Comparative study of HFACS and the 24Model accident causation models
Abstract A comparative study is conducted to compare the theory and application effect of two accident causation models, the human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS) and the accident causation “2-4” model (24Model), as well as to provide a reference for safety researchers and acciden...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
KeAi Communications Co., Ltd.
2017
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/609d9970c3b24871b3e11302516ffaae |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract A comparative study is conducted to compare the theory and application effect of two accident causation models, the human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS) and the accident causation “2-4” model (24Model), as well as to provide a reference for safety researchers and accident investigators to select an appropriate accident analysis method. The two models are compared in terms of their theoretical foundations, cause classifications, accident analysis processes, application ranges, and accident prevention strategies. A coal and gas outburst accident is then analyzed using both models, and the application results are compared. This study shows that both the 24Model and HFACS have strong theoretical foundations, and they can each be applied in various domains. In addition, the cause classification in HFACS is more practical, and its accident analysis process is more convenient. On the other hand, the 24Model includes external factors, which makes the cause analysis more systematic and comprehensive. Moreover, the 24Model puts forward more corresponding measures to prevent accidents. |
|---|