Assessing the risk degree of goafs by employing hybrid TODIM method under uncertainty

  • Weizhang Liang
  • Guoyan ZhaoEmail author
  • Hao Wu
  • Ying Chen
Original Paper


A large number of accidents caused by goafs have great influence on the ecological environment and public safety. In order to assess the risk degrees of goafs, a hybrid Tomada de Decisão Interativa Multicritério (TODIM) method is proposed in this paper. Firstly, on account of the geological conditions, shape parameters and environmental factors, an evaluation index system is established. This system includes seven quantitative sub-criteria and six qualitative sub-criteria. The combined weight of each index is determined on the basis of game theory by combining the subjective weight and objective weight. Afterward, a fuzzy-TODIM method is put forward to obtain the rank of risk degree and the specific risk level. Finally, the hybrid TODIM method is used to assess the risk degrees of goafs in Shuikoushan lead-zinc mine under uncertainty. Sensitivity analysis is demonstrated to reveal the robustness of this approach. Results show that the proposed hybrid TODIM method can be adopted to assess the risk degrees of goafs reliably and stably.


Risk degree evaluation Goafs Multi-criteria decision method Uncertainty 



This work was supported by Fundamental Research Funds of Central South University (2018zzts218), Survey Research Funds of Central South University (2018dcyj052), and National Natural Science Foundation of China (51374244, 51774321). Besides, we also sincerely thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive suggestions and the editors for their careful and patient work.

Author contributions

Wei-zhang Liang and Guo-yan Zhao conceived and worked together to achieve this work, Wei-zhang Liang wrote the paper, and Guo-yan Zhao made contribution to the case study. Hao Wu and Ying Chen made contribution to modify the quality and English writing of this paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Ali SH, Giurco D, Arndt N, Nickless E, Brown G, Demetriades A, Durrheim R, Enriquez MA, Kinnaird J, Littleboy A, Meinert LD, Oberhänsli R, Salem J, Schodde R, Schneider G, Vidal O, Yakovleva N (2017) Mineral supply for sustainable development requires resource governance. Nature 543(7645):367–372Google Scholar
  2. Badri A, Nadeau S, Gbodossou A (2013) A new practical approach to risk management for underground mining project in Quebec. J Loss Prevent Proc 26(6):1145–1158Google Scholar
  3. Can E, Kuscu S, Mekik C (2012) Determination of underground mining induced displacements using GPS observations in Zonguldak-Kozlu hard Coal Basin. Int J Coal Geol 89:62–69Google Scholar
  4. Chen SH, Hsieh CH (2000) Representation, ranking, distance, and similarity of LR type fuzzy number and application. Austr J Intell Proc Syst 6(4):217–229Google Scholar
  5. Chen SJ, Yin DW, Cao FW, Liu Y, Ren KQ (2016) An overview of integrated surface subsidence-reducing technology in mining areas of China. Nat Hazards 81(2):1129–1145Google Scholar
  6. Daw G (2017) Security of mineral resources: a new framework for quantitative assessment of criticality. Resour Policy 53:173–189Google Scholar
  7. Deck O, Al Heib M, Homand F (2003) Taking the soil–structure interaction into account in assessing the loading of a structure in a mining subsidence area. Eng Struct 25(4):435–448Google Scholar
  8. Djamaluddin I, Mitani Y, Esaki T (2011) Evaluation of ground movement and damage to structures from Chinese coal mining using a new GIS coupling model. Int J Rock Mech Min 48(3):380–393Google Scholar
  9. Dong LJ, Shu WW, Li XB, Zhou ZL, Gong FQ, Liu XL (2017) Quantitative evaluation and case study of risk degree for underground goafs with multiple indexes considering uncertain factors in mines. Geofluids.
  10. Du K, Li XB, Liu KW, Zhao XX, Zhou ZL, Dong LJ (2011) Comprehensive evaluation of underground goaf risk and engineering application [J]. J Cent South Univ (Sci Tech) 42(9):2802–2801 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  11. Gomes LFAM, Lima MMPP (1992) TODIM: basics and application to multicriteria ranking of projects with environmental impacts. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences 16(4):113–127Google Scholar
  12. Gong FQ, Li XB, Dong LJ, Liu XL (2008) Underground goaf risk evaluation based on uncertainty measurement theory. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 27(2):323–330 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  13. Hermanus MA (2007) Occupational health and safety in mining-status, new developments, and concerns. J S Afr I Min Metall 107(8):531–538Google Scholar
  14. Hu JH, Shang JL, Zhou KP, Chen YK, Ning YL, Liu L, Aliyu MM (2015) Hazard degree identification of goafs based on scale effect of structure by RS-TOPSIS method. J Cent South Univ 22:684–692Google Scholar
  15. Hu YX, Li XB (2012) Bayes discriminant analysis method to identify risky of complicated goaf in mines and its application. T Nonferr Metal Soc 22(2):425–431Google Scholar
  16. Huang MJ (2011) Research and practice of mining circular economy in Kailin group. Min Tech 11(3):130–131 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  17. Jiang WQ, Shang J (2015) Multi-criteria group decision making with fuzzy data: an extension of the VIKOR method. J Syst Eng Electron 26(4):764–773Google Scholar
  18. Li C, Qin JX, Li JJ, Hou Q (2016) The accident early warning system for iron and steel enterprises based on combination weighting and Grey prediction model GM (1, 1). Safety Sci 89:19–27Google Scholar
  19. Liang WZ, Zhao GY, Hong CS (2018) Selecting the optimal mining method with extended multi-objective optimization by ratio analysis plus the full multiplicative form (MULTIMOORA) approach. Neural Comput Appl.
  20. Liang WZ, Zhao GY, Wu H (2017) Evaluating investment risks of metallic mines using an extended topsis method with linguistic neutrosophic numbers. Symmetry 9(8).
  21. Luo SZ, Cheng PF, Wang JQ, Huang YJ (2017) Selecting project delivery systems based on simplified neutrosophic linguistic preference relations. Symmetry 9(8).
  22. Ma HT, Wang JN, Wang YH (2012) Study on mechanics and domino effect of large-scale goaf cave-in. Safety Sci 50(4):689–694Google Scholar
  23. Passos AC, Teixeira MG, Garcia KC, Cardoso AM, Gomes LFAM (2014) Using the TODIM-FSE method as a decision-making support methodology for oil spill response. Comput Oper Res 42:40–48Google Scholar
  24. Rostamzadeh R, Govindan K, Esmaeili A, Sabaghi M (2015) Application of fuzzy VIKOR for evaluation of green supply chain management practices. Ecol Indic 49:188–203Google Scholar
  25. Sun YH, Zhang XD, Mao WF, Xu LN (2015) Mechanism and stability evaluation of goaf ground subsidence in the third mining area in gong Changling District, China. Arab J Geosci 8(2):639–646Google Scholar
  26. Tang J, Meng FY (2017) A consistency-based method to decision making with triangular fuzzy multiplicative preference relations. Int J Fuzzy Syst 19(5):1317–1332Google Scholar
  27. The Sina Hebei net (2012) Thousands of collapse pits occurred in the Hulun Buir prairie.
  28. The state council work safety committee office (SCWSCO) (2016) The governance work program of goafs hidden accident in metal and non-metal underground mines.
  29. Tosun Ö, Akyüz G (2015) A fuzzy TODIM approach for the supplier selection problem. Int J Pattern Recogn 8(2):317–329Google Scholar
  30. Tseng ML, Lin YH, Tan K, Chen RH, Chen YH (2014) Using TODIM to evaluate green supply chain practices under uncertainty. Appl Math Model 38(11):2983–2995Google Scholar
  31. Wang F, Li H (2015) Novel method for hybrid multiple attribute decision making based on TODIM method. J Syst Eng Electron 26(5):1023–1031Google Scholar
  32. Wang J, Ding D, Liu O, Li M (2016a) A synthetic method for knowledge management performance evaluation based on triangular fuzzy number and group support systems. Appl Soft Comput 39:11–20Google Scholar
  33. Wang JA, Shang XC, Ma HT (2008) Investigation of catastrophic ground collapse in Xingtai gypsum mines in China. Int J Rock Mech Min 45(8):1480–1499Google Scholar
  34. Wang QX, Wang H, Qi ZQ (2016b) An application of nonlinear fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in safety evaluation of coal mine. Safety Sci 86:78–87Google Scholar
  35. Wang YM (1997) Using the method of maximizing deviations to make decision for multi-indicies. J Syst Eng Electron 8:21–26Google Scholar
  36. Wei GW (2011) Grey relational analysis model for dynamic hybrid multiple attribute decision making. Knowl-Based Syst 24(5):672–679Google Scholar
  37. Wood BJ, von Blanckenburg F, Ross NL, Rosso JJ (2017) Mineral resources and the limits to growth. Elements 13(5):291–292Google Scholar
  38. Wu QH, Peng ZB, Chen KP, Peng WX, Chen LQ (2010) Synthetic judgment on two-stage fuzzy of stability of mine gob area. J Cent South Univ (Sci Tech) 41(2):661–667 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  39. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inform Contr 8(3):338–353Google Scholar
  40. Zhao J, Jin JL, Zhu JZ, Xu JC, Hang QF, Chen YQ, Han DG (2016) Water resources risk assessment model based on the subjective and objective combination weighting methods. Water Resour Manag 30(9):3027–3042Google Scholar
  41. Zhao JS, You XY, Liu HC, Wu SM (2017) An extended VIKOR method using intuitionistic fuzzy sets and combination weights for supplier selection. Symmetry 9(9):169. Google Scholar
  42. Zhou J, Li XB, Mitri HS, Wang SM, Wei W (2013) Identification of large-scale goaf instability in underground mine using particle swarm optimization and support vector machine. Int J Min Sci Tech 23(5):701–707Google Scholar
  43. Zindani D, Maity SR, Bhowmik S, Chakraborty S (2017) A material selection approach using the TODIM (TOmada de Decisao Interativa Multicriterio) method and its analysis. Int J Mater Res 108(5):345–354Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Weizhang Liang
    • 1
  • Guoyan Zhao
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hao Wu
    • 1
  • Ying Chen
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Resources and Safety EngineeringCentral South UniversityChangshaChina

Personalised recommendations