中美煤矿瓦斯爆炸事故不安全动作原因对比分析

发布时间：2018-04-28 14:43

本文选题：煤矿 + 瓦斯爆炸　；参考：《中国矿业大学(北京)》2016年博士论文

【摘要】：无论是我国还是美国,瓦斯爆炸事故在煤矿事故中都占相当大的比重,都造成了大量的人员伤亡和巨大经济损失,对人类的生活和社会进步产生了重要的影响。尽管,近年来我国瓦斯事故总体上呈现逐年递减的趋势,但绝对死亡人数与美国相比还很高,重特大瓦斯事故还没能从根本上得到遏制。而美国,也曾经经历过瓦斯爆炸事故高发期,直到70年代初,由于美国通过了《联邦煤矿健康与安全法案》(1969 Act)并逐渐将行为安全应用到矿山安全管理中,使得美国瓦斯爆炸事故得到了非常有效的控制。因此,从行为安全的角度,对我国瓦斯爆炸事故的不安全动作原因进行分析,并和美国进行对比,能够为预防我国瓦斯爆炸事故提供一定的借鉴,有利于减少瓦斯事故的发生。事故原因分析以“事故致因‘2-4’模型”为理论依据,选取我国2005年至2009年5年间发生的77起重特大瓦斯爆炸事故和美国1950年至今发生的46起瓦斯爆炸事故为样本,首先,从瓦斯爆炸事故发生的时间、事故作业地点和点火原因3个方面,对中美瓦斯爆炸事故发生的总体规律性进行对比分析;其次,对引起我国77起瓦斯爆炸事故的不安全动作的发生规律定进行了分析;然后,对美国46起瓦斯爆炸事故的不安全动作发生规律进行了分析;最后,对中美两国瓦斯爆炸不安全动作的发生规律和违反的相关规定进行了对比分析,并根据分析得到的数据,对我国瓦斯爆炸事故不安动作的纠正提出了建议措施。对于不安全动作的研究主要采用了理论分析法,案例分析法和对比分析法。首先,通过理论分析,确立了“事故致因‘2-4’模型”作为事故分析依据的可行性及优越性;其次采用案例分析法,对以往发生过的事故案例中的不安全动作进行识别,将不安全动作分为违反了相关规定的动作和未违反任何规定的动作两类。对于违反规定的动作我们认为属于不安全动作,对于没有违反相关规定的动作,要进行反复识别,并根据经验进行推理判断。最后,采用对比的方法,将中美两国引发瓦斯爆炸事故不安全动作的发生规律及违反的相关规定进行对比。通过对中美两国瓦斯爆炸事故不安全动作对比分析,得到以下结论:(1)得到了中美瓦斯爆炸事故总体发生规律的共性和差异性。通过对事故发生的时间、发生地点和点火源3个方面进行中美对比得到,在我国和美国,节假日前后和白班时段都是事故的高发期;我国15个和美国9个主要事故发生地点,采煤工作面、掘进工作面和运输大巷这3个作业地点都是事故高发区,其次采空区在我国事故多发;引起我国瓦斯爆炸的15种点火源和美国11种点火源中,10种是共性原因,“违章放炮”引起的事故都是最多的;“使用失爆煤电钻”、“违章操作、拆卸矿灯”、“使用非矿用防爆电气设备”、“煤自燃”、和“采空区存在明火”5种点火源在我国引起的瓦斯事故所占比例还很大,而在美国已经得到杜绝。(2)得到了引起我国77起瓦斯爆炸事故的所有不安全动作。通过对我国77起瓦斯爆炸事故分析,共得到相关不安全动作376个,其中与点火原因及其相关不安全动作共268个,与瓦斯积聚相关不安全动作共计108个。并将点火源相关的不安全动作归为25类,与瓦斯积聚相关的不安全动作归为27类。在与点火源相关的不安全动作中“违章放炮”发生的频次最高,其次分别为违规开采、未检查瓦斯、未及时撤人和使用失爆煤电钻;与瓦斯积聚相关的不安全动作中“未安装通风设施”发生频次最多,其次依次是局部通风机拉循环风、通风受限、违规移除通风控制设施和通风设施建造不合格。(3)得到了美国瓦斯爆炸事故不安全动作数据库。通过对美国46起爆炸事故原因进行分析,共得到相关不安全动作162个,其中和点火相关的不安全动作共102个,与瓦斯积聚相关的不安全动作60个。并将与点火源相关的102个不安全动作归为20类,其中与“违章放炮”相关的不安全动作发生频次最多,其次分别为未检查瓦斯、操作存在隐患的机械设备、未采取防尘降尘措施和吸烟。将与瓦斯积聚相关的60个不安全动作归为18类,得到“违规移除通风控制设施”引起瓦斯积聚次数最多,其次分别是违规施工导致通风改变、通风设施建造不合格、采空区未安装瓦斯抽放系统和未安装通风设施。(4)得到了中美瓦斯爆炸事故不安全动作发生的异同。在我国与点火源相关的25种不安全动作和美国的20种不安全动作中,绝大多数属于共性动作,其中共性不安全动作有16种,仅在美国发生的动作有4种,仅在我国发生的动作有9种。尽管不安全动作的种类多,但发生相对集中,其中“违章放炮”发生频次在两个国家均最高,并且在两个国家发生频次排在前5位的5种不安全动作发生频次占不安全动作总频次比例均超过了一半。我国27种和美国18种与瓦斯积聚相关的不安动作中,绝大多数也都属于共性不安全动作,其中共性不安动作共16种,仅在美国发生的动作有2种,仅在我国发生的动作共11种,但两个国家引起瓦斯积聚的不安全动作发生频次排序不同。(5)得到了中美瓦斯爆炸事故不安全动作违反的相关规定的共性和差异性。对比中美与点火源相关不安动作的相关规定,得出其中6种不安动作有类似规定,其余不安动作相关规定存在不同;对比与瓦斯积聚相关不安全动作的相关规定,得到6种不安动作有类似规定,其余不安全动作相关规定存在不同。并且得到了,水泡泥袋的直径和承受力、炮眼装药量、一次放炮个数、爆破作业时起爆安全距离、炸药距离电源的最短距离、锚杆之间的横向间距、移除即将密闭区域内的点火源和任何贯穿密闭的金属物体、班前和班中需要做哪些检查以及检查的次数、岩粉的散布范围和用量、逃生路线图张贴要求、电缆临时接头的连接距离、链接方式和使用时效、架电线短路开关安装距离、自救器的放置位置和距离、密闭墙的建造材料以及最小承压力、纵向风障距离工作面的距离、两风门间最大距离等在美国都有相应的具体的数值规定,而在我国有的还没有相关规定或者没有给出具体统一的规定,缺乏可操作性。(6)得到了纠正我国瓦斯爆炸事故不安全动作的建议措施。依据统计分析结得到的数据,建议我国为减少点火及相关不安全动作的发生,可以特别加强对“违章放炮”、“违规开采”和“未检查瓦斯”相关不安全动作进行控制,这3类不安全动作的发生频次占到了不安全动作发生总频次的62%,如果这3类不安全动作得到有效控制将大大减少事故发生。为减少瓦斯积聚的发生,可以特别加强对“未安装通风设施”和“局部通风机拉循环风”2类不安全动作的矫正,这2类不安全动作发生频次在所有与瓦斯积聚相关不安全动作中较高;其次应加强对和通风设施尤其是局部通风机的安装、使用和维护相关的不安动作的矫正,我国与通风设施相关的不安全动作占引起瓦斯积聚的不安全动作总频次的65.74%,美国占55%。除此之外,我国应增加对一些不安全动作的相关规定,通过对中美瓦斯爆炸事故不安全动作违反的相关规定对比发现,对于一些不安全动作美国都有相应的具体的数值规定,而在我国有些还没有相应规定或者有些规定不具体缺乏可操作性,因此增加相关规定,有利于对不安全动作的控制。
[Abstract]:No matter in China or in the United States, gas explosions account for a considerable proportion in coal mine accidents, resulting in a large number of casualties and huge economic losses, which have an important impact on human life and social progress. Although in recent years, China's gas accident in general presents a trend of decreasing year by year, but the absolute number of deaths and the number of deaths in China The United States is still very high, and the major gas accidents have not been fundamentally contained. And the United States has experienced a high period