Impact of Mixed Traffic on the Energy Savings of a Truck Platoon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A two-truck platoon based on a prototype cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC) system was tested on a closed test track in a variety of realistic traffic and transient operating scenarios - conditions that truck platoons are likely to face on real highways. The fuel consumption for both trucks in the platoon was measured using the SAE J1321 gravimetric procedure as well as calibrated J1939 instantaneous fuel rate, serving as proxies to evaluate the impact of aerodynamic drag reduction under constant-speed conditions. These measurements demonstrate the effects of: the presence of a multiple-passenger-vehicle pattern ahead of and adjacent to the platoon, cut-in and cut-out manoeuvres by other vehicles, transient traffic, the use of mismatched platooned vehicles (van trailer mixed with flatbed trailer), and the platoon following another truck with adaptive cruise control (ACC). These scenarios are intended to address the possibility of “background aerodynamic platooning” impacting realized savings on public roads. Using calibrated J1939 fuel rate analysis, fuel savings for curved track sections versus straight track sections were also evaluated for these scenarios, highlighting differences in the implementation of the CACC control strategies compared to a stock ACC implementation. The use of different trailer types and the presence of passenger-vehicle traffic patterns showed a measurable impact on platoon performance in some conditions, but the basic fuel savings trends were retained.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".