Ethics code: IR.ABADANUMS.REC.1403.098
Abadan university of medical sciences , p.rashnoudi@modares.ac.ir
Abstract: (146 Views)
Background and Aim: Blasting is among the most hazardous mining activities because it involves the direct use of explosives, can produce catastrophic consequences, and is highly sensitive to human error. This study aimed to identify blasting-related risk scenarios and develop an integrated framework for their assessment and prioritization.
Methods: Blasting-related risk scenarios were identified through a review of relevant scientific and technical sources and consultation with experts. Each item was formulated as a risk scenario incorporating a causal condition, a hazardous event, and a potential consequence. Four assessment criteria—consequence, probability, exposure frequency, and risk tolerability—were selected based on expert judgment. Criterion weights were determined using the Fuzzy Best–Worst Method (FBWM), and Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) was then used to prioritize the risk scenarios.
Results: The FBWM results showed that consequence (weight = 0.489) was the most important criterion, whereas exposure frequency (weight = 0.106) was the least important. The scenario involving the blaster’s failure to use anti-static personal protective equipment (R14) received the highest priority. By contrast, the scenario involving selection of a shelter near the blast site and within the fly rock trajectory (R25) received the lowest priority.
Conclusion: By integrating expert judgments, FBWM, and GRA, the proposed framework provides a structured means of weighting assessment criteria and prioritizing blasting risk scenarios while modelling uncertainty in expert evaluations. The framework may support safety managers, mine supervisors, and HSE professionals in identifying higher-priority scenarios and planning risk-control measures; however, its performance relative to conventional methods should be examined using empirical incident data and broader operational settings.
Methods: Blasting-related risk scenarios were identified through a review of relevant scientific and technical sources and consultation with experts. Each item was formulated as a risk scenario incorporating a causal condition, a hazardous event, and a potential consequence. Four assessment criteria—consequence, probability, exposure frequency, and risk tolerability—were selected based on expert judgment. Criterion weights were determined using the Fuzzy Best–Worst Method (FBWM), and Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) was then used to prioritize the risk scenarios.
Results: The FBWM results showed that consequence (weight = 0.489) was the most important criterion, whereas exposure frequency (weight = 0.106) was the least important. The scenario involving the blaster’s failure to use anti-static personal protective equipment (R14) received the highest priority. By contrast, the scenario involving selection of a shelter near the blast site and within the fly rock trajectory (R25) received the lowest priority.
Conclusion: By integrating expert judgments, FBWM, and GRA, the proposed framework provides a structured means of weighting assessment criteria and prioritizing blasting risk scenarios while modelling uncertainty in expert evaluations. The framework may support safety managers, mine supervisors, and HSE professionals in identifying higher-priority scenarios and planning risk-control measures; however, its performance relative to conventional methods should be examined using empirical incident data and broader operational settings.
Keywords: Risk assessment, risk scenarios, blasting, mining, Fuzzy Best–Worst Method, Grey Relational Analysis
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
