采煤工作面火灾风险阶段性多指标综合评价方法

陈小林

doi:10.13272/j.issn.1671-251x.2021120083

采煤工作面火灾风险阶段性多指标综合评价方法

陈小林^{1, 2,}

1.
中煤科工集团常州研究院有限公司, 江苏常州　 213015
2.
天地(常州)自动化股份有限公司, 江苏常州　213015

基金项目: 中煤科工集团常州研究院有限公司科研项目（2022TY2008）。

详细信息

作者简介:
陈小林（1979—），男，江苏泰州人，副研究员，主要从事煤矿智能化、安全信息化及预警技术方面的研究工作，E-mail:chenxiaolin@cari.com.cn

中图分类号: TD752
计量
- 文章访问数: 215
- HTML全文浏览量: 25
- PDF下载量: 27
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2021-12-24
- 修回日期: 2022-07-20
- 网络出版日期: 2022-05-24
- 刊出日期: 2022-08-08

Staged multi-index comprehensive evaluation method for fire risk of coal working face

CHEN Xiaolin^{1, 2,}

1.
CCTEG Changzhou Research Institute, Changzhou 213015, China
2.
Tiandi(Changzhou) Automation Co., Ltd., Changzhou 213015, China

摘要

摘要: 针对矿井火灾风险评价方法存在评价维度单一、评价指标不全面、评价结果不可靠等问题，基于层次分析法，提出了一种采煤工作面火灾风险阶段性多指标综合评价方法。针对采煤工作面内因火灾风险，选取自燃倾向性、自然发火期、百万吨发火率、煤层厚度、煤层倾角、地质构造、煤层瓦斯等级、采煤工艺、采空区处理方法、采煤工作面上下行风压差、防灭火措施有效性、自热期阶段、Graham指数作为评价指标，采用插值法计算评价指标评分，并对各评价指标赋权，进而获得采煤工作面内因火灾潜伏期、自热期和燃烧期3个阶段火灾风险评分。当采煤工作面内因火灾潜伏期风险评分大于50分时，将该评分作为采煤工作面内因火灾风险最终评分，否则进入自热期风险评价；采煤工作面内因火灾自热期风险评分大于50分时，将该评分作为采煤工作面内因火灾风险最终评分，否则进入燃烧期风险评价；当进入燃烧期风险评价时，直接将采煤工作面内因火灾风险评分设为0。针对采煤工作面外因火灾风险，依托火灾在线监测、风险分级管控及隐患排查机制，选取温度、O₂体积分数、CO体积分数、隐患超期未接单、隐患超期未整改、隐患复查不合格、风险管控措施超期未反馈、风险管控措施超期未复查、风险管控措施复查不合格作为评价指标，对采煤工作面外因火灾风险进行评分。以采煤工作面内因火灾和外因火灾风险评分最低值作为采煤工作面火灾风险评分，该评分越高，表明采煤工作面火灾危险程度越低。
- 采煤工作面火灾 /
- 内因火灾 /
- 外因火灾 /
- 多指标评价 /
- 层次分析法 /
- 插值法
Abstract: The mine fire risk evaluation method has problems of single evaluation dimension, incomplete evaluation index and unreliable evaluation result. In order to solve the above problems, based on the analytic hierarchy process, a staged multi-index comprehensive evaluation method for fire risk of coal working face is put forward. In order to analyze the coal working face internal fire, the method selects spontaneous combustion tendency, spontaneous combustion period, million-ton ignition rate, coal seam thickness, coal seam dip angle, geological structure, coal seam gas grade, coal mine process, goaf treatment method, upper and lower traveling wind pressure difference of the coal working face, the effectiveness of fire prevention and extinguish measures, self-heating period stage and Graham index as evaluation indexes. The method calculates the evaluation index score by adopting an interpolation method and gives weight to each evaluation index. Then the fire risk scores of the three stages including incubation period, self-heating period and combustion period are obtained. When the risk score of the incubation period of the internal fire in the coal working face is more than 50 points, the score is taken as the final score of the internal fire risk of the coal working face. Otherwise, it will enter the risk evaluation of the self-heating period. When the risk score of the self-heating period of the internal fire in the coal working face is greater than 50 points, this score will be taken as the final score of the internal fire risk of the coal working face. Otherwise, it will enter the risk evaluation of the combustion period. When entering the risk evaluation of combustion period, the internal fire risk score of the coal working face is directly set as zero. Aiming at the external fire risk of the coal working face, this study relies on the fire online monitoring, risk graded management and control and hidden danger investigation mechanism. The study takes the following factors as the evaluation indexes to score the external fire risk of the coal working face. The factors include temperature, oxygen volume fraction, carbon monoxide volume fraction, overdue hidden danger without receiving orders, overdue hidden danger without rectification, unqualified hidden danger review, overdue risk control measures without feedback, overdue risk control measures without review, unqualified risk control measures review. The lowest risk score of internal and external fire in the coal working face is taken as the fire risk score of the coal working face. The higher the score, the lower the fire risk of coal working face.
- coal working face fire /
- internal fire /
- external fire /
- multi-index evaluation /
- analytic hierarchy process /
- interpolation method

HTML全文

图 1 采煤工作面内因火灾潜伏期风险评价模型

Figure 1. Risk evaluation model for incubation period of internal fire in coal working face

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 采煤工作面外因火灾风险评价模型

Figure 2. Risk evaluation model for external fire in coal working face

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 采煤工作面内因火灾潜伏期风险评价指标评分规则

Table 1 Scoring rule for risk evaluation indexes of incubation period of internal fire in coal working face

准则	评价指标	参考值	评分
煤的易发火性	自燃倾向性	容易自燃自燃不易自燃	10 40 70
	自然发火期/月	1 3 6 12	10 20 50 75
	百万吨发火率/次	4 3 2 1 0	0 20 30 40 60
煤层赋存	煤层倾角/（°）	45 12 0	10 50 90
	煤层厚度/m	5.0 2.5 0.5	10 50 90
	地质构造	复杂中等简单	25 50 75
	矿井瓦斯等级	煤与瓦斯突出高瓦斯低瓦斯	20 25 75
开采技术	采煤工艺	非正规炮采普采综采综放	10 30 40 70 10
	采空区处理方法	全部垮落法顶板缓慢下沉法刀柱法局部充填法全部充填法	25 25 25 70 90
	采煤工作面上下行风压差/Pa	300 200 100	10 50 90
防灭火措施	防灭火措施效果	差中好	25 50 75

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 煤的易发火性对应的评价指标判断矩阵及权重

Table 2 Judgment matrix and weight of evaluation indexes corresponding to coal flammability

评价指标	自燃倾向性	自然发火期	百万吨发火率	权重
自燃倾向性	1	1	1/2	0.250 0
自然发火期	1	1	1/2	0.250 0
百万吨发火率	2	2	1	0.500 0

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 煤层赋存对应的评价指标判断矩阵及权重

Table 3 Judgment matrix and weight of evaluation indexes corresponding to coal seam occurrence

评价指标	煤层厚度	煤层倾角	地质构造	煤层瓦斯等级	权重
煤层厚度	1	1	1	1	0.250 0
煤层倾角	1	1	1	1	0.250 0
地质构造	1	1	1	1	0.250 0
煤层瓦斯等级	1	1	1	1	0.250 0

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 开采技术对应的评价指标判断矩阵及权重

Table 4 Judgment matrix and weight of evaluation indexes corresponding to mining technology

评价指标	采煤工艺	采空区处理方法	采煤工作面上下行风压差	权重
采煤工艺	1	2	2	0.500 0
采空区处理方法	1/2	1	1	0.250 0
采煤工作面上下行风压差	1/2	1	1	0.250 0

下载: 导出CSV

表 5 目标层评价指标判断矩阵及权重

Table 5 Judgment matrix and weight of evaluation indexes of target layer

准则	煤的易发火性	煤层赋存	开采技术	防灭火措施	权重
煤的易发火性	1	3	2	1	0.351 2
煤层赋存	1/3	1	1/2	1/3	0.108 9
开采技术	1/2	2	1	1/2	0.188 7
防灭火措施	1	3	2	1	0.351 2

下载: 导出CSV

表 6 采煤工作面内因火灾自热期风险评价指标评分规则

Table 6 Scoring rules for risk evaluation indexes of self-heating period of internal fire in coal working face

评价指标	参考值	评分	说明
自热期阶段	后期中期早期	25 50 75	可通过井下观测或人的生理感觉大致判断自热期阶段，该指标可用于大多数情况
Graham 指数	报警值预警值安全值	10 50 90	通过煤的程序升温实验，得出采煤工作面Graham指数的报警值、预警值和安全值

下载: 导出CSV

表 7 采煤工作面外因火灾风险评价指标评分规则

Table 7 Scoring rules for risk evaluation indexes of external fire in coal working face

准则	评价指标	参考值	评分
火灾在线监测	温度	报警预警	100 10
	O₂体积分数	报警预警	100 10
	CO体积分数	报警预警	100 10
安全检查	隐患超期未接单	重大隐患 Ⅰ级隐患 Ⅱ级隐患 Ⅲ级隐患	5 4 2 0.5
	隐患超期未整改	重大隐患 Ⅰ级隐患 Ⅱ级隐患 Ⅲ级隐患	10 8 5 1
	隐患复查不合格	重大隐患 Ⅰ级隐患 Ⅱ级隐患 Ⅲ级隐患	20 10 6 2
	风险管控措施超期未反馈	重大风险较大风险一般风险低风险	10 6 2 0.2
	风险管控措施超期未复查	重大风险较大风险一般风险低风险	6 3 1 0.1
	风险管控措施复查不合格	重大风险较大风险一般风险低风险	15 10 4 1

