Process risk prevention and control analysis for confined space operations based on improved ISM-FRAM-AHP

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.09.1313

Abstract

Abstract:

To address the issues of ambiguous multi-level, multi-link and multi-functional interaction relationships and the adverse coupling effects during operations in confined spaces, FRAM was introduced. Combined with ISM and AHP, the hierarchical structure and judgment methods were optimized and improved. By dividing the risk hierarchical structure, the impact of system function coupling variability was quantified, and the importance of functional units and hierarchical structures was calculated. Through the results of functional variability and coupling loss degree, the input-output phenotype of upstream and downstream functional changes were determined, and the coupling mechanism among system functional elements was clarified. The results show that by applying the risk prevention and control model for operations in confined spaces based on the improved ISM-FRAM-AHP, 23 functional units and a 10-layer risk hierarchical functional network are obtained. The maximum values of functional variability and coupling loss degree are 4.36 (external environment F₂₃) and 0.808 4 (formulating operation plans F₂), indicating a relatively high operation safety risk degree. The functional changes are mainly manifested in sequence, goal and control. Four effective functional barrier measures, physical, symbolic, functional and invisible, are proposed for 8 failure links.

Key words: interpretive structural modeling (ISM), functional resonance analysis method (FRAM), analytic hierarchy process (AHP), confined space operations, operation process, risk prevention and control, hierarchical structure, coupling variation

CLC Number:

X924.4安全控制技术

WANG Hanyu, TAN Qinwen, LIU Juan, LI Shuanglu, TIAN Zhongwei, CHEN Chao. Process risk prevention and control analysis for confined space operations based on improved ISM-FRAM-AHP[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(9): 165-173.

Figures/Tables 16

Fig.1

Fig.2

Table 1

Fig.1

Fig.4

Table 2

Fig.5

Fig.6

Table 3

Table 4

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

References 18

[1]	王新平, 文豪, 苏畅. 动态溢出奖惩机制下有限空间作业人员不安全行为博弈研究[J]. 矿业安全与环保, 2023, 50(2):130-135.
	WANG Xinping, WEN Hao, SU Chang. Game research on unsafe behavior of operators in limited space under dynamic overflow reward and punishment mechanism[J]. Mining Safety & Environmental Protection, 2023, 50(2): 130-135.
[2]	中华人民共和国应急管理部. 《工贸企业有限空间作业安全规定》解读[EB/OL]. (2023-12-12). https://www.mem.gov.cn/gk/zcjd/202312/t20231212_471584.shtml.
[3]	刘艳, 杨春丽. 有限空间作业事故特征及其原因分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(3):141-146. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.03.025
	LIU Yan, YANG Chunli. Characteristics and causes of accident in confined spaces[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2017, 27(3): 141-146. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.03.025
[4]	曹璐璐, 刘艳. 有限空间作业人员不安全心理及行为量表研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(11):37-42. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2020.11.006
	CAO Lulu, LIU Yan. Research on unsafe mentality and behavior scales of workers in confined space[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(11): 37-42. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2020.11.006
[5]	曹璐璐, 刘艳. 有限空间作业人员不安全心理与行为关系研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(6):70-75. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.06.009
	CAO Lulu, LIU Yan. Research on relationship between unsafe psychology and behavior of workers in confined space[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(6): 70-75. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.06.009
[6]	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
[7]	汪圣华, 贾波, 陈文杰, 等. 有限空间作业动态风险评估模型研究与应用[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(8):87-92. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.08.015
	WANG Shenghua, JIA Bo, CHEN Wenjie, et al. Research on model for assessment of dynamic risk in confined space working and its application[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2018, 28(8): 87-92. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.08.015
[8]	宋思雨, 徐克, 张贝, 等. 基于ISM的有限空间作业中毒事故风险分析[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2019, 26(2):140-144.
	SONG Siyu, XU Ke, ZHANG Bei, et al. Risk analysis of poisoning accidents in confined space operations based on ISM[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2019, 26(2): 140-144.
[9]	杨春丽, 刘艳, 秦妍, 等. 市政有限空间气体危害因素检测及作业安全风险评估[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2019, 19(3):931-937.
	YANG Chunli, LIU Yan, QIN Yan, et al. On monitoring of the gas hazards in the municipal confined space and assessment of the corresponding risk[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2019, 19(3): 931-937.
[10]	BOTTI L, DURACCIO V, GNONI M G, et al. An integrated holistic approach to health and safety in confined spaces[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in The Process Industries, 2018, 55: 25-35.
[11]	SELMAN J, SPICKETT J, JANSZ J, et al. Confined space rescue: a proposed procedure to reduce the risks[J]. Safety Science, 2019, 113: 78-90. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.11.017
[12]	BURLET-VIENNEY D, CHINNIAH Y, BAHLOUL A, et al. Design and application of a 5 step risk assessment tool for confined space entries[J]. Safety Science, 2015,80: 144-155.
[13]	PATRIARCA R, GRAVIO G, WOLTJER R, et al. Framing the FRAM: a literature review on the functional resonance analysis method[J]. Safety Science, 2020, 129: 1-23.
[14]	HOLLNAGEL E. Barriers and accident prevention[M]. London: Routledge, 2016: 34-56.
[15]	高扬, 徐佳迪, 武文涛, 等. 基于FRAM-AHP法的公务航空飞行事故分析[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2019, 19(3):754-760.
	GAO Yang, XU Jiadi, WU Wentao, et al. Analysis for the accidents of business aviation flight based on the FRAM-AHP method[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2019, 19(3): 754-760.
[16]	陈芳, 陈茜. 基于FRAM的进近管制安全分析[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2020, 20(5):1788-1794.
	CHEN Fang, CHEN Xi. System safety analysis for the approach control based on the FRAM method[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2020, 20(5): 1788-1794.
[17]	胡甚平, 焦喜鑫, 张欣欣, 等. 复杂性系统视角下船员不安全行为功能共振分析模型[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2023, 23(4):1177-1184.
	HU Shenping, JIAO Xixin, ZHANG Xinxin, et al. A functional resonance analysis model of crew unsafe act in a complex systems perspective[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2023, 23(4): 1177-1184.
[18]	应急管理部办公厅关于印发《有限空间作业安全指导手册》和4个专题系列折页的通知[EB/OL]. (2020-10-29). https://www.mem.gov.cn/gk/tzgg/tz/202010/t20201030_371153.shtml.

功能参数	功能描述
输入I	通过有限空间作业方案
输出O	审批通过,授权批准作业
控制C	有限空间作业审批程序和制度
资源R	有限空间作业生产安全投入资金
前提P	负责人具有相应审批资质
时间T	审批所需要的时间

输出变化表型	功能可变性表征	评分
时间	准时	1
	过早	3
	过晚	3
	不发生	4
精度	精确	1
	可接受	2
	不精确	3

功能单元	F₁	F₂	F₃	F₄	F₅	F₆	F₇	F₈	F₉	F₁₀	F₁₁
结构重要度	0.175 9	0.213 3	0.204 0	0.136 0	0.119 2	0.050 0	0.011 7	0.013 6	0.015 0	0.008 6	0.029 0
功能单元	F₁₂	F₁₃	F₁₄	F₁₅	F₁₆	F₁₇	F₁₈	F₁₉	F₂₀	F₂₁	F₂₃
结构重要度	0.010 4	0.014 1	0.068 3	0.049 0	0.007 2	0.012 0	0.024 1	0.004 8	0.005 5	0.002 9	0.090 0

功能单元	力量/距离/方向E	时机/持续时间D	顺序S	目标H	主要表型
F₁	0.055 0	0.263 4	0.117 8	0.563 8	H
F₂	0.046 8	0.160 0	0.396 6	0.396 6	S、H
F₃	0.174 1	0.065 4	0.102 3	0.658 2	H
F₄	0.055 2	0.138 9	0.532 5	0.273 4	S
F₅	0.062 1	0.087 8	0.293 4	0.556 8	H
F₆	0.050 0	0.102 5	0.423 7	0.423 7	S、H
F₇	0.472 3	0.285 4	0.169 7	0.072 5	E
F₈	0.049 1	0.267 0	0.540 5	0.143 4	S
F₉	0.253 7	0.140 4	0.083 5	0.522 5	H
F₁₀	0.055 0	0.117 8	0.563 8	0.263 4	S
F₁₁	0.055 5	0.580 3	0.302 7	0.061 5	D
F₁₂	0.060 8	0.621 8	0.253 1	0.064 3	D
F₁₃	0.059 9	0.586 8	0.293 4	0.059 9	D
F₁₄	0.055 7	0.168 6	0.134 1	0.641 7	H
F₁₅	0.053 0	0.129 8	0.580 3	0.236 9	S
F₁₆	0.092 8	0.601 5	0.055 9	0.249 8	D
F₁₇	0.115 8	0.258 9	0.052 3	0.573 0	H
F₁₈	0.050 3	0.302 6	0.500 2	0.146 9	S
F₁₉	0.056 5	0.309 4	0.492 1	0.142 1	S
F₂₀	0.116 0	0.271 5	0.062 8	0.549 7	H
F₂₁	0.049 3	0.131 3	0.530 7	0.288 6	S
F₂₃	0.238 3	0.630 6	0.065 5	0.065 5	D

功能单元	输入I	资源R	前提P	时间T	控制C	主要表型
F₂	0.070 0	0.295 7	0.115 0	0.044 5	0.474 8	C
F₄	0.103 6	0.485 7	0.074 1	0.050 2	0.286 5	R
F₅	0.064 0	0.320 6	0.096 5	0.039 7	0.479 3	C
F₆	0.072 2	0.125 8	0.267 8	0.032 2	0.502 0	C
F₇	0.146 2	0.383 1	0.032 0	0.055 6	0.383 1	R、C
F₈	0.105 6	0.302 3	0.073 3	0.034 9	0.483 9	C
F₉	0.121 7	0.293 1	0.078 0	0.036 7	0.470 5	C
F₁₀	0.070 1	0.298 6	0.493 6	0.030 6	0.107 2	P
F₁₁	0.073 0	0.291 1	0.040 7	0.121 5	0.473 8	C
F₁₂	0.460 5	0.082 6	0.041 4	0.271 6	0.143 9	I
F₁₃	0.463 1	0.130 0	0.042 9	0.288 8	0.074 7	I
F₁₄	0.132 4	0.303 3	0.064 7	0.033 6	0.466 0	C
F₁₅	0.357 5	0.097 2	0.357 5	0.037 2	0.150 5	I、P
F₁₆	0.152 7	0.372 5	0.067 3	0.034 9	0.372 5	R、C
F₁₇	0.288 7	0.288 7	0.098 5	0.035 3	0.288 7	I、R、C
F₁₈	0.350 0	0.181 5	0.083 0	0.035 6	0.350 0	I、C
F₁₉	0.507 0	0.055 8	0.104 0	0.055 8	0.277 3	I
F₂₀	0.304 4	0.041 8	0.469 3	0.041 8	0.142 8	P
F₂₁	0.129 6	0.063 6	0.510 0	0.032 9	0.263 8	P
F₂₂	0.212 4	0.137 7	0.536 6	0.032 5	0.080 8	P