Original Article

Journal of Fire Sciences

Explosion risk assessment 2017, Vol. 35(1) 21–35
Ó The Author(s) 2016
model for underground mine Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

atmosphere DOI: 10.1177/0734904116676495

journals.sagepub.com/home/jfs

Jianwei Cheng1,2, Xixi Zhang1 and Apurna Ghosh2

Date received: 19 July 2016; accepted: 6 October 2016

Abstract
In the coal mining industry, explosions or mine fires present the most hazardous safety threats for
coal miners or mine rescue members. Hence, the determination of the mine atmosphere explosi-
bility and its evolution are critical for the success of mine rescues or controlling the severity of a
mine accident. However, although there are numbers of methods which can be used to identify
the explosibility, none of them could well indicate the change to the explosion risk time evolution.
The reason is that the underground sealed atmospheric compositions are so complicated and
their dynamical changes are also affected by various influence factors. There is no one method
that could well handle all such considerations. Therefore, accurately knowing the mine atmo-
spheric status is still a complicated problem for mining engineers. Method of analyzing the explo-
sion safety margin for an underground sealed atmosphere is urgently desired. This article is going
to propose a series of theoretical explosion risk assessment models to fully analyze the evolution
of explosion risk in an underground mine atmosphere. Models are based on characteristics of the
Coward explosibility diagram with combining mathematical analyzing approaches to address fol-
lowing problems: (1) for an ‘‘not-explosive’’ atmosphere, judging the evolution of explosion risk
and estimating the change-of-state time span from ‘‘not-explosive’’ to ‘‘explosive’’ and (2) for an
‘‘explosive’’ atmosphere, estimating the ‘‘critical’’ time span of moving out of explosive zone and
stating the best risk mitigation strategy. Such research efforts could not only help mine operators
understand the explosibility risk of a sealed mine atmosphere but also provide a useful tool to
wisely control explosive atmosphere away from any dangers. In order to demonstrate research
findings, case studies for derived models are shown and are also used to instruct readers how to

1
Key Laboratory of Gas and Fire Control for Coal Mines, School of Safety Engineering, China University of Mining and
Technology, Xuzhou, China
2
Department of Mining Engineering and Metallurgical Engineering, Western Australian School of Mines, Curtin University,
Kalgoorlie, WA, Australia

Corresponding author:
Jianwei Cheng, Key Laboratory of Gas and Fire Control for Coal Mines, School of Safety Engineering, China University of
Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, Jiangsu 221116, China.
Email: jchengwvu@gmail.com
22 Journal of Fire Sciences 35(1)

apply them. The results provide useful information for effectively controlling an explosive under-
ground sealed atmosphere.

Keywords
Mine atmosphere, explosibility, Coward diagram, risk mitigations

Introduction
Explosions originated from or around the sealed off areas in underground coal mines present
a serious safety threat. Statistical data from China in the year of 2009 showed that a total of
157 gas explosions were responsible for 755 fatalities in Chinese coal mines.1 Therefore, man-
agement of mine atmosphere is an important task for coal mining engineers.
The explosibility of gas depends on the flammability limits, which has been recognized
for more than two centuries. Until now, previous researches focused on the fundamentals
of explosion mechanism2–6 as basis for explosion risk analysis. Moreover, for engineering
application reasons, a number of flammability diagrams has also been developed and used.
Such methods could present both the gas point and the explosive zone in a diagram, which
not only clearly show the gas sample’s explosibility,7–14,25 and also are very useful
for dealing with the explosibility of a gas mixture with multiple species. For an example,
the USBM (United States Bureau of Mines) explosibility diagram method presents a sim-
plified graphic method for determining the explosibility of mine atmospheres under mine-
fire conditions from mine atmosphere composition data,14 which is a popular method
widely used in the US mining industry. Most methods are useful in tracking trend direc-
tions of gas mixtures. However, as each new sample analysis becomes available, the state
point on the diagrams moves and the explosive triangles also change their shapes and posi-
tions. It is analogous to shooting at a moving target15 and hard to define the safety margin
of an explosive atmosphere. This diagram shows that methane–air–inert gas mixture falls
into one of three categories: (A) explosive, (B) explosive when mixed with air, or (C) non-
explosive, depending on the percentage of methane and the percentage of ‘‘effective
inert.’’16 Predicting the explosibility risk evolution of an atmosphere in underground is still
a problem, which also needs to be answered for mining engineers or mine rescue workers.
In consideration of a mine atmosphere, the explosibility characteristic highly depends on
the composition of oxygen and combustible and inert gases. It should be noted that com-
positions in an inaccessible mine sealed area always change with time under the effects of
inflows or outflows of combustible gases, air leakage, and injected inert gases, which also
bring difficulties to make explosion risk estimations.
In order to improve mine safety and to assist the mitigation strategies for mine accidents,
this article is going to introduce a series of models based on the graphical method and equa-
tion derivations to address mentioned problems. The major advantages/contributions of
these models are as follows:

