Comparison of Quantitative Techniqes of

Risk Assessment in Underground Mines

(Case Studies)

Hafiz Umair Ali

2nd Semester
MS-MRE (2018-20)
Course Title: Safety, Health & Environment (SHE)

AUGUST 19, 2019

Pakistan Institute of Engineering & Applied
Sciences (PIEAS)
Nilore, Islamabad
Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2
2 Materials and Methods ......................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Rapid Ranking Method (RRM) ..................................................................................... 3
2.2 Decision Matrix Risk Assessment (DMRA).................................................................. 5
3 Results & Discussions .......................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Case Study – RRM......................................................................................................... 7
3.1.1 Example .................................................................................................................. 8
3.2 Case Study – DMRA ..................................................................................................... 9
4 Comparison ......................................................................................................................... 11
5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 12
6 References .......................................................................................................................... 13

i
List of Figures
Figure 1: The ALARP Principle (Swapen, 2017) ......................................................................... 3
Figure 2: The ALARP Point (Swapen, 2017)............................................................................... 3
Figure 3: Workflow for the RRM Technique (Verma, et al., 2013) ............................................. 4
Figure 4: Process of Decision Matrix Risk Assessment (DMRA) ............................................... 5

List of Tables
Table 1: Yardstick for level of exposure ...................................................................................... 4
Table 2: Yardstick for consequences ............................................................................................ 5
Table 3: Yardstick for probability ................................................................................................ 5
Table 4: Risk scores and associated risk levels ............................................................................ 5
Table 5: Example of risk matrix to use risk matrix (Domínguez, et al., 2019) ............................ 6
Table 6: Accidents that occurred in the year 2016 are classified by severity (Domínguez, et al.,
2019) ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Table 7: Risk matrix of the blasting activity ................................................................................ 7
Table 8: Risk matrix of the use of machinery and equipment (Domínguez, et al., 2019) ............ 7
Table 9: Risk matrix of the exploitation activity .......................................................................... 7
Table 10: Risk matrix of the fortification activity ........................................................................ 7
Table 11: Risk matrix of amacizar activity .................................................................................. 7
Table 12: Analysis of the cause (Verma, et al., 2013).................................................................. 8
Table 13: Detailed analysis of cause to get total risk score (Verma, et al., 2013) ....................... 9
Table 14: Likelihood classes and consequence classes of the blasting activity (Domínguez, et al.,
2019) ........................................................................................................................................... 10
Table 15: Likelihood classes and consequence classes of the use of mining machinery and
equipment activity (Domínguez, et al., 2019) ............................................................................ 10
Table 16: Likelihood classes and consequence classes of the exploitation activity (Domínguez,
et al., 2019) ................................................................................................................................. 10
Table 17: Likelihood classes and consequence classes of the fortification activity (Domínguez,
et al., 2019) ................................................................................................................................. 11
Table 18: Likelihood classes and consequence classes of the amacizar activity (Domínguez, et
al., 2019) ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Table 19: Risk category and necessary actions .......................................................................... 11

ii
 Abstract
This article highlights the importance of risk assessment in underground mines being considered
among the riskiest operation worldwide. The main activities of underground mining operation
area blasting, machine and equipment utilization, exploitation, fortification and amacize. Mine
environment offers plenty of dangers to the workers increasing the risk of occupational diseases.
The working conditions can only be improved by carefully assessing the risks and their
associated factors, for which rapid ranking method (RRM) and decision matrix risk assessment
(DMRA) techniques are studies on underground mines in different locations. In RRM, accidents
are classified according to their cause whereas in DMRA the classification is done based on
impact on the environment. The analysis highlighted the activities which are troublesome and
need attention either in terms of design modification or defining safeguards. It is concluded after
the thorough analysis and comparison of both the techniques that DMRA is the most effective.
The DMRA paves a good platform for the safety engineers/managers to assess the severity and
modify their ongoing plans if required. Further, the article also highlights the importance of
recording both major and minor accidents throughout the operation continuity for continuous
assessment and preventions of high potential risks.

Keywords: Underground, Risk, Probability, Rapid Ranking Method (RRM), Decision Matrix
Risk Assessment (DMRA), safeguards

1
1 Introduction
Of the three most dangerous occupational sections (i.e. construction, agriculture and mining),
mining is on top. No doubt, it’s through mining that we’re able to meet the exponentially
increasing needs of raw material in various sectors. It also exposes workers lives at risk under
different operations. In this regard, there must be a safely management policy enforced by the
legislative body (usually government) in compliance with the global safety standards
(Domínguez, et al., 2019).

Ever increasing demand of different raw materials has increased the portfolio of extraction
industry. The increase in labour, therefore, is directly linked with an increased rate of major and
minor accidents. The nature of accidents in a mining project varies with the type of excavation
(i.e. underground mining or surface mining) and the use of technology. The most common causes
are related to environmental risks (physical, chemical, biological), risks of physical and mental
overload and risks having variable sources (Domínguez, et al., 2019).

