Research on coupling evolution path of gas explosion risks in coal mines

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.04.009

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to reveal evolution process of gas explosion risks in coal mines during accident development, firstly, risk factors were extracted through 5W analysis method by analyzing 289 gas explosion accident investigation reports, and then, they were classified based on interpretation structure model. Secondly, concept of risk coupling strength was defined by adopting Pearson algorithm, and risk coupling was analyzed by SPSS21.0. Finally, risk evolution paths were constructed according to temporal relationship and logical sequence among risk factors.The results show that the coupling intensity of spark generation and illegal firing is the largest for all the past gas explosion accidents. There are 9 strong coupling risk evolution paths, of which 3 are the shortest ones. The three key measures to prevent accidents are to control gas probe shortage, gas leakage detection and blasting flame.

Key words: gas explosion, risk coupling strength, risk transmission, evolution path, Pearson algorithm

CHENG Lianhua, GUO A'juan, GUO Huimin, CAO Dongqiang. Research on coupling evolution path of gas explosion risks in coal mines[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(4): 59-64.

Figures/Tables 6

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Tab.1

Fig.5

References 18

[1]	国家矿山安全监察局. 国家矿山安全监察局网站事故查询系统[EB/OL]. [2020-01-09]. https://www.chinamine-safety.gov.cn/xw/mkaqjcxw/202001/t20200109_343356.shtml.
[2]	TAREK Z, MOHAMED A. Assessing risk and uncertainty inherent in Chinese highway projects using AHP[J]. International Journal of Project Management, 2008, 26(4):408-419. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.05.012
[3]	LI Min, WANG Hetang, WANG Deming. et al. Risk assessment of gas explosion in coal mines based on fuzzy AHP and bayesian network[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2020, 135:207-218. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2020.01.003
[4]	SHI Long, WANG Jinhui, ZHANG Guomin. et al. A risk assessment method to quantitatively investigate the methane explosion in underground coal mine[J]. Process Safety & Environmental Protection, 2017, 107:317-333.
[5]	黄冬梅. 基于三类危险源分析的瓦斯爆炸事故灰色-层次评价[J]. 山东科技大学学报:自然科学版, 2017, 36(6):103-108.
	HUANG Dongmei. Grey-hierarchy evaluation of gas explosion accidents based on analysis of three kinds of hazards[J]. Journal of Shandong University of Science and Technology :Natural Science Edition, 2017, 36(6):103-108.
[6]	杜纯, 王瑛, 汪送, 等. 集成DEMATEL/ISM的复杂系统安全事故致因因素分析[J]. 数学的实践与认识, 2012, 42(22):143-150.
	DU Chun, WANG Ying, WANG Song, et al. Analysis of safety accident influence of factors of complex system based on the integration of DEMATEL and ISM[J]. Mathematics in Practice and Knowledge, 2012, 42(22):143-150.
[7]	皮子坤, 贾宝山, 贾廷贵, 等. 基于前景理论和区间数的煤矿瓦斯爆炸风险评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(6):91-96. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.06.016
	PI Zikun, JIA Baoshan, JIA Tinggui, et al. Assessment of risk of gas explosion in coal mine based on prospect theory and interval number[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2017, 27(6):91-96. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.06.016
[8]	曹吉鸣, 申良法, 彭为, 等. 风险链视角下建设项目进度风险评估[J]. 同济大学学报:自然科学版, 2015, 43(3):468-474.
	CAO Jiming. SHEN Liangfa, PENG Wei, et al. Novel Method for schedule risk assessment construction projects from the perspective of risk chain[J]. Journal of Tongji University :Natural Science Edition, 2015, 43(3):468-474.
[9]	RAJ T, SHANKAR R, SUHAIB M. An ISM approach for modeling the enablers of flexible manufacturing system: the case for India[J]. International Journal of Production Research, 2008, 46(24):6883-6912. doi: 10.1080/00207540701429926
[10]	鲁锦涛, 任利成, 戎丹, 等. 基于灰色-物元模型的煤矿瓦斯爆炸风险评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(2):99-105. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.02.014
	LU Jintao, REN Licheng, RONG Dan, et al. Assessment of coal mine gas explosion risk based on grey-matter element model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(2):99-105. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.02.014
[11]	成连华, 郑庆, 郭慧敏, 等. 基于累积效应的事故进程研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(12):35-39. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.12.006
	CHENG Lianhua, ZHENG Qing, GUO Huimin, et al. Research on accident process based on cumulative effect[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(12):35-39. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.12.006
[12]	李藐, 陈建国, 陈涛, 等. 突发事件的事件链概率模型[J]. 清华大学学报:自然科学版, 2000, 50(8):1173-1177.
	LI Miao, CHEN Jianguo, CHEN Tao, et al. Event chain probability model of emergencies[J]. Journal of Tsinghua University :Natural Science Edition, 2000, 50(8):1173-1177.
[13]	郭庆光. 传播学教程(第2版)[M]. 北京: 中国人民大学出版, 2011:51.
[14]	王瑛, 汪送, 管明露. 复杂系统风险传递与控制[M]. 北京: 国防工业出版社, 2015:1-56.
[15]	HUMPHREYS R K, PUTH M, NEUHAUSER M, et al. Underestimation of Pearson's product moment correlation statistic[J]. Oecologia, 2019, 189(1):1-7. doi: 10.1007/s00442-018-4233-0
[16]	彭应登, 杨明珍. 区域开发环境影响累积的特征与过程浅析[J]. 环境保护, 2001, 29(3):22-23,32.
	PENG Yingdeng, YANG Mingzhen. Study on the feature and process of impact accumulation of regional development[J]. Environmental Protection, 2001, 29(3):22-23,32.
[17]	刘全龙, 李新春. 煤矿瓦斯事故危险源分类及其耦合作用分析[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2012, 8(9):164-168.
	LIU Quanlong, LI Xinchun. Study on the classification and the coupling analysis of hazard source in coal gas accident[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2012, 8(9):164-168.
[18]	LAM C Y, CRUZ A M. Risk analysis for consumer levelutility gas and liquefied petroleum gas incidents using probabilistic network modeling: a case study of gas incidents in Japan[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2019, 185:198-212. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2018.12.008

变量	相关变量	耦合强度	变量	相关变量	耦合强度
违章指挥	电气火花	0.182	产生火源	违规放炮	-0.782^**
违章指挥	以包代管	-0.671^*		操作失误	0.278
违规作业	作业现场堆积物料	0.385		安全管理标识制度不健全	0.221
	安全培训不到位	0.560^*	安全检查制度不完善	隔爆设施使用不正确	-0.115
	安全意识淡薄	0.362		随意指挥强迫矿工执行	0.304
	作业现场照明不足	0.218		违法组织生产	0.231
	安全检查制度不完善	0.389^*		设备装置失爆	0.416^*
	无证上岗	0.421^*	设计生产不合理	风机故障	-0.113
通风不足	串联通风	0.131	设计生产不合理	采煤方法不正确	0.167
	作业空间狭小	0.128	未按图纸要求设计施工		0.336^*
	超能力生产	0.211	采空区空顶		0.271
	瓦斯含量超标	-0.332^*	静电火花		0.182
	风机未按规定检修和维护	0.113	文化建设不完善	未正确佩戴防护设备	-0.115
	地表塌陷区与井下连通	0.211		工作时间脱岗	-0.431^*
设备失爆	压力变化	0.098		误接放炮母线	0.261
	未制定设备维修制度	0.123	使用无资质人员		-0.386^*
	违规多布置采掘工作面	0.345^*	安全投入不足	安全管理人员配备不合理	0.213
瓦斯积聚	抽放管路未按规定设计、安装	0.331^*	安全投入不足	未佩戴安全防护用品	-0.552^**
	指挥者未持证上岗	-0.228	安全检查不到位	未对违规行为及时的制止	0.343^*
	事故隐患排查制度不完善	-0.116		放炮方式不合理	0.105
	安全教育不明显	0.225		放炮母线用其他线代替	0.116
	瓦斯漏检	0.303^*		风路堵塞	0.226
	煤层自身构造变化	0.152		随意开关风门	0.418^*
	瓦斯探头不足	0.441^*		防爆外壳有裂纹	-0.109
	违章爆破	0.104		煤炭自燃	-0.218
	风筒破损	-0.237		煤层掩埋深度发生改变	0.302^*