中美煤礦瓦斯爆炸事故不安全動(dòng)作原因?qū)Ρ确治?/H1>
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-04-28 14:43
本文選題：煤礦 + 瓦斯爆炸��； 參考：《中國(guó)礦業(yè)大學(xué)(北京)》2016年博士論文
【摘要】：無(wú)論是我國(guó)還是美國(guó),瓦斯爆炸事故在煤礦事故中都占相當(dāng)大的比重,都造成了大量的人員傷亡和巨大經(jīng)濟(jì)損失,對(duì)人類的生活和社會(huì)進(jìn)步產(chǎn)生了重要的影響。盡管,近年來(lái)我國(guó)瓦斯事故總體上呈現(xiàn)逐年遞減的趨勢(shì),但絕對(duì)死亡人數(shù)與美國(guó)相比還很高,重特大瓦斯事故還沒(méi)能從根本上得到遏制。而美國(guó),也曾經(jīng)經(jīng)歷過(guò)瓦斯爆炸事故高發(fā)期,直到70年代初,由于美國(guó)通過(guò)了《聯(lián)邦煤礦健康與安全法案》(1969 Act)并逐漸將行為安全應(yīng)用到礦山安全管理中,使得美國(guó)瓦斯爆炸事故得到了非常有效的控制。因此,從行為安全的角度,對(duì)我國(guó)瓦斯爆炸事故的不安全動(dòng)作原因進(jìn)行分析,并和美國(guó)進(jìn)行對(duì)比,能夠?yàn)轭A(yù)防我國(guó)瓦斯爆炸事故提供一定的借鑒,有利于減少瓦斯事故的發(fā)生。事故原因分析以“事故致因‘2-4’模型”為理論依據(jù),選取我國(guó)2005年至2009年5年間發(fā)生的77起重特大瓦斯爆炸事故和美國(guó)1950年至今發(fā)生的46起瓦斯爆炸事故為樣本,首先,從瓦斯爆炸事故發(fā)生的時(shí)間、事故作業(yè)地點(diǎn)和點(diǎn)火原因3個(gè)方面,對(duì)中美瓦斯爆炸事故發(fā)生的總體規(guī)律性進(jìn)行對(duì)比分析;其次,對(duì)引起我國(guó)77起瓦斯爆炸事故的不安全動(dòng)作的發(fā)生規(guī)律定進(jìn)行了分析;然后,對(duì)美國(guó)46起瓦斯爆炸事故的不安全動(dòng)作發(fā)生規(guī)律進(jìn)行了分析;最后,對(duì)中美兩國(guó)瓦斯爆炸不安全動(dòng)作的發(fā)生規(guī)律和違反的相關(guān)規(guī)定進(jìn)行了對(duì)比分析,并根據(jù)分析得到的數(shù)據(jù),對(duì)我國(guó)瓦斯爆炸事故不安動(dòng)作的糾正提出了建議措施。對(duì)于不安全動(dòng)作的研究主要采用了理論分析法,案例分析法和對(duì)比分析法。首先,通過(guò)理論分析,確立了“事故致因‘2-4’模型”作為事故分析依據(jù)的可行性及優(yōu)越性;其次采用案例分析法,對(duì)以往發(fā)生過(guò)的事故案例中的不安全動(dòng)作進(jìn)行識(shí)別,將不安全動(dòng)作分為違反了相關(guān)規(guī)定的動(dòng)作和未違反任何規(guī)定的動(dòng)作兩類。對(duì)于違反規(guī)定的動(dòng)作我們認(rèn)為屬于不安全動(dòng)作,對(duì)于沒(méi)有違反相關(guān)規(guī)定的動(dòng)作,要進(jìn)行反復(fù)識(shí)別,并根據(jù)經(jīng)驗(yàn)進(jìn)行推理判斷。最后,采用對(duì)比的方法,將中美兩國(guó)引發(fā)瓦斯爆炸事故不安全動(dòng)作的發(fā)生規(guī)律及違反的相關(guān)規(guī)定進(jìn)行對(duì)比。通過(guò)對(duì)中美兩國(guó)瓦斯爆炸事故不安全動(dòng)作對(duì)比分析,得到以下結(jié)論:(1)得到了中美瓦斯爆炸事故總體發(fā)生規(guī)律的共性和差異性。通過(guò)對(duì)事故發(fā)生的時(shí)間、發(fā)生地點(diǎn)和點(diǎn)火源3個(gè)方面進(jìn)行中美對(duì)比得到,在我國(guó)和美國(guó),節(jié)假日前后和白班時(shí)段都是事故的高發(fā)期;我國(guó)15個(gè)和美國(guó)9個(gè)主要事故發(fā)生地點(diǎn),采煤工作面、掘進(jìn)工作面和運(yùn)輸大巷這3個(gè)作業(yè)地點(diǎn)都是事故高發(fā)區(qū),其次采空區(qū)在我國(guó)事故多發(fā);引起我國(guó)瓦斯爆炸的15種點(diǎn)火源和美國(guó)11種點(diǎn)火源中,10種是共性原因,“違章放炮”引起的事故都是最多的;“使用失爆煤電鉆”、“違章操作、拆卸礦燈”、“使用非礦用防爆電氣設(shè)備”、“煤自燃”、和“采空區(qū)存在明火”5種點(diǎn)火源在我國(guó)引起的瓦斯事故所占比例還很大,而在美國(guó)已經(jīng)得到杜絕。