1. For a ‘‘not-explosive’’ mine atmosphere, quantitative analysis methods could be pro-

vided to optimize the explosion risk mitigation strategies.
2. The changing time span between ‘‘not-explosive’’ and ‘‘explosive’’ can be accurately
determined to provide any necessary ‘‘early warning’’ messages.
Cheng et al. 23

Figure 1. CO explosive triangle.18

Such research efforts can not only improve good understanding of a mine’s explosive
atmosphere evolution but are also important for any underground mine workers’ lives
safety.

The Coward explosibility diagram

The Coward explosive triangle diagram which was published by Coward and Jones in 1952
has been considered as a fast and easy way to determine the explosibility of the gas mixture.
Currently, as the most popular method, it is widely used in the US mining industry.15,17
Basically speaking, the explosive triangle is defined by three characteristic points which are
commonly generated by applying Le Chatelier’s principle. The diagram is divided into four
different zone stated as the impossible mixture zone, the explosive zone, the not-explosive
zone (but may become explosive if more combustibles or air are added), and another
non-explosive zone. Figure 1 shows the carbon monoxide (CO) explosive triangle. Once a
gas-mixture sampling from an atmosphere is analyzed and the state point is plotted on the
diagram, the explosibility could be determined immediately.
The Coward diagram can clearly identify the explosive status of gas mixture. But it cannot
be used for an explosion risk assessment of the gas mixture in a very short time period r, and
it fails to provide the information about the safety margin. (It shows how the gas-mixture
state point is close to the explosive zone.) In other words, this diagram lacks capability to
make an explosion risk assessment for the gas mixture in a very future time period and peo-
ple cannot truly understand how the safety margin really is. Hence, a concept of explosibility
safety factor (SF) has been proposed as one of the preliminary solutions to address such
problems.19

State-of-the-art engineering needs for underground firefighting works

Due to coal spontaneous combustion problems, sealing a mined-out area in underground
mines is very common to avoid any fire or explosion risks. A sealed atmosphere in an under-
ground coal mine is simply a volume governed by some boundary conditions,20 which can
be understood by the following two aspects:
24 Journal of Fire Sciences 35(1)

1. Methane has an explosive range between 5% and 15% and the concentration of
9.5% is the most dangerous scenario due to complete combustion of air–methane
mixture, which means that a newly sealed atmosphere must first become explosive in
a short time and then turn into non-explosive in a long time due to continuous
methane emission in a sealed area that could build the methane concentration up.
2. Using the inert gases to extinguish potential coal fires in mine gobs or control explo-
sions is very common in coal mines. Generally, the inert gas, N2, is usually used to
inject to the mine sealed area to maintain or create a non-explosive atmosphere.
However, with methane emission from surrounding strata and N2 injection from out-
side simultaneously, the composition of sealed mine atmosphere could be greatly
changed and the explosibility should be carefully monitored and analyzed.

Finally, the trend prediction for atmosphere in a sealed mine area is a complicated prob-
lem due to complex compositions, which brings difficulties when making any ventilation
managements for a sealed mine atmosphere.
However, for engineering needs, the following two questions are often asked and also
required to answer for mine operators or mine rescue managers:

 Once an underground mined-out area is normally sealed, the methane concentration

could build up due to the methane emission from surrounding strata. Hence, how long
the sealed atmosphere can be kept in the non-explosive stage and when it will enter
into the explosive stage?
 For a not-explosive atmosphere, how to determine if the atmosphere is close or away
from the ‘‘explosive zone’’ under various combinations of boundary conditions? In
other words, is such ‘‘risk’’ enhanced or mitigated?

These are very important questions because it is so critical for either performing a success-
ful mine fire extinguishing work or safely allowing rescue workers to go underground doing
related operations.

Explosion risk assessment using quantitative analysis

For the simplicity reason, three following categories of gases make up the gas exchange in a
sealed volume of coal mines. They are the methane gas flow, the inert gas (N2) flow, and the
fresh air flow. Figure 2 shows a sealed volume and the mass exchanges between the volume
and its surroundings.
Precisely, they all can be well expressed in the Coward explosibility diagram. Figure 3
shows that directions of a state point can be shifted by the addition of more combustible
gas, more air, or more inert gas.21 When the combustible gas is added to or subtracted from
a sealed volume while a constant ratio between air and inert gas is maintained, the point rep-
resenting the sealed atmosphere will move along a line joining the current state point to the
100% combustible point. If, instead of adding or subtracting combustible gas, air is added
to the sealed atmosphere while a constant ratio between combustible gas and inert gas is
maintained, the point will move from the current state point to the normal fresh air point.
Similarly, if more inert gas is added, the point will move toward the origin of diagram. In
this article, in considering the point moving direction laws, zones in the diagram can be rede-
fined as in Figure 4:
Cheng et al. 25

Figure 2. Composition changes in a seal mine atmosphere.

Figure 3. Illustration of Coward diagram.

Figure 4. Zone division in explosibility diagram.

26 Journal of Fire Sciences 35(1)

 Zone BNC. It is the zone with explosion, also called the explosibility triangle. The
mine gas state point within this zone indicates that the mine atmosphere is explosive.
Under this circumstance, mine operators intend to inject inert gas to phlegmatize the
atmosphere fast (moving the state point out of the triangle).
 Zone CDFN. It is a not-explosive zone, but the status point in this zone has a special
feature. By analyzing its potential moving direction, it can be found that the atmo-
sphere may become ‘‘explosive’’ or maintain ‘‘not-explosive’’ depending on flow rates
of methane and fresh air mixed in a mine atmosphere.
 Zone ABNE. It is also a not-explosive zone and also like the zone CDFN mentioned
above. The status of atmosphere may become ‘‘explosive’’ once the methane inflow
rate is large enough.
 Zone ENFO. It is the non-explosive zone and can be considered as the ‘‘true’’ absolute
safety zone. Whatever any gases (methane gas, inert gas, or fresh air) is added, the sta-
tus point moving direction will not intersect the explosive triangle.

Estimating ‘‘critical’’ ratios of various gas volumetric inflow rates to judge explosion risk
Once a mine gas sample is obtained and analyzed, the status point can be plotted on the
explosibility diagram, the point’s moving direction is highly dependent on the flow rates of
methane, fresh air, and inert gas. In other words, the gas point would move along the resul-
tant of such flow rates. At the same time, it is also clear to see that the ‘‘resultant direction’’
of gas point could move toward or away from the explosive triangle. Hence, there must be a
‘‘critical’’ ratio of different gases injected into the mine atmosphere which minimally main-
tains the atmosphere in the ‘‘not-explosive’’ state. Thus, this ratio can be as an indicator to
assess the explosion risk of a mine atmosphere. In this section, the ‘‘critical’’ ratio will be dis-
cussed for zones mentioned in Figure 4:

 Zone CDFN. Figure 5 shows a gas sample located within zone CDFN. It could be
seen that the gas point moving direction is totally dependent on the inflow rates of
methane and fresh air to close the explosion zone BNC and moves along the ‘‘resul-
tant direction.’’ If more fresh air is added, the gas point could move into the explosive
triangle; conversely, more methane could force the gas point away from the triangle.
Hence, there must be a ‘‘critical’’ situation that gas sample could move to the bound-
ary of explosive triangle as shown in point ‘‘C’’ in this figure. Therefore, the ‘‘critical’’
ratio in this zone is the fresh air flow rate to methane flow rate. Once a larger ratio
over the ‘‘critical’’ one indicates the gas point could move toward the triangle and
control measures for such mine atmosphere lose effects. The ‘‘critical’’ ratio can be
mathematically expressed as

8
> CP2 + PD2  CD2
>
> cos (\CPD) =
>
> 2  CP  PD
>
<
CP2 + PA2  AC 2 ð1Þ
> cos (\CPA) =
>
> 2  CP  PA
>
> V VCH4
>
: Air
=
sin (\CPD) sin (\CPA)
Cheng et al. 27

Figure 5. ‘‘Critical’’ situation that a gas point within zone CDFN moving to the boundary of explosive
triangle.

Figure 6. ‘‘Critical’’ situation that a gas point within zone ABNE moving to the boundary of explosive triangle.

Note that VAir and VCH4 are the volumetric inflow rates of fresh air and methane mixed
into the mine sealed atmosphere. Hence, the ratio of VAir =VCH4 could be derived using the
above system of equations. Once more air is added or less methane is reduced, the atmo-
sphere has the potential risk to become an explosive one since the gas point move toward to
the explosive triangle. (Too much fresh air to dilute methane causes the concentration falls
within the explosive range.)

 Zone ABNE. Figure 6 shows a gas sample located within zone ABNE. The gas point
moving direction is also totally dependent on the inflow rates of methane and fresh
air and moves along the ‘‘resultant direction.’’ If more methane is added, the gas point
could move into the explosive triangle; conversely, more fresh air could force the gas
point moving away from the triangle. Hence, the ‘‘critical’’ situation is that gas sample
could move to the boundary of explosive triangle as shown point ‘‘B’’ in this figure.
28 Journal of Fire Sciences 35(1)

Therefore, the ‘‘critical’’ ratio in this zone is the methane flow rate to the fresh air flow
rate. Once a ratio which is larger than the ‘‘critical’’ one, it indicates that the gas point
is moving toward the ‘‘explosion’’ triangle. The ‘‘critical’’ ratio can be mathematically
expressed as

8
>
> BP2 + PD2  BD2
>
> cos (\BPD) =
>
> 2  BP  PD
<
AP2 + PB2  AB2 ð2Þ
> cos (\APB) =
>
> 2  AP  PB
>
> V VCH4
>
: Air
=
sin (\BPD) sin (\APB)

The ratio of VCH4 =VAir could be derived using above system of equations. Once more
methane is added or air is reduced, the atmosphere has the potential risk to become an explo-
sive one, since the gas point move toward the explosive triangle.

Estimating time needed that a not-explosive atmosphere changing to explosive

The ‘‘resultant direction’’ of gas point shows moving behaviors of mine atmosphere in the
explosibility diagram. If a further study is made, by extending the ‘‘moving direction’’ line,
the intersection point of the mine atmosphere to the explosive triangle could be obtained.
This may hint us that the compositions of the mine atmosphere when it becomes ‘‘explosive’’
could be known. Hence, based on the flow rates of methane or fresh air, it is possible to esti-
mate the time needed for a not-explosive atmosphere becoming an explosive one:

 Zone CDFN or zone ABNE. Figure 7(a) and (b) shows a gas sample located within the
not-explosive zone CDFN or ABNE. The following procedure could be used to esti-
mate the time:
1. Determine ‘‘gas point’s moving resultant direction’’: Since the gas point moving
along the ‘‘resultant direction’’ which is dependent on inflow rates of methane and
fresh air. Therefore, it could first project the gas point moving directions when only
considering the effect of methane and fresh air, respectively. Then, the ‘‘resultant
direction’’ could be determined. Let’s suppose the coordinate of ‘‘P’’ is (C, O) which
indicates the methane concentration is ‘‘C’’ and the oxygen is ‘‘O.’’ Equations (3) and
(4) give methane concentration ‘‘CA’’ and the oxygen concentration ‘‘CB’’ that once a
methane or fresh air is added in a unit time
VCH4  t + VTotal  C
CA = ð3Þ
VCH4  t + VTotal

0:21  VAir  t + VTotal  O

CB = ð4Þ
0:21  VAir  t + VTotal

Note that, when doing calculation, the unit time (t) used in equations could be a ran-
dom number, once ‘‘CA’’ and ‘‘CB’’ are known, the points ‘‘PA’’ and ‘‘PB’’ could be
plotted and the ‘‘gas point’s moving resultant direction’’ can be shown.
Cheng et al. 29

Figure 7. Gas points moving to the boundary of explosive triangle: (a) gas point in zone CDFN and (b)
gas point in zone ABNE.

2. Determine intersection point: By extending the ‘‘moving direction’’ line, the intersec-
tion point of the mine atmosphere to the explosive triangle could be obtained. Hence,
the coordinate of ‘‘Pexplosive’’ (Cexplosive, Oexplosive) could be read.
3. Estimate time: The above derivation method can be re-applied again. The following
equation can be given:
For Zone ABNE
VCH4  tneed + VTotal  C
CExplosive = ð5Þ
VCH4  tneed + VTotal + VAir  tneed

Hence

VTotal  CExplosive  VTotal  C

tneed = ð6Þ
VCH4  VCH4  CExplosive  VAir  CExplosive
30 Journal of Fire Sciences 35(1)

Figure 8. Gas point moving out of explosive triangle.

For Zone CDFN

0:21  VAir  tneed + VTotal  O
OExplosive = ð7Þ
0:21  VAir  tneed + VTotal + VCH4  tneed

Hence
VTotal  OExplosive  VTotal  O
tneed = ð8Þ
0:21  VAir  0:21  VAir  OExplosive  VCH4  OExplosive

Explosion risk mitigation estimations for an explosive atmosphere

Time needed that an explosive atmosphere moving out of explosive zone. If a mine gas point indicat-
ing an explosive mine atmosphere is located within the explosive triangle, mine operators are
more interested in that how long is needed to achieve the state of self-inertization for such
atmosphere. Figure 8 shows a gas point located within the triangle. For coal mines, mine
operators often injects the inert gas into the atmosphere to reduce the explosion risk. In addi-
tion, methane emitted from underground strata would also change the atmospheric composi-
tions. Hence, as shown in Figure 8, the ‘‘resultant direction’’ of gas point could move toward
the boundary of explosive triangle. The estimation time should also be calculated using the
method as the previous section, the coordinate of ‘‘Pexplosive’’ (Cexplosive, Oexplosive) referring to
Figure 8.

For Zone BNC

VN 2  tneed + VTotal  N
NExplosive = ð9Þ
VN 2  tneed + VTotal + VCH4  tneed

where NExplosive = 100  CExplosive  OExplosive , and N = 100  C  O.

Cheng et al. 31

Hence
VTotal  NExplosive  VTotal  N
tneed = ð10Þ
VN 2  VN 2  NExplosive  VCH4  NExplosive

Maintain the best ratio of various gas inflow rates to mitigate explosion risk. Once a mine gas point
locates within the explosive triangle, it is important to artificially inert the explosive mine
atmosphere to become an not-explosive one. By analyzing the explosive diagram, it can be
found that if the gas point could move following a line which is perpendicular to the bound-
ary of explosive triangle, it shows the minimum time need to move out of the explosive trian-
gle and the maximum possibility to reduce the explosion risk. Generally, the inflow rate of
methane cannot artificially be controlled since it is dependent on the mine-site geological
conditions. Hence, in order to effectively inert the explosive atmosphere, one reasonable
method is to carefully control the inflow rate of nitrogen to adjust the special moving direc-
tion formed.
The derivation method listed in last sections can also be re-applied again. But the proce-
dure should be modified:

1. Starting from the gas point to plot a line to determine the coordinate of ‘‘Pexplosive’’
(Cexplosive, Oexplosive) in the explosive boundary. The ‘‘resultant direction’’ could be
determined.
2. Extending the line of adding more methane to obtain the intersection point with the
explosive triangle, the coordinate is expressed as ‘‘Pmethane’’ (Cmethane, Omethane).
3. The triangle defined by the points ‘‘P,’’ ‘‘Pexplosive,’’ and ‘‘Pmethane’’ is a right triangle,
the best ratio of the inflow rate of nitrogen to the inflow rate of methane could be
expressed as the tangent of ‘‘u’’ shown in Figure 9, and could be mathematically writ-
ten as

VN2 PCH4 Pexplosive

tan (u) = = ð11Þ
VCH4 PPexplosive

Figure 9. Gas point moving out of explosive triangle in a short way.

32 Journal of Fire Sciences 35(1)

Once this ratio is maintained, it can make sure that the gas point could move out of the
explosive triangle in a manner of using the shortest time.

Case demonstration and discussions

Case 1. A gas sample taken from a sealed mine volume yields the mixture composition as
follows: CH4: 22%, N2: 70%, and O2: 8.00%. The total underground sealed volume is
100,000 m3 and the methane volumetric inflow rate in the sealed area is 0.4 m3/s. Determine
(1) more fresh air could induce the gas point moving into the explosive triangle, what is the
maximum of inflow rate of fresh air should be kept in order to reduce the explosion risk?
(as shown in Figure 5) and (2) if the inflow rate of fresh air is 4 m3/s, how long will the mine
atmosphere become ‘‘explosive’’? (as shown in Figure 7(a)).
Solutions: (1) using equation (1), the maximum ‘‘critical’’ ratio of the fresh air inflow rate
to methane inflow rate VAir =VCH4 = 1:83, which means if the fresh air inflow rate is over
0.73 m3/s, the gas point would move forward the explosive triangle and (2) using equations
(3) and (4) to determine the gas point’s moving resultant direction. Thus, the coordinate of
‘‘Pexplosive’’ (12, 16) could be read. Then, applying equation (6), this ‘‘not-explosive’’ mine
atmosphere could become explosive in about 11,442 s (3.18 h) under the condition of 4 m3/s
inflow rate of fresh air.
Normally, once a mined-out area is sealed, the methane continuously inflows into the
mine gob, which would make the methane build up to reach the explosive limit. However,
due to the large mine gob volume and the air leakage problem, etc. the mitigation measure of
adding methane may need a very long time period. On the other hand, for an underground
mine accident rescue, another two approaches, which are injecting more inert gas into the
mine atmosphere or ventilating the atmosphere with fresh air to dilute the explosive gas mix-
ture, are often chosen. It is not very common to add more combustible gases since it is dan-
gerous to do so and may cause the secondary explosion.
In most cases, the methane emission rate can be obtained by performing the field measure-
ment. However, once it is impossible to collect the emission rate in some special cases, it is
recommended to roughly estimate the value of the rate based on a mine’s category member-
ship. Table 1 summarizes the guideline of the methane emission rate. It must point out that a
coal mine should perform the field measurement for the methane emission rate in advance. A
good and accurate rate estimation is good for mathematical model to derive reliable results.
Case 2. A gas sample taken from a sealed mine volume yields the mixture composition as
follows: CH4: 2%, N2: 83%, and O2: 15.00%. The total underground sealed volume is
100,000 m3 and the methane volumetric inflow rate in the sealed area is 0.4 m3/s. Determine
(1) more methane could induce the gas point moving into the explosive triangle, what is the

Table 1. A guideline of gas emission rate (m3/min) (after CACMS22).

Category Gas emission rate (m3/min)

High gassy mine 80 or recommend to use actual measured field data
Medium gassy mine 65 and \80
Gassy mine 40 and \65
Non-gassy mine 20–40
Cheng et al. 33

minimum of inflow rate of fresh air should be kept in order to reduce the explosion risk? (as
shown in Figure 6) and (2) if the inflow rate of fresh air is 1 m3/s, how long will the mine
atmosphere need to become ‘‘explosive’’? (as shown in Figure 7(b)).
Solutions: (1) using equation (2), the minimum ‘‘critical’’ ratio of the fresh air inflow rate
to methane inflow rate VCH4 =VAir = 0:82, which means if the fresh air inflow rate is less than
2.05 m3/s, the gas point would move forward the explosive triangle and (2) using equations
(3) and (4) to determine the gas point’s moving resultant direction. Thus, the coordinate of
‘‘Pexplosive’’ (5.6, 16.8) could be read. Then, applying equation (8), this ‘‘not-explosive’’ mine
atmosphere could become explosive in about 9840 s (2.73 h) under the condition of 1 m3/s
inflow rate of fresh air.
Case 3. A gas sample taken from a sealed mine volume yields the mixture composition as
follows: CH4: 8%, N2: 75%, and O2: 17.00%. The total underground sealed volume is
100,000 m3 and the methane volumetric inflow rate in the sealed area is 0.4 m3/s. (1) If the
inflow rate of nitrogen is 0.4 m3/s (1500 m3/h), how long will the mine atmosphere become
‘‘not-explosive’’? (as shown in Figure 8). (2) Estimate the best ratio of the inflow rate of
nitrogen to the inflow rate of methane which can make gas point moving out of the explo-
sive triangle in a shortest time.
Solutions: (1) using equations (3) and (4) to determine the gas point’s moving resultant
direction. Thus, the coordinate of ‘‘Pexplosive’’ (7, 13) could be read. Then, applying equation
(10), this ‘‘explosive’’ mine atmosphere could become not-explosive in about 12,500 s
(3.47 h) under the condition of 0.4 m3/s inflow rate of nitrogen. (2) Using equation (11),
VN 2 =VCH4 is calculated as 1.67, which means the gas point could use the shortest time to
move out of the explosive triangle.
It should be noted that an assumption made in this calculation is that the injected inert
gas into the sealed volume will be mixed with sealed atmospheric compositions instanta-
neously. Generally, the mine sealed area often reflects the rectangle volume. The typical
shape is the mine entries. If a fire event or related accident happens, the entry is going to be
sealed by the inby and outby mine seals at the both sides of the entry. The extent, to which
released inert gas mixes in flow direction with the surrounding atmosphere, depends mainly
on the type of flow—laminar or turbulent.23 After sealing, laminar flow exists in this seal
zone. However, the inert gas will usually enter the sealed area as a turbulent jet via the seals.
Due to such turbulent jet, a turbulent flow also takes place in the sealed zone. For rectangle
shape entries, longitudinal length is much longer than the transversal width. Therefore, under
the turbulent flow, transversal mixing (perpendicular to the flow direction) is accomplished
within a very short distance. At the same time, longitudinal mixing (in flow direction) also
takes place. In most cases, an inert generator can generate the inert gas with the volumetric
flow rate from 500 m3/h (8.3 m3/min) to 1200 m3/h (20 m3/s). Generally speaking, it is com-
mon to use multiple generators to inject the inert gas into the mine sealed areas at the same
time. Considering that the inert gas usually enters the sealed area as with a turbulent jet, it is
large enough to meet the above assumption to form the instantaneous mixing process.
Another key consideration of wise using the proposed models in this article is that the
mining engineers must precisely and fast track the composition changing inside the mine. In
some critical cases, the atmosphere could move to an explosive state in a few seconds.
Fortunately, coal mines now widely use the tube bundle system, which integrates various gas
sensors as well as gas analysis equipment and can monitor the underground atmosphere.24
Gas sensors in this system can be decorated in the sealed area and yield the detection results
34 Journal of Fire Sciences 35(1)

in real time. With the help of such system, mining engineers could greatly understand the
explosion risk evolution and take any measures more wisely.
It should be noted that, due to the complex engineering cases and the safety considera-
tions, any theoretical calculation results derived by the proposed models should be consid-
ered as the ‘‘minimum’’ requirements. Therefore, for application reasons, an SF should be
used to modify the results. For an example, once a time period that an explosive atmosphere
becomes changing to not-explosive one is estimated, two or three times of quantity of inert
gas as well as injection time should be continuously applied for achieving an ‘‘absolute
safety’’ state.

Conclusion
Precise understanding (not only explosibility but also change of trending) of the underground
mine atmosphere is very critical for miners’ safety. In this article, a series of mathematical
analyzing models have been proposed to deeply understand the behavior of a mine atmo-
sphere under various combinations of boundary conditions, which include to judge the trend
of explosion risk or to estimate the state changing time from ‘‘not-explosive’’ to ‘‘explosive.’’
Moreover, for an explosive atmosphere, it is also pointed out the time estimation or method
which can greatly reduce the explosion risk. The most important value of this research work
is to make analyzing the explosion risk quantitatively as possible while people can only make
simple judgments based on explosibility diagrams in the past. Thus, it has a better applicabil-
ity and could be used as scientific-sound safety guidelines in mine field ventilation engineer-
ing, especially for controlling an explosive atmosphere works. Such research efforts can well
help mining engineers improve their efficient managements of mine sealed volume.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
This work was financially supported by grants from the Fundamental Research Funds for Central
Universities (Grant No. 2015XKMS007), the National Science Foundation of China (Grant
No.51304203), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province of China for Youths (Grant No.
BK20130191), Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education (Grant No.
20130095120001), the Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University
(IRT13098), and Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions;
the authors are grateful for these supports.

References
1. Huang S. China coal outlook 2010. Beijing, China: China
Coal Industry Publishing House, 2010.
2. Ishizuka S. Determination of flammability limits using a
tubular flame geometry. J Loss Prevent Proc 1991; 4(3):
185–193.
3. Britton LG. Two hundred years of flammable limits.
Process Saf Prog 2002; 21(1): 1–11.
4. Ma T. A thermal theory for estimating the flammability
limits of a mixture. Fire Safety J 2011; 46(8): 558–567.
5. Ma T. A thermal theory for flammability diagrams
guiding purge and inertion of a flammable mixture.
Process Saf Prog 2013; 32(1): 42–48.
6. Ma T and Larrañaga M. Theoretical flammability
diagram for analyzing mine gases. Fire Technol 2015;
51(2): 271–286.
7. Mashuga CV and Crowl DA. Application of the
flammability diagram for evaluation of fire and explosion
Cheng et al. 35

