HC-GC human factors analysis model for construction engineering safety accidents caused by heavy rainfall

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.08.1948

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to reduce the incidence of construction engineering safety accidents caused by heavy rainfall and effectively solve the complex problem of the human factor analysis of such safety accidents, an optimization method of human factor analysis model was proposed. Based on HFACS, an HFACS-CPHRA, including 6 layers and 24 factors, was established. Then GA-CARMA were jointly used to analyze the association of human causes, and draw the chain of human causes of accidents. 150 typical cases of construction accidents caused by heavy rainfall were selected for model verification and application analysis. The results show that the optimized HC-GC model has better performance and efficiency. In the accident human causation chain, the insufficient government department in charge of safety supervision and lack of enterprise safety culture are the deep factor. Site in violation of regulation and security management loophole are the main connection factor, low level of skills and illegal will further strengthen the accident emergency disposition of negative feedback, untimely incident reporting and response is the most direct reason for the expansion and spread of construction engineering accidents caused by heavy rainfall.

Key words: heavy rainfall, construction safety accidents, human factors analysis and classification system(HFACS) under construction project heavy rainfall accident(CPHRA) (HC), genetic algorithm(GA) optimized continuous association rule mining algorithm(CARMA) (GC), human causation

CHEN Wei, TIAN Yishuai, ZENG Weihua, GUO Daoyuan, ZHAO Zhuoya. HC-GC human factors analysis model for construction engineering safety accidents caused by heavy rainfall[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(8): 15-23.

Figures/Tables 9

Fig.1

Tab.1

Human factor of HFACS-CPHRA framework and its manifestation

层次内容	层次级别	人为因素		表现形式
事故致因层	社会环境	政府安全主管部门监督力度A₁		安全部门现场视察次数较少;监管责任存在交叉、遇事相互推诿;滥用职权;针对强降雨应急响应的监督管理不够;缺少强降雨安全事故响应政策
	社会环境	政治、经济、文化、法律影响A₂		施工安全政策制度不健全;灾害应急法律定责不完善;强降雨应急宣传力度不够;公众监督、社会团体监督、舆论监督流于形式
	企业安全管理	企业安全文化B₁		领导安全应急重视不足够;安全施工政策不合理;应急培训流于形式;安全生产目标不明确;安全责任划分不具体
		企业安全资源投入B₂		安全投入费用不足,应急资金使用不当;安全防护设备、物资较少或质量较差
		企业安全过程管理B₃		强降雨事故应急预案不合理;安全工作中缺乏监管跟踪;安全工作反馈不及时;无组织无计划的安全管理活动
	不安全监管	设计工作不合理C₁		针对作业时间和休息时间并未指明;存在赶工情况;操作程序在设计上缺乏安全考虑
		现场安全管理存在漏洞C₂		安全规章制度并未落实;未对工人进行专业培训与指导;对工人的操作并未及时纠正;安全隐患排查不到位;技术交底不及时、不彻底
		违规监管行为C₃		安全员资质不足;存在滥用职权行为;监管者违反企业安全管理制度;对不安全事故瞒报、谎报
	不安全行为的前提条件	作业者状态	心理状态差D₁	长期处理恶劣施工环境,职业心理压力大;未经历了解过较为严重的施工建设强降雨安全事故,面对强降雨感到胆怯、不安
			生理状态差D₂	先天性疾病,如色盲、聋哑;长时间工作导致生理紊乱;服用药物,影响身体机能
			精神状态差D₃	思想意识不集中;态度散漫;自负自满,逞能;安全意识淡薄;失去情景意识,精神恍惚
			技能水平低D₄	施工经验不够;接受的安全应急培训与教育不足够;安全理论知识不够
		机械设备	操作使用错误D₅	未按操作使用设备;设备存在故障情况依旧使用;设备不完整,检修不到位
		机械设备	设计匹配缺陷D₆	机械安全警示标识不足;设备型号与规格跟现场布局不匹配
		环境条件	技术环境差D₇	设备安全控制不合理;安全设备与防护不足够;应急物资不足够
		环境条件	作业环境差D₈	作业环境恶劣;作业场所照明不足;噪声较大;通风与供氧不足;施工环境狭窄;作业场所及周边易受到强降雨的影响
	不安全行为	失误	决策失误E₁	超出自己认知范围,经验不足;识别出现偏差;高估自己处理的能力;对周边环境安全程度认知不足
			认识失误E₂	认知情况与实际情况存在差别;风险感知能力不足或失误
			技能失误E₃	采取错误的办法执行;执行过程中忽略了关键步骤;安全技能与意识不足
		违章	习惯性规章E₄	一般为习惯性规章;通常是系统监管默认允许的或者是被忽略的行为
		违章	偶然性规章E₅	具有孤立性,并非典型违章行为,不被管理机构或人员所允许
事故反馈层	强降雨应急处置	事故上报与响应不及时F₁		未及时与上级沟通事故处理情况与进度;强降雨事故等级未能及时预测;强降雨导致安全事故后并未及时采取应急措施;
		事故处置与救护不得当F₂		未采取合适的强降雨事故应急处置办法;未采取合理的强降雨事故救护手段
		事故防控与整改不到位F₃		处理强降雨事故敷衍了事,并未根除潜在风险源;采取的措施未尽全力,仅采取部分强降雨防控措施;强降雨事故处理后并未及时反思与整改,依旧存在隐患

Tab.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Tab.2

Tab.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

References 18

[1]	陈伟, 乔治, 王伟震, 等. 暴雨灾害引发施工安全事故应急处置SD模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(6):169-174. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.06.029
	CHEN Wei, QIAO Zhi, WANG Weizhen, et al. SD model for emergency disposal of construction safety accident caused by rainstorm disaster[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2017, 27(6):169-174. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.06.029
[2]	王军武, 田梦圆, 潘子瑶, 等. 地铁车站暴雨内涝应急响应投入策略研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2022, 18(5):11-17.
	WANG Junwu, TIAN Mengyuan, PAN Ziyao, et al. Study on input strategy of emergency response to rainstorm and waterlogging in subway stations[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 222, 18(5):11-17.
[3]	SHIN M, LEE H S, PARK M, et al. A system dynamics approach for modeling construction workers' safety attitudes and behaviors[J]. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2014, 68:95-105. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2013.09.019
[4]	CHEN Hongxu, HUANG Xinjian, LI Huan, et al. Emergency evacuation with unbalanced utilization of exits at platform level: a simulation study[J]. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 2021, 41(4):5181-5189.
[5]	孙贵磊, 王亚琪, 赵欣圆, 等. 基于Pathfinder的地铁乘客疏散风险量化与分级研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(11):176-181. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.11.028
	SUN Guilei, WANG Yaqi, ZHAO Xinyuan, et al. Research on evacuation risk quantization and classification for subway passengers based on Pathfinder[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2018, 28(11):176-181. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.11.028
[6]	LIU Zhaoge, LI Xiangyang, ZHU Xiaohan. Joint risk assessment of the secondary disasters of rainstorms based on multisource spatial data in Wuhan, China[J]. Natural Hazards Review, 2020, 21(4):1-16.
[7]	唐少虎, 朱伟, 程光, 等. 暴雨内涝下城市道路交通系统安全韧性评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(7):143-150. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.07.1391
	TANG Shaohu, ZHU Wei, CHENG Guang, et al. Safety resilience assessment of urban road traffic system under rainstorm waterlogging[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 222, 32(7):143-150.
[8]	WONG Louisa, WANG Yuhong, LAW Toranet al. Association of root causes in fatal fall-from-height construction accidents in Hong Kong[J]. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2016,142:DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001098.
[9]	YE Gui, TAN Qin, GONG Xiaoli, et al. Improved HFACS on human factors of construction accidents: a China perspective[J]. Advances In Civil Engineering, 2018, 2018:1-15.