(2)得到了引起我國(guó)77起瓦斯爆炸事故的所有不安全動(dòng)作。通過(guò)對(duì)我國(guó)77起瓦斯爆炸事故分析,共得到相關(guān)不安全動(dòng)作376個(gè),其中與點(diǎn)火原因及其相關(guān)不安全動(dòng)作共268個(gè),與瓦斯積聚相關(guān)不安全動(dòng)作共計(jì)108個(gè)。并將點(diǎn)火源相關(guān)的不安全動(dòng)作歸為25類,與瓦斯積聚相關(guān)的不安全動(dòng)作歸為27類。在與點(diǎn)火源相關(guān)的不安全動(dòng)作中“違章放炮”發(fā)生的頻次最高,其次分別為違規(guī)開(kāi)采、未檢查瓦斯、未及時(shí)撤人和使用失爆煤電鉆;與瓦斯積聚相關(guān)的不安全動(dòng)作中“未安裝通風(fēng)設(shè)施”發(fā)生頻次最多,其次依次是局部通風(fēng)機(jī)拉循環(huán)風(fēng)、通風(fēng)受限、違規(guī)移除通風(fēng)控制設(shè)施和通風(fēng)設(shè)施建造不合格。(3)得到了美國(guó)瓦斯爆炸事故不安全動(dòng)作數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)。通過(guò)對(duì)美國(guó)46起爆炸事故原因進(jìn)行分析,共得到相關(guān)不安全動(dòng)作162個(gè),其中和點(diǎn)火相關(guān)的不安全動(dòng)作共102個(gè),與瓦斯積聚相關(guān)的不安全動(dòng)作60個(gè)。并將與點(diǎn)火源相關(guān)的102個(gè)不安全動(dòng)作歸為20類,其中與“違章放炮”相關(guān)的不安全動(dòng)作發(fā)生頻次最多,其次分別為未檢查瓦斯、操作存在隱患的機(jī)械設(shè)備、未采取防塵降塵措施和吸煙。將與瓦斯積聚相關(guān)的60個(gè)不安全動(dòng)作歸為18類,得到“違規(guī)移除通風(fēng)控制設(shè)施”引起瓦斯積聚次數(shù)最多,其次分別是違規(guī)施工導(dǎo)致通風(fēng)改變、通風(fēng)設(shè)施建造不合格、采空區(qū)未安裝瓦斯抽放系統(tǒng)和未安裝通風(fēng)設(shè)施。(4)得到了中美瓦斯爆炸事故不安全動(dòng)作發(fā)生的異同。在我國(guó)與點(diǎn)火源相關(guān)的25種不安全動(dòng)作和美國(guó)的20種不安全動(dòng)作中,絕大多數(shù)屬于共性動(dòng)作,其中共性不安全動(dòng)作有16種,僅在美國(guó)發(fā)生的動(dòng)作有4種,僅在我國(guó)發(fā)生的動(dòng)作有9種。盡管不安全動(dòng)作的種類多,但發(fā)生相對(duì)集中,其中“違章放炮”發(fā)生頻次在兩個(gè)國(guó)家均最高,并且在兩個(gè)國(guó)家發(fā)生頻次排在前5位的5種不安全動(dòng)作發(fā)生頻次占不安全動(dòng)作總頻次比例均超過(guò)了一半。我國(guó)27種和美國(guó)18種與瓦斯積聚相關(guān)的不安動(dòng)作中,絕大多數(shù)也都屬于共性不安全動(dòng)作,其中共性不安動(dòng)作共16種,僅在美國(guó)發(fā)生的動(dòng)作有2種,僅在我國(guó)發(fā)生的動(dòng)作共11種,但兩個(gè)國(guó)家引起瓦斯積聚的不安全動(dòng)作發(fā)生頻次排序不同。(5)得到了中美瓦斯爆炸事故不安全動(dòng)作違反的相關(guān)規(guī)定的共性和差異性。對(duì)比中美與點(diǎn)火源相關(guān)不安動(dòng)作的相關(guān)規(guī)定,得出其中6種不安動(dòng)作有類似規(guī)定,其余不安動(dòng)作相關(guān)規(guī)定存在不同;對(duì)比與瓦斯積聚相關(guān)不安全動(dòng)作的相關(guān)規(guī)定,得到6種不安動(dòng)作有類似規(guī)定,其余不安全動(dòng)作相關(guān)規(guī)定存在不同。并且得到了,水泡泥袋的直徑和承受力、炮眼裝藥量、一次放炮個(gè)數(shù)、爆破作業(yè)時(shí)起爆安全距離、炸藥距離電源的最短距離、錨桿之間的橫向間距、移除即將密閉區(qū)域內(nèi)的點(diǎn)火源和任何貫穿密閉的金屬物體、班前和班中需要做哪些檢查以及檢查的次數(shù)、巖粉的散布范圍和用量、逃生路線圖張貼要求、電纜臨時(shí)接頭的連接距離、鏈接方式和使用時(shí)效、架電線短路開(kāi)關(guān)安裝距離、自救器的放置位置和距離、密閉墻的建造材料以及最小承壓力、縱向風(fēng)障距離工作面的距離、兩風(fēng)門(mén)間最大距離等在美國(guó)都有相應(yīng)的具體的數(shù)值規(guī)定,而在我國(guó)有的還沒(méi)有相關(guān)規(guī)定或者沒(méi)有給出具體統(tǒng)一的規(guī)定,缺乏可操作性。(6)得到了糾正我國(guó)瓦斯爆炸事故不安全動(dòng)作的建議措施。依據(jù)統(tǒng)計(jì)分析結(jié)得到的數(shù)據(jù),建議我國(guó)為減少點(diǎn)火及相關(guān)不安全動(dòng)作的發(fā)生,可以特別加強(qiáng)對(duì)“違章放炮”、“違規(guī)開(kāi)采”和“未檢查瓦斯”相關(guān)不安全動(dòng)作進(jìn)行控制,這3類不安全動(dòng)作的發(fā)生頻次占到了不安全動(dòng)作發(fā)生總頻次的62%,如果這3類不安全動(dòng)作得到有效控制將大大減少事故發(fā)生。為減少瓦斯積聚的發(fā)生,可以特別加強(qiáng)對(duì)“未安裝通風(fēng)設(shè)施”和“局部通風(fēng)機(jī)拉循環(huán)風(fēng)”2類不安全動(dòng)作的矯正,這2類不安全動(dòng)作發(fā)生頻次在所有與瓦斯積聚相關(guān)不安全動(dòng)作中較高;其次應(yīng)加強(qiáng)對(duì)和通風(fēng)設(shè)施尤其是局部通風(fēng)機(jī)的安裝、使用和維護(hù)相關(guān)的不安動(dòng)作的矯正,我國(guó)與通風(fēng)設(shè)施相關(guān)的不安全動(dòng)作占引起瓦斯積聚的不安全動(dòng)作總頻次的65.74%,美國(guó)占55%。除此之外,我國(guó)應(yīng)增加對(duì)一些不安全動(dòng)作的相關(guān)規(guī)定,通過(guò)對(duì)中美瓦斯爆炸事故不安全動(dòng)作違反的相關(guān)規(guī)定對(duì)比發(fā)現(xiàn),對(duì)于一些不安全動(dòng)作美國(guó)都有相應(yīng)的具體的數(shù)值規(guī)定,而在我國(guó)有些還沒(méi)有相應(yīng)規(guī)定或者有些規(guī)定不具體缺乏可操作性,因此增加相關(guān)規(guī)定,有利于對(duì)不安全動(dòng)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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)礦業(yè)大學(xué)(北京)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：TD712.7
【相似文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 劉青峰,趙文偉;剖析國(guó)有煤礦五起特大瓦斯爆炸事故的原因及教訓(xùn)[J];煤礦安全;2002年04期
2 瞿國(guó)相;石林縣過(guò)水溝煤礦“11·14”特大瓦斯爆炸事故原因[J];工業(yè)安全與環(huán)保;2003年01期
3 潘志存,邢俊海,劉恒民,陳詩(shī)奇,楊利冰;一起煤礦特大瓦斯爆炸事故的處理與分析[J];河北煤炭;2003年01期
4 彭桂劍;淺談處理瓦斯爆炸事故時(shí)的技術(shù)要點(diǎn)和難點(diǎn)[J];煤礦安全;2004年11期
5 ;近期5起煤礦特大瓦斯爆炸事故調(diào)查情況[J];勞動(dòng)保護(hù);2005年06期
6 ;邵東宏發(fā)煤礦特大瓦斯爆炸事故原因查明[J];湖南安全與防災(zāi);2007年04期
7 王東武;四旭飛;張延松;;淺談瓦斯爆炸事故的預(yù)防及控制[J];煤;2008年08期
8 劉偉;;細(xì)水煤礦“3·19”特別重大瓦斯爆炸事故分析[J];中國(guó)煤炭工業(yè);2008年07期
9 丙年;;屯蘭悲歌——山西省太原市屯蘭煤礦2·22特大瓦斯爆炸事故追蹤[J];湖南安全與防災(zāi);2009年04期
10 吳斌;李照陽(yáng);萬(wàn)江;鄧婷婷;;淺談瓦斯爆炸事故的預(yù)防措施[J];科技資訊;2009年18期
相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前5條
