Research Article

Transportation Research Record

1–14
Ó The Author(s) 2024
Adopting the Performance Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Margin in Horizontal Curve Design DOI: 10.1177/03611981241229090
journals.sagepub.com/home/trr

Troy Jaisohn Kim1 and John B. Ferris1

Abstract
A vehicle negotiating a curve experiences a centripetal force that is partially supplied by the tire–pavement friction. The
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ design handbook, A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets (‘‘Green Book’’), dictates the design of horizontal curve segments according to the side friction (demand)
factor, which is a fraction of the available friction used during a maneuver. However, the Green Book casts the side friction fac-
tor not as a measure of tire–pavement friction but as a measure of lateral acceleration. In this way, the Green Book conflates
these independent concepts (tire–pavement friction versus lateral acceleration). It is shown in this work that keeping these
curve design parameters independent has meaningful benefits. A rigorous mathematical clarification of the differences among
the side friction (demand) factor, lateral acceleration, and coefficient of friction is developed. It is shown that changing the coeffi-
cient of friction affects the side friction factor, but the opposite is not necessarily true. An alternate metric is proposed, the
performance margin ðPMÞ, that has several advantages for assessing friction margins. Currently, horizontal curves are
designed only with a lateral friction reserve. Excluding longitudinal dynamics may not be realistic given the manner in which
drivers react in limit handling maneuvers. The PM accounts for both bidirectional dynamics and road geometry, and highlights
regions where the Green Book’s standards are inconsistent with vehicle performance capabilities. The work concludes by
posing recommendations aimed at implementing the PM in future Green Book editions.

Keywords
infrastructure, roadway design, performance effects of geometric design, curves, horizontal alignment, streets and highways
geometric design, super-elevation

Horizontal curves are commonplace on highways through-
out the world, as they provide the transition between two
straight road segments. They must be designed to accom-
modate the cornering capabilities of various vehicle types
(ranging from agile passenger vehicles to heavy-duty
trucks) and driver behaviors in all weather conditions.
Curves are designed to subtend some portion of a circle so
that physical laws are easily used to set bounds on design
parameters. The American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) stipulates a
specific design methodology in the policy, A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (henceforth
referred to as the ‘‘Green Book’’) (1).
When cornering, there is a centripetal force directed
toward the center of the curve. If the curve is unbanked,
the frictional force between the road surface and the vehi-
cle’s tires must generate the centripetal force. If the curve
is super-elevated, a component of the normal force aids
in supplying the centripetal force. The Green Book exten-
sively employs the side friction factor (alternatively called
the friction demand), fYV , to express the fraction of the
available friction that is being used (2). The side friction
factor, design speed, and super-elevation are vital design
parameters. However, there are major theoretical and
practical improvements that can be made with respect to
the side friction factor.
1. The definition of the side friction factor conflates
two independent concepts: tire–pavement friction
and (lateral) acceleration. Thus, fYV cannot
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Blacksburg, VA
Corresponding Author:
Troy Jaisohn Kim, jais0hn@vt.edu
2 Transportation Research Record 00(0)
adequately convey the potential risk of
undesirable vehicular maneuvers if the operating
condition changes.
2. The Green Book assumes fYV will be reached
before the tire–pavement friction is reached,
which is not always true in practice (especially in
adverse weather conditions).
3. The numeric values of fYV are derived from pas-
senger comfort studies that may not reflect con-
temporary driving behavior, forecasted behaviors
of autonomous vehicles (AVs), or both.
This work discusses each of these issues. The contribu-
tions are as follows:
1. a call for future research in driver behavior;
2. an equivalency between the Green Book and the
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), which
elucidates the difference between the coefficient of
friction and the friction demand;
3. a comparison between the margin of safety used
by the Green Book and the performance margin
(PM), a margin of safety used in vehicle dynamics.
Ultimately, the PM is suggested as a replacement for
AASHTO’s margin of safety for practical horizontal
curve design purposes.
Furthermore, there are practical implementation
issues. When designing horizontal curves, the Green
Book bases the numeric values of the maximum allow-
able side friction factor on potentially outdated passen-
ger comfort studies. In particular, Tan (3) demonstrated
that modern-day motorists are ‘‘willing to accept higher
levels of net lateral acceleration.’’ The current allowable
side friction factors may also need to be revised if AVs
become mainstream, as AVs may be programmed to
drive more aggressively than the average human driver
(4). Basing side friction factors on comfort studies that
are unsubstantiated in the modern day, especially as AV
implementation inches closer, is hazardous. The subjec-
tive nature of passenger comfort therefore makes the fYV
values extremely sensitive. Adopting other comfort stud-
ies can change or eliminate AASHTO’s native safety
margins. In addition, the Green Book assumes that the
vehicle does not accelerate longitudinally through the
curve, which is unlikely in practice. This invites the possi-
bility of a vehicle having an inadequately large lateral
safety margin.
Background
Performance Margin
Consider a vehicle model that responds to the road sur-
face features: bank angle (super-elevation), slope (grade),
and friction; and through driver commands: throttle,
brake, and steering. The road geometry and friction pro-
vide a means by which the vehicle may generate forces
and resulting accelerations; that is, the road surface
determines the available acceleration. Similarly, the vehi-
cle dynamics and driver commands result in the required
acceleration to successfully navigate the path at a given
speed. The performance envelope is defined by the locus
of points for which the required acceleration equals the
available acceleration in the ground plane. The longitudi-
nal and lateral components of the available acceleration
for a certain operating condition are a locus of points
that define the performance envelope given by AX and
AY ; the longitudinal and lateral components of the
required acceleration are given by AX and AY (in units of
gravitational acceleration). The equation defining the
elliptical performance envelope is as follows:
 2  2
AX  tanðus Þ A  tanðub Þ
+ Y 2 =1 ð1Þ
m2X , Eff mY , Eff
where us is the slope (so that tan (us ) is the grade), ub is
the bank angle, and mX , Eff and mY , Eff are the longitudinal
and lateral effective friction coefficients. The effective
friction coefficient is defined as the maximum fraction of
the normal force that can be used to generate tractive
force by the vehicle at the current operating condition
(5). The effective coefficient of friction incorporates tra-
ditional road–tire interactions while simultaneously
accounting for limitations imposed by vehicle dynamics,
terrain roughness, and weather elements (surface con-
taminates, water films, etc.).
The PM is defined as the additional performance
capability that can be drawn on beyond that demanded
by the current operating condition (5). Figure 1 depicts
the relationship among the PM, the available accelera-
tion (solid curved line in the first quadrant), and the
required acceleration (indicated with an ‘‘X’’ inside the
first quadrant).
Mathematically, the PM is expressed as Equation 2 (5):
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PM = min (AX  AX )2 + (AY  AY )2 , 8 AX , AY
ð2Þ
The PM is a function of the required and available
accelerations, which themselves are functions of the vehi-
cle dynamics and driver commands, the road geometry
(cross-slope ub and grade us ), and the effective friction
coefficient. Values of the PM typically range from zero
to m for passenger vehicles. A PM of zero means the
vehicle is at its handling limit and the maximum available
tractive force has been reached. Increasing values of PM
indicate that more traction is available for braking and
Kim and Ferris 3

Table 1. Comfortable Accelerations and Jerks (7)

Normal driver Aggressive driver

m
aXV s2
1.5 3.1
m
aXV s2
22.0 25.1
m
jaYV j s2
3.0 5.6
m
jzXV j s3
0.6 2.0
m
jzYV j s3
0.6 2.0

Figure 1. Performance envelope and performance margin.

