Global Technical Regulation No. 9

Name:Global Technical Regulation No. 9
Description:Pedestrian Safety.
Official Title:Pedestrian Safety.
Country:ECE - United Nations
Date of Issue:2008-11-12
Amendment Level:Amendment 2 of January 23, 2019
Number of Pages:112
Vehicle Types:Bus, Car, Heavy Truck, Light Truck
Subject Categories:Pedestrian 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:

test, impactor, inf, vehicle, legform, pedestrian, gtr, headform, impact, flexpli, lower, vehicles, bumper, group, meeting, bonnet, requirements, reference, injury, informal, child, head, area, adult, certification, figure, line, tests, paragraph, injuries, front, iwg, technical, knee, phase, upper, regulation, data, protection, draft, grsp, tibia, flexible, contact, time, ihra, leg, centre, proposed, rev

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.9/Amend.2
January 23, 2019
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. 09
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
(ESTABLISHED IN THE GLOBAL REGISTRY ON NOVEMBER 12, 2009)
Incorporating:
Corrigendum 1
dated March 5, 2010
Corrigendum 2
dated February 22, 2011
Amendment 1
dated February 22, 2011
Amendment 2
dated January 23, 2019

II.
TEXT OF THE REGULATION
1. Purpose
2. Application/scope
3. Definitions
4.
General Requirements
4.1.
Legform test to bumper
4.2.
Child headform impact
4.3.
Adult headform impact
5.
Performance Requirements
5.1.
Legform to bumper
5.2.
Headform tests
6.
Test specifications
6.1.
General test conditions
6.2.
Preparation of the vehicle
6.3.
Test impactor specifications
7.
Test Procedure
7.1.
Legform to bumper test procedures
7.2.
Headform test procedures
7.3.
Child headform test procedure
7.4.
Adult headform test procedure
8.
Certification of impactors
8.1.
Lower legform impactor certification
8.2.
Upper legform impactor certification
8.3.
Child and adult headform impactors certification

5. The frequency of fatal and serious injuries (Abbreviated Injury Scale: AIS 2-6) is highest
for the child and adult head and adult leg body regions (INF GR/PS/3).
(b)
Crash Speeds
6. Crash speeds between vehicles and pedestrians were collected from pedestrian
accident data. The cumulative frequency of the crash speeds shows that a crash speed
of up to 40km/h can cover more than 75% of total pedestrian injuries (AIS 1+) in all
regions.
(c)
Target Population for this gtr
7. The IHRA injury data indicate the injury distribution by body regions. Fatal and serious
head injuries (AIS2+) of children and adults as well as AIS2+ adult leg injuries were
extracted from the IHRA data base for clearly identified injury causing parts on the
vehicle and on the road (INF GR/PS/131 and 169). It was found that bonnet/wing
contacts caused 41% of child head injuries of AIS2+ and 19% of the adult AIS2+ head
injuries. Bumper contacts lead to 64% of adult AIS2+ leg injuries. The cumulative
frequency curves versus vehicle impact speed for these injuries and their respective
injury causing parts show that 58% of the child head AIS2+ injuries are addressed to a
vehicle impact speed up to 40km/h, 40% to adult head AIS2+ injuries and 50% of the
adult leg AIS2+ injuries respectively. Based on these figures of injuries by injury source
and vehicle contact area, the target population of the above-mentioned AIS2+ injuries for
this proposed gtr is 24% of child pedestrian head injuries, 8% of adult pedestrian head
injuries, and 32% of adult leg injuries.
8. Each of these body regions, i.e. head of child/adult and adult leg, covers more than 30%
of total fatal and severe injuries (INF GR/PS/3). This gtr focuses on protecting these
body regions.
9. The major source of child head injuries is the top surface of the bonnet/wing, while adult
head injuries result from impacts to the top surface of bonnet/wing and windscreen area.
For adult leg injuries, the major source is the front bumper of vehicles.
(d)
Applicability to Motor Vehicle Categories
10. The maximum benefit from making vehicles pedestrian friendly would occur if all types of
vehicles comply with these technical provisions, but it is recognized that their application
to heavier vehicles (large trucks and buses) as well as to very small and light vehicles
could be of limited value and may not be technically appropriate in their present form.
The tests proposed in this gtr have been developed on the basis of current light vehicles,
taking into account the pedestrian kinematics when impacted by such vehicles. For this
reason, the scope of application is limited to passenger cars, sport utility vehicles (SUV),
light trucks and other light commercial vehicles. Since these vehicle categories represent
the vast majority of vehicles currently in use, the proposed measures will have the widest
practicable effect in reducing pedestrian injuries.

16. After several discussions on this issue the group decided not to include these kinds of
tests into the gtr at this stage for the following reasons:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
The group recognized that the A-pillars, windscreen roof and lower frame have to
be very stiff vehicle parts due to their functional requirements. As an example in
the lower windscreen area, the required deformation space to meet a head impact
requirement is restricted by the instrument panel. Some components that are
required to meet governmental safety standards, such as defrost/demist etc.,
make it impossible to lower the dashboard significantly. In addition, the structural
components of the dashboard represent important load paths in front or side
crashes. On the other hand, the entire windscreen frame would need to be
softened extremely to pass any HIC (Head Injury Criterion) requirement. This
strongly contradicts roll over requirements and other existing legal and consumer
demands (see INF GR/PS/059 and INF GR/PS/035). In addition the group
received detailed data showing that extremely high HIC measurements are
frequently obtained in these difficult areas (see INF GR/PS/072, 094, 102
and 103) and agreed that there are no technical design solutions or
countermeasures available so far to drastically reduce HIC levels.
The windscreen glass itself does not produce severe injuries and therefore the
amount of saved casualties will be very low. The effectiveness of testing the
windscreen inner part is seen as very questionable.
In addition, it was noted that vehicle manufacturers believed that there are
problems related to scatter of HIC when performing tests in the windscreen and
that the reasons for the scatter are not yet fully understood (see INF GR/PS/134,
163 and 164).
17. However, some delegates expressed interest in having domestic regulations that apply
head protection requirements to the windscreen area. The informal group did not believe
the gtr would foreclose any jurisdiction from applying head protection requirements to the
windscreen area by way of domestic regulations.
(b)
Overview
18. This gtr consists of two sets of performance criteria applying to: (a) the bonnet top and
wings; and (b) the front bumper. Test procedures have been developed for each region
using sub-system impacts for adult and child head protection and adult leg protection.
19. The head impact requirements will ensure that bonnet tops and wings will provide head
protection when struck by a pedestrian. The bonnet top and wings would be impacted
with a child headform and an adult headform at 35km/h. The HIC must not exceed 1,000
over one half of a child headform test area and must not exceed 1,000 over two thirds of
a combined child and adult headform test areas. The HIC for the remaining areas must
not exceed 1,700 for both headforms.

29. TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2005/3 was proposed at the thirty-seventh session of GRSP and
was a revised draft gtr including the preamble, of the informal group (INF GR/PS/117).
30. The group had held the following meetings:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
September 4-5, 2002, Paris, France
December10, 2002, Geneva, Switzerland
January 15-16, 2003, Santa Oliva, Spain
May 15-16, 2003, Tokyo, Japan
September 10-12, 2003, Ottawa, Canada
February 24-26, 2004, Paris, France
September 28-30, 2004, Paris, France
July 11-13, 2005, Brussels, Belgium
December 5-6, 2005, Geneva, Switzerland
January 16-19, 2006, Washington DC, USA
31. The meetings were attended by representatives of:
32. Canada, France, Germany, European Community (EC), Italy, Japan, Korea, the
Netherlands, Spain, Turkey, the United States of America (USA), Consumers
International (CI), the European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee (EEVC) , the
European Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA) and the International
Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA).
33. The meetings were chaired by Mr. Mizuno (Japan) and Mr. Friedel/Mr. Cesari (EC), while
the secretariat was provided by Mr. Van der Plas (OICA).

39. The United States research programmes have addressed how vehicles could be
modified to reduce the severity of head and leg impacts. The current US pedestrian
protection research programme supports the IHRA objectives. Current activities include
(1) pedestrian field data analysis to develop test conditions, (2) evaluation of pedestrian
head and leg test tools, (3) experimental impact testing of vehicle structures to assess
aggressivity, (4) pedestrian case reconstructions using a combination of field data,
computer simulation, and testing to better understand injury mechanisms, (5) computer
model development using available biomechanical literature, and (6) completion of other
IHRA Pedestrian Safety Working Group action items.
40. The IHRA Pedestrian Safety working group has conducted in-depth accident studies
based on pedestrian accident data collected from the member countries. In addition, this
group carefully studied the front shape of passenger vehicles including SUVs, and used
best available computer simulation models to study the effective head mass, adult and
child head impacting speed during the impact with vehicles and the impact angles.
41. Based on these research results, the IHRA group developed test procedures and test
devices for adult and child head protection and for adult leg protection.
42. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) created the pedestrian
protection working group (ISO/TC22/SC10/WG2) in 1987 to develop test methods for the
reduction of serious injuries and fatalities for pedestrian to car accidents. The mandate
for ISO/WG2 was to produce test methods, covering crash speeds up to 40km/h, which
will contribute to make cars pedestrian friendly. Since then, the WG2 has developed
pedestrian test procedures and has described the necessary test tools. The study results
were fully used in the IHRA/PS group when IHRA/PS developed the adult and child
impactors.
43. The ISO standards and draft standards are:
(a)
(b)
(c)
ISO 11096 2002 Road vehicles � Pedestrian protection � Impact test method for
pedestrian thigh, leg and knee,
ISO/DIS 14513 2006 Road vehicles � Pedestrian protection � Head impact test
method,
ISO 16850 2007 Road vehicles � Pedestrian protection � Child head impact test
method.

(b)
Applicability
49. The application of the requirements of this gtr refers, to the extent possible, to the
revised vehicle classification and definitions outlined in the 1998 Global Agreement
Special Resolution No. 1 (S.R.1) concerning the common definitions of vehicle
categories, masses and dimensions.
50. Difficulties, due to differing existing regulations and divergent vehicle fleets, were
encountered in determining which vehicles would be included in the scope. The
Japanese regulation applies to passenger cars for up to nine occupants and commercial
vehicles up to a GVM of 2,500kg. The IHRA recommends tests and procedures for
passenger vehicles of GVM 2,500kg or less. The European Union (EU) Directive applies
to M vehicles up to 2,500kg and N vehicles up to 2,500kg, which are derived from M .
The ISO recommendations are for M and N vehicles that have a GVM of 3,500kg or
less. In addition, some countries, taking into account their current fleet composition,
wanted to ensure that larger vehicles, such as light trucks and sport utility vehicles with a
GVM of 4,500kg or less, were not excluded.
51. The group originally reviewed in detail the IHRA recommendation in detail to take into
account the shape of the front of the vehicle as an important parameter when discussing
the types of pedestrian injuries to be mitigated. IHRA specifies three groups of vehicle
shape: sedan, SUV, and 1-box. For the adult and child head impacts, IHRA foresees
different impact test speeds and different impact angles. The Japanese legislation is
based on the IHRA recommended method. The EU requirements, on the contrary, do not
differentiate between the various test speeds and impact angles.
52. The group compared these various considerations and, on the basis of simulations
(INF GR/PS/129), concluded that the EU requirements in effect are more severe than the
Japanese proposals. For safety reasons, the group therefore uses the EU approach, not
taking into account the shape of the vehicle front in defining the requirements.
Furthermore, the group also determined that the IHRA recommendations would be
difficult to put in place in the context of a regulatory and certification approach.
53. There was considerable discussion over the mass of vehicles to which this gtr should
apply. Using the categories described in S.R.1, several options were examined. Some
delegates wanted to limit application of the gtr to vehicles in Category 1-1 with a vehicle
mass of less than 2,500kg GVM. Other delegates did not agree with a 2,500kg limit on
GVM, believing that since the front-end structure of vehicles with a mass up to 4,500kg
GVM is usually similar to that of lighter vehicles, the application of the gtr should include
the heavier vehicles. In addition, some delegates sought to limit application of the gtr to
vehicles of a GVM of more than 500kg, while other delegates expressed concern about
having a lower mass limit, believing that a particular jurisdiction might determine there is
a need to apply the gtr requirements in that jurisdiction to vehicles with a GVM of less
than 500kg. There was a suggestion that the gtr should also apply to vehicles in
Category 2 that had the "same" general structure and shape forward of the A-pillars as
vehicles in Category 1-1. However, some were concerned that it would be unfeasible to
define objectively what was meant by "same".

58. Furthermore, during the development phase of this gtr, the main focus was on vehicles
of a GVM of 2,500kg or less, that are also addressed in all existing legislation. The later
extension to other vehicles however needs to recognise that some additional lead-time
may be necessary, because many current vehicles, exempted from existing national or
regional requirements, are now included. In addition, while the test procedures and
requirements of this gtr were based on requirements originally developed for "classical"
(sedan type) passenger cars, the gtr now also covers vehicles with specific shapes or
features (High Front Vehicles, special purpose vehicles, etc.), for which it is recognised
that special consideration may be needed.
(c)
Implementation Generally
59. The informal group considers all tests in this proposed gtr to be technically feasible and
able to evaluate objectively the ability of vehicle bonnets and bumpers to absorb energy
more efficiently. However, pedestrian accident crash characteristics and vehicle baseline
performance may differ regionally. It will be the decision of each jurisdiction to determine
whether the benefits achieved by requiring these tests justify the costs. Based on this
determination, a jurisdiction can choose to limit the application in its own regulation to
specific vehicle categories, specific tests, and/or it may decide to phase in the
regulations over time.
(d)
Points Tested
60. The informal group considered whether to specify both the number of test points and the
minimum spacing of such test points. On consideration, the group determined that the
specification of such points did not have a place within this proposed gtr for the following
reasons:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
For governments that use a self-certification regulatory framework, it was not
considered necessary to mention the number of tests required for testing or their
spacing, as it would be incumbent on vehicle manufacturers to ensure that
vehicles comply with all the impact zone requirements defined within this proposed
gtr when tested by the regulating authority.
For type approval, the number of tests that need to be carried out to satisfy the
relevant authority that vehicles meet the requirements is an issue for that
authority, which may specify the number of tests and the spacing between the test
points.
The mention of a minimum number of tests or a minimum distance apart between
tests could result in manufacturers being burdened with unnecessary tests and/or
authorities being unnecessarily restricted in test programs, as it would be difficult
to set a target that would encompass both the largest and smallest test zones, and
the situation could arise where test zones could be smaller than the minimum
number of tests required that could be fitted into that zone.

(iii)
Upper Legform Impactor to Bonnet Leading Edge Test
66. Several accident studies from some regions comparing modern "streamline" vehicle
fronts registered in or after 1990 and old vehicles from the eighties or seventies indicate
a decrease in AIS 2+ upper leg and pelvis injuries caused by the bonnet leading edge.
The accident studies were performed by the LAB using French data (INF GR/PS/30),
and by the University of Dresden using German GIDAS data (INF GR/PS/92). In
addition, EEVC Working Group 17 (WG17) summarized in their 1998 report that no
serious (AIS 2+) upper leg or pelvis injuries caused by the bonnet leading edge were
found for post-1990 car models impacting a pedestrian at a speed up to 40km/h
(INF GR/PS/187 Rev.1). In contrast, data from the United States of America indicate a
high incidence of above-the-knee injuries due to the prevalence of light trucks and vans
in the United States fleet, and that consideration should be given to evaluating thigh, hip,
and pelvis injuries in future test procedures.
67. Despite the desire to address any potential injuries in the upper leg or pelvic area, the
group was also concerned that there was a serious lack of biofidelity for the existing test
device and the respective test procedure to assess injury caused by the bonnet leading
edge of high profile vehicles. Therefore, the group recommended excluding the upper
legform impactor to bonnet leading edge test at this stage. IHRA/PS is carrying out
further research into an improved impactor and test procedures for this test.
6. PEDESTRIAN HEAD PROTECTION
68. IHRA data show that a major source of child and adult pedestrian head injuries is the top
surface of the bonnet/wing of the striking vehicle. As explained in this section, this gtr
requires the bonnet/wing to perform at levels that decrease the likelihood that head
impact with the bonnet/wing in a 40km/h pedestrian-to-vehicle impact will result in fatal or
serious injury.
69. The bonnet/wing would be impacted with a headform at 35km/h. The bonnet/wing would
be divided into a "child headform test area" and an "adult headform test area". The child
headform test area is the area of the bonnet/wing that is likely to be impacted by the
head of a 6-year-old child in a pedestrian impact. A child headform is used to evaluate
the bonnet/wing in that area. Likewise, the adult headform test area corresponds to the
area of the bonnet/wing that the head of a mid-size adult male pedestrian is likely to
impact. An adult headform is used to test the bonnet/wing in the latter area.

(b)
Head Injury Criterion
74. The majority of pedestrian fatalities in road accidents are caused by head injuries. The
informal group determined that the head protection performance should be based on the
Head Injury Criterion (HIC) , given the ability of HIC to estimate the risk of serious to
fatal head injury in motor vehicle crashes. An HIC value of 1,000 is equivalent to
approximately a 15% risk of AIS 4+ head injury.
75. The gtr specifies that HIC must not exceed 1,000 over one half of the child headform test
area and must not exceed 1,000 over two thirds of the combined child and adult
headform test areas. The HIC for the remaining areas must not exceed 1,700 for both
headforms (The need for "relaxation zones," in which the HIC limit is 1,700, is discussed
in the next section of this preamble).
76. HIC would be calculated within a 15 ms interval. The main reason that a longer interval
was not used was that head impacts to external car structures are very short, occurring
within a few milliseconds of contact. As the pulse itself is so short in time, there is no risk
to lose part of the pulse during the HIC calculation--and no risk of a lower calculated HIC
value�if a 15 ms interval were used rather than a longer interval (INF GR/PS/168).
Accordingly, using either a 15 ms or a 36 ms pulse window will provide the same HIC
value. Moreover, the test is not intended to record more than one impact. A short time
duration avoids the risk that a second impact could be recorded after rebound. A longer
duration for the time interval could result in distortions in the data recorded by the
headform, which may lead to inaccurate HIC values.
HIC �
� 1

� ( t � t )


adt�
( t � t )


(d)
Headform
80. A child headform is used to test the bonnet in the child headform test area, and an adult
headform is used in the adult headform test area. The appropriate headform impactor
size and mass, determined based on the characteristics of the human body, are
explained below (INF GR/PS/46, 74 and 93).
(i)
Headform Diameter
81. The diameter of the child headform is 165mm. Due to the fact that the majority of child
pedestrian victims are 5 or 6 years old, this value was determined based on the average
head diameter of a 6-year-old child (by averaging the diameter obtained from the
circumference of the head and the longitudinal and lateral measurements of the head).
82. The diameter of the adult headform is 165mm, which is the same diameter used in the
test procedures of EEVC and ISO. The value was considered to represent the diameter
mainly of the forehead portion of the 50th percentile adult male, rather than the
maximum outer diameter of the head. The average height and weight of all adult
pedestrian victims in the IHRA dataset is about the same as those of the 50th percentile
male.
83. Thus the diameter of both the child and adult headforms is 165mm. Although the
diameter is different from the diameter of actual child and adult human heads, the
diameter and moment of inertia are appropriately designed so that the child and adult
headforms can properly estimate severity of injury to actual child and adult human heads
(see IHRA/PS N231).
84. Testing experience with the headforms show them to be highly repeatable and
reproducible.
(ii)
Headform Mass and Moment of Inertia
85. Computer simulations conducted in the IHRA study show that the effective mass of the
head in an impact with vehicles is identical to the actual mass of the head. Accordingly,
the headform mass was therefore determined as follows:
a. The mass of the child headform is 3.5kg, representing the mass of the head of a
6-year-old child.
b. The mass of the adult headform is 4.5kg, representing the mass of the head of a
50th percentile adult male.

91. In determining test speeds and angles of impact, the informal group considered the
findings of IHRA and the EEVC. IHRA had explored whether various vehicle shapes
influenced the angle at which a pedestrian's head impacted the bonnet top. Computer
simulations were conducted, as part of the IHRA study, by the Japan Automobile
Research Institute (JARI), the United States National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), and the Road Accident Research Unit of Adelaide University
(RARU). The simulations used a 50th percentile adult male model and a 6-year-old child
model. The distribution of headform impact speeds and angles in various impacts was
obtained by simulating head impacts using three types of walking positions, three types
of vehicle frontal shapes and two types of bonnet stiffness as parameters. The studies
showed that the same headform impact speed could be used for any type of vehicle
frontal shape. Further, the interpretation of the results indicated an average speed of
32km/h, which is 0.8 times the vehicle impact speed of 40km/h. In addition, various
angles for adult and child impact conditions and for the three different shapes were
defined as well.
92. In contrast, EEVC had concluded that one set of angles (50� for the child headform test
and 65� for the adult headform test) for all vehicles is reasonable, simplifying any head
test procedure dramatically. EEVC's decisions concerning head impact angles for child
and adult tests were based on two reports used as working documents: Glaeser K.P.
(1991), "Development of a Head Impact Test Procedure for Pedestrian Protection," BASt
Report under Contract No. ETD/89/7750/M1/28 to the E.C. (INF GR/PS/150); and
Janssen E.G., Nieboer J.J. (1990), "Protection of vulnerable road users in the event of a
collision with a passenger car, Part 1 � computer simulations," TNO
Report No. 75405002/1.
93. The EEVC values were based on post-mortem human subject (PMHS) tests and
simulation results. The PMHS tests indicated a peak of the distribution of adult head
impact angles to be 60�, with all the results falling between 50� and 80�. Simulations
gave a result around 67� for adults, and indicated that vehicle shape had little influence
on the angle of impact. EEVC chose a value of 65�, which was close to the 67� angle
resulting from the simulation and to the average of the PMHS results.
94. For child head impacts, EEVC considered simulations of a small adult female (close in
anthropometry to a 12-year-old child) and of a 6-year-old child. Results of the small adult
female simulations were very close to the results of the simulations for the
50th percentile male adult, while the simulations involving the 6-year-old child suggested
a value around 50�. EEVC picked the value of 50�, believing that the simulations of a
6-year-old child were more relevant than those of a 12-year-old child for child pedestrian
protection.
95. The informal group noted that the one set of angles from EEVC involves a different
(higher) impact speed than that specified by IHRA. The group considered which of the
two approaches of EEVC and IHRA was most stringent and thus offering the most
protection to pedestrians. Working paper INF GR/PS/129 showed, by both numerical
calculation and by simulation, that the set of requirements defined by EEVC is more
severe than the requirements defined by IHRA. The group thus decided to use the EEVC
50� and 65� impact angle for child and adult head testing while maintaining the higher
EEVC impact speed to the bonnet of 35km/h (compared to the IHRA speed of 32km/h).

100. The informal group concurs with the determination of WG17 that the lower leg impactor
test would be inappropriate for vehicles with high bumpers .
101. At the same time, the informal group believes that high bumpers should be more energy
absorbing, and for that reason adopts in this gtr the upper legform test for vehicles with a
lower bumper height of more than 500mm.
102. For vehicles that have a lower bumper height between 425mm and 500mm, the gtr
provides that the vehicle manufacturer can elect to perform either a lower legform test or
an upper legform test. Investigations conducted with vehicles with lower bumper heights
between 400 and 500mm indicate that a large majority of these vehicles have features
for off-road capability. For these off-road vehicles, it is technically not feasible to have a
countermeasure that will enable the vehicle to support the tibia part of the lower legform.
That is, data show (see INF GR/PS/175/Rev.2) that the absence of a lower structure to
support the lower part of the leg, due to the necessary off road capacities, make it very
difficult for these vehicles to meet the proposed lower leg criteria, especially the bending
angle. Therefore, the group recommends to use the upper legform to bumper test as an
optional alternative to the lower legform to bumper test for these vehicles.
103. The group recognizes that excluding vehicles from the lower legform test will affect the
target population of a lower extremity pedestrian regulation, and will reduce the benefits
of the leg protection requirements, particularly with regard to knee injuries.
(iii)
Handling Procedures
104. Delegates to the informal group were concerned about the effects of humidity on the
foam flesh used in the legforms, recognizing that the material can vary significantly in
performance depending on the humidity to which it is exposed. These concerns are
addressed by specific controls in the regulatory text of this gtr regarding the humidity and
other conditions (such as soaking time and a maximum time between removal from the
soaking room and testing) under which the legform tests should be performed.
105. In addition, the group noted that legforms must also be carefully handled, as handling of
the legform can affect variability in the bending angle, shearing displacement, and
acceleration measured by the impactors due to the sensitivity to humidity. The group
believed that handling instructions generally were not necessary to be specified in the gtr
text, because the impactors are usually provided with handling instructions, which are
the normal working tools for test houses and are therefore believed to be sufficient to
cover the normal handling procedures. Nonetheless, the informal group emphasized that
careful and controlled handling procedures, such as those developed by the German
Federal Highway Research Institute BASt (INF GR PS/154/Rev.1), are highly important
to ensure reliable test results.

111. With regard to knee shearing limits, the informal group selected a limit of 6mm, based on
the analysis of PMHS by EEVC WG17 and WG10 that showed that a 6mm shear
displacement corresponds to a 4 kN shear force. The 4 kN shear force in the TRL device
approximates the 3 kN average peak shearing force acting at the knee joint level that
was found associated in the PMHS tests with diaphysis/metaphysis failure.
112. With regard to limiting the maximum acceleration on the tibia, results of a series of
pedestrian PMHS tests performed with modern cars suggests that the maximum tibia
acceleration for the PMHS sustaining a tibia fracture was 170g to 270g, with the average
value of 222g. A value of 200g would correspond to a 50% injury risk. To protect a higher
proportion of the population at risk, the informal group recommends a maximum lateral
tibia acceleration limit of 170g.
113. In summary, it was concluded that the acceptance levels for the lower legform test
should be set at the following limits:
Maximum lateral knee bending angle � 19.0�;
Maximum lateral knee shearing displacement � 6.0mm;
Maximum lateral tibia acceleration � 170g.
114. These values are identical to those under consideration by the EC in its review of the
Phase 2 requirements of the European Directive.
(iii)
Relaxation of Acceleration Limit
115. In order for the vehicle to provide adequate occupant protection in frontal crashes,
portions of the vehicle bumper structure will have to be stiff enough to enable the vehicle
to absorb a sufficient amount of the impact energy. In addition, the bumper structure
contains towing hooks and other devices. Because of these factors, certain portions of
the bumper will not be able to meet the maximum lateral tibia acceleration limit of 170g
across the full length of the bumper. For feasibility reasons, this gtr allows manufacturers
to nominate bumper test widths up to 264mm in total where the acceleration measured
at the upper end of the tibia shall not exceed 250g. The relaxation zone of 264mm
corresponds to an area that is twice the width of the legform.
(c)
Upper Legform Test for High Bumpers
116. As discussed above, the informal group recognized that the lower leg impactor test
would be inappropriate for vehicles whose bumpers strike the legs above knee level, but
the group believed that vehicles with high bumpers should be subject to a test that would
require the bumper to be more energy absorbing. For that reason, the informal working
group recommends an upper legform test for vehicles with a lower bumper height of
more than 500mm.
117. Data provided in INF GR/PS/175 Rev.2 indicate that, in order to meet the proposed
criteria for the upper legform test, energy absorbing foam will have to be added to the
bumper; such modifications are expected to reduce the risk of fractures which also
constitutes an important injury risk.

(b)
Active Devices to Protect Pedestrians
122. The issue of active devices to protect pedestrians, such as deployable bonnets, was also
discussed in detail. The group fully agreed that such devices must not create a higher
risk of injuries for the pedestrians. A document entitled "Certification Standard for Type
Approval Testing of Active Deployable Systems of the Bonnet/Windscreen Area,"
proposed by the industry (INF GR/PS/141) was found to be acceptable as a guideline for
certification of deployable devices, but the deployable devices clearly also need to satisfy
all other requirements of this gtr. Contracting Parties who wish to implement national test
procedures for these deployable devices may use the certification standard as its basis.
(c)
Impact on Existing Standards
123. During the discussions of the informal group, it was generally recognized that any
proposed legislative requirements on pedestrian protection should be assessed against
other vehicle parameters.
124. It was pointed out that both existing and future vehicle requirements should be taken into
account, internationally as well as nationally, to ensure that potential conflicts are
reduced as much as possible. The group also stressed that, in addition to legislative
requirements, other vehicle parameters also need verification, in terms of customer
satisfaction, repairability, insurance classification, comfort, handling, etc. A list of all
necessary parameters was drafted for evaluation (INF GR/PS/35). Impacts of these
standards and requirements were taken into account amongst others in the feasibility
studies detailed in working papers INF GR/PS/91 and 101.
9. REGULATORY IMPACT AND ECONOMIC EFFECTIVENESS
125. This global technical regulation is expected to reduce the number of pedestrian fatalities
and injuries resulting from head impacts against the bonnet and leg impacts with the
bumper. It will also maximize economic effectiveness of pedestrian protection regulations
globally.
126. It should not, however, be allowed to impose any restrictions on other measures, either
active or passive, which may be utilised by any Contracting Party to provide additional
benefits for the safety of vulnerable road users.
(a)
Benefits
127. The informal working group recognizes that there are many variables affecting the
potential benefits of this gtr, such as region-to-region differences in vehicle fleet
composition, in driver behaviour, in the degree to which existing vehicles now meet the
pedestrian protection requirements of this gtr or are otherwise equipped with safety
features beneficial to pedestrians, and in the prevalence of pedestrian-friendly
infrastructure. The group also recognizes that in estimating the potential benefits of this
gtr, jurisdictions differed to a degree in their methodology and assumptions so that a
direct comparison of benefits between regions was not possible. However, various
delegates have made very preliminary estimates of benefits based on limited data
currently available to the informal working group.

(c)
Other Analysis
132. The group did not have separate assessments of the potential leg/knee injury benefits
and costs from each of the other regions. Other countries are currently conducting such
studies and will consider the results when the gtr is established in their national
legislation. The preamble may be amended to incorporate the completed analyses.
10. APPENDIX � REFERENCE DOCUMENTS USED BY THE WORKING GROUP
A list of working papers used by the informal working group is listed and available on the
UNECE WP.29 website (http://www.unece.org/trans/main/welcwp29.htm).
Number of working paper
INF GR/PS/1 and Rev 1
INF GR/PS/2
INF GR/PS/3
INF GR/PS/4 and Rev 1
Agenda 1st meeting
Title of informal document
Terms of Reference of the GRSP Informal Group on Pedestrian
Safety adopted by GRSP at its thirty first session
IHRA accident study presentation
JMLIT proposed legislation – Comparison of draft regulations
INF GR/PS/5 IHRA feasibility study (doc. IHRA/PS/224 – Chapter 9)
INF GR/PS/6
INF GR/PS/7
INF GR/PS/8 and Rev 1
Japanese proposal for the scope of Global Technical
Regulations on Pedestrian Protection
Attendance list 1st meeting
Draft Meeting Minutes 1st meeting
INF GR/PS/9 and Rev 1 Report of the First Meeting (Informal Document GRSP 32-07)
INF GR/PS/10
INF GR/PS/11
INF GR/PS/12
INF GR/PS/13
INF GR/PS/14
INF GR/PS/15
INF GR/PS/16
INF GR/PS/17
INF GR/PS/18
INF GR/PS/19
Draft GRSP/Pedestrian Safety Ad hoc Action Plan
Agenda 2nd meeting
Pedestrian Protection In Europe – The Potential of Car Design
and Impact Testing (GIDAS Study)
Pedestrian Protection In Europe – The Potential of Car Design
and Impact Testing (GIDAS Presentation)
Italy 1999 – 2000 [accident data]
Pedestrians killed in road traffic accidents [UN Statistics of Road
Traffic Accidents in Europe and North America]
Pedestrians injury profile evaluation in a hospital-based
multicenter polytrauma survey [Spanish accident data]
European Accident Causation Survey (EACS)
Draft Meeting Minutes 2nd meeting
Agenda 3rd meeting
INF GR/PS/20 Canadian Pedestrian Fatalities and Injuries 1990 – 2000

Number of working paper
INF GR/PS/44
INF GR/PS/45
INF GR/PS/46
INF GR/PS/47 and Rev 1
INF GR/PS/48 and Rev 1
INF GR/PS/49
INF GR/PS/50
INF GR/PS/51
INF GR/PS/52
INF GR/PS/53
INF GR/PS/54
INF GR/PS/55
INF GR/PS/56 and Rev 1
INF GR/PS/57
INF GR/PS/58
INF GR/PS/59
INF GR/PS/60
Light duty truck
Analysis of Euro NCAPdata
Title of informal document
Development of JAMA / JARI pedestrian child and adult
headform impactors
Preliminary report to GRSP 33 session
Draft meeting minutes 4th meeting
IHRA child head test method
IHRA adult head test method
Attendance list 4th meeting
Provisional agenda for the 5th meeting
Draft gtr format
gtr proposal to WP.29
Proposal for a new draft gtr (Japan)
Pedestrian Safety Comparison Table
Pedestrian Safety gtr Preparation Schedule (Draft)
Contents of headform test procedure
Comments on windscreen/A pillars as headform test area
Document ISO/TC22/SC10/WG2 N613
INF GR/PS/61 IHRA Computer simulation results (document IHRA PS 237)
INF GR/PS/62
INF GR/PS/63
INF GR/PS/64 and Rev 1
INF GR/PS/65 and Rev 1
INF GR/PS/66
INF GR/PS/67
INF GR/PS/68
INF GR/PS/69 and Rev 1
INF GR/PS/70
INF GR/PS/71
Action plan from 5th meeting
Attendance list 5th meeting
Draft meeting minutes 5th meeting
Provisional agenda for the 6th meeting
Australian -NCAP pedestrian report
CLEPA proposal for a test-method – active hood / bonnet
systems
Initial Assessment of Target Population for Potential Reduction
of Pedestrian Head Injury in the – US (Mallory/Stammen 2004)
Proposed draft global technical regulation (gtr) on pedestrian
protection – Transmitted by OICA
Current Status in Korea for Pedestrian Safety Rule-making
Researches
Possibility to define an impact zone in the windscreen/A-pillar
area to fulfil HIC criteria

Number of working paper
INF GR/PS/96
INF GR/PS/97
Title of informal document
Problem of Undamped Accelerometer in Headform Impact Test
– Generation of Abnormal Acceleration in Headform Impact
Tests – Causes and Solutions
Durability and repeatability of headform skin
INF GR/PS/98 IHRA/PS Decisions for the IHRA/PS Legform Test Procedures –
IHRA/PS Working Group (IHRA PS 310)
INF GR/PS/99
Aging Effect of PVC Headform Skin on the Drop Certification
Testing
INF GR/PS/100 OICA proposed amendments to INF/GR/PS/86/Rev.2 J –
September 28, 2004PS/95
INF GR/PS/101
INF GR/PS/102
INF GR/PS/103
INF GR/PS/104
INF GR/PS/105
INF GR/PS/106
INF GR/PS/107
INF GR/PS/108
INF GR/PS/109
INF GR/PS/110
INF GR/PS/111 and Rev 1
INF GR/PS/112
INF GR/PS/113
INF GR/PS/114
INF GR/PS/115 and Rev 1
INF GR/PS/116
INF GR/PS/117
INF GR/PS/118 and Rev 1
JAMA Technical Feasibility Study on EEVC/WG17 – Pedestrian
Subsystem Test
Windscreen Tests according to Euro NCAP Protocol (Example)
[Windscreen & A-pillar testing on one car model]
Minimum Standard for Type Approval Testing of Active
Deployable Systems of the Bonnet / Windscreen Area
(CLEPA/OICA)
Human Biomechanical Responses to support the Design of a
Pedestrian Leg Impactor
Information on the Flexible Pedestrian Legform Impactor
(Flex-PLI) from J-MLIT Research
Knee ligament figure
Comment for IHRA or gtr regarding Legform Test
[Flex-PLI as a certification tool]
DRAFT: Definition of the windscreen reference lines
Pedestrian Safety Global Technical Regulation Preamble [draft
and guideline]
Action plan resulting from the 7th meeting
Proposed Draft Global Technical Regulation (gtr) on Pedestrian
Protection
Attendance list 7th meeting
Draft meeting minutes of the 7th meeting
Proposed Draft Global Technical Regulation (gtr) on Pedestrian
Protection [working version]
Proposed Draft Global Technical Regulation (gtr) on Pedestrian
Protection [Proposal for 37th GRSP]
Provisional agenda for the 8th meeting

Number of working paper
INF GR/PS/142
INF GR/PS/143 and Rev 1
INF GR/PS/144 and Rev 1
INF GR/PS/145
INF GR/PS/146
INF GR/PS/147
INF GR/PS/148
INF GR/PS/149
INF GR/PS/150
INF GR/PS/151
INF GR/PS/152
INF GR/PS/153
INF GR/PS/154 and Rev 1
INF GR/PS/155
INF GR/PS/156
INF GR/PS/157
INF GR/PS/158
INF GR/PS/159
INF GR/PS/160
INF GR/PS/161 and Rev 1 /
2
INF GR/PS/162
INF GR/PS/163
Relative humidity of Korea
Title of informal document
Draft gtr based on INF GR/PS/121 as amended during the 8th
meeting
Draft meeting minutes of the 8th meeting
Attendance list 8th meeting
Flex-PLI TEG Activities
Proposals from Mr Césari for amendments to the preamble as
agreed in the action items INF GR/PS/139
Assessment of the FTSS 4.5kg aluminium headform as a
possible alternative for EEVC WG17
New Requirement Proposal for the GTR Adult Headform
Impactor Specification – Moment of Inertia
Development of a Head Impact Test Procedure for Pedestrian
Protection (Glaeser, 13th ESV Conference, Paris 1991)
Proposed wording by Japan for the preamble on the headform
(damped) accelerometer issue
Provisional agenda for the 9th meeting
Explanation of amendments to INF GR/PS/143 resulting in INF
GR/PS/143 Rev. 1
Handling Guideline for the EEVC WG17 Legform Impactor
(Draft) and (Version 1.0)
Proposal for a Definition of the Lower Windscreen Reference
Line and Justification
Proposal for Impact Angles for Headform to Windscreen Tests
and Justification
Proposal for HIC Limits for Headform to Windscreen Tests and
Justification
Proposal for New Criteria for Headform Impactor to Bonnet
Tests and Justification
Proposal for a Definition of Vehicles with High Bumpers and
Justification
Revised preamble replacing the preamble in doc. INF
GR/PS/143 Rev. 1
EU proposed amendments to doc. INF GR/PS/143 Rev. 1
Explanation of EU proposals (in INF GR/PS/161) to amend INF
GR/PS/143 Rev. 1
SUV – Windshield Head Impacts

B. PHASE 2
Number of working paper
Title of informal document
INF GR/PS/187 and Rev 1 EEVC WG17 report December 1998 and with September 2002
updates
INF GR/PS/188
INF GR/PS/189
GRSP-47-18/Rev.2
Draft meeting minutes of the 10th meeting
Attendance list 10th meeting
(USA) Proposal for amendments to global technical regulation
No. 9 (Pedestrian Safety)
133. Sections 1. to 6. reflect the development of Phase 2 of UN GTR No. 9 and concern the
legform test procedure with the flexible lower legform impactor (FlexPLI) without
changing the requirements for the upper legform impactor and the test procedure for the
high bumper vehicles as well as the headform impactors and the respective test
procedures.
1. INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL BACKGROUND
134. At the thirty-sixth session of GRSP (December 7-10, 2004) the expert from Japan
proposed to evaluate the possibility to replace the European Enhanced Vehicle safety
Committee (EEVC) lower legform impactor by a flexible lower legform impactor. A
technical evaluation group (TEG) was thus established by GRSP.
135. Under the chairmanship of Japan, the TEG prepared a draft proposal submitted by
Japan for the May 2011 session of GRSP, to introduce the flexible lower legform
impactorin UN GTR No. 9 on pedestrian safety After the review, GRSP decided that
pending issues should addressed by a reconstituted Informal Working Group (IWG).
136. The representatives of Germany and Japan proposed the development of Phase 2 (PH2)
of UN GTR No. 9 on pedestrian safety. The main objective of PH2 is the development of
a draft proposal to amend UN GTR No. 9 by introducing the flexible pedestrian legform
impactor (FlexPLI) as a single harmonized test tool aimed at enhancing the level of
protection for the lower legs of pedestrians.
137. The work of the IWG shall not be limited to draft proposals to amend the UN GTR No. 9,
but shall cover the development of a complementary draft proposal to amend
UN Regulation No. 127.
138. The IWG should also review proposals to improve and/or clarify aspects of the legform
test procedure.
139. The changes introduced by this amendment do not intend to change the severity of the
original requirements significantly. However, with the introduction of the flexible lower
legform impactor, Contracting Parties and domestic economic integration organizations
are able to adopt, by preference, a particular tool with superior performance into their
national or domestic legislation.

146. The first meeting of IWG was held on December 1 and 2, 2011 in Geneva (Switzerland).
Technical discussions began and the draft document on the terms of reference, the rules
of procedures, the time schedule and the work plan for submission to GRSP in
December 2011 were concluded. The first progress report was submitted to GRSP in
December 2011 and to WP.29 at its 156th session as well as to AC.3 at its thirty-fourth
session in March 2012. At its 156th session, the World Forum, endorsed, in principle, the
noted terms of references, pending the adoption of the report of the December 2011
session of GRSP. AC.3 also endorsed, in principle, the terms of reference of the IWG
and requested the secretariat to distribute WP.29-156-11 with an official symbol for
consideration at its June 2012 session.
147. The second meeting of the IWG took place in Osaka (Japan) on March 28 and 29, 2012.
The discussion focused on the technical aspects including the accident and benefit
analysis. High priority was given to the activities on the further development of the
certification procedures. A task force was established to initiate a further work item on
the bumper test area for the lower legform impact.
148. The second progress report was submitted to GRSP in May 2012 and to WP.29 for
consideration at its 157th session and to AC.3 at its thirty-fifth session in June 2012.
During these sessions, the first progress report (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2012/58) and the
terms of references including the rules of procedures, the time schedule and the work
plan were formally adopted. The second progress report (WP.29-157-21) was distributed
with an official symbol at the November 2012 sessions of WP.29 and AC.3.
149. The third meeting of the IWG was held on May 29 and 30, 2012 in Paris. During the
meeting, the experts discussed main topics related to accident data on pedestrian
injuries, the cost-benefit assessment and the set-up of certification corridors.
150. The fourth meeting of the IWG took place on September 17 to 19, 2012 in Washington,
D.C. The group resumed discussions from the third meeting, while the main focus was
given to finalizing the certification corridors and the cost-benefit assessment for
introducing the FlexPLI. Priority was given to agree on an international round robin
vehicle test programme with the FlexPLI.
151. The draft third progress report was submitted to WP.29 at its 158th session and to AC.3
at its thirty-sixth session. AC.3 requested the secretariat to distribute the draft third
progress report (WP.29-158-28) with an official symbol for consideration at the next
session and adopted the second progress report (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2012/120).
152. The fifth meeting was held on December 6 and 7, 2012 in Bergisch Gladbach
(Germany). Main discussions during this meeting were the review of the cost-benefit
analysis, an exchange of information on the first results of the repeatability and
reproducibility of the FlexPLI tests with vehicles, and a discussion on the threshold
values for the injury criteria. Furthermore, the IWG agreed to seek the consent of GRSP
and WP.29/AC.3 for extending the mandate (working schedule) to take all test results
into account for the amendment of the UN GTR.
153. Delegates noted that GRSP had adopted the revised terms of reference of the IWG
group as reproduced in Annex II to the GRSP report (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/52)
during the 159th session of WP.29 and at the thirty-seventh session of AC.3. The World
Forum endorsed the extension of the mandate of the IWG until June 2014 (expected
adoption at WP.29/AC.3) and, in principle, the revised terms of references, pending the
adoption of the GRSP report of its December 2012 session at the 160th session of the
World Forum in June 2013.

162. The tenth meeting of the IWG was held on November 24, 2017. Main purpose of the
meeting was to finalize all open issues with the text of the GTR since its adoption had
been delayed for a longer time. The meeting was organised to discuss the amendments
in detail and to agree on them.
3. REQUIREMENTS
(a)
Assessment of Biofidelity
163. Japan Automobile Standard Internationalization Centre (JASIC) highlighted the improved
biofidelity of the FlexPLI compared to the legform impactor currently used in UN GTR
No. 9. The superior biofidelity was shown at component and assembly level using both
the testing and the simulation tools. The improvements in the knee and tibia area were
presented. A comparison study of the FlexPLI and post-mortem human subject (PMHS)
test data was done for the performance limits. The FlexPLI was shown as more
human-like with regard to the injury mechanism of the tibia.
164. The biofidelity study was performed with data from Japan and the USA. Some concerns
were raised by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers on the validity of the method
used by JASIC in comparing the finite element models with human body models. These
concerns were not shared by the expert from Japan.
165. The expert from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) expressed
that the FlexPLI could have limitations in assessing knee injuries. The expert from Japan
explained that both, knee injuries and tibia fractures could be assessed. But during the
development, higher priority was given to tibia fractures as the knee injuries are less
represented compared to tibia fractures according to the accident data analyses.
166. The IWG received additional information on the superior performance of the FlexPLI
compared to the current lower legform impactor.
167. The discussion on the limitations of the FlexPLI in assessing knee injuries was closed
pending the submission of new information on this subject.
(b)
Cost Benefit Analysis
168. At the start of the IWG, participants were asked to provide accident data. This request
was also raised at the fiftieth session of GRSP by the Chair of the IWG. The expert of the
USA informed the IWG that they were investigating if information on accidents with
pedestrians could be supplied for discussion.
169. The expert from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) informed
delegations about a research project in the USA to investigate the accident situation for
pedestrians using the Pedestrian Crash Data Study (PCDS) and the German In-Depth
Accident Study (GIDAS). The analyses only covered AIS 3-6 injuries and looked at
disabling injuries according to the Functional Capacity Index (FCI) based on AIS.
170. According to both data sources, bumper-caused injuries represent up to 40% of all
pedestrian injuries. Notwithstanding, there are notable differences between the two
sources on the number of injuries to the different body regions: the number of injuries to
lower extremities are primarily caused by the bumper; and is in both cases close to
100% (94% for PCDS and 99% for GIDAS). The presentation also showed the ranking of
injured body regions for serious and disabling injuries, with the most frequent
combination being the lower extremity to bumper impact.

176. The expert from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in the USA (Alliance)
explained that the USA accident data used in the study might be processed in another
way, as the current procedure is using the police-reported injury severity system KABCO
(K -fatal, A – incapacitating, B – non-incapacitating, C – possible injury, O – no-injury) to
classify injury severity might not be correct for pedestrian injuries. The expert from JASIC
admitted that for some cases the injury severity classification based on the KABCO scale
used for the study was not correct. A modified version of the study showed better results
than the original document.
177. At the third and fourth meeting the pedestrian experts again reviewed JASIC information
on the benefit of the FlexPLI. The Alliance had undertaken an investigation of the
methodology that was presented by JASIC. One major concern of the Alliance was that
the data used in the JASIC analysis does not correctly reflect the current accident
situation in the United States due to the outdated data set and the assumptions for the
injury levels taken as a basis for the benefit calculation.
178. During the fifth and the sixth meeting, the pedestrian experts further reviewed
information from JASIC and the Federal Highway Research Institute of Germany (BASt)
on calculating the benefits that would result from introducing the FlexPLI. The Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers in the USA repeated the concerns that the two approaches
presented may not be valid for every market depending on the situation of accidents and
the vehicle fleet.
179. The IWG finally agreed that this argument may be valid for some regions which would
result in the need to undertake, within the individual countries or regions, a cost-benefit
analysis using their national or regional data on accidents and the situation of the
domestic vehicle fleet to verify the scope of the new provisions and the possible
introduction of the FlexPLI in their territory.
(c)
Technical Specifications (Drawings) and PADI (User Manual)
180. Several items were raised on the user manual for the FlexPLI. An updated user manual
incorporating the proposals was drafted including additional information for a visual
inspection of the impactor.
181. Experts were informed that the drawings and specifications of the FlexPLI would be
needed before the regulatory text can be approved by GRSP and adopted by WP.29 and
AC.3. Humanetics confirmed that this is well known and such information would be
submitted to the IWG.
182. The expert from OICA asked for more transparent documentation on the set-up of the
flexible pedestrian legform impactor. The expert from Humanetics confirmed that
information would be provided if the documentation for the FlexPLI could be made
available for the informal group with a disclaimer against its use for commercial
purposes.
183. The expert from the UK informed the participants about the ongoing activity at WP.29 to
set up a repository that would form a kind of library for dummies and other test devices
used in regulations. He informed GRSP that the experts from the UK and the USA were
jointly preparing a mutual resolution (M.R.1.) of the 1958 and 1998 Agreements on the
description and performance of test tools and devices necessary for assessing the
compliance of wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts according to the technical
prescriptions specified in UN Regulations and UN GTRs.

191. The expert from OICA presented a proposal for the vehicle set-up in terms of riding
height. The proposal to cover tolerances in built-up, adjustment and alignment of a test
vehicle in actual testing recommends including the concept of the primary reference
mark. The definitions would give clearer guidelines needed to perform the type approval
or self-certification tests of vehicles.
192. The experts from BASt and OICA proposed to define the tolerance of FlexPLI output
values during the free-flight phase for vehicle tests. Based on a BASt proposal, a
definition for the free flight phase was introduced in the amendment.
(f)
Certification Tests
193. The IWG agreed to establish a task force, chaired by Japan, for reviewing and updating
the certification corridors (TF-RUCC) to resolve issues with the current certification test
procedures. Certification tests were performed with several legforms in a limited number
of labs to check the performance of the flexible pedestrian legform impactors. The
objective of the task force was to prepare a recommendation for the IWG on the
certification procedures and the corridors to be used for the certification of the FlexPLI.
194. The results showed a good and repeatable performance of the three flexible pedestrian
legform impactors with the final build level (three "master legs") tested. A round robin
certification test series confirmed a stable performance of the legform impactors. The
task force finalized the work and succeeded in proposing updated certification corridors
based on proposals made by BASt for the dynamic tests and by Japan Automobile
Research Institute (JARI) for the static tests for the certification of the flexible legform
impactors on the assembly and component level.
195. The corridors were agreed by the IWG as final. It was also indicated that an evaluation of
the stability of performance of the flexible legform impactors would be done during
vehicle testing.
(g)
Review of Test Results
196. The expert from OICA introduced results of impactor to vehicle tests. He added that the
results were quite promising but for some peak values a deviation of up to 20% was
observed. IWG discussed if the impactors as well as the vehicles would really be
comparable as the test results presented were generated during a period of several
years (2009 – 2011), during which the impactors and the vehicles may have undergone
some changes.
197. The Concept Tech GmbH presented information on the influence of friction in the test
device used for inverse testing. Further information from the different laboratories
investigating their own test apparatus was shown. Based on the presentations and the
conclusions, the IWG agreed on the limit for the friction of test devices for inverse
testing.

203. In addition to the discussion on the injury threshold values, the IWG also begun
discussing the underlying injury risk functions. NHTSA requested information from which
the proposed threshold values were derived, because the injury probability needs to be
estimated for their cost-benefit analysis. At the Technical Evaluation Group (TEG) on
FlexPLI, two different approaches to derive threshold values were used, one proposed
by BASt and the other proposed by JASIC. Upon request from NHTSA, BASt and JASIC
provided information on the derivation of the injury risk function using their own
approaches (GTR9-6-08r1, GTR9-6-26). Since BASt used a direct correlation between
the knee bending angle of the EEVC legform impactor and the MCL elongation of the
FlexPLI to derive the threshold value for MCL failure, as well as the FlexPLI knee
geometry to derive the threshold value for ACL/PCL failure, focus of the IWG discussion
was given to the risk functions for tibia fracture.
204. From data on the peak human leg bending moment in dynamic 3-point lateral bending
tests conducted by Nyquist et al., BASt used data for male subjects. Geometric data
scaling was applied to the dataset using the standard length obtained from the German
Industry Standard anthropometric database (DIN). As the used data was normally
distributed according to the Shapiro Wilk Normality Test, the injury risk function for tibia
fracture was derived from a normally distributed probability density function
(GTR9-6-08r1).
205. JASIC chose to use both male and female data from the Nyquist study on the basis of
past studies not showing significant difference in bone material property between males
and females. In addition, JASIC also used more recently conducted leg 3-point bending
test data from Kerrigan et al. The standard lengths taken from the anthropometric study
by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI), which was also
referred to when determining the legform dimensions, were used to geometrically scale
the data. Since the peak moment data from the Nyquist study were attenuated by
filtering, the survival model was applied to the dataset and the data from the Nyquist
study were treated as right censored data, as opposed to the data from the Kerrigan
study which were treated as uncensored (exact) data. Weibull distribution was assumed
to allow asymmetric probability density distribution.
206. At the sixth meeting of the IWG, a comparison of both approaches carried out by BASt
revealed that the calculated threshold values depend on various factors such as the
underlying set of PMHS data, the scaling method, the particular anthropometrical
database for human data scaling, the injury risk to be covered, and the statistical
procedure used for the development of the injury risk function (GTR9-6-08r1). At the
same meeting, JASIC presented a complete description of their approach by referring to
the SAE technical paper already presented at the 2012 SAE World Congress
(GTR9-6-26).
207. At the seventh meeting of the IWG, NHTSA preferred to recommend one single
approach. JASIC, therefore, investigated and BASt contributed to further clarifications of
their approaches by providing additional technical information to NHTSA (GTR9-7-07),
but an effort to come up with one common proposal was not successful. Therefore,
JASIC investigated the effect of each factor (human data sources, standard lengths for
geometric data scaling, statistical procedure, etc.) on the injury risk function, so that any
interested Contracting Party could refer to the provided information and determine its
preferred approach. The information was shared by JASIC at the eighth meeting of the
IWG (GTR9-8-11).

(j)
Evaluation of Vehicle Countermeasures
213. During the fifth and sixth IWG meetings, information on the technical feasibility and
possible vehicle countermeasures was provided by the experts from OICA, JASIC and
NHTSA. OICA informed IWG that the feasibility may be a problem for some small
volume products for which currently no detailed information on the performance with the
FlexPLI was available.
214. Automakers from the USA explained that, for some heavier trucks and Sport Utility
Vehicles (SUV), there would be a conflict between the customer requests for the
US-market and the pedestrian requirements in the bumper area. The IWG agreed that,
for some markets, it may be necessary to further consider the scope of the UN GTR and
to review, for specific vehicles, the lead time for the transposition of UN GTR No. 9 into
regional or national law.
(k)
Other Items
Finite Element Models
215. The European Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA) requested information on
the development of finite element models for the FlexPLI. It was decided that the IWG
would not develop such models but would serve as a platform for a regular exchange of
information on this subject. This task was started at the second meeting of the IWG.
216. The expert from Humanetics informed participants about the status of work on
developing a finite element model for the FlexPLI. Currently a model is available for
purchase. The further development of the model is currently stopped and would be
restarted as soon as the status of the impactor is final.
4. KEY ELEMENTS OF THE AMENDMENT
217. The key elements introduced by this amendment to the UN GTR No. 9 are:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
the introduction of the flexible pedestrian legform impactor;
the introduction of new dynamic certification corridors;
the introduction of new static certification corridors;
the process of using an assessment interval for identifying maximum
measurements.
and modification of the definition of the bumper test area.

222. The IWG noted that the simultaneous application of the EEVC legform impactor and the
FlexPLI in various regulative and consumer rating requirements worldwide can lead to
market distortions and an unnecessary burden on manufacturers. Therefore it is
recommended that contracting parties implement this amendment for compliance at the
earliest possible date as an option at the choice of the car manufacturer. However in
those regions where there is existing legislation relating to legform testing with the EEVC
legform impactor, vehicles fulfilling the requirements of Phase 1 of this legislation,
already provide protection of the lower leg. Where this is the case, a review of costs and
benefits of changing to the use of the Flex PLI may not be justified if it were to require a
general redesign of existing vehicle types. contracting parties should consider exempting
vehicles from meeting FlexPLI requirements when these vehicles were designed and
proven to comply with the requirements for the EEVC LFI.
6. TASK FORCE BUMPER TEST AREA (TF-BTA)
223. On request of the expert from the European Commission a discussion on the current
bumper test area, mostly for the lower legform impact, took place. The necessity of
improving and notably widening the test area on the bumper for the lower legform test
was shown as the area of the bumper is quite restricted as a result of angled front fascia
designs and protrusions or other features on the fascia of some vehicles that interact
with the 60° planes that in the current test procedure define the test area. The decision
was to discuss the whole subject in detail in a specific task force on the bumper test area
(TF-BTA).
224. The IWG agreed to establish such a task force. The expert of the European Commission
chaired the task force’s discussions.
225. The task force met eight times between September 2012 and November 2014 in
face-to-face and web meetings. First results of the task force’s work showed that, for
newer vehicles, the test areas for the lower legform impact were narrower than in the
past. A contractor therefore was requested to further investigate possibilities to solve this
issue, in cooperation with stakeholders. Based on the investigations of the contractor,
members of the task force made different proposals on how to possibly modify the
bumper test area.
226. The different proposals were discussed in the task force and finally led to proposed
further amendments to this UN GTR regarding the determination of the bumper test area
(document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2014/30). These proposed amendments are
subsequently considered for phase 2 of the UN GTR, together with some further slight
modifications proposed by GRSP.
227. The definition of the bumper beam is based on the structural cross member, which is
usually covered by the bumper fascia. Parts linked or connected to the structural cross
member only belong to the cross member if the stiffness of such parts is not significantly
lower compared to the stiffness of the cross member.

Doc. No. Rev. Name
GTR9-1-11 Scatter of pendulum test results, November 9, 2010
GTR9-1-12
Informal document GRSP-49-23: Update on Pedestrian
Leg Testing
GTR9-2-01
1
Agenda for the 2nd meeting of the Informal Group on
Global Technical Regulation No. 9 – Phase 2
(IG GTR9-PH2) – Final
GTR9-2-02
1
Minutes of the 2nd meeting of the Informal Group on
Global Technical Regulation No. 9 – Phase 2
(IG GTR9-PH2) – Final
GTR9-2-03
Proposal for a Modification of the Bumper Test Area for
Lower and Upper Legform to Bumper Tests
GTR9-2-04 1 Robustness of SN02 prototype test results – Revision 1
GTR9-2-05
GTR9-2-06
Comparison of Filter Classes for FlexPLI
Technical Specification and PADI
GTR9-2-07
1
Technical Discussion – Benefit (Update of document
GTR9-1-07 Rev. 1)
GTR9-2-08
FlexPLI GTR meeting actions
GTR9-2-09 FlexPLI GTR – FE model v2.0
GTR9-2-10
2
FlexPLI Comparison – test experiences with different
impactors (completed during the 3rd meeting)
GTR9-2-11
GTR9-2-12
GTR9-2-13
GTR9-2-14
Informal document WP.29-156-11: First progress report
of the informal group on Phase 2 of gtr No. 9
Re-examination of Number of Pedestrians by Injury
Severity
FLEX PLI Update for Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers
Updated Japan Progress Report: Review and Update
Certification Test Corridors and Test Methods (added
pendulum Test data)
GTR9-3-01
1
Agenda for the 3rd meeting of the Informal Group on
Global Technical Regulation No. 9 – Phase 2
(IG GTR9-PH2) – Final
GTR9-3-02
1
Minutes of the 3rd meeting of the Informal Group on
Global Technical Regulation No. 9 – Phase 2
(IG GTR9-PH2) – Final

GTR9-4-18
GTR9-4-19
GTR9-4-20
GTR9-4-21
GTR9-4-22
Doc. No. Rev. Name
FlexPLI vs. EEVC LFI Benefit Estimation
Overview of NHTSA Pedestrian Activities
Validation of Pedestrian Lower Limb Injury Assessment
using Subsystem Impactors (IRCOBI conference,
September 12th – 14th, 2012)
OSRP Pedestrian Lower Leg Response Research test
series
Checklist for Vehicle Testing
GTR9-5-01
1
Agenda for the 4th meeting of the Informal Group on
Global Technical Regulation No. 9 – Phase 2
(IG GTR9-PH2) – Final
GTR9-5-02
1
Minutes of the 5th meeting of the Informal Group on
Global Technical Regulation No. 9 – Phase 2
(IG GTR9-PH2) – Final
GTR9-5-03
Pedestrian Injuries By Source: Serious and Disabling
Injuries in US and European Cases (Mallory et al. Paper
for 56th AAAM Annual Conference)
GTR9-5-04 Flex PLI GTR User Manual Rev. D, October 2012
GTR9-5-05 2 FlexPLI – Round Robin Tests
GTR9-5-06
Informal document WP29-158-28: Draft 3rd progress
report
GTR9-5-07 c2 Discussion on Feasibility of FlexPLI Countermeasures
GTR9-5-08
GTR9-5-09
GTR9-5-10
GTR9-5-11
GTR9-5-12
GTR9-5-13
GTR9-5-14
GTR9-5-15
Proposal for Procedure to Process FlexPLI
Measurements in Rebound Phase
Applicability Information
FlexPLI Durability Against Larger Vehicles
FlexPLI Repeatability in Car Tests
Experimental Validation of Human and FlexPLI FE
Models
FlexPLI vs. EEVC LFI Correlation
Benefit and Cost; Additional Analysis based on
GTR9-2-07r1
Moving Ram Friction Effect
GTR9-5-16 1 Round Robin Test Result (E-Leg)
GTR9-5-17
FlexPLI Test Results (SN-03)

Doc. No. Rev. Name
GTR9-6-08 1 Derivation of FlexPLI thresholds
GTR9-6-09
GTR9-6-10
GTR9-6-11
GTR9-6-12
GTR9-6-13
FlexPLI Drawings
FlexPLI Pre- & Post-Test Procedure
Consideration of the Rebound Phase
Validation of Flex-GTR model
Proposal for a wording to consider tolerances of the
normal ride height
GTR9-6-14 1 FlexPLI Round Robin Testing
GTR9-6-15
1
Summary JPR Report Evaluating the Methodology and
Assumptions Made in Doc. GTR9-5-14 and GTR9-5-19
GTR9-6-16
GTR9-6-17
GTR9-6-18
JPR Report Evaluating the Methodology and
Assumptions Made in Doc. GTR9-5-14 and GTR9-5-19
Large Truck/SUV Challenges
FlexPLI Round Robin Test Results
GTR9-6-19 1 FlexPLI Round Robin Test Results
GTR9-6-20
GTR9-6-21
GTR9-6-22
Discussion on Impactor Thresholds
Flex-PLI Rebound Issue: Industry Proposal (Update)
FlexPLI Drawing Review (Surface Level)
GTR9-6-23 2 FlexPLI Drawings Review
GTR9-6-24
GTR9-6-25
GTR9-6-26
GTR9-6-27
GTR9-6-28
Durability Study SN-03
Comments on GTR9-6-15 (JP Research review of JASIC
& BASt FlexPLI Injury Reduction Estimate)
Development of Injury Probability Functions for the
Flexible Pedestrian Legform Impactor
Comments on Alliance and JP Research Documents
(GTR9-6-15 and GTR9-6-16)
Certification test results of the OEM legform used in
document GTR9-6-20
GTR9-7-01
1
Agenda for the 7th meeting of the Informal Group on
Global Technical Regulation No. 9 – Phase 2
(IG GTR9-PH2) – Final
GTR9-7-02
1
Minutes of the 7th meeting of the Informal Group on
Global Technical Regulation No. 9 – Phase 2
(IG GTR9-PH2) – Final

Doc. No. Rev. Name
GTR9-8-08
1
Comments to JAMA presentation GTR9-7-06c and
Proposed Changes, FlexPLI GTR Manual
GTR9-8-09
GTR9-8-10
GTR9-8-11
GTR9-8-12
GTR9-8-13
GTR9-8-14
GTR9-8-15
GTR9-8-16
GTR9-8-17
GTR9-8-18
GTR9-8-19
Comments to Cellbond Flex PLI Drawing Check
Document GTR9-6-23
Comments to JASIC's Comments Provided with
Document GTR9-7-05c
Comparison of Effect of Different Approaches on Injury
Risk Functions
Possible Influence of Temperature and Humidity on the
FlexPLI Behavior
FlexPLI Manual: FlexPLI Preparation before Car Testing
Request for Transitional Provisions for FlexPLI Usage
FlexPLI Biofidelic Assessment Interval (BAI): Open
Issues
Change to foam flesh used by EEVC lower & upper
legforms
FlexPLI Version GTR – Testing of Vehicles with Different
Bumper Systems
Femur Certification Corridors for the Inverse Test (Zero
Cross Timing)
Femur Certification Corridors for the Pendulum Test (Zero
Cross Timing)
GTR9-9-01
1
Agenda for the 8th meeting of the Informal Group on
Global Technical Regulation No. 9 – Phase 2
(IG GTR9-PH2) – Final
GTR9-9-02
1
Minutes of the 9th meeting of the Informal Group on
Global Technical Regulation No. 9 – Phase 2
(IG GTR9-PH2) – Final
GTR9-9-03
FlexPLI weight tolerances, Reduction of proposed weight
tolerances
GTR9-9-04
1
Lower Legform Test Area, Justification of the Need for a
Relaxation Zone
GTR9-9-05
GTR9-9-06
Proposal of 01 series of amendments to Regulation
No. 127: Transitional provisions
Proposed amendments of the three-point bending
certification test figure
GTR9-9-07 3 FlexPLI GTR User Manual Rev. F 2013

II.
TEXT OF THE REGULATION
1. PURPOSE
1.1. The purpose of this global technical regulation is to bring about an improvement in the
construction of certain parts of the front of vehicles which have been identified as
causing injury when in collision with a pedestrian or other vulnerable road user.
1.2. The vehicles to be tested under the regulation are representative of the majority of
vehicles in circulation in the urban environment, where there is a greater potential for
collision with pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, and include passenger cars,
vans and light trucks.
2. APPLICATION / SCOPE
2.1. This global technical regulation (gtr) shall apply to the frontal surfaces of power driven
vehicles of Category 1-1 with a gross vehicle mass exceeding 500kg; and of
Category 1-2 with a gross vehicle mass exceeding 500kg but not exceeding 4,500kg;
and of Category 2 with a gross vehicle mass exceeding 500kg but not exceeding
4,500kg . However, power driven vehicles of Category 1-2 and Category 2, where the
distance, measured longitudinally on a horizontal plane, between the transverse centre
line of the front axle and the R-Point of the driver's seat is less than 1,100mm, are
exempt from the requirements of this regulation. Contracting Parties can exempt
Category 1-1 vehicles where the distance, measured longitudinally on a horizontal plane,
between the transverse centre line of the front axle and the R-Point of the driver's seat is
less than 1,100mm and having the components of the frontal structure that are
interchangeable with the above-mentioned Category 1-2 and Category 2 vehicles.
3. DEFINITIONS
All definitions of Special Resolution No. 1 shall apply as necessary.
When performing measurements as described in this Part, the vehicle should be
positioned in its normal ride attitude.
If the vehicle is fitted with a badge, mascot or other structure, which would bend back or
retract under an applied load of maximum 100 N, then this load shall be applied before
and/or while these measurements are taken.
Any vehicle component which could change shape or position, other than suspension
components or active devices to protect pedestrians, shall be set to their stowed
position.
For the purposes of this Regulation:
3.1. "Adult headform test area" is an area on the outer surfaces of the front structure. The
area is bounded, in the front, by a wrap around distance (WAD) of 1,700mm and, at the
rear, by the rear reference line for adult headform and, at each side, by the side
reference line.

3.6. "Bonnet rear reference line" means the geometric trace of the most rearward points of
contact between a 165mm diameter sphere and the front structure of the vehicle when
the sphere is traversed across the front structure of the vehicle while maintaining contact
with the windscreen (see Figure 2). The wiper blades and arms are removed during this
process.
Where the bonnet rear reference line and the side reference line do not intersect, the
bonnet rear reference line should be extended and/or modified using a semi-circular
template, of radius 100mm. The template should be made of a thin flexible sheet
material that easily bends to a single curvature in any direction. The template should,
preferably, resist double or complex curvature where this could result in wrinkling. The
recommended material is a foam backed thin plastic sheet to allow the template to "grip"
the surface of the vehicle. The template should be marked up with four Points "A"
through "D", as shown in Figure 3, while the template is on a flat surface.
The template should be placed on the vehicle with Corners "A" and "B" coincident with
the side reference line. Ensuring these two corners remain coincident with the side
reference line, the template should be slid progressively rearwards until the arc of the
template makes first contact with the bonnet rear reference line. Throughout the process,
the template should be curved to follow, as closely as possible, the outer contour of the
vehicle's bonnet top, without wrinkling or folding of the template. If the contact between
the template and bonnet rear reference line is tangential and the point of tangency lies
outside the arc scribed by Points "C" and "D", then the bonnet rear reference line is
extended and/or modified to follow the circumferential arc of the template to meet the
bonnet side reference line, as shown in Figure 4.
If the template cannot make simultaneous contact with the bonnet side reference line at
Points "A" and "B" and tangentially with the bonnet rear reference line, or the point at
which the bonnet rear reference line and template touch lies within the arc scribed by
Points "C" and "D", then additional templates should be used where the radii are
increased progressively in increments of 20mm, until all the above criteria are met.
3.7. "Bonnet top" is the area which is bounded by (a), (b) and (c) as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
the bonnet leading edge reference line;
the bonnet rear reference line;
the side reference lines.
3.8. "Bumper" means the front, lower, outer structure of a vehicle. It includes all structures
that are intended to give protection to a vehicle when involved in a low speed frontal
collision and also any attachments to this structure. The reference height and lateral
limits of the bumper are identified by the corners and the bumper reference lines.
3.9. "Bumper beam" means the structural cross member, rearward of the bumper fascia if
present, protecting the front of the vehicle. The beam does not include foam, cover
support or any pedestrian protection devices.
3.10. "Bumper lead" means for any longitudinal section of a vehicle, the horizontal distance in
the vehicle longitudinal plane between the upper bumper reference line and the bonnet
leading edge reference line

