Effect of Terrain Roughness on the Roll and Yaw Directional Stability of an Articulated Frame Steer Vehicle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">Compared to the vehicles with conventional steering, the articulated frame steer vehicles (ASV) are known to exhibit lower directional and roll stability limits. Furthermore, the tire interactions with relatively rough terrains could adversely affect the directional and roll stability limits of an ASV due to terrain-induced variations in the vertical and lateral tire forces. It may thus be desirable to assess the dynamic safety of ASVs in terms of their directional control and stability limits while operating on different terrains. The effects of terrain roughness on the directional stability limits of an ASV are investigated through simulations of a comprehensive three-dimensional model of the vehicle with and without a rear axle suspension. The model incorporates a torsio-elastic rear axle suspension, a kineto-dynamic model of the frame steering struts and equivalent random profiles of different undeformable terrains together with coherence between the two tracks profiles. The simulations are performed to determine the stability limits of the ASV models while operating on different terrains, namely: a perfectly smooth surface, plowed field, pasture, gravel road, and the MVEE random course. The directional stability limits are defined in terms of the static and dynamic rollover thresholds, rearward amplification ratio, and critical speed corresponding to snaking instability under steady and transient steering inputs. The results suggest that the tire interactions with the rough terrains affect the stability limits of both the unsuspended and suspended vehicles in a highly adverse manner. The suspended vehicle responses, however, show less sensitivity to variations in the road roughness profile.</div></div>
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".