The present study aims to make a comparative study of the selection of mining method using five multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) models (TOPSIS, VIKOR, improved ELECTRE, PROMETHEE II, and WPM). Underground mining method selection is a multi-criteria decision-making problem, and the mine planners face the challenges in the selection of the appropriate mining method. The selection of mining method depends on multiple intrinsic factors (dip, shape, thickness, depth, grade distribution, RMR of ore, RMR of hanging wall, and RMR of footwall) and extrinsic factors (available technology). The study considered only intrinsic factors in selection of mining method. In the last few decades, many multi-criteria decision-making models have been developed. The study uses AHP technique for determining the weights of the effective criteria. The proposed techniques were implemented for Tummalapalle mine of Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL), India. The results revealed that mining methods selected were not uniform. Actually it is a case of room and pillar being the preferred method by three of the MCDM models, while it is a second or equal preference method in two of the MCDM models applied.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The work has been carried out at the National Institute of Technology (NIT) Rourkela, Odisha, India. Authors are thankful to Director, NIT Rourkela, for providing the computing facility for executing the work. The authors want to acknowledge to Tummalapalle mine of Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL) for providing the data of the ore deposit.
G. Bruno, E. Esposito, A. Genovese, R. Passaro, AHP-based approaches for supplier evaluation: problems and perspectives. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 18(3), 159–172 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
G. Zheng, N. Zhu, Z. Tian, Y. Chen, Application of a trapezoidal fuzzy AHP method for work safety evaluation and early warning rating of hot and humid environments. Sun Saf. Sci. 50(2), 228–239 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
B.K. Bulgurcu, Application of TOPSIS technique for financial performance evaluation of technology firms in Istanbul stock exchange market. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 62, 1033–1040 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
G. Büyüközkan, G. Çifçi, S. Güleryüz, Strategic analysis of healthcare service quality using fuzzy AHP methodology. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(8), 9407–9424 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
A. Shemshadi, H. Shirazi, M. Toreihi, M.J. Tarokh, A fuzzy VIKOR method for supplier selection based on entropy measure for objective weighting. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(10), 12160–12167 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
T.M. Amaral, A.P.C. Costa, Improving decision-making and management of hospital resources: an application of the PROMETHEE II method in an Emergency Department. Oper. Res. Heal. Care 3(1), 1–6 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
P. Liu, X. Zhang, Research on the supplier selection of a supply chain based on entropy weight and improved ELECTRE-III method. Int. J. Prod. Res. 49(3), 637–646 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
E.S. Namin, K. Shahriar, M. Ataee-Pour, H. Dehghani, A new model for mining method selection of mineral deposit based on fuzzy decision making. J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 108(7), 385–395 (2008)Google Scholar
S. Alpay, M. Yavuz, A decision support system for underground mining method selection, International Conference on Industrial, Engineering and Other Applications of Applied Intelligent Systems (Springer, Berlin, 2007), pp. 334–343Google Scholar
R. Mikaeil, M.Z. Naghadehi, M. Ataei, R. Khalokakaie, A decision support system using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) and TOPSIS approaches for selection of the optimum underground mining method. Arch. Min. Sci. 54(2), 349–368 (2009)Google Scholar
M.Z. Naghadehi, R. Mikaeil, M. Ataei, The application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) approach to selection of optimum underground mining method for Jajarm Bauxite Mine, Iran. Expert Syst. Appl. 36(4), 8218–8226 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
S. Gupta, U. Kumar, An analytical hierarchy process (AHP)-guided decision model for underground mining method selection. Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 26(4), 324–336 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
M. Ataei, H. Shahsavany, R. Mikaeil, Monte Carlo analytic hierarchy process (MAHP) approach to selection of optimum mining method. Int. J. Min. Sci. 23(4), 573–578 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
M. Yavuz, 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 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D. Fatma, L. Baccour, A.M. Alimi, The impact of criterion weights techniques in topsis method of multi-criteria decision making in crisp and intuitionistic fuzzy domains, in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE). IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
L. Miller-Tait, R. Pakalnis, R. Poulin, UBC mining method selection, in Proceeding of the Mine Planning and Equipment Selection Symposium (1995), pp. 163–168Google Scholar
J.A. Alonso, M.T. Lamata, Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: a new approach. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl. Based Syst. 14(4), 445–459 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
R.V. Rao, Decision Making in Manufacturing Environment Using Graph Theory and Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods, vol. 2 (Springer, Berlin, 2012)zbMATHGoogle Scholar