Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Determination of the most appropriate tools of multi-criteria decision analysis for underground mining method selection—a case study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Arabian Journal of Geosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Selecting the optimal mining method is one of the most critical issues in mining design. It entirely depends on different parameters, such as geotechnical, geological, economic, and geographic factors. Although many researchers have tried to apply a various multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) technique to select the most appropriate mining method, there are no clear reasons for choosing a specific decision method. For this purpose, a new methodology has been presented in this research work to find the most appropriate MCDA techniques for selecting the optimal underground mining method in the Anguran zinc deposit, north-west of Iran. At the first step, a list of fifty parameters, including geomechanical, geometrical, technical, economic, environmental, and social parameters, has been made for selecting the optimal underground mining method. Then, the most influential parameters, including thickness, RMR of the hanging wall, and production rate, were chosen the most crucial parameters according to the experts’ opinions in this matter. Also, among all conventional MCDA methods, including ELECTRE, MAUT, ANP, MACBETH, AHP, TOPSIS, PROMETHEE, VIKOR, TODIM, Grey, MULTIMOORA, and MAHP, the TODIM has been selected as the best MCDA method for further studies on the case. Applying this technique, the cut and fill mining was chosen as the best method for the Anguran zinc mine while the square set mining was the worst method in this case. The results also revealed that the proposed method could be extensively applied to find the most appropriate MCDA in mining engineering.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alpay S, Yavuz M (2007) A decision support system for underground mining. New Trends Appl Artif Intell 334–343

  • Alpay S, Yavuz M (2009) Underground mining method selection by decision making tools. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 24(2):173–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2008.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asadi Ooriad F, Yari M, Bagherpour R, Khoshouei M (2018) The development of a novel model for mining method selection in a fuzzy environment; case study: Tazareh coal mine, Semnan province, Iran. Rudarsko-Geološko-Naftni Zbornik 33(1):45–53. https://doi.org/10.17794/rgn.2018.1.6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ataei M, Jamshidi M, Sereshki F, Jalali SME (2008) Mining method selection by AHP approach. J South Afr Inst Min Metall 108(12):741–749

    Google Scholar 

  • Ataei M, Shahsavany H, Mikaeil R (2013) Monte Carlo Analytic Hierarchy Process (MAHP) approach to selection of optimum mining method. Int J Min Sci Technol 23(4):573–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2013.07.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azadeh A, Osanloo M, Ataei M (2010) A new approach to mining method selection based on modifying the Nicholas technique. Appl Soft Comput J 10(4):1040–1061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2009.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bajić S, Bajić D, Gluščević B, Ristić Vakanjac V (2020) Application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to underground mining method selection. Symmetry 12(2):192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balusa B.C, Gorai A.K (2018) A comparative study of various multi-criteria decision-making models in underground mining method selection. J Instit Eng (India): Ser D. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40033-018-0169-0

  • Balusa BC, Gorai AK (2019) Sensitivity analysis of fuzzy-analytic hierarchical process (FAHP) decision-making model in selection of underground metal mining method. J Sustain Min 18(1):8–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balusa BC, Gorai AK, Jayantu S (2018) Design of decision-making techniques using improved AHP and VIKOR for selection of underground mining method. Recent Find Intell Comput Tech 707:495–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8639-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitarafan MK, Ataei M (2004) Mining method selection by multiple criteria decision making tools. J South Afr Inst Min Metall 104(9):493–498

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogdanovic D, Nikolic D, Ilic I (2012) Mining method selection by integrated AHP and PROMETHEE method. An Acad Bras Cienc 84(1):219–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehghani H, Siami A, Haghi P (2017) A new model for mining method selection based on grey and TODIM methods. J Min Environ 8(1):49–60. https://doi.org/10.22044/jme.2016.626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelvez JIR, Aldana FAC (2014) Mining method selection methodology by multiple criteria decision analysis - case study in Colombian coal mining. International Symposium of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Washington, DC, pp 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghazikalayeh A.R, Ebrahimabadi A, Alavi I (2014) Selecting proper mining method using fuzzy AHP approach (case study: Qaleh-Zari Copper Mine of Iran). J Appl Sci Agric 1–10.

  • Ghourbani M (2013) The economic geology of Iran. Springer 332p

  • Gomes LFAM, Lima MMPP (1991) TODIM: basics and application to multi-criteria ranking of projects with environmental impacts. Found Comput Decis Sci 16:113–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomes LFAM, Lima MMPP (1992) From modeling individual preferences to multi-criteria ranking of discrete alternatives: a look at prospect theory and the additive difference model. Found Comput Decis Sci 17:171–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarini MR, Battisti F, Chiovitti A (2018a) Public initiatives of settlement transformation: a theoretical-methodological approach to selecting tools of multi-criteria decision analysis. Building 8:1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8010001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guarini MR, Battisti F, Chiovitti A (2018b) A methodology for the selection of multi-criteria decision analysis methods in real estate and land management processes. Sustainability 10:1–28. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guarini MR, D’Addabbo N, Morano P, Tajani F (2017) Multi-criteria analysis in compound decision processes: the AHP and the architectural competition for the chamber of deputies in Rome (Italy). Buildings 7(2):38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guitoni A, Martel JM (1998) Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. Eur J Oper Res 109:501–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iphar M, Alpay S (2019) A mobile application based on multi-criteria decision-making methods for underground mining method selection. Int J Min Reclam Environ 33(7):480–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishizaka A, Nemery P (2013) Multi-criteria decision analysis, methods and software. Wiley and Sons Ltd., Chichester

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jamshidi M, Ataei M, Sereshki F, Jalali SME (2009) The application of AHP approach to selection of optimum underground mining method, case study: Jajarm Bauxite Mine (Iran). Arch Min Sci. 54:103–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Javanshirgiv M, Safari M (2017) The selection of an underground mining method using the fuzzy topsis method: A case study in the Kamar Mahdi II fluorine mine. Min Sci 24. https://doi.org/10.5277/msc172410

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karadogan A, Kahriman A, Ozer U (2008) Application of fuzzy set theory in the selection of underground mining method. J S Afr Instit Min Metall 108(2):73–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Karimnia H, Bagloo H (2015) Optimum mining method selection using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process-Qapiliq salt mine, Iran. Int J Min Sci Technol 25(2):225–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2015.02.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang W, Zhao G, Hong C (2019) Selecting the optimal mining method with extended multi-objective optimization by ratio analysis plus the full multiplicative form (MULTIMOORA) approach. Neural Comput & Applic 31(10):5871–5886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu AH, Dong L, Dong LJ (2010) Optimization model of unascertained measurement for underground mining method selection and its application. J Cent South Univ Technol 17(4):744–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musingwini C, Minnitt R.C.A (2008) Ranking the efficiency of selected platinum mining methods using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Third International Platinum Conference ‘Platinum in Transformation’, The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 319–326

  • Namin F.S, Shahriar K, Nasab S.K (2003) Mining method selection in third anomaly of Gol-E-Gohar iron ore deposit. 18th International Mining Congress and Exhibition of Turkey-IMCET 2003, pp. 29–34

  • Namin FS, Shahriar K, Ataee-Pour M, Dehghani H (2008) A new model for mining method selection of mineral deposit based on fuzzy decision making. SIAMM - J S Afr Instit Min Metall 108(7)

  • Namin FS, Shahriar K, Bascetin A, Ghodsypour SH (2009) Practical applications from decision-making techniques for selection of suitable mining method in Iran. Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi / Mineral Resour Manag 25(3):57–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Namin FS, Shahriar K, Bascetin A, Ghodsypour SH (2012) FMMSIC: a hybrid fuzzy based decision support system for MMS (in order to estimate interrelationships between criteria). J Oper Res Soc 63(2):218–231. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2011.24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osanloo M, Ataei M, Heidari M (2003) Selection of mining method for anomaly No 3 of Gol-Gohar iron mine of Iran. Mine Plan Equip Select 105–108

  • Özfırat MK (2012) A fuzzy method for selecting underground coal mining method considering mechanization criteria. J Min Sci 48(3):533–544. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1062739148030173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (2013) The modern science of multi-criteria decision making and its practical applications: the AHP/ANP approach. Oper Res 61:1101–1118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shariati S, Yazdani-chamzini A, Bashari BP (2013) Mining method selection by using an integrated model. Int Res J Appl Basic Sci 6(2):199–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevanović D, Lekić M, Kržanović D, Ristović I (2018) Application of MCDA in selection of different mining methods. Adv Sci Technol Res J 12(1):171–180. https://doi.org/10.12913/22998624/85804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yavuz M (2015) The application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and Yager’s method in underground mining method selection problem. Int J Min Reclam Environ 29(6):453–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/17480930.2014.895218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yavuz M, Alpay S (2008) Underground mining technique selection by multi-criterion optimization methods. J Min Sci 44(4):391–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yazdani-Chamzini A, Haji Yakchali S, Zavadskas EK (2012) Using a integrated MCDM model for mining method selection in Presence of uncertainty. Econ Res 25(4):869–904. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2012.11517537

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mining Engineering, Hamedan University of Technology, Hamedan, Iran

    Farshad Saki, Hesam Dehghani & Behshad Jodeiri Shokri

  2. Technical Faculty, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

    Dejan Bogdanovic

Authors
  1. Farshad Saki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hesam Dehghani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Behshad Jodeiri Shokri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dejan Bogdanovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hesam Dehghani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Murat Karakus

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Saki, F., Dehghani, H., Jodeiri Shokri, B. et al. Determination of the most appropriate tools of multi-criteria decision analysis for underground mining method selection—a case study. Arab J Geosci 13, 1271 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-06233-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-06233-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation