See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269195466

New Formulas of Side Friction Factor Based on Three-Dimensional Model in

Horizontal Curves for Various Vehicles

Conference Paper · May 2014

DOI: 10.1061/9780784413586.057

CITATIONS READS

7 468

3 authors:

Ali Abdi Kordani Amirarsalan Mehrara Molan

Imam Khomeini International University California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
31 PUBLICATIONS   123 CITATIONS    33 PUBLICATIONS   108 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Saeed Monajjem
Khaje Nasir Toosi University of Technology
14 PUBLICATIONS   42 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Arash Monajjem View project

Road Barrier Condition Assessment in Wind River Indian Reservation, Wyoming View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amirarsalan Mehrara Molan on 23 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 New Formulas of Side Friction Factor Based on Three-Dimensional Model in
Horizontal Curves for Various Vehicles
Ali Abdi Kordani1, Amirarsalan Mehrara Molan2, Saeed Monajjem3
1
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Imam Khomeini International
University, Qazvin, Iran. Tel: 0098-912-6085308; Email: aliabdi001@yahoo.com
2
Researcher, Young Researchers and Elites Club, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran, Tel: 0098-912-6358911; Fax: 0098-21-88578803;
Email: a.mehrara@srbiau.ac.ir
3
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, K. N. Tossi University of
Technology, Tehran, Iran, Tel: 0098-21-88779474 (EXT. 409); Email:
monajjem@kntu.ac.ir

ABSTRACT
This research has been conducted to discover the correlation between side
friction factor (demand) and longitudinal grade which is located in horizontal curves in
three-dimensional simulation model. In this way, we present a series of models in order
to assess these factors based on design speed, longitudinal grade, and vehicle type
(Sedan, SUV, and Truck). The research involves (1) conducting a series of multi-body
simulation tests using CarSim and TruckSim, (2) multiplex regression analysis to acquire
relations between variables, and (3) recommending models for the side friction factor.
Based on the results, side friction factors (demand) are bigger than downgrades for all
vehicle types when cornering. Another important result is the significant differences of
side friction factors for passenger cars in compared to heavy vehicles.
Keywords: Side Friction Factor, Horizontal Curve, Longitudinal Grade, Three-
Dimensional Simulation Modeling
INTRODUCTION
According to literature review and accident reports, horizontal curves are the
most hazardous sections of highways. The collision rates on such curves are between 1.5
and 4 times greater than on similar straight sections (Aram 2010). The threat of accident
posed by horizontal curves is even greater when they are located on steep longitudinal
grades. The requirement for a combination of horizontal and vertical alignments is quite
common in highway design, for example, in roads through mountainous terrain and on
highway interchange ramps (Mannering et al. 2009).
 Unfortunately, none of the official guidelines on highway construction include
the effect of grade in the geometric design of horizontal curves. For instance, the Green
Book (AASHTO 2011) considers a point-mass model for the basic curve equation.
However, the point-mass model is not adequate for obtaining comprehensive results for
the side friction factor, and an alternative model must be used. For example, the point-
mass model cannot deal with three-dimensional horizontal curves, nor can it take
account of the distribution of forces acting on tires when determining side friction
factors, although the side friction can vary significantly between tires during cornering
(MacAdam 1985).
The main objective of the research is to use simulation software to find the
correlation between side friction factors and longitudinal grades for various vehicles.

METHODOLOGY
The simulations are conducted using CarSim and TruckSim. These multi-body
simulation software packages were developed by the Mechanical Simulation Corporation
to predict vehicle performance and analyze the dynamic behavior of vehicles in response
to a given road geometry with high accuracy.
Two different kinds of passenger cars and a typical truck were used in the
simulation: an E-class sedan, an E-class SUV, and a two-axle truck (loaded).The sprung
mass of the truck was taken as 4457 kg, and it carried a payload of mass 6789 kg.
Design speeds of 40, 70, 100, and 130 km/h for the passenger cars and 40, 70,
and 100km/h for the truck were considered. An 8% maximum rate of superelevation was
selected, and the minimum radii of horizontal curves were calculated from the AASHTO
basic formula as 41, 168, 394, and 832 m for the respective design speeds. A tangent-to-
curve transition was considered, with lengths of superelevation runoff Lr= 41, 52, 65,
and 82 m and lengths of tangent runoff Lt=10.25, 13, 16.25, and 20.5 m for the
respective design speeds. Finally, in order to take account of the vertical alignment,
grades of −9%, −6%, −3%, 0%, +3%, +6%, and +9% for the passenger cars and −6%,
−3%, 0%, +3%, and +6% for the truck were included in the simulation process. The
speeds of heavy vehicles decrease significantly on sharp horizontal curves on upgrades,
resulting in undesirable speed fluctuations on steep upgrades and downgrades, which
was why the ±9% grades were ignored in the truck simulations.
Finally, following the simulations, a multiplex regression analysis was performed
on the simulation outcomes to make them clearer and more useful for highway design. A
series of side friction models were obtained based on vehicle speed, longitudinal grade,
and type of vehicle. SPSS statistics software (version 19) was used in order to analyze
the results.
SIMULATION OUTPUTS
Side Friction Factors on Upgrades
To calculate the side friction factors of vehicles on different percent of positive
grades, tire forces on passenger cars achieved by simulation are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Forces acting on the tires during cornering on upgrades.

Speed Radius Grade Lateral Forces on Tires Longitudinal Forces on Tires Vertical Forces on Tires
(km/h) (m) (%) (N) (N) (N)
L1 L2 R1 R2 L1 L2 R1 R2 L1 L2 R1 R2

E-Class Sedan

40 41 0 846.78 1795.6 1444.4 65.964 11.443 3.5682 53.924 71.598 5638.5 5067.0 4183.9 3443.5
40 41 3 872.08 1719.0 1420.0 141.23 121.77 134.62 186.61 202.25 5561.0 5146.7 4153.2 3461.6
40 41 6 896.64 1634.1 1387.2 220.34 254.86 265.81 319.10 332.86 5478.7 5221.1 4118.5 3478.7
40 41 9 922.77 1532.0 1348.3 313.28 386.52 395.92 450.05 462.27 5393.1 5288.2 4080.4 3494.1

70 168 0 940.48 1433.0 538.01 248.77 23.533 29.132 54.966 61.212 5326.6 4759.1 4366.6 3726.8
70 168 3 965.43 1323.4 509.49 140.84 158.41 161.68 189.41 192.55 5269.0 4813.7 4317.3 3771.7
70 168 6 994.72 1222.0 473.49 43.003 291.54 293.49 321.87 320.79 5205.4 4863.6 4268.0 3812.8
70 168 9 1027.4 1121.4 431.94 51.593 424.20 423.50 453.55 450.78 5138.7 4909.2 4212.2 3850.8

100 394 0 936.91 1274.0 249.54 319.50 64.263 68.979 85.851 90.682 5179.4 4655.9 4401.3 3827.8
100 394 3 965.71 1162.0 217.66 209.12 199.59 202.52 220.20 222.62 5123.7 4705.0 4347.8 3875.4
100 394 6 992.84 1050.2 184.27 100.72 335.31 335.84 354.14 353.26 5063.0 4749.8 4290.4 3920.4
100 394 9 1015.8 945.58 152.94 0.8143 469.68 469.13 486.49 484.33 4997.5 4792.0 4229.0 3963.9

130 832 0 819.77 1054.3 26.137 414.57 116.18 121.37 128.80 135.0 4982.0 4515.2 4455.2 3959.7
130 832 3 835.71 939.93 44.730 301.10 251.18 255.36 261.97 267.72 4928.1 4566.4 4400.5 4011.3
130 832 6 851.71 821.40 63.966 183.84 387.16 388.97 396.22 398.60 4868.9 4612.7 4342.7 4059.3
130 832 9 866.81 709.34 86.790 74.618 522.46 521.50 529.95 528.41 4807.0 4652.0 4285.0 4101.1

E-Class SUV

40 41 0 1136.5 1041.4 1361.6 691.05 7.5189 15.170 53.826 78.656 6220.3 4950.8 4521.0 2926.6
40 41 3 1142.1 1050.0 1352.2 681.57 130.08 147.58 190.42 210.85 6112.8 5059.2 4497.4 2939.7
40 41 6 1147.2 1059.7 1338.3 667.65 266.80 279.14 326.06 341.94 6000.0 5162.4 4470.2 2951.6
40 41 9 1151.6 1069.0 1320.1 650.20 403.76 410.85 461.86 472.87 5881.6 5258.7 4439.2 2962.5

70 168 0 977.06 626.32 623.48 474.51 33.730 40.811 63.113 71.350 5845.5 4576.5 4740.8 3284.1
70 168 3 984.72 628.24 611.88 470.16 173.32 174.26 202.03 204.04 5764.3 4653.8 4694.4 3330.2
70 168 6 993.16 630.56 596.25 463.83 310.30 305.39 338.20 334.21 5676.9 4725.5 4644.8 3373.5
70 168 9 1001.8 631.84 577.47 456.93 448.15 437.61 475.29 465.45 5585.0 4793.0 4590.0 3414.6

100 394 0 899.86 494.30 382.56 392.09 86.954 90.917 107.11 111.88 5663.8 4452.2 4781.3 3407.0
100 394 3 908.73 495.74 369.86 387.88 227.90 224.59 247.33 244.61 5584.7 4520.8 4726.7 3456.6
100 394 6 916.91 497.72 355.0 381.65 367.84 357.52 386.04 376.14 5500.1 4585.7 4668.3 3504.0
100 394 9 921.95 497.23 340.71 377.14 507.17 490.18 523.84 507.21 5411.0 4648.9 4606.1 3550.6

130 832 0 733.66 322.90 121.72 270.98 157.27 157.70 169.74 171.25 5421.0 4285.7 4842.2 3571.2
130 832 3 739.45 324.56 113.34 268.81 298.65 291.31 309.16 303.72 5346.3 4355.8 4787.5 3624.7
130 832 6 739.70 324.10 108.38 267.34 439.65 424.07 448.36 435.09 5266.3 4421.5 4730.9 3675.2
130 832 9 737.04 323.84 104.41 264.51 579.52 555.87 586.71 565.33 5181.5 4482.5 4667.0 3722.3

Note: L1= Front tire of the left side, L2 = Rear tire of the left side, R1= Front tire of the right side, R2 =
Rear tire of the right side

Based on the Tables 1 and Kontaratos et al. (1994) research, as the vehicles move
upgrade, greater longitudinal forces act on it, thus greater longitudinal friction factors are
expected to appear. Note that all of the simulated curves turns to the right. In this
situation for all of tests, the most vertical force acts on the left tire of the front axle and
the lowest vertical force acts on the right tire of the rear axle. Generally, the left side of
the vehicles experience more lateral and vertical forces than the right side. On a flat
grade, 81% of lateral forces act on the left side of the Sedan with design speed of 130
km/h. This distribution of lateral forces even could be more noticeable on a +9% grade
for the Sedan with the speed of 130 km/h, while 90% of lateral forces is on the left side.
Therefore, because of the low lateral forces on the right side (about 10%), side friction
factor decreases for tires in the right side. Also, vertical forces are transferring from the
front axle to the rear axle are as the grade increases. In this situation the right tire of front
axle is the most critical tire for skidding.
The side friction factor is the ratio of lateral force to vertical force on a tire
(MacAdam 1985). Thus, by dividing the lateral forces by the vertical forces, the side
friction factors can be calculated; these and are shown in Table 2.
The side friction factor is also called the side friction demand and represents the
vehicle‘s need for side friction (AASHTO 2011). According to Table 1, the side friction
factors of the sedan decrease as the grade increases. The side friction factors of the SUV
differ only very slightly between tests. However, the side friction factors of the truck are
higher on upgrades than on a flat grade. Based on Bonneson‘s (2000) research, the
greater side friction results from the tractive forces on steep upgrades. Since the greater
side friction is produced only for the truck, it seems that the tractive forces do not have
an effect on cars.

Table 2. Side friction factors of vehicles cornering on upgrades.

Radius (m) and Design speed (km/h)
Grade (%)
R = 41 and V = 40 R = 168 and V = 70 R = 394 and V = 100 R = 832 and V = 130

Sedan
0 0.2266 0.1738 0.1538 0.1292
3 0.2265 0.1617 0.1415 0.1184
6 0.2261 0.1505 0.1291 0.1074
9 0.2254 0.1453 0.1176 0.0973

SUV
0 0.2272 0.1464 0.1184 0.0799
3 0.2270 0.1461 0.1182 0.0798
6 0.2266 0.1456 0.1176 0.0795
9 0.2260 0.1451 0.1173 0.0792

Truck
0 0.2428 0.1487 0.1167 -
3 0.2440 0.1517 0.1219 -
6 0.2536 0.1523 0.1226 -
Side Friction Factors on Downgrades
Tire forces resulted by CarSim are shown by Table 3. According to the Table 3,
left side of the Sedan with constant speed of 130 km/h on a -9% grade experience the
75% of all acting lateral forces. Therefore, in compare with flat and +9% grades it
undergoes less lateral forces.

Table 3. Forces acting on the tires during cornering on downgrades.

Speed Radius Grade Lateral Forces on Tires Longitudinal Forces on Tires Vertical Forces on Tires
(km/h) (m) (%) (N) (N) (N)
L1 L2 R1 R2 L1 L2 R1 R2 L1 L2 R1 R2

E-Class Sedan

40 41 0 846.78 1795.6 1444.4 65.964 11.443 3.5682 53.924 71.598 5638.5 5067.0 4183.9 3443.5
40 41 -3 827.29 1866.6 1467.3 71.091 145.01 127.56 79.193 59.329 5711.4 4982.3 4210.1 3422.8
40 41 -6 801.44 1925.6 1480.1 78.906 280.75 260.70 214.68 192.55 5775.5 4889.0 4235.4 3401.7
40 41 -9 746.19 1938.0 1455.6 161.58 436.82 384.67 371.40 317.90 5818.0 4760.6 4274.6 3394.0

70 168 0 940.48 1433.0 538.0 248.77 23.533 29.132 54.966 61.212 5326.6 4759.1 4366.6 3726.8
70 168 -3 917.66 1525.8 561.12 341.57 110.86 103.14 79.137 70.651 5378.8 4699.1 4410.4 3679.1
70 168 -6 911.32 1582.6 572.15 395.13 246.07 216.39 213.87 183.50 5427.1 4640.2 4444.5 3630.2
70 168 -9 913.26 1622.0 574.10 432.06 378.31 315.23 345.53 282.01 5468.4 4580.3 4470.7 3581.4

100 394 0 936.91 1274.0 249.54 319.50 64.263 68.979 85.851 90.682 5179.4 4655.9 4401.3 3827.8
100 394 -3 913.37 1370.5 273.67 415.57 70.976 63.936 49.015 41.619 5230.4 4602.6 4450.7 3777.2
100 394 -6 906.75 1441.1 283.91 485.10 206.93 181.85 184.38 159.0 5275.0 4548.8 4492.0 3725.3
100 394 -9 904.31 1488.0 284.31 530.80 339.88 282.06 316.26 258.65 5312.4 4495.1 4523.5 3674.4

130 832 0 819.77 1054.3 26.137 414.57 116.18 121.37 128.80 135.00 4982.0 4515.2 4455.2 3959.7
130 832 -3 801.14 1154.3 6.970 514.73 18.980 12.740 4.8048 1.5442 5030.3 4462.0 4506.0 3906.7
130 832 -6 781.80 1237.0 12.572 598.27 155.27 141.80 138.96 126.74 5074.2 4403.3 4548.6 3849.1
130 832 -9 775.62 1287.7 20.280 648.54 288.36 243.28 270.38 227.75 5108.9 4348.6 4581.0 3794.7

E-Class SUV

40 41 0 1136.5 1041.4 1361.6 691.05 7.5189 15.170 53.826 78.656 6220.3 4950.8 4521.0 2926.6
40 41 -3 1129.4 1033.8 1368.1 696.24 145.65 117.52 83.369 54.018 6322.1 4837.7 4540.4 2912.0
40 41 -6 1101.1 1010.6 1356.7 690.47 280.21 246.26 217.56 183.38 6401.3 4707.9 4564.3 2910.2
40 41 -9 1046.5 962.15 1320.0 665.15 465.86 383.73 403.56 322.18 6469.2 4529.7 4623.4 2895.0

70 168 0 977.06 626.32 623.48 474.51 33.730 40.811 63.113 71.350 5845.5 4576.5 4740.8 3284.1
70 168 -3 971.02 625.90 629.86 475.31 105.55 91.696 75.20 60.288 5919.9 4494.9 4783.3 3235.9
70 168 -6 973.83 630.04 631.42 474.26 240.28 201.60 209.43 169.53 5981.7 4422.6 4818.7 3184.6
70 168 -9 978.77 633.78 627.23 471.04 369.81 296.59 338.37 263.86 6031.0 4352.1 4848.6 3133.6

100 394 0 899.86 494.30 382.56 392.09 86.954 90.917 107.11 111.88 5663.8 4452.2 4781.3 3407.0
100 394 -3 893.03 494.10 390.38 393.61 54.342 42.527 33.510 20.642 5737.3 4379.6 4832.0 3354.8
100 394 -6 892.41 496.66 391.82 392.30 191.69 159.72 170.01 136.69 5798.5 4310.8 4877.0 3300.0
100 394 -9 896.45 500.85 387.82 388.90 322.11 255.67 299.74 231.72 5844.4 4248.7 4914.1 3245.4

130 832 0 733.66 322.90 121.72 270.98 157.27 157.70 169.74 171.25 5421.0 4285.7 4842.2 3571.2
130 832 -3 722.90 321.03 133.51 272.94 15.724 24.067 29.479 38.531 5490.5 4211.7 4892.8 3514.5
130 832 -6 719.06 320.15 135.15 271.67 127.55 108.86 113.01 93.589 5554.7 4133.5 4940.3 3454.4
130 832 -9 722.59 322.98 133.43 270.62 258.23 206.48 242.36 190.37 5597.0 4070.9 4977.7 3394.7

Note: L1= Front tire of the left side, L2 = Rear tire of the left side, R1= Front tire of the right side, R2 =
Rear tire of the right side

As in the previous section, the side friction factors were calculated by dividing
the lateral forces by the vertical forces. Table 4 shows the side friction factors on
downgrades. It is clear from the table that the side friction factors in all of the tests
increase as the grade decreases, especially for the sedan. The side friction factor of the
sedan is between 0.129 and 0.153. According to a study by Psarianos et al. (1998), the
available side friction for a passenger car at a speed of 120 km/h is 0.27 (and is probably
about 0.26 at 130 km/h), so the margin of safety is still positive and consequently the
situation is safe—but not by a very great margin. As with the upgrade results, there is
little variation in the side friction factors of the SUV.

Table 4. Side friction factors of vehicles cornering on downgrades.

Radius (m) and Design speed (km/h)
Grade (%)
R = 41 and V = 40 R = 168 and V = 70 R = 394 and V = 100 R = 832 and V = 130

Sedan
0 0.2265 0.1738 0.1538 0.1292
-3 0.2274 0.1841 0.1646 0.1383
-6 0.2341 0.1907 0.1726 0.1471
-9 0.2357 0.1956 0.1782 0.1532

SUV
0 0.2272 0.1464 0.1184 0.0799
-3 0.2271 0.1465 0.1186 0.0800
-6 0.2237 0.1472 0.1188 0.0801
-9 0.2156 0.1476 0.1191 0.0803

Truck
0 0.2426 0.1486 0.1167 -
-3 0.2756 0.1631 0.1168 -
-6 0.2796 0.1637 0.1261 -

DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Tables 5 shows the coefficients and significances of variables resulting from the
statistical analysis. On the basis of these, the following models of the side friction factor
f have been obtained. In all of the following equations, v and g are the vehicle speed
(km/h) and the grade. It was found from the analysis that ln v has a better relationship
with the side friction factor, and is therefore used instead of v.

