Importance-Based Key Basic Event Identification and Evolution Mechanism Investigation of Hydraulic Support Failure to Protect Employee Health
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Framework of This Study
2.2. Fault Tree Analysis
2.2.1. Structure Importance
2.2.2. Probability Importance
2.2.3. Critical Importance
2.2.4. Fussell–Vesely Importance
2.2.5. Fussell–Vesely–Xu Importance
2.3. Bayesian Network
2.4. Gray Relational Analysis
2.5. Cause-and-Effect-LOPA
3. Results
3.1. Fault Tree Analysis of Hydraulic Support Failure
3.2. Importance of Basic Events
3.3. II Based on Gray Relational Analysis
3.4. Evaluation Mechanism of Hydraulic Support Failure
3.4.1. Chaotic Characteristics in the Evaluation Process of Hydraulic Support Failure
3.4.2. Synthetic Theory Model of Hydraulic Support Failure
3.4.3. Cause-and-Effect-LOPA of Basic Event X16
4. Discussion
4.1. Comparison with Previous Studies
4.2. Implications
4.3. Limitations
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- The State Council of the People’s Republic of China. 2005. Available online: http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2005-12/21/content_133214.htm (accessed on 12 July 2021).
- Lv, H.; Li, B.; Deng, J.; Ye, L.; Gao, W.; Shu, C.; Bi, M. A novel methodology for evaluating the inhibitory effect of chloride salts on the ignition risk of coal spontaneous combustion. Energy 2021, 231, 121093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Xu, K.; You, G.; Wang, B.; Zhao, L. Causation Analysis of Risk Coupling of Gas Explosion Accident in Chinese Underground Coal Mines. Risk Anal. 2019, 39, 1634–1646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Bureau of Statistics. 2020. Available online: http://www.stats.gov.cn/ (accessed on 12 July 2021).
- Yan, F.; Li, Z.-J.; Dong, L.-J.; Huang, R.; Cao, R.-H.; Ge, J.; Xu, K.-L. Cloud model-clustering analysis based evaluation for ventilation system of underground metal mine in alpine region. J. Cent. South. Univ. 2021, 28, 796–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, P.; Gupta, S.; Gunda, Y.R. Estimation of human error rate in underground coal mines through retrospective analysis of mining accident reports and some error reduction strategies. Saf. Sci. 2020, 123, 104555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ge, J.; Xu, K.; Zheng, X.; Yao, X.; Xu, Q.; Zhang, B. The main challenges of safety science. Saf. Sci. 2019, 118, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, H.; Jiang, P.; Wu, Y.; Gao, F. A combined "ground support-rock modification-destressing" strategy for 1000-m deep roadways in extreme squeezing ground condition. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2021, 142, 104746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; Yang, Z.; Gong, P.; Wang, K.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, J.; Li, Y. Accident Analysis in Relation to Main Roof Structure When Longwall Face Advances toward a Roadway: A Case Study. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018, 2018, 3810315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xie, Y.; Cheng, W.; Yu, H.; Wang, Y. Study on spray dust removal law for cleaner production at fully mechanized mining face with large mining height. Powder Technol. 2021, 389, 48–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Ma, Q.; Cai, B.; Liu, Y.; Zheng, C. Risk assessment on deepwater drilling well control based on dynamic Bayesian network. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2021, 149, 643–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yazdi, M.; Kabir, S. Fuzzy evidence theory and Bayesian networks for process systems risk analysis. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2020, 26, 57–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baby, T.; Madhu, G.; Renjith, V.R. Occupational electrical accidents: Assessing the role of personal and safety climate factors. Saf. Sci. 2021, 139, 105229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takeda, S.; Kitada, T. Simple method based on sensitivity coefficient for stochastic uncertainty analysis in probabilistic risk assessment. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2021, 209, 107471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, C.; Tang, S.; Li, Z.; Fang, X. Dynamic study of critical factors of explosion accident in laboratory based on FTA. Saf. Sci. 2020, 130, 104877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weng, L.; Zhang, Q.; Lin, Z.; Wu, L. Harnessing heterogeneous social networks for better recommendations: A grey relational analysis approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 174, 114771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goncalves, A.P.; Waterson, P.; Jun, G.T. Improving accident analysis in construction-Development of a contributing factor classification framework and evaluation of its validity and reliability. Saf. Sci. 2021, 140, 105303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonzalez-Cortes, A.; Burlet-Vienney, D.; Chinniah, Y. Inherently safer design: An accident prevention perspective on reported confined space fatalities in Quebec. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2021, 149, 794–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, F.; Jin, C.; Li, Z. Research and development of field theory-based 3D risk assessment. Part I: Optimization of risk reduction. Saf. Sci. 2019, 120, 312–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anter, A.M.; Gupta, D.; Castillo, O. A novel parameter estimation in dynamic model via fuzzy swarm intelligence and chaos theory for faults in wastewater treatment plant. Soft Comput. 2020, 24, 111–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, C.; Zhou, Z.; Piao, Z. Investigation on the Running-In Quality at Different Rotating Speeds by Chaos Theory. Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos 2021, 31, 2150108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pourasad, Y.; Ranjbarzadeh, R.; Mardani, A. A New Algorithm for Digital Image Encryption Based on Chaos Theory. Entropy 2021, 23, 341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, C.; Li, B.; Ye, Z.; Xiang, P. Identifying the Non-Traditional Safety Risk Paths of Employees from Chinese International Construction Companies in Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yorio, P.L.; Moore, S.M. Examining Factors that Influence the Existence of Heinrich’s Safety Triangle Using Site-Specific H&S Data from More than 25,000 Establishments. Risk Anal. 2018, 38, 839–852. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Zhang, J.J.; Xu, K.L.; Wang, B.B.; Wang, R.J. Synthetic theory model for evolution mechanism of gas explosion accidents. China Saf. Sci. J. 2015, 25, 53–57, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
- Pouyakian, M.; Jafari, M.J.; Laal, F.; Nourai, F.; Zarei, E. A comprehensive approach to analyze the risk of floating roof storage tanks. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2021, 146, 811–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarvestani, K.; Ahmadi, O.; Mortazavi, S.B.; Mahabadi, H.A. Development of a predictive accident model for dynamic risk assessment of propane storage tanks. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2021, 148, 1217–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Q.; Xu, K.; Li, L.; Xu, X.; Yao, X. Energy release and countermeasures for sand casting explosion accidents. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2020, 26, 2078–2090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Q.; Xu, K.; Zhou, F. Safety Assessment of Casting Workshop by Cloud Model and Cause and Effect-LOPA to Protect Employee Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Barozzi, M.; Contini, S.; Raboni, M.; Torretta, V.; Moreno, V.C.; Copelli, S. Integration of Recursive Operability Analysis, FMECA and FTA for the Quantitative Risk Assessment in biogas plants: Role of procedural errors and components failures. J. Loss Prev. Proc. Ind. 2021, 71, 104468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goerlandt, F.; Islam, S. A Bayesian Network risk model for estimating coastal maritime transportation delays following an earthquake in British Columbia. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2021, 214, 107708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, X.; Ji, J.; Khan, F.; Ding, L.; Tong, Q. A novel fuzzy dynamic Bayesian network for dynamic risk assessment and uncertainty propagation quantification in uncertainty environment. Saf. Sci. 2021, 141, 105285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, B.; Long, J.; Li, J.; Ai, Y. Effects of antimony contamination on bioaccumulation and gut bacterial community of earthworm Eisenia fetida. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 416, 126110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, L.; Yan, F.; Wang, F.; Li, Z. FMEA-CM based quantitative risk assessment for process industries-A case study of coal-to-methanol plant in China. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2020, 149, 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahri, M.M.; Jahromi, A.E.; Houshmand, M. Failure Mode and Effect Analysis using an integrated approach of clustering and MCDM under pythagorean fuzzy environment. J. Loss Prev. Proc. Ind. 2021, 72, 104591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byun, J.E.; Song, J. A general framework of Bayesian network for system reliability analysis using junction tree. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2021, 216, 107952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarazin, G.; Morio, J.; Lagnoux, A.; Balesdent, M.; Brevault, L. Reliability-oriented sensitivity analysis in presence of data-driven epistemic uncertainty. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2021, 215, 107733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mao, Y.; Liu, Z. Fault tree analysis and application of common fault in mine hydraulic powered support. Coal Sci. Technol. 2009, 37, 65–67. [Google Scholar]
- Yazdi, M.; Korhan, O.; Daneshvar, S. Application of fuzzy fault tree analysis based on modified fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS for fire and explosion in the process industry. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2020, 26, 319–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaurio, J.K. Ideas and developments in importance measures and fault-tree techniques for reliability and risk analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2010, 95, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, R.; Meng, X.; Chen, B.; Zhao, L.; Zhang, X. Gut Microbiota in Lupus: A Butterfly Effect? Curr. Rheumatol. Rep. 2021, 23, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Safety Production Law. The National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China. 2021. Available online: http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c30834/202106/02ceac7db412477c9b6d889d9363afc5.shtml (accessed on 11 October 2021).
- Labor Law. The National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China. 2021. Available online: http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c30834/201901/ffad2d4ae4da4585a041abf66e74753c.shtml (accessed on 11 October 2021).
- Bakhtavar, E.; Yousefi, S. Assessment of workplace accident risks in underground collieries by integrating a multi-goal cause-and-effect analysis method with MCDM sensitivity analysis. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2018, 32, 3317–3332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, F.; Xu, K. A set pair analysis based layer of protection analysis and its application in quantitative risk assessment. J. Loss Prev. Proc. Ind. 2018, 55, 313–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Q.; Jiang, P.; Zheng, S. The application of cloud model combined with nonlinear fuzzy analytic hierarchy process for the safety assessment of chemical plant production process. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2021, 145, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Basic Event | Occurrence Probability | P(T|xi = 1) | P(T|xi = 0) |
---|---|---|---|
X1 | 0.01 | 1 | 0.05684 |
X2 | 0.001 | 0.0802 | 0.06626 |
X3 | 0.005 | 0.06719 | 0.06627 |
X4 | 0.005 | 0.06719 | 0.06627 |
X5 | 0.005 | 0.06719 | 0.06627 |
X6 | 0.00001 | 1 | 0.06626 |
X7 | 0.005 | 1 | 0.06158 |
X8 | 0.001 | 0.0756 | 0.06626 |
X9 | 0.01 | 0.0672 | 0.06626 |
X10 | 0.001 | 1 | 0.06534 |
X11 | 0.0001 | 1 | 0.06618 |
X12 | 0.001 | 0.13055 | 0.06621 |
X13 | 0.05 | 0.06714 | 0.06623 |
X14 | 0.01 | 0.06714 | 0.06626 |
X15 | 0.01 | 0.06714 | 0.06626 |
X16 | 0.05 | 1 | 0.01713 |
X17 | 0.001 | 0.06646 | 0.06627 |
X18 | 0.0001 | 0.06721 | 0.06627 |
X19 | 0.0001 | 0.06721 | 0.06627 |
X20 | 0.001 | 1 | 0.06534 |
X21 | 0.001 | 0.0756 | 0.06626 |
X22 | 0.01 | 0.0672 | 0.06626 |
Basic Event | SI | PI | CI | FVI | FVXI | II | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Value | R | Value | R | Value | R | Value | R | Value | R | Value | R | |
X1 | 0.0588 | 2 | 0.943157 | 2 | 0.142312 | 2 | 0.142348 | 2 | 14.2312 | 2 | 0.8667 | 2 |
X2 | 0.1765 | 1 | 0.014006 | 8 | 0.000211 | 8 | 0.000211 | 8 | 0.2103 | 8 | 0.5852 | 8 |
X3 | 0.0294 | 3 | 0.000934 | 10 | 0.00007 | 10 | 0.00006 | 9 | 0.0139 | 11 | 0.4891 | 13 |
X4 | 0.0294 | 3 | 0.000934 | 10 | 0.00007 | 10 | 0.00006 | 9 | 0.0139 | 11 | 0.4891 | 13 |
X5 | 0.0294 | 3 | 0.000934 | 10 | 0.00007 | 10 | 0.00006 | 9 | 0.0139 | 11 | 0.4891 | 13 |
X6 | 0.0588 | 2 | 0.933735 | 6 | 0.000141 | 9 | 0.000211 | 8 | 14.0891 | 6 | 0.5854 | 7 |
X7 | 0.0588 | 2 | 0.938418 | 3 | 0.070798 | 3 | 0.070827 | 3 | 14.1597 | 3 | 0.7851 | 3 |
X8 | 0.0294 | 3 | 0.009337 | 9 | 0.000141 | 9 | 0.000211 | 8 | 0.1409 | 9 | 0.5182 | 10 |
X9 | 0.0294 | 3 | 0.000934 | 10 | 0.000141 | 9 | 0.000211 | 8 | 0.0142 | 10 | 0.5066 | 11 |
X10 | 0.0588 | 2 | 0.934661 | 4 | 0.014103 | 4 | 0.014093 | 4 | 14.103 | 4 | 0.7207 | 4 |
X11 | 0.0588 | 2 | 0.933819 | 5 | 0.001409 | 5 | 0.001418 | 5 | 14.0903 | 5 | 0.6686 | 5 |
X12 | 0.1765 | 1 | 0.065363 | 7 | 0.000986 | 6 | 0.000966 | 6 | 0.9708 | 7 | 0.6341 | 6 |
X13 | 0.0294 | 3 | 0.000934 | 10 | 0.000705 | 7 | 0.000664 | 7 | 0.0137 | 12 | 0.5191 | 9 |
X14 | 0.0294 | 3 | 0.000934 | 10 | 0.000141 | 9 | 0.000211 | 8 | 0.0133 | 13 | 0.493 | 12 |
X15 | 0.0294 | 3 | 0.000934 | 10 | 0.000141 | 9 | 0.000211 | 8 | 0.0133 | 13 | 0.493 | 12 |
X16 | 0.0588 | 2 | 0.982869 | 1 | 0.741520 | 1 | 0.741528 | 1 | 14.8304 | 1 | 0.9733 | 1 |
X17 | 0.0588 | 2 | 0.000187 | 11 | 0.000003 | 11 | 0.00006 | 9 | 0.0029 | 14 | 0.4872 | 14 |
X18 | 0.0294 | 3 | 0.000934 | 10 | 0.000001 | 12 | 0.00006 | 9 | 0.0142 | 10 | 0.4846 | 15 |
X19 | 0.0294 | 3 | 0.000934 | 10 | 0.000001 | 12 | 0.00006 | 9 | 0.0142 | 10 | 0.4846 | 15 |
X20 | 0.0588 | 2 | 0.934661 | 4 | 0.014103 | 4 | 0.014093 | 4 | 14.103 | 4 | 0.7207 | 4 |
X21 | 0.0294 | 3 | 0.009337 | 9 | 0.000141 | 9 | 0.000211 | 8 | 0.1409 | 9 | 0.5182 | 10 |
X22 | 0.0294 | 3 | 0.000934 | 10 | 0.000141 | 9 | 0.000211 | 8 | 0.0142 | 10 | 0.5066 | 11 |
X16 | P(T) | X16 | P(T) | X1 | P(T) | X1 | P(T) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+10% | +7.41% | −10% | −7.41% | +10% | +1.42% | −10% | −1.42% |
+20% | +14.83% | −20% | −14.83% | +20% | +2.85% | −20% | −2.85% |
+30% | +22.25% | −30% | −22.25% | +30% | +4.27% | −30% | −4.27% |
+40% | +29.66% | −40% | −29.66% | +40% | +5.69% | −40% | −5.69% |
+50% | +37.08% | −50% | −37.08% | +50% | +7.12% | −50% | −7.12% |
Subsystem | Failure Modes | Failure Reasons | Failure Effects | Countermeasures |
---|---|---|---|---|
Connector of flexible pipe | Breakdown | Connector of flexible pipe falls off Connector of flexible pipe is not tightly crimped Seal connector of flexible pipe is damaged Connector of flexible pipe is blocked | No oil pressure in pipeline system No action in operation of pipeline system | Fasten flexible pipe connector Replace seal connector of flexible pipe Straighten flexible pipe connector Replace flexible pipe connector |
Employee | Mis-operation | Unfamiliar with operational skills Reduced equipment sensitivity Employee is emotional Environmental factors | Hydraulic support failure Accident with casualties | Strengthen education and training Overhaul equipment in a timely manner Keep employees in a stable state at work Improve on-site working conditions |
Cause | Description | Cause | Description |
---|---|---|---|
Cause 1 | Unreasonable design | Sub-cause 7 | Surface defects of seals |
Cause 2 | Quality of seal is substandard | Sub-cause 8 | Poor storage environment for seals |
Cause 3 | Processing technology | Sub-cause 9 | Coaxiality error between components |
Cause 4 | Assembly process | Sub-cause 10 | Improper processing of oversealing chamfering |
Cause 5 | On-site usage | Sub-cause 11 | Improper processing of sealing fillets |
Sub-cause 1 | Inappropriate fit clearance between moving parts | Sub-cause 12 | Dust between components |
Sub-cause 2 | Improper surface roughness of sealing groove | Sub-cause 13 | Sharp burrs between components |
Sub-cause 3 | Poor wear resistance of seals | Sub-cause 14 | Damage to sealing lip |
Sub-cause 4 | Poor surface stability of seals | Sub-cause 15 | Hard object percussion |
Sub-cause 5 | Poor hydrolysis resistance of seals | Sub-cause 16 | Bump in coating of piston rod |
Sub-cause 6 | Large dimensional tolerance of seals |
IPL | Description | IPL | Description |
---|---|---|---|
IPL 1 | Improve product design | IPL 7 | Strictly follow processing technology for manufacturing |
IPL 2 | Strengthen knowledge training for designers | IPL 8 | Strictly clean parts before assembly |
IPL 3 | Choose high-quality seal materials | IPL 9 | Use special tools to assemble seals |
IPL 4 | Improve storage environment of seals | IPL 10 | Choose appropriate emulsifier |
IPL 5 | Optimize manufacturing process of seals | IPL 11 | Replace emulsion in time |
IPL 6 | Optimize processing technology of parts | IPL 12 | Keep piping system clean |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Xu, Q.; Xu, K. Importance-Based Key Basic Event Identification and Evolution Mechanism Investigation of Hydraulic Support Failure to Protect Employee Health. Sensors 2021, 21, 7240. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21217240
Xu Q, Xu K. Importance-Based Key Basic Event Identification and Evolution Mechanism Investigation of Hydraulic Support Failure to Protect Employee Health. Sensors. 2021; 21(21):7240. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21217240
Chicago/Turabian StyleXu, Qingwei, and Kaili Xu. 2021. "Importance-Based Key Basic Event Identification and Evolution Mechanism Investigation of Hydraulic Support Failure to Protect Employee Health" Sensors 21, no. 21: 7240. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21217240