Source: Adapted from Kang and Ferris (5).

cornering maneuvers and thereby additional maneuver-

ing capability exists at this operating condition. Because
the PM incorporates traditional limit handling metrics, it
can be used to quantitatively measure a vehicle’s perfor-
mance during a maneuver. It is measured in Gs (units of
gravitational acceleration), which is easy to understand
and allows direct performance comparisons between
vehicles with different system parameters (6).
Occupant’s Preference Metric
The PM imposes a quantitative handling constraint on a
vehicle. Another common metric is the ride quality, a
subjective perception of the occupants’ comfort during a
trip. Defining quantitative ride comfort metrics can be
difficult because human preferences are subjective and
varied. The occupant’s preference metric (OPM) sets pre-
ferable accelerations, decelerations, and jerks for various
driver behavior types ranging from normal drivers to
extremely aggressive drivers. These values are obtained
by amalgamating prior passenger comfort research into
one unified study with clearly defined comfort thresholds
(7–15). The thresholds, defined with respect to both
acceleration and jerk, are given in Table 1.
In Table 1, aXV is the occupant’s longitudinal accelera-
tion discomfort threshold, aXV is the occupant’s longi-
tudinal deceleration discomfort threshold, jaYV j is the
magnitude of the occupant’s lateral acceleration discom-
fort threshold, and jzXV j and jzYV j are the magnitudes of
the maximum allowable longitudinal and lateral jerks.
The OPM is used in this study because it not only con-
firms findings from numerous passenger comfort studies,
but also recognizes and accommodates driver variations,
offering comfort thresholds for varying driver aggressive-
ness levels.
Figure 2. Free-body diagram of a vehicle on a banked curve (1).
Green Book Horizontal Curve Design Methodology
The Green Book thoroughly derives the equations of
motion of a vehicle on a banked, curved road. Other lit-
erature (5, 16, 17) also contain extensive derivations.
Thus, this section only highlights the final steps in a clas-
sical derivation. Consider a vehicle, modeled as a point
mass, negotiating a curve banked at an angle ub at a con-
stant longitudinal speed vXV . The free-body diagram is
illustrated in Figure 2; the variables are as follows.
 R: curve radius (ft).
 ub : bank angle (°).
 e: super-elevation (feet of vertical rise per 100 ft of
horizontal distance). The relationship between e
and ub is e = 100 tan ub (%).
 Ff : side frictional force (lbf).
 W : vehicle weight (lbf), with normal and parallel
components Wn and Wp .
 Fc : centripetal force (lbf), with normal and parallel
components Fcn and Fcp .
Balancing the vertical and horizontal forces yields the
following:
v2XV sin ub + fYV cos ub
= ð3Þ
gR cos ub  fYV sin ub
where fYV is the side friction (demand) factor, the fraction
of the available friction that is being used. The Green
4 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

