CN104637022A - Method of evaluating safety status of railway level crossing - Google Patents
Method of evaluating safety status of railway level crossing Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CN104637022A CN104637022A CN201310564919.9A CN201310564919A CN104637022A CN 104637022 A CN104637022 A CN 104637022A CN 201310564919 A CN201310564919 A CN 201310564919A CN 104637022 A CN104637022 A CN 104637022A
- Authority
- CN
- China
- Prior art keywords
- crossing
- factor
- railway
- safety
- level
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Pending
Links
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 title claims abstract description 17
- 238000004458 analytical method Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 27
- 238000011156 evaluation Methods 0.000 claims description 19
- 230000008569 process Effects 0.000 claims description 11
- 230000000694 effects Effects 0.000 claims description 4
- 238000001514 detection method Methods 0.000 claims 1
- 238000012806 monitoring device Methods 0.000 claims 1
- 239000011159 matrix material Substances 0.000 description 13
- 235000021472 generally recognized as safe Nutrition 0.000 description 10
- 230000008859 change Effects 0.000 description 4
- 238000011160 research Methods 0.000 description 3
- NAWXUBYGYWOOIX-SFHVURJKSA-N (2s)-2-[[4-[2-(2,4-diaminoquinazolin-6-yl)ethyl]benzoyl]amino]-4-methylidenepentanedioic acid Chemical compound C1=CC2=NC(N)=NC(N)=C2C=C1CCC1=CC=C(C(=O)N[C@@H](CC(=C)C(O)=O)C(O)=O)C=C1 NAWXUBYGYWOOIX-SFHVURJKSA-N 0.000 description 2
- 206010039203 Road traffic accident Diseases 0.000 description 2
- 238000013459 approach Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000015572 biosynthetic process Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000004364 calculation method Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000006243 chemical reaction Methods 0.000 description 2
- 108700010070 Codon Usage Proteins 0.000 description 1
- 230000008901 benefit Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000008094 contradictory effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000034994 death Effects 0.000 description 1
- 231100000517 death Toxicity 0.000 description 1
- 238000005516 engineering process Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000007613 environmental effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000013210 evaluation model Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000006872 improvement Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000007689 inspection Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000011835 investigation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000003550 marker Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000010606 normalization Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000011002 quantification Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000012827 research and development Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000013517 stratification Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000003786 synthesis reaction Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000009897 systematic effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000009466 transformation Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000001131 transforming effect Effects 0.000 description 1
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q50/00—Information and communication technology [ICT] specially adapted for implementation of business processes of specific business sectors, e.g. utilities or tourism
- G06Q50/40—Business processes related to the transportation industry
Landscapes
- Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Economics (AREA)
- General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
- Marketing (AREA)
- Primary Health Care (AREA)
- Strategic Management (AREA)
- Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
- Train Traffic Observation, Control, And Security (AREA)
Abstract
A method of evaluating safety status of a railway level crossing includes: for the railway level crossing, analyzing probable factors of accidents occurring at the railway level crossing, and organically combining the extension principle, set pair analysis and hierarchical analysis to evaluate the safety status of the railway level crossing; dividing the factors into two levels by hierarchical analysis, and performing calculating to determine weights of two levels of indexes; scoring the railway level crossing through experts, and determining safety levels of the factors on the basis of the extension principle; according to the weights of the factors and their safety levels, and analyzing the safety status of the railway level crossing under the action of the factors, according to the principle of set pair analysis.
Description
Technical field
the present invention relates to railway traffic safety field, particularly relates to the security status of use safety evaluation method to railway and urban road level crossing and evaluates.
Background technology
Railway level-crossing is the place that railway and road cross one another at grade.Find in the collection Railway Running Accidents attribution of liability process that also analysis and arrangement occurs over the years, responsibility directly cannot be attributed to the driving accident (no responsibility driving accident) of railway authorities by the accident of more than 90%, namely obviously comes from non-railway practitioner and crosses the driving accident caused of becoming homeless and account for the overwhelming majority.2008, there is railway traffic accident 149 in Liaoning Province altogether, dead 126 people.Wherein, rob more railway line because of pedestrian or vehicle and cause the accident 142, account for railway traffic accident and always play several 95.3%.
In order to really understand the factor causing level crossing causality loss, comprise the injures and deaths of life, the loss of corporeal estate and the loss of invisible time, Chinese scholars and person skilled have done a large amount of research and development and improvement.Or set about geometry designs or by traffic control device, improve facility and the label will of level crossing, the loss brought with it occurs to minimizing accident.And for improving level crossing safety case, the risk factors affecting railway level-crossing safety must be inquired into, and suitable method is just adopted to carry out safety analysis, to formulate corresponding safe precaution measure.
To the safety analysis problem of railway level-crossing, more existing researchs at present.Herein by the research affecting railway level-crossing factor, extract objective factor and hierarchical relationship.The basic data evaluated is determined early stage by expert and systematic analysis.Using safe class and the step analysis determination factor weight of extension theory determination factor respectively, giving full play on its specific basis, finally using Set Pair Analysis to determine the safety case of road junction entirety.
Summary of the invention
For the Current Safety Assessment problem of current railway level-crossing, this patent proposes and utilizes analytical hierarchy process factor to be divided into two levels, by calculating the weight determining two-layer index.Then by expert, given a mark in this road junction, based on the safe class can opening up theory and determine influence factor.Finally by weight and the safe class of influence factor obtained above, the Set Analysis principle is used to analyze this railway level-crossing security situation under the effect of these influence factors.
1. the determination of railway level-crossing Safety Influence Factors
Recognize in the factor affecting level crossing safety there is some certainty factor in the actual investigation of railway level-crossing according to current, as road junction geographical environment, marker etc.; Also there are some uncertain factors, as weather, vehicle condition, the speed of a motor vehicle etc. simultaneously.Level crossing accident is random, and reason is also intricate, and the subjective factor of existing people also has the environmental factor at road junction.Analyze the origin cause of formation of level crossing accident, mainly the factor such as analyst, car, road junction, environment is on the impact of crossing safety, divides level as table 1.
Table 1 railway level-crossing Safety Influence Factors stratification
2. the structure of evaluation method
First analytical hierarchy process is utilized factor to be divided into two levels, by calculating the weight determining two-layer index.Then by expert, given a mark in this road junction, based on the safe class can opening up theory and determine influence factor.Finally by weight and the safe class of influence factor obtained above, the Set Analysis principle is used to analyze this railway level-crossing security situation under the effect of these influence factors.
Accompanying drawing explanation
Fig. 1 formula (1).
Fig. 2 formula (2).
Fig. 3 formula (3).
Fig. 4 formula (4).
Fig. 5 formula (5).
Fig. 6 formula (6).
Fig. 7 formula (7).
Fig. 8 formula (8).
Fig. 9 formula (9).
Figure 10 formula (10).
Figure 11 formula (11).
Embodiment
For making above-mentioned purpose of the present invention, feature and advantage become apparent more, and below in conjunction with the correlation theory used and embodiment, the present invention is further detailed explanation.
The 20 century 70 U.S. scholar Saaty that plans strategies for is various for many evaluation object attributes, and result is complicated, is difficult to the problem adopting quantivative approach completely, proposes famous analytical hierarchy process (The Analytic Hierarchy Process, i.e. AHP).When using AHP method to carry out appraisal and decision-making, substantially following steps can be divided into.
1) relation in analysis and evaluation system between each fundamental, sets up the recursive hierarchy structure of system.
2) each element of same level is compared between two about the importance of a certain criterion in last layer time, construct multilevel iudge matrix between two.
3) consistency check of judgment matrix.Consistency check is carried out to judgment matrix, to determine that whether weight allocation is reasonable.Inspection formula is CR=CI/RI
In formula 3, CR is the random Consistency Ratio of judgment matrix; RI is Aver-age Random Consistency Index, and the RI of 1 ~ 9 rank judgment matrix is in table 1; CI is the general coincident indicator of judgment matrix, namely
CI=(λmax - n)/(n-1)
As random Consistency Ratio CR=CI/RI<0.10, think that judgment matrix has satisfied consistance.
4) calculated by the relative weighting of comparison element for this criterion by judgment matrix, i.e. Mode of Level Simple Sequence.
5) calculate synthesis (always) weight of each layer key element to system object (general objective), and total hierarchial sorting and consistency check are carried out to each alternatives.
table 2 Aver-age Random Consistency Index
rIvalue
| n | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| RI | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.58 | 0.90 | 1.12 | 1.24 | 1.32 | 1.41 | 1.45 |
Railway level-crossing Safety Influence Factors recursive hierarchy structure is as Figure 12.Judgment matrix is the primary structure of analytical hierarchy process, is also to carry out the important evidence that between index, relative importance (weight) calculates.According to the requirement of analytical hierarchy process, make the form that each layer index compares between any two, adopt the Scale Method by index significance level 1 ~ 9 and inverse thereof, by analysis, factual survey and expert analysis mode, weigh each index relative importance between any two, Judgement Matricies.
Obtain according to above step.Thus, indicator layer element B 1, B2, B3, B4 Mode of Level Simple Sequence can be obtained, as shown in table 3
The single sequence of table 3 indicator layer element hierarchy
| Project | B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 | |
| B1 | 1 | 1/9 | 1/7 | 1/3 | 0.0474 |
| B2 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0.4760 |
| B3 | 7 | 1/2 | 1 | 5 | 0.3592 |
| B4 | 3 | 1/3 | 1/5 | 1 | 0.1174 |
Note: λ max=4.1411, CR=0.0523
Calculate this railway level-crossing Safety Influence Factors, indicator layer Elements C Mode of Level Simple Sequence is as shown in table 4, table 5, table 6, table 7.
The single sequence of table 4 road junction factor index layer element hierarchy
| Project | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | ωi |
| C1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 0.1627 |
| C2 | 1/2 | 1 | 2 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 0.0990 |
| C3 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1 | 1/4 | 1/4 | 0.0653 |
| C4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1/2 | 0.2675 |
| C5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0.4055 |
Note: λ max=5.102, CR=0.018
The single sequence of table 5 safety feature factor index layer element hierarchy
| Project | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 | C10 | C11 | C12 | ωi |
| C6 | 1 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/6 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 0.0939 |
| C7 | 2 | 1 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 0.1517 |
| C8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1/2 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 0.2521 |
| C9 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 0.3826 |
| C10 | 1/5 | 1/3 | 1/8 | 1/9 | 1 | 1/2 | 1/4 | 0.0264 |
| C11 | 1/2 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1/6 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0.0537 |
| C12 | 1/3 | 1/6 | 1/7 | 1/8 | 4 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.0396 |
λmax =7.4060,CR=0.0513
The single sequence of table 6 other influences factor index layer element hierarchy
| Project | C13 | C14 | C15 | C16 | C17 | C18 | ωi |
| C13 | 1 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 0.1770 |
| C14 | 2 | 1 | 1/2 | 8 | 4 | 6 | 0.2639 |
| C15 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 5 | 7 | 0.3863 |
| C16 | 1/7 | 1/8 | 1/9 | 1 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 0.0257 |
| C17 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0.0989 |
| C18 | 1/5 | 1/6 | 1/7 | 3 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.0482 |
λmax =6.201,CR=0.032
The single sequence of table 7 crossing management factor index layer element hierarchy
| Project | C19 | C20 | C21 | ωi |
| C19 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 0.6371 |
| C20 | 1/5 | 1 | 1/3 | 0.1052 |
| C21 | 1/3 | 3 | 1 | 0.2582 |
λmax =3.038,CR=0.032
By above result of calculation, can total hierarchial sorting be obtained, as shown in table 8
Table 8 railway level-crossing Safety Influence Factors total hierarchial sorting
Extension science starts from the transformation rule of inconsistent problem and the research of solution.It sets up matter-element model to describe contradictory problems based on matter-element, take Extension Nature of Matter element as foundation, using matter-element conversion as the means of the problem of resolving contradiction, and in Region place value, by being associated, the quantitative change and qualitative change process of function to things is quantitatively described, and namely utilizes extension range and zero bound component to carry out the description of quantification to the quantitative change and qualitative change of things.It can describe the changeability of things, and the qualitative description of right and wrong is developed into quantitative description, and the judge problem also for solving grade provides a new approach.Use the safe class of the basic theories of extension science to level crossing to determine herein, based on mostly be expert treat evaluate road junction (matter-element to be evaluated) marking formed safety evaluation value matrix, to the safe class finally determining each influence factor.
The matter-element of security of system is defined as R=(N, C, V) wherein, and R represents matter-element, and N represents things (influence factor safe class), and C represents features (influence factor), and V represents the amount territory (influence factor safe class value scope) of features.Form isomorphism variable matrix formula (1) as shown in Figure 1.
In conjunction with the determination of this routine characteristic element.Represent with N: N={ is dangerous, Generally Recognized as safe, safety }.Semantic description is as table 9
Table 9 semantic description table
| Semantic | Dangerous A | Generally Recognized as safe B | Safe C |
| Scoring is interval |
Classical field is formula (2) as shown in Figure 2.Corresponding joint territory is formula (3) as shown in Figure 3.
Classical field in this example is formula (4) as shown in Figure 4.Nodes domains is formula (5) as shown in Figure 5.
Evaluation marking is carried out respectively to influence factor, and represents matter-element to be evaluated with matter-element R.Formula (6) as shown in Figure 6, wherein P is the level of security treating road junction, and R is road junction to be evaluated, and C represents factor, and V represents the safety evaluation value (expert estimation value) of corresponding factor.
This example adopts three experts to this railway level-crossing, gives a mark according to influence factor.Three experts treat the marking situation of evaluation road junction model R as table 10, and Z1, Z2, Z3 are respectively table three expert.
Table 10 crossing safety influence factor expert estimation table
| Factor | Z1 | Z2 | Z3 | Factor | Z1 | Z2 | Z3 | Factor | Z1 | Z2 | Z3 |
| C1 | 5.5 | 8.0 | 9.1 | C8 | 6.9 | 9.0 | 9.0 | C15 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 8.0 |
| C2 | 6.5 | 8.1 | 9.7 | C9 | 7.0 | 8.2 | 8.8 | C16 | 6.7 | 7.6 | 8.9 |
| C3 | 7.1 | 8.6 | 9.4 | C10 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 8.8 | C17 | 6.8 | 7.8 | 8.8 |
| C4 | 5.6 | 7.9 | 8.6 | C11 | 7.8 | 8.5 | 8.5 | C18 | 7.0 | 7.9 | 9.0 |
| C5 | 6.7 | 7.7 | 8.8 | C12 | 6.5 | 7.9 | 7.9 | C19 | 7.5 | 7.0 | 9.2 |
| C6 | 5.5 | 6.7 | 7.9 | C13 | 5.9 | 7.8 | 8.1 | C20 | 6.0 | 8.6 | 7.8 |
| C7 | 6.3 | 6.5 | 8.0 | C14 | 6.6 | 7.9 | 8.5 | C21 | 5.7 | 8.3 | 8.5 |
For the degree of association as shown in Figure 7 formula (7) of a jth crossing safety influence factor about safe class N.
Such as, to the result of calculation of influence factor C1 as table 11
Table 11 influence factor C1 safe class reckoner
Calculating influence factor C1 respectively to the degree of correlation of safe class according to (3) formula, can determine safe class C(safety after summation) degree of correlation is comparatively large, so the safe class assert C1 is C.In like manner can obtain the safe class table of C2-C21, as shown in table 12..
This crossing safety influence factor safe class table of table 12
| Factor | A | B | C | Result | Factor | A | B | C | Result | Factor | A | B | C | Result |
| C1 | -0.3750 | -0.3667 | 0.8250 | C | C8 | -0.1563 | -0.0833 | -0.0833 | C | C15 | -0.0833 | -0.0833 | -0.3667 | B |
| C2 | -0.3220 | -0.4322 | -1.7250 | A | C9 | -0.0833 | -0.4929 | -0.5667 | A | C16 | -0.2587 | -0.0727 | -0.4202 | B |
| C3 | 0.0105 | -0.6397 | -1.4500 | A | C10 | -0.3667 | -0.3667 | -0.5667 | B | C17 | -0.2136 | -0.2247 | -0.5667 | A |
| C4 | -0.3806 | -0.2972 | -0.6397 | B | C11 | -0.2247 | -0.6250 | -0.6250 | A | C18 | -0.0833 | -0.2972 | -0.0833 | C |
| C5 | -0.2587 | -0.1497 | -0.5667 | B | C12 | -0.3220 | -0.2972 | -0.2972 | C | C19 | 0.0060 | -0.0833 | 5.7333 | C |
| C6 | -0.3750 | -0.2587 | -0.2972 | B | C13 | -0.3869 | -0.2247 | -0.4322 | B | C20 | -0.3846 | -0.6397 | -0.2247 | C |
| C7 | -0.3596 | -0.3220 | -0.3667 | B | C14 | -0.2942 | -0.2972 | -0.6250 | A | C21 | -0.3846 | -0.5469 | -0.6250 | A |
Set Pair Analysis makes synonymous codon usage to the characteristic of a set antithetical phrase under certain Question background, obtains N number of characteristic, wherein have the characteristic that S total, the characteristic of P opposition and F=N-S-P not only non-shared but also the difference characteristic of non-opposition.Set up thus two be integrated into given problem background under I. D.C connexion formula formula (8) as shown in Figure 8.
In formula: μ is Pair Analysis, connecting each other, affect and transforming with different anti-three in reflection set pair; A, b, c be called discuss two be integrated into given problem background under identical degree, diversity factor, opposition degree and a+b+c=1.I is diversity factor coefficient, and as the case may be in [-1,1] value, as i=1, diversity factor is converted into identical degree, and as i=-1, diversity factor is converted into opposition degree, and when i gets (-1,1), in diversity factor, identical degree and opposition degree respectively account for certain proportion.J generally gets-1, represents F/N and P/N opposition.
When in Pair Analysis μ=a+b*i+c*j, c is non-vanishing, the ratio a/c of identical degree a and opposition degree c, for institute's analects to contacting gesture or set pair situation under given problem background, represents with " shi ": shi (H)=a/c
A/c>1 then claims shi (H) for the same gesture of set pair;
A/c=1 then claims shi (H) for the set pair balance of power;
A/c<1 then claims shi (H) for the anti-gesture of set pair.
If R=is { a
1, a
2... a
nbe factor of evaluation collection, appraiser is to as(1≤s≤n) evaluation be respectively " safety ", " Generally Recognized as safe ", " dangerous ".If be " a " in connection degree representation depending on " safety ", " Generally Recognized as safe " is " b ", and " dangerous " is " c ", then evaluation object is evaluated as a about the same, different, counter of factor of evaluation as
s1+ a
s2* i+ a
s3j, wherein a
s1+ a
s2+ a
s3=1.Can draw thus with different anti-Evaluations matrix formula (9) as shown in Figure 9.
If the weight vector of the upper each factor of R is W=(w
1, w
2..., w
n), generally determined by expert estimation or analytical hierarchy process.Then evaluation model of IDO is formula (10) as shown in Figure 10.
The weight of each influence factor obtained according to step analysis, if the safe class of each influence factor obtained after table 8 and extensive analysis is as table 12, obtains the assessment indicator system that Set Pair Analysis needs, as shown in table 13.Safe class proportion is determined divided by the number of all kinds of safe classes of these two-level index by the number of two-level index all in certain index in indicator layer 1.
Table 13
index weights at different levels in this railway level-crossing Safety Index System Assessment
Note: A, B, C represent respectively " dangerous ", " Generally Recognized as safe ", " safety ".
The weight coefficient matrix of indicator layer 1 is W as shown in Table 13
0=(0.0474 0.4760 0.3592 0.1174), the comprehensive evaluation result formula (11) as shown in figure 11 at this road junction.
So μ
0=0.3+0.4032i+0.2967j.Wherein j=-1, i value in (-1,1), then can be reduced to μ by above formula
0=0.0033+0.4032i.μ is normalization Pair Analysis, span is (-1,1), according to " dividing equally " principle, Pair Analysis span is divided into 3 sub-ranges (0.333,1), (-0.333,0.333) and (-1,-0.333), difference corresponding " safety ", " Generally Recognized as safe " and " dangerous " 3 grades.Special value method is adopted to i, by can recognize the safe coefficient of this railway level-crossing to the discussion of i.
As i=1, show in this crossing safety assessment indicator system, all index item being in " Generally Recognized as safe " state are all converted into " safety " state.μ
0=0.3+0.4032-0.2967=0.4065, shows that this road junction is in " safety " state.State that although crossing system is in " safety ", if but in safety management at ordinary times, because artificial origin, do not note daily servicing, the index item being in " Generally Recognized as safe " state will be made to be converted into " dangerous " state, the safety case of whole system is declined, finally causes level crossing accident, cause casualties and property loss.Therefore strengthen daily servicing and safety management, level crossing is seemed particularly important.
As i=-1, show in this crossing safety assessment indicator system, all index item being in " Generally Recognized as safe " state are all converted into " dangerous " state.μ
0=0.3-0.4032-0.2967=-0.3999, shows that this road junction is in " dangerous " state.Now, then there is potential safety hazard in this road junction, and the index item that safety manager's reply is in " Generally Recognized as safe " state is paid much attention to and quantitative check.Once find that index item is to " dangerous " tendency of condition conversion, should take immediate steps and be controlled, and ensures level crossing safety.
Claims (7)
1. to an evaluation method for railway level-crossing security status,
it is characterized in that, for railway level-crossing, analyze and cause the possible factor had an accident at level crossing place, extension theory, Set Pair Analysis and step analysis are organically combined railway level-crossing security status is evaluated,
it comprises the steps: analytical hierarchy process is utilized factor to be divided into two levels, by calculating the weight determining two-layer index; Then by expert, given a mark in this road junction, based on the safe class can opening up theory and determine influence factor; Finally by weight and the safe class of influence factor obtained above, the Set Analysis principle is used to analyze this railway level-crossing security situation under the effect of these influence factors,
the present invention reflect the security situation of railway level-crossing preferably, have evaluation ability to the classification of crossing safety present situation.
2.
evaluation method to railway level-crossing security status according to claim 1, is characterized in that, the foundation of the appraisement system of its railway level-crossing security status, its destination layer U is level crossing Safety Influence Factors, comprises indicator layer B: road junction factor, safety feature factor, other influences factor, crossing management factor.
3.
indicator layer B road junction according to claim 2 factor, is characterized in that, it comprises indicator layer C: the gradient of road and railway angle, railway Necessary Number of Tracks, road junction effective width, road junction road, road type and grade.
4.
indicator layer B safety feature factor according to claim 2, is characterized in that, it comprises indicator layer C: guard rail and door, flashlamp and alarm bell, detection system for obstacle, road junction mark, signal light path, vehicle monitoring device, safety feature position.
5.
indicator layer B other influences factor according to claim 2, is characterized in that, it comprises indicator layer C: severe weather conditions, road junction observability, road junction traffic density, traffic order confusion, accident emergency medical system, crossing safety need safety education.
6.
indicator layer B crossing management factor according to claim 2, is characterized in that, it comprises indicator layer C: crossing management pattern, funds source, policy and regulation.
7.
evaluation method to railway level-crossing security status according to claim 1, is characterized in that, first analytical hierarchy process is utilized factor to be divided into two levels, by calculating the weight determining two-layer index, then by expert, given a mark in this road junction, based on the safe class can opening up theory and determine influence factor, finally by weight and the safe class of influence factor obtained above, the Set Analysis principle is used to analyze this railway level-crossing security situation under the effect of these influence factors.
Priority Applications (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN201310564919.9A CN104637022A (en) | 2013-11-14 | 2013-11-14 | Method of evaluating safety status of railway level crossing |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN201310564919.9A CN104637022A (en) | 2013-11-14 | 2013-11-14 | Method of evaluating safety status of railway level crossing |
Publications (1)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CN104637022A true CN104637022A (en) | 2015-05-20 |
Family
ID=53215732
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN201310564919.9A Pending CN104637022A (en) | 2013-11-14 | 2013-11-14 | Method of evaluating safety status of railway level crossing |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| CN (1) | CN104637022A (en) |
Cited By (3)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN108960636A (en) * | 2018-07-08 | 2018-12-07 | 江苏金海星导航科技有限公司 | A kind of lorry intersection operational safety evaluation method based on matter-element model |
| CN110232399A (en) * | 2019-04-24 | 2019-09-13 | 中国南方电网有限责任公司超高压输电公司检修试验中心 | The transmission facility defect analysis method and system clustered based on Set Pair Analysis and K-means |
| CN115358637A (en) * | 2022-10-19 | 2022-11-18 | 中国铁路设计集团有限公司 | Method for evaluating potential safety hazard easiness of railway external environment color steel house |
Citations (4)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN101246569A (en) * | 2008-02-28 | 2008-08-20 | 江苏省电力试验研究院有限公司 | Electric network energy quality synthetic appraisement method based on analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy algorithm |
| CN102663505A (en) * | 2012-04-10 | 2012-09-12 | 北京交通大学 | Comprehensive evaluation method for utilization performance of track circuit |
| CN103020429A (en) * | 2012-11-27 | 2013-04-03 | 浙江工业职业技术学院 | Comprehensive decision-making and evaluating method for health condition of tied-arch bridge |
| CN103258298A (en) * | 2013-03-19 | 2013-08-21 | 辽宁工程技术大学 | Method for assessing safety of open pit coal mine |
-
2013
- 2013-11-14 CN CN201310564919.9A patent/CN104637022A/en active Pending
Patent Citations (4)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN101246569A (en) * | 2008-02-28 | 2008-08-20 | 江苏省电力试验研究院有限公司 | Electric network energy quality synthetic appraisement method based on analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy algorithm |
| CN102663505A (en) * | 2012-04-10 | 2012-09-12 | 北京交通大学 | Comprehensive evaluation method for utilization performance of track circuit |
| CN103020429A (en) * | 2012-11-27 | 2013-04-03 | 浙江工业职业技术学院 | Comprehensive decision-making and evaluating method for health condition of tied-arch bridge |
| CN103258298A (en) * | 2013-03-19 | 2013-08-21 | 辽宁工程技术大学 | Method for assessing safety of open pit coal mine |
Non-Patent Citations (2)
| Title |
|---|
| 邓晗: ""基于数学属性的铁路平交道口安全评价与应用"", 《中国优秀硕士学位论文全文数据库工程科技II辑》 * |
| 陈文: ""集对分析理论在铁路旅客运营安全评价中的应用"", 《中国优秀硕士学位论文全文数据库工程科技II辑》 * |
Cited By (3)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN108960636A (en) * | 2018-07-08 | 2018-12-07 | 江苏金海星导航科技有限公司 | A kind of lorry intersection operational safety evaluation method based on matter-element model |
| CN110232399A (en) * | 2019-04-24 | 2019-09-13 | 中国南方电网有限责任公司超高压输电公司检修试验中心 | The transmission facility defect analysis method and system clustered based on Set Pair Analysis and K-means |
| CN115358637A (en) * | 2022-10-19 | 2022-11-18 | 中国铁路设计集团有限公司 | Method for evaluating potential safety hazard easiness of railway external environment color steel house |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| Aftabuzzaman | Measuring traffic congestion-a critical review | |
| Soleimani et al. | A comprehensive railroad-highway grade crossing consolidation model: a machine learning approach | |
| Kanuganti et al. | Road safety analysis using multi criteria approach: A case study in India | |
| Ma et al. | Evaluation of urban green transportation planning based on central point triangle whiten weight function and entropy-AHP | |
| CN109243178A (en) | Town way Traffic Safety Analysis and evaluation method under the conditions of a kind of bad climate | |
| Shen et al. | Identification of accident blackspots on rural roads using grid clustering and principal component clustering | |
| Sajed et al. | Hotspot location identification using accident data, traffic and geometric characteristics | |
| Stević et al. | A novel multiphase model for traffic safety evaluation: A case study of South Africa | |
| CN104637022A (en) | Method of evaluating safety status of railway level crossing | |
| Zhang et al. | Driving risk assessment in work zones using cloud model | |
| Khabiri et al. | Application of data mining algorithm to investigate the effect of intelligent transportation systems on road accidents reduction by decision tree | |
| Li et al. | A Multisource Data Fusion Modeling Prediction Method for Operation Environment of High‐Speed Train | |
| Tang et al. | Safety risk factors identification and safety risk classification assessment for rural roadsides | |
| Gitelman et al. | Screening tools for considering grade separation at rail-highway crossings | |
| Das et al. | Quantification of multi-hazard risk of existing RC bridges in Barak Valley region, India | |
| Gang et al. | Cause analysis of traffic accidents based on degrees of attribute importance of rough set | |
| Bamdad Mehrabani et al. | Predicting operating speed: comparison of linear regression and structural equation models | |
| Qiu | A Risk-Based Decision Support Framework for Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Closures | |
| Samadi et al. | Platoon‐Based Assessment of Two‐Way Two‐Lane Roads Performance Measure: A Classification Method | |
| Ma et al. | Construction and empirical study of comprehensive evaluation system of urban road traffic safety. | |
| Figliozzi et al. | Update to Methodology for Setting Speed Limits in Urban Areas | |
| Zhang et al. | Identifying hazardous road sections using a fuzzy expert system | |
| Yu et al. | Study on evaluation indicator selection method for urban road traffic management level | |
| Li et al. | Research on Safety Level Evaluation of Xi'an Metro Operation Based on SEM-MEA | |
| Li et al. | Expressway Tunnel Operation Risk Assessment Model Based on Improved Critic Method and Cloud Model |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| C06 | Publication | ||
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| C10 | Entry into substantive examination | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| WD01 | Invention patent application deemed withdrawn after publication |
Application publication date: 20150520 |
|
| WD01 | Invention patent application deemed withdrawn after publication |