Study on self-organizing mapping distribution of coal mine accident factors

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.02.0949

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to further clarify the complicated coupling mechanism between the coal mine accident causation factor, SOM neural network was introduced to study the coupling relationship between factors. Firstly, 24Model was used to analyze the factors of coal mine accidents and the accident attribute dataset was built. The SOM algorithm was then used to visualize the coupling relationship between factors and accidents. Combined with the K-means clustering algorithm, the mapping characteristics of single-factor and multi-factor coupling to coal mine accident causes were studied, and the correlation degree between the factors was analyzed. The results show that the difference in impact degree of a single factor on the accident is reflected by "accident-single factor" mapping distribution. Factors such as inadequate management, inadequate safety training and imperfect institutional documents contributed more to the accident. Four factors, including illegal command, illegal operation, operation error and unsafe object state, are the strongest coupling effect in the "accident-multifactor coupling" mapping. There is a strong correlation with coupling degree≥0.8 between the factors such as "imperfect system documents, insufficient safety culture--unreasonable personnel organization" and "incomplete supporting facilities--poor habits" in the factor correlation analysis.

Key words: coal mine accident, self-organizing mapping(SOM), cause of accident factor, coupling relationship, visualization

ZHANG Jiangshi, LI Yongtun, QIN Fang, WANG Huichao, PAN Yu, WANG Ziyi. Study on self-organizing mapping distribution of coal mine accident factors[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(2): 9-15.

Figures/Tables 11

Fig.1

Fig.2

Tab.1

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Tab.2

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Tab.3

References 18

[1]	周天墨, 陈鹏飞, 陈佳林, 等. 中国煤矿安全生产水平空间差异与影响因素[J]. 地理研究, 2022, 41(4):1194-1211. doi: 10.11821/dlyj020210150
	ZHOU Tianmo, CHEN Pengfei, CHEN Jialin, et al. Spatial differentiation and influencing factors of coal mine safe production level in China[J]. Geographical Research, 2022, 41(4):1194-1211. doi: 10.11821/dlyj020210150
[2]	牛国庆, 闫思洁. 改进的HFACS煤矿事故致因灰色关联分析[J]. 煤炭工程, 2016, 48(5):142-145.
	NIU Guoqing, YAN Sijie. Grey correlation analysis of coal mine accident triggering factors based on improved HFACS[J]. Coal Engineering, 2016, 48(5), 142-145.
[3]	张宁, 盛武. 基于贝叶斯网络的煤矿瓦斯爆炸事故致因分析[J]. 工矿自动化, 2019, 45(7): 53-58.
	ZHANG Ning, SHENG Wu. Causes analysis of coal mine gas explosion accidents based on Bayesian network[J]. Industry and Mine Automation, 2019, 45(7): 53-58.
[4]	张津嘉, 许开立, 王贝贝, 等. 特别重大煤矿瓦斯爆炸事故致因分析及管理模式研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2016, 26(2): 73-78.
	ZHANG Jinjia, XU Kaili, WANG Beibei, et al. Extraordinarily serious gas explosion accidents in coal mines: analysis of causes and research on management mode[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2016, 26(2): 73-78.
[5]	SELVA J. Long-term multi-risk assessment: statistical treatment of interaction among risks[J]. Natural Hazards, 2013, 67(2):701-722. doi: 10.1007/s11069-013-0599-9
[6]	QIAO Wanguan. Analysis and measurement of multifactor risk in underground coal mine accidents based on coupling theory[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2021:DOI:10.1016/j.ress.2021.107433.
[7]	戴世伟, 刘鑫鑫, 万飞. 软岩隧道大变形事故致灾因素耦合分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(8): 119-124. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.08.017
	DAI Shiwei, LIU Xinxin, WAN Fei. Coupling analysis on disaster-inducing factors for large deformation accidents in soft rock tunnels[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(8): 119-124. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.08.017
[8]	陈伟珂, 张欣. 危化品储运火灾爆炸事故多因素耦合动力学关系[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(6): 49-54. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.06.009
	CHEN Weike, ZHANG Xin. Dynamic relationship between multi coupling risk factors of hazardous chemical storage and transportation fire and explosion accidents[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2017, 27(6): 49-54. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.06.009
[9]	傅贵, 陆柏, 陈秀珍. 基于行为科学的组织安全管理方案模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2005, 15(9): 21-27.
	FU Gui, LU Bai, CHEN Xiuzhen. Behavior based model for organization safety management[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2005, 15(9): 21-27.
[10]	HEINRICH H W. Idustrial accident prevention[M]. New York and London: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1941: 72-111.
[11]	REASON J. Human error[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990:214-215.
[12]	STEWART J M. Managing for world class safety[M]. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, 2002: 6-26.
[13]	傅贵, 樊运晓, 佟瑞鹏, 等. 通用事故原因分析方法(第4版)[J]. 事故预防学报, 2016, 1(2):7-12.
	FU Gui, FAN Yunxiao, TONG Ruipeng, et al. A universal methodology for the causation analysis of accidents (4^th Edition)[J]. Journal of Accident Prevention, 2016, 1(2):7-12.
[14]	傅贵, 陈奕燃, 许素睿, 等. 事故致因“2-4”模型的内涵解析及第6版的研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(1): 12-19. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.01.002
	FU Gui, CHEN Yiran, XU Surui, et al. Detailed explanations of 24Model and development of its 6^th version[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(1): 12-19. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.01.002
[15]	KOHONEN T. Self-organized formation of topologically correct feature maps[J]. Biological Cybernetics, 1982, 43(1): 59-69. doi: 10.1007/BF00337288
[16]	KOHONEN O, HAUTA-KASARI M. Distance measures in the training phase of self-organizing map for color histogram generation in spectral image retrieval[J]. Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, 2008, 52(2): 1-11.
[17]	煤矿安全网. 煤矿事故/事故案例[EB/OL]. [2022-03-27]. https://www.mkaq.org/sggl/shigual/
[18]	ZALIK K R, ZALIK B. Validity index for clusters of different sizes and densities[J]. Pattern Recognition Letters, 2011, 32(2): 221-234. doi: 10.1016/j.patrec.2010.08.007

组织内因素	直接原因	不安全动作	1.违章指挥
			2.违规作业
			3.操作失误
		不安全物态	4.不安全物态
	间接原因	5.安全知识不足
		6.安全意识不高
		7.安全习惯不佳
		8.安全心理不佳
		9.安全生理不佳
	根本原因	安全管理体系欠缺	10.未建立体系文件
			11.体系文件不健全
			12.设计缺陷
			13.配套设施不齐全
			14.人员组织不合理
			15.落实不到位
			16.安全培训不到位
			17.隐患排查不到位
	根源原因	安全文化欠缺	18.安全文化欠缺
组织外因素	19.政府部门疏于监管
组织外因素	20.第三方问题

事故因素	整体	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	频次f
违章指挥	6.19	7.94	6.19	1.87	8.66	11.15^*	10.03	3.19	1^*
违规作业	10.42^*	8.93	11.61^*	7.47	8.66	6.86	5.01	13.67^*	3^*
操作失误	0.75	0.00	0.00	3.73	0.00	0.00	15.04^*	0.00	1^*
不安全物态	7.70	8.93	2.32	9.34	0.00	12.87^*	5.01	8.20	1^*
安全知识不足	6.34	8.93	3.10	5.60	4.33	3.43	5.01	9.12	—
安全意识不高	8.60	8.93	7.74	9.34	4.33	3.43	0.00	12.76	1^*
安全习惯不佳	1.21	0.00	1.55	1.87	4.33	0.86	0.00	1.37	—
安全心理不佳	0.45	0.00	0.00	1.87	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.91	—
安全生理不佳	0.15	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.86	0.00	0.00	—
未建立体系文件	1.06	0.99	2.32	0.00	8.66	0.00	0.00	0.46	—
体系文件不健全	7.40	8.93	11.61^*	3.73	8.66	10.30	5.01	3.65	1^*
事故因素	整体	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	频次f
设计缺陷	2.26	3.97	0.00	9.34	4.33	3.43	0.00	0.46	—
配套设施不齐全	2.72	1.98	3.10	9.34	0.00	1.72	5.01	1.82	—
人员组织不合理	3.32	6.94	6.19	0.00	8.66	3.43	5.01	0.00	—
落实不到位	12.38^*	8.93	11.61^*	9.34	8.66	13.73^*	15.04^*	14.59^*	5^*
安全培训不到位	9.96	8.93	10.84	9.34	4.33	2.57	15.04^*	14.13^*	2^*
隐患排查不到位	9.21	6.94	9.29	9.34	4.33	11.15^*	10.03	9.57	1^*
安全文化欠缺	4.75	4.76	4.76	4.76	4.76	4.76	4.76	4.74	—
政府部门疏于监管	4.23	3.97	6.19	1.87	8.66	9.44	0.00	0.91	—
第三方问题	0.91	0.00	1.55	1.87	8.66	0.00	0.00	0.46	—

序号	事故因素对	耦合度
1	安全培训不到位—安全意识不高	0.888 3
2	体系文件不健全—违章指挥	0.887 8
3	体系文件不健全—人员组织不合理	0.837 8
4	安全文化欠缺—人员组织不合理	0.836 7
5	未建立体系文件—人员组织不合理	0.832 4
6	政府部门疏于监管—体系文件不健全	0.829 0
7	配套设施不齐全—安全习惯不佳	0.822 6