International Journal of Coal Geology 64 (2005) 104 – 115

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijcoalgeo

Analysis of roof fall hazards and risk assessment for Zonguldak

coal basin underground mines
H.S.B. Düzgün
Geodetic and Geographic Information Technologies, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
Received 17 June 2004; received in revised form 27 January 2005; accepted 7 March 2005
Available online 6 June 2005

Abstract

The roof fall hazards are frequent problems of underground coal mines, which are generally unpredictable due to the
associated uncertainties. These uncertainties, which arise from geological and stress conditions and mine environment, make the
control of roof fall hazards difficult in underground coal mines. The most efficient method for coping with uncertainties in roof
fall hazards is the use of risk assessment techniques. In this study, a risk assessment and management methodology is proposed
for roof fall hazards in underground mines of the Zonguldak coal basin. The annual rates of roof falls obtained from the five
mines in the basin are statistically analyzed. The components of risk, which are the probability of roof fall and consequences of
roof fall hazard are identified and quantified. The probability of roof fall is computed by fitting a distribution function to the
annual roof fall, while the consequences of roof falls are quantified based on a cost model. Then a decision analysis
methodology for evaluating the performance of possible alternative action to be taken in order to decrease the risk, is developed.
The results show that the underground coal mines in the Zonguldak coal basin have considerably high risk levels and hence
require comprehensive risk management schemes.
D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Roof fall; Hazard; Coal mining; Risk assessment; Zonguldak coal basin

