GTR(全球统一汽车技术法规)介绍
GTR(全球统一汽车技术法规)介绍
GTR技术法规介绍来源：全国汽车标准化技术委员会1.GTR技术法规的制定组织和《1998年协定书》GTR法规全称为全球统一汽车技术法规，由联合国世界车辆法规协调论坛（UN/WP29）负责制定发布，WP29原为联合国欧洲经济委员会内陆运输委员会下属的车辆结构工作组，在《1958年协定书》的框架下制定并实施ECE汽车技术法规，从20世纪80年代初开始，随着经济全球化的到来，许多国家和地区的政府开始认识到各自为政的汽车技术法规体系阻碍了汽车产品在全球范围内的自由流通，限制并阻碍了商品经济规律应起的作用，于是由国际上一些汽车工业发达国家牵头，开始进行国际汽车技术法规的协调与统一的工作，以打破世界各国、各地区已形成的汽车技术法规这一贸易技术壁垒。
在当时情况下，联合国欧洲经济委员会车辆结构工作组(UN/ECE/WP29)成了开展这种世界范围内汽车技术法规协调和统一工作的主要组织。
WP29于1998年6月25日制订《全球汽车技术法规协定书》[1]，因此该协定书也就简称为《1998年协定书》。
世界各国以此协定书为法律框架，共同制修订全球统一的汽车技术法规。
该协定书在法律地位上明确原UN/ECE/WP29（联合国欧洲经济委员会车辆结构工作组）作为开展全球汽车技术法规协调和统一工作的国际组织，UN/ECE/WP29的名称随之更改为：“世界车辆法规协调论坛”（World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations），仍简称为WP29，开始按照《全球汽车技术法规协定书》中规定的程序规则制定全球统一的汽车技术法规，到目前，《1998年协定书》的正式缔约方共计31个[2]。
历史之所以选择UN/ECE/WP29来开展全球范围内的汽车技术法规协调统一工作，其原因为：①UN/ECE/WP29成功运作《1958年协定书》，具有开展国际汽车技术法规统一工作的技术基础；②UN/ECE/WP29的广泛参与性，使其具有开展国际汽车技术法规统一工作的技术基础。
GTR No 1
ECE/TRANS/180/Add.11 April 2005GLOBAL REGISTRYCreated on 18 November 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 25 June 1998AddendumGlobal technical regulation No. 1DOOR LOCKS AND DOOR RETENTION COMPONENTS(Established in the Global Registry on 18 November 2004)UNITED NATIONSECE/TRANS/180/Add.1page 3TABLE OF CONTENTSA. STATEMENT OF TECHNICAL RATIONALE AND JUSTIFICATION (4)B. TEXT OF REGULATION (17)1. SCOPE AND PURPOSE (17)2. APPLICATION (17)3. DEFINITIONS (17)REQUIREMENTS (19)4. GENERALREQUIREMENTS (19)5. PERFORMANCECONDITIONS (23)6. TESTPROCEDURE (23)7. TESTANNEXESAnnex 1 Latch Test for Load Test One, Two, and Three Force Applications (25)Annex 2 Inertial Test Procedures (31)Annex 3 Hinge Test Procedure (39)Annex 4 Sliding Side Door, Full Door Test (44)Annex 5 Vehicle Category Definitions (48)* * *ECE/TRANS/180/Add.1page 4A. Statement of Technical Rationale and JustificationI. IntroductionCurrent regulations were designed to test for door openings in vehicles that were built in the 1960s. Aside from changes made to United States of America and Canadian requirements in the early to mid-1990s to address rear door openings, no significant changes have been made to any of the current regulations. While existing regulations governing door openings have proven largely effective, door openings continue to present a risk of serious injury or death to vehicle occupants, particularly when an occupant is unbelted.The precise size of the safety problem posed by inadvertent door openings is difficult to quantify because very few jurisdictions gather the type of crash data needed to evaluate the problem. This task is further compounded by the effect of occupant belt use on injury risk. Notwithstanding the difficulty in quantifying the overall benefit associated with the establishment of a global technical regulation internationally, the types of changes to door retention components needed to upgrade existing regulations and standards appear to be quite small. Additionally, vehicle manufacturers and the ultimate consumers of motor vehicles can expect to achieve further cost savings through the formal harmonization of differing sets of regulations and standards that already largely replicate each other.Research conducted by the United States of America indicates that there are approximately 42,000 door openings in crashes in the United States of America per year. 1/ While this number corresponds to less than one per cent of the roughly six million crashes that occur in that country each year, the majority of those crashes do not occur at speeds where a door opening is likely. Rather, door failures appear to be most common in moderate- to high-speed crashes. 2/ Structural failures of the latch and striker are the leading cause of door openings. The United States of America’s evaluation of its data indicates that about two-thirds (64.5 per cent) of door openings involve damage to the latch or striker, either alone or in combination with damage to one or more hinges. The next most likely causes of a door opening are the failure of the vehicle structure holding the door in place or the door itself. In 8.37 per cent of the evaluated cases, the door support, e.g., B-pillar or C-pillar, was damaged; while in 9.68 per cent of the evaluated cases, the door structure caused the door to open without damaging the actual door retention components. Only rarely did a door open with no damage to the door whatsoever (2.15 per cent). 1/ At the request of the Working Party on Passive Safety, the United States of America provided data on the magnitude of the door ejections and door openings based on 1994-99 National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) and Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) annual estimates. No data from other jurisdictions were presented.2/ In the United States of America the average change of velocity (delta V) for crashes where a door opens is approximately 30.5 km/h; the average delta V for crashes where there is no failure of the door retention system is approximately 21 km/h.ECE/TRANS/180/Add.15pageThe type of crash also has an impact on the likely type of door failure. The primary source offailure in side impact crashes was damage to the latch/striker assembly, while damage to the doorsupports was a distant secondary source. In rollover crashes, non-structural failures, i.e., thosewhere there is no damage to the door, are more common.In 1991, the United States of America conducted an engineering analysis of door latch systems incases involving vehicle side door openings to determine the loading conditions and failure modesof door latch systems in crashes. 3/ This analysis revealed the following four distinct failuremodes:Structural FailuresStructural failures are characterized as physical damage to the latch, striker, or hinges. Othertypes of structural failures include broken attachment hardware or separation of a latch, striker, orhinge from its support structure.Detent Lever-Fork Bolt Misalignment (Bypass) FailuresDetent lever-fork bolt misalignment (bypass) failures may occur when the striker is subjected tolongitudinal forces in conjunction with lateral forces. These forces cause the fork bolt to moveand become misaligned with the detent lever, causing the latch to open. These forces mosttypically occur in frontal and oblique frontal impacts.Linkage Actuation FailuresLinkage actuation failures are caused by forces being transmitted to the door’s linkage system(i.e., the connection between the door handle and the door latch) due to vehicle deformationduring a crash. It may be possible to observe some bowing of the door after a linkage actuationfailure.Inertial Force FailuresInertial force failures are latch openings due to acceleration of latch system components relative toeach other, which produce sufficient inertial force to activate the latch. Often, there is no visibledamage to the latch or striker system. Inertial loading typically occurs in rollover crashes or whena portion of the vehicle other than the door is impacted at a high speed.These four failure modes can be categorized as either structural failures or actuation failures.Structural failures usually leave clear evidence of the component failure and result in aninoperable door retention system. Actuation failures consist of latch by-pass, linkage actuation,and inertial force failures. Often a door opening caused by an actuation failure will not leave anyreadily visible evidence that the crash caused the door to open and will not affect the retentionsystem’s subsequent ability to open and close correctly. Thus, many of the failures associatedwith a latch by-pass, linkage actuation, or inertial force failure will be represented by the 2.15 percent of crashes where no damage to the door was observed.3/ Door Latch Integrity Study: Engineering Analysis and NASS Case Review,December, 1991, Docket No. NHTSA-1998-3705.ECE/TRANS/180/Add.1page 6According to the United States of America statistics, less than one per cent of occupants who sustain serious and fatal injuries in tow-away crashes are ejected through doors. Yet, despite the relatively rare occurrence of door ejections in crashes, the risk of serious or fatal injury is high when ejection does occur. Door ejections are the second leading source of ejections in all crashes in the United States of America. They are particularly likely in rollover crashes. Door ejections constitute 19 per cent (1,668) of all ejection fatalities and 22 per cent (1,976) of all ejection serious injuries in the United States of America each year. Of the approximately 42,000 door openings in the United States of America each year, side door openings constitute approximately 90 per cent (1,501) of all door ejection fatalities and 93 per cent (1,838) of the serious injuries.The rate of ejections through doors is heavily dependent on belt use. 94 per cent of serious injuries and fatalities attributable to ejections through doors in the United States of America involve unbelted occupants. While the risk of ejection will likely vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, based on differing rates of belt use, the incidence of door openings should be relatively constant among various jurisdictions given the similarity in door designs and the lack of occupant behaviour patterns as a factor in door failures.BackgroundII. ProceduralDuring the one-hundred-and-twenty-sixth session of WP.29 of March 2002, the Executive Committee (AC.3) of the 1998 Global Agreement (1998 Agreement) adopted a Programme of Work, which includes the development of a global technical regulation (gtr) to address inadvertent door opening in crashes. The Executive Committee also charged the Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP) to form an informal working group to discuss and evaluate relevant issues concerning requirements for door locks and door retention components to make recommendations regarding a potential gtr.The informal working group was established in September 2002. The United States of America volunteered to lead the group’s efforts and develop a document detailing the recommended requirements for the gtr. The United States of America presented a formal proposal to the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement, which was adopted in June 2003 (TRANS/WP.29/2003/49). The GRSP developed the door locks and door retention gtr. At its May 2004 session, the GRSP concluded its work and agreed to recommend the establishment of this gtr to the Executive Committee.III. Existing Regulations, Directives, and International Voluntary StandardsThere are several existing regulations, directives, and standards that pertain to door locks and door retention components. All share similarities. The Canadian and US regulations are very similar to each other and the Japanese and UNECE regulations are very similar to each other. The European Union Directive is an exact alternative of the UNECE regulation requirements. The Australian regulation has commonalities to both of the above-mentioned pairs. A preliminary analysis has been made to identify the differences in the application, requirements, and test procedures of the North American and UNECE Regulations (TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2001/1 and TRANS/WP.29/2003/49). There are no apparent conflicts between the gtr and other existing international regulations or standards. However, the gtr does incorporate aspects of the existing regulations, directives and standards that are not common to all existing requirements. Given theECE/TRANS/180/Add.17pagegenerally minor variability in the door retention designs among these jurisdictions that currentlyregulate door design, it is not expected that the additional requirements imposed by the gtr arelikely to drive major, costly changes to existing door retention designs.IV. Discussion of Issues Addressed by the gtrThe proposed gtr provides that certain door retention components on any door leading directlyinto an occupant compartment, i.e., a compartment containing one or more seatingaccommodations, must comply with the requirements of the gtr. Tractor trailers are excludedbecause they do not meet this criterion. Likewise, doors leading into cargo compartments that areseparated by a barrier would not be regulated since an individual could not access the occupantcompartment through those doors. The gtr excludes folding doors, roll-up doors, detachabledoors, and doors that provide emergency egress, as these types of doors would require entirelynew test procedures and are not in such common use as to justify the development of newrequirements and test procedures. Thus, for certain vehicle designs, some, but not all doors wouldbe regulated by the gtr.During the development of the gtr, all issues were thoroughly discussed. The followingdiscussions reflect the evaluation of the issues that lead to the final recommendations.(a) ApplicabilityThe application of the requirements of this gtr refers, to the extent possible, to the revised vehicleclassification and definitions that the Working Party on General Safety (GRSG) Common TaskInformal Group has prepared. Difficulties were encountered in determining which vehicles wouldbe covered. Currently, UNECE Regulations only apply to M1 vehicles (passenger vehicles withup to 9 seats in total) and N1 vehicles (goods vehicles weighing up to 3,500 kg gross vehiclemass). It was posited that it would be difficult to apply full door tests, such as the proposedinertial load, to large trucks and specialized vehicles. With the decision not to propose theinclusion of two full door tests, discussed in greater detail below, these concerns were largelyresolved. Likewise, the retention of a calculation for meeting the inertial load requirements wouldallow a jurisdiction to avoid applying a full-door inertial load test for doors on heavier vehicles.To address concerns about the applicability of door retention requirements to heavier vehicles, itwas proposed that the gtr only apply to passenger cars, light commercial vehicles, and vans andthat other vehicles be excluded initially, then added in the future after further evaluation ofvarious door designs. The argument in favour of a more inclusive gtr focuses attention on thecurrent United States of America, Canadian, Japanese, and Australian requirements that alreadyapply to all vehicles other than buses (M2 and M3 vehicles) and that the applicability of existingrequirements to commercial trucks has not proven problematic for vehicle manufacturers. Thisargument supports the exclusion of specific door types rather than entire classes of vehicles.ECE/TRANS/180/Add.1page 8Heavy trucks in the United States of America have been subject to that country’s door retention requirements since 1972. The United States of America requirement was extended to trucks because researchers from a major United States of America university determined in a study published in 1969 that the rate of door ejection from truck doors was approximately twice that from doors on passenger cars that met the door retention requirements. The authors of the study concluded that at 40.3 per cent, the level of door failure in the truck fleet was approximately four times the failure rate of regulated passenger cars and roughly equivalent to the rate of failure in passenger cars manufactured before 1956. They also concluded that insufficient door retention was a problem across vehicle weight classifications, with pick-up trucks, medium-weight trucks and tractor trailers all exhibiting a door failure rate in excess of 33 per cent.To accommodate both positions, the gtr will apply to all vehicles except buses, with exceptions for specific door designs. The gtr incorporates the definitions of Category 1-1 vehicles and Category 2 vehicles developed in draft Special Resolution 1 (S.R. 1) concerning common definitions and procedures to be used in global technical regulations, which will be submitted as an informal document at the one-hundred-and-thirty-fourth WP.29 session and with an expected adoption at the one-hundred-and-thirty-fifth WP.29 session. If a jurisdiction determines that its domestic regulatory scheme is such that full applicability is inappropriate, it may limit domestic regulation to vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of 3,500 kg or less. The jurisdiction could also decide to phase-in the door retention requirements for heavier vehicles, delay implementation for a few years, or even to impose only some of the gtr requirements to these heavier vehicles. For example, it is unlikely that a jurisdiction would want to require heavier truck doors to meet the dynamic inertial test rather than the calculation. On the other hand, the longitudinal and transverse load requirements have been applicable to heavy trucks in the United States of America and Canada for over thirty years without imposing any hardship on vehicle manufacturers.(b) DefinitionsDefinitions, used in this gtr, are defined in section B, paragraph 3. of this regulation, with the exception of those related to the applicability. Definitions that relate to the applicability are drawn from a draft version of S.R. 1 and are listed in Annex 5.(c) General RequirementsGRSP agreed to recommend that the gtr should specify requirements for side and back doors, door retention components and door locks. The United States of America, Canadian, and Australian regulations have provisions for back doors and door locks, the UNECE Regulations do not. Currently, UNECE Regulations require that the sliding door systems be tested in a fully latched position and an intermediate latched position. If there is no intermediate position, when unlatched, the door must move into an apparent open position. The United States of America and Canadian regulations have no latching system requirements for the sliding doors. The Working Party decided that it was appropriate to regulate the sliding side door latching system, but recognized that the existing UNECE requirement to determine whether a sliding side door was unlatched was too subjective. Accordingly, the gtr specifies a door closure warning system that activates when the sliding side door is not latched and there is no intermediate/secondary latching position.ECE/TRANS/180/Add.19pageThe inclusion of a requirement in the gtr that side doors remain shut during vehicle dynamic crashtests, as well as a requirement that at least one door per row be operable following a crash test,was considered. Existing UNECE Regulations with dynamic crash test components alreadyrequire all doors to stay closed during the test and at least one door per seat row to be operableafterwards. It is believed that it is unnecessary to repeat this requirement in the gtr and itsinclusion would make the certification process under this regulation very difficult. However,recognizing the value of such a requirement, non-UNECE countries have agreed to considerincluding a similar requirement in their domestic regulations. This will result in a harmonizedrequirement outside of the context of the gtr.Force levels identified in the current component static tests for latches and hinges have beenharmonized to eliminate variations due to rounding of unit conversions.(d) Performance Requirements(i) Hinged Doors IssuesCurrently, UNECE Regulation No. 11 has similar hinged door requirements to the NorthAmerican regulations, although UNECE Regulation No. 11 does not distinguish between cargoand non-cargo door latches. The Working Party agreed to recommend that cargo doors (i.e.,double doors) meet the same requirements as hinged doors if they provide access to the occupantseating compartment. Additionally, the term "cargo door" has been eliminated to clarify thatdoors that do not lead into an occupant compartment with one or more seat positions are notregulated by the gtr.