Impact of Lateral Alignment on the Energy Savings of a Truck Platoon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">A truck platooning system was tested using two heavy-duty tractor-trailer trucks on a closed test track to investigate the sensitivity of intentional lateral offsets over a range of intervehicle spacings. The fuel consumption for both trucks in the platoon was measured using the SAE J1321 gravimetric procedure while travelling at 65 mph and loaded to a gross weight of 65,000 lb. In addition, the SAE J1939 instantaneous fuel rate was calibrated against the gravimetric measurements and used as proxy for additional analyses. The testing campaign demonstrated the effects of intervehicle gaps, following-vehicle longitudinal control, and manual lateral control. The new results are compared to previous truck-platooning studies to reinforce the value of the new information and demonstrate similarity to past trends. Fuel savings for the following vehicle was observed to exceed 10% at closer following distances. The results showed that energy savings generally increased in a non-linear fashion as the gap was reduced. The impact of different following-truck lateral offsets had a measurable impact, with up to 4% reduction in total fuel-savings (relative to an isolated vehicle condition) observed for offsets up to 1.3 m. The fuel-consumption savings on the straight segments of the track exceeded those on the curved segments by upwards of 6% and highlight some potential differences expected between close-track testing and on-highway use.</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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".