1. Introduction the literature, there are various studies on finding

Underground coal mines frequently suffer from
roof falls which have various consequences ranging
from fatalities and injuries to downtimes. Several
factors have contribution to occurrences of roof falls
in underground coal mines, such as geological and
stress conditions, mine layout, mine environment
(Iannacchione et al., 1996, 2001; Keim and Miller,
1999; Deb, 2003; Molinda, 2003; Philipson, 2003). In
0166-5162/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.coal.2005.03.008
relation between the roof falls and geological con-
ditions, stress state and mine layout (Kaiser, 1981;
Hucka and Sing, 1982; Karmis and Kare, 1984;
Smith, 1984; Greb and Cobb, 1989; Keim and Miller,
1999; Mark, 1999; Molinda et al., 2000; Deb, 2003;
Philipson, 2003).
The early research works on roof falls try to
determine the form of relation between roof falls and
geology as well as roof falls and mining conditions,
 H.S.B. Düzgün / International Journal of Coal Geology 64 (2005) 104–115
based on statistical analysis. Deb (2003) formulates
three relations for roof falls and coal mine roof rating
(CMRR), which is a factor directly related to the
geological conditions, roof falls and parameters
representing mine layout such as primary roof support
and intersection diagonal span. In Deb’s (2003) study,
these relationships are established by using fuzzy
reasoning principles.
Recent studies on roof fall hazards in coal mines
are on either determination of poor roof conditions for
alerting the miner (Philipson, 2003) or mapping the
favorable roof condition regions for future mine
developments (Keim and Miller, 1999). The over-
burden thickness, roof fall orientations, digital geo-
logical model and horizontal stress are taken into
account by Keim and Miller (1999) for assessing the
locations of convenient roof conditions to be used for
future development activities to enhance the mine
productivity. Philipson (2003) analyzes the tectonic
slickensides by mapping weak zones for roof fall
control in order to warn miners about the problematic
roof conditions.
Among the factors affecting the roof fall hazards in
coal mines, stress condition and mine layout are
somewhat controllable by appropriate mine design.
However, it is relatively more difficult to control the
effect of geological conditions on roof falls, since the
geological conditions are the nature’s uncertainty, and
hence they comprise inherent variability in roof fall
occurrences. Therefore, in order to deal with the
uncertainties associated with the roof falls, risk
assessment methods are required for decreasing the
consequences and related costs of roof fall hazards.
Assessment of roof fall risks for underground coal
mines necessitates identification of probability of
roof fall, probable consequences and cost of con-
sequences (Düzgün and Einstein, 2004). In this
paper, roof fall risks associated with underground
mines in the Zonguldak coal basin, Turkey, are
assessed based on analysis of annual roof fall
occurrences. Risk assessment is performed by
decomposing the roof fall risk into two components:
hazard and consequences of the hazard. Then the
two components of the roof fall risk are identified
and quantified. A cost model for the quantification of
roof fall consequences is developed. Finally, a
decision analysis methodology is proposed for the
effective management of roof fall risks.
105
2. General description of Zonguldak coal basin
Zonguldak coal basin, located in Northwestern
Turkey (Fig. 1), has the only major and the oldest
bituminous coal producing mines in Turkey (Gürdal
and YalçVn, 2001). The coal bearing Carboniferous
succession is a part of the Istanbul Zone (Okay et
al., 1994; Tüysüz, 1999; Harput et al., 1999), which
is one of the three zones of Black Sea Pontides.
There are two orogenesis histories in Zonguldak
Basin, namely, the pre-Cretaceous Hercynian and the
Late-Cretaceous Alpine (YalçVn et al., 1994). The
Carboniferous sequence is mainly composed of
platform-type Carbonates which has Visean age,
and coal bearing progradational delta and flood
plain deposit sequence with age ranging from
Namurian to Westphalian D (Karayiğit, 1990;
Harput et al., 1999; Karacan and Okandan, 2000).
The geological map of the basin is given by
Karayiğit et al. (1998). The coal seams are in
Namurian–Westphalian sequence with varying num-
ber and thickness (Canca, 1994).
The estimated coal reserve in the basin is about 1.1
Gt with 13,000 km2 aerial extent. The thickness of
coal seams changes between 1 and 10 m. The total
thickness of Carboniferous section is in between 600
and 800 m with 52 coal seams having total thickness
of 40 m (Çetek, 1978). The average depth of mining
operations is 425 m.
Zonguldak Coal Basin
31o30’E 32o00’E 32o30’E
N Amasra
TURKEY
A
S
E
K AMASRA
L
A
C
B
41o30’N
ZONGULDAK
ARMUTÇUK
Carboniferous
Outcrops
0 10 20 km
Fig. 1. Location map of the Zonguldak coal basin (modified after
Gürdal and YalçVn, 2001).
106 H.S.B. Düzgün / International Journal of Coal Geology 64 (2005) 104–115
Table 1
Distribution of the accident types in the mines of the Zonguldak coal basin
Type of accident Percentage of accidents occurring in the mines (%)
Kozlu Armutçuk
Roof collapse 40 38
Transportation 8 11
Material handling 3 4
Machinery–electrical related 26 33
Others 23 14
There are basically five coal mines in the basin,
namely, Kozlu, Karadon, Armutçuk, üzülmez and
Amasra. Among these five mines, Kozlu and Karadon
mines are the two of the most important production
regions with 167 and 422 Mt of medium to high
volatile bituminous coal reserves, respectively (Kar-
acan and Okandan, 2000). Kozlu and Karadon mines
consist of 22–23 coal seams with dip angles ranging
from 458 to 908 and from 158 to 608, respectively. The
mining method is longwall coal mining in all of the
five mines of the basin.
The Zonguldak coal basin has very complex
structural geology due to existence of various faults,
anticlines and synclines. This causes the dominance of
roof falls among the various accident types in the
mines of the basin. In Table 1, the percentages of
various accidents observed in the mines are given.
Approximately 40% of the accidents in the five mines
are due to roof falls (Table 1), which are generally
unpredictable and require risk assessment and manage-
ment. In addition, as can be seen from Table 1,
accidents other than roof falls are more related to the
mine environment. However, roof falls have direct link
with geological and stress conditions, therefore any
risk management scheme to be developed for the
mines will have great effect on the mine safety.
3. Basic terms of risk analysis
Roof falls in underground coal mines are often
difficult to predict due to the uncertainties associated
with the inherent variability in geological conditions
and mine environment. This inherent variability does
not permit ascertainment of roof fall phenomenon,
which is called bstate of natureQ (Düzgün and
Einstein, 2004). The state of nature is analogous to
Üzülmez Karadon Amasra
40 45 42
9 9 5
2 1 1
24 24 26
25 21 26
the term bdangerQ, which is the potential of rock fall
from the roof. The first step in risk assessment is the
definition of danger, which does not contain any
prediction. The second step is the assessment of the
probability of roof fall, which is called bhazardQ. This
is the step where predictions are made. In other words,
the computed probability of roof fall (hazard) is in fact
an estimate which helps the systematic treatment of
uncertainties in the roof fall phenomena in order to
deal with the unpredictable nature of the roof falls.
The hazard can be evaluated by calculating the
probability that a certain number of roof falls occur
within a given period of time. Finally, relating the
probabilities with the consequences of the hazard
comprises risk. The same hazard may have different
consequences depending on the place of occurrence in
the mine. Even for the same place, the same hazard
may have completely different consequences, such as
fatality, disability, equipment breakdown, downtimes,
etc. Hence risk, R, is defined by probability of
occurrence of roof falls, P[roof fall], times the
consequences, C, if the event occurs (Eq. (1))
R ¼ P½roof fall  C ð1Þ
Therefore, in order to analyze the risk of roof fall in
the mines of Zonguldak coal basin, the two basic
components; probability or hazard and consequences
have to be quantified. In the following section, the
methods for quantification of risk components are
explained in detail.
4. Risk assessment for the mines of the Zonguldak
coal basin
Roof fall risk assessment for the Kozlu, Karadon,
Armutçuk, üzülmez and Amasra, mines requires
 H.S.B. Düzgün / International Journal of Coal Geology 64 (2005) 104–115
quantification of the two risk components, which are
hazard and consequences. The term hazard implies the
probability that there will be specified number of roof
falls for a given time period and consequences refer to
any damage or loss of elements at risk, such as workers,
production, equipment, etc. The methods for determi-
nation of hazard (i.e. probability of roof fall) and
consequences are described in the following two
sections.
4.1. Quantification of roof fall hazard
There are mainly two types of methods for
determining probability of roof fall, such as objective
and subjective methods. Judgment forms the basis of
the subjective methods, while statistical analysis of
roof fall data constitutes the objective methods. The
subjective methods are usually preferred when data
are inadequate for statistical analyses, and are based
on correlation of miners’ experience with the
observed roof condition. The subjective probabilities
can also be formulated by Bayesian techniques (Raiffa
and Schlaifer, 1964; Benjamin and Cornell, 1970;
Baecher, 1981).
The probabilities in this study are determined by
using objective methods, since there are sufficient
data for the statistical analyses of the roof falls in the
considered underground coal mines (Kozlu, Karadon,
Armutçuk, üzülmez and Amasra). The data, which are
obtained from Turkish Hardcoal Enterprises (Turkiye
Komur Isletmeleri, TTK), consist of annual number of
accidents, annual number of injuries and fatalities,
accident type and annual number of workers for each
of the five mines for the years of 1986–2003. After
exploratory analysis of the data, it has been seen that
there are a very few number of fatalities due to roof
falls, however, the annual rate of injury due to roof
Table 2
Rates of mine production, fatalities and injuries due to roof falls
Mine Average production Average number
(ton/year) of workers
Kozlu 425,000 3173
Armutçuk 350,000 1848
Üzülmez 560,000 4052
Karadon 1,100,000 5995
Amasra 180,000 1368
107
falls is high. The rate of fatalities/year due to roof falls
between 1986 and 2003, indicates that they are
negligible as compared to the annual rate of injuries
(Table 2). The average annual coal production and
average number of workers for the considered mines
are also listed in Table 2. Karadon mine has the
highest annual coal production (1.1 Mt) and number
of workers (5995) while Amasra mine has the lowest
(0.18 Mt and 1368, respectively). The closest pro-
duction rate to Karadon mine is üzülmez mine’s
production with 0.56 Mt, which is approximately half
of the Karadon mine. When the production/worker
values versus injury rates are examined (Table 2),
Amasra and Kozlu mines has the two lowest rate of
production/worker (0.132 and 0.134 Mt/year, respec-
tively) as well as having the two highest injury rates
(204 and 315.8 injury/year, respectively). In terms of
productivity/worker, the highest proportion of the roof
falls among the other accident types (Table 1) can be
considered as an indicator for low productivity. In
addition to increased safety, assessment and manage-
ment of roof fall risks in the five mines can have some
contributions to the productivity.
The number of roof fall (NORF) occurrences in
the five mines of Zonguldak coal basin is one of the
essential variables to be analyzed statistically in
order to evaluate probability of roof falls. For this
purpose, the accidents recorded as roof falls in
Kozlu mine, which are totally 5630 roof falls, are
analyzed for the years 1986 and 2003. Similarly in
Karadon, Amasra, üzülmez and Armutçuk mines,
totally 12,439, 3275, 6927, 1860 roof falls are
examined, respectively. In Table 3, summary sta-
tistics for number of roof falls for the five mines are
given.
As injuries are one of the major consequences of
the roof fall hazard, the annual roof fall data obtained
Production/worker Fatality rate Injury rate
(ton/year) (#/year) (#/year)
134 1.8 315.8
189 0.7 123.3
138 2.8 89.2
183 3.1 170.7
132 0.8 204.0
108 H.S.B. Düzgün / International Journal of Coal Geology 64 (2005) 104–115

