Suitable Mining Method Selection using HFGDM-TOPSIS Method: a Case Study of an Apatite Mine

Pak, Myong Chun; Han, Un Chol; Kim, Dong Il

doi:10.22044/jme.2022.11713.2163

Document Type : Case Study

Authors

¹ Faculty of Mining Engineering, Kim Chaek University of Technology, Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

² School of Science and Engineering, Kim Chaek University of Technology, Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

³ Department of Applied Mathematics, Kim Chaek University of Technology, Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

https://doi.org/10.22044/jme.2022.11713.2163

Abstract

Mining Method Selection (MMS) is the first and the most critical problem in mine design, and depends on some parameters such as the geo-technical and geological features and economic factors. The factors affecting MMS are determined by some mining experts, and the most suitable mining method is selected using the hesitant fuzzy group decision-making (HFGDM) and technique for order performance by similarity to the ideal solution (TOPSIS) method. These factors include the type of deposit, slope of deposit, thickness of orebody, depth below the surface, grade distribution, hanging wall Rock Mass Rating (RMR), footwall RMR, ore body RMR, recovery, capital cost, mining cost, annual productivity, and environmental impact. Firstly, we propose the group decision-making (GDM) method to determine the weights of multi-attributes based on the score function with the decision-makers’ weights, in which the n-dimensional hesitant fuzzy environment take the form of hesitant fuzzy sets (HFS). Then we calculate the weights of these factors using the HFGDM method. A simple case study is also presented in order to illustrate the competence of this method. Here, we compare the seven mining methods for an Apatite mine, and select the optimal mining method using the TOPSIS method. Finally, the sub-level stope mining method is selected as the most suitable method to this mine.

Keywords

20.1001.1.22518592.2022.13.2.3.7

References

[1]. Dehghani, H., Siami, A., and Haghi, P. (2017). A new model for mining method selection based on grey and TODIM methods. Journal of Mining & Environment. 8 (1): 49-60.

[2]. Saaty, T.L. (1990). The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York.

[3]. Alpay, S. and Yavuz, M. (2007). A decision support system for underground mining method selection. In: Okuno H.G., Ali M. (Eds) New Trends in Applied Artificial Intelligence. IEA/AIE 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 4570, 334–343.

[4]. Ataei, M., Sereshki, F., Jamshidi, M., and Jalali, S.M.E. (2008). Mining method selection by AHP approach. Journal of the south African institute of mining and metallurgy. 108 (12): 741-749.

[5]. Jamshidi, M., Ataei, M., Sereshki, F., and Jalali, S.M.E. (2009). The Application of AHP Approach to Selection of Optimum Underground Mining Method, Case Study: Jajarm Bauxite Mine (Iran). Archives of Mining Science. 54 (1): 103-117.

[6]. Bitarafan, M.R. and Ataei, M. (2004). Mining method selection by multiple criteria decision-making tools. Journal of the south African institute of mining and metallurgy. 104 (9): 493-498.

[7]. Naghadehi, Z.M., Mikaeil, R., and Ataei, M. (2009). The Application of Fuzzy analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) Approach to Selection of Optimum Underground Mining Method for Jajarm Bauxite Mine, Iran. Expert Systems with Applications. 36 (4): 8218-8226.

[8]. Namin, F.S., Shahriar, K., Ataee-pour, M., and Dehghani, H. (2008). A new model for mining method selection of mineral deposit based on fuzzy decision making. J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 108 (7): 385-396.

[9]. Namin, F. S., Shahriar, K., Bascetin, A., and Ghodsypour, S.H. (2009). Practical applications from decision-making techniques for selection of suitable mining method in Iran. Miner. Resour. Manag. 25 (3): 57-77.

[10]. Bogdanovic, D., Nikolic, D., and Ilic, I. (2012). Mining method selection by integrated AHP and PROMETHEE method. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências. 84 (1): 219-233.