Book uses super-elevation instead of the bank angle. AYV

fYV = ð9Þ
Applying the relationship e = 100 tan ub and the small- AZV
angle assumption to Equation 3 results in the following:
Similarly:
v2XV 0:01e + fYV
= ð4Þ AXV
gR 1  0:01fYV e f XV = ð10Þ
AZV
Equation 4 is referred to as the basic curve equation in
the Green Book. The term 1  0:01fYV e is nearly unity; The SAE definition of fYV (Equation 9) is identical to
omitting it is common as a conservative measure (1). AASHTO’s definition of the side friction demand given
Doing so and solving for fYV (the side friction factor) in Equation 3.6 in the Green Book. However, Section
yields the following: 3.3.2.2 of the Green Book mislabels fYV as the coefficient
of friction, which is defined as the ‘‘friction force divided
v2XV by the component of the weight perpendicular to the
fYV =  0:01e ð5Þ pavement surface’’ (1). Clearly, the coefficient of friction,
gR
mEff , is defined as the maximum possible longitudinal or
In other words, the side friction factor lateral force divided by the component of the weight per-
 is 
the centripe-
v2X pendicular to the pavement surface. This mislabeling in
tal acceleration acting on the vehicle V
minus the
gR Section 3.3.2.2 unnecessarily introduces an inconsistency
portion of the centripetal acceleration sustained by the between the AASHTO and SAE notation, and motivates
super-elevation ð0:01eÞ (18). Thus, the side friction factor a more precise distinction between the side friction
represents the lateral acceleration at an operating condi- demand (fXV or fYV ) and the effective coefficient of fric-
tion with units of Gs. tion (mX , Eff or mY , Eff ). The definition of the coefficient of
friction with respect to available acceleration (AXV or AYV )
is as follows:
Friction Demand Versus Coefficient of
FYV A
Friction mY , Eff = = YV
FZV AZV
ð11Þ
Transportation engineers and automotive engineers uti- FXV A
lize different terminology despite using the same first mX , Eff = = XV
FZV AZV
principles. In particular, the PM is written using SAE
terminology. Translating between the transportation and because the acceleration is the mass-normalized force.
automotive constituents creates consistency and compre- Combining Equations 9–11 gives the following:
hensibility. In this work, the transportation (AASHTO)
terminology will be ‘‘translated’’ to SAE notation.  
AY V
The left-hand side of Equation 3 represents the SAE fYV = mY , Eff
AY
definition of the centripetal acceleration:  V ð12Þ
A
f XV = AX V mX , Eff
XV
v2X sin ub + fYV cos ub
AC = V = ð6Þ
gR cos ub  fYV sin ub Bonneson (19) recognizes that ‘‘the friction demand
predicted by [Equation 5] is more of a conceptual conve-
Solving for fYV : nience than it is a true measure of tire-pavement fric-
tion,’’ but goes on to say that ‘‘the predicted friction is
AC cos ub  sin ub
fYV = ð7Þ approximately equal to the lateral acceleration (in Gs)
AC sin ub + cos ub experienced by the driver,’’ which is inconsistent with the
Kang and Ferris (5) derived expressions for the accel- derivation resulting in Equation 12. This misuse of fYV in
erations in the lateral and vertical directions in vehicle Section 3.3.2.2 of the Green Book would only be correct
coordinates: if the vehicle were operating on the performance envel-
ope ðAYV = AYV Þ. When operating on the performance
AYV = AC cos ub  sin ub envelope, when the PM is 0G, no margin is left for addi-
ð8Þ tional maneuvering. Again, it should be clear that the
AZV = AC sin ub + cos ub
side friction demand factor is a lateral acceleration; the
These comprise the numerator and denominator of coefficient of friction is a property of the tire–pavement
Equation 7: interface. These are two distinct concepts that should not
Kim and Ferris
Table 2. Cases of fYV and mY, Eff for a Fictitious Scenario
Case 1 ðGsÞ Case 2 ðGsÞ
fYV 0.2
mY, Eff 0.8
be conflated by using fYV to approximate the amount of
tire–pavement friction at an operating condition.
Equation 12 expresses the longitudinal and lateral
friction demands as the directional friction coefficient is
scaled by the directional accelerations at the operating
condition. This bears significant consequences: f (either
fXV or fYV ) is a relative metric that depends on m (either
mX , Eff or mY , Eff ), an absolute metric. Another interpreta-
tion of f versus m is that f is dependent on the driver (by
way of the vehicle’s speed) and the tire–pavement inter-
action, but m is only dependent on the tire–pavement
interaction. Changing the vehicle’s velocity through the
curve results in a change in the lateral acceleration (and
lateral force), resulting in a change in f . However, the
coefficient of friction is unaffected by the change in vehi-
cle speed on dry pavement because it is a property of the
tire–pavement interface. On the other hand, Equation 12
states that changing the value of m will always change
the value of f for a constant operating condition.
Thus, changing m may precipitate a change in driver
behavior (reflected in f ) for safety, but an equivalent
change in f does not necessarily convey the potential
dangers stemming from approaching the performance
envelope. To further clarify the distinction between the
side friction demand factor and the coefficient of fric-
tion, consider a vehicle negotiating a curve with no longi-
tudinal acceleration. Two operating conditions and two
coefficients of friction values are listed in Table 2.
In the first case, the required (lateral) acceleration is
25% of the available acceleration and there is a 0:6G per-
formance margin available to accommodate a worsening
of circumstance. In Case 2, the side friction demand is
unchanged from Case 1, but the lateral coefficient of
friction is decreased such that fYV = mY , Eff . The cause of
the drop in mY , Eff may stem from a combination of dete-
riorated pavement and inclement weather (such as a pre-
valent water film buildup from rainfall or a layer of ice).
In Case 2, the required acceleration is 100% of the avail-
able acceleration and there is no performance margin
available because the vehicle is operating at the perfor-
mance envelope. Because f is a relative metric, only con-
sidering f cannot capture the crucial difference in these
operating conditions. The coefficient of friction must be
provided in tandem with f and then assessed to fully
understand the ramifications of a variable operating
condition.
5
Evaluating Margins of Safety
Horizontal curve design is treated in the Green Book to
address the possibility of skidding and rollovers. The
0.2 Green Book’s standards intend to provide an ample mar-
0.2
gin of safety against undesired vehicle maneuvers, but
exactly how much is unclear (1). Furthermore, some
studies used to inform the Green Book’s standards are
nearly 100 years old and should be re-evaluated to ensure
the standards reflect contemporary vehicles, driving
styles, road construction and maintenance, and traffic
management (16).
Side (Lateral) Friction Margin
Torbic et al. (16) developed super-elevation criteria for
sharp horizontal curves on steep grades. As part of the
study, the effective friction coefficients of numerous
highways were measured to quantify the safety margins
implanted in the Green Book’s policies. A formal defini-
tion of the lateral margin of safety begins with the fric-
tion ellipse equation (20, 21):
!2 !2
FYV FXV
+ ł1 ð13Þ
FYV FXV
The friction ellipse can be written with respect to
acceleration by normalizing each quantity in Equation
13 by the vehicle operating weight, FZV = N = mg, unless
the road plane is extremely angled relative to the ground
plane (significant slope and bank angle). This is equiva-
lent to substituting Equations 9–11 into Equation 13.
Doing so yields the following:
!2 !2
fYV fXV
+ ł1 ð14Þ
mY , Eff mX , Eff
Equation 14 expresses the friction ellipse with respect
to acceleration (in Gs). From the definition of a margin,
the lateral friction margin can be written as follows:
fY , margin = fY , supply  fYV ð15Þ
where fY , supply is equivalent to the available (lateral) accel-
eration at that operating condition. Here, fY , supply is typi-
cally less than mY , Eff because of the presence of a nonzero
longitudinal acceleration induced by braking. It is found
by rearranging Equation 14 for the case fYV = fY , supply :
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
!2
u
u f XV
t
fY , supply = mY , Eff 1  ð16Þ
mX , Eff
Finally, the lateral friction margin is obtained by sub-
stituting Equation 16 into Equation 15:
6 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

2 vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi3
u !2
u f XV
6 7
fY , margin = 4mY , Eff t1  5  fYV ð17Þ
mX , Eff

These quantities are illustrated in Figure 3. The fric-

tion ellipse peaks laterally at mY , Eff and longitudinally at
mX , Eff . An operating condition (fXV , fYV ) is indicated by
the red dot. The lateral friction supply is the available
lateral acceleration at that operating condition. Because
fXV 6¼ 0, fY , supply \mY , Eff . The lateral friction margin is the
vertical line connecting the lateral friction supply to the
operating condition.
Skidding will not occur if fY , margin .0G. The vehicle is
on the verge of skidding if fY , margin = 0G, and the vehicle
may skid because of tire saturation if fY , margin \0G.
Torbic et al. (16) produced the following generalizations:

 large safety margin: fY , margin ø 0:2G;
 moderate safety margin: 0:1G ł fY , margin \0:2G;
 low safety margin: 0G ł fY , margin \0:2G;
 unacceptable safety margin: fY , margin \0G.
It was found that the current AASHTO guidelines
yield a sufficiently large safety margin (16). Other stud-
ies, such as the work by Morrall and Talarico (22) and
Kordani and Molan (23), have reported similar findings.
However, these findings are predicated on the usage of
fYV as the friction coefficient rather than the fraction of
available friction. The contributions developed in this
work are extensions of these previous works in that con-
cepts developed for lateral vehicle dynamics are also con-
sidered for longitudinal vehicle dynamics.
Determining the lateral safety margin is vital in road
design. The Green Book sets maximum allowable fYV val-
ues as a function of design speed. These values are
derived from a series of ball-bank readings representing
passenger comfort from a study conducted in 1940 (24);
clearly the vehicles and driving environment have chan-
ged in the last 80 years. The Green Book cites too few
corroborative studies (19, 25) to guide the official design
practices, given the highly variable and subjective nature
of passenger comfort. The choice of passenger comfort
metrics and thresholds influences the size of various per-
missible operating regions, which in turn pinpoints areas
where the AASHTO guidelines do not adequately cap-
ture the desired safety margins as vehicles approach their
performance limits.
Performance Margin Versus Lateral Friction Margin
Consider the differences between the performance mar-
gin, PM, and lateral friction margin, fYV , that represents
the maximum allowable side friction factor as defined by
Figure 3. Definition of lateral friction supply and lateral friction
margin.
Note: Color online only.
AASHTO. Note that there are inconsistencies in the use
of fYV , discussed in the third section.
On the GG diagram, the lateral friction margin is the
difference between the lateral acceleration for this given
operating condition and the lateral friction supply (por-
tion of the performance envelope parallel to the lateral
motion axis; see Figure 3). However, the lateral friction
margin does not account for a margin in the longitudinal
direction. In light of recent vehicle dynamics advance-
ments such as robust vehicle control algorithms (6),
improved torque vectoring strategies (26, 27), and perci-
pience of vehicle handling near the limits of tire adhesion
(28), there exists a need to simultaneously measure the
lateral and longitudinal friction margins since the longi-
tudinal acceleration while cornering is increasingly likely
to be significant. As noted by Torbic et al. (16), ‘‘if there
is going to be an area of concern based on AASHTO’s
current design policy, it will likely arise primarily from
the interaction of braking and cornering forces.’’
The performance margin is recommended as a replace-
ment for the lateral friction margin for the following
reasons.
1. It incorporates both the lateral and longitudinal
margins of safety. The PM is the minimum differ-
ence between an operating condition (represented
as lateral and longitudinal acceleration and brak-
ing, the required acceleration) and the closest
point of the performance envelope (the locus of
points corresponding to the available accelera-
tion). In this way it accounts for nonzero longitu-
dinal accelerations. This makes the PM more
Kim and Ferris
Figure 4. (a) Performance envelope with the Green Book’s max
side friction factor and (b) accounting for a large lateral safety
margin.
Note: Color online only.
robust than the lateral friction margin. The lateral
friction margin is a subset of the PM whose equiv-
alency only occurs during a pure braking and/or
pure cornering maneuver (which is unlikely in
practice).
2. Grade and super-elevation are accounted for in
the PM because they affect the available accelera-
tion. The Green Book uses acceleration as a sur-
rogate measure of tire–pavement friction at an
operating condition; that is, the lateral friction
margin represents the amount of tire–pavement
friction remaining before the tire becomes fully
saturated. The amount of friction alone cannot
convey the effects of grade and super-elevation.
3. Operating condition changes can be assessed with
the same performance envelope.
4. The PM is rooted in acceleration and has the
intuitive units of Gs.
Furthermore, a vehicle that is accelerating or braking
around a curve can exceed the lateral safety margin even
if the lateral acceleration conforms to the Green Book’s
maximum allowable side friction factor.
Consider Figure 4, depicting the first quadrant of the
GG diagram with coefficients of friction comprising the
semi-major and semi-minor axes. The maximum side fric-
tion factor for a given design speed is superimposed; any
operating condition within the orange region fulfills the
Green Book’s design requirements. However, if the lat-
eral safety margin is to be maintained, then the allowable
side friction factors region cannot extend all the way to
7
Figure 5. Performance envelope with the PM and the Green
Book’s maximum side friction factor, accounting for a large lateral
safety margin.
Note: Color online only.
mX , Eff because there comes a longitudinal acceleration at
which the lateral safety margin is no longer sufficient.
Thus, the allowable side friction factors region truly
resembles the region in Figure 4b. This region illustrates
the existence of a maximum allowable longitudinal accel-
eration, AXGreen Book . Any operating condition such that
AX ł AXGreen Book and AY ł fYV is guaranteed to have a
‘‘large’’ lateral safety margin.
Next consider a performance margin with the same
0.2G safety margin, shown in Figure 5 as a blue elliptical
region. This region represents the operating conditions
satisfying PM ø 0:2. There exists a maximum longitudi-
nal acceleration AXPM that may not necessarily equal
AXGreen Book . Likewise, the lateral acceleration limit is
bounded by AYPM , which may differ from fYV . In general,
the PM offers a different ‘‘safe’’ operating region than
that prescribed by the lateral friction margin. Whether
the PM’s operating range encompasses a larger area than
the lateral friction margin’s range depends on the effec-
tive friction coefficients, as they determine the bounds of
the performance envelope. However, because fYV is inde-
pendent of the effective friction coefficients, the ‘‘safe’’
operating region is a constant size. This is especially pro-