Table 3
Summary statistics for number of roof falls/year
Mine Minimum Maximum Mean Standard deviation Coefficient of variation
Kozlu 123 621 313 163 0.522
Armutçuk 42 208 124 48 0.383
Üzülmez 132 577 385 134 0.349
Karadon 321 1312 691 304 0.440
Amasra 81 291 204 71 0.349

from TTK are normalized by number of workers in
the mines, due to the fact that a roof fall may cause
more than one injury depending on the number of
workers in the place of roof falls. The normalization
of the roof fall data can also be made by other
parameters such as the annual production or drivage
rates. However, as can be interpreted from Table 2, the
average number of workers in the mines is very high
compared to the annual production. This suggests that
the main consequence of the roof fall hazard could be
the injuries, which are basically related to the number
of workers. Therefore, the normalized annual roof fall
(NARF), i.e. number of roof falls divided by the
number of workers, is considered to be the basic
variable and the summary statistics for NARF are
listed in Table 4.
In order to evaluate probability that roof falls less
than a certain number occur in a specific mine,
denoted by P[roof fall], it is required to fit a
distribution for normalized annual roof fall (NARF)
variable. The Chi-square goodness of fit tests are
performed by using the software Bestfit V1.0. The
following algorithm for determining best fitting
distribution function for NARF is used:
1. NARF values are converted to a density distribution.
2. A first guess of distribution parameters is made
using maximum-likelihood estimators (MLE).
3. The fit is optimized using the Levenberg–Mar-
quardt method.
4. The goodness-of-fit is measured for the optimized
function.
5. All distribution functions are compared and
the one with the lowest goodness-of-fit value
is considered the best fit (Bestfit Mannual,
1993).
Among the 18 distribution functions consid-
ered, it is found that the normal distribution is
the best fitting distribution for the variable NARF.
According to MLE method, the parameters (l and
r) of normal distribution are the mean and the
standard deviation of the sample, which are listed
in Table 4 for each mine. Then probability
distribution function of NARF, which gives
probability that there will be a number of roof
falls less than a specified number (x) can be
expressed as:
P½roof fall ¼ Pð NARFbxÞ
Z x
1 ðNARFlÞ2
¼ e 2r2 dNARF ð2Þ
2p l
P[roof fall] can also be computed by using
standard normal distribution function, U( ), which
has zero mean and standard deviation of 1. In
order to use U( ), the variable NARF should be
standardized by subtracting the mean and dividing
the standard deviation, z = NARF  l/r, for each

Table 4
Summary statistics for number of roof falls/number of worker/year (NARF)
Mine Minimum Maximum Mean Standard deviation Coefficient of variation
Kozlu 0.054 0.145 0.095 0.028 0.292
Armutçuk 0.034 0.123 0.068 0.282 4.165
Üzülmez 0.049 0.138 0.094 0.023 0.243
Karadon 0.050 0.175 0.114 0.038 0.333
Amasra 0.091 0.249 0.153 0.046 0.302
 H.S.B. Düzgün / International Journal of Coal Geology 64 (2005) 104–115 109

mine. Hence, P[roof fall] takes the following
form:
 
NARF  l x  l
P½roof fall ¼ P b roof fall occurred in production part may disrupt the
r r
¼ Pð zbbÞ ¼ UðbÞ
In order to compute P[roof fall] at various roof fall
values for the five mines, the roof fall values are
divided by the average number of workers in the mine
to obtain the value of b in Eq. (3). Here, it is to be noted
that the number of worker in the mines is considered
to be constant since they have less variability than the
roof falls. P[roof fall] evaluated for various roof falls
are listed in Table 5. In fact, P[roof fall] value can be
computed for any value of roof fall, as long as the
mean and the standard deviation are known for any
mine for a normally distributed NARF variable. In
this study, in order to show examples of computations,
Table 5 is prepared for selected values of roof falls.
The selected values of roof falls, at which P[roof fall]
is computed, are determined by dividing the range of
roof falls for each mine into five and adding the
obtained value to the minimum, successively. Since
each mine has different roof fall range, which is
defined by subtracting minimum value from the
maximum in the data set, the values in Table 5 vary
for every mine. The P[roof fall] values listed in Table
5 give the probability that roof falls are higher than the
specified roof fall values. For example, there is 23.5%
(0.235) probability that annual roof falls will be
greater than 75 in Karadon mine.
4.2. Determination of consequences of roof fall
hazard
The roof fall hazards may have several consequen-
ces to be described and quantified. The mine environ-
ment determines the type and nature of the
consequences. Depending on the location, time and
severity of the roof fall, consequences may differ. A
production, damage the equipment and injure or kill
ð3Þ the miners. In the same place, the same roof fall
occurred during the period of changing the shift,
where there are a few number of miners, may not
cause any injury or fatality. The severity of the roof
fall is another factor to determine the consequences of
the roof falls, where damage to equipment and miners
may have different characteristics. Besides, a roof fall
hazard in the development part of the mine can lead to
completely different consequences from the one in the
production part. Therefore, the consequences can be
identified by various attributes of damage, X i . Fatality,
disability, injury, equipment damage, disruption and
delay in operation, clean up, emergency operation,
loss of wages and documentation of the accident can
be considered as the basic attributes of the roof fall
damage.
For quantification of the consequences of the roof
falls, attributes of damage are linked to their asso-
ciated cost. However, it is very difficult to assign
monetary values to some of the attributes, such as
fatality, injury and disability. Therefore, a relative
cost criterion developed by Düzgün and Einstein
(2004) is adopted in this study. The relative cost
criterion relates the attributes of damage to cost by
assigning a unit cost to one of the attributes and
expressing the other attributes in terms of this unit
cost. Among the various attributes of damage, clean
up (X 1), equipment damage (X 2), disruption and
delay in operation (X 3), injury (X 4) and fatality (X 5)
are taken into account since they have more
pronounced costs to the mine management than the
others. The total cost of roof fall (C T) will be sum of
the costs of clean up C(X 1), equipment damage