3.17. "Front structure" means all outer structures of the vehicle except the windscreen, the
windscreen header, the A-pillars and structures rearward of these. It therefore includes,
but is not limited to, the bumper, the bonnet, wings, scuttle, wiper spindles and lower
windscreen frame.
3.18. "Ground reference plane" means a horizontal plane, either real or imaginary, that
passes through the lowest points of contact for all tyres of a vehicle while the vehicle is in
its normal ride attitude. If the vehicle is resting on the ground, then the ground level and
the ground reference plane are one and the same. If the vehicle is raised off the ground
such as to allow extra clearance below the bumper, then the ground reference plane is
above ground level.
3.19. "Head Injury Criterion (HIC)" means the calculated result of accelerometer time
histories using the following formula:
Where:


��
t
1
� t


��
HIC = a dt �t
� t �

a is the resultant acceleration measured in units of gravity "g"
(1g = 9.81 m/s²);
t and t
are the two time instants (expressed in seconds) during the impact, defining
an interval between the beginning and the end of the recording period for
which the value of HIC is a maximum (t - t � 15 ms)
3.20. "Impact point" means the point on the vehicle where initial contact by the test impactor
occurs. The proximity of this point to the target point is dependent upon both the angle of
travel by the test impactor and the contour of the vehicle surface (see Point B in Figure
6).
3.21. "Lower bumper height" means the vertical distance between the ground reference
plane and the lower bumper reference line, with the vehicle positioned in its normal ride
attitude.
3.22. "Lower bumper reference line" means the lower limit to significant points of pedestrian
contact with the bumper. It is defined as the geometric trace of the lowermost points of
contact between a straight edge 700mm long and the bumper, when the straight edge,
held parallel to the vertical longitudinal plane of the car and inclined forwards by 25� from
the vertical, is traversed across the front of the car, while maintaining contact with the
ground and with the surface of the bumper (see Figure 7).
3.23. "Normal ride attitude" means the vehicle positioned on a flat horizontal surface with its
mass in running order (as defined in Annex 3, Paragraph 3 of Special Resolution No. 1),
with the tyres inflated to manufacturer recommended pressures, the front wheels in the
straight-ahead position and with a passenger mass (as defined in Annex 3,
Paragraph 6.2. of Special Resolution No. 1) placed on the front passenger seat. The
front seats are placed at the nominal mid-track position. The suspension shall be set in
normal running condition as specified by the manufacturer for a speed of 40km/h.

3.31. "Wrap Around Distance (WAD)" means the geometric trace described on the outer
surface of the vehicle front structure by one end of a flexible tape, when it is held in a
vertical longitudinal plane of the vehicle and traversed across the front structure. The
tape is held taut throughout the operation with one end held at the same level as the
ground reference level, vertically below the front face of the bumper and the other end
held in contact with the front structure (see Figure 10). The vehicle is positioned in the
normal ride attitude.
This procedure shall be followed, using alternative tapes of appropriate lengths, to
describe wrap around distances of 1,000mm (WAD1000), of 1,700mm (WAD1700) and
of 2,100mm (WAD2100).
3.32. "Windscreen" means the frontal glazing of the vehicle situated between the A-pillars.
Straight edge
1,000 mm long
Bonnet leading edge
reference line
50°
600 mm
Figure 1
Bonnet Leading Edge Reference Line (see Paragraph 3.5.)

New / Modified
end of Bonnet Rear
Reference Line
Old / Discarded end
of Bonnet Rear
Reference Line
Windscreen
Semi-circular
Template
Bonnet Side
Reference Line
Bonnet Rear
Reference Line
Figure 4
Marking of Intersection Between Bonnet Rear and Side Reference Lines
(see Paragraph 3.6.)
Figure 5A
Corner of Bumper Example (see Paragraph 3.14., Note That the Corner Gauge
is to be Moved in Vertical and Horizontal Directions to Enable
Contact with the Outer Contour /Front Fascia of the Vehicle)

Figure 5D
Determination of Bumper Test Area (Note that the Corner Gauges are to be Moved
in Vertical and Horizontal Directions to Enable Contact with the
Outer Contour/Front Fascia of the Vehicle)
θ
A: Target point
B: Impact point
θ : Impact angle
B
A
Figure 6
Impact and Target Point (see Paragraphs 3.20. and 3.28.)

Straight edge
700 mm long
UBRL
UBRL
UBRL
20°
Figure 9
Upper Bumper Reference Line, UBRL (see Paragraph 3.30.)
Wrap around
distance
Figure 10
Wrap around Distance Measurement (see Paragraph 3.31.)

5.1.2. When tested in accordance with Paragraph 7.1.2. (upper legform to bumper), the
instantaneous sum of the impact forces with respect to time shall not exceed 7.5 kN and
the bending moment on the test impactor shall not exceed 510Nm.
5.2. Headform Tests
5.2.1. Child headform to the front structure:
When tested in accordance with Paragraphs 7.2. and 7.3. the HIC shall comply with
Paragraph 5.2.3.
5.2.2. Adult headform to the front structure:
When tested in accordance with Paragraph 7.2. and 7.4. the HIC shall comply with
Paragraph 5.2.3.
5.2.3. The HIC recorded shall not exceed 1,000 over a minimum of one half of the child
headform test area and 1,000 over two thirds of the combined child and adult headform
test areas. The HIC for the remaining areas shall not exceed 1,700 for both headforms.
In case there is only a child headform test area, the HIC recorded shall not exceed 1,000
over two thirds of the test area. For the remaining area the HIC shall not exceed 1,700.
5.2.4. Splitting of Headform Test Zone
5.2.4.1. The manufacturer shall identify the zones of the bonnet top where the HIC must not
exceed 1,000 (HIC1000 Zone) or 1,700 (HIC1700 Zone) (see Figure 11).
HIC1000
Zone
HIC1700
Zone
Figure 11
Example of Marking of HIC1000 Zone and HIC1700 Zone

6.3. Test Impactor Specifications
6.3.1. Legform Impactors:
6.3.1.1. Flexible lower legform impactor:
The flexible lower legform impactor shall consist of the flesh and skin, flexible long bone
segments (representing femur bone and tibia bone), and the knee joint as shown in
Figure 12.
The assembled impactor shall have a total mass of 13.2 ± 0.4kg. The dimensions of the
fully assembled impactor shall be as defined in Figure 12, measured at the vertical
centre line.
Brackets, pulleys, protectors, connection parts, etc. attached to the impactor for the
purposes of launching and/or protection may extend beyond the dimensions and
tolerances shown in Figures 12 and 13.
6.3.1.1.1. The cross-sectional shape of the femur main body segments, the tibia main body
segments and their impact faces shall be as defined in Figure 13 (a).
6.3.1.1.2. The cross-sectional shape of the knee joint and its impact face shall be as defined in
Figure 13 (b).
6.3.1.1.3. The masses of the femur and the tibia without the flesh and skin, including the
connection parts to the knee joint, shall be 2.46 ± 0.12kg and 2.64 ± 0.13kg respectively.
The mass of the knee joint without the flesh and skin shall be 4.28 ± 0.21kg. The
assembled mass of the femur, the knee joint and the tibia without the flesh and skin shall
be 9.38 ± 0.3kg. The screws that attach femur and tibia to the knee are part of the knee
assembly.
The centres of gravity of the femur and tibia without the flesh and skin, including the
connection parts to the knee joint, shall be as defined in Figure 12. The centre of gravity
of the knee joint shall be as defined in Figure 12.
The moment of inertia of the femur and the tibia without the flesh and skin, including the
connection parts inserted to the knee joint, about the X-axis through the respective
centre of gravity shall be 0.0339 ± 0.0016kgm and 0.0486 ± 0.0023kgm respectively.
The moment of inertia of the knee joint about the X-axis through the respective centre of
gravity shall be 0.0180 ± 0.0009kgm .
6.3.1.1.4. For each test, the impactor (femur, knee joint and tibia without flesh and skin) shall be
covered by the flesh and skin composed of synthetic rubber sheets (R1, R2) and foamed
neoprene sheets (N1F, N2F, N1T, N2T, N3) as shown in Figure 14. The size of the
sheets shall be within the requirements described in Figure 14. The sheets are required
to have compression characteristics as shown in Figure 15. The compression
characteristics shall be checked using material from the same batch as the sheets used
for the impactor flesh and skin.

All dimensions in millimetres (mm)
Figure 12
Flexible Lower Legform Impactor: Dimensions and Centre of Gravity
Locations of Femur, Knee Joint and Tibia (Side View)

Figure 14
Flexible Lower Legform Impactor: Flesh and Skin Dimensions

Figure 16
Flexible Lower Legform Impactor: Location of the Transducers
6.3.1.2. Upper Legform Impactor:
The upper legform impactor shall be rigid, foam covered at the impact side, and
350 � 5mm long (see Figure 17).
6.3.1.2.1. The total mass of the upper legform impactor including those propulsion and guidance
components which are effectively part of the impactor during the impact shall be
9.5kg � 0.1kg.
6.3.1.2.2. The total mass of the front member and other components in front of the load transducer
assemblies, together with those parts of the load transducer assemblies in front of the
active elements, but excluding the foam and skin, shall be 1.95 � 0.05kg.
6.3.1.2.3. The upper legform impactor for the bumper test shall be mounted to the propulsion
system by a torque limiting joint and be insensitive to off-axis loading. The impactor shall
move only in the specified direction of impact when in contact with the vehicle and shall
be prevented from motion in other directions including rotation about any axis.
6.3.1.2.4. The torque limiting joint shall be set so that the longitudinal axis of the front member is
vertical at the time of impact with a tolerance of � 2�, with the joint friction torque set to
675Nm � 25Nm.
6.3.1.2.5. The centre of gravity of those parts of the impactor which are effectively forward of the
torque limiting joint, including any weights fitted, shall lie on the longitudinal centre line of
the impactor, with a tolerance of � 10mm.

6.3.1.2.10.2. The certified impactor may be used for a maximum of 20 impacts before re-certification
(this limit does not apply to propulsion or guidance components). The impactor shall also
be re-certified if more than one year has elapsed since the previous certification or if any
impactor transducer output, in any impact, has exceeded the specified CAC.
Load transducer
Mass as required
Torque
limiting
joint
Rear member
Strain gauges
Front member
Foam with rubber skin
Figure 17
Upper Legform Impactor (see Paragraph 6.3.1.2.)

6.3.2.1.2. First Natural Frequency
The first natural frequency of the headform impactor shall be over 5,000 Hz.
End Plate
Accelerometer
Skin
Sphere
14 mm
Sphere 165 mm
Figure 18
Child Headform Impactor (see Paragraph 6.3.2.1.)

6.3.2.2.1. Adult Headform Instrumentation
A recess in the sphere shall allow for mounting one triaxial or three uniaxial
accelerometers within � 10mm seismic mass location tolerance from the centre of the
sphere for the measurement axis, and � 1mm seismic mass location tolerance from the
centre of the sphere for the perpendicular direction to the measurement axis.
If three uniaxial accelerometers are used, one of the accelerometers shall have its
sensitive axis perpendicular to the mounting face A (see Figure 19) and its seismic mass
shall be positioned within a cylindrical tolerance field of 1mm radius and 20mm length.
The centre line of the tolerance field shall run perpendicular to the mounting face and its
mid-point shall coincide with the centre of the sphere of the headform impactor.
The remaining accelerometers shall have their sensitive axes perpendicular to each
other and parallel to the mounting face A and their seismic mass shall be positioned
within a spherical tolerance field of 10mm radius. The centre of the tolerance field shall
coincide with the centre of the sphere of the headform impactor.
The instrumentation response value CFC, as defined in ISO 6487: 2002, shall be 1,000.
The CAC response value, as defined in ISO 6487: 2002, shall be 500g for the
acceleration.
6.3.2.2.2. First Natural Frequency
The first natural frequency of the headform impactor shall be over 5,000 Hz.
6.3.2.3. Rear Face of the Headform Impactors
A rear flat face shall be provided on the outer surface of the headform impactors which is
perpendicular to the direction of travel, and typically perpendicular to the axis of one of
the accelerometers as well as being a flat plate capable of providing for access to the
accelerometers and an attachment point for the propulsion system.
6.3.2.4. Certification of the Headform Impactors
The headform impactors shall meet the performance requirements specified in
Paragraph 8. The certified impactors may be used for a maximum of 20 impacts before
re-certification. The impactors shall be re-certified if more than one year has elapsed
since the previous certification or if the transducer output, in any impact, has exceeded
the specified CAC.

