SpringerLink
Log in

Risk Assessment of Coal Dust Explosions in Coal Mines Using a Combined Fuzzy Risk Matrix and Pareto Analysis Approach

  • Published:
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite being crucial for meeting the world’s energy demands, coal mining operations present considerable health risks, especially when it comes to exposure to coal dust. Longwall coal mining, an advanced technique, has considerably enhanced production but made dust control more difficult. Due to its explosive nature, coal dust continues to be a serious and dangerous concern in the industry despite developments in safety technology. This study aims to comprehensively assess the risk of coal dust explosions by integrating fuzzy risk matrix and Pareto analysis methodologies, offering precise risk ratings for various root causes. A fuzzy risk matrix was developed to assign exact risk ratings to identified root causes. Additionally, a Pareto chart was used to identify the main reasons and suggest particular preventive measures. 17 significant causes were determined for underground coal mines based on the study’s methodology, and some preventive measures were suggested. In accordance with fuzzy risk rating values, root causes were divided into six categories. The root hazard with the highest risk rating was identified as ‘accumulation of inflammable gas/gases’. The proposed approach was used to examine incidents caused by coal dust explosions in Turkish coal mines in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of combining the fuzzy risk matrix and Pareto analysis for assessing coal dust explosions. This study gives not only a solid framework for risk assessment but also critical information for classifying the risks associated with coal mine dust explosions. The results highlight the critical necessity for proactive and preventive actions to reduce the hazards of coal dust explosions and protect the safety of mining workers.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

All data are currently presented in the manuscript.

Abbreviations

FIS :

Fuzzy inference system

FRM :

Fuzzy risk matrix

FRR :

Fuzzy risk rating

FRR C :

Cumulative fuzzy risk rating

FRR P :

Percentage of cumulative fuzzy risk rating

P :

Likelihood

R :

Risk rating

S :

Severity

References

  1. Kursunoglu N, Gogebakan M (2022) Prediction of spontaneous coal combustion tendency using multinomial logistic regression. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 28(4):2000–2009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kursunoglu N, Onder S, Onder M (2022) The evaluation of personal protective equipment usage habit of mining employees using structural equation modeling. Saf Health Work 13(2):180–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wang H, Li J, Wang D, Huang Z (2017) A novel method of fuzzy fault tree analysis combined with VB program to identify and assess the risk of coal dust explosions. PLoS ONE 12(8):e0182453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Medic Pejic L, García Torrent J, Querol E, Lebecki K (2013) A new simple methodology for evaluation of explosion risk in underground coal mines. J Loss Prev Process Ind 26(6):1524–1529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhou S (2013) Application of fault tree analysis in coal mine fire accidents. In: Proceedings of 2013 International Conference on Quality, Reliability, Risk, Maintenance, and Safety Engineering. Cheng du, China

  6. Liu R, Cheng W, Yu Y, Xu Q (2018) Human factors analysis of major coal mine accidents in China based on the HFACS-CM model and AHP method. Int J Ind Ergon 68:270–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Shi SL, Jiang BY, Meng XR (2018) Assessment of gas and dust explosion in coal mines by means of fuzzy fault tree analysis. Int J Min Sci Techno 28:991–998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tong X, Fang W, Yuan S, Ma J, Bai Y (2018) Application of Bayesian approach to the assessment of mine gas explosion. J Loss Prev Process Ind 54:238–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bhattacharjee RM, Dash AK, Paul PS (2020) A root cause failure analysis of coal dust explosion disaster – gaps and lessons learnt. Eng Fail Anal 111:104229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Li HT, Deng J, Chen XK (2020) Qualitative and quantitative characterization for explosion severity and gaseous–solid residues during methane–coal particle hybrid explosions: an approach to estimating the safety degree for underground coal mines. Process Saf Environ Prot 141:150–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mutlu M, Sari M (2022) Risk-based classification of underground coal mine basins in Turkey using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Arab J Geosci 15(752):1–18

    Google Scholar 

  12. Marhavilas PK, Koulouriotis D, Gemeni V (2011) Risk analysis and assessment methodologies in the work sites: on a review, classification and comparative study of the scientific literature of the period 2000–2009. J Loss Prev Process Ind 24:477–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Onder S, Suner N, Onder M (2011) Investigation of occupational accident occurred at mining sector by using risk assessment decision matrix. In: 22nd International Mining Congress and Exhibition of Turkey, Ankara pp. 399–406

  14. Skorupski J (2016) The simulation-fuzzy method of assessing the risk of air traffic accidents using the fuzzy risk matrix. Saf Sci 88:76–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Stamatis D (2004) Six sigma fundamentals; a complete guide to the system; methods, tools. Mcgraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. Shikha V, Sharad C (2016) Highlights from the literature on risk assessment techniques adopted in the mining industry: a review of past contributions, recent developments and future scope. Int J Min Sci Technol 26(4):691–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Samantra C, Datta S, Mahapatra SS (2017) Fuzzy based risk assessment module for metropolitan construction project: an empirical study. Eng Appl Artif Intell 65:449–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gul M, Guneri AF (2016) 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jang RJS, Sun CT, Mizutani E (1997) Neuro-fuzzy and soft computing. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  21. Yen J, Langari R (1999) Fuzzy logic intelligence, control, and information. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gayathri BM, Sumathi CP (2015) Mamdani fuzzy inference system for breast cancer risk detection. International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Computing Research (ICCIC)

  23. Mamdani EH, Assilian S (1975) An experiment in linguistic synthesis with a fuzzy controller. Int J Man Mach Stud 7(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Faybishenko B, Sadiq R, Deshpande A (2023) Fuzzy systems modeling in environmental and health risk assessment. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Chunmiao Y, Chang L, Gang L (2011) Coal dust explosion prevention and protection based on inherent safety. Procedia Eng 26:1517–1525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lenné MG, Salmon PM, Liu CC, Trotter M (2012) A systems approach to accident causation in mining: an application of the HFACS method. Accid Anal Prev 48:111–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Qiao W (2021) Analysis and measurement of multifactor risk in underground coal mine accidents based on coupling theory. Reliab Eng Syst 208:107433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Turkish Hard Coal Enterprise (2019) Disasters in mining operations and preventive actions. Occupational accident report (in Turkish)

  29. Dubaniewicz TH Jr (2009) From Scotia to Brookwood, fatal US underground coal mine explosions ignited in intake air courses. J Loss Prev Process Ind 22(1):52–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gul M, Mete S, Serin F, Celik E (2021) Fine–Kinney-based fuzzy multi-criteria occupational risk assessment. Approaches, case studies and Python applications. Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Ministry of Labor and Social Security (2023) https://www.csgb.gov.tr/media/88086/yer-alti-ve-acik-komur-isletmeciliginde-tozla-mucadele-rehberi.pdf Accessed 1 Feb 2023

  32. Yinlin J, Ting R, Peter W, Zhijun W, Zhaoyang M, Zhimin W (2016) A comparative study of dust control practices in Chinese and Australian longwall coal mines. Int J Min Sci Technol 26(2):199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ray SK, Khan AM, Mohalik NK, Mishra D, Mandal S, Pandey JK (2022) Review of preventive and constructive measures for coal mine explosions: an Indian perspective. Int J Min Sci Technol 32(3):471–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Colinet JF, Rider JP, Listak JM, Organiscak JA, Wolfe AL (2010) Best practices for dust control in coal mining. Department of Health and Human Services, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2010–110. Pittsburgh, PA

  35. Thakur P (2018) Advanced mine ventilation: respirable coal dust, combustible gas and mine fire control. Woodhead Publishing, United Kingdom

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sahu A, Mishra DP (2023) Coal mine explosions in India: management failure, safety lapses and mitigative measures. Extr Ind Soc 14:101233

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks the editors and anonymous reviewers for improving the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering, Batman University, Batman, Turkey

    Nilufer Kursunoglu

Authors
  1. Nilufer Kursunoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nilufer Kursunoglu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kursunoglu, N. Risk Assessment of Coal Dust Explosions in Coal Mines Using a Combined Fuzzy Risk Matrix and Pareto Analysis Approach. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration 40, 2305–2317 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-023-00878-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-023-00878-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation