Design radius requirements for simple horizontal curves on three-dimensional alignments
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
Current North American design guides have established mathematical relationships to calculate the minimum radius required for horizontal curves as a function of design speed, maximum superelevation, and maximum side friction. For three-dimensional (3-D) alignments, the design guides consider the alignment as two separate horizontal and vertical alignments and consequently ignore the effect of vertical alignment. This paper evaluates the effect of vertical alignment on minimum radius requirements using computer simulation, with a focus on trucks. For 3-D alignments, the results showed that existing design guidelines for minimum radius need to be increased by as much as 20% to achieve the same comfort limit on flat horizontal curves. It is interesting to note that in some cases truck rollover occurred before the side-friction comfort level is reached. This indicates the need for developing a different design control for trucks on 3-D alignments than the comfort criterion used for passenger cars on flat horizontal curves. Based on the simulation results, mathematical models for design radius requirements for passenger cars and trucks were developed.Key words: geometric design, horizontal curve radius, three-dimensional alignments, vehicle stability.
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 | 0.000 | 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