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（2...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（24 Model）, 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 24 Model 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 24 Model includes external factors, which makes the cause analysis more systematic and comprehensive. Moreover, the 24 Model puts forward more corresponding measures to prevent accidents.展开更多
Presidents: T. Gilat (Israel), H. Fromm (USA). Plenary sessions. Epidemiology and natural history;pathogenesis; clinical aspects; treatment of gallbladder stones;treatment of biliary tract stones; future prospects.Re...Presidents: T. Gilat (Israel), H. Fromm (USA). Plenary sessions. Epidemiology and natural history;pathogenesis; clinical aspects; treatment of gallbladder stones;treatment of biliary tract stones; future prospects.Research workshops. Modulation of biliary lipid composition, cholesterol complexes in bile, nucleation and crystallization of cholesterol, biomineralization and stone formation, lithogenic events in the gallbladder. Poster sessions information. Gallstone conference secretariat, Peltours-Te’um Congress Organisers, P.O.B. 8388, Jerusalem 91082, Israel. Fax: (972 2) 637572, Tel: (972 2) 617402展开更多
基金support from the State Key Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51534008)
文摘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（24 Model）, 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 24 Model 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 24 Model includes external factors, which makes the cause analysis more systematic and comprehensive. Moreover, the 24 Model puts forward more corresponding measures to prevent accidents.
