Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Developing a New Probabilistic Approach for Risk Analysis, Application in Underground Coal Mining

  • Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed
  • Published:
Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Underground coal mining is one of the most hazardous activities in all around the word. Therefore, risk analysis has a remarkable role in the coal mining works. In this study, a new probabilistic approach is developed to evaluate the most important hazard of coal mining. For this aim, at first a fuzzy TOPSIS model is applied to rank the risks of the mining. By this way, it is possible to overcome the existing uncertainty of the risk ranking process. Application of the proposed procedure shows that the roof fall is the most important hazard in the Tabas Coal Mine in Iran. Afterward, this study tried to quantify the roof fall risk as the most important hazard in underground coal mining. Due to the related uncertainties associated with every mine, it is very difficult to predict the roof fall. As a result, development of a methodology for evaluation of roof fall risk under uncertainty condition has a key role in safety of underground coal mines. In this paper, a new approach for analyzing the risk of roof fall is presented. For this aim, the major factors influencing the stability of the roof are utilized in a Bayesian network-based model. The proposed method is illustrated with an application in Tabas Coal Mine. The results show that that BN-based model is a capable method for adjusting to uncertainties in the roof fall risk evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. H.S.B. Duzgun, H.H. Einstein, Assessment and management of roof fall risks in underground coal mines. Saf. Sci. 42(1), 23–41 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. D.F. Cooper, The Australian and New Zealand standard on risk management, AS/NZS 4360: 2004, Tutor. Notes Broadleaf Cap. Int. Pty Ltd, pp. 128–151, 2004

  3. N. Banaitienė, A. Banaitis, A. Norkus, Risk management in projects: peculiarities of Lithuanian construction companies. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 15(1), 60–73 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. A.T. Iannacchione, T.M. Brady, F. Varley, The application of major hazard risk assessment (MHRA) to eliminate multiple fatality occurrences in the US minerals industry. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Spokane Research Laboratory, 2008

  5. M. Sarı, Risk assessment approach on underground coal mine safety analysis. Middle East Technical University. Department of Mining Engineering, 2002

  6. A.V.Z. Durrheim, S.M. Roberts et al., Comparative seismology of the Witwatersrand Basin and Bushveld Complex and emerging technologies to manage the risk of rockbursting. J. South. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 105(6), 409–416 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  7. S. Jian, W. Lian-guo, Z. Hua-lei, S. Yi-feng, Application of fuzzy neural network in predicting the risk of rock burst. Proc. Earth Planet. Sci. 1(1), 536–543 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. R.L. Grayson, H. Kinilakodi, V. Kecojevic, Pilot sample risk analysis for underground coal mine fires and explosions using MSHA citation data. Saf. Sci. 47(10), 1371–1378 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. J. Joy, Occupational safety risk management in Australian mining. Occup. Med. (Chic. III) 54(5), 311–315 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. S.K. Palei, S.K. Das, Logistic regression model for prediction of roof fall risks in bord and pillar workings in coal mines: an approach. Saf. Sci. 47(1), 88–96 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. V.V. Khanzode, J. Maiti, P.K. Ray, A methodology for evaluation and monitoring of recurring hazards in underground coal mining. Saf. Sci. 49(8), 1172–1179 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Y. Jiang, H. Wang, S. Xue, Y. Zhao, J. Zhu, X. Pang, Assessment and mitigation of coal bump risk during extraction of an island longwall panel. Int. J. Coal Geol. 95, 20–33 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. E. Ghasemi, M. Ataei, K. Shahriar, F. Sereshki, S.E. Jalali, A. Ramazanzadeh, Assessment of roof fall risk during retreat mining in room and pillar coal mines. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 54, 80–89 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  14. A. Badri, S. Nadeau, A. Gbodossou, A new practical approach to risk management for underground mining project in Quebec. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 26(6), 1145–1158 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. O.D. Eratak, Analysis and Modelling for Risk Management for Underground Coal Mines Safety (Middle East Technical University, Ankara, 2014)

