On Trade-Off Relationship between Static and Dynamic Lateral Stabilities of Articulated Heavy Vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Articulated heavy vehicles exhibit poor lateral stability, which may lead to unstable motion modes, e.g., trailer-sway and jackknifing, causing severe accidents. Varying relevant vehicle parameters improves the static stability but degrades the dynamic stability. The past studies focused either on the static or dynamic stability alone. However, little attention has been paid to exploring the trade-off between the static and dynamic stabilities. To gain design insights for active safety systems for AHVs, this article studies this trade-off systematically. To this end, a systematic method is proposed to conduct the linear stability and trade-off analysis. To implement and demonstrate the proposed method, a linear three-degrees-of-freedom yaw-plane model is generated to represent a tractor/semi-trailer. A trade-off analysis is conducted considering two tractor rear-axle configurations and three trailer payload arrangements. In each case, simulation is performed in both steady-state and transient testing maneuvers. To validate the linear stability analysis based on the linear yaw-plane model, two nonlinear TruckSim models are introduced, and the corresponding simulation is conducted. Insightful understanding of the trade-off is gained through analyzing the simulation results, and the linear stability analysis will provide valuable guidelines for the design and development of active safety systems for AHVs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".