China Safety Science Journal ›› 2022, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (8): 146-153.doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.08.1633
Previous Articles Next Articles
LI Jinrong(), YANG Yuzhong**(
)
Received:
2022-01-09
Revised:
2022-05-10
Online:
2022-09-05
Published:
2023-02-28
Contact:
YANG Yuzhong
LI Jinrong, YANG Yuzhong. Risk assessment of ventilation system in coal mines based on DS theory and Bayesian network[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(8): 146-153.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.cssjj.com.cn/EN/10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.08.1633
Tab.1
Classification of risk assessment index of ventilation system in coal mines
2级指标 | 风险等级 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1级 | 2级 | 3级 | 4级 | 5级 | |
作业人员平均工龄/a | [0,2) | [2,4) | [4,6) | [6,10) | [10,∞) |
平均每年培训时长/d | [0,2) | [2,4) | [4,6) | [6,8) | [8,∞) |
作业人员"三违"率/% | [16,∞) | [12,16) | [8,12) | [4,8) | [0,4) |
风量供需比/% | [1.5,∞) [0,1) | [1.4,1.5) | [1.3,1.4) | [1.2,1.3) | [1,1.2) |
有效风量率/% | [0,60) | [60,70) | [70,80) | [80,90) | [90,100] |
矿井外部漏风率/% | [15,∞) | [10,15) | [6,10) | [2,6) | [0,2) |
主通风机效率/% | [0,50) | [50,65) | [65,80) | [80,95) | [95,100] |
通风构筑物质量合格率/% | [0,80) | [80,85) | [85,90) | [90,95) | [95,100] |
等积孔/m2 | [0,0.5) | [0.5,1) | [1,1.5) | [1.5,2) | [2,∞) |
回风段阻力占比/% | [60,100) | [50,60) | [40,50) | [30,40) | [0,30) |
通风巷道失修率/% | [7,100) | [5,7) | [3,5) | [1,3) | [0,1) |
矿井气候(合格量化分值) | [0,60) | [60,70) | [70,80) | [80,90) | [90,100] |
持证上岗率/% | [0,60) | [60,70) | [70,80) | [80,90) | [90,100] |
安全投入占比/% | [0,60) | [60,70) | [70,80) | [80,90) | [90,100] |
应急措施完备率/% | [0,60) | [60,70) | [70,80) | [80,90) | [90,100] |
管理制度完备率/% | [0,60) | [60,70) | [70,80) | [80,90) | [90,100] |
Tab.3
Evaluation results of secondary indicators by 4 experts
指标 | 专家1 | 专家2 | 专家3 | 专家4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
C11 | ({V3},0.8; {V4},0.2) | ({V3},1.0) | ({V3},0.5; {V4},0.5) | ({V4},0.1; {V3},0.9) |
C12 | ({V5},0.6; {V4},0.4) | ({V5},0.2; {V4},0.8) | ({V4},1.0) | ({V5},1.0) |
C13 | ({V3},1.0) | ({V3},0.5; {V4},0.5) | ({V3},0.7; {V4},0.3) | ({V4},0.6; {V3},0.4) |
C21 | ({V3},0.7; {V2},0.3) | ({V3},0.6; {V2},0.4) | ({V3},1.0) | ({V3},0.8; {V2},0.2) |
C22 | ({V3},0.8; {V2},0.2) | ({V3},1.0) | ({V3},0.7; {V4},0.3) | ({V3},1.0) |
C23 | ({V4},1.0) | ({V5},0.2; {V4},0.8) | ({V3},0.1; {V4},0.9) | ({V3},0.8; {V4},0.2) |
C24 | ({V3},0.5; {V2},0.5) | ({V2},1.0) | ({V1},0.3; {V2},0.7) | ({V1},0.1; {V2},0.9) |
C25 | ({V3},1.0) | ({V3},0.7; {V4},0.3) | ({V3},1.0) | ({V3},0.5; {V4},0.5) |
C31 | ({V3},0.8; {V4},0.2) | ({V4},1.0) | ({V3},0.1; {V4},0.9) | ({V3},0.5; {V4},0.5) |
C32 | ({V3},0.9; {V4},0.1) | ({V3},1.0) | ({V3},0.8; {V4},0.2) | ({V3},0.5; {V4},0.5) |
C33 | ({V2},1.0) | ({V3},0.8; {V2},0.2) | ({V3},0.5; {V2},0.5) | ({V1},0.1; {V2},0.9) |
C34 | ({V4},0.8; {V5},0.2) | ({V4},1.0) | ({V5},0.1; {V4},0.9) | ({V4},0.6; {V5},0.4) |
C41 | ({V5},0.5; {V4},0.5) | ({V5},0.4; {V4},0.6) | ({V4},1.0) | ({V5},0.7; {V4},0.3) |
C42 | ({V3},1.0) | ({V3},0.5; {V4},0.5) | ({V3},0.5; {V4},0.5) | ({V3},0.3; {V4},0.7) |
C43 | ({V3},0.4; {V4},0.6) | ({V4},1.0) | ({V5},0.2; {V4},0.8) | ({V3},0.5; {V4},0.5) |
C44 | ({V5},1.0) | ({V5},0.7; {V4},0.3) | ({V5},0.8; {V4},0.2) | ({V5},1.0) |
Tab.4
Weight factors of trust structure
指标 | 专家1 | 专家2 | 专家3 | 专家4 | 指标 | 专家1 | 专家2 | 专家3 | 专家4 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C11 | 0.309 8 | 0.235 5 | 0.178 9 | 0.275 8 | C31 | 0.157 9 | 0.219 3 | 0.280 7 | 0.342 1 |
C12 | 0.367 9 | 0.301 8 | 0.226 5 | 0.103 7 | C32 | 0.272 4 | 0.227 6 | 0.317 3 | 0.182 7 |
C13 | 0.176 0 | 0.274 7 | 0.324 0 | 0.225 3 | C33 | 0.235 2 | 0.155 6 | 0.346 3 | 0.262 9 |
C21 | 0.271 5 | 0.228 5 | 0.207 1 | 0.292 6 | C34 | 0.292 9 | 0.228 5 | 0.271 5 | 0.207 1 |
C22 | 0.253 6 | 0.262 8 | 0.220 8 | 0.262 8 | C41 | 0.299 3 | 0.348 6 | 0.151 4 | 0.200 7 |
C23 | 0.271 7 | 0.304 9 | 0.330 2 | 0.093 2 | C42 | 0.142 6 | 0.319 5 | 0.319 5 | 0.218 4 |
C24 | 0.185 7 | 0.256 3 | 0.266 5 | 0.291 5 | C43 | 0.280 2 | 0.230 6 | 0.258 7 | 0.230 6 |
C25 | 0.250 0 | 0.299 3 | 0.250 0 | 0.200 7 | C44 | 0.250 0 | 0.228 5 | 0.271 5 | 0.250 0 |
Tab.5
Fusion results of secondary index evaluation and its weight
指标 | 融合评价 | 最终评估结果 | 权重 |
---|---|---|---|
C11 | m({V3})=0.994 0;m({V4}) =0.006 0 | 0.498 8 | 0.409 4 |
C12 | m({V5})=0.128 1;m({V4}) =0.871 9 | 0.274 4 | 0.225 2 |
m({V3})=0.725 9;m({V4}) =0.274 1 | 0.445 2 | 0.365 4 | |
C21 | m({V3})=0.978 8;m({V2}) =0.021 2 | 0.504 2 | 0.201 6 |
C22 | m({V2}) =0.000 1;m({V3})=0.999 7;m({V4}) =0.000 2 | 0.500 0 | 0.199 9 |
C23 | m({V3}) =0.007 5;m({V4})=0.992 1;m({V5}) =0.000 4 | 0.301 4 | 0.120 5 |
C24 | m({V1}) =0.001 6;m({V2})=0.996 8;m({V3}) =0.001 6 | 0.700 0 | 0.279 9 |
C25 | m({V3})=0.977;m({V4}) =0.023 | 0.495 4 | 0.198 1 |
C31 | m({V3})=0.176 4;m({V4}) =0.8236 | 0.335 3 | 0.190 5 |
C32 | m({V3}) =0.993 9;m({V4})=0.0061 | 0.498 6 | 0.283 4 |
C33 | m({V1}) =0.000 2;m({V2})=0.631 9;m({V3}) =0.367 9 | 0.626 5 | 0.356 0 |
C34 | m({V5})=0.003 6;m({V4}) =0.996 4 | 0.299 3 | 0.170 1 |
C41 | m({V5})=0.539 5;m({V4}) =0.460 5 | 0.192 1 | 0.198 2 |
C42 | m({V3})=0.323 7;m({V4}) =0.676 3 | 0.364 7 | 0.376 4 |
C43 | m({V3}) =0.056 1;m({V4})=0.943 7;m({V5}) =0.000 2 | 0.311 8 | 0.321 8 |
C44 | m({V5})=0.997 9;m({V4}) =0.002 1 | 0.100 4 | 0.103 6 |
Tab.6
First-level index evaluation fusion results and its weight
指标 | 融合评价 | 评估结果 | 权重 |
---|---|---|---|
B1 | m({V3})=0.996 9;m({V4})=0.002 9;m({V5}) =0.000 2 | 0.499 3 | 0.262 0 |
B2 | m({V2})=0.016 9;m({V3})=0.974 6;m({V4}) =0.008 5 | 0.5017 | 0.263 3 |
B3 | m({V2})=0.191 5;m({V3})=0.766;m({V4})=0.042 5 | 0.529 8 | 0.278 1 |
B4 | m({V3})=0.392 2;m({V4})=0.588 2;m({V5}) =0.019 6 | 0.374 5 | 0.196 6 |
Tab.7
Calculation results of index value and node risk probability
指标 | 指标值 | 风险概 率/% | 指标 | 指标值 | 风险概 率/% | 指标 | 指标值 | 风险概 率/% | 指标 | 指标值 | 风险概 率/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C11 | 5 | 50 | C22 | 79 | 42 | C31 | 1.68 | 32.8 | C41 | 89.5 | 21 |
C12 | 7 | 30 | C23 | 3.85 | 29.25 | C32 | 38.5 | 67 | C42 | 85.5 | 29 |
C13 | 7.5 | 37.5 | C24 | 69.8 | 53.6 | C33 | 6.7 | 77 | C43 | 86 | 28 |
C21 | 1.47 | 70 | C25 | 85.6 | 57.6 | C34 | 84.4 | 31.2 | C44 | 96 | 8 |
[1] |
doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2017.02.023 |
[2] |
doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2020.01.003 |
[3] |
鲁锦涛, 任利成, 戎丹, 等. 基于灰色-物元模型的煤矿瓦斯爆炸风险评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(2):99-105.
doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.02.014 |
doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.02.014 |
|
[4] |
皮子坤, 贾宝山, 贾廷贵, 等. 基于前景理论和区间数的煤矿瓦斯爆炸风险评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(6):91-96.
doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.06.016 |
doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.06.016 |
|
[5] |
苏盈盈, 刘兴华, 李景哲, 等. 矿井通风系统指标体系的约简及其安全评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2013, 23(9):83-89.
|
|
|
[6] |
丁厚成, 黄新杰. 基于 AHP-FCE 的煤矿通风系统可靠性评价研究[J]. 自然灾害学报, 2013, 22(3):153-159.
|
|
|
[7] |
张聪聪, 吴世跃, 安省伟, 等. 煤矿通风系统可靠性评价[J]. 工矿自动化, 2015, 41(1):114-118.
|
|
|
[8] |
马恒, 苗倩斐, 韩宝华, 等. 矿井通风系统稳定性SD预测仿真分析[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2019, 15(12):108-114.
|
|
|
[9] |
韩艳杰, 张志军, 李亚俊. 基于新型综合集成法的矿井通风系统安全评价[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2014, 10(2):75-80.
|
|
|
[10] |
张加国, 张庆财. 运用风险事故树分析矿井通风系统安全性[J]. 煤炭科学技术, 2020, 48(增2):169-173.
|
|
|
[11] |
王文辉, 杨玉中, 孔静, 等. 基于熵权的矿井通风系统灰色综合评价[J]. 工业安全与环保, 2011, 37(12):39-41.
|
|
|
[12] |
doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2014.07.065 |
[13] |
doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2004.04.015 |
[14] |
张军, 涂国平. 加权平均法解决证据理论中的失效问题[J]. 微计算机信息, 2007, 23(11-3):202-203,225.
|
|
|
[15] |
|
[16] |
李贤功, 宋学锋, 张明慧, 等. 矿山安全态势预测预警研究[J]. 工矿自动化, 2021, 47(5):35-39,111.
|
|
[1] | ZHAO Jianwei, XIE Lei, YANG Yang, HU Xinyuan, OU Changkui, ZENG Rong. An ISM-BN based research on navigation risk factors of inland waterway vessels [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(8): 37-44. |
[2] | ZHANG Miao. Risk assessment of metro operation based on G1-EW combination weighting cloud model [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(6): 163-170. |
[3] | FA Huiyan, SHUAI Bin, LYU Min, HUANG Wencheng. Safety risk assessment of multimodal transportation of China Railway Express based on WBS-RBS and IFWA operator [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(6): 200-206. |
[4] | LIU Jiahao, YU Yang, ZHANG Zhenxing, YU Jianxing, WANG Weiwei, FU Yiqin. Risk assessment method of risers based on two-dimensional cloud model and BN [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(5): 147-154. |
[5] | XIN Baoquan, YU Jianliang, DANG Wenyi, BAI Yongzhong, YU Anfeng. Hazard characteristics of multi-component mixtures from perspective of quantitative risk assessment [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(4): 80-85. |
[6] | LU Ying, ZHAO Zhipan, JIANG Xuepeng, WU Jindong, FAN Xiaopeng. Dynamic fire risk indexes for stadiums from perspective of big data [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(4): 155-162. |
[7] | LU Yi, WU Jiangle, SHAO Shuzhen, SHI Shiliang, ZHOU Rongyi, WANG Wei. Prediction model for road transport accidents of hazardous chemicals based on Bayesian network [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(3): 174-182. |
[8] | CHEN Shengdi, GE Xiaowan, ZHAO Xiaochen, LU Jian, XING Yingying. Normal traffic risk assessment of second-class highways in mountainous areas during operation period [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(2): 176-183. |
[9] | HUANG Jie, ZHANG Xianfeng. Risk assessment of regional violent terrorist attacks in southern Xinjiang [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(2): 192-199. |
[10] | ZHANG Ge. Pneumoconiosis risk assessment method based on cumulative dust exposure [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(2): 200-206. |
[11] | HAN Peng, WANG Jun, WANG Qi, ZHAO Yifei. Study on air traffic control risks of aircraft flight test activities based on flight profile [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(1): 149-156. |
[12] | LIU Jichuan, GUI Lei. Urban public safety risk assessment and control measures: a case study on Wuhan city [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(1): 164-171. |
[13] | WANG Peng. Mutual application of risk assessment and hidden danger investigation in railway enterprises [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(S1): 80-85. |
[14] | LI Cunyi, ZHU Zhicheng, GUO Zhanheng, HAN Yiping, GONG Wei. Assessment and application of geological disaster risk in offshore wind farms [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(S1): 181-186. |
[15] | XIN Baoquan, DANG Wenyi, YU Jianliang, WANG Xige, YAN Xingqing, LU Wei. Quantitative evaluation method of blast-resistant and defense loads for VCE in petrochemical process [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(9): 113-118. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||