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(15)

[1]	李小飞,张渝,张学庆,等. 我国矿井火灾防治措施[J]. 中国矿业,2015,24(增刊2):263-265. LI Xiaofei,ZHANG Yu,ZHANG Xueqing,et al. Mine fire prevention and control measures in China[J]. China Mining Magazine,2015,24(S2):263-265.
[2]	梁运涛,侯贤军,罗海珠,等. 我国煤矿火灾防治现状及发展对策[J]. 煤炭科学技术,2016,44(6):1-6,13. DOI: 10.13199/j.cnki.cst.2016.06.001 LIANG Yuntao,HOU Xianjun,LUO Haizhu,et al. Development countermeasures and current situation of coal mine fire prevention & extinguishing in China[J]. Coal Science and Technology,2016,44(6):1-6,13. DOI: 10.13199/j.cnki.cst.2016.06.001
[3]	张九零,孙清清,孙斯维,等. 基于AHP灰熵赋权物元分析的矿井火灾风险评价[J]. 华北理工大学学报(自然科学版),2020,42(4):42-50. DOI: 10.3969/ji.ssn.2095-2716.2020.04.008 ZHANG Jiuling,SUN Qingqing,SUN Siwei,et al. Mine fire risk evaluation based on AHP grey entropy weighted matter-element analysis[J]. Journal of North China University of Science and Technology(Natural Science Edition),2020,42(4):42-50. DOI: 10.3969/ji.ssn.2095-2716.2020.04.008
[4]	程卫民,周刚,王刚,等. 基于灰色−模糊−改进动量BP算法的矿工安全行为评价方法[J]. 煤炭学报,2010,35(1):101-105. DOI: 10.13225/j.cnki.jccs.2010.01.027 CHENG Weimin,ZHOU Gang,WANG Gang,et al. Evaluation method of miners' safety behavior based on gray-fuzzy-improving momentum BP algorithm[J]. Journal of China Coal Society,2010,35(1):101-105. DOI: 10.13225/j.cnki.jccs.2010.01.027
[5]	孙勇,彭担任,张人伟,等. 基于BP神经网络的矿井火灾安全评价方法[J]. 工业安全与环保,2011,37(1):38-40. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-425X.2011.01.015 SUN Yong,PENG Danren,ZHANG Renwei,et al. Mine fire safety assessment based on BP neural network[J]. Industrial Safety and Environmental Protection,2011,37(1):38-40. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-425X.2011.01.015
[6]	王文才,侯涛,杨驭东,等. 基于AHP的潘津煤矿自燃火灾安全评价体系研究[J]. 矿业研究与开发,2012,32(5):98-101,117. DOI: 10.13827/j.cnki.kyyk.2012.05.029 WANG Wencai,HOU Tao,YANG Yudong,et al. Research on spontaneous combustion safety evaluation system for Panjin Coal Mine based on AHP[J]. Mining Research and Development,2012,32(5):98-101,117. DOI: 10.13827/j.cnki.kyyk.2012.05.029
[7]	杜振宇,杨胜强,王军,等. 基于可拓优度的矿井火灾安全评价方法[J]. 矿业安全与环保,2013,40(1):107-110,114. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-4495.2013.01.030 DU Zhenyu,YANG Shengqiang,WANG Jun,et al. Safety evaluation method for mine fire based on extension superiority[J]. Mining Safety & Environmental Protection,2013,40(1):107-110,114. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-4495.2013.01.030
[8]	白雯,谢雄刚,代伟,等. 基于熵权物元可拓的矿井火灾安全评价[J]. 煤矿安全,2017,48(7):196-199,203. DOI: 10.13347/j.cnki.mkaq.2017.07.053 BAI Wen,XIE Xionggang,DAI Wei,et al. Safety evaluation for mine fire based on entropy weight matter element extension[J]. Safety in Coal Mines,2017,48(7):196-199,203. DOI: 10.13347/j.cnki.mkaq.2017.07.053
[9]	张顺堂,吴昌友. 基于熵权可变模糊评价模型的矿井火灾安全性评价[J]. 数学的实践与认识,2018,48(23):175-182. ZHANG Shuntang,WU Changyou. Evaluation of mine fire safety based on entropy weight variable fuzzy evaluation model[J]. Mathematics in Practice and Theory,2018,48(23):175-182.
[10]	张怡. 基于Apriori算法下的矿井火灾事故预测研究[J]. 矿冶工程,2021,41(3):21-23. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-6099.2021.03.005 ZHANG Yi. Forcast of mine fire accident based on Apriori algorithm[J]. Mining and Metallurgical Engineering,2021,41(3):21-23. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-6099.2021.03.005
[11]	李国伟. 石丘煤矿外因火灾防治措施分析[J]. 能源与节能,2022(6):111-113. DOI: 10.16643/j.cnki.14-1360/td.2022.06.020 LI Guowei. Prevention and control measures of exogenous fire in Shiqiu Coal Mine[J]. Energy and Energy Conservation,2022(6):111-113. DOI: 10.16643/j.cnki.14-1360/td.2022.06.020
[12]	丁百川. 我国煤矿主要灾害事故特点及防治对策[J]. 煤炭科学技术,2017,45(5):109-114. DOI: 10.13199/j.cnki.cst.2017.05.019 DING Baichuan. Features and prevention countermeasures of major disasters occurred in China coal mine[J]. Coal Science and Technology,2017,45(5):109-114. DOI: 10.13199/j.cnki.cst.2017.05.019
[13]	金永飞,赵瑞元,邓军,等. 煤自燃多参数预报指标试验研究[J]. 煤炭科学技术,2014,42(9):112-114,76. DOI: 10.13199/j.cnki.cst.2014.09.0025 JIN Yongfei,ZHAO Ruiyuan,DENG Jun,et al. Experiment study on multi parameters prediction indexes of coal spontaneous combustion[J]. Coal Science and Technology,2014,42(9):112-114,76. DOI: 10.13199/j.cnki.cst.2014.09.0025
[14]	邓军,白祖锦,肖旸,等. 煤自燃指标体系试验研究[J]. 安全与环境学报,2018,18(5):1756-1761. DOI: 10.13637/j.issn.1009-6094.2018.05.018 DENG Jun,BAI Zujin,XIAO Yang,et al. Experimental investigation and examination for the indexical system of the coal spontaneous combustion[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment,2018,18(5):1756-1761. DOI: 10.13637/j.issn.1009-6094.2018.05.018
[15]	陈小林,屈世甲,佘九华,等. 基于风险管控的煤矿安全综合防控体系[J]. 工矿自动化,2021,47(8):15-19. DOI: 10.13272/j.issn.1671-251x.17809 CHEN Xiaolin,QU Shijia,SHE Jiuhua,et al. Comprehensive prevention and control system of coal mine safety based on risk management and control[J]. Industry and Mine Automation,2021,47(8):15-19. DOI: 10.13272/j.issn.1671-251x.17809

