基于FRAM-BN的施工安全突发事件应急管理能力评价

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2026.02.1492

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为科学评估并提升建筑企业对突发安全事件的应急管理能力,针对既有静态评估难以刻画功能耦合且易受主观赋权影响的问题,提出一种融合定性分析与定量评估的综合模型。首先,基于应急管理全过程均衡理论,从准备与预防、监测与预警、响应与处置、恢复与学习4个阶段,结合轨迹交叉理论与突变理论,提炼12个二级指标,建立完整的评价指标体系;其次,采用功能共振分析法(FRAM)识别各指标关键功能与耦合路径,结合改进K-shell算法与贝叶斯网络(BN)建立应评估模型;最后,在实际工程案例中进行应用,并通过专家复核与情景模拟验证其有效性。结果表明:所选建筑企业综合应急管理能力为81.682%,其应急机制能够有效响应并处置各类施工安全突发事件。其中,恢复与学习能力表现最佳(90.855%),而监测与预警能力相对薄弱(76.616%)。敏感性结果显示,专业队伍建设F₃与现场指挥决策F₇对综合能力贡献较为显著。

关键词: 功能共振分析法(FRAM), 贝叶斯网络(BN), 施工安全, 突发事件, 应急管理能力评价, 改进K-shell算法

Abstract:

To scientifically evaluate and enhance construction enterprises' emergency management capabilities for sudden safety incidents, a comprehensive model integrating qualitative analysis and qunatitative evaluation was proposed, addressing the limitations of traditional static assessment methods, which struggle to capture functional coupling and are easily influenced by subiective weighting. First, based on the theory of balanced emergency management throughout the entire process, a complete evaluation indicators system was established by dentifying 12 secondary indicators across four stages, including preparation and prevention, monitoring and early warning, response and disposal, and recovery and learning, and integrating the trajectory intersection theory and catastrophe theory. Subsequently, FRAM was employed to identify key functions and coupling paths among these indicators. An evaluation model was then developed by integrating an improved K-shell algorithm with BN. Finally, the model was applied to a practical engineering case and its effectiveness was validated through expert review and scenario simulations. The results demonstrate that the selected construction enterprise has a comprehensive emergency management capability of 81.682%, indicating its emergency mechanism can effectively respond to and handle various construction safety incidents. Among the capabilities, recovery and learning performs best (90.855%), while monitoring and early warning remains relatively weak (76.616%). Sensitivity analysis shows that professional team development (F₃) and on-site command decision-making (F₇) contributed most significantly to the overall capability.

Key words: functional resonance analysis method (FRAM), Bayesian network (BN), construction safety, emergency, emergency management capability, improved K-shell algorithm

中图分类号:

李知键, 佘健俊, 路聪, 郭子豪, 周逸伦. 基于FRAM-BN的施工安全突发事件应急管理能力评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2026, 36(2): 199-208.

LI Zhijian, SHE Jianjun, LU Cong, GUO Zihao, ZHOU Yilun. Evaluation of emergency management capability for construction safety accidents based on FRAM-BN[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2026, 36(2): 199-208.

图/表 18

表1

图1

表2

图2

表3

应急管理能力评价指标的变异性聚合

指标	变异性聚合
F₁	F₅(O), F₁₂(O) $→$ F₁(O) $→$ F₂(I), F₃(I), F₄(I)
F₂	F₁(O), F₃(O), F₁₀(O), F₁₂(O) $→$ F₂(O) $→$ F₆(I), F₇(C) F₈(C), F₉(C), F₁₁(C)
F₃	F₁(O), F₄(O), F₁₂(O) $→$ F₃(O) $→$ F₂(R), F₅(I), F₆(R), F₇(R), F₈(R), F₉(R), F₁₀(R), F₁₁(R)
F₄	F₁(O), F₅(O) $→$ F₄(O) $→$ F₃(C), F₆(C), F₇(C)
F₅	F₃(O), F₆(O), F₁₀(O) $→$ F₅(O) $→$ F₁(I), F₄(C), F₈(P)
F₆	F₂(O), F₃(O), F₄(O), F₉(O), F₁₂(O) $→$ F₆(O) $→$ F₅(C), F₇(I)
F₇	F₂(O), F₃(O), F₄(O), F₆(O), F₁₂(O) $→$ F₇(O) $→$ F₈(I), F₉(I), F₁₀(I)
F₈	F₂(O), F₃(O), F₅(O), F₇(O), F₉(O), F₁₀(O), F₁₂(O) $→$ F₈(O) $→$ F₁₁(P),
F₉	F₂(O), F₃(O), F₇(O), F₁₀(O), F₁₂(O) $→$ F₉(O) $→$ F₆(C), F₈(R), F₁₁(I)
F₁₀	F₃(O), F₇(O) $→$ F₁₀(O) $→$ F₂(C), F₅(P), F₈(P), F₉(P),
F₁₁	F₂(O), F₃(O), F₈(O), F₉(O) $→$ F₁₁(O) $→$ F₁₂(I)
F₁₂	F₁₁(O) $→$ F₁₂(O) $→$ F₁(C), F₂(P), F₃(P), F₆(C), F₇(C), F₈(C), F₉(C)

表3

图3

图4

图5

图6

图7

表4

表5

图8

表6

不同场景下的正向分析

场景	F₃	F₆	F₇	F₁₂	准备与预防能力/%	监测与预警能力/%	响应与处置能力/%	恢复与学习能力/%
基础	—	—	—	—	79.879	76.616	81.301	90.855
场景1	假	—	—	—	44.375 $(↓)$	76.616	81.301	90.855
场景2	假	假	—	—	44.375	33.183 $(↓)$	81.301	90.855
场景3	假	假	假	—	44.375	33.183	58.642 $(↓)$	90.855
场景4	假	假	假	假	44.375	33.183	58.642	32.792 $(↓)$

表6

图9

图10

图11

表7

参考文献 27

[1]	CHIANG Y H, WONG F K W, LIANG Shulan. Fatal construction accidents in Hong Kong[J]. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2018, 144(10): DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001433.
[2]	全国工程质量安全监管信息平台公共服务门户[EB/OL]. [2024-07-03]. https://zlaq.mohurd.gov.cn/fwmh/bjxcjgl/fwmh/pages/default/index.html.
[3]	李雪松. 建筑施工突发安全事故应急管理能力评价研究[D]. 唐山: 华北理工大学, 2022.
	LI Xuesong. Research on emergency management capability evaluation of construction sudden safety accidents[D]. Tangshan: North China University of Science and Technology, 2022.
[4]	陈永鸿, 武蕾, 雷雯心, 等. 建筑施工企业应急管理能力驱动因素及影响机理研究[J]. 工程管理学报, 2024, 38(1):142-147.
	CHEN Yonghong, WU Lei, LEI Wenxin, et al. Study on driving factors and influencing mechanism of emergency management capability of construction enterprises[J]. Journal of Engineering Management, 2024, 38(1): 142-147.
[5]	苏克, 吕淑然. 基于组合赋权VIKOR法的建筑施工企业应急能力评价方法[J]. 建筑安全, 2021, 36(1):56-59.
	SU Ke, LYU Shuran. Evaluation method for emergency response capability of construction enterprises based on combined weighting VIKOR method[J]. Construction Safety, 2021, 36(1): 56-59.
[6]	陶俐言, 吴倩倩. 建筑企业应急能力评价研究[J]. 杭州电子科技大学学报:社会科学版, 2021, 17(1):8-14.
	TAO Liyan, WU Qianqian. Research on emergency response capability evaluation of construction enterprises[J]. Journal of Hangzhou Dianzi University:Social Sciences, 2021, 17(1): 8-14.
[7]	AHN S I, KURT R E. Application of a CREAM based framework to assess human reliability in emergency response to engine room fires on ships[J]. Ocean Engineering, 2020, 216: DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2016.01.007.
[8]	CHANAMOOL N, NAENNA T. Fuzzy FMEA application to improve decision-making process in an emergency department[J]. Applied Soft Computing, 2016, 43: DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.108078.
[9]	TANG Shanrong, ZHU Ke, GUO Peiwen. Research on quantitative assessment and dynamic reasoning method for emergency response capability in prefabricated construction safety[J]. Buildings, 2023, 13(9): DOI: 10.3390/buildings13092311.
[10]	张月. 建筑施工企业突发事件应急能力评价及提升研究[D]. 徐州: 中国矿业大学, 2023.
	ZHANG Yue. Research on evaluation and improvement of emergency capability of construction enterprises for sudden incidents[D]. Xuzhou: China University of Mining and Technology, 2023.
[11]	于敏, 钟磊, 董美廷, 等. 大型施工现场应急能力影响因素分析与评估[J]. 四川建材, 2022, 48(6):227,229.
	YU Min, ZHONG Lei, DONG Meiting, et al. Analysis and evaluation of influencing factors of emergency capability on large construction sites[J]. Sichuan Building Materials, 2022, 48(6): 227,229.
[12]	张伟, 张潇, 陈曦, 等. 基于系统思维的施工安全管理可靠性模型与实证分析[J]. 土木工程与管理学报, 2018, 35(5):46-54,59.
	ZHANG Wei, ZHANG Xiao, CHEN Xi, et al. Construction safety management system reliability model and empirical analysis based on systems thinking[J]. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 2018, 35(5): 46-54,59.
[13]	张海波. 应急管理的全过程均衡:一个新议题[J]. 中国行政管理, 2020(3):123-130.
	ZHANG Haibo. The full-process equilibrium of emergency management: a new issue[J]. Chinese Public Administration, 2020(3): 123-130.
[14]	杨守国, 姚亚金, 庞拾亿, 等. 基于轨迹交叉理论的煤矿事故分析[J]. 煤炭工程, 2019, 51(5):177-180. doi: 10.11799/ce201905040
	YANG Shouguo, YAO Yajin, PANG Shiyi, et al. Analysis of coal mine accidents based on trace intersecting theory[J]. Coal Engineering, 2019, 51(5): 177-180. doi: 10.11799/ce201905040
