Decision Support Model For Prioritizing Railway Level Crossings For Safety Improvements in Serbia: Application of Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy System

Expert Systems with Applications 40 (2013) 22082223
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Expert Systems with Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa
Decision support model for prioritizing railway level crossings for safety
improvements: Application of the adaptive neuro-fuzzy system
Goran Cirovic a,1, Dragan Pamucar b,
a
b
The Belgrade University College of Civil Engineering and Geodesy, Belgrade, Serbia
University of defence in Belgrade, Department of logistic, Serbia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Keywords:
Railway level crossings
Railway accidents
Neuro-fuzzy model
Safety improvements
a b s t r a c t
Every year, more than 400 people are killed in over 1.200 accidents at road-rail level crossings in the
European Union (European Railway Agency, 2011). Together with tunnels and specic road black spots,
level crossings have been identied as being a particular weak point in road infrastructure, seriously
jeopardizing road safety. In the case of railway transport, level crossings can represent as much as 29%
of all fatalities caused by railway operations. In Serbia there are approximately 2.350 public railway level
crossings (RLC) across the country, protected either passively (64%) or by active systems (25%). Passive
crossings provide only a stationary sign warning of the possibility of trains crossing. Active systems,
by contrast, activate automatic warning devices (i.e., ashing lights, bells, barriers, etc.) as a train
approaches. Securing a level crossing (whether it has an active or passive system of protection) is a material expenditure, and having in mind that Serbian Railways is a public company directly nanced from the
budget of the Republic of Serbia, it cannot be expected that all unsecured level crossings be part of a programme of securing them. The most common choice of which level crossings to secure is based on media
and society pressure, and on the possible consequences of a rise in the number of trafc accidents at the
level crossings. The process of selecting a level crossing where safety equipment will be installed is
accompanied by a greater or lesser degree of uncertainty of the essential criteria for making a relevant
decision. In order to exploit these uncertainties and ambiguities, fuzzy logic is used in this paper. Here
also, modeling of the Adaptive Neuro Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) is presented, which supports the
process of selecting which level crossings should receive an investment of safety equipment. The ANFIS
model is a trained set of data which is obtained using a method of fuzzy multi-criteria decision making
and fuzzy clustering techniques. 20 experts in road and rail trafc safety at railway level crossings took
part in the study. The ANFIS model was trained with the experiential knowledge of these experts and
tested on a selection of rail crossings in the Belgrade area regarding an investment of safety equipment.
The ANFIS model was tested on 88 level crossings and a comparison was made between the data set it
produced and the data set obtained on the basis of predictions made by experts.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
It is estimated that each day an average of 1308 people in the
world lose their lives in trafc accidents (European Railway
Agency, 2011). Out of approximately 54 million people a year
who die in the world, the death toll in road accidents amounts to
1.17 million (2.17%). This makes up a third of all victims of all types
of injuries in the world and is two times greater than victims of
Corresponding author. Address: Pavla Jurisica Sturma 33, 11000 Belgrade,

Serbia. Tel.: +381 642377908; fax: +381 113603187.
E-mail addresses: cirovic@sezampro.rs (G. Cirovic), dpamucar@gmail.com
(D. Pamucar).
1
Address: Hajduk Stankova 2, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia. Tel.: +381 112422178; fax:
+381 112422178.
0957-4174/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.10.041
war, and almost twice as many as all victims of murder and

violence.
Among the leading causes of death, trafc accidents are in
eighth place in the group of developed countries and in tenth place
in the group of developing countries (Bureau of Transport, 2010).
However, the absolute number of deaths is seven times higher in
the group of developing countries. When comparing geographiceconomic regions, in accordance with the divisions given by the
World Health Organization, it can be seen that most deaths are
in India (217,000), followed by China (179,000), where the number
of those killed in the last decade has increased by almost 30% (Li,
Xia, Li, & Li, 2002), and then Africa (170,000) (The World Health
Report, 1999). In Europe, around 20,000 die annually in trafc
accidents, while around 2.5 million suffer from serious or minor
injuries (WHO, 2003).
irovic, D. Pamucar / Expert Systems with Applications 40 (2013) 22082223

G. C
One third of fatal trafc accidents are related to persons younger than 25 years of age, of whom 89% are young men between 15
and 24 years (MacNab, 2003). Each year around 9000 children and
young people under 19 are killed in trafc accidents, with approximately 355,000 being more or less severely injured (WHO, 2003).
Railways remain one of the safest modes of transport in the
European Union (EU). Yet, some 1,400 people still die on EU railways each year. Most of the fatalities are unauthorised persons
and level-crossing users. Trends derived from the common safety
indicators (CSIs) indicate an overall improvement in railway safety
since 2006. Both the number of people killed and the number of
seriously injured persons fell in 2009. According to the CSI data
provided by the national safety authorities (NSAs) to the European
Railway Agency, 1391 people were killed and 1114 people were
seriously injured in 3073 railway accidents in 2009 (European Railway Agency, 2011). These gures are by far the lowest gures recorded since 2006. Member States reported 1,284 level-crossing
users killed in a total of 3063 level-crossing accidents during the
three years 20072009 (Table 1).
There are about 124,000 level crossings in the EU, so that on
average there are 4 level crossings in each 10 km section of track.
Only 41% are equipped with either manual or automatic protection
systems. Level crossings are amongst the most complex of road
safety issues, due to the addition of road vehicles with rail infrastructure, trains and train operations. The contributory factors at
crossings can be difcult to determine and there are generally several factors for a particular incident. Nevertheless, in Europe, 95%
of level crossing accidents are caused by road users (Woods,
2010). Table 2 shows the number of trafc accidents at level crossings in EU countries for the period 20062009 (European level
crossing forum, 2011).
In Serbia, amongst the major causes of collision are adverse
weather or road conditions (13%), unintended motor vehicle driver
error (46%), alcohol/drug use by a motor vehicle driver (9%), excessive speed (of motor vehicle driver) (7%), collisions involving fatigue (of motor vehicle driver) (3%) and other risk taking (of
vehicle driver) (3%) (Serbian Transport Safety Agency, 2010). From
these statistics, it is clear that human factors are the major cause of
these accidents (total 68%).
Railroads and highways are the two primary networks of surface transportation serving the entire nation. Both systems are
essential to the public interest. However, exposure to potential collisions between trains and motor vehicles at some 2350 RLC
throughout the Serbia has created a serious problem with regard
to the convenience and safety of highway travel (Serbian Transport
Council, 2010). Accidents at level crossings continue to be the largest single cause of fatalities from rail activity in Serbia (Bureau of
Transport, 2008). There are approximately 85 incidents at Serbian
crossings every year and these incidents result in the death of an
average of 90 people (Serbian Transport Council, 2010). This problem has grown tremendously during the past few decades because
of the rapid growth in vehicle-miles of travel.
During the four-year period of 2007 through 2010, nationwide
statistics indicated that fatalities due to RLC accidents increased
Table 1
Number of fatalities for different categories of railway user (20072009).
Categories of railway users
Passengers
Employees
Level-crossing uesrs
Unauthorised persons
Others
Year
2007
2008
2009
70
38
504
857
50
89
38
380
929
44
37
29
400
852
73
2209
Table 2
Number of trafc accidents at level crossings in the European Union (20062009).
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
European Union country
Total
Western Europe
Central Europe
Eastern Europe
135
172
138
116
452
348
305
180
725
676
591
537
1312
1196
1034
833
by 36% in rural areas and 20% in urban areas in Serbia (Bureau of

Transport, 2008). In Serbia, the death rate for motor vehicletrain
accidents has followed a similar pattern. Between the years 2008
and 2009, trafc deaths in Serbia increased by seven percent, but
deaths resulting from motor vehicle collisions with railroad trains
increased by 24%. The severity of motor vehicletrain accidents is
demonstrated by the fact that the 102 people killed in this type
of accident in Serbia during 2009 represented 6.8% of the total
highway fatalities while motor vehicletrain accidents accounted
for only 2.4% of the total number of trafc accidents (Bureau of
Transport, 2008).
It is usually difcult to assign a particular cause to RLC accidents. Accidents may be caused by an error in perception, judgment, or action by the motor vehicle driver (European level
crossing forum, 2011). Such factors as weather conditions, distractions, obstructions, railroad and highway trafc and operational
features, geometry of the railroad, roadway and grade crossing,
and type of protective device may be related to the causes of an
accident.
Possible solutions to the grade crossing problem have included
better enforcement of laws and regulations which apply to motor
vehicle drivers at grade crossings, improvement of the level of
grade crossing protection and construction of grade separations.
Application of the latter two alternatives by highway and trafc
engineers is economically limited. It is estimated that $ 86 billion
would be required to separate all grade crossings in the United
States (US Department of transportation, 2008). Even the installation of automatic protective devices at all crossings would cost a
minimum of $ 1.8 billion with annual maintenance costs averaging
about $ 200 million per year. The total application of either alternative would not only be prohibitive in cost, but economically
unjustied. Based upon engineering principles, a feasible solution
is to develop some type of priority rating system for the improvement of the level of grade crossing protection.
Public crossings in Serbia (approximately 2350) are protected
either passively (64%) or actively by automated systems/devices
(28%) (Bureau of Transport, 2008). Passive crossings provide only
stationary signs without train information. Drivers have to look
for the presence of a train before clearing the crossing. An active
warning system, by contrast, activates automatic warning devices
(i.e., ashing lights, continuous bell, etc.) as a train approaches.
In Australia, records show a reduction in accidents following the
installation of active warning systems (Ford & Matthews, 2002;
Wigglesworth & Uber, 1991). However, improving safety at RLC
is costly. The cost of an active level crossing protection system is
generally accepted at approximately 500,000 dollars per crossing
(Graham & Hogan, 2008). The cost of installing conventional active
systems at all passive crossings in Serbia would therefore be as
high as $ 1.17 billion. In addition, on-going maintenance costs
would be considerable in view of the remote locations of many
current passive crossings (Serbian Transport Council, 2010). There
has been considerable research and innovation in some countries
regarding the development of low cost RLC warning systems at
crossings, on trains, or in vehicles. A recent comprehensive literature review identied approximately 50 different systems (Tey,
2210