1 劉青峰;;國(guó)有煤礦四起特大瓦斯爆炸事故的原因及教訓(xùn)[A];中國(guó)職業(yè)安全健康協(xié)會(huì)首屆年會(huì)暨職業(yè)安全健康論壇論文集[C];2004年
2 施式亮;;瓦斯爆炸事故的混沌特性及其控制方法研究[A];全面建設(shè)小康社會(huì)：中國(guó)科技工作者的歷史責(zé)任——中國(guó)科協(xié)2003年學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文集（下）[C];2003年
3 施式亮;何利文;伍愛(ài)友;李潤(rùn)求;;基于分形學(xué)的瓦斯爆炸事故時(shí)序數(shù)據(jù)分析模型及應(yīng)用[A];中國(guó)職業(yè)安全健康協(xié)會(huì)2011年學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文集[C];2011年
4 施式亮;梁小玲;;瓦斯爆炸事故的混沌特性及其控制方法初探[A];2003年中國(guó)科學(xué)技術(shù)協(xié)會(huì)學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)、“安全健康：全面建設(shè)小康社會(huì)”專題交流會(huì)、全國(guó)第三次安全科學(xué)技術(shù)學(xué)術(shù)交流大會(huì)論文集[C];2003年
5 臧海民;;堅(jiān)持以人為本 強(qiáng)化安全生產(chǎn) 構(gòu)建社會(huì)主義和諧社會(huì)[A];2006煤炭經(jīng)濟(jì)研究文選[C];2006年
相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條
1 彭于艷;立案?jìng)刹槠芽h瓦斯爆炸事故[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2007年
2 劉廷遠(yuǎn);瀘縣發(fā)生特大瓦斯爆炸事故[N];四川日?qǐng)?bào);2007年
3 達(dá)同;特大瓦斯爆炸事故 財(cái)險(xiǎn)公司愛(ài)莫能助[N];中國(guó)保險(xiǎn)報(bào);2003年
4 劉青峰 趙文偉;五起瓦斯爆炸事故的原因及教訓(xùn)[N];廠長(zhǎng)經(jīng)理日?qǐng)?bào);2001年
5 記者 程宇婕;四川肖家灣煤礦發(fā)生特別重大瓦斯爆炸事故[N];中國(guó)能源報(bào);2012年
6 本報(bào)記者;嚴(yán)厲打擊瞞報(bào)謊報(bào)事故行為[N];中國(guó)煤炭報(bào);2014年
7 本報(bào)記者 石宇昊;我省40人因?qū)`規(guī)開(kāi)采監(jiān)管不力受處分[N];貴州政協(xié)報(bào);2006年
8 記者 武躍進(jìn) 馬德甲;汲取事故教訓(xùn) 打好兩個(gè)攻堅(jiān)戰(zhàn)[N];中國(guó)煤炭報(bào);2006年
9 本報(bào)記者 李富永;李毅中何時(shí)不再疲于奔命[N];中華工商時(shí)報(bào);2005年
10 記者 閻文華;關(guān)停年產(chǎn)10萬(wàn)噸以下地方小煤礦[N];寧夏日?qǐng)?bào);2009年
相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前3條
1 高巖;中美煤礦瓦斯爆炸事故不安全動(dòng)作原因?qū)Ρ确治鯷D];中國(guó)礦業(yè)大學(xué)(北京);2016年
2 殷文韜;煤礦瓦斯爆炸事故的不安全動(dòng)作原因研究[D];中國(guó)礦業(yè)大學(xué)（北京）;2014年
3 趙金憲;復(fù)雜系統(tǒng)脆性理論在煤礦生產(chǎn)系統(tǒng)脆性風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)中的應(yīng)用[D];哈爾濱工程大學(xué);2010年
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 李俊霞;官地礦掘進(jìn)工作面瓦斯爆炸事故危險(xiǎn)源風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)[D];太原理工大學(xué);2012年
，
本文編號(hào)：1815702
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/jingjilunwen/jiliangjingjilunwen/1815702.html
本文選題：煤礦 + 瓦斯爆炸��； 參考：《中國(guó)礦業(yè)大學(xué)(北京)》2016年博士論文
【摘要】：無(wú)論是我國(guó)還是美國(guó),瓦斯爆炸事故在煤礦事故中都占相當(dāng)大的比重,都造成了大量的人員傷亡和巨大經(jīng)濟(jì)損失,對(duì)人類的生活和社會(huì)進(jìn)步產(chǎn)生了重要的影響。盡管,近年來(lái)我國(guó)瓦斯事故總體上呈現(xiàn)逐年遞減的趨勢(shì),但絕對(duì)死亡人數(shù)與美國(guó)相比還很高,重特大瓦斯事故還沒(méi)能從根本上得到遏制。而美國(guó),也曾經(jīng)經(jīng)歷過(guò)瓦斯爆炸事故高發(fā)期,直到70年代初,由于美國(guó)通過(guò)了《聯(lián)邦煤礦健康與安全法案》(1969 Act)并逐漸將行為安全應(yīng)用到礦山安全管理中,使得美國(guó)瓦斯爆炸事故得到了非常有效的控制。因此,從行為安全的角度,對(duì)我國(guó)瓦斯爆炸事故的不安全動(dòng)作原因進(jìn)行分析,并和美國(guó)進(jìn)行對(duì)比,能夠?yàn)轭A(yù)防我國(guó)瓦斯爆炸事故提供一定的借鑒,有利于減少瓦斯事故的發(fā)生。事故原因分析以“事故致因‘2-4’模型”為理論依據(jù),選取我國(guó)2005年至2009年5年間發(fā)生的77起重特大瓦斯爆炸事故和美國(guó)1950年至今發(fā)生的46起瓦斯爆炸事故為樣本,首先,從瓦斯爆炸事故發(fā)生的時(shí)間、事故作業(yè)地點(diǎn)和點(diǎn)火原因3個(gè)方面,對(duì)中美瓦斯爆炸事故發(fā)生的總體規(guī)律性進(jìn)行對(duì)比分析;其次,對(duì)引起我國(guó)77起瓦斯爆炸事故的不安全動(dòng)作的發(fā)生規(guī)律定進(jìn)行了分析;然后,對(duì)美國(guó)46起瓦斯爆炸事故的不安全動(dòng)作發(fā)生規(guī)律進(jìn)行了分析;最后,對(duì)中美兩國(guó)瓦斯爆炸不安全動(dòng)作的發(fā)生規(guī)律和違反的相關(guān)規(guī)定進(jìn)行了對(duì)比分析,并根據(jù)分析得到的數(shù)據(jù),對(duì)我國(guó)瓦斯爆炸事故不安動(dòng)作的糾正提出了建議措施。對(duì)于不安全動(dòng)作的研究主要采用了理論分析法,案例分析法和對(duì)比分析法。首先,通過(guò)理論分析,確立了“事故致因‘2-4’模型”作為事故分析依據(jù)的可行性及優(yōu)越性;其次采用案例分析法,對(duì)以往發(fā)生過(guò)的事故案例中的不安全動(dòng)作進(jìn)行識(shí)別,將不安全動(dòng)作分為違反了相關(guān)規(guī)定的動(dòng)作和未違反任何規(guī)定的動(dòng)作兩類。對(duì)于違反規(guī)定的動(dòng)作我們認(rèn)為屬于不安全動(dòng)作,對(duì)于沒(méi)有違反相關(guān)規(guī)定的動(dòng)作,要進(jìn)行反復(fù)識(shí)別,并根據(jù)經(jīng)驗(yàn)進(jìn)行推理判斷。最后,采用對(duì)比的方法,將中美兩國(guó)引發(fā)瓦斯爆炸事故不安全動(dòng)作的發(fā)生規(guī)律及違反的相關(guān)規(guī)定進(jìn)行對(duì)比。通過(guò)對(duì)中美兩國(guó)瓦斯爆炸事故不安全動(dòng)作對(duì)比分析,得到以下結(jié)論:(1)得到了中美瓦斯爆炸事故總體發(fā)生規(guī)律的共性和差異性。通過(guò)對(duì)事故發(fā)生的時(shí)間、發(fā)生地點(diǎn)和點(diǎn)火源3個(gè)方面進(jìn)行中美對(duì)比得到,在我國(guó)和美國(guó),節(jié)假日前后和白班時(shí)段都是事故的高發(fā)期;我國(guó)15個(gè)和美國(guó)9個(gè)主要事故發(fā)生地點(diǎn),采煤工作面、掘進(jìn)工作面和運(yùn)輸大巷這3個(gè)作業(yè)地點(diǎn)都是事故高發(fā)區(qū),其次采空區(qū)在我國(guó)事故多發(fā);引起我國(guó)瓦斯爆炸的15種點(diǎn)火源和美國(guó)11種點(diǎn)火源中,10種是共性原因,“違章放炮”引起的事故都是最多的;“使用失爆煤電鉆”、“違章操作、拆卸礦燈”、“使用非礦用防爆電氣設(shè)備”、“煤自燃”、和“采空區(qū)存在明火”5種點(diǎn)火源在我國(guó)引起的瓦斯事故所占比例還很大,而在美國(guó)已經(jīng)得到杜絕。(2)得到了引起我國(guó)77起瓦斯爆炸事故的所有不安全動(dòng)作。通過(guò)對(duì)我國(guó)77起瓦斯爆炸事故分析,共得到相關(guān)不安全動(dòng)作376個(gè),其中與點(diǎn)火原因及其相關(guān)不安全動(dòng)作共268個(gè),與瓦斯積聚相關(guān)不安全動(dòng)作共計(jì)108個(gè)。并將點(diǎn)火源相關(guān)的不安全動(dòng)作歸為25類,與瓦斯積聚相關(guān)的不安全動(dòng)作歸為27類。在與點(diǎn)火源相關(guān)的不安全動(dòng)作中“違章放炮”發(fā)生的頻次最高,其次分別為違規(guī)開(kāi)采、未檢查瓦斯、未及時(shí)撤人和使用失爆煤電鉆;與瓦斯積聚相關(guān)的不安全動(dòng)作中“未安裝通風(fēng)設(shè)施”發(fā)生頻次最多,其次依次是局部通風(fēng)機(jī)拉循環(huán)風(fēng)、通風(fēng)受限、違規(guī)移除通風(fēng)控制設(shè)施和通風(fēng)設(shè)施建造不合格。(3)得到了美國(guó)瓦斯爆炸事故不安全動(dòng)作數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)。通過(guò)對(duì)美國(guó)46起爆炸事故原因進(jìn)行分析,共得到相關(guān)不安全動(dòng)作162個(gè),其中和點(diǎn)火相關(guān)的不安全動(dòng)作共102個(gè),與瓦斯積聚相關(guān)的不安全動(dòng)作60個(gè)。并將與點(diǎn)火源相關(guān)的102個(gè)不安全動(dòng)作歸為20類,其中與“違章放炮”相關(guān)的不安全動(dòng)作發(fā)生頻次最多,其次分別為未檢查瓦斯、操作存在隱患的機(jī)械設(shè)備、未采取防塵降塵措施和吸煙。將與瓦斯積聚相關(guān)的60個(gè)不安全動(dòng)作歸為18類,得到“違規(guī)移除通風(fēng)控制設(shè)施”引起瓦斯積聚次數(shù)最多,其次分別是違規(guī)施工導(dǎo)致通風(fēng)改變、通風(fēng)設(shè)施建造不合格、采空區(qū)未安裝瓦斯抽放系統(tǒng)和未安裝通風(fēng)設(shè)施。(4)得到了中美瓦斯爆炸事故不安全動(dòng)作發(fā)生的異同。在我國(guó)與點(diǎn)火源相關(guān)的25種不安全動(dòng)作和美國(guó)的20種不安全動(dòng)作中,絕大多數(shù)屬于共性動(dòng)作,其中共性不安全動(dòng)作有16種,僅在美國(guó)發(fā)生的動(dòng)作有4種,僅在我國(guó)發(fā)生的動(dòng)作有9種。盡管不安全動(dòng)作的種類多,但發(fā)生相對(duì)集中,其中“違章放炮”發(fā)生頻次在兩個(gè)國(guó)家均最高,并且在兩個(gè)國(guó)家發(fā)生頻次排在前5位的5種不安全動(dòng)作發(fā)生頻次占不安全動(dòng)作總頻次比例均超過(guò)了一半。我國(guó)27種和美國(guó)18種與瓦斯積聚相關(guān)的不安動(dòng)作中,絕大多數(shù)也都屬于共性不安全動(dòng)作,其中共性不安動(dòng)作共16種,僅在美國(guó)發(fā)生的動(dòng)作有2種,僅在我國(guó)發(fā)生的動(dòng)作共11種,但兩個(gè)國(guó)家引起瓦斯積聚的不安全動(dòng)作發(fā)生頻次排序不同。(5)得到了中美瓦斯爆炸事故不安全動(dòng)作違反的相關(guān)規(guī)定的共性和差異性。對(duì)比中美與點(diǎn)火源相關(guān)不安動(dòng)作的相關(guān)規(guī)定,得出其中6種不安動(dòng)作有類似規(guī)定,其余不安動(dòng)作相關(guān)規(guī)定存在不同;對(duì)比與瓦斯積聚相關(guān)不安全動(dòng)作的相關(guān)規(guī)定,得到6種不安動(dòng)作有類似規(guī)定,其余不安全動(dòng)作相關(guān)規(guī)定存在不同。