基于FBWM和GRA方法的矿山爆破风险评估决策模型。

IF 3.9 2区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Edris Soltani, Omran Ahmadi, Payam Rashnoudi
{"title":"基于FBWM和GRA方法的矿山爆破风险评估决策模型。","authors":"Edris Soltani, Omran Ahmadi, Payam Rashnoudi","doi":"10.1038/s41598-024-82181-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Due to the extensive use of explosives, the failure to identify hazards and assess risks in blasting may lead to catastrophic consequences. However, classical risk assessment approaches are limited in their ability to address ambiguity and uncertainty, as well as in assigning weights to the criteria involved in the risk assessment process. This study employs a multi-criteria decision-making system to address these limitations and assess the risks associated with blasting. The proposed model integrates Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) to prioritize risks and the Fuzzy Best-Worst Method (FBWM) to assign weights to the criteria critical to the risk assessment process. The findings indicated that \"not using personal anti-static protection devices during blasting (R12)\", \"placing the explosive fuse near explosive materials (R15)\", and \"bringing explosive materials to the explosion site before completing drilling and blasting operations (R23)\" were the most significant blasting risks, respectively. These risks stem from operational processes, human factors, and the working environment, thus requiring special attention. The weighting of the study criteria, including Consequence (C), Probability (P), and Exposure (E), revealed that the C criterion, with a final weight of 0.538, was the most influential in the risk assessment process. The P and E criteria, with weights of 0.294 and 0.167, respectively, ranked second and third in importance among the assessment criteria. To ensure the applicability and accuracy of the proposed method, a validation study comprising two distinct parts-sensitivity analysis and comparative analysis-was conducted. The results of these evaluations highlighted the appropriate and reliable performance of the proposed approach. This approach can assist decision-makers, managers, and risk analysts in more accurately identifying and assessing risks by addressing some of the limitations inherent in classical risk assessment methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"14 1","pages":"30997"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11680990/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A decision-making model for blasting risk assessment in mines using FBWM and GRA methods.\",\"authors\":\"Edris Soltani, Omran Ahmadi, Payam Rashnoudi\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41598-024-82181-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Due to the extensive use of explosives, the failure to identify hazards and assess risks in blasting may lead to catastrophic consequences. However, classical risk assessment approaches are limited in their ability to address ambiguity and uncertainty, as well as in assigning weights to the criteria involved in the risk assessment process. This study employs a multi-criteria decision-making system to address these limitations and assess the risks associated with blasting. The proposed model integrates Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) to prioritize risks and the Fuzzy Best-Worst Method (FBWM) to assign weights to the criteria critical to the risk assessment process. The findings indicated that \\\"not using personal anti-static protection devices during blasting (R12)\\\", \\\"placing the explosive fuse near explosive materials (R15)\\\", and \\\"bringing explosive materials to the explosion site before completing drilling and blasting operations (R23)\\\" were the most significant blasting risks, respectively. These risks stem from operational processes, human factors, and the working environment, thus requiring special attention. The weighting of the study criteria, including Consequence (C), Probability (P), and Exposure (E), revealed that the C criterion, with a final weight of 0.538, was the most influential in the risk assessment process. The P and E criteria, with weights of 0.294 and 0.167, respectively, ranked second and third in importance among the assessment criteria. To ensure the applicability and accuracy of the proposed method, a validation study comprising two distinct parts-sensitivity analysis and comparative analysis-was conducted. The results of these evaluations highlighted the appropriate and reliable performance of the proposed approach. This approach can assist decision-makers, managers, and risk analysts in more accurately identifying and assessing risks by addressing some of the limitations inherent in classical risk assessment methods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"30997\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11680990/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82181-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82181-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于炸药的广泛使用,在爆破过程中不及时识别危险和评估风险可能会导致灾难性的后果。然而,经典的风险评估方法在处理模糊性和不确定性的能力以及为风险评估过程中涉及的标准分配权重方面是有限的。本研究采用多准则决策系统来解决这些限制,并评估与爆破相关的风险。该模型将灰色关联分析(GRA)与模糊最佳-最差法(FBWM)相结合,对风险评估过程中的关键准则进行权重分配。结果表明,爆破过程中未使用个人防静电防护装置(R12)、将爆炸引信放置在爆炸物附近(R15)、在钻孔爆破作业前将爆炸物带到爆炸现场(R23)是爆破风险最大的三个因素。这些风险源于操作过程、人为因素和工作环境,因此需要特别注意。结果(C)、概率(P)和暴露(E)等研究标准的权重显示,C标准在风险评估过程中影响最大,最终权重为0.538。P和E的权重分别为0.294和0.167,在评价标准中排名第二和第三。为了确保所提出方法的适用性和准确性,进行了由敏感性分析和比较分析两部分组成的验证研究。这些评价的结果突出了所提议的办法的适当和可靠的执行情况。通过解决经典风险评估方法中固有的一些局限性,这种方法可以帮助决策者、管理者和风险分析师更准确地识别和评估风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A decision-making model for blasting risk assessment in mines using FBWM and GRA methods.

A decision-making model for blasting risk assessment in mines using FBWM and GRA methods.

A decision-making model for blasting risk assessment in mines using FBWM and GRA methods.

A decision-making model for blasting risk assessment in mines using FBWM and GRA methods.

Due to the extensive use of explosives, the failure to identify hazards and assess risks in blasting may lead to catastrophic consequences. However, classical risk assessment approaches are limited in their ability to address ambiguity and uncertainty, as well as in assigning weights to the criteria involved in the risk assessment process. This study employs a multi-criteria decision-making system to address these limitations and assess the risks associated with blasting. The proposed model integrates Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) to prioritize risks and the Fuzzy Best-Worst Method (FBWM) to assign weights to the criteria critical to the risk assessment process. The findings indicated that "not using personal anti-static protection devices during blasting (R12)", "placing the explosive fuse near explosive materials (R15)", and "bringing explosive materials to the explosion site before completing drilling and blasting operations (R23)" were the most significant blasting risks, respectively. These risks stem from operational processes, human factors, and the working environment, thus requiring special attention. The weighting of the study criteria, including Consequence (C), Probability (P), and Exposure (E), revealed that the C criterion, with a final weight of 0.538, was the most influential in the risk assessment process. The P and E criteria, with weights of 0.294 and 0.167, respectively, ranked second and third in importance among the assessment criteria. To ensure the applicability and accuracy of the proposed method, a validation study comprising two distinct parts-sensitivity analysis and comparative analysis-was conducted. The results of these evaluations highlighted the appropriate and reliable performance of the proposed approach. This approach can assist decision-makers, managers, and risk analysts in more accurately identifying and assessing risks by addressing some of the limitations inherent in classical risk assessment methods.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Scientific Reports
Scientific Reports Natural Science Disciplines-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
19567
审稿时长
3.9 months
期刊介绍: We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections. Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021). •Engineering Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live. •Physical sciences Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics. •Earth and environmental sciences Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems. •Biological sciences Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants. •Health sciences The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信