[10]	张振华, 朱琳, 刘志钢, 等. 基于HFACS-MA的地铁事故人为因素研究[J]. 城市轨道交通研究, 2021, 24(6):219-223.
	ZHANG Zhenhua, ZHU Lin, LIU Zhigang, et al. Study on human factors of metro accidents based on HFACS-MA[J]. Urban Mass Transit, 2021, 24(6):219-223.
[11]	NING Xin, QIU Yu, WU Chunlin, et al. Developing a decision-making model for construction safety behavior supervision: an evolutionary game theory-based analysis[J]. Frontiers in Psychology, 2022,13:DOI:10.3389/FPSYG.2022.861828.
[12]	LI Shuquan, WU Xiuyu, WANG Xuezhao, et al. Relationship between social capital, safety competency, and safety behaviors of construction workers[J]. Journal of Construction Engineering And Management, 2020,146:DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001838.
[13]	TANG Ning, HU Hao, XU Feng, et al. A personalized human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS) for construction safety managementbased on context-aware technology[J]. Enterprise Information Systems, 2021, 16(1):141-166. doi: 10.1080/17517575.2021.1878283
[14]	YANG Jingjing, YE Gui, XIANG Qingting, et al. Insights into the mechanism of construction workers' unsafe behaviors from an individual perspective[J]. Safety Science, 2021,133:DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105004.
[15]	祁神军, 成家磊, 黄芹芹, 等. 安全态度、安全能力、不安全动机对建筑工人不安全行为的发生机理[J]. 华侨大学学报:自然科学版, 2018, 39(5):669-674.
	QI Shenjun, CHENG Jialei, HUANG Qinqin, et al. Occurrence mechanism of safety attitude,safety capability and unsafety motivation to unsafe behavior for construction workers[J]. Journal of Huaqiao University:Natural Science, 2018, 39(5):669-674.
[16]	HIDBER C. Online association rule mining[J]. ACM SIGMOD Record, 1999, 28(2):145-156. doi: 10.1145/304181.304195
[17]	毛伊敏, 邓千虎, 陈志刚. 基于信息熵与遗传算法的并行关联规则增量挖掘算法[J]. 通信学报, 2021, 42(5):122-136. doi: 10.11959/j.issn.1000-436x.2021052
	MAO Yimin, DENG Qianhu, CHEN Zhigang. Parallel association rules incremental mining algorithm based on information entropy and genetic algorithm[J]. Journal of Communication, 2021, 42 (5): 122-136.
[18]	HEATON J. Comparing dataset characteristics that favor the Apriori, Eclat or FP-Growth frequent itemset mining algorithms[C]. IEEE SoutheastCon,2016:DOI:10.1109/SECON.2016.7506659. 2016.7506659.

规则标识	后项	前项	S	G
1	C₃	C₁和B₃	0.367	0.833
2	D₄	C₃和C₂	0.429	0.810
3	E₂	D₂	0.408	0.800
4	B₃	B₁和A₁	0.592	0.793
5	E₃	D₇	0.388	0.789
6	C₁	B₁和B₂	0.388	0.789
7	B₁	A₁和A₂	0.388	0.789
8	E₄	D₄和D₅	0.449	0.773
9	D₇	C₃	0.429	0.762
10	B₃	A₁	0.429	0.762

规则标识	后项	前项	S	G
1	F₁	D₇	0.592	0.893
2	F₂	E₁	0.653	0.850
3	F₂	D₄	0.542	0.823
4	F₁	A₁	0.633	0.798
5	F₁	E₁	0.618	0.796
6	F₃	E₃	0.551	0.741
7	F₁	B₁	0.612	0.733
8	F₂	E₂	0.673	0.727
9	F₂	E₄	0.659	0.716
10	F₃	E₂	0.633	0.704