Road Safety Final

ROAD
SAFETY
ANALYTICS
Objectives:
Analysis of road safety data in
Tata
Steel and to give prediction
model and recommendations
for reducing accidents and
better management of road
incidents.
Tools and Techniques
Pareto charts
Pie Charts
Cluster Analysis
Histograms
Arena
SAS
PHP
Methodology
Cause and Effect diagram
Pareto Charts In general we can say that 20% of factors

are responsible for 80% of the problems. For finding this
we use pareto charts.
Clustering We can group the data points in different

clusters based on their location (co-ordinates) and risk
score.
Distributions We find the closest fit distribution to

estimate the time between incidences(TBI).
Pie Charts We can show contribution of factors with the

help of pie charts.
Prescriptions.
Data Analysis
Injury Type Pareto

2013-14
Injury
2012-13
Injury Type
frequency
cum.
percent
F/A
57
57
45.96774
NO
49
106
LTI
15
FATAL
MTO
Injury Type
frequency
cum.
percent
85.48387
NO
81
81
27.46479
121
97.58065
F/A
39
120
84.50704
123
99.19355
LTI
21
141
99.29577
124
100
FATAL
142
100
Pareto Chart
Pareto Chart
frequency
60
100
50
80
40
60
30
40
20
20
10
0
F/A
NO
Injury
LTI FATAL MTO
injury
frequency
percent
Cumm percent
100
80
60
frequency 40
20
0
100
80
60
40 Cumm percent
20
0
injury
Frequency
Cummulative
Vehicle Type
2013-14
Pareto
2012-13
Vehicle Type
Vehicle
Type
Frequency
prob
Two
60
0.3774
0.3774
37.7358
HV
55
0.3459
0.7233
FW
26
0.1635
Cycle
18
0.1132
Vehicle Type
Vehicle
Type
Frequency
prob
cumm prob
percentage
HV
81
0.5094
0.5094
50.9434
72.3270
FW
37
0.2327
0.7421
74.2138
0.8868
88.6792
Two
27
0.1698
0.9119
91.1950
1.0000
100.0000
Cycle
14
0.0881
1.0000
100.0000
cumm prob percentage
Pareto Chart
70
100
90
80
40
60
30
40
20
20
10
80
70
50
100
80
60
FREQUENCY
Pareto Chart
60
CUMM PERCENT
60
50
FREQUENCY 40
40
30
20
20
10
Two
HV
FW
VEHICLE
Cycle
VEHICLE
CUMM PERCENT
Control chart for no. of

incidents per month
25
20
15
10 Incidents
No. of
Separation between 2012-13 and 2013-14 control chart
Probability
Risk Score CalculationConsequence
25
24
22
19
15
23
21
18
14
10
20
17
13
16
12
11
Cluster Analysis combined for

2012-13 and 2013-14
Cluster Analysis for 2013-14

Plot of
incident
s based
on
injury
Fatal
LTI
First Aid
No Injury
Plot of
incidents
based on
property
damage risk
score
19 to 25
13 to 18
7 to 12
1 to 6
Plot of
incidents
based on
both type
risk score
19 to 25
13 to 18
7 to 12
1 to 6
Clusterin
g of
incident
locations
Represents
cluster
Cluster
Xcord
Ycord
count
cum.
829.421
749.14
57
57
721.296 263.241
54
111
40
151
1227.9
791.95
342.892 194.757
37
188
451.419 1174.77
31
219
215
506.389
18
237
1109
298.471
17
254
154.455 964.545
11
265
percent
Location
21.5094
East plant drop gate,LD#3 Traffic Signal,Near
3
LD#3 Office Turning
41.8867 L Town Gate, Diamond Crossing, G Blast Furncae
9
Ramp and crossing
56.9811
HSM Gate, WRP Weigh Bridge, Canteen turning
3
70.9434 Security Office Traffic signal,Coke plant Drop Gate
82.6415
Cabin#4 drop Gate,Near Merchant Mill Office
1
89.4339
West side peripheral Road,Near WGO
6
95.8490
Slag Road Gate
6
100
Pellet Plant Turning, Near PH#3 Gate
count
frequency
percent
60
100
50
80
40
60
30
40
20
20
10
0
CLUSTER NO.
CUMM. PERCENT
Cluster
Analysis
overlapped
for
2012-13
and 2013-14
Represents
cluster of
2012-13
Represents
cluster of
2013-14
Clusteri
ng
based
on risk
score
Belong to cluster 2
Belong to cluster 4
Belong to cluster 3
Belong to cluster 1
Distribution of Time
between incidents
Distribution of Time between

incidents
2013-14
2012-13
Distribution Parameters
Distribution Name: Weibull
Alpha: 3.64
Alpha: 3.33
Beta: 1.26
Beta: 1.29
Expression: -0.5 + WEIB

