Impact of Lateral Alignment for Cooling Airflow during Heavy-Truck Platooning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A truck platooning system was tested using two heavy-duty tractor-trailer trucks on a closed test track to investigate the thermal control/heat rejection system sensitivity to intentional lateral offsets over a range of intervehicle spacings. Previous studies have shown the following vehicle can experience elevated temperatures and reduced airflow through the cooling package as a result of close-formation platooning. Four anemometers positioned across the grille of the following trucks as well as aligned and multiple offset positions are used to evaluate the sensitivity of the impact. Straight sections of the track are isolated for the most accurate airflow impact measurements and to be most representative of on-highway driving. An intentional lateral offset in truck platooning is considered as a controls approach to mitigate reduced cooling efficacy at close following scenarios where the highest platoon savings are achieved. The truck platooning system was tested at four gap distances from 9 to 23 meters and the following truck was either aligned with the lead or offset with a 25% width (0.65 m) or 50% width (1.3 m) lateral distance. The experimental results clearly show that offset driving is effective at bringing cooling airflow from 56% with an aligned platoon back up to 75%-80% with minimal impact to fuel savings. In addition, the offset driving can also reduce the trailing truck’s engine coolant temperature by 2°C and the corresponding underhood temperature rise by 10°C. The test outcomes indicate a plausible controls strategy to mitigate reduced cooling flow during hot-weather truck platooning while still enabling the highest-energy-saving, close-following scenarios.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".