WO2016002977A1

WO2016002977A1 - Mine disaster management system and management method using same

Info

Publication number: WO2016002977A1
Application number: PCT/KR2014/005781
Authority: WO
Inventors: 이성민; 김선명; 이연희
Original assignee: 영동대학교 산학협력단; 이성민
Priority date: 2014-06-30
Filing date: 2014-06-30
Publication date: 2016-01-07

Abstract

According to one embodiment of the present invention, a mine disaster management method comprises: a first transmission step of transmitting, by a management server, a survey file comprising a first survey file including a first survey table having respective processes carried out in a mine, risk elements corresponding to the processes, and evaluation score 1 for the risk elements, and a second survey table having dangerous levels and evaluation index 1 corresponding to the dangerous levels; a second transmission step of receiving, by a worker terminal, the survey file, and then, transmitting a response file including a first response file having the first survey table into which the evaluation score 1 is selectively inputted on the basis of the evaluation index 1; and a risk process determination step of determining, by the management server, a risk process by comparing total values produced by adding the evaluation score 1, according to each process, to the first survey table of the first response file.

Description

Mine disaster management system and management method using the same

The present invention relates to a mine disaster management system and a management method using the same, and more particularly, to determine the risk process of the mine, and to determine the priority of work between the preceding and subsequent tasks of the risk process determined in this way damage in case of disaster The present invention relates to a mine disaster management system and a management method using the same, which can minimize the risk and maintain business continuity.

Since most limestone mines are operated by open-pit mining, it is widely known that they are operated with various difficulties such as serious environmental problems and direct and indirect social issues such as various complaints of residents in the surrounding area. . Recently, limestone mines are making various efforts to develop sustainable mines while reducing such environmental, social and managerial issues. For example, mine mining or mining of facilities (eg, separation, screening, etc.) may be part of this effort.

However, in the case of mining the mine or facility, it is necessary to review the safety and management of not only the existing mine development space (tunnel) but also the newly constructed underground large space, and at the same time, it is different from the existing working environment. Disaster management of various risks is additionally needed to ensure the safety of workers.

Disaster cases in mines are decreasing, but due to the nature of the working environment, disasters can easily lead to human injury and direct or indirect damages can increase. In Korea, for example, in August 2012 and August 2013, a fall accident occurred in the limestone mines of Jeongseon and Gangneung, resulting in the death or disappearance of workers at work.In China, annual deaths from mine accidents There have been 6,000 deaths and about 1,300 deaths last year (Yonhapnews, 2013).

In the existing mine development process, disaster disasters such as casualties from various causes have always occurred, and the direct and indirect damages have been gradually increasing. This situation is indispensable.

The problem to be solved of the present invention is to provide a mine disaster management system and a management method using the same that can minimize the damage in the event of a disaster and maintain continuity of work.

Another problem to be solved by the present invention is to provide a mine disaster management system having an optimal site suitability and a management method using the same.

According to an embodiment of the present invention, the mine disaster management system includes a first questionnaire having each process performed in the mine, a risk factor corresponding to the process, and an evaluation score of 1 for the risk factor, the degree of risk and the A server memory storing a questionnaire file including a first questionnaire file having a second questionnaire having an evaluation index 1 corresponding to a degree of risk, and generating and storing the questionnaire file in the server memory and storing the questionnaire file A management server including a transmittable server processor; And

And a worker terminal transmitting a response file including a first response file including the first questionnaire in which the evaluation score 1 is selected and input based on the evaluation index 1 of the questionnaire file transmitted from the management server. do.

The server processor may further include a risk process determination unit configured to determine a risk process by comparing the total value obtained by adding the evaluation score 1 to the first questionnaire of the first response file for each process.

The questionnaire file includes a third questionnaire having a damage type according to the disaster and an evaluation score of 2 corresponding to the damage type, and a fourth questionnaire having an importance degree and an evaluation index 2 corresponding to the importance level. It may include a survey file.

The response file may include a second response file having a third questionnaire in which the evaluation score 2 is selected and input based on the evaluation index 2.

The server processor may further include a damage type evaluation unit configured to determine a significant damage type by comparing the magnitude of the relative value calculated by comparing the evaluation score 2 of the damage types in a one-to-one manner.

The damage type evaluation unit may calculate a total sum of the relative values corresponding to the damage types.

The server processor may include a weight calculator configured to calculate the relative value and the total and calculate individual weights and average weights. In this case, the individual load value is a value obtained by dividing the relative value by a total, and the average weight may be an average of the individual load values.

The questionnaire file includes a third questionnaire file including a related task which is a task preceding and following the risk process determined by the risk process determination unit, and a fifth questionnaire having an item value of a damage type corresponding to the related task. can do.

The response file may include a third response file including the fifth questionnaire in which the item value is selected and input.

The server processor may include: a priority determining unit configured to calculate an average value of the item values of the fifth questionnaire, and calculate a total weight value for each work unit by adding individual weights for each work unit multiplied by the average weight of the damage type; It may further include.

According to another embodiment of the present invention, a mine disaster management method includes a first questionnaire having a management server at a mine and a risk factor corresponding to the process and an evaluation score of 1 for the risk factor, and a risk. A first transmission step of transmitting a questionnaire file including a first questionnaire file having a second questionnaire having a degree and an evaluation index 1 corresponding to the degree of risk; A second transmission step of transmitting, by the worker terminal after receiving the questionnaire file, a response file including a first response file having the first questionnaire in which the evaluation score 1 is selected and input based on the evaluation index 1 ; And a risk process determination step of determining, by the management server, a risk process by comparing a total value obtained by adding the evaluation score 1 to each of the processes in the first questionnaire of the first response file.

The mine disaster management method may further include a damage type determining step of determining an important damage type by comparing the magnitude of the relative value calculated by comparing the evaluation score 2 of the damage types in a one-to-one manner.

The mine disaster management method may further include a weight calculation step of calculating a total sum of the relative values corresponding to the damage type and calculating the individual weight value and the average weight value by calculating the relative value and the total value. .

In this case, the individual load value is a value obtained by dividing the relative value by a total, and the average weight may be an average of the individual load values.

The mine disaster management method calculates an average value of the item values in the fifth questionnaire, and determines the priority of calculating the total weight value for each work unit by adding the individual weights for each work unit multiplied by the average weight of the damage type. It may further comprise a step.

The mine disaster management method includes a third transmission step of transmitting, by the management server, the dangerous process determined in the dangerous process decision step; And a fourth transmission step of transmitting, by the manager terminal, related tasks, which are tasks preceding and following the risk process, to the management server.

The effects of the mine disaster management system and the management method using the same according to the present invention are as follows.

First, there is an advantage of minimizing damage and maintaining continuity of work in the event of a disaster.

Second, there is an advantage of having optimal on-site suitability by evaluating work impact and managing disasters.

1 is a schematic diagram of a mine disaster management system according to an embodiment of the present invention.

2 illustrates an embodiment of a configuration of a worker terminal to which the present invention is applied.

3 illustrates an embodiment of a configuration of a management server to which the present invention is applied.

4 is a control flowchart of a mine disaster management method according to an embodiment of the present invention.

Hereinafter, preferred embodiments of the present invention will be described in more detail with reference to FIGS. 1 to 4. Embodiments of the invention may be modified in various forms, the scope of the invention should not be construed as limited to the embodiments described below. These embodiments are provided to explain in detail the present invention to those skilled in the art. Accordingly, the shape of each element shown in the drawings may be exaggerated to emphasize a more clear description.

When a component is referred to as being "connected" or "connected" to another component, it may be directly connected to or connected to that other component, but it may be understood that other components may be present in between. Should be. On the other hand, when a component is said to be "directly connected" or "directly connected" to another component, it should be understood that there is no other component in between.

1 is a schematic diagram of a mine disaster management system according to an embodiment of the present invention. Referring to FIG. 1, the management server 200 is connected to the worker terminal 100 and the manager terminal 300 through an external communication network 150. The management server 200 transmits a questionnaire file to the worker terminal 100 through the communication network 150, and the worker terminal 100 transmits a response file to the management server 200. The management server 200 transmits a risk process to be described later to the manager terminal 300 through the communication network 150, and the manager terminal 300 transmits a related task to be described later to the management server 200.

Referring to FIG. 2, the worker terminal 100 includes a terminal processor 110, a user interface 120, a terminal memory 130, and a terminal communication unit 150. In this case, the worker terminal 100 may be a computer, a smartphone, a notebook (NoteBook), a netbook (NetBook) and the like.

The terminal processor 110 is responsible for the overall control of the worker terminal 100, and in particular, the terminal processor 110 controls the user interface 120, the terminal memory 130, and the terminal communication unit 140. The terminal processor 110 transmits the response file generated by the operator selecting and inputting the questionnaire file transmitted from the management server 200 to the management server 200 through the terminal communication unit 140 and the communication network 150.

The user interface 120 is in charge of an interface between the worker terminal 100 and the worker, and includes an input unit 121 and a display unit 123. The input unit 121 includes a keyboard, a keypad, and the like, the display unit 123 displays a questionnaire file, etc. to the operator, and the operator uses the input unit 121 to manage the management server 200. You can optionally enter the sent questionnaire file.

The terminal memory 130 stores data used in the worker terminal 100, and in particular, a questionnaire file transmitted from the management server 200 and a response file generated by a worker's selection and input into the questionnaire file may be stored. Can be.

The terminal communication unit 140 is in charge of communicating with the management server 200 through the external communication network 150 and is responsible for transmitting and receiving through the external communication network 150.

When the risk process is transmitted from the management server 200, the manager terminal 300 selects and inputs a related task which is a task preceding and following the risk process to the management server 200. Since the configuration of the worker terminal 100 may be applied to the manager terminal 300 in the same manner, a description of the configuration of the manager terminal 300 will be omitted.

3 illustrates an embodiment of a configuration of a management server to which the present invention is applied. Referring to FIG. 3, the management server 200 is used to determine a work priority for mine disaster management and includes a server processor 210, a server memory 220, and a server communication unit 230.

The server memory 220 may store a questionnaire file generated by the questionnaire file manager 211, a response file transmitted from the worker terminal 100, and data transmitted from the manager terminal 300. The survey file may include a first survey file, a second survey file, and a third survey file, and the response file may include a first response file, a second response file, and a third response file.

The first questionnaire file includes a first questionnaire and a second questionnaire. As shown in Table 1 below, the first questionnaire includes each process performed in the mine, a risk factor corresponding to the process, and a score of 1 for the risk factor. The second questionnaire includes a degree of risk and an evaluation index 1 corresponding to the degree of risk, as shown in Table 2 below. The operator selects and inputs the evaluation score 1 of the first questionnaire by referring to the evaluation index 1 of the second questionnaire.

Table 1

fair	Risk factor		Score 1
1st process (blasting, drilling)	One	Accidents caused by poor safety devices
	2	Perforation and charge explosion by simultaneous operation
	3	Explosive Bomb
	4	Inadvertent delayed explosion
	5	Roof depression by blasting vibration
	6	Careless plunge
	7	Accident due to scattering dust
	8	Rocks falling near the weakened ground
2nd process (mining)	One	Ceiling depression and rockfall
	2	Collapse due to improper columns
	3	Settlement by excessive excavation
	4	Collapse by groundwater and surface water
	5	Rockfall of the Softlands
	6	Accident due to sudden irrigation
3rd process (loading, transportation)	One	Accidents caused by poor safety devices
	2	Accident due to sudden operation and maintenance of equipment
	3	Worker crash
	4	Traffic accident during work
4th process (crushing, sorting)	One	Accidental accident
	2	Accident due to violation of safety rules
	3	Accidents caused by ore crushed from the mill
	4	Accident due to automatic system error
5th process (maintenance)	One	Health risks due to poor working conditions
	2	Risk of fire spread
	3	Accident due to bad wiring
	4	Accident due to not wearing safety device

TABLE 2

Evaluation Index 1	One	2	3	4	5
Degree of danger	Very high	height	usually	lowness	Very low

The second questionnaire file includes a third questionnaire and a fourth questionnaire. As shown in Table 3 below, the third questionnaire includes a damage type according to a disaster and an evaluation score 2 corresponding to the damage type. As shown in Table 4 below, the fourth questionnaire includes a degree of importance and an evaluation index 2 corresponding to the degree of importance.

TABLE 3

Type of damage	Score 2
Type 1 (property damage)
Type 2 (Human Damage)
Type 3 (social damage)
Type 4 (Interruption of Interworking among Departments)
Type 5 (Interrupted external business)

Table 4

Evaluation Index 2	One	2	3	4	5
Importance	Most importantly	Slightly important	Essentially important	Fairly important	Absolutely important

The third questionnaire file includes a related task, which is a task preceding and following a risk process, and a fifth questionnaire having an item value of a damage type corresponding to the related task. At this time, the related tasks may include safety management, regular and emergency management, raw material procurement, crushing and screening, product management, and linked work management.

The first response file includes a first questionnaire in which an operator selects and inputs an evaluation score 1 using the evaluation index 1 of the second questionnaire. That is, referring to Table 5 below, it can be seen that the evaluation score 1 is selected and input by the operator.

Table 5

fair	Risk factor		Score 1
1st process (blasting, drilling)	One	Accidents caused by poor safety devices	3
	2	Perforation and charge explosion by simultaneous operation	5
	3	Explosive Bomb	5
	4	Inadvertent delayed explosion	5
	5	Roof depression by blasting vibration	5
	6	Careless plunge	2
	7	Accident due to scattering dust	3
	8	Rocks falling near the weakened ground	3
2nd process (mining)	One	Ceiling depression and rockfall	3
	2	Collapse due to improper columns	4
	3	Settlement by excessive excavation	5
	4	Collapse by groundwater and surface water	4
	5	Rockfall of the Softlands	3
	6	Accident due to sudden irrigation	5
3rd process (loading, transportation)	One	Accidents caused by poor safety devices	2
	2	Accident due to sudden operation and maintenance of equipment	2
	3	Worker crash	2
	4	Traffic accident during work	2
4th process (crushing, sorting)	One	Accidental accident	2
	2	Accident due to violation of safety rules	2
	3	Accidents caused by ore crushed from the mill	2
	4	Accident due to automatic system error	4
5th process (maintenance)	One	Health risks due to poor working conditions	3
	2	Risk of fire spread	4
	3	Accident due to bad wiring	4
	4	Accident due to not wearing safety device	3

The second response file includes a third questionnaire in which an evaluation score of 2 is selected and entered by the operator. That is, referring to Table 6 below, it can be seen that the evaluation score 2 is selected and input by the operator.

Table 6

Type of damage	Score 2
Type 1 (property damage)	One
Type 2 (Human Damage)	2
Type 3 (social damage)	3
Type 4 (Interruption of Interworking among Departments)	4
Type 5 (Interrupted external business)	5

The third response file includes a fifth questionnaire in which item values are selected and entered by the administrator.

The server processor 210 is responsible for overall control of the management server 200, and in particular, controls the server memory 220 and the server communication unit 230. The server processor 210 analyzes the response file received from the worker terminal 100 to derive related work priorities, the questionnaire file management unit 211, the risk process determination unit 213, the damage type evaluation unit 215, A weight calculator 217 and a priority determiner 219 are included.

The questionnaire file manager 211 may generate a questionnaire file including the first questionnaire file, the second questionnaire file, and the third questionnaire file and store the questionnaire file in the server memory 220. The stored questionnaire file is transmitted to the worker terminal 100 by the server communication unit 230 of the server processor 210.

The risk process determination unit 213 analyzes the first response file transmitted from the worker terminal 100 to determine the risk process. The management server 200 determines the risk process by comparing the magnitude of the sum of the sum of the evaluation scores for each process in the first questionnaire of the first response file. For example, as shown in Table 5, the sum of the evaluation scores of the fourth process (crushing and classification) is 10, indicating that the size is smaller than that of the other processes. Therefore, the fourth process is determined as a dangerous process. At this time, the risk process determination unit 213 transmits a second questionnaire file to the worker terminal 100, and transmits the risk process to the manager terminal 300.

The damage type evaluation unit 215 analyzes the second response file transmitted from the worker terminal 100 to determine the important damage type. For example, as shown in Table 6 below, the management server 200 calculates a relative value of one-to-one comparison (divide) of the evaluation scores of each type of damage by using the second response file. By comparing the magnitudes, determine the type of significant damage. In addition, the management server 200 calculates the total sum of the relative values for each damage type.

Looking at Table 7 below, we can see that Type 2 (Human Damage) is about 4.76 times more important than Type 1 (Property Damage). That is, it can be seen that Type 2 is determined as the most important damage type having the greatest importance.

TABLE 7

type	Type 1	Type 2	Type 3	Type 4	Type 5
Type 1	1.00	0.21	3.40	3.60	1.20
Type 2	4.76	1.00	4.40	4.60	4.40
Type 3	0.29	0.23	1.00	1.00	0.28
Type 4	0.28	0.22	1.00	1.00	0.27
Type 5	0.83	0.23	3.53	3.66	1.00
sum	7.17	1.88	13.33	13.86	7.16

The weight calculator 217 calculates the individual weights A, B, C, D, and E and the average weight W using the relative value and the total calculated by the damage type evaluation unit 215. At this time, the individual weight for each type = (relative value / total), and the average weight (W) is the average value of the individual load values (A, B, C, D, E). For example, as shown in Table 8 below, the individual weights of Type 1 are 0.14, 0.11, 0.26, 0.26, 0.17, and the average weight is (0.14 + 0.11 + 0.26 + 0.26 + 0.17) / 5 ≒ 0.19. Therefore, when comparing the average weight of each type, it can be seen that the average weight of type 2 (human injury) is relatively higher than the average weight of other types by at least about 2.6 times and up to about 7 times.

Table 8

type	Type 1 (A)	Type 2 (B)	Type 3 (C)	Type 4 (D)	Type 5 (E)	Average weight (W)
Type 1	0.14	0.11	0.26	0.26	0.17	0.19
Type 2	0.66	0.53	0.33	0.33	0.61	0.49
Type 3	0.04	0.12	0.08	0.07	0.04	0.07
Type 4	0.04	0.12	0.08	0.07	0.04	0.07
Type 5	0.12	0.12	0.26	0.26	0.14	0.18
sum	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00

The priority determining unit 219 calculates an average value of each item value of the fifth questionnaire, and calculates the total weight value for each work unit by adding the individual weights for each work unit multiplied by the average weight of each type. The management server 200 can smoothly maintain business continuity even in the event of a disaster by determining the work priority in the order of the highest value of the total weight. For example, as shown in Table 9 below, total weight in safety management (K) = (A * F) + (B * G) + (C * H) + (D * I) + (E * J ) In other words, linked work management with a total weight of 0.68 was the first priority to be considered in order to maintain business continuity in the event of a disaster.The total weight of raw material procurement was 0.41, which should be considered next to linked work management. Appeared to be.

Table 9

	Type 1	Type 2	Type 3	Type 4	Type 5	Total weight	Work order
Average weight (W)	0.19 (A)	0.49 (B)	0.07 (C)	0.07 (D)	0.18 (E)
safety management	0.15 (F)	0.23 (G)	0.46 (H)	0.23 (I)	0.15 (J)	0.22 (K)	5
Always and emergency management	0.15	0.23	0.31	0.23	0.00	0.18	6
Gemstone procurement	0.46	0.38	0.85	0.85	0.08	0.41	2
Crushing and Screening	0.31	0.23	0.77	0.77	0.08	0.29	3
Product Management	0.31	0.23	0.77	0.77	0.00	0.28	4
Linked work management	0.85	0.77	0.85	1.00	0.08	0.68	One

The server memory 220 stores data used by the management server 100, and in particular, a questionnaire file, a response file transmitted from the worker terminal 100, a response file transmitted from the manager terminal 300, and the like. Can be.

The server communication unit 230 is in charge of communication with the worker terminal 100 and the manager terminal 300 through the external communication network 150, and is responsible for transmitting and receiving through the external communication network 150.

First, the management server 200 transmits the first survey file to the worker terminal 100 (S10). The first questionnaire file includes a first questionnaire, as shown in Table 1 above, and a second questionnaire, as shown in Table 2 above.

Next, the operator terminal 100 transmits the first response file including the first questionnaire table in which the evaluation score 1 is input by the operator as shown in Table 5 above (S20).

Next, the management server 200 analyzes the first response file transmitted from the worker terminal 100 in step S20 to determine a risk process (S30). The management server 200 determines the risk process by comparing the magnitude of the total value obtained by adding the evaluation score 1 to each process in the first questionnaire of the first response file. For example, as shown in Table 5, the sum of the evaluation scores of the fourth process (crushing, classification) is 10, it can be seen that the size is smaller than the other processes. Therefore, the fourth process is determined as a dangerous process.

Next, the management server 200 transmits the second survey file to the worker terminal 100 (S40). As shown in Table 3, the second questionnaire file includes a third questionnaire including the damage type according to the disaster and an evaluation score of each damage type, and a fourth questionnaire including the evaluation index 2, as shown in Table 4. Include.

Next, the operator terminal 100 transmits a second response file including the third questionnaire in which the evaluation score 2 is selected and input by the operator as shown in Table 6 to the management server 200 (S50).

The management server 200 analyzes the second response file transmitted from the worker terminal 100 in step S50 to determine a significant damage type (S60). For example, as shown in Table 6 above, the management server 200 calculates a relative value of one-to-one comparison (divide) of the evaluation score 2 of each damage type by using the second response file. Determine the type of damage that is important by comparing its size. In addition, the management server 200 calculates the total sum of the relative values for each damage type.

Looking back at Table 6, we can see that Type 2 (human damage) is about 4.76 times more important than Type 1 (property damage). That is, it can be seen that Type 2 is determined as the most important damage type having the greatest importance.

Next, the management server 200 calculates the individual weights (A, B, C, D, E) and the average weight (W) by using the relative value and the total calculated in step S60 (S70). At this time, the individual weight for each type = (relative value / total), and the average weight (W) is the average value of the individual load values (A, B, C, D, E). For example, as shown in Table 8, the individual weights of Type 1 are 0.14, 0.11, 0.26, 0.26, 0.17, and the average weight is (0.14 + 0.11 + 0.26 + 0.26 + 0.17) / 5 ≒ 0.19. Therefore, when comparing the average weight of each type, it can be seen that the average weight of type 2 (human injury) is relatively higher than the average weight of other types by at least about 2.6 times and up to about 7 times.

Next, the management server 200 transmits the risk process determined in step S30 to the manager terminal 300 (S80).

Next, the manager terminal 300 transmits to the management server 200 related tasks, which are tasks preceding and following the risk process selected by the administrator (S90). At this time, the related tasks may include safety management, regular and emergency management, raw material procurement, crushing and screening, product management, and linked work management.

Meanwhile, in step S80, the management server 200 may transmit a dangerous process to the worker terminal 300. In this case, in step S90, the worker terminal 100 transmits a related task to the management server 200. do.

Next, the management server 200 transmits to the worker terminal 100 a third questionnaire file including a fifth questionnaire including a related task and an item value of the damage type for each related task (S100).

Next, the worker terminal 100 transmits to the management server 200 a third response file including a fifth questionnaire in which each item value is selected and input to the fifth questionnaire by the worker (S110).

Next, the management server 200 calculates an average value of each item value of the fifth questionnaire, and calculates the total weight value for each work unit by adding the individual weights for each work unit multiplied by the average weight of each type. The management server 200 can smoothly maintain business continuity even in the event of a disaster by determining the priority of the work in the order of the highest value of the total weight. For example, as shown in Table 9, Total Weight in Safety Management (K) = (A * F) + (B * G) + (C * H) + (D * I) + (E * J ) In other words, linked work management with a total weight of 0.68 was the first priority to be considered in order to maintain business continuity in the event of a disaster.The total weight of raw material procurement was 0.41, which should be considered next to linked work management. Appeared to be.

As a result, the mine disaster management system and the management method using the same according to the present embodiment determine the risk process of the mine and minimize the damage in the event of a disaster by determining the priority of work between the preceding and following tasks of the risk process determined as such. And maintain business continuity.

Although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to preferred embodiments, other forms of embodiments are possible. Therefore, the spirit and scope of the claims set forth below are not limited to the preferred embodiments.

The mine disaster management system and the management method using the same according to the present invention determine the risk process of the mine, and determine the priority of work between the preceding and subsequent tasks of the risk process thus determined to minimize the damage in the event of disaster and to maintain the business continuity It can be said that the invention is industrially applicable because it can be maintained.

