other side impacts and rollovers are for
M vehicles and N (delivery vans only). Percentages of occupant
fatalities may therefore be understated. Figures are not available for
rollovers. Serious injury figures are for AIS3+ injuries.
Republic of Korea – The definition for total serious injuries is more than 3 weeks treatment in
hospital; the figures for 4-wheeled vehicle occupant serious injuries, pole
and other side impact serious injuries and rollover injuries comprise all
reported injuries. Percentages of total serious injuries are therefore not
– Serious injury figures are estimates of incapacitating injuries.
16. Head injuries were a major cause of death for both pole side impacts and other side
impacts (and notably more prevalent than in frontal impacts), followed by thorax,
abdominal/pelvic and spine injuries. This statement applied to both Category 1-1 and
Category 2 vehicles, although percentages varied between the two categories (for
example head injuries were more common as a cause of death for Category 2 vehicles).
17. Analysis of AIS1+ and AIS3+ injuries in Table 3 shows somewhat different patterns.
Thorax injuries are the major cause of AIS3+ injury for both pole side impacts and other
side impacts, followed by head, abdominal/pelvic and spine injuries (reflecting the fact that
head injuries are more likely to be fatal).
Injuries Sustained (Period 2000-2010 Inclusive) by Struck-side Occupants of
Category 1-1 Vehicles (Model Year 2000 or Later Vehicles) in Victoria, Australia
AIS body region
AIS1 + AIS3 +
PDI Vehicle PSI Vehicle
N % N % N % N %
Head 121 57.1% 321 37.1% 25 11.8% 48 5.5%
Face 45 21.2% 70 8.1% Nil Nil Nil Nil
Neck 2 0.9% 3 0.3% Nil Nil Nil Nil
Thorax 76 35.8% 276 31.9% 45 21.2% 75 8.7%
Abdomen-pelvis 80 37.7% 281 32.5% 14 6.6% 17 2.0%
Spine 63 29.7% 286 33.1% 3 1.4% 6 0.7%
Upper extremity 107 50.5% 294 34.0% 2 0.9% Nil Nil
Lower extremity 67 31.6% 213 24.6% 18 8.5% 11 1.3%
18. These figures will be relevant in considering the injury criteria for the GTR set out below.
However, the prevalence of head injury in both pole side impacts and other side impacts is
also important in that it both underlines safety need and is relevant to assessment of
benefits. In Australia, for example, the most recent value of a statistical life is Australian
dollars A$ 4.9 Million (US$ 5.1 Million). Based on insurance claims data, it has been
estimated that the societal and lifetime care cost of severe brain injury (taken to be AIS4+)
is A$ 4.8 Million and moderate brain injury (taken to be AIS3) is A$ 3.7 Million.
2. Electronic Stability Control
25. The informal working group considered the extent to which the safety concern associated
with pole side impacts and other side impacts would be addressed by the advent of
Electronic Stability Control (ESC). ESC will substantially improve vehicle stability and
braking performance and consequently assist in avoiding impacts or reducing the impact
speed if an impact is unavoidable.
26. In this regard, the informal working group noted that the fitment of ESC to vehicles had
recently increased significantly. For example, in Europe ESC will become mandatory for
almost all Category 1, Category 1-2 and Category 2 vehicles by 2013. The group also
considered research presented by the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt), the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and MUARC, showing the
following crash reductions:
BASt – overall effectiveness of ESC in reducing fatally and severely injured drivers
assuming an ESC equipment rate of 100% of the vehicle fleet – about 40%
NHTSA – single vehicle run-off-crashes: 35% for passenger cars; 67% for sports
utility vehicles (preventing 41% of fatal crashes and 35% of serious injuries)
MUARC: single vehicle crash reductions: 24% for passenger cars; 54% for fourwheel
drive Category 1-1 vehicles and 45% for Category 2 vehicles (up to
27. These are significant figures, but even where ESC is fitted or will be fitted, this will still
leave a large proportion of pole side impacts to be addressed. Moreover, ESC is much
less effective in multi-vehicle crashes which make up the majority of all side impacts.
MUARC's recent research indicates negligible or no benefits. Calculations of the
effectiveness of ESC should also take into account driver factors, such as gender and age
and crash characteristics. For instance, the effectiveness of ESC may be less for younger
drivers. These drivers have disproportionally high involvement in pole side impact
28. NHTSA's Final Regulatory Impact Analysis to add an oblique pole side impact test
(published in 2007) assumed 100% implementation of ESC while still showing major
benefits. Calculations by MUARC for Australia also show major benefits, while assuming
100% implementation of ESC for Category 1 and 2 vehicles (see Section F).
29. The informal working group also considered the potential for other active safety systems,
such as collision avoidance systems to reduce the fatalities and injuries occurring in side
impacts. The benefits from such systems are largely yet to be established, while the
proposed GTR responds to a major current safety need. Nevertheless it will be possible
for Contracting Parties to consider developments in active safety when considering
adoption of the GTR into domestic Regulation.
C. EXISTING REGULATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL VOLUNTARY STANDARDS
32. As indicated in Table 4, test procedures for pole side impact tests, either in Regulation or
in voluntary standards, are highly variable internationally.
Current Pole Side Impact Test Procedures
US FMVSS 201
(50 percentile male)
Manufacturers need not
perform the FMVSS 201
90° pole test if the vehicle
is certified to meet
US FMVSS 214
75° up to
26-32km/h in phase-in up
to August 31, 2014;
thereafter up to 32km/h
75° up to
SID-IIs (5 percentile
26-32km/h in phase-in up
to August 31, 2014;
thereafter up to 32km/h
Voluntary Standards –
New Car Assessment
SID-IIs (5 percentile
ES-2 (50 percentile
ES-2 (50 percentile
ES-2 (50 percentile
39. Addendum 2 of Mutual Resolution No. 1 (M.R.1) is reserved for the technical
specifications of the WorldSID 50 male, including detailed engineering drawings,
certification requirements and procedures for assembly/disassembly. Part II of the GTR
therefore includes references to Addendum 2 of M.R.1. For each of these references,
square brackets are used to denote that this addendum is under development and hence
yet to be adopted by AC.3. It is intended that the informal working group on the
Harmonization of Side Impact Dummies will seek to finalise an agreement with ISO for the
availability of technical specifications of the WorldSID 50 male in Addendum 2 of M.R.1.
3. The Two Phase Approach
40. Drawings, calibration and maintenance procedures for the WorldSID 50 male are
expected to be available for citation (by way of reference to a WorldSID 50 male
addendum to the Mutual Resolution) in the GTR in 2013 whereas the timetable for the
WorldSID 5 percentile adult female (WorldSID 5 female) to reach this stage of
development appears likely to extend to 2014 or beyond.
