Cooperative Communication Network for Adaptive Truck Platooning

Razvan Andrei Gheorghiu, Valentin Iordache and Angel Ciprian Cormos

Transport Faculty, Electronics Dept., “Politehnica” University of Bucharest, Splaiul Independentei, Bucharest, Romania

Keywords: Truck Platooning, Road-train, Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications, ZigBee.

Abstract: Truck platooning represents a solution to increase energy efficiency of the freight road transport. This method

assumes very little distance between trucks so that overall aerodynamic quotient is improved. However, this

requires a specific and dedicated infrastructure, due to the fact that the total length of the convoy may be

considerable, which has a negative impact on the general traffic: other vehicles need a lot of space (and time)

to overtake the platoon and this can only be done on highways with more than two lanes / direction. This

means that in most cases (national roads and less wide highways) platoons cannot be formed and this method

cannot be implemented. To resolve this situation, in this article we have proposed a solution for dynamic

platoon formation, based on vehicle-to-vehicle communications, that will allow other vehicles to gradually

overtake the vehicles forming the platoon. For this, a communication technology proposal has been made to

ensure the identification of vehicles that are obstructed by the platoon. We have also made a series of

laboratory measurements to test the validity of the proposed solution and, in the end, presented our

conclusions.

1 INTRODUCTION

Vehicle platooning is a relatively new concept that

can provide many benefits, such as improved vehicle

safety, improved fuel consumption due to less

aerodynamic drag (and, hence, reduced

environmental pollution) (Kavathekar, 2012).

For the realization of the platoon, the vehicles

composing it must have fully automated longitudinal

and lateral control to be able to maintain the same

spacing between all platoon members at all speeds, as

they travel through the road network. This kind of

automation increases safety for all involved vehicles.

With very small headway spacing, as little as a few

meters, the vehicles follow each other. The key

element is a very reliable communication system: the

lead vehicle (LV) of the platoon continuously

broadcasts to the following vehicles (FV),

information on the maneuvers that the platoon is

going to execute.

This approach is highly studied and there are

many details provided on what systems need to be put

in place to create a platoon and how the

communications between vehicles should be

implemented to ensure the minimum distance

between vehicles (European Commission, 2014;

Bergenheim et al, 2012a; Bergenheim et al, 2012b;

Janssen et al, 2015). Platooning concept has been

tested in real life conditions in several projects, such

as SARTRE (SARTRE-Consortium, 2012), PATH

(Lu and Shladover, 2011; Nowakowski et al, 2015) or

KONVOI (Institute for Automotive Engineering,

2009).

But all approaches, as far as our knowledge, refer

to the creation of a platoon with fixed distance

between vehicles. Studies have shown even the

necessity to implement a dedicated infrastructure for

this type of road train. This is a proper approach when

we consider only the fuel economy and the other

benefits of platooning without caring for price. This

solution is very expensive to implement and it can’t

be used for most of the existing roads due to the fact

that for longer platoons it is very difficult for other

vehicles to overtake the vehicles in the platoon.

The concept of vehicle platooning may be applied

to all the vehicles but, as energy efficiency is the

primary goal of this concept, we shall analyze only

the truck platooning concept in the rest of the article,

considering that for the other types of vehicles this

desiderate is not the primary goal. Also, in order to

simplify the first concept of the system, we shall

consider only the highway scenario, as platoon

formation on national roads imply even more

challenges and issues that have to be further analyzed.

228

Gheorghiu, R., Iordache, V. and Cormos, A.

Cooperative Communication Network for Adaptive Truck Platooning.

DOI: 10.5220/0006302402280235

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems (VEHITS 2017), pages 228-235

ISBN: 978-989-758-242-4

This desiderate can only be achieved when there is a

certainty that all the vehicles travelling that road have

autonomic capabilities, which, for sure, will not

happen in the near future.

2 DYNAMIC PLATOONING

CONCEPT

2.1 System’s Concept

Dynamic platooning is a method of platoon formation

for which the distance between vehicles is not fixed.

The distance tends to be minimum when other

vehicles are not around, but gaps may be formed in

the platoon to let outside vehicles (OV) travel without

obstruction from the platoon.

We shall consider two scenarios: one in which an

OV intends to overtake the platoon. Such a system

implies the last of the platoon’s FVs to detect the OV.

This may be achieved by vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V)

communications, if OV is capable of it and has

implemented the proper equipment compatible with

the ones installed on the platoon’s vehicles. However,

if the OV does not have V2V capabilities, there is the

need to also implement a vehicle detection system

with the purpose of identifying the OVs that intend to

overtake the platoon, and an information method for

other traffic participants to let them know in what way

the platoon may be overtaken.

The other scenario is the one in which an OV

intends to exit the highway and the platoon is

positioned in its path to the exit lane. Such a system

implies V2V communication system implemented on

all the vehicles because the OV trying to exit must

inform the platoon about its intentions. But to

implement such a system is mandatory to have

knowledge about the exact position of the OV, in

order to determine the position in the platoon where

the gap should be formed. Location is usually found

via global positioning systems, such as GPS or

GLONASS. All these systems, however, involve a

location precision error, that may be up to several

meters. Modern GPS receivers can now deliver high

accuracies (centimeter level) with the help of real

time kinematic navigation or differential GPS, both

depending on the existence of ground-based reference

stations. In cities, additional information may be

added to the positioning system from the GSM

network, via A-GPS (assisted GPS). This increases

location precision and reduces error to several

centimeters. But outside the cities, where there are

only few GSM antennas and GPS ground stations are

not always available, precision cannot be as good.

This may lead to malfunction of the whole dynamic

platoon concept, as there is not a certainty that the gap

produced to allow the vehicle to go through the

platoon to exit the highway is properly placed.

Therefore, in order to achieve a good functionality

of the whole system, it is necessary to implement

some additional fixed detection points located certain

distance ahead of the exit points that will locate with

great precision both the exiting vehicle and all the

trucks in the platoon. Then, by sending the

information to the platoon, the trucks may decide with

proper knowledge what the gap position should be.

In both scenarios, when the gap between vehicles

is formed, the platoon is split in two. Considering the

platoon concept, there is a safety concern if the

platoon would be considered intact when an outside

vehicle is integrated in it. This happens because the

FV’s assume that, in case of an emergency, they

would receive the necessary information (like

braking) in due time from the LV. If the distance

between platoon vehicles became too big (in case of

a gap formation) the information may arrive late at

the vehicles behind the gap. Also, the uncertainty

induced by the behavior of the external vehicle is a

safety risk.

There is also the case that must be foreseen in

which an additional external vehicle fills in the gap

formed, hence having two vehicles intruding in the

platoon, instead of only one. It is important in this

case for the vehicles in the gap area to figure out when

the external vehicles have left the platoon in order to

get close together again. If all the vehicles are still

considered as a single platoon it is very difficult to

detect when the intruders have left, especially

considering that OVs may not have V2V capabilities.

Also, if OVs reduce their speed, there may be a

communication problem for the maintenance of the

platoon, due to a possible distance between platoon

vehicles bigger than the maximum reliable V2V

communication distance.

Based on all the above considerations, we have

concluded that the proper solution is to temporary

form two separated platoons, meaning that the FV

behind the gap become the LV of the new second

platoon. When the OV leaves the gap the two

platoons may reunite as one.

In Figure 1 the stages of overtaking the platoon

are shown:

 OV intends to overtake the platoon and is

detected.

 OV overtakes the last two vehicles, splitting the

platoon in two.

Cooperative Communication Network for Adaptive Truck Platooning

229

 OV overtakes the next two vehicles; the initial

LV is no longer part of the platoon.

 The initial platoon is reformed.

Figure 1: OV overtaking a platoon.

It is obvious that, in this case, it’s not possible to

have a LV with human driver and for all the other

ones the autonomous system to have full control. As

any FV may become a LV (at least temporary), it is

important to implement a driver alert system, that will

inform a FV’s driver about the transformation to LV.