[15]	陈伟珂, 武晓燕. 基于突变理论的建筑工人不安全行为研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2017, 17(5):1838-1843.
	CHEN Weike, WU Xiaoyan. Mechanism accounting for the rock bursts in mining the thick coal seam near the fault zone[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2017, 17(5): 1838-1843.
[16]	中华人民共和国住房和城乡建设部. 国家安全生产事故灾难应急预案[EB/OL]. (2006-01-25). https://www.mohurd.gov.cn/ztbd/yjgl/qt/200601/20060125_160199.html.
[17]	刘心男, 薛婷婷, 纪颖波. 预案视角下城市防汛应急组织间网络鲁棒性评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(3):216-221. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.03.1267
	LlU Xinnan, XUE Tingting, Jl Yingbo. Networks robustness evaluation of urban flood emergency organizations from perspective of emergency plans[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(3): 216-221. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.03.1267
[18]	PENADES M C, NUNEZ A G, CANOS J H. From planning to resilience: the role (and value) of the emergency plan[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2017, 121: DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.12.004.
[19]	郑万波, 陈慧敏, 夏云霓. 突发事故应急救援队伍参与信息共享平台构建行为策略的演化仿真[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2023, 30(1):94-100.
	ZHENG Wanbo, CHEN Huimin, XIA Yunni, Evolutionary simulation of behavioral strategy of emergency rescue team participating in information sharing platform construction[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2023, 30(1): 94-100.
[20]	王伟, 余志成, 王芸清, 等. 考虑经济损失的城市防汛应急物资调配多目标优化研究[J]. 灾害学, 2023, 38(3):173-181.
	WANG Wei, YU Zhicheng, WANG Yunqing, et al. Multi-objective programming model for a class of flood disaster emergency materials transportation[J]. Journal of Catastrophology, 2023, 38(3): 173-181.
[21]	蒋瑜阳, 向波, 王东, 等. 震后山区公路地质灾害风险评估体系研究:以川九公路震后恢复重建为例[J]. 地震工程学报, 2023, 45(5):1026-1034.
	JIANG Yuyang, XIANG Bo, WANG Dong, et al. Risk evaluation system for geological disasters of highways in mountainous regions after earthquakes: a case study of the post earthquake restoration and reconstruction of the Chuanzhusi-Jiuzhaigou highway[J]. China Earthquake Engineering Journal, 2023, 45(5):1026-1034.
[22]	骆毓燕, 黄琳岚, 颜旭辉, 等. 九寨沟7.0级地震受灾区灾后经济韧性测度及恢复效率研究[J]. 灾害学, 2024, 39(2):26-33.
	LUO Yuyan, HUANG Linlan, YAN Xuhui, et al. Post-disaster economic resilience measurement and recovery efficiency in Jiuzhaigou Ms 7.0 earthquake affected areas[J]. Journal of Catastrophology, 2024, 39(2): 26 -33.
[23]	HOLLNAGEL E. FRAM, the functional resonance analysis method: modelling complex socio-technical systems[M]. Lodon: Engineering & Technology, 2012:135-138.
[24]	SUJIAN M A, EMBERY D, HUANG Huayi. On the application of human reliability analysis in healthcare: opportunities and challenges[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2020, 194: DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2018.06.017.
[25]	LI Weijun, HE Min, SUN Yibo, et al. A proactive operational risk identification and analysis framework based on the integration of ACAT and FRAM[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2019, 186: DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2019.02.012.
[26]	PATRIARCA R, GRAVIO G D, COSTANTINO F, et al. An analytic framework to assess organizational resilience[J]. Safety and Health at Work, 2018, 9(3): DOI: 10.1016/j.shaw.2017.10.005.
[27]	雷渝, 帅斌, 米荣伟, 等. 基于半定量的FRAM道路危险品运输事故分析方法研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2021, 17(8):29-35.
	LEI Yu, SHUAI Bin, MI Rongwei, et al. Research on FRAM analysis of accidents in dangerous goods transportation by road based on semi-quantitative method[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2021, 17(8): 29-35.

目标层	一级指标	二级指标	二级指标说明
施工安全突发事件应急管理能力A	准备与预防能力B₁	应急组织建设F₁	构建职责明确的应急组织体系,完善岗位分工、协调机制与通信网络
		应急预案制定F₂	制定涵盖主要风险的应急预案,明确响应流程、职责分配与资源配置策略
		专业队伍建设F₃	建立常设的专业应急队伍,强化岗位培训与跨部门协同能力
		应急教育培训F₄	组织常态化培训与演练,提升员工应急意识、自救互救及逃生能力
	监测与预警能力B₂	危险源识别与监测F₅	实施风险排查与设备监控,构建动态化危险源识别与管理机制
	监测与预警能力B₂	风险预警机制F₆	建立预警系统,完善信号识别、信息传递与响应联动机制
	响应与处置能力B₃	现场指挥与决策F₇	明确指挥体系与响应流程,提升快速决策与调度能力
		应急救援处置F₈	规范应急救援程序,保障人员救护、装备支持与物资供应
		应急资源调配F₉	建立资源储备与调配机制,提升关键资源的可用性与调度效率
		应急信息传递F₁₀	构建多渠道、快速的信息发布与反馈机制,确保信息畅通与精准传达
	恢复与学习能力B₄	灾后恢复重建F₁₁	制定结构修复与秩序重建方案,保障灾后恢复的系统性与及时性
	恢复与学习能力B₄	经验总结改进F₁₂	建立事件复盘与知识更新机制,持续改进应急计划与管理体系

类型	变异性来源	描述
技术	内部	技术内部功能原理可能复杂且难以理解,或随着时间推移,技术设备可能因老化而功能退化
技术	外部	不当的设备维护或极端环境条件可能导致技术性能的变异性
人类	内部	个体心理和生理状态可能引起其功能表现的变异
人类	外部	个体行为可能受到技术、组织和社会环境影响,从而产生变异
组织	内部	组织内部的通信、结构和文化可能导致功能变异性
组织	外部	组织外部的因素,如用户需求变化和监管环境的严格程度,可能导致功能变异性
耦合	下游功能的变异性可能会直接受到上游功能变异的影响,这种现象在不同功能之间形成复杂的依赖关系网络

节点	先验概率
节点	真	假
F₁	0.794	0.206
F₂	0.790	0.210
F₃	0.804	0.196
F₄	0.814	0.186
F₅	0.816	0.184
F₆	0.732	0.268
F₇	0.800	0.200
F₈	0.770	0.230
F₉	0.800	0.200
F₁₀	0.920	0.080
F₁₁	0.842	0.158
F₁₂	0.951	0.049

节点	概率分布
B₁	0.140 4F₁+0.276F₂+0.441 6F₃+0.142F₄
B₂	0.406 6F₅+0.593 3F₆
B₃	0.283 2F₇+0.274 4F₈+0.265 3F₉+0.177F₁₀
B₄	0.389 4F₁₁+0.610 5F₁₂
A	0.337 4B₁+0.132 9B₂+0.374 3B₃+0.155 3B₄

专家编号	主要反馈意见	是否认同模型结果
E₁	模型结构清晰,逻辑合理, 结果基本符合实际	认同
E₂	结果合理,建议加强关键节点权重影响说明	基本认同
E₃	输出趋势与现场情况一致, 建议推广使用	认同
E₄	可进行情景模拟,提升了模型的应用潜力	认同
E₅	建议补充各阶段指标的操作性定义	基本认同
E₆	指标设置完整,风险预警机制评估较为精准	认同
E₇	模型层级科学,具备较高可信度	认同
E₈	结果基本合理,部分节点推理过程建议可视化展示	基本认同
E₉	模型简洁直观,得分结构清晰, 有一定实用性	认同
E₁₀	得分反映企业应急能力短板, 具有参考价值	认同
E₁₁	应用性强,建议在更多工程项目中试点验证	认同
E₁₂	评价结果基本吻合实际,术语建议进一步标准化	基本认同