UNECE GRRF IWG-R55
Report from the 10th meeting of the Informal Working
group concerning regulation 55 under UNECE GRRF
2015-Jun-25 – 26
Welcome
The workgroup chairman Jürgen Westphäling welcomed all experts to the meeting venue in Gothenburg,
Sweden.
Call around the table
There were fourteen experts that attended the meeting. Apologizes were received from Pierre Teyssier,
Alan Feltham, Anders Gunneriusson, Jan Stokreef, Joachim Zander and Philippe Jaumouille.
Comments on the report from meeting no. 9 if any
Mr. Alguëra commented that the task on simple designs had been allocated to him while it should have
been allocated to Mr. Bröckling. The secretary noted this and will correct accordingly. With that remark
the notes were filed.
Comments on the working documents submitted for the 80th session of GRRF
The deadline for the submission was at the 19th of June 2015.
The first document submitted was R55_10_02 about redefinition of Class S. The secretary commented
that a small change was made in relation to the agreement at the 9th meeting of the working group. That
was to include the class W that most likely will be approved during the 80th session of GRRF. This
document was accepted by the working group without any changes.
The second document submitted was document R55_10_10. Concerning the proposal number 3 within
the document R55_10_10 the working group had some comments on the distinction between hinged and
rigid drawbars. This is not clear in the table 4. Hence the table was changed such that the row in the table
that concerns drawbars was split into two rows. There is one for rigid drawbars and one for hinged
drawbars. Furthermore a new column was added to handle the characteristic value Av. Through these
changes the footnote to table 4 becomes obsolete. Hence it is removed. The changed are documented in
the document R55_10_17. Furthermore it was observed in the fourth proposal within the working
document that the definition of class W was unnecessary restricted to clevis type couplings. It shall be
applicable to drawbar couplings in general. Hence the words “clevis type” were stricken out. This change
was also documented in the document R55_10_17.
Review of the list of items
Item 2 (Auxiliary usage Class A) (R55_03_09, R55_03_10, R55_03_11, R55_04_05, R55_04_06,
R55_04_07, R55_05_17, R55_06_02, R55_07_12)
Mr. Westphäling reported that he had googled to find any information about accidents with bicycle carrier
mounted on a trailer hitch. Using the keywords “fahrradträger verloren” he got a lot of hits. It is hard to
judge from these articles whether it is a problem with the hitch per se or with the bicycle carrier itself.
However some cases seem to indicate that there is fatigue of the hitch. The statistics in this area is very
poor. Usually when there is an accident with a car running in to a lost bicycle carrier there is not focus on
the hitch of a vehicle that lost that bicycle carrier. Hence you can expect an under reporting in this area.
UNECE GRRF IWG-R55
Within the next three month the DIN/VDA will post a New Work Item Proposal with ISO. This proposal
will address the auxiliary usage of trailer hitches. Mr. Westphäling will follow the development and
report back to our working group. Next meeting
Item 12 (Clearance around drawbar coupling) ( )
The picture in annex 7 § 1.3.6. shall remain as is. Item closed.
Item 14 (2nd stage built) (R55_06_02)
Mr. Westphäling showed the product “Space extender” produced and marked by the company SMV.
http://www.spaceextender.com/ . This is an extreme illustration of “second stage built” The experts were
very puzzled with this design. However it was apparently approved under regulation 55. The discussion
on this item showed that there were ties to agricultural applications as well. We have at earlier meetings
discussed mobile homes in the context. However no solid proposal how to go forward with this has
evolved. The discussion this time took an angle towards what is coupling equipment. Mr. Westphäling
will follow up and report. Next meeting
Item 20 (Heavy transports) (R55_02_13, R55_04_08, R55_04_12, R55_05_01, R55_05_06, R55_05_20,
R55_05_21, R55_05_22, R55_07_18, R55-08-13, R55_09_06, R55_10_08; R55_10_09; R55_10_13)
Mr. Svensson had made some kinematic investigations to get some indications on speed dependence of
coupling forces. This showed the peak longitudinal accelerations when traversing a sinusoidal wavy road
to be related to the speed squared. Bearing in mind that this is an indication of the speed dependence of
the most important coupling force generating mechanism it is a good basis for the discussion. It should be
observed that this study is kinematic. It will in reality be influenced by the flexibility and masses in the
vehicles involved. Mr. Svensson also pointed to the document R55_09_06 where the speed dependence
of the range and standard deviation are plotted as dependent of speed. The dependence is very clear. Over
long time VBG, according to Mr. Svensson, has applied a rule where the forces are dependent on square
root of the speed. Based on these different observations Mr. Svensson proposed a linear dependence
between 36 km/h and 80 km/h. Below 36 km/h the reduced value at 36 km/h applies.