G. C
Ferreira, & Dia, 2009). Although many of these systems have been
invented, their effect on safety and driver acceptance is unknown.
There are opportunities for immediate application of some lowcost innovative systems for RLC available worldwide, subject to
their effectiveness and adaptation to Serbian conditions. The effectiveness of these alternative systems needs to be assessed to reect
safety improvements at crossings. However, to date, there has been
no systematic approach available to evaluate these systems for
implementation in Serbian conditions other than before-and-after
implementation studies.
This paper describes modeling of the Adaptive Neuro Fuzzy
Inference System (ANFIS) and denes the criteria which inuence
the choice of level crossings for installing safety equipment in order
to increase their level of safety in Serbia. In this paper is a study in
which the criteria were identied for describing the safety parameters at railway crossings and which directly inuence the selection
of level crossings for an investment in safety equipment. After
dening the criteria and relative weight using the Delphi method,
modeling of the adaptive neuro-fuzzy network was carried out
which has the ability to reproduce the decisions of experts. The
ANFIS model was trained with a data set obtained using the method
of fuzzy multi-criteria decision making (fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy
AHP) and the fuzzy clustering technique. The entry parameters in
the adaptive neuro-fuzzy network are the criteria which inuence
the choice of level crossing, and indicators that describe the given
criteria are described in linguistic variables represented by membership functions. 20 experts from the eld of road and rail trafc
safety at level crossings took part in this study. The experiential
knowledge of the experts was mapped into the database of rules
for the ANFIS model, forming a unique base of knowledge used to
make a selection of which level crossing to improve safety at. The
value of a criterium function was obtained as output from the system for each level crossing observed. On the basis of the criterium
function values obtained, ranking of the level crossings was carried
out. The adaptive neuro-fuzzy network was tested on a selection of
railway crossings in the Belgrade area. The adaptive neuro-fuzzy
network was tested on 88 level crossings and the data set obtained
was compared with the data set obtained on the basis of the predictions made by experts. The study is organized as follows. Section 1
presents some of the most important models for the prioritization
of level crossings in the world. Modeling of an adaptive neuro-fuzzy
network is described in the second section. The process of mapping
the fuzzy system in the adaptive neural network is specically
described in the modeling process. In addition, the process of
obtaining the numerical set of data is described, which is later used
for training the adaptive neuro-fuzzy network. In the third section
of the paper is the testing of the ANFIS model on the prioritization of
88 level crossings in the Belgrade area. When testing the model, the
output parameters of the ANFIS model are compared with the
desired data (training data set).
2. Models for the prioritization of railway crossings

The rst mathematical models which were developed in the
mid 20th century carried out the evaluation and ranking of railway
crossings on the basis of the predicted number of accidents which
could happen on them. In the next section, an overview will be given of the mathematical model for the evaluation and ranking of
railway crossings based on the predicted number of trafc
accidents.
Accident prediction equations are formulated to estimate the
number of accidents that might occur at a particular location over
a given period of time. The resulting accident frequency predictions have been used in the determination of priorities for the
improvement of grade crossing protection (McEachem, 1960).
Accident prediction equations are expressed in terms of a relative

weighting of various inuencing variables. These variables are initially selected on the basis of their possible correlation with accident occurrence. Among those variables included in previous
research investigations are: average daily trafc volume, average
daily train volume, type of protection, daylight or darkness, number of tracks, train speeds, vehicle speeds, type of highway, geometries of the crossing (sight distance, crossing alinement, etc.),
pavement width and number of lanes, type of highway surface, distractive inuences, visibility, illumination, and vehicle and driver
characteristics. An initial study to develop a prediction equation
for the number of grade crossing accidents was the previously
mentioned investigation by Peabody and Dimmick (McEachem,
1960). A correlation analysis was used to develop the following
equation:
I 1:28
H0:170 T 0:151
P0:171
where I- probable number of accidents in a ve-year period, H-average daily highway trafc, T- number of trains per day, P-protection
coefcient, and K-special variable to be calculated from data in the
report.
The Oregon State Highway Department completed a study concerned with measuring the relative hazards of railroad grade crossings located on state and federal-aid highway systems (Hays,
1964). The majority of the 400 railway level crossings considered
were located in incorporated areas. Using accident data for the
ve-year period from 1946 to 1950, accidents were correlated with
possible combinations of four inuencing variables: Vehicle volume (v), Train volume (t), Darkness factor (d) and Protection factor
(p). The following curvilinear accident prediction curve provided a
0.72 index of correlation:
a2 0:40 7:53 105 V 8:72 105 V 2
where a2- predicted number of accidents for a ve-year period, and

V = vtdp. To compensate for the effects of possible inuencing variables that were not considered, the ratio of actual accidents (a1) to
predicted accidents (a2) for a previous ve-year period was used as
an adjustment factor in the nal equation for measuring relative
hazard:
IH VA
where IH-index of hazard, V = vtdp, and A = a1/a2.

The Armour Research Foundation has conducted two grade
crossing accident studies for the Association of American Railroads.
The results of an analysis of 2291 grade crossings in the State of
Iowa were reported in 1958 (Crecink, 1958). Regression analysis
techniques were utilized to develop risk factors (the expected accident rates at grade crossings over a 16-year period) as a function of
type of protection, highway trafc volume, number of tracks, and
measure of visibility. However, the regression model lacked consistency with accepted a priori assumptions concerning the relationships between the study variables.
The second study performed by the Armour Research Foundation was an investigation of the relationships between accidents
and nine grade crossing characteristics at 7416 locations in the
State of Ohio (Crecink, 1958). A regression analysis routine was
used to develop models predicting a 10-year expected accident
rate. Equations were developed for four separate types of protection: painted crossbucks, reectorized crossbucks, ashers, and
gates. The predictors used in the models were: Average visibility,
Highway grade, Rail trafc volume, Rail trafc speed, Highway trafc volume and Number of tracks and spurs.
D.G. Newnan also developed accident prediction equations in
conjunction with an engineering economic analysis of grade cross-

G. C
ing protection improvements (Newnan, 1958). By analyzing 617

rail crossings on the California state highway system and collecting
accident data for an 18-year period, weighted two-year accident
rates were linearly related to the following characteristics: number
of tracks, weather (visibility), number of trains, crossing angle, approach grade and corner visibility.
The next part of this paper presents a list of models used in different states in USA to prioritize rail-highway grade crossings. The
source of this list is a report produced by the University of Illinois
in September 2000 (Elzohairy & Benekohal, 2000).
The Department of Transportation accident prediction formula
(USDOT Accident Prediction Model) combines three calculations to
produce an accident prediction value. The expected number of
accidents at a crossing is calculated using the following formulas:
a formula that contains geometric and trafc factors from the
inventory le, a formula that involves crash history and a formula
that incorporates the effect of the existing warning devices. The basic formula provides an initial prediction of accidents on the basis
of crossing characteristics. It can be expressed as a series of factors
that, when multiplied together, yield an initial prediction of the
number of accidents per year at a crossing. Each factor in the formula represents a characteristic of the crossing. The formula is:
a K EI DT MS HP HL HT
where a-un-normalized initial crash prediction, in crashes per year

at the crossing, K-formula constant, EI- factor for exposure index
based on the product of highway and train trafc, DT- factor for
number of through trains per day during daylight, MS- factor for
maximum timetable speed, MT- factor for number of main tracks,
HP- factor for highway paved (yes or no), HL-factor for number of
highway lanes.
The second formula, which is the general DOT accident prediction model, is expressed as follows:

T o a
T
N
B
T o T
T o T T
where N observed crashes in T years at the crossing, T number of

years of recorded crash data, To formula weighting factor 1.0/
(0.05 + a). The formula provided is most accurate if all the accident
history data available are used. However, the extent of improvement is minimal if data for more than ve years are used.
California uses the hazard rating formula (Californias Hazard
Rating Formula), which uses four factors: number of vehicles, number of trains, crossing protection type and crash history as input to
the model. This formula uses a 10-year crash history as input. This
formula does not compute the number of crashes but rather produces a hazard index as a surrogate for the number of crashes.
The highest priority is assigned to the crossing with the highest
calculated index. The hazard index is calculated as:
HI
V T PF
AH
1000
where V number of vehicles, T number of trains, PF protection

factor and H crash history (total number of crashes within the last
10 years).
Connecticut uses a hazard rating formula (Connecticuts Hazard
Rating Formula) that is very similar to that of California. The only
difference between the two is the crash history period. Connecticut
uses a 10-year crash history while California uses a ve-year history. The Connecticut formula uses four factors: number of vehicles, number of trains, crossing protection type and crash history
as input to the model. The Connecticut formula does not compute
the number of crashes but rather produces a hazard index as a surrogate for the number of crashes. The highest priority is assigned to
the crossing with the highest calculated index. The Hazard Index is
calculated from the following formula:
HI
T 1A 1 AADT PF
100
2211
where T train movements per day, A number of vehicle/train

crashes in the last 5 years, AADT annual average daily trafc, PF
protection factor from.
The original New Hampshire formula uses three factors: number of vehicles per day, number of trains per day and a protection
factor based on the type of crossing. However, the modied New
Hampshire model does not account for sight distance. The Modied
New Hampshire model does not compute the number of crashes
but rather produces a hazard index as a surrogate for the number
of crashes. The highest priority is assigned to the crossing with the
highest calculated index. The Modied New Hampshire Formula is
as follows:
HI
TrainADT HighwayADT PF
SDf T s AHf
100
where PF protection factor, SDf sight distance factor, Ts train

speed (mph), AH ve year crash history factor.
Kansas uses the Design Hazard Rating Formula (Kansass Design
Hazard Rating Formula), which uses ve factors: number of vehicles, number of fast trains, number of slow trains, angle of intersection between the road and the track (090 range), and sight
distances of all the four quadrants (Mohammad et al., 2003). If
the computed Hazard Rating is less than 0, it is set to 0. The highest
priority is assigned to the crossing with the highest calculated index. The Design Hazard Rating Formula is:
HR
A B C D
4
where
HT 2 NFT NSST
400
10
where HT highway trafc, NFT number of fast trains, NST number of slow trains, D-constant,
s
8000
3
B2
sum of max sight distance 4ways
s
90
C
Angle of intersection
11
12
Mohammad et al. (2003) modied the Kansas Design Hazard Rating

model for the Missouri Department of Transportation. The Mohammad et al. (2003) formula uses eight factors: annual average daily
trafc, number of passenger trains, stopping sight distance, approach sight distance, speed of train, total number of trains, speed
of highway trafc, number of quadrants sight is restricted from
and clearance time. The highest priority is assigned to the crossing
with the highest calculated index. The revised formula is given by:
HR
A B C D
4
13
where D is a constant,
A VM VSFM FS PM PS SM 10
s
8000
3
B2
sum of max sight distance 4ways
s
90
C
Angle of intersection
14
15
16
The Missouri crossing improvement program currently uses a

calculated Exposure Index (Missouris Exposure Index Formula) to
prioritize crossings for possible improvements. The Missouri
Department of Transportation (MODOT) currently uses an Exposure

G. C
2212
Index (EI) formula to prioritize crossings for safety upgrades at

rail-highway crossings. The EI formula was developed in the
1970s and has not changed since then. The EI formula uses nine factors: number and speed of vehicles, number of passenger and
freight trains, speed of passenger and freight trains, switching
movements and required and actual sight distance (Elzohairy &
Benekohal, 2000). All nine factors, or data items, are currently
maintained in Missouris crossing inventory. The EI is computed differently depending on the type of control at the crossing: (a) When
a passive to active upgrade is being considered the EI is
EI TI SDOTI
17
(b) When an Active upgrade is considered

EI = TI where TI trafc index, SDO sight distance obstruction
factor. The trafc index (TI) is the major component of the exposure index. It is determined as follows:
TI
VM VSFM FS PM PS SM 10
10000
18
where TI trafc index, EI exposure index, VS vehicle speed, VM

vehicle movements, PM passenger train movements, PS passenger train speed, FM freight train movements, FS freight train
speed and SM switching movement. The highest priority is assigned to the crossing with the highest calculated index.
In 2000, the Illinois Department of Transportation conducted a
study that evaluated the Expected Accident Frequency Formula
(Illinoiss modied expected accident frequency formula) used to rank
grade crossings (Elzohairy & Benekohal, 2000). The study recommended the model that is being used by this study for evaluation.
The model was developed using the non-linear regression analysis
procedure on grade crossing accidents in Illinois. The model is as
follows:
IHI 106 A2:59088 B0:09673 C 0:40227 D0:59262 15:59

N 5:60977 PF
19
where A ln (ADT NTT), ADT average daily trafc, NTT number

of total trains per day, B = MTS maximum timetable speed (mph),
C number of main tracks and other tracks, D number of highway
lanes, N average number of crashes per year and PF protection
factor. Besides the given model, in many countries worldwide evaluation of railway crossings is carried out using Quantied Risk
Analysis. Quantied Risk Analysis (QRA) provides a suitable basis
for establishing level crossing improvement priorities. This it does
by allowing a ranking of level crossings in terms of their accident
risk probability. Those crossings with high accident probabilities
would normally qualify for funding allocations (subject to satisfactory cost/benet results), while those with low accident probabilities would be assigned a low priority for improvement funding.
The QRA results were linked to the Level Crossing Inventory Recording System which enables reporting of hazard probabilities against
each level crossing. Factors inuencing the probability of accident
occurrence at level crossings include: rail trafc density (measured
in terms of the maximum number of trains passing the crossing
within a 24 h period); road trafc density (measured in terms of
the maximum number of motor vehicles of all types passing the
crossing within a 24 h period); the presence of physical obstructions restricting the visibility of the track; warning signs or signals
to road users; absence of a full width barrier protection at level
crossings; absence of ashing lights and audible warning devices
at level crossings; poor road surface conditions at level crossings
(leading to the grounding of low slung road vehicles); and poor
alignment and elevation of the road crossing with the track (the
road may cross the track at an oblique angle or may approach the
crossing on a steeply rising grade). The application of these techniques can be seen in the works of many authors (Anandarao &
Martland, 1998; Bureau of Transport & Regional Economics, 2002;

Reiff, Gage, Carroll, & Gordon, 2003; Tey et al., 2009; Woods et al.,
2008).
In the countries of the European Union, the Trafc movement
(TM) model is used for the prioritization of level crossings, which,
as the name implies, above all, takes care of the transport ux at
the road crossing. TM is a product of the daily number of road vehicles (passenger vehicles, trucks, buses) and the daily number of
trains crossing the road. In using the TM model the losses are calculated (or savings, if investment is made in the level crossing) because of waiting time for vehicles per unit of time. Thus, the
average waiting time at a road crossing for particular types of
motor vehicles is calculated, on the basis of which the cost of passenger and vehicle waiting time can be calculated (fuel, vehicle
depreciation, delay in delivery of goods or services etc.). The
passenger waiting costs for specic types of journey and vehicle
category are obtained on the basis of the estimated vehicle structure by country of origin, the estimated value of a working hour
(EUR/hour) in those countries, and on the nature of the journey
(Serbian Transport Council, 2010).
Roop (2005) and Mendoza (1999) adopted the multi-criteria
analysis technique to assess the relative merits of the candidate
protection systems and the evaluate RLC. As compared to the conventional cost-benet approach, multicriteria analysis allows
effective comparative evaluation among options and stakeholders
over a common set of evaluation objectives. Furthermore, multicriteria analysis could overcome the limitation of cost-benet analysis whereby all the costs and benets have to be expressed in
monetary terms.
3. ANFIS decision support model for prioritizing railway level

crossings for safety improvements in Serbia
On the Serbian rail network which is 6974 km long, there are
2354 level crossings, of which 108 are pedestrian crossings. Of
the total number of railway crossings in Serbia, 588 railway crossings are secured by automatic or mechanical devices. The remaining railway crossings are secured by road signalization signs.
Table 3 shows the safety of railway crossings in the rail network
of the Republic of Serbia (STSA, 2011). In Serbia, 77% of railway
crossing are not secured according to the Law on Road Trafc
and the applicable instructions from Serbian Railways (Serbian
Transport Safety Agency, 2010). This means that in Serbia there
are a large number of level crossings which have been allowed to
operate, and for which basic parameters have not been respected,
such as the distance between railway crossings or the visibility of
road vehicles when they reach the rail crossing.
The safety of rail crossings is a material expenditure for Serbian
Railways. However, since Serbian Railways is a public company nanced from the state budget, it cannot be expected that all unsecured rail crossings enter a safety programme. For this reason, it is
essential that Serbian Railways and the Republic of Serbia have a
reliable strategy for the choice of RLC which need to be secured
and an implementation plan for investing in their safety.
Until now, decisions by Serbian Railways regarding which rail
crossings should receive safety intervention have not received enough insight from the state in terms of the choice of RLC which
should receive investment. Most commonly, Serbian Railways
makes a decision based on public pressure as a result of accidents
which have occurred at particular rail crossings. In such situations,
the basic criterium considered is that of urgency, which falls into
the group of criteria suitable for systems without a strategy.
According to statistical data and EU forecasts (European Railway Agency, 2011), the volume of rail trafc in the next 30 years
will be doubled, which is a direct indicator of the expected increase

G. C
2213
Table 3
The safety of railway level crossings in the rail network of the Republic of Serbia.
Line rank
Rail crossing
(SVT)
Pedestrian crossing
(BMVT)
Secured with automatic or mechanical devices
Total
MF
LAS
LASH
Pedestrian crossings (LASBM)
Total
International
Regional
Local
Total
382
456
820
1658
35
42
31
108
87
34
11
132
116
13
12
141
176
86
45
307
8
0
0
8
387
133
68
588
804
631
919
2354
Trafc signs and visibility triangle (SVT), pass-by boundary marker and visibility triangle (BMVT), mechanical fenders (MF), Light-acoustic signals (LAS), Light-acoustic
signals and half-fenders (LASH), Light-acoustic signals and pass-by boundary marker (LASBM).
in accidents at all rail crossings on all lines including those of

Serbian Railways. An increase in the volume of trafc will result
in the necessity for a trafc safety system at rail level crossings.
According to the long term plans of the Republic of Serbia, in the
period 20102025 new railway lines and corridors will not be constructed (Serbian Transport Council, 2010). Economic experts in
the eld of industrial production forecasts (transportation needs
and opportunities and needs of the economy) are of the opinion
that the existing corridors and existing tracks will remain
unchanged in this part of Europe. It is realistic to expect the
reconstruction and modernization of existing systems, for which
signicant investment is necessary. In this context, the necessity
for investing funds in the safety of rail crossings will be dened.
Installing safety equipment at RLC is an expensive investment, so
when making decisions about investment, management has a great
responsibility, because the approved funds must give an adequate
effect. In order to make the best possible decisions about investments in rail crossings, a neuro-fuzzy model was developed for
use by management. In the following section of the paper, the
development of the neuro-fuzzy model for the prioritization of rail
crossings is described for making decisions about investing in
safety equipment for rail crossings.
3.1. Designing the ANFIS model
The problem being considered belongs to the task of allocation
(assignment). The problem of allocation belongs to the problem of
linear programming. It consists of allocating activities or resources
to the agent or the place, at the same time achieving maximum
efciency. In our case, this means that it is necessary to dene
the objective function i.e. to allocate investments in safety equipment for rail level crossings with limitations and treating the problem as a problem of mathematical programming. The main
deciency of an approach based on mathematical programming
is that it is not simple to determine the objective function and to
determine the hard constraints. In addition, the information
available to decision-makers is often imprecise or is given in
descriptive form. Furthermore, decision-makers on investments
also make their selection of railway crossing based on additional
criteria that reect the real situation on the railway crossing observed. Some of the additional criteria are:
existing safety equipment on rail crossings,
rail crossings found on the lines of higher rank have priority
over those of lower rank,
the number of fatal incidents at the rail crossing in the previous
six months,
the number of incidents at the rail crossing due to non-compliance with trafc and other regulations,
rank (priority) of road trafc which passes through the rail
crossing,
total waiting time of users of the rail crossing for the passage of
trains.
Therefore, the conventional approach cannot encompass all the

relevant imprecise parameters. In the majority of cases, this phase
of the decision-making process comes down to the experiential
knowledge of the decision maker. However, a problem arises when
a decision on an investment in railway crossings should be made a
person who does not have sufcient experiential knowledge. A
solution to the above problem is proposed in this paper using the
ANFIS model.
An integral part of the ANFIS model is a fuzzy reasoning system.
The problems that an analyst encounters when developing a fuzzy
system are determining a set of linguistic rules used by the expert
and the parameters of membership functions of the input/output
pairs. Generating the membership function of a fuzzy set and the
rules by which decisions are made by experts involves long communication with a large number of experts. Membership functions
of fuzzy sets, which describe the same concept, and which have
been proposed by experts can differ greatly. For this reason, the
characteristics of a developed fuzzy system depend on the number
of available experts and their ability to formulate a decision-making strategy. Based on the analysis of these techniques and criteria
used for the prioritization of railway crossings (Section 2) eight criteria were identied which inuence the selection of railway crossing for installing the equipment necessary for increasing the safety
of trafc at that crossing (Table 4). Experts in the eld of road and
rail trafc safety at railway crossings were involved in choosing the
criteria and their indicators. As well as eight input variables the
fuzzy system has one output variable, the preference of experts
for the choice of railway crossing to receive an investment. The relative importance of criteria and their degree of inuence on the
preference decided by experts are obtained by normalization of
their weight in the following way:
w0i
"
n
Y
"
#1=n
n
Y
kj g
w0ki
g
kj wki
! wki PK
kj wki
0
g
j1
j1
j1 kk wki
8
2"
#1=n 391
n
<Xn
=
Y
4
5

kw
: i1 j1 j ki
;
XK
j1
#1=n
fk 2 0; 1k 2 0; 1
fk 1 w
w
20
21
where kj is the preference of a decision-maker, i.e. the degree of

condence. The described criteria are listed in Table 4.
The composite of Ki(i = 1, 2, . . . , 8) is made of two subsets:
K+, subset of the criteria of the benecial type, higher values
desirable and
K, subset of the criteria of cost type, lower values desirable.
The values of some input variables are described by means of
linguistic descriptors S = {l1, l2, . . . , li}, i 2 H, H = {1, 2, . . . , T} where T
is the overall number of linguistic descriptors. Linguistic variables
are presented by a triangle fuzzy number which is dened as
(a, b, c).