Table 5
P[roof fall] computed for various values of roof fall for the five mines
Kozlu Karadon Armutçuk Amasra Üzülmez
Roof fall P[roof fall] Roof fall P[roof fall] Roof fall P[roof fall] Roof fall P[roof fall] Roof fall P[roof fall]
123 0.022 321 0.056 42 0.436 81 0.021 132 0.004
222 0.186 519 0.235 75 0.461 123 0.085 221 0.043
321 0.587 717 0.559 108 0.486 165 0.241 310 0.223
420 0.909 915 0.845 141 0.512 207 0.485 399 0.577
519 0.993 1113 0.970 174 0.537 249 0.736 488 0.875
110 H.S.B. Düzgün / International Journal of Coal Geology 64 (2005) 104–115
C(X 2), disruption and delay in operation C(X 3),
injury C(X 4) and fatality C(X 5), as given in Eq. (4):
X
5
CT ¼ CðXi Þ
i¼1
The relative cost criterion allows ranking of the
relative importance of different attributes without
expressing them monetary units, while still relating
them to cost (Düzgün and Einstein, 2004). Another
approach to handle various cost units such as human
life (cost of fatality), suffering (cost of injury and
disability) and money (cost of clean up, documenta-
tion, etc.) is to utilize multi-attribute utility analysis
(Baecher, 1981).
Then the total cost of roof fall can be evaluated by
giving different weights to the considered damage
attributes. In other words, this approach requires to
determine the cost contributions of various attributes
to the total cost of roof fall. In this study, it is assumed
that 35% of C T is attributed to the cost of fatality,
C(X 5), 30% of it accounts for cost of injury, C(X 4),
25% of C T is shared by cost of equipment damage
C(X 2), 8 and 2% of it belong to costs of delay in
operation, C(X 3 ) and that of clean up C(X 1),
respectively. Correspondingly, if cost of clean up
C(X 1) is A unit then:
CðX1 Þ ¼ A; CðX2 Þ ¼ 12:5A; CðX3 Þ
¼ 4A; CðX4 Þ ¼ 15A; CðX5 Þ ¼ 17:5A
It is to be pointed out that the relative weights in
Eq. (5) are the author’s engineering judgment and can
be updated based on particular engineering experi-
ence. For any consequence which is not materialized,
the corresponding cost C(X i ) is considered to be zero.
Having determined the two major components of
the risk, the annual roof fall risk, R, for any mine in
Zonguldak coal basin is formulated as:
R ¼ CT dUðÞ
5. Risk management for the mines of the
Zonguldak coal basin
The computed risk should be evaluated to assess
whether it is acceptable. The ideal way for such a
risk appraisal is to compare the evaluated risk with
previously assessed acceptable risk levels. However,
in a roof fall case, there are not such acceptable risk
ð4Þ levels. In this case, the best approach for roof fall
risk appraisal is to use decision analysis methods, so
that the computed risk can be compared with the risk
levels calculated for various alternative situations.
The mathematical expression for risk given in Eq.
(6) suggests reduction in risk, through either decreas-
ing the hazard component or the consequence
component or both. Hence, theoretically no or zero
risk level can be achieved when there is no
consequence of roof fall (i.e. C T = 0) or when
probability of roof fall is equal to zero. Moreover,
even the probability of roof fall is very low, if the
consequences are high, a high risk value can be
obtained. For example, even probability that having
roof falls higher than a certain value is low, if the
expected number of fatality or interruption in pro-
duction is high, the mine can still have high roof fall
risk level. On the other hand, for very low expected
consequences, if the probability of roof fall is high,
risk can have high values. Therefore, risk can be
reduced either by decreasing the hazard or conse-
quences components or both. In this study, decreasing
the risk by reducing the value of hazard component
through a lower NARF value is considered, since it
can be intuitively deduced that the lower the average
number of roof fall for a mine, the safer is the mine. It
ð5Þ is found that normalized annual roof fall (NARF) has
normal distribution with some mean and standard
deviation. Hence, decreasing the mean NARF value
with taking some precautions can be considered one
way of risk reduction. As a result, the problem is to
decide on whether the present situation, i.e. the mean
NARF is acceptable or if some measures are taken,
will it decrease the mean NARF value. The typical
solution to decrease the mean NARF value would be
support improvement by changing the support type or
providing extra support, which is one of the appro-
ð6Þ
priate methods for handling uncertainties due to
geology. Then the problem reduces to make a decision
between the two actions. The first action is bdo
nothingQ or bstatus quoQ and denoted by a 1. The
alternative action, a 2, is bsupport improvementQ. Note
that other alternatives to decrease the roof falls such
as, increasing awareness about the phenomena among
the workers, collecting data for better assessment of
 H.S.B. Düzgün / International Journal of Coal Geology 64 (2005) 104–115
geological conditions or changing the mine layout can
also be added to the decision analyses and their costs
can be predicted based on the so-called relative cost
criterion. Since this paper aims to propose a method-
ology and to demonstrate its use, only one alternative
action is taken into account for the sake of simplicity.
The selection of an action among the alternative
actions can be formulated within the decision analysis
framework (Düzgün and Einstein, 2004). In this
framework, decision trees are appropriate graphical
representation of the problem. The typical decision
tree for the five mines of Zonguldak coal basin is
given in Fig. 2.
The action to be chosen in Fig. 2 is determined by
computing the expected value of each action, E[a i ]
and selecting the branch which has the minimum
expected value. The expected value of any action can
be calculated as:
m X
X n
E½ai  ¼ Ci Pij
j¼1 i¼1
Here a i is the alternative actions, C i is the cost of
any branch in the decision tree and P ij is the
probability of each branch, m is the number of
alternative actions and n is the number branch for
each action a i . In this case, m is equal to 2 since there
are two actions (do nothing, a 1 and support improve-
ment, a 2 ). Similarly, n is equal to 2 as any action can
Status quo (a1)
Support Improvement (a2)
Fig. 2. Decision tree for roof fall problem in the mines of Zonguldak coal basin.
111
either result in roof fall less than a specific number of
roof fall or greater than that.
Although theoretically, a number of roof falls/year
in a mine can be zero, as the roof fall data for the
mines of Zonguldak coal basin are investigated, it is
almost impossible to have no roof falls in the mines
due to complex geological conditions as well as the
mining conditions. Hence, the only way to handle roof
fall hazard risks is to search for acceptable number of
roof falls in the mines and determine the effect of
support improvement in achieving these acceptable
levels. Then it is assumed that the cost of roof falls
exceeding the acceptable number of roof falls adds
extra cost to the mine management. For this reason, in
the decision tree given in Fig. 2, the branches having
probability values of P j1 have different cost (C 1) than
that having P j2 values (C 2 ). In this study, it is
assumed that C 2 is 20% higher than C 1. Then the
expected value of action do nothing, a 1, (E[a 1]) takes
the following form:
ð7Þ
X
2
E½a1  ¼ Ci P1i Z E½a1  ¼ C1 P11 þ C2 P12 ð8Þ
i¼1
Since C 2 = 1.2C 1 and P 12 = 1  P 11 Eq. (8)
becomes:
E½a1  ¼ C1 P11 þ 1:2C1 ð1  P11 Þ
E½a1  ¼ C1 ð1:2C1  0:2P11 Þ
(
k1
C1
P11 = P[Roof Fall]
P12 = 1-P[Roof fall] C2
C1
P21 = P[Roof fall]
P22 = 1-P[Roof fall] C2
112 H.S.B. Düzgün / International Journal of Coal Geology 64 (2005) 104–115