41. As some Contracting Parties indicated an intention to transpose the GTR using the
WorldSID 50 male as soon as this was practical, there was significant discussion in the
informal working group over whether and how to address small occupant protection in the
GTR, while recognising that it would not be possible for the United States of America to
agree to a GTR that was in any way less stringent than FMVSS 214. FMVSS 214 sets test
requirements for a 5 percentile adult female dummy (SID-IIs).
42. The informal working group also noted that NHTSA estimated that small occupants (5'4" or
less) represented 25% of all near side occupant fatalities and serious injuries in side
impacts in the US in the period 2002-2004. In calculating the benefits for the amendment
to FMVSS 214 to include a pole side impact test, NHTSA estimated that the use of the
SID-IIs 5 percentile adult female would save an additional 78 lives a year (PSI-01-10).
43. As a consequence the informal working group agreed to a two phase approach to the
GTR, subsequently endorsed by GRSP and AC.3, to enable Contracting Parties to
implement a pole side impact standard utilising the WorldSID 50 male and, if warranted,
to subsequently implement a pole side impact standard utilising the WorldSID 5 female.
44. As noted in the introduction and procedural background (Paragraph 6.), the terms of
reference for the informal working group were amended to provide for a second phase of
the development of the GTR to incorporate the WorldSID 5 female.
45. Part II of this GTR provides for the second phase of work by including place marks for
future text on the WorldSID 5 female; and explicit provision for Contracting Parties to
apply any pre-existing domestic pole side impact requirements for 5 percentile adult
female side impact dummies, prior to the availability of the WorldSID 5 female.
51. The informal working group therefore decided to include criteria here that Contracting
Parties may use, if warranted byy national safety need data, to exempt certain Category 1-2
and Category 2 vehicles from the requirements of the GTR G at the time of implementation
in domestic Regulation. These vehicles are
robustly characterizedd as Category 1-2 and
Category 2 vehicles
where the angle alpha (α), measured rearwardss from the centre of the
front axle to the R-Point of thee driver's seat is at least 22°; and the ratio between the
from the drivers' R-Point to the centre of the rear axle (L101-L114) and the centre
of the front axle and
the drivers' R-Point (L114) is greater than or equal to 1.3.
52. The expert from OICA made a presentation (PSI-07-08) at the seventh meeting of the
informal working group detailing vehicle dimensions
and showing how these specific
measurements can accurately define vehicle types. Ann α of at least 22° was proposed
because it would enable the exemption of mini-buses, vans and mini-trucks with high
seating positions (that is, high seating reference points) and/or where the occupant is
seated over the front axle, without exempting pick-ups. A ratio between the distance from
the drivers' R-Pointt to the centre of the rear axle (L101-L114) and the centre of the front
axle and the drivers
R-Point (L114) greater than or equal to 1.3 was proposed because it
characterises vehicles which have significant cargo space andd a centre of gravity
considerably rearward of the driver's R-Point.
3. Test Speed
60. Apart from one exception described below, the GTR provides that the "test vehicle ... shall
be impacted into a stationary pole at any speed up to and including 32km/h". This wording
provides the flexibility for both self-certification and type approval authorities to adopt
approaches in implementing the GTR that are consistent with their normal practice. For
example FMVSS 214 currently allows vehicles to be tested at a speed between 26km/h
and 32km/h (for vehicles manufactured on or before August 31, 2014) and any speed up
to and including 32km/h (for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2014). This
approach will be able to be maintained under the GTR. Type approval authorities will, on
the other hand, be able to specify a single test speed of 32km/h.
61. There was some discussion within the informal working group about whether type
approval authorities could determine test speeds from within a range. However, it was
recognised that this could potentially mean vehicle manufacturers being required to do
many different tests at different speeds in type approval markets. In contrast, to address
the speed range requirements of self-certification authorities, manufacturers can use
appropriate tools including simulation models to satisfy themselves they meet all potential
62. The informal working group agreed that it would be appropriate for type approval
authorities to set the test speed at 32km/h with a tolerance of plus or minus 1km/h as this
would allow a reasonable margin either side of the maximum test speed at which
Contracting Parties may require a vehicle to meet the GTR. It should be noted that this
tolerance would not necessarily require manufacturers to obtain type approval for test
speeds greater than 32km/h. It simply means test speeds of 32km/h plus or minus 1km/h
would be accepted for type approval purposes. Where test speed can be controlled more
accurately, for example to within plus or minus 0.5km/h as has been required of
EuroNCAP test facilities, type approval tests could consistently be conducted within the
allowable range, without manufacturers being required to demonstrate compliance in
excess of the 32km/h maximum test speed of the GTR.
4. Exception for Narrow Vehicles
63. The exception from the requirement that the "test vehicle...shall be impacted into a
stationary pole at any speed up to and including 32km/h" is set in Annex 1,
Paragraph 7.2., of Part II and reads:
"The maximum test velocity may be reduced to 26km/h for vehicles with a width of 1.50m
or less. Contracting parties selecting this option shall notify the Secretary General in
writing when submitting the notification required by Section 7.2 of the Agreement
Concerning the Establishing of Global Technical Regulations for Wheeled Vehicles,
Equipment and Parts Which Can Be Fitted".
64. This provision was agreed by the informal working group in response to a request from the
expert from Japan to provide a temporary concession for narrow vehicles(which have a
width of 1.50m or less and are categorized as small vehicles)in the GTR. In agreeing to
this concession the informal working group took the view that it was better for narrow
vehicles to be brought clearly within the ambit of the GTR than be subject to exclusions to
the GTR made in domestic law. In this respect the informal working group was mindful that
narrow vehicles are being manufactured in other markets and are likely to become
increasingly prevalent in the global market.
73. At the fifth meeting of the informal working group, the United States noted that while it
would be in a position to agree with the injury risk curves within the timeline of the Phase 1
of this GTR, it may not be in a position to agree to injury risk values without delaying the
timeline. The United States suggested that, given that benefits and costs may vary
depending on the fleets of different countries, the GTR should include only the injury risk
curves, with Contracting Parties to choose appropriate injury assessment reference values
(IARVs) when implementing the GTR in national legislation. As stated in Paragraph 32.,
the United States is in a unique position in having the only existing dynamic pole side
impact Regulation. Because of this, the United States seeks to ensure that the benefits
achieved by their current pole side impact Regulation are increased or, at least,
74. While the informal working group rejected the suggestion of including only the injury risk
curves, it is understood that the United States will conduct a full analysis of the impacts of
the IARVs and other aspects of the GTR in Phase 2. The United States will be conducting
fleet testing with the WorldSID dummies to ensure benefits are maintained. It will also
examine possible incremental improvements, such as the effect of lowering injury
threshold values and adding more injury criteria to Phase 2. These efforts could result in
future recommendations to adjust the injury risk values and other aspects of this GTR.
