基于乘员伤害分析的公路路侧事故风险评价

doi:10.13229/j.cnki.jdxbgxb20200055

Abstract

Abstract:

The aims of this study are to achieve a quantitative assessment of the risk of roadside accidents on highways and to propose corresponding safety measures to reduce accident losses. First， the acceleration severity index （ASI） is used as the indicator of occupant injuries， and the horizontal radii， vehicle departure speeds， side slope and subgrade height are taken as research variables in this research. Second， collision tests of trucks and cars were carried out in the presence or absence of roadside guardrails by constructing the vehicle， road and guardrail models in PC-crash simulation software， a total of 1500 data points were collected. For straight and curved segments of highways， the occupant injury evaluation models of trucks and cars were fitted based on the ASI. Third， according to the Fisher optimal segmentation method， reasonable classification standards of risks of roadside accidents and the corresponding ASI thresholds were determined， and the risk assessment methods for roadside accidents based on the ASI were provided and verified. Finally. a proportion of trucks was introduced to further improve the ASI evaluation model. The results show that the ASI has a positive linear correlation with the departure speed and subgrade height， an exponential correlation with the side slope， and a power correlation with horizontal radii. Setting the roadside guardrail can reduce the roadside accident injuries of cars by 24%~28% and that of trucks by 31%~36%. Compared with cars， trucks are more prone to serious roadside accidents.

Key words: engineering of communicaitions and transportation safety, risk assessment, PC-crash, Fisher optimal segmentation method, roadside accident, occupant injury

CLC Number:

U491.31

Guo-zhu CHENG,Rui CHENG,Liang XU,Wen-hui ZHANG. Risk assessment of roadside accidents based on occupant injuries analysis[J].Journal of Jilin University(Engineering and Technology Edition), 2021, 51(3): 875-885.

Figures/Tables 17

Table 1

Table 2

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Table 3

Fig.5

Table 4

Table 5

Fig.6

Table 6

Assessment models of occupant injuries"

编号	道路类型	模型表达式	相关系数R²
1	直线段	$A S I c = 0.01 V c + 0.127 H + 0.008 e 0.121 α + 0.16 1 - 0.24 X$	0.975
2		$A S I c = 0.01 V c + 0.566 e 0.99 H + 0.019 α - 1.718 1 - 0.38 X$	0.863
3		$A S I c = 0.002 e 0.001 V c + 0.603 l o g H + 8.851 × 10 - 14 e 0.877 α + 0.039 1 - 0.41 X$	0.622
4		$A S I t = 0.341 e 1.713 V t + 0.085 H + 0.001 e 0.208 α - 0.05 1 - 0.37 X$	0.765
5		$A S I t = 0.006 V t + 0.12 H + 6.544 × 10 - 9 e 0.54 α + 0.46 1 - 0.31 X$	0.943
6		$A S I t = 0.05 V t + 0.347 e 0.19 H + 2.602 × 10 - 11 e 0.735 α - 1.184 1 - 0.26 X$	0.872
7	曲线段	$A S I c = 0.01 V c + 0.076 H + 0.029 e 0.087 α + 0.763 R - 0.247 + 0.35 1 - 0.28 X$	0.982
8		$A S I c = 0.01 V c - 1.849 e - 0.058 H + 6.155 × 10 - 6 e 0.327 α - 0.148 R + 1.035 1 - 0.23 X$	0.783
9		$A S I c = 0.013 V c + 0.161 l o g H + 0.024 α - 0.176 R - 1.015 1 - 0.14 X$	0.833
10		$A S I t = 0.953 e 0.006 V t + 0.333 l o g H + 0 . 359 0.038 α + 0.018 R - 1.855 1 - 0.36 X$	0.712
11		$A S I t = 0.012 V t + 0.33 l o g H + 0.034 α + 0.006 e - 0.34 R - 1.072 1 - 0.38 X$	0.879
12		$A S I t = 0.009 V t + 0.15 H + 0.568 e 0.025 α + 14.796 R - 0.013 - 13.01 1 - 0.36 X$	0.971

Table 6

Fig.7

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Table10

References 27

1	Zeeger C V, Hummer J, Reinfurt D, et al. Safety effects of cross-section design for two-lane roads[R]. United States:Federal Highway Administration,1987.
2	Shankar V, Mannering F. An exploratory multinomial logit analysis of single-vehicle motorcycle accident severity[J]. Journal of Safety Research, 1996, 27(3): 183-194.
3	Ayati E, Asghar S A, Moghaddam A M, et al. Introducing roadside hazard severity indicator based on evidential reasoning approach[J]. Safety Science, 2012, 50(7): 1618-1626.
4	Roque C, Cardoso J A O L. Safeside: a computer-aided procedure for integrating benefits and costs in roadside safety intervention decision making[J]. Safety Science, 2015, 74(1): 195-205.
5	Roque C, Moura F, Cardoso J A O L. Detecting unforgiving roadside contributors through the severity analysis of ran-off-road crashes[J]. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2015, 80(4): 262-273.
6	Lee C, Li X. Predicting driver injury severity in single-vehicle and two-vehicle crashes with boosted regression trees[J]. Transportation Research Record, 2015, 2514(1): 138-148.
7	Park J, Abdel-Aty M, Lee J. Use of empirical and full Bayes before-after approaches to estimate the safety effects of roadside barriers with different crash conditions[J]. Journal of Safety Research, 2016, 58(6): 31-40.
8	Hou Qin-zhong, Huo Xiao-yan, Leng Jun-qiang, et al. Examination of driver injury severity in freeway single-vehicle crashes using a mixed logit model with heterogeneity-in-means[J]. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 2019,531: 121760.
9	Li Zhen-ning, Yu-sheng Ci, Chen Cong, et al. Investigation of driver injury severities in rural single-vehicle crashes under rain conditions using mixed logit and latent class models[J]. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2019, 124(3): 219-229.
10	高海龙, 李长城. 路侧安全设计指南[M]. 北京: 人民交通出版社, 2008.
11	方勇, 郭忠印, 李志勇. 双车道公路路侧环境客观安全性评估模型[J]. 同济大学学报:自然科学版, 2013, 41(7): 1025-1030.
	Fang Yong, Guo Zhong-yin, Li Zhi-yong. Assessment model for roadside environment objective safety on two-lane highway[J]. Journal of Tongji University (Natural Science), 2013, 41(7): 1025-1030.
12	龙科军, 李寅, 雷正保, 等. 基于加速度严重指数的公路路侧危险度评估[J]. 中国公路学报, 2013, 26(3): 143-149.
	Long Ke-jun, Li Yin, Lei Zheng-bao, et al. Evaluating roadside hazard rating based on acceleration severity index[J]. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 2013, 26(3): 143-149.
13	陈慧, 张绍理, 刘志刚, 等. 基于AHP方法的山区等级公路路侧防护措施设置研究[J]. 中外公路, 2014, 34(6): 285-288.
	Chen Hui, Zhang Shao-li, Liu Zhi-gang, et al. Setting of roadside protection measures of mountain grade highway based on AHP method[J]. Journal of China and Foreign Highway, 2014, 34(6): 285-288.
14	. 公路交通安全设施设计规范[S].
15	. 公路路线设计规范[S].
16	Riser. European best practice for roadside design: guidelines for roadside infrastructure on new and existing roads[R]. Gothenburg:Chalmers University of Technology,2005.
17	EN 1317-2: 1998. Road restraint systems—part 2: performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and test methods for safety barriers[S].
18	江亮, 贺宜. 电动两轮车风险驾驶行为及事故影响因素分析[J]. 吉林大学学报:工学版, 2019, 49(4): 1107-1113.
	Jiang Liang, He Yi. Risky driving behavior and influencing factors analysis for electric two-wheeler[J]. Journal of Jilin University (Engineering and Technology Edition), 2019, 49(4): 1107-1113.
19	高继东, 曾必强, 彭伟. 电动自行车与轿车碰撞中骑车人的伤害特征[J]. 吉林大学学报:工学版, 2016, 46(6): 1786-1791.
	Gao Ji-dong, Zeng Bi-qiang, Peng Wei. Cyclist injury collision between car and electric bicycle[J]. Journal of Jilin University (Engineering and Technology Edition), 2016, 46(6): 1786-1791.
20	Jr Ross H E, Sicking D L, Zimmer R A, et al. Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features[M]. Washington DC: Transportation Research Board National Research Council, 1993.
21	. 道路交通事故车辆速度鉴定[S].
22	王辰. 基于PC-CRASH的汽车-护栏事故再现研究[D]. 长春: 吉林大学交通学院, 2014.
	Wang Chen. A study on PC-CRASH reconstructing vehicle-guardrail accident[D]. Changchun: College of Traffic and Transportation, Jilin University, 2014.
23	张维刚, 胡高贤. 土基中波形梁护栏立柱的有限元模型研究[J]. 公路交通科技, 2007(7): 143-146.
	Zhang Wei-gang, Hu Gao-xian. Finite element model of a w-beam guardrail post mounted in soil[J]. Journal of Highway and Transportation Research and Development, 2007(7): 143-146.
24	. 公路波形梁钢护栏[S].
25	. 碳素结构钢技术条件[S].
26	高峰, 刘江, 杨新刚, 等. 基于Fisher最优分割法的机床热关键点优化研究[J]. 仪器仪表学报, 2013, 34(5): 1070-1075.
	Gao Feng, Liu Jiang, Yang Xin-gang, et al. Study on optimization of thermal key points for machine tools based on fisher optimal segmentation method[J]. Chinese Journal of Scientific Instrument, 2013, 34(5): 1070-1075.
27	周源, 杜俊飞, 王子鸿, 等. 基于多种函数拟合的自适应最优分割法[J]. 统计与决策, 2019, 35(13): 65-68.
	Zhou Yuan, Du Jun-fei, Wang Zi-hong, et al. Adaptive optimal partition method based on multi-function fitting[J]. Statistics & Decision, 2019, 35(13): 65-68.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

Comments

Recommended 0

No Suggested Reading articles found!

试验参数	取值
车型	“载重货车”=0、“小型客车”=1
驶出速度/(km·h^-1)	40、60、80、100、120
圆曲线半径/m	+∞、600、500、400、300、200
边坡坡度	1∶6.5、1∶5.5、1∶4.5、1∶3.5、1∶2.5、1∶1.5
路基高度/m	0.5、2.5、4.5、6.5、8.5、10.5

变量	取值
驶出速度/(km·h^-1)	40	60	80	100	120
驶出角度/(°)	12	9	8	6	6

参数	数值
单跨护栏长度/m	4.00
护栏横向宽度/m	0.46
横梁上沿离地高度/m	0.87
横梁下沿离地高度/m	0.56
护栏重心高度/m	0.00

车速 /(km·h^-1)	圆曲线半径/m
车速 /(km·h^-1)	+∞	600	500	400	300	200
40	＊	＊	＊	＊	＊	＊
60	＊	＊	＊	＊	＊	＊
80	＊	＊	＊	＊	＊	＊
100	＊	＊	＊	＊	※	※
120	＊	＊	※	※	※	※

车速 /(km·h^-1)	圆曲线半径/m
车速 /(km·h^-1)	+∞	600	500	400	300	200
40	＊	＊	＊	＊	＊	＊
60	＊	＊	＊	＊	＊	※
80	＊	＊	＊	※	※	※
100	※	※	※	※	※	※
120	※	※	※	※	※	※

Risk assessment of roadside accidents based on occupant injuries analysis

RICH HTML

PDF (PC)