    Google Scholar 

  16. C. Mark, M. Gauna, Evaluating the risk of coal bursts in underground coal mines. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 26(1), 47–52 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. S. Sadi Nezhad, K.K. Damghani, Application of a fuzzy TOPSIS method base on modified preference ratio and fuzzy distance measurement in assessment of traffic police centers performance. Appl. Soft. Comput. 10, 1028–1039 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. E.K. Zavadskas, A. Zakarevicius, J. Antucheviciene, Evaluation of ranking accuracy in multi-criteria decisions. Informatica 17(4), 601–618 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  19. L. Tupenaite, E.K. Zavadskas, A. Kaklauskas, Z. Turskis, M. Seniut, Multiple criteria assessment of alternatives for built and human environment renovation. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 16(2), 257–266 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. P. Liu, Z. Han et al., A fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making method under risk with unknown attribute weights. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 17(2), 246–258 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. J. Antuchevičienė, A. Zakarevičius, E.K. Zavadskas et al., Multiple criteria construction management decisions considering relations between criteria. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 16(1), 109–125 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. P. Liu et al., Multi-attribute decision-making method research based on interval vague set and TOPSIS method. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 15(3), 453–463 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. D. Kalibatas, E.K. Zavadskas, D. Kalibatiene, The concept of the ideal indoor environment in multi-attribute assessment of dwelling-houses. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 11(1), 89–101 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. C. Çetinkaya, E. Özceylan, M. Erbaş, M. Kabak, GIS-based fuzzy MCDA approach for siting refugee camp: a case study for southeastern Turkey. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 18, 218–231 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. M. Gul, A.F. Guneri, A fuzzy multi criteria risk assessment based on decision matrix technique: a case study for aluminum industry. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 40, 89–100 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. X. Yu, S. Guo, J. Guo, X. Huang, Rank B2C e-commerce websites in e-alliance based on AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(4), 3550–3557 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. D. Heckerman, A. Mamdani, M.P. Wellman, Real-world applications of Bayesian networks. Commun. ACM 38(3), 24–26 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. C.-F. Fan, Y.-C. Yu, BBN-based software project risk management. J. Syst. Softw. 73(2), 193–203 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. F. Ülengin, Ş. Önsel, Y.I. Topçu, E. Aktaş, Ö. Kabak, An integrated transportation decision support system for transportation policy decisions: the case of Turkey. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 41(1), 80–97 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. V. Khodakarami, N. Fenton, M. Neil, Project scheduling: improved approach to incorporate uncertainty using Bayesian networks. Proj. Manag. J. 38(2), 39 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  31. K.-S. Chin, D.-W. Tang, J.-B. Yang, S.Y. Wong, H. Wang, Assessing new product development project risk by Bayesian network with a systematic probability generation methodology. Expert Syst. Appl. 36(6), 9879–9890 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. T.-T. Chen, S.-S. Leu, Fall risk assessment of cantilever bridge projects using Bayesian network. Saf. Sci. 70, 161–171 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. L. Zhang, X. Wu, M.J. Skibniewski, J. Zhong, Y. Lu, Bayesian-network-based safety risk analysis in construction projects. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 131, 29–39 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. M. Abimbola, F. Khan, N. Khakzad, S. Butt, Safety and risk analysis of managed pressure drilling operation using Bayesian network. Saf. Sci. 76, 133–144 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. B. Cai, Y. Liu, Q. Fan, A multiphase dynamic Bayesian networks methodology for the determination of safety integrity levels. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 150, 105–115 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. J. Wu, R. Zhou, S. Xu, Z. Wu, Probabilistic analysis of natural gas pipeline network accident based on Bayesian network. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 46, 126–136 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. X. Tian, Z. Xie, A. Wang, X. Yang, A new approach for Bayesian model averaging. Sci. China Earth Sci. 55(8), 1336–1344 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. H. Zerrouki, A. Tamrabet, Safety and risk analysis of an operational heater using Bayesian network. J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 15(5), 657–661 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. H. Zerrouki, H. Smadi, Bayesian belief network used in the chemical and process industry: a review and application. J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 17(1), 159–165 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. A. Pillay, J. Wang, Modified failure mode and effects analysis using approximate reasoning. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 79(1), 69–85 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. A. Gegov, Complexity management in fuzzy systems (Springer, Berlin, 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  42. L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8(3), 338–353 (1965)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. B. Chang, C.-W. Chang, C.-H. Wu, Fuzzy DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection criteria. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(3), 1850–1858 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. C.-L. Hwang, K. Yoon, Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications a state-of-the-art survey, vol. 186 (Springer, Berlin, 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  45. K. Abhishek, V.R. Kumar, S. Datta, S.S. Mahapatra, Application of JAYA algorithm for the optimization of machining performance characteristics during the turning of CFRP (epoxy) composites: comparison with TLBO, GA, and ICA. Eng. Comput. 33, 1–19 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  46. H.-J. Zimmermann, Fuzzy set theory and its applications (Springer, Berlin, 2011)

    Google Scholar 

  47. N. Jaramillo, M.L. Carreño, N. Lantada, Evaluation of social context integrated into the study of seismic risk for urban areas. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 17, 185–198 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. G. Kabra, A. Ramesh, K. Arshinder, Identification and prioritization of coordination barriers in humanitarian supply chain management. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 13, 128–138 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. M.Z. Naghadehi, R. Mikaeil, M. Ataei, The application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) approach to selection of optimum underground mining method for Jajarm Bauxite Mine, Iran. Expert Syst. Appl. 36(4), 8218–8226 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. S.K. Patil, R. Kant, A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for ranking the solutions of Knowledge Management adoption in Supply Chain to overcome its barriers. Expert Syst. Appl. 41(2), 679–693 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. I. Macuzić, D. Tadić, A. Aleksić, M. Stefanović, A two step fuzzy model for the assessment and ranking of organizational resilience factors in the process industry. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 40, 122–130 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. C.-T. Chen, Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 114(1), 1–9 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. R.L. Sousa, H.H. Einstein, Risk analysis during tunnel construction using bayesian networks: porto metro case study. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 27(1), 86–100 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. L. Uusitalo, Advantages and challenges of Bayesian networks in environmental modelling. Ecol. Modell. 203(3), 312–318 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. G. Wang, T. Xu, T. Tang, T. Yuan, H. Wang, A Bayesian network model for prediction of weather-related failures in railway turnout systems. Expert Syst. Appl. 69, 247–256 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. B. Yet, A. Constantinou, N. Fenton, M. Neil, E. Luedeling, K. Shepherd, A Bayesian network framework for project cost, benefit and risk analysis with an agricultural development case study. Expert Syst. Appl. 60, 141–155 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. S.J. Russell, P. Norvig, J.F. Canny, J.M. Malik, D.D. Edwards, Artificial intelligence: a modern approach, vol. 2 (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2003)

    Google Scholar 

  58. T.D. Nielsen, F.V. Jensen, Bayesian networks and decision graphs (Springer, Berlin, 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  59. Anon, Basic design of Tabas Coal Mine Project. p. Vol 1 of 5, 2005

  60. P. Guide, A guide to the project management body of knowledge, vol. 3 (Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Z.T. Bieniawski, Rock mechanics design in mining and tunnelling (Balkema, Boca Raton, 1984)

    Google Scholar 

  62. B. Das, Generating conditional probabilities for Bayesian networks: easing the knowledge acquisition problem. arXiv Prepr. cs/0411034, 2004

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Tabas Coal Mine management and engineers for their cooperation in conducting this study. The authors would also like to thank all the mining experts who took part in our research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mining Engineering Department, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

    Mohammad Javadi & Gholamreza Saeedi

  2. Department of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

    Kourosh Shahriar

Authors
  1. Mohammad Javadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gholamreza Saeedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kourosh Shahriar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gholamreza Saeedi.

Appendix A: JPD of the BN-Based Model Under Various Condition

Appendix A: JPD of the BN-Based Model Under Various Condition

See Figs. 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19.

Fig. 15
figure 15

Zone No. 1

Full size image
Fig. 16
figure 16

Zone No. 2

Full size image
Fig. 17
figure 17

Zone No. 3

Full size image
Fig. 18
figure 18

Zone No. 4

Full size image
Fig. 19
figure 19

Zone No. 5

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Javadi, M., Saeedi, G. & Shahriar, K. Developing a New Probabilistic Approach for Risk Analysis, Application in Underground Coal Mining. J Fail. Anal. and Preven. 17, 989–1010 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-017-0325-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-017-0325-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation