基于“2-4”模型的建筑电气火灾事故直接原因研究

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.04.015

中国安全科学学报 ›› 2020, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (4): 93-99.doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.04.015

基于“2-4”模型的建筑电气火灾事故直接原因研究

孙世梅^1,2 教授, 耿晓帅^**1,2, 傅贵^2,3 教授

1.吉林建筑大学应急科学与工程学院,吉林长春130118;
2.吉林建筑大学事故预防科学研究院,吉林长春130118;
3.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:2020-02-05 修回日期:2020-03-20 出版日期:2020-04-28
作者简介:孙世梅(1966—),女,吉林长春人,博士,教授,主要从事事故预防科学技术与行为安全研究工作。E-mail:sunshir@163.com。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金资助(51774149);吉林省安全生产监督管理局科研专项(吉安监规划[2017]287号);国家安全生产监督管理总局安全生产重大事故防治关键技术科技项目(jilin-0001-2016AQ)。

Study on direct causes of electrical fire accidents in buildings based on "2-4" model

SUN Shimei^1,2, GENG Xiaoshuai^1,2, FU Gui^2,3

1. School of Emergency Science and Engineering, Jilin Jianzhu University, Changchun Jilin 130118, China;
2. Scientific Research Institute of Accidents Prevention, Jilin Jianzhu University, Changchun Jilin 130118, China;
3. School of Emergency Management and Safety Engineering, China University of Mining & Technology(Beijing), Beijing 100083, China

Received:2020-02-05 Revised:2020-03-20 Published:2020-04-28

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为明确建筑电气火灾事故发生的直接原因,采用事故致因“2－4”模型分析40起典型建筑电气火灾事故,并分类和统计出直接原因中不安全动作和不安全物态。从火源产生、火势发展、安全管理及人员配备、自救、救援、灭火等6个方面分析不安全动作,获得不安全动作的出现频数、人员违章状况、动作执行者及不安全物态的出现频数、各类不安全物态占不安全物态总数比例等统计数据。研究结果表明:不安全动作35类共412个,其中采取灭火措施不当、违规存储使用易燃易爆、可燃物品和未组织消防安全宣传教育培训这些不安全动作的发生频率位于前3位;不安全物态3类共127项,其中出现频率较高的是聚苯乙烯泡沫塑料等易燃可燃货物和电气线路短路。

关键词: 建筑电气火灾, “2－4”模型, 直接原因, 不安全动作, 不安全物态

Abstract: In order to identify direct causes of electrical fire accidents in buildings, 40 typical fire accidents were analyzed by using "2-4" model, and classification and statistical analysis were conducted on unsafe acts and unsafe conditions of direct causes. Then, unsafe actions were analyzed from on six aspects, including fire source, fire development, safety management and personnel allocation, self-rescue, rescue and fire extinguishing. And frequency of unsafe acts, human violation, frequency of actors and unsafe conditions, proportion of all kinds of unsafe conditions and other data were obtained. The results show that there are 412 items of unsafe acts, which fall into 35 categories, and among them, acts of improper fire extinguishing measures, illegal storage and use of flammable, explosive and combustible goods and lack of fire safety training are in top 3 in terms of frequency. There are 127 items of unsafe conditions from 3 categories, among which polystyrene foam and other flammable and combustible materials and short circuit in electrical circuit have higher frequency.

Key words: building electrical fire accident, “2-4”model, direct causes, unsafe acts, unsafe conditions

中图分类号:

X932

孙世梅, 耿晓帅, 傅贵. 基于“2-4”模型的建筑电气火灾事故直接原因研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(4): 93-99.

SUN Shimei, GENG Xiaoshuai, FU Gui. Study on direct causes of electrical fire accidents in buildings based on "2-4" model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(4): 93-99.

参考文献

[1] 李强,蒋慧灵,李金梅,等.建筑电气防火检测模拟实验平台[J].实验室研究与探索,2013,32(10): 11-13.
LI Qiang,JIANG Huiling,LI Jinmei,et al.Experimental platform for the simulation of electrical fire hazard in buildings[J].Research and Exploration in Laboratory,2013(10): 11-13.
[2] 邸曼,厉剑,张明,等.电气火灾分析与防治策略的研究[J].消防科学与技术,2008,27(1): 5-9.
DI Man,LI Jian,ZHANG Ming,et al.Research on the electrical fire and the prevention strategy[J].Fire Science and Technology,2008,27(1): 5-9.
[3] 王旭.建筑电气火灾原因分析及研究[D].沈阳:东北大学,2016.
WANG Xu.Analysis and study of the building electrical fire[D].Shenyang:Northeastern University,2016.
[4] 傅贵,李宣东,李军.事故的共性原因及其行为科学预防策略[J].安全与环境学报,2005,5(1): 80-83.
FU Gui,LI Xuandong,LI Jun.Common factors leading to accidents and behavior type research based on prevention[J].Journal of Safety and Environment,2005,5(1): 80-83.
[5] 张学楷.低压线路常见电气火灾原因分析认定及预防措施研究[D].重庆:重庆大学,2005.
ZHANG Xuekai.Analysis and research on prevention measures of common low voltage electric circuit fire causes [D]. Chongqing:Chongqing University,2005.
[6] 孙春辉.建筑火灾风险评估及其相关性分析[D].上海:上海交通大学,2014.
SUN Chunhui. Fire risk assessment of building and correlation analysis[D]. Shanghai:Shanghai JiaoTong University,2014.
[7] HEINRICH W H, PETERSON D, ROOS N.Industrial accident prevention[M]. New York: Mc Graw-Hill Book Company, 1980: 23-60.
[8] REASON J.Human error[M].New York: Cambridge University Press,1990: 6-12.
[9] RASMUSSEN J.Risk management in a dynamic society: a modeling problem[J].Safety Science,1997,27(2):183-213.
[10] LEVESON A.A new accident model for engineering safer systems[J].Safety Science,2004,42(4): 237-270.
[11] WIEGMANN D A,SHAPPEL S A.A human error analysis of commercial aviation accidents using the human factors analysis and classification system[R].Office of Aviation Medicine Federal Aviation Administration,2001.
[12] 陈秀珍.行为安全“2-4”模型在建筑施工企业安全培训中的应用[J].北京工业职业技术学院学报,2019,18(1):102-106.
CHEN Xiuzhen.Application of behavior safety " 2-4" model in safety training of construction enterprises[J].Journal of Beijing Polytechnic College,2019,18(1): 102-106.
[13] 孙世梅,赵金坤,傅贵.基于“2-4”模型的高处坠落事故行为原因研究[J].中国安全科学学报,2019,29(8): 23-28.
SUN Shimei,ZHAO Jinkun,FU Gui.Study on behavioral causes of falling accidents based on " 2-4" model[J].China Safety Science Journal,2019,29(8): 23-28.
[14] 殷文韬,傅贵,公建祥.煤矿工人违章操作的“认知-行为”失效机理与管理措施[J].中国安全科学学报,2015,25(10): 153-159.
YIN Wentao,FU Gui,GONG Jianxiang.Research on coal miners' operating against safety regulation: “cognition-behavior” failure mechanism and control measures[J].China Safety Science Journal,2015,25(10): 153-159.
[15] 李恭建.试论行为安全“2-4”模型及其在煤矿安全管理中的应用[J].内蒙古煤炭经济,2018(24): 109,143.
[16] 傅贵,殷文韬,董继业,等.行为安全“2-4”模型及其在煤矿安全管理中的应用[J].煤炭学报,2013,38(7): 1 123-1 129.
FU Gui,YIN Wentao,DONG Jiye,et al.Behavior-based accident causation: the “2-4”model and its safety implications in coal mines[J].Journal of China Coal Society,2013,38(7): 1 123-1 129.
[17] 王建豪,李震,傅贵.煤矿井下炸药自燃事故不安全动作原因研究[J].煤矿安全,2016,47(3): 225-227.
WANG Jianhao,LI Zhen,FU Gui.Study on unsafe acts of explosives spontaneous combustion accidents in underground coal mines[J].Safety in Coal Mines,2016,47(3): 225-227.
[18] 祝楷,傅贵,阚瞳,等.煤矿爆破作业的不安全动作研究[J].煤炭工程,2015,47(12): 65-68.
ZHU Kai,FU Gui,KAN Tong,et al.Study on unsafe act of mine blasting operation[J].Coal Engineering,2015,47(12): 65-68.
[19] FU Gui,FAN Yunxiao,TONG Ruipeng,et al.A universal method for the causation analysis of accidents[J].Journal ofAccident Prevention,2017,3(1):1-7.
[20] 薛宇敬阳,傅贵.通用航空飞行事故不安全动作原因作用路径的统计分析[J].安全与环境工程,2018,25(2): 131-138.
XUE Yujingyang,FU Gui.Statistical analysis of the action path of unsafe act causes in general aviation accidents[J].Safety and Environmental Engineering,2018,25(2): 131-138.
[21] 安全管理网[EB/OL].(2018-09-15).http: //www.safehoo.com.

基于“2-4”模型的建筑电气火灾事故直接原因研究

Study on direct causes of electrical fire accidents in buildings based on "2-4" model

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]	房明, 张毅, 谭玥. 多因素耦合失效模式下地铁施工安全系统与管理模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(5): 82-90.
[2]	孙世梅, 张家严. 基于24Model-D-ISM的地铁站火灾疏散影响因素研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(4): 153-159.
[3]	江新, 张腾飞, 陈婧, 赵力, 邱国坤, 王辉. 复杂系统视角下洞室施工人员安全认知仿真研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(2): 22-30.
[4]	袁晨辉, 傅贵, 吴治蓉, 赵金坤. 24Model与LCM原因因素定义对比研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(1): 27-34.
[5]	佟瑞鹏, 王彪, 孙宁昊, 胡向阳, 王乾. 行为追溯安全培训法(ACT)理论构建与应用[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(8): 24-29.
[6]	张江石, 李泳暾, 冒香凝, 胡馨月, 潘雨, 王梓伊. 基于NLP的煤矿事故原因分类研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(6): 20-26.
[7]	宋炜, 傅贵. STPA与24Model的对比分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(6): 1-10.
[8]	孙世梅, 孙祖航, 冯子阳, 傅贵. 基于行为安全“2-4”模型理论的建筑施工事故行为原因分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(11): 30-37.
[9]	张小良, 梁梵洁, 许素睿. 城市燃气事故不安全行为风险评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(12): 125-132.
[10]	郭海军, 唐寒露, 王凯, 于英杰, 吴昱辰, 徐超. 基于24Model的高校危化品实验室事故分析及对策[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(11): 168-174.
[11]	黄常海, 沈佳, 朱冉超, 齐绪存, 郑菲, 陆浩. 基于C5.0决策树的船舶交通事故致因分析模型及应用[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(10): 90-99.
[12]	孙世梅, 高小迪, 孙赫, 傅贵. 天然气管道施工事故行为原因研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(6): 8-13.
[13]	许素睿. 基于蒙特卡罗法的煤矿工人不安全行为风险评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(4): 172-178.
[14]	孙世梅, 赵金坤, 傅贵. 基于“2-4”模型的高处坠落事故行为原因研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(8): 23-28.
[15]	傅贵, 章仕杰. 事故的直接原因及危险源与隐患关系解析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(5): 1-5.