(ii) Load TestsBoth regulations require load tests of the hinge systems in the longitudinal and transversedirections. These tests remain, but have been reworded such that the loads are applied based onthe alignment of the hinge system and not the alignment of the vehicle. A load test in the verticaldirection was evaluated and ultimately rejected except for back doors. Since a large number ofdoor openings occur during vehicle rollovers, it was suggested that perhaps a load test in thevertical direction would help reduce these types of openings. However, it was ultimatelydetermined that the addition of a load test conducted in a direction orthogonal to the existing testscould not be justified at the present time. Those countries concerned about protecting againstrollover crash door openings may determine that such a test would be useful outside the context ofthe gtr.ECE/TRANS/180/Add.1page 10(iii) Inertial TestA dynamic inertial test requirement was added to the gtr, as an option to the inertial calculation. There are provisions for this type of testing in both the UNECE and North American regulations, but there is no specified test procedure. A test procedure was developed based on the testing currently conducted for the UNECE requirement and validated by the United States of America and Canada. In addition to the longitudinal and transverse tests, tests in the vertical direction were considered. Conducting the inertial test in the vertical direction is feasible, but it is much more difficult to conduct than the tests in the longitudinal and transverse directions. Since the most common failure mode demonstrated in the inertial tests conducted by Canada was in the direction of door opening, it was determined that a test in the vertical direction appeared to be beneficial only for back door designs, which commonly open in the vertical direction. However, those countries concerned about protecting against rollover crash door openings may determine that such a test would be useful outside the context of the gtr.(iv) New Combination Component TestThe United States of America developed a new combination test procedure for hinged side doors that is representative of the combination of longitudinal compressive and lateral tensile forces that occur in real-world latch failures. Currently, no regulation, directive, or international voluntary standard has such a requirement, although it is possible that a test developed by one vehicle manufacturer may be suitable for substitution once it has been fully evaluated and a benefits correlation has been conducted.Examples of the types of crashes in which forces addressed by the combination test could occur are crashes in which either the front or the rear of the vehicle is impacted (including in an offset mode). The proposed combination test procedure was a static bench test capable of evaluating the strength of the latching systems and designed to detect fork bolt detent bypass failures. No other test procedure within the gtr simulates these types of latch failure conditions.In the combination test, the latch is mounted on a flat steel plate that moves horizontally and the striker is mounted on a vertically moving ram device. During the test, the latch and striker, while in their primary coupled position, are simultaneously moved such that lateral tension (i.e., force applied perpendicularly to the coupled latch and striker) and longitudinal compressive forces (i.e., force applied against the latch toward the striker) are applied at their interface.The required forces for the primary position of the hinged side door latching systems would be simultaneous forces of 16,000 N longitudinal compressive force and 6,650 N lateral tensile force. The longitudinal force application device is moved at a rate of one centimeter per minute until the longitudinal force is achieved.There is widespread support for a test that addresses the door failure modes represented by this test. However, in some vehicles, the test setup is such that the striker cannot interface with the faceplate of the latch, rendering the test meaningless. While it is possible to modify the striker portion of the latch system so that the test can be conducted, there is strong concern regarding the adoption of this type of procedure and its potential for enforceability questions.The adoption of the combination test into the gtr is not supported at this time due to the technical difficulties in conducting the test. Instead, the Working Party delegates and representatives will continue to review work on the modification of the United States of America-based procedure, or the development of a new procedure, to capture the benefits associated with a test addressing door failures due to simultaneous compressive longitudinal and tensile lateral loading of latch systems in real world crashes. Any acceptable procedure developed could then be added to the gtr as an amendment.(v) Door HingesBoth the UNECE and North American regulations have the same load testing requirements for door hinges. The current side door requirements for hinges, which are based on SAE Recommended Practice J934, Vehicle Passenger Door Hinge Systems, appear to test adequately the strength and design of door hinges. The United States of America’s comprehensive analysis of its data and possible failure modes has not revealed problems with door hinges. Accordingly, these requirements have been included in the gtr. The current UNECE requirements only allow for the hinges to be mounted on the forward edge in the direction of travel. This requirement was based on the safety concern of a possible inadvertent opening while the vehicle is in motion. This requirement, as stated, was found to be design restrictive and the safety concerns were resolved by developing text to regulate the design and not prohibit it.(vi) Hinged Side Door System Tests (Full Door Tests)A new series of test procedures was designed to simulate real world door openings in crashes. These tests consist of door-in-frame quasi-static (full door) tests in both longitudinal and lateral directions, independent from the door system.The lateral full door test is designed to simulate latch failures in crashes that produce outwards forces on the door (i.e., through occupant loading or inertial loading) such as side crashes that result in vehicle spin and rollover. The longitudinal full door test is designed to simulate a collision in which the side of the vehicle is stretched, leading to the possibility that the striker could be torn from its mated latch (i.e., far side door in side impacts, and front and rear offset crashes on the opposite side door).The inclusion of the full door tests in the gtr was not supported because the tests raise concerns about unduly restricting door designs, developing a repeatable and enforceable test procedure, and addressing door openings under real world conditions. Because of the current UNECE requirement for both the component tests and a door closure requirement in dynamic tests, there is some question as to whether a full door test provides any additional value. In an analysis of the proposed tests using its FARS and NASS databases, the United States of America was unable to correlate the proposed tests with a reduction on door openings in real world crashes at a level that was statistically significant.The contemplated test procedures were evaluated and concerns were expressed that the new procedure will end up being unduly design restrictive, given the limitations of the test frame. For example, it may be that multiple test frames would be required to ensure an appropriate "fit" between the door and the test frame. This is because placement of the test load relative to the latch mechanism may be sufficiently different to produce significantly different results, andbecause door specific holes must be drilled into the test frame. Additionally, the test frame may not adequately address new latch designs that may be mounted in non-traditional locations. Likewise, the procedure does not allow manufacturers the benefit of non-latch attachments that are primarily used for side impact purposes but also may have a positive effect on door closure. Concerns were voiced that conducting the proposed tests on a test frame rather than on the full vehicle is impractical because not all loads can be applied to a closed door. However, it may be possible to cut the door frame and attach it to the test fixture, although such an approach may not fully replicate the actual door-in-frame as installed in the vehicle since cutting the door frame may change its characteristics. Such an approach may address the fit between the latch and striker, as well as the physical characteristics of the door and the doorframe. Accordingly, it was finally agreed not to include these proposals.(vii) Side Sliding Doors IssuesThe requirements and test procedures in both UNECE Regulation No. 11 and the North American standards for the track and slide combinations of side sliding doors are included in the gtr. The latch/striker system requirements of UNECE Regulation No. 11 are also included. However, neither regulation has a detailed full vehicle sliding door test procedure that simulates real world door openings in crashes.Simply testing the strength of the latch fails to fully account for the design of a sliding door. The current regulations for hinged doors adequately address door retention components because they test both the latch system and the hinge system. Since a sliding door has no hinges, only the latch is evaluated. The lack of a test for retention components