(3.64, 1.26)
Expression: -0.5 + WEIB(3.33,

1.29)
Square Error:
Square Error:
0.007550
Sample Mean
= 2.87
0.004127
Sample Mean
2.57
LTI
First Aid
No Injury
Control Chart for Time between

Incidents
2013-14
CONTROL CHART FOR TBI(2013-14)
TBI
Linear (TBI)
UCL=11.759
2012-13

TBI
LCL=0.113
16
14
14
12
12
Linear (TBI)
UCL=10.468
10
10
8
TBI
TBI
6
4
DATE
DATE
LCL=0.112
Distribution of Time between

injury
2013-14
2012-13
Alpha: 5.32
Alpha: 6.73
Beta: 1.26
Beta: 1.13
Expression: -0.5 + WEIB(5.32, 1.26)
Square Error:
Square Error:
0.003990
Sample Mean
Sample Std. Dev
= 4.44
= 4.02
0.015753
Sample Mean
Sample Std. Dev
= 5.92
= 6.08
Control Chart for Injury

2013-14
2012-13

TBI
Linear (TBI )
UCL=17.186
TBI
LCL=0.165
25
Linear (TBI)
UCL=24.88
30
25
20
20
15
15
TBI
TBI
10
10
5
DATE
DATE
LCL=0.14
Correlation between different

Vehicles involved
25
19.5
20
15.5
RISK SCORE
15
10
14
10.29
8.24
4.75
7.75
8.8
7
9
7
6
4.67
4.31
4
0.88
HV
HV-FW
HV-TW
HV-CYCLIST
0
FW
FW-TW
FW-CYCLIST
0
VEHICLE COMBINATION
Average Injury Risk score
Average Property Damage Risk score
TW
TW-CYCLIST
0
CYCLIST
0
Correlation between different

Vehicles involved
Frequency Contribution
Combinatio Incident
n
count
HV
32
HV-FW
16
HV-TW
HV-CYCLIST
FW
FW-TW
FW-CYCLIST
TW
48
TW-CYCLIST
CYCLIST
TW-CYCLIST; 6%
CYCLIST; 3%
HV; 26%
HV-TW; 2%
TW; 39%
HV-CYCLIST; 3%
HV-FW; 13%
FW-TW;
2% FW; 4%
FW-CYCLIST;
2%
Contribution of different Vehicle

combinations in risk
Cumulative
Combi
Risk
nation
materi
Injury
al
HV
152 263.68
HV-FW 68.96
HV-TW
HVCYCLIS
T
FW
14
62
44
FW-TW 14.01
FWCYCLIS 39
T
TW 493.92
TWCYCLIS 56
T
CYCLIS
56
T
Property Damage risk

Contribution
Injury Risk Contribution
124
12
0
45
12
0
42
TW-CYCLIST; 6%
HV; 15%
CYCLIST; 6%HV-FW; 7%
HV-TW; 1%
HV-CYCLIST; 6%
FW; 4%
TW; 49%
HV-TW; 2%
FW-TW; 1%
FW-CYCLIST; 4%
HV-FW; 25%
0
0
FW-TW; 2% TW; 8%
FW; 9%
HV; 53%
MASTER LOGIC
DIAGRAM
PHYSICAL
(1)
EXTERNAL
(6)
BEHAVIORAL
(2)
Inciden
t
VEHICULAR
(5)
SYSTEM
(3)
INFRASTRUCTU
RE
(4)
PHYSICAL
(1)
OBSTRUCTIO
N
DIVIDER
SPILLAGE
DROP GATE
HEIGHT
BARRIER
ILLUMINATION
BEHAVIORAL
(2)
NON
INTENTIONAL
INTENTIONAL
CARELESS
DRIVING
TRAFFIC NORMS
VIOLATION
ALCOHOL
OVERTAKING
HIGH SPEED
SLEEPY
NOT
KNOWLEDGEABLE
SYSTEM
(3)
DESIGN
ZEBRA
CROSSING
TRAFFIC LIGHT
SUPERVISION
CONVEX MIRROR
SIGN BOARD
OTHERS(ROUTE
SURVEY,SECURIT
Y
VEHICULAR
ISSUES
(5)
BRAKE
FAILURE
INDICATOR
LIGHT
TYRE BURST
FAIL SAFE
BRAKE
FAILURE
STEERING
JAMMED
HAND
BRAKE NOT
WORKING
EXTERNA
L
(6)
STREET
DOGS
Contribution of
Organizational
factors and Use of
proactive data(FY14)
Issues
Physical
Behavioral
System
Infrastructure
Vehicular
Issues
External Issues
Count
Divider
Spillage (material/water)
Environmental (Illumination)
Height Barrier
Drop Gate
Overtaking
Alcoholic
Sleepy
Not knowledgeable
Traffic norms violation
Careless Driving
High Speed
No Zebra Crossing
Traffic Light
Convex Mirror
Others (supervision, route survey)
No Sign Board
Bad Road Condition /intersection issue
level crossing
Narrow Road (Congestion)
Blind Turn
No separate cyclist/pedestrian pathway
Brake Failure
Steering problem
Indicator Light Failure
Others (No reverse mirror)
Tyre Burst
2
13
11
2
6
28
1
0
11
5
107
40
1
11
3
6
11
6
17
13
6
11
4
4
0
6
2
Street dogs
cumulative count
34
192
32
53
16
6
Histogram of various Factor

Contributions
Frequency
120
100
80
60
40
20
13
11
28
11
0
107
40
11
11
17
13
11
6
0
Factor Contribution
Based on Occurrence
Physical
28
Behavioral
109
System
27
Infrastructure
42
Vehicular
Issues
16
External Issues
VEHICULAR ISSUES; 7% EXTERNAL; 3%
PHYSICAL; 12%
INFRASTRUCTURE; 18%
SYSTEM; 12%
BEHAVIORAL; 48%
Factor Contribution
Based on Frequency
Physical
34
Behavioral
192
System
32
Infrastructure
53
Vehicular
Issues
16
External Issues
Physical; 10%
Infrastructure; 16%
Vehicular Issues; 5% External Issues; 2%
System; 10%
Behavioral; 58%
Sub factor Contribution in

Physical Factor
Count
Divider
cumulativ
e count
PHYSICAL
2
Drop Gate; 18%
Spillage
(material/water 13
)
Phy
sic Environmental
al (Illumination)
Height Barrier
Drop Gate
Divider; 6%
Height Barrier; 6%
34
11
2
6
Environmental (Illumination); 32%
Spillage (material/water); 38%

Behavioral Factor
Count
Overtaking
28
Alcoholic
Be Sleepy
Not
ha knowledgeable
vi Traffic norms
or violation
al Careless
Driving
High Speed
cumulativ
e count
BEHAVIORAL
High Speed; 21%
Overtaking ; 15%
Alcoholic; 1%
Not knowledgable; 6%
11
192
Traffic norms violation; 3%
5
107
40
Careless Driving; 56%

System Factor
Sy
st
e
m
Coun cumulativ
t
e count
No Zebra
Crossing
Traffic Light
11
Convex Mirror
SYSTEM
No Zebra Crossing; 3%
No Sign Board; 34%
Traffic Light ; 34%
3
32
Others
(supervision,
route survey)
6
Others (supervision, route survey); 19%
No Sign Board
11
Convex Mirror ; 9%

Infrastructure Factor
Infr
ast
ruc
tur
e
cumulativ
Count
e count
Bad Road
Condition
/intersection issue
level crossing
17
Narrow Road
(Congestion)
13
Blind Turn
No separate
cyclist/pedestrian
pathway
11
INFRASTRUCTURE
No separate cyclist/padestrian pathway; 21%
Blind Turn; 11%
53
Narrow Road (Congestion); 25%
Bad Road Condition /intersection issue; 11%
level crossing; 32%
b factor Contribution in Vehicular Issues

Factor
Brake Failure
Count
cumulativ
e count
VEHICULAR ISSUES
4
Tyre Burst; 13%
Steering
problem
Vehi
cula
Indicator Light
r
Failure
Issu Others (No
reverse
es
Brake Failure; 25%
camera)
Tyre Burst
16
Others (No reverse mirror); 38%
Steering problem; 25%
Factor Contribution in
total Injury Score
PROCEDURE:
Assumption : Each contributing sub factor is equally responsible for any

incident.
For every incident, Score is divided by no. of sub factors to get score/sub
factor.
Finding no. of sub factors of each factor in each incident.
Multiply no. of sub factors to score/sub factor to get contributing score of

each factor.
Add all incidents score for each factor.
Factor Contribution in Total

Injury Score
Factors
Physical
Behavioral
System
Infrastructure
Vehicular
Issues
External
Issues
Injury
Risk
Score
87.85
558.12
126.53
130.50
Contribution in total risk(Injury)
Infrastructure; 13%
System; 13%
External Issues; 3%
Vehicular Issues; 6%
physical; 9%
62.33
25.67
Behavioral; 56%
Factor Contribution in Total

Property Damage
Factors
Physical
Behavioral
System
Infrastructur
e
Vehicular
Issues
External
Issues
Contribution in total risk(Property Damage)
Property
damage Risk
score
53.32
280.53
69.05
28.27
75.33
External Issues; 0%
physical; 11%
Infrastructure; 6%
System; 14%
0.50
Behavioral; 55%
Comparison of contribution
based on Frequency and Total
Risk
FACTOR CONTRIBUTION BASED ON FREQUENCY FACTOR CONTRIBUTION IN TOTAL RISK(INJURY)
Infrastructure; 13%
Infrastructure; 16%
Physical; 10%
System; 13%
External Issues; 2%
External Issues; 3%
physical; 9%
System; 10%
Behavioral; 58%
Behavioral; 56%
Comparison of contribution
based on Frequency and Total
Risk
FACTOR CONTRIBUTION IN TOTAL RISK(PROPERTY DAMAGE)
FACTOR CONTRIBUTION BASED ON FREQUENCY
Infrastructure; 16%
Physical; 10%
External Issues;physical;
0%
11%
Infrastructure; 6%
External Issues; 2%
System; 14%
System; 10%
Behavioral; 58%
Behavioral; 55%
Correlation between
different organizational
measures and number of
incidents
Effect of Speed violations on Total

incidents due to high speed
Speed
No. of
Month Violation incidents(Hi
s
gh speed)
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
334
414
326
410
296
321
330
311
231
215
126
114
2
2
0
0
0
1
14
1
7
5
4
3
Speed violations vs No. of incidents due to High Speed

450
414
410
400
350 334
326
296
300
330
321
311
231
250
215
200
FREQUENCY
150
126
114
100
50
0
1
0
14
MONTH
Speed Violations
No. of incidents(Highspeed)
Effect of Speed violations on Total
Effect of Heavy vehicle inspection on

Total incidents due to vehicular issues
April
434
No. of
incidents
due to
vehicular
issues
1
May
362
June
403
July
368
300
August
308
200
September
330
100
October
334
November
417
December
395
January
528
February
421
March
288
No. of
MONTHS inspectio
ns
No. of HV inspection vs No. of incidents due to vehicular issues

600
528
500
434
FREQUENCY
400
417
403
362
368
2
0
334
330
308
421
395
2
0
288
MONTH
No. of incidents due to vehicular issues
No. of inspections
Effect of HV inspection on Total
Effect of R-SAP on Total incidents due

to careless driving
No. of
R-SAP
Incidents due
Month Conducte to careless
d
driving
R-SAP conducted Vs No. of incidents due to Careless driving

140
April
106
May
98
June
116
July
101
August
89
September
92
11
40
October
110
18
20
November
102
December
115
10
104
January
116
120
106
104
102
101
98
100
115
110
92
89
80
FREQUENCY
60
5
0
Apr'13
8
May'13
June'13
July'13
18
11
Aug'13
Sep'13
8
Oct'13
Nov'13
10
Dec'13
Jan'14
MONTH
R-SAP Conducted
Careless Driving
Effect of R-SAP on Total inciden
Analysis of Variance
Source
DF
Sum of
Squares
Mean Square
Model
26.757535
8.919178
Error
91.492465
11.436558
Corrected Total
11
118.25
F Value
Pr > F
0.78
0.538
Model Fit Statistics

R-Square
0.226
Adj R-Sq.
-0.0639
Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates

Parameter
DF
Estimate
Standard
Error
F Value
Pr > |t|
Intercept
0.4805
13.2828
0.34
0.745
HVC
-0.0235
0.0173
-1.36
0.212
RSAP
0.1562
0.1376
1.14
0.289
SV
-0.00463
0.0106
-0.44
0.674
6
10
9
7
11
11
18
9
13
8
13
8
MONT Speed Heavy Vehicle RSA

H
Violation
Checking
P
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
334
414
326
410
296
321
330
311
231
215
126
114
434
362
403
368
308
330
334
417
395
528
421
288
106
98
116
101
89
92
110
102
115
104
103
98
Forecasting using
Decomposition
Method
Validation for number of Incidents

Model Building Data: April2011-Aug2013
Sep2013-March2014
Month
Forecast
Actual
Sum
Square
Error
Septembe
r
12.62
11.00
2.61
October
17.48
18.00
0.27
November
7.00
9.00
3.98
December
11.03
13.00
3.88
January
7.39
8.00
0.37
February
13.41
13.00
0.17
March
8.60
8.00
0.36
MSE 1.67
Validation Data:
Forecast for number of incidents

Month
Polynomial
Actual FY-15
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
7.23
10.61
14.49
10.00
13.53
6.77
10.29
7.52
11.46
8.39
7.87
11.51
10
10
8
Quarter wise
Injury per month

2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
15
10
No. of Injuries
5
0
0
6
Month
10
12
Validation for number of injury

Model Building Data: April2011-Aug2013
Sep2013-March2014
Month
Forecast
(2013-14)
Actual
2013-14
SS
September
7.74
9.00
1.5952
October
10.08
13.00
8.5452
November
-0.75
3.00
14.065
December
4.92
8.00
9.4715
January
5.09
7.00
3.6291
February
6.27
8.00
3.0020
March
-0.39
1.00
1.9424
MSE
Validation Data:
Forecast for No. of Injury type Incidents

Month
Polynomial
Actual FY-15
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
4.65
8.83
9.60
8.64
9.73
7.39
7.61
5.96
10.47
8.17
9.36
8.46
4
4
5
Forecast for First Aid

Forecast for LTI
Prescriptions:
In 2013-14, 6 incidents happened due to street dogs which mostly resulted in LTI.
Inside a steel plant, presence of street dogs should not be tolerated and street
actions should be taken to eliminate this hazard.
In some incidents, illumination was also a major contributing factor. (E.g. Near pellet
plant level crossing, illumination is poor as well as road condition is also poor.)
These types of roads should be identified and proper action should be taken)
Over 3 years, there is an increasing trend of incidents near Diamond crossing; even
then there is no traffic signal at the crossing. It should be implemented as soon as
possible.
Also at major crossings (Diamond, LD#2, LD#3, Cabin#4), most near misses are
either due to crossing with high speed or carelessness of cyclists/pedestrians. To
reduce this no. ,there must be a speed limit (say 20kmph) at all crossings and if
possible separate pathways for cyclists/pedestrians.
In some areas, proper sign boards are not present at roads. This should be
Vehicle failure (mainly steering jammed and brake failure) may lead to a very serious
accident inside plant. So these types of incidents should have separate investigation to
take preventive actions.
In case of property damages, more than 50% incidents happened due to dashing in
which a major contribution is, while reversing a heavy vehicle.
So if we strictly implement the availability of reverse camera, these types of
incidents can be reduced.
As far as behavioral related issues are concerned, careless driving and high speed are
long term issues. But sleepiness and alcohol must not be tolerated. In such cases heavy
penalty should be imposed to avoid any future serious accident.
Spillage prone roads should be identified (like near sinter and pellet plant) and there
should be warning about spillage to avoid any skidding/slipping.
With the help of regression it is evident that heavy vehicle inspection and speed
violation checking are helping in reducing road accidents but RSAP is not up to the
mark. More needs to be done in that area.
Thank You
Rohit Raj
Sonu Kumar
Backup Slides
Cause
Cause and
and Effect
Effect diagram
diagram for
for Road
Road Incidents
Incidents
Human
Human Factors(83)
Factors(83)
External
External Factors(17)
Factors(17)
Material /
Water
Spillage
Stones and
other
obstruction
s
Slope
(increasing
or
decreasing)
Sharp
and blind
turns
Driver
mentally
stressed or
tired
Sudden
appearance of
Street
Dogs/animals
Uneven
or
damaged
road
Unskilled in
driving/driving
a new Vehicle
Lack of sleep,
carelessness
(taking risks,
overtaking)
Fail safe brake,
blinker, wiper,
hand brake not
working
Tyre
bursted
Steering
jammed
Rainy or
windy
conditions
(seasonality
)
Incidents/
Incidents/
Accidents
Accidents on
on
Road(124)
Road(124)
Low
Visibility
due to fog
or night
time
Road
Road conditions(15)
conditions(15)
Vehicle
Vehicle Breakdown
Breakdown (9)
(9)
Environmental
Environmental Factors
Factors (N/A)
(N/A)
Cause type
Pareto
2013-14
CAUSES
Real Causes
Frequency
cum.
Human Factors
83
83
External Factor
17
100
Road Condition
15
115
Vehicle
Breakdown
124
2012-13
percent
66.935483
9
80.645161
3
92.741935
5
CAUSES
Human Factors
100
14
119
85
Vehicle Breakdown
12
131
93.5714286
External Factor
140
100
Pareto Chart
100
80
80
70
60
60
50
40
40
30
FREQUENCY
20
CUMM PERCENT
20
10
0
120
100
100
80
80
FREQUENCY
60
60
CUMM PERCENT
40
40
20
20
0
CAUSE
percent
75
Road Condition
Pareto Chart
90
Real Causes
Frequency
cum.
105
105
3
CAUSE
Month type
Pareto
Month
2013-14
Frequency Cum. Freq. percent
April,13
0.04878
May,13
10
16
0.130081
June,13
25
0.203252
July,13
32
0.260163
August,13
11
43
0.349593
September,13
11
54
0.439024
October,13
18
72
0.585366
November,13
81
0.658537
December,13
13
94
0.764228
January,14
102
0.829268
February,14
13
115
0.934959
March,14
123
Frequency
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
20
18
16
14
12
10
Frequency
8
6
4
2
0
8
Month
10
12
14
Month type
Pareto
Month
Frequency
Cum. Freq.
percent
April,12
May,12
June,12
July,12
August,12
September,12
October,12
November,12
December,12
January,13
February,13
March,13
8
11
21
9
21
6
8
9
10
11
10
18
8
19
40
49
70
76
84
93
103
114
124
142
5.633803
13.38028
28.16901
34.50704
49.29577
53.52113
59.15493
65.49296
72.53521
80.28169
87.32394
100
2012-13
No. of incidents
25
20
21
21
18
15
10
5
11
Scatter Plot
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
12
14
10
11
10
Month wise comparison

frequency 13
frequency 14
25
20
15
10
0
0
10
12
14
Plot of
incident
s based
on
injury
Fatal
LTI
First Aid
No Injury
Plot of
incidents
based on
property
damage risk
score
19 to 25
13 to 18
7 to 12
1 to 6
Plot of
incidents
based on
both type
risk score
19 to 25
13 to 18
7 to 12
1 to 6
Clusteri
ng of
incident
location
s
Represents
cluster
Cluster Means
Cluster
Xcord
Ycord
826.25 722.84
count
cum
percent
Important locations
32
32
26.0163
LD 2 traffic signal, LD 3 traffic signal, level crossing

near LD 3
709.9
254.6
30
62
50.4065 Diamond Crossing, L Town Gate,
1225.3
791.5
18
80
65.0407
356.56 177.44
16
96
78.0488
7
2
1
3
456.22 1205.2
1064.1
224
127.2 492.2
131.2 935.8
9
8
5
5
105
113
118
123
85.3659
91.8699
95.935
100
frequency
G Blast furnace Turning

HSM Gate, WRP weighbridge
Security Office traffic Signal, West Plant level
Crossing
Cabin 4
Slag Road Gate
West Peripheral Road
Near Power House 3 Gate
cum %
35
120
30
100
25
80
Frequency
20
60
15
40
10
20
5
0
4
5
Cluster NO.
Cumm. percent
Clusteri
ng
based
on risk
Belong
to cluster 2
score
Belong to cluster 4
Belong to cluster 3
Belong to cluster 1
Plot of
incident
s based
on
injury
Fatal
LTI
First Aid
No Injury
Plot of
incidents
based on
property
damage risk
score
19 to 25
13 to 18
7 to 12
1 to 6
Plot of
incidents
based on
both type
risk score
19 to 25
13 to 18
7 to 12
1 to 6
Clusteri
ng of
incident
location
s
Represents
cluster
Cluster
Xcord
Ycord
count
cum.
percent
Location
805.423
387.308
26
26
18.30986
LD#2 Traffic Signal, G Blast furnace turning
389.962
199.692
26
52
36.61972
Security Office Traffic Signal,coke plant drop gate
6
7
5
3
1
8
366.077
1229.57
850.118
164.222
517.375
1155.71
1121.96
779.13
916.647
512.778
578.25
315.143
26
23
17
9
8
7
78
101
118
127
135
142
54.92958
71.12676
83.09859
89.43662
95.07042
100
cabin#4 drop gate, near merchant mill

HSM Gate, WRP Weigh Bridge
LD#2 Traffic Signal, CRM Island
west side peripheral road
East plant drop gate
slag road gate
Clusteri
ng
based
on risk
Belong
to cluster 3
score
Belong to cluster 1
Belong to cluster 2
Belong to cluster 4
between LTIs
2013-14
2012-13
Alpha: 23
Alpha: 16.8
Beta: 1.34
Beta: 1.21
Expression: -0.5 + WEIB(23, 1.34)
Square Error:
Square Error:
0.070247
Sample Mean
Sample Std. Dev
= 20.8
= 15.8
0.047390
Sample Mean
Sample Std. Dev
= 15.3
= 12.2
CONTROL CHART FOR LTI

2013-14
TBI
Linear (TBI)
UCL=69.28
2012-13
LCL=0.88

TBI
80
Linear (TBI)
UCL=56.97
60
70
50
60
40
50
40
TBI
30
TBI
30
20
20
10
10
0
DATE
DATE
LCL=0.45
between First Aid
2013-14
2012-13
Alpha: 6.88
Alpha: 9.32
Beta: 1.27
Beta: 1.15
Expression:
-0.5 + WEIB(6.88, 1.27)
Square Error: 0.006406
Sample Mean
Sample Std. Dev
Expression:
-0.5 + WEIB(9.32, 1.15)
: 5.88
: 5.32
Sample Mean
Sample Std. Dev
= 8.39
= 7.43
CONTROL CHART FOR FIRST AID

2013-14
2012-13

TBI
Linear (TBI)
UCL=22.02
LCL=0.22
TBI
30
Linear (TBI)
UCL=33.68
40
35
25
30
20
25
15
20
TBI
TBI
10
15
10
5
5
0
DATE
DATE
LCL=0.21
between No Injury
2013-14
2012-13

Alpha: 5.18
Alpha: 8.76
Beta: 1.1
Beta: 1.24
Expression:
Expression:
-0.5 + WEIB(8.76, 1.24)
Square Error:
-0.5 + WEIB(5.18, 1.1)
0.015624
Sample Mean
Sample Std. Dev
= 7.66
= 6.64
Sample Mean
= 4.47
Sample Std. Dev
= 4.87
CONTROL CHART FOR NO INJURY

2013-14
2012-13

TBI
Linear (TBI)
UCL
LCL
TBI
35
Linear (TBI)
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
TBI
15
TBI
10
10
DATE
DATE
UCL
LCL
Effect of Speed violations on Total incidents

Month
Speed
Violations
No. of
incidents(over
all)
April
334
May
414
10
June
326
July
410
August
296
11
September
321
11
October
330
18
November
311
December
231
13
January
215
February
126
13
March
114
Speed violations vs Road Incidents

450
414
410
400
350 334
326
321
330
296
300
311
250
231
215
200
FREQUENCY
150
126
114
100
50
0
10
Speed Violations
11
No. of incidents(overall)
11
18
MONTH
13
13
Effect of Heavy vehicle inspection on

Total incidents
MONTHS
No. of
Total no. of
inspections incidents
No. of HV inspection vs Total no. of incidents

600
528
April
434
May
362
10
June
403
July
368
August
308
11
September
330
11
October
334
18
November
417
December
395
13
January
528
February
421
13
March
288
500
434
417
403
400
368
362
300
FREQUENCY
334
330
308
421
395
288
200
100
6
1
10
2
9
3
7
4
11
5
11
6
18
7
9
8
MONTH
No. of inspections
Total no. of incidents
13
9
8
10
13
11
8
12
Effect of R-SAP on Total incidents

Month
R-SAP
No. of
Conducted Incidents
R-SAP conducted Vs No. of incidents

140
April
106
116
120
May
98
10
June
116
July
101
August
89
11
September
92
11
40
October
110
18
20
November
102
December
115
13
January
104
104
102
101
98
100
115
110
106
92
89
80
FREQUENCY
60
6
0
Apr'13
10
May'13 June'13
7
July'13
11
11
Aug'13
Sep'13
18
9
Oct'13
MONTH
R-SAP Conducted
No. of Incidents
Nov'13
13
Dec'13
8
Jan'14
USING DECOMPOSITION METHOD

(Quarter wise)
Forecast for No. Of Incidents
Polynomial
29.7
28.3
26.9
23.4
22.2
19.8
17.5
13.0
Quarter
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Actual
28
Forecast for First Aid

Month
Polynomial Actual FY-15
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
2.64
7.02
7.08
8.11
7.58
5.88
5.92
4.75
8.64
7.93
7.95
7.82
2
4
5
Month
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
Forecast for LTI

Polynomial Actual FY-15
2.13
1.52
2.42
1.00
2.53
1.72
1.86
1.38
2.01
0.42
1.33
0.95
2
0
0
Usefulness to Tata Steel

Here with the help of Cause and Effect diagram we can
identify all the possible causes responsible for the
incidents taking place here related to human, vehicle,
road, environmental and external factors.
Next with the help of Pareto Chart we can identify major
factors responsible for the occurrence of incidents. Using
this we were able to identify major type of vehicles, type of
injury, type of causes, months which constitutes maximum
(here 80%) of incidents.
Moreover, We can also use Pareto chart for identifying highly
frequent
incident occurring areas which were identified
by Cluster Analysis, explained in next slide.
Cluster Analysis :
This is a mathematical tool for grouping a set of
objects in such a way that objects in the same group
are more similar and within cluster sum of squares is
minimum.
This can be used in Tata Steel to group all incidents in
a few clusters identified by their co-ordinates on a
map of size (width: 1332px, height: 1447px) .
Also, these clusters can be utilised as input for
predicting various injury type incidents in a particular
area. Here we have used k-means clustering and have
taken k =8.
Probability Distribution:
We have fit time between occurrences of
incidents both frequency wise and injury type
wise (No injury, First aid, LTI).
Using this fitting, we will be able to say what is
the pattern of time between occurrences as well
it's parameters
can be used in prediction.
E.g.- We have found that TBO follows Weibull
distribution with parameters alpha = 1.26 and
beta =3.64. So we can say that a particular
incident will occur with a particular probability
after a certain number of days.

Road Safety Final

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Road Safety Final

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ROAD

Tools and Techniques

Cause and Effect diagram

Pareto Charts In general we can say that 20% of factors

Clustering We can group the data points in different

Distributions We find the closest fit distribution to

Pie Charts We can show contribution of factors with the

Injury Type Pareto

LTI FATAL MTO

cumm prob percentage

Control chart for no. of

Separation between 2012-13 and 2013-14 control chart

Risk Score CalculationConsequence

Cluster Analysis combined for

Cluster Analysis for 2013-14

Distribution of Time between

Distribution Name: Weibull

Distribution Name: Weibull

Expression: -0.5 + WEIB

Expression: -0.5 + WEIB(3.33,

Control Chart for Time between

CONTROL CHART FOR TBI(2012-13)

Distribution of Time between

Distribution Name: Weibull

Distribution Name: Weibull

Expression: -0.5 + WEIB(5.32, 1.26)

Expression: -0.5 + WEIB(6.73, 1.13)

Control Chart for Injury

CONTROL CHART FOR TBI(2012-13)

CONTROL CHART FOR TBI(2013-14)

Correlation between different

Average Property Damage Risk score

Correlation between different

Contribution of different Vehicle

Property Damage risk

Injury Risk Contribution

Histogram of various Factor

VEHICULAR ISSUES; 7% EXTERNAL; 3%

Sub factor Contribution in

Environmental (Illumination); 32%

Spillage (material/water); 38%

Sub factor Contribution in

High Speed; 21%

Traffic norms violation; 3%

Careless Driving; 56%

Sub factor Contribution in

No Sign Board; 34%

Traffic Light ; 34%

Sub factor Contribution in

No separate cyclist/padestrian pathway; 21%

Blind Turn; 11%

Narrow Road (Congestion); 25%

Bad Road Condition /intersection issue; 11%

level crossing; 32%

b factor Contribution in Vehicular Issues

Brake Failure; 25%

Others (No reverse mirror); 38%

Steering problem; 25%

Assumption : Each contributing sub factor is equally responsible for any

Finding no. of sub factors of each factor in each incident.

Multiply no. of sub factors to score/sub factor to get contributing score of

Add all incidents score for each factor.

Factor Contribution in Total

Contribution in total risk(Injury)