Mr. Alguëra commented that his company had checked the proposal against their proposal. From that
check he expressed a support for the proposal. Mr Tagliaferri also expressed support. Mr. Conrads was
questioning whether the base speed should be 90 km/h rather than 80km/h. Mr Westphäling was hesitant
and referred to Australian conditions. Mr. Mátyás pointed out the conditions are such that reducing
requirements would at times kill the coupling in very short time of operation. In response to that it was
concluded that the utilizing speed dependence as a mean to encompass heavy loads is only applicable to
commercial road vehicles where the coupling equipment is designed for a base speed of 80 km/h. The
experts will consider the proposal to the next meeting. Next meeting
Item 21 (Limiting cases for the usage of certified characteristic values) (R55_04_11, R55_05_05,
R55_06_09, R55_07_06, R55_07_14, R55-08-03, R55-08-04, R55-08-05, R55_09_04, R55_09_05,
R55_09_11, R55_09_ 13, R55_10_03: R55_10_04; R55_10_05; R55_10_06; R55_10_07; R55_10_08;
R55_10_15
)
At the previous meeting Mr. Stokreef requested more of the background information to the
ISO18868:2013 standard. In order to respond to that request Mr. Svensson had uploaded the documents
R55_10_03: R55_10_04; R55_10_05; R55_10_06. The last of those documents was a history summary
over the work with that standard going back to 2002. The document R55_10_07 was a summary of many
recent measurements of coupling forces in different vehicle combinations. There is also a comparison
with the requirements as calculated using the ISO18868:2013. It could be noted that the measure peak
forces only at on instance came close to the fatigue test load corresponding to the performance required.
Mr. Westphäling at the 9th meeting argued that road conditions in Germany are worse than in Australia.
UNECE GRRF IWG-R55
To this meeting Mr. Svensson had gathered information that showed that the German Autobahn does not
have worse conditions than the Australian roads. Hence the measured forces and the experience over 30
years supporting the ISO18868 are valid. Mr. Stokreef was not present but had prior to the meeting
expressed support for the proposal for this item. Mr. Westphäling argued that different engine power and
and brakes requirements would the still make the proposal questionable. In response to that Mr. Svensson
showed the diagram in the document R55_10_07. There it could be seen that the real high coupling forces
is generated neither by traction nor by braking but through interaction between unevenness in the road
and the geometric layout of the vehicle combination. Hence the difference in engine power and braking
performance is not a significant factor. While support for the proposal is converging Mr. Westphäling
wanted to the next meeting to challenge OEM:s and trailer manufactures for more measurements. Mr.
Alguëra was doubtful whether there are any better measurements available. Next meeting
Item 25 (Articulation angles as installed) (R55_02_05, R55_05_13, R55_07_10, R55-09-21)
As Mr. Stokreef was not present at this meeting it was decided to postpone this item to the next meeting.
Item 29 (Drawbar a separate technical unit) (R55_04_04, R55_05_02, R55_09_08; R55_10_xx)
Mr. Bröckling had volunteered to this task and had prepared a document where he through a number of
illustrations showed how all part of a drawbar installation shall be considered as part of the drawbar to be
approved. That is to say that, brackets, side plates and other attachments used to fix the main drawbar to
the trailer chassis is subject to approval. As the calculations of such attachments are not always that easy
Mr. Svensson argued that at least some guidance shall exist over how those calculations shall be carried
out. This is needed to guarantee that these matters are handled in an equal manner across the different
technical services. The discussion then became centered around when to apply approval based on
calculations, i.e. simple designs. This part of the discussion is referenced under the item 30. Next
meeting
Item 30 (Simple designs) (R55_02_09, R55_03_06, R55_05_09, R55_07_07, R55_09_08)
Continuing the discussion under Item 29 Mr. Svensson argued that the basic assumption shall be that a
design approved on the basis of calculation shall withstand dynamic fatigue test according to annex 6 if
tested. Mr. Westphäling said that this was not necessarily so. E.g. the fixing on the test bench is hard to
make realistic according to Mr. Westphäling. Mr. Svensson then responded to say that in such cases it
would also be difficult to set the relevant boundary conditions for the calculations. To come forward in
this discussion Mr. Svensson offered to put on fatigue test one or two designs approved based on
calculations. An alternative way to proceed according to Schedule 8 of the proposed revision of the 1958
agreement. Next meeting
The waiting list
According to the discussion on the future of this informal working group the waiting list items are
activated.
