Evaluation of the Influence of Stakes on Drag and Fuel Consumption for a Tractor-Logging Trailer Combination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">The main objective of this study is to reduce the aerodynamic drag of tractor-trailer combinations used in the forest industry. In most cases, logging trucks on their return trips are usually travelling in unloaded conditions with upright stakes, which add drag. CFD and wind tunnel testing suggested a drag reduction of up to 35% with no upright stakes, which corresponds to 17% in fuel savings in unloaded conditions. One of the proposed fuel reduction concepts was therefore to have foldable stakes so that the stakes could fold down into a horizontal position while travelling in unloaded conditions.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">Fuel savings of 15% for a vehicle with stakes in the horizontal position were confirmed with track testing when compared to the fuel consumption of a vehicle with stakes in the vertical position. The coastdown test indicated 28% reduction in drag. The difference in drag reduction between the coastdown test and initial simulation was due to stake size and profile. The simulation was therefore conducted again with the stakes' profile similar to the one used in the track test and the same drag reduction of 28% was obtained.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">The foldable stakes concept can cut annual fuel consumption by 3000 to 4000 liters, with GHG emissions reduction of up to 8 tonnes per vehicle. Trailer manufacturers should look into the possibility of incorporating foldable stakes into hayrack semi-trailer configurations in order to maximize potential fuel savings, with safety taken into account in the design process, for vehicles operating under certain conditions.</div></div>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".