Simulation and Modelling of Safety of Roadways in Reverse Horizontal Curves (RHCs): With Focus on Lateral Friction Coefficient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reverse Horizontal Curves (RHCs) are among the most accident-prone road points, with many annual fatalities and injuries. These fatalities can increase dramatically if the RHCs and longitudinal slopes are combined. The importance of increasing the safety of RHCs, especially in mountainous routes, is doubled due to the possibility of combining RHCs with vertical extensions or combining them with so-called steep slopes. This study used vehicle dynamic modeling to evaluate the lateral friction of various vehicles. Including the E-Class Sedan, E-Class SUV, Truck, and Bus, moving on RHCs combined with a longitudinal slope (downgrade, upgrade, and direct distance). Then, the RHC lateral friction model was presented using the multiple regression model based on the effective parameters, including design speeds, direct distance, and different longitudinal slopes. The results showed that speed, longitudinal slope, and vehicle type had the most impact, and direct distance had the most negligible impact in friction coefficient models. Based on the modeling results, the higher the design’s speed and the shorter the direct distance, the lower the lateral friction coefficient for the Sedan and SUV. Hence, the safety of the vehicles is greater. For trucks, reduced speed, increased direct distance, and reduced slope led to increased safety. In the results, the most critical state was the lateral friction coefficient at a speed of 80 km/h and a direct distance of 116 m for the SUV.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".