Item w1 (Approval based on worst case class B50x)(R55-07-19)
Mrs. Domagala presented document R55_10_19 as a proposal for this item. This was elaborated in the
document R55_10_20. The French delegates argued that the last sentence of §1.1.1 might not be
necessary. Mrs. Domagala was asked to rewrite the justification. (During a coffee break Mrs. Domagala
and Mr. Svensson outlined an alternative justification as in R55_10_20. This was not reviewed by the
group and Mrs. Domagala shall elaborate to the next meeting
Item w2 (Approval based on worst case class B50x)(R55-07-19)
This matter was dropped.
UNECE GRRF IWG-R55
Item w3 (Alternative performance values)(R55_10_22)
KBA request a more stringent definition of alternative performance values. The base proposal assumed
alternative values for a single component. However Mr. Westphäling showed that it is more to this than
that. When broaden the scope to a family or range of products this becomes more complex. Mr. Hansen
and Mr. Westphäling was assigned the task to outline a new proposal for the broader scope to the next
meeting.
Item w7 (Class H50)( )
KBA requests to add a class H50 which seems missing. Considering the reference to the king-pin drawing
in annex 5 Mr. Svensson argued that it might be such that the existing class H50-X is not really
motivated. I.e. the class H50 –X shall be replaced by the class H50. Mr. Hansen will check this up to the
next meeting.
Item w8 (Wedge angle)( R55_09_20)
Mr. Tagliaferri requested the drawing of the wedge in annex 5 §7.8.1. to changed. The changed drawing
is shown in document R55_09_20. This was agreed.
Due to lack of time the remaining item were left to be processed later meetings.
Report from TFAC
Mr. Schauer made a report from the work in the TFAC.
First of all Mr. Schauer reported that compromises had been reached on all open technical issues.
Then he put forward a proposal from the taskforce that they considered to have the agricultural coupling
regulation as a separate regulation. Mr. Westphäling was not at all in agreement with this proposal. The
discussion on this item was long and intensive. The discussion resulted in an agreement that a fully
elaborated proposal where the agricultural rules are integrated together with the rules for commercial
vehicles. At least a sketch for a separate regulation shall be elaborated at the same time. These two
documents shall be submitted to the GRRF for guidance. While elaborating the agricultural rules it should
be born in mind that the number of coupling equipment classes shall be minimized. The concept from the
commercial vehicles could serve as guidance in this effort. I.e. most of different installation alternatives
can be handled in the annexes (for commercial vehicles annex 5) rather than in the definitions. Further the
need for a new annex 1 resulting in annex 1A and 1B shall be challenged. May be a minor alteration to
the existing annex 1 would be sufficient.
Approach towards the 80th session of the GRRF
Agreed items shall be put in a form such that a working document could be compiled to the deadline for
the 80th session of the GRRF. Informal documents will be compiled to address agreed changes to the
submitted working documents.
New Items to the waiting list (R55-10-18)
1. SPP_Proposal_Application for approval_2014_05_
a. SPP_Proposal_Application for approval_2013_05
2. SPP_Proposal_Conformity of production_2013_10
3. KBA Change request_UN ECE R55_2. Definitions_alternative values
4. KBA Change request_UN ECE R55_Annex 6_3.7.2.2_lever bearing at least 1,0...
5. KBA Change request_UN ECE R55_Annex 7_T = 32 t
6. JOST_Application for an amendment of R55-Jost-06-10-2014
7. KBA Change request_UN ECE R55_2 Definitions_Class H50 (R55_09_07-…)
8. Orlandi, Diagram correction wedge (R55_09_20-Wedge)
UNECE GRRF IWG-R55
9. Fixing point information and vehicles N1
10. General review Class …-X
11. What masses to use when calculating required performance values for coupling
equipment.
Any other business
Next meeting will be a two-day meeting to be held in the Germany. Mr. Algëra and Mr. Conrads will
agree between themselves where to have the next meeting. Venue will be communicated at a later stage.
The time for the meeting is 2015 October 20 - 21 starting at 1000 ending at 1500 hours.
It was noted that the target is to have all items managed such that the last GRRF for this Informal working
group would be 2016 September.
Close of the meeting
The chairman thanked all participating experts for their contribution and wished them a safe journey
home. Welcome back in October of 2015. The attendees expressed their gratitude for the hospitality by
the VBG to host the meeting.
Resolutions and actions
No. Description
1
Item list in ToR extended with two items.
29. Integrated drawbar, 30. Simple drawbar
2
The German TA 31 sent to the secretary
3
TûV-Nord procedure on rigid drawbars sent to
the secretary
4
Invite Lucien Vogel of Lohr to the group
5
Invite German trailer manufacturers to the
group
6
Invite other trailer manufacturers through
CLCCR
7
Invite representatives from UTAC to the
group
8
Investigate further experts to the agricultural
subgroup
9
Item 6, Collect further information on locking
of foldable class A couplings
10 Item 7, In principle agreed but formulation
shall be reconsidered.
11 Item 8, Agreed without modifications
12 Item 10, No agreement reached, reclassified as
complex.
13 Item 11, Proposal agreed in principle. Mr.
Teyssier of Volvo volunteered to reconsider
the formulation. Mr. Tagliaferri offered his
support.
Time
2012 Oct 11
Actor
Svensson
Closed
Yes
2012 Oct 11
2012 Oct 11
Conrad
Conrad
Yes
2012 Oct 11
2012 Oct 11
Preud´homme
Westphäling
Yes
Yes
2012 Oct 11
Svensson
Yes
2012 Oct 11
Preud´homme
Yes
2012 Oct 11
All
Yes
2012 Oct 11
van Ittersum
Yes
2012 Oct 11
Westphäling,
Stokreef
Yes
2012 Oct 11
2012 Oct 11
2012 Oct 11
Decided
Teyssier,
Tagliaferri
Yes
Yes
YES
UNECE GRRF IWG-R55
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Item 12, The drawings proposed needed
improvement. The justification is required to
be better founded in the statistics.
Item 17, Agreed
Item 18, Proposal was agreed. The
formulation does cover fully automatic
coupling systems.
Item 23, Proposal disagreed and withdrawn
Item 22, Proposal supported and Mr. Svensson
was assigned the task to elaborate the proposal
Item 2, No agreement was reached at this time
more information on accident statistics needed
Item 2, AL-KO to send internal procedure to
Mr. Westphäling
Item 2, TÜV-Rheinland to send internal
procedure to Westphäling
Item 2, Try to get documentation on the Dutch
automobile club procedures and send to
Westphäling
Item 13, Support but further information
wanted. Contact Mr. Bonacker for more
background.
Item 3, Proposal in principle agreed. More
information on mechanism required.
Westphäling contacts DLG. Svensson contacts
Mr. Bonacker.
Item 4, Pommier is invited to outline a new
class L2 intended for use with pin type
couplings with cylindrical (prismatic) pin.
Items agreed at the 2012 Oct 10-11 will be
formalized in a working document for the
GRRF session 2013 Feb
Next meeting to be held in Garching 2013 Jan
15-16
Italian UNACOMA to prepare a proposal for
agricultural couplings
Simple items will go in the current series of
amendments.
No transition period needed for the simple
items
Handle both ball and pin couplings in the
context of secondary coupling. New proposal.
Introduce clevis in the definition of Class C
clearing out ambiguities. New proposal
Further detail the requirement for remote
indication. New proposals.
Distribute new sketches on free space
definition.
2012 Oct 11
Zander
2012 Oct 11
2012 Oct 11
Yes
Yes
Yes
2012 Oct 11
2012 Oct 11
Svensson
Yes
Yes
2012 Oct 11
Westphäling
Yes
2012 Oct 11
Jaumouille
YES
2012 Oct 11
?
