MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063686082 · doi:10.4271/2014-01-2358

Comparison of Fuel Efficiency and Traction Performances of 6 × 4 and 6 × 2 Class 8 Tractors

2014· article· en· W2063686082 on OpenAlexafffund
Marius-Dorin Surcel, Y Provencher

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE International journal of commercial vehicles · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations Research
Canadian institutionsFPInnovations
FundersNatural Resources CanadaTransport Canada
KeywordsAutomotive engineeringTraction (geology)Class (philosophy)Fuel efficiencyEnvironmental scienceAeronauticsEngineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this project was to compare the fuel consumption and traction performances of 6 × 2 and 6 × 4 Class 8 tractors. Two approaches have been considered: evaluation of 6 × 2 tractors, modified from 6 × 4 tractors, and evaluation of OEM 6 × 2 tractors. Compared to the 6 × 4 tractors, which are equipped with a rear tandem with both drive axles, the 6 × 2 tractors have a rear tandem axle with one drive axle, and one non-drive axle, also called dead axle. The 6 × 2 tractor configurations are available from the majority of Class 8 tractor manufacturers. The SAE Fuel Consumption Test Procedures Type II (J1321) and Type III (J1526) were used for fuel consumption track test evaluations. Traction performances were assessed using pull sled tests to compare pulling distance, maximum speed, and acceleration when pulling the same set sled on similar surface. Fuel consumption tests showed that 6 × 2 tractors consume up to 3.5% less than the similar 6 × 4 tractors, whilst pull sled tests showed shorter distance, lower maximum speed, and lower acceleration for the 6 × 2 tractors, when compared to similar 6 × 4 tractors. These differences are not critical or even not observable in normal operating conditions of on-highway transport but in specific conditions characteristic of particular northern operations, these differences could impact the performance of the tractor. However, systems are available for transferring the load from the dead axle to the drive axle in special conditions, for increasing the traction. With 6 × 2 axles, traction tires can be installed only on the drive axle, while the dead axle can be equipped with more fuel-efficient tires, which can bring more fuel savings and tire cost savings. Another advantage is the weight reduction: it was shown that the 6 × 2 tractors were lighter than the 6 × 4 tractors, and reducing a vehicle's tare weight can translate into an increase in payload, which would enhance freight transportation efficiency. At no additional cost, the 6 × 2 tractors replacing 6 × 4 Class 8 tractors could reduce annually the GHG emissions up to 1.93 tonnes per vehicle.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE International journal of commercial vehiclesSame topicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations ResearchFrench-language works237,207