Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 989–1010 | Cite as

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

  • Mohammad Javadi
  • Gholamreza Saeedi
  • Kourosh Shahriar
Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed


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.


Risk analysis Coal mining Fuzzy TOPSIS Bayesian network Tabas Coal Mine 



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.


  1. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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, 2004Google Scholar
  3. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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, 2008Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Sarı, Risk assessment approach on underground coal mine safety analysis. Middle East Technical University. Department of Mining Engineering, 2002Google Scholar
  6. 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. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Joy, Occupational safety risk management in Australian mining. Occup. Med. (Chic. III) 54(5), 311–315 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    O.D. Eratak, Analysis and Modelling for Risk Management for Underground Coal Mines Safety (Middle East Technical University, Ankara, 2014)Google Scholar
  16. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    D. Heckerman, A. Mamdani, M.P. Wellman, Real-world applications of Bayesian networks. Commun. ACM 38(3), 24–26 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    C.-F. Fan, Y.-C. Yu, BBN-based software project risk management. J. Syst. Softw. 73(2), 193–203 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    T.-T. Chen, S.-S. Leu, Fall risk assessment of cantilever bridge projects using Bayesian network. Saf. Sci. 70, 161–171 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    A. Pillay, J. Wang, Modified failure mode and effects analysis using approximate reasoning. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 79(1), 69–85 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    A. Gegov, Complexity management in fuzzy systems (Springer, Berlin, 2007)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8(3), 338–353 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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. 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. 46.
    H.-J. Zimmermann, Fuzzy set theory and its applications (Springer, Berlin, 2011)Google Scholar
  47. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    C.-T. Chen, Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 114(1), 1–9 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    L. Uusitalo, Advantages and challenges of Bayesian networks in environmental modelling. Ecol. Modell. 203(3), 312–318 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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. 58.
    T.D. Nielsen, F.V. Jensen, Bayesian networks and decision graphs (Springer, Berlin, 2009)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Anon, Basic design of Tabas Coal Mine Project. p. Vol 1 of 5, 2005Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    P. Guide, A guide to the project management body of knowledge, vol. 3 (Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, 2004)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Z.T. Bieniawski, Rock mechanics design in mining and tunnelling (Balkema, Boca Raton, 1984)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    B. Das, Generating conditional probabilities for Bayesian networks: easing the knowledge acquisition problem. arXiv Prepr. cs/0411034, 2004Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammad Javadi
    • 1
  • Gholamreza Saeedi
    • 1
  • Kourosh Shahriar
    • 2
  1. 1.Mining Engineering DepartmentShahid Bahonar University of KermanKermanIran
  2. 2.Department of Mining and Metallurgical EngineeringAmirkabir University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations