A Comparative Study of Various Multi-criteria Decision-Making Models in Underground Mining Method Selection

  • Bhanu Chander Balusa
  • Amit Kumar GoraiEmail author
Case Study


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.





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.


  1. 1.
    A. Charnes, W.W. Cooper, E. Rhodes, Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2(6), 429–444 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    T.L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    T.L. Satty, Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process (RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, 1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C.-L. Hwang, K. Yoon, Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications (Springer, New York, 1981), pp. 58–191Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. Roy, The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods, Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid (Springer, Berlin, 1990), pp. 155–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.-P. Brans, P. Vincke, B. Mareschal, How to select and how to rank projects: the PROMETHEE method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 24(2), 228–238 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Opricovic, G.-H. Tzeng, Multicriteria planning of post-earthquake sustainable reconstruction. Comput. Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 17(3), 211–220 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Miller, M. Starr, Executive Decisions with Operations Research (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1969)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Rezaei, Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53, 49–57 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    S. Jing, Z. Niu, P.-C. Chang, The application of VIKOR for the tool selection in lean management. J. Intell. Manuf. (2015). Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    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
  22. 22.
    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
  23. 23.
    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
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    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
  26. 26.
    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
  27. 27.
    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
  28. 28.
    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

Copyright information

© The Institution of Engineers (India) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mining EngineeringNational Institute of TechnologyRourkelaIndia

Personalised recommendations