other than the latch is an obvious weakness in the existing standards. Yet evaluating these components through a bench test would be impossible. The retention components simply are not amenable to a component test. The full-door test overcomes the lack of a component test similar to the hinge test for other doors by evaluating all retention components while the door interfaces with the doorframe.The procedure involves a full vehicle test in which a sliding door is tested by applying force against the two edges of the door. The test setup is initiated by placing two loading plates against the interior of the door. The loading plates are placed adjacent to the latch/striker system located at the door edge. If the door edge has two latch/striker systems, the loading plate is placed between the two systems. If a door edge does not have a latch/striker system, the loading plate is placed at a point midway along the length of the door edge. An outward lateral force of 18,000 N total is then applied to the loading plates, placing force against the two door edges. A test failure would be indicated by a 100 mm separation of the interior of door from the exterior of the vehicle’s doorframe at any point or either force application device reaching a total displacement of 300 mm. The gtr requires that there be no more than 100 mm of separation, even if the latch system does not fail, because, unlike hinged doors, the configuration of sliding doors allows for separation of the door from the frame without the latch system failing. The 100 mm limit is based on a commonly used measurement for maximum allowable open space in the United States of America and Canada for school bus opening requirements.The sliding door test procedure specifies that the test be conducted with force application devices that, when installed as part of the test setup, are each capable of reaching a total displacement of at least 300 mm after placement of the loading plates against the interior of the door. Under the test,。
关于GTR文案
关于GTR文案GTR（Global Time Reckoning）是一种全球时间记录系统，旨在统一世界各地的时间标准，使全球各地的时间统一起来。
GTR的提出和推广，对于全球经济、科技、文化等各个领域都具有重要意义。
首先，GTR的推广可以解决全球化发展中的时间混乱问题。
随着全球化的深入发展，各国之间的交流与合作日益频繁，但由于各国采用不同的时间标准，导致了跨国合作中常常出现的时间混乱问题。
GTR的推广可以有效地解决这一问题，为全球化发展提供更加便利的时间标准。
其次，GTR的推广可以促进全球经济的发展。
在全球化背景下，各国之间的经济联系日益密切，而时间的统一标准可以提高全球经济运作的效率，减少交易成本，促进全球经济的发展。
同时，GTR的推广也可以促进全球金融市场的稳定发展，为全球经济的健康发展提供有力支持。
另外，GTR的推广还可以促进全球科技的发展。
在科技领域，时间的统一标准对于全球科技合作具有重要意义。
GTR的推广可以促进全球科技资源的整合与共享，推动全球科技创新与发展。
同时，GTR的推广也可以促进全球通信技术的发展，为全球信息交流与共享提供更加便利的条件。
此外，GTR的推广还可以促进全球文化的交流与融合。
在全球化的进程中，各国之间的文化交流与融合日益频繁，而时间的统一标准可以为全球文化交流提供更加便利的条件。
GTR的推广可以促进全球文化资源的共享与传播，推动全球文化的多样性与繁荣。
总的来说，GTR的推广对于全球各个领域的发展都具有重要意义。
通过GTR的推广，可以解决全球化发展中的时间混乱问题，促进全球经济、科技、文化等各个领域的发展，推动全球化进程向更加健康、有序的方向发展。
因此，我们应该积极支持和推动GTR的推广，为全球化发展提供更加有力的支持与保障。
GTR的推广是全球化发展的必然选择，也是全球发展的必然需要。
GTR_TYRE_第21_次会议围绕六大议题展开讨论
20综述SUMMARYGTR TYRE 第21次会议围绕六大议题展开讨论作者 杨 振 谢东明2019年1月21～22日，轮胎全球技术法规（GTR TYRE ）第21次会议在日内瓦召开。
加拿大交通部、美国高速公路安全管理局（NHTSA ）、俄罗斯国家汽车工程研究院（NAMI ）、日本汽车标准化国际中心（JASIC ）、中国汽车技术研究中心有限公司（CATARC ）等政府及政府相关研究机构，以及美国轮胎制造商协会（USTMA ）、欧洲轮胎轮辋技术组织（ETRTO ）、日本汽车轮胎协会（JATMA ）、印度机动车辆研究协会（ARAI ）等国际组织的专家共计20余人参加了会议。
Andrei V. Bocharov 博士作为GTR TYRE 第二阶段法规协调非正式工作组主席主持了本次会议，ETRTO 秘书长Nicolas deMahieu 担任会议秘书。
据了解，2017年在莫斯科召开的GTR TYRE 第16次工作组会议上，中国代表团将中国轮胎国家标准体系成功导入GTR ，并就第二阶段轮胎法规协调内容组织行业专家搭建系统框架。
至此，美国FMVSS 、联合国UN ECE 、中国GB 三大轮胎法规体系成为GTR 法规协调的主要方向。
GTR TYRE 第二阶段法规协调主要方向是制定开发UN GTR No.16第二修正案，主要围绕轻型载重汽车轮胎（LT/C ）耐久试验和引入全球轮胎标识，以及对磨耗标识、轮胎尺寸、高速试验、耐久试验、低气压试验等内容进行协调。
其中，高速、耐久、低气压测试在联合国UN ECE 及美国FMVSS 两大法规体系下存在较大差异，中国标准溯源ISO ，但在具体测试内容上又不同于以上两大标准体系，如何在三大标准法规体系下进行兼容性协调，成为GTR TYRE IWG （非正式工作组）面临的挑战。
会议第一项议题回顾并批准了2018年10月在比利时布鲁塞尔召开的第20次会议技术结论（TYREGTR-20-15）。
欧洲轮胎法规及GTR分析
轮胎种类
C1 C2 C3
轮胎种类
C1 C2 C3
表1 最大值（千克/吨）
第 1 阶段 12 10.5 8.0 表2
最大值（千克/吨）
第 2 阶段 10.5 9.0 6.5
不同类型轮胎按照滚动阻力系数大小，分为 A 到 G 共 7 个等级，具体分级
情况如下见表 3。
表3
C1
C2
C3
RRC
等级 RRC in kg/t
2020-10-29
不符合表 2 的 C3 轮胎 禁止销售和 使用
对于有关滚动阻力等级、湿路面抓着性能等级及噪声等级的轮胎标 签要求 2012 年 7 月 1 日开始实施。
-5-
1.6 轮胎标签的样式 在欧盟法规中对于轮胎燃油效率标签做出了详细的规定，包括样式图
案、字母及其具体的大小及颜色的要求等。样式见下图。
-7-
4.2.2.12 漏气瘪胎行驶标志 4.2.2.12 如果轮胎为"跑气保用run flat"轮胎或者"自支撑self supporting"轮胎，
并且达到跑气保用行驶性能要求(参见国际标准ISO 16992)，则下示图里符号 "h"至少应为12 mm 。
-8-
2.3 外缘尺寸：
断面宽度
外直径
1.2 滚动阻力要求
综合 EC661/2009 和 EC1222/2009 来看，欧洲实施的是滚动阻力系数最高限值的分级标准体系。在 EC661/2009 中规定了两个不同阶段的滚动阻力系数的最高限值，对于不同阶段的规定见本文 2.5 的说 明，在 EC1222/2009 则规定了具体的分级标准。
对于每种轮胎类型滚动阻力系数，根据标准 ISO 28580 测得的最大值不应超过表 1 及表 2 值：
2008年国际GTR法规及欧洲ECE法规发展动态
2008年国际GTR法规及欧洲ECE法规发展动态2008-05-21 [ 字体：大中小 ] 作者：朱毅一、国际汽车技术法规的发展1．2008年3月通过两项新的GTR2008年3月，联合国世界车辆法规协调论坛（UN/WP29）第144次会议在日内瓦联合国总部召开，在此次会议上，经《1998年协定书》缔约方管理委员会（AC3）审议和投票表决，通过两项新的全球统一汽车技术法规，具体情况见表1。
表1 UN/WP29新通过的两项GTR这样，截止到2008年5月，在联合国世界车辆法规协调论坛《1998年协定书》的框架下，共有7项GTR和一项特别决议（S.R.1）出台。
2．目前仍在起草的其它GTR法规项目的进展2008年1～5月，WP29继续对尚未完成的GTR项目开展起草工作，表2为具体项目。
在上述仍处于起草过程的GTR中，ESC项目为2007年新列的GTR制定项目。
根据美国代表的提案，WP29在第141次会议（2007年3月）上一致同意将车辆电子稳定控制系统ESC列为新的全球技术法规（GTR）制定项目，在制动与行走系工作组（GRRF）内成立开展ESC GTR制定工作的非正式工作小组，美国担任该非正式小组的主席。
ESC全球法规项目立项后，其起草工作进展较快，WP29/GRRF（制动与行走系）工作组在WP29第144次会议（2008年3月）上提交法规的文本草案，并将无法解决的问题提交WP29决策，计划在WP29第145次会议（2008年6月召开）上进行投票表决。
在ESC全球法规的起草过程中，我国组织相关专家和人员直接参与了该GTR的起草工作，并结合我国汽车行业的具体情况，对ESC相关条款提出了我国的意见和建议，基本上被WP29所采纳，反映在具体的法规文本中，我国提出的意见和建议包括：·针对该法规的使用范围提出了提案，建议将该全球技术法规的适用范围限定为安装有电子稳定性控制系统并且最大设计总质量在4536kg 以下的1-1、1-2和2类车辆，在内容上只规定电子稳定性控制系统的功能和性能要求以及对应的试验要求和试验规程，由各签约国根据本国国情自行决定哪些车辆需要强制安装ESC。
基于全球安全技术技术法规EVS-GTR的整车电安全测试
√
√
车辆和外部电源的物理连接
√
整车碰撞后安全要求
√
√ 豁免
正常使用 滥用、失效 模拟碰撞
电动汽车安全球技术 法规 (EVS -GTR)
电池包要求
一般汽车（主要为乘用车）
一般要求
√
耐振动
√
热冲击、循环
√
耐火性
√
外短路保护
√
过充电保护
√
过放电保护
√
过热保护
√
过电流保护
√
低温保护
√
有害气体排放
√
热扩散
√
直接触防护 间接触防护
标识要求 遮拦 /外壳防护等级
高压连接器要求 维修断开装置 电位均衡要求 绝缘电阻要求
防水要求
一般汽车（主要 为乘用车）
√ √ √ √ √ √ √
重型汽车
√ √（考虑顶部充电技术）
√ √ √ √ √
可行驶模式的启动提醒
√
√
离开时的可行驶模式提醒源自√√功能安全要求
驱动反向提示 要求
驱动方向提示 要求
行驶车辆的驱动方向应能被驾员辨识。
车辆和外部电 车辆与位置固定的外部电源传导连接时，车 源的物理连接 辆不应通过其自身的驱动
外部直流电源测量法
EVS -GTR 整车安全测试技术：绝缘电阻测量 使用车载REESS作为直流电压源的测量方法
测试电压应不小于 B 级 电力系统的最大工作电 压一半的直流电压，使 用绝缘电阻测试仪加载 在相互连接的 B 级电压 电力系统带电部分和电 平台之间并施加足够长 的时间（至少30s）以 获得稳定的读数
电动汽车安全球技术 法规 (EVS -GTR)-防水要求
部件防水试验
GTR13和ECER134的主要内容简析
收稿日期： ２０１８－０３－２０ 基金项目： 国家重点研究计划项目 （２０１６ＹＦＢ０１０１４００） 作者简介： 赵志成， 男， 工程师， 研究方向为汽车技术开发及管理。 Ｅ⁃ｍａｉｌ： ｚｈａｏｚｈｉｃｈｅｎｇ＠ ｃａｔａｒｃ������ ａｃ������ ｃｎ。
Ｃ பைடு நூலகம் Ｙ Ｋ
表 １ 压缩氢气储存系统性能验证试验
严格测试。 其中基本性能测试用来确定爆破压力中值和压力循 环寿命； 液压顺序试验实际上是道路性能的耐久验证试验； 气 压顺序试验实际是系统期望的道路性能验证试验； 使用终止验 证试验是用来验证氢气不能继续储存的极端严重情况下的防 破裂性能。 氢气储存系统的标签不是储氢系统的性能之一， 但作为使用要求必须具备， 因此文中把标签要求附加在性能 要求部分。 压缩氢气储存系统性能验证试主要内容验如表 １ 所示。
１ 压缩氢气储存系统
这部分规定了压缩氢气储存系统完整性的要求。 用于道路 车辆的新 型 压 缩 氢 储 存 系 统， 其 标 称 工 作 压 力 不 应 高 于 ７０ ＭＰａ， 使用寿命不超过 １５ 年。
１������ １ 压缩氢气储存系统性能试验要求 作为一个完整的汽车子系统， 氢气储存系统的性能要经过
Ｃ Ｍ Ｙ Ｋ
ＤＯＩ： １０������ １９４６６ ／ ｊ������ ｃｎｋｉ������ １６７４－１９８６������ ２０１８������ ０６������ ０１７
ＧＴＲ １３ 和 ＥＣＥ Ｒ１３４ 的主要内容简析
赵志成， 王微， 王仁广， 郝冬， 王晓兵， 朱凯
（ 中国汽车技术研究中心有限公司， 天津 ３００３００）
关键词： 燃料电池汽车； 氢气储存系统； 标准与法规 中图分类号： Ｕ４７３������ ４ 文献标志码： Ｂ 文章编号： １６７４－１９８６ （２０１８） ０６－０７３－０７
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
GTR技术法规介绍
全国汽车标准化技术委员会
1.GTR技术法规的制定组织和《1998年协定书》
GTR法规全称为全球统一汽车技术法规，由联合国世界车辆法规协调论坛（UN/WP29）负责制定发布，WP29原为联合国欧洲经济委员会内陆运输委员会下属的车辆结构工作组，在《1958年协定书》的框架下制定并实施ECE汽车技术法规，从20世纪80年代初开始，随着经济全球化的到来，许多国家和地区的政府开始认识到各自为政的汽车技术法规体系阻碍了汽车产品在全球范围内的自由流通，限制并阻碍了商品经济规律应起的作用，于是由国际上一些汽车工业发达国家牵头，开始进行国际汽车技术法规的协调与统一的工作，以打破世界各国、各地区已形成的汽车技术法规这一贸易技术壁垒。
在当时情况下，联合国欧洲经济委员会车辆结构工作组(UN/ECE/WP29)成了开展这种世界范围内汽车技术法规协调和统一工作的主要组织。
[1]
WP29于
1998年6月25日制订《全球汽车技术法规协定书》，因此该协定书也就简称为《1998年协定书》。
世界各国以此协定书为法律框架，共同制修订全球统一的汽车技术法规。
该协定书在法律地位上明确原UN/ECE/WP29（联合国欧洲经济委员会车辆结构工作组）作为开展全球汽车技术法规协调和统一工作的国际组织，UN/ECE/WP29的名称随之更改为：
“世界车辆法规协调论坛”（World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations），仍简称为WP29，开始按照《全球汽车技术法规协定书》中规定的程序规则制定全球统一的汽车技术法规，到目前，《1998年协定书》的正式缔约方共计31个[2]。
历史之所以选择UN/ECE/WP29来开展全球范围内的汽车技术法规协调统一工作，其原因为：
①UN/ECE/WP29成功运作《1958年协定书》，具有开展国际汽车技术法规统一工作的技术基础；
②UN/ECE/WP29的广泛参与性，使其具有开展国际汽车技术法规统一工作的技术基础。
2. GTR法规制修订成果
经过十多年的努力，WP29在《1998年协定书》框架下建立全球统一的汽车技术法规体系的工作成果斐然，截止到
2010年1月1日，已有12项成果出台，包括11项全球统一汽车技术法规（GTR）和一项规范性技术文件（S.R.1）。
具体项目见表1：
表1WP29已出台的GTR项目及其修订情况
序号法规编号
1GTR 1法规名称全球注册日期缔约方通报采用
状况最后期限法规修订情况关于车门锁和车门保持件2004年11月18日2
006年1月18日
的全球技术法规
2就气体污染物排放、CO2
勘误本1排放物以及发动机燃油消
GTR 2耗对装有点燃或压燃式发
2005年6月22日2
006年8月22日修正本1的勘误本动机的两轮摩托车的测量1规程
GTR 3修正本1摩托车制动系统全球技术2006年11月15日2
008年1月15日
法规勘误本13
4就污染物排放方面对压燃
式发动机和燃用天然气
GTR 4（NG）或液化石油气
2006年11月15日2
008年1月15日修正本1（LPG）的点燃式发动机的
试验规程
GTR 5
GTR 6道路车辆车载诊断系统2006年11月15日2
008年1月15日勘误本1（OBD）技术要求
用于机动车辆及机动车辆2008年3月12日2
009年5月12日
装备的安全玻璃材料2008年3月13日2
009年5月13日2008年11月13日2
010年1月13日勘误本156789
10
11GTR 7头枕
GTR 9行人保护全球技术法规
GTR 8电子稳定控制系统（ESC）
2008年6月26日2
009年8月26日勘误本1GTR10非循环排放全球技术法规
2009年6月24日2
010年8月24日
GTR11农林拖拉机与非道路机动2009年11月12日2
011年1月12日
机械车辆排放（NRMM）
12《在全球技术法规中使用
S.R.1的统一定义和规程的特别
决议》
3．GTR法规的重要性
长期以来，对于世界汽车行业而言，只有统一的国际标准，而技术法规一直是由各国各地区自行制定实施，从来没有统一的国际汽车技术法规，《1998年协定书》和GTR法规的出台，彻底打破了这一格局，全球不同汽车技术法规之间的协调工作有了法律依据、固定的渠道和程序，同时也有了正式的成果体现。
按照《1998年协定书》的规定，在GTR的表决中采取一票否决制，即每一项GTR法规的出台，必须获得所有参与表决的缔约方的全体一致通过，有任何一个缔约方反对，该GTR草案就不能被通过，因此获得通过的每一项GTR法规都是全体缔约方共同协调、一致认可的结果，为今后在全球推广实施奠定了基础。
《1998年协定书》同时又规定，某项GTR草案一旦获得缔约方的一致通过，即成为全球性技术法规，所有对该GTR法规投赞成票的缔约方有义务争取迅速将该GTR法规引入各自国家或地区的法律或法规体系中。
并将是否采用该GTR法规（包括接受符合该GTR法规的产品），以及开始采用GTR法规的日期和其它相关情况以书面形式上报联合国。
因此GTR法规出台后，不同的国家和地区往往都积极以各种不同的方式将GTR法规的相关内容引入自身的汽车技术法规中，如欧盟常常采取先根据GTR法规修改ECE法规，再按照ECE法规修改
与之相对应的EEC/EC指令，或直接采用该ECE法规的方式来采用GTR法规，美国则直接修改其自身的汽车技术法规来达到采用GTR法规的目的。
我国也不例外，近年来，我国根据汽车产业和标准化工作发展的实际情况和需要，在我国汽车标准的制修订工作中积极采用GTR，目前已采用GTR9制定我国国家推荐性标准：
GB/T 24550-2009汽车对行人的碰撞保护，该标准于
2009年10月30日发布，
2010年7月1日实施，今后将根据发展情况将其转化为强制性国家标准。
2010年年初，我国启动了参照GTR8“电子稳定控制系统（ESC）”制定我国标准的工作，计划2010年—2011年完成该标准的制定，该项目同行人保护标准一样，将先制定为推荐性国家标准，今后再过渡为强制性国家标准。
此外，在我国2009年的国标制修订计划中，已将GB15086—2006“汽车门锁及车门保持件的性能要求和试验方法”的修订列入计划，该项目的修订将参照采用GTR
1。
"在摩托车标准化工作领域内，2009年年底，在启动我国摩托车排放第4阶段标准的制定工作中，已考虑将GTR2（WMTC）的相关内容纳入到我国的标准中。
由此可见，我国企业充分掌握和了解GTR法规的发展动态及其具体技术内容，有助于了解国际汽车技术法规的最新发展状态，紧跟国际汽车技术法规发展的步伐，同时也了解和掌握包括我国在内的整个国际汽车市场技术法规的发展方向，使自己的产品能更好地适应整个国际汽车市场的要求。
[1]该协定书全称为《关于对轮式车辆、安装和/或用于轮式车辆的装备和部件制定全球性技术法规协定书》
[2]美国、加拿大、日本、法国、英国、欧洲联盟、德国、俄罗斯、中国、韩国、意大利、南非、芬兰、匈牙利、土耳其、斯洛伐克、新西兰、荷兰、阿塞拜疆、西班牙、罗马尼亚、瑞典、挪威、塞浦路斯、卢森堡、马来西亚、印度、立陶宛、摩尔多瓦、突尼斯、澳大利亚。