[11]. Azadeh, A., Osanloo, M., and Ataei, M. (2010). A new approach to mining method selection based on modifying the Nicholas technique. Applied Soft Computing. 10 (4): 1040-1061.

[12]. Ataei, M., Shahsavany, H., and Mikaeil, R. (2013). Monte Carlo Analytic Hierarchy Process (MAHP) approach to selection of optimum mining method. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology. 23 (4): 573-578.

[13]. Gélvez, J.I.R., Aldana, F.A.C., and Sepúlveda, G. F. (2014). Mining Method Selection Methodology by Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis- Case Study in Colombian Coal Mining. International Symposium of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Washington D.C. USA.

[14]. Karimnia, H. and Bagloo, H. (2015). Optimum mining method selection using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process-Qapiliq salt mine, Iran. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology. 25 (2): 225-230.

[15]. Yavuz, M. (2015). The application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and Yager’s method in underground mining method selection problem. International Journal of Mining. Reclamation and Environment, 29, 453-475.

[16]. Chen, J., Zou, Z., and Ren, C. (2015). Research on Optimization of Mining Method based on the AHP-VIKOR Method. Gold Science and Technology. 23 (3): 50.

[17]. Ataei, M., Sereshki, F., Jamshidi, M., and Jalali, S.M.E. (2008). Suitable mining method for the Golbini No.8 deposit in Jajarm (Iran) by using TOPSIS method. Mining Technology: Transactions of the Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Section A. 117 (1): 1-5.

[18]. Nourali, H.R., Nourali, S., Ataei, M., and Imanipour, N. (2012). A Hierarchical preference voting system for mining method selection problem. Archives of Mining Science. 57 (4): 925-938.

[19]. Hu, J.H., Zhang, X.L., Chen, X. H., and Liu, Y.M. (2016). Hesitant fuzzy information measures and their applications in multi-criteria decision making. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 47 (1): 62–76.

[20]. Liu, X.D., Zhu, J.J. Zhang, S.T. Hao, J.J., and Liu, G.D. (2015). Integrating LINMAP and TOPSIS methods for hesitant fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems. 28 (1): 257–269.

[21]. Xu, Z.S. and Zhang, X.L. (2013). Hesitant fuzzy multi-attribute decision making based on TOPSIS with incomplete weight information. Knowledge-based Syst., 52, 53–64.

[22]. Zhang, Z.M. (2017). Hesitant Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making with Unknown Weight Information. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 19 (3): 615–636.

[23]. Torra, V. (2010). Hesitant fuzzy sets. International Journal of Intelligent Systems. 25 (6): 529–539.

[24]. Xia, M. and Xu, Z. (2011). Hesitant fuzzy information aggregation in decision making. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning. 52 (3): 395–407.

[25]. Hwang, C.L. and Yoon, K.S. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. In: Beckmann, M.; Kunzi, H.P. (Eds.) Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, No. 186. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

[26]. Zadeh, L.A. (1975). The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Part I. Information Sciences. 8 (3): 199−249.

[27]. Zadeh, L.A. (1975). The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Part II. Information Sciences. 8 (4): 301−357.

[28]. Uyun, S. and Riadi, I. (2011). A Fuzzy TOPSIS Multiple-Attribute Decision-making for Scholarship Selection. TELKOMNIKA. 9 (1): 37-46. arXiv.1306.6489

[29]. Rahimdel, M.J. and Karamoozian, M. (2014). Fuzzy TOPSIS method to primary crusher selection for Golegohar Iron Mine (Iran). J. Cent. South Univ., 21, 4352−4359.

Journal of Mining and Environment

Suitable Mining Method Selection using HFGDM-TOPSIS Method: a Case Study of an Apatite Mine

References

References

Volume 13, Issue 2
April 2022
Pages 357-374

Suitable Mining Method Selection using HFGDM-TOPSIS Method: a Case Study of an Apatite Mine

References

References

Volume 13, Issue 2April 2022Pages 357-374

Volume 13, Issue 2
April 2022
Pages 357-374