G. C
2214
Table 4
Criteria for evaluating the RLC.
Criterion
Numerical
K1 Frequency of rail trafc on the monitored rail crossing

K2 The frequency of road trafc on the monitored rail crossing
K3 Number of tracks on the monitored rail crossing
K4 Maxim permitted speed of trains for the chainage of the rail crossing
K5 - The angle of intersection of track and the roa
K6 The number of incidents at the monitored rail crossing in the past year
K7 Visibility of the monitored rail crossing in terms of road trafc
K8 Investment value of activities related to the width of the rail crossing

Linguistic
Min

a

Max
a

Importance of the criteria

0.12
0.19
0.11
0.08
0.15
0.12
0.14
0.09
a
The criterium K5 at the same time falls into the group of benecial and cost criteria. Criteria values found in the interval 30 6 x1 6 90 are in the group of benecial criteria,
while criteria values found in the interval 90 6 x1 6 175 are the group of cost criteria.
l~li x
8
0;
x<a
>
>
>
> xa
<
;
a
6x6b
ba
cx
>
>
cb ;
>
>
:
0;
22
b6x6c
x>c
In our example, the number of linguistic variables is T = 5 (Fig. 1).

Defuzzication of linguistic variables (criteria) K7 iK8 is carried
out using the scale shown in Fig. 1.
Since linguistic values lki i 1; T; k 1; K are described by fuzzy numbers ~lki flki ; l~lki g the process of normalization is realized
according to the following:
(a) for a benecial criterion k(k 2 K) the process is realized
according to the form
lki n
~l
ki
max
lk
23
max
where lk
is the maximal value of fuzzy number
~l k 1; 2; . . . ; K, for l~ l 0.
ki
lki ki
(b) for a cost criterion k(k 2 K) the process is realized according
to the following
lki n 1
~l lmin
ki
k
max
lk
24
min
where lk is the minimal value in the area of fuzzy number

~l k 1; . . . ; K for l~ l 0.
ki
lki ki
Defuzzication of the linguistic descriptors is carried out using
the expression (Liou & Wang, 1992):
g a;b e
L b fa l1 1 b fa l3 ;
0 6 b 6 1; 0 6 a 6 1
25
where fa(l3) = l3 (l3 l2) a is the function which represents the

left distribution of the universe of discourse of the fuzzy number
e
L while fa(l1) = (l2 l1) a + l1 is the function which represents the
right distribution of the universe of discourse of the fuzzy number
e
L. The value a(0 6 a 6 1) represents the preference of the decision-maker, while the value b(0 6 b 6 1) represents the pessimistic
index of the decision-maker. The degree of uncertainty is greatest
when the value is a = 0, while on the other hand the value b = 0 represents the optimistic index of the decision-maker.
After dening the criteria, the parameters which describe the
criteria were identied (Table 5). The parameters were used later
in the process of modeling the fuzzy system for dening the universe of discourse of the membership functions (MF) of the input
variables.
By dening the criteria for the selection and evaluation of rail
crossings it is possible on the basis of these criteria to create a database of railway crossings that is unique for all RLC in the network
(or dened line) and using the criteria makes it possible for each
RLC to be treated in the same way.
The main problem faced by the analyst in the development of a
fuzzy system is determining the fuzzy rule base and membership
function parameters of fuzzy sets that describe the input and output variables. Used as functions in the fuzzy system were Gaussian
curves (gmf), S-shaped membership functions (smf) and Z-shaped
membership functions (zmf) (Fig. 2). The above membership functions (Table 6) were chosen because they are easy to manipulate
while adjusting the fuzzy logic system, because they describe the
Table 5
Crieria and indicators for the evaluation of rail crossings.
Criterium
Indicator
K1
K11
K12
K13
K21
K22
K23
K31
K32
K33
K41
K42
K43
K51
K52
K53
K61
K62
K63
K71
K72
K81
K82
K83
K2
VL
VH
K3
0.8
K4
0.6
K5
0.4
K6
0.2
K7
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Fig. 1. Linguistic descriptors.
0.7
0.8
0.9
K8
> 100 trains/day

50100 trains/day
049 trains/day
> 200 vehicles/hour
80150 vehicles/hour
180 vehicles/hour
1
2
>2
>100 km/h
60100 km/h
20 59 km/h
30-80
80100
100175
02
24
>4
good
bad
small
medium
large

G. C
Mala
Srednja
Mala
Velika
Srednja
Velika
Vrlo__velika
Ma
li
Sred
nji
Veli
ki
2215
Mala
0.
8
0.
8
0.
8
0.
8
0.
6
0.
6
0.
6
0.
6
0
4
0
16
0
8
10
12
14
Frekfencija__zeleznickog__saobra
0
0
0
0
caja__na__pp
6
0
mali
srednji
18
0
20
0
veliki
Ma
li
15
20
10
0
0
0 Frekfencija__drumskog__saobrac
aja__na__pp
Sred
nji
25
0
30
0
Veli
ki
0.
8
0.
8
0.
8
0.
6
0.
6
0.
6
0.
2
0.
2
2
0
4
0
6
0
1
0
0
0
Ugao ukrstanja
puta i pruge
1
2
0
1
4
0
1
6
0
1
8
0
1.
5
2.
2 Broj__koloseka__3
5
na__pp
3.
5
4.
5
Dob
ra
0.
5
1.
1Broj__nezgoda__na_datom__pp__u_preth
2
5
odnom__periodu
2.
5
2
0
Los
a
4
0
8
10
12
14
6
0
0
0
0
0
Max__dozvoljene__brzine__na__pruzi__na__pp
Low
16
0
Medium
18
0
20
0
High
0.8
0.
4
0.
4
0.
2
0.
5
Degree of
membership
Degree of
membership
Degree of
membership
0.
4
0
5
0
Degree of membership
2
0
0.
2
0.
2
0.
2
0
0
Degree of
membership
Degree of
membership
Degree of
membership
0.
2
0.
4
0.
4
0.
4
Velika
Degree of
membership
0.
4
Srednja
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.
1
0.
2
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Preglednost__posmatranog__pp__sa__aspekta__dru
7
8
3
4
5
6
mskog__saobracaja
0.
9
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Investiciona vrednost aktivnosti u funkciji irine prunog prelaza
Fig. 2. Membership functions before training the ANFIS model.
Table 6
Parameters of the membership function when training the ANFIS model.
Membership function/Input value
MF 1
MF 2
MF 3
MF 4
K1
K2
K3
K4
K5
K6
K7
K8
zmf (40.7, 154.5)

zmf (36.9, 183.3)
zmf (1, 3.62)
gmf (34.3, 18.6, 31.5, 49.8)
gmf (18.85, 32.7, 20, 44.7)
zmf (1, 1.67)
zmf (0.166, 0.784)
gmf (0.072, 0.6053)
gmf (33.6, 53,4.3,87.5)

gmf (44.2, 64, 48.2, 130.4)
gmf (0.94, 2)
gmf (35.4, 64.2, 38.2, 93.4)
gmf (18.7, 77, 29.2, 104)
gmf (0.44, 1.31)
smf (0.14, 0.79)
gmf (0.139, 0.5092)
smf (7.6, 109)

gmf (41.2, 151, 36.9, 184.5)
smf (0.38, 2.7)
smf (17.31, 113)
gmf (63.4, 119.8)
smf (0.87, 1.67)
gmf (0.3659, 0.8917)
smf (65.8, 207)
input variables well and because they ensure a satisfactory level of

sensitivity in the system. In addition, adjustment of the above
membership functions ensures the smallest error in the output of
the ANFIS model. The parameters of the membership functions of
the fuzzy system are given in Table 6.
For all input variables of the ANFIS model, as well as the membership function, it is also necessary to determine the number of
membership functions for each input. Having a greater number
of membership functions requires an increase in the number of
rules, which can make it difcult to adjust the system. It is therefore recommended, in accordance with the nature of the variables,
to begin with the lowest number of membership functions. However, reducing the number of membership functions must not result in an incomplete description of the input variables. Starting
from these postulates it is dened that in the ANFIS model, the input variables have at least two linguistic values (input variable K7)
and at most four variables (input variable K2). The membership
functions of the input variables are shown in Fig. 2.
By comparing the output data from the fuzzy system and the
desired set of solutions, the designed the fuzzy system did not give
satisfactory results. The difference between the expected results
and the value of the criteria function obtained at the output of
the system was not satisfactory i.e., it was not within the limits
of tolerance. An attempt to achieve satisfactory results by changing
the type and parameters of the membership functions at the output did not give the expected results. Table 7 shows the values of
the criteria functions at the output of the fuzzy system and the expected values of the criteria functions. As well as the criteria functions in Table 7 are also the values of the criteria on the basis of
which the prioritization of rail crossings is carried out, which at
the same time are the input variables of the fuzzy system. In the
example shown in Table 7, a total of 25 railway crossings were
processed.
Table 7
Characteristics of twenty-ve level crossings.
No.
K1
K2 a
K3
K4
K5
K6 a
K7
K8
fexpert
fFIS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
62
51
64
24
35
39
48
35
72
54
49
47
56
37
41
35
58
46
53
31
49
47
53
34
42
56
80
61
79
67
53
86
41
93
77
69
62
31
55
23
49
56
53
72
57
82
75
98
58
75
1
1
2
2
4
1
4
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
1
2
2
2
2
2
60
55
60
60
60
60
70
65
65
55
70
70
70
70
65
50
50
50
65
70
50
45
45
50
70
70
60
90
80
100
95
110
130
60
60
150
95
90
40
45
130
115
75
80
65
70
85
100
55
90
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
3
1
4
0
1
3
1
3
0
1
2
2
1
1
0
2
0
L
VL
M
M
M
M
VH
VH
L
VL
L
M
L
H
H
H
M
M
H
L
L
VL
H
L
M
M
L
H
VH
M
H
H
H
M
H
L
H
M
M
M
M
H
L
VH
M
VL
M
H
M
L
0.70
0.72
0.70
0.69
0.75
0.65
0.78
0.68
0.80
0.72
0.87
0.69
0.65
0.58
0.48
0.71
0.69
0.65
0.72
0.65
0.72
0.74
0.75
0.63
0.70
0.48
0.71
0.43
0.67
0.38
0.39
0.45
0.51
0.56
0.37
0.77
0.58
0.59
0.35
0.41
0.40
0.36
0.48
0.64
0.39
0.62
0.59
0.48
0.50
0.60
The values are the average indicators on an annual basis.
By analysing the given data, an average error of 0.325 was obtained. Since the fuzzy system did not achieve the desired results,
the fuzzy system was mapped into a ve-layered adaptive neural
network (ANFIS model), Fig. 3. Mapping of the fuzzy logic system
into the adaptive neural network was carried out because the error

G. C
2216
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Layer 4
Layer 5
A1
K1
x1
A2
A3
B1
K2
x2
B2
B3
K3
)
(y
C2
x3
(y)
v1
C1
v
)
(y
C3
D1
4 (y
K4
D2
x4
D3
v5(y)
Preferential eksperta
E1
K5
x5
y)
v6(
E2
(y)
v7
x6
v8
K6
9 (y
F1
(y
E3
F2
F3
G1
K7
x7
G2
G3
H1
K8
H2
x8
H3
O2i
O1i
O3i
O5i
O4i
Fig. 3. Structure of the ANFIS system.
which occurred at the output of the fuzzy system was

unacceptable.
As already said, the neuro-fuzzy network consists of ve layers.
Layer 1. The junctions of the rst layer represent verbal categories
of input variables that are quantied by fuzzy composites.
Each junction of the rst layer is an adaptive junction and
is
described
by
the
function
of
adherence
lxi xi ; i 1; . . . ; 4. Functions of adherence are described
by the form of Gaussian curves that are featured by two
parameters c and r.
1 xc 2
Gaussian x; c; r e2 r
26
Since fuzzy rules are expressed in the form IF the condition THEN
the consequence, the categories of output variables that are quantied by fuzzy composites are shown as adaptive junctions of the
rst layer.
Layer 2. Each junction of this layer counts the minimal value of
four input values. The output values of the junction of
the second layer are the importance of rules.
O21 wi lAi x1 lBi x2 lC i x3 lDi x4
27
Layer 3. Every i th node in this layer calculates the ratio of the i th

rules ring strength to the sum of all rules ring
strength.
wi
O31 wi P4
i1 xi
i 1; . . . ; 4
28
Layer 4. The fourth layer has ve adaptive junctions which represent the preference of dispatchers that a certain transport
requirement serves a certain type of vehicle. Each junction of this layer counts the section of a certain fuzzy
composite with maximal value of input importance of
rules.
O41 wi fi
29
Layer 5. The only junction of the fth layer is a xed junction by

which the output result of the fuzzy system is gained. This
is a fuzzy composite with certain degrees of adherence of
possible preference of dispatchers to direct the transport
task to a certain transport route considered. The output
value is a real number that is found in the interval of 01.
O51 Ov erall output
P
X
wi fi
wi fi Pi
i wi
i
30
3.2. Forming a data set for training the ANFIS model

~ yl r; yu r; o 6 r 6 1; ~
~2X
If with ~
x xl r; xu r and y
x; y
we dene the fuzzy numbers which are used to evaluate the observed alternatives in relation to the dened optimization criteria,
~ the following relationships are
then for the fuzzy numbers ~
x i y
valid:
~x y
~ ! xl r yl r ^ xu r yu r;
~x y
~ xl r yl r; xu r yu r
0 6 r 6 1
31
32

G. C
(
K ~x
kx r; xu r; k P 0
u
33
kx r; x r; k P 0
Let Ai i 1; 2; . . . ; n denote the set of rail crossings evaluated by experts Eg(g = 1, 2, . . . , k) in relation to the observed set of criteria Cj(j = 1, 2, . . . , n). Then the problem of fuzzy multi-criteria decision
making can be represented in matrix form as:
~x11
6~
6 x21
6
e 6 ~x31
D
6
6
4
~xm1
~x12
~x22
~x13
~x23
~x32

~xm2
~x33

~xm3

3
~x1n
~x2n 7
7
7
~x3n 7
7;
7
5
~xmn
i 1; 2; . . . ; m;
j 1; 2; . . . ; n
j1
j1
j 1; 2; . . . ; n
35
j1
Normalization of the summarized values in rows is carried out

using the following transformation
RSi
e
S i Pn
j1 RSi
Pn
Pn u
l
j1 xij r
j1 xij r
Pn Pn l
; Pn Pn u
x
r
k1
j1 ij
k1
j1 xij r
1; 2; . . . ; n
n
o
e V
e ij jj 2 J; min V
e ; V
e ; . . . ; V
e fmax V
e ij jj 2 J 0 ; i 1; 2; . . . ng39
A
1
2
n
n
o
e V
e ij jj 2 J; max V
e ; V
e ; . . . ; V
e fmin V
e ij jj 2 J 0 ; i 1; 2; . . . ng40
A
1
2
n
J fj 1; 2; . . . ; mjj belongs to the criteria which are maximizedg;
where ~xij is the value of the criteria function of the given railway
crossing Ai in relation to a criterion Cj. Summarizing the values in
e is carried out using the following
the rows of the matrix D
transformation:
n
n
X
X
xlij r;
xuij r ;
The next step is to determine the ideal solution from the given set of
values of criteria functions. The ideal solution A+ and the negative
ideal solution A are obtained using the relation
where
34
n
X
~xij
RSi
!
;
J 0 fj 1; 2; . . . ; mjj belongs to the criteria which are minimizedg;

As the best alternatives, those which have the highest value Vij in
relation to the criteria which are maximized and the lowest Vij in
relation to the criteria which are minimized are chosen.
The positive ideal and negative ideal solutions are represented
by fuzzy numbers. The following relations describe the ideal posie
tive solution A
e l r; A
e u r;
e A
A
06r61
41
where
l

e l V
e r; V
e l r; . . . ; V
e l r
A
1
2
n
u

e u V
e r; V
e u r; . . . ; V
e u r ;
A
1
2
n
42
06r61
e is calculated in exactly the same way.

The ideal negative solution A
The distance between the fuzzy numbers e
x and e
y is calculated as
i
36
The weight coefcient of each of these criteria is obtained by formf in which comparison is made in pairs of criteria
ing a matrix W
based on of decisions made by experts who participated in the
study.
37
38
jxl r yl rj2 jxu r yu rj2 dr
1=2
43
The next step is to calculate n dimensional Euclidean distances of all

observed alternatives for the ideal and the negative ideal solution
00
00
B
e
d i @@
e and W
f and by using the
By multiplying the values of matrices D
previously mentioned arithmetical operations, we obtain the nal
values of the criteria functions which describe the signicance of
each of the observed railway crossings
2
3 2
3
f1
~x11 e
x 12 e
x 13 e
x 1n
W
6e
7 6f 7
x 22 e
x 23 e
x 2n 7 6 W
6 x 21 e
7
6
7 6 27
e
e
f
76W
f3 7
e
e
e
e
F DW 6
x
x
x

x
31
32
33
3n
6
7 6
7
6
7 6
7
4 5 4 5
fk
e
x m2 e
x m3 e
x mn
x m1 e
W
2
3
f
f
f
fn
e
x 12 W 2 e
x 13 W 3 e
x 1n W
x 11 W 1 e
6
f1 e
f2 e
f3 e
fn 7
6e
7
x W
x 22 W
x 23 W
x 2n W
6 21
7
6
f1 e
f2 e
f3 e
fn 7
6e
x 31 W
x 32 W
x 33 W
x 3n W
7
6
7
4
5

f1 e
f2 e
f3 e
fn
e
x m2 W
x m3 W
x mn W
x m1 W
Z
De
x; e
y
B
e
d i @@
3
ef 1
6 7
6 ef 7
6 27
7
e
eW
f6
FD
6 ef 3 7
6 7
6 7
45
ef
i
2217
Z
0
0
@
Xh
e lij r
e l r
V
j
i2
j2J 0
l
0
@
Xh
j2J 0
Xh
e uij r
j2J
ve uij r Ve j
i2
Xh
j2J
1
11=2 1
i2
C
u
e
V j r A dr A A44
11=2 1
ve lij r Ve j r A drA C
A45
l
i2
where i = 1, 2, . . . , m
For each alternative the relative distance of the coefcients e
d
i i
e
d
is
calculated
according
to
the
relation
i
e
Q
i
e
d i
e
d i e
d i
i 1; 2; . . . ; m
46
e 6 1 is the alternative Ai closer to an ideal solution if

where 0 6 Q
i
e is closer to a value of 1. After obtaining the values of the criteria
Q
i
functions the processed experimental data are accessed using clustering techniques. By cluster we mean a nite number of similar
points that can be classied into the same group, by one or more
distinctive features. The center of the cluster can be considered as
representative of one group of data. It replaces the group of data
and is the basis for establishing a code of conduct for the problem
studied. In this way, a large number of experimental data is reduced
to a smaller number of representative cluster centers and the research can continue with a smaller amount of data. In this research,
a fuzzy clustering technique was used (Nasibov & Ulutagay, 2007).
Nasibov and Ulutagay developed an iteration procedure based on
minimizing a function that represents the geometric distance from
any given point to the cluster center, but with an additional weight
factor based on the membership function of the analyzed point. The
e is calcudistance between two points of the data set of variable v
lated as the minimal negative value of similarity

G. C
2218
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Fig. 4. The set of criteria functions before and after use of the clustering technique model after training the adaptive neural network.
dXY minflev g
ev
47
developed in the Matlab software package for implementing clustering techniques the set F0 was reduced to a total of F00 = 547 values of the criteria functions. A comparative presentation of the set
of criteria functions F0 and F00 is shown in Fig. 4.
Training of the adaptive neuro-fuzzy network is carried out
with set F00 and a base of fuzzy rules is formed. If the initial set of
criteria functions (F or F00 ) were used for developing a base of rules
and training the neuro-fuzzy system, all data would be treated
with the same importance and it would be impossible to construct
a base of rules which would, as output from the neuro-fuzzy system, give results which deviate very little from the required values.
With this kind of presentation of the system being studied it is possible to generate a neuro-fuzzy system with a minimal number of
fuzzy rules. As well as this, the time for training the neuro-fuzzy
system is signicantly reduced.
The degree of belonging of each point to a cluster is dened as
mik
1
2
P dik q1
48
djk
where dik = kuk cik is the distance of point from the cluster center
i. The two points which have the lowest value dXY are considered to
be the closest points.
By analyzing the total number of optimality criteria and the
number of linguistic descriptors which describe the given criteria,
we see that the set of criteria functions is about
F a bK = 1 953 125, where b = 5 is the total number of linguistic
P
factors, K 8i1 K i 8 is the total number of optimality criteria,
and a = 5 is the total number of parameter values a, b which represents the degree of uncertainty (a) and the optimistic index of the
decision-maker (b). Five values of the given parameters were considered in the research 0,0.3, 0.5, 0.7 and 1. Since neuro-fuzzy networks have the ability to generalize the data obtained, the set (F0 )
was identied for the research from F0 = 2200 of the criteria functions. Using the described clustering techniques and the toolbox
Srednja
Velika
Mala
Velika
Vrlo__velika
Mali
Srednji
Veliki
Mala
1
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
20
40
60
80
100 120
140
160
Frekfencija__zeleznickog__saobracaja__na__pp
mali
srednji
180
200
veliki
50
Mali
100
150
200
250
Frekfencija__drumskog__saobracaja__na__pp
Srednji
300
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.4
20
40
60
80
100
Ugao ukrstanja puta i pruge
120
140
160 180
1.5
2
2.5
3
Broj__koloseka__na__pp
3.5
4.5
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Broj__nezgoda__na_datom__pp__u_prethodnom__periodu
0.6
0.4
20
Losa
40
60
80
100 120
140
160
Max__dozvoljene__brzine__na__pruzi__na__pp
Mala
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.4
180
Srednja
200
Velika
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
Dobra
Veliki
0.8
0.6
Velika
0
0
Srednja
0.2
0.6
Srednja
The adaptivna neural network is trained using a Backpropagation algorithm (Horikawa, Furuhashi, & Uchikawa, 1992; Shi and
Mizumoto, 2000).
Mala
3.3. Training the ANFIS model
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Preglednost__posmatranog__pp__sa__aspekta__drumskog__saobracaja
Fig. 5. Membership functions of the ANFIS model after training the adaptivne neural network.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Investiciona__vrednost__aktivnosti__u__funkciji__sirine__pp
10

G. C
2219
Table 8
Values of function parameters after training the ANFIS system.
MF/Ulazna vrednost
MF 1
MF 2
MF 3
MF 4
K1
K2
K3
K4
K5
K6
K7
K8
zmf (10.3, 155.3)

zmf (13.1, 148)
zmf (0.36, 2.99)
gmf (36.1, 14, 47.51, 36.7)
gmf (23.9, 34.2, 24.8, 45.8)
zmf (0.1782, 2.079)
zmf (0.0807, 0.9272)
gmf (2.13, 2.9, 2, 3.664)
gmf (46.9, 79.1, 35.03, 114)

gmf (62.5, 56, 75.86, 103.6)
gmf (0.9291, 2)
gmf (37.6, 72.2, 38.5, 98.2)
gmf (30, 95.6, 26.77, 107.3)
gmf (0.5287, 1.31)
smf (0.091, 0.911)
gmf (1.96, 5.63, 2.01, 6.55)
smf (11.4, 188.6)

gmf (73.2, 159, 61.75, 175)
smf (1.08, 3.552)
smf (27.78, 174)
gmf (56.71, 161)
smf (0.717, 2.647)
gmf (3.85, 9.405)
smf (54.37, 257)
Table 9
Test results for tting capability of the ANFIS.
No.
Relative error (0.279)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
1.2

Predicted value
Measured value
Predicted value
Measured value
Predicted value
0.720
0.441
0.812
0.439
0.676
0.565
0.744
0.502
0.839
0.635
0.639
0.695
0.697
0.494
0.681
0.600
0.357
0.570
0.656
0.777
0.817
0.729
0.525
0.750
0.418
0.299
0.687
0.736
0.802
0.991
0.441
0.720
0.533
0.718
0.955
0.844
0.465
0.781
0.560
0.356
0.360
0.974
0.976
0.773
0.402
0.321
0.636
0.849
0.377
0.498
0.538
0.450
0.246
0.471
0.697
0.578
0.408
0.457
0.523
0.712
0.720
0.441
0.812
0.439
0.676
0.565
0.744
0.502
0.839
0.635
0.639
0.695
0.697
0.494
0.681
0.600
0.357
0.570
0.656
0.777
0.817
0.729
0.525
0.750
0.418
0.299
0.687
0.736
0.802
0.991
0.589
0.572
0.681
0.570
0.807
0.696
0.613
0.633
0.708
0.504
0.508
0.826
0.828
0.625
0.550
0.469
0.488
0.701
0.525
0.646
0.686
0.598
0.394
0.619
0.549
0.430
0.556
0.605
0.671
0.860
0.720
0.441
0.812
0.439
0.676
0.565
0.744
0.502
0.839
0.635
0.639
0.695
0.697
0.494
0.681
0.600
0.357
0.570
0.656
0.777
0.817
0.729
0.525
0.750
0.418
0.299
0.687
0.736
0.802
0.991
0.691
0.470
0.783
0.468
0.705
0.594
0.715
0.531
0.810
0.606
0.610
0.724
0.726
0.523
0.652
0.571
0.386
0.599
0.627
0.748
0.788
0.700
0.496
0.721
0.447
0.328
0.658
0.707
0.773
0.962
(a)
Measured value
fANFIS
ftraining
(b)
0.9
fANFIS
ftraining
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.2
20
40
60
Error = 0.279
80
100
120
140
160
180 192
20
40
60
Error = 0.1312
120
80
100
140
160
180 192
Fig. 6. Training data (Phase I and II) ANFIS output.
By training the neural network with numerical examples of

decisions made, the initial forms of input/output membership
functions of fuzzy sets are adjusted. If there is a difference between
the obtained and the expected data, modications are made to the
connections between the neurons in order to reduce errors, i.e., the

membership functions are adjusted into adaptive nodes. Fig. 5
shows the appearance of the membership functions of the ANFIS
model after training the adaptive neural network.

G. C
2220
fANFIS
fexpert
0.9
Table 11
Comparative review of expert decisions and ANFIS model.
No.
K1 a
K2 a
K3
K4
K5
K6 a
K7
K8
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
62
51
64
24
35
39
48
35
72
54
49
47
56
37
41
35
58
46
53
31
49
47
53
34
42
113
41
61
45
66
46
31
36
53
80
57
100
72
95
115
56
80
61
79
67
53
86
41
93
77
69
62
31
55
23
49
56
53
72
57
82
75
98
58
75
86
35
38
71
57
34
59
48
62
72
35
97
38
69
100
1
1
2
2
4
1
4
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
1
2
2
2
2
2
4
1
4
2
3
4
3
1
3
1
2
1
1
3
4
60
55
60
60
60
60
70
65
65
55
70
70
70
70
65
50
50
50
65
70
50
45
45
50
70
55
61
60
64
59
39
61
53
31
33
33
54
43
58
50
70
60
90
80
100
95
110
130
60
60
150
95
90
40
45
130
115
75
80
65
70
85
100
55
90
108
120
55
100
70
144
140
70
100
115
140
120
90
90
80
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
3
1
4
0
1
3
1
3
0
1
2
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
L
VL
M
M
M
M
VH
VH
L
VL
L
M
L
H
H
H
M
M
H
L
L
VL
H
L
M
L
VL
M
L
VL
M
M
L
VL
M
M
M
L
VL
M
H
M
M
H
L
L
M
M
M
L
M
H
VH
VH
H
VH
M
M
M
L
L
M
H
M
M
L
M
H
H
M
L
H
M
M
H
H
H
H
H
M
Final
rank
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Error = 0.0291
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180 192
Fig. 7. Training data (Phase III) ANFIS output.
Table 10
Railway accidents in the Belgrade area for the period 20012011.
Year
Total railway
accidents
Accidents at
RLCs
Share of RLC
accidents(%)
200102
200203
200304
200405
200506
200607
200708
200809
200910
201011
P
97
63
73
57
93
77
64
87
81
88
780
21
13
14
12
25
22
19
28
33
41
228
21.65
20.10
19.17
21.05
26.88
28.57
29.69
32.18
40.07
46.59
29.23
The values of the function parameters after training the neurofuzzy system are shown in Table 8.
The proposed neural network is trained on 547 expert decisions.
Appendix A (Table 12) shows a set of 192 railway crossings with
which the adaptive neural network was trained. While training
the ANFIS model the data from the training set xk, k = 1, 2, . . . , n,
where is the total number of input values in the ANFIS model, were
periodically passed through the network. A comparative view of
the values of the criteria functions of the ANFIS model (fANFIS) and
the criteria functions from the training set (ftraining) is shown in
Table 9.
Fig. 6 shows the deviation values of the function ftraining (Measured value) and fANFIS (Predicted value) which are presented
above. Training of the ANFIS model was carried out in three phases
which lasted a total of 250 epochs. The rst phase of training the
ANFIS model was completed after 90 epochs. After completion of
the rst phase an output error of 0.279 was obtained (Fig. 6a). In
the following phase, after 180 epochs, the output error was
0.1312 (Fig. 6b), which compared to the previous phase is a reduction in error of 52.97%.
In the third and nal phase, which was completed after 250
epochs, at the output from the model the error was 0.0291
(Fig. 7), which compared to the second phase is an error reduction
of 77.82%. Upon completion of the third phase, it was concluded
that the error obtained at the output of the ANFIS model was
acceptable. In addition, it was concluded that the neuro-fuzzy network was trained and able to generalize new input data that has
not been trained.
The ve-layered adaptive network was tested on 40 expert
decisions. The values of the criteria which describe the given railway crossing were put through the neuro-fuzzy system, where
specic values of the expert preferences were obtained. The selec-
0.54
0.58
0.58
0.56
0.64
0.56
0.66
0.55
0.66
0.60
0.74
0.55
0.47
0.47
0.39
0.55
0.54
0.55
0.60
0.50
0.57
0.63
0.63
0.52
0.56
0.73
0.54
0.46
0.61
0.63
0.62
0.61
0.47
0.61
0.68
0.59
0.71
0.55
0.66
0.73
0.50
0.54
0.64
0.59
0.61
0.58
0.67
0.58
0.64
0.62
0.70
0.58
0.47
0.47
0.41
0.54
0.54
0.53
0.62
0.48
0.58
0.62
0.62
0.55
0.59
0.72
0.56
0.48
0.61
0.63
0.66
0.60
0.45
0.59
0.65
0.59
0.68
0.59
0.63
0.70
34
26
14
21
13
25
6
27
7
16
1
28
36
37
40
29
32
30
15
35
24
11
12
33
22
2
31
38
17
10
9
18
39
19
5
20
4
23
8
3
Values represent the average indicators on an annual basis.
0.85
fANFIS
fexpert
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Fig. 8. A comparison of the preferences of the ANFIS model and the experts.
tion process for the installation of railway crossing safety equipment is based on the expression:
fRi maxfRi ;
i 1; . . . ; 8
49
4. Results and discussion

Testing of the described ANFIS model was carried out on the
prioritization of railway level crossings in the Belgrade area. The

