The workgroup chairman Jürgen Westphäling welcomed all experts to the meeting venue at FFC in Paris, France.

There were ten experts that attended the meeting. Apologies were received from Anders Gunneriusson, Andrási Mátyás, Carlo Tagliaferri, Joachim Zander, Jan Stokreef, Michael Riesterer, Pierre Teyssier, Peter Hansen and Werner Conrads.

Mr. Westphäling wanted to add two points under the heading any other business, “EU-proposal –on A50 couplings hiding vehicle registration plate” and “Information from IWG-MVC”.
Mr. Svensson wanted to add an item concerning remote indication in the instrument cluster. Decision on next meeting was also added under AOB.

R55-12-12 | Draft agenda for the 12th UN R55 informal group session

There were no comments to the report. Hence it was approved and filed.

R55-11-22 | Report of the 11th R55 informal group session

Mr. Lescail remarkerd that in the consolidated document the angle denomination on page 10 shall be in Greek characters. The formula on page 8 shall be stricken through.

There was a general discussion on consolidated documentation with respect to the different regulations and in our case specifically on regulation 55. It was noted that since our last meeting the secretary of GRRF had published a second revision of regulation 55. This was well received by the working group. It was challenged why that could not be done in general instead of issuing amendments.

There was also a short information that the secretary of our working group had made a further consolidation in the working documents R55-12-01 and R55-12-02 just in order to keep track of a correct numbering in forthcoming proposals.

GRRF-80-41 | Consolidated revision of document GRRF/2015/35 including amendments as agreed by GRRF Text as approved by the GRRF and prepared by the UN R55 informal group to update this regulation with respect to: a) Requirements on remote indication, b) Availability of information on coupling fixing points for A50X couplings, c) On lateral strength of drawbars, and d) a new class definition for fully automatic drawbar couplings.

R55-12-01 | Working draft Revision 2 of UN Regulation No. 55 Updated version of the text following the 11th R55 informal group session and highlighting the changes

R55-12-02 | Working draft Revision 2 of UN Regulation No. 55 (Clean version) Updated version of the draft consolidated revision of UN R55 following the 11th R55 informal group session.

WP.29/2016/5 | Proposal for Supplement 5 to the 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 55 Proposal as prepared by the UN R55 informal group and approved by the GRRF to update UN R55 with respect to: a) Requirements on remote indication; b) Availability of information on coupling fixing points for A50X couplings; c) On lateral strength of drawbars; and d) a new class definition for fully automatic drawbar couplings.

Mr. Westphäling reported that the work at DIN that he had earlier talked about had at 2015 Oct 16 resulted in an agreed draft standard for load carrier to be used in connection with trailer balls i.e. A50. Taking part in this work are appliance manufacturers, universities, caravan manufacturers and technical services. This draft does not address the interface to the coupling ball. Since out last meeting this German standardization work had under DIN resulted in a Committed Draft that had been forwarded to FAKRA which is an automotive standardization body in Germany. The proposal will be introduced as a New Work Item Proposal with FAKRA in June 2016. As there are no other activities to gather more knowledge on this item the working group does not see any other way to proceed than to await this German standardization work. Accordingly it was realized that that work will end outside the time frame of our working group.

It was hence decided to drop this work item from our agenda. As the German standard gets published it is up to individual initiatives to restart this Item making a proposal to the GRRF.

This item was not discussed due to lack of time.

Mr. Svensson had from OICA requested any relevant information available on this Item. No such information was received. Mr. Westphäling noted that he had had difficulty in testing coupling installations where the coupling forces were lead through the second stage structure to the base vehicle structure. On the other hand there were also cases where such installations were successfully tested. It was noted that the level of operation is varying very much between second stage manufacturers. The split of responsibility between OEM of the base vehicle and the second stage manufacturer is key in this matter. Furthermore the variation in what kind of changes or additions that might be made by the second stage manufacturer is so wide that this item is extremely hard to catch in a few comprehensive paragraphs in the regulation. It was agreed to close this item without making any proposal for change to the regulation 55.

