基于改进N-K模型的地铁盾构掘进安全风险耦合研究

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.02.0385

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为预防和控制地铁盾构掘进施工过程中的关键安全风险,并精准判断哪些风险耦合情境是导致事故发生的显著情境,提出改进N-K模型研究地铁盾构掘进安全风险耦合;综合运用文献研究、事故案例、专家访谈等方法,辨识地铁盾构掘进的关键安全风险因素;基于N-K模型提出新的地铁盾构掘进安全风险耦合评估模型,并选用安全事故案例验证该模型的适用性。结果表明:辨识得到地铁盾构掘进关键安全风险因素清单,包括4类一级风险因素,21个二级风险因素;地铁盾构掘进施工安全风险随着耦合因素种类的增加而变大,4因素风险耦合值最高,3因素风险耦合值次之,双因素风险耦合值最低,作业人员安全意识薄弱和机械故障参与作用的耦合情境更容易发生安全事故。

关键词: 改进N-K模型, 盾构掘进施工, 安全风险, 风险因素, 风险耦合

Abstract:

In order to effectively prevent and control the key safety risks in subway shield tunneling construction and accurately judge which risk coupling scenarios were significant ones leading to accidents, an improved N-K model was proposed to study the coupling effect of safety risks in subway shield tunneling. The key safety risks of subway shield tunneling were identified by comprehensively using literature research, accident case analysis and expert interview. Based on the N-K model, a new coupling analysis model of subway shield tunneling safety risk was proposed, and the applicability of the model was verified by a safety accident case. The results show that the list of key safety risk factors of subway shield tunneling is obtained, including 4 first-level risk factors (i.e., personnel-type, equipment-type, environment-type and management-type safety risks) and 21 second-level risk factors. The safety risk value of subway shield tunneling construction increases with the increase of coupling factors. Safety risk coupling values with four factors are the highest, followed by the coupling values of three factors, and safety risk coupling values with two factors are the lowest. Coupling scenarios with workers' low safety awareness and machine failure participating are more susceptible to safety accidents.

Key words: improved N-K model, subway shield tunneling, safety risk, risk factor, risk coupling

中图分类号:

X948

张建设, 黄艳龙, 李瑚均, 陈辉华, 何况, 代姿爽. 基于改进N-K模型的地铁盾构掘进安全风险耦合研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(2): 67-75.

ZHANG Jianshe, HUANG Yanlong, LI Hujun, CHEN Huihua, HE Kuang, DAI Zishuang. Study on coupling of subway shield tunneling safety risk based on improved N-K model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(2): 67-75.

图/表 7

表1

表2

图1

表3

表4

表5

表6

参考文献 33

[1]	LU Hui, QI Junxiang, LI Jue, et al. Multi-agent based safety computational experiment system for shield tunneling projects[J]. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 2020, 27(8): 1963-1991. doi: 10.1108/ECAM-12-2019-0726
[2]	MENG Guowang, YE Yangchun, WU Bo, et al. Risk assessment of shield tunnel construction in karst strata based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and cloud model[J]. Shock and Vibration, 2021, 2021: DOI:10.1155/2021/7237136.
[3]	VAHDATIKHAKI F, HAMMAD A. Dynamic equipment workspace generation for improving earthwork safety using real-time location system[J]. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 2015, 29(3): 459-471. doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2015.03.002
[4]	ZHOU Chen, DING Lieyun, SKIBNIEWSKI M J, et al. Data based complex network modeling and analysis of shield tunneling performance in metro construction[J]. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 2018, 38: 168-186. doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2018.06.011
[5]	阎向林. 盾构掘进风险评估模型[J]. 铁道科学与工程学报, 2022, 19(8):2453-2460.
	YAN Xianglin. Risk levels evaluation of shield machine during tunnel excavation[J]. Journal of Railway Engineering Society, 2022, 19(8): 2453-2460.
[6]	姚浩, 周红波, 蔡来炳, 等. 软土地区土压盾构隧道掘进施工风险模糊评估[J]. 岩土力学, 2007, 28(8):1753-1756.
	YAO Hao, ZHOU Hongbo, CAI Laibing, et al. Fuzzy synthetic evaluation on construction risk of EPBS during tunnelling in soft soil area[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2007, 28(8): 1753-1756.
[7]	PAN Haize, GOU Jing, WAN Zihong, et al. Research on coupling degree model of safety risk system for tunnel construction in subway shield zone[J]. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2019: DOI:10.1155/2019/5783938.
[8]	LIU Wen, ZHAO Tingshen, ZHOU Wei, et al. Safety risk factors of metro tunnel construction in China: an integrated study with EFA and SEM[J]. Safety Science, 2018, 105: 98-113. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.01.009
[9]	WANG Xintong, LI Shucai, XU Zhenhao, et al. An interval risk assessment method and management of water inflow and inrush in course of karst tunnel excavation[J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2019, 92: DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2019.103033.
[10]	HYUN K C, MIN S, CHOI H, et al. Risk analysis using fault-tree analysis (FTA) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) applicable to shield TBM tunnels[J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space, 2015, 49: 121-129.
[11]	CARDENAS I C, AL-JIBOURI S, HALMAN J, et al. Capturing and integrating knowledge for managing risks in tunnel works[J]. Risk Analysis, 2013, 33(1): 92-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01829.x pmid: 22571494
[12]	ZHOU Yuanyuan, HE Yitao, ZHAO Jinglu, et al. Safety analysis of shield tunnel construction in karst area based on Bayesian network[J]. Modern Tunnelling Technology, 2018, 55(Z2): 764-771.
[13]	LI Zhaoyang, WANG Yingchao, OLGUN C G, et al. Risk assessment of water inrush caused by karst cave in tunnels based on reliability and GA-BP neural network[J]. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 2020, 11(1): 1212-1232. doi: 10.1080/19475705.2020.1785956
[14]	黄靓钰, 阳军生, 张聪, 等. 基于BP神经网络的水下岩溶地层盾构掘进参数预测与分析[J]. 土木工程学报, 2020, 53(增1):75-80.
	HUANG Liangyu, YANG Junsheng, ZHANG Cong, et al. Prediction and analysis of shield tunneling parameters in underwater karst stratum based on BP neural network[J]. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2020, 53(S1): 75-80.
[15]	WU Zhiqiang, ZOU Shuliang. A static risk assessment model for underwater shield tunnel construction[J]. Sadhana-Academy Proceedings in Engineering Sciences, 2020, 45(1): DOI:10.1007/s12046-020-01370-w.
[16]	CHUNG H, LEE I M, JUNG J H, et al. Bayesian networks-based shield TBM risk management system: methodology development and application[J]. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 2019, 23(1): 452-465. doi: 10.1007/s12205-018-0912-y
[17]	陈辉华, 李瑚均, 户晓栋. 地铁盾构掘进安全影响因素及事故致因模型[J]. 铁道工程学报, 2020, 37(5):87-92.
	CHEN Huihua, LI Hujun, HU Xiaodong. Safety influential factors and accident causation model of subway shield construction[J]. Journal of Railway Engineering Society, 2020, 37(5): 87-92.
[18]	ZHOU Hong, ZHAO Yinghui, SHEN Qiang, et al. Risk assessment and management via multi-source information fusion for undersea tunnel construction[J]. Automation in Construction, 2020, 111: DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2019.103050.
[19]	钱王苹, 漆泰岳, 乐弋舟, 等. 盾构隧道下穿高速铁路的安全因素分析及应用[J]. 铁道科学与工程学报, 2017, 14(11):2282-2289.
	QIAN Wangping, QI Taiyue, LE Yizhou, et al. The analysis and application of safety factors of shield-underneath high-speed railway[J]. Journal of Railway Science and Engineering, 2017, 14(11): 2282-2289.
[20]	李蒙, 龚雨洁, 余宏亮. 隧道盾构施工关键风险因素辨识研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(6):141-146. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.06.024
	LI Meng, GONG Yujie, YU Hongliang. Identification of key safety risk factors for tunnel shield construction[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2018, 28(6): 141-146. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.06.024
[21]	QIE Zijun, YAN Huijiao. A causation analysis of Chinese subway construction accidents based on fault tree analysis-Bayesian network[J]. Frontiers in Psychology, 2022, 13: DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.887073.
[22]	KOB A. Testing mode-coupling theory for a supercooled binary Lennard-Jones mixture I: the van hove correlation function[J]. Physical Review E, 1995, 51(5): 4626-4641. pmid: 9963176
[23]	QIAO Wanguan. Analysis and measurement of multifactor risk in underground coal mine accidents based on coupling theory[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2021, 208: DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2021.107433.
[24]	KAUFFMANS A. The origins of order: self-organization and selection in evolution[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993: 1 531-1 533.
[25]	DENG Jian, LIU Shaoyong, XIE Cheng, et al. Risk coupling characteristics of maritime accidents in Chinese inland and coastal waters based on N-K model[J]. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 2022, 10(1): DOI: 10.3390/jmse10010004.
[26]	YAN Hongyan, ZHENG Zhouwei, HUANG Hanjie, et al. Risk coupling evaluation of social stability of major engineering based on N-K Model[J]. Buildings, 2022, 12(6): DOI: 10.3390/buildings12060702.
[27]	罗帆, 刘堂卿. 基于N-K模型的空中交通安全耦合风险分析[J]. 武汉理工大学学报, 2011, 33(2):267-270.
	LUO Fan, LIU Tangqing. Air traffic safety coupling risk analysis based on N-K model[J]. Journal of Wuhan University of Technology, 2011, 33(2): 267-270.
[28]	杨婷, 帅斌, 黄文成. 基于N-K模型的道路危险品运输系统耦合风险分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(9):132-137. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.09.021
	YANG Ting, SHUAI Bin, HUANG Wencheng. Coupling risk analysis of road dangerous goods transportation system based on NK model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(9): 132-137. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.09.021
[29]	FRENKEN K. A complexity approach to innovation networks: the case of the aircraft industry (1909-1997)[J]. Research Policy, 2000, 29(2): 257-272. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00064-5
[30]	侯公羽, 刘伟, 李乐, 等. 多风险因素耦合的地铁施工安全系统脆弱性分析[J]. 土木工程学报, 2022, 55(2):111-119.
	HOU Gongyu, LIU Wei, LI Le, et al. Vulnerability analysis of the subway construction safety system with coupled multiple risk factors[J]. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2022, 55(2): 111-119.
[31]	ZHANG Mengyao, YU Deming, WANG Tianyu, et al. Coupling analysis of tunnel construction safety risks based on N-K model and SD causality diagram[J]. Buildings, 2023, 13(4): DOI: 10.3390/buildings13041081.
[32]	HAI Nan, GONG Daqing, LIU Shifeng, et al. Dynamic coupling risk assessment model of utility tunnels based on multimethod fusion[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2022, 228: DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2022.108773.
[33]	吴贤国, 吴克宝, 沈梅芳, 等. 基于N-K模型的地铁施工安全风险耦合研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2016, 26(4):96-101.
	WU Xianguo, WU Kebao, SHEN Meifang, et al. Research on coupling of safety risks in metro construction based on N-K model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2016, 26(4): 96-101.

安全风险因素	术语含义	来源
安全意识薄弱	在作业过程中自我保护意识差、思想认识不到位	PAN Haize等^[7],事故案例
综合水平不高	专业文化知识不足、专业技能水平不高	陈辉华等^[17],事故案例
违章违规操作	违反安全规章和制度	事故案例
操作失误	由于作业人员生理、心理等因素而引起的操作不当	事故案例
机械故障、磨损	由于设备设计缺陷或使用不当等原因导致设备故障	LU Hui等^[1]
盾构掘进参数	掘进参数异常或输入错误	ZHOU Hong等^[18]
材料设备检测维护不足	未检验进场的材料和设备	事故案例
材料不符合要求	施工选用的材料不符合国际标准的规定	事故案例
盾构机与地质不匹配	地质与所选盾构机不匹配	事故案例
地质环境复杂	岩石类型、硬度、混合地面条件、岩质、软弱地基、溶洞等	钱王苹^[19]、李蒙^[20]等,事故案例
地下水丰富度	地下水位、地下水丰度、降雨季节分布	CHUNG等^[16]
敏感环境	周围存在桩基、既有隧道等	事故案例
技术、政策环境	在相关技术、标准和规范未出台时发生的事故	PAN Haize^[7]、QIE Zijun^[21]等
管理体系混乱	管理层对安全生产缺乏重视及未执行安全法规和制度	事故案例
人员安全教育不到位	未执行安全教育和培训、技术交底不到位	WU Zhiqiang等^[15],事故案例
人员安排与分工不合理	关键岗位员工缺失	事故案例

序号	一级安全风险因素	二级安全风险因素
1	人员风险因素	作业人员能力不足
		作业人员安全意识薄弱
		管理人员能力不足
		管理人员安全意识薄弱
		违章违规操作
		操作失误
2	设备风险因素	机械故障、磨损
		盾构机不合理运用
		材料、设备检测维护不到位
		设备设计缺陷
		材料不符合要求
3	环境风险因素	不良地形地质(岩质、软弱地基、溶洞等)
		技术、政策环境
		敏感环境(地下管线、既有隧道等)
		地下水丰富度
4	管理风险因素	管理制度不健全
		管理责任未落实
		管理措施落实不到位
		监管不力
		人员安排与分工不合理
		安全培训、技术交底不到位

单因素风险耦合			双因素风险耦合			多因素风险耦合
事件	次数	频率	事件	次数	频率	事件	次数	频率
0000	0	0.000 0	1100	3	0.032 3	1110	2	0.021 5
1000	6	0.064 5	1010	5	0.053 8	1101	7	0.075 3
0100	5	0.053 8	1001	12	0.129 0	1011	12	0.129 0
0010	8	0.086 0	0110	12	0.129 0	0111	3	0.032 3
0001	4	0.043 0	0101	6	0.064 5	1111	5	0.053 8
—	—	—	0011	3	0.032 3	—	—	—

单因素风险耦合概率	双因素风险耦合概率		3因素风险耦合概率			4因素风险耦合概率
P_0…=0.440 9	P_00··=0.161 3	P_0·0·=0.161 3	P_000·=0.043 0	P_001·=0.118 3	P_010·=0.118 3	P₀₀₀₀=0.000 0
P_·0··=0.537 6	P_0··0=0.268 8	P_·00·=0.236 5	P_011·=0.161 3	P_100·=0.193 5	P_101·=0.182 8	P₀₀₀₁=0.043 0
P_··0·=0.462 4	P_·0·0=0.204 3	P_··00=0.150 6	P_110·=0.107 6	P_111·=0.075 3	P_00·0=0.086 0	P₀₀₁₀=0.0860
P_…0=0.440 9	P_01··=0.279 6	P_0·1·=0.279 6	P_00·1=0.075 3	P_01·0=0.182 8	P_01·1=0.096 8	P₀₀₁₁=0.032 3
P_1…=0.559 2	P_0··1=0.172 1	P_·01·=0.301 1	P_10·0=0.118 3	P_10·1=0.258 0	P_11·0=0.053 8	P₀₁₀₀=0.053 8
P_·1··=0.46 25	P_·0·1=0.333 3	P_··01=0.311 8	P_11·1=0.129 1	P_0·00=0.053 8	P_0·01=0.107 5	P₀₁₀₁=0.064 5
P_··1·=0.537 7	P_10··=0.376 3	P_1·0·=0.301 1	P_0·10=0.215 0	P_0·11=0.064 6	P_1·00=0.096 8	P₀₁₁₀=0.129 0
P_…1=0.559 2	P_1··0=0.172 1	P_·10·=0.225 9	P_1·01=0.204 3	P_1·10=0.075 3	P_1·11=0.182 8	P₀₁₁₁=0.032 3
—	P_·1·0=0.236 6	P_··10=0.290 3	P_·000=0.064 5	P_·001=0.172 0	P_·010=0.139 8	P₁₀₀₀=0.064 5
—	P_11··=0.182 9	P_1·1·=0.258 1	P_·011=0.161 3	P_·100=0.086 1	P_·101=0.139 8	P₁₀₀₁=0.129 0
—	P_1··1=0.387 1	P_·11·=0.236 6	P_·110=0.150 5	P_·111=0.086 1	—	P₁₀₁₀=0.053 8
—	P_·1·1=0.225 9	P_··11=0.247 4	—	—	—	P₁₀₁₁=0.129 0
—	—	—	—	—	—	P₁₁₀₀=0.032 3
—	—	—	—	—	—	P₁₁₀₁=0.075 3
—	—	—	—	—	—	P₁₁₁₀=0.021 5
—	—	—	—	—	—	P₁₁₁₁=0.053 8

耦合类型	风险耦合值
双因素风险耦合	T₂₁=0.068 2	T₂₂=0.021 3	T₂₃=0.066 4	T₂₄=0.001 6	T₂₅=0.012 5	T₂₆=0.033 6
3因素风险耦合	T₃₁=0.099 5	T₃₂=0.139 2	T₃₃=0.147 4	T₃₄=0.051 1	—	—
4因素风险耦合	T₄=0.257 8	—	—	—	—	—