Hazard is defined as the source of harm whereas the probability of it being experienced is called
the risk. The analysis of hazards and risks analysis is becoming prerequisite in all small or major
mining projects. The analysis could be both qualitative or quantitative and multiple dimensions
of risks are incorporated.

The risks are mitigated to the level of acceptance which is safety culture is referred to the ALARP
principle (As Low as Reasonably Practicable). Th e ALARP principle can be demonstrated as in
Figure 1. Further, the planning and designing engineers must act in accordance with the
optimization principle as to reduce the risk to the minimum and also making the
operation/process economical (See Figure 2) (Swapen, 2017).

The risk assessment methodologies have been broadly categorized as:

• Qualitative Techniques
• Quantitative Techniques
• Hybrid Risk Techniques

Qualitative Techniques are based on analytical estimation of processes and on the expertise of
safety engineer. The techniques include, checklists, What-If Analysis, safety audits, task
analysis, STEP and HAZOP.

Quantitative Techniques involves the quantification of risk using a mathematical relation

incorporating several factors. The techniques include, Proportional Risk Assessment (PRAT),
Decision Matrix Risk Assessment (DMRA), Societal Risk Estimate (SRE), Quantitative Risk
Assessment (QRA), Quantitative Assessment of Domino Scenarios (QADS), Clinical Risk and
Error Analysis (CREA) and Rapid Ranking Method (RRM).

Hybrid Techniques are a combination of both and offer great complexity e.g. Human Error
Analysis Technique (HEAT), Human Factor Event Analysis (EFEA), Fault Tree Analysis
(FTA), Event Tree Analysis (ETA) and Risk Based Matrix (RBM).

2
This report describes in detail about the DMRA and RRM methodologies and controlling factors
with their advantages and disadvantages followed by the comparative analysis of these two
techniques based on recent case studies. In the end either of the technique will be recommended.

Figure 1: The ALARP Principle (Swapen, 2017)

Figure 2: The ALARP Point (Swapen, 2017)

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Rapid Ranking Method (RRM)
For an adequate estimation and management of risks, it’s extremely important to access each
risk, contributing factors and the severity. In both traditional and modern approaches, first phase

3
always remains the hazard identification followed by its likely contribution at mine level. The
idea of risk assessment and management is to rank risks in the order of decreasing overall score
to identify which of the risks need immediate attention. The methodology of RRM technique is
illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Workflow for the RRM Technique (Verma, et al., 2013)

Once we get the exposure, consequence and probability for a specified hazard while analysing
historic data, we quantify the risk as:

𝑇(𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘) = 𝐶(𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒) × 𝐸(𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒) × 𝑃(𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑙𝑡𝑦)

Now, we have individual score for each hazard to prioritize our action plans. The parameters P,
C, E are estimated based on yardsticks tables. The yardsticks have been prepared based on
experts’ guidelines and pas experiences etc. Table 1,2,3,4 are the specified yardsticks for the
total risk estimation.
Table 1: Yardstick for level of exposure

4
 Table 2: Yardstick for consequences

Table 3: Yardstick for probability

Table 4: Risk scores and associated risk levels

2.2 Decision Matrix Risk Assessment (DMRA)

The decision matrix risk assessment technique uses a systematic approach to categorize and
measure potential risks based on probability, consequences and relative significance. The
consequence and severity combined with the likelihood gives a quantitative risk estimate. Thus,
risks are ranked accordingly. In general, we can define the risk ‘R’ as a product of severity ‘S’
and probability ‘P’ (Marhavilas, et al., 2011).

𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘 (𝑅) = 𝑆𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝑆) × 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝑃)

The whole process can be summarized through a schematic chart in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Process of Decision Matrix Risk Assessment (DMRA)

5
The DMRA methodology involves the following steps:

1. Mapping of risks derived from various activities of underground/surface mining

operation including blasting, exploitations, fortification, amacizar having physical,
chemical, ergonomics, biological or psychosocial hazards. In this context, the likelihood
categories are identified as negligible, serious, catastrophic, impossible, probable, often.
These categories are placed on ordinate axis of the risk matrix whereas the consequence
categories are ranked on abscissa (Table 5).
Table 5: Example of risk matrix to use risk matrix (Domínguez, et al., 2019)

2. Classification of accidents in accordance with their impacts on environment, quality of

human life and financial position of the mining organization. The likelihood is
represented in a logarithmic scale of frequency on ordinate whereas the matrix is scaled
as: minor injuries, loss-time injuries, severe injuries, and fatalities (Table 6).
3. It’s rather a detailed task where each work activity is analysed by statistics mentioned in
1 and 2 i.e. the likelihood class and the consequences class (Table 7-11).
Table 6: Accidents that occurred in the year 2016 are classified by severity (Domínguez, et al., 2019)

