ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/26

161. Discussions on dummies had been conducted as part of the Global BioRID Users Meetings (GBUM) activities up to the first informal meeting. However, starting with the second meeting, the GBUM activities were incorporated into those of the Informal Group's TEG (Technical Evaluation Group) who hold web meetings approximately once a month.

(ii) Biofidelity

162. At the "meeting of interested experts", the current status of the study by EEVC Working Group 12 (WG12) and WG20 and the results of studies on the Biofidelity of Hybrid III, Rear Impact Dummy (RID) 3D, and BioRID II were reported on. Biofidelity in volunteer tests at 7–9 km/h was verified using qualitative procedures and quantitative core method, and BioRID II presented the best results. 163. The expert from the United States of America reported on the progress of its studies on the biofidelity of dummies and injury mechanisms for the evaluation of AIS3+ injuries in mid- and high-speed rear impact crashes. Based on these results, a seat for sled tests was created. In addition, the biofidelity was compared with data from PMHS experiments, BioRID, RID3D and Hybrid III to determine the most appropriate dummy. The injury mechanisms were also examined to determine and verify the instrumentation to the spine and to define the injury behaviour. 164. At the fourth IWG meeting, the expert from NHTSA reported on the repeatability/reproducibility and biofidelity research. NHTSA had conducted dynamic tests at 17.6 and 24 km/h. NHTSA also conducted tests comparing PMHS with Hybrid III, BioRID, and RID3D. The dummies showed different biofidelity in head displacement and rotation during tests for reproducibility, repeatability and biofidelity. The ramping-up behaviour was quite different between PMHS and dummies. The evaluation of biofidelity and repeatability were planned for completion by the end of October and December of 2010 respectively. NHTSA had also conducted tests to compare sensitivity and reproducibility among dummies. They compared the results using BioRID II and Hybrid III in seats with large and small backsets and waveforms as specified in FMVSS 202a and in a UN Regulation No. 17 proposal to incorporate a BioRID (Annex 9) to evaluate if the tests rank the severity of backset in the same manner. The testing was planned to be completed by November 2010 and the results to be presented in February 2011. OICA requested that a biofidelity assessment be conducted on the rear impact dummy chosen for this UN GTR, over the range of angles.* potential seatback 165. One of the original tasks of the informal group was to develop a low-speed dynamic test, including the test procedure, compliance criteria and the associated corridors for the biofidelic rear impact dummy (BioRID II). As a possible later phase, depending upon the direction of WP.29, the group would consider the possibility of a higher-speed dynamic test. 166. At the fourth meeting, the Chair recalled that IWG was tasked to report to WP.29 at its 152nd session (November 2010), and specifically, to confirm the timetable for delivering a proposal for adopting the BioRID II dummy into UN GTR No. 7. He suggested recommending to WP.29 that the period for consideration of Phase 2 would be approximately two years, that the adoption by GRSP be in December 2012, that a proposal to WP.29 be in June 2013. The recommendation was based on the completion, as scheduled, of the research that was being conducted by the experts from Japan and the United States of America by the end of 2011, and moreover, on successfully establishing injury criteria suitable for evaluation in a regulatory test procedure. 167. Japan commented that BioRID II be added to the UN GTR in May 2011 as specified in the original ToR, since neck injury was a serious problem that needed to be addressed in the regulation immediately. Two options were proposed:

(a) Option 1: A proposal to amend UN GTR No. 7 that would be submitted to GRSP in May 2011 to specify dynamic backset evaluations using either Hybrid