of gas explosion, until the beginning of the 70s, as the United States passed the federal coal mine health and Safety Act (1969 Act) and gradually applied behavior safety to mine safety management, making the gas explosion in the United States. Therefore, it is very effective control. Therefore, from the point of view of behavior safety, the cause of unsafe action of gas explosion in China is analyzed, and compared with the United States, it can provide some reference for preventing gas explosion in our country and reduce the occurrence of gas accidents. The cause of the accident is "2-4" caused by accident. As a theoretical basis, this model is based on the selection of 77 heavy gas explosion accidents in China from 2005 to 2009 and 46 gas explosion accidents in the United States from 1950 to the present. First, from the time of the gas explosion accident, the location of the accident and the cause of the ignition, the overall rules of the gas explosion accident occurred in China and the United States. The law is compared and analyzed. Secondly, the law of the unsafe action of 77 gas explosion accidents in China is analyzed. Then, the law of the unsafe action of 46 gas explosion accidents in the United States is analyzed. Finally, the law of the unsafe action of the gas explosion in China and the United States and the relevant regulations of the violation are made. According to the analysis and analysis, and according to the data obtained, we put forward some suggestions on the correction of the unsafe action of the gas explosion accident in our country. The research on the unsafe action mainly adopts the theory analysis method, the case analysis method and the contrast analysis method. First, through the theoretical analysis, the "2-4 'model of the accident causation" is established as the accident division. Analysis of the feasibility and superiority of the basis; secondly, using the case analysis method to identify the unsafe action in the past accident cases, the unsafe action is divided into two kinds of actions which violate the relevant regulations and do not violate any regulations. The action of anti related regulations should be repeatedly identified and judged according to experience. Finally, a contrast method is used to compare the law of the occurrence of unsafe movements of gas explosion accidents between China and the United States and the relevant regulations of the violation. The following conclusion is obtained through the comparison and analysis of the unsafe movements of the gas explosion accidents between China and the United States. (1) the generality and difference of the general law of the gas explosion accidents in China and the United States are obtained. By comparing the time of the accident, the place of occurrence and the fire source in 3 aspects, in our country and the United States, the period of the accident is high, and the 15 and the 9 major accidents in the United States, and the coal mining in the 15 and the United States. The 3 sites of working face, heading face and transportation lane are accident prone areas, followed by accidents in China, 15 fire sources of gas explosion in China and 11 fire sources in 11 points in the United States are common reasons. All accidents caused by "illegal blasting" are the most; "use lost coal electric drill", "illegal operation" Dismantling the mine lamp, "using non mine explosion-proof electrical equipment", "coal spontaneous combustion", and "open fire in the goaf" 5 point fire sources in China caused by the proportion of gas accidents are still very large, and in the United States have been eliminated. (2) got all the 77 unsafe operations in China to cause 77 gas explosion accidents in China. 77 gas in China In the analysis of the explosion accident, 376 unsafe movements related to the ignition and related unsafe actions were obtained, including 268 unsafe movements related to gas accumulation, and 108 unsafe movements related to the accumulation of gas. The unsafe movements related to the point fire source were classified into 25 categories, and the unsafe movements related to the accumulation of gas were classified into 27 categories. The insecurity related to the point fire source was unsafe. In the action, the frequency of "violation of cannon" is the highest, followed by illegal mining, unchecked gas, untimely withdrawal of people and the use of unexploded coal electric drill; "uninstalled ventilation facilities" occurred most frequently in unsafe movements related to gas accumulation, followed by local ventilation, ventilation limited and ventilation control. The construction and ventilation facilities were not qualified. (3) the United States gas explosion accident database was obtained. Through the analysis of the reasons for the 46 explosions in the United States, 162 unsafe actions were obtained, of which 102 unsafe movements related to the ignition, 60 unsafe movements associated with the accumulation of VASs, and the ignition of 60. 102 unsafe movements related to the source are classified into 20 categories, in which the unsafe movements associated with the "illegal cannon" are most frequently occurring, followed by unchecked gas, mechanical equipment with hidden dangers, and no dust and dust measures and smoking. 60 unsafe movements related to the accumulation of gas are classified into 18 categories, and "illegal removal" Ventilation control facilities cause the largest number of gas accumulation, followed by illegal construction caused by ventilation change, ventilation facilities construction unqualified, uninstalled gas drainage system and uninstalled ventilation facilities in the goaf. (4) the similarities and differences of unsafe action of gas explosion accidents between China and the United States. 25 kinds of insecurity related to point fire sources in China In the 20 unsafe movements of the United States, the overwhelming majority belong to the common movements, among which there are 16 kinds of common unsafe movements. There are 4 kinds of action only in the United States, and there are 9 kinds of action only in our country. Although there are many kinds of unsafe movements, there are relatively concentration, and the frequency of "violation of the cannon" is the highest in all two countries. And the frequency of 5 unsafe movements occurring in the top 5 in two countries is more than half of the total frequency of unsafe movements. In our country, the vast majority of the 18 unsafe movements associated with the accumulation of gas in the United States and the 27 in the United States are common unsafe movements, of which there are 16 kinds of unsafe movements in the United States and only in the United States. There are 2 kinds of action in China, and there are 11 kinds of action in China only, but the frequency order of the unsafe action of gas accumulation in two countries is different. (5) the commonness and difference of the relevant regulations of the violation of the unsafe action of the gas explosion in China