基于FBN的高校实验室不安全行为风险评估*

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.05.024

中国安全科学学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (5): 160-167.doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.05.024

• 安全社会科学与安全管理 • 上一篇下一篇

基于FBN的高校实验室不安全行为风险评估^*

安宇研究员, 李子琪^**, 王袆, 郭子萌, 张姜博南

中国矿业大学北京应急管理与安全工程学院,北京 100083

收稿日期:2021-02-03 修回日期:2021-04-11 出版日期:2021-05-28 发布日期:2021-12-20
通讯作者: **李子琪(1994—),女,黑龙江大庆人,硕士研究生,主要研究方向为行为安全管理。E-mail: liziqi1026@126.com。
作者简介:安宇 (1976—),男,黑龙江海伦人,博士,研究员,硕士生导师,主要从事校园安全管理、行为安全等方面的研究。E-mail:anyu@curntb.edu.cn。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金资助(52074302);教育部第二批新工科研究与实践项目(E-AQGABQ20202706);中国高等教育学会“实验室管理研究”专项课题(2020SYD02)。

Risk assessment on unsafe behaviors of university laboratories based on FBN

AN Yu, LI Ziqi, WANG Hui, GUO Zimeng, ZHANG Jiangbonan

School of Emergency Management & Safety Engineering, China University of Mining & Technology-Beijing, Beijing 100083, China

Received:2021-02-03 Revised:2021-04-11 Online:2021-05-28 Published:2021-12-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为有效减少高校实验室不安全行为,首先,利用人因分析和分类系统(HFACS)模型、贝叶斯网络法、专家评估法以及三角模糊数估算概率法,构建高校实验室不安全行为的模糊贝叶斯网络(FBN)模型;然后,应用模型推理分析,确定高校实验室不安全行为主要影响因素。结果表明:高校实验室不安全行为包括外部影响、组织影响、不安全监管、不安全行为的前提条件和不安全行为 5个层级,共24个风险因素,由此导致不安全行为的不可接受概率高达86%;在24个风险因素中,组织氛围不佳的灵敏度值为24.1%,对不安全行为的影响最大;导致不安全行为发生的最根本因素是立法不完善,进而传递到不可接受的外部因素和不安全监督,形成最可能致因链。

关键词: 模糊贝叶斯网络(FBN), 高校实验室, 不安全行为, 风险评估, 人因分析和分类系统(HFACS)模型

Abstract: In order to effectively reduce unsafe behavior in university laboratory. Firstly, FBN model of unsafe behaviors in university laboratories was constructed by using HFACS model, Bayesian network method, expert assessment and triangular fuzzy number probability estimation methods. Then, main influencing factors of unsafe behavior in university laboratory were determined by model reasoning analysis. The results show that there are many risk factors for unsafe behaviors in university laboratories, including 24 risk factors at five levels: external influence, organizational influence, unsafe supervision, preconditions for unsafe behaviors and unsafe behaviors. As a result, unacceptable probability of unsafe behavior is as high as 86 percent. Among 24 risk factors, sensitivity value of poor organizational climate is 24.1%, which has the greatest impact on unsafe behavior. The most fundamental factor leading to unsafe behavior is inadequate legislation, which in turn passes to unacceptable external factors and unsafe supervision, forming the most likely causal chain.

Key words: fuzzy Bayesian network (FBN), university laboratory, unsafe behavior, risk assessment, human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS) model

中图分类号:

X913.4

安宇, 李子琪, 王袆, 郭子萌, 张姜博南. 基于FBN的高校实验室不安全行为风险评估^*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(5): 160-167.

AN Yu, LI Ziqi, WANG Hui, GUO Zimeng, ZHANG Jiangbonan. Risk assessment on unsafe behaviors of university laboratories based on FBN[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(5): 160-167.

参考文献

[1] OLEWSKI T, SNAKARD M. Challenges in applying process safety management at university laboratories[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2017, 49:209-214.
[2] PENG Tong, LI Chao, ZHOU Xinbin. Application of machine learning to laboratory safety management assessment[J]. Safety Science,2019, 120:263-267.
[3] WU T C, LIU Chiwei, LU Muchen. Safety climate in university and college laboratories: impact of organizational and individual factors[J].Journal of Safety Research,2007, 38(1):91-102.
[4] SHARIFF A M, NORAZAHAR N. At-risk behaviour analysis and improvement study in an academic laboratory[J].Safety Science, 2012, 50(1):29-38.
[5] YANG Yunfeng, RENSERIK G, CHEN Guohua, et al. A bibliometric review of laboratory safety in universities[J].Safety Science,2019, 120:14-24.
[6] OMIDVARI M, MANSOURI N, NOURI J. A pattern of fire risk assessment and emergency management in educational center laboratories[J]. Safety Science, 2015, 73:34-42.
[7] HO Chaochung, CHEN Mingshun. Risk assessment and quality improvement of liquid waste management in Taiwan University chemical laboratories[J]. Waste Management, 2018, 71:578-588.
[8] 师光达, 李德顺. 基于事故树的高校实验室火灾危险分析[J]. 沈阳理工大学学报, 2019, 38(4):75-79.
SHI Guangda, LI Deshun. Analysis of fire risk in university laboratories based on fault tree[J]. Journal of Shenyang Ligong University, 2019, 38(4):75-79.
[9] CAI Baoping, XIE Min, LIU Yonghong, et al. Availability-based engineering resilience metric and its corresponding evaluation methodology[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2018, 172:216-224.
[10] WIEGMANN D A, SHAPPRLL S A. A human error approach to aviation accident analysis: the human factors analysis and classification system [M]. London: Ashgate Press, 2003:45-70.
[11] PEARL J. Fusion, propagation, and structuring in belief networks[J]. Artificial Intelligence, 1986, 29(3):241-288.
[12] GB/T 6441—1986,企业职工伤亡事故分类标准[S].
[13] 傅贵, 薛宇敬阳, 佟瑞鹏, 等. HFACS与24Model不安全动作因素对应关系研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(1):7-12.
FU Gui, XUE Yujingyang, TONG Ruipeng, et al. A comparison of HFACS and 24Model in categories of unsafe acts[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2017, 27(1):7-12.
[14] 叶元兴, 马静, 赵玉泽, 等. 基于150起实验室事故的统计分析及安全管理对策研究[J]. 实验技术与管理, 2020, 37(12):317-322.
YE Yuanxing, MA Jing, ZHAO Yuze, et al. Statistical analysis and safety management countermeasures based on 150 laboratory accidents[J]. Experimental Technology and Management, 2020, 37(12):317-322.
[15] 徐静年, 郭奋. 新时期高校实验室安全管理的分析与思考[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2005, 15(4):37-39.
XU Jingnian, GUO Fen. About the laboratory safety in colleges under new situation[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2005, 15(4):37-39.
[16] 代亚清, 付净, 刘虹, 等. HFACS与24Model在高校实验室事故分析中的应用[J]. 实验技术与管理, 2019, 36(10):259-264.
DAI Yaqing, FU Jing, LIU Hong, et al. Application of HFACS and 24Model in accident analysis of university laboratory[J]. Experimental Technology and Management, 2019, 36(10):259-264.
[17] 付净, 刘虹, 刘文博. 高校实验室火灾爆炸事故原因分析及管理对策[J]. 吉林化工学院学报, 2018, 35(5): 87-92.
FU Jing, LIU Hong, Liu Wenbo. Cause analysis and administrative measures of fire and explosion accidents in university laboratories[J]. Journal of Jilin Institute of Chemical Technology, 2018, 35(5): 87-92.
[18] YAZDI M, DANESHVAR S, SETAREH H. An extension to fuzzy developed failure mode and effects analysis (FDFMEA) application for aircraft landing system[J]. Safety Science, 2017, 98:113-123.
[19] LAAL F, POUYAKIAN M, JAFARI M J, et al. Technical, human, and organizational factors affecting failures of firefighting systems (FSs) of atmospheric storage tanks: providing a risk assessment approach using fuzzy bayesian network (FBN) and content validity indicators[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2020, 65: DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104157.
[20] SAATY T L, OZDEMIR M S. Why the magic number seven plus or minus two[J]. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 2003, 38(3/4):233-244.

基于FBN的高校实验室不安全行为风险评估^*

Risk assessment on unsafe behaviors of university laboratories based on FBN

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]	刘嘉豪, 余杨, 张振兴, 余建星, 王巍巍, 傅一钦. 二维云模型和贝叶斯网络的立管风险评估方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(5): 147-154.
[2]	刘耀, 焦双健. ST-GCN在建筑工人不安全动作识别中的应用[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(4): 30-35.
[3]	辛保泉, 喻健良, 党文义, 白永忠, 于安峰. 定量风险评估视域下的多组分混合物危险特性[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(4): 80-85.
[4]	卢颖, 赵志攀, 姜学鹏, 吴锦东, 范小鹏. 大数据视域下体育场馆动态火灾风险指标研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(4): 155-162.
[5]	黄杰, 张显峰. 以南疆为例的区域暴恐袭击风险评估^*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(2): 192-199.
[6]	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.
[7]	石娟, 常丁懿, 郑鹏. 基于BP神经网络的建筑工人不安全行为预警模型^*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(1): 27-33.
[8]	韩鹏, 王军, 王启, 赵嶷飞. 基于飞行剖面的航空器试飞活动空管风险研究^*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(1): 149-156.
[9]	刘继川, 桂蕾. 城市公共安全风险评估与控制对策研究:以武汉市为例^*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(1): 164-171.
[10]	辛保泉, 党文义, 喻健良, 王溪舸, 闫兴清, 卢卫. 石化过程蒸气云爆炸抗爆设防荷载定量评估方法^*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(9): 113-118.
[11]	李妙慧, 栗继祖. 群体动力对矿工不安全行为意向的影响研究^*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(7): 48-55.
[12]	曹璐璐, 刘艳. 有限空间作业人员不安全心理与行为关系研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(6): 70-75.
[13]	马润, 仇维斌 , 秦云, 欧红香. 模糊区间TOPSIS动车组塞拉门故障风险评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(4): 177-183.
[14]	刘林, 梅强, 常志朋. 国内70年来员工不安全行为研究:发展阶段、研究热点及趋势分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(3): 1-12.
[15]	赵冬月, 陈长坤, 易亮. 灾害演化网络时序性风险评估模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(3): 171-177.