Mining method selection by integrated AHP and PROMETHEE method

Bogdanović, Dejan; Nikolić, Djordje; Ilic, Ilija

doi:10.1590/s0001-37652012000100023

Cited by 20 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The framework representing the phases of this research. (Abdullah et al, 2019;Dulmin & Mininno, 2003;Safari et al, 2012;Wang & Yang, 2007), health care (Amaral & Costa, 2014), finance (Albadvi et al, 2007;Bouri et al, 2002;Hababou & Martel, 1998;Mousavi & Lin, 2020), technology (Balkan & Akyüz, 2023), construction (Balali et al, 2014;Morkunaite et al, 2019;Polat, 2016), manufacturing (Anand & Kodali, 2008;Govindan et al, 2015;Vinodh & Girubha, 2012), mining (Abedi et al, 2012;Balusa & Singam, 2018;Bogdanovic et al, 2012), environment (Al-Rashdan et al, 1999Kapepula et al, 2007;Vego et al, 2008), material (Javaid et al, 2023;Maity & Chakraborty, 2015), and tourism (Lopes et al, 2018).…”

Section: Methods Used For Hybrid Multi-criteria Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring sustainable ergonomics: A hybrid multi‐criteria perspective on ergonomics indicators

Sarbat

Taşan

2023

Sustainable Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decision making process comprises complexity due to holistically managed requirements. Since this process has diverse effects on stakeholders as decision makers, undoubtedly, the decisions become more significant for organizations having critical decisions in today's globalized sustainable world. If these decisions influence not only providing human well‐being but also improving the quality of working life through measuring the performance of business processes, their results should be monitored more systematically. Through this viewpoint, in this paper, the applicability of ergonomics indicators, as the fundamental part of a systematic approach integrating ergonomics and sustainability to monitor and evaluate processes of organizations, is queried within a hybrid multi‐criteria perspective, including five evaluation criteria consolidated for this paper, through a designed survey by asking practitioners as potential users of such an approach. The used methods, that is, BWM and PROMETHEE, enable presenting a base study to decide which ergonomics indicators are necessary for developing a systematic approach, indicating the prioritization of these indicators to be used as candidates for the approach. Results show that 15 ergonomics indicators can be candidates for facilitating sustainable process performance measurement in ergonomics. Importantly, this paper proposes guidance in making decisions for achieving well‐managed processes in organizations through ergonomics indicators evaluated on a hybrid multi‐criteria perspective.

show abstract

Section: Methods Used For Hybrid Multi-criteria Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring sustainable ergonomics: A hybrid multi‐criteria perspective on ergonomics indicators

Sarbat

Taşan

2023

Sustainable Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yavuz [31] explained that MCDM problems consider only a single objective: choosing from a list of alternatives to identify which alternative is the best fit. In the mining sector, MCDM has been used many times during the decisionmaking process of mining method selection [22,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43].…”

Section: Background To Mining Project Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritisation of Environmental Improvement Projects in Deep-Level Mine Ventilation Systems

Swanepoel

Vosloo

Laar

et al. 2023

Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deep-level underground mining costs in South Africa are continuously rising due to the increased depth at which gold is being mined, resulting in a rise in virgin rock temperature and an increase in cooling requirements. Therefore, mines must evaluate various ventilation and cooling optimisation projects required to be implemented throughout their life of mine (LOM). This study develops a method to identify and prioritise large capital expenditure (CAPEX) underground environmental improvement projects, to improve thermal comfort underground. The solution presents a ‘multi-criteria decision-making’ (MCDM) process, incorporating the ‘analytic hierarchy process’ (AHP) and the ‘technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution’ (TOPSIS) into the method to provide for scientific decision-making. These projects are evaluated based on four criteria, namely project risk, the impact on the underground thermal comfort, cost, and implementation time. This study’s solution uses ventilation simulations to determine the impact of the projects on the underground environment. The identification and evaluation of an environmental improvement project to best suit the current economic climate, while improving underground conditions and decreasing the safety risk is an essential aspect of the solution developed in this study. The method was implemented on a mechanised deep-level underground mine and showed that surface refrigeration is the most suitable alternative, which was implemented at the case study mine as validation of the developed solution. The study proves that the MCDM method is an adequate solution to incorporate subjective criteria into the decision-making process, resulting in a scientific and structured approach to making significant and complex decisions.

show abstract

“…The distribution of the studies that have been performed using the hybrid MCdM method, especially in the mining field, is presented in Table 1. [36] AHP-PrOMETHEE Selecting of mining method Shariati et al [37] FAHP-TOPSiS Selecting the best mining method Yari et al [38] AHP-TOPSiS Selecting the most suitable blasting pattern When Table 1 is examined, it is understood that studies on MCdM methods in the mining sector are used in many areas. researchers specifically focused on mine planning and equipment selection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Integrated AHP-Topsis Method in Selection of Optimum Mine Planning for Open-Pit Mines

2023

Archives of Mining Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Successful mine planning is necessary for the sustainability of mining activities. Since this process depends on many criteria, it can be considered a multi-criteria decision making (MCdM) problem. in this study, an integrated MCdM method based on the combination of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and the technique for order of preference by similarity to the ideal solution (TOPSiS) is proposed to select the optimum mine planning in open-pit mines. To prove the applicability of the proposed method, a case study was carried out. Firstly, a decision-making group was created, which consists of mining, geology, planning engineers, investors, and operators. As a result of studies performed by this group, four main criteria, thirteen sub-criteria, and nine mine planning alternatives were determined. Then, AHP was applied to determine the relative weights of evaluation criteria, and TOPSiS was performed to rank the mine planning alternatives. Among the alternatives evaluated, the alternative with the highest net present value was selected as the optimum mine planning alternative. it has been determined that the proposed integrated AHP-TOPSiS method can significantly assist decision-makers in the process of deciding which of the few mine planning alternatives should be implemented in open-pit mines.

show abstract

Mining method selection by integrated AHP and PROMETHEE method

Cited by 20 publications

References 8 publications

Measuring sustainable ergonomics: A hybrid multi‐criteria perspective on ergonomics indicators

Measuring sustainable ergonomics: A hybrid multi‐criteria perspective on ergonomics indicators

Prioritisation of Environmental Improvement Projects in Deep-Level Mine Ventilation Systems

Use of Integrated AHP-Topsis Method in Selection of Optimum Mine Planning for Open-Pit Mines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About