Natural Hazards

, Volume 92, Issue 1, pp 19–41 | Cite as

Modeling and analysis of mining subsidence disaster chains based on stochastic Petri nets

Original Paper
  • 142 Downloads

Abstract

Coal mining that results in goaf causes ground surface subsidence. It will in turn cause a disruptive threat to the surface construction, water, and slope body, which constitutes a transitive relationship. In the process of a disaster chain, the interactions between disasters have serious negative consequences. To solve these problems, we clearly established model elements of the disaster chain and analyzed their control flow relationships. On that basis, the stochastic Petri nets, as a powerful mathematical modeling tool that can be used to describe discrete and distributed systems, were adopted to model the process of mine ground surface subsidence disaster chains using the DISChain_Net model. The cause and process of the destruction as well as the disaster consequences were discussed. Then, the crucial nodes in the process of the disaster chain delivery were identified, which enabled the decision makers to make a reasonable judgment and implement mitigation measures. The study will thus provide new research ideas for studying the mine ground surface subsidence disasters through modeling, analysis, and assessment.

Keywords

Coal mining subsidence disaster chain Stochastic Petri network DISChain_Net model Catastrophe process analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 41771443, 41371373) and the National Key Research and Development Program (Grant No. 2016YFB0502601). The authors would like to express sincere thanks to the editors and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and insightful feedback.

References

  1. Acu B, Reisig W (2006) Compensation in workflow nets. In: Donatelli S, Thiagarajan PS (eds) Petri nets and other models of concurrency - ICATPN 2006. ICATPN 2006. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4024. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 65–83Google Scholar
  2. Ali SH (2009) Mining, the environment, and indigenous development conflicts. University of Arizona Press, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  3. Ciais P et al (2005) Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003. Nature 437:529–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cordero F et al (2011) Simplification of a complex signal transduction model using invariants and flow equivalent servers. Theor Comput Sci 412:6036–6057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cui X, Gao Y, Yuan D (2014) Sudden surface collapse disasters caused by shallow partial mining in Datong coalfield, China. Nat Hazards 74:911–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fan H, Xiao S, Hao Y, Zhou D, He L (2006) Study on structural relation of chain effects on natural disaster and its complexity. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 25:2603–2611Google Scholar
  7. Garwood NC, Janos DP, Brokaw N (1979) Earthquake-caused landslides: a major disturbance to tropical forests. Science 205:997–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Godefroid P, Van Leeuwen J, Hartmanis J, Goos G, Wolper P (1996) Partial-order methods for the verification of concurrent systems: an approach to the state-explosion problem, vol 1032. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  9. Haas PJ (2006) Stochastic petri nets: modelling, stability, simulation. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. Heiner M, Gilbert D, Donaldson R (eds) (2008) Petri nets for systems and synthetic biology. In: International school on formal methods for the design of computer, communication and software systems. Springer, pp 215–264Google Scholar
  11. Helbing D (2013) Globally networked risks and how to respond. Nature 497:51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ishwar S, Kumar D (2017) Application of DInSAR in mine surface subsidence monitoring and prediction. Curr Sci 00113891:112Google Scholar
  13. Karatkevich A (2007) Dynamic analysis of Petri net-based discrete systems, vol 356. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  14. Lesniak A, Porzycka S (2008) Comprehensive interpretation of satellite and surface measurements for hazard assessment on mining and post mining areas. Gospod Surowcami Miner Miner Resour Manag 24:147–159Google Scholar
  15. Li Y, Lin C, Li Q-L (2008) A simplified framework for stochastic workflow networks. Comput Math Appl 56:2700–2715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liu W, Xiao S, Sui Y, Zhou J, Gao H (2006) Analysis of natural disaster chain and chain-cutting disaster mitigation mode. Yanshilixue Yu Gongcheng Xuebao Chin J Rock Mech Eng 25:2675–2681Google Scholar
  17. Long J, Qin C (2015) Analysis and application of chain-scission disaster mitigation mode in coal mining subsidence area. J Nat Disasters 24(6):80–186 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  18. Luna R, Balakrishnan N, Dagli CH (2011) Postearthquake recovery of a water distribution system: discrete event simulation using colored petri nets. J Infrastruct Syst 17:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martha J, Subbakrishna S (2002) Targeting a just-in-case supply chain for the inevitable next disaster. Supply Chain Manag Rev 6(5):18–23Google Scholar
  20. Meyer JF, Movaghar A, Sanders WH (1985) Stochastic activity networks: structure, behavior, and application. In: International workshop on timed Petri nets, IEEE computer society, pp 106–115Google Scholar
  21. Parsons T, Ji C, Kirby E (2008) Stress changes from the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake and increased hazard in the Sichuan basin. Nature 454:509–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peters K, Buzna L, Helbing D (2008) Modelling of cascading effects and efficient response to disaster spreading in complex networks. Int J Crit Infrastruct 4:46–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. SpringerVerlag (1992) Journal of mining science. Plenum Pub, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. State Coal Industry Administration (2000) Buildings, water, rail and the main well lane pillar and compressed coal mining regulations. Coal Industry Pub., Rock Springs (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  25. Wang W-X, Chen G (2008) Universal robustness characteristic of weighted networks against cascading failure. Phys Rev E 77:026101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang J, Gu X, Huang T (2013) Using Bayesian networks in analyzing powerful earthquake disaster chains. Nat Hazards 68:509–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Xia Y, Liu Y, Liu J, Zhu Q (2012) Modeling and performance evaluation of BPEL processes: a stochastic-petri-net-based approach. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 42:503–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Xiao S (2006) Theory and application of catastrophe chain. Science Publishing House, New York (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  29. Xu L, Meng X, Xu X (2014) Natural hazard chain research in China: a review. Nat Hazards 70:1631–1659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zeng Q-T, Lu F-M, Liu C, Meng D-C (2013) Modeling and analysis for crossorganizational emergency response systems using Petri nets. Chin J Comput 36:2290–2302 (in Chinese) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhong M, Shi C, Fu T, He L, Shi J (2010) Study in performance analysis of China urban emergency response system based on Petri net. Saf Sci 48:755–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Mining EngineeringTaiyuan University of TechnologyTaiyuanChina
  2. 2.College of Mining EngineeringInner Mongolia University of TechnologyHohhotChina

Personalised recommendations