Analysis of causes of mechanical injury accidents in manufacturing enterprises based on HFACS model

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.03.1128

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to explore part of the causes of mechanical injury accidents in manufacturing enterprises located in China, 206 reports of mechanical injury accidents were selected as samples in this research. Based on the HFACS model, SPSS software was used to analyze the frequency and correlation of sample data, and the weight of causative factors was calculated in Super Decisions software. In each level of the HFACS model, the factors with the highest frequency were organizational atmosphere, inadequate supervision, bad psychological state and accidental violation. The correlation intensity among the factors lied between 1.994 and 5.407. The largest causal path of the sum of the correlation intensity of mechanical injury accidents in manufacturing enterprises was organizational atmosphere - inadequate supervision - bad psychological state - accidental violation. The premise weight value of unsafe behavior was 0.330 1, which was the key level with the highest weight, and the improper weight of planned tasks in the unsafe supervision level was 0.150 1, which was the key factor with the highest weight. Therefore, strategies to prevent mechanical injury accidents were proposed. The research results have shown that: the occurrence of mechanical injury accidents is the result of the interaction of various causative factors. To reduce mechanical injury accidents in manufacturing enterprises, it is necessary to block the causative path of accidents and strengthen the management and control of key levels and key factors.

Key words: human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS), manufacturing enterprises, mechanical injury accident, cause of accident, analytic network process (ANP)

LIU Quanlong, PENG Yumeng, ZHAO Pan, WANG Jingzhi. Analysis of causes of mechanical injury accidents in manufacturing enterprises based on HFACS model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(3): 51-59.

Figures/Tables 10

Fig.1

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

2×2 contingency table on resource management and inappropriate planned tasks

因素		资源管理		行和
因素		有	无	行和
计划任务不恰当	有	36( $f 1$ )	22( $f 2$ )	58
计划任务不恰当	无	50( $f 3$ )	98( $f 4$ )	148
列和		86	120	206(n)

Tab.3

Tab.4

Fig.2

Tab.5

Tab.6

Fig.3

Tab.7

References 18

[1]	GHAHRAMANI A, SALMINEN S. Evaluating effectiveness of OHSAS 18001 on safety performance in manufacturing companies in Iran[J]. Safety Science, 2018, 112:206-212. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.10.021
[2]	刘浩浩, 李洁, 徐亦陈. 基于粗糙集的起重机械安全风险评价[J]. 土木工程与管理学报, 2017, 34(5):154-158,169.
	LIU Haohao, LI Jie, XU Yichen. Safety evaluation of hoisting machinery based on the rough set theory[J]. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 2017, 34(5):154-158,169.
[3]	皮希宇, 李铁, 王栓林. 煤矿井下钻机钻孔与机械伤害事故原因分析及对策[J]. 煤炭工程, 2017, 49(1):49-51.
	PI Xiyu, LI Tie, WANG Shuanlin. Reasons and countermeasures for drilling and mechanical injury accident of drilling rig in underground coal mine[J]. Coal Engineering, 2017, 49(1):49-51.
[4]	杨小朋, 闫瑞兵, 彭莉莉. 大型煤炭企业事故致因模型及对策分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(增1):73-79.
	YANG Xiaopeng, YAN Ruibing, PENG Lili. Analysis on accident cause model and countermeasure for large coal enterprises[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(S1):73-79. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.S1.014
[5]	SANMIQUEL P L, BASCOMPTA M, FRANCISCO A H. Analysis of a historical accident in a Spanish coal mine[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2019, 16(19):DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16193615. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16193615
[6]	ZHANG Wei, XUE Nannan, ZHANG Jianrong, et al. Identification of critical causal factors and paths of tower-crane accidents in China through system thinking and complex networks[J]. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2021, 147(12): 4021174. 1-4021174.13.
[7]	仇国芳, 郑艳, 张涑贤. 基于ISM的建筑施工高处坠落事故致因分析[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2019, 19(3):867-873.
	QIU Guofang, ZHENG Yan, ZHANG Suxian. Cause analysis of falling accidents in building construction based on ISM[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2019, 19(3):867-873.
[8]	裴甲坤, 王飞跃, 郭换换, 等. 基于改进尖点突变模型的化工事故致因分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(7):20-25. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.07.004
	PEI Jiakun, WANG Feiyue, GUO Huanhuan, et al. Cause analysis of chemical accidents based on improved cusp catastrophe model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(7):20-25. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.07.004
[9]	孙逸林, 李洪兵, 刘险峰, 等. 基于AcciMap模型的化工事故致因定量分析方法研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2021, 21(4):1670-1675.
	SUN Yilin, LI Hongbing, LIU Xianfeng, et al. Study on quantitative analysis method of chemical accident cause based on AcciMap model[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2021, 21(4):1670-1675.
[10]	WIEGMANN D A, SHAPPELL 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.
[11]	王晶, 樊运晓, 高远. 基于HFACS模型的化工事故致因分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(9):81-86. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.09.014
	WANG Jing, FAN Yunxiao, GAO Yuan. Analysis of causes of accidents in chemical industry based on HFACS model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2018, 28(9):81-86. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.09.014
[12]	ZHAN Qingjian, ZHENG Wei, ZHAO Bobo. A hybrid human and organizational analysis method for railway accidents based on HFACS-railway accidents (HFACS-RAs)[J]. Safety Science, 2017, 91: 232-250. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2016.08.017
[13]	王军武, 王梦雨, 刘登辉, 等. 基于HFACS-BN的地铁车站施工高处坠落可能性评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(6):90-98. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.06.012
	WANG Junwu, WANG Mengyu, LIU Denghui, et al. Evaluation of falling possibility at height in subway station construction based on HFACS-BN[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(6):90-98. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.06.012
[14]	安全管理网. 机械伤害事故案例分析[EB/OL].[2016-04-05]. http://www.safehoo.com/Case/Case/Machine/201604/436200.shtml.
[15]	沈中芹, 曾旺, 王瑞强, 等. 基于改进HFACS-MI模型的煤矿透水事故致因分析[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2020, 27(3):178-184.
	SHEN Zhongqin, ZENG Wang, WANG Ruiqiang, et al. Cause analysis of water inrush accidents in mines based on improved HFACS-MI model[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2020, 27(3):178-184.
[16]	郑世博, 樊运晓, 李振明. 基于HFACS的货车交通事故致因研究[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2020, 27(6):133-139.
	ZHENG Shibo, FAN Yunxiao, LI Zhenming. Study on the causes of freight car traffic accidents based on HFACS[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2020, 27(6):133-139.
[17]	王凤武, 徐翌森, 王哲凯, 等. 基于DEMATEL-ANP的重大件船舶大风浪航行安全指标选取[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2021, 21(1):62-69.
	WANG Fengwu, XU Yisen, WANG Zhekai, et al. Selection of navigation safety indexes for heavy vessels in heavy wind and waves based on DEMATEL-ANP[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2021, 21(1):62-69.
[18]	宋姗姗, 王金平, 季婉婧. 基于ANP-SWOT模型的我国海洋科技情报领域发展战略研究[J]. 科技管理研究, 2020, 40(22):48-55.
	SONG Shanshan, WANG Jinping, JI Wanjing. Research on development strategy of China's marine science and technology information area based on ANP-SWOT model[J]. Science and Technology Management Research, 2020, 40(22):48-55.

层级	致因类别		致因表现形式	层级	致因类别		致因表现形式
组织影响	资源管理		人员配置不合理	不安全行为的前提条件	操作者状态	不良的心理状态	注意力不集中
			员工无生产资质				疲劳
			人手不足				匆忙、焦躁
			机械设备质量不合格				警惕性不强
	组织氛围		行政安全责任划分不清			能力局限	体力不足
			风险管理政策不健全			能力局限	智力/资质不足
			安全生产计划不完善		人员因素	班组资源管理不良	信息传递不正确
			效益第一原则				缺乏领导
			安全氛围未形成				缺少团队合作
	组织过程		安全管理制度和标准不完善			个人准备不达标	没有足够的休息
			未编制机械操作作业规程			个人准备不达标	未接受过培训
			作业指导书不明确		环境因素	物理环境	无警示标志
			排班不合理			物理环境	环境脏乱
			安全管理制度未强制实施			技术环境	设备故障
不安全的监督	监督不到位		未进行监督			技术环境	无防护装置
			安全培训不到位	不安全行为	失误	技能型失误	操作不当
			机械设备维护不良			技能型失误	操作技术不精
	计划任务不恰当		人员配备不当			决策型失误	紧急判断错误
			工作分配不当				紧急反应错误
			未提供足够的休息时间				经验不足
	未能纠正已知问题		未辨识风险员工			认知型失误	视觉错误
	未能纠正已知问题		未进行隐患整改追查			认知型失误	信息理解错误
	监督违规		违章指挥		违规	习惯性违规	无安全工作审核
	监督违规		允许不合格者操作			习惯性违规	未评估机械设备风险
不安全行为的前提条件	操作者状态	不良的生理状态	身体状况不佳			偶然性违规	工作前检查不足
不安全行为的前提条件	操作者状态	不良的生理状态	极度兴奋			偶然性违规	擅自使用机械设备/工具

层级	致因因素	频数	频率
组织影响	资源管理	109	0.159 4
	组织氛围	326	0.476 6
	组织过程	249	0.364 0
不安全的监督	监督不到位	276	0.465 4
	计划任务不恰当	73	0.123 1
	未能纠正已知问题	181	0.305 2
	监督违规	63	0.106 3
不安全行为的前提条件	不良的生理状态	6	0.007 8
	不良的心理状态	278	0.362 5
	能力局限	102	0.133 0
	班组资源管理不良	121	0.157 8
	个人准备不达标	73	0.095 2
	物理环境	63	0.082 1
	技术环境	124	0.161 6
不安全行为	技能型失误	172	0.228 1
	决策型失误	119	0.157 8
	认知型失误	32	0.042 5
	习惯性违规	203	0.269 2
	偶然性违规	228	0.302 4

致因因素	卡方检验		m	95%置信区间
致因因素	χ²	p	m	下限	上限
组织影响层级与不安全的监督层级
资源管理与计划任务不恰当	13.709	0.000	3.207	1.708	6.024
资源管理与监督违规	16.134	0.000	3.560	1.885	6.721
组织氛围与监督不到位	10.924	0.001	3.024	1.545	5.918
组织过程与未能纠正已知问题	12.594	0.000	2.925	1.602	5.343
组织过程与监督违规	9.671	0.002	2.942	1.466	5.905
不安全的监督层级与不安全行为的前提条件层级
监督不到位与不良的心理状态	15.726	0.000	4.046	1.971	8.305
计划任务不恰当与不良的生理状态	4.531	0.033	5.407	0.963	30.375
计划任务不恰当与能力局限	6.577	0.010	2.232	1.201	4.149
计划任务不恰当与班组资源管理不良	15.197	0.000	3.471	1.827	6.594
计划任务不恰当与个人准备不达标	6.653	0.010	2.287	1.211	4.321
未能纠正已知问题与不良的心理状态	10.418	0.001	3.088	1.529	6.236
监督违规与能力局限	6.577	0.010	2.232	1.201	4.149
监督违规与个人准备不达标	17.065	0.000	4.013	2.026	7.949
不安全行为的前提条件层级与不安全行为层级
不良的心理状态与技能型失误	3.937	0.047	2.025	1.001	4.095
不良的心理状态与偶然性违规	11.739	0.001	4.138	1.756	9.748
班组资源管理不良与决策型失误	8.196	0.004	2.294	1.293	4.070
班组资源管理不良与认知型失误	4.545	0.033	2.416	1.055	5.530
物理环境与认知型失误	6.846	0.009	2.896	1.275	6.579

致因因素	卡方检验			m	95%置信区间
致因因素	χ²	p		m	下限	上限
组织影响层级与不安全行为的前提条件层级
资源管理与个人准备不达标	5.782	0.016	1.994		1.133	3.512
资源管理与技术环境	7.332	0.007	2.173		1.234	3.825
组织氛围与不良的心理状态	5.152	0.023	2.293		1.107	4.750
组织过程与不良的心理状态	10.061	0.002	3.041		1.502	6.158
不安全的监督层级与不安全行为层级
计划任务不恰当与认知型失误	7.644	0.006	3.045		1.348	6.882

致因因素	卡方检验			m	95%置信区间
致因因素	χ²	p		m	下限	上限
不安全的监督层级
计划任务不恰当与监督违规	8.918	0.003	2.640		1.381	5.047
未能纠正已知问题与监督违规	6.763	0.009	2.601		1.246	5.428
不安全行为的前提条件层级
个人准备不达标与能力局限	4.787	0.000	3.028		1.708	5.366
不安全行为层级
技能型失误与决策型失误	8.732	0.003	2.680		1.377	5.218
认知型失误与决策型失误	4.841	0.028	2.434		1.084	5.466