G. C
2221
Table 12
Characteristics of 192 level crossings (training pairs).
No.
K1
K2
K3
K4
K5
K6
K7
K8
ftraining
No.
K1
K2
K3
K4
K5
K6
K7
K8
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
145.
146.
119
91
45
107
45
74
91
61
44
36
52
63
36
77
86
119
104
80
119
62
111
55
99
110
104
59
115
67
44
64
50
109
96
40
33
92
39
77
60
80
113
31
42
94
93
80
111
79
110
50
77
96
66
43
42
45
43
48
79
58
32
112
84
106
40
88
104
91
51
36
57
101
62
45
133
33
83
26
216
181
163
226
218
220
76
35
235
123
33
78
230
214
25
239
128
155
122
180
77
209
27
157
97
189
44
83
17
201
85
209
85
116
62
19
110
64
35
56
12
38
133
15
134
175
196
96
221
169
12
115
119
209
221
174
21
44
101
177
179
222
180
215
16
119
194
159
98
76
2
2
3
2
3
2
1
3
3
2
4
2
3
2
3
1
2
2
2
1
4
3
2
4
3
3
3
4
4
2
3
1
3
4
3
3
3
2
1
3
3
2
3
2
1
4
3
3
1
3
4
3
1
2
4
1
1
4
3
1
2
1
3
4
3
2
2
2
2
4
3
3
2
3
64
60
72
49
61
57
42
67
58
82
86
52
56
52
55
51
86
48
45
75
76
81
82
55
83
79
58
48
43
82
79
83
48
59
69
40
80
51
63
78
65
57
64
61
61
49
78
59
50
54
74
81
79
79
68
88
47
52
44
60
74
55
49
87
73
54
58
52
63
70
75
49
53
50
62
155
72
143
83
87
128
129
41
141
86
128
118
152
147
136
124
130
58
55
102
129
112
113
66
105
102
121
91
113
145
168
111
32
58
101
135
48
43
36
61
107
167
152
31
153
130
56
125
87
51
70
86
90
65
106
39
147
75
66
167
89
88
130
106
169
76
71
147
51
31
35
168
54
3
4
6
1
2
2
4
7
6
6
5
2
5
5
6
1
7
1
8
3
3
7
3
2
7
7
8
7
7
7
4
5
4
2
8
4
4
2
0
3
2
3
4
5
8
2
8
2
3
3
1
4
4
8
1
7
7
5
5
6
8
3
2
6
0
2
3
5
1
1
4
4
2
1
0.43
0.77
0.83
0.83
0.6
0.83
0.6
0.43
0.77
0.6
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.26
0.6
0.43
0.6
0.77
0.77
0.6
0.77
0.83
0.26
0.77
0.43
0.83
0.6
0.83
0.6
0.43
0.77
0.6
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.26
0.6
0.43
0.6
0.77
0.77
0.43
0.43
0.77
0.83
0.43
0.6
0.26
0.26
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.77
0.77
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.43
0.6
0.26
0.26
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.43
0.6
0.26
0.26
0.83
0.26
0.26
0.6
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.6
0.77
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.83
0.43
0.83
0.43
0.6
0.77
0.83
0.43
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.77
0.77
0.6
0.43
0.43
0.26
0.26
0.77
0.83
0.26
0.43
0.6
0.26
0.83
0.77
0.77
0.83
0.43
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.6
0.6
0.43
0.6
0.83
0.77
0.77
0.83
0.83
0.26
0.43
0.6
0.26
0.6
0.43
0.83
0.6
0.83
0.6
0.43
0.77
0.6
0.43
0.43
0.83
0.6
0.83
0.6
0.43
0.43
0.68
0.80
0.86
0.85
0.61
0.67
0.57
0.42
0.65
0.48
0.80
0.84
0.47
0.56
0.77
0.69
0.39
0.54
0.87
0.58
0.68
0.62
0.62
0.58
0.75
0.55
0.79
0.61
0.77
0.51
0.84
0.62
0.84
0.70
0.82
0.47
0.77
0.79
0.97
1.03
0.79
0.84
0.78
0.74
0.98
0.78
0.55
0.95
0.57
0.70
0.70
0.81
0.58
0.64
1.07
0.74
0.84
0.52
0.51
0.65
0.75
0.79
0.81
0.53
0.71
0.45
0.64
0.52
0.90
0.85
0.64
0.73
0.64
0.89
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
169.
170.
79
43
113
80
118
85
112
76
50
75
39
81
100
119
85
30
92
41
38
107
58
112
82
115
117
70
52
31
87
52
111
86
106
100
59
104
31
41
64
56
35
109
31
91
41
72
57
97
34
67
73
109
83
58
93
48
101
97
103
110
62
99
80
94
36
44
83
34
111
65
73
57
71
85
135
30
175
60
92
62
70
64
155
32
181
27
66
99
224
126
195
143
217
238
121
134
196
147
34
22
110
22
104
202
39
161
95
125
30
201
175
71
146
145
235
148
233
217
26
46
43
67
165
102
39
175
160
199
150
84
90
16
89
130
221
132
34
160
143
109
151
167
200
194
180
216
134
157
1
4
2
1
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
4
2
2
3
3
1
3
2
3
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
4
1
1
3
2
1
4
2
3
4
3
2
1
1
3
3
2
3
2
2
1
2
4
3
89
41
74
40
77
75
79
85
70
83
62
83
67
51
75
55
62
82
59
63
53
48
76
43
80
66
86
40
65
74
85
78
83
63
80
45
40
52
62
84
84
84
62
71
56
75
82
76
86
58
55
60
45
42
50
46
55
60
73
58
51
73
69
67
46
43
79
64
74
63
46
44
74
57
72
67
163
107
106
149
83
59
96
82
170
81
57
50
94
58
101
155
67
169
100
125
88
107
43
63
154
40
118
32
34
107
155
108
99
159
91
86
136
72
32
102
99
61
76
139
112
164
43
147
33
62
51
54
143
65
40
38
49
40
47
38
61
136
112
109
82
128
135
49
147
40
143
34
4
7
3
3
7
3
5
6
6
5
5
5
3
6
0
3
5
8
6
7
1
6
7
7
8
5
1
3
2
3
4
7
3
6
8
1
4
7
2
4
5
7
1
7
5
4
0
4
6
1
6
1
5
1
0
7
3
7
4
5
3
6
4
3
0
2
2
7
7
2
7
7
7
5
0.6
0.83
0.6
0.83
0.6
0.83
0.6
0.43
0.77
0.6
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.26
0.6
0.43
0.83
0.6
0.83
0.6
0.43
0.77
0.6
0.43
0.26
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.77
0.77
0.83
0.83
0.6
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.6
0.77
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.83
0.43
0.83
0.43
0.6
0.26
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.77
0.77
0.83
0.83
0.6
0.43
0.43
0.26
0.26
0.77
0.83
0.26
0.43
0.6
0.26
0.83
0.77
0.77
0.83
0.43
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.83
0.77
0.83
0.43
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.83
0.83
0.77
0.83
0.43
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.77
0.77
0.83
0.83
0.77
0.83
0.43
0.43
0.83
0.26
0.83
0.26
0.43
0.6
0.26
0.83
0.77
0.77
0.83
0.43
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.83
0.26
0.43
0.6
0.26
0.43
0.77
0.6
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.26
0.6
0.43
0.6
0.77
0.77
0.43
0.43
0.77
0.83
0.43
0.6
0.26
0.26
0.83
0.83
0.6
0.43
0.26
0.6
0.72
0.89
0.48
0.85
0.66
0.78
0.77
0.83
0.68
0.89
0.49
0.87
0.83
0.70
0.56
0.80
0.56
0.57
0.63
0.31
0.74
0.60
0.54
0.54
0.81
0.98
0.74
0.94
0.75
0.72
0.94
0.60
0.68
0.63
0.83
0.44
0.65
0.83
0.67
0.73
0.63
0.58
0.62
0.50
0.98
0.77
0.91
0.64
0.77
0.75
0.97
0.68
0.71
0.72
0.65
0.83
0.81
0.91
0.76
0.68
0.65
0.76
0.88
0.54
0.74
0.73
0.72
0.61
0.45
0.71
0.47
0.55
0.54
0.67
(continued on next page)

G. C
2222
Table 12 (continued)
No.
K1
K2
K3
K4
K5
K6
K7
K8
ftraining
No.
K1
K2
K3
K4
K5
K6
K7
K8
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
62
65
111
113
71
83
108
47
120
86
67
45
66
50
115
87
78
81
45
49
85
115
23
152
137
184
231
193
161
69
173
114
200
201
116
87
112
44
45
185
57
30
159
176
1
4
4
1
2
1
1
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
4
4
2
3
2
1
69
74
64
50
80
63
75
54
43
56
82
59
50
85
90
80
49
81
42
47
59
63
37
123
71
124
140
76
48
108
93
80
51
120
79
119
132
163
68
148
44
96
168
65
1
7
8
4
7
1
5
7
8
7
4
1
3
7
6
0
1
6
4
6
1
6
0.26
0.6
0.6
0.43
0.6
0.77
0.83
0.43
0.43
0.83
0.26
0.83
0.26
0.43
0.6
0.26
0.83
0.77
0.77
0.83
0.43
0.26
0.26
0.6
0.43
0.83
0.6
0.83
0.6
0.43
0.77
0.6
0.43
0.43
0.83
0.6
0.83
0.6
0.43
0.77
0.6
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.99
0.59
0.63
0.48
0.41
0.66
0.69
0.77
0.49
0.73
0.59
0.63
0.72
0.71
0.60
0.74
0.96
0.51
0.97
0.92
0.53
0.53
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
116
82
117
42
44
97
60
31
74
58
118
69
62
92
43
104
116
52
60
74
92
107
130
148
117
17
71
90
201
206
121
75
128
156
58
42
74
215
57
215
100
21
41
135
2
3
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
2
2
2
2
4
1
3
2
3
1
65
67
62
45
77
63
55
52
52
61
79
59
53
70
56
75
80
52
81
46
89
40
83
139
102
69
122
57
142
88
49
98
122
63
121
137
94
155
107
132
103
134
105
149
3
3
2
1
3
1
7
5
6
8
4
2
7
3
0
7
7
2
4
3
6
7
0.83
0.26
0.43
0.6
0.26
0.83
0.77
0.77
0.83
0.83
0.26
0.43
0.6
0.26
0.83
0.77
0.77
0.83
0.43
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.43
0.6
0.77
0.77
0.43
0.43
0.77
0.83
0.43
0.6
0.26
0.26
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.77
0.77
0.83
0.83
0.6
0.43
railway crossings in Belgrade were chosen because of their high

frequency of road and rail trafc, and because of the worrying
statistics regarding the number of accidents which occur at them
(Serbian Transport Safety Agency, 2010). Table 10 shows the
number of railway accidents in the Belgrade area for the period
20012011.
As seen in Table 10, the total number of accidents on railways in
the Belgrade area for the period 20012011 does not have a trend of
growth. However, the share of accidents at level crossings in the total number of accidents has risen since 2003. For the period 2001
2011 a total of 767 accidents occurred, and of that number, 214 were
at railway level crossings. These data indicate the fact that it is necessary to improve the safety of road users on railway crossings.
In 2012, the Czech Development Agency donated 2.7 million
euro to Serbian Railways with the aim of improving the safety
equipment on railway crossings. Serbian Railways have decided to
invest 85comparative review of the results of expert prioritization
and prioritization using the ANFIS model is shown in Table 11. The
parameters shown in Table 11 were obtained by recording trafc
parameters at the given level crossings in the period 20092011.
By adding together the ranks of the railway crossings obtained
by the ANFIS model and by expert assessments, synthetic ranks of
the given rail crossings were achieved. By arranging the synthetic
ranks according to their increasing totals, a nal rank (prioritization) of each level crossings was reached.
As seen in Table 11, the ANFIS model has a high degree of generalization for the preferences of the experts. By comparing the output preferences of the ANFIS model and the experts, an average
error of 0.029 is obtained. In Fig. 8 is a comparison of the output values for the criteria functions (preferences) of the ANFIS model and
the experts for all 88 railway level crossings in the Belgrade area.
On the basis of the data presented in Fig. 8 and Table 11, we can
conclude that the ANFIS model successfully simulates the preferences of the experts. The experiential knowledge of experts was
successfully mapped into the base of rules for the neuro-fuzzy system, and a unique base of knowledge was formed by means of
which a selection can be made regarding which level crossings
should receive safety improvements.
5. Conclusion
The ANFIS model developed in this paper enables the quantication of criteria and selection of the best alternative from a set
0.71
0.55
0.66
1.03
0.77
0.87
0.50
0.63
0.79
0.80
0.56
0.70
0.77
0.74
0.92
0.40
0.76
0.56
0.74
0.81
0.76
0.48
of alternatives. The presented model makes it possible to evaluate

the proposed railway crossings and select the best alternative from
the set of those offered, which are described by means of criteria
which can be benet or cost related. One of the main criteria for
the evaluation of the quality of new methodologies in soft computing is their usefulness in the analysis of real data. It has been
shown that the ANFIS model for the prioritization of railway level
crossings, as well as the output data are equal to the experts
assessments. The development of the ANFIS model has made it
possible for the strategy of choosing a railway level crossing in
which to make an investment of safety equipment to be transformed into an automatic control strategy. As a result of the research it has been shown that the system developed has the
ability to learn and can emulate the expert estimates and demonstrate a comparable level of expertise.
Looking at the performance of the ANFIS model and the results
obtained we can conclude that the ANFIS model can reproduce the
decisions of experts with great accuracy. This makes it possible to
prioritize which railway level crossings should receive an investment of safety equipment in a straightforward way without the
use of the complex statistical and mathematical transformations
which have been used so far (Berg, 1966; Mohammad et al.,
2003). Furthermore, the ANFIS model contributes to a reduction
in subjective inuences and a saving in the amount of time required for making the decision.
Acknowledgements
The work reported in this paper is a part of the investigation
within the research project TR 36017 supported by the Ministry
for Science and Technology, Republic of Serbia. This support is
gratefully acknowledged.
Appendix A
See Table 12.
References
Anandarao, S., & Martland, C. D. (1998). Level crossing safety on east Japan
company: Application of probabilistic risk assessment techniques.
Transportation, 25(3), 265286.
Berg, W. D. (1966). Evaluation of safety at railroad-highway grade crossings in
urban areas, Joint Highway Research Project, Indiana Department of
Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.

G. C
Bureau of Transport. (2008). Rail accident costs in Serbia. Belgrade, Serbia, Bureau of
Transport.
Bureau of Transport. (2010). Trafc accident costs in Serbia. Belgrade, Serbia,
Bureau of Transport.
Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (BTRE). (2002). Rail Accident Costs in
Australia, Report 108. Canberra: Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics.
Crecink, W. J. (1958). Evaluating hazards at railway grade crossings. In Proceedings,
Highway Research Board, Washington DC.
Department of transportation (2008). Railroad-highway grade crossing handbook,
Federal highway administration, USA.
Elzohairy, Y. M., & Benekohal R. F. (2000). Evaluation of expected accident frequency
formulas for rail-highway crossings: Report No. ITRC FR 98-102. Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, Urbana, Illinois.
European level crossing forum. (2011). Background information on level crossings.
In European level crossing forum and safer european level crossing appraisal and
technology.
European Railway Agency. (2011). Railway safety performance in the European
Union.
Ford, G., & Matthews, A. (2002). Analysis of Australian grade crossing accident
statistics. In Seventh international symposium on railroad-highway grade crossing
research and safety. Melbourne.
Graham, B., & Hogan, C. (2008). Low cost level crossing warning device. Victoria,
Sinclair Knight Merz and VicTrack Access.
Hays, J. H. (1964). Can Government curb grade crossing accidents?, Trafc safety,
Chicago, Illinois.
Li, T., Xia, Q., Li, L., & Li, C. (2002). The trend of injury epidemic in Ningxia. Chinese
Medical Journal, 36(5), 327329.
Woods, M. D., MacLauchlan, I., Barrett, J., Slovak, R., Wegele, S., Quiroga, L., Berrado,
A., Koursi E. M. E, & Impastato S. (2008). Report on risk modelling techniques for
level crossing risk and system safety evaluation. In Safer European level crossing
appraisal and technology (SELCAT) (pp. 3340).
MacNab, Y. C. (2003). A Bayesian hierarchical model for accident and injury
surveillance. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35(I), 91102.
McEachem, C. (1960). A study of railroad grade crossing protection in Houston. In
Proceedings, D.C.
2223
Mendoza, G. A. (1999). Guidelines for applying multi-criteria analysis to the assessment

of criteria and indicators. Jakarta: Center for International Forestry Research.
Newnan, D. G. (1958). Maximum safe vehicle speeds at railroad grade crossings,
trafc engineering, Washington, USA.
Qureshi, M., Virkler, M. R., Kristen, L., Bernhardt, S., Spring, G., Avalokita, S., et al.
(2003). Highway rail crossing project selection. USA: Missouri Department of
Transportation.
Reiff, R. P., Gage, S. E., Carroll, A. A., & Gordon, J. E. (2003). Evaluation of alternative
detection technologies for trains and highway vehicles at highway rail
intersections, Federal railroad administration, Washington, USA.
Roop, S. S. (2005). An analysis of low-cost active warning devices for highway rail
grade crossings. Project no. HR 3-76B, Task order 4.
Serbian Transport Council. (2010). National railway level crossing safety strategy
2010/2020, Serbia.
Serbian Transport Safety Agency (STSA). (2010). SOSA transport safety report: Rail
statistics. In Serbian rail safety occurrence data 1 January 2003 to 31 December
2010. Serbia Transport Safety Agncy, Belgrade, Serbia (p. 31).
Tey, L. S., Ferreira, L., & Dia, H. (2009). Evaluating cost-effective railway level
crossing protection systems. In 32nd Australasian transport research forum.
Auckland, Ministry of Transport.
The World Health Report. (1999). Geneva: WHO.
WHO (2003). Regional ofce for Europe. Trafc accidents. Available from: http://
www.euro.who.int/data/assets/pdf_le/0003/83757/E92049.pdf.
Wigglesworth, E. C., & Uber, C. B. (1991). An evaluation of the railway level crossing
boom barrier program in Victoria. Journal of Safety Research, 22(3), 133140.
Woods, M. (2010). Level crossing signs and trafc signals. In European commission
workshop on level crossing safety. European commission, Brussels.
Liou, T. S., & Wang, M. J. J. (1992). Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value. Fuzzy
Sets Systems, 50, 247256.
Nasibov, N. E., & Ulutagay, G. (2007). A new unsupervised approach for fuzzy
clustering. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 158, 21182133.
Horikawa, S., Furuhashi, T., & Uchikawa, Y. (1992). Composition methods and
learning algorithms of fuzzy neural networks. Japanese Journal of Fuzzy Theory
and Systems, 4(5), 529556.

Decision Support Model For Prioritizing Railway Level Crossings For Safety Improvements in Serbia: Application of Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy System

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Decision Support Model For Prioritizing Railway Level Crossings For Safety Improvements in Serbia: Application of Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Expert Systems with Applications 40 (2013) 22082223

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Expert Systems with Applications

Corresponding author. Address: Pavla Jurisica Sturma 33, 11000 Belgrade,

war, and almost twice as many as all victims of murder and

irovic, D. Pamucar / Expert Systems with Applications 40 (2013) 22082223

European Union country

by 36% in rural areas and 20% in urban areas in Serbia (Bureau of

irovic, D. Pamucar / Expert Systems with Applications 40 (2013) 22082223

2. Models for the prioritization of railway crossings

Accident prediction equations are expressed in terms of a relative

a2 0:40 7:53 105 V 8:72 105 V 2

where a2- predicted number of accidents for a ve-year period, and

where IH-index of hazard, V = vtdp, and A = a1/a2.

irovic, D. Pamucar / Expert Systems with Applications 40 (2013) 22082223

ing protection improvements (Newnan, 1958). By analyzing 617

where a-un-normalized initial crash prediction, in crashes per year

where N observed crashes in T years at the crossing, T number of

where V number of vehicles, T number of trains, PF protection

where T train movements per day, A number of vehicle/train

where PF protection factor, SDf sight distance factor, Ts train

Mohammad et al. (2003) modied the Kansas Design Hazard Rating

The Missouri crossing improvement program currently uses a

irovic, D. Pamucar / Expert Systems with Applications 40 (2013) 22082223

Index (EI) formula to prioritize crossings for safety upgrades at

(b) When an Active upgrade is considered

where TI trafc index, EI exposure index, VS vehicle speed, VM

IHI 106 A2:59088 B0:09673 C 0:40227 D0:59262 15:59

where A ln (ADT NTT), ADT average daily trafc, NTT number

Martland, 1998; Bureau of Transport & Regional Economics, 2002;

3. ANFIS decision support model for prioritizing railway level

irovic, D. Pamucar / Expert Systems with Applications 40 (2013) 22082223

Secured with automatic or mechanical devices

Pedestrian crossings (LASBM)

in accidents at all rail crossings on all lines including those of

Therefore, the conventional approach cannot encompass all the

where kj is the preference of a decision-maker, i.e. the degree of

irovic, D. Pamucar / Expert Systems with Applications 40 (2013) 22082223

K1 Frequency of rail trafc on the monitored rail crossing

Importance of the criteria

In our example, the number of linguistic variables is T = 5 (Fig. 1).

where lk is the minimal value in the area of fuzzy number

where fa(l3) = l3 (l3 l2) a is the function which represents the

Fig. 1. Linguistic descriptors.

> 100 trains/day

irovic, D. Pamucar / Expert Systems with Applications 40 (2013) 22082223

Investiciona vrednost aktivnosti u funkciji irine prunog prelaza

Fig. 2. Membership functions before training the ANFIS model.

zmf (40.7, 154.5)

gmf (33.6, 53,4.3,87.5)

smf (7.6, 109)

gmf (0.3659, 0.8917)

smf (65.8, 207)

input variables well and because they ensure a satisfactory level of

The values are the average indicators on an annual basis.

irovic, D. Pamucar / Expert Systems with Applications 40 (2013) 22082223

Fig. 3. Structure of the ANFIS system.

which occurred at the output of the fuzzy system was

O21 wi lAi x1 lBi x2 lC i x3 lDi x4

Layer 3. Every i th node in this layer calculates the ratio of the i th

Layer 5. The only junction of the fth layer is a xed junction by

O51 Ov erall output

3.2. Forming a data set for training the ANFIS model