and the United States are obtained. The relevant provisions on the unsafe movements related to the fire sources between China and the United States are compared, and 6 kinds of uneasiness are obtained. There are similar provisions in the action, and the other unsafe movements are different; compared with the relevant provisions of the unsafe action related to the accumulation of gas accumulation, 6 kinds of unsafe movements have similar regulations, and the other unsafe actions are different. And the diameter and bearing capacity of the bubble mud bag, the amount of gun eye loading, the number of one shot, blasting, blasting, and blasting are obtained. The safety distance of the operation, the shortest distance of the explosive distance from the power supply, the transverse distance between the bolt, the ignition source in the closed area and any penetrated metal objects, the number of checking and checking in front of the class and in the class, the spread range and amount of rock powder, the requirement of the escape route map and the temporary connection of the cable. The connection distance of the head, the link and use time, the installation distance of the short circuit breaker, the position and distance of the self rescuer, the construction material of the closed wall, the minimum pressure, the distance of the longitudinal wind barrier distance, the maximum distance between the two air doors, and so on, are specific in the United States, but not in our country. The relevant provisions or no specific unified provisions, the lack of operability. (6) got the proposed measures to correct the unsafe action of the gas explosion in China. According to the data obtained from the statistical analysis, it is suggested that China can reduce the occurrence of ignition and related unsafe movements, and can especially strengthen the "illegal cannon", "illegal exploitation". "" and "unchecked gas" related unsafe movements are controlled. The frequency of these 3 types of unsafe movements accounts for 62% of the total frequency of unsafe movements. If these 3 kinds of unsafe movements are effectively controlled, the accident will be greatly reduced. In order to reduce the occurrence of gas accumulation, the "uninstalled ventilation facilities" can be specially strengthened. And the correction of the 2 types of unsafe movements of the local ventilator and circulation wind, the frequency of these 2 kinds of unsafe movements is higher in all the unsafe movements associated with the accumulation of gas. Secondly, the correction of the installation of the ventilation facilities, especially the local ventilator, the use and maintenance of the related unsafe movements should be strengthened, and China is related to the ventilation facilities. Unsafe action accounts for 65.74% of the total frequency of unsafe movements caused by gas accumulation. In addition to 55%. in the United States, our country should increase the relevant regulations on some unsafe movements. By comparing the relevant regulations of the unsafe movements of the gas explosion accidents in China and the United States, it is found that the United States has corresponding specific values for some unsafe movements. In our country, there are no relevant regulations or some provisions are not specific and lack of operability. Therefore, the increase of relevant regulations is conducive to the control of unsafe movements.

【学位授予单位】：中国矿业大学(北京)
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：TD712.7

【相似文献】