Effect of articulated frame steering on the transient yaw responses of the vehicle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The directional performance characteristics of articulated frame steering vehicles are known to be strongly coupled with the kinematic characteristics and the dynamic characteristics of the steering system. The reported studies on articulated frame steering generally focus on the yaw divergence behaviour or the snaking tendency of the vehicle based on its free-yaw-oscillation response, while neglecting important contributions due to the kinematics and the dynamics of the steering system. This study characterizes both the free-yaw-oscillation response and the transient steering response of an articulated frame steering mining vehicle, considering the kinematics of the steering struts together with the dynamics of the flow volume-regulated steering valve and the actuating system. The validity of the analytical vehicle and steering system model is demonstrated using the measured data acquired for the vehicle. The free-oscillation behaviour of the articulated frame steering is characterized in terms of the yaw-mode natural frequency and the yaw damping ratio. The transient responses of the articulated frame steering are assessed in terms of the steering gain, the rate of articulation and the articulation overshoot. The effects of the variations in the various articulated frame steering parameters on the free response and the transient response are subsequently investigated and discussed so as to seek guidance for the design of the articulated frame steering system. It is shown that a higher bulk modulus of the hydraulic fluid and longer steering-arm lengths yield a higher yaw stiffness of the articulated frame steering system and thereby a higher frequency of the yaw oscillations. Higher leakage flows and higher viscous seal friction cause a higher yaw damping coefficient but decrease the steering gain and the articulation rate of the vehicle.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".