Since last meeting no new facts have been put forward. Delegates realized the benefit of having such an agreed handling of heavy transports. The chairman argued whether it was correct to have this kind of rules in the type approval regulations. Mr. Svensson argued towards that, that it had already since long been recognized by the legislator that couplings are in this respect a bit special as being so to speak the interface between two vehicles. A performance value as verified by the procedures in Annex 6 has no value if you do not at the same time tell how it may be utilized. Similar arrangements may be found in other regulations such as tires for instance. This proposal is just expanding or complementing what is already found in the regulation. Most countries have their own rules set up. It was agreed that Mr. Svensson shall elaborate a more finalized proposal to the next meeting based on the R55-10-13.

R55-10-13 | Proposal concerning mechanical coupling test performance and speed dependence

At our meeting in October we agreed to send this proposal to the GRRF 81 as an informal document. This agreement was subject to any important information being brought up to this meeting. Since our October meeting Mr. Westphäling had requested RDW for any measurement values that possibly had been made in The Netherlands. Mr. Stokreef responded to that request saying that there was no measurement data available. However in some correspondence from 1982 some recommendations were found. Mr. Svensson commented those in the light of that many measurements had been made in Australia during the late eighties and even more just the last couple of years in Sweden. The foundation for our proposal is well good and sound. It is not affected by the comments from 1982. Hence it was decided to proceed with the informal document to the GRRF 81.

R55-12-03 | Working draft proposal to amend UN R55 with regard to vehicle combination applications Draft proposal under development within the R55 informal group.

R55-12-10 | UN R55: Proposal for restructuring provisions on vehicle combination applications

R55-12-20/Rev.1 | UN R55: Proposal for restructuring provisions on vehicle combination applications Revised proposal developed by the UN R55 informal group to introduce provisions for mechanical couplings used in modular vehicle combinations (e.g., rigid truck + dolly + semi-trailer) presently not addressed within the regulation.

R55-12-28 | Comments on the old Dutch couplings application

This item was agreed at our Poznan meeting. To our October meeting it was included in the proposal for Item 21. In order to make each proposal easier to comprehend it was now separated out. It was subject to the same principle discussion as Item 20. It was agreed to submit this proposal as an informal document to the GRRF 81.

R55-12-05 | UN R55: Working draft proposal for allowable performance values Proposal under preparation for the GRRF by the R55 informal group. This proposal concerns a procedure to identify allowable combinations of performance values Dc and V for drawbar coupling equipment. This proposal would amend the Revision 2 proposal for UN R55.

R55-12-19/Rev.1 | UN R55: Revised working draft proposal for allowable performance values Proposal as developed by the UN R55 informal group during its 12th session. This proposal concerns a procedure to identify allowable combinations of performance values Dc and V for drawbar coupling equipment. This proposal would amend the Revision 2 proposal for UN R55.

Mr. Stokreef had elaborated the proposal from our October meeting. Mr. Stokreef was not present at the meeting. However we tried to do the best we could.

The first observation was that the measurement method, need to be further detailed. Comparing to the standard ISO11407 the dimensions of the drawbar itself need to be addressed in some way. Currently the proposal just refers to a straight line from the coupling point to measure the angles. It was then challenged what added value this proposal was giving as compared to the §1.3.4. Annex 7.

Looking then to the proposal for the fifth wheel couplings it was referred to the standard ISO1726-2. There the pivoting angles around a transverse axle is set to 3,5° towards the front and 4,5° towards the rear. We had also received comments from Volvo that the far from all semitrailers comply with any standard e.g. dimensions from 1230/2012/EU. This makes it hard to secure that this proposal will really give any major improvement. The manufacturers of fifth wheels also commented that the attachment bolts towards the mounting plate need to be disregarded when measuring the articulation angles for the fifth wheels.

The discussion was ended with a message to Mr. Stokreef to elaborate a bit more. Then consideration should be given to whether Annex 7 §1.3.4. could possibly be enough for drawbar couplings and whether something similar could be set up for fifth wheel couplings. Next meeting.

R55-12-06 | Minimum articulation angles for vehicle couplings UN R55 does not include provisions for minimum articulation angles of couplings. However, couplings may be damaged if a vehicle combination takes a narrow curve or other maneuver that exceeds the coupling design. In order to prevent coupling failures, this proposal suggests minimum articulation requirements based partly upon ISO 1726-1 and 11407 for drawbar and fifth wheel couplings.

R55-12-07 | Overview of coupling angles of rotation

The most recent proposal was from Mr. Bröckling saying that all drawbar are subject to approval in accordance with regulation 55. No new facts had come to the table. Mr. Svensson was observing according to the earlier discussion on this subject that some drawbars will be hard to test. It might then be tempting to use a calculation based procedure for approval. That calls according to Mr. Svensson for a stricter handling of calculations. It was agreed to go forward with the proposal from Mr. Bröckling subject to the calculation procedures of Annex 6 §1.1. get stricter. It was also noted that. Next meeting.

R55-11-03 | DNV GL Recommended Practice C203: Fatigue design of offshore steel structures

R55-11-08 | Proposal for proof of strength for drawbars under UN Regulation No. 55

We have not reached any common agreement on how to define a simple design. However we agreed that simple designs when handled through calculation procedures shall be evaluated according to an internationally recognized design code such as: EN 1993 Eurocode 3; DNV-RP-C203; NORSOK N004 … Next meeting.

R55-11-03 | DNV GL Recommended Practice C203: Fatigue design of offshore steel structures

R55-11-08 | Proposal for proof of strength for drawbars under UN Regulation No. 55

According to the discussion on the future of this informal working group the waiting list items are activated.

Mrs. Domagala had got the message from the October meeting. In relation to that information she proposed change in the text to be absolutely clear about that the testing shall be done with the worst case installation. The proposed Annex 6 §1.1.1. was considered superfluous. The proposal was given in document R55-12-13. The proposal for change in §1.1. was accepted.

R55-12-13 | UN R55: Worst-case physical testing

Mr. Hansen of KBA was not present. The item was despite of that discussed. There were different views on this subject. One part of the discussion ended in how to interpret the §2.10. of the regulation R55.

1. Some then had the view that the alternative value is an alternative set of performance values (§2.10.4.) with all other characteristics according to §§2.10.1. – 2.10.3. being unchanged.
2. Others had the view that the characteristics according to §§2.10.1. – 2.10.3. could vary and that an alternative performance value was a set of performance values specifically applicable to one of the design alternatives within the variation.
3. Still others had the view that the characteristics according to §§2.10.1. – 2.10.3. can vary within one type and that the performance values were the same for all variants. In such case an alternative performance value is an additional set of performance values applying to all variants.

Then Mrs. Domagala brought up a practical and concrete example with a class B coupling head that had two alternatives for installation. One unique alternative was then chosen by the customer at installation. For this product it happened to be such that the two installation alternatives had different performance values. This example may be seen as an illustration of case 2 above. Considering this case Mr. Svensson argued that either you chose the lower performance value that is applicable for both installation alternatives or you get two different type approvals for that product (i.e., a vital point is how to handle the type approval plate). No agreement could be reached at this meeting.

Mr. Alguëra proposed a change to the last sentence of the third section of Annex 5 §3.3. The proposal was a change in the allowable support load from 50 kg to 80 kg for C50 couplings with a jaw that can pivot around a transvers axle. In principle the delegates were in favor of the proposal. However it was an open question how to handle V-values. Should it be the same as for class A? How then to treat this on the type plate? Mr. Alguëra will contact KBA and discuss this issue. A detailed proposal will be proposed to the next meeting.

R55-12-18 | Application for an amendments of UN R55 Proposal to allow for a vertical load up to 80 kg for drawbar coupling designs with a jaw that pivots about the horizontal transverse axis because such configurations are commonly used in fire trucks and other special use vehicles in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

This item was discussed. Considering the current definition of class H the group found that the proposal did not bring any added value. Hence the proposal was dropped.

Mr. Tagliaferri have proposed a correction of diagram 17 in Annex 5. Currently the diagram may be interpreted such that there is 80 degree angle in the approach of the fifth wheel for the king pin. It shall be 40 degrees. The change is documented in document R55-09-20. This was agreed.

R55-09-20 | Mechanical couplings: Wedge diagram

Mr. Lescail had no additional information hence the item was postponed to the next meeting.

No discussion due to lack of time.

The Item was initiated by Mr. Hansen. He was not present at the meeting and no one else had prepared any material. Hence the item was postponed to the <spanstyle=“color:yellow”>next meeting.

R55-11-18 | UN R55: Excerpt from the minutes of the Type-Approval Authorities Meeting Iceland 2015

Mr. Stokreef had prepared a proposal (R55-12-11) for COP testing of class B. In principle this proposal was to say that at COP a 10 % reduction of the number of cycles could be accepted. Some delegates were slightly positive to this proposal. However Mr. Westphäling argued that according to his experience the S-N-curve had several vertices. One of these often at 1,8 Mc. After just a short discussion this item was postponed to the next meeting when hopefully Mr. Stokreef is present.

