Cooperative truck platooning trial on Canadian public highway under commercial operation in winter driving conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cooperative truck platooning, a convoy of trucks driving together while communicating and coordinating with each other, represents a technology-driven approach to improve energy conversion efficiency, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and enhance road safety. Despite numerous studies have explored these potentials, there is a scarcity of empirical investigations into on-road cooperative truck platooning during commercial operations, particularly in winter driving conditions. This paper presents the findings of an experimental study on the first commercially focused truck platooning implementation on a Canadian public highway in the winter season, using two SAE level 2 class 8 trucks. The on-road trials took place on the Queen Elizabeth II Highway, between Calgary and Edmonton, with ambient temperatures ranging from −27°C to 12°C, and truck weights spanning 16–39 tons. Nine well-trained and experienced drivers conducted 41 incident-free (platooning and baseline) test trips, covering a distance of 22,855 km. The experimental results confirmed the feasibility of operating commercial truck platooning with 3–5 s time gaps on public roads during the Canadian winter season including various road surface conditions. The results also show that the platooning engagement ratio reached up to 88.9%, with an average of 61.6% across 25 platooning trips. Furthermore, the follower truck achieved a 1.6% fuel savings on flat road sections during platooning, but its freight transportation specific fuel consumption was higher than that of the lead truck on hilly terrain. Test results indicate the lighter truck exhibited higher specific nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. Moreover, the frequent engagement and disengagement of the cooperative truck platooning system had adverse effects on the powertrain system of the truck, leading to increased fuel consumption and engine-out NOx emissions. This study provides real-world data to identify limitations and needed areas for improvement in adapting cooperative truck platooning technology to commercial operations on public roads.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".