Parameter Identification and Validation for Combined Slip Tire Models Using a Vehicle Measurement System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is imperative to have accurate tire models when trying to control the trajectory of a vehicle. With the emergence of autonomous vehicles, it is more important than ever before to have models that predict how the vehicle will operate in any situation. Many different types of tire models have been developed and validated, including physics-based models such as brush models, black box models, finite element-based models, and empirical models driven by data such as the Magic Formula model. The latter is widely acknowledged to be one of the most accurate tire models available; however, collecting data for this model is not an easy task. Collecting data is often accomplished through rigorous testing in a dedicated facility. This is a long and expensive procedure which generally destroys many tires before a comprehensive data set is acquired. Using a Vehicle Measurement System (VMS), tires can be modeled through on-road data alone. This reduces the time and cost significantly and does not require destroying multiple tires. Previous works regarding this parameter identification method have used only the basic versions of the Magic Formula model-pure longitudinal slip and lateral sideslip-but the Magic Formula model also includes combined slip conditions as well. To accurately mimic the tire forces, especially in safety critical situations for autonomous vehicles, combined slip tire models are necessary. The longitudinal slip, sideslip angle, tire forces, and tire moments are measured and calculated using a VMS during normal and extreme driving scenarios. The data is then used to identify the parameters for the 1989 Pacejka model for both pure slip and combined slip scenarios. These models are then implemented and validated with a full vehicle dynamic model.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".