Advertisement

A Neuro-fuzzy-Based Multi-criteria Risk Evaluation Approach: A Case Study of Underground Mining

  • M. F. AkEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Transactions on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence book series (TRACOSCI)

Abstract

Underground mining is considered as one of the most hazard-prone industries, and serious work-related fatalities have arisen as a consequence of processes related to it; this chapter deals with occupational hazards and related risk factors. Artificial neural network-based risk assessment approach in underground copper and zinc mine case study is proposed. Occupational health and safety (OHS) history dates back to ancient human history ever. Mankind date was obliged to do business in order to sustain life. OHS studies aim to increase the safety standard with reducing risk level in an acceptable degree. Safe workplaces with respect to OHS increase health, safety, and welfare standards of whole workers. Throughout the world major hazards categorized as physical, chemical, biological, psychosocial, and ergonomic risks can be observed. Although technological developments provide rapid growth in almost all industries, it can be observed that there is a lack of attention being paid and advanced occupational safety practices in the mining industry. A case study is carried out in one of the largest underground mining companies using neuro-fuzzy approach. Neuro-fuzzy logic-based risk assessment study supplies opportunity to provide more adequate decision-making process and gives meaningful classifications of hazard. Neuro-fuzzy approach is a combination of advantages of artificial neural networks and fuzzy logic. It gives more appropriate and comprehensive risk assessment in OHS. After all the neuro-fuzzy approach is applied for classification of risk types in each department of the copper and zinc mine, the necessary control measures for each department and for a whole system are presented. In the study, adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS)-focused model is applied to the copper and zinc mine risk analysis problem based on three-step neuro-fuzzy approach. Improvements are shown on the study to show the efficiency and flexibility of the method. The main target by integrating the neuro-fuzzy logic application into the risk analysis is to obtain a more effective risk assessment and getting better results than the conventional models used. In conclusion, besides its theoretical contribution, obtained results of this study contribute toward improving occupational safety levels of copper and zinc mine with more comprehensive risk assessment process.

Keywords

Multi-criteria decision-making Risk assessment Occupational safety and health Analytic hierarchy process L-matrix ANFIS IoT 

References

  1. 1.
    Al-Turjman, F. (2017). Price-based data delivery framework for dynamic and pervasive IoT. Elsevier Pervasive and Mobile Computing Journal, 42, 299–316.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Turjman, F. (2017). Energy–aware data delivery framework for safety-oriented mobile IoT. IEEE Sensors Journal, 18(1), 470–478.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Singh, A., Kumar, D., & Hötzel, J. (2018). IoT Based information and communication system for enhancing underground mines safety and productivity: Genesis, taxonomy and open issues. Ad Hoc Networks, 78, 115--129. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Al-Turjman, F., Hassanein, H., & Ibnkahla, M. (2013). Efficient deployment of wireless sensor networks targeting environment monitoring applications. Elsevier: Computer Communications Journal, 36(2), 135–148.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Al-Turjman, F., Hassanein, H., & Ibnkahla, M. (2015). Towards prolonged lifetime for deployed WSNs in outdoor environment monitoring. Elsevier Ad Hoc Networks Journal, 24(A), 172–185.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Singh, G., & Al-Turjman, F. (2016). A data delivery framework for cognitive information-centric sensor networks in smart outdoor monitoring. Elsevier Computer Communications Journal, 74(1), 38–51.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chan, H. K., & Wang, X. (2013). Fuzzy extent analysis for food risk assessment. In Fuzzy Hierarchical Model for Risk Assessment (pp. 89–114). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. (1986). WHO/HPR/HEP/95.1. WHO, Geneva.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chang, D. Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649–655.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Djapan, M. J., Tadic, D. P., Macuzic, I. D., & Dragojovic, P. D. (2015). A new fuzzy model for determining risk level on the workplaces in manufacturing small and medium enterprises. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability, 229(5), 456–468.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233–247.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ebrahimnejad, S., Mousavi, S. M., & Seyrafianpour, H. (2010). Risk identification and assessment for build–operate–transfer projects: A fuzzy multi attribute decision making model. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(1), 575–586.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aragonés-Beltrán, P., Mendoza-Roca, J. A., Bes-Piá, A., García-Melón, M., & Parra-Ruiz, E. (2009). Application of multi criteria decision analysis to jar-test results for chemicals selection in the physical–chemical treatment of textile wastewater. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 164(1), 288–295.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cooper, M. D. (2000). Towards a model of safety culture. Safety Science, 36, s.113.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gorman, T., Dropkin, J., Kamen, J., Nimbalkar, S., Zuckerman, N., Lowe, T., Szeinuk, J., Milek, D., Piligian, G., & Freund, A. (2013). Controlling health hazards to hospital workers. New Solutions, 23, 1–67.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grassi, A., Gamberini, R., Mora, C., & Rimini, B. (2009). A fuzzy multi-attribute model for risk evaluation in workplaces. Safety Science, 47(5), 707–716.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gul, M., & Ak, M. F. (2018). A comparative outline for quantifying risk ratings in occupational health and safety risk assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 653–664.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gul, M., & Guneri, A. F. (2016). A fuzzy multi criteria risk assessment based on decision matrix technique: A case study for aluminum industry. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 40, 89–100.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gul, M., Celik, E., Aydin, N., Gumus, A. T., & Guneri, A. F. (2016). A state of the art literature review of VIKOR and its fuzzy extensions on applications. Applied Soft Computing, 46, 60–89.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guneri, A. F., Gul, M., & Ozgurler, S. (2015). A fuzzy AHP methodology for selection of risk assessment methods in occupational safety. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 18(3–4), 319–335.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hu, A. H., Hsu, C. W., Kuo, T. C., & Wu, W. C. (2009). Risk evaluation of green components to hazardous substance using FMEA and FAHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 7142–7147.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jamshidi, A., Rahimi, S. A., Ait-Kadi, D., & Ruiz, A. (2015). A comprehensive fuzzy risk-based maintenance framework for prioritization of medical devices. Applied Soft Computing, 32, 322–334.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    John, A., Paraskevadakis, D., Bury, A., Yang, Z., Riahi, R., & Wang, J. (2014). An integrated fuzzy risk assessment for seaport operations. Safety Science, 68, 180–194.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kenya Ministries of Health and IntraHealth International. (2013). Report of the occupational safety and health risk assessment. Nairobi, Kenya: MsOH.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liu, H. C., Fan, X. J., Li, P., & Chen, Y. Z. (2014). Evaluating the risk of failure modes with extended MULTIMOORA method under fuzzy environment. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 34, 168–177.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liu, H. C., Liu, L., Liu, N., & Mao, L. X. (2012). Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis with extended VIKOR method under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(17), 12926–12934.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liu, H. C., You, J. X., You, X. Y., & Shan, M. M. (2015). A novel approach for failure mode and effects analysis using combination weighting and fuzzy VIKOR method. Applied Soft Computing, 28, 579–588.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liu, H. T., & Tsai, Y. L. (2012). A fuzzy risk assessment approach for occupational hazards in the construction industry. Safety Science, 50(4), 1067–1078.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mahdevari, S., Shahriar, K., & Esfahanipour, A. (2014). Human health and safety risks management in underground coal mines using fuzzy TOPSIS. Science of the Total Environment, 488, 85–99.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Opricovic, S. (1998). Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade, 2(1), 5–21.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9–26.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tzeng, G., & Huang, J. (2011). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vahdani, B., Salimi, M., & Charkhchian, M. (2015). A new FMEA method by integrating fuzzy belief structure and TOPSIS to improve risk evaluation process. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 77(1–4), 357–368.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Amalberti, R. (2001). The paradoxes of almost totally safe transportation systems. Safety Science., 37, 109–126.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lin, P. H. (2001). Safety management and risk modelling in aviation – The challenge of quantifying management influences, PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Xianfeng, L., & Shengguo, H. (2012). Airport safety risk evaluation based on modification of quantitative safety management model. Procedia Engineering., 43, 238–244.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Elgstrand, K., & Vingärd, E. (2013). Occupational safety and health in mining: Anthology on the situation in 16 mining countries. Gotenburg: University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Verma, S., & Chaudhri, S. (2014). Integration of fuzzy reasoning approach (FRA) and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) for risk assessment in mining industry. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 7(5), 1347.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Aven, T. (2009). Risk analysis: Assessing uncertainties beyond expected values and probabilities. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Awasthi, A., & Kannan, G. (2016). Green supplier development program selection using NGT and VIKOR under fuzzy environment. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 91, 100–108.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Badri, A. (2015). The challenge of integrating OHS into industrial project risk management: Proposal of a methodological approach to guide future research (case of mining projects in Quebec, Canada). Minerals, 5(2), 314–334.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Badri, A., Nadeau, S., & Gbodossou, A. (2013). A new practical approach to risk management for underground mining project in Quebec. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 26(6), 1145–1158.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chen, C. T. (2000). Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114(1), 1–9.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Donoghue, A. M. (2004). Occupational health hazards in mining: An overview. Occupational Medicine, 54(5), 283–289.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lang, L., & Fu-Bao, Z. (2010). A comprehensive hazard evaluation system for spontaneous combustion of coal in underground mining. International Journal of Coal Geology, 82(1), 27–36.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Petrović, D. V., Tanasijević, M., Milić, V., Lilić, N., Stojadinović, S., & Svrkota, I. (2014). Risk assessment model of mining equipment failure based on fuzzy logic. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(18), 8157–8164. Samantra, C., Datta, S., & Mahapatra, S. S. (2016). Analysis.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tixier, J., Dusserre, G., Salvi, O., & Gaston, D. (2002). Review of 62 risk analysis methodologies of industrial plants. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 15(4), 291–303.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Industrial Engineering, Antalya Bilim UniversityDöşemealtı/AntalyaTurkey

Personalised recommendations