Comprehensive safety evaluation method for multifunctional reserve general warehouse

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.06.1822

Abstract

Abstract:

To effectively assess the various risks faced by the multifunctional reserve general warehouse, a comprehensive safety evaluation method for the multifunctional reserve general warehouse was proposed. First, the integrated risk characteristics of dynamic-static unity, subjective-objective unity, and direct-indirect unity for multifunctional the reserve general warehouse were summarized. Next, based on the combination of a static risk index system and a dynamic risk assessment model, a method for measuring the triggering effects and calculating the residual risks of the multifunctional reserve general warehouse was proposed. Lastly, safety evaluation criteria were delineated. Taking the core area of a logistics hub in China as the application case, the safety risks of the selected district were evaluated. The applicability and shortcomings of the proposed comprehensive evaluation method for the multifunctional reserve general warehouse were discussed. The results indicate that the method can effectively reflect the risks and their changing trends of the studied warehousing system. The practical application demonstrates that it is crucial to determine the trigger relationships and residual risks for accurately characterizing and evaluating the safety status of the multifunctional reserve general warehouse.

Key words: multifunctional reserve general warehouse, risk assessment, safety evaluation, trigger effect, residual risk

CLC Number:

X959其他

CUI Pengcheng, XU Yu, CHEN Xin, ZHANG Tao, WANG Jin. Comprehensive safety evaluation method for multifunctional reserve general warehouse[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(6): 188-196.

Figures/Tables 12

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Table 1

Fig.4

Table 2

Table 3

Risk indicators corresponding to key hazard sources

总指标	类别	风险因素	说明
风险指标	物理环境风险 C₁	自然灾害 $R f 1$ : 台风、洪水、雷击	影响仓库正常运行,导致服务中断、物资和设施损毁,甚至危及人员安全
	物理环境风险 C₁	物理环境 $R f 2$ : 温度、湿度	影响仓库正常运行,导致服务中断、物资和设施损毁,甚至危及人员安全
	操作风险C₂	信息系统关闭 $R f 3$ : 仓库管理系统、RFID	由于内部系统、程序和人为失误直接影响仓库运行和作业人员安全
	操作风险C₂	操作流程错误 $R f 4$	由于内部系统、程序和人为失误直接影响仓库运行和作业人员安全
	人因风险C₃	疏忽大意 $R f 5$	因员工知识不足带来风险
		错误判断 $R f 6$
		不按规定作业 $R f 7$
	设施风险C₄	实用程序故障 $R f 8$	仓库因设施不可用产生危险
		机械设备故障 $R f 9$
		设施老化 $R f 10$
	安保风险C₅	信息泄露 $R f 11$	仓库位置和物资信息等敏感信息泄露的风险
	库存风险C₆	物资自燃或爆炸 $R f 12$	仓库内物资的主要安全风险
		运输过程发生事故 $R f 13$
		物资放置不符合要求 $R f 14$

Table 3

Table 4

Risk analysis results of key hazard sources

风险因素	α_i				R_di				ϕ_i
风险因素	2019	2020	2021	2022	2019	2020	2021	2022	2019	2020	2021	2022
$R f 1$	0.74	0.68	0.55	0.65	14.48	13.58	11.14	12.77	1.29	1.27	1.22	1.26
$R f 2$	0.73	0.62	0.58	0.56	14.06	12.13	11.35	11.09	1.28	1.24	1.23	1.22
$R f 3$	0.46	0.51	0.51	0.53	8.59	9.28	9.13	9.71	1.17	1.19	1.18	1.19
$R f 4$	0.58	0.61	0.62	0.63	7.29	7.72	7.91	8.12	1.15	1.15	1.16	1.16
$R f 5$	0.34	0.38	0.42	0.42	9.13	9.78	10.53	10.39	1.18	1.20	1.21	1.21
$R f 6$	0.30	0.34	0.33	0.38	6.13	6.85	6.72	7.62	1.12	1.14	1.13	1.15
$R f 7$	0.41	0.44	0.45	0.44	7.01	7.57	7.79	7.66	1.14	1.15	1.16	1.15
$R f 8$	0.36	0.41	0.47	0.51	7.89	7.88	8.10	8.91	1.16	1.16	1.16	1.18
$R f 9$	0.38	0.34	0.37	0.38	6.85	6.24	6.71	6.87	1.14	1.12	1.13	1.14
$R f 10$	0.42	0.45	0.48	0.45	6.89	7.39	7.88	7.41	1.14	1.15	1.16	1.15
$R f 11$	0.51	0.63	0.68	0.70	11.29	13.96	14.08	15.78	1.23	1.28	1.28	1.32
$R f 12$	0.71	0.66	0.65	0.73	14.31	13.37	13.23	15.01	1.29	1.27	1.26	1.30
$R f 13$	0.54	0.55	0.58	0.64	10.02	10.25	10.84	12.16	1.20	1.21	1.22	1.24
$R f 14$	0.52	0.54	0.57	0.54	9.51	9.98	10.62	10.17	1.19	1.20	1.21	1.20

Table 4

Table 5

Risk assessment results

风险因素	R'_i				R_ri
风险因素	2019	2020	2021	2022	2019	2020	2021	2022
$R f 1$	24.19	22.02	17.36	20.84	20.91	19.30	15.58	17.43
$R f 2$	23.73	19.73	18.31	17.64	20.93	17.03	15.34	14.19
$R f 3$	14.11	15.70	15.66	16.38	12.83	14.27	14.09	14.93
$R f 4$	17.10	18.05	18.39	18.74	15.61	16.45	16.72	16.64
$R f 5$	10.83	12.10	13.41	13.38	9.79	10.91	12.11	12.02
$R f 6$	9.21	10.41	10.12	11.66	8.39	9.37	9.09	9.85
$R f 7$	12.36	13.31	13.64	13.33	11.38	12.13	12.11	11.69
$R f 8$	11.16	12.55	14.27	15.60	9.82	11.01	12.83	13.02
$R f 9$	11.51	10.30	11.21	11.51	10.02	8.86	9.52	9.71
$R f 10$	12.61	13.54	14.49	13.55	10.59	11.51	12.48	11.63
$R f 11$	16.23	20.62	22.20	23.42	14.66	18.76	20.12	20.53
$R f 12$	23.20	21.34	20.99	24.08	21.29	19.52	18.99	21.19
$R f 13$	16.76	17.11	18.15	20.34	15.42	15.71	16.39	18.10
$R f 14$	16.04	16.75	17.80	16.80	14.40	15.09	16.16	14.90

Table 5

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

References 22

[1]	晏然. 健全国家物资储备体系[J]. 红旗文稿, 2020(9):27-29.
[2]	魏宇琪, 杨敏, 梁樑. 基于需求预测和模块化的应急物资库库联动方法研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2019, 27(6):123-135.
	WEI Yuqi, YANG Min, LIANG Liang. Research on the linkage method of relief materials warehouse based on demand forecasting and modularization[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2019, 27(6):123-135.
[3]	HOFSTRA N, PETKOVA B, DULLAERT W, et al. Assessing and facilitating warehouse safety[J]. Safety Science, 2018, 105(5):134-148.
[4]	DE KOSTER R B M, STAM D, BALK B M. Accidents happen: the influence of safety-specific transformational leadership, safety consciousness, and hazard reducing systems on warehouse accidents[J]. Journal of Operations Management, 2011, 29(7/8):753-765.
[5]	ZHAN Xuegang, WU Wei, SHEN Leidi, et al. Industrial internet of things and unsupervised deep learning enabled real-time occupational safety monitoring in cold storage warehouse[J]. Safety Science, 2022, 152(8):1-9.
[6]	WINKELHAUS S, GROSSE E H. Logistics 4.0: a systematic review towards a new logistics system[J]. International Journal of Production Research, 2020, 58(1):18-43.
[7]	LYU Chen, WU Zongzhi, LIU Zegong, et al. The multi-level comprehensive safety evaluation for chemical production instalment based on the method that combines grey-clustering and EAHP[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2017, 21(1):243-250.
[8]	CEDILLO-CAMPOS M G, CEDILLO-CAMPOS H O. w@reRISK method: security risk level classification of stock keeping units in a warehouse[J]. Safety Science, 2015, 79(11):358-368.
[9]	SHARIFF A M, LEONG C T. Inherent risk assessment: a new concept to evaluate risk in preliminary design stage[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2009, 87(6):371-376.
[10]	陈国华, 李佳玲, 陈学希, 等. 灾害链网络下城市区域安全风险评估模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(11):146-153. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.11.2043
	CHEN Guohua, LI Jialing, CHEN Xuexi, et al. A safety risk assessment model of urban areas under disaster chain network[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(11):146-153. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.11.2043
[11]	王刚, 商荦真, 刘学麟, 等. 采用AHP-熵权法的巷道启封中毒窒息致因研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(7):187-192. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.07.026
	WANG Gang, SHANG Luozhen, LIU Xuelin, et al. Study on causes of poisoning and asphyxiation in roadway opening by AHP-entropy weight method[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(7):187-192. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.07.026
[12]	PURDY G. ISO 31000: 2009—setting a new standard for risk management[J]. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 2010, 30(6):881-886.
[13]	FRAZIER T G, WOOD E X, PETERSON A G. Residual risk in public health and disaster management[J]. Applied Geography, 2020, 125(12):1-11.
[14]	WU Jinru, CHEN Xiaolong, LU Jianzhong. Assessment of long and short-term flood risk using the multi-criteria analysis model with the AHP-Entropy method in Poyang Lake basin[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2022, 75(9):1-17.
[15]	GILL J C, MALAMUD B D. Hazard interactions and interaction networks (cascades) within multi-hazard methodologies[J]. Earth System Dynamics, 2016, 7(3):659-679.
[16]	蒲宇, 冯晨鹏, 丁晶晶, 等. 应急物资储备综合评价指标体系构建研究[J]. 科技促进发展, 2018, 14(5):417-425.
	PU Yu, FENG Chenpeng, DING Jingjing, et al. Study on establishment of the index system for emergency material reserve comprehensive evaluation[J]. Science & Technology for Development, 2018, 14(5):417-425.
[17]	LI Yang, WANG Hao, BAI Ke, et al. Dynamic intelligent risk assessment of hazardous chemical warehouse fire based on electrostatic discharge method and improved support vector machine[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2021, 145(1):425-434.
[18]	SEGUÍ X, DARBRA R M, VÍLCHEZ J A, et al. Methodology for the quantification of toxic dispersions originated in warehouse fires and its application to the QRA in Catalonia (Spain)[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2014, 32(6):404-414.
[19]	刘婷, 张越, 周建波. 新时代国家战略物资储备体系的发展与展望[J]. 宏观经济管理, 2022(12):75-82.
	LIU Ting, ZHANG Yue, ZHOU Jianbo. The development and outlook of the China's national system of strategic supplies in the new era[J]. Macroeconomic Management, 2022(12):75-82.
[20]	樊亚静. 某基层储备仓库仓储安全管理研究[D]. 北京: 北京交通大学, 2015.
	FAN Yajing. Research on security management of a reserve warehouse[D]. Beijing: Beijing Jiaotong University, 2015.
[21]	卢艺. 加快健全我国国家物资储备体系[J]. 宏观经济管理, 2020(11):51-56.
	LU Yi. Move faster to improve China's national system of material reserves[J]. Macroeconomic Management, 2020(11):51-56.
[22]	白文志. 国家物资储备仓库安防信息化系统建设研究[D]. 天津: 天津大学, 2019.
	BAI Wenzhi. Research on reform of security system of national material reserve warehouse[D]. Tianjin: Tianjin University, 2019.

等级	一级	二级	三级	四级	五级
描述	优秀	良好	一般	较差	差
分级标准	[0,4]	(4,8]	(8,16]	(16,22]	(22,37.5]

序号	风险事件	发生次数
1	台风	7
2	洪水	3
3	梅雨	5
4	山体滑坡	2
5	雷击	6
6	森林火灾	3
7	寒潮冰冻	5
8	厂房火灾	2
9	粉尘爆炸	0
10	运输事故	3
11	建筑倒塌	2
12	物资自燃	1
13	施工事故	8
14	设备故障	3
15	操作失误	5