Side Friction Factor Model for an E-Class Sedan

Equation (1) shows the side friction factor model for the sedan:

𝑓 = 3.769 − 3.108 ln 𝑣 0.1 − 0.003𝑔 (1)

According to the statistical analysis, there is a strong relationship between side
friction factor and longitudinal grade for the E-class sedan. Downgrades could even
increase the side friction factor by as much as 21%.
 Table 5. Results of statistics analysis

Variable B t Sig

Sedan
Constant 3.769 24.710 0.000
(Ln v)0.1 -3.108 -9.682 0.000
G -0.003 -23.599 0.000
R2 = 0.963
SUV
Constant 0.663 57.669 0.000
(Ln v) -0.120 -45.545 0.000
g3 7.479E-7 0.262 0.796
R2 = 0.988
Truck
Constatnt 0.827 21.097 0.000
(Ln v) -0.155 -16.597 0.000
g -0.001 -1.489 0.162
R2 = 0.959

Side Friction Factor Model for an E-Class SUV

The analytical results for the SUV were found to differ from those for the sedan.
Equations (2) present the side friction models for the SUV:

𝑓 = 0.663 − 0.12 ln 𝑣 + 7.479𝐸 − 7𝑔3 (2)

It is clear that grades do not have a large effect on the side friction factor of the
SUV. The significance of grade was calculated as 0.79 by the software for Eq. (2),
respectively, and thus the grade variable could even be removed from the equations.

Side Friction Factor Model for a Two-axle Conventional Truck

A similar analysis was conducted for the truck, and the results are presented in
Eq. (3):

𝑓 = 0.827 − 0.155 ln 𝑣 − 0.001𝑔 (3)

According to the above side friction equations, the skidding threat for the sedan
is greater than for the SUV and the two-axle truck. It should be mentioned, however, that
the resistance of the truck to skidding was also estimated to be weaker than those of the
passenger cars at lower speeds (40 km/h). Thus, it is recommended that relevant vehicle
types should be taken into account in highway design. For example, because of the high
percentage of passenger cars in urban areas, the use of Eqs. (1) and (2) are more
appropriate to design safer highways in these areas, while it would be better to use Eq.
(3) for commercial roads.
Comparison of Simulation Results to Previous Studies
A comparison between the speed-distance outputs of three studies for a
horizontal curve on +8% longitudinal grade has been conducted in the validation section
of Mavromatis and Psarianos (2003) research. In order to validate our simulation results,
we conducted a similar test by TruckSim and compared the outcomes with those of three
various research studies. Figure 1 shows a comparison between the results of the
TruckSim software and the Mavromatis and Psarianos (2003) research.

90
FHWA
80 1989

70
Gillespie
1986
V (km/h)

60
AASHTO
50 2011

40 TruckSim

30

20
0 300 600 900 1200

Distance (m)

Figure 1. Comparison between the speed-distance charts of 19ton two-axle truck

loaded on a horizontal curve with the radius of 1000 meters and the grade of +8%
Summary
Generally, the side friction factor increases as the downgrade increases; it means
more demand side friction produces on steep downgrades in compare with flat grade and
mild downgrades. Thus margin of safety decreases on steep downgrades. Also,
Bonneson (2000) mentioned that the AASHTO generally underestimates side friction
demand for most of horizontal curves, particularly those that have steep grades. Figure 2
shows the simulation results of the side friction factor in compare with the AASHTO
recommendation side friction factors.
 0.27

0.23
Side friction factor

Sedan (+6%grade)
0.19 SUV (+6%grade)
Truck (+6%grade)
0.15 Sedan (-6%grade)
SUV (-6%grade)
0.11 Truck (-6%grade)
AASHTO 2011
0.07
40 70 100 130
Design speed (km/h)

Figure 2. Side friction factors of the vehicles cornering on ±6% grades by CarSim
and TruckSim in compare with the AASHTO 2011
According to the Figure 2, it would be better for highway design guidelines to
adopt different side friction factors based on vehicle type and level of longitudinal grade.

