Safety Science 85 (2016) 276281

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci

Accident-causing mechanism in coal mines based on hazards and

polarized management
Quanlong Liu a,b, Xianfei Meng a, Maureen Hassall b, Xinchun Li a,
a
b

School of Management, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China
Minerals Industry Safety & Health Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 15 October 2015
Received in revised form 20 December 2015
Accepted 20 January 2016
Available online 15 February 2016
Keywords:
Hazards
Accident-causing mechanism
Coal mine
Risk control

a b s t r a c t
Hazards are elements that could cause harm or loss and are sources of risk. This paper classifies hazards
associated with coal mining. Specifically, hazards are categorized into root hazards and status hazards,
and the status hazards are further divided into unidentified status hazards and identified status hazards,
and the identified status hazards include controlled and uncontrolled status hazards. It also explores in
some detail the relationship between hazards, accidents and accident-causing mechanisms. The accidentcausing mechanism of three layer of defense is proposed based on root hazards and status hazards definition and classification, including control criteria, control measures, and rectification measures, which
demonstrates that the uncontrolled status hazards and unidentified status hazards are the two main
accident-causing sources. The paper then ideas of polarized management of hazards as a means of maximizing the identification of the root hazards and their corresponding status hazards, minimizing out of
control probability of the identified status hazards, and minimizing accidents probability caused by the
uncontrolled status hazards. Finally, the polarized management methods of hazards are put forward
respectively, which include root-status hazards identification, formulation of control criteria and control
measures, and rectification measures.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Underground coal mining is recognized as one of the riskiest
operations worldwide (Lama and Bodziony, 1998; Sari et al.,
2004, 2009; Duzgun and Einstein, 2004; Duzgun, 2005; Grayson
et al., 2009; Maiti and Khanzode, 2009; Paul, 2009; Shahriar and
Bakhtavar, 2009; Khanzode et al., 2011; Nieto et al., 2014). Underground coal miners are exposed to hazards well in excess of those
who working in most other occupations (Mahdevari et al., 2014). In
underground coal mines there are a considerable number of hazards which include specialized equipment, high temperatures,
humidity, rock stresses, coal and silica dusts, and harmful gases.
These underground coal mining hazards have the potential to trigger accidents that can lead to injuries, multi fatalities and/or major
asset losses unless risk control measures are implemented that
effectively manage them.
Currently, there are quite a few definitions of hazards in the literature (Chen, 1995; Health & Safety Commission, 1976; Health
and Safety Executive, 1999; He and Tian, 2000; Sperber, 2001;
Correspondence to: Xinchun Li, School of Management, China University of
Mining and Technology, University Road 1, Xuzhou 221116, China. Tel.:
+8613815319956.
E-mail address: 715664665@qq.com (X. Meng).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.01.012
0925-7535/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Baun et al., 2006; McCoy et al., 2006; Jeong et al., 2008;

Kecojevic, 2009; Aven, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013; Liu et al., 2011;
Chen et al., 2012; Feng and Wang, 2013; Liu and Li, 2014). For
example, in OHSAS 18001 (2007), defines hazards as the roots or
conditions which could lead to injury or illness, property damage,
environmental damage, or combination of these states; Hazards
are things that have the potential to cause harm and/or damage
(ISO Guide 73:2009; AS/NZS ISO 31000, 2009). Besides, Tian
(2001) proposed the Theory of Three Types of Hazards which
classifies hazards into the following three types of dangerous
sources. The first is accidental discharge of energy or a dangerous
substance. The second refers to unsafe factors (e.g., safety equipment failure, individual unsafe behavior, etc.) causing invalid function which fails to restrict the first type hazards. The third consists
of institutional mistakes (e.g., culture, regulations, etc.), organizers
unsafe actions and mistakes, etc. The consequence of an accident is
determined by the first dangerous sources. The occurrence or possibility of an accident depends on the second dangerous sources.
The third type is the essential reason for the occupational hazards
occurrence, which is also the potential reason for the former two
(Tian et al., 2007). In addition, the Mining Hazards Database sponsored by the Queensland Government was compiled by assessing
the hazards that could exist in each coal mining activity or element, including five accessible sections General Mining Hazards,

Q. Liu et al. / Safety Science 85 (2016) 276281

Surface Mining Hazards, Underground Mining Hazards, Alerts by

Hazard, and Hierarchy of Controls. The original data mainly came
from multidisciplinary teams of mineworkers, mine management,
inspectors of mines, and where relevant experts from other fields.
Besides the Mining Hazards Database, the Minerals Industry Risk
Management Gateway (MIRMgate) developed by the University
of Queensland is a portal to a comprehensive library of information
related to hazard and risk management in the mining, minerals
processing and quarrying industries (www.MIRMgate.com).
MIRMgate provides direct access to online resources sourced from
Australian and global minerals industry bodies, including companies, industry associations and regulatory bodies. The above
researches provide a promising theoretical support for improving
risk management in coal mines. However, the current studies of
hazards do not address or clarify the misunderstanding or confusion about the internal relations of hazards, risks, and accidents,
which can undermine the ability to discern objects of risk management and perform effective risk management activities. Therefore,
to help address the gaps in the research, this paper classifies the
hazards deeply in coal mines and differentiates their relationship
with accidents and then explores accident-causing mechanism
based on the above hazards classification, and puts forward the
polarized management of hazards finally.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2,
we categorize the hazards into root hazards and status hazards in
coal mines. In Section 3, we mainly differentiate and analyze the
relationships between hazards and accidents and then explore
the accident-causing mechanism in coal mines. In Section 4, we
apply the accident-causing mechanism to control of the roots of
accidents, namely put forward polarized management of hazards.
Finally, we conclude this work in Section 5.

2. Hazards classification and definition

In this study, the hazards are defined as the roots that could
cause harm or loss and are sources of risk, which is consist with
the definition in ISO Guide 73. Hazards are categorized into root
hazards and status hazards. Root hazards are the root cause of accidents in coal mine, which are objective and inherent in the underground coal mining and production process regardless of being
identified or not. They are further classified into people, machine,
environment, and institution. Specifically, the root hazards from
people refers to working positions in coal enterprise, such as coal
mining machine driver, gas monitor, and coal digger, the root hazards from machine refers to all the machinery and equipment, such
as coal mining machine, scraper chain conveyer, and hydraulic
support, the root hazards from environment refers to natural geological conditions and working environment, such as methane,
groundwater, and coal and silica dusts, and the root hazards from
institution refers to organization structure, safety culture, rules,
regulations, etc. (Li and Song, 2007; Li, 2009, 2010; Liu et al.,
2011; Liu and Li, 2014).
The status hazards are the unsafe conditions or unsafe behaviors that can release or allow a root hazards to trigger an accident.
Status hazards are related to root hazards. For example, status hazards of relating to people mainly refer to humans unsafe behavior,
such as a status hazard might be improper gas emission monitoring from gas drainage worker, or unreasonable ventilator installation from ventilator worker. Status hazards of machine mainly
refer to machines unsafe status, such as air duct leakage and
unqualified detonator. Status hazards of environment mainly refer
to environments unsafe status, such as coal spontaneous combustion and high gas concentration in heading face. Status hazards of
institution mainly refer institutional deficiencies, such as unreasonable organization structure and shortage of drainage worker.

277

These status hazards have the potential to cause harm and/or damage. Furthermore, the status hazards are further divided into identified status hazards and unidentified status hazards, and the same
applies to the root hazards namely identified root hazards and
unidentified root hazards.
Risk control management of safety in coal mines should be
established on the basis of the identified root hazards and their
corresponding status hazards. If the identified status hazards
are further divided, they can be divided into controlled status
hazards and uncontrolled status hazards (status hazards which
have gone out of control). Controlled status hazards refer to the
situation where the root hazards are managed within normal
and safe operating parameters. On the contrary, the uncontrolled
status hazards refer to the situation where the root hazards could
be operating out of safety control criterions, which are operating
conditions that could trigger accidents under some conditions. An
illustration of the above classification of hazards is shown in
Figs. 1 and 2.

3. Accident-causing mechanism based on hazards

3.1. Relationships between hazards, risk and accidents
There exists a misunderstanding or confusion on the concepts
between hazards, risks, and accidents, resulting in difficulty to discern objects of risk management and perform effective risk management activities. Therefore, it is crucial to differentiate and
analyze the relationships between hazards, risks, and accidents.
The hazards are the roots that could cause harm or loss and are
sources of risk. Risk is the effect of uncertainty on objectives
caused by variability and specific uncertain events. It is often measures in terms of consequence and likelihood. Hazards are the prerequisites for risks. Risks can be associated with hazards that can
cause accidents that can impact objectives or opportunities that
can lead to benefits that can impact objectives. When all the hazards are safely controlled, there is no risk except residual risk. Conversely when certain hazard is out of control, namely there is an
uncontrolled status hazards then there is an unacceptable level
of risk. The goal is to implement sufficient controls so that the
residual risk of the hazards resulting in accidents is reduced to a
tolerable/acceptable level. The uncontrolled status hazards are
the status hazards which have gone out of control and are the
direct causes of accidents under some conditions.
In order to provide basis of accident-causing mechanism, the
relationships between the hazards and accidents is studied indepth. As demonstrated in Fig. 1, the status hazards consist of
the identified status hazards and unidentified status hazards.
Firstly, because of the limited knowledge of human, the identification of status hazards exist blind area, namely exists the
unidentified status hazards which are directly in a status of
non-defense. Consequently, the unidentified status hazards are
the biggest threats. Therefore, comprehensive and in-depth identification of status hazards, namely eliminating the blind areas, is
paramount in avoiding accidents. Secondly, control criterions and
control measures should be setup to manage the identified status
hazards. The control criterion is the control of hazards to what
extent can eliminate the risk of hazards, which can be formulated
according to relevant state criteria, industry criteria, and manufacturer criteria. The control measures are methods or means to
achieve control criterions. If the identified status hazards meet
the control criteria, they are called controlled status hazards
which do not have the potential to trigger accidents as shown
in Fig. 3. If the status hazards do not achieve the control criterions, they are considered uncontrolled status hazards which result
in out of control operations that could potentially trigger acci-

278

Q. Liu et al. / Safety Science 85 (2016) 276281

People
Undentified
root hazards

Machine

Controlled
status hazards

Identified status
hazards

Root hazards
Environment

Identified root
hazards

Uncontrolled
status hazards

Status hazards
Unidentified
status hazards

Institution
Fig. 1. Hazards classification.

Hazards

Gas drainage
worker

Improper gas
emissions

Environment

Machine

People

Methane
buildup

Detonator

Poor
detonator

Methane

Institution

Organization
structure

Shortage of
drainage worker

Root hazards

Status hazards

Fig. 2. Hazards classification and identification structure.

Controlled
status hazards

Yes

Yes
Identified status
hazards

Root Hazards

Status Hazards

Control
criteria

No Uncontrolled status hazards

(Status Hazards which have
gone out of control)

No
Rectification
measures

Accidents

Control
measures
Yes
Unidentified
status hazards

Triggers
No

Fig. 3. Accident-causing mechanism in coal mines based on hazards.

dents under some conditions. As an example, gas concentration

in the mining coal face is the identified status hazards, and
Gas concentration less than 1% is the control criterion. If the
gas concentration meets the control criterion, it is in control;
otherwise, it is out of control and called the uncontrolled status
hazards. Once the identified status hazards go out of control, it
is crucial to take some rectification measures to correct them
and make them return to normal and safe status. Therefore, the
control criterions, control measures, and rectification measures
are called three layer of defense of the risk control manage-

ment of safety in coal mines, as shown in Fig. 3. If the hazards

break through the three layer of defense, an accident is likely
to be triggered.
In conclusion, the relationships between hazards and accidents
can be summarized as follows. Root hazards are the root cause of
accidents, and status hazards are the unsafe conditions or unsafe
behaviors that can trigger an accident by releasing a root hazards.
Controlled status hazards are a prerequisite for safe operations.
Uncontrolled status hazards (status hazards which have gone out
of control) are the direct causes of accidents, and the unidentified

Q. Liu et al. / Safety Science 85 (2016) 276281

status hazards are the biggest uncontrolled status hazards of accidents. The above relationship between hazards and accidents is
also shown in Fig. 3.
3.2. Accident-causing mechanism based on hazards
The accident-causing mechanism in coal mines based on hazards can be obtained according to the above analysis of relationships between hazards and accidents, which is shown in Fig. 3.
From the sequence of accidents in Fig. 3, it is clear that if the status
hazards are not identified, they will directly break through the
three layer of defense which includes control criteria, control
measures, and rectification measures, and then trigger accidents
under some conditions. It is also clear that the uncontrolled status
hazards can give rise to accidents in the case of ineffective rectification measures. Fig. 3 also highlights that if the control measures
fail to make the identified status hazards meet the control criteria,
they will evolve into the uncontrolled status hazards.
According to the above accident-causing mechanism, an ideal
situation can be assumed as follows. If there are no unidentified
status hazards, namely all the root hazards and their corresponding status hazards are identified, then one of the paths to accidents
is cut off. And only two ways are needed to take to prevent the
accidents, namely strengthen the control of identified status hazards and pay high attention to the rectification of the hidden dangers (Fig. 3). In other words, as long as the above two facets are
strengthened, the following two outcomes would be achieved,
namely minimization of out of control probability of the identified
status hazards and minimization of accident probability caused by
the uncontrolled status hazards. However, it is impossible to identify all the status hazards but we can pursue identification maximization to make sure as many status hazards as possible are in
control. Therefore, in order to prevent the accidents fundamentally,
the following three facets should be strengthened. Firstly, maximize identification of the root hazards and their corresponding status hazards. Secondly, minimize out of control probability of the
identified status hazards. Thirdly, minimize accidents probability
caused by the uncontrolled status hazards. The above three facets
form the framework of polarized management of hazards from the
perspective of hazards. The following sections analyzed the polarized management methods of hazards in coal mines specifically.
4. Polarized management of hazards in coal mine
4.1. Maximize identification of the root hazards and their
corresponding status hazards
Hazards identification is the basis and premise of risk control
management of safety in coal mines. There are a host of identification methods (Bi and Zhang, 2010), such as Preliminary Hazard
Analysis (PHA), Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP), Fault Tree
Analysis (FTA), Event Tree Analysis (ETA), Work Task Analysis
(WTA), Safety Check List (SCL), and Brain-storming. The above
methods provide a promising specific technical tools for the hazards identification in coal mines and are used widely. However,
these methods are either for a specific incident or event analysis,
or based on experience, and lack of a systematic and comprehensive identification framework. Therefore, the frame of root-status
hazards identification method is proposed based on the above hazards classification, as shown in Fig. 4.
In coal mine production system, there are many independent
subsystems such as coal mining department, driving department,
transportation department, and ventilation department, which
has not only relative independence in space distribution but also
has different accident-causing factors. Taking those subsystems

279

as identification unit is beneficial to the comprehensive identification of hazards. The basic idea of the root-status hazards identification method is that list out all the root hazards detailedly from the
perspective of people, machine, environment, and institution and
then identify their corresponding status hazards as many as
possible.
The implementation steps of the root-status hazards identification method are shown as follows. Firstly, divide the entire coal
enterprise into several subsystems or units according to the principle of independence and completeness; Secondly, list out all the
root hazards of each subsystem detailedly from the perspective
of people, machine, environment, and institution; Thirdly, identify
the status hazards of each root hazard as many as possible by combining use of the above identification methods. Moreover, in the
identification of status hazards, three kinds of tenses (past, present
and future) and three kinds of status (normal, abnormal and emergency) should be taken into account, and more than two types of
identification methods should be adopted to pursue identification
maximization.
The method of root-status hazards identification was applied to
Lingxin mine which belongs to Shenhua Ningxia Coal Industry
Group in China, and its hazards identification results were shown
in Table 1.
In comparison to the Work Task Analysis (WTA) which was formerly adopted in Lingxin mine, the root-status hazards identification method is more effective with the number of root hazards and
identified status hazards increasing by 91 and 326 respectively.
Moreover, its implementation is simple and convenient reducing
the need for joint identification and coordination of multi-types
of workers.
4.2. Minimize out of control probability of the identified status hazards
Control criteria and control measures should be setup to minimize out of control probability of the identified status hazards. If
the identified status hazards meet the control criteria, they are
called controlled status hazards which do not have the potential
to trigger accidents. Furthermore, to ensure that the identified status hazards are under the control of different responsibility subjects and are prevented from evolving into the uncontrolled
status hazards, the directly responsible individual, direct manager
and supervisor of the identified status hazards and their corresponding control measures should be clear and definite. As an
example, the above method was applied to the identified status
hazard, namely shearer picks are seriously worn or lost, as shown
in the Table 2.
4.3. Minimize accident probability caused by the uncontrolled status
hazards
Once the identified status hazards go out of control, namely
turn into the uncontrolled status hazards, it is crucial to take some
rectification measures to correct them and make them return to
normal and safe state. According to different types and properties
of the uncontrolled status hazards, the rectification measures can
be divided into technology, behavior and management rectification
measures. Technology rectification measure mainly focus on
uncontrolled status hazards from machine and environment.
Behavior rectification measures mainly focus on uncontrolled status hazards from people, Management rectification measures are
improvement measures which mainly focus on the uncontrolled
status hazards from institution. As an example, there are a host
of technology rectification measures which can be classified into
elimination, isolation, mitigation, and personal protective equipment. Firstly, the elimination and isolation are mainly focus on
the root hazards. The same root hazard has different danger levels

280

Q. Liu et al. / Safety Science 85 (2016) 276281

The hazards system

Coal mining
department

Driving
department

People

Electromechanical
department

Machine

Transportation
department

Ventilation
department

Organization
management

Environment

Root
hazards

Status
hazards

Fig. 4. Frame of root-status hazards identification method.

Table 1
Hazards identification results in Lingxin mine. Source: the project on construction of
risk pre-control management system of safety in Lingxin mine.
Classification of
root hazards

Number of root hazards

Number of identified
status hazards

People
Machine
Environment
Institution

327
225
58
9

1340
556
131
60

Total

619

2087

concentration should be continuously monitored and mitigated

by ventilation systems. Thirdly, if the elimination, isolation, and
mitigation measures are expensive or unfulfilled then personal
protective equipment can be adopted.
The papers focus has been on significant internal hazards in
underground coal mines and will make recommendations for further work (e.g. extending to external hazards, investigating dependencies between hazards both root and status, and extending to
other industries).
5. Conclusions

in different environments, as an example, the methane gas is

highly dangerous in an underground mine but its risk can be
deemed to negligible in an uninhabited desert. This gives us an
inspiration that if a root hazard is not crucial to the mining operation and its existence can be controlled by humans then it must be
resolutely eliminated, such as cigarette lighter, Chinese spirits, and
matches. Conversely, if the root hazard is crucial to the mining
operation and its existence cant be controlled by humans then it
should be isolated. For example, an underground goaf must be isolated to avoid the collapse of goaf and the emission of harmful gas
concentrations. Secondly, the mitigations are mainly focus on the
status hazards. In the underground mine, some status hazards
are produced with production operations and their energy can continue to increase reaching a certain limits which have the potential
to trigger accidents. For those kinds of status hazards, their emergence cant be prevented but can be mitigated. For example, gas

This paper classifies hazards deeply in coal mines and differentiates its relationship with accidents and then explores accidentcausing mechanism, and puts forward the polarized management
of hazards finally. The main conclusions can be drawn from this
study as follows.
(1) Hazards are categorized into root hazards and status hazards. The root hazards are the root cause of accidents in coal
mine, which are objective and inherent in the underground
coal mining and production process regardless of being identified or not. The status hazards are the unsafe conditions or
unsafe behaviors that can release or allow a root hazards to
trigger an accident. Furthermore, the status hazards are further divided into identified status hazards and unidentified
status hazards, and the identified status hazards include
controlled and uncontrolled status hazards.