R55-12-11 | Discussion paper with regard the dynamic tests of class-B couplings for COP

This item was discussed just to consolidate an opinion from the group on this proposal. It is the opinion from the group that a key shall be allowable to lock the coupling hook.

GRRF-80-29 | Proposal for a Supplement to the 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 55 Proposal to ensure that coupling balls do not block rear lighting and/or registration plates. In line with the EU General Safety Rule, Annex IV specification for application of UN R55, couplings that might block lighting or plates must be removable, repositionable, and unlockable in order to make it easier for users to remove them or reposition them when not in use (e.g., towing a trailer.) Coupling balls that are so designed as to be unable to block lighting or plates may still incorporate locks and/or require tools to remove or reposition.

During the meeting we got the information that the German BMVI will propose a separate informal working group to finish a separate regulation for agricultural couplings. In light of this and the process up to now within the Task Force Agricultural Couplings, Mr. Westphäling gave a review of the status of the agricultural couplings regulation.

For different reasons the work within the task force has lacked continuity. The starting point was three different national regulations. The merger of those has resulted in a proposal that needs a lot of processing to be coherent. The general impression of the current status is that there is an apparent risk that the safety level is lowered. A special concern is that there might be situations where tractors with allowable speed above 40 kmph appear in general road traffic using couplings that are only tested statically. Hence such couplings are not proven to be safe in fatigue dominated applications. In the details Mr. Westphäling expressed many concerns. The working group agreed to mandate Mr. Westphäling to present to the GRRF 82 an official statement from the group about the Agricultural couplings.

R55-12-16 | List of remarks for the Task Force on Agricultural Couplings

R55-12-17 | Chronological agricultural couplings Chronology summarizing the discussions held on agricultural coupling requirements under UN R55 since 2011.

It was agreed that we shall approach the GRRF-81 with informal documents. The final versions of those documents shall be agreed at our next meeting prior to the GRRF-81. The plan for finishing the work in the Working group requested at the GRRF 80 had been prepared and approved by the working group. (R55-12-24) This plan will be submitted as an informal document to the GRRF 81.

It was agreed to work in mail conversations on the open items until our next meeting. It was then noted that it is of high importance that the response from the members is prompt.

R55-12-24 | UN R55 finalizing plan Informal group schedule for finalizing amendments to update UN R55.

1. SPP_Proposal_Application for approval_2014_05
2. SPP_Proposal_Application for approval_2013_05; R55-12-13
3. SPP_Proposal_Conformity of production_2013_10
4. KBA Change request_UN ECE R55_2. Definitions_alternative values
5. KBA Change request_UN ECE R55_Annex 6_3.7.2.2_lever bearing at least 1,0…
6. KBA Change request_UN ECE R55_Annex 7_T = 32 t
7. JOST_Application for an amendment of R55-Jost-06-10-2014; R55-12-18
8. KBA Change request_UN ECE R55_2 Definitions_Class H50 (R55-09-07…)
9. Orlandi, Diagram correction wedge (R55-09-20-Wedge)
10. Fixing point information and vehicles N1
11. General review Class …-X
12. What masses to use when calculating required performance values for coupling equipment.
13. COP testing /RDW; R55-12-11
Proposal from the European commission GRRF-80-29

R55-11-23 | Waiting list of GRRF request concerning the update of UN R55

R55-12-11 | Discussion paper with regard the dynamic tests of class-B couplings for COP

R55-12-18 | Application for an amendments of UN R55 Proposal to allow for a vertical load up to 80 kg for drawbar coupling designs with a jaw that pivots about the horizontal transverse axis because such configurations are commonly used in fire trucks and other special use vehicles in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

Mr. Westphäling expressed the gratitude from the group towards Mr. Preud´homme who arranged the details.

Our next meeting will be a one day meeting. The date for the meeting is 2016 April 12 starting at 0900 ending at 1600 hours. The location will be Paderborn in Germany. Mr. Bröckling will arrange all details.

The chairman thanked all participating experts for their contribution and wished them a safe journey home. Welcome back in January of 2016. The attendees expressed their gratitude for the hospitality by the Pommier to host the meeting.