4.7 Article

Dynamic study of critical factors of explosion accident in laboratory based on FTA

Journal

SAFETY SCIENCE
Volume 130, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104877

Keywords

Fault tree analysis; Explosion accident; Dynamic decision; PHA; Risk assessment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Laboratory safety has been widely concerned, but fire, explosion, poisoning and other accidents occur from time to time. Among them, the proportion of safety accidents, casualties and economic losses caused by explosion are relatively high. In particular, the safety, reliability and maintainability of laboratories in colleges and universities and scientific research institutes should be evaluated and optimized. Therefore, it is necessary to use efficient, reliable and economical methods to identify and monitor the key factors that will cause explosion accidents in the laboratory. In this paper, through the combination of fault tree analysis (FTA) and binary decision diagram (BDD), the three main sources of explosion accidents in laboratory (gas cylinder, pressure device and hazardous chemicals) are analyzed quantitatively. When using BDD to simplify FT operation, a variety of event sorting methods are compared. Finally, it is found that Level and AND methods can provide a more convenient and reasonable number of cut sets. Considering different methods to measure the importance of basic events, it is found that similar results can be obtained. The importance of Critical is used to identify the importance of events, combined with its change with time, the change of importance is analyzed dynamically. The key factors from four aspects of human, machine, environment and management in laboratory explosion accident are determined. It provides a new idea for the dynamic safety management and maintenance of the laboratory, and puts forward some ideas for the new research content at the end of this paper.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available