hazards of flammable vapors. Process Saf Prog 1998;
17(3): 176–183.
8. Timko RJ and Derick RL. Methods to determine the
status of mine atmospheres—an overview. J Mine Vent
Soc S Afr 2006, 1–9, http://www.cdc.gov/NIOSH/Mining/
UserFiles/works/pdfs/mtdtso.pdf
9. Cheng J, Wang C and Zhang S. Methods to determine the
mine gas explosibility—an overview. J Loss Prevent Proc
2012; 25(3): 425–435.
10. Jacobs M and Porter I. Rapid generation of control charts
for analysis of complex gas mixed in crisis situations. In:
Proceedings of coal operator conference, wollongong,
Australia, 18–20 February 1998, pp. 641–648. University
of Wollongong.
11. Kukuczka M. A new method for determining explosibility
of complex gas mixtures. Mech I Autom Gornictwa 1982;
164(11): 36–39.
12. Britton LG. Operating atmospheric vent collection headers
using methane gas enrichment. Process Saf Prog 1996;
15(4): 194–212.
13. Ray SK, Singh RP, Sahay N, et al. Assessing the status of
sealed fire in underground coal mines. J Sci Ind Res India
2004; 63(7): 579–591.
14. Zabetaksi MG, Stahl RW and Watson HA. Determining
the explosibility of mine atmospheres. U.S. Bureau of
Mines, Bulletin IC7901, pp. 493–500, 1959.
15. McPherson MJ. Subsurface ventilation and environmental
engineering. London: Chapman & Hall, pp. (21)39–(21)43,
1993.
16. Kissell FN. Handbook for methane control in mining.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Document, IC 9486, 180 pp., 2006, http://www.cdc.gov/
niosh/mining/UserFiles/works/pdfs/2006-127.pdf
17. Coward HF and Jones GW. Limits of flammability of
gases and vapors. DTIC Document, 1952, http://
www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/701575.pdf
18. Cheng J and Yang S. Improved Coward explosive triangle
for determining explosibility of mixture gas. Process Saf
Environ 2011; 89(2): 89–94.
19. Cheng J, Luo Y and Zhou F. Explosibility safety factor:
an approach to assess mine gas explosion risk. Fire Technol
2015; 51(2): 309–323.
20. Zipf RK and Mohamed KM. Composition change model
for sealed atmosphere in coal mines. In: ed Hardcastle S
and McKinnon D (eds) Proceedings of the 13th United
States/North American mine ventilation symposium,
Sudbury, ON, Canada, 8–10 June 2010. Laurentian
University.
21. Holding W. A re-look at explosibility diagrams. In:
Proceedings of the 5th international mine ventilation
congress (ed R Hemp), Johannesburg, Republic of South
Africa, October 1992, pp. 171–181.
22. Chinese Coal Mine safety Regulations, 2016, State
Regulations issued by National Administration of Work
Safety of Chinese Central Goverment, 2016.
23. Greuer RE. Study of mine fire fighting using inert gases.
USBM Contract Report No. S0231075, 212 pp., 1974.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Mines.
24. Griffin KR, Luxbacher KD, Scharfik SJ, et al.
Comprehensive ventilation simulation of atmospheric
monitoring sensors in underground coal mines, 2014,
https://www.energy.vt.edu/Publications/GriffinKenneth_
AMS_FINALPaper.pdf
25. Mashuga CV and Crowl DA. Derivation of Le Chatelier’s
mixing rule for flammable limits. Process Saf Prog 2000;
19(2): 112–117.

Author biographies
Dr. Jianwei Cheng, associate professor at China University of Mining and Technology and Australia
‘‘Endeavour’’ research fellow at Curtin University, graduated from West Virginia University (U.S.A.)
with Ph.D degree. He is now teaching and researching in the field of underground mining safety.

Ms. Zhang is now studying for the master degree at China University of Mining and Technology.
Currently, she is doing research on explosion protection problems in the industrial safety.

Dr. Apurna Ghosh is actively involved in teaching and research for more than one decade in different
Universities. He has joined Western Australian School of Mines, Curtin University in 2013. His area
of research interest is Mine Safety management which includes Behavioral Safety, Injury
Epidemiology and Mine Rescue.