Claims

Each process in the mine, a first questionnaire having a risk factor corresponding to the process and an evaluation score of the risk factor 1, and a second questionnaire having a degree of risk and an evaluation index 1 corresponding to the risk level A server memory storing a questionnaire file including a first questionnaire file to be provided;

A management server generating the questionnaire file and storing the questionnaire file in the server memory and including a server processor capable of transmitting the questionnaire file; And

And a worker terminal transmitting a response file including a first response file including the first questionnaire in which the evaluation score 1 is selected and input based on the evaluation index 1 of the questionnaire file transmitted from the management server. Mine disaster management system.

The server processor

And a risk process determination unit for comparing a total value obtained by adding the evaluation score 1 to each process in the first questionnaire of the first response file to determine a risk process.
The method according to claim 1,

The questionnaire file includes a third questionnaire having a damage type according to the disaster and an evaluation score of 2 corresponding to the damage type, and a fourth questionnaire having an importance degree and an evaluation index 2 corresponding to the importance level. Include survey files,

The response file includes a second response file having a third questionnaire in which the evaluation score 2 is selected and input based on the evaluation index 2,

And the server processor further includes a damage type evaluation unit for comparing the magnitude of the damage type 2 to one-to-one and comparing the magnitude of the relative value calculated to determine a significant damage type.
The method according to claim 2,

The damage type evaluation unit calculates a total sum of the relative values corresponding to the damage type,

The server processor includes a weight calculation unit for calculating the individual weight and the average weight by calculating the relative value and the total,

The individual load value is a value obtained by dividing the relative value by a total, and the average weight is an average of the individual load values.
The method according to claim 3,

The questionnaire file includes a third questionnaire file including a related task which is a task preceding and following the risk process determined by the risk process determination unit, and a fifth questionnaire having an item value of a damage type corresponding to the related task. ,

The response file includes a third response file including the fifth questionnaire in which the item value is selected and input;

The server processor may include: a priority determining unit configured to calculate an average value of the item values of the fifth questionnaire, and calculate a total weight value for each work unit by adding individual weights for each work unit multiplied by the average weight of the damage type; Further comprising, mine disaster management system.
Each process of the management server in the mine, a first questionnaire having a risk factor corresponding to the process and an evaluation score of the risk factor 1, and a second having a risk level and an evaluation index 1 corresponding to the risk level. A first transmission step of transmitting a questionnaire file including a first questionnaire file having a questionnaire table;

A second transmission step of transmitting, by the worker terminal after receiving the questionnaire file, a response file including a first response file having the first questionnaire in which the evaluation score 1 is selected and input based on the evaluation index 1 ; And

And a risk process determination step of determining, by the management server, a risk process by comparing a sum value of the evaluation score 1 with each process in the first questionnaire of the first response file. .
The method according to claim 5,

The questionnaire file includes a third questionnaire having a damage type according to the disaster and an evaluation score of 2 corresponding to the damage type, and a fourth questionnaire having an importance degree and an evaluation index 2 corresponding to the importance level. Include survey files,

The response file includes a second response file having a third questionnaire in which the evaluation score 2 is selected and input based on the evaluation index 2,

The mine disaster management method further comprises a damage type determination step of determining a significant damage type by comparing the magnitude of the relative value calculated by comparing the evaluation score 2 of the damage type in a one-to-one, mine disaster management method further comprising.
The method according to claim 6,

The mine disaster management method

A weight calculation step of calculating a total sum of the relative values corresponding to the damage type, and calculating the relative value and the total value to calculate individual weights and average weights;

The individual load value is a value obtained by dividing the relative value by a total, and the average weight is an average of the individual load values.
The method according to claim 7,

The questionnaire file includes a third questionnaire file including a related task which is a task preceding and following the risk process determined by the risk process determination unit, and a fifth questionnaire having an item value of a damage type corresponding to the related task. ,

The response file includes a third response file including the fifth questionnaire in which the item value is selected and input,

The mine disaster management method

Calculating an average value of the item values of the fifth questionnaire, and determining a total weight value for each work unit by adding individual weights for each work unit multiplied by the average weight of the damage type; How to do mine disaster management.
The method according to claim 8,

The mine disaster management method

A third transmission step of transmitting, by the management server, the risk process determined in the risk process decision step; And

And a fourth transmission step of transmitting, by the administrator terminal, related tasks, which are tasks preceding and following the risk process, to the management server.