7.1.1.4. The impact velocity of the impactor when striking the bumper shall be 11.1 � 0.2 m/s.
The effect of gravity shall be taken into account when the impact velocity is obtained
from measurements taken before the time of first contact.
Figure 20
Tolerances of Angles for the Flexible Lower Legform Impactor at the time of the
First Impact (see Paragraphs 7.1.1.2 and 7.1.1.3.2.)
7.1.1.5. The tibia bending moments shall not exceed ± 15Nm within an evaluation interval of
30ms immediately prior to impact.
7.1.1.6. The offset compensation shall be done with the flexible lower legform impactor in resting
position prior to the test / acceleration phase.

7.2. Headform Test Procedures
7.2.1. Propulsion of the Headform Impactors
The headform impactors shall be in "free flight" at the moment of impact, at the required
impact velocity (as specified in Paragraphs 7.3.4. and 7.4.4.) and the required direction
of impact (as specified in Paragraphs 7.3.5. and 7.4.5.).
The impactors shall be released to "free flight" at such a distance from the vehicle that
the test results are not influenced by contact of the impactor with the propulsion system
during rebound of the impactor.
7.2.2. Measurement of Impact Velocity
7.2.3. Recording
The velocity of the headform impactor shall be measured at some point during the free
flight before impact, in accordance with the method specified in ISO 3784:1976. The
accuracy of velocity measurement shall be � 0.01 m/sec. The measured velocity shall be
adjusted considering all factors which may affect the impactor between the point of
measurement and the point of impact, in order to determine the velocity of the impactor
at the time of impact. The angle of the velocity vector at the time of impact shall be
calculated or measured.
The acceleration time histories shall be recorded, and HIC shall be calculated. The first
point of contact on the front structure of the vehicle shall be recorded. Recording of test
results shall be in accordance with ISO 6487:2002.
7.3. Child Headform Test Procedure
This test procedure is applicable with respect to the requirements of
Paragraphs 5.2.1. and 5.2.3.
7.3.1. Tests shall be made to the front structure within the boundaries as defined in
Paragraph 3.13. For tests on the rear area of the bonnet top, the headform impactor
shall not contact the windscreen or A-pillar before impacting the bonnet top.

7.4.2. No impact point shall be located so that the impactor will impact the test area with a
glancing blow resulting in a more severe second impact outside the test area.
Selected impact points on the bonnet for the adult headform impactor shall be, at the
time of first contact:
(a)
(b)
a minimum of 82.5mm inside the defined side reference lines, and;
forward of the WAD2100 line, or,
a minimum of 82.5mm forward of the bonnet rear reference line,
whichever is most forward at the point of measurement, and;
(c)
rearward of the WAD1700 line.
These minimum distances are to be set with a flexible tape held tautly along the outer
surface of the vehicle.
7.4.3. The point of first contact of the headform impactor shall be within a � 10mm tolerance to
the selected impact point.
7.4.4. The headform velocity at the time of impact shall be 9.7 � 0.2 m/s.
7.4.5. The direction of impact shall be in the longitudinal vertical plane of the paragraph of the
vehicle to be tested at an angle of 65� � 2� to the horizontal. The direction of impact of
tests to the front structure shall be downward and rearward.
8. CERTIFICATION OF IMPACTORS
The impactors that are used in the tests described in this gtr are required to comply with
the following performance requirements.
The requirements for the lower legform impactor are specified in Paragraph 8.1., the
upper legform impactor requirements are specified in Paragraph 8.2. and the adult and
child headform impactors requirements are specified in Paragraph 8.3.

8.1.2. Dynamic Certification Tests (Pendulum Test)
8.1.2.1. The assembled flexible lower legform impactor shall meet the requirements according to
Paragraph 8.1.2.3. when tested as specified in Paragraph 8.1.2.4.
8.1.2.2. Certification
8.1.2.2.1. The test facility used for the certification test shall have a stabilized temperature of 20 ±
2°C during the test.
8.1.2.2.2. The temperature of the certification area shall be measured at the time of certification
and recorded in a certification report.
8.1.2.3. Requirements
8.1.2.3.1. When the flexible lower legform impactor is used for a test according to
Paragraph 8.1.2.4., the absolute value of the maximum bending moment of the tibia at
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Tibia-1 shall be 235Nm ≤ 272Nm,
Tibia-2 shall be 187Nm ≤ 219Nm,
Tibia-3 shall be 139Nm ≤ 166Nm,
Tibia-4 shall be 90Nm ≤ 111Nm.
The absolute value of the maximum elongation of MCL shall be
(a)
(b)
(c)
MCL shall be 20.5 ≤ 24.0mm,
ACL shall be 8.0 ≤ 10.5mm,
PCL shall be 3.5 ≤ 5.0mm.
For all these values for the maximum bending moment and the maximum elongation, the
readings used shall be from the initial impact timing to 200ms after the impact timing.
8.1.2.3.2. The instrumentation response value CFC, as defined in ISO 6487:2002, shall be 180 for
all transducers. The CAC response values, as defined in ISO 6487:2002, shall be 30mm
for the knee ligament elongations and 400Nm for the tibia bending moments. This does
not require that the impactor itself is able to physically elongate or bend until these
values.
8.1.2.4. Test Procedure
8.1.2.4.1. The flexible lower legform impactor, including the flesh and skin, shall be suspended
from the dynamic certification test rig 15 ± 1° upward from the horizontal as shown in
Figure 27. The impactor shall be released from the suspended position and fall freely
against the pin joint of the test rig as shown in Figure 27.
8.1.2.4.2. The knee joint centre of the impactor shall be 30 ± 1mm below the bottom line of the
stopper bar, and the tibia impact face without the flesh and skin shall be located 13 ±
2mm from the front upper edge of the stopper bar when the impactor is hanging freely as
shown in Figure 27.

8.1.3.4.2. The honeycomb of 5052 alloy, which is attached in front of the moving ram, shall be 200
± 5mm wide, 160 ± 5mm high and 60 ± 2mm deep and shall have a crush strength of
517.1kPa ± 10% (75 pound per square inch (psi) ± 10%). The honeycomb should have
cell sizes of either 4.76mm (3/16 inch) or 6.35mm (1/4 inch) and a density of 32.0kg/m
(2.0 pound per cubic foot (pcf)) for the 4.76mm (3/16 inch) cell size or a density of
36.8kg/m (2.3 pound per cubic foot (pcf)) for the 6.35mm (1/4 inch) cell size.
8.1.3.4.3. The upper edge of the honeycomb face shall be in line with the rigid plate of the linearly
guided impactor. At the time of first contact, the upper edge of the honeycomb shall be in
line with the knee joint centre line within a vertical tolerance of ± 2mm. The honeycomb
shall not be deformed before the impact test.
8.1.3.4.4. At the time of the first contact, the flexible lower legform impactor pitch angle (rotation
around the Y-axis) and, therefore, the pitch angle of the velocity vector of the honeycomb
impactor shall be within a tolerance of ± 2° in relation to the lateral vertical plane. The
flexible lower legform impactor roll angle (rotation around the X-axis) and, therefore, the
roll angle of the honeycomb impactor shall be within a tolerance of ± 2° in relation to the
longitudinal vertical plane. The flexible lower legform impactor yaw angle (rotation
around the Z-axis) and, therefore, the yaw angle of the velocity vector of the honeycomb
impactor shall be within a tolerance of ±2°.

(a)
for MCL
(b)
for ACL
(c)
for PCL
Figure 23
Flexible Lower Legform Impactor: Requirement Corridors for the Knee Joint,
Without Flesh and Skin, in the Static Certification Test (see Paragraph 8.1.1.3.)

Figure 25
Flexible Lower Legform Impactor: Test Set-up for the Tibia in the Static Certification Test
(see Paragraph 8.1.1.4.)

Figure 27
Flexible Lower Legform Impactor: Test Set-up for the Dynamic Lower Legform Impactor
Certification Test (Pendulum Test, see Paragraph 8.1.2.4.)

8.2. Upper Legform Impactor Certification
8.2.1. The upper legform impactor shall meet the requirements specified in Paragraph 8.2.3.
when tested as specified in Paragraph 8.2.4.
8.2.2. Calibration
8.2.2.1. The foam flesh for the test impactor shall be stored for a period of at least four hours in a
controlled storage area with a stabilized humidity of 35 � 10% and a stabilized
temperature of 20� � 2� C prior to impactor removal for calibration. The test impactor
itself shall have a temperature of 20� � 2� C at the time of impact. The temperature
tolerances for the test impactor shall apply at a relative humidity of 40 � 30% after a soak
period of at least four hours prior to their application in a test.
8.2.2.2. The test facility used for the calibration test shall have a stabilized humidity of 40 � 30%
and a stabilized temperature of 20� � 4� C during calibration.
8.2.2.3. Each calibration shall be completed within two hours of when the impactor to be
calibrated is removed from the controlled storage area.
8.2.2.4. The relative humidity and temperature of the calibration area shall be measured at the
time of calibration, and recorded in a calibration report.
8.2.3. Requirements
8.2.3.1. When the impactor is propelled into a stationary cylindrical pendulum the peak force
measured in each load transducer shall be not less than 1.20 kN and not more than
1.55 kN and the difference between the peak forces measured in the top and bottom
load transducers shall not be more than 0.10 kN. Also, the peak bending moment
measured by the strain gauges shall not be less than 190Nm and not more than 250Nm
on the centre position and not less than 160Nm and not more than 220Nm for the outer
positions. The difference between the upper and lower peak bending moments shall not
be more than 20Nm.
For all these values, the readings used shall be from the initial impact with the pendulum
and not from the arresting phase. Any system used to arrest the impactor or pendulum
shall be so arranged that the arresting phase does not overlap in time with the initial
impact. The arresting system shall not cause the transducer outputs to exceed the
specified CAC.
8.2.3.2. The instrumentation response value CFC, as defined in ISO 6487:2002, shall be 180 for
all transducers. The CAC response values, as defined in ISO 6487:2002, shall be 10 kN
for the force transducers and 1000Nm for the bending moment measurements.
8.2.4. Test Procedure
8.2.4.1. The impactor shall be mounted to the propulsion and guidance system, by a torque
limiting joint. The torque limiting joint shall be set so that the longitudinal axis of the front
member is perpendicular to the axis of the guidance system, with a tolerance of � 2�,
with the joint friction torque set to 675 � 25Nm. The guidance system shall be fitted with
low friction guides that allow the impactor to move only in the specified direction of
impact, when in contact with the pendulum.

8.3.2.3. Temperature Conditions
The headform impactors shall have a temperature of 20 � 2� C at the time of impact. The
temperature tolerances shall apply at a relative humidity of 40 � 30% after a soak period
of at least four hours prior to their application in a test.
8.3.2.4. After complying with the certification test, each headform impactor can be used for a
maximum of 20 impact tests.
8.3.3. Test Procedure
8.3.3.1. The headform impactor shall be suspended from a drop rig as shown in Figure 30.
8.3.3.2. The headform impactor shall be dropped from the specified height by means that ensure
instant release onto a rigidly supported flat horizontal steel plate, over 50mm thick and
over 300 � 300mm square which has a clean dry surface and a surface finish of between
0.2 and 2.0 micrometers.
8.3.3.3. The headform impactor shall be dropped with the rear face of the impactor at the test
angle specified in Paragraph 7.3.5. for the child headform impactor and in
Paragraph 7.4.5. for the adult headform impactor with respect to the vertical as shown in
Figure 30. The suspension of the headform impactor shall be such that it does not rotate
during the fall.
8.3.3.4. The drop test shall be performed three times, with the headform impactor rotated 120�
around its symmetrical axis after each test.

Pedestrian Safety.