Table 2
Control criterions and control measures on shearer picks are seriously worn or lost in Lingxin mine. Source: the project on construction of risk pre-control management system
of safety in Lingxin mine.
Identified status hazard

Control criterions

Controlled
object

Responsible
individual

Direct manager

Direct
supervisor

Control measures

Shearer picks are seriously

worn or lost

1. Picks are sharp and installed

securely
2. Worn or lost rate of pricks
lower than 1%
...

Coal mining
machine

Coal mining
machine driver

People who take personal

charge of the shift

Safety
checker

Responsibility
measures: . . .
Management
measures: . . .
Supervision
measures: . . .

Q. Liu et al. / Safety Science 85 (2016) 276281

(2) The accident-causing mechanism of three layer of defense

is proposed based on root hazards and status hazards definition and classification, including control criteria, control
measures, and rectification measures, which demonstrates
that the uncontrolled status hazards and unidentified status
hazards are the two main accident-causing sources.
(3) The ideas of polarized management of hazards in coal mine
is explored, namely maximize identification of the root hazards and their corresponding status hazards, minimize out of
control probability of the identified status hazards, and minimize accidents probability caused by the uncontrolled status hazards. The above three facets form the framework of
polarized management of hazards from the perspective of
maximization and minimization of hazards.
(4) The polarized management methods of hazards are put forward respectively. Specifically, maximize identification of
the root hazards and their corresponding status hazards by
adopting the method of root-status hazards identification,
minimize out of control probability of the identified status
hazards by formulating control criteria and control measures, and minimize accidents probability caused by the
uncontrolled status hazards by implementing rectification
measures which include the technology rectification, behavior rectification, and institution improvement.

Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding support from
China Scholarship Council under Grant 201406420018 and the
National Natural Science Foundation Projects of China under Grant
71271206, and the support of the Sustainable Minerals Institute of
the University of Queensland for resources necessary to complete
this paper.
References
Aven, T., 2010. On how to define, understand and describe risk. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
95, 623631.
Aven, T., 2011. On the new ISO guide on risk management terminology. Reliab. Eng.
Syst. Saf. 96, 719726.
Aven, T., 2012. The risk concept historical and recent development trends. Reliab.
Eng. Syst. Saf. 99, 3344.
Aven, T., 2013. The concepts of risk and probability: an editorial. Health Risk Soc. 15
(2), 117122.
AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009, 2009. Risk Management Principles and Guidelines.
Baun, A., Eriksson, E., Ledin, A., Mikkelsen, P.S., 2006. A methodology for ranking and
hazard identification of xenobiotic organic compounds in urban stormwater.
Sci. Total Environ. 370 (1), 2938.
Bi, D.C., Zhang, S.J., 2010. Control research and identification of danger sources in
coal mine. Sci. Technol. Manage. Res. 19, 110113.
Chen, B.Z., 1995. Safety Theory. Metallurgy press, Beijing.
Chen, C., Liu, K., Tseng, C., Hsu, W., Chiang, W., 2012. Hazard management and risk
design by optimal statistical analysis. Nat. Hazards 64 (2), 273282.

281

Duzgun, H.S.B., 2005. Analysis of roof fall hazards and risk assessment for
Zonguldak coal basin underground mines. Int. J. Coal Geol. 64 (12), 104115.
Duzgun, H.S.B., Einstein, H.H., 2004. Assessment and management of roof fall risks
in underground coal mines. Saf. Sci. 42 (1), 2341.
Feng, C., Wang, H., 2013. Proportionality of hazards in competing risk analysis.
Statistics 47 (3), 654661.
Grayson, R.L., Kinilakodi, H., Kecojevic, V., 2009. Pilot sample risk analysis for
underground coal mine fires and explosions using MSHA citation data. Saf. Sci.
47 (10), 13711378.
He, X.Q., Tian, S.C., 2000. Safety Engineering. China University of Mining and
Technology Press, Xuzhou.
Health & Safety Commission, 1976. Advisory Committee on Major Hazard, First
Report, Hazard A Source of Danger. HSC, London.
Health and Safety Executive, 1999. Reducing Risks, Protecting People, HSEs
Decision Making Process. HSE, London.
ISO Guide, 2009. Risk Management Vocabulary, first ed., International
Organization for Standardization, 73.
Jeong, K., Lee, D., Lee, K., Lim, H., 2008. A qualitative identification and analysis of
hazards, risks and operating procedures for a decommissioning safety
assessment of a nuclear research reactor. Ann. Nucl. Energy 35 (10), 19541962.
Kecojevic, V., 2009. Hazard identification for equipment-related fatal incidents in
the U.S. underground coal mining. J. Coal Sci. Eng. 15 (1), 16.
Khanzode, V.V., Maiti, J., Ray, P.K., 2011. A methodology for evaluation and
monitoring of recurring hazards in underground coal mining. Saf. Sci. 49 (8),
11721179.
Lama, R.D., Bodziony, J., 1998. Management of outburst in underground coal mines.
Int. J. Coal Geol. 35 (14), 83115.
Li, X.C., 2009. Study on the evaluation system for the coal safety management based
on risk pre-control. J. Coal Sci. Eng. 1, 108112.
Li, X.C., 2010. Study the closed loop management system for the coal mines based
on risk management. J. Coal Sci. Eng. 2, 215220.
Li, X.C., Song, X.F., 2007. Evaluation system for the coal safety management based on
risk pre-control. J. Coal Eng. 39 (9), 8284.
Liu, Q.L., Li, X.C., 2014. Modeling and evaluation of the safety control capability of
coal mine based on system safety. J. Cleaner Prod. 84, 797802.
Liu, Q.L., Li, X.C., Zhang, Q.C., 2011. Study on the risk measurement and the coupling
analysis of multi hazard source in coal gas accident. Mine Saf. 42 (7), 189192.
Mahdevari, S., Shahriar, K., Esfahanipour, A., 2014. Human health and safety risks
management in underground coal mines using fuzzy TOPSIS. Sci. Total Environ.
488 (1), 8589.
Maiti, J., Khanzode, V.V., 2009. Development of a relative risk model for roof and
side fall fatal accidents in underground coal mines in India. Saf. Sci. 47 (8),
10681076.
McCoy, S.A., Zhou, D., Chung, P.W.H., 2006. State-based modelling in hazard
identification. Appl. Intell. 24 (3), 263279.
Nieto, A., Gao, Y., Grayson, L., Fu, G., 2014. A comparative study of coal mine safety
performance indicators in China and the USA. Int. J. Min. Mineral Eng. 5 (4),
299314.
OHSAS 18001, 2007. Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems
Requirements.
Paul, P.S., 2009. Predictors of work injury in underground mines an application of
a logistic regression model. Min. Sci. Technol. 19 (3), 282289.
Sari, M., Duzgun, H.S.B., Karpuz, C., Selcuk, A.S., 2004. Accident analysis of two
Turkish underground coal mines. Saf. Sci. 42 (8), 675690.
Sari, M., Selcuk, A.S., Karpuz, C., Duzgun, H.S.B., 2009. Stochastic modeling of
accident risks associated with an underground coal mine in Turkey. Saf. Sci. 47
(1), 7887.
Shahriar, K., Bakhtavar, E., 2009. Geotechnical risks in underground coal mines. J.
Appl. Sci. 9 (11), 21372143.
Sperber, W.H., 2001. Hazard identification: from a quantitative to a qualitative
approach. Food Control 12 (4), 223228.
Tian, S.C., 2001. Identification and Control Research on Three Types of Hazards.
Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing.
Tian, S.C., Li, H.X., Wang, L., Chen, T., 2007. Probe into the frequency of coal mine
accidents based on the theory of three types of hazards. China Saf. Sci. J. 17 (1),
1015.