Systems-Based Analysis of China-Tianjin Port Fire and Explosion: A Comparison of HFACS, AcciMap, and STAMP
- PDF / 636,724 Bytes
- 15 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 50 Downloads / 130 Views
TECHNICAL ARTICLE—PEER-REVIEWED
Systems-Based Analysis of China-Tianjin Port Fire and Explosion: A Comparison of HFACS, AcciMap, and STAMP Yingyu Zhang . Linlin Jing . Chang Sun
Submitted: 23 June 2018 Ó ASM International 2018
Abstract China-Tianjin Port fire and explosion on August 12, 2015, was a major accident that involved hazardous chemicals and resulted in 165 fatalities and 798 injuries. Three-system-based accident models, human factor analysis and classification system (HFACS), AcciMap, and system theoretic accident modeling and process (STAMP), were applied to identify contributory factors and relationships in the accident. The analysis outputs and usage of the three techniques were compared. The threesystem accident models show several differences in terms of the emphasis on the models, system structure, classification of contributory factors, and interactions between system components. An important advantage of HFACS is the taxonomic nature, which can be easily applied in practical application. AcciMap provides a clear graphic representation of the causal flow of accidents, which is suitable for academic research. STAMP is suitable for both academic research and practical applications. Keywords Systems-based analysis Human factor analysis and classification system (HFACS) System theoretic accident modeling and process (STAMP) AcciMap China-Tianjin Port fire and explosion
Introduction At midnight on August 12, 2015, a fire and explosion accident occurred in a warehouse operated by Ruihai International Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereafter referred to as Y. Zhang (&) L. Jing C. Sun School of Management, Qufu Normal University, Rizhao 276826, China e-mail: [email protected]
Ruihai). The warehouse, which was located at Tianjin Port, contained hazardous chemicals. The accident caused 165 fatalities, disappearance of 8 persons, 798 injuries, and damages to 304 buildings; 12,428 vehicles; and 7533 containers. As of December 10, 2015, the direct economic loss resulting from the explosion was valued at 6.87 billion yuan [1]. Many tragic chemical accidents have occurred in human history. The Grenelle (1794) dust explosion killed 1000 people, which caused the publication of the first decree on activities with major risks in France [55]. The Flixborough disaster (1974) killed 28 people, injured 36 people in the factory, and wounded hundreds of people in surrounding communities. The Seveso (1976) chemical accident resulted in severe environmental pollution and the poisoning of hundreds of people [20]. The Bhopal disaster (1984), the worst chemical accident worldwide, killed over 2500 persons and injured more than 550,000 people [25–27]. These disasters caused widespread public panic. The business sector, legal profession, scientific community, and governments in many parts of the world have responded to major chemical accidents [4], which promoted the fundamental and even permanent change of legislations and regulations in the chemical industry [53]. Approximately 90% of world trading is accomplished by the
Data Loading...