blematic if mX , Eff , mY , Eff , or both, are small.
Numerical Example. Consider a flat horizontal curve with
a design speed of 70 mph. Because there is no bank angle
or super-elevation, the performance envelope forms an
ellipse defined by mX , Eff and mY , Eff as the semi-major
and semi-minor axes, respectively. A past study found
8 Transportation Research Record 00(0)
Figure 6. Performance envelope with the PM, the Green Book’s
maximum side friction factor, and the normal driver occupant’s
preference metric boundaries.
that mX , Eff and mY , Eff are normally distributed (29). The
worst-case effective friction coefficient (in either direc-
tion) is defined as mEff = m   2s, where m  is the mean
friction coefficient and s is the corresponding standard
deviation (16). Thus, the numerical values of
mX , Eff ( = 0:65G) and mY , Eff ( = 0:51G) are sourced from
the data in Himes (29) and represent the worst-case effec-
tive friction coefficients.
Figure 6 is similar to Figure 5 with realistic accelera-
tions (in Gs) sourced from the Green Book and the nor-
mal driver thresholds of the OPM (7) to illustrate three
points: the practicality of using the PM over the lateral
safety margin, the Green Book’s conflation of the side
friction demand and the effective friction coefficient, and
the sensitivity of the current fYV to comfort. Because the
fYV values are rooted in comfort, a prior study (the
OPM) was used in lieu of the studies employed by the
Green Book. Figure 6 contains five sub-regions formed
from the various overlapping regions; the labels N1–N5
describe the span of particular (sub)regions for clarity.
The operating region with an acceptable performance
margin ðPM ø 0:2GÞ is indicated by the smaller ellipse
nested inside the performance envelope and encompasses
Regions N1–N4. To maintain a PM of at least 0:2G,
AX , PM cannot exceed 0:45G and AY , PM cannot exceed
0:31G. The acceptable fYV envelope (spanning Regions
N2, N4, and N5) is sourced directly from the Green
Book. Finally, the triangle spanning Regions N1 and N2
depict the ‘‘normal driver’s’’ comfort thresholds as
defined by the OPM.
Each of the five regions represents operating condi-
tions that satisfy certain metrics.
 Region N1: these operating conditions satisfy the
PM and OPM limits but violate the Green Book’s
fYV limit. A vehicle with no longitudinal accelera-
tion can maintain a lateral acceleration of nearly
three times the Green Book’s fYV limit before
reaching the border of unacceptability (exceeding
the PM or OPM envelope). This suggests an overly
conservative nature of the Green Book’s current
maximum side friction demand limits in the case
when the cornering requirements are small com-
pared to the available friction mY , Eff .
 Region N2: these operating conditions satisfy the
PM, OPM, and the Green Book’s thresholds. This
region may be ideal for ultra-conservative
motorists.
 Region N3: these operating conditions satisfy the
PM limits but violate the OPM’s and the Green
Book’s constraints. Motorists in this region will
be uncomfortable but will retain a sufficient per-
formance margin. This region illustrates that com-
fort (OPM and Green Book) and handling ðPM Þ,
two inherently independent quantities, can be
synthesized to form acceptable operating regimes.
Furthermore, it illustrates that the PM constitutes
a ‘‘hard constraint’’ because violating the PM may
lead to vehicular instability. On the other hand, it
may still be possible to maintain stability while
outside the comfort regimes.
 Region N4: these operating conditions satisfy the
PM and the Green Book’s limits but violate the
OPM constraints. Motorists in this region will be
stable and comfortable according to the Green
Book’s comfort threshold ðfYV Þ, but uncomforta-
ble according to the OPM’s comfort thresholds.
Like Region N3, a motorist operating within this
region will maintain a sufficient performance mar-
gin at the cost of comfort.
 Region N5: these operating conditions satisfy the
Green Book’s limits but violate the PM and OPM
limits. While a motorist will be comfortable
according to the Green Book, they will not be
according to the OPM. This region should be
avoided because these operating conditions lie
outside of the PM envelope, thus compromising
safety.
This numerical example illustrates the interplay
between metrics. In particular, the size of Figure 6’s sub-
regions are determined from each metric’s thresholds.
Figure 7 reflects the changes in the shapes, locations,
and existences of sub-regions when the OPM’s ‘‘aggres-
sive’’ comfort envelope is used rather than the ‘‘normal’’
comfort thresholds.
Some sub-regions of interest include the following.
Kim and Ferris
Figure 7. Performance envelope with the PM, the Green Book’s
maximum side friction factor, and the aggressive driver occupant’s
preference metric boundaries.
 Region A1: these operating conditions satisfy the
OPM limits but are beyond the performance
envelope. Operating within this region may induce
vehicular instability (tire saturation, etc.) but is
comfortable. This sub-region does not exist in
Figure 6.
 Region A3: analogous to Region N1, but now the
PM provides the limiting acceleration rather than
the OPM.
 Region A5: analogous to Region N3, but there is a
considerably smaller pool of operating conditions.
 Region A6: these operating conditions satisfy the
OPM and Green Book limits but violate the PM
limit. Like Region A1, this region does not exist in
Figure 6.
Because the sub-regions are sensitive to the particular
choice of comfort study, it is critical to synthesize a wide
variety of comfort studies to formulate the most accurate
comfort thresholds. Regularly updating the comfort
studies and thresholds may also be important as AVs
become mainstream and driving behaviors may evolve.
Hydroplaning Example. The discussion in the Numerical
Example section illustrates the interplay between passen-
ger comfort and handling. The Green Book assumes that
the passenger comfort thresholds will be breached before
the tire–pavement friction is exceeded. This is not always
true, especially in adverse conditions. Wet pavement
poses a significant threat to vehicle maneuverability. Wet
pavement accounted for 15% of all vehicle crashes in the
9
Figure 8. Various lateral acceleration thresholds.
Note: Color online only. OPM = occupant’s preference metric.
U.S.A. and killed 4050 people from 2007 to 2016 (30).
NCHRP 300 (31) yielded the following equation defining
the effective lateral friction coefficient as a function of
the water film thickness (WFT) and vehicle operating
speed:
mY ðvXV , WFT Þ = mY , dry
 
