生产安全事件随机-模糊耦合的危险性度量

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.01.001

中国安全科学学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (1): 1-7.doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.01.001

• 安全科学理论与安全系统科学 • 下一篇

生产安全事件随机-模糊耦合的危险性度量

金智新^1,2 教授级高工, 刘倩^**1, 邓存宝² 教授, 王延生² 讲师

1 辽宁工程技术大学安全科学与工程学院, 辽宁阜新 123000;
2 太原理工大学安全与应急管理工程学院, 山西太原 030024

收稿日期:2020-10-20 修回日期:2020-12-07 出版日期:2021-01-28 发布日期:2021-07-28
通讯作者: **刘倩(1996—),女,河北石家庄人,硕士研究生,研究方向为安全科学基础理论及其应用。E-mail:1158149738@qq.com。
作者简介:金智新 (1959—),男,辽宁锦州人,教授级高工,中国工程院院士,主要从事安全科学基础理论及工程管理等方面的研究。wangyansheng@tyut.edu.cn。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金重点项目资助(U1810206)。

Stochastic fuzzy coupled risk measurement for production safety events

JIN Zhixin^1,2, LIU Qian¹, DENG Cunbao², WANG Yansheng²

1 College of Safety Science and Engineering, Liaoning Technical University, Fuxin Liaoning 123000, China;
2 College of Safety and Emergency Management Engineering, Taiyuan University of Technology, Taiyuan Shanxi 030024, China

Received:2020-10-20 Revised:2020-12-07 Online:2021-01-28 Published:2021-07-28

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为解决生产安全事件危险性度量中因素状态变化的随机性及状态变化范围的模糊性问题,基于安全结构理论,通过分析生产安全事件的失稳域与活动环境属性空间之间的关系,阐释安全型、危险型、可控型3类危险性模型;采用概率理论和模糊理论数学表述生产安全事件的随机危险性、模糊危险性以及随机-模糊耦合危险性;以瓦斯体积分数为研究对象,给出瓦斯体积分数随机-模糊耦合危险性度量分析计算示例。结果表明:工作面瓦斯体积分数随机-模糊耦合危险度为24.41%,环境因素的状态概率密度分布和因素状态模糊隶属度对生产安全事件危险度具有双重影响,随机-模糊耦合模型具有一定的可行性。

关键词: 生产安全事件, 失稳域, 危险性度量, 不确定性, 随机-模糊耦合模型

Abstract: In order to address randomness of factor state change and fuzziness of state change range in risk measurement of production safety events, relationship between their instability domain and activity environment attribute space was analyzed based on safety structure theory. Three kinds of risk models were explained, including safety type, dangerous type and controllable type. Then, probability theory and fuzzy theory were used to mathematically describe random risk, fuzzy risk and stochastic fuzzy coupled risk of the events. Finally, with gas volume fraction taken as object, a calculation example of stochastic fuzzy coupled risk measurement analysis was obtained. The results show that the risk of gas volume fraction on the working face is 24.41%, and state probability density distribution of environmental factors and fuzzy membership degree of factor state have a dual impact on risk of safety events, which verifies feasibility of stochastic fuzzy coupled model to some extent.

Key words: production safety events, instability domain, risk measurement, uncertainty, stochastic fuzzy coupled model

中图分类号:

X928.03

金智新, 刘倩, 邓存宝, 王延生. 生产安全事件随机-模糊耦合的危险性度量[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(1): 1-7.

JIN Zhixin, LIU Qian, DENG Cunbao, WANG Yansheng. Stochastic fuzzy coupled risk measurement for production safety events[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(1): 1-7.

参考文献

[1] 成连华, 郑庆, 郭慧敏,等. 基于累积效应的事故进程研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(12): 35-39.
CHENG Lianhua, ZHENG Qing, GUO Huimin, et al. Research on accident process based on cumulative effect[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(12): 35-39.
[2] 谢宏, 董媛媛. 安全生产水平预测与评价的系统动力学模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2016, 26(9): 35-39.
XIE Hong, DONG Yuanyuan. System dynamics model for work safety level prediction and evaluation[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2016, 26(9): 35-39.
[3] KHAN F, RATHNAYAKA S, AHMED S. Methods and models in process safety and risk management: past, present and future[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2015, 98: 116-147.
[4] LEE W S, GROSH D L, TILLMAN F A, et al. Fault tree analysis, methods, and applications & a review[J]. IEEE Trans Reliability, 1985, 34(3): 194-203.
[5] 王燕, 尹盼盼, 沈梦露. 基于事故树的铁路客运站火灾风险因素分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(增1): 44-47.
WANG Yan, YIN Panpan, SHEN Menglu. Fire risk factors analysis of large railway passenger station based on fault tree analysis[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(S1): 44-47.
[6] VILCHEZ J A, ESPEJO V, CASAL J. Generic event trees and probabilities for the release of different types of hazardous materials[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2011, 24(3): 281-287.
[7] ABDELKADER B, AITKADI D. A state-of-the-art review of FMEA/FMECA[J]. International Journal of Reliability Quality and Safety Engineering, 1994, 1(4): 515-543.
[8] RAI S N, KREWSKI D. Uncertainty and variability analysis in multiplicative risk models[J]. Risk Analysis, 2010, 18(1): 37-45.
[9] SHINYOUNG K, ABHINAV G. Bayesian network technique in probabilistic risk assessment for multiple hazards[C]. International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, 2016:ICONE24-60723.
[10] FERDOUS R, KHAN F, SADIQ R, et al. Fault and event tree analyses for process systems risk analysis: uncertainty handling formulations[J]. Risk Analysis an Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2011, 31(1): 86-107.
[11] CURCURÙ G, GALANTE G M, FATA L C M, et al. Epistemic uncertainty in fault tree analysis approached by the evidence theory[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2012, 25(4): 667-676.
[12] MARKOWSKI A S, MANNAN M S, KOTYNIA A, et al. Uncertainty aspects in process safety analysis[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2010, 23(3): 446-454.
[13] RAI S N, KREWSKID. Uncertainty and variability analysis in multiplicative risk models[J]. Risk Analysis an Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2010, 18(1): 37-45.
[14] 金智新. 安全结构理论[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2012: 91-112.
[15] 汪培庄, 郭嗣琮, 包研科,等. 因素空间中的因素分析法[J]. 辽宁工程技术大学学报:自然科学版, 2014, 33(7): 865-870.
WANG Peizhuang, GUO Sicong, BAO Yanke, et al. Causality analysis in factor spaces[J]. Journal of Liaoning Technical University:Natural Science, 2014, 33(7): 865-870.
[16] 刘海涛, 郭嗣琮, 刘增良,等. 因素空间发展评述[J]. 模糊系统与数学, 2017, 31(6): 39-58.
LIU Haitao, GUO Sicong, LIU Zengliang, et al. Review on the development of factor space[J]. Fuzzy Systems and Mathematics, 2017, 31(6): 39-58.
[17] 金智新, 王延生, 邓存宝,等. 广义安全结构理论研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(5): 41-46.
JIN Zhixin, WANG Yansheng, DENG Cunbao, et al. Research on generalized safety structure theory[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2017, 27(5): 41-46.
[18] 金智新, 王延生, 邓存宝. 基于安全结构理论的安全事件内涵数学表达[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(10): 38-43.
JIN Zhixin, WANG Yansheng, DENG Cunbao. Intension expressing of safety events based on safety structure theory[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2017, 27(10): 38-43.

生产安全事件随机-模糊耦合的危险性度量

Stochastic fuzzy coupled risk measurement for production safety events

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	张鸽. 基于累积接尘量的尘肺病风险评估方法^*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(2): 200-206.
[2]	蔡玫, 王秋寒. Natech风险管理中的承灾体脆弱性评估方法综述^*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(11): 9-17.
[3]	蒋水华, 曾绍慧, 黄劲松, 姚池. 尾矿材料渗透系数序贯概率反演分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(6): 158-165.
[4]	佟瑞鹏, 程蒙召, 马晓飞, 许素睿. 不确定性条件下煤尘职业健康损害评价方法及应用[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(4): 139-144.
[5]	牟能冶, 仇戈. 语义ELECTRE-TRI风险评估模型构建[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(1): 44-49.
[6]	段永胜, 赵继广, 陈鹏, 赵蓓蕾. 一种考虑认知不确定性的风险矩阵分析方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(2): 70-74.
[7]	吴贤国, 覃亚伟, 沈梅芳, 张立茂, 张伟. 基于云推理的运营隧道结构健康安全风险评价研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(2): 133-138.
[8]	邹铁方，彭海涛，刘雨. 计算事故再现结果区间的支持向量回归-子区间法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2013, 23(11): 48-.
[9]	赵佳虹. 不确定性条件下危险废物物流LRP建模与求解[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2011, 21(7): 33-.
[10]	汪金辉，焦宇，刘江虹，陈伟炯. 参数不确定性对隧道火灾人员安全时间的影响研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2011, 21(12): 46-.
[11]	张海云，王阿川. 基于BP神经网络在森林防火专家系统不确定推理中的应用研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2010, 20(7): 38-.
[12]	张斌，阳宪惠，康荣学. 安全完整性水平评估中考察参数不确定性影响的一种方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2008, 18(8): 135-.
[13]	陆玉梅，梅强. 中小企业的安全投入行为研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2008, 18(11): 60-.
[14]	田云丽. 基于模糊综合方法的工业污水环境安全影响评价研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2007, 17(9): 109-.
[15]	王阿川，宋辞，曹军. 一种更加安全的密码技术——量子密码[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2007, 17(1): 107-.