Establishing design guidelines for compound horizontal curves on three-dimensional alignments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In current design guides, the minimum radii of compound horizontal curves are based on the design requirements of simple horizontal curves for each arc on flat terrain. Such a design ignores the effects of compound curvature and vertical alignment. This paper uses computer simulation software to establish the minimum radius requirements for compound curves, considering these effects. The actual lateral acceleration experienced by a vehicle negotiating a two-dimensional (2-D) simple curve is recorded as a base scenario to facilitate the analysis of a compound curve on a flat terrain or combined with vertical alignment (three-dimensional (3-D) compound curves). The vertical alignments examined include upgrades, downgrades, crest curves, and sag curves. Mathematical models for minimum radius requirements were developed for flat and 3-D compound curves. Three types of design vehicles were used. The results show that an increase in the minimum radius ranging from 5% to 26% is required to compensate for the effects of both compound curvature and vertical alignment.Key words: highway geometric design, compound horizontal alignments, side friction, vehicle simulation, 3-D alignments.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".