Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Selecting the optimal mining method with extended multi-objective optimization by ratio analysis plus the full multiplicative form (MULTIMOORA) approach

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Mining method selection (MMS) is one of the core contents in mining design. As the influencing factors of MMS are in general of ambiguity or uncertainty, MMS can therefore be deemed as a complex fuzzy multi-criteria decision making problem. To resolve this problem, an extended multi-objective optimization by ratio analysis plus the full multiplicative form (MULTIMOORA) approach is studied in this paper. Three major contributions of this study are included. At first, comparative importance is crisp number in most stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) method, while linguistic terms are utilized to determine the criteria weights in the improved SWARA. Then, several Heronian mean (HM) operators related to linguistic neutrosophic numbers (LNNs) are defined to cope with evaluating indicators’ interrelations. Special cases are discussed, and primary properties are proved as well. At last, in combination with improved SWARA and HM operators, a novel decision making method, extended MULTIMOORA approach based on LNNs, is proposed. Applying this new approach to selecting the optimal mining method through an example, the feasibility is indicated. In addition, analyses of the strengths of the presented method are performed in comparison with other existing approaches.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hartman HL, Mutmansky JM (2002) Introductory mining engineering. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Nicholas DE (1981) Selection procedure—a numerical approach. Design and operation of caving and sublevel stoping mines. SME-AIME, New York, pp 39–53

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ataei M, Shahsavany H, Mikaeil R (2013) Monte Carlo Analytic Hierarchy Process (MAHP) approach to selection of optimum mining method. Int J Min Sci Tech 23(4):573–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Naghadehi MZ, Mikaeil R, 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 Syst Appl 36(4):8218–8226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sun ZN (2009) Choice of mining methods based on artificial intelligence theory. Master Thesis, Northeastern University, Shenyang, China

  6. Guray C, Celebi N, Atalay V, Pasamehmetoglu AG (2003) Ore-age: a hybrid system for assisting and teaching mining method selection. Expert Syst Appl 24(3):261–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kraipeerapun P, Fung CC, Brown W (2005) Assessment of uncertainty in mineral prospectivity prediction using interval neutrosophic set. In: International Conference on Computational and Information Science, Heidelberg, pp 1074–1079. https://doi.org/10.1007/11596981_160

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  11. Alpay S, Yavuz M (2009) Underground mining method selection by decision making tools. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 24(2):173–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tan YY, Song WD, Lei YK, Han HL (2012) Synthetic judgment for mining method optimization based on fuzzy cluster analysis and analytic hierarchy process. J Univ Sci Tech B 34(5):489–494

    Google Scholar 

  13. Karimnia H, Bagloo H (2015) Optimum mining method selection using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process—Qapiliq salt mine, Iran. Int J Min Sci Tech 25(2):225–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 Env 29(6):453–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Samimi Namin F, Shahriar K, Ataee-Pour M, Dehghani H (2008) A new model for mining method selection of mineral deposit based on fuzzy decision making. J S Afr I Min Metall 108(7):385–395

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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 

  18. Balusa BC, Singam J (2017) Underground mining method selection using WPM and PROMETHEE. J J Inst Eng India Ser D. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40033-017-0137-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Azadeh A, Osanloo M, Ataei M (2010) A new approach to mining method selection based on modifying the Nicholas technique. Appl Soft Comput 10(4):1040–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zavadskas EK, Baušys R, Stanujkic D, Magdalinovic-Kalinovic N (2016) Selection of lead-zinc flotation circuit design by applying WASPAS method with single-valued neutrosophic set. Acta Montan Slovaca 21(2):85–92

    Google Scholar 

  22. Liu K, Zhu WC, Wang QY, Liu XB, Liu XG (2017) Mining method selection and optimization for hanging-wall ore-body at Yanqianshan Iron Mine, China. Geotech Geo Eng 35(1):225–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Brauers WKM, Zavadskas EK (2010) Project management by MULTIMOORA as an instrument for transition economies. Technol Econ Dev Econ 16(1):5–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hafezalkotob A, Hafezalkotob A, Sayadi MK (2016) Extension of MULTIMOORA method with interval numbers: an application in materials selection. Appl Math Model 40(2):1372–1386

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Hafezalkotob A, Hafezalkotob A (2017) Interval MULTIMOORA method with target values of attributes based on interval distance and preference degree: biomaterials selection. J Ind Eng Int. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-016-0176-4

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Baležentis T, Zeng S, Baležentis A (2015) MULTIMOORA-IFN: a MCDM method based on intuitionistic fuzzy number for performance management. Econ Comput Econ Cyb 48(4):85–102

    Google Scholar 

  27. Zavadskas EK, Antucheviciene J, Hajiagha SHR, Hashemi SS (2015) The interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy MULTIMOORA method for group decision making in engineering. Math Probl Eng. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/560690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhao H, You JX, Liu HC (2016) Failure mode and effect analysis using MULTIMOORA method with continuous weighted entropy under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Soft Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-016-2118-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Dai WF, Zhong QY, Qi CZ (2016) Multistage multiattribute group decision-making method based on triangular fuzzy MULTIMOORA. Math Probl Eng. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/1687068

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Gou XJ, Liao HC, Xu ZS, Herrera F (2017) Double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set and MULTIMOORA method: a case of study to evaluate the implementation status of haze controlling measures. Inform Fusion 38:22–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Smarandache F (1998) Neutrosophy. Neutrosophic probability, set, and logic. Analytic synthesis and synthetic analysis. Philosophy

  32. Deli I, Broumi S, Smarandache F (2015) On neutrosophic refined sets and their applications in medical diagnosis. J New Theory 6:88–98

    Google Scholar 

  33. Deli I, Şubaş Y (2017) A ranking method of single valued neutrosophic numbers and its applications to multi-attribute decision making problems. Int J Mach Learn Cyb 8(4):1309–1322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Deli I (2015) Npn-soft sets theory and their applications. Ann Fuzzy Math Inform 10(6):847–862

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Deli I, Şubaş Y (2017) Some weighted geometric operators with SVTrN-numbers and their application to multi-criteria decision making problems. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 32(1):291–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Zavadskas EK, Bausys R, Juodagalviene B, Garnyte-Sapranaviciene I (2017) Model for residential house element and material selection by neutrosophic MULTIMOORA method. Eng Appl Artif Intel 64:315–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Stanujkic D, Zavadskas EK, Smarandache F, Brauers WK, Karabasevic D (2017) A neutrosophic extension of the MULTIMOORA method. Informatica 28(1):181–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tian ZP, Wang J, Wang JQ, Zhang HY (2017) An improved MULTIMOORA approach for multi-criteria decision-making based on interdependent inputs of simplified neutrosophic linguistic information. Neural Comput Appl 28(1):585–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Fang ZB, Ye J (2017) Multiple attribute group decision-making method based on linguistic neutrosophic numbers. Symmetry. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym9070111

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  40. Tian ZP, Wang J, Zhang HY, Wang JQ (2016) Multi-criteria decision-making based on generalized prioritized aggregation operators under simplified neutrosophic uncertain linguistic environment. Int J Mach Learn Cyb. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-016-0552-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Liang WZ, Zhao GY, Wu H (2017) Evaluating investment risks of metallic mines using an extended TOPSIS method with linguistic neutrosophic numbers. Symmetry. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym9080149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Saaty TL (1980) The analytical hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill Company, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Zhang J (2017) Evaluating regional low-carbon tourism strategies using the fuzzy Delphi-analytic network process approach. J Clean Prod 141:409–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mardani A, Nilashi M, Zakuan N, Loganathan N, Soheilirad S, Saman MZM, Ibrahim O (2017) A systematic review and meta-Analysis of SWARA and WASPAS methods: theory and applications with recent fuzzy developments. Appl Soft Comput 57:265–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Urosevic S, Karabasevic D, Stanujkic D, Maksimovic M (2017) An approach to personnel selection in the tourism industry based on the SWARA and the WASPAS methods. Econ Comput Econ Cyb 51(1):75–88

    Google Scholar 

  46. Valipour A, Yahaya N, Md Noor N, Antuchevičienė J, Tamošaitienė J (2017) Hybrid SWARAR-COPRAS method for risk assessment in deep foundation excavation project: an Iranian case study. J Civ Eng Manag 23(4):524–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Xu ZS (2005) Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making. Omega 33(3):249–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Wang JQ, Wu JT, Wang J, Zhang HY, Chen XH (2014) Interval-valued hesitant fuzzy linguistic sets and their applications in multi-criteria decision-making problems. Inform Sci 288:55–72

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  49. Liu PD, Shi L (2017) Some neutrosophic uncertain linguistic number Heronian mean operators and their application to multi-attribute group decision making. Neural Comput Appl 28(5):1079–1093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Yao JR, Luo M, Li WC, Wang M, Liu Y (2012) Optimal selection for unascertained measurement for the mining method of Kaiyang phosphorite. Sci Tech Rev 30(15):45–48

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (51374244, 51774321).

Author contributions

Wei-zhang Liang, Guo-yan Zhao and Changshou Hong conceived and worked together to achieve this work, Wei-zhang Liang wrote the paper, and Guo-yan Zhao made contribution to the case study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Resources and Safety Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, 410083, China

    Weizhang Liang & Guoyan Zhao

  2. School of Environmental and Safety Engineering, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001, China

    Changshou Hong

Authors
  1. Weizhang Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guoyan Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Changshou Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guoyan Zhao.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liang, W., Zhao, G. & Hong, C. Selecting the optimal mining method with extended multi-objective optimization by ratio analysis plus the full multiplicative form (MULTIMOORA) approach. Neural Comput & Applic 31, 5871–5886 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-3405-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-3405-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation