Definition and evaluation of behavior safety state of coal mine workers based on combination weighting
-
摘要: 为减少煤矿行业安全生产事故的发生，融合安全行为及不安全行为定义、行为安全理论、MMEM系统理论，提出煤矿作业人员行为安全状态的界定标准。根据行为影响因素，建立煤矿作业人员行为安全状态评价指标体系，包括4个一级指标和21个二级指标，利用改进层次分析法、熵权法和差异系数法确定主、客观权重及组合权重，选用可拓综合评价法构建评价模型，并选取某煤矿进行实例验证。研究表明：针对煤矿行业，D-E-I模式具有普适性；实证评价等级为Ⅳ级，即“比较安全”，评价结果符合实际，模型科学性与实用性较强。Abstract: In order to reduce the occurrence of safety production accidents in coal mine industry, this paper combined the definition of safety behavior and unsafe behavior, behavior safety theory and MMEM system theory to put forward the standard definition of safety state of coal mine workers' behavior.According to the behavior influencing factors, this study established the coal mine workers behavior safety state evaluation index system, including 4 first-level indicators 21 secondary indexes.The Improved-AHP method, Entropy Weight method and variance coefficient method were adopted to determine the subjective and objective weights and weight combination.Taking one mine as example for analysis, this paper chose extension comprehensive evaluation method to construct the evaluation model. Results show that: For the coal mine industry, the defined-evaluation-improvement(D-E-I)model is universal.The empirical evaluation level is Ⅳ or "relatively safe".The evaluation results are in line with reality, and the model is scientific and practical.
-
图 1 煤矿作业人员行为安全状态评价指标体系
Figure 1. Evaluation index system of behavior safety state of coal mine operators
表 1 行为安全状态评价指标安全等级
Table 1. Behavior safety state evaluation index safety grade
安全等级 安全水平 得分 Ⅰ级 非常危险 0~40 Ⅱ级 危险 40~50 Ⅲ级 比较危险 50~60 Ⅳ级 比较安全 60~70 Ⅴ级 安全 70~90 Ⅵ级 非常安全 90~100 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 个人因素信息熵及熵权值
Table 2. Information entropy and entropy weight of personal factors
个人因素 安全意识 安全经验 安全技术 安全技能 安全注意力 信息熵 0.997 0.998 0.997 0.998 0.999 熵权值 0.288 0.212 0.239 0.145 0.116
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 主、客观权重分配系数α、β值
Table 3. α and β values of subjective and objective weight distribution coefficients
权重分配系数 α β 一级评价指标 0.046 0.954 二级评价指标—个人因素 0.134 0.866 二级评价指标—机械因素 0.082 0.918 二级评价指标—环境因素 0.096 0.904 二级评价指标—管理因素 0.146 0.854
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 煤矿作业人员行为安全状态评价指标组合权重
Table 4. Combination weight of evaluation index for safety state of coal mine operator behavior
一级评价指标 权重值 排序 二级评价指标 权重值 排序 一级评价指标 权重值 排序 二级评价指标 权重值 排序 个人因素B1 0.296 2 安全意识C11 0.281 1 环境因素B3 0.198 3 光照强度C31 0.260 1 安全经验C12 0.217 3 噪声强度C32 0.217 2 安全技术C13 0.228 2 工友关系C33 0.204 3 安全知识C14 0.152 4 微气候环境C34 0.147 5 安全注意力C15 0.119 5 地面整洁度C35 0.173 4 机械因素B2 0.197 4 设备可靠性C21 0.188 4 管理因素B4 0.308 1 安全文化氛围C41 0.196 1 人机匹配度C22 0.271 1 安全培训力度C42 0.140 5 设备维修频率C23 0.121 5 安全监督水平C43 0.136 6 设备检查力度C24 0.226 2 安全管理制度C44 0.167 4 防护装置水平C25 0.193 3 安全知识宣传C45
安全行为激励C460.181
0.1813
2
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 二级指标安全等级关联度值
Table 5. Safety grade correlation degree of secondary indicators
二级评价指标 Ⅰ级 Ⅱ级 Ⅲ级 Ⅳ级 Ⅴ级 Ⅵ级 指标安全等级 安全意识C11 -0.250 -0.100 0.125 -0.100 -0.250 -0.438 Ⅲ 安全经验C12 -0.422 -0.307 -0.133 0.156 -0.119 -0.416 Ⅳ 安全技术C13 -0.328 -0.193 0.008 -0.008 -0.204 -0.429 Ⅲ 安全知识C14 -0.322 -0.187 0.017 -0.016 -0.208 -0.430 Ⅲ 安全注意力C15 -0.478 -0.373 -0.217 0.044 -0.041 -0.405 Ⅳ 设备可靠性C21 -0.439 -0.327 -0.158 0.122 -0.098 -0.413 Ⅳ 人机匹配度C22 -0.461 -0.353 -0.192 0.078 -0.067 -0.409 Ⅳ 设备维修频率C23 -0.278 -0.133 0.083 -0.071 -0.235 -0.435 Ⅲ 设备检查力度C24 -0.367 -0.240 -0.050 0.056 -0.174 -0.424 Ⅳ 防护装置水平C25 -0.428 -0.313 -0.142 0.144 -0.112 -0.415 Ⅳ 光照强度C31 -0.283 -0.140 0.075 -0.065 -0.232 -0.434 Ⅲ 噪声强度C32 -0.151 0.028 -0.027 -0.189 -0.305 -0.459 Ⅱ 工友关系C33 -0.522 -0.427 -0.283 -0.044 0.049 -0.394 Ⅴ 微气候环境C34 -0.350 -0.220 -0.025 0.026 -0.188 -0.426 Ⅳ 地面整洁度C35 -0.244 -0.093 0.115 -0.105 -0.253 -0.438 Ⅲ 安全文化氛围C41 -0.278 -0.133 0.083 -0.071 -0.235 -0.435 Ⅲ 安全培训力度C42 -0.244 -0.093 0.115 -0.105 -0.253 -0.438 Ⅲ 安全监督水平C43 -0.372 -0.247 -0.058 0.066 -0.169 -0.423 Ⅳ 安全管理制度C44 -0.143 0.043 -0.040 -0.200 -0.314 -0.467 Ⅱ 安全知识宣传C45 -0.328 -0.193 0.008 -0.008 -0.204 -0.429 Ⅲ 安全行为激励C46 -0.439 -0.327 -0.158 0.122 -0.098 -0.413 Ⅳ
下载: 导出CSV
表 6 一级指标关联度值
Table 6. Correlation degree of first-level indicators
一级评价指标 Ⅰ级 Ⅱ级 Ⅲ级 Ⅳ级 Ⅴ级 Ⅵ级 指标安全等级 个人因素 -0.343 -0.212 -0.015 0.007 -0.179 -0.425 Ⅳ 机械因素 -0.407 -0.288 -0.110 0.076 -0.126 -0.417 Ⅳ 环境因素 -0.307 -0.166 -0.028 -0.081 -0.188 -0.432 Ⅲ 管理因素 -0.302 -0.159 -0.009 -0.033 -0.211 -0.434 Ⅲ
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 佟瑞鹏. 行为安全研究进展追溯与述评[J]. 安全, 2019, 40(7): 1-14, 88. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ANQU201907003.htmTong Ruipeng. Review of the progress of behavior safety research[J]. Safety & Security, 2019, 40(7): 1-14, 88. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ANQU201907003.htm [2] 曹庆仁, 李爽, 宋学锋. 煤矿员工的"知-能-行"不安全行为模式研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2007, 17(12): 19-25. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-3033.2007.12.003Cao Qingren, Li Shuang, Song Xuefeng. Study on the KAA unsafe behavior mode of coalmine employees[J]. China Safety Science Journal: CSSJ, 2007, 17(12): 19-25. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-3033.2007.12.003 [3] 李红霞, 樊欣怡. 人因视角下国内煤矿安全领域研究现状与发展趋势[J]. 煤炭工程, 2022, 54(1): 181-186. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-MKSJ202201033.htmLi Hongxia, Fan Xinyi. Status and development trend of coal mine safety research from the perspective of human factors[J]. Coal Engineering, 2022, 54(1): 181-186. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-MKSJ202201033.htm [4] 禹敏. 行为安全管理在煤矿安全管理中的应用[D]. 太原: 太原理工大学, 2017. [5] 陈铁华, 刘景品, 李红霞. 新生代矿工安全认知对安全行为的影响[J]. 煤矿安全, 2021, 52(11): 256-260. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-MKAQ202111041.htmChen Tiehua, Liu Jingpin, Li Hongxia. Influence of safety cognition for new generation miners on safety behavior[J]. Safety in Coal Mines, 2021, 52(11): 256-260. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-MKAQ202111041.htm [6] Chen Z B, Qiao G Z, Zeng J. Study on the relationship between worker states and unsafe behaviours in coal mine accidents based on a Bayesian networks model[J]. Sustainability, 2019, 11(18). [7] 杨洋, 张文博, 张建敏, 等. 基于Citespace文献计量工具的数字矿山与矿山安全文献综述[J]. 矿业科学学报, 2021, 6(1): 124-138. doi: 10.19606/j.cnki.jmst.2021.01.014Yang Yang, Zhang Wenbo, Zhang Jianmin, et al. A survey of digital mine and mine safety management based on Citespace[J]. Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 2021, 6(1): 124-138. doi: 10.19606/j.cnki.jmst.2021.01.014 [8] 付净, 韩子鹏, 刘虹, 等. 基于24Model的不安全动作内在致因研究[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2022, 29(1): 1-7. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-KTAQ202201001.htmFu Jing, Han Zipeng, Liu Hong, et al. Research on the intrinsic causation of unsafe acts based on 24Model[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2022, 29(1): 1-7. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-KTAQ202201001.htm [9] 李琰, 陈侠君. 基于博弈视角的矿工不安全行为管理研究[J]. 煤炭技术, 2022, 41(3): 231-234. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-MTJS202203056.htmLi Yan, Chen Xiajun. Management of miners' unsafe behavior based on game theory[J]. Coal Technology, 2022, 41(3): 231-234. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-MTJS202203056.htm [10] 佟瑞鹏, 赵辉, 张娜, 等. 矿工不安全行为涌现性建模研究[J]. 矿业科学学报, 2020, 5(3): 311-319. http://kykxxb.cumtb.edu.cn/article/id/294Tong Ruipeng, Zhao Hui, Zhang Na, et al. Research on emergency modeling of unsafe behavior of coal miners[J]. Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 2020, 5(3): 311-319. http://kykxxb.cumtb.edu.cn/article/id/294 [11] 邢曦文, 浑宝炬, 王一臣. 基于ABC行为分析的煤矿工人不安全行为预控研究[J]. 华北理工大学学报: 自然科学版, 2020, 42(4): 51-55. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HBLG202004010.htmXing Xiwen, Hun Baoju, Wang Yichen. Research on coal mine workers unsafe behavior pre-control based on ABC behavior analysis[J]. Journal of North China University of Science and Technology: Natural Science Edition, 2020, 42(4): 51-55. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HBLG202004010.htm [12] 姚庆国, 郭秀菊, 张学睦. 基于SEM理论的沟通满意度对煤矿矿工不安全行为的影响研究[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2017, 24(6): 101-106. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-KTAQ201706016.htmYao Qingguo, Guo Xiuju, Zhang Xuemu. Research on the influence of communication satisfaction on unsafe behavior of coal miners based on SEM theory[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2017, 24(6): 101-106. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-KTAQ201706016.htm [13] 付犇, 詹晓玲, 雷刚. 基于层次分析-云模型的化工机械系统安全评价[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2020, 27(3): 142-146. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-KTAQ202003020.htmFu Ben, Zhan Xiaoling, Lei Gang. Safety evaluation of chemical machinery system based on analytic hierarchy process cloud model[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2020, 27(3): 142-146. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-KTAQ202003020.htm [14] 陈大川, 彭文开. 基于改进模糊层次分析法的化工园区建筑物结构抗爆安全性能风险评估[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2021, 28(6): 52-60, 66. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-KTAQ202106008.htmChen Dachuan, Peng Wenkai. Risk assessment of anti-explosion safety performance of chemical industry park building structure based on improved fuzzy analytic hierarchy process[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2021, 28(6): 52-60, 66. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-KTAQ202106008.htm [15] 赵勇强, 何富连, 谢福星, 等. 沿空留巷围岩稳定等级综合评判及返修控制技术研究[J]. 矿业科学学报, 2017, 2(6): 550-558. http://kykxxb.cumtb.edu.cn/article/id/107Zhao Yongqiang, He Fulian, Xie Fuxing, et al. Study on comprehensive evaluation of surrounding rock stability grade and repair control technology of gob-side entry retaining[J]. Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 2017, 2(6): 550-558. http://kykxxb.cumtb.edu.cn/article/id/107 [16] 宋曦, 丁文梅, 宁云才, 等. 煤矿安全生产管理体系优化研究: 以陕西某煤矿为例[J]. 矿业科学学报, 2019, 4(2): 187-194. http://kykxxb.cumtb.edu.cn/article/id/213Song Xi, Ding Wenmei, Ning Yuncai, et al. Research on the optimization of coal mine safety production management system: take a coal mine in Shaanxi as an example[J]. Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 2019, 4(2): 187-194. http://kykxxb.cumtb.edu.cn/article/id/213 [17] 王新平, 逯贵娇. 煤矿企业教练型领导对员工安全行为的影响研究: 一个有调节的中介模型[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2020, 27(1): 133-139.Wang Xinping, Lu Guijiao. Research on influence of the coach-type leadership of coal mine enterprises on employees safety behavior—an intermediary model with regulation[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2020, 27(1): 133-139. -
点击查看大图
图(1) / 表(6)
计量
- 文章访问数: 157
- HTML全文浏览量: 47
- PDF下载量: 29
- 被引次数: 0