2.2 System Requirements

Considering the above system description, the

following elements must be included in order to

obtain the desired functionality (Kavathekar, 2012;

SARTRE-Consortium, 2012):

 For longitudinal control, when the vehicle in

front is part of the platoon, V2V

communication will be used to exchange

performance parameters (speed, braking,

acceleration, detected obstacles, steering, etc.)

between LV and FV’s. To maintain a certain

distance between platoon members on board

systems like Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC),

that automatically adjusts the vehicle speed to

maintain a specified distance from the vehicle

in front, or Collision Avoidance Systems

(CAS) will be used.

 For longitudinal control, when the vehicle in

front is not part of the platoon (for example an

OV that enters in the middle of the platoon), the

FV decelerates to increase the gap to the OV in

order to provide a larger safety margin, by

using on board systems like ACC or CAS.

 Lateral control can be achieved by using on

board systems. Lane departure keeping systems

are used to ensure that the vehicle remains in its

lane. Magnetic markers or reflective guardrails

can be installed in the road infrastructure also

to be detected by on board systems.

 Identification of vehicles requiring a gap may

be done using V2V communications, if OV

have such a system implemented, or it will be

done using video cameras to detect an

overtaking vehicle that requires a gap.

 Information system is necessary to inform

other vehicles that do not have V2V

implemented about their permissions related to

the platoon’s movement. Each truck forming

the platoon should have a VMS (variable

message sign) or LCD on their back to display

information such as: “Overtaking not allowed”,

“Overtake one truck”, “Overtake two trucks” or

other information messages.

 Communication systems – detailed in the next

chapter.

3 DYNAMIC PLATOONING

CONCEPT

3.1 Communication Network

Architecture

The communications that must be considered are

(Vlastaras et al, 2014; Amoozadeh et al, 2015):

 For communication between vehicles in the

platoon, with the purpose to maintain the

platoon, dedicated short range communication

technologies will be necessary, that must be

very robust, with very short delay and with

safety and security mechanisms implemented.

Depending on the length of the platoon and the

used technology one can choose a centralized

or decentralized approach.

The main consideration should be the message

propagation time, to assure that an emergency

command will be received in due time by all the

vehicles in the platoon. This gives the main

restriction to the platoon length.

In addition, it is more reliable to have a single

message sent from LV to all FVs than to have

the message rebroadcast by every FV: any error

in a FV will break or, worse, distort the

message that will be sent to the rest of the

platoon’s vehicles.

 For communication between vehicles in the

platoon, with the purpose to create/recreate the

platoon, the same dedicated short range

communication technologies will be necessary

and also a Human-Machine Interface (HMI) for

the driver to interact with the system.

 Identification of vehicles requiring a gap, if

they have V2V communications implemented,

VEHITS 2017 - 3rd International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

230

will be done through wireless exchange of data

between LV and OV, establishing a protocol

for asking and receiving a gap in the platoon,

based on OV’s location.

 Infrastructure to vehicle (I2V) communications

will be necessary for the second scenario, to

accurately locate the OV that intends to exit the

highway with the help of roadside beacons

placed before the exits. The same dedicated

short range communication technologies will

be used.

 Global Navigation Positioning System that will

provide vehicle location.

All these are presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Example of communications for the platoon.

3.2 Platoon Formation Concepts

Platoons must have a unique ID that will allow the

vehicles to identify at which platoon they adhere. This

must be negotiated at the beginning of the platoon

formation, when the first FV ask permission to join

the LV. The ID should include the following

elements:

 GPS coordinates of the place the first

negotiation of the platoon took place.

 Direction of travel, considering geographical

positions: N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW.

 Type of FV.

 A random number.

From all the above it results that the platoons will

have different IDs so they will be easily identified.

When an OV breaks the platoon in two, the second

platoon will have a new ID, given by the above

considerations. When a platoon arrives in the

proximity of another platoon going the same direction

(also the case when an OV broke the platoon and then

left), the second LV must communicate with the first

LV to negotiate a formation of a bigger platoon

including all the vehicles.

