电力生产人身伤亡事故风险因素耦合研究

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.11.0321

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为定量分析我国电力生产人身伤亡事故风险因素间的耦合关系,并识别关键风险因素,首先,依据4M事故致因理论将风险因素划分为人、机、环、管4类一级风险因素,采用扎根理论辨识出32个二级风险因素,将风险因素耦合方式划分为多因素、双因素和单因素耦合3个类别;其次,基于2016—2022年我国发生的196起电力生产人身伤亡事故调查报告,使用N-K模型测度风险因素耦合水平;然后,采用决策试验和评价实验法(DEMATEL)辨识关键风险因素;最后,提出风险防控对策建议。结果表明:事故发生频率与风险因素耦合水平密切相关,而因素耦合水平与参与耦合因素数量成正比,4类风险因素的风险耦合值为0.162 8,耦合水平最高;人员风险因素参与耦合的风险值较大,管理风险因素和环境风险因素参与耦合的风险值次之,三因素风险耦合中人-机-环的风险耦合值最大,数值为0.104 7,双因素风险耦合中人-环的风险耦合值最大,数值为0.05,均含有人员风险因素;安全生产投入和主体责任未落实、违规违章作业、违规违章指挥决策等人员风险因素和管理风险因素是电力生产人身伤亡事故风险因素耦合作用中的关键因素,应予以重点防控。

关键词: 电力生产人身伤亡事故, 风险因素, 风险耦合, N-K模型, 决策试验和评价实验法(DEMATEL)

Abstract:

To quantitatively analyze the coupling relationship between risk factors of personal injury and death accidents in Chinese electricity production and identify key risk factors, these risk factors were categorized into four dimensions: human, machine, environment and management based on the 4M accident causation theory. Utilizing grounded theory, 32 secondary risk factors were identified, and the coupling methods were categorized into three types: multi-factor, double-factor and single-factor risk coupling. Drawing from investigation reports of 196 personal injury and death accidents in Chinese electricity production from 2016 to 2022, the N-K model was used to measure the coupling level of risk factors, while DEMATEL method was used to pinpoint key risk factors. Finally, the countermeasures and suggestions for risk prevention and control were put forward. This study shows that the frequency of accidents is closely related to the coupling level of risk factors, and the coupling level of risk factors is proportional to the number of participating factors. The risk coupling value of the four types of risk factors is 0.162 8, indicating the highest coupling level. The risk value of human factors participating in the risk coupling is relatively high, followed by the risk values of management and environmental factors. Among the three-factor risk couplings, the human-machine-environment risk coupling has the highest risk value at 0.104 7. For the double-factor risk couplings, the human-environment risk coupling has the highest risk value at 0.05. Both risk couplings involve human risk factors. The failure to implement safety production investment and main responsibility, illegal operations and illegal command and decision-making are the key factors in the coupling effect of risk factors of personal injury accidents in electricity production, and priority should be given to prevention and control.

Key words: personal injury and death accidents in electricity production, risk factors, risk coupling, N-K model, decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method

中图分类号:

X928.01事故统计与报告

庞敏, 李琼, 张益畅. 电力生产人身伤亡事故风险因素耦合研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(11): 26-34.

PANG Min, LI Qiong, ZHANG Yichang. Study on risk factors coupling of personal injury and death accidents in electricity production[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(11): 26-34.

图/表 9

图1

图2

图3

表1

表2

电力生产人身伤亡事故风险因素耦合水平分析结果

耦合方式	$T 4 (a, b, c, d)$	$T 31 (a, b, c)$	$T 32 (a, b, d)$	$T 33 (a, c, d)$	$T 34 (b, c, d)$	$T 21 (a, b)$
耦合水平	0.162 8	0.104 7	0.040 6	0.102 3	0.021 6	0.011 6
排序	1	2	5	3	7	9
耦合方式	$T 22 (a, c)$	$T 23 (a, d)$	$T 24 (b, c)$	$T 25 (b, d)$	$T 26 (c, d)$	—
耦合水平	0.050 0	0.026 7	0.019 5	0.000 5	0.001 3	—
排序	4	6	8	11	10	—

表2

表3

表4

图4

图5

参考文献 19

[1]	杨高峰, 胡文, 方钦, 等. 高比例新能源电力系统可靠性高效评估和薄弱环节辨识方法[J]. 电工电能新技术, 2024, 43(4):43-52. doi: 10.12067/ATEEE2302007
	YANG Gaofeng, HU Wen, FANG Qin, et al. An efficient reliability evaluation and weak link identification method for high-proportion new energy power system[J]. Advanced Technology of Electrical Engineering and Energy, 2024, 43(4):43-52. doi: 10.12067/ATEEE2302007
[2]	孙志春, 宫广正, 张艳亮, 等. 基于失效模式的电力企业事故分析系统构建[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(增1):1-7.
	SUN Zhichun, GONG Guangzheng, ZHANG Yanliang, et al. Framework development of power enterprises' accident analysis system based on failure mode[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(S1):1-7. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.S1.001
[3]	关城, 严玉琼, 张苏. 基于24Model的电力企业伤亡事故行为原因研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2023, 23(8):2 788-2 793.
	GUAN Cheng, YAN Yuqiong, ZHANG Su. Research on behavioral causes of casualties in electric power enterprises based on 24Model[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2023, 23(8):2 788-2 793.
[4]	赵楚凡, 米传民, 周志鹏, 等. 基于组合关联分析模型的电力人身事故关键致因链筛选[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(4):99-106. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.04.015
	ZHAO Chufan, MI Chuanmin, ZHOU Zhipeng, et al. Key cause chains selection of electric personal accidents based on combinatorial association analysis model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(4):99-106. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.04.015
[5]	崔威, 李晓英, 郭宜薇. 基于博弈论组合赋权的水电站事故风险评价[J]. 南水北调与水利科技:中英文, 2022, 20(2):408-416.
	CUI Wei, LI Xiaoying, GUO Yiwei. Risk evaluation of hydropower station accidents based on combination weighting of game theory[J]. South-to-North Water Transfers and Water Science & Technology, 2022, 20(2):408-416.
[6]	徐庆, 李彤, 宋宇辉, 等. 基于三维风险函数的电力生产事故隐患分级方法研究[J]. 工业安全与环保, 2017, 43(4):36-39.
	XU Qing, LI Tong, SONG Yuhui, et al. Research on the classification method of electricity production potential accident based on three dimensional risk function[J]. Industrial Safety and Environmental Protection, 2017, 43(4):36-39.
[7]	王东, 王佳琪, 陈红, 等. 基于贝叶斯网络的我国电网安全风险关联分析[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2021, 21(5):1 947-1 956.
	WANG Dong, WANG Jiaqi, CHEN Hong, et al. Correlation analysis of the safety risks in China's power grid based on the Bayesian network[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2021, 21(5):1 947-1 956.
[8]	林穿, 徐启峰, 黄奕钒. 基于事理图谱的电力安全事故预控方法[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2021, 17(10):39-45.
	LIN Chuan, XU Qifeng, HUANG Yifan. Pro-control method of power safety accidents based on event evolutionary graph[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2021, 17(10):39-45.
[9]	鲍颜红, 张金龙, 衣立东, 等. 含大规模风电电力系统的安全稳定风险预防控制方法[J]. 电力系统自动化, 2022, 46(13):187-194.
	BAO Yanhong, ZHANG Jinlong, YI Lidong, et al. Prevention and control method of security and stability risk for power system with large-scale wind power integration[J]. Automation of Electric Power Systems, 2022, 46(13):187-194.
[10]	KAUFFMAN S A. The origins of order: self-organization and selection in evolution[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993:517-519.
[11]	LEE F, OLAV S. Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data[J]. Research Policy, 2001, 30(7):1 019-1 039.
[12]	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.
[13]	王海英, 楚林, 许建. 融合N-K模型的复杂网络架桥机施工安全风险因素分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(9): 10-17. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.09.1560
	WANG Haiying, CHU Lin, XU Jian. Construction safety risk analysis of bridge girder-erecting machine based on complex network integrating N-K model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(9):10-17. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.09.1560
[14]	朱敬宇, 陈国明, 孟祥坤, 等. 基于N-K模型的深水井喷事故耦合风险分析[J]. 中国海上油气, 2020, 32(5): 182-187.
	ZHU Jingyu, CHEN Guoming, MENG Xiangkun, et al. N-K model-based coupling risk analysis of deep water blowout accidents[J]. China Offshore Oil and Gas, 2020, 32(5):182-187.
[15]	方俊, 郭佩文, 朱科, 等. 基于N-K模型的地铁隧道施工安全风险耦合演化分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(6): 1-9. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.06.2102
	FANG Jun, GUO Peiwen, ZHU Ke, et al. Coupling evolution analysis of subway tunnel construction safety risk based on N-K model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(6):1-9. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.06.2102
[16]	张建设, 黄艳龙, 李瑚均, 等. 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. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.02.0385
	ZHANG Jianshe, HUANG Yanlong, LI Hujun, et al. 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. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.02.0385
[17]	潘丹, 李永周, 罗帆. 基于N-K模型的飞机运行安全风险耦合研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2022, 22(2):606-614.
	PAN Dan, LI Yongzhou, LUO Fan. Aircraft operational safety risk coupling based on N-K model[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2022, 22(2):606-614.
[18]	CHENG Lianhua, CAO Dongqiang, GUO Huimin. Analysis of coal mine occupational disease hazard evaluation index based on AHP-DEMATEL[J]. Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health, 2020, 76(7):11-13.
[19]	俞洪良, 杨正涵, 徐铨彪, 等. 基于DEMATEL-ISM的水利工程EPC项目价值增值机理研究[J]. 浙江大学学报:理学版, 2024, 51(1):120-130.
	YU Hongliang, YANG Zhenghan, XU Quanbiao, et al. Research on value-added mechanism of hydraulic engineering with EPC general contracting mode based on DEMATEL-ISM[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University: Science Edition, 2024, 51(1):120-130.

耦合方式	事件	频数	概率	耦合方式	事件	频数	概率	耦合方式	事件	频数	概率
单因素	0000	0	0	双因素	1100	6	0.030 6	多因素	1110	1	0.005 1
	1000	13	0.066 3		1010	0	0.000 0		1101	48	0.244 9
	0100	1	0.005 1		1001	79	0.403 1		1011	11	0.056 1
	0010	3	0.015 3		0110	3	0.015 3		0111	2	0.010 2
	0001	1	0.005 1		0101	6	0.030 6		1111	19	0.096 9
	—	—	—		0011	3	0.015 3		—	—	—

因素	A₁	A₂	A₃	A₄	A₅	A₆	A₇	…	D₁₄	D₁₅
A₁	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	…	0	0
A₂	4	0	0	0	0	0	0		0	0
A₃	2	2	0	0	0	0	0		0	0
A₄	1	1	1	0	0	0	0		0	0
A₅	4	4	0	0	0	3	0		0	0
A₆	3	3	0	0	0	0	0		0	0
A₇	4	4	0	0	0	0	0		0	0
︙
D₁₄	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	…	0	0
D₁₅	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	…	3	0

因素	f_x	e_x	M_x	N_x	类别
A₁	0.045	1.796	1.842	-1.751	结果因素
A₂	0.15	1.387	1.537	-1.237	结果因素
A₃	0.091	0.022	0.114	0.069	原因因素
A₄	0.068	0.075	0.143	-0.006	结果因素
A₅	0.326	0.257	0.583	0.069	原因因素
A₆	0.226	0.39	0.616	-0.164	结果因素
A₇	0.35	0.42	0.77	-0.07	结果因素
A₈	0.065	1.17	1.236	-1.105	结果因素
A₉	0.688	0.388	1.076	0.299	原因因素
B₁	0.152	0.265	0.417	-0.114	结果因素
B₂	0.152	0.517	0.669	-0.366	结果因素
B₃	0.252	0.763	1.014	-0.511	结果因素
B₄	0.174	0.536	0.71	-0.361	结果因素
C₁	0.022	0	0.022	0.022	原因因素
C₂	0.07	0	0.07	0.07	原因因素
C₃	0.091	0.493	0.585	-0.402	结果因素
C₄	0	0.584	0.584	-0.584	结果因素
D₁	0.474	0.353	0.827	0.121	原因因素
D₂	0.107	0.313	0.421	-0.206	结果因素
D₃	0.213	0.413	0.626	-0.201	结果因素
D₄	1.155	0.104	1.258	1.051	原因因素
D₅	1.586	0.243	1.829	1.343	原因因素
D₆	0.805	0.446	1.251	0.358	原因因素
D₇	0.25	0.196	0.445	0.054	原因因素
D₈	0.333	0.196	0.528	0.137	原因因素
D₉	0.96	0.196	1.156	0.765	原因因素
D₁₀	0.316	0.196	0.512	0.121	原因因素
D₁₁	1.063	0.196	1.258	0.867	原因因素
D₁₂	0.813	0.203	1.016	0.61	原因因素
D₁₃	0.544	0.196	0.739	0.348	原因因素
D₁₄	0.47	0.063	0.533	0.408	原因因素
D₁₅	0.366	0	0.366	0.366	原因因素