Analysis of explosion risk factor potential on coal reclaim tunnel facilities by modified analytical hierarchy process

• Main Authors: Nuhindro Priagung Widodo, Budi Sulistianto, Ahmad Ihsan
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: SpringerOpen 2018-09-01
• Series: International Journal of Coal Science & Technology
• Subjects: Risk; Explosion; Coal reclaim tunnels; Analytical hierarchy process
• Online Access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40789-018-0219-0

Abstract This study focused on developing a risk assessment method for explosion at a coal reclaim tunnel (CRT) facility. The method was developed based on an analytical hierarchy process (AHP), which is an expert system that quantifies the factors of explosion incidents, based on events and hierarchies. In this paper, the proposed model was modification from original AHP model, specifically modifying the structure from “alternative’s results” to “total risk-rating’s results”. The total risk-rating is obtained by summing up risk-rating of each factor, where the risk-rating is a multiplication product of the risk value by the AHP weighted value. To support decision-making using the expert system, data on the real conditions of the CRT were collected and analyzed. A physical modeling of the CRT with laboratory-scale experiments was carried out to show the impact of a ventilation system in CRT on diluting the methane gas and coal dust, in order to support the quantification of AHP risk value. The criteria to evaluate the risk of explosion was constructed from six components that are: fuel, oxygen, ignition, confinement, dispersion, and monitoring system. Those components had fifty-two factors that serve as sub-components (root causes). The main causes of explosion in CRT were found to be: mechanical ventilation failure and abnormal ventilation, breakdown of monitoring system, and coal spontaneous-combustion. Assessments of two CRT facilities at Mine A and Mine B were carried out as a case study in order to check the reliability of the developed AHP method. The results showed that the risk rating of Mine A was classified as high and Mine B was classified as medium, which is in a good agreement with the site conditions.