Multi-evidence fusion comprehensive evaluation of importance of safety accident causation in hydropower project construction

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.03.0795

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to determine the main causes of construction safety accidents in hydroelectric projects, take targeted safety precautions to reduce potential safety hazards and reduce the probability of safety accidents, a multi-evidence fusion fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method for the importance of accident causes was proposed. A total of 306 typical accident cases were collected for cause analysis, and 23 accident cause indexes under fourrisk factors of human, material, management and environment were summarized to construct the evaluation index system of safety accident cause. The interval analytic hierarchy process (IAHP) and fuzzy set evaluation method were used to determine the weights of risk factors and cause indexes respectively, and then a multi-evidence comprehensive evaluation model based on expert group decision making and Dempster-Shafer (D-S) evidence fusion theory was established, and an example analysis was carried out. The results show that human factors and material factors are the main factors leading to accidents, the causes of accidents such as illegal operation, unsafe position, risk-taking psychology, no protective measures, and the use of unsafe measures account for a large weight, when taking safety prevention and control measures, the above factors should be considered.

Key words: hydropower engineering, construction safety, accident causes, importance, Dempster-Shafer(D-S) evidence fusion, comprehensive evaluation

ZHOU Shijie, LIU Donghai, JIN Rui. Multi-evidence fusion comprehensive evaluation of importance of safety accident causation in hydropower project construction[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(3): 103-110.

Figures/Tables 9

Fig.1

Fig.2

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Tab.5

Fig.3

Tab.6

References 16

[1]	陈述, 申浩播, 郑霞忠, 等. 大坝浇筑立体交叉作业空间竞争程度研究[J]. 水力发电学报, 2018, 37(7): 106-112.
	CHEN Shu, SHEN Haobo, ZHENG Xiazhong, et al. Competition of spatial conflict strength during cross operation of dam construction[J]. Journal of Hydroelectric Engineering, 2018, 37(7): 106-112.
[2]	朱庆, 王所智, 丁雨淋, 等. 铁路隧道钻爆法施工智能管理的安全质量进度知识图谱构建方法[J]. 武汉大学学报:信息科学版, 2022, 47(8): 1155-1164.
	ZHU Qing, WANG Suozhi, DING Yulin, et al. A method of safety-quality-schedule knowledge graph for intelligent management of drilling and blasting construction of railway tunnels[J]. Geomatics and Information Science of Wuhan University, 2022, 47(8): 1 155-1 164.
[3]	王晶, 樊运晓, 高远. 基于HFACS模型的化工事故致因分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(9): 81-86. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.09.014
	WANG Jing, FAN Yunxiao, GAO Yuan. Analysis of causes of accidents in chemical industry[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2018, 28(9): 81-86. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.09.014
[4]	周毅, 赵晓刚. 基于区间层次分析法的石油库防火防爆安全评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2011, 21(12): 58-63.
	ZHOU Yi, ZHAO Xiaogang. Safety assessment for fire and explosion of petroleum depot based on IAHP[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2011, 21(12): 58-63.
[5]	刘芮葭. 煤矿瓦斯爆炸危险性的灰类-IAHP评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2016, 26(5): 99-104.
	LIU Ruijia. Greyclustering-IAHP evaluation of danger of coal mine gas explosion[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2016, 26(5): 99-104.
[6]	LI Fengwei, PHOON Kok Kwang, DU Xiuli, et al. Improved AHP method and its application in risk identification[J]. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2013, 139(3): 312-320. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000605
[7]	仝瑞刚, 曹庆贵, 宋洁, 等. 基于组合赋权-集对分析的煤矿煤尘爆炸危险性评价研究[J]. 中国矿业, 2020, 29(5):97-102.
	TONG Ruigang, CAO Qinggui, SONG Jie, et al. Study on coal dust explosion risk assessment in coal mine based on combination weighting-set pair analysis[J]. China Mining Magazine, 2020, 29(5): 97-102.
[8]	肖遥, 张东胜, 董博恺. 基于IAHP和模糊综合评判的企业安全风险预警系统研究[J]. 北京化工大学学报:自然科学版, 2020, 47(5): 109-117.
	XIAO Yao, ZHANG Dongsheng, DONG Bokai. An enterprise safety risk early warning system based on an interval analytic hierarchy process (IAHP) and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation[J]. Journal of Beijing University of Chemical Technology :Natural Science, 2020, 47(5): 109-117.
[9]	ZHANG Xiao, ZHANG Wei, JIANG Ling, et al. Identification of critical causes of tower-crane accidents through system thinking and case analysis[J]. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2020, 146(7): DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001860. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001860
[10]	孙志禹, 周剑岚, 宋四新. 基于贝叶斯理论的工程施工事故发生的人为因素分析[J]. 水力发电学报, 2014, 33(1): 241-245.
	SUN Zhiyu, ZHOU Jianlan, SONG Sixin. Human factor analysis of engineering construction accidents based on Bayesian theory[J]. Journal of Hydroelectric Engineering, 2014, 33(1): 241-245.
[11]	张清华, 王进, 王国胤. 粗糙模糊集的近似表示[J]. 计算机学报, 2015, 38(7): 1484-1496.
	ZHANG Qinghua, WANG Jin, WANG Guoyin. The approximate representation of rough-fuzzy sets[J]. Chinese Journal of Computers, 2015, 38(7): 1484-1496.
[12]	曲珩斌. 基于IAHP和专家群决策的桥式起重机安全评价[J]. 重庆理工大学学报:自然科学, 2019, 33(5): 78-83.
	QU Hengbin. Safety evaluation of bridge crane based on interval analytic hierarchy process and expert group decision making[J]. Journal of Chongqing University of Technology:Natural Science, 2019, 33(5): 78-83.
[13]	贾进章, 陈怡诺, 柯丁琳. 基于模糊集和改进D-S证据理论的危化品道路运输体系贝叶斯网络风险分析[J]. 北京化工大学学报:自然科学版, 2020, 47(1): 38-45.
	JIA Jinzhang, CHEN Yinuo, KE Dinglin. Risk analysis of a Bayesian network for harmful chemicals road transportation systems based on fuzzy sets and improved Dempster-Shafer (D-S) evidence theory[J]. Journal of Beijing University of Chemical Technology:Natural Science, 2020, 47(1): 38-45.
[14]	夏柠萍, 杨高升. 建筑施工特种作业安全影响因素辨识[J]. 土木工程与管理学报, 2016, 33(6): 125-129.
	XIA Ningping, YANG Gaosheng. Identification of safety impact factors of special operations in construction[J]. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 2016, 33(6): 125-129.
[15]	晋良海, 张荣坤, 郑霞忠, 等. 隧洞钻孔作业工效及低位作业姿势研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2016, 26(4): 66-71.
	JIN Lianghai, ZHANG Rongkun, ZHENG Xiazhong, et al. Research on simulation of drilling work posture and optimization of c lowing work posture for tunnel[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2016, 26(4): 66-71.
[16]	陶秋香, 涂继亮, 陶永辉. 基于PFMEA技术及专家群决策的工艺失效风险评估[J]. 计算机应用与软件, 2018, 35(2): 60-64,140.
	TAO Qiuxiang, TU Jiliang, TAO Yonghui. Process failure risk assessment based on PFMEA and expert group decision making[J]. Computer Applications and Software, 2018, 35(2): 60-64,140.

标度	含义
1	表示2个因素相比,具有同等重要性
3	表示2个因素相比,前者比后者稍微重要
5	表示2个因素相比,前者比后者明显重要
7	表示2个因素相比,前者比后者强烈重要
9	表示2个因素相比,前者比后者极端重要
2,4,6,8	表示上述相邻判断标度的中间值

专家	A	B₁	B₂	B₃	B₄	α, β	M_ij(k)
1	B₁	[1,1]	[3,4]	[3,5]	[3,4]	α=0.914 β=1.041	[0.282 8, 0.336 9]
	B₂	[1/4,1/3]	[1,1]	[1,3]	[4,5]		[0.253 5, 0.297 2]
	B₃	[1/5,1/3]	[1/3,1]	[1,1]	[4,5]		[0.250 2, 0.278 6]
	B₄	[1/4,1/3]	[1/5,1/4]	[1/5,1/4]	[1,1]		[0.127 1, 0.128 7]
2	B₁	[1,1]	[3,5]	[3,5]	[4,6]	α=0.912 β=1.045	[0.302 3, 0.366 7]
	B₂	[1/5,1/3]	[1,1]	[3,4]	[3,5]		[0.259 6, 0.305 8]
	B₃	[1/5,1/3]	[1/4,1/3]	[1,1]	[3,4]		[0.221 6, 0.244 6]
	B₄	[1/6,1/4]	[1/5,1/3]	[1/4,1/3]	[1,1]		[0.127 8, 0.128 1]
3	B₁	[1,1]	[2,3]	[5,6]	[7,8]	α=0.949 β=1.035	[0.333 3, 0.362 1]
	B₂	[1/3,1/2]	[1,1]	[4,5]	[6,7]		[0.301 8, 0.329 3]
	B₃	[1/6,1/5]	[1/5,1/4]	[1,1]	[3,4]		[0.199 2, 0.227 4]
	B₄	[1/8,1/7]	[1/7,1/6]	[1/4,1/3]	[1,1]		[0.114 5, 0.116 0]
4	B₁	[1,1]	[1,2]	[5,6]	[7,8]	α=0.922 β=1.069	[0.332 2, 0.380 7]
	B₂	[1/2,1]	[1,1]	[3,4]	[5,6]		[0.274 2, 0.322 4]
	B₃	[1/6,1/5]	[1/4,1/3]	[1,1]	[3,4]		[0.200 5, 0.242 0]
	B₄	[1/8,1/7]	[1/6,1/5]	[1/4,1/3]	[1,1]		[0.115 4, 0.123 7]
5	B₁	[1,1]	[5,7]	[4,5]	[4,6]	α=0.932 β=1.019	[0.341 0, 0.356 5]
	B₂	[1/7,1/5]	[1,1]	[1/7,1/5]	[1,3]		[0.147 7, 0.195 7]
	B₃	[1/5,1/4]	[5,7]	[1,1]	[4,6]		[0.314 7, 0.334 5]
	B₄	[1/6,1/4]	[1/3,1]	[1/6,1/4]	[1,1]		[0.128 4, 0.132 6]

A	d₁₂	d₁₃	d₁₄	d₁₅	d₂₃	d₂₄	d₂₅	d₃₄	d₃₅	d₄₅
B₁	0.049 0	0.037 8	0.046 6	0.038 9	0.011 1	0.002 4	0.014 2	0.009 8	0.006 7	0.016 5
B₂	0.049 2	0.040 2	0.023 0	0.103 6	0.009 0	0.026 3	0.152 8	0.017 3	0.143 9	0.126 6
B₃	0.093 2	0.051 1	0.043 1	0.060 2	0.042 1	0.050 1	0.153 4	0.008 0	0.111 3	0.103 3
B₄	0.015 0	0.012 7	0.008 4	0.002 6	0.027 7	0.023 4	0.012 4	0.004 3	0.015 3	0.011 0

A	S_i(1)	S_i(2)	S_i(3)	S_i(4)	S_i(5)	ρ_i(1)	ρ_i(2)	ρ_i(3)	ρ_i(4)	ρ_i(5)
B₁	0.958 7	0.981 2	0.983 9	0.981 5	0.981 3	0.196 2	0.200 8	0.201 3	0.200 9	0.200 8
B₂	0.948 8	0.944 0	0.950 0	0.954 0	0.883 6	0.202 7	0.201 7	0.203 0	0.203 8	0.188 8
B₃	0.941 7	0.921 9	0.949 5	0.951 3	0.903 3	0.201 7	0.197 5	0.203 4	0.203 8	0.193 5
B₄	0.990 4	0.980 8	0.985 2	0.988 4	0.989 8	0.200 7	0.198 8	0.199 7	0.200 3	0.200 6

评价指标	评价等级/不确定度										评价指标	评价等级/不确定度
评价指标	专家1		专家2		专家3		专家4		专家5		评价指标	专家1		专家2		专家3		专家4		专家5
C₁₁	H	0.1	H	0.1	H	0.15	VL	0.2	M	0.1	C₃₁	M	0.15	M	0.1	L	0.2	VL	0.2	H	0.1
C₁₂	VH	0.05	VH	0.05	H	0.05	H	0.05	H	0.15	C₃₂	VH	0.1	M	0.1	H	0.1	VH	0.05	H	0.1
C₁₃	VH	0.15	M	0.2	H	0.1	H	0.1	VH	0.1	C₃₃	H	0.1	M	0.1	H	0.1	VH	0.05	H	0.2
C₁₄	M	0.15	H	0.15	H	0.05	M	0.1	M	0.1	C₃₄	M	0.2	H	0.2	M	0.2	H	0.1	M	0.2
C₁₅	VH	0.05	H	0.15	H	0.05	M	0.1	VH	0.1	C₃₅	H	0.15	H	0.2	L	0.2	H	0.1	M	0.1
C₁₆	H	0.1	H	0.1	H	0.05	H	0.05	M	0.15	C₄₁	M	0.2	H	0.1	H	0.15	VL	0.2	M	0.15
C₂₁	VH	0.1	M	0.15	H	0.1	H	0.05	H	0.1	C₄₂	H	0.1	M	0.2	M	0.15	H	0.15	M	0.2
C₂₂	H	0.15	H	0.1	VH	0.05	L	0.2	H	0.1	C₄₃	H	0.1	M	0.15	M	0.1	H	0.05	M	0.1
C₂₃	VH	0.15	VH	0.15	VH	0.05	VH	0.05	H	0.15	C₄₄	M	0.15	M	0.15	L	0.1	L	0.1	M	0.15
C₂₄	H	0.1	M	0.15	M	0.1	VH	0.15	M	0.2	C₄₅	H	0.1	H	0.1	M	0.15	VL	0.05	M	0.2
C₂₅	H	0.1	M	0.2	H	0.1	H	0.15	M	0.1	C₄₆	M	0.15	H	0.1	M	0.2	M	0.05	H	0.1
C₂₆	H	0.2	H	0.15	H	0.2	M	0.2	M	0.1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—