1,000 0.6

0,900

0,800
0.55
0,700
P[Roof fall]

P[Roof fall]
0,600

0,500 0.5

0,400 Observed Mean Observed Mean

0,300 5 % Reduced Mean 5 % Reduced Mean
10 % Reduced Mean 0.45 10 % Reduced Mean
0,200
15 % Reduced Mean 15 % Reduced Mean
0,100 20 % Reduced Mean 20 % Reduced Mean
0,000 0.4
120 170 220 270 320 370 420 470 520 42 67 92 117 142 167
Number of Roof Falls Number of Roof Falls

Fig. 3. P[roof fall] versus threshold roof fall values for various Fig. 4. P[roof fall] versus threshold roof fall values for various
reduction rates in the mean value of NARF in Kozlu mine. reduction rates in the mean value of NARF in Armutçuk mine.

The expected value of support improvement, a 2, If support improvement cost (C s) is Q% more than
(E[a 2]) requires the addition of support improve- the total cost of roof fall (C T) Eq. (10) reduces to:
ment cost (C s) to the cost term in Eq. (8). E[a 2] is Q
given by: k1 Nk2 þ 1 þ ð11Þ
100
X
2 Selection of support improvement action should
E½a2  ¼ ðCi þ Cs ÞP2i Z E½a2  have some positive affect on the occurrence of roof
i¼1
falls in the mines. This effect can be expressed by a
¼ ðC1 þ Cs ÞP21 þ ðC2 þ Cs ÞP22 ð9Þ reduction in the mean value of NARF variable, which
reduces the risk. The enhancement in risk of roof fall
Again, since C 2 = 1.2C 1 and P 21 = 1  P 22 Eq. (9) after support improvement can be quantified by T%
can be written as: reduced mean value of NARF. The change in the
P[roof fall] at various threshold values of roof fall and
E½a2  ¼ ðC1 þ Cs ÞP21 þ ð1:2C1 þ Cs Þð1  P21 Þ several reduction rates in the mean value of NARF for
the five mines of Zonguldak coal basin are given in
Figs. 3–7. Among the graphs given in Figs. 3–7, the
E½a2  ¼ ð1:2  0:2P21 Þ C1 þ Cs
(

k2 1

0.9
When the C 1 term in Eqs. (8) and (9) is replaced 0.8
with C T, which is the total cost of roof fall, expected 0.7
value of actions a 1 and a 2 are:
P[Roof fall]

0.6

E½a1  ¼ CT k1 0.5

E½a2  ¼ CT k2 þ Cs 0.4
Observed Mean
0.3
5 % Reduced Mean
The basic aim is to choose the branch in the 0.2 10 % Reduced Mean
decision tree with minimum expected value. There- 15 % Reduced Mean
0.1
fore, in order to choose a 2 the inequality given in Eq. 20 % Reduced Mean
0
(10) should be satisfied. 132 232 332 432
Number of Roof Falls
Cs
k 1 Nk2 þ ð10Þ Fig. 5. P[roof fall] versus threshold roof fall values for various
CT reduction rates in the mean value of NARF in Üzülmez mine.
 H.S.B. Düzgün / International Journal of Coal Geology 64 (2005) 104–115 113

1
The values of k 1 and k 2 in Eq. (11) are the critical
0.9
parameters for a given Q value in order to decide on
0.8
the action to be selected. The computed k 1 and k 2 at
0.7
various T values for each mine are listed in Table 6.
P[Roof fall]

0.6
As it is indicated from Table 6, k 1 and k 2 values are
0.5 very close to each other at all considered T values.
0.4 Observed Mean Therefore, any support improvement action should
0.3 5 % Reduced Mean decrease the mean NARF value more than 20%,
10 % Reduced Mean
0.2
15 % Reduced Mean
which is the maximum considered T value in this
0.1 20 % Reduced Mean study. The decision among actions a 1 and a 2 also
0 depends on the value of Q, which is determined by the
320 520 720 920
type of support improvement.
Number of Roof Falls