∂mY
+ ðWFT Þ
∂WFT ð18Þ
 
∂mY
+ ðvXV  25Þ
∂vXV
where vXV is the operating speed (mph), WFT is the water
film thickness (mm), mY , dry is the effective lateral friction
coefficient on dry pavement at 25 mph ðGÞ,
∂my
=  0:036 is the change in mY , dry per unit change in
∂WFT
G ∂m
WFT mm , and ∂vXy =  0:0035 is the change in my, dry
V  
G
per unit change in speed mph .
Because the lateral tire–pavement friction coefficient is
a function of the water film thickness and operating
speed, it is reasonable to assume that a combination of
water buildup, high operating speeds, or both, can reduce
mY such that the tire–pavement friction is reached before
the Green Book’s suggested limits.
Figure 8 illustrates various friction and comfort
thresholds. The Green Book’s side friction demand fac-
tors are represented by the blue asterisks; the ‘‘normal’’
and ‘‘aggressive’’ comfort thresholds (as defined by the
OPM) are given as the black dashed/dotted horizontal
10
lines. The two reddish horizontal lines represent the lat-
eral friction coefficients of wet snow and ice (32). Finally,
the two purple downward-sloping lines represent the lat-
eral friction coefficients for two hydroplaning scenarios.
Assume a vehicle travels at the road’s design speed
and does not accelerate longitudinally.
 If the
 road sur-
face contains wet snow mY , snow = 0:22 G , the Green
Book’s side friction demand factors will be exceeded
before mY , snow is reached. However, the friction margin
(a vertical line between two curves) between these quanti-
ties is slightly greater than 0:1 G at a speed of 70 mph,
which is ‘‘low’’ according to Torbic et al. (16). Both of
these curves are situated below the OPM’s thresholds, so
passengers will remain  comfortable. 
If the road is icy mY , ice = 0:14 G , the Green Book’s
side friction factors exceed mY , ice at speeds below 55 mph,
which is problematic. Above 55 mph, the lateral friction
margin is extremely small. Once again, both curves are
underneath the OPM’s comfort limits. If the vehicle is
being operated at a low speed, this may present a safety
hazard, as occupants will feel comfortable despite exceed-
ing the Green Book’s suggested acceleration.
The light purple downward-sloping line represents the
lateral tire–pavement friction coefficient when the road has
a 2 mm water film buildup after a rainfall event. A 2 mm
WFT was selected based on the work in Torbic et al. (16).
The vertical distance between the mY , wet (WFT = 2 mm)
line and the fYV line is roughly 0:3G for all speeds, which is
a sufficiently large margin. Thus, the Green Book provides
an adequately large margin against skidding failure for a
water film thickness of 2 mm. On the other hand, the dark
purple downward-slanting line represents the lateral
friction coefficient for a WFT of 12.9 mm. Above 55 mph,
mY , wet (WFT = 12:9mm) will be exceeded before the side
friction demand factors are reached. Although a 12.9 mm
WFT seems implausibly large, rainy regions such as
Tampa, Florida, experience this rainfall volume annually
(31, 33).
It is clear that some conditions may cause the tire–
pavement friction coefficient to be less than the side fric-
tion demand factors. Thus, a realignment of the side fric-
tion demand factors to better account for variable road
and/or weather conditions is suggested to ensure the
updated side friction demand factors provide an ample
margin against skidding failure for most conditions.
Updating Numeric Values of the Side
Friction Demand
The numeric values of fYV in the Green Book are based
on a series of passenger comfort studies conducted in the
20th century. Publishing a nationally adopted policy that
promotes the use of values based on ‘‘differences in jud-
gement as to what constitutes incipient instability or
Transportation Research Record 00(0)
uncomfortable centrifugal sensation,’’ and not on some-
thing more concrete, is itself puzzling (34). Given the
subjective nature of passenger comfort, it can be argued
that comfort tolerances evolve over time, and that the
currently used fYV values may not reflect modern comfort
thresholds.
It should first be noted that passenger comfort may
be influenced by the vehicle’s construction and character-
istics. Erol et al. (35) demonstrated that comfort can be
swayed solely by the appearance of a car seat. ISO
Standard 2631 and British Standard 6841 define comfort
as a function of the seat vibration, which may be influ-
enced by a vehicle’s suspension, seat design, or both (36–
38). Present-day vehicles are also constructed differently
compared to the 20th century, when many of the passen-
ger comfort studies used to inform the Green Book’s fYV
values were underway. A 1931 Ford Model A Tudor
sedan (a then-popular vehicle) has a lower center of grav-
ity, weight, and driver position compared to a 1992 Ford
Taurus (one of the top selling vehicles during the 1990s).
According to a field demonstration, passengers in the
1931 Ford felt less comfortable than passengers in the
1992 Ford Taurus (4). It is therefore reasonable to think
that modern vehicle designs account for passenger com-
fort to some degree. Because modern vehicle designs
may be dissipating some of the previously noticeable dis-
comforts, passengers may be more willing to tolerate
greater accelerations.
Driver behavior can also play a role in determining
passenger (dis)comfort. Tan (3) demonstrated that
modern-day motorists are ‘‘willing to accept higher levels
of net lateral acceleration.’’ Drivers may also be more
aggressive today than in previous decades. For example,
the number of registered vehicles on Australia’s road net-
work is increasing, but the infrastructure and alternative
transport options are not growing at the same pace.
Congestion, a textbook trigger of driver aggression, is
therefore increasing, leading to potentially increasingly
aggressive drivers (39). The COVID-19 pandemic may
also have increased driver aggression. Stephens et al. (39)
surveyed 774 drivers, of which 33% self-reported heigh-
tened aggression in the past 5 years, and 47% noted that
other drivers had become more dangerous during and
after lockdown restrictions. Similar findings have been
reported by Lopetrone and Biondi (40) and Meyer (41).
A deeper study into post-lockdown driver behavior is
needed. If drivers consistently exhibit more aggression, it
may indicate a need to update the Green Book to reflect
this behavior.
Similarly, the current allowable side friction factors
may also need to be revised if AVs become mainstream,
as AVs may be programmed to drive more aggressively
than the average human driver (4).
Kim and Ferris
This section is not meant to be an exhaustive litera-
ture review. Rather, the purpose of this section is to
highlight a sample of relatively recent research endeavors
supporting the assertion that currently used fYV values
may not align with modern or future passenger comfort
tolerances. An in-depth literature review is suggested for
future research.
Conclusion
As this work highlights inconsistencies within the Green
Book, this section is dedicated to providing major rec-
ommendations for future revision. There are three main
issues with the Green Book. Firstly, the Green Book esti-
mates the amount of tire–pavement friction at an operat-
ing condition as the lateral acceleration at that operating
condition, which is only true in the limit ðAYV = AYV Þ.
This false equivalency conflates the concepts of the side
friction demand factor (acceleration) and the coefficient
of friction. Although these independent concepts are
linked through friction (the coefficient of friction pro-
vides the limiting case for the acceleration), the equiva-
lency is misleading and terminologically incorrect. The
first major recommendation is to clarify the amount of