2012 Oct 11
Stokreef
2012 Oct 11
Svensson
Yes
2012 Oct 11
Westphäling,
Svensson
(Challenge to all
experts)
Preud´homme
Yes
Westphäling,
Svensson
Yes
2012 Oct 11
2012 Oct 11
2012 Oct 11
YES
Yes
2013 Jan 16
Westphäling
Yes
2013 Jan 16
Decided
Yes
2013 Jan 16
Decided
Yes
2013 Jan 16
Westphäling
Yes
2013 Jan 16
Westphäling
Yes
2013 Jan 16
Tagliaferri,
Teyssier
Westphäling,
Alguëra
YES
2013 Jan 16
YES
UNECE GRRF IWG-R55
35
36
37
Comment on the new sketches for free space
Proposal for item 17 adjusted
Further elaborate on the trade-off proposal,
aiming for a straight line
Send the German documented procedure FS5
to the secretary
Start outline requirements for auxiliary usage
of coupling equipment.
Supply information on force level from
coupling brakes.
2013 Jan 16
2013 Jan 16
2013 Jan 16
All
Decided
Turlier, Svensson
2013 Jan 16
Westphäling
2013 Jan 16
van Ittersum
YES
2013 Jan 16
Yes
Investigate the outcome from the changed
rules for drawbar lateral forces in NewZeeland
Coupling in existing classes developed to
become fully automatic coupling remain in the
original class.
Outline a new Class W for coupling systems
of unique concept. Draw on the Class T when
outlining the definition
Review Annex 7 §1.5.2
Investigate and compile statistics concerning
king-pin and supporting structure in semitrailers.
2013 Jan 16
Turlier,
van Ittersum,
Preud´home,
Westphäling,
Jaumouille
Svensson
2013 Jan 16
Decided
Yes
2013 Jan 16
Svensson,
Gunneriusson
Yes
2013 Jan 16
2013 Jan 16
Yes
YES
46
Investigate and compile information on
limiting articulation angles for coupling
equipment as installed on the vehicles
2013 Jan 16
47
Item 2, Put the ISO15263DIS and French
experimental standard XPR-18-904-4 side by
side and try to extract relevant parts.
Item 2, Contact Mr. Pierre Martin of BNA to
get some background information to the
ISO15263 work failing.
Item 4, Outline a proposal including the test
conditions for applications of class L drawbar
eyes with pin couplings.
Item 5, Finalize a proposal text for Class W
Item 7, Check-up whether there are anything
in the French law that makes an integrated
approval of coupling and drawbeam
impossible.
2013 Apr 12
Algüera
Stokreef, Hansen,
Gunneriusson,
Bailey,Preud´home,
Tagliaferri
Stokreef, Hansen,
Gunneriusson,
Bailey,Turlier,
Erario/Tagliaferri
van Ittersum
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
48
49
50
51
YES
Yes
YES
Yes
YES
2013 Apr 12
Preud’homme,
Westphäling
2013 Apr 12
Preud´homme
YES
2013 Apr 12
2013 Apr 12
Stokreef, Svensson
Lescail
YES
UNECE GRRF IWG-R55
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
Item 11, Communicate with the OEM about
the implementation of indication in the
instrument cluster. Consider also monochrome
options.
Item 13, Outline an alternative regulation
text/requirements for lateral force
performance of drawbars.
Item 14, Cancelled from the item list
Item 20, Investigate the UNECE R54 (tyres)
for the consideration of speed there in.
Item 20, Investigate how axle manufacturers
treat axle load an reduced speed.
Item 20, A procedure used for a long time by
VBG shall be applied a posteriori to historic
certificates or recommendations issued by
other manufacturers, Jost/Rockinger,
Pommier, Orlandi, SAF/Holland
Item 20, Make a try to see how the Germans
procedure of TA31 and the provisions in the
CARLOS-testing could be integrated in to the
regulation 55
Item 22, Outline a regulation text proposal to
incorporate Dc vs. V trade-off
Item 24, Contact CLCCR-TC concerning
rubbing plate deformations and any damage
caused thereof.
Item 25, Outline requirements on articulation
angles in-use including center axle trailers and
semi-trailers.
Item 26, Outline a regulation text proposal for
requirements on information on fixing points.
Item 17 withdrawn from list
Item 3 Agreed
Item 5 Agreed
Item 10 Agreed
Item 11 Agreed
Item 13 Lateral forces new proposal
Item 14 Outline new proposal
Item 20 Evaluate current practices towards the
proposal from Mr. Alguëra
2013 Apr 12
Teyssier,
Tagliaferri
YES
2013 Apr 12
Westphäling,
Tagliaferri,
Svensson
YES
Item 26 Feedback from OICA
Item 29 Outline proposal for separate
technical unit
Item 2 Further accident statistics
2013 Oct
2013 Oct
2013 Apr 12
2013 Apr 12
Svensson
Yes
YES
2013 Apr 12
Svensson
YES
2013 Apr 12
Algüera,
Tagliaferri,
Feltham,
Preud’homme
Svensson
Westphäling,
Svensson
YES
Turlier,
Svensson
Algüera,
Tagliaferri
YES
2013 Apr 12
Stokreef
YES
2013 Apr 12
Stokreef
YES
2013 Apr 12
2013 Apr 12
2013 Apr 12
2013 Oct
2013 Apr
2014 Jan
2013 Apr
2014 Jan
2013 Oct
2013 Oct
2013 Oct
2014 Jan
Bröckling
Westphäling
WAP,Jost,VBG,
Pommier, Orlandi,
SAF/Holland
Teyssier
Bröckling
Stokreef, van
Ittersum,
Jaumouille
YES
YES
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
YES
Yes
Yes
YES
UNECE GRRF IWG-R55
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
Item 4 New proposal for class L to be
evaluated by all concerned
Item 13 Detail the concerns and alternatives
around the latest proposal
2014 Jan
All
YES
2014 Jan
YES
Item 14 gather more information from OEM:s
and bodybuilders concerned
Item 20 Contact OEM:s to get more
background information
2014 Jan
Item 21 Evaluate alternative means to include
the rules from ISO 18868, Follow up on AVC
group continuation,
Item 22 Outline a master graphics to be
possibly included in a coupling user´s manual
Item 24 dropped from the list of Items
Item 26 outline a link between §§5.x and
§3.2.8.
Item 26 no surplus information in list of new
appendix to Annex 7. §§5.x enough possibly
Item 11 change of Annex 5 § 3.7.5. to be
formulated as an informal document to the
76th session of GRRF
Put agricultural proposal in line with WP29
documentation guidlines
External representation in the DIN working
group on Auxiliary coupling usage standard
Reconsider the proposal for Item 4 in view of
the comments received at the meeting in
Zoetemeer
Draft a proposal for requirement on Av value
certification
Introduce definition of dolly and consider
making distinction between certified
performance and calculated requirement in the
context of Item 21
Draft a new definition of Class E that would
resolve the issues around “Separate technical
units” for drawbars.
Put Agreed items in format that is in line with
WP29 guidelines for working documents
2014 Jan
Svensson,
Westphäling,
Bröckling, Alguëra
Westphäling,
Tagliaferri, Turlier
Westphäling,
Svensson, Alguëra,
Tagliaferri,
Preud´homme,
Stokreef
Svensson
2014 Jan
Svensson
Yes
2014 Jan
2014 Jan
Stokreef
Yes
YES
2014 Jan
Stokreef
YES
2014 Jan
Svensson
Yes
2015 Jan
Schauer
2015 Dec
Westphäling
2015 Jan
Preud´homme
YES
2014 Nov
Alguëra
YES
2104 dec
Svensson
2015 Jan
Bröckling
2014 Nov
Report on PNWI with ISO from DIN
Follow up and report on 2nd stage approval
OEM couplingforce measurements
Elaborate justification waiting lits item 1
2015 Jun
2015 Jun
2015 Jun
2015 Jun
Experts responsible
for the different
items
Westphäling
Westphäling
Westphäling
Domagala
2014 Jan
Yes
Yes
UNECE GRRF IWG-R55
95
Alternative performance values
2015 Jun
96
97
H50 ?
Elaborate Agricultural proposal
2015 Jun
2015 Jun
Westphäling /
Hansen
Hansen
Schauer