Active camber system for lateral stability improvement of urban vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A suspension system with the capability of cambering has an additional degree of freedom for changing camber angle to increase the maximum lateral tire force. This study investigates the effects of cambering on overall vehicle stability with emphasis on applications to urban vehicles. A full vehicle model with a reliable tire model including camber effects is employed to investigate the vehicle dynamics behavior under cambering. Besides, a linearized vehicle model is used to analytically study the effects of camber lateral forces on vehicle dynamics. Vehicle behavior for different configurations of camber angles in front and rear wheels is studied and compared. Then, an active camber system is suggested for improvement of vehicle lateral stability. Specifically, performances of active front camber, active rear camber, and their combination are investigated. The results show that a proper strategy for camber control can improve both yaw rate and sideslip angle, simultaneously. Finally, the active front camber system is compared with the well-known active front steering. It is shown that, utilizing more friction forces at the limits, active front camber is more effective in improving maneuverability and lateral stability than active front steering.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".