并且得到了,水泡泥袋的直徑和承受力、炮眼裝藥量、一次放炮個(gè)數(shù)、爆破作業(yè)時(shí)起爆安全距離、炸藥距離電源的最短距離、錨桿之間的橫向間距、移除即將密閉區(qū)域內(nèi)的點(diǎn)火源和任何貫穿密閉的金屬物體、班前和班中需要做哪些檢查以及檢查的次數(shù)、巖粉的散布范圍和用量、逃生路線圖張貼要求、電纜臨時(shí)接頭的連接距離、鏈接方式和使用時(shí)效、架電線短路開(kāi)關(guān)安裝距離、自救器的放置位置和距離、密閉墻的建造材料以及最小承壓力、縱向風(fēng)障距離工作面的距離、兩風(fēng)門(mén)間最大距離等在美國(guó)都有相應(yīng)的具體的數(shù)值規(guī)定,而在我國(guó)有的還沒(méi)有相關(guān)規(guī)定或者沒(méi)有給出具體統(tǒng)一的規(guī)定,缺乏可操作性。(6)得到了糾正我國(guó)瓦斯爆炸事故不安全動(dòng)作的建議措施。依據(jù)統(tǒng)計(jì)分析結(jié)得到的數(shù)據(jù),建議我國(guó)為減少點(diǎn)火及相關(guān)不安全動(dòng)作的發(fā)生,可以特別加強(qiáng)對(duì)“違章放炮”、“違規(guī)開(kāi)采”和“未檢查瓦斯”相關(guān)不安全動(dòng)作進(jìn)行控制,這3類不安全動(dòng)作的發(fā)生頻次占到了不安全動(dòng)作發(fā)生總頻次的62%,如果這3類不安全動(dòng)作得到有效控制將大大減少事故發(fā)生。為減少瓦斯積聚的發(fā)生,可以特別加強(qiáng)對(duì)“未安裝通風(fēng)設(shè)施”和“局部通風(fēng)機(jī)拉循環(huán)風(fēng)”2類不安全動(dòng)作的矯正,這2類不安全動(dòng)作發(fā)生頻次在所有與瓦斯積聚相關(guān)不安全動(dòng)作中較高;其次應(yīng)加強(qiáng)對(duì)和通風(fēng)設(shè)施尤其是局部通風(fēng)機(jī)的安裝、使用和維護(hù)相關(guān)的不安動(dòng)作的矯正,我國(guó)與通風(fēng)設(shè)施相關(guān)的不安全動(dòng)作占引起瓦斯積聚的不安全動(dòng)作總頻次的65.74%,美國(guó)占55%。除此之外,我國(guó)應(yīng)增加對(duì)一些不安全動(dòng)作的相關(guān)規(guī)定,通過(guò)對(duì)中美瓦斯爆炸事故不安全動(dòng)作違反的相關(guān)規(guī)定對(duì)比發(fā)現(xiàn),對(duì)于一些不安全動(dòng)作美國(guó)都有相應(yīng)的具體的數(shù)值規(guī)定,而在我國(guó)有些還沒(méi)有相應(yīng)規(guī)定或者有些規(guī)定不具體缺乏可操作性,因此增加相關(guān)規(guī)定,有利于對(duì)不安全動(dòng)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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)礦業(yè)大學(xué)(北京)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：TD712.7
【相似文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 劉青峰,趙文偉;剖析國(guó)有煤礦五起特大瓦斯爆炸事故的原因及教訓(xùn)[J];煤礦安全;2002年04期
2 瞿國(guó)相;石林縣過(guò)水溝煤礦“11·14”特大瓦斯爆炸事故原因[J];工業(yè)安全與環(huán)保;2003年01期
3 潘志存,邢俊海,劉恒民,陳詩(shī)奇,楊利冰;一起煤礦特大瓦斯爆炸事故的處理與分析[J];河北煤炭;2003年01期
4 彭桂劍;淺談處理瓦斯爆炸事故時(shí)的技術(shù)要點(diǎn)和難點(diǎn)[J];煤礦安全;2004年11期
5 ;近期5起煤礦特大瓦斯爆炸事故調(diào)查情況[J];勞動(dòng)保護(hù);2005年06期
6 ;邵東宏發(fā)煤礦特大瓦斯爆炸事故原因查明[J];湖南安全與防災(zāi);2007年04期
7 王東武;四旭飛;張延松;;淺談瓦斯爆炸事故的預(yù)防及控制[J];煤;2008年08期
8 劉偉;;細(xì)水煤礦“3·19”特別重大瓦斯爆炸事故分析[J];中國(guó)煤炭工業(yè);2008年07期
9 丙年;;屯蘭悲歌——山西省太原市屯蘭煤礦2·22特大瓦斯爆炸事故追蹤[J];湖南安全與防災(zāi);2009年04期
10 吳斌;李照陽(yáng);萬(wàn)江;鄧婷婷;;淺談瓦斯爆炸事故的預(yù)防措施[J];科技資訊;2009年18期
相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前5條
1 劉青峰;;國(guó)有煤礦四起特大瓦斯爆炸事故的原因及教訓(xùn)[A];中國(guó)職業(yè)安全健康協(xié)會(huì)首屆年會(huì)暨職業(yè)安全健康論壇論文集[C];2004年
2 施式亮;;瓦斯爆炸事故的混沌特性及其控制方法研究[A];全面建設(shè)小康社會(huì)：中國(guó)科技工作者的歷史責(zé)任——中國(guó)科協(xié)2003年學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文集（下）[C];2003年
3 施式亮;何利文;伍愛(ài)友;李潤(rùn)求;;基于分形學(xué)的瓦斯爆炸事故時(shí)序數(shù)據(jù)分析模型及應(yīng)用[A];中國(guó)職業(yè)安全健康協(xié)會(huì)2011年學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文集[C];2011年
4 施式亮;梁小玲;;瓦斯爆炸事故的混沌特性及其控制方法初探[A];2003年中國(guó)科學(xué)技術(shù)協(xié)會(huì)學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)、“安全健康：全面建設(shè)小康社會(huì)”專題交流會(huì)、全國(guó)第三次安全科學(xué)技術(shù)學(xué)術(shù)交流大會(huì)論文集[C];2003年
5 臧海民;;堅(jiān)持以人為本 強(qiáng)化安全生產(chǎn) 構(gòu)建社會(huì)主義和諧社會(huì)[A];2006煤炭經(jīng)濟(jì)研究文選[C];2006年
相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條
1 彭于艷;立案?jìng)刹槠芽h瓦斯爆炸事故[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2007年
2 劉廷遠(yuǎn);瀘縣發(fā)生特大瓦斯爆炸事故[N];四川日?qǐng)?bào);2007年
3 達(dá)同;特大瓦斯爆炸事故 財(cái)險(xiǎn)公司愛(ài)莫能助[N];中國(guó)保險(xiǎn)報(bào);2003年
4 劉青峰 趙文偉;五起瓦斯爆炸事故的原因及教訓(xùn)[N];廠長(zhǎng)經(jīng)理日?qǐng)?bào);2001年
5 記者 程宇婕;四川肖家灣煤礦發(fā)生特別重大瓦斯爆炸事故[N];中國(guó)能源報(bào);2012年
6 本報(bào)記者;嚴(yán)厲打擊瞞報(bào)謊報(bào)事故行為[N];中國(guó)煤炭報(bào);2014年
7 本報(bào)記者 石宇昊;我省40人因?qū)`規(guī)開(kāi)采監(jiān)管不力受處分[N];貴州政協(xié)報(bào);2006年
8 記者 武躍進(jìn) 馬德甲;汲取事故教訓(xùn) 打好兩個(gè)攻堅(jiān)戰(zhàn)[N];中國(guó)煤炭報(bào);2006年
9 本報(bào)記者 李富永;李毅中何時(shí)不再疲于奔命[N];中華工商時(shí)報(bào);2005年
10 記者 閻文華;關(guān)停年產(chǎn)10萬(wàn)噸以下地方小煤礦[N];寧夏日?qǐng)?bào);2009年
相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前3條
1 高巖;中美煤礦瓦斯爆炸事故不安全動(dòng)作原因?qū)Ρ确治鯷D];中國(guó)礦業(yè)大學(xué)(北京);2016年
2 殷文韜;煤礦瓦斯爆炸事故的不安全動(dòng)作原因研究[D];中國(guó)礦業(yè)大學(xué)（北京）;2014年
3 趙金憲;復(fù)雜系統(tǒng)脆性理論在煤礦生產(chǎn)系統(tǒng)脆性風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)中的應(yīng)用[D];哈爾濱工程大學(xué);2010年
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 李俊霞;官地礦掘進(jìn)工作面瓦斯爆炸事故危險(xiǎn)源風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)[D];太原理工大學(xué);2012年
，本文編號(hào)：1815702
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/jingjilunwen/jiliangjingjilunwen/1815702.html
最近更新
教材專著