4 CONSIDERATIONS

REGARGING MINIMUM

DISTANCE FOR

ESTABLISHING

COMMUNICATION

For the scenario in which an OV intends to exit the

highway and the platoon is placed between it and the

exit lane, the OV must inform the platoon and ask for

a gap in it, using V2V communications. In this case,

it is very important to see if there is enough distance

available for the vehicle to follow all necessary steps

and safely exit the highway.

The minimum distance (D) for establishing a

communication with the platoon must be bigger than

the minimum calculated distance (d) to the highway

exit.



(1)

Minimum calculated distance is a sum of

distances travelled by the vehicle and the length of the

highway exit lane:









∙















∙



(2)

where: l

is the length of the highway exit lane (if one

exists).

is the platoon’s speed.

is the necessary time for the platoon to

create the gap.

is the necessary time for the vehicle to

occupy the gap.

syn

is the necessary distance for speed

synchronization between the OV and the

platoon.

is the OV’s speed.

COM

is the necessary time for exchanging

messages.

The time needed for the vehicle to occupy the gap

) include necessary time for signaling a lane

change (t

sig

) and the necessary time for performing the

maneuver (t

man

) without making sudden movements.



























(3)

where: w

is the lane width.

lat

is the lateral speed.

In order to provide enough space for the OV, the

platoon must be split in two. The time required to

separate the platoon (t

) depends on the length of the

OV (l

), a safe distance (d

) to leave between it and

the trucks (both in front and behind the car) and the

trucks braking acceleration (a

brt

Cooperative Communication Network for Adaptive Truck Platooning

231















2









(4)

The OV that is overtaking the platoon is supposed

to have the right to travel at a superior speed, so, in

order to execute the maneuver for splitting the

platoon and exiting the highway, the OV must slow

down and synchronize its speed with the platoon. The

distance travelled by the OV from platoon split

confirmation until it reaches the same speed is

calculated as follows:











∙













(5)

where: a

brv

is the vehicle braking acceleration

In conclusion, the total necessary distance is:





∙









∙

















∙























2













(6)

As can be seen from (6), minimizing the distance

and creating an efficient system will depend heavily

on the necessary time for exchanging messages

between the OV and the platoon, therefore choosing

the right communication technology will be a very

important step.

5 PROPOSED

COMMUNICATION

TECHNOLOGY

As the authors concluded in (Gheorghiu and

Iordache, 2016) ZigBee protocol represents an

alternative to Bluetooth and Wi-Fi communications

for vehicular environments, being developed to

ensure better energy consumption, even with the

downside of lower data rates. Its main advantages are

fast handshake connection (30 milliseconds), less

interference from other 2.4GHz technologies (two of

the ZigBee channels, 24 and 25, have less to no

conflict with Wi-Fi and Bluetooth channels) and high

equipment availability with accessible prices. DSRC

technology, although developed especially for V2V

communications, was not included in the comparison

because of expensive equipment and low availability.

The ZigBee standard is built on IEEE 802.15.4 for

packet-based wireless communication and enhances

its functionality by providing flexible, extendable

network topologies with integrated set-up and routing

intelligence to facilitate easy installation and high

resilience to failure. Usually it operates in the 2.4GHz

band worldwide and uses offset quadrature phase-

shift keying (OQPSK), that transmits two bits per

symbol. The data rate varies widely, depending on the

implementation, from 20 kbit/s to 250 kbit/s (ZigBee

Alliance, 2016).

Related to road traffic communications, ZigBee

has the advantage of being very flexible and allowing

networks to be easily adjusted to changes by adding,

removing or moving network nodes. The protocol is

designed such that nodes can appear in and disappear

from the network, making it very adaptable and

proper for V2I communication. Another big

advantage of a ZigBee network is that it can easily be

installed and configured. The devices are also cheap,

facilitating a large-scale implementation.

There are three methods to create a ZigBee

network: pre-configured (all parameters are

configured by the manufacturer), self-configuring

(the network is set up by "discovery" messages sent

between devices) and custom (adapted for specific

applications/locations) (NXP Laboratories, 2014).

As ZigBee nodes are usually in sleep mode to

achieve low power consumption, they need some

time to wake up and respond, typically 15

milliseconds for a sleeping node to wake up, and

another 15 milliseconds to access the channel.

Compared to other wireless communications for short

distances, such as Bluetooth or Wi-Fi, this latency

time can be considered to be low.

The ZigBee protocol has many advantages from

the connection time point of view, but the data rate

available may not be enough for some applications.

However, considering the details that will be

formulated below, we shall be able to conclude that

this technology presents enough advantages to be

considered as a possible solution to the application

that is presented in this paper.

ZigBee networks may co-exist with Bluetooth and

Wi-Fi, as they incorporate listen-before-talk protocol

and rigorous security measures. As presented in

(Gheorghiu and Iordache, 2016) Wi-Fi interferences

over ZigBee communications are the most important

and most likely to occur in a road environment. As

can be seen in Figure 3 and as was shown in the same

paper, channel 26 is the most resilient to interferences

caused by Wi-Fi communications, when it comes to

handshake connection times, so the following tests

will be based on these conclusions.

VEHITS 2017 - 3rd International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

232

Figure 3: ZigBee and Wi-Fi Channels (Liang et al., 2010).

6 MESSAGE EXCHANGE TIME

MEASUREMENTS

In order to measure the necessary time for exchanging

messages a typical message set structure has to be

defined, based on the information needed by the

system. Two messages are defined, one for the

request sent from the OV to the platoon, and one for

the response sent from the platoon to the OV.

Proposed request message contains 152 bits and,

based on our calculations from chapter IV, includes

the following information:

 Vehicle ID (random): 64 bits.

 Type of request: 8 bits.

 GPS position of the OV: 32 bits.

 Speed of the OV: 8 bits.

 Length of the OV: 8 bits.

 GPS position of the highway exit (if this is the

case): 32 bits.

Proposed response message contains 32 bits and

include the following information:

 Acceptance or rejection of the request: 16 bits.

 Number of the truck in front of which a gap will

be created: 8 bits.

 Recommended speed for the OV: 8 bits.

Based on the OV’s request, the last FV of the

platoon will determine if the distance between the

platoon and the highway exit is sufficient for a

successful platoon separation, integration and exit of

the OV. If there is not enough space, the request will

be rejected and the vehicle will be informed to wait

for the highway exit behind the platoon.

In the following, is presented an analysis of the

time needed for transmitting successful messages

between OV and LV/FV, performed in the laboratory,

using the following hardware: one router and four

XBee S2 modules, each connected to an Arduino Uno

board with an XBee Shield (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Hardware components.

The authors chose to use these ZigBee

implementation modules because of their reasonable

price and high availability in many countries.

An XBee 2mW Wire Antenna - Series 2 was used

for these tests, having the following main technical

characteristics: 3.3V @ 40mA needed power supply,

250kbps Max data rate, 2mW output (+3dBm), 120m

range. Two pairs of transceivers were created, each of

them with one of the XBee modules set as

Coordinator – XB

and the other as End Device –

. Every pair was configured using the

parameters presented in Table 1.

Table 1: XBee Coordinator and End Device configuration.

Modified

parameters

Coordinator

settings

(pair 1)

End

device

settings

(pair 1)

Coordinator

settings

(pair 2)

End

device

settings

(pair 2)

PAN ID 11 11 10 10

DH 13A200 13A200 13A200 13A200

DL 40E778BF 40E7795C 40E922BF 40E922BD

BD 57600 57600 57600 57600

PAN ID (Personal Area Network ID) identifies

the network that the device will join. This parameter

was set differently for every pair of transceivers, to

avoid unwanted connections between the four

modules and joining other possible existing networks.

DH represents the upper 32 bits and DL is the

lower 32 bits of the 64-bit destination extended

address. Each device in one pair was configured with

DH and DL of the other device, so they will

communicate with each other.

BD represents the Baud Rate, and it was chosen a

value sufficient for transmitting necessary data.

The tests focused on measuring the time needed

for a complete exchange of messages (one request

and one response) between two XBee modules, one

that should be on board of the OV, and the other on

board of the LV/FV. Messages have been formed as

described earlier in this paper.

Three scenarios were considered:

 Message exchange with random Wi-Fi

interference (considering that it is not possible

to know very precise what communications

Cooperative Communication Network for Adaptive Truck Platooning

233

will occur during the exchange of messages in

the ZigBee network).

 Message exchange with a wireless router set on

the Wi-Fi channel closest to the tested ZigBee

channel, and a large file transfer in progress

during this phase of the tests.

 Message exchange with another pair of XBee

modules set on the same communication

channel as the ones used for measurements, and

transmitting data with a high rate.

As stated in previous chapter, the authors chose to

measure and compare message exchange times for 2

of the 16 ZigBee channels, channel 12 that is clearly

overlapping with Wi-Fi channel 1, and it will

certainly be affected by a heavily data transfer, and

ZigBee channel 26, whose frequency band is less

likely to be occupied by a data transfer on Wi-Fi

channel 13.

Five tests were performed:

 Message exchange on ZigBee channel 12

(0x0C), with random Wi-Fi communications.

 Message exchange on ZigBee channel 12

(0x0C), with Wi-Fi communications set on

channel 1.

 Message exchange on ZigBee channel 26

(0x1A), with random Wi-Fi communications.

 Message exchange on ZigBee channel 26

(0x1A), with Wi-Fi communications set on

channel 13.

 Message exchange on ZigBee channel 26

(0x1A), with another ZigBee communication

active on the same channel.

A number of 100 measurements were performed

for each test. Median values for the message

exchange time can be seen in Table 2 and all values

can be seen by comparison in Figure 5 and Figure 6,

based on used ZigBee channel.

Table 2: Median values obtained in tests (milliseconds).

ZigBee

channel

Normal

Conditions

Wi-Fi

channel 1

active

Wi-Fi

channel 13

active

Another

ZigBee

channel

26 active

38 499 - -

37 - 78 50

Figure 5: Message exchange time (ms), ZigBee channel 12.

Figure 6: Message exchange time (ms), ZigBee channel 26.

The charts presented above leads us to the

following conclusions:

For ZigBee channel 12, that overlaps Wi-Fi

channel 1, it results a distinguishable difference

between the case with no traffic and the scenario with

Wi-Fi traffic on channel 1. Considering a speed

difference between OV and the last FV of the platoon

of 8.5m/s (about 30.6 km/h – with a platoon traveling

at 100 km/h and the OV’s speed of 130 km/h), and a

communication distance of 50m (25m before OV

reaches FV and 25m after it overtakes FV – a

moderate value, considering that, in theory, ZigBee

communications reach 70m in open field => 140m

total distance) results a total communication time of

50/8.5 = 5.88 seconds. Therefore, a total transfer time

of 4.098 seconds (maximum obtained in tests) may

still be proper for the requirement/acknowledge

communication.

For ZigBee channel 26, the situation is even

better, as in our tests the maximum

requirement/acknowledge communication time was

365 milliseconds and, consequently, this represents a

proper OV-FV communication solution.

7 CONCLUSIONS

As the result of the tests performed, we may conclude

that ZigBee seems to be a proper solution for V2V

communications between OV and FV, providing

enough time for data exchange (considering that the

VEHITS 2017 - 3rd International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

234

message’s length is reduced), as the speed difference

between OV and the platoon is not very high.

The tests have been made in all the possible

scenarios: lowest, random and highest Wi-Fi

interference, and the values obtained proved to be

enough to ensure the proper OV-FV communication.

The next steps will refer to modelling in detail the

communication network that will reliably deliver

messages needed to guide the platoon and to support

the right assistance in interaction with the other

vehicles. Laboratory measurements with more

aggressive electromagnetic noise are foreseen. Also

measurements in a real vehicular environment will be

performed to validate the laboratory tests.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work has been funded by University Politehnica

of Bucharest, through the “Excellence Research

Grants” Program, UPB – GEX. Identifier: UPB–

EXCELENȚĂ–2016 Research project title

“VEHINET – Rețea cu conținut informațional

adaptiv la condițiile mediului destinată deplasării

inteligente a vehiculelor”, Contract number

45/26.09.2016 (acronym: VEHINET).

REFERENCES

Alexander, L., Phanomchoeng, G., Rajamani, R., 2013.

Instrumentation of Navistar Truck for Data Collection.

Published by: Minnesota Department of Transportation

Research Services

Amoozadeh, M., Deng, Hui, Chuah, C.N., Zhang, M.,

Ghosal, D., 2015. Platoon Management with

Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control Enabled by

VANET. Vehicular Communications Journal, Volume

2, Issue 2, April 2015, Pages 110–123

Bergenhem, C., Pettersson, H., Coelingh, E., Englund, C.,

Shladover, S., Tsugawa, S., 2012. Overview of

platooning systems. 19th ITS World Congress, October

22-26, Vienna, Austria

Bergenheim, C., Shladover, S., Coelingh, E., 2012.

Overview of platooning systems. Proceedings of the

19th ITS World Congress, October 22-26, Vienna,

Austria

European Commission, 2014. Strategy for reducing Heavy-

Duty Vehicles' fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.

Communication from the Commission to the Council

and the European Parliament, Brussels

Gheorghiu, R.A., Iordache, V., 2016. Analysis of vehicle to

infrastructure (V2I) communication efficiency using the

ZigBee protocol. Proceedings of the third International

Conference on Traffic and Transport Engineering,

November 24-25, Belgrade, Croatia

Institute for Automotive Engineering, 2009. KONVOI

Project. Available at: https://www.ika.rwth-

aachen.de/en/research/projects/driver-assistance-

vehicle-guidance/1636-konvoi.html (Accessed: 14

November 2016)

Janssen, R., Zwijnenberg, H., Blankers, I., de Kruijff, J.,

2015. Truck platooning. Driving the future of

transportation. Report number: TNO 2014 R11893

Kavathekar, P., 2012. Cognitive vehicle platooning in the

era of automated electric transportation. Master of

Science Thesis, Utah State University, Logan, Utah,

USA

Liang, C.J.M., Priyantha, N.B., Liu, J., Terzis, A., 2010.

Surviving wi-fi interference in low power ZigBee

networks. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference

on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys).

ACM.

Lu, X.Y., Shladover, S., 2011. Automated Truck Platoon

Control. PATH Project

Minea, M., 2015. Cooperative V2V Clustering Algorithm

for Improving Road Traffic Safety Information. IEEE

12th International Conference on Advanced

Technologies, Systems and Services in

Telecommunications – TELSIKS 2015, October 14-17,

Nis, Serbia

Minea, M., Badescu, I., Dumitrescu, S., 2011. Efficiency of

Multimodal Real-Time Travel and Traffic Information

Services Employing Mobile Communications. 10th

International Conference on Telecommunications in

Modern Satellite, Cable and Broadcasting Services

IEEE Proceedings Volume 1, pp. 765-769, October 5 –

8, TELSIKS 2011, Nis, Serbia

Nowakowski, C., Shladover, S., Lu, X.Y., Thompson, D.,

Kailas, A., 2015.

Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control

(CACC) for Truck Platooning: Operational Concept

Alternatives. PATH Project

NXP Laboratories, 2014. ZigBee PRO Stack. User Guide.

JN-UG-3048, Revision 2.5

SARTRE-Consortium, 2012. SARTRE Project. Available

at: www.sartre-project.eu (Accessed: 14 November

2016)

Surugiu, M.C., Stancel, I.N., 2015. Fleet Management

Cooperative Systems for Commercial Vehicles. 9th

International Conference Interdisciplinarity in

Engineering, INTER-ENG 2015, 8-9 October 2015,

Tirgu Mures, Romania

Vlastaras, D., Abbas, T., Nilsson, M., Whiton, R., Olbäck,

M., Tufvesson, F., 2014. Impact of a Truck as an

Obstacle on Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications in

Rural and Highway Scenarios. 6th International

Symposium on Wireless Vehicular Communications,

DOI: 10.1109/WIVEC.2014.6953226

ZigBee Alliance, 2016. ZigBee Specifications. Available at:

www.zigbee.org (Accessed: 22 November 2016)

Cooperative Communication Network for Adaptive Truck Platooning

235