6
 Table 7: Risk matrix of the blasting activity

(Domínguez, et al., 2019) Table 9: Risk matrix of the exploitation activity

(Domínguez, et al., 2019)

Table 8: Risk matrix of the use of machinery and equipment

(Domínguez, et al., 2019)

Table 10: Risk matrix of the fortification activity

(Domínguez, et al., 2019)

Table 11: Risk matrix of amacizar activity

(Domínguez, et al., 2019)

3 Results & Discussions

3.1 Case Study – RRM
The cause-wise accident data was gathered from a metalliferous mine in India from 1995 to 2005.
The data was analysed based on severity of the consequences during whole 10 years. This was
done with the help of tabulating number of accidents from a specific cause during the whole
span. The relative frequency distribution of all causes were calculated to have idea about the
weighting factor. This report doesn’t give the detail about several causes rather it picks up a
specific cause and estimates the risk (Verma, et al., 2013).

7
In addition, the contributing factors to each cause were analysed in detail to develop a
remediation plan for safe working in the mine condition. In meantime, yardsticks were also
tabulated using all sorts of available information (i.e. past/present) to assign the exposure,
consequence and probability values to a cause.

Further, it was also in the pool that a single cause can result in multiple hazards, for example, a
wire laying down on a floor could result in electric hazards or tripping hazard etc Thus, hazards
from a single cause were ranked based on their risk score to identify which one needs immediate
attention. The same methodology is adopted for all available causes of hazards and average
scores were obtained to ease their effective management (Verma, et al., 2013).

3.1.1 Example
From the whole dataset, one cause is picked to illustrate the process of RRM analysis and for
rest of the causes, only results are presented here.

3.1.1.1 Cause of Accident – Ground Movement

The accident data is obtained from the annual safety report of the organization. The percentage
contribution of consequences relating to a single cause (i.e. ground movement in this case) is
categorized as fatal, serious and report. The data is shown in the Table 12.
Table 12: Analysis of the cause (Verma, et al., 2013)

The statistics shows that ground movement is the dangerous cause of fatalities as 80% of the
fatalities for the period of 10 years is caused by this phenomenon (Verma, et al., 2013).

Now, the detailed analysis of this cause is presented as we are aware that it can cause adverse
effects on the normal working environment either in terms of days loss, financial loss, equipment
loss, labour loss etc. In the process of analysing it properly, we need to identify each associated
risk to the hazard and compare it with the yardstick of consequence, probability and exposure to
estimate risk factor linked with each risk. The analysis is presented in Table 13.

In this scenario, all accidents whether major or minor caused by ground movement are termed
as hazards. The ground movement is triggered by the several mining operations including,
blasting, drilling, bolting, loading, mucking, dressing, roof fall etc.

8
 Table 13: Detailed analysis of cause to get total risk score (Verma, et al., 2013)

In Table 13, C=3 is assigned for all identified risks (refer Table 2) as all risks can cause serious
consequences due to ground movement. Secondly, exposure is taken as 10 i.e. E=10 for all
associated risks because people are always exposed to the geological conditions of the mine.
Thus, the only factor controlling the magnitude of calculated risk is based on probability i.e.
taken as 9 for the most probable of them. The identified risk “Strata control at geologically
disturbed area – Assessment, support, setting, support design – inadequate” is the most
pronounced risk with magnitude 270 becoming the priority.

3.2 Case Study – DMRA

The decision matrices for different operational activities are already presented in section 2.2 of
this report and the application shall be discussed here.

The statistics for the blasting activity indicates no accidents in the observation period. It was
noted that the data can be tabulated in terms of no personal harm and single fatality with several
injuries (see Table 14 for the blasting activity). The better analysis was based on the NOM-023-
STPS-2012, which classifies the risk magnitude as serious, high, medium, low and minimal.
Thus, in case of blasting, the level of risk identified was minimal, low and high. The actions are
recommended in accordance with the Table 19.

The statistics for other operational equipments and machinery suggests that it has led to 4
accidents of which 1 fatality occurred. The data is presented in Table 15 in the categories of no
personal harm and single fatality and several injuries as for the blasting activity. It was noted
that the fatality occurred without any serious warning (i.e. it wasn’t expected at all) while
necessitating precise precautionary measures to avoid any such incident in future operations. The
NOM-023-STPS-2012 classifies the risk magnitude as: serious, high, medium, low and minimal.
The actions are recommended in accordance with the Table 19.

The statistics for the exploitation accidents (8 accidents overall) suggests that the classification
could be based on insignificant and significant consequences classes. Further, the it can also be
presented as no personal harm and single fatality and several injuries. Nevertheless, for better

9
analysis, NOM-023-STPS-2012 is used and the risk level was found to be in categories of
minimal, low and high. The actions are recommended in accordance with the Table 19.

Similarly, the statistics for the fortification (4 accidents overall, Table 17) and amacizar (32
accidents overall) suggests that the classification could be based on insignificant and significant
consequences classes. However, for better analysis, NOM-023-STPS-2012 is used and the risk
level was found to be in categories of minimal, low and high. The actions are recommended in
accordance with the Table 19.

Table 14: Likelihood classes and consequence classes of the blasting activity (Domínguez, et al., 2019)

Table 15: Likelihood classes and consequence classes of the use of mining machinery and equipment activity
(Domínguez, et al., 2019)

Table 16: Likelihood classes and consequence classes of the exploitation activity (Domínguez, et al., 2019)

10
 Table 17: Likelihood classes and consequence classes of the fortification activity (Domínguez, et al., 2019)

Table 18: Likelihood classes and consequence classes of the amacizar activity (Domínguez, et al., 2019)

Table 19: Risk category and necessary actions

Category Action

Minimal Requires attention

Low Requires attention and correction

Medium Immediate attention and correction is required

High Immediate attention and review of security conditions

Serious Immediate attention and review of security conditions

4 Comparison
The DMRA technique is an easily applicable technique. It provides safe and reliable results
entirely based on the historical data of undesirable events and accident. The risk analysis and
risk evaluations are simultaneously considered in the DMRA methodology. Further, the

11
predictability of the hazards is also an advantageous feature of the technique helping
managers/engineers to foresee undesirable events.

In addition, it’s not restricted to the mining operation but equally applicable to all
operations/processes in different industries. The quantitative and graphical nature of the results
enable the managers to make timely decisions. However, the only disadvantage it owes is the
sole dependence on the opinion of experts.

The RRM technique also has an easy application methodology. It analyses the hazards associated
with the single cause and prioritize them in accordance with their calculated magnitude. It
doesn’t classify causes and hazards based on impacts on the environment which DMRA does.
The magnitude could lead to erroneous results as the yardsticks are constructed based on past
experiences and may vary considerably among different mining sites.

5 Conclusions
The two techniques (i.e. RRM and DMRA) presented in this report have their own pros and cons
(briefly discussed in Section 4 of this report). For the RRM application, the data was collected
from an underground mine in India where historical data encompassing ten years were analysed
to access causes of hazards and their associated risks. The methodology resulted in the ranking
of risks in accordance with their calculated magnitude based on exposure ‘E’, consequence ‘C’
and probability ‘P’. The values of E, C and P are estimated on earlier prepared standardized
yardsticks based on historical data and experienced opinion of safety engineers/professionals.
The RRM is handy tool for quick and robust risk assessment but without graphical output (i.e.
adequate representation of results is an issue with the RRM).

For the application of DMRA, data of historical accidents was collected for an underground mine
in Mexico. The methodology focuses on categorizing accidents in terms of no. of injuries,
fatalities etc. for each mining operation. Different risk matrix was constructed for each mining
operation category e.g. blasting, exploitation, fortification etc. with the input of statistical
parameters for each coloured box. Further, the statistical data was analysed using NOM-023-
STPS-2012, Minas subterráneas y minas a cielo a bierto – the Mexican standard in to minimal,
low, medium, high, serious risks. The actions are recommended accordingly. The advantageous
feature of DMRA is the representation in terms of colour boxes which allows safety managers
or other professionals to quickly assess the situation, thus helping in decision making.

The comparison of the techniques suggests that DMRA has an upper hand as it presents more
user-friendly display which eases the process of decision making. It also enables the managers
to predict incidents and devise a preventive plan to further minimize the risks.

12
6 References
Analysis and evaluation of risks in underground mining using the decision matrix risk-assessment
(DMRA) technique, in Guanajuato, Mexico [Journal] / auth. Domínguez Claudia Rivera [et al.]. - [s.l.] :
Journal of Sustainable Mining , 2019. - Vol. 18.

Basics of Hazard, Risk Ranking, and Safety Systems [Book Section] / auth. Swapen Basu // Plant
Hazard Analysis and Safety Instrumentation System / book auth. Swapan Basu. - London, United
Kingdom : Joe Hayton, 2017.

Risk analysis and assessment methodologies in the work sites: On a review,classification and
comparative study of the scientific literature of the period 2000-2009 [Journal] / auth. Marhavilas
P.K., Koulouriotis D. and Gemeni V.. - Xanthi, Greece : Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process
Industries, 2011. - Vol. 24.

Risk Assessment in Mining Industry [Journal] / auth. Verma Shikha and Gupta Mahendra. - Haryana,
India : International Journal of Mining and Mineral Engineering, 2013. - 4 : Vol. 4.

13