Distributing Superelevation to Maximize Highway Design Consistency
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several methods for distributing highway superelevation (e) and side friction (f ) have been presented by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Based on a subjective analysis, AASHTO has recommended the curvilinear distribution method. This paper presents an objective method that distributes superelevation using mathematical optimization. A safety margin is defined as the difference between the maximum limiting speed (corresponding to fmax) and the design speed. The objective function of the model minimizes the overall variation of the safety margin along the highway (aggregate analysis) or the individual variations of the safety margin between adjacent curves (disaggregate analysis). Both objectives maximize highway design consistency. The model includes constraints related to the maximum side friction, minimum and maximum superelevations, centripetal ratio, and safety margin. The e and f distributions can be discrete values with no specific mathematical shape or follow a general quadratic curve with a parameter determined by the optimization model. Application of the model was illustrated using two examples, and the results show that the design consistency obtained by the model is considerably better than that obtained by the AASHTO methods.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it