Systemic approaches to incident analysis in coal mines: Comparison of the STAMP, FRAM and "2-4" models

被引:49
作者
Qiao, Wanguan [1 ,2 ]
Li, Xinchun [2 ]
Liu, Quanlong [2 ]
机构
[1] Jiangsu Vocat Inst Architectural Technol, Sch Econ & Management, Xuzhou 221116, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
[2] China Univ Min & Technol, Sch Management, A502,RD 1, Xuzhou 221116, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Coal mine accident; Accident analysis; Systems approach; STAMP; FRAM; 2-4" model; GAS EXPLOSION ACCIDENTS; EVOLUTIONARY GAME; SAFETY REGULATION; CAUSATION; ACCIMAP; HFACS;
D O I
10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101453
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Coal mine accidents are often caused by the coupling of multiple factors rather than by a single factor. Therefore, explaining the nonlinear and coupling characteristics in accidents by using traditional accident theory is hard. To cope with the safety challenges caused by the extensive use of digital components and the construction of complex systems, incorporating the idea of system engineering into accident analysis is deemed effective. First, this paper introduces the basic principles and analysis steps of the Systems-Theoretic Accident Model and Processes (STAMP), Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) and "2-4" models and then applies the three models to the eight coal mine accidents. Finally, the three models are compared based on their characteristics, analysis processes and analysis results. The results show that the accident causes identified by the three methods cover the main causes in the accident investigation report, and new causes were identified. However, the results of the STAMP and FRAM models are more comprehensive and systematic, but the model characteristics and analysis processes are more complex, whereas the results of the "2-4" model analysis are relatively broad, but the analysis process is simple and easy to understand. Therefore, the study suggests that although the choice of accident causing model depends on the user's knowledge level or accident type, the STAMP and FRAM models are more suitable for analyzing a small number of complex coal mine accidents, while the "2-4" model is more advantageous in the analysis of large number of accidents.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 36 条
[1]   Advantages for risk assessment: Evaluating learnings from question sets inspired by the FRAM and the risk matrix in a manufacturing environment [J].
Albery, Simon ;
Borys, David ;
Tepe, Susanne .
SAFETY SCIENCE, 2016, 89 :180-189
[2]   Systems Theoretic Accident Model and Process (STAMP) safety modelling applied to an aircraft rapid decompression event [J].
Allison, Craig K. ;
Revell, Kirsten M. ;
Sears, Rod ;
Stanton, Neville A. .
SAFETY SCIENCE, 2017, 98 :159-166
[3]   Event-tree analysis using binary decision diagrams [J].
Andrews, JD ;
Dunnett, SJ .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON RELIABILITY, 2000, 49 (02) :230-238
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1996, The basics of FMEA
[5]   Uncertainty treatment in risk analysis of complex systems: The cases of STAMP and FRAM [J].
Bjerga, Torbjorn ;
Aven, Terje ;
Zio, Enrico .
RELIABILITY ENGINEERING & SYSTEM SAFETY, 2016, 156 :203-209
[6]   Evaluating the effect of coal mine safety supervision system policy in China's coal mining industry: A two-phase analysis [J].
Chen, Sen-Sen ;
Xu, Jin-Hua ;
Fan, Ying .
RESOURCES POLICY, 2015, 46 :12-21
[7]  
Ericson CA, 2005, HAZARD ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES FOR SYSTEM SAFETY, P183
[8]  
[傅贵 Fu Gui], 2013, [煤炭学报, Journal of China Coal Society], V38, P1123
[9]   Relationship Analysis of Causal Factors in Coal and Gas Outburst Accidents Based on the 24Model [J].
Fu, Gui ;
Cao, Jialin ;
Wang, Xiuming .
3RD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH, ICEER 2016, 2017, 107 :314-320
[10]   Back to the future: What do accident causation models tell us about accident prediction? [J].
Grant, Eryn ;
Salmon, Paul M. ;
Stevens, Nicholas J. ;
Goode, Natassia ;
Read, Gemma J. .
SAFETY SCIENCE, 2018, 104 :99-109