Evaluation method for major accident hazards based on accident tree analysis

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.06.1414

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to enhance the precision of the criteria for identifying major accident hazards, an evaluation method for major accident hazards based on ATA was proposed. This method systematically applied evaluation tools such as the risk matrix and accident tree analysis to determine high-risk and above accidents through accident risk classification and used as the top event for ATA. The accident tree was simplified using Boolean algebra rules to obtain the ranking of the structural importance of each basic event that could induce the accident. According to the "80/20 Rule", the top 20% of basic events with the highest structural importance were identified to determine the core events that could lead to the accident, which were then regarded as major accident hazards for precise control. A case study on high-rise building fires was conducted for validation. The results demonstrate that the failure of the automatic fire alarm system has the highest structural importance in the fire accident tree of high-rise buildings through ATA. It should be judged as a major fire hazard clause of high-rise buildings. Therefore, the evaluation method for major accident hazards based on accident tree analysis can effectively determine the criteria for identifying major accident hazards.

Key words: accident tree analysis(ATA), major accident hazards, evaluation method, accident risk classification, high-rise building fires

CLC Number:

X921安全管理(劳动保护)方针、政策及其阐述

YUAN Fanyu, MI Qin, CHEN Jie, XIAO Kangming. Evaluation method for major accident hazards based on accident tree analysis[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2025, 35(6): 37-41.

Figures/Tables 6

Fig.1

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Fig.2

Fig.3

References 18

[1]	国务院安委会办公室印发《标本兼治遏制重特大事故工作指南》[J]. 中国应急管理, 2016(4): 50-51.
[2]	曹杨, 胡忠前, 吕松松, 等. 海洋石油重大事故隐患判定标准依据探析[J]. 天然气与石油, 2021, 39(4): 110-116.
	CAO Yang, HU Zhongqian, LYU Songsong, et al. Study on the identification basis of potential hazards in major offshore oil incidents[J]. Natural Gas and Oil, 2021, 39(4): 110-116.
[3]	曹杨. 我国海洋石油事故隐患分类与分级研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(增1): 42-46.
	CAO Yang. Classification and gradation of hidden dangers of offshore oil in China[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(S1): 42-46. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.S1.1623
[4]	贺泰霖. 油气储运事故隐患的辨识分析及管控方法研究[D]. 北京: 中国地质大学(北京), 2016.
	HE Tailin. Identification analysis and control methods of accident potential hazards in oil and gas storage and transportation[D]. Beijing: China University of Geosciences (Beijing), 2016.
[5]	原国家安全生产监督管理总局. 安全生产事故隐患排查治理暂行规定[EB/OL].(2007-12-28). https://www.mem.gov.cn/gk/zfxxgkpt/fdzdgknr/gz11/200712/t20071228_405675.shtml.
[6]	李倩. 上海市重大事故隐患分级评价方法的研究[C]. 全国第二次安全科学技术学术交流大会论文集, 2002: 236-240.
[7]	万古军. 基于风险值的中国石化安全风险量化分级管控[J]. 安全、健康和环境, 2018, 18(1): 40-43.
	WAN Gujun. Quantitative and classified control of SINOPEC safety risk based on risk value[J]. Safety Health & Environment, 2018, 18(1): 40-43.
[8]	中华人民共和国国务院. 生产安全事故报告和调查处理条例[EB/OL].(2007-04-09). https://flk.npc.gov.cn/detail2.html?ZmY4MDgwODE2ZjNlOThiZDAxNmY0MWY1YjI2ODAyM2Y.
[9]	GB/T 23694—2024,风险管理术语[S].
	GB/T 23694-2024,Risk management: vocabulary[S].
[10]	张明广, 蒋军成. 基于层次分析法的重大危险源模糊综合评价[J]. 南京工业大学学报:自然科学版, 2006, 28(2): 31-34.
	ZHANG Mingguang, JIANG Juncheng. Application of analytical hierarchy process in hazard degree assessment of major hazard installations[J]. Journal of Nanjing Tech University:Natural Science Edition, 2006, 28(2): 31-34.
[11]	张梦欣. 安全评价师(第2版)[M]. 北京: 中国劳动社会保障出版社, 2010: 134.
[12]	韩光, 赵春雪, 宋晨. 一种基于最小割集的故障树分析模型研究和算法实现[J]. 中国管理信息化, 2021, 24(20): 180-183.
[13]	陈耀华. 故障树分析法在项目安全风险评估中的应用[J]. 价值工程, 2014, 33(9): 142-144.
	CHEN Yaohua. Application of fault tree analysis in project safety risk assessment[J]. Value Engineering, 2014, 33(9): 142-144.
[14]	焦航翀. 事故树分析在基坑支护工程施工预防失稳坍塌中的应用[J]. 市政技术, 2015, 33(2): 188-191.
	JIAO Hangchong. FTA application for collapse prevention in foundation pit protection[J]. Journal of Municipal Technology, 2015, 33(2): 188-191.
[15]	崔政斌, 刘炳安, 周礼庆. 安全生产十大定律与方法[M]. 北京: 化学工业出版社, 2017: 8-10.
[16]	张召冉, 谷宗贺, 张远悦. 基于事故树的高层建筑火灾分析及预防研究[J]. 山西建筑, 2024, 50(7): 188-190.
	ZHANG Zhaoran, GU Zonghe, ZHANG Yuanyue. Analysis and prevention of high-rise building fire based on fault tree analysis[J]. Shanxi Architecture, 2024, 50(7): 188-190.
[17]	郑乐. 高层建筑火灾风险分析及对策研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2009, 19(10):72-76.
	ZHENG Le. Risk analysis of high-rise building fire and its countermeasures[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2009, 19(10): 72-76.
[18]	王燕, 尹盼盼, 沈梦露. 基于事故树的铁路客运站火灾风险因素分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(增1): 44-47.
	WANG Yan, YIN Panpan, SHEN Menglu. Fire risk factors analysis of large railway passenger station based on fault tree analysis[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(S1): 44-47. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.S1.009

P指标	等级确定参考依据
不易发生	极不可能发生[该行业、领域在固定周期内(≥10年)未曾发生过类似事故]
偶尔发生	较小可能发生,但不经常[该行业、领域在固定周期内(6~10年)曾经发生过类似事故]
时有发生	可能发生,发生频次较高[该行业、领域在固定周期内(3~5年)曾经发生过类似事故]
经常发生	相当可能[该行业、领域在固定周期内(1~2年)曾数次发生类似事故]

S指标	等级确定参考依据(伤亡人数或经济损失)
一般损失	3人以下死亡,或10人以下重伤,或1 000万元以下直接经济损失
较大损失	3人(含)以上10人以下死亡,或10人(含)以上50人以下重伤,或1 000万元(含)以上5 000万元以下直接经济损失
重大损失	10人(含)以上30人以下死亡,或50人(含)以上100人以下重伤,或5 000万元(含)以上1亿元以下直接经济损失
特别重大损失	30人(含)以上死亡,或100人(含)以上重伤,或1亿元(含)以上直接经济损失

P	S
P	一般损失	较大损失	重大损失	特别重大损失
不易发生	Ⅰ	Ⅰ	Ⅰ	Ⅱ
偶尔发生	Ⅰ	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ
时有发生	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ
经常发生	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ	Ⅴ