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

And explained the reasons for the proposals (GTR7-01-09e). 210. At the second IWG meeting, the expert from Japan reported that, in general, the torso angle was about 15° in trucks and vans, and it proposed to specify an optional spine angle to accommodate these upright seats. Denton, Inc. (a manufacturer of BioRID) presented a new spine comb to set the dummy in a more erect seating posture. The appropriateness of the dummy when set to this posture is being evaluated. 211. At the third IWG meeting which was on a standard seating posture, basic agreement was reached on adopting the design reference angle proposed by the expert from Japan. 212. The expert from Japan reported on the influence of the difference of seating postures at design torso angle and 25°angle on evaluation. They reported no specific tendency in the difference between two same seats with conditions of JNCAP (design angle, 20°–25°angle) or IIHS (25°angle). 213. The expert from Japan reported on the results of tests that it had conducted to study the new tool for upright postures using a smaller torso angle (10°) for commercial vehicles. While the dummy spine could be set to the revised posture when the dummy was equipped with its jacket, its upright posture would tilt forward significantly and it was unable to keep its head fully horizontal. For this reason, it was decided that, for applying the upright posture tool, development of the jacket, etc. would be undertaken as a second step. 214. The experts from Japan and OICA reported on the ratio of seats with upright torso angle in the market. The expert from Japan reported that such seats account for 45 per cent of all seats in the Japanese market and pointed out the necessity of a static backset option until the dummy representing upright posture is developed. 215. The expert from OICA reported that the overall worldwide ratio (which includes the Japanese data) of seats with upright torso angle is 12 per cent. 216. It was agreed that work to define procedures to assess more upright seats would not be pursued as a priority at this time but that the static evaluation procedure was kept as an option for these seats until the dynamic evaluation was shown to be suitable for all seat angles. 217. At the workshop held in the mid-July 2013 at BASt, the BioRID seating procedure examined different torso angle conditions. However, the dummy spine flexibility might lead to set position variations. The seating procedure continued to be investigated by the experts from OICA and seating procedure and appropriate dummy positioning tolerances would be suggested in the near future. 218. At the fifteenth IWG meeting, the expert from the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association (JAMA) reported on the study of the dummy seating procedure for dynamic test. The study indicated that was better to set the pelvis angle at 26.5° ± 2.5° and hip point tolerance(z) 0 ± 10 mm in dynamic tests using production seats. JAMA indicated that their work is continuing.

(vii) Dummy Durability

219. The neck damper was damaged during the new calibration test procedures in the Republic of Korea. Ford pointed out that it was necessary to add a body block to the calibration sled to prevent damage to dummies. 220. At the fourth IWG group meeting, it was agreed that the issue experienced by the Republic of Korea had not been seen elsewhere and it was not considered to be a problem.

(viii) Specifications

221. BioRID tests exhibited good repeatability in a number of studies. However, problems were identified in reproducibility among different dummies. The generic build level according to commercial identification did not adequately specify the tool and a specific build level was established: BioRID II, along with dummy improvements.