A Data- and Model-Integrated Driven Method for Recommending the Maximum Safe Braking Deceleration Rates for Trucks on Horizontal Curves
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors, an impressive study. At the same time, I have the following recommendations:
- the manuscript contains the term "on horizontal curves". Are there "on vertical curves"?
- if there is "first", then in theory there should be "second", "third"...
- on Fig. 1 is the "G" force. Where is this force accounted for in the model?
- equation (1-55) is the author's development? Are they being published for the first time? If not, then it is necessary to cite literary sources
- for example, "μ_(ymax,supply) in my opinion many subscripts. I suggest reorganizing the indexes
- to state “The results show that:…” is required in “4. Results" provide tables with numerical values of dynamics coefficients, stability coefficient, force, lateral third coefficient, etc.
- "Appendix 1 Table 1 Basic terms and their definitions" will be in the text of the manuscript? If there is no "Appendix 2", just "Appendix" is enough
Author Response
Comments:
Dear Authors, an impressive study. At the same time, I have the following recommendations:
- the manuscript contains the term "on horizontal curves". Are there "on vertical curves"?
- if there is "first", then in theory there should be "second", "third"...
- on Fig. 1 is the "G" force. Where is this force accounted for in the model?
- equation (1-55) is the author's development? Are they being published for the first time? If not, then it is necessary to cite literary sources
- for example, "μ_(ymax,supply) in my opinion many subscripts. I suggest reorganizing the indexes
- to state “The results show that:…” is required in “4. Results" provide tables with numerical values of dynamics coefficients, stability coefficient, force, lateral third coefficient, etc.
- "Appendix 1 Table 1 Basic terms and their definitions" will be in the text of the manuscript? If there is no "Appendix 2", just "Appendix" is enough
Responses:
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your approval of my research. Your support is a tremendous motivation for our team. We appreciate your insightful questions. Thank you for your questions. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Q1: the manuscript contains the term "on horizontal curves". Are there "on vertical curves"?
A1: This paper primarily investigates vehicle sideslip, which is predominantly caused by the centrifugal force acting on a vehicle when navigating a horizontal curve. By analyzing the forces on the vehicle and considering the linear characteristics of vertical curves, we find that the impact of vertical curves on vehicle sideslip is primarily related to changes in longitudinal slopes. We also examined the conditions of roads on horizontal curves with longitudinal slopes, and the results are detailed in lines 635-643 of the manuscript. Additionally, while the longitudinal slope affects the maximum safe braking deceleration, the impact is limited, with the maximum safe braking deceleration reduced from 4.5 to 4 m/s².
Q2: if there is "first", then in theory there should be "second", "third"...
A2: Thank you for your careful observations. The two sections of the paper addressing this issue have been revised, specifically in line 15 and line 734 of the re-submitted manuscript.
Q3: on Fig. 1 is the "G" force. Where is this force accounted for in the model?
A3: I apologize for any confusion caused. "G=mg", Where G is gravity, M is vehicle mass, and G is gravity acceleration. In the model derivation, "mg" was used instead of "G." A clarification has been added to the legend of Fig. 1, as noted in line 257 of the re-submitted manuscript.
Q4: equation (1-55) is the author's development? Are they being published for the first time? If not, then it is necessary to cite literary sources.
A4: Thank you for your question. It is very important to clarify this question. It is very important to clarify this question. The equations (1-19) refer to the research results of torbic, D.J., et al. It has been explained and quoted in the text and is shown in lines 244-245 of the revised manuscript. The equations (20-52) are original works of the author and are being published for the first time. The equations (53-55) have already been referenced in the first submitted manuscript.
Q5: for example, "μ_(ymax,supply) in my opinion many subscripts. I suggest reorganizing the indexes.
A5: As you noted, there are many subscripts in the paper. Given the numerous equations and the variety of parameters involved, we employed these subscripts to better and more clearly convey the physical meanings of the parameters. Additionally, to mitigate any confusion caused by the subscripts, we have included an appendix titled "Table 1: Key terms and their definitions" for your reference.
Q6: to state “The results show that:…” is required in “4. Results" provide tables with numerical values of dynamics coefficients, stability coefficient, force, lateral third coefficient, etc.
A6: Thank you for your suggestion. "The results show that: ..." has been added in lines 606, 635, 651, and 667 of the revised manuscript. The models used in this study to predict the potential for truck skidding and the maximum safe braking deceleration rates are equations 20 to 52. The main parameter values in the models are referenced from Tables 2 to 5. The parameters you mentioned are common and key parameters in vehicle dynamics research but are not included in the models of this study, which is why they are not reflected in the tables. I hope this explanation addresses your concerns. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me anytime.
Q7:"Appendix 1 Table 1 Basic terms and their definitions" will be in the text of the manuscript? If there is no "Appendix 2", just "Appendix" is enough
A7: Thank you for your suggestion. Considering the text length limitations of the manuscript, it is not feasible to incorporate the extensive content of Table 1 directly into the text. Therefore, we have provided it as an attachment. In line with your suggestion, "Appendix 1" has been revised to simply "Appendix"in the re-submitted manuscript.
You can also see it in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall good A good introduction and problem statement is presented.
Good work. I will recommend making a flow chart in the methodology section.
The discussion section is too small. The section needs to be re-written with a more focus on writing critical discussion. You need to make comparison with the literature. Try to provide critical discussion. I will recommend re-submitting the work after re-writing the discussion.
Overall it is a good work.
Author Response
Comments: Overall good. A good introduction and problem statement is presented.
Good work. I will recommend making a flow chart in the methodology section.
The discussion section is too small. The section needs to be re-written with a more focus on writing critical discussion. You need to make comparison with the literature. Try to provide critical discussion. I will recommend re-submitting the work after re-writing the discussion.
Overall it is a good work.
Responses:
Thank you for your positive affirmation of our work, which is the driving force for our continued efforts. Thank you for your questions. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Q1: I will recommend making a flow chart in the methodology section.
A1: Thank you for your suggestion. The new flowchart has been added to page 5 of the re-submitted manuscript.
Q2: The discussion section is too small. The section needs to be re-written with a more focus on writing critical discussion. You need to make comparison with the literature. Try to provide critical discussion.
A2: Thank you for your work and suggestions for improving the quality of paper. some in-depth and critical content has been added to the discussion section, specifically referenced on pages 19-20 of the re-submitted manuscript.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study aims to show and a data and model integrated driven method for recommending the maximum safe braking deceleration rates for trucks on horizontal curves. In fact the subject is really important, and even more when it can be applied for autonomous vehicles. However, the manuscript is really hard to follow because there are a lot of formulas and parameters and discussion, and there is no enought space between tables, figures etc. I recommend the authors re-organize the manuscript.
some minor review:
-in the entire manuscript. Please check the citation standard, because the authors should be cited in bracket [] and not using the names.
-pages 7 and 8. Please add "in Figure 2" after the indication of the color in each stage (e.g. this stage is marked in red in Figure 2).
-page 9. The same comment above but now for Figure 3.
-page 10. The caption of Figure 3 should be below the figure.
-pages 10 and 11. The same comment above but now for Figure 4.
-page 11. The caption of Figure 4 should be below the figure.
Author Response
Comments: The study aims to show and a data and model integrated driven method for recommending the maximum safe braking deceleration rates for trucks on horizontal curves. In fact the subject is really important, and even more when it can be applied for autonomous vehicles. However, the manuscript is really hard to follow because there are a lot of formulas and parameters and discussion, and there is no enought space between tables, figures etc. I recommend the authors re-organize the manuscript.
some minor review:
-in the entire manuscript. Please check the citation standard, because the authors should be cited in bracket [] and not using the names.
-pages 7 and 8. Please add "in Figure 2" after the indication of the color in each stage (e.g. this stage is marked in red in Figure 2).
-page 9. The same comment above but now for Figure 3.
-page 10. The caption of Figure 3 should be below the figure.
-pages 10 and 11. The same comment above but now for Figure 4.
-page 11. The caption of Figure 4 should be below the figure.
Responses: Thank you very much for your review and questions. We have made modifications according to your suggestions and have responded to each of your questions one by one. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Q1: in the entire manuscript. Please check the citation standard, because the authors should be cited in bracket [] and not using the names.
A1: Thank you for your suggestion. I apologize if I misunderstood your point. I reviewed the "Introduction for Authors" section of this journal, and some of the requirements state that reference numbers should be: “reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]”. I'm not sure if I've accurately understood your concern. If there’s any confusion, please feel free to contact me anytime.
Q2: pages 7 and 8. Please add "in Figure 2" after the indication of the color in each stage (e.g. this stage is marked in red in Figure 2).
A2: Thank you for your careful review and valuable suggestions, which have been revised according to the suggestions. For specifics, please refer to pages 8 to 11 of the re-submitted manuscript.
Q3: page 9. The same comment above but now for Figure 3.
A3: Thank you for your careful review and valuable suggestions, which have been revised according to the suggestions. For specifics, please refer to pages 8 to 11 of the re-submitted manuscript.
Q4: page 10. The caption of Figure 3 should be below the figure.
A4: Thank you for your careful review and valuable suggestions. The caption position of Figure 3 has been modified. For specifics, please refer to pages 10 and 11 of the re-submitted manuscript.
Q5: pages 10 and 11. The same comment above but now for Figure 4.
A5: Thank you for your careful review and valuable suggestions. The caption position of Figure 4 has been modified. For specifics, please refer to pages 11and 12 of the re-submitted manuscript.
Q6: page 11. The caption of Figure 4 should be below the figure.
A6: Thank you for your careful review and valuable suggestions. The caption position of Figure 4 has been modified. For specifics, please refer to page 12 of the re-submitted manuscript.
You can also see it in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper deals road safety related to truck skidding accidents in horizontal curves, with a focus on improper braking, which is the main cause. A data-driven and model-based method is proposed to study the mechanism of the phenomenon and recommend the maximum values of safe deceleration without skidding (MSBDR). Through a model that considers braking forces, vertical load and friction, and using data sets and tools such as Python and Matlab, the study analyses the dynamic response of trucks and the potential for skidding. The authors conclude that the risk of skidding is greatest during emergency braking and on sharp turns, steep grades, excessive speeds, and wet roads.
I find the article interesting, well structured, with a sufficiently clear and well-explained procedure and, as far as possible, replicable. I consider the research to be quite innovative, and for this reason I believe that, after minor revisions of a general nature and layout, the article can be published.
Authors can read the requested changes in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comments:
General comments:
- On some topics (driving behavior, human factor, level of automation) in the Literature Review paragraph (lines 124-136,152 and above), it is desirable for the authors to include more recent citations, as this is a very topical subject and therefore one with innovative development that is always being updated.
- Line 271: why bold and first person?
- Line 466: either some text is missing or there are layout problems. There is only one figure in a
paragraph and its caption is above and not below the figure.
- From line 468 onward. There is something wrong with subsections 3.2.1 - 1. Authors please correct
them and reduce the subsections. Authors are requested to correct them and reduce unnecessary
subsections because they make the document complex to read.
- Fig. 9 line 621, Fig. 10 line 637, Fig. 11 line 652, missing caption
- In the various tables some rows are represented in light blue. Why? Can the authors explain it in the paper?
Responses: Thank you for your thorough review of the manuscript and your valuable comments. It has greatly contributed to improving the article. We have made revisions in accordance with your comments and have responded to each of your questions one by one. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Q1: On some topics (driving behavior, human factor, level of automation) in the Literature Review paragraph (lines 124-136,152 and above), it is desirable for the authors to include more recent citations, as this is a very topical subject and therefore one with innovative development that is always being updated.
A1: Thank you for your valuable and important suggestions. The latest research literature has been added in the re-submitted manuscript. Please see pages 4 and 21 for details.
Q2: Line 271: why bold and first person?
A2: Thank you for your comments. After consideration, we have revised the expression of this sentence. This sentence is revised to “It is assumed here that and are known.”Previously, the content of this sentence was important, so bold formatting was applied to facilitate quick reading for readers. However, for the sake of maintaining a consistent overall format in the article, bold formatting has been removed in this revision.
Q3: Line 466: either some text is missing or there are layout problems. There is only one figure in a
paragraph and its caption is above and not below the figure.
A3: Thank you for your careful review and valuable suggestions. The caption has been modified to be below the picture. Please see page 12 of the re-submitted manuscript.
Q4: From line 468 onward. There is something wrong with subsections 3.2.1 - 1. Authors please correct them and reduce the subsections. Authors are requested to correct them and reduce unnecessary subsections because they make the document complex to read.
A4: Thank you for your suggestion. Section 3 (Method) contains two subsections: 3.1 and 3.2. Subsection 3.1 further includes 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, while subsection 3.2 comprises 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. I hope this explanation helps clarify any confusion.
Q5: Fig. 9 line 621, Fig. 10 line 637, Fig. 11 line 652, missing caption
A5: I sincerely apologize for any confusion I may have caused. During the initial submission, there may have been an issue with the editing software that caused the insertion format of the figures to be incorrect, leading to misalignment between the figures and their captions. We have now reviewed and corrected the insertion format throughout the manuscript, ensuring that each caption is placed correctly below its corresponding figure.
Q6: In the various tables some rows are represented in light blue. Why? Can the authors explain it in the paper?
A6: Thank you for your suggestion, and I apologize for any confusion I may have caused. The parameters highlighted in blue indicate that they are the main variables, emphasizing how changes in these variables affect truck skidding. For example, in Table 2, the radius is marked in blue to signify that our primary focus is on examining how variations in radius, under different braking behaviors, impact truck skidding. Additional notes have been added under Table 2 in the re-submitted manuscript for clarification. Please see lines 605 and 607 for specifics.
You can also see it in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors"Table 1: Key terms and their definitions" I read it and therefore I do not agree
Author Response
Comments: "Table 1: Key terms and their definitions" I read it and therefore I do not agree
Responses: Thank you for your review. I may not have fully understood your comments. Based on your previous suggestions, the appendix has been added to the text of this submission. Please see pages 21 and 22 of the revised manuscript for details. If you disagree with the explanations of certain terms in the appendix, or have any further questions, please feel free to contact us anytime.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI read this :) ...
why so many indexes? readers (non-specialists) will find it difficult
