Safety risk dynamic evaluation of fireworks production enterprises

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.03.0761

Abstract

Abstract:

To reduce the safety risk of fireworks production enterprises and eliminate the subjectivity and static limitations of the current safety evaluation mechanism, an evaluation indicator system of the safety risk for firework production enterprise was constructed based on the grounded theory (GT). The evaluation values and weights of the evaluation indicators were calculated by applying the frequency-based Analytic Network Process-Back Propagation Neuron Network (ANP-BPNN) model. The dynamic evaluation of the safety risk level of firework production enterprise was achieved based on SD, and verified with an enterprise involved in a major fireworks explosion accident of fireworks. The results show that the dynamic evaluation model of safety risk for fireworks production enterprises can accurately capture the development trend of the safety risk. The interval between safety risk evaluations of fireworks production enterprises is flexibly adjusted based on predicted time for safety risk level to reach the higher risk. The continuous dynamic evaluation of safety risk can ensure that the enterprise always maintains a safe production state.

Key words: fireworks, production emterphise, safety risk, dynamic evaluation, work safe, system dynamics(SD)

CLC Number:

X932爆炸安全与防火、防爆

WANG Feiyue, WANG Xinyu, ZHANG Wenjun, LIU Hui. Safety risk dynamic evaluation of fireworks production enterprises[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2025, 35(3): 10-18.

Figures/Tables 12

Table 1

Safety risk evaluation indicator system for fireworks production enterprises

一级评价指标I	二级评价指标 $I k$	一级评价指标I	二级评价指标 $I k$
人员风险水平A	三类管理人员责任意识水平 $A 1$	材料风险水平D	定量生产、储存及运输情况 $D 3$
	从业人员安全素质水平 $A 2$	管理风险水平E	安全教育培训情况 $E 1$
	定员作业情况 $A 3$		三类管理人员资格证明情况 $E 2$
	人员身心状态 $A 4$		特种作业人员资格证明情况 $E 3$
设备风险水平B	安全设施设备设置情况 $B 1$		应急预案编制及演练情况 $E 4$
	机械设备工作情况 $B 2$		原料出入库制度实施情况 $E 5$
	工具合格合规情况 $B 3$		危险品储存与运输制度实施情况 $E 6$
环境风险水平C	静电 $C 1$		全员安全生产责任制落实情况 $E 7$
	温度 $C 2$		规章制度建设情况 $E 8$
	湿度 $C 3$		安全生产组织机构构建情况 $E 9$
	生产工艺布置情况 $C 4$		双重预防机制构建实施情况 $E 10$
	总体布局情况 $C 5$		设备设施购置及维护情况 $E 11$
材料风险水平D	原辅料合格合规情况 $D 1$		安全生产现场管理情况 $E 12$
材料风险水平D	药物残留情况 $D 2$

Table 1

Table 2

Normalized weight values of the evaluation indicators in the frequency-based ANP accident evaluation model

I_k	权重 $w I k$	权重 $w I k$ 排序	I_k	权重 $w I k$	权重 $w I k$ 排序	I_k	权重 $w I k$	权重 $w I k$ 排序
A₁	0.045 3	8	C₃	0.014 0	17	E₄	0.017 2	16
A₂	0.195 5	1	C₄	0.01 21	21	E₅	0.035 9	10
A₃	0.055 9	4	C₅	0.040 2	9	E₆	0.027 9	11
A₄	0.056 4	3	D₁	0.005 1	26	E₇	0.013 8	18
B₁	0.046 4	7	D₂	0.019 6	12	E₈	0.011 2	22
B₂	0.013 2	20	D₃	0.055 2	5	E₉	0.004 0	27
B₃	0.018 4	14	E₁	0.183 0	2	E₁₀	0.018 2	15
C₁	0.019 0	13	E₂	0.006 0	25	E₁₁	0.011 1	23
C₂	0.006 6	24	E₃	0.013 7	19	E₁₂	0.055 2	5

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Fig.1

Fig.2

Table 5

Quantitative table of evaluation indicators obtained by safety actuality evaluation for enterprise Z

$I k$	安全生产条件	$V L_I k$	$V S_I k$
$A 1$	企业主要负责人与安全管理人员未按相关规定在引线库安装防雷设施,设置合格的黑火药中转防护屏障	0.666 7	0.666 7
$B 1$	引线库未安装防雷设施	0.333 3	0.333 3
$C 5$	黑火药中转防护屏障不合要求	0.166 7	0.200 0
$E 10$	未排查出引线库未安装防雷设施等隐患	0.333 3	0.250 0

Table 5

Fig.3

Table 6

Quantitative table of evaluation indicators for enterprise Z in the event of the accident

$I k$	安全生产条件	$V L_I k$	$V S_I k$
$A 1$	法人代表未尽职,实际负责人无安全管理资质;专职安全员未专职从事安全管理工作;12号工房管理人员无证参与生产管理工作	1	1
$A 2$	员工缺乏基本安全意识和应急避险技能;生产成品没有及时转运;员工搬出实底塑料筐时,筐内“彩雷”药饼与残留药物摩擦引发火灾	0.666 7	0.600 0
$A 3$	发生爆炸的11号工房定员10人,实有15人	0.333 3	0.500 0
$A 4$	违规使用超龄员工从事1.1级工序作业	0.500 0	0.250 0
$C 5$	事发工房成品、半成品堵塞通道;违规搭建的建筑物妨碍员工逃生疏散;组织员工在1.3级工房内从事1.1级工序裸露药物产品作业	0.500 0	0.600 0
$D 1$	—	0	0
$D 2$	员工搬出实底塑料筐时,筐内“彩雷”药饼与残留药物摩擦引发火灾	0.500 0	0.500 0
$D 3$	工房成品和半成品药量超量	0.333 3	0.500 0
$E 1$	对从业人员的安全生产教育培训组织不力,新员工未经培训考核就上岗作业	1	1
$E 2$	法定代表人因年满60岁,未延期办理安全生产管理资格证;实际负责人和12号工房管理人员无证参与管理工作	1	0.750 0
$E 7$	C厂区长期独立生产经营	0.333 3	0.333 3
$E 10$	企业风险管控和隐患排查治理不足,对其超药量等违法行为视而不见;民警检查C厂区时,发现其引线中转库存超限量约4倍,下达了立即整改指令,但未及时采取有效措施消除隐患	0.666 7	0.500 0
$E 12$	管理人员与从业人员上班时间不一致;工区未加强包装工序中除去残留药物粉尘的安全管理;超许可范围接单生产,包括“彩雷”等不在许可范围内的产品	0.500 0	0.500 0

Table 6

Table 7

Safety risk control schemes

$I k$	方案a	方案b	方案c	方案d
$A 1$	—	$初值 - 初值 30 × D T$	$初值 - 初值 30 × D T$	$初值 - 初值 30 × D T$
$A 2$	$初值 - 初值 30 × D T$	$初值 - 初值 30 × D T$	$初值 - 初值 30 × D T$	$初值 - 初值 30 × D T$
$A 3$	0	—	0	0
$A 4$	0	0	—	0
$B 1$	0	0	0	—
$C 5$	$初值 - 初值 30 × D T$	$初值 - 初值 30 × D T$	$初值 - 初值 30 × D T$	$初值 - 初值 30 × D T$
$E 1$	$初值 - 初值 30 × D T$	$初值 - 初值 30 × D T$	$初值 - 初值 30 × D T$	$初值 - 初值 30 × D T$
$E 12$	0	0	0	0

Table 7

Fig.4

Fig.5

References 18

[1]	CHEN Weichun, LIN Yuhao, OUYANG Shinmei, et al. Effect of relative humidity on the emission height and reaction force of single-tube fireworks[J]. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 2023, 148(11): 4997-5007.
[2]	BILLOCK R M, CHOUNTHIRATH T, SMITH G A. Pediatric firework-related injuries presenting to united states emergency departments, 1990-2014[J]. Clinical Pediatrics, 2016, 56(6): 535-544.
[3]	安全生产许可证条例[EB/OL]. (2015-03-25). https://wap.miit.gov.cn/zwgk/zcwj/flfg/art/2020/art_e7578da4b6694da8b981041bf2ad4830.html.
[4]	MAHADEVAN S, SIVAPIRAKASAM S, SWAMINATHAN G. Accident data analysis and hazard assessment in fireworks manufacture[J]. Science and Technology of Energetic Materials, 2008, 69: 161-168.
[5]	SIVAPIRAKASAM S P, SURIANARAYANAN M, SWAMINATHAN G. Hazard assessment for the safe storage, manufacturing and handling of flash compositions[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2009, 22(2): 254-256.
[6]	谌倩. 基于AHP的长沙烟花爆竹企业生产安全水平评价及政府监管优化研究[D]. 长沙: 湖南师范大学, 2021.
	CHEN Qian. Research on evaluation of production safety level of Changsha fireworks and firecrackers enterprises and optimization of government supervision based on AHP[D]. Changsha: Hunan Normal University, 2021.
[7]	AJITH S, ARUMUGAPRABU V, AJITH V, et al. Hazard identification and risk assessment in firework industry[J]. Materials Today: Proceedings, 2022, 56: 1083-1085.
[8]	ANANDHAN M, PRABAHARAN T, MUHAIDHEEN M, et al. Fire safety assessment in manufacturing of fireworks products[J]. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 2018, 9: 1336-1345.
[9]	NALLATHAMBI I, RAMAR R, PUSTOKHIN D A, et al. Prediction of influencing atmospheric conditions for explosion Avoidance in fireworks manufacturing industry: a network approach[J]. Environmental Pollution, 2022, 304: DOI: 10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2022.119182.
[10]	席永涛, 张靓, 付姗姗, 等. 基于SFN-SD的北极冰区船舶航行风险传递路径研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(4): 52-60. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.04.0840
	XI Yongtao, ZHANG Liang, FU Shanshan, et al. Research on risk transfer path of ship navigation in Arctic waters based on SFN and SD[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(4): 52-60. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.04.0840
[11]	江新, 张腾飞, 陈婧, 等. 复杂系统视角下洞室施工人员安全认知仿真研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(2): 22-30. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.02.0995
	JANG Xin, ZHANG Tengfei, CHEN Jing, et al. Numerical study on safety cognition of cavern constructors from perspective of complex system[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(2): 22-30. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.02.0995
[12]	WANG Feiyue, WANG Xinyu, LIU Dingli, et al. Comprehensive safety risk evaluation of fireworks production enterprises using the frequency-based ANP and BPNN[J]. Heliyon, 2023, 9(11): DOI:10.1016/J.HELIYON.2023.E21724.
[13]	雷长群. 安全生产领域基本概念辨析及双重预防机制研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2017, 13(2): 17-21.
	LEI Changqun. Study on basic concepts discrimination and double prevention mechanism in the field of work safety[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2017, 13(2): 17-21.
[14]	卞斌彬, 黄玉庆, 刘志坚, 等. 基于双重预防机制的安全评价指标体系构建[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(增1): 45-50.
	BIAN Binbin, HUANG Yuqing, LIU Zhijian, et al. Construction of safety evaluation index system based on double prevention mechanism[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(S1): 45-50. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.S1.0283
[15]	杨慧敏, 石琴, 陈一锴, 等. 基于混合聚类的农村公路单车事故影响因素分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(8): 129-136. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.08.019
	YANG Huimin, SHI Qin, CHEN Yikai, et al. Influencing factors for single vehicle accidents on rural highways based on hybrid clustering approach[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(8): 129-136. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.08.019
[16]	LOSHCHILOV I, HUTTER F. Decoupled weight decay regularization[C]. International Conference on Learning Representations, 2017: DOI:10.48550/arXiv.1711.05101.
[17]	汪应洛. 系统工程(第五版)[M]. 北京: 机械工业出版社, 2019:80-100.
[18]	刘木森, 谷群远. 烟火药剂的机械撞击感度试验不确定度分析[J]. 流体测量与控制, 2022, 3(2): 49-51.
	LIU Musen, GU Qunyuan. Uncertainty analysis of mechanical impact sensitivity test of pyrotechnic agents[J]. Fluid Measurement & Control, 2022, 3(2): 49-51.

参数	较优值
(W₍₁₎)^T	-4.346 2	1.950 2	-1.053 1	0.752 4	-1.327 3
	4.461 9	1.999 6	1.187 7	-0.850 3	-2.185 9
	-1.925 6	-1.823 1	0.785	2.084 6	6.554 6
	-9.038 8	0.098 2	-0.560 2	-3.132 2	5.234 4
	4.073 8	-1.438 3	-0.102 6	1.100 8	2.702 2
	-5.696 6	2.788 3	0.860 6	2.519 3	-5.238 2
	5.551	1.420 7	0.648 9	-0.393 3	1.307 5
	3.671 8	-1.713 8	-0.861 1	-5.005 8	0.852 2
	1.439 8	-0.482 5	-2.049 3	-1.224 5	-1.710 4
	-1.784 5	0.397	1.478 8	4.069 7	1.639 7
	-3.274 3	2.350 7	-1.531 3	-0.668 3	-4.083 9
	4.794 5	-3.373 2	1.496 9	0.357 5	-2.066
	-4.932 3	-0.411 7	-0.444 4	1.57 8	3.622 7
	6.146 5	-3.215 9	1.116 3	2.964 5	-3.470 1
	0.022 6	0.624 3	-1.909	-4.295 4	-1.816 7
	-2.776 6	2.752 5	-1.520 3	0.667 4	-2.409 7
	-0.648 9	1.173 4	0.465 1	0.260 7	-1.239
	-1.620 1	2.920 1	1.096	0.095 3	-2.239 9
	-1.167 5	-4.827 1	-1.224 5	-1.269 9	1.704 3
	2.544 2	-0.496	0.889 8	2.787 4	-6.323 8
	-5.945 5	0.303	1.302 8	2.469 7	0.848 4
	-1.839	-2.674 3	-0.268 5	-2.48	3.367 2
	-0.007 1	1.690 7	-1.352 1	-0.537 8	-3.477 1
	-0.756 6	4.054 4	-0.365 9	-0.636 9	-0.493 9
	-1.701 3	4.418 7	0.334 5	-1.959 9	-1.134 8
	4.648 7	-2.434 6	2.682 7	1.231	4.790 1
	-1.527 9	-1.825 2	0.340 8	-1.356 4	0.873 2
W₍₂₎	-2.691 9	-2.420 2	4.450 9	-2.336 7	-2.039 1
(b₍₁₎)^T	2.908 7	-0.722 8	0.764 5	1.521 9	1.886 5
b₍₂₎	2.232 2

评价等级	评价值
低风险	[0, 0.002 0)
一般风险	[0.002 0, 0.056 0)
较大风险	[0.056 0, 0.176 0)
重大风险	[0.176 0, 1.000 0)