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 17

References 27

Related Articles 3

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

样本类别	k	最小误差函数	分类情况	β值
ASI_c有序样本	2	108.321	｛1~83｝｛84~126｝	-
	3	50.012	｛1~31｝｛32~83｝｛84~126｝	1.64
	4	30.467	｛1~31｝｛32~61｝｛62~83｝｛84~126｝	1.31
	5	23.319	｛1~31｝｛32~61｝｛62~83｝｛84~102｝｛103~126｝	-
ASI_t有序样本	2	89.975	｛1~113｝｛114~166｝	-
	3	33.721	｛1~42｝｛43~113｝｛114~166｝	1.85
	4	18.276	｛1~42｝｛43~113｝｛114~139｝｛140~166｝	1.23
	5	14.870	｛1~42｝｛43~87｝｛88~113｝｛114~139｝｛140~166｝	-

风险等级	ASI_c阈值	ASI_t阈值	乘员损伤等级
I级	≤1	≤1	轻度受伤或未受伤
II级	(1，1.43]	(1，1.56]	中度受伤
III级	(1.43，1.98]	(1.56，2.17]	重度受伤
IV级	>1.98	>2.17	死亡

事故编号	事故时速度 /(km·h^-1)	道路类型	圆曲线半径/m	路基高度/m	边坡坡度	路侧护栏	事故车型	驾驶人损伤等级	ASI	风险等级
1	108	直线	+∞	2	1∶1	设置	小型客车	死亡	2.54	IV
2	66	直线	+∞	4	1∶2	设置	小型客车	中度	1.16	II
3	70	直线	+∞	3.5	1∶3.5	未设置	小型客车	重度	1.36	II
4	58	直线	+∞	5.8	1∶4	未设置	小型客车	中度	1.52	III
5	117	直线	+∞	4.3	1∶2.5	未设置	小型客车	死亡	1.99	IV
6	89	直线	+∞	0.9	1∶4.5	未设置	小型客车	中度	1.20	II
7	72	直线	+∞	5.5	1∶1	设置	小型客车	重度	2.61	IV
8	80	直线	+∞	7.8	1∶2.5	设置	小型客车	重度	1.57	III
9	67	直线	+∞	0.5	1∶5.5	未设置	载重货车	轻度受伤	0.92	I
10	54	直线	+∞	2.5	1∶3.5	未设置	载重货车	中度	1.08	II
11	62	直线	+∞	3.8	1∶5.5	未设置	载重货车	中度	1.29	II
12	57	曲线	880	2	1∶1	设置	小型客车	轻度受伤	0.90	I
13	89	曲线	1080	4	1∶2	设置	小型客车	重度	1.23	II
14	94	曲线	1170	3.5	1∶3.5	未设置	小型客车	重度	1.72	III
15	105	曲线	2460	5.8	1∶4	未设置	小型客车	死亡	1.99	IV
16	78	曲线	3330	3.7	1∶4	未设置	小型客车	重度	1.54	III
17	44	曲线	240	1.8	1∶2.5	未设置	小型客车	未受伤	1.15	II
18	59	曲线	980	2	1∶4.5	未设置	小型客车	中度	1.26	II
19	72	曲线	770	3.2	1∶4	未设置	载重货车	死亡	2.26	IV
20	66	曲线	940	4.4	1∶3.5	未设置	载重货车	中度	2.35	IV

[1]	Yang LI,Shuo LI,Li-wei JING. Estimate model based on Bayesian model and machine learning algorithms applicated in financial risk assessment [J]. Journal of Jilin University(Engineering and Technology Edition), 2020, 50(5): 1862-1869.
[2]	MAN Da-peng, ZHANG Bing, ZHOU Yuan, YANG Wu, YANG Yong-tian . Depthfirst method for attack graph generation [J]. 吉林大学学报(工学版), 2009, 39(02): 446-0452.
[3]	Wang Kun,Yin Zhong-hai,Zhou Li-hua,Cai Zhen . Quantitative mathematical model for disaster recovery planning based on optimization theory [J]. 吉林大学学报(工学版), 2007, 37(01): 146-150.