{"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}
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.
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.