6. Head Injury
75. As noted earlier, a very high proportion of fatalities and AIS3+ injuries in pole side impacts
and other side impacts are caused by head injuries, predominantly brain injuries. The
informal working group determined that the head protection performance should be based
on the Head Injury Criterion (HIC) 36, given the ability of the HIC to estimate the risk of
serious to fatal head injury in motor vehicle crashes.
76. The informal working group agreed that the HIC36 must not exceed 1,000, which is
equivalent to approximately a 50% risk of AIS3+ head injury for a 45-year-old male.
77. The informal working group also considered the Brain Injury Criterion (BRIC) currently
being developed by the United States of America. While kinematic head injury criteria,
expressed as a function of measured translational head accelerations (such as the HIC),
have served well to mitigate head injury, there is still a significant frequency of traumatic
brain injury (TBI) in crash-involved automobile occupants. Further research into the
physical and biomechanical processes within the traumatically injured brain has identified
rotational head kinematics as a potential contributing factor to TBI. A rotational brain injury
criterion (BRIC) is under development that utilizes dummy head kinematic information to
determine the likelihood of brain injury due to rotation. Additional research, scheduled to
be completed in 2013, will determine the methods for calculation and injury risk functions
for the BRIC.
78. The informal working group decided that progress on the BRIC and possible incorporation
in the GTR should be considered as part of the second phase. Part II includes a place
mark for a future BRIC requirement.
87. The deflection measurement system proposed for the shoulder of the WorldSID 50 male
has a maximum measurement capability of 65-70mm. When shoulder deflections occur at
or beyond this level the durability limits of the measurement device can be exceeded and
breakages are common. As the shoulder criterion is being included for the purpose of
detecting excessive (non-biofidelic) loading, the group considered alternative means of
measuring shoulder deflection. A revised dummy design was proposed with a shoulder
'stop' in place of the linear measurement device. This stop would be specified in such a
way that it has no impact on biofidelic interactions with the shoulder, but that contact
between the shoulder rib and the stop would produce an easily measureable peak in the
event of non-biofidelic deflection. The group agreed that a design change to the dummy
was not appropriate for the first phase of the GTR, but that this issue could be considered
further as part of the second phase.
8. Thorax Performance
88. A high proportion of fatalities and AIS3+ injuries in pole side impacts and other side
impacts are also caused by thorax injuries.
89. The informal working group agreed that the maximum thorax rib deflection must not
exceed 55mm, which is equivalent to approximately 50% risk of AIS3+ thoracic skeleton
injury for a 45-year-old male.
90. There was initially some concern that using a thorax injury risk curve for a 45-year-old to
set this limit may not guarantee appropriate protection for older occupants, especially
given many countries now have ageing populations. However, given the median age for
victims of pole side impacts is much lower than 45 (and much lower than that of victims of
other side impacts), it was agreed that the thorax protection needs of older occupants in
particular may be more appropriately addressed by updating mobile deformable barrier
side impact test requirements. For example, a thorax injury risk curve for a 67 year old (the
average age of the PMHS used in tests from which injury risk curves are derived) may
appropriately be used to set the thorax rib deflection limit if mobile deformable barrier side
impact Regulations are reviewed.
91. The informal working group also considered including a peak thorax viscous criterion, but
decided against doing so in the first phase of the GTR, as ISO WG6 has not been able to
construct an AIS3+ thoracic viscous criterion injury risk curve with an acceptable quality
92. However, it is important to note that many Contracting Parties have been using a viscous
criterion in national/regional mobile deformable barrier side impact Regulations. In
particular, some Contracting Parties to the 1958 Agreement noted that such a criterion has
successfully been used with EuroSID 1 and ES-2 for more than a decade in
Regulation No. 95. Some Contracting Parties would therefore like the injury risk curves for
this criterion to be investigated further as they may wish to use or continue using a viscous
criterion in future regulatory side impact applications of the WorldSID 50 male. This load
rate sensitive biomechanical criterion is believed to encourage close attention to the door
design, including control of the door intrusion speeds. Well controlled door intrusion speed
responses are known to be particularly important for the protection of occupants in side
impact crashes. For this reason, door intrusion speed simulation was incorporated in the
sled test methods developed for the new UN Regulation on child restraint systems.
Progress in developing a peak thorax viscous criterion should therefore be considered
further in the second phase of the GTR, as well as for other future regulatory side impact
100. Other pole side impact tests jointly conducted by Australia and Transport Canada showed
that at least a 60mm maximum abdominal rib deflection would typically be required under
normal vehicle-to-pole side impact dummy load conditions to generate a 3ms lower spine
acceleration in excess of 75g.
10. Pelvic Performance – Pubic Symphysis
101. To protect the pelvis, the informal working group agreed that the maximum pubic
symphysis force must not exceed 3.36kN, which is equivalent to approximately a 50% risk
of AIS3+ pelvic injury for a 45-year-old male.
11. Pelvic Performance – Sacro-iliac
102. Current WorldSID 50 male injury risk functions for the entire pelvis are based on the
pubic symphysis load and pelvic acceleration. While the pubic symphysis load is
measured at the anterior portion of the pelvis, there is field evidence of posterior pelvic
injury that may not be detected by the pubic symphysis load cell. The WorldSID 50 male
pelvis has a posterior sacro-iliac joint load cell for which no injury risk function exists.
Research is underway to determine how the sacro-iliac and pubic symphysis loads
interrelate, to establish whether injury criteria can be independently defined for the pubic
symphysis and sacro-iliac. This issue can be considered further in the second phase.
12. Seat Adjustment and Installation Requirements
103. ISO established ISO/TC22/SC10/WG1 (ISO WG1) to develop car collision test
procedures. This working group developed a draft seating procedure
(ISO/DIS 17949:2012) for positioning the WorldSID 50 male in front outboard seating
positions. This draft ISO standard was developed to provide a repeatable seating and
positioning procedure able to be applied across the world vehicle fleet. In the interests of
harmonization of international standards, the informal working group agreed, wherever
possible, to align the seat adjustment and installation requirements for the WorldSID 50
male dummy in Annex 2 to the GTR with suitable procedures developed and/or
recommended by ISO WG1.
104. The lumbar support, other seat support, head restraint, safety-belt anchorage, steering
wheel and pedal adjustment requirements have been aligned with the ISO/DIS 17949 draft
requirements developed by ISO WG1.
105. The "procedure for establishing the test position of an adjustable seat cushion" is based
on a similar procedure developed by ISO Working Group 1 for the ISO/DIS 17949:2012
106. The "procedure for manikin H-Point and actual torso angle determination" has been
adapted from the procedures for H-Point and actual torso angle determination used in
GTR No. 7, and Regulations No. 94 and No. 95. The seat back angle adjustment
requirements have been aligned with the requirements of the ISO/DIS 17949:2012 draft
107. The H-Point manikin (3-D H Machine) specified for the determination of the manikin
H-Point and actual torso angle is the device specified and used in SAE J826 1995. This
machine corresponds to the 3-D H Machine used in GTR No. 7 and to that described in
ISO 6549: 1999.
115. For example, Regulation No. 95 incorporating all valid text up to the 03 series of
amendments (E/ECE/324-E/ECE/TRANS/505/Rev.1/Add.94/Rev.1), includes a section on
the modification of the vehicle type which states:
"Any modification affecting the structure, the number and type of seats, the interior trim or
fittings, or the position of the vehicle controls or of mechanical parts which might affect the
energy-absorption capacity of the side of the vehicle, shall be brought to the notice of the
Type Approval Authority granting approval.
The department may then either:
Consider that the modifications made are unlikely to have an appreciable
adverse effect and that in any case the vehicle still complies with the
Require a further test report from the Technical Service responsible for
conducting the tests.
Any modification of the vehicle affecting the general form of the structure of the vehicle or
any variation in the reference mass greater than 8% which in the judgement of the
authority would have a marked influence on the results of the test shall require a repetition
of the test...."
116. The informal working group considered that a similar approach allowing for worst case
variant selection and for full scale vehicle tests results to be extended to a range of
variants would need to be allowed where the GTR is implemented in type approval
systems. This allows vehicle manufacturers to obtain approval for a range of model
variants for which the test conducted is representative, and limits the cost of testing
without reducing the levels of occupant protection required.
15. Parking Brake / Transmission
117. Existing procedures for pole side impact tests include setting requirements for both the
test vehicle parking brake and transmission. These requirements were discussed within
the informal working group. The group was of the view that the main function of both
prescriptive requirements was to limit movement of the vehicle prior to impact with the
pole, and therefore maximise accuracy of the impact location. As the GTR includes a
performance requirement for impact alignment accuracy it was agreed that the
requirements for parking brake and transmission were unnecessary. However, in order to
maintain a consistent test configuration and minimise testing problems the group agreed to
include a requirement that the parking brake be engaged. Requirements on transmission
engagement were not included as these appeared inconsistent within the requirement and
incompatible with some modern vehicle drivetrains. The group agreed that transmission
setting would have no effect on the result of a test.
17. Indicative Pitch and Roll Angle Measurement
119. Fixed linear references are used in the GTR to control the attitude of the test vehicle.
These linear references are used to measure the pitch angles on each side of the vehicle
and the roll angles at the front and rear of the vehicle. The pitch and roll angles of the
vehicle in the test attitude shall be between the corresponding unladen attitude angles and
the laden attitude angles, inclusive. Pitch and roll angles are also covered in Annex 6.
Exaggerated figures, showing how the pitch angle (θp) and roll angles (θr) are measured
relative to a level surface or horizontal reference plane are included for illustrative
Exaggerated Illustration of Front Left Door Sill Pitch Angle
F. REGULATORY IMPACT AND ECONOMIC EFFECTIVENESS
122. Assessment of the effectiveness and benefits and costs of implementing the GTR are
likely to be highly particular to individual Contracting Parties, depending on factors such as
the regulatory or NCAP pole side impact test requirements already in application, vehicle
fleet makeup, current and projected levels of ESC and side airbag fitment, the type of
airbags fitted and fatality and injury numbers in both pole and other side impacts, including
particularly the type and severity of injuries. The following sections on effectiveness,
benefits and costs of the GTR are intended to provide guidance to Contracting Parties on
the types of factors to be considered, providing some examples drawn from national data
and analyses that have already been undertaken. However, in considering the case for
implementation of the GTR, detailed benefit-cost analysis will need to be undertaken by
individual Contacting Parties or regional groupings. As a general rule, however, high costs
are likely to be matched by high benefits (for example in situations where there is low
fitment of side airbags of any kind).
123. As previously noted, the passive safety countermeasures expected to be used in vehicles
to meet the requirements of the GTR (most likely side curtain airbags and thorax airbags,
but in some cases also including structural countermeasures) are likely to reduce injury
risk in pole side impact crashes as well as other side impact crashes, including car to car
crashes. The effectiveness of the GTR will depend on the extent to which
countermeasures are already required or otherwise present in countries. This is influenced
by the regulatory requirements and voluntary standards applying.
124. As part of its consultancy on the safety need, effectiveness and benefits and costs of the
GTR, MUARC conducted an analysis of studies on the effectiveness of side airbags. The
studies were published in the period 2003-2011. On the basis of its analysis, MUARC
decided to "use a (baseline) 32% reduction in fatalities due to the presence of a curtain
plus thorax side airbag system ... (and to) adopt a value of 34% as our basis of reduction
in injuries" This baseline reduction in fatalities and injuries is in comparison to a situation
in which there is no side airbag protection.
125. MUARC then considered the improvements in airbag effectiveness that are likely to be
required by the GTR, in particular considering the situation in Australia where ANCAP
conducts perpendicular pole side impact tests. MUARC noted that the nature of the GTR
test itself would "require key changes to the design of current airbag and airbag sensor
systems. Collectively, these changes would be expected to improve the effectiveness of
side airbag systems by providing improved coverage for a broader range of occupants and
would provide improved protection across a larger range of impact angles experienced in
126. MUARC noted that many seat mounted thorax airbags would need to be made to extend
slightly more forward of the vehicle seat. This is because compared to the perpendicular
test, under the oblique test requirements of the GTR, the pole impacts the vehicle in a
more forward location relative to the vehicle seat and dummy thorax. The dummy would
also move slightly forward relative to the seat (i.e. towards the pole) in an oblique pole
134. Calculation of benefits from the GTR in a particular country will need to take account of the
likely effectiveness of the GTR in that country. For instance, effectiveness will be
significantly greater in a country in which neither regulated nor voluntary pole side impact
standards apply than in the United States of America, where pole side impact standards
apply in Regulation and voluntary standards; or in European countries, the Republic of
Korea and Australia where voluntary standards apply.
135. Another key factor in determining the level of benefits will also be the number of fatalities
and injuries being addressed – that is, the target population. As seen in Table 1, even in
percentage terms or rates per 100,000 this can vary significantly between countries The
target population in all countries is likely to be reduced over time by factors such as
current and projected fitment rates of side airbag protection (of any kind) and current and
projected fitment rates of ESC and other crash avoidance technologies. Contracting
Parties will need to consider such factors when considering adoption of the GTR into
domestic legislation. On the other hand, Contracting Parties may wish to take account of
the potential for the GTR to reduce rollover fatalities and injuries, noting that ESC is likely
to be particularly effective in reducing rollover crashes and that it has not been possible to
assess the effectiveness of the GTR in rollover crashes. Other factors will also be relevant
in assessing benefits, including the current and future shape of the vehicle fleet in
136. Having determined the scale of the problem being addressed and the level of
effectiveness, Contracting Parties will be able to determine reductions in fatalities and
injuries and the monetary benefits flowing from this. In Australia, the most recent value
(2010) of a statistical life is A$ 4.9 Million, while for serious injury it is A$ 804,000 and for
minor injury A$ 30,000.
137. These values will vary from country to country. However, the informal working group
particularly noted the high level of brain injury in side impacts, with serious brain injuries
prevalent in pole side impacts. Based on insurance claims data, in Australia it has been
estimated that the societal and lifetime care cost of severe brain injury (taken to be AIS4+)
is A$ 4.8 Million and moderate brain injury (taken to be AIS3) is A$ 3.7 Million (2009). It
has also been estimated that paraplegia costs A$ 5 Million per case. Again while values
will vary from country to country, any assessment of benefits of the GTR should consider
the types of injuries being avoided and the high level of benefits associated with avoiding
brain and spinal cord injuries, as illustrated by the Australian data.
Estimated Cost of Installing Side Airbag/Restraint Systems for
Vehicles Already Equipped with a Frontal Airbag System
Narrow combination airbag and a peripheral sensor on each side 116 141
Narrow curtain airbag, narrow thorax airbag and a peripheral sensor on each side 235 287
Wide combination airbag and a peripheral sensor on each side 126 154
Wide curtain airbag, wide thorax airbag and a peripheral sensor on each side 243 296
Wide curtain airbag, wide thorax airbag and 2 peripheral sensors on each side 280 342
144. As it was assumed wide side airbags would be used by vehicle manufacturers to meet the
performance requirements of an oblique pole test, the incremental cost per vehicle relative
to vehicles that would otherwise have been fitted with narrow side airbags or frontal
airbags only (no side airbags) can be obtained from Table 5. Some estimated incremental
costs are shown in Table 6 below.
Incremental Cost Matrix for Vehicles Already Fitted with Frontal Airbags, but Requiring
Wide Side Airbags to Meet Oblique Pole Side Impact Performance Requirements
Incremental Costs US$ (2012)
Wide curtain airbag,
wide thorax airbag
and a peripheral
sensor on each side
Wide curtain airbag,
wide thorax airbag
and 2 peripheral
sensors on each side
No side airbags 296 342
Narrow combination airbag and a peripheral sensor on
Narrow curtain airbag, narrow thorax airbag and a
peripheral sensor on each side
145. It is important to note that the 2004 US dollar costs originally presented by NHTSA in the
FMVSS 214 regulatory impact analysis were obtained by inflating 1999 US dollar costs to
2004 US dollar costs. However it is widely accepted that the real cost of new and
emerging technology typically decreases as demand and production increase in scale over
time. This means side restraint system component costs obtained by inflating 1999 US
dollar costs to 2012 US dollar costs could be expected to represent maximum component
G. SUMMARY OF ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE SECOND PHASE
152. In the above text, a number of issues have been identified for consideration in the second
phase. For ease of reference, these can be briefly summarised as:
Incorporation of the WorldSID 5 percentile adult female in the GTR;
Review of test speed exemption for narrow vehicles;
Consideration of a shoulder stop or inclusion of a shoulder rib deflection limit in the
performance criteria of the GTR;
Progress on the Brain Injury Criterion (BRIC) and possible incorporation in the GTR;
Progress in developing a peak thorax viscous criterion;
Progress in developing a sacro-iliac injury criterion;
Electrical safety requirements; and
A possible requirement in the GTR for the doors to be unlocked after impact.
153. It should be noted that the requirements of the GTR are generally more stringent than
existing legislation or even voluntary standards at the time of adoption of the GTR. In
addition, many countries do not yet have pole side impact requirements under either
Regulation or voluntary standards.
154. It is therefore recommended that Contracting Parties implementing this GTR allow
adequate lead time before full mandatory application, considering the necessary vehicle
development time and product lifecycle.
155. It is also recognised that Contracting Parties may vote to adopt the GTR into the Global
Registry, but not be obliged to submit the GTR to the process used for adoption into its
national regional law until Addendum 2 of the Mutual Resolution No. 1 is adopted.
3.8. "Passenger compartment" means the space for occupant accommodation, bounded by the
roof, floor, side walls, doors, outside glazing and front bulkhead and the plane of the rear
compartment bulkhead or the plane of the rear-seat back support.
3.9. "Secondary latched position" refers to the coupling condition of the latch that retains the
door in a partially closed position.
3.10. "Striker" is a device with which the latch engages to maintain the door in the fully latched or
secondary latched position.
3.11. "Trunk lid" is a movable body panel that provides access from outside the vehicle to a space
wholly partitioned from the passenger compartment by a permanently attached partition or fixed
or fold-down seat back (in the position of occupant use).
4.1. A vehicle tested in accordance with Annex 1, using a WorldSID 50 percentile adult male
dummy , shall meet the requirements of Paragraphs 4.2., 4.4., and 4.5.
4.2. WorldSID 50 percentile adult male performance requirements 4.2.1. The performance criteria
measured by a WorldSID 50 percentile adult male dummy in the front-row outboard seating
position on the impact side of a vehicle tested in accordance with Annex 1, shall meet the
requirements of Paragraphs 4.2.2. to 4.2.6.
4.2.2. Head Injury Criteria
18.104.22.168. The Head Injury Criterion (HIC) 36 shall not exceed 1,000 when calculated in accordance with
Paragraph 1. of Annex 7.
4.2.3. Shoulder Performance Criteria
22.214.171.124. The peak lateral shoulder force shall not exceed 3.0kN when calculated in accordance with
Paragraph 3.1. of Annex 7.
4.2.4. Thorax Performance Criteria
126.96.36.199. The maximum thorax rib deflection shall not exceed 55mm when calculated in accordance with
Paragraph 4.1. of Annex 7.
4.2.5. Abdominal Performance Criteria
188.8.131.52. The maximum abdominal rib deflection shall not exceed 65mm when calculated in accordance
with Paragraph 5.1. of Annex 7.
184.108.40.206. The resultant lower spine acceleration shall not exceed 75g (1g = the acceleration due to
gravity = 9.81m/s ), except for intervals whose cumulative duration is not more than 3ms, when
calculated in accordance with Paragraph 5.2. of Annex 7.
DYNAMIC POLE SIDE IMPACT TEST PROCEDURE
Determination of compliance with the requirements of Paragraph 4. of this Regulation.
For the purposes of this Annex:
2.1. "Fuel ballast" means water; or Stoddard Solvent; or any other homogeneous liquid with a
specific gravity of 1.0 + 0/-0.25 and a dynamic viscosity of 0.9 ± 0.05mPa·s at 25°C.
2.2. "Gross vehicle mass" is defined in Special Resolution 1.
2.3. "Impact reference line" is the line formed on the impact side of the test vehicle by the
intersection of the exterior surface of the vehicle and a vertical plane passing through the
centre of gravity of the head of the dummy positioned in accordance with Annex 2, in the
front-row outboard designated seating position on the impact side of the vehicle. The vertical
plane forms an angle of 75° with the vehicle longitudinal centreline. The angle is measured as
indicated in Annex 4, Figure 4-1 (or Figure 4-2) for left (or right) side impact.
2.4. "Impact velocity vector" means the geometric quantity which describes both the speed and
direction of travel of the vehicle at the moment of impact with the pole. The impact velocity
vector points in the direction of travel of the vehicle. The origin of the impact velocity vector is
the centre of gravity of the vehicle and its magnitude (length) describes the impact speed of the
2.5. "Laden attitude" means the pitch and roll angle of the test vehicle when positioned on a level
surface with all tyres fitted and inflated as recommended by the vehicle manufacturer and
loaded to the laden mass. The test vehicle is loaded by centrally positioning 136kg or the rated
cargo and luggage mass (whichever is less) in the cargo/luggage carrying area over the
longitudinal centreline of the vehicle. The mass of the necessary anthropomorphic test device
is placed on the front-row outboard designated seating position on the impact side of the
vehicle. The front-row seat on the impact side of the vehicle is positioned in accordance with
2.6. "Laden mass" means unladen vehicle mass, plus 136kg or the rated cargo and luggage mass
(whichever is less), plus the mass of the necessary anthropomorphic test device.
2.7. "Pitch angle" is the angle of a fixed linear reference connecting two reference points on the
front left or right door sill (as applicable), relative to a level surface or horizontal reference
plane. An example of a suitable fixed linear reference for left side door sill pitch angle
measurement is illustrated in Figure 6-1 of Annex 6.
2.8. "Pole" means a fixed rigid vertically oriented metal structure with a continuous outer cross
section diameter of 254mm ± 6mm, beginning no more than 102mm above the lowest point of
the tyres on the impact side of the vehicle in the laden attitude, and extending at least above
the highest point of the roof of the test vehicle.
3.2.1. A pole satisfying the definition of Paragraph 2.8. of this Annex, and offset from any mounting
surface, such as a barrier or other structure, so that the test vehicle will not contact such a
mount or support at any time within 100ms of the initiation of vehicle-to-pole contact.
3.3. Anthropomorphic Test Devices
3.3.1. A WorldSID 50 percentile adult male dummy in accordance with Addendum 2 of Mutual
Resolution No. 1 and fitted with (as a minimum) all instrumentation required to obtain the data
channels necessary to determine the dummy performance criteria listed in Paragraph 4.2. of
4. VEHICLE PREPARATION
4.1. Fuel systems designed for fuel with a boiling point above 0°C shall be prepared in accordance
with Paragraphs 4.1.1. and 4.1.2.
4.1.1. The fuel tank shall be filled with fuel ballast of mass:
220.127.116.11. Greater than or equal to the mass of the vehicle fuel required to fill 90% of the useable fuel tank
18.104.22.168. Less than or equal to the mass of the vehicle fuel required to fill 100% of the useable fuel tank
4.1.2. Fuel ballast shall be used to fill the entire fuel system from the fuel tank through to the engine
4.2. Hydrogen fuel systems shall be prepared in accordance with the applicable post-crash fuel
system integrity test procedures specified in the global technical Regulation on hydrogen and
fuel cell vehicles (ECE/TRANS/180/Add.13).
4.3. The other (non-fuel) liquid containing vehicle systems may be empty, in which case, the mass
of the liquids (e.g. brake fluid, coolant, transmission fluid) shall be replaced by the equivalent
4.4. The vehicle test mass, including the mass of the necessary anthropomorphic test device and
any ballast mass, shall be within +0/-10kg of the laden mass defined in Paragraph 2.6. of this
4.5. The pitch angles measured on the left and right side of the vehicle in the test attitude shall be
between the corresponding (left or right as applicable) unladen attitude pitch angle and laden
attitude pitch angle, inclusive.
4.6. Each linear reference used to measure the unladen, laden and test attitude pitch angles on the
left or right side of the vehicle in Paragraph 4.5. above shall connect the same fixed reference
points on the left or right (as applicable) side door sill.
6. DUMMY PREPARATION AND POSITIONING
6.1. A WorldSID 50 percentile adult male dummy in accordance with Paragraph 3.3.1. of this
Annex shall be installed in accordance with Annex 2, in the front-row outboard seat located on
the impact side of the vehicle.
6.2. The test dummy shall be configured and instrumented to be struck on the side closest to the
side of the vehicle impacting the pole.
6.3. The stabilised temperature of the test dummy at the time of the test shall be between 20.6°C
6.4. A stabilised dummy temperature shall be obtained by soaking the dummy at controlled test
laboratory environment temperatures within the range specified in Paragraph 6.3. above prior
to the test.
6.5. The stabilised temperature of the test dummy shall be recorded by an internal dummy chest
cavity temperature sensor.
7. VEHICLE-TO-POLE SIDE IMPACT TEST
7.1. Except as provided in Paragraph 7.2., a test vehicle prepared in accordance with Paragraph 4.,
Paragraph 5. and Paragraph 6. of this Annex, shall be impacted into a stationary pole at any
speed up to and including 32km/h.
7.2. The maximum test speed may be reduced to 26km/h for vehicles with a width of 1.50m or
7.3. The test vehicle shall be propelled so that, when the vehicle-to-pole contact occurs, the
direction of vehicle motion forms an angle of 75° ± 3° with the vehicle longitudinal centreline.
7.4. The angle in Paragraph 7.3. above shall be measured between the vehicle longitudinal
centreline and a vertical plane parallel to the vehicle impact velocity vector, as indicated in
Annex 5, Figure 5-1 (or Figure 5-2) for left (or right) side impact.
7.5. The impact reference line shall be aligned with the centreline of the rigid pole surface, as
viewed in the direction of vehicle motion, so that, when the vehicle-to-pole contact occurs, the
centreline of the pole surface contacts the vehicle area bounded by two vertical planes parallel
to and 25mm forward and aft of the impact reference line.
7.6. During the acceleration phase of the test prior to first contact between the vehicle and the pole,
the acceleration of the test vehicle shall not exceed 1.5m/s .
2.8. "Leg (for dummy installation purposes)" refers to the lower part of the entire leg
assembly between, and including, the foot and the knee assembly.
2.9. "Manikin H-Point" means the pivot centre of the torso and thigh of the 3-D H machine
when installed in a vehicle seat in accordance with Paragraph 6. of this Annex. The manikin
H-Point is located at the centre of the centreline of the device, between the H-Point sight
buttons on either side of the 3-D H machine. Once determined in accordance with the
procedure described in Paragraph 6. of this Annex, the manikin H-Point is considered fixed
in relation to the seat cushion support structure and is considered to move with it when the
seat is adjusted.
2.10. "Mid-sagittal plane" means the median plane of the test dummy; located midway between
and parallel to the dummy spine box side plates.
2.11. "Muslin cotton" means a plain cotton fabric having 18.9 threads per cm and weighing
0.228kg/m or knitted or non-woven fabric having comparable characteristics.
2.12. "Seat cushion reference line" means a planar line along the side surface of the seat
cushion base and passing through the SCRP defined in Paragraph 2.14. of this Annex. The
seat cushion reference line may be marked on the side of a seat cushion support structure
and/or its position defined using an additional reference point. The projection of the seat
cushion reference line to a vertical longitudinal plane is linear (i.e. straight).
2.13. "Seat cushion reference line angle" means the angle of the seat cushion reference line
projection in a vertical longitudinal plane, relative to a level surface or horizontal reference
2.14. "Seat cushion reference point" (SCRP) means the measurement point identified, placed
or marked on the outboard side of a seat cushion support structure to record the longitudinal
(fore/aft) and vertical travel of an adjustable seat cushion.
2.15. "Shoulder median plane" means a plane dividing the left or right (as applicable) shoulder
clevis into symmetrical anterior/posterior sections. The shoulder median plane is
perpendicular to the centreline of the shoulder pivot shaft and parallel to the shoulder load
cell y-axis (or an equivalently oriented axis of a shoulder load cell structural replacement).
2.16. "Thigh (for dummy installation purposes)" refers to the distal upper leg flesh section of
the test dummy between, but not including, the knee assembly and the pelvis flesh.
2.17. "Three-dimensional H-Point machine" (3-D H machine) means the device used for the
determination of manikin H-Points and actual torso angles. This device is defined in
2.18. "Torso line" means the centreline of the probe of the 3-D H machine with the probe in the
fully rearward position.
4. PASSENGER COMPARTMENT ADJUSTMENTS
4.1. Where applicable, the adjustment specified in Paragraph 4.1.1. of this Annex; and in the
case where the dummy is to be installed on the driver's side, the adjustments specified in
Paragraphs 4.1.2. and 4.1.3. of this Annex; shall be performed on the vehicle.
4.1.1. Adjustable Safety-belt Anchorages
22.214.171.124. Any adjustable safety-belt anchorage(s) provided for the seating position at which the
dummy is to be installed, shall be placed at the vehicle manufacturer's nominal design
position for a 50 percentile adult male occupant, or in the fully up position if no design
position is available.
4.1.2. Adjustable Steering Wheels
126.96.36.199. An adjustable steering wheel shall be adjusted to the geometric highest driving position,
considering all telescopic and tilt adjustment positions available.
4.1.3. Adjustable Pedals
188.8.131.52. Any adjustable pedals shall be placed in the full forward position (i.e. towards the front of the
5. PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHING THE TEST POSITION OF AN ADJUSTABLE SEAT
5.1. A seat cushion reference point (SCRP) shall be used to measure and record adjustments
made to seat cushions equipped with controls for longitudinal (fore/aft) and/or vertical seat
5.2. The SCRP should be located on a part of the seat cushion side structure or support frame
which is fixed in location with respect to the seat cushion.
5.3. A seat cushion reference line shall be used to measure and record angular adjustments
made to pitch adjustable seat cushions.
5.4. For pitch adjustable seat cushions, the SCRP location should be set as close as possible to
the axis of rotation (e.g. towards the rear) of the seat cushion support structure.
5.5. The adjustment position of the seat cushion base on which the dummy is to be installed
shall be determined by sequential completion (where applicable to the seat design) of the
steps outlined in Paragraphs 5.6. to 5.13. of this Annex below; with the test vehicle at the
vehicle measuring attitude defined in Paragraph 2.19. of this Annex above.
5.6. Use the seat control that primarily moves the seat vertically to adjust the SCRP to the
uppermost vertical location.
5.7. Use the seat control that primarily moves the seat fore/aft to adjust the SCRP to the
6.6. Using only the control(s) which primarily adjusts the angle of the seat back, independently of
the seat cushion pitch; adjust the seat back position according to one of the following
6.6.1. Place adjustable seat backs in the manufacturer's nominal design driving or riding position
for a 50 percentile adult male occupant, in the manner specified by the manufacturer.
6.6.2. Where a design seat back position is not specified by the manufacturer:
184.108.40.206. Set the seat back to the first detent position rearward of 25° from the vertical.
220.127.116.11. If there is no detent position rearward of 25° from the vertical, set the seat back angle to the
most reclined adjustment position.
6.7. Adjust the seat and back assembly of the 3-D H machine so that the centre plane of the
occupant (C/LO) coincides with the centre plane of the 3-D H machine.
6.8. Set the lower leg segments to the 50 percentile length (417mm) and the thigh bar segment
to the 10 percentile length (408mm).
6.9. Attach the foot and lower leg assemblies to the seat pan assembly, either individually or by
using the T-bar and lower leg assembly. The line through the H-Point sight buttons should
be parallel to the ground and perpendicular to the C/LO of the seat.
6.10. Adjust the feet and leg positions of the 3-D H machine as follows:
6.10.1. Both feet and leg assemblies are moved forward in such a way that the feet take up natural
positions on the floor, between the operating pedals if necessary. Where possible, the left
foot is located approximately the same distance to the left of the centre plane of the 3-D H
machine as the right foot is to the right. The spirit level verifying the transverse orientation of
the 3-D H machine is brought to the horizontal by readjustment of the seat pan if necessary,
or by adjusting the leg and foot assemblies towards the rear. The line passing through the
H-Point sight buttons is maintained perpendicular to the C/LO of the seat.
6.10.2. If the left leg cannot be kept parallel to the right leg and the left foot cannot be supported by
the structure, move the left foot until it is supported. The alignment of the sight buttons is
6.11. Apply the lower leg and thigh weights and level the 3-D H machine.
6.12. Tilt the back pan forward against the forward stop and draw the 3-D H machine away from
the seat back using the T-bar. Reposition the 3-D H machine on the seat by one of the
6.12.1. If the 3-D H machine tends to slide rearward, use the following procedure. Allow the 3-D H
machine to slide rearward until a forward horizontal restraining load on the T-bar is no
longer required (i.e. until the seat pan contacts the seat back). If necessary, reposition the
6.12.2. If the 3-D H machine does not tend to slide rearward, use the following procedure. Slide the
3-D H machine rearwards by applying a horizontal rearward load to the T-bar until the seat
pan contacts the seat back (see Figure 3-2 of Annex 3).
6.20. If necessary, use only the control(s) which primarily adjusts the angle of the seat back
independently of the seat cushion pitch; to adjust the actual torso angle to the design torso
angle ±1° specified by the manufacturer.
6.21. Where a design torso angle is not specified by the manufacturer:
6.21.1. Use only the control(s) which primarily adjusts the angle of the seat back independently of
the seat cushion pitch; to adjust the actual torso angle to 23° ± 1°.
6.22. Where a design torso angle is not specified by the manufacturer and no seat back angular
adjustment position produces an actual torso angle within the 23° ± 1° range:
6.22.1. Use only the control(s) which primarily adjusts the angle of the seat back independently of
the seat cushion pitch; to adjust the actual torso angle as close to 23° as possible.
6.23. Record the final actual torso angle for future reference.
6.24. Measure and record the manikin H-Point (X, Y, Z) coordinates in the vehicle reference
coordinate system for future reference.
6.25. Except as provided in Paragraph 7.4.6. of this Annex; the coordinates recorded in
accordance with Paragraph 6.24. above define the manikin H-Point location of the seat,
when the seat is adjusted to the final seat cushion and seat back detent test positions for
the installation of the dummy.
6.26. If a rerun of the installation of the 3-D H machine is desired, the seat assembly should
remain unloaded for a minimum period of 30min prior to the rerun. The 3-D H machine
should not be left loaded on the seat assembly longer than the time required to perform the
7. WORLDSID 50 PERCENTILE ADULT MALE INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS
7.1. Adjustable lumbar supports, other adjustable seat supports and adjustable head restraints
shall be set to the adjustment positions specified in Paragraph 3. of this Annex.
7.2. Passenger compartment adjustments shall be set to the adjustment positions specified in
Paragraph 4. of this Annex.
7.3. The test dummy shall then be installed by completion of the steps outlined in Paragraph 7.4.
below; with the test vehicle at the vehicle measuring attitude defined in Paragraph 2.19. of
this Annex above.
7.4.8. For a passenger seating position:
18.104.22.168. Extend each leg without displacing the thigh from the seat cushion.
22.214.171.124. Allow the sole of the right foot to settle on the floor-pan in-line (i.e. in the same vertical
plane) with the thigh. The heel of the shoe should be in contact with the floor-pan. If the
contour of the floor-pan does not permit the foot to rest on a planar surface, move the foot in
5mm increments until the foot rests on a planar surface.
126.96.36.199. Allow the sole of the left foot to settle on the floor-pan in-line (i.e. in the same vertical plane)
with the thigh and in the same for/aft location (alignment) as the right foot. The heel of the
shoe should be in contact with the floor-pan. If the contour of the floor-pan does not permit
the foot to rest on a planar surface, move the foot in 5mm increments until the foot rests on
a planar surface.
7.4.9. Position the dummy H-Point to match the WS50M H-Point coordinates (defined by
Paragraph 2.25. of this Annex) within ±5mm. Priority should be given to the X-axis
7.4.10. Adjust the dummy rib angle as follows:
188.8.131.52. Adjust the dummy until the thorax tilt sensor angle reading (about the sensor y-axis) is
within ±1° of the design rib angle specified by the manufacturer.
184.108.40.206. Where a design rib angle is not specified by the manufacturer and the final actual torso
angle determined in accordance with Paragraph 6. of this Annex is 23° ± 1°; adjust the
dummy until the thorax tilt sensor reads -2° (i.e. 2° downwards) ±1° (about the sensor
220.127.116.11. Where a design rib angle is not specified by the manufacturer and the final actual torso
angle recorded in accordance with Paragraph 6. of this Annex is not 23° ± 1°; no further
adjustment of the dummy rib angle is required.
7.4.11. Adjust the test dummy neck bracket to level the head at the closest position to 0° (as
measured about the head core tilt sensor y-axis).
7.4.12. Proceed to the final foot and leg positioning by repeating the steps outlined in
Paragraph 7.4.7. of this Annex for a driver seating position or the steps outlined in
Paragraph 7.4.8. of this Annex for a passenger seating position.
7.4.13. Verify that the test dummy H-Point and dummy rib angle are still in accordance with
Paragraphs 7.4.9. and 7.4.10. of this Annex respectively. If not, repeat the steps outlined
from Paragraph 7.4.9. of this Annex onwards.
7.4.14. Measure and record the final test dummy H-Point position in the vehicle reference
coordinate system and record the final dummy rib angle and head core tilt sensor angles.
7.4.15. Place both arms at the 48º detent position. In this position, each half arm bone plane of
symmetry forms an angle of 48° ± 1° with the adjacent (i.e. left/right as applicable) shoulder
DESCRIPTION OF THE THREE-DIMENSIONAL H-POINT MACHINE (3-D H MACHINE)
1. BACK AND SEAT PANS
The back and seat pans are constructed of reinforced plastic and metal; they simulate the human
torso and thigh and are mechanically hinged at the H-Point. A quadrant is fastened to the probe
hinged at the H-Point to measure the actual torso angle. An adjustable thigh bar, attached to the
seat pan, establishes the thigh centreline and serves as a baseline for the hip angle quadrant.
2. BODY AND LEG ELEMENTS
Lower leg segments are connected to the seat pan assembly at the T-bar joining the knees, which
is a lateral extension of the adjustable thigh bar. Quadrants are incorporated in the lower leg
segments to measure knee angles. Shoe and foot assemblies are calibrated to measure the foot
angle. Two spirit levels orient the device in space. Body element weights are placed at the
corresponding centres of gravity to provide seat penetration equivalent to a 76kg male. All joints of
the 3-D H machine should be checked for free movement without encountering noticeable friction.
Dimensions of the 3-D H Machine Elements and Load Distribution
(Dimensions in mm)
Left Side Impact (Overhead Plan View)
Right Side Impact (Overhead Plan View)
DETERMINATION OF WORLDSID 50 PERCENTILE ADULT MALE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
1. HEAD INJURY CRITERION (HIC)
1.1. The Head Injury Criterion (HIC) 36 is the maximum value calculated from the expression:
⎣ t − t ∫
( t − t )
a = the resultant translational acceleration at the centre of gravity of the dummy head
recorded versus time in units of gravity, g (1g = 9.81m/s ); and
t and t are any two points in time during the impact which are separated by not more than a
36ms time interval and where t is less than t .
1.2. The resultant acceleration at the centre of gravity of the dummy head is calculated from the
a = a + a + a
= the longitudinal (x-axis) acceleration at the centre of gravity of the dummy head recorded
versus time and filtered at a channel frequency class (CFC) of 1000Hz;
a = the lateral (y-axis) acceleration at the centre of gravity of the dummy head recorded
versus time and filtered at a CFC of 1000Hz; and
a = the vertical (z-axis) acceleration at the centre of gravity of the dummy head recorded
versus time and filtered at a CFC of 1000Hz.
3. SHOULDER PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
3.1. The peak lateral (y-axis) shoulder force is the maximum lateral force measured by the load cell
mounted between the shoulder clevis assembly and the shoulder rib doubler and filtered at a
CFC of 600Hz.