IFRAM-BN model for causes of accidents in attached lifting scaffolding under heavy rainfall scenarios

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.07.0237

Abstract

Abstract:

Frequent heavy rainfall events cause a dramatic increase in attached elevator scaffolding accidents. In order to improve construction safety and reduce the accident rate under heavy rainfall scenarios, an accident causation analysis model based on combination of IFRAM and BN was proposed. The model first qualitatively identified accident mechanisms and explored system functional resonance using IFRAM. Next, IFRAM was mapped to a BN quantitative analysis model, and the prior probabilities of each root node were computed using cloud optimization. Finally, taking the Xi'an "9.10" accident as an example, empirical research was conducted, and corresponding preventive measures were proposed. The results indicate that accidents are most likely to occur when the safety status is IV. The core causes of climbing accidents include workers violating regulations, failure to conduct mandatory supervision such as standing by and heavy rainfall. The combination of factors such as heavy rainfall environment and overloading of the frame after rain is the key to inducing frame climbing accidents.

Key words: heavy rainfall, attached lifting scaffolding, causes of accidents, improved functional resonance analysis model (IFRAM), Bayesian network (BN), contact cloud

CLC Number:

X952

CHEN Wei, ZHAO Zhuoya, NIU Li, WEN Daoyun, LUO Hao. IFRAM-BN model for causes of accidents in attached lifting scaffolding under heavy rainfall scenarios[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(7): 44-52.

Figures/Tables 13

Fig.1

Table 1

Fig.2

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Quantitative event safety status classification

指标			风险等级(等级越高,安全状态越低)
			Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ
			[0,2.5)	[2.5,5)	[5,7.5)	[7.5,10]
技术A₂	保护装置B₆	安全防护系统X₁₄	完善	较完善	一般	不完善
		防倾防坠装置X₁₅	良好	较好	一般	失效
		同步控制系统X₁₆	符合	较符合	一般	不符合
	架体稳定性B₇	架体构件不合格或失效X₁₇	无	较少	一般	较多
		附着支座混凝土强度X₁₈	≫C15	>C15	≈C15	<C15
		电动葫芦悬挂状态X₁₉	符合	较符合	一般	不符合
人员A₃	B₄	工人违规操作X₂₀	无	较少	一般	严重
	监管人员B₈	不安全行为未纠正制止X₂₁	无	较少	一般	普遍存在
	监管人员B₈	管理者违章指挥X₂₂	无	较少	一般	较多
组织A₄	技术管理B₉	专项施工方案X₂₃	完善	较完善	一般	不完善
		安全技术交底X₂₄	全面	较全面	模糊	极模糊
		安全教育培训X₂₅	全覆盖	大部分覆盖	覆盖一半	覆盖极少
		定期维护保养X₂₆	好	较好	一般	较差
	监督管理B₁₀	旁站等强制性监督X₂₇	好	较好	一般	较差
	监督管理B₁₀	检查验收及现场管理X₂₈	强	较强	一般	较弱
	应急管理 $B 1 1$	应急预案X₂₉	完善	较完善	较差	无
	应急管理 $B 1 1$	及时救援X₃₀	非常及时	较及时	一般	不及时

Table 5

Fig.3

Table 6

Table 7

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

References 19

[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 accidents caused by rainstorm disasters[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2017, 27 (6): 169-174. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.06.029
[2]	裴兴旺, 赵向东, 周崇刚, 等. 基于灰色欧几里得的全钢型附着升降脚手架安全性评价[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2020, 20(2):405-415.
	PEI Xingwang, ZHAO Xiangdong, ZHOU Chonggang, et al. Safety evaluation of all steel type attached lifting scaffold based on the grey euclidean weighted correlation degree theory[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2020, 20 (2): 405-415.
[3]	冯壮, 蔡东升. 基于T-S模糊故障树和BN的附着式升降脚手架倾覆和坠落事故易发性评价[J]. 数学的实践与认识, 2023, 53(2):143-151.
	FENG Zhuang, CAI Dongsheng. Probability assessment of capsizing and falling accident of attached lifting scaffold based on T-S fuzzy fault tree and BN[J]. Mathematics in Practice and Theory, 2023, 53 (2): 143-151.
[4]	韦东. 基于ANSYS的附着式升降脚手架的力学分析研究及实验验证[D]. 西安: 西安建筑科技大学, 2021.
	WEI Dong. Mechanical analysis and experimental verification of attached lifting scaffolding model based on ANSYS[D]. Xi'an: Xi'an University of Architecture and Technology, 2021.
[5]	SAWICKI M, SZÓSTAK M. Quantitative assessment of the state of threat of working on construction scaffolding[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020, 17(16):DOI:10.3390/ijerph17165773.
[6]	NOWOBILSKI T, HOŁA B. Methodology based on causes of accidents for forcasting the effects of falls from scaffoldings using the construction industry in poland as an example[J]. Safety Science, 2023,157: DOI:10.1016/J.SSCI.2022.105945.
[7]	HOLLNAGEL E. Barriers and accident prevention (hardback): routledge[J]. Ergonomics, 2004, 50(6):961-962.
[8]	王涵宇, 谭钦文. 基于FRAM的有限空间作业安全职责半定量分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(5):88-95. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.05.1382
	WANG Hanyu, TAN Qinwen. Semi quantitative analysis of safety duties in confined space operations based on FRAM[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33 (5): 88-95. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.05.1382
[9]	WEIJUN L, MIN H, YIBO S, et al. A proactive operational risk identification and analysis framework based on the integration of ACAT and FRAM[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2019, 186:101-109.
[10]	张人友, 崔焕焕, 张进超, 等. 基于FRAM-蒙特卡洛模拟的危化类实验安全分析和屏障管理[J]. 实验技术与管理, 2023(10):223-228.
	ZHANG Renyou, CUI Huanhuan, ZHANG Jinchao, et al. Safety analysis and barrier management of hazardous chemical laboratories based on FRAM-Monte Carlo simulation[J]. Experimental Technology and Management, 2023 (10): 223-228.
[11]	尹德志, 帅斌, 黄文成, 等. Tropos-FRAM法在道路客运事故分析中的应用[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(8):151-157. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.08.022
	YIN Dezhi, SHUAI Bin, HUANG Wencheng, et al. Application of Tropos-FRAM method in road passenger traffic accident analysis[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30 (8): 151-157. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.08.022
[12]	郭进平, 马卓远, 孙寅峰, 等. 基于FRAM的煤矿生产系统应用[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(6):73-79. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.06.1373
	GUO Jinping, MA Zhuoyuan, SUN Yinfeng, et al. Application of mine production system based on FRAM[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33 (6): 73-79. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.06.1373
[13]	JOOHEE L, HYUN C. A new methodology for accident analysis with human and system interaction based on FRAM: case studies in maritime domain[J]. Safety Science, 2018, 109:57-66.
[14]	疏学明, 颜峻, 胡俊, 等. 基于Bayes网络的建筑火灾风险评估模型[J]. 清华大学学报:自然科学版, 2020, 60(4):321-327.
	SHU Xueming, YAN Jun, HU Jun, et al. Risk assessment model for building fires based on Bayesian network[J]. Journal of Tsinghua University:Science and Technology, 2020, 60 (4): 321-327.
[15]	李岳, 周则圆, 蔡靖. 基于联系云的飞机轮胎滑水风险可拓评价模型[J/OL]. 北京航空航天大学学报:1-9[2024-03-29]. https://doi.org/10.13700/j.bh.1001-5965.2023.0136.
	LI Yue, ZHOU Zeyuan, CAI Jing. Extensible evaluation model of aircraft tire hydroplaning risk based on connection cloud[J/OL]. Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,1-9[2024-03-29]. https://doi.org/10.13700/j.bh.1001-5965.2023.0136.
[16]	陈钊, 袁航, 黄鹏宇, 等. 基于改进条件概率的贝叶斯网络隧道坍塌安全风险评价[J]. 中南大学学报:自然科学版, 2023, 54(1):327-340.
	CHEN Zhao, YUAN Hang, HUANG Pengyu, et al. Safety risk evaluation of tunnel collapse based on Bayesian network of improving conditional probability[J]. Journal of Central South University:Science and Technology, 2023, 54(1): 327-340.
[17]	刘剑锋. 基于物联网的附着式升降脚手架安全监控管理系统研究[D]. 武汉: 华中科技大学, 2017.
	LIU Jianfeng. Research on safety monitoring and management system for attached self-lifting based on the internet of things[D]. Wuhan: Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 2017.
[18]	BOŻENA H, TOMASZ N, ZUZANNA W, et al. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the causes of occupational accidents related to the use of construction scaffoldings[J]. Applied Sciences,2022,12(11):DOI:10.3390/APP12115514.
[19]	陕西省应急管理厅. 陕西省安全生产委员会办公室关于西安“9·10”重大建筑施工坍塌事故调查处理情况的通报[EB/OL].(2012-03-07). http://yjt.shaanxi.gov.cn/c/2012-03-07/559897.shtml.

标准	类别	取值	标准	类别	取值
职称	正高级工程师/教授	10	工作年限/a	>20	10
	高级工程师/副教授	8		10~20	8
	工程师/讲师	6		5~10	6
	助理工程师	4		3~5	4
	技术员	2		1~2	2

功能	因素	相关危险源	原因
F₁	组织	人员未安全教育培训	内部
F₁	技术	设备材料缺陷	内部
F₂	组织	专项施工方案未论证	内部
F₂	人员	未持证上岗	耦合
F₃	组织	各单位检查验收趋于形式	内部
F₃	技术	搭设存在安全隐患	耦合
F₄	环境	强降雨造成架体失稳等	内部
	技术	防倾防坠装置失效	内部
	人员	安全意识薄弱、违规操作	耦合
	组织	监管疏忽	耦合
F₅	组织	未设置警戒区域	内部
F₅	人员	人员未全部撤出	耦合

功能	内部	外部	失效功能连接链
F₁	F₁(P)	—	—
F₂	F₂(P)	F₁(P)	F₁(P)-F₂(O)
F₃	F₃(R)	F₂(C)	F₂(C)-F₃(O)
F₄	F₄(P)	F₁(P)、F₃(R)	F₁(P)-F₄(O)、F₃(R)-F₄(O)
F₅	F₅(P)	F₃(C)、F₄(R)	F₃(C)-F₅(R)、F₄(R)-F₅(P)

指标			风险等级(等级越高,安全状态越低)
指标			Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ	Ⅴ
环境A₁	强降雨B₁	降雨强度X₁/(mm·d)	[0,25)	[25,50)	[50,100)	[100,250)	≥250
		短时降雨量X₂/(mm·h)	[0,2)	[2,4)	[4,8)	[8,20)	≥20
		降雨历时X₃/d	[0,1)	[1,2)	[2,5)	[5,10)	≥10
	伴随天气B₂	风力强度X₄/(m·s^-1)	[0,1.5]	[1.6,3.3]	[3.4,5.4]	[5.5,7.9]	≥8
		大雾(能见度)X₅/m	[10³,10⁴]	[500,10³]	[200,500]	[50,200]	[0,50]
		雷电X₆(综合强度)	[0,0.2)	[0.2,0.4)	[0.4,0.6)	[0.6,0.8)	≥0.8
技术A₂	高度差B₃	相邻机位升降高度差X₇/mm	[0,7.5)	[7.5,15)	[15,22.5)	[22.5,30)	≥30
	高度差B₃	整体升降高度差X₈/mm	[0,20)	[20,40)	[40,60)	[60,80)	≥80
	使用状态B₄	升降载荷X₉(实际/设计)	[0,1]	[1,1.075)	[1.075,1.15)	[1.15,1.3)	≥1.3
		架体垂直度X₁₀/‰	[0,1)	[1,2)	[2,3)	[3,4)	≥4
		水平支承桁架挠度X₁₁ (L为受弯构件跨度)	[0, L/1000)	[L/1000, L/750)	[L/750, L/500)	[L/500, L/250)	≥L/250
人员A₃	作业人员B₅	持证上岗人数占比X₁₂/%	[90,100]	[80,90)	[70,80)	[60,70)	[0,60)
人员A₃	作业人员B₅	防护配备与使用率X₁₃/%	[80,100]	[60,80)	[40,60)	[20,40)	[0,20)

节点	安全状态	隶属度	先验概率	节点	安全状态	隶属度	先验概率	节点	安全状态	隶属度	先验概率
X₁	Ⅲ	0.853 5	0.715 1	X₁₁	Ⅰ	0.786 5	0.769 6	X₂₁	Ⅱ	0.835 7	0.811 3
X₁	Ⅳ	0.369 5	0.284 9	X₁₁	Ⅱ	0.235 4	0.230 4		Ⅲ	0.193 7	0.188 0
X₂	Ⅲ	0.854 5	0.706 5	X₁₂	Ⅱ	0.786 4	0.753 8		Ⅰ	0.000 8	0.000 7
X₂	Ⅳ	0.355 0	0.293 5		Ⅰ	0.256 6	0.245 9	X₂₂	Ⅲ	0.559 3	0.558 7
X₃	Ⅴ	0.571 8	0.711 2		Ⅲ	0.000 3	0.000 3	X₂₂	Ⅱ	0.441 8	0.441 3
X₃	Ⅳ	0.277 1	0.288 8	X₁₃	Ⅰ	0.642 4	0.641 9	X₂₃	Ⅰ	0.733 1	0.722 3
X₄	Ⅲ	0.848 2	0.826 4	X₁₃	Ⅱ	0.358 4	0.358 1	X₂₃	Ⅱ	0.281 8	0.277 7
X₄	Ⅳ	0.178 1	0.173 6	X₁₄	Ⅱ	0.778 9	0.758 5	X₂₄	Ⅰ	0.618 4	0.616 0
X₅	Ⅱ	0.972 6	0.688 3		Ⅲ	0.247 8	0.241 3	X₂₄	Ⅱ	0.385 6	0.384 0
	Ⅰ	0.440 2	0.311 5		Ⅰ	0.000 2	0.000 2	X₂₅	Ⅱ	0.880 2	0.854 3
	Ⅲ	0.000 3	0.000 2	X₁₅	Ⅱ	0.676 8	0.670 8		Ⅲ	0.148 6	0.144 3
X₆	Ⅰ	0.787 0	0.769 1	X₁₅	Ⅲ	0.332 2	0.329 2		Ⅰ	0.001 4	0.001 4
X₆	Ⅱ	0.236 3	0.230 9	X₁₆	Ⅰ	0.836 6	0.813 3	X₂₆	Ⅲ	0.879 9	0.838 7
X₇	Ⅱ	0.769 1	0.754 1	X₁₆	Ⅱ	0.192 1	0.186 7		Ⅱ	0.156 4	0.149 1
	Ⅰ	0.000 2	0.000 2	X₁₇	Ⅳ	0.676 8	0.670 9		Ⅳ	0.012 9	0.012 3
	Ⅲ	0.250 6	0.245 7	X₁₇	Ⅲ	0.332 0	0.329 1	X₂₇	Ⅳ	0.676 8	0.671 0
X₈	Ⅱ	0.644 7	0.733 8	X₁₈	Ⅱ	0.974 3	0.910 0	X₂₇	Ⅲ	0.331 9	0.329 0
	Ⅰ	0.233 6	0.265 9		Ⅰ	0.014 0	0.013 1	X₂₈	Ⅳ	0.559 2	0.558 6
	Ⅲ	0.000 3	0.000 3		Ⅲ	0.082 4	0.076 9	X₂₈	Ⅲ	0.441 8	0.441 4
X₉	Ⅴ	0.715 3	0.777 0	X₁₉	Ⅳ	0.786 4	0.769 5	X₂₉	Ⅲ	0.727 6	0.707 6
X₉	Ⅳ	0.205 3	0.223 0	X₁₉	Ⅲ	0.235 5	0.230 5	X₂₉	Ⅳ	0.300 6	0.292 4
X₁₀	Ⅱ	0.647 9	0.643 9	X₂₀	Ⅳ	0.973 1	0.930 4	X₃₀	Ⅲ	0.705 4	0.668 7
X₁₀	Ⅲ	0.358 8	0.356 4	X₂₀	Ⅲ	0.072 8	0.069 6	X₃₀	Ⅳ	0.318 8	0.311 3