Fig. 6. P[roof fall] versus threshold roof fall values for various
reduction rates in the mean value of NARF in Karadon mine.
Table 6
Critical values for k 1 and k 2 at various reduction rates (T) in the
graph in Fig. 4 for Armutçuk mine considerably mean of NARF for the five mines
differs from the rest of the curves. This is due to the Threshold values k1 k2
fact that NARF variable for Armutçuk mine has of NARF T = 5% T = 10% T = 15% T = 20%
substantially higher variability than the other mines in Kozlu mine
the basin (i.e. it has highest c.o.v. indicated in Table 123 1.196 1.196 1.195 1.193 1.192
3). Moreover, in Kozlu mine, 5% reduction in the 222 1.163 1.161 1.153 1.143 1.130
321 1.083 1.079 1.063 1.048 1.033
mean NARF value has almost no affect on the
420 1.018 1.016 1.009 1.005 1.002
probability of roof fall values, as the observed mean 519 1.001 1.001 1.000 1.000 1.000
and 5% reduced mean curves are very close to each
other (Fig. 3). On the other hand, reduction in the Armutçuk mine
mean NARF value has the most influential effect on 42 1.113 1.112 1.112 1.111 1.111
75 1.108 1.107 1.106 1.106 1.105
the probability of roof fall values for Amasra mine,
108 1.103 1.102 1.101 1.100 1.098
since the curves in Fig. 7 are the most separated from 141 1.098 1.096 1.095 1.094 1.092
each other. 174 1.093 1.091 1.089 1.088 1.086

Üzülmez mine
1 132 1.199 1.199 1.199 1.199 1.198
0.9 221 1.191 1.190 1.186 1.182 1.175
310 1.155 1.147 1.134 1.117 1.098
0.8
399 1.085 1.071 1.053 1.037 1.022
0.7 488 1.025 1.017 1.009 1.004 1.002
P[Roof fall]

0.6
Amasra mine
0.5 81 1.196 1.195 1.194 1.192 1.190
0.4 123 1.183 1.177 1.173 1.166 1.159
165 1.152 1.138 1.126 1.097 1.097
0.3 Observed Mean
207 1.103 1.082 1.067 1.037 1.037
5 % Reduced Mean
0.2 249 1.053 1.035 1.024 1.015 1.008
10 % Reduced Mean
0.1 15 % Reduced Mean
20 % Reduced Mean Karadon mine
0 321 1.189 1.188 1.185 1.183 1.179
80 130 180 230
519 1.153 1.147 1.138 1.127 1.115
Number of Roof Falls 717 1.088 1.078 1.065 1.051 1.037
Fig. 7. P[roof fall] versus threshold roof fall values for various 915 1.031 1.024 1.016 1.009 1.005
reduction rates in the mean value of NARF in Amasra mine. 1113 1.006 1.004 1.002 1.001 1.000
114 H.S.B. Düzgün / International Journal of Coal Geology 64 (2005) 104–115
6. Conclusions
The management of roof fall hazards in under-
ground coal mines requires a comprehensive risk
assessment methodology due to the number of
uncertainties associated with the phenomenon. The
underground mines in the Zonguldak coal basin
mainly suffer from large numbers of roof falls
annually due to complex structural geology of the
basin. The risk assessment and management method-
ology proposed in this study provides a systematic
framework for handling the risks due to roof fall
hazards.
When the roof fall hazards in the five mines are
investigated, it can be clearly seen that annual rate of
roof falls and number of workers are too high as
compared to the roof fall rates and number of workers
of Appalachian mines studied by Düzgün and Einstein
(2004). This leads to the adaptation of different
probability distributions for modeling the hazard
component of the risk. For this reason, it can be
concluded that the nature of roof fall hazards and
associated risks depends on the properties of the coal
field which is directly related with the geological and
mining conditions. Although the methodology pro-
posed in this study is a general one, its application
requires careful data analysis and assessment of
probabilities.
The consequences of roof falls (the second
component of the risk) are expressed by using
relative cost criterion. A future study on quantifica-
tion of roof fall costs can have great impact on
reducing the subjectivity inherent in the relative cost
criterion.
In this study, the decision analysis is performed
based on two alternative actions such as bdo nothing
or status quoQ and bsupport improvementQ. Other
alternative actions for dealing with roof fall hazards
can also be included in the decision model, which
requires comprehensive cost analysis.
The quantification of roof fall risks provides
evaluation of past and present condition of the mines.
The computed level of risk helps to decide on suitable
actions to be chosen while the decision analysis gives
the opportunity of testing the accomplishment of each
action. As the final conclusion, risk assessment and
management by decision analysis are potent tools for
coping with uncertainties in the roof fall hazards.
Acknowledgments
The author whishes to thank for the help
provided by Mesut Öztürk from the Turkish Harcoal
Enterprises (TTK) during data collection in this
study.
References
Baecher G.B., 1981. Risk Screening for Civil Facilities. Massachu-
setts Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering
(CER-81-9, 20 pp.).
Benjamin J.R., Cornell C.A., 1970. Probability Statistics and
Decision for Civil Engineers. McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Bestfit Manual, 1993. Palisade Corporation.
Canca, N., 1994. 1/100 000 Scaled, Turkey Western Black Sea
Hard Coal Basin Geologic Maps, MTA General Directorate,
p. 10 (in Turkish).
Çetek N., 1978. Kfmürün ekonomideki yeri ve Zonguldak TaYkfmürü
HavzasV, Türkiye 1. Kfmür Kongresi, Türkiye Kfmür İYletmeleri
YayVnVZonguldak, Turkey, pp. 23 – 83 (in Turkish).
Deb D., 2003. Analysis of coal mine roof fall rate using fuzzy
reasoning techniques. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences 40, 251 – 257.
Düzgün H.S.B., Einstein H.H., 2004. Assessment and management
of roof fall risks in underground coal mines. Safety Science 42,
23 – 41.
Greb S.F., Cobb J.C., 1989. Geologic Classification and
Modeling of Potential Roof Control Problems in Under-
ground Coal Mines. Proc. of Multinational Conference on Mine
Planing and Design, pp. 27 – 32.
Gürdal G., YalçVn M.N., 2001. Pore volume and surface area of the
Carboniferous coals from Zonguldak basin (NW Turkey) and
their variations with rank and maceral composition. Interna-
tional Journal of Coal Geology 48, 133 – 144.
Harput B.O., Demirel I.H., Karayiğit A.I., Aydan M., Xahintürk
Ö., Bustin R.M., 1999. Preliminary hydrocarbon source rock
assessment of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic Formations of the
Western Black Sea Region of Turkey. Energy Sources 21,
945 – 956.
Hucka U.J., Sing S.P., 1982. Geological Aspects of Stability in
Underground Coal Mines. Proc. of 1st, Int. Conf. on Stability in
Underground, pp. 165 – 181.
Iannacchione A.T., Mucho T.P., Prosser L.J., 1996. Controlling roof
and rib in underground mines. Aggregates Manager, August–
September, 33 – 37.
Iannacchione A.T., Marshall T.E., Prosser L.J., 2001. Failure
Characteristics of Roof Falls in an Underground Stone Mine
in Southwestern Pennsylvania. Proc. of 20th Int. Conf. on
Ground Control in Mining, pp. 119 – 125.
Kaiser P.R., 1981. Monitoring for the Evaluation of the Stability of
Underground Openings. Proc. of the 1st Annual Conference on
Ground Control in Mining, pp. 59 – 66.
Karacan C.Ö., Okandan E., 2000. Fracture/cleat analysis of coals
from Zonguldak Basin (Northwestern Turkey) relative to the
 H.S.B. Düzgün / International Journal of Coal Geology 64 (2005) 104–115
potential of coalbed methane production. International Journal
of Coal Geology 44, 109 – 125.
Karayiğit A.I., 1990. Petrological Characteristics of Zongul-
dak Coals. Proc. of 7th Coal Congress of Turkey. The
Zonguldak Branch of the Chamber of Mining Engineers,
Zonguldak, pp. 261 – 279.
Karayiğit A.I., Gayer R.A., Demirel I.H., 1998. Coal rank and
petrography of Upper Carboniferous seams in the Amasra
coalfield, Turkey. International Journal of Coal Geology 36,
277 – 294.
Karmis M., Kare W., 1984. An Analysis of the Geomechanical
Factors Influencing Coal Mine Roof Stability in Appala-
chia. Proc. of 2nd Int Conf. on Stability in Underground Coal,
pp. 165 – 181.
Keim K.S., Miller M.S., 1999. Case study evaluation of
geological influences impacting mining conditions at a West
Virginia longwall mine. International Journal of Coal Geology
41, 51 – 71.
Mark C., 1999. Application of the coal mine roof rating (CMRR) to
extended cuts. Mining Engineering 51, 52 – 56.
Molinda G.M., 2003. Geologic hazards and roof stability in coal
mines. Information Circular, IC9466, Dept. of Health and
Human Services, Center for Disease Control and Prevention-
NIOSH.
115
Molinda G.M., Mark C., Dolinar D., 2000. Assessing Coal Mine
Roof Stability Through Roof Fall Analysis. Information
Circular, IC9453, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Center
for Disease Control and Prevention, NIOSH.
Okay A.I., Gfrür N., Xengfr A.M.C., 1994. The Black Sea
kinematic history of opening and its effects on the surrounding
regions. Geology 22, 267 – 270.
Philipson S.E., 2003. Control of coal bed decollement-related
slickensides on roof falls in North American Late Paleozoic
coal basins. International Journal of Coal Geology 53,
181 – 195.
Raiffa H., Schlaifer R., 1964. Applied Statistical Decision Theory.
Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA.
Smith A.D., 1984. Relationship of Assumed Condition of
Mine Roof and the Occurrence of Roof Falls in Eastern
Kentucky Coal Fields. Proc. of 2nd Int. Conf. on Stability in
Underground, pp. 329 – 345.
Tüysüz O., 1999. Geology of Cretaceous sedimentary basins of
Western Pondites. Geological Journal 34, 75 – 93.
YalçVn M.N., Schenk H.J., Schafer R.G., 1994. Modeling of
gas generation in coals of the Zonguldak Basin (North-
western Turkey). International Journal of Coal Geology 25,
195 – 211.