Numerical study on safety cognition of cavern constructors from perspective of complex system

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.02.0995

Abstract

Abstract:

To propose effective safety cognition strategies and reduce safety accident occurrence, it is urgent to investigate the safety cognition evolution process and characteristics of cavern constructors. Firstly, factors affecting safety cognition were identified based on a complex sociotechnical system and the 24Model, then a safety cognition index system of cavern constructors was proposed. Subsequently, the weight coefficient was calculated by the Super Decisions software. Then, system dynamic (SD) theory was used to determine the interrelationship between factors. SD numerical model was developed including organizational safety management and other three subsystems, and a cognitive correction mechanism based on safety investments was applied to the SD numerical model. Finally, numerical simulations and sensitive analysis were performed by the SD model based on actual engineering examples. The results indicated that the overall safety cognition of cavern constructors changed from a downward trend to an upward trend by increasing safety investments and exerting the role of cognitive correction mechanisms with project processes. Organizational safety management has the greatest influence on the safety cognition of carve constructors, which was consistent with the assumption of 24Model. Therefore, the scientific performance of the SD numerical model was validated.

Key words: complex system, cavern constructors, safety cognition, "2-4" model(24Model), system dynamics (SD)

CLC Number:

X948

JIANG Xin, ZHANG Tengfei, CHEN Jing, ZHAO Li, QIU Guokun, WANG Hui. Numerical study on safety cognition of cavern constructors from perspective of complex system[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(2): 22-30.

Figures/Tables 14

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Tab.1

Fig.5

Tab.2

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

Fig.11

Fig.12

References 16

[1]	樊启祥, 林鹏, 魏鹏程, 等. 水电工程安全事故发生机制与管理对策[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(1):144-149. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.01.024
	FAN Qixiang, LIN Peng, WEI Pengcheng, et al. Hydropower engineering safety accident occurrence mechanism and management strategies[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(1): 144-149. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.01.024
[2]	CHANG Y H J, MOSLEH A. Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents: part 1: overview of the IDAC model[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2007, 92(8): 997-1013. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2006.05.014
[3]	HAMBRICK D Z, ENGLE R W. Effects of domain knowledge, working memory capacity, and age on cognitive performance: an investigation of the knowledge-is-power hypothesis[J]. Cognitive Psychology, 2002, 44(4): 339-387. pmid: 12018938
[4]	PESSOA L. On the relationship between emotion and cognition[J]. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2008, 9(2): 148-158. doi: 10.1038/nrn2317 pmid: 18209732
[5]	吕洁, 张钢. 知识异质性对知识型团队创造力的影响机制:基于互动认知的视角[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(4):533-544.
	LYU Jie, ZHANG Gang. The mechanisms of knowledge heterogeneity on creativity of knowledge teams: an interactive cognition perspective[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(4): 533-544. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00533
[6]	MA Hui, WU Zhiguo, CHANG Peng. Social impacts on hazard perception of construction workers: a system dynamics model analysis[J]. Safety Science, 2021, 138: DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105240.
[7]	YANG Jingjing, YE Gui, ZHANG Zhenyu, et al. Linking construction noise to worker safety behavior the role of negative emotion and regulatory focus[J]. Safety Science, 2023, 162: DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106093.
[8]	仇国芳, 鱼馨水. 基于粗糙集的建筑工人安全认知提升策略研究[J]. 工业工程与管理, 2019, 24(4):120-127.
	QIU Guofang, YU Xinshui. Safety cognition enhancement strategy of construction workers based on rough sets[J]. Industrial Engineering and Management, 2019, 24(4): 120-127.
[9]	YU Kai, CAO Qinggui, XIE Changzhen, et al. Analysis of intervention strategies for coal miners' unsafe behaviors based on analytic network process and system dynamics[J]. Safety Science, 2019, 118: 145-157. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.05.002
[10]	王中邮, 张春颜. 化学灾害中个体风险感知的系统动力学建模与仿真研究[J]. 科技管理研究, 2020, 40(9):163-169.
	WANG Zhongyou, ZHANG Chunyan. System dynamics modeling and simulation of individual risk perception in chemical disaster[J]. Science and Technology Management Research, 2020, 40(9): 163-169.
[11]	JENS R. Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem[J]. Safety Science, 1997, 27(2/3): 183-213. doi: 10.1016/S0925-7535(97)00052-0
[12]	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^th version[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(1):12-19. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.01.002
[13]	LIU Yang, YE Gui, XIANG Qingting, et al. Antecedents of construction workers' safety cognition: a systematic review[J]. Safety Science, 2023, 157: DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105923.
[14]	陈述, 孙孟文, 陈云, 等. 基于无监督LDA的水电工程施工安全事故致因分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(10):79-85. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.10.1924
	CHEN Shu, SUN Mengwen, CHEN Yun, et al. Causal analysis of construction safety accidents in hydropower projects based on unsupervised LDA[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(10): 79-85. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.10.1924
[15]	叶贵, 越宏哲, 冯新怡, 等. 建筑工人不安全行为的认知失效致因仿真研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(11):6-12. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2020.11.002
	YE Gui, YUE Hongzhe, FENG Xinyi, et al. Simulation study on causes of cognitive failure of construction workers' unsafe behavior[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(11): 6-12. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2020.11.002
[16]	齐丽云, 汪克夷, 张芳芳, 等. 企业内部知识传播的系统动力学模型研究[J]. 管理科学, 2008, 21(6):9-20.
	QI Liyun, WANG Keyi, ZHANG Fangfang, et al. A research on the model of knowledge transfer based on system dynamics in the enterprise[J]. Journal of Management Sciences, 2008, 21(6): 9-20.

一级指标	综合权重	二级指标	综合权重	三级指标	综合权重	一级指标	综合权重	二级指标	综合权重	三级指标	综合权重
A	0.165 18	A₁	0.067 54	A₁₁	0.023 95	C	0.161 37	C₁	0.073 97	C₁₁	0.026 39
				A₁₂	0.024 29					C₁₂	0.024 89
				A₁₃	0.019 29					C₁₃	0.022 69
		A₂	0.076 55	A₂₁	0.031 21			C₂	0.059 28	C₂₁	0.009 66
				A₂₂	0.023 91					C₂₂	0.024 23
				A₂₃	0.021 43					C₂₃	0.013 16
		A₃	0.021 10	A₃₁	0.021 10					C₂₄	0.012 23
B	0.396 27	B₁	0.091 57	B₁₁	0.022 21			C₃	0.028 12	C₃₁	0.028 12
				B₁₂	0.017 37	D	0.277 18	D₁	0.080 46	D₁₁	0.024 73
				B₁₃	0.020 29					D₁₂	0.028 15
				B₁₄	0.031 71					D₁₃	0.027 59
		B₂	0.118 56	B₂₁	0.021 61			D₂	0.074 36	D₂₁	0.032 42
				B₂₂	0.020 71					D₂₂	0.025 00
				B₂₃	0.020 02					D₂₃	0.016 94
				B₂₄	0.019 17			D₃	0.122 35	D₃₁	0.025 46
				B₂₅	0.037 05					D₃₂	0.024 14
		B₃	0.186 14	B₃₁	0.066 43					D₃₃	0.021 14
				B₃₂	0.059 86					D₃₄	0.029 02
				B₃₃	0.059 85					D₃₅	0.022 59

指标/数据	影响程度初值
指标	A₁₁	A₁₂	A₁₃	A₂₁	A₂₂	A₂₃	A₃₁	B₁₁	B₁₂	B₁₃	B₁₄	B₂₁	B₂₂
数据	1.7	3.4	6.3	5.5	3.2	7.6	4.5	2.8	8.5	3.6	3.3	5.3	4.2
指标	B₂₃	B₂₄	B₂₅	B₃₁	B₃₂	B₃₃	C₁₁	C₁₂	C₁₃	C₂₁	C₂₂	C₂₃	C₂₄
数据	5.3	5.1	6.3	8.4	8.6	7.8	2.5	2.6	2.1	2.5	4.6	3.1	6.2
指标	C₃₁	D₁₁	D₁₂	D₁₃	D₂₁	D₂₂	D₂₃	D₃₁	D₃₂	D₃₃	D₃₄	D₃₅	—
数据	5.8	3.5	6.1	7.4	5.8	8.6	9.1	3.2	6.3	5.4	3.1	4.8	—