tire–pavement friction at an operating condition that is
approximated by the required acceleration and that fYV
represents acceleration, not friction.
Secondly, the numerical values of fYV are contingent
on the choice of comfort studies. Figure 6 includes the
OPM and fYV , which both measure comfort but originate
from different studies. The relative sizes of the five sub-
regions within the figure are sensitive to the selected com-
fort studies; substituting another comfort study would
change the geometry of each sub-region and could possi-
bly reveal additional operating conditions that conform
to one metric but not another. The second major recom-
mendation is to update the numerical values of fYV based
on the following.
1. The proper definition of fYV , as discussed in the
third section.
2. A comprehensive, contemporary literature review
on comfort studies. There are two main questions
to be answered in future research. Firstly: do mod-
ern driving styles still align with the older studies
that informed the Green Book (such as Stonex and
Noble’s Pennsylvania Turnpike experiments
[25])? However, comparing contemporary and
prior studies may be difficult because of the ear-
lier studies’ lack of experimental design details
(3). Of particular interest is to what extent the
COVID-19 pandemic shifted driver aggressive-
ness. Some studies assert that driver aggressive-
ness and speeding violations have increased post-
11
pandemic (40, 41), so future Green Book revisions
could account for this heightened aggressiveness.
Second: do drivers and passengers tolerate comfort
differently? This distinction is critical, as AV occu-
pants are passengers. Although full-scale AV
adoption is years away (42), this foresight is con-
sistent with the Green Book’s gradual policy revi-
sions to accommodate AVs.
3. A coupling of vehicle dynamics and ride comfort.
As illustrated in Figure 6, handling and comfort
are two distinct concepts. A vehicle operating
close to the performance envelope can maintain
traction, but the ride may be uncomfortable (and
vice versa). The current values of fYV cannot con-
vey this distinction.
Finally, the performance margin is a more robust
safety measure compared to the lateral safety margin.
Whereas the lateral safety margin only accounts for a
buffer in one direction, the PM is bidirectional and can
thus allow for more aggressive maneuvering, especially at
small longitudinal accelerations. In addition, the PM
accounts for the road’s grade and roughness in both
directions, but the lateral safety margin cannot. For these
reasons, the third major recommendation is to adopt the
PM in lieu of the lateral safety margin.
In practice, implementing the PM as a replacement for
the side friction factor can lead to two opposing out-
comes. Firstly, Figures 5–7 illustrate that the side friction
factors may be too conservative at low longitudinal accel-
erations. A risk-averse practitioner may not be inclined
to modify the current horizontal curve design process.
However, if changes are to be made, the following is the
recommended flowchart.
1. Determine the effective lateral tire–pavement fric-
tion coefficient, accounting for weather, contami-
nates, and other variables that reduce mY .
2. Determine the allowable PM. There is not a uni-
fying guideline for establishing the allowable PM;
this may be at practitioners’ discretion based on
the geography, terrain, driver aggression, and so
forth.
3. Substitute mY , the allowable PM, and an assumed
value of the vehicles’ longitudinal accelerations
ðAY Þ into Equations 1 and 2 to obtain the maxi-
mum allowable lateral acceleration, AY (referred
to as AYPM in Figures 5–7.
4. If there is a sufficient (what constitutes ‘‘suffi-
cient’’ is at the practitioner’s judgement) margin
between AYPM and current values of fYV , the Green
Book’s values are overly conservative. Thus, the
curve’s design can be manipulated such that vehi-
cles’ lateral accelerations reach AYPM .
12
5. However, if road and/or weather conditions
reduce mY such that there is an insufficient
(‘‘insufficiency’’ is at the practitioner’s judgement)
margin between AYPM and current values of fYV ,
the Green Book’s values inadequately account
for the decreased mY value from the base condi-
tions. The curve’s design can be manipulated to
lower vehicles’ lateral accelerations.
The underlying goal of this process is to ‘‘tune’’ the
highway’s parameters such that vehicles accelerate at or
below AYPM . Suppose an existing horizontal curve is
declared overly conservative (i.e., it falls under Item 4
above). To increase lateral accelerations on this curve,
the curve radius can be decreased or the posted speed
can be increased. Building tighter curves uses fewer
materials, which implies monetary savings. Increasing
the posted speed may facilitate greater throughput.
On the other hand, suppose an existing horizontal
curve is deemed not conservative enough. Increasing the
curve radius or decreasing the posted speed will reduce
the lateral accelerations. In practice, implementing the
PM in lieu of the side friction factor may have monetary
and/or capacity consequences, yielding more conserva-
tive or liberal designs depends on the circumstance.
Three avenues for future research are as follows:
 The data that support the findings of this study are available
analyzing crash data to better assess if highways
facilitate (un)safe travel;
 using more robust vehicle dynamics models;
 special conditions that alter the tire–pavement
friction coefficients (extreme weather, emerging
asphalt technology, etc.).
Nomenclature
Every effort is made to use terminology and nomenclature as
described by SAE J670 (43). Without loss of generalization, the
concepts in this work are developed for a left turn.
ub Cross-slope (or bank angle): the slope between the road
plane and the ground plane projected onto the (YV , ZV ) plane,
where the positive sense is such that the lower side of the road
plane is closer to the center of the turn (a properly banked
road).
AXV Longitudinal acceleration: the scalar value of the compo-
nent of the vehicle’s acceleration in the direction of the XV -axis.
AYV Lateral acceleration: the scalar value of the component of
the vehicle’s acceleration in the direction of the YV -axis.
g Gravitational constant ð9:81 m=s2 Þ.
XV , YV , ZV Vehicle axis system: an axis system centered at the
vehicle center of mass, with XV directed forward in the road
plane, YV directed laterally in the road plane, and ZV normal to
the road plane.
Ground plane: a horizontal plane normal to the gravitational
vector (no slope or cross-slope).
Transportation Research Record 00(0)
Road plane: a plane representing the road surface passing
through the tire contact patches, supporting the tires and pro-
viding the friction necessary to generate tire shear forces.
Author Contributions
The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study
conception and design: T. Kim, J. Ferris; data collection: T.
Kim, J. Ferris; analysis and interpretation of results: T. Kim, J.
Ferris; draft manuscript preparation: T. Kim, J. Ferris. All
authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of
the manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Troy Jaisohn Kim https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2118-0875
Data Accessibility Statement
from the corresponding author, T. Kim, on reasonable request.
References
1. FHWA. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets, 2018. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 2018.
2. Design Quality Assurance Bureau, NYSDOT. Recommen-
dations for AASHTO Super-Elevation Design. Design
Quality Assurance Bureau, NYSDOT, Washington, D.C.,
2003.
3. Tan, C. H. An Investigation of Comfortable Lateral Accel-
eration on Horizontal Curves. The Pennsylvania State Uni-
