Construction and application of

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.08.2125

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to improve the safety of the production process, in-depth research on accidents with human error as the main and machine failure as the second was carried out. Based on Lawrence accident model (L), behavioral safety "2-4" model (B), trace intersection theory, and accident cumulative effect theory, combined with safety ergonomics and other related knowledge, "L-B" man-machine accident model was constructed, and the actual case was analyzed. The results show that the accident model includes seven stages: work stage, hidden danger stage, trigger stage, occurrence stage, emergency stage, calm stage and recovery stage, analyzes the causes of accidents from various angles and illustrates the development characteristics of accidents from the beginning of production activities to the occurrence of accidents later, which can provide a reference for enterprises to formulate safety measures.

Key words: "L-B" man-machine accident model, lawrence accident model, "24Model", trace intersecting theory, safety ergonomics

DONG Longjun, ZHENG Rujian, DENG Sijia. Construction and application of "L-B" man-machine accident model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(8): 1-8.

Figures/Tables 10

Tab.1

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Tab.2

Fig.4

Tab.3

Fig.5

Fig.6

References 18

[1]	DEKKER S W A. Accidents are normal and human error does not exist: a new look at the creation of occupational safety[J]. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 2003, 9(2): 211-218. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2003.11076564
[2]	CHEN Yuanjiang, FENG Wei, JIANG Zhiqiang, et al. An accident causation model based on safety information cognition and its application[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2021, 207: DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2020.107363. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2020.107363
[3]	MA Ying, WANG Rui. Human error evaluation model of civil aviation maintenance based on grey wolf optimizer[J]. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2021, 1848(1):DOI:10.1088/1742-6596/1848/1/012111.
[4]	REINACH S, VIALE A. Application of a human error framework to conduct train accident/incident investigations[J]. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2006, 38(2): 396-406. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2005.10.013
[5]	陈静, 曹庆贵, 刘音. 煤矿事故人失误模型及系统动力学分析[J]. 煤矿安全, 2011, 42(5): 167-169.
	CHEN Jing, CAO Qinggui, LIU Yin. The model of personnel errors in mine accident and analysis of related system dynamics[J]. Safety In Coal Mines, 2011, 42(5): 167-169.
[6]	YOON Y S, HAM D H, YOON W C. Application of activity theory to analysis of human-related accidents: method and case studies[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2016, 150: 22-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2016.01.013
[7]	吴超. 《安全科学原理》新教材及其在线课程的建设经验[J]. 安全, 2020, 41(7): 25-31.
	WU Chao. Experiences of writing new textbook of principles of safety and security science and constructing its online course[J]. Safety & Security, 2020, 41(7): 25-31.
[8]	HEINRICH H W. Industrial accident prevention. a scientific approach[M]. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1941:12-18.
[9]	SURRY J. Industrial accident research: a human engineering appraisal[D]. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1969.
[10]	JOHNSON W C. Mort: the management over sight and risk tree[J]. Journal of Safety Research, 1975, 7(1):4-15.
[11]	钱新明, 陈宝智. 事故致因的突变模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 1995, 5(2):1-4.
	QIAN Xinming, CHEN Baozhi. The catastrophe model for accident-causing[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 1995, 5(2):1-4.
[12]	杨宏刚, 赵江平, 郭进平, 等. 人-机系统事故预防理论研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2009, 19(2):21-26.
	YANG Honggang, ZHAO Jiangping, GUO Jinping, et al. Research on accident prevention theory in man-machine system[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2009, 19(2):21-26.
[13]	CHEN Wenying. A quantitative fuzzy causal model for hazard analysis of man-machine-environment system[J]. Safety Science, 2014, 62: 475-482. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.10.001
[14]	隋鹏程, 陈宝智, 隋旭. 安全原理[M]. 北京: 化学工业出版社, 2005:15-18.
[15]	傅贵, 陈奕燃, 许素睿, 等. 事故致因"2-4"模型的内涵解析及第6版的研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(1):12-19. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.01.002
	FU Gui, CHEN Yiran, XU Surui, et al. Detailed explanations of 24Model and development of its 6^thversion[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(1): 12-19. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.01.002
[16]	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
[17]	FU Gui, XIE Xuecai, JIA Qingsong, et al. The development history of accident causation models in the past 100 years: 24Model, a more modern accident causation model[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2020, 134: 47-82. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2019.11.027
[18]	山东省应急管理厅. 烟台招远曹家洼金矿"2·17"较大火灾事故调查报告[EB/OL].(2021-07-09).

3大时期	7小阶段	基本内涵
事前	作业阶段	生产活动持续进行、各类设备持续运转以及人员在岗工作
事前	隐患阶段	生产活动过程中出现各种不安全行为或不安全状态,但未被察觉或未受重视,生产活动仍继续进行
事中	触发阶段	生产活动过程中各种不安全因素逐渐积累"汇聚",达到事故发生临界点
	发生阶段	承接触发阶段,事态恶化,导致生产中断甚至人员伤亡
	应急阶段	相关部门人员为迅速控制事态、营救受害人员、恢复现场秩序而开展紧急救援行动
事后	平息阶段	事态基本得到控制但现场秩序仍处于混乱中
事后	恢复阶段	秩序逐渐恢复、周围环境安全、生产有序进行

元素	基本内涵
危险	使人受到伤害的可能
事故	使正常生产活动中断的意外事件
伤害	使行为人受到身体或心理上的损伤
隐患	作业现场存在的各种不安全因素

元素	基本内涵
模糊因素	促进危险伤害到行为人的各种不确定性因素
安全行为	行为人完全按照作业安全规程要求进行的作业动作
安全状态	设备的各项性能以及安全装置等均处于正常的工作条件
不安全行为	行为人表现出的能够引起事故的作业失误
不安全状态	设备表现出的能够引起事故的物质条件

状态	基本内涵
安全	生产活动能够持续健康进行,总体生产形势优
较安全	生产活动能够顺利进行,但存在一些不安全因素,总体生产形势良
稍不安全	生产活动中断,不会造成人员伤害,但有较低的倾向性,总体生产形势差
较不安全	生产活动中断,不会造成人员伤害,但有较高的倾向性,总体生产形势很差
不安全	生产活动中断,造成人员伤亡,总体生产形势极差