In recent decades, the automotive industry has moved towards the development of advanced driver assistance systems to enhance the comfort, safety, and energy saving of road vehicles. The increasing connection and communication between vehicles (V2V) and infrastructure (V2I) enables further opportunities for their optimisation and allows for additional features. Among others, vehicle platooning is the coordinated control of a set of vehicles moving at a short distance, one behind the other, to minimise aerodynamic losses, and it represents a viable solution to reduce the energy consumption of freight transport. To achieve this aim, a new generation of adaptive cruise control is required, namely, cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC). The present work aims to compare two CACC controllers applied to a platoon of heavy-duty electric trucks sharing the same linear spacing policy. A control technique based on reinforcement learning (RL) algorithm, with a deep deterministic policy gradient, and a classic linear quadratic control (LQC) are investigated. The comparative analysis of the two controllers evaluates the ability to track inter-vehicle distance and vehicle speed references during a standard driving cycle, the string stability, and the transient response when an unexpected obstacle occurs. Several performance indices (i.e., acceleration and jerk, battery state of charge, and energy consumption) are introduced as metrics to highlight the differences. By appropriately selecting the reward function of the RL algorithm, the analysed controllers achieve similar goals in terms of platoon dynamics, energy consumption, and string stability.

This work investigates the fuel efficiency potential of Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems, focusing on two optimization-based control approaches for internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. In particular, this study compares two model predictive control (MPC) designs. In the first approach, a strictly quadratic cost is adopted, and fuel consumption is indirectly minimized by adjusting the weights assigned to state tracking and control effort. In the second approach, a fuel consumption map is explicitly included in the MPC cost function, aiming to directly minimize it. Both approaches are compared to a globally optimal benchmark obtained with dynamic programming. Although these methods have been discussed in the literature, no systematic comparison of their relative performance has been conducted, which is the primary contribution of this article. The results demonstrate that, with proper tuning, the simpler quadratic approach can achieve comparable fuel savings to the approach with explicit fuel consumption minimization, with a maximum variation of 0.5%. These results imply that the first alternative is more suitable for online implementation, due to the more favorable characteristics of the associated optimization problem.