versity, Pittsburgh, 2005.
4. Seth, D., and M. L. Cummings. Traffic Efficiency and
Safety Impacts of Autonomous Vehicle Aggressiveness.
Simulation, Vol. 19, 2019, p. 20.
5. Kang, Y.-s., and J. B. Ferris. Performance Margin for
Geometric Road Design. SAE International Journal of Pas-
senger Cars-Mechanical Systems, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2018,
pp. 263–272.
6. Kang, Y.-s., T. J. Kim, and J. B. Ferris. Advanced Vehicle
Control with an Optimized Speed Profile Using Road
Characteristics for Road Departure Prevention. IEEE
Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2020,
pp. 649–658.
7. Bae, I., J. Moon, J. Jhung, H. Suk, T. Kim, H. Park, J.
Cha, J. Kim, D. Kim, and S. Kim. Self-Driving Like a
Kim and Ferris
Human Driver Instead of a Robocar: Personalized Com-
fortable Driving Experience for Autonomous Vehicles.
arXiv Preprint arXiv:2001.03908, 2020.
8. Moon, S., and K. Yi. Human Driving Data-Based Design
of a Vehicle Adaptive Cruise Control Algorithm. Vehicle
System Dynamics, Vol. 46, No. 8, 2008, pp. 661–690.
9. Elbanhawi, M., M. Simic, and R. Jazar. In the Passenger
Seat: Investigating Ride Comfort Measures in Autono-
mous Cars. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Maga-
zine, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2015, pp. 4–17.
10. Martin, D., and D. Litwhiler. An Investigation of Accel-
eration and Jerk Profiles of Public Transportation Vehicles.
Proc., American Society of Engineering Education Annual
Conference and Exposition, Pittsburg, PA, 2008, pp. 13–
194.
11. Bosetti, P., M. Da Lio, and A. Saroldi. On the Human
Control of Vehicles: An Experimental Study of Accelera-
tion. European Transport Research Review, Vol. 6, 2014,
pp. 157–170.
12. Bae, I., J. Moon, and S. Kim. Driving Preference Metric-
Aware Control for Self-Driving Vehicles. International
Journal of Intelligent Engineering & Systems, Vol. 12, No.
6, 2019, pp. 157–166.
13. Sivak, M., and B. Schoettle. Motion Sickness in Self-Driv-
ing Vehicles. Technical Report. University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Transportation Research Institute, 2015.
14. Hartwich, F., M. Beggiato, and J. F. Krems. Driving Com-
fort, Enjoyment and Acceptance of Automated Driving–
Effects of Drivers’ Age and Driving Style Familiarity.
Ergonomics, Vol. 61, No. 8, 2018, pp. 1017–1032.
15. Kyriakidis, M., J. C. de Winter, N. Stanton, T. Bellet, B.
van Arem, K. Brookhuis, M. H. Martens, et al. A Human
Factors Perspective on Automated Driving. Theoretical
Issues in Ergonomics Science, Vol. 20, No. 3, 2019,
pp. 223–249.
16. Torbic, D. J., M. K. O’Laughlin, D. W. Harwood, K. M.
Bauer, C. D. Bokenkroger, L. M. Lucas, J. R. Ronchetto,
et al. Superelevation Criteria for Sharp Horizontal Curves
on Steep Grades. Project 15-39. The National Academies
Press, Washington, D.C., 2014.
17. Donnell, E., J. Wood, S. Himes, and D. Torbic. Use of Side
Friction in Horizontal Curve Design: A Margin of Safety
Assessment. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2016. 2588: 61–70.
18. Bonneson, J. Controls for Horizontal Curve Design. Trans-
portation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2001. 1751: 82–89.
19. Bonneson, J. A. Superelevation Distribution Methods and
Transition Designs. Report 439. Transportation Research
Board. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2000.
20. Wong, J. Y. Theory of Ground Vehicles. John Wiley &
Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2008.
21. Brach, R., and M. Brach. The Tire-Force Ellipse (Friction
Ellipse) and Tire Characteristics. SAE Technical Paper
2011-01-0094. SAE International, 2011.
22. Morrall, J., and R. Talarico. Side Friction Demanded and
Margins of Safety on Horizontal Curves. Transportation
13
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 1994. 1435: 145.
23. Kordani, A. A., and A. M. Molan. The Effect of Combined
Horizontal Curve and Longitudinal Grade on Side Friction
Factors. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 19, 2015,
pp. 303–310.
24. Moyer, R., and D. Berry. Marking Highway Curves with
Safe Speed Indications. Highway Research Board Proceed-
ings, Vol. 20, 1941, pp. 399–428.
25. Stonex, K., C. Noble, and R. Moyer. Curve Design and
Tests on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Highway Research
Board Proceedings, Vol. 20. 1941, pp. 429–454.
26. Osborn, R. P., and T. Shim. Independent Control of All-
Wheeldrive Torque Distribution. Vehicle System Dynamics,
Vol. 44, No. 7, 2006, pp. 529–546.
27. Yamakado, M., J. Takahashi, S. Saito, A. Yokoyama, and
M. Abe. Improvement in Vehicle Agility and Stability by
G-Vectoring Control. Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 48,
Supplement 1, 2010, pp. 231–254.
28. Kritayakirana, K., and J. C. Gerdes. Autonomous Vehicle
Control at the Limits of Handling. International Journal of
Vehicle Autonomous Systems, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2012,
pp. 271–296.
29. Himes, S. C. Reliability Based Design of Horizontal Curves
Considering the Effects of Grades. Dissertation. The Penn-
sylvania State University. PennState University Libraries.
30. Federal Highway Administration. How Do Weather
Events Impact Roads? 2023. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/
weather/ q1_roadimpact.htm.
31. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medi-
cine. Guidance to Predict and Mitigate Dynamic Hydroplan-
ing on Roadways. The National Academies Press,
Washington, D.C., 2021.
32. Coutermarsh, B. A., and S. A. Shoop. Tire Slip-Angle
Force Measurements on Winter Surfaces. Journal of Terra-
mechanics, Vol. 46, No. 4, 2009, pp. 157–163.
33. Kang, Y.-s., A. Nazari, L. Chen, S. Taheri, J. B. Ferris, G.
Flintsch, and F. Battaglia. A Probabilistic Approach to
Hydroplaning Potential and Risk. SAE International Jour-
nal of Passenger Cars-Mechanical Systems, Vol. 12, No. 1,
pp. 63–70.
34. Meyer, C. F. Route surveying and design. 5th ed. Harper
& Row Press, New York, 1980.
35. Erol, T., C. Diels, J. Shippen, D. Richards, and C. Johnson.
How Does Car Seat Appearance Influence Perceived Com-
fort. Proc. International Conference on Design and Emotion,
Amsterdam, 27–30 September 2016, pp. 172–180.
36. British Standards Institution (BSI). Measurement and Eva-
luation of Human Exposure to Whole-Body Mechanical
Vibration. BSI, London, 1987.
37. American National Standards Institute, Inc. Mechanical
Vibration and Shock – Evaluation of Human Exposure to
Whole Body Vibration – Part 4: Guidelines for the Evalua-
tion of the Effects of Vibration and Rotational Motion on
Passenger and Crew Comfort in Fixed-Guideway Transport
Systems. Acoustical Society of America, Melville, NY,
2003.
14
38. Fard, M., L. Lo, A. Subic, and R. Jazar. Effects of Seat
Structural Dynamics on Current Ride Comfort Criteria.
Ergonomics, Vol. 57, No. 10, 2014, pp. 1549–1561.
39. Stephens, A. N., S. Trawley, J. Ispanovic, and S. Lowrie.
Self-Reported Changes in Aggressive Driving Within the
Past Five Years, and During COVID-19. PLoS One, Vol.
17, No. 8, 2022, p. e0272422.
40. Lopetrone, E., and F. N. Biondi. On the Effect of COVID-
19 on Drivers’ Behavior: A Survey Study. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 2023. 2677: 742–750.
Transportation Research Record 00(0)
41. Meyer, M. W. COVID Lockdowns, Social Distancing, and
Fatal Car Crashes: More Deaths on Hobbesian Highways?
Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing, Vol. 4,
2020, pp. 238–259.
42. Bansal, P., and K. M. Kockelman. Forecasting Americans’
Long-Term Adoption of Connected and Autonomous
Vehicle Technologies. Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice, Vol. 95, 2017, pp. 49–63.
43. SAE. Vehicle Dynamics Terminology. SAE International,
2008. https://doi.org/10.4271/J670_200801.