施引文献(20)

期刊类型引用(11)

1.	迟海波. 基于串并联变换的多机械臂矸石分拣系统. 煤矿安全. 2023(12): 239-245 . 百度学术
2.	曹现刚，刘思颖，王鹏，许罡，吴旭东. 面向煤矸分拣机器人的煤矸识别定位系统研究. 煤炭科学技术. 2022(01): 237-246 . 百度学术
3.	李小龙，夏云凯. 内蒙古地区易泥化动力煤干选工艺发展趋势研究. 煤炭加工与综合利用. 2022(02): 1-6+10 . 百度学术
4.	唐丽均. 模糊决策树在煤矸石分拣中的应用. 湖南工业职业技术学院学报. 2022(04): 9-12 . 百度学术
5.	张烨，马宏伟，王鹏，曹现刚，魏小荣，周文剑. 煤矸石智能分拣机器人研究进展与关键技术. 工矿自动化. 2022(12): 42-48+56 . 本站查看
6.	杜京义，史志芒，郝乐，陈瑞. 轻量化煤矸目标检测方法研究. 工矿自动化. 2021(11): 119-125 . 本站查看
7.	李素环，夏云凯. X射线块煤智能分选机在脏杂煤分选中的应用. 洁净煤技术. 2021(S2): 47-52 . 百度学术
8.	饶中钰，吴景涛，李明. 煤矸石图像分类方法. 工矿自动化. 2020(03): 69-73 . 本站查看
9.	王子军. IDS智能干选机在霍林河南露天煤矿的应用. 选煤技术. 2020(05): 56-60 . 百度学术
10.	邵尚坤，孙学鹏，杜晓光，李玉飞，王亚冰，张晓芸，刘志国，孙天希. 基于X射线透射成像及荧光双模式的珍珠检测. 光谱学与光谱分析. 2020(12): 3936-3940 . 百度学术
11.	武国平，梁兴国，胡金良，葛小冬. 图像处理和SVM应用于煤矸石分选的实验研究. 信息技术. 2019(01): 97-102+107 . 百度学术