CONCLUSIONS
According to the simulation results, greater side friction demand is produced on
steep downgrades in comparison with a flat grade and mild downgrades. Thus, the
margin of safety is reduced on steep downgrades. Bonneson (2000) has pointed out that
AASHTO generally underestimates side friction demand for most horizontal curves, and
this has been confirmed by the present study.
Distribution of forces is quite different on each tire and axle of vehicle. For
instance, on a flat grade, 81% of the lateral forces acts on the left side of the Sedan,
while it is 75% and 90% on -9% and +9% longitudinal grades, respectively. Also, when
a vehicle turns to the right, the most vertical forces act on the left tire of the front axle
and the lowest vertical forces act on the right tire of the rear axle.
According to the statistical analysis and the models of side friction factors given
by Eqs.(1)–(3), it would be better for highway design guidelines to adopt different side
friction factors based on vehicle type and level of longitudinal grade. The results and
models from this study can be used in the geometric design phase by highway engineers
to design safer roads.
Despite the high capabilities of CarSim and TruckSim, a field observation study
is essential in order to provide a comparison with the results of the simulations and to
validate these. In addition, the inclusion in the simulations of further types of vehicles,
especially articulated vehicles, is strongly recommended as a topic of future work.
 REFERENCES
AASHTO. (2011). A policy on geometric design of highways and streets,
Washington, D.C. USA.
Aram, A. (2010). ‗‗Effective safety factors on horizontal curves of two-lane highways.‘‘
J. Applied Sciences, 10 (22), 2814–2822.
Bonneson, J.A. (2000). ―Superelevation distribution methods and transition designs.‖
NCHRP Rep. No. 439, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. USA.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (1989). ‗‗New methods for determining
requirements for truck-climbing lanes.‘‘ Publication No. FHWA-IP-89-022, Office
of Implementation, Washington, D.C.

Gillespie, T. D. (1992). ‗‗Fundamentals of vehicle dynamics.‘‘ Society of Automotive

Engineers.
Gillespie, T. D. (1986). ‗‗Methods for predicting truck speed loss on grades.‘‘ Final
Rep., Univ. of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Ann Arbor, Mich., for the
Federal Highway Administration.

Kontaratos, M., Psarianos, B., and Yiotis, A. (1994). ‗‗Minimum horizontal curve radius
as a function of grade incurred by vehicle motion in driving mode.‘‘ J. Transp. Res.
Rec., 1445, 86-93.

MacAdam, C. C., Fancher, P. S., and Segel, L. (1985). ‗‗Side friction for superelevation
on horizontal curves.‘‘ Transportation Research Institute, Univ. of Michigan, Rep.
No. UMTRI-72895, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Mannering, F.L., Washburn, S.S., and Kilareski, W.P. (2009). ‗‗Principles of highway
engineering and traffic analysis.‘‘ 4th Edition. John Wiley & Sons.
Mavromatis, S., and Psarianos, B. (2003). ‗‗Analytical model to determine the influence
of horizontal alignment of two-axle heavy vehicles on upgrades.‘‘ J. Transp. Eng.,
129(6), 583-589.
Psarianos, B. Kontaratos, M., and Katsios, D. (1998). ‗‗Influence of Vehicle parameters
on Horizontal Curve Design of Rural Highways.‘‘ Transportation Research Circular
E-C003, 22:1-22:10.
Varunjikar, T. (2011). ―Design of horizontal curves with downgrades using low-order
vehicle dynamics models.‖ Master of science thesis, The Pennsylvania state
university, Pennsylvania, USA.

View publication stats