A method for interpreting work safety accident based on system dynamics theory

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.10.009

Abstract

Abstract: In order to analyze the causes of work safety accidents, find leverage solutions to safety problems and guide the handling, prevention and control of accidents better, a work safety accident interpretation method based on SD theory was worked out with the applying of literature research method and case analysis method. Based on the meta-event model of ontology, an accident description method combining accident description atlas and auxiliary description table was proposed, and a "DRAC" accident interpretation method was proposed based on system dynamics theory which was divided into four parts including Deconstruction, Reconstruction, Analysis and Conclude to explain the accidents. The applicability and maneuverability of the above method were studied by selecting cases. The results show that the method has good manifestation on both parts.

Key words: work safety accident, accident description, meta-event, accident interpretation, system dynamics(SD), leverage solutions

CLC Number:

X928

HU Zhihong, ZENG Rong, LIU Zude. A method for interpreting work safety accident based on system dynamics theory[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2018, 28(10): 50-55.

References

[1] 张广文,王延平,张婷. 时间和事件序列图分析技术在石化事故分析中的应用[J]. 安全、健康和环境,2016,16(6): 7-9.
ZHANG Guangwen, WANG Yanping, ZHANG Ting. Sequentially timed events plotting in the application of the petrochemical accident analysis[J]. Safety Health & Environment, 2016,16(6): 7-9.
[2] GREENWOOD M, WOODS H M. The incidence of industrial accidents upon individuals with specific reference to multiple accident[R].Medical Research Council. Industrial Fatigue Research Board. Report No.4,1919.
[3] HEINRICH H W. Industrial accident prevention: a scientific approach[M]. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1931: 55-61.
[4] BIRD F E. Management guide to loss control [M]. Atlanta: Institute Press, 1974: 32-60.
[5] ADAMS E E. Accident causation and the management system [J]. Professional Safety, 1976,21(10): 26-29.
[6] REASON J. Human error [M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990: 10-14.
[7] LEVESON N G. Engineering a safer world: systems thinking applied to safety[M]. Cambridge: Mit Press, 2011: 64-66.
[8] HOLLNAGEL E. Barriers and accident prevention [M]. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited,2004: 167-176.
[9] 傅贵,杨春,殷文韬,等. 行为安全“2-4”模型的扩充版[J]. 煤炭学报, 2014,39(6): 994-999.
FU Gui, YANG Chun, YIN Wentao, et al. Expanded edition of behavioral safety "2-4" model[J]. Journal of China Coal Society, 2014,39(6): 994-999.
[10] 许素睿,项原驰,任国友,等. 新的行为安全“2-4”模型研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2016,26(4): 29-33.
XU Surui, XIANG Yuanchi, REN Guoyou, et al. New behavior safety "2-4" model research[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2016,26(4): 29-33.
[11] 王涛,王延章. 基于突发公共事件本体的元事件过程构建[J]. 情报杂志, 2011,30(2): 130-134.
WANG Tao, WANG Yanzhang. Construction of meta event process based on ontology of emergent public events[J]. Journal of Intelligence, 2011,30(2): 130-134.
[12] 傅贵,索晓,孙世梅. HFACS的细节层级元素在24Model中的对应研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2016,26(10): 1-6.
FU Gui, SUO Xiao, SUN Shimei. A comparative research on classification of granularity level elements in HFACS into 24Model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2016,26(10): 1-6.
[13] SHAPPELL S A, WIEGMANN D A. Applying reason: the human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS)[J].Human Factors and Aerospace Safety,2001, 1 (1): 59-86.
[14] WIEGMANN D A, SHAPPELL S A. A human error approach to aviation accident analysis: the human factors analysis and classification system[M]. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2003: 45-70.
[15] SENGE P M. The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization[J]. Performance Improvement, 1991,30(5): 37-37.