Systemic accident analysis models: A comparison study between AcciMap, FRAM, and STAMP

Nowadays, different accident causation models are used to explain how accidents happen, whereas most of them were developed long time ago. There is an argument that significant changes have occurred in the industry and traditional models may have limitations in identifying causes of accidents in mod...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Process safety progress 2019-06, Vol.38 (2), p.n/a
Main Authors: Yousefi, Abouzar, Rodriguez Hernandez, Manuel, Lopez Peña, Valentin
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accident analysis
Accidents
AcciMap
Case studies
CAST
Causation
Environment models
Forensic engineering
FRAM
Identification methods
Organic chemistry
Refineries
STAMP
System theory
systemic accident models
Systems theory
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Nowadays, different accident causation models are used to explain how accidents happen, whereas most of them were developed long time ago. There is an argument that significant changes have occurred in the industry and traditional models may have limitations in identifying causes of accidents in modern industry within complex socio‐technical environment. Consequently, new accident models based on systems theory have been introduced, but they are mainly used by academic researchers. Among systemic accident models, Systems‐Theoretic Accident Model and Processes (STAMP), Functional Resonance Accident Model (FRAM), and AcciMap methods have been identified as the most frequently cited models. This article presents a case study‐based comparison of these three models. STAMP and FRAM are used to analyze the Chevron Richmond refinery accident, which is investigated by U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). CSB investigation team developed an AcciMap of the accident. The results are compared and differences are discussed. In conclusion, STAMP is likely to be more instrumental and comprehensive in identifying contributing factors and generating recommendations. © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog 38: e12002, 2